Assessing the Perception and Contribution of Mangrove Ecosystem Services to the Well-Being of Coastal Communities of Chwaka and Menai Bays, Zanzibar
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methodology and Study Locations
2.1. Study Locations
2.2. Data Collection
- − The concept of ecosystem services;
- − Ecosystem services of mangroves;
- − Categorization of mangrove ecosystem services;
- − Perceptions toward mangrove ecosystem services;
- − The functioning of mangrove ecosystems;
- − Anthropogenic/natural threats to mangroves; and
- − Mangrove socio-ecology and management.
2.3. Sample Size and Sampling Design
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Demographics and Socioeconomics of the Respondents of the Household Survey
3.2. Classification of Mangrove Ecosystem Services
3.3. Awareness of Mangrove Ecosystem Services
3.4. Mangrove Ecosystem Services as Perceived by Household Survey
3.5. Factors Affecting Perception towards Mangrove Ecosystem Services
3.6. Threats to Mangrove Ecosystem Services
3.7. Factors Affecting the Supply of Mangrove Ecosystem Services
4. Discussion
4.1. Awareness of Mangrove Ecosystem Services in Chwaka and Menai Bays
4.2. Perception and Importance of Mangrove Ecosystem Services to the Livelihoods and Well-being of the Communities in Chwaka and Menai Bays
4.3. Extraction of Mangrove Ecosystem Services and Destruction of Mangrove Forests in Zanzibar
4.4. Drivers of Changes in Mangrove Ecosystem Services in Zanzibar
4.5. Limitation of the Study
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
- Demographic and socio-economic information of respondent
Date: | Time: |
District: | Ward: |
Religion: (1) Muslim (2) Christian | Marital Status: (1) Not married (2) Married (3) Widowed (4) Divorced |
Gender: (1) Male (2) Female | Education: (1) No formal education (2) Primary (3) Secondary (4) Tertiary |
Age: (1) Under 20 (2) 20–39 (3) 40–49 (4) 50–59 (5) 60–69 (6) 70+ | Household size: (1) 1–5 (2) 6–10 (3) 10+ |
Main occupation: (1) Crafts (2) Bee keeping (3) Transporters (4) Farming (5) Fishing (6) Small business (7) Salaried employee (8) Wage laborer 10. Other (specify)_________________________ |
- Mangrove ecosystem services
Benefits | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Poles | |||||
Firewood | |||||
Medicine | |||||
Honey | |||||
Fruits | |||||
Picnic sites | |||||
Fodder | |||||
Control of soil erosion | |||||
Regulation of climate | |||||
Attenuation of waves | |||||
Wild habitat | |||||
Soil formation | |||||
Ecotourism | |||||
Spiritual activities | |||||
Educational purposes | |||||
Scenic viewing |
Benefits | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Poles | |||||
Firewood | |||||
Medicine | |||||
Honey | |||||
Fruits | |||||
Picnic sites | |||||
Fodder | |||||
Control of soil erosion | |||||
Regulation of climate | |||||
Attenuation of waves | |||||
Wild habitat | |||||
Soil formation | |||||
Ecotourism | |||||
Spiritual activities | |||||
Educational purposes | |||||
Scenic viewing |
1. | |
2. | |
3. | |
4. | |
5. | |
6. | |
7. | |
8. | |
9. | |
10. | |
11. | |
12. | |
13. | |
14. | |
15. | |
16. |
Factors | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Engagement in mangrove conservation activities | |||||
Age of respondents | |||||
Education level | |||||
Socio-economic status of the local community | |||||
Government policies related to the conservation of ecosystem services | |||||
Intensity and frequency of utilizing mangrove products | |||||
Institutions responsible for managing mangroves |
Factors | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Insufficient resources to fund institutions & hiring of adequate personnel to manage forestry resources | |||||
Unresponsive/faulty institutional structure in forestry management | |||||
Population growth | |||||
Climate change | |||||
Unresponsive/faulty government forestry policy | |||||
Agricultural development | |||||
Expanded aquaculture | |||||
Unchecked/uncontrolled coastal development | |||||
Underfunded judicial system | |||||
Weak government institutions | |||||
Flawed/Unclear/opaque/poorly formulated forestry policy and legal framework | |||||
Lack of policy/laws specifically for mangroves | |||||
Local communities feel they are entitled to ownership and access to mangrove ecosystem services | |||||
Lack of expertise and adequate staff in management of mangroves at local level | |||||
Poor public participation in design & decision-making involving mangrove ecosystem services | |||||
Unclear/faulty/discriminatory land tenure system | |||||
Corruption |
References
- King, R. Wildlife and man. New York Conserv. 1966, 20, 8–11. [Google Scholar]
- Helliwell, D. Valuation of wildlife resources. Reg. Stud. 1969, 3, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pearce, D. Economic Values and the Natural World; Earthscan: London, UK, 1993; pp. 76–105. [Google Scholar]
- Pearce, D.; Moran, D. The Economic Value of Biodiversity; Earthscan Publications: London, UK, 1994; pp. 38–62. [Google Scholar]
- Daily, G.; Alexander, S.; Ehrlich, P.; Goulder, L.; Lubchenco, J.; Matson, P.; Mooney, H.; Postel, S.; Schneider, S.; Tilman, D.; et al. Ecosystem Service: Benefits Supplied to Human Societies by Natural Ecosystems; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1997; pp. 6–129. [Google Scholar]
- Costanza, R.; Folke, C. Valuing Ecosystem Services with Efficiency, Fairness and Sustainability as Goals; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1997; pp. 49–70. [Google Scholar]
- De Groot, R.; Wilson, M.; Boumans, R. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 41, 393–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; pp. 96–102. [Google Scholar]
- Afonso, F.; Félix, P.; Chainho, P.; Heumüller, J.; de Lima, R.; Ribeiro, F.; Brito, A. Community perceptions about mangrove ecosystem services and threats. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 2022, 49, 102114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Layke, C.; Mapendembe, A.; Brown, C.; Walpole, M.; Winn, J. Indicators from the global and sub-global Millennium Ecosystem Assessments: An analysis and next steps. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 17, 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnston, C.; Caretti, O. Mangrove expansion into temperate marshes alters habitat quality for recruiting Callinectes spp. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2017, 573, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chowdhury, R.; Favas, P.; Jonathan, M.; Venkatachalam, P.; Raja, P.; Sarkar, S. Bioremoval of trace metals from rhizosediment by mangrove plants in Indian Sundarban Wetland. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 124, 1078–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nyangoko, B.P.; Berg, H.; Mangora, M.M.; Gullström, M.; Shalli, M.S. Community Perceptions of Mangrove Ecosystem Services and Their Determinants in the Rufiji Delta, Tanzania. Sustainability 2021, 13, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bechtel, R.B.; Churchman, A. Handbook of Environmental Psychology; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Leh, M.; Matlock, M.; Cummings, E. Quantifying and mapping multiple ecosystem services change in West Africa. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2013, 165, 6–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schleyer, C.; Görg, C.; Hauck, J.; Winkler, K. Opportunities and challenges for mainstreaming the ecosystem services concept in the multilevel policy-making within the EU. Ecosyst. Serv. 2005, 16, 174–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Węsławski, J.; Warzocha, J.; Wiktor, J.; Urbański, J.; Bradtke, K.; Kryla, L.; Tatarek, A.; Kotwicki, L.; Piwowarczyk, J. Biological valorisation of the southern Baltic Sea (Polish Exclusive Economic Zone). Oceanologia 2009, 51, 415–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stiepani, J.; Gillis, G.; Chee, S. Impacts of urbanization on mangrove forests and brachyuran crabs in Penang, Malaysia. Reg. Environ. Change 2021, 21, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Omar, H.; Misman, M. Time-series maps of aboveground biomass in dipterocarps forests of Malaysia from PALSAR and PALSAR-2 polarimetric data. Carbon Balance Manag. 2018, 13, 21. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328404351_Omar_et_al-2018-Carbon_Balance_and_Management (accessed on 11 January 2023). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ruslan, N.; Nabilah, F.; Goh, H.; Hattam, C.; Edwards-Jones, A.; Moh, H. Mangrove ecosystem services: Contribution to the well-being of the coastal communities in Klang Islands. Mar. Policy 2022, 144, 105222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giri, C.; Ochieng, E.; Tieszen, L.; Zhu, Z.; Singh, A.; Loveland, T.; Masek, J.; Duke, N. Status and distribution of mangrove forests of the world using earth observation satellite data. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2011, 20, 154–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DasGupta, R.; Shaw, R. Mangroves in Asia-Pacific: A Review of Threats and Responses. In Participatory Mangrove Management in a Changing Climate; DasGupta, R., Shaw, R., Eds.; Springer: Tokyo, Japan, 2017; pp. 101–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanner, M.; Moity, N.; Costa, M.; Jarrin, J.; Aburto-Oropeza, O.; Salinas-de-León, P. Mangroves in the Galapagos: Ecosystem services and their valuation. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 160, 12–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thorhaug, A.; Poulos, H.; López-Portillo, J.; Barr, J.; Lara-Domínguez, A.; Ku, T.; Berlyn, G. Gulf of Mexico estuarine blue carbon stock, extent and flux: Mangroves, marshes, and seagrasses: A North American hotspot. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 653, 1253–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Getzner, M.; Islam, M. Ecosystem services of mangrove forests: Results of a meta-analysis of economic values. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.; Primavera, J.; Dahdouh-Guebas, F.; McKee, K.; Bosire, J.; Cannicci, S.; Record, S. Ecological role and services of tropical mangrove ecosystems: A reassessment. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2014, 23, 726–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Zheng, L.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, H.; Jing, H. Comparative metagenomics study reveals pollution induced changes of microbial genes in mangrove sediments. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 5739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamilton, S.; Casey, D. Creation of a high spatio-temporal resolution global database of continuous mangrove forest cover for the 21st century (CGMFC-21). Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2016, 25, 729–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alam, I.; Rahman, S.; Ahmed, M.; Debrot, A.; Ahsan, N.; Verdegem, M. Mangrove Forest conservation vs shrimp production: Uncovering a sustainable co-management model and policy solution for mangrove greenbelt development in coastal Bangladesh. For. Policy Econ. 2022, 144, 102824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kusumawardani, D. Economic valuation of mangrove forest in the East Coast of the City of Surabaya, East Java Province, Indonesia. J. Dev. Econ. 2019, 4, 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marlianingrum, P.; Kusumastanto, T.; Adrianto, L.; Fahrudin, A. Valuing habitat quality for managing mangrove ecosystem services in coastal Tangerang District, Indonesia. Mar. Policy 2021, 133, 104747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quoc, T.; Kuenzer, C.; Quang, M.; Moder, F.; Oppelt, N. Review of valuation methods for mangrove ecosystem services. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 23, 431–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- URT. Tanzania National Bureau of Statistics, National Population and Housing Census. 2022. Available online: https://www.nbs.go.tz/index.php/en/ (accessed on 9 February 2023).
- WB. Zanzibar Can Accelerate Poverty Reduction by Seizing More Opportunities to Diversify its Tourism Sector, Press Release No: 2022/026/AFR. Available online: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/11/09/zanzibar-can-accelerate-poverty-reduction-by-seizing-more-opportunities-to-diversify-its-tourism-sector (accessed on 15 April 2023).
- Purida, N.; Patria, M. Economic Valuation of Mangrove Ecosystem in Cilamaya Wetan, Karawang, West Java. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 404; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2020; pp. 23–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- RGoZ. Woody Biomass Inventory of Zanzibar Islands Zanzibar Forestry Development Project; Technical Paper Number 40; Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Recourses: Zanzibar, Tanzania, 1997; pp. 6–30. Available online: https://pohjonen.org/veli/vprefs/1997/1997%20Leskinen%20Pohjonen%20Ali%20Woody%20Biomass%20Inventory%20of%20Zanzibar%20Islands.pdf (accessed on 8 August 2022).
- Quinn, C.; Stringer, L.; Berman, R.; Le, H.; Msuya, F.; Pezzuti, J.; Orchard, S. Unpacking Changes in Mangrove Social-Ecological Systems: Lessons from Brazil, Zanzibar, and Vietnam. Resources 2017, 6, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kukkonen, M.; Kayhko, N. Spatio-temporal analysis of forest changes in contrasting land use regimes of Zanzibar, Tanzania. Appl. Geogr. 2014, 55, 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Käyhkö, N.; Fagerholm, N.; Asseid, B.; Mzee, A. Dynamic land use and land cover changes and their effect on forest resources in a coastal village of Matemwe, Zanzibar, Tanzania. Land Use Policy 2011, 28, 26–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicholson, C.; Mangroves and Crabs as Ecosystem Engineers in Zanzibar. Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection. 2009. Available online: https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/isp_collection/760 (accessed on 21 May 2022).
- Othman, W.; Socio-Ecological of Pete and Maruhubi Mangroves Ecosystem in Zanzibar, Tanzania Case Study-Pete and Maruhubi Zanzibar. Unpublished Thesis. Available online: https://html.scribdassets.com/r32fxlwe85bwpln/images/1-cd9929b824.jpg (accessed on 28 February 2023).
- Lugomela, C. The Mangrove Ecosystem of Chwaka Bay. People Nat. Res. 2012, 24, 69–81. [Google Scholar]
- Hamad, H.; Mchenga, I.; Hamisi, M. Status of exploitation and regeneration of mangrove forests in Pemba Island, Tanzania. Glob. J. Bio-Sci. Biotechnol. 2014, 3, 12–18. [Google Scholar]
- Mohamed, M.K.; Adam, E.; Jackson, C.M. Policy Review and Regulatory Challenges and Strategies for the Sustainable Mangrove Management in Zanzibar. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohamed, M.K.; Adam, E.; Jackson, C.M. The spatial and temporal distribution of mangrove forest cover from 1973 to 2020 in Chwaka Bay and Menai Bay, Zanzibar. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindström, L.; Jiddawi, N.; Shaghude, Y.; Björk, M.; la Torre-Castro, D.; Lyimo, T. Towards an Integrative Research Approach on Coastal Ecosystems—The example of Chwaka Bay; Western Indian Ocean Marine Science Association: Zanzibar, Tanzania, 2012; pp. 23–41. [Google Scholar]
- Nyumba, T.; Wilson, K.; Derrick, C.; Mukherjee, N. The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2018, 9, 20–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooper, D.; Schindler, P. Business Research Methods, 8th ed.; McGraw Hill: Tata, Hungary, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Ranganathan, P.; Pramesh, C.; Aggarwal, R. Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: Logistic regression. Perspect. Clin. Res. 2017, 8, 148–151. [Google Scholar]
- Strauss, A.; Corbin, J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Phillips, L.; Jorgensen, M. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method, 3rd ed.; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2002; pp. 76–82. [Google Scholar]
- He, S.; Gallagher, L.; Su, Y.; Wang, L.; Cheng, H. Identification and assessment of ecosystem services for protected area planning: A case in rural communities of Wuyishan national park pilot. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 31, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, K.; Wei, D.Z.; Lin, W.X. Evaluation of ecosystem services value and its implications for policy making in China—A case study of Fujian province. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 108, 105752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oteros-Rozas, E.; Martín-López, B.; González, J.A.; Plieninger, T.; López, C.A.; Montes, C. Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services in a transhumance social-ecological network. Reg. Environ. Change 2014, 14, 1269–1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mensah, S.; Veldtman, R.; Assogbadjo, A.E.; Ham, C.; Kakaï, R.G.; Seifert, T. Ecosystem service importance and use vary with socio-environmental factors: A study from household-surveys in local communities of South Africa. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 23, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Makonese, T.; Ifegbesan, A.P.; Rampedi, I.T. Household cooking fuel use patterns and determinants across southern Africa: Evidence from the demographic and health survey data. Energy Environ. 2018, 29, 29–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joshi, G.; Negi, G.C.S. Quantification and valuation of forest ecosystem services in the western Himalayan region of India. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2011, 7, 2–11. [Google Scholar]
- Moutouama, F.T.; Biaou, S.S.H.; Kyereh, B.; Asante, W.A.; Natta, A.K. Factors shaping local people’s perception of ecosystem services in the Atacora Chain of Mountains, a biodiversity hotspot in northern Benin. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2019, 15, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Damastuti, E.; de Groot, R. Participatory ecosystem service mapping to enhance community-based mangrove rehtuabilitation and management in Demak, Indonesia. Reg. Environ. Change 2019, 19, 65–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Small, N.; Munday, M.; Durance, I. The challenge of valuing ecosystem services that have no material benefits. Glob. Environ. Change 2017, 44, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruiz-Frau, A.; Hinz, H.; Edwards-Jones, G.; Kaiser, M.J. Spatially explicit economic assessment of cultural ecosystem services: Non-extractive recreational uses of the coastal environment related to marine biodiversity. Mar. Policy 2013, 38, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Msangameno, D.; Yahya, S.; Jiddawi, N. An update on the status of mangrove forests in the western coast of Unguja island, Tanzania: A rural vs peri-urban comparison. Trop. Ecol. 2017, 58, 57–69. [Google Scholar]
- Pitman, E. Trouble in Paradise: State of Coastal Erosion of Unguja Tourist Destinations Shoreline Analysis and Community Responses of Nungwi and Paje Beaches; Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection, 1786; 2014; Available online: https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/isp_collection/1786 (accessed on 15 August 2023).
- RGoZ. Towards Integrated Management and Sustainable Development of Zanzibar’s Coast. Initial Findings for an Action Strategy in the Chwaka Bay-Paje Area. 1996. Available online: https://aquadocs.org/handle/1834/111 (accessed on 12 August 2023).
- Mangora, M.; Lugendo, B.; Shalli, M. Mangroves of Tanzania; WIOMSA: Zanzibar, Tanzania, 2016; pp. 15–27. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310462689_Mangroves_of_Tanzania (accessed on 9 June 2023).
- Norris, N. Error, bias and validity in qualitative research. Educ. Action Res. 1997, 5, 172–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parker, C.; Scott, S.; Geddes, A. Snowball Sampling; SAGE Research: Washington, DC, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Neuman, W.L. Basics of Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 2nd ed.; Allyn and Bacon: Boston, MA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
Variable | Description of Variables |
---|---|
Gender | Either male or female |
Age | Age of interviewees |
Marital status | Single, married, divorced, etc. |
Level of education | Informal, primary, secondary, post-secondary, etc. |
Income of households | Average monthly income of household |
Size of households | Number of family members in household |
Occupation | Subsistence farmers, fishermen, public servant, small scale business, education, crafts, etc. |
Accessibility to mangroves | Full access or access denied for harvesting mangroves |
Household residence period | The number of years the household has lived in the area |
Government policy | Community-based forest management or not |
Variable | Sub-Category | Chwaka Ward (%) | Charawe/Ukongoroni Wards (%) | Unguja Ukuu/Uzi Wards (%) | Average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Religion | Muslims | 99.1 | 99.4 | 99.6 | 99.4 |
Christians | 0.9 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.6 | |
Gender | Male | 61.1 | 49.1 | 56.9 | 55.7 |
Female | 38.9 | 50.9 | 43.1 | 44.3 | |
Age | 40–49 | 8.7 | 32.1 | 23.4 | 21.4 |
50–59 | 48.8 | 52.6 | 59.7 | 53.7 | |
60+ | 42.5 | 15.3 | 16.9 | 24.9 | |
Marital status | Married | 88.2 | 81.7 | 93.1 | 87.7 |
Widowed | 9.0 | 4.6 | 5.2 | 6.3 | |
Divorced | 2.8 | 13.7 | 1.7 | 6.1 | |
Education level | Tertiary | 4.1 | 3.4 | 7.3 | 4.9 |
Secondary | 41.5 | 31.8 | 38.1 | 37.1 | |
Primary | 54.4 | 64.8 | 54.6 | 57.9 | |
Household size | 1–5 | 11 | 21.3 | 49.2 | 27.2 |
6–10 | 69.8 | 66.8 | 48.7 | 61.8 | |
10+ | 19.2 | 11.9 | 2.1 | 11.1 |
Mangrove Ecosystem Service | Use of Mangrove Ecosystem Services Identified in the Study Area |
---|---|
Wild habitat (SS) | Home to numerous shrimp, mollusks, fish, and crabs that serve as food sources. |
Soil formation (SS) | Sediments are filtered by mangroves into soil; this soil is used to make bricks. |
Ecotourism (CS) | Mangroves are popular tourist destinations because of their biodiversity. |
Spiritual activities (CS) | Mangrove forests are used for ritual practices, e.g., to pray for rain and household protection, and they also contain ritual plants used for ritual healing. |
Education (CS) | Source of information and knowledge regarding mangroves. |
Scenic viewing (CS) | Viewing of the natural scenery of mangroves so as to feel relaxed and refreshed. |
Poles (PS) | For building houses and boats and making furniture and fences, particularly Rhizophora mucronata, Bruguiera gymnorhiza, and Ceriops tagal. |
Firewood (PS) | Rhizophora mucronata and Ceriops tagal are a source of cooking energy. |
Medicine (PS) | Leaves of Xylocarpus granatum are used to treat stomachache. |
Honey (PS) | Honey is used to disinfect wounds and heal burns. It is also added to tea and porridge and spread on bread. |
Fruits (PS) | The fruits of Avicennia marina are chewed to ease heartburn. |
Picnic sites (PS) | Areas set aside inside mangrove forests where people can visit for outdoor activities |
Fodder (PS) | The leaves of particularly Heritiera littoralis and Avicennia marina are fed to livestock. |
Erosion control and sediment accretion (RS) | Minergenic mangroves trap and consolidate sediment; this controls soil erosion and leads to improved soil fertility for farming. |
Regulation of climate (RS) | Mangroves sequester carbon in soils and forest biomass and exchange carbon dioxide with and emit methane to the atmosphere. |
Attenuation of waves (RS) | Mangrove vegetation causes wave attenuation because it acts as an obstacle by creating vegetation drag for the water flow in the waves. |
Category | Mangrove Ecosystem Services | Chwaka Ward | Ukongoroni/Charawe Wards | Unguja Ukuu/Uzi Wards | Overall |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PS | Poles | 3.4 (0.5) | 3.9 (0.3) | 2.4 (0.4) | 3.2 (0.4) |
Firewood | 2.5 (0.7) | 3.8 (0.5) | 1.5 (0.5) | 2.6 (0.6) | |
Medicines | 2.5 (0.5) | 2.8 (0.7) | 2.3 (0.6) | 2.5 (0.6) | |
Honey | 1.4 (0.6) | 1.9 (0.6) | 1.5 (0.3) | 1.6 (0.5) | |
Fruit | 1.3 (0.6) | 1.7 (0.4) | 1.2 (0.3) | 1.4 (0.6) | |
Picnic sites | 1.4 (0.7) | 1.6 (0.2) | 1.2 (0.4) | 1.4 (0.4) | |
Fodder | 1.1 (0.4) | 1.3 (0.3) | 1.1 (0.2) | 1.2 (0.3) | |
Ave. PA | 1.9 (0.6) | 2.4 (0.4) | 1.6 (0.3) | 1.9 (0.4) | |
RS | Erosion control and sediment accretion (RS) | 1.4 (0.6) | 1.5 (0.4) | 2.9 (0.6) | 1.9 (0.5) |
Regulation climate | 1.3 (0.5) | 1.2 (0.4) | 3.8 (0.4) | 2.1 (0.4) | |
Attenuation of waves (RS) | 3.8 (0.6) | 2.0 (0.7) | 3.9 (0.3) | 3.2 (0.5) | |
Ave, RS | 1.5 (0.6) | 1.5 (0.5) | 3.5 (0.4) | 2.2 (0.4) | |
CS | Ecotourism | 2.0 (0.6) | 2.2 (0.3) | 1.9 (0.6) | 2.0 (0.5) |
Spiritual | 2.3 (0.7) | 2.7 (0.8) | 1.1 (0.2) | 2.0 (0.6) | |
Education | 2.2 (0.4) | 2.5 (0.3) | 1.9 (0.6) | 2.2 (0.4) | |
Scenic viewing | 2.3 (0.5) | 2.5 (0.4) | 2.4 (0.3) | 2.4 (0.5) | |
Ave. CS | 2.2 (0.6) | 2.4 (0.4) | 1.8 (0.4) | 2.1 (0.5) | |
