Study Area and Methods
The Uttara Kannada district lies at 7409' to
75010' E and 13055' to 15031'
N extending over an area of 10,291 sq.km in the mid-western
part of Karnataka state, India (figure 3). It is surrounded
by Belgaum district and Goa territory in the north, Dharwad
in the east, Shimoga and parts of Daskshina Kannada in the
south and the Arabian Sea to the west. Uttara Kannada
district is one of the northernmost districts in Karnataka
State (Ramachandra, et al. 2018a; 2018b; 2018c). The
district consists of a narrow strip of the coastline with a
spatial extent of 3300 sq.km, which is relatively flat and
starts sloping gently upwards towards the east (Deepthi et
al. 2017), comprising five taluks namely Karwar, Ankola,
Kumta, Honnavar and Bhatkal (Ramachandra et al., 2018d;
2018e).
Fig. 3. Aghanashini estuary, Uttara Kannada district,
Karnataka, India 🡪
Aghanashini Estuary - Aghanashini River
running its course of about 121 km, winding through gorges
flanked with evergreen forests and valleys lush with spice
gardens and rice fields, the river widens into an estuary
covering about 4801 ha before its confluence with the
Arabian Sea in the west coast between the villages
Aghanashini in the south and Tadadi in the north, lies
between 14.391° to 14.585° N and 74.304° to 74.516° E of
Kumta taluk (Deepthi et al. 2017) in the Uttara Kannada
district of central
west coast in the Karnataka State of India (Fig. 3).
Villages (about 21) along the estuarine banks mainly are
traditionally dependent on agriculture and fisheries.
2.2 Methods: The secondary data was obtained
from various sources for assessing the resource availability
and consumption scenarios in the five estuaries. Field
survey were carried out regarding the fish resources, sand
mining and salt production in the estuaries. This involved
actual measurements (quantifications) and discussions with
the local people. The secondary data regarding the
ecological functions of the estuaries was collected from
Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI) centres
of Cochin and Karwar; Department of Marine Biology,
Karnataka University, Karwar; Cochin University of Science
and Technology, Biodiversity portal (Sahyadri 2018). The
socio-economic data related to the coastal taluks including
the villages around the estuaries were obtained from 2001
Census Report, Govt. of India; District Administrative
Reports, Govt. of Karnataka. The data regarding the
production of Gazani paddy and Coconut in the estuarine
region was obtained from Karnataka State Horticulture
Department. The direct and indirect values obtained from the
estuaries were calculated.
Market valuation technique was employed for valuing the goods
and services having direct market prices such as fishing,
gazani (salt tolerant) paddy cultivation, timber and fodder
obtained from the mangrove vegetation, aquaculture, sand and
lime shell mining, navigation, ferry services and port
activities. The market price values were assigned to these
goods based on the interaction with the locals residing in
that region. The gross revenues obtained from these
resources were obtained as per the equation 1.
Net benefit from the fisheries = Total fish production in the
estuary (tons) x Price per ton
Net income from mining/agriculture products = Σ (P Q) ……1
Where, P = price of the product; Q = quantity of the
product
Besides providing the direct use value goods, the estuaries
also provide various other important benefits such as
climate regulation, shoreline stabilization, natural hazard
mitigation, habitat and refugia for various organisms,
nutrient circulation, recreation and aesthetic benefits,
etc. CVM (Contingent Valuation Method) was adapted to survey
indirect values obtained from an ecosystem which is based on
the people’s Willingness to Pay (WTP) for it. For the
current valuation study, the values for the indirect
ecosystem services were adapted from the published
literatures (Ramachandra et al. 2017a; Bann 2003; Barbier et
al. 2011; Costanza et al. 1997; Costanza and Folke 1997;
UNEP 2013; NEP/GEF 2007; TEEB 2011). The values were
converted into Indian Rupees (INR) and are given in
Table.1.
