Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Understanding Cultural Ecosystem Services of Multifunctional Agroforestry: A Study from the Foothills of The Nilgiris, Western Ghats, India


Affiliations
1 ICAR-Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Regional Research Station, Pali Marwar 306 401, India
2 Forest College and Research Institute, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Mettupalayam 641 301, India
3 Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore 641 003, India
 

Numerous studies have underlined the benefits of cultural services from different landscapes and acknowledge the non-material benefits linking society and nature. However, cultural services from agroforestry have not been reported. Therefore, the present study was conducted in multifunctional agroforestry (MFA) comprised of 24 tree species and 8 intercrops established at the Forest College and Research Institute, Mettupalayam, Tamil Nadu, India. Four workshops were conducted and a total of 105 respondents were asked to fill two sets of questionnaires regarding their perception of cultural ecosystem services in MFA. Among the selected components, education and scientific knowledge (0.90) ranked first, followed by relaxation (0.86) and walking (0.84). Results from principal component analysis revealed that three components, viz. relaxation, education and scientific knowledge, and inspiration accounted for 56.60% of the variance. Respondents’ willingness to pay was Rs 33/visit on an average and multiple regression analysis indicated that the MFA model was a good fit (R2 = 0.79) for agroforestry tourism. The results indicate that MFA provides scope for agro­forestry tourism, which will be an additional source of income for small and marginal-scale farmers.

Keywords

Aesthetic and Recreation, Agroforestry Tourism, Cultural Ecosystem Services, Multifunctional Agroforestry, Willingness to Pay.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Reid, W. V. et al., Ecosystems and human well-being-Synthesis: A report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Island Press, 2005, ISBN 9781597260404-137.

  • Kuenkel, P., Stewarding Sustainability Transformations: An Emerging Theory and Practice of SDG Implementation, Springer, Cham, 2019, p. 321, ISBN 978-3-030-03691-1.

  • Guo, Z., Zhang, L. and Li, Y., Increased dependence of humans on ecosystem services and biodiversity. PLoS ONE, 2010, 5(10), 1–8.

  • Van Noordwijk, M., Sustainable development through trees on farms: agroforestry in its fifth decade, World Agroforestry Centre (International Council for Research in Agroforestry), Bogor, Indonesia, 2019.

  • World Bank, Sustaining Forests: A Development Strategy, The World Bank, Washington, DC, 2004, ISBN 0-8213-5755-7.

  • Zomer, R. et al., Global tree cover and biomass carbon on agricultural land: the contribution of agroforestry to global and national carbon budgets. Sci. Rep., 2016, 6, 29987.

  • Dhyani, S. K., National Agroforestry Policy and the need for area estimation under agroforestry. Curr. Sci., 2014, 107, 9–10.

  • Chavan, S. B., Keerthika, A., Dhyani, S. K., Handa, A. K., Newaj, R. and Rajarajan, K., National Agroforestry Policy in India: a low hanging fruit. Curr. Sci., 2015, 108(10), 1826–1834.

  • Parthiban, K. T., Srivastava, D. and Keerthika, A., Design and development of multifunctional agroforestry for family farming. Curr. Sci., 2021, 120(1), 27–28.

  • Rosenstock, T. S. et al., A planetary health perspective on agroforestry in Sub-Saharan Africa. One Earth, 2019, 1(3), 330–344.

  • Torralba, M., Fagerholm, N., Burgess, P. J., Moreno, G. and Plieninger, T., Do European agroforestry systems enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services? A meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 2016, 230, 150–161.

  • Lescourret, F. et al., A social–ecological approach to managing multiple agro-ecosystem services. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sust., 2015, 14, 68–75.

  • Plieninger, T. and Huntsinger, L., Complex rangeland systems: integrated social-ecological approaches to silvopastoralism. Rangeland Ecol. Manage., 2018, 71(5), 519–525.

  • Boerema, A., Rebelo, A. J., Esler, K., Patrick, M. and Bodi, M. B., Are ecosystem services adequately quantified? J. Appl. Ecol., 2017, 54, 358–370.

  • Daniel, T. C. et al., Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 2012, 109, 8812–8819.

  • Dickinson, D. and Hobbs, R., Cultural ecosystem services: characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research. Ecosyst. Ser., 2017, 25, 179–194.

  • Gould, R. K., Coleman, K. and Gluck, S. B., Exploring dynamism of cultural ecosystems services through a review of environmental education research. Ambio, 2018, 47(8), 869–883.

  • Likert, R., A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol., 1932, 22(140), 1–55.

  • Tam, V. W. Y. and Le, K. N., Environmental assessment by power spectrum. Sustainable development through culture and innovation: executive summaries. The Joint International Conference on Construction Culture, Innovation and Management, Dubai, 26–29 November 2006.

  • Plieninger, T., Dijks, S., Oteros-Rozas, E. and Bieling, C., Assessing, mapping and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy, 2013, 33, 118–129.

  • Van Berkel, D. B. and Verburg, P. H., Spatial quantification and valuation of cultural ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape. Ecol. Indic., 2014, 37, 163–174.

  • Zoderer, B. M., Tasser, E., Erb, K. H., Stanghellini, P. S. L. and Tappeiner, U., Identifying and mapping the tourists perception of cultural ecosystem services: a case study from an Alpine region. Land Use Policy, 2016, 56, 251–261.

  • Balazsi, A., Riechers, M., Hartel, T., Fischer, J. and Leventon, J., The impacts of social–ecological system change on human–nature connectedness: a case study from Transylvania, Romania. Land Use Policy, 2019, 89, 104–232.

  • Riechers, M., Balázsi, Á., Abson, D. J. and Fischer, J., The influence of landscape change on multiple dimensions of human–nature connectedness. Ecol. Soc., 2020, 25(3), 3.

  • Fagerholm, N., Oteros-Rozas, E., Raymond, C. M., Torralba, M., Moreno, G. and Plieninger, T., Assessing linkages between ecosystem services, land-use and well-being in an agroforestry landscape using public participation GIS. Appl. Geogr., 2016, 74, 30–46.

  • Varga, A., Odor, P., Molnar, Z. and Boloni, J., The history and natural regeneration of a secondary oak–beech woodland on a former wood-pasture in Hungary. Acta Soc. Bot. Pol., 2015, 84(2), 215–225.

  • Varga, A. and Molnar, Z., The role of traditional ecological knowledge in managing wood-pastures. In European Wood-Pastures in Transition (eds Hartel, T. and Plininger, T.), Routledge, London, UK, 2014, pp. 187–202.

  • Molnar, Z. et al., Common and conflicting objectives and practices of herders and nature conservation managers: the need for the ‘conservation herder’. Ecosyst. Health Sustain, 2016, 2(4), 01215.

  • Kaszyńska, P., Cent, J., Jurczak, M. G. and Szymańska, M., Factors influencing perception of protected areas –the case of Natura 2000 in Polish Carpathian communities. J. Nat. Conserv., 2012, 20, 284–292.

  • Engel, S., Pagiola, S. and Wunder, S., Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecol. Econ., 2008, 65(4), 663–674.

  • Platania, M. and Rizzo, M., Willingness to pay for protected areas: a case of Etna Park. Ecol. Indic., 2018, 93, 201–206.

  • Nie, X., Chen, Q., Xiao, T. and Wang, H., Willingness to pay for ecological function regions protection based on a choice experiment method: a case study of the Shiwandashan Nature Reserve. Qual. Quant., 2019, 53(2), 813–829.

  • Kaffashi, S., Yacob, M. R., Clark, M. S., Radam, A. and Mamat, M. F., Exploring visitors WTP to generate revenues for managing the National Elephant Conservation Center in Malaysia. For. Policy Econ., 2015, 56, 9–19.

  • Lal, P. et al., Valuing visitor services and access to protected areas: the case of Nyungwe National Park in Rwanda. Tourism Manag., 2017, 61, 141–151.

  • Brown, G. and Fagerholm, N., Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: a review and evaluation. Ecosyst. Serv., 2015, 13, 119–133.


Abstract Views: 334

PDF Views: 133




  • Understanding Cultural Ecosystem Services of Multifunctional Agroforestry: A Study from the Foothills of The Nilgiris, Western Ghats, India

Abstract Views: 334  |  PDF Views: 133

Authors

A. Keerthika
ICAR-Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Regional Research Station, Pali Marwar 306 401, India
K. T. Parthiban
Forest College and Research Institute, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Mettupalayam 641 301, India
D. Suresh Kumar
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore 641 003, India

Abstract


Numerous studies have underlined the benefits of cultural services from different landscapes and acknowledge the non-material benefits linking society and nature. However, cultural services from agroforestry have not been reported. Therefore, the present study was conducted in multifunctional agroforestry (MFA) comprised of 24 tree species and 8 intercrops established at the Forest College and Research Institute, Mettupalayam, Tamil Nadu, India. Four workshops were conducted and a total of 105 respondents were asked to fill two sets of questionnaires regarding their perception of cultural ecosystem services in MFA. Among the selected components, education and scientific knowledge (0.90) ranked first, followed by relaxation (0.86) and walking (0.84). Results from principal component analysis revealed that three components, viz. relaxation, education and scientific knowledge, and inspiration accounted for 56.60% of the variance. Respondents’ willingness to pay was Rs 33/visit on an average and multiple regression analysis indicated that the MFA model was a good fit (R2 = 0.79) for agroforestry tourism. The results indicate that MFA provides scope for agro­forestry tourism, which will be an additional source of income for small and marginal-scale farmers.

Keywords


Aesthetic and Recreation, Agroforestry Tourism, Cultural Ecosystem Services, Multifunctional Agroforestry, Willingness to Pay.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv121%2Fi12%2F1610-1618