Assessing, quantifying and valuing the ecosystem services of coastal lagoons

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal for Nature Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jnc Assessing, quantifying and valuing the ecosystem services of coastal lagoons ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Coastal lagoons Ecosystem services Climate change Human welfare Benefits Wellbeing ABSTRACT The natural conservation of coastal lagoons is important not only for their ecological importance, but also because of the valuable ecosystem services they provide for human welfare and wellbeing. Coastal lagoons are shallow semi-enclosed systems that support important habitats such as wetlands, mangroves, salt-marshes and seagrass meadows, as well as a rich biodiversity. Coastal lagoons are also complex social-ecological systems with ecosystem services that provide livelihoods, wellbeing and welfare to humans. This study assessed, quantified and valued the ecosystem services of 32 coastal lagoons. The main findings of the study are: (i) the definitions of ecosystem services are still not generally accepted; (ii) the quantification of ecosystem services is made in many different ways, using different units; (iii) the evaluation in monetary terms of some ecosystem service is problematic, often relying on non-monetary evaluation methods; (iv) when ecosystem services are valued in monetary terms, this may represent very different human benefits; and, (v) different aspects of climate change, including increasing temperature, sea-level rise and changes in rainfall patterns threaten the valuable ecosystem services of coastal lagoons. 1. Introduction Coastal lagoons occur along 13% of the coastlines of all continents (Barnes, 1980). These areas are important for many biogeochemical processes (Sousa, Lillebø, Gooch, Soares, & Alves, 2013) and they are known for their high productivity. These shallow water bodies support important habitats such as wetlands, mangroves, salt-marshes and seagrass meadows (Basset, Elliott, West, & Wilson, 2013). This typical, mosaic landscape provides support for a rich biodiversity, including vital habitats for bivalves, crustaceans, fish and birds. They provide a physical refugium from predation and are used as nursery and feeding areas for some endangered species (Franco et al., 2006). Coastal lagoons are also characterized by harbouring a large part of the human population that may depend directly on these ecosystems (Willaert, 2014). However, these are one of the most threatened ecosystems in the world. Habitat destruction, pollution, water withdrawal, overexploitation and invasive species are the main causes of their degradation (MA - Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005;Barbier, Acreman, & Knowler, 1997). Coastal lagoons are sentinel systems that are very vulnerable to potential impacts associated with climate change (Eisenreich, 2005), particularly, as these systems have a key role in regulating the fluxes of water, nutrients and organisms between land, rivers and the ocean (Brito, Newton, Tett, & Fernandes, 2010;Newton et al., 2014). Sea level rise, increased temperature and changes in precipitation patterns would affect flushing rates, salinity, dissolved oxygen concentration, and biogeochemical properties. These changes could alter the composition and diversity of natural communities, as well as their sensitivity to eutrophication (Anthony et al., 2009), and their capabilities to support goods and services (Cossarini et al. 2008; Melaku Canu et al. 2011). Lagoons deliver ecosystem goods and services that provide not only livelihoods but also numerous benefits to human health and welfare, which makes them complex social-ecological systems (Newton et al., 2014). The main services provided by coastal systems include food provisioning (mainly fish and shellfish), freshwater storage, hydrological balance, climate regulation, flood protection, water purification, oxygen production, fertility, recreation and ecotourism (Solidoro, Bandelj et al., 2010;Solidoro, Cossarini, Libralalto, & Salon, 2010; Barbier, 2012;Lopes & Videira, 2013). Coastal lagoon ecosystems also support a wide range of human activities, including economic sectors such as fisheries and aquaculture, as well as leisure and tourism (Newton et al., 2014). Therefore, these ecosystem goods and services are not only economically valuable but they also have societal, aesthetic and heritage value due to their contribution to improvements in mental and psychological health (Sandifer, Sutton-Grier, & Ward, 2015). The conservation of coastal lagoons is therefore relevant for their ecological importance, along with the valuable ecosystem services (ES) they provide for human welfare. Holistic management involving economists, ecologists, and environmental scientists that assesses the services of these social-ecological systems is thus required (Barbier et al., 2011;Carpenter et al., 2009;Turner & Daily, 2008). The discussion about ecosystem services and their categories (De Groot, Wilson, & Boumans, 2002;Costanza, 2008) has been ongoing for more than 20 years, and despite recent efforts, there is no consistent definition or classification. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA - Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005) was the booster in providing a globally recognized classification for ecosystem services consisting of “the functions and products of ecosystems that benefit humans, or https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2018.02.009 Received 13 March 2017; Received in revised form 12 February 2018; Accepted 14 February 2018 Journal for Nature Conservation 44 (2018) 50–65 1617-1381/ © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier GmbH. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/). T yield welfare to society”. Nevertheless, the simplicity of this concept can be prone to misinterpretations and lack of consistency across different users. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity project (TEEB, 2010) was based on the MA and provided an updated classification, which clearly distinguishes services from benefits. Ecosystem services are defined by TEEB as “the direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems to human well-being”, and it is explicit that services can benefit people in multiple and indirect ways (e.g. food provisioning service have multiple benefits including health, pleasure and sometimes even cultural identity). The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) attempted to be more comprehensive than the MA and TEEB classification and is tailored to environmental and economic accounting. This classification defines ecosystem services as “the contributions that ecosystems make to human well-being, and arise from the interaction of biotic and abiotic processes”, separating services from ecological phenomena (Haines-Young & Potschin, 2013). CICES focuses on final services or products from ecological systems that people directly consume or use; the welfare gains they generate are classified as benefits. This issue is particularly important in the case of biodiversity conservation, where effective management towards sustainable development relies on an accurate and widely accepted definition of ecosystem services (Boyd & Banzhaf, 2007;Egoh et al., 2007;Fisher, Turner, & Morling, 2009). Thus, a well-defined unit of services enables their identification, mapping and measurement across different ecosystems, allowing the integration and comparison of different data sources. This assessment of the state of ecosystems and their services at all geographic levels forms the basis for improved environmental policies (Lele, Springate-Baginski, Lakerveld, Deb, & Dash, 2013), e.g. the EU Biodiversity Strategy, that aims to counter the trend of biodiversity loss and ecosystem services degradation. Natural resource decisions are usually based on values humans place on ecosystems and the benefits they provide (Daily et al., 2009;Ingram, Redford, & Watson, 2012). The monetary valuation of ecosystem services allows the translation of their ecological importance into monetary terms to be perceptible for all stakeholders. The economic value is therefore a measure of the wellbeing provided by the consumption of goods or services, and can be assessed by market and non-market valuation techniques. Although this wide range of valuation methods are very useful for ecosystems’management and decision-making processes, coastal lagoons are underrepresented across valuation studies (Barbier et al., 2011). A report by the European Commission (EC, 2017) underlines the importance of correct accounting and valuation of ecosystem services. The aim of this study is to give an overview of the existing knowledge and gaps about the ecosystem services from coastal lagoons. The objectives are to assess, quantify and value the ecosystem services of coastal lagoons at a global level, to provide and share this information among coastal lagoon scientists in a common framework that could support further, more detailed studies. Four research questions have been addressed: 1) Assessment: What are the ecosystem services that are provided by coastal lagoons? 2) Quantification: What are the quantities of the ecosystem services that are provided by coastal lagoons? 3) Evaluation: What is the value of the ecosystem services that are provided by coastal lagoons? 4) Climate change: How will climate change affect the ecosystem services that are provided by coastal lagoons? 2. Methodological approach 2.1. Location of coastal lagoons in the study Thirty two coastal lagoons were included in this study, located in five different continents: America, Europe, Africa, Oceania and Asia. The global distribution of the coastal lagoons included in this study is presented in Fig. 1. The names, coordinates and basic data are given in Table 1. 2.2. Historical context The community of coastal lagoon scientists started to coalesce in the last two decades of the 20th Century. Previously, coastal lagoon scientists had been included in groups such as the Estuarine Research Federation. However, coastal lagoons were never a central topic to these groups. Another factor was the wide range of names applied to coastal lagoons (Newton et al., 2014) that made searching the literature difficult. Even countries with many coastal lagoons, such as Portugal and Italy, had different terms. The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) used the term ‘transitional waters’that included some estuarine coastal lagoons, but not all coastal lagoons fit the salinity condition. The Italian community of scientists started to coalesce into a network called Lagunet that held meetings and small conferences. This promoted the formation of other national networks in France, Greece, Spain, Portugal, North Africa, Baltic countries and, finally, the formation of EuroMegLag, an international network of coastal lagoon scientists, (http://www.euromedlag.eu/). The community now holds conferences every two years and invites coastal lagoon scientists from all over the world to participate. Fig. 1. Geographic location of all the coastal lagoons considered in this study. Journal for Nature Conservation 44 (2018) 50–65 51 Table 1 Location and characteristics of the 32 coastal lagoons in the survey. Name of coastal lagoon Adjacent sea/ Ocean Continent and Country (ies) Type of Lagoon Coordinates Area with permanent water (km 2 ) Wetland (km 2 ) Mean depth (m) Salinity range Climate Population (within 50 km) GDP per capita * (Euro) References Bizerte Lagoon Mediterranean Sea Africa (N), Tunisia choked Lat: 37.183°N Lon: 9.850°E 128 7 33.3-36.1 Semi-arid 445072 3770.5 Sakka Hlaili, Grami, Hadj Mabrouk, Gosselin and Hamel (2007), Boukef et al. (2010), Fertouna Bellakhal, Dhib, Béjaoui, Turki and Aleya (2014), Béjaoui, Harzallah, Moussa, Chapelle and Solidoro (2008), Béjaoui et al. (2016) Cal Tet Mediterranean Sea Europe (S), Spain choked Lat: 41.302°N Lon: 2.122°E 0.13 2-3 Temperate 3239337 40100 Cañedo-Argüelles and Rieradevall (2011), Roselli et al. (2013) Cartagena Bay Caribbean Sea South America, Colombia N.A. Lat: 10.335°N Lon: 75.527°W 84 16 0-37 Equatorial 1 000 000 6000 UNEP –United Nations Environment Programme (1999), Lonin, Parra, Andrade and Yves-Francois (2004), Cardique (2006), Restrepo, Zapata, Díaz, Garzón-Ferreira and García (2006), DANE-Departamento Administrativo (2016) Coorong Southern Ocean Australia Choked Lat: 35.933ºS Lon: 139.30ºE 140 490 2 Temperate 30000 33000 Rolf and Dyack (2010), Rolf and Dyack (2011), Clara et al. (2017) Curonian Lagoon Baltic Sea Europe (E), Lithuania/ Russia restricted Lat: 55.00ºN Lon: 21.00ºE 1600 1000 3.6 Temperate 800000 12000 Breber, Povilanskas and Armaitiené (2008), Povilanskas, Armaitiené, Breber, RazinkovasBaziukas and Taminskas (2012), Taminskas, Pileckas, Šimanauskienėand Linkevičienė(2012), Povilanskas, Razinkovas-Baziukas and Jurkus (2014) Darss-Zingst Bodden Baltic Sea Europe (C), Germany restricted Lat: 54.383°N Lon: 12.616°E 197 2 0.5-14 Temperate 105500 22800 Winkler (2001), Schiewer (2008), Kruse et al. (2015) Estero de Urías Pacific Ocean North America, Mexico choked Lat: 23.193°N Lon: 106.36°W 18 2-12 25.8-38.4 Subtropical 502547 8199.1 Paez-Osuna, Montano-Ley and Bojorquez-Levya (1990),Cardoso-Mohedano et al. (2015a), Cardoso-Mohedano et al. (2015b), Ruiz-Fernández et al. (2016), Ruiz-Fernández et al. (2016) Etang de Thau Mediterranean Sea Europe (S), France restricted Lat: 43.40°N Lon: 3.612°E 75 7 4 28-42 Temperate 110000 23566 Souchu et al. (1998), La Jeunesse and Elliott (2004), Mongruel et al. (2013), Loiseau, Roux, Junqua, Maurel and Bellon-Maurel (2014), La Jeunesse et al. (2015), La Jeunesse et al. (2016) Ichkeul Lake Mediterranean Sea Africa (N), Tunisia choked Lat: 37.167°N Lon: 9.667°E 155 /78 110 1 5-50 Semi arid 539713 3770.5 Ben Rejeb-Jenhani (1989), Tamisier and Boudouresque (1994), Chaouachi and Ben Hassine (1998) Saied and Elloumi (2007), Trabelsi et al. (2012) Lagoa de Araruama South Atlantic South America, Brazil choked Lat: 22.0°S Lon: 42.0°W 210 3 52 Semi arid 200-500 000 (continued on next page) Journal for Nature Conservation 44 (2018) 50–65 52 Table 1 (continued) Name of coastal lagoon Adjacent sea/ Ocean Continent and Country (ies) Type of Lagoon Coordinates Area with permanent water (km 2 ) Wetland (km 2 ) Mean depth (m) Salinity range Climate Population (within 50 km) GDP per capita * (Euro) References Kjerfve, Schettini, Knoppers, Lessa and Ferreira (1996), Knopper and Kjerfve (1999), Braga, Vianna and Kjerfve (2003), Souza, Kjerfve, Knoppers, de Souza and Damasceno (2003), Kjerfve and Oliveira (2004) Lagoa dos Patos South Atlantic South America, Brazil choked Lat: 31.0S Lon: 51.0°W 10200 5 1-31 Temperate 4 500 000 Philomena (1994), Knoppers and Kjerfve (1999), Kjerfve and Knoppers (1999), Odebrecht et al. (2005), Fujita and Odebrecht (2007) Lake Nakaumi Sea of Japan Asia (E), Japan choked Lat: 35.452°N Lon: 133.191°E 86.2 5.4 14-30 Temperate 472817 27753 Y, Nakata, Horiguchi and Yamamuro (2000), Yamamuro, Hiratsuka, Ishitobi, Hosokawa and Nakamura (2006), Ishitobi, Kamiya and Yamamuro (2014), Katsuki et al. (2008) Lake Shinji Sea of Japan Asia (E), Japan lachoked Lat: 35.450°N Lon: 132.783°E 79.25 4.5 > 3.5 Temperate 476967 28020 Yamamuro et al. (2000), Nakata et al. (2000), Yamamuro et al. (2006), Ishitobi et al. (2014) Langebaan Lagoon Atlantic Ocean Africa (S), South Africa choked Lat: 33.153°S Lon: 18.063°E 41.1 4 34.5-35 Temperate 80500 5206 Day (1959), Kerwath et al. (2009), Nel and Branch (2014), AEC (2015), Turpie, Forsythe and Letley (2017) Lesina lagoon Mediterranean Sea Europe (S), Italy restricted Lat: 41.90°N Lon: 15.417°E 55 0.7 11-32 Temperate 250000 16000 Manini, Breber, D’Adamo, Spagnoli and Danovaro (2002a),Manini, Breber, D’Adamo, Spagnoli and Danovaro (2005), Roselli et al. (2013), Ferrarin et al. (2010), Cuvata and Di Matteo (2016) Loch Bi Atlantic Europe, Scotland Lat: 57.372°N Lon: 7.372°W 7.035 < 2 1.68-22.1 Temperate 4703 11919.7 Angus (2016), Angus (2017) Malanza Lagoon Atlantic Africa (W), São Tomé and Principe choked Lat: 0.457°N Lon: 6.531°E 0.69 2 1-1.5 0-25 Tropical 170000 3015.3 Pisoni et al. (2015), de Lima et al. (2016), Brito, Silva, Beltrán, Chainho and de Lima (2017), Félix et al. (2017) Mar Menor Mediterranean Sea Europe (S), Spain restricted Lat: 37.770°N Lon: 0.786°W 135 3.6 38-51 Temperate 755666 18929 Pérez-Ruzafa, Marcos and Gilabert (2005), De Pascalis, Pérez-Ruzafa, Gilabert, Marcos and Umgiesser (2012), Maynou, Martinez-Banos, Demestre and Franquesa (2014), Marcos, Torres, López-Capel and Pérez-Ruzafa (2015), Velasco, Pérez-Ruzafa, Martínez-Paz and Marcos (2017) Europe (S), Italy restricted 160 /152 7.6 1 30 Temperate 83145 18880 (continued on next page) Journal for Nature Conservation 44 (2018) 50–65 53 Table 1 (continued) Name of coastal lagoon Adjacent sea/ Ocean Continent and Country (ies) Type of Lagoon Coordinates Area with permanent water (km 2 ) Wetland (km 2 ) Mean depth (m) Salinity range Climate Population (within 50 km) GDP per capita * (Euro) References Marano and