Land Use Policy 81 (2019) 736–749

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

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

Optimal mangrove restoration through community engagement on coastal T

lands facing climatic risks: The case of Sundarbans region in India
Ram Ranjan
Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Macquarie University Sydney, 2109, Australia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Restoration of mangrove forests through community involvement offers the promise of reaping multiple en-
Mangrove restoration failure vironmental dividends while simultaneously helping local communities augment their livelihoods through gen-
Cyclone risks in sundarbans erating payments from ecosystem services. However, there exist several challenges to the success of such re-
Blue carbon storation projects. In this paper, one such key challenge, that of the risk of extreme climatic events, is considered.
Mangrove restoration
Optimal rate of mangrove restoration on public coastal lands is derived in the presence of a future risk of extreme
Payments for environmental services
Land use change
cyclones decimating the mangrove forests. Using the context of the Sundarbans region of India, which has the
largest mangrove forests on the planet, we develop a model of community led restoration efforts where local
inhabitants receive credit for carbon sequestered in the process. Results indicate that when communities do not
receive outside support through wages or reimbursement of plantation costs, restoration efforts get spread over a
longer time horizon. Presence of a risk of future cyclone events that could destroy the restored forests prompts
speedier restoration, which may not be an optimal outcome from the perspective of global carbon mitigation
efforts. An optimal plan that is primarily concerned with deriving sequestration benefits from newly restored
mangroves leads to lower restoration levels in the presence of higher cyclone risks. However, irrespective of the
institutional setting under which restoration is incentivized, given the relatively stable nature of underground
carbon stored in mangroves, it is optimal to undertake higher restoration efforts when climatic risks are low.

1. Introduction
The planet’s mangrove forests, spread over 137,760 sq km, store the
highest carbon per hectare of all terrestrial ecosystems. Mangrove forests are
also considered relatively stable depositories of carbon. Most of the carbon
sequestered in mangroves is stored underground (about 2.96 pg C), while a
fraction is stored in the above ground woody biomass (about 1.23 pg C)
(Hamilton and Friess, 2018). Further, mangroves take up only 5 percent of
the global coastal area but sequester up to 15 percent (or 24 Tg C yr−1) of
the total coastal carbon contained in the sediments (Alongi, 2014). However,
owing to deforestation, the carbon stored in the mangroves is currently being
released back into the atmosphere at a rapid rate (between 90 and 970 TgC
Yr-1). Also, due to deforestation, the inorganic carbon dissolved in deep soils
leaks through sub-surface layers into adjacent waterbodies (Alongi, 2014).
Over the past 50 years, almost 50 percent of the global mangroves have been
lost (Hamilton and Friess, 2018). In 2012, mangroves were storing 2 percent
less carbon compared to 2000 levels, which translates into an annual rate of
loss of 317 tons of carbon dioxide (Hamilton and Friess, 2018).
Mangrove forests are getting destroyed primarily from human population
pressures (Siikamaki et al., 2012). A majority of the global mangrove forests
reside within the Indo-pacific region. In south-east Asia, the annual rate of
loss of mangroves (averaged over the period 2000–2012) has been estimated
at about 0.18% (Richards and Friess, 2016). The Sundarbans region, con-
tained within 9630 sq km (about a million ha) of India and Bangladesh, is
home to the largest mangrove forests in the world (Sanchez-Triana et al.,
2018). It is also home to almost 5 million people, serving them as a significant
source of livelihood. A few centuries ago the Sundarbans region extended all
the way up to Kolkata, but it has been shrinking with time due to population
pressure (Sanchez-Triana et al., 2018). Mangrove lands have been reclaimed
through deforestation for construction of embankments, which help keep
seawater out, thereby facilitating agriculture. Damming of rivers and con-
struction of roads, further affect sedimentation rates in the mangroves, which
is crucial for their future survival and adaptation to sea level rise (slr).
Along with the direct land use change related deforestation of man-
groves, climatic processes are further expected to aggravate the rate of loss
of mangroves globally. Mangroves face significant threats from slr despite
their capability to adapt to rising sea levels through vertical accretion of
sediments (Lovelock et al., 2015). Soil accretion is facilitated through
trapping of sediments caused by a slowing of the water flow as well as from
trapped wooden debris in their roots (Krauss et al., 2010). This process of
adaptation to slr helps mangroves grow vertically between 0.7 to 20 mm/
year. However, hurricanes and cyclones can significantly damage

