29
Ecosystem Service
Agriculturist (Respondent Type 4)
SR
% of Vote
ESS4
Protection against storms and wave
actions
7
16.2
113.4
Erosion control
2
5.1
10.2
Nutrient retention
3
6.2
18.6
Heavy metal accumulation
4
9.3
37.2
Sink of GHGs
5
12.2
61.0
Reservoir of biodiversity
7
24.8
173.6
Source of alternative livelihood
1
4.2
4.2
Cultural and religious convergence
7
22
154.0
Ecosystem Service
Local inhabitant (Respondent Type 5)
SR
% of Vote
ESS5
Protection against storms and wave
actions
6
15.2
91.2
Erosion control
2
4.2
8.4
Nutrient retention
3
7.3
21.9
Heavy metal accumulation
4
9
36.0
Sink of GHGs
5
11
55.0
Reservoir of biodiversity
7
24.4
170.8
Source of alternative livelihood
1
2 .5
2.5
Cultural and religious convergence
7
2 6.4
184.8
Table 1.14 (continued)
Table 1.15 ANOVA results showing variations between selected ecosystem services of mangroves
and respondent’s views on the said services in the eastern Indian Sundarbans
Source of Variation
SS
df MS
F obs
P-value
F crit
Between Ecosystem Services 156972.5 7
22424.64 150.0822 1.76E-20 2.35926
Between Stakeholders
30.7475
4
7.686875 0.051446 0.994753 2.714076
Error
4183.641 28 149.4157
1 Ecosystem Services of Mangroves: An Overview