Advertisement

Impact of land use land cover change on ecosystem services: a comparative analysis on observed data and people’s perception in Inle Lake, Myanmar

  • Seema Karki
  • Aye Myat Thandar
  • Kabir Uddin
  • Sein Tun
  • Win Maung Aye
  • Kamal Aryal
  • Pratikshya Kandel
  • Nakul ChettriEmail author
Open Access
Research

Abstract

Background

A healthy wetland provides a range of goods and services contributing to human wellbeing. Inle Lake, the first Biosphere Reserve in Myanmar, has been supporting the local inhabitants with ecosystem services (ES) including habitat for a wide range of biodiversity. In the recent years, influenced by land use land cover change (LULCC), the lake has witnessed changes with altered flow of ES, affecting human well-being. Communities’ perceptions are often undermined, when it comes to research LULCC. We analyzed LULCC change data from 1989–2000 to 2000–2014 using Landsat imageries. This was then linked to ES considering dependency through qualitative data collated from participatory rural appraisal tools and structured questionnaires focusing on people’s perception to understand the LULCC dynamics and its implication.

Results

During 25 years (1989–2014), there has been a sharp reduction of 164 km2 perennial wetland area in the Inle Lake, which is 4.2-fold higher in 2014 to that of 1989. Similarly, forest area has been declined by 92 km2 (8.56%) in last 25 years. Contrary to this, cropland area showed an increment of 60.67% in 2000 and 64.53% in the year 2014 alone giving a total increase by 268 km2 over the last 25 years and an expansion of 40 km2 seasonal freshwater area were observed showing periodic increment over the time. Communities from the three study areas, namely, Kyaung Taung, Zay Gon and Kyar Taw are found to have high dependence in their surrounding ecosystems. These villages utilizes 17 ES from forest ecosystem, 13 from agro-ecosystem, 10 from seasonal and 4 from perennial water body for their livelihood respectively. Around 93% of the respondents opined that forest ecosystem has decreased over the last 10 years. Around 40% of the respondents reflected an increase in area used for cropland; 43% conversely perceived a declination. About 63% of the respondents perceived such changes have brought huge reduction in availability of freshwater ES. A significant number of respondents (92%) perceived an enormous reduction in seasonal water body during the dry season.

Conclusion

Observed decreasing trends in forest and perennial wetland areas were consistent with people’s perceived changes. Communities associate loss of forest and wetland area with reduced availability of ES as well as degraded health of the lake.

Keywords

Ecosystems Land use land cover change Ecosystem services Communities’ perception Wetland 

Abbreviations

ES

ecosystem services

FGD

focus group discussion

LULCC

land use land cover change

NDVI

Normalized Difference Vegetation Index

OBIA

object-based image analysis

PRA

participatory rural appraisal

SSS

systemic stratified sampling

TM

thematic mapper

UNESCO

United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture

USD

United States Dollar

UTM

Universal Transverse Mercator

Introduction

A home to 40% of the world’s species and 12% of all animal species (Mitsch and Gosselink 2000), wetlands cover around 6% of the world’s land area (Zedler and Kercher 2005) of which the largest area (31.8%) is in Asia (Davidson et al. 2018). The wetland provides a wide array of provisioning, supporting, cultural and regulating services contributing to human wellbeing (Lamsal et al. 2015; Sharma et al. 2015; Chaudhary et al. 2016, 2017). Converting such benefits in economic terms, 12.8 million km2 of the existing global wetland could yield 70 billion United States Dollar (USD, Schuijt and Brander 2004). The recent estimation for the total economic value of 63,000 km2 of global wetland, a fraction of the total, revealed to be 3.4 billion USD per year (TEEB 2010). However, most of the wetlands across the globe are under stresses due to various drivers of change, including the land use land cover change (LULCC). Since 1900 AD, the wetland lost 64–71% of its original area and was faster for inland than coastal natural wetlands (Davidson 2014). As evident from the recent studies, the LULCC is one of the five major drivers of change for wetlands in Asia (Romshoo and Rashid 2014; Zorrilla-Miras et al. 2014; Chettri and Sharma 2016). As a result, wetland degradation and its conservation have been a subject of global concern (Gopal 2013; Reis et al. 2017; Davidson et al. 2018).

Inle Lake, the first Biosphere Reserve identified by the Man and the Biosphere Reserve Programme of the United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture (UNESCO) in 2015, is known among the global 200 ecoregions (Olson and Dinerstein 1998). With its 1.5 million years history of formation (Bertrand and Rangin 2003), the Inle Lake is lying at an average 884 m above mean sea level with high ecological significance (Su and Jassby 2000; Turner et al. 2000; Butkus and Myint 2001; Akaishi et al. 2006; Okamoto 2012). It provides numerous tangible and intangible ecosystem services (ES) to the local communities (Ma 1996). The lake regulates flow and supports natural water filtration, providing fresh water as one of the provisioning services to downstream (Thaw 1998) and is a major source of hydroelectric power for southern Myanmar (Su and Jassby 2000).

Designated as one of the freshwater biodiversity hotspot, Inle Lake is also habitat for numerous globally significant species (Annandale 1918; Roberts 1986; Ma 1996; Kottelat and Witte 1999; Groombridge and Jenkins 1998; Platt and Rainwater 2004; Lwin and Sharma 2012). It is the home for numerous threatened species like White-rumped vulture (Gyps bengalensis), Greater spotted eagle (Clanga clanga), Pallid harrier (Circus macrourus), Bare’s pochard (Aythya baeri), Sarus crane (Grus antigone), and Ferruginous pochard (Aythya nyroca, Gyi et al. 2011). The lake is also an important nesting and breeding ground for amphibians and fishes (Ma 1967; Thant 1968; Kottelat 1986). More interestingly the lake is famous for floating garden or hydroponics cultivation (Myint and Maung 2000; Akaishi et al. 2006; Than 2007). The garden in the lake is a good source of vegetables and is an important tourist destinations in Myanmar (MoHT 2013). Considering the significance, the government supported tourism policy of 1996 has recognized Inle Lake as a major tourist hub (Butkus and Myint 2001; MoHT 2013). There is high number of tourists visiting lake, contributing to local economy (Ingelmo 2013; Munz and Molstad 2012; ICIMOD and MoNREC 2017).

Despite of being global significance, the lake and its catchment have undergone series of land use transformation over the years impacting its health (Lwin and Sharma 2012; Htwe et al. 2015). Deforestation in the mountains due to agricultural expansion and shifting cultivation, expansion of floating garden within the lake, sedimentation load and change in the water quality are some of the factors affecting the lake (Sidle et al. 2007). Those drivers have not only reduced the size of the lake, but have also affected ecosystem health and flow of ES, the major source of livelihood of the people.

In the recent global trend, understanding the linkages between ES with human wellbeing are emerging and also becoming a priority research area (Cardinale et al. 2011; Castro et al. 2014; Chaudhary et al. 2017; Ding et al. 2017; Omrani et al. 2017; Kandel et al. 2018). The concept of ES has been considered as products of coupled and nested social–ecological systems and emphasized to be measured in the complex context of those socio-ecological systems (Balvanera et al. 2006; Fisher et al. 2009; MA 2005; Mace et al. 2011; Bateman et al. 2013; Reyers et al. 2013; Scholes et al. 2013). However, the existing literature has limited integration with the broader social science literature about people’s choices and behavior (Bryan et al. 2010; Milner-Gulland 2012). In response, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) endorsed an ES approach that explicitly recognizes the benefits people gain from nature building support for sustainable development goals (de Groot et al. 2010; Diaz et al. 2015; Schmalzbauer and Visbeck 2017; Diaz et al. 2018). Therefore, assessments and sustainable management of ES require an understanding of both supply and demand considering the qualities, quantities, spatial scales and dynamics forming a bridge between ecological and social systems (Nahlik et al. 2012). So far, researchers in the Inle Lake have been generating knowledge in a sectorial approach, considering mainly biodiversity, LULCC and sedimentations to name a few. The understanding of drivers and its impacts on ES and the implication for human wellbeing has not been explored. This study is an attempt to bridge gaps between social and ecological understanding. To justify the above context, following three questions were developed and the research was oriented to answer following questions.
  1. A.

    How LULCC (temporal and spatial) has changed over the period in the study area?

     
  2. B.

    What are the states of major ecosystems in the given study area and how the local people are dependent on these ecosystems?

     
  3. C.

    What are the people’s perception in terms of the LULCC and its impact on the ES they are depended on?

     

Materials and methods

Study area

Inle Lake, situated on the Shan plateau of Myanmar, is part of the Shwenyaung rift valley, nourished by surrounded by catchment areas (Ma 1996; Su and Jassby 2000). Its immediate catchment is inhabited by about 200 villages (Butkus and Myint 2001) that serve as watershed for Nyaung Shwe Township with various ES (Akaishi et al. 2006; Lwin and Sharma 2012). The study was carried out in and the surrounding areas of the Inle Lake (Fig. 1). Three representative villages—namely, Kyaung Taung, Zay Gon and Kyar Taw were selected on the basis of origin of watershed and level of local community’s livelihood dependence on Inle Lake. The Kyaung Taung represents upstream catchment of the watershed and around 186 households inhibit in this area. Local communities in this village depend more on agricultural farming and livestock rearing. Rain-fed farming is more prominent due to lack of irrigation facility. Zay Gon, also called as market area, is a middle stream comprising 168 households. It is a tradeoff zone where number of ES brought from Kyaung Taung village and Kyar Taw village are traded. Similarly, Kyar Taw, famous as floating garden represents downstream of the study area and consists of 173 households. These floating gardens have a unique feature called hydroponic cultivation which was introduced in the early 1960s (Sidle et al. 2007). The overall conceptual framework used in this study is presented in Fig. 2 along with the detail in the following section.
Fig. 1

Map of the study area

Fig. 2

Overall methodological framework

(Source: Adopted and modified from Kandel et al. 2018)

Land use land cover change analysis

To identify the spatio-temporal changes of Inle Lake over a period of 25 years, LULCC analysis was undertaken. For the analysis, we acquired medium spatial resolution landsat thematic mapper (TM) of 1989 and 2000; and Landsat 8 of 2014. A classification scheme was used with six major land classes such as forest, shrubland, grassland, cropland, seasonal and perennial water bodies. The Thematic Mapper (TM), and Landsat 8 images were rectified into Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 47. After rectifying, eCognition developer software was used for OBIA (a methodological framework for machine-based interpretation of complex classes using both spectral and spatial information (Lang et al. 2011). The six land cover types were classified using a multiresolution segmentation algorithm which consecutively merged pixels by identifying image objects of one pixel and merging them with neighbours using relative homogeneity criteria (Blaschke and Hay 2001). A land water mask was created during class modelling using band ratio and texture information based on spectral values and vegetation indices like the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI). An NDVI image was created in a pre-processing stage using customized features: NDVI = (RED − IR)/(RED + IR). The land and water mask was created using the formula IR/Green * 100. The image objects were labeled according to attributes such as NDVI, land water mask, layer value, and color, and relative position to other objects, using user-defined rules. Objects with an area smaller than the defined minimum mapping unit were merged with other objects. The classified land cover map was then exported to a raster file format for further analysis. To validate the accuracy of the maps, both field sampling and references through high resolution map were used.

Participatory approach and tools

We used a few participatory rural appraisal (PRA) tools such as focus group discussion (FGD), resource mapping, transect walk along with a structured qualitative survey using pre-set questionnaire to understand the people’s dependency on the major ecosystems and their ES. The major ES listed were further categorized into four groups following MA (2005). The collected qualitative data were then used to compare with LULCC maps.

Household survey

We adopted an ‘Ecosystem Services Cascade’ framework that enabled the study to rationalize importance and significance of ES to human wellbeing. As explained by MA (2005) and Costanza et al. (1997), we considered the tangible and intangible benefits provided by an ecosystem as provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural services that people derived from four ecosystems mainly forest, agro-ecosystem, seasonal and perennial water bodies. Because of the seasonal variation affecting the water bodies, we classified rain fed water bodies into seasonal and perennial water bodies. Seasonal rain influencing fresh water bodies like inundation are considered as seasonal water bodies, excluding seasonal influences are considered as perennial water bodies. Survey questions mainly focused on (i) dependency on ES by communities for their livelihood, (ii) community’s perception on state of LULCC and ES and (iii) long term changes over the flow of goods and services derived from these four ecosystems.

A questionnaire was designed following Chaudhary et al. (2017) with some adjustment for the local context. Systemic stratified sampling (SSS) approach was applied to conduct household survey. We divided the study sites into three strata as explained in the study area as upstream, middle stream and downstream sites. The SSS approach was used in such a way that selection of first household from sample list is at random and then every kth household in the sample list is selected using k = N/n, where N is total households in the study site and n = sample household. For example, if a 1st household on site is chosen, the next household would be 3rd household in the study area. Out of 527 households in three study sites, we selected 33% for household survey, where N = 178. Description of the sampling area for household survey is illustrated in Table 1. Household survey was conducted during morning and evening at home in the local language. The head of the household was interviewed irrespective of gender (above 18 years). The survey focused on the perceptions considering dependency on different ecosystems for ES, and the impact of LULCC on their supply. The average time per interview was 45-min. The results, obtained from household survey on communities’ dependency and their perceptions on changing LULCC and ES through qualitative analysis were then compared with the observed LULCC data for 1889–2000 and 2000–2014.
Table 1

Description of sampling areas for household survey

Study area

Upstream mountain area

Middle stream market area

Downstream floating garden

Total

Village track

Lat Maung Kwe

Nan Pan

Nan Pan

Village name

Kyaung Taung

Zay Gon

Kyar Taw

Location

N20°39′24″

E96°51′48″

N20°27′56″

E96°54′13″

N20°26′57″

E96°54′52″

 

Total households

186

168

173

527

Sample size

58

60

60

178

Results

Land use land cover change

Major land use land cover types in the study area consisted of forest, shrub-land, grassland, cropland, seasonal and perennial water bodies. In the year 2014, cropland was dominant land use types with 64.5% coverage followed by forest (18%) and the least was freshwater (4.2%). There have been a subsequent changes to these land use land cover over the period of 25 years (1989–2004, Table 2). We observed a sharp reduction of 164 km2 seasonal water body area in Inle Lake in 2014 which is 4.2 smaller than in 1989. Similarly forest area has declined by 92 km2, shrub land showed a negative change of 52 km2 and 1 km2 grass-land area has dropped down in last 25 years. Contrary to this, an increase of 268 km2 cropland area and 40 km2 perennial water body were observed (Table 2) showing periodic increment over the time. The periodic data of the year 1989 showed that the cropland was 59.5%. It further increased to 60.67% in 2000 and 64.53% in the year 2014 giving a total cropland increment of 268 km2 in 25 years. Similarly, the perennial water body has increased by 40 km2 against the baseline year 1989.
Table 2

Summary of land cover statistics for 1989, 2000 and 2014

ID

Land cover

Year 1989

Year 2000

Year 2014

LC changes in km2 (1989–2014)

km2

%

km2

%

km2

%

1

Forest

1074

19.79

1097

20.23

982

18.10

− 92

2

Shrub land

321

5.92

268

4.94

269

4.96

− 52

3

Grassland

394

7.27

394

7.27

393

7.24

− 1

4

Cropland

3232

59.58

3291

60.67

3500

64.53

268

5

Seasonal water bodies

214

3.95

183

3.37

51

0.94

− 164

6

Perennial water bodies

189

3.49

191

3.52

229

4.22

40

7

Total

5424

100

5424

100

5424

100

 
To further segregate the periodic changes of LULCC, the breakdown of the observed results in the form of change matrix of land cover from 1989–2000 to 2000–2014 are presented in Tables 3 and 4. Comparing Tables 3 and 4, an overall forest area of 92 km2 has reduced during 1989–2017 but in the later years during 2000–2014 the rate of forest loss is 115 km2. This 115 km2 forest loss is mainly because of the conversion of forest land into crop land. Declinations of 1 km2 of shrub-land and 1 km2 of grassland were observed. Cropland has increased by 268 km2 that has invaded wetland, shrub-land and grassland in 25 years of timeline. However, over those years, perennial water body has been altered and an increment of 38 km2 was witnessed. Referring to Table 3, perennial water body has influenced grassland, seasonal water body, and cropland. Likewise, spatial-temporal changes of forest, shrubland, grassland, cropland, seasonal and perennial water bodies are presented in Fig. 3.
Table 3

2 Change matrix of land cover (km2) in 1989 to 2000

Land cover (km2)

Forest

Shrub land

Grassland

Cropland

Seasonal water bodies

Perennial water bodies

Total (1989)

Forest

1074

0

0

0

0

0

1074

Shrub land

24

268

0

25

3

1

321

Grassland

0

0

394

0

0

0

394

Cropland

0

0

0

3232

0

0

3232

Seasonal water bodies

0

0

0

34

177

3

214

Perennial water bodies

0

0

0

0

3

187

189

Total (2000)

1097

268

394

3291

183

191

5424

Table 4

Change matrix of land cover (km2) in 2000 to 2014

Land cover (km2)

Forest

Shrub land

Grassland

Cropland

Seasonal water bodies

Perennial water bodies

Total (2000)

Forest

982

0

0

115

0

0

1097

Shrub land

0

268

0

0

0

0

268

Grassland

0

0

393

0

0

1

394

Cropland

0

0

0

3279

3

8

3291

Seasonal water bodies

0

1

0

104

47

30

183

Perennial water bodies

0

0

1

2

0

189

192

Total (2014)

982

269

393

3500

51

229

5424

Fig. 3

Land use land cover map 1989, 2000 and 2014

Utilization of ES for livelihood

Communities from the three study areas, namely-Kyaung Taung, Zay Gon and Kyar Taw showed varied dependency depending upon the proximity of the ecosystems (Fig. 4). It was observed that all the depended communities seem to use available ecosystems optimally. Our qualitative data revealed that the local inhabitants utilizes 17 types of ES from forest ecosystem, 13 from agro-ecosystem, 10 from seasonal and 4 from perennial water body for their livelihoods (Table 5). Almost all of the respondents in Kyaung Taung village mentioned that they consume mushroom (100%) and wild edible fruits/vegetables (97%) from forest ecosystem. About 83% of the same village collects fuelwood. Despite deforestation and degradation in the forest areas, forests still account for the supply of fuelwood in Kyaung Taung village. Only 7% of the respondents in Kyar Taw village and 8% in Zay Gon village consumed fuelwood from forests. Likewise, a wide range of wetland services are utilized by floating garden communities. About 91% of respondents use water for bathing, 66% for fishing, 28% as source for fodder, 24% as source for seaweed and 14% for irrigation. The agro-ecosystem seems very productive in mountain area. About 93% of the households cultivate vegetables, 87% cultivate paddy and mushroom, 65% collect fuelwood from agro-ecosystem in mountain area. Similarly, the agro-ecosystem in market area looms vegetable production (87%), ornamental plants (67%), fuelwood supply (38%) and wild and edible fruits (37%). In an average, fresh water (perennial and seasonal) attributed to drinking water supply (93%), water for bathing (61%) and water for irrigation (6%) in three study sites. Apart from the forest, study results elucidated that the fuelwood and fodder requirements in the community are met from agro-ecosystems and wetlands.
Fig. 4

Figure showing dependency of people in different ecosystems across the study sites

Table 5

Number of provisioning ES utilized by local communities for their livelihoods

Ecosystem

Forest (17)

Agro-ecosystem (13)

Perennial water bodies (4)

Seasonal water bodies (10)

Provisioning goods and services

Fuel wood

Fodder

Grazing

Timber

Poles

Medicinal plants

Ornamental plants

Wild edible vegetables/mushrooms

Fruits

Fiber

Thatch

Bush meat

Paddy

Cereals

Drinking water

Water for bathing

Water for irrigation

Fuel wood

Fodder

Grazing

Timber/poles

Medicinal plants

Ornamental plants

Wild edible vegetables/mushrooms

Fruits

Fiber

Thatch

Dyes

Paddy

Cereals

Fish

Drinking water

Water for bathing

Water for irrigation

Ornamental plants

Wild edible vegetables

Fruits

Fish

Drinking water

Water for bathing

Water for irrigation

Silt soil

Source for seaweed

Source for fodder

Community perception on state of ES and LULCC

Figure 5 illustrates the communities’ perception on the changes of flow of ES over the last decade. Around 93% of the respondents opined that forest ecosystem has decreased over the last 10 years. Fuelwood extraction, illegal logging, charcoal making, shifting cultivation, extension of agricultural land and population growth played an influential role to the exacerbated forest ecosystem. Also, the communities’ claimed that almost no forest has remained in the village area. Around 40% of the respondents reflected an increase in area used for cropland; 43% conversely perceived a declination. Communities mentioned that maximum use of chemical fertilizer has affected the soil fertility and water. Interestingly, 17% mentioned there is no change in such practices.
Fig. 5

Perceived changes on the flow of ES from four ecosystems over the last 10 years

About 63% of the respondents perceived such changes in four ecosystems have brought huge reduction in availability of freshwater. The reduction of freshwater has caused inland water transportation used for tourism and other use a challenge. Also, respondents reiterated that lake water is not potable since last 10 years and retrograding water quality has affected natural aquaculture. Major apprehensions are depletion of forests and increased soil erosion leading to sedimentation, erratic rainfall and drying out of rain water collection pond. About 30% also mentioned that reforestation had somewhat contributed to reduce those negative changes. A significant number of respondents (92%) perceived an enormous reduction in seasonal water body in dry season (Fig. 5).

Comparison of LULCC and perceived changes in ES

Observed loss in forest area and seasonal water body through LULCC are consistent with community’s perceived changes. Around 93% of the households mentioned flow of ES from forest ecosystems has declined. Comparing this information with the LULCC (Table 2), 92% of the forest area has been lost in the last 25 years which is evident to the community’s belief on declining ES from forest ecosystems. Furthermore, this has been evident from the visible change observed on the ES during the last 25 years (see Fig. 6). Communities associated loss of forest and water body area with reduced ES that they are receiving. They mentioned that ES listed in Table 5, are nowadays in declining trend. An observed data of increased cropland area by 8.3% (Table 2) reflected a mixed perception (Fig. 5). However, observed increased perennial water body area through LULCC analysis contradicts to 63% of the communities’ belief. Communities believed that the availability of freshwater in all three study sites has been reducing (Fig. 5). But LULCC analysis (Tables 3, 4) showed that perennial water bodies have increased. In terms of changes in flow of goods and services from agro-ecosystem (Fig. 5), 43% of the households mentioned the agricultural productivity have increased but 40% expressed that the productivity has reduced and 17% mentioned there has been no changes in the agricultural productivity. Community’s perception over such changes might be mainly due to the degraded land converted into agricultural land and economic return from land conversion over to the population growth. Due to limited outmigration from Inle Lake, the growing population demand more land and irrigation for farming, but less water availability for irrigation results into less productivity. However, there is a clear indication of increased in crop area by 8.29% from 1989 to 2014 suggesting agricultural intensification.
Fig. 6

Map showing spatio-temporal change on flow of provisioning services in Inle Lake

Discussion

How the LULCC (temporal and spatial) has changed over the period in the study area?

The LULCC has been identified as one of the main drivers of change worldwide (Pandit et al. 2007; Chettri and Sharma 2016). Such LULCC, as a continued socio-ecological disturbance, changes the flow of ES (Janssen and Anderies 2007). A widespread deforestation and unplanned LULCC threatens natural ecosystems (United Nations 2002; Sidle et al. 2007), decreases multi-functionality (Kandziora et al. 2014) and limits the habitat of globally important species (Chettri et al. 2013). Myanmar has been witnessing major LULCC in the recent years (Htwe et al. 2015) and our study also validate it. The Forest Department Statistics of Myanmar showed 37.4% of 343,587 km2 natural forest area deforested in 1998 (United Nations 2002). A similar trend of 40.4% of forest cover loss from 2001 to 2012 has been reported by (Khaing 2014). The rate of deforestation and degradation were − 1.17% from 1990 to 2000, − 0.90% from 2000–2005 to − 0.95% 2005–2010 (FRA 2010) showing increasing trend of deforestation lately.

Major LULCC in the study area depicted a reduction in forest, seasonal water body and increase in cropland and perennial water body. Such changes have increased siltation in the lake, affecting fresh water hotspots that is home to worldwide threatened species and depended on the health of these ecosystems (Leimgruber et al. 2005; Htwe et al. 2015). Such changes, on the other hand, also bring challenges to the communities with changed in ES availability needed for their livelihood (Chaudhary et al. 2016). This also affects hydropower plant with decreased flow (ADB 2006). Communities in Kyaung Taung village, despite huge reduction in the forested area, still rely on forests to get forest products. In the study site some good initiations like stall feeding to reduce open grazing practices and government providing free seedling to motivate communities in conservation has started. However, due to the low survival rate of these planted seedlings, results from such good initiative seems insignificant.

Crop land expansion due to increase in intensity of agriculture in the forested catchment areas, sediment load from tributaries from the catchment areas, siltation inflow to the lake and marshland transformed into agricultural areas as hydroponic expansion are major determinants of reduced wetland area in the study site. Our study showed that Inle Lake is experiencing an expansion of cropland by 268 km2 from 1989 to 2014. Similar significant changes have also been reported on the lake and its surrounding catchments by many earlier studies (Ma 1967; Thiha 2005; Htwe et al. 2015; Pradhan et al. 2015). Thus, it symbolizes a continuous transformation in size of the lake. Additionally, sediment load from tributaries amounting 2.63106 m3/year (Su and Jassby 2000) and siltation from inflowing stream equivalent to 6,23,000 m3/year clearing the natural vegetation for cultivation (Akaishi et al. 2006) are other factors in shrinking wetland area. Also, our result was supported by an estimated decline of open water surface in Inle Lake by 32.4% between 1935 and 2000 (Sidle et al. 2007). Furthermore, houses and restaurants built inside lake with poor sanitation and improper management of waste are also adding challenges on the health of the lake (ADB 2006; May 2007; San and Rapera 2010; Lwin and Sharma 2012). Simultaneously, the heavy rainfall trend (DMH 2016) has increased the rate of landslide impacting the lake further.

The reduction in wetland area not only threatens and limits the habitats of globally important species but also adds the leeching of agrochemicals from cropland and hydroponic cultivation into lake, further affecting water quality and promoting algal bloom in the lake (Ma 1996; Akaishi et al. 2006; Gyi et al. 2011). Increased population with double digit in Nyaung Shwe and Taunggyi Township from 1968 to 2010, limited out migration and local economic development opportunities could be other prime transforming agents converting water and marshland into agriculture (Lambin et al. 2001). An increased agricultural production rate degrades 40% of the land area posing great threat to biodiversity (Foley et al. 2011). A study conducted in China showed total food production and expanded arable land secured a negative effect on biodiversity (Hou et al. 2015). Intensive cultivation techniques and use of herbicides increasingly affect the landscapes’ natural capacities in maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, including supply of ES abrading health of the perennial and seasonal water bodies.

What are the states of major ecosystems in the study area and how much the local people are dependent on these ecosystems?

Human life largely depend on forest and agriculture as important economic resources and means of development (SDG, Agenda 15). This is more relevant to Eastern Himalaya for local people with limited livelihood options (Chaudhary et al. 2015). A maintained resilient ecosystem for a continued flow of ES requires a harmonized relationship between human and nature (Gómez-Baggethun and Kelemen 2008). Communities in Inle Lake, largely depend on ES derived from forest, agro-ecosystem, and perennial and seasonal water bodies.

Comparatively higher dependency on ES in the mountain regions are well documented facts due to limited options (Chaudhary et al. 2016). Interestingly, our study found that dependency on the ES varied as per the proximity of ecosystems. Since ES have been shaped through human history by land allocation and management choices (Crouzat et al. 2015), our study illustrated that Kyaung Taung communities have more agro-ecosystem productivity and have higher access to forested area, while Kyar Taw village largely depends on ES generated from perennial and seasonal water bodies in Inle Lake. However, being a trading zone, Zay Gon sells some of the ES collected from Kyar Taw, in addition to the ES derived from their own agro-ecosystems. Livelihood of the communities in Zay Gon largely depend on trading, thus, a subtle change in supply of ES from Kyaung Taung and Kar Taw village could affect their livelihoods. These relationship clearly indicates the existing social and ecological linkages as well as the highland and lowland linkages. Both the communities living in forest ecosystems and wetland ecosystems were directly or indirectly dependent on the urban (market area) ecosystem for ES flow and trade-off and vice versa.

What are the people’s perception in terms of the LULCC and its impact on the ES they are dependent on?

Wetland has been facing the major brunt due to LULCC in Asia (Romshoo and Rashid 2014; Zorrilla-Miras et al. 2014; Chettri and Sharma 2016). There has been significant reduction in wetland area globally making it a subject of global concern (Gopal 2013; Reis et al. 2017; Davidson et al. 2018). The perception and the observed data in Inle Lake showed consistency with the observed trend. The people’s perception and LULCC analyses data revealed that there is significant change in the area as also reported by others (Htwe et al. 2015; Gyi et al. 2011). Communities in the study sites reiterated that quantity and quality of potable water has been worsen since the last decade as also reported by Akaishi et al (2006). The amount and quality of water could easily impact on possible crop yields as well as a direct impact on human health (Burkhard et al. 2015). Also communities in the study area mentioned that two perennial water bodies have dried up and people nowadays purchase drinking water. Enduring fish population loss as a poor water quality has forced fishermen to shift their occupation to farming in the study area. Additionally, in dry season reduced water level in the lake has affected the boat rowing and travelling.

Conclusion

The significance of the biodiversity and ES of Inle Lake to the local communities is important for livelihood and has been recognized by the UNESCO’s man and Biosphere Reserve programme by notifying it as the first Biosphere Reserve in Myanmar. The study reiterated that LULCC is happening and it has implication to the sustained flow of ES for human wellbeing. The main drivers seem to be expansion of cropland manifested by increased siltation from the catchment area and chemical leeching that has affected the world’s threatened floral, faunal and endemic species in the lake. Similarly, the rate of deforestation and forest degradation is increasing. As a result, the local communities are exploring adaptive measures to tackle the challenges. Interestingly, the people’s perceptions are also supportive to the observed analysis of LULCC with some exceptions.

Our study showed that the local communities living in Inle Lake and its surrounding catchments have high dependence on the ES supplied by forest, agro-ecosystem, seasonal and perennial water bodies. The provisional ES use pattern vary as per the proximity of the ecosystems and availability of the alternative options. Moreover, the study also showed a strong upstream-downstream linkages in terms of trade-off among the communities living at different ecosystems. The study suggests following actions to address the changing effect of LULCC. First of all, looking into the tourism driven local economy, and people’s high dependency on ES, demand and supply chain gap from need special attention with socio-ecological system approach. Second, restoration of the degraded areas through the inspection and regular monitoring of survival rate of planted seedlings. Third, alternative energy (improved cooking stoves, biogas) installation would add significant results to reduce further pressure on the resources. Fourth, an investment on establishing natural water ponds might be some viable options to collect rain water runoff to cope up with water scarcity to some extent. Lastly, an effort of establishing Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) may further address the issue of siltation that is affecting hydropower plant and electricity generation. In order to draw detailed conclusions for decision-making and management of ecosystems in the study site, a socio-ecological linkage would give a better picture. A socio-ecological system approach would enable a clear policy reformulation that would support to keep ecosystems a healthy.

Notes

Authors’ contributions

NC, KA and KU conceptualised the study. SK, AMT, ST, WMA and KA collected and analysed the data, SK, PKKU and NC wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

This study is jointly conducted by Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation (MoNREC) and International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) under Himalica project funded by the European Union. We also would like to thank Mr. Madhav Dhakal, Associate Hydrologist for providing analyzed hydrometerology data for Myanmar. The views and interpretations in this publication are those of the authors and there is no conflict of interest from any of the authors to publish this Manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

Data is available with authors at ICIMOD and will be provided if need be.

Consent for publication

All authors approved the manuscript for its publication.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The paper followed the ethics and consent to participate during the research work.

