Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Assessment of watershed management ecosystem services in India: a meta-analysis


Affiliations
1 ICAR-National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, New Delhi 110 012, India, India
 

Besides increasing agricultural productivity, well-develo­ped watersheds have immense potential to minimize land degradation, mitigating the adverse impact of climate change and generating several other ecosystem services (ES). Quantifying these services is quintessential in ope­rationalizing the concept of management and decision-making relating to watershed management. The present study estimates the value of regulating (soil conservation and carbon sequestration) and supporting ES (groundwater recharge) generated by watersheds in India, and examines the factors that influence the flow of ES from watersheds. The study followed a meta-analysis approach using information from 221 watersheds in 5 major agro-climatic zones of the country. We found that the watershed generates ES to the tune of Rs 34,113 per ha, with water recharging alone accounting for 60% of it. It shows that people’s participation in the planning, implementation and management of watersheds significantly enhan­ces ES. Macro-watersheds (³ 1000 ha) are more effective in generating ES, underscoring the need for investment in watersheds management in the semi-arid tropical regions, where problems of degradation of natural resour­ces are more pronounced. This study suggests policies for land restoration and payment for ES to increase their flow

Keywords

Carbon sequestration, ecosystem services, groundwater management, meta-analysis, participatory watershed, soil conservation.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Wang, G., Mang, S., Cai, H., Liu, S., Zhang, Z., Wang, L. and Innes, J. L., Integrated watershed management: evolution, develop-ment and emerging trends. J. For. Res., 2016, 27, 967–994.

  • Joshi, P. K., Jha, A. K., Wani, S. P., Sreedevi, T. K. and Shaheen, F. A., Impact of watershed program and conditions for success: a meta-analysis approach. In Global theme on agroecosystems (Report no. 46), International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAI), Hyderabad, and National Centre for Agricultural Eco-nomics and Policy Research, New Delhi, 2008.

  • Wani, S. P., Anantha, K. H., Sreedevi, T, K., Sudi, R., Singh, S. N. and D’Souza, M., Assessing the environmental benefits of watershed development: evidence from the Indian semi-arid tropics. J. Sustain. Watershed Sci. Manage., 2011, 1(1), 10–20.

  • IPBES, Preliminary guide regarding diverse conceptualization of multiple values of nature and its benefits, including biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services. Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany, 2015.

  • Tezer, A. et al., Ecosystem services-based multi-criteria assessment for ecologically sensitive watershed management. Environ. Dev. Sustain., 2018, 22, 2431–2450.

  • NAAS, Mitigating land degradation due to water erosion. Policy Paper 88, National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, New Delhi, 2017.

  • De Groot, Alkemade, R. S., Braat, L. H. and Willemen, L., Chal-lenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management, and decision making. Ecol.Complex, 2010, 7(3), 260–272.

  • Joshi, P. K., Jha, A. K., Wani, S. P., Joshi, L. and Shiyani, R. L., Meta-analysis to assess the impact of watershed program and peo-ple’s participation. In Comprehensive assessment of Watershed Management in Agriculture (Research Report No. 8), ICRISA and Asian Development Bank, Hyderabad, 2005.

  • Ram Babu and Dhyani, B. L., Impact assessment of watershed technology in India (Chapter 15). In Impact of Agriculture: Post-Green Revolution Evidence from India, ICAR-National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, New Delhi, India, 2005, pp. 175–186.

  • Palsaniya, D. R., Singh, R., Tewari, R. K., Yadav, R. S. and Dhyani, S. K., Integrated watershed management for natural resource con-servation and livelihood security in semi-arid tropics of India. Indian J. Agric. Sci., 2012, 82(3), 241–247.

  • Mondal, B. et al., Augmentation of water resources potential and cropping intensification through watershed programs. Water Environ.Res., 2018, 90(2), 101–109.

  • Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G. and Grp, P., Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (reprinted from Annals of Internal Medicine). Phys. Ther., 2009, 89(9), 873–880.

  • Jonsson, J. O. and Daviosdottir, B., Classification and valuation of soil ecosystem services. Agric. Syst., 2016, 145, 24–38.

  • Hanson, C., Yonavjak, L., Clark, C., Minnemeyer, S., Leach, A. and Boisrobert, L., Southern Forests for the Future, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, 2010.

  • Ricke, K., Drouet, L., Caldeira, K. and Tavoni, M., Country-level social cost of carbon. Nature Climate Chang., 2018, 8, 895–900.

  • Ecosystem accounts for India – report of the NCAVES project. Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India, 2021, p. 76.

  • Mekuria, W., Veldkamp, E., Tilahun, M. and Olschewski, R., Eco-nomic valuation of land restoration: the case of exclosures establi-shed on communal grazing lands in Tigray, Ethiopia. Land Degrad. Dev., 2011, 22, 334–344.

  • MoA&FW, Plot level summary data under the cost of cultivation scheme. Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agri-culture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India, 2018.

  • CGWB, National compilation on dynamic groundwater resources of India. Central Groundwater Development Board, Ministry of Jal Shakti, GoI, 2019.

  • Ziadat, F. M. and Taimeh, A. Y., Effect of rainfall intensity, slope, land use and antecedent soil moisture on soil erosion in an arid en-vironment. Land Degrad. Dev., 2013, 24, 582–590.

  • Nolan, B. T., Healy, R. W., Taber, P. E., Perkins, K., Hit, K. J. and Wolock, D. M., Factors influencing groundwater recharge in the eastern United States. J. Hydrol., 2007, 332(1–2), 187–205.

