IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fpr/ifprid/140796.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic valuation of ecosystem services of selected interventions in agriculture in India

Author

Listed:
  • Kumara T M, Kiran
  • Birthal, Pratap Singh
  • Meena, Dinesh Chand
  • Kumar, Anjani

Abstract

Agriculture is multi-functional, producing economic goods including food, feed, fibre, and fuel, as well as providing several intangible or non-tradable services to society free of cost. Non-tradable services, unlike economic goods, remain unpriced; as a result, farmers are not compensated monetarily for the benefits of the several non-tradable services they provide through agriculture. Recognizing the monetary value of non-tradable ecosystem services is crucial to incentivize farmers to adopt eco-friendly technologies and practices for the sustainable development of agriculture. Through a meta-analysis of the existing evidence on ecosystem services, this study attempts to estimate the value of ecosystem services by using direct and indirect valuation methods—for example, carbon sequestration, methane emission, nutrient availability, biological nitrogen fixation, and water saving—generated by several important technological and agronomic interventions, namely the direct seeding of rice (DSR), zero-tillage in wheat, leguminous crops, organic manure, integrated nutrient management, and agroforestry, based on studies conducted in India. It also explores the trade-offs between the non-tradable and tradable ecosystem services attributable to these interventions. The monetary value of the non-tradable services resulting from most of these interventions is quite large, 34–77% of the total value of all the ecosystem services. However, not all interventions result in a win-win situation that yields improvements in both tradable and non-tradable outcomes. While no-till wheat, legumes, and integrated nutrient management result in a win-win outcome, there are trade-offs between the tradable and non tradable ecosystem services in the cases of directed seed rice, organic manure, and agroforestry. This evidence suggests that not all agricultural technologies and practices are beneficial for farmers, despite their higher environmental benefits. Thus, the findings of this study imply that agricultural policy should provide incentives for the adoption of technologies and practices to conserve ecosystems and natural resources.

