Quantification and valuation of forest ecosystem services in the western Himalayan region of India

Abstract

In the western Himalayan region (Uttarakhand State in India), oak (Quercus leucotrichophora) and pine (Pinus roxburghii) are the two major forest ecosystems. Because of their difference in functionality, this study was aimed at the quantification and valuation of provisioning and regulating services provided by the oak and pine forests and to assess the importance to the local people in setting the forest conservation priorities. This study was carried out in 11 villages (665 households) using a structured questionnaire. The villages were situated in the vicinity of the oak and pine forests and covered a wide range of altitudes and human and livestock populations in the western Himalayan region. The study revealed that oak forests provide a greater variety of provisioning services as compared to pine forests. Provisioning services such as fuelwood, fodder, and natural fertilizers (leaf litter) provided by oak forests (Rs. 5676/person/year) were more valuable than those provided by pine forests (Rs. 4640/person/year). Stakeholder perceptions of the regulating services of oak forests, such as maintenance of soil fertility, soil moisture retention, prevention of soil erosion, air and water purification, was also more positive than for pine forests. However, more detailed quantitative studies on the ecosystem services of these forests are required to better understand their contribution to human well-being in the region and to design appropriate conservation strategies.

Keywords:

• ecosystem services
• quantification
• valuation
• western Himalayan region
• forest conservation

Introduction

Mankind depends upon a variety of ecosystem services (ES) provided by forest ecosystems. Forests are vital and self-regenerating ecological units, and they provide a myriad of services that contribute to human survival and quality of life. ES are generated as a consequence of interaction and exchange between biotic and abiotic components of an ecosystem (de Groot et al. 2002; Singh 2002). Brown et al. (2006) described ES that are derived from the functioning of an ecosystem and are of direct value to humans. Ecosystem goods provisioned by the forests are the direct material benefits (e.g. fuel wood, fodder, wild edibles, minor forest products), whereas ES are the indirect benefits of a forest ecosystem (such as purification of air and water, mitigation of floods and droughts, detoxification and decomposition of wastes, carbon sequestration) (Munasinghe and McNeely 1994; Costanza et al. 1997). These ES have a value to society but to date no relevant market exists where these values are expressed (Zhongmin et al. 2003). Costanza et al. (1997) identified 17 types of ES across various ecosystem types, including 14 derived from forest ecosystems, and estimated the current economic value of the ES provided by the Earth's ecosystems to be at least US$33 trillion/year. In the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2003), ES have been categorized into: (1) provisioning services, such as food and water; (2) regulating services, such as flood and disease control; (3) cultural services, such as spiritual, recreational and cultural benefits; and (4) supporting services, such as nutrient cycling that maintains the conditions for life on Earth.

Forests sustain life for over 70% of terrestrial biodiversity; they regulate water cycles, maintain soil quality, and reduce the risk of natural disasters such as floods and landslides, as well as directly and indirectly supporting the livelihoods of over 1.6 billion people on the globe (MEA 2005; Eliasch 2008). Although widely recognized, the benefits provided by many natural ecosystems are still poorly understood and quantified (Negi and Agrawal 2006). In spite of the crucial ecological, cultural, and economic importance of these ES, ecosystems are continually deteriorating worldwide as the value of ecosystems to human welfare is still underestimated and the ES are not, or are only partly, captured in conventional market economics.

