Rehabilitating mangrove ecosystem services: A case study on the relative benefits of abandoned pond reversion from Panay Island, Philippines

Duncan, C., et al., 2016. Marine Pollution Bulletin

Original research (primary data)
View External Publication Link

Abstract

Mangroves provide vital climate change mitigation and adaptation (CCMA) ecosystem services (ES), yet have suffered extensive tropics-wide declines. To mitigate losses, rehabilitation is high on the conservation agenda. However, the relative functionality and ES delivery of rehabilitated mangroves in different intertidal locations is rarely assessed. In a case study from Panay Island, Philippines, using field- and satellite-derived methods, we assess carbon stocks and coastal protection potential of rehabilitated low-intertidal seafront and mid- to upper-intertidal abandoned (leased) fishpond areas, against reference natural mangroves. Due to large sizes and appropriate site conditions, targeted abandoned fishpond reversion to former mangrove was found to be favourable for enhancing CCMA in the coastal zone. In a municipality-specific case study, 96.7% of abandoned fishponds with high potential for effective greenbelt rehabilitation had favourable tenure status for reversion. These findings have implications for coastal zone management in Asia in the face of climate change.

Case studies

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-032-1
  • Intervention type: Restoration
  • Intervention description:

    Bakhawan ecopark, Buswang, Kalibo: a seafront area replanted in 2006 with Rhizophora apiculata, and subsequently naturally recolonised by A. marina, Nypa fruticans and Sonneratia alba individuals [assisted rehabilitation]

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: No
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Other climate impact  Positive Compare median actual mangrove greenbelt width to required site-specific greenbelt width needed to attenuate wave height to 0.3m (safe height). If actual width > or = to required then effective. (i.e. positive effect). climate impact = other b/c impact is attenuation of regular waves, not a storm wave
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Bakhawan ecopark, Buswang, Kalibo, a remnant area of a former del- taic mangrove at the mouth of Aklan River

  • Country: Philippines
  • Habitat/Biome type: Mangroves |
  • Issue specific term: Payment for Ecosystem Services

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: The effectiveness of the intervention (mangrove rehabilitation) was compared to a modeled required level of mangrove rehabilitation needed to address the climate impact  model estimates the width of mangrove greenbelt required to attenuate a regular wave of three metres height to a ‘safe height’ of 0.3 m behind the forest. the actual width of the greenbelt present at the site was then measured and compared to required to infer if it is effective or not. If actual width > or = to required width then effective.
  • 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: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures: n/a
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures: n/a
  • 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: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-032-3
  • Intervention type: Restoration
  • Intervention description:

    A sea-facing abandoned fishpond (FP), which was reverted and replanted A. marina is dominant, with Rhizophora spp., S. alba and A. rumphiana also present.
[assisted rehabilitation]


  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: No
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Other climate impact  Unclear results Compare median actual mangrove greenbelt width to required site-specific greenbelt width needed to attenuate wave height to 0.3m (safe height). If actual width > or = to required then effective. (i.e. positive effect). climate impact = other b/c impact is attenuation of regular waves, not a storm wave
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Nabitasan, Leganes

  • Country: Philippines
  • Habitat/Biome type: Mangroves |
  • Issue specific term: Payment for Ecosystem Services

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: The effectiveness of the intervention (mangrove rehabilitation) was compared to a modeled required level of mangrove rehabilitation needed to address the climate impact  model estimates the width of mangrove greenbelt required to attenuate a regular wave of three metres height to a ‘safe height’ of 0.3 m behind the forest. the actual width of the greenbelt present at the site was then measured and compared to required to infer if it is effective or not. If actual width > or = to required width then effective. Unclear when the actual width was less than the required width as it is unknown whether this means no effect on reducing the impact or whether the impact was made worse (negative)
  • 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: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures: n/a
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures: n/a
  • 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: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-032-2
  • Intervention type: Restoration
  • Intervention description:

    low-intertidal stand planted in 2007 (“Ermita rehab”). The area was originally planted with S. alba, A. marina and Rhizophora spp. seedlings; however, only S. alba survived algal (A. marina) and barna- cle (Rhizophora spp.) infestation [assisted rehabilitation]

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: No
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Other climate impact  Unclear results Compare median actual mangrove greenbelt width to required site-specific greenbelt width needed to attenuate wave height to 0.3m (safe height). If actual width > or = to required then effective. (i.e. positive effect). climate impact = other b/c impact is attenuation of regular waves, not a storm wave
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Ermita, Dumangas

  • Country: Philippines
  • Habitat/Biome type: Mangroves |
  • Issue specific term: Payment for Ecosystem Services

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: The effectiveness of the intervention (mangrove rehabilitation) was compared to a modeled required level of mangrove rehabilitation needed to address the climate impact  model estimates the width of mangrove greenbelt required to attenuate a regular wave of three metres height to a ‘safe height’ of 0.3 m behind the forest. the actual width of the greenbelt present at the site was then measured and compared to required to infer if it is effective or not. If actual width > or = to required width then effective. Unclear when the actual width was less than the required width as it is unknown whether this means no effect on reducing the impact or whether the impact was made worse (negative)
  • 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: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures: n/a
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures: n/a
  • 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: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic: