Community Perceptions of Mangrove Ecosystem Services and Their Determinants in the Rufiji Delta, Tanzania

Abstract

Understanding how local communities perceive and depend on mangrove ecosystem services (MES) is important for translating and incorporating their benefits, priorities, and preferences into conservation and decision-making processes. We used focus group discussions, key informant interviews, household questionnaires, and direct observations to explore how local communities in the Rufiji Delta perceive a multitude of MES and factors influencing their perceptions. Sixteen MES were identified by the respondents. Provisioning services were the most highly identified services, accounting for 67% of the overall responses, followed by regulating (53%), cultural (45%), and supporting (45%) services. Poles for building, firewood for cooking, coastal protection, and habitats for fisheries were perceived as the most important MES to sustain local livelihoods, although the perceptions differed between sites. Distance from household homes to mangroves and residence time were significant predictors of the local communities’ awareness of all identified MES. Gender of household heads and performance of local management committees also determined the local communities’ awareness of provisioning, regulating, and cultural services. We conclude that perceptions of MES are context-specific and influenced by multiple factors. We believe a deeper understanding of local stakeholders’ preferences for MES can help strengthen the link between local communities and conservation actors and can provide a basis for sustainable management of mangrove forests.

Is the Co-management Approach Effective for Mangrove Conservation in West Africa?

“…These ethnic groups represent the indigenous sociocultural groups of the area (Gnansounou et al, 2021), and therefore are more knowledgeable about the degradation of mangroves in the reserve. This concurs with Nyangoko et al, (2021) who found difference in perception in the local use of mangroves in Tanzania with a signi cant variation across ethnic groups.…”

Mangrove Ecosystem Services, Associated Threats and Implications for Wellbeing in the Mono Transboundary Biosphere Reserve (Togo-Benin), West-Africa

“…In total, twenty-one services were identified in the reserve. Mangrove ES reported by interviewees in this study are consistent with those found in many other studies [16,31] with a slight difference in nomenclature. This difference in nomenclature is justified by the fact that there is not to date a unique form of classification of the subcategories of ES [32].…”

“…This difference in nomenclature is justified by the fact that there is not to date a unique form of classification of the subcategories of ES [32]. However, the services recorded in the reserve outnumber the ones reported by [16] and [31] who investigated mangrove ES respectively in Mexico and Tanzania using the same approach. The former reported thirteen mangrove ES while the latter recorded sixteen.…”

Community knowledge and utilization of mangroves in Panabo Mangrove Park, Panabo City, Davao del Norte, Philippines

“…Similar accounts were reported wherein respondents demonstrate a doubtful knowledge of the medicinal benefits of mangroves (Sulaiman et al 2019;Wahyuni et al 2021). Nyangoko et al (2021) even found out that local inhabitants perceive this benefit as unimportant compared to other provisioning services.…”

“…Awareness that mangroves provide one or all of these benefits was documented in several studies (e.g., Dencer-Brown et al 2019;Quevedo et al 2019;Setiyaningrum 2019;Wahyuni et al 2021). Most locals recognize these benefits due to their perceived importance and direct value to human livelihood (Nyangoko et al 2021). Interestingly, a considerable number of surveyed residents were not knowledgeable of mangroves being a source of firewood and charcoal at 24.7%, and construction and fishing materials at 27.9%.…”