289
to avoid loss. It is not always possible to be precise in these cases, since the value
relies on mitigation/compensation. It is about finding an alternative to reduce the
impact on biodiversity caused by human activity resulting from the drive towards
economic development.
Biodiversity also has social amenity value. For example, considering the riverine
fisherman, or a honey collector collector in the forest, biodiversity can improve their
standards of living, making these forest people proud, and helping them lead more
fulfilled lives. Biodiversity reinforces economic and social security; economic and
social values will in turn reinforce biodiversity conservation by means of cultural
instruments. The comprehensive valuation of mangrove biodiversity is still in an
embryonic stage. On the one hand the value of provisioning services manifests itself
through market prices; on the other, the importance of biodiversity as part of the
ecosystem that produces and regulates cultural services cannot be captured in financial markets. In the mangrove forests of Sundarbans, the cultural services like worshipping of Gods/Godesses as the protector of ecosystems has no market valuation
in the present stage and needs lots of researches involving specialists in social science, economics and psychology to fill this gap zone. Also the energy flowing
through food webs of the mangrove ecosystem has not yet been valued like electrical energy or thermal energy, although the end visible entities like species have their
own market values. The overall ecosystem service of mangrove biodiversity is yet
to go a long way to see the total financial coverage.
References
Annandale, A. (1907). The fauna of the brackish ponds at Port Canning, Lower Bengal. Records
of the Indian Museum, 1, 33–43.
Banerjee, K., Mitra, A., Bhattacharyya, D. P., & Choudhury, A. (2000). A preliminary study
of phytoplankton diversity and water quality around Haldia port-cum-industrial complex.
Proceedings of the national seminar on “protection of the environment – An urgent need”,
pp. 15–18.
Boto, K. G., & Wellington, J. T. (1984). Soil characteristics and nutrient status in a Northern
Australian mangrove forest. Estuaries, 7, 61–69.
Chaudhuri, A. B., & Choudhuri, A. (1994). Mangroves of the Sundarbans. Vol. 1: India. Bangkok:
IUCN.
Clark, L. D., & Hannon, N. J. (1967). The mangrove swamp and salt marsh communities of the
Sydney district. I. Vegetation, soils, and climate. Journal of Ecology, 55, 753–771.
Coppejans, E., Beeckman, H., & De Wit, M. (1992). The seagrass and associated macroalgal vegetation of Gazi Bay (Kenya). Hydrobiologia, 247, 59–75.
Costa, C. S. B., & Davy, A. J. (1992). Coastal salt marsh communities of Latin America. In
U. Seeliger (Ed.), Coastal plant communities of Latin America (pp. 179–199). San Diego:
Academic Press.
Delaune, R. D., Patrick, W. H., & Brannon, J. M. (1976). Nutrient transformation in Louisiana
salt marsh soils. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University. Sea Grant Publication No.
LSlT-T-76-009.
References
to avoid loss. It is not always possible to be precise in these cases, since the value
relies on mitigation/compensation. It is about finding an alternative to reduce the
impact on biodiversity caused by human activity resulting from the drive towards
economic development.
Biodiversity also has social amenity value. For example, considering the riverine
fisherman, or a honey collector collector in the forest, biodiversity can improve their
standards of living, making these forest people proud, and helping them lead more
fulfilled lives. Biodiversity reinforces economic and social security; economic and
social values will in turn reinforce biodiversity conservation by means of cultural
instruments. The comprehensive valuation of mangrove biodiversity is still in an
embryonic stage. On the one hand the value of provisioning services manifests itself
through market prices; on the other, the importance of biodiversity as part of the
ecosystem that produces and regulates cultural services cannot be captured in financial markets. In the mangrove forests of Sundarbans, the cultural services like worshipping of Gods/Godesses as the protector of ecosystems has no market valuation
in the present stage and needs lots of researches involving specialists in social science, economics and psychology to fill this gap zone. Also the energy flowing
through food webs of the mangrove ecosystem has not yet been valued like electrical energy or thermal energy, although the end visible entities like species have their
own market values. The overall ecosystem service of mangrove biodiversity is yet
to go a long way to see the total financial coverage.
References
Annandale, A. (1907). The fauna of the brackish ponds at Port Canning, Lower Bengal. Records
of the Indian Museum, 1, 33–43.
Banerjee, K., Mitra, A., Bhattacharyya, D. P., & Choudhury, A. (2000). A preliminary study
of phytoplankton diversity and water quality around Haldia port-cum-industrial complex.
Proceedings of the national seminar on “protection of the environment – An urgent need”,
pp. 15–18.
Boto, K. G., & Wellington, J. T. (1984). Soil characteristics and nutrient status in a Northern
Australian mangrove forest. Estuaries, 7, 61–69.
Chaudhuri, A. B., & Choudhuri, A. (1994). Mangroves of the Sundarbans. Vol. 1: India. Bangkok:
IUCN.
Clark, L. D., & Hannon, N. J. (1967). The mangrove swamp and salt marsh communities of the
Sydney district. I. Vegetation, soils, and climate. Journal of Ecology, 55, 753–771.
Coppejans, E., Beeckman, H., & De Wit, M. (1992). The seagrass and associated macroalgal vegetation of Gazi Bay (Kenya). Hydrobiologia, 247, 59–75.
Costa, C. S. B., & Davy, A. J. (1992). Coastal salt marsh communities of Latin America. In
U. Seeliger (Ed.), Coastal plant communities of Latin America (pp. 179–199). San Diego:
Academic Press.
Delaune, R. D., Patrick, W. H., & Brannon, J. M. (1976). Nutrient transformation in Louisiana
salt marsh soils. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University. Sea Grant Publication No.
LSlT-T-76-009.
References