Valuing Social Costs and Benefits of Multiple Uses of Urban Wetlands: The Case of Nature Park, Kolkata

  • Debarpita BanerjeeEmail author
  • Sumana BandyopadhyayEmail author
Part of the Contemporary South Asian Studies book series (CSAS)


Wetlands and water bodies are important elements of Kolkata’s landscape as they form sensitive ecological niches for both flora and fauna. These ecosystems provide numerous services and, at the same time, play an excellent role in balancing urban conservation needs in the fight against ecological degradation. The city of Kolkata has recently witnessed the loss of innumerable water bodies due to alterations in land use related to the expansion of urban areas. This has advanced the city’s need for urban blue spaces so as to serve the citizenry’s quality of life and prioritise management policies. The rapid degradation of water bodies in Kolkata has created the necessity of preserving and restoring them; this can only be effectively executed through a process of economic valuation which takes into consideration the preferences of citizens. The study focuses on the conservation of a multi-purpose urban wetland—the Mudialy Fishermen’s Cooperative Society (MFCS), popularly known as a ‘Nature Park’—and also assesses visitors’ preferences regarding conservation by using the contingent valuation method (CVM). The financing of further conservation is associated with socio-economic characteristics and citizen use trends. This approach is likely to create awareness of conservation strategies; it concludes that visitors are willing to pay for areas that offer greenery, security, recreation and proper environmental conditions.


Wetland Ecosystem services People’s preference Economic valuation Contingent valuation method 


  1. Alvarez S, Larkin SL (2010) Valuing ecological restoration and recreational benefits in a mountain protected area: The case of Los Nevados National Park, Colombia. J Sustain Dev 3(4):3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armbrecht J (2014) Use value of cultural experiences: a comparison of contingent valuation and travel cost. Tour Manag 42:141–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandyopadhyay S, Narayanan K, Ramanathan A (2006) Determinants of willingness to pay for wetland conservation: a study of Kolkata wetlands. Stud Reg Sci 35(4):983–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann M, Hanley N, Hett T, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Ozdemiroglu E, Pearce DW, Sugden R, Swanson J (2002) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Breffle WS, Morey ER, Lodder TS (1998) Using contingent valuation to estimate a neighbourhood’s willingness to pay to preserve undeveloped urban land. Urban Stud 35(4):715–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carson RT (2000) Contingent valuation: a user’s guide. Environ Sci Technol 1413–1418Google Scholar
  7. Ciriacy-Wantrup SV (1947) Capital returns from soil-conservation practices. J Farm Econo 29(4–2):1189–1191Google Scholar
  8. Colombo S, Calatrava-Requena J, Hanley N (2003) The economic benefits of soil erosion control: an application of the contingent valuation method in the Alto Genil basin of southern Spain. J Soil Water Conserv 6:367–373Google Scholar
  9. Costanza R, Arge R, Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Costanza R, Farber SC, Maxwell J (1989) Valuation and management of wetland ecosystems. Ecol Econ 1:335–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Datta SK, Kapoor S (1992) Collective action, leadership and success in agricultural co-operatives. Indian Institute of Management, AhmedabadGoogle Scholar
  12. Emerton L (2005) Values and rewards: counting and capturing ecosystem water services for sustainable development. IUCN Water, Nature and Economics Technical Paper No. 1, IUCN—The World Conservation Union, Ecosystems and Livelihoods Group Asia, ColomboGoogle Scholar
  13. Ghosh N, Ghose D, Areendran G, Mehra D, Paliwal A, Raj K, Rajasekariah K, Sharma A, Singh AK, Srinivasan S, Worah S (2016) Valuing ecosystem services at the scale of a large mammal landscape: the case of the terai arc Landscape in Uttarakhand (Issue Brief No. 2)Google Scholar
  14. Groot R, Stuip M, Finlayson M, Davidson N (2006) Valuing wetlands: guidance for valuing the benefits derived from wetland ecosystem services. Ramsar Technical Report No. 3/CBD Technical Series No. 27, Gland, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanemann RT (2005) Contingent valuation. In: Mäler KG, Vincent J (eds) Handbook of environmental economics, vol 2, pp 822–920Google Scholar
  16. Jones N, Sophoulis CM, Malesios C (2008) Economic valuation of coastal water quality and protest responses: a case study in Mitilini, Greece. J Socio-Econ 37:2478–2491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kepner WG, Mouat DA, Lancaster JM, Liotta PH (2010) Summary: ecosystem services and human welfare. In: Liotta PK (ed) Achieving environmental security: ecosystem services and human welfare, vol 69. IOS Press, Amsterdam, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  18. Krause MS, Nkonya E, Griess VC (2017) An economic valuation of ecosystem services based on perceptions of rural Ethiopian communities. Ecosyst Serv 26:37–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee CK, Han SY (2002) Estimating the use and preservation values of national parks’ tourism resources using a contingent valuation method. Tourism Manage 23, 531–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Loomis J, Kent P, Strange L, Fausch K, Covich A (2000) Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecol Econ 33:103–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lusk JL, Hudson D (2004) Willingness-to-pay estimates and their relevance to agribusiness decision making. Rev Agric Econ 26(2):152–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mendelsohn R, Olmstead S (2009) The economic valuation of environmental amenities and disamenities: methods and applications. Annu Rev Environ Resour 34:325–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Merriman JC, Murata N (2016) Guide for rapid economic valuation of wetland ecosystem services. Bird Life International Tokyo, JapanGoogle Scholar
  24. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: wetlands and water synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. Munasinghe M (1992) Biodiversity protection policy: environmental valuation and distribution issues. Ambio, Economics of Biodiversity Loss 227–236Google Scholar
  26. Ndebele T, Forgie V (2017) Estimating the economic benefits of a wetland restoration programme in New Zealand: a contingent valuation approach. Econ Anal Policy 75–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ojeda MI, Mayer AS, Solomon BD (2008) Economic valuation of environmental services sustained by water flows in the Yaqui River Delta. Ecol Econ 65:155–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ramsar Convention Secretariat (2013) The ramsar convention manual: a guide to the convention on wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971), 6th ed. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  29. Sun H, Bergstrom JC, Dorfman JH (1992) Estimating the benefits of groundwater contamination control. South J Agric Econ 63–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. TEEB (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity ecological and economic foundations. In: Kumar P (ed)Google Scholar
  31. Tuan TH, Navrud S (2008) Capturing the benefits of preserving cultural heritage. J Cult Heritage 9:326–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Turner RK, Pearce DW (1993) Sustainable economic development: economic and ethical principles. In: Barbier EB (ed) Economics and ecology: new frontiers and sustainable development. Springer Science and Business Media Dordrecht, pp 177–194Google Scholar
  33. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2009) In valuing the protection of ecological systems and services. A report of the EPA Science Advisory Board. EPA-SAB-09–012Google Scholar
  34. Venkatachalam L (2004) The contingent valuation method: a review. Environ Impact Assess Rev 24:89–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of CalcuttaKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations