Ecological Economics 160 (2019) 12–24

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Economics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

Analysis

Mangroves in the Galapagos: Ecosystem services and their valuation T

a,⁎ a b a,c
Michael K. Tanner , Nicolas Moity , Matthew T. Costa , Jose R. Marin Jarrin ,
Octavio Aburto-Oropezab, Pelayo Salinas-de-Leóna,d
a
Department of Marine Sciences, Charles Darwin Research Station, Charles Darwin Foundation, Puerto Ayora, Galapagos Islands, Ecuador
b
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA
c
Department of Fisheries Biology, Humboldt State University, USA
d
Pristine Seas, National Geographic Society, Washington, DC, USA

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Mangroves provide many benefits to human welfare, but they are disappearing rapidly; Ecuador and countries
Economic valuation within the Tropical Eastern Pacific (TEP) region have lost over 40% of their mangrove coverage in the last
Payments for ecosystem services 40 years. One reason for this destruction is that the benefits of mangroves have not been valued in a way that
Coastal and marine ecosystems policymakers and markets can understand. Here, we present the first economic valuation of multiple ecosystem
Recreation and tourism
services (ES) for Ecuador and the TEP using the Galapagos mangroves as a case study. We focused on three ES of
Small-scale fisheries
Carbon storage
high value and policy relevance: carbon storage, support for small-scale fisheries, and mangrove-based tourism.
Our data suggest that over 778,000 tons of carbon are stored in Galapagos mangroves, with mean belowground
carbon being 211.03 ± 179.65 Mg C/ha, valued at $2940/ha or $22,838/ha depending on the valuation
methodology. We identified mangrove-dependent fish targeted by the local finfish fishery, with net benefits of
$245 ha−1, making this fishery the second most profitable in the Archipelago. The value of mangrove-based
recreation was estimated at $16,958/ha, contributing $62 million to the industry. By accounting for stakeholders
and existing property rights, our results allow for the discussion of institutionalizing ES payments for the
Galapagos Islands.

Mangroves are highly productive tropical and subtropical ecosys-
tems characterized by the important ecosystem services and functions
they provide, central to the welfare of many coastal communities
(McNally et al., 2011). Several studies have estimated the economic,
ecological and cultural importance of these ecosystems worldwide
(Barbier et al., 2008). Mangrove-related small-scale fisheries in places
like the Gulf of California represent 32% of total landings and generate
US $37,500 per hectare of fringe-habitat (Aburto-Oropeza et al., 2008);
with even modest losses of mangrove cover producing immediate im-
pacts on these fisheries (Carrasquilla-Henao et al., 2013). Mangroves
are also regarded as disproportionately important to global carbon se-
questration and storage, given the small area they cover (Ezcurra et al.,
2016; Donato et al., 2011), and account for a majority of carbon stored
in estuarine ecosystems (McLeod et al., 2011). Their role as carbon
storers has been further highlighted by studies stating that mangroves
should be an integral part of policy initiatives that seek to reduce
carbon emissions through reductions from forest emissions (Miteva
et al., 2015; Pendleton et al., 2012). Finally, mangroves are regarded as
culturally important, placing them as central to studies that asses nat-
ural capital (Waite et al., 2014), For example, mangrove related tourism
was estimated at US$60–78 million in Belize (Cooper et al., 2009).
Although mangroves are widely recognized for their high economic
value, deforestation has increased greatly during the last decades;
predictions indicate that mangrove coverage will be completely lost
within the next 100 years if current deforestation rates persist (Duke
et al., 2007). In particular, Ecuador has lost approximately 40% of its
mangrove coverage in the last 40 years (Hamilton and Lovette, 2015).
This loss of a valuable ecosystem has largely arisen from both market
and policy failures the public good non-market nature of the benefits
provided by mangroves. Benefits from extractive or alternative land use
of mangroves, such as shrimp farming, are easily privatized and mon-
etized, whereas the benefits of conservation are dispersed and con-
sidered a pure public good (Bann, 1998). This leads markets to over-
supply deforestation and undersupply conservation, and can also lead
decision makers to incur in inaccurate cost benefit analysis and unin-
formed decision making (Murray, 2016). The problem is compounded
by deficient information on the specific benefits and particular bene-
ficiaries of mangrove conservation, which partly explains the lack of
forthcoming efficient conservation investments for valuable mangrove
ecosystem services (Turner and Daily, 2008).

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Michael.tanner@fcdarwin.org.ec (M.K. Tanner).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.01.024
Received 4 June 2018; Received in revised form 7 December 2018; Accepted 23 January 2019
0921-8009/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
M.K. Tanner, et al.
Here, we directly answer the calls by the policy sector to include
valuation as a tool for conservation policymaking (Börger et al., 2014;
Laurans et al., 2013b) by providing the first ecosystem services (ES)
valuation for a Galapagos habitat, using their mangrove forests as a case
study. In doing so, we add to existing efforts to use ES valuations as part
of protected area (PA) management globally (Martín-López et al.,
2011), within the TEP region (Zarate-Barrera and Maldonado, 2015)
and specifically for the Galapagos (DPNG, 2014). Given the features of
the ecosystem and how it interacts with the main stakeholders and the
government of the Galapagos (Jones, 2012), we concentrated on: (a)
soil carbon storage provided by mangroves, within the context of cli-
mate change mitigation and adaptation policies, (b) nursery habitat for
species of commercial importance for local small-scale fisheries in the
Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR), and (c) support for tourism and re-
creational activities, particularly since this industry is the main eco-
nomic engine in the Archipelago. By providing detailed information for
decision makers regarding specific beneficiaries and quantifiable ben-
efits arising from mangrove ES, we address market, institutional, and
information failures, surrounding mangroves and their ES. Addressing
these previous failures allows us to discuss possible policy interventions
based on realistic payment mechanisms for conserving the Galapagos
Archipelago and its mangroves (Turner and Daily, 2008).
1. Study site
The Galapagos Archipelago lies on the equator, approximately
1200 km west of continental Ecuador. It comprises 13 islands and over
200 islets, making up 1667 km of mostly rocky coastline (Snell et al.,
1996). The Archipelago is globally renowned for its role as the cradle of
Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, as an endemism hotspot and as a
priority region for conservation (Edgar et al., 2008). The 138,000 km2-
Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR) was created in 1998, and it reaches
40 nautical miles out from the coastline. Within the GMR industrial
fishing is banned, while artisanal fishing is permitted in delimited zones
for registered fishers of the local community.
The human population of the Galapagos has increased dramatically
from 6000 residents in 1982 to approximately 25,000 permanent in-
habitants in 2015 (INEC, 2015). This growth has been attributed to
both a tourism and fishing boom that created a “gold rush” towards the
Islands (Jones, 2012). The economy is currently mainly driven by
tourism, which accounts for approximately 78% of all employment,
with fishing amounting to ~5% (Epler, 2007). Tourist visits have also
increased substantially in recent years from 26,000 in 1986 to 218,000
in 2016 (Observatorio de Turismo Galapagos, 2017a).
Three mangroves species grow along the Archipelago's coastline,
which provides less than ideal conditions for their development. High
wave activity, a mostly volcanic coast, no permanent rivers and a small
tidal range explain their seemingly undeveloped and stunted nature. On
younger islands of the Archipelago, mangroves grow directly on lava
fields, acting as pioneer vegetation (Nabhan, 1973; Wium-Andersen and
Hamann, 1986). On the few islands of the Archipelago that have en-
closed bays, mangrove trees grow to more than 25 m high, particularly
in western Isabela (Wium-Andersen and Hamann, 1986).
Mangroves in the Galapagos are close to a pristine state, given en-
vironmental protections in place since 1959 and the remoteness of the
islands, making alternative uses of mangrove land not only illegal but
most likely unprofitable. There is little evidence of deforestation except
on inhabited harbours, where mangroves compete with land develop-
ments for prime beachfront real estate (Moity et al., 2019). There are
several approximations of mangrove coverage in the Galapagos, many
of them based on rough or outdated estimates. This paper will utilize
the latest estimation of 3690 ha of mangrove coverage, which is based
on a low-cost novel methodology utilizing high resolution Google Earth
images (Moity et al., 2019).
13
Ecological Economics 160 (2019) 12–24
2. Data and methods
Ecosystem services are provided in interlinked and complex socio-
ecological systems, characterized by having biophysical and social de-
terminants interacting with each other (Liu et al., 2015; Ostrom, 2009).
In this study, we use the overall framework of ecosystem services,
adopting the broad definition by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
(MEA) that ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from an
ecosystem (MEA, 2005). This wide-ranging definition is particularly
relevant for valuation of the recreational and tourism benefits of eco-
systems, which, with this approach, can be understood to be the in-
teraction between the ecosystem ecological services provided by man-
groves and the conventional goods and services (Polasky and Segerson,
2009). The ecosystem services and their values identified in this study
fall into the consensus economic view in the literature (Barbier and
Hacker, 2011) that any contribution to human welfare derived by
nature, either directly or indirectly, can be attributable to an ecosystem
service, in line with the concept of ecosystem services adopted by the
US Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA, 2009).
The economic valuation of mangrove ecosystem services and the
interactions between the mangrove ecosystems with the main
Galapagos stakeholders is detailed in Fig. 1. This diagram details the
different ways that relevant stakeholder groups in the Galapagos benefit
from, or value, the ecosystem goods and services provided by man-
groves (Jones, 2012). Identifying detailed information on how parti-
cular stakeholder groups benefit from specific mangrove ES is a critical
step in a policy-oriented valuation, as stakeholder perceptions, in-
stitutional arrangements and property rights are integral components of
any scheme that aims to capture benefits on a practical and lasting basis
(Turner and Daily, 2008). As such, the focus of this analysis is on the use
values of the mangrove ES that require some degree of stakeholder in-
teraction or input; non-use values are of importance for marine protected
areas (MPAs) such as the GMR (Bennett and Gillespie, 2011; Jobstvogt
et al., 2014), but they are outside the scope of this analysis.
2.1. Mangrove-dependent fisheries valuation methods and data
According to the terminology of the MEA, fisheries can fall into two
different categories of ecosystem services (MEA, 2005), either direct-
use or non-use value. This paper focuses on fishing that has a direct-use
value, namely commercial and subsistence fisheries, as these fisheries
represent a provisioning service. The value of such a service is commonly
determined by the quantity of fish and the type of species caught, and it
is usually valued by a market approach (Schep et al., 2012; Schuhmann
and Mahon, 2015).
According to the relevant valuation literature, support for com-
mercial fisheries as an ES can be valuated either using gross revenues
from the fishing sector or net factor income (NFI), i.e., gross fisheries
revenues minus the costs of other inputs in production (Brander and
Florax, 2006; Cesar and van Beukering, 2004). Although gross revenue
has been used specifically for the valuation of mangroves' support for
fisheries (Waite et al., 2014), this valuation method is expected to
overestimate the producer surplus derived from the ES (Laurans et al.,
2013a). Therefore, in this paper we adopt an NFI approach for the
valuation.
To determine which species depend on mangroves directly as their
nursery or habitat, we reviewed the latest literature available for
Galapagos mangroves (Aguaiza, 2016; Fierro, 2017). Since our focus is
on commercially important fisheries, we then concentrated only on
species classified as highly commercially important according to the
fisheries species guide of the GMR (Molina et al., 2004). According to
the chosen NFI approach, we collected the following required data:
landings of the mangrove-dependent fish species, prices of the fish
species, and the capital costs associated with the local artisanal non-
species-specific finfish fishery. Since all mangrove-dependent fish spe-
cies are part of the finfish fishery, we applied the same cost structure to
M.K. Tanner, et al.
Fig. 1. Conceptual framework for the economic valuation of mangrove ecosystem services in the Galapagos and stakeholder interactions. Modified from (Barbier and
Hacker, 2011).
all species valuated. Average capital costs were subtracted from the
revenue of each commercially important species, arriving at the socio-
economic value associated with mangrove-dependent fisheries in the
Galapagos. As total fish landings are not available for the Galapagos,
these were reconstructed using both available information in published
and grey literature (Manabu, 2007).
To estimate landings we first made use of the results of a study
analysing the distribution and consumption structure of finfish fisheries
landings in Santa Cruz, Galapagos (Manabu, 2007). According to this
study, the tourism sector (on-board tourism) and exports to mainland
represent over 60% of total consumption of finfish fisheries landings,
with the remaining consumption being distributed among the local food
industry and local inhabitants. Data on both exports and tourist fish
consumption is readily available, allowing us to estimate the distribu-
tion and consumption structure for the total landings estimations. Total
quantities of exported fish, segregated by species, were obtained from
GNPD's database of fish exports from 2013 to 2016; the GNPD regulates
shipments of fish from the GMR to mainland Ecuador. Data on quan-
tities and species of fish consumed on cruise vessels was estimated for
the whole on-board cruise vessel sector by Haro-Bilbao and Salinas-de-
León (2014), who tracked and analysed consumption on 70% of the
cruise vessels of the sector, representing over 80% of the passenger
capacity of the total fleet in this tourism modality. Prices of fish were
collected with the aim of calculating gross fisheries revenue. Local
prices were recorded from Puerto Ayora's Pelikan Bay local fish market
and compared to prices taken by Haro-Bilbao and Salinas-de-León
(2014), after adjusting prices for Ecuadorian inflation (Banco Central
del Ecuador, 2017).
14
Ecological Economics 160 (2019) 12–24
Costs associated with finfish fishery are presented as a percentage of
the gross income associated with the average catch and average price
for the finfish fishery in the Galapagos. Capital costs were obtained
from interviews with fishers and personal communications with mem-
bers of Santa Cruz Island Fishers Cooperative (COPROPAG), and com-
plementary information on direct and indirect costs and average catch
per fishing trip was obtained from a study on profitability of fisheries in
the Galapagos (Velasco et al., 2014).
2.2. Carbon sequestration and storage in soils
According to the MEA, carbon sequestration is regarded as a reg-
ulating ecosystem service (MEA, 2005). Unlike the tangible benefits of
provisioning ecosystem services that carry market prices, benefits of
regulating ecosystem services like carbon sequestration are less obvious,
being regarded as indirect use values of a non-consumptive nature
(Barbier and Hacker, 2011). A robust valuation of this ecosystem ser-
vice should consist of both reliable scientific data estimating carbon
stored in the mangrove ecosystem and an appropriate valuation
methodology that can encompass the utilitarian benefits of carbon se-
questration and storage to society and human welfare (Jerath et al.,
2012).
Mangrove carbon storage includes the stock of carbon that has been
sequestered, mainly in sediments. Data on carbon stored in mangrove
sediments changes according to geographical location and particular
features of an ecosystem (Ezcurra et al., 2016; Murdiyarso et al., 2015).
This study uses data on carbon stored in mangrove sediments and es-
timates of total belowground carbon per unit area (in tons of C per
M.K. Tanner, et al.
hectare) from Costa et al. (in press). As detailed in Costa et al. (in press),
sampling was conducted using a Russian peat corer (Belokopytov and
Beresnevich, 1955) to collect 29 soil cores at all sites on the islands of
the Archipelago that have mangroves (supplementary Table A). Each
core was sampled at depth increments of 25 cm, with an additional
sample taken immediately above any discontinuity in sedimentary
materials, which are easily visible in the cores (e.g., a peat layer
overlying a sand layer). These fixed-volume samples were dried and
weighed to measure bulk density. Percent carbon and δ13C (the molar
ratio of C13 to C12 in a sample, divided by that of the PDB reference
standard, minus 1) in each soil sample was measured using gas chro-
matography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS). Inorganic carbon is not in-
cluded in estimates of blue carbon, but calcium carbonate (CaCO3) sand
is mostly absent from the sediments of the mangroves on these rocky,
volcanic islands. There were four sites with CaCO3 sand in the sediment
(Puerto Grande I, Roca Fuerte, Poza Sardina, and Garrapatero). At these
sites, nine samples were collected, and were HCl-fumigated following
the method of Ramnarine et al. (2011) to remove CaCO3 before ana-
lysis, so that the only carbon remaining was organic.
To calculate carbon storage the percent carbon in each soil sample
was multiplied by the bulk density of the sample, giving the mass of
carbon per unit volume. This was integrated over the depth interval of
each sediment horizon and summed for each horizon throughout the
entire sediment depth, providing the total belowground carbon per unit
area (in tons of C per hectare). We proceeded to calculate the mean
carbon stored per hectare of mangrove. This was then multiplied by the
total extension of mangrove coverage, according to the latest mangrove
coverage layer available, arriving at an average of the total amount of
carbon stored on sediments for the Galapagos mangroves.
There is no single valuation methodology that can capture the
welfare benefits arising from carbon stored by mangroves, as the prices
and costs of carbon vary within and among methodologies (Jerath
et al., 2012). The literature for carbon stock valuation identifies four
possible methodologies; however, most studies use two in particular,
either carbon market prices or estimates of the marginal value for the
social damages from emissions (Ferraro et al., 2012).
This paper, following previous carbon valuation studies (Jerath
et al., 2012; Kennedy et al., 2016; Melaku et al., 2015), used both the
market-based methodology and the social cost of carbon methodology
to provide complementary estimates of the monetary values of the
carbon stored in the sediments of Galapagos mangroves. For the former,
we used the average price for carbon credits from Latin America traded
in voluntary carbon markets, which for 2016 was $3.8/t CO2 (Hamrick
and Gallant, 2017) or $13.93/t C for its carbon equivalent; for the
latter, we used the estimate of $132/t C for the social cost of carbon
provided by EPA in 2016 (EPA, 2016), whilst also applying a 18%
penalty to this service stemming from the offset of methane emissions
arising from mangroves which have been recently shown to effective
reduce their provision of net climate change mitigation (Rosentreter
et al., 2018).
2.3. Mangrove-based tourism
Although tourism, recreation and overall cultural ecosystem ser-
vices are widely cited as benefits derived from mangrove forests, their
valuation in the literature is generally lacking (Barbier and Hacker,
2011; Salem and Mercer, 2012). Ideally a study valuing tourism and
recreation ecosystem services would try to measure both the producer
surplus and consumer surplus, with the latter being associated with the
maximum amount tourists are willing to pay for mangrove-based re-
creation and tourism in the Galapagos, but, as noted in previous studies,
the data requirements for such methodology are not available for the
Galapagos (Lynham et al., 2015).
Alternatively, the value of mangrove-based tourism can be inferred
from the gross revenues associated with the habitat. This methodology,
usually referred to as the market price approach, can be applied by
15
Ecological Economics 160 (2019) 12–24
making use of existing data on visits to mangrove sites, tour prices and
occupancy rates (Cooper et al., 2009; Waite et al., 2014). Ideally our
market based approach would net out the costs of the tourism industry,
so as to arrive to the net contribution of mangroves towards the tourism
sector. Given the heterogeneity of the tourism sector in the Galapagos
and lack of available cost data (Epler, 2007; Taylor et al., 2009), our
approach will exclusively measure gross revenues, which would over-
estimate the true value of this ecosystem service to society. An ad-
vantage of following this approach, besides less stringent data re-
quirements, is that its end result is a measurement of the economic
contribution of the mangrove ecosystem towards tourism and is thus
important decision-making stakeholders (Clough, 2013; De Groot and
Wilson, 2002). Furthermore, by utilizing observed visitation behaviour
by tourists, we have access to the best available indicator for their
preferences, allowing us to reach a theoretically valid approximation of
the monetary value that is apportionable to mangroves. We favour this
revealed preferences approach given that it is cost effective, time effi-
cient and subject to fewer biases and data requirements than the al-
ternative methods based on hypothetical markets and preference eli-
citation (Bateman et al., 2002). Thus this paper will adopt the market
price approach to estimate the contribution of mangrove-based tourism
to the Galapagos economy.
To estimate the mangrove-based tourism value, we first identified
all tourism visiting sites that are in close proximity to mangroves ac-
cording to the GNPD Public Use Directorate's Zoning. We used spatial
analysis procedures between tourism sites and the mangrove coverage
layer through ESRI ArcGIS10.4 software by selecting all tourism sites
that where within 500 m radius from mangrove patches.
To avoid taking into account tourism sites containing mangroves
but not involving mangrove-based recreation, we further classified the
identified tourism sites using the GNPD's list of available recreational
activities at each site according to GNPD's Public Use Directorate da-
tabase. In this study, we only included sites that offered at least one
recreational activity that directly uses mangroves, of which we identi-
fied: walks (through mangrove forests), snorkelling (on mangrove
bays), dinghy rides (across mangrove sites usually for bird watching)
kayaking and camping.
Sites containing mangroves but none of the previously mentioned
recreational activities were discarded from our site selection, so as to
prevent overestimations.
After establishing the sites that both contained mangroves and of-
fered mangrove-based recreational activities, we estimated the amount
of visits these sites received. To carry out this estimate, we accessed the
GNP Public Use Directorate permits database for 2016. All registered
forms of tourism are included in this database, which details the max-
imum capacity of each registered boat, visiting sites, site geographical
coordinates, and an established itinerary. To account for seasonality
changes in visiting behaviour within the tourist season in Galapagos, we
included data from high and low tourist seasons. From the database we
tabulated all visits, assumed full capacity and kept the tourism cate-
gories classification used by the GNPs Public Use Directorate. These
categories include Daily tours, Daily diving tours, Live aboard diving
tours, Bay tours, and Cruise vessels. Although diving-related tourism
does not directly depend on mangroves, we only included visitations
from the Daily diving tours and Live aboard diving tours categories that
made use of mangrove sites and mangrove-based recreation as per the
GNP Public Use Directorate permits database for 2016.
The following step was to assign a monetary value to the visits per
mangrove site, according to the average price paid for a tour in each of
the tourism categories. Furthermore, the average occupancy rate, which
refers on average to the number of people in a tour, and average
number of operation days per each tourism category were also ap-
praised. This was done to avoid overestimations from assumptions of
full capacity and a year-round season. Occupancy rates and effective
operation rates for each category of tourism were calculated on the
basis of surveys given to 45 vessels (data from February to August of
M.K. Tanner, et al. Ecological Economics 160 (2019) 12–24

2016), with data provided by the Galapagos Tourism Observatory. The Table 2
average price of tours was based on phone surveys and on the published Average net revenue per fishing trip and direct and indirect costs
online prices of 45 tourism vessels, complemented by prices published associated with finfish fishery. Income, costs and revenues in U.S
by Lynham et al., 2015. To avoid overstating the monetary value of dollars.
mangrove visits, specifically for tours that visit several sites per itin- Average catch per fishing day (kg) 45.5
erary (live-aboard and cruise vessels categories), we calculated the
Average price ($/kg) 5.2
average percentage of mangrove visits per set itinerary for each season.
Average length of fishing trip (days) 3
Gross Income (GI) 702
3. Results Direct costs (DC) 228
Indirect costs (IC) 27
Net average revenue (GI – DC – IC) ($) 447
3.1. Mangrove-dependent fisheries % of costs over gross income 36%

Many species of fish carryout a significant portion of their life his-

tory in mangroves, which serve as a critical intermediate nursery ha- Table 3
bitat for many species associated with coral and rocky reefs. The latter Net factor income (NFI) valuation of mangrove-dependent species.
are the preponderant fishing grounds in places like Galapagos or the
Quantity (kg) Price Gross revenue Cost NFI ($)
Caribbean (Hearn, 2008; Mumby et al., 2004; Nagelkerken et al., 2002). ($/kg)
Studies conducted in over 40 mangrove bays in the Galapagos evidence
the dependence of a multitude of fish species of the Archipelago to this Galapagos sailfin 127,426 $7.7 $975,573 36% $624,367
grouper
ecosystem (Aguaiza, 2016; Fierro, 2017). Out of these fish, three groups
Snappers 53,942 $6.6 $353,982 36% $226,549
(Supplementary Table B) are of high commercial importance to the Mullets 61,541 $1.3 $81,234 36% $51,989
traditional hand line artisanal fishery in the area: groupers, mainly the Total $902,905
Galapagos sailfin grouper (Mycteroperca olfax), snappers (Lutjanidae)
and mullets (Mugilidae). The total estimated landings of these three
groups are presented in Table 1. Juveniles of these three species are mangroves grow on volcanic rocks and with little sediment (Fig. 2). The
present in rocky reefs, mangroves forests and sandy beaches. However, samples, which were taken from all mangrove-containing islands of the
in the GMR juveniles of the endemic Galapagos Sailfin grouper and Archipelago, evidenced a high variance of carbon stored in the man-
snapper L. argentiventris have almost exclusively been reported around groves' soil.
mangrove bays (Fierro, 2017; Aguaiza, 2016). There was high variance in belowground carbon content on Isabela
A breakdown of the costs of finfish fishery and the average gross and Island (n = 13), which accounts for 79% of all mangrove coverage in
net revenue, obtained from interviews with fishers, is presented in the Archipelago (Fig. 3).
Table 2. Income and direct and indirect costs are presented per fishing The mean belowground carbon stored was 211.03 ± 179.65 Mg C/
trip. ha, which amounts to an estimate of over 778,000 tons in Galapagos
Using both landings and prices of each species, and the percentage mangrove sediments. When pricing this amount of carbon stored with
of the costs of finfish fishery, we calculate the net value gained by the average price of Latin American carbon offsets traded on voluntary
Galapagos fishers yearly from mangrove-related species. Table 3 sum- markets, it amounts to over $10,800,000 for the total extension of
marizes the results. mangrove coverage or $2940 per hectare of mangroves. Alternatively,
Consequently, mangrove-dependent fisheries are worth over making use of the social cost of carbon as calculated by the EPA and
$900,000 annually on net benefits for Galapagos fishers, with the accounting for the offset stemming from methane emissions, which
Galapagos sailfin Grouper representing 69% of that value. Thus the affects mangroves true mitigation benefits to society, we estimated that
yearly stream of commercial fisheries net benefits per hectare of man- carbon stocks in Galapagos mangroves' soil are worth over $84 million
groves is on the order of $245 ha−1 yr−1, or $902,905 yr−1 for 3690 ha of social damages avoided by not having this carbon released in the
of mangrove forests present in the Galapagos. atmosphere, or $22,838 per hectare of mangroves.

3.2. Carbon storage 3.3. Mangrove-based tourism

The maximum recorded value of carbon stored in mangrove sedi-
ments was 679 tons (Mg) of C per hectare (MgC/ha) at site Cartago
Chico III on the Island of Isabela, consisting of lush mangrove forests. In
contrast, the lowest carbon measurement (15.8 MgC/ha) was on the
Island of Santiago, at the site Puerto Nuevo, where small stunted
A total of 84 locations were identified as mangrove-based tourism
sites (Fig. 4), which represent 47% of all possible visiting sites in the
Galapagos National Park.
The visits received by these 84 sites ranged from over 18,000 for
cruise vessels to 500 for diving tours per month, assuming full capacity,

Table 1
Total fish landing estimations (in metric tonnes) for mangrove-dependent groups of species of high commercial importance for the Galapagos artisanal hand line
fishery.
% of total fin-fishery landingsa Galapagos grouper Snappers Mulletsd

Exportsb 29% 74.6 t 6.1 t 67.8 t

On-board consumptionc(t) 33% 12.5 t 30.8 t –
Food industry 12% 16.9 t 7.1 t –
Local consumption 26% 36.5 t 9.6 t –
Total landings 140.5 t 53.6 t 67.8 t

a
Manabu (2007).
b
Average from GNPs monthly exports guides from 2013 to 2016.
c
Haro-Bilbao and Salinas-de-León (2014).
d
Mullets are consumed only in continental Ecuador, consequently only export data is pertinent.

16
M.K. Tanner, et al. Ecological Economics 160 (2019) 12–24

Fig. 2. Soil carbon stored at 29 mangrove sites across the Galapagos.

with results from May and December showing little differences
(Table 4). After applying the average occupation rates to the maximum
possible number of visits according to full capacity, effective monthly
visits ranged from 14,000 to approximately 400 for the most popular
and least popular tourism categories, respectively. From a visitation
perspective, cruise vessels and bay tours contribute the majority of total
visits to mangrove recreational sites in the Galapagos National Park.
Based on these data, the total revenue per tourism category was
calculates, adjusting visits according to occupancy rate, and taking into
account operational days per season and average tour prices per cate-
gory. Income from visits of mangrove-dependent tourism sites totalled
approximately $62.5 million dollars annually for mangrove-related
tourism, or $16,958 per hectare of mangroves (Table 5).

Fig. 3. Average belowground carbon stored in sampled mangrove sites on Isabela Island. Big black dots represent the mean carbon stored at each site, small black
dots represent raw data, and whiskers represent the ± 95% confidence interval.

17
M.K. Tanner, et al. Ecological Economics 160 (2019) 12–24

Fig. 4. Tourism sites in close proximity to mangrove forests. Dots represent tourism sites, and numbers are each site's code (Supplemental Table C). A, B and C insets
show the site codes for clumped sites at this scale.

Table 4
Results from permits data base and surveys to tourism vessels.
Visits in Maya Visits in Decemberb Occupancy ratec Operational daysc Average tour pricec

Daily tours 1432 1424 70% 300 $250

Diving toursd 864 512 75% 330 $800
Daily diving tours 696 744 60% 250 $160
Bay tours 11,456 10,416 50% 250 $50
Cruise vesselse 18,824 18,720 75% 330 $500

a
According to the Galapagos National Park Directorate (GNPD) May visiting permits database, assuming 100% occupation rate.
b
According to GNPD visiting December permits database, assuming 100% occupation rate.
c
Results of surveys given to 45 vessels (Galapagos Tourism Observatory, Ministry of Tourism).
d
Average percentage of mangrove visits per set itinerary for May was 21%, for December 10%.
e
Average percentage of mangrove visits per set itinerary for May was 32%, for December 34%.

Table 5 The lack of studies for this ecoregion is surprising, since it is home to
Total revenue from mangrove-based visits per tourism ca- dense stands of mangrove forests that support many coastal commu-
tegory. nities and has experienced high mangrove deforestation rates over the
Tourism type Revenue ($/yr) past 40 years (Hamilton, 2013; López-angarita et al., 2016; Vegh et al.,
2014). By concentrating on three important ecosystem services for
Daily tours $4,998,000 Galapagos stakeholders and the economy of the islands, namely,
Diving tours $1,535,424
tourism, carbon storage, and fisheries (Jones, 2012), we arrive at results
Daily diving tours $1,152,000
Bay tours $4,556,667 representative of mangroves use values in the Archipelago. Following
Cruise vessels $50,335,560 standard economic practice in similar mangrove valuation studies
Total $62,557,651 (Aburto-Oropeza et al., 2008; Barbier, 2007, 2003). Table 6 presents
the capitalized values of the fisheries and tourism ES, whose value must
be equal to the discounted net present value of these benefit flows.
4. Discussion As proposed by Barbier (2012), we discounted the annualized per
hectare values of these two ecosystem services using a 10% discount
We present the first economic valuation of mangrove ecosystem rate and assume a 10 year time horizon, and additionally present the
services in the Galapagos Archipelago and Ecuador, and to the best of one time carbon storage per hectare value.
our knowledge, the first valuation targeting multiple ES for the TEP. Computing capitalized values for the chosen ecosystems services

18
M.K. Tanner, et al.
Table 6
Present discounted values of mangrove ecosystem services in the Galapagos.
Ecosystem Service Time Horizon (years) Valuea ($/ha)
Fisheries 10 $ 1382.55
Tourism 10 $ 95,816.48
Carbon storageb ⁎ $ 2940/$ 22,838
a
Per-hectare value using a 10% discount rate.
b
One time value of carbon storage depending on valuation approach;
⁎
One-time value for carbon storage.
allows for comparisons across studies, although a simple aggregation of
the resulting values is problematic, given that only one of the methods
is an economic welfare measure. Moreover, since we only chose three
ecosystem services, it is important to note that this does not represent
the total economic value of mangroves in the Galapagos. Other im-
portant functions and services provided by mangroves are: coastline
protection from flooding and storms, pollution buffering, and func-
tioning as a sink and source of nutrients for other marine ecosystems
(Barbier and Hacker, 2011). These important ES have not been in-
corporated to our valuation.
4.1. Mangrove-dependent fisheries
The three groups of fish species that we identified as mangrove
dependent, namely mullets, snappers, and the Galapagos grouper, use
mangroves either as nurseries or adult habitats, and they are all tar-
geted by the local finfish fishery. As these three groups represent the
bulk of this fishery's catches (Schiller et al., 2015), it is reasonable to
conclude that the finfish fishery in the Galapagos is highly dependent
on healthy mangrove ecosystems. Prior studies have provided evidence
for the relationship between mangroves and fisheries, or the so called
nursery hypothesis. For example species of high commercial interest on
the reefs of the Caribbean evidence a functional dependency on man-
groves, with local extinctions being associated with disappearance of
this ecosystem (Nagelkerken et al., 2002). Moreover, the biomass of
several commercially important species is more than doubled when
adult habitat is connected to mangroves, evidencing the high depen-
dence of many species to this ecosystem throughout the different stages
of their life history (Manson et al., 2005; Mumby et al., 2004). Our
fisheries ecosystem service estimate can be regarded as an upper bound,
given that it tacitly assumes that there is functional dependency on
these catches with regards to mangroves. Although a high degree of
dependence has been established between both, an exact measure is an
interesting area of further research (Aguaiza, 2016; Fierro, 2017).
The net value of these mangrove dependent fish species amounts to
over $900,000 to Galapagos fishers annually. Although we did not
calculate the complete value of the finfish fishery, our results imply that
it currently is the third most lucrative fishery in the Galapagos, after the
red spiny lobster fishery, which is currently valued at over 2 million
dollars in gross revenues (DPNG, 2017). These values must be under-
stood within the context of the Galapagos, where there are approxi-
mately 1200 fishers and 319 vessels registered with fishing licenses by
the Galapagos National Park Directorate, with only ~40% of fishers
being active as full-time or part-time fishers (Castrejón et al., 2014;
DPNG, 2014).
Our landings reconstruction method, which is comparatively less
complex and data-intensive than others in the literature (Schiller et al.,
2015), has been proposed as a low-cost alternative for the GNPD, given
the absence of complete landing data. Our catch reconstruction for the
Galapagos sailfin grouper, in the order of 140 t on average for 2014,
2015, and 2016, seem to be in line with the estimated landings re-
constructed by (Schiller et al., 2015), which for the period between
2005 and 2010 averaged 190 t and is on a clearly downward trend from
historical catches. This is also the case for estimations for mullets,
19
Ecological Economics 160 (2019) 12–24
which we underestimated when compared to Schiller et al. (2015), but
which were also found to be on a downward trend.
The continuous decline of Galapagos coastal fisheries, supported by
our landing estimations, should be taken as a reminder of the current
and historical mismanagement of these commercially important species
(Burbano et al., 2014; Schiller et al., 2015; Usseglio et al., 2016). The
lack of official landing data for the finfish fishery, and in particular, the
Galapagos sailfin grouper, is evidences that no fish species is managed
within the Galapagos National Park. Moreover, in the recent past there
has been a collapse and near collapse of the two most economically
important fisheries in the Archipelago; the sea cucumber and the lob-
ster fishery, respectively (Bucaram et al., 2013; Shepherd et al., 2004).
Within this context, a management plan for the Galapagos sailfin
grouper is not only an ecological necessity given that the species is
regarded as vulnerable on the IUCN list, but also, it becomes a required
economic policy so as to maintain the rents derived from it into the
future. A set of management policies for this species would allow for the
recovery of populations, opening up the possibility of maximizing the
expected economic rents derived from the fishery though the estab-
lishment of a maximum sustainable yield (MSY) or maximum economic
yield (MEY) (Dichmont et al., 2010).
Based on our calculations, Galapagos mangroves contribute
$245 ha−1 yr−1 through supporting commercial fisheries, which, when
compared with results from a meta-analysis conducted on mangrove
valuations, is below the median1$627 ha−1 yr−1 for 51 valuations of
mangrove-dependent fisheries (Salem and Mercer, 2012). However,
these 51 valuations include different methodologies, specifically, gross
revenues and the net factor income approach, with the latter being our
chosen methodology and the former being criticised for producing
overestimations of ES fisheries valuations (Laurans et al., 2013a). When
singling out valuations observations per method of valuation, the
median for fisheries using the net factor income approach is
$342 ha−1 yr−1(Salem and Mercer, 2012), much closer to our results of
$245 ha−1 yr−1 using the NFI approach. Furthermore, Galapagos
mangroves lack invertebrate fisheries, such as shrimps, crabs and
molluscs, which are common in most other mangrove locations and
have a high market value (Kathiresan, 2012; Rönnbäck, 1999).
4.2. Carbon storage
When comparing the mean values of carbon stored in the sediments
of Galapagos mangroves with other locations around the world, we
found that Galapagos mangroves are on the lower range of carbon
stocks (Table 7). These low values could be explained by two reasons.
First, the suboptimal growing conditions that mangroves face in the
Galapagos, such as growing on volcanic rock, exposed to high wave
activity and with no constant river presence, should result in lower
carbon stocks for these mangroves than the global average (Alongi,
2012). Second, our study exclusively measured belowground carbon
stored in Galapagos mangroves, leaving out the stocks of carbon stored
in aboveground biomass; thus, our values represent an underestimation
of the complete carbon stocks stored in Galapagos mangroves. All of the
studies cited in Table 7 include estimations of the biomass mangrove
carbon stocks, such that we would expect our study, which omitted
aboveground biomass estimations, to be relatively low in comparison.
Aboveground mangrove biomass varies locally and globally de-
pending on growing conditions and the degree of physical disturbance,
and this carbon pool can turn over quickly, returning carbon to the
atmosphere (Ray et al., 2011 Atmospheric Environment). In contrast, a
significant portion of the organic carbon buried in sediments is pre-
served from decomposition for millennia (Ezcurra et al., 2016; McKee
et al., 2007). Further, in mangrove ecosystems more carbon biomass is
1
(Salem and Mercer, 2012) suggest the median as representative given the
highly skewed nature of the data.
M.K. Tanner, et al.
Table 7
Review of literature of carbon stocks on mangrove ecosystems (mean ± SD).
Country Mangrove C stocks Reference
Indonesia 1082.55 ± 377.85 (Murdiyarso et al., 2015)
Micronesia 1063.88 ± 283.68 (Kauffman et al., 2011)
Dominican Republic 922.11 ± 274.56 (Kauffman et al., 2014)
Vietnam 862.95 ± 210.09 (Nam et al., 2016)
Palau 719.73 ± 309.38 (Kauffman et al., 2011)
Thailand 662.33 ± 126.59 (Alongi, 2012)
Mexico 621.85 ± 336.79 (Adame et al., 2013)
Bangladesh 565.60 ± 26.16 (Donato et al., 2011)
Philippines 441.76 ± 120.76 (Thompson et al., 2014)
Malaysia 267.00 ± 872.72 (Alongi, 2012)
Galapagos 211.03 ± 179.65 This study
Modified and actualized version from Murdiyarso et al. (2015).
thought to be allocated below ground than above, particularly in
oceanic mangroves (Donato et al., 2011; Fujimoto et al., 1999; Ray
et al., 2011). A comparative study based upon a sample of 158 sites
from Africa, Asia and Latin America estimated that 86% to 91% of
carbon stocks associated with mangroves is belowground (Kauffman
and Bhomia, 2017). Mangroves with similar characteristics as the ones
present in the Galapagos (coarse soils, similar species composition and
height and width) present even a more modest contribution of above-
ground measurements to total carbon stocks (Kauffman et al., 2014;
Schile et al., 2016). For these reasons, we exclusively focused on be-
lowground carbon measurements as being representative of long-term
and policy-relevant mangrove carbon stocks. Nevertheless, given the
similarities with other relevant studies, we estimate our aboveground
carbon stocks being closer to ~2% to ~5% of the total. This would
entail 4 to 10 MgC/ha of carbon in addition to our 211.03 MgC/ha
belowground estimate. Still, definitive estimates would require proper
measurements of mangroves across the archipelago, which could be
tackled by further studies. By providing an economic analysis of the
first assessment of belowground carbon stocks in Galapagos' mangroves
(Costa et al. in press), we provide an important input for local and
national climate change-oriented policies, particularly blue carbon
schemes (Donato et al., 2011; Locatelli et al., 2014; Yee, 2010).
Our results for the valuation of carbon stocks in the Galapagos
mangroves should be interpreted as the monetized benefits of carbon
storage. Our first estimate, which amounts to over $10,800,000, was
calculated with the market-based approach, which uses fiscal measures
developed to create economic incentives to reduce carbon emissions
and places a value on carbon (Laffoley and Grimsditch, 2009). The
markets determine the price of carbon based on the future supply and
demand of carbon credits. Therefore, ideally, this estimate represents
what investors are willing to pay for sequestering and storing a ton of
carbon (Yee, 2010). The advantages of using this approach are that it is
relatively simple in terms of data requirements and implementation,
and it is based on observed market behaviour (Barbier et al., 2008).
However, a common criticism is that prices do not reflect the social
value of avoiding carbon emissions, but rather reflect what policy-
makers deem appropriate for a wider set of policy goals, including
political commitments (Convery and Redmond, 2007).
To consider the above-mentioned issues and provide a com-
plementary welfare measure, a second estimate was calculated at over
$84 million dollars. This value was obtained by making use of the social
marginal damage cost methodology (Kennedy et al., 2016; Melaku
et al., 2015), and accounting by the offsets provided by recently dis-
covered methane emissions stemming from mangrove ecosystems (Call
et al., 2015; Linto et al., 2014; Rosentreter et al., 2018). The so called
social cost of carbon is the social damage avoided by not releasing a ton
of carbon into the atmosphere. This monetized welfare estimate, which
is a key input for climate change policy, usually relies on integrated
assessment models to simulate time paths for atmospheric CO2 con-
centrations, the impact of CO2 on temperature, and the resulting
20
Ecological Economics 160 (2019) 12–24
reductions in GDP and consumption (Pindyck et al., 2016).
The 2016 estimate from the US EPA (EPA, 2016), which was our
chosen estimate, suggests that the social cost of carbon is USD $132/tC,
although this value is considered conservative according to other esti-
mates that take into account equity and distributional concerns with
regards to climate change at the global level (Dennig et al., 2015;
Moore and Diaz, 2015). A review of the social cost of carbon literature
found an average value of $105/tC (Tol, 2009), also pointing out that
social cost of carbon estimates are highly sensitive to modelling as-
sumptions and parameters. The main drawbacks of this approach are its
sensitivity to assumptions and parameters, mentioned above, and the
underlying uncertainty in both the scientific knowledge on climate
change and in the socio-economic aspects of growth under different
CO2 emission scenarios (Jerath et al., 2012; Pindyck et al., 2016; Tol,
2009). Furthermore, uncertainties with regards to the net benefits of
mangroves as providers of climate change mitigation are also accounted
for in our valuation approach.
By making use of the social cost of carbon approach we aim to value
mangroves service as climate change mitigation providers, but recent
discoveries evidence that their blue carbon stocks are partially offset by
methane emissions on average by 20% (Rosentreter et al., 2018). We
chose to apply an 18% penalty to the valuation of this ecosystem service
to net out this offset, choosing the lower range of the sensitivity analysis
conducted by Rosentreter et al. (2018). Our election of the lower bound
stems from the fact that factors associated with higher methane emis-
sions, such as fresh water sources, are not present in the Galapagos.
Moreover, data from methane emissions in the Equator are not cur-
rently available, adding to the uncertainties surrounding the net effect
of methane offsets of Galapagos mangroves. Regardless, we apply this
penalty since the methane offset effect is a novel discovery which cer-
tainly affects mangroves utility as blue carbon storers and should be
accounted for in any mangrove based mitigation strategy. Thus, both
carbon valuation estimates should be taken as complementary in-
formation for climate change policymaking, which jointly reveal the
true benefits derived from mangroves' carbon storage.
4.3. Mangrove-based tourism
Mangrove-based recreation and tourism represented approximately
$63 million in revenue in 2016 for the Galapagos Islands, or $16,958
per hectare of mangroves. This result is not surprising given that the
tourism sector is the Galapagos' economic engine and its main stake-
holder (Epler, 2007; Jones, 2012; Taylor et al., 2009). Our results are
also similar to a valuation study held for mangroves and coral reefs in
Belize, which used a similar revealed preferences/gross revenues
methodology; that estimated $150 to $196 million in direct benefits for
the Belizean economy, of which $60 to $78 million stemmed from the
presence of mangroves (Cooper et al., 2009; Waite et al., 2014).
The main difficulties that arose in performing a valuation of Belize's
mangroves and coral reefs were on estimating the portion of visits/time
attributable to mangroves (Cooper et al., 2009). We were able to cir-
cumvent these issues by making use of the permits database of the
Galapagos National Park and by considering the capacity of each vessel
and the occupancy rates per type of tourism. Likewise, a previous study
used a market price approach to find the value of marine-based tourism
in the Galapagos in 2014, resulting in a total value of $156 million
dollars (Lynham et al., 2015); as expected, this value was much higher
than our figure for mangrove-only based tourism. In line with the fact
that cruise tourism historically represents the lion's share of Galapagos
tourism (Taylor et al., 2009), we found that cruises contributed to 80%
of the value of mangrove-based tourism and 64% of total visits to
mangrove sites, highlighting its central importance in tourism visits and
expenditures. But as mangroves are both marine and terrestrial eco-
systems, they support both marine- and terrestrial-based tourism. Over
60% of all visits from the “Bay tour” tourism category make use of sites
with mangrove-based recreational activities, making it the most
M.K. Tanner, et al.
mangrove-dependent form of tourism in the Galapagos. It is also the
second most important contributor to visits to mangroves, representing
approximately 26% of the total visits to mangrove sites, although in
terms of value it only represents 7% of mangrove-based tourism. This
tourism category, which is mostly owned by locals—in contrast to
cruise tourism, which is mostly provided by a foreign-owned fleet
(Taylor et al., 2009)—is regarded as a land-based form of tourism. The
tendency is that land-based tourism continues growing; in 2009, it
surpassed cruise tourism as the category with the highest amount of
visitors, and it is growing each year at a rate of +7.5% (Observatorio de
Turismo Galapagos, 2017b). Hence, we expect this figure to increase in
following years, as will the value of mangrove-based tourism. Ir-
onically, this increase in visits might also cause reductions in natural
capital, which might lead to lower supply of ecosystem services.
Importantly, how the benefits of mangrove-based recreational ES
are distributed will be driven by the ownership structure of the tourism
industry (particularly of the cruise vessel and bay tour categories), how
intensely these tourism areas use mangrove sites, and how much they
participate in generating the total value of mangrove-based tourism.
Institutional failures often occur because the people who benefit from
ecosystem services (often foreign tour operators) are not always the
same people who are affected by ecosystem transformation (locals). The
discrepancies arising from beneficiaries of ecosystem service provision
that are often different and distant from the beneficiaries of “ecosystem
transformation” are often a reason for ecosystem mismanagement
(Turner and Daily, 2008). In this regard, the growth of the local “Bay
tour” form of tourism, with its high dependency on mangrove recrea-
tional ES, could be regarded as a positive development because it cre-
ates a local champion for ES provision, further aligning local economic
incentives with conservation.
Our valuation approach, which merges both a spatial representation
of recreation with a revealed preferences market-based approach, still
may not adequately value cultural ecosystem services (Hirons et al.,
2016). As the Galapagos presents several ecosystems in parallel,
bundling is a particular concern, since tourists experience mangrove-
based recreation jointly with recreation based on other ecosystems
(Milcu et al., 2013). The inclusion of mangrove-based activities as a
discriminatory factor for our site selection was our attempt to deal with
ecosystem bundling issues, but recreation as a cultural ecosystem ser-
vice is most likely bundled with other cultural ecosystem services ex-
perienced by tourists, for which a market-based approach still might
not be the most suitable valuation tool (Klain et al., 2014).
Future studies specifically focusing on valuation of cultural eco-
system services would benefit from taking a mixed methods approach
to valuation (Hirons et al., 2016). A deliberative valuation tool, such as
the Delphi technique, could be used to complement our criteria for site
selection by adding experts' opinions on mangroves' importance to site
visits and enjoyment (Edwards et al., 2012; Mukherjee et al., 2014).
Likewise, a stated preference approach, measuring the maximum will-
ingness tourists will pay for mangrove-based recreation, would address
shortcomings of the market-based approach (Bateman et al., 2002)
because tourists' individual recreational experiences are not always
registered through a market transaction and market transactions do not
reliably measure consumer surplus (Schep et al., 2014).
Regardless of specific methodological difficulties associated with
the valuation, it is evident that cultural ES provided by mangroves are
of high economic importance, with mangrove-based recreation being
appropriated and monetized by the local tourism industry. This va-
luation allows stakeholders to discuss ways to institutionalize payments
for this ES, but such discussions must take into account equity and
distributional concerns as well as the heterogeneities of the sector,
given that both the burden of conservation and the potential benefits of
alternative uses of mangrove land are local issues, whilst, according to
our results, the net beneficiaries of ES monetization are mostly non-
local. These particularities must be taken into account before instituting
any legitimate and suitable payment policy (Turner and Daily, 2008).
21
Ecological Economics 160 (2019) 12–24
4.4. Galapagos mangroves and payments for ecosystem services
Our results for the valuation of the ecosystem services provided by
Galapagos mangroves are not only comparable to different mangrove
sites across the globe, but they also show that Galapagos mangroves are
ideal candidates for programmes that promote payments for ecosystem
services (PES). Mangroves are excellent candidates because they pro-
vide a multitude of ES; they act as carbon sinks, and; they also provide
nursery areas for fish that support local small-scale fisheries, and they
support tourism, to the benefit of local communities as well as to the
global population (Lau, 2013; Locatelli et al., 2014).
Galapagos mangroves' carbon stocks compare favourably to other
carbon-rich terrestrial ecosystems such as boreal, temperate and tro-
pical forests (Alongi, 2012), making them ideal candidates for carbon-
centred mitigation schemes, such as REDD++. Furthermore, Ecuador
has finalized the REDD++ early movers program and has received the
first transfers from the Green Climate Fund, pointing to existing in-
stitutional accords that could be explored for a carbon-centred PES
scheme in favour of mangrove ecosystems (Locatelli et al., 2014).
Mangroves are, according to Ecuadorian law, public property and a
protected ecosystem; thus, property rights for Galapagos mangroves are
allocated to the GNP. Importantly, clearly defined and well enforced
property rights are a fundamental component of a well-designed PES
mechanism (Engel and Palmer, 2008). Besides carbon sequestration and
storage, Galapagos mangroves provide other ecosystem services which
would justify adopting a PES scheme, specifically its services in sup-
porting nursery areas for fish (Lau, 2013). Currently Costa Rica's gov-
ernment, a country within the TEPwith significant mangrove presence
and deforestation (López-angarita et al., 2016) and successful PES
scheme experiences (Porras et al., 2013; Wunder, 2005), is debating
establishing a PES fund and a scheme specifically for marine ecosystems
called FONASEMAR- which is a legislative bill that would officially
create a fund for marine conservation through fees and taxation
(MarViva, 2017). This law is centred on incentivising sustainable uses
of marine and coastal ecosystems, including mangroves, and aims to
promote ecosystem service provision and sustainable use of fisheries, as
it funds itself from a tax levied on plastics, from a “polluter pays”
(Sterner and Coria, 2013) perspective. Similarly, an already established
PES scheme that has proven successful, such as “water funds” (wa-
tershed-oriented PES projects based on a trust fund model) (Goldman-
Benner et al., 2012) might also serve as a guide for a Galapagos PES
scheme. The role of Galapagos mangroves as a nursery area for an
endangered and commercially important species like the Galapagos
sailfin grouper, could be promoted through a PES scheme and, more
generally, as a part of a management plan for this crucial fishery, with
fishers or the consuming industries being the potential buyers of this
PES scheme(Bladon et al., 2016).
The tourism sector, the other obvious beneficiary of mangrove
ecosystem services in the Galapagos, is a possible financial contributor
for a voluntary PES scheme for Galapagos mangroves, acting as a po-
tential buyer in the ecosystem services markets (Lau, 2013). Not only
does it directly benefit from mangrove recreational ES, but it also
benefits from other mangrove ES such as water purification and coastal
protection, two services not valued in this study. These are crucial for
maintaining clear waters and sandy beaches, characteristics important
to the tourism sector; thus, the constant provisioning of these ES is in
their long-term interest (Lau, 2013; Locatelli et al., 2014). A pertinent
example is the Bonaire Marine Park in the Netherlands Antilles (Thur,
2010), where mangroves' contribution to water treatment is recognized
through payment for protection from divers' entrance fees.
Furthermore, a PES scheme for mangroves in the Galapagos would
directly benefit from the existing institutional support of the Galapagos
National Park Directorate, which considers protecting and providing
ecosystem services to be one of its main objectives in its current man-
agement plan (DPNG, 2014). A payments scheme where the GNP is the
beneficiary should be adequately invested into capacity building,
M.K. Tanner, et al.
monitoring and re-appraisal efforts, ensuring that resources and ES
provision are sustainably managed into the future (Turner and Daily,
2008).
This experience could be then translated into a nationwide in-
itiative, given that the mangroves in continental Ecuador also provide
important ecosystem services and have suffered high rates of loss in the
last decades (Hamilton, 2013; López-angarita et al., 2016). In this
context, our approach in this valuation could be modified and expanded
to accomplish a much larger valuation study for Ecuador's mangroves.
5. Conclusion
Overall, by engaging in the first study of its kind for Ecuador, a
country with extensive mangrove coverage and historically high de-
forestation rates, we look to provide a policy- and conservation-or-
iented valuation. The Galapagos Archipelago, the only Ecuadorian
province with mangroves that have been spared from deforestation,
serves as an ideal location to study mangrove ecosystem services and
their value in a pristine setting. Moreover, this case study in the
Galapagos Archipelago, with its emblematic biodiversity and its leading
role in conservation within the Galapagos National Park, benefits from
a wealth of previously studied socio-ecological interactions whilst
adding to the current literature regarding sustainability in the region.
Given the explored socio-ecological systems surrounding mangroves
in the Galapagos our chosen subset of values are critically important for
highlighting how significant mangrove ecosystems are for human
welfare and for encouraging informed policymaking. And, by taking
into account stakeholders and existing property rights, this valuation
allows key stakeholders to start discussing ways to institutionalize ES
payments as a policy option for the Galapagos Islands.
Policy applications discussed in this paper are not only applicable to
the Galapagos, but also to Ecuador and the TEP region at large, which
holds a considerable extension of mangrove forests. Next steps should
include actively measuring aboveground carbon stocks, with the intent
to formalize a PES scheme for the Galapagos in the international carbon
market. Likewise exploring local PES scheme options, such as one le-
vied from a tax on carbon by the local aviation and cruise industry, or
one where direct beneficiaries, specifically the fishing and tourism in-
dustry serve as a the demand should be discussed with policymakers
and local stakeholders. Thus, this study serves as a starting point for
further research, which should focus on policy-oriented results.
Through this work, our goal is not to put a price on nature but, through
an interdisciplinary approach, to reveal the true value of mangroves in
the Galapagos Islands in their current context, presenting a compelling
case for conservation based on both ethical and economic grounds.
Acknowledgements
This research was conducted under Galapagos National Park
Directorate research permit PC1315, PC1316, PC1317 and PC1318
granted to the Charles Darwin Research Station. We thank the
Galapagos National Park, the Galapagos Observatory for Tourism and
the Charles Darwin Foundation for their institutional support. Special
thanks to John Lynham and Juan Carlos Izurieta for suggestions made
to this manuscript and J. Naime, M. Olivares, S.Gionfra, T. Goeschl, S.
Buglass, C. Vrettos and L. Puebla for their helpful comments. We are
very grateful to Kayla Budd and Alex Sueldo from Winsconsin at Eau
Claire, who volunteered at the Charles Darwin Foundation specifically
within this project. This work was supported by The Helmsley
Charitable Trust. This is contribution number 2233 from the Charles
Darwin Foundation for the Galapagos Islands.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.01.024.
22
Ecological Economics 160 (2019) 12–24
References
Aburto-Oropeza, O., Ezcurra, E., Danemann, G., Valdez, V., Murray, J., Sala, E., 2008.
Mangroves in the Gulf of California increase fishery yields. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105,
10456–10459. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0804601105.
Adame, M.F., et al., 2013. Carbon stocks of tropical coastal wetlands within the karstic
landscape of the Mexican Caribbean. PLoS ONE 8, e56569.
Aguaiza, C., 2016. The Role of Mangrove as Nursery Habitats for Coral Reef Fish Species
in the Galapagos Islands. M.Sc. thesis. University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Alongi, D.M., 2012. Carbon sequestration in mangrove forests. Carbon Manage. 3,
313–322. https://doi.org/10.4155/cmt.12.20.
Banco Central del Ecuador, 2017. Informe de Inflacion [WWW Document]. https://
contenido.bce.fin.ec/indicador.php?tbl=inflacion, Accessed date: 20 July 2017.
Bann, C., 1998. Economic valuation of mangroves: a manual for researchers. In: EEPSEA
Spec. Pap. Reg. Off. Southeast East Asia, Econ. Environ. Progr. Southeast Asia.
Barbier, E.B., 2003. Habitat-fishery linkages and mangrove loss in Thailand. Contemp.
Econ. Policy 21, 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1093/cep/21.1.59.
Barbier, E.B., 2007. Valuing ecosystem services as productive inputs. Econ. Policy 22
(49), 178–229.
Barbier, E.B., 2012. Inclusive Wealth Report.
Barbier, E., Hacker, S.D., 2011. The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services.
Ecol. Monogr. 81, 169–193.
Barbier, E.B., Koch, E.W., Silliman, B.R., Hacker, S.D., Primavera, J., Granek, E.F.,
Polasky, S., Aswani, S., Lori, A., Stoms, D.M., Kennedy, C.J., Bael, D., Kappel, C.V.,
Gerardo, M.E., Reed, D.J., Silliman, R., Wolanski, E., Kennedy, C., 2008. Coastal
ecosystem-based with nonlinear management ecological functions and values.
Science 319, 321–323 80-.
Bateman, I.J., Carson, R.T., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M.,
Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Pearce, D.W., 2002. Economic Valuation with Stated
Preference Techniques: A Manual. (Econ. Valuat. with stated Prefer. Tech. a manual).
Belokopytov, I.E., Beresnevich, V.V., 1955. Torfjanye bury giktorfa. In: Torfyanaya
Promyshlennost, pp. 9–10.
Bennett, J., Gillespie, R., 2011. Non use economic values of marine protected areas in the
south-west marine area. SSRN Electron. J. 1–27. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.
1909630.
Bladon, A.J., Short, K.M., Mohammed, E.Y., Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2016. Payments for
ecosystem services in developing world fisheries. Fish Fish. 17, 839–859.
Börger, T., Beaumont, N.J., Pendleton, L., Boyle, K.J., Cooper, P., Fletcher, S., Haab, T.,
Hanemann, M., Hooper, T.L., Hussain, S.S., Portela, R., Stithou, M., Stockill, J.,
Taylor, T., Austen, M.C., 2014. Incorporating ecosystem services in marine planning:
the role of valuation. Mar. Policy 46, 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.
2014.01.019.
Brander, L.M., Florax, J.G.M., 2006. The valuation of wetlands: primary versus meta-
analysis based value transfer. In: Environmental Valuation: Interregional and
Intraregional Perspectives. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., pp. 231–252.
Bucaram, S.J., White, J.W., Sanchirico, J.N., Wilen, J.E., 2013. Behavior of the Galapagos
fishing fleet and its consequences for the design of spatial management alternatives
for the red spiny lobster fishery. Ocean Coast. Manag. 78, 88–100.
Burbano, D.V., Mena, C.F., Guarderas, P., Vinueza, L., Reck, G., 2014. Shifting baselines
in the Galapagos white fin fishery, using fisher's anecdotes to reassess fisheries
management: the case of the Galapagos grouper. In: The Galapagos Marine Reserve.
Springer, pp. 227–246.
Call, M., Maher, D.T., Santos, I.R., Ruiz-Halpern, S., Mangion, P., Sanders, C.J., Erler,
D.V., Oakes, J.M., Rosentreter, J., Murray, R., 2015. Spatial and temporal variability
of carbon dioxide and methane fluxes over semi-diurnal and spring–neap–spring
timescales in a mangrove creek. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 150, 211–225.
Carrasquilla-Henao, M., Ocampo, H.A.G., González, A.L., Quiroz, G.R., 2013. Mangrove
forest and artisanal fishery in the southern part of the Gulf of California, Mexico.
Ocean Coast. Manag. 83, 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.02.019.
Castrejón, M., Defeo, O., Reck, G., Charles, A., 2014. Fishery science in Galapagos: from a
resource-focused to a social–ecological systems approach. In: The Galapagos Marine
Reserve. Springer, pp. 159–185.
Cesar, H.S.J., van Beukering, P.J.H., 2004. Economic Valuation of the Coral Reefs of
Hawaii. Pacific Sci. pp. 58.
Clough, P., 2013. The value of ecosystem services for recreation. In: Ecosyst. Serv. New
Zealand–Conditions Trends. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln, New Zeal., pp.
330–342.
Convery, F.J., Redmond, L., 2007. Market and Price Developments in the European Union
Emissions Trading Scheme.
Cooper, E., Burke, L., Bood, N., 2009. Coastal Capital: Belize the Economic Contribu Tion
of Belize's Coral Reefs and Mangroves.
Costa, M.T., Salinas-de-León, P., Aburto-Oropeza, O., 2019. Storage of blue carbon in
isolated mangrove forests of the Galapagos' rocky coast. Wetl. Ecol. Manag in press.
De Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., 2002. A typology for the classification, description and
valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 41, 393–408.
Dennig, F., Budolfson, M.B., Fleurbaey, M., Siebert, A., Socolow, R.H., 2015. Inequality,
climate impacts on the future poor, and carbon prices. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1513967112.
Dichmont, C.M., Pascoe, S., Kompas, T., Punt, A.E., Deng, R., 2010. On implementing
maximum economic yield in commercial fisheries. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107, 16–21.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0912091107.
Donato, D.C., Kauffman, J.B., Murdiyarso, D., Kurnianto, S., Stidham, M., Kanninen, M.,
2011. Mangroves among the most carbon-rich forests in the tropics. Nat. Geosci. 4,
293–297. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1123.
DPNG, 2014. Plan de Manejo de las Áreas Protegidas de Galápagos para el Buen Vivir.
M.K. Tanner, et al.
Puerto Ayora, Galápagos, Ecuador.
DPNG, 2017. Evaluación Integral de la Pesqueria de Langosta Espinosa (Panulirus peni-
cillatus y Panulirus gracilis) 2016 en la Reserva Marina de Galápagos. Puerto Ayora,
Galápagos, Ecuador.
Duke, Meynecke, Dittmann, Ellison, Anger, Berger, Canicci, Diele, Ewel, Field, Koedam,
Lee, Marchand, Nordhaus, Dahdouh-Guebas, F., 2007. A world without mangroves?
Science 317, 41–43. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.317.5834.41b. 80-.
Edgar, G.J., Banks, S., Bensted-Smith, R., Calvopiña, M., Chiriboga, A., Garske, L.E.,
Henderson, S., Miller, K.A., Salazar, S., 2008. Conservation of threatened species in
the Galapagos Marine Reserve through identification and protection of marine key
biodiversity areas. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshwat. Ecosyst. 18, 955–968. https://doi.
org/10.1002/aqc.901.
Edwards, D.M., Jay, M., Jensen, F.S., Lucas, B., Marzano, M., Montagné, C., Peace, A.,
Weiss, G., 2012. Public preferences across Europe for different forest stand types as
sites for recreation. Ecol. Soc. 17. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04520-170127.
Engel, S., Palmer, C., 2008. Payments for environmental services as an alternative to
logging under weak property rights: the case of Indonesia. Ecol. Econ. 65, 799–809.
EPA, 2016. Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon
for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866.
Epler, B., 2007. Tourism, the Economy, Population Growth, and Conservation in
Galapagos. pp. 55.
Ezcurra, P., Ezcurra, E., Garcillán, P.P., Costa, M.T., Aburto-Oropeza, O., 2016. Coastal
landforms and accumulation of mangrove peat increase carbon sequestration and
storage. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 201519774. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.
1519774113.
Ferraro, P.J., Lawlor, K., Mullan, K.L., Pattanayak, S.K., 2012. Forest figures: ecosystem
services valuation and policy evaluation in developing countries. Rev. Environ. Econ.
Policy 6, 20–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rer019.
Fierro, D., 2017. Fish Assemblages in Mangrove Habitats of the Galapagos Archipelago: A
Comparison of Survey Techniques and Assemblage Composition Between Bioregions.
M.Sc. thesis. University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Fujimoto, K., Imaya, A., Tabuchi, R., Kuramoto, S., Utsugi, H., Murofushi, T., 1999.
Belowground carbon storage of Micronesian mangrove forests. Ecol. Res. 14,
409–413.
Goldman-Benner, R.L., Benitez, S., Boucher, T., Calvache, A., Daily, G., Kareiva, P.,
Kroeger, T., Ramos, A., 2012. Water funds and payments for ecosystem services:
practice learns from theory and theory can learn from practice. Oryx 46, 55–63.
Hamilton, S., 2013. Assessing the role of commercial aquaculture in displacing mangrove
forest. Bull. Mar. Sci. 89, 585–601. https://doi.org/10.5343/bms.2012.1069.
Hamilton, S.E., Lovette, J., 2015. Ecuador's mangrove forest carbon stocks: a spatio-
temporal analysis of living carbon holdings and their depletion since the advent of
commercial aquaculture. PLoS One 10, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.
0118880.
Hamrick, K., Gallant, M., 2017. Unlocking potential: State of the Voluntary Carbon
Markets. pp. 2017.
Haro-Bilbao, I., Salinas-de-León, P., 2014. Estudio de mercado sobre la demanda de
productos pesqueros de las embarcaciones de turismo de crucero navegable en
Galápagos. (Puerto Ayora, Galápagos).
Hearn, A., 2008. The rocky path to sustainable fisheries management and conservation in
the Galápagos Marine Reserve. Ocean Coast. Manag. 51, 567–574. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2008.06.009.
Hirons, M., Comberti, C., Dunford, R., 2016. Valuing cultural ecosystem services. Annu.
Rev. Environ. Resour. 41, 545–574. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-
110615-085831.
INEC, 2015. Análisis de Resultados Definitivos Censo de Población y Vivienda Galápagos.
pp. 2015.
Jerath, M., Bhat, M.G., Rivera-Monroy, V.H., 2012. Alternative approaches to valuing
carbon sequestration in mangroves. In: Proceedings of the ISEE 2012 Confer- Ence on
Ecological Economics and Rio+20, Rio de Janeiro, 16–19 June 2012, pp. 1–37
Lazzari.
Jobstvogt, N., Watson, V., Kenter, J.O., 2014. Looking below the surface: the cultural
ecosystem service values of UK marine protected areas (MPAs). Ecosyst. Serv. 10,
97–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.09.006.
Jones, P.J.S., 2012. A governance analysis of the Galápagos marine reserve. Mar. Policy
65–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.12.019.
Kathiresan, K., 2012. Importance of mangrove ecosystem. Int. J. Mar. Sci. 2.
Kauffman, J.B., Bhomia, R.K., 2017. Ecosystem carbon stocks of mangroves across broad
environmental gradients in West-Central Africa: global and regional comparisons.
PLoS One 1–17.
Kauffman, J.B., Heider, C., Cole, T.G., Dwire, K.A., Donato, D.C., 2011. Ecosystem carbon
stocks of micronesianmangrove forests. Wetlands 31, 343–352.
Kauffman, J.B., Heider, C., Norfolk, J., Payton, F., 2014. Carbon stocks of intact man-
groves and carbon emissions arising from their conversion in the Dominican
Republic. Ecol. Appl. 24, 518–527.
Kennedy, C.M., Miteva, D.A., Baumgarten, L., Hawthorne, P., Sochi, K., 2016. Bigger is
better: improved nature conservation and economic returns from landscape-level
mitigation. Sci. Adv. 2. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1501021.
Klain, S.C., Satterfield, T.A., Chan, K.M.A., 2014. What matters and why? Ecosystem
services and their bundled qualities. Ecol. Econ. 107, 310–320. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.003.
Laffoley, D., Grimsditch, G.D., 2009. The Management of Natural Coastal Carbon Sinks.
Iucn.
Lau, W.W.Y., 2013. Beyond carbon: conceptualizing payments for ecosystem services in
blue forests on carbon and other marine and coastal ecosystem services. Ocean Coast.
Manag. 83, 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.03.011.
Laurans, Y., Pascal, N., Binet, T., Brander, L., Clua, E., David, G., Rojat, D., Seidl, A.,
23
Ecological Economics 160 (2019) 12–24
2013a. Economic valuation of ecosystem services from coral reefs in the South
Pacific: taking stock of recent experience. J. Environ. Manag. 116, 135–144. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.11.031.
Laurans, Y., Rankovic, A., Billé, R., Pirard, R., Mermet, L., 2013b. Use of ecosystem
services economic valuation for decision making: questioning a literature blindspot.
J. Environ. Manag. 119, 208–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.01.008.
Linto, N., Barnes, J., Ramachandran, R., Divia, J., Ramachandran, P., Upstill-Goddard,
R.C., 2014. Carbon dioxide and methane emissions from mangrove-associated waters
of the Andaman Islands, Bay of Bengal. Estuar. Coasts 37, 381–398.
Liu, J., Mooney, H., Hull, V., Davis, S.J., Gaskell, J., Hertel, T., Lubchenco, J., Seto, K.C.,
Gleick, P., Kremen, C., 2015. Systems integration for global sustainability. Science
347, 1258832 80-.
Locatelli, T., Binet, T., Kairo, J.G., King, L., Madden, S., Patenaude, G., Upton, C.,
Huxham, M., 2014. Turning the tide: how blue carbon and payments for ecosystem
services (PES) might help save mangrove forests. Ambio 43, 981–995. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13280-014-0530-y.
López-angarita, J., Tilley, A., Cooke, R.G., 2016. Mangroves and people: lessons from a
history of use and abuse in four Latin American countries. For. Ecol. Manag. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.03.020.
Lynham, J., Costello, C., Gaines, S., Sala, E., 2015. Economic Valuation of Marine- and
Shark-Based Tourism in the Galápagos Islands: Report to the Galápagos National
Park.
Manabu, E., 2007. Report of Study of Fisheries Products Distribution and Consumption
State in Santa Cruz Island. Fisheries and Aquaculture International Co., Ltd.
Manson, F.J., Loneragan, N.R., Skilleter, G.A., Phinn, S.R., 2005. An evaluation of the
evidence for linkages between mangroves and fisheries: a synthesis of the literature
and identification of research directions. In: Oceanography and Marine Biology. CRC
Press, pp. 493–524.
Martín-López, B., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Montes, C., 2011. The conservation
against development paradigm in protected areas: Valuation of ecosystem services in
the Doñana social – ecological system (southwestern Spain). Ecol. Econ. 70,
1481–1491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.03.009.
MarViva, 2017. Que es fonasemar [WWW document]. http://www.marviva.net/es/
biblioteca/que-es-fonasemar, Accessed date: 22 February 2018.
McKee, K.L., Cahoon, D.R., Feller, I.C., 2007. Caribbean mangroves adjust to rising sea
level through biotic controls on change in soil elevation. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 16,
545–556.
McLeod, E., Chmura, G.L., Bouillon, S., Salm, R., Björk, 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 in sequestering CO2.
Front. Ecol. Environ. 9, 552–560. https://doi.org/10.1890/110004.
McNally, C.G., Uchida, E., Gold, A.J., 2011. The effect of a protected area on the tradeoffs
between short-run and long-run benefits from mangrove ecosystems. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 108, 13945–13950. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1101825108.
Melaku, D., Ghermandi, A., Nunes, P.A.L.D., Lazzari, P., Cossarini, G., Solidoro, C., 2015.
Estimating the value of carbon sequestration ecosystem services in the Mediterranean
Sea: an ecological economics approach. Glob. Environ. Chang. 32, 87–95. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.02.008.
Milcu, A.I., Hanspach, J., Abson, D., Fischer, J., 2013. Cultural ecosystem services: a
literature review and prospects for future research. Ecol. Soc. 18, 44–88. https://doi.
org/10.5751/ES-05790-180344.
Millennium Ecosystem Assesment, 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being, current state
and trends. In: Millenial Ecosystem Assesment. vol. 1.
Miteva, D.A., Murray, B.C., Pattanayak, S.K., 2015. Do protected areas reduce blue carbon
emissions? A quasi-experimental evaluation of mangroves in Indonesia. Ecol. Econ.
119, 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.08.005.
Moity, N., Delgado, B., Salinas-de-León, P., 2019. Mangroves in the Galapagos islands:
distribution and dynamics. PLoS One 14, e0209313.
Molina, L., Danulat, E., Oviedo, M., González, J.A., 2004. Guía de especies de interés
pesquero en la Rserva marina de Galápagos. (Puerto Ayora).
Moore, F.C., Diaz, D.B., 2015. Temperature impacts on economic growth warrant strin-
gent mitigation policy. Nat. Clim. Chang. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2481.
Mukherjee, N., Sutherland, W.J., Dicks, L., Hugé, jean, Koedam, N., Dahdouh-Guebas, F.,
2014. Ecosystem service valuations of mangrove ecosystems to inform decision
making and future valuation exercises. PLoS One 9, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0107706.
Mumby, P., Edwards, A.J., Blackwell, P.G., Mumby, P.J., Edwards, A.J., Arias-gonza, J.E.,
Lindeman, K.C., Blackwell, P.G., Gall, A., Gorczynska, M.I., Harborne, A.R., Pescod,
C.L., 2004. Mangroves enhance the coral reef fish in the Caribbean Mangroves en-
hance the biomass of coral reef fish communities in the Caribbean. Nature. https://
doi.org/10.1038/nature02286.
Murdiyarso, D., Purbopuspito, J., Kauffman, J.B., Warren, M.W., Sasmito, S.D., Donato,
D.C., Manuri, S., Krisnawati, H., Taberima, S., Kurnianto, S., 2015. The potential of
Indonesian mangrove forests for global climate change mitigation. Nat. Clim. Chang.
5, 1089–1092. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2734.
Murray, B.C., 2016. Ecosystem Service Concepts in Practice. https://doi.org/10.3138/
cpp.2015-022.
Nabhan, G.P., 1973. A Characterization of Galapagos Mangrove Communities with a
Preliminary Consideration of Their Ecological. Succession in Relation to Coastal
Geomorphological Evolution (No. Galápagos Expedition 104). Puerto Ayora,
Galápagos, Ecuador.
Nagelkerken, I., Roberts, C.M., Van Der Velde, G., Dorenbosch, M., Van Riel, M.C., 2002.
How important are mangroves and seagrass beds for coral-reef fish? The nursery
hypothesis tested on an island scale. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 244, 299–305.
Nam, V.N., Sasmito, S.D., Murdiyarso, D., Purbopuspito, J., MacKenzie, R.A., 2016.
Carbon stocks in artificially and naturally regenerated mangrove ecosystems in the
M.K. Tanner, et al.
Mekong Delta. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 24, 231–244.
Observatorio de Turismo Galapagos, 2017a. Observatorio de Turismo Galapagos - esta-
disticas en linea [WWW document]. http://www.observatoriogalapagos.gob.ec/
estadisticas, Accessed date: 5 July 2017.
Observatorio de Turismo Galapagos, 2017b. Galapagos Report 2015-2016. In: Galapagos
Report 2015–2016. DPNG, CGREG, FCD y GC, Puerto Ayora, Galápagos, Ecuador, pp.
85–91.
Ostrom, E., 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological
systems. Science 325, 419–422 80-.
Pendleton, L., Donato, D.C., Murray, B.C., Crooks, S., Jenkins, W.A., Sifleet, S., Craft, C.,
Fourqurean, J.W., Kauffman, J.B., Marbà, N., Megonigal, P., Pidgeon, E., Herr, D.,
Gordon, D., Baldera, A., 2012. Estimating global “blue carbon” emissions from con-
version and degradation of vegetated coastal ecosystems. PLoS One 7. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043542.
Pindyck, R.S., Black, T., Cooke, R., Deryugina, T., Dietz, S., Franklin, S., Howard, P.,
Knittel, C., Litterman, B., Manresa, E., Morgan, G., Newell, R., Pindyck, T., Roe, G.,
Schmalensee, R., Stern, N., 2016. The Social Cost of Carbon Revisited. (No. 22807).
Polasky, S., Segerson, K., 2009. Integrating ecology and economics in the study of eco-
system services: some lessons learned. Ann. Rev. Resour. Econ. 409–434. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev.resource.050708.144110.
Porras, I., Barton, D.N., Miranda, M., Chacón-Cascante, A., 2013. Learning From 20 Years
of Payments for Ecosystem Services in Costa Rica. Int. Inst. Environ. Dev., London,
pp. 35.
Ramnarine, R., Voroney, R.P., Wagner-Riddle, C., Dunfield, K.E., 2011. Carbonate re-
moval by acid fumigation for measuring the δ13C of soil organic carbon. Can J of Soil
Sci 91, 247–250.
Ray, R., Ganguly, D., Chowdhury, C., Dey, M., Das, S., Dutta, M.K., Mandal, S.K.,
Majumder, N., De, T.K., Mukhopadhyay, S.K., 2011. Carbon sequestration and annual
increase of carbon stock in a mangrove forest. Atmos. Environ. 45, 5016–5024.
Rönnbäck, P., 1999. The ecological basis for economic value of seafood production
supported by mangrove ecosystems. Ecol. Econ. 29, 235–252.
Rosentreter, J.A., Maher, D.T., Erler, D.V., Murray, R.H., Eyre, B.D., 2018. Methane
emissions partially offset “blue carbon” burial in mangroves. Sci. Adv. 4 (6),
eaao4985.
Salem, M.E., Mercer, D.E., 2012. The economic value of mangroves: a meta-analysis.
Sustainability 4, 359–383. https://doi.org/10.3390/su4030359.
Schep, S., Johnson, A.E., Van Beukering, P., Wolfs, E., 2012. The Fishery Value of Coral
Reefs in Bonaire.
Schep, S., Ruesen, M., Van Beukering, P., Botzen, W., Barbara, S., 2014. Does Tourism
Growth on the Galapagos Islands Contribute to Sustainable Economic Development?:
An Ecosystem Valuation from a Tourist Perspective and a Cost-Benefit Analysis of
Tourism Growth Scenarios.
Schile, L.M., Kauffman, J.B., Crooks, S., Fourqurean, J.W., Glavan, J., Megonigal, J.P.,
2016. Limits on carbon sequestration in arid blue carbon ecosystems. Ecol. Appl. 27
(3), 443–482. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1489.
24
Ecological Economics 160 (2019) 12–24
Schiller, L., Alava, J.J., Grove, J., Reck, G., Pauly, D., 2015. The demise of Darwin's fishes:
evidence of fishing down and illegal shark finning in the Galápagos Islands. Aquat.
Conserv. Mar. Freshwat. Ecosyst. 25, 431–446. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2458.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.07.013.
Shepherd, S.A., Martinez, P., Toral-Granda, M.V., Edgar, G.J., 2004. The Galápagos sea
cucumber fishery: management improves as stocks decline. Environ. Conserv. 31,
102–110.
Snell, H.M., Stone, P.A., Snell, H.L., 1996. A summary of geographical characteristics of
the Galapagos. J. Biogeogr. 23, 619–624.
Sterner, T., Coria, J., 2013. Policy Instruments for Environmental and Natural Resource
Management. Routledge.
Taylor, J.E., Hardner, J., Stewart, M., 2009. Ecotourism and economic growth in the
Galapagos: an island economy-wide analysis. Environ. Dev. Econ. 14, 139. https://
doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X08004646.
Thompson, B.S., Clubbe, C.P., Primavera, J.H., Curnick, D., Koldewey, H.J., 2014. Locally
assessing the economic viability of blue carbon: a case study from Panay Island, the
Philippines. Ecosyst. Serv. 8, 128–140.
Thur, S.M., 2010. User fees as sustainable financing mechanisms for marine protected
areas: an application to the Bonaire National Marine Park. Mar. Policy 34, 63–69.
Tol, R.S.J., 2009. The economic effects of climate change. J. Econ. Perspect. 23, 29–51.
Turner, R.K., Daily, G.C., 2008. The ecosystem services framework and natural capital
conservation. Environ. Resour. Econ. 25–35.
U.S. EPA, 2009. Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services.
Usseglio, P., Friedlander, A.M., Koike, H., Zimmerhackel, J., Schuhbauer, A., Eddy, T.,
Salinas-de-León, P., 2016. So long and thanks for all the fish: overexploitation of the
regionally endemic galapagos grouper mycteroperca olfax (Jenyns, 1840). PLoS One
11, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165167.
Vegh, T., Jungwiwattanaporn, M., Pendleton, L., Murrey, B., 2014. Mangrove Ecosystem
Services Valuation: State of the Literature. (https://doi.org/NI WP 14-06).
Velasco, M., Anastacio, S., Salinas Gonzalez, S., 2014. Diagnóstico de la Situacion Actual
de la Comercialización de los Productos de la Pesca Artesanal.
Waite, R., Burke, L., Gray, E., van Beukering, P., Brander, L., McKenzie, E., Pendleton, L.,
Schuhmann, P., Tompkins, E., 2014. Coastal Capital: Ecosystem Valuation for
Decision Making in the Caribbean.
Wium-Andersen, S., Hamann, O., 1986. Manglares de las Islas Galápagos. Inst. Goegráfico
Mil. Rev. Geográfica 23, 101–122.
Wunder, S., 2005. Payments for Environmental Services: Some Nuts and Bolts.
Yee, S.M., 2010. REDD and BLUE Carbon: Carbon Payments for Mangrove Conservation.
Cent. Mar. Biodivers. Conserv., UC San Diego, San Diego, CA, pp. 57.
Zarate-Barrera, T.G., Maldonado, J.H., 2015. Valuing blue carbon: carbon sequestration
benefits provided by the marine protected areas in Colombia. PLoS One 10, 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126627.