Grado Adriatic Sea, Mediterranean Sea Lat: 45.708°N Lon: 13.352°E Ferrarin et al. (2010), Bettoso, Acquavita, D’Aletti and Mattassi (2013), Acquavita et al. (2015), Canu, Rosati, Solidoro, Heimbürger and Acquavita (2015), Canu and Rosati (2017) Messolonghi Central Lagoon Patraikos Gulf / Mediterranean Europe (SE), Greece leaky Lat: 38.351°N Lon: 21.340°E 285/149.4 1.2 17.3-48.5 Temperate 209029 9300 Katselis, Koutsikopoulos, Dimitriou and Rogdakis (2003), Katselis, Koukou, Dimitriou and Koutsikopoulos (2007), Cabana, Nicolaidou, Sigala and Reizopoulou (2017) Moulay Bouselham Atlantic Africa (NW), Morocco Lat: 34.846°N Lon: 6.276°W Temperate Birks, Birks, Flower, Peglar and Ramdani (2001), Labbardi, Ettahiri, Lazar, Massik and El Antri (2005), Ayache et al. (2009), Thompson and Flower (2009), Maanan et al. (2013) Nador Mediaterranean Sea Africa (N), Morocco leaky Lat: 35.166°N Lon: 2.856°W 115 4.8 32.7-40.2 Temperate 248418 9500 Maanan et al. (2015a) Oualidia Atlantic Africa (N), Morocco choked Lat: 32.7445°N Lon: 9.03°W 10/3.5 2 22.5-35.9 Semi-Arid 18616 4500 Zourarah et al. (2007), Maanan (2008), Maanan et al. (2014), El Asri, Zidane, Maanan, Tamsouri and Errhif (2015), Maanan et al. (2015b) Qigu lagoon South China Sea Asia (E), Taiwan (W) leaky Lat: 23.133°N Lon: 120.067°E 32 /11 32 1 30.65 Tropical 10500 21295.6 Lin et al. (2001), Hsiao et al. (2016) Ria de Aveiro N.E. Atlantic Europe, Portugal (W) restricted Lat: 40.633°N Lon: 8.75°W 330/46 90 2 0 -35 Temperate 353 688 Hesse et al. (2015), Lillebø, Stålnacke, and Gooch (2015), Lillebø et al. (2016), Sousa, Sousa, Alves and Lillebø (2016),Clara et al. (2017), Sousa et al. (2017) Ria Formosa N.E.Atlantic Europe (S), Portugal (S) leaky Lat: 36.983°N Lon: 7.922°W 111/55 50 1.5 35.5-36.9 Temperate 225901 17786 Mudge and Bebianno (1997), Newton et al. (2003), Ferreira, Dias and Taborda (2008), Brito et al. (2012), Newton et al. (2014) Szczecin (Oder) Lagoon Baltic Sea Europe (C), Germany/ Poland restricted Lat: 53.833°N Lon: 14.167°E 687 3.8 0.3-4.5 Temperate 840000 11000 Schernewski and Dolch (2004),Löser and Sekścińska (2005), Radziejewska and Schernewski (2008), Wolnomiejski and Witek (2013), Stybel, Kleissler, Schulz and Piotr (2014) Black Sea Europe (E), Ukraine choked Lat: 46.667°N Lon: 31.183°E 221.5/129 18.36 5.4 23-29 Temperate 127800 160 (continued on next page) Journal for Nature Conservation 44 (2018) 50–65 54 Table 1 (continued) Name of coastal lagoon Adjacent sea/ Ocean Continent and Country (ies) Type of Lagoon Coordinates Area with permanent water (km 2 ) Wetland (km 2 ) Mean depth (m) Salinity range Climate Population (within 50 km) GDP per capita * (Euro) References Tyligulskyi Liman lagoon Tuchkovenko and Loboda (2014), Tuchkovenko, Bogatova and Tuchkovenko (2015a) Tuchkovenko, Kushnir and Loboda (2015b) , Tuchkovenko, Loboda and Khokhlov (2015c) Gubanova, Tuchkovenko, Khokhlov, Stepanenko, and Baggett, 2015 Varano Lagoon Mediterranean Sea Europe (S), Italy restricted Lat: 41.833°N Lon: 15.750°E 65 3.5 25-32 Temperate 200000 16000 Manini, Breber, D’Adamo, Spagnoli and Danovaro (2002b), Roselli et al. (2013), Cuvata and Matteo (2016) Venice Lagoon Adriatic Sea, Mediterranean Sea Europe (S), Italy restricted Lat: 45.436°N Lon: 12.330°E 550/459 47 1.5 8-33 Temperate 262246 Nunes, Rossetto and de Blaeij (2003), Alberini, Rosato, Longo and Zanatta (2005), Alberini, Zanatta and Rosato (2007), Rapaglia et al. (2011),Pranovi, Sarà and Provani et al. (2013b),Salon et al. (2008), Solidoro et al. 2010, Cossarini et al. 2008 Watamu -Mida Creek Indian Ocean Africa (E), Kenya Choked Lat: 3.35°N Lon: 39.850°E 14.1 17.4 5 33-37 Tropical 500000 1400 Kitheka, Mwashote, Ohowa, and Kamau (1999), Dahdouh-Guebas, Kairo, Koedam, and Mathenge (2000),Kairo, Dahdouh-Guebas, Gwada, Ochieng, and Koedam (2002),Frank et al. (2017),Owuor et al. (2017) Yalahau Lagoon Gulf of Mexico, Carabeean Sea North America, Mexico choked Lat: 21.465°N Lon: 87.276°W 275 1526 < 4 36 Tropical 11942 10787 Flores-Verdugo et al. (1990), Tran, Valdes, Euan, Real and Gil (2002), Herrera-Silveira and Morales-Ojeda, 2010, Rubio-Cisneros et al. (2014), Rubio-Cisneros, Aburto-Oropeza and Ezcurra (2016) Journal for Nature Conservation 44 (2018) 50–65 55 2.3. Data collection Coastal lagoon scientists were contacted using the network described in the Historical context section above to participate in the survey. Although most of the lagoons in the study are in Europe and the Mediterranean, a concerted effort was made to contact scientists in all continents, apart from Antarctica, see Fig. 1. The scientists were asked to provide information in a tabular format in 4 steps: 1) Basic information about the coastal lagoon system, such as coordinates and surface area. The summary of the results are shown in Table 1. The first step also included a list of ecosystem services (ES) provided by the coastal lagoon. The summary of the results are shown in Fig. 2. 2) Quantification of the ES provided by the coastal lagoon. The summary of the results are shown in Table 2 and Fig. 3. 3) Valuation of the ES provided by the coastal lagoon. The summary of the results are shown in Figs. 4–7. 4) An assessment of the effects of climate change on the ES of the lagoon. The summary of the results are shown in Fig. 8. In some cases, additional processing was required. Data was transformed to obtain comparable datasets. In most cases, this involved calculating annual values from daily means or scaling up the values for the whole lagoon. This was done only when possible. When comparable datasets were not possible to obtain, data were dismissed and not included in the analysis. Please note that valuation data are only indicative, given that for most cases it was not possible to derive comparable values, i.e. taking into consideration the year of the estimate and precise currency exchange rates. Therefore, in this analysis, all values are presented in Euros, converted from the original currency using the European Central Bank exchange rate quoted on 21st February 2017. 3. Results 50 invitations to participate were sent out using mailing lists from EuroMedLag and other mailing lists from other networks and projects. There were 32 respondents (64.0%), who provided the basic information about a coastal lagoon (Table 1). Of these, 15 were from Europe (46.9%), 3 from Asia (9.4%), 8 from Africa (25.0%), 1 from Oceania (3.1%), 2 from N. America (6.3%) and 3 from S. America (9.4%). 32 respondents (64.0%) provided the information listing which ecosystem services were provided by the coastal lagoon (Fig. 2). Almost all coastal lagoons were recognised as important in providing food (96.9% of respondents) and job opportunities (93.8%), as well as allowing its use for recreation and tourism-related activities (93.8%). Research activities were acknowledged by 90.6% of the respondents. Supporting services such as the nursery and primary production functions were also found to be relevant throughout the locations (90.6% and 93.8%, respectively). 22 respondents (68.8%) provided the information quantifying (amounts) the ecosystem services provided by the coastal lagoon (summarised in Table 2 and Fig. 3). Data on food provisioning were Fig. 2. Percentage of coastal lagoons acknowledged as providing each type of Ecosystem Service (ES). Note that 100% correspond to 32, i.e. the total number of lagoons participating in this study. N = 32. Table 2 Quantification of ecosystem services (ES) provided by coastal lagoons. All values represent the average for all coastal lagoons with available data. These ES are only examples taken from the full database. N = 22. Ecosystem Service Quantity Units Water provisioning 114.01 × 10 6 m 3 Food provisioning 9.57 × 10 3 tonnes Carbon sequestration 0.32 × 10 6 Mg C Nursery 67.97 × 10 6 km 2 Jobs 1.68 × 10 3 – Research (number of hits in Google Scholar) 35.23 × 10 3 – Journal for Nature Conservation 44 (2018) 50–65 56 provided by 90.9% of these (22). A measure of research activities (number of hits in Google Scholar) was also obtained for 86.4% of the lagoons. In general terms, although supporting and regulating services were identified as very relevant (Fig. 2), scientists had difficulties in quantifying those ES. The regulating service with the highest number of responses (50.0%) was the water quality regulation. Most scientists were able to account for the water renewal rate in lagoons. For supporting services, the highest number of responses was obtained for Fig. 3. Percentage of responses for ES quantification. Note that 100% correspond to 22, i.e. the total number of lagoons sending information quantifying the ecosystem services. N = 22. Fig. 4. Percentage of responses for ES valuation. Note that 100% correspond to 20, i.e. the total number of lagoons sending information valuing the ecosystem services. N = 20. Journal for Nature Conservation 44 (2018) 50–65 57 wildlife refugium (63.6%), accounting for the number of reserves and natural parks, and nutrient cycling (54.6%), accounting for the nutrient inputs into the lagoons. 20 respondents (62.5%) provided the information on the monetary value of ecosystem services provided by coastal lagoons (Fig. 4). Food provisioning was the ES with the highest response rate (60.0%). Valuation figures for cultivation were reported by 25.0% of the respondents. Touristic and recreational, as well as cultural heritage values were also provided by 30.0% and 20.0% of the respondents, respectively. Most valuation figures for these ES were based on market values techniques. Moreover, estimates were obtained both from formal studies and other informal sources, such as newspapers, etc. It is interesting to note the great lack of data for most ES. Thus, although ecosystem services are recognised as existing and important, their value is still largely unknown. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita (Euros) reported for each region where the lagoons are located is presented in Fig. 5. The GDP per capita reported for lagoons with no valuation data seems slightly lower than the GDP per capita obtained in lagoons with valuation data. However, the range of variation is high for the lagoons with valuation data. In general terms, food provisioning and cultural heritage were the services with the highest monetary valuation, representing more than 70 Million Euros per year (Fig. 6). Cultural heritage reached large Fig. 5. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita (Euros) reported for each region where lagoons are located. Values are distributed according to the availability of valuation data. If no valuation data exist, they are represented in the right part of the graph. Note that each lagoon region represents one bar. See details of specific GDP values in Table 1. Note that: Biz-Bizerte Lagoon, CalT –Cal Tet, Coo –Coorong, Cur –Curonian, EUr –Estero de Urías, Eth –Ethang de Thau, Ichk –Ichkeul Lake, Nak –Lake Nakumi, Shin –Lake Shinji, Les –Lesina Lagoon, Mal –Malanza Lagoon, MG –Marano and Grado, Qig –Qigu Lagoon, For –Ria Formosa, Var –Varano Lagoon, Tyl –Tyligulskyi Liman Lagoon, Cart –Cartagena Bay, D-Z –Darss-Zingst Bodden, Lang –Langebaan Lagoon, LBi –Loch Bi, MM –Mar Menor, Mes – Messolonghi Central Lagoon, Nad –Nador, Oual –Oualidia, Szcs –Szczecin (Oder) Lagoon, Wat –Watamu-Mida Creek. Fig. 6. Valuation of Ecosystem Services (ES) provided by each lagoon. These figures represent average values in Million Euros per year N = 20. Journal for Nature Conservation 44 (2018) 50–65 58 Winkler, H. (2001). Fischgemeinschaften und Fischerei in den Darß-Zingster Bodden. In H. Benke (Ed.). Die Darß-Zingster Bodden. Monographie einer einzigartigen küstenlandschaft. Meer und Museum. Bd 16 (pp. 76–84). Stralsund: Deutsches Meeresmuseum. Wolnomiejski, N., & Witek, Z. (2013). The Szczecin Lagoon ecosystem: The biotic community of the Great Lagoon and its food web model. Versita London.http://dx.doi. org/10.2478/9788376560502. Yamamuro, M. (2000). Chemical tracers of sediment organic matter origins in two coastal lagoons. Journal of Marine Systems, 26, 127–134. Yamamuro, M., Hiratsuka, J.-I., Ishitobi, Y., Hosokawa, S., & Nakamura, Y. (2006). Ecosystem shift resulting from loss of eelgrass and other submerged aquatic vegetation in two estuarine lagoons, Lake Nakaumi and Lake Shinji, Japan. Journal of Oceanography, 62, 551–558. Zourarah, B., Maanan, M., Carruesco, C., Aajjane, A., Mehdi, K., & Conceição Freitas, M. (2007). Fifty-year sedimentary record of heavy metal pollution in the lagoon of Oualidia (Moroccan Atlantic coast. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Sciences, 72, 359–369. Alice Newton a,b,⁎ , Ana C. Brito c,d , John D. Icely b,t , Valérie Derolez e , Inês Clara c,d , Stewart Angus f , Gerald Schernewski g,h , Miguel Inácio g,h , Ana I. Lillebø i , Ana I. Sousa i , Béchir Béjaoui j , Cosimo Solidoro k , Marko Tosic l , Miguel Cañedo-Argüelles m,n , Masumi Yamamuro o , Sofia Reizopoulou p , Hsiao-Chun Tseng b,q , Donata Canu k , Leonilde Roselli r , Mohamed Maanan s , Sónia Cristina b,t , Ana Carolina Ruiz-Fernández u , Ricardo F. de Lima v , Björn Kjerfve w , Nadia Rubio-Cisneros x , Angel Pérez-Ruzafa y , Concepción Marcos y , Roberto Pastres z , Fabio Pranovi z , Maria Snoussi A , Jane Turpie B , Yurii Tuchkovenko C , Brenda Dyack D , Justin Brookes E , Ramunas Povilanskas h , Valeriy Khokhlov C a NILU –IMPACT, Box 100, 2027, Kjeller, Norway b CIMA –Centro de Investigação Marinha e Ambiental, Universidade do Algarve, Campus de Gambelas, 8005-139, Faro, Portugal c Departamento de Biologia Vegetal, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Campo Grande, 1749-016, Lisboa, Portugal d MARE –Centro de Ciências do Mar e do Ambiente, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, 1749-016, Lisboa, Portugal e Ifremer –Laboratoire Environnement Ressources du LanguedocRoussillon/MARBEC, Avenue Jean Monnet –CS, 30171 - 34203, Sète cedex, France f Scottish Natural Heritage, Great Glen House, Leachkin Road, Inverness, IV3 8NW, United Kingdom g Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research Warnemünde (IOW), Seestrasse 15, D-18119, Rostock, Germany h Klaipėda University, Herkaus Manto str., LT-92294, Klaipėda, Lithuania i Department of Biology & CESAM –Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193, Aveiro, Portugal j Institut National des Sciences et Technologie de la Mer (INSTM), 28 rue 2 mars 1934, Carthage Salammbô 2025, Tunisie k Istituto Nazionale di Oceanografia e di Geofisica Sperimentale –OGS, Borgo Grotta Gigante 42/c Sgonico, Italy l EAFIT University, School of Sciences, Department of Earth Sciences, Carrera 49, #7S-50, A.A.3300, Medellín, Colombia m Grup de Recerca Freshwater Ecology and Management (FEM), Departament d’Ecologia, Facultat de Biologia, Universitat de Barcelona (UB), Diagonal 643, 08028, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain n Aquatic Ecology Group, BETA Tecnio Centre, University of Vic, Central University of Catalonia, Vic, Catalonia, Spain o Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo Environment Bldg 562, 5-1-5 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, 277-8563, Japan p Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, Institute of Oceanography, Anavyssos 19013, Attiki, Greece q UNESCO UNITWIN/WiCop, Physical Chemistry Department, Faculty of Marine and Environmental Sciences, Polígono río San Pedro s/n, University of Cadiz, 11519, Puerto Real, Cadiz, Spain r Environmental Protection Agency of Puglia Region, Department of Lecce 73100 Lecce, Italy s Laboratory of Littoral, Environment, Remote Sensing and Geomatic – Institute of Geography and Planning –University Nantes, France t Sagremarisco, Apt 21, 8650-999, Vila do Bispo, Portugal u Unidad Académica Mazatlán, Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mazatlán, Sinaloa, Mexico v Centre for Ecology and Environmental Changes and Departmento de Biologia Animal, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Campo Grande, 1749-016, Lisboa, Portugal w American University of Sharjah, University City, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates x Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados (CINESTAV), Unidad Merida km 6 Antigua carretera a Progreso Apdo. 73, Cordemex, 97310, Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico y Department of Ecology and Hydrology, University of Murcia, 30100, Murcia, Spain z Ca’Foscari Unversity of Venic Campus Scientifico, via Torino 155, Venice, 30170, Italy A Université Mohammed V, Faculté des Sciences, Rabat, Morocco B Environmental-Economics Policy Research Unit, School of Economics, University of Cape Town, Private Bag, Rondebosch, Cape Town, 7700, South Africa C Department of Oceanology and Marine Nature Management, Lvivska str. 15, 65016, Odessa State Environmental University, Odessa, Ukraine D Institute for Applied Ecology, University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT, 2617, Australia E Department of Ecology and Environmental Science, The University of Adelaide, Australia E-mail address: [email protected] ⁎ Corresponding author at: NILU-IMPACT, Box 100, 2027 Kjeller, Norway. Journal for Nature Conservation 44 (2018) 50–65 65