Article

Review of Valuation Methods for Mangrove Ecosystem Services.

Ecological Indicators (Impact Factor: 3.44). 12/2012; 23(23):431-446. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.04.022

ABSTRACT

The goods and services provided by natural ecosystems contribute to human well being, both directly and indirectly. The ability to calculate the economic value of the ecosystem goods and services is increasingly recognized as a necessary condition for integrated environmental decision-making, sustainable business practice, and land-use planning at multiple geographic scales and socio-political levels. We present a
comprehensive overview and summary of studies undertaken to investigate the ecosystem services of
mangrove forests. We address the variety of different methods applied for different ecosystem services
evaluation of mangrove forests, as well as the methods and techniques employed for data analyses, and
further to discuss their potential and limitations.

Full-text

Available from: Claudia Kuenzer
Ecological
Indicators
23
(2012)
431–446
Contents
lists
available
at
SciVerse
ScienceDirect
Ecological
Indicators
jo
ur
nal
homep
age:
www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind
Review
Review
of
valuation
methods
for
mangrove
ecosystem
services
Quoc
Tuan
Vo
a,
,
C.
Kuenzer
b
,
Quang
Minh
Vo
c
,
F.
Moder
d
,
N.
Oppelt
e
a
German
Remote
Sensing
Data
Centre,
DFD,
of
the
German
Aerospace
Centre,
DLR,
Oberpfaffenhofen,
D-82234
Wessling,
Germany
b
German
Remote
Sensing
Data
Centre,
DFD,
of
the
German
Aerospace
Centre,
DLR,
Muenchner
Str.
20,
Oberpfaffenhofen,
82234
Wessling,
Germany
c
Department
of
Land
Resource,
College
of
Environment
and
Natural
Resource
Can
Tho
University,
Viet
Nam
d
Ministry
of
Science
and
Technology,
Southern
Representative
Office,
Ho
Chi
Minh
City,
Viet
Nam
e
Kiel
University,
Department
for
Geography,
Ludewig-Meyn-Str
14,
24098
Kiel,
Germany
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
n
f
o
Article
history:
Received
6
September
2011
Received
in
revised
form
13
April
2012
Accepted
21
April
2012
Keywords:
Ecosystem
services
Mangrove
forest
Coastal
Economic
evaluation
a
b
s
t
r
a
c
t
The
goods
and
services
provided
by
natural
ecosystems
contribute
to
human
well
being,
both
directly
and
indirectly.
The
ability
to
calculate
the
economic
value
of
the
ecosystem
goods
and
services
is
increasingly
recognized
as
a
necessary
condition
for
integrated
environmental
decision-making,
sustainable
business
practice,
and
land-use
planning
at
multiple
geographic
scales
and
socio-political
levels.
We
present
a
comprehensive
overview
and
summary
of
studies
undertaken
to
investigate
the
ecosystem
services
of
mangrove
forests.
We
address
the
variety
of
different
methods
applied
for
different
ecosystem
services
evaluation
of
mangrove
forests,
as
well
as
the
methods
and
techniques
employed
for
data
analyses,
and
further
to
discuss
their
potential
and
limitations.
©
2012
Elsevier
Ltd.
All
rights
reserved.
Contents
1.
Introduction
....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
1.1.
Definition
of
ecosystem
services.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
1.2.
Ecosystem
services
versus
ecosystem
functions
....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
2.
Ecosystem
services
in
the
context
of
coastal
environmental
protection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
2.1.
Ecosystem
services
and
coastal
biodiversity
....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
2.2.
Evaluation
of
ecosystem
services
regarding
to
coastal
environment
protection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
2.3.
Ecosystem
services
provided
by
mangrove
in
the
context
of
climate
change
mitigation
....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
3.
Review
of
studies
in
ecosystem
service
assessment
in
the
mangrove
wetlands
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
3.1.
Valuation
methods
of
mangrove
ecosystem
services
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
3.2.
Economic
valuation
of
ecosystem
services
in
literature
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
4.
Discussion.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
4.1.
Need
for
site-specific
economic
valuation
of
an
ecosystem
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
4.2.
Need
for
standardized
definition
of
ecosystem
services
and
its
valuations
method
for
a
specific
landscape
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
4.3.
Need
for
strengthen
the
link
between
economic
evaluation
of
ecosystem
and
policy
makers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
5.
Conclusion
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
References
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
1.
Introduction
The
term
“ecosystem
service”
(ES)
comprises
all
goods
and
ser-
vices
provided
by
natural
and
modified
ecosystems
that
benefit,
sustain
and
support
human
well-being.
