IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/mareco/v19y2025i1p50-69.html

Livelihood Challenges, Community Perception and Payment for Ecosystem Services: The Curious Case of Fisherfolk of the River Ganga

Author

Listed:
  • Soumi Roy Chowdhury

    (Soumi Roy Chowdhury is an Assistant Professor at the IRMA School, “Tribhuvan†Sahkari University, Anand, Gujarat, India. Dr Roy Chowdhury was working at NCAER when the study was conducted. E-mail: soumi@irma.ac.in)

  • Nutan Maurya

    (Nutan Maurya is an independent researcher. Dr Maurya was a Research Collaborator in the Water to Cloud (W2C) project of the UChicago Center in New Delhi during the study period. E-mail: nutanmaurya@gmail.com)

  • Sanjib Pohit

    (Sanjib Pohit (corresponding author) is a Professor at the National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER), New Delhi, India. E-mail: spohit@ncaer.org)

Abstract

The river Ganga’s ecological significance in the spiritual landscape of India gives it a unique economic and socio-cultural eminence. Using the framework of ecosystem services evaluation and people’s perception, this study explores the willingness of riverine fishing communities to pay towards initiatives aimed at restoring the quality of Ganga River water. The article is based on a published NCAER report entitled, ‘Livelihood and health challenges of riverine communities of the River Ganga’ (Pohit et al., 2020). A primary survey of 800 fishermen was undertaken along the upstream and downstream of the river Ganga in two states of India, Uttar Pradesh (UP) and West Bengal (WB), during January–February 2020. First, a theme-based content analysis was conducted to map the community’s perception. It reflected the implications of river water pollution on the livelihood of fishermen and the cultural values associated with the Ganga separately for the two states. Second, a contingent valuation exercise was undertaken, which found that 34 and 25 per cent of the fishermen, respectively, in UP and WB, were ready to pay towards the cleaning of the Ganga. Income constraint was the main reason limiting the willingness to pay, followed by perceptions that river restoration was the government’s responsibility. Only 11 per cent of the respondents in both states agreed to accept any compensation for their livelihood implications in lieu of more pollution. Interestingly, our regression analysis shows that fishermen who were willing to accept compensation were at lower odds of paying towards cleanliness. JEL Codes: Q51, Q53, Q57, I31, R58

