ICIMOD Working Paper 2017/6
Support to Rural Livelihoods and Climate Change Adaptation in the Himalayas (Himalica)

A Multi-Dimensional
Assessment of Ecosystems
and Ecosystem Services in
Barshong, Bhutan

1About ICIMOD
The International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), is a regional knowledge
development and learning centre serving the eight regional member countries of the Hindu Kush
Himalaya – Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar, Nepal, and Pakistan – andbased in Kathmandu, Nepal. Globalisation and climate change have an increasing influence on
the stability of fragile mountain ecosystems and the livelihoods of mountain people. ICIMOD aims
to assist mountain people to understand these changes, adapt to them, and make the most of newopportunities, while addressing upstream-downstream issues. We support regional transboundary
programmes through partnership with regional partner institutions, facilitate the exchange ofexperience, and serve as a regional knowledge hub. We strengthen networking among regionaland global centres of excellence. Overall, we are working to develop an economically andenvironmentally sound mountain ecosystem to improve the living standards of mountain populations
and to sustain vital ecosystem services for the billions of people living downstream – now, and forthe future.

About RSPN
Royal Society for Protection of Nature (RSPN) was founded as a citizen based non-profit, nongovernmental environment organization in 1987 to support environment conservation in Bhutan.
The Society was registered under the Companies Act of Bhutan until last quarter of 2009 without
proper authority which regulated the non-profit organization, with a special clause on non-profit
entity. With the establishment of Civil Society Organization Authority (CSOA) of Bhutan, theSociety is now registered under Civil Society Organization Authority as one of the Public Benefit
Organizations (PBO). RSPN’s mission is to inspire personal responsibility and active involvementof people of Bhutan in conservation of Kingdom’s environment though education, research andsustainable livelihoods opportunities.

Contact person: Nakul Chettri, nakul.chettri@icimod.org

ICIMOD gratefully acknowledges the support of its core donors: the Governments of Afghanistan,
Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Norway, Pakistan,
Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

2

ICIMOD Working Paper 2017/6

A Multi-Dimensional Assessment of
Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in
Barshong, Bhutan

International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), Kathmandu, Nepal andRoyal Society for Protection of Nature (RSPN), Thimphu, Bhutan
March 2017i

Copyright © 2017
International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD)
All rights reserved, published 2017
Published byInternational Centre for Integrated Mountain Development
GPO Box 3226, Kathmandu, Nepal
ISBN 978 92 9115 477 7 (printed) 978 92 9115 478 4 (electronic)
Production Team
Susan Shellars-Shrestha (Consultant editor)
Christopher Butler (Editor)
Dharma R Maharjan (Layout and design)
Asha Kaji Thaku (Editorial assistant)
Photos: Cover - Elisabeth Kerkhoff; pp2, 3, 7 - Nakul Chettri; p6 - Kamal Aryal; pp8, 24 - Pratikshya Kandel
Printed and bound in Nepal by
Hill Side Press (P) Ltd., Kathmandu, Nepal
Reproduction
This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes without
special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. ICIMOD would appreciatereceiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source. No use of this publication may be made forresale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from ICIMOD.
The views and interpretations in this publication are those of the author(s). They are not attributable to ICIMOD and do not
imply the expression of any opinion concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area of its authorities, orconcerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries, or the endorsement of any product.
Note
This publication is available in electronic form at www.icimod.org/himaldoc
Citation: ICIMOD and RSPN (2017) A multi-dimensional assessment of ecosystems and ecosystem services in Barshong,
Bhutan. ICIMOD Working Paper 2017/6. Kathmandu: ICIMOD

ii

Contents
Contributors
Acknowledgements
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Executive Summary

v
vi
vii
viii

Introduction

1

The Importance of Mountains

BhutanResearch Framework and Methodology
Research Framework
Study Area
Methodology

Research Results

1
1

4
4
5
6

9

Socioeconomic Profile
State of the Ecosystems
Ecosystem Services Assessment
Regulating Services
Supporting Service
Cultural Service
Livelihood Vulnerability Assessment

9
11
15
17
17
18
22

Conclusion and Recommendations

25

References

26

Annex 1: Household Survey Questionnaire

28

iii

Contributors
Overall research design
Nakul Chettri, Kamal Aryal, Kabir Uddin, Pratikshya Kandel, Seema Karki, and Bikash Sharma (ICIMOD)
Compilation
Pratikshya Kandel, Dago Tshering, Kamal Aryal, Kabir Uddin, Seema Karki, Tshering Lham and Nakul Chettri
Ecosystem assessment
Dago Tshering and Tshering Lham (RSPN)
Kamal Aryal, Pratikshya Kandel, Kabir Uddin, Bikash Sharma and Nakul Chettri (ICIMOD)
Livelihood assessment
Dago Tshering and Tshering Lham (RSPN)
Kamal Aryal, Pratikshya Kandel and Bikash Sharma (ICIMOD)
Geospatial analysis
Dago Tshering (RSPN)
Kabir Uddin and Nakul Chettri (ICIMOD)iv

Acknowledgements
We would like to express our gratitude to Dr David Molden, Director General of ICIMOD, for his inspiration and forproviding the required facilities for this research. We are thankful to Dasho Tenzin Dhendup, Secretary of the Ministryof Agriculture and Forest, Royal Government of Bhutan, for his support. We are also thankful to the Policy andPlanning Division, Ministry of Agriculture and Forests, Royal Government of Bhutan for their input. We express our
sincere gratitude to the Dzongkhag Administration of Tsirang and the officials of Barshong Gewog for their support
and tireless commitment in carrying out this assessment, both in terms of data and human resources.
This research was made possible by the untiring efforts of the team from ICIMOD and RSPN (named in thecontributors section). In addition, we acknowledge the financial support provided by the European Union throughthe Himalica programme to carry out this study.
Warm thanks goes to Susan Sellars-Shrestha (consultant editor), Christopher Butler (ICIMOD) and Philippus Wester(ICIMOD) for bringing the manuscript into its present form. Thanks also goes to Dharma R Maharjan for his hard
work in laying out the manuscript and to Asha Kaji Thaku for his editorial assistance.

v

Acronyms and Abbreviations
BTN

Bhutanese ngultrum

GIS

geographic information system

HHhousehold

Himalica Support to Rural Livelihoods and Climate Change Adaptation in the Himalaya
HKH

Hindu Kush Himalayas/Himalayan

ICIMOD International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development
masl

Mean average sea level

NDVI

Normalized Difference Vegetation Index

NSB

National Statistics Bureau

PES

payment for ecosystem services

PRA

participatory rural appraisal

RGoB

Royal Government of BhutanRSremote sensing

RSPN

Royal Society for Protection of Nature

SPSS

Statistical Package for Social Sciences

USD

United States dollar

WTP

willingness to pay

Conversion factors:viArea conversion:

1 ha = 2.471 acre

Currency conversion:

1 USD = 68.60 BTNExecutive Summary
Occupying nearly 24% of the world’s land surface, mountains are home to 12% of the global population andprovide a wide range of goods and services to one-fifth of humanity. The goods and services provided include water,hydroelectricity, timber, medicine, a wide variety of bio-resources, and opportunities for recreation and spiritual
renewal. The Hindu Kush Himalaya (HKH) is one of the largest and most assorted mountain settings in the world,covering 4.3 million square kilometers, stretching from Afghanistan in the west to Myanmar in the east. The region
is well known for its geohydrological, biological, cultural, and aesthetic value. The services provided by mountains
contribute enormously to the region’s economic growth and are key to sustaining the livelihoods of the more than
200 million people living in the mountains and the approximately 1.3 billion people in the downstream river basins,
as well as benefiting the global community.
Nestled within the HKH, Bhutan’s geographical diversity, combined with its equally diverse climatic conditions, makeit a rich repository of biological diversity and ecosystems. Its various forests types and freshwater ecosystems are
estimated to be the biggest contributor of ecosystem goods and services in Bhutan, contributing to the wellbeingof the Bhutanese people. More than 69% of the population are subsistence farmers who are dependent on forests,
water bodies, and croplands for agriculture and livestock. At the macroeconomic level, Bhutan’s development
agenda relies heavily on hydropower and tourism, which are, in turn, highly dependent on natural resources andecosystem services. An ecosystem valuation carried out by Kubiszewski et al. (2013) estimated that a total of USD
4,944 million worth of benefits are derived from the ecosystem services provided by forests, rangelands, wetlands,
and the inland waters of Bhutan.
However, Bhutan’s mountain ecosystem, like the rest of the Himalayan region, is fragile due to its topographic,
biological, and physical features. Its dynamics and stability are influenced by its development status as an emergent
economy, as well as other anthropogenic factors, including climate change. Hence, the development of policies andstrategies to address the complexities of ecosystem management and enhance its services for human wellbeing isimperative.
In this context, with support from the European Union, under the aegis of the Support to Rural Livelihoods andClimate Change Adaptation in the Himalayas (Himalica) initiative, the Royal Society for Protection of Nature (RSPN),
with financial and technical support from the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD),
carried out this study to develop a comprehensive understanding of the state and dynamics of ecosystems and theirservices in Barshong Gewog in Tsirang, Bhutan and their nexus with human wellbeing.
This report draws on both primary and secondary information. A participatory rural appraisal (PRA) and household
questionnaire survey were carried out to assess the state and dynamics of ecosystems in Barshong Gewog and theircapacity to provide goods and services, as well as community vulnerability to various drivers of change and theircoping strategies in response to perceived changes. In addition, the geospatial analysis was used to map the land
use and land cover change in relation to the spatial and temporal changes in ecosystems and ecosystem services inthe study area.

Findings
Barshong is one of the eight gewogs (sub-districts) in Tsirang Dzongkhag (district), which is located in the southcentral part of Bhutan between 250–1,600 meters above sea level (masl). It has a total area of 2,156.9 hectares.
The gewog has five administrative chiwogs (villages): Barshong Toed, Barshong Moed, Chhunythang, Gangtokha,
and Toisang. Most of the land is under forest cover, which is comprised mainly of broadleaf and chir pine species,
combined with agricultural land.

Socioeconomic profile
The local livelihood in Barshong is based on a combination of farming, livestock rearing, and a small amount ofwage labor. Nearly 80% of the respondents are farmers by occupation with around 20% engaged as wage laborers,vii

salaried employees and small traders. Farming households grow a diverse range of cash and food crops. Farmers
also earn significant income from cattle, goats, pigs, and poultry. Over 35% of households earn an annual incomeof less than Bhutanese Ngultrum (BTN) 20,000 (USD 292), while 8% earn more than BTN 100,000 (USD 1,458)
per year. At least 28.2% of households earn between BTN 21,000 (USD 306) and 49,000 (USD 714), while theremaining 28.2% earn between BTN 50,000 (USD 729) and 99,000 (USD 1,443) annually.

