IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v18y2016icp33-44.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Community-based groundwater and ecosystem restoration in semi-arid north Rajasthan (2): Reviving cultural meaning and value

Author

Listed:
  • Everard, Mark

Abstract

Cultural and other less directly exploited ecosystem services tend to be excluded from decision-making, yet may underlie strong ties between people and their surroundings providing significant incentives for engagement with ecosystem conservation. Overlooking non-marketed services leads to non-systemic, utilitarian understandings and narrow solutions. Aquatic species were recorded in eleven ponded sections of three sub-catchments in semi-arid north-east Rajasthan that had been regenerated through community-based management activities, along with local associated medicinal, spiritual and other cultural values. Local religious and traditional beliefs reinforce awareness of the co-dependence of people with nature. Socially held values may be incommensurable with quantification and monetisation methods applied to marketed services, other than by rough proxies, but can be significant in engendering engagement in landscape regeneration. Pervasive global declines in habitat quantity and quality, with their implications for human wellbeing through loss of ecosystem services, raise questions about the adequacy of interpretations of sustainable development that fail to recognise the need not merely to reduce pressures upon but to actively regenerate the supportive capacities of damaged ecosystems. Lessons from the study region can inform this global need for practical action and policy reform to restore ecosystems as fundamental resources underpinning continuing human security and opportunity.

Suggested Citation

  • Everard, Mark, 2016. "Community-based groundwater and ecosystem restoration in semi-arid north Rajasthan (2): Reviving cultural meaning and value," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 33-44.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:18:y:2016:i:c:p:33-44
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.01.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041616300055
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.01.007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Antara Sen & Amii Harwood & Ian Bateman & Paul Munday & Andrew Crowe & Luke Brander & Jibonayan Raychaudhuri & Andrew Lovett & Jo Foden & Allan Provins, 2014. "Economic Assessment of the Recreational Value of Ecosystems: Methodological Development and National and Local Application," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(2), pages 233-249, February.
    2. Ayres, Robert U & Kneese, Allen V, 1969. "Production , Consumption, and Externalities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 282-297, June.
    3. Tengberg, Anna & Fredholm, Susanne & Eliasson, Ingegard & Knez, Igor & Saltzman, Katarina & Wetterberg, Ola, 2012. "Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: Assessment of heritage values and identity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 2(C), pages 14-26.
    4. Chan, Kai M.A. & Satterfield, Terre & Goldstein, Joshua, 2012. "Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 8-18.
    5. Everard, Mark, 2015. "Community-based groundwater and ecosystem restoration in semi-arid north Rajasthan (1): Socio-economic progress and lessons for groundwater-dependent areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 125-135.
    6. Everard, Mark & Dick, Jan & Kendall, Hazel & Smith, Ron & Slee, Bill & Couldrick, Laurence & Scott, Marian & McDonald, Claire, 2014. "Improving coherence of ecosystem service provision between scales," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 66-74.
    7. Schomers, Sarah & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 16-30.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Davies, Thomas & Everard, Mark & Horswell, Michael, 2016. "Community-based groundwater and ecosystem restoration in semi-arid north Rajasthan (3): Evidence from remote sensing," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 20-30.
    2. Andrieu, N. & Sogoba, B. & Zougmore, R. & Howland, F. & Samake, O. & Bonilla-Findji, O. & Lizarazo, M. & Nowak, A. & Dembele, C. & Corner-Dolloff, C., 2017. "Prioritizing investments for climate-smart agriculture: Lessons learned from Mali," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 13-24.
    3. Everard, Mark & Khandal, Dharmendra & Sahu, Y.K., 2017. "Ecosystem service enhancement for the alleviation of wildlife-human conflicts in the Aravalli Hills, Rajasthan, India," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 213-222.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Moses Fayiah & ShiKui Dong & Sphiwe Wezzie Khomera & Syed Aziz Ur Rehman & Mingyue Yang & Jiannan Xiao, 2020. "Status and Challenges of Qinghai–Tibet Plateau’s Grasslands: An Analysis of Causes, Mitigation Measures, and Way Forward," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-21, February.
    2. Bryce, Rosalind & Irvine, Katherine N. & Church, Andrew & Fish, Robert & Ranger, Sue & Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 258-269.
    3. Ruiz-Frau, A. & Krause, T. & Marbà , N., 2018. "The use of sociocultural valuation in sustainable environmental management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 158-167.
    4. Katayama, Naoki & Baba, Yuki G., 2020. "Measuring artistic inspiration drawn from ecosystems and biodiversity: A case study of old children’s songs in Japan," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    5. De Valck, Jeremy & Beames, Alistair & Liekens, Inge & Bettens, Maarten & Seuntjens, Piet & Broekx, Steven, 2019. "Valuing urban ecosystem services in sustainable brownfield redevelopment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 139-149.
    6. van den Belt, Marjan & Stevens, Sharon M., 2016. "Transformative agenda, or lost in the translation? A review of top-cited articles in the first four years of Ecosystem Services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 60-72.
    7. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    8. Winthrop, Robert H., 2014. "The strange case of cultural services: Limits of the ecosystem services paradigm," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 208-214.
    9. Richard Smardon, 2021. "Ecosystem Services for Scenic Quality Landscape Management: A Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-10, October.
    10. Bieling, Claudia, 2014. "Cultural ecosystem services as revealed through short stories from residents of the Swabian Alb (Germany)," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 207-215.
    11. Hanaček, Ksenija & Langemeyer, Johannes & Bileva, Tatyana & Rodríguez-Labajos, Beatriz, 2021. "Understanding environmental conflicts through cultural ecosystem services - the case of agroecosystems in Bulgaria," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    12. Dickinson, Dawn C. & Hobbs, Richard J., 2017. "Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 179-194.
    13. Scholte, Samantha S.K. & van Teeffelen, Astrid J.A. & Verburg, Peter H., 2015. "Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 67-78.
    14. Ballet, Jérôme & Marchand, Lucile & Pelenc, Jérôme & Vos, Robin, 2018. "Capabilities, Identity, Aspirations and Ecosystem Services: An Integrated Framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 21-28.
    15. Davidson, Marc D., 2013. "On the relation between ecosystem services, intrinsic value, existence value and economic valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 171-177.
    16. Costanza, Robert & de Groot, Rudolf & Braat, Leon & Kubiszewski, Ida & Fioramonti, Lorenzo & Sutton, Paul & Farber, Steve & Grasso, Monica, 2017. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 1-16.
    17. Everard, Mark & Longhurst, James & Pontin, John & Stephenson, Wendy & Brooks, Joss, 2017. "Developed-developing world partnerships for sustainable development (2): An illustrative case for a payments for ecosystem services (PES) approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 253-260.
    18. Xiao, Lan & Haiping, Tang & Haoguang, Liang, 2017. "A theoretical framework for researching cultural ecosystem service flows in urban agglomerations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 95-104.
    19. Shengli Dai & Weimin Zhang & Linshan Lan, 2022. "Quantitative Evaluation of China’s Ecological Protection Compensation Policy Based on PMC Index Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-24, August.
    20. Rode, Julian & Wittmer, Heidi & Emerton, Lucy & Schröter-Schlaack, Christoph, 2015. "Capturing ecosystem service opportunities: A practice-oriented framework for selecting economic instruments in order to enhance biodiversity and human livelihoods," UFZ Discussion Papers 3/2015, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:18:y:2016:i:c:p:33-44. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.