Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 12 No. sp4 (2025): Recent Advances in Agriculture by Young Minds - III

Bridging knowledge and conservation in Pichavaram mangroves: A multi-stakeholder study

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.10850
Submitted
23 July 2025
Published
27-11-2025

Abstract

Mangrove ecosystems play a vital role in coastal protection, climate regulation and supporting livelihoods, yet they remain among the most threatened ecosystems globally. This study assesses the awareness levels and perceptions of primary stakeholder groups-namely residents, fishermen and visitors-regarding the ecological significance, prevailing status and key determinants affecting the Pichavaram mangrove ecosystem in Tamil Nadu, India. Using a structured questionnaire, data were collected from 360 respondents across two panchayats adjacent to the mangrove forest. Statistical and descriptive analyses indicated that provisioning services, such as food and fuelwood, were widely recognized-especially among fishermen and residents-whereas awareness of supporting and regulating services, including nutrient cycling and climate change mitigation, was comparatively limited. Perceptions of the ecosystem varied, with many recognizing degradation, while others noted post-cyclone improvements linked to community conservation initiatives. Climate change impacts, including prolonged saline water intrusion and seedling mortality, were acknowledged by only a minority of respondents, reflecting limited awareness. Nevertheless, a large majority across all stakeholder groups recognized the broader ecological and societal consequences of mangrove loss. The findings highlight the critical need for participatory conservation strategies that integrate local knowledge and address awareness gaps to enhance the sustainable management of mangrove ecosystems. The study offers valuable insights for policymakers, conservationists and development planners seeking to align community engagement with ecological restoration efforts.

References

  1. 1. Stanley OD, Lewis III RR, Eco Balance Consultancy V. Strategies for mangrove rehabilitation in an eroded coastline of Selangor, Peninsular Malaysia. J Coast Dev ISSN. 1991;1510:5217.
  2. 2. Giesen W, Wulffraat S, Zieren M, Scholten L. Mangrove guidebook for Southeast Asia. 2007.
  3. 3. Lewis III RR. Ecological engineering for successful management and restoration of mangrove forests. Ecol Eng. 2005;24(4):403–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2004.10.003
  4. 4. Ewel K, Twilley R, Ong JIN. Different kinds of mangrove forests provide different goods and services. Glob Ecol Biogeogr Lett. 1998;7(1):83–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.1998.00275.x
  5. 5. Roy AKD, Alam K, Gow J. Community perceptions of state forest ownership and management: A case study of the Sundarbans Mangrove Forest in Bangladesh. J Environ Manage. 2013;117:141–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.12.004
  6. 6. Osland MJ, Feher LC, Griffith KT, Cavanaugh KC, Enwright NM, Day RH, et al. Climatic controls on the global distribution, abundance and species richness of mangrove forests. Ecol Monogr. 2017;87(2):341–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecm.1248
  7. 7. Nellemann C, Corcoran E, Duarte CM, De Young C, Fonseca LE, Grimsdith G. Blue carbon: The role of healthy oceans in binding carbon. 2010; Center for Coastal and Ocean Mapping. https://scholars.unh.edu/ccom/132
  8. 8. Crooks S, Von Unger M, Schile L, Allen C, Whisnant R. Understanding strategic blue carbon opportunities in the seas of East Asia. Rep Silvestrum Clim Assoc Partnersh Environ Manag Seas East Asia PEMSEA Conserv Int Nat Conserv Support Glob Environ Facil U N Dev Program. 2017.
  9. 9. Pidgeon E. Carbon sequestration by coastal marine habitats: Important missing sinks. Manag Nat Coast Carbon Sinks. 2009;47.
  10. 10. Mcleod E, Chmura GL, Bouillon S, Salm R, Björk M, Duarte CM, et al. A blueprint for blue carbon: Toward an improved understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO2. Front Ecol Environ. 2011;9(10):552–60. https://doi.org/10.1890/110004
  11. 11. Alongi DM. Mangrove forests: Resilience, protection from tsunamis and responses to global climate change. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 2008;76(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2007.08.024
  12. 12. Delfino RJ, Carlos CM, David LT, Lasco RD, Juanico DEO. Perceptions of Typhoon Haiyan-affected communities about the resilience and storm protection function of mangrove ecosystems in Leyte and Eastern Samar, Philippines. Clim Disaster Dev J. 2015;1(1):15–24. https://doi.org/10.18783/cddj.v001.i01.a03
  13. 13. Romañach SS, DeAngelis DL, Koh HL, Li Y, Teh SY, Barizan RSR, et al. Conservation and restoration of mangroves: Global status, perspectives and prognosis. Ocean Coast Manag. 2018;154:72–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.01.009
  14. 14. Suratman MN. Carbon sequestration potential of mangroves in Southeast Asia. In: Managing forest ecosystems: The challenge of climate change. Springer. 2008. p. 297–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8343-3
  15. 15. Munang RT, Thiaw I, Rivington M. Ecosystem management: Tomorrow’s approach to enhancing food security under a changing climate. Sustainability. 2011;3(7):937–54. https://doi.org/10.3390/su3070937
  16. 16. Spalding MD, McIvor AL, Beck MW, Koch EW, Möller I, Reed DJ, et al. Coastal ecosystems: A critical element of risk reduction. Conserv Lett. 2014;7(3):293–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12074
  17. 17. Costanza R, De Groot R, Sutton P, Van der Ploeg S, Anderson SJ, Kubiszewski I, et al. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob Environ Change. 2014;26:152–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002
  18. 18. Assessment ME. Ecosystems and human well-being: our human planet-summary for decision-makers. 2005. https://edepot.wur.nl/37435
  19. 19. Hicks CC, Cinner JE, Stoeckl N, McClanahan TR. Linking ecosystem services and human-values theory. Conserv Biol. 2015;29(5):1471–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12550
  20. 20. Martínez-Espinosa C, Wolfs P, Vande Velde K, Satyanarayana B, Dahdouh-Guebas F, Hugé J. Call for a collaborative management at Matang Mangrove Forest Reserve, Malaysia: An assessment from local stakeholders’ view point. For Ecol Manag. 2020;458:117741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2019.117741
  21. 21. Cadena S, Ochoa-Gómez J. Mangroves: “superhero” ecosystems. Biodiversity. 2023;10. https://doi.org/10.3389/frym.2022.812948
  22. 22. Gumoshabe M, Anywar G, Tugume P. Access to provisioning services by local communities from Mpanga central forest reserve in central Uganda. Front For Glob Change. 2023;6:1021664. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2023.1021664
  23. 23. Uniyal A, Rawat GS. Energy–Food–Water; The fundamental provisioning services from the Himalayan forests: A case study from Dhauladhar Mountain Range, Northwest Himalaya. Indian J For. 2018;41(1):17–26. https://doi.org/10.54207/BSMPS1000-2018-E13093
  24. 24. Ewing LC. Resilience from coastal protection. Philos Trans R Soc Math Phys Eng Sci. 2015;373(2053):20140383. https://doi.org/10.1098/RSTA.2014.0383
  25. 25. Sulaiman B, Bambang AN, Purnaweni H, Lutfi M, Mohammed EMA. Coastal community perception of mangroves in Suli subdistrict, Luwu. J Pendidik IPA Indones. 2019;8(4):561–9. https://doi.org/10.15294/JPII.V8I4.21396201
  26. 26. Alemu MM. Ecosystems and the Services They Provide. J Sustain Dev. 2016;9(3):1–5. https://doi.org/10.5539/JSD.V9N3P1
  27. 27. Zhang M, Chen S, Liu W. Disentangling the complexity of regional ecosystem degradation: Uncovering the interconnected natural-social drivers of quantity and quality loss. Land. 2023;12(7):1280. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12071280
  28. 28. Vani M, Rama Chandra Prasad P. Geospatial assessment of spatio-temporal changes in mangrove vegetation of Pichavaram Region, Tamil Nadu, India. In: Threats to mangrove forests: Hazards, vulnerability and management. Springer. 2018. p. 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73016-5_5
  29. 29. Izzudin M, Rendana M, Jati SN, Lamato R, Tamsyah I. Socialization of mangrove planting among coastal communities: A collaborative approach for conservation and ecosystem sustainability. Community Empower. 2024;9(9):1291–9.
  30. 30. Barbier EB, Cox M. Does economic development lead to mangrove loss? A cross-country analysis. Contemp Econ Policy. 2003;21(4):418–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/CEP/BYG022
  31. 31. Dittmann S, Mosley L, Stangoulis J, Nguyen VL, Beaumont K, Dang T, et al. Effects of extreme salinity stress on a temperate mangrove ecosystem. Front For Glob Change. 2022;5:859283. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2022.859283
  32. 32. Das S, Crépin AS. Mangroves can provide protection against wind damage during storms. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 2013;134:98–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECSS.2013.09.021
  33. 33. Barbier EB. The protective value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services in a wealth accounting framework. Environ Resour Econ. 2016;64(1):37–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10640-015-9931-Z
  34. 34. Utthamapandian U, Sutaria D, Saravanakumar A. First photographic record of smooth-coated otters (Lutra Perspicillata Geoffroy 1826) in Vellar Estuary, Northeast Coast of Tamil Nadu, India. Int Union Conserv Nat Nat Resour Species Surviv Comm-Otter Spec Group Bull. 2022;39:16–21.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.