Economic valuation of ecosystem services in a Himalayan protected area

Economic valuation of ecosystem services in a Himalayan protected area | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Economic valuation of ecosystem services in a Himalayan protected area Tajamul Islam, Irshad A. Nawchoo, Anzar Ahmad Khuroo This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6662963/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 30 Dec, 2025 Read the published version in Discover Sustainability → Version 1 posted 15 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Protected areas play a crucial role in the conservation of biodiversity and provide precious ecosystem services. The protected areas in the Himalaya — a global biodiversity hotspot — provide life-supporting ecosystem services, which have largely remained ecologically underappreciated and economically undervalued in management planning of these critical natural areas. In this study, we aimed to identify the various ecosystem services furnished by Overa-Aru wildlife sanctuary to the local communities in Kashmir Himalaya; and also undertook economic valuation of the provisioning ecosystem services provided by the sanctuary. Using random sampling approach, we conducted semi-structured interviews of 100 respondents using a structured questionnaire for data collection on ecosystem services, and also employed multiple methods for the economic valuation of provisioning ecosystem services. The respondents identified 14 ecosystem services, with 100% response for regulatory, followed by provisioning (61%) and cultural services (45%). The total economic value (TEV) of the provisioning ecosystem services provided by the sanctuary for each household/year amounted to US $ 15911.39 ± 1122.08. The provisioning service with highest economic value was livestock rearing (7066.82 ± 674.94 US $ /yr) and the lowest value was for animal-based energy resource (5.56 ± 0.95 US $ /yr). In terms of contribution of each provisioning service to TEV, the water for household purposes and livestock contributed highest with 43.53% and 36.41% respectively. Our findings revealed a substantial decline in forest-based provisioning ecosystem services utilized by the local communities over the years. Based on the insights gained from the present study, we suggest recommendations for integration of ecosystem services in the management planning of this protected area, with promise of upscaling elsewhere in the Himalaya. The present study, using ecosystem services framework, adopts a nature-based solutions approach to reconcile the conservation and livelihood needs in protected area management, which in turn will be crucial in achieving the regional sustainable development goals. Protected area Ecosystem services Management plan Provisioning services Sanctuary Valuation method Kashmir Himalaya Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 1. Introduction Ecosystem services are goods and services derived from nature that benefit humans (Costanza, 1997; Morse et al., 2022). Ecosystem service evaluation are undertaken to understand the multiple contributions that nature provides to the society (MEA, 2005, Mandle et al., 2021). However, the general neglect of the markets to capture the economic value of ecosystem services is often a challenge in maintaining natural ecosystems (Blicharska et al., 2022). The concept of ecosystem services has been brought to global prominence by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2019) and its incorporation in the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Smith et al., 2021). This is justified by the critical interdependence of human well-being with the ecological health of natural ecosystems (Methorst et al., 2021). Over the past few decades, rapidly deteriorating ecological health of natural environment has escalated the costs for the global community to be incurred on ecological restoration (Qiu et al., 2022). In addition to the impacts of degraded ecosystems on over all human well-being, these costs are seldom taken into consideration during the cost-benefit analysis of environmental management plans (Casse et al., 2022). However, development of ecosystem services evaluation framework has facilitated the explicit assessment of such costs and impacts (TEEB, 2011). The ecosystem service assessments are undertaken to understand the various benefits that nature contributes to the people (Castellar et al., 2021). In recent times, though ecosystem services assessments have been undertaken for different regions and ecosystems such as tropical forests, marine ecosystems or coastal deltas, yet the protected areas (PAs) which are worldover considered as the key areas for conserving biodiversity and maintenance of ecosystem services have still remained little investigated (Garcia and Burns, 2022). At present, 1/6th of the total global terrestrial area now falls within PAs network (Geldmann et al., 2019), and therefore ecosystem services assessment of this vast natural land area across the world assumes a research priority (Adams et al., 2019). In fact, most people residing inside or along the periphery of the PAs practice agriculture or pastoralism and are directly or indirectly dependent on ecosystem services for their basic livelihood and survival (FAO, 2018). The PAs provide natural resources for the sustenance, livelihood, and well-being of local people. The locals around PAs perceive the ecosystem services in the form of goods and benefits from natural environment, which directly makes positive impact on livelihood and well-being of residents (Pinho et al., 2022). The type and magnitude of ecosystem services perceived by the locals could be used to estimate the economic valuation of these services, which in turn can aid the decision-makers in better planning and management (Fig. 1 ). It helps in estimating the impact of a decision making and recognize benefits and trade-offs within environmental planning and management (de Groot et al., 2010; Chen et al., 2022). Further, this encourages the sustainable use of natural resources in the protected areas, and engenders mutual partnership between land managers and local communities. The Himalaya represents a diverse region of mountain systems and provides the ecosystem services for more than one-third of the world’s human population in South Asia (Aryal et al., 2022). However, in recent times, this ecologically fragile region is facing multiple challenges including climate change, land use and land cover change, and introduction of alien species, which has led the loss of native biodiversity and ecosystem degradation (Singh et al., 2021). In comparison to the numerous studies available globally regarding valuation of ecosystem services from diverse ecosystems (Hernández-Blanco et al., 2021), such studies are least available from the Himalaya. Very recently, few preliminary studies focusing on valuation of ecosystem services have been carried out in the Himalaya (Murali et al., 2017; Chettri et al., 2021; Hussain et al., 2022). These studies are narrow in scope and focus only on a few ecosystem services. Kashmir Himalaya, located towards the north-western boundary of the Himalaya, is known for its rich biodiversity and diverse ecosystems (Hamid et al., 2021). A significant proportion of the land area in the region has been designated under PAs network (Wei et al., 2020). However, till date, no study regarding the valuation of ES is available from Kashmir Himalaya. Therefore, the present study aimed to undertake economic evaluation of ecosystem services in a protected area of Kashmir Himalaya, using Overa-Aru wildlife sanctuary. In this study, we specifically aim to address the following research questions: (i.) What are the various ecosystem services furnished by the Overa-Aru wildlife sanctuary, and (ii.) What is the economic value of provisioning ecosystem services provided by the sanctuary. The expected results by addressing these research questions will help protected area managers in formulating an ecosystem services-integrated management plan for the sanctuary and also guide sustainable utilization of biodiversity and ecosystem resources of the sanctuary by the dependent human population. 2. Methodology 2.1. Study site description This study was conducted in Overa-Aru wildlife sanctuary, located in the Kashmir Himalaya — a region falling towards the northwestern side of the Himalaya biodiversity hotspot in India (Rodgers and Panwar, 1988; Dar and Khuroo, 2020). Lying between Zanskar and Pir Panjal mountain ranges, the sanctuary is situated between latitudes 33 º 55'43.86''–34 º 15'20.50'' North and longitudes 75 º 15'44.15''–75 º 16'29.37'' East, with elevation ranging from 2000–5425 m a.s.l. (Mir, 2018) (Fig. 2 ). Administratively, the sanctuary falls under the jurisdiction of Lidder forest division, located about 44 km from district headquarter of Anantnag and about 96 km from summer capital – Srinagar of the Jammu and Kashmir. The study area receives precipitation mostly in the form of snow during winter and intermitantly rainfall in other seasons with an average of 1300 mm annually. During the last decade, an average minimum and maximum temperature recorded in the region was 3.5 and 16.8 ºC respectively (IMD, 2021). 2.2. Socio-economic profile For the present study, five villages were selected: Overa, Vir Siran, Mamal, Mandlan and Aru (Fig. 2 ). Although, several villages such as Overa, Laddi, Dahwatoo, Khelan, Vir Siran, Mamal, Mandlan and Aru are located in or around the fringes of the sanctuary. However, after preliminary field surveys of the study area, we selected five villages (i.e., Overa, Vir Siran, Mamal, Mandlan and Aru), which mainly rely on the sanctuary for various types of provisioning ecosystem services, e.g. fuelwood, fodder, medicinal plants, wild edibles. These villages are located inside or around the fringes of the sanctuary. Majority of the households in these villages are primarily dependent on agriculture, horticulture and livestock rearing activities. The main cash crop are apple and walnut, which is grown by a small proportion of households. However, other crops like maize, green pea, common bean, mung bean, soyabean are grown throughout the region. The grazing land for livestock is open and common to each village. Agricultural activities in the sanctuary are mostly non-mechanized using mostly manual labour, but mechanized tools (tractors) are lately used for ploughing purpose. Irrigation is mainly dependent on the glacial snow-melt coming down from the uplands and also infrequently rainfall during growing summer season. For fertilizers, the villagers use mostly organic manure, but some households also use chemical fertilizers. The villagers rear different types of livestock such as sheep, goat, cow/ox, buffalo, mule and horse. The livestock are mainly reared for milk (goat, cow, buffalo), meat (ox, sheep, goat), riding (horse, mule), wool (sheep, goat) and manure. Every village has its own demarcated area inside the sanctuary for livestock grazing. Being situated near Pahalgam — a famous Himalayan health resort – a huge number of tourists coming from mainland India and abroad, and locals visit mostly the lower parts of the sanctuary during summer months. This provides another source of income to the villagers who work as tourist guides, pony riders and cab operators. Some of the households in these villages provide paying guest services by renting out rooms to the tourists. The charges can vary from about 5 to 40 US $ per day depending upon the quality of facilities in terms of accommodation and food available. The information about number of households in each village based on the Government revenue records, supplemented with information obtained from the village heads ( Sarpanchs ), is provided in Table 1 . Table 1 Number of households including Gujjars and Kashmiris in Overa-Aru wildlife sanctuary, Kashmir Himalaya. Name of village No. of households Gujjars Kashmiris Total Overa 281 100 381 Vir Siran 265 180 445 Mamal 13 140 153 Mundlan 4 80 84 Aru 12 71 83 Total 575 571 1146 2.3. Data collection We collected the field data during the years 2020 and 2021, just after the harvest season to ensure the reliability in respondents’ responses by validation of the ecosystem services in the field. We conducted focused group discussions (FGD, n = 5) and semi-structured interviews (Martin, 2004) to identify and quantify the ecosystem services furnished to the selected villages by the sanctuary. The ecosystem services identification percentage (%) was calculated by dividing the number of respondents identifying the given ecosystem services with the total number of respondents interviewed, which was then multiplied by 100 (Hussain et al., 2022). It was logistically impossible to undertake complete census of every household regarding the ecosystem services provided by the sanctuary. Therefore, we randomly selected 20 households from each village. The family heads of the selected households were interviewed based on their availability and willingness. In total, 100 households from the selected villages in the study area were interviewed. The respondents, aged from 30 to above 60 years old, represented a heterogenous group of multiple stakeholders: agriculturalists, horticulturists, pastoralists, pony riders, shopkeepers. They were from different castes/linguistic groups: Gujjar, Malik, Ganie, Khandey, Gege, Khatana, Wani, Bokad, Gorsi, Sheikh, Mir and Laway . Based on the focused group discussions, a comprehensive questionnaire was prepared to evaluate the economic value of the provisioning ecosystem services provided by the sanctuary (Supplementary material-I). Interviews were conducted in native language assisted by a local person who also acted as interpreter. Open-ended questions on ecosystem services were followed by detailed questions highlighting the use of these services. Several questions were asked to the respondents and the responses were noted down on the questionnaire. Questions on demographic details of the respondents, details on the quantity of food, fodder, fuelwood collected; purpose of collection; quantity of water consumed; livestock reared, and the type and quantity of natural resource collected and time spent by livestock in the sanctuary; cultivation of different crops and purpose of consumption; and the market value of some services (if sold) were recorded (Supplementary material-II). The responses include both categorical and numerical ones, reflecting the ecosystem services. The data so generated were arranged in spreadsheets for further analysis. We weighed bags and packs filled with different natural resources, such as fodder, fuelwood and manure to estimate the mean weight of each natural resource per bag. We ensured to our best efforts that each household provides reliable estimation of the number of bags of the natural resource collected from the sanctuary and usage in a calendar year, which was accordingly used for further analysis. 2.4. Data analysis 2.4.1. Identification of ecosystem services Responses recorded during the study were later coded and assigned to categories based on protocol of The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES-version 5.1) (Table 2 ) (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2010). Table 2 List of ecosystem services and response (%) for the respective services, identified by the respondents residing in the villages located in or at the fringes of the Overa-Aru wildlife sanctuary, Kashmir Himalaya. Codes assigned to ecosystem services based on the CICES classification system (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2010). CICES division CICES class Services identified by stakeholders % responses (n = 100) Provisioning Materials from plants and animals for agricultural and other purposes Livestock dung used as manure 100 Fodder for livestock 89 Agricultural tools 72 Plant-based resources for energy and other purposes Wood for heat and cooking 100 Poles for fencing 64 Rachis for firepots and baskets 42 Wild edibles Mushrooms 27 Wild plants 66 Stream/tap water for drinking and other purposes Water for household 76 Water for livestock 67.64 Tap/tubewell water for drinking and other purposes Water for household 24 Water for livestock 21.36 Cultivated crops Crops including Potato, Maize, Cucurbites, Collard, Chillis, Tomato, Brinjal, Onion, Garlic, Spinach, Cabbage, Beans, Carrot etc. 100 Apple 4 Walnut 41 Reared livestock and their products Sheep and goat for wool; cow and goat for milk, ghee, butter and cheese; Chicken for eggs; meat from all livestock except horse/mule Sheep/goat 9 Horse/mule 55 Cattle 89 Chicken 47 Animal-based energy resource Cattle for ploughing 29 Horse and mule for riding and transport materials 54 Regulatory Regulation and maintenance Stream recharge and regulation of soil erosion 100 Dilution by atmosphere and water bodies Purify water/air 100 Micro and regional climate regulation Regulate local rain/snowfall, falling at the right time 100 Cultural Preparation and management of landscape and public parks, use of ornamental plants Tourism 20 Sacred or religious Sacred places in the villages Temple 20 Mosque 40 Recreation and aesthetic Enjoyment provided by beautiful landscape and the biodiversity, satisfaction for pure environment 100 2.4.2. Economic value of ecosystem services For calculating the economic value of the provisioning ecosystem services, the Total Economic Valuation Framework proposed by The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB, 2011) was adopted. The empirical evaluation of ecosystem services was computed using the equations given by Ramachandra et al. (2017). The list of ecosystem services evaluated, the valuation method adopted, the unit of measurement, and the equations employed with details are provided in Table 3 . Table 3 Valuation methods used and units of measurement for estimating the economic valuation of provisioning ecosystem services used by households of selected villages located in or at the fringes of Overa-Aru wildlife sanctuary, Kashmir Himalaya. (Kg = kilogram, HH = household, yr = year, Ltrs = litres). Description of equations for the economic values of the provisioning ecosystem services adapted from Ramachandra et al. (2017)). Ecosystem services Economic valuation method Unit price Equation Details Cultivated crops Market price based approaches Kg/HH/yr \(\:{V}_{\text{c}\text{u}\text{l}\text{t}\text{i}\text{v}\text{a}\text{t}\text{e}\text{d}\:\text{c}\text{r}\text{o}\text{p}\text{s}\:}=\sum\:_{i=1}^{n}{QC}_{i\:}\times\:{PC}_{i}\) V cultivated crops , the value of crops cultivated service (US $ ); QC , quantity of crops cultivated consumed annually (kg); PC, price of crops cultivated (US $ /kg); i , number of households. Livestock Market price based approaches Number of livestock/HH \(\:{V}_{\text{l}\text{i}\text{v}\text{e}\text{s}\text{t}\text{o}\text{c}\text{k}}=\sum\:_{i=1}^{n}{QL}_{i\:}\times\:{PL}_{i}\) V livestock , the value of livestock service (US $ ); QL , quantity of livestock (Number of livestock/HH); PL , price of livestock (US $ /kg); i , number of households. Wild edibles Replacement cost approaches Kg/HH/yr \(\:{V}_{\text{w}\text{i}\text{l}\text{d}\:\text{e}\text{d}\text{i}\text{b}\text{l}\text{e}\text{s}}=\sum\:_{i=1}^{n}{QD}_{i\:}\times\:{PD}_{i}\) V wild edibles , the value of wild edibles services (US $ ); QD , quantity of wild edibles collected annually (kg); PD , price of wild edibles (US $ /kg); i , number of households. Water used for household purposes Cost-based approaches (avoided cost method) Ltrs/HH/yr \(\:{V}_{\text{w}\text{a}\text{t}\text{e}\text{r}}=\sum\:_{i=1}^{n}{QW}_{i\:}\times\:{PW}_{i}\) V water , the value of water service (US $ ); QW , quantity of water used for different purposes by the households (HH); PW , price of water (US $ /Ltr); i , number of households. Plant and animal products for direct use or processing Market price based and replacement cost approaches Kg/HH/yr \(\:{V}_{\text{p}\text{l}\text{a}\text{n}\text{t}\:\text{a}\text{n}\text{d}\:\text{a}\text{n}\text{i}\text{m}\text{a}\text{l}\:\text{p}\text{r}\text{o}\text{d}\text{u}\text{c}\text{t}\text{s}\:\text{f}\text{o}\text{r}\:\text{d}\text{i}\text{r}\text{e}\text{c}\text{t}\:\text{u}\text{s}\text{e}\:\text{o}\text{r}\:\text{p}\text{r}\text{o}\text{c}\text{e}\text{s}\text{s}\text{i}\text{n}\text{g}}\:=\sum\:_{i=1}^{n}{QP}_{i\:}\times\:{PP}_{i}\) V plant and animal products for direct use or processing , the value of plant and animal products for direct use or processing service (US $ ); QP , quantity of plant and animal products for direct use or processing by the households (HH); PP , price of plant and animal products for direct use or processing (US $ /HH); i , number of households. Plant and animal products for agricultural purpose Replacement cost Kg/HH/yr; number/HH/yr \(\:{V}_{\text{p}\text{l}\text{a}\text{n}\text{t}\:\text{a}\text{n}\text{d}\:\text{a}\text{n}\text{i}\text{m}\text{a}\text{l}\:\text{p}\text{r}\text{o}\text{d}\text{u}\text{c}\text{t}\text{s}\:\text{f}\text{o}\text{r}\:\text{a}\text{g}\text{r}\text{i}\text{c}\text{u}\text{l}\text{t}\text{u}\text{r}\text{a}\text{l}\:\text{p}\text{u}\text{r}\text{p}\text{o}\text{s}\text{e}\:}=\sum\:_{i=1}^{n}{QPA}_{i\:}\times\:{PPA}_{i}\) V plant and animal products for agricultural purposes , the value of plant and animal products for agricultural purposes (US $ ); QPA , quantity of plant and animal products for agricultural purposes used for different purposes by the households (HH); PPA , price of plant and animal products for agricultural purposes (US $ /HH); i , number of households. Plant and animal based energy resources Market price-based approaches and replacement cost Kg/HH/yr; number/HH/yr \(\:{V}_{\text{p}\text{l}\text{a}\text{n}\text{t}\:\text{a}\text{n}\text{d}\:\text{a}\text{n}\text{i}\text{m}\text{a}\text{l}\:\text{b}\text{a}\text{s}\text{e}\text{d}\:\text{e}\text{n}\text{e}\text{r}\text{g}\text{y}\:\text{r}\text{e}\text{s}\text{o}\text{u}\text{r}\text{c}\text{e}\text{s}\:}=\sum\:_{i=1}^{n}{QPE}_{i\:}\times\:{PPE}_{i}\) V plant and animal products for agricultural purposes , the value of plant and animal based energy (US $ ); QPE , quantity of plant and animal based energy used for different purposes by the households (HH); PPE , price of plant and animal based energy (US $ /HH); i , number of households. 2.4.3. Total value of provisioning ecosystem services In each village, the mean economic value (MEV) per year for each individual ecosystem service was computed based on the data generated through the questionnaire. The MEV for food, fodder, fuelwood, and wild edibles was quantified in terms of kg/yr and that of water in ltr/yr. We calculated the economic value of provisioning ecosystem services for each household by adding the means and standard errors of monetary value for all categories of the services. To estimate the total economic value (TEV) of the ecosystem services for Overa-Aru wildlife sanctuary, we calculated MEV of the ecosystem services per household which was then multiplied with the total number of households in the selected villages (Table 4 ). Table 4 Economic value of provisioning ecosystem services, response (%) for the respective services and proportional economic contribution of each service to the total economic value of the ecosystem services provided by the Overa-Aru wildlife sanctuary, Kashmir Himalaya. (HH = household, yr = year). Ecosystem services Range (US $ /HH/yr) Mean ± SE (US $ /HH/yr) % response from respondents interviewed % contribution to the total economic value of ES Cultivated crops Non-cash crops Potato, maize, cucurbites, collard, chillis, tomato, brinjal, onion, garlic, spinach, cabbage, beans, peas, carrot, raddish, summer cypress etc. 19.5–130 65.78 ± 4.00 100 1.06 Cash crops Apple 0–572 17.88 ± 9.05 4 Walnut 0–374.40 84.24 ± 11.33 41 Wild edibles Wild plants 0–3.25 1.32 ± 0.12 66 0.01 Mushrooms 0–2.60 0.39 ± 0.07 27 Reared livestock and their products Cattle 0–3798.60 1367.13 ± 71.35 89 14.06 Horse/mule 0–3900 728 ± 83.80 55 Sheep/goat 0–2470 114.86 ± 40.26 9 Chicken 0–104 26.52 ± 3.34 47 Livestock dung used as manure 0.65–45.50 6.68 ± 0.96 100 0.04 Fodder for livestock 79.63–286.65 141.36 ± 5.94 89 0.89 Water for household purposes 2340–10296 5793.84 ± 174.54 100 36.41 Water for livestock Cattle 0–11232 3519.36 ± 214.98 89 43.53 Horse/mule 0–16848 3144.96 ± 362.03 55 Sheep/goat 0–5616 261.14 ± 91.99 9 Animal-based energy resources Cattle for ploughing 0–20.80 3.22 ± 0.53 29 0.03 Horse and mule for transport materials 0–13 2.34 ± 0.42 27 Plant-based resources for energy and other purposes Wood for heat and cooking 156–1105 384.13 ± 20.35 100 3.97 Wood for agricultural tools 0–130 37.05 ± 5.14 72 Poles for fencing 0–702 201.63 ± 20.73 64 Rachis for firepots and baskets 0–26 9.56 ± 1.15 42 3. Results 3.1. Demographic and socioeconomic profile Among the surveyed villages, the household number ranged from 83 to 445 with a mean of 229 households per village. Among the surveyed households, the family size ranged from 2 to 10 members per household with a mean of 6.1. The land owned by each family ranged from 0.13 to 2 acre with a mean of 0.76 acre, including arable and residential lands ( Supplementary material-I ). Among the respondents residing in the surveyed villages, 24% were pony-riders who rely directly on tourism, 20% were dependent on agriculture, 19% were pastoralists who depends upon livestock as their sole income, while the remaining were associated with other sources of income such as, carpenter, shepherd, hotel and tea stall owners (Fig. 3 ). Majority of the natural resources from the sanctuary were collected on regular basis during the harvest season. The horticultural crops including apple and walnut were stored and transported to market in boxes and bags respectively. Fodder and fuelwood were collected in bags or packs (wrapped by ropes) depending upon the quantum of the material collected. Further, livestock dung was carried in bags, baskets or handcarts to the arable land as a manure. 3.2. Ecosystem services identified by the respondents In total, 14 ecosystem services classified into three categories (provisioning, regulatory and cultural services) were identified by the respondents. Of these identified ecosystem services, regulatory services were responded by 100% of the respondents, followed by provisioning ecosystem services (61%) and cultural services (45%). Among the 14 ecosystem services identified, the provisioning ecosystem services provided by the sanctuary were 8 (out of 14), while as the regulatory and cultural services were represented by (3 each out of 14) (Table 2 ). Further, among the provisioning ecosystem services, the services most perceived were different types of materials obtained from plants and animals that could be used for agricultural and other purposes including fodder for livestock, plant-based resources for energy and other purposes such as wood for heat and cooking, water for household and other purposes and cultivated crops (non-cash crops). Overall, the most frequently cited services were livestock dung used as manure, wood for heat and cooking, cultivated crops (non-cash crops), recreation and aesthetic, and all the regulatory services (100% each), followed by fodder for livestock (89%) and plant material for agricultural tools (72%). The least cited services were cash crop (apple) (4%), followed by sheep/goat owns by respondents (9%) and preparation and management of landscape and public parks (20%) (Table 2 ). 3.3. Economic value of provisioning ecosystem services Of all the provisioning ecosystem services identified by the respondents, we found the highest economic value for livestock rearing (7066.82 ± 674.94 US $ /yr), followed by consumption of water for household purposes (5793.84 ± 174.54 US $ /yr), reared livestock and their products (2236.51 ± 198.75 US $ /yr) and plant-based resources for energy and other purposes (632.37 ± 47.37 US $ /yr). The services with the lowest economic value were animal-based energy resource (5.56 ± 0.95 US $ /yr) and livestock dung used as manure (6.68 ± 0.96 US $ /yr). Cultivation of non-cash crops (e.g. Potato, maize, cucurbits, collard, chillis, tomato etc.), livestock dung used as manure and plant-based energy resources and their outputs were the only provisioning ecosystem services used by 100% households, followed by fodder for livestock (89%) and plant-based resources and their outputs (69.50%). The infrequent services practiced by the respondents were the usage of livestock dung for fuel purpose and collection of timber for roofing or other housing material. In terms of contribution to the total economic value (TEV) of provisioning ecosystem services, water for livestock and household purposes contributed highest with 43.53% and 36.41% respectively, followed by reared livestock and their products (14.06%). However, the ecosystem services like animal-based energy resources and livestock dung used as manure contributed lowest with 0.03% and 0.04% respectively to the TEV of provisioning ecosystem services (Table 4 ). The TEV of all provisioning ecosystem services provided by the sanctuary for each household/year amounted to US $ 15911.39 ± 1122.08. With a total 1146 households residing in surveyed villages, the TEV of all the provisioning ecosystem services for Overa-Aru wildlife sanctuary, based on household consumption of services, was valued at 18,234,452.90 US $ /year. 4. Discussion Economic evaluation of ecosystem services of natural areas is fast-emerging as a frontier area of research. In this regard, an empirical quantification of ecosystem services rendered by protected areas provides an operational framework to highlight the nature’s contribution to people. The present study has made an attempt to undertake the economic evaluation of provisioning ecosystem services provided to the local communities in the Overa-Aru wildlife sanctuary, located in Kashmir Himalaya. 4.1. Ecosystem services provided by the sanctuary Currently, ecosystem services is a well-defined and established field of science, and is an important part of the global discourse on environmental management (Muradian and Gomez-Baggethun, 2021). Worldwide, the ecosystem services delivered by different ecosystems and biomes have been a substantial life-sustaining factor associated with specific values (Costanza et al., 1997, Mamat et al., 2020). The perceived ecosystem services have been observed for their influence on local peoples’ livelihood and well-being (Hussain et al., 2022). Perception of ecosystem services is usually connected to the use and disuse of particular ecosystems (Naselli-Flores and Padisak, 2022; Wang et al., 2022), and the local population residing around the sanctuary rely on agro-pastoral system, utilizes the provisioning ecosystem services with little human modification. This easily exposes the identification of provisioning ecosystem services as people were directly or indirectly engaged with the different ecosystems to derive these services. However, the non-tangible benefits obtained from cultural services are also vital for the locals, but these services were apparently accounted because of low responses from the respondents or as often not recognized as ‘benefits from nature’ (Lieberknecht, 2022). Food, fuelwood and fodder are some crucial services provided by forest and agro-ecosystems, and about 25% of the global land area is managed for grazing (Hussain et al., 2022). Similarly, our results revealed that more than 90% of local population rely on sanctuary for fodder and grazing purpose. Therefore, the economic value of this service was valued at 141.36 ± 5.94 US $ in the present study area. Similar results were obtained by Hussain et al. (2022), showed that the total economic value of grazing was valued at 127,942 US $ in some villages of Barsoo and Tai-Suru regions in Ladakh, India. Likewise, the fuelwood furnished by the sanctuary was also a well-known tangible good. Although fuelwood extraction is technically illegal but it remains a primary fuel source for people living in or at the fringes of the sanctuary. Besides, the poles are extracted for fencing and making agricultural tools. Corresponding results have been observed while quantifying the valuation of the ecosystem services provided by the Kailadevi Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan, India (Rasal et al., 2021). 4.2. Economic value of the provisioning ecosystem services The total economic value of the identified provisioning ES utilized by households, provided by the sanctuary was amounted to 18,234,452.90 US $ . These values surpass the economic value of ecosystem services provided by high altitude desert valleys and other high productivity ecosystems such as mangrove ecosystems. For instance, the total economic value of all perceived provisioning ecosystem services provided by cold desert Spiti valley, Indian Trans-Himalaya was valued at 112,78,908 US $ /year with an average of 3622 ± 149 US $ /household/year (Murali et al., 2017). Similarly, in west Kalimantan, mangrove the economic valuation of carbon storage for the period of 2011 to 2021 was amounted 3,410.50 US $ (Maulidia et al., 2022). Further, it was many folds higher than the economic value per household in Ghodaghodi wetland area which was approximately 184.2 US $ (Aryal et al., 2021). The TEV of forest resources in Pekalongan Regency was estimated 16,167,825.25 US $ (Harini et al., 2021), which was less than the TEV of present study area. However, the TEV of mangrove forest in Tongas, Probolinggo Regency, east Java amounted 254,095,240.68 US $ (Idzatilangi and Pasau, 2021), was estimated higher than the TEV of the sanctuary, which was valued 23,550,815.70 US $ /year. The goods for human well-being and sustenance valued many folds higher than the value of the cash crops (apple and walnut) and other commercial products including reared livestock and their outputs. It seems that the value of subsistence goods and services may usually surpass the value of commercial goods. The net annually income obtained from non-timber forest products by the residents residing around the Satchari National Park, Bangladesh valued 289.52 US $ per household/year (Mukul et al., 2016). This dependence on ecosystem services can potentially inspire the locals for sustainable use and conservation of natural resource. There are some plausible reasons that infer the comparatively high contribution of provisioning ecosystem services in present study: a) the lack of employment opportunities, b) prolonged and harsh winters, c) low income of households and price hiking of commodities including fertilizers and Liquefied Petroleum Gas, and d) topographical complexity and isolation. Availability of employment opportunities, lowers the dependence on provisioning ecosystem services (Marull et al., 2021; Perosa et al., 2021). Shorten and lenient winters probably decreased the consumption of firewood in present study area (Wangchuk et al., 2021; Chabal and Heinz, 2021) and being a low income of households and abrupt hike in prices of commodities increased the dependence on alternative sources which the locals perceived from ecosystem services (Bari et al., 2022). The topographical complexity and relative isolation limited the access to markets in winters and halts the implementation of mechanized agricultural practices, increase the demand of ecosystem services. Although, freshwater has been considered as essential ecosystem services and preferred over the other ecosystem services (Pelicice et al., 2022). The services having either low or high economic value were also utilized by the respondents in present study area. For instance, services such as water and livestock dung used as manure possesses low economic value but used by all the respondents while as, services with potentially high economic value such as cash crops — apple and walnut were used by 4% and 41% of the respondents respectively; reared livestock — cattle, horse/mule, sheep/goat, chicken and their products, were used by 89%, 55%, 9%, and 47% of respondents respectively. This is analogous to ‘diamond-water paradox’ — where diamonds have high economic value but used occasionally, and on the other hand, water which has low economic value but used frequently and widely (Pritchett, 2022; Wicksell and Schumpeter, 2022). 4.3. Ecosystem services and human well-being The forest and agro-ecosystem services are vital for sustenance and well-being of local residents (stakeholders). These vital services delivered by forest and agro-ecosystems boosts the local economic strength. The villagers rely on goods and services delivered by the sanctuary were economically poor and backward, so they cannot purchase alternative services from other regions, hence the services provided by the forest and agro-ecosystems plays a crucial role in enhancing their livelihood (de Groot et al., 2002; MEA, 2005). No doubt, the boost in tourism and advent of technology escalates the pace of development in the region, but local people still rely on ecosystem services for their sustenance and livelihood. It is a fact that most of the agro-ecosystem services were limited because of limited agricultural lands. So, households with a small portion of agricultural land relied on forest ecosystem services. These services are free of charge but residents must spend time and energy to bring them home. Although some households in the respective villages can use tractors and tillers (ploughing machines) to perform the agricultural practices, but the topographic features and poor economic level create hurdles in adopting such technologies. Therefore, such practices have been performed by using oxen. However, fortunately, the ecosystem services provided the source of fodder for these cattle. Furthermore, in addition to ploughing service, the cattle give dung used as a substituting resource for chemical fertilizers. The harsh and prolonged winters and interrupted supply and electricity in the region creates the dependency on fuelwood which is a vital service provided by the sanctuary. Also, freshwater and grazing were the essential services delivered by the sanctuary. Hence, the households' dependence level was high for every village. This also symbolized that the estimated cost incurred to replace these services would exceed the economic capacity of the residents. During the research survey, we observed that the excess influx of tourists decreases the grazing capacity of grasslands. Also, some households with a large number of livestock, insufficient agricultural land and grazing area were forced to collect more fodder from remote areas within the sanctuary. This has made the fodder collection relatively more challenging and complex. In contradiction, the dependency on wild edibles and medicinal plants was low in every village. The present study can elucidate the significance of ecosystem services for the local peoples' well-being. Cultivated crops, fuelwood, fodder, water, and livestock were the vital service essential for human livelihood, and valued high in the sanctuary. The households utilized freshwater for various purposes, supplied by the pristine alpine lakes and snow-clad mountain of the sanctuary. Although, the households with sufficient agricultural land and agro-plantations were shown low dependency level on the forest ecosystem services such as food, fuelwood and fodder. However, this doesn't surpass the supply of such services from the forest ecosystem. In lump sum, the ecosystem services provided by the sanctuary have been related to the sustainability of well-being and livelihood of residents residing in the villages located in or at the fringes of sanctuary. 