4.7 Article

Valuing the protection services of mangroves at national scale: The Philippines

期刊

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
卷 34, 期 -, 页码 24-36

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.09.005

关键词

Mangroves; The Philippines; Protection services; Expected Annual Damage; Flooding; Property damaged

资金

  1. International Climate Initiative (IKI) of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB)
  2. Lloyd's Tercentenary Research Foundation (UK)
  3. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Innovation [BIA2014-59718-R]
  4. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Innovation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work we pilot a methodology to value the annual coastal protection benefits provided by mangroves in the Philippines and identify where these natural coastal defenses deliver the greatest protection. This is the first rigorous, engineering-based, nationwide evaluation of the effectiveness of mangrove habitats as natural defenses. By comparing flood damages for scenarios with and without mangroves, the study estimates the socioeconomic benefits for protecting people and property, to inform conservation and disaster risk reduction policies. Without mangroves, flooding and damages to people, property and infrastructure in the Philippines would increase annually around 25%. These habitats reduce flooding to 613,500 people/year, 23% of whom live below the poverty line. They also avert damages to 1 billion US$/year in residential and industrial property. If mangroves were restored to their 1950 distribution, there would be additional benefits to 267,000 people annually, including 61,500 people below poverty and an additional 453 mill. US$ in avoided damages. Currently, mangroves prevent more than 1.7 billion US$ in damages for extreme events (1-in-50-year). Ultimately, rigorous economic estimates of critical ecosystem services like this will help the national government to integrate the value of mangroves to people, into their national accounting systems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据