P.R. Burbridge
Location of goods and services
On-site
Off-site
1
2
Vl
Usually included in an economic
May be included (e.g. fish
(])
Marketed
u
analysis (e.g. poles, charcoal,
or shellfish caught in
·s
(jj
woodchips, mangrove crabs)
adjacent waters)
Vl
""0
C
to
Vl
3
4
""0
0
0
Ol
Seldom included (e.g. medicinal
Usually ignored (e.g. nutrient
15
uses of mangrove, domestic
flows to estuaries, buffer
c
.2
Nonmarketed
fuelwood, food in times of famine,
to storm damage)
...
nursery area for juvenile fish,
to
:J
~
feeding ground for estuarine fish
and shrimp, viewing and studying
wildlife)
Fig. 2.3. Illustration of the economic and environmental goods and services produced by a coastal ecosystem - a mangrove (After Hamilton and Snedaker 1984)
adapting to global environmental change. For example, in respect to the amelioration
of coastal flooding hazards associated with predicted sea level rise a 10 m wide apron
of salt marsh along parts of the coast of Britain is considered to serve the same purpose as aIm high artificial sea defence.
Apart from valuations of mangrove and other wetlands illustrated above and work
by Spurgeon (1992) of coral reefs, there are few studies which attempts to quantify
the total economic value (TEV) of coastal habitats. The study by Costanza et al. (1997)
demonstrates that the value of all "potential" uses of individual coastal ecosystems
should be included in TEV calculations. However, this may not be acceptable to some
policy makers as it can be argued that some potential uses of resources will never be
adopted by individual societies and should not be included in calculations of what may
be lost versus what may be gained through alternative forms of development. This is
essentially a question of social choice.
There are also questions of social equity and freedom of choice which need to be
addressed in respect to dependence on coastal resources by local communities. It has
been calculated that some 40% of all animal protein consumed in coastal communities is derived from the capture of fish, molluscs and crustaceans. Many of these animals depend upon coastal ecosystems for part of their life cycle. Therefore, the welfare
of many coastal people in rural villages is intimately linked to and dependent upon
the sustained flow of resources derived from or supported by the functions of coastal
ecosystems.
Development activities, such as clear cutting coastal forests or conversion of wetlands
to shrimp ponds can reduce the support that these coastal ecosystems provide to the
sustained production of fish and other species. These developments can also alienate
people from other resources such as fuelwood or medicinal plants which help sustain
Location of goods and services
On-site
Off-site
1
2
Vl
Usually included in an economic
May be included (e.g. fish
(])
Marketed
u
analysis (e.g. poles, charcoal,
or shellfish caught in
·s
(jj
woodchips, mangrove crabs)
adjacent waters)
Vl
""0
C
to
Vl
3
4
""0
0
0
Ol
Seldom included (e.g. medicinal
Usually ignored (e.g. nutrient
15
uses of mangrove, domestic
flows to estuaries, buffer
c
.2
Nonmarketed
fuelwood, food in times of famine,
to storm damage)
...
nursery area for juvenile fish,
to
:J
~
feeding ground for estuarine fish
and shrimp, viewing and studying
wildlife)
Fig. 2.3. Illustration of the economic and environmental goods and services produced by a coastal ecosystem - a mangrove (After Hamilton and Snedaker 1984)
adapting to global environmental change. For example, in respect to the amelioration
of coastal flooding hazards associated with predicted sea level rise a 10 m wide apron
of salt marsh along parts of the coast of Britain is considered to serve the same purpose as aIm high artificial sea defence.
Apart from valuations of mangrove and other wetlands illustrated above and work
by Spurgeon (1992) of coral reefs, there are few studies which attempts to quantify
the total economic value (TEV) of coastal habitats. The study by Costanza et al. (1997)
demonstrates that the value of all "potential" uses of individual coastal ecosystems
should be included in TEV calculations. However, this may not be acceptable to some
policy makers as it can be argued that some potential uses of resources will never be
adopted by individual societies and should not be included in calculations of what may
be lost versus what may be gained through alternative forms of development. This is
essentially a question of social choice.
There are also questions of social equity and freedom of choice which need to be
addressed in respect to dependence on coastal resources by local communities. It has
been calculated that some 40% of all animal protein consumed in coastal communities is derived from the capture of fish, molluscs and crustaceans. Many of these animals depend upon coastal ecosystems for part of their life cycle. Therefore, the welfare
of many coastal people in rural villages is intimately linked to and dependent upon
the sustained flow of resources derived from or supported by the functions of coastal
ecosystems.
Development activities, such as clear cutting coastal forests or conversion of wetlands
to shrimp ponds can reduce the support that these coastal ecosystems provide to the
sustained production of fish and other species. These developments can also alienate
people from other resources such as fuelwood or medicinal plants which help sustain