Perceived ecosystem services towards the conservation of Agusan Marsh Wildlife Sanctuary in Mindanao, Philippines

Mora-Garcia, C., et al., 2020. International Journal of Conservation Science

Original research (primary data)
View External Publication Link

Abstract

Ecosystem services refer to the benefits that are derived from the natural environment. Wetlands such as Agusan marsh are a productive ecosystem that provides various goods and services to the ecological, economic, and social wellbeing of the society. Face-to-face household and key informant interview were done to assess the ecosystem services offered by Agusan Marsh Wildlife Sanctuary. Contingent valuation method (CVM) was used to determine the minimum willingness to accept (WTA) compensation per month of land managers should they agree to conserve part of the AMWS. Provisioning services such as food and water resources were seen as the benefits provided by the marsh to the community living within the marsh, but regulating services were more important for people living in the downstream. Flood control services are the regulatory service that has an impact towards the lower stretches of Agusan river, and too much financial effort has been given to flood control projects in low lying areas. The minimum WTA of farmers and fishers for any land conservation agreement were Php2,144.32 and Php3,442.0, respectively. This amount can be the basis of the decision makers and stakeholders if sustainable financing scheme on ecosystem services management program will be implemented in AMWS.

Case studies

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-260-1
  • Intervention type: Protection
  • Intervention description:

    Officially called the Agusan Marsh Wildlife Sanctuary (AMWS), the goal of its proclamation as a protected area was geared towards sustainable development by protecting and utilizing local biological treasures in ways that do not diminish the variability of genes and species or destroy important habitat and ecosystem

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Freshwater flooding  Positive **No specific quantified outcome measures reported. Perceived benefits (ecosystem services) provided by the intervention based on different stakeholder groups, gathered from interviews and surveys Positive for both Water availability: water provisioning (“During the dry season, the waters will be slowly released. ”) Freshwater flooding: flood control
    Reduced water availability  Positive **No specific quantified outcome measures reported. Perceived benefits (ecosystem services) provided by the intervention based on different stakeholder groups, gathered from interviews and surveys Positive for both Water availability: water provisioning (“During the dry season, the waters will be slowly released. ”) Freshwater flooding: flood control
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    "The study was conducted in the municipality of Talacogon, Agusan del Sur, Caraga Region, the Philippines which is considered as the heart of Agusan valley and is situated along Agusan River within the geopolitical boundary of Agusan marsh. Five villages in the municipality of Talacogon namely: San Nicolas, Marbon, La Flora, Desamparados and Sabang Gibong (Fig. 1) Additionally, downstream communities including five municipalities and two cities were included to gather information on their perception of the ecosystem services offered by AMWS thru its key informants. The municipality of Las Nieves, Esperanza, Magallanes, Butuan City, and Bayugan City are part of the Agusan River Basin (ARB) and are the communities located further down of Agusan marsh."

  • Country: Philippines
  • Habitat/Biome type: Wetlands |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: Not reported
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Not applicable
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: Yes
  • Impacts on GHG: Positive
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: Yes
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Positive
  • Ecosystem measures: indirect ES of biodiversity conservation
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: Yes
  • Impacts for people: Positive
  • People measures: Same as climate impacts because linked to specific groups of people plus also provide scenic beauty for recreation and source of food (fish) "**No specific quantified outcome measures reported. Perceived benefits (ecosystem services) provided by the intervention based on different stakeholder groups, gathered from interviews and surveys Positive for both Water availability: water provisioning (“During the dry season, the waters will be slowly released. ”) Freshwater flooding: flood control "
  • Considers economic costs: No
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Qualitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic: