Appraisal of Forest Ecosystems Goods and Services ...wgbis.ces.iisc.ernet.in/biodiversity/pubs/ETR/ETR125/Annexure_8_FOREST... · Appraisal of Forest Ecosystems Goods and Services:

Appraisal of Forest Ecosystems Goods and Services:Challenges and Opportunities for Conservation

T. V. Ramachandra1,2,3, Divya Soman, Ashwath D. Naik1 and M. D. Subash Chandran1

1Energy & Wetlands Research Group, Centre for Ecological Sciences (CES)2Centre for Sustainable Technologies (ASTRA)

3Centre for infrastructure, Sustainable Transportation and Urban Planning (CiSTUP)Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560 012, Karnataka, India

Telephone: 91-80-23600985, 22932506, 22933099, Fax: 91-80-23601428, 23600085,23600683[CES-TVR], E-mail: <[email protected]>,<[email protected]>

KEYWORDS Economic Valuation. Provisioning Services. Regulating Services. Tropical Forests

ABSTRACT Valuation of ecosystem goods and services is essential to formulate sustainable development policiesoriented towards the protection or restoration of ecosystems. The present study estimates the value of forestecosystem of Uttara Kannada district by market price method. The total value of provisioning goods and servicesfrom the forests of Uttara Kannada district was estimated at Rs. 15,171 crores per year, which amounts to aboutRs. 2 lakh per hectare per year. The study highlights the undervaluation of forest goods and services that is evidentwhen the estimated total economic value of forest and the value of forest resources calculated in national incomeaccounting framework are compared. The quantification of all benefits associated with the forest ecosystem goodsand services would help in arriving at an appropriate policy and managerial decisions to ensure conservation whileopting sustainable development path.

INTRODUCTION

An ecosystem is a complex of interconnect-ed living organisms inhabiting a particular areaor unit space, together with their environmentand all their interrelationships and relationshipswith the environment having well-maintainedecological processes and interactions (Ram-achandra et al. 2007, 2015). Ecosystem functionsinclude the exchange of energy between theplants and animals that are needed for the suste-nance of life. These functions include nutrientcycling, oxygen regulation, water supply etc. Theflow of goods or services which occur naturallyby ecological interactions between biotic andabiotic components in an ecosystem is often re-ferred as ecosystem goods and services. Thesegoods and services not only provide tangibleand intangible benefits to human community, butalso are critical to the functioning of ecosystem.Thus, ecosystem goods and services are theprocess through which natural ecosystems andthe species that make up sustain and fulfill thehuman needs (Newcome et al. 2005). Ecosystemsare thus natural capital assets supporting andsupplying services highly valuable to humanlivelihoods and providing various goods and

services (MEA 2003; Daily and Matson 2008;Gunderson et al. 2016). The tropical forests arethe rich source of biodiversity and are probablythought of containing more than half of world’sbiodiversity. Biodiversity is important to humankind in fulfilling its needs by way of providingfood (80,000 species), medicine (20,000 species),drug formulations (8,000 species) and raw mate-rials (90% from forests) for industries (Ram-achandra et al. 2016a, b; Ramachandra and Na-garathna 2001: Ramachandra and Ganapathy2007). Among the terrestrial biomes, forests oc-cupy about 31 percent (4,033 million hectare) ofthe world’s total land area and of which 93 per-cent of the world’s forest cover is natural forestand 7 percent is planted (FAO 2010; TEEB 2010;Villegas-Palacio et al. 2016). Forest ecosystemsaccount for over two-thirds of net primary pro-duction on land – the conversion of solar ener-gy into biomass through photosynthesis, mak-ing them a key component of the global carboncycle and climate (MEA 2003). The forests ofthe world harbor very large and complex biolog-ical species diversity, which is an indicator forbiological diversity and the species richnessincreases as we move from the poles to the equa-torial region. Forest ecosystem services can pro-

J Biodiversity, 8(1): 12-33 (2017) 10.1080/09766901.2017.1346160DOI:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of S

cien

ce],

[T

. V. R

amac

hand

ra]

at 0

7:01

26

Sept

embe

r 20

17

270

GOODS AND SERVICES OF FOREST ECOSYSTEMS 13

vide both direct and indirect economic benefits.India’s forest has been classified into four majorgroups, namely, tropical, sub-tropical, temper-ate, and alpine (Champion and Seth 1968). Trop-ical forest in particular contributes more thanthe other terrestrial biomes to climate relevantcycles and biodiversity related processes. Theseforests constitute the earth’s major genetic res-ervoir and global water cycles (Anderson andBojo 1992; Gunderson et al. 2016).

The ecosystem provides various fundamen-tal benefits for our survival such as food; soilproduction, erosion and control; climate regula-tion; water purification; bioenergy, etc. Thesebenefits and services are very crucial for thesurvival of humans and other organisms on theearth (MEA 2003; de Groot et al. 2002; Villegas-Palacio et al. 2016). It includes provisioning ser-vices such as food and water, regulating servic-es such as flood and disease control, culturalservices such as spiritual, recreational and cul-tural benefits, and supporting services such asnutrient cycling that maintains the conditionsfor life on earth. Sustainable ecosystem servicedelivery depends on the health, integrity andresilience of the ecosystem. Policy-makers, in-terest groups and the public require reliable in-formation on the environmental, social and eco-nomic value of regulating services to make in-formed decisions on optimum use and on theconservation of ecosystems (Kumar et al. 2010).The prime reason for ecosystem mismanagementis the failure to realise the value of ecosystem.Valuation of ecosystem is essential to respitehuman activities apart from accounting their ser-vices in the regional planning (Ramachandra etal. 2011). The range of benefits derived from ec-osystem can be direct or indirect, tangible orintangible, can be provided locally or at globalscale – all of which makes measurement particu-larly hard (TEEB 2010). Economic valuation ofnatural resources aids the social planners todesign and better manage the ecosystems andrelated human wellbeing. Figure 1 shows the in-terrelationship of ecosystem, ecosystem func-tions, economic values and its impact on eco-system through incentive/disincentive.

Valuation of ecosystems enhances the abili-ty of decision-makers to evaluate trade-offs be-tween alternative ecosystem management re-gimes and courses of social action that alter theuse of ecosystems and the multiple services theyprovide (MEA 2003; Villegas-Palacio et al. 2016).

Valuation reveal the relative importance of dif-ferent ecosystem services, especially those nottraded in conventional markets (TEEB 2010).Theecosystem goods and services are grouped intofour categories as provisioning, regulating, sup-porting and information services (MEA 2003; deGroot et al. 2002), based on the Total EconomicValue (TEV) framework with significant empha-sis on intrinsic aspects of ecosystem value, par-ticularly in relation to socio-cultural values (MEA2003). TEEB (2010) excludes the supporting ser-vices (such as nutrient cycling and food-chaindynamic) and incorporates habitat service as aseparate category.

Integrated framework for assessing the eco-system goods and services (TEEB 2010; de Grootet al. 2002; Villegas-Palacio et al. 2016) involvesthe translation of complex structures and pro-cesses into a limited number of ecosystem func-tions namely production, regulation, habitat andinformation. These goods and services are val-ued by humans and grouped as ecological, so-cio-cultural and economic values. All values areestimated using the common metric, which helpsin aggregating values of different goods andservices (DEFRA 2007). When the market doesnot capture the value of environmental goodsor services, techniques associated with ‘shad-ow pricing’ or ‘proxy price’ are used to indirectlyestimate its value. Estimation of the economicvalues for 17 different ecosystem services (Cos-tanza et al.1997; Villegas-Palacio et al. 2016) high-light that the annual value of the ecosystem ser-vices of the terrestrial and aquatic biomes of theworld to be 1.8 times higher than the global gross

Fig. 1. Ecosystems health and economic valuesSource: Author

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of S

cien

ce],

[T

. V. R

amac

hand

ra]

at 0

7:01

26

Sept

embe

r 20

17

271

14 T. V. RAMACHANDRA, DIVYA SOMAN, ASHWATH D. NAIK ET AL.

national product (GNP). About 63 percent of theestimated values of ecosystem services werefound to be contributed by the marine ecosys-tems while, about 38 percent of the estimatedvalues were found to be contributed by the ter-restrial ecosystems, mainly from the forests andwetlands.

Forests, particularly tropical forests, contrib-ute more than other terrestrial biomes to climaterelevant cycles and processes and also to biodi-versity related processes (Nasi et al. 2002). For-est ecosystem services with great economic val-ue (Ramachandra et al. 2011, 2016b; Costanza etal. 1997; Pearce et al. 2002), are known to becritically important habitats in terms of the bio-logical diversity and ecological functions. Theseecosystems serve as a central component ofEarth’s biogeochemical systems and are a sourceof ecosystem services essential for human well-being (Gonzalez et al. 2005; Villegas-Palacio etal. 2016). These ecosystem provides a large num-ber of valuable products such as timber, fire-wood, non-timber forest product, biodiversity,genetic resources, medicinal plants, etc. The for-est trees are felled on a large scale for using theirwood as timber and firewood. According to FAO(2010) wood removals valued just over US$100billion annually in the period 2003–2007, mainlyaccounted by industrial round wood. Further,11 percent of world energy consumption comesfrom biomass, mainly fuel wood (CBD 2001). 19percent of China’s primary energy consumptioncomes from biomass and 42 percent in India.Non-commercial sources of energy (such as firewood, agricultural and horticultural residues, andanimal residues) contribute about 54 percent ofthe total energy in Karnataka (Ramachandra etal. 2000).

Timber and carbon wealth assessment in theforests of India (Atkinson and Gundimeda 2006)show the opening stock of forest resources as4,740,858,000 cubic meters and about 639,600 sq.km of forest area. Biomass density/ha in Indianforests is about 92 t/ha and carbon values ofIndian forests is 2933.8 million tones assessedconsidering a carbon content of 0.5 Mg C perMg oven dry biomass (Haripriya 2002). The clos-ing stock of the timber is 4704 million cum andthe estimate of value is Rs. 9454 billion, the stockof the carbon is 2872 million tons with a valueestimate of Rs.1811 billion. Apart from servingas a storehouse of wood which is used for vari-ous purposes, there are also equally important

non-wood products that are obtained from theforests. The botanical and other natural prod-ucts, other than timber extracted from the forestsystem are referred to as non-timber forest prod-ucts (NTFPs). These resources/products havebeen extracted from the forest ecosystems andare being utilized within the household or mar-keted or have social, cultural or religious signif-icance (Falconer and Koppell 1990; Schaafsmaet al. 2014; Pittini 2011). NTFP is a significantcomponent due to its important bearing on rurallivelihoods and subsistence. NTFPs are also re-ferred ‘minor forest produce’ as most of NTFPare consumed by local populations, and are notmarketed (Arnold and Pérez 2001). These includeplants and plant materials used for food, fueland fodder, medicine, cottage and wrappingmaterials, biochemical, animals, birds, reptilesand fishes, for food and feather. Unlike timber-based products, these products come from vari-ety of sources like: fruits and vegetables to eat,leaves and twigs for decoration, flowers for var-ious purposes, herbal medicines from differentplant parts, wood carvings and decorations, etc.The values of NTFPs are of critical importanceas a source of income and employment for ruralpeople living around the forest regions, espe-cially during lean seasons of agricultural crops.NTFPs provide 40-63 percent of the total annualincome of the people residing in rural areas ofMadhya Pradesh (Tewari and Campbell 1996)and accounted 20-35 percent of the householdincomes in West Bengal. The net present value(NPV) of the forest for sustainable fruit and latexproduction is estimated at US$6,330/ha consider-ing the net revenue from a single year’s harvestof fruit and latex production as US$422/ha in Mis-hana, Rio Nanay, Peru (Peters et al. 1989) on theassumption of availability in perpetuity, constantreal prices and a discount rate of 5 percent.

Evaluation of the direct use benefits to ruralcommunities’ from harvesting NTFPs and usingforest areas for agriculture and residential space,near the Mantadia National Park, in Madagas-car (Kramer et al. 1995) through contingencyvaluation (CV) show an aggregate net presentvalue for the affected population (about 3,400people) of US$673,000 with an annual mean val-ue per household of USD 108.

Estimation of the quantity of the NTFPs col-lected by the locals and forest department basedon a questionnaire based survey in 21 villagesof four different forest zones in Uttara Kannada

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of S

cien

ce],

[T

. V. R

amac

hand

ra]

at 0

7:01

26

Sept

embe

r 20

17

272


district (Murthy et al. 2005), indicate the collec-tion of 59 different plant species in the ever-green forests, 40 different plant species in thesemi-evergreen forests, 12 different plant spe-cies in moist deciduous and 15 different plantspecies in dry deciduous forests and about 42–80 NTFP species of medicinal importance aremarketed in herbal shops. Valuation reveal anannual income per household depending on thegoods availability ranges from Rs. 3,445 (ever-green forests), 3,080 (moist deciduous), 1,438(semi-evergreen) to Rs. 1,233 (dry deciduous).

Assessment of the marketing potential ofdifferent value added products from Artocar-pus sp. in Uttara Kannada district based on fieldsurveys and the discussions with the local peo-ple and industries (Ramana and Patil 2008), re-vealed that Artocarpus integrifolia collectedfrom nearby forest area and home gardens ismost extensively used for preparing items likechips, papad, sweets, etc. Chips and papads arecommercially produced and sold in the markets,and primary collectors get 25 percent and theprocessing industry get 50 percent of the totalamount paid by the consumers.

Forest ecosystems also provide other indi-rect benefits like ground water recharge, soil re-tention, gas regulation, waste treatment, polli-nation, refugium function, nursery function etc.in addition to the direct benefits (de Groot et al.2002). Forest vegetation aids in the percolationand recharging of groundwater sources whileallowing moderate run off. Gas regulation func-tions include general maintenance of habitsthrough the maintenance of clean air, preven-tion of diseases (for example, skin cancer), etc.

Forests act as carbon sinks by taking car-bon during photosynthesis and synthesis of or-ganic compounds, which aids in maintainingCO2/O 2 balance, ozone layer and also sulphurdioxide balance. Carbon sequestration potentialof 131t of carbon per hectare with the aboveground biomass of 349 ton/ha has been estimat-ed in the relic forest of Uttara Kannada (Chan-dran et al. 2010) and 11.8 metric ton (1995) inforests in India (Lal and Singh 2000) with thecarbon uptake potential of 55.48 Mt (2020) and73.48 Mt (2045) respectively (projected the totalcarbon uptake for the year 2020 and 2045). Thecarbon sequestration potential was found to be4.1 and 9.8 Gt by 2020 and 2045 respectively.

Vegetative structure of forests through itsstorage capacity and surface resistance plays avital role in the disturbance regulation by alter-ing potentially catastrophic effects of storms,floods and droughts. Soil retention occurs bythe presence of the vegetation cover whichholds the soil and prevents the loss of top soil.Pollination is an important ecological serviceprovided by the forest ecosystem and the stud-ies have revealed that forest dwelling pollina-tors (such as bees) make significant contribu-tion to the agricultural production of a broadrange of crops, in particular fruits, vegetables,fiber crops and nuts (Costanza et al. 1997).

Forest also helps in aesthetic benefit, recre-ational benefit, science and education, spiritualbenefits, etc. The scenic beauty of forests pro-vides aesthetic and recreational benefits throughpsychological relief to the visitors. An investi-gation of cultural services of the forest of Utt-aranchal (Djafar 2006) considering six servicesnamely aesthetic, recreational, cultural heritageand identity, inspirational, spiritual and religiousand educational function, highlight the recre-ational value of forests US$ 0.82/ha/yr for vil-lager’s per visit. Aesthetic value derived by thepreference of the villagers was estimated as US$7-1760 /ha/yr, derived by the preference of thevillagers to live in the sites where there is goodscenery. Cultural heritage and identity value wasestimated as USD 1-25/ha/yr based on 24 plac-es, 43 plant species and 16 animal species. Spir-itual and religious areas was about USD 1-25/ha/yr. Educational value was obtained from theresearch activity and value was similar to spiri-tual and religious values.

Ecotourism benefit of the domestic visitorusing the travel cost method in the Periyar tigerreserve in Kerala is Rs. 161.3 per visitor (Mano-haran 1996), with average consumer surplus atRs. 9.89 per domestic visitor and Rs. 140 for for-eign tourists. The value of eco-tourism (as per2005) is extrapolated as Rs. 84.5 million. The rec-reational value assessment of Vazhachal andAthirappily of Kerala (Anitha and Muraleedha-ran 2006) reveal that visitor flow on an averageis 2.3 lakh (at Vazhachal) and 5.3 lakh (Athirappi-ly) visitors/year and the average fee collectionranges from Rs. 10 (Vazhachal) to Rs.23.5(Athirappily) lakh / year. Parking fee for vehiclesitself is about Rs. 1.39 (Vazhachal) lakh /yearand Rs. 2.7 (Athirappily) lakh/ year. About Rs.5.6 lakh is earned from visitors entrance fee and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of S

cien

ce],

[T

. V. R

amac

hand

ra]

at 0

7:01

26

Sept

embe

r 20

17

273


parking charges. The estimated aggregate rec-reation surplus of the sample is equal to Rs 20,69,214 with an average recreation surplus pervisitor of Rs. 2,593.

Recreational value in the protected site ofWestern Ghats (Mohandas and Rema Devi 2011)based on the relationship between travel costand visitation rate and the willingness to pay isRs. 26.7 per visitor and the average consumersurplus per visit is Rs. 290. A similar study car-ried out in the valley of a national park show thenet recreational benefit as Rs. 5,88,332 and theaverage consumer surplus as Rs. 194.68 (Gera etal. 2008). The total recreation value of Dandeliwildlife sanctuary using travel cost method dur-ing 2004-05 shows the total recreation value ofRs. 37,142.86 per Sq. km with the total value ofRs. 1,76,43,600 (Panchamukhi et al. 2008). Simi-larly, based on the willingness to pay for thepreservation of watershed in Karnataka indicatea value of Rs.125.45 per hectare and the totalvalue of Rs. 480 million (for 2004-05).

Valuation of forest in Uttarakhand, Himala-yas using the benefit transfer method (Verma etal. 2007) shows a total economic value of Uttra-khand forests as Rs. 16,192 billion, accountingRs. 19,035 million from the direct benefits (in-cluding tourism) and Rs. 173,120 million fromthe indirect benefits and silt control service isaccounted as Rs. 2062.2 million. Carbon seques-tration is accounted as Rs.2974 million at US $10 per t of C considering the net accumulation of6.6 Mt C per year in biomass. Aesthetic beautyof the landscape is estimated as 10,665.3 millionand pollination service value is accounted to beRs. 25,610 million/yr. Natural ecosystems alsoprovide unlimited opportunities for environmen-tal education and function as field laboratoriesfor scientific research (de Groot et al. 2002).

Sacred groves present in varied ecosystemsviz., evergreen and deciduous forests, hill tops,valleys, mangroves, swamps and even in agri-cultural fields in Uttara Kannada district repre-sent varied vegetation and animal profiles (Rayet al. 2011, 2015). The protection of patches offorest as sacred groves and of several tree spe-cies as sacred trees leads to the spiritual func-tion provided by the forest (Chandran 1993).Sacred groves also play an important role in thecultural service provided by the forest. Thegroves do not fetch any produce which can beused for direct consumptive or commercial pur-pose. Creation of hypothetical market fetches

price worth Rs. 600/quintal for a woody speciesand Rs. 40/quintal for non-wood product. Thevalue of sacred grove assessed through willing-ness to pay to preserve the sacred grove in Sid-dapur taluk of Uttara Kannada district (Pancha-mukhi et al. 2008), show the value of Rs. 7280/per hectare.

The major threat to the forests today is de-forestation caused by several reasons such asrise in the population, exploitation activitieswhich include expansion of agriculture land,ranching, wood extraction, development of in-frastructure. Shifting cultivation is consideredto be one of the most important causes of defor-estation (Myers 1984). The loss of biodiversityis the second most important problem in nearlyevery terrestrial ecosystem on Earth. This lossis accelerating driven by the over-exploitationof natural resources, habitat destruction, frag-mentation and climate change (MEA 2003). Eventhough the Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD) has adopted a target of reducing the rateof biodiversity loss at global, regional and na-tional levels by 2010 (Mace 2005), still the lossof biodiversity is at a high pace. Nearly, 75 per-cent of the genetic diversity of domesticatedcrop plants has been lost in the past century.About 24 percent of mammals and 12 percent ofbird species are currently considered to be glo-bally threatened. Despite the essential functionsof ecosystems and the consequences of theirdegradation, ecosystem services are underval-ued by society, because of the lack of aware-ness of the link between natural ecosystems andthe functioning of human support systems.

Objectives

Forest ecosystems are critical habitats fordiverse biological diversity and perform array ofecological services that provide food, water,shelter, aesthetic beauty, etc. Valuation of theservices and goods provided by the forest eco-system would aid in the micro level policy de-sign for the conservation and sustainable man-agement of ecosystems. Main objective of thestudy is to value the forest ecosystems in Utt-ara Kannada forest. This involved computationof total economic value (TEV) of forest ecosys-tem considering provisioning, regulating, sup-porting and information services provided bythe ecosystem.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of S

cien

ce],

[T

. V. R

amac

hand

ra]

at 0

7:01

26

Sept

embe

r 20

17

274


MATERIAL AND METHODS

Study Area

The Uttara Kannada district with a spatialextent of 10,291sq.km is situated at 740 9' to 750

10' E and 130 55' to 150 31' N in the north-westernpart of Karnataka state (Fig. 2). It extends fromnorth to south to a maximum of 180 km, and fromwest to east a maximum width of 110 km. UttaraKannada is bounded by Belgaum district andGoa state in the north, Dharwad and Haveri dis-tricts in the east, Shimoga and Udupi districts inthe south and the Arabian Sea to the west.

The district has the coastline of 120 km. inthe western part. The coast stretches in a longnearly straight line to the south except the shal-low Karwar and Belekeri bays (Kamath 1985).The topography of the region can be dividedinto three distinct zones. The coastal zone, com-prising of a narrow strip of the coastline is rela-tively flat and starts sloping gently upwards to-wards the east. The ridge zone abruptly rises

from the coastal strip, is much more rugged andis a part of the main range of the Western Ghats.Compared to other parts of the Western Ghats,the altitude of the ridge is much lesser and risesto about 600msl. The third zone is the flatter,geographically more homogenous zone that joinsthe Deccan plateau.

The four major rivers of the district are Kali-nadi, Gangavali, Aghanashini and Sharavathi.Varada, Venkatapura, Belekeri, Badagani aresome of the minor river and streams in the dis-trict. Apart from these river system, large num-ber of other wetlands such as lakes, reservoirs,ponds, puddles, lateritic bogs, wet grasslands,marshes, swamps are present in the district (Ra-machandra and Ganapathy 2007; Rao et al. 2008).The district comprises of 11 Taluks namely, Supa,Haliyal, Mundgod, Yellapur, Karwar, Ankola, Sir-si, Siddapur, Honnavar, Kumta and Bhatkal.Supa is the largest taluk in Uttara Kannada interms of area. The district has 11 taluks (an ad-ministrative sub-division for dissemination ofthe government programmes) spread over the

Fig. 2. Uttara Kannada district, Karnataka state

HALIYAL

JOIDA

YELLAPUR

KARWAR

ANKOLASIRSI

KUMTA

SIDDAPUR

HONAVAR

BHATKAL Kilometers

0 25 50

MUNDGOD

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of S

cien

ce],

[T

. V. R

amac

hand

ra]

at 0

7:01

26

Sept

embe

r 20

17

275


three regions described above. The coast landscomprise of Karwar, Ankola, Kumta, Honnavarand Bhatkal taluks, the forested interior areaswhich are part of the Western Ghats range com-prises of Supa, Sirsi, Siddapur, major parts ofYellapur taluk and the eastern areas which areplateau regions comprises of Haliyal, Mundgodand parts of Yellapur taluks. The climate of theregion is tropical monsoon. Generally, the weath-er is hot and humid in the coastal areas through-out the year. The district experiences south-westmonsoon and the rainfall are received mostlybetween June and September. Average annualrainfall in the district is about 2887 mm whichranges from 4172 mm in Bhatkal taluk to 1345mm in Haliyal taluk. Population density rangesfrom 0.26 (Supa) to 4.28 (Bhatkal) persons/hect-are with an average of 1.69 ±1.09. Spatial extentof forest ranges from 48.14 (Mundogod) to 86.5(Supa) percent of the respective taluk.

Vegetation of Uttara Kannada District

There are mainly five different types of for-est in the district – Evergreen, Semi-evergreen,Moist deciduous, Dry deciduous and Scrub land.The district’s high rainfall supports lush greenforests, which cover approximately 70 percentof the district. Uttara Kannada vegetation is di-vided into 5 broad zones by Daniels (1989) name-ly, Coastal zone, Northern evergreen zone,Southern evergreen zone, moist deciduous zoneand dry deciduous zone. Uttara Kannada has 21habitat types according to Daniels (1989), basedon a study in 181, 5x5 km grids. They are, Ever-green forests (65 percent), Rocky cliffs (14%),Degraded evergreen thickets (17%), Moist grass-lands (9%), Moist/dry teak (29%), Humid betel-nut (50%), Freshwater marshes (25%), Exotic treeplantations (25%), Rivers (10%), Hill streams(55%), Coastline (9%), Beaches (6%), Coastalcoconut (9%), Estuaries (5%), Scrub (2%), Drydeciduous forest (5%), Moist/Dry Bamboo for-ests (6%), Moist/Dry cultivation (31%), Moist/Dry Eucalyptus (10%), Moist Deciduous forests(18%), Urban population > 1000 (22%). Howev-er, in the last few years the evergreen forests ofthe district have undergone tremendous chang-es. Most of the evergreen forested area has beentransformed into semi-evergreen forests, andsome have been converted into plantations suchas, Teak, Arecanut, Acacia spp., etc. (Ramachan-dra and Ganapathy 2007). It is found that ever-

green and semi-evergreen to moist deciduousforest types predominate the forested area ofUttara Kannada (Fig. 2). The complete stretch ofthe central ridge zone (Ghats section), which wasonce dominated by the evergreen forests, is nowdominated by the semi-evergreen forest. Ever-green is seen in patches mainly towards thesouth-west and in the Ghats section. Moist de-ciduous is seen in almost all places distributedthroughout the district. It is more common in theeastern Sirsi, south of Yellapur, eastern Siddapurand western region of the coastal taluks. Drydeciduous forests are spotted in the taluks ofMundgod, Haliyal, western Sirsi and north-east-ern part of Yellapur.

Figure 3 depicts the land use in the districtbased on the analysis of IRS P6 (Indian remotesensing) multi spectral data of spatial resolution5.8 m. Area under forest covers 72 percent of thetotal geographic area of the district (Fig. 4). Theforest cover ranges from 50 percent in Mund-god taluk to 88 percent in Supa and Yellapur

Fig. 3. Land-use classification map of Uttara Kanna-da district

Built-up

Water

Cropland

Open space

Semi evergreen

Evergreen

Scruh/grassland

Acacia planttion

Teak plantation

Coconut/Arecanut plantation

Dry deciduous forest

kilometers

0 35 70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of S

cien

ce],

[T

. V. R

amac

hand

ra]

at 0

7:01

26

Sept

embe

r 20

17

276


taluks. The forest was categorized as evergreen,semi evergreen to moist deciduous, dry decidu-ous, teak and bamboo plantations, scrub forestand grasslands and acacia plantations. Table 1illustrates that about 53 percent of the total for-est land in the district is of evergreen type fol-lowed by 21 percent of semi-evergreen to moistdeciduous forests. Dry deciduous forests arevery less and are found in the eastern part ofHaliyal and Mundgod taluk. There has been asignificant amount of forest loss owing to vari-ous developmental activities across district andconversion of natural forests into plantations.Taluks such as Ankola, Bhatkal, Honnavar, Kar-war, Siddapur and Supa has rich presence ofevergreen forest out of the total forest area,whereas the least share of evergreen forest isfound in Mundgod and Haliyal taluks. The shareof semi evergreen to moist deciduous forest outof total forest area is found to be highest in Sirsitaluk. A considerable share of forest area in Haliy-al and Mundgod taluks is comprised of planta-tions of teak, acacia and bamboo.

Method

The framework for incorporating the truevalue of forest requires thorough valuation of

the benefits derived from forest ecosystems.Taluk wise forest valuation has been donethrough the quantification of goods, estimationof values based on the market price, and compi-lation of values of ecosystem services from lit-eratures. Total economic value of the forest eco-systems in Uttara Kannada has been done con-sidering i) provisioning services, ii) regulatingservices, iii) supporting services and iv) infor-mation services (MEA 2003). Various compo-nents of provisioning, regulating, cultural andsupporting services are listed in Figure 5. Theresearch includes compilation of data from pri-mary (field investigations) and secondary sourc-es (government agencies, published scientificliteratures in peer reviewed journals). Data onquantity of timber and non – timber forest prod-ucts harvested were collected from DivisionalOffice (Sirsi) of Karnataka Forest Department,Government of Karnataka. Data on the prices ofvarious marketed forest products were collect-ed through market survey. Data on various oth-er provisioning goods and services were com-piled from literature pertaining to ecological andsocio-economic studies in the district and alsothrough interview with the subject experts.

Framework of Valuation

Figure 6 outlines the method adopted forvaluing forest ecosystems (taluk wise) in UttaraKannada district. The work entails:

i. Assessment of Different Land Uses in theDistrict: This was done considering remotesensing data of space borne sensors (IRS P6)with spatial resolution of 5.8m. The remote sens-ing data were geo-referenced, rectified andcropped pertaining to the study area. Geo-regis-tration of remote sensing data has been doneusing ground control points collected from thefield using pre calibrated GPS (Global Position-ing System) and also from known points (suchas road intersections, etc.) collected from geo-referenced topographic maps published by theSurvey of India (1:50000, 1:250000).

Fig. 4. Share of different land use in Uttara Kanna-da districtSource: Author

Built up3% Water

3% Cropland16%

Open land2%

Forest72%

Cocnut ArecanutPlantation

4%

Table 1: Vegetation Distribution in Uttara Kannada

Evergreen Semi evergreen Dry Teak / Bamboo Scrub forest/ Acacia/ Totalforest to moist deciduous plantations Grass lands Eucalyptus

deciduous forest plantationsforest

53.02 20.60 0.19 4.75 4.19 17.24 100.00

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of S

cien

ce],

[T

. V. R

amac

hand

ra]

at 0

7:01

26

Sept

embe

r 20

17

277


Remote sensing data analysis involved i)generation of False Colour Composite (FCC) ofremote sensing data (bands – green, red andNIR). This helped in locating heterogeneouspatches in the landscape; ii) selection of train-ing polygons (these correspond to heteroge-neous patches in FCC) covering 15 percent ofthe study area and uniformly distributed overthe entire study area; iii) loading these trainingpolygons co-ordinates into pre-calibrated GPS;vi) collection of the corresponding attribute data(land use types) for these polygons from thefield. GPS helped in locating respective trainingpolygons in the field; iv) supplementing this in-formation with Google Earth (http://earth.google.

com); and v) 60 percent of the training data hasbeen used for classification, while the balance isused for validation or accuracy assessment.Land use analysis was carried out using super-vised pattern classifier - Gaussian maximum like-lihood algorithm based on probability and costfunctions (Ramachandra et al. 2012, 2016a). Ac-curacy assessment to evaluate the performanceof classifiers was done with the help of field databy testing the statistical significance of a differ-ence, computation of kappa coefficients and pro-portion of correctly allocated cases. Statisticalassessment of classifier performance based onthe performance of spectral classification con-sidering reference pixels is done which include

Fig. 5. Classification of forest ecosystem goods and servicesSource: Author

TOTAL ECONOMIC VALUE

Provisioning Goodsand Services

Regulating Services Cultural Services Supporting Services

1 . Timber2 . NTFP3 . Litter4 . Mulching Leaves5 . Fodder6 . Fuelwood7 . Food8 . Inland fish catch9 . Hydrological services10 . Wild Fruits11 . Oxygen

1 . Air quality regulation2 . Climate regulation3 . Distribance regulation

natural hazard mitigationand flood prevention

4 . Water repulation andgroundwater recharging

5 . Pollination6 . Water treatment7 . Soil erosion control and

soil retention8 . Soil formation9 . Biiological regulation10 . Nutrient cycling, water

cycling and nutrientretention

11 . Carbon sequestration

1 . Aesthetic Services2 . Cultural and artistic

inspiration3 . Recreational services4 . Science and education5 . Spiritual and historic

information

1 . Habitat/refugium services2 . Nursery services3 . Biodiversity and genetic

diversi ty

Fig. 6. Framework for valuation of goods and services from forest ecosystemSource: Author

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of S

cien

ce],

[T

. V. R

amac

hand

ra]

at 0

7:01

26

Sept

embe

r 20

17

278


computation of kappa () statistics and overall(producer’s and user’s) accuracies.

