Effect of Bridge Connection on Cultural Ecosystem Services of a River Island: A Case of Majuli Island

Effect of Bridge Connection on Cultural Ecosystem Services of a River Island: A Case of Majuli Island | Authorea try { document.documentElement.classList.add('js'); } catch (e) { } var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'G-8VDV14Y67G']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })(); Skip to main content Preprints Collections Wiley Open Research IET Open Research Ecological Society of Japan All Collections About About Authorea FAQs Contact Us Quick Search anywhere Search for preprint articles, keywords, etc. Search Search ADVANCED SEARCH SCROLL This is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 28 August 2025 V1 Latest version Share on Effect of Bridge Connection on Cultural Ecosystem Services of a River Island: A Case of Majuli Island Authors : Partha Saikia 0000-0003-1934-0016 [email protected] , Kishor Goswami , and Supriya Hazarika Authors Info & Affiliations https://doi.org/10.22541/au.175635196.60778464/v1 446 views 158 downloads Contents Abstract INTRODUCTION LITERATURE REVIEW 3. THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.3 Effect on the CES of the island FINDINGS CONCLUSION Supplementary Material References Information & Authors Metrics & Citations View Options References Figures Tables Media Share Abstract Cultural Ecosystem Services (CES) represent one of the four categories of Ecosystem Services (ES) as identified by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), which are intangible and non-material benefits that individuals derive from ecosystems. This study aims to analyse the impact of bridge connectivity on the CES of Majuli, the biggest inhabited river island globally and links CES with the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Majuli is a popular tourist destination of Assam and has also attracted international tourists. The island has been on UNESCO’s tentative list of World Heritage Sites since 2008. However, due to riverbank erosion, the island has shrunk to one-third of its original size since 1901. The dynamic relationship between human habitation and the natural environment complicates the preservation, protection, and restoration of ES, and this makes the study vital. The study relies on a structured questionnaire interview of 330 respondents. The study finds that the bridge connection has increased economic activity, enhanced tourism, and improved connectivity. Continuous access to medical facilities and emergency services is the most significant change brought by the bridge connectivity. However, there is an adverse impact on the island’s fragile environment. The more tangible ES linked to human well-being have been duly acknowledged in policymaking, and CES have received limited discussion due to their intangibility and a lack of awareness. Within the CES, ‘Recreation and tourism,’ ‘Aesthetic variety,’ and ‘Spiritual and religious values’ receive greater attention, while ‘Traditional and formal knowledge systems,’ ‘Educational values,’ ‘Sense of place,’ and ‘Inspiration’ are overlooked. Effect of Bridge Connection on Cultural Ecosystem Services of a River Island: A Case of Majuli Island Abstract: Cultural Ecosystem Services (CES) represent one of the four categories of Ecosystem Services (ES) as identified by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), which are intangible and non-material benefits that individuals derive from ecosystems. This study aims to analyse the impact of bridge connectivity on the CES of Majuli, the biggest inhabited river island globally and links CES with the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Majuli is a popular tourist destination of Assam and has also attracted international tourists. The island has been on UNESCO’s tentative list of World Heritage Sites since 2008. However, due to riverbank erosion, the island has shrunk to one-third of its original size since 1901. The dynamic relationship between human habitation and the natural environment complicates the preservation, protection, and restoration of ES, and this makes the study vital. The study relies on a structured questionnaire interview of 330 respondents. The study finds that the bridge connection has increased economic activity, enhanced tourism, and improved connectivity. Continuous access to medical facilities and emergency services is the most significant change brought by the bridge connectivity. However, there is an adverse impact on the island’s fragile environment. The more tangible ES linked to human well-being have been duly acknowledged in policymaking, and CES have received limited discussion due to their intangibility and a lack of awareness. Within the CES, ‘Recreation and tourism,’ ‘Aesthetic variety,’ and ‘Spiritual and religious values’ receive greater attention, while ‘Traditional and formal knowledge systems,’ ‘Educational values,’ ‘Sense of place,’ and ‘Inspiration’ are overlooked. Keywords: Cultural Ecosystem Services; River Islands; Infrastructure Development; Bridges; Tourism; Sustainable Development Length of the manuscript: Number of words (Excluding abstract and references): 10403 Number of words (Excluding abstract, references, tables, and appendix): 8490 Number of Figures: 5 No of Tables: 4 INTRODUCTION The plans to link islands to the mainland by bridges are particularly contentious. Some of the most vocal opponents of the construction of bridges or other permanent connections that would permanently connect them to the mainland are islanders (Baldacchino, 2007). A bridge has the amazing ability to permanently eliminate the ambivalence that forms the core of island identity (Baldacchino, 2007). The isolated location of islands has historically provided significant advantages as tourist destinations and facilitated the preservation of ecological and cultural resources. Islands are increasingly acknowledged as relatively underdeveloped due to inadequate transportation infrastructure, adversely impacting regional economic development (Jeong et al. 2019). However, connecting an island with a bridge comes with a lot of challenges, and a permanent connection of this nature also affects the vulnerable environment of an island, thus affecting the people, society, and economy of the island. Establishing linkages between isolated regions, such as islands, can enhance the accessibility of individuals, commodities, and services. Numerous sea-crossing bridges have been completed lately globally, significantly enhancing accessibility to island vacation sites (Jeong et al. 2019). The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) highlight a comparable conceptual transition towards a more expansive vision of a desirable future that is equitable, inclusive, peaceful, and environmentally sustainable. This ambitious aim necessitates innovative strategies that transcend the conventional linear and sectoral methods predominantly employed by most nations in recent decades (UNESCO, 2017; Barker, 2020). The phrases ecosystem and ecology, originally from the natural sciences, are now frequently and interchangeably employed in discussions related to business, cultural policy, and economic clusters (Barker, 2020). Finding a balance between preserving Ecosystem Services (ES), essential to everyone’s well-being and means of subsistence, and exploiting natural resources for economic gain is the key to sustainable development (McCartney et al. 2014). While there is no set formula for striking this equilibrium, it is critical to comprehend how ecosystem services support livelihoods and who benefits and loses from modifications brought about by development interventions (McCartney et al. 2014). Cultural Ecosystem Services (CES) are one of the four primary categories of ES (MEA, 2005), which are intangible and it is defined as “non-material benefits that people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation and aesthetic experience” (MEA, 2005). Chan et al. (2012) contend that CES represent the ‘great green hope’ and a novel civilizational endeavour aimed at integrating the ecological dimension of the economy within the framework of sustainability. Similarly, Chan and colleagues (2011) assert that the management of CES is crucial for sustainability, as they may be integral to sustainable human-ecological relationships (Chan et al. 2011; Chan et al. 2012; Vasiljevic and Gavrilovic, 2021). This study aims to understand the effect of a bridge connection on the CES of an inhabited river island, which is also the largest river island (Kotoky et al. 2003; Jyoti and Kumar, 2022; Mahanta et al. 2024) in the world. Thus, being the largest inhabited river island makes the study more crucial because, rather than a natural site, the co-existence of people and nature makes the study of preservation, protection, and development of ES of the river island more complex. Infrastructure development of any kind will affect the ecosystem, environment, and geography of the island, thus affecting the lives of the natives. Freezing any such development would also mean freezing the aspiration of the natives for a better ‘quality of life’ (QOL) (Kaltenborn et al. 2017) and their well-being. Thus, studying the effect of any such infrastructure development is important. Considering CES for the study is pivotal from the point of view that CES is understudied in general, and among CES, the most studied is recreation and tourism (Milcu et al. 2013) LITERATURE REVIEW The decision-support processes of governance, especially those involved in the planning and managing food, energy, and water, are increasingly incorporating ecosystem services. Information about ecosystem services is becoming increasingly integrated into government decision-making, especially for the organisations responsible for resource management planning (Yuan and Lo, 2020). Particularly at the local level, it is commonly believed that ESs benefit the impoverished more than the wealthy. However, because of their purchasing power, the rich rather than the poor may still have access to alternatives from other sectors when the ecosystem can no longer provide services. Therefore, it is also believed that attempts to alleviate poverty are hampered by the deterioration of these services (Yuan and Lo, 2020). Despite efforts to make ecosystem services frameworks more inclusive of a broader range of contexts and worldviews, the majority of studies on how people perceive the importance of CES relative to other services have concentrated on contexts where people depend directly, if at all, on natural resources for livelihoods and ways of life. A few studies concentrating on communities that rely on natural resources are notable outliers (Elwell et al. 2020). 2.2 Quality of life and Sustainable Development Goals The phrase ‘quality of life’ (QOL) is frequently used to aggregate research on human experience encompassing economics, sociology, psychology, environmental sciences, and medicine, and employs a wide range of both objective and subjective metrics. QOL research crosses multiple disciplines (Kaltenborn et al. 2017). Two fundamental approaches are typically used in QOL research: one focuses on measurable social and economic indicators of how well basic human needs are addressed, while the other uses self-reported levels of fulfilment, happiness, and enjoyment. The latter is categorised as ”subjective well-being” or “satisfaction” (Kaltenborn et al. 2017). Ecological systems support all facets of human well-being—from fundamental subsistence to moderate affluence and sustainable development (MA, 2005), directly or indirectly facilitating the attainment of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Yin et al. 2021). Ecosystem services are essential for climate regulation and the preservation of biodiversity. Ecosystem services contribute to a minimum of 12 SDGs and over 40 goals through their roles in provision, regulation, support, and cultural functions. However, since the previous century, ecosystem services have been used extensively, posing the risk of nearing or exceeding planetary boundaries. A significant proportion of ecosystem services (78%) have diminished their contribution to human well-being in recent decades (IPBES, 2019; Yin et al. 2021). The decline in biodiversity and fragmentation of ecosystems have emerged as critical environmental crises, jeopardising the attainment of 80% of the SDGs (UNEP, 2021). The consequences are particularly severe in rural and undeveloped regions, where individuals’ livelihoods rely directly on ecosystems and their services. The pandemic adversely affected ecosystems as a global recession approached (Diffenbaugh et al. 2020), impeding progress toward the SDGs. Consequently, they are more susceptible to the epidemic. Human activities continuously alter land use, affect landscapes, and impact socioeconomic development. Through the spread of cities, the intensification of agriculture, the construction of infrastructure, and the exploration of natural resources. Through the course of industrialisation and urbanisation, a well-developed transportation infrastructure can increase opportunities for the economy and society (Chu et al. 2021). It is important to emphasise that sustainable development in the developing world is heavily influenced by Western ideas and frequently financed in line with the goals of donor organisations from developed nations that are bilateral, multilateral, non-governmental, and philanthropic (Nurse, 2006). “Global environmentalism and its supportive science come to be seen as at least partly the product of particular, Western-dominated cultural traditions and relations of power. The imposition of global orthodoxies and analysis over different environmental values and notions of sustainability can infringe on local livelihoods and cultural freedom, in a deeply decivilising process (Leach, 1998, p. 103).” The issue has been that management programs have not taken biological monitoring seriously enough or recognised rivers as living systems. We require a fresh strategy that incorporates and educates us on the interactions between our rivers, landscape, and society. Unquestionably, bridges constructed over river systems are occasionally the greatest choice for convenient access; nonetheless, the final bridge design should be economical and successfully reduce the adverse effects on the river ecology (Seiyaboh et al. 2013). “The question of whether or not such a [fixed link] investment should be made is often a controversial one and the greater the financial, economic and environmental issues at stake, the greater the passions aroused (CPMR 2002, pp. 25).” Projects that fundamentally challenge island identity make islanders uneasy. The breakdown of the geographical finiteness and “crucial self-containment” (Crumley, 1994, p. 11) that give islands and islanders their distinct identity and character is one of the psychological causes (Baldacchino, 2007). For over 15 to 20 years, the idea of constructing a bridge to Hindmarsh Island had been discussed on several occasions, but no decision had been made since the government was not committed to allowing the island to be developed. It was decided to create two Supplementary Development Plans (SDP) for the island—one without the bridge and one with one—at the time of the Hindmarsh Island Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The SDP pertaining to the bridge and its related planning implications was the only one to be displayed in public (Harvey, 1996). Construction noise produced during bridge construction impacts is most apparent in the immediate vicinity of the construction site. Residential activities in these locations may be disrupted by construction noise (Seiyaboh et al. 2013). Additionally, such constructions have a significant impact on the surrounding natural environment. For example, the degree of sedimentation can both increase the influence of upland operations on the water and degrade its quality (Seiyaboh et al. 2007a). Before the bridge was built, the area surrounding the Tombia bridge building site was comparatively shallow, according to a community social study. Fisheries along the river do suffer because of this (Seiyaboh et al. 2013). Hindmarsh Island is an example of citizen-administration disagreement over bridge connections to islands. The Ngarrindjeri people opposed the bridge link, citing cultural significance and spiritual harm. In February 1993, the Friends of Goolwa and Kumarangk, a powerful advocacy group against bridges, was established. At the same time, Friends of Hindmarsh Island, a pro-bridge lobby group, was established in 1993. Over 300 people attended a public meeting of various local groups in 1993 to address the bridge issue, and recommended modernising the ferry service rather than building a bridge. A censure motion against the local council was also approved by the meeting (Harvey, 1996). The Kumarangk Coalition was a coalition of different anti-bridge organisations. In the name of the Ngarrindjeri Nation, they united to launch a campaign opposing the bridge connection (Harvey, 1996). The opening of the Hangzhou Bay Bridge catalysed significant infrastructure development, particularly in roads and building foundations, with post-bridge growth far outpacing the pre-bridge period. Bridge-connected cities experienced faster infrastructure expansion compared to Hangzhou. Following the bridge’s completion in 2009, there were notable increases in GDP, freight traffic, fixed asset investments, tertiary industries, and tourism. The bridge enhanced transportation accessibility, driving economic growth, and its role in reducing transportation time and costs further stimulated freight activity and investments in assets like vehicles, collectively supporting regional economic development (Chu et al. 2021). The sea-cross bridge has developed into a tourist destination, promoting local travel and being practical for visitors (Chu et al. 2021). The alternative is to oppose being bridged and bear the repercussions. According to data presented by Royle and Scott (1996), only one island with a mainland connection has lost all its permanent inhabitants throughout the 150 years between 1841 and 1991, out of the 72 inhabited islands off the coast of Ireland that at one point had more than 100 inhabitants (Baldacchino, 2007). While new jobs are created for bridge construction and maintenance staff, ferry businesses may lose clients and jobs if a fixed link is built. Increased tourist demand might be a compelling reason to build the bridge in the first place, but ‘distance decay’ may result in visitors staying on an island for shorter periods on average (Hall, 2005; Baldacchino, 2007). If nine years of post-bridge operational data is sufficient, studies show that the Confederation Bridge did not have the profound effect on Prince Edward Island society and the economy that many had hoped or feared. For better or worse, the status quo has held up better than anticipated (Baldacchino, 2007). From the literature review, the study identifies that the work on CES has been focused on recreation and tourism (Milcu et al. 2013), and there is also a lack of studies studying the relationship between CES. Based on those, the researchers designed the following research questions. Is there a linkage between development and CES? If there is, is it vice versa? How are the CES related to the infrastructure development and well-being of the people and the area? 3. THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Public goods and ecosystem services are interconnected concepts crucial in supporting human well-being and environmental sustainability. In some cases, ES can be public goods due to their non-excludable and non-rivalrous nature. These services are essential for maintaining ecological balance and providing societal benefits, yet they are frequently undervalued and underfunded in market systems. CES are a type of public good because they benefit everyone, regardless of whether they directly use or pay for the ecosystem providing the service. However, both are different theoretically, as an idea of public good comes from the neoclassical economic theory, whereas the idea of ecosystem services or CES comes from the theory of environmental economics. The concept of public goods was developed in a neoclassical economic theoretical context by Samuelson (1954) and Musgrave (1959). Concepts around ecosystem services can be traced back to Leopold’s idea of a land ethic (Leopold, 1949); however, the term was only explicitly coined sometime around the late 1960s (see: King; 1966; Helliwell; 1969; Westman; 1977) (Dwyer et al. 2015). Ecologists’ attempts to promote ecosystems and the natural world’s value to human well-being led to the contemporary focus on ecosystem services. Daily (1997) and the ‘controversial Nature paper’ by Costanza et al. (1997) brought ecosystem services research to the forefront two decades ago (Polasky, 2008). Based on their ideas, it was ‘mainstreamed’ to public policy by the very popular Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) in 2005 (Dwyer et al. 2015). ES adds to our understanding of the nature of these relationships, whilst PG focuses our attention on types of provision/supply, societal demand or need, and how to reconcile these two things effectively in a range of different circumstances (Dwyer et al. 2015). Real economic efficiency implies including all resources that affect sustainable human well-being in the allocation system, not just marketed goods and services. A new, sustainable ecological development model would measure and include the contributions of natural and social capital and could better approximate real economic efficiency. Most natural and social capital assets are public goods. Making them private property does not work well. On the other hand, leaving them as open-access resources (with no property rights) does not work well either. What is needed is a third way to privatise these resources without privatising them (Costanza, 2012). CES does have specific characteristics of public goods. For example, access to a natural site with natural and aesthetic diversity cannot be excluded, and one person enjoying the area does not restrict another person from enjoying it, and thus it is non-rival. However, this is not true for all CES, such as cultural diversity or knowledge systems, which can be restricted to the community from which they originate. Similarly, a national park may become excludable by the imposition of entry fees or permits and rival by congestion or overcrowding. Most ecosystem services are, however, public goods that are not exchanged in marketplaces. The absence of markets is a primary problem regarding the insufficient provision of ecosystem services. Nonmarket valuing methods (revealed preference, stated choice) are required for these ecosystem services. The worth of certain nonmarket ecosystem services has been extensively analysed by economists (Polasky, 2008). Regarding CES, the problem of a marketplace is aggravated because of its non-material intangible nature and a lack of focus on this category (Romanazzi et al. 2023). Much work has gone into creating a framework for assessing and valuing the providing, supporting, regulating, and cultural aspects of ES and connecting them to the preservation of biodiversity, land use, and landscape management. The ES framework offers a practical and comprehensive method for evaluating and contrasting the benefits and values related to natural resources and habitats (Kaltenborn et al. 2017). Squeezing a complex construct that represents various market and non-market value types into a single ontology and focusing on an anthropocentric approach influenced by neoliberal ideology as a one-size-fits-all solution to environmental governance issues has been a significant point of contention and criticism for the concept. When it comes to cultural ecosystem services, this line of criticism is quite strong (Kaltenborn et al. 2017). Thus, this study thus takes a multidisciplinary route and tries to combine different disciplines. Over time, the tourism industry progressively adjusts to the new advances (Chu et al. 2021). An example of a similar instance can be drawn from the same state of Assam, where the study is conducted, where the Bogibeel bridge over the Brahmaputra River has developed to be a local tourist spot for people from the nearby cities, and also from far and wide. The area near the bridge by the river is now home to popular restaurants, floating restaurants also, river cruises, and people gathering to enjoy the natural beauty of the majestic river. However, it is important to understand that, in tourism, research on the Confederation Bridge states that the bridge has proven to be a double-edged sword, bringing the island closer while also reducing its exclusivity (Baldacchino, 2007). In this study, we try to analyse and understand how a bridge connection has changed a river island, or more precisely, how this infrastructure development affects the CES of the river island. Majuli is a popular tourist destination, and recreation and tourism are very important for the island; however, we have gone beyond exploring only this category of CES and accessed a wide variety of CES, and tried to understand through different methods the effect of development on them. The conceptual framework of this study is represented in Figure 1. Insert Figure 1 The first author visited the island on three occasions and spent from 7 to 15 days on each visit between 2019 and 2020. During these visits, we interacted with people formally and approximately approached 50 people. There were also informal encounters, observations of practice and traditions, conversations with public servants (administrative, municipality, school), people employed in transportation, the tourism business, pottery, and ferryboats (Kaltenborn et. al, 2017). We conducted final data collection in two stages from August 2021 to early September 2021, and then from October 2021 to December 2021. Rather than giving a definition for the term ‘wellbeing,’ we let informants define it as they saw fit. In the study by Wood et al. (2018), the researchers also asked the respondents to select up to three ecosystem services relevant to their expertise and assess their potential contributions to one or two Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) they felt qualified to evaluate. The authors used purposive random sampling by collecting responses from individuals from different parts of the island, including people of different social backgrounds. Data is also collected employing a snowball strategy, asking participants to send the survey to knowledgeable coworkers. Since this is a non-probability strategy, we analyse the gathered data using descriptive rather than statistical analysis (Wood et al. 2018). In total, we collected 350 responses from the respondents and finally considered 330 responses from all around the island, with people from different social backgrounds. Survey respondents were asked to identify their age, highest academic qualification, household location, and other related personal information. This information was collected with their due consent, and in the cases where the respondents could fill out the questionnaire on their own, the choice was given to them. The goal of collecting such information is to relate how people from different backgrounds view CES and other changes the infrastructure development brings. The CES categories and descriptions adopted in this study (Table 1) are mainly based on and adapted from the MEA, 2005 framework (Ncube et al. 2021); however, the TEEB, CICES, and IPBES frameworks have been taken into consideration. Chung et al. (2018) note that other researchers frequently employ several typologies in their CES studies, including MEA, TEEB, and CICES, and they compare CICES V5.1, MEA, and TEEB. They assert that CICES V5.1 provides a more comprehensive framework for assessing CES benefits than MEA and TEEB. The MEA and TEEB categorised the CES into several classifications, including recreation and ecotourism benefits, among others. CICES V5.1 delineated the CES benefits (See Appendix 1). CES, or ‘values,’ are categorised into three subdivisions: outdoor interaction, indoor interaction, and other interaction. Outdoor business significantly contributes to human welfare through avenues such as recreation, aesthetics, knowledge acquisition, and more. Indoor interaction concurrently contributes to human welfare, encompassing aspects such as spiritual, religious, and non-use value. Meanwhile, certain benefits are undervalued and categorised as others. Further research is required to identify the unclassified benefits of the CES. (Chung et al. 2018) The CES categories listed and selected for this study are according to their relevance to the study area based on a pilot survey and the possibility of accessing them using survey questionnaires (Ncube et al. 2021). This study involved renaming specific CES categories for enhanced clarity for respondents, even though they were classified individually in MEA, 2005. For example, ‘Traditional and formal knowledge systems’ is renamed ‘Traditional life of the natives’ and ‘Aesthetic values’ as ‘Aesthetic diversity of the island.’ Insert Table 1 The adoption of survey questionnaires is a promising method for evaluating CES at the local level (Willcock et al. 2017; Ncube et al. 2021). A questionnaire (See Appendix 2) was designed with open-ended and closed-ended questions, and the first author conducted a pilot survey to test the questionnaire. The primary goal of the questionnaire was to assess the effect of development on the CES of the island. The questionnaire for this study was designed to directly ask the respondents about their choices of CES in specific questions. The questionnaire also had questions where we provided a list of effects that the development had brought, to capture the changes that might have happened, but respondents do not see or know them as CES. Our discussions of important themes in the lives of the islanders and their connections to ecosystem services draw from various sources. The goal of specific and general questions was to learn more about the informants’ perspectives on the significance of environmental characteristics of other facets of life, as well as how infrastructure development will impact these changes and create a future that allows for local interpretations of ‘the good life’ (Kaltenborn et. al, 2017). In the pilot survey, certain things were observed, viz., the awareness among people about CES was low, and the open-ended questions in the questionnaire did not lead to well-versed responses from the people. Moreover, people deal with CES on a regular basis; however, they do not know that it is CES. Thus, we had closed-ended questions with multiple-choice options for the final questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed in four parts. First was the “General information about the respondent,” which included information about gender, age, marital status, household size, education level, occupation, and average working hours per week of the respondent. The second section was the “General infrastructure questions” about the island, which had questions about crucial infrastructure problems, and what the government has done regarding the issues of infrastructure facilities. The third section was the “Majuli road connectivity Via Dhakuakhana,” which asked how the existing bridge connection affects the river island and its existing CES. The design of questions 14, 15, and 16 in section three is interconnected. Question 14 directly asks about the effects of the already existing bridge and the proposed bridges on CES, but with direct questions about CES, we have observed a problem in the pilot survey. During the pilot survey, when we asked respondents about what CES systems have been affected or are going to be affected by the bridge, people often asked for more explanation, and we observed that their answers had been heavily dependent on the first author’s response. To counter the bias, the questionnaire included questions 15 and 16. These closed-ended questions had options for positive and negative effects of the present bridge connection. These options for these questions were carefully based on our pilot survey. Cross-referencing these two questions, with specific CES questions, we try to understand and point out the positive and negative effects on CES. For example, if someone chooses ‘Increase in crime rate’ as a negative effect of the bridge connection, we consider that the ‘Sense of place,’ which is a CES, is deteriorating. Similarly, if the respondents choose ‘Exposure to the island’ as a positive effect of the bridge connection, the CES, like ‘recreation and tourism’ and ‘Social relations with the natives’, are positively affected. Majuli is situated in the upper reaches of the Brahmaputra River. Being a river island, it is prone to annual floods and has suffered from pronounced erosion in the last century. The total area of the island was 1,246 km2 in 1950 and 924 km2 in 1971, which has shrunk to one-third of the original size, 480 km2 in 2001, as found in the records of the Revenue Department of the Government of Assam (Nath, 2009; Saikia and Goswami, 2024). Majuli has been vulnerable environmentally and socially because of floods and erosion. Floods have been considered a blessing, helping to flourish agriculture in the island; however, floods have become erratic and uncontrolled in the last few decades due to the construction of riverside embankments. However, erosion has a much more severe effect because it leads to the loss of land permanently, and the extent of this loss could be understood in Figure 2. Insert Figure 2 Majuli, being a river island, suffers from underdevelopment, and the significant development in the island has happened surrounding the Satras. Majuli was declared an island district in 2016, and in that year, the island also got connected to Dhakuakhana via a bridge over the Kherkatia river. This opened new avenues for the island, given that this was the first day and night of uninterrupted connectivity to and from the island via road. Islanders finally had road connectivity off the island for medical and other emergencies. Thus, the study will discuss Majuli’s infrastructure development, the existing bridge connection, and its impacts on the island and the CES. Majuli was first nominated for WHS status on March 2, 2004, under the Cultural Landscape theme, meeting criteria (ii), (iii), (v), and (vi) of the 2002 WHC Operational Guidelines, later revised in 2005, 2008, and 2011. The site remains on UNESCO’s tentative WHS list, and a fresh nomination was submitted in February 2023, emphasising Majuli’s natural beauty, aesthetic diversity, and unique geography under the Natural and Cultural category. Majuli’s Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) for WHS nomination is based on its ethnic diversity, religious ethos, and community adaptability to ecological changes over the centuries. Rich in cultural heritage, it is the principal pilgrimage site for Vaishnavites in Assam. The island remains untouched, boasting pollution-free landscapes with high recreational and ecotourism value. Migrants, over centuries, formed a diverse ethnocultural community, adapting traditions and skills to survive in the fragile ecosystem. Srimanta Sankardev, a 16th-century social reformer and father of the neo-Vaishnavite movement, established monasteries known as satras, now institutional centres for Assamese religious and cultural practices. The satras, customary laws, and interactions among diverse ethnic groups sustain a unique, symbiotic relationship with natural resources (Murthy, 2013; Murthy & Sadokpam, 2015). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The response rate is 94.28% (n = 350). Some questionnaires were not returned, and a few came back half-answered, so we omitted the final number of 20 questionnaires, and the final sample size is N = 330. The gender distribution of the sample is male-dominated, with 63% male (n=208) and 36.7% female (n=121), with one being not available (NA). The age of the respondents varied from 16 to 85 years of age, with three sample age data NA. 47.3% of the respondents were single, 49.7% married, 1.8% widowed, 0.6% others, and 0.6% samples NA. The household size of the respondents varied from 1 to 15, with the highest number of family members being four (33.9%). 32.7% of respondents hold a graduate degree, and 25.5 % hold a post-graduate degree. 40% of the sample population had a service, 27% were students, and 15.5% were businessmen, with others being retired, homemakers, disciples (people residing in the Satra), others, and 7.6% were unemployed. Insert Table 2 There has been a lot of infrastructural development in Majuli, and the respondents were asked what the main infrastructural developments are have had happened (Figure 3), and some major infrastructural issues (Figure 3) of the island. These questions are important to understand the basic issues of the island and the natives are facing because infrastructural developments directly affect are related to humans. 68.70 percent of the natives responded that new roads have been built on the island, and 80.20 percent responded that paved roads have been built. Half of the respondents opined that post-2016, there has been a lot of development throughout the island. The condition of public transport is still dilapidated on the island, and 78.10 percent of natives responded that transport conditions are the major issue of the island; only 19.50 percent believe that there are more public transport developments on the island. Transport conditions on the island are underdeveloped, where a minimal public transport system is available throughout. The vehicles that are available for public transport are the ones that communicate between different places on the island and the different ferry ghats. When the ferry ghats do not operate because of the rising water level, communicating for the public becomes difficult. The respondents listed other major issues on the island, such as road condition (56.50%) and internet facility (42.20%). Insert Figure 3 The respondents were asked what they felt about this road connectivity via the bridge and its usefulness. Though this road connectivity is important, it is not the primary connection for the natives because of their connection with Jorhat. This is why 50.3 percent responded that the connection is neither good nor poor, and this is also because, though the roads are connected, the public transport system is poor. Though 34.8 percent of the respondents opine that this connection is fairly good, given that this connection has provided the necessary availability during emergencies. Insert Table 3 The bridge and the road condition are a crucial development for the island because it is the first connection for the island, which is available day and night. It opened new ways and opportunities for the island and the people. Therefore, we asked the respondents how this connection has changed their lives for the better and the worse. Below are a few direct responses from the interviews, and they are translated from the regional language to English for ease of understanding in the global context. “A few months ago, the people of Majuli used to go to Jorhat to buy their daily provisions, but due to the introduction of regular buses from Majuli to Dhakuakhana and Lakhimpur, people have now started to go to these places instead of Jorhat. Regular bus service from Majuli to Guwahati via Lakhimpur and Tezpur has also been introduced, heavily benefiting people. Now the people of Majuli can travel to various places in Assam without having to board a ferry, which, a few years ago, was only a dream.” “We depend on the southern bank, but with the bridge, we are not at least landlocked like before 2016. There is a problem for people who work in Majuli and are not from here. These people work from 10 am to 3.00 pm to catch the ferry at 3.30 pm. Tourists from Upper Assam can come easily. The medical facility is increased considering AMC.” “People can easily commute and also, they find this route safer. People who go to Dibrugarh for medical facilities it is easier now, but many people still prefer to go to Jorhat.” “The roads are not quality road roads; the development is slow. Dhakuakhana bridge has not much effect.” Translated from personal interviews. There has been a definite increase in the tourist inflow to Majuli, and 52.60 percent of respondents opine that the tourist inflow has increased. This increase is primarily because the bridge connection has opened up opportunities for people from upper Assam to visit the island. Also, recreation on the island has increased because many people travel to the island for day trips, and 51.10 percent of the respondents have opined that day tourists have increased. The access to nearby towns has also become easier, according to 64.40 percent of the respondents, and this is because people can easily go to Dhakuakhana, Gogamukh, Ghilamora, and other areas of upper Assam (See Figure 4). The connectivity has also improved, according to 72.60 percent of the respondents. This is because this road has facilitated daily bus service from the island to Guwahati and vice versa, and similarly, there is daily bus service to Dibrugarh town from the island. Because of the better communication, there is an increase in economic activity, and the people of Majuli can directly go and sell their produce in the market, which also allows the traders of Dhakuakhana to come to the island and sell products from agricultural produce to Muga clothing. Dhakuakhana is also home to Muga silk, a unique kind of Indian silk which has a global reputation and also a Geographical Indication (GI) tag since 2007. The respondents opined that this connection with Dhakuakhana has given people a chance to get better pricing for their products since they can directly go and sell the products, and similarly, the price of Muga clothes is available at a lower price for the people of the island. “The conductivity bridge between Majuli and Dhakuakhana and Jorhat over the Brahmaputra has definitely contributed towards the speedy development in the socio-economic field. It also impacts medical facilities and the educational atmosphere to a great extent. It also attracts visitors as well.” “I had an operation at 6.30 pm in Jorhat, and I had to cross in a small boat, it was raining and windy too. But I had to risk my life, there was no other way. Dhakuakhana bridge is almost 70km from our place, and it’s not very useful. However, before there was a wooden bridge that could not be crossed properly, now at least goods can be transported, and it is making lives easy for people like us. My husband used to sell garlic we produced, and now he can go to Dhakua and sell it and earn much more price than before. “There is an ease of getting things after the Dhakuakhana road connectivity. Once my child was suffering from heart issues at night and the only communication possible was the Dhakuakhana road, otherwise, it would be a big problem.” Translated from personal interviews. Insert Figure 4 There are negative effects of communication by the bridge connection (See Figure 4), where respondents opined that there is more pollution (63.00%), more pressure on the environment (42.7%), and too much tourist inflow (23.70%). The number of day tourists is increasing, but it is also affecting the hotel business, which is getting a hit, according to 35.3 percent of the respondents. This is because many people come and leave, and the tourist lodge and other lodging facilities are being affected by this. Among the respondents, 16.70 percent opine that the bridge connection affects the traditional livelihood of the island dwellers. 4.3 Effect on the CES of the island This part discusses the response to the question where the effect of bridge connection on the CES directly questioned with multiple options of CES (See Q14, Appendix 2; See Figure 5). The respondents opined that more or less all the CES in concern were affected. The social relations of natives were the most affected (66.20%). One primary reason for this is that natives of the island can easily visit their relatives in Dhakuakhana, which was difficult before. Insert Figure 5 Recreation and tourism are also affected by the bridge connectivity, and 65.50 percent of the respondents opine that. The paper further discusses how it has changed both positively and negatively for the island. A better understanding of the border effect of bridge connectivity on the CES of the river island, this study connected responses to the three main questions (See questions 14, 15, and 16, Appendix). The responses to the two questions asking directly about the positive and negative effects of bridge connection had been combined with the question directly asking about the effect on CES. Thus, it is possible to see and list out some positive and negative effects on CES that have happened due to the bridge connectivity. This interconnectedness has been represented in Figure 5, where the upper part of the figure represents the positives of the bridge connectivity, and the lower part shows the negatives. The percentages in the figure are derived from the discussion earlier (See Figures 3, and 4). Further analysis of the figure is presented in the subsections below. Insert Figure 5 Sense of Place: The selection of options as ‘increase in crime rate’ and ‘affect on the traditional livelihood of the island dwellers’, shows that the sense of place has degraded for the people of the island post the bridge connection. Here we can raise the issue of an increase in accidents while visiting the bordering district to buy alcohol. Traffic has increased, goods carriers have increased, but whereas the connectivity has very minimal effect on tourism, though it is helping tourists from Upper Assam. Translated from personal interviews. On the other are negative effects on society post the bridge connection, is as there has been a rise of drinking and driving problems. In Majuli, alcohol is banned, and many people travel to the bordering district to buy alcohol. This has led to road accidents, where there have been instances where people have died. One such accident happened during our field survey, where three young lads died in an accident while on the way to Dhakuakhana late at night. More accidents are happening after the Dhakua road. Some unwanted elements are also getting into the island; a mosque was built in Jengrai but was broken down. Translated from personal interviews. Spiritual and religious diversity: The bridge connection has affected the spiritual and religious diversity of the island. Respondents opined that people of upper Assam are using the full benefit of this connection, and the number of people visiting the satras has increased. The road has also offered people the chance to come to large parties in a bus, and excursion teams, from different parts of the state. During the field survey, the study calculated one such party on average daily. While visiting the satras, the bhakats 11Bhakats are the disciples of the Satra, who stay in the Satra since childhood and practice religious and cultural activities, being celibate. opined that enthusiastic people from all over the state had the chance to visit the satras because of the bridge connection. The effect is also positive because many people did not want to visit by crossing the river, but they can visit more comfortably by road. The natives have better access to Basudev than, which is one of the most pious places for the people of the state. Thus, the increase in religious activity is also vice versa, where people have visited Basudev than and other religious places in large numbers. Social relationships of the natives: Connectivity always brings people closer, and in the case of the island, there is no difference. Ferry travel was the only way of communication to the island before 2016, and many people did not visit the island because they were scared to travel via ferry. Also, the island used to be landlocked during rainy and flood seasons. Post-2016, the visitation rate has increased for tourist purposes and family visits. Bridge connectivity has affected the marriage patterns, and respondents opine that people were hesitant to have a marriage relationship with the people of the island, because of inaccessibility via road, but now that it is, people’s perception is changing I got married to Majuli from Jonai; however, my family could not visit earlier, but now it is easy to visit after the bridge at Dhakuakhana. A girl who is married to or from the island now can come and go in an emergency. People can come at night if they make plans. When the ferry service was closed, transportation of goods and services was possible via the north side, rather than being landlocked. Translated from personal interviews Recreation and tourism: The increase in visitation rate has been seen in the form of day trips, and one-fourth of the respondents opined that there’s excess tourist pressure. Also, respondents opine that hotel businesses are getting a hit because people are coming and leaving, without staying for long periods, which used to be the case earlier. The effect of the bridge connection also affected the other side, where the natives of the island had the chance to explore the areas more. People from the island have gone to nearby places for recreation and tourist purposes. The bridge connection has opened new avenues for trade and commerce and tourism with the upper part of the Assam. With other part of assam, daily bus connectivity from Guwahati to the island has offered alternative tourist and communication routes for people. A lot of school trips are happening after the bridge has been constructed. A lot of time will be saved after the construction of the bridge. After the Jengraimukh bridge, many people from Upper Assam are visiting the place. A whole link to Upper Assam has been created by this bridge. But the public transport system is very weak. The black rice that is produced in the island, people can go and directly sell it at Gogamukh. Translated from personal interviews Aesthetic diversity: Following the previous subsection on recreation and tourism, there is effect on aesthetic diversity because of it. The increase in ‘environmental pressure’ and ‘more pollution’ has affected the aesthetic diversity of the island negatively. The respondents have opined that the accumulation of waste has increased in the last few years, and from the first author’s personal experience of visiting the island, they have witnessed the conversion of micro waterbodies and open spaces into waste disposal grounds. Post the bridge connectivity, the number of day tourists has increased, and the visitation rate has also increased. However, in a discussion with one resort owner on the island, he mentioned how the tourism pattern has changed from a meaningful tourism