5. Conclusions and recommendations To our best knowledge, this is the first such study from Kashmir Himalaya and the information can be used in management decisions about Overa-Aru wildlife sanctuary and other protected areas in the region. Although, a substantial decline in the forest ecosystem services utilization has been observed, but these services could never be ignored because of the demands of the people residing in or adjacent to the forests. So, the findings may facilitate decisions to alleviate the detrimental human activities in the sanctuary such as the extensive extraction of the fuelwood and fodder, for which some degree of compensation or livelihood alternatives may be necessary. The present study gives an overview on identification of ecosystem services and economic valuation of key provisioning ecosystem services provided by the Overa-Aru wildlife sanctuary. Identifying and valuation of a broad range of provisioning ecosystem services is of greater importance for protected area management and to safeguard sustainable flow of ecosystem services. Generally, humans perceive wide range of services and goods from the nature for their well-being and livelihood sustenance. In this regard, the present study estimated a total annual economic value of provisioning ecosystem services from the sanctuary at 18,234,452.90 US $ , thus inferring that the sanctuary offers a rich repository of the provisioning goods and services. These values exemplify the benefits derived by the local communities and downstream human population from the existing natural resources in the sanctuary. The evaluation of ecosystem services, as attempted in this study, would inform all the relevant stakeholders and policy-makers about the crucial role of these services for the human well-being. Further, the evaluation of ecosystem services is the key to sustainable ecosystems, as sustainable flow of various ecosystem services has become the need of the hour. Proper protection of the sanctuary can benefit flagship wildlife species such as Snow leopard and associated biodiversity with co-beneficial ecosystem service outcomes. Recommendations and policy interventions Based on the insights gained from the present study, we suggest the following recommendations and policy interventions: Globally, the protected areas are highly valuable, and are recognized as important areas for conservation of biodiversity. Hence, it is beneficial to incorporate ecosystem services framework in management and conservation of the sanctuary in this Himalayan region by the PA managers and policy makers to provide livelihood alternatives such as eco-tourism, sustainable agroforestry, handicrafts and sustainable products, non-timber forest product collection, beekeeping and honey production, sustainable fisheries and aquaculture, herbal and medicinal plant cultivation, livestock management. Identification of barren lands at the lower elevations in the sanctuary and afforesting them with preferred fuelwood and fodder species will reduce the dependence for fuelwood and fodder resources from forests. Integrating preferred fuelwood species such as Abies pindrow , Pinus wallichiana and Prunus cornuta into scientifically managed plantations can also ease pressure on forests and bridge the gap between the demand and supply of fuelwood resources. Promoting fuelwood species in agro-ecosystems can reduce the current pressure on the fuelwood resources from forests in the sanctuary Need to promote the ecosystem restoration by planting the frequently collected fodder species which can maintain the biodiversity in the sanctuary. Promoting the use of alternative resources such as supply of agriculture byproducts can also reduce the pressure on the resources of the sanctuary Providing technical and financial support to farmers for the cultivation of high-quality fodder crops, such as legumes and grasses, can improve the nutritional value of fodder and reduce the need for grazing in the sanctuary. This can be achieved through the provision of extension services, seeds, and other inputs. Unrestricted, uncontrolled, open and free grazing of livestock need to be checked by planning efficient policy measures, which can promote their sustainable use. In that scenario, forest department need to notify the fodder supply areas and also proper management methods need to be popularized in order to regulate the grazing and consequent damages to natural environment in the sanctuary. Regular awareness programs about the importance of provisioning ecosystem services should be carried out in the villages adjacent to the sanctuary. This will generate active public participation in the sustainable utilization of ecosystem goods collected from the sanctuary. Managers and policy makers should use the ecosystem services assessments to evaluate, highlight, and disseminate the role of protected areas, its allied biodiversity and ecosystem services in economic terms to the general public. The migratory communities, outsiders and downstream areas in plains should be made aware about the importance of protected areas to safeguard sustainable flow of ecosystem services. Despite a lot of progress achieved in economic evaluation of ecosystem services, there are still ambiguities in proper implementation of frameworks at local scale. The researchers should strictly adhere to the use of commonly agreed classification for ecosystem services. Further, some ecosystem services such as aesthetic values are difficult to estimate in economic terms, which makes their evaluation difficult. Hence, more efforts are required in near future to standardize non-monetary evaluation methods for ecosystem services. Limitations of the study Respondent's perceptions of ecosystem services are inherently subjective and influenced by their cultural, social, and economic backgrounds. This subjectivity may lead to inconsistent or biased responses, reducing the objectivity of the data. They may not fully understand the concept of ecosystem services (e.g., regulating or supporting services), leading to biased or incomplete responses. Data collection at specific times or locations might fail to capture the full variability of ecosystem service use across seasons or diverse landscapes, limiting the generalizability of results. A significant proportion of stakeholders may decline to participate, especially if they see little relevance of ecosystem services to their daily lives. This can lead to a dataset that does not reflect the broader population. Many regulating services (e.g., biodiversity, climate regulation) and cultural values (e.g., spiritual or cultural significance) lack direct market value, making them hard to quantify in monetary terms. The ecosystem services change over time and across locations, making consistent valuation difficult. Economic valuation may prioritize immediate financial gains over long-term ecological sustainability. Valuation requires extensive ecological and economic data, which may not always be available. Declarations Acknowledgments The authors are thankful to the Head, Department Botany, University of Kashmir. Colleagues at BIOTA Laboratory, Centre for Biodiversity & Taxonomy, University of Kashmir are acknowledged for their kind support during the present study. Funding Tajamul Islam acknowledge the University Grants Commission (UGC) under 924/(CSIRNET JUNE-2019) for providing financial assistance as Junior Research Fellowship. We are also thankful to the participants for sharing their precious knowledge. CRediT authorship contribution statement Tajamul Islam: Curation and analysis; Data collection; Methodology; Software ; Visualization; Writing-Original draft. Irshad A. Nawchoo: Conceptualization; Investigation; Supervision; Validation; Writing-review. Anzar Ahmad Khuroo: Conceptualization; Methodology; Supervision; Validation; Writing-Original draft. Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no financial or non-financial competing interests. Data availability The primary data used in this manuscript is available as supplementary material—I and II. Clinical trial number: Not applicable . Ethics statement: All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Consent to Participate statement: Informed consent was obtained verbally before each interview in order to clearly state the objectives of present study and to obtain their consent to participate. Each of the interviewees was informed beforehand of the confidentiality of this study, and of his/her right to withdraw its participation at any time, and of the objective of a publication under the form of a scientific publication. Consent to Publish declaration: not applicable. References Adams, V. M., Iacona, G. D., & Possingham, H. P. (2019). Weighing the benefits of expanding protected areas versus managing existing ones. Nature Sustainability , 2 (5), 404–411. Aryal, K., Maraseni, T., & Apan, A. (2022). Transforming agroforestry in contested landscapes: A win-win solution to trade-offs in ecosystem services in Nepal. Science of The Total Environment , 159301. Aryal, K., Ojha, B. R., & Maraseni, T. (2021). Perceived importance and economic valuation of ecosystem services in Ghodaghodi wetland of Nepal. Land Use Policy , 106 , 105450. Bari, E., Enamul Haque, A. K., & Khan, Z. H. (2022). Local strategies to build climate resilient communities in Bangladesh. In Climate Change and Community Resilience (pp. 175–190). Springer, Singapore. Blicharska, M., Hedblom, M., Josefsson, J., Widenfalk, O., Ranius, T., Öckinger, E., & Widenfalk, L. A. (2022). Operationalisation of ecological compensation–Obstacles and ways forward. Journal of Environmental Management , 304 , 114277. Casse, T., Razafintsalama, M. H., & Milhøj, A. (2022). A trade-off between conservation, development, and tourism in the vicinity of the Andasibe-Mantadia National Park, Madagascar. SN Social Sciences , 2 (2), 1–28. Castellar, J. A. C., Popartan, L. A., Pueyo-Ros, J., Atanasova, N., Langergraber, G., Säumel, I., ... & Acuna, V. (2021). Nature-based solutions in the urban context: Terminology, classification and scoring for urban challenges and ecosystem services. Science of The Total Environment , 779 , 146237. Chabal, L., & Heinz, C. (2021). Reconstructing the heterogeneity of past woodlands in anthracology using the spatial distribution of charcoals in archaeological layers: Applied to the postglacial occupation of the Abeurador cave (Hérault) in the South of France. Quaternary International , 593 , 19–35. Chen, H., Costanza, R., & Kubiszewski, I. (2022). Land use trade-offs in China's protected areas from the perspective of accounting values of ecosystem services. Journal of Environmental Management , 315 , 115178. Chettri, N., Aryal, K., Thapa, S., Uddin, K., Kandel, P., & Karki, S. (2021). Contribution of ecosystem services to rural livelihoods in a changing landscape: a case study from the Eastern Himalaya. Land Use Policy , 109 , 105643. Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., ... & Van Den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature , 387 (6630), 253–260. Dar, G. H., & Khuroo, A. A. (Eds.). (2020). Biodiversity of the Himalaya: Jammu and Kashmir State (Vol. 18). Singapore:: Springer. De Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., & Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity , 7 (3), 260–272. De Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A., & Boumans, R. M. (2002). A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics , 41 (3), 393–408. FAO (2018). The state of the World’s forests 2018 – Forest pathways to sustainable development. FAO, Rome. Garcia, R. M., & Burns, S. L. (2022). Bureaucratic politics in protected areas: The voided power projection efforts of conservation vis-a-vis forest bureaucracies in Patagonia, Argentina. Forest Policy and Economics , 134 , 102630. Geldmann, J., Manica, A., Burgess, N. D., Coad, L., & Balmford, A. (2019). A global-level assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas at resisting anthropogenic pressures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 116 (46), 23209–23215. Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., 2010. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Raffaelli, D., Frid, C. (Eds.), Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 110–139. Hamid, M., Khuroo, A. A., Malik, A. H., Ahmad, R., & Singh, C. P. (2021). Elevation and aspect determine the differences in soil properties and plant species diversity on Himalayan mountain summits. Ecological Research , 36 (2), 340–352. Harini, R., Yuniantari, R., & Ariani, R. D. (2021, March). Economic valuation of protection and production forests in pekalongan regency. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 683, p. 012092). IOP Publishing. Hernández-Blanco, M., Costanza, R., & Cifuentes-Jara, M. (2021). Economic valuation of the ecosystem services provided by the mangroves of the Gulf of Nicoya using a hybrid methodology. Ecosystem Services , 49 , 101258. Hussain, S., Sharma, S., & Singh, A. N. (2022). Evaluation of ecosystem supply services and calculation of economic value in Ladakh, India. Regional Sustainability , 3 (2), 157–169. Idzatilangi, W. I., & Pasau, C. R. (2021). Economic Valuation of Mangrove Forest in Tongas District, Probolinggo Regency, East Java. IMD (India Meteorological Department, Meteorological Centre, Rambagh, Srinagar) 2021. Lieberknecht, K. (2022). Community-centered climate planning: Using local knowledge and communication frames to catalyze climate planning in Texas. Journal of the American Planning Association , 88 (1), 97–112. Mamat, A., Wang, J., & Ma, Y. (2020). Impacts of land-use change on ecosystem service value of mountain–oasis–desert ecosystem: A case study of Kaidu–Kongque river basin, Northwest China. Sustainability , 13 (1), 140. Mandle, L., Shields-Estrada, A., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Mitchell, M. G., Bremer, L. L., Gourevitch, J. D., ... & Ricketts, T. H. (2021). Increasing decision relevance of ecosystem service science. Nature Sustainability , 4 (2), 161–169. Martin, G.J., 2004. Ethnobotany: A Methods Manual, first ed. Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849775854. Marull, J., Padró, R., Cirera, J., Giocoli, A., Pons, M., & Tello, E. (2021). A socioecological integrated analysis of the Barcelona metropolitan agricultural landscapes. Ecosystem Services , 51 , 101350. Maulidia, V., Akbar, A. A., Jumiati, J., Arifin, A., & Sulastri, A. (2022). The Value of Mangrove Ecosystems Based on Mangrove Carbon Sequestration in West Kalimantan. Journal of Wetlands Environmental Management, 10(1), 12–25. Methorst, J., Rehdanz, K., Mueller, T., Hansjürgens, B., Bonn, A., & Böhning-Gaese, K. (2021). The importance of species diversity for human well-being in Europe. Ecological Economics , 181 , 106917. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 40–53. Morse, W. C., Stern, M., Blahna, D., & Stein, T. (2022). Recreation as a transformative experience: Synthesizing the literature on outdoor recreation and recreation ecosystem services into a systems framework. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism , 100492. Mukul, S. A., Rashid, A. M., Uddin, M. B., & Khan, N. A. (2016). Role of non-timber forest products in sustaining forest-based livelihoods and rural households' resilience capacity in and around protected area: a Bangladesh study. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 59 (4), 628–642. Murali, R., Redpath, S., & Mishra, C. (2017). The value of ecosystem services in the high altitude Spiti Valley, Indian Trans-Himalaya. Ecosystem Services, 28 , 115–123. Naselli-Flores, L., & Padisák, J. (2022). Ecosystem services provided by marine and freshwater phytoplankton. Hydrobiologia , 1–16. Pelicice, F. M., Agostinho, A. A., Azevedo-Santos, V. M., Bessa, E., Casatti, L., Garrone-Neto, D., ... & Zuanon, J. (2022). Ecosystem services generated by Neotropical freshwater fishes. Hydrobiologia , 1–24. Perosa, F., Fanger, S., Zingraff-Hamed, A., & Disse, M. (2021). A meta-analysis of the value of ecosystem services of floodplains for the Danube River Basin. Science of The Total Environment , 777 , 146062. Pinho, P. F., Canova, M. T., Toledo, P. M., Gonzalez, A., Lapola, D. M., Ometto, J. P., & Smith, M. S. (2022). Climate change affects us in the tropics: local perspectives on ecosystem services and well-being sensitivity in Southeast Brazil. Regional Environmental Change, 22 (3), 1–17. Pritchett, L. (2022). National development delivers: And how! And how?. Economic Modelling , 107 , 105717. Qiu, S., Peng, J., Zheng, H., Xu, Z., & Meersmans, J. (2022). How can massive ecological restoration programs interplay with social-ecological systems? A review of research in the South China karst region. Science of The Total Environment , 807 , 150723. Ramachandra, T. V., Soman, D., Naik, A. D., & Chandran, M. S. (2017). Appraisal of forest ecosystems goods and services: Challenges and opportunities for conservation. Journal of Biodiversity , 8 (1), 12–33. Rasal, V., Everard, M., Khandal, D., Chandrawal, K., & Sahu, Y. K. (2021). Evaluation of the ecosystem services provided by the Kailadevi Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan, India. Parks , 27 , 13. Mir, R. A. (2018). Recent changes of two parts of Kolahoi Glacier and its controlling factors in Kashmir basin, western Himalaya. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment , 11 , 265–281. Rodgers, W. A., & Panwar, S. H. (1988). Biogeographical classification of India. New Forest, Dehra Dun, India . Singh, V., Shukla, S., & Singh, A. (2021). The principal factors responsible for biodiversity loss. Open Journal of Plant Science , 6 (1), 011–014. Smith, P., Keesstra, S. D., Silver, W. L., Adhya, T. K., De Deyn, G. B., Carvalheiro, L. G., ... & McElwee, P. (2021). Soil-derived Nature's Contributions to People and their contribution to the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B , 376 (1834), 20200185. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) (2011). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for national and international policy makers. London: Routledge. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). 2019. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Available from https://ipbes.net/global-assessment. (Accessed on 28 October April 2022). Wang, Z., Jie, H., Fu, H., Wang, L., Jiang, H., Ding, L., & Chen, Y. (2022). A social-media-based improvement index for urban renewal. Ecological Indicators , 137 , 108775. Wangchuk, K., Gurung, J., Pasakhala, B., Thapaliya, P., Gurung, K., & Rana, P. J. (2021). Wood for thought? Untold consequences of the Himalayan gold collection in the Central Himalaya. Environmental Challenges , 5 , 100295. Wei, F., Wang, S., Fu, B., & Liu, Y. (2020). Representation of biodiversity and ecosystem services in East Africa’s protected area network. Ambio , 49 (1), 245–257. Wicksell, K., & Schumpeter, J. (2022). Out of the Blue Danube. The Making of Modern Economics: The Lives and Ideas of the Great Thinkers , 173. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files SupplementaryMaterialI.docx SupplementaryMaterialII.xlsx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 30 Dec, 2025 Read the published version in Discover Sustainability → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 18 Sep, 2025 Reviews received at journal 17 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 08 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 08 Sep, 2025 Reviews received at journal 06 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 05 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 21 Jul, 2025 Reviews received at journal 17 Jul, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 05 Jul, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 03 Jul, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 29 Jun, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 29 Jun, 2025 Editor invited by journal 27 Jun, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 24 Jun, 2025 First submitted to journal 24 Jun, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6662963","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":478803643,"identity":"e26107ae-0bd8-437d-af0a-53bfbca754bc","order_by":0,"name":"Tajamul Islam","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Kashmir","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tajamul","middleName":"","lastName":"Islam","suffix":""},{"id":478803644,"identity":"2244bb69-d83a-4ec0-a516-1c70ca553f1e","order_by":1,"name":"Irshad A. Nawchoo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Kashmir","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Irshad","middleName":"A.","lastName":"Nawchoo","suffix":""},{"id":478803645,"identity":"10be6ded-263f-4a15-90f2-a692abdbcbff","order_by":2,"name":"Anzar Ahmad Khuroo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Kashmir","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Anzar","middleName":"Ahmad","lastName":"Khuroo","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-05-14 10:08:05","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6662963/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6662963/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-02262-x","type":"published","date":"2025-12-30T15:58:07+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":85856178,"identity":"91749509-b0c5-41cb-8446-483ee949468d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-02 11:27:03","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":101166,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTheoretical model and conceptual framework of this study.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6662963/v1/bb27f932247b6563ab4b95ac.jpeg"},{"id":85857209,"identity":"ee7f3cd8-9d58-4611-9b47-0cb6e6369d22","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-02 11:43:03","extension":"jpeg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":139954,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMap showing the villages selected in and around the Overa-Aru wildlife sanctuary.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image2.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6662963/v1/b79c3e90b56ca25856ad64b5.jpeg"},{"id":85856181,"identity":"7b23cfa5-438c-46e6-8f20-be21ade0c419","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-02 11:27:03","extension":"jpeg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":170706,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePercentage source of income of the respondents in the surveyed villages of the Overa-Aru wildlife sanctuary.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image3.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6662963/v1/22fa9b920a27191ead2c6640.jpeg"},{"id":99545521,"identity":"afb5d577-c525-4ea0-8049-fc25ae9be63d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-05 16:08:17","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1663109,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6662963/v1/e2cb7cb9-5a6a-4b98-914e-dfe3ac5238a5.pdf"},{"id":85856180,"identity":"ee7adb49-02d4-4d99-93db-d5bdda0cf5b2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-02 11:27:03","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":25023,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryMaterialI.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6662963/v1/6af9f472fee831e33086ce5c.docx"},{"id":85856386,"identity":"cb86728c-4d71-4f77-ac44-bdeba87d3d61","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-02 11:35:03","extension":"xlsx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":23331,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryMaterialII.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6662963/v1/2be80ac2438c1d7d8308a501.xlsx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Economic valuation of ecosystem services in a Himalayan protected area","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eEcosystem services are goods and services derived from nature that benefit humans (Costanza, 1997; Morse et al., 2022). Ecosystem service evaluation are undertaken to understand the multiple contributions that nature provides to the society (MEA, 2005, Mandle et al., 2021). However, the general neglect of the markets to capture the economic value of ecosystem services is often a challenge in maintaining natural ecosystems (Blicharska et al., 2022). The concept of ecosystem services has been brought to global prominence by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2019) and its incorporation in the United Nations\u0026rsquo; Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Smith et al., 2021). This is justified by the critical interdependence of human well-being with the ecological health of natural ecosystems (Methorst et al., 2021). Over the past few decades, rapidly deteriorating ecological health of natural environment has escalated the costs for the global community to be incurred on ecological restoration (Qiu et al., 2022). In addition to the impacts of degraded ecosystems on over all human well-being, these costs are seldom taken into consideration during the cost-benefit analysis of environmental management plans (Casse et al., 2022). However, development of ecosystem services evaluation framework has facilitated the explicit assessment of such costs and impacts (TEEB, 2011). The ecosystem service assessments are undertaken to understand the various benefits that nature contributes to the people (Castellar et al., 2021). In recent times, though ecosystem services assessments have been undertaken for different regions and ecosystems such as tropical forests, marine ecosystems or coastal deltas, yet the protected areas (PAs) which are worldover considered as the key areas for conserving biodiversity and maintenance of ecosystem services have still remained little investigated (Garcia and Burns, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt present, 1/6th of the total global terrestrial area now falls within PAs network (Geldmann et al., 2019), and therefore ecosystem services assessment of this vast natural land area across the world assumes a research priority (Adams et al., 2019). In fact, most people residing inside or along the periphery of the PAs practice agriculture or pastoralism and are directly or indirectly dependent on ecosystem services for their basic livelihood and survival (FAO, 2018). The PAs provide natural resources for the sustenance, livelihood, and well-being of local people. The locals around PAs perceive the ecosystem services in the form of goods and benefits from natural environment, which directly makes positive impact on livelihood and well-being of residents (Pinho et al., 2022). The type and magnitude of ecosystem services perceived by the locals could be used to estimate the economic valuation of these services, which in turn can aid the decision-makers in better planning and management (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). It helps in estimating the impact of a decision making and recognize benefits and trade-offs within environmental planning and management (de Groot et al., 2010; Chen et al., 2022). Further, this encourages the sustainable use of natural resources in the protected areas, and engenders mutual partnership between land managers and local communities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Himalaya represents a diverse region of mountain systems and provides the ecosystem services for more than one-third of the world\u0026rsquo;s human population in South Asia (Aryal et al., 2022). However, in recent times, this ecologically fragile region is facing multiple challenges including climate change, land use and land cover change, and introduction of alien species, which has led the loss of native biodiversity and ecosystem degradation (Singh et al., 2021). In comparison to the numerous studies available globally regarding valuation of ecosystem services from diverse ecosystems (Hern\u0026aacute;ndez-Blanco et al., 2021), such studies are least available from the Himalaya. Very recently, few preliminary studies focusing on valuation of ecosystem services have been carried out in the Himalaya (Murali et al., 2017; Chettri et al., 2021; Hussain et al., 2022). These studies are narrow in scope and focus only on a few ecosystem services. Kashmir Himalaya, located towards the north-western boundary of the Himalaya, is known for its rich biodiversity and diverse ecosystems (Hamid et al., 2021). A significant proportion of the land area in the region has been designated under PAs network (Wei et al., 2020). However, till date, no study regarding the valuation of ES is available from Kashmir Himalaya. Therefore, the present study aimed to undertake economic evaluation of ecosystem services in a protected area of Kashmir Himalaya, using Overa-Aru wildlife sanctuary.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this study, we specifically aim to address the following research questions: (i.) What are the various ecosystem services furnished by the Overa-Aru wildlife sanctuary, and (ii.) What is the economic value of provisioning ecosystem services provided by the sanctuary.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe expected results by addressing these research questions will help protected area managers in formulating an ecosystem services-integrated management plan for the sanctuary and also guide sustainable utilization of biodiversity and ecosystem resources of the sanctuary by the dependent human population.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1. Study site description\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study was conducted in Overa-Aru wildlife sanctuary, located in the Kashmir Himalaya \u0026mdash; a region falling towards the northwestern side of the Himalaya biodiversity hotspot in India (Rodgers and Panwar, 1988; Dar and Khuroo, 2020). Lying between Zanskar and Pir Panjal mountain ranges, the sanctuary is situated between latitudes 33\u003csup\u003e\u0026ordm;\u003c/sup\u003e55'43.86''\u0026ndash;34\u003csup\u003e\u0026ordm;\u003c/sup\u003e15'20.50'' North and longitudes 75\u003csup\u003e\u0026ordm;\u003c/sup\u003e15'44.15''\u0026ndash;75\u003csup\u003e\u0026ordm;\u003c/sup\u003e16'29.37'' East, with elevation ranging from 2000\u0026ndash;5425 m a.s.l. (Mir, 2018) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Administratively, the sanctuary falls under the jurisdiction of Lidder forest division, located about 44 km from district headquarter of Anantnag and about 96 km from summer capital \u0026ndash; Srinagar of the Jammu and Kashmir. The study area receives precipitation mostly in the form of snow during winter and intermitantly rainfall in other seasons with an average of 1300 mm annually. During the last decade, an average minimum and maximum temperature recorded in the region was 3.5 and 16.8 \u0026ordm;C respectively (IMD, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2. Socio-economic profile\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the present study, five villages were selected: Overa, Vir Siran, Mamal, Mandlan and Aru (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Although, several villages such as Overa, Laddi, Dahwatoo, Khelan, Vir Siran, Mamal, Mandlan and Aru are located in or around the fringes of the sanctuary. However, after preliminary field surveys of the study area, we selected five villages (i.e., Overa, Vir Siran, Mamal, Mandlan and Aru), which mainly rely on the sanctuary for various types of provisioning ecosystem services, e.g. fuelwood, fodder, medicinal plants, wild edibles. These villages are located inside or around the fringes of the sanctuary. Majority of the households in these villages are primarily dependent on agriculture, horticulture and livestock rearing activities. The main cash crop are apple and walnut, which is grown by a small proportion of households. However, other crops like maize, green pea, common bean, mung bean, soyabean are grown throughout the region. The grazing land for livestock is open and common to each village. Agricultural activities in the sanctuary are mostly non-mechanized using mostly manual labour, but mechanized tools (tractors) are lately used for ploughing purpose. Irrigation is mainly dependent on the glacial snow-melt coming down from the uplands and also infrequently rainfall during growing summer season. For fertilizers, the villagers use mostly organic manure, but some households also use chemical fertilizers. The villagers rear different types of livestock such as sheep, goat, cow/ox, buffalo, mule and horse. The livestock are mainly reared for milk (goat, cow, buffalo), meat (ox, sheep, goat), riding (horse, mule), wool (sheep, goat) and manure. Every village has its own demarcated area inside the sanctuary for livestock grazing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e Being situated near Pahalgam \u0026mdash; a famous Himalayan health resort \u0026ndash; a huge number of tourists coming from mainland India and abroad, and locals visit mostly the lower parts of the sanctuary during summer months. This provides another source of income to the villagers who work as tourist guides, pony riders and cab operators. Some of the households in these villages provide paying guest services by renting out rooms to the tourists. The charges can vary from about 5 to 40 US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e per day depending upon the quality of facilities in terms of accommodation and food available. The information about number of households in each village based on the Government revenue records, supplemented with information obtained from the village heads ( \u003cem\u003eSarpanchs\u003c/em\u003e ), is provided in Table\u0026nbsp; \u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e . \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumber of households including \u003cem\u003eGujjars\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eKashmiris\u003c/em\u003e in Overa-Aru wildlife sanctuary, Kashmir Himalaya.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eName of village\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo. of households\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGujjars\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKashmiris\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOvera\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e281\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e381\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVir Siran\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e180\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e445\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMamal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e140\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e153\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMundlan\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e84\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAru\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e71\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e83\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e575\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e571\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e1146\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3. Data collection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe collected the field data during the years 2020 and 2021, just after the harvest season to ensure the reliability in respondents\u0026rsquo; responses by validation of the ecosystem services in the field. We conducted focused group discussions (FGD, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5) and semi-structured interviews (Martin, 2004) to identify and quantify the ecosystem services furnished to the selected villages by the sanctuary. The ecosystem services identification percentage (%) was calculated by dividing the number of respondents identifying the given ecosystem services with the total number of respondents interviewed, which was then multiplied by 100 (Hussain et al., 2022). It was logistically impossible to undertake complete census of every household regarding the ecosystem services provided by the sanctuary. Therefore, we randomly selected 20 households from each village. The family heads of the selected households were interviewed based on their availability and willingness. In total, 100 households from the selected villages in the study area were interviewed. The respondents, aged from 30 to above 60 years old, represented a heterogenous group of multiple stakeholders: agriculturalists, horticulturists, pastoralists, pony riders, shopkeepers. They were from different castes/linguistic groups: \u003cem\u003eGujjar, Malik, Ganie, Khandey, Gege, Khatana, Wani, Bokad, Gorsi, Sheikh, Mir\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eLaway\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on the focused group discussions, a comprehensive questionnaire was prepared to evaluate the economic value of the provisioning ecosystem services provided by the sanctuary (Supplementary material-I). Interviews were conducted in native language assisted by a local person who also acted as interpreter. Open-ended questions on ecosystem services were followed by detailed questions highlighting the use of these services. Several questions were asked to the respondents and the responses were noted down on the questionnaire. Questions on demographic details of the respondents, details on the quantity of food, fodder, fuelwood collected; purpose of collection; quantity of water consumed; livestock reared, and the type and quantity of natural resource collected and time spent by livestock in the sanctuary; cultivation of different crops and purpose of consumption; and the market value of some services (if sold) were recorded (Supplementary material-II). The responses include both categorical and numerical ones, reflecting the ecosystem services. The data so generated were arranged in spreadsheets for further analysis. We weighed bags and packs filled with different natural resources, such as fodder, fuelwood and manure to estimate the mean weight of each natural resource per bag. We ensured to our best efforts that each household provides reliable estimation of the number of bags of the natural resource collected from the sanctuary and usage in a calendar year, which was accordingly used for further analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4. Data analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4.1. Identification of ecosystem services\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eResponses recorded during the study were later coded and assigned to categories based on protocol of The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES-version 5.1) (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eList of ecosystem services and response (%) for the respective services, identified by the respondents residing in the villages located in or at the fringes of the Overa-Aru wildlife sanctuary, Kashmir Himalaya. Codes assigned to ecosystem services based on the CICES classification system (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCICES division\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCICES class\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eServices identified by stakeholders\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e% responses (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;100)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"20\" rowspan=\"21\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eProvisioning\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaterials from plants and animals for agricultural and other purposes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLivestock dung used as manure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFodder for livestock\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e89\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAgricultural tools\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e72\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePlant-based resources for energy and other purposes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWood for heat and cooking\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoles for fencing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e64\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRachis for firepots and baskets\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWild edibles\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMushrooms\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWild plants\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e66\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStream/tap water for drinking and other purposes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWater for household\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e76\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWater for livestock\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e67.64\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTap/tubewell water for drinking and other purposes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWater for household\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWater for livestock\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21.36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCultivated crops\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCrops including Potato, Maize, Cucurbites, Collard, Chillis, Tomato, Brinjal, Onion, Garlic, Spinach, Cabbage, Beans, Carrot etc.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eApple\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWalnut\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e41\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReared livestock and their products\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSheep and goat for wool; cow and goat for milk, ghee, butter and cheese; Chicken for eggs; meat from all livestock except horse/mule\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSheep/goat\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHorse/mule\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e55\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCattle\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e89\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChicken\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnimal-based energy resource\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCattle for ploughing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHorse and mule for riding and transport materials\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e54\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRegulatory\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegulation and maintenance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStream recharge and regulation of soil erosion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDilution by atmosphere and water bodies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePurify water/air\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMicro and regional climate regulation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegulate local rain/snowfall, falling at the right time\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCultural\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePreparation and management of landscape and public parks, use of ornamental plants\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTourism\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSacred or religious\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" morerows=\"1\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSacred places in the villages\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTemple\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMosque\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecreation and aesthetic\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnjoyment provided by beautiful landscape and the biodiversity, satisfaction for pure environment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4.2. Economic value of ecosystem services\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor calculating the economic value of the provisioning ecosystem services, the Total Economic Valuation Framework proposed by The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB, 2011) was adopted. The empirical evaluation of ecosystem services was computed using the equations given by Ramachandra et al. (2017). The list of ecosystem services evaluated, the valuation method adopted, the unit of measurement, and the equations employed with details are provided in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eValuation methods used and units of measurement for estimating the economic valuation of provisioning ecosystem services used by households of selected villages located in or at the fringes of Overa-Aru wildlife sanctuary, Kashmir Himalaya. (Kg\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;kilogram, HH\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;household, yr\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;year, Ltrs\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;litres). Description of equations for the economic values of the provisioning ecosystem services adapted from Ramachandra et al. (2017)).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEcosystem services\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEconomic valuation method\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnit price\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEquation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDetails\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCultivated crops\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMarket price based approaches\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKg/HH/yr\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{V}_{\\text{c}\\text{u}\\text{l}\\text{t}\\text{i}\\text{v}\\text{a}\\text{t}\\text{e}\\text{d}\\:\\text{c}\\text{r}\\text{o}\\text{p}\\text{s}\\:}=\\sum\\:_{i=1}^{n}{QC}_{i\\:}\\times\\:{PC}_{i}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eV\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003ecultivated crops\u003c/sub\u003e , the value of crops cultivated service (US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e); \u003cem\u003eQC\u003c/em\u003e , quantity of crops cultivated consumed annually (kg); PC, price of crops cultivated (US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e/kg); \u003cem\u003ei\u003c/em\u003e , number of households. \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLivestock\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMarket price based approaches\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumber of livestock/HH\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{V}_{\\text{l}\\text{i}\\text{v}\\text{e}\\text{s}\\text{t}\\text{o}\\text{c}\\text{k}}=\\sum\\:_{i=1}^{n}{QL}_{i\\:}\\times\\:{PL}_{i}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eV\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003elivestock\u003c/sub\u003e , the value of livestock service (US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e); \u003cem\u003eQL\u003c/em\u003e , quantity of livestock (Number of livestock/HH); \u003cem\u003ePL\u003c/em\u003e , price of livestock (US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e/kg); \u003cem\u003ei\u003c/em\u003e , number of households. \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWild edibles\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReplacement cost approaches\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKg/HH/yr\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{V}_{\\text{w}\\text{i}\\text{l}\\text{d}\\:\\text{e}\\text{d}\\text{i}\\text{b}\\text{l}\\text{e}\\text{s}}=\\sum\\:_{i=1}^{n}{QD}_{i\\:}\\times\\:{PD}_{i}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eV\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003ewild edibles\u003c/sub\u003e , the value of wild edibles services (US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e); \u003cem\u003eQD\u003c/em\u003e , quantity of wild edibles collected annually (kg); \u003cem\u003ePD\u003c/em\u003e , price of wild edibles (US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e/kg); \u003cem\u003ei\u003c/em\u003e , number of households. \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWater used for household purposes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCost-based approaches (avoided cost method)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLtrs/HH/yr\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{V}_{\\text{w}\\text{a}\\text{t}\\text{e}\\text{r}}=\\sum\\:_{i=1}^{n}{QW}_{i\\:}\\times\\:{PW}_{i}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eV\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003ewater\u003c/sub\u003e , the value of water service (US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e); \u003cem\u003eQW\u003c/em\u003e , quantity of water used for different purposes by the households (HH); \u003cem\u003ePW\u003c/em\u003e , price of water (US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e/Ltr); \u003cem\u003ei\u003c/em\u003e , number of households. \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePlant and animal products for direct use or processing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMarket price based and replacement cost approaches\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKg/HH/yr\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{V}_{\\text{p}\\text{l}\\text{a}\\text{n}\\text{t}\\:\\text{a}\\text{n}\\text{d}\\:\\text{a}\\text{n}\\text{i}\\text{m}\\text{a}\\text{l}\\:\\text{p}\\text{r}\\text{o}\\text{d}\\text{u}\\text{c}\\text{t}\\text{s}\\:\\text{f}\\text{o}\\text{r}\\:\\text{d}\\text{i}\\text{r}\\text{e}\\text{c}\\text{t}\\:\\text{u}\\text{s}\\text{e}\\:\\text{o}\\text{r}\\:\\text{p}\\text{r}\\text{o}\\text{c}\\text{e}\\text{s}\\text{s}\\text{i}\\text{n}\\text{g}}\\:=\\sum\\:_{i=1}^{n}{QP}_{i\\:}\\times\\:{PP}_{i}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eV\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eplant and animal products for direct use or processing\u003c/sub\u003e , the value of plant and animal products for direct use or processing service (US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e); \u003cem\u003eQP\u003c/em\u003e , quantity of plant and animal products for direct use or processing by the households (HH); \u003cem\u003ePP\u003c/em\u003e , price of plant and animal products for direct use or processing (US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e/HH); \u003cem\u003ei\u003c/em\u003e , number of households. \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePlant and animal products for agricultural purpose\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReplacement cost\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKg/HH/yr; number/HH/yr\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{V}_{\\text{p}\\text{l}\\text{a}\\text{n}\\text{t}\\:\\text{a}\\text{n}\\text{d}\\:\\text{a}\\text{n}\\text{i}\\text{m}\\text{a}\\text{l}\\:\\text{p}\\text{r}\\text{o}\\text{d}\\text{u}\\text{c}\\text{t}\\text{s}\\:\\text{f}\\text{o}\\text{r}\\:\\text{a}\\text{g}\\text{r}\\text{i}\\text{c}\\text{u}\\text{l}\\text{t}\\text{u}\\text{r}\\text{a}\\text{l}\\:\\text{p}\\text{u}\\text{r}\\text{p}\\text{o}\\text{s}\\text{e}\\:}=\\sum\\:_{i=1}^{n}{QPA}_{i\\:}\\times\\:{PPA}_{i}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eV\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eplant and animal products for agricultural purposes\u003c/sub\u003e , the value of plant and animal products for agricultural purposes (US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e); \u003cem\u003eQPA\u003c/em\u003e , quantity of plant and animal products for agricultural purposes used for different purposes by the households (HH); \u003cem\u003ePPA\u003c/em\u003e , price of plant and animal products for agricultural purposes (US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e/HH); \u003cem\u003ei\u003c/em\u003e , number of households. \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePlant and animal based energy resources\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMarket price-based approaches and replacement cost\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKg/HH/yr; number/HH/yr\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{V}_{\\text{p}\\text{l}\\text{a}\\text{n}\\text{t}\\:\\text{a}\\text{n}\\text{d}\\:\\text{a}\\text{n}\\text{i}\\text{m}\\text{a}\\text{l}\\:\\text{b}\\text{a}\\text{s}\\text{e}\\text{d}\\:\\text{e}\\text{n}\\text{e}\\text{r}\\text{g}\\text{y}\\:\\text{r}\\text{e}\\text{s}\\text{o}\\text{u}\\text{r}\\text{c}\\text{e}\\text{s}\\:}=\\sum\\:_{i=1}^{n}{QPE}_{i\\:}\\times\\:{PPE}_{i}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eV\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eplant and animal products for agricultural purposes\u003c/sub\u003e , the value of plant and animal based energy (US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e); \u003cem\u003eQPE\u003c/em\u003e , quantity of plant and animal based energy used for different purposes by the households (HH); \u003cem\u003ePPE\u003c/em\u003e , price of plant and animal based energy (US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e/HH); \u003cem\u003ei\u003c/em\u003e , number of households. \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4.3. Total value of provisioning ecosystem services\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn each village, the mean economic value (MEV) per year for each individual ecosystem service was computed based on the data generated through the questionnaire. The MEV for food, fodder, fuelwood, and wild edibles was quantified in terms of kg/yr and that of water in ltr/yr. We calculated the economic value of provisioning ecosystem services for each household by adding the means and standard errors of monetary value for all categories of the services. To estimate the total economic value (TEV) of the ecosystem services for Overa-Aru wildlife sanctuary, we calculated MEV of the ecosystem services per household which was then multiplied with the total number of households in the selected villages (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEconomic value of provisioning ecosystem services, response (%) for the respective services and proportional economic contribution of each service to the total economic value of the ecosystem services provided by the Overa-Aru wildlife sanctuary, Kashmir Himalaya. (HH\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;household, yr\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;year).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEcosystem services\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRange (US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e/HH/yr)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SE (US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e/HH/yr)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e% response from respondents interviewed\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e% contribution to the total economic value of ES\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCultivated crops\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNon-cash crops\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePotato, maize, cucurbites, collard, chillis, tomato, brinjal, onion, garlic, spinach, cabbage, beans, peas, carrot, raddish, summer cypress etc.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19.5\u0026ndash;130\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e65.78\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCash crops\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eApple\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u0026ndash;572\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.88\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;9.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWalnut\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u0026ndash;374.40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e84.24\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;11.33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e41\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWild edibles\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWild plants\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u0026ndash;3.25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.32\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e66\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMushrooms\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u0026ndash;2.60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.39\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.07\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReared livestock and their products\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCattle\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u0026ndash;3798.60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1367.13\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;71.35\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e89\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHorse/mule\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u0026ndash;3900\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e728\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;83.80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e55\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSheep/goat\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u0026ndash;2470\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e114.86\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;40.26\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChicken\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u0026ndash;104\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26.52\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.34\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLivestock dung used as manure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.65\u0026ndash;45.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.68\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.96\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFodder for livestock\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e79.63\u0026ndash;286.65\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e141.36\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5.94\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e89\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.89\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWater for household purposes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2340\u0026ndash;10296\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5793.84\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;174.54\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e36.41\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWater for livestock\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCattle\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u0026ndash;11232\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3519.36\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;214.98\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e89\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e43.53\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHorse/mule\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u0026ndash;16848\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3144.96\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;362.03\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e55\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSheep/goat\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u0026ndash;5616\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e261.14\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;91.99\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnimal-based energy resources\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCattle for ploughing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u0026ndash;20.80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.22\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.53\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.03\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHorse and mule for transport materials\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u0026ndash;13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.34\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePlant-based resources for energy and other purposes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWood for heat and cooking\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e156\u0026ndash;1105\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e384.13\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;20.35\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.97\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWood for agricultural tools\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u0026ndash;130\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e37.05\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5.14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e72\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoles for fencing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u0026ndash;702\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e201.63\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;20.73\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e64\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRachis for firepots and baskets\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u0026ndash;26\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.56\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1. Demographic and socioeconomic profile\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAmong the surveyed villages, the household number ranged from 83 to 445 with a mean of 229 households per village. Among the surveyed households, the family size ranged from 2 to 10 members per household with a mean of 6.1. The land owned by each family ranged from 0.13 to 2 acre with a mean of 0.76 acre, including arable and residential lands (\u003cb\u003eSupplementary material-I\u003c/b\u003e). Among the respondents residing in the surveyed villages, 24% were pony-riders who rely directly on tourism, 20% were dependent on agriculture, 19% were pastoralists who depends upon livestock as their sole income, while the remaining were associated with other sources of income such as, carpenter, shepherd, hotel and tea stall owners (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). Majority of the natural resources from the sanctuary were collected on regular basis during the harvest season. The horticultural crops including apple and walnut were stored and transported to market in boxes and bags respectively. Fodder and fuelwood were collected in bags or packs (wrapped by ropes) depending upon the quantum of the material collected. Further, livestock dung was carried in bags, baskets or handcarts to the arable land as a manure.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2. Ecosystem services identified by the respondents\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn total, 14 ecosystem services classified into three categories (provisioning, regulatory and cultural services) were identified by the respondents. Of these identified ecosystem services, regulatory services were responded by 100% of the respondents, followed by provisioning ecosystem services (61%) and cultural services (45%). Among the 14 ecosystem services identified, the provisioning ecosystem services provided by the sanctuary were 8 (out of 14), while as the regulatory and cultural services were represented by (3 each out of 14) (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Further, among the provisioning ecosystem services, the services most perceived were different types of materials obtained from plants and animals that could be used for agricultural and other purposes including fodder for livestock, plant-based resources for energy and other purposes such as wood for heat and cooking, water for household and other purposes and cultivated crops (non-cash crops). Overall, the most frequently cited services were livestock dung used as manure, wood for heat and cooking, cultivated crops (non-cash crops), recreation and aesthetic, and all the regulatory services (100% each), followed by fodder for livestock (89%) and plant material for agricultural tools (72%). The least cited services were cash crop (apple) (4%), followed by sheep/goat owns by respondents (9%) and preparation and management of landscape and public parks (20%) (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3. Economic value of provisioning ecosystem services\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e Of all the provisioning ecosystem services identified by the respondents, we found the highest economic value for livestock rearing (7066.82\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;674.94 US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e/yr), followed by consumption of water for household purposes (5793.84\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;174.54 US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e/yr), reared livestock and their products (2236.51\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;198.75 US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e/yr) and plant-based resources for energy and other purposes (632.37\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;47.37 US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e/yr). The services with the lowest economic value were animal-based energy resource (5.56\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.95 US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e/yr) and livestock dung used as manure (6.68\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.96 US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e/yr). Cultivation of non-cash crops (e.g. Potato, maize, cucurbits, collard, chillis, tomato etc.), livestock dung used as manure and plant-based energy resources and their outputs were the only provisioning ecosystem services used by 100% households, followed by fodder for livestock (89%) and plant-based resources and their outputs (69.50%). The infrequent services practiced by the respondents were the usage of livestock dung for fuel purpose and collection of timber for roofing or other housing material. In terms of contribution to the total economic value (TEV) of provisioning ecosystem services, water for livestock and household purposes contributed highest with 43.53% and 36.41% respectively, followed by reared livestock and their products (14.06%). However, the ecosystem services like animal-based energy resources and livestock dung used as manure contributed lowest with 0.03% and 0.04% respectively to the TEV of provisioning ecosystem services (Table\u0026nbsp; \u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e ). The TEV of all provisioning ecosystem services provided by the sanctuary for each household/year amounted to US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e 15911.39\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1122.08. With a total 1146 households residing in surveyed villages, the TEV of all the provisioning ecosystem services for Overa-Aru wildlife sanctuary, based on household consumption of services, was valued at 18,234,452.90 US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e/year. \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eEconomic evaluation of ecosystem services of natural areas is fast-emerging as a frontier area of research. In this regard, an empirical quantification of ecosystem services rendered by protected areas provides an operational framework to highlight the nature\u0026rsquo;s contribution to people. The present study has made an attempt to undertake the economic evaluation of provisioning ecosystem services provided to the local communities in the Overa-Aru wildlife sanctuary, located in Kashmir Himalaya.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1. Ecosystem services provided by the sanctuary\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCurrently, ecosystem services is a well-defined and established field of science, and is an important part of the global discourse on environmental management (Muradian and Gomez-Baggethun, 2021). Worldwide, the ecosystem services delivered by different ecosystems and biomes have been a substantial life-sustaining factor associated with specific values (Costanza et al., 1997, Mamat et al., 2020). The perceived ecosystem services have been observed for their influence on local peoples\u0026rsquo; livelihood and well-being (Hussain et al., 2022). Perception of ecosystem services is usually connected to the use and disuse of particular ecosystems (Naselli-Flores and Padisak, 2022; Wang et al., 2022), and the local population residing around the sanctuary rely on agro-pastoral system, utilizes the provisioning ecosystem services with little human modification. This easily exposes the identification of provisioning ecosystem services as people were directly or indirectly engaged with the different ecosystems to derive these services. However, the non-tangible benefits obtained from cultural services are also vital for the locals, but these services were apparently accounted because of low responses from the respondents or as often not recognized as \u0026lsquo;benefits from nature\u0026rsquo; (Lieberknecht, 2022). Food, fuelwood and fodder are some crucial services provided by forest and agro-ecosystems, and about 25% of the global land area is managed for grazing (Hussain et al., 2022). Similarly, our results revealed that more than 90% of local population rely on sanctuary for fodder and grazing purpose. Therefore, the economic value of this service was valued at 141.36\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5.94 US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e in the present study area. Similar results were obtained by Hussain et al. (2022), showed that the total economic value of grazing was valued at 127,942 US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e in some villages of Barsoo and Tai-Suru regions in Ladakh, India. Likewise, the fuelwood furnished by the sanctuary was also a well-known tangible good. Although fuelwood extraction is technically illegal but it remains a primary fuel source for people living in or at the fringes of the sanctuary. Besides, the poles are extracted for fencing and making agricultural tools. Corresponding results have been observed while quantifying the valuation of the ecosystem services provided by the Kailadevi Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan, India (Rasal et al., 2021).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2. Economic value of the provisioning ecosystem services\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe total economic value of the identified provisioning ES utilized by households, provided by the sanctuary was amounted to 18,234,452.90 US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e. These values surpass the economic value of ecosystem services provided by high altitude desert valleys and other high productivity ecosystems such as mangrove ecosystems. For instance, the total economic value of all perceived provisioning ecosystem services provided by cold desert Spiti valley, Indian Trans-Himalaya was valued at 112,78,908 US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e/year with an average of 3622\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;149 US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e/household/year (Murali et al., 2017). Similarly, in west Kalimantan, mangrove the economic valuation of carbon storage for the period of 2011 to 2021 was amounted 3,410.50 US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e (Maulidia et al., 2022). Further, it was many folds higher than the economic value per household in Ghodaghodi wetland area which was approximately 184.2 US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e (Aryal et al., 2021). The TEV of forest resources in Pekalongan Regency was estimated 16,167,825.25 US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e (Harini et al., 2021), which was less than the TEV of present study area. However, the TEV of mangrove forest in Tongas, Probolinggo Regency, east Java amounted 254,095,240.68 US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e (Idzatilangi and Pasau, 2021), was estimated higher than the TEV of the sanctuary, which was valued 23,550,815.70 US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e/year. The goods for human well-being and sustenance valued many folds higher than the value of the cash crops (apple and walnut) and other commercial products including reared livestock and their outputs. It seems that the value of subsistence goods and services may usually surpass the value of commercial goods. The net annually income obtained from non-timber forest products by the residents residing around the Satchari National Park, Bangladesh valued 289.52 US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e per household/year (Mukul et al., 2016). This dependence on ecosystem services can potentially inspire the locals for sustainable use and conservation of natural resource. There are some plausible reasons that infer the comparatively high contribution of provisioning ecosystem services in present study: a) the lack of employment opportunities, b) prolonged and harsh winters, c) low income of households and price hiking of commodities including fertilizers and Liquefied Petroleum Gas, and d) topographical complexity and isolation. Availability of employment opportunities, lowers the dependence on provisioning ecosystem services (Marull et al., 2021; Perosa et al., 2021). Shorten and lenient winters probably decreased the consumption of firewood in present study area (Wangchuk et al., 2021; Chabal and Heinz, 2021) and being a low income of households and abrupt hike in prices of commodities increased the dependence on alternative sources which the locals perceived from ecosystem services (Bari et al., 2022). The topographical complexity and relative isolation limited the access to markets in winters and halts the implementation of mechanized agricultural practices, increase the demand of ecosystem services. Although, freshwater has been considered as essential ecosystem services and preferred over the other ecosystem services (Pelicice et al., 2022). The services having either low or high economic value were also utilized by the respondents in present study area. For instance, services such as water and livestock dung used as manure possesses low economic value but used by all the respondents while as, services with potentially high economic value such as cash crops \u0026mdash; apple and walnut were used by 4% and 41% of the respondents respectively; reared livestock \u0026mdash; cattle, horse/mule, sheep/goat, chicken and their products, were used by 89%, 55%, 9%, and 47% of respondents respectively. This is analogous to \u0026lsquo;diamond-water paradox\u0026rsquo; \u0026mdash; where diamonds have high economic value but used occasionally, and on the other hand, water which has low economic value but used frequently and widely (Pritchett, 2022; Wicksell and Schumpeter, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3. Ecosystem services and human well-being\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe forest and agro-ecosystem services are vital for sustenance and well-being of local residents (stakeholders). These vital services delivered by forest and agro-ecosystems boosts the local economic strength. The villagers rely on goods and services delivered by the sanctuary were economically poor and backward, so they cannot purchase alternative services from other regions, hence the services provided by the forest and agro-ecosystems plays a crucial role in enhancing their livelihood (de Groot et al., 2002; MEA, 2005). No doubt, the boost in tourism and advent of technology escalates the pace of development in the region, but local people still rely on ecosystem services for their sustenance and livelihood. It is a fact that most of the agro-ecosystem services were limited because of limited agricultural lands. So, households with a small portion of agricultural land relied on forest ecosystem services. These services are free of charge but residents must spend time and energy to bring them home. Although some households in the respective villages can use tractors and tillers (ploughing machines) to perform the agricultural practices, but the topographic features and poor economic level create hurdles in adopting such technologies. Therefore, such practices have been performed by using oxen. However, fortunately, the ecosystem services provided the source of fodder for these cattle. Furthermore, in addition to ploughing service, the cattle give dung used as a substituting resource for chemical fertilizers. The harsh and prolonged winters and interrupted supply and electricity in the region creates the dependency on fuelwood which is a vital service provided by the sanctuary. Also, freshwater and grazing were the essential services delivered by the sanctuary. Hence, the households' dependence level was high for every village. This also symbolized that the estimated cost incurred to replace these services would exceed the economic capacity of the residents. During the research survey, we observed that the excess influx of tourists decreases the grazing capacity of grasslands. Also, some households with a large number of livestock, insufficient agricultural land and grazing area were forced to collect more fodder from remote areas within the sanctuary. This has made the fodder collection relatively more challenging and complex. In contradiction, the dependency on wild edibles and medicinal plants was low in every village. The present study can elucidate the significance of ecosystem services for the local peoples' well-being. Cultivated crops, fuelwood, fodder, water, and livestock were the vital service essential for human livelihood, and valued high in the sanctuary. The households utilized freshwater for various purposes, supplied by the pristine alpine lakes and snow-clad mountain of the sanctuary. Although, the households with sufficient agricultural land and agro-plantations were shown low dependency level on the forest ecosystem services such as food, fuelwood and fodder. However, this doesn't surpass the supply of such services from the forest ecosystem. In lump sum, the ecosystem services provided by the sanctuary have been related to the sustainability of well-being and livelihood of residents residing in the villages located in or at the fringes of sanctuary.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusions and recommendations","content":"\u003cp\u003eTo our best knowledge, this is the first such study from Kashmir Himalaya and the information can be used in management decisions about Overa-Aru wildlife sanctuary and other protected areas in the region. Although, a substantial decline in the forest ecosystem services utilization has been observed, but these services could never be ignored because of the demands of the people residing in or adjacent to the forests. So, the findings may facilitate decisions to alleviate the detrimental human activities in the sanctuary such as the extensive extraction of the fuelwood and fodder, for which some degree of compensation or livelihood alternatives may be necessary.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe present study gives an overview on identification of ecosystem services and economic valuation of key provisioning ecosystem services provided by the Overa-Aru wildlife sanctuary. Identifying and valuation of a broad range of provisioning ecosystem services is of greater importance for protected area management and to safeguard sustainable flow of ecosystem services. Generally, humans perceive wide range of services and goods from the nature for their well-being and livelihood sustenance. In this regard, the present study estimated a total annual economic value of provisioning ecosystem services from the sanctuary at 18,234,452.90 US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e, thus inferring that the sanctuary offers a rich repository of the provisioning goods and services. These values exemplify the benefits derived by the local communities and downstream human population from the existing natural resources in the sanctuary. The evaluation of ecosystem services, as attempted in this study, would inform all the relevant stakeholders and policy-makers about the crucial role of these services for the human well-being. Further, the evaluation of ecosystem services is the key to sustainable ecosystems, as sustainable flow of various ecosystem services has become the need of the hour. Proper protection of the sanctuary can benefit flagship wildlife species such as Snow leopard and associated biodiversity with co-beneficial ecosystem service outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eRecommendations and policy interventions\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on the insights gained from the present study, we suggest the following recommendations and policy interventions:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eGlobally, the protected areas are highly valuable, and are recognized as important areas for conservation of biodiversity. Hence, it is beneficial to incorporate ecosystem services framework in management and conservation of the sanctuary in this Himalayan region by the PA managers and policy makers to provide livelihood alternatives such as eco-tourism, sustainable agroforestry, handicrafts and sustainable products, non-timber forest product collection, beekeeping and honey production, sustainable fisheries and aquaculture, herbal and medicinal plant cultivation, livestock management.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eIdentification of barren lands at the lower elevations in the sanctuary and afforesting them with preferred fuelwood and fodder species will reduce the dependence for fuelwood and fodder resources from forests. Integrating preferred fuelwood species such as \u003cem\u003eAbies pindrow\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003ePinus wallichiana\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003ePrunus cornuta\u003c/em\u003e into scientifically managed plantations can also ease pressure on forests and bridge the gap between the demand and supply of fuelwood resources.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003ePromoting fuelwood species in agro-ecosystems can reduce the current pressure on the fuelwood resources from forests in the sanctuary\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eNeed to promote the ecosystem restoration by planting the frequently collected fodder species which can maintain the biodiversity in the sanctuary.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003ePromoting the use of alternative resources such as supply of agriculture byproducts can also reduce the pressure on the resources of the sanctuary\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eProviding technical and financial support to farmers for the cultivation of high-quality fodder crops, such as legumes and grasses, can improve the nutritional value of fodder and reduce the need for grazing in the sanctuary. This can be achieved through the provision of extension services, seeds, and other inputs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnrestricted, uncontrolled, open and free grazing of livestock need to be checked by planning efficient policy measures, which can promote their sustainable use. In that scenario, forest department need to notify the fodder supply areas and also proper management methods need to be popularized in order to regulate the grazing and consequent damages to natural environment in the sanctuary.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegular awareness programs about the importance of provisioning ecosystem services should be carried out in the villages adjacent to the sanctuary. This will generate active public participation in the sustainable utilization of ecosystem goods collected from the sanctuary.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eManagers and policy makers should use the ecosystem services assessments to evaluate, highlight, and disseminate the role of protected areas, its allied biodiversity and ecosystem services in economic terms to the general public.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe migratory communities, outsiders and downstream areas in plains should be made aware about the importance of protected areas to safeguard sustainable flow of ecosystem services.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite a lot of progress achieved in economic evaluation of ecosystem services, there are still ambiguities in proper implementation of frameworks at local scale. The researchers should strictly adhere to the use of commonly agreed classification for ecosystem services. Further, some ecosystem services such as aesthetic values are difficult to estimate in economic terms, which makes their evaluation difficult. Hence, more efforts are required in near future to standardize non-monetary evaluation methods for ecosystem services.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eLimitations of the study\u003c/b\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRespondent's perceptions of ecosystem services are inherently subjective and influenced by their cultural, social, and economic backgrounds. This subjectivity may lead to inconsistent or biased responses, reducing the objectivity of the data. They may not fully understand the concept of ecosystem services (e.g., regulating or supporting services), leading to biased or incomplete responses. Data collection at specific times or locations might fail to capture the full variability of ecosystem service use across seasons or diverse landscapes, limiting the generalizability of results. A significant proportion of stakeholders may decline to participate, especially if they see little relevance of ecosystem services to their daily lives. This can lead to a dataset that does not reflect the broader population. Many regulating services (e.g., biodiversity, climate regulation) and cultural values (e.g., spiritual or cultural significance) lack direct market value, making them hard to quantify in monetary terms. The ecosystem services change over time and across locations, making consistent valuation difficult. Economic valuation may prioritize immediate financial gains over long-term ecological sustainability. Valuation requires extensive ecological and economic data, which may not always be available.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors are thankful to the Head, Department Botany, University of Kashmir. Colleagues at BIOTA Laboratory, Centre for Biodiversity \u0026amp; Taxonomy, University of Kashmir are acknowledged for their kind support during the present study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTajamul Islam acknowledge the University Grants Commission (UGC) under 924/(CSIRNET JUNE-2019) for providing financial assistance as Junior Research Fellowship.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eWe are also thankful to the participants for sharing their precious knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCRediT authorship contribution statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTajamul Islam:\u003c/strong\u003e Curation and analysis; Data collection; Methodology; Software\u003cstrong\u003e;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eVisualization; Writing-Original draft. \u003cstrong\u003eIrshad A. Nawchoo:\u003c/strong\u003e Conceptualization; Investigation; Supervision; Validation; Writing-review. \u003cstrong\u003eAnzar Ahmad Khuroo:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eConceptualization; Methodology; Supervision; Validation; Writing-Original draft.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDeclaration of competing interest\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no financial or non-financial competing interests.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe primary data used in this manuscript is available as supplementary material\u0026mdash;I and II.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical trial number:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eNot applicable\u003cstrong\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics statement:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eAll procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Participate statement:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eInformed consent was obtained verbally before each interview in order to clearly state the objectives of present study and to obtain their consent to participate. Each of the interviewees was informed beforehand of the confidentiality of this study, and of his/her right to withdraw its participation at any time, and of the objective of a publication under the form of a scientific publication.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Publish declaration:\u003c/strong\u003e not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAdams, V. M., Iacona, G. D., \u0026amp; Possingham, H. P. (2019). Weighing the benefits of expanding protected areas versus managing existing ones. \u003cem\u003eNature Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(5), 404\u0026ndash;411.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAryal, K., Maraseni, T., \u0026amp; Apan, A. (2022). Transforming agroforestry in contested landscapes: A win-win solution to trade-offs in ecosystem services in Nepal. \u003cem\u003eScience of The Total Environment\u003c/em\u003e, 159301.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAryal, K., Ojha, B. R., \u0026amp; Maraseni, T. (2021). Perceived importance and economic valuation of ecosystem services in Ghodaghodi wetland of Nepal. \u003cem\u003eLand Use Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e106\u003c/em\u003e, 105450.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBari, E., Enamul Haque, A. K., \u0026amp; Khan, Z. H. (2022). Local strategies to build climate resilient communities in Bangladesh. In \u003cem\u003eClimate Change and Community Resilience\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 175\u0026ndash;190). Springer, Singapore.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlicharska, M., Hedblom, M., Josefsson, J., Widenfalk, O., Ranius, T., \u0026Ouml;ckinger, E., \u0026amp; Widenfalk, L. A. (2022). Operationalisation of ecological compensation\u0026ndash;Obstacles and ways forward. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e304\u003c/em\u003e, 114277.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCasse, T., Razafintsalama, M. H., \u0026amp; Milh\u0026oslash;j, A. (2022). A trade-off between conservation, development, and tourism in the vicinity of the Andasibe-Mantadia National Park, Madagascar. \u003cem\u003eSN Social Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(2), 1\u0026ndash;28.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCastellar, J. A. C., Popartan, L. A., Pueyo-Ros, J., Atanasova, N., Langergraber, G., S\u0026auml;umel, I., ... \u0026amp; Acuna, V. (2021). Nature-based solutions in the urban context: Terminology, classification and scoring for urban challenges and ecosystem services. \u003cem\u003eScience of The Total Environment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e779\u003c/em\u003e, 146237.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChabal, L., \u0026amp; Heinz, C. (2021). Reconstructing the heterogeneity of past woodlands in anthracology using the spatial distribution of charcoals in archaeological layers: Applied to the postglacial occupation of the Abeurador cave (H\u0026eacute;rault) in the South of France. \u003cem\u003eQuaternary International\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e593\u003c/em\u003e, 19\u0026ndash;35.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen, H., Costanza, R., \u0026amp; Kubiszewski, I. (2022). Land use trade-offs in China\u0026apos;s protected areas from the perspective of accounting values of ecosystem services. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e315\u003c/em\u003e, 115178.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChettri, N., Aryal, K., Thapa, S., Uddin, K., Kandel, P., \u0026amp; Karki, S. (2021). Contribution of ecosystem services to rural livelihoods in a changing landscape: a case study from the Eastern Himalaya. \u003cem\u003eLand Use Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e109\u003c/em\u003e, 105643.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCostanza, R., d\u0026apos;Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., ... \u0026amp; Van Den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world\u0026apos;s ecosystem services and natural capital. \u003cem\u003eNature\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e387\u003c/em\u003e(6630), 253\u0026ndash;260.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDar, G. H., \u0026amp; Khuroo, A. A. (Eds.). (2020). \u003cem\u003eBiodiversity of the Himalaya: Jammu and Kashmir State\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 18). Singapore:: Springer.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDe Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., \u0026amp; Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. \u003cem\u003eEcological Complexity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(3), 260\u0026ndash;272.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDe Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A., \u0026amp; Boumans, R. M. (2002). A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. \u003cem\u003eEcological Economics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e(3), 393\u0026ndash;408.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFAO (2018). The state of the World\u0026rsquo;s forests 2018 \u0026ndash; Forest pathways to sustainable development. FAO, Rome.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGarcia, R. M., \u0026amp; Burns, S. L. (2022). Bureaucratic politics in protected areas: The voided power projection efforts of conservation vis-a-vis forest bureaucracies in Patagonia, Argentina. \u003cem\u003eForest Policy and Economics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e134\u003c/em\u003e, 102630.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGeldmann, J., Manica, A., Burgess, N. D., Coad, L., \u0026amp; Balmford, A. (2019). A global-level assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas at resisting anthropogenic pressures. \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e116\u003c/em\u003e(46), 23209\u0026ndash;23215.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHaines-Young, R., Potschin, M., 2010. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Raffaelli, D., Frid, C. (Eds.), Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 110\u0026ndash;139.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHamid, M., Khuroo, A. A., Malik, A. H., Ahmad, R., \u0026amp; Singh, C. P. (2021). Elevation and aspect determine the differences in soil properties and plant species diversity on Himalayan mountain summits. \u003cem\u003eEcological Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(2), 340\u0026ndash;352.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarini, R., Yuniantari, R., \u0026amp; Ariani, R. D. (2021, March). Economic valuation of protection and production forests in pekalongan regency. In \u003cem\u003eIOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 683, p. 012092). IOP Publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHern\u0026aacute;ndez-Blanco, M., Costanza, R., \u0026amp; Cifuentes-Jara, M. (2021). Economic valuation of the ecosystem services provided by the mangroves of the Gulf of Nicoya using a hybrid methodology. \u003cem\u003eEcosystem Services\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e, 101258.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHussain, S., Sharma, S., \u0026amp; Singh, A. N. (2022). Evaluation of ecosystem supply services and calculation of economic value in Ladakh, India. \u003cem\u003eRegional Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(2), 157\u0026ndash;169.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIdzatilangi, W. I., \u0026amp; Pasau, C. R. (2021). Economic Valuation of Mangrove Forest in Tongas District, Probolinggo Regency, East Java.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIMD (India Meteorological Department, Meteorological Centre, Rambagh, Srinagar) 2021.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLieberknecht, K. (2022). Community-centered climate planning: Using local knowledge and communication frames to catalyze climate planning in Texas. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the American Planning Association\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e88\u003c/em\u003e(1), 97\u0026ndash;112.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMamat, A., Wang, J., \u0026amp; Ma, Y. (2020). Impacts of land-use change on ecosystem service value of mountain\u0026ndash;oasis\u0026ndash;desert ecosystem: A case study of Kaidu\u0026ndash;Kongque river basin, Northwest China. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(1), 140.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMandle, L., Shields-Estrada, A., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Mitchell, M. G., Bremer, L. L., Gourevitch, J. D., ... \u0026amp; Ricketts, T. H. (2021). Increasing decision relevance of ecosystem service science. \u003cem\u003eNature Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(2), 161\u0026ndash;169.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMartin, G.J., 2004. Ethnobotany: A Methods Manual, first ed. Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849775854.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarull, J., Padr\u0026oacute;, R., Cirera, J., Giocoli, A., Pons, M., \u0026amp; Tello, E. (2021). A socioecological integrated analysis of the Barcelona metropolitan agricultural landscapes. \u003cem\u003eEcosystem Services\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e51\u003c/em\u003e, 101350.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaulidia, V., Akbar, A. A., Jumiati, J., Arifin, A., \u0026amp; Sulastri, A. (2022). The Value of Mangrove Ecosystems Based on Mangrove Carbon Sequestration in West Kalimantan. Journal of Wetlands Environmental Management, 10(1), 12\u0026ndash;25.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMethorst, J., Rehdanz, K., Mueller, T., Hansj\u0026uuml;rgens, B., Bonn, A., \u0026amp; B\u0026ouml;hning-Gaese, K. (2021). The importance of species diversity for human well-being in Europe. \u003cem\u003eEcological Economics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e181\u003c/em\u003e, 106917.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMillennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 40\u0026ndash;53.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMorse, W. C., Stern, M., Blahna, D., \u0026amp; Stein, T. (2022). Recreation as a transformative experience: Synthesizing the literature on outdoor recreation and recreation ecosystem services into a systems framework. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism\u003c/em\u003e, 100492.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMukul, S. A., Rashid, A. M., Uddin, M. B., \u0026amp; Khan, N. A. (2016). Role of non-timber forest products in sustaining forest-based livelihoods and rural households\u0026apos; resilience capacity in and around protected area: a Bangladesh study. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, \u003cem\u003e59\u003c/em\u003e(4), 628\u0026ndash;642.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMurali, R., Redpath, S., \u0026amp; Mishra, C. (2017). The value of ecosystem services in the high altitude Spiti Valley, Indian Trans-Himalaya. Ecosystem Services, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e, 115\u0026ndash;123.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNaselli-Flores, L., \u0026amp; Padis\u0026aacute;k, J. (2022). Ecosystem services provided by marine and freshwater phytoplankton. \u003cem\u003eHydrobiologia\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;16.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePelicice, F. M., Agostinho, A. A., Azevedo-Santos, V. M., Bessa, E., Casatti, L., Garrone-Neto, D., ... \u0026amp; Zuanon, J. (2022). Ecosystem services generated by Neotropical freshwater fishes. \u003cem\u003eHydrobiologia\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;24.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePerosa, F., Fanger, S., Zingraff-Hamed, A., \u0026amp; Disse, M. (2021). A meta-analysis of the value of ecosystem services of floodplains for the Danube River Basin. \u003cem\u003eScience of The Total Environment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e777\u003c/em\u003e, 146062.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePinho, P. F., Canova, M. T., Toledo, P. M., Gonzalez, A., Lapola, D. M., Ometto, J. P., \u0026amp; Smith, M. S. (2022). Climate change affects us in the tropics: local perspectives on ecosystem services and well-being sensitivity in Southeast Brazil. Regional Environmental Change, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(3), 1\u0026ndash;17.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePritchett, L. (2022). National development delivers: And how! And how?. \u003cem\u003eEconomic Modelling\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e107\u003c/em\u003e, 105717.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQiu, S., Peng, J., Zheng, H., Xu, Z., \u0026amp; Meersmans, J. (2022). How can massive ecological restoration programs interplay with social-ecological systems? A review of research in the South China karst region. \u003cem\u003eScience of The Total Environment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e807\u003c/em\u003e, 150723.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRamachandra, T. V., Soman, D., Naik, A. D., \u0026amp; Chandran, M. S. (2017). Appraisal of forest ecosystems goods and services: Challenges and opportunities for conservation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Biodiversity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(1), 12\u0026ndash;33.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRasal, V., Everard, M., Khandal, D., Chandrawal, K., \u0026amp; Sahu, Y. K. (2021). Evaluation of the ecosystem services provided by the Kailadevi Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan, India. \u003cem\u003eParks\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e, 13.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMir, R. A. (2018). Recent changes of two parts of Kolahoi Glacier and its controlling factors in Kashmir basin, western Himalaya. \u003cem\u003eRemote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e, 265\u0026ndash;281.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRodgers, W. A., \u0026amp; Panwar, S. H. (1988). Biogeographical classification of India. \u003cem\u003eNew Forest, Dehra Dun, India\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSingh, V., Shukla, S., \u0026amp; Singh, A. (2021). The principal factors responsible for biodiversity loss. \u003cem\u003eOpen Journal of Plant Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(1), 011\u0026ndash;014.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmith, P., Keesstra, S. D., Silver, W. L., Adhya, T. K., De Deyn, G. B., Carvalheiro, L. G., ... \u0026amp; McElwee, P. (2021). Soil-derived Nature\u0026apos;s Contributions to People and their contribution to the UN Sustainable Development Goals. \u003cem\u003ePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e376\u003c/em\u003e(1834), 20200185.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) (2011). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for national and international policy makers. London: Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). 2019. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Available from https://ipbes.net/global-assessment. (Accessed on 28 October April 2022). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, Z., Jie, H., Fu, H., Wang, L., Jiang, H., Ding, L., \u0026amp; Chen, Y. (2022). A social-media-based improvement index for urban renewal. \u003cem\u003eEcological Indicators\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e137\u003c/em\u003e, 108775.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWangchuk, K., Gurung, J., Pasakhala, B., Thapaliya, P., Gurung, K., \u0026amp; Rana, P. J. (2021). Wood for thought? Untold consequences of the Himalayan gold collection in the Central Himalaya. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Challenges\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e, 100295. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWei, F., Wang, S., Fu, B., \u0026amp; Liu, Y. (2020). Representation of biodiversity and ecosystem services in East Africa\u0026rsquo;s protected area network. \u003cem\u003eAmbio\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e(1), 245\u0026ndash;257.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWicksell, K., \u0026amp; Schumpeter, J. (2022). Out of the Blue Danube. \u003cem\u003eThe Making of Modern Economics: The Lives and Ideas of the Great Thinkers\u003c/em\u003e, 173.\u003cstrong\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-sustainability","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"disu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Sustainability](https://www.springer.com/43621)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Discover Sustainability","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Protected area, Ecosystem services, Management plan, Provisioning services, Sanctuary, Valuation method, Kashmir Himalaya","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6662963/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6662963/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eProtected areas play a crucial role in the conservation of biodiversity and provide precious ecosystem services. The protected areas in the Himalaya \u0026mdash; a global biodiversity hotspot \u0026mdash; provide life-supporting ecosystem services, which have largely remained ecologically underappreciated and economically undervalued in management planning of these critical natural areas. In this study, we aimed to identify the various ecosystem services furnished by Overa-Aru wildlife sanctuary to the local communities in Kashmir Himalaya; and also undertook economic valuation of the provisioning ecosystem services provided by the sanctuary. Using random sampling approach, we conducted semi-structured interviews of 100 respondents using a structured questionnaire for data collection on ecosystem services, and also employed multiple methods for the economic valuation of provisioning ecosystem services. The respondents identified 14 ecosystem services, with 100% response for regulatory, followed by provisioning (61%) and cultural services (45%). The total economic value (TEV) of the provisioning ecosystem services provided by the sanctuary for each household/year amounted to US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e 15911.39\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1122.08. The provisioning service with highest economic value was livestock rearing (7066.82\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;674.94 US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e/yr) and the lowest value was for animal-based energy resource (5.56\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.95 US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e/yr). In terms of contribution of each provisioning service to TEV, the water for household purposes and livestock contributed highest with 43.53% and 36.41% respectively. Our findings revealed a substantial decline in forest-based provisioning ecosystem services utilized by the local communities over the years. Based on the insights gained from the present study, we suggest recommendations for integration of ecosystem services in the management planning of this protected area, with promise of upscaling elsewhere in the Himalaya. The present study, using ecosystem services framework, adopts a nature-based solutions approach to reconcile the conservation and livelihood needs in protected area management, which in turn will be crucial in achieving the regional sustainable development goals.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Economic valuation of ecosystem services in a Himalayan protected area","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-02 11:26:58","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6662963/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-09-18T15:05:20+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-09-17T09:56:53+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"216513330306060789552610002932188079978","date":"2025-09-09T03:43:40+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"11634793498189009542102647335243158726","date":"2025-09-08T04:25:36+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-09-06T13:29:29+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"130238334023211865354685589998865682570","date":"2025-09-05T15:46:23+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"34755753773748826741456276642432715434","date":"2025-07-22T01:57:45+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-07-17T10:19:18+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"211296351021975758862123295043554085592","date":"2025-07-05T15:01:28+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"249185526559688487185133430721549880178","date":"2025-07-03T04:20:31+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-06-30T01:37:58+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-06-30T01:31:38+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-06-27T10:42:16+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-06-25T03:56:24+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Sustainability","date":"2025-06-25T03:53:34+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-sustainability","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"disu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Sustainability](https://www.springer.com/43621)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Discover Sustainability","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"274096f8-bcaf-40fc-b52b-d7faf6e38820","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 2nd, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-05T16:05:44+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-6662963","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-02262-x","journal":{"identity":"discover-sustainability","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Discover Sustainability"},"publishedOn":"2025-12-30 15:58:07","publishedOnDateReadable":"December 30th, 2025"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-02 11:26:58","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s43621-025-02262-x","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-02262-x","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6662963","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6662963","identity":"rs-6662963","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}