This
includes
benefits
of
the
ecosystem
based
on
the
food
production,
building
materials,
Corresponding
author.
Tel.:
+49
08153
28
1747.
E-mail
address:
tuan.voquoc@dlr.de
(Q.T.
Vo).
medicines,
regulation
of
microclimate,
disease
prevention,
pro-
vision
of
productive
soils
and
clean
water
resources,
as
well
as
landscape
opportunities
for
recreational
and
spiritual
benefits
(Daily,
1997;
Costanza
and
Folke,
1997;
Millennium
Ecosystem
Assessment-MA,
2005;
Banzhaf,
2007;
Wallace,
2007).
Such
ser-
vices
are
provided
by
ecosystems
which
consist
of
a
combination
of
soil,
animals,
plants,
water,air
and
other
services
such
as
the
service
that
maintaining
biodiversity
or
contribute
to
climate
stability.
If
these
elements
are
depleted,
the
ability
or
capacity
of
ecosystems
to
provide
services
is
diminished.
ES
support
our
well-being,
including
1470-160X/$
see
front
matter
©
2012
Elsevier
Ltd.
All
rights
reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.04.022
Page 1
432
Q.T.
Vo
et
al.
/
Ecological
Indicators
23
(2012)
431–446
the
production
of
most
of
our
living
needs,
and
thus
are
of
signifi-
cant
value.
However,
the
services
from
the
ecosystems
are
greatly
undervalued
by
society.
Most
of
them
are
not
traded
in
the
formal
market,
and
its
value
is
not
easy
to
be
estimated
(Daily
et
al.,
1997).
ES
are
often
neglected
or
even
ignored
by
the
economy,
industry,
and
local
habitants;
even
though
most
of
them
strongly
depend
on
the
flow
of
ES.
Knowing
the
economic
value
of
an
ecosystem
and
its
services
is
an
important
asset,
because
a
major
demand
is
the
support
of
human
well
being,
sustainablility,
and
distributional
fairness
(Costanza
and
Farber,
2002).
From
the
human
perspective,
natu-
ral
ecosystems
not
only
provide
life
supporting
services,
but
also
services
beyond
basic
life
support
(e.g.
recreational
and
aesthetic
enjoyment)
(Daily,
1997;
Costanza
and
Farber,
2002).
Over
the
past
two
decades,
humans
changed
ecosystems
more
rapidly
and
comprehensively
than
in
any
comparable
period
before.
This
was
mainly
due
to
the
rapidly
growing
demands
for
food,
fresh
water,
timber,
fiber,
and
fuel.
This
transformation
of
the
planet
has
con-
tributed
to
substantial
net
gains
in
human
well-being
and
economic
development
(MA,
2005).
This
review
paper
gives
a
comprehensive
overview
of
studies
on
the
concept
of
ecosystem
functions
and
services,
and
synthesizes
the
methodologies
for
assessing
the
value
of
mangrove
ecosystem
services.
ES
concepts
and
valuations
itself,
which
have
been
devel-
oped
so
far,
are
introduced
briefly.
The
paper
highlights
key
issues
and
trends
in
the
application
of
economic
valuation
techniques
on
natural
ecosystems.
It
reviews
different
valuation
techniques
and
illustrates
applications
with
examples
drawn
from
empirical
lit-
erature
studies.
The
paper
also
includes
a
brief
discussion
of
how
results
of
previous
valuation
studies
might
be
used
for
future
eval-
uation
methods
of
natural
ecosystem
services.
The
paper
summarizes
and
discusses
studies
on
ES
and
func-
tions
in
the
context
of
environmental
protection
as
well
as
climate
change
mitigation,
published
over
the
last
two
decades.
The
focus
is
set
on
ES
in
coastal
areas,
where
mangrove
wetlands
are
pre-
vailing,
which
are
an
important
asset
for
coastal
protection,
and
provide
numerous
additional
services
for
the
coastal
communities.
The
next
section
describes
the
importance
of
ES
research
and
the
increasing
focus
on
ecosystem
studies.
In
Section
2,
the
gen-
eral
concept
of
ecosystem
functions
and
services
in
the
context
of
coastal
environmental
protection
is
discussed.
Section
3
reviews
research
papers
on
the
valuation
of
mangrove
ecosystem
services
based
on
different
approaches.
In
Section
4,
the
different
approaches
to
assess
ecosystem
functions
and
ecosystem
evaluations
are
discussed.
This
section
also
discusses
the
difficulties
of
ES
assessment
especially
concerning
the
definitions
of
economic
values
of
ecosystem
services.
1.1.
Definition
of
ecosystem
services
The
concept
of
ES
and
their
valuation
was
first
introduced
in
the
1960s
by
King
(1966)
and
Helliwell
(1969)
who
refered
the
nature’s
functions
in
serving
human
societies.
Afterwards,
ecosys-
tem
services
has
been
the
focus
of
many
publications
(e.g.
Pearce,
1993;
Pearce
and
Moran,
1994;
Daily,
1997;
Costanza
and
Folke,
1997;
De
Groot
et
al.,
2002;
MA,
2005;
Banzhaf,
2007;
Wallace,
2007).
The
widely
accepted
definition
of
ES
is:
“Ecosystem
ser-
vices
are
the
benefits
provided
by
ecosystems
to
humans,
which
contribute
to
making
human
life
both
possible
and
worth
living”.
(Díaz
et
al.,
2006;
MA,
2005a,
b;
Layke
et
al.,
2012;
van
Oudenhoven
et
al.,
2012).
This
includes
goods
such
as
food-crops,
seafood,
for-
age,
timber,
biomass
fuels,
natural
fiber,
pharmaceuticals,
geologic
resources,
and
industrial
products,
services
such
as
the
mainte-
nance
of
biodiversity
and
life-support
functions,
including
waste
assimilation,
cleansing,
recycling
and
renewal
(Table
1)
(Costanza
and
Folke,
1997;
Costanza
et
al.,
1998;
Daily,
1997;
Norberg,
1999,
Eisfelder
et
al.,
2011;
Busch
et
al.,
2011),
and
intangible
aesthetic
and
cultural
benefits
(Bengtsson,
1997;
King
et
al.,
2000;
De
Groot
et
al.,
2002).
According
to
the
MA
(2005a),
ES
are
indispensable
for
both
the
natural
environment
and
human
beings.
Four
major
categories
of
ES
were
identified
by
the
MA,
which
are
(i)
provision-
ing
services,
(ii)
regulating
services,
(iii)
cultural
services,
and
(iv)
supporting
services
(MA,
2005a)
(Fig.
1).
In
ecological
literature,
the
term
“ecosystem
services”
has
been
subject
to
various
and
sometimes
contradictory
interpretations.
Some
authors
use
the
term
to
describe
the
internal
function
such
as
nutrient
cycling
or
energy
maintenance
(Daily,
1997;
Wallace,
2007;
Fisher
et
al.,
2009);
others
relate
ES
to
the
benefit
for
humans,
which
can
be
derived
from
the
processes
of
the
ecosystem
(e.g.
food
production,
recreation)
(De
Groot
et
al.,
2002;
Brown
et
al.,
2007;
Luck
et
al.,
2009).
According
to
Jewitt
(2002),
ecosystem
services
are
generated
by
a
complex
interplay
of
natural
cycles,
powered
by
solar
energy,
and
operating
across
a
wide
range
of
space
and
time
scales,
incorporating
both
biotic
and
abiotic
components.
Banzhaf
(2007)
integrated
economic
principles
in
their
def-
inition
“Ecosystem
services
are
components
of
nature,
directly
enjoyed,
consumed,
or
used
to
yield
human
well-being”.
The
important
aspect
of
their
work
is
that
they
distinguished
between
“end-products”
and
“intermediate
products”
to
account
welfare.
“End
products”
are
consumed
directly
by
a
household
such
as
clean
drinking
water,
but
clean
drinking
water
is
depending
on
ecologi-
cal
processes,
which
are
described
as
“intermediate
products”.
They
argue
that
if
intermediate
and
final
goods
are
not
distinguished,
the
value
of
intermediate
goods
are
double
counted
because
the
value
of
intermediate
goods
is
embodied
in
the
value
of
final
goods
(e.g.
the
value
of
steel
used
in
for
the
production
of
cars
is
already
part
of
the
car’s
total
value)
(Banzhaf,
2007).
In
general,
definitions
of
ES
are
as
diverse
as
the
number
of
studies
published
in
this
context.
All
studies,
however,
acknowl-
edge
the
strong
relation
between
ecosystem
function
and
human
well-being.
In
other
words,
ecosystem
services
consist
of
flows
of
materials,
energy,
and
information
from
natural
capital
stocks,
which
can
be
combined
with
manufactured
and
human
capital
ser-
vices
to
produce
human
welfare.
The
publication
of
the
MA
reports
and
their
definition
of
ES
also
lead
to
intense
discussions
criticising
the
concept
and
several
modified
classification
approaches
were
published
(De
Groot
et
al.,
2002;
Wallace,
2007;
TEEB,
2008;
Haines-Young
and
Poschkin,
2010).
The
main
critics
regarding
the
MEA
definition
of
ES
complain
the
simplified
an
very
generic
framework
as
well
as
an
imprecise
differentiation
between
services
themselves,
ecosystem
processes
and
benefits
(Wallace,
2007;
Banzhaf,
2007;
Fisher
et
al.,
2008).
Banzhaf
(2007)
tried
to
solve
the
mixing
problem
with
an
eco-
nomical
principle
that
should
also
standardize
the
concept
of
ES.
Wallace
(2007)
also
favours
a
standardized
framework
that
only
counts
endpoints
(final
services)
as
ES
and
fits
to
all
applications
to
facilitate
the
concept
for
landscape
planners.
However,
each
of
them
considers
the
need
of
multiple
and
context-based
clas-
sification
systems
to
fit
the
complexity
of
the
human-ecosystem
interface
and
find
valuable
benefits.
Most
authors
suggest
frame-
works
that
separate
the
MA
supporting
services
(e.g.
nutrient
or
water
cycling)
in
ecosystem
functions
and
processes.
Recently,
multinational
gatherings,
including
the
“Convention
on
Biological
Diversity”,
the
“Ramsar
Convention
on
Wetlands
and
Migratory
Species”,
and
the
“Convention
to
Combat
Desertification”,
have
incorporated
the
ES
concept
into
their
discussion
and
conven-
ing.
Also
major
Non-Governmental
Organizations
(NGO)
including
The
Nature
Conservancy,
the
World
Wildlife
Fund
(WWF),
the
International
Union
for
the
conservation
of
Nature
(IUCN),
and
the
World
Resource
Institute
(WRI)
have
begun
to
pilote
ES
pro-
grams,
as
have
major
intergovernmental
agencies
including
the
United
Nations
Development
Program
(UNDP),
and
the
World
Bank
Page 2
Q.T.
Vo
et
al.
/
Ecological
Indicators
23
(2012)
431–446
433
Table
1
Ecosystem
services
and
functions
as
presented
in
Costanza
and
Folke
(1997)
and
Rönnbäck
(2007).
Ecosystem
service
Ecosystem
function
Example
Gas
regulation
Regulation
of
atmospheric
chemical
composition
CO
2
/O
2
balance,O
3
for
UVB
protection,
and
SO
x
levels
Climate
regulation Regulation
of
global
temperature,
precipitation,
and
other
biologically
mediated
climatic
processes
at
global
or
local
levels
Greenhouse
gas
regulation,
dimethyl
sulfide
(DMS)
production
affecting
cloud
formation
Disturbance
regulation
Capacitance,
damping
and
integrity
of
ecosystem
response
to
environmental
fluctuations
Storm
protection,
flood
control,
drought
recovery,
and
other
aspects
of
habitat
response
to
environmental
variability
mainly
controlled
by
vegetation
structure
Water
regulation Regulation
of
hydrological
flows Provisioning
of
water
for
agricultural
(such
as
irrigation)
or
industrial
(such
as
milling)
processes
or
transportation
Water
supply Storage
and
retention
of
water
Provisioning
of
water
by
watersheds,
reservoirs
and
aquifers
Erosion
control
and
sediment
retention
Retention
of
soil
within
an
ecosystem
Prevention
of
loss
of
soil
by
wind,
runoff,
or
other
removal
processes,
storage
of
silt
in
lakes
and
wetlands
Soil
formation
Soil
formation
processes
Weathering
of
rock
and
the
accumulation
of
organic
material
Nutrient
cycling
Storage,
internal
cycling,
processing,
and
acquisition
of
nutrients
Nitrogen
fixation,
N,
P,
and
other
elemental
or
nutrient
cycles
Waste
treatment
Recovery
of
mobile
nutrients
and
removal
or
breakdown
of
excess
or
xenic
nutrients,
and
compounds
Waste
treatment,
pollution
control,
detoxification
Pollination
Movement
of
floral
gametes
Provisioning
of
pollinators
for
the
reproduction
of
plant
populations
Biological
control Trophic-dynamic
regulations
of
populations Keystone
predator
control
of
prey
species,
reduction
of
herbivores
by
top
predators
Refugia
Habitat
for
resident
and
transient
populations
Nurseries,
habitats
for
migratory
species,
regional
habitats
for
locally
harvested
species,
or
overwintering
grounds
Food
production
That
portion
of
gross
primary
production
extractable
as
food
Production
of
fish,
game,
crops,
nuts,
fruits
by
hunting,
gathering,
subsistence
farming
or
fishing
Raw
materials
That
portion
of
gross
primary
production
extractable
as
raw
materials
The
production
of
lumber,
fuel,
or
fodder
Genetic
resources
Sources
of
unique
biological
materials,
and
products
Medicine,
products
for
materials
science,
genes
for
resistance
to
plant
pathogens
and
crop
pests,
ornamental
species
(pets
and
horticultural
varieties
of
plants)
Recreation
Providing
opportunities
for
recreational
activities
Eco-tourism,
sport
fishing,
and
other
outdoor
recreational
activities
Cultural Providing
opportunities
for
non-commercial
uses Aesthetic,
artistic,
educational,
spiritual,
and/or
scientific
values
of
ecosystems
(Tallis
et
al.,
2008).
