Tools
Tools
Broszeit, S, Hattam, C, Langmead, O, Praptiwi, RA, Creencia, LA, Then, AY, Lim, VC, Hau, TD, Edwards-Jones, A and Austen, MC 2022 Ecosystem service provision by marine habitats in Southeast Asia. PML Publishing. (UNSPECIFIED)
|
Text
Broszeit et al 2022 Ecosystem_service_provision_by_marine habitats in SEA.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (39MB) | Preview |
Abstract/Summary
Southeast Asia is an area of rich marine biodiversity providing a host of ecosystem services that contribute to the well-being of coastal communities and beyond. Sustainable management of ecosystems and the services they provide requires a good understanding of their underlying ecological functions and processes. This understanding can be gained through the rigorous assessment of studies identifying and quantifying ecological functions and ecosystem services. The aims of this study were to review the ecosystem services provided by marine and coastal habitats in Southeast Asia. The ecosystem service potential was scored for each habitat. The review was focused on nine key marine and coastal habitats, identified across four case study sites in Southeast Asia, contributing 18 marine relevant ecosystem services. The approach comprised a literature review supplemented with observations from experts from the case study areas. The four case study sites consist of three Man and Biosphere Reserves in Southeast Asia: Palawan in the Philippines, Cu Lao Cham- Hoi An in Viet Nam, Take-Bonerate Kepulauan Selayar in Indonesia, and a recently gazetted marine protected area, the Tun Mustapha Marine Park in Malaysia (Figure 1). The nine key habitats (eight benthic and one pelagic) covered in this review, identified as highly relevant for most case study sites, were mangrove forests, coral reefs, seagrass meadows, sand, mud, rock, coarse substratum, pelagic and modified habitats. Further division of these habitats into sub-habitats on the basis of biological type and substrate type was used to capture data on differential provision of ecosystem services within the broad habitat types. To ensure relevance in the four case study sites, firstly an ecosystem services typology was created tailored to these sites. After exploring several ecosystem service typologies, our final classification was adapted from the Common International Classification of Ecosystem services (CICES) V4.3 because it was considered to be most relevant to the objectives of this task. Provisioning, regulation and maintenance, and cultural services were assessed. Provisioning services focused on food for consumption by humans from plants, pelagic animals, demersal fish and invertebrates; energy from harvested plants; other materials from plants and animals, such as fibres, building and housing materials, medicines, decoration, handicrafts and souvenirs; and genetic material from plants and animals (including seeds, spat, spores, whole plants or animals, individual genes), for example seed or brood-stock collection for aquaculture and mangrove replanting and new plantations. Regulation and maintenance services assessed were treatment and assimilation of wastes or toxic substances; coastal erosion control; water flow regulation contributing to dampening the intensity of storm, floods, tsunamis, and hurricanes and the maintenance of localized water flows such as coastal current structures; maintenance of nursery,reproduction and feeding habitats; maintenance of critical habitats for charismatic species such as turtles, dugongs, cetaceans, sharks, seahorses, bats, fireflies, birds, monkeys, orchids and other epiphytes; and climate regulation through impacts on the hydrological cycle, temperature regulation, and the contribution to regulation of climate-influencing gases in the atmosphere, for example through carbon sequestration and long-term, decadal storage. Cultural services examined included uses of habitats as places for active and passive recreation; ceremonial activities; creative activities; and knowledge-based activities, such as educational activities, and citizen science or community environmental activities. The comprehensive literature review included peer-reviewed scientific research literature as well as grey literature such as government and other reports. To ensure a wide breadth of coverage, the research focused on studies from Southeast Asia. When no evidence was found in the literature, evidence was sought from experts, and where useful, was accompanied by observations from the authors in their respective case study sites. The evidence gathered was used to assess the potential of each habitat to provide an ecosystem service, rather than to assess the actual provision of ecosystem services from each case study site. This important distinction allows the differentiation between services provided by the ecosystem (i.e. the potential supply of ecosystem services that a habitat could deliver) and (achieved or used) benefits (i.e. the demand for ecosystem services). The knowledge gained from the literature, local and regional reports, together with observations from the study team and experts, was critically assessed using a robust methodology that captured different types of information together with a confidence score for the supporting evidence. The contribution of each habitat to each ecosystem service was then scored relative to other habitats. Our objective was to provide baseline information to enable better understanding of the ecosystem services arising from marine and coastal habitats in SE Asia. This provides a foundation for future assessments of natural capital and ecosystem services which may be used to inform sustainable management. The report will serve as a useful reference to many different readers. Regulators, managers of marine sites and policy makers might use this report to inform their management choices. This should enable more sustainable use of the marine environment and maximise the ecosystem service provision of all types of services addressed in this study. Stakeholders of the marine environment such as fisherfolk or residents might use this report to help them engage in management processes, to gain deeper understanding of the marine environment or confirm their observations of the marine environment. Academics can use it as a reference source or a base for further studies, in particular for valuation studies or when considering the trade-offs between ecosystem services in marine and coastal habitats. Finally, it is hoped that this report may bring a new appreciation and understanding of the marine environment and the life support it provides to society and inspire readers to improve management of the marine environment. This report is one of the outputs of the UK Research and Innovation’s Global Challenges Research Fund (UKRI GCRF) Blue Communities Programme (GCRF Blue Communities Global Challenges Research Fund via the United Kingdom Research and Innovation (UKRI) under grant agreement reference NE/P021107/1, www.blue-communities.org), which aims to “build capacity for sustainable interactions with marine ecosystems for the benefit of the health, well-being, food security and livelihoods of coastal communities in SE Asia”. GCRF Blue Communities is developing interdisciplinary research capability and lasting collaborations that can facilitate innovative application of integrated planning in the marine environment and respond to the UN Sustainable Development Goals of ‘no poverty’, ‘zero hunger’, ‘good health and well-being’ for coastal communities as well as ‘conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development’ through the sustainable use of marine resources.
| Item Type: | Publication - Report (UNSPECIFIED) |
|---|---|
| Divisions: | Plymouth Marine Laboratory > Science Areas > Sea and Society |
| Depositing User: | Mrs Christina Devereux |
| Date made live: | 29 Sep 2022 16:22 |
| Last Modified: | 07 Oct 2022 16:22 |
| URI: | https://plymsea.ac.uk/id/eprint/9809 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |