The Gordian knot of mangrove conservation: Disentangling the role

of scale, services and benets

Kathleen Schwerdtner Ma nez
a,b,
*, Gesche Krause
a,1
, Irene Ring
c,d
, Marion Glaser
a
a
Leibniz Center for Tropical Marine Ecology (ZMT), Fahrenheitstrasse 6, D-28359 Bremen, Germany
b
Asia Research Center, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia
c
UFZ Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research, Permoserstrasse 15, D-04318 Leipzig, Germany
d
University of Leipzig, Germany
1. Introduction
In tropical and subtropical coastal regions all over the globe,
mangrove ecosystems are in a state of transformation. Between 2
and 8% of the global mangrove cover is lost annually (Miththapala,
2008). The main drivers behind this loss are the conversion into
sh and shrimp aquaculture ponds and unsustainable forest uses
(Duke et al., 2007; Valiela et al., 2001). Until very recently, many
governments considered mangroves to be relatively worthless
(Walters et al., 2008), which is why these ecosystems have often
been prime candidates for conversion to large development
activities (Ro nnba ck, 1999). While the causes for mangrove
destruction have been discussed since the early 1970s (Canestri
and Ruiz, 1973), it was not until the 1980s and early 1990s that
signicant research attention was dedicated to the analysis of
interactions between humans and mangroves (Walters et al.,
2008).
Since then, increasing awareness has evolved of the importance
of mangroves for human activities and well-being. These include
the habitat and nursery service for commercially important sh,
crustaceans and mollusks, their role as natural coastal protection,
nutrient and organic matter processing or sediment control, etc.
(Polidoro et al., 2010; Ro nnba ck, 1999; Walters et al., 2008).
Mangroves are also considered foundation species, primary
producers that dene the structure of the whole ecosystem and
have direct links to the dynamics of dependent species and
communities (Ellison et al., 2005; Polidoro et al., 2010). Further-
more, manifold resources are obtained from mangroves that are
vital to subsistence economies and provide an important
commercial base to local and national economies in coastal areas
throughout the tropics (Glaser, 2003; Hamilton and Snedaker,
1984; Kaplowitz, 2001; Ro nnba ck, 1999; Warren-Rhodes et al.,
2011). Despite the intense scientic discussion on the value of
mangrove ecosystems, their deforestation continues. Indeed, we
have to face the prospect of a world deprived of the services offered
by mangrove ecosystems, perhaps within the next 100 years (Duke
et al., 2007). This would have serious negative ecological, economic
and social consequences for many tropical coastal regions.
Global Environmental Change 28 (2014) 120128
A R T I C L E I N F O
Article history:
Received 27 February 2014
Received in revised form 19 May 2014
Accepted 26 June 2014
Available online
Keywords:
Ecosystem services
Spatial scales
Management
Mangroves
Indonesia
Brazil
A B S T R A C T
Mangrove forests are among the most threatened tropical ecosystems. Their role as providers of
important ecosystem services such as coastal protection, carbon storage and nursery habitats for
economically important species is increasingly acknowledged. But mangrove destruction continues, and
we might have to face the prospect of a world deprived of the services offered by mangrove ecosystems.
Mangrove transformation and destruction is often caused by mismatches in mangrove system
management. These root in interests that focus on selected ecosystemservices only, but also result from
a problemof t between the spatial scales at which ecosystemservices are provided, and those at which
their benets are realized. We argue that a combination of the ecosystemservices concept with a careful
approach to the issue of scales will help to overcome these problems and improve the management of
mangrove systems. Drawing on two case studies fromIndonesia and Brazil, we illustrate the relevance of
our ndings for different ecosystem services.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
* Corresponding author at: Leibniz Center for Tropical Marine Ecology (ZMT),
Fahrenheitstrasse 6, D-28359 Bremen, Germany. Tel.: +49 421 238 00 82.
E-mail addresses: kathleen.schwerdtner@zmt-bremen.de
(K. Schwerdtner Ma nez), gesche.krause@awi.de (G. Krause),
irene.ring@ufz.de (I. Ring), marion.glaser@zmt-bremen.de (M. Glaser).
1
Present address: Alfred Wegner Institute (AWI), Bussestrae 24, D-27570
Bremerhaven, Germany.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Global Environmental Change
j our n al h o mepag e: www. el sevi er . co m / l ocat e/ g l oenvch a
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.008
0959-3780/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The motivation for this paper roots in the observation that
management has largely failed to ensure the conservation and
sustainable use of mangrove forests. This is at least partly the result
of the complexities associated with managing these systems. Being
part land and part sea, mangroves are often subject to overlapping
and competing interests of user groups and jurisdictional
ambiguities between administrations (Glaser and Oliveira, 2004;
Walters et al., 2008). Their management is further challenged by
the interplay between ecological levels where important ecosys-
tem services are generated with institutional levels where
management decisions that inuence these services are made
(for example, a management body at provincial level which is only
responsible for a part of the mangrove system). The issue of scales
has to be addressed as an object of inquiry (Brown and Purcell,
2005). The unique position of mangroves as intermediate systems
between the terrestrial and the marine realm amplies the need to
carefully analyze the various spatial and temporal scales at which
their diverse resources and services are provided and utilized.
From a management perspective, it has to be considered that
decisions made at one institutional level can signicantly inuence
the type, quality and quantity of resources and services and hence
the benets of stakeholders at other levels. Folke and colleagues
(2007) introduced the term functional mismatches for devel-
opments driven by a strong interest of resource users in selected
ecosystem benets only. An analysis of the interests and
perceptions of stakeholder groups at different governance levels
will not only reveal such functional mismatches, but may provide
insights on the questions of which institutions, both formal and
informal, are necessary and appropriate to enable effective
management (Hein et al., 2006). Both analysis and the implemen-
tation of management require a conceptual frame which integrates
ecological and societal scales relevant for mangrove systems and
their use.
Based on an anthropocentric perspective, the ecosystem service
concept provides a framework to link natural capital to human
uses of nature (Daily, 1997, 2000; de Groot et al., 2010b). By
acknowledging the role of ecosystems as providers of essential
goods and services; it links ecosystem functions with livelihoods
and well-being (MA, 2005; Gahzoul, 2007). This provides a perfect
lens to study the benets which humans obtain from specic
parts of an ecosystem. Such an analysis will indicate which
management options they prefer, and how this might relate to the
preferences of other stakeholders. Thus applied, the ecosystem
service concept can make a substantial contribution towards more
effective management of mangroves and other ecosystems. Policy
makers have just started to include the ecosystem service concept
into their guidelines and programmes, for example as part of the
Convention on Biological Diversity targets for 2020 (CBD, 2010),
and the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (European Commission,
2011). However, there is still a long way to go until ecosystem
services are truly integrated into decision-making (Daily et al.,
2009). Especially the importance of ecosystem services from
coastal and marine systems is increasingly highlighted (TEEB,
2012), but these have hardly been subject to assessments which
can actually be integrated into decision-making processes (Lopes
and Videira, 2013).
Drawing on work by Boyd and Banzhaf (2007), Fisher and
Turner (2008), Fisher et al. (2009), de Groot et al. (2010b), and
Atkins et al. (2011), the aims of this article are to combine the
concept of ecosystem services with a systematic investigation of
ecological and societal scales, and to apply the relevant theoretical
deliberations to two mangrove systems in Indonesia and Brazil.
The article thus responds to the call for more attention to the issue
of scale, and addresses the problem of t between ecosystem
processes and institutional arrangements of their management
(Young, 2002). It adds to the application of the ecosystem service
concept for management decisions, and contributes to the debate
on mangroves and their protection.
The article is divided into two main sections. The following
second section provides the conceptual background for the
empirical analysis. Here, we clarify key terms of the ecosystem
service concept before we discuss the issue of scales and its
relations to the terms previously classied. This provides the basis
for the third section of the paper, in which we draw on two case
studies on mangrove systems: the Segara Anakan lagoon in
Indonesia, and the Braganca region in Brazil. In these long-term
case studies, we present examples ranging from a single ecosystem
service namely habitat provision for shrimp and sh; to multiple
services namely wood provision, sediment and carbon xation. All
ecosystem services observed have in common that their appear-
ance and use connect various spatial and temporal levels in the
ecological and the societal realm. In this respect, they provide
excellent examples to illustrate the added-value of using the
ecosystem service concept in a multi-scale system. Based on the
case studies, we develop general recommendations for improved
mangrove management.
2. Linking the ecosystem service concept to the issue of scales
2.1. Ecosystem services and ecosystem benets
In the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), ecosystem
services have been dened as the benets provided by
ecosystems (MA, 2003:39). This denition has been subject to
some debate, because the mere existence of a certain good does not
necessarily result in any benets (Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007; Fisher
and Turner, 2008). For example, the service of providing habitat
and nursery areas (de Groot et al., 2010a) for sh exists
independently of whether someone is catching the sh or not.
But benets namely the sh caught or its monetary value will
only be created if potential beneciaries are present and do
actually catch sh. In most cases, the realization of benets
requires additional input, in our example at least shing gear,
knowledge, access to the area, and time for catching. In order to
make the difference between ecosystem services and benets
explicit, Fisher and colleagues (2009) offer an alternative denition
of ecosystem services as aspects of ecosystems utilized to produce
human well-being. It is important to mention that such utilization
can either be active or passive (Fisher and Turner, 2008). Following
this denition, ecosystem services include ecological processes
and functions as well as the structure of ecosystems. Ecosystem
services are ecological in nature, but their existence as service
depends on the realization of benets by humans (Fisher et al.,
2009). It is human preferences which turn an ecological feature
into an ecosystem service, which then (often in combination with
other inputs) can create benets to society or individuals.
Additionally, an individual service can generate multiple benets
and interactions between individual ecosystem services may
provide benets that are actually joint products (Fisher et al.,
2009). Protection from coastal erosion by mangrove systems is one
example. It results from the ability of mangroves to stabilize shores
with their roots and from forest function as a wind and wave
breaker. The overall service supply of an ecosystem is strongly
inuenced by its use and management. Any change in the
management of an individual ecosystem service will thus have
an impact on the bundle of services provided by that system (de
Groot et al., 2010b).
Since ecological processes and functions are dynamic, ecosys-
tem services and the benets they generate are characterized by
spatial and temporal dynamics (Hein et al., 2006). They are neither
evenly distributed, nor do they appear regularly. The realization of
benets may also diverge from the provision of ecosystem services
K. Schwerdtner Manez et al. / Global Environmental Change 28 (2014) 120128 121
in space and/or time. While some ecosystem services provide in
situ benets, other benets are realized at higher geographical
levels. As mentioned in the introduction, rewood collectors might
not care about the role of mangrove forests as providers of nursery
habitat for sh and shrimp. They might pay even less attention to
the ability of these systems to store large amounts of carbon in
biomass and soil. Consequently, the different preferences of
stakeholders for ecosystem services can lead to conicts (Hein
et al., 2006).
The classication of ecosystem services has also been subject to
ongoing discussions. One of the most commonly used classica-
tions from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) differ-
entiates between supporting, provisioning, regulating, and cultural
services (MA, 2003). This leads to double counting in the valuation
of ecosystem services (Atkins et al., 2011; Balmford et al., 2011;
Fisher and Turner, 2008; Wallace, 2007). Wallace (2007) was the
rst to note that the MA classication mixes processes (means) for
achieving services and actual services (ends) within the same
classication category. Fisher and Turner (2008) suggested
differentiating between intermediate and nal services, and
benets. Balmford and colleagues (2011) use these categories to
establish three sets with different proximity to human wellbeing:
core ecosystem processes, benecial ecosystem processes and
ecosystem benets. Fisher et al. (2009) have argued that any
classication scheme should be based on the characteristics of the
ecosystem which provides the services, and also on what they call
the decision context. The decision context refers to the different
societal circumstances under which information is collected and
communicated, valuations and analyses take place, and choices are
nally made. We follow Fisher and colleagues in their argumenta-
tion that no single classication scheme ts all purposes.
For the analysis and validation with eld ndings in this article,
we focus on the spatial and temporal dynamics of ecosystem
benets and services. This has been described by Chan and
colleagues as distributional classication; and it refers to the bio-
geographical levels at which services occur, the societal or
administrative levels at which benets are realized including
existing conicts and identies where and when possible
management measures should take place (Chan et al., 2006). A
distributional classication requires a thorough understanding of
scales. This is the subject of our next sub-section.
2.2. The issue of scales
Societies and ecosystems interact on and across various spatial,
temporal and a range of other scales (Cumming et al., 2006). Any
attempt to study or manage particular patterns of humannature
interactions needs to analyze social, ecological and social
ecological phenomena on the respective scales and levels of their
appearance (Blaikie and Brookeld, 1987). This is challenging
because natural and social sciences use diverse concepts of scale.
Several authors have already examined the concept of scales in
multiple disciplines and from multiple perspectives (Cash et al.,
2006; Gibson et al., 2000; Lovell et al., 2002; Primmer et al., 2014).
Their work provides the basis for our attempt to address the
problem of t between ecosystem services and management
arrangements.
Scales are typically understood as characteristic dimensions,
e.g. space, time or another dimension, of an observation or process
(Lovell et al., 2002). They are determined by their extent and
resolution. Extent refers to spatial, temporal or quantitative
dimensions; resolution refers to the precision of the measurement.
The term level describes locations along a scale bar. Usually, a
level refers to a region along a measurement dimension. Micro-,
meso-, and macro-levels refer broadly to regions on spatial scales
representing small-, medium-, and large-sized phenomena
(Gibson et al., 2000:219), while on a temporal scale, short-,
medium, and long-term would be the equivalent levels. Scaling
means the changing of measurements across scales, or of applying
relationships developed at one set of scales to another (Perry and
Ommer, 2003).
Although each discipline denes scales in a subtly different
way, both ecological and social processes occur on spatial scales.
Gibson et al. (2000) note that while natural scientists operate with
relatively well-dened hierarchical systems of analysis, social
scientists employ a far greater variety of scales with a less precise
scale denition. Which of these scale concepts is applied will
depend on the problem to be studied. For instance, ecological
scales are usually spatially dened as levels in a nested hierarchy
ranging from the individual plant via ecosystems, landscapes and
biomes to the global system (Hein et al., 2006). Societal scales
range from individuals to households to the population of a nation
and of planet earth. However, they may also be dened politically
or institutionally with clear administrative or jurisdictional
boundaries corresponding to units of government operation, such
as municipalities, provinces, nations, states or transnational
regions (Cash et al., 2006; Gibson et al., 2000), which are interfaced
with the various informal institutions at multiple levels.
Insufcient addressing of levels of scales and cross-scale or
cross-level dynamics is thought to be a major reason for
management failures in socialecological systems (Cash et al.,
2006; Perry and Ommer, 2003). Cash et al. (2006) speak in a
broader sense about scale challenges that are caused by
ignorance, mismatches and plurality. Ignorance is the most
common form of scale challenge. For example, ignoring the role
of mangroves for coastal protection was a major reason for the
terrible destruction of coastal areas during the 2004 Asian tsunami.
Regions with large mangrove forests were considerably less
impacted than regions where mangroves had been removed
(Barbier, 2006). Mismatches occur if the level at which ecological
phenomena appear does not coincide with the level at which
decisions are made (Satakea et al., 2008). Migratory species,
aquifers and river basins are typical examples where problems of
t require alternative management solutions, such as transbound-
ary management institutions.
Scale mismatches may entrench ecological and/or social
problems which thus undermine the sustainability of human
nature interactions. They contribute to the degradation of
ecosystem components or whole ecosystems and may lead to a
decrease in the provision of the benets of these ecosystems. As a
result, stakeholders at different levels will be faced with decreasing
resources and productivity of the ecosystem and experience
welfare losses. Addressing scale mismatches is therefore a central
challenge for management. Perhaps more than other systems,
mangrove forests have suffered from failures in addressing these
mismatches. Situated between sea and land, competing interests
and overlapping uses affect ecosystem services and their
associated benets in the marine as well as in the terrestrial realm.
3. The relevance of spatial scales for mangrove ecosystem
services: empirical evidence
3.1. Introducing the two case studies in Indonesia and Brazil
In this section, we demonstrate how the mismatch between the
levels at which ecosystem services manifest themselves and the
levels at which management decisions are made, leads to
degradation and reduced benets for different user groups in
two case study areas, one from Asia and one from Latin America.
Both case study areas were subject to long-term inter- and
transdisciplinary research efforts. The Segara Anakan lagoon in
Indonesia is still researched as part of the SPICE programme
K. Schwerdtner Manez et al. / Global Environmental Change 28 (2014) 120128 122
(Science for the Protection of Indonesian Coastal Environments)
from 2001 to 2015, while the Braganca area in North Brazil has
been subject to research between 1995 and 2005 during the
MADAM programme (Mangrove Dynamics and Management)
(Saint-Paul and Schneider, 2010).
Data for our examples have been largely derived from these two
projects and include both own work (a combination of qualitative
and quantitative methods, including document analysis, struc-
tured and unstructured interviews and participatory observations)
as well as the results of colleagues research from various
disciplines. An intensive literature review was done to complete
our ndings.
In our analysis, management is understood to include both
formal and informal aspects. In fact, the case study areas suffer
from insufcient government control of natural resource exploi-
tation, and are subject to de facto management decisions by local
resource users. Intensive logging of mangroves is just one example
of an in situ resource management decision that is illegal in both
countries, but that takes place with considerable impact on the
provision of ecosystem services.
It is outside the scope of this paper to provide a comprehensive
overview on all ecosystem services in both mangrove areas.
Drawing from the vast pool of research ndings from the long-term
research efforts in both areas, Table 1 summarizes a number of
selected ecosystem services, the spatial level at which their
benets are realized, and the beneciaries. The table shows that
four of ve ecosystem services lead to benets which are realized
on more than one spatial level. Conicts between beneciaries are
likely to develop if at least two factors come together: where
benets are realized on spatial and/or temporal levels outside the
area where the processes which provide them occur, and where the
realization of benets by some has a negative impact on the
potential benets of others.
The Indonesian Archipelago hosts the most extensive mangrove
cover on the globe (FAO, 2007; Spalding et al., 2010), but
approximately 50% of Indonesias mangroves were destroyed
between 1980 and 2000 (Brown, 2007). Although there are no
recent data, eld experience indicates that these percentages have
increased, and it is expected that mangrove losses will continue
(Sukardjo, 2009). Brazil ranks second in terms of global mangrove
cover (Spalding et al., 2010). Similarly to Indonesia, the country
lost 46% of its mangrove cover between 1983 and 1997 (Valiela
et al., 2001), and these losses continue (Scarlate Rovai et al., 2012).
On the Indonesian island of Java, the largest remaining
mangrove stand is in the Segara Anakan lagoon (Soegiarto,
2004) at the southern coast of central Java. Mangrove coverage
in Segara Anakan has been drastically reduced from more than
21,000 ha at the beginning of the 20th century (Brown, 2007; De
Haan, 1931) to 9271 ha in 2004 (Ardli and Wolff, 2009). Being
exposed to large sediment inputs, the lagoon has also lost more
than two thirds of its former area of water since 1850 (Schwerdtner
Ma nez, 2010). The disappearance of Segara Anakan lagoon and the
degradation of its mangroves have triggered both political
attention and large research projects; and led to a number of
management interventions. Ecosystem services provided by
Segara Anakans mangroves play an important role in the public
and scientic discussion. Themes of this debate include the role of
the area as nursery ground for sh and shrimp, its function as
important bird habitat and more recently, the mangroves ability to
store carbon. Segara Anakan region is home to some 14,000 people
living in several villages. Livelihood activities include shing,
mussel collection and crab catching as well as agricultural
activities. Species utilized include several shrimp, such as
Metapenaeus elegans and Penaeus merguiensis (Dudley, 2000b).
Most inhabitants depend on mangroves for rewood and certain
construction materials, such as beams.
The mangrove peninsula of the Braganca coastal region close to
the estuary of the Caete River is part of the littoral region of Para in
North Brazil. It is connected to the worlds second-largest
continuous mangrove region estimated to cover a total area of
1.38 million hectares along approximately 6800 km coastline
(Kjerfve et al., 1997). The area has been described as relatively
undisturbed. However, a growing tourism industry, urbanization
especially around the town of Braganca, and increasing shing
activities have impacted the mangrove system. Modication of
local hydrological regimes through road construction and massive
rewood cutting put additional stress on the forest (Krause et al.,
2001). In 2011, nearly 115,000 people lived in the municipality of
Braganca (IBGE, 2011). Small-scale agriculture, industrial and
artisanal sheries are the main income sources in the wider
Bragantinian region. Artisanal sheries target a number of marine
and brackish water species including King weaksh (Macrodon
ancylodon), Bressou sea catsh (Aspistor quadriscutis), Crevalle jack
(Caranx hippo) or Acoupa weaksh (Cynoscion acoupa) (Barletta
et al., 1998). These sheries consist of a low technology sector
operating in the estuarine mangroves, and in a motorized sector
operating close to the coasts. More than 80% of the rural
households in this area derive their livelihood from products of
the mangrove estuary (Glaser, 2003). Fish, shrimp, crabs and other
invertebrates are caught. Mangrove wood is used for the
construction of sh traps (Barletta et al., 1998), fuel for domestic
cooking (Glaser et al., 2003) and to re brickwork kilns (Berger
et al., 1999).
3.2. Habitat services conicting with provisioning services
The provision of nursery habitat is one of the most important
mangrove ecosystem services (Warren-Rhodes et al., 2011),
especially for penaeid shrimps, one of the most valuable resources
of coastal sheries (Ro nnba ck et al., 2002). In the Indonesian case
study, three penaeid species use Segara Anakan as a nursery area:
the White prawn P. merguiensis, the Indian white prawn Penaeus
indicus and the Giant tiger prawn Penaeus monodon. It has been
assumed that P. merguiensis and P. indicus have their primary
nursery area in the lagoon (Dudley, 2000a). Through their
migration, these species act as mobile links (Moberg and Folke,
1999) connecting the lagoon and the open sea. All three species are
shed in the lagoon before migrating to the open ocean. Lagoon
shers use a variety of nets, including a tidal bag net called apong.
They are extremely effective because of their small mesh size. Set
in tidal channels, apong nets catch sh, crustaceans and other
species moving through these channels. Around 15% of all apong
catches are juveniles of P. merguiensis and P. indicus. Together with
Table 1
Selected mangrove ecosystem services, spatial level of benet realization, and
beneciaries.
Mangrove cosystem service Spatial level
of benet
realization
Beneciaries
Provision of animal fodder Local Villagers
Provision of sh and shrimp Local Villagers
Regional Regional (ocean)
shermen
Provision of timber Local Villagers
Regional Regional wood traders
Sediment xation Local Villagers
Regional Coastal inhabitants
Carbon sequestration National National population
International Global population
K. Schwerdtner Manez et al. / Global Environmental Change 28 (2014) 120128 123
P. monodon, these species also comprise about 40% of the value of
all ocean shrimp catch landed in Cilacap. The price of juvenile
shrimp caught in the lagoon is only one tenth to one twentieth the
price of adult shrimp, so the catch of juvenile penaeids in the
lagoon reduces the potential value of the ocean shery well beyond
what it adds to the lagoon shery. The shing of juveniles thus
decreases the maximum yield that could be realized from the
shrimp shery in general. This has led to conicts between lagoon
shers and regional shers operating in the ocean. As part of a
possible solution, it was suggested to ban apong nets, but due to
severe resistance by the lagoons shers, this has never been
implemented (Mulyandari, 2003).
The relevance of mangrove forests for the provision of nursery
habitat for commercially important sh species is also well-known
(Ro nnba ck, 1999). In the Brazilian case study, this ecosystem
service is of major importance. Most species are caught using
traditional devices such as large-scale sh traps made of wooden
fences (curral) (Barletta et al., 1998). The principle of this technique
is that sh is directed along large fence structures with the shape of
isosceles triangles (approx. 200 m side lengths) into a bag where
the catch can be collected during neap tide. Similar to the apong
nets used in Segara Anakan, these constructions almost completely
block the estuaries and hinder tidal sh movements in and out of
the mangrove system. During the dry season as many as 85 large-
scale sh traps were counted in a single estuary in the Brazilian
study area. With a monthly catch of between 900 and 5700 kg,
these are highly effective but also non-selective: approximately
30% of the catch weight is discarded as by-catch (Schaub, 2000),
including juvenile stages of several commercially important
species (Giarrizzo and Kumme, 2009). Overall, 63% of commercial-
ly important species caught in the traps (e.g. Cynoscion leiarchus,
Peprilus paru, Conodon nobilis) have marine/offshore habitat and
only migrate into the mangroves in their juvenile stages (Barletta
et al., 1998; Schaub, 2000). This leads to a vicious cycle of declining
sh stocks. Fishing for juveniles in the estuaries has a negative
effect on the adult stocks and on their largely offshore sheries.
Consequently, offshore sheries intensify their catch effort, thus
reducing the sh stock migrating into the estuaries for recruit-
ment. Estuary shers have already stated that the amount of sh
caught has decreased (Schaub, 2000). Because statistical data on
sheries production in Brazilian mangroves are extremely limited
(Giarrizzo and Kumme, 2009), no estimates can be made
concerning the revenue derived from sh-traps versus offshore
sheries. Clearly, the by-catch of juveniles in the sh traps causes a
direct economic loss for offshore shers. It also leads reduces
overall economic revenue, as the sh sold from the traps is much
smaller than the offshore captured species, and thus less valuable.
In both case studies, the problem is triggered by the two factors
mentioned before: rstly, the benets are realized both inside the
area where the ecosystem service is provided, and outside of it.
Secondly, the realization of benets in the mangrove system
reduces the benets that can be realized in the ocean. These
mutually exclusive benets occur at two different spatial levels
local and regional but the de facto (informal) management
decisions are only made at the local level through the shing of
juveniles inside the lagoon.
3.3. Regulating services in conict with provisioning services
Scale mismatches become even more evident when there are
multiple ecosystem services. Mangroves deliver a number of
multiple and often conicting ecosystem services. This is especially
relevant for the case of wood provision, sediment xation, and
carbon sequestration. Whereas wood provision is necessarily
consumptive, both sediment xation and carbon sequestration are
regulating services which require fairly intact mangrove forests.
The exploitation of mangrove wood, however, has a negative
inuence on the forests ability to x sediments and bind carbon. In
both case studies, this conict prevails as mangroves are
intensively logged. Mangrove trees are cut for timber, fuelwood,
and wood, which is processed into charcoal.
Research revealed that the high diversity of Segara Anakans
mangrove species including Avicennia ssp., Rhizophora ssp. and
Brugiera ssp. (Beume e, 1929; De Haan, 1931) was already
intensively used by local inhabitants during Dutch colonial times
as fuelwood and building material for the villages on stilts and
their large sh traps. Additionally, the exploitation of wood for
charcoal ranged from small-scale production for local needs to
industrial-style production for sugar factories (De Haan, 1931).
This intensive use of mangrove wood continues until today.
Although logging has been banned, the degradation of Segara
Anakans mangroves has reached such an extent that in 1991, trees
with a diameter of more than 10 cm were only found in the
periphery of the lagoon (Soemodihardjo et al., 1991). Clear-cut
areas are increasing fast, even in the remotest parts of the lagoon.
Mangrove wood is still locally used as fuel and construction
material, but also for charcoal production for domestic and
industrial purposes. Charcoal is sold both locally and regionally,
and the recent increase in gas prices is likely to have contributed to
the growth of this activity.
In the Braganca region, mangrove wood has been traditionally
exploited for different uses, including the construction of houses
and sh traps and as fuel. Over the last decades, cutting for local
consumption has increased considerably. The development of local
businesses namely bakeries and brickyards has further
accelerated this process. Roads now provide easier access to the
area, which also allows an improved transport of mangrove wood
to the markets. This has caused a shift from traditional selective
cutting towards the clear cutting of entire areas (Krause et al.,
2001).
The destruction of mangroves considerably decreases the
ability of the system to x sediments. Sediment xation enables
mangroves to protect coasts against waves, tidal bores, and
catastrophic events such as storms and tsunamis (Alongi, 2008). In
both case study areas, erosion is a major issue. Clear cuts along
tidal channels have caused extensive bank erosion. This is
especially problematic in Segara Anakan, where sedimentation
has been a major cause of concern for decades. Although logging is
prohibited in both areas, beneciaries of mangrove wood make
decisions which have a negative impact on the realization of other
benets, namely sediment xation. The reasons for this are
twofold: the immediate gains from using or selling mangrove
wood are obviously valued more highly than the long-term
benets of sediment xation. It is also mostly users from outside
(regional wood traders) who are responsible for the wood
exploitation. Their benets are linked to selling wood, and
depending on where they live, the benets of sediment xation
and coastal protection play a negligible role in their decision-
making.
The role of mangroves for carbon sequestration has received
growing attention over the last years. Research quanties the
contribution of mangrove forests to coastal sediment carbon
storage from 10 to 15% (24 Tg C y
1
). Between 10 and 11% of the
particulate terrestrial carbon is transported into the ocean (Alongi,
2014). Data imply that undisturbed mangrove forests may
constitute a carbon sink for up to a century (Alongi, 2012), and
that they are among the most C-dense forests in the tropics
(Donato et al., 2011). Similar to the case of sediment xation, the
benets from carbon sequestration usually play no role for the
decision whether to cut trees or convert forest areas to other uses.
The benets of carbon storage are even less tangible at the local
and regional level, where such decisions are made. The benets of
K. Schwerdtner Manez et al. / Global Environmental Change 28 (2014) 120128 124
climate change mitigation are realized up to the global level, and
mechanisms are needed to transfer some of these benets to the
levels where the future of mangrove systems is actually decided.
4. Discussion
Both case studies show that a link between the concept of
ecosystem services and the concept of scales can provide an
adequate framework to analyze and better manage mangrove
systems. A thorough implementation of this framework is still
challenging since there is no established approach for applying the
ecosystem service concept in decision-making on natural
resources and landscape management (Hauck et al., 2013). Based
on conceptual considerations and the results from our case studies,
we have identied several challenges which need to be addressed.
The rst challenge relates to managing ecosystem service bundles
in dynamic systems. It stems from the fact that ecosystems provide
numerous services, which are often interlinked. For example, the
ability of mangroves to stabilize soil and to store nutrients is
related to their habitat service for benthic organisms. Managing a
mangrove forest to increase its soil stabilization potential will also
improve habitat conditions for the benthos. Individual ecosystem
services are always elements of a bundle (Cumming and
Peterson, 2005). The correlation between ecosystem services in
this bundle can also be negative. Partly logging a mangrove forest
will decrease its value for soil stabilization, the provision of clear
water, and ood control. If a single service is optimized, this can
lead to trade-offs, meaning that the type, magnitude, and relative
mix of services provided by an ecosystem is changed (Rodriguez
et al., 2006). Such trade-offs may be explicitly wanted, or happen
unintentionally, for example as a result of incomplete knowledge
on the linkages between ecosystem services. Identifying and
possibly minimizing potential trade-offs is therefore of utmost
importance if decisions on management are to be made. Previous
work has shown that it is possible to identify ecosystem services
bundles. An analysis of such bundles which repeatedly appear
together can locate areas with desirable or non-desirable ecosys-
tem services (Raudsepp-Hearne et al., 2010). Management
decisions can then take the spatio-temporal appearance of these
bundles into account. It is important to point out that mangrove
systems are extremely dynamic. For example, the interplay
between mangrove trees and salt ats is central for the persistence
of these forests over space and time. Indeed, choosing one over the
other based on their stability properties, the overall systems self-
regulating mechanisms the resilience of the system, would be
negatively affected. This weakening of system resilience may affect
the capacity to deliver ecosystem services. This example reinforces
our call to consider ecosystem service bundles. Moreover,
mangrove forests usually represent a patchwork of interrupted
succession stages, resulting from the complex interplay of
physiological tolerances and competitive interactions and their
responses to environmental gradients and changes. Therefore a
mangrove forests ability to respond to disturbances and shocks
(resilience) also inuences its capacity to deliver ecosystem
services.
The second challenge is to decide for which ecosystem service
or bundle a system will be managed. This requires valuation of
some kind. The valuation of ecosystem services has been
extensively discussed elsewhere (Chan et al., 2012; de Groot
et al., 2002; Pascual and Muradian, 2010; Turner et al., 2003, 2010).
While valuation itself has made considerable progress, the
question of who should be the valuing agent(s) remains subject
to debate. Values including intrinsic values are part of a socio-
cultural environment, and differ between individuals or groups.
The global TEEB initiative on The Economics of Ecosystems and
Biodiversity has argued that choosing the value-articulating
institution is more important than the actual identication of a
value (Brondizio et al., 2010). Especially in the context of local and
regional decision-making and resource management, a more
socially embedded valuation is needed. Cowling et al. (2008) have
demanded that rather than being a highly scientic, expert-driven
exercise, ecosystem service valuation shall be user-inspired, user-
useful, and user-friendly. Menzel and Teng (2009) argue that the
values and needs of different users should guide the application of
the ecosystem service concept; following an identication of who
is involved and likely to be affected by any decisions made.
Ultimately, decisions about how to deal with trade-offs and
priorities among ecosystem services are and should be political,
and should not be left to experts and narrowly framed models
(Lebel et al., 2006).
This leads to the third challenge, which is the need to identify or
create institutions at the appropriate societal and administrative
levels which will foster the consideration of local and regional
stakeholder preferences and values. Successful examples exist,
such as transboundary watershed or river management commis-
sions with both governmental and non-governmental members.
Other systems, such as mangroves, are far more difcult in this
respect. The large numbers of individual stakeholders, less dened
system boundaries, overlapping marine and terrestrial areas, each
subject to different regulations, are just some of the issues to be
dealt with. The spatial and temporal scales at which ecosystem
services appear have to be matched with the scales at which the
management institutions operate. These institutions need to
ensure the ow of information between scales, to take ownership
regimes, cultures, and actors into account, and they need to fully
internalize costs and benets (Farley and Costanza, 2010). This
internalization is the fourth challenge.
The fourth challenge is the need for adequate policies or societal
mechanisms for the sharing of benets and costs across system levels
(Perrings and Gadgil, 2003; Ring, 2008). Because individual
decisions on resource use have an inuence on the provision of
ecosystem services to other users or even affect public interests at
larger societal levels, solutions need to be found which increase the
overall level of realized ecosystem services (Jack et al., 2008).
Payments for ecosystem services (PES) have been suggested as a
useful tool for this, although to date, few examples exist in the
marine and coastal context (Lau, 2013). PES can be understood as
a transfer of resources between social actors, which aims to create
incentives to align individual and/or collective (land use) decisions
with the social interest in management of natural resources
(Muradian et al., 2010). The resource transfer can be either
monetary or in-kind, such as capacity building, the provision of
alternative livelihoods, infrastructure building (e.g. schools) as
well as a codication of property, use, or access rights (Lau, 2013).
5. Conclusions and possible solutions
The case studies clearly conrm that scale mismatches are a
major contributor to management failures and the continued
degradation of mangrove ecosystems. A systematic analysis of the
different geographical scales at which benets from ecosystem
services are realized, and the administrative scales at which de
facto management decisions are made, reveals a simple truth.
While beneciaries are situated at the local, regional, national or
even global level, local resources users have the greatest inuence
on the future provision of mangrove ecosystem services. Especially
the management of ecosystem services which provide multiple
and often conicting benets is challenging. Our examples reveal
that local resource users lack incentives to consider benets
outside the geographical level at which they act. Our approach
allows nding possible solutions by (1) identifying the most
important interactions between levels, (2) illustrating current
K. Schwerdtner Manez et al. / Global Environmental Change 28 (2014) 120128 125
problems of t, and (3) developing mechanisms for benet
sharing and compensation mechanisms between different user
groups. On this basis, adequate policy mechanisms and related
institutional bodies can be developed.
To address the problem that management decisions made at
one level can reduce benets realized at another level some
thoughts on valuation are needed. Simply speaking: whose values
count? In the case of nursery habitat provision, it is obvious that
inside and outside the area which provides the habitat for shrimp
and sh, shers have a justied interest in shing. On the other
hand, intensive shing reduces or even destroys the ecosystem
service itself. In this case, a possible solution would be to begin
with the total potential gain from the mangrove-based shery.
Given that prices are higher for adult shrimp and sh, it seems
economically reasonable to focus on the shing of adult individu-
als. This could lead to a higher total economic gain, which then
needs to be distributed to shers who had to decrease their catch
effort. The ban of apong nets and a limit on numbers and/or sizes of
currais are concrete measures the implementation of which would
have positive impacts on sh and shrimp stocks. A policy
mechanism is needed which ensures that local shers are
compensated for their associated income losses. Such compensa-
tion can either be provided in monetary terms, as an investment
into alternative livelihood options, or by other means. It requires
the building of an institution that is both capable and trusted by
the involved stakeholders. It has to represent the different interests
and must come to commonly agreed decisions. A possibility would
be the development of a sheries association across administrative
scales, in the Indonesian case across two provinces.
Multiple ecosystem services delivering benets on larger
geographical scales need other solutions. However, the principle
remains the same: nancial or other incentives are required to
ensure the cooperation of local resource users. Payments for
ecosystem services (PES) provide an additional income source for
local communities to protect mangrove forests so that they can
further accumulate sediments and carbon. Especially because of
their importance for carbon sequestration, mangroves are cur-
rently being advocated as an essential component of climate
change strategies such as REDD+ (Reduction of Emissions from
Deforestation and Degradation) and blue carbon (Alongi, 2012).
REDD+ is a mechanism proposed by the UN to facilitate tropical
countries participation in climate change mitigation (Birdsey
et al., 2013); it compensates landowners and resource managers
for their efforts to reduce forest-based carbon emissions. However,
the inclusion of mangrove systems in PES schemes is challenged by
the large uncertainties about the carbon sequestration potential of
mangroves. As non-linear, non-equilibrium systems in a highly
dynamic environment, mangrove systems differ from the classical
concepts of forest development and succession for the design of
PES and REDD+ schemes (Alongi, 2011). Further research on these
issues is needed to save mangrove forests and their ecosystem
services for future generations.
Role of the funding source
The research in Indonesia has been funded in the frame of the
bilateral Indonesian-German research programmes SPICE II and
SPICE III (Science for the Protection of Indonesian Coastal
Ecosystems) sponsored by the German Federal Ministry of
Education and Research (BMBF), the Indonesian Ministry of
Marine Affairs and Fisheries (DKP) and the Ministry for Research
and Technology (RISTEK). The research in Brazil has been funded in
the frame of the MADAM Brazilian-German research programme
(Mangrove Dynamics and Management), sponsored by the German
Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the
Brazilian Ministe rio da Ciencia, Tecnologia e Inovacao (MCTI).
The funders had no role in study design; in the collection, analysis
and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in
the decision to submit the article for publication.
Acknowledgements
We thank the Indonesian Ministry for Research and Technology
(RISTEK) for kindly issuing permissions to conduct eld work in
Indonesia. Two reviewers have provided helpful comments on an
earlier version of the paper.
References
Alongi, D.M., 2008. Mangrove forests: resilience, protection from tsunamis, and
responses to global climate change. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 76, 113.
Alongi, D.M., 2011. Carbon payments for mangrove conservation: ecosystem
constraints and uncertainties of sequestration potential. Environ. Sci. Policy
14, 462470.
Alongi, D.M., 2012. Carbon sequestration in mangrove forests. Carbon Manage. 3,
313322.
Alongi, D.M., 2014. Carbon cycling and storage in mangrove forests. Annu. Rev. Mar.
Sci. 6, 195219.
Ardli, E., Wolff, M., 2009. Land use and land cover change affecting habitat
distribution in the Segara Anakan lagoon, Java, Indonesia. Reg. Environ. Change
9, 235243.
Atkins, J.P., Burdon, D., Elliott, M., Gregoy, A.J., 2011. Management of the marine
environment: integrating ecosystem services and societal benets with the
DPSIR framework in a systems approach. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 53, 215226.
Balmford, A., Fisher, B., Green, R.E., Naidoo, R., Strassburg, B., Turner, R.K., Rodrigues,
A.S., 2011. Bringing ecosystem services into the real world: an operational
framework for assessing the economic consequences of losing wild nature.
Environ. Resour. Econ. 48, 161175.
Barbier, E., 2006. Natural barriers to natural disasters: replanting mangroves after
the tsunami. Front. Ecol. Environ. 4, 124131.
Barletta, M., Barletta-Bergan, A., Saint-Paul, U., 1998. Description of the sheries
structure in the mangrove-dominated region of Braganca (State of Para ).
Ecotropica 4, 4153.
Berger, U., Glaser, M., Koch, B., Krause, G., Lara, R., Saint-Paul, U., Schories, D., Wolff,
M., 1999. MADAM the approach of an integrated project on mangrove
dynamics and management. J. Coast. Conserv. 5.
Beume e, J.G.B., 1929. Bandoeng-Tjilatjap-Djokja. In: Fourth Pacic Science
Congress.
Birdsey, R., Pan, Y., Houghton, R., 2013. Sustainable landscapes in a world of change:
tropical forests, land use and implementation of REDD+: part I. Carbon Manage.
4, 465468.
Blaikie, P., Brookeld, H., 1987. Dening and debating the problem. In: Blaikie, P.,
Brookeld, H. (Eds.), Land Degradation and Society. Methuen, London.
Boyd, J., Banzhaf, S., 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized
environmental accounting units. Ecol. Econ. 63, 616626.
Brondizio, E.S., Gatzweiler, F.W., Zografos, C., Kumar, M., 2010. Socio-cultural
context of ecosystem and biodiversity valuation. In: Pushpam, K. (Ed.), The
Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, Ecological and Economic Founda-
tions. Earthscan, London/Washington.
Brown, B., 2007. Resilience Thinking Applied to the Mangroves of Indonesia. IUCN &
Mangrove Action Project, Yogyakarta.
Brown, C.J., Purcell, M., 2005. There is nothing inherent about scale: political
ecology, the local trap, and the politics of development in the Brazilian Amazon.
Geoforum 36, 607624.
Canestri, V., Ruiz, O., 1973. The destruction of mangroves. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 4,
183185.
Cash, D.W., Adger, N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Pritchard, L., Young,
O., 2006. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a
multi-level world. Ecol. Soc. 11.
Chan, K., Shaw, M., Cameron, D., Underwood, E., Daily, G., 2006. Conservation
planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biol. 4.
Chan, K.M.A., Sattereld, T., Goldstein, J., 2012. Rethinking ecosystem services to
better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol. Econ. 74, 818.
Cowling, R.M., Egoh, B., Knight, A.T., OFarrell, P.J., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Roux, D.J.,
Welz, A., Wilhelm-Rechman, A., 2008. An operational model for mainstreaming
ecosystem services for implementation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 105, 9483.