Their
projects
have
variously
been
catego-
rized
as
integrated
conservation–development
projects,
focusing
on
community-based
natural
resource
management.
Many
lessons
have
been
learned
based
on
these
projects
already
conducted
by
conservation
NGOs,
in
which
efforts
have
been
made
to
both
improve
human
well-being
and
the
state
of
the
ecosystem
(Tallis
et
al.,
2008).
Over
the
last
two
decades,
ES
and
the
natural
capital
from
which
these
services
originate
have
increasingly
caught
the
interest
of
environmental
researchers,
policy
makers,
as
well
as
economists.
More
recently,
there
has
been
an
almost
exponential
growth
in
pub-
lications
on
the
ecosystem
functions
and
services,
value
of
natural
ecosystems,
how
people
benefit
from
the
services
provided
by
the
natural
ecosystem,
and
methods
of
assessing
the
values
of
natural
ES
(e.g.
De
Groot,
1992,
1994;
Pearce,
1993;
Bingham
et
al.,
1995;
Daily,
1997;
Costanza
and
Folke,
1997;
Pimentel
and
Wilson,
1997;
Limburg
and
Folke,
1999;
Wilson
and
Carpenter,
1999;
Daily
et
al.,
2000;
Guo
et
al.,
2001;
Lal,
2003;
MA,
2005;
TEEB,
2008;
Kumar,
2010;
Burkhard
et
al.,
2010,
2011).
1.2.
Ecosystem
services
versus
ecosystem
functions
The
term
“ecosystem
function”
(EF)
is
interpreted
differently
by
different
authors.
Sometimes
the
concepts
are
used
to
describe
the
internal
functioning
of
the
ecosystem
(e.g.
nutrient
cycling
and
maintaining
energy
fluxes,
nutrient
recycling,
food–web
Fig.
1.
Ecosystem
services
(adapted
from
MA,
2005a,b),
modified.
Page 3
434
Q.T.
Vo
et
al.
/
Ecological
Indicators
23
(2012)
431–446
interactions)
(Pearce,
1993;
De
Groot,
1992,
1994;
Bingham
et
al.,
1995;
Daily,
1997;
Costanza
and
Folke,
1997;
Daily
et
al.,
2000;
Nedkov
and
Burkhard,
2011),
and
sometimes
it
refers
to
the
inter-
nal
functioning
of
the
ecosystem
(Costanza
and
Folke,
1997;
Daily
et
al.,
2000;
De
Groot,
1992;
De
Groot
et
al.,
2002).
De
Groot
(1992)
defined
an
EF
as
“the
capacity
of
natural
processes
and
components
to
provide
goods
and
services
that
satisfy
human
needs
directly
or
indirectly”.
They
attempted
to
provide
a
comprehensive
and
consistent
overview
of
all
functions,
goods
and
services
provided
by
natural
and
semi-natural
ecosystems,
and
grouped
ecosystem
functions
into
four
primary
categories,
which
are
listed
in
Table
2a,
Table
2b,
Table
2c
and
Table
2d.
- Regulation
functions:
This
group
of
functions
relates
to
the
capac-
ity
of
natural
and
semi-natural
ecosystems
to
regulate
essential
ecological
processes
and
life
support
systems
through
bio-
geochemical
cycles
and
other
biosphere
processes.
-
Production
functions:
These
functions
provide
many
ecosystem
goods
and
services
for
human
consumption
such
as
food,
raw
materials,
energy
resources
and
genetic
material.
Table
2a
Regulation
functions
of
ecosystems
(De
Groot,
1992).
Regulation
functions
Example
Gas
regulation
Maintenance
of
chemical
composition
of
air
and
ocean,
and
provision
of
clean
air,
prevention
of
diseases
such
as
skin
cancer,
and
general
habitability
of
the
earth
Climate
regulation
Provision
of
favorable
climate,
which
enables
us
to
maintain
health,
produce
crops,
have
recreation
Disturbance
prevention
Provision
of
buffer
to
natural
hazards
such
as
storms,
floods,
and
droughts
Water
regulation
Provision
of
irrigation,
drainage,
river
discharge,
channel
flow,
and
transportation
medium
Water
supply
Provision
of
water
for
human
Soil
formation
Provision
of
a
medium
for
production
of
crops
Nutrient
regulation
Provision
of
nutrients
such
as
N,
P,
K,
sulfur,
calcium,
magnesium
and
chlorine
through
recycling
Waste
treatment
Assimilation,
dilution,
and
chemically
decomposition
of
organic
and
wastes
Pollination Provision
of
services
to
enable
plants
to
reproduce
Biological
control
Interaction
and
feedback
mechanisms,
which
stabilize
population
of
various
species,
thereby
preventing
outbreaks
of
pests
and
diseases
Table
2b
Production
function
of
an
ecosystem
(according
to
De
Groot,
1992).
Production
functions
Examples
Food
Food
sources
that
allow
a
diverse
number
of
plants
and
animals
to
thrive
and
evolve
Raw
materials
Include
wood
and
fibers,
chemicals
and
compounds
(e.g.
latex,
gums),
energy
sources,
and
animal
fodder
Genetic
resources
Provide
source
of
genes
to
improve
characteristics
(taste,
pest
resistance)
of
cultivated
crops
Medicinal
resources
Provide
chemicals
that
are
used
as
drugs,
or
as
models
for
synthetic
drugs
Ornamental
resources
Provide
materials
for
fashion,
crafts,
cultural
objects,
decoration,
etc.
Table
2c
Habitat
functions
of
an
ecosystem
(according
to
De
Groot,
1992).
Habitat
functions
Examples
Refugium
function
Provides
living
space,
cover,
and
food
sources
that
allow
a
diverse
number
of
plants
and
animals
to
thrive
and
evolve
Nursery
function
Provision
of
breeding
and
nursery
grounds
for
species
that
are
harvested
elsewhere
as
adults
Table
2d
Information
functions
of
an
ecosystem
(according
to
De
Groot,
1992).
Information
functions
Examples
Aesthetic
information
Provide
scenery
and
landscape
for
human
enjoyment;
can
influence
real
estate
prices
Recreation
Provide
venue
for
recreation
such
as
camping,
hiking
and
other
eco
tourism
activities
Cultural
and
artistic
information
Nature
often
as
basis
for
cultural
traditions;
provides
inspiration
for
artistic
pieces
Spiritual
and
historic
information
Provide
sense
of
continuity
and
place
and
can
be
important
part
of
religion
Science
and
education Provide
sense
of
continuity
and
place
and
can
be
important
part
of
religion
-
Habitat
functions:
Natural
ecosystems
provide
refuge
and
repro-
duction
habitat
to
wild
plants
and
animals
and
thereby
contribute
to
the
conservation
of
biological
and
genetic
diversity
and
evolu-
tionary
processes.
-
Information
functions:
Natural
ecosystems
provide
an
essen-
tial
“reference
function”,
and
contribute
to
the
maintenance
of
human
health
by
providing
opportunities
for
reflection,
spiri-
tual
enrichment,
cognitive
development,
recreation
and
aesthetic
experience
(Costanza
and
Folke,
1997;
Daily,
1997;
De
Groot
et
al.,
2002).
The
EF
that
are
apparently
valuable
to
society
are
called
ES.
However,
given
the
early
stages
of
human
knowledge
regarding
ecosystems,
it
would
be
both
untimely
and
imprudent
to
exclude
any
EF
from
this
category.
ES
clearly
provide
life
support
services
for
both
humans
and
other
species.
ES
go
beyond
the
direct
eco-
nomic
benefits
derived
from
exploitation
of
very
specific
EF
such
as
timber
from
forests.
It
is
ecosystems’
ongoing
capacities
to
pro-
vide
a
stream
of
life
supporting
and
life
enhancing
services
that
are
vital
to
human
well
being.
Many
of
these
services
are
non-market
services
by
virtue
of
their
inherent
characteristics
(e.g.
both
the
atmospheric
ozone
layer,
and
the
climate
stability
provided
by
the
global
carbon
cycle,
cannot
be
owned
by
anyone
who
can
control
their
use
by
others;
both
ownership
and
control
are
conditions
for
a
good
or
service
to
be
traded
in
a
market).
Within
the
study
by
Banzhaf
(2007)
on
What
are
ecosystem
ser-
vices?
The
need
for
a
standardized
environmental
accounting
unit,
the
authors
concluded:
“Ecosystem
components
include
resources
such
as
surface
water,
oceans,
vegetation
types,
and
species.
Ecosys-
tem
processes
and
functions
are
the
biological,
chemical,
and
physical
interactions
between
ecosystem
components.
The
rea-
son
is
that
functions
and
processes
are
not
services,
they
are
not
end-products;
functions
and
processes
are
intermediate
to
the
pro-
duction
of
final
services”.
Many
components
and
functions
of
an
ecosystem
are
intermediate
products;
they
are
necessary
to
the
production
of
services
but
are
not
services
themselves
(Banzhaf,
2007).
Bengtsson
(1997)
published
a
paper
on
“What
are
the
relation-
ships
between
ecosystem
functions
and
biodiversity”.
The
author
used
different
aspects
of
diversity
and
ecosystem
complexity,
such
as
species
richness,
variety
of
diversity
indices,
or
the
number
of
functional
groups
to
explore
the
relationship
between
EF
and
biodiversity.
The
author
concluded
that
diversity
and
EF
has
no
direct
relationship
to
each
other,
but
both
are
functions
of
the
presence
and
activities
of
species,
functional
groups,
and
their
interactions.
It
has
already
been
pointed
out
that
it
is
difficult
to
predict,
which
species
will
be
important
for
EF
as
environmental
conditions
change,
even
in
fairly
well
studied
types
of
ecosystems
(Bengtsson,
1997;
Schneiders
et
al.,
2011).
EFs
and
ES
can
overlap,
leading
to
the
possibility
of
economic
“double
counting”
in
calculating
the
value
of
an
ecosystem.
De
Groot
et
al.
(2002)
revealed
that
EF
and
ES
do
not
always
show
Page 4
Q.T.
Vo
et
al.
/
Ecological
Indicators
23
(2012)
431–446
435
Fig.
2.
Schematic
representation
of
the
ecosystem
functions
and
services
(UNEP,
2009),
modified.
a
one-to-one
correspondence,
sometimes
a
single
ES
is
the
product
of
many
functions,
whereas
in
other
cases
a
single
function
con-
tributes
to
more
than
one
service
(Fig.
2)
(e.g.
gas
regulation
is
based
on
biogeochemical
processes
which
maintain
a
certain
air
qual-
ity
as
well
as
influence
the
greenhouse
effect
and
thereby
climate
regulating
processes).
2.
Ecosystem
services
in
the
context
of
coastal
environmental
protection
2.1.
Ecosystem
services
and
coastal
biodiversity
The
concept
of
ES
encompasses
not
only
delivery,
provision,
and
production
but
also
includes
the
protection
and
maintenance
of
a
set
of
goods
and
services
that
people
perceive
to
be
important
(Chee,
2004).
In
the
context
of
environmental
protection,
man-
grove
ES
play
a
crucial
role
in
the
maintenance
of
biodiversity,
waste
assimilation,
cleansing,
recycling
and
renewal
as
well
as
in
protecting
coastal
areas
from
disturbace
events
(Daily,
1997;
Norberg,
1999;
Sathirathai,
2001;
Dahdouh-Guebas
et
al.,
2005;
Alongi,
2008;
Hussain
and
Badola,
2010).
In
addition,
mangrove
habitats
have
a
diversity
promoting
function
(Moreno
et
al.,
2004;
Li
and
Lin,
2005;
Hogarth,
2007)
According
to
Article
2
of
the
Convention
on
Biodiversity
(CBD,
2001),
biodiversity
is
defined
as
“the
variability
among
living
organ-
isms
from
sources
including
terrestrial,
marine,
and
other
aquatic
ecosystems
and
the
ecological
complexes
of
which
they
are
part;
this
includes
diversity
within
species,
and
between
species
and
ecosystems”
(CBD,
2001).
Preservation
of
biodiversity
is
partially
based
on
the
belief
that
loss
of
biodiversity
would
result
in
the
loss
of
EF
and
many
ES
they
provide
to
society
(Costanza
and
Folke,
1997).
Based
on
a
marine
sea
grass
ecosystem,
Duarte
(2000)
pointed
out
that
an
indirect
relationship
exists
between
species
richness
and
EF.
The
study
con-
cluded
“a
link
between
EF
and
ES
and
species
richness
has
remained
elusive
when
tested
for
specific
communities,
except
for
a
few
clear
demonstrations
such
as
outlined
for
sea
grass
communities”
(Duarte,
2000).
The
arguments
presented
provide,
however,
strong
reasons
to
expect
this
link
to
be
a
general
rule
in
marine
ecosystems.
Moreover,
they
call
for
increasing
conservation
efforts
to
ensure
the
maintenance
of
marine
biodiversity
as
a
means
of
maintain-
ing
the
functions
of
marine
ecosystems
and,
thereby,
the
services
they
deliver
to
human
welfare.
A
positive
relationship
between
the
number
of
species
in
an
ecosystem
and
the
level
and
stability
of
ecological
processes
was
stated
by
Balvanera
et
al.
(2006)
and
Díaz
et
al.
(2006).
Naeem
(1997);
Naeem
et
al.
(1994,
1997)
carried
out
experi-
mental
studies
to
manipulate
species
richness
using
a
synthesized
model
ecosystem
in
both
terrestrial
and
aquatic
environments,
comparing
the
species
richness
and
mean
value
of
biomass.
Both
approaches
suggest
that
a
large
pool
of
species
is
required
to
sustain
the
assembly
and
functioning
of
ecosystems
in
landscapes
subject
to
increasingly
intensive
use.
It
is
not
yet
clear,
whether
this
depen-
dence
on
diversity
arises
from
the
need
for
recruitment
of
a
few
key
species
from
within
the
regional
species
pool
or
due
to
the
need
for
a
rich
assortment
of
complementary
species
within
particular
ecosystems.
2.2.
Evaluation
of
ecosystem
services
regarding
to
coastal
environment
protection
In
some
areas,
natural
resource
management
involves
conflicts
between
environmental
protection
and
economic
development.
In
order
to
choose
between
alternative
uses
of
land,
it
is
important
to
know
the
direct
and
indirect
economic
value
of
natural
ecosys-
tems.
It
is
assumed
that
the
use
of
economic
values
as
additional
information
would
strengthen
arguments
to
elucidate
the
intrinsic
value
of
an
ecosystem
to
key
decision-makers
and
stakeholder.
Coastal
management
and
policy
decision
making
for
instance
require
information
that
ranges
between
land-use
impacts
on
nat-
ural
resources
and
economic
implications
of
changes
to
aquatic
ecosystems.
Examples
are
the
storm
protection
functions
of
a
mangrove
forest
or
the
biological
diversity
within
a
seagrass
com-
munity.
Since
environmental
goods
and
services
are
often
available
free
of
charge,
they
do
not
have
markets,
and
therefore
cannot
be
rated
as
easily
as
marketed
goods.
However,
environmental
goods
and
services
typically
have
a
positive
value
and
many
people
are
willing
to
pay
to
insure
these
services
(Pearce
et
al.,
1989;
Seppelt
et
al.,
2011;
Verdú
et
al.,
2011).
Sathirathai
(2004)
illustrates
the
importance
of
valuing
ES
to
policy
choices
in
Thailand.
These
services
are
‘non-marketed’,
therefore
their
benefits
are
not
considered
in
commercial
develop-
ment
decisions.
For
example,
the
excessive
mangrove
deforestation
is
clearly
related
to
the
failure
to
measure
the
values
of
habitat
and
storm
protection
services
of
mangroves.
Consequently,
these
benefits
have
been
largely
ignored
in
national
land-use
policy
deci-
sions.
Sathirathai
(2004)
call
to
improve
protection
of
remaining
mangrove
forests
as
well
as
enlist
the
support
of
local
coastal
Page 5
436
Q.T.
Vo
et
al.
/
Ecological
Indicators
23
(2012)
431–446
Fig.
3.
Total
economic
value
of
mangrove
ecosystem,
(adapted
from
Barbier,
1991),
modified.
communities
through
legal
recognition
of
their
real
property
rights
over
mangroves.
Unless
the
value
of
the
ES
provided
by
protected
mangroves
is
estimated,
it
is
difficult
to
convince
policymakers
in
Thailand
and
other
countries
to
consider
alternative
land-use
poli-
cies.
Mangrove
loss
results
in
a
decrease
of
marine
fish
stock
and
increases
the
vulnerability
of
many
coastal
areas
to
natural
dis-
asters.
The
Thailand
case
study
reveals
that
the
challenge
of
ES
valuation
is
also
a
challenge
for
policy
makers.
To
manage
coastal
areas
sustainably
the
decision-makers
have
to
realize
the
impor-
tance
of
ES.
Thus,
economic
valuation
is
becoming
more
widely
used