21/05/2021

Assessing the services of

high mountain wetlands in
tropical Andes:

❧ Barrios Pinto, Edwin Piero

❧ Espinoza Junco, Luis Sebastián

A case study of Caripe wetlands at Bolivian Altiplano

Localization
❧ In Spanish: The Altiplano.
❧ In Quechua and Aymara: Collao.
❧ In English: Andean Plateau.

It is the most extensive area of high

plateau on Earth outside Tibet.

1
 21/05/2021

Caripe

Temperature and Precipitacion

❧ The average annual temperature

was 4.6º C (maximum 6.9º C and
minimum 1.0º C)
❧ The average annual total
precipitation was 321.1 mm
(maximum 430.4 mm and
minimum 60.4 mm)

2
 21/05/2021

High Mountain Wetlands in the

Altiplano (HAWs)
❧ Representative ecosystem critically important for both global biodiversity and local
livelihoods of indigenous communities. ❧ “Bofedales”
❧ HAWs more extensive are located in the
large depressions near rivers and streams.
❧ Green islands in an arid mountainous
environment.
❧ Habitat for endemic and/or endangered
species.
❧ Important source of water supply for
human consumption.

The natural condition of the area is

characterized by
❧ Hyper-aridity
❧ Intense solar radiation
❧ High-velocity winds
❧ Hypoxia
❧ Wide diurnal temperature
variation with daily frosts
❧ A short growing season
6

3
 21/05/2021

Types of HAWs

❧ HAW permanently wet ❧ HAW temporarily dry

Flora of HAWs

❧ Oxychloe andina ❧ Distichia muscoides ❧ Plantango Tubulosa

Fauna of HAWs

❧ Cauquén huallata ❧ Churrete de vientre blanco ❧ Chorlo cordillerano

(Oressochen melanopterus) (Cinclodes palliatus) (Phegornis mitchellii)

❧ Andean flamingo

❧ Harlequin toads

4
 21/05/2021

Objective of the Article

❧ Study has explicitly examined the
services and socio-economic benefits
of HAWs to indigenous communities
in this area.
❧ The study was intended to develop a
socio-economic assessment of HAWs
in relation to the livelihood and
indigenous culture of local human
settlements.

Methodology

A field study to
determine the main
ecosystem services
provided by the high
Andean wetlands of the
Caripe community.

10

5
 21/05/2021

Methodology

Selection of target
wetland services

• Interviews with relevant government

officers and local experts.

11

Methodology

Selection of target
wetland services

• The study identified five major

services of HAWs that are
either beneficial to local
inhabitants at Caripe or of
global importance.

12

6
 21/05/2021

Methodology
Value types and valuation
methods
❧ Replacement Cost (Water supply)
❧ Market Price (Livestock grazing and Recreation)
❧ Benefit transfer (Biodiversity)
❧ Contingent valuation (Culture)

13

Methodology
❧ Section 1 👉 Ask number of household members, age,
gender, and education, livelihood activities, and household
income.
Household
❧ Section 2 👉 To rank the importance of a set of
Survey identified wetland services as perceived by them.

❧ Section 3 👉 Questions designed for contingent value.

Hypothetical scenario.

14

7
 21/05/2021

Results
Perceptions of the importance of wetland services

15

Results
Economic value of wetland services

Water Supply
• Community obtains freshwater supply for daily use from the Pia Piani
spring in the wetlands. Amount of water collected: 120 L per household
per day.

• The replacement cost method was used that calculated the total cost of
constructing and operating boreholes.

• The water provisioning service of wetlands is worth at least US$ 4125

(in 2014 value) per year.

16

8
 21/05/2021

Results
Economic value of wetland services

Grazing service by
wetlands
Llamas generated on average US$ 650 per year
per household and alpacas US$ 3953 per year per
household, altogether providing the community an
annual gross income of US$ 156,502 per year or
US$ 323 per year per hectare of wetlands.

17

Results
Economic value of wetland services

Recreational Service
• Between November 2013 and late November
2014, the Tomarapi Shelter received 1812
visitors, who each paid an entrance fee of US$
4.50 to stay in the lodge.

• Direct economic income of at least US$ 8154

per year.

18

9
 21/05/2021

Results
Economic value of wetland services

Biodiversity
• Three candidate wetlands were analyzed for comparison: Coposa, Lirima and Caya.

• The economic values of biodiversity supported by the candidate wetlands ranged from
US$ 105 to US$ 210 per hectare per year.

• The wetland at Caya was considered most similar to our study wetlands at Caripe. It
was estimated at US$210 per hectare per year.

19

Results
Economic value of wetland services

Household
WTP
(Willingness-
to-pay)

20

10
 21/05/2021

Discussion
❧ Most inhabitants of the Caripe community valued local wetlands and were
concerned about wetland degradation.
❧ HAWs generate significant economic benefits to the local community by their
diverse services while being economically valuable for biodiversity.

21

Discussion
❧ Most inhabitants of the Caripe community valued local wetlands and were
concerned about wetland degradation.
❧ HAWs generate significant economic benefits to the local community by their
diverse services while being economically valuable for biodiversity.

22

11
 21/05/2021

1 ❧ The community was characterized by

relatively young people of poor
education, with most raising livestock
Conclusion
and living in extreme poverty.
2 ❧ Most community households valued
local wetlands and were concerned
about wetland degradation
3 ❧ Lack of awareness or knowledge about
wetlands ecological complexity in
relation to human impact could be the
reason for wetland degradation
4 ❧ The services of wetlands were not
equally important to the community

5 ❧ Local perception and judgment on wetlands status

Conclusion were based much on the availability, stability, and
quality of the services they can derive.
6 ❧ Livestock grazing generated the highest economic
benefit estimated at about US$ 323 per year per
hectare of wetlands, followed by biodiversity with
an economic benefit of US$200 per year per
hectare.
7 ❧ The economic value of cultural and natural
heritage and sense of aesthetics was estimated at
US$ 55 per year per hectare.
8 ❧ The services of recreation and water supply had
the lowest economic value of about US$17 per year
per hectare and US$9 per year per hectare,
respectively.

12
 21/05/2021

Bibliography
❧ Gandarillas,V.; Jiang, Y.; & Irvine, K. (2016). Assessing the services of high mountain
wetlands in tropical. Ecosystem Services, 51-64.
❧ Beck, Stephan & Domic, Alejandra & García Lino, Mary & Yager, Karina & Meneses,
Rosa & Halloy, Stephan. (2013). Plantas del Parque Nacional Sajama.
❧ Canedo, G., 2011. Estudio socioeconómico de las comunidades andinas bolivianas que
dependen de glaciares tropicales del área del Parque Sajama. La Paz, Bolivia: Agua
Sustentable, pp 34.
❧ Rocha, O., 2003. Situación y conservación De Los Bofedales En Bolivia y su importancia
En EL uso pastoril. La Paz, Bolivia: Viceministerio De Biodiversidad, Recursos Forestales
y Medio Ambiente.
❧ WWF (World Wildlife Fund), 2006. High Andean Wetlands Regional Strategy. (Available
online):〈http://wwf.panda.org/?63460/High-Andean-Wetlands-Regional-Strategy〉,
accessed in May 2021.

25

13