State of ecosystem and dependencies
Forest, freshwater, and agroecosystems contribute substantially to the local economy. Around 90% of households
depend on forest ecosystems, 88% depend on agricultural ecosystems, and almost 100% are highly dependent
on freshwater ecosystems for their livelihoods. Collectively, these ecosystems provide a wide range of goods andservices, including 22 provisioning services, 14 regulating services, 4 supporting services, and 6 cultural services.
Over 49% of the total population reported an increase in forest cover mainly due to community forestry, followed byrural-urban migration. Interestingly, 36.8% perceived a decrease in forest cover. In terms of the agroecosystem, over
40% perceived no change, while 38.5% perceived a decline over the last decade, attributing this to less rainfall,lack of irrigation, soil erosion, lack of labor, and poor soil conditions. In terms of the freshwater ecosystem, themajority of respondents (71%) perceived it to have decreased as a result of the drying up of freshwater sources andclimate change.
With regard to land use and land cover change, agricultural land, fallow land, forest, bare area, and water bodies
are Barshong’s main land-cover types. Forests cover over 85% of the total area, followed by cultivated land
(10.5%). Between 1989 and 2014, Barshong underwent minor changes with a 1.5% increase in forest cover and
0.9% decrease in cultivated land, with insignificant changes in other land cover categories. On the gewog boundary
bordering the Punatshangchhu river basin, a considerable change in the river course and coverage has been
observed.

Vulnerability
In terms of vulnerability, on average, 21.2% of households in Barshong reported experiencing more than two typesof crises, while 35% of the household did not report any crisis in the last 12 months. The months of May, June, andJuly are the most difficult for communities in terms of providing food. Related to this, and perhaps a cause of foodshortages, 29.3% of households also faced issues with poor production, mainly caused by lack of rainfall or lackof access to water. Other reasons cited for poor production were human-wildlife conflict and one report of a pest/disease attack on oranges, which is considered a major source of income. Other reported crises included market
fluctuations, illnesses in the family, and loss of livestock, but these were cited as minor problems.

Perceived changes in socioeconomic sectors
All aspects of social and economic sectors seemed to have improved in the last decade, as reported by respondents.
Medical facilities have improved (61.5%), water quality has improved (85.1%), there is better access to the forest(74%), food security has improved (83.3%), irrigation has improved (67.2%), and soil fertility has increased (47.7%).
However, 41.2% of households reported a decline in soil fertility due to loss of topsoil and lack of access to water.

Willingness to pay
Around 87% of households expressed willingness to pay for the management of ecosystems. More than 50% werewilling to pay at least USD 1.7 per year, over 20% were willing to pay USD 5, and less than 5% were willing to pay
more than USD 50.

Conclusion and suggestive actions
Barsong is an agrarian village with majority depended on agriculture practices for subsistence livelihood. The
ecosystem health is still maintained and through the dependency of people on surrounding resources are high. Food
security and water resources management is highlighted to be focussed and the actions were suggested to look foralternative livihood options including, tourism, cottage industries and market for ecosystem services payment.

viii

Introduction
The Importance of Mountains
Mountains occupy nearly 24% of the world’s land surface and are home to 12% of the global population (Sharma
et al., 2010). An estimated one-fifth of the human population derive a vast array of ecosystem goods andservices directly from mountains to support their lives and livelihoods (Schild, 2008). These services include water,hydroelectricity, timber, medicine, and a wide variety of bioresources, as well as opportunities for recreation andspiritual renewal. Mountains are socioeconomically, ecologically, and aesthetically significant, not only to the people
residing in them, but also to the people living in the lowlands. They are repositories of biodiversity and home todiverse ethnic communities with rich cultural practices, farming systems, and traditional knowledge. At the sametime, mountains are among the most fragile ecosystems in the world and are threatened with numerous drivers ofchange, including climate change, invasive alien species, globalization, urbanization, and other anthropogenicpressures (ICIMOD, 2009).
The Hindu Kush Himalayan (HKH) region is one of the largest and most varied mountain settings in the world,covering 4.3 million square kilometers, extending from Afghanistan in the west to Myanmar in the east. The region
is inhabited by more than 200 million people from a multitude of ethnic and socio-cultural groups. The region iswell known for its geohydrological, biological, cultural, and aesthetic value. Located at the convergence of threeglobal biodiversity hotspots (Himalayan, Indo-Burman, and mountains of Southwest China), the region has a richvariety of gene pools and species (Chettri et al., 2008). As the source of ten large Asian rivers, the HKH mountains
are known as the ‘Water Towers of Asia’. These mountains provide numerous ecosystem goods and services, withfreshwater being one of the most critical (Schild, 2008). These goods and services contribute enormously to theregion’s economic growth and are key to sustaining the livelihoods and industries that support more than 200
million people in the mountains and approximately 1.3 billion people in the downstream river basins, as well as
benefiting the global community (Eriksson et al., 2009).
However, over the past decades, the HKH region has undergone an unprecedented change in terms of the patternsof resource use and development, resulting from the burgeoning human population and unsustainable levels of
consumption. These, coupled with a changing climate, pose serious threats to the sustainability of vital ecosystems,
especially at higher altitudes, which are ecologically fragile and extremely sensitive. Until now, except for a few
experimental studies (e.g., Maharana et al., 2000a; 2000b; Baral et al., 2007; Badola et al., 2010; Chen &Jim 2010), no serious efforts have been made to enhance our scientific understanding of the significance of
ecosystem services and their value in the HKH region (Rasul et al., 2011). Substantial gaps exist in our knowledgeof geographical areas and ecosystem types, the status and dynamics of many ecosystem services, and options fortheir assessment, valuation, and management (Pant et al., 2012). Thus, there is an increasing need to enhance
our holistic landscape-level understanding of the state, dynamics, and value of ecosystems in the HKH region
and develop sound methodologies for monitoring, restoring, and valuing them in order to ensure that their value
is realized and that appropriate conservation interventions are implemented to effectively manage and conserve
ecosystem functioning.

BhutanBhutan is a small, landlocked country covering an area of 38,394 square kilometers in the eastern part of theHimalayan range between latitudes 26° 40’ and 28° 20’ north and longitudes 88° 45’ and 92° 7’ east. It issurrounded by the Tibetan Plateau in the north, the Bengal and Assam plains in the south, Arunachal Pradesh in
the east, and the Darjeeling and the Sikkim Himalayas in the west. The country is almost entirely mountainous
with elevations ranging from 150 masl in the south up to 8,000 masl in the north. Bhutan’s geographical diversity,
combined with its equally diverse climate conditions, make it a rich repository of biological diversity and ecosystems.

1

The image of 'Four Harmonious Friends' is a popular theme in traditional and contemporary arts seen
throughout Bhutan.

Bhutan has four main ecosystems: forest, alpine, aquatic, and agricultural (NBC, 2015). Forest is the dominantecosystem, covering over 70.46% of the total area, including various categories of protected area. Protected areas
cover 51% of Bhutan’s geographic area (LCMP, 2010). There are three distinct eco-floristic zones with different
forest types: the subtropical zone (150–2,000 masl), with mix forest vegetation; the temperate zone (2,000–4,000masl), which is dominated by conifer and broadleaf forests; and the alpine zone (over 4,000 masl), with meadowsand scrub. Bhutan’s aquatic ecosystem consists mainly of rivers, lakes, marshlands, and hot springs. Only 2.93% of
the total land area in Bhutan is cultivated agricultural land (LCMP, 2010). There are six major agroecological zones,
corresponding with altitude range and climatic conditions: alpine (3,600–4,600msl), cool temperate (2,600–3,600m), warm temperate (1,800–2,600 m), dry sub-tropical (1,200–1,800 m), humid sub-tropical (600–1,200m),
and wet sub-tropical (150–600 m). Bhutan’s 677 glaciers and glacial lakes form part of the Himalayan glacial
ecosystem.
The Bhutanese rely heavily on natural resources and ecosystem services for their sustenance (Kubiszewski et al.,2013; ICIMOD & RSPN 2014). Numerous ecosystem goods and services generated by various ecosystems (forests,
agriculture, grassland, and freshwater) contribute to the wellbeing of the Bhutanese people, with forests as theleading contributor (Kubiszewski et al., 2013; ICIMOD & RSPN, 2014). Forests provide a myriad of services,
including fuelwood, fodder, timber, food, fiber, shelter, medicines, household implements, and handicrafts, toname a few. As an agrarian community, around 69% of its rural population depend directly or indirectly on theseecosystems for agriculture and livestock (MoAF, 2011). In addition, the various ecosystems regulate soil and floods
and protect the fragile topographic characteristics in rural and urban settlements. At the macroeconomic level,
Bhutan’s development agenda, under the aegis of Gross National Happiness, envisions a green and self-reliant
economy with a strategic focus on major sectors, such as hydropower and tourism, which are highly dependent on
natural resources and ecosystem services (Norbu, 2012).

2

An ecosystem valuation carried out by Kubiszewski et al., (2013) estimated the total value of ecosystem services(provisioning, regulating, and cultural services) provided by Bhutan’s various ecosystems, including forests,
rangelands, wetlands, and inland waters, at USD 4,944 million. Similarly, a recent study estimated that an
average household in the Phobjikha valley derives USD 2,610 worth of annual economic benefits from ecosystemprovisioning services, with 84% of the total value coming from potato farming (ICIMOD & RSPN, 2014). It isalso worth noting that 53% of the ecosystem services created within Bhutan benefit people outside its politicalboundaries.
However, Bhutan’s ecosystems, like the rest of the Himalayas, are fragile due to its topographic, biological, andphysical features. Furthermore, its dynamics and stability are influenced by its development status as an emergent
economy, as well as other anthropogenic factors, including climate change. The country is facing numerous directpressures such as: habitat loss and fragmentation, forest fires, poaching, the illegal wildlife trade, human-wildlife
conflicts, overgrazing, the unsustainable utilization of resources, unsustainable agricultural practices, invasive
species, and pollution. Indirect pressures include: climate change, the rapidly growing population, and poverty(Zurick, 2006; NBSAP, 2014).
There is an urgent need to comprehend the complexities of Bhutan’s ecosystems and the bio-socioeconomics oftheir management so that appropriate policies and strategies can be developed to address emerging threats to
Bhutan’s ecosystems and enhance their services to benefit nature and humans alike. In this context, with support
from the European Union, under the aegis of the Support to Rural Livelihoods and Climate Change Adaptation in
the Himalayas (Himalica) initiative, the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) and
the Royal Society for Protection of Nature (RSPN) carried out this study to develop a comprehensive understanding of
the state and dynamics of the ecosystems and their services in Barshong Gewog in Tsirang, Bhutan and their nexus
with human wellbeing.
Based on local-level primary data, this report presents an integrated overview of the state and dynamics of
ecological, socioeconomic, and livelihood features of the Barshong Gewog. It also outlines community vulnerability
to various drivers of change and identifies coping strategies adopted by communities in the gewog in responseto perceived changes. The report discusses the prospects of managing the ecosystem to enhance ecosystemservices, address community vulnerability, and improve socioeconomic development. Finally, it concludes withrecommendations for increasing the ecological and socioeconomic resilience of Barshong and its people.

