Environmental Development: Kausik Ghosh

Environmental Development 40 (2021) 100669
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Environmental Development
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envdev
A framework to assess the benefits and challenges of ecosystem

services of a reservoir-based wetland in the Himalayan foothills
Kausik Ghosh
Department of Geography, Vidyasagar University, India
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: The reservoirs of the dams and barrages are largely ignored in terms of the assessment of
Ecosystem services Ecosystem Services (ES) compared with other types of wetland. It is undoubtedly due to many
Reservoir-wetland adverse impacts of dam impoundment. However, stored water into the reservoirs gradually forms
Assessment framework
a significant wetland to enrich the biodiversity and support the essential ES. This research pre
Communities
Regulation
sents a comprehensive analysis of ES provided by the reservoir-based Gazaldoba Barrage Wetland
Water-level and sedimentation (GBW) in the Himalayan foothills on the river Tista in India. The study integrated qualitative and
Geopolitcs of water-sharing quantitative approaches to prepare an assessment framework to evaluate the ES of GBW, prin
cipally based on four indicators, sub-divided into 11 broad categories and further sub-divided into
11 sub-categories of benefits and challenges. The ES were assessed in two perspectives: first, the
study identified, measured and described the ES; second, it recognized the immediate challenges
to sustain the ES along with the potential challenges created by the operation of the barrage itself.
The assessment identified the significant role of GBW in extending ES to the riparian com
munities. GBW plays a vital role in controlling 5% of peak flood flow and can cover a 0.92 million
ha target area for irrigation. The reservoir water supports 80 bird species and 81 plant species and
attracts many tourists, generating >1000 employments and approximately $ 1.2 million as annual
revenue. In contrast, ES are sensitive to >84% of water level variations. Recent sedimentation
(~19 million metric tons in reservoir and canal) reduced the reservoir capacity and diversion
capacity by 7%. The high diurnal flow (3–4 h) varies >70 times of the low diurnal flow due to
upstream regulations, affecting the ES of GBW. Moreover, spatial variations in access to ES of
GBW influence the development of differential perceptions among riparian communities, while
GBW is vulnerable to increasing water demand and the geopolitics of future water sharing. Such
systematic assessments based on a framework are significant for future policies and management
of the river ecosystem to ensure the benefits of services for the riparian communities across the
basin.
1. Introduction
The last century observed the construction of more than 45,000 large dams to hold more than 6500 km3 of water into their res
ervoirs across the globe (Nilsson et al., 2005). Construction of these reservoirs had altered the existing ecology of the flowing water and
influenced the native species (Zhong and Power, 1996; Dudgeon 2000; Yuan et al., 2013). For example, the operation of the three
George Dams (TGDs) on Yangtze River have modified the streamflow, sediments and nutrients composition, altering the habitats of the
E-mail address: kausik.bhu@gmail.com.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2021.100669
Received 6 September 2020; Received in revised form 11 July 2021; Accepted 30 August 2021
Available online 8 September 2021
2211-4645/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
K. Ghosh Environmental Development 40 (2021) 100669
Fig. 1. Details of the study area, Gazaldoba barrage wetland (GBW) and surrounding deduced from the mountain basin of the Eastern Himalayan
River Tista to the foothill alluvial plain (North Bengal Plain). TBP is Tista Barrage Project, TMLC is Tista Mahananda Link Canals and TJLC is Tista
Jaldhaka Link Canals. Saraswatipur forest is the southern part of the Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary. The map prepared in ArcGIS using Google
Earth image base map.
2
flora, fauna, and microorganisms of the riparian and riverine ecosystem (New and Xie 2008; Fu et al., 2010). However, the stored
reservoir water due to impounding dams have attracted many species to develop in a new ecological condition by replacing or
maintaining the ecosystem of the native species (Meynell, 2013). As a result, the constructed reservoirs are also considered as an
effective form of wetland ecology that provide multiple ecosystem services (ES) (Qun and Hanying, 2007; Yuan et al., 2013; Jones
et al., 2019). Though, climate change and frequent water level variations due to increasing water demand and tourism industries have
threatened the reservoir ecology and ES (Daugherty et al., 2011; Arias et al., 2014; Debnath et al., 2014; Boyer et al., 2017). Addi
tionally, the politics and policies of water sharing and dam removal initiatives across the globe have undermined the extensive ES of
the reservoir-based wetlands (Junk, 2002; Kunz et al., 2011).
Therefore, the present study has used an assessment framework based on four natural and human-based indicators (hydrological,
ecological, economic and political) to evaluate the benefits and challenges of ES provided by a reservoir at the Himalayan foothills.
Furthermore, the study has questioned the repeated attempts to damage the ecosystem of the river; first, by the construction and
operation of engineering structures like dams/barrages, and second, due to the shortsighted political attempts, regulation policies and
human activities to modify the new ecosystem formed by the reservoir-wetland. Surprisingly, the systematic study on the benefits of
reservoir-wetlands to its surroundings and challenges to sustain the enormous ES are essentially ignored in scientific writings
compared to the assessments of other types of wetlands. Even though the Ramsar convention has incorporated the reservoirs into a
wetland’s definition (Ramsar Handbook, 2016), and very few studies have highlighted the essence of reservoir ES (Reilly et al., 2018;
Boix-fayos et al., 2020). Thus, reservoir-based wetlands are like any other natural wetlands that form primarily due to the
impoundment of river runoff by the regulating barrages or operational dams to provide multiple ES (Kim et al., 2006; Kim, 2013;
Zhaoning et al., 2013). The reservoir-wetlands on the river are considered as the interface between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
It provides critically essential ES like domestic water supply to cities, irrigation for agricultural lands, hydropower generations,
supporting biodiversity and ecological balance, flood regulation, nutrient cycling; and creating opportunities for recreation and
economic prosperity (Yiran et al., 2011; Zhaoning et al., 2013; Zhao and Liu, 2020).
Hence, to understand the ES of reservoirs like any other wetlands, the present study assessed the ES of a reservoir formed by barrage
operation on the Himalayan River Tista at Gazaldoba, named here as Gazaldoba Barrage Wetland (GBW). The study presumes that
GBW provides essential ES to the riparian communities and counters many challenges. The ES of GBW has been examined here for its
unique characteristic as a reservoir-wetland. Being a human-made wetland on a Himalayan River, the GBW controls the water-based
ES of approximately 30 million people across the border and plays a crucial geopolitical role between India and Bangladesh. Thus, the
objectives of the study are twofold: first, to assess the nature and significance of GBW to support ecosystem functions and services to
the riparian communities using a systematic assessment framework; and second, to investigate the existing and potential challenges to
sustain the ES of GBW and find out the constraints observed due to the operation of GBW. The study systematically evaluated the ES of
a reservoir-wetland integrating qualitative and quantitative data, field data and published data sources. Such assessment tool to
support a framework is significant in developing policy outlines, management and planning strategies for maintaining a sustainable ES
provided by the reservoir wetlands.
1.1. Study area
The GBW is located (26◦ 45′ 27.28′′ N; 88◦ 35′ 11.53′′ E) at the Himalayan foothills on the river Tista at Gazaldoba in the Jalpaiguri
district in the Indian state of West Bengal (Fig. 1). The Tista river originates at an elevation of ~7000 m. It flows down the Himalayan
glaciers, traversing 160 km of the Sikkim-Darjeeling mountain basin and debouches into the plain at Sevoke, an area adjacent to
Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary in the mountain front. The GBW is located further ~25 km downstream south of Sevoke. The total
catchment area of the Tista basin is about 12,653 km2, comprising an area of 8503 km2 in the upstream GBW and the rest 4150 km2 in
the downstream, extending up to Bangladesh, where it joins with the mighty Brahmaputra. This transboundary river provides water-
related services to the Indian state Sikkim in the upper basin, followed by the Northern part of West Bengal plain in India and further
the northwestern region of Bangladesh in the extended lower basin. The region witnesses surplus water during monsoon (May to
October) with 80–90% of annual total rainfall and experiences dry spells during non-monsoon (November to April) lean season
(Prokop and Walanus, 2017). The mean annual total streamflow was estimated 16.2 billion m3, the monsoon flow was 14 billion m3
and the non-monsoon flow was 2.2 billion m3 based on the data recorded between 1993 and 2016 at Gazaldoba. The inter-seasonal
discharge mimic the rainfall in the basin, and further contribution of upstream Himalayan glacial meltwater make Tista a perennial
river. The GBW is a part of the Tista Barrage Project (TBP), India, whose construction commenced in the late 1970s. The barrage was
ready to operate in 1987 but, is fully functional only since late 1997. The TBP is a multipurpose river project primarily designed for
irrigation, partially used to control floods, produced hydroelectricity from the link-canal falls, and for transportation. The barrage
diverted 10% (~2.1 billion m3/year) of the total mean annual water between 1998 and 2010 to irrigate 0.92-million-hectare target
area for agricultural development in six northern districts of West Bengal. A reservoir (pond) with 20.1 thousand m3/second (cumec)
designed for barrage operation with a super flood level at 115.3 m asl (Ghosh, 2013). As a result, the small reservoir hardly holds ~100
times higher peak flood-flow in monsoon due to storage capacity but actively holds water to divert half of the low flow during
non-monsoon months, primarily for irrigation (Ghosh and Chakraborty, 2021). The same reservoir of the TBP defined here as wetland
(GBW) following the definition of wetland in Ramsar Handbook (2016).
3
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Data
The field-based primary data were collected using a semi-structured questionnaire during Focused Group Discussions (FGDs) to
record the community perceptions on the ES of GBW. For further documentation of information on the ES of GBW, the study reviewed
and prepared the reference list from the publications of governmental and non-governmental organizations and agencies, newspapers
and various national and international published reports and articles. Besides, dams and barrage related information, like the year of
barrage construction and operation, size and type of the structure, maximum and minimum water level data were extracted from
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports, carrying capacity reports and barrage operation manual. The streamflow and sus
pended sediment concentration (SSC) data were collected from the Central Water Commission (CWC), India, at Domohani gauge
station (26◦ 33′ 48.97′′ N; 88◦ 45′ 20.91′′ E), which is located further ~25 km downstream of GBW (Fig. 1). The water level data were
collected from another CWC station located near GBW. A ten-day daily average inflow, outflow and canal flow data were collected
from the Gazaldoba barrage, Irrigation and Waterways Department, West Bengal. The annual rainfall data in millimeter (mm) were
averaged from a total of 14 IMD (Indian Meteorological Department) 0.250 grids across the basin (RajeevanBhate et al., 2005; https://
www.imdpune.gov.in). For the compilation of GBW area changes, the satellite image time-series were used for the non-monsoon
(mostly November) 30 m resolution Landsat images (TM, ETM and OLI sensors) between 1993 and 2016. A total of 24 image
scenes with path/row (139/041) were downloaded from USGS (http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/) with Level 1 T corrections (radio
metrically calibrated and terrain corrected). Thus, the study has combined the available secondary data from multiple reports, pub
lications, hydrological and satellite data with field-based qualitative data to prepare a framework on the benefits and challenges of ES
at GBW (Fig. 2).
2.2. Methods
2.2.1. Basis of ES assessment at GBW

Ecosystem services or functions are the subset of ecological processes and components to provide essential goods and services that
directly or indirectly satisfy human needs (Groot et al., 2002). The definition by Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005) divided
the ES into provisioning services, cultural services, regulating services, and supporting services. GBW provides a similar ES to its
surroundings that benefits many riparian communities (Ghosh and Singh, 2012). Therefore, the study prepared an ES assessment
framework on the benefits and challenges of GBW, which is centred on four natural and human-based indicators, namely hydrological,
ecological, economic and political (see supplementary information section: S1 and Figs. S1 and S2). Eventually, indicators (e.g. hy
drological) are again divided into broad categories (e.g. regulation services), which include major services and further sub-categories
(e.g. flood control) offering specific services. Such divisions aim to classify the details of ES into 22 total counts of benefits and
challenges for further comparison (Table 1). Accordingly, the assessment framework has identified five categories and eight
sub-categories of benefits in contrast to six categories and three sub-categories of challenges for ES. A similar framework was used in
several studies with different objectives (Haque et al., 2014; Liang et al., 2016; Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2019).
Data and Methods
Primary data Secondary data
Focused Group Published and 1) Hydrological data

Discussions unpublished (rainfall & discharge)
(FGDs) studies/reports 2) Satellite Images
Qualitative Integration of Quantitative

analysis qualitative and (statistical) analysis
quantitative analysis
Assessment of Ecosystem Services based on indicators,

categories and sub-categories
Fig. 2. The data and methods flow diagram used as tools to prepare the framework for the assessment of Ecosystem Services at GBW.
4
Table 1
Basis of ESs assessment and the total number of ESs benefits and challenges at GBW.
Number of Benefits Number of Challenges
Sl. No. Indicators Categories Sub-categories Categories Sub-categories
1) Hydrological 1 2 2 3
2) Ecological 1 3 1 –
3) Economic 2 3 2 –
4) Political 1 – 1 –
Total 4 5 8 6 3
*See further Supplementary Figs. S1 and S2 for conceptual diagrams and further details of the framework.
2.2.2. Focused Group Discussions (FGDs)

The study conducted four FGDs with semi-structured open-ended questions between December 2014 and March 2015 with 50
participants (see Supplementary Table S1). The FGDs were focused on understanding the positive and negative impact of GBW on ES
and its spatial extension, which is mainly perceived by the communities inhabiting near and distal downstream of the GBW. Hence, two
FGDs were conducted in proximity (~3 km) to GBW, and the other two FGDs were conducted between ~20 and ~50 km downstream
of GBW (Fig. 3). An FGD was performed in Millan-Pally, a fishing village ~3 km downstream that predominantly depends on GBW for
their livelihood. The qualitative studies of interview data on the perceptions of ES by the communities provide an in-depth assessment
of local circumstances (Raymond et al., 2008; Klain and Chan, 2012; Reilly et al., 2018; Jones et al., 2019). Therefore, the purposive
samplings were intended to target the riparian communities comprising mainly the locals, beneficiaries, and stakeholders directly and
indirectly associated with the ES. The discussions were primarily based on hydrological, economic (livelihoods), and ecological in
dicators, followed by Haque et al. (2014). The consultation meetings with the respondents (fishermen, local shopkeepers, farmers,
boatmen and other stakeholders like Panchayat or head of the village and residents) were aimed to gather their perceptions on three
significant aspects; first, direct and indirect benefits of GBW, second, the issues they have experienced if any due to GBW functioning;
and third, problems encountered by the GBW for benefit transfer (see Supplementary information, discussion checklist in section S2).
Fig. 3. Location of FGDs and representation of respondent communities in percentage (based on Supplementary Table S1), location A: near GBW, B:
located ~3 km downstream of GBW at Milanpally village; C: located ~20 km downstream of GBW at Changmari village and D: located ~50 km
downstream of GBW at Motihar Char. The map prepared in ArcGIS using Google Earth image base map.
5
Each discussion was documented and recorded for 120–150 min with 12 GB of video files. Finally, these qualitative data have been
used as evidence to interpret the ES of GBW, integrating the analysis of available quantitative data (Fig. 2). No attempts have been
made to quantify the responses to economic values.
2.2.3. Hydrological data analysis

According to the classified data dissemination policy, the discharge data authority recommended not to release the data publicly
and publish it further. Thus, the data have been shown in percentages, converted into other measuring units from the given basic units;
for example, the SSC converted into suspended sediment load (SSL) and streamflow into volume (billion meter3). There are differences
in flow measuring techniques between TBP and the Domohani CWC station. However, the measurement unit (m3/second) is the same.
The streamflow data at the barrage was available from 1993 to 2016. At Domohani CWC, the streamflow and SSC data were available
between 1990 and 2016, while SSC data was not available at the barrage. Therefore, to understand the sediment diversion process at
GBW, the available data at the downstream Domohani CWC station was considered to estimate the diverted streamflow-SSL ratio at
upstream GBW. Further, the diverted annual SSL was back-calculated and translated into a million metric tons (MMT) (Table 2).
2.2.4. Statistical analysis

The popular nonparametric Mann-Kendall (MK) trend test (Mann, 1945) was used to examine the presence of monotonic
decreasing or increasing trends in hydrological (discharge and rainfall) time-series data (Zhang et al., 2011; Ali et al., 2019). The MK
examined the significance of changes. Besides, it is not sensitive to outliers and is unaffected by the actual distribution as it ranks the
observations. At the same time, Sen’s slope estimator was applied to estimate the magnitude of the trend or change (Sen, 2007). Thus,
the study used the robust statistical assessment of MK and Sen’s slope estimator for hydrological data analysis rather than the linear
trend analysis (cf. Hamed, 2008). However, the hydrological time series data were analyzed at an annual scale for 24–27 years, which
is considered less sensitive than the large-scale daily data set (Sonali and Kumar, 2013). Even though the hydrological data analyses
observed variabilities within this period, the MK with Sen’s slope estimators is the most suitable statistical test for the available hy
drological data (see Supplementary information S3 and S4, Equation A.1 to A.4 and B.1).
To comprehend the role of GBW in flood control, the study measured the 90th percentile threshold to extract the number of peak-
flows and associated flow diversion or regulation. The 90th percentile peak streamflow event is the event where the total flood peak-
flow is greater than or equal to 90 percent of all storm events over a given period of available data.
2.2.5. Reservoir area and capacity estimation

The GBW area changes due to the degree of impoundment and water level variation in the reservoir caused by the seasonal changes.
Therefore, to calculate the changing reservoir area, a ~25 km2 buffer surrounding the barrage was demarcated. The boundary of the
buffer area is defined by the impounding barrage in the south, part of Gazaldoba forest-beat in the east, Saraswatipur forest in the west
and a random transect at ~5 km upstream north of the barrage (Figs. 1 and 4). For precise delineation of the reservoir water area,
annual satellite images from 1993 to 2016 were used to employ the Normalized Difference Water Index (NDWI) to calculate the
reservoir capacity further.
NDWI = (G − NIR)/(G + NIR) (1)
NDWI highlights the area covered by water in an image scene which was calculated from the Near-Infrared (NIR) and Green (G)
channels. The water and non-water (sandbars and vegetation) features were extracted and mapped to calculate the water area using
ESRI ArcGIS 10.4 software (Fig. 4). The missing information on the capacity of the reservoir was estimated using the following
equation (2) proposed by Lehner and Döll (2004), which was used for Global Reservoir and Dam (GRanD) database. The coefficient
and power were estimated from a statistical regression analysis of 5824 reservoirs of the GRanD database using Equation (2):
Wv (MMC) = 0.678 (A*h)0.9229 (2)
where, Wv = wetland volume/capacity in 106 m3 (MMC); A is the reservoir area in km2; and h is the dam height in m. Based on the
barrage manual, the reservoir’s drawdown to the barrage’s maximum height was considered here as 7 m. The parameters like the
wetland area, the reservoir capacity, the streamflow and sediment were averaged and divided into three periods between 1993 and
Table 2
Average reservoir capacity and average suspended sediment at GBW in three different periods.
Year Average Average Annual discharge Average SSL at Total SSL Calculated SSL at SSL increased relative to
Area (km2) Capacity diverted by barrage CWC (MMT) diverted GBW (MMT) pre-barrage operation at
(MMC) (%) (MMT)a GBW (%)
1993–1997 4.6 16.60 0 7.36 – 7.36 –

1998–2010 5.7 20.26 15 46.36 6.95 53.3 624%
2011–2016 6.3 22.16 18 13.47 2.43 15.9 116%
The pre-barrage operation period was between 1993 and 1997 (see section 2.2.5 for further details). MMC = million cubic meters; SSL = suspended
sediment load, MMT = million metric ton.
a
Back-calculated, assuming the % of streamflow diversion by the barrage has also been diverted the same ratio (%) of SSL, the estimated SSL
diversion added with the SSL recorded at downstream Domohani CWC station to get the total SSL at upstream GBW.
6
Fig. 4. The GBW water area (~25 km2 buffer) changes due to variable regulation by the barrage since 1993 to 2016. All images belong to same
month (November) except 1995 (February) while the year 2000 was skipped from further analysis due to cloud cover.
2016 (Table 2). These divisions were mainly based on the period of construction and operation of dams and barrage in the basin
responsible for the alteration of streamflow and sediment relations. These periods are 1993–1997 (before full-fledged operation of
barrage), 1998 to 2010 (barrage started operation and many upstream dams were under construction) and 2011 to 2016 (regulation by
upstream dams and the barrage). This approach is useful in understanding the impact of pre- and post-regulation periods on
streamflow and sediment and further ES (Table 2).
3. Results
3.1. Benefits
3.1.1. Regulation services (hydrological indicators)
3.1.1.1. Flood control. The geographical location of the Tista basin in the eastern Himalayas attracts heavy rainfall during the
monsoon. Monsoonal rainfalls generate massive streamflow and sediment load from the mountain hinterland to the downstream
alluvial plain, often causing a flood. During 1968 extreme precipitation in the region caused an unprecedented flood with more than
19,000 m3/s discharge (Rudra, 2003). According to Biswas and Nandi (1976), more than $ 1.3 million immovable properties were
destroyed; around 2000 human lives and livestock perished, and nearly 1500 km2 of cultivated land submerged. Coincidentally, after
the construction of GBW, no such devastating flood was recorded and experienced by the locals. The marshes surrounding the GBW act
as buffers to control the extreme flow from the upstream mountain basin into the downstream plain (Fig. 1). The diversion of average
monsoon water progressively increased by more than 14% between 1998 and 2010 (Ghosh, 2014). Again, the 90-percentile peak-flow
analysis shows that GBW successfully regulated on an average 5% of the flood-flow during monsoon months between 1998 and 2016
(Fig. 5). Riparian communities also believe that the GBW and embankments along the river play a vital role in regulating the flood in
the basin.
3.1.1.2. Peak-flow modification. Analysis of 27 years’ Domohani CWC gauge data has shown that the average peak-flow reduced to
4434 m3/s (28%) during the post-barrage operation period (1998–2016) as compared to 6189 m3/s during the pre-barrage
7
Fig. 5. The 90th percentile monsoon peak flow analysis, a) the blue colour bars are showing number of peak-flood discharge (at the barrage)
recorded in an individual year between 1998 and 2016 (the barrage regulation period), and shows flow regulation in yellow color bars during the
same period by GBW, b) the suspended sediment load (SSL) data recorded during the same period at Domohani CWC station along with the
regulated flow at GBW. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
(1990–1997) period (Fig. 6). The pre-barrage period recorded more than 7000 m3/s discharge in four discrete years in the eight years
of analysis, with the maximum peak-flow of 8966 m3/s recorded in 1992. Conversely, the post-barrage operation period only once
documented about 7396 m3/s as the peak-flow (in 2000) out of 19 years of long-span. Thus, Fig. 6 shows that the peak flow recorded a
significantly decreasing trend at an annual rate of 87 m3/s/year with a 90% confidence level (Table 3). Similarly, suspended sediment
flow remains constant since 2010 due to sediment absorption by GBW and upstream reservoirs with a cumulative capacity of 89.15
million m3 (Ghosh and Chakraborty, 2021) and further by diversion (Table 2). Remarkably, the peak-flood flow regulation reduced
between 2009 and 2013, and since then, the SSL recorded a reduced and constant value (Fig. 5) due to the commencement of reservoirs
of the upstream dams. Surprisingly, the flood-flow regulation was increased since 2014 after the operation of the TJLC that diverts
water through the east canal and other sediment dredging initiatives by the barrage authority at TMLC.
3.1.2. Habitat (ecological indicators)

GBW is considered one of the significant waterfowl habitats. At least 20,000 waterfowl of various species are observed during the
8
Peak-fl ow i n thousands cumecs
2
1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014
Year
Fig. 6. Reducing peak-flow trend observed at ~25 km downstream of GBW at Domohani CWC gauge station between 1990 and 2016.
8
Table 3
Trends in hydrologic (rainfall and discharge) parameters using MK and Sen’s slope estimator.
Parameters (units) Mann Kendall (MK) Test
Test S Test Z Significance Sen’s slope

3
Peak-flow (m /second) − 83.00 − 0.236 ** − 87.222
Inflow (billion m3) − 68.00 − 0.246 ** − 0.14
Canal flow (billion m3) 36.00 0.171 0.04
Rainfall (mm) 86.00 0.312 * 22.856
* and ** represents significance at 95% and 90% confidence levels, respectively in reference to the critical Z value. The negative values indicate a
decreasing trend, and the positive value shows an increasing trend.
peak season between November and March (Seth, 2016). The episodic ponding at GBW provides relatively high-water clarity and
substratum with a mosaic of habitat patches that supports optimal habitat and environment for the species richness.
3.1.2.1. Bird species. The available water in the GBW reservoir has become a highly likely spot for the Red-breasted mergansen Mergus
Serator, a migratory polytypic bird species geographically distributed over North America, Europe, Greenland and Asia (Das and Das,
2017). More than 80 species of birds are found in GBW, among which 44 species are exclusive to the wetland. There are 32 species of
waterbirds (dominantly Anatidae), mainly winter migrants or passage migrants, one summer migrant, and 11 species of local migrants
or residents (Datta, 2011a). The bird density is primarily seasonal and categorized as local migratory birds (all seasons), winter mi
grants, monsoon birds (summer) and nesting birds. During the monsoon, many non-diving wading and dabbling birds are observed in
the wetland surroundings. The habitat size determines the species diversity and the variation of existing reservoir water-level between
4 and 5 m affects both in the wetland (Fig. 7). The common bird species identified by Prince (2003) near GBW are predominantly
common Shelduck (Tadorna tadorna), Falcated Duck (Mareca falcata), Garganey (Spatula querquedula), Red-crested Pochard (Netta
rufina), Ferruginous Pochard (Aythya nyroca), Lesser Sand Plover (Charadrius mongolus), Northern Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), Osprey
(Pandion haliaetus), Western and Eastern Marsh Harriers (Circus aeruginosus and Circus spilonotus), Hen Harrier (Circus cyaneus), Per
egrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), Great Crested (Podiceps cristatus) and Black-necked Grebes (Podiceps nigricollis).
3.1.2.2. Flora diversity. The rich biodiversity of 81 plant species, including four fern species, distributed in 75 genera under 45
families, encircle the GBW reservoir (Talukdar, 2013). Many of these species have significant medicinal values and use as fuel, fodder,
and house building materials by the locals.
3.1.2.3. Fish habitat. The GBW maintains structural heterogeneity due to diverse macrophytes, whose growth is attributed to the non-
monsoon water level in the reservoir and relatively minimum human intervention (Fig. 4). More than 73 species of zooplankton are
found in the GBW, and the diversity of these species are positively correlated with the water’s depth (Datta, 2011). While researching
on a similar subject, Chakrabarty and Homechaudhuri (2013) identified the role of water level at GBW in enhancing the species
richness and calculated the species richness index value as 11.56, with 65 fish species, which is relatively higher than the surroundings.
3.1.3. Provisioning services (economic indicators)
3.1.3.1. Irrigation and agriculture. The GBW is the part of TBP; essentially made for irrigation purposes. The GBW supplies irrigation
water to the region through two significant canals: west-flowing TMLC and east-flowing TJLC (Fig. 1). Cumulatively, the TMLC (since
1998) and later TJLC (since 2014) supplied a mean annual of 2.3 billion m3 irrigation water to the surroundings from its inception till
2016. The Sen’s slope estimated a positive change (increasing) of 0.04 billion m3 or 40 million m3/year discharge diversion through
Fig. 7. Maximum and minimum water level (in meter) variations at GBW between 1998 and 2010 based on CWC gauge station data located near
GBW. Source: Ghosh (2013).
9
the canals, but with a non-significant increasing trend (Fig. 8 & Table 3). The TBP targeted to supply irrigation water from GBW to 0.92
million hectares of agricultural land, primarily to support the winter crops (Rabi), especially the Boro (a dry variety of paddy)
cultivation in the region. According to the respondents, the GBW water regulation services have created opportunities for many
downstream farmers. For example, new emerging lands (islands are locally called ‘char’), with fertile soil within the river in the GBW
downstream are the most suitable lands for cultivation, attracting massive potato cultivation. Farmers are also involved in producing
groundnuts between March and May on the char. Paddy and seasonal vegetables (June to September) are predominantly grown in the
flood plains and elevated land between two groins along the embankments (locally called ‘kayam’). Kayam is considered highly fertile
land alongside the major channels due to episodic deposition of nutrient-laden sediment by the monsoon flood every year. Besides,
potato cultivation between October and December is the dominant farming activity in the char.
3.1.3.2. Hydroelectricity and drinking water supply. One of the significant ambitious projects of TBP is to generate 67.5 MW of hy
droelectricity from the TMLC canal falls near Siliguri (an important commercial town of West Bengal). Also, TMLC supplies around five
m3/second of drinking water to the Siliguri city. At the same time, such reservoirs and constructed-wetland ecosystems are very useful
to remove the nutrients and eliminate algal blooms’ risk to maintain a safe drinking water supply (Yang et al., 2019).
3.1.4. Livelihood opportunities

