International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem

Services & Management

ISSN: 2151-3732 (Print) 2151-3740 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbsm21

Ecosystem services valuation for enhancing

conservation and livelihoods in a sacred landscape
of the Indian Himalayas

Bhaskar Sinha & Sameera Mishra

To cite this article: Bhaskar Sinha & Sameera Mishra (2015) Ecosystem services valuation
for enhancing conservation and livelihoods in a sacred landscape of the Indian Himalayas,
International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 11:2, 156-167,
DOI: 10.1080/21513732.2015.1030693

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2015.1030693

Published online: 24 Apr 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 134

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tbsm21

Download by: [213.55.112.212] Date: 15 February 2017, At: 04:27

International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 2015
Vol. 11, No. 2, 156–167, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2015.1030693

Ecosystem services valuation for enhancing conservation and livelihoods in a sacred landscape of
the Indian Himalayas
Bhaskar Sinha* and Sameera Mishra
Indian Institute of Forest Management, P.O. Box 357, Nehru Nagar, Bhopal 462003, India

(Submitted 18 July 2012; accepted 14 March 2015; edited by Alexander van Oudenhoven)

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

1. Introduction the loss of biodiversity while maintaining incomes and

Ecosystem services support human life on earth, either livelihoods (Atkinson et al. 2012; Ninan et al. 2007).
directly or indirectly. The survival and well-being of This approach has received a great deal of attention in
human depend on these ecosystem services, and therefore the recent academic literature, however, applying an eco-
maintaining and improving the health of the ecosystems is system services-based approach to conservation is limited
critical for sustainable supply of these services. (Costanza among the implementing agencies (Turner & Daily 2008;
et al. 1997, 2014; Daily 1997; MEA 2005). The concept of Bateman et al. 2011; Johnston & Russell 2011; Mace et al.
ecosystem services is gaining importance among research- 2012). A lot of researches have been conducted on valua-
ers and policy-makers, as it is becoming a critical criterion tion and impact of ecosystem services at a regional/global
for conservation assessments (Costanza et al. 1997; scale (Costanza et al. 1997, 2014; Zhang 2004), however,
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005; Atkinson et al. the methods of measurement differed (De yong et al.
2012; Bateman et al. 2013). As a result, a consistent and 2005). In a study of global ecosystem services, the annual
robust means of measuring, mapping, modeling and valu- value of these services is US$ 16–54 trillion, with an
ing ecosystem services is important for decision-making estimated average of US$33 trillion (Costanza et al.
related to conservation at different scales (Ricketts et al. 1997). This value is now revised to $125 trillion/year
2004; Chan et al. 2006; Naidoo & Ricketts 2006; Fisher & assuming updated unit values and changes to biome
Turner 2008; Naidoo et al. 2008; Fisher et al. 2009). areas and $145 trillion/year assuming only unit values
Moreover, it allows meaningful comparisons of policies/ changed (Costanza et al. 2014). In India, even though
programs in justifying or criticizing a particular decision biodiversity conservation is emphasized in policy circles,
regarding various ecosystem services or ecosystem of any there has been little attempt to put a monetary value to its
area, especially, in a cost–benefit framework, where trade- benefits (Ninan et al. 2007). India is a mega biodiversity
offs in relation to a set of decision-making alternatives are country, and thus, forests play an important role by pro-
to be made (Binger et al. 1995; Pritchard et al. 2000; viding several ecosystem services, which are mostly unac-
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005; Boyd 2007; counted in economic terms (Nagaraja et al. 2010).
Boyd & Banzhaf 2007; Wallace 2007; Bateman et al. However, there are few studies available on valuation of
2013). ecosystem services for a larger area, like a state or region
Economic valuation of biodiversity and ecosystem (Verma 2000; Chopra 2002; Badola & Hussain 2005;
services is arguably the most powerful tool for halting Singh 2007; Joshi & Negi 2011). On the contrary, study

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

 International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 157

at local level ascertaining the willingness of the rural to note in the Garhwal Himalaya region, many a times an
people to pay for systematic management of natural entire landscape represented by a variety of species and
resources based on community perception is limited in ecosystems had been considered sacred and conserved by
India (Maharana et al. 2000). Further, a recent study forbidding the use of any resource from it (Negi 2010a;
showed that value of ecosystem services such as fresh 2010b; Ramakrishnan 1996). As a result, a number of
water, soil nutrients and non-timber forest products sacred groves are reported from different parts of
(NTFPs) of Indian forest was approximately 7% of Garhwal Himalaya (Sinha and Maikhuri 1998; Sinha
national GDP, however it amounted to 57% of the et al. 2003; Anthwal et al. 2006; Sinha 2011).
income of rural Indian (Sukhdev 2009). This emphasizes HSL is situated above Kodima village which is at a
the need for economic valuation of ecosystem services at distance of 32 km from the nearest town Gauchar in
a local level linked to a particular landscape/area. Rudraprayag district of Uttarakhand (Figure 1). Three
It is well recognized in India and across the globe that villages Kodima, Jasholi and Pavo form the boundary of
the concept of sacred (sacred groves and landscapes) play sacred landscape as they are directly linked through the
an important role in conserving the biodiversity of the rituals of the goddess Hariyali Devi. The summit of the
remote and inaccessible region based on socio-cultural hill which abodes the goddess is 2850 m from mean sea
belief system (Kosambi 1962; Ramakrishnan et al. 1998; level and the sacred forest cover 5.5 sq. km in area
Malhotra et al. 2001; Negi 2005; Sinha 2011). In recent according to the boundary of the forest which encircles
past, attenuation in belief systems owing to modernization, totally prohibited area of forest from human interference
changing socio-economic conditions, education, financial (Sinha & Maikhuri 1998; Sinha 2011).
support for conservation initiatives and poor information This landscape is known for its sacredness and its
transfer from gatherers to decision-makers have resulted in associated rituals and festivals, which provides a lot of
degradation of these sacred groves across the country opportunities for recreation and boosting social convivial-
(Ramakrishnan et al. 1998; Bisht & Sharma 2005). ity and solidarity of the region. There are three major
Economic incentive based on valuation of ecosystem ser- festivals celebrated related to the myths and rituals asso-
vices and dissemination of relevant information to the ciated with this landscape; that is, Rakshabandhan (offer-
concerned stakeholders could be one of the important ings in the form of milk and milk products are made in the
tools to rejuvenate and conserve the associated cultural month of August to the goddess of the main temple
and ecological uniqueness of such sacred groves/land- situated in the dense forest), Janmashtami (a fair organized
scapes. Besides, it could be hypothesized that people in the month of Aug-Sep in the village Jasholi and also
associated with such groves/landscapes will have different supported by the local government) and Diwali (in the
perceptions/rationale for conserving this landscape since month of Oct-Nov villagers make a pilgrimage to the
the benefits received by different villages will differ sacred forest from the temple at Jasholi village. The idol
because of physical accessibility and rights. It is, therefore, of the goddess is carried over to the main temple at the
important that research with a focus on economic valua- summit in a procession, i.e. called doli yatra.). On the day
tion of ecosystem services of these sacred groves/land- of these festivals, a large number of people of people visit
scapes is undertaken at a micro level, so that people can the site, for offerings to the deity, and also for a social
be sensitized about the economic significance of the land- gathering. Such occasions provide opportunity to the peo-
scape in addition to ecological and cultural significances. ple to meet their relatives, friends and discuss family and
The current study on economic valuation of Hariyali personal issues. Different stalls put up by the local people
sacred landscape (HSL), situated in Garhwal Himalaya is for selling a variety of products such as food, traditional
conceived with an aim to identify different ecosystem cosmetics and toys help them to benefit economically.
services associated with HSL, as perceived by the local These in turn promote social conviviality and solidarity
community and to rank them on the basis of economic among the people associated with this landscape, which
valuation and people’s perception. The study also helps in encouraging them for conserving the cultural and
attempted to analyze WTP with respect to socio economic ecological uniqueness of this landscape (Sinha 2011).
aspect, such as age, education and income.

2.2. Sampling
2. Materials and methods 2.2.1. Identification and ranking of ecosystem services
2.1. Study site based on people’s perceptions
The study was conducted in HSL, which is situated in HSL provides a variety of direct as well indirect ecosys-
Garhwal region of Central Himalayas in the state of tem services to the local people, besides having religious
Uttarakhand, India. Garhwal Himalaya in India commonly importance for the nearby villages. To get a fair assess-
referred to as Dev Bhumi (land of Gods and Goddess) ment on perceptions and WTP of the communities asso-
houses many important religious shrines like Badrinath, ciated ecosystem services with HSL, the villages were
Kedarnath, Yamnotri and so on besides the sacred con- stratified into three groups, namely core villages, nearby
fluences of five tributaries of holy Ganga. It is interesting villages and outsiders. The core villages (CV) included
158 B. Sinha and S. Mishra

Figure 1. Location of HSL

Jasholi, Kodima and Pavo, which are situated in the core ecosystem services and their willingness to pay (WTP) for
of HSL and are directly related to the Hariyali Devi temple the same (Table 1). Goods and services that could be
and its associated socio-cultural rituals and norms. The valued in monetary terms and has direct use are classified
nearby villages (NV) included villages that are situated as direct services and the others are classifies as indirect
in the periphery of core village at a distance of 5–6 km, services.
whereas outsiders (O) consisted of people not belonging to Males of 21 years and above were only interviewed for
the core and nearby villages and were not benefitting from recording the perceptions and WTP. The selection of male
ecosystem services directly but were culturally attached to of 21 years and above was considered, as at this age male
HSL. The survey was carried out by the authors in the members start earning and lead a family life. The respon-
festive months of August (Janamashtami) and October– sibility related to earning and spending of money is pri-
November (just before Deepawali) in the year of 2010. marily confined to the male members, among the societies
These months/festival seasons were chosen to get all types of this region. However, it is not to underestimate the
of respondents including outsiders because they come to understanding of females on the importance and valuation
participate in the rituals of HSL during these festivals. The of ecosystem services.
respondents were interviewed at their homes, shops, farms To record the peoples’ perception on different services,
and near temple during the festivals. To get a comprehen- the respondents were asked to identify and rank the direct
sive assessment, a total of 140 respondents were randomly and indirect ecosystem services on the basis of their per-
interviewed, representing CV, NV and Outsiders to under- ceived importance. The ranks were given in the form of,
stand the perceptions of the people on different types of most important (MI), important (I), less important (LI) and

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

Education (%)
Average age Average income* School Above school Numbers of
Sl. no Target population (Years) (US $) level** level*** respondents
1. Residents of the core 43 2629 71 29 35
villages(CV)
2. Residents of the nearby 46 1938 89 11 66
villages(NV)
3. Outsiders(O) 48 3620 49 51 39
Note: *Conversion rate 1 US$ = 45.05 Rs.
**12 years of formal education.
***More than 12 years of formal education.
 International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 159

not important (NI). Values were assigned to the above- For the current study, WTP was recorded by directly
mentioned ranks in order of importance, that is, most asking people about the amount of money that they would
important would have the highest value of 4, and the be willing to pay (WTP/hh/year) for the direct and indirect
other ranks in continuous descending order. Based on the services as identified by the people. In addition, WTP for
scores obtained, mean for each service was calculated. The the temple development was exclusively asked, since peo-
mean value gave us the importance of that particular ple have greater faith in the rituals performed through
service as perceived by the different groups of respondents temple of HSL. The rights for performing rituals, visit of
as mentioned in Table 1. outsiders and accessing resource from the HSL are gov-
erned with the associated belief of the goddess Hariyali
and the temple (Sinha 2011). The respondents were first
apprised that their responses would be confidential and
2.2.2. Valuation method would be exclusively used for research.
The direct services can be valued better by direct market
valuation techniques but in the present study, the ecosys-
tem services of HSL do not have direct presence in the 2.3. Calculation for WTP
market (the goods like NTFPs, water, fuel wood, fodder
2.3.1. WTP for temple development
are used for domestic purposes and are not traded in the
market) and thus cannot be quantified by such techniques, The rights to resource use of HSL are closely linked to its
therefore CVM was used to calculate the values for direct associated religious and cultural practices. This not only
as well as indirect services. helps in conserving the landscape but also in boosting
CVM is a flexible approach and is generally used to social solidarity and conviviality. The revenue generated
include what is usually referred to as the existence or out of religious value could be used for managing the
passive use component of the economic value of an envir- natural resources and reducing the dependency of the
onmental good (Carson & Hanemann 2005). Because of people for direct use of natural resources. It is for this
its flexibility, CVM has become one of the most widely reason, WTP for temple development was considered
used non-market valuation techniques for estimating the apart from the direct and indirect ecosystem services.
economic values for all kinds of ecosystem services The respondents were informed about the activities for
(Carson et al. 2001). temple development before they were asked on their
It is a survey-based technique and are naturally prone WTP for temple development. Creating more infrastruc-
to a number of biases, some of which are specific while tures in form of guest houses, renovating the temple pre-
others are common to all survey questionnaires, that is, mise and building other amenities in order to facilitate the
strategic, compliance, starting point, range bias, impor- visitors during the festival seasons would attract more
tance bias and so on (Mitchell & Carson 1989; Bateman visitors. This in turn, would lead to increase in income
& Turner 1992; Spash 2008). It is, therefore, important of the people by benefiting from more employment oppor-
that CVM surveys should be designed in such a manner tunities, besides reducing the dependency on the natural
that helps to reduce bias problems to an acceptable level resources of the landscape. A hypothetical scenario was
and provide with useful value estimation information. In posed to respondents in order to know their WTP for
order to reduce the biasness of CVM in the current study, temple development:
only earning members with definite source of income was
considered so that a false/imaginary estimate can be ‘The Hariyali goddess temple is a place of great belief for
all the people, and the number of devotees is consistently
avoided. The respondents included only those present
increasing. Due to increasing number of visitors, it is
during the festivals, implying that their sense of belong- important to create essential infrastructure in and around
ingness to the HSL is supposedly higher as compared to temple to manage visitors to regulate religious activities
other who were not participating in the important rituals/ based on the existing belief system. This may require
festivals associated with HSL. The respondents were inter- creating a trust or shrine board and significant amount
of money. Under this scenario, would you be willing to
viewed individually and the response of each respondent
donate in monetary terms. If yes, then how much?’
was kept confidential. This helped in minimizing the bias
that could have been influenced from the responses of
others. 2.3.2. WTP for conservation of HSL, for direct as well as
In this method, service demand is elicited by posing indirect services
hypothetical scenarios that involve some valuation of
alternatives (e.g. visitors willing to pay for increased Similarly, a hypothetical scenario was posed to solicit the
access to national parks) (Ahmed and Gotoh 2006). response for conserving the landscape.
This method has been mainly used in various studies
for calculating the value of indirect ecosystem services ‘The natural resources of HSL are very valuable and
critical for sustaining the livelihoods of the local people
(Murty & Menkhaus 1994; Kadekodi & Ravindranath as they provide a number of direct and indirect benefits.
1997; Chopra & Kadekodi 1998; Maharana et al. 2000; However, in recent years, with population growth and
Manoharan, 2000). increase in resource use pattern, the capacity of HSL in
160 B. Sinha and S. Mishra

terms of providing different direct and indirect services as of formal education) then '1ʹ. The similar dummy variables
perceived by you, will decrease or may get lost. This is were created for other factors with respect to age and
very likely as the natural systems take a longer time to
income. Therefore, the model can be specified in the
replenish the resource and therefore it is critical that we
conserve and protect the natural resource from further following equation form:
degradation by supporting an organization to undertake
the management of HSL on a scientific way. This will WTP ¼ α þ β1 X1 þ β2 X2 þ β3 X3 þ β4 X4 þ β5 X5 : (1)
entail mobilizing a fund dedicated for conserving the land-
scape. Under such scenario, would you be willing to pay
X1 and X2 stand for different categories of age (21–40,
for conservation. If yes, how much will you be willing to
pay for direct and indirect services?’ 41–60 and 61–80 yrs); X3 and X4 for different categories
of income (up to 2220, 2221–4440 and above 4440 US$)
The survey for WTP started by asking the respondents and X5 for education. The results of the linear regression
whether they were willing to pay or not. If the answer was model are provided in the Apeendix.
‘no’ the procedure ended there with that particular respon-
dent. If the answer was ‘yes’, then the second step was to
determine the maximum amount he was willing to pay. 3. Results
The maximum WTP was determined by the bidding pro-
3.1. People’s perception on ecosystem services
cess. The interviewer started the bidding by a particular
amount, that is, Rs 100 (≈2 US$). Prior interaction with There are six direct and seven indirect services that the
the people revealed that most of the people are comforta- local people identified with HSL during interaction and
ble for donating Rs 100 (≈2 US$) for any public cause. If survey (Table 2). All these services are vital for the people
it was above the WTP, the interviewer reduced the bid associated with HSL, specifically for the residents of the
gradually until the answer was ‘yes’ and the value was core and nearby villages as these services affect their
recorded. If the respondent agreed to the interviewer’s livelihood directly and/or indirectly. The ranking of
initial bidding amount, the interviewer gradually raised ecosystem services based on people’s perception implies
the bid until the respondent said ‘no’ (Mitchell & Carson that how people perceive different services based on
1989). Personal information of the respondents like age, their existing knowledge and the benefits they obtain.
annual income, education was also recorded, as these Furthermore, analysis of perception ranking could help
factors could affect the WTP of people (Table 1). to provide insight for enhancing people’s participation
in the management of the landscape. The ranking of
direct and indirect services based on mean score is
summarized in Table 2.
2.4. Data analysis The mean score calculated based on people’s percep-
With the help of Statistical Product and Service Solutions tion for direct services was recorded maximum for nearby
version 13, Bonferroni test under ANOVA was used to test villagers, followed by core villagers and outsiders
the significance of difference for WTP for different eco- (Table 2). Minimum ranking given by outsiders for direct
system services between respondents belonging to core services was expected since they do not benefit from these
villages, nearby villages and outsiders. The same was services directly. Fuel wood is ranked higher as compared
also used to test the significance of difference of WTP to other direct services by the core and nearby villages as
linked to different categories of age, income and educa- their demand for the same is completely met by this land-
tion. On the other hand, Kruskal-Wallis test was applied to scape. Water and food production are also ranked higher
know the significance of difference on perception ranking. since the agricultural production of core and nearby vil-
Mean ranks were taken as dependent variables. This is a lages are linked to nutrients and water that they get from
nonparametric alternative test to one-way ANOVA, which HSL. Nearby villages are economically poor as compared
is used to test ordinal variables (Levin & Rubin 1998). to the core villages (Table 1) and therefore their depen-
Through these test, an attempt is made to establish and dence on agriculture and natural resources are higher for
evaluate the importance of ecosystem services perceived sustaining their livelihood. This could be one of the rea-
by different set of respondents, and to measure whether or sons attributed to the higher scores obtained on different
not the respondent demonstrate the implicit value for the direct services by the nearby villagers as compared to the
sacredness of the landscape and ecosystem services. In core villagers. In addition, one member of each family in
addition, the following linear regression model has been the core villages is involved in service sector (which is a
constructed and tested to show the extent of influence of fixed earning source) in contrast to lesser alternate liveli-
various socio economic factors such as age, income and hood options available with the nearby villagers.
education (independent variables) on WTP for different Therefore, the mean score on perception ranking for the
services (dependent variables). The model is a dummy direct services is higher as compared to that of core
variable regression model as for education level there are villages.
two dummy variables, if education level of the respondent Indirect services such as hydrological regulation,
is up to school level (12 years of formal education) then watershed services and soil fertility are again ranked
we put ‘0’, and if above school level (more than 12 years higher by nearby villagers compared to the core villagers,
 International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 161

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

Ecosystem services Core villagers Nearby villagers Outsiders

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

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

Temple Direct Indirect Total Minimum Maximum

development services services WTP WTP WTP % of respondents not
willing to pay
for direct and indirect
(US $/hh/yr*) services

Core villagers (n = 35) 21.3a ± 26.83 14.11a ± 20.19 14.4a ± 14.3 49.8 0.55 133.2 2.8
Nearby villagers (n = 66) 1.56b ± 1.9 0.57b ± .51 0.57b ± .51 2.71 0.11 11.1 3.96
Outsiders (n = 39) 16.12a ± 29.53 12.04a ± 17.75 11.52a ± 17.75 39.7 0.55 110.9 1.95
Note: *Conversion rate 1 US$ = 45.05 Rs.

which could be attributed to the same reasons as men- temple development along with direct and indirect services
tioned above in case of direct services. Education values are also calculated as the management of natural resources
of HSL scored minimum rank among all types of ecosys- within the landscape is strongly linked to the myths and
tem services by all set of respondents with core villagers rituals associated with the Hariyali goddess and the tem-
ranking higher compared to other respondents. The core ple. The average WTP with respect to different services by
villagers have higher appreciation about the opportunities different respondents are summarized in Table 3.
that HSL offers for research and education in natural The total WTP for conservation and management
resource management because of their interactions with (including temple development) of the landscape was
different researchers, who are associated with this land- highest for core villagers (49.8US$/hh/year), followed by
scape due to its unique ecological and cultural settings. outsiders (39.7US$/hh/year), and nearby villagers (2.71
The Kruskal-Wallis test to find significant differences US$/hh/year) with maximum WTP for temple develop-
between core villages, nearby villages and outsiders ment by all the respondents (Table 3). WTP for all services
showed that mean ranking of direct and indirect services of the nearby villages is significantly lower (p < 0.05) as
did not differ significantly (p < 0.05). This also implied compared to the core villagers and outsiders. WTP for
that the people associated with HSL recognized the impor- direct services varied from 0.57 US$ to 14.11 US$/hh/yr,
tance of its services in a more or less similar manner. whereas, WTP for indirect services varied from 0.57 US$
to 14.4US$/hh/yr across different respondents. The max-
imum WTP by any single respondent for all services was
recorded from the core villages (133.2 US$/hh/yr), fol-
3.2. Valuation of WTP
lowed by outsiders (110.9 US$/hh/yr) and abysmally low
WTP for different types of services by different set of for the nearby villagers (11.1 US$/hh/yr), besides the
respondents provides further insight to involve people in number of respondents not willing to pay at all (for direct
the management of HSL for the decision-makers. WTP for and indirect services) was highest among the nearby
162 B. Sinha and S. Mishra

