Evaluation of ecosystem supply services and calculation of economic value in Kargil District

doi:10.1016/j.regsus.2022.07.004

Abstract

Abstract:

Mountain ecosystem provides numerous vital ecosystem services (ESs) to the people residing within or near the mountains worldwide. The mountains provide services such as timber, fibre, fodder, fuelwood, medicine, aesthetic, recreation, ritual, and religion, and many other services that are vital for the maintenance of the ecosystem. The mountains of Barsoo and Tai-Suru regions in Kargil District (Ladakh, India) are much familiar for their ESs supply, and the residents have utilized these services for years. The present study was focused on the provisioning ESs. We used a random sample approach for household selection and data collection regarding the pre-prepared questionnaire; the number of households was obtained from government census data. The primary ESs (identified by more than 40% of the respondents) were assessed through the direct market valuation method. The direct market valuation method produced an overwhelming value, specifically for grazing and fodder services in both regions of the study area. Results showed that grazing service was valued at 482,346.43 USD/a for Barsoo region and 1,458,099.04 USD/a for Tai-Suru region. Similarly, fodder service of Barsoo and Tai-Suru regions corresponded to values of 69,833.61 and 110,886.06 USD/a, respectively. On the other hand, food service of Barsoo and Tai-Suru regions was valued at 2601.04 and 2969.90 USD/a, respectively, and medicinal service was valued at 757.39 and 4430.94 USD/a in Barsoo and Tai-Suru regions, respectively. In addition, the regions were economically backwards, and the resident’s survival and well-being relied on the mountain ESs. Therefore, it is not possible for the residents to pay services replacement costs if the services need to replace by other means. Unfortunately, such mountain ecosystem is highly prone to climate change and other human activities that would negatively impact the ecosystem functions. Therefore, this study would be helpful for the policy-makers of the region to draft any developmental plan/framework by integrating the value of ESs that would be the key to achieving sustainable development.

Key words: Mountain ecosystem, Ecosystem services, Sustainability, LivelihoodDirect market valuation, method, Barsoo, Tai-Suru

Sabir HUSSAIN, Sheenu SHARMA, Anand Narain SINGH. Evaluation of ecosystem supply services and calculation of economic value in Kargil District[J]. Regional Sustainability, 2022, 3(2): 157-169.

Figures/Tables 11

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Fig. 3.

Table 4

Fig. 4.

Table 5

Table S1

Table S2

References 61

[1]	Adedayo, A.G., Sale, F.A., Kekeh, O., 2008. Rural household wood energy utilisation pattern and its impact on deforestation in Akoko South West LGA Ondo State, Nigeria. In: Onyekwelu, J.C., Adekunle, V.A.J., Oke, D.O., (eds.). Proceedings of the first National Conference of the Forests and Forest Products Society. Akure: Forest and Forest Products Society, 159-164.
[2]	Ahmad, S., Singh, J.P., Verma, D.K., 2020. Inventory of important fodder plants of Ladakh Himalaya. [2020-5-7]. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/igc/23/1-1-2/3/.
[3]	Alcamo, J., van Vuuren, D., Cramer, W., et al., 2005. Changes in ecosystem services and their drivers across the scenarios. Ecosystems and human well-being. 2, 297-373.
[4]	Angmo, K., Adhikari, B.S., Rawat, G.S., 2012. Changing aspects of traditional healthcare system in Western Ladakh, India. J. Ethnopharmacol. 143(2), 621-630. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2012.07.017
[5]	Arowolo, A.O., Deng, X.Z., Olatunji, O.A., et al., 2018. Assessing changes in the value of ecosystem services in response to land-use/land-cover dynamics in Nigeria. Sci. Total. Environ. 636, 597-609. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.277
[6]	Asner, G.P., Elmore, A.J., Olander, L.P., et al., 2004. Grazing systems, ecosystem responses, and global change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 29, 261-299. doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.29.062403.102142
[7]	Aziz, T., 2021. Changes in land use and ecosystem services values in Pakistan, 1950-2050. Environ. Dev. 37, 100576, doi: 10.1016/j.envdev.2020.100576. doi: 10.1016/j.envdev.2020.100576
[8]	Ballabh, B., Chaurasia, O.P., 2007. Traditional medicinal plants of cold desert Ladakh—Used in treatment of cold, cough and fever. J. Ethnopharmacol. 112(2), 341-349. pmid: 17459623
[9]	Ballabh, B., Chaurasia, O.P., Pande, P.C., et al., 2007. Raw edible plants of cold desert Ladakh. Indian J. Tradit. Knowl. 6(1), 182-184.
[10]	Bashir, A., Singh, C., Chauhan, N., et al., 2018. A review: Ethnobotanical study on medicinal plants of Kargil district, Ladakh, India. J. Emerg. Technol. Innov. Res. 5(12), 181-196.
[11]	Bassi, N., Kumar, M.D., 2012. Addressing the civic challenges: perspective on institutional change for sustainable urban water management in India. Environ. Urban. ASIA. 3(1), 165-183.
[12]	Bateman, I.J., Mace, G.M., Fezzi, C., et al., 2011. Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments. Environ. Resour. Econ. 48(2), 177-218. doi: 10.1007/s10640-010-9418-x
[13]	Bhoyar, M.S., Mishra, G.P., Singh, R., et al., 2011. Ethno-botany of traditional wild edible plants from cold arid desert of Ladakh-a potential source of winter vegetables. Indian Forester. 137(8), 1029-1033.
[14]	Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., et al., 2012. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol. Indic. 21, 17-29.
[15]	Cabral, P., Feger, C., Levrel, H., et al., 2016. Assessing the impact of land-cover changes on ecosystem services: A first step toward integrative planning in Bordeaux, France. Ecosyst. Serv. 22, 318-327. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.08.005
[16]	Callicott, J.B., 1989. In defense of the land ethic:essays in environmental philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
[17]	Chiabai, A., Travisi, C.M., Ding, H., et al., 2009. Economic valuation of forest ecosystem services: methodology and monetary estimates. Working Papers. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1396661. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1396661
[18]	Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., et al., 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature. 387(6630), 253-260. doi: 10.1038/387253a0
[19]	de Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R.M., 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 41(3), 393-408. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7
[20]	de Groot, R.S., Fisher, B., Christie, M., et al., 2010a. Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. In Kumar, P., (ed.). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB):Ecological and Economic Foundations. London: Earthscan, Routledge, 9-40.
[21]	de Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., et al., 2010b. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 7(3), 260-272. doi: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006
[22]	Dorjey, K., Tamchos, S., Kumar, S., 2012. Ethnobotanical observations in Trans-Himalayan region of Ladakh. Int. J. Plant Sci. 4(4), 459-464.
[23]	Dorji, T., Brookes, J.D., Facelli, J.M., et al., 2019. Socio-cultural values of ecosystem services from oak forests in the eastern Himalaya. Sustainability. 11(8), 1-20. doi: 10.3390/su11010001
[24]	Dvorský, M., Altman, J., Kopecký, M., et al., 2015. Vascular plants at extreme elevations in eastern Ladakh, northwest Himalayas. Plant Ecol. Divers. 8(4), 571-584.
[25]	Earnhart, D., 2006. Using contingent-pricing analysis to value open space and its duration at residential locations. Land Econ. 82(1), 17-35. doi: 10.3368/le.82.1.17
[26]	Eppink, F.V., Werntze, A., Mäs, S., et al., 2012. Land management and ecosystem services how collaborative research programmes can support better policies. GAIA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society. 21(1), 55-63. doi: 10.14512/gaia.21.1.14
[27]	Farber, S.C., Costanza, R., Wilson, M.A., 2002. Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 41(3), 375-392. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00088-5
[28]	Farley, J., 2012. Ecosystem services: The economics debate. Ecosyst. Serv. 1(1), 40-49. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.002
[29]	Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., 2008. Ecosystem services: classification for valuation. Biol. Conserv. 141(5), 1167-1169. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.02.019
[30]	Fuwape, J.A., 1985. Heat combustion of twenty savanna tree species. In: Okojie, J.A., (ed.). Proceedings of the 15th annual conference of the Forestry Association Nigeria. Yola: Forestry Association of Nigeria, 70-79.
[31]	Hao, R.F., Yu, D.Y., Liu, Y.P., et al., 2017. Impacts of changes in climate and landscape pattern on ecosystem services. Sci. Total. Environ. 579, 718-728. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.036
[32]	Haq, S.M., Yaqoob, U., Calixto, E.S., et al., 2021. Plant Resources Utilisation among Different Ethnic Groups of Ladakh in Trans-Himalayan Region. Biology. 10(9), 827, doi: 10.3390/biology10090827. doi: 10.3390/biology10090827
[33]	Hauck, J., Görg, C., Varjopuro, R., et al., 2013. Benefits and limitations of the ecosystem services concept in environmental policy and decision making: some stakeholder perspectives. Environ. Sci. Policy. 25, 13-21. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.08.001
[34]	Huber, R., Rigling, A., Bebi, P., et al., 2013. Sustainable land use in mountain regions under global change: Synthesis across scales and disciplines. Ecol. Soc. 18(3), 36, doi: 10.5751/es-05499-180336. doi: 10.5751/es-05499-180336
[35]	Jishtu, V., Goraya, G.S., 2020. Leguminosae (nom. alt. Fabaceae)—Its Diversity, Use and Role in Environmental Conservation in the Harsh Environs of the Cold Deserts of North-West India. In: Hasanuzzaman, M., Araújo, S., Gill, S., (eds.). The Plant Family Fabaceae. Singapore: Springer, 261-285.
[36]	Joshi, P.K., Rawat, G.S., Padilya, H., et al., 2006. Biodiversity characterisation in Nubra Valley, Ladakh with special reference to plant resource conservation and bioprospecting. Biodivers. Conserv. 15(13), 4253-4270. doi: 10.1007/s10531-005-3578-y
[37]	Directorate of Census Operations, 2011. District Census Handbook Kargil. Srinagar: Directorate of Census Operations.
[38]	Klimeš, L., Dickoré, B., 2005. A contribution to the vascular plant flora of Lower Ladakh (Jammu & Kashmir, India). Willdenowia. 35(1),125-153. doi: 10.3372/wi.35.35110
[39]	Korner, C., 2005. Mountain systems. Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends. 681-716.
[40]	Kumar, P., Esen, S.E., Yashiro, M., 2013. Linking ecosystem services to strategic environmental assessment in development policies. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 40, 75-81.
[41]	Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being. Washington, DC: Island Press, 40-53.
[42]	Naime, J.L., Mora, F., Sánchez-Martínez, M., et al., 2020. Economic valuation of ecosystem services from secondary tropical forests: trade-offs and implications for policy making. For. Ecol. Manag. 473, 118294. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118294. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118294
[43]	Norton, B.G., 1987. Why Preserve Natural Variety? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
[44]	Parween, F., Kumari, P., Singh, A., 2021. Irrigation water pricing policies and water resources management. Water Policy. 23(1), 130-141. doi: 10.2166/wp.2020.147
[45]	Pascual, U., Muradian, R., Brander, L., et al., 2010. The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. Kumar, P., (Ed.). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB):Ecological and Economic Foundations, Earthscan. London: Earthscan, Routledge, 183-256.
[46]	Perez-Verdin, G., Sanjurjo-Rivera, E., Galicia, L., et al., 2016. Economic valuation of ecosystem services in Mexico: Current status and trends. Ecosyst. Serv. 21, 6-19. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.003
[47]	Ramachandra, T.V., Rajinikanth, R., Ranjini, V.G., 2005. Economic valuation of wetlands. J. Environ. Biol. 26(2), 439-447.
[48]	Ramachandra, T.V., Soman, D., Naik, A.D., et al., 2017. Appraisal of forest ecosystems goods and services: Challenges and opportunities for conservation. J. Biodivers. 8(1), 12-33.
[49]	Rawat, G.S., Adhikari, B.S., 2005. Floristics and distribution of plant communities across moisture and topographic gradients in Tso Kar basin, Changthang plateau, eastern Ladakh. Arct. Antarct. Alp. Res. 37(4), 539-544. doi: 10.1657/1523-0430(2005)037[0539:FADOPC]2.0.CO;2
[50]	Rinchen, T., Pant, S., 2014. Ethnopharmacological uses of plants among inhabitants surrounding Suru and Zanskar valleys of cold desert, Ladakh. International Journal of Pharma and Bio Sciences. 5(1), 486-494.
[51]	Santos-Martín, F., Martín-López, B., García-Llorente, M., et al., 2013. Unraveling the relationships between ecosystems and human well-being in Spain. PLoS One. 8(9), e73249, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0073249. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0073249
[52]	Schröter, D., Cramer, W., Leemans, R., et al., 2005. Europe ecosystem service supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe. Science. 310, 1333-1337. pmid: 16254151
[53]	Schröter, M., Barton, D.N., Remme, R.P., 2014. Accounting for capacity and flow of ecosystem services: A conceptual model and a case study for Telemark, Norway. Ecol. Indic. 36, 539-551.
[54]	The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. London: Earthscan, Routledge.
[55]	Uddin, M.S., van Steveninck, E.D.R., Stuip, M., et al., 2013. Economic valuation of provisioning and cultural services of a protected mangrove ecosystem: A case study on Sundarbans Reserve Forest, Bangladesh. Ecosyst. Serv. 5, 88-93. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.07.002
[56]	von Haaren, C., Albert, C., 2011. Integrating ecosystem services and environmental planning: limitations and synergies. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 7(3), 150-167. doi: 10.1080/21513732.2011.616534
[57]	Wen, L., Dong, S.K, Li, Y.Y., et al., 2013. Effect of degradation intensity on grassland ecosystem services in the alpine region of Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, China. PLoS One. 8(3), e58432, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0058432. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0058432
[58]	Zang, Z., Zou, X.Q., Zuo, P., et al., 2017. Impact of landscape patterns on ecological vulnerability and ecosystem service values: An empirical analysis of Yancheng Nature Reserve in China. Ecol. Indic. 72, 142-152. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.08.019
[59]	Zhang, D.W., Stenger, A., 2015. Value and valuation of forest ecosystem services. J. Environ. Econ. Policy. 4(2), 129-140. doi: 10.1080/21606544.2014.980852
[60]	Zhang, F., Ayinuer, Y.S.J., Jing, Y.Q., 2019. Assessing and predicting changes of the ecosystem service values based on land use/cover change in Ebinur Lake Wetland National Nature Reserve, Xinjiang, China. Sci. Total Environ. 656, 1133-1144. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.444
[61]	Zhuang, H.F., Zhang, C., Jin, X.L., et al., 2022. A flagship species-based approach to efficient, cost-effective biodiversity conservation in the Qinling Mountains, China. J. Environ. Manag. 305, 114388, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.114388. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.114388

Region	Village	Number of households	Total population	Net sowing area (hm²)
Barsoo	Itchoo	20	159	5.70
	Shergandi	33	283	15.00
	Barto	98	679	44.50
	Khandi	197	1456	104.80
	Barsoo	181	1602	44.50
	Karchay-Khar	115	942	47.80
Tai-Suru	Karpo Khar	17	133	8.50
	Gyaling	37	271	12.10
	Purtickchy	133	963	45.30
	Khows	95	756	44.90
	Yuljuk	161	1196	68.40
	Kargi	83	566	42.10
	Pranti	81	518	27.10
	Namsuru	108	905	15.80
	Panikhar	43	325	15.80
	Chosker Suru	51	431	32.00
	Thuls Pursa	51	420	33.20
	Tai-Suru	72	589	11.70
	Achambur	64	470	30.30
	Tangol	95	694	30.40
	Kochik	41	316	19.40
	Parkachik	137	1138	73.40
	Rangdum	53	368	135.60
Total		1966	15,180	908.30

Provisioning ESs	Method	Equation	Details
Fodder	Direct market valuation	${{V}_{\text{fodder}}}=\sum\nolimits_{i=1}^{n}{Q{{I}_{i}}\times P{{I}_{i}}}$	V_fodder, the value of fodder service (USD) ; QI, quantity of fodder collected annually (kg); PI, price of fodder (USD/kg); i, number of households.
Fuelwood	Direct market valuation	${{V}_{\text{fuelwood}}}=\sum\nolimits_{i=1}^{n}{Q{{F}_{i}}\times P{{F}_{i}}}$	V_fuelwood, the value of fuelwood service (USD); QF, quantity of fuelwood collected annually (kg); PF, price of fuelwood (USD/kg).
Food	Direct market valuation	${{V}_{\text{food}}}=\sum\nolimits_{i=1}^{n}{Q{{D}_{i}}\times P{{D}_{i}}}$	V_food, the value of food service (USD); QD, quantity of food collected annually (kg); PD, price of food (USD/kg).
Medicine	Direct market valuation	${{V}_{\text{medicine}}}=\sum\nolimits_{i=1}^{n}{Q{{M}_{i}}\times P{{M}_{i}}}$	V_medicine, the value of medicine service (USD); QM, quantity of medicinal plants collected annually (kg); PM, price of service if replaced by pharmaceutical drugs (USD/kg).
Grazing	Direct market valuation	${{V}_{\text{grazing}}}=\sum\nolimits_{i=1}^{n}{Q{{G}_{i}}\times P{{G}_{i}}}$	V_grazing, the value of grazing service (USD); QG, quantity of fodder needed for replacement (kg); PG, price of the fodder (USD/kg).
Freshwater	Direct market valuation	${{V}_{\text{water}}}=\sum\nolimits_{i=1}^{n}{Q{{W}_{i}}\times P{{W}_{i}}}$	V_freshwater, the value of freshwater service (USD); QW, quantity of freshwater used for different purposes by the households (L); PW, price of freshwater (USD/L).

Region	Village	Consumption of ESs (USD/a)
Region	Village	Freshwater	Food	Fodder	Grazing	Medicine	Fuelwood
Barsoo	Itchoo	813.72	134.33	5232.85	17,911.97	51.17	6755.37
	Shergandi	1453.54	84.44	5846.98	27,865.91	191.91	6293.19
	Barto	4247.41	501.53	16,654.50	74,874.61	153.53	10,362.33
	Khandi	10,492.57	1008.18	31,729.79	166,351.07	319.85	4828.24
	Barsoo	8528.94	578.30	7132.54	127,366.93	25.58	764.07
	Karchay-Khar	5449.60	294.26	3236.95	67,975.94	15.35	971.08
Tai-Suru	Karpo Khar	667.25	37.10	133.98	11,081.88	108.75	71.77
	Gyaling	1450.79	108.75	520.76	32,618.32	94.67	364.50
	Purtickchy	6175.25	331.81	7487.20	115,228.09	767.65	680.65
	Khows	4183.53	182.31	14,707.01	108,297.08	703.68	1337.00
	Yuljuk	6550.53	247.18	906.34	26,102.76	225.17	679.75
	Kargi	3257.98	318.57	700.87	88,309.62	204.70	1168.11
	Pranti	3528.23	62.56	615.58	76,332.34	153.53	797.97
	Namsuru	5634.85	207.26	759.97	47,761.00	294.26	759.75
	Panikhar	2078.83	66.01	605.16	49,170.67	122.82	330.09
	Chosker Suru	2075.01	79.32	6100.94	46,123.15	134.33	573.18
	Thuls Pursa	1879.70	58.72	5024.30	72,751.68	97.87	645.98
	Tai-Suru	2722.68	138.17	8714.43	91,554.13	108.75	607.98
	Achambur	2672.95	171.44	9007.16	77,613.81	122.56	900.71
	Tangol	3507.74	291.70	12,033.01	137,898.28	211.10	1203.30
	Kochick	1608.40	94.42	4616.17	69,370.16	140.73	577.02
	Parkachik	6015.48	472.87	27,764.59	285,975.23	543.75	4627.43
	Rangdum	2309.25	101.71	11,188.59	121,910.84	396.62	5221.34

Region	Village	Freshwater	Food	Fodder	Grazing	Medicine	Fuelwood
Barsoo	Itchoo	High	Low	High	High	Low	High
	Shergandi	High	Low	Moderate	High	Low	Moderate
	Barto	High	Low	Moderate	High	Low	Moderate
	Khandi	High	Low	Moderate	High	Low	Low
	Barsoo	High	Low	Low	High	Low	Low
	Karchay-Khar	High	Low	Low	High	Low	Low
Tai-Suru	Karpo Khar	High	Low	Low	High	Low	Low
	Gyaling	High	Low	Low	High	Low	Low
	Purtickchy	High	Low	Low	High	Low	Low
	Khows	High	Low	Moderate	High	Low	Low
	Yuljuk	High	Low	Low	High	Low	Low
	Kargi	High	Low	Low	High	Low	Low
	Pranti	High	Low	Low	High	Low	Low
	Namsuru	High	Low	Low	High	Low	Low
	Panikhar	High	Low	Low	High	Low	Low
	Chosker Suru	High	Low	Moderate	High	Low	Low
	Thuls Pursa	High	Low	Low	High	Low	Low
	Tai-Suru	High	Low	Moderate	High	Low	Low
	Achambur	High	Low	Moderate	High	Low	Low
	Tangol	High	Low	Moderate	High	Low	Low
	Kochick	High	Low	Moderate	High	Low	Low
	Parkachik	High	Low	High	High	Low	Moderate
	Rangdum	High	Low	High	High	Low	Moderate

Region	Village	Food (kg/household/a)	Medicinal plant (kg/household/a)	Fodder (×10² kg/household/ a)	Fuelwood (×10² kg/household/a)
Barsoo	Itchoo	10.50	0.50	9.32	13.20
	Shergandi	4.00	2.70	6.32	7.45
	Barto	8.00	0.61	6.03	4.13
	Khandi	8.00	0.63	5.73	0.95
	Barsoo	4.95	0.05	1.40	0.16
	Karchay-Khar	4.00	0.05	1.00	0.03
Tai-Suru	Karpo Khar	3.41	0.25	0.28	0.15
	Gyaling	4.85	0.10	0.50	0.35
	Purtickchy	3.90	0.24	2.00	0.20
	Khows	3.00	0.30	5.50	0.50
	Yuljuk	2.40	0.10	0.70	0.15
	Kargi	6.00	0.20	0.30	0.50
	Pranti	1.20	0.10	0.27	0.35
	Namsuru	3.00	0.15	0.25	0.25
	Panikhar	2.40	0.15	0.50	0.30
	Chosker Suru	2.43	0.10	4.25	0.40
	Thulus Pursa	1.80	0.10	2.50	0.45
	Tai-Suru	3.00	0.10	4.30	0.30
	Achambur	4.18	0.15	5.00	0.50
	Tangol	4.80	0.20	4.50	0.45
	Kochick	3.60	0.25	4.00	0.50
	Parkachik	5.39	0.25	7.25	1.20
	Rangdum	3.00	0.30	7.50	3.50