The villagers at Millan Pally have acknowledged the role of GBW irrigation water supply in the agricultural fields. The villagers dug
ponds for pisciculture next to the farmlands, promoting the fishery industry as a livelihood option. As a result, Millan Pally was
honoured with the best fishing village title by the Government of West Bengal in 2014–15. The irrigation water, directly and indirectly,
supports to enhance fish production, thus creating opportunities for the local fishermen. Also, the tourist hotels and food stalls near
GBW become the immediate markets for the local fishermen’s fish (Fig. 9, e). Local boatmen also get to capitalise on the GBW by
offering boating services to tourists as a form of recreation (Fig. 9, a). A total of 10 local boats operates during the non-monsoon tourist
season near GBW. Furthermore, the mushrooming food stalls and hotels near GBW are primarily owned and operated by the locals,
thus creating an additional source of livelihood.
3.1.4.1. Tourism and recreations. It was noticed during an FGD near GBW, the Government of West Bengal has been constructing more
than 201 acres of eco-tourism park named ‘Bhorer-Alo’ (The Light of the Dawn, Fig. 9, b) principally based on GBW. The tourism
department has invested about $ 41 million for the project, from which it is expected to generate a revenue of $ 615,654 as annual lease
rental and approximately $ 547,248 in luxury taxes from the hotels. A couple of hotel chains are expected to serve around 0.1 million
tourists annually, and the same can generate more than 1000 jobs (Laharoy, 2015). The eco-tourist park will serve many water-based
recreation facilities. It intends to offer services like boat cruise, kayaking, water wheels, water balloons, elephant bath, camping, bird
watching, observation of scenic beauty of the sun rising and setting near GBW.
3.1.5. Geopolitics of the transboundary river (political indicators)

The GBW is at the centre of the controversial Tista water sharing between India and Bangladesh. The canals of GBW in upstream
have been attributed to divert a significant volume of water depriving downstream. Thus, the water-sharing treaty has become a bone
of contention between the two countries. Consequently, since the inception of GBW, many failed attempts have been made in
negotiating the volume of water share through a permanent treaty. The Tista water treaty became a significant issue for political
development in Bangladesh after the long-standing Ganga water treaty with India in 1996. On the other hand, in India, the federal
structure and constitutional provisions allow the state governments to participate in legislative water-sharing policies along with the
union government. Consequently, the last couple of decades witnessed the failure of the state and central government to arrive at a
consensus over the Tista water sharing. The possible reason is due to two different political parties acting in both governments.
Although Tista water-sharing in India does not influence the internal politics, like the treaty is crucial before elections in Bangladesh.
Nonetheless, India intends to share water by resolving its internal politics to sustain a good relationship with the neighbouring
countries like Bangladesh. In this study, no direct political questions were asked during the FGDs, no evidence of grievance due to the
Fig. 8. Increasing trend of annual water diversion through canals, since the late 1997 the GBW started diversion water through canals. See the
Table 3 further.
10
Fig. 9. Photographs show, a) boatmen at the GBW marsh surrounded by Saraswatipur forest (see Fig. 1), b) the new eco-tourist park (Bhorer-Alo)
ongoing construction between canal and marsh land of GBW (see further Fig. 1 for plan view).
water-sharing conflict perceived at the ground level (communities in India), as many riparian communities are dependent on the cross-
border economic activities, and many have their relatives and shared common cultures across the border.
3.2. Challenges
The GBW has encountered six categories and three sub-categories of issues under the four indicators that threaten the sustainable
ES.
3.2.1. Upstream regulations and impact on GBW (hydrological indicators)

In the upstream mountain basin of GBW, around thirteen run-of-the-river (RoR) dams with >25 MW capacity are producing hy
droelectricity and partially hold water into small storage reservoirs. Many dams store river flows into their reservoirs for approxi
mately 20 h a day during the non-monsoon months. Two NHPC (National Hydroelectric Power Corporation) dams immediately
upstream of GBW (within ~52 km) release the flow around 10 m3/s almost throughout the day and witness >700 m3/s (70 times
higher) for at least 3–4 h as sudden peak discharge during late evening or early morning for hydropower (Ghosh and Chakraborty,
2021). These hydropeaking reservoirs do not divert water from the basin; instead, such ‘stop and go’ flow release is primarily
responsible for frequent downstream water level fluctuations. As an outcome, flora and fauna of the barrage wetland and further
downstream have been affected by diurnal water level fluctuations (Rudra, 2018).
3.2.1.1. Impact of water level variations. The CWC gauge station at Gazaldoba recorded the annual average water level at around 109
m while about 111.3 m was the maximum and 106 m was the minimum water level at GBW (Fig. 7). It is ecologically very sensitive
when less than 6 m deep wetland experiences around 5 m of water level fluctuations (>84%). Whereas water-based tourism and
Fig. 10. a) shows the wetland area variations in different periods before the barrage water diversion to recent operations based on the area
extracted from satellite images of non-monsoon November months (see Fig. 4), b) shows the regulation/diversion of water of November months for
the mentioned period by the GBW canals. Boxes contain the interquartile range (IQR) values varies from 25th to 75th percentile and whiskers are
showing minimum (at bottom) and maximum (at top) from the 25th to 75th percentiles. The bold line and cross marks within the boxes are showing
median and mean values, respectively.
11
recreation services are often sensitive to the variation of water levels (Daugherty et al., 2011). The FGDs documented that severe low
flow condition affects the boatmen and fishing communities downstream of GBW due to reduced streamflow, specifically during the
daytime non-monsoon months due to the flow regulations mentioned above.
3.2.1.2. Sedimentation. The mean SSL estimation at GBW has shown a remarkable increase of 53.3 MMT during 1998–2010 compared
to 7.36 MMT in 1993–1997 and about 15.9 MMT during 2011–2016 (Table 2). Likewise, the mean SSL also recorded a slightly higher
concentration during post-dam than the pre-dam condition. The unusual increase (624%) in sedimentation during 1998–2010 relative
to the pre-barrage period was principally attributed to dam construction activities and construction of roads that destroyed the
vegetation cover and exposed soil in the basin (Table 2). Consequently, excessive logging, earthquakes, heavy rainfall triggered soil
erosion in upstream and generated huge SSL. Sedimentation is the main threat to the capacity of GBW to hold the floodwater (Fig. 5).
Since the inception of the barrage, the local people surrounding GBW have recently witnessed a higher water level than ever before.
Also, the diverted sediment and the streamflow can reduce the capacity of the canals (Table 2).
3.2.1.3. Changing water area and regulation. The Fig. 10 shows that the average water area of GBW was about 4.6 km2 during the pre-
barrage period (1993–1997), while from 1998 to 2010 (only TMLC was functional), the average wetland area increased to 5.7 km2 and
further during 2011–2016 (both TMLC and TJLC were functional) the mean area recorded 6.3 km2. In 2010, the GBW area reduced to
2.5 km2 due to downstream flushing through major gates of the barrage (Fig. 4). Consequently, the box plot (Fig. 10, a) between 1998
and 2010 experienced variabilities in the wetland area. In contrast, the GBW area during 2011–2016 shows consistency in the water
area with a higher average value. At the same time, the flow diversion boxplot (Fig. 10, b) of November months recorded a higher share
(47%) between 1998 and 2010 than the flow diversion during 2011–2016 (average 40%). It suggests that the latter shows consistency
compared to the former, as illustrated in Fig. 10, a. Indeed, increasing water area and reducing regulated flow during 2011–2016 does
not indicate an increase in water level at GBW. While the shallow depth (<6 m) of reservoir impoundment forces water to backflow and
spill into the marshes resulting in area expansion (Fig. 4). Additionally, massive sedimentation into the shallow reservoir and canals
(Table 2) is supposed to be the reason behind reducing the capacity (depth) of the GBW and irrigation by 7% average (Fig. 10, b). The
same fact was evidenced in Fig. 5, b, and section 3.1.1.2. The sharp sediment peaks injected immediately after the dam constructions
(~52 km upstream of GBW) during 2003, 2004 and 2008, exposing mountain slopes through deforestation (Kanade and John 2018)
that delivered huge in-channel SSL to reduce the flood flow regulation capacity of GBW. Conversely, the second possibility is that the
GBW stored more water and released more into downstream, and thus, diversion decreased. Nevertheless, considering the low capacity
of GBW (~20 MMC) and increasing water demand, reducing flow regulation (Fig. 10, b) and disappointment of Bangladesh over
reducing streamflow downstream (Syed et al., 2017) strongly suggests the first possibility that the depth and diversion capacity of the
GBW has reduced, irrespective of the water area expansion. Noteworthy to mention, the mean annual inflow from upstream at GBW
decreased by 10% (Fig. 11). Therefore, expansion in the GBW area does not imply more water into the reservoir; instead, it shows
sedimentation and reducing inflow and water volume.
3.2.2. Climate change and hydrological alterations

The mountain springs and small rivers are drying up (Tambe et al., 2011), snow is melting rapidly (Immerzeel et al., 2010; Khadka
et al., 2014), the weather has been relatively warmer in the last ten years. The spatiotemporal variability of rainfall and decreasing
non-monsoon rainfall (Seetharam, 2008; Tambe et al., 2012) indicate the climate change impact on the Tista river streamflow
(Fig. 11). However, the annual total rainfall between 1993 and 2016 has shown a marginally increasing trend of 23 mm/year with a
p-value 0.05 significant level (Fig. 11). Regardless of that, the inflow at GBW from upstream recorded a negative change of 0.14 billion
m3 or 140 million m3/year, the MK test showed a significant decreasing trend at the 90% confidence level (Table 3). It reveals that
more than the annual rainfall, the discharge from the mountain basin is severely vulnerable to other climatic factors like temperature
and evapotranspiration (Chaudhary and Bawa. 2011; Immerzeel et al., 2012; Sharma and Goyal, 2020). Additionally, uncontrolled
human activities have altered the vegetation of the upstream basin, which remains a significant threat to streamflow and sediment
discharge (Kanade and John 2018).
3.2.3. Ecology and ecosystem alteration (ecological indicators)

The diversity and abundance of waterbird species are positively correlated with the wetland water area and the water level (Clipp
Fig. 11. The annual total rainfall in millimeter (mm) in the Tista basin and the inflow water in thousand m3/second recorded the annual total
streamflow from upstream basin at GBW.
12
et al., 2017; Haig et al., 2019). Higher water level variation (Fig. 7) and reducing water depth accompanied by limited reservoir
capacity (Fig. 10, b) of the GBW is essentially due to the barrage operation and excessive sedimentation (Fig. 5 & Table 2). It can
potentially affect the breeding of the bird species, endangering the nesting diversity of aquatic birds in the wetland. Meanwhile, the
observations from the FGDs downstream of GBW found that the fish species (especially a local variety called Boroli, Barilius barila; a
tropical Himalayan foothill fish of family Cyprinidae) in the Tista river has been drastically declining in numbers. In the last couple of
years, the catch time duration for a certain amount of fish has increased more than 12 times before the barrage operation by the fishing
communities in the distal downstream. As a result, the downstream communities are inclined to believe that the fishermen in proximity
to GBW are only getting the benefits of fishing due to relatively high-water levels, depriving the distal downstream with regulated low
water conditions. Strikingly, suppose all the 26 proposed RoR dams become functional across the Tista basin; in that case, approxi
mately 52–88% of the free-flowing upstream river stretch will be diverted through the tunnels, and about 7.6–24% of the riverine
ecosystem will be converted into a lacustrine ecosystem which is likely to affect more than 100 of the fish species across the basin
(Bhatt et al., 2017).
3.2.4. Water-based tourism and challenges (economic indicators)

The new tourism industry based on the water recreation at GBW attracts several developmental activities like roads, new built-up
areas for shops, eco-tourism parks, cottages and hotels. A similar wetland landscape near Guanting Reservoir Basin in China was
adversely affected by land-use land cover alteration due to urbanization that largely influenced the water supply, disturbed the habitat
and impacted water quality (Huang et al., 2019). Hence, the recent developmental activities (see section 3.1.4.1) near GBW have
altered the land-use land cover and created additional demand for consumptive water use. This study has estimated the probable water
demand of the new tourism industry applying 135 L per capita/day (lpcd) standard, as was followed by Shaban and Sharma (2007). It
has been anticipated that an additional 13.64 million lpcd of annual water demand will be created by the 0.11 million potential tourist
influxes, including the people associated with the tourism services. This additional water demand will undoubtedly raise the stress on
GBW and further downstream. Besides, the tourist influx may generate extra waste in GBW surroundings.
3.2.5. Hydroelectric dams, regulations and water demand

The wide gap between the ambitious target area (0.92 million ha) for irrigation and the actual irrigated area (0.34 million ha) in the
first phase is far from the expectation of the TBP authority. Due to streamflow variations resulting in water shortage and increasing
water demand in different sectors other than the agricultural. As a result, the overestimated 63% of the area (0.58 million ha) remains
unirrigated by the TBP. The unirrigated command areas are predominantly dependent upon groundwater extraction to satisfy the
water requirement during the non-monsoon lean season. Eventually, groundwater depletion will be one of the significant environ
mental crises in the region (Syed et al., 2017). Besides, an estimation projected that a minimum of 70 m3/s flow is required to generate
around 22.5 MW of hydroelectric power (Rudra, 2018). Hence, to produce 67 MW power by the canal falls of GBW, it needs 210 m3/s
streamflow. In the last couple of years, in multiple days of non-monsoon months, the gauge stations have hardly recorded streamflow
above 100 m3/s (Ghosh, 2013). Thus, it is difficult to generate 67 MW of hydroelectricity each day during the lean seasons while other
sectors like agriculture and surrounding cities gradually increase water demand.
3.2.6. Politics of quantitative water sharing and environmental flow (political indicators)
The first interim ad hoc agreement draft on the Tista water-sharing was proposed by the Joint River Committee (JRC) in July 1983;
it was decided to allocate 36% of the water to downstream Bangladesh, 39% to India and the remaining 25% was considered unal
located. However, in 1984, the JRC amended the previous decision and recommended that India shall receive 42.5% and Bangladesh
shall receive a 37.5% share of the water. Meanwhile, the unallocated water was assumed to be an environmental flow, which was
subsequently reduced to 20% against the previous 25%. After a long pause until 2010, the proposed new agreement had divided the
lean season flow into 50-50 proportions between the two countries, leaving aside 20% of the environmental flow. However, till date,
no decision on quantitative sharing has been taken by the two countries. Surprisingly, the geopolitics of the quantitative water-sharing
treaty has completely overlooked the environmental flow of the river. Additionally, along with the annual total flow, the lean season
discharge has been reduced dramatically (Ghosh, 2014; Basu, 2017; Rudra, 2018). Climatic factors and ever-increasing water demand
have imbalanced the streamflow of the river (Fig. 11). Therefore, considering the prevailing conditions, the proposed 50-50 proportion
of water treaty could no longer serve the overestimated area for irrigation, either in India or in Bangladesh. Contrarily, these issues
could prove to be detrimental to the existing ecosystem of the GBW.
4. Discussion
4.1. Assessing the benefits of ES of reservoir-wetland
Frequent assessment of reservoir ES considering various natural and anthropogenic indicators is essential to provide a framework
for the policymakers (Reilly et al., 2018; Boix-fayos et al., 2020). The study has attempted to assess the unexplored ES of the
reservoir-wetland, which replaced the natural river ecosystem to provide significant ES. However, the results of ES assessments have
found both positive and negative impacts of GBW. Collectively, reservoir wetlands can improve habitat diversity, enhance fish pro
ductivity and boost livelihoods through water-based tourism. As noticed, the peak-flood flow partially absorbed by the GBW.
Simultaneously, water-based recreations, boating, fishing, and irrigation for farming have ensured alternative livelihood options for
the riparian communities. According to Groot et al. (2002), water regulation services are the most crucial ES to maintain the ‘normal’
13
flow condition in the watershed and check the extreme flood events. Nevertheless, the dramatic reduction of peak flow (Fig. 6) in
dicates reducing upstream supply, revealing the impact of upstream regulation by dams and GBW despite the positive rainfall trend
(Table 3). Apart from the storage capacity, GBW avoids diverting the monsoon flow (~5%) through the link canals due to a flood-like
situation in the region by heavy rainfall. Even with multiple ES, the present study found that the reservoir wetlands are largely ignored
compared to any other wetlands of the world primarily due to two reasons. First, such wetlands are the outcome of human regulated
riverine ecology and contrast with the natural wetlands. Second, an unpredictable water level variation is prevalent in reservoir-based
wetlands due to flow regulation, which creates difficulties in defining a stable wetland area for sustaining the ES as documented in the
present study (Fig. 10).
4.2. Assessing the role of GBW and challenges for ES
Besides providing the essential ES to its surroundings, the flow regulations by GBW have created identical issues like any other
reservoir wetlands in the world. Liang et al. (2016), in a similar study on the Yellow River’s Xiaolangdi reservoir, has systematically
estimated the ecological cost-benefit analysis and found many challenges faced by the reservoir to sustain the ES. The low capacity to
hold the peak monsoon flow at the GBW has limited the flood regulation services compared with the large reservoirs (Bhattacharyya,
2011) and natural wetlands (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2019). On the other hand, the water level at GBW is controlled by the upstream
dams, climatic factors and frequent barrage operations, specifically during the non-monsoon months. Hence, the water level fluctu
ation into the reservoir wetland is unfavourable for its flora, biotic and abiotic components of the aquatic ecosystem and ecological
processes (Fu et al., 2003; Wantzen et al., 2008; Leira and Cantonati, 2008). In addition, the GBW has been impounding the excessive
sediments from upstream and releasing less sediment downstream. As an outcome, it may increase the carrying capacity and energy of
the barrage released water downstream (such flow is called ‘hungry water’ by Kondolf, 1997). Over the last several years, downstream
riverbank shifting and frequent flooding indicate the significant role of GBW and upstream dams in altering the streamflow and
sediment relationships (Ghosh, 2013, 2014, 2015), affecting the ES further downstream. The FGDs reveal a disparity in the spatial
distribution of ES. According to downstream communities, the communities located near GBW have been enjoying the added benefits
of ES. Conversely, the communities distal downstream of GBW have been experiencing many negative impacts of regulation on the
downstream hydrology, ecology and economy. Therefore, the benefits of GBW are debatable (for example, flood-control) in different
river reaches with varying community perceptions even across the border (Haque et al., 2014). Such situations certainly intensify the
water conflict between the two nations if the benefits are not shared across the basin.
4.3. Assessment of threats to GBW and ES
The GBW also encounters the adverse effects of climate change and human-induced changes, like any other tropical wetlands
(Junk, 2002; Gopal, 2013; Arias et al., 2014). Cumulatively, climate change, upstream hydroelectric dams, increasing water demand in
agriculture, and adjacent cities (Fig. 8) are the significant challenges affecting the streamflow (Fig. 11). Several studies have addressed
the effect of dam operations on water quality and quantity, timing, duration and amplitude of the flow affecting the downstream
ecology and many pre-existing riparian wetlands (Welcomme et al., 2006; Kunz et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2013). Besides, the sediment
accumulation in the foothills has been increasing due to dam constructions, land-use changes and deforestation, frequent landslides
and sudden earthquakes in the mountain basin. Subsequently, sedimentation into the reservoir and canals reduced the expected
irrigation capacity and is the potential reason for water spillage from the canals (c.f. Hargrove et al., 2010; Rudra, 2018). Remarkably,
recent surplus sediment deposition into the reservoir is responsible for reducing depth and water exceeding the super flood level
(115.3 m) at GBW. In the present study, increasing mean wetland area of GBW and reservoir capacity estimation (Equation (2)) did not
consider the increasing sedimentation (Fig. 10). However, the estimated surplus sediment (Table 2) can be correlated with the
reducing capacity of GBW that restricted to check the peak floods (Fig. 5). Eventually, the considerable sedimentation may cause more
Green House Gases (GHG) emissions, like other hydroelectric and non-hydroelectric dams, which needs further studies. These dams
have released a higher amount of methane, carbon, and nitrogen into the atmosphere, which is primarily determined by the surface
area of the reservoirs (Tranvik et al., 2009; Deemer et al., 2016). Thus, it is essential to manage the sediment of GBW to protect the
existing ES and avoid extreme flood events in future. Moreover, extremely dynamic streamflow and sediment deposition in the Hi
malayan Rivers like Tista is sensitive to climate change (Immerzeel et al., 2012) and anthropogenic activities (Tambe et al., 2012;
Ghosh, 2014). Thus, the attempt to systematically assess the ES of reservoir-wetland will help to manage and sustain the ES for the
benefit of the communities across the basin.
4.4. Regulation of reservoir-wetland and policy consideration
Significantly, in a transboundary Himalayan River like the Tista, increasing cross-boundary water demand and water-sharing
geopolitics will remain an essential and unique threat for the reservoir-wetland ecology. According to a study by Thethirdpol.net,
the river Tista can only supply one-sixteenth of lean season irrigation water demand between India and Bangladesh, based on currently
available 100 m3/s of water for 1600 m3/s demand of Boro cultivation in the region (Basu, 2017). Therefore, the proposed 50-50
proportion of water-sharing treaty will only satisfy short term political benefits. More to the point, the escalating water demand
during the lean season and the water-scarce situation in the basin may not serve the over expected water demand in both the countries.
Both nations avoid sharing the data publicly on streamflow conditions, which can further stimulate distrust and conflict. Subsequently,
it will be harmful to the existing ecosystem of the GBW if the treaty fails to ensure environmental flow. Again, policies on water
14
sharing, like dam removal across the globe, may affect the reservoir’s ecology (Bednarek, 2001). However, to sustain the minimum
environmental flow across the basin, water sharing policies should be made considering the extensive ES of GBW that should be
prioritized over any quantitative water sharing. Again, caution should be taken while increasing the water level for sustaining wetland
ecology by the barrage impoundment, indicating more regulation of natural streamflow (Wantzen et al., 2008). Significantly, at ~100
km downstream of GBW, a similar barrage reservoir has been operating to divert water for irrigation to large areas in Bangladesh.
Thus, both the countries need to realize that the barrages constructed for irrigation of the vast agricultural area were based on the then
(pre-barrage) hydrological discharge that hardly exists at present due to climate variabilities and proliferating water demands across
the basin, rendering the project unrealistic and unsustainable.
Likewise, multiple phases of upstream dam constructions and operations and barrage diversion have altered the streamflow and
sediment relationships, thus force to adjust the existing river ecology and natural ecosystem. Despite this fact, the livelihood op
portunities, species diversity and regulation services of reservoir-wetlands remain very crucial during the threat of global climate
change. However, it is essential to avoid further constructions and regulations of streamflow by the new dams to sustain the ES of the
existing reservoirs like GBW. Also, future studies can be performed based on the proposed framework to find out the benefits, chal
lenges, and threats of all existing reservoirs across the Himalayan River basins in reference to climate change, and further attempts can
be made for economic valuation of ES of such wetlands.
5. Conclusion
The study has demonstrated an approach to integrate the qualitative and quantitative data analysis in preparing an assessment
framework for a reservoir-based wetland ES. The assessment has systematically identified multiple ES, issues related to the barrage
operation and the prospective challenges encountered by the reservoir-wetland on the Himalayan River. The study found that the
riparian communities developed a sense of inequality in ES based on accessibility to the benefits of GBW. Further barrage operation
and sedimentation need proper management to maintain the water level to sustain the reservoir ecology and economic prosperity of
the beneficiaries. In an account of that, massive irrigation water demand and the geopolitics of quantitative water-sharing are un
realistic and harmful for the river ecology and existing ES of the reservoir-wetland. A holistic approach by the stakeholders of the basin
across the border needs to be devised and strengthened through dialogues considering the benefits of reservoir ES. Bilateral policies
need to be formulated considering the vast ES of the existing reservoirs for the river ecology and riparian communities across the basin.
Author statement
The author supervised the field investigations during the Focused Group Discussions (FGDs) and responsible for the collection of
qualitative and quantitative data used in the study. Further, conceptualization, analysis, writing and review process of the manuscript
accomplished by the author.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
The author is thankful to the Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of India, DST-FIST program for funding the Department
of Geography, Vidyasagar University. The author is also grateful to the Central Water Commission (CWC), India, Indian Meteorological
Department (IMD) and Gazaldoba barrage authority, Department of Irrigation and Waterways, Government of West Bengal for
providing the hydrometeorological data. Furthermore, the author would like to thank Professor Enamul Haque, United International
University, Dhaka, for his initial suggestions to develop the FGD frameworks. Finally, the author is grateful to the anonymous re
viewers for their valuable comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2021.100669.
References
Ali, R., Kuriqi, A., Abubaker, S., Kisi, O., 2019. Long-term trends and seasonality detection of the observed flow in Yangtze River using mann-kendall and sen ’s
innovative trend method. Water 11, 1855. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11091855.
Arias, M.E., Thomas, A.C., Matti, K., Hannu, L., Gordon, W.H., Jorma, K., Thanapon, P., 2014. Impacts of hydropower and climate change on drivers of ecological
productivity of southeast asia’s most important wetland. Ecol. Model. 272, 252–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.10.015.
Basu, J., 2017. Teesta Has One-Sixteenth of Water Needed. Thethirdpole.net. https://www.thethirdpole.net/en/2017/04/14/teesta-has-one-sixteenth-of-water-
needed/.
15
Bednarek, A.T., 2001. Undamming Rivers: A Review of the Ecological Impacts of Dam Removal 27 (6), 803–814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002670010189.
Bhatt, J.P., Tiwari, S., Pandit, M.K., 2017. Environmental impact assessment of river valley projects in upper teesta basin of eastern himalaya with special reference to
fish Conservation : a review. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 5517, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2017.1354642.
Bhattacharyya, K., 2011. The Lower Damodar River: understanding the human role in changing fluvial environment. In: Nusser, M. (Ed.), Advances In Asian Human-
Environmental Research 308. Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, & New York.
Biswas, A., Nandi, H., 1976. Floods in eastern India. In: Eastern Regional Affairs (ERA), vol. 1, pp. 23–30 (Calcutta).
Boix-fayos, C., Boerboom, L.G.J., Janssen, R., Martínez-mena, M., Almagro, M., Pérez-cutillas, P., Eekhout, J.P.C., Castillo, V., Vente, J. De, 2020. Mountain ecosystem
services a ff ected by land use changes and hydrological control works in Mediterranean catchments. Ecosystem Services 44, 101136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecoser.2020.101136.
Boyer, T.A., Richard, T.M., Larry, D.S., 2017. Effects of climate variation and water levels on reservoir recreation. Lake Reservoir Manag. 1–11. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10402381.2017.1285375.
Chakrabarty, M., Homechaudhuri, S., 2013. Fish guild structure along a longitudinally-determined ecological zonation of teesta, an eastern Himalayan River in West
Bengal, India. Arxius Miscel⋅lània Zoològica 11, 196–213. https://doi.org/10.32800/amz.2013.11.0196.
Chaudhary, P., Bawa, K.S., 2011. Local perceptions of climate change validated by scientific evidence in the Himalayas Subject collections Local perceptions of
climate change validated by scientific evidence in the Himalayas. Society, pp. 767–770. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2011.0269.
Clipp, H.L., Michael, L.P., James, T.A., 2017. Winter waterbird community composition and use at created wetlands in West Virginia, USA. Sci. Tech. Rep. 13 https://
doi.org/10.1155/2017/1730130, 2017.
Das, S., Das, M., 2017. Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator in gajoldoba, Siliguri, West Bengal. Indian Birds 12 (6), 166.
Datta, T., 2011. Zooplankton diversity and physico-chemical conditions of two wetlands of Jalpaiguri district, India. Int. J. Appl. Biol. Pharmaceut. Technol. 2 (3),
576–581.
Datta, T., 2011a. Human interference and avifaunal diversity of two wetlands of Jalpaiguri, West Bengal, India. J. Threat. Taxa 3 (12), 2253–2262.
Daugherty, D.J., Buckmeier, D.L., Kokkanti, P.K., 2011. Sensitivity of recreational access to reservoir water level Variation : an approach to identify future access
needs. North American Journal OfFisheries Management 31, 63–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/02755947.2011.559846.
Debnath, D., Boyer, T.A., Stoecker, A.L., Sanders, L.D., 2014. Nonlinear reservoir optimization model with stochastic Inflows : case study of lake tenkiller. J. Water
Resour. Plann. Manag. 141 (1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000409.
Deemer, B.R., Harrison, J.A., Li, S., Beaulieu, J.J., Delsontro, T., Barros, N., Bezerra-neto, J., Powers, S.M., Santos, M.A.D., Vonk, J.A., 2016. Greenhouse gas emissions
from reservoir water surfaces: a new global synthesis. Bioscience 66 (11), 949–964. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw117.
Dudgeon, D., 2000. Large-scale hydrological changes in tropical Asia: prospects for riverine biodiversity. Bioscience 50 (9), 793–806. https://doi.org/10.1641/
00063568(2000)050[0793:lshcit]2.0.co;2.
Fu, C., Wu, J., Chen, J., Wu, Q., Lei, G., 2003. Freshwater fish biodiversity in the Yangtze River basin of China: patterns, threats and conservation. Biodivers. Conserv.
12, 1649–1685.
Fu, B., Wu, B., Lu, Y., Xu, Z., Cao, J., Niu, D., Yang, G., Zhou, Y., 2010. Three gorges project: efforts and challenges for the environment. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 34 (6),
741–754. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133310370286.
Ghosh, K., 2013. Changing pattern of channel planform after Gazaldoba barrage construction, Teesta River, West Bengal. Unpublished MPhil thesis. JNU, New Delhi.
Ghosh, K., 2014. Planform pattern of the lower teesta river after the Gazaldoba barrage. Indian Journal of Geography & Environment 13, 127–137.
Ghosh, K., 2015. Sandy macroforms dynamics and one-dimensional facies characterization of the river Teesta, 14. Indian Journal of Geography & Environment,
pp. 1–15.
Ghosh, K., Chakraborty, P., 2021. Assessing the benefits, threats and conservation of reservoir-based wetlands in the eastern Himalayan River basin. In: Sharma, S.,
Singh, P. (Eds.), Wetlands Conservation, first ed. John Wiley & Sons Ltd (in press).
Ghosh, K., Singh, R., 2012. Reservoir based wetland ecosystem services, Gazaldoba reservoir, West Bengal, India. In: Proceeding: International Wetland Symposium
(IWS) 7th to 9th November-2012, Pokhara, Nepal, 236pp. Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wetlands in Nepal. 978-9937-2-5938-5: 133-142.
Gómez-Baggethun, Erik, Tudor, Marian, Doroftei, M., Covaliov, Silviu, Năstase, A., 2019. Changes in ecosystem services from wetland loss and restoration: an
ecosystem Assessment of the danube delta (1960–2010). Dalia Florentina Onără, and others Ecosystem Services 39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecoser.2019.100965, 1432, 100965.
Gopal, B., 2013. Future of wetlands in tropical and subtropical Asia, especially in the face of climate change. Aquat. Sci. 75, 39–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-
011-0247-y.
Groot, R.S.D., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R.M.J., 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. In:
Ecological Economic, vol. 41, pp. 393–408. www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon.
Haig, S.M., Murphy, S.P., Matthews, J.H., Arismendi, I., Safeeq, M., 2019. Climate-altered wetlands challenge waterbird use and migratory connectivity in arid
landscapes. Sci. Rep. 9 (4666), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-41135-y.
Hamed, K.H., 2008. Trend Detection in Hydrologic Data: the Mann – Kendall Trend Test under the Scaling Hypothesis, pp. 350–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhydrol.2007.11.009.
Handbook, Ramsar, 2016. An Introduction to the Convention on Wetlands (Previously the Ramsar Convention Manual). Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland,
Switzerland.
Haque, E.A.K., Zaman, M.A., Ghosh, K., Khan, M.T., 2014. Revisiting the Concept of Environmental Flows: A Perception Study on Riparian Communities on Teesta
River Banks in Bangladesh and India. Unpublished report funded by Bangladesh Lawyers Agency (BELA).
Hargrove, W.L., Johnson, D., Snethen, D., Middendorf, J., 2010. From dust bowl to mud bowl: sedimentation, conservation measures, and the future of reservoirs.
J. Soil Water Conserv. 65 (1), 4A–17A. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.65.1.14A.
Huang, Q., Zhao, X., He, C., Yin, D., Meng, S., 2019. Impacts of urban expansion on wetland ecosystem services in the context of hosting the winter Olympics : a
scenario simulation in the guanting Reservoir Basin , China. Reg. Environ. Change. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01552-1.
Immerzeel, W.W., van Beek, L.P.H., Bierkens, M.F.P., 2010. Climate change will affect the asian water towers. Science 328 (1382). https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.1183188.
Immerzeel, W.W., van Beek, L.P.H., Konz, M., Shrestha, A.B., Bierkens, M.F.P., 2012. Hydrological response to climate change in a glacierized catchment in the
Himalayas. Climatic Change 110 (3–4), 721–736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0143-4.
Jones, S.K., Boundaogo, M., Declerck, F.A., Estrada-carmona, N., Mirumachi, N., Mulligan, M., 2019. Insights into the importance of ecosystem services to human
well-being in reservoir landscapes. Ecosystem Services 39, 100987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100987.
Junk, W.J., 2002. Long-term environmental trends and the future of tropical wetlands. Environ. Conserv. 29 (4), 414–435. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0376892902000310.
Kanade, R., John, R., 2018. Topographical influence on recent deforestation and degradation in the Sikkim Himalaya in India; Implications for conservation of East
Himalayan broadleaf forest. Appl. Geogr. 92, 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.02.004. June 2017.
Khadka, D., Babel, M.S., Shrestha, S., Tripathi, N.K., 2014. Climate change impact on glacier and snow melt and runoff in tamakoshi basin in the hindu kush
himalayan (HKH) region. J. Hydrol 511, 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.01.005.
Kim, K., 2013. The demilitarized zone (DMZ) of korea: protection. Conservation and Restoration of a Unique Ecosystem. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38463-9.
Kim, K., Park, M., Choi, H., 2006. Developing a wetland-type classification system in the Republic of Korea. Landsc. Ecol. Eng. 2, 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11355-006-0012-x, 2006.
Klain, S.C., Chan, K.M.A., 2012. Navigating coastal values: participatory mapping of ecosystem services for spatial planning. Ecol. Econ. 82, 104–113. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.07.008.
Kondolf, G.M., 1997. Hungry water: effects of dams and gravel mining on river channels. Environ. Manag. 21 (4), 533–551.
16
Kunz, M.J., Wüest, A., Wehrli, B., Landert, J., Senn, D.B., 2011. Impact of a large tropical reservoir on riverine transport of sediment, carbon, and nutrients to
downstream wetlands. Water Resour. Res. 47, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010996.
Laharoy, T., 2015. New tourism hub to come up near Teesta barrage in Bengal. Read more at://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49181467.cms?utm_
source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst, (Accessed, 08/10/2019).
Lehner, B., Döll, P., 2004. Development and validation of a global database of lakes, reservoirs and wetlands. J. Hydrol 296, 1–22.
Leira, M., Cantonati, M., 2008. Effects of water-level fluctuations on Lakes : an annotated bibliography. Hydrobiologia 613, 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10750-008-9465-2.
Liang, C., Xin, S., Dongsheng, W., Xiuying, Y., Guodong, J., 2016. The ecological benefit – loss evaluation in a riverine wetland for hydropower projects – a case study
of Xiaolangdi reservoir in the Yellow River, China. Ecol. Eng. 96, 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.12.037.
Liu, W., Liu, G., Liu, H., Song, Y., Zhang, Q., 2013. Subtropical reservoir shorelines have reduced plant species and functional richness compared with adjacent
riparian wetlands. Environ. Res. Lett. 8 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/044007.
Mann, H.B., 1945. Nonparametric tests against trend. The Econometric Society Stable 13 (3), 245–259. URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/1907187.
Meynell, P.-J., 2013. Enhancing Ecological Diversity of Reservoirs with Constructed Wetlands: Part I – Developing the Concept. Project Report: Challenge Program on
Water & Food Mekong Project MK3, Optimizing the Management of a Cascade or System of Reservoirs at the Catchment Level. ICEM – International Centre for
Environmental Management, Hanoi Vietnam, 2013.
New, T., Xie, Z., 2008. Impacts of large dams on riparian Vegetation : applying global experience to the case of China’s three gorges dam. Biodivers. Conserv. 17,
3149–3163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9416-2.
Nilsson, C., Reidy, C.A., Dynesius, M., Revenga, C., 2005. Fragmentation and flow regulation of the world’s large river systems. Science 308, 405–408. https://doi.
org/10.1126/science.1107887.
Prince, M., 2003. Birding Trip Report North Bengal & Sikkim. India November 2003. https://www.kolkatabirds.com/trip_reports/netrip1.html.
Prokop, P., Walanus, A., 2017. ‘Impact of the Darjeeling–Bhutan Himalayan front on rainfall hazard pattern’. Natural Hazards. Springer Netherlands 89 (1), 387–404.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-2970-8.
Qun, G., Hanying, M., 2007. Ecological restoration, social-economic changes and sustainable development in the three gorges reservoir area: a case study in yunyang,
chongqing. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 14 (2), 174–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504500709469717.
Rajeevan, M., Bhate, J., Kale, J.D., Lal, B., 2005. Development of a high resolution daily gridded rainfall data for the Indian region. Met. Monograph Climatology No.
22/2005. Indian Meteorological Department. Govt. of India. https://www.imdpune.gov.in/Clim_Pred_LRF_New/Grided_Data_Download.html.
Raymond, C.M., Bryan, B.A., Hatton, D., Cast, A., Strathearn, S., Grandgirard, A., Kalivas, T., 2008. Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem
services. Ecol. Econ. 68 (5), 1301–1315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.12.006.
Reilly, K., Adamowski, J., John, K., 2018. Participatory mapping of ecosystem services to understand stakeholders’ perceptions of the future of the Mactaquac Dam,
Canada. Ecosystem Services 30, 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.01.002.
Rudra, K., 2003. Taming the teesta. The Ecologist Asia 11 (1).
Rudra, K., 2018. Rivers of the Ganga- Brahmaputra- Meghna Delta: A Fluvial Account of Bengal. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76544-0.
Seetharam, K., 2008. Climate change synthetic scenario over gangtok. ENVIS, 1–18. http://sikenvis.nic.in/writereaddata/1-chapter-Climate_Change_Synthetic_
Scenario_over_Gangtok.pdf.
Sen, P.K., 2007. Estimates of the Regression Coefficient Based on Kendall ’s Tau 63 (324), 1379–1389.
Seth, P., 2016. Indian cormorant. Dazzling Gajaldoba. https://www.flickr.com/photos/23985194@N06/24707558260/in/photostream/. (Accessed 20 October
2019). Accessed.
Shaban, A., Sharma, R.N., 2007. Water consumption patterns in domestic households in major cities. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 2190–2197.
Sharma, A., Goyal, K.M., 2020. ‘Assessment of the Changes in Precipitation and Temperature in Teesta River Basin in Indian Himalayan Region under Climate
Change’, Atmospheric Research. Elsevier, p. 231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2019.104670, 104670, June 2019.
Sonali, P., Kumar, D.N., 2013. Review of trend detection methods and their application to detect temperature changes in India. J. Hydrol. 476, 212–227. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.10.034.
Syed, A., Haq, A., Uzzaman, A., Goodrich, C.G., Mallick, D., Mini, G., Sharma, G., et al., 2017. The Teesta Basin Enough Water for Power and Agriculture for All?
Himalayan Adaptation, Water and Resilience Research. HI-AWARE), Kathmandu, Nepal.
Talukdar, D., 2013. Species richness and floral diversity around ‘teesta barrage project’ in Jalpaiguri district of West Bengal, India with emphasis on invasive plants
and indigenous uses. Biol. Med. 5, 1–14.
Tambe, S., Arrawatia, M.L., Bhutia, N.T., Swaroop, B., 2011. Rapid, cost effective and high resolution assessment of climate-related vulnerability of rural communities
of Sikkim himalaya, India. Curr. Sci. 101 (2), 165–173.
Tambe, S., Kharel, G., Arrawatia, M.L., Kulkarni, H., Mahamuni, K., Ganeriwala, A.K., 2012. Reviving dying springs: climate change adaptation experiments from the
Sikkim himalaya. Mountain research and development. International Mountain Society 32 (1), 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-11-00079.1.
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), 2005. Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: General Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Tranvik, L.J., Downing, J.A., Cotner, J.B., Loiselle, S.A., Striegl, R.G., Ballatore, T.J., Dillon, P., et al., 2009. Lakes and reservoirs as regulators of carbon cycling and
climate. Limnol. Oceanogr. 54 (6), 2298–2314. , part 2.
Wantzen, K.M., Rothhaupt, K.O., Mortl, M., Cantonati, M., G Tóh L, Fischer, P., 2008. Ecological effects of water-level fluctuations in lakes: an urgent issue.
Hydrobiologia 613, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-008-9466-1.
Welcomme, R.L., Winemiller, K.O., Cowx, I.J., 2006. Fish environmental guilds as a tool for assessment of ecological condition of rivers. River Res. Appl. 22, 377–396.
https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.914.
Yang, C., Nan, J., Yu, H., Li, J., 2019. Embedded reservoir and constructed wetland for drinking water source protection: effects on nutrient removal and
phytoplankton succession. J. Environ. Sci. 87 (Jianhua Li), 260–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2019.07.005.
Yiran, Z., Zhaoning, G., Huili, G., Wenji, Z., 2011. Investigating the dynamics of wetland landscape pattern in beijing from 1984 to 2008. J. Geogr. Sci. 21, 845–858.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-011-0884-z, 2010.
Yuan, X., Zhang, W., Liu, H., Xiong, S., Li, B., Deng, W., 2013. The littoral zone in the three gorges reservoir, China: challenges and opportunities. Environ. Sci. Pollut.
Res. 20, 7092–7102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-012-1404-0.
Zhang, Z., Chen, X., Xu, C., Yuan, L., Yong, B., Yan, S., 2011. Evaluating the non-stationary relationship between precipitation and streamflow in nine major basins of
China during the past 50 years. J. Hydrol. 409 (1–2), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.07.041.
Zhao, D., Liu, J., 2020. A new approach to assessing the water footprint of hydroelectric power based on allocation of water footprints among reservoir ecosystem
services. Phys. Chem. Earth 79 (82), 40–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2015.03.005.
Zhaoning, G., Hong, L.I., Wenji, Z., Huili, G., 2013. Driving forces analysis of reservoir wetland evolution in beijing during 1984 – 2010. J. Geogr. Sci. 23 (4),
753–768. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-013-1042-6.
Zhong, Y., Power, G., 1996. Some Environmental Impacts of Hydroelectric Projects on Fish in Canada. Impact Assess. 14 (3), 285–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/
07349165.1996.9725905.
17