Table 1: Economic values assigned
to different indirect ecosystem services
Function |
Country/
Region |
Technique used |
Unit
(rs/hectare) |
References |
Regulating services
|
Erosion control |
Gujarat |
Damage cost avoided |
137606 |
Hirway and Goswami 2007; Prakash et al. 2010
|
Flood control |
Srilanka |
Replacement cost |
158249.67 |
Barbier et al. 2011; Gunawardena and Rowan 2004;
Sathirathai and Barbier 2001. |
Storm protection |
Srilanka |
Replacement cost |
45000 |
Kathiresan and Narayanasamy 2005; de Groot and
Vander Meer 2010 |
Nutrient retention |
Orissa |
Replacement cost |
11034.5 |
Costanza et al. 1997; Costanza, and Folke 1997;
de Groot and Vander Meer 2010 |
Disturbance regulation |
Global |
Benefit transfer |
25515 |
Costanza et al. 1997; Costanza and Folke 1997; de
Groot and Vander Meer 2010 |
Waste treatment |
Global |
Benefit transfer |
301320 |
Costanza et al. 1997; Costanza and Folke 1997
|
Nutrient cycling |
Global |
Benefit transfer |
949500 |
Barbier et al. 2011; Costanza et al. 1997;
Costanza and Folke 1997; de Groot and Vander Meer
2010 |
Carbon sequestration |
Ashtamudi estuary, Kerala |
Damage cost avoided |
9110.2 |
Anoop et al. 2008; Barbier et al. 2011; Costanza
et al. 1997; Costanza and Folke 1997; de Groot and
Vander Meer 2010 |
Gas regulation |
Global |
Benefit transfer |
9600 |
Barbier et al. 2011; Costanza et al. 1997;
Costanza and Folke 1997; Fischlin et al. 2007
|
Climate regulation |
Global |
Benefit transfer |
4800 |
Barbier et al. 2011; Costanza et al. 1997;
Costanza and Folke 1997; Fischlin et al. 2007
|
Oxygen provision |
Global |
Benefit transfer |
5280 |
Barbier et al. 2011; Costanza et al. 1997;
Costanza and Folke 1997; Fischlin et al. 2007
|
water regulation |
Global |
Benefit transfer |
209088 |
Barbier et al. 2011; Fischlin et al. 2007
|
water supply |
Global |
Benefit transfer |
145920 |
Barbier et al. 2011; Fischlin et al. 2007
|
Ground water recharging |
Global |
Benefit transfer |
192000 |
de Groot and Vander Meer 2010; Fischlin et al.
2007; Barbier et al. 2011; Hassan et al. 2005; MEA
2005 |
Natural hazard mitigation |
Global |
Benefit transfer |
9600 |
Ramachandra et al. 2002; Ramachandra and
Rajinikanth 2003; UNEP 2013; UNEP/GEF 2007 |
Supporting
functions (Sahyadri, 2018) |
Habitat/refugia |
Global |
Benefit transfer |
5895 |
Costanza, d’Arge, de Groot, 1997; Costanza,
Folke, 1997; de Groot, Vander Meer, 2010 |
Breeding ground and Nursery |
Thailand |
Benefit transfer |
5271.3 |
Costanza, d’Arge, de Groot, 1997; Costanza,
Folke, 1997; de Groot, Vander Meer, 2010 |
Biodiversity |
Global |
Benefit transfer |
216000 |
Costanza, d’Arge, de Groot, 1997; Costanza,
Folke, 1997; de Groot, Vander Meer, 2010 |
Information
Functions (Sahyadri, 2018) |
Recreation |
Global |
Benefit transfer |
17145 |
Barbier et al. 2011; Costanza et al. 1997;
Costanza and Folke 1997; de Groot and Vander Meer
2010 |
Cultural and artistic |
Global |
Benefit transfer |
1305 |
Bann 2003; Barbier et al. 2011; Costanza et al.
1997; Costanza and Folke 1997; UNEP 2013; NEP/GEF
2007; TEEB 2011 |
Aesthetic |
Global |
Benefit transfer |
100 |
Barbier et al. 2011; Costanza et al. 1997;
Costanza and Folke, 1997 |
Science and Education |
Kenya |
Research funds |
34660.35 |
Bann 2003; Barbier et al. 2011; Costanza et al.
1997; Costanza and Folke 1997; UNEP 2013; NEP/GEF
2007; TEEB 2011 |
The direct, indirect and recreational benefits of the
estuaries were aggregated to obtain the Total Economic
Values (TEV). These economic values can be considered as
underestimates as the natural ecosystems are much more worth
in terms of the benefits they provide. The valuation of
natural resources is useful for policy formulations and
decision making.
3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
Ecological systems goods and services play a fundamental role
in supporting life and sustaining the economy. Valuation of
the ecosystem goods and services has become critical to
formulate prudent policies for the sustenance of natural
resources. The present study provides an account of the
resource potential of Aghanashini estuary of Uttara Kannada
district, Karnataka state, India. Aghanashini estuary is the
highly productive ecosystem evident form the total economic
valuation of estuarine ecosystem with the total value of
24.03 billion Rs/year and the annual productivity of 5
million Rs/hectare/year. Provisioning service makes up the
23% of the total value. Information service share is about
2%, while regulating and supporting services are
respectively 37% and 39%.
This highlights that estuaries of Uttara Kannada have been
sustaining the economy of the district in a significant
manner with the job potential and people’s livelihood.
Decline in the environmental quality of these ecosystems
necessitates the concerted effort to conserve the estuary in
a sustainable manner with the active participation of native
people. This also emphasizes the need for green GDP (Gross
domestic product) with the accounting of ecosystem goods and
services to ensure the sustainability of natural resources
(water, energy, land, etc.).
Citation :Ramachandra T.V, Rakhi. K.
Raj1 and Bharath H. Aithal, 2019. Valuation of
Aghanashini Estuarine Ecosystem Goods and Services, J
Biodiversity, 10(1,2): 45-58 (2019), DOI:
10.31901/24566543.2019/10.1-2.093
|