Comparative economic analysis between commercial aquaculture and selected mangrove ecosystems along Macajalar Bay, Philippines

Paper Details

Research Paper 01/07/2021
Views (1391)
current_issue_feature_image
publication_file

Comparative economic analysis between commercial aquaculture and selected mangrove ecosystems along Macajalar Bay, Philippines

Florianne T Consolacion, Maria Rizalia Y Teves, Peter D Suson, Wella Tiu-Tatil, Frandel Louis S Dagoc, Ruben F Amparado Jr.
J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 19(1), 80-87, July 2021.
Copyright Statement: Copyright 2021; The Author(s).
License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Abstract

This paper aims to compare the cost and benefit values of commercial aquaculture and mangrove ecosystems situated in three municipalities namely; Laguindingan, Alubijid, and El Salvador, Northern Mindanao, Philippines. Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) has been used for value determination and comparison of mangrove forests and commercial aquaculture farm. The results revealed that the annual total economic values of the three selected mangrove study areas are estimated to be Php 1,496,345.55 (Laguindingan) Php 1,448,160.19 (Alubijid) and Php 1,444,172.53 (El Salvador per hectare, respectively). The highest value contribution is derived from the direct use value, 90.54 %, 90.40 % & 89.31%, respectively. Findings suggest that all households in all study sites are dependent on the direct benefits provided by mangroves in terms of their fishery products. In Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA), the results revealed that at 10% discount rate mangrove restoration provides a better outcome as the net present value of mangroves is relatively three times higher than that of the commercial aquaculture project. Moreover, the outcomes at 15% discount rate showed a negative net present value for the aquaculture project (Laguindingan: Php -7,382,064.07, Alubijid: Php -7,357,714.64, El Salvador: Php -7,504,192.52) while the mangroves remained to have a positive net present value. This means that the conversion of mangrove forests into commercial aquaculture is not economically efficient. Mangrove restoration investment draws more equity (better social welfare) for communities than aquaculture as aquaculture development benefits accrue mainly to private operators with much higher incremental social costs than intact mangrove ecosystems.

Acharya G. 2002. Life at the margins: The social, economic and ecological importance of mangroves. Madera y Bosques 8(1),  53-60.

Canoy ME, Quiaoit HA. 2011. Ridge to Reef in the Philippines: A Showcase of Nine Emerging and Merging Initiatives. Xavier University Press, Cagayan de Oro City, pp 9-10. ISBN 978-971-9094-17-3.

Consolacion F. 2018. Economic Valuation of Selected Mangrove Ecosystems along Macajalar Bay, Misamis Oriental, Philippines – Chapter 1 & 2. Mindanao State University-Iligan Institute of Technology. Unpublished Masteral Thesis.

Dierberg FE, Kiattisimkul W. 1996 Issues, impacts, and implications of shrimp aquaculture in Thailand. Environmental Management 20, 649-666.

Dixon J. 2012. Economic Cost – Benefit Analysis (CBA) of Project Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures: Implementation Guideline. Inter – American Development Bank Technical Note, No. IDB – TN – 428.

Gunawardena M, Rowan JS. 2005. Economic Valuation of a Mangrove Ecosystem Threatened by Shrimp Aquaculture in Sri Lanka. Journal of Environmental Management 36(4), 535-550.

Janssen R, Padilla JE. 1999. Preservation or conversion: Valuation and evaluation of a mangrove forest in the Philippines. Environmental and Resource Economics 14, 297-331.

Khor M. 1995. Protests over shrimp farms spread throughout India. Third World Resurgence 59, 11-12.

Malik A, Fensholt R, Mertz O. 2015. Economic Valuation of Mangroves for Comparison with Commercial Aquaculture in South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Forests 6(9), 3028-3044.

Narayan T, Foley L, Haskell J, Cooley D, Hyman E. 2017. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Mangrove Restoration for Coastal Protection and an Earthen Dike Alternative in Mozambique. Washington, DC: Climate Economic Analysis Development, Investment, and Resilience (CEADIR) Activity, Crown Agents USA and Abt Associates. Prepared for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

Nickerson DJ. 1999. Trade-offs of mangrove area development in the Philippines, Ecological Economics 28(2), 279-298.

Ronnback P. 1999. The ecological basis for economic value of seafood production supported by mangrove ecosystems. Ecological Economics 29(2), 235-252.

Sathirathai S. 1998. Economic Valuation of Mangroves and the Roles of Local Communities in the Conservation of Natural Resources: Case Study of Surat Thani, South of Thailand. EEPSEA Research Report rr1998061, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Jun 1998.

Tuan T, Tinh Bui. 2013. Cost–benefit analysis of mangrove restoration in Thi Nai Lagoon, Quy Nhon City, Vietnam.

Tuan TH, Xuan MV, Nam D, Navrud S. 2009. Valuing direct use values of wetlands: A case study of Tam Giang – CauHai lagoon wetland in Vietnam. Ocean and Coastal Management 52, 102-112.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2011. Economic Analysis of Mangrove Forests: A case study in Gazi Bay, Kenya, UNEP, iii+42 pp.

Yap WG. 2001. Developments in marine and brackishwater fish culture in Southeast Asia. In L. M. B. Garcia (Ed.), Responsible Aquaculture Development in Southeast Asia. Proceedings of the Seminar-Workshop on Aquaculture Development in Southeast Asia organized by the Aquaculture Department, Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center, 12-14 October 1999, Iloilo City, Philippines (pp. 45-66). Tigbauan, Iloilo, Philippines: Aquaculture Department, Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center.

Related Articles

Vulnerability and regeneration potential of Bambusa vulgaris in Ebolowa, South Cameroon

Rodine Tchiofo Lontsi*, Duchesse Elvira Kepmou, Emilienne Laure Ngahane, Jacques Christophe Awoa Essam, Isaac Blaise Djoko, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(6), 68-79, June 2026.

Temporal availability of floral resources for the honey bee (Apis mellifera) in a forest ecosystem in the sudanian zone of Côte d’Ivoire: The case of Badenou classified forest

Dofoungo Koné*, Comlan Mawussi Koudegnan, Siendou Coulibaly, Fofana Séguéna, Bruno Marcel Iritié, Wandan Eboua Narcisse, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(6), 56-67, June 2026.

Carbon sequestration potential of napier (Pennisetum purpureum) grass applied with varying classifications of livestock excrement

Alliah B. Balaba*, Niña Mae R. Villar, Ana Celina T. Soriano, Myrna G. Pabiona, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(6), 50-55, June 2026.

Effects of environmental stressors on morphological traits of Glycine max (L.) Merr. and microbial diversity of soil treated with cadmium and lead

Fortune Onyeuka Otumunye*, Tobore Roseline Agbosa, Boniface Edegbai, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(6), 42-49, June 2026.

SWAT+-based water balance assessment of Ipil watershed in Bohol, Philippines: Spatial and temporal patterns of water availability

Anselmo M. Aurestila*, Proceso M. Castil, Manolito C. Macalolot, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(6), 30-41, June 2026.

Spatiotemporal modeling of surface urban heat island and the influence of land cover changes in land surface temperature in Cagayan de Oro City, Misamis Oriental, Mindanao, Philippines

John Oliver R. Abian*, Peter D. Suson, Jaime Q. Guihawan, Hilly Ann Roa-Quiaoit, Elizabeth Edan M. Albiento, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(6), 17-29, June 2026.

Language and culture: Prerequisites for human capital development and enhanced household food security among vulnerable women farmers in Imo State, Nigeria

N. F. Nwulu, M. O. Igwenagu, G. U. Amadi, F. D. Anuonye, G. N. Ogbonna, C. F. Obumneke, S. U. Obasi, J. C. Onyeakazi, C. G. Iroagba, N. C. Anigbogu, K. U. Chukwu, C. G. Opara, E. N. Onuoha, N. U. Nzotta, C. R. Ayozie, B. N. Igbokwe, L. O. Duru, O. V. Obiagwu, C. I. Ahumaraeze, U. A. Agwuocha, J. U. Chikaire*, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(6), 1-16, June 2026.

Ziziphus spina-christi as a bioindicator of heavy metals (Cu, Cd) in Baghdad, Iraq

Israa Radhi Khudhair*, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(5), 45-49, May 2026.