Ecosystem services valuation for enhancing conservation and livelihoods in a sacred landscape of the Indian Himalayas

Abstract

Sacred species/groves/landscapes have played an important role in conserving biodiversity based on the socio-cultural practices in different parts of the world including India. It has been observed in recent times that these sacred entities are facing degradation. The current study conducted in Hariyali sacred landscape (HSL) in Garhwal Himalayas is to evaluate and rank the ecosystem services based on people’s perceptions so that people can be sensitized about economic, ecological and cultural significance of the landscape. Contingent valuation method (CVM) was used for calculating willingness to pay (WTP) for different ecosystem services. One hundred and forty respondents were grouped into core villagers, nearby villagers and outsiders. The study revealed that local people identified six direct and seven indirect ecosystem services with HSL. The perceived benefits from all ecosystem services were ranked highest by the respondents of nearby villages. However, WTP for conservation of the landscape was lowest by them (nearby villagers). Such discrepancy between the perception and WTP is significantly attributed by the difference in education and rights related to rituals and access to resource use. A careful intervention to integrate the adjoining villages in the rights and ritual related to temple and to evolve a more transparent way to manage the funds generated from religious offerings and Government, may lead to higher participation and WTP for conserving the landscape.

Keywords:

• sacred landscape
• ecosystem services
• economic valuation
• people’s perception
• WTP

1. Introduction

Ecosystem services support human life on earth, either directly or indirectly. The survival and well-being of human depend on these ecosystem services, and therefore maintaining and improving the health of the ecosystems is critical for sustainable supply of these services. (Costanza et al. 1997, 2014; Daily 1997; MEA 2005). The concept of ecosystem services is gaining importance among researchers and policy-makers, as it is becoming a critical criterion for conservation assessments (Costanza et al. 1997; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005; Atkinson et al. 2012; Bateman et al. 2013). As a result, a consistent and robust means of measuring, mapping, modeling and valuing ecosystem services is important for decision-making related to conservation at different scales (Ricketts et al. 2004; Chan et al. 2006; Naidoo & Ricketts 2006; Fisher & Turner 2008; Naidoo et al. 2008; Fisher et al. 2009). Moreover, it allows meaningful comparisons of policies/programs in justifying or criticizing a particular decision regarding various ecosystem services or ecosystem of any area, especially, in a cost–benefit framework, where trade-offs in relation to a set of decision-making alternatives are to be made (Binger et al. 1995; Pritchard et al. 2000; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005; Boyd 2007; Boyd & Banzhaf 2007; Wallace 2007; Bateman et al. 2013).

Economic valuation of biodiversity and ecosystem services is arguably the most powerful tool for halting the loss of biodiversity while maintaining incomes and livelihoods (Atkinson et al. 2012; Ninan et al. 2007). This approach has received a great deal of attention in the recent academic literature, however, applying an ecosystem services-based approach to conservation is limited among the implementing agencies (Turner & Daily 2008; Bateman et al. 2011; Johnston & Russell 2011; Mace et al. 2012). A lot of researches have been conducted on valuation and impact of ecosystem services at a regional/global scale (Costanza et al. 1997, 2014; Zhang 2004), however, the methods of measurement differed (De yong et al. 2005). In a study of global ecosystem services, the annual value of these services is US$ 16–54 trillion, with an estimated average of US$33 trillion (Costanza et al. 1997). This value is now revised to $125 trillion/year assuming updated unit values and changes to biome areas and $145 trillion/year assuming only unit values changed (Costanza et al. 2014). In India, even though biodiversity conservation is emphasized in policy circles, there has been little attempt to put a monetary value to its benefits (Ninan et al. 2007). India is a mega biodiversity country, and thus, forests play an important role by providing several ecosystem services, which are mostly unaccounted in economic terms (Nagaraja et al. 2010). However, there are few studies available on valuation of ecosystem services for a larger area, like a state or region (Verma 2000; Chopra 2002; Badola & Hussain 2005; Singh 2007; Joshi & Negi 2011). On the contrary, study at local level ascertaining the willingness of the rural people to pay for systematic management of natural resources based on community perception is limited in India (Maharana et al. 2000). Further, a recent study showed that value of ecosystem services such as fresh water, soil nutrients and non-timber forest products (NTFPs) of Indian forest was approximately 7% of national GDP, however it amounted to 57% of the income of rural Indian (Sukhdev 2009). This emphasizes the need for economic valuation of ecosystem services at a local level linked to a particular landscape/area.

It is well recognized in India and across the globe that the concept of sacred (sacred groves and landscapes) play an important role in conserving the biodiversity of the remote and inaccessible region based on socio-cultural belief system (Kosambi 1962; Ramakrishnan et al. 1998; Malhotra et al. 2001; Negi 2005; Sinha 2011). In recent past, attenuation in belief systems owing to modernization, changing socio-economic conditions, education, financial support for conservation initiatives and poor information transfer from gatherers to decision-makers have resulted in degradation of these sacred groves across the country (Ramakrishnan et al. 1998; Bisht & Sharma 2005). Economic incentive based on valuation of ecosystem services and dissemination of relevant information to the concerned stakeholders could be one of the important tools to rejuvenate and conserve the associated cultural and ecological uniqueness of such sacred groves/landscapes. Besides, it could be hypothesized that people associated with such groves/landscapes will have different perceptions/rationale for conserving this landscape since the benefits received by different villages will differ because of physical accessibility and rights. It is, therefore, important that research with a focus on economic valuation of ecosystem services of these sacred groves/landscapes is undertaken at a micro level, so that people can be sensitized about the economic significance of the landscape in addition to ecological and cultural significances. The current study on economic valuation of Hariyali sacred landscape (HSL), situated in Garhwal Himalaya is conceived with an aim to identify different ecosystem services associated with HSL, as perceived by the local community and to rank them on the basis of economic valuation and people’s perception. The study also attempted to analyze WTP with respect to socio economic aspect, such as age, education and income.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Study site

The study was conducted in HSL, which is situated in Garhwal region of Central Himalayas in the state of Uttarakhand, India. Garhwal Himalaya in India commonly referred to as Dev Bhumi (land of Gods and Goddess) houses many important religious shrines like Badrinath, Kedarnath, Yamnotri and so on besides the sacred confluences of five tributaries of holy Ganga. It is interesting to note in the Garhwal Himalaya region, many a times an entire landscape represented by a variety of species and ecosystems had been considered sacred and conserved by forbidding the use of any resource from it (Negi 2010a; 2010b; Ramakrishnan 1996). As a result, a number of sacred groves are reported from different parts of Garhwal Himalaya (Sinha and Maikhuri 1998; Sinha et al. 2003; Anthwal et al. 2006; Sinha 2011).

HSL is situated above Kodima village which is at a distance of 32 km from the nearest town Gauchar in Rudraprayag district of Uttarakhand (Figure 1). Three villages Kodima, Jasholi and Pavo form the boundary of sacred landscape as they are directly linked through the rituals of the goddess Hariyali Devi. The summit of the hill which abodes the goddess is 2850 m from mean sea level and the sacred forest cover 5.5 sq. km in area according to the boundary of the forest which encircles totally prohibited area of forest from human interference (Sinha & Maikhuri 1998; Sinha 2011).

Figure 1. Location of HSL

This landscape is known for its sacredness and its associated rituals and festivals, which provides a lot of opportunities for recreation and boosting social conviviality and solidarity of the region. There are three major festivals celebrated related to the myths and rituals associated with this landscape; that is, Rakshabandhan (offerings in the form of milk and milk products are made in the month of August to the goddess of the main temple situated in the dense forest), Janmashtami (a fair organized in the month of Aug-Sep in the village Jasholi and also supported by the local government) and Diwali (in the month of Oct-Nov villagers make a pilgrimage to the sacred forest from the temple at Jasholi village. The idol of the goddess is carried over to the main temple at the summit in a procession, i.e. called doli yatra.). On the day of these festivals, a large number of people of people visit the site, for offerings to the deity, and also for a social gathering. Such occasions provide opportunity to the people to meet their relatives, friends and discuss family and personal issues. Different stalls put up by the local people for selling a variety of products such as food, traditional cosmetics and toys help them to benefit economically. These in turn promote social conviviality and solidarity among the people associated with this landscape, which helps in encouraging them for conserving the cultural and ecological uniqueness of this landscape (Sinha 2011).

2.2. Sampling

2.2.1. Identification and ranking of ecosystem services based on people’s perceptions

HSL provides a variety of direct as well indirect ecosystem services to the local people, besides having religious importance for the nearby villages. To get a fair assessment on perceptions and WTP of the communities associated ecosystem services with HSL, the villages were stratified into three groups, namely core villages, nearby villages and outsiders. The core villages (CV) included Jasholi, Kodima and Pavo, which are situated in the core of HSL and are directly related to the Hariyali Devi temple and its associated socio-cultural rituals and norms. The nearby villages (NV) included villages that are situated in the periphery of core village at a distance of 5–6 km, whereas outsiders (O) consisted of people not belonging to the core and nearby villages and were not benefitting from ecosystem services directly but were culturally attached to HSL. The survey was carried out by the authors in the festive months of August (Janamashtami) and October–November (just before Deepawali) in the year of 2010. These months/festival seasons were chosen to get all types of respondents including outsiders because they come to participate in the rituals of HSL during these festivals. The respondents were interviewed at their homes, shops, farms and near temple during the festivals. To get a comprehensive assessment, a total of 140 respondents were randomly interviewed, representing CV, NV and Outsiders to understand the perceptions of the people on different types of ecosystem services and their willingness to pay (WTP) for the same (Table 1). Goods and services that could be valued in monetary terms and has direct use are classified as direct services and the others are classifies as indirect services.

Table 1. Number of respondents and their socio-economic profile.

Sl. no	Target population	Average age (Years)	Average income* (US $)	Education (%)		Numbers of respondents
				School level**	Above school level***
1.	Residents of the core villages(CV)	43	2629	71	29	35
2.	Residents of the nearby villages(NV)	46	1938	89	11	66
3.	Outsiders(O)	48	3620	49	51	39

Note: *Conversion rate 1 US$ = 45.05 Rs.

**12 years of formal education.

***More than 12 years of formal education.

Males of 21 years and above were only interviewed for recording the perceptions and WTP. The selection of male of 21 years and above was considered, as at this age male members start earning and lead a family life. The responsibility related to earning and spending of money is primarily confined to the male members, among the societies of this region. However, it is not to underestimate the understanding of females on the importance and valuation of ecosystem services.

To record the peoples’ perception on different services, the respondents were asked to identify and rank the direct and indirect ecosystem services on the basis of their perceived importance. The ranks were given in the form of, most important (MI), important (I), less important (LI) and not important (NI). Values were assigned to the above-mentioned ranks in order of importance, that is, most important would have the highest value of 4, and the other ranks in continuous descending order. Based on the scores obtained, mean for each service was calculated. The mean value gave us the importance of that particular service as perceived by the different groups of respondents as mentioned in Table 1.

2.2.2. Valuation method

The direct services can be valued better by direct market valuation techniques but in the present study, the ecosystem services of HSL do not have direct presence in the market (the goods like NTFPs, water, fuel wood, fodder are used for domestic purposes and are not traded in the market) and thus cannot be quantified by such techniques, therefore CVM was used to calculate the values for direct as well as indirect services.

CVM is a flexible approach and is generally used to include what is usually referred to as the existence or passive use component of the economic value of an environmental good (Carson & Hanemann 2005). Because of its flexibility, CVM has become one of the most widely used non-market valuation techniques for estimating the economic values for all kinds of ecosystem services (Carson et al. 2001).

It is a survey-based technique and are naturally prone to a number of biases, some of which are specific while others are common to all survey questionnaires, that is, strategic, compliance, starting point, range bias, importance bias and so on (Mitchell & Carson 1989; Bateman & Turner 1992; Spash 2008). It is, therefore, important that CVM surveys should be designed in such a manner that helps to reduce bias problems to an acceptable level and provide with useful value estimation information. In order to reduce the biasness of CVM in the current study, only earning members with definite source of income was considered so that a false/imaginary estimate can be avoided. The respondents included only those present during the festivals, implying that their sense of belongingness to the HSL is supposedly higher as compared to other who were not participating in the important rituals/festivals associated with HSL. The respondents were interviewed individually and the response of each respondent was kept confidential. This helped in minimizing the bias that could have been influenced from the responses of others.

In this method, service demand is elicited by posing hypothetical scenarios that involve some valuation of alternatives (e.g. visitors willing to pay for increased access to national parks) (Ahmed and Gotoh 2006). This method has been mainly used in various studies for calculating the value of indirect ecosystem services (Murty & Menkhaus 1994; Kadekodi & Ravindranath 1997; Chopra & Kadekodi 1998; Maharana et al. 2000; Manoharan, 2000).

For the current study, WTP was recorded by directly asking people about the amount of money that they would be willing to pay (WTP/hh/year) for the direct and indirect services as identified by the people. In addition, WTP for the temple development was exclusively asked, since people have greater faith in the rituals performed through temple of HSL. The rights for performing rituals, visit of outsiders and accessing resource from the HSL are governed with the associated belief of the goddess Hariyali and the temple (Sinha 2011). The respondents were first apprised that their responses would be confidential and would be exclusively used for research.

2.3. Calculation for WTP

2.3.1. WTP for temple development

The rights to resource use of HSL are closely linked to its associated religious and cultural practices. This not only helps in conserving the landscape but also in boosting social solidarity and conviviality. The revenue generated out of religious value could be used for managing the natural resources and reducing the dependency of the people for direct use of natural resources. It is for this reason, WTP for temple development was considered apart from the direct and indirect ecosystem services. The respondents were informed about the activities for temple development before they were asked on their WTP for temple development. Creating more infrastructures in form of guest houses, renovating the temple premise and building other amenities in order to facilitate the visitors during the festival seasons would attract more visitors. This in turn, would lead to increase in income of the people by benefiting from more employment opportunities, besides reducing the dependency on the natural resources of the landscape. A hypothetical scenario was posed to respondents in order to know their WTP for temple development:

‘The Hariyali goddess temple is a place of great belief for all the people, and the number of devotees is consistently increasing. Due to increasing number of visitors, it is important to create essential infrastructure in and around temple to manage visitors to regulate religious activities based on the existing belief system. This may require creating a trust or shrine board and significant amount of money. Under this scenario, would you be willing to donate in monetary terms. If yes, then how much?’

2.3.2. WTP for conservation of HSL, for direct as well as indirect services

Similarly, a hypothetical scenario was posed to solicit the response for conserving the landscape.

‘The natural resources of HSL are very valuable and critical for sustaining the livelihoods of the local people as they provide a number of direct and indirect benefits. However, in recent years, with population growth and increase in resource use pattern, the capacity of HSL in terms of providing different direct and indirect services as perceived by you, will decrease or may get lost. This is very likely as the natural systems take a longer time to replenish the resource and therefore it is critical that we conserve and protect the natural resource from further degradation by supporting an organization to undertake the management of HSL on a scientific way. This will entail mobilizing a fund dedicated for conserving the landscape. Under such scenario, would you be willing to pay for conservation. If yes, how much will you be willing to pay for direct and indirect services?’

The survey for WTP started by asking the respondents whether they were willing to pay or not. If the answer was ‘no’ the procedure ended there with that particular respondent. If the answer was ‘yes’, then the second step was to determine the maximum amount he was willing to pay. The maximum WTP was determined by the bidding process. The interviewer started the bidding by a particular amount, that is, Rs 100 (≈2 US$). Prior interaction with the people revealed that most of the people are comfortable for donating Rs 100 (≈2 US$) for any public cause. If it was above the WTP, the interviewer reduced the bid gradually until the answer was ‘yes’ and the value was recorded. If the respondent agreed to the interviewer’s initial bidding amount, the interviewer gradually raised the bid until the respondent said ‘no’ (Mitchell & Carson 1989). Personal information of the respondents like age, annual income, education was also recorded, as these factors could affect the WTP of people (Table 1).

2.4. Data analysis

With the help of Statistical Product and Service Solutions version 13, Bonferroni test under ANOVA was used to test the significance of difference for WTP for different ecosystem services between respondents belonging to core villages, nearby villages and outsiders. The same was also used to test the significance of difference of WTP linked to different categories of age, income and education. On the other hand, Kruskal-Wallis test was applied to know the significance of difference on perception ranking. Mean ranks were taken as dependent variables. This is a nonparametric alternative test to one-way ANOVA, which is used to test ordinal variables (Levin & Rubin 1998). Through these test, an attempt is made to establish and evaluate the importance of ecosystem services perceived by different set of respondents, and to measure whether or not the respondent demonstrate the implicit value for the sacredness of the landscape and ecosystem services. In addition, the following linear regression model has been constructed and tested to show the extent of influence of various socio economic factors such as age, income and education (independent variables) on WTP for different services (dependent variables). The model is a dummy variable regression model as for education level there are two dummy variables, if education level of the respondent is up to school level (12 years of formal education) then we put ‘0’, and if above school level (more than 12 years of formal education) then '1ʹ. The similar dummy variables were created for other factors with respect to age and income. Therefore, the model can be specified in the following equation form:

(1)

X₁ and X₂ stand for different categories of age (21–40, 41–60 and 61–80 yrs); X₃ and X₄ for different categories of income (up to 2220, 2221–4440 and above 4440 US$) and X₅ for education. The results of the linear regression model are provided in the Apeendix.

3. Results

3.1. People’s perception on ecosystem services

There are six direct and seven indirect services that the local people identified with HSL during interaction and survey (Table 2). All these services are vital for the people associated with HSL, specifically for the residents of the core and nearby villages as these services affect their livelihood directly and/or indirectly. The ranking of ecosystem services based on people’s perception implies that how people perceive different services based on their existing knowledge and the benefits they obtain. Furthermore, analysis of perception ranking could help to provide insight for enhancing people’s participation in the management of the landscape. The ranking of direct and indirect services based on mean score is summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Mean scores of ranking for direct and indirect services based on people’s perception. Values followed by different superscripts letter are significantly (p < 0.05) different.

Ecosystem services	Core villagers	Nearby villagers	Outsiders
Direct services
Fuel wood	3.83	4.00	3.67
Timber	3.71	4.00	3.90
Water	3.74	3.88	3.56
Food production	3.80	3.91	3.59
Fodder	3.60	3.88	3.59
NTFPs (Non-timber Forest product)	3.17	3.24	2.87
Mean (±SD)	3.64^a ± 0.24	3.81^a ± 0.28	3.53^a ± 0.34
Indirect Services
Religious values	3.89	3.97	3.97
Hydrological regulation	3.89	3.91	3.62
Climate regulation	3.60	3.73	3.56
Soil fertility	3.31	3.74	2.95
Watershed services	3.26	3.70	2.87
Recreation & Aesthetic values	3.17	3.06	3.21
Educational values	2.46	2.06	2.15
Mean (±SD)	3.36^a ± 0.49	3.45^a ± 0.68	3.19^a ± 0.6

The mean score calculated based on people’s perception for direct services was recorded maximum for nearby villagers, followed by core villagers and outsiders (Table 2). Minimum ranking given by outsiders for direct services was expected since they do not benefit from these services directly. Fuel wood is ranked higher as compared to other direct services by the core and nearby villages as their demand for the same is completely met by this landscape. Water and food production are also ranked higher since the agricultural production of core and nearby villages are linked to nutrients and water that they get from HSL. Nearby villages are economically poor as compared to the core villages (Table 1) and therefore their dependence on agriculture and natural resources are higher for sustaining their livelihood. This could be one of the reasons attributed to the higher scores obtained on different direct services by the nearby villagers as compared to the core villagers. In addition, one member of each family in the core villages is involved in service sector (which is a fixed earning source) in contrast to lesser alternate livelihood options available with the nearby villagers. Therefore, the mean score on perception ranking for the direct services is higher as compared to that of core villages.

Indirect services such as hydrological regulation, watershed services and soil fertility are again ranked higher by nearby villagers compared to the core villagers, which could be attributed to the same reasons as mentioned above in case of direct services. Education values of HSL scored minimum rank among all types of ecosystem services by all set of respondents with core villagers ranking higher compared to other respondents. The core villagers have higher appreciation about the opportunities that HSL offers for research and education in natural resource management because of their interactions with different researchers, who are associated with this landscape due to its unique ecological and cultural settings.

The Kruskal-Wallis test to find significant differences between core villages, nearby villages and outsiders showed that mean ranking of direct and indirect services did not differ significantly (p < 0.05). This also implied that the people associated with HSL recognized the importance of its services in a more or less similar manner.

3.2. Valuation of WTP

WTP for different types of services by different set of respondents provides further insight to involve people in the management of HSL for the decision-makers. WTP for temple development along with direct and indirect services are also calculated as the management of natural resources within the landscape is strongly linked to the myths and rituals associated with the Hariyali goddess and the temple. The average WTP with respect to different services by different respondents are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Mean (± SD) WTP for different ecosystem services of core villagers, nearby villagers and outsiders of HSL. Values followed by different superscripts letter are significantly (p < 0.05) different.

	Temple development	Direct services	Indirect services	Total WTP	Minimum WTP	Maximum WTP	% of respondents not willing to pay
	(US $/hh/yr*)						for direct and indirect services
Core villagers (n = 35)	21.3^a ± 26.83	14.11^a ± 20.19	14.4^a ± 14.3	49.8	0.55	133.2	2.8
Nearby villagers (n = 66)	1.56^b ± 1.9	0.57^b ± .51	0.57^b ± .51	2.71	0.11	11.1	3.96
Outsiders (n = 39)	16.12^a ± 29.53	12.04^a ± 17.75	11.52^a ± 17.75	39.7	0.55	110.9	1.95

Note: *Conversion rate 1 US$ = 45.05 Rs.

The total WTP for conservation and management (including temple development) of the landscape was highest for core villagers (49.8US$/hh/year), followed by outsiders (39.7US$/hh/year), and nearby villagers (2.71 US$/hh/year) with maximum WTP for temple development by all the respondents (Table 3). WTP for all services of the nearby villages is significantly lower (p < 0.05) as compared to the core villagers and outsiders. WTP for direct services varied from 0.57 US$ to 14.11 US$/hh/yr, whereas, WTP for indirect services varied from 0.57 US$ to 14.4US$/hh/yr across different respondents. The maximum WTP by any single respondent for all services was recorded from the core villages (133.2 US$/hh/yr), followed by outsiders (110.9 US$/hh/yr) and abysmally low for the nearby villagers (11.1 US$/hh/yr), besides the number of respondents not willing to pay at all (for direct and indirect services) was highest among the nearby villagers. The difference of WTP between core and nearby villagers could be because of the difference in their sense of belongingness and ownership of landscape, education and economic background. These differences between core and nearby villages are explained further for attributing the lower WTP by the nearby villagers:

1. Due to lesser or negligible rights of nearby villagers in the traditional rituals associated with the temple and the goddess, there is difference in the sense of belongingness and ownership of landscape between the core and nearby villagers.

2. During the interaction with the nearby villagers, some of the respondents revealed that their trust on core villagers in handling the money generated on account of festivals, religious offerings and other associated rituals linked to the temple and the landscape was lacking. In perception ranking analysis, nearby villagers ranked religious services higher as compared to core villagers, but due to monopoly of rights of core villagers in getting the benefits from activities linked to the temple and religious practices, they are not willing to contribute economically.

3. Higher awareness and social recognition of the core villagers in recent past due to higher publicity of HSL, encourages them for development of this site in lieu of more anticipated income and thus increases their WTP for temple development. More publicity helps the people of core villages in increasing their earnings due to increased visits of tourists. Whereas, lack of these kinds of motivation and incentives (economically or socially) for nearby villagers reduces their WTP.

4. Difference in levels of income is also one of the reasons for lesser WTP of nearby villagers (Table 1). They are mainly dependent on agriculture and have lesser options for alternate source of income as compared to the core villagers.

On the other hand, the significantly lower WTP by the nearby villagers as compared to outsiders, even though they are not the direct beneficiaries could be because of their (outsiders) higher education and awareness about the importance of these services. Also, outsiders who come to HSL have a higher religious affinity in deity as they visit every year once or twice and travel from long distances. Beside, their income is comparatively higher as compared to the people of core and nearby villages (Table 1) and therefore their capacity to donate is higher. Apart from the above cited reasons, variation in the WTP can also be attributed to various socio economic factors like age, income and education that are mentioned below.

3.3. WTP in relation to socio- economic factors

From the current and past studies, it is assumed that, age, income and education are some of the factors that influence the WTP for the ecosystem services. Subsequently, WTP for temple development, direct and indirect services of total 140 respondents (respondents from core villages, nearby villages and outsiders) were further grouped into different categories of age, income and education to understand the influence of each factor.

WTP for temple development is higher as compared to direct and indirect services for people belonging to all age groups (Table 4). WTP by the elder people (61–80 yrs age) was recorded minimum for temple development as well as for direct and indirect services even though many of these elder people expressed their strong desire to pay more. The lower income and availability of less money at their disposal could be the reasons for lower WTP. However, there was no significant difference in WTP (p < 0.05) between the respondents belonging to different age groups.

Table 4. WTP (Mean ± SE) for temple development, direct and indirect services with respect to age.

Age	WTP for temple development (US$)	WTP for direct services (US$)	WTP for indirect services (US$)
21–40	10.4 ± 2.7	7.8 ± 2.08	8.1 ± 2.3
41–60	12.85 ± 3.2	7.9 ± 2.01	8.09 ± 2.3
61–80	4.9 ± 1.6	3.4 ± 1.9	2.02 ± 0.9

Total economic earning is one of the most important factors for WTP by any individual for any service. WTP for temple development by respondents of different income groups is higher as compared to that for direct and indirect services (Table 5). The study revealed that WTP for temple development increased with increase in the income, however the same trend was not observed for direct and indirect services. This also means that people’s WTP for temple development is driven by the religious significance they attach to HSL in terms of sacredness of the landscape, and not primarily guided by their income. This implies that the role of institutions regulating socio-cultural practices of HSL should be strengthened in order to conserve the natural resources.

Table 5. WTP (Mean ± SE) for temple development, direct and indirect services in relation to income.

Income (US$)	WTP for temple development (US$)	WTP for direct services (US$)	WTP for indirect services (US$)
0–2220	8.3 ± 2.1	5.03 ± 1.4	4.7 ± 1.2
2221–4440	12.6 ± 4.6	10.07 ± 3.04	11.05 ± 4.5
Above 4440	15.6 ± 4.9	10.05 ± 3.4	9.6 ± 3.06

WTP for each of the three services (temple development, direct and indirect) was significantly higher (p < 0.05) among the respondents who had completed their education above school level (who enrolls to university for higher education after having 12 years of formal education at school) as compared to the respondents who had their education up to school level (12 years of formal education) (Table 6). Level of education was the only significant factor in determining the WTP for different services within the landscape, when multiple regression analysis was constructed and tested as per the Equation 1, described in the methodology section and the results given in Appendix. As the education increases, the people’s perception and realization about the importance of conservation of different services also increases (especially direct and indirect services), as they learn to appreciate these services from ecological and social perspectives along with appreciation for meeting the basic needs of life. Furthermore, it could be also said that people become more rational in terms of attributing value to the services based on the scientific understanding rather than being influenced by religious/cultural values alone. This could be one of the reasons that the education was the most important factors for determining the WTP and their affinity towards contributing in conservation of the landscape.

Table 6. WTP (Mean ± SE) for temple development, direct and indirect services in relation to education.

Education level	WTP for temple development (US$)	WTP for direct services (US$)	WTP for indirect services (US$)
Education up to school level	7.7 ± 1.8	4.7 ± 1.3	4.9 ± 1.6
Education with above school level	18.7 ± 4.8	13.6 ± 2.9	12.7 ± 2.9

4. Discussion

The most important fact is that valuation of ecosystem services is not an end in itself, rather it acts as a tool that provides useful information and recommendations for decision-making by demonstrating and analyzing economic benefits and costs, and relating these to real-world conservation and development issues. It also helps to develop mechanisms for raising sustainable finance for managing protected areas and sacred grove/landscapes (De Groot et al. 2002; Mathur & Sachdeva 2003). The application of valuation techniques to calculate WTP for all direct and indirect services also provides information about magnitude of the benefits received by the prime beneficiaries from those services and their role in conservation (Semwal et al. 2007). It also helps in understanding the pattern of different level of beneficiaries in their WTP for conservation, as also observed in our study. In context of WTP for conserving and management of different services, a similar study was conducted by Maharana et al. (2000) on Khecheopalri Lake in Sikkim state of India, which reported WTP for the management of lake to be 0.88US$ by the local community, 2.16US$ by the local pilgrims and 2.51US$ by the domestic tourists (per trip for visitors and annually for the local community). This value is less when compared with the WTP for conservation and management of HSL. Direct dependence of the villages on HSL for a variety of essential services like water for domestic use and irrigation, fuel wood, fodder and higher religious belief in the landscape could be some of the reasons that could be linked to the higher WTP. Besides, the people have local and regional identity due to HSL. Similarly, the average WTP for conservation of a sacred grove in Karnataka (India) was 123.15 US$ per household (Panchamukhi et al. 2007), which is higher as compared to the total WTP for conserving the HSL. The higher income of villagers in Karnataka as compared to the villagers of HSL could be the reason for higher WTP observed in Karnataka.

As far as WTP for direct services (HSL) is concerned, there are other studies conducted on WTP for a particular service/product in different regions, but have used different unit for valuation, and therefore cannot be compared. Nonetheless, these studies signify the importance that the communities attach for future conservation. For example, WTP for extraction of NTFP per permit from a sacred grove at Southwest Sichuan of China was 5.43US$ on an average (Garrett 2007), and total WTP for the preservation of medicinal plants in the selected villages of Karnataka was 0.52US$/ha (Panchamukhi et al. 2007).

On the other hand, WTP for indirect services of HSL (14.4US$/hh/year by core villagers, 11.52US$/hh/year by outsiders) is less than WTP for conservation of Dhaka Zoological Garden, which is 5.76 US$/visitor/day (Shammin 1999), as this site is located in the capital of the country which could have more educated and economically richer community as compared to the remote villages of HSL. Another similar study by Loomis (2000) estimated that WTP for conservation of South Platte River near Denver, Colorado is 252 US$/yr/household. A variety of essential services such as wastewater dilution, water purification, erosion control, habitat provision for fish and wildlife, recreation along with higher income and awareness could be some of the possible reasons for higher WTP, whereas the lower WTP for indirect services of HSL can be linked to lower income and less awareness on indirect ecosystem services among people. People with higher educational background have shown higher WTP for all services in the HSL and through multiple regression analysis it was proved that it was the only factor that shows a significant impact on WTP for different services as compared to any other socio-economic factors (i.e. age and income), as described in the result section.

It is, therefore, suggested that education (both formal and informal) and the dissemination of relevant information related to biological, social and economic potential of the landscape should be made available to the people of this landscape in the local language so that people’s involvement and their WTP for conservation is enhanced. Creating income-generating activities through promoting ecotourism will have a development impact and serve as conservation incentives for the people of Hariyali landscape. However, care has to be taken where people of different adjoining villages are accommodated in new interventions in order to ensure larger people’s participation and promoting social conviviality.

5. Conclusion

The study shows that the HSL is not only important for the core villages of this landscape, but also for other adjoining villages due to a variety of ecosystem services that the landscape provides. This is reflected from their perception ranking on different services wherein nearby villagers ranked highest for the benefits derived from direct services and indirect services, followed by core villages and outsiders, however WTP by the nearby villages for the services was minimum. Such discrepancy between the perception and WTP can be explained by the difference in education and rights related to the rituals and accessibility to resource use. A careful intervention to integrate the adjoining villages in the rights and ritual related to temple and to evolve a more transparent way to manage the funds generated from religious offerings and Government, may lead to higher participation and WTP for conserving the landscape. Such interventions can be achieved jointly by the local people and the concerned local government officials. The government can apply the principles of eco-tourism for generating income based on the cultural and ecological values of the landscape and should also disseminate relevant information related to biological, social and economic potential of the landscape to the local people and tourists.

In addition, time series analysis on WTP for different services may be undertaken after having implemented the suggested interventions. This would enable the implementing agencies to assess the changing behavior of the people with time and development, and further incorporate people’s perceptions to enhance people’s participation in the planning for conserving such sacred landscapes.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the help of Prof. CVRS Vijay Kumar and Prof. Advait Edgaonkar for helping in the statistical analysis. The elaborate comments of the anonymous reviewers in improving the manuscript are acknowledged.

Additional information

Funding

The financial support to conduct this study was provided by Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal, India.

Appendix. Table A1. Result of multiple regression analysis (using dummy variables)^a

Table

	Un-standardized coefficients		Standardized coefficients
	B	Std. error	Beta	t	Sig.
(Constant)	16.931	7.432		2.278	.024
X1: Age (21–40 yrs)	.686	5.962	.015	.115	.909
X2: Age (41–60 yrs)	6.733	5.551	.152	1.213	.227
Age (>60 yrs)*	0.0*
X3: Income (0–2220 US$)	−3.117	6.154	−.066	−.506	.613
X4: Income (2221–4440 US$)	3.251	6.957	.059	.467	.641
Income (>440 US$)*	0.0*
X5: Education (up to school level)	−11.546	4.730	−.232	−2.441	.016
Education (above school level)*	0.0*

Note: ^aDependent variable: WTP for temple development (US$).

Adjusted R square - .050.

F – stat - 2.472.

Total observations – 140.

*Reference category of age, income and education.

Table A2: Result of multiple regression analysis (using dummy variables)^a

Table

	Unstandardized coefficients		Standardized coefficients
	B	Std. error	Beta	t	Sig.
(Constant)	12.424	5.017		2.476	.015
X1: Age (21–40 yrs)	−.158	4.025	−.005	−.039	.969
X2: Age (41–60 yrs)	2.711	3.747	.091	.723	.471
Age (>60 yrs)*	0.0*
X3: Income (0–2220 US$)	−.499	4.155	−.016	−.120	.905
X4: Income (2221–4440 US$)	3.312	4.696	.089	.705	.482
Income (>440 US$)*	0.0*
X5: Education (up to school level)	−9.467	3.193	−.281	−2.965	.004
Education (above school level)*	0.0*

Note: ^aDependent variable: WTP for direct services (US$).

Adjusted R square - .054.

F – stat - 2.601.

Total observations – 140.

*Reference category of age, income and education.

Table A3: Result of multiple regression analysis (using dummy variables)^a

Table

	Unstandardized coefficients		Standardized coefficients
	B	Std. error	Beta	t	Sig.
(Constant)	8.620	5.636		1.530	.128
X1: Age (21–40 yrs)	2.696	4.520	.078	.596	.552
X2: Age (41–60 yrs)	4.636	4.209	.140	1.101	.273
Age (> 60 yrs)*	0.0*
X3: Income (0–2220 US$)	.555	4.666	.016	.119	.905
X4: Income (2221–4440 US$)	3.229	5.275	.078	.612	.541
Income (> 440 US$)*	0.0*
X5: Education (up to school level)	−8.014	3.586	−.216	−2.235	.027
Education (above school level)*	0.0*

Note: ^aDependent variable: WTP for indirect services (US$).

Adjusted R square – 0.022.

F – stat – 1.626.

Total observations – 140.

*Reference category of age, income and education.