Environ Dev Sustain (2018) 20:865–881

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-017-9914-z

Human appropriation of net primary production

(HANPP) in seagrass ecosystem: an example
from the east coast of Bintan Regency, Kepulauan
Riau Province, Indonesia

Nurul Dhewani Mirah Sjafrie1 • Luky Adrianto2 •

Ario Damar2 • Mennofatria Boer2

Received: 26 December 2015 / Accepted: 18 January 2017 / Published online: 28 January 2017
 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Abstract Seagrass ecosystems have a role as providers of ecosystem services and have been
used by fisherman for a long time. Information about the connectivity between seagrass
ecosystems and fishermen in Indonesia is limited; therefore, this study aims to measure the
relationship between the seagrass ecosystem and fishermen in Bintan Regency, Kepulauan
Riau Province, Indonesia. The research was conducted from December 2014 to May 2015 in
the villages of Teluk Bakau, Malang Rapat, Berakit and Pengudang. The human appropri-
ation of net primary production (HANPP) approach was used to measure that connectivity.
Seagrasses, planktons, fishes, crabs, squids and mollusks were observed during the East and
North seasons. The results showed that HANPP in the East season (March–May) is 62.8 Gg
(77.1%) and in the North season (December–February) is 68.8 Gg (84.5%) with an efficiency
of, respectively, 77.7 and 79.7%. The traditional fishermen are highly dependent on the
seagrass ecosystem. They use the seagrass ecosystem in both the East and North seasons. The
proper management of seagrass ecosystem is needed in order to make the life of a traditional
fisherman in the Bintan Regency sustainable.

Keywords Seagrass ecosystem  HANPP  Bintan Regency  Indonesia

1 Introduction

Ecosystem services basically refer to human benefits from an ecosystem (Costanza et al.
1997). The Millennium Ecological Assessment (2005) divides ecosystem services into
regulating, supporting, provisioning and cultural services. Seagrass ecosystems have a role

& Nurul Dhewani Mirah Sjafrie

ndhewani@yahoo.com
1
Research Centre for Oceanography, Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Jl. Pasir Putih I, Ancol Timur,
North Jakarta, DKI Jakarta 14430, Indonesia
2
Department of Aquatic Resources, Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science, Bogor
AgriculturalUniversity, Bogor, Indonesia

123
866 N. D. M. Sjafrie et al.

as providers of ecosystem services (Cullen-Unsworth and Unsworth 2013). As regulating

services, seagrass has a role in sediment trapping, coastal protection, as a carbon sink and
in maintaining the pH of seawater (Unsworth et al. 2012). As supporting services, seagrass
functions as a nursery and feeding ground (Unsworth et al. 2007a), as a nutrients supplier
for fish on the reef (Verweij et al. 2008) and has connectivity with mangrove ecosystems
and coral reefs (Unsworth et al. 2007b; Honda et al. 2013; Jaxion-Ham et al. 2012). As
provisioning services, seagrass provides a source of fish, invertebrates, juveniles, fertil-
izers, bioprospecting, a place for setting traps and a substrate for seaweed farming (de la
Torre-Castro and Ronnback 2004). Unfortunately, the ecological functions of seagrass
ecosystems have not been fully recognized (Dennison 2009) and nor has their role in small-
scale fisheries (de la Torre-Castro et al. 2014).
The total area of seagrass ecosystems in Indonesia is about 30,000 ha, occupied by 360
species of fish, 117 species of macroalgae, 24 species of mollusks, 70 species of crustacea
and 45 species of echinoderms (Kiswara 2009). The east coast of Bintan Regency has a
seagrass meadow about 2500 ha in area. Seagrass ecosystem services especially provi-
sioning services at this location have long been used by local fishermen. They catch fishes,
swimming crabs, squids and mollusks from these ecosystems, most are then sold to the
local fish trader and a small proportion used for their household consumption. Hitherto,
there has been no detailed information about the relationship between the seagrass
ecosystem and the fishermen from a quantitative point of view, though Cullen-Unsworth
et al. (2014) have written about the relationship between the seagrass ecosystem and
fishermen in Wakatobi (eastern of Indonesia) from a qualitative point of view.
The seagrass ecosystem in Bintan Regency has been used since 1970 by traditional
fishermen. Provisioning services seem strongly related to the daily life of a traditional
fisherman in that location (Sjafrie et al. 2015). The pressure on seagrass ecosystem in this
area occurs coinciding with the population growth, development activities and land use
changed (Anonymous 2009). These impacted on seagrass ecosystems and to society—in
this case traditional fishermen—utilizing these ecosystems. In this case, there are inter-
action between the ecological unit and social system, and Anderies et al. (2004) define this
relationship as socio-ecological system (SES). Adrianto (2009) added that in SES, eco-
logical unit and social system are share dynamic and coevolutionary, which mean that if
one system changed, the other will also change. The important question arises: how
important the seagrass ecosystem to the traditional fishermen in Bintan Regency? If so,
then how strong the relationship between them?
Several approaches have been established to assess the interactions within a SES, such
as social-metabolism (Singh et al. 2001; Giampietro and Mayumi 2000), the ecological
footprint (Adrianto 2012) and human appropriation of net primary production/HANPP
(Vitousek et al. 1986; Haberl et al. 2007a, b). A number of study have applied the HANPP
method at regional and national scale (Andersen et al. 2015), all of these mainly did in the
terrestrial. For example, HANPP in sugar plantation (Temper 2012); relationship between
HANPP and species diversity in agricultural landscape (Haberl et al. 2004a); changes in
land use in South Africa (Niedertscheider et al. 2012); and watershed in Southern USA
(Andersen et al. 2015). So far the HANPP approach on the seagrass ecosystems has not
been studied in this way.
HANPP was developed as a quantitative measure of natural ecosystems as resource
supply to meet human needs. It is an aggregated indicator that reflects both the amount of
area used by human and the intensity of land use (Haberl et al. 2007a). Moreover, Erb et al.
(2009) said that HANPP can be used as an indicator for monitoring land use changes in
biomass flows in ecosystems. In addition, Krausman et al. (2009) mentioned that HANPP

123
Human appropriation of net primary production (HANPP) in… 867

is an indicator of land use intensity that explicitly links natural with socioeconomic pro-
cesses, generating an integrated picture of socio-ecological conditions in the land system.
HANPP has to be rigorously defined, and different authors have approached HANPP
from different angles and have consequently used a variety of definitions. Unfortunately,
however, this lack of standardization has resulted in a range of empirical results, thus
creating the impression as if it were very difficult, maybe even impossible, to assess
HANPP with sufficient accuracy (Haberl et al. 2007a). Moreover, HANPP is defined as the
difference between the amount of net primary production (NPP) that would be available in
an ecosystem in the absence of human activities (NPPo) and the amount of NPP which
actually remains in the ecosystem (NPPt). NPPt can be calculated by quantifying the NPP
of the actual vegetation (NPPact) and subtracting the amount of NPP harvested by humans
(NPPh) (Haberl et al. 2007b). Based on the above HANPP is therefore defined according to
the formula: HANPP = NPPo - NPPt with NPPt = NPPact - NPPh.
The difference between NPPo and NPPact represents the reduction of NPPo through the
conversion of natural land cover to other types of land cover, i.e., the land use induced
productivity changes which one denotes as DNPPLC (Haberl et al. 2007b).
Land is used by human societies for at least three core functions or services (Millen-
nium Ecosystem Assessment 2005): (1) Supply of vital material and energy resources such
as fossil fuels, minerals, water, biomass and others. (2) Waste absorption, buffering and
regulating capacity of ecosystems. (3) Space required for hosting human infrastructures
such as settlements, production sites, gardening and recreation areas and transport
infrastructure. The provision of many ecosystem services, in particular the functions (1)
and (2) above, often directly depends on the biological productivity of the land, that is, on
its net primary production or NPP (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005; Krausman
et al. 2009). NPP is defined as the amount of biomass produced by green plants through
photosynthesis per unit of time and space and is a decisive factor for a broad range of
patterns and processes in ecosystems, including biodiversity, stocks and flows of carbon
and other elements, food webs and water flows.
In marine ecosystem, the human alterations are more difficult to quantify than those of
terrestrial ecosystems, but several kinds of information suggest that they are substantial.
From the perspective described above, we argue that HANPP approach can be applied in a
seagrass ecosystem to measure the human domination and land use intensity. This study
aims to measure how strong the dependency of traditional fishermen in the seagrass
ecosystem and the intensity use of seagrass ecosystem in the Bintan Regency using
HANPP approach.

2 Study site

Bintan Regency, part of Kepulauan Riau Province, is located between 060 1700 N–1340 5200
N, and 104120 4700 E on the west—10820 2700 E in the east. This Regency consists of 240
large and small islands. Only 39 islands are currently populated, while the rest are used for
cultivating crops (Anonymous 2012). The study was conducted at four villages, Teluk
Bakau, Malang Rapat, Berakit and Pengudang (Fig. 1). The seagrass ecosystem in the
research study is in the Marine Conservation Area of Bintan Regency (MCABR) which
was declared through a Major Letter of Regulation of Bintan Regency, number 261/VIII/
2007. The boundary of seagrass ecosystem in this study is the reef flat area, which is
3018.22 ha. The area of the reef flats at Teluk Bakau, Malang Rapat, Berakit and

123
868 N. D. M. Sjafrie et al.

Fig. 1 Study area

Pengudang is, respectively, 429.17, 789.53, 1248.51 and 551.01 ha (Sjafrie et al. 2015).
This is where the fishermen carry out their activities. The tidal range is moderate, varying
from 2.13 m at spring tide to 0.3 m at neap tide (Dinas Hidro-Oseanografi TNI-AL 2014;
2015). The water quality is as follows: temperature 29.64 ± 0.66 C–31.22 ± 1.09 C,
salinity 32.38 ± 0.43–34.30 ± 0.85 ppt, pH 7.90 ? 0.12–8.67 ± 0.11 and oxygen
6.04 ± 0.25 mg/l (Sjafrie 2016).

2.1 The distribution of seagrasses in the study site

The geomorphology of the seagrass ecosystems in the four villages is relatively similar.
Seagrass is found approximately 5 m from the high tide level in Teluk Bakau and Malang
Rapat, whereas it is 100 m in Berakit and Pengudang. The bottom substrate is dominated
by mud in Teluk Bakau, Berakit and Pengudang and sand in Malang Rapat. Toward the
middle, the bottom substrate consists of seagrass plants, dead coral, rubble and sand. In this
area seagrass is mixed with macroalgae such as Halimeda, Laurencia, Turbinaria and
Padina dominated by Sargassum. Toward the edge (reef crest) the bottom substrate con-
sists of seagrass, live coral (massive and branching), sand dunes and channels (Sjafrie et al.
2015).
At low tide, seagrass is no longer submerged, except in small lagoons where the sea-
grass is always submerged. Seagrass is found almost all over the reef flat area. The total
number of species was 9 (6 species at Teluk Bakau, 7 species at Malang Rapat, 2 species at
Berakit and 8 species at Pengudang). Thallasia hempricii and Enhalus acroides are the
dominant species. According to Anonymous (2009), the seagrasses species in the study site
has a local name which is seen in Table 1. Many endangered species usually found in the

123
Human appropriation of net primary production (HANPP) in… 869

Table 1 Distribution of seagrass species in the study site. Source: primary data; *Anonymous (2009)
Family Species Local Name of Villages
name*
Teluk Malang Berakit Pengudang
Bakau Rapat

Hydrocharitacea Enhalus acoroides Setu pita H H H H

Thallasia hemprichii Setu sabit H H H H
Halophila ovalis Setu kelor H H – H
Cymodoceaceae Cymodocea rotundata Setu daun – – – H
Cymodocea serrulata Setu H H – H
gergaji
Syringodium Setu lidi H H – H
isoetifolium
Thalassodendron Setu kipas H H – –
ciliatum
Halodule uninervis Setu jarum – H – H
Halodule pinifolia Setu jarum – – – H

seagrass ecosystem in the study site such as Dugong dugon (dugong), Celonia mydas
(turtle) and Hippocampus sp. (sea horse). Dugong appeared on December–February (North
season), turtle occured unpredicted time and sea horse appeared on October–December
(south season).
As in the most of coast of Kepulauan Riau Province, the local climate of the study site is
determined by monsoon cycles. Four main seasons can be distinguished in the yearly cycle
(Anonymous 2008a, b): December–February has the highest precipitation and strong winds
(North season), March–May with the lowest precipitation and weak winds (East season),
June–August with moderate precipitation and moderate winds (South season) while
September–November has moderate precipitation and moderate winds (West season). The
monsoon cycle affects the fishermen’s activities in Bintan Regency. Fishermen who work
further than 4 miles out to sea stop sea fishing in the North season, unlike the traditional
fishermen, who still can do fishing activities around the reef flat such as put out traps, catch
fish and crabs and search for mollusks at low tide. During the East season some of the
traditional fishermen leave the reef flats to fish up to 4 miles offshore.

2.2 The profile of traditional fishermen

Teluk Bakau and Malang Rapat village are a part of Gunung Kijang sub-district, whereas
Desa Teluk Bakau dan Berakit and Pengudang village are a part of Teluk Sebong sub-
district. The width and the number of population of this village are variated (Table 2).
Malang Rapat village has the largest population compared with another village. This may
be caused by the presence of facilities such as the jetty, fuel depots and oil palm plantations
in this village.
The number of fishermen is variated. The percentage of fishermen in Malang Rapat and
Teluk Bakau village in each village, respectively, were 9.36 and 9.87% of total population.
The percentage of fishermen in Berakit was 21.76% and Pengudang village was 15.35%. It
shows that the distribution of fishermen in Berakit village is bigger than out of three

123
870 N. D. M. Sjafrie et al.

Table 2 Name of villages, width and number of population. Source: Anonymous 2013, 2014a–d
No Village name Width (km2) Sub-district Number of population Number of fishermen

1 Teluk Bakau 112.12 Gunung Kijang 1925 183

2 Malang Rapat 77.12 Gunung Kijang 2196 192
3 Berakit 30.80 Teluk Sebong 1905 379
4 Pengudang 77.1 Teluk Sebong 1189 191
TOTAL 297.14 7215 945

villages. In Pengudang, Malang Rapat and Teluk Bakau village, community prefers to be a
farmer or breeder.
Catch activities should be supported by jetty and fish landing. Malang Rapat and Teluk
Bakau village have two jetties, Pengudang village only one jetty, but fishermen can land
their catch in the of Pengudang river and Sumpat river. Meanwhile, Berakit village has not
had the jetty, and their land the fish in private jetty belongs to a trader.
The total number of fisherman in the four villages is about 945 (Table 1), of whom 20%
(189) are a traditional fisherman. From the total of traditional fishermen, 128 caught fish
and squid, 110 caught swimming crabs and 62 searching for a mollusk. Named traditional
fishermen because they have the limited facilities and infrastructure for catching and
limited area for fishing activities. Many of them do not use boats, use boat paddle (canoe)
or a boat with a size between 2 and 5 GT. Traditional fishermen use simple gear, i.e., traps
(swimming crab traps and fish traps), net (fishing net, swimming crabs net), ‘kelong
karang’ (fixed bamboo/wood trap) and ‘empang’(moveable traps) that operated around the
waters of seagrass ecosystems (reef flat), starting from the edge of the beach until to limit
the edge. Some, like the fishermen searching for mollusks, do not use any tools, and all the

Fig. 2 Some fishing gear used by fishermen at the study site. Source: N. D. M. Sjafrie documentation

123
Human appropriation of net primary production (HANPP) in… 871

Table 3 Provisioning services of seagrass ecosystem at different location

No Provisioning services of seagrass ecosystem Chwaka Baya Wakatobib Bintanc

1 Fishing ground x x x
2 Seagrass beds as sites for invertebrate collection x x x
3 Seagrass beds as site for bait x x
4 Seagrass as a substrate for seaweed farming x x
5 The use of seagrass as medicine and fertilizer x –
6 Source of aquarium fishes – – x
7 Fertilizer x – x
8 Source of juveniles – – x
9 Placement area for fish traps – – x
10 Placement area for swimming crab traps – – x
11 Placement area for fish nets – – x
12 Placement area for swimming crab nets – – x
13 Placement area for ‘kelong karang’ – – x
14 Placement area for ‘empang’ – – x
15 Spot of fishing – – x
16 Searching ground for molluscks – – x
17 Searching ground for sea cucumbers – – x
18 Searching ground for sea horses – – x
19 Searching ground for Sargassum (‘rengkam’) – – x
20 Boat traffics – – x
21 Placement area for boats – – x
a
de la Torre-Castro and Ronnback (2004)
b
Cullen-Unsworth et al. (2014)
c
Sjafrie et al. (2015)

equipment tends to require some human power (Fig. 2). The catches are sold more widely
used to meet the needs of the family rather than invest in the development of the business
scale. According to Satria (2009) type of this fishermen classified as a peasant fisher.
Generally, the ages of fishermen older than 40 years old and became as fishermen more
than 20 years. 63% were local fishermen, meanwhile, 31% were came from outside (Bugis,
Buton, Flores, Madura).
Actually, the seagrass ecosystem has been used for a long time by traditional fishermen
in Bintan Regency. Provisioning services seem strongly related to the daily life of a
traditional fisherman in that location (Sjafrie et al. 2015). The same pattern was found at
Wakatobi, Indonesia (Cullen-Unsworth et al. 2014) and Chwaka Bay, East Africa (de la
Torre-Castro and Ronnback 2004). Table 3 gives details about the use of provisioning
services of seagrass ecosystems in the three locations. Quantitative information about the
extent of the relationship between traditional fishermen and the seagrass ecosystem has not
been published before.

123
872 N. D. M. Sjafrie et al.

3 Methodology

As Haberl et al. (2004b) mention that the different definitions may lead to substantially
different empirical results of the HANPP. Vitousek et al. (1986) calculated HANPP using
three different possible definitions, each of which is a measure of a different process or
pattern. First, they assessed only biomass directly used by society (food, timber, etc.).
Second, they added the net primary production (NPP) of human-dominated ecosystems
(e.g., croplands). Third, they additionally considered the NPP lost due to human-induced
changes in ecosystem productivity, e.g., ecosystem degradation.
This study gives an overview of the different definitions used so far. Harmonization of
HANPP definitions seems therefore highly important. We have two points of view about
the use HANPP approach on our study. First, HANPP can be used to measure the human
dominance in ecosystem if the value of HANPP is high that means human has strong
dependency on ecosystem. Second, if the value of efficiency is high, that means human use
the ecosystem intensively. They always explore ecosystem to many purposes. If both of the
values are high that means human has strong dependency to ecosystem, so we should
reduce the dependency and give an alternative solution.
The HANPP is an integrated socio-ecological indicator quantifying effects of human-
induced changes in productivity and harvest on ecological biomass flows. We discuss how
HANPP is defined, measured and interpreted. To calculate the HANPP of seagrass
ecosystem, the steps are as follows: (1) define the area of the seagrass ecosystem, (2)
calculate the resources in the seagrass ecosystem and (3) calculate the HANPP.

3.1 Defining the area of seagrass ecosystem

The purpose of this step is to make clear, where we did the research, what are a kind of
biota which have an economic value and continuously extracted by fishermen. The
boundary of seagrass ecosystem in this study is the reef flat area, which is 3018.22 ha.
Spatially, it measured from the high sea water level (HSWL) to the reef crest (Fig. 3) In
these areas traditional fishermen caught some economic biota such as fish, swimming crab,
squid and mollusck.

Fig. 3 Boundary of seagrass ecosystem in the study site. Source: field observation

123
Human appropriation of net primary production (HANPP) in… 873

3.2 Calculating the resources in the seagrass ecosystem

For the purposes of analysis, data on biomass resources in seagrass ecosystems are needed.
The biomass resources are defined as biota which have an economic value for fishermen
and other resources which have connection with economic resources. For example, sea-
grass and plankton does not give economic value directly to fishermen, but they have a role
in the food chain in that ecosystem. Seagrass ecosystem resources are classified into two
groups. Producer groups are seagrass and phytoplankton while consumer groups include
zooplankton and economically valuable biota which are targeted by fisherman, i.e., fish,
crab, squid and mollusks.

3.2.1 Seagrass biomass

Seagrass biomass was taken using the transect quadrate method (McKenzie 2003). Two
replications were done in each village. From the 25 9 25 cm of a plot, samples of seagrass
were stored in a plastic bag and taken to the base camp. In the base camp, the samples of
seagrass were washed, cleaned and separated according to species and then weighed using
electric scales.
The total of seagrass biomass is calculated as follow:
X
Bseagrass ¼ bi A1 ð1Þ

where Bseagrass, total seagrass biomass (g/m2); bi, seagrass biomass species-i; and A, width
of transect (m2).
Subsequently, the seagrass biomass of each species per m2 was converted into biomass
in the area of reef flats. We assumed that the seagrass was grown in the reef flats area.

3.2.2 Plankton biomass

Phytoplankton biomass was measured using chlorophyl-a content. Water samples were
taken at 24 stations. The chlorophyl-a was calculated following Strickland and Parsons
(1968). A sampling of zooplankton was done by using plankton net with a size of 300 lm
(Wickstead 1965; Nontji 2008), drawn along 100 m, following the pattern of seagrass
transects. The filtered plankton was preserved in a 4% formalin solution and transported to
the laboratory. In the laboratory, samples of zooplankton were filtered using Whatman
glass microfibre filters and then weighted using electric scales.
Phytoplankton biomass was calculated following Cushing (1958):
Bphytoplankton ¼ 15:45 BChla V ð2Þ
where Bphytoplankton, phytoplankton biomass (mg/sea water volume); Bchlorophyl-a, con-
centration of chlorophyl-a (mg/l); 15.45, average point to convert chlorophyl to biomass
(Cushing 1958); and V, sea water volume in reef flat area (MSWL/Mean Sea Water Level
multiply by the width of reef flats).
Mean sea level obtained from Tidal Table of Indonesian Islands (Dinas Hidro-Osea-
nografi TNI-AL 2014, 2015).
Zooplankton biomass was calculated as follow:
Bzooplankton ¼ wzooplankton V ð3Þ
where Bzooplankton, zooplankton biomass (g/sea water volume); wzooplankton, weight of

123
874 N. D. M. Sjafrie et al.

zooplankton (g/l); and V, sea water volume in reef flat area (MSWL/Mean Sea Water
Level multiply by the width of reef flats).
Mean sea level obtained from Tidal Table of Indonesian Islands (Dinas Hidro-Osea-
nografi TNI-AL 2014, 2015).

3.2.3 Fish, swimming crab, squid and mollusck biomass

Data about the catch were collected every day from 83 fishermen during the research to
calculate the biomass of fishes, crabs, squids and mollusks. Furthermore, the data are
tabulated in Excel software and are grouped into four types of catch, i.e., fishes, crabs,
squids and mollusks. The biomass of fishes was calculated from 20 species. The selection
of the species is based on seagrass residency index (SRI) by Anggraini et al. (2015) and
information from local fishermen. It comprised swimming crab 1 species (Portunus
pelagicus (Linn.), squid 2 species (Sephia sp.) and mollusks 2 species (Anadara sp. and
Trachycardium sp.). These data are assumed as a maximum sustainable yield for each biota
which have an economic value from the seagrass ecosystem.
The biomass of economic biota was calculated:
X
Beci ¼ ci A1 ð4Þ

where Bec-i, biomass of economic biota (g/ha); ci, biomass of economic biota –i (fish,
swimming crab, squid, mollusck); and A, width of area (ha).

3.3 Calculating of the HANPP

3.3.1 Calculation of potential NPP (NPPo)

Potential NPP (NPPo) is what is available in seagrass ecosystems prior to human inter-
vention, it could be mentioned that the NPPo is the NPP in a pristine (virgin) area. In this
study it is assumed that the boundary of NPPo is the reef flat area of 3018.22 ha. NPPo
producers are calculated by multiplying the biomass of producers and the total area of reef
flats, whereas NPPo consumers are calculated using Gulland 1979 (in Sparre and Venema
1998).
 
NPPo producer ¼ ð3018:22Þ Bseagrass þ Bphytoplankton

NPPo consumer ¼ ð3018:22Þ Bzooplankton þ Bp fish
þ Bp swimming crab þ Bp squid þ Bp mollusckÞ

The biomass of consumer was calculated as follow:

X  
Bp ¼ MSYi 0:5 M 1 ð5Þ

where Bp, biomass stock in pristine area; MSYi, maximum sustainable yield of fish,
swimming crab, squid and mollusck. MSYi of each biota can be expression with Bec-i;
M, mortality in pristine area was assumed 0.5.

3.3.2 Calculation of actual NPP (NPPact)

Actual NPP (NPPact) is assumed to be the productive area, where the seagrass is abundant.
According to Anonymous (2009), the width of seagrass in the study area was 2500 ha. In

123
Human appropriation of net primary production (HANPP) in… 875

order to calculate the NPPact, the biomass of producers and consumers, the value of NPPo
was converted to the 2500 ha.
 
NPPact produser ¼ ð2500 Þ Bseagrass þ Bphytoplankton

NPPact consumer ¼ ð2500 Þ Bzooplankton þ Bec fish þ Bec swimming crab
þ Bec squid þ Bec mollusckÞ

3.3.3 Calculation of harvested NPP (NPPh)

Harvested NPP (NPPh) is the biomass (fish, swimming crab, squid and mollusck) harvested
by a traditional fishermen from seagrass ecosystem. It has a connection with the condition
of producers when the biomass was harvested. In the East season and North season,
producers utilized by the consumers, respectively, were 27.6 and 18.3% (Sjafrie 2016), that
means the producers in the seagrass ecosystem were 72.4% in the East season while in the
North season they were 81.7%. Therefore, NPPh was calculated:
NPPh in East season ¼ ð100  27:6%Þ ð3018:22 Þ ðBec fish þ Bec swimming crab
þ Bec squid þ Bec mollusckÞ
NPPh in North season ¼ ð100  18:3%Þ ð3018:22 Þ ðBec fish þ Bec swimming crab
þ Bec squid þ Bec mollusckÞ

3.3.4 Calculation of HANPP

HANPP was calculated as follow:

HANPP ¼ ðNPPo  NPPactÞ þ NPPh:

4 Result

The biota biomass per ha is shown in Table 4. It shows in the east season a biomass of
biota higher than North season. Statistical analysis using t test showed that both of season,
there are differences on the biota biomass (q = 0.05), except on fish.

Table 4 Biomass of biota in the seagrass ecosystem at study site. Source: prossessed from primary data
Component Biota biomass in the Biota biomass in the
East season (g/ha) North season (g/ha)

Seagrass 3.85 9 106 3.85 9 106

6
Phytoplankton 3.14 9 10 2.43 9 106
5
Zooplankton 4.60 9 10 2.01 9 104
3
Fish 3.60 9 10 2.32 9 103
2
Swimming crab 3.81 9 10 2.67 9 102
2
Squid 1.82 9 10 2.03 9 102
2
Mollusck 3.45 9 10 4.07 9 102

123
876 N. D. M. Sjafrie et al.

Fig. 4 Biomass of HANPP component in a East Season, and b North Season. Source: prosessed from
primary data

The result of calculation NPPo, NPPact and NPPh in the two season is presented in
Fig. 3. NPPo in the East and North season, respectively, is 81.43 and 81.41 Gg. Whereas
NPPact is 67.45 Gg in the East season and in the North season is 67.43 Gg. All of them are
similar in the percentage (Fig. 4).
The NPP harvest in the North season (58.41 Gg) is higher than in the East season
(48.84 Gg). In the East season seagrass fish and swimming crabs are caught more than
during the North season. Meanwhile, squid and mollusks are caught more in the North
season. All of these are influenced by the seasons, in the East season, the weather is
relatively calm, a traditional fisherman can carry out fishing activities further or outside the
seagrass ecosystem, so seagrass fish caught are smaller and replaced by coral fish. It was
mentioned before that there is connectivity between seagrass, coral and mangrove. Uns-
worth et al. (2009) showed that juvenile Lethrinus harak (Thumbprint Emperor) are
abundant in the seagrass ecosystem whereas the adults are found in the coral reef.
Moreover, Jaxion-Ham et al. (2012) concluded that adult fish were dominant in the coral
reef and the juveniles in the seagrass or mangrove, from their research about habitat
connectivity. In contrast, in the North season, the weather is bad, so fishing activities can
only be done in the seagrass ecosystem area. In that time, fishermen can only caught
seagrass fish (small in size), but mollusk and squid more higher, because they usually
found in the seagrass area.
DNPPlc was calculated as the difference between NPPo and NPPact (Fig. 5). The
percentage of DNPlc is 17.2% (Fig. 4), it means only 17.2% of biomass were permanently
remaining in the seagrass ecosystem. In a terrestrial ecosystem DNPPlc is an effect of a
change of land (Singh et al. 2001), in this study, DNPPlc is assumed the remaining biomass
in the seagrass ecosystem, consisting of juvenile of fish, invertebrate or other biota. It can
be assumed that DNPPlc is the space where the biota with no disturbance.
NPP remaining (NPPt) is the difference between the NPPact and the NPPh. The per-
centage of NPPt varies from 15.5% in the North season to 22.9% in the East Season.
Haberl et al. (2004a) mentioned that NPPt was positively correlated with species diversity
this is proven by their research on species diversity on the agricultural land in eastern
Austria. In this study, NPPt reflects the remaining biomass in seagrass ecosystem but can
be changed depending on the harvest activity. It can be said the remaining biota leftover
fishing activity.

123
Human appropriation of net primary production (HANPP) in… 877

Fig. 5 Percentage of HANPP component in seagrass ecosystem in Bintan Regency. Source: prossessed
from primary data

The HANPP in the East and North season is relatively high. It can be suggested that
traditional fishermen had a very close relationship with the seagrass ecosystem, that sea-
grass ecosystem supported their life. The percentage of HANPP in the North season is
higher than the East season. As mentioned, the weather in the North season is bad, forcing
the fisherman to make efforts to use a larger area of seagrass than the East season.
Statistical analysis using t-test showed that HANPP at both seasons is different (q = 0.05),
but has a high correlation, which means the degree of utilization of the seagrass ecosystem
in the East and the North season is different; however, an effort at utilization is still being
done.
Efficiency is the percentage relationship between NPPact and HANPP. This reflects
how intent the traditional fishermen colonize the productive area of the seagrass ecosystem.
This research shows that differences in the efficiency of the North and East season are
1.9%, confirming the statement above that use of the productive seagrass areas is still being
made by traditional fishermen in both seasons.

5 Discussion

HANPP is one of the approaches that has been used to determine the relationship between
humans and nature (Haberl et al. 2007a). It is usually applied to land at the regional and
global scale. For example HANPP of global cropland was 83%, grassing 19.4% and
forestry 6.6% (Haberl et al. 2007b). In a case of our study, the HANPP was calculated on a
small scale in marine area; therefore, it is difficult to compare with the other study. HANPP
is generally used to see the scale of human activities compared to natural processes at the
global level. We think in principle, HANPP can be applied on a small scale such as in this
study, for coral reef or mangroves, with the some modification depending on the com-
ponents in the ecosystem. As mentioned above different definitions may lead to substan-
tially different empirical results of the HANPP. Table 5 resumed a comparison of HANPP
in terrestrial and seagrass ecosystem. In the future, this could be applied to all ecosystems
coastal and marine, as well as terrestrial. However, Krausman et al. (2012) stated that
HANPP is not be able to describe the carrying capacity of the environment. Hence,
research on the sustainable management of seagrass sustainability is necessary.

123
878 N. D. M. Sjafrie et al.

Table 5 A comparison of HANPP in terrestrial and seagrass ecosystem

Terrestrial ecosystem Seagrass ecosystem

Space 2 dimension (width, length) 3 dimension (width, length, depth)

occupied
Can be drawn Yes No
spatially?
NPP Producer: green plant (agriculture, Producer: seagrass, seaweed, phytoplankton
forest, cropland) Consumer: an economic and related fauna
(zooplankton, fish, crab, squid, invertebrate,
mollusck, etc.)
Unit (s) Kg or biomass/m2 Some is kg or gram biomass/m3
HANPP Show the human ‘colonize’ in land Show the fishermen dependency in ecosystem
Efficiency Show the intensity of fishermen to work on
ecosystem
Relevance for Current assessment do not identify a If the HANPP is high, it mean the fishermen
sustainability clear sustainability threshold (Haberl have strong dependence to ecosystem
et al. 2004b) If the efficiency is high, it mean the fishermen
use an ecosystem intensively
The high of HANPP and efficiency can be used
as ‘alarm’ for over-exploitation of an
ecosystem

This study showed that the value of HANPP was high in both season. It gave an
understanding that domination of fishermen in the seagrass ecosystem was high, and they
extracted resource on those ecosystem intensively. This can be reflected from the per-
centage of efficiency range 77–79%. These circumstance be jeopardize to the relationship
between resources and the fishermen livelihood; therefore, it is necessary to the proper
management. As described above that our study has been declared as a Marine Conser-
vation Area of Bintan Regency (MCABR). We proposed to optimize the existing rule and
make adjustment to the current condition. The HANPP was inversely correlated with
species diversity, whereas NPPt was positively correlated with species diversity (Haberl
et al. 2004a). In this study, the difference of NPPt between the East season and North
season is about 7.3%. It could be considered as basic information to guide setting up
adjustment a core zone in the seagrass ecosystem at the study site.

6 Conclusion

This study applied HANPP approached into seagrass ecosystem. There is a strong presence
of traditional fisherman in the seagrass ecosystem this means that the dependence of
traditional fisherman on the seagrass ecosystem in Bintan Regency is high. The weather is
no obstacle to fishing there. Hinterberger and Pirgmaier (2009) said ‘you can’t manage
what you can’t measure’ that means if we can make a quantitative information, it will be
easier for the manager to take an action. In context with this study, HANPP was range
74.67–83.27%, means a highly dependent of traditional fishermen to the seagrass
ecosystem. As well as high intensity in seagrass ecosystem 77–79% will make a pressure in
seagrass ecosystem due to the high activity of fishermen. As a manager we can take an

123
Human appropriation of net primary production (HANPP) in… 879

action to reduce HANPP become 50% (Haberl et al. 2004a) thru some action such as
optimize the existing rule and give an alternative livelihood. Further studies need to look at
sustainability and management of the seagrass ecosystem.

References
Adrianto, L. (2009). Socio-ecological system (SES) an approach in sustainable seagrass management. In H.
Malikusworo, D. G. Bengen, T. Kuriandewa, A. A. Taurusman, & E. B. Haryani (Eds.), Proceeding
national workshop I. Seagrass management (pp. 187–200). Jakarta: PKSPL-IPB.
Adrianto, L. (2012). Ecological footprint an application on fisheries resource management. MSP Publication
Series No. 02.
Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2004). A framework to analyze the robustness of social-
ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecology and Society 9(1), 18. http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art18.
Andersen, C. B., Donovan, R. K., & Quinn, J. E. (2015). Human appropriation of net primary production
(HANPP) in an agriculturally-Dominated Watershed, Southeastern USA. Land, 4, 513–540. doi:10.
3390/land4020513.
Anggraini, F., Adrianto, L., Kurnia, R., & Malikusworo, H. (2015). Seagrass ecosystem and small-scale
fisheries connetivity. In Paper presented on SCESAP Biodiversity Symposium. Bangkok. July 3–7,
2015.
Anonymous. (2008a). Draft of coral reef management plan in Malang Rapat village.
Anonymous. (2008b). Draft of coral reef management plan in Teluk Bakau village.
Anonymous. (2009). Study for preparing draft of seagrass resource management and associated ecosystem
in the East cost of Bintan, Kepulauan Riau. Research report. Pusat Penelitian Oseanografi LIPI.
Anonymous. (2012). Bintan in Figures 2011. Bappeda Kabupaten Bintan.
Anonymous. (2013). The Profile of Malang Rapat village.
Anonymous. (2014a). Gunung Kijang sub-district in figure. BPS Kabupaten Bintan.
Anonymous. (2014b). Teluk Sebong sub-district in figure. BPS Kabupaten Bintan.
Anonymous. (2014c). Monography of Teluk Bakau village.
Anonymous. (2014d). Monography of Pengudang village.
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farberk, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., et al. (1997). The value of the
world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253–260.
Cullen-Unsworth, L. C., Nordlund, L. M., Paddcock, J., Baker, S., McKenzie, L. J., & Unsworth, R. K. F.
(2014). Seagrass meadows globally as coupled social-ecological system: Implication for human
wellbeing. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 83, 387–397.
Cullen-Unsworth, L. C., & Unsworth, R. K. F. (2013). Seagrass meadows, ecosystem services and sus-
tainability. Environment Science and Policy for Sustainable Development Magazine, 55(3), 14–26.
doi:10.1080/00139157.2013.785864.
Cushing, D. H. (1958). The estimation of carbon in phytoplankton. Rappt. Proces-Verbaux Reunions,
Conseil Perm. Intern. Exploration Mer, 144, 32–33.
de la Torre-Castro, M., de Carlo, G., & Jiddawi, N. S. (2014). Segrass importance for small-scale fishery in
the tropics: The need for seascape management. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 83, 398–407. doi:10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2014.03.034.
de la Torre-Castro, M., & Ronnback, P. (2004). Link between humans seagrasses—an example from
Tropical East Africa. Ocean and Coastal Management, 47, 361–387.
Dennison, W. C. (2009). Global trajectories of seagrass, the biological sentinels of coastal ecosystem. In C.
M. Duarte (Ed.), Global loss of coastal habitat rates, causes and consequences (pp. 91–107). Fun-
dacion BBVA.
Dinas Hidrooseanografi TNI AL. (2014). Tidal Table of Indonesian Islands 2014.
Dinas Hidrooseanografi TNI AL. (2015). Tidal Table of Indonesian Islands 2015.
Erb, K., Krausman, F., Gaube, V., Gingrich, S., Bondeau, A., Fisher-Kowalski, M., et al. (2009). Analyzing
the global human appropriation of net primary production—processes, trajectories, implications. An
introduction. Ecological Economics, 69, 250–259.
Giampietro, M., & Mayumi, K. (2000). Multiple-scale integrated assessment of social metabolism: intro-
ducing the approach. Population and Environment: A journal of Interdiciplinary Studies, 22(2),
109–153.

123
880 N. D. M. Sjafrie et al.

Haberl, H., Erb, K. H., Karusman, F., Gaube, V., Bondeu, A., Plutzar, C., et al. (2007a). Quantifying and
mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in earth’s terrestrial ecosystems. PNAS,
104(31), 12942–12947.
Haberl, H., Erb, K. H., & Krausmann, F. (2007b). Human appropriation of net primary production. Internet
encyclopaedia of ecological economics. http://www.ecoeco.org/publica/encyc.htm.
Haberl, H., Schulz, N. B., Plutzar, C., Erb, K., Krausman, F., Lobl, W., et al. (2004a). Human appropriation
of net primary production and species diversity in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture Ecosystems and
Environtment, 102(2), 213–218.
Haberl, H., Wackernagel, M., Krausman, F., Erb, K., & Monfreda, C. (2004b). Ecological footprints and
human appropriation of net primary production: A comparation. Land Use Policy, 21, 279–288.
Hinterberger, F., & Pirgmaier, E. (2009). Sustainable development—A concept develop enough to guide
Cohesion Policy programmes?. In Paper prepared for the sixth European conference on evaluation of
cohesion policy: New method for cohesion policy evaluation: Promoting accountability and learning.
30 November–1 December 2009 in Warsaw. (http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/conferences/
evaluation2009/.
Honda, K., Nakamura, Y., Nakaoka, M., Uy, W. H., & Fortes, M. D. (2013). Habitat use by fishes in coral
reefs, seagrass beds and mangrove habitats in the Philippines. PLoS ONE, 8(8), e65735. doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0065735.
Jaxion-Ham, J., Saunders, J., & Speight, M. R. (2012). Distribution of fish in seagrass, mangrove and coral
reef: life-stage dependent habitat use in Honduras. Revista de Biologia Tropical, 60(2), 683–698.
Kiswara, W. (2009). Seagrass perspective in the coastal productivity. In H. Malikusworo, D. G. Bengen, T.
Kuriandewa, A. A. Taurusman, & E. B. Haryani (Eds.), Proceeding national workshop I. Seagrass
management (pp. 91–119). Jakarta: PKSPL-IPB.
Krausman, F., Erb, K., Gingrich, S., Haberl, H., Bondeau, A., Gaube, V., Lauk, C., Plutzar, C., &
Searchinger, T. D. (2009). Global human appropriation of net primary production double in the 20th
century. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1211349110.
Krausman, F., Gingrich, S., Haberl, H., Erb, K., Musel, A., Kastner, K., et al. (2012). Long-term trajectories
of the human appropriation of net primary production: Lessons from six national case studies. Eco-
logical Economic, 77, 129–138.
McKenzie, L. J. (2003). Guidelines for rapid assessment of seagrass habitats in the western Pasific (p. 43).
The State of Queensland: Department of Primary Industries.
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and well-human being synthesis (p. 137). Wash-
ington: Island Press.
Niedertscheider, M., Gingrich, S., & Erb, K. (2012). Changes in land use in South Africa between 1961 and
2006: an integrated socio-ecological analysis based on the human appropriation of net primary pro-
duction framework. Regional environmental change, 12, 715–727.
Nontji, A. (2008). Marine plankton (p. 331). Jakarta: LIPI Press.
Satria A (2009). Coastal and Sea for Fishermen (p. 144). Kampus IPB Dramaga Bogor: IPB Press.
Singh, S. J., Grünbühel, C. M., Schandl, H., & Schulz, N. (2001). Social metabolism and labour in a local
context: Changing environmental relations on Trinket Island. Population and Environment, 23(1),
71–104.
Sjafrie, N. D. M. (2016). Study on the connectivity of socio-ecological system in seagrass ecosystem of
Bintan Regency. Dissertation. Graduate School of Bogor Agricultural University.
Sjafrie, N. D. M., Adrianto, L., Damar, A., & Boer, M. (2015). Analysis of seagrass ecocystem balance in
the Bintan Island of Kepulauan Riau Province. Oseanologi dan Limnologi di Indonesia, 41(3),
291–304.
Sparre, P., & Venema, S. C. (1998). Introduction to Tropical Fish Stock Assessment Part 1-Manual 1. FAO
Fisheries Technical Paper No. 306/1 Rev2.
Strickland, J. D. H. & Parsons, T. R. (1968). A practical hand book of seawater analysis. Fish. Sea. Res.
Bulletin (No. 167).
Temper, L. (2012). Who gets the human appropriation of net primary production? Biomass distribution and
the sugar economy in the Tana Delta, Kenya. The Land Deal Politics Initiative.
Unsworth, R. K., Bell, J. J., & Smith, D. J. (2007b). Tidal fish connectivity of reef and sea grass habitats in
the Indo-Pacific. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 87, 1287–1296.
Unsworth, R. K. F., Collier, C. J., Henderson, G. M., & McKenzie, L. J. (2012). Tropical seagrass meadows
modify seawater carbon chemistry: implications for coral reefs impacted by ocean acidification. En-
vironmental Research Letters, 7(2012), 024026.
Unsworth, R. K. F., De Leon, P. S., Garrard, S. L., Smith, D. J., & Bell, J. J. (2009). Habitat usage of the
Thumbprint Emperor Lethrinus harak (Forsskal, 1775) in the Indo-Pacific Coastal Seascape. The Open
Marine Biology Journal, 3, 16–20.

123
Human appropriation of net primary production (HANPP) in… 881

Unsworth, R. K., Taylor, J. D., Powell, A., Bell, J. J., & Smith, D. J. (2007a). The contribution of scarid
herbivory to seagrass ecosystem dynamics in the Indo-Pacific. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science xx,
1–10. https://opwall.com/wp-content/uploads/unsworth-etal-2007-scarid-herbivory.pdf.
Verweij, M. C., Nagelkerken, I., Hans, I., & Ruseler, S. M. (2008). Seagrass nurseries contribute to coral
reef fish populations. Limnology and Oceanography, 53(4), 1540–1547.
Vitousek, P. M., Ehrlich, P. R., Ehrlich, A. H., & Matson, P. A. (1986). Human appropriation of the products
of photosynthesis. BioScience, 36(6), 368–373.
Wickstead, J. H. (1965). An Introduction to the Study of Tropical Plankton (p. 158). London: Hutchinson &
CO. LTD.

123