Environmental Development: Kausik Ghosh

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Development: Kausik Ghosh

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Development 40 (2021) 100669

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

A framework to assess the benefits and challenges of ecosystem

E-mail address: kausik.bhu@gmail.com.

1.1. Study area

2. Materials and methods

2.2.1. Basis of ES assessment at GBW

Data and Methods

Primary data Secondary data

Focused Group Published and 1) Hydrological data

Qualitative Integration of Quantitative

Assessment of Ecosystem Services based on indicators,

Sl. No. Indicators Categories Sub-categories Categories Sub-categories

2.2.2. Focused Group Discussions (FGDs)

2.2.3. Hydrological data analysis

2.2.4. Statistical analysis

2.2.5. Reservoir area and capacity estimation

NDWI = (G − NIR)/(G + NIR) (1)

Wv (MMC) = 0.678 (A*h)0.9229 (2)

1993–1997 4.6 16.60 0 7.36 – 7.36 –

3.1.1. Regulation services (hydrological indicators)

3.1.2. Habitat (ecological indicators)

Test S Test Z Significance Sen’s slope

3.1.3. Provisioning services (economic indicators)

3.1.4. Livelihood opportunities

3.1.5. Geopolitics of the transboundary river (political indicators)

3.2.1. Upstream regulations and impact on GBW (hydrological indicators)

3.2.2. Climate change and hydrological alterations

3.2.3. Ecology and ecosystem alteration (ecological indicators)

3.2.4. Water-based tourism and challenges (economic indicators)

3.2.5. Hydroelectric dams, regulations and water demand

4.1. Assessing the benefits of ES of reservoir-wetland

4.2. Assessing the role of GBW and challenges for ES

4.3. Assessment of threats to GBW and ES

4.4. Regulation of reservoir-wetland and policy consideration

Declaration of competing interest

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2021.100669.

You might also like