Vegetable fern is one of the provisioning ecosystem services provided by Barshong Gewog

3

Research Framework andMethodology
Research Framework
The ‘Ecosystem Services Cascade’ framework of DeGroot et al., (2010) and Müller et al., (2010) was modified
to design a research framework to assess the ecosystem services in the study area (Figure 1). This researchframework enables the importance and significance of ecosystem services to human wellbeing to be rationalized.
It compartmentalizes the elements necessary for the systematic assessment of ecosystem services, but allows for the
adjustment of these elements based on the need and requirements of the study area. It allows the elements of eachof the compartments (i.e., ecosystems and biodiversity, ecosystem services and human wellbeing) to be prioritizedand then each element to be considered with the logical linkages needed to develop an association between theecosystem services and human wellbeing. The framework also enables us to understand the state of the ecosystemservices and the dynamics of such services in a given study area and to link them with people’s dependence toinform decision-making processes. The present study also focuses on the information and knowledge flow back aspart of the impact pathway, which conventional ecosystem assessment practices do not consider as a cyclic or virtual
process.
Two types of indicators were considered vital in the research design for ecosystem services: ‘state indicators’, which
describe what ecosystem structures, processes, and functions are providing the services and how much (e.g.,
people’s dependency), and ‘performance indicators’, which describe how much of the service can potentially be

Figure 1: Research framework developed for the assessment of ecosystem services linked to impact pathways

Management of Socioecological System

Management of socioecological system
Biophysical structure
or process• Major ecosystems• Dominant vegetation• Phytodiversity• Biodiversity• State of key species

Provisioning

Functions*• Nutrient flow
• Water flow
• Productivity• Pollination• Habitat

Supporting
Regulating
CultureHuman wellbeing
Benefits

Knowledge enhancement, capacity
development policy briefs andmainstreaming mechanisms

Source: Modified from DeGroot et al., 2010 and Müller et al., 20104

• Economic
development• Health• Recreational• Environmental

Value• Social• Ecological• Economic• Tradeoff
options (e.g.,
REDD+, PES

used in a sustainable way (e.g., resources availability).
When this knowledge of ecosystem services is linked
with human wellbeing, the importance (or ‘value’)of the ecosystem and its services can be considered
under three value domains: ecological, socio-cultural,and economic. The ecological value encompasses thehealth of a system (and not necessarily in economic
terms), measured using ecological indicators such as
diversity and integrity (as well as trends and projections
if applicable). The socio-cultural value includes theimportance of the services provided to the people interms of their culture and traditions; in other words,
the cultural identity and practices related to the use of
ecosystem services (Raymond et al., 2009). Apart fromthese, contemporary tools such as remote sensing(RS) and geographic information systems (GIS) werealso used to understand the state and dynamics of
ecosystem services in the study area.

Box 1: Research questions to better integrate
ecosystem services into ecosystem/landscapeplanning, management, and decision-making•

What are the most important ecosystem services contributing
to the economic wellbeing of the communities?

To address the indicators for ecosystem structures,processes, and functions (and well as quantity), a
number of set questions were adopted from the global
framework (DeGroot et al. 2010) and developed tomeet the requirements of this study (see Box 1).

•

Are there any species or ecosystems that are socio-culturally
valuable?

•

What are the ecologically significant species or ecosystems?

Understanding the states of ecosystems and their goods andservices•••••

What are the main ecosystems found in the study area andwhat is their status?
What are the main ecosystem services provided by theseecosystems?
What is the state of ecosystem services in the given study
area?
How can these ecosystems and the services provided by thembe spatially mapped and show changes?
What is the effect of (changes in) the dynamic conditions(temporal and spatial) of ecosystem change on services?

Valuing ecosystem services

Study area
Barshong Gewog is one of eight gewogs (sub-districts) in Tsirang Dzongkhag (district), which is located in thesouth-central part of Bhutan (Figure 2). Located between 250 masl and 1,600 masl, it has a total area of 2,156.9
hectares. The gewog has five administrative chiwogs (villages): Barshong Toed, Barshong Moed, Chhunythang,
Gangtokha, and Toisang. Most of the land is under forest cover, which is comprised mainly of broadleaf andchir pine species, combined with agricultural land. The gewog has basic rural facilities including an agriculturalextension centre, a livestock extension centre, a forest range office, a basic health unit with an outreach clinic,
community information centres, and a primary school. It is connected to the rest of the dzongkhag by 11 kilometersof farm road. Most of the chiwogs in Barshong are covered by the national electricity grid.

Figure 2: Location of study area showing Barshong Gewog

5

Methodology
The research methodology involved both primary and secondary information. A sampling frame for the ecosystemservices assessment covered all 174 households in Barshong. Although according to official records, there are 249
households in the gewog, only 174 have people currently residing in them.
Data collection was done using participatory rural appraisal (PRA) and a household questionnaire survey. The
RSPN, in collaboration with ICIMOD, carried out the PRA in Barshong to identify major ecosystems and their uses
according to communities. Numerous PRA tools (such as resource mapping, pair-wise ranking, Venn diagram, etc.)
were used to gather qualitative data. This was followed by a household questionnaire survey to assess in detailthe state and dynamics of ecosystems and their capacity to provide goods and services to local communities. A
multi-structured questionnaire was prepared for the ecosystem services assessment by the ICIMOD team using
sets and sub-sets of indicators and values. Survey data was compiled into a Statistical Package for Social Sciences(SPSS) database, cross-checked, and cleaned. The analysis was carried out using basic description statistics, crosstabulation, the comparison of means, and correlation techniques.
The geospatial analysis was used to map the land use and land cover changes in relation to the spatial andtemporal changes in ecosystems and ecosystem services. It included both GIS and RS. The details of methodologies
for each action research are described below.

Ecosystems and ecosystem services assessment
The study focused on three main ecosystems identified by the communities during the PRA, namely: forest, freshwaterand agroecosystems. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005) framework was used to categorize theecosystem services derived from these ecosystems as: provisioning services (which provide direct inputs to livelihoods
and the economy), regulating services (which provide flood and disease control), supporting services (which sustain
and fulfil human life), and cultural services (which support recreation and spiritual or historical sites).
For the ecosystem services assessment, based on the literature review and PRA, an exhaustive list of ecosystem
goods and services from Barshong Gewog was prepared and categorized into provisioning, regulating, supporting,and cultural services. Ecosystem goods and services were then ranked as high, medium, or low, based on thecommunity’s perceptions of their importance and dependence. High-ranking goods and services were thoseconsidered widely used and essential to local subsistence. Medium-ranking goods and services were considered
preferred, but could be done without if unavailable. Low-ranking goods and services were those considered
optional. Socially, ecologically, and culturally-important species of plants and animals were also identified and theirperceived significance ranked in a similar manner.
The ecosystem goods and services that were considered for this study included: provisioning services (such asfuelwood, fodder, forage, timber/poles, leaf litter, medicinal plants, ornamental plants, wild edible fruits andvegetables, mushrooms, fibre, thatch, bush meat, dyes, paddy, cereals, vegetables, fish, drinking water, bathingwater, irrigation water, boulders, and sand), regulating services (such as carbon sequestration, climate regulation,
flood control, groundwater recharge, nutrient enrichment, pest regulation, pollination, seed dispersal, soil fertility,
soil formation, soil stability, waste
Group discussion with the community people
treatment, water purification, andretention), supporting services (suchas ecosystem resilience, habitatfor species, the hydrologic cycle,
and soil formation), and cultural
services (such as aesthetic beauty,
ecotourism, education and research,recreation, nature worships, andspiritual enrichment).

6

Geospatial analysis
For the land use and land coverchange analysis, efforts were madeto map the study area using threedifferent time series images from1989, 2003, and 2014. The
idea was to detect the change
in, and status of, land use coverand the changes that have takenplace, particularly in forested andagricultural land, over the periodusing both GIS and RS data.
Interaction with Gup (Headman of gewog council)
Subsequently, an attempt was madeto project the use of the identified
ecosystem services in the area over the same period.
Table 1: Data source
Medium spatial resolution satellite images from Landsat
Satellite
SensorRow
were used from 1989, 2003, and 2014 and further
rectified using Google eye images from 2014 to generate
1 Landsat
Landsat 8 138
the land cover maps (Table 1). The land use categorization
2
TM
was defined using the standard land cover protocol. The
3
TM
land cover information derived consisted of pre-processing
and classification using object-based algorithms.

Path
41

Year
2014
2003
1989

In this study, Landsat 30 m spatial resolution (185 x 185 km swath) ortho-rectified and cloud free thematic mapper(TM), enhanced thematic mapper plus (ETM+), and Landsat 8 images were used for land cover mapping andchange detection between 1989, 2003 and 2014. All images were downloaded from the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) archived data portal. The whole study area lies within thirteen fully or partially covered Landsat
images (each scene 185 x 185 km). The shuttle radar topography mission (SRTM) one arc second (30 m) digital
elevation model (DEM) with add on products such as slope and aspect, was used for the topographic information
as well as identification and mapping difference in land cover classes. Base layers with district, physiographic andsettlement points in geographic information system (GIS) format were used both as baseline information for themaps and land cover extraction and analysis.
Land cover maps for 1989, 2003 and 2014 were prepared from analysis of the Landsat TM, ETM+, and Landsat
8 images using geographic object-based image analysis (GEOBIA). The detailed methodology used to prepare theland cover maps is described in Uddin et al. (2015). Briefly, eCognition Developer software was used to divide theimage into segments. A multi-resolution segmentation algorithm was applied in which homogeneous areas resulted
in larger objects and heterogeneous areas in smaller ones. Information on the spectral values of image layers,
vegetation indices Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), and a land water mask was used in the analysis.
Six land cover classes were mapped for the comparison and further analysis on ecosystem service.
Following Chaudhary et al. (2016) in ArcGIS environment, the land cover was analysed and interconnected basedon the sum scores for provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural services. Values were obtained from the
SPSS data generated after the completion of the household survey, in which the respondents shared their routine
resource dependency on, and usage of, the various services drawn from the different ecosystems.

Willingness to pay and livelihood vulnerability assessment
The study also examined willingness to pay (WTP) for the management of key ecosystem functions and services
provided by Barshong Gewog. During the survey, communities in the Gewog were given monetary and nonmonetary (labour) options to express their WTP. During analysis, the non-monetary values were converted intomonetary terms using the national daily wage rate.

7

Regarding livelihood vulnerability, information was collected on inaccessibility, fragility, marginality, biologicalniches, and human adaptation mechanisms. The focus was on thematic areas such as food security, water security,
long-term changes to basic facilities for health, education, communication, and electricity, accessibility to ecosystem
goods and services, crises/shocks, and the community’s coping strategies to overcome these crises.

Local people preparing the community resource map.

8

Research Results
Socioeconomic Profile
Population characteristics
In 2014, Barshong had a population of 3,240 (RSPN, 2015). However, the survey conducted for this study excluded
any family members who had lived away from the gewog for more than six months, as the objective of the study was
related to resource dependency in the gewog.
The population pyramid for Barshong Gewog is depicted in Figure 3. The population of Barshong is comprised of
62% men and 38% women. The mean size of a household is 3.8 members. Half (51%) of the population is under
51 years of age and the dependency ratio is 46.1 persons (aged 0–14 years and above 65) per 100 working-aged
persons (15–64 years). The population density is estimated at 33 people per square kilometer (Table 2).

Figure 3: Population pyramid for Barshong Gewog
Males

Females

70+
65 - 69
60 - 64
55- 5950 - 54

Years

45 - 49
40 - 44
35 - 39
30 - 34
25 - 29
20 - 24
15 - 29*10 -14
5-9
Under 5
40

30

20

10

0

10

20

30

40

Percentage

Around 66.7 % of the total population of Barshong are illiterate, while 33% have completed some level of primary,secondary, or non-formal education. Only one person has a higher education degree. It is also worth noting that
there are more illiterate women than men (147 adult women, compared to 116 adult men).
More than 80% of the population in Barshong are Lhotsampas, Sharshops, Trongsaps, Khengpas and Ngalongs
make up less than 20%. Nearly 80% of the respondents are farmers by occupation with around 20% engaged as
wage laborers (5.9%), salaried employees (2.4%), or in other occupations such as small businesses (0.6%).

Landholding
Three categories of landholding were recorded according to usage: wetland/irrigated land, dryland, and orchard.
Information on the area of agricultural land use owned for each landholding category is summarized in Table 3. It
was observed that each household owns at least one or more type of agricultural land. The mean average size of9dryland owned per household is 1.2 hectares, the wetlandis 0.5 hectares and orchard is 0.2 hectares.

Table 2: Population characteristics
Characteristics(N)

Livelihood strategies
Local livelihoods in Barshong are based on a combinationof farming, livestock rearing, and small amounts of wage
labor. The main sources of income for Tsirang Dzongkhag
are citrus, poultry, livestock, and, more recently, organic
farming (NSB, 2013). Dependency on the primarysector is high, with over 80% of households exclusively
dependent on income from this sector. The contributionof secondary and tertiary sectors to annual income is
minimal (Table 2).
Farming households grow a diverse range of cash andfood crops. At least, nine types of crops, including three
cash crops (ginger, oranges and chillies), four grains(maize, finger millet, paddy and buckwheat), and pulses
are grown in Barshong Gewog. Maize is the main crop
cultivated (102.4 ha), followed by finger millet (62.2 ha).
Among the cash crops, oranges one of the main crops
and are cultivated on 21.9 ha (Table 4).

GenderAge
MaritalstatusMean Minimum Maximum

Male

109

61.9

Female

65

36.9

> 51

88

51.0

≤51

86

49.0

Single2

1.1

Married

144

82.8

Divorced/widowed

28

16.1

Ngalong5

2.9

Sharshop16

9.2

Trongsap

4

2.3

Khengpa

9

5.1

Lhotsampa

140

80.5

Literate

58

33.0

Illiterate

116

66.7

Occupation Farming

135

79.9

Household activity

13

7.7

Wage labourer

10

5.9

Salaried employee

4

2.4

Petty business1

0.6

Others6

3.6

Ethnicity

Education

Table 3: Land ownership by typeLand type(ha per HH)

Frequency Percent

Table 4: Major crops cultivated in Barshong
Area (ha)Area of wetland owned

0.5

0

3.2

Area of dryland owned

1.2

0

5.6

Maize

102.4

Area of orchard owned

0.2

0

2.0

Finger millet

62.2

Paddy

26.2

Orange21.9

ha = hectares, HH = households

Major crops

The main types of livestock reared are cattle, poultry,
11.6
Pulsesgoats, and pigs. Around 90% of households (156) own
6.0
Gingercattle, 74% (130) own poultry, 72% (126) own goats, and5.5
Tapoikanearly 33% (59) own pigs (Figure 5). Very few households
0.3
Chilliown sheep and horses. In general, livestock numbers
0.2
Buckwheatover the last five years have declined: cattle numbers
have decreased by 23%, while other livestock has
decreased by less than 6%. Although there has been
Table 5: Average annual income from livestock
an increase in the number of horses, the number of
Average income
horses is still insignificant (Figure 4).
Livestock
(BTN)
(USD)
Farmers earn significant income from the produce
Sheep
280.7
4.8
from cattle, goats, pigs, and poultry. On average,
Goats
4,940
83.7
annually, farmers earn BTN 10,475 from cattle, BTN
Cows
10,475.7
177.6
5,526 from pigs, BTN 4,940 from goats, and BTN
Horses648.1
11.0
1,441 from poultry (Table 5). Income from otherPigs
5,526.9
93.7
livestock is insignificant.
Poultry
1,441.8
24.4
Total
23,313.2
395.1
The data collected on feeding practices indicate thathouseholds use stall feeding or grazing, or a combination of both, as strategies to feed their livestock. Stall feedingis the dominant strategy for goats and pigs, whereas a combination of stall feeding and grazing is prominent for
cattle and poultry (Figure 5).

10Figure 4: Livestock numbers for present and past five years

Figure 5: Livestock feeding practices
100

794

8,00

664
672

1,200
1,000

Past five years

6,00

0

Poultry

Cows

Goats

Pigs

Both

70
60
50
40
30
20

4
2

2,00

Grazing

80

26
26

124
149

4,00

Percentage of households

Present
1,034

1,400

Stall feeding

90

1,294
1,384

Number of livestock

1,600

10

SheepsHorses0Types of livestock

Cows

Poultry

Goats

Pigs

Livestock

Sheep

HorsesIncome distribution
A frequency distribution was prepared with respect to income categories starting with less than BTN 20,000 (USD
291.2) and with an ascending class interval up to BTN 100,000 (USD 1,456.2). Over 35% of the total households
surveyed earn an annual income
Table 6: Frequency distribution of incomeof less than BTN 20,000 (USD
291.2), while 8% earn more thanFrequency Percent
Income group
BTN 100,000 (USD 1,456.2) per(N)year. Most households (56.4%) earnLess than BTN 20,000 (USD 291.2)
62
35.6
between BTN 21,000 (USD 305.8)
Between BTN 21,000–49,000 (USD 305.8- 713.5)
49
28.2
and 99,000 (USD 1,441.7) annually
Between BTN 50,000–99,000 (USD 728.1- 1,441.7)
49
28.2(Table 6).
More than BTN 100,000 (USD 1,456.2)

14

8.0

Drinking water sources
Most of the drinking water in Barshong comes from
piped water (nearly 55%), followed by streams andrivers (almost 27%); only 18% of households use
spring water (Figure 6). The drinking water facilities in
the gewog are well covered and supported under theFive Year Plan of the Royal Government of Bhutan.

State of the Ecosystems
Community dependence on major ecosystems

Figure 6: Sources of drinking water

SpringStream/river
Piped water
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Percentage households

The three major ecosystems identified during the PRA
process – forest, freshwater, and agro ecosystems– contribute greatly to the livelihoods of a large
number of local households. Out of 174 households surveyed, 91, 93 and 99 percentage of households to behighly dependent on forest, agriculture and fresh ecosystems, respectively (Figure 7). Respondents reported theirdependency on fresh water to be highest among the three, followed by agricultural land and forest. The highranking for freshwater is due to the importance attached to freshwater for drinking and irrigation purposes.

11

Importance of ecosystems

Forest

91.4
93.1
99.4

100

Agriculture

80

Freshwater

60

Very
important

Important Moderately
importance

0.6

0

1.7

20

1.1
1.1

40
6.9
4
0.6

Some respondents explained their ranking ofagricultural land as less important due to the lack ofwater resources in the study area. Those with accessto electricity ranked dependence on forests as low,
because they use electricity instead of fuelwood forenergy.

120
Percentage respondents

The data show no significant difference between
the perceived importance of services provided by
the different ecosystems (forests, freshwater andagricultural land) to the villagers. Most households(81%) reported freshwater as the most important
ecosystem, followed by agricultural land (65.5%) andforest (63.2%) (Figure 8).

Figure 7: Dependence on major ecosystems

Less
importantNotimportant

Level of dependency

Perceived change in major ecosystems/land use

90

70

Forest81

80

Agriculture

63.2
65.5

Freshwater

60
50
40

20
10
0

Very
important

0.6
2.9

30

10.3
2.9
0.6

25.9
28.7
18.4

In relation to agriculture ecosystems, over 40%
perceived no change, while 38.5% perceived adecline over the last decade (Table 7). Respondents
who thought the agroecosystem had declined
attributed this to less rainfall, lack of irrigation, soil
erosion, lack of labor, and poor soil conditions. At
least two respondents cited uncertainties surrounding
climate as a reason for the decline of agriculture
ecosystems.

Figure 8: Importance of services from different ecosystems

Percentage respondents

Over 49% of the total population perceived anincrease in forest cover owing largely to community
forestry, followed by rural to urban migration for
employment and education. However, 36.8%
perceived a decrease in forest cover (Table 7).

Important Moderately
importanceLess
importantNotimportant

The majority of households (72%) reported that
Level of importancefreshwater ecosystems are decreasing as a result of
the drying up of freshwater sources, climate change
and increasing population (Table 7). The data does
not differentiate between quantity and access; therefore, it is assumed that those who cited increasing population as
the main reason for declining freshwater ecosystem may be referring to either access to, or quantity of water, at theuser level. Incidentally, 19.5%
of households also reported an
Table 7: Perceived change in ecosystems as reported by respondents
increase in freshwater resources,
Ecosystem Increasing Decreasing No change Do not know Total %which refers to the improved
Forest
49.4
36.8
6.9
6.9
100
access to water brought about
Agro
13.2
38.5
40.2
8.1
100
by piped water and a relative
Freshwater
19.5
71.9
5.2
3.4
100
decrease in the population, anddoes not necessarily mean an increase in the freshwater ecosystem.

Land use, land cover change analysis
Over time, additional land cover types have emerged in Barshong, primarily as a result of economic development
activities in the area (Figures 9, 10, 11). However, the main land-cover types include agriculture, fallow land, forest,
bare area, and water bodies. Forests cover over 85% of the total area, followed by cultivated land (10.5%).

12

Figure 9: Map showing land cover types in 1989

From 1989 to 2014, Barshong has seen only
minor changes in terms land uses and land cover;
specifically, there has been a slight increase in forest
area and a decrease in cultivated land (Table 8). On
the gewog boundary bordering the Punatshangchhu
river basin, a considerable change in the river courseand coverage has been observed (Figures 9, 10, 11).

Figure 10: Map showing land cover types in 2003

Figure 11: Map showing land cover types 2014

The area experienced major rainfall in 2000, which
triggered many landslides, resulting in a massive
mudslide throughout the gewog covering 8.2 hectares.
From 1989 to 2014, the forest cover increased by
1.6% (from 1,816.4 ha to 1,850.5 ha) and cultivatedland decreased by nearly 1% (from 248.9 ha to 227.4ha). Changes in the rest of the land cover categories
were comparatively insignificant (Table 8).
A time-series based comparison of land use type was
generated to derive the actual change between the
different land cover categories (Tables 9 and 10). The
major change in land cover between 1989 and 2003
was due to the conversion of cultivated land to forest
area (16.6 ha). There was also a reverse conversion
in some parts of forest land to cultivation (8.5 ha). However, between 2003 and 2014 the major contribution tochange in the forested area resulted from the growth of forest cover in the fallow land (19.8 ha). Generally, a
positive trend in forest cover can be observed over the 25 years from 1989 to 2014, from 1,816.4 ha to 1,850.5
ha.

13

Table 8: Land use land cover distribution (1989, 2003, and 2014)Land coverYear 1989ha%Year 2003ha%

Forest
1,816.4
84.2
1,826.2
Barren area
27.3
1.3
18.0
Landslide
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cultivated
248.9
11.5
231.0
Orchard
25.7
1.2
22.9
Fallow
16.5
0.8
40.9
Farm road
0.0
0.0
0.0
Rivers and streams
22.2
1.0
18.0
Total
2,156.9
100.0
2,156.9
Note: Land cover change is calculated as a % of the total land area.

84.7
0.8
0.0
10.7
1.1
1.9
0.0
0.8
100.0

Year 2014
ha%
1,850.5
11.5
8.2
227.4
22.5
10.5
3.3
23.0
2,156.9Land coverchanges %(1989-2014)

85.8
0.5
0.4
10.5
1.0
0.5
0.2
1.1
100.0

1.58
-0.73
0.38
-0.99
-0.15
-0.28
0.15
0.04
0.0

Forest

Total

Farm road

Fallow

Orchard

CultivatedRivers & streams

Landslide

ForestLand cover

Barren area

Table 9: Change matrix of land cover between 1989 and 2003 (ha)1,806.5

3.1

0.0

0.0

16.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

1826.2Barren area

0.0

18.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

18.0

Landslide

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Rivers and streams

0.1

1.4

0.0

16.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

18.0

Cultivated

8.5

0.3

0.0

0.0

222.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

231.0

Orchard

0.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.3

22.2

0.0

0.0

22.9

Fallow

0.9

4.6

0.0

0.0

9.7

0.0

25.7

0.0

40.9

Farm road

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1,816.4

27.3

0.0

16.5

248.9

22.2

25.7

0.0

2,156.9

Total

ForestBarren area

Landslide

Rivers &streams

CultivatedOrchard

Fallow

Farm road

Total

Table 10: Change matrix of land cover between 2003 and 2014 (ha)1821.9

0.8

0.0

1.4

5.6

1.1

19.8

0.0

1,850.5

Barren area

0.0

11.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

11.5

Landslide

1.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

7.2

0.0

8.2

Rivers and streams

0.1

5.7

0.0

16.6

0.0

0.0

0.6

0.0

23.0

Cultivated

1.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

225.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

227.4

Orchard

0.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

21.8

0.0

0.0

22.5

Fallow

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

10.3

0.0

10.5

Farm road

0.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

3.3

1,826.2

18.0

0.0

18.0

231.0

22.9

40.9

0.0

2,156.9Land coverForestTotal

14

Ecosystem Services Assessment
Ecosystem service utilization
Collectively, the different ecosystems in Barshong provide a wide range of goods and services, including 22
provisioning services, 14 regulating services, 4 supporting services and 6 cultural services (Table 11).
Using three major ecosystems and the list of specific ecosystem services identified during the PRA, a frequency checkof respondents answering positively to each list of services was carried out (Table 12).
Table 11: Services provided by ecosystems in Barshong
Provisioning (22)Regulating (14)Supporting (4)Fuelwood, fodder, grazing,
timber/poles, leaf litter,medicinal plants, ornamental
plants, wild edible fruit &vegetables, mushrooms, fibers,
thatch, bush meat, dyes, paddy,
cereals, vegetables, fish,
drinking water, bathing water,
irrigation water, boulders, sandCarbon sequestration, climate
regulation, flood control,
groundwater recharge,
nutrient enrichment, pest
regulation, pollination, seeddispersal, soil fertility, soil
formation, soil stability, waste
treatment, water purification,water retention

Cultural (6)Ecosystem resilience,
habitat for species,hydrologic cycle, soil
formation

Aesthetic beauty,
ecotourism, education& research, recreation,
nature worship, spiritualenrichment

Provisioning services
The study found that the community depends largely on forests for at least eight different provisioning resources.
Over 95% of households reported using timber/poles (169 households) and fuelwood (166 households), while 87% (151 households) reported using forest ecosystems to provide forage for livestock (grazing and fodder). Less thanhalf of the total households also reported using wild edible fruits and vegetables (49.4%) and mushrooms (26.4%).
A few households collect fibers, dyes, and medicinal and ornamental plants, but the use of these was negligible interms of number of households (Table 12).
Agriculture ecosystems are equally productive in terms of providing food (grains, cereals and vegetables). At least
90.2% (157 households) said that they obtain vegetables from agroecosystems, while 70.1% (122 households)
obtain cereals and 67.2% (117 households) obtain grains (rice) from agroecosystems. As an agrarian, livestockrearing community, agriculture ecosystems also provide a significant amount of forage and fodder for livestock. The
vast majority of households (91.9%) reported using agriculture ecosystems to feed animals (Table 12).
Freshwater is significant in terms of providing water for domestic use and irrigation (Table 12). Understandably, theuse of freshwater for the provision of food is limited, with only 13.7% (24 households) citing fish as a source offood. It should be noted that national policies prohibited hunting and fishing in Bhutan during the time of survey.
Table 12: Ecosystem service utilization: Provisioning

FibresThatchBush meat

Dyes

Cereals

Vegetables

Paddy

Fish

Drinking water

Water for bathing

Water for irrigation

Boulders

Sand

42

0

3

15

13

11

6

5

68 62

7 46 67 26 26 19

3

6 122 157 117

4

8

3

4 106 49

0

0

0

0

Agro

152 160 128
2

2

3

0

0

0

Mushrooms

1

166 151 118 169 83 17

Freshwater

Wild edible fruits/vegetables

6

ForestOrnamental plants

6

Medicinal plants

9

Leaf litter2 79 35 14

Timber/poles

Grazing

FodderFuelwood

Ecosystem

0

0

0

0

37

40 24 165 165 135

26 18

15

A comparison of provisioning services from forest, freshwater, and agroecosystems indicates that forests are mostproductive in terms of the flow of services to communities. However, the community also depends heavily on
agroecosystems for crops, ornamental plants, fuelwood, forage, fiber, and thatch. Similarly, freshwater ecosystems
are important in terms of providing drinking water, water for bathing and irrigation, and fish for some households(Figure 12).
The provisioning services provided by ecosystems in Barshong in 1989, 2003, and 2014 are shown in Figure 13.

Provisioning ecosystem services

Figure 12: Comparative importance of provisioning services:
Sand
Boulders
Water for irrigation
Water for bathing
Drinking water
Fish
Paddy
Vegetables
Cereals
Dyes
Bush meat
ThatchFibreMushroom
Wild edibles fruits/vegetables
Ornamental plants
Medicinal plants
Leaf litter
Timber/poles
Grazing
FodderFuelwood
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Percentage of households
ForestAgriculture

Freshwater

Figure 13: Provisioning services provided by ecosystems in Barshong (1989, 2003, 2014)

16

100

Regulating Services
Respondents also place a high priority on intangible
services from forest ecosystems. A similar comparisonof regulating services was carried out for the threemain ecosystems (Figure 14). The results show that
respondents place high significance on forests interms of flood control (93.6% of households), climate
regulation (87.9% of households), maintaining
soil stability (83.3% of households), soil fertility
and seed dispersal (77.5% of households), carbon
sequestration, pollination, nutrient recycling andgroundwater recharge. The regulating services for theyears 1989, 2003, 2014 are shown in Figure 15.

Figure 14: Comparative importance of regulating services
Water retention
Water purification

Regulating ecosystem services

Water treatment
Soil stability
Soil formation
Soil fertility
Seed dispersal
Pollination
Pest regulation
Nutrient enrichment
Groundwater recharge
Erosion/flood control
Climate regulation
Carbon sequestration
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percentage of households
ForestAgriculture

Freshwater

Supporting Services
In terms of supporting services, the majority of respondents were positive about the role of the forest ecosystemin ecosystem resilience, providing a habitat for species, supporting the hydrological cycle and soil formation(Figure 16). A considerable number of households also seemed to understand the significance of the freshwater
ecosystem in terms of the four supporting services provided. The supporting services for the years 1989, 2003,
2014 are shown in Figure 17.

17

Figure 15: Regulating services provided by ecosystems in Barshong (1989, 2003, 2014)

Supporting ecosystem services

Figure 16: Comparative importance of supporting services

Spiritualenrichment
Natureworship
Recreation
Educationand research

0

20
40
60
Percentage of households
ForestAgriculture

80

Freshwater

Cultural Services
Forests also play the most important role in providing cultural services to local communities, including aesthetic
beauty, spiritual renewal, and recreation. Over 90% of respondents seem to derive aesthetic services from forestsand freshwater ecosystems (Figure 18). A marginal number of people (less than 23% also seem to understand therole of forests and freshwater in ecotourism, education, research, and recreation. Spiritual enrichment and nature
worship are noteworthy services from all three ecosystems. The cultural services provided in the years 1989, 2003,
2014 are shown in Figure 19.

18

100

Figure 17: Supporting services provided by ecosystems in Barshong (1989, 2003, 2014)

Cultural ecosystem services

Figure 18: Comparative importance of cultural
ecosystem services

Spiritualenrichment
Natureworship
Recreation
Education& research
Ecotourism
Aesthetic
beauty
0

10

20

30 40

50

60

70

80

90 100Percentage households
ForestAgriculture

Freshwater

Perceived social, cultural and ecological value of ecosystem services
PlantsDuring the PRA process preceding the household survey, respondents identified four plant species used by themthat are of social, cultural and ecological significance: chewri (Diploknema butyracea), peepal (Ficus religiosa), bel(Limonia acidissima) and banana (Musa paradisiaca). Peepal is perceived to be the most important plant species
in terms of cultural significance. Over 75% of the respondents ranked it as very important and reported its use
during worship, in rituals and marriage ceremonies. Peepal is also recognized as a socially important (for 47.6% ofhouseholds) tree species owing to its religious significance (Figure 20).

19

Figure 19: Cultural services provided by ecosystems in Barshong (1989, 2003, 2014)

Bananas are the most significance in terms ofperceived social and cultural importance. A total of
73% of households responded positively to its social
significance, with 70% citing it as socially important.
Bananas also received the most responses (45.3%) in
terms of ecological significance.

Livestock
Chickens, pigs, goats, and cows were identified
during the PRA as the top four socio-culturally andecologically important domestic animal species.
Socially, all of these animals were considered very
important to respondents (Figure 21), due to theireconomic benefits. Culturally, cows were perceived bymost as important or very important, whereas otherspecies (chickens, pigs, goats) were perceived as
not important culturally. Cows, goats, and chickens
are occasionally used for worshiping and rituals.
Ecologically, all four species were perceived to be lessimportant or not important.

Ecosystems
All three ecosystems – forest, freshwater, and agricultural – are considered very important in terms of theircontribution to social aspects of community life (Figure 22). A general impression of the social importance of forest
ecosystems can be gained from the utilitarian services derived from forests, as described in the earlier section on
the state of ecosystems. Food, medicine, fodder for livestock, construction materials and fuel were some of the usescited by respondents.
Over 50% of respondents also perceived freshwater and forest ecosystems to be important for ecological purposes,
although 18% said that these ecosystems are not important. More than 30% of households found forest andfreshwater ecosystems culturally significant.

20

Ecologicalimportance

BananaBel
PeepalChewri

Culturalimportance

BananaBel
PeepalChewriSocialimportance

Figure 20: Perceived importance of plant species

BananaBel
PeepalChewri

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent
Very important

ImportantModerately importantLess important

Not importantSocialimportance

Culturalimportance

Ecologicalimportance

Figure 21: Perceived importance of livestock

Chicken
Pig
Goat
Cow
Chicken
Pig
Goat
Cow
Chicken
Pig
Goat
Cow
0
Very important

10
Important

20

30

40

50
60
70
Percent
Moderately importantLess important

80

90

100

Not important21

Freshwater
Agriculture
ForestFreshwater
Agriculture
ForestFreshwater
Agriculture
ForestVery important

10
Important

20

30

40

50
Percent

60

Moderately important

Willingness to pay (WTP) for ecosystem services
Over 87% of households were willing to pay for the
management of the three main ecosystems and theirservices, compared to only 11% who were unwilling.
Of the 152 households willing to pay, nearly 50%
said that they would pay BTN 100 (USD 1.7), morethan 20% said they would pay up to BTN 300 (USD5), and less than 5% said they would pay more than
BTN 3,000 (USD 50) per year for the management of
ecosystems (Figure 23).

Livelihood Vulnerability Assessment

7080

Less important

90

100

Not important

Figure 23: Willingness to pay for ecosystem services
50
40
30
20
10
0

50
80
100
150
165
200
300
400
500
600
700
1,000
1,300
1,450
1,500
2,000
3,000
15,00030,0000FrequencySocialimportance

Culturalimportance

Ecologicalimportance

Figure 22: Perceived importance of ecosystems

Amount in cash or kind (Nu.)
willing to pay per year for ecosystem services

Vulnerability assessment
The survey revealed that the food produced by
farmers in the study area is not enough to sustain
them. More than 75% of households reported foodshortages, saying that they could live from theirown food production for less than 9 months a year
(Figure 24). The months of May, June and July are
the most difficult for in terms of providing food forthe household (Figure 25). Among those who face
food shortages, only 3.4% reported it as a major
issue, while 29.3 % described it as a minor problem(Figure 26).

Figure 24: Number of months household
can live from own food production

10%
12%

Less than
3 months
4-6 months
7-9 months

38%
29%

22

11%

10-12 months
More than
12 months

Related to this, and perhaps a cause of foodshortages, when asked about crises faced, 29.3%
said that they faced issues of poor production, mainly
caused by lack of rainfall or access to water (22.9%,)
followed by human-wildlife conflict (2.3%,), with atleast one report of pest/disease attacks on oranges,
which is considered a major source of income. Other
crises cited were market fluctuations, illnesses in thefamily, and loss of livestock, but these were considered
to be minor problems (Figure 26). Remittances anddamage and degradation of natural ecosystems did
not feature as issues, while job loss, loss of land, anddeath in the family were considered minor problems.

DecemberNovemberFigure 26: Types of crises faced by households

Minor problem
Major problem

20

00

00

00

Irregular
remittances

Damages

Degradation ofnatural...

66

Free support byfamily/community

Lease additional
farmland to use

Adjust meals

Loan grain from kin

Take loan

The households in Barshong perceived an
improvement in all social and economic sectors
in the last decade (Figure 27). Improved medical
facilities and the presence of basic health units nearby
Types of crisis
were cited as reasons for the reduced frequency ofillness (cited by 61.5% of households) and improved
health. Increased water quality (cited by 85.1% ofhouseholds) have contributed greatly to reducing
water-borne illnesses.
Over 74% of households
Table 13: Coping strategies (number of responses per crisis)
reported an improvementin access to forests as aresult of the community
forestry initiative and userinterface. Respondents
also reported improved
food security (83.3%)
due to improvement in
Types of crisis
renewable natural resource
Poor production
3
2
1
2
6
1
–
facilities (agriculture
Food shortage
1
1
–
4
17
–
20
and livestock), improved
Illness/accident
2
1
–
2
2
–
8
irrigation (67.2%), andDeath of household member
–
1
–
1
1
–
1
increased soil fertility
Job loss
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(47.7%). However,Irregular remittances
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
41.2% of households (30households) also reported
Market fluctuation/inflation
1
1
––
–
1
–
6
a decline in soil fertility
Loss of land
–
–
–
–
–
–
3
due to loss of topsoil and
Loss of livestock
2
–
–
–
1
–
2
lack of access to water.

Other strategy

2

Death of household
memberLoss of livestock

Temporary labour
migration

9

Loss of land

13
5

Illness/accident

Market fluctuation

4

17
8

Sell animals

21

20

Job loss

31

Poor production

Food shortage

50
51
40
30
20
10
6
20
0

Perceived changes in socioeconomic sectors

Coping strategies

October

SeptemberAugust

July

June

May

April

March

February

January

Number of respondents

30
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

MonthsNumber of households

Overall, 28.7% of households adopted a minimumof two coping strategies to face crises. However, in
response to food shortages, households adopted
at least seven different short-term coping strategies(Table 13). The most common strategy for coping withfood shortages was reliance on social safety nets andlivelihood diversification, which mainly consisted of
temporary labor migration and occupation change.

Figure 25: Difficult months to provide adequate food

3
13
10
2
0
0
15
4
10

23

Figure 27: Long-term changes in socioeconomic sectors over last 10 years

No change

100

Improved

Worsened

80
60
40

Water quality

Water availability

Access to credits

Transportation

Communication

Security

Family size

Veterinary facilities

Food security

Soil fertility

Forest cover

Access to forest

Quality of public services

School facilities

Possibilities to generate
income (locally)

Purchasing power0

Health facilities

20
Frequency of illness

Percentage household

120

Socioeconomic sectors

It is interesting to note that although perceptions of opportunities to generate income locally have not changed
much over the last 10 years, purchasing power has increased by 82.8% of households reporting improvement(Figure 27). With national inflation fluctuating between 5.15% (lowest) and 13.53% (highest) over the last 10 years,
this increase in purchasing power may have been brought about by an increase in real income from remittances
and the sale of agricultural products, as reported by respondents. At the same time, 92% of households said thataccess to credit has also improved. The vast majority of respondents also cited improvements in transportation(87%), access to information/communication (97%), and the quality of public services (98%). All of the respondents(N=174) reported an improvement in livelihoods from ecosystem management in the last 10 years.