E-mail address: ram.ranjan@mq.edu.au.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.047
Received 27 April 2018; Received in revised form 9 August 2018; Accepted 23 November 2018
0264-8377/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Ranjan
mangroves through uprooting and, in some cases, cause a complete loss of
the above-ground biomass (Ward et al., 2016). Yet storms also play a vital in
helping mangroves adapt to slr through causing sediment deposition. For
instance, hurricane Wilma in Florida led to a sediment deposition of 56 mm
(Whelan et al., 2009). Climatic processes, such as slr, increased incidences of
hurricanes and storms, and increasing variability of precipitation and tem-
peratures, often interact with each other, thereby further exacerbating the
impact on mangroves through a feedback effect (Ellison, 2015; Ward et al.,
2016). Mangroves in Asia are more likely to be adversely affected by an
increase in the frequency and intensity of storms (Ward et al., 2016). The
Sundarbans region, in particular, is highly prone to cyclonic activity. There
have been at least 35 major cyclones in the 100-year period spanning 1909
to 2009 (Chakraborty, 2015). Further, it has been estimated that relative sea
level has been rising in the Sundarbans at a rate of between 3 to 8 mm/year,
when averaged over the 1939–1999 period (Bhattacharyya et al., 2013).
Mangroves provide a number of valuable ecological and economic
services, however, due to market failure, there occurs an excessive
exploitation of the mangrove regions without adequate conservation
and restoration efforts. Among all types of ecosystem services, man-
groves suffer from the largest discrepancy between the actual value of
services provided and their market valuation (Balmford et al., 2002;
Locatelli et al., 2014). Yet it is not very costly to prevent their de-
struction. Siikamaki et al. (2012) estimate that the marginal cost of
preventing deforestation in the mangroves globally is about $10/ton of
CO2. Further, the benefits of preserving mangroves far outweigh the
restoration costs. For instance, the output elasticity of shrimp produc-
tion with respect to mangrove area was estimated to be 2.8 in the La-
guna de terminus region of Campeche Mexico, for the period 1980–90
(Barbier and Strand, 1998). Similarly, the marginal effect of mangroves
on marine fish production has been estimated to be 1.86 ton/ha/yr in
India (Annebonia and Kavi Kumar, 2017). Apart from fishing revenues,
mangroves also generate carbon incomes for local communities.
Carbon credits generated through mangrove restoration are sold under
the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the UN or in voluntary
carbon markets through Verified Carbon Standards or Plan Vivo (Wylie
et al., 2016). Local communities share the revenues from carbon credits
but must undertake restoration and monitoring efforts for the duration of
the project. Successful examples include the Mikoko Pamoja mangrove
restoration project in Gazi Bay Kenya; the Markets and Mangroves (MAM)
project in Ca Mau Vietnam; the Sundarbans mangrove restoration project
(involving restoration of 6000 ha of new mangroves); and the Blue Forests
mangrove restoration project in Madagascar (Wylie et al., 2016). How-
ever, many mangrove projects have also failed due to restoration in wrong
sites, such as mudflats, that are prone to flooding and soil erosion, or due
to planting of a single (or wrong type of) species, or inadequate con-
sideration of the hydrological phenomenon involved (Lewis, 2001). For
instance, following the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004, several mangrove
restoration projects were undertaken in Sri Lanka, with the objective of
preventing losses to lives in the future. However, out of the 1000 ha of
restored mangrove area, only 200 ha was considered successful (Kodikara
et al., 2017). In Philippines, a large-scale mangrove restoration project was
undertaken over 44,000 ha of mudflats and sandflats. However, due to
improper site selection, the project not only failed but also destroyed
productive habitats (Lewis, 2001). Mangrove restoration projects also fail
because of a lack of adequate consideration of community livelihood im-
pacts (particularly in the short term) resulting from restrictions on fuel-
wood harvesting and fishing in the mangrove regions. McNally et al.
(2011) measured the impact of fuelwood and fishing restrictions on local
communities around the protected areas of the Saadani National Park in
Tanzania. They found that such restrictions led to an immediate reduction
in the mangrove-derived fuelwood consumption, however, in the long
term, the fishing and shrimping incomes had doubled.
With respect to mangrove restoration, the crucial policy question is over
ensuring their long-term success. Apart from anthropogenic deforestation,
some key threats faced by forests include those from snow, fire, pests, wind
damage, slr and pathogens. However, of all forest types, mangroves face no
737
Land Use Policy 81 (2019) 736–749
risks with respect to snow and fires, whereas slr and wind damage related
risks are more relevant (Locatelli et al., 2014). Further, mangroves also
demonstrate a higher level of resilience and dynamism to such natural
hazards (Locatelli et al., 2014). Newly restored mangroves, in particular, are
prone to failure at various stages, including failure of planted saplings to
grow, loss due to livestock grazing and community harvesting, losses from
flooding, cyclones and slr, and illegal harvesting and inundation by shrimp
mafia. Yet given their significance with respect to contribution towards
global carbon sequestration and in order to prevent further release of sub-
stantial levels of mangrove carbon, it is important to encourage their re-
storation and preservation through monetary incentives. The voluntary
carbon certificate scheme and clean development mechanism of the United
Nations are examples of such programs that have actively sought to pro-
mote mangrove restoration. However, in order to realistically account for
the failure risks faced by newly restored mangroves, it is crucial to under-
stand what kind of incentives and tradeoffs exist for local communities
when investing in restoration efforts (de Rezende et al., 2015). Carbon
credits can help provide the right incentives when there exist strong in-
stitutional mechanisms to safeguard the restored forests and get the local
communities involved in monitoring and protection long after final pay-
ments have been made. Further, it is also important to understand whether
the payment mechanisms are not leading to perverse incentives, thereby
causing excessive restoration in hazard prone areas which are likely to be
lost in the future owing to natural calamities.
In this paper, we address these questions through setting up an optimal
restoration problem from a local community’s perspective, where tradeoffs
with existing livelihoods options such as fisheries are taken into consideration.
Further, the local community incorporates the risk of a future loss of restored
mangroves and the consequent impact on carbon credits received while de-
ciding on the optimal level of restoration. Finally, the same problem is solved
from the perspective of a manager, representing an international carbon mi-
tigation organization, whose sole aim is to sequester (or abate) a targeted level
of carbon in the least costly way while ensuring their permanence. The model
is applied on a small scale in the Sundarbans mangrove region of India, which
provides an ideal background for the aforementioned challenges.
2. Model details
In this section a formal model of optimal restoration by a local com-
munity is presented. In addition, the optimal allocation of efforts by the
community is compared to that from a manager who is primarily con-
cerned with maximizing the cheaper sequestration opportunities presented
by the mangroves (vis-à-vis conventional carbon abatement). An appli-
cation of the model to the Sundarbans region follows in Section 3.
2.1. Background
Consider that a small coastal community engages in fishing as its main
livelihood activity. While there may exist other options of sustaining liveli-
hoods, such as agriculture, migration, enterprises, a majority of the popu-
lation relies upon catching fish, prawns and crabs from the community
fisheries. The coastal region is dominated by mangrove forests, which help
sustain fish yields through providing breeding grounds for various fish spe-
cies. The community has an option to extend the mangrove forest area
through planting new mangroves in low-tide open lands. Planting, however,
comes at a cost. First, there is a cost of forgone labor time, which could have
been spent on generating additional fishing incomes. Second, there is a direct
cost of planting saplings or seeds, which either need to be collected from the
mangroves or grown in nurseries. The community can receive carbon credits
for newly restored mangroves through an international program such as
CDM. Carbon credits accrue with additional sequestration and come with the
condition that the restored mangroves cannot be harvested during the time
horizon of the project. In addition, there exists a risk of complete loss of
newly restored mangroves in the future from an extreme cyclone event, as
the community is located in a vulnerable zone. The community optimizes its
time allocation given the incentives of carbon credits and the costs of forgone
R. Ranjan Land Use Policy 81 (2019) 736–749

fisheries-based incomes as well as the risk of a future loss to the above
ground mangrove biomass. While the carbon sequestered underground is
safe from such extreme events in the short term, a loss of the above ground
biomass can curtail future soil carbon sequestration, thereby jeopardising the
investments made by the community in the past.
2.2. Model
New mangrove area, mnew , is created through restoration effort, rm (t ) , by
the community, which results in new saplings planted on lm (t ) ha of land:
mnew (t ) = lm (t )
annually by the community. Total income derived from fishing is:
q (t ) pf , (6)
where pf is the price of fish per kilo and q (t ) is the total fish catch in
each period. Variable q (t ) can be thought of as a composite fishing
commodity comprising fish species, prawns and crabs, and pf the
average price of this composite commodity.
The community also receives credit for carbon sequestered in the
newly restored mangroves. However, the community would need to
bear the intial costs of planting saplings as well as the forgone incomes
(1) from taking time out of fishing. The cost of planting, cr (t ) , is given as:

In addition, there is an existing mangrove forest of constant size, cr (t ) = dseed lm (t ) + lm (t ), (7)

mold . In reality, old mangroves get degraded and reduced in size
where dseed is the cost of saplings per hectare of plantation, and lm (t ) is a
through aggressive fishing, encroachment, construction of roads and
non-linear component of the planting cost, as captured by parameter .
dams, and could also recede naturally through climatic hazards such as
The community receives carbon credits based upon annual seques-
cyclones and slr. The community has a fixed amount of spare land in
tration in the above and below ground biomasses including under-
low tide areas which is suitable for restoration. The maximum area that
ground soil. The total carbon sequestered, cagc (t ) , in the above ground
could be turned into new mangrove forests is given by m̄ . Restoration
biaomass at any point of time is given as:
effort, rm (t ) , by the community results in new hectares planted as:
t t
lm (t ) = rm (t ) lper _ hour , (2) z 0
cagc (t ) = l m (k ) c¯agc dzdk,
0 k
z 0 + 1 (8)
where lper _ hour is a constant denoting hectares planted per hour, and
rm (t ) is measured through total number of community hours. where z , t and k denote time variables, lm (k ) is the hectare of mangroves
Key livelihood means adopted by communities in mangrove areas in- t
z 0
planted at time k, and c¯agc dz is the amount of carbon stored by
clude fishing, agriculture, migration and collecting timber and non-timber k
z 0+ 1

forest products. We focus on fishing as the main livelihood occupation as this time t in that particular hectare lm (k ) of mangroves. Parameter c̄agc denotes
is consistent with reality in the study area of concern. Fish catch is governed a fixed maximum amount of carbon that can be stored in a hectare of
by several factors including time spent fishing as well as the health of the forests. As at any point of time, there would exist different age groups of
fishery. Degraded mangroves can result in significantly lowered fish yield. forests, the amount of carbon stored in them would also vary accordingly.
We model fish yield as a function of the total mangrove area as well as the Hence, the total above ground carbon (agc) in the above ground biomass is
fishing effort. Annual fish catch is given as: given by the double integral in Eq. (8). Similarly, the total below ground
carbon (bgc) stored in the underground biomass and soil is given as:
t 0
q (t ) = c e mold (t ) f (t ) exp ( t ) + c e mnew (t ) f (t ) ,
t 0 + 1 (3) t t
z 0
cbgc (t ) = l m (k ) c¯bgc dzdk
where ce is the amount of fish caught per hour per hectare by the community 0 k
z 0 + 2 (9)
and f (t ) is the total fishing hours. We differentiate between new and old
mangroves, accounting for the fact that old mangroves could get degraded The total carbon, ctc , stored in the mangroves, therefore, would be
from over-fishing, whereas the yield of the newly restored mangroves would the sum of agc and bgc, given as:
take some time to reach maximum levels. Productivity of old mangroves t t
z 0 z 0
could decline due to uninterrupted fishing, which is captured by parameter ctc (t ) = l m (k ) c¯agc + c¯bgc dzdk
z 0 + z 0 + (10)
. Further, the term captures the time delay in yield improvement in new 0 k 1 2

mangroves. For instance, when parameters 0 and 1 take values of 5 and 50, The incremental carbon sequestration, s (t ) , would be given by the
respectively, the term has a value of 0.01, 0.39, 0.82 and 0.95 when time, t, partial of Eq. (10):
is 1, 2, 3 and 4 years, respectively. That is, it would take 4 years for newly
planted mangroves to yield similar outcomes as an old mangrove forest1. s (t ) = ctc (t )
The amount of fish caught per ha is bounded from above by x̄ , where x̄ t (11)
is an empirically observed level of fish yield per hectare, averaged over Carbon credit earned by the community accordingly is:
multiple years. We do not incorporate fish dynamics in our model, as the
community catches several types of fish species, prawns and crabs. There s (t ) pc , (12)
are no known estimates of fish growth functions in the study area. Besides,
where pc is the fixed price of carbon as negotiated under a CDM pro-
including species dynamics for all the major fish types will complicate the
gram.
analysis and detract from the main objectives of this paper. Therefore, the
Total community income, icomm , is given as:
fishing constraint for the community is modelled as:
icomm = s (t ) pc + q (t ) pf dseed lm (t ) lm (t ) (13)
t 0
c e mold (t ) f (t ) exp ( t ) + c e mnew (t ) f (t ) < x¯ (mold + mnew (t ))
t 0 + (4)
1
Finally, the utility of the community, Ucomm , is maximized through the
The community also faces a total time constraint as: optimal allocation of fishing and restoration efforts inter-temporally:
rm (t ) + f (t ) y¯ n , (5)
Ucomm = log(icomm) exp( t ) dt ,
where ȳ is the maximum total time available to a single member of the 0 (14)
community annually, and n is the community’s working population
where is the rate of time preference of the community. Other ecosystem
size. Variable f (t ) denotes the total number of fishing hours spent
services provided by mangroves such as water filtration, soil formation,
habitat for birds and animals, etc., are not considered here. Optimal re-
1
Further, even newly restored mangroves could get over-fished and start to storation effort in presence of carbon credits would be derived through
yield low fish catch in the future. However, we ignore this complication here. maximizing the current value Hamiltonian (cvh ):