Suggested Citation

  • Kumara T M, Kiran & Birthal, Pratap Singh & Meena, Dinesh Chand & Kumar, Anjani, 2024. "Economic valuation of ecosystem services of selected interventions in agriculture in India," IFPRI discussion papers 2250, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    • Handle: RePEc:fpr:ifprid:140796
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/140796
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wossink, Ada & Swinton, Scott M., 2007. "Jointness in production and farmers' willingness to supply non-marketed ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 297-304, December.
    2. Röhrig, Nina & Hassler, Markus & Roesler, Tim, 2020. "Capturing the value of ecosystem services from silvopastoral systems: Perceptions from selected Italian farms," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    3. Brian Sims & Sandra Corsi & Gualbert Gbehounou & Josef Kienzle & Makiko Taguchi & Theodor Friedrich, 2018. "Sustainable Weed Management for Conservation Agriculture: Options for Smallholder Farmers," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-20, August.
    4. Josep Crous-Duran & Anil R. Graves & Silvestre García de Jalón & Sonja Kay & Margarida Tomé & Paul J. Burgess & Michail Giannitsopoulos & João H.N. Palma, 2020. "Quantifying Regulating Ecosystem Services with Increased Tree Densities on European Farmland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-20, August.
    5. de Groot, R. & Stuip, M. & Finlayson, Max & Davidson, N., 2006. "Valuing wetlands: guidance for valuing the benefits derived from wetland ecosystem services," IWMI Research Reports H039735, International Water Management Institute.
    6. M L Jat & Yadvinder Singh & M L Jat & MK Gathala & YS Saharawat & JK Ladha & YS Saharawat, 2019. "Conservation Agriculture in Intensive Rice-Wheat Rotation of Western Indo-Gangetic Plains-Effect on Crop Physiology, Yield, Water Productivity and Economic Profitability," International Journal of Environmental Sciences & Natural Resources, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 18(3), pages 88-102, April.
    7. Rasheed, Shenaz & Venkatesh, P. & Singh, Dharam Raj & Renjini, V.R. & Jha, Girish Kumar & Sharma, Dinesh Kumar, 2021. "Ecosystem valuation and eco-compensation for conservation of traditional paddy ecosystems and varieties in Kerala, India," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    8. Sandhu, Harpinder S. & Wratten, Stephen D. & Cullen, Ross & Case, Brad, 2008. "The future of farming: The value of ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable land. An experimental approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 835-848, February.
    9. Christie, Mike & Fazey, Ioan & Cooper, Rob & Hyde, Tony & Kenter, Jasper O., 2012. "An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 67-78.
    10. Robert Costanza, 2006. "Nature: ecosystems without commodifying them," Nature, Nature, vol. 443(7113), pages 749-749, October.
    11. Bouman, B. A. M. & Tuong, T. P., 2001. "Field water management to save water and increase its productivity in irrigated lowland rice," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 11-30, July.
    12. Anjali Chaudhary & V. Venkatramanan & Ajay Kumar Mishra & Sheetal Sharma, 2023. "Agronomic and Environmental Determinants of Direct Seeded Rice in South Asia," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 253-290, March.
    13. Sekar, I. & Pal, Suresh, 2012. "Rice and Wheat Crop Productivity in the Indo-Gangetic Plains of India: Changing Pattern of Growth and Future Strategies," Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, vol. 67(2), pages 1-15.
    14. Shan Ma & Scott M. Swinton & Frank Lupi & Christina Jolejole-Foreman, 2012. "Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in Payment-for-Environmental-Services Programmes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(3), pages 604-626, September.
    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. van den Belt, Marjan & Blake, Daniella, 2014. "Ecosystem services in new Zealand agro-ecosystems: A literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 115-132.
    2. Edoardo Croci & Benedetta Lucchitta & Tommaso Penati, 2021. "Valuing Ecosystem Services at the Urban Level: A Critical Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-16, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Brinkhoff, James & Houborg, Rasmus & Dunn, Brian W., 2022. "Rice ponding date detection in Australia using Sentinel-2 and Planet Fusion imagery," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 273(C).
    5. Dutta, S.K. & Laing, Alison & Kumar, Sanjay & Shambhavi, Shweta & Kumar, Sunil & Kumar, Birender & Verma, D.K. & Kumar, Arun & Singh, Ravi Gopal & Gathala, Mahesh, 2023. "Sustainability, productivity, profitability and nutritional diversity of six cropping systems under conservation agriculture: A long term study in eastern India," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    6. Barbara Langlois & Vincent Martinet, 2023. "Defining cost-effective ways to improve ecosystem services provision in agroecosystems," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 104(2), pages 123-165, June.
    7. Qenani-Petrela, Eivis & Noel, Jay E. & Mastin, Thomas, 2007. "A Benefit Transfer Approach to the Estimation of Agro-Ecosystems Services Benefits: A Case Study of Kern County, California," Research Project Reports 121605, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California Institute for the Study of Specialty Crops.
    8. Kriti Poudel & Ram Hari Timilsina & Anish Bhattarai, 2020. "Effect Of Crop Establishment Methods On Yield Of Spring Rice At Khairahani, Chitwan, Nepal," Big Data In Agriculture (BDA), Zibeline International Publishing, vol. 3(1), pages 6-11, November.
    9. Abdul Waheed & Chuang Li & Murad Muhammad & Mushtaq Ahmad & Khalid Ali Khan & Hamed A. Ghramh & Zhongwei Wang & Daoyuan Zhang, 2023. "Sustainable Potato Growth under Straw Mulching Practices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-16, July.
    10. Manel Ben Hassen & Federica Monaco & Arianna Facchi & Marco Romani & Giampiero Valè & Guido Sali, 2017. "Economic Performance of Traditional and Modern Rice Varieties under Different Water Management Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-10, February.
    11. Duy X. Tran & Diane Pearson & Alan Palmer & David Gray, 2020. "Developing a Landscape Design Approach for the Sustainable Land Management of Hill Country Farms in New Zealand," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-29, June.
    12. Ehsan Moradi & Jesús Rodrigo-Comino & Enric Terol & Gaspar Mora-Navarro & Alexandre Marco da Silva & Ioannis N. Daliakopoulos & Hassan Khosravi & Manuel Pulido Fernández & Artemi Cerdà, 2020. "Quantifying Soil Compaction in Persimmon Orchards Using ISUM (Improved Stock Unearthing Method) and Core Sampling Methods," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-18, July.
    13. Senthilkumar, K. & Bindraban, P.S. & Thiyagarajan, T.M. & de Ridder, N. & Giller, K.E., 2008. "Modified rice cultivation in Tamil Nadu, India: Yield gains and farmers' (lack of) acceptance," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 82-94, September.
    14. Cao, Jingjing & Tan, Junwei & Cui, Yuanlai & Luo, Yufeng, 2019. "Irrigation scheduling of paddy rice using short-term weather forecast data," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 714-723.
    15. S Bhuvanesvari & R Manikandan & K Sowmitha, 2023. "Economic Valuation of Recreational-benefits and Visitation Rate of Selected Lakes in Coimbatore City: An Application of Travel Cost Method," Shanlax International Journal of Economics, Shanlax Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 33-42, December.
    16. Plastina, Alejandro & Liu, Fangge & Sawadgo, Wendiam, "undated". "Additionality in cover-crop cost-share programs in Iowa: a matching assessment," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274454, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Alhaj Hamoud, Yousef & Guo, Xiangping & Wang, Zhenchang & Shaghaleh, Hiba & Chen, Sheng & Hassan, Alfadil & Bakour, Ahmad, 2019. "Effects of irrigation regime and soil clay content and their interaction on the biological yield, nitrogen uptake and nitrogen-use efficiency of rice grown in southern China," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 934-946.
    18. Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Integrating deliberative monetary valuation, systems modelling and participatory mapping to assess shared values of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 291-307.
    19. Choudhury, B.U. & Singh, Anil Kumar & Pradhan, S., 2013. "Estimation of crop coefficients of dry-seeded irrigated rice–wheat rotation on raised beds by field water balance method in the Indo-Gangetic plains, India," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 20-31.
    20. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:fpr:ifprid:140796. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifprius.html .

    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.