In Uttarakhand State (western Himalayan region) of the Indian sub-continent, the high Himalayan ranges and glaciers cover most of the northern parts of the state, while the adjacent lower reaches are under forested land use that occupies about two-thirds of the landscape. The mountainous parts of the region are endowed with rich biodiversity, having tree species from sub-tropical to alpine zones. From low to high elevation, the following forest types prevail: Shorea robusta forests below 1000 m asl, Pinus roxburghii forests between 1000 and 1700 m asl, and Quercus spp. forests between 1500 and 2200 m asl (Singh and Singh 1992). In the most populated belt (1000–2000 m asl) of the region, oak (Quercus leucotrichophora) and pine (P. roxburghii) are the dominant forest types and occupy 3000.7 and 3993.3 km², respectively. These areas are controlled by the State Forest Department (Forest Survey of India, 2009). Oak is a slow-growing broadleaf evergreen species, whereas pine is a fast-growing conifer species. These forests vary considerably from each other with respect to structure and functioning and the way they sustain the livelihood of the local people through a range of ES (Singh 2007). Oak forests are socially valued as they produce quality fuel wood for cooking, year-round green fodder for livestock and a number of non-timber forest products (NTFPs; wild edibles, medicinal plants, etc.), serve most effectively in terms of soil fertility and water retention, and have sustained the agri-pastoral mode of the livelihoods of the regional inhabitants for generations (Negi and Semwal 2010). The commonly collected NTFPs from these forests include a variety of wild edibles, medicinal, and aromatic plants such as pine resin, lichens, moss, wild mushrooms, fruits, and flowers, and these earn a sizeable amount of revenue for the state and also provide income and employment to its inhabitants through forest-based activities (Dhyani and Dhar 1994). Oak forests are also the storehouse of rich plant diversity (species richness 92 vs. 72 spp.) as compared to pine forests (Dhar et al. 1997). The pine forests are considered inferior with regard to fuel wood and fodder value, yet conserve nutrients on nutrient-poor sites and grow quickly in inhospitable habitats where oak cannot grow. Pine cones and mature wood are also used as fire starters or are crushed and molded into presto-log shapes (Thomas and Schumann 1992). Further, it is believed that asthma patients benefit from spending time in pine forests (Kala 2003). Also, the resin of pine is applied to boils, heel cracks, and on either sides of the eyes to reduce swelling (Singh et al. 1990). Thus, the ES that are provided by these forests when viewed from ecological and social considerations are also different from one forest type to another (Singh 2007; Negi and Semwal 2010).

The Himalayan forests also help to capture essential atmospheric moisture and regulate river flow and reduce erosion and sedimentation downstream (Bruijnzeel and Bremmer 1989). Thus, the Himalayan forests have critical importance not only for the local population but also to a significant proportion of the population downstream (Singh 2007). Traditionally, these services are considered a ‘gift of nature’ and have been utilized throughout generations, though their economic value is often ignored or underestimated. In a recent attempt by Singh (2007), a value of $1150/ha/year was calculated for the ES of the regional Himalayan forests. However, in the recent decades, degradation of these forests has been witnessed, owing to a variety of anthropogenic (forest fires, grazing, collection of fuel wood, fodder, etc.) and climate variability factors. As a consequence, the ES provided by these forests have reduced considerably in quantity and value and subsequently require attention and suitable conservation efforts.

This study was carried out to: first, quantify various provisioning services (ecosystem goods) that the local people derive from oak and pine forests in the western Himalayan region and, second, determine local people's perceptions on the regulating services of these forests. It is expected that results of this study will have conservation and management implications to help compare and perhaps promote either of these two forest types so as to enhance the ES and human well-being in this region.

Materials and methods

Study area

The study area is located in two mountainous districts (Chamoli and Champawat) in the western Himalayan region of Uttarakhand State in India. The areas lie between 28°43′ and 31°27′N latitude and 77°34′ and 81°02′E longitude. In this region, the rainfall pattern is characterized by the monsoon season (mid-June to mid-September), which accounts for about three-fourths of the annual rainfall, and which generally ranges from 150 to 250 cm. The seasons can be characterized by a cold winter (November–February; mean T = 9°C), a hot summer (April–June; mean T = 29°C), and a wet and warm rainy season (June–September; mean T = 30°C). The soil of the study region is classified as sand and sandy loam with slightly acidic pH, and is low in organic matter and soil nutrients.

The 11 villages selected for this study were located in the most populated belt (1000–2000 m asl) of the mountainous part of the region, where local people depend on the forests for a variety of ES for their subsistence living. Some general characteristics of the studied villages (Table 1) reveal that they vary considerably with respect to altitude, human, and livestock populations. The village and forest sites selected encompass a wide range of edaphic, climatic, and topographic setups and represent the typical environmental setup of the western Himalayan region. The forests of oak and pine selected for this study did not experience any competing use from villages other than the sampled villages. The main criteria used for the selection of the sample villages for this study were: (1) absolute dependence of the people from the sampled villages on either the oak or pine forests available in the immediate surroundings of these villages to compare the ES of the two types of forests; (2) a wide range of human and livestock populations of these villages to represent various extraction regimes of ES from the surrounding forests; and (3) a wide range in the altitudinal distribution of the villages that could be considered as a proxy to represent the complexity of the climatic, edaphic, and topographic factors found in the study region.

Table 1. General characteristics of the villages selected for this study in the western Himalaya

Name of the villages (district)	Altitude (m asl)	Forest type in surrounding area	Human population	Livestock population (animal units)
Banlekh (Champawat)	1727	Oak	605	1513
Chekuni-Bora (Champawat)	1728	Oak	569	1287
Devsthali (Chamoli)	2282	Oak	254	786
Izarpatha (Chamoli)	2150	Oak	148	528
Chivila (Chamoli)	2371	Oak	208	646
Lausary (Chamoli)	1477	Oak	357	1082
Ulagra (Chamoli)	1503	Oak	398	842
Dharonj (Champawat)	1949	Pine	603	2134
Hat-Kalyani (Chamoli)	1391	Pine	535	1197
Maggeena (Chamoli)	1849	Pine	78	273
Lwani (Chamoli)	1805	Pine	197	523

In this study the following ES were considered (in line with the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB) classification by de Groot et al. (2010)).

Provisioning services

Fuel wood

Local people collect fallen wood/dry tree branches from the forests for cooking food and heating houses. It is the most important forest product in the western Himalayan region.

Fodder

Tree leaves and ground herbage (grass) are collected from the forests to feed the livestock and constitute essential part of the food for the livestock of the local people.

Leaf litter (natural fertilizer)

Leaf litter from the forest floor is collected by the local people and used as cattle bed for some time, and is then transferred to compost pits; it is then allowed to decompose and is subsequently transported to crop fields and mixed with the soil during crop sowing to replenish soil fertility.

Non-timber forest products

NTFPs are natural resources collected from forests by local people as per their availability in the forests. In the oak and pine forests of this region, the major available NTFPs are Myrica esculenta, Rhododendron arboreum, lichens, and leaves of pine trees for the packing of fruits. M. esculenta yields delicious fruits during April–May that are eaten raw and are also sold in the nearby towns. R. arboreum flowers are used for making juice/squash and have medicinal value. Lichens are a type of plants that grow on the bark of trees in oak and pine forests and that are used in pharmaceutical industries.

Timber

Forests are the prime source of timber for the local people. This includes wood for making furniture, agricultural implements, fencing wood and wood poles, and planks for roofs. However, strict rules and regulations are in operation from the State Government for the extraction of timber from the forests.

Resin

Resin is an important NTFP collected from the pine trees in this region and contributes significantly to the revenue of the State Government.

Drinking water

Provision of fresh and clean water is the most important produce from the forests for human beings; it is utilized both for drinking and irrigation purposes.

Regulating services

Purification of air

Forests provide us with clean air as the dust is captured by the vegetation.

Water regulation

Forests help to regulate the hydrological regime locally and to sustain the flow of water in the streams due to their sponge-like effect.

Prevention of extreme events

Forests play a key role in tempering droughts as well as floods and protecting against the incidence of landslides in the mountains due to the anchorage of rocks provided by deep and profuse root systems and multilayered canopies. These features also limit soil erosion and help in the retention of rainwater and can maintain soil moisture.

Soil fertility maintenance

Forests also help to increase the fertility of the soil through the decomposition of leaves and by humus formation.

Climate regulation

Rainfall intercepted by the forests contributes to local atmospheric humidity and rainfall.

Sampling methods

Provisioning services (viz. fuel wood, livestock food, NTFPs, wild edible fruits, minor timber, medicinal plants, etc.) derived from oak and pine forests by the people of the 11 sampled villages (consisting of 665 households) were quantified and valued using a structured questionnaire. The villages were categorized into those in the vicinity of pine forests (four villages) and oak forests (seven villages) to present the results and have a fair idea about quantities of various provisioning services (ecosystem goods) collected from the two forest types separately. Quantification of goods was also based on occasional field checks involving queries with a group of women while collecting the forest ecosystem goods across different locations in the study region and also weighing head loads of fuel wood, fodder, and other forest products occasionally. The utmost care was taken to record the answers from the respondents with regard to quantities of various goods derived exclusively from the forests, given that the aim of this study was to compare the two forest types for ES (both under government and community control). Thus, the results of this survey did not cover the quantities of various ecosystem goods collected by the people from grazing lands, croplands, uncultivable wasteland, and so on, lying in and around the sampled villages. Surveys were mostly carried out during winter months, when agricultural activities are almost over and women have more spare time and thus the opportunity to answer the questionnaire. Similar quantification methods have been followed in this region by earlier researchers (e.g. Ralhan et al. 1991; Saksena et al. 1995; Singh and Sundriyal 2009; Singh et al. 2010). Although seasonal variations in the quantities of various ecosystem goods collected from the forests exist in the region, owing to climatic and altitudinal variations (Bhatt et al. 1994; Saksena et al. 1995), we requested the respondents to reflect the quantities of these goods collected by them on an annual basis in the questionnaire surveys. Thus, our results capture the seasonal variations in quantities of these goods collected from the forests. The monetary value of different goods was estimated on the basis of the prevailing cost paid in the local markets, as has been followed by earlier researchers (e.g. Singh et al. 2002). Monetary values of different forest goods were also verified through informal discussions with elderly people of the region during the field surveys. Help of the local youth was taken in such household surveys to better capture the various ES, and over 90% households in these villages were sampled. Thus, the weaker sections of society (scheduled caste people) were also covered adequately. As far as possible, the head of the household was interviewed in these surveys, which in over 70% cases was a woman for all practical purposes, as most of the male members have out-migrated to urban areas to earn their livelihood (Pathak 1997). Total annual quantities of various ecosystem goods collected by individual households and their monetary values were pooled to compute the quantities at village level.

In order to invite the viewpoints of primary stakeholders on the comparative advantage of one forest type over the other with regard to the ES, particularly in terms of provisioning and regulating services, approximately 220 people (160 of them women) were selected randomly from the villages of the region, and two consultation meetings were held separately in which the participants were asked to independently list different ES provided by the oak and pine forests. The participants were told to assign perceived value out of a scale of 10 (0 being the minimum and 10 being the maximum) to the ES listed by them for both the forest types separately.

Results

Provisioning services (ecosystem goods) derived from the forests

The quantities of different ecosystem goods provided annually by the oak and pine forests are given in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. Oak forests provided a larger variety of provisioning services to the people (Table 2) compared to pine forests (Table 3). The large variation in the ecosystem goods collected from the forests was mainly due to differences in human and livestock populations among the villages (Table 1).

Table 2. Quantity of various provisioning services (ecosystem goods) derived from oak forests in the western Himalayan region

	Villages
	Banlekh	Chekuni-Bora	Devsthali	Izarpatha	Chivila	Lausary	Ulagra	Mean
Provisioning services (ecosystem goods)	Quantity (tonnes/year)
Livestock food (green fodder trees)	250	284	219	110	120	231	262	211
Livestock food (green fodder ground)	184	83	60	75	71	130	123	104
Natural fertilizer (bedding leaf litter)	592	289	146	104	141	95	92	208
Fuel wood	733	385	124	89	114	111	76	233
Minor timber	19	20	1.5	0.8	2.7	4.1	4	8
M. esculenta (edible fruits)	26	13	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	6
R. arboreum (edible flowers)	0.4	0.6	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.14
Medicine (lichens)	23	4	12	6.2	10	4	5	9

Table 3. Quantity of various provisioning services (ecosystem goods) derived from pine forests in the western Himalayan region

	Villages
	Dharonj	Hat-Kalyani	Maggeena	Lwani	Mean
Provisioning services (ecosystem goods)	Quantity (tonnes/year)
Livestock food (green fodder ground)	280	477	70	193	255
Natural fertilizer (bedding leaf litter)	169	347	82	169	192
Fuel wood	457	407	43	97	251
Minor timber (furniture wood)	4	11	2	0	4

The total value of the ecosystem goods collected from the oak forests as per the local selling price based on the questionnaire survey was estimated at Rs. 2,164,247/village/year, which computes to Rs. 5676/person/year (Table 4). The proportional contribution of different ecosystem goods to this value was computed as fodder from trees for livestock food (22%), ground fodder from forest floor (9%), bedding leaves (that are subsequently used as natural fertilizers) for livestock (18%), fuel wood (27%), lichens used in the medicinal industry (14%), wild edible fruits (M. esculenta) (8%), minor timber (1%), and so on (Figure 1). Similarly, the total value of the ecosystem goods collected from the pine forests was estimated at Rs. 1,589,642/village/year, which computes to Rs. 4640/person/year (Table 5). The proportional contributions of the different ecosystem goods to this value was computed as ground fodder for livestock food (35%), bedding leaves (that are subsequently used as natural fertilizers) for livestock (28%), fuel wood (37%), timber for furniture (1%), and so on (Figure 2).

Table 4. Monetary value of various provisioning services (ecosystem goods) derived from oak forests

	Name of the villages
	Banlekh	Chekuni-Bora	Devsthali	Izarpatha	Chivila	Lausary	Ulagra	Mean
Provisioning services (ecosystem goods)	Total price (Rs./year)
Livestock food (green fodder trees)	420,300	593,700	598,255	226,520	228,175	415,400	361,061	406,202
Livestock food (green fodder ground)	318,270	172,200	107,675	100,550	120,520	220,190	212,609	178,859
Natural fertilizer (bedding leaf litter)	947,850	578,400	314,630	135,720	290,175	169,371	192,699	375,549
Fuel wood	2,033,700	1,241,400	345,290	191,625	304,775	206,793	256,851	654,348
Minor timber	53,085	78,770	7,470	4,020	7,370	18,650	16,200	26,509
M. esculenta (edible fruits)	1,315,200	542,600	–	–	–	–	–	265,400
Medicine (lichens)	645,300	110,300	337,500	172,200	279,600	105,600	137,400	255,414
R. arboreum (edible flowers)	5,300	8,460	–	–	–	–	–	1,966
Total value (Rs./village/year)	5,739,005	3,325,830	1,710,820	830,635	1,230,615	1,136,004	1,176,820	2,164,247
Per person value (Rs./year)	9,486	5,845	6,736	5,612	5,916	3,182	2,957	5,676

Table 5. Monetary value of various provisioning services (ecosystem goods) derived from pine forests

	Name of the villages
	Dharonj	Hat-Kalyani	Maggeena	Lwani	Mean
Provisioning services (ecosystem goods)	Total price (Rs./year)
Livestock food (green fodder ground)	984,000	804,143	119,225	354,800	565,542
Natural fertilizer (bedding leaf litter)	334,800	485,450	160,600	330,325	327,794
Fuel wood	1,756,800	647,875	122,275	213,890	685,210
Minor timber (furniture wood)	10,733	30,000	3,650	–	11,096
Total value (Rs./village/year)	3,086,333	1,967,468	405,750	899,015	1,589,641
Per person value (Rs./year)	5,118	3,678	5,202	4,564	4,640

Figure 1. Proportion of monetary value of the ecosystem goods extracted annually on per person basis from oak forests across the studied villages in the western Himalaya (total = Rs. 5676/capita/year).

Figure 2. Proportion of monetary value of ecosystem goods extracted annually on per person basis from the pine forests across the studied villages in the western Himalaya region (total = Rs. 4640/capita/year).

People's perceptions on provisioning and regulating services of oak and pine forests

During stakeholders' consultations, 14 different types of provisioning services arising from the two forest types were listed by the participants (Table 6). However, of these they only commonly utilize seven services (Table 6).

Table 6. Perceived value of provisioning services (ecosystem goods) provided by oak and pine forests in the western Himalaya region (marks out of 10 ± SE)

