Title:

Conservation and Restoration of Mangroves: Global Status, Perspectives, and Prognosis

Author names:

Stephanie S. Romañach1, Donald L. DeAngelis2, Hock Lye Koh3, Yuhong Li4, Su Yean Teh5,

Raja Barizan Raja Sulaiman6, and Lu Zhai7

Author affiliations:
1
U.S. Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, 3321 College Ave, Davie, FL

33314, USA
2
U.S. Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, Biology Department,

University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33124, USA

3
Jeffrey Sachs Center on Sustainable Development, Sunway University, Jalan Universiti, Bandar

Sunway, 47500 Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia

4
Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Huaqiao University, Xiamen City,

Fujian 361021, People's Republic of China

5
School of Mathematical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Pulau Pinang, Malaysia
6
Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), 52109 Kepong, Selangor, Malaysia
7
Biology Department, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33124, USA

Corresponding author:

Stephanie S. Romañach, email: sromanach@usgs.gov

Page 1 of 47

© 2018. This manuscript version is made available under the Elsevier user license
http://www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/
Author contributions:

SSR, DLD, KHL and YL conceived of the review

All authors contributed to writing.

DISCLAIMER: This draft manuscript is distributed solely for purposes of courtesy review and

comments received will be addressed and treated as appropriate to ensure there is no conflict of

interest. Its content is deliberative and predecisional, so it must not be disclosed or released by

reviewers. Because the manuscript has not yet been approved for publication by the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS), it does not represent any official USGS finding or policy.

Abstract. Mangrove forests provide critical services around the globe to both human populations

and the ecosystems they occupy. However, losses of mangrove habitat of more than 50% have

been recorded in some parts of the world, and these losses are largely attributable to human

activities. The importance of mangroves and the threats to their persistence have long been

recognized, leading to actions taken locally, by national governments, and through international

agreements for their protection. In this review, we explore the status of mangrove forests as well

as efforts to protect them. We examine threats to the persistence of mangroves, consequences,

and potential solutions for effective conservation. We present case studies from disparate regions

of the world, showing that the integration of human livelihood needs in a manner that balances

conservation goals can present solutions that could lead to long-term sustainability of mangrove

forests throughout the world.

Page 2 of 47
Introduction

Mangroves are found chiefly in the intertidal zones of coastal tropical and subtropical regions of

the world (Fig. 1). They can tolerate salinities from freshwater to hypersaline exceeding 100

parts per thousand. They can also thrive under much lower salinities, but their occurrence in

terrestrial communities is limited by competition with other species better adapted to the

terrestrial environment. Mangroves are physiologically a tropics-adapted group, and frost

frequency and severity as well as minimum temperature requirements limit poleward expansion

(Twilley, 1998; Saintilan et al., 2014). Mangroves were reported by Spalding et al. (1997) to

occupy 18,100,000 ha worldwide, but this estimate of global coverage was revised downward to

13,776,000 ha by Giri et al. (2011), and then to 8,349,500 ha by Hamilton and Casey (2016). The

distribution of mangroves, which includes 118 countries, is described in detail by Tomlinson

(1986).

At least 35% of mangrove forest area was lost worldwide during the 1980s and 1990s alone

(Valiela et al., 2001), with losses of 50 – 80% in some regions (Wolanski et al., 2000). The

global loss of mangroves can be attributed largely to human population growth and development

in the coastal zone. Specific reasons are urban development, aquaculture, conversion to

agriculture such as rice farming, and overexploitation of timber.

These losses matter, as mangroves provide numerous services and benefits to nature and to

people. Mangroves play an important role in buffering coastlines against storm surges and

tsunamis through wave attenuation (Kathiresan and Rajendran, 2005; Wolanski, 2007; Barbier et

al., 2008; Teh et al., 2009). Studies have shown that the flooded area produced by Hurricane

Page 3 of 47
Wilma in 2005 in southwestern Florida would have extended 70% further inland without the

protection of the 6–30 km zone of mangroves (Zhang et al., 2012a; Liu et al., 2013; Fig. 2), and

mangroves reduced the loss of human life from the 1999 cyclone that struck Orissa, India

(Barbier, 2016). Loss of mangroves will result in less protection from both flooding and high

winds. Some countries, such as Guyana, have engaged in educational outreach to alert the public

about the potentially catastrophic consequences to mangrove deforestation (Fig. 3). Numerous

studies show that mangroves provide nursery habitat for juvenile coral reef fishes of many

species (Nagelkerken et al., 2000). Laegdsgaard and Johnson (2001) showed that mangroves,

especially the prop roots of Rhizophora, provide structural heterogeneity that is favorable both to

prey attempting to avoid predators and to predatory fish searching for invertebrate prey hiding

within the root structure. Mangroves also serve as sinks for carbon, not only through

accumulation of living biomass, but also through litter and dead wood deposition, including the

trapping of sediments delivered from the uplands. Carbon in mangrove sediments does not turn

over in the same way it does in terrestrial soil, but builds up vertically in response to sea level

rise (SLR) (McLeod et al., 2011). Another service provided by mangroves is that of a nutrient

sink. Denitrification in the anaerobic environment (Ewel et al., 1998) and nitrogen-fixation by

certain bacteria and cyanobacteria associated with mangrove mud and with above-ground root

systems (Kimball and Teas, 1975; Pelegri and Twilley, 1998) can improve water quality from

wastewater inputs.

Worldwide, natural resources fall under various levels of management and ownership, ranging

from private to government ownership (Berkes, 2004). Because of the recognized importance of

mangroves and the continuing threats to their persistence, actions have been taken internationally

Page 4 of 47
and for the conservation and sustainable use of wetlands. Protective authorities include the

United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF), Convention on International Trade in Endangered

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Convention on Wetlands of

International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention), Convention for

the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage, and the Convention on the Conservation

of Migratory Species of Wild Animals. These agreements have resulted in the protection of large

areas of mangrove forests globally. In addition to conservation agreements at the international

level, efforts by individual nations to protect or restore these forests have varied from mandated

protection by governments to locally-initiated efforts. Human use of those resources varies

depending on the level of protection. Overall, the global decline of mangroves has slowed, but

additional actions need to be taken to ensure their long-term survival (Alongi, 2002).

In this review we provide overviews of (1) Status of & Current Threats to Mangroves, (2)

Threats for the Future (3) Failures of Current Conservation Approaches, and (4) Innovation and

Success in Mangrove Conservation.

Status of and Current Threats to Mangroves

Mangroves exist on every continent except Antarctica. In this section, we will limit our

discussion to Asia (Fig. 4) and the United States of America (U.S.; Fig. 5). Asia encompasses the

largest land area of mangroves and the U.S. has been the focus of many decades of published

research on mangrove forests. Although the status of mangrove forests varies by country and

region, many mangrove forests experience similar threats to their persistence from urban

Page 5 of 47
development and timber harvest to conversion for other land uses such as agriculture and

aquaculture, which we describe in more detail in this section.

Asia

Asia has the largest land area of mangrove forest, encompassing 42% of the world’s mangroves

(Giri et al., 2011). Within Asia, Indonesia and Malaysia have the largest mangrove areas. We

focus on Malaysia and China as representative of examples of status and change.

Malaysia has about 575,000 ha of mangrove forest (Fig. 4), reduced from 695,000 in the 1970s;

that is, reduced by 17%, due to land conversion/reclamation for agriculture, aquaculture,

urbanization, infrastructure development and natural causes mainly from coastal erosion.

Located in the State of Perak, Matang Mangrove Forest is the largest mangrove forest in

Malaysia. Covering an area of about 40,000 ha, the Matang Forest was designated as a

Permanent Forest Reserve since 1904 with efforts to preserve the forest dating back to 1902,

making it the oldest mangrove reserve in Malaysia. Although Matang Forest is not designated as

a Ramsar site, it is a sustainable and well-managed forest system that produces a constant yield

of renewable forest resources while maintaining ecosystem biodiversity and richness. There are

currently seven Ramsar sites in Malaysiafour in Peninsular Malaysia, two in Sabah and one in

Sarawak. The three Ramsar sites, Pulau Kukup, Sungai Pulai and Tanjung Piai, are located in the

State of Johor. These sites are particularly rich in mangroves and intertidal mudflats. Located

about 1 km offshore from the southwestern region of Johor, Pulau Kukup is an uninhabited and

intact mangrove island of approximately 650 ha surrounded by extensive (800 ha) intertidal

mudflats. The island is important for flood control and protection from storm events and coastal

Page 6 of 47
erosion. Sungai Pulai, over 9,000 ha, is Peninsular Malaysia’s largest estuarine mangrove

system, which also includes seagrass beds, intertidal mudflats and an inland freshwater riverine

forest. It provides shoreline stabilization and flood prevention for adjacent villages. Tanjung Piai,

over 500 ha, is an 8 km strip of coastal mangroves and intertidal mudflats at the southernmost tip

of continental Asia. The mangroves along Tanjung Piai prevent excessive sediments from

entering the waterways and help stabilize the shoreline against high-energy wave action. As the

last remnants of a formerly 17,000 ha area, Sarawak Mangrove Forest Reserve of Kuching

Wetlands National Park is a mangrove forest covering approximately 6,600 ha. With over 78,000

ha of mangrove forest and peat swamp, Lower Kinabatangan-Segama Wetlands of Sabah is

Malaysia’s largest Ramsar site, formed by three protected forest reservesTrusan Kinabatangan

Forest Reserve, Kuala Maruap and Kuala Segama Forest Reserve, and Kulamba Wildlife

Reserve. The 24.2 ha Kota Kinabalu (KK) Wetland of Sabah is the most recent site being

designated by the Federal government as a Ramsar site on March 2017. Located just two

kilometers away from the KK city, the patch of mangrove forest is what remains of the original

forest along the entire coastline of the KK city before urbanization, making it a site of cultural

heritage significance.

In Peninsular Malaysia, about 1,282 ha (or about 1%) of mangroves were lost per year between

1990 and 2010 (Hamdan et al., 2010, 2012). The main reasons for such loss were identified as

land conversion for mainly agriculture and aquaculture, as well as coastal erosion. Recently,

Richards and Friess (2016) reported that more than 15,800 ha (or 2.83%) of mangrove area was

lost between 2000 and 2012. Over that period, deforestation of mangrove forests for aquaculture,

rice and oil palm plantations was identified as the major cause of the loss. They attributed 38%

Page 7 of 47
of this mangrove loss in Malaysia to conversion of mangrove forests to oil palm plantations.

Malaysia’s Matang Mangrove Forest, well-known for its sustainable forest management, is

susceptible to pollution from upstream industrial areas. Over-exploitation of scarce marine

resources and mangrove trees, in combination with pollution from nearby oil palm plantations,

are the major concerns of the Marudu Bay Mangrove, Sabah. Logging, soil erosion, loss of

wildlife, agricultural impacts, including water quality deterioration, habitat loss, and oil palm

plantations and mills are identified by Sabah Biodiversity Centre (2011) as problems that could

potentially affect Lower Kinabatangan-Segama Wetlands integrity as one of the Ramsar sites.

Located downstream of a high population density and development area, the Kuching Wetlands

National Park is at risk of environmental degradation from untreated solid and liquid waste, land-

clearing activities, as well as a nearby stone quarrying operation. Non-native plant invasions are

likely to have a significant ecological impact where they displace native species. For example,

plants such as Acrostichum aureum and Acanthus species, which often occupy deforested

mangrove areas, may restrict the re-growth of mangroves. Development and over-exploitation

exacerbating soil erosion are some of the common threats faced by wetlands in Johor such as

those of Pulau Kukup, Sungai Pulai and Tanjung Piai, which are mainly scattered along the

coastal areas and rivers.

The largest country in Asia, China, has a natural distribution of mangroves that extends from

Yulin Port, Hainan (18° 9’ N) to Fuding, Fujian (27° 20’ N) including Fujian, Guangdong, and

Guangxi provinces, Hong Kong and Hainan. The total area of mangrove forest is 25,000 ha

currently, but has been recorded as great as 250,000 ha. Mangroves experienced a 50% loss in

China, from 40,000 ha in 1957 down to 18,800 ha in the mid-1980s (He and Zhang, 2001).

Page 8 of 47
Thirty-seven species, representing 20 families and 25 genera, include 26 true mangrove species

and 11 semi-mangrove species in China (Li and Lee, 1997; Wang, 2007). Mangroves are

categorized as true mangrove and semi-mangrove species based upon their living environment

(Wang et al., 2011). True mangroves are species that are strictly distributed in the intertidal zone

while semi-mangroves are species that could both grow in the intertidal zone and on land.

Mangrove forest in mainland China makes up just 0.14% of the world's mangrove area, but holds

one third of the world’s mangrove species (Wang, 2007). Therefore, mangrove conservation in

China plays an important role in biodiversity conservation of the world’s mangrove forests.

Currently, there are 35 mangrove conservation areas in China, which are managed by central or

local governments (Chen et al., 2009). Among the 49 Ramsar Convention sites in China, some

focus specifically on protecting mangroves, such as the Dongzhaigang Mangrove Nature Reserve

(5,400 ha), Mai Po Marshes and Inner Deep Bay (1,540 ha), Shankou Mangrove Nature Reserve

(4,000 ha), Fujian Zhangjiangkou National Mangrove Nature Reserve (2,360 ha) and Guangxi

Beilun Estuary National Nature Reserve (3,000 ha).

China has experienced three stages of mangrove forest land conversion: (1) transformation to

agricultural areas in the 1960s and 1970s, (2) development of aquaculture in mangrove forests

during 1980s, and (3) recent urbanization via development of ports, docks, and business districts

(Wang, 2007). For example, in the Tieshan port of Beihai, Guangxi province, construction will

result in mangrove forest loss near 370 ha. Despite the efforts of artificially planting mangrove

forest in recent years, the mangrove loss from this project may overcome the total amount of

mangrove trees planted in all of China during one year. Invasive species also threaten the

persistence of mangrove forests. Spartina alterniflora is one of the most successful invasive

Page 9 of 47
species in mangrove wetlands and has dispersed coast-wide to all mangrove sites in China. A

species used in reforestation efforts, Sonneratia apetala, has increasingly caused concerns about

its potential to invade native mangrove forests (Ren et al., 2009). Human behavior has also

caused serious pollution and increased disease spread and pest damage in mangrove wetland

ecosystems. This includes pollution from the application of pesticides and animal waste. For

example, a Sphaeroma bloom in 2010 in Hainan and Guangxi was caused by domestic duck

farming, and caused the death of a mangrove forest (Fan et al., 2014). Another example is in

Quanzhou Bay of Fujian, where pest damage to an Aegiceras corniculatum mangrove forest was

likely caused by pollution from aquaculture development (Zuang et al., 2011; Li, 2012a,b).

United States of America

In the U.S., the State of Florida contains by far the largest area of mangrove swamp,

approximately 190,000 ha (Fig. 5; Odum et al., 1982). The area of mangroves on the northern

Gulf Coast was recently estimated for Texas at 3,790 ha, up from 2,181 ha in 1990 (Armitage et

al., 2015). In Louisiana, chill-tolerant black mangrove (Avicennia germinans) shrubs have

interspersed into saltmarsh at their northern extreme of their current range and have rapidly

recolonized and expanded in the last three decades (Michot et al., 2010; Osland et al., 2013,

2015). Mangroves are not native to Hawaii, but have been introduced, with both positive and

negative impacts (Allen, 1998). Because Florida contains the greatest spatial extent of

mangroves and greatest research emphasis in the U.S., it is the focus here (Fig. 5). The

distribution of mangroves stretches north to Cedar Key on the Gulf Coast and Ponce de Leon

Inlet on the Atlantic Coast, both at about 29° 10’ N latitude (Odum et al., 1982). Northward

expansion is occurring as a result of decreasing frequency of freezes (Doughty et al., 2016).

Page 10 of 47
Three species, black mangrove, red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle), and white mangrove

(Laguncularia racemosa) make up the mangrove community, with a fourth, buttonwood

(Conocarpus erectus), though not a true mangrove because it displays neither the viviparous

reproduction strategies nor specialized root structures of any true mangrove species (Nelson,

1994), making a transition from mangrove swamp to upland forest (Tomlinson, 1986). Most of

the area occupied by mangroves lies within Everglades National Park, which borders on Florida

Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. Much of the remaining mangrove area lies within land owned by

Federal, State and county governments, or by non-profit organizations such as the National

Audubon Society.

Although mangroves are now protected by law in some parts of the United States, a number of

threats remain. Some threats are a legacy of clear-cutting for human development, as has

occurred in Florida’s southerly island chain, in the Upper Florida Keys. Mangrove habitat was

reduced and fragmented through dredging and filling for residential canals (Kruczynski and

McManus, 2002), which increases vulnerability to further destruction or invasion by exotic

plants (Strong and Bancroft, 1994). In Florida’s vast Everglades wetland, a primary threat has

been the altered freshwater flows into the mangrove estuaries, increasing salinity in some

locations. Although mangroves can tolerate high salinity, it is known to have a negative impact

on seedlings (Koch and Snedaker, 1997), and some instances of mangrove die-off in Florida Bay

may be due to salinity outside the range of tolerance (McIvor et al., 1994). Black mangroves are

vulnerable to changes in tidal fluxes due to the type of marsh impoundment used for mosquito

control, as overflooding or hypersaline conditions can occur (Rey et al., 1990). Hurricanes are a

natural environmental disturbance in southern Florida, so mangroves are adapted to their

Page 11 of 47
periodic occurrence. However, the amount of damage from a major hurricane can be great –

thousands of hectares of mangrove forest were reported to suffer catastrophic disturbance from

Hurricane Andrew in 1992 (Doyle et al., 1995) and Hurricane Wilma in 2005 (Smith et al.,

2009). What is serious is the finding that repeated heavy disturbances have turned some former

mangroves into mudflats, which show no sign of returning to mangroves (Smith et al., 2009).

Another constant threat is the possibility of a large oil spill, as the Gulf of Mexico is a site of a

major petroleum industry. Duke et al. (1997) in a study of an oil spill from a land tank in Bahia

Las Minas, Panama, found that 69 ha of mangroves, or 6% of those in the bay, were killed, and a

further 34% suffered damage. Invasive species, particularly Brazilian pepper (Schinus

terebinthifolius) and colubrine (Colubrina asiatica), which have invaded some mangrove areas

(Davis et al., 2005), are a concern. Pollutants, herbicides, and other run-off constituents from

agricultural and urban areas also pose risks, but sea level rise, discussed below, may be a greater

future threat.

Threats for the Future

The source of the most serious threats to mangroves is increasing human population density.

Human populations and urban areas are concentrated on coastlines, displacing native vegetation.

As described in the previous section, conversion of mangrove habitat to agriculture and

aquaculture is a major factor in mangrove loss. Other direct effects are mining and the

overexploitation of timber, including clearcutting. Indirect effects include factors such as

changes in freshwater or tidal flow, pollution from oil exploration, and runoff from solid waste.

Disease and pest impacts may be furthered by some of these human-related activities

(Kathiresan, 2002). Hurricanes and cyclones cause periodic heavy damage (Doyle et al., 1995).

Page 12 of 47
Although these storms are natural, cumulative impacts can lead to habitat change (Smith et al.,

2009). Tsunamis and their associated earthquakes have also caused long term change (Roy and

Krishnan, 2005).

Climate Change

Current projections of climate change and sea level rise (SLR) indicate that these could have

multiple and varying impacts on mangroves throughout the world (Ward et al., 2016). Because

of their landscape position in the intertidal zone, mangroves are directly affected by SLR, but the

effects will depend on local topography, slope, the rate of SLR, sources and amount of sediment,

and extent of area for landward migration (Woodroffe, 1990; Gilman et al., 2008). Vertical

sediment accumulation in mangrove root systems may allow mangroves to keep up with the rate

of SLR in areas of higher elevation and those with relatively low tidal range, whereas areas of

lower elevation and those with greater tidal range may not be able to keep pace with SLR

(Ellison, 2000; Ward et al., 2016). Where possible, mangroves will continue to progressively

move inland as sea levels rise, to areas where suitable conditions occur (Ellison, 2000). Rising

global temperature may have little effect on areas already occupied by mangroves in the tropics,

but could allow them to migrate and colonize farther poleward. Increasing carbon dioxide and

nitrogen enrichment can augment the ability of Spartina to suppress growth of mangrove

seedlings, and thus change the competitive relationship between the vegetation types (McKee

and Rooth, 2008; Zhang et al., 2012b). Snedaker and Araujo (1998) have shown that increasing

carbon dioxide concentrations can alter the competitiveness of mangroves, particularly of

Laguncularia racemosa.

Page 13 of 47
These threats pose challenges for the future management and conservation of mangroves. As

some examples below illustrate, current approaches may not be adequate for those purposes and

even more challenging in changing environments.

Failures of Current Conservation Approaches

Successful management, conservation, and restoration require the commitment of local, State

and national level government as well as local communities. As patterns of human settlement

around the world continue, people are increasingly distanced from nature and therefore may be

less concerned about nature conservation (Miller, 2005; Zardiac et al., 2009). Additionally, as

with many conservation programs, benefits from mangroves might be indirect or poorly

understood by local residents or they may perceive that they are being excluded from access to

previously utilized resources (Shackelton et al., 2002). Some specific cases, and suggestions for

remedies, are described in this section.

Science-based Approaches

In Indonesia, the Segara Anakan Conservation and Development Project (SACDP), funded by

the Asia Development Bank (ADB), in cooperation with the government of Indonesia, faced

challenges from grassroots communities. The communities felt that the scientific sector did not

produce problem-solving solutions, as it was perceived to be oriented towards the wishes of

established elite communities, which led to social opposition before the implementation of the

mangrove conservation project. As a result, all solutions were compromised, and science

achieved little (Dharmawan et al., 2016). Hence, conservation efforts need to use research to find

better ways to integrate with community knowledge (Dharmawan et al., 2016).

Page 14 of 47
In Vietnam, the science-based approaches and the local knowledge-based approaches have been

separately designed to manage mangrove dominated muddy coasts (MDMCs), both with limited

success, due to inadequate integration between the two distinct approaches. Mechanisms are

needed to promote a high level of integration of local and scientific knowledge, to effectively

manage MDMCs in a sustainable way (Nguyen et al., 2017a). The science-based approaches use

specialist knowledge, are laboratory based or inventory driven, often beyond the capacity of

local communities, leaving little opportunity for the active participation and meaningful

consultation of local communities during design, planning and implementing processes (Nguyen

et al., 2017b). Local knowledge-based approaches have faced two key challenges, namely

limited local knowledge and participation, and doubtful sustainability due to financial

constraints. In short, active involvement and meaningful consultation between local communities

and the science sector is urgently needed for effective implementation of integrated science-

community based approaches (Stojanovic et al., 2004).

Lack of Integration

Globally, current management and policy efforts have not been fully successful in ensuring the

conservation and sustainable use of mangrove resources, for myriad reasons, including the

failure to integrate the differing spatial and temporal scales at which the mangrove ecosystem

services are provided (ecological provisional scale) with the scales at which the management,

policy and utilization institutions operate (societal demand scale). For example, local resource

users, operating at the demand scale, lack the incentives and institutional imperatives to consider

and integrate into the ecological provisional scales of mangrove ecosystems, resulting in a

Page 15 of 47
mismatch between benefits and costs. To help deliberation and promote conflict resolution

regarding ecosystem services, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2003, 2005)

differentiates between four major service areas, namely (a) supporting, (b) provisioning, (c)

regulating, and (d) cultural services. Nevertheless, for mangroves, the large and diverse

distributions of stakeholders, less defined systems and functions, overlapping marine and

terrestrial areas, with different regulations and jurisdictions, render this integration more

difficult. Research conducted in Indonesia and Brazil reported that social opposition has

occurred frequently over the failures in managing the conflict between mangrove resource

provision and utilization, and over the failure in integrating science with local community

knowledge (Máñez et al., 2014). Success of scientific knowledge transfer in conservation

projects depends strongly on how successful the science integrates with the local community

knowledge base.

In Brazil, mangroves are under constant threat by conversion to aquaculture, industry, and urban

development among other things, which has destroyed more than 50,000 ha, or about 4% of the

total mangrove cover over the past three decades. Restoration efforts have somewhat minimized

losses, but only 5% of the total degraded area has recuperated. Around 70% of Brazilian

mangroves are today located within preserved areas, making them easier to manage. However,

impaired by economic interests and inhibited by the lack of operative conservation policies and

best practices, the future of mangrove conservation in Brazil depends on integration of

indigenous communities, which depend on mangrove goods and services, with science and other

society sectors through integrated science-community based co-management. NGOs,

government agencies, academic institutions, and funding agencies can play the role of important

Page 16 of 47
agents of action and awareness generation (Datta et al., 2012). For example, abandoned shrimp

ponds and degraded forests cause enormous damage to artisanal fishermen, regional fisheries and

impair the natural functioning of hydrological and soil integrity. Brazilian shrimp farming could

benefit from adapting to utilize natural services provided by mangrove forests and estuaries to

produce shrimp in a sustainable way (Ferreira and Lacerda, 2016).

An integrated coastal zone management would be beneficial in Brazil and other countries given

that these environments are functionally linked through the biogeochemical processes at the

continent-ocean interface (Lundberg and Moberg, 2003; Sheaves, 2009). Legislation in Brazil

does not currently integrate buffer habitats such as coral reefs and sea grasses to protect

mangroves from human drivers. Brazil's government campaign for a shared co-management of

river basins through participation of different social sectors and stakeholders at the “Basin

Committees” could be extended to include the coastal zones within their frameworks. As the

implementers of laws, the county level of governance suffers from lack of specialists,

insufficient funding, and conflicts with other governance levels (Ferriera and Lacerda, 2016).

Innovation and Success in Mangrove Conservation

Examples can be found throughout the world of success stories in mangrove conservation

through innovative solutions that consider the needs of people living alongside mangrove forests.

Here we highlight a few of those examples.

Ecosystem Service Economic Valuation (ESEV)

Page 17 of 47
Concern over the loss of mangrove ecosystems often focuses on the disruption or loss in the

provision of ecological services by mangrove forests, such as protection of coastal development

from storms and surges that damage property and cause death and injury, as well as buffering

climate change impacts induced by sea level rise, saltwater intrusion and coastal erosion.

Valuation of ecological services has increasingly been developed and utilized in conservation

management and policy decisions. The promotion of mangrove conservation and the

enhancement of human well-being and livelihoods at the same time have been the two primary

aspirations of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals agenda (United Nations,

2015). These two apparently conflicting aspirations can be met by innovations in eco-farming

within mangrove forests to achieve harmony between humans’ wealth and mangrove health.

Consistent with the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment concept (MA, 2005), ecosystem services

may be defined broadly as the well-being provided to humans by natural ecosystems. Ecosystem

services must therefore be linked with human well-being and social-economic values, a process

known as Ecosystem Service Economic Valuation (ESEV). The development of ESEV

approaches has been fuelled by the growing need to deal with ecosystem degradation globally,

and valuation studies have been advocated to support decision-making and management of

ecosystems. ESEV provides useful information about the social-economic benefits and costs

associated with alternative coastal policies, facilitating the assessment of trade-offs and synergies

inherent in ecosystem-based management.

To inform decision making, ESEV can be used to connect science and community engagement

into effective policy. Translating good science and strong community engagement into effective

Page 18 of 47
policy can be difficult, as scientists, communities, and decision makers often operate within

different time frames, in diverse areas of expertise and knowledge, and with differing objectives

and incentives (Waite et al., 2015). The science-community-policy gap can be narrowed by

improving communication among scientists, decision makers, and other stakeholders through

capacity building, outreach, and engagement. We suggest that scientific research would likely be

used in management decisions if it explicitly responds to the needs of decision makers, and

collected valuation data are targeted at specific policy issues.

Major challenges faced by ESEV in developing countries stem from the lack of data, lack of

funding, and lack of institutional trust (Torres and Hanley, 2017). ESEV can be used to identify

who gets the benefits, and who faces the costs, particularly across the social-economic divide.

Estimation of non-use values should be transparent and performed with collaboration among

social, natural, and political scientists to build trust and to reduce conflicts of interest (Torres and

Hanley, 2017). The local users’ complex perceptions of landscape, their holistic sense of well-

being, and their context specific socio-cultural valuation of mangrove ESEV beyond the

monetary value are indispensable criteria to be incorporated into conservation policies (Queiroz

et al., 2017). A good understanding of the complex interrelationships between social and natural

systems and of the multiple dimensions and different time scales of ecosystem services is crucial.

Such an approach is consistent with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals of

improving human well-being and of promoting the conservation of marine ecosystems (United

Nations, 2015).

Page 19 of 47
An example of the usefulness of ESEV is the economic valuation of mangrove forests in India,

which has shown a significant rise in mangrove cover in the State of Gujarat post-1993 that is

attributed to mangrove plantation or regeneration activities in the state (Sahu et al., 2015; FSI,

2011). Mangrove-related fish species have been shown to contribute 10 to 32% to total marine

fisheries catch. The change in fish production due to changes in mangrove cover is examined by

comparing fish production in Gujarat to other coastal regions of India, under the The Economics

of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) India initiative. The marginal effect of mangroves on

total marine fish output in India as a whole is estimated at 1.86 tonnes per hectare per year, with

23% or INR 68 billion in Gujarat (Anneboina et al., 2017; values are standardized to 2012-2013

prices).

In Southeast Asia in general, mangroves are generally undervalued in decision making relating to

their use, conservation, and restoration. Brander et al. (2012) constructed a database containing

130 value estimates, for mangrove ESEV in Southeast Asia, standardised to USD per hectare per

year in 2007 prices. The mean and median values of ESEV for mangrove ecosystem services are

4,185 and 239 US$/ha/year respectively, with high variability across study sites due to vast

variations in the bio-physical characteristics of the site and the socio-economic characteristics of

the beneficiaries of ecosystem services. A meta-analytic value function is used to estimate the

change in ESEV of mangrove ecosystem services in Southeast Asia under a baseline scenario of

mangrove loss for the period 2000–2050. The estimated foregone annual benefits in 2050 are

US$ 2.2 billion, with a prediction interval of US$ 1.6–2.8 billion. These estimates of mangrove

ecosystem services are particularly important to Indonesia, which has the largest stock of

Page 20 of 47
mangroves in 2000 but also faces the largest losses of 1.7 million hectares or 38% over the

period 2000–2050.

The Wider Caribbean Basin (WCB) economy, heavily dependent on tourism, fisheries, and

coastal protection, is driven by coastal ecosystem services provided by mangroves and coral

reefs. Despite the challenges, coastal ESEV in the WCB has helped justify fishing regulations,

establish marine protected areas, award or settle damage claims, and identify sustainable sources

of finance for conservation, which work toward long-term viability (Waite et al., 2015).

However, the overall economic value of ecosystem goods and services in the WCB remains

largely unquantified (Schuhmann et al., 2015). Current ESEV valuation efforts have been

piecemeal, fragmented, and largely unconnected to policy needs (Schuhmann et al., 2015).

Valuation efforts and supporting data collection on marine ecosystems would benefit from

integration across disciplines, institutions, and nations within the WCB, as most marine

resources are transboundary and require international collaboration for sustainable use. ESEV

can be mainstreamed into regional policy processes such as the Caribbean Large Marine

Ecosystem Strategic Action Programme (CLME-SAP) adopted in 2013 by the countries of the

WCB (Mahon et al., 2014).

Inclusion of Human Needs

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN-SDG) acknowledge the harmonious

co-existence of natural ecosystems and humans and call for the concurrent improvement of

human well-being and livelihoods while promoting the conservation of marine ecosystems

(United Nations, 2015). Efforts have been devoted in many parts of the world to achieving this

Page 21 of 47
harmonious co-existence by means of innovation in sustainable eco-farming aquaculture

practices within mangrove forests. We briefly present three case studies in Guangxi of China, in

Ca Mau of the Mekong Delta, and in the Volta estuary of Ghana, to illustrate the potential of

mangrove conservation and restoration facing increasing demands on mangrove resources due to

population growth.

In Guangxi Province of China, an eco-farming aquaculture system that does not require cutting

of mangrove trees or conversion of mangroves has been perfected with no industrial feed input,

following field trials between 2007 and 2012 conducted in mangrove areas. This unique

innovation succeeded in addressing the conflict between mangrove conservation and economic

return of aquaculture (Fan et al., 2013). Using a network of underground tubes and pipes buried

in between mangrove roots to augment benthic habitats for fish, this system can bring in mean

production of between USD 27,000, and 45,000 per hectare per annum. The environmentally

friendly eco-farming site is accessible by boardwalks that facilitate ecotourism and public

education, thereby increasing the income of the farmers and promoting UN-SDG. The system

has been shown to be surge resistant, easy to operate, and has low management cost, while the

products are of high quality and high value.

Along the Mekong Delta, a study in the Ca Mau province supports the hypothesis that shrimp

farmers may be able to plant, protect, and sustainably manage mangroves if they are given

sufficient economic incentives, adequate legal rights, and full responsibilities over their allocated

mangrove forests. That mangrove conservation and shrimp farming can co-exist in harmony in

an environment of economic incentives supported by appropriate legislation, calls for a re-

Page 22 of 47
evaluation of the perception that shrimp farming necessitates deforestation and degradation of

mangrove habitat (Ha et al., 2012). As income from mangrove timber harvests is very low

compared to shrimp harvests, an equitable profit sharing scheme has been devised to ensure that

maximizing aquaculture production will not compromise mangroves’ functional integrity. While

complying with the regulations stipulated by the State regarding forest-to-pond ratio, shrimp

farmers need to also devote attention to maintaining the quality and integrity of mangroves under

their care. This seemingly conflicting requirement poses a constant challenge to the sustainability

of this arrangement (Ha et al., 2012; Bush et al., 2010).

A study in the Volta estuary of Ghana embraced the concept of community based co-

management of mangrove restoration and management at the local scales in which resource users

are the key stakeholders, who play significant roles and responsibilities in maintaining mangrove

conservation within their jurisdiction (Aheto et al., 2016). Resource users’ livelihoods, food

security, economic benefits and wellbeing are the primary motivation to sustainably exploit,

restore and manage the resources (Wagner, 2001).

Financial motivations can be the basis for sustainable mangrove reforestation and prevention of

unsustainable exploitation of mangrove stands in Volta and in other regions. Successes in

community-based mangrove management have also been achieved in several countries around

the world, especially in South and Southeast Asia, South America, and Eastern and Southern

Africa (Datta et al., 2012). This finding is consistent with the observation of Melana et al. (2000)

that “people first and sustainable mangrove forest management will follow”. In this context,

replanting and restoration communities are not primarily motivated by ecological interests alone

Page 23 of 47
but rather in conjunction with compensatory financial rewards. Achieving clarity on ownership

and the rights of access to coastal resources could lead to more effective mangrove resource

management through local institutional arrangements. Local communities alone cannot typically

manage coastal ecosystems for reasons such as limited research capacity, limited area of

jurisdiction, budget constraints, and local politics (Sorensen and McCreary, 1990). With

objectives clearly established at the outset, co-management is an approach in which governments

can enforce certain authority and share responsibilities with local communities in coastal

resource management with resource users, academic institutions, and non-governmental

organizations as partners.

Summary

Coastal mangrove forests provide invaluable and irreplaceable services to people and wildlife,

making their protection critical. As loss of mangrove habitat continues throughout much of the

world, solutions to reverse this downward trend will need to involve commitments from many

parties. Policies enacted and enforced by government are one part of that protection, but likely

not sufficient in isolation. An examination of studies throughout the world can help guide the

implementation of successful conservation and restoration practices. These restoration efforts,

when put into practice, would require the buy-in and commitment of local people with the will to

conserve these habitats that could otherwise serve personal gain through timber harvest, for

example. Citizen science can also be employed as a means to engage people and benefit from

their local knowledge. Information and data provided by locals have been used for conservation

initiatives, for example protected area planning (e.g., Scholz et al., 2004), natural resource

monitoring (e.g., Giordano et al., 2010), and disease threats (e.g., Dhondt et al., 1998). Data

Page 24 of 47
collected can be used to assist with monitoring, modeling, and restoration and conservation

planning. With the engagement of local people living with these resources, we suggest that the

current rates of decline can be slowed and ultimately reversed.

There remains a paucity of academic literature examining the utilization of ESEV by decision-

makers. Overall ESEV is used more for communication and advocacy than for decision-making

or for setting up economic and financial instruments (Marre et al., 2015). In many nations, ESEV

has not been perceived as critical in the design, adoption, or implementation of policy measures

regarding coastal and marine ecosystems (Marre et al., 2015). Ideally, collaborations between

researchers and decision-makers would be enhanced to facilitate research and knowledge

transfer, as well as to promote uptake and impact within policy contexts. ESEV studies can

generate information on the costs associated with species and habitat loss, the benefits of

conservation and restoration efforts, and economic dependence on natural ecosystems.

Appropriate and timely ESEV of ecological services that contribute to better-informed decision

making can benefit the protection, restoration, and development of coastal resources in a

sustainable manner.

Climate change and SLR will have varying impacts on mangrove habitats throughout the world.

In the face of SLR, some regions, such as Florida, will have the advantage of having more room

for mangroves to expand inland, whereas in more populated coastal regions without a protected

coastal zone, there is more likely to be the problem that humans occupy areas inland, thus

potentially restricting inland migration. Higher temperatures might not impact mangroves in

more tropical regions such as Malaysia, but moving away from the equator may increase the

Page 25 of 47
likelihood that warming temperatures will promote poleward expansion. Proactive engagement

with governments and the public in these potential regions of mangrove expansion may help with

conservation efforts.

Identifying and implementing approaches to the conservation and restoration of mangrove

habitats that can be applied across the globe may accelerate learning and protection efforts. Here

we provide insights from many countries around the world on various successes and failures in

mangrove conservation and restoration. These insights can provide a platform to identify

successful solutions. Such global learning and action may secure the future of mangrove forests

and the services they provide worldwide.

Acknowledgments

We thank T. Doyle, S. Haider, and three anonymous reviewers for providing helpful comments

on this review, and A. Benscoter for editorial and organizational assistance. Any use of trade,

firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.

Government. TSY and KHL gratefully acknowledge the financial support by FRGS Grant

203/PMATHS/6711569 and the information provided by Wetlands International Malaysia. KHL

is grateful to the Jeffrey Sachs Center on Sustainable Development of the Sunway University for

providing a conducive environment to pursue research on sustainable development. TSY

gratefully acknowledges the L’Oréal-UNESCO Women in Science Fellowship 2017. SSR and

DLD were supported by the US Geological Survey’s Greater Everglades Priority Ecosystem

Science program.

Page 26 of 47
Literature Cited

Aheto, D.W., Kankam, S., Okyere, I., Mensah, E., Osman, A., Jonah, F.E., Mensah, J.C., 2016.

Community-based mangrove forest management: implications for local livelihoods and coastal

resource conservation along the Volta estuary catchment area of Ghana. Ocean. Coast. Manage.

127, 43–54.

Allen, J., 1998. Mangroves as alien species: the case of Hawaii. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. Lett. 7,

61–71.

Alongi, D.M., 2002. Present state and future of world’s mangrove forests. Environ. Conserv. 29,

331–349.

Anneboina, L.R., Kumar, K.S.K., 2017. Economic analysis of mangrove and marine fishery

linkages in India. Ecosyst. Serv. 24, 114–123.

Armitage, A.R., Highfield, W.E., Brody, S.D., Louchouarn, L., 2015. The contribution of

mangrove expansion to salt marsh loss on the Texas Gulf Coast. PLoS ONE. 10, e0125404.

Barbier, E.B., 2016. The protective service of mangrove ecosystems: a review of valuation

methods. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 109(2), 676–681.

Page 27 of 47
Barbier, E.B., Koch, E.W., Silliman, B.R., Hacker, S.D., Wolanski, E., Primavera, J., Granek,

E.F., Polasky, S., Aswani, S., Cramer, L.A., Stoms, D.M., 2008. Coastal ecosystem-based

management with nonlinear ecological functions and values. Science. 319, 321–323.

Berkes, F., 2004. Rethinking community‐based conservation. Conserv. Biol. 18, 621–630.

Brander, L.M., Wagtendonk, A.J., Hussain, S.S., McVittie, A., Verburg, P.H., Groot, R.S., van

der Ploeg, S., 2012. Ecosystem service values for mangroves in Southeast Asia: a meta-analysis

and value transfer application. Ecosyst. Serv. 1, 62–69.

Bush, S.R., van Zwieten, P.A.M., Visser, L., van Dijk, H., Bosma, R., de Boer, W.F., Verdegem,

M., 2010. Scenarios for resilient shrimp aquaculture in tropical coastal areas. Ecol. Soc. 15(2),

15.

Chen, L.Z., Wang, W.Q., Zhang, Y.H., Lin, G.H., 2009. Recent progresses in mangrove

conservation, restoration and research in China. Plant Ecol. 2, 45–54.

Datta, D., Chattopadhyay, R.N., Guha., P., 2012. Community based mangrove management: A

review on status and sustainability. J. Environ. Manage. 107, 84–95.

Davis, S.M., Childers, D.L., Lorenz, J.J., Wanless, H.R., Hopkins, T.E., 2005. A conceptual

model of ecological interactions in the mangrove estuaries of the Florida Everglades. Wetlands.

25, 832–842.

Page 28 of 47
Dharmawan, B., Böcher, M., Krott, M., 2016. The failure of the mangrove conservation plan in

Indonesia: Weak research and an ignorance of grassroots politics. Ocean Coast. Manage. 130,

250–259.

Dhondt, A.A., Tessaglia, D.L., Slothower, R.L., 1998. Epidemic mycoplasmal conjunctivitis in

house finches from eastern North America. J. Wildlife Dis. 34(2), 265–280.

Doughty, C.L., Langley, J.A., Walker, W.S., Feller, I.C., Schaub, R., Chapman, S.K., 2016.

Mangrove range expansion rapidly increases coastal wetland carbon storage. Estuar. Coast. 39,

385–396.

Doyle, T.W., Smith III, T.J., Robblee, M.B., 1995. Wind damage effects of Hurricane Andrew

on mangrove communities along the southwest coast of Florida, USA. J. Coastal Res. 21, 159–

168.

Duke, N.C., Pinzon, Z.S., Prada, M.C., 1997. Large-scale damage to mangrove forests following

two large oil spills in Panama. Biotropica. 29, 2–14.

Ellison, J.C., 2000. How South Pacific mangroves may respond to predicted climate change and

sea-level rise, in: Gillespie, A., Burns, W.C.G. (Eds.), Climate change in the South Pacific:

Impacts and Responses in Australia, New Zealand, and Small Island States. Springer

Netherlands, pp. 289–300.

Page 29 of 47
Ewel, K.C., Twilley, R.R., Ong, J.-E., 1998. Different kinds of mangrove forests provide

different goods and services. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. Lett. 7, 83–94.

Fan, H., He, B., Pernetta, J.C., 2013. Mangrove ecofarming in Guangxi Province China: an

innovative approach to sustainable mangrove use. Ocean Coast. Manage. 85, 201–208.

Fan, H.Q., Liu, W.A., Zhong, C.R., Ni, X., 2014. Analytic study on the damages of wood-boring

isopod, Sphaeroma, to China mangroves. Guangxi Sci. 21(2), 140–146,152.

Ferreira, A.C., Lacerda, L.D., 2016. Degradation and conservation of Brazilian mangroves,

status and perspectives. Ocean Coast. Manage. 125, 38–46.

FSI. 2011. India State of Forest Report 1987–2011. Forest Survey of India, Ministry of

Environment and Forests, Government of India.

Gilman, E.L., Ellison, J., Duke, N.C., Field, C., 2008. Threats to mangroves from climate change

and adaptation options: a review. Aquat. Bot. 89, 237–250.

Giordano, R., Liersch, S., Vurro, M., Hirsch, D., 2010. Integrating local and technical knowledge

to support soil salinity monitoring in the Amudarya river basin. J. Environ. Manage. 91, 1718–

1729.

Page 30 of 47
Giri, C., Ochieng, E., Tieszin, L.L., Zhu, Z., Singh, A., Loveland, T., Masek, J., Duke, N., 2011.

Status and distribution of mangrove forests of the world using earth observation satellite data.

Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 20, 154–159.

Ha, T.T.T., van Dijk, H., Bush, S.R., 2012. Mangrove conservation or shrimp farmer’s

livelihood? The devolution of forest management and benefit sharing in the Mekong Delta,

Vietnam. Ocean Coast. Manage. 69, 185–193.

Hamdan, O., Khali Aziz, H., Shamsudin, I., 2010. Kajian Perubahan Hutan Paya Laut Negeri

Selangor, Kedah dan Kelantan (Study on the Changes of Mangrove Forest in Selangor, Kedah

and Kelantan). Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM) Reports No. 91.

https://info.frim.gov.my/infocenter/Korporat/2003Publications/Links/FRIM11.htm

Hamdan, O., Khali Aziz, H., Shamsudin, I., Raja Barizan, R.S., 2012. Status of Mangrove in

Peninsular Malaysia. Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), Kepong, Selangor Darul

Ehsan, Malaysia.

Hamilton, S.E., Casey, D., 2016. Creation of a high spatio‐temporal resolution global database of

continuous mangrove forest cover for the 21st century (CGMFC‐21). Global Ecol. Biogeogr.

25(6), 729–738.

He, Y., Zhang, M.-X., 2001. Study on wetland loss and its reasons in China. Chinese Geogr. Sci.

11, 241–245.

Page 31 of 47
Kathiresan, K., 2002. Why are mangroves degrading? Curr. Sci. 83, 1246–1249.

Kathiresan, K., Rajendran, N., 2005. Coastal mangrove forests mitigated tsunami. Estuar. Coast.

Shelf S. 65, 601–606.

Kimball, M., Teas, H.J., 1975. Nitrogen fixation in mangrove areas of South Florida, in: Walsh,

G.E., Snedaker, S.C, Teas, H.J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium on Biology

and Management of Mangroves, Vol. 2. University of Florida, Gainesville, USA, pp. 654–661.

Koch, M.S., Snedaker, S.C., 1997. Factors influencing Rhizophora mangle L. seedling

development in Everglades carbonate soils. Aquat. Bot. 59, 87–98.

Kruczynski, W.L., McManus, F., 2002. Water quality concerns in the Florida Keys: sources,

effects, and solutions, in: Porter, J.W., Porter, K.G. (Eds.), The Everglades, Florida Bay, and

Coral Reefs of the Florida Keys: an Ecosystem Sourcebook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida,

USA, pp. 827–881

Laegdsgaard, P., Johnson, C., 2001. Why do juvenile fish utilize mangrove habitats? J. Exp. Mar.

Biol. Ecol. 257, 229–253.

Li, Y.H., 2012a. Ecology and conservation of estuarine wetland in Quanzhou Bay.

Environmental Science Press, Beijing, China.

Page 32 of 47
Li, Y.H., 2012b. Effect and countermeasure of the global climate change on the mangrove eco-

system in Quanzhou Bay estuary. Straits Sci. 2, 10–12.

Li, M.S., Lee, S.Y., 1997. Mangroves in China: a brief review. Forest Ecol. Manag. 96, 241–259.

Liu, H., Zhang, K., Li, Y., Xie, L., 2013. Numerical study of the sensitivity of mangroves in

reducing storm surge and flooding to hurricane characteristics in southern Florida. Cont. Shelf

Res. 64, 51–65.

Lundberg, J., Moberg, F., 2003. Mobile link organisms and ecosystem functioning: implications

for ecosystem resilience and management. Ecosystems. 6, 87–98.

Mahon, R., Fanning, L., McConney, P., 2014. Assessing and facilitating emerging regional

ocean governance arrangements in the Wider Caribbean Region. Ocean Yearb. 28, 631–671.

Máñez, K.S., Krause, G., Ring, I., Glaser, M., 2014. The Gordian knot of mangrove

conservation: disentangling the role of scale, services and benefits. Glob. Environ. Change 28,

120–128.

Marre, J., Thebaud, O., Pascoe, S., Jennings, S., Boncoeur, J., Coglan, L., 2015. The use of

ecosystem services valuation in Australian coastal zone management. Mar. Policy. 56, 117–124.

Page 33 of 47
McIvor, C.C., Ley, J.A., Bjork, R.D., 1994. Changes in freshwater inflow from the Everglades to

Florida Bay including effects on biota and biotic processes: a review, in: Davis, S.M., Ogden,

J.C. (Eds.), Everglades: the Ecosystem and its Restoration. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach,

Florida, USA, pp. 117–146.

McKee, K.L., Rooth, J.E., 2008. Where temperate meets tropical: multi-factorial effects of

elevated CO2, nitrogen enrichment, and competition on a mangrove-salt marsh community.

Glob. Change Biol. 14, 971–984.

McLeod, E., Chmura, G., Bouillon, S., Salm, R., Bjork, M., Duarte, C.M., Lovelock, C.E.,

Schlesinger, W.H., Silliman, B.R., 2011. A blueprint for blue carbon: toward an improved

understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats is sequestering CO2. Front. Ecol. Environ.

9, 552–560.

Melana, D.M., Atchue III, J., Yao, C.E., Edwards, R., Melana, E.E., Gonzales, H.I., 2000.

Mangrove Management Handbook. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Manila,

Philippines Through the Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines.

Michot, T.C., Day, R.H., Wells, C.J., 2010. Increase in black mangrove abundance in coastal

Louisiana. Louisiana Natural Resource News. Newsl. Louisiana Assoc. Prof. Biol. January, 4–5.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). 2003. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A

Framework for Assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.

Page 34 of 47
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis.

Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.

Miller, J.R., 2005. Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends Ecol. Evol.

20(8), 430–434.

Nagelkerken, I., van der Velde, G., Gorissen, M.W., Meijer, G.J., Van’t Hof, T., den Hartog, C.,

2000. Importance of mangroves, seagrass beds and the shallow reef as a nursery for important

coral reef fishes, using a visual census technique. Estuar. Coast. Shelf S. 51, 31–44.

Nelson, G., 1994. The Trees of Florida: A Reference and Field Guide (Reference and Field

Guides). Pineapple Press, Saratosa, Florida, USA.

Nguyen, T.P., Luom, T.T., Parnell, K.E., 2017a. Existing strategies for managing mangrove

dominated muddy coasts: knowledge gaps and recommendations. Ocean. Coast. Manage. 138,

93–100.

Nguyen, T.P., Parnell, K.E., 2017b. Gradual expansion of mangrove areas as an ecological

solution for stabilizing a severely eroded mangrove dominated muddy coast. Ecol. Eng. 107,

239–243.

Page 35 of 47
Odum, W.E., McIvor, C.C., Smith III, T.J., 1982. The Ecology of the Mangroves of South

Florida: A Community Profile. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, USA.

FWS/OS–81/24.

Osland, M.J., Enwright, N., Day, R.H., Doyle, T.W., 2013. Winter climate change and coastal

wetland foundation species: salt marshes vs. mangrove forests in the southeastern United States.

Glob. Change Biol. 19(5), 1482–1494.

Osland, M.J., Day, R.H., From, A.S., McLemore, M.L., McCoy, J., Kelleway, J., 2015. Life

stage influences the resistance and resilience of black mangrove forests to winter climate

extremes. Ecosphere. 6, 1–15.

Pelegri, S.P., Twilley, R.R., 1998. Heterotrophic nitrogen fixation (acetylene reduction) during

leaf-litter decomposition of two mangrove species from south Florida, USA. Mar. Biol. 131, 53–

61.

Queiroz, L.S., Rossi, S., Calvet-Mir, L., Ruiz-Mallén, I., García-Betorz, S., Salvà-Prat, J.,

Meireles, A.J.A., 2017. Neglected ecosystem services: highlighting the socio-cultural perception

of mangroves in decision-making processes. Ecosyst. Serv. 26, 137–145.

Ren, H., Lu, H., Shen, W., Huang, C., Guo, Q., Li, Z.A., Jian, S., 2009. Sonneratia apetala

Buch. Ham in the mangrove ecosystems of China: an invasive species or restoration species?

Ecol. Eng. 35(8), 1243–1248.

Page 36 of 47
Rey, J.R., Crossman, R.A., Kain, T.R., 1990. Vegetation dynamics in impounded marshes along

the Indian River lagoon, Florida, USA. Environ. Manage. 14, 397–409.

Richards, D.R., Friess, D.A., 2016. Rates and drivers of mangrove deforestation in Southeast

Asia, 2000–2012. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113(2), 344–349.

Roy, S.D., Krishnan, P., 2005. Mangrove stands of Andamans vis-à-vis tsunami. Curr. Sci. 89,

1800–1804.

Sabah Biodiversity Centre. 2011. Lower Kinabatangan-Segama Wetlands Ramsar Site

Management Plan. Volume. I: Sabah State Government, Malaysia, 265 pp. ISBN:978–983–

41084–6–5.

Sahu, S.C., Suresh, H.S., Murthy, I.K., Ravindranath, N.H., 2015. Mangrove area assessment in

India: Implications of loss of mangroves. J. Earth. Sci. Clim. Change. 6(5), 280.

Saintilan, N., Wilson, N., Rogers, K., Rajkaran, A., Krauss, K.W., 2014. Mangrove expansion

and salt marsh decline at mangrove poleward limits. Glob. Change Biol. 20(1), 147–157.

Scholz, A., Bonzon, K., Fujita, R., Benjamin, N., Woodling, N., Black, P., Steinback, C., 2004.

Participatory socioeconomic analysis: drawing on fishermen's knowledge for marine protected

area planning in California. Mar. Policy. 28(4), 335–349.

Page 37 of 47
Schuhmann, P.W., Mahon, R., 2015. The valuation of marine ecosystem goods and services in

the Caribbean: A literature review and framework for future valuation efforts. Ecosyst. Serv. 11,

56–66.

Shackelton, S., Campbell, B., Wollenberg, E., Edmunds, D., 2002. Devolution and Community-

based Natural Resource Management: Creating Space for Local People to Participate and

Benefit? Overseas Development Institute, London, United Kingdom.

Sheaves, M., 2009. Consequences of ecological connectivity: the coastal ecosystem mosaic. Mar.

Ecol. Prog. Ser. 391, 107–115.

Smith, T.J. III, Anderson, G.H., Balentine, K., Tiling, G., Ward, G.A., Whelan, K.R.T., 2009.

Cumulative impacts of hurricanes on Florida mangrove ecosystems: sediment deposition, storm

surges, and vegetation. Wetlands. 29, 24–34.

Snedaker, S.C., Araujo, R.J., 1998. Stomatal conductance and gas exchange in four species of

Caribbean mangroves exposed to ambient and increased CO2. Mar. Freshw. Res. 49, 325–327.

Sorensen, J., McCreary, S., 1990. Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources

and Environments, second ed, in: COAST, Renewable Resources Information Series. National

Park Service, US Department of the Interior and USAID, Coastal Management Publication No.

1.

Page 38 of 47
Spalding, M., Blasco, F., Field, C., 1997. World Mangrove Atlas. The International Society for

Mangrove Ecosystems, Okinawa, Japan.

Stojanovic, T., Ballinger, R.C., Lalwani, C.S., 2004. Successful integrated coastal management:

Measuring it with research and contributing to wise practice. Ocean. Coast. Manage. 47, 273–

298.

Strong, A.M., Bancroft, G.T., 1994. Patterns of deforestation and fragmentation of mangrove and

deciduous seasonal forests in the Upper Florida Keys. B. Mar. Sci. 54, 795–804.

Teh, S.Y., Koh, H.L., Liu, P.L.-F., IIzani, A.M.I., Lee, H.L., 2009. Analytical and numerical

simulation of tsunami mitigation by mangroves in Penang, Malaysia. J. Asian Earth Sci. 36(1),

38–46.

Tomlinson, P.B., 1986. The Botany of Mangroves. Cambridge University Press, New York, New

York, USA.

Torres, C., Hanley, N., 2017. Communicating research on the economic valuation of coastal and

marine ecosystem services. Mar. Policy. 75, 99–107.

Page 39 of 47
Twilley, R.R., 1998. Mangrove wetlands, in: Messina, M.G., Conner, W.H. (Eds.), Southern

Forested Wetlands: Ecology and Management. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, pp.

445–473.

United Nations (UN), 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development, United Nations General Assembly, 21 October 2015, A/RES/70/1, available at:

http://www.refworld.org/docid/57b6e3e44.html [accessed 1 November 2017]

Valiela, I., Bowen, J.L., York, J.K., 2001. Mangrove forests: one of the world’s threatened major

tropical environments. BioScience. 51, 807–815.

Wagner, F.H., 2001. Freeing agency research from policy pressures: a need and an approach.

Bioscience. 51, 445–450.

Waite, R., Kushner, B., Jungwiwattanaporn, M., Gray, E., Burke, L., 2015. Use of coastal

economic valuation in decision making in the Caribbean: Enabling conditions and lessons

learned. Ecosyst. Serv. 11, 45–55.

Wang, W.Q., 2007. Chinese Mangrove. Science Press, Beijing, China.

Wang, L., Mu, M., Li, X., Lin, P., Wang, W., 2011. Differentiation between true mangroves and

mangrove associates based on leaf traits and salt contents. J. Plant Ecol. 4, 292–301.

Page 40 of 47
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), e01211.

Wolanski, E., 2007. Thematic paper: synthesis of the protective functions of coastal forests and

trees against natural hazards, in: Coastal Protection in the Aftermath of the Indian Ocean

Tsunami: What Role for Forests and Trees. RAP Publication (FAO), pp. 157–159.

Wolanski, E., Spagnol, S., Thomas, S., Moore, K., Alongi, D.M., Trott, L., Davidson, A., 2000.

Modelling and visualizing the fate of shrimp pond effluent in a mangrove-fringed tidal creek.

Estuar. Coast. Shelf S. 50, 85– 97.

Woodroffe, C.D., 1990. The impact of sea-level rise on mangrove shorelines. Prog. Phys. Geog.

14, 483–520.

Zaradic, P.A., Pergams, O.R., Kareiva, P., 2009. The impact of nature experience on willingness

to support conservation. PLoS ONE. 4(10), e7367.

Zhang, K., Liu, H., Li, Y., Xu, H., Shen, J., Rhome, J., Smith III, T.J., 2012a. The role of

mangroves in attenuating storm surges. Estuar. Coast. Shelf S. 102–103, 11–23.

Zhang, Y., Huang, G., Wang, W., Chen, L., Lin, G., 2012b. Interactions between mangroves and

exotic Spartina in an anthropogenically-disturbed estuary in southern China. Ecology. 93, 588–

597.

Page 41 of 47
Zuang, X.L., Lin, J., Li, Y.H., 2011. The present situation and the major control measures of

mangroves in southeast of China. Straits Sci. 7, 19–2.

Page 42 of 47
Figure 1. Map showing the global distribution of mangroves (in black). Source: UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre

(UNEP-WCMC; Spalding et al., 1997).

Page 43 of 47
Figure 2. Map image showing indundation area of Hurricane Wilma on in the mangrove region of southwestern Florida USA

(reproduced with permission from Keqi Zhang and Elsevier).

Page 44 of 47
Figure 3. Example signage in Guyana showing the government’s effort to inform the public about the protection benefits provided by

mangroves against storm surge (photo credit: Carinya Sharples/Mongabay; used with permission).

Page 45 of 47
Figure 4. Map showing the extent of mangrove distribution (in black) in Asia.

Page 46 of 47
Figure 5. Map showing the extent of mangrove distribution (in black) in United States of America, showing the greatest coverage in

Florida.

Page 47 of 47