Wetland Conservation and Local Stakeholder Perception in the South-East Mylliem Block, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya, India

Abstract

Wetlands are among the most productive and most rapidly degrading ecosystems on earth, and in the hill states of north-east India small ponds, streams and riparian tracts sustain rural water security while remaining largely undocumented and outside formal protection. Because such wetlands lie on community-owned land, their fate depends less on statutory designation than on the knowledge, values and everyday practices of the people living beside them. This study assessed the distribution of wetlands and the perceptions of local stakeholders in the South-East Mylliem Community and Rural Development block of East Khasi Hills district, Meghalaya. A mixed-methods design combined semi-structured interviews with approximately ten per cent of households across thirteen villages, sampled with the permission of village headmen, with field verification of existing and former wetland sites and GPS/GIS mapping of their locations. Ponds, streams and river reaches were recorded across three survey clusters. Awareness of wetlands and of their ecological importance was high (73–89 per cent), and support for their conservation was very high (86–96 per cent). Respondents identified land-use change, deforestation, urbanisation and pollution as the principal drivers of wetland decline, and reported dependence on wetlands for fishing, drinking water, agriculture and washing. Preference for community-led and tradition-based conservation, together with regulatory support, consistently outweighed preference for physical barriers such as fencing, and responsibility was seen as shared rather than governmental. Yet reported use of media as a source of conservation information was negligible (about one per cent), revealing a marked gap between awareness and action. The findings indicate that conservation in this landscape should build on customary institutions and community stewardship, strengthened by improved environmental communication, sustainable land-use regulation and coordinated government support.

Introduction

The study investigates the wetlands of the South-East Mylliem Community and Rural Development (C&RD) Block in Meghalaya, focusing on their ecological importance, community perceptions, human impacts, and conservation challenges. Wetlands are transitional ecosystems between land and water that provide essential ecosystem services, including flood control, groundwater recharge, water purification, biodiversity conservation, and carbon storage. Despite their ecological significance, wetlands are among the world's most threatened ecosystems due to agricultural expansion, urbanization, pollution, and climate change.

In India, although the Ramsar Convention recognizes internationally important wetlands, only a small proportion of the country's wetlands receive formal protection. Most small, rural wetlands remain outside legal conservation frameworks. In Meghalaya, where land is largely owned and managed by communities through customary institutions such as village Durbars and Himas, wetland conservation depends heavily on local stewardship rather than government regulation.

The study focused on thirteen villages within the South-East Mylliem block, an area located near Shillong that is increasingly affected by peri-urban expansion, quarrying, waste disposal, and land-use change. Researchers used a mixed-methods approach involving household interviews, field observations, GPS mapping, geotagged photographs, and GIS analysis to identify wetlands, assess human activities affecting them, and evaluate local knowledge and conservation attitudes.

Field surveys revealed that wetlands in the study area consist mainly of small village ponds, spring-fed streams, and short river reaches, all located on community land without formal legal protection. Several former wetland sites identified by local residents no longer contain water, indicating that wetland loss has already occurred within living memory.

Community awareness of wetlands and their ecological importance was generally high. Between 73% and 89% of respondents recognized the importance of wetlands, while 86% to 96% supported their conservation. Interestingly, support for conservation exceeded ecological awareness in all survey clusters, suggesting a strong willingness to protect wetlands even among individuals with limited scientific understanding.

Local communities identified land-use change, deforestation, urbanization, and pollution as the principal causes of wetland degradation. In some villages, domestic activities such as washing clothes in streams were also recognized as contributing to pollution. These perceptions closely match scientific evidence identifying landscape transformation as the primary driver of global wetland loss.

The wetlands remain essential for local livelihoods. Residents rely on them for fishing, drinking water, irrigation, agriculture, washing, and other ecological and cultural services, demonstrating that these ecosystems continue to provide vital provisioning, regulating, and cultural ecosystem services.

When asked about conservation strategies, respondents strongly preferred community-based approaches over purely physical or governmental interventions. Traditional conservation practices, customary rules, and community collaboration received greater support than fencing or infrastructure-based measures. Most respondents viewed wetland protection as a shared responsibility involving local communities, government agencies, and non-governmental organizations, with particular emphasis on strengthening customary institutions.

A key finding of the study is the existence of an awareness–action gap. Although almost all respondents supported wetland conservation, very few received environmental information through newspapers, television, or social media. This indicates that positive conservation attitudes have not translated into coordinated action due to limited communication, weak environmental outreach, and insufficient institutional support.

The discussion concludes that communities possess an accurate understanding of the causes of wetland degradation and are willing to participate in conservation. However, successful conservation requires integrating traditional community stewardship with formal regulations, rather than relying exclusively on either approach. Since many threats originate outside the wetlands themselves, effective conservation must also address surrounding land-use practices, deforestation, settlement expansion, and waste management.

The study recommends four major actions:

1. Strengthen environmental awareness through local institutions such as village Durbars and schools rather than relying primarily on mass media.
2. Formally recognize and support community-based management of wetlands using customary governance systems.
3. Regulate land-use activities, including deforestation, construction, and waste disposal, within wetland catchments through collaboration between communities and government.
4. Expand the current wetland inventory into a long-term monitoring program using GIS mapping and regular water-quality assessments.

Conclusion

Wetlands in the South-East Mylliem block are small, community-owned, ecologically significant and formally unprotected. The communities that live beside them are well informed, correctly identify land-use change and deforestation as the principal threats, depend on these systems for fishing, drinking water, agriculture and washing, and overwhelmingly support their conservation, preferring tradition-based and community-led approaches backed by rules over physical enclosure. Wetland loss here is thus not a failure of awareness or of will, but of mobilisation: support is broad, unfocused and poorly served by environmental communication, while enforcement of both statutory and customary norms is weak. Four recommendations follow. First, environmental communication should be strengthened through channels that actually reach these villages—the durbar, schools and village institutions rather than mass media—so that latent support becomes specific action. Second, conservation should be built on the customary institutions the respondents already trust, formally recognising village-level stewardship of ponds and streams. Third, because the drivers lie outside the water body, sustainable land-use regulation covering deforestation, construction and waste disposal in wetland catchments is essential, coordinated between traditional bodies and the state. Fourth, the wetland inventory begun here should be extended into a monitored baseline, combining repeat GIS mapping with water-quality measurement, so that change can be detected rather than merely perceived. The block is ecologically rich and under-researched; documenting it now, while both the wetlands and the knowledge attached to them persist, offers the clearest route to conserving the ecosystems and the livelihoods that depend on them.

References

[1] Ballut-Dajud G A, Sandoval Herazo L C, Fernández-Lambert G, Marino-Tapia I & Betanzo-Torres E A. 2022. Factors affecting wetland loss: a review. Land 11(3): 434. [2] Bullock A & Acreman M. 2003. The role of wetlands in the hydrological cycle. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 7(3): 358–389. [3] Cowardin L M, Carter V, Golet F C & LaRoe E T. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC. [4] Debnath D & Yengkokpam S. 2024. Wetland fisheries of north-east India: status, livelihood significance and management. Indian Journal of Fisheries (in press). [5] Dingha B N, Jackai L E N & Amoah B A. 2025. Socio-economic and cultural determinants of community engagement with wetland conservation. Environmental Management (in press). [6] Finlayson C M, Davies G T, Moomaw W R, Chmura G L, Natali S M, Perry J E, Roulet N & Sutton-Grier A E. 2019. The second warning to humanity: providing a context for wetland management and policy. Wetlands 39: 1–5. [7] Kokkal K, Harinarayanan P & Sabu K K. 2008. Wetlands of Kerala. In: Proceedings of Taal 2007, the 12th World Lake Conference, pp. 1889–1893. [8] Kumari M, Sharma S & Rai A. 2020. Community-based approaches to wetland conservation in India: policy integration and traditional knowledge. Journal of Environmental Management 268: 110–118. [9] Mahamuni K. 2024. Participatory governance of small wetlands: lessons for India. Wetlands Ecology and Management 32: 145–160. [10] Mahanta R, Das D & Sarma A K. 2020. Community perception and wetland dependence in the Brahmaputra valley, Assam. Environment, Development and Sustainability 22: 4995–5013. [11] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Wetlands and Water Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington DC. [12] Mitsch W J & Gosselink J G. 2015. Wetlands, 5th edn. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey. [13] Ramsar Convention Secretariat. 2026. The List of Wetlands of International Importance. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland. [14] Space Applications Centre (SAC). 2011. National Wetland Atlas. Indian Space Research Organisation, Ahmedabad. [15] Tiner R W. 2009. Wetland classification. In: Encyclopedia of Inland Waters. Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 516–525. [16] Xu T, Weng B, Yan D, Wang K, Li X, Bi W, Li M, Cheng X & Liu Y. 2019. Wetlands of international importance: status, threats, and future protection. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16(10): 1818.

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Anamika Upadhaya, Pynkhrehkloi Marbaniang. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.