SS | Wild habitat | 1.1 (0.4) | 1.2 (0.6) | 3.7 (0.4) | 2.0 (0.5) |
Soil formation | 1.2 (0.4) | 1.4 (0.3) | 2.9 (0.6) | 1.8 (0.4) | |
Ave, SS | 1.2 (0.4) | 1.3 (0.4) | 3.3 (0.5) | 1.9 (0.4) |
Occupation of Household Survey Participants | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mangrove Ecosystem Services | Subsistence Farmers | Fishermen | Public Servants | Small-Scale Business | Transporters | Craftsmen/Women | Educators |
(n = 48) | (n = 36) | (n = 14) | (n = 28) | (n = 22) | (n = 13) | (n = 21) | |
PS | |||||||
Poles | 3.6 (0.5) | 3.4 (0.4) | 1.5 (0.6) | 3.5 (0.5) | 2.0 (0.2) | 3.4 (0.0) | 1.1 (0.2) |
Firewood | 3.5 (0.7) | 3.7 (0.5) | 2.7 (0.4) | 3.1 (0.6) | 2.1 (0.4) | 3.1 (0.2) | 1.9 (0.0) |
Medicines | 2.8 (0.6) | 3.2 (0.7) | 1.2 (0.2) | 2.3 (0.5) | 2.1 (0.4) | 2.4 (0.4) | 1.6 (0.3) |
Fodder | 1.4 (0.4) | 1.5 (0.5) | 1.1 (0.3) | 1.1 (0.4) | 1.0 (0.5) | 1.5 (0.6) | 1.3 (0.7) |
Fruit | 1.3 (0.2) | 1.6 (0.4) | 1.2 (0.2) | 1.1 (0.5) | 1.0 (0.6) | 1.1 (0.4) | 1.0 (0.4) |
Picnic sites | 1.2 (0.2) | 1.1 (0.3) | 2.8 (0.6) | 1.9 (0.4) | 1.6 (0.2) | 1.7 (0.2) | 1.8 (0.0) |
Honey | 1.1 (0.3) | 1.0 (0.4) | 1.0 (0.2) | 1.0 (0.3) | 1.0 (0.2) | 1.0 (0.4) | 1.0 (0.2) |
RS | |||||||
Erosion control and sediment accretion | 2.9 (0.8) | 3.3 (0.6) | 3.0 (0.3) | 2.2 (0.5) | 1.7 (0.2) | 1.5 (0.4) | 3.8 (0.2) |
Regulation of climate | 2.7 (0.5) | 2.6 (0.4) | 2.8 (0.6) | 2.6 (0.5) | 1.2 (0.4) | 1.6 (0.2) | 3.6 (0.4) |
Attenuation of waves | 1.9 (0.3) | 3.2 (0.5) | 2.2 (0.0) | 1.4 (0.4) | 1.0 (0.2) | 1.3 (0.6) | 3.7 (0.6) |
CS | |||||||
Scenic beauty | 1.9 (0.7) | 1.7 (0.5) | 2.8 (0.0) | 1.2 (0.4) | 1.4 (0.6) | 1.5 (0.2) | 2.9 (0.0) |
Spiritual | 1.7 (0.5) | 1.8 (0.4) | 1.0 (0.0) | 1.1 (0.5) | 1.1 (0.2) | 1.7 (0.4) | 1.0 (0.2) |
Ecotourism | 1.3 (0.3) | 1.9 (0.6) | 1.4 (0.2) | 1.4 (0.5) | 1.2 (0.6) | 1.6 (0.2) | 2.6 (0.4) |
Education | 1.2 (0.2) | 1.3 (0.4) | 1.0 (0.0) | 1.3 (0.4) | 1.2 (0.2) | 1.2 (0.0) | 1.1 (0.6) |
SS | |||||||
Wild habitat | 2.6 (0.5) | 3.9 (0.4) | 2.0 (0.6) | 1.1 (0.4) | 1.1 (0.4) | 1.9 (0.2) | 3.8 (0.4) |
Soil formation | 1.3 (0.4) | 1.7 (0.5) | 1.1 (0.4) | 1.2 (0.2) | 1.0 (0.0) | 1.0 (0.2) | 3.6 (0.2) |
Factors | Chwaka Ward | Ukongoroni/Charawe Wards | Unguja Ukuu/Uzi Wards | Overall |
---|---|---|---|---|
Engagement in mangrove conservation activities | 2.6 (0.9) | 2.8 (0.8) | 3.3 (0.7) | 2.6 (0.8) |
Age of respondents | 1.1 (0.5) | 1.4 (0.4) | 1.1 (0.4) | 1.2 (0.4) |
Education level | 3.4 (0.2) | 3.7 (0.4) | 3.8 (0.5) | 3.6 (0.4) |
Socio-economic status of the local community | 2.4 (0.6) | 2.6 (0.5) | 2.2 (0.4) | 2.4 (0.5) |
Government policies related to the conservation of ecosystem services | 1.2 (0.3) | 1.3 (0.9) | 1.1 (0.2) | 1.2 (0.5) |
Intensity and frequency of utilizing mangrove products | 2.9 (0.7) | 2.6 (0.2) | 2.6 (0.3) | 2.7 (0.4) |
Institutions responsible for managing mangroves | 2.6 (0.5) | 2.1 (0.6) | 2.3 (0.4) | 2.3 (0.5) |
Drivers of Changes in Mangrove Ecosystem Services | Chwaka Ward | Ukongoroni/Charawe Wards | Unguja Ukuu/Uzi Wards | Overall |
---|---|---|---|---|
Lack of alternative livelihood | 3.5 (0.6) | 3.4 (0.4) | 3.6 (0.6) | 3.5 (0.5) |
Insufficient resources to fund institutions and hiring of adequate personnel to manage forestry resources | 3.4 (0.5) | 3.3 (0.9) | 3.1 (1.1) | 3.3 (0.8) |
Unresponsive/faulty institutional structure in forestry management | 3.6 (0.6) | 3.7 (0.6) | 3.3 (0.5) | 3.5 (0.6) |
Population growth | 2.4 (0.8) | 2.9 (0.2) | 2.8 (0.6) | 2.7 (0.5) |
Climate change | 2.1 (0.4) | 2.8 (0.6) | 2.5 (0.9) | 2.5 (0.6) |
Unresponsive/faulty government forestry policy | 2.0 (0.5) | 2.5 (0.7) | 2.1 (0.5) | 2.2 (0.6) |
Agricultural development | 1.3 (0.4) | 1.3 (0.6) | 1.8 (0.4) | 1.5 (0.5) |
Expanded aquaculture | 2.0 (0.4) | 1.4 (0.2) | 1.1 (0.8) | 1.5 (0.5) |
Unchecked/uncontrolled coastal development | 2.9 (0.3) | 1.3 (0.7) | 1.4 (1.0) | 1.9 (0.7) |
Underfunded judicial system | 1.6 (0.6) | 1.7 (0.9) | 1.3 (0.3) | 1.5 (0.6) |
Weak government institutions | 1.9 (0.6) | 2.3 (0.2) | 2.1 (0.4) | 2.1 (0.3) |
Flawed/unclear/opaque/poorly formulated forestry policy and legal framework | 1.2 (0.4) | 1.0 (0.5) | 1.3 (0.8) | 1.2 (0.7) |
Lack of policy/laws specifically for mangroves | 2.2 (0.5) | 2.4 (0.2) | 2.1 (0.6) | 2.2 (0.2) |
Local communities feel they are entitled to ownership of and access to mangrove ecosystem services | 2.6 (0.4) | 2.4 (0.8) | 2.6 (0.2) | 2.5 (0.7) |
Lack of expertise and adequate staff in management of mangroves at local level | 1.4 (0.5) | 1.7 (0.3) | 1.9 (1.0) | 1.7 (0.6) |
Poor public participation in design and decision-making involving mangrove ecosystem services | 2.6 (0.8) | 3.0 (0.5) | 2.3 (0.5) | 2.6 (0.6) |
Unclear/faulty/discriminatory land tenure system | 3.4 (0.9) | 2.9 (0.6) | 3.2 (0.6) | 3.2 (0.7) |
Corruption | 2.8 (0.6) | 2.5 (0.4) | 2.7 (0.5) | 2.7 (0.5) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Mohamed, M.K.; Adam, E.; Jackson, C.M. Assessing the Perception and Contribution of Mangrove Ecosystem Services to the Well-Being of Coastal Communities of Chwaka and Menai Bays, Zanzibar. Resources 2024, 13, 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources13010007
Mohamed MK, Adam E, Jackson CM. Assessing the Perception and Contribution of Mangrove Ecosystem Services to the Well-Being of Coastal Communities of Chwaka and Menai Bays, Zanzibar. Resources. 2024; 13(1):7. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources13010007
Chicago/Turabian StyleMohamed, Mohamed Khalfan, Elhadi Adam, and Colbert M. Jackson. 2024. "Assessing the Perception and Contribution of Mangrove Ecosystem Services to the Well-Being of Coastal Communities of Chwaka and Menai Bays, Zanzibar" Resources 13, no. 1: 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources13010007