Funding

This paper is prepared under the Support to Rural Livelihoods and Climate Change Adaptation in the Himalaya (Himalica) Programme (ASIE/2012/292-464) funded by the European Union to ICIMOD.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. Akaishi F, Satake M, Otaki M, Tominaga N (2006) Surface water quality and information about the environment surrounding Inle Lake in Myanmar. Limnology 7(1):57–62.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10201-006-0165-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Annandale N (1918) Fish and fisheries of the Inle Lake. Records Indian Mus 14:33–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asian Development Bank (2006) Myanmar National Environmental Performance Assessment (EPA) report. National performance assessment and sub–regional strategic environment framework in the greater Mekong sub–region. ADB T. A. No. 6069–REG. National Commission for Environmental Affairs, YangonGoogle Scholar
  4. Balvanera P, Pfisterer AB, Buchmann N, He JS, Nakashizuka T, Raffaelli D, Schmid B (2006) Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. Ecol Lett 9(10):1146–1156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bateman IJ, Harwood AR, Mace GM, Watson RT, Abson DJ, Andrews B, Binner A, Crowe A, Day BH, Dugdale S, Fezzi C, Foden J, Hadley D, Haines-Young R, Hulme M, Kontoleon A, Lovett AA, Munday P, Pascual U, Paterson J, Perino G, Sen A, Siriwardena G, van Soest D, Termansen M (2013) Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision–making: land use in the United Kingdom. Science 341:45–50.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1234379 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bertrand G, Rangin C (2003) Tectonics of the western margin of the Shan plateau (central Myanmar): implication for the India-Indochina oblique convergence since the Oligocene. J Asian Earth Sci 21:1139–1157.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1367-9120(02)00183-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blaschke T, Hay GJ (2001) Object-oriented image analysis and scale-space: theory and methods for modeling and evaluating multiscale landscape structure. Int Archiv Photogramm Remote Sens 34(4):22–29Google Scholar
  8. Bryan BA, Raymond CM, Crossman ND, Macdonald DH (2010) Targeting the management of ecosystem services based on social values: where, what, and how. Landscape Urban Plann 97(2):111–122.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.05.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burkhard B, Müller A, Mueller F, Grescho V, Anh Q, Arida G, Bustamante JVJ, Van Chien H, Heong KL, Escalada M, Marquez L (2015) Land cover–based ecosystem service assessment of irrigated rice cropping systems in Southeast Asia: an explorative study. Ecosyst Serv 14:76–87.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.05.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Butkus S, Myint S (2001) Pesticide use limits for protection of human health in the Inle Lake (Myanmar) watershed, Technical document. Living Earth Institute Olympia (NPO), WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  11. Cardinale BJ, Matulich KL, Hooper DU, Byrnes JE, Duffy E, Gamfeldt L, Balvanera P, O’Cornor ML, Gonzalez A (2011) The functional role of producer diversity in ecosystems. Am J Bot 98(3):572–592.  https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1000364 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Castro AJ, Verburg PH, Martín-López B, Garcia-Llorente M, Cabello J, Vaughn CC, López E (2014) Ecosystem service trade–offs from supply to social demand: a landscape-scale spatial analysis. Landscape Urban Plann 132:102–110.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.08.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chaudhary S, MacGregor K, Houston D, Chettri N (2015) The evolution of ecosystem services: a time series and discourse–centred analysis. Environ Sci Policy 54:25–34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chaudhary S, Chettri N, Uddin K, Khatri TB, Dhakal M, Bajracharya B, Ning W (2016) Implications of land cover change on ecosystem services and people’s dependency. A case study from the Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal. Ecol Complex 1:1.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2016.04.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chaudhary S, Tshering D, Phuntsho T, Uddin K, Shakya B, Chettri N (2017) Impact of land cover change on a mountain ecosystem and its services: case study from the Phobjikha valley, Bhutan. Ecosyst Health Sustain 3:1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1080/20964129.2017.1393314 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chettri N, Sharma E (2016) Reconciling the mountain biodiversity conservation and human wellbeing: drivers of biodiversity loss and new approaches in the Hindu-Kush Himalayas. Proc Ind Nat Sci Acad. 82:53–73Google Scholar
  17. Chettri N, Uddin K, Chaudhary S, Sharma E (2013) Linking spatio-temporal land cover change to biodiversity conservation in Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal. Diversity 5:335–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Costanza R, Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, Oneill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260.  https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Crouzat E, Mouchet M, Turkelboom F, Byczek C, Meersmans J, Berger F, Verkerk PJ, Lavorel S (2015) Assessing bundles of ecosystem services from regional to landscape scale: insights from the French Alps. J Appl Ecol 52(5):1145–1155.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12502 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Davidson NC (2014) How much wetland has the world lost? Long-term and recent trends in global wetland area. Marine Freshwater Res 65(10):934–941.  https://doi.org/10.1071/MF14173 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Davidson NC, Fluet-Chouinard E, Finlayson CM (2018) Global extent and distribution of wetlands: trends and issues. Marine Freshwater Res 69(4):620–627.  https://doi.org/10.1071/MF17019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. deGroot RS, 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. Ecol Complex 7:260–272.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, Larigauderie A, Adhikari JR, Arico S, Báldi A, Bartuska A (2015) The IPBES Conceptual Framework—connecting nature and people. Curr Opinion Environ Sust 14:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Díaz S, Pascual U, Stenseke M, Martín-López B, Watson RT, Molnár Z, Hill R et al (2018) Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359(6373):270–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ding XW, Hou BD, Xue Y, Jiang GH (2017) Long-term effects of ecological factors on nonpoint source pollution in the upper reach of the Yangtze River. J Environ Informat 30(1):17–28Google Scholar
  26. DMH (2016) Temperature and precipitation data recorded from 1989–2013 at Heho airport. Department of Meteorology and Hydrology, MyanmarGoogle Scholar
  27. Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ 68:643–653.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Foley JA, Ramankutty N, Brauman KA, Cassidy ES, Gerber JS, Johnston M, Mueller ND, O’Connell C, Ray DK, West PC, Balzer C (2011) Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478(7369):337–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. FRA (2010) Global Forest Resource Assessment. http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/fra2010/en/
  30. Gómez-Baggethun E, Kelemen E (2008) Linking institutional change and the flows of ecosystem services. Case studies from Spain and Hungary. In: Proceedings of the 2nd THEMES Summer School 118-145Google Scholar
  31. Gopal B (2013) Future of wetlands in tropical and subtropical Asia, especially in the face of climate change. Aquatic Sci 75(1):39–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Groombridge B, Jenkins M (1998) Freshwater biodiversity a preliminary global assessment, WCMC biodiversity series No. 8. World Conservation Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Gyi MM, Lwin LL, Khin MT, Oo KS (2011) Spatial habitat degradation due to human inhibition in respective areas of Inle Lake. http://a-a-r-s.org/acrs/administrator/components/com_jresearch/files/publications/SC03-0260_Full_Paper_ACRS2013_Maung_Maung_Gyi.pdf (accessed 21 November 2015)
  34. Hou Y, Muller F, Li B, Kroll F (2015) Urban-rural gradients of ecosystem services and the linkages with socioeconomics. Landscape Online.  https://doi.org/10.3097/lo.201539 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Htwe TN, Kywe M, Buerkert A, Brinkmann K (2015) Transformation processes in farming systems and surrounding areas of Inle Lake, Myanmar, during the last 40 years. J Land Use Sci 10(2):205–223.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2013.878764 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. ICIMOD and MoNREC (2017) A multi-dimensional assessment of ecosystems and ecosystem services at Inle Lake, Myanmar. ICIMOD Working Paper 2017/17. Kathmandu: ICIMODGoogle Scholar
  37. Ingelmo IA (2013) Design and development of a sustainable tourism indicator based on human activities analysis in Inle Lake, Myanmar. Proc Soc Behav Sci 103:262–272.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.334 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Janssen MA, Anderies JM (2007) Robustness trade–offs in social–ecological systems. Int J Commons 1(1):43–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kandel P, Tshering D, Uddin K, Lhamtshok T, Aryal K, Karki S, Sharma B, Chettri N (2018) Understanding social–ecological interdependencies through ecosystem services value perspectives in Bhutan. Ecosphere, Eastern Himalaya.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kandziora M, Dörnhöfer K, Oppelt N, Müller F (2014) Detecting land use and land cover changes in northern German agricultural landscapes to assess ecosystem service dynamics. Landscape Online 1:35Google Scholar
  41. Khaing DAA (2014) MIID himalica pilot myanmar land resource assessment. ICIMOD, KathmanduGoogle Scholar
  42. Kottelat VM (1986) The fish fauna of Inle Lake in Burma. Aquatic Terres Zool 39:403–406Google Scholar
  43. Kottelat M, Witte KE (1999) Two new species of Microrasbora from Thailand and Myanmar, with two new generic names for small Southeast Asian cyprinid fishes (Teleostei: Cyprinidae). J South Asian Nat Hist 4(1):49–56Google Scholar
  44. Lambin EF, Turner BL, Geist HJ, Agbola SB, Angelsen A, Bruce JW, Coomes OT, Dirzo R, Fischer G, Folke C, George P (2001) The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths. Global Environ Change 11(4):261–269.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(01)00007-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lamsal P, Pant KP, Kumar L, Atreya K (2015) Sustainable livelihoods through conservation of wetland resources: a case of economic benefits from Ghodaghodi Lake, western Nepal. Ecol Soc 20(1):10.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07172-200110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lang S, Pernkopf L, Vanden JB, Förster M, Haest B, Buck O, Frick A (2011) Fostering Sustainability in European Nature Conservation—NATURA 2000 habitat monitoring based on earth observation services. In: Proceeding of 1st world sustainable forum 1–8Google Scholar
  47. Leimgruber P, Kelly DS, Steininger MK, Brunner J, Müller T, Songer M (2005) Forest cover change patterns in Myanmar (Burma) 1990–2000. Environ Conserv 32(04):356–364.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892905002493 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lwin Z, Sharma MP (2012) Environmental management of the Inle Lake in Myanmar. Hydro Nepal J Water Energy Environ 11:57–60.  https://doi.org/10.3126/hn.v11i0.7164 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ma KT (1967) Fishes and fishing gear of Inle Lake. University Press, RangoonGoogle Scholar
  50. Ma TDW (1996) Floating island agriculture (Ye–chan) of Inle Lake. M.A. thesis, University of Yangon, YangonGoogle Scholar
  51. Mace GM, Norris K, Fitter AH (2011) Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol Evol 27:19–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.08.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. May SY (2007) Changes of water quality and water surface area in Inle Lake: facts and perception. Ph.D. thesis, University of Yangon, MyanmarGoogle Scholar
  53. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA (2005) Ecosystems and human wellbeing: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  54. Milner-Gulland EJ (2012) Interactions between human behaviour and ecological systems. Phil Trans Royal Soc B: Biol Sci 367:270–278.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0175 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG (2000) The value of wetlands: importance of scale and landscape setting. Ecol Econ 35(1):25–33.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00165-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. MoHT (2013) Myanmar tourism statistics 2012. Ministry of hotel and tourism. Nay Pyi Daw, MaynmarGoogle Scholar
  57. Munz, A, Molstad A (2012) Working paper for tourism development for Inlay Lake. Consultant report for the Institute of International Development Project ‘Inlay Lake: a plan for the future’. Yangon, Myanmar: IIDGoogle Scholar
  58. Myint DKW, Maung UKW (2000) Floating islands of the Inle Lake. Myanmar Persp 16(7):20Google Scholar
  59. Nahlik AM, Kentula MA, Fennessy MS, Landers DH (2012) Where is the consensus? A proposed foundation for moving ecosystem service concepts into practice. Ecol Econ 77:27–35.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Okamoto I (2012) Coping and adaptation against decreasing fish resources: Case study of fishermen in Lake Inle, Myanmar. Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO). https://ideas.repec.org/p/jet/dpaper/dpaper329.html
  61. Olson DM, Dinerstein E (1998) The Global 200: a representation approach to conserving the earth’s most biologically valuable ecoregions. Conserv Biol 12(3):502–515.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1998.012003502.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Omrani H, Abdallah F, Tayyebi A, Pijanowski B (2017) Modelling land-use change with dependence among labels. J Environ Informat 30(2):107–118Google Scholar
  63. Pandit MK, Sodhi NS, Koh LP, Bhaskar A, Brook BW (2007) Unreported yet massive deforestation driving loss of endemic biodiversity in Indian. Himalaya Biodivers Conserv 16:153–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Platt SG, Rainwater TR (2004) Inle Lake turtles, Myanmar with notes on Intha and Pa–O ethnoherpetology. Hamadryad 29:5–14Google Scholar
  65. Pradhan N, Habib H, Venkatappa M, Ebbers T, Duboz R, Shipin O (2015) Framework tool for a rapid cumulative effects assessment: case of a prominent wetland in Myanmar. Environ Monit Assessm 187(6):1–18.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-015-4508-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Reis V, Hermoso V, Hamilton SK, Ward D, Fluet-Chouinard E, Lehner B, Linke S (2017) A global assessment of inland wetland conservation status. Bioscience 67(6):523–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Reyers B, Biggs R, Cumming GS, Elmqvist T, Hejnowicz AP, Polasky S (2013) Getting the measure of ecosystem services: a social–ecological approach. Front Ecol Environ 11:268–273.  https://doi.org/10.1890/120144 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Roberts TR (1986) Danionella translucida, a new genus and species of cyprinid fish from Burma, one of the smallest living vertebrates. Environ Biol Fishes 16(4):231–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Romshoo SA, Rashid I (2014) Assessing the impacts of changing land cover and climate on Hokersar wetland in Indian Himalayas. Arab J Geosci 7(1):143–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. San CC, Rapera CL (2010) The on-site cost of soil erosion by the replacement cost methods in Inle Lake watershed, Nyaung Shwe Township, Myanmar. J Environ Sci Manag 13(1):67–81Google Scholar
  71. Schmalzbauer B. Visbeck, M (2017) The Sustainable Development Goals-conceptual approaches for science and research projects. In: 19th EGU general assembly, EGU2017, proceedings from the conference held 23–28 April, 2017 in Vienna, Austria, p. 5312. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017EGUGA..19.5312S
  72. Scholes RJ, Reyers B, Biggs R, Spierenburg MJ, Duriappah A (2013) Multiscale and cross-scale assessments of social–ecological systems and their ecosystem services. Curr Opinion Environ Sustain 5:16–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.01.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schuijt K, Brander L (2004) The economic value of the world’s wetlands. WWF Living Waters: Conserving the Source of Life, Gland, p 31Google Scholar
  74. Sharma B, Rasul G, Chettri N (2015) The economic value of wetland ecosystem services: evidence from the Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal. Ecosyst Serv 12:84–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.02.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sidle RC, Ziegler AD, Vogler JB (2007) Contemporary changes in open water surface area of Lake Inle, Myanmar. Sustain Sci 2(1):55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Su M, Jassby AD (2000) Inle: a large Myanmar lake in transition. Lakes Reserv Res Manag 5(1):49–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. TEEB (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Mainstreaming the economics of nature—a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. TEEB Consortium (c/o UNEP), GenevaGoogle Scholar
  78. Than MM (2007) Community activities contribution to water environment conservation of Inle Lake. Irrigation Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, Union of Myanmar, YangonGoogle Scholar
  79. Thant K (1968) Checklist of fishes in the Inle Lake. Tekatho Pyinapade tha 2Google Scholar
  80. Thaw K (1998) The industrial Inthas of Inle Lake. Myanmar Perspect 4:4Google Scholar
  81. Thiha A (2005) Land–use adjustment based on watershed classification using remote sensing and GIS a study of Inle watershed, Myanmar. In: Zoebisch M, Cho KM, Hein S, Mowla R (eds) Mowla Integrated watershed management: studies and experiences from Asia. AIT, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  82. Turner RK, Van Den Bergh JC, Söderqvist T, Barendregt A, van der Straaten J, Maltby E, van Ierland EC (2000) Ecological–economic analysis of wetlands: scientific integration for management and policy. Ecol Econ 35(1):7–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00164-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. United Nations (2002) Myanmar country profile, Technical report to United Nations, Agenda 21, CP2002, Myanmar: http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/wssd/myanmar.pdf. Accessed 11 Dec 2015
  84. Zedler JB, Kercher S (2005) Wetland resources: status, trends, ecosystem services, and restorability. Ann Rev Environ Resour 30:39–74.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144248 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Zorrilla-Miras P, Palomo I, Gómez-Baggethun E, Martín-López B, Lomas PL, Montes C (2014) Effects of land-use change on wetland ecosystem services: a case study in the Doñana marshes (SW Spain). Landscape Urban Plann 122:160–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seema Karki
    • 1
    • 4
  • Aye Myat Thandar
    • 2
  • Kabir Uddin
    • 1
  • Sein Tun
    • 3
  • Win Maung Aye
    • 3
  • Kamal Aryal
    • 1
  • Pratikshya Kandel
    • 1
  • Nakul Chettri
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD)KathmanduNepal
  2. 2.Christian Albrechts University KielKielGermany
  3. 3.Inle Lake Biosphere ReserveNyaung ShweMyanmar
  4. 4.Department of Infrastructure Engineering, Melbourne School of EngineeringThe University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations