Landscape and Urban Planning: Jie Su, Alexandros Gasparatos

Landscape and Urban Planning 235 (2023) 104763
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Landscape and Urban Planning

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan
Perceptions about mangrove restoration and ecosystem services to inform

ecosystem-based restoration in Large Xiamen Bay, China
Jie Su a, *, Alexandros Gasparatos b, c
a
Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Japan
b
Institute for Future Initiatives (IFI), The University of Tokyo, Japan
c
Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS), United Nations University, Japan
H I G H L I G H T S
• Elicit societal perceptions for mangrove restoration and ecosystem services in Large Xiamen Bay, China.
• Statistical analysis of 1600 online surveys from four districts with different characteristics.
• Large heterogeneity in perceptions due to the characteristics of respondents and the districts.
• Largest perceived preference for provisioning ecosystem services and lowest for cultural services.
• Need to raise awareness and educate about the benefits and multifunctionality of mangrove ecosystems.
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Mangroves provide a multitude of ecosystem services that are threatened due to extensive mangrove degradation
Mangrove restoration globally. Restoration actions have been receiving growing attention for reinstating some of these critically
Ecosystem services important ecosystem services. Understanding societal perceptions about ecosystem restoration and the services
Coastal residents
that can be enhanced via them, is critical for designing and implementing effective and equitable landscape and
Perception
Household survey
seascape restoration actions. Here, we elicit societal perceptions toward mangrove restoration, and the perceived
Landscape-scale restoration importance of the ecosystem services it can provide, through 1600 surveys with coastal residents in the Large
Xiamen Bay (China). We focus on four districts with different environmental and socioeconomic characteristics,
and elicit the perceived importance of mangrove ecosystem services through the Analytical Hierarchy Process.
Subsequently we identify the factors affecting these perceptions through regression analysis and redundancy
analysis. Overall, the analysis suggests that coastal residents in the four districts have diverse perceptions about
the importance of mangrove ecosystem services, with provisioning services receiving higher weights in most
cases. Conversely respondents supporting and willing to pay for mangrove restoration tend to assign greater
importance to regulating services such as climate regulation and coastal protection. Notably, some of the
characteristics of the respondents and their districts significantly influence some of these perceptions. This
evidence-based understanding of what affects the perceptions about mangrove restoration (and the ecosystem
services it provides) can inform the development of landscape-scale restoration actions that are fit for purpose
and can contribute to achieving the restoration goals of the UN Decade of Ecosystem Restoration and the Post-
2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.
1. Introduction and global communities, including global climate regulation (Donato

et al., 2011), coastal protection (Hochard et al., 2019), food production
Mangrove forests are among the most biodiverse ecosystems (Lee (Vo et al., 2012) and recreation (Spalding & Parrett, 2019), among
et al., 2014). They offer a large diversity of ecosystem services to local others. However, anthropogenic activities and climate change are
* Corresponding author at: Graduate Program in Sustainability Science - Global Leadership Initiative (GPSS-GLI), Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The
University of Tokyo, 5-1-5 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa City 277-8563, Japan.
E-mail address: jie.su@s.k.u-tokyo.ac.jp (J. Su).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104763
Received 18 July 2022; Received in revised form 8 March 2023; Accepted 30 March 2023
Available online 5 April 2023
0169-2046/© 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
J. Su and A. Gasparatos Landscape and Urban Planning 235 (2023) 104763
driving the loss of mangrove cover globally (Richards & Friess, 2016). explored the societal perceptions and preferences of socio-cultural
Goldberg et al. (2020) report an average annual area loss of 0.13% values of mangrove ecosystems and their services compared to studies
globally between 2000 and 2016. In order to compensate for this loss of of ecological and economic values (Dahdouh-Guebas et al., 2020). To
mangroves (and the ecosystem services they provide), there has been the best of our knowledge, only few studies have identified the perceived
strong motivation to promote mangrove restoration worldwide (Wal importance of diverse mangrove ecosystem services in Tanzania
tham et al., 2020). This impetus for mangrove restoration has become (Nyangoko et al., 2020), Brazil (Queiroz et al., 2017) and Philippine
even stronger as we have entered the UN Decade on Ecosystem Resto (Quevedo et al., 2020). These have mainly focused on direct benefi
ration (2021–2030) (Fischer et al., 2021) and considering the ongoing ciaries (i.e. indigenous and local communities) that heavily rely on
negotiations for the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. mangrove resources for their livelihoods. However, societal perceptions
To enhance the success and effectiveness of ecosystem-based resto of mangrove ecosystem services in more urbanized coastal areas where
ration (including for mangroves), there is a need to incorporate both local communities do not depend directly on mangroves for their live
high-quality scientific information, and the knowledge and views of lihood (Hema & Devi, 2015) is also critical. The wealth of ecosystem
relevant stakeholders during the design and decision-making of resto services that coastal residents and inland communities receive are
ration efforts (Granek et al., 2010). This entails, among others, better important, particularly coastal protection (Menéndez et al., 2020), as
understanding and integrating the acceptability of restoration efforts well as climate regulation (Donato et al., 2011), recreation opportu
and the societal preferences of the ecosystem services that can be nities, and aesthetic values (Spalding & Parrett, 2019).
enhanced via restoration actions. This can inform decision-making In this study, we elicit and critically discuss the perceptions of coastal
processes and achieve effective and equitable landscape and seascape residents towards mangrove restoration and mangrove ecosystem ser
restoration (Albert et al., 2020). For example, studies have argued that vices. We focus on four districts of the Large Xiamen Bay (LXB) in China,
failure to account for the perspectives of local communities (as the ul which have different environmental characteristics and levels of socio
timate beneficiaries of restored ecosystem services) may result in mis economic development. The LXB is an appropriate context for this study,
alignments when implementing restoration policies and interventions considering the extensive mangrove degradation over the past decades
(Ureta et al., 2020). In other words, a good incentive to sustain resto due to rapid urbanization and socioeconomic development in the
ration efforts would be if communities could benefit from restoration broader region (Lin et al., 2007), as well as the growing interest in
(Mansourian et al., 2022). This is why community-based restoration mangrove restoration by the local and national governments (Su et al.,
have been promoted in the restoration of different types of ecosystems 2022). In particular, we: (1) identify how mangroves and mangrove
(Damastuti et al., 2020; Erbaugh et al., 2020), which is also aligned with restoration are perceived by coastal residents (e.g. knowledge of man
the argument that ecosystem restoration would be most effective if groves, level of support for mangrove restoration); (2) elicit the
approached from a social-ecological perspective (Fischer et al., 2021). perceived importance of mangrove ecosystem services among coastal
With this growing acceptance of the importance of understanding residents (e.g. food production, climate regulation, tourism and recre
public acceptability perceptions regarding restoration actions and of the ation); and (3) assess how different socioeconomic and environmental
ecosystem services they provide, there is a growing number of relevant factors affect these perceptions. Arguably, such evidence-based under
studies in many types of ecosystems (Stange et al., 2022; Tan et al., standing could better inform ecosystem-based restoration to meet soci
2021), including for mangroves (Nyangoko et al., 2020; Queiroz et al., etal needs in the broader region. To achieve these three objectives, we
2017; Quevedo et al., 2020). However, there are important gaps in our analyse 1600 surveys collected in four study districts through the
understanding of perceptions about ecosystem’s restoration, including Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), generalized linear models, and
for mangroves. redundancy analysis (RDA). We need to clarify that through this
First, the perceptions of project acceptability and prospective empirical study we do not explicitly aim to answer whether (and the
ecosystem services of restoration actions can be context-specific and extent to which) mangroves should be restored in the specific
vary widely between areas and local communities, even within the same geographical context. Instead, we seek to provide policy-relevant in
social-ecological system (Quintas-Soriano et al., 2018). This challenges formation about the acceptability of such actions among the general
the robust elicitation and application/interpolation for predictive pur population, the types of ecosystem services that should be considered in
poses of restoration actions. For example, studies have pointed out that mangrove restoration actions, and the factors expected to affect the
perceptions and priorities about ecosystem services (including from demand for specific ecosystem services.
restoration actions) are influenced by geographic and environmental
characteristics, socioeconomic factors, and institutions (Cebrián-Pique 2. Methods
ras et al., 2020; Nyangoko et al., 2020). As a result a large fraction of the
studies on the societal preferences for ecosystem services have been 2.1. Study site
conducted in single case study sites (Lhoest et al., 2019; Maniatakou
et al., 2020) or focused on certain beneficiary groups (Logsdon et al., The Large Xiamen Bay (LXB) ecosystem is a semi-closed subtropical
2015; Pachoud et al., 2020). Few studies have examined the influence of bay on the west bank of the Taiwan Strait, southeast coast of China
site-specific characteristics on the stakeholder perceptions of ecosystem (Fig. 1). The entrance of the LXB is northward to Weitoujiao in Jinjiang
services (Quintas-Soriano et al., 2018). (118.59, 24.57) and then southward to Zhenhaijiao in Longhai (118.14,
Second, there are major knowledge gaps about the factors influ 24.27) via Xiamen and Kinmen Island. The existing mangrove habitats
encing differences in societal perceptions about the acceptability of in the LXB span approximately 476.93 ha (Maxar Technologies, 2019).
ecosystem restoration and the preferred ecosystem service trade-offs In December 2020, the Fujian Government released a special action for
from restoration actions. Most relevant studies tend to elicit percep mangrove protection and restoration (Department of Natural Resources
tions either qualitatively through open-ended questions about the of Fujian Province, 2020). The aim is to achieve 244 ha of afforestation
needs/preferences of respondents from restoration actions (Castillo and 180 ha of restoration of mangroves in the LXB by 2025.
et al., 2021; Celentano et al., 2014) or quantitatively focusing on the To elicit the perceptions of coastal residents about mangrove resto
broader benefits of restoration (Vrahnakis et al., 2021). There are rela ration and the perceived importance of mangrove ecosystem services,
tively few studies on ecosystem services from restoration actions, which we focus on four administrative districts: Longhai in Zhangzhou City,
nevertheless tend to focus on only one category of ecosystem service Jinjiang in Quanzhou City, and Tong’an and Haicang both in Xiamen
(Tan et al., 2021). City (Fig. 1). These four districts have a diverse mangrove cover and
Third, there are specific knowledge gaps in the context of mangroves, represent various stages of socioeconomic development (Fig. 1). In
especially near more urbanized coastal areas. Fewer studies have particular, Longhai represents the least urbanized district with the
2
Fig. 1. Map of Large Xiamen Bay and the four study districts.
lowest disposable per capita income in 2020 (31,776 CNY/cap), while implemented by a Chinese third-party online survey company (https:
Haicang is the most urbanized district in the LXB (54,704 CNY/cap). //www.fnwenjuan.cn/). The online questionnaire was pushed through
Tong’an and Jinjiang have a medium level of economic development. In digital advertising on social media or mobile platforms (e.g. Wechat,
terms of mangrove extent, Longhai district has the most extensive Tencent, Sohu, Toutiao) where the respondents can access to the
mangrove cover (>400 ha), followed by Tong’an District (38.31 ha) and advertisement. In addition, we selected respondents >18 years old and
Haicang (only 0.51 ha). Although no mangroves are currently in Jin living in our study sites. The online survey used IP addresses and cookies
jiang in the LXB, a recent study of area suitability for mangrove resto to limit the number of surveys from a single respondent. Invalid samples
ration in the LXB revealed that roughly 210 ha of intertidal area in were considered those in which the response to questions was too fast,
Jinjiang are suitable for mangrove restoration (Su et al., 2022). In this followed the same sequence for all questions (e.g. choose A for all
sense, Jinjiang is not only used to elicit coastal residents’ perceptions of questions), or when the similarity of all answers in two samples excee
the potential benefits from mangrove restoration but also to compare ded 80%. An 80% similarity between two samples means that the two
them with other areas that already contain mangroves. respondents have answered the survey in almost exactly the same
manner, which is quite improbable considering the different de
mographic characteristics, perceptions and preferences. In the context of
2.2. Data collection
our questionnaire (38 questions) a similarity of >80% means that two
respondents answered exactly the same >30 questions, which is a strong
To elicit the perceptions of coastal residents about mangrove
indication that this has been the same respondent answering twice. The
ecosystem services, we conducted a randomized online survey of 400
400 surveys in each district are those that do not include the above-
households in each district (i.e. Longhai, Jinjiang, Tong’an, and Hai
mentioned invalid surveys. Those who completed the whole survey
cang) in late July 2021. We considered a sample size of 384–600 re
and were identified as valid samples would be given a certain reward
spondents as appropriated based on statistically significant sample size
(around 3–8 CNY).
(Krejcie & Morgan, 1970) with the population of each district (Fig. 1)
Before the full survey, we conducted a pilot survey of 40 residents in
and a margin of error of 4–5% at the 95% confidence interval.
early July 2021 to check the wording, timing, and general understand
Each random sample was obtained during the second half of July
ing of the survey instrument and whether the online platform could
2021 through an online survey designed by the research team and
3
perform appropriately. The feedback from the pilot survey was used to Subsequently, in order to facilitate the comprehension of the com
revise the final survey questionnaire to make it more concise by parison for each pair of ecosystem services, we structured the format of
rewording some questions to ensure that meaningful responses would be the pairwise comparisons from 17 options (Hummel & Bridges, 2014) to
obtained and meet the research questions. nine options, that are summarised below (the full format can be found in
The final survey was divided in three sections (see Supplementary the survey instrument in the Supplementary Information):
Information for full survey instrument). The first section collected
“Ecosystem Service A is “extremely more important”, or “strongly more
baseline information about the respondents and their perceptions for
important”, or “moderately more important”, or “slightly more impor
mangroves and mangrove restoration, namely, awareness of mangrove
tant”, or “equally important”, or “slightly less important”, or “moder
existence, knowledge of mangroves, degree of support for mangrove
ately less important”, or “strongly less important”, or “extremely less
restoration and whether they are willing to pay for it. It has been argued
important”, than Ecosystem Service B”.
that scientific and local ecological knowledge shape perceptions toward
ecosystems and the ecosystem services they provide (Cebrián-Piqueras Following pairwise comparisons, Likert-scale questions were used to
et al., 2020). Considering the likelihood of potential biases in the understand the respondents’ willingness to support and pay for
perceived importance of ecosystem services from those who may have mangrove restoration (see Supplementary Information for the detailed
had fewer opportunities to learn about mangroves (especially those from survey instrument).
inland areas), we applied a screening question about the travel time to The third section included questions about respondents’ socio-
the nearest seashore by vehicle. Only those that could reach the shore in demographic characteristics. Some of the key questions asked were
<15 min could take the full survey, while those that answered of >15 gender, age, occupation, income, education level, location of residence
min were forwarded the end page of the questionnaire. (urban or countryside), and duration of residence, among others.
The second section elicited the respondents’ perceived importance of
mangrove ecosystem services through pairwise comparisons (See Sup 2.3. Data analysis
plementary Information for full survey instrument). Here we deliber
ately left the definition of ‘importance’ open, which depending on the 2.3.1. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
respondent it could mean importance to the respondent as an individual, The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) has been tested successfully as
importance to their household, importance to humans/society/local a reliable analysis to investigate stakeholder perspectives about the role
community in general, or importance to nature. This design is consistent and importance of ecosystem services in a statistical method to guide
with previous studies on the perceived importance of ecosystem services natural resource management (see Dos Santos & Neves, 2019; Sun et al.,
(Ebner et al., 2022; Maas et al., 2021). The respondents were left free to 2019).
perceive the importance of the ecosystem services based on their own The AHP is achieved through a series of pairwise comparisons in
understanding and values, which provides pluralistic values for policy- which only two criteria/sub-criteria are evaluated at any one time, using
makers and resource managers (Wardropper et al., 2020). We used the general framing: “how important is option A relative to option B?”.
nine mangrove ecosystem services under three categories (i.e. provi Here we used 9 scores with odd numbers ranging from 1 to 9 and the
sioning, regulating, and cultural services). Following an extensive reciprocal values of those numbers to indicate the 9 different response
literature review (see Su et al., 2021), the selected provisioning options, i.e. extremely more important = 9, strongly more important =
ecosystem services included food production (fisheries), medicinal re 7, moderately more important = 5, slightly more important = 3, equally
sources, and raw materials (including wood, biofuels, and fibres from important = 1, slightly less important = 1/3, moderately less important
wild or cultivated plant). Regulating ecosystem services included = 1/5, strongly less important = 1/7, or extremely less important = 1/9.
climate regulation, coastal protection (typhoon), and waste treatment. Full methodological details and equations for AHP can be found else
Cultural services included aesthetic values, education and research, and where (Saaty, 1988; Saaty & Vargas, 2012) and Supplementary Method
opportunities for tourism and recreation. 1.
To reduce the risk of inconsistency in the Analytic Hierarchy Process Inconsistency in pairwise comparisons is problematic and can
(Section 2.3.1), we provided some necessary information to the partic potentially invalidate the obtained results. As outlined in Section 2.2,
ipants. First, we required respondents to watch a 100-second animation this inconsistency is associated with the internal coherence of re
film produced by the China Mangrove Conservation Network (CMCN) spondents (Aguarón et al., 2019; Whitmarsh & Palmieri, 2009).
for science popularization about mangroves. This information included Considering the varying educational level of our respondents, we
the definition and distribution of mangroves, biodiversity in mangrove considered an inconsistency ratio of 20% as reasonable (Danner et al.,
ecosystems, the status of mangroves in China, threats to mangroves, and 2017) (see Supplementary Method for inconsistency ratio). For this
approaches to protect mangroves. The only content related to mangrove reason, in the following empirical analysis, we only analysed surveys
ecosystem services was about coastal protection but was not framed with a mean inconsistency ratio of <20% (n = 1205).
using the term ecosystem services to avoid biases to the extent possible. The aggregated priorities across all respondents were calculated
Second, we supplied information about mangrove ecosystem services in using weighted geometric means (Krejčí & Stoklasa, 2018). The AHP
the form of simple definitions, see Supplementary Information for the analysis was performed using the ahpsurvey package (ver 0.4.0) (Hin
definitions of each ecosystem service in the survey instrument. This Ting Frankie Cho, 2018) in R software (version 4.1.1).
information (i.e. video and definitions) sought to mitigate possible in
consistencies arising during AHP implementation due to the lack of in 2.3.2. Empirical model
ternal coherence of the respondents when performing the pairwise We used two regression models, namely ordinal regression model
comparisons (and when aggregating the results in the entire sample), and binomial regression model, to determine the factors affecting the
which mainly stems from respondents’ unfamiliarity, lack of knowledge, respondents’ perception of mangroves and their restoration.
or excessive complexity in/with the comparison (Aguarón et al., 2019; In particular, the ordinal regression model was used for the ordinal
Whitmarsh & Palmieri, 2009). As our survey targeted the general pop dependent variables “Knowledge of mangroves” and “Support for
ulation, we expected in advance that respondents are likely to have mangrove restoration”, which used a 5-level Likert scale to elicit the
different education levels and experience with mangroves, including answer. To simplify the analysis, for the question of “Are there man
many respondents that might be unfamiliar with mangroves. Thus, the groves in your nearby seashore” we (a) merged the options of “Yes” and
video attempted to reduce the risk of inconsistency due to differentiated “No” as “aware of mangrove existence”, and (b) designated “I don’t
levels of mangrove knowledge by providing this basic information about know” as “unaware of mangrove existence”. Hence, we then applied the
mangroves. binomial regression model for “Awareness of mangrove existence” and
4
“Willingness to pay for mangrove restoration”, which have dichotomous not allow respondents to return to previous page to alter responses after
response options. The predictors included the socioeconomic charac seeing the video. Therefore, although this film explicitly advocates for
teristics of the respondents, and three socioeconomic and environmental mangrove conservation and restoration, it did not bias or indoctrinate
variables that characterise the respondents’ district of residence. All the respondents in favour of mangroves or mangrove restoration.
variables related to the socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents
were coded using their nominal, ordinal, or numerical variable type in 3. Results
the analysis. Table S1 in the Supplementary Material shows the scales
used for each variable for the statistical analysis outlined in this section. 3.1. Descriptive statistics
For the three socioeconomic and environmental variables, we used scale
function in R software (version 4.1.1) to normalize the data. To Fig. 2 provides an overview of the mean summary statistics for the
strengthen the statistical power of tests between predictors and response total sample (n = 1600) and sub-samples of 400 respondents in each of
variables that significantly fit the models, we merged the sample from the four study sites. The majority of respondents (73.9% of 1600 re
four study sites. spondents) are 25 to 44 years old, with male (54.9%) respondents out
Subsequently, we employed redundancy analysis (RDA) to identify numbering females that aligns with the population make-up in the study
the socioeconomic factors associated with the estimated relative areas) (Lau, 2015). Over half of respondents (57.2%) can access the
importance of mangrove ecosystem services from the AHP. The RDA has seashore by walking <30 min, while only 15.4% of them visit seashore
been used to model ecosystem service values estimates against cultural more than twice per week. Around 41% of respondents reported visiting
and socio-demographic predictors (López-Santiago et al., 2014). For the seashore once per week. The proportion of urban residents and high
this, we use two datasets as explanatory variables: (a) respondents’ household income (>30,000 CNY/month) were the highest in Haicang
socio-demographic characteristics elicited from the survey (Section 2.2), (92.0% and 10.2%), followed by Tong’an (85.0% and 9.2%), Jinjiang
and (b) socioeconomic and environmental characteristics of the re (83.8% and 3.5%) and Longhai (82.0% and 1.5%). This reflects well the
spondents’ district (Section 2.1). The most significant variables that best economic development status of the study areas (Section 2.1).
explain respondents’ perceived importance of mangrove ecosystem
services are identified based on factor scores (López-Santiago et al., 3.2. Perceptions for mangroves and mangrove restoration
2014). The significance of independent variables in assessing the rela
tive importance of ecosystem services was determined using a Monte Fig. 3a indicates the status of knowledge among respondents about
Carlo permutation (1000 permutations). The RDA is conducted using the mangroves and their existence in the neighboring coastal area. Overall,
vegan package (Oksanen et al., 2022) in R software (version 4.1.1). nearly 75% of respondents answered that they were aware of the exis
tence of mangroves, but only <15% of respondents were knowledgeable
2.4. Acknowledgements and limitations about mangroves. The largest proportion of respondents that were
“moderately knowledgeable” and “extremely knowledgeable” was in
A limitation of this study is the reliance on an online survey instead Tong’an (17.2% of respondents), followed by Haicang (15.8%), Longhai
of in-person data collection for data collection due to the restrictions (13.0%), and Jinjiang (11.2%).
posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Although several studies have used The number of respondents who support and are willing to pay for
online surveys to elicit perceptions about ecosystem services (Ko & Son, mangrove restoration is much higher than those knowledgeable about
2018; Schirpke et al., 2022) or priorities using pairwise comparisons mangroves, with nearly 45% supporting mangrove restoration and
(Marre et al., 2016), it has been argued that internet-based surveys around 60% being willing to pay for restoration (Fig. 3b). Respondents
suffer from two methodological limitations (Andrade, 2020). Firstly the from Longhai and Tong’an are more supportive of mangrove restoration
geographical distribution of samples cannot be described, and secondly and respondents from Tong’an and Haicang are more willing to pay for
the respondents with biases may self-select into the sample. In our the restoration. Below outlines the factors that affect these perceptions.
sample, the respondents tend to be relatively younger and have a higher When looking at results from regression analysis of the factors that
education level than the average person in the study areas (Section 3.1), might affect the perceptions about mangroves and mangrove restoration
which would bias our results to some degree. (Table 1), we found that respondents who live closer to the seashore
The second limitation of this study is the disadvantage of the AHP tend to be significantly more aware of the existence of mangroves
method, which may generate a large number of pairwise comparisons (n (− 0.17, SE = 0.08, P = 0.03) and more knowledgeable about mangroves
(n− 1)/2, n is the number of variables) (Li et al., 2020), and the limited (− 0.11, SE = 0.05, P = 0.02). Additionally, we found that professional
time available for potential respondents to take online survey. Consid environmental education or engagement in a field connected to envi
ering these two constraints, it is not easy to include more ecosystem ronmental protection tends to have a statistically significant and positive
services or more detailed services in the survey to elicit more robust effect on attitudes toward mangroves and restoration action. Income,
perceptions and preferences. education level, residency, and the number of residence years also
Finally, we need to acknowledge the possibility of inserting certain significantly affect the perceptions as shown in Table 1.
biases through the provided information from the video (Section 2.2). Furthermore, there is a significant positive correlation between
We selected the specific film due to its easy-to-digest content, short awareness of mangroves and knowledge about mangroves: 1.55, SE =
length that made it fit for an online survey, and quality of information 0.12, P < 0.001 for knowledge about mangroves affected by the
and visualization. Although the film did not introduce in detail awareness of mangroves; 1.52, SE = 0.13, P < 0.001 for the awareness of
mangrove ecosystem services (especially using that exact term), it mangroves affected by knowledge about mangroves. Additionally, re
briefly touched on one specific ecosystem service, namely coastal pro spondents who had higher knowledge about mangroves would be
tection. Although this could have biased the preference of some re significantly more supportive for mangrove restoration (0.28, SE = 0.06,
spondents for coastal protection, we believe this bias to be rather limited P < 0.001). However, we found that respondents who did not realize
considering the overall importance of this ecosystem service in relation mangroves’ existence were significantly more supportive of mangrove
to other services (Section 3.3) and the clear heterogeneity of preferences restoration (− 0.21, SE = 0.11, P = 0.06). Additionally, respondents
by area (Section 3.3). Arguably the choice of a different film have few supporting mangrove restoration tend to be significantly more willing to
differences in effect as has been shown in other studies (Brereton & pay for mangrove restoration (0.48, SE = 0.12, P < 0.001).
Hong, 2013). We believe the selection was appropriate considering the Finally, the underlying socioeconomic and environmental charac
focus of the study and the trade-off considerations in terms of time, in teristics of the study regions tend to also significantly influence re
formation and content accessibility. Additionally, the questionnaire did spondents’ support for mangrove restoration and willingness to pay for
5
Fig. 2. Summary statistics for the entire sample (n = 1600). Note: LH: Longhai District; JJ: Jinjiang District, TA: Tong’an District; HC: Haicang District.
it. In particular, respondents living in districts with shorter length of in Haicang and Tong’an than in Longhai and Jinjiang. Particularly
seawalls tended to be significantly more supportive of mangrove resto coastal protection is perceived as the most important mangrove
ration (− 0.35, SE = 0.08, P < 0.001). In the meantime, respondents ecosystem service in Tong’an (weight = 0.107), with the percentage of
living in districts with smaller mangrove areas (− 0.42, SE = 0.22, P = respondents who prioritize this service being three times higher than
0.05) and lower disposable income per capita (− 0.39, SE = 0.20, P = those in Longhai and Jinjiang (Fig. 5). Section 3.4 provides more details
0.04) would be significantly more likely to pay for mangrove about the factors explaining these patterns.
restoration. More specifically, we observed that the ranking of the perceived
importance of ecosystem services varied among services and districts
3.3. Perceived importance of mangrove ecosystem services (Fig. 6). For instance, although majority of the respondents (61.7%) in
Longhai perceived food production to be the most important, there were
Fig. 4 presents the perceived importance of mangrove ecosystem 1.8% of the respondents in Longhai considered food production as the
services in the four study areas and the entire LXB based on the samples least important mangrove ecosystem service. While compared to the
with CR < 20% (Section 2.3.1). Generally, the perceived importance of results in Longhai, the corresponding percentages of respondents in
mangrove ecosystem services is denoted by the weight elicited from the Tong’an who perceived food production to be the most important and
AHP (Section 2.3.1). It is highest for food (fisheries) (weight = 0.130), least important were much lower (49.1% and 0.4%). In addition, despite
followed by climate regulation (0.098) and coastal protection (0.084). tourism and recreation having the lowest aggregate weight in the main
The three cultural ecosystem services were perceived as least important result of AHP (Fig. 4), around one-third of respondents in Haicang
in terms of weight, with “tourism and recreation” receiving the lowest perceived tourism and recreation to be the most important mangrove
weight among the nine services (0.037). ecosystem service, which is nearly twice as the percentage in Longhai
Variations exist in the perceived importance of mangrove ecosystem (18.54%). This can be explained by the higher proportion of respondents
services across the four study sites (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5). For example, in Haicang who assigned equal importance to ecosystem services
fisheries were perceived as the most important mangrove ecosystem (Fig. 5).
service in Jinjiang (weight = 0.160) and Longhai (weight = 0.133), with
the percentage of respondents in Jinjiang (46.9%) and Longhai (44.8%) 3.4. Factors affecting the perceived importance of mangrove ecosystem
perceived the fisheries as the single most important service nearly services
double in Tong’an (22.1%) and Haicang (27.2%) (Fig. 5). As there is not
an evident attribute contrast between Jinjiang/Longhai versus Tong’an/ The RDA (Fig. 7) indicates a statistically significant associations
Haicang, in Section 3.4 we further examine what factor would affect between the relative importance of ecosystem services and Fig. 7(a) the
these differences of perceptions between districts. On the contrary, re respondents’ characteristics, and Fig. 7(b) the socioeconomic and
spondents from Haicang tend to consider all ecosystem services as environmental characteristics of the districts (p < 0.001, from 1000
roughly equally important (Fig. 5). Regarding regulating services, permutations in both cases).
coastal protection and waste treatment are perceived as more important Fig. 7a illustrates the relationships between the perceived
6
Fig. 3. Perceptions about mangroves and mangrove restoration. Note: Panel (a) indicates the proportion of respondents that are knowledgeable about mangroves in
each district (bar charts) and are aware of the existence of mangroves (line). Panel (b) indicates the proportion of respondents that are supporting mangrove
restoration in each district (bar charts) and are willing to pay for restoration (line).
importance of ecosystem services and respondents’ socio-demographic relationship between the perception of ecosystem services and the
characteristics. The RDA 1 (x-axis) explains 5.97% of the total vari perception for mangroves and mangrove restoration. In summary, re
ance, indicating contrasting perceived importance between provisioning spondents that are supportive of mangrove restoration placed a high
services and two cultural services (i.e. education and research, aesthetic perceived importance on climate regulation, while those who have more
values) (on the positive side of the axis), and regulating services and knowledge of mangrove would place a higher perceived importance on
tourism and recreation. Respondents with a better understanding of cultural services.
mangroves reported higher perceived importance for tourism and rec Fig. 7b shows the associations between the perceived importance of
reation. Moreover, respondents who supported for mangrove restoration mangrove ecosystem services and the socioeconomic and environmental
were more likely to assign higher importance to climate regulation. On characteristics of the study site (i.e. mangrove area, disposable income
the other hand, respondents who were willing to pay for mangrove per capita, seawall length). Respondents living in areas with higher
restoration articulated less perceived importance for food production. mangrove cover assigned higher importance to climate regulation and
The second axis of RDA (which explains 1.95% of the variance) sug cultural services. While those who live in areas with lower mangrove
gested contracting perceived importance between cultural ecosystem cover tend to report higher perceived importance for coastal protection.
services and raw material with other services. It also revealed the Respondents from areas with higher disposable income per capita
7
Table 1 4.1. Effect of regional characteristics on perceptions

Generalized linear models for the factors affecting perceptions about mangroves
and mangrove restoration. In general, the proportion of respondents who had more knowledge
Knowledge Awareness Support for Willingness to about mangroves and were more supportive of mangrove restoration is
of of mangrove mangrove pay for found to be higher in the Longhai and Tong’an where the extent of
mangroves existence restoration mangrove mangroves is greater than in other districts (i.e. Haicang and Jinjiang)
restoration
(Fig. 3). A lack of sense of place related to particular ecosystem might
Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate (SE) cause unfamiliarity and general reluctance to support ecosystem resto
(SE) (SE) (SE)
ration or conservation (Kibler et al., 2018).
Female 0.08 0.02 − 0.07 0.04 Our results also show the statistically significant effect of the prev
(0.11) (0.18) (0.12) (0.16) alent need for nature-based disaster mitigation measures in support of
Age 0.03 − 0.01 − 0.10 − 0.04
(0.06) (0.10) (0.07) (0.08)
mangrove restoration. In particular, Table 1 indicates the significantly
Urban household 0.37 ** 0.03 − 0.11 − 0.08 higher support for mangrove restoration in districts with lower seawall
(0.15) (0.23) (0.17) (0.21) lengths. This is not surprising as the LXB experiences relatively frequent
Distance to − 0.11** − 0.17* 0.03 0.050*** typhoons and associated storm surges (about 2.8 times a year) (Xu et al.,
seashore (0.05) (0.08) (0.05) (0.07)
2021), implying a high expectation that restored mangroves can offer
Frequency of − 0.32*** 0.15 − 0.09 0.00
visits to (0.06) (0.10) (0.07) (0.09) coastal protection. This expectation also aligns with one of the objec
seashore tives of mangrove restorations as a coastal protection measure in the
Education level − 0.40*** 0.36** 0.18 0.49*** Mekong Delta, Vietnam (Bosire et al., 2008) and in West Africa (Alves
(0.11) (0.18) (0.11) (0.14) et al., 2020).
Household 0.01 0.20** 0.00 − 0.12*
income (0.05) (0.09) (0.06) (0.07)
Our findings suggest that respondents from districts with lower levels
Duration of − 0.24*** 0.13 0.28*** − 0.87*** of economic development were more willing to pay for mangrove
residence (0.04) (0.08) (0.06) (0.08) restoration (Table 1). Research has argued that many low-income
Environmental 0.52** 2.18** 1.02*** 1.44*** communities have a higher reliance on natural assets for security to
specialist (0.27) (1.03) (0.27) (0.47)
cope with unexpected events, such as climate change (Fagan
Knowledge of – 1.52*** 0.28*** − 0.08
mangroves (0.13) (0.06) (0.08) et al.,2020), and might consider mangrove restoration as an alternative
Awareness of 1.55*** – − 0.21* 2.18*** opportunity to generate local incomes (Stone et al., 2008).
mangrove (0.12) (0.11) (0.18) In terms of mangrove ecosystem services, the high perceived
existence importance of food production (fisheries) is consistent with the obser
Support for 0.48***
vation that some provisioning services tend to be more easily identified
– – –
mangrove (0.12)
restoration and understood by study participants due to their direct market value
Willingness to – – – – (López-Santiago et al., 2014). Interestingly, the actual perceived
pay for importance of provisioning ecosystem services can vary substantially
mangrove
between geographical contexts. For example, provisioning services
restoration
Mangrove area 0.16 − 0.22 − 0.17 − 0.42* related to raw materials (including timber, fuel, and fibre from wild or
(0.15) (0.26) (0.16) (0.22) cultivated plant species) were perceived of relatively low importance in
Seawall length 0.05 − 0.44*** − 0.35*** − 0.12 our study compared to other provisioning services, while timber for
(0.07) (0.12) (0.08) (0.10) building and firewood were perceived as the most important mangrove
Disposable 0.04 0.07 − 0.17 − 0.39**
ecosystem services to sustain local livelihoods in Tanzania (Nyangoko
income (0.14) (0.24) (0.15) (0.20)
et al., 2020). These differences reflect the differentiated effect that the
Note: SE = standard error; Significant at *p ≤ 0.1, **p ≤ 0.05, ***p ≤ 0.01. geographical context might play when eliciting the perceived impor
tance and demand for mangrove restoration.
assigned higher importance to coastal protection and waste treatment. In contrast to perceptions about mangrove restoration described
In addition, respondents living in coastal areas with longer seawalls above, the perceived importance of mangrove ecosystem services fol
placed higher importance on fisheries (a provisioning service) and lower lows relatively similar patterns between districts that contain and do not
importance on tourism and recreation and coastal protection. In other contain mangroves (Fig. 4). However, we still observe some interesting
words, respondents tended to assign high importance to coastal pro discrepancies between districts (Figs. 4-5). For example, the perceived
tection from mangrove forests in areas with a lower prevalence of sea importance of food production is substantially higher in the Longhai and
walls, higher economic development, as well as lower extent of Jinjiang districts compared to Tong’an and Haicang (Fig. 4). This can be
mangrove cover. explained by the different levels of economic development as re
spondents from more urbanized regions tended to perceive local food
4. Discussion production (fisheries) as less important compared to regulating services
(Tong’an district) or treated all services as equally important (Haicang
As outlined in Section 1, mangrove restoration has emerged as a district) (Fig. 4 and Fig. 6). These results from our study are consistent
popular potential strategy for ensuring the ecosystem services provided with a study revealing that more rural communities close to mangroves
by this critically endangered ecosystem in many parts of the world. tend to consider provisioning services as more important compared to
Identifying how individuals perceive restoration actions and prioritize peri-urban communities (Nyangoko et al., 2020), as it is well recognized
related ecosystem services is critical for developing effective and equi that in many regions, rural households directly depend on provisioning
table restoration interventions (Albert et al., 2020). Below we critically services for their livelihoods (FAO, n.d.). On the other hand, coastal
discuss how perceptions about mangrove restoration and the perceived protection services were perceived as particularly important in the peri-
importance of mangrove ecosystem services are affected by the socio urban Tong’an district, suggesting a perceived critical need from the
economic and environmental characteristics of the districts (Section public to restore mangroves to protect coastal areas from typhoons and
4.1), and the characteristics of individual respondents (Section 4.2). We storm surges (see also above). These expectations again emphasize the
then critically reflect on these results identifying the implications for perceived critical role of restored mangroves in coastal protection ser
policy and practices and suggest future research directions (Section 4.3). vices. This was also occurs in mangrove restoration projects in other
tropical developing countries, such as Vietnam (Nguyen et al., 2017),
8
Fig. 4. Perceived importance of mangrove ecosystem services from the AHP analysis.
Ghana (Aheto et al., 2016) as well as developed countries such as Food production (a provisioning services) was perceived as the most
America (Donnelly et al., 2017). important ecosystem service in most cases, followed by regulating ser
vices and then cultural service (Fig. 3). This tendency of human pref
erence towards these types of ecosystem services is in line with previous
4.2. Effect of respondents’ characteristics on perceptions studies (Agbenyega et al., 2009; Iftekhar & Takama, 2008). Interest
ingly, however, those who supported and were willing to pay for
Some of the characteristics of respondents also have substantial ef mangrove restoration perceived regulating services as more important
fects on perceptions of mangroves and their restoration (Table 1). Re than provisioning services (Fig. 7), which reflects findings in other
spondents living near the coast tend to know the existence of mangroves contexts such as semiarid ecosystems (Castro et al., 2011). Particularly,
and be more likely to have some knowledge about mangroves. This we find that respondents who support mangrove restoration tend to
finding concords with a study showing that respondents who live close perceive higher importance for climate regulation (Fig. 7), which is
to a forest would be much more familiar with the forest and the services encouraging in the current narratives/approaches advocating mangrove
it provides (Gouwakinnou et al., 2019). Results also show that re restoration as a nature-based solution to combat climate change
spondents who had received environment-related education or had (Macreadie et al., 2021).
experience working in environmental protection tend to be more sup Cultural services were consistently perceived as least important.
portive and willing to pay for mangrove restoration. This indicates the However, those who perceived cultural services as important were
need to strengthen publicity and education to enhance the knowledge of largely respondents who lived in urban regions (Fig. 7). These results
the mangrove ecosystem for better protection and restoration (Fu et al., align with the studies revealed that instrumental cultural services (i.e.
2021; Kigpiboon, 2013). recreation, aesthetic and education) of mangroves were more perceived
In terms of the perceived importance of ecosystem services, we see in a urbanized environment (Thiagarajah et al., 2015). In addition, we
that the socio-demographic profile of the respondents also played a find that respondents with more knowledge about mangroves are more
significant role in the final rankings (Fig. 7). Such findings are compa likely to recognize value in cultural services (Fig. 7), which again reflects
rable to previous studies on the utilization rates in Philippine (Quevedo another study that found individuals with lower knowledge about eco
et al., 2020) and communities’ awareness of mangrove ecosystem ser systems tend to have more limited recognition of cultural services
vices in Tanzania (Nyangoko et al., 2020). For instance, the age, edu (Daniel et al., 2012).
cation and occupation of respondents were found to have significant Despite the relative consensus among respondents in terms of the
association with the utilization of mangroves (Quevedo et al., 2020). perceived importance of mangrove ecosystem services, we can also
Similarly, the distance between households and mangroves was found to identify some trade-offs. The RDA revealed trade-offs between the
significantly influence communities’ awareness of mangrove ecosystem perceived importance of provisioning services and regulating services,
services (Nyangoko et al., 2020).
9
Fig. 5. Proportion of respondents perceiving a specific mangrove ecosystem service as the most important.
as well as between cultural and other services (Fig. 7a, Section 3.4). 4.3. Implications and future research
These findings are consistent with some studies reporting trade-offs
between provisioning and other ecosystem services based on stake Our findings have implications for mangrove restoration locally (i.e.
holder perceptions (Hossu et al., 2019; Martín-López et al., 2012). These the case study areas) and more broadly (i.e. regional mangrove resto
trade-offs are likely an outcome of differences in their individual and ration in other cities or countries). From a local perspective, our study
regional characteristics as discussed above (Section 4.1–4.2). Under provides science-based evidence on how mangrove restoration associ
standing the possible factors contributing to this observed differentia ated ecosystem services are perceived by local residents in the Large
tion of interests and perceptions could better inform decision-makers Xiamen Bay. By focusing on a cross-section of the general population
about the impact of different restoration actions on different social policy-makers and practitioners can get a glimpse of the acceptability of
groups (Martín-López et al., 2012). For instance, if a local government mangrove restoration, the articulated priorities and factors affecting the
decides to construct a wetland park through mangrove restoration for differentiation of these perceptions. For example, while food production
tourism and recreation, then those perceiving provisioning services as (fisheries) was perceived as the most important mangrove ecosystem
more important should also be considered to avoid creating social service throughout the sample and cultural services were perceived as
conflicts or major livelihood trade-offs (Dong et al., 2021; Mastrangelo the least important, there was significant heterogeneity within the
& Laterra, 2015). Our findings suggest that in the context of LXB these sample (e.g. respondent having more knowledge about mangroves
respondents are more likely to have lower knowledge of mangroves and report higher perceived importance for cultural services). Such findings
the multifunctionality of mangrove ecosystem services (Fig. 7, Section emphasize that perceptions and priorities are not constant, and could
3.4). In this case, practitioners could consider launching targeted possibly evolve over time and space. This points to the necessity of
educational activities to enable the better understanding of the multi upscaling mangrove education and interactive activities with man
functionality of mangroves and further support the decision-making of groves (e.g. school trips, volunteering activities to plant mangrove
the local government. Section 4.3 discusses in greater details some of the seedlings) in the study sites to enhance the understanding of the mul
major implications of this research for policy and practices. tifunctionality of mangrove ecosystems. Furthermore, the possible
benefits that restored mangroves can offer for climate regulation and
10
Fig. 6. Proportion of respondents in the ranking of mangrove ecosystem services. Note: Deeper colours indicate that a larger proportion of respondents assigned the
specific importance to a given ecosystem service. If more than one service has the same weight in terms of importance, then their ranking is the same. For instance, if
a respondent considers all nine mangrove ecosystem services as equally important, then the ranking of the nine services will be “1” for this respondent.
coastal protection should become integral elements in future ecosystem- should be restored. Future studies could use appropriate approaches to
based mangrove restoration actions in the Large Xiamen Bay, since they better investigate the key question of this “tipping point”. Second, there
are favoured by people who support mangrove restoration. seem to be intractable conflicts of interest among respondents on the
More broadly, our findings imply that the environmental and so perceived importance of mangrove ecosystem services (Fig. 7, Section
cioeconomic characteristics of an area could influence both the per 3.4). While this study did not provide a framework on how to consider
ceptions about restoration actions and the perceived importance of and resolve such trade-offs, future studies could provide an approach to
different ecosystem services. This is in agreement with a recent study coordinate the trade-offs, not only among local residents, but also with
pointing that the geographic location of respondents can affect their other stakeholders (i.e. local government, NGOs, and scientists). The
preferences and priorities for conservation (Ureta et al., 2020). Our potential approaches include, but are not limited to multi-objective
study contributes to the currently limited literature unravelling the optimization and policy interventions (Zheng et al., 2019). Last but
factors affecting respondents’ perceptions and preferences for mangrove not least, while not within the objective of our study, future research
restoration. Mindful of geographic, cultural, and socioeconomic varia could explore whether respondents alter or articulate different percep
tions, these factors can be used for “predicting” to some extent the tions due to differentiated mangrove knowledge. This could be for
perceptions toward mangrove restoration and ecosystem services in example explored through comparing respondents’ perceptions that
other mangrove restoration contexts in different regions, and more were exposed to different sources of information (e.g. different types of
importantly their expected differentiation between social groups. For videos or educational material) and/or eliciting perceptions before and
instance, it could be anticipated that in regions with high prevalence of after exposure to information.
natural, local communities would promote mangrove restoration for
coastal protection if they were not under the protection of hard engi 5. Conclusion
neering options (e.g. seawalls, breakwaters) (Section 3.4 and Fig. 7b).
Furthermore, in regions characterised by higher levels of development, This research identified how mangroves, mangrove restoration, and
stakeholders and local communities could identify mangrove restoration mangrove ecosystem services are perceived by coastal residents in LXB,
as a possible solution for wastewater treatment and coastal protection, as well as how different socioeconomic and environmental factors affect
rather than food production and other provisioning services. Anticipa these perceptions. It is conducted in the context of the calls for evidence-
tion of such preferences could improve mangrove restoration actions at based understanding of coastal areas, as local economic development,
the early stages of design and understanding of local needs (Elwell et al., mangrove cover, and presence of seawall influence on the preferences of
2018; Zimmer, 2018). For example, in the case where local communities ecosystems services from mangroves.
advocate mangrove restoration for coastal protection, appropriate spe Coastal residents in the LXB have rather diverse perceptions about
cies (e.g. Rhizophora stylosa, Kandelia candel) and dense reforestations mangrove restoration and the ecosystem services it can provide, which
with mangrove belt larger than around 100 m can be considered as a can be explained by socioeconomic and environmental characteristics of
good design to increase the wave attenuation efficiency (Ferreira et al., respondents and their location. Overall, our study points to that this
2022). variation in perceptions of ecosystem services depending on the char
Future research could elaborate on the findings of our study in acteristics of the respondents and the districts, could inform decision-
multiple ways to further improve mangrove restoration actions in LXB making in landscape-scale restoration. First, there is a need to raise
and elsewhere. First, as our study focused on how mangrove restoration awareness and educate about the multiple benefits from (and multi
and related ecosystem services were perceived by local residents in functionality of) mangrove ecosystems as a means of obtaining stronger
different districts, it did not assess whether and how much mangroves support for restoration actions (Section 3.2). Second, there is a need to
11
Fig. 7. Redundancy analysis biplot. Note: Panel (a) indicates the relationship between the relative importance of ecosystem services and the characteristics of
respondents; Panel (b) indicates the relationship between the relative importance of ecosystem services and the socioeconomic and environmental characteristics of
the study districts. The direction and length of arrows indicate the direction and strength of the relationship between the explanatory variables and the relative
importance of ecosystem services. Longer arrows mean that this variable strongly drives the variation in the relative importance of ecosystem services. Arrows of
explanatory variables that point towards the same direction of ecosystem services indicate a positive relationship between explanatory variables and perceived
importance of ecosystem services. Arrows of explanatory variables that point towards the opposite direction indicate a negative relationship. For example, in Panel
(a), the arrow of explanatory variable “support for restoration” both points to the direction of"climate regulation" and is long, indicating that the preference for
"climate regulation" through mangrove restoration is significantly associated with the support for mangrove restoration.
12
consider the trade-offs in the perceived importance of different Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Ajonina, G. N., Amir, A. A., Andradi-Brown, D. A., Aziz, I.,
Balke, T., … Friess, D. A. (2020). Public perceptions of mangrove forests matter for
ecosystem services across stakeholders to enable informed decision-
their conservation. Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, Article 603651. https://doi.org/
making toward effective mangrove restoration (Section 3.4). Finally, 10.3389/fmars.2020.603651
despite the difference in perception across individuals and regions, some Damastuti, E., de Groot, R., Debrot, A. O., & Silvius, M. J. (2022). Effectiveness of
of the findings of this study can be used to predict, to some extent, the community-based mangrove management for biodiversity conservation: A case
study from Central Java, Indonesia. Trees, Forests and People, 7, Article 100202.
expected priorities from mangrove restoration in different areas with https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2022.100202
potential for mangrove restoration (Section 4.3). Daniel, T. C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J. W., Chan, K. M. A., … von der
Dunk, A. (2012). Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(23), 8812–8819. https://doi.
Declaration of Competing Interest org/10.1073/pnas.1114773109
Danner, M., Vennedey, V., Hiligsmann, M., Fauser, S., Gross, C., & Stock, S. (2017).
Comparing analytic hierarchy process and discrete-choice experiment to elicit
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial patient preferences for treatment characteristics in age-related macular
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence degeneration. Value in Health, 20(8), 1166–1173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
the work reported in this paper. jval.2017.04.022
Department of Natural Resources of Fujian Province. (2020). Special action for mangrove
protection and restoration in Fujian Province. http://zrzyt.fujian.gov.cn/zwgk/zfxxgkzl
Data availability /zfxxgkml/ghjh/202012/P020221111512620486108.pdf.
Donato, D. C., Kauffman, J. B., Murdiyarso, D., Kurnianto, S., Stidham, M., &
Kanninen, M. (2011). Mangroves among the most carbon-rich forests in the tropics.
Data will be made available on request. Nature Geoscience, 4(5), 293–297. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1123
Dong, X., Wang, X., Wei, H., Fu, B., Wang, J., & Uriarte-Ruiz, M. (2021). Trade-offs
Acknowledgements between local farmers’ demand for ecosystem services and ecological restoration of
the Loess Plateau, China. Ecosystem Services, 49, Article 101295. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101295
This study is supported by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Donnelly, M., Shaffer, M., Connor, S., Sacks, P., & Walters, L. (2017). Using mangroves to
Science and Technology, Japan (193156), and the Japan Society for the stabilize coastal historic sites: Deployment success versus natural recruitment.
Hydrobiologia, 803(1), 389–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-017-3155-x
Promotion of Science (JSPS) for a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research A Dos Santos, P. H., Neves, S. M., Sant’Anna, D. O., Oliveira, C. H. de, & Carvalho, H. D.
(22H00567). (2019). The analytic hierarchy process supporting decision making for sustainable
development: An overview of applications. Journal of Cleaner Production, 212,
119–138. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.270.
Appendix A. Supplementary data Ebner, M., Fontana, V., Schirpke, U., & Tappeiner, U. (2022). Stakeholder perspectives
on ecosystem services of mountain lakes in the European Alps. Ecosystem Services, 53,
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. Article 101386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101386
Elwell, T. L., Gelcich, S., Gaines, S. D., & López-Carr, D. (2018). Using people’s
org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104763. perceptions of ecosystem services to guide modeling and management efforts.
Science of The Total Environment, 637–638, 1014–1025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
References scitotenv.2018.04.052
Erbaugh, J. T., Pradhan, N., Adams, J., Oldekop, J. A., Agrawal, A., Brockington, D., …
Chhatre, A. (2020). Global forest restoration and the importance of prioritizing local
Agbenyega, O., Burgess, P. J., Cook, M., & Morris, J. (2009). Application of an ecosystem
communities. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 4(11), Article 11. https://doi.org/
function framework to perceptions of community woodlands. Land Use Policy, 26(3),
10.1038/s41559-020-01282-2
551–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.08.011
Fagan, M. E., Reid, J. L., Holland, M. B., Drew, J. G., & Zahawi, R. A. (2020). How
Aguarón, J., Teresa Escobar, M., Moreno-Jiménez, J., & Turón, A. (2019). AHP-group
feasible are global forest restoration commitments? Conservation Letters, 13(3).
decision making based on consistency. Mathematics, 7(3), 242. https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12700
10.3390/math7030242
FAO. (n.d.). Provisioning services. Ecosystem Services & Biodiversity (ESB). Retrieved
Aheto, D. W., Kankam, S., Okyere, I., Mensah, E., Osman, A., Jonah, F. E., & Mensah, J. C.
January 6, 2023, from http://www.fao.org/ecosystem-services-biodiversity/backgro
(2016). Community-based mangrove forest management: Implications for local
und/provisioning-services/en/.
livelihoods and coastal resource conservation along the Volta estuary catchment
Ferreira, A. C., de Lacerda, L. D., Rodrigues, J. V. M., & Bezerra, L. E. A. (2022). New
area of Ghana. Ocean & Coastal Management, 127, 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
contributions to mangrove rehabilitation/restoration protocols and practices.
ocecoaman.2016.04.006
Wetlands Ecology and Management. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-022-09903-2
Albert, C., Fürst, C., Ring, I., & Sandström, C. (2020). Research note: Spatial planning in
Fischer, J., Riechers, M., Loos, J., Martin-Lopez, B., & Temperton, V. M. (2021). Making
Europe and Central Asia – Enhancing the consideration of biodiversity and
the UN decade on ecosystem restoration a social-ecological endeavour. Trends in
ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning, 196, Article 103741. https://doi.
Ecology & Evolution, 36(1), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2020.08.018
org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103741
Fu, X.-M., Tang, H.-Y., Liu, Y., Zhang, M.-Q., Jiang, S.-S., Yang, F., … Wang, C.-Y. (2021).
Alves, B., Angnuureng, D. B., Morand, P., & Almar, R. (2020). A review on coastal erosion
Resource status and protection strategies of mangroves in China. Journal of Coastal
and flooding risks and best management practices in West Africa: What has been
Conservation, 25(4), 42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-021-00800-z
done and should be done. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 24(3), 38. https://doi.org/
Goldberg, L., Lagomasino, D., Thomas, N., & Fatoyinbo, T. (2020). Global declines in
10.1007/s11852-020-00755-7
human-driven mangrove loss. Global Change Biology, 26(10), 5844–5855. https://
Andrade, C. (2020). The limitations of online surveys. Indian Journal of Psychological
doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15275
Medicine, 42(6), 575–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/0253717620957496
Gouwakinnou, G. N., Biaou, S., Vodouhe, F. G., Tovihessi, M. S., Awessou, B. K., &
Bosire, J. O., Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Walton, M., Crona, B. I., Lewis, R. R., Field, C., …
Biaou, H. S. S. (2019). Local perceptions and factors determining ecosystem services
Koedam, N. (2008). Functionality of restored mangroves: A review. Aquatic Botany,
identification around two forest reserves in Northern Benin. Journal of Ethnobiology
89(2), 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2008.03.010
and Ethnomedicine, 15(1), 61. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-019-0343-y
Brereton, P., & Hong, C.-P. (2013). Audience responses to environmental fiction and non-
Granek, E. F., Polasky, S., Kappel, C. V., Reed, D. J., Stoms, D. M., Koch, E. W., …
fiction films. Interactions: Studies in Communication & Culture, 4(2), 171–199. https://
Wolanski, E. (2010). Ecosystem services as a common language for coastal
doi.org/10.1386/iscc.4.2.171_1
ecosystem-based management. Conservation Biology, 24(1), 207–216. https://doi.
Castillo, J. A., Smith-Ramírez, C., & Claramunt, V. (2021). Differences in stakeholder
org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01355.x
perceptions about native forest: Implications for developing a restoration program.
Hema, M., & Devi, P. I. (2015). Economic valuation of mangrove ecosystems of Kerala,
Restoration Ecology, 29(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13293
India. Journal of Environmental Professionals Sri Lanka, 4(1), 1. https://doi.org/
Castro, A. J., Martín-López, B., García-LLorente, M., Aguilera, P. A., López, E., &
10.4038/jepsl.v4i1.7850
Cabello, J. (2011). Social preferences regarding the delivery of ecosystem services in
Hin Ting Frankie Cho. (2018). Analytic Hierarchy Process for Survey Data in R (vignettes)
a semiarid Mediterranean region. Journal of Arid Environments, 75(11), 1201–1208.
[Data set]. Unpublished. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25278.13125.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2011.05.013
Hochard, J. P., Hamilton, S., & Barbier, E. B. (2019). Mangroves shelter coastal economic
Cebrián-Piqueras, M. A., Filyushkina, A., Johnson, D. N., Lo, V. B., López-
activity from cyclones. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(25),
Rodríguez, M. D., March, H., … Plieninger, T. (2020). Scientific and local ecological
12232–12237. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1820067116
knowledge, shaping perceptions towards protected areas and related ecosystem
Hossu, C. A., Iojă, I.-C., Onose, D. A., Niță, M. R., Popa, A.-M., Talabă, O., & Inostroza, L.
services. Landscape Ecology, 35(11), 2549–2567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-
(2019). Ecosystem services appreciation of urban lakes in Romania. Synergies and
020-01107-4
trade-offs between multiple users. Ecosystem Services, 37, Article 100937. https://
Celentano, D., Rousseau, G. X., Engel, V. L., Façanha, C. L., de Oliveira, E. M., & de
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100937
Moura, E. G. (2014). Perceptions of environmental change and use of traditional
Hummel, J. M., Bridges, J. F. P., & Iizerman, M. J. (2014). Group decision making with
knowledge to plan riparian forest restoration with relocated communities in
the analytic hierarchy process in benefit-risk assessment: A tutorial. The Patient -
Alcântara, Eastern Amazon. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 10(1), 11.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-10-11
13
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 7(2), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Nyangoko, B. P., Berg, H., Mangora, M. M., Gullström, M., & Shalli, M. S. (2020).
s40271-014-0050-7 Community perceptions of mangrove ecosystem services and their determinants in
Iftekhar, M. S., & Takama, T. (2008). Perceptions of biodiversity, environmental services, the Rufiji Delta, Tanzania. Sustainability, 13(1), 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/
and conservation of planted mangroves: A case study on Nijhum Dwip Island, su13010063
Bangladesh. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 16(2), 119–137. https://doi.org/ Oksanen, J., Simpson, G., Blanchet, F. G., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., Minchin, P. R., O’Hara,
10.1007/s11273-007-9060-8 R. B., Solymos, P., Stevens, M. H. H., Szoecs, E., Wagner, H., Barbour, M., Bedward,
Kibler, K. M., Cook, G. S., Chambers, L. G., Donnelly, M., Hawthorne, T. L., Rivera, F. I., & M., Bolker, B., Borcard, D., Carvalho, G., Chirico, M., De Caceres, M., Durand, S., …
Walters, L. (2018). Integrating sense of place into ecosystem restoration: A novel Weedon, J. (2022). vegan: Community ecology package. https://cran.r-project.org/
approach to achieve synergistic social-ecological impact. Ecology and Society, 23(4), web/packages/vegan/vegan.pdf.
art25. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10542-230425 Pachoud, C., Da Re, R., Ramanzin, M., Bovolenta, S., Gianelle, D., & Sturaro, E. (2020).
Kigpiboon, C. (2013). The Development of Participated Environmental Education Model Tourists and local stakeholders’ perception of ecosystem services provided by
for Sustainable Mangrove Forest Management on Eastern Part of Thailand. summer farms in the Eastern Italian Alps. Sustainability, 12(3), 1095. https://doi.
International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Policy, 2(3), 3. org/10.3390/su12031095
Ko, H., & Son, Y. (2018). Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services in urban green Queiroz, L.de. S., Rossi, S., Calvet-Mir, L., Ruiz-Mallén, I., García-Betorz, S., Salvà-
spaces: A case study in Gwacheon, Republic of Korea. Ecological Indicators, 91, Prat, J., & Meireles, A. J.de. A. (2017). Neglected ecosystem services: Highlighting
299–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.04.006 the socio-cultural perception of mangroves in decision-making processes. Ecosystem
Krejčí, J., & Stoklasa, J. (2018). Aggregation in the analytic hierarchy process: Why Services, 26, 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.06.013
weighted geometric mean should be used instead of weighted arithmetic mean. Quevedo, J. M. D., Uchiyama, Y., & Kohsaka, R. (2020). Perceptions of local communities
Expert Systems with Applications, 114, 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. on mangrove forests, their services and management: Implications for Eco-DRR and
eswa.2018.06.060 blue carbon management for Eastern Samar, Philippines. Journal of Forest Research,
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. 25(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/13416979.2019.1696441
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610. https://doi.org/ Quintas-Soriano, C., Brandt, J. S., Running, K., Baxter, C. V., Gibson, D. M., Narducci, J.,
10.1177/001316447003000308 & Castro, A. J. (2018). Social-ecological systems influence ecosystem service
Lau, M. (2015, September 1). It’s raining men! Single males in China to exceed entire perception: A programme on ecosystem change and society (PECS) analysis. Ecology
population of Australia by 2020, says statistician. South China Morning Post. https:// and Society, 23(3), art3. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10226-230303
www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/1854545/its-raining-men-single-male Richards, D. R., & Friess, D. A. (2016). Rates and drivers of mangrove deforestation in
s-china-exceed-entire-population. Southeast Asia, 2000–2012. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(2),
Lee, S. Y., Primavera, J. H., Dahdouh-Guebas, F., McKee, K., Bosire, J. O., Cannicci, S., … 344–349. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510272113
Record, S. (2014). Ecological role and services of tropical mangrove ecosystems: A Saaty, T. L. (1988). What is the Analytic Hierarchy Process? In G. Mitra, H. J. Greenberg,
reassessment: Reassessment of mangrove ecosystem services. Global Ecology and F. A. Lootsma, M. J. Rijkaert, & H. J. Zimmermann (Eds.), Mathematical Models for
Biogeography, 23(7), 726–743. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12155 Decision Support (pp. 109–121). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/
Lhoest, S., Dufrêne, M., Vermeulen, C., Oszwald, J., Doucet, J.-L., & Fayolle, A. (2019). 10.1007/978-3-642-83555-1_5.
Perceptions of ecosystem services provided by tropical forests to local populations in Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. G. (2012). Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the
Cameroon. Ecosystem Services, 38, Article 100956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Analytic Hierarchy Process (Vol. 175). Springer US. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-3597-6.
ecoser.2019.100956 Schirpke, U., Scolozzi, R., & Tappeiner, U. (2022). Not too small to benefit society:
Li, L., Uyttenhove, P., & Van Eetvelde, V. (2020). Planning green infrastructure to Insights into perceived cultural ecosystem services of mountain lakes in the
mitigate urban surface water flooding risk – A methodology to identify priority areas European Alps. Ecology and Society, 27(1), art6. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12987-
applied in the city of Ghent. Landscape and Urban Planning, 194, Article 103703. 270106
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103703 Spalding, M., & Parrett, C. L. (2019). Global patterns in mangrove recreation and
Lin, T., Xue, X.-Z., & Lu, C.-Y. (2007). Analysis of coastal wetland changes using the tourism. Marine Policy, 110, Article 103540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
“DPSIR” model: A case study in Xiamen, China. Coastal Management, 35(2–3), marpol.2019.103540
289–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920750601169592 Stange, E., Hagen, D., Junker-Köhler, B., & Kaltenborn, B. P. (2022). Public perceptions
Logsdon, R. A., Kalcic, M. M., Trybula, E. M., Chaubey, I., & Frankenberger, J. R. (2015). of ecological restoration within the context of Norwegian landscape management.
Ecosystem services and Indiana agriculture: Farmers’ and conservationists’ Restoration Ecology, 30(7), e13612.
perceptions. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Stone, K., Bhat, M., Bhatta, R., & Mathews, A. (2008). Factors influencing community
Management, 11(3), 264–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2014.998711 participation in mangroves restoration: A contingent valuation analysis. Ocean &
López-Santiago, C. A., Oteros-Rozas, E., Martín-López, B., Plieninger, T., González Coastal Management, 51(6), 476–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Martín, E., & González, J. A. (2014). Using visual stimuli to explore the social ocecoaman.2008.02.001
perceptions of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes: The case of transhumance Su, J., Friess, D. A., & Gasparatos, A. (2021). A meta-analysis of the ecological and
in Mediterranean Spain. Ecology and Society, 19(2), art27. https://doi.org/10.5751/ economic outcomes of mangrove restoration. Nature Communications, 12(1), 5050.
ES-06401-190227 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-25349-1
Maas, B., Fabian, Y., Kross, S. M., & Richter, A. (2021). Divergent farmer and scientist Su, J., Yin, B., Chen, L., & Gasparatos, A. (2022). Priority areas for mixed-species
perceptions of agricultural biodiversity, ecosystem services and decision-making. mangrove restoration: The suitable species in the right sites. Environmental Research
Biological Conservation, 256, Article 109065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Letters, 17(6), Article 065001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac6b48
biocon.2021.109065 Sun, B., Tang, J., Yu, D., Song, Z., & Wang, P. (2019). Ecosystem health assessment: A
Macreadie, P. I., Costa, M. D. P., Atwood, T. B., Friess, D. A., Kelleway, J. J., Kennedy, H., PSR analysis combining AHP and FCE methods for Jiaozhou Bay, China1. Ocean &
… Duarte, C. M. (2021). Blue carbon as a natural climate solution. Nature Reviews Coastal Management, 168, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Earth & Environment. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00224-1 ocecoaman.2018.10.026
Maniatakou, S., Berg, H., Maneas, G., & Daw, T. M. (2020). Unravelling diverse values of Tan, Q., Gong, C., Li, S., Ma, N., Ge, F., & Xu, M. (2021). Impacts of ecological restoration
ecosystem services: A socio-cultural valuation using Q Methodology in Messenia, on public perceptions of cultural ecosystem services. Environmental Science and
Greece. Sustainability, 12(24), 10320. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410320 Pollution Research, 28(42), 60182–60194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-
Mansourian, S., Kleymann, H., Passardi, V., Winter, S., Derkyi, M. A. A., Diederichsen, A., 14793-7
… Kull, C. A. (2022). Governments commit to forest restoration, but what does it Thiagarajah, J., Wong, S. K. M., Richards, D. R., & Friess, D. A. (2015). Historical and
take to restore forests? Environmental Conservation, 49(4), 206–214. https://doi.org/ contemporary cultural ecosystem service values in the rapidly urbanizing city state
10.1017/S0376892922000340 of Singapore. Ambio, 44(7), 666–677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0647-7
Marre, J.-B., Pascoe, S., Thébaud, O., Jennings, S., Boncoeur, J., & Coglan, L. (2016). Ureta, J. C., Vassalos, M., Motallebi, M., Baldwin, R., & Ureta, J. (2020). Using
Information preferences for the evaluation of coastal development impacts on stakeholders’ preference for ecosystems and ecosystem services as an economic basis
ecosystem services: A multi-criteria assessment in the Australian context. Journal of underlying strategic conservation planning. Heliyon, 6(12), e05827. https://doi.org/
Environmental Management, 173, 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05827
jenvman.2016.01.025 Vo, Q. T., Kuenzer, C., Vo, Q. M., Moder, F., & Oppelt, N. (2012). Review of valuation
Martín-López, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Casado-Arzuaga, I., methods for mangrove ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators, 23, 431–446.
Amo, D. G. D., … Montes, C. (2012). Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.04.022
social preferences. PLoS One, 7(6), e38970. Vrahnakis, M., Nasiakou, S., & Soutsas, K. (2021). Public perception on measures needed
Mastrangelo, M. E., & Laterra, P. (2015). From biophysical to social-ecological trade-offs: for the ecological restoration of Grecian juniper silvopastoral woodlands.
Integrating biodiversity conservation and agricultural production in the Argentine Agroforestry Systems, 95(5), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0163-9
Dry Chaco. Ecology and Society, 20(1). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26269724. Waltham, N. J., Elliott, M., Lee, S. Y., Lovelock, C., Duarte, C. M., Buelow, C., …
Maxar Technologies. (2019). Google Earth [Map]. https://earth.google.com/web/@ Sheaves, M. (2020). UN decade on ecosystem restoration 2021–2030—What chance
24.49465577,118.0697754,0.09391034a,81786.1518215d,35y,0h,0t,0r. for success in restoring coastal ecosystems? Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, 71. https://
Menéndez, P., Losada, I. J., Torres-Ortega, S., Narayan, S., & Beck, M. W. (2020). The doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00071
global flood protection benefits of mangroves. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 4404. https:// Wardropper, C. B., Mase, A. S., Qiu, J., Kohl, P., Booth, E. G., & Rissman, A. R. (2020).
doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61136-6 Ecological worldview, agricultural or natural resource-based activities, and
Nguyen, T. P., Luom, T. T., & Parnell, K. E. (2017). Mangrove allocation for coastal geography affect perceived importance of ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban
protection and livelihood improvement in Kien Giang province, Vietnam: Planning, 197, Article 103768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103768
Constraints and recommendations. Land Use Policy, 63, 401–407. https://doi.org/ Whitmarsh, D., & Palmieri, M. G. (2009). Social acceptability of marine aquaculture: The
10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.01.048 use of survey-based methods for eliciting public and stakeholder preferences. Marine
Policy, 33(3), 452–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.10.003
14
Xu, L., Ding, S., Nitivattananon, V., & Tang, J. (2021). Long-term dynamic of land Zimmer, M. (2018). Ecosystem Design: When Mangrove Ecology Meets Human Needs. In
reclamation and its impact on coastal flooding: A case study in Xiamen, China. Land, C. Makowski, & C. W. Finkl (Eds.), Threats to Mangrove Forests (Vol. 25, pp.
10(8), 866. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10080866 367–376). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
Zheng, H., Wang, L., & Wu, T. (2019). Coordinating ecosystem service trade-offs to 73016-5_16.
achieve win–win outcomes: A review of the approaches. Journal of Environmental
Sciences, 82, 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2019.02.030
15

Landscape and Urban Planning: Jie Su, Alexandros Gasparatos

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Landscape and Urban Planning: Jie Su, Alexandros Gasparatos

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Landscape and Urban Planning: Jie Su, Alexandros Gasparatos

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Landscape and Urban Planning 235 (2023) 104763

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Landscape and Urban Planning

Perceptions about mangrove restoration and ecosystem services to inform

1. Introduction and global communities, including global climate regulation (Donato

Table 1 4.1. Effect of regional characteristics on perceptions

You might also like