villagers. The difference of WTP between core and nearby Table 4. WTP (Mean ± SE) for temple development, direct and
villagers could be because of the difference in their sense indirect services with respect to age.
of belongingness and ownership of landscape, education WTP for temple WTP for direct WTP for indirect
and economic background. These differences between Age development (US$) services (US$) services (US$)
core and nearby villages are explained further for attribut-
ing the lower WTP by the nearby villagers: 21–40 10.4 ± 2.7 7.8 ± 2.08 8.1 ± 2.3
41–60 12.85 ± 3.2 7.9 ± 2.01 8.09 ± 2.3
61–80 4.9 ± 1.6 3.4 ± 1.9 2.02 ± 0.9
(1) Due to lesser or negligible rights of nearby villa-
gers in the traditional rituals associated with the
temple and the goddess, there is difference in the
sense of belongingness and ownership of land- influence the WTP for the ecosystem services.
scape between the core and nearby villagers. Subsequently, WTP for temple development, direct and
(2) During the interaction with the nearby villagers, indirect services of total 140 respondents (respondents
some of the respondents revealed that their trust from core villages, nearby villages and outsiders) were
on core villagers in handling the money generated further grouped into different categories of age, income
on account of festivals, religious offerings and and education to understand the influence of each factor.
other associated rituals linked to the temple and WTP for temple development is higher as compared to
the landscape was lacking. In perception ranking direct and indirect services for people belonging to all age
analysis, nearby villagers ranked religious services groups (Table 4). WTP by the elder people (61–80 yrs age)
higher as compared to core villagers, but due to was recorded minimum for temple development as well as
monopoly of rights of core villagers in getting the for direct and indirect services even though many of these
benefits from activities linked to the temple and elder people expressed their strong desire to pay more.
religious practices, they are not willing to contri- The lower income and availability of less money at their
bute economically. disposal could be the reasons for lower WTP. However,
(3) Higher awareness and social recognition of the there was no significant difference in WTP (p < 0.05)
core villagers in recent past due to higher publicity between the respondents belonging to different age
of HSL, encourages them for development of this groups.
site in lieu of more anticipated income and thus Total economic earning is one of the most important
increases their WTP for temple development. factors for WTP by any individual for any service. WTP
More publicity helps the people of core villages for temple development by respondents of different
in increasing their earnings due to increased visits income groups is higher as compared to that for direct
of tourists. Whereas, lack of these kinds of moti- and indirect services (Table 5). The study revealed that
vation and incentives (economically or socially) WTP for temple development increased with increase in
for nearby villagers reduces their WTP. the income, however the same trend was not observed for
(4) Difference in levels of income is also one of the direct and indirect services. This also means that people’s
reasons for lesser WTP of nearby villagers WTP for temple development is driven by the religious
(Table 1). They are mainly dependent on agricul- significance they attach to HSL in terms of sacredness of
ture and have lesser options for alternate source of the landscape, and not primarily guided by their income.
income as compared to the core villagers. This implies that the role of institutions regulating socio-
cultural practices of HSL should be strengthened in order
On the other hand, the significantly lower WTP by the to conserve the natural resources.
nearby villagers as compared to outsiders, even though WTP for each of the three services (temple develop-
they are not the direct beneficiaries could be because of ment, direct and indirect) was significantly higher
their (outsiders) higher education and awareness about the (p < 0.05) among the respondents who had completed
importance of these services. Also, outsiders who come to their education above school level (who enrolls to univer-
HSL have a higher religious affinity in deity as they visit sity for higher education after having 12 years of formal
every year once or twice and travel from long distances.
Beside, their income is comparatively higher as compared
to the people of core and nearby villages (Table 1) and Table 5. WTP (Mean ± SE) for temple development, direct and
therefore their capacity to donate is higher. Apart from the indirect services in relation to income.
above cited reasons, variation in the WTP can also be
attributed to various socio economic factors like age, WTP for
WTP for temple WTP for indirect
income and education that are mentioned below. Income development direct services services
(US$) (US$) (US$) (US$)

3.3. WTP in relation to socio- economic factors 0–2220 8.3 ± 2.1 5.03 ± 1.4 4.7 ± 1.2
2221–4440 12.6 ± 4.6 10.07 ± 3.04 11.05 ± 4.5
From the current and past studies, it is assumed that, age, Above 4440 15.6 ± 4.9 10.05 ± 3.4 9.6 ± 3.06
income and education are some of the factors that
 International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 163

Table 6. WTP (Mean ± SE) for temple development, direct and pilgrims and 2.51US$ by the domestic tourists (per trip for
indirect services in relation to education. visitors and annually for the local community). This value
WTP for WTP for WTP for is less when compared with the WTP for conservation and
temple direct indirect management of HSL. Direct dependence of the villages on
development services services HSL for a variety of essential services like water for
Education level (US$) (US$) (US$) domestic use and irrigation, fuel wood, fodder and higher
religious belief in the landscape could be some of the
Education up to 7.7 ± 1.8 4.7 ± 1.3 4.9 ± 1.6
school level reasons that could be linked to the higher WTP. Besides,
Education with 18.7 ± 4.8 13.6 ± 2.9 12.7 ± 2.9 the people have local and regional identity due to HSL.
above school Similarly, the average WTP for conservation of a sacred
level grove in Karnataka (India) was 123.15 US$ per household
(Panchamukhi et al. 2007), which is higher as compared to
the total WTP for conserving the HSL. The higher income
of villagers in Karnataka as compared to the villagers of
education at school) as compared to the respondents who
HSL could be the reason for higher WTP observed in
had their education up to school level (12 years of formal
Karnataka.
education) (Table 6). Level of education was the only
As far as WTP for direct services (HSL) is concerned,
significant factor in determining the WTP for different
there are other studies conducted on WTP for a particular
services within the landscape, when multiple regression
service/product in different regions, but have used differ-
analysis was constructed and tested as per the Equation 1,
ent unit for valuation, and therefore cannot be compared.
described in the methodology section and the results given
Nonetheless, these studies signify the importance that the
in Appendix. As the education increases, the people’s
communities attach for future conservation. For example,
perception and realization about the importance of con-
WTP for extraction of NTFP per permit from a sacred
servation of different services also increases (especially
grove at Southwest Sichuan of China was 5.43US$ on an
direct and indirect services), as they learn to appreciate
average (Garrett 2007), and total WTP for the preservation
these services from ecological and social perspectives
of medicinal plants in the selected villages of Karnataka
along with appreciation for meeting the basic needs of
was 0.52US$/ha (Panchamukhi et al. 2007).
life. Furthermore, it could be also said that people become
On the other hand, WTP for indirect services of HSL
more rational in terms of attributing value to the services
(14.4US$/hh/year by core villagers, 11.52US$/hh/year by
based on the scientific understanding rather than being
outsiders) is less than WTP for conservation of Dhaka
influenced by religious/cultural values alone. This could
Zoological Garden, which is 5.76 US$/visitor/day
be one of the reasons that the education was the most
(Shammin 1999), as this site is located in the capital of
important factors for determining the WTP and their affi-
the country which could have more educated and econom-
nity towards contributing in conservation of the landscape.
ically richer community as compared to the remote vil-
lages of HSL. Another similar study by Loomis (2000)
estimated that WTP for conservation of South Platte River
4. Discussion near Denver, Colorado is 252 US$/yr/household. A variety
The most important fact is that valuation of ecosystem of essential services such as wastewater dilution, water
services is not an end in itself, rather it acts as a tool that purification, erosion control, habitat provision for fish
provides useful information and recommendations for and wildlife, recreation along with higher income and
decision-making by demonstrating and analyzing eco- awareness could be some of the possible reasons for
nomic benefits and costs, and relating these to real-world higher WTP, whereas the lower WTP for indirect services
conservation and development issues. It also helps to of HSL can be linked to lower income and less awareness
develop mechanisms for raising sustainable finance for on indirect ecosystem services among people. People with
managing protected areas and sacred grove/landscapes higher educational background have shown higher WTP
(De Groot et al. 2002; Mathur & Sachdeva 2003). The for all services in the HSL and through multiple regression
application of valuation techniques to calculate WTP for analysis it was proved that it was the only factor that
all direct and indirect services also provides information shows a significant impact on WTP for different services
about magnitude of the benefits received by the prime as compared to any other socio-economic factors (i.e. age
beneficiaries from those services and their role in conser- and income), as described in the result section.
vation (Semwal et al. 2007). It also helps in understanding It is, therefore, suggested that education (both formal
the pattern of different level of beneficiaries in their WTP and informal) and the dissemination of relevant informa-
for conservation, as also observed in our study. In context tion related to biological, social and economic potential of
of WTP for conserving and management of different ser- the landscape should be made available to the people of
vices, a similar study was conducted by Maharana et al. this landscape in the local language so that people’s invol-
(2000) on Khecheopalri Lake in Sikkim state of India, vement and their WTP for conservation is enhanced.
which reported WTP for the management of lake to be Creating income-generating activities through promoting
0.88US$ by the local community, 2.16US$ by the local ecotourism will have a development impact and serve as
164 B. Sinha and S. Mishra

conservation incentives for the people of Hariyali land- References

scape. However, care has to be taken where people of Ahmed SU, Gotoh K. 2006. Cost-benefit analysis of environ-
different adjoining villages are accommodated in new mental goods by applying the contingent valuation method.
interventions in order to ensure larger people’s participa- Tokyo: Springer-Verlag.
Anthwal A, Sharma RC, Sharma A. 2006. Sacred groves: tradi-
tion and promoting social conviviality. tional way of conserving plant diversity in Garhwal
Himalaya, Uttaranchal. J Am Sci. 2:35–43.
Atkinson G, Bateman I, Mourato S. 2012. Recent advances in the
valuation of ecosystem services and biodiversity. Oxford Rev
5. Conclusion Econ Policy. 28:22–47. doi:10.1093/oxrep/grs007
The study shows that the HSL is not only important for Badola R, Hussain SA. 2005. Valuing ecosystem functions: an
empirical study on the storm protection function of
the core villages of this landscape, but also for other Bhitarkanika mangrove ecosystem, India. Environ Conserv.
adjoining villages due to a variety of ecosystem services 32:85–92. doi:10.1017/S0376892905001967
that the landscape provides. This is reflected from their Bateman IJ, Harwood AR, Mace GM, Watson RT, Abson DJ,
perception ranking on different services wherein nearby Andrews B, Binner A, Crowe A, Day BH, Dugdale S, et al..
villagers ranked highest for the benefits derived from 2013. Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-
making: land use in the United Kingdom. Science. 341:45–
direct services and indirect services, followed by core 50. doi:10.1126/science.1234379
villages and outsiders, however WTP by the nearby Bateman IJ, Mace GM, Fezzi C, Atkinson G, Turner K. 2011.
villages for the services was minimum. Such discre- Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments.
pancy between the perception and WTP can be Environ Resour Econ. 48:177–218. doi:10.1007/s10640-
explained by the difference in education and rights 010-9418-x
Bateman IJ, Turner RK. 1992. Evaluation of the environment: the
related to the rituals and accessibility to resource use. contingent valuation method. Anglia: CSERGE School of
A careful intervention to integrate the adjoining villages Environmental Sciences. University of East.
in the rights and ritual related to temple and to evolve a Binger BR, Copple RF, Hoffman E. 1995. The use of contingent
more transparent way to manage the funds generated valuation methodology in natural resource damage assess-
from religious offerings and Government, may lead to ments: legal fact and economic fiction. North-western Univ
Law Rev. 89:1029–1109.
higher participation and WTP for conserving the land- Bisht Y, Sharma RC. 2005. Traditional resource management
scape. Such interventions can be achieved jointly by the practices for biodiversity conservation and their significance
local people and the concerned local government offi- in Nanda devi biosphere reserve, India. Int J Biodivers Sci
cials. The government can apply the principles of eco- Ecosyst Serv Manage. 1:97–111. doi:10.1080/
tourism for generating income based on the cultural and 17451590509618084
Boyd J. 2007. Nonmarket benefits of nature: what should be
ecological values of the landscape and should also dis- counted in green GDP? Ecol Econ. 61:716–723.
seminate relevant information related to biological, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.06.016
social and economic potential of the landscape to the Boyd J, Banzhaf S. 2007. What are ecosystem services? The
local people and tourists. need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol
In addition, time series analysis on WTP for different Econ. 63:616–626. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002
Carson RT, Flores NE, Meade NF. 2001. Contingent valuation:
services may be undertaken after having implemented the controversies and evidence. Environ Resour Econ. 19:173–
suggested interventions. This would enable the implement- 210. doi:10.1023/A:1011128332243
ing agencies to assess the changing behavior of the people Carson RT, Hanemann WM. 2005. Contingent valuation. In:
with time and development, and further incorporate peo- Mäler KG, Vincent JR, editors. Handbook of environmental
ple’s perceptions to enhance people’s participation in the economics. Valuing environmental changes. Amsterdam:
Elsevier B.V.; p. 821–936.
planning for conserving such sacred landscapes. Chan, K. M., Shaw, M. R., Cameron, D. R., Underwood, E. C.,
& Daily, G. C. 2006. Conservation planning for ecosystem
services. PLoS Biol. 4:2138–2152.
Chopra K. 2002. Economic valuation of biodiversity: the case of
Acknowledgements Keoladeo National Park. In: Kadekodi GK, editor.
We would like to acknowledge the help of Prof. CVRS Vijay Environmental economics in practice: selected case studies
Kumar and Prof. Advait Edgaonkar for helping in the statistical from India (mimeo). Dharwad: Centre for Multi-disciplinary
analysis. The elaborate comments of the anonymous reviewers in Development Research.
improving the manuscript are acknowledged. Chopra K, Kadekodi GK 1998. Natural resource accounting in
the Yamuna Basin: accounting for forest resources. New
Delhi: Project Report prepared for MoEF.
Costanza R, d’Arge R, De Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon
Disclosure statement B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, et al. 1997.
The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
capital. Nature. 387:253–260. doi:10.1038/387253a0
Costanza R, De Groot R, Sutton P, Van Der Ploeg S, Anderson
SJ, Kubiszewski I, Farber S, Turner RK. 2014. Changes in
the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environ
Funding Change. 26:152–158. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002
The financial support to conduct this study was provided by Daily GC, editor. 1997. Nature’s services: societal dependence on
Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal, India. natural ecosystem. Washington (DC): Island Press.
 International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 165

De Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RMJ. 2002. A typology for ecosystem services and conservation priorities. Proc Natl
the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem Acad Sci. 105:9495–9500. doi:10.1073/pnas.0707823105
functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ. 41:393–408. Naidoo R, Ricketts TH. 2006. Mapping the economic costs and
doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7 benefits of conservation. PLoS Biol. 4:2153–2164.
De-yong Y, Yao-zhong P, Yan-yan W, LiuXin LJ, Jing Z, Zhong- doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040360
hua L. 2005. Valuation of ecosystem services for Huzhou Negi CS. 2005. Religion & biodiversity conservation: not a mere
City, Zhejiang Province from 2001 to 2003 by remote sen- analogy. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag. 1:85–96.
sing data. J For Res. 16:223–227. doi:10.1007/BF02856820 doi:10.1080/17451590509618083
Fisher B, Turner RK. 2008. Ecosystem services: classification for Negi CS. 2010a. The institution of taboo and the local resource
valuation. Biol Conserv. 141:1167–1169. doi:10.1016/j. management and conservation surrounding sacred natural
biocon.2008.02.019 sites in Uttarakhand, Central Himalaya. Int J Biodivers
Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P. 2009. Defining and classifying Conserv. 2:186–195.
ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ. 68:643– Negi CS. 2010b. Traditional culture and biodiversity conserva-
653. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014 tion: examples From Uttarakhand, Central Himalaya. Mt Res
Garrett L 2007. Attitudinal values towards sacred groves, Dev. 30:259–265. doi:10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-09-
Southwest Sichuan, China. implications for conservation 00040.1
[Thesis]. London: Imperial College. Ninan KN, Jyothis S, Babu P, Ramakrishnappa V. 2007. The
Johnston RJ, Russell M. 2011. An operational structure for economics of biodiversity conservation. London: Earthscan
clarity in ecosystem service values. Ecol Econ. 70:2243– Publisher.
2249. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.07.003 Panchamukhi PR, Trivedi P, Debi S, Kumar A, Sharma P 2007.
Joshi G, Negi GCS. 2011. Quantification and valuation of forest Natural resource accounting in Karnataka: a study of land
ecosystem services in the western Himalayan region of India. and forestry sectors (excluding mining), final report sub-
Int J Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Serv Manag. 7:2–11. mitted to the central statistical organization, government of
doi:10.1080/21513732.2011.598134 India. Dharwad: Centre for Multi-disciplinary Development
Kadekodi GK, Ravindranath NH. 1997. Macro-economic analy- Research.
sis of forestry options on carbon sequestration in India. Ecol Pritchard JL, Folke C, Gunderson L. 2000. Valuation of ecosys-
Econ. 23:201–223. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00580-6 tem services in institutional context. Ecosystems. 3:36–40.
Kosambi DD. 1962. Myth and reality: studies in the formation of doi:10.1007/s100210000008
Indian culture. Bombay: Popular Press. Ramakrishnan PS. 1996. Conserving the sacred: from species to
Levin RI, Rubin DS. 1998. Statistics for management. Upper landscapes. Nat & Resour. 32:11–19.
Saddle River (NJ): Pearson Education. Ramakrishnan PS, Saxena KG, Chandrashekhar UM. 1998.
Loomis JB. 2000. Can environmental economic valuation tech- Conserving the sacred: for biodiversity management. New
niques aid ecological economics and wildlife conservation? Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publication.
Wildl Soc Bull. 28:52–60. Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Michener CD. 2004.
Mace GM, Norris K, Fitter AH. 2012. Biodiversity and ecosys- Economic value of tropical forest to coffee production.
tem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol Evol. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 101:12579–12582. doi:10.1073/
27:19–26. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2011.08.006 pnas.0405147101
Maharana I, Rai SC, Sharma E. 2000. Valuing ecotourism in a Semwal R, Tewari A, Negi GCS, Thadani R, Phartiyal P. 2007.
sacred lake of the Sikkim Himalaya, India. Environ Conserv. Valuation of ecosystem services and forest governance: a
27:269–277. doi:10.1017/S0376892900000308 scoping study from Uttarakhand. Uttarakhand: LEAD India.
Malhotra KC, Gokhale Y, Chatterjee S, Srivastava S 2001. Shammin R. 1999. The economic value of the environment:
Cultural and ecological dimensions of sacred groves in cases from South Asia application of the travel cost method
India. Report. New Delhi: Indian National Science (tcm): a case study of environmental valuation of Dhaka
Academy Zoological garden. Dhaka: IUCN.
Manoharan TR 2000. Natural resource accounting: economic Singh SP. 2007. Himalayan forest ecosystem services, incorpor-
valuation of intangible benefits of forests, research and infor- ating in national accounting. Uttarakhand: Central
mation system for the non-aligned and other developing Himalayan Environment Association (CHEA).
countries, RIS Discussion Paper; New Delhi. Sinha B. 2011. Ecological analysis of a sacred landscape in
Mathur AS, Sachdeva AS 2003. Towards an economic approach Garhwal Himalaya, India: an interdisciplinary study.
to sustainable forest development. Working Paper Series, Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing.
Paper No. 2. New Delhi: Perspective Planning Division, Sinha B, Maikhuri RK. 1998. Conservation through ‘socio-cul-
Planning Commission, Government of India. Available tural-religious practice’ in Garhwal Himalaya: a case study
from: http://www.planningcommission.gov.in/reports/wrkpa- of Hariyali sacred site. In: Ramakrishnan PS, editor.
pers/wrkp_forest.pdf Conserving the sacred for biodiversity management. New
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishers; p. 289–299.
human well-being: our human planet, summary for deci- Sinha B, Ramakrishnan PS, Saxena KG, Maikhuri RK. 2003.
sion-makers. Washington (DC): Island Press. The concept of sacred linked to biological resource manage-
Mitchell RC, Carson RT. 1989. Using surveys to value public ment in the himalayan culture. In: Ehlers E, editor.
goods: the contingent valuation method. Washington (DC): Environment across cultures. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; p.
Resources for the Future. 197–204.
Murty MN, Menkhaus M. 1994. Economic aspects of wildlife Spash CL. 2008. The contingent valuation method: retrospect
protection in the developing countries: a case study of and prospect. CSIRO Working Paper Series. Canberra:
Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur, India. Delhi: Institute CSIRO. ISSN: 1834-5638.
of Economic Growth, Indus Publication. Sukhdev P. 2009. Costing the earth. Nature. 462:277.
Nagaraja BC, Sunil KA. 2010. Payment for ecosystems services Turner RK, Daily GC. 2008. The ecosystem services framework
– a new strategy for biodiversity conservation in India. and natural capital conservation. Environ Resour Econ.
Carmelight. 7:177–186. 39:25–35. doi:10.1007/s10640-007-9176-6
Naidoo R, Balmford A, Costanza R, Fisher B, Green RE, Lehner Verma M. 2000. Economic valuation of forests of Himachal
B, Malcolm TR, Ricketts TH. 2008. Global mapping of Pradesh, in Himachal Pradesh forest sector review.
166 B. Sinha and S. Mishra

London: International Institute for Environment and Zhang X 2004. Valuation on use value of biodiversity of
Development. Songshan Natural Reserve [Masters Thesis], Chinese
Wallace KJ. 2007. Classification of ecosystem services: problems Academy of Forestry (In Chinese with English abstract).
and solutions. Biol Conserv. 139:235–246. doi:10.1016/j. Beijing: China Forestry Publishing Press.
biocon.2007.07.015

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

Un-standardized coefficients Standardized coefficients

B Std. error Beta t Sig.

(Constant) 16.931 7.432 2.278 .024

X1: Age (21–40 yrs) .686 5.962 .015 .115 .909
X2: Age (41–60 yrs) 6.733 5.551 .152 1.213 .227
Age (>60 yrs)* 0.0*
X3: Income (0–2220 US$) −3.117 6.154 −.066 −.506 .613
X4: Income (2221–4440 US$) 3.251 6.957 .059 .467 .641
Income (>440 US$)* 0.0*
X5: Education (up to school level) −11.546 4.730 −.232 −2.441 .016
Education (above school level)* 0.0*

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

Adjusted R square - .050.
F – stat - 2.472.
Total observations – 140.
*Reference category of age, income and education.

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

Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients

B Std. error Beta t Sig.

(Constant) 12.424 5.017 2.476 .015

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

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

Adjusted R square - .054.
F – stat - 2.601.
Total observations – 140.
*Reference category of age, income and education.
 International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 167

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

Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients

B Std. error Beta t Sig.

(Constant) 8.620 5.636 1.530 .128

X1: Age (21–40 yrs) 2.696 4.520 .078 .596 .552
X2: Age (41–60 yrs) 4.636 4.209 .140 1.101 .273
Age (> 60 yrs)* 0.0*
X3: Income (0–2220 US$) .555 4.666 .016 .119 .905
X4: Income (2221–4440 US$) 3.229 5.275 .078 .612 .541
Income (> 440 US$)* 0.0*
X5: Education (up to school level) −8.014 3.586 −.216 −2.235 .027
Education (above school level)* 0.0*
Note: aDependent variable: WTP for indirect services (US$).
Adjusted R square – 0.022.
F – stat – 1.626.
Total observations – 140.
*Reference category of age, income and education.