Valuing ecosystem functions: an empirical study on the storm protection function of Bhitarkanika mangrove ecosystem, India

Badola, R. and Hussain, S. A., 2005. Environmental Conservation

Original research (primary data)
View External Publication Link

Abstract

The ecosystem services provided by mangroves are often ignored in the ongoing process of mangrove conversion. Services provided by the Bhitarkanika mangrove ecosystem in India and estimated cyclone damage avoided in three selected villages, taking the cyclone of 1999 as a reference point, were valued by assessing the socio-economic status of the villages, the cyclone damage to houses, livestock, fisheries, trees and other assets owned by the people, and the level and duration of flooding. Eleven variables were used to compare damage in the villages, one protected by mangroves, one unprotected by mangroves, and the third possessing an embankment on its seaward side. Attitude surveys were carried out in 10% of the households in 35 villages located in the Bhitarkanika Conservation Area to assess local people’s perceptions regarding the storm protection function of mangroves and their attitude towards mangrove forests generally. In the mangrove-protected village, variables had either the lowest values for adverse factors (such as damage to houses), or the highest values for positive factors (such as crop yield). The loss incurred per household was greatest (US$ 153.74) in the village that was not sheltered by mangroves but had an embankment, followed toy the village that was neither in the shadow of mangroves or the embankment (US$ 44.02) and the village that was protected by mangrove forests (US$ 33.31). The local people were aware of and appreciated the functions performed by the mangrove forests in protecting; their lives and property from cyclones, and were willing to cooperate with the forest department in mangrove restoration.

Case studies

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-159-1
  • Intervention type: Protection
  • Intervention description:

    Bhitarkanika National Park - In 1975, the mangrove forests and the adjacent land of Bhitarkanika were declared a wildlife sanctuary encompassing an area of 672 km2 , with a core area of 145 km2 being designated national park.

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Wind damage  Positive • Damage rating (intensity of damage to the house) • percentage of trees dying • Costs for reconstruction work per household • Loss to private property such as boats, nets • livestock casualties note that these measures were assessed through quantitative household surveys
    Storm surge  Positive • Damage rating (intensity of damage to the house) • percentage of trees dying • Costs for reconstruction work per household • Loss to private property such as boats, nets • livestock casualties Flooding in premises Flooding in fields Water logging in fields note that these measures were assessed through quantitative household surveys
    Loss of food production  Positive Yield for the year 1999 (kg ha−1), Loss of fish seedlings (fingerlings) released prior to cyclone note that these measures were assessed through quantitative household surveys
    Coastal erosion  Positive perceptions of local people of storm induced erosion note that these measures were assessed through quantitative household surveys
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    The Bhitarkanika Conservation Area (BCA) is located in the eastern state of Orissa, (86◦ 45′–87′ 50′ E and 20◦ 40′–20◦ 48′ N; Patnaik et al. 1995). Three villages were studied in this area: Bankual (NBS site – in the Bhitarkanika National Park), Bandhamal (engineered alternative – “had seaward side embankment”) and Singidi (control)

  • Country: India
  • Habitat/Biome type: Mangroves |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: Effectiveness for storm surge, wind damage, loss of agr productivity determined by comparing outcomes at the NBS site to a control site with no protection strategy (experimental), the outcomes were those found after a severe storm/cyclone Effectiveness of storm-induced erosion determined based on people’s perception on mangrove’s role in providing this service. "Attitude surveys were carried out in 10% of the households in 35 villages located in the Bhitarkanika Conservation Area to assess local people’s perceptions regarding the storm protection function of mangroves and their attitude towards mangrove forests generally" Note on effectiveness of alternative: “The embankments constructed in 1971 after a previous cyclone to prevent intrusion of saline water into agricultural fields and villages were ineffective during the high storm- surge; in fact they acted as a barrier to run-off when the water was receding. The embankments suffered a number of breaches that resulted in the flooding of villages such as Bandhamal, which was surrounded on all sides by the embankment.” For social outcomes, result is mixed because although almost all measures are positive, it is stated that “18% people felt the park’s declaration violated rights, the main reason being the access denied to firewood”
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Engineered approach(s)
  • Compare effectivness?: Yes
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: More effective
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: Yes
  • Impacts for people: Mixed
  • People measures: quantitative assessment - "Attitude surveys were carried out in 10% of the households in 35 villages located in the Bhitarkanika Conservation Area to assess local people’s perceptions regarding the storm protection function of mangroves and their attitude towards mangrove forests generally" Assessed dimensions through survey - Aesthetic value, perceived increases in agricultural production, contribution to fish production, Historical and cultural value, rights violations (associated with the establishment of the park).
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • 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: Yes
  • Experimental evalution done: In-situ/field
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Study is systematic: