Ocean and Coastal Management 154 (2018) 72–82

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean and Coastal Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

Conservation and restoration of mangroves: Global status, perspectives, and T

prognosis
Stephanie S. Romañacha,∗, Donald L. DeAngelisb, Hock Lye Kohc, Yuhong Lid, Su Yean Tehe,
Raja Sulaiman Raja Barizanf, Lu Zhaig
a
U.S. Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, 3321 College Ave, Davie, FL 33314, USA
b
U.S. Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, Biology Department, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33124, USA
c
Jeffrey Sachs Center on Sustainable Development, Sunway University, Jalan Universiti, Bandar Sunway, 47500 Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
d
Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Huaqiao University, Xiamen City, Fujian 361021, People's Republic of China
e
School of Mathematical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Pulau Pinang, Malaysia
f
Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), 52109 Kepong, Selangor, Malaysia
g
Biology Department, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33124, USA

A B S T R A C T

Mangrove forests provide critical services around the globe to both human populations and the ecosystems they
occupy. However, losses of mangrove habitat of more than 50% have been recorded in some parts of the world,
and these losses are largely attributable to human activities. The importance of mangroves and the threats to
their persistence have long been recognized, leading to actions taken locally, by national governments, and
through international agreements for their protection. In this review, we explore the status of mangrove forests
as well as efforts to protect them. We examine threats to the persistence of mangroves, consequences, and
potential solutions for effective conservation. We present case studies from disparate regions of the world,
showing that the integration of human livelihood needs in a manner that balances conservation goals can present
solutions that could lead to long-term sustainability of mangrove forests throughout the world.

1. Introduction
Mangroves are found chiefly in the intertidal zones of coastal tro-
pical and subtropical regions of the world (Fig. 1). They can tolerate
salinities from freshwater to hypersaline exceeding 100 parts per
thousand. They can also thrive under much lower salinities, but their
occurrence in terrestrial communities is limited by competition with
other species better adapted to the terrestrial environment. Mangroves
are physiologically a tropics-adapted group, and frost frequency and
severity as well as minimum temperature requirements limit poleward
expansion (Twilley, 1998; Saintilan et al., 2014). Mangroves were re-
ported by Spalding et al. (1997) to occupy 18,100,000 ha worldwide,
but this estimate of global coverage was revised downward to
13,776,000 ha by Giri et al. (2011), and then to 8,349,500 ha by
Hamilton and Casey (2016). The distribution of mangroves, which in-
cludes 118 countries, is described in detail by Tomlinson (1986).
At least 35% of mangrove forest area was lost worldwide during the
1980s and 1990s alone (Valiela et al., 2001), with losses of 50–80% in
some regions (Wolanski et al., 2000). The global loss of mangroves can
be attributed largely to human population growth and development in
the coastal zone. Specific reasons are urban development, aquaculture,
conversion to agriculture such as rice farming, and overexploitation of
timber.
These losses matter, as mangroves provide numerous services and
benefits to nature and to people. Mangroves play an important role in
buffering coastlines against storm surges and tsunamis through wave
attenuation (Kathiresan and Rajendran, 2005; Wolanski, 2007; Barbier
et al., 2008; Teh et al., 2009). Studies have shown that the flooded area
produced by Hurricane Wilma in 2005 in southwestern Florida would
have extended 70% further inland without the protection of the
6–30 km zone of mangroves (Zhang et al., 2012a; Liu et al., 2013,
Fig. 2), and mangroves reduced the loss of human life from the 1999
cyclone that struck Orissa, India (Barbier, 2016). Loss of mangroves will
result in less protection from both flooding and high winds. Some
countries, such as Guyana, have engaged in educational outreach to
alert the public about the potentially catastrophic consequences to
mangrove deforestation (Fig. 3). Numerous studies show that man-
groves provide nursery habitat for juvenile coral reef fishes of many
species (Nagelkerken et al., 2000). Laegdsgaard and Johnson (2001)
showed that mangroves, especially the prop roots of Rhizophora,

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sromanach@usgs.gov (S.S. Romañach).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.01.009
Received 16 February 2017; Received in revised form 8 January 2018; Accepted 8 January 2018
0964-5691/ © 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
S.S. Romañach et al.
Fig. 1. Map showing the global distribution of mangroves (in black).
Source: United Nations Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC); Giri et al. (2011); version 1.3, http://data.unep-wcmc.org/datasets/4.
provide structural heterogeneity that is favorable both to prey at-
tempting to avoid predators and to predatory fish searching for in-
vertebrate prey hiding within the root structure. Mangroves also serve
as sinks for carbon, not only through accumulation of living biomass,
but also through litter and dead wood deposition, including the trap-
ping of sediments delivered from the uplands. Carbon in mangrove
sediments does not turn over in the same way it does in terrestrial soil,
but builds up vertically in response to sea level rise (SLR) (McLeod
et al., 2011). Another service provided by mangroves is that of a nu-
trient sink. Denitrification in the anaerobic environment (Ewel et al.,
1998) and nitrogen-fixation by certain bacteria and cyanobacteria as-
sociated with mangrove mud and with above-ground root systems
(Kimball and Teas, 1975; Pelegri and Twilley, 1998) can improve water
quality from wastewater inputs.
Worldwide, natural resources fall under various levels of manage-
ment and ownership, ranging from private to government ownership
(Berkes, 2004). Because of the recognized importance of mangroves
and the continuing threats to their persistence, actions have been taken
internationally and for the conservation and sustainable use of wet-
lands. Protective authorities include the United Nations Forum on
Forests (UNFF), Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD), United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC), Convention on Wetlands of International Im-
portance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention), Con-
vention for the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage, and
the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Ani-
mals. These agreements have resulted in the protection of large areas of
mangrove forests globally. In addition to conservation agreements at
the international level, efforts by individual nations to protect or restore
these forests have varied from mandated protection by governments to
locally-initiated efforts. Human use of those resources varies depending
on the level of protection. Overall, the global decline of mangroves has
slowed, but additional actions need to be taken to ensure their long-
term survival (Alongi, 2002).
In this review we provide overviews of (1) Status of & Current
Threats to Mangroves, (2) Threats for the Future (3) Failures of Current
Conservation Approaches, and (4) Innovation and Success in Mangrove
Conservation.
73
Ocean and Coastal Management 154 (2018) 72–82
2. Status of and current threats to mangroves
Mangroves exist on every continent except Antarctica. In this sec-
tion, we will limit our discussion to Asia (Fig. 4) and the United States
of America (U.S.; Fig. 5). Asia encompasses the largest land area of
mangroves and the U.S. has been the focus of many decades of pub-
lished research on mangrove forests. Although the status of mangrove
forests varies by country and region, many mangrove forests experience
similar threats to their persistence from urban development and timber
harvest to conversion for other land uses such as agriculture and
aquaculture, which we describe in more detail in this section.
2.1. Asia
Asia has the largest land area of mangrove forest, encompassing
42% of the world's mangroves (Giri et al., 2011). Within Asia, Indonesia
and Malaysia have the largest mangrove areas. We focus on Malaysia
and China as representative of examples of status and change.
Malaysia has about 575,000 ha of mangrove forest (Fig. 4), reduced
from 695,000 in the 1970s; that is, reduced by 17%, due to land con-
version/reclamation for agriculture, aquaculture, urbanization, infra-
structure development and natural causes mainly from coastal erosion.
Located in the State of Perak, Matang Mangrove Forest is the largest
mangrove forest in Malaysia. Covering an area of about 40,000 ha, the
Matang Forest was designated as a Permanent Forest Reserve since
1904 with efforts to preserve the forest dating back to 1902, making it
the oldest mangrove reserve in Malaysia. Although Matang Forest is not
designated as a Ramsar site, it is a sustainable and well-managed forest
system that produces a constant yield of renewable forest resources
while maintaining ecosystem biodiversity and richness. There are cur-
rently seven Ramsar sites in Malaysia—four in Peninsular Malaysia, two
in Sabah and one in Sarawak. The three Ramsar sites, Pulau Kukup,
Sungai Pulai and Tanjung Piai, are located in the State of Johor. These
sites are particularly rich in mangroves and intertidal mudflats. Located
about 1 km offshore from the southwestern region of Johor, Pulau
Kukup is an uninhabited and intact mangrove island of approximately
650 ha surrounded by extensive (800 ha) intertidal mudflats. The island
is important for flood control and protection from storm events and
coastal erosion. Sungai Pulai, over 9000 ha, is Peninsular Malaysia's
largest estuarine mangrove system, which also includes seagrass beds,
intertidal mudflats and an inland freshwater riverine forest. It provides
S.S. Romañach et al.
shoreline stabilization and flood prevention for adjacent villages. Tan-
jung Piai, over 500 ha, is an 8 km strip of coastal mangroves and in-
tertidal mudflats at the southernmost tip of continental Asia. The
mangroves along Tanjung Piai prevent excessive sediments from en-
tering the waterways and help stabilize the shoreline against high-en-
ergy wave action. As the last remnants of a formerly 17,000 ha area,
Sarawak Mangrove Forest Reserve of Kuching Wetlands National Park
is a mangrove forest covering approximately 6600 ha. With over
78,000 ha of mangrove forest and peat swamp, Lower Kinabatangan-
Segama Wetlands of Sabah is Malaysia's largest Ramsar site, formed by
three protected forest reserves—Trusan Kinabatangan Forest Reserve,
Kuala Maruap and Kuala Segama Forest Reserve, and Kulamba Wildlife
Reserve. The 24.2 ha Kota Kinabalu (KK) Wetland of Sabah is the most
recent site being designated by the Federal government as a Ramsar site
on March 2017. Located just two kilometers away from the KK city, the
patch of mangrove forest is what remains of the original forest along the
entire coastline of the KK city before urbanization, making it a site of
74
Ocean and Coastal Management 154 (2018) 72–82
Fig. 2. Map image showing inundation area of Hurricane
Wilma on in the mangrove region of southwestern Florida
USA (reproduced with permission from Keqi Zhang and
Elsevier).
cultural heritage significance.
In Peninsular Malaysia, about 1282 ha (or about 1%) of mangroves
were lost per year between 1990 and 2010 (Hamdan et al., 2010,
2012). The main reasons for such loss were identified as land conver-
sion for mainly agriculture and aquaculture, as well as coastal erosion.
Recently, Richards and Friess (2016) reported that more than 15,800 ha
(or 2.83%) of mangrove area was lost between 2000 and 2012. Over
that period, deforestation of mangrove forests for aquaculture, rice and
oil palm plantations was identified as the major cause of the loss. They
attributed 38% of this mangrove loss in Malaysia to conversion of
mangrove forests to oil palm plantations. Malaysia's Matang Mangrove
Forest, well-known for its sustainable forest management, is susceptible
to pollution from upstream industrial areas. Over-exploitation of scarce
marine resources and mangrove trees, in combination with pollution
from nearby oil palm plantations, are the major concerns of the Marudu
Bay Mangrove, Sabah. Logging, soil erosion, loss of wildlife, agri-
cultural impacts, including water quality deterioration, habitat loss,
S.S. Romañach et al.
Fig. 4. Map showing the extent of mangrove distribution (in black) in Asia.
Source: UNEP-WCMC, Giri et al. (2011).
and oil palm plantations and mills are identified by Sabah Biodiversity
Centre (2011) as problems that could potentially affect Lower Kinaba-
tangan-Segama Wetlands integrity as one of the Ramsar sites. Located
downstream of a high population density and development area, the
Kuching Wetlands National Park is at risk of environmental degradation
from untreated solid and liquid waste, land-clearing activities, as well
as a nearby stone quarrying operation. Non-native plant invasions are
likely to have a significant ecological impact where they displace native
species. For example, plants such as Acrostichum aureum and Acanthus
75
Ocean and Coastal Management 154 (2018) 72–82
Fig. 3. Example signage in Guyana showing the govern-
ment's effort to inform the public about the protection
benefits provided by mangroves against storm surge (photo
credit: Carinya Sharples/Mongabay; used with permission).
species, which often occupy deforested mangrove areas, may restrict
the re-growth of mangroves. Development and over-exploitation ex-
acerbating soil erosion are some of the common threats faced by wet-
lands in Johor such as those of Pulau Kukup, Sungai Pulai and Tanjung
Piai, which are mainly scattered along the coastal areas and rivers.
The largest country in Asia, China, has a natural distribution of
mangroves that extends from Yulin Port, Hainan (18° 9′ N) to Fuding,
Fujian (27° 20′ N) including Fujian, Guangdong, and Guangxi pro-
vinces, Hong Kong and Hainan. The total area of mangrove forest is
S.S. Romañach et al.
Fig. 5. Map of the extent of mangrove distribution (in black) in the United States of America, showing the greatest coverage in Florida.
Source: UNEP-WCMC, Giri et al. (2011).
25,000 ha currently, but has been recorded as great as 250,000 ha.
Mangroves experienced a 50% loss in China, from 40,000 ha in 1957
down to 18,800 ha in the mid-1980s (He and Zhang, 2001). Thirty-
seven species, representing 20 families and 25 genera, include 26 true
mangrove species and 11 semi-mangrove species in China (Li and Lee,
1997; Wang, 2007). Mangroves are categorized as true mangrove and
semi-mangrove species based upon their living environment (Wang
et al., 2011). True mangroves are species that are strictly distributed in
the intertidal zone while semi-mangroves are species that could both
grow in the intertidal zone and on land. Mangrove forest in mainland
China makes up just 0.14% of the world's mangrove area, but holds one
third of the world's mangrove species (Wang, 2007). Therefore, man-
grove conservation in China plays an important role in biodiversity
conservation of the world's mangrove forests. Currently, there are 35
mangrove conservation areas in China, which are managed by central
or local governments (Chen et al., 2009). Among the 49 Ramsar Con-
vention sites in China, some focus specifically on protecting mangroves,
such as the Dongzhaigang Mangrove Nature Reserve (5400 ha), Mai Po
Marshes and Inner Deep Bay (1540 ha), Shankou Mangrove Nature
Reserve (4000 ha), Fujian Zhangjiangkou National Mangrove Nature
Reserve (2360 ha) and Guangxi Beilun Estuary National Nature Reserve
(3000 ha).
China has experienced three stages of mangrove forest land con-
version: (1) transformation to agricultural areas in the 1960s and
1970s, (2) development of aquaculture in mangrove forests during
1980s, and (3) recent urbanization via development of ports, docks, and
business districts (Wang, 2007). For example, in the Tieshan port of
Beihai, Guangxi province, construction will result in mangrove forest
loss near 370 ha. Despite the efforts of artificially planting mangrove
forest in recent years, the mangrove loss from this project may over-
come the total amount of mangrove trees planted in all of China during
one year. Invasive species also threaten the persistence of mangrove
forests. Spartina alterniflora is one of the most successful invasive spe-
cies in mangrove wetlands and has dispersed coast-wide to all man-
grove sites in China. A species used in reforestation efforts, Sonneratia
apetala, has increasingly caused concerns about its potential to invade
native mangrove forests (Ren et al., 2009). Human behavior has also
caused serious pollution and increased disease spread and pest damage
76
Ocean and Coastal Management 154 (2018) 72–82
in mangrove wetland ecosystems. This includes pollution from the ap-
plication of pesticides and animal waste. For example, a Sphaeroma
bloom in 2010 in Hainan and Guangxi was caused by domestic duck
farming, and caused the death of a mangrove forest (Fan et al., 2014).
Another example is in Quanzhou Bay of Fujian, where pest damage to
an Aegiceras corniculatum mangrove forest was likely caused by pollu-
tion from aquaculture development (Zuang et al., 2011; Li, 2012a,b).
2.2. United States of America
In the U.S., the State of Florida contains by far the largest area of
mangrove swamp, approximately 190,000 ha (Fig. 5; Odum et al.,
1982). The area of mangroves on the northern Gulf Coast was recently
estimated for Texas at 3790 ha, up from 2181 ha in 1990 (Armitage
et al., 2015). In Louisiana, chill-tolerant black mangrove (Avicennia
germinans) shrubs have interspersed into saltmarsh at their northern
extreme of their current range and have rapidly recolonized and ex-
panded in the last three decades (Michot et al., 2010; Osland et al.,
2013, 2015). Mangroves are not native to Hawaii, but have been in-
troduced, with both positive and negative impacts (Allen, 1998). Be-
cause Florida contains the greatest spatial extent of mangroves and
greatest research emphasis in the U.S., it is the focus here (Fig. 5). The
distribution of mangroves stretches north to Cedar Key on the Gulf
Coast and Ponce de Leon Inlet on the Atlantic Coast, both at about 29°
10′ N latitude (Odum et al., 1982). Northward expansion is occurring as
a result of decreasing frequency of freezes (Doughty et al., 2016). Three
species, black mangrove, red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle), and white
mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa) make up the mangrove community,
with a fourth, buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus), though not a true
mangrove because it displays neither the viviparous reproduction
strategies nor specialized root structures of any true mangrove species
(Nelson, 1994), making a transition from mangrove swamp to upland
forest (Tomlinson, 1986). Most of the area occupied by mangroves lies
within Everglades National Park, which borders on Florida Bay and the
Gulf of Mexico. Much of the remaining mangrove area lies within land
owned by Federal, State and county governments, or by non-profit or-
ganizations such as the National Audubon Society.
Although mangroves are now protected by law in some parts of the
S.S. Romañach et al.
United States, a number of threats remain. Some threats are a legacy of
clear-cutting for human development, as has occurred in Florida's
southerly island chain, in the Upper Florida Keys. Mangrove habitat
was reduced and fragmented through dredging and filling for re-
sidential canals (Kruczynski and McManus, 2002), which increases
vulnerability to further destruction or invasion by exotic plants (Strong
and Bancroft, 1994). In Florida's vast Everglades wetland, a primary
threat has been the altered freshwater flows into the mangrove estu-
aries, increasing salinity in some locations. Although mangroves can
tolerate high salinity, it is known to have a negative impact on seedlings
(Koch and Snedaker, 1997), and some instances of mangrove die-off in
Florida Bay may be due to salinity outside the range of tolerance
(McIvor et al., 1994). Black mangroves are vulnerable to changes in
tidal fluxes due to the type of marsh impoundment used for mosquito
control, as overflooding or hypersaline conditions can occur (Rey et al.,
1990). Hurricanes are a natural environmental disturbance in southern
Florida, so mangroves are adapted to their periodic occurrence. How-
ever, the amount of damage from a major hurricane can be great –
thousands of hectares of mangrove forest were reported to suffer cat-
astrophic disturbance from Hurricane Andrew in 1992 (Doyle et al.,
1995) and Hurricane Wilma in 2005 (Smith et al., 2009). What is ser-
ious is the finding that repeated heavy disturbances have turned some
former mangroves into mudflats, which show no sign of returning to
mangroves (Smith et al., 2009). Another constant threat is the possi-
bility of a large oil spill, as the Gulf of Mexico is a site of a major
petroleum industry. Duke et al. (1997) in a study of an oil spill from a
land tank in Bahia Las Minas, Panama, found that 69 ha of mangroves,
or 6% of those in the bay, were killed, and a further 34% suffered da-
mage. Invasive species, particularly Brazilian pepper (Schinus ter-
ebinthifolius) and colubrine (Colubrina asiatica), which have invaded
some mangrove areas (Davis et al., 2005), are a concern. Pollutants,
herbicides, and other run-off constituents from agricultural and urban
areas also pose risks, but sea level rise, discussed below, may be a
greater future threat.
3. Threats for the future
The source of the most serious threats to mangroves is increasing
human population density. Human populations and urban areas are
concentrated on coastlines, displacing native vegetation. As described
in the previous section, conversion of mangrove habitat to agriculture
and aquaculture is a major factor in mangrove loss. Other direct effects
are mining and the overexploitation of timber, including clearcutting.
Indirect effects include factors such as changes in freshwater or tidal
flow, pollution from oil exploration, and runoff from solid waste.
Disease and pest impacts may be furthered by some of these human-
related activities (Kathiresan, 2002). Hurricanes and cyclones cause
periodic heavy damage (Doyle et al., 1995). Although these storms are
natural, cumulative impacts can lead to habitat change (Smith et al.,
2009). Tsunamis and their associated earthquakes have also caused
long term change (Roy and Krishnan, 2005).
3.1. Climate change
Current projections of climate change and sea level rise (SLR) in-
dicate that these could have multiple and varying impacts on man-
groves throughout the world (Ward et al., 2016). Because of their
landscape position in the intertidal zone, mangroves are directly af-
fected by SLR, but the effects will depend on local topography, slope,
the rate of SLR, sources and amount of sediment, and extent of area for
landward migration (Woodroffe, 1990; Gilman et al., 2008). Vertical
sediment accumulation in mangrove root systems may allow mangroves
to keep up with the rate of SLR in areas of higher elevation and those
with relatively low tidal range, whereas areas of lower elevation and
those with greater tidal range may not be able to keep pace with SLR
(Ellison, 2000; Ward et al., 2016). Where possible, mangroves will
77
Ocean and Coastal Management 154 (2018) 72–82
continue to progressively move inland as sea levels rise, to areas where
suitable conditions occur (Ellison, 2000). Rising global temperature
may have little effect on areas already occupied by mangroves in the
tropics, but could allow them to migrate and colonize farther poleward.
Increasing carbon dioxide and nitrogen enrichment can augment the
ability of Spartina to suppress growth of mangrove seedlings, and thus
change the competitive relationship between the vegetation types
(McKee and Rooth, 2008; Zhang et al., 2012b). Snedaker and Araujo
(1998) have shown that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations can
alter the competitiveness of mangroves, particularly of Laguncularia
racemosa.
These threats pose challenges for the future management and con-
servation of mangroves. As some examples below illustrate, current
approaches may not be adequate for those purposes and even more
challenging in changing environments.
4. Failures of current conservation approaches
Successful management, conservation, and restoration require the
commitment of local, State and national level government as well as
local communities. As patterns of human settlement around the world
continue, people are increasingly distanced from nature and therefore
may be less concerned about nature conservation (Miller, 2005; Zaradic
et al., 2009). Additionally, as with many conservation programs, ben-
efits from mangroves might be indirect or poorly understood by local
residents or they may perceive that they are being excluded from access
to previously utilized resources (Shackelton et al., 2002). Some specific
cases, and suggestions for remedies, are described in this section.
4.1. Science-based approaches
In Indonesia, the Segara Anakan Conservation and Development
Project (SACDP), funded by the Asia Development Bank (ADB), in co-
operation with the government of Indonesia, faced challenges from
grassroots communities. The communities felt that the scientific sector
did not produce problem-solving solutions, as it was perceived to be
oriented towards the wishes of established elite communities, which led
to social opposition before the implementation of the mangrove con-
servation project. As a result, all solutions were compromised, and
science achieved little (Dharmawan et al., 2016). Hence, conservation
efforts need to use research to find better ways to integrate with com-
munity knowledge (Dharmawan et al., 2016).
In Vietnam, the science-based approaches and the local knowledge-
based approaches have been separately designed to manage mangrove
dominated muddy coasts (MDMCs), both with limited success, due to
inadequate integration between the two distinct approaches.
Mechanisms are needed to promote a high level of integration of local
and scientific knowledge, to effectively manage MDMCs in a sustainable
way (Nguyen et al., 2017). The science-based approaches use specialist
knowledge, are laboratory based or inventory driven, often beyond the
capacity of local communities, leaving little opportunity for the active
participation and meaningful consultation of local communities during
design, planning and implementing processes (Nguyen and Parnell,
2017). Local knowledge-based approaches have faced two key chal-
lenges, namely limited local knowledge and participation, and doubtful
sustainability due to financial constraints. In short, active involvement
and meaningful consultation between local communities and the sci-
ence sector is urgently needed for effective implementation of in-
tegrated science-community based approaches (Stojanovic et al., 2004).
4.2. Lack of integration
Globally, current management and policy efforts have not been fully
successful in ensuring the conservation and sustainable use of man-
grove resources, for myriad reasons, including the failure to integrate
the differing spatial and temporal scales at which the mangrove
S.S. Romañach et al.
ecosystem services are provided (ecological provisional scale) with the
scales at which the management, policy and utilization institutions
operate (societal demand scale). For example, local resource users,
operating at the demand scale, lack the incentives and institutional
imperatives to consider and integrate into the ecological provisional
scales of mangrove ecosystems, resulting in a mismatch between ben-
efits and costs. To help deliberation and promote conflict resolution
regarding ecosystem services, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
(MA, 2003, 2005) differentiates between four major service areas,
namely (a) supporting, (b) provisioning, (c) regulating, and (d) cultural
services. Nevertheless, for mangroves, the large and diverse distribu-
tions of stakeholders, less defined systems and functions, overlapping
marine and terrestrial areas, with different regulations and jurisdic-
tions, render this integration more difficult. Research conducted in In-
donesia and Brazil reported that social opposition has occurred fre-
quently over the failures in managing the conflict between mangrove
resource provision and utilization, and over the failure in integrating
science with local community knowledge (Máñez et al., 2014). Success
of scientific knowledge transfer in conservation projects depends
strongly on how successful the science integrates with the local com-
munity knowledge base.
In Brazil, mangroves are under constant threat by conversion to
aquaculture, industry, and urban development among other things,
which has destroyed more than 50,000 ha, or about 4% of the total
mangrove cover over the past three decades. Restoration efforts have
somewhat minimized losses, but only 5% of the total degraded area has
recuperated. Around 70% of Brazilian mangroves are today located
within preserved areas, making them easier to manage. However, im-
paired by economic interests and inhibited by the lack of operative
conservation policies and best practices, the future of mangrove con-
servation in Brazil depends on integration of indigenous communities,
which depend on mangrove goods and services, with science and other
society sectors through integrated science-community based co-man-
agement. NGOs, government agencies, academic institutions, and
funding agencies can play the role of important agents of action and
awareness generation (Datta et al., 2012). For example, abandoned
shrimp ponds and degraded forests cause enormous damage to artisanal
fishermen, regional fisheries and impair the natural functioning of hy-
drological and soil integrity. Brazilian shrimp farming could benefit
from adapting to utilize natural services provided by mangrove forests
and estuaries to produce shrimp in a sustainable way (Ferreira and
Lacerda, 2016).
An integrated coastal zone management would be beneficial in
Brazil and other countries given that these environments are func-
tionally linked through the biogeochemical processes at the continent-
ocean interface (Lundberg and Moberg, 2003; Sheaves, 2009). Legis-
lation in Brazil does not currently integrate buffer habitats such as coral
reefs and sea grasses to protect mangroves from human drivers. Brazil's
government campaign for a shared co-management of river basins
through participation of different social sectors and stakeholders at the
“Basin Committees” could be extended to include the coastal zones
within their frameworks. As the implementers of laws, the county level
of governance suffers from lack of specialists, insufficient funding, and
conflicts with other governance levels (Ferreira and Lacerda, 2016).
5. Innovation and success in mangrove conservation
Examples can be found throughout the world of success stories in
mangrove conservation through innovative solutions that consider the
needs of people living alongside mangrove forests. Here we highlight a
few of those examples.
5.1. Ecosystem Service Economic Valuation (ESEV)
Concern over the loss of mangrove ecosystems often focuses on the
disruption or loss in the provision of ecological services by mangrove
78
Ocean and Coastal Management 154 (2018) 72–82
forests, such as protection of coastal development from storms and
surges that damage property and cause death and injury, as well as
buffering climate change impacts induced by sea level rise, saltwater
intrusion and coastal erosion. Valuation of ecological services has in-
creasingly been developed and utilized in conservation management
and policy decisions. The promotion of mangrove conservation and the
enhancement of human well-being and livelihoods at the same time
have been the two primary aspirations of the United Nations
Sustainable Development Goals agenda (United Nations, 2015). These
two apparently conflicting aspirations can be met by innovations in eco-
farming within mangrove forests to achieve harmony between humans'
wealth and mangrove health.
Consistent with the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment concept
(MA, 2005), ecosystem services may be defined broadly as the well-
being provided to humans by natural ecosystems. Ecosystem services
must therefore be linked with human well-being and social-economic
values, a process known as Ecosystem Service Economic Valuation
(ESEV). The development of ESEV approaches has been fuelled by the
growing need to deal with ecosystem degradation globally, and va-
luation studies have been advocated to support decision-making and
management of ecosystems. ESEV provides useful information about
the social-economic benefits and costs associated with alternative
coastal policies, facilitating the assessment of trade-offs and synergies
inherent in ecosystem-based management.
To inform decision making, ESEV can be used to connect science
and community engagement into effective policy. Translating good
science and strong community engagement into effective policy can be
difficult, as scientists, communities, and decision makers often operate
within different time frames, in diverse areas of expertise and knowl-
edge, and with differing objectives and incentives (Waite et al., 2015).
The science-community-policy gap can be narrowed by improving
communication among scientists, decision makers, and other stake-
holders through capacity building, outreach, and engagement. We
suggest that scientific research would likely be used in management
decisions if it explicitly responds to the needs of decision makers, and
collected valuation data are targeted at specific policy issues.
Major challenges faced by ESEV in developing countries stem from
the lack of data, lack of funding, and lack of institutional trust (Torres
and Hanley, 2017). ESEV can be used to identify who gets the benefits,
and who faces the costs, particularly across the social-economic divide.
Estimation of non-use values should be transparent and performed with
collaboration among social, natural, and political scientists to build
trust and to reduce conflicts of interest (Torres and Hanley, 2017). The
local users' complex perceptions of landscape, their holistic sense of
well-being, and their context specific socio-cultural valuation of man-
grove ESEV beyond the monetary value are indispensable criteria to be
incorporated into conservation policies (Queiroz et al., 2017). A good
understanding of the complex interrelationships between social and
natural systems and of the multiple dimensions and different time scales
of ecosystem services is crucial. Such an approach is consistent with the
United Nations Sustainable Development Goals of improving human
well-being and of promoting the conservation of marine ecosystems
(United Nations, 2015).
An example of the usefulness of ESEV is the economic valuation of
mangrove forests in India, which has shown a significant rise in man-
grove cover in the State of Gujarat post-1993 that is attributed to
mangrove plantation or regeneration activities in the state (Sahu et al.,
2015; FSI, 2011). Mangrove-related fish species have been shown to
contribute 10–32% to total marine fisheries catch. The change in fish
production due to changes in mangrove cover is examined by com-
paring fish production in Gujarat to other coastal regions of India,
under the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) India in-
itiative. The marginal effect of mangroves on total marine fish output in
India as a whole is estimated at 1.86 tonnes per hectare per year, with
23% or INR 68 billion in Gujarat (Anneboina and Kumar, 2017; values
are standardized to 2012–2013 prices).
S.S. Romañach et al.
In Southeast Asia in general, mangroves are generally undervalued
in decision making relating to their use, conservation, and restoration.
Brander et al. (2012) constructed a database containing 130 value es-
timates, for mangrove ESEV in Southeast Asia, standardized to USD per
hectare per year in 2007 prices. The mean and median values of ESEV
for mangrove ecosystem services are 4185 and 239 US$/ha/year re-
spectively, with high variability across study sites due to vast variations
in the bio-physical characteristics of the site and the socio-economic
characteristics of the beneficiaries of ecosystem services. A meta-ana-
lytic value function is used to estimate the change in ESEV of mangrove
ecosystem services in Southeast Asia under a baseline scenario of
mangrove loss for the period 2000–2050. The estimated foregone an-
nual benefits in 2050 are US$ 2.2 billion, with a prediction interval of
US$ 1.6–2.8 billion. These estimates of mangrove ecosystem services
are particularly important to Indonesia, which has the largest stock of
mangroves in 2000 but also faces the largest losses of 1.7 million hec-
tares or 38% over the period 2000–2050.
The Wider Caribbean Basin (WCB) economy, heavily dependent on
tourism, fisheries, and coastal protection, is driven by coastal ecosystem
services provided by mangroves and coral reefs. Despite the challenges,
coastal ESEV in the WCB has helped justify fishing regulations, establish
marine protected areas, award or settle damage claims, and identify
sustainable sources of finance for conservation, which work toward
long-term viability (Waite et al., 2015). However, the overall economic
value of ecosystem goods and services in the WCB remains largely
unquantified (Schuhmann and Mahon, 2015). Current ESEV valuation
efforts have been piecemeal, fragmented, and largely unconnected to
policy needs (Schuhmann and Mahon, 2015). Valuation efforts and
supporting data collection on marine ecosystems would benefit from
integration across disciplines, institutions, and nations within the WCB,
as most marine resources are transboundary and require international
collaboration for sustainable use. ESEV can be mainstreamed into re-
gional policy processes such as the Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem
Strategic Action Programme (CLME-SAP) adopted in 2013 by the
countries of the WCB (Mahon et al., 2014).
5.2. Inclusion of human needs
The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN-SDG) ac-
knowledge the harmonious co-existence of natural ecosystems and
humans and call for the concurrent improvement of human well-being
and livelihoods while promoting the conservation of marine ecosystems
(United Nations, 2015). Efforts have been devoted in many parts of the
world to achieving this harmonious co-existence by means of innova-
tion in sustainable eco-farming aquaculture practices within mangrove
forests. We briefly present three case studies in Guangxi of China, in Ca
Mau of the Mekong Delta, and in the Volta estuary of Ghana, to illus-
trate the potential of mangrove conservation and restoration facing
increasing demands on mangrove resources due to population growth.
In Guangxi Province of China, an eco-farming aquaculture system
that does not require cutting of mangrove trees or conversion of man-
groves has been perfected with no industrial feed input, following field
trials between 2007 and 2012 conducted in mangrove areas. This un-
ique innovation succeeded in addressing the conflict between mangrove
conservation and economic return of aquaculture (Fan et al., 2013).
Using a network of underground tubes and pipes buried in between
mangrove roots to augment benthic habitats for fish, this system can
bring in mean production of between USD 27,000, and 45,000 per
hectare per annum. The environmentally friendly eco-farming site is
accessible by boardwalks that facilitate ecotourism and public educa-
tion, thereby increasing the income of the farmers and promoting UN-
SDG. The system has been shown to be surge resistant, easy to operate,
and has low management cost, while the products are of high quality
and high value.
Along the Mekong Delta, a study in the Ca Mau province supports
the hypothesis that shrimp farmers may be able to plant, protect, and
79
Ocean and Coastal Management 154 (2018) 72–82
sustainably manage mangroves if they are given sufficient economic
incentives, adequate legal rights, and full responsibilities over their
allocated mangrove forests. That mangrove conservation and shrimp
farming can co-exist in harmony in an environment of economic in-
centives supported by appropriate legislation, calls for a re-evaluation
of the perception that shrimp farming necessitates deforestation and
degradation of mangrove habitat (Ha et al., 2012). As income from
mangrove timber harvests is very low compared to shrimp harvests, an
equitable profit sharing scheme has been devised to ensure that max-
imizing aquaculture production will not compromise mangroves' func-
tional integrity. While complying with the regulations stipulated by the
State regarding forest-to-pond ratio, shrimp farmers need to also devote
attention to maintaining the quality and integrity of mangroves under
their care. This seemingly conflicting requirement poses a constant
challenge to the sustainability of this arrangement (Ha et al., 2012;
Bush et al., 2010).
A study in the Volta estuary of Ghana embraced the concept of
community based co-management of mangrove restoration and man-
agement at the local scales in which resource users are the key stake-
holders, who play significant roles and responsibilities in maintaining
mangrove conservation within their jurisdiction (Aheto et al., 2016).
Resource users' livelihoods, food security, economic benefits and well-
being are the primary motivation to sustainably exploit, restore and
manage the resources (Wagner, 2001).
Financial motivations can be the basis for sustainable mangrove
reforestation and prevention of unsustainable exploitation of mangrove
stands in Volta and in other regions. Successes in community-based
mangrove management have also been achieved in several countries
around the world, especially in South and Southeast Asia, South
America, and Eastern and Southern Africa (Datta et al., 2012). This
finding is consistent with the observation of Melana et al. (2000) that
“people first and sustainable mangrove forest management will follow”.
In this context, replanting and restoration communities are not pri-
marily motivated by ecological interests alone but rather in conjunction
with compensatory financial rewards. Achieving clarity on ownership
and the rights of access to coastal resources could lead to more effective
mangrove resource management through local institutional arrange-
ments. Local communities alone cannot typically manage coastal eco-
systems for reasons such as limited research capacity, limited area of
jurisdiction, budget constraints, and local politics (Sorensen and
McCreary, 1990). With objectives clearly established at the outset, co-
management is an approach in which governments can enforce certain
authority and share responsibilities with local communities in coastal
resource management with resource users, academic institutions, and
non-governmental organizations as partners.
6. Summary
Coastal mangrove forests provide invaluable and irreplaceable ser-
vices to people and wildlife, making their protection critical. As loss of
mangrove habitat continues throughout much of the world, solutions to
reverse this downward trend will need to involve commitments from
many parties. Policies enacted and enforced by government are one
part of that protection, but likely not sufficient in isolation. An ex-
amination of studies throughout the world can help guide the im-
plementation of successful conservation and restoration practices.
These restoration efforts, when put into practice, would require the
buy-in and commitment of local people with the will to conserve these
habitats that could otherwise serve personal gain through timber har-
vest, for example. Citizen science can also be employed as a means to
engage people and benefit from their local knowledge. Information and
data provided by locals have been used for conservation initiatives, for
example protected area planning (e.g., Scholz et al., 2004), natural
resource monitoring (e.g., Giordano et al., 2010), and disease threats
(e.g., Dhondt et al., 1998). Data collected can be used to assist with
monitoring, modeling, and restoration and conservation planning. With
S.S. Romañach et al.
the engagement of local people living with these resources, we suggest
that the current rates of decline can be slowed and ultimately reversed.
There remains a paucity of academic literature examining the uti-
lization of ESEV by decision-makers. Overall ESEV is used more for
communication and advocacy than for decision-making or for setting
up economic and financial instruments (Marre et al., 2015). In many
nations, ESEV has not been perceived as critical in the design, adoption,
or implementation of policy measures regarding coastal and marine
ecosystems (Marre et al., 2015). Ideally, collaborations between re-
searchers and decision-makers would be enhanced to facilitate research
and knowledge transfer, as well as to promote uptake and impact
within policy contexts. ESEV studies can generate information on the
costs associated with species and habitat loss, the benefits of con-
servation and restoration efforts, and economic dependence on natural
ecosystems. Appropriate and timely ESEV of ecological services that
contribute to better-informed decision making can benefit the protec-
tion, restoration, and development of coastal resources in a sustainable
manner.
Climate change and SLR will have varying impacts on mangrove
habitats throughout the world. In the face of SLR, some regions, such as
Florida, will have the advantage of having more room for mangroves to
expand inland, whereas in more populated coastal regions without a
protected coastal zone, there is more likely to be the problem that
humans occupy areas inland, thus potentially restricting inland mi-
gration. Higher temperatures might not impact mangroves in more
tropical regions such as Malaysia, but moving away from the equator
may increase the likelihood that warming temperatures will promote
poleward expansion. Proactive engagement with governments and the
public in these potential regions of mangrove expansion may help with
conservation efforts.
Identifying and implementing approaches to the conservation and
restoration of mangrove habitats that can be applied across the globe
may accelerate learning and protection efforts. Here we provide in-
sights from many countries around the world on various successes and
failures in mangrove conservation and restoration. These insights can
provide a platform to identify successful solutions. Such global learning
and action may secure the future of mangrove forests and the services
they provide worldwide.
Author contributions
SSR, DLD, KHL and YL conceived of the review.
All authors contributed to writing.
Disclaimer
This draft manuscript is distributed solely for purposes of courtesy
review and comments received will be addressed and treated as ap-
propriate to ensure there is no conflict of interest. Its content is delib-
erative and predecisional, so it must not be disclosed or released by
reviewers. Because the manuscript has not yet been approved for
publication by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), it does not represent
any official USGS finding or policy.
Acknowledgments
We thank T. Doyle, S. Haider, and three anonymous reviewers for
providing helpful comments on this review, and A. Benscoter for edi-
torial and organizational assistance. Any use of trade, firm, or product
names is for descriptive purposes and does not imply endorsement by
the U.S. Government. TSY and KHL gratefully acknowledge the fi-
nancial support by FRGS Grant 203/PMATHS/6711569 and the in-
formation provided by Wetlands International Malaysia. KHL is grateful
to the Jeffrey Sachs Center on Sustainable Development of the Sunway
University for providing a conducive environment to pursue research
on sustainable development. TSY gratefully acknowledges the L'Oréal-
80
Ocean and Coastal Management 154 (2018) 72–82
UNESCO Women in Science Fellowship 2017. SSR and DLD were sup-
ported by the US Geological Survey's Greater Everglades Priority
Ecosystem Science program.
References
Aheto, D.W., Kankam, S., Okyere, I., Mensah, E., Osman, A., Jonah, F.E., Mensah, J.C.,
2016. Community-based mangrove forest management: implications for local liveli-
hoods and coastal resource conservation along the Volta estuary catchment area of
Ghana. Ocean Coast. Manag. 127, 43–54.
Allen, J., 1998. Mangroves as alien species: the case of Hawaii. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. Lett.
7, 61–71.
Alongi, D.M., 2002. Present state and future of world's mangrove forests. Environ.
Conserv. 29, 331–349.
Anneboina, L.R., Kumar, K.S.K., 2017. Economic analysis of mangrove and marine fishery
linkages in India. Ecosyst. Serv 24, 114–123.
Armitage, A.R., Highfield, W.E., Brody, S.D., Louchouarn, L., 2015. The contribution of
mangrove expansion to salt marsh loss on the Texas Gulf Coast. PLoS One 10,
e0125404.
Barbier, E.B., 2016. The protective service of mangrove ecosystems: a review of valuation
methods. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 109 (2), 676–681.
Barbier, E.B., Koch, E.W., Silliman, B.R., Hacker, S.D., Wolanski, E., Primavera, J.,
Granek, E.F., Polasky, S., Aswani, S., Cramer, L.A., Stoms, D.M., 2008. Coastal eco-
system-based management with nonlinear ecological functions and values. Science
319, 321–323.
Berkes, F., 2004. Rethinking community-based conservation. Conserv. Biol. 18, 621–630.
Brander, L.M., Wagtendonk, A.J., Hussain, S.S., McVittie, A., Verburg, P.H., Groot, R.S.,
van der Ploeg, S., 2012. Ecosystem service values for mangroves in Southeast Asia: a
meta-analysis and value transfer application. Ecosyst. Serv. 1, 62–69.
Bush, S.R., van Zwieten, P.A.M., Visser, L., van Dijk, H., Bosma, R., de Boer, W.F.,
Verdegem, M., 2010. Scenarios for resilient shrimp aquaculture in tropical coastal
areas. Ecol. Soc. 15 (2), 15.
Chen, L.Z., Wang, W.Q., Zhang, Y.H., Lin, G.H., 2009. Recent progresses in mangrove
conservation, restoration and research in China. Plant Ecol. 2, 45–54.
Datta, D., Chattopadhyay, R.N., Guha, P., 2012. Community based mangrove manage-
ment: a review on status and sustainability. J. Environ. Manag. 107, 84–95.
Davis, S.M., Childers, D.L., Lorenz, J.J., Wanless, H.R., Hopkins, T.E., 2005. A conceptual
model of ecological interactions in the mangrove estuaries of the Florida Everglades.
Wetlands 25, 832–842.
Dharmawan, B., Böcher, M., Krott, M., 2016. The failure of the mangrove conservation
plan in Indonesia: weak research and an ignorance of grassroots politics. Ocean
Coast. Manag. 130, 250–259.
Dhondt, A.A., Tessaglia, D.L., Slothower, R.L., 1998. Epidemic mycoplasmal con-
junctivitis in house finches from eastern North America. J. Wildl. Dis. 34 (2),
265–280.
Doughty, C.L., Langley, J.A., Walker, W.S., Feller, I.C., Schaub, R., Chapman, S.K., 2016.
Mangrove range expansion rapidly increases coastal wetland carbon storage. Estuar.
Coasts 39, 385–396.
Doyle, T.W., Smith III, T.J., Robblee, M.B., 1995. Wind damage effects of Hurricane
Andrew on mangrove communities along the southwest coast of Florida, USA. J.
Coast. Res. 21, 159–168.
Duke, N.C., Pinzon, Z.S., Prada, M.C., 1997. Large-scale damage to mangrove forests
following two large oil spills in Panama. Biotropica 29, 2–14.
Ellison, J.C., 2000. How South Pacific mangroves may respond to predicted climate
change and sea-level rise. In: Gillespie, A., Burns, W.C.G. (Eds.), Climate Change in
the South Pacific: Impacts and Responses in Australia, New Zealand, and Small Island
States. Springer Netherlands, pp. 289–300.
Ewel, K.C., Twilley, R.R., Ong, J.-E., 1998. Different kinds of mangrove forests provide
different goods and services. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. Lett. 7, 83–94.
Fan, H., He, B., Pernetta, J.C., 2013. Mangrove ecofarming in Guangxi Province China: an
innovative approach to sustainable mangrove use. Ocean Coast. Manag. 85, 201–208.
Fan, H.Q., Liu, W.A., Zhong, C.R., Ni, X., 2014. Analytic study on the damages of wood-
boring isopod, Sphaeroma, to China mangroves. Guangxi Sci. 21 (2), 140–146 152.
Ferreira, A.C., Lacerda, L.D., 2016. Degradation and conservation of Brazilian mangroves,
status and perspectives. Ocean Coast. Manag. 125, 38–46.
FSI, 2011. India State of Forest Report 1987–2011. Forest Survey of India, Ministry of
Environment and Forests, Government of India.
Gilman, E.L., Ellison, J., Duke, N.C., Field, C., 2008. Threats to mangroves from climate
change and adaptation options: a review. Aquat. Bot. 89, 237–250.
Giordano, R., Liersch, S., Vurro, M., Hirsch, D., 2010. Integrating local and technical
knowledge to support soil salinity monitoring in the Amudarya river basin. J.
Environ. Manag. 91, 1718–1729.
Giri, C., Ochieng, E., Tieszin, L.L., Zhu, Z., Singh, A., Loveland, T., Masek, J., Duke, N.,
2011. Status and distribution of mangrove forests of the world using earth observa-
tion satellite data. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 20, 154–159.
Ha, T.T.T., van Dijk, H., Bush, S.R., 2012. Mangrove conservation or shrimp farmer's
livelihood? The devolution of forest management and benefit sharing in the Mekong
Delta, Vietnam. Ocean Coast. Manag. 69, 185–193.
Hamdan, O., Khali Aziz, H., Shamsudin, I., 2010. Kajian Perubahan Hutan Paya Laut
Negeri Selangor, Kedah dan Kelantan (Study on the Changes of Mangrove Forest in
Selangor, Kedah and Kelantan). Reports No. 91. Forest Research Institute Malaysia
(FRIM). https://info.frim.gov.my/infocenter/Korporat/2003Publications/Links/
FRIM11.htm.
Hamdan, O., Khali Aziz, H., Shamsudin, I., Raja Barizan, R.S., 2012. Status of Mangrove
S.S. Romañach et al.
in Peninsular Malaysia. Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), Kepong, Selangor
Darul Ehsan, Malaysia.
Hamilton, S.E., Casey, D., 2016. Creation of a high spatio-temporal resolution global
database of continuous mangrove forest cover for the 21st century (CGMFC-21).
Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 25 (6), 729–738.
He, Y., Zhang, M.-X., 2001. Study on wetland loss and its reasons in China. Chin. Geogr.
Sci. 11, 241–245.
Kathiresan, K., 2002. Why are mangroves degrading? Curr. Sci. 83, 1246–1249.
Kathiresan, K., Rajendran, N., 2005. Coastal mangrove forests mitigated tsunami. Estuar.
Coast. Shelf Sci. 65, 601–606.
Kimball, M., Teas, H.J., 1975. Nitrogen fixation in mangrove areas of South Florida. In: In:
Walsh, G.E., Snedaker, S.C., Teas, H.J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Biology and Management of Mangroves, vol. 2. University of Florida,
Gainesville, USA, pp. 654–661.
Koch, M.S., Snedaker, S.C., 1997. Factors influencing Rhizophora mangle L. seedling de-
velopment in Everglades carbonate soils. Aquat. Bot. 59, 87–98.
Kruczynski, W.L., McManus, F., 2002. Water quality concerns in the Florida Keys: sources,
effects, and solutions. In: Porter, J.W., Porter, K.G. (Eds.), The Everglades, Florida
Bay, and Coral Reefs of the Florida Keys: an Ecosystem Sourcebook. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, Florida, USA, pp. 827–881.
Laegdsgaard, P., Johnson, C., 2001. Why do juvenile fish utilize mangrove habitats? J.
Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 257, 229–253.
Li, Y.H., 2012a. Ecology and Conservation of Estuarine Wetland in Quanzhou Bay.
Environmental Science Press, Beijing, China.
Li, Y.H., 2012b. Effect and countermeasure of the global climate change on the mangrove
eco-system in Quanzhou Bay estuary. Strat. Sci. 2, 10–12.
Li, M.S., Lee, S.Y., 1997. Mangroves in China: a brief review. For. Ecol. Manag. 96,
241–259.
Liu, H., Zhang, K., Li, Y., Xie, L., 2013. Numerical study of the sensitivity of mangroves in
reducing storm surge and flooding to hurricane characteristics in southern Florida.
Cont. Shelf Res. 64, 51–65.
Lundberg, J., Moberg, F., 2003. Mobile link organisms and ecosystem functioning: im-
plications for ecosystem resilience and management. Ecosystems 6, 87–98.
Mahon, R., Fanning, L., McConney, P., 2014. Assessing and facilitating emerging regional
ocean governance arrangements in the Wider Caribbean Region. Ocean Yearb. 28,
631–671.
Máñez, K.S., Krause, G., Ring, I., Glaser, M., 2014. The Gordian knot of mangrove con-
servation: disentangling the role of scale, services and benefits. Glob. Environ.
Change 28, 120–128.
Marre, J., Thebaud, O., Pascoe, S., Jennings, S., Boncoeur, J., Coglan, L., 2015. The use of
ecosystem services valuation in Australian coastal zone management. Mar. Pol. 56,
117–124.
McIvor, C.C., Ley, J.A., Bjork, R.D., 1994. Changes in freshwater inflow from the
Everglades to Florida Bay including effects on biota and biotic processes: a review. In:
Davis, S.M., Ogden, J.C. (Eds.), Everglades: the Ecosystem and its Restoration. St.
Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida, USA, pp. 117–146.
McKee, K.L., Rooth, J.E., 2008. Where temperate meets tropical: multi-factorial effects of
elevated CO2, nitrogen enrichment, and competition on a mangrove-salt marsh
community. Glob. Change Biol. 14, 971–984.
McLeod, E., Chmura, G., Bouillon, S., Salm, R., Bjork, M., Duarte, C.M., Lovelock, C.E.,
Schlesinger, W.H., Silliman, B.R., 2011. A blueprint for blue carbon: toward an im-
proved understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats is sequestering CO2.
Front. Ecol. Environ. 9, 552–560.
Melana, D.M., Atchue III, J., Yao, C.E., Edwards, R., Melana, E.E., Gonzales, H.I., 2000.
Mangrove Management Handbook. Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Manila, Philippines Through the Coastal Resource Management Project,
Cebu City, Philippines.
Michot, T.C., Day, R.H., Wells, C.J., 2010. Increase in Black Mangrove Abundance in
Coastal Louisiana. Louisiana Natural Resource News. Newsl. Louisiana Assoc. Prof.
Biol. January, 4–5. .
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), 2003. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: a
Framework for Assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being:
Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.
Miller, J.R., 2005. Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends
Ecol. Evol. 20 (8), 430–434.
Nagelkerken, I., van der Velde, G., Gorissen, M.W., Meijer, G.J., Van, t Hof, T., den
Hartog, C., 2000. Importance of mangroves, seagrass beds and the shallow reef as a
nursery for important coral reef fishes, using a visual census technique. Estuar. Coast.
Shelf Sci. 51, 31–44.
Nelson, G., 1994. The Trees of Florida: a Reference and Field Guide (Reference and Field
Guides). Pineapple Press, Saratosa, Florida, USA.
Nguyen, T.P., Luom, T.T., Parnell, K.E., 2017. Existing strategies for managing mangrove
dominated muddy coasts: knowledge gaps and recommendations. Ocean Coast.
Manag. 138, 93–100.
Nguyen, T.P., Parnell, K.E., 2017. Gradual expansion of mangrove areas as an ecological
solution for stabilizing a severely eroded mangrove dominated muddy coast. Ecol.
Eng. 107, 239–243.
Odum, W.E., McIvor, C.C., Smith III, T.J., 1982. The Ecology of the Mangroves of South
Florida: a Community Profile. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,
DC, USA FWS/OS–81/24.
Osland, M.J., Enwright, N., Day, R.H., Doyle, T.W., 2013. Winter climate change and
coastal wetland foundation species: salt marshes vs. mangrove forests in the south-
eastern United States. Glob. Change Biol. 19 (5), 1482–1494.
Osland, M.J., Day, R.H., From, A.S., McLemore, M.L., McCoy, J., Kelleway, J., 2015. Life
stage influences the resistance and resilience of black mangrove forests to winter
81
Ocean and Coastal Management 154 (2018) 72–82
climate extremes. Ecosphere 6, 1–15.
Pelegri, S.P., Twilley, R.R., 1998. Heterotrophic nitrogen fixation (acetylene reduction)
during leaf-litter decomposition of two mangrove species from south Florida, USA.
Mar. Biol. 131, 53–61.
Queiroz, L.S., Rossi, S., Calvet-Mir, L., Ruiz-Mallén, I., García-Betorz, S., Salvà-Prat, J.,
Meireles, A.J.A., 2017. Neglected ecosystem services: highlighting the socio-cultural
perception of mangroves in decision-making processes. Ecosyst. Serv 26, 137–145.
Ren, H., Lu, H., Shen, W., Huang, C., Guo, Q., Li, Z.A., Jian, S., 2009. Sonneratia apetala
Buch. Ham in the mangrove ecosystems of China: an invasive species or restoration
species? Ecol. Eng. 35 (8), 1243–1248.
Rey, J.R., Crossman, R.A., Kain, T.R., 1990. Vegetation dynamics in impounded marshes
along the Indian River lagoon, Florida, USA. Environ. Manag. 14, 397–409.
Richards, D.R., Friess, D.A., 2016. Rates and drivers of mangrove deforestation in
Southeast Asia, 2000–2012. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113 (2), 344–349.
Roy, S.D., Krishnan, P., 2005. Mangrove stands of Andamans vis-à-vis tsunami. Curr. Sci.
89, 1800–1804.
Sabah Biodiversity Centre, 2011. Lower Kinabatangan-Segama Wetlands Ramsar Site
Management Plan, vol. I Sabah State Government, Malaysia 978–983–41084–6–5,
265 pp.
Sahu, S.C., Suresh, H.S., Murthy, I.K., Ravindranath, N.H., 2015. Mangrove area assess-
ment in India: implications of loss of mangroves. J. Earth Sci. Clim. Change 6 (5),
280.
Saintilan, N., Wilson, N., Rogers, K., Rajkaran, A., Krauss, K.W., 2014. Mangrove ex-
pansion and salt marsh decline at mangrove poleward limits. Glob. Change Biol. 20
(1), 147–157.
Scholz, A., Bonzon, K., Fujita, R., Benjamin, N., Woodling, N., Black, P., Steinback, C.,
2004. Participatory socioeconomic analysis: drawing on fishermen's knowledge for
marine protected area planning in California. Mar. Pol. 28 (4), 335–349.
Schuhmann, P.W., Mahon, R., 2015. The valuation of marine ecosystem goods and ser-
vices in the Caribbean: a literature review and framework for future valuation efforts.
Ecosyst. Serv. 11, 56–66.
Shackelton, S., Campbell, B., Wollenberg, E., Edmunds, D., 2002. Devolution and
Community-based Natural Resource Management: Creating Space for Local People to
Participate and Benefit? Overseas Development Institute, London, United Kingdom.
Sheaves, M., 2009. Consequences of ecological connectivity: the coastal ecosystem mo-
saic. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 391, 107–115.
Smith III, T.J., Anderson, G.H., Balentine, K., Tiling, G., Ward, G.A., Whelan, K.R.T.,
2009. Cumulative impacts of hurricanes on Florida mangrove ecosystems: sediment
deposition, storm surges, and vegetation. Wetlands 29, 24–34.
Snedaker, S.C., Araujo, R.J., 1998. Stomatal conductance and gas exchange in four species
of Caribbean mangroves exposed to ambient and increased CO2. Mar. Freshw. Res.
49, 325–327.
Sorensen, J., McCreary, S., 1990. Institutional arrangements for managing coastal re-
sources and environments. In: COAST, Renewable Resources Information Series.
National Park Service, US Department of the Interior and USAID, second ed. Coastal
Management Publication No. 1.
Spalding, M., Blasco, F., Field, C., 1997. World Mangrove Atlas. The International Society
for Mangrove Ecosystems. Okinawa, Japan. .
Stojanovic, T., Ballinger, R.C., Lalwani, C.S., 2004. Successful integrated coastal man-
agement: measuring it with research and contributing to wise practice. Ocean Coast.
Manag. 47, 273–298.
Strong, A.M., Bancroft, G.T., 1994. Patterns of deforestation and fragmentation of man-
grove and deciduous seasonal forests in the Upper Florida Keys. Bull. Mar. Sci. 54,
795–804.
Teh, S.Y., Koh, H.L., Liu, P.L.-F., IIzani, A.M.I., Lee, H.L., 2009. Analytical and numerical
simulation of tsunami mitigation by mangroves in Penang, Malaysia. J. Asian Earth
Sci. 36 (1), 38–46.
Tomlinson, P.B., 1986. The Botany of Mangroves. Cambridge University Press, New York,
New York, USA.
Torres, C., Hanley, N., 2017. Communicating research on the economic valuation of
coastal and marine ecosystem services. Mar. Pol. 75, 99–107.
Twilley, R.R., 1998. Mangrove wetlands. In: Messina, M.G., Conner, W.H. (Eds.),
Southern Forested Wetlands: Ecology and Management. Lewis Publishers, Boca
Raton, Florida, USA, pp. 445–473.
United Nations (UN), 2015. Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development, vol. 21 United Nations General Assembly October 2015, A/RES/70/1,
available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/57b6e3e44.html, Accessed date: 1
November 2017.
Valiela, I., Bowen, J.L., York, J.K., 2001. Mangrove forests: one of the world's threatened
major tropical environments. BioScience 51, 807–815.
Wagner, F.H., 2001. Freeing agency research from policy pressures: a need and an ap-
proach. Bioscience 51, 445–450.
Waite, R., Kushner, B., Jungwiwattanaporn, M., Gray, E., Burke, L., 2015. Use of coastal
economic valuation in decision making in the Caribbean: enabling conditions and
lessons learned. Ecosyst. Serv. 11, 45–55.
Wang, W.Q., 2007. Chinese Mangrove. Science Press, Beijing, China.
Wang, L., Mu, M., Li, X., Lin, P., Wang, W., 2011. Differentiation between true mangroves
and mangrove associates based on leaf traits and salt contents. J. Plant Ecol. 4,
292–301.
Ward, R.D., Friess, D.A., Day, R.H., MacKenzie, R.A., 2016. Impacts of climate change on
mangrove ecosystems: a region by region overview. Ecosys. Health Sustain. 2 (4),
e01211.
Wolanski, E., 2007. Thematic paper: synthesis of the protective functions of coastal for-
ests and trees against natural hazards. In: Coastal Protection in the Aftermath of the
Indian Ocean Tsunami: what Role for Forests and Trees. RAP Publication (FAO), pp.
157–159.
S.S. Romañach et al.
Wolanski, E., Spagnol, S., Thomas, S., Moore, K., Alongi, D.M., Trott, L., Davidson, A.,
2000. Modelling and visualizing the fate of shrimp pond effluent in a mangrove-
fringed tidal creek. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 50, 85–97.
Woodroffe, C.D., 1990. The impact of sea-level rise on mangrove shorelines. Prog. Phys.
Geogr. 14, 483–520.
Zaradic, P.A., Pergams, O.R., Kareiva, P., 2009. The impact of nature experience on
willingness to support conservation. PLoS One 4 (10), e7367.
82
Ocean and Coastal Management 154 (2018) 72–82
Zhang, K., Liu, H., Li, Y., Xu, H., Shen, J., Rhome, J., Smith III, T.J., 2012a. The role of
mangroves in attenuating storm surges. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 102–103, 11–23.
Zhang, Y., Huang, G., Wang, W., Chen, L., Lin, G., 2012b. Interactions between man-
groves and exotic Spartina in an anthropogenically-disturbed estuary in southern
China. Ecology 93, 588–597.
Zuang, X.L., Lin, J., Li, Y.H., 2011. The present situation and the major control measures
of mangroves in southeast of China. Straits Sci. 7 19–2.