Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Social valuation of mangroves in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria

Social valuation of mangroves in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 2013 Vol. 9, No. 4, 311–323, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2013.842611 a b c d e f Godstime K. James *, Jimmy O. Adegoke , Sylvester Osagie , Saba Ekechukwu , Peter Nwilo and Joseph Akinyede a b Department of Strategic Space Applications, National Space Research and Development Agency, Abuja, Nigeria; Department of Geosciences, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Missouri, USA; University Office of Global Programs, The Pennsylvania State d e University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA; Map and Image Systems Limited, Warri, Delta State, Nigeria; Office of the Surveyor General of the Federation, FCT, Abuja, Nigeria; African Regional Centre for Space Science and Technology Education in English Language, Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria Worldwide, the mangrove ecosystem is in serious decline. The continuous conversion of mangrove vegetation to alternative usage is attributable to the lack of appreciation for the many ecological services, as well as products from the vegetation. As a result, seminal studies have been conducted severally to estimate the economic value of products and services derived from mangroves. However, mangroves also exhibit social value which has been called cultural services of ecosystems, cultural capital of ecosystems and sociocultural perspective of critical natural capital. The social value of mangroves is qualitative and thus antithetical, as well as distinguishable from quantitative economic value in which money is the natural common measurement unit. It is for this very reason that the social value of mangroves is often not captured for policy- and decision-making. This study, therefore, focuses on the social valuation of mangroves in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria using the following social value variables: therapeutic value, amenity value, heritage value, spiritual value and existence value. Results from household surveys conducted in Buguma, Burutu and Kuruama communities in the Niger Delta, as part of this study, revealed various degrees of social value for mangroves in the three communities. A major policy implication emanating from this finding indicates that the decision to convert mangrove vegetation in the Niger Delta to alternative use should be based on the consideration of the pluralism of the value of mangroves. This includes consideration for the economic as well as the social value of mangroves. Keywords: social valuation; economic valuation; mangroves; Niger Delta; ecosystem; sustainability Introduction focusing on the benefits of wetlands to human society and well-being (e.g. de Groot 1992, 1994; Pearce 1993; Worldwide, mangrove ecosystems are in serious decline Bingham et al. 1995; Daily 1997a; Pimentel & Wilson (Held et al. 2003). Mangrove forests once covered three- 1997; Limburg & Folke 1999; Wilson & Carpenter fourths of the coastline in the tropics and sub-tropical 1999; Barbier 2000; Daily et al. 2000; Millennium countries. Only about 50% of these forests remain today, Ecosystem Assessment 2003; de Groot et al. 2006; and half of the remaining vegetation is degraded Barbier 2007). (Upadhyay et al. 2002). The continuous decline of the Nonetheless, the seminal studies that revealed the eco- vegetation has been attributed primarily to unsustainable nomic value of environmental resources, such as the forest economic development, such as the conversion of man- ecosystem, date back to two decades when Peters et al. groves into shrimp farms for short-term profit, only to (1989) published a two-page piece in Nature. They abandon the farm after a few years, leaving the ecosystem stunned the ecological community with their findings, polluted with aquaculture reagents (Aksornkoae 2004). which revealed that the non-timber forest products According to the millennium ecosystem assessment report (NTFPs) from a 1-ha forest plot in Mishana (30 km from (2003), an estimated 35% of mangroves have been Iquitos, Peru) were worth $700. By adjusting for labour removed due to shrimp and fish aquaculture, deforestation and transportation cost, the time-discounted net present and freshwater diversion. This is not surprising since prior value (NPV) of present and future harvests of fruits and to the 1960s, wetlands, including mangroves, were per- latex alone was estimated at $6330 for a single hectare ceived as wastelands that could only be ‘improved’ (Sheil & Wunder 2002). About eight years later, another through conversion to alternative use (Mitsch & publication appeared in Nature by Costanza et al. (1997), Gosselink 1993). This may have as well been due to a with the claim that ecosystem services provide global lack of appreciation for the many ecological functions, benefits of $33 trillion per year, a figure that was in excess products and services produced by wetlands. of the world gross product by approximately 83%. There Nevertheless, some of the early references to the concept is also the recognition that the valuation of ecosystem of wetlands functions, services, and their value can be goods and services as a policy tool was established traced back to the mid-1960s and early 1970s (e.g. King through the pioneering work of Daily (1997a, 1997b), 1966; Helliwell 1969; Hueting 1970). However, in recent whose edited volume listed a different set of views on times, there has been tremendous increase in research *Corresponding author. Email: godstimej@gmail.com © 2013 Taylor & Francis 312 G.K. James et al. the links between specific ecological services and the and thus should be determined using economic valuation economic benefits from such services (Howarth & Farber (Barbier 1994; Freeman 2003). The approach is imple- 2002). Consequently, as a response to the growing aware- mented as non-use value within the total economic valua- ness of the value of wetlands, there is now substantial tion paradigm. The theoretical foundation of the literature on wetland valuation, with the primary focus of framework is based on the neoclassical economic theory informing environmental policies (Barbier et al. 1997; in which the utility maximization framework estimates Bardecki 1998; Kazmierczak 2001). Many of the existing value by ascertaining how much individual consumers of studies vary widely in the valuation techniques employed, an environmental goods or services gain or lose from the the actual wetland products and services valued and the use or non-use of the environmental resource, when the type and geographical location of the wetlands considered goods or services provided by such a resource decline or (Brander et al. 2006). A meta-analysis review of economic increase in quality or quantity (NRC 2005). The frame- valuation of wetlands literature by Heimlich et al. (1998) work measures individual welfare, i.e. whether the indivi- identified 33 studies with values ranging from $0.06 to dual is better off or worse off, as a result of the changes in $22,050 per acre (Woodward & Wui 2001). the environmental services. Therefore, welfare measure is Although much of the wetland valuation literature is based on the assumption that for any individual, the dif- focused on the economic value of wetlands, however, wet- ferent sources of utilitarian value to such an individual are lands, such as mangroves, also exhibit social values that are substitutable so that, on aggregate, the individual utility not directly ascribable to the ecological or the economic remains unchanged (presumably at the maximum level, domain, but which are nevertheless essential for the proper subject to income or budget constraints, and given the functioning of society and human well-being (Chiesura & de prices of all goods and services) (Freeman 2003). This Groot 2003). Such social value of wetlands has been var- approach has been applied to capture the total and incre- iously called ‘cultural services of ecosystems’ (Millennium mental changes in ecosystems services within the frame- Ecosystem Assessment 2005), ‘cultural capital of ecosys- work of cost-benefit analysis for policy development tems’ (de Groot et al. 2006), ‘socio-cultural perspective of (M. Kumar & P. Kumar 2008). However, economic valua- critical natural capital’ (Chiesura & de Groot 2003)and tion approach to the social value of wetlands has long been ‘socio-cultural value of ecosystems’ (de Groot & Van der adjudged as inadequate for several reasons (Etzioni 1988; Meer 2010). The social value of wetlands within the context Bishop 1993; Jacobs 1995; Vatn 2000; Wilson & Howarth of this study is based on people’s view of their wetland for 2002; Chiesura & de Groot 2003; M. Kumar & P. Kumar ethical, religious, cultural and philosophical reasons. Hence, 2008). First, economic efficiency is only one of diverse for many people, wetlands are considered as source of sub- indicators that can guide environmental decision-making jective well-being (SWB) that is closely associated with (Zendehdel et al. 2008). Other indicators include politi- deeply held historical, communal, ethical, religious and spiri- cal and social factors. Second, the assumption that the tual values. Consequently, it is qualitative and thus antitheti- environmental resource being value is private and thus cal, as well as distinguishable from quantitative economic has its property right well-defined is compromised by value in which money is the natural common measurement the public nature of environmental resource. Hence, unit. It is for this very reason that the social value of wetland property rights on such environmental resource are is seldom captured for policy- and decision-making. often not clearly defined (Vatn & Bromley 1997). Similarly, very little research has been conducted to qualita- Third, economic valuation is market-based, but ecosys- tively measure the social value of wetlands to society. tem goods and services being valued do not necessarily enter the market and thus lack reliable price signals (Samuelson 1954). In response to this criticism, non- Frameworks for the social valuation of wetlands market methods, such as stated preferences, have been From a social equity perspective, one crucial question that proposed to accommodate the public nature of environ- has generated heated debate in public discourse on the mental resources (Krutilla 1967; Boyle & Bishop 1987; valuation of ecosystem goods and services is how such Mitchell & Carson 1989;Loomis 1992; Bishop & valuation should be conducted to ensure equity and fair- Welsh 1993;Pearce&Moran 1994;Carson& ness to communities and individuals who derive social Hanemann 2005). value from such goods and services. As a result, some of One of the widely used stated preference methods is the approaches proposed for capturing the social value of the contingent valuation approach that elicits willingness wetlands include economic valuation, discourse-based to pay for the conservation of an environmental resource valuation, psycho-cultural approach, sociocultural perspec- or willingness to accept compensation for the alternative tive of critical natural capital and cultural capital of use of the resource. However, the contingent valuation ecosystems. method has received considerable criticisms coming from economic (Hausman 1993; Diamond & Hausman 1994; Knetsch 1994; Vatn 2004), political (Sagoff 1998a; Smith Economic valuation framework 2003; Spash 2007) and psychological fields (Kahneman Resource economists consider cultural values and their et al. 1999; Spash & Vatn 2006; Spash 2007; Zendehdel et al. 2008). First, the assumption that all individuals have social welfare indicators as a subset of economic value International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 313 the required utility function for their responses to contin- environmental resource is located. Within this framework, gent valuation questions, used in valuing social equity on social equity issues of interest to the community are environmental resources, has been contested by some addressed. A major strength of this theoretical framework authors including Common et al. (1997) and Sagoff is that local communities (applying their local knowledge) (1988b). In fact, Sagoff (1988b) would argue that when are involved in decision-making and the equitable valua- individuals make decisions about the environment, they do tion of their environmental resources. But evidence from so as ‘citizens’ and not as ‘consumers’. As a result, the social psychology suggests that small groups may not be individual considers issues of cost benefit analysis to the very efficient at pooling unshared information to reach nation as whole, and this involves consideration of senti- consensus, thereby leading to suboptimal results (Stasser mental, historical, ideological, cultural, aesthetic and ethi- & Titus 1985; Stasser & Stewart 1992; Stasser et al. 1995; cal values (Common et al. 1997). Moreover, a range of Wilson & Howarth 2002). Consequently, the administra- broadly rights-based or deontological positions do appear tion of survey instrument at the individual or household to be relevant to the general public when considering the level to elicit individual unit-based information has been environment (Spash 1997), and as such have important suggested as a complementary approach to discourse- implications for the responses to contingent valuation based valuation (Kaplowitz & Hoehn 2001). questions (Spash 2000). Second, the respondents in the contingent valuation method are insensitive to the scope of Psycho-cultural perspective framework the environmental resource being valued (Liljas & Lindgren 2001; NRC 2005). Therefore, the responses are The psycho-cultural valuation perspective proposed by M. subjective and do not vary with respect to variation in the Kumar and P. Kumar (2008) would argue for the initiation scope and size of the environmental resource being valued. of a ‘transdisciplinary’ dialogue aiming at reciprocal alli- Given these shortcomings, other modified contingent ance and cooperation between natural and social science valuation frameworks have been proposed. They include research through debates on environmental ethics, tools the use of choice experiments (CE) and deliberative mone- and methods of social inquiry and socio-economic devel- tary valuation (DMV) to elicit stakeholders’ preferences opment as well as empowerment. The goal is to bring towards environmental criteria (Spash 2007). Although these disciplines together to determine the appropriate these methods have some advantages over the contingent framework for the valuation of ecosystem services. This valuation approach for constructing and eliciting stake- framework is built on two components. First is the intrin- holders’ preferences, the methods still require people to sic value (such as aesthetic, moral and cultural values) of make trade-offs between environmental criteria (Vatn ecosystem services, and second is the mapping of ways in 2004). However, the concept of value pluralism in envir- which the interactions between man and his natural envir- onmental valuation related to ‘incommensurability and onment have a bearing upon his psychological well-being. incomparability of environmental values’ restricts making They further argue that results from studies in develop- trade-offs between environmental criteria (Liljas & mental and moral psychology indicate that majority of Lindgren 2001; Smith 2003; Vatn 2004; Zendehdel et al. people base moral choice, and subsequently trade-offs, 2008). Sequel to the challenges associated with economic on social norms, affective reactions and moral intuition, valuation, other valuation frameworks have been proposed rather than on analytical moral reasoning as obtained in economic valuation framework (M. Kumar & P. Kumar to complement the economic valuation framework, parti- cularly when equity and social fairness are under consid- 2008; Menzel & Wiek 2009). Hence, the psycho-cultural eration (Richards & Davies 1999; Chiesura & de Groot perspective to valuation of ecosystem services brings the 2003; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). These need for the concept of ecological identity, interdiscipli- approaches are presented in the following