  • Zhang, X., Hu, M. G., Yang, H., Zhang, Z. and Zhang, K., Effects of topographic factors on runoff and soil loss in Southwest China. Catena, 2018, 160, 394–402.

  • Floress, K., Akamani, K., Halvorsen, K. E., Kozich, A. T. and Daven-port, M., The role of social science in successfully implementing watershed management strategies. Contemp. Water Res. Educ., 2015, 154, 85–105.

  • Selvarani, G., Maheswaran, G. and Elangovan, K., Identification of artificial recharge sites for Noyyal River Basin using GIS and re-mote sensing. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sensing, 2017, 45, 67–77.

  • Wani, S. P., Sreedevi, T. K., Vamsidhar, T. S., Reddy, T. V. S., Venka-teshvarlu, B. and Prasad, C. S., Community watersheds for improved livelihoods through consortium approach in drought-prone rainfed areas. J. Hydrol. Res. Dev., 2008, 23, 55–77.

  • Dynamic Groundwater Resources of India, Central Ground Water Board, Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, GoI, 2014.

  • Das, B., Pal, S. C., Malik, S. and Chakrabortty, R., Modeling ground-water potential zones of Puruliya district, West Bengal, India using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Geol. Ecol. Landsc., 2018, 3(3), 223–237.

  • Nagaraja, N., Pradhania, U., Chengappab, P. G., Basavaraja, G. and Kanwar, R., Cost effectiveness of rainwater harvesting for ground-water recharge in micro-watersheds of Kolar District of India: the case study of Thotli micro-watershed. Agric. Econ. Res. Rev., 2011, 24, 217–223.

  • Burnett, K. and Wada, C. A., Optimal groundwater management when recharge is declining: a method for valuing the recharge benefitsof watershed conservation. Environ. Econ. Policy Stud., 2014, 16, 263–278.

  • Farrington, Turton, J. C. and James, A. J. (eds), Participatory Water-shed Development Challenges for the Twenty–First Century, Oxford University Press, New Delhi and New York, 1999.

  • Reddy, V. R., Saharawat, Y. S. and George, B., Watershed manage-ment in South Asia: a synoptic review. J. Hydrol., 2017, 551, 4–13.

  • GoI, Common guidelines for watershed development projects – 2008, National Rainfed Area Authority, Planning Commission, Govern-ment of India, 2011.

  • Salzman, J., Bennett, G., Carroll, N., Goldstein, A. and Jenkins, M., The global status and trends of payments for ecosystem services. Nature Sustain., 2018, 1, 136–144.

  • Pirard, R., Market-based instruments for biodiversity and ecosystemservices: a lexicon. Environ. Sci. Policy, 2012, 19–20, 59–68.

  • Wunder, S., Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ., 2015, 117, 234–243.

  • Kinzig, A. P., Perrings, C., Chapin, F. S., Polasky, S., Smith, V. K., Tilman, D. and Turner, B. L., Paying for ecosystem services–pro-mise and peril. Science, 2011, 334, 603–604.

  • Nayak, A. K. et al., Assessment of ecosystem services of rice farms in eastern India. Ecol. Process., 2019, 8, 35.

  • Gulati, A. and Rai, S. C., Cost estimation of soil erosion and nutrient loss from a watershed of the Chotanagpur Plateau, India. Curr.Sci., 2014, 107(4), 670–674.

  • Sharda, V. N., Mandal, D. and Dogra, P., Assessment of cost of soil erosion and energy-saving value of soil conservation measures in India. Indian J. Soil Conserv., 2019, 47(1), 1–6.

  • Wilson, M. A. and Carpenter, S. R., Economic valuation of freshwater services in the United States: 1971–1997. Ecol. Appl., 1999, 9(3), 772–783.


Abstract Views: 232

PDF Views: 120




  • Assessment of watershed management ecosystem services in India: a meta-analysis

Abstract Views: 232  |  PDF Views: 120

Authors

Dinesh Chand Meena
ICAR-National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, New Delhi 110 012, India, India
Suresh Pal
ICAR-National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, New Delhi 110 012, India, India
Prem Chand
ICAR-National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, New Delhi 110 012, India, India

Abstract


Besides increasing agricultural productivity, well-develo­ped watersheds have immense potential to minimize land degradation, mitigating the adverse impact of climate change and generating several other ecosystem services (ES). Quantifying these services is quintessential in ope­rationalizing the concept of management and decision-making relating to watershed management. The present study estimates the value of regulating (soil conservation and carbon sequestration) and supporting ES (groundwater recharge) generated by watersheds in India, and examines the factors that influence the flow of ES from watersheds. The study followed a meta-analysis approach using information from 221 watersheds in 5 major agro-climatic zones of the country. We found that the watershed generates ES to the tune of Rs 34,113 per ha, with water recharging alone accounting for 60% of it. It shows that people’s participation in the planning, implementation and management of watersheds significantly enhan­ces ES. Macro-watersheds (³ 1000 ha) are more effective in generating ES, underscoring the need for investment in watersheds management in the semi-arid tropical regions, where problems of degradation of natural resour­ces are more pronounced. This study suggests policies for land restoration and payment for ES to increase their flow

Keywords


Carbon sequestration, ecosystem services, groundwater management, meta-analysis, participatory watershed, soil conservation.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv123%2Fi11%2F1352-1358