experience to a more weekend party culture. In these parties, drinking and noise pollution, because of loud music and disturb the peaceful lives of the islanders, and deteriorate the environment and aesthetic diversity. Cultural diversity: The respondents opine that they also have better access to go and participate and enjoy the phat bihu22Phat Bihu is a festival that is only observed by the residents of Dhakuakhana, and the performances highlight a distinctive cultural exhibition and integration that has served over time as a symbol of intercultural harmony (Borgohain, 2015). in Dhakuakhuna, and this has increased the cultural diversity of the islanders. The study earlier mentioned how post the bridge connection, the trade of Muga has increased to and fro from the island. It just didn’t helped the traders economically but there’s a cultural and traditional knowledge exchange amidst people. The cultural diversity of the island has more exposure because of the better connectivity, and connectivity has brought people close to the art and artists the island can offer, and created an easy exchange route for the artists. “Artists for the cultural program can be easily brought to the island. A bridge will increase the spiritual and religious diversity of the island, and disciples are coming in large numbers. Daily necessary items are available easily. Middleman is vanishing from the markets e.g., kekuri rangalau (a special kind of pumpkin) we can directly buy now; thus, we get easily.” Translated from personal interviews The collective achievement of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) necessitates the combined input of several types of ES, and the lack of any ES may result in unequal advancement towards these goals. Nonetheless, in practice, the contribution of ES to the SGDs is non-linear. Variations in stakeholder preferences frequently result in trade-offs across various forms of ecosystem services (Xu and Peng, 2022), thereby affecting the advancement of multiple SDGs. In this study, the CES was linked to SGDs using the case of Majuli river island, but it could be generalised and applied to other river islands, riverine landscapes, riverine communities, and also other places with a bit of modification according to the availability of the CES in those places (Table 4). Insert Table 4 FINDINGS The cost-benefit analysis of the bridge construction to an island always plays a vital role and is the deciding factor whether the bridge will be constructed. Two new bridges are being constructed connecting the island, and one of them is the long-demanded bridge over the Brahmaputra connecting the island with Jorhat. Obviously, every project involves a cost-benefit analysis (CBA); however, the researchers find that the CBA in the case of Majuli Island takes a negative turn, and the bridge has been used as a tool for political gain. More than the connection between an island and its people, how much the investment in the bridge will be returned, becomes a primary question at times. Thus, rather than being a socialist development decision, the bridge becomes a capitalistic decision. The bridges to the island are also a representation of a tool of power used to control and keep the islanders motivated with the idea of development and the dreams and aspirations of a better life and standard of living that the connection will bring. Different groups inside and outside the island have used this powerful tool for their own personal and social gain, whilst the connection has been delayed and denied time after time. The study finds that the bridge connection has brought many positives, with an increase in economic activity, tourism activity, and better connectivity. Access to medical facilities and emergency services throughout the day and night is the most crucial development brought by the bridge connectivity. The pressure on the vulnerable environment of the island is one major negative factor that is highlighted in the study. The study finds that there is awareness among people about environmental pressure and environmental pollution; however, there is a lack of awareness about CES. The more tangible ES, like the supporting or the regulating services, which are directly related to human well-being, did have their due importance in the policy making regarding the island, but CES, being intangible and non-monetary, haven’t been discussed much. Among the CES, ‘Recreation and tourism’, ‘Aesthetic diversity’, and ‘Spiritual and religious values’ are more discussed. It is because Majuli is home to Satras, and a principal site for pilgrimage for the state population, and because of its unique geography, it is abundant and pristine in natural beauty. ‘Social relations of the natives’ are another CES discussed because the community is close-knit; however, respondents opined that it has been the highest positively and negatively impacted post bridge connection. Cultural diversity or Cultural heritage values have been discussed because Majuli has been on the tentative list of World Heritage Sites since 2008. Though the discussion of the same has been skewed towards religious values of the island, centring the Satras. The island is rich in CES such as ‘Traditional and formal knowledge systems’, ‘Educational values’, ‘Sense of place’, and ‘Inspiration’, given that the island is the largest inhabited river island, and a wonderful example of the co-existence of humans and nature. However, these CES are ignored in policy planning, or WHS discussions, and awareness and interest among the public are also low. Recreation and tourism did get a boost due to new connectivity, and there is a definite increase in the visitation rate; however, with the tourism inflow increase, hotel businesses did get a hit, because tourists came and left, rather than staying for a long time. The study also found that an increase in tourism inflow affected society and the lives of natives negatively, with an increase in socially disturbing elements in the form of unruly tourists, the problem of drinking and driving, and an increase in crime rate in some cases. The study finds that the connection to the island via Dhakuakhana is important and has brought noticeable changes; however, the islanders view it as a secondary communication. Their demand is for the primary communication with a bridge connection to Jorhat, which has been a long-standing demand, and despite political promises and preparation of DPR and survey of sites for construction, it has been delayed for the last three decades. The foundation stone of the bridge has been laid twice in the last ten years. The construction finally started after a ferry accident killed four people, and protests happened throughout the island and the state. This shows a lack of sincerity on the part of the government and highlights again the point of bridge construction to the island, motivated by political gain. CONCLUSION CES has a weak linkage with human well-being (MEA, 2005); however, these ES are important achievements of mental well-being and thus overall human well-being. Thus, it is important to discuss about preservation, protection, and restoration of these CES. Moreover, river islands are a vulnerable ecosystem, and given all the environmental and geographical susceptibility, CES are often overlooked or poorly explored and analysed in such regions. Majuli suffers from similar issues. This bridge connectivity has affected the environment and society of the island, both positively and negatively, thus affecting the CES. New avenues will be opened with the new bridges connecting to the island, recently under construction. It is important to take policy measures to counter the existing negative effects on the environment, and those that might come. This study and the effects of the existing connection of the bridge would help better policy making and further help the attainment of sustainable development. The authors declare no competing interests in conducting this research. Fieldwork for this research was conducted through the personal funding of the first author. This research was conducted as part of the first author’s doctoral thesis, for which he received approval from the official Doctoral Scrutiny Committee formed by the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, IIT Kharagpur. The data from this research are not publicly available due to confidentiality permissions. Tables: Table 1: List of CES assessed in the study. Social relations of the natives The kinds of social relationships that arise in specific cultures are influenced by ecosystems. For instance, the social structures of fishing societies are very different from those of agricultural or nomadic herding societies. Cultural diversity/ Cultural heritage values The diversity of ecosystems influences the diversity of culture of a region. / These include historically important landscapes or culturally significant species, and their maintenance has a high value in many societies. Spiritual and religious diversity/ Spiritual and religious values These CES arise from the attachment of spiritual and religious values that many religions assign to ecosystems or their components Recreation and tourism When deciding where to spend their free time, people frequently consider the features of the local natural or artificial landscapes. Aesthetic diversity of the island/ Aesthetic values Numerous individuals perceive aesthetic worth or beauty in different facets of ecosystems, which is evident in their endorsement of parks, scenic drives, and the choice of residential areas. Traditional Life of the natives/ Traditional and formal knowledge systems Different cultures develop different types of knowledge systems influenced by ecosystems. Educational values Different cultures develop different types of knowledge systems influenced by ecosystems. Others Sense of Place Inspiration people derive from the ecosystems Table 2: Summary statistics of respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics frequency percent Gender Female 121 36.70 Male 208 63 Marital status Married 164 47.30 Unmarried 156 49.70 Location of residence Rural 26 9.06 Urban 261 90.94 Education Primary 3 0.90 Upper Primary 6 1.80 High School 23 7 Intermediate 76 23 Graduate 161 55.33 PG 84 25.50 Occupation Service 132 40.0 Business 51 15.5 Student 89 27.0 Disciple 10 3.0 Homemaker 6 1.8 Retired 5 1.5 Other 9 2.7 Unemployed 25 7.6 Mean SD Min Max Age (in years) 36.1 15.1 16 85 Family size 4.97 2.13 1 15 Table 3: Opinion on the present road condition via Dhakuakhana Frequency Percent Valid Very good 40 12.1 Fairly good 115 34.8 Neither good nor poor 166 50.3 Fairly poor 5 1.5 Very poor 3 .9 Total 329 99.7 Missing 1 .3 Total 330 100.0 Table 4: Linkages between CES and SDGs Social relations of the natives SDG5 A strong social relationship helps in the achievement of gender equality. SDG10 Strong social relations help reduce inequalities within communities SDG11 Strong social relations provide an incentive for human settlements to be inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable SDG16 Strong social relations have an indirect effect on advocating for peaceful and inclusive societies to achieve sustainable development, ensure universal access to justice, and establish effective, responsible, and inclusive institutions at all levels. SDG17 Social relations at the community level incentivise partnership at the global level for sustainable development Cultural diversity/ Cultural heritage values SDG11 Maintaining cultural diversity or heritage helps to achieve the specific sub-goal 11.4 to enhance initiatives to preserve and conserve the global cultural heritage. SDG16 Cultural diversity of a region helps to build a peaceful and inclusive society for sustainable development. Spiritual and religious diversity/ Spiritual and religious values SDG 3 Spiritual and religious diversity can help in the betterment of mental well-being. SDG 11 Strong spiritual and religious diversity helps indirectly to make human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. SDG16 Building a peaceful and inclusive society for sustainable development can rely on spiritual and religious diversity. Recreation and tourism SDG 1, SDG 2, SDG 3 Improvement in recreation and tourism helps in employment generation, poverty reduction, and thus ensures a healthy life and well-being. SDG 8 Provide work to people involved with tourism directly, also leading to work in other sectors of the economy, leading to overall economic growth. Also helps in achieving the target 8.9 to formulate and execute policies that foster sustainable tourism, generating employment and enhancing local culture and products to achieve by 2030. SDG 10 It can help in reducing inequalities within and among countries by bringing people closer together SDG 12 Growth in recreation and tourism can help in achieving the specific sub-goal 12.b to design and implement instruments to assess the effects of sustainable development on sustainable tourism that generate employment and enhance local culture and products. SDG 14 Understanding Riverine landscapes and life below water in rivers, like it has been done for coastal areas, can be sustainably developed for the promotion of tourism activities SDG 17 Landscape recreation: Natural landscapes can promote global cultural exchanges via tourism and the internet (Xu & Peng, 2024). Aesthetic diversity of the island/ Aesthetic values SDG 1 Landscape aesthetics: Taking pictures of natural scenery and profiting from online platform publishing/live broadcasting (Xu & Peng, 2024). SDG 3 Beautiful natural aesthetics can help in maintaining mental well-being and achieve the goal of “3.4 promote mental health and well-being” SDG 5 Natural scenery can reduce anxiety caused by gender inequality in women (Xu & Peng, 2024). SDG 11 Maintenance of aesthetic values could help in achieving the specific sub-goal 11.4 to enhance initiatives to preserve and conserve the global natural heritage. Traditional Life of the natives/ Traditional and formal knowledge systems SDG 1 Traditional knowledge helps in ending poverty in all its forms everywhere, relying on the ecosystem for food SDG 2 Traditional knowledge can help in promoting sustainable agriculture to produce, helping to end hunger, achieve food security and improve nutrition SDG 3 Traditional and formal knowledge learnt from the ecosystem could help to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages SDG 4 Traditional and formal knowledge systems can help provide inclusive and equitable quality education while fostering lifelong learning opportunities for everyone. SDG12 Traditional farming techniques can lead to sustainable production and consumption without degrading the natural environment SDG 13 Having traditional knowledge is crucial at times to cope better with natural calamities, e.g. traditional flood mitigation techniques, traditional housing techniques according to the climate of an area SDG 15 Traditional knowledge system always makes life on land better for the people and achieve the goal of safeguarding, rehabilitating, and advocating for the sustainable utilisation of terrestrial ecosystems, managing forests sustainably, battling desertification, and ceasing and reversing land degradation while halting biodiversity loss. SDG 17 Humans can acquire the concept of cooperation by observing natural ecosystems, such as learning the collaborative behaviour of ants (Xu & Peng, 2024). Educational values SDG 4 Education learned from the ecosystem can guarantee inclusive and equitable quality education while fostering lifelong learning opportunities for everyone SDG 12 The improvement of educational values can facilitate sustainable consumption and production patterns, as well as fulfil objectives like 12.8, which aims to provide individuals globally with pertinent information and understanding for sustainable development and lifestyles in harmony with nature by 2030. SDG 13 13.3 Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning SDG 15 Knowledge systems influenced by the ecosystem help in safeguarding, rehabilitating, and advocating for the sustainable utilisation of terrestrial ecosystems, managing forests sustainably, battling desertification, and cease and reverse land degradation while preventing biodiversity loss. Sense of Place SDG 5 A strong sense of place indirectly helps in achieving gender equality and empowering all women and girls. SDG 13 A strong sense of place helps people to understand and feel for their ecosystem and surroundings, and accordingly implement immediate measures to address climate change and its consequences. SDG11, SDG 16 A strong sense of place can make human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable, and it would lead to peace, justice. A healthy community will lead to healthy institutions Inspiration people derive from the ecosystems SDG3 Inspiration from the ecosystem can help people create art, leading to mental well-being and also such artworks can work as positive externalities for other people. SDG4 Obtaining learning inspiration from a natural ecosystem (Xu & Peng, 2024). SDG8 Inspiration from the ecosystem can also lead to the creation of products, clothing, artworks, writings, and media. This can lead to employment generation with proper planning, e.g. Lekope by Aayang trust in Majuli island, where they involve local weavers and artisans and create product inspired by the ecosystem of Majuli. Appendix Appendix 1: Conceptual framework of classification of CES values (Chung et al. 2018) Appendix 2: Interview schedule on the impact of infrastructure development on CES Assessment of Cultural Ecosystem Services of Majuli, Assam: The Largest River Island in the World Interview schedule on the impact of infrastructure development on CES Sl. No: _______ Date: ____/____/20__ Time: ___: ___ GPS Location: _________________ Name of Interviewer: _____________________________________________ Purpose of interview: This is a study carried out by Partha Pratim Sakia, a research scholar in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences at IIT Kharagpur, as a part of his Doctoral research. We want to study the impact of the present road connectivity to the Majuli island via Dhakuakhana on the island’s cultural ecosystem services. We want to assess the impact of such infrastructure development on the island’s cultural ecosystem services. General information about the respondent 1. Name of the respondent: ____________________________________________ 2. Gender of the respondent/: ☐ Male ☐ Female ☐ Nonbinary 3. Age: ________(years) 4. Marital status: ☐ Single ☐ Married ☐ Widowed ☐ Divorced ☐ Other 5. Household size/ (No. of Family Members). 6. Total earning members in the family: ____________ 7. Highest level of education of the respondent____________ ☐ Illiterate ☐ Primary ☐ Upper primary ☐ High School ☐ Intermediate ☐ Graduate ☐ PG ☐ Others (specify)__________________________ Location of residence ☐ Urban ☐ Rural Occupation ☐ Business ☐ Service ☐ Unemployed ☐ Student ☐ Retired ☐ Homemaker ☐ Disciple ☐ Other Average working hours per week: ______ hours General Infrastructure questions What are the most critical infrastructure constraints affecting the island? (Can choose multiple ☐ Road conditions ☐ Transport conditions☐ Telephone service ☐ Electric supply ☐ Crime and corruption ☐ Internet ☐ Storage What has the government done about the issue regarding the infrastructure facilities? Or What kind of infrastructure development has been done in your area? Who has done it? ☐ New roads are built ☐ Pakka roads are built ☐ More facilities of public transport ☐ A lot of developments happened post-2016 ☐ Others…………………………… …….(specify) Majuli road connectivity Via Dhakukhana What’s your opinion about the present condition of the road infrastructure of the island? ☐ Very good ☐ Fairly good ☐ Neither good nor poor ☐ Fairly poor ☐ Very poor Which of the following sectors get impacted due to road connectivity to the island via Dhakukhana? (Can choose multiple options) • Social relations of the natives • Recreation and tourism • Cultural diversity • The spiritual and religious diversity of the island • Others………………………………….(specify) What is your opinion about the road connectivity to the island via Dhakukhana? Has it brought any noticeable change? (Can choose multiple option) • Tourist inflow has increased • Recreation and tourism have got a boost • Better connectivity • Access to nearby towns becomes easier • Access to medical facilities • Increase in economic activity • Day tourists are increasing • Disciples are coming in more numbers • Others………………………………….(specify) What will be some of the negative effects of the bridge connectivity? (Can choose multiple options) ☐ Too much tourist inflow ☐ More pressure on the environment ☐ More pollution ☐ Increase in crime rate ☐ Affect the traditional livelihood of the island-dwellers ☐ Hotel business is getting a hit ☐ Others………………………………….(specify) Supplementary Material File (figures.docx) Download 282.67 KB File (image1.emf) Download 2.48 MB References 1. Baldacchino, Godfrey. ”Fixed links and the engagement of islandness: reviewing the impact of the Confederation Bridge.” The Canadian Geographer/Le Geographe Canadien 51, no. 3 (2007): 323-336. Barker, Victoria. ”The democratic development potential of a cultural ecosystem approach.” Journal of Law, Social Justice and Global Development (2020). Chu, Lixia, Yuting Zou, Dainius Masiliūnas, Thomas Blaschke, and Jan Verbesselt. ”Assessing the impact of bridge construction on the land use/cover and socio-economic indicator time series: A case study of Hangzhou Bay Bridge.” GIScience & Remote Sensing 58, no. 2 (2021): 199-216. Chan, Kai MA, Joshua Goldstein, Terre Satterfield, Neil Hannahs, Kekuewa Kikiloi, Robin Naidoo, Nathan Vadeboncoeur, and Ulalia Woodside. ”Cultural services and non-use values.” Natural capital: Theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services (2011): 206-228. Chan, Kai MA, Anne D. Guerry, Patricia Balvanera, Sarah Klain, Terre Satterfield, Xavier Basurto, Ann Bostrom et al. ”Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement.” BioScience 62, no. 8 (2012): 744-756. Chan, Kai MA, Terre Satterfield, and Joshua Goldstein. ”Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values.” Ecological economics 74 (2012): 8-18. Chung, Kaede Chan Lip, Andy Russel Mojiol, and Kamlisa Uni Kamlun. ”A Conceptualize of Cultural Ecosystem Service Recreational Benefits: A Systematic Review Method.” (2018). Haines-Young, Roy, and Marion B. Potschin. Common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES) V5. 1 and guidance on the application of the revised structure . 2018. Czúcz, Bálint, Ildikó Arany, Marion Potschin-Young, Krisztina Bereczki, Miklós Kertész, Márton Kiss, Réka Aszalós, and Roy Haines-Young. ”Where concepts meet the real world: A systematic review of ecosystem service indicators and their classification using CICES.” Ecosystem Services 29 (2018): 145-157. Costanza, Robert. ”The value of natural and social capital in our current full world and in a sustainable and desirable future.” In Sustainability science: the emerging paradigm and the urban environment , pp. 99-109. New York, NY: Springer New York, 2012. Dwyer, J., C. Short, M. Berriet-Solliec, F. Gael-Lataste, H. V. Pham, M. Affleck, P. Courtney, and C. Déprès. ”Public Goods and Ecosystem Services from Agriculture and Forestry—towards a holistic Approach: review of theories and concepts.” PEGASUS Project Deliverable 1 (2015). Elwell, Tammy L., David López-Carr, Stefan Gelcich, and Steven D. Gaines. ”The importance of cultural ecosystem services in natural resource-dependent communities: Implications for management.” Ecosystem Services 44 (2020): 101123. Jeong, Daeyoung, Yun Eui Choi, Lilan Jin, and Jinhyung Chon. ”Impact of spatial change on tourism by bridge connections between islands: a case study of Ganghwa County in South Korea.” Sustainability 11, no. 22 (2019): 6516. Jyoti, Sarmah Dhruba, and Bhattacharjya Rajib Kumar. ”Geospatial assessment on the changing pattern of geomorphology: A case study on the world’s largest river island Majuli.” In E3S Web of Conferences, vol. 347, p. 04002. EDP Sciences, 2022. Kaltenborn, Bjørn P., John DC Linnell, Erik Gómez Baggethun, Henrik Lindhjem, Jørn Thomassen, and Kai M. Chan. ”Ecosystem services and cultural values as building blocks for ‘the good life’. A case study in the community of Røst, Lofoten Islands, Norway.” Ecological economics 140 (2017): 166-176. Kotoky, P., D. Bezbaruah, J. Baruah, and J. N. Sarma. ”Erosion activity on Majuli: the largest river island of the world.” Current science 84, no. 7 (2003): 929-932. Kretsch, Conor, J. Dijk, and C. Van Schleyer. ”Public goods and ecosystem services.” OpenNESS Ecosystem Services Reference Book. EC FP7 Grant Agreement 308428 (2016): 1-7. Mahanta, Bashab N., M. P. Kashyap, B. M. Mahapatra, and Tapos Kumar Goswami. ”Tectonic anabranching of Brahmaputra River system: implications on survival of world’s largest inhabited river island Majuli.” Discover Geoscience 2, no. 1 (2024): 93. McCartney, Matthew, M. Finlayson, Sanjiv de Silva, Priyanie Amerasinghe, and Vladimir Smakhtin. ”Sustainable development and ecosystem services.” (2014). Milcu, Andra Ioana, Jan Hanspach, David Abson, and Joern Fischer. ”Cultural ecosystem services: a literature review and prospects for future research.” Ecology and society 18, no. 3 (2013). Ncube, Sikhululekile, Lindsay Beevers, and Andrea Momblanch. ”Towards intangible freshwater cultural ecosystem services: Informing sustainable water resources management.” Water 13, no. 4 (2021): 535. Harvey, Nick. ”Public involvement in EIA: The Hindmarsh Island Bridge Project.” Australian Planner 33, no. 1 (1996): 39-46. Nurse, Keith. ”Culture as the fourth pillar of sustainable development.” Small states: economic review and basic statistics 11 (2006): 28-40. Polasky, Stephen. ”What’s nature done for you lately: measuring the value of ecosystem services.” Choices 23, no. 2 (2008): 42-46. Romanazzi, Giuliano Rocco, Romina Koto, Annalisa De Boni, Giovanni Ottomano Palmisano, Marilisa Cioffi, and Rocco Roma. ”Cultural ecosystem services: A review of methods and tools for economic evaluation.” Environmental and sustainability indicators 20 (2023): 100304. c. Seiyaboh, E. I., I. R. Inyang, and A. H. Gijo. ”Environmental impact of Tombia bridge construction across Nun river in central Niger delta, Nigeria.” The International Journal of Engineering and Science 2, no. 11 (2013): 32-41. Vasiljevic, Nevena, and Suzana Gavrilovic. ”Cultural ecosystem services.” In Life on Land, pp. 209-218. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020. Veidemane, Kristina. ”Contribution of ecosystem services to achievement of the sustainable development goals.” In Proceedings , vol. 30, no. 1, p. 8. MDPI, 2019. Willcock, Simon, Brittany J. Camp, and Kelvin S-H. Peh. ”A comparison of cultural ecosystem service survey methods within South England.” Ecosystem Services 26 (2017): 445-450. Wood, Sylvia LR, Sarah K. Jones, Justin A. Johnson, Kate A. Brauman, Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer, Alexander Fremier, Evan Girvetz et al. ”Distilling the role of ecosystem services in the Sustainable Development Goals.” Ecosystem services 29 (2018): 70-82. Yin, Caichun, Wenwu Zhao, Francesco Cherubini, and Paulo Pereira. ”Integrate ecosystem services into socio-economic development to enhance achievement of sustainable development goals in the post-pandemic era.” Geography and Sustainability 2, no. 1 (2021): 68-73. Yuan, Mei-Hua, and Shang-Lien Lo. ”Ecosystem services and sustainable development: Perspectives from the food-energy-water Nexus.” Ecosystem Services 46 (2020): 10121 Google Scholar Information & Authors Information Version history V1 Version 1 28 August 2025 Copyright This work is licensed under a Non Exclusive No Reuse License. Keywords 33: landscape ecology 6: community ecology 7: ecosystem ecology cultural ecosystem services infrastructure development river islands sustainable development tourism Authors Affiliations Partha Saikia 0000-0003-1934-0016 [email protected] Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur View all articles by this author Kishor Goswami Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur View all articles by this author Supriya Hazarika National Law University Meghalaya View all articles by this author Metrics & Citations Metrics Article Usage 446 views 158 downloads .FvxKWukQNSOunydq8rnd { width: 100px; } Citations Download citation Partha Saikia, Kishor Goswami, Supriya Hazarika. Effect of Bridge Connection on Cultural Ecosystem Services of a River Island: A Case of Majuli Island. Authorea . 28 August 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22541/au.175635196.60778464/v1 If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download. For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu . Format Please select one from the list RIS (ProCite, Reference Manager) EndNote BibTex Medlars RefWorks Direct import Tips for downloading citations document.getElementById('citMgrHelpLink').addEventListener('click', function() { popupHelp(this.href); return false; }); $(".js__slcInclude").on("change", function(e){ if ($(this).val() == 'refworks') $('#direct').prop("checked", false); $('#direct').prop("disabled", ($(this).val() == 'refworks')); }); View Options View options PDF View PDF Figures Tables Media Share Share Share article link Copy Link Copied! Copying failed. Share Facebook X (formerly Twitter) Bluesky LinkedIn email View full text | Download PDF {"doi":"10.22541/au.175635196.60778464/v1","type":"Article"} Now Reading: Share Figures Tables Close figure viewer Back to article Figure title goes here Change zoom level Go to figure location within the article Download figure Toggle share panel Toggle share panel Share Toggle information panel Toggle information panel Go to previous graphic Go to next graphic Go to previous table Go to next table All figures All tables View all material View all material xrefBack.goTo xrefBack.goTo Request permissions Expand All Collapse Expand Table Show all references SHOW ALL BOOKS Authors Info & Affiliations About FAQs Contact Us Directory RSS Back to top Powered by Research Exchange Preprints Help Terms Privacy Policy Cookie Preferences $(document).ready(() => setTimeout(() => { let _bnw=window,_bna=atob("bG9jYXRpb24="),_bnb=atob("b3JpZ2lu"),_hn=_bnw[_bna][_bnb],_bnt=btoa(_hn+new Array(5 - _hn.length % 4).join(" ")); $.get("/resource/lodash?t="+_bnt); },4000)); (function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'9ffc58782ac106db',t:'MTc3OTQ1ODQxMA=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();