The forest was classified as evergreen, semievergreen to moist deciduous, dry deciduous,teak and bamboo plantations, scrub forest andgrasslands and acacia plantations. The extentof forest fragmentation was assessed for esti-mating the carbon sequestration potential offorests through the quantification of the extentof interior and fragmented forests at taluk level.

ii. Quantification of Goods and Services:compilation of data from primary (field investi-gations) and secondary sources (governmentagencies, published scientific literatures in peerreviewed journals). Data on quantity of timberand non – timber forest products harvested werecollected from Divisional Office (Sirsi) of Karnata-ka Forest Department, Government of Karnataka.

iii. Valuation of Goods and Services: Vari-ous functions of forests are the results of inter-action between structure and processes, whichmay be physical (for example, infiltration of wa-ter, sediment movement), chemical (for example,reduction, oxidation) or biological (for example,photosynthesis and de-nitrification). Further,various goods and services obtained from thefunctioning of forest ecosystem were classifiedas provisioning goods and services, regulatingservices, cultural services and supporting ser-vices. The study uses two approaches of valua-tion for the computation of TEV of forest eco-system, namely: ‘market price’ method and ‘ben-efit transfer’ method of valuation.

a. Market Price: This technique estimatesthe economic values of those goods andservices that are bought and sold in es-tablished markets. Valuation of provision-ing goods and services has been donethrough ‘market price’ valuation. Forthose goods and services which do notpass through market transaction process(viz. water utilization for irrigation andpower generation, ecological water, wildfruits) well adopted technique of proxy/shadow prices have been used.

b. Benefit Transfer: This technique involvesthe application of value estimates, func-tions, data and/or models developed inone context to address a similar resourcevaluation question in an alternative con-text. The cost of surveys in terms of timeand money could be avoided by this ap-proach. Benefit transfer method of valua-tion is used to compute the value of reg-

ulating, cultural and supporting servic-es. Some of the components of these ser-vices were computed based on unit val-ues of those services for different typesof forest based on the discussion andinterview with subject experts.

iv. Quantification of Goods and Services:The detailed procedure of valuation ofdifferent components of ecosystem ser-vices is discussed below:

a. Provisioning Services from Forest Eco-system: Goods derived from the forestsare quantified as follows:

• Timber: Timber is an important compo-nent of value on forestland properties. Inmany cases, the value of the timber canbe several times the value of the land.Timber includes rose wood, teak wood,jungle wood, etc. Timber is mainly prom-inent in deciduous forest while it is foundin less amount in Evergreen forest patch-es. Plantation forest is mainly abundantin timber producing trees like Acacia, Teaketc. Industrial produce is also presentfrom the forest which includes roundwood, soft wood, match wood etc. Thedata regarding the quantity of timber har-vested and sold was obtained from theKarnataka Forest department (KFD 2015)and the valuation is based on the currentmarket price.

• Non Timber Forest Product: The data onthe harvesting of non-timber forest prod-uct was obtained from the Forest depart-ment. The total value of NTFP includesthe value of a) NTFPs extracted by For-est Department, b) NTFPs collected byhouseholds (Murthy et al. 2005), c) bam-boo extracted by the Karnataka Forestdepartment, d) annual bamboo produc-tivity in the forest (NABARD 2015;WCPM 2016), e) cane extracted by Forestdepartment and f) annual cane produc-tivity in the forest .

• Litter: Litter is used as manure in horti-culture and agriculture fields. Quantityof litter productivity per year for differenttaluks was based on the earlier work(Ramachandra et al. 2000).

• Mulching Leaves: Mulching leaves isused as manure in arecanut gardens. Peryear requirement of mulching leaves fromforest were quantified by the area of areca-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of S

cien

ce],

[T

. V. R

amac

hand

ra]

at 0

7:01

26

Sept

embe

r 20

17

279


nut gardens in each taluka multiplied bythe minimum quantity of mulching leavesper hectare of arecanut garden.

• Fodder: Total value of fodder suppliedfrom forest were quantified by using thedata from literature (Prasad et al. 1987a,b)on herb layer productivity in differenttypes of forests, extent of different typesof forest and unit market price of the fod-der in the district.

• Medicinal Plants: Various medicinalplants used by the local people were iden-tified (Harsha et al. 2005; Hegde et al. 2007)and the value of medicinal plants per unitarea of forest area (Simpson et al. 1996;Database of Medicinal Plants 2015; SCIL2015) was extrapolated to different typesof forest in the district.

• Fuel Wood: The total value of fuel woodincludes the value of fuel wood used fordomestic purpose, that is, for cooking andwater heating and also the value of fuelwood used for various industrial and com-mercial purposes like jaggery making,areca processing, cashew processing, res-taurants and bakery, parboiling, crema-tion, etc. The quantity of fuel wood fordomestic usage in different locations ofthe district was obtained from Ramachan-dra et al. (2000) and the quantity of fuelwood required for various other purposewere based on field experiments (Ram-achandra et al. 2000; Ramachandra 1998).

• Food: 22 varieties of food products de-rived from forest were identified and thevalue of food extracted per unit area offorest obtained from literature (Hebbar etal. 2010; PSP 2016; SCIL 2015) was ex-trapolated to the total forest area in thetaluk. Also, the household honey collec-tion which is an important provisioningservice from forest was quantified (Ram-achandra et al. 2012) for all talukas andvalued.

• Inland Fish Catch: Inland fishing is animportant economic activity and a deter-minant of nutritional requirement of largenumber of people. Inland fishing happensin rivers, rivulets, streams, reservoirs,lakes, etc. which are inseparable part ofthe forest area in the district. The quanti-ties of inland fish catch in different talukswere obtained from Fisheries Department,

The Government of Karnataka and theeconomic value of it was determined.

• Hydrological Services: Most of the wa-ter resources come from the forestedcatchments. Hydrological services isquantified by the quantity of domesticwater utilization, water for irrigation pur-pose (Ramachandra et al. 1999, 2012,2016a), water for industrial use and waterused for power generation (5 hydro pow-er stations and 1 nuclear power station).The quantity of water required for suste-nance of forest ecosystem that is, eco-logical water available for different typesof forest was quantified as per the fol-lowing equation (Ramachandra et al. 1999;2016a; 2016b; Raghunath 2006; KPCL2016; NPCIL 2016; Ray et al. 2015).

• Quantity of Ecological Water = Run offCoefficient x Annual Precipitation x For-est Area

The value of ‘runoff coefficient’ for differenttypes of forest varied from 0.1 to 0.4.

• Wild Fruits: Information on various wildfruits were obtained from literature (Heb-bar et al. 2010; Bhat et al. 2003). The pro-ductivity of wild fruits was estimatedbased on Bhat et al. (2003), transect sur-vey data in different types of forest andinformation from local people. For eco-nomic valuation of wild fruits proxy price(in comparison with the price of fruitscollected as NTFP) was used.

• Oxygen Provision: Value of oxygen pro-vision from forests was quantified basedon the values of oxygen production perhectare of subtropical forest (Maudgaland Kakkar 1992).

These provisioning services were valued asper the equations in Table 2 based on marketprice method.

b. Regulating Services from Forest Ecosys-tem: Regulating services provide manydirect and indirect benefits to humans.The maintenance of the Earth’s biospherein a hostile cosmic environment dependson a delicate balance between these reg-ulating services (de Groot et al. 2002).However, regulating services unlike pro-visioning services poses much greaterchallenges in valuation. Though regulat-ing services are seldom marketed, theeconomy heavily depends upon the util-ity of these services. In the present study,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of S

cien

ce],

[T

. V. R

amac

hand

ra]

at 0

7:01

26

Sept

embe

r 20

17

280


ten variables of regulating services werequantified as per the published literatures(Costanza et al. 1997; Maudgal and Kakkar1992; Seema and Ramachandra 2010), giv-en in Table 3 and the value of carbon se-questration was estimated for each taluk

based on the biomass stock and produc-tivity (Ramachandra et al. 2000, 2004;Maudgal and Kakkar 1992; Seema andRamachandra 2010).

The value of carbon sequestration has bothflow and stock value. The productivity of biom-ass per hectare per year and the volume of stand-ing biomass for different types of forests of Ut-tara Kannada were obtained from literature (Ra-machandra et al. 2000, 2004; Seema and Ram-achandra 2010). The volume of carbon was com-puted with the assumption that 50 percent ofthe dry biomass contains carbon (Seema andRamachandra 2010). The value of carbon seques-tration was calculated by considering 10 Eurosper tonne of CO2 (EEC 2012). The total value ofcarbon sequestration per year for different taluksincludes the value of per year increment in thecarbon sequestration and per year value of inter-est (considering 5% interest rate) over the totalstock/ volume of carbon in the forest till date.

c. Cultural Services from Forest Ecosystem:Forest has a high cultural value; the mainreason can be attributed to the aesthetic

Provisioning services Equation Details

Timber 푉푇푖푚푏푒푟 = ∑ ∑ 푄푖 ,푗 × 푃푖,푗6푗=1

11푖=1 Q=Quantity of timber; P = Price of timber; i = no.

of taluks; j = variety of timber

NTFP 푉푁푇퐹푃 = ∑ ∑ 푄푖,푗 × 푃푖 ,푗30푗=1

11푖=1 Q=Quantity of NTFP; P = Price of NTFP; i = no.

of taluks; j = variety of NTFP

Litter 푉퐿푖푡푡푒푟 = ∑ 푄푖 × 푃푖11푖=1 Q=Quantity of litter; P = Price of litter; i = no. of

taluks

Mulching Leaves 푉푀푢푙푐 ℎ = ∑ 푄푖 × 푃푖11푖=1 Q=Quantity of mulching leaves; P = Price of

mulching leaves; i = no. of taluks

Fodder 푉퐹표푑푑푒푟 = ∑ 푄푖 × 푃푖11푖=1 Q=Quantity of fodder; P = Price of fodder; i = no.

of taluks

Fuelwood 푉퐹푢푒푙푤표표푑 = ∑ 푄푖 × 푃푖11푖=1 Q=Quantity of fuelwood; P = Price of fuelwood; i

= no. of taluks

Food 푉푓표표푑 = ∑ ∑ 푄푖,푗 × 푃푖,푗22푗=1

11푖=1 Q=Quantity of food; P = Price of food; i = no. of

taluks; j = variety of food product

Inland Fish Catch 푉퐹푖푠ℎ = ∑ 푄푖 × 푃푖11푖=1 Q=Quantity of fish catch; P = Price of fish; i = no.

of taluks

Hydrological

Services 푉푤푎푡푒푟 = ∑ 푄푖 × 푃푖11

푖=1 Q=Quantity of water utilization for different

purpose; P = Price of water used for different

purpose; i = no. of taluks

Wild Fruits 푉푤푖푙푑 푓푟푢푖푡푠 = ∑ 푄푖 × 푃푖11푖=1 Q=Quantity of wild fruits; P = Price of wild fruits;

i = no. of taluks

Oxygen Value of oxygen provision from forests was quantified based on the values of oxygen production per hectare of

subtropical forest (Maudgal and Kakkar 1992).

Table 2: Valuation method for comonents of provisioning services of forest

Table 3: Unit values of regulating services fromforests (Rs. per hectare)

Regulating services Unit value(Rs. per hectare)

Air quality regulation 6384Climate regulation 10704Disturbance regulation, natural hazard 217872

mitigation and flood preventionWater regulation and groundwater 261360

rechargingPollination 1200Waste treatment 4176Soil erosion control and soil retention 11760Soil formation 480Biological regulation 1104Nutrient cycling, water cycling and 44256

nutrient retention

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of S

cien

ce],

[T

. V. R

amac

hand

ra]

at 0

7:01

26

Sept

embe

r 20

17

281


beauty, recreational benefit and Kan for-est which are the sacred groves present inthe district. Sacred groves are communal-ly-protected forest fragments with signifi-cant religious connotations (Ray and Ra-machandra 2011; Ray et al. 2015). Further,recreational benefits provided by the for-est include gaming, walking, hunting etc.Aesthetic beauty of the forest is valuable,the presence of waterfalls and caves addsto the aesthetic value in the district. Sci-ence and educational value provided by theforest are also indispensable. The unit valuefor the services, listed in Table 4 was derivedfrom de Groot et al. (2002) and Costanza et al.(1997), and also the values were finalized inconsultation with subject experts.

d. Supporting Services From Forest Ecosys-tem: The supporting service provided bythe forest includes the habitat/refugiumfunction, nursery function and biodiver-sity and genetic diversity function. Theforest provides living space for a largenumber of plants and animals thus, play-ing an important role in the refugium func-tion. It also acts as a nursery for immenseplants and animals. The forest also servesas a store house of information. To main-tain the viability of this genetic library,the maintenance of natural ecosystems ashabitats for wild plants and animals isessential. The unit value of habitat/ ref-

ugium function and nursery function werederived from literature and the unit valueof biodiversity and genetic diversity wasestimated (Table 5) based on the flow val-ue of selected provision services that rep-resent the least value stock of biodiversi-ty and genetic diversity.

Total Economic Value

The total economic value (TEV) of forestecosystem is obtained by aggregating provisiongoods and services (provisioning, regulating,cultural and supporting services).The total eco-nomic value that has been calculated for oneyear is divided by the area of forest in each talukto obtain the per hectare value of forest in re-spective taluk.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Ecosystem services and the natural capitalstocks of the Western Ghats forests make sig-nificant direct and indirect contributions to na-tional economies and human welfare. Forests,both natural and planted, and including treesspread across the terrain, have a critical role inthe ecology, aesthetics and recreational bene-fits. The goods and services derived from forestecosystem are categorized as provisional goodsand services, regulating services, cultural ser-vices and supporting services (MEA 2003). Land

Table 4: Unit values of cultural services from forest

S. No. Cultural services Value (in Rs./ hectare) Source

1.a Recreational services (for interiorevergreen forest) 2,88,000 de Groot et al. 2002

1.b Recreational services (for other types of forest) 28,944 Costanza et al. 19972.a Spiritual and historic information (for interior 72,000 Discussion with subject experts

evergreen forest)2.b Spiritual and historic information

(for interior evergreen forest) 1,200 de Groot et al. 20023 Aesthetic Services 1,500 Discussion with subject experts4 Cultural and artistic inspiration 480 Discussion with subject experts5 Science and education 48,000 Discussion with subject experts

Table 5: Unit value of supporting services from forest

S. No. Supporting services Value (in Rs./ hectare) Source

1 Habitat/ refugium services 73104 de Groot et al. 20022 Nursery services 9360 de Groot et Al. 20023 Biodiversity and genetic diversity 40000 Calculated from the flow value

selected provisioning serviceslike NTFP, medicinal plants,etc.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of S

cien

ce],

[T

. V. R

amac

hand

ra]

at 0

7:01

26

Sept

embe

r 20

17

282


use analysis (Table 6) show that Supa taluk hashighest forest area (1635 sq.km) and Bhatkal haslowest spatial extent of forests (217 sq.km). Ev-ergreen to semi evergreen type of vegetationcover is about 3946 sq.km (53 %), followed bymoist deciduous type (1533 sq.km). Area undermonoculture plantations is about 1283 sq.km(17.24 %).

Provisioning Goods and Services

Based on the consideration and inclusionof various components in ecological perspec-tives, total value of provisioning goods and ser-vices are presented in scenarios as follows:

• Scenario - I: provisional services includetimber, NTFP, litter and mulching leaves,fodder, medicinal plants, fuel wood, food,inland fishing and hydrological services;

• Scenario - II: components in Scenario-Iand wild fruits;

• Scenario - III: components in Scenario-IIand oxygen services;

The estimated total value of provisioninggoods and services for Uttara Kannada districtper year for three different scenarios are pre-sented in Table 7, which reveals the value ofgoods and services from forests in UttaraKannada district ranges from INR 97.07 billionper year (scenario 1) to 151.71 billion per year(scenario 3).

Goods derived from the forests were quan-tified as discussed earlier and details are:

i. Timber: Timber accounts to Rs. 1,457crores per year with the share of 10 per-cent in scenario – III of the total value ofprovisioning goods and services ob-tained from the forest.

ii. NTFP: NTFP being the largest contribu-tor among all the components of provi-sioning goods and services is estimatedat Rs. 3,601 crores per year for the dis-trict.

iii. Litter and Mulching Leaves: Litter andmulching leaves which is a vital compo-nent of sustainable agricultural systemof the district is valued at Rs. 689 croresper year.

iv. Fodder: The value of total fodder pro-ductivity in the forests of the district isvalued at Rs. 205 crores per year.

v. Medicinal Plants: The value of medicinalplants that has been estimated from thebenefit transfer method and extrapolatedto the different types of forest is found tobe worth of Rs. 25 crores per year.

Table 6: Talukwise area under different types of forest (in hectares)

S. Taluk Evergreen Semi Dry Teak / Scrub Acacia/ TotalNo. forest evergreen deciduous Bam boo forest/ Eucalyptu

to Moist forest Plantations Grass splantationsdeciduous lands

1 Ankola 53943 8227 0 6 2 4598 6911 737412 Bhatkal 15189 5335 0 130 230 851 217343 Haliyal 9853 11609 1253 7720 2532 16062 490304 Honnavar 36782 6403 0 0 1508 4007 487005 Karwar 39176 9264 0 0 1878 4097 544146 Kumta 19873 10697 0 0 746 4615 359317 Mundgod 1161 3047 171 10080 1554 16144 321568 Siddapur 35882 10214 0 124 3479 9615 593159 Sirsi 24666 44070 0 1670 2620 20133 931591 0 Supa 124118 21923 0 492 6090 10882 1635041 1 Yellapura 34003 22541 0 15108 5987 35017 112656

District 394645 153330 1424 35385 31223 128334 744341 Total% 53.02 20.60 0.19 4.75 4.19 17.24 100.00

Table 7: Provisioning goods and services (differentscenarios) for Uttara Kannada

Scenario Value of Values ofprovisioning provisioninggoods and goods and

services services(in Rs. crores) (Billion Rs)

Scenario I 9707 97.07Scenario II 11842 118.42Scenario III 15171 151.71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of S

cien

ce],

[T

. V. R

amac

hand

ra]

at 0

7:01

26

Sept

embe

r 20

17

283


vi. Fuel Wood: Forest, being the importantsource of energy for domestic and vari-ous commercial purposes in the districtsupplies fuel wood of Rs. 366 crores peryear.

vii. Food: The value of various food productsextracted from forest is of worth Rs. 59 peryear. Further the inland fishing in the dis-trict is valued at Rs. 22 crores per year.

viii. Hydrological Services: The total valueof water usage for domestic purpose, in-dustrial purpose, agricultural, water re-quirement for livestock, power generationand ecological water was termed as hy-drological services from the forests. It wasfound that the forests in the district pro-vide hydrological services of worth Rs.2,313 crores per year.

ix. Wild Fruits: Wild fruits being the impor-tant component in ecological sustenanceof forest ecosystem are being valued atRs. 1,922 crores per year that is obtainedfrom the forests of entire district.

x. Oxygen: The value of oxygen which iscomputed by benefit transfer method.The result of the study shows that thetotal forests in the district supplies theoxygen to the atmosphere of worth Rs.3,000 crores per year. Further, 10 percentof the total value of provisioning servic-es supplied from forest being consideredas miscellaneous benefits that are derivedfrom forest ecosystem is of value Rs. 1517crores per year (for scenario – III).

In all the three scenarios, NTFP is the majorcontributor to the total value. The share of thevalue of food, inland fishing, medicinal plants,fuel wood, fodder, litter and mulching leavesvaries from 14 percent in Scenario - I to 8 percentin Scenario - III. These goods have an importantbearing on the livelihood of people and espe-cially the livelihood of local people. The valueof wild fruits and oxygen provision comprisesto about thirty five percent share in the totalvalue in Scenario – III. These components areoften neglected in valuation of forest and policymaking but they play an important role in eco-system sustenance, protection of biodiversityand thus, in human wellbeing in the long run.Table 8 presents the taluk-wise breakup in thetotal provisioning goods and services. This il-lustrates that Supa taluk contributes the high-

Tabl

e 8:

Val

ue o

f va

riou

s pr

ovis

ioni

ng g

oods

and

ser

vice

s ac

ross

tal

uks

(in

Rs.

cro

res)

S.Pr

ovis

ioni

ng g

oods

Ank

ola

Bha

tkal

Hal

iyal

Hon

nava

r K

arw

ar K

umta

M

undg

od

Sidd

apur

Si

rsi

Su

pa

Yel

lapu

rTo

tal

No.

and

serv

ices

1T

imbe

r10

.18

2.64

267.

4710

4.34

77.2

317

4.38

271.

0062

.52

311.

3195

.28

80.4

514

56.8

02

NT

FP47

3.83

135.

8498

.93

324.

0234

5.36

180.

3717

.43

333.

5527

8.31

1095

.93

317.

0436

00.6

13

Litte

r an

d M

ulch

ing

leav

es48

.92

13.2

957

.13

41.1

933

.80

27.8

552

.39

62.4

110

2.35

139.

8811

0.25

689.

444

Fodd

er24

.18

6.70

9.92

15.1

117

.14

10.3

82.

9618

.00

24.2

752

.09

23.8

020

4.55

5M

edic

inal

pla

nts

2.88

0.92

1.04

1.96

2.20

1.38

0.23

2.13

3.12

6.65

2.66

25.1

76

Fuel

woo

d24

.99

34.1

745

.05

38.5

932

.35

35.5

725

.81

34.1

755

.45

15.5

124

.60

366.

267

Food

5.65

1.91

3.98

4.81

4.42

3.12

2.57

4.81

7.26

12.0

88.

4359

.04

8In

land

fis

hing

0.77

0.35

2.06

4.02

1.54

1.62

0.73

2.35

1.83

4.34

2.13

21.7

49

Hyd

rolo

gica

l se

rvic

es17

2.74

140.

6634

1.64

279.

8911

8.27

185.

3212

7.89

218.

2631

9.62

223.

4618

4.85

2312

.58

10W

ild f

ruits

228.

2071

.96

71.6

215

7.08

174.

0110

4.36

13.5

116

4.75

213.

2253

1.33

191.

8719

21.9

111

Oxy

gen

303.

9794

.24

178.

1320

7.19

230.

4715

0.88

106.

1424

0.13

372.

8769

3.21

418.

5629

95.8

112

Oth

ers

144.

0355

.85

119.

6513

0.91

115.

2097

.25

68.9

612

7.01

187.

7431

8.86

151.

6315

17.0

9

Tota

l14

40.3

555

8.51

1196

.54

1309

.11

1152

.00

972.

4768

9.60

1270

.08

1877

.36

3188

.63

1516

.25

1517

0.90

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of S

cien

ce],

[T

. V. R

amac

hand

ra]

at 0

7:01

26

Sept

embe

r 20

17

284

GOODS AND SERVICES OF FOREST ECOSYSTEMS 27Ta

ble

9: V

alue

of

vari

ous

regu

lati

ng s

ervi

ces

acro

ss t

aluk

s (i

n R

s. c

rore

s)

S.Ta

luk

Ank

ola

Bha

tkal

Hal

iyal

Hon

nava

r K

arw

ar K

umta

M

undg

od

Sidd

apur

Si

rsi

Su

pa

Yel

lapu

rTo

tal

No.

1A

ir q

ualit

y47

1431

3135

2321

3859

104

7247

5

regu

latio

n2

Clim

ate

regu

latio

n79

2352

5258

3834

6310

017

512

179

73

D

istu

rban

ce16

0747

410

6810

6111

8678

370

112

9220

3035

6224

5416

217

re

gula

tion,

na

tura

l ha

zard

m

itiga

tion

and

fl

ood

prev

entio

n4

Wat

er r

egul

atio

n19

2756

812

8112

7314

2293

984

015

5024

3542

7329

4419

454

an

d gr

ound

wat

er

rech

argi

ng5

Poll

inat

ion

93

66

74

47

1120

1489

6W

aste

tre

atm

ent

319

2020

2315

1325

3968

4731

17

Soil

eros

ion

8726

5857

6442

3870

110

192

132

875

co

ntro

l an

d so

il

rete

ntio

n8

Soil

for

mat

ion

41

22

32

23

48

536

9B

iolo

gica

l8

25

56

44

710

1812

82

regu

latio

n10

Nut

rien

t cy

clin

g,32

696

217

216

241

159

142

263

412

724

499

3294

w

ater

cyc

ling

an

d nu

trie

nt

rete

ntio

n11

Car

bon

494

153

143

301

375

209

5430

739

111

7141

740

16

sequ

estr

atio

n

Tota

l va

lue

of46

1913

6828

8530

2534

1922

1918

5336

2556

0210

316

6718

4564

7

regu

latin

g

serv

ices

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of S

cien

ce],

[T

. V. R

amac

hand

ra]

at 0

7:01

26

Sept

embe

r 20

17

285


est amount of provisioning goods and serviceswith Rs. 3,188 crores per year (21% of the dis-trict), while Bhatkal taluk contributes the leastwith the provisional services of Rs. 558 croresper year (4 % of the district).

Regulating Services

Regulation service quantification includesthe estimated value of carbon sequestration ineach taluk and other regulation services (Table3 in methods section) multiplied by the forestarea. The total value of regulating services inthe district from forest ecosystems estimated atRs. 45,657 crores per year. Table 9 shows theshare of each taluks in the district’s regulatingservices. Regulating services such as distur-bance regulation, natural hazard mitigation andflood prevention, water regulation and ground-water recharging, and carbon sequestration hasthe major share in the regulating services pro-vided by the forest ecosystem.

Cultural Services

The cultural services from forest can be aes-thetic, recreational, spiritual, science and edu-cation. The district of Uttara Kannada is rich inplaces of recreational interest. There are immensenumber of waterfalls like Jog falls, Lalguli falls,Magod falls, Sathodi falls and Unchalli fallswhich adds to recreational and aesthetic values.The recreational sites also include the Anashi-Dandeli Tiger Reserve, Attiveri bird sanctuaryand caves in Yana, Kavala, Uluvi, Sintheri, etc.The spiritual value of the Uttara Kannada dis-trict is also high due to the presence of manytemples and pilgrimage centres like Gokarna,Murdeshwar, and Dhareshwar, Idagunji, Banava-si, etc. The cultural and heritage function is an-other important cultural service provided by for-est. The presence of sacred groves is importantfor the cultural services as there are many cul-tural beliefs associated with the sacred grovesin India. Some groves have valuable timber in

Table 10: Talukwise value of cultural services (in Rs. crores)

S. No. Taluk Aesthetic Cultural Recreational Science and Spiritual Totalservices andartistic services education andhistoric

inspiration information

1 Ankola 1 1 4 1196 354 277 18412 Bhatkal 3 1 349 104 8 1 5393 Haliyal 7 2 243 235 3 4 5224 Honnavar 7 2 599 234 131 9735 Karwar 8 3 893 261 208 13736 Kumta 5 2 437 172 9 5 7137 Mundgod 5 2 103 154 7 2718 Siddapura 9 3 584 285 120 10009 Sirsi 1 4 4 656 447 117 12391 0 Supa 2 5 8 2885 785 679 43811 1 Yellapura 1 7 5 824 541 150 1536

District Total 112 3 6 8770 3573 1897 14388

Table 11: Talukwise value of supporting services (Rs. in crores)

S. No. Taluk Habitat/ Nursery Biodiversity Totalrefugium services and genetic diversityServices

1 Ankola 539 6 9 295 9032 Bhatkal 159 2 0 8 7 2663 Haliyal 358 4 6 196 6004 Honnavar 356 4 6 195 5965 Karwar 398 5 1 218 6666 Kumta 263 3 4 144 4407 Mundgod 235 3 0 129 3948 Siddapura 434 5 6 237 7269 Sirsi 681 8 7 373 11411 0 Supa 1195 153 654 20021 1 Yellapura 824 105 451 1380

District Total 5441 697 2977 9115

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of S

cien

ce],

[T

. V. R

amac

hand

ra]

at 0

7:01

26

Sept

embe

r 20

17

286


them but are not harvested for timber due tosacred beliefs. The taluks of Siddapur and Sirsiin Uttara Kannada district have higher culturalvalues as the region is rich in sacred grooves.The presence of wild life sanctuaries andgrooves in turn increases the educational valueof the forest ecosystem. The unit value of dif-ferent components of cultural services was asper Table 4, considering the conditions and typeof forests in Uttara Kannada. The total culturalvalue of the district was estimated at Rs. 14,388crores. Talukwise value of each component ofcultural services and total value of cultural ser-vices is presented in Table 10.

Supporting Services

Table 11 lists taluk wise values of support-ing services. The components of supportingservices as per Table 5 were considered with thetypes and spatial extent of forest. The total val-ue of supporting services obtained from forestecosystem is estimated at Rs. 9,115 crores peryear.

Total Economic Value of Forest Ecosystem inUttara Kannada District

Total economic value (TEV) is calculated byaggregating provisioning services, regulatingservices, cultural services and supporting ser-vices. Total economic value (TEV) for all threescenarios and are presented in Table 12. The TEVof forest ecosystem in Uttara Kannada district is

Rs. 78,857 crores, Rs. 80,993 crores and Rs. 84,321crores for Scenario -I, II and III respectively.

Table 13 presents the share of different cat-egories of services from forest ecosystem forscenario – III. Regulating services underpin thedelivery of other service categories (Kumar etal. 2010), contributes to half of the share (54%)of the total economic value of forest ecosystemin the district. Provisioning services (18 %), cul-tural services (17 %) and supporting service (11%) contributes to the other half of total econom-ic value. Table 13 also shows that the total valueof services per hectare of forest per year in thedistrict. Value of provisioning services provid-ed by the forest ecosystem is about Rs. 2,03,818per hectare per year and the total value is aboutRs. 11,32,832 per hectare per year which is im-plicit in the subsistence, income and localemployment.

Supa taluks with Rs. 19,887 crores per yearis the largest contributor (with 24 percent share)to the TEV of forest ecosystem in the district(Table 14) and Bhatkal taluk with the contribu-tion of Rs. 2,732 crores per year is the least con-tributor (with 3% share) to the TEV of forestecosystem of the district.

Total Economic Value of Forest Ecosystem andGDDP

Sector-wise district’s Gross District Domes-tic Product (GDDP) is given in Table 15. GDDPof Uttara Kannada is about Rs. 5,978 crores andthe contribution of forests’ goods is about Rs.

Table 13: Total value of goods and services from forest ecosystem in Uttara Kannada

Services from forest ecosystem District value per year Value of services per Percent(in Rs. crores) hectare per year (in Rs.) share

Provisioning services 15,171 2,03,818 1 8Regulating services 45,647 6,13,254 5 4Cultural services 14,388 1,93,296 1 7Supporting services 9,115 1,22,464 1 1

Total Value 84,321 11,32,832 100

Table 12: Total economic value goods and services from forest ecosystem in Uttara Kannada district ( inRs. crores)

Scenario Provisioning Regulating Cultural Supporting Totalservices services services services economic

value

Scenario - I 9,707 45,647 14,388 9,115 78,857Scenario - II 11,842 80,993Scenario - III 15,171 84,321

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of S

cien

ce],

[T

. V. R

amac

hand

ra]

at 0

7:01

26

Sept

embe

r 20

17

287


180 crores (3% of GDDP), in contrast to the esti-mated valuation of provisioning services (rang-es from 9707 to 15171 crores per year). This high-lights the undervaluation of forest resources inthe regional accounting system. TEV of forestecosystem of Uttara Kannada district is aboutRs. 84,321 crores.

The forest products included in the nation-al income account framework includes: (a) In-dustrial wood (timber, match and pulpwood) andfuel wood and (b) minor forest products(Haripriya 2001). It includes only the recordedvalues by forest department and thus, all otherbenefits from forests are unaccounted in thenational income. This necessitates relook at thecurrent approach of computations of Gross Do-mestic District Product (GDDP), State DomesticProduct (SDP) and Gross Domestic Product(GDP). Gross underestimation and non-account-ing of natural resources and forest resources inparticular is responsible for unsustainable utili-zation of natural resources. Under valuation ofecosystem goods and services is evident fromGDDP of Rs. 5,978 crores in 2009-10 (at current

prices), which accounts as the sectoral share offorests of Rs. 180 crores, contrary to the esti-mated valuation of provisioning services (rang-es from 9707 to 15171 crores per year). TEV offorest ecosystem accounts to Rs. 84,321 croresper year.

CONCLUSION

Forest resources in the Uttara Kannada dis-trict has undergone tremendous change anddegradation because the value of it is being poor-ly understood and not considered in the policymaking process. However, valuation of regulat-ing services, cultural services and supportingservices are more difficult to estimate and thuspose serious challenges to planners and practi-tioners. As a consequence the values of theseservices are often overlooked. Hence, valuationof these services in income accounting of a re-gion/nation is essential to make the plans andpolicies more sustainable.

Goods and services that forest ecosystemsprovide are grossly undervalued, evident fromGDDP of Uttara Kannada, about Rs. 5,978 crores,which accounts goods of forests as Rs. 180crores (3% of GDDP), in contrast to TEV of Rs.84,321 crores from forest ecosystems of UttaraKannada district. The comprehensive valuationhas the potential to provide effective optionsfor management of ecosystem. If the total eco-nomic value of forests ecosystem in particularand ecosystem in general are not considered indecision and policy making, the policies thusadopted would lead to detrimental effect on hu-man and societal welfare in the long run. Poli-cies therefore, have an important role in ensur-ing that benefits from forest ecosystem are ac-counted in decision making to avoid underesti-mation of the values of forest, value of conser-vation and sustainable use of forest resources.Incorporating the values of ecosystem servicesplays an important role in making the economyresource efficient

RECOMMENDATIONS

Forest resources in the Uttara Kannada dis-trict have undergone tremendous change anddegradation because the value of it is being poor-ly understood and not considered in the policymaking process. However, valuation of regulat-ing services, cultural services and supportingservices are more difficult to estimate and thus

Table 15: GDDP of Uttara Kannada with sectors

Sector Sectoral Sectoralcontribution share (in

(in Rs. crores) percent)

Primary Sector 1060 1 8 (Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Mining)Forestry and Logging Sector 180 3GDDP of Uttara Kannada 5978 100

Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics,Government of Karnataka

Table 14: Taluk wise total economic value goodsand services from forest ecosystem

S. Taluk TEV of forest ecosystemNo. (in Rs. crores per year)

1 Ankola 88032 Bhatkal 27323 Haliyal 52044 Honnavar 59045 Karwar 66106 Kumta 43447 Mundgod 32078 Siddapur 66229 Sirsi 98591 0 Supa 198871 1 Yellapur 11150

District Total 84321

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of S

cien

ce],

[T

. V. R

amac

hand

ra]

at 0

7:01

26

Sept

embe

r 20

17

288


pose serious challenges to planners and practi-tioners. As a consequence the values of theseservices are often overlooked. Hence, valuationof these services in income accounting of a re-gion/ nation is essential to make the plans andpolicies more sustainable.

Major threats are habitat fragmentation, neg-ligence, conflict of interest and ineffective res-toration/improvement strategies. Poor under-standing of the complex ecological processesand proper estimation of the ecosystem bene-fits have often lead to the destruction of fragileecosystems. To improve the scenario, thoroughunderstandings of the complex ecosystem dy-namics as well as its socio-religious associationwith community life both are important from con-servation and management point of view.

Conservation activities are mostly imple-mented by Government agencies, NGOs andsometimes by communities. However communi-ty participation is often activated by extra muralsupport which has serious problem in long termsustainability due to financial limitation. Theproblem could be mitigated to some extent byawareness generation so to raise the interestamong people to safeguard its future for theirown benefit. The premium should be on conser-vation of the remaining fragile ecosystems,which are vital for the water security (perennial-ity of streams), food security (sustenance ofbiodiversity) and uplift the livelihoods of localpopulation due to carbon credits.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to (i) the NRDMS division,The Ministry of Science and Technology, Gov-ernment of India, (ii) ENVIS division, the Minis-try of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,GoI and (iii) Indian Institute of Science for thefinancial and infrastructure support. We thankDr. Prakash Mesta for the assistance in compil-ing information from government agencies.

REFERENCES

Anderson T, Bojo J 1992. The economic value of for-ests. In: Anil Agarwal (Ed.): The Price of Forests.New Delhi: Centre for Science and Environment,pp. 14-26.

Anitha V, Muraleedharan PK 2006. Economic Valua-tion of Ecotourism Development of a Recreation-al Site in the Natural Forests of Southern WesternGhats. KFRI Research Report, Kerala Forest Re-search Institute, Peechi.

Arnold JEM, Pérez MR 2001. Can non-timber forestproducts match tropical forest conservation anddevelopment objectives? Ecol Econ, 39(3): 437-447.

Atkinson G, Gundimeda H 2006. Accounting for In-dia’s forest wealth. Ecol Econ, 59(4): 462-476.

Bhat DM, Murali KS, Ravindranath NH 2003. Carbonstock dynamics in tropical rain forest of UttaraKannada district, Western Ghats, India. Int J Envi-ron Pollut, 19(2): 139-149.

CBD 2001. Secretariat of the Convention on Biologi-cal Diversity, The Value of Forest Ecosystems. CBDTechnical Series No. 4, Montreal.

Champion HG, Seth SK 1968. A Revised Survey of theForest Types of India. New Delhi: Govt. of IndiaPublication.

Chandran MDS 1993. Vegetational Changes in the Ev-ergreen Forest Belt of the Uttara Kannada Districtof Karnataka State. PhD Thesis submitted to Kar-nataka University. Dharwad, India: Karnataka Uni-versity.

Chandran MDS, Rao GR, Gururaja KV, RamachandraTV 2010. Ecology of the swampy relic forests ofKathalekan from Central Western Ghats, India.Biorem Biodiv Bioavail (Special Issue), 4(1): 54-68.

Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farberk S, Grasso M,Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Parue-lo J, Raskin R G Sutton P, van den Belt M 1997.The value of the world’s ecosystem services andnatural capital. Nature, 387: 253-260.

Daily GC, Matson PA 2008. Ecosystem services: Fromtheory to implementation. Proc Natl Acad Sci,105(28): 9455–9456.

Daniels RJR 1989. A Conservation Strategy for theBirds of Uttara Kannada District. PhD Thesis. Ban-galore, India: Centre for Ecological Science, IndianInstitute of Science.

Database of Medicinal Plants 2015. Database of Me-dicinal Plants. From <http://www.medicinalplants-kr.org/ECONOMIC_ VALUE_OF_ MEDICINAL.HTM> (Retrieved on 17 April 2016).

de Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RMJ 2002. Atypology for the classification, description and val-uation of ecosystem functions, goods and services.Ecol Econ, 41(3): 393–408.

DEFRA 2007. An Introductory Guide to Valuing Eco-system Services. London: Department for Envi-ronment, Food and Rural Affairs, pp. 66. From<https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69192/pb12852-eco-valuing-071205.pdf> (Retrieved on 3 April 2016;9 July 2017).

Djafar F 2006. Cultural Services of Forests: A CaseStudy in Garhwal Hills, Uttaranchal, India. NET-FOP Report 07. Alterra, Wageningen UR. From<http://edepot.wur.nl/385797> (Retrieved on 28April 2016).

EEC 2012. European Energy Exchange. From <https://www.eex.com> (Retrieved on 17 April 2016).

Falconer J, Koppell CRS 1990. The Major Significanceof ‘Minor’ Forest Products: The Local Use andValue of Forest in the West African Humid ForestZone. Community Forestry Note 6, Rome: FAO.

FAO 2010. Global Forest Resources Assessment-2010.FAO Forestry Paper 163. Rome: FAO.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of S

cien

ce],

[T

. V. R

amac

hand

ra]

at 0

7:01

26

Sept

embe

r 20

17

289


Gera M, Yadav AKR, Bisht NS, Mohan G 2008. Valua-tion of recreational benefits from the valley offlowers National Park. Indian For, 134(1): 26-35.

Gonzalez P, Hassan R, Lakyda P, McCallum I, NilssonS, Pulhin J, Rosenburg B, Scholes B 2005. Forestand woodland systems. In: R Hassan, R Scholes, NAsh (Eds.): Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Vol-ume 1: Current State and Trends. Washington: Is-land Press, pp 68-77.

Gunderson LH, Cosens B, Garmestani AS 2016. Adaptivegovernance of riverine and wetland ecosystem goodsand services. Journal of Environmental Management,183(2): 353-360. doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman. 2016.05.024.

Haripriya GS 2001. Integrated environmental and eco-nomic accounting: An application to the forestresources in India. Environ Resour Econ , 19(1):73-95.

Haripriya GS 2002. Biomass carbon of truncated diam-eter classes in Indian forests. Forest Ecol Manage,168(1-3): 1-13.

Harsha VH, Shripathi V, Hegde GR 2005. Ethno veter-inary practices in Uttara Kannada district of Kar-nataka. Indian J Tradit Know, 4(30): 253-258.

Hebbar SS, Hegde G, Hegde GR 2010. Less known wildedible fruits and seeds of Uttara Kannada district.Indian For, 136(9): 1218-1222.

Hegde HV, Hegde GR, Kholkute SD 2007. Herbal carefor reproductive health: Ethnomedicobotany fromUttara Kannada district, Karnataka, India. Com-plement Ther Clin Pract, 13(1): 38-45.

Kamath SU 1985. Uttara Kannada District. Karnata-ka State Gazetteer. Bangalore: Government of Kar-nataka.

KFD 2015. Karwar Division, Karnataka Forest De-partment. From <http://www.aranya.gov.in/Static%20Pages/Karwar.aspx> (Retrieved on 12 January2015, 18 June 2017; 9 July 2017).

KPCL 2016. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited.From <http://www.karnatakapower.com > (Retrievedon 17 April 2016).

Kramer RA, Sharma N, Munasinghe M 1995. ValuingTropical Forests: Methodology and Case Study ofMadagascar. World Bank Environment Paper No.13, Washington D.C.

Kumar P, Verma M, Wood MD, Negandhi D 2010.Guidance Manual for the Valuation of RegulatingServices. UNEP, Nairobi, 2010.

Lal M, Singh R 2000. Carbon sequestration potentialof Indian forests. Environ Monit Assess, 60(3): 315-327.

Mace GM 2005. Biodiversity: An index of intactness.Nature, 434(7029): 32-33.

Manoharan TR 1996. Economics of Protected Areas:A Case Study of Periyar Tiger Reserve. PhD Thesis.Dehra Dun: Forest Research Institute.

Maudgal S, Kakkar M 1992. Evaluation of forests forimpact assessment of development project. In: AAgarwal (Ed.): The Price of Forests. New Delhi:CSE, pp. 53-60.

MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) 2003. Eco-systems and Human Well-being: A Framework forAssessment. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Mohandas TV, Remadevi OK 2011. A study on touristvisitations in protected areas of central WesternGhats in Karnataka. Indian For, 137(4): 403-410.

Murthy IK, Bhat PR, Ravindranath NH, Sukumar R,2005. Financial valuation of non-timber forest prod-uct flows in Uttara Kannada district, Western Ghats,Karnataka. Curr Sci India, 88(10): 1573-1579.

Myers N 1984. The Primary Source: Tropical Forestsand Our Future. New York: W. W. Norton.

NABARD (National Bank for Agricultural and RuralDevelopment) 2015. From <http://www.nabard.org/modelbankprojects> (Retrieved on 12 January2015, 18 June 2017).

Nasi R, Wunder S, Campos AJJ 2002. Forest EcosystemServices: Can They Pay Our Way Out of Deforesta-tion? Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR for the Global En-vironmental Facility (GEF).

Newcome J, Provins A, Johns H, Ozdemiroglu E, GhazoulJ, Burgess D, Turner K 2005. The Economic, So-cial and Ecological Value of Ecosystem Services: ALiterature Review. London: Economics for the En-vironment Consultancy.

NPCIL (Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited)2016. From <http://www.npcil.nic.in/main/ProjectOperationDisplay.aspx?ReactorID=76&Page> (Re-trieved on 21 February 2016).

Panchamukhi PR, Trivedi P, Debi S, Kulkarni AK, Shar-ma P 2008. Natural Resource Accounting In Kar-nataka: A Study on Land and Forestry Sector (Ex-cluding Mining). Centre for Multi-Disciplinary De-velopment Research, Dharwad, p. 242. From<http://docplayer.net/45191657-Natural-resource-accounting-in-karnataka-a-study-of-the-land-for-estry-sector-excluding-mining.html> (Retrieved on28 September 2016; 9 July 2017).

Pearce DW, Moran D, Biller D 2002. Handbook ofBiodiversity Valuation: A Guide for Policy Makers.Paris and Washington, D.C.: OECD, p. 40. From< h t t p : / / p o r t a l s . w i . w u r . n l / f i l e s / d o c s / F i l e /nfp%20for%20all/FinancingMech/OECD Hand-book on Biodiversity Valuation.pdf> (Retrieved on28 September 2016).

Peters CM, Gentry AH, Mendelsohn RO 1989. Valua-tion of an Amazonian rainforest. Nature, 339: 655-656.

Pittini M 2011. Monetary Valuation for Ecosystem Ac-counting. Issue Paper Prepared for the UN/WorldBank/EEA Expert Meeting on Ecosystem Accounts,London., p. 30. From <https://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seeaLES/egm/Issue10_UK.pdf> (Re-trieved on 28 September 2016; 9 July 2017).

Prasad SN, Hedge M, Hedge MS 1987b. Fuel Consump-tion and Conservation Method in Urban Centres ofUttara Kannada. CES Technical Report 25. CES, IISc,Bangalore.

Prasad SN, Hegde HG, Bhat DM, Hegde M 1987a. Esti-mates of Standing Biomass and Productivity of Trop-ical Moist Forest of Uttara Kannada District, Karna-taka, India. CES Technical Report No. 19, CES, IISc,Bangalore.

PSP 2016. Parrys Sugar Factory. From <http://www.parrysugar.in/html/locations-Haliyal > (Retrievedon 28 September 2016; 9 July 2017).

Raghunath HM 2006. Hydrology: Principles, Analysisand Design. New Delhi: Wiley Eastern Limited.

Ramachandra TV, Nagarathna AV 2001. Energetics inpaddy cultivation in Uttara Kannada District. EnergConvers and Manage, 42(2): 132-155.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of S

cien

ce],

[T

. V. R

amac

hand

ra]

at 0

7:01

26

Sept

embe

r 20

17

290


Ramachandra TV 1998. Energy utilisation in rural indus-tries in Karnataka. Int J Ambient Energy, 19(2): 75-92.

Ramachandra TV, Subramanian DK, Joshi NV 1999.Hydroelectric resource assessment in Uttara Kanna-da District, Karnataka State, India. J Clean Prod,7(3): 195-211.

Ramachandra TV, Joshi NV, Subramanian DK 2000.Present and prospective role of bioenergy in re-gional energy system. Renew Sust Energ Rev, 4(4):375-430.

Ramachandra TV, Kamakshi G, Shruthi BV 2004. Biore-source status in Karnataka. Renew Sust Energ Rev,8(1): 1-47.

Ramachandra TV, Ganapathy S 2007. Vegetation Anal-ysis in Uttara Kannada District Using GIS and Re-mote Sensing Techniques. ENVIS Technical ReportNo . 24, Environmental Information System, CES,IISc, Bangalore.

Ramachandra TV, Chandran MDS, Gururaja KV, Sree-kantha 2007. Cumulative Environmental ImpactAssessment. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Ramachandra TV, Alakananda B, Ali Rani, Khan MA2011. Ecological and socio-economic assessmentof Varthur wetland, Bengaluru, India. J Environ SciEng, 53(1): 101-108.

Ramachandra TV, Chandran MDS, Joshi NV, Balachan-dran C 2012. Beekeeping: Sustainable LivelihoodOption in Uttara Kannada, Central Western Ghats.ENVIS Technical Report No . 19, EnvironmentalInformation System, CES, IISc, Bangalore.

Ramachandra TV, Subramanian DK, Joshi NV, GunagaSV, Harikanta RB 2000. Domestic energy consump-tion patterns in Uttara Kannada district, Karnata-ka state, India. Energ Convers Manage, 41(8): 775-831.

Ramachandra TV, Chandran MDS, Joshi NV, KarthickB, Mukri VD 2015. Ecohydrology of Lotic Systemsin Uttara Kannada, Central Western Ghats, India.Springer: Environmental Management of River Ba-sin Ecosystems, Springer Earth System Sciences.

Ramachandra TV, Bharath Setturu, Rajan KS, Chan-dran MDS 2016a. Stimulus of DevelopmentalProjects to Landscape Dynamics in Uttara Kanna-da, Central Western Ghats. The Egyptian Journalof Remote Sensing and Space Sciences. From <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrs.2016.09.001>, pp.1-19.

Ramachandra, TV, Vinay S, Aithal BH 2016b. Envi-ronmental flow assessment in a lotic ecosystem ofCentral Western Ghats, India. Hydrol Curr Res, 7:1-14.

Ramana P, Patil SK 2008. Marketing of value addedproducts from Artocarpus species in Uttara Kanna-da district of Karnataka. My Forest, 44(1): 49-53.

Rao GR, Mesta D, Chandran MDS, Ramachandra TV2008. Wetland flora of Uttara Kannada. In: TVRamachandra (Ed.): Environmental Education forEcosystem Conservation. New Delhi: Capital Pub-lishing Company, pp 140-152.

Ray R, Chandran MDS, Ramachandra TV 2011. SacredGroves in Siddapur Taluk, Uttara Kannada, Karna-taka: Threats and Management Aspects. ENVIS Tech-nical Report 38, Environmental Information Sys-tem, CES, IISc, Bangalore.

Ray R, Ramachandra TV 2011. Small sacred groves inlocal landscape: Are they really worth for conser-vation? Curr Sci India, 98(9): 1178-1180.

Ray R, Chandran MDS, Ramachandra TV 2015. Hy-drological importance of sacred forest fragmentsin Central Western Ghats of India. Trop Ecol, 56:87-99.

Schaafsma M, Morse-Jones S, Posen P, Swetnam R.D,Balmford A, Bateman IJ, Burgess ND, ChamshamaSAO., Fisher B, Freeman T, Geofrey V, Green RE,Hepelwa AS, Turner RK 2014. The importance oflocal forest benefits: Economic valuation of Non-Timber Forest Products in the Eastern Arc Moun-tains in Tanzania. Global Environmental Change,24(2014): 295-305.

SCIL 2015. Solaris Chemtech Industries Limited, Bi-naga, Karwar. From <http://www. solarischemtech.com/infra-falt.asp?links=falt> (Retrieved on 17 June2015).

Seema D, Ramachandra TV 2010. Carbon Sequestra-tion Potential of Ecosystems in Uttara KannadaDistrict, Western Ghats of Karnataka, India, In: TVRamachandra (Ed.): Proceedings of Lake 2010: Con-ference on Wetlands, Biodiversity and ClimateChange, 22-24 Dec. 2010, Bangalore, pp. 162-178.From <http://wgbis.ces.iisc.ernet.in/energy/lake2010/Theme%201/seema_day.pdf>.

Simpson RD, Sedjo RA, Reid JW 1996. Valuing biodi-versity for use in pharmaceutical research. The J ofPolit Econ, 104(1): 163-185.

TEEB 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodi-versity Ecological and Economic Foundations. Push-pam Kumar (Ed.). London and Washington: Earth-scan, pp 31-224. From <http://www.teebweb.org/our-publications/teeb-study-reports/ecological-and-economic-foundations>. (Retrieved on 21 Febru-ary 2016)

Tewari DD, Campbell JY 1996. Increased Develop-ment of Non-Timber Forest Products in India: SomeIssues and Concern. Unasylva, 47(187): 26-31.From <http://www.fao.org/docrep/w2149e/w2149e06.htm#increased development of non timberforest products in India: some issues and co> (Re-trieved on 17 January 2015).

Verma M, Joshi S, Godbole G, Singh A 2007. Valuationof Ecosystem Services and Forest Governance: AScoping Study from Uttarakhand, Leadership inEnvironment and Development (LEAD-India),New Delhi. Pp 125. From <http://www. leadindia.org> (Retrieved on 21 February 2016)

Villegas-Palacio C, Berrouet L, Connie L, Ruiz A, UpeguiA 2016. Lessons from the integrated valuation ofecosystem services in a developing country: Threecase studies on ecological, socio-cultural and economicvaluation. Ecosystem Services, 22(2016): 297-308.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016. 10.017

WCPM 2016. West Cosast Paper Mill, Dandeli. From<http:// westcoastpaper.com/index.php?q=node/23> (Retrieved on 22 October 2016).

Paper received for publication on February 2017Paper accepted for publication on July 2017

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of S

cien

ce],

[T

. V. R

amac

hand

ra]

at 0

7:01

26

Sept

embe

r 20

17

291

Documents

Appraisal of Forest Ecosystems Goods and Services ...wgbis.ces.iisc.ernet.in/biodiversity/pubs/ETR/ETR125/Annexure_8_FOREST... · Appraisal of Forest Ecosystems Goods and Services: