Preference, perceived change, and professed relationship among ecosystem services in the Himalayas.

The demand side of ecosystem service (ES), especially preference and perception of supply and interactions among ES, is an important yet underexplored research area for landscape planning and management in human-dominated landscapes. Taking a case of multifunctional landscape in the Hindu-Kush Himalayan region, we carried out a social survey of ES, focusing on preference, perceived change, and observed relationship among six major ES from the local people's perspective. Using a semi-structured questionnaire, data collection was done from 300 households from 10 categories of human settlements, based on watershed and land cover types. Garrett mean score (GMS), ordinal logistic regression estimates, and Chi-square test were performed for quantitative data, while an inductive approach was adopted for qualitative data analysis. The results show that at the landscape level, local people preferred water yield (GMS = 70) and crop production (GMS = 66) as the most preferred ES, whereas habitat quality (GMS = 37) and carbon sequestration (GMS = 35) were among the least preferred ES. More than 70% of the respondents believed that the supply of crop production has decreased over the last two decades; however, the supply of other provisioning and non-provisioning ES has increased as observed by majority of the respondents. Among the 15 pairs of ES, local people believe that co-occurrence of ES is possible. Majority of the respondents said that there exist synergistic relationship among 13 pairs of ES, except crop production which is negatively related with timber production and carbon sequestration. Among the identified trade-offs in ES, majority of local people believed that direct trade-offs (i.e., linear inverse relationship) is dominant as observed in 8 pairs of ES, followed by concave and convex trade-offs. Based on our analysis, we argue that the preference and perceived change of ES is more dependent on spatial heterogeneity of communities (i.e., watershed type, municipal category, and land cover type of residence) than socio-economic determinants. Further, we have discussed and suggested few policy and management measures including place-based spatial assessment of the social demand and preference, embracing agroforestry practices in ecosystem management programs, mainstreaming non-local ES in local decision making by incentives, and optimizing the supply of desired ES though integrated biophysical and socio-economic assessment of the landscape.