Suggested Citation

  • Soumi Roy Chowdhury & Nutan Maurya & Sanjib Pohit, 2025. "Livelihood Challenges, Community Perception and Payment for Ecosystem Services: The Curious Case of Fisherfolk of the River Ganga," Margin: The Journal of Applied Economic Research, National Council of Applied Economic Research, vol. 19(1), pages 50-69, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:mareco:v:19:y:2025:i:1:p:50-69
    DOI: 10.1177/00252921251365305
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00252921251365305
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00252921251365305?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    2. Markandya, A. & Murty, M.N., 2004. "Cost–benefit analysis of cleaning the Ganges: some emerging environment and development issues," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 61-81, February.
    3. Barbier, Edward B., 2010. "Poverty, development, and environment," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(6), pages 635-660, December.
    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. Cornelis Leeuwen & Jos Frijns & Annemarie Wezel & Frans Ven, 2012. "City Blueprints: 24 Indicators to Assess the Sustainability of the Urban Water Cycle," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 26(8), pages 2177-2197, June.
    2. Stefan Liehr & Julia Röhrig & Marion Mehring & Thomas Kluge, 2017. "How the Social-Ecological Systems Concept Can Guide Transdisciplinary Research and Implementation: Addressing Water Challenges in Central Northern Namibia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-19, June.
    3. Antoci, Angelo & Galdi, Giulio & Russu, Paolo, 2022. "Environmental degradation and comparative advantage reversal," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 82(PA).
    4. Merica Slišković & Katja Božić & Jelena Žanić Mikuličić & Ines Kolanović, 2024. "Addressing the Significance of the Union List with a Focus on Marine Invasive Alien Species Impacts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-25, October.
    5. Andrea Koch & Alex McBratney & Mark Adams & Damien Field & Robert Hill & John Crawford & Budiman Minasny & Rattan Lal & Lynette Abbott & Anthony O'Donnell & Denis Angers & Jeffrey Baldock & Edward Bar, 2013. "Soil Security: Solving the Global Soil Crisis," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 4(4), pages 434-441, November.
    6. Yanzi Wang & Chunming Wu & Yongfeng Gong & Zhen Zhu, 2021. "Can Adaptive Governance Promote Coupling Social-Ecological Systems? Evidence from the Vulnerable Ecological Region of Northwestern China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-19, October.
    7. Breffle, William S. & Muralidharan, Daya & Donovan, Richard P. & Liu, Fangming & Mukherjee, Amlan & Jin, Yongliang, 2013. "Socioeconomic evaluation of the impact of natural resource stressors on human-use services in the Great Lakes environment: A Lake Michigan case study," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 152-161.
    8. Comino, E. & Ferretti, V., 2016. "Indicators-based spatial SWOT analysis: supporting the strategic planning and management of complex territorial systems," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 64142, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Malerba, Daniele, 2020. "Poverty alleviation and local environmental degradation: An empirical analysis in Colombia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    10. Samira F. Oliveira & Rachel B. Prado & Elaine C. C. Fidalgo & Ana P. D. Turetta & Joyce M. G. Monteiro & Bernadete da C. C. G. Pedreira & Gerson J. Y. Antonio & Renato L. de Assis & Sandro R. A. Oitav, 2024. "Climate Change and Ecosystem Services: A Participatory Approach in a Brazilian Mountainous Region," Journal of Sustainable Development, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 17(5), pages 1-1, September.
    11. P. Hlaváčková & D. Šafařík, 2016. "Quantification of the utility value of the recreational function of forests from the aspect of valuation practice," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(8), pages 345-356.
    12. Jansson, Åsa, 2013. "Reaching for a sustainable, resilient urban future using the lens of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 285-291.
    13. Bolaños-Valencia, Ingrid & Villegas-Palacio, Clara & López-Gómez, Connie Paola & Berrouet, Lina & Ruiz, Aura, 2019. "Social perception of risk in socio-ecological systems. A qualitative and quantitative analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    14. Bordt, Michael, 2018. "Discourses in Ecosystem Accounting: A Survey of the Expert Community," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 82-99.
    15. Hackbart, Vivian C.S. & de Lima, Guilherme T.N.P. & dos Santos, Rozely F., 2017. "Theory and practice of water ecosystem services valuation: Where are we going?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 218-227.
    16. Meixler, Marcia S., 2017. "Assessment of Hurricane Sandy damage and resulting loss in ecosystem services in a coastal-urban setting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 28-46.
    17. Juliana Hurtado Rassi, 2020. "Gestión conjunta de ecosistemas transfronterizos: la importancia del trabajo articulado entre los Estados para la conservación de los recursos naturales. Análisis del caso particular de la “Reserva de Biosfera Seaflower," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 1241.
    18. Alessio D’Auria & Pasquale De Toro & Nicola Fierro & Elisa Montone, 2018. "Integration between GIS and Multi-Criteria Analysis for Ecosystem Services Assessment: A Methodological Proposal for the National Park of Cilento, Vallo di Diano and Alburni (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-25, September.
    19. Rode, Julian & Le Menestrel, Marc & Cornelissen, Gert, 2017. "Ecosystem Service Arguments Enhance Public Support for Environmental Protection - But Beware of the Numbers!," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 213-221.
    20. Amitrajeet A. Batabyal & Hamid Beladi, 2023. "Centralized versus Decentralized Cleanup of River Water Pollution: An Application to the Ganges," Games, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-12, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics
    • I31 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General Welfare, Well-Being
    • R58 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Regional Development Planning and Policy

    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:sae:mareco:v:19:y:2025:i:1:p:50-69. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ncaer.org/ .

    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.