IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2024i1p62-d1553349.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Integrated Approach to Understanding Perceived Importance and Changes in Watershed Ecosystem Services (WESs): Insights from Central Nepal

Author

Listed:
  • Nabin Dhungana

    (Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, College of Environmental Studies and Oceanography, National Dong Hwa University, Hualien 97401, Taiwan
    Natural Resources Conservation Nepal, Bharatpur 44200, Nepal
    WWF Nepal, Kathmandu 44600, Nepal)

  • Chun-Hung Lee

    (Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, College of Environmental Studies and Oceanography, National Dong Hwa University, Hualien 97401, Taiwan)

  • Samjhana Adhikari

    (Ministry of Forests and Environment, Hetauda 44107, Nepal)

  • Bishal Kumar Rayamajhi

    (Faculty of Science Health and Technology, Nepal Open University, Lalitpur 44700, Nepal)

  • Udit Chandra Aryal

    (Natural Resources Conservation Nepal, Bharatpur 44200, Nepal
    Nepal Applied Mathematics and Informatics Institute for Research, Lalitpur 44700, Nepal)

  • Pramod Ghimire

    (Faculty of Forestry, Agriculture and Forestry University, Hetauda 44107, Nepal)

Abstract

With environmental changes, sustaining watershed ecosystem services requires understanding community perceptions and preferences. Integrated approaches considering community perceptions, climate change, and land use cover change are crucial. We address a study gap by combining climate change and land use cover change data with an analysis of community perceptions to evaluate the watershed ecosystem services situation in Nepal’s Khageri Khola Watershed. Data from in-depth stakeholder interviews ( n = 16), household perception surveys ( n = 440), and participant observations ( n = 5) were supplemented by meteorological and land use cover change data. Descriptive analysis, index value calculation, Spearman’s Rho correlation, and chi-square statistics were used to understand linkages between socio-demographics, climate change perceptions, watershed ecosystem services importance, and changes in watershed ecosystem services supply. The Mann–Kendall test, Sen’s slope calculation, and land use cover change analysis considered temperature, precipitation, and land use. Among watershed ecosystem services, communities prioritized drinking water as the most important and biodiversity support as the least important. Watershed ecosystem services exhibited decreasing trends, with soil fertility and productivity notably high (89%) and natural hazard control low (41%). Significant alignment existed between community perceptions and local climate indicators, unlike the incongruity found with land use cover changes, especially regarding water bodies. Socio-demographic factors influenced community perceptions. Policy recommendations include analyzing watershed-level community demand and preferences, integrating community perceptions with climate change and land use cover change data in decision making, engaging communities, equitable sharing of the benefits generated by watershed ecosystem services, and considering socio-demographic and topographic diversity in tailoring management strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Nabin Dhungana & Chun-Hung Lee & Samjhana Adhikari & Bishal Kumar Rayamajhi & Udit Chandra Aryal & Pramod Ghimire, 2024. "Integrated Approach to Understanding Perceived Importance and Changes in Watershed Ecosystem Services (WESs): Insights from Central Nepal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-21, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2024:i:1:p:62-:d:1553349
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/1/62/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/1/62/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Swinton, Scott M. & Lupi, Frank & Robertson, G. Philip & Hamilton, Stephen K., 2007. "Ecosystem services and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 245-252, December.
    2. Rimal, Bhagawat & Sharma, Roshan & Kunwar, Ripu & Keshtkar, Hamidreza & Stork, Nigel E. & Rijal, Sushila & Rahman, Syed Ajijur & Baral, Himlal, 2019. "Effects of land use and land cover change on ecosystem services in the Koshi River Basin, Eastern Nepal," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    3. Poudyal, Bishnu Hari & Khatri, Dil Bahadur & Paudel, Dinesh & Marquardt, Kristina & Khatri, Sanjaya, 2023. "Examining forest transition and collective action in Nepal’s community forestry," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    4. Paudyal, Kiran & Baral, Himlal & Burkhard, Benjamin & Bhandari, Santosh P. & Keenan, Rodney J., 2015. "Participatory assessment and mapping of ecosystem services in a data-poor region: Case study of community-managed forests in central Nepal," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 81-92.
    5. Pascua, Pua‘ala & McMillen, Heather & Ticktin, Tamara & Vaughan, Mehana & Winter, Kawika B., 2017. "Beyond services: A process and framework to incorporate cultural, genealogical, place-based, and indigenous relationships in ecosystem service assessments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 465-475.
    6. Nabin Dhungana & Chun-Hung Lee & Chiranjeewee Khadka & Samjhana Adhikari & Nabaraj Pudasaini & Pramod Ghimire, 2024. "Evaluating Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs)’ Performance in Managing Community Forests: A Case Study in Central Nepal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-20, May.
    7. Das, Manob & Das, Arijit & Pandey, Rajiv, 2022. "Importance-performance analysis of ecosystem services in tribal communities of the Barind region, Eastern India," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Nabin Dhungana & Chun-Hung Lee & Chiranjeewee Khadka & Samjhana Adhikari & Nabaraj Pudasaini & Pramod Ghimire, 2024. "Evaluating Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs)’ Performance in Managing Community Forests: A Case Study in Central Nepal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-20, May.
    2. Chettri, Nakul & Aryal, Kamal & Thapa, Sanjan & Uddin, Kabir & Kandel, Pratikshya & Karki, Seema, 2021. "Contribution of ecosystem services to rural livelihoods in a changing landscape: A case study from the Eastern Himalaya," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    3. Vermunt, D.A. & Wojtynia, N. & Hekkert, M.P. & Van Dijk, J. & Verburg, R. & Verweij, P.A. & Wassen, M. & Runhaar, H., 2022. "Five mechanisms blocking the transition towards ‘nature-inclusive’ agriculture: A systemic analysis of Dutch dairy farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    4. Laxmi D. Bhatta & Sunita Chaudhary & Anju Pandit & Himlal Baral & Partha J. Das & Nigel E. Stork, 2016. "Ecosystem Service Changes and Livelihood Impacts in the Maguri-Motapung Wetlands of Assam, India," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-14, June.
    5. Srijana Shrestha & Khem Narayan Poudyal & Nawraj Bhattarai & Mohan B. Dangi & John J. Boland, 2022. "An Assessment of the Impact of Land Use and Land Cover Change on the Degradation of Ecosystem Service Values in Kathmandu Valley Using Remote Sensing and GIS," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-18, November.
    6. Valbuena, Diego & Tui, Sabine Homann-Kee & Erenstein, Olaf & Teufel, Nils & Duncan, Alan & Abdoulaye, Tahirou & Swain, Braja & Mekonnen, Kindu & Germaine, Ibro & Gérard, Bruno, 2015. "Identifying determinants, pressures and trade-offs of crop residue use in mixed smallholder farms in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 107-118.
    7. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    8. Li-Pei Peng & Wei-Ming Wang, 2020. "Hybrid Decision-Making Evaluation for Future Scenarios of Cultural Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-20, August.
    9. Shah, Syed Mahboob & Liu, Gengyuan & Yang, Qing & Casazza, Marco & Agostinho, Feni & Giannetti, Biagio F., 2021. "Sustainability assessment of agriculture production systems in Pakistan: A provincial-scale energy-based evaluation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 455(C).
    10. Rocío Silva-Pérez & Gema González-Romero, 2022. "GIAHS as an Instrument to Articulate the Landscape and Territorialized Agrifood Systems—The Example of La Axarquía (Malaga Province, Spain)," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-21, February.
    11. Kekuhi Kealiikanakaoleohaililani & Natalie Kurashima & Kainana S. Francisco & Christian P. Giardina & Renee Pualani Louis & Heather McMillen & C. Kalā Asing & Kayla Asing & Tabetha A. Block & Mililani, 2018. "Ritual + Sustainability Science? A Portal into the Science of Aloha," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-17, September.
    12. Arki, Vesa & Koskikala, Joni & Fagerholm, Nora & Kisanga, Danielson & Käyhkö, Niina, 2020. "Associations between local land use/land cover and place-based landscape service patterns in rural Tanzania," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    13. Nils Droste & Bartosz Bartkowski, 2018. "Ecosystem Service Valuation for National Accounting: A Reply to Obst, Hein and Edens (2016)," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 205-215, September.
    14. Laura Calvet-Mir & Hug March & Daniel Corbacho-Monné & Erik Gómez-Baggethun & Victoria Reyes-García, 2016. "Home Garden Ecosystem Services Valuation through a Gender Lens: A Case Study in the Catalan Pyrenees," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-14, July.
    15. Tao, Jieyi & Lu, Yuqi & Ge, Dazhuan & Dong, Ping & Gong, Xiao & Ma, Xiaobin, 2022. "The spatial pattern of agricultural ecosystem services from the production-living-ecology perspective: A case study of the Huaihai Economic Zone, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    16. Pascual, Unai & Narloch, Ulf & Nordhagen, Stella & Drucker, Adam G., 2011. "The economics of agrobiodiversity conservation for food security under climate change," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 11(01), pages 1-30, November.
    17. Hari Prasad Sharma & Bhagawat Rimal & Mingxia Zhang & Sandhya Sharma & Laxman Prasad Poudyal & Sujan Maharjan & Ripu Kunwar & Prativa Kaspal & Namrata Bhandari & Laxmi Baral & Sujita Dhakal & Ashish T, 2020. "Potential Distribution of the Critically Endangered Chinese Pangolin ( Manis pentadactyla ) in Different Land Covers of Nepal: Implications for Conservation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-13, February.
    18. Beichen Ge & Congjin Wang & Yuhong Song, 2023. "Ecosystem Services Research in Rural Areas: A Systematic Review Based on Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    19. repec:idb:brikps:64718 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Jennifer Hodbod & Emma Tebbs & Kristofer Chan & Shubhechchha Sharma, 2019. "Integrating Participatory Methods and Remote Sensing to Enhance Understanding of Ecosystem Service Dynamics Across Scales," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-30, August.
    21. Alamanos, Angelos & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2022. "Economics of Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Water Resource Planning and Management," MPRA Paper 122046, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2024:i:1:p:62-:d:1553349. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.