Socio -cultural valuation of ecosystem services in paddy wetlands of Kuttanad

Abstract

The research work entitled “Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services in paddy wetlands of Kuttanad” was conducted during the academic year 2023–25 to understand how local farming communities perceive, value, and interact with the multiple ecosystem services provided by the unique below-sea-level agro-ecosystem of Kuttanad. The study examined stakeholder perceptions of socio-cultural dimensions of ecosystem services, identified key drivers affecting these services, assessed the impact of land-use and cropping pattern changes, and analysed the sense of connectedness farmers retain toward their wetland environment, recognising that the paddy tracts simultaneously deliver provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural functions essential to livelihood security and ecological resilience. To address these objectives, an ex post facto research design was adopted since perceptions, ecological conditions, and cultural values exist independently of researcher intervention. The study was carried out across the districts of Alappuzha, Kottayam, and Pathanamthitta, selecting blocks with the largest paddy area, followed by random selection of six villages and six padasekharams. A total of 180 farmers formed the study sample, and data were collected using a structured, pre-tested interview schedule and focus group discussions. A wide range of analytical tools, including the RII, Kruskal– Wallis test, Dunn’s test, Garrett ranking, Kendall’s W, Spearman correlation, Mann– Whitney U test, PCA, multiple regression, and ANOVA, provided a comprehensive assessment of socio-cultural and ecological dimensions. The personal and socio-economic profile of the respondents revealed a marked demographic transition within the agricultural sector of Kuttanad. The farming population is predominantly ageing, with 62.22% of respondents between 51 and 73 years of age and 17.78% above 73 years, while only 20% were below 51 years. All respondents reported a complete withdrawal of youth from farming, indicating a looming crisis in generational continuity. The sector continues to be male-dominated, with 77.78% of farmers being men and women (22.22%) largely participating in supportive tasks rather than decision-making roles. Educational attainment was relatively high, with 40.56% having completed secondary schooling and 22.78% having reached the intermediate level, facilitating better understanding of extension messages. Economically, the foundation remains fragile as 58.33% are marginal farmers owning

less than one hectare of land and 83.33% do not lease additional land, reflecting highly resource-constrained operations. Agricultural income was limited, with 58.89% earning below ₹1 lakh annually, reducing capacity to invest in improved or climate-resilient technologies. Institutional reliance was strong, evidenced by 68.33% maintaining regular contact with Krishibhavan staff and 85% availing farming subsidies, highlighting the critical role of public support in sustaining wetland agriculture. Results from the RII analysis showed that farmers placed the highest importance on provisioning and supporting services, particularly food production (RII = 0.992), groundwater recharge (0.857), and nutrient cycling (0.833), while services such as flood regulation, fish resources, and cultural rituals were perceived as less important (RII < 0.6). These patterns varied significantly across districts (p < 0.05), with Kottayam assigning greater value to provisioning, regulating, and supporting services and Pathanamthitta ranking highest for cultural services. Gender differences were significant for cultural services (χ² = 6.632; p = 0.01), with women placing greater emphasis on cultural and spiritual dimensions, while age-wise variations remained insignificant. Garrett’s ranking mirrored these findings, placing provisioning services first, followed by regulating, supporting, and cultural services, with a moderate-to-high level of agreement among respondents (Kendall’s W = 0.554; p < 0.001). Further analysis of Cultural Ecosystem Services revealed significant spatial differences in aesthetics, traditional agriculture, social and spiritual significance, education, and recreation, shaped by differences in tourism intensity, livelihood dependence, and cultural heritage. Principal Component Analysis extracted five major dimensions explaining 50 per cent of total variance, led by emotional and physical connection to the ecosystem (14.07%), cultural and artistic contributions (11.49%), and heritage and social interactions (9.69%). Together, these components highlight the deep-rooted emotional ties, artistic inspirations, historical memory, and traditional ecological knowledge that define the cultural foundation of the Kuttanad wetlands. Regression analysis showed that multiple categories of drivers significantly influenced ecosystem services. Among demographic factors, urbanisation (β = 0.304) and labour migration (β = 0.244) were the strongest predictors, while non-procurement of harvest (β = 0.214) and land conversion (β = 0.193) were the most influential economic drivers. Socio-political variables, including agricultural credit (β = 0.368),

farming subsidies (β = 0.320), and decentralised governance policies (β = 0.284), exerted the greatest overall influence. Technological drivers such as short-duration varieties, mechanisation, and training were significant, while the loss of traditional practices (β = 0.571) emerged as a critical cultural driver. Environmental stressors such as flooding (β = 0.273) and soil acidity (β = 0.220) were major biophysical determinants affecting ecosystem functions. Correlation results further revealed that land-use change was positively associated with regulating (r = 0.256) and supporting services (r = 0.226), implying that awareness of ecological functions increases as environmental degradation intensifies. District-wise analysis showed a significant negative association between land-use change and cultural services in Kottayam (r = –0.265; p < 0.05), pointing to cultural erosion, while in Pathanamthitta, regulating services showed a positive association with land-use change (r = 0.309; p < 0.05), likely due to exposure to floods. Mann–Whitney U results indicated significant differences only for supporting services (p = 0.007), with farmers experiencing land-use changes assigning higher importance. The assessment of connectedness to nature revealed that farmers across all districts demonstrated medium-to-high levels of connectedness, reflecting strong ecological awareness and emotional attachment to the wetlands. Although Kottayam showed slightly higher connectedness scores, statistical tests confirmed no significant district-wise differences, suggesting that livelihood dependence and cultural identity foster a shared sense of belonging throughout the region. Overall, the findings demonstrate that farmers primarily value provisioning and supporting services that directly sustain their livelihoods, while cultural and regulating services receive comparatively less emphasis. Emotional attachment to the landscape remains strong, but active cultural practices are declining. The results highlight the crucial need for integrated wetland management that strengthens traditional knowledge, enhances ecological restoration, supports diversified livelihoods, and incorporates cultural values into policy frameworks. Sustaining the ecological and cultural resilience of the Kuttanad paddy wetlands will require coordinated institutional support and community participation.