Provisioning services	Oak forests (n = 220 people)	Pine forests (n = 220 people)
Food for livestock (green fodder trees)	9.3 ± 0.24	0
Food for livestock (green fodder ground)	6.7 ± 0.75	8.3 ± 0.25
Fuel wood	9.5 ± 0.37	6.9 ± 1.38
Wood charcoal	8.3 ± 0.42	4.6 ± 1.37
Natural fertilizer (bedding leaf litter)	8.3 ± 0.98	4.9 ± 0.36
Minor timber (wood for agricultural implements)	8.6 ± 0.35	2.8 ± 0.44
Minor timber (furniture wood)	0	9.5 ± 0.49
Minor timber (wooden poles for fencing)	6 ± 0.41	4.5 ± 0.29
Minor timber (packing material for fruits, vegetables, etc.)	3.9 ± 1.32	8 ± 0.71
Medicinal plants	8.3 ± 0.25	4.2 ± 0.85
Resin	0	9.7 ± 0.26
Food for humans (wild edibles)	7.00 ± 0.75	5.18 ± 0.44
Medicines (lichen)	8.6 ± 0.41	5.8 ± 1.27
Freshwater for drinking and irrigation	9.3 ± 0.35	3.1 ± 0.56

Provisioning services such as livestock food (tree leaf fodder) were provided only by oak forests, and timber wood (planks used for furniture and house building) and resin were produced only by pine trees. Forest produce such as resin produced by pine trees and medicinal plants mostly produced by oak forests are collected by State Government agencies, and people are not allowed to collect these ecosystem goods in order to discourage illegal trade, as these products are sold in the market directly. People (particularly women) of the region are quite aware of the provisioning services of these forests, such as the medicinal plants, wild edibles (e.g. mushrooms), lichen, and leaf litter for the packing of fruits. But these products are generally not used; very few people indicated that they utilize them only occasionally. For example, medicinal plants are used only by traditional healers (Vaidya) and mushrooms are eaten only by persons who know of their edible value. It is evident from Table 4 that most of the provisioning services provided by the oak forests were assigned a higher perceived value during the consultation. Drinking water, fuel wood, leaf litter used for replenishing the crop field soil fertility, and wood for agricultural implements were particularly remarkable, as these products of the oak forests are extremely important for the rural people of the region, whose livelihood is primarily dependent on forest biomass-based subsistence agriculture. The pine forests were assigned higher perceived values only for ground fodder and pine leaf litter (needles) used for the packing of fruits and vegetables. Pine forests do not provide livestock food (tree leaf fodder), which is an important provisioning service provided by oak forests year round.

During the stakeholders' consultation, seven regulating services provided by the two types of forests were listed by the participants (Table 7). Interestingly, all these services scored a higher perceived value for oak forests compared to pine forests. Regulating services such as rainfall interception, soil moisture retention, prevention of soil erosion, soil fertility maintenance, clean air, and water purification did not have a direct sale value in conventional markets but had direct relevance (high indirect use value) to the rural people for their existence, which was amply reflected in the marks assigned by the stakeholders to these services. For all these prominent regulatory services, pine forests scored a considerably lower perceived value.

Table 7. Perceived values of regulating services provided by oak and pine forests in the western Himalaya region (marks out of 10 ± SE)

Regulating services	Oak forests (n = 220 people)	Pine forests (n = 220 people)
Purification of air (clean air)	9 ± 0.71	4.5 ± 0.63
Purification of water (drinking water)	9.5 ± 0.29	5.5 ± 0.87
Prevention of extreme events (landslide control)	8.2 ± 0.85	3.7 ± 0.63
Prevention of soil erosion	8.7 ± 0.48	3.2 ± 0.48
Soil moisture retention	9.5 ± 0.29	3.1 ± 0.68
Soil fertility maintenance	8.7 ± 0.25	2.5 ± 0.65
Climate regulation (rainfall interception)	9.0 ± 0.41	5.0 ± 0.41

