{"id":551,"date":"2020-03-09T12:47:16","date_gmt":"2020-03-09T12:47:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wiomsa.org\/researchsupport\/?page_id=551"},"modified":"2025-04-30T18:33:59","modified_gmt":"2025-04-30T18:33:59","slug":"phase-iii-an-economic-valuation-of-coastal-and-marine-ecosystem-services-in-the-wio","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/wiomsa.org\/researchsupport\/phase-iii-an-economic-valuation-of-coastal-and-marine-ecosystem-services-in-the-wio\/","title":{"rendered":"Phase III – An economic valuation of coastal and marine ecosystem services in the WIO to identify specific beneficiaries, and the role of marine protected areas in ensuring that these services are sustained"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t

An economic valuation of coastal and marine ecosystem services in the WIO to identify specific beneficiaries, and the role of marine protected areas in ensuring that these services are sustained<\/h2>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
Keywords<\/h6>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
Country covered<\/h6>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Economic valuation, Ecosystem services, MPAs, Coral reef assessment, Fisheries management, Beneficiary identification, Conservation tools<\/span><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Kenya, Tanzania and Madagascar<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
Lead Institution<\/h6>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
Project Duration<\/h6>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Australia<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

March 2009 – February 2011<\/span><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
Abstract<\/h6>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Comprehensive valuation of marine ecosystems is beneficial for a variety of policy, economic and conservation tools that can be used to improve the overall management, conservation and understanding of marine resources in the Western Indian Ocean region. However, in this region there is no comprehensive valuation on the true value of marine ecosystem services. Either, the role of marine protected areas in preserving a range of ecosystem services has not as of yet been valued. This study was set to conduct assessment of the coral reef goods and services provided by the WIO affected by fishing and Identification of the beneficiaries of specific management actions and changes in revenue distribution exploration of the role of natural capital in economic development, tools and approaches used to quantify natural capital, and their associated limitation. This project was implemented in four countries in the WIO namely, Kenya, Tanzania, Madagascar and the Seychelles.<\/p>

Assessment of the coral reef goods and services was done in aspects of country level assessment and habitat value. At country level assessment, significant differences exist in the values assigned to all ecosystem services; fishery, education and habitat values are generally the ecosystem services that are assigned the greatest value estimates. However significant differences exist in the values assigned to all ecosystem services across the four countries. There were no trends in the marginal values attributable to management at the regional or country level, suggesting that although management may drive differences, the patterns differ based on the context and individual characteristics present in the communities where management has evolved. Habitat value assessment through meta-analytic review, and feedback from MASMA, showed that there was a need to incorporate the supply of supporting Ecosystem Services into a suitable framework. Supporting services are usually left out and only valuation of provisioning, cultural and regulating services, as direct benefits and can generally be traded in markets and whose extraction tends to contribute to the degradation of natural capital and therefore ultimately supporting services is done. There is clearly a need to account for the contribution of supporting services to the provision of the services that we currently measure.<\/p>

Identification of beneficiaries of specific management actions was done and variations were noted. Managers and scientists differ on what services they prioritize. Fishers prioritize: fishery, habitat and education; scientists prioritize: fishery, habitat and coastal protection; and managers\u2019 prioritize: culture, education and bequest. Although differences exist in the relative total and marginal values assigned to ecosystem services priorities are relatively consistent. In the majority of cases fishery is the most important ES in this network with the largest value estimate, betweenness and degree measures it is traded off at the expense of habitat, education, bequest, recreation, protection, culture and recreation. It is also common for habitat and Education to be seen as most important with large betweenness and degree measures. In these cases fishery, education and sanitation are traded off for habitat, or fishery, habitat and access are traded off in favour of education Three ecosystem services are most important to scientists (Fishery, c. protection and Habitat), although habitat has the greatest influence on the network of ecosystem service values with the greatest value estimate and a large betweenness and degree measure. It is prioritized at the expense of sanitation, education and recreation values. Cultural and recreation values are sacrificed the most, with large betweenness and degree measures and low values they tend to be traded off in favour of fishery, coastal protection, sanitation and habitat. Five ecosystem services are most important to scientists (Habitat, education, Bequest, Fishery and Culture). Education has the greatest influence on the network as shown by its greatest betweenness measure, however, unlike the central ecosystem services in a fishers or scientists network, this ecosystem services is associated with an equal number of synergies as trade-offs. Managers see an increase in Education to be synergist with increases in recreation and bequest and coastal protection. Sanitation has the next greatest betweenness measure, and thus influence on the network, and is associated with more trade-offs. Coastal protection, and recreation have the next largest betweenness measures and, similar to education, are associated with an equal amount of trade-offs as synergies.<\/p>

Valuation can be grouped as monetary or non-monetary. Fishery value was associated with revenue from commercial fish sales, bequest was associated with importance of protection or conservation and option value was linked to cultural value. All three valued goods and services were seen as being directly related to the fishery rather than the coral reef.<\/p>

All non-use goods (bequest, existence, aesthetic), one direct use good (fishery), and option, were categorised as high. Two direct use services (education, recreation) and four indirect use services (biodiversity control, habitat refuge, coastal protection, water quality maintenance) were categorised as medium and two direct use services (medicine, cultural) were categorised as low. Seven contextual characteristics contributed to the variation in cultural (option), commercial (fishery) and conservation (bequest) values (P<0.005); expenditure, occupation multiplicity, response to norm breaking, levels of support, membership in organisations, biodiversity knowledge and the presence or lack of conflict resolution mechanisms.<\/p>

The study has provided information critical for management of coral reef ecosystem and fishery. Perceptions and customs of valuing of coral reefs have been detailed for the WIO region.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
Project Objective<\/h6>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
Project Activities<\/h6>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

\u2022 Estimate the economic value of marine ecosystem services in the WIO region.
\u2022 Investigate the role of marine protected areas in preserving ecosystem services.
\u2022 Identify beneficiaries affected by management decisions across different countries.
\u2022 Evaluate the contributions of supporting ecosystem services within the broader context of ecosystem valuation.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

\u2022 Conducted a comprehensive valuation of coral reef goods and services in Kenya, Tanzania, Madagascar, and Seychelles.
\u2022 Assessed country-level differences in the assigned values of marine ecosystem services.
\u2022 Identified specific beneficiaries of management actions and how revenue distribution varies among different stakeholders.
\u2022 Explored the role of marine protected areas in sustaining ecosystem services and natural capital.
\u2022 Engaged in meta-analytic review and stakeholder feedback to enhance understanding of supporting ecosystem services.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
Study Sites<\/h6>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
Project Total Budget (USD)<\/h6>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t