738
R. Ranjan
cvh = log(s (t ) pc + q (t ) pf dseed lm (t ) lm (t )) + µ1 (rm (t ) lper _ hour )
+ µ2 (s (t )) + t ( rm (t ) f (t ) + y¯ n)+
x¯ (mold + mnew (t )) c e mold (t ) f (t ) exp ( t) c e mnew (t ) f (t )
f t 0+ 1
where µ1 and µ 2 are the shadow prices of mangrove area and carbon
stocks, respectively and f and t are the Lagrangian constraints for
community time and maximum fish catch per year.
Next, we incorporate a future risk of an extreme cyclone event to the
restored mangroves, which could lead to a loss of the above ground
mangrove biomass. The risk of a future loss of the above ground bio-
mass and release of carbon from a climatic hazard is modelled through
a hazard function, where the hazard rate, (t ) , is assumed constant:
(t ) = c (16)
The parameter c is determined through an empirically observed fre-
quency of extreme cyclone events in the region. While such phenomena
are expected to increase in frequency with climate change, considering
them endogenous is beyond the scope of this model. The post-cyclone
value function of the community, Vpost _ cc , is solved by optimizing the post-
cyclone event objective function. The post-cyclone objective function
would only involve fishing income (from old mangroves) as the commu-
nity cannot claim further carbon credits. It is also assumed that the newly
restored mangroves are destroyed so that there is no more fishing benefit
available from the same. Old mangroves can also get partly or completely
destroyed in a cyclone. In case all types of mangroves are destroyed, the
post-cyclone value function would include migration based income.
The community’s pre-cyclone optimization problem is given as2:
Ucomm _ pre = ( log(icomm ) e t e (t ) + e (t ) Vpost
0 (17)
The post-cyclone value function is not affected by any of the state
variables, however, the pre-cyclone optimal restoration strategy would be
affected by the risk of the cyclone event. This is because, the sooner the
mangroves are restored the sooner the community can claim the carbon
credits. However, a loss of restored mangroves also implies a loss of in-
vestment. It is not clear what the optimal response of the community may
be when faced with such risks, as it is not possible to derive an analytical
solution of the above problem.
When faced with such a risk of catastrophic loss, the crucial policy
question is over the optimal rate of mangrove restoration effort by a small
community. That is, will the community undertake excessive restoration
efforts due to financial incentives from carbon credits despite a large cli-
mate risk? To answer this question, it would be worthwhile considering
the above problem from the perspective of a manager who is interested
only in finding the least costly combination of abatement and sequestra-
tion time paths in order to maximize net benefits of avoided carbon
emissions. The optimization problem faced by the manager is given as:
Umanager = log( pc s (t ) pa a (t ) + scc (t ) (s (t ) + a (t ))) e
0 cheapest at 100–200 USD per ha but is also prone to failure (Lewis, 2001).
e (t ) (cagc ) scc (t ) e t dt ,
where Umanager is the manager’s utility, scc (t ) is the social cost of carbon
that is avoided due to sequestration and abatement efforts, and (cagc ) scc (t )
is a one-time carbon release due to destruction of the above-ground
mangrove biomass in the event of a cyclone. The manager chooses optimal
mangrove restoration efforts (leading to carbon sequestration) as well as
conventional abatement in order to reach a fixed carbon mitigation target
in the long run. In order to make the manager’s problem comparable to the
community’s optimal3, let this fixed target be the same amount of
2
See Reed and Heras (1992) for optimization models involving hazard
functions.
3
It is worth noting here that the manager’s objective function differs from
that of the community and hence a direct comparison of optimal restoration
plans cannot be made. However, it would still be possible to compare the two
Land Use Policy 81 (2019) 736–749
potential total carbon c̄ that would be sequestered in a newly restored
mangrove of area m̄ . We next apply the above models to the case of a
t 0
, small mangrove community in the Sundarbans region of India.
(15)
3. Mangrove restoration in the sundarbans region
The Sundarbans region in India and Bangladesh presents an ideal case
for application of the above model as the mangroves in this region offer
significant carbon storage potential (due to a large area) along with other
benefits to the local communities, such as protection from storms and li-
velihood provision. We consider a community that is in a vulnerable zone
in the Sundarbans. Such communities are located far from main markets
and hence have relatively fewer livelihood options, which makes them
more dependent upon the mangroves. Also, due to their location, these
communities are more prone to flooding during cyclones. We first discuss
the parameter calibration process, which is followed by derivation of some
key results. Calibrated parameter values are presented in Table A1 in
Appendix A. Fig. A1 in Appendix B presents a map of the study area.
3.1. Parameter calibration
We perform parameter estimation guided by a prior project executed
within the region. Restoration effort is measured in number of hours spent
planting seedlings and saplings. Number of ha of restoration per person in a
year is obtained by dividing the number of hectares planted in the Bidya
region (776 ha) by the number of women involved in the process (180
women) (Dey and Kar, 2013). This gives a value of 4.3 ha planted per year by
cc (t ) e t ) dt one labor.4 This is further divided by the number of hours available annually
(8 h/day for 5 days of 52 weeks = 2080 h) to obtain the estimate of ha
planted per person per hour. The size of the community engaged primarily in
fishing activities is estimated to be 2000 (working men and women), which is
based upon the observation that Bally village had about 2229 households with
a total working population of 4000. About 25 percent of the community ex-
clusively relied upon the fishery based activity as their livelihood source (Dey
and Kar, 2013). Here we assume that 50 percent of the working population in
our representative community would be relying upon fishing given its im-
portance as a livelihood option, especially when the role of agriculture has
been shrinking due to declining productivity caused by salt water intrusion
and soil erosion. Fish catch per person per year is calculated based upon the
observation that 2000 fishermen caught a total of 2,060,564 kg of fish in a
year in the Bally mangrove region spanning 22,314 ha (Singh et al., 2010).
This gives a yield per ha value of 92.3 kg/year. Average fish price is similarly
determined by dividing the total value of fish (110 M INR) by the total catch to
get 53.68 INR/kg or $0.83/kg (Singh et al., 2010).
Mangrove restoration options in the Sundarbans include planting,
hydrologic restoration and excavation and filling (Lewis, 2001). Empirical
estimates of all types of restoration costs range from 200 USD/ha to
t (t )
500,000 USD ha (Lewis, 2001). Planting based restoration option is the
e
(18) Restoration cost includes the cost of growing saplings in nurseries or
collecting seeds from the mangrove region. It has been estimated that the
planting costs are between $0.025 and $0.0375 per sapling, and ideally
about 4000 saplings need to be planted per ha in order for more than 2000
to survive (Dey and Kar, 2013). This gives a plantation cost of $150 per ha,
which is consistent with estimates available in the literature (Lewis, 2001).
The opportunity cost of labor time is taken to be the forgone fishing
(footnote continued)
models to ascertain how incentives to undertake higher or lower restoration
arise with an increase in climate risks across the two types of optimization
regimes.
4
Estimates over hectares planted per person could vary considerably from
region to region. Additionally, after the initial planting, there may be further
replanting and monitoring effort required depending upon the seed failure rate
and losses from livestock grazing, etc.
739
R. Ranjan
income. Estimates from previous studies in the Bidya region put this value
at about $2.5 per day (Dey and Kar, 2013). A contingent valuation study in
Indonesia estimates a monthly willingness to pay for restoring mangroves
in the Mahakam Delta region (through contributing labor time) at $29 or
roughly $1 per day (Susilo et al., 2017).
The amount of carbon sequestered in mangroves varies significantly across
species types and also carbon sequestered underground is much higher com-
pared to above ground carbon present in the tree biomass. On average, man-
groves contain 937 tons CO2/ha. In the Indo-pacific region storage is higher at
1023 tons CO2/ha (Alongi, 2012). We pick R. apiculata as a representative
species for restoration of the mangroves. R. apiculata has a mean above ground
biomass of about 159 tons of dry matter per ha (for a 15-year old stand of trees)
with an annual increment rate of 20 tons/ha (Christensen, 1978). Estimates of
agc and bgc stored in R. apiculata vary from region to region. For instance,
there was about 20 and 138 tons of CO2 per ha stored in above ground biomass
of R. apiculata in trees of ages 5 and 25, respectively (Alongi, 2012). Similarly,
below ground carbon storage value for the same ages are 559 and 670 tons of
CO2 per ha (Alongi, 2012). The total carbon (including agc and bgc) in R.
apiculata is about 1000 tons per ha. We use a non-linear function to calibrate
carbon storage function, allowing for the fact that storage is low in the early
years and then increases rapidly before finally plateauing by about year 20.
Price of carbon received in afforestation projects varies significantly globally,
from $0.65 per ton of CO2 to $50 per ton (Hamilton et al., 2010). The price
received for restoration of mangroves in the Gazi-bay region of Kenya was $10
per ton, and we pick the same value in our study.
The Sundarbans region is prone to frequent extreme cyclonic activities. In
the past, storm surges between 3–6 meters high have left the entire
Sundarbans region submerged in water for days. There has been a 10 m high
tide storm reported once every 20 years, a 7 m high surge event every 5 years
and a severe cyclone once in 3 years (Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy
Action Plan, 2009). The cyclone hazard in our model is estimated based upon
the above frequencies of storms (which is further explained in the results
section). R. apiculata can suffer more than 90 percent mortality due to its
geomorphological traits and a lack of re-sprouting capability. The risks to the
restored areas also get amplified through man-made interventions. For in-
stance, there are about 4000 km of embankments in the Sundarbans region,
which have been constructed to keep seawater out (Hazra et al., 2010).
However, these embankments are susceptible to failure during severe cy-
clones, thereby increasing the chances of loss of restored mangroves as well as
local lives. In 2009, a high intensity cyclone, Aila, destroyed close to a million
houses and 500 km of embankments (Chakraborty, 2015).
3.2. Results
The model is run in the general algebraic modelling systems (GAMS)
software using a time horizon of 100 years and a discount rate of 5 percent,
which helps mimic an infinite horizon problem. We first consider scenarios
where the community undertakes restoration efforts in absence of any risk
considerations5. The base case scenario and its variations (presented in
Section 3.2.1) do not include the risk of cyclones and the resulting man-
grove loss. Section 3.2.2 adds the risk of cyclones to the community led
restoration plan. Finally, Section 3.2.3 derives mangrove restoration by an
external manager and compares to the community led restoration outcome.
3.2.1. Base case scenario and its variations
Figures depicting time paths of key variables are presented in Appendix B.
Total mangrove area restored is depicted in Fig. A2. In the base case, there is
about 650 ha planted in the beginning, and the remaining area (out of a
maximum limit of 1000 ha) is gradually completed by year 10. The agc se-
questration is 3500 tons in the initial year and reaches a maximum level of
about 65,000 tons in 21 years (Fig. A3). The bgc sequestration reaches a
5 6
Scenarios with ‘Community’ in the figure legends refer to outcomes under a
community led restoration plan, whereas those with ‘Manager’ in the par-
enthesis (in figures 7 and 8) refer to the same executed by the manager.
740
Land Use Policy 81 (2019) 736–749
much higher value of 900,000 tons by year 21 (Fig. A4). Carbon income
received by the community is accordingly based upon the annual seques-
tration rate, where each unit of sequestered carbon receives a one-time credit
of $10 (Fig. A5). In reality, carbon credit programs may withhold a certain
fraction (say 15 percent) of credit as a buffer to account for future carbon
losses. However, buffers account for losses emanating from man-made threats
such as illegal deforestation and are not meant to insure against climatic risks.
Given a community size of 2000 individuals, per-capita credit re-
ceived is about $700 in year 2 and gradually declines due to a reduction
in the sequestration rate. In comparison to carbon income, fish income
(which is not depicted) follows a more stable path and is also higher (at
about $873 per capita)6. This highlights the relative significance of
fishing and aquaculture as a livelihood means to the rural community.
The obtained fishing income in our model mimics the reported income
levels of fishing communities from the Sundarbans study area.
Next, we consider some scenario variations from the base case in terms
of fishing income, restoration costs, mangrove area and community size.
Community size is a key determinant of the success of such restoration
programs, as a smaller community will have less spare time for restoration
and hence the tradeoffs with traditional livelihoods activities would be
much stronger. When the community size is lower at 1000 individuals
(scenario ‘work force = 1000’), the annual rate of mangrove restoration is
also relatively lower compared to the base case. It takes more than 15 years
to plant 1000 ha of new mangroves. The resulting carbon credit received by
the community is lower, however per-capita carbon income is twice the
base case due to a smaller size. A smaller community also sustainably
manages its old and new mangroves as total fish catch is lower. Relative to
base case, per capita fish income is lower in year one (at $752) due to more
time required for restoration, however, by year 17 per capita fish income
reaches its maximum value of $877. Note that fish share per person in a
smaller community would be higher compared to a larger community.
An interesting scenario is where the area of the old mangroves is
much smaller in size (scenario ‘old_mangrove_area = 5000 ha’) com-
pared to the base case area of 22,000 ha. A low mangrove area means
that the community would be required to spend more time towards
fishing to meet its livelihood needs. This makes the short-term tradeoffs
with restoration activities much tighter, resulting in a slower rate of
restoration and carbon sequestration. When the old mangrove forests
are 5000 ha, it takes one of the longest times of all scenarios to restore
new mangroves. Further, maximum per capita fish income for this
scenario is only $227, which is reduced in proportion to mangrove size.
Therefore, these scenarios highlight the fact that human or natural re-
source constraints can adversely affect the success of mangrove restoration
projects. Such constraints could also arise due to excessive dependence upon
fishing (or due to practice of commercial aquaculture) which substantially
degrades the mangroves. Therefore, communities that are already heavily
reliant upon mangroves directly or indirectly for their livelihoods sustenance,
would be less willing to undertake restoration projects in absence of quick
returns. If the community were to receive payments for carbon credits in the
new mangroves but were not allowed to fish in there (scenario ‘no fishing in
new mangroves’), their optimal restoration effort is reduced compared to the
base case. Maximum per capita fish income is $835, which is lower com-
pared to the base case. The difference in the restoration efforts between this
scenario and the base case can be thought of as the extra effort made by the
community for the sole benefit of augmenting their fishing incomes from
new mangroves. The extra fishing income generated through the newly re-
stored mangroves offers additional incentives to the community to undertake
restoration. Therefore, policy intervention measures that assured higher
fishing incomes would be more efficacious towards promoting community
led mangrove restoration. Finally, if in addition to carbon credits, the com-
munity receives wages (at $1/hr) for their time spent towards restoration
Fish income is lower in the first couple of years (at $775 and $832) when the
community undertakes a majority of the restoration efforts, but reaches its
maximum value of $873 by year 8.
R. Ranjan
efforts it leads to the fastest restoration as well a higher carbon income for
the communities involved (scenario ‘planting wages at $1/hr’).
A scenario where income from fishing is higher than the base case
(through a higher price of $4/kg), mangrove restoration finishes the
fastest (in 5 years), as the community benefits from an enhanced fish
productivity from the newly restored mangroves. Fish income is much
higher compared to the base case at $4232 per capita. It is important to
note here that the waiting period for fish productivity to reach maximum
levels in newly restored mangroves is between 3 to 5 years, whereas the
waiting period for all carbon credits to materialize is spread over 20 years.
So far, we have assumed a fixed catch per unit effort. In reality, man-
groves get degraded over time due to aggressive fishing and commercial
aquaculture. In the next scenario, we consider the possibility that the catch
per unit effort (CPUE) declines over time such that at the end of 20 years
the productivity of the old mangroves is reduced to 50 percent of the
current levels and continues to decline (scenario ‘declining CPUE_old
mangroves’). A declining CPUE leads to a lower than the maximum pos-
sible restoration level due to a declining fishing based income. Per capita
fishing income is $760 in year 1, $660 in year 8 and continues to fall
throughout the time horizon. The community cannot afford to forgo its
labor time and reduce its current fishing incomes further despite the
awareness that future productivity of the old mangroves would be lowered.
3.2.2. Incorporating cyclone risk under community restoration plan
Next, we take up the risk of a loss of the above-ground carbon from a
cyclone event. Fig. A6, depicting time paths of total mangrove restoration
levels, reveals that when the community faces a risk of loss of agc, there is
a tendency to plant mangroves much earlier as compared to the no-risk
base case. In fact, the higher the risk the sooner is the project finished
(compare scenarios ‘AGC_loss risk, old mangrove area = 22,000, c =0.2′
and ‘AGC_loss risk, old mangrove area = 22,000, c = 0.05′). The scenario
where agc loss risk is given by a c value of 0.2 and the old mangrove area
is 22,000 ha, all mangrove areas are planted in just two years. A hazard
rate of 0.2 implies that there is about 85 percent chance of a catastrophic
cyclone in the next 10 years (and a 98 percent chance of the same oc-
curring in the next 20 years). Whereas, a hazard rate of 0.05 implies that
there is only about 36 percent chance that a catastrophic cyclone will
occur in the next 10 years (though the chance of the same occurring in the
next 20 years is 62 percent).
When old mangrove area is smaller (at 5000 ha), we see a similar pattern
as well. The underlying reason for such a result is the risk of loss of the
invested effort. As mangroves continue to accumulate carbon over time, even
a small risk of a future loss has a bearing on the current investment decisions.
Therefore, it is a risk averse strategy for the community to complete the
project faster and obtain carbon credits. Note that the discounting effect
which is commonly observed in inter-temporal decision making involving
future risks is absent here due to the fact that agc comprises a small fraction
of the total sequestered carbon and its loss does not significantly impact
carbon credits directly. However, after the arrival of a cyclone event there is
a loss of the agc and the mangrove biomass, which stalls further accretion of
soil carbon (bgc). Therefore, it is intuitive that when faced with such a risk of
future stalling of carbon sequestration in the bgc, restoration process would
be expedited by the community. By planting trees earlier, the community
ensures that maximum bgc gets stored before the cyclonic event materializes,
as the threat is only posed to the agc and the future accretion of bgc, but not
to the already sequestered bgc. However, a question arises here with respect
to whether this strategy is optimal from the larger societal perspective.
3.2.3. Mangrove restoration by a manager for carbon benefits
In order to see whether the community may be undertaking excessive
restoration due to the financial incentives involved, we consider next the
problem from the perspective of a manager representing an international
agency (with the mandate to mitigate carbon globally). The manager con-
siders the most suitable way to remove a fixed amount of carbon from the
atmosphere using local mangrove restoration and conventional carbon
abatement options. Conventional abatement is available at $25 per ton and
741
Land Use Policy 81 (2019) 736–749
the cost of abatement does not increase given the scale involved (which is
equivalent to 1000 ha times roughly 1000 tons of carbon dioxide stored in
each ha of mangroves). The carbon credit paid to the community is con-
sidered a cost by the manager, and the benefit of sequestration as well as of
abatement is the avoided social cost of carbon (which is at $31 per ton
based upon recent estimates in Nordhaus (2017)). We first start with a no-
risk scenario for the manager. Compared to the no-risk scenario of the
community (the base case scenario), the manager adopts a protracted rate of
restoration effort as the mangrove carbon sequestration is a slow process
spanning 20 years (Fig. A7). Therefore, even though the avoided social cost
of carbon is much higher than the cost of sequestration through reforesta-
tion, a delayed sequestration process leads to this pattern. Next, Fig. A8
compares the reliance upon abatement and sequestration for the scenarios
involving the manager’s problem. The presence of a small risk of an extreme
cyclone event ( c = 0.05) leads to an increase in the rate of restoration
(compared to no risk case), as the risk of loss of agc also causes a stalling of
the bgc sequestration process. This makes it optimal to push the seques-
tration process to occur sooner. However, consider now that the risk in-
creases significantly ( c =0.3), and the probability of a cyclone event oc-
curring in the next 7 years is close to 85 percent. This leads to a discounting
of the mangrove sequestration option by the manager and an increase in
reliance upon the conventional abatement option.
4. Conclusion
In this paper we explore optimal mangrove restoration by small com-
munities in the Sundarbans region of India that stand to benefit from such
efforts through carbon credits as well as enhanced fish yields. However, due
to their location in a vulnerable zone, such communities also face livelihood
constraints and a risk of loss of mangroves due to extreme cyclone events. We
compare community led restoration with a purely sequestration benefit based
restoration strategy to study how the time paths and total restoration levels
vary under cyclone risks. Several key insights emerge from the analysis.
Findings suggest that carbon credits must generate incomes that are
comparable to or better than the traditional livelihood options in order to
avoid substantial tradeoffs and to ensure long-term involvement of the
community in such projects. A smaller community would have less free time
available for participation in such restoration activities and hence would
either require a higher financial incentive or would take longer to complete
the project. However, on the positive side, the carbon credits shared per-
capita are higher in a smaller community, which makes them well-off.
Communities that have already degraded their existing mangroves, due to
excessive fishing or through commercial aquaculture, will be less willing to
take up new restoration projects. This disincentive occurs due to the higher
effort required to sustain livelihoods through traditional means, which
makes them unwilling to invest in restoration projects that yield benefits
only in the long run (and come at substantial short-term income sacrifices).
Paying wages on top of carbon credits expedites the restoration process and
leads to a speedier carbon sequestration time path.
When faced with a risk of the above-ground carbon loss through man-
grove biomass destruction from a cyclonic activity, the optimal restoration
effort by the community is higher compared to a no risk scenario. That is, a
risk of future loss of the above-ground carbon expedites the restoration
process by the local community. This incentive arises due to the fact that a
loss of above-ground biomass and carbon may slow down or stop future
below-ground soil carbon accumulation process, but the carbon already
sequestered underground remains unaffected by the climatic hazard. In such
a situation, restoring sooner helps sequester more below-ground carbon and
thus helps reduce the loss of investment by the community. However, from
a larger societal perspective, it would be best not to undertake extensive
restoration in such hazard prone areas as the above-ground biomass and
carbon are also valuable. The manager, when presented with the options to
sequester carbon through mangroves or use a conventional abatement
means, tends to rely less on mangrove restoration when the risks are very
high, but for small risks their optimal response is also to expedite the re-
storation process.
R. Ranjan Land Use Policy 81 (2019) 736–749

Appendix A

Table A1
Parameter values selected for the base case scenario.
Equations Parameter values Data Source

(2)lm (t ) = rm (t ) lper _ hour lper _ hour = .002073 ha/hr Dey and Kar (2013)
c e mold (t ) f (t ) exp ( t )+ ce = 0.0000222 kg/hr/ha, Singh et al. (2010)
t 0 t0 = 5, t1 = 50 , = 0.035,
(4) c e mnew (t ) f (t ) <
t 0+ 1 x̄ = 92 kg/ha, mold (t = 1) = 22000ha ,
x¯ (mold + mnew (t )) m*old (t = 1) = 5000ha
(5) rm (t ) + f (t ) y¯ n ȳ = 2080 hours, n = 2000 , Dey and Kar (2013)
n * = 1000
(6) q (t ) pf pf =0.8$/kg, Singh et al. (2010)
pf * =$4/kg
(7) cr (t ) = dseed lm (t ) + lm (t ) dseed =$150/ha, =1.75 Dey and Kar (2013)
t t
z 0 c̄agc = 72 tons CO2/ha, Alongi (2012)
(8) cagc (t ) = lm (k ) c¯agc 0 dzdk
0 k
z + 1 1=50, 0 =2
t t
z 0 c̄bgc = 907 tons CO2/ha, Alongi (2012)
(9) cbgc (t ) = lm (k ) c¯bgc 0 dzdk
0 k
z + 2 2 =20, 0 =2

(12) s (t ) pc pc =$10/ton of CO2 Hamilton et al. (2010)

(14) 0.05 assumed
(18) (t ) = c c =0.05, 0.1, 0.2,0.3 Bangladesh climate change strategy action plan (2009)

Note: parameter values selected for scenarios other than the base case are marked with a star sign.

Appendix B

Fig. A1. Map of the Indian side of the Sundarbans forests. Note: The region marked with ‘x’ represents the study area.

742
R. Ranjan Land Use Policy 81 (2019) 736–749

Fig. A2. Hectares of new mangroves restored

by the community under various scenarios in-
volving no risk of carbon loss. Note: ‘base
case’—this is the base case scenario; ‘work
force = 1000′—assumes a lower community
population of 1000 adults; ‘planting wages at
$1/hr’—the community is paid hourly wages
for restoration effort; ‘old mangrove area =
5000 ha’–area of old mangroves is 5000 ha
instead of 22,000 ha as in base case; ‘fish
price=$4/kg’—community receives a higher
price compared to base case rate of $0.82/kg’
declining CPUE_old mangroves’—catch per
unit effort in the old mangroves declines over
time; ‘no fishing in new mangroves’—commu-
nity is not allowed to catch fish in the restored
areas.

Fig. A3. Time paths of above-ground carbon sequestered in newly restored mangroves under various scenarios involving no risk of future loss.
743
R. Ranjan Land Use Policy 81 (2019) 736–749

Fig. A4. Time paths of below-ground carbon sequestration under various scenarios involving no risk of future loss from climatic events.

744
R. Ranjan Land Use Policy 81 (2019) 736–749

Fig. A5. Annual per-capita carbon income generated to the community.

745
R. Ranjan Land Use Policy 81 (2019) 736–749

Fig. A6. Time paths of mangroves planted by the community under various scenarios involving a future risk of mangrove loss due to a cyclone event. Note: AGC_loss
risk refers to above ground carbon loss from a cyclone event, c =0.05, 0.1 and 0.2 values represent scenarios with increasing risks of the cyclonic event, and old
mangrove area refers to the size of old mangroves that the community is endowed with.

746
R. Ranjan Land Use Policy 81 (2019) 736–749

Fig. A7. Time paths of new mangroves restored compared under community’s and manager’s optimal efforts. Note: AGC_loss risk refers to above ground carbon loss
from a cyclone event, c =0.05, 0.2 and 0.3 values represent scenarios with increasing hazards of the cyclonic event, and Manager in the parenthesis refers to the
scenarios where the mangroves are restored by an external manager.

747
R. Ranjan
Fig. A8. Carbon abatement and sequestration time paths under manager’s cost-effectiveness optimization.
References
Alongi, D.M., 2012. Carbon sequestration in deep forests. Carbon Manag. 3 (3), 313–322.
Alongi, D.M., 2014. Carbon cycling and storage in mangrove forests. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci.
6, 195–219.
Annebonia, L.R., Kavi Kumar, K.S., 2017. Economic analysis of mangrove and marine
fishery linkages in India. Ecosyst. Serv. 24, 114–123.
Barbier, E.B., Strand, I., 1998. Valuing mangrove-fishery linkages-a case study of
Campeche, Mexico. Environ. Resour. Econ. 12, 151–166.
Bhattacharyya, S., Pethick, J., Sarma, K.S., 2013. Managerial response to sea level rise in
the tidal estuaries of the Indian Sundarbans: a geomorphological approach. Water
Policy 15, 51–74.
Balmford, A., Burner, P., Cooper, R., Costanza, S., Faber, R.E., Green, M., Jenkins, P.,
Jefferiss, et al., 2002. Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297,
950–953.
Chakraborty, S., 2015. Investigating the impact of severe cyclone Aila and the role of
disaster management department: a study of Kultali block of Sundarban. Am. J.
Theor. Appl. Bus. 1, 6–13.
Christensen, B., 1978. Biomass and primary production of R. Apiculata in a mangrove in
southern Thailand. Aquat. Bot. 4, 43–52.
De Rezende, C.E., Kahn, J.R., Passarelli, L., Vasquez, W.F., 2015. An economic valuation
of mangrove restoration in Brazil. Ecol. Econ. 120, 296–302.
Dey, A., Kar, A., 2013. Scaling of Mangrove Afforestation With Carbon Finance to Create
Significant Impact on the Biodiversity—a New Paradigm in Biodiversity Conservation
748
Land Use Policy 81 (2019) 736–749
Models. Field Actions Science Report, 7. . https://journals.openedition.org/
factsreports/2674.
Ellison, J., 2015. Vulnerability assessment of mangroves to climate change and sea-level
rise impacts. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 23, 115–137.
Hamilton, S.E., Friess, D.A., 2018. Global carbon stocks and potential emissions due to
mangrove deforestation from 2001 to 2012. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 240–244.
Hamilton, K., Chokkaliongam, U., Bendana, M., 2010. State of the forest carbon markets
2009: taking root and branching out. Ecosyst. Marketplace.
Hazra, S., Samanta, K., Mukhopadhyay, A., Akhans, A., 2010. Temporal Change Detection
(2001–2008) Study of Sundarbans. Working papers id: 10526, eSocialSciences. .
Kodikara, K.A.S., Mukherjee, N., Jayatisa, L.P., Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Koedam, N., 2017.
Have mangrove restoration projects worked? An in-depth study in Sri Lanka. Restor.
Ecol. 25 (5), 705–716.
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.
Lewis III, R.R., 2001. Mangrove Restoration: Costs and Benefits of Successful Ecological
Restoration. url. http://www.fao.org/forestry/10560-
fe87b898806287615fceb95a76f613cf.pdf.
Lovelock, et al., 2015. The vulnerability of Indo-pacific mangrove forests to sea-level rise.
Nature 526, 559–563.
McNally, C.G., Uchida, E., Gold, A.J., 2011. The effect of protected area on the tradeoffs
between short-run and long-run benefits from mangrove ecosystems. PNAS 108 (34),
13945–13950.
Nordhaus, W.D., 2017. Revisiting the social cost of carbon. PNAS 114 (7), 1518–1523.
R. Ranjan
Reed, W.J., Heras, H.E., 1992. The conservation and exploitation of vulnerable resources.
Bull. Math. Biol. 54 (2/3), 185–207.
Richards, D.R., Friess, D.A., 2016. Rates and drivers of mangrove deforestation in
Southeast Asia, 2000–2012. PNAS 113 (2), 344–349.
Sanchez-Triana, E., Ortolano, L., Paul, T., 2018. Managing water-related risks in the West
Bengal Sundarbans: policy alternatives and institutions. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 34
(1), 78–96.
Singh, A., Bhattacharya, P., Vyas, P., Roy, S., 2010. Contribution of NTFPs in the liveli-
hood of mangrove forest dwellers of Sundarban. J. Hum. Ecol. 29 (3), 191–200.
Siikamaki, J., Sanchirico, J.N., Jardine, S.L., 2012. Global economic potential for redu-
cing carbon dioxide emissions from mangroves loss. PNAS 109 (36), 14369–14374.
749
Land Use Policy 81 (2019) 736–749
Susilo, H., Takahashi, Y., Yabe, M., 2017. The opportunity cost of labor for valuing
mangrove restoration in Mahakam Delta, Indonesia. Sustainability 9, 2169.
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. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2 (4),
1–25 e01211.
Whelan, K., smith III, T.J., Anderson, G., Quelette, M., 2009. Hurricane Wilma’s impact on
overall soil elevation and zones within the soil profile in a mangrove forest. Wetlands
29, 16–22.
Wylie, L., Sutton-Grier, A.E., Moore, A., 2016. Keys to successful blue carbon projects:
lesson learned from global case studies. Mar. Policy 65, 76–84.