Discussion

The results of this study have clearly demonstrated that oak forests provide a larger variety and more valuable ecosystem goods (provisioning services) as compared to pine forests to the rural people of the western Himalayan region. As stated earlier, oak forests are valued by the local people for provisioning services such as year-round green fodder used for livestock food, quality fuel wood, nutrient-rich leaf litter that is used as a natural fertilizer for replenishing crop field fertility, wood for agricultural uses, and minor forest products (e.g. Semwal et al. 2007). These ecosystem goods are important ingredients for the functioning of rural agro-ecosystems (Singh et al. 1984; Ralhan et al. 1991). The provisioning of green fodder from evergreen oak forests year-round is crucial for livestock, particularly when fodder from other sources such as agricultural residue and grazing lands is diminished and dries up during the winter and summer seasons. Pine forests do not produce tree fodder and the pine leaves (needles) are non-palatable. Although collection of ground herbage from pine forests was found to be more than for the oak forests in this study, it is available only during the monsoon season. The yield of ground herbage in the pine forests has been reported to be better compared to the oak forests in this region (Singh and Singh 1992). Another important ES provided by the oak forests is the maintenance of crop field fertility through the use of huge quantities of leaf litter collected from the forest floor for farmyard manure (FYM) preparation. In the age-old practice of FYM preparation in the region, leaf litter is first used as cattle bed to keep the cattle away from moisture created due to urination and to provide warmth during winter. The leaf litter thus gets mixed with cattle dung and urine and is then shifted to compost pits periodically and allowed to decompose for 5–6 months, before being transferred to crop fields at the time of crop sowing. Oak leaf litter is nutrient rich (nitrogen = 1.10%, phosphorus = 0.06%) as compared to pine leaf litter (N = 0.80%, P = 0.036%) (Kumar et al. 2009) and decomposes fast and releases nutrients quickly as compared to pine leaf litter (Kandpal and Negi 2003). Soil fertility and crop yield have also been reported to be better in the crop fields where oak leaf litter-based FYM is applied as compared to the crop fields where pine leaf litter-based FYM is applied (Kumar et al. 2009). Oak fuel wood is also superior to pine wood, as the former has high calorific value (15.7 kJ/g dry weight) (Nautiyal and Negi 1994). The pine fuel wood generates noxious smoke that is harmful to people (Saiyed et al. 2001), particularly for the women who generally have to perform the task of cooking in the rural areas of this region.

The oak forests also provide a sizable amount of edibles that contribute to the income and food security of the local inhabitants. Rhododendron and Myrica trees are mostly found in oak forests in this region. Rhododendron is the state tree of Uttarakhand State and has ecological significance in addition to its graceful flowers (Paul et al. 2005). Rhododendron flowers are sweet in taste, and juices jellies and squashes made from its flowers, which are also useful in the treatment of high blood pressure, diarrhea, and dysentery (Maikhuri et al. 1994; Semwal et al. 2007). The squash made out of Rhododendron flowers is sold in many towns in Uttarakhand at a price of US$2 per liter (Semwal et al. 2007). The Myrica tree is a nitrogen fixer and its delicious fruits are sold raw in local markets during summer (at about half a US$ per kg), and the price may sometimes rise as high as US$2 per kg depending upon the availability in the forests (Dhyani and Dhar 1994). The bark of Myrica is also used to intoxicate fish and as a yellow dye (Maikhuri et al. 1994). Similarly, lichens are sold at about half a US$ per kg. In addition to these, some wild fruits, such as Rubus ellipticus, Berberis asiatica, Pyrus pashia, found both in oak and pine forests, are consumed raw by the village people and not sold in the market. In our study, the average monetary value of various provisioning services obtained from the oak forests (Rs. 2,164,247/village/year) was notably greater than that obtained from pine forests (Rs. 1,589,642/village/year). In terms of per capita, these values were Rs. 5676 and 4640 per annum for oak‐ and pine forest-dependent villages, respectively. Thus, oak forests were found to be better in terms of provisioning services.

The fuel wood consumption value recorded in the present study (1.57 kg/capita/day in the oak forest villages and 1.75 kg/capita/day in pine forest villages) is comparable to that reported for lower altitudinal villages of western Himalaya (1.49 kg/capita/day) by Bhatt et al. (1994) and the Himalayan range of Nepal (1.23 kg/capita/day) by Mahat et al. (1987). Similarly, the fodder collection values from forests reported by us are comparable to those reported for this region by Singh and Sundriyal (2009) and Awasthi et al. (2003).

In the study region, pine forests are mainly regarded for the commercial value of their resin and timber, ignoring their demerits from the standpoint of ES that are so important for the livelihood of rural people. Resin is an important NTFP and the genus Pinus is the best known source of this product (Semwal et al. 2007). For example, in 2005–2006, the revenue generated from resin production in Uttarakhand State was Rs. 453 million (Source: Uttarakhand Forest Statistics, 2005–2006). In 2010–2011, the pine forests of Champawat district, selected by us in this study, generated a total of 14,651 quintals resin that earned Rs. 73,768,564 for the State Government. Similarly, the revenue earned from timber production from the pine forests in Kumaun Division of Uttarakhand State was Rs. 113.6 million during 2009–2010. Many private-sector investors also depend on improved ecosystem management because most of the industries are directly dependent on natural resources, such as timber, resin, and medicinal plants. Thus, for a few goods of commercial value (viz. resin and timber), pine forests assume significance over the regulating services provided by the oak forests such as soil fertility maintenance, soil moisture retention, drinking and irrigation water sources; the latter are directly connected with the agri-pastoral way of life for the sustenance of local people and were given high perceived values during stakeholder consultations conducted by us in this study.

Forests are also important storehouses of carbon sequestration. The amount of carbon accumulated in the total forest biomass in Uttarakhand is estimated at 6.61 million tonnes/year, and is valued at Rs. 3.82 billion at the rate of US$13/tonne carbon (Singh 2007). The forests of Uttarakhand can accumulate carbon at a rate that ranges from 5–9 tonnes carbon/ha/year for good-quality forests to 1.5–3 tonnes carbon/ha/year for poor-quality forests (Singh et al. 1985). Verma (2000) estimated the total economic value of Himachal Pradesh forests, including all provisioning, regulating, and cultural services, at Rs. 1066 billion/year. Haripriya et al. (2005) compared the forest cover in 1999 to that of 2001 of Arunachal Pradesh State in India (which was depleted by an area of 802 km²) in order to assess the marginal social damage costs, from which it was predicted that 29 million tonnes carbon was released (or not captured), to which they attributed a present‐day value of $730/ha/year using the authors' best guess of US$20/tonne carbon and a social discount rate of 4%. Chaudhry (2009) has estimated the average value of ES of Arunachal Pradesh State tropical forests to be US$41.6 billion/year.

One of the important services of forest vegetation is to provide protection to soil, filter water, and allow rain water to infiltrate the ground instead of running off into rivers and streams. Studies (e.g. Loshali and Singh 1992; Negi 2002) in this region have reported that oak forests conserve more soil than pine forests (soil loss = 19.2 vs. 33.5 kg/ha, respectively), and rainwater infiltration is also about three times higher in oak forests (overland flow of incident rainfall was found 0.39% in oak forests and 0.94% in pine forests) (Negi 2002). Studies from Uttarakhand have recorded many instances of accelerated soil erosion, land slide/slip activities, increased flood hazards, and diminished discharge in springs and rivers, all associated with forest degradation and loss of forest cover (Valdiya 1987). The conversion of forests to agricultural fields has been known to accelerate soil losses by 5–10 times (Rawat and Rawat 1994). One field survey confirms that degraded forestland shed more runoff and loses more soil than those which retain forest cover (Haigh et al. 1993). Therefore, there is every reason to understand why the oak forests are regarded as more valuable as environmental capital by the local people whose livelihood is dependent on forest-based agriculture.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this comparative study on oak and pine forests in the western Himalayan region revealed that the quantity and value of provisioning and regulating services provided by oak forests to the local people is higher than those provided by pine forests. Also, stakeholders' perceptions revealed that oak forests are more desirable to the local people and are better able to enhance ES and human well-being in the region than pine forests. However, the commercial importance of products obtained from pine forests often leads to a loss of ES from oak forests. Furthermore, the fast growth and colonization capacity of pine trees in inhospitable habitats outcompetes oak trees in this region. The region is endowed with many other significant sources of direct and indirect use, non-use, and option values, which would need assessing for a more complete picture about the ES (e.g. supporting and cultural services) of the regional forests, so as to further specify the conclusions of this study. It has been emphasized that calculation of the benefits of forest services, however, is not without its difficulties and controversies, and the vast diversity and interconnectedness of the different ecological characteristics of forest biomes make identifying and valuing each service independently a difficult task that is prone to errors (Bleischwitz and Marsden 2010).

Acknowledgements

This research was sponsored by G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development, Kosi-Katarmal, Almora. Thanks to the village people in Chamoli and Champawat districts who shared their time and knowledge. The authors thank Dr L.M.S. Palni, Director of the Institute, and Dr P.P. Dhyani, Scientist G and Head, for providing the facilities to undertake this work.