Incorporating the values of the services that ecosystems provide into decision making is becoming increasingly common in nature conservation and resource management policies, both locally and globally. Yet with limited funds for conservation of threatened species and ecosystems there is a desire to identify priority areas where investment efficiently conserves multiple ecosystem services. We mapped four mangrove ecosystems services (coastal protection, fisheries, biodiversity, and carbon storage) across Fiji. Using a cost-effectiveness analysis, we prioritised mangrove areas for each service, where the effectiveness was a function of the benefits provided to the local communities, and the costs were associated with restricting specific uses of mangroves. We demonstrate that, although priority mangrove areas (top 20%) for each service can be managed at relatively low opportunity costs (ranging from 4.5 to 11.3% of overall opportunity costs), prioritising for a single service yields relatively low co-benefits due to limited geographical overlap with priority areas for other services. None-the-less, prioritisation of mangrove areas provides greater overlap of benefits than if sites were selected randomly for most ecosystem services. We discuss deficiencies in the mapping of ecosystems services in data poor regions and how this may impact upon the equity of managing mangroves for particular services across the urban-rural divide in developing countries. Finally we discuss how our maps may aid decision-makers to direct funding for mangrove management from various sources to localities that best meet funding objectives, as well as how this knowledge can aid in creating a national mangrove zoning scheme.
ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Australia;Wildlife Conservation Society, Melanesia Program, Suva, Fiji;ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Australia;Wildlife Conservation Society, Global Conservation Program, New York City, United States of America;National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS), University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, United States of America;School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Australia;ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Australia
Recommended Citation:
Scott C. Atkinson,Stacy D. Jupiter,Vanessa M. Adams,et al. Prioritising Mangrove Ecosystem Services Results in Spatially Variable Management Priorities[J]. PLOS ONE,2016-01-01,11(3)