section. narity in approach and methodological pluralism in outlook. Discourse-based valuation Sociocultural value framework The discourse-based valuation framework (Coote & Lenaghan 1997; Jacobs 1997; Perkins 2001; Wilson & The framework applies the concept of critical natural Howarth 2002) emanated from a convergence of argu- capital within the framework of sociocultural value to ments from economics, social psychology, decision elicit values of nature which are not directly quantifiable science and political theory. Its basic principle is based in monetary terms (i.e. amenity, health, education and on the assumption that the valuation of public goods, such symbolic meanings), but which belong to the ethical, as the social value of ecosystems, should result not from spiritual and affective realm of human beings, and which the aggregation of separately measured individual prefer- reflect the intangible dimensions of human-nature relation- ences, but from a process of free and open public debate ship (Chiesura & de Groot 2003). The primary focus of (Habermas 1984; Dryzek 1990; Fishkin 1991; Wilson & this framework is the human being situated within its Howarth 2002). Therefore, the social value of ecosystem social and psychological context, its non-materialistic services should be determined from an open debate with needs, its understanding of well-being and the rational, participants drawn from the community were such an as well as the emotional components of its attitudes 314 G.K. James et al. towards the natural environment. This framework is amenity value, heritage value, spiritual value and existence derived from empirical research in environmental psychol- value (de Groot et al. 2006). This is based on the paradigm ogy and landscape planning which demonstrates that there that for many people, natural systems, including wetlands, is indeed a strong non-monetary relationship between are a crucial source of non-material well-being through human and nature (e.g. Ulrich 1984; Hartig et al. 1991; their influence on physical and mental health and histor- Schroeder 1991; Coley et al. 1997). As a result, social ical, national, ethical, religious and spiritual values valuation of ecosystems directs the valuation exercise (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003). Some of the towards public debate, discursive and deliberative pro- methods that have been proposed to measure the various cesses and qualitative appraisal rather than to the market social value components include checklist, administration (Chiesura & de Groot 2003). of questionnaires, interviews and visual media (Guijt & Hinchcliffe 1998; Brown et al. 2001; de Groot et al. 2006). Natural capital of wetland services framework Methods The natural capital of wetland services framework for accounting for the social values of wetland ecosystem Study area consist of disaggregating the social value attached to wet- The Niger Delta (shown in Figure 1), with a spatial extent lands into the following components: therapeutic value, of 75,000 km , is the largest Delta in Africa and consists Figure 1. Niger Delta Region of Nigeria and location map in Nigeria. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 315 of primarily a vast sedimentary basin derived from the economic value of the various components of the man- natural Delta of the Niger River. The region is significant grove ecosystem in the region is significant. However, the on account of the hydrocarbon deposits from which vegetation is highly undervalued by policymakers and Nigeria export about 2.4 million barrels per day; this stakeholders in the region. For example, the transnational accounts for over 90% of Nigeria’s foreign exchange earn- oil corporations operating in the region use a compensa- ings. With such production output, Nigeria is a member of tion rate of $24 for each hectare of mangrove destroyed or Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries degraded (UNDP 2006). The United Nations Development (OPEC), the largest exporter of crude oil in Africa, fifth Program (UNDP 2006) study found that this compensation largest exporter to the United States (accounting for 14% rate was determined without adequate consultation or of US oil consumption) and seventh largest exporter in the input from the host communities and so lacked the trans- world. The low sulphur and high-quality crude (called parency and fairness required for peaceful or sustainable Bonny Light) from the Niger Delta makes Nigeria’s engagement (UNDP 2006). crude oil lucrative and attractive to foreign buyers (Watts This is corroborated by the finding that an hectare of 2004). mangrove in the region has a potential yield of between The Niger Delta region is also significant on account $642/ha – $2853/ha (James et al. 2011). Moreover, the of the vast geographic spread of mangrove vegetation in social value of mangroves in the region has neither been the region. The region is home to three endemic families determined nor published in public domain. It is this of mangrove vegetation represented by five plant species lack of equitable valuation for the mangroves in the and one introduced family of exotic species. The endemic region that has encouraged the unsustainable use of families are Rhizophoraceae family (red mangrove), con- the ecosystem and thus threatens the continuous exis- sisting of Rhizophora racemosa, R. harrisonii and R. tence of the forest in the Niger Delta. Hence, the thrust mangle species; the Avicenniaceae family (white man- of this study is to determine the social value of man- grove) made up of Avicennia africana species; and the groves in the Niger Delta. Combretaceae family consisting of Laguncularia race- mosa species. The Arecaceae (Palmaceae) is the only Social valuation framework introduced family consisting of Nypa frutican exotic spe- cies. The mangrove ecosystem in the region consists of the For many coastal communities living within the mangrove whole complex of swamp terrain, mudflats, mangrove ecosystem of the Niger Delta, they derive non-material trees, creeks, drain canals, the invertebrate and vertebrate well-being through cultural, historical, spiritual, aesthetic, fauna and micro-organisms and the interacting physio– ethical and recreational values (Focus Group 2008). As a chemical factors, such as temperature, salinity and tides result, the natural capital of wetland services framework associated with the system (Moses 1985). In the Niger proposed by de Groot et al. (2006) was adapted in this Delta, the mangrove ecosystem is extensive and spreads study to qualitatively measure the social values ascribed to across the following states: Ondo, Edo, Delta, Bayelsa, the mangroves by the Niger Delta communities. The fra- Rivers, Akwa-Ibom and Cross Rivers. Approximately mework is presented in Figure 2 and it provides for the measuring of the following variables: therapeutic value, 80% of the vegetation is found in Delta, Bayelsa and amenity value, heritage value, spiritual value and existence River States (World Bank 1995); hence this study is value (adapted from de Groot et al. 2006). Each of these focused on the mangrove vegetation in these three states. The mangrove vegetation in the region is the largest con- variables was qualitatively measured by combining focus tiguous mangrove forest in Africa. It is shielded from sea group and household surveys methods (de Groot et al. water, a characteristic that differs from that of several other 2006). African countries where the mangroves are directly exposed to sea water (NDES 1997). Plant products con- Therapeutic value stitute a substantial amount of the goods extracted from the mangrove ecosystem in the Niger Delta, both at the Therapeutic value includes the provision of medicines, subsistence and commercial levels (Saenger et al. 1983; clean air, water, soil, space for recreation and outdoor Hamilton & Snedaker 1984; Focus Group 2008). Some of sports, and general therapeutic effects of wetlands on the goods extracted from the mangrove vegetation by the peoples’ mental and physical well-being. The basic communities in the region include the following: fuel- wood, charcoal, timber material for building, wood chips SOCIAL VALUE (NON-MONETARY) for stacking fish, salt, billets, railway sleepers, tannins, dyes and food (Macnae 1968; Walsh 1974; Hamilton & Snedaker 1984; Abuodha & Kairo 2001; Saenger 2002; Focus Group 2008). These goods are tied to the fabric, Therapeutic Amenity Heritage Spiritual Existence lifestyle, culture and livelihood of the various communities value value value value value in the mangrove ecosystem of the region. Furthermore, these products are some of the major sources of livelihood Figure 2. The social value framework (Adapted from de Groot et al. 2006). for the coastal communities in the region. As a result, the 316 G.K. James et al. indicators for measuring this value are suitability and capacity of mangroves in the provision of ‘health ser- vices,’ restorative and regenerative effects on people’s performance, and socio-economic benefits from reduced health costs and conditions. Amenity value Amenity value stems from the important role of wetlands in cognitive development, mental relaxation, artistic inspiration, aesthetic enjoyment and recreational benefits. The indicators for measuring amenity value include aes- thetic quality of landscapes, recreational features and use, artistic features and individual preference. An example of the amenity value of wetlands is the natural scenery that the mangrove ecosystem provides when viewed from a distance. Heritage value Figure 3. The communities surveyed in the Niger Delta. Heritage value of mangroves is the role of the vegetation as reference for personal or collective history and cultural were conducted in the Niger Delta for primary data identity. It is a communal value and may include historic collection in 2007 and 2008. The focus group sessions sites, features and artefacts, designated cultural landscapes, and household surveys were conducted in the following cultural traditions and knowledge. In recognition of heri- Niger Delta communities shown in Figure 3:Buguma tage value, the UNESCO World Heritage System has and Kuruama in Rivers State, andBurutuinDeltaState. continued to declare some areas as Heritage Sites for These communities were selected because they represent their aesthetic, historic and cultural relevance. the ethnic and geographic distribution of communities found within the mangrove ecological zone in the Spiritual value region. In addition, Buguma and Burutu represent large communities within the mangrove ecological Spiritual value indicates religious and spiritual signifi- zone, while Kuruama is an example of a small commu- cance of mangrove vegetation. Indicators of spiritual nity within the zone. Given the nature of this study, value include the presence of sacred sites or features in ethical clearance was sought from the paramount tradi- mangroves; such sites may include shrines where spiritual tional ruler of each of the three communities before worship is conducted or specific mangrove trees marked conducting the focus group sessions as well as the for worship and reverence. Other indicators of spiritual value include the role of mangrove vegetation in religious household surveys. ceremonies and development of sacred texts. Focus group sessions Existence value Focus group sessions were conducted in Buguma, Existence value (also referred to as ‘warm glow-value’)is Kuruama and Burutu communities with 24, 20 and 24 a measure of the importance attached to some of the non- participants, respectively. The participants were drawn such that they represented stakeholders in each commu- use properties of mangroves by local communities living nity. These stakeholders included community elders, within or in proximity to the vegetation. Such attachment women, fishermen and youths. Each session was con- can be for ethical reasons (intrinsic value) or intergenera- ducted in an atmosphere of ease, and all the participants tional equity (bequest value). One of the major indicators had equal chance of participation. As a result, no speaker for measuring the existence value is the preference for was hindered by external compulsion or pressure. protecting the mangrove vegetation based on ethical Similarly, participants were allowed to express their own reason. attitudes, needs and preferences for the social services from mangroves. Each session was conducted in English Primary data collection language, and a local interpreter was hired to translate all the discussions into the local dialects. The findings from Focus group discussions and household surveys were the focus group sessions were used to develop the survey used to collect the primary data sets used to qualita- instrument that was deployed for the social valuation of tively estimate the social value of the mangrove vegeta- mangroves in the three communities. After developing the tion in this study. Hence, as part of this study, field trips International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 317 questionnaire, it was pretested on the focus group partici- addition, such a structure enhanced the ability of respondents pants and some questions were thereafter rephrased to test to provide absolute answers to questions; hence they could the alertness of the respondents. The involvement of the either respond ‘Yes’, ‘No’ or ‘Idon’tknow’. All the ‘Idon’t communities at the inception of the instrument develop- know’ responses were not included in the final result analy- ment was to ensure that the survey instrument was cultu- sis. In addition, most of the questions were structured such rally relevant to the communities in which the survey will that a ‘Yes’ response to a question indicated support for the be conducted. In addition, it was an opportunity for the social value variable being measured, while a ‘No’ response communities to make contributions to the estimation of the indicated a dissent. However, the questions rephrased to test social value of the mangrove vegetation in their the alertness of respondents were exempted from this rule, e. community. g., if the mangrove forest in your community was completely cleared, will that make your community look better? A ‘No’ response implies support for the social value variable being measured, while a ‘Yes’ response implies a dissent. Each Survey instrument variable was thereafter measured by aggregating the affirma- The survey instrument consisted of two sections. The first tive responses. Thereafter, the mean of the percentage dis- section sought for socio-economic information of the respon- tribution of the affirmative responses was estimated using dent, such as education level, occupation, age group, length Equation (1). of stay of respondent in the community and household income. The second section is presented in Table 1 and consisted of questions required to qualitatively measure the ðP Þ ikv i¼1 μ ¼ (1) kv variables in the social valuation framework (i.e. therapeutic value, amenity value, heritage value, spiritual value and where: existence value). All the questions in the survey instrument µ = Mean percentage distribution of affirmative consisted of closed-ended type of questions. This type of kv response for social value variable (k) in community (v). question was used for the ease of coding during analysis. In Table 1. List of questions used to measure the social value of mangroves. Id Social value variables and questions used to measure them Yes No I don’t know Therapeutic value H1 Does the mangrove provide medicinal resources for your community? H2 Has the medicinal resources from the mangrove in your community reduced the number of patients in the community clinic? H3 If you had no community clinic, can the resources from the mangroves cure the common sicknesses in your community? H4 Does the health of your community dependent on the good health of the mangrove? Amenity value H5 Does the mangrove add natural beauty to your community? H6 Does the mangrove in your community provide space for community relaxation and enjoyment? H7 Have you learnt anything about the mangrove that you would not have learnt if the mangroves were not in your community? H8 If the mangrove forest in your community was completely cleared, will that make your community look better? Heritage value H9 Is the mangrove a very important aspect of your community’s history? H10 Does the mangrove play any important role in your culture and tradition? H11 Does your community view the mangrove as heritage from your forefathers? H12 Would you like the mangrove in your community to be in existence for the future generation of the community? Spiritual value H13 Does the mangrove serve as the foundation for your community’s spiritual beliefs? H14 Does your community use materials from the mangrove for spiritual worship? H15 Does your community perform any spiritual worship in the mangrove? H16 Does your community attach any myth to the mangrove? Existence value H17 Do you think it is the duty of the community to protect the mangrove from destruction, regardless of the cost? H18 Does the mangrove have a right to exist, even if you do not derive any benefit from the vegetation? H19 If you have money, are you willing to pay to protect the mangrove from destruction? H20 Do you think it is fair to destroy the mangrove? 318 G.K. James et al. P = Percentage distribution of affirmative response Results and discussion ikv to each question used to measure variable (k) in commu- Socio-economic characteristics of respondents nity (v). Although the survey instrument was administered to 136, 155 i = Question used to measure variable (k). and 60 households, only 126, 150 and 60 questionnaires were N = Total number of questions used to measure vari- validated in Buguma, Burutu and Kuruama, respectively. As a able (k). result, 10 questionnaires were voided in Buguma while 5 K = Variable used to measure social value (therapeutic, were voided in Burutu due to incompleteness. A summary amenity, heritage, spiritual and existence). of results for the socio-economic characteristics of respon- v = Community where survey was conducted. dents is presented in Table 2. The majority of household respondents that participated in this survey were male house- hold heads. They accounted for 60% of respondents while Household survey female household heads constituted 40%. Most of the house- The final phase of the primary data-gathering process hold heads sampled were within the age bracket of 41 years involved the administration of the survey instrument and above; they constituted 59% of the respondents. On developed from the focus group discussions. The sample average, the respondents had lived in their community for size was estimated at the 90% confidence interval and 29 years. With reference to the educational background of the 95% confidence level, resulting in a minimum of the respondents, 37% had completed their secondary education, following sample sizes: 87, 85 and 55 from a population while 33% had primary level education. This is not surprising size of 900, 700 and 128 households in Buguma, Burutu because the majority of those with higher educational back- and Kuruama communities, respectively. However, to ground are more likely to migrate to the cities for better accommodate redundancy, the survey instrument was opportunities. The majority of those sampled (67%) reported administered to 136, 155 and 60 households in Buguma, the extraction of mangrove resources as their full-time occu- Burutu and Kuruama communities, respectively. pation. The extraction of these resources is at the subsistence Participants in the household survey were selected based level. Nine out of every 10 household respondents extract on the quasi-systematic random sampling procedure. The fishery resources within the adjoining community rivers and sampling approach was implemented as follows: Four creeks. The reported average monthly income of respondents survey teams were deployed in each community with was N18,694 ($130). each team responsible for a quadrant of the village. The starting point for all the teams was always the village square at the geographic centre of each community. Social value variables From the village square, each team moved into its Summary of results showing the percentage distribution of assigned quadrant and visited the first household in the the respondents with affirmative responses to survey ques- quadrant to begin the survey. After visiting the first house- tions, as well as the mean of the percentages, are presented hold, every other household was then visited to administer in Tables 3–7, corresponding to the following social valua- the survey instrument. The sampling approach was tion variables: therapeutic, amenity, heritage, spiritual and adopted because of the lack of spatial information for the existence values, respectively. households in the study communities. Moreover, a detailed map of the communities was not available during the data- gathering process. Also, other methods such as the simple Therapeutic value random sampling could not be adopted because it was a major challenge to reference all the households in the Results from the household survey presented in Table 3 communities that were visited. revealed variation in the therapeutic value ascribed to Table 2. Summary of the socio-economic background of survey respondents. Buguma Burutu Kuruama Variable community community community Mean Gender Male (%) 67 62 51 60 Female (%) 33 38 49 40 Age group 40 years and below (%) 31 42 49 41 41 years and above (%) 69 58 51 59 Respondents average years of residence in the community (years) 35 25 26 29 Education Primary education (%) 30 36 34 33 Secondary education (%) 47 30 34 37 Others (%) 23 34 32 30 Occupation (Extraction of mangrove resources) (%) 72 64 64 67 Average monthly income (US$) 186 117 88 130 International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 319 Table 3. Results from affirmative response to questions for measuring therapeutic value. Buguma Burutu Kuruama community (%) community (%) community (%) Id Survey questions used to measure therapeutic value (n = 126) (n = 150) (n = 60) F1 Have you ever been treated with medicinal herbs from the 89 85 16 mangroves in your community? F2 Has the medicinal resources from the mangrove in your 65 67 6 community reduced the number of patients in the community clinic? F3 If you had no community clinic, can the resources from the 71 67 6 mangroves cure the common sicknesses in your community? F4 Does the health of members of your community depend on the 57 54 28 proper functioning of the mangrove? Mean 71 68 14 Table 4. Results from affirmative response to questions for measuring amenity value. Buguma Burutu Kuruama community (%) community (%) community (%) Id Survey questions used to measure amenity value (n = 126) (n = 150) (n = 60) F5 Does the mangrove add natural beauty to your community? 71 71 78 F6 Does the mangrove in your community provide space for 72 55 60 community relaxation and enjoyment? F7 Have you learnt anything about the mangrove that you would 70 64 62 not have learnt if the mangroves were not in your community? F8 **If the mangrove forest in your community was completely 71 70 92 cleared, will that make your community look better? Mean 71 65 73 Note: **denotes test question for alertness. Table 5. Results from affirmative response to questions for measuring heritage value. Buguma Kuruama community (%) Burutu community (%) community (%) Id Survey questions used to measure heritage value (n = 126) (n = 150) (n = 60) F9 Is the mangrove a very important aspect of your community’s 96 91 75 history? F10 Does the mangrove play any important role in your culture and 98 86 75 tradition? F11 Does your community view the mangrove as heritage from your 87 80 71 forefathers? F12 Is there any historic site inside your mangrove forests? 88 89 60 Mean 92 87 70 Table 6. Results from affirmative response to questions for measuring spiritual value. Buguma Kuruama community (%) Burutu community community (%) Id Survey questions used to measure spiritual value (n= 126) (%) (n= 150) (n= 60) F13 Does the mangrove serve as the foundation for your 78 60 43 community’s spiritual beliefs? F14 Does your community use materials from the mangrove for 78 69 35 spiritual worship? F15 Does your community perform any spiritual worship in the 82 73 60 mangrove? F16 Does your community attach any myth to the mangrove? 66 70 39 Mean 76 68 44 320 G.K. James et al. Table 7. Results from affirmative response to questions for measuring existence value. Kuruama Buguma community Burutu community community (%) ID Survey questions used to measure existence value (%) (n = 126) (%) (n = 150) (n = 60) F17 Do you think it is the duty of the community to protect the 92 91 97 mangrove from destruction regardless of the cost? F18 Does the mangrove have a right to exist, even if you do not 91 89 68 derive any benefit from the vegetation? F19 If you have money, are you willing to pay to protect the 95 88 98 mangrove from destruction? F20 **Do you think it is fair to destroy the mangrove? 85 91 93 Mean 91 90 89 Note: **denotes test question for alertness. mangrove by the three communities that participated in Heritage value this study. While 85% of households claim they have been The mangroves constitute a major heritage for the respon- treated with medicinal herbs from mangroves in Burutu dents who participated in this study. This is corroborated community, 89% of households made the same claim in by the high percentage distribution (Buguma – 92%, Buguma community. In fact, the percentage of households Burutu – 87% and Kuruama – 70%) of affirmative that derived medicinal resources from mangroves plum- response to the questions used to measure the heritage meted to 16% in Kuruama community. This is not surprising social value shown in Table 5. Findings from focus because findings from the focus group discussions conducted group discussions in Buguma community revealed that in this study revealed that mangrove vegetation is extensively the annual masquerade festival in Buguma community used in Burutu and Buguma communities for curing health- commences in the mangrove forest. The Masqueraders related problems. Some examples include the liquid extract dress up in the mangroves and perform certain rites before from the leaves of the Rhizophora species is used to cure entering the community. Also, it is the culture of Buguma open sores; the same leaves are used to cure skin rashes in community to bury some of their dead in the mangroves infants, stomach ache and diarrhoea. Women also use the forest, including children who die at a tender age (less than leaves to reduce belly fat after baby delivery. In addition, the 10 years old); community members who drown in a river; chewing of Rhizophora propagule prevents novice sailors anyone with an open sore at the time of death; and preg- from experiencing sea sickness during their first couple of nant women who die before giving birth. Moreover, the trips into the open ocean. In contrast, most members of trunk of the Rhizophora mangrove species (called Kokari Kuruama community interviewed claimed to be unaware of in the native dialect) is used to settle disputes between such usage of the mangroves. Focus group discussions in the aggrieved parties in the community. The practice is to community revealed that the community has access to med- make the warring party swear using the trunk of the ical facilities in Bonny Island which is about 20 min by boat Rhizophora racemosa mangrove vegetation. Similarly, ride. Bonny Island is home to the multibillion-dollar focus group sessions in Burutu community revealed that Nigerian Liquefied Natural Gas project. This accounts for the community use the ash residual from burnt mangroves the low (14%) aggregate positive response to the therapeutic for painting the bodies of their young women during value in Kuruama community as shown in Table 3. traditional dancing festivals. In addition, some sections of the mangroves in the community are considered evil forests, and visits to such forest are prohibited. These Amenity value cultural practices that are tied to the mangroves clearly There is a general consensus among respondents from the demonstrate the role of mangroves in the culture and three communities sampled that the mangroves provide tradition of the sampled communities. Furthermore, when space for relaxation. This is particularly a vital function respondents were asked, ‘Does the mangrove play any for fishermen and those who collect fishery resources; they important role in your culture and tradition?’ 98% seek shelter under mangrove shades when it is raining or responded ‘Yes’ in Buguma community; likewise, 86% when the heat intensity of the sun is very high. They also responded ‘Yes’ in Burutu community, while 75% prefer to enjoy the evening breeze under mangrove shades responded in the affirmative in Kuruama community. while they wait for the tides to subside for optimal fish harvest. This is indicated in Table 4, where on average Spiritual value 71% of households sampled in Buguma acknowledge the amenity function of the mangrove, while 65% and 73% To a large extent, the advent of Christianity in the three made the same claim in Burutu and Kuruama commu- communities visited has gradually reduced community nities, respectively. participation in the traditional religious activities that International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 321 involve the use of mangrove materials. Nevertheless, some study revealed the existence of social value ascribed to religious rites are still being practiced using materials from mangroves by the Niger Delta communities that partici- mangrove forests. The roots of Rhizophora mangrove pated in this study. Across the mangrove ecological zone species are used to beat drums during the annual of the Niger Delta, communities ascribed preferences for Masquerade festival in Buguma community. When survey the following social values of mangroves: therapeutic participants were asked whether they use materials from value, amenity value, heritage value, spiritual value and the mangrove for spiritual worship, 78% of them existence value. Third, the decision to conserve or change responded ‘Yes’ in Buguma community; while 69% and mangrove vegetation to alternative usage in the Niger 35% responded ‘Yes’ in Burutu and Kuruama commu- Delta should be determined within economic as well as nities, respectively. This pattern was also indicated in social value frameworks. The results from economic Table 6 were the aggregate responses in support of the valuation are subjective, and so should be complemented spiritual value of mangrove was 76% in Buguma, 68% in with additional qualitative information from the social Burutu and 44% in Kuruama communities. value of mangroves. Fourth, finding from this study has shown the dynamic nature of tastes and preferences, most especially in the long run. Although the preference for the Existence value social value of mangroves is significant in Buguma and Most of the respondents in the survey pledged their sup- Burutu communities when compared with Kuruama com- port for the continuous existence of mangrove vegetation munity, however, the negative influence of external factors since their survival depends on the environmental on these social value variables may in the long run erode resource. Moreover, they are keen at transferring the vege- the significance of the social value of mangroves in the tation to the next generation, just as it was transferred to Niger Delta. For example, the advent of Christianity in the them. One of the respondents put it plainly when he said, region has gradually diminished the role of mangroves in ‘Burutu community is mangroves and mangroves is spiritual worship. Similarly, the influence of Bonny Island Burutu community. The historical account of the commu- (an urban area) on Kuruama mangrove community was nity is not complete without the role of mangroves in the revealed in their low preference for the therapeutic, as well community’. The respondents stressed the notion that they as spiritual value of mangroves in the community. Finally, all grew up to know the mangroves and they will hope- a major policy implication of this study indicates that the fully pass the vegetation on to their children, just as it was decision to convert mangrove vegetation in the Niger passed on to them by their parents. A participant in the Delta to alternative use should be based on the considera- focus group session conducted in Kuruama community tion of the pluralism nature of the value of mangrove also noted that the vegetation was transferred to them by vegetation that includes economic value as well as social their grandparents and they feel it is their duty to transfer value. the vegetation to their children. This notion was further buttress when survey participants were asked if the man- Note grove has a right to exist, even if they did not derive any 1. According to Diener et al. (1999), SWB is ‘a broad category benefit from the vegetation. In Buguma community, 91% of phenomena that includes people’s emotional responses, of respondents answered ‘Yes’, while 89% agreed that the domain satisfactions, and global judgments of life satisfac- vegetation has a right to exist in Burutu community. tion.’ Within the framework of SWB, the social value of Similarly, in Kuruama community, 68% of respondents wetlands is centred on the notion of human happiness and agreed that the vegetation has a right to exist. This is satisfaction from the non-monetary benefits derived from wetlands. presented in Table 7. References Conclusion Abuodha PAW, Kairo JG. 2001. Human-induced stresses on Human society has and will always be faced with the mangrove swamps along the Kenyan coast. Hydrobiologia. decision of how to manage ecosystems for sustainability. 458:255–265. This is also true for the mangrove ecosystem that has often Aksornkoae S. 2004. Sustainable use and conservation of been converted to alternate use, based on only economic Mangrove Forest Resources with emphasis on policy and management practices in Thailand. In:VannucciM,editor. consideration by policymakers. As a result, findings from Mangrove management and conservation: present and this study are significant for many reasons. First, the future. New York (NY): United Nations University Press; p. mangrove ecosystem in the Niger Delta provides natural 149–160. functions as well as services which influence people’s Barbier EB. 1994. Valuing environmental functions: tropical wet- SWB through social structures, health and culture, both lands. Land Econ. 70:155–173. Barbier EB. 2000. Valuing the environment as input: review of at the individual and the community levels. As a result, it applications to mangrove-fishery linkages. Special issue, the is essential to assess the social value of mangrove and values of wetlands: landscape and institutional perspectives. communicate such to policymakers for them to consider Ecol Econ. 35:47–61. the social–cultural consequences of the conversion of Barbier EB. 2007. Valuing ecosystem services as productive inputs. Econ Policy. 22:177–229. mangrove vegetation to alternative usage. Second, this 322 G.K. James et al. Barbier EB, Acreman M, Knowler D. 1997. Economic valuation Diener Ed, Suh Eunkook M, Lucas Robert E, Smith Heidi L. of wetlands: a guide for policy makers and planners. Gland: 1999. Subjective well-being: three decades of progress. Ramsar Convention Bureau. Psychol Bull. 125:276–302. Bardecki MJ. 1998. Wetlands and economics: an annotated Dryzek JS. 1990. Discursive democracy: politics, policy and review of the literature, 1988–1998. Ontario: Environment political science. New York (NY): Cambridge University Canada. Press. Bingham G, Brody M, Bromley D, Clark E, Cooper W, Costanza Etzioni A. 1988. The moral dimension: toward a New R, Hale T, Hayden G, Kellert S, Nargaard R, et al. 1995. Economics. New York (NY): The Free Press. Issues in ecosystem valuation: improving information for Fishkin JS. 1991. Democracy and eliberation. New Haven (CT): decision making. Ecol Econ. 14:73–90. Yale University Press. Bishop RC. 1993. Economic efficiency, sustainability, and bio- Freeman III AM. 2003. The measurement of environmental and diversity. Ambio. 22:69–73. resources values: theory and methods. 2nd ed. Washington Bishop RC, Welsh MP. 1993. Existence values in benefit-cost (DC): Resources for the future. analysis and damage assessment. Land Econ. 68:405–417. Focus Group. 2008. Proceedings of the focus group sessions Boyle KJ, Bishop RC. 1987. Valuing wildlife in benefit cost conducted in the Niger Delta by Godstime James. analyses: a case study involving endangered species. Water (Unpublished). Resour Res. 23:943–950. Guijt I, Hinchcliffe F, editors. 1998. Participatory valuation of Brander LM, Florax RJG, Vermaat JE. 2006. The empirics of wild resources: an overview of the hidden harvest methodol- Wetland valuation: a comprehensive summary and a meta- ogy. London: IIED. analysis of the literature. Environ Resour Econ. 33:223–250. Habermas J. 1984. The theory of communicative action. Boston Brown K, Tompkins E, Adger WN. 2001. Trade-off analysis for (MA): Beacon Press. participatory coastal zone decision-making. Norwich (UK): Hamilton LS, Snedaker SC. 1984. Handbook for mangrove area Overseas Development Group. management. IUCN/UNESCO/UNEP. Honolulu (HI): East- Carson RT, Hanemann WM. 2005. Contingent valuation. In: West Center. Mäler K, Vincent JR, editors. Handbook of environmental Hartig T, Mang M, Evans G. 1991. Restorative effects of natural economics: valuing environmental changes. Vol. 2. environments experiences. J Environ Behav. 23:3–26. Amsterdam: Elsevier; p. 821–936. Hausman JE. 1993. Contingent valuation: a critical appraisal. Chiesura A, de Groot R. 2003. Critical natural capital: a socio- Amsterdam: Elsevier. cultural perspective. Ecol Econ. 44:219–231. Heimlich RE, Weibe KD, Claassen V, Gadsy D, House RM. Coley R, Kuo F, Sullivan W. 1997. Where does community 1998. Wetlands and agriculture: private interests and public grow? The social context created by nature in urban public benefits, resource economics division, E.R.S. USDA. Agr housing. J Environ Behav. 29:468–494. Econ Rep. 765:10. Common M, Reid I, Blamey R. 1997. Do existence values for cost Held A, Ticehurst C, Lymburner L, Williams N. 2003. High benefit analysis exist?. Environ Resour Econ. 9:225–238. resolution mapping of tropical mangrove ecosystems using Coote A, Lenaghan J. 1997. Citizen juries: theory into practice. hyperspectral and radar remote sensing. Int. J. Remote Sens. London: Institute for Public Policy Research. 24:2739–2759. Costanza R, D’arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon Helliwell DR. 1969. Valuation of wildlife resources. Reg Stud. B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, et al. 1997. 3:41–47. The total value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural Howarth Richard B, Farber Stephen. 2002. Accounting for the capital. Nature. 387:253–260. value of ecosystem services. In the dynamics and value of Daily GC, editor. 1997a. Nature’s services: societal dependence ecosystem services: integrating economic and ecological per- on natural ecosystems. Washington (DC): Island Press. spectives. Ecol Econ. 41:421–429. Daily GC, editor. 1997b. What are ecosystem services?. Nature’s Hueting R. 1970. Should nature be quantified? Economica services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Statistische Berichten. 55:80–84. Washington (DC): Island Press; p. 1–10. Jacobs M. 1995. Sustainable development, capital substitution Daily GC, Söderqvist T, Aniyar S, Arrow K, Dasgupta P, Ehrlich and economic humility: a response to Beckerman. J Environ PR, Folke C, Jansson AM, Jansson BO, Kautsky N, et al. Values. 4:57–68. 2000. The value of nature and the nature of value. Science. Jacobs M. 1997. Environmental valuation, deliberative democ- 289:395–396. racy and public decision-making. In: Foster J, editor. Valuing de Groot RS. 1992. Functions of nature: evaluation of nature in nature: economics, ethics and environment. London: environmental planning, management and decision making. Routledge; p. 211–231. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff. James GK, Adegoke J, Saba E, Nwilo P, Akinyede J, Osagie de Groot RS. 1994. Environmental functions and the economic S. 2011. Economic valuation of Mangroves in the Niger value of natural ecosystems. In: Jansson AM, editor. Investing Delta: an interdisciplinary approach. In: Ommer RE, Perry in natural capital: the ecological economics approach to sus- R, Cochrane K, Cury P, editors. World fisheries: a social- tainability. International Society for Ecological Economics. ecological analysis. Oxford (UK): Wiley-Blackwell; p. New York (NY): Island Press; p. 151–168. 265–280. de Groot RS, Stuip Mishka, Finlayson Max, Davidson Nick. Kahneman D, Ritov I, Schkade D. 1999. Economic preferences 2006. Valuing Wetlands Guidance for Valuing the Benefits or attitude expressions?: an analysis of dollar responses to Derived from Wetland Ecosystem Services. Ramsar public issues. J Risk Uncertainty. 19:203–235. Technical Report No. 3 CBD Technical Series No. 27. Kaplowitz MD, Hoehn JP. 2001. Do focus groups and personal Gland: Ramsar Convention Secretariat. interviews cast the same light on natural resource valuation? de Groot RS, Van der Meer PJ. 2010. Quantifying and valuing Ecol. Econ. 36:237–247. goods and services provided by plantation forests. In: Kazmierczak RF. 2001. Economic linkages between Coastal Jurgen Bauhus, Peter Van der Meer, Markku Kanninen, Wetlands and Hunting and Fishing: a review of value esti- editors. Ecosystems goods and services from plantation mates reported in the published literature. Baton Rouge forests. Oxford (UK): Earthscan; p. 16–40. Chap. 2. (LA): Louisiana State University Agricultural Center. Diamond PA, Hausman JA. 1994. Contingent valuation: is some King RT. 1966. Wildlife and man. New York Conservationist. number better than no number? J Econ Perspect. 8:45–65. 20:8–11. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 323 Knetsch JL. 1994. Environmental valuation: some problems of Sagoff M. 1988b. The economy of the Earth. Cambridge: wrong questions and misleading answers. J Environ Values. Cambridge University Press. 3:351–368. Samuelson PA. 1954. The pure theory of public expenditure. Krutilla JV. 1967. Conservation reconsidered. Am Econ Rev. Rev. Econ Stat. 36:387–389. 57:777–786. Schroeder HW. 1991. Preferences and meaning of arboretum Kumar M, Kumar P. 2008. Valuation of the ecosystem services: a landscapes; combining quantitative and qualitative data. J psycho-cultural perspective. Ecol Econ. 64:808–819. Environ Psychol. 11:231–248. Liljas B, Lindgren B. 2001. On individual preferences and aggre- Sheil D, Wunder S. 2002. The value of tropical forest to local gation in economic evaluation in healthcare. communities: complications, caveats, and cautions. Conser Pharmacoeconomics. 19:323–336. Ecol. 6:9. Limburg KE, Folke C. 1999. The ecology of ecosystem services: Smith G. 2003. Deliberative democracy and the environment. introduction to the special issue. Ecol Econ. 29:179–182. London: Routledge Press. Loomis J. 1992. The evolution of a more rigorous approach to Spash CL. 1997. Ethics and environmental attitudes with implica- benefit transfer: benefit function transfer. Water Resour Res. tions for economic valuation. J. Environ. Manag. 50:403–416. 28:701–705. Spash CL. 2000. Ecosystems, contingent valuation and ethics: Macnae W. 1968. A general account of the fauna and flora of the case of wetland re-creation. Special issue social processes mangrove swamps and forests in the Indo- West Pacific of environmental valuation. Ecol Econ. 34:195–215. region. Adv Mar Biol. 6:270. Spash CL. 2007. Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): issues Menzel Susanne, Wiek Arnim. 2009. Valuation in morally in combining economic and political processes to value charged situations: the role of deontological stances and environmental change. Ecol Econ. 63:690–699. intuition for trade-off making. Ecol Econ. 68:2198–2206. Spash CL, Vatn A. 2006. Transferring environmental value esti- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2003. Ecosystems and mates: issues and alternatives. Ecol Econ. 60:379–388. human well-being: a framework for assessment. Stasser G, Stewart D. 1992. Discovery of hidden profiles by Washington (DC): Island Press. decision-making groups: solving a problem versus making Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and a judgment. J. Pers Soc Psychol. 63:426–434. human well-being: current state and trends. Chapter 17: Stasser G, Stewart D, Wittenbaum GM. 1995. Expert roles and Cultural and Amenity Services [Internet]. [cited 2012 Jan information exchange during discussion: the importance of 25]. Available from: http://www.maweb.org/documents/ knowing who knows what. J. Exp. Soc Psychol. 31:244–265. document.286.aspx.pdf Stasser G, Titus W. 1985. Pooling of unshared information in Mitchell RC, Carson RT. 1989. Using surveys to value public group decision making: biased information sampling during goods: the contingent valuation method. Washington (DC): discussion. J. Pers Soc Psychol. 48:1467–1478. Resources for the Future. Ulrich RS. 1984. View through a window may influence recov- Mitsch W, Gosselink J. 1993. Wetlands. New York (NY): Van ery from surgery. Science. 224:420–421. Nostrand Reinhold. [UNDP] United Nations Development Program. 2006. Niger Moses BS. 1985. Mangrove swamps as a potential food source. Delta human development report. Abuja-Nigeria: United In: Balafama Wilcox, Powell GB, editors. Proceedings of the Nations Development Program. Workshop on Mangrove Ecosystems of the Niger Delta; Upadhyay VP, Ranjan R, Singh JS. 2002. Human-mangrove 1980 May 19–23; Nigeria: University of Port-Harcourt; conflicts: the way out. Curr Sci. 83:1328–1336. p. 170–184. Vatn A. 2000. The environment as a commodity. J Environ NDES. 1997. The Niger Delta Environmental Survey Values. 9:493–509. (Phase 1), Environmental and Socio-economic Vatn A. 2004. Environmental valuation and rationality. Land Characteristics. Lagos-Nigeria: Environmental Resources Econ. 80:1–18. Mangers Limited. Vatn A, Bromley DW. 1997. Externalities – a market model [NRC] National Research Council. 2005. Valuing ecosystem failure. Environ Resour Econ. 9:135–151. services: towards a better environmental decision-making. Walsh GE. 1974. Mangroves: a review. In: Reinhold, R, Queen, Washington (DC): National Academy Press. WM, editors. Ecologyof halophytes. New York (NY): Pearce D, Moran D. 1994. The economic value of biodiversity. Academic Press; p. 51–74. London: Earthscan Publications. Watts M. 2004. Resource curse? Governmentality, oil and power Pearce DW. 1993. Economic values and the natural world. in the Niger Delta, Nigeria. Geopolitics (special issue). 9: London: Earthscan. 50–80. Perkins E. 2001. Discourse-based valuation and ecological eco- Wilson MA, Carpenter SR. 1999. Economic valuation of fresh- nomics. Annual Conference of the Canadian Society for water ecosystem services in the United States 1971–1997. Ecological Economics; Aug 23–25. McGill University, Ecol Appl. 9:772–783. Montreal, QC. Wilson MA, Howarth RB. 2002. Discourse-based valuation of Peters CM, Gentry AH, Mendelsohn RO. 1989. Valuation of an ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group Amazonian rainforest. Nature. 339:655–656. deliberation. Special issue: the dynamics and value of eco- Pimentel D, Wilson C. 1997. Economics and environmental system services: integrating economic and ecological per- benefits of biodiversity. BioScience. 47:747–758. spectives. Ecol Econ. 41:431–443. Richards M, Davies J. 1999. The use of economics to assess Woodward RT, Wui YS. 2001. The economic value of Wetland stakeholder incentives in participatory forest management: a services: a meta-analysis. Ecol Econ. 37:257–270. review. European Union Tropical Forestry Paper 5. Overseas World Bank. 1995. Defining an environmental management strat- Development Institute, London. egy for the Niger Delta. Report prepared by Jasdip Smigh, Saenger P. 2002. Mangrove ecology, silviculture and conserva- David Moffat and Olof Linden. Washington (DC): Industry tion. Dordrecht: Klumer Academic Publishers. and Energy operations division, West African Department, Saenger P, Hegerl EJ, Davie JDS. 1983. Global status of man- World Bank. grove ecosystems. Environmentalist. 3:1–88. Zendehdel K, Rademaker M, De Baets B, GuidoVan Sagoff M. 1998a. Aggregation and deliberation in valuing envir- Huylenbroeck G. 2008. Qualitative valuation of environmen- onmental public goods: a look beyond contingent pricing. tal criteria through a group consensus based on stochastic Ecol Econ. 24:213–230. dominance. Ecol Econ. 67:253–264. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management Taylor & Francis

Social valuation of mangroves in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria

Download PDF
13 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/social-valuation-of-mangroves-in-the-niger-delta-region-of-nigeria-hNX0b1VvrG