Proposed livelihood improvement activities
The top activities proposed to improve livelihoods were construction of farm roads (cited by 75.8% of households),
improved water supply for drinking and irrigation (cited by 68.9% of households), the issuing of additional landfor cultivation (cited by 4.5% of households), provision of electricity (cited by 4% of households), and construction/
improvement of school facilities (cited by 2.3% of households).
Orchard is one of the major categories of landholdings in Barshong

24

Livestock rearing is one of the major livelihood strategies in Barshong

Conclusion and Recommendations
This study identified those ecosystem services that are most important to communities in Barshong Gewog. However,the study was limited to the identification of the utility of ecosystem services. It did not identify key linkages between
environmental quality and human wellbeing or look at the impact of changes in the quantity and quality of theecosystem services on the livelihoods of people in the community. Understanding how trends in forest cover, water
quality/quantity, and the health of natural areas might improve or detract from the wellbeing of people in thecommunity is key to understanding the real value of the ecosystems studied.
Like most of rural Bhutan, forests in the study area face multiple threats. Over 90% of the households surveyed
depend on forests for provisioning services, such as timber, fuelwood, fodder, and supplemental food. The demandfor ecosystem services from forests for social and economic purposes can result in multiple drivers of land usechange, which may lead to the degradation of forest ecosystems. The role of the community forestry initiative in
improving the livelihoods of user communities and conserving biological diversity is high on the Dzongkhag agenda
for the next five years.
Freshwater ecosystems deliver clean water for multiple purposes and are vital to human wellbeing. It is important forcommunities to understand how conserving freshwater ecosystems can result in the provision of multiple services,
especially given the water shortages cited during the survey. The protection of water sources also needs to be highon the conservation agenda of the gewog and the dzongkhag if it plans to meet its agro-based objectives.
Agriculture ecosystems support over 90% of the population in Barshong Gewog. Besides providing cash andfood crops, there is a need to understand and consider the role of agriculture ecosystems in species and habitat
conservation, erosion regulation, pollination, pest and disease control, water purification/regulation, recreationand cultural diversity, and the lifecycle maintenance of cropland ecosystems, instead of focusing exclusively on theirpotential for food production.
Based on the findings of this study, the following actions are suggested:
 Action 1. Diversify livelihood options to reduce poverty and stress on forest resources: Tsirang Dzongkhag has
higher poverty, lower literacy, lower mean annual household income, and higher unemployment rates than therest of Bhutan (NSB 2013). As agriculture and livestock are the main sources of livelihood, enhancing production
is a priority in the 11th Five Year Programme for the Dzongkhag. Towards this, there are national plans in place
to improve farm roads and the water supply, as well as for the formation of cooperatives. Given the favorable
climatic conditions in the area and its strategic location between the capital and Sarbang (bordering India),
there is also an opportunity to develop tourism (GNHC 2013). Opportunities to establish cottage, small, andmedium-sized industries have also been identified in the 11th Five Year Plan, with the completion of an electricity
transmission line between Basochhu and Tsirang and the commissioning of the Dagachhu hydroelectricity
project.
 Action 2. Explore opportunities for payment for ecosystem services: Payment for ecosystem services (PES) has
been found to be feasible in a number of places in Bhutan. Under this mechanism, land users are paid incentives
for good environmental practices and compensated for the environmental costs they bear. Opportunities for
PES exist in Barshong in relation to the provision of: watershed services for drinking water, agriculture andhydropower; soil erosion control and flood regulation for populations living downstream; carbon sequestrationand storage for international carbon markets (given that 85% of the gewog is under forest cover); and aesthetic
services for tourism and recreation.

25

References
Badola, R., Hussain, S. A., Mishra, B. K., Konthoujam, B., Thapliyal, S., and Dhakate, P. M. (2010). ‘An assessmentof ecosystem services of Corbett Tiger Reserve, India’. The Environmentalist, 30(4), 320-329
Baral, N., Gautam, R., Timilsina, N., and Bhat, M. G. (2007). ‘Conservation implications of contingent valuationof critically endangered white-rumped vulture Gyps bengalensis in South Asia’. The International Journal of
Biodiversity Science and Management, 3(3), 145-156.
Chaudhary, S., Chettri, N., Uddin, K., Khatri, T. B., Dhakal, M., Bajracharya, B., and Ning, W. (2016). ‘Implicationsof land cover change on ecosystems services and people’s dependency: A case study from the Koshi Tappu
Wildlife Reserve, Nepal’. Ecological Complexity, 28, 200-211.
Chen, W. Y., and Jim, C. Y. (2010). ‘Resident motivations and willingness-to-pay for urban biodiversity conservationin Guangzhou (China)’. Environmental management, 45(5), 1052-1064.
Chettri, N., Shakya, B., and Sharma, E (2008) Biodiversity conservation in the Kangchenjunga Landscape.
Kathmandu: ICIMOD
De Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., and Willemen, L. (2010). ‘Challenges in integrating the conceptof ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making’. Ecologicalcomplexity, 7(3), 260-272.
Eriksson, M., Xu, J., Shrestha, A.B., Vaidya, R.A., Nepal, S., and Sandström, K (2009). The changing Himalayas:
Impact of climate change on water resources and livelihoods in the greater Himalayas. Kathmandu: ICIMODGNHC (2013). Eleventh Five Year Plan. Volume I: Main document. Thimphu: Gross National HappinessCommission, Royal Government of Bhutan.
ICIMOD (2009). Climate change impacts and vulnerability in the eastern Himalayas. Kathmandu: ICIMODICIMOD, RSPN (2014). An integrated assessment of the effects of natural and human disturbances on a wetland
ecosystem: A retrospective from Phobjikha Conservation Area, Bhutan. Kathmandu: ICIMOD
Kubiszewski, I., Costanza, R., Dorji, L., Thoennes, P., and Tshering, K. (2013). ‘An initial estimate of the value of
ecosystem services in Bhutan’. Ecosystem Services, 3, e11-e21. LCMP (2010) Technical Report, Bhutan Land
Cover Assessment. Thimphu: National Soil Services Centre and Policy and Planning Division (PPD), Ministry ofAgriculture and Forests, Royal Government of Bhutan, Thimphu, Bhutan.
LCMP (2010). Technical report. Bhutan Land Cover Assessment 2010. Thimphu: Ministry of Agriculture and Forests,
Royal Government of Bhutan.
Maharana, I., Rai, S.C., and Sharma, E. (2000a). ‘Environmental economics of the Khangchendzonga National
Park in the Sikkim Himalaya, India’. Geo Journal, 50: 329–337
Maharana, I., Rai, S.C., and Sharma, E. (2000b). ‘Valuing ecotourism in a sacred lake of the Sikkim Himalaya,
India’. Environmental Conservation, 27: 269–277
MEA (2005). Ecosystem and human well-being. Synthesis report. Washington, DC: Island Press
MOAF (2011). The draft 11th Five Year Plan. Thimphu: Policy and Planning Division, Ministry of Agriculture andForests, Royal Government of Bhutan.
Muller, F., de Groot, R. S., and Willemen, L. (2010). ‘Ecosystem services at the landscape scale: the need for
integrative approaches’. Landscape online: 23: 1–11. DOI:10.3097/LO.201023
NBC (2015). National Biodiversity Centre. Thimphu: Ministry of Agriculture and Forests. Available at: http://www.
nbc.gov.bt/biodiversity-of-bhutan/ecosystem-diversity (assessed 2 June 2015)
NBSAP (2014). Draft National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plan of Bhutan. Final draft. National Biodiversity
Centre, Ministry of Agriculture and Forests, Thimphu, Bhutan.
Norbu, U.P. (2012). Benefit-sharing for ecosystem services with emphasis on poverty reduction. Thimphu: Watershed
Management Division, Ministry of Agriculture and Forest
NSB (2013). Annual dzongkhag statistic. National Statistics Bureau, Royal Government of Bhutan, Thimphu: Bhutan.

26

Pant, K.P., Rasul, G., Chettri, N., Rai, K.R., and Sharma, E. (2012). Value of forest ecosystem services: A quantitative
estimation from the Kangchenjunga landscape in eastern Nepal. Working Paper 2012/5. Kathmandu: ICIMOD
Rasul, G., Chettri, N., and Sharma, E. (2011) Framework for valuing ecosystem services in the Himalayas.
Kathmandu, ICIMOD
Raymond, C. M., Bryan, B. A., MacDonald, D. H., Cast, A., Strathearn, S., Grandgirard, A., and Kalivas, T. (2009).
‘Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services’. Ecological economics, 68(5), 13011315. RGoB (2013). Eleventh five year plan. Volume I: Main document. Gross National Happiness Commission,
Royal Government of Bhutan, Thimphu, Bhutan.
RSPN (2015). Ecosystem services for sustainable livelihoods. Barshong Tsirang case study, 2015. Policy Brief. Royal
Society for Protection of Nature, Thimphu, Bhutan.
Schild, A. (2008). ‘The case of the Hindu Kush-Himalayas: ICIMOD’s position on climate change and mountainsystems’. Mountain Research and Development, 28(3/4), 328–331
Sharma, E., Chettri, N., and Oli, K.P. (2010). ‘Mountain biodiversity conservation and management: a paradigm
shift in policies and practices in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas’. Ecological Research, 25, 905–923
Uddin, K., Shrestha, H. L., Murthy, M. S. R., Bajracharya, B., Shrestha, B., Gilani, H., Pradhan, S., and Dangol,
B. (2015). ‘Development of 2010 national land cover database for the Nepal’ . Journal of environmental
management, 148, 82-90.
Zurick, D. (2006). ‘Gross National Happiness and environmental status in Bhutan’. Geographical Review, 96(4),657–68127

Annex 1: Household Survey Questionnaire
Community Assessment of Ecosystem Services: Household Survey Questionnaire
Kuzuzangpola,
We are conducting an ecosystem services assessment survey in your community. The purpose is to assess the statusof ecosystems and their services and we request you to take part in the household survey. If you agree to take part in
the survey, we would like to ask you some questions, which will take around an hour. The questions that you answer
are completely your views and perceptions; there are no any right or wrong answers as such. The information,
opinion, and knowledge you provide will be helpful for us to come up with a detailed assessment of ecosystemservices in this community. Your responses will remain completely anonymous and only the aggregated results will
be published in the report and in papers.
Would you like to take part in this interview?

Yes

No

If the respondent decides not to take part in the interview, please thank the respondent in a polite way then proceed
to the next household.
Thank you

Basic informationaDate (dd/mm/yy):hHousehold code:bName of interviewer:iName of respondent:cName of country:

j

Sex:

d

District/gewog

k

Age:

e

Village:lCaste / tribe:fChiwog:m

Contact number:g

GPS data:

Latitude:Male

1Longitude:

2

FemaleAltitude:

Demographic information
Please use the following codes:* 0= Male; 1= Female** Marital status: 0= Single; 1= Married; 2= Divorced/widowed*** 0= No; 1= Yes**** 1 = Farming; 2 = Household activity; 3 = Wage labour; 4 = Petty business (specify);
5= Salaried employee; 6 = Studying; 7 = Remittances; 8= Infant; 0 = Other (specify)
No. Name of HHs
members

Age(years)Sex*

Maritalstatus**Canread andwrite***

If yes, level of
education(years ofschooling)

Occupation/ mainactivity****1stRemarks

2nd

1
2
3
4
5
Note: Start with household head first, then spouse and other member (members who stayed outside the village formore than 6 months can be excluded)
Does your household have access to any agricultural land?

28

0

No

1

Yes

If yes, provide the following information:
Land type

Total area (local area)
Total
owned

Selfcultivated

Remarks
UncultivatedRentedin

Rentedout

Irrigated terraces (wetland)
Rainfed terraces (dry land)
Other types (private forest)
Orchard
What are the major crops grown and their area coverage?
Major crops

Area under crop (in local unit)

Does your household have any livestock?

0

No

1

Yes

If yes (Please use given codes: *1= Stall feeding, 2= Grazing, 3= BothType

Present
numberNumber in thepast 5 years

Way offeeding*

Average income
from animal andanimal products/
annum (in BTN)

Remarks (if both, rate
number of months
against each category)

Sheep
Goats
Cows/bulls
Buffalo
Donkeys/mules
Pigs
Poultry
Other (specify):
How much money (cash income in local currency) in gross does your household earn per year? Please tick one of
the following
Less than 20,000
Between 21,000–49,000
Between 50,000–99,000
More than 100,000
What are the major sources of drinking water? And volume collected/used per day?
Sources of water

Local unit/litres

Piped water
Stream /river
SpringBore hole/wellPond/dam
WetlandLake
Other (please specify)

29

State of ecosystems and services
What are the major ecosystems/land use in terms of coverage in the study area and how important are they inproviding ecosystem goods and services? (Please use given codes:* 4= very important, 3= important, 2= moderately important, 1= less important, 0 = not important**4= highly dependent, 3= dependent, 2= moderately dependent, 1= less dependent, 0 = not dependent)
Major ecosystems

Rank in terms of theirimportance to provide
services *Rank in terms of thedependency on theservices **Remarks/reasons

ForestAgriculture land
Grassland/rangeland
Shrubland
Freshwater (river/stream)
WetlandSettlements
Degraded or bareland
Others (specify)
Has there been any change in these ecosystems/ land use in terms of their area over the last 10 years? (*Pleaseuse given codes: 0= No change; 1= Increasing; 2= Decreasing, 3= No idea)
Major ecosystems

Change*Reasons for change (change in hectare/acre/or local units; specify)

ForestAgriculture land
Grassland/rangeland
Shrubland
Freshwater (river/stream)
WetlandSettlements
Degraded or bareland
Other (specify)(Only forest, agriculture land and freshwater ecosystems were selected for this assessment)

Information on ecosystem services, sources and their status
What are the major ecosystem services provided by these ecosystems?
(Please use the following code: 0= No; 1= Yes)
Remarks

Fuelwood
FodderGrazing
Timber/poles
Leaf litter

30

Settlement

Freshwater

Shrubland

Grassland

Agriculture

Forest(Provisioning)

Other

Major ecosystems
Degraded land

Ecosystem services

Medicinal plants
Ornamental plants
Wild edible fruits and vegetables
Mushrooms
Fibre
ThatchBush meat
Dyes
Paddy
Cereals
Vegetables
Fish
Drinking water
Water for bathing
Water for irrigation
Boulders
Sand
Other (specify)
Other (specify)
What are the major ecosystem services provided by these ecosystems?
(Please use the following code: 0= No; 1= Yes)

Remarks
Other

Settlement

Freshwater

Shrubland

Grassland

Forest(regulating)

Agriculture

Ecosystem services

Degraded land

Major ecosystems

Carbon sequestration
Climate regulation
Erosion/flood control
Groundwater recharge
Nutrient enrichment
Pest regulation
Pollination
Seed dispersal
Soil fertility
Soil formation
Soil stability
Waste treatment
Water purification
Water retention
Other (specify)
What are the major ecosystem services provided by these ecosystems?
(Please use the following code: 0= No; 1= Yes)

31

Remarks
Other

Degradedland

Settlement

Freshwater

Shrubland

Forest(supporting)

Grassland

Ecosystem services

Agriculture

Major ecosystems

Ecosystem resilience
Habitat for species
Hydrologic cycle
Soil formation
Other (specify)
What are the major ecosystem services provided by these ecosystems?
(Please use the following code: 0= No; 1= Yes)

Remarks
Other

Degradedland

Settlement

Freshwater

Shrubland

Forest(cultural)

Grassland

Ecosystem services

Agriculture

Major ecosystems

Aesthetic beauty
Ecotourism
Education & research
Recreation
Nature worships
Spiritual enrichment
Other (specify)

Information on ecosystem services use and market values
What are the five most important provisional services contributing to economic wellbeing of your household?
(Please use the following code: *Collected by: 0= Male; 1=Female; 2= Both
3= Monthly; 4= Once in 6 months; 5= Once a year**Frequency: 1= daily; 2= weekly,Services

Time required(hours) per
collection

Mainlycollected by*Frequency**

Quantity inlocal unit

SeasonRemarks

Estimating value according to local people’s willingness to pay for key ecosystem function and services
Let us assume your ecosystems are fully managed by a committee of people from your community to ensurethat there will be assured/improved provision of ecosystem services such as fuelwood, fodder, water etc. to yourcommunity and you would like to use the services from the system. In that case are you willing to pay either in cashor kind (i.e., labour days contribution per year) for the services you use? This will help the committee to operate /maintain healthy ecosystem. We would like you to answer these questions at your ease; there are no any wrong orright answers.
(*, **: Please use the following code: 0= No; 1= Yes; 2= Don’t know)32

If you do not want to pay, what is/are the reason/(s)?
I do not think it is important to preserve the ecosystems
These are the free resources from the nature why should I pay
I cannot afford to give money to preserve the ecosystems
Preserving ecosystems has value to me, but it is not for me to finance preservation
Other (Please specify) …………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………..
If you are asked to pay/contribute, why did you decide to make a maximum BTN _______ per year (in kind orcash)?
(Here we can pose question like: If you are ask to contribute, how much you will contribute both in terms of cash or
kind? (in kind we can mention labour days contribution/year)
This is the value that I attribute to the particular ecosystem service
This is the maximum amount that I can afford to give
This is the amount I normally pay for good causes
I chose this amount at random
Other (Specify) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Who do you think should manage the fund generated for managing healthy ecosystem?
Local community
Government
User committee
Gewog administration
Others (please specify)
Information on ecosystem services and their socio-cultural and ecological values
Note: Socially important (important for subsistence livelihood); culturally important (important in tradition andculture such as sacred plant, animal, river, sacred groves); ecologically important (species or ecosystems that people
think important for ecological balance and resilience)
Are there any species that are socio-culturally and ecologically valuable? (List five most important species only)(Please use the codes: 4= Very important, 3= Important, 2= Moderately important, 1= Less important, 0 = Not
important)Socially
important

Culturally
importantEcologicallyimportant

Indicate the reason

Plant species

Animal species

33

Ecosystems

Sacred sites

OthersVulnerability context
Crisis, shocks, security
Number of months per year in which the household can live from own food production:< 3 months
4–6 moths
7–9 months
10–12 months> 12 months
Most difficult months to provide adequate
food for the household:

1
6
11

JAN
2
JUN
7
NOV 12

FEB 3
JUL 8
DEC

MAR
AUG

4
9

APR 5
SEP 10MAY
OCT

How did you cope during the difficult months?
Coping strategy:
1 = Taking loan
2 = Grain loan from kin
4 = Cash or cereal loan from merchants 5 = Farmland mortgage out
7 = Sold household assets
8 = Sold animals
10 = Sold farmland
11 = Occupation change
13 = Permanent labour migration
14 = Begging
organization 16 = Free support by family/kin/neighbours/community

3 = Adjustment to meals
6 = Farmland leased out
9 = Sold jewellery
12 = Temporary labour migration
15 = Free support by any
17 = Other (specify))

What kind of crises have you experienced during the past 12 months and how did you cope with it?
(Please use the codes: 0 = No problem, 1=Minor problem, 2= Major problem;
Coping strategy:
1 = Taking loan
2 = Grain loan from kin
4 = Cash or cereal loan from merchants 5 = Farmland mortgage out
7 = Sold household assets
8 = Sold animals
10 = Sold farmland
11 = Occupation change
13 = Permanent labour migration
14 = Begging
organization 16 = Free support by family/kin/neighbours/community

34

3 = Adjustment to meals
6 = Farmland leased out
9 = Sold jewellery
12 = Temporary labour migration
15 = Free support by any
17 = Other (specify)

CrisisProblem*a.

Poor production (specify): ……..........………………………

b.

Shortage of foodc.

Illness/accident of a household memberd.

Death of a household membere.

Arrest of household memberf.

Loss of job

g.

Irregular remittanceh.

Market fluctuation/inflationi.

Loss of landj.

Loss of livestockk.

Damage, specify: ……………………………………………

l.

Degradation of natural ecosystemm.

Political crisis/insecurity, specify: ……………………………

n.

Other, specify: ....……………………………………………

Copingstrategy

Remarks

Long-term changes
Considering the last ten years – what has changed in regard to: (Please use the codes: 0= No change; 1=
Improved/ Increased/ Better/ Higher; 2=Worsened/ Declined/ Smaller/ Lower)AreaaFrequency of illnessb

Health facilitiesc

Purchasing powerdPossibilities to generate income (locally)ePossibilities to generate income (remittances)f

School facilitiesg

Quality of public serviceshAccess to foresti

Forest coverj

Soil fertilitykFood securitylVeterinary facilitiesm

Family sizenSecurityoCommunication, access to relevant informationp

Transportationq

Access to creditsr

Water availabilitysWater qualityt

Irrigation facilitiesuParticipation in decision-makingv

Other (specify)

Quality of change

Remarks

35

General
Are there any ecosystem management related activities carried out to support the
livelihood enhancement in your areas?

0

No

1

Yes

Has the livelihood of your household improved through ecosystem managementcompared to the situation 10 years ago?

0

No

1

Yes

0

No

1

Yes

What activities would be most helpful to improve the livelihood of your household?

Possibility to come back in order to clarify some points:

THANK YOU36

37

© ICIMOD 2017
International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development
GPO Box 3226, Kathmandu, Nepal
Tel +977 1 5003222 Fax +977 1 5003299
Email info@icimod.org Web www.icimod.org
Himalica is funded by the European Union

ISBN 978 92 9115 477 738