Cumming, G., Peterson, G., 2005. Ecology in global scenarios. In: Carpenter, S.R.,
Pingali, P.L., Bennett, E.M., Zurek, M.B. (Eds.), Ecosystems and Human-Well
Being: Scenarios. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 4570.
Cumming, G.S., Cumming, D.H.M., Redmann, C.L., 2006. Scale mismatches in social
ecological systems: causes, consequences and solutions. Ecol. Soc. 11.
Daily, G., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, L., Ricketts,
T.H., Salzman, J., Shallenberger, R., 2009. Ecosystem services in decision making:
time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 2128.
Daily, G.C., 1997. Natures Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems.
Island Press.
Daily, G.C., 2000. Management objectives for the protection of ecosystem services.
Environ. Sci. Policy 3, 333339.
K. Schwerdtner Manez et al. / Global Environmental Change 28 (2014) 120128 126
de Groot, R., Fisher, B., Christie, M., Aronson, J., Braat, L., Gowdy, J., Haines-Young, R.,
Maltby, E., Neuville, A., Polasky, S., Portela, R., Ring, I., 2010a. Integrating
the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service
valuation. In: Kumar, P. (Ed.), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
The Ecological and Economic Foundations. Earthscan, London/Washington, DC,
pp. 940.
De Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., Willemen, L., 2010b. Challenges in
integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning,
management and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 7, 260272.
de Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R.M.J., 2002. A typology for the classication,
description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol.
Econ. 41, 393408.
De Haan, J.H., 1931. He teen en auder over Tjilatjapsche vloedbosschen. Tectona 24,
3976.
Donato, D.C., Kauffman, J.B., Murdiyarso, D., Kurnianto, S., Stidham, M., Kanninen,
M., 2011. Mangroves among the most carbon-rich forests in the tropics. Nat.
Geosci. 4, 293297.
Dudley, R.G., 2000a. Segara Anakan Conservation and Development Project Com-
ponents B & C. Consultants Report Segara Anakan Fisheries Management Plan.
Dudley, R.G., 2000b. Summary of Data Related to Segara Anakan Fish and Shrimp
Catches.
Duke, N.C., Meynecke, J.O., Dittmann, S., Ellison, A.M., Anger, K., Berger, U., Cannicci,
S., Diele, K., Ewel, K.C., Field, C.D., Koedam, N., Lee, S.Y., Marchand, C., Nordhaus,
I., Dahdouh-Guebas, F., 2007. A world without mangroves? Science 317, 41.
Ellison, A.M., Bank, M.S., Clinton, B.D., Colburn, E.A., Elliott Katherine, Ford, C.R.,
Foster, D.R., Kloeppel, B.D., Knoepp, J.D., Lovett, G.M., Mohan Jacqueline, Orwig,
D.A., Rodenhouse, N.L., Sobczak, W.V., Stinson, K.A., Stone, J.K., Swan, C.M.,
Thompson, J., Von Holle, B., Webster, J.R., 2005. Loss of foundation species:
consequences for the structure and dynamics of forested ecosystems. Front.
Ecol. Environ. 3, 479486.
European Commission, 2011. Communication from the Commission to the Euro-
pean Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions, Brussels.
FAO, 2007. Mangroves of Asia 19802005: Country Reports. Forestry Department,
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Forest Resources
Assessment Programme Working Paper, Rome.
Farley, J., Costanza, R., 2010. Payments for ecosystem services: from local to global.
Ecol. Econ. 69, 20602068.
Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., 2008. Ecosystem services: classication for valuation. Biol.
Conserv. 141, 11671169.
Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Morling, P., 2009. Dening and classifying ecosystem services
for decision making. Ecol. Econ. 68, 643653.
Folke, C., Pritchard, L., Berkes, F., Colding, J., Svedin, U., 2007. The problem of t
between ecosystems and institutions: ten years later. Ecol. Soc. 12 .
Gahzoul, J., 2007. Recognising the complexities of ecosystem management and the
ecosystem service concept. Gaia 16, 215221.
Giarrizzo, T., Kumme, U., 2009. Temporal patterns in the occurrence of selected
tropical shes in mangrove creeks: implications for the sheries management
in North Brazil. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 52, 679688.
Gibson, C.C., Ostrom, E., Ahn, T.K., 2000. The concept of scale and the human
dimensions of global change: a survey. Ecol. Econ. 32, 217239.
Glaser, M., 2003. Ecosystem, local economy and social sustainability: a case study of
Caete estuary, North Brazil. Wetl. Ecol. Manage. 11, 265272.
Glaser, M., Berger, U., Macedo, R., 2003. Local vulnerability as an advantage:
mangrove forest management in Para state North Brazil under conditions of
illegality. Reg. Environ. Change 3, 162172.
Glaser, M., Oliveira, R.d.S., 2004. Prospects for the co-management of mangrove
ecosystems on the North Brazilian coast: whose rights, whose duties and whose
priorities? Natural Resources Forum 28.
Hamilton, L.S., Snedaker, S.C., 1984. Handbook for Mangrove Area Management.
East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Hauck, J., Go rg, C., Varjopuro, R., Ratama ki, O., Jax, K., 2013. Benets and limitations
of the ecosystem services concept in environmental policy and decision-mak-
ing: some stakeholder perspectives. Environ. Sci. Policy 25, 1321.
Hein, L., van Koppen, K., de Groot, R.S., van Ierland, E.C., 2006. Spatial scales,
stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 57, 209228.
IBGE Instituto Brasileiro de Geograa e Estatstica IBGE, 2011. Population
Estimates 2011, http://www.ibge.gov.br/english/estatistica/populacao/estima-
tiva2011/estimativa_pop.shtm (accessed 28.04.14).
Jack, B.K., Kousky, C., Sims, K.R.E., 2008. Designing payments for ecosystem services:
lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 105, 94659470.
Kaplowitz, M.D., 2001. Assessing mangrove products and services at the local level:
the use of focus groups and individual interviews. Landsc. Urban Plan. 56,
5360.
Kjerfve, B., Lacerda, L.D., Diop, S., 1997. Mangrove Ecosystem Studies in Latin
America and Africa. UNESCO, Paris.
Krause, G., Schories, D., Glaser, M., Diele, K., 2001. Spatial patterns of mangrove
ecosystems: the Bragantinian mangroves of Northern Brazil (Bragnaca Para ).
Ecotropica 7, 97107.
Lau, W.W.Y., 2013. Beyond carbon: conceptualizing payments for ecosystem ser-
vices in blue forests on carbon and other marine and coastal ecosystem services.
Ocean Coast. Manage. 83, 514.
Lebel, L., Anderies, J.M., Campbell, B., Folke, C., Hateld-Dodds, S., Hughes, T.P.,
Wilson, J., 2006. Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional
socialecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 11, 121.
Lopes, R., Videira, N., 2013. Valuing marine and coastal ecosystem services: an
integrated framework. Ocean Coast. Manage. 84, 153162.
Lovell, C., Mandondo, A., Moriarty, P., 2002. The question of scale in integrated
natural resource management. Ecol. Soc. 5 .
MA Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being:
Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
MA Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2003. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being:
A Framework for Assessment. Conceptual Framework Working Group of the
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Washington.
Menzel, S., Teng, J., 2009. Ecosystem services as stakeholder-driven concept for
conservation science. Conserv. Biol. 24, 907909.
Miththapala, S., 2008. Mangroves, Coastal Ecosystems Series. Ecosystems and
Livelihoods Group Asia, IUCN, Colombo.
Moberg, F., Folke, C., 1999. Ecological goods and services of coral reef ecosystems.
Ecol. Econ. 29, 215233.
Mulyandari, U., 2003. The sun raises at Kampung Laut. Yemaya.
Muradian, R., Corber, E., Pascual, U., Kosoy, N., May, P., 2010. Reconciling theory and
practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for
environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 69, 12021208.
Pascual, U., Muradian, R., 2010. The economics of valuing ecosystem services and
biodiversity. In: Pushpam, K. (Ed.), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodi-
versity, Ecological and Economic Foundations. Earthscan, London/Washington,
pp. 1133.
Perrings, C., Gadgil, M., 2003. Conserving biodiversity: Reconciling local and global
public benets. In: Kaul, I., Conceicao, P., le Goulven, K., Mendoza, R.U. (Eds.),
Providing Global Public Goods: Managing Globalization. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, pp. 532556.
Perry, R.I., Ommer, R.E., 2003. Scale issues in marine ecosystems and human
interactions. Fish. Oceanogr. 12, 513522.
Polidoro, B.A., Carpenter, K.E., Collins, L., Duke, N.C., Ellison, A.M., Ellison, J.C.,
Farnsworth, E.J., Fernando, E.S., Kathiresan, K., Koedam, N.E., Livingstone,
S.R., Miyagi, T., Moore, G.E., Ngoc Nam, V., Ong, J.E., Primavera, J.H., Salmo III,
S.G., Sanciangco, J.C., Sukardjo, S., Wang, Y., Yong, J.W.H., 2010. The loss of
species: mangrove extinction risk and geographic areas of global concern. PLoS
ONE 5, e10095.
Primmer, E., Paloniemi, R., Mathevet, R., Apostolopoulou, E., Tzanopoulos, J., Ring, I.,
Kettunen, M., Simila , J., Cent, J., Grodzin ska-Jurczak, M., Koellner, T., Antunes, P.,
Pantis, J.D., Potts, S.G., Santos, R., 2014. An approach to analysing scale-sensi-
tivity and scale-effectiveness of governance in biodiversity conservation. In:
Padt, F., Opdam, P., Polman, N., Termeer, C. (Eds.), Scale-Sensitive Governance of
the Environment. Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 241262.
Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G.D., Bennett, E.M., 2010. Ecosystem service bundles
for analysing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 107,
52425247.
Ring, I., 2008. Biodiversity governance: Adjusting local costs and global benets. In:
Sikor, T. (Ed.), Public and Private in Natural Resource Governance: A False
Dichotomy? Earthscan, London.
Rodriguez, J.P., Beard, T.D., Bennett, E.M., Cumming, G.S., Cork, S.J., Agard, J., Dobson,
A.P., Peterson, G.D., 2006. Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services.
Ecol. Soc. 11, 28.
Ro nnba ck, P., 1999. The ecological basis for economic value of seafood production
supported by mangrove ecosystems. Ecol. Econ. 29, 235252.
Ro nnba ck, P., Maciab, A., Almqvist, G., Schultz, L., Troell, M., 2002. Do Penaeid
Shrimps have a Preference for Mangrove Habitats?. Distribution Pattern Anal-
ysis on Inhaca Island, Mozambique Estuarine. Coast. Shelf Sci. 55, 427436.
Saint-Paul, U., Schneider, H., 2010. Mangrove Dynamics and Management in North
Brazil Ecological Studies. Springer, Berlin.
Satakea, A., Rudel, T.K., Onuma, A., 2008. Scale mismatches and their ecological and
economic effects on landscapes A spatially explicit model Global. Environ.
Change 18, 768775.
Scarlate Rovai, A., Palamar Menghini, A., Schaeffer-Novelli, Y., Cintron Molero, G.,
Coelho, C., 2012. Protecting Brazils coastal wetlands. Science 335, 15821583.
Schaub, C.M., 2000. Untersuchung der Grossreusenscherei im A

stuar des Rio

Caete /Nordbrasilien Center for Tropical Marine Ecology. University of Bremen,
Bremen.
Schwerdtner Ma nez, K., 2010. Javas forgotten pearls: the history and disappearance
of pearl shing in the Segara Anakan lagoon, South Java, Indonesia. Hist. Geogr.
36, 367376.
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010. Global Biodiversity Outlook 3.
Montreal
Soegiarto, A., 2004. Research into, and conservation of mangrove ecosystems in
Indonesia. In: Vannucci, M. (Ed.), Mangrove Management and Conservation.
Present and Future. United Nations Press, Tokyo, pp. 5158.
Soemodihardjo, S., Suroyo, Sujarso, 1991. The mangroves of Segara Anakan: an
assessment of their condition and prospects. In: Chou, L.M., Chua, T.-E., Khoo,
H.W., Lim, P.E., Paw, J.N., Silvestre, G.T., Valencia, M.J., White, A.T., Wong, P.K.
(Eds.), Towards an Integrated Management of Tropical Coastal Resources.
National University of Singapore, National Science and Technology Board
Singapore, International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management,
Phillipines.
Spalding, M., Kainuma, M., Collins, L., 2010. World Atlas of Mangroves. Earthscan,
London.
Sukardjo, S., 2009. Mangroves for national development and conservation in
Indonesia: challenges for the future. Mar. Res. Indonesia 34, 4761.
TEEB, 2012. In: Beaudoin, Y., Pendleton, L. (Eds.), Why Value the Oceans A
Discussion Paper.
K. Schwerdtner Manez et al. / Global Environmental Change 28 (2014) 120128 127
Turner, R.K., Morse-Jones, S., Fisher, B., 2010. Ecosystem valuation A sequential
decision support system and quality assessment issues. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.
1185, 79110.
Turner, R.K., Paavola, J., Cooper, P., Farber, S., Jessamy, V., Georgiou, S., 2003. Valuing
nature: lessons learned and future research directions. Ecol. Econ. 46, 493510.
Valiela, I., Bowen, J.L., York, J.K., 2001. Mangrove forests: one of the worlds
threatened major tropical environments. Bioscience 51, 807815.
Wallace, K.J., 2007. Classication of ecosystem services: problems and solutions.
Biol. Conserv. 139, 235246.
Walters, B.B., Ro nnba ck, P., Kovacsc, J.M., Crona, B., Hussain, S.A., Badolad, R., Prima-
vera, J.H., Barbier, E., Dahdouh-Guebas, F., 2008. Ethnobiology, socio-economics
and management of mangrove forests: a review. Aquat. Bot. 89, 220236.
Warren-Rhodes, K., Schwarz, A.-M., Boyle, L.N., Albert, J., Agalo, S.S., Warren, R.,
Bana, A., Paul, C., Kodosiku, R., Bosma, W., Yee, D., Ro nnback, P., Crona, B., Duke,
N., 2011. Mangrove ecosystem services and the potential for carbon revenue
programmes in Solomon Islands. Environ. Conserv. 38, 485496.
Young, O.R., 2002. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit,
Interplay, and Scale. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts.
K. Schwerdtner Manez et al. / Global Environmental Change 28 (2014) 120128 128