References (104)

Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
© Taylor & Francis
ISSN
2151-3732
eISSN
2151-3740
DOI
10.1080/21513732.2013.842611
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 2013 Vol. 9, No. 4, 311–323, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2013.842611 a b c d e f Godstime K. James *, Jimmy O. Adegoke , Sylvester Osagie , Saba Ekechukwu , Peter Nwilo and Joseph Akinyede a b Department of Strategic Space Applications, National Space Research and Development Agency, Abuja, Nigeria; Department of Geosciences, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Missouri, USA; University Office of Global Programs, The Pennsylvania State d e University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA; Map and Image Systems Limited, Warri, Delta State, Nigeria; Office of the Surveyor General of the Federation, FCT, Abuja, Nigeria; African Regional Centre for Space Science and Technology Education in English Language, Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria Worldwide, the mangrove ecosystem is in serious decline. The continuous conversion of mangrove vegetation to alternative usage is attributable to the lack of appreciation for the many ecological services, as well as products from the vegetation. As a result, seminal studies have been conducted severally to estimate the economic value of products and services derived from mangroves. However, mangroves also exhibit social value which has been called cultural services of ecosystems, cultural capital of ecosystems and sociocultural perspective of critical natural capital. The social value of mangroves is qualitative and thus antithetical, as well as distinguishable from quantitative economic value in which money is the natural common measurement unit. It is for this very reason that the social value of mangroves is often not captured for policy- and decision-making. This study, therefore, focuses on the social valuation of mangroves in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria using the following social value variables: therapeutic value, amenity value, heritage value, spiritual value and existence value. Results from household surveys conducted in Buguma, Burutu and Kuruama communities in the Niger Delta, as part of this study, revealed various degrees of social value for mangroves in the three communities. A major policy implication emanating from this finding indicates that the decision to convert mangrove vegetation in the Niger Delta to alternative use should be based on the consideration of the pluralism of the value of mangroves. This includes consideration for the economic as well as the social value of mangroves. Keywords: social valuation; economic valuation; mangroves; Niger Delta; ecosystem; sustainability Introduction focusing on the benefits of wetlands to human society and well-being (e.g. de Groot 1992, 1994; Pearce 1993; Worldwide, mangrove ecosystems are in serious decline Bingham et al. 1995; Daily 1997a; Pimentel & Wilson (Held et al. 2003). Mangrove forests once covered three- 1997; Limburg & Folke 1999; Wilson & Carpenter fourths of the coastline in the tropics and sub-tropical 1999; Barbier 2000; Daily et al. 2000; Millennium countries. Only about 50% of these forests remain today, Ecosystem Assessment 2003; de Groot et al. 2006; and half of the remaining vegetation is degraded Barbier 2007). (Upadhyay et al. 2002). The continuous decline of the Nonetheless, the seminal studies that revealed the eco- vegetation has been attributed primarily to unsustainable nomic value of environmental resources, such as the forest economic development, such as the conversion of man- ecosystem, date back to two decades when Peters et al. groves into shrimp farms for short-term profit, only to (1989) published a two-page piece in Nature. They abandon the farm after a few years, leaving the ecosystem stunned the ecological community with their findings, polluted with aquaculture reagents (Aksornkoae 2004). which revealed that the non-timber forest products According to the millennium ecosystem assessment report (NTFPs) from a 1-ha forest plot in Mishana (30 km from (2003), an estimated 35% of mangroves have been Iquitos, Peru) were worth $700. By adjusting for labour removed due to shrimp and fish aquaculture, deforestation and transportation cost, the time-discounted net present and freshwater diversion. This is not surprising since prior value (NPV) of present and future harvests of fruits and to the 1960s, wetlands, including mangroves, were per- latex alone was estimated at $6330 for a single hectare ceived as wastelands that could only be ‘improved’ (Sheil & Wunder 2002). About eight years later, another through conversion to alternative use (Mitsch & publication appeared in Nature by Costanza et al. (1997), Gosselink 1993). This may have as well been due to a with the claim that ecosystem services provide global lack of appreciation for the many ecological functions, benefits of $33 trillion per year, a figure that was in excess products and services produced by wetlands. of the world gross product by approximately 83%. There Nevertheless, some of the early references to the concept is also the recognition that the valuation of ecosystem of wetlands functions, services, and their value can be goods and services as a policy tool was established traced back to the mid-1960s and early 1970s (e.g. King through the pioneering work of Daily (1997a, 1997b), 1966; Helliwell 1969; Hueting 1970). However, in recent whose edited volume listed a different set of views on times, there has been tremendous increase in research *Corresponding author. Email: godstimej@gmail.com © 2013 Taylor & Francis 312 G.K. James et al. the links between specific ecological services and the and thus should be determined using economic valuation economic benefits from such services (Howarth & Farber (Barbier 1994; Freeman 2003). The approach is imple- 2002). Consequently, as a response to the growing aware- mented as non-use value within the total economic valua- ness of the value of wetlands, there is now substantial tion paradigm. The theoretical foundation of the literature on wetland valuation, with the primary focus of framework is based on the neoclassical economic theory informing environmental policies (Barbier et al. 1997; in which the utility maximization framework estimates Bardecki 1998; Kazmierczak 2001). Many of the existing value by ascertaining how much individual consumers of studies vary widely in the valuation techniques employed, an environmental goods or services gain or lose from the the actual wetland products and services valued and the use or non-use of the environmental resource, when the type and geographical location of the wetlands considered goods or services provided by such a resource decline or (Brander et al. 2006). A meta-analysis review of economic increase in quality or quantity (NRC 2005). The frame- valuation of wetlands literature by Heimlich et al. (1998) work measures individual welfare, i.e. whether the indivi- identified 33 studies with values ranging from $0.06 to dual is better off or worse off, as a result of the changes in $22,050 per acre (Woodward & Wui 2001). the environmental services. Therefore, welfare measure is Although much of the wetland valuation literature is based on the assumption that for any individual, the dif- focused on the economic value of wetlands, however, wet- ferent sources of utilitarian value to such an individual are lands, such as mangroves, also exhibit social values that are substitutable so that, on aggregate, the individual utility not directly ascribable to the ecological or the economic remains unchanged (presumably at the maximum level, domain, but which are nevertheless essential for the proper subject to income or budget constraints, and given the functioning of society and human well-being (Chiesura & de prices of all goods and services) (Freeman 2003). This Groot 2003). Such social value of wetlands has been var- approach has been applied to capture the total and incre- iously called ‘cultural services of ecosystems’ (Millennium mental changes in ecosystems services within the frame- Ecosystem Assessment 2005), ‘cultural capital of ecosys- work of cost-benefit analysis for policy development tems’ (de Groot et al. 2006), ‘socio-cultural perspective of (M. Kumar & P. Kumar 2008). However, economic valua- critical natural capital’ (Chiesura & de Groot 2003)and tion approach to the social value of wetlands has long been ‘socio-cultural value of ecosystems’ (de Groot & Van der adjudged as inadequate for several reasons (Etzioni 1988; Meer 2010). The social value of wetlands within the context Bishop 1993; Jacobs 1995; Vatn 2000; Wilson & Howarth of this study is based on people’s view of their wetland for 2002; Chiesura & de Groot 2003; M. Kumar & P. Kumar ethical, religious, cultural and philosophical reasons. Hence, 2008). First, economic efficiency is only one of diverse for many people, wetlands are considered as source of sub- indicators that can guide environmental decision-making jective well-being (SWB) that is closely associated with (Zendehdel et al. 2008). Other indicators include politi- deeply held historical, communal, ethical, religious and spiri- cal and social factors. Second, the assumption that the tual values. Consequently, it is qualitative and thus antitheti- environmental resource being value is private and thus cal, as well as distinguishable from quantitative economic has its property right well-defined is compromised by value in which money is the natural common measurement the public nature of environmental resource. Hence, unit. It is for this very reason that the social value of wetland property rights on such environmental resource are is seldom captured for policy- and decision-making. often not clearly defined (Vatn & Bromley 1997). Similarly, very little research has been conducted to qualita- Third, economic valuation is market-based, but ecosys- tively measure the social value of wetlands to society. tem goods and services being valued do not necessarily enter the market and thus lack reliable price signals (Samuelson 1954). In response to this criticism, non- Frameworks for the social valuation of wetlands market methods, such as stated preferences, have been From a social equity perspective, one crucial question that proposed to accommodate the public nature of environ- has generated heated debate in public discourse on the mental resources (Krutilla 1967; Boyle & Bishop 1987; valuation of ecosystem goods and services is how such Mitchell & Carson 1989;Loomis 1992; Bishop & valuation should be conducted to ensure equity and fair- Welsh 1993;Pearce&Moran 1994;Carson& ness to communities and individuals who derive social Hanemann 2005). value from such goods and services. As a result, some of One of the widely used stated preference methods is the approaches proposed for capturing the social value of the contingent valuation approach that elicits willingness wetlands include economic valuation, discourse-based to pay for the conservation of an environmental resource valuation, psycho-cultural approach, sociocultural perspec- or willingness to accept compensation for the alternative tive of critical natural capital and cultural capital of use of the resource. However, the contingent valuation ecosystems. method has received considerable criticisms coming from economic (Hausman 1993; Diamond & Hausman 1994; Knetsch 1994; Vatn 2004), political (Sagoff 1998a; Smith Economic valuation framework 2003; Spash 2007) and psychological fields (Kahneman Resource economists consider cultural values and their et al. 1999; Spash & Vatn 2006; Spash 2007; Zendehdel et al. 2008). First, the assumption that all individuals have social welfare indicators as a subset of economic value International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 313 the required utility function for their responses to contin- environmental resource is located. Within this framework, gent valuation questions, used in valuing social equity on social equity issues of interest to the community are environmental resources, has been contested by some addressed. A major strength of this theoretical framework authors including Common et al. (1997) and Sagoff is that local communities (applying their local knowledge) (1988b). In fact, Sagoff (1988b) would argue that when are involved in decision-making and the equitable valua- individuals make decisions about the environment, they do tion of their environmental resources. But evidence from so as ‘citizens’ and not as ‘consumers’. As a result, the social psychology suggests that small groups may not be individual considers issues of cost benefit analysis to the very efficient at pooling unshared information to reach nation as whole, and this involves consideration of senti- consensus, thereby leading to suboptimal results (Stasser mental, historical, ideological, cultural, aesthetic and ethi- & Titus 1985; Stasser & Stewart 1992; Stasser et al. 1995; cal values (Common et al. 1997). Moreover, a range of Wilson & Howarth 2002). Consequently, the administra- broadly rights-based or deontological positions do appear tion of survey instrument at the individual or household to be relevant to the general public when considering the level to elicit individual unit-based information has been environment (Spash 1997), and as such have important suggested as a complementary approach to discourse- implications for the responses to contingent valuation based valuation (Kaplowitz & Hoehn 2001). questions (Spash 2000). Second, the respondents in the contingent valuation method are insensitive to the scope of Psycho-cultural perspective framework the environmental resource being valued (Liljas & Lindgren 2001; NRC 2005). Therefore, the responses are The psycho-cultural valuation perspective proposed by M. subjective and do not vary with respect to variation in the Kumar and P. Kumar (2008) would argue for the initiation scope and size of the environmental resource being valued. of a ‘transdisciplinary’ dialogue aiming at reciprocal alli- Given these shortcomings, other modified contingent ance and cooperation between natural and social science valuation frameworks have been proposed. They include research through debates on environmental ethics, tools the use of choice experiments (CE) and deliberative mone- and methods of social inquiry and socio-economic devel- tary valuation (DMV) to elicit stakeholders’ preferences opment as well as empowerment. The goal is to bring towards environmental criteria (Spash 2007). Although these disciplines together to determine the appropriate these methods have some advantages over the contingent framework for the valuation of ecosystem services. This valuation approach for constructing and eliciting stake- framework is built on two components. First is the intrin- holders’ preferences, the methods still require people to sic value (such as aesthetic, moral and cultural values) of make trade-offs between environmental criteria (Vatn ecosystem services, and second is the mapping of ways in 2004). However, the concept of value pluralism in envir- which the interactions between man and his natural envir- onmental valuation related to ‘incommensurability and onment have a bearing upon his psychological well-being. incomparability of environmental values’ restricts making They further argue that results from studies in develop- trade-offs between environmental criteria (Liljas & mental and moral psychology indicate that majority of Lindgren 2001; Smith 2003; Vatn 2004; Zendehdel et al. people base moral choice, and subsequently trade-offs, 2008). Sequel to the challenges associated with economic on social norms, affective reactions and moral intuition, valuation, other valuation frameworks have been proposed rather than on analytical moral reasoning as obtained in economic valuation framework (M. Kumar & P. Kumar to complement the economic valuation framework, parti- cularly when equity and social fairness are under consid- 2008; Menzel & Wiek 2009). Hence, the psycho-cultural eration (Richards & Davies 1999; Chiesura & de Groot perspective to valuation of ecosystem services brings the 2003; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). These need for the concept of ecological identity, interdiscipli- approaches are presented in the following section. narity in approach and methodological pluralism in outlook. Discourse-based valuation Sociocultural value framework The discourse-based valuation framework (Coote & Lenaghan 1997; Jacobs 1997; Perkins 2001; Wilson & The framework applies the concept of critical natural Howarth 2002) emanated from a convergence of argu- capital within the framework of sociocultural value to ments from economics, social psychology, decision elicit values of nature which are not directly quantifiable science and political theory. Its basic principle is based in monetary terms (i.e. amenity, health, education and on the assumption that the valuation of public goods, such symbolic meanings), but which belong to the ethical, as the social value of ecosystems, should result not from spiritual and affective realm of human beings, and which the aggregation of separately measured individual prefer- reflect the intangible dimensions of human-nature relation- ences, but from a process of free and open public debate ship (Chiesura & de Groot 2003). The primary focus of (Habermas 1984; Dryzek 1990; Fishkin 1991; Wilson & this framework is the human being situated within its Howarth 2002). Therefore, the social value of ecosystem social and psychological context, its non-materialistic services should be determined from an open debate with needs, its understanding of well-being and the rational, participants drawn from the community were such an as well as the emotional components of its attitudes 314 G.K. James et al. towards the natural environment. This framework is amenity value, heritage value, spiritual value and existence derived from empirical research in environmental psychol- value (de Groot et al. 2006). This is based on the paradigm ogy and landscape planning which demonstrates that there that for many people, natural systems, including wetlands, is indeed a strong non-monetary relationship between are a crucial source of non-material well-being through human and nature (e.g. Ulrich 1984; Hartig et al. 1991; their influence on physical and mental health and histor- Schroeder 1991; Coley et al. 1997). As a result, social ical, national, ethical, religious and spiritual values valuation of ecosystems directs the valuation exercise (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003). Some of the towards public debate, discursive and deliberative pro- methods that have been proposed to measure the various cesses and qualitative appraisal rather than to the market social value components include checklist, administration (Chiesura & de Groot 2003). of questionnaires, interviews and visual media (Guijt & Hinchcliffe 1998; Brown et al. 2001; de Groot et al. 2006). Natural capital of wetland services framework Methods The natural capital of wetland services framework for accounting for the social values of wetland ecosystem Study area consist of disaggregating the social value attached to wet- The Niger Delta (shown in Figure 1), with a spatial extent lands into the following components: therapeutic value, of 75,000 km , is the largest Delta in Africa and consists Figure 1. Niger Delta Region of Nigeria and location map in Nigeria. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 315 of primarily a vast sedimentary basin derived from the economic value of the various components of the man- natural Delta of the Niger River. The region is significant grove ecosystem in the region is significant. However, the on account of the hydrocarbon deposits from which vegetation is highly undervalued by policymakers and Nigeria export about 2.4 million barrels per day; this stakeholders in the region. For example, the transnational accounts for over 90% of Nigeria’s foreign exchange earn- oil corporations operating in the region use a compensa- ings. With such production output, Nigeria is a member of tion rate of $24 for each hectare of mangrove destroyed or Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries degraded (UNDP 2006). The United Nations Development (OPEC), the largest exporter of crude oil in Africa, fifth Program (UNDP 2006) study found that this compensation largest exporter to the United States (accounting for 14% rate was determined without adequate consultation or of US oil consumption) and seventh largest exporter in the input from the host communities and so lacked the trans- world. The low sulphur and high-quality crude (called parency and fairness required for peaceful or sustainable Bonny Light) from the Niger Delta makes Nigeria’s engagement (UNDP 2006). crude oil lucrative and attractive to foreign buyers (Watts This is corroborated by the finding that an hectare of 2004). mangrove in the region has a potential yield of between The Niger Delta region is also significant on account $642/ha – $2853/ha (James et al. 2011). Moreover, the of the vast geographic spread of mangrove vegetation in social value of mangroves in the region has neither been the region. The region is home to three endemic families determined nor published in public domain. It is this of mangrove vegetation represented by five plant species lack of equitable valuation for the mangroves in the and one introduced family of exotic species. The endemic region that has encouraged the unsustainable use of families are Rhizophoraceae family (red mangrove), con- the ecosystem and thus threatens the continuous exis- sisting of Rhizophora racemosa, R. harrisonii and R. tence of the forest in the Niger Delta. Hence, the thrust mangle species; the Avicenniaceae family (white man- of this study is to determine the social value of man- grove) made up of Avicennia africana species; and the groves in the Niger Delta. Combretaceae family consisting of Laguncularia race- mosa species. The Arecaceae (Palmaceae) is the only Social valuation framework introduced family consisting of Nypa frutican exotic spe- cies. The mangrove ecosystem in the region consists of the For many coastal communities living within the mangrove whole complex of swamp terrain, mudflats, mangrove ecosystem of the Niger Delta, they derive non-material trees, creeks, drain canals, the invertebrate and vertebrate well-being through cultural, historical, spiritual, aesthetic, fauna and micro-organisms and the interacting physio– ethical and recreational values (Focus Group 2008). As a chemical factors, such as temperature, salinity and tides result, the natural capital of wetland services framework associated with the system (Moses 1985). In the Niger proposed by de Groot et al. (2006) was adapted in this Delta, the mangrove ecosystem is extensive and spreads study to qualitatively measure the social values ascribed to across the following states: Ondo, Edo, Delta, Bayelsa, the mangroves by the Niger Delta communities. The fra- Rivers, Akwa-Ibom and Cross Rivers. Approximately mework is presented in Figure 2 and it provides for the measuring of the following variables: therapeutic value, 80% of the vegetation is found in Delta, Bayelsa and amenity value, heritage value, spiritual value and existence River States (World Bank 1995); hence this study is value (adapted from de Groot et al. 2006). Each of these focused on the mangrove vegetation in these three states. The mangrove vegetation in the region is the largest con- variables was qualitatively measured by combining focus tiguous mangrove forest in Africa. It is shielded from sea group and household surveys methods (de Groot et al. water, a characteristic that differs from that of several other 2006). African countries where the mangroves are directly exposed to sea water (NDES 1997). Plant products con- Therapeutic value stitute a substantial amount of the goods extracted from the mangrove ecosystem in the Niger Delta, both at the Therapeutic value includes the provision of medicines, subsistence and commercial levels (Saenger et al. 1983; clean air, water, soil, space for recreation and outdoor Hamilton & Snedaker 1984; Focus Group 2008). Some of sports, and general therapeutic effects of wetlands on the goods extracted from the mangrove vegetation by the peoples’ mental and physical well-being. The basic communities in the region include the following: fuel- wood, charcoal, timber material for building, wood chips SOCIAL VALUE (NON-MONETARY) for stacking fish, salt, billets, railway sleepers, tannins, dyes and food (Macnae 1968; Walsh 1974; Hamilton & Snedaker 1984; Abuodha & Kairo 2001; Saenger 2002; Focus Group 2008). These goods are tied to the fabric, Therapeutic Amenity Heritage Spiritual Existence lifestyle, culture and livelihood of the various communities value value value value value in the mangrove ecosystem of the region. Furthermore, these products are some of the major sources of livelihood Figure 2. The social value framework (Adapted from de Groot et al. 2006). for the coastal communities in the region. As a result, the 316 G.K. James et al. indicators for measuring this value are suitability and capacity of mangroves in the provision of ‘health ser- vices,’ restorative and regenerative effects on people’s performance, and socio-economic benefits from reduced health costs and conditions. Amenity value Amenity value stems from the important role of wetlands in cognitive development, mental relaxation, artistic inspiration, aesthetic enjoyment and recreational benefits. The indicators for measuring amenity value include aes- thetic quality of landscapes, recreational features and use, artistic features and individual preference. An example of the amenity value of wetlands is the natural scenery that the mangrove ecosystem provides when viewed from a distance. Heritage value Figure 3. The communities surveyed in the Niger Delta. Heritage value of mangroves is the role of the vegetation as reference for personal or collective history and cultural were conducted in the Niger Delta for primary data identity. It is a communal value and may include historic collection in 2007 and 2008. The focus group sessions sites, features and artefacts, designated cultural landscapes, and household surveys were conducted in the following cultural traditions and knowledge. In recognition of heri- Niger Delta communities shown in Figure 3:Buguma tage value, the UNESCO World Heritage System has and Kuruama in Rivers State, andBurutuinDeltaState. continued to declare some areas as Heritage Sites for These communities were selected because they represent their aesthetic, historic and cultural relevance. the ethnic and geographic distribution of communities found within the mangrove ecological zone in the Spiritual value region. In addition, Buguma and Burutu represent large communities within the mangrove ecological Spiritual value indicates religious and spiritual signifi- zone, while Kuruama is an example of a small commu- cance of mangrove vegetation. Indicators of spiritual nity within the zone. Given the nature of this study, value include the presence of sacred sites or features in ethical clearance was sought from the paramount tradi- mangroves; such sites may include shrines where spiritual tional ruler of each of the three communities before worship is conducted or specific mangrove trees marked conducting the focus group sessions as well as the for worship and reverence. Other indicators of spiritual value include the role of mangrove vegetation in religious household surveys. ceremonies and development of sacred texts. Focus group sessions Existence value Focus group sessions were conducted in Buguma, Existence value (also referred to as ‘warm glow-value’)is Kuruama and Burutu communities with 24, 20 and 24 a measure of the importance attached to some of the non- participants, respectively. The participants were drawn such that they represented stakeholders in each commu- use properties of mangroves by local communities living nity. These stakeholders included community elders, within or in proximity to the vegetation. Such attachment women, fishermen and youths. Each session was con- can be for ethical reasons (intrinsic value) or intergenera- ducted in an atmosphere of ease, and all the participants tional equity (bequest value). One of the major indicators had equal chance of participation. As a result, no speaker for measuring the existence value is the preference for was hindered by external compulsion or pressure. protecting the mangrove vegetation based on ethical Similarly, participants were allowed to express their own reason. attitudes, needs and preferences for the social services from mangroves. Each session was conducted in English Primary data collection language, and a local interpreter was hired to translate all the discussions into the local dialects. The findings from Focus group discussions and household surveys were the focus group sessions were used to develop the survey used to collect the primary data sets used to qualita- instrument that was deployed for the social valuation of tively estimate the social value of the mangrove vegeta- mangroves in the three communities. After developing the tion in this study. Hence, as part of this study, field trips International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 317 questionnaire, it was pretested on the focus group partici- addition, such a structure enhanced the ability of respondents pants and some questions were thereafter rephrased to test to provide absolute answers to questions; hence they could the alertness of the respondents. The involvement of the either respond ‘Yes’, ‘No’ or ‘Idon’tknow’. All the ‘Idon’t communities at the inception of the instrument develop- know’ responses were not included in the final result analy- ment was to ensure that the survey instrument was cultu- sis. In addition, most of the questions were structured such rally relevant to the communities in which the survey will that a ‘Yes’ response to a question indicated support for the be conducted. In addition, it was an opportunity for the social value variable being measured, while a ‘No’ response communities to make contributions to the estimation of the indicated a dissent. However, the questions rephrased to test social value of the mangrove vegetation in their the alertness of respondents were exempted from this rule, e. community. g., if the mangrove forest in your community was completely cleared, will that make your community look better? A ‘No’ response implies support for the social value variable being measured, while a ‘Yes’ response implies a dissent. Each Survey instrument variable was thereafter measured by aggregating the affirma- The survey instrument consisted of two sections. The first tive responses. Thereafter, the mean of the percentage dis- section sought for socio-economic information of the respon- tribution of the affirmative responses was estimated using dent, such as education level, occupation, age group, length Equation (1). of stay of respondent in the community and household income. The second section is presented in Table 1 and consisted of questions required to qualitatively measure the ðP Þ ikv i¼1 μ ¼ (1) kv variables in the social valuation framework (i.e. therapeutic value, amenity value, heritage value, spiritual value and where: existence value). All the questions in the survey instrument µ = Mean percentage distribution of affirmative consisted of closed-ended type of questions. This type of kv response for social value variable (k) in community (v). question was used for the ease of coding during analysis. In Table 1. List of questions used to measure the social value of mangroves. Id Social value variables and questions used to measure them Yes No I don’t know Therapeutic value H1 Does the mangrove provide medicinal resources for your community? H2 Has the medicinal resources from the mangrove in your community reduced the number of patients in the community clinic? H3 If you had no community clinic, can the resources from the mangroves cure the common sicknesses in your community? H4 Does the health of your community dependent on the good health of the mangrove? Amenity value H5 Does the mangrove add natural beauty to your community? H6 Does the mangrove in your community provide space for community relaxation and enjoyment? H7 Have you learnt anything about the mangrove that you would not have learnt if the mangroves were not in your community? H8 If the mangrove forest in your community was completely cleared, will that make your community look better? Heritage value H9 Is the mangrove a very important aspect of your community’s history? H10 Does the mangrove play any important role in your culture and tradition? H11 Does your community view the mangrove as heritage from your forefathers? H12 Would you like the mangrove in your community to be in existence for the future generation of the community? Spiritual value H13 Does the mangrove serve as the foundation for your community’s spiritual beliefs? H14 Does your community use materials from the mangrove for spiritual worship? H15 Does your community perform any spiritual worship in the mangrove? H16 Does your community attach any myth to the mangrove? Existence value H17 Do you think it is the duty of the community to protect the mangrove from destruction, regardless of the cost? H18 Does the mangrove have a right to exist, even if you do not derive any benefit from the vegetation? H19 If you have money, are you willing to pay to protect the mangrove from destruction? H20 Do you think it is fair to destroy the mangrove? 318 G.K. James et al. P = Percentage distribution of affirmative response Results and discussion ikv to each question used to measure variable (k) in commu- Socio-economic characteristics of respondents nity (v). Although the survey instrument was administered to 136, 155 i = Question used to measure variable (k). and 60 households, only 126, 150 and 60 questionnaires were N = Total number of questions used to measure vari- validated in Buguma, Burutu and Kuruama, respectively. As a able (k). result, 10 questionnaires were voided in Buguma while 5 K = Variable used to measure social value (therapeutic, were voided in Burutu due to incompleteness. A summary amenity, heritage, spiritual and existence). of results for the socio-economic characteristics of respon- v = Community where survey was conducted. dents is presented in Table 2. The majority of household respondents that participated in this survey were male house- hold heads. They accounted for 60% of respondents while Household survey female household heads constituted 40%. Most of the house- The final phase of the primary data-gathering process hold heads sampled were within the age bracket of 41 years involved the administration of the survey instrument and above; they constituted 59% of the respondents. On developed from the focus group discussions. The sample average, the respondents had lived in their community for size was estimated at the 90% confidence interval and 29 years. With reference to the educational background of the 95% confidence level, resulting in a minimum of the respondents, 37% had completed their secondary education, following sample sizes: 87, 85 and 55 from a population while 33% had primary level education. This is not surprising size of 900, 700 and 128 households in Buguma, Burutu because the majority of those with higher educational back- and Kuruama communities, respectively. However, to ground are more likely to migrate to the cities for better accommodate redundancy, the survey instrument was opportunities. The majority of those sampled (67%) reported administered to 136, 155 and 60 households in Buguma, the extraction of mangrove resources as their full-time occu- Burutu and Kuruama communities, respectively. pation. The extraction of these resources is at the subsistence Participants in the household survey were selected based level. Nine out of every 10 household respondents extract on the quasi-systematic random sampling procedure. The fishery resources within the adjoining community rivers and sampling approach was implemented as follows: Four creeks. The reported average monthly income of respondents survey teams were deployed in each community with was N18,694 ($130). each team responsible for a quadrant of the village. The starting point for all the teams was always the village square at the geographic centre of each community. Social value variables From the village square, each team moved into its Summary of results showing the percentage distribution of assigned quadrant and visited the first household in the the respondents with affirmative responses to survey ques- quadrant to begin the survey. After visiting the first house- tions, as well as the mean of the percentages, are presented hold, every other household was then visited to administer in Tables 3–7, corresponding to the following social valua- the survey instrument. The sampling approach was tion variables: therapeutic, amenity, heritage, spiritual and adopted because of the lack of spatial information for the existence values, respectively. households in the study communities. Moreover, a detailed map of the communities was not available during the data- gathering process. Also, other methods such as the simple Therapeutic value random sampling could not be adopted because it was a major challenge to reference all the households in the Results from the household survey presented in Table 3 communities that were visited. revealed variation in the therapeutic value ascribed to Table 2. Summary of the socio-economic background of survey respondents. Buguma Burutu Kuruama Variable community community community Mean Gender Male (%) 67 62 51 60 Female (%) 33 38 49 40 Age group 40 years and below (%) 31 42 49 41 41 years and above (%) 69 58 51 59 Respondents average years of residence in the community (years) 35 25 26 29 Education Primary education (%) 30 36 34 33 Secondary education (%) 47 30 34 37 Others (%) 23 34 32 30 Occupation (Extraction of mangrove resources) (%) 72 64 64 67 Average monthly income (US$) 186 117 88 130 International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 319 Table 3. Results from affirmative response to questions for measuring therapeutic value. Buguma Burutu Kuruama community (%) community (%) community (%) Id Survey questions used to measure therapeutic value (n = 126) (n = 150) (n = 60) F1 Have you ever been treated with medicinal herbs from the 89 85 16 mangroves in your community? F2 Has the medicinal resources from the mangrove in your 65 67 6 community reduced the number of patients in the community clinic? F3 If you had no community clinic, can the resources from the 71 67 6 mangroves cure the common sicknesses in your community? F4 Does the health of members of your community depend on the 57 54 28 proper functioning of the mangrove? Mean 71 68 14 Table 4. Results from affirmative response to questions for measuring amenity value. Buguma Burutu Kuruama community (%) community (%) community (%) Id Survey questions used to measure amenity value (n = 126) (n = 150) (n = 60) F5 Does the mangrove add natural beauty to your community? 71 71 78 F6 Does the mangrove in your community provide space for 72 55 60 community relaxation and enjoyment? F7 Have you learnt anything about the mangrove that you would 70 64 62 not have learnt if the mangroves were not in your community? F8 **If the mangrove forest in your community was completely 71 70 92 cleared, will that make your community look better? Mean 71 65 73 Note: **denotes test question for alertness. Table 5. Results from affirmative response to questions for measuring heritage value. Buguma Kuruama community (%) Burutu community (%) community (%) Id Survey questions used to measure heritage value (n = 126) (n = 150) (n = 60) F9 Is the mangrove a very important aspect of your community’s 96 91 75 history? F10 Does the mangrove play any important role in your culture and 98 86 75 tradition? F11 Does your community view the mangrove as heritage from your 87 80 71 forefathers? F12 Is there any historic site inside your mangrove forests? 88 89 60 Mean 92 87 70 Table 6. Results from affirmative response to questions for measuring spiritual value. Buguma Kuruama community (%) Burutu community community (%) Id Survey questions used to measure spiritual value (n= 126) (%) (n= 150) (n= 60) F13 Does the mangrove serve as the foundation for your 78 60 43 community’s spiritual beliefs? F14 Does your community use materials from the mangrove for 78 69 35 spiritual worship? F15 Does your community perform any spiritual worship in the 82 73 60 mangrove? F16 Does your community attach any myth to the mangrove? 66 70 39 Mean 76 68 44 320 G.K. James et al. Table 7. Results from affirmative response to questions for measuring existence value. Kuruama Buguma community Burutu community community (%) ID Survey questions used to measure existence value (%) (n = 126) (%) (n = 150) (n = 60) F17 Do you think it is the duty of the community to protect the 92 91 97 mangrove from destruction regardless of the cost? F18 Does the mangrove have a right to exist, even if you do not 91 89 68 derive any benefit from the vegetation? F19 If you have money, are you willing to pay to protect the 95 88 98 mangrove from destruction? F20 **Do you think it is fair to destroy the mangrove? 85 91 93 Mean 91 90 89 Note: **denotes test question for alertness. mangrove by the three communities that participated in Heritage value this study. While 85% of households claim they have been The mangroves constitute a major heritage for the respon- treated with medicinal herbs from mangroves in Burutu dents who participated in this study. This is corroborated community, 89% of households made the same claim in by the high percentage distribution (Buguma – 92%, Buguma community. In fact, the percentage of households Burutu – 87% and Kuruama – 70%) of affirmative that derived medicinal resources from mangroves plum- response to the questions used to measure the heritage meted to 16% in Kuruama community. This is not surprising social value shown in Table 5. Findings from focus because findings from the focus group discussions conducted group discussions in Buguma community revealed that in this study revealed that mangrove vegetation is extensively the annual masquerade festival in Buguma community used in Burutu and Buguma communities for curing health- commences in the mangrove forest. The Masqueraders related problems. Some examples include the liquid extract dress up in the mangroves and perform certain rites before from the leaves of the Rhizophora species is used to cure entering the community. Also, it is the culture of Buguma open sores; the same leaves are used to cure skin rashes in community to bury some of their dead in the mangroves infants, stomach ache and diarrhoea. Women also use the forest, including children who die at a tender age (less than leaves to reduce belly fat after baby delivery. In addition, the 10 years old); community members who drown in a river; chewing of Rhizophora propagule prevents novice sailors anyone with an open sore at the time of death; and preg- from experiencing sea sickness during their first couple of nant women who die before giving birth. Moreover, the trips into the open ocean. In contrast, most members of trunk of the Rhizophora mangrove species (called Kokari Kuruama community interviewed claimed to be unaware of in the native dialect) is used to settle disputes between such usage of the mangroves. Focus group discussions in the aggrieved parties in the community. The practice is to community revealed that the community has access to med- make the warring party swear using the trunk of the ical facilities in Bonny Island which is about 20 min by boat Rhizophora racemosa mangrove vegetation. Similarly, ride. Bonny Island is home to the multibillion-dollar focus group sessions in Burutu community revealed that Nigerian Liquefied Natural Gas project. This accounts for the community use the ash residual from burnt mangroves the low (14%) aggregate positive response to the therapeutic for painting the bodies of their young women during value in Kuruama community as shown in Table 3. traditional dancing festivals. In addition, some sections of the mangroves in the community are considered evil forests, and visits to such forest are prohibited. These Amenity value cultural practices that are tied to the mangroves clearly There is a general consensus among respondents from the demonstrate the role of mangroves in the culture and three communities sampled that the mangroves provide tradition of the sampled communities. Furthermore, when space for relaxation. This is particularly a vital function respondents were asked, ‘Does the mangrove play any for fishermen and those who collect fishery resources; they important role in your culture and tradition?’ 98% seek shelter under mangrove shades when it is raining or responded ‘Yes’ in Buguma community; likewise, 86% when the heat intensity of the sun is very high. They also responded ‘Yes’ in Burutu community, while 75% prefer to enjoy the evening breeze under mangrove shades responded in the affirmative in Kuruama community. while they wait for the tides to subside for optimal fish harvest. This is indicated in Table 4, where on average Spiritual value 71% of households sampled in Buguma acknowledge the amenity function of the mangrove, while 65% and 73% To a large extent, the advent of Christianity in the three made the same claim in Burutu and Kuruama commu- communities visited has gradually reduced community nities, respectively. participation in the traditional religious activities that International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 321 involve the use of mangrove materials. Nevertheless, some study revealed the existence of social value ascribed to religious rites are still being practiced using materials from mangroves by the Niger Delta communities that partici- mangrove forests. The roots of Rhizophora mangrove pated in this study. Across the mangrove ecological zone species are used to beat drums during the annual of the Niger Delta, communities ascribed preferences for Masquerade festival in Buguma community. When survey the following social values of mangroves: therapeutic participants were asked whether they use materials from value, amenity value, heritage value, spiritual value and the mangrove for spiritual worship, 78% of them existence value. Third, the decision to conserve or change responded ‘Yes’ in Buguma community; while 69% and mangrove vegetation to alternative usage in the Niger 35% responded ‘Yes’ in Burutu and Kuruama commu- Delta should be determined within economic as well as nities, respectively. This pattern was also indicated in social value frameworks. The results from economic Table 6 were the aggregate responses in support of the valuation are subjective, and so should be complemented spiritual value of mangrove was 76% in Buguma, 68% in with additional qualitative information from the social Burutu and 44% in Kuruama communities. value of mangroves. Fourth, finding from this study has shown the dynamic nature of tastes and preferences, most especially in the long run. Although the preference for the Existence value social value of mangroves is significant in Buguma and Most of the respondents in the survey pledged their sup- Burutu communities when compared with Kuruama com- port for the continuous existence of mangrove vegetation munity, however, the negative influence of external factors since their survival depends on the environmental on these social value variables may in the long run erode resource. Moreover, they are keen at transferring the vege- the significance of the social value of mangroves in the tation to the next generation, just as it was transferred to Niger Delta. For example, the advent of Christianity in the them. One of the respondents put it plainly when he said, region has gradually diminished the role of mangroves in ‘Burutu community is mangroves and mangroves is spiritual worship. Similarly, the influence of Bonny Island Burutu community. The historical account of the commu- (an urban area) on Kuruama mangrove community was nity is not complete without the role of mangroves in the revealed in their low preference for the therapeutic, as well community’. The respondents stressed the notion that they as spiritual value of mangroves in the community. Finally, all grew up to know the mangroves and they will hope- a major policy implication of this study indicates that the fully pass the vegetation on to their children, just as it was decision to convert mangrove vegetation in the Niger passed on to them by their parents. A participant in the Delta to alternative use should be based on the considera- focus group session conducted in Kuruama community tion of the pluralism nature of the value of mangrove also noted that the vegetation was transferred to them by vegetation that includes economic value as well as social their grandparents and they feel it is their duty to transfer value. the vegetation to their children. This notion was further buttress when survey participants were asked if the man- Note grove has a right to exist, even if they did not derive any 1. According to Diener et al. (1999), SWB is ‘a broad category benefit from the vegetation. In Buguma community, 91% of phenomena that includes people’s emotional responses, of respondents answered ‘Yes’, while 89% agreed that the domain satisfactions, and global judgments of life satisfac- vegetation has a right to exist in Burutu community. tion.’ Within the framework of SWB, the social value of Similarly, in Kuruama community, 68% of respondents wetlands is centred on the notion of human happiness and agreed that the vegetation has a right to exist. This is satisfaction from the non-monetary benefits derived from wetlands. presented in Table 7. References Conclusion Abuodha PAW, Kairo JG. 2001. Human-induced stresses on Human society has and will always be faced with the mangrove swamps along the Kenyan coast. Hydrobiologia. decision of how to manage ecosystems for sustainability. 458:255–265. This is also true for the mangrove ecosystem that has often Aksornkoae S. 2004. Sustainable use and conservation of been converted to alternate use, based on only economic Mangrove Forest Resources with emphasis on policy and management practices in Thailand. In:VannucciM,editor. consideration by policymakers. As a result, findings from Mangrove management and conservation: present and this study are significant for many reasons. First, the future. New York (NY): United Nations University Press; p. mangrove ecosystem in the Niger Delta provides natural 149–160. functions as well as services which influence people’s Barbier EB. 1994. Valuing environmental functions: tropical wet- SWB through social structures, health and culture, both lands. Land Econ. 70:155–173. Barbier EB. 2000. Valuing the environment as input: review of at the individual and the community levels. As a result, it applications to mangrove-fishery linkages. Special issue, the is essential to assess the social value of mangrove and values of wetlands: landscape and institutional perspectives. communicate such to policymakers for them to consider Ecol Econ. 35:47–61. the social–cultural consequences of the conversion of Barbier EB. 2007. Valuing ecosystem services as productive inputs. Econ Policy. 22:177–229. mangrove vegetation to alternative usage. Second, this 322 G.K. James et al. Barbier EB, Acreman M, Knowler D. 1997. Economic valuation Diener Ed, Suh Eunkook M, Lucas Robert E, Smith Heidi L. of wetlands: a guide for policy makers and planners. Gland: 1999. Subjective well-being: three decades of progress. Ramsar Convention Bureau. Psychol Bull. 125:276–302. Bardecki MJ. 1998. Wetlands and economics: an annotated Dryzek JS. 1990. Discursive democracy: politics, policy and review of the literature, 1988–1998. Ontario: Environment political science. New York (NY): Cambridge University Canada. Press. Bingham G, Brody M, Bromley D, Clark E, Cooper W, Costanza Etzioni A. 1988. The moral dimension: toward a New R, Hale T, Hayden G, Kellert S, Nargaard R, et al. 1995. Economics. New York (NY): The Free Press. Issues in ecosystem valuation: improving information for Fishkin JS. 1991. Democracy and eliberation. New Haven (CT): decision making. Ecol Econ. 14:73–90. Yale University Press. Bishop RC. 1993. Economic efficiency, sustainability, and bio- Freeman III AM. 2003. The measurement of environmental and diversity. Ambio. 22:69–73. resources values: theory and methods. 2nd ed. Washington Bishop RC, Welsh MP. 1993. Existence values in benefit-cost (DC): Resources for the future. analysis and damage assessment. Land Econ. 68:405–417. Focus Group. 2008. Proceedings of the focus group sessions Boyle KJ, Bishop RC. 1987. Valuing wildlife in benefit cost conducted in the Niger Delta by Godstime James. analyses: a case study involving endangered species. Water (Unpublished). Resour Res. 23:943–950. Guijt I, Hinchcliffe F, editors. 1998. Participatory valuation of Brander LM, Florax RJG, Vermaat JE. 2006. The empirics of wild resources: an overview of the hidden harvest methodol- Wetland valuation: a comprehensive summary and a meta- ogy. London: IIED. analysis of the literature. Environ Resour Econ. 33:223–250. Habermas J. 1984. The theory of communicative action. Boston Brown K, Tompkins E, Adger WN. 2001. Trade-off analysis for (MA): Beacon Press. participatory coastal zone decision-making. Norwich (UK): Hamilton LS, Snedaker SC. 1984. Handbook for mangrove area Overseas Development Group. management. IUCN/UNESCO/UNEP. Honolulu (HI): East- Carson RT, Hanemann WM. 2005. Contingent valuation. In: West Center. Mäler K, Vincent JR, editors. Handbook of environmental Hartig T, Mang M, Evans G. 1991. Restorative effects of natural economics: valuing environmental changes. Vol. 2. environments experiences. J Environ Behav. 23:3–26. Amsterdam: Elsevier; p. 821–936. Hausman JE. 1993. Contingent valuation: a critical appraisal. Chiesura A, de Groot R. 2003. Critical natural capital: a socio- Amsterdam: Elsevier. cultural perspective. Ecol Econ. 44:219–231. Heimlich RE, Weibe KD, Claassen V, Gadsy D, House RM. Coley R, Kuo F, Sullivan W. 1997. Where does community 1998. Wetlands and agriculture: private interests and public grow? The social context created by nature in urban public benefits, resource economics division, E.R.S. USDA. Agr housing. J Environ Behav. 29:468–494. Econ Rep. 765:10. Common M, Reid I, Blamey R. 1997. Do existence values for cost Held A, Ticehurst C, Lymburner L, Williams N. 2003. High benefit analysis exist?. Environ Resour Econ. 9:225–238. resolution mapping of tropical mangrove ecosystems using Coote A, Lenaghan J. 1997. Citizen juries: theory into practice. hyperspectral and radar remote sensing. Int. J. Remote Sens. London: Institute for Public Policy Research. 24:2739–2759. Costanza R, D’arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon Helliwell DR. 1969. Valuation of wildlife resources. Reg Stud. B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, et al. 1997. 3:41–47. The total value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural Howarth Richard B, Farber Stephen. 2002. Accounting for the capital. Nature. 387:253–260. value of ecosystem services. In the dynamics and value of Daily GC, editor. 1997a. Nature’s services: societal dependence ecosystem services: integrating economic and ecological per- on natural ecosystems. Washington (DC): Island Press. spectives. Ecol Econ. 41:421–429. Daily GC, editor. 1997b. What are ecosystem services?. Nature’s Hueting R. 1970. Should nature be quantified? Economica services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Statistische Berichten. 55:80–84. Washington (DC): Island Press; p. 1–10. Jacobs M. 1995. Sustainable development, capital substitution Daily GC, Söderqvist T, Aniyar S, Arrow K, Dasgupta P, Ehrlich and economic humility: a response to Beckerman. J Environ PR, Folke C, Jansson AM, Jansson BO, Kautsky N, et al. Values. 4:57–68. 2000. The value of nature and the nature of value. Science. Jacobs M. 1997. Environmental valuation, deliberative democ- 289:395–396. racy and public decision-making. In: Foster J, editor. Valuing de Groot RS. 1992. Functions of nature: evaluation of nature in nature: economics, ethics and environment. London: environmental planning, management and decision making. Routledge; p. 211–231. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff. James GK, Adegoke J, Saba E, Nwilo P, Akinyede J, Osagie de Groot RS. 1994. Environmental functions and the economic S. 2011. Economic valuation of Mangroves in the Niger value of natural ecosystems. In: Jansson AM, editor. Investing Delta: an interdisciplinary approach. In: Ommer RE, Perry in natural capital: the ecological economics approach to sus- R, Cochrane K, Cury P, editors. World fisheries: a social- tainability. International Society for Ecological Economics. ecological analysis. Oxford (UK): Wiley-Blackwell; p. New York (NY): Island Press; p. 151–168. 265–280. de Groot RS, Stuip Mishka, Finlayson Max, Davidson Nick. Kahneman D, Ritov I, Schkade D. 1999. Economic preferences 2006. Valuing Wetlands Guidance for Valuing the Benefits or attitude expressions?: an analysis of dollar responses to Derived from Wetland Ecosystem Services. Ramsar public issues. J Risk Uncertainty. 19:203–235. Technical Report No. 3 CBD Technical Series No. 27. Kaplowitz MD, Hoehn JP. 2001. Do focus groups and personal Gland: Ramsar Convention Secretariat. interviews cast the same light on natural resource valuation? de Groot RS, Van der Meer PJ. 2010. Quantifying and valuing Ecol. Econ. 36:237–247. goods and services provided by plantation forests. In: Kazmierczak RF. 2001. Economic linkages between Coastal Jurgen Bauhus, Peter Van der Meer, Markku Kanninen, Wetlands and Hunting and Fishing: a review of value esti- editors. Ecosystems goods and services from plantation mates reported in the published literature. Baton Rouge forests. Oxford (UK): Earthscan; p. 16–40. Chap. 2. (LA): Louisiana State University Agricultural Center. Diamond PA, Hausman JA. 1994. Contingent valuation: is some King RT. 1966. Wildlife and man. New York Conservationist. number better than no number? J Econ Perspect. 8:45–65. 20:8–11. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 323 Knetsch JL. 1994. Environmental valuation: some problems of Sagoff M. 1988b. The economy of the Earth. Cambridge: wrong questions and misleading answers. J Environ Values. Cambridge University Press. 3:351–368. Samuelson PA. 1954. The pure theory of public expenditure. Krutilla JV. 1967. Conservation reconsidered. Am Econ Rev. Rev. Econ Stat. 36:387–389. 57:777–786. Schroeder HW. 1991. Preferences and meaning of arboretum Kumar M, Kumar P. 2008. Valuation of the ecosystem services: a landscapes; combining quantitative and qualitative data. J psycho-cultural perspective. Ecol Econ. 64:808–819. Environ Psychol. 11:231–248. Liljas B, Lindgren B. 2001. On individual preferences and aggre- Sheil D, Wunder S. 2002. The value of tropical forest to local gation in economic evaluation in healthcare. communities: complications, caveats, and cautions. Conser Pharmacoeconomics. 19:323–336. Ecol. 6:9. Limburg KE, Folke C. 1999. The ecology of ecosystem services: Smith G. 2003. Deliberative democracy and the environment. introduction to the special issue. Ecol Econ. 29:179–182. London: Routledge Press. Loomis J. 1992. The evolution of a more rigorous approach to Spash CL. 1997. Ethics and environmental attitudes with implica- benefit transfer: benefit function transfer. Water Resour Res. tions for economic valuation. J. Environ. Manag. 50:403–416. 28:701–705. Spash CL. 2000. Ecosystems, contingent valuation and ethics: Macnae W. 1968. A general account of the fauna and flora of the case of wetland re-creation. Special issue social processes mangrove swamps and forests in the Indo- West Pacific of environmental valuation. Ecol Econ. 34:195–215. region. Adv Mar Biol. 6:270. Spash CL. 2007. Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): issues Menzel Susanne, Wiek Arnim. 2009. Valuation in morally in combining economic and political processes to value charged situations: the role of deontological stances and environmental change. Ecol Econ. 63:690–699. intuition for trade-off making. Ecol Econ. 68:2198–2206. Spash CL, Vatn A. 2006. Transferring environmental value esti- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2003. Ecosystems and mates: issues and alternatives. Ecol Econ. 60:379–388. human well-being: a framework for assessment. Stasser G, Stewart D. 1992. Discovery of hidden profiles by Washington (DC): Island Press. decision-making groups: solving a problem versus making Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and a judgment. J. Pers Soc Psychol. 63:426–434. human well-being: current state and trends. Chapter 17: Stasser G, Stewart D, Wittenbaum GM. 1995. Expert roles and Cultural and Amenity Services [Internet]. [cited 2012 Jan information exchange during discussion: the importance of 25]. Available from: http://www.maweb.org/documents/ knowing who knows what. J. Exp. Soc Psychol. 31:244–265. document.286.aspx.pdf Stasser G, Titus W. 1985. Pooling of unshared information in Mitchell RC, Carson RT. 1989. Using surveys to value public group decision making: biased information sampling during goods: the contingent valuation method. Washington (DC): discussion. J. Pers Soc Psychol. 48:1467–1478. Resources for the Future. Ulrich RS. 1984. View through a window may influence recov- Mitsch W, Gosselink J. 1993. Wetlands. New York (NY): Van ery from surgery. Science. 224:420–421. Nostrand Reinhold. [UNDP] United Nations Development Program. 2006. Niger Moses BS. 1985. Mangrove swamps as a potential food source. Delta human development report. Abuja-Nigeria: United In: Balafama Wilcox, Powell GB, editors. Proceedings of the Nations Development Program. Workshop on Mangrove Ecosystems of the Niger Delta; Upadhyay VP, Ranjan R, Singh JS. 2002. Human-mangrove 1980 May 19–23; Nigeria: University of Port-Harcourt; conflicts: the way out. Curr Sci. 83:1328–1336. p. 170–184. Vatn A. 2000. The environment as a commodity. J Environ NDES. 1997. The Niger Delta Environmental Survey Values. 9:493–509. (Phase 1), Environmental and Socio-economic Vatn A. 2004. Environmental valuation and rationality. Land Characteristics. Lagos-Nigeria: Environmental Resources Econ. 80:1–18. Mangers Limited. Vatn A, Bromley DW. 1997. Externalities – a market model [NRC] National Research Council. 2005. Valuing ecosystem failure. Environ Resour Econ. 9:135–151. services: towards a better environmental decision-making. Walsh GE. 1974. Mangroves: a review. In: Reinhold, R, Queen, Washington (DC): National Academy Press. WM, editors. Ecologyof halophytes. New York (NY): Pearce D, Moran D. 1994. The economic value of biodiversity. Academic Press; p. 51–74. London: Earthscan Publications. Watts M. 2004. Resource curse? Governmentality, oil and power Pearce DW. 1993. Economic values and the natural world. in the Niger Delta, Nigeria. Geopolitics (special issue). 9: London: Earthscan. 50–80. Perkins E. 2001. Discourse-based valuation and ecological eco- Wilson MA, Carpenter SR. 1999. Economic valuation of fresh- nomics. Annual Conference of the Canadian Society for water ecosystem services in the United States 1971–1997. Ecological Economics; Aug 23–25. McGill University, Ecol Appl. 9:772–783. Montreal, QC. Wilson MA, Howarth RB. 2002. Discourse-based valuation of Peters CM, Gentry AH, Mendelsohn RO. 1989. Valuation of an ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group Amazonian rainforest. Nature. 339:655–656. deliberation. Special issue: the dynamics and value of eco- Pimentel D, Wilson C. 1997. Economics and environmental system services: integrating economic and ecological per- benefits of biodiversity. BioScience. 47:747–758. spectives. Ecol Econ. 41:431–443. Richards M, Davies J. 1999. The use of economics to assess Woodward RT, Wui YS. 2001. The economic value of Wetland stakeholder incentives in participatory forest management: a services: a meta-analysis. Ecol Econ. 37:257–270. review. European Union Tropical Forestry Paper 5. Overseas World Bank. 1995. Defining an environmental management strat- Development Institute, London. egy for the Niger Delta. Report prepared by Jasdip Smigh, Saenger P. 2002. Mangrove ecology, silviculture and conserva- David Moffat and Olof Linden. Washington (DC): Industry tion. Dordrecht: Klumer Academic Publishers. and Energy operations division, West African Department, Saenger P, Hegerl EJ, Davie JDS. 1983. Global status of man- World Bank. grove ecosystems. Environmentalist. 3:1–88. Zendehdel K, Rademaker M, De Baets B, GuidoVan Sagoff M. 1998a. Aggregation and deliberation in valuing envir- Huylenbroeck G. 2008. Qualitative valuation of environmen- onmental public goods: a look beyond contingent pricing. tal criteria through a group consensus based on stochastic Ecol Econ. 24:213–230. dominance. Ecol Econ. 67:253–264.

Journal

International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management – Taylor & Francis

Published: Dec 1, 2013

Keywords: social valuation; economic valuation; mangroves; Niger Delta; ecosystem; sustainability

There are no references for this article.