Ecosystem Services 30 (2018) 3–13

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecosystem Services
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoser

Evidence of economic benefits for public investment in MPAs

Nicolas Pascal a,b,⇑, Angelique Brathwaite b, Luke Brander c,d, Andrew Seidl e, Maxime Philip a,
Eric Clua a
a
PSL Research University, EPHE-UPVD-CNRS USR 3278 CRIOBE, Laboratoire d’Excellence CORAIL, Université de Perpignan, F66860 France
b
Blue Finance ECRE (Economics for Coral Reef Ecosystems) Inc., St John, Barbados
c
Brander Ltd., Hong Kong
d
Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands
e
Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, Colorado State University, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: MPAs enhance some of the Ecosystem Services (ES) provided by coral reefs and clear, robust valuations of
Received 2 September 2016 these impacts may help to improve stakeholder support and better inform decision-makers. Pursuant to
Received in revised form 14 August 2017 this goal, Cost-Benefit Analyses (CBA) of MPAs in 2 different contexts were analysed: a community based
Accepted 23 October 2017
MPA with low tourism pressure in Vanuatu, and a government managed MPA with relatively high tour-
ism pressure, in Saint Martin. Assessments were made on six ES: fish biomass, scenic beauty, protection
against coastal erosion, bequest and existence values, social capital and CO2 sequestration, which were
Keywords:
quantified via different approaches that included experimental fishery, surveys and benefit transfer.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Return-on-Investment
Total operating costs for each MPA were collected and the benefit-cost ratio and return on investment
Marine protected area based on 25-year discounted projections computed. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on MPA
Ecosystem Service valuation impacts, and discount rates (5%, 7% and 10%). The investment indicators all showed positive results with
the impact on the tourism ES being the largest estimated for all MPAs, highlighting the importance of this
relationship. The study also demonstrated a relatively high sensitivity of the results to different levels of
impacts on ES, which highlights the need for reducing scientific knowledge gaps.
Ó 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction tems of MPAs or other effective conservation measures”, with an

ultimate aim of creating a fully sustainable ocean, with at least
Marine protected areas (MPAs) are clearly defined geographical 30% set aside for no extraction. While some progress has been
spaces which are recognised and managed through legal or other made towards meeting these targets, considerably more needs to
effective means, to achieve long-term conservation of nature with be done in order to ensure the expanded geographic coverage as
associated ecosystem services and cultural values (IUCN-WCPA, well as effectiveness and ecological representativeness of MPAs
2008). MPAs are considered to be effective tools in managing coral (Ban et al., 2014, Dunn et al., 2014, Fox et al., 2014).
reef ecosystems for ecological objectives (Salm et al., 2000, The economic benefits of investing in MPAs are derived from
Halpern, 2003). The ecological benefits of MPAs on fish and inver- improvements in the quality of the natural environment, which
tebrate resources inside the boundaries of reserves, as well as in strengthens the capacity of coastal and marine ecosystems to pro-
the surrounding areas, are now well established (Sale et al., duce ecosystem services for local populations, businesses and the
2005). Several international policy fora have called for the global global community (TEEB, 2010a). On the cost side, the start-up
expansion of MPAs. The predominant statements are from the Dur- and management costs of MPAs are among the major hurdles in
ban Action Plan and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) gaining support for the initiation of MPAs worldwide (Balmford
Aichi Target 11. More recently, the ‘Promise of Sydney’ statement et al., 2004, Mora et al., 2006). The Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)
issued by the 2014 World Parks Congress recommends that we approach is a way to inform and convince stakeholders of the
‘‘urgently increase the ocean area that is effectively and equitably potential returns from investing in marine protection (Gowdy,
managed in ecologically representative and well-connected sys- 2007).
Determining the CBA of marine conservation projects such as
⇑ Corresponding author at: PSL Research University, EPHE-UPVD-CNRS USR 3278 MPAs however, is far from being a consolidated approach. On
CRIOBE, Laboratoire d’Excellence CORAIL, Université de Perpignan, F66860 France. one hand, the approach faces similar issues as ES valuation
E-mail address: nicolas.pascal@criobe.pf (N. Pascal). exercises (Laurans et al., 2013) in terms of the methodological

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.017
2212-0416/Ó 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
4 N. Pascal et al. / Ecosystem Services 30 (2018) 3–13

limitations of obtaining the required information on welfare ‘coastal protection’), (iv) non-use values of the ecosystems (ES4,
derived from ES. In addition, CBA has to take into account major also named as ‘bequest value’), (v) social capital impacts, defined
uncertainties regarding MPA impacts on fishery yields, tourism as the ability to encourage collective action through external assis-
revenues, coastal protection and other ES (Boersma and Parrish, tance (ES5 can be considered as one of the many multidimensional
1999, Wilkie et al., 2006). aspects of the concept of ‘social capital’) and (vi) CO2 sequestration
We analyze the methods and results of two existing CBAs of by mangroves (ES6, also named as ‘carbon sequestration’).
MPAs. The first is a network of community-based MPAs in the Van- When several methods were available, preference was given to
uatu Islands (South Pacific) while the second is a government man- those producing the most conservative values (Beukering et al.,
aged MPA in Saint Martin (French West Indies). These cases 2007).
represent two different geographic and institutional contexts. Sen-
sitivity analyses are carried out on the parameters of each CBA to
improve our understanding of the robustness of the results. We 2.3. Quantification and valuation of ES
examine the usefulness of CBAs of MPAs for decision-making and
discuss how this tool can be further developed. Quantification and valuation of these six categories of ES
requires a variety of measurement methods (Table 2). The valua-
tion methods were developed following recent guidance produced
2. Material and methods by The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) (TEEB,
2010b) and other manuals (Beukering et al., 2007, Balmford
2.1. Description of the study sites et al., 2008, Defra, 2008). Although the methodology sought to be
homogenous across sites, some modifications were needed to bet-
The analysis examines two MPAs, one in Vanuatu and the other ter suit the unique ecological and socioeconomic conditions of each
in Saint Martin. The MPA situated in Efate, Vanuatu (South-West scenario.
Pacific) is comprised of a group of five small MPAs, which are inde- For ES1 in Vanuatu, the producer surplus (the difference
pendent from each other, but linked via a network. The MPA in between the amount the producer is willing to supply goods for
Saint Martin (French West Indies) comprises one large MPA and the actual amount received by him) for commercial fisheries
(Fig. 1). The main socio-ecological characteristics of the sites are was calculated from data collected from fishing logbooks over
described in Table 1. Each of the MPA sites fulfills the following cri- the course of 2 years (n = 96 h of spearfishing), interviews with
teria: (i) proximity of economic activities (mainly fishing, tourism fishermen (n = 25), experimental Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE)
and human settlements) (ii) active management and adequate (45 h of net-fishing) and household and income expense surveys
enforcement of the MPA (by communities or government) for at in two villages (n = 12 households). Estimates of CPUE (e.g. kg of
least five years and, (iii) the reserve covers at least 10% of the fish- fish captured per hour of standard fishing effort for net and
ing grounds. spearfishing), annual fishing effort (h.net 1or h.spearfishing 1),
protein content and fishery revenues were then produced. The
2.2. Description of the selected MPA impacts value for subsistence fishing was produced by converting the
amount of fish caught to the monetary value of an equivalent
Six ES categories were chosen for analysis: (i) subsistence and amount of animal protein from a different source (e.g. chicken or
commercial reef fishing (ES1, also named as ‘fishery’) (ii) scenic pork). In Saint Martin, data were collected from fishers and cooper-
beauty and emblematic species for tourism (scuba diving, recre- atives’ surveys (n = 11) conducted in 2012. The surveys allowed for
ational boating, snorkeling tours, charters, etc.) and associated the quantification of fishing frequency per gear type, target species
activities (accommodation, food, etc.) (ES2, also named as ‘tour- and catch per trip, as well as investment and operational costs of
ism’), (iii) protection against coastal floods (ES3, also named as the activity. For both sites, the fisheries are small scale with fishers

Fig. 1. Location of the study sites. NB: (A) Vanuatu, South Pacific; (B) North of Caribbean arc, composed of Anguilla, Saint-Barthelemy and Saint Martin island; (C) this latter
island is divided in two parts with a French-speaking one in the North and a Dutch-speaking one in the South; the Saint Martin Natural Reserve (28 km2) is situated in the
North East of the island. (D) The five MPAs in Vanuatu (< 1 km2) (represented by black squares) and the two control sites (represented by grey squares) are situated around
the islands of Nguna, Pele and North Efate.
 N. Pascal et al. / Ecosystem Services 30 (2018) 3–13 5

Table 1
General description of the six MPAs and control sites involved in the study.

MPA sites Control sites Sources of data

Emua Piliura Unakap Laonamoa Worasifiu Vanuatu St Nekapa Saama
Martin
Resident population 240 110 90 250 50 740 45.000 110 130 VNSO (2009);
INSEE (2010)
Demographic pressure on reef (hab/km2 of reef) 157 102 71 188 104 124 21.226 92 144 VNSO (2009);
INSEE (2010)
2
Human density (hab.km ) 300 275 450 417 167 840 275 217 VNSO (2008);
INSEE (2010)
Monthly average household incomes (monetary 335 261 272 294 294 291 671 306 318 Description in the
and non monetary) (PPP US$, 2010) text
Monthly average non monetary incomes (% total 31% 40% 40% 36% 36% N.A. 36% 31% VNSO (2008)
incomes)
Fishing ground (km2) 1,5 1,1 1,3 1,3 0,5 6 50,0 1,2 0,9 Direct observations
Tourism infrastructure (number of beds) in MPA 5 – 8 14 5 128 16.500 – – Direct
perimeter observations; INSEE
(2010)
Fishing pressure index 3,1 3 1,35 3,75 3,65 2,97 4,7 3,05 3,25 Description in the
text
MPA creation date 2005 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003– 2001 – – Description in the
2005 text
MPA size (km2) 0,24 0,13 0,12 0,14 0,13 0,75 27,96 – –

NB: The synthetic fishing pressure index was developed to compare the fishery effort potential between MPA sites and the control sites. The index is a score based on several
characteristics of fishing effort standardized per km2 of fishing ground for each site (number of gears, storage devices, ‘‘regular” fishermen and transport infrastructure).

Table 2
Description of the six main selected ES and MPA impacts involved in the study.

Estimated contributing factor

as a% of ES value. Sensitivity
analysis values in ()
Ecosystem service Valuation method MPA contributing factor Spatial perimeter Vanuatu St Martin
Subsistence and commercial ES Producer surplus MPA impact on fishing productivity Spillover and larval 25% (6–25–33%)
fishing 1 dispersion zone
Tourism and associated ES Producer surplus Contribution in tourism expenses MPA 70% (50–70– 7% (5–7–
expenses 2 90%) 10%)
Coastal protection ES Avoided damage costs Impact on wave energy absorption MPA coastline 5% (3–5–10%)
3 mechanisms
Bequest value ES Transfer benefit Impact on ecosystem existence MPA 35% (20–35– Not
4 50%) Available
Social capital ES Direct expenditures Proportion of grants linked to the MPA MPA 100%
5
Carbon sequestration ES Market value of carbon MPA impact on avoided habitat MPA 10% (5–10–
6 credits conversion 15%)

carrying out their activity in areas close to the MPAs. There is also a lected via professional interviews and compared with costs from
very limited fishing effort from ‘‘outsiders” in the studied fishing other studies. Data on recreational boating expenditures and added
grounds. value were estimated based on available information of boat use
For ES2, in both countries, the producer surplus corresponded to frequencies in the MPA (Rastoin, 2011) and completed by inter-
the value of the selected tourism activities directly related to the view (n = 8) with the main boating associations (sport fishing, har-
processes produced by coral reef ecosystems. The data collection bours, yacht clubs) and professionals (sailing charters, brokers,
method, however differed in each country. In Vanuatu, expenditure maintenance operators).
details and occupancy rates data were collected through inter- For ES3 (coastal protection), the damage costs avoided by the
views (n = 45), which were conducted on a monthly basis during presence of the protected ecosystems were assessed in a similar
6 months (June to November). The majority of the tourism profes- manner in both countries. The coastal areas potentially at risk from
sionals were located in the interviewed study zone. Interviews wave damage were identified, then the contribution of reefs and
with other professionals included all the diving clubs and most mangroves to the protection of vulnerable areas was estimated
of the tour operators. Data were completed with official tourism and finally the potential impacts on residential buildings and
statistics (Vanuatu National Statistics Office, 2008). In Saint Martin, infrastructure were quantified and monetized, using the expected
expenditure estimates were based on business declarations of the likelihood of a damaging event. Quantification of ES values utilised
number of their clients sent every month to the MPA by diving a bio-physical model developed for the valuation of ES in low-data
clubs and day tour operators (n = 38). These declarations were used availability situations (Burke et al., 2008, Pascal et al., 2016). The
to calculate the monthly fees collected from users. The associated model allows us to define the coastal protection index (low-
average expenses on accommodation, food, local transport and medium-high) of each segment of coastline with seven physical
souvenirs were estimated through existing tourism statistics characteristics: coastal geomorphology, exposure of the coast,
(INSEE, 2008). Intermediary costs for the primary tourism busi- wave energy (usually the maximum wave height), frequency of
nesses (service provider and accommodation sectors) were col- storms, characteristics of coral reefs, coastal vegetation (man-
6 N. Pascal et al. / Ecosystem Services 30 (2018) 3–13

groves, wetlands, etc.) elevation and slope of the coast. Avoided locate any valid control sites due to the relatively small area
damage valuation was assessed on potential residential and infras- located outside of the MPA boundaries (the MPA covers approxi-
tructure damages. In vulnerable zones, the potential impacts were mately half of the island). Hereafter, we describe the details of
valued using geographic analysis. Urban and rural areas were dif- the calculations for the MPA impact on ES.
ferentiated and mean real estate prices collected from available An additional challenge of MPA valuation is whether the poten-
data sources (home owners, real estate agencies, the internet). tial benefits of the MPA impacts will be experienced by the local
For ES4, the benefit transfer method was used in Vanuatu based community, the national private sector, or by international enti-
on existing studies that estimated bequest and option values of ties. This knowledge can help make the case for public or private
coral reefs for villages in Fiji (O’Garra, 2012). The socio-ecological investment. To achieve this a certain understanding of the spatial
context of this study displayed similarities with Vanuatu, including boundary of the MPA impacts is needed. This task can be difficult
customary management of marine tenure, small villages, small considering knowledge gaps of larval dispersion, species migration,
fringing reefs, and an emergent market economy in which subsis- and other factors related to the interconnectedness of marine
tence, barter and market exchanges are mixed. The economic val- ecosystems. In addition, the areas where beneficiaries are found
ues were obtained from villagers through willingness to contribute may not coincide with the location of the impacts. A good example
(in hours/week) towards conservation of their marine zone, in is the leakage effect for tourism benefits (Garrigós-Simón et al.,
order to maintain some of the ES (presented as option and bequest 2015) showing the volume of tourism revenues that does not
values by the author, even though it might be argued that the value remain in the destination economy. To address this issue there
also includes direct uses). In the case of Saint Martin, a review of needs to be not only an ecological understanding of the site but a
selected non-use valuation studies in the Caribbean (Park et al., socioeconomic understanding as well. This task has been con-
2000, Rudd et al., 2001, Raboteur and Rodes, 2006, Parsons and fronted through the use of simplified assumptions and proxies
Thur, 2007, Wielgus et al., 2009) failed to provide the conditions described thereafter.
required for results to be used in a benefit transfer protocol The MPAs’ impacts on ES1 were calculated through the identifi-
(Rosenberger and Loomis, 2001, Wilson and Hoehn, 2006), and so cation of the effect of MPAs on CPUEs for main gear type. The
these estimates were excluded. results were obtained from an experimental fishery and logbook
In this context, social capital (ES5) refers to the capacity of the data collection effort conducted in Vanuatu and described previ-
community to be represented in external events (Putnam, 2006, ously. Vanuatu’s MPA sites demonstrate higher fish productivity
Barnes-Mauthe et al., 2015) and we chose to focus on one aspect than non-MPA locations. The estimated increase in catch produc-
of this capital, which is the ability to attract external assistance tivity is between 15% and 33% (kg.h 1) higher for gillnet and 6–
through grants or technical support. In both countries, data were 22% (kg.h 1) for speargun harvest techniques (Pascal, 2013). We
collected from the census of all grants and assistance related to assumed that this productivity enhancement represents a proxy
marine ecosystem management. Based on historical observations of the MPA contributive factor on fishery added value (ES1). A
of past external assistance, a periodic flow (every 7 years) of sup- direct gradient analysis (redundancy analysis: RDA and partial
port, after the creation of the MPA was applied. RDA) on data (Legendre and Anderson, 1999) was conducted to dif-
ES6 (carbon sequestration) is primarily provided by mangroves ferentiate between the explanatory variables linked to the MPA
and seagrass ecosystems (Sifleet et al., 2011). Results obtained (e.g. existence, distance from border) and those linked to the con-
were based on the methodology developed by several authors text (e.g. moon cycle, tide and habitat variables including depth,
(Duarte and Middleburg, 2005, Bouillon et al., 2009, Murray coral reef description and substrate category). The absence of ‘‘out-
et al., 2010, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, sider” fisheries and the prevalence of subsistence fishing yield the
2011). Following the additionality approach (Peters-Stanley et al., assumption that the benefits are experienced by the local
2013), calculations were based on the volume of CO2 eq. annually communities.
avoided from being released into the atmosphere, by maintaining The effect of MPAs on tourism is reflected in the role of the
ecosystems in their current state. Following our general preference reserve in visitor destination choice. Estimates were based on
for conservative values and safe-minimum estimates, we chose the specific questions in individual surveys, conducted with end-
value of market carbon credits rather than using the social cost of users (Vanuatu n = 34 (Pascal, 2013), Saint Martin, n = 110
carbon (US EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 2013). The (Malterre P et al., 2011). The respondents were asked to answer
prices of carbon credits were estimated from market data (Forest specific questions about the importance of the MPA and ecological
Trends Ecosystem Marketplace and Bloomberg New Energy attributes expected to be enhanced by the MPA (i.e. beauty of the
Finance, 2014). Due to the limited presence of mangrove and sea- sea scapes and the diversity and abundance of fish) in their desti-
grass habitats in the Vanuatu sites, this aspect of the valuation was nation choice. These questions provide information about a vari-
only conducted in Saint Martin. able ‘‘MPA_ factor”. It takes a value between 0 and 1 following
the proportion of time devoted to activities/MPA visit for the dura-
2.4. Valuation methods of impacts of MPAs on ES tion of the stay, the main motivation for travel and the importance
of these activities in the choice of destination. factors, expressed as
The valuations of both MPAs focused on the identification of the a percentage of the added value of tourism expenses (ES2), varied
factor of the MPA to the value of the ES, in order to isolate the between 10% (Saint Martin) and 70% (for some sites in Vanuatu).
MPA’s effects. The control-impact approach has been proposed They were both completed with studies of tourism Advertising
by several authors as a way to address this issue (Smith, 2002, Image Analysis (AIA) (Hajkowicz et al., 2005) based on a minimum
Halpern, 2003). In control (non-MPA) and impact sites (MPA), the of 100 images and identifying the weight of images or references
following studies were conducted: (i) a comparative assessment made specifically to the MPA or the marine biodiversity in regard
of the ecological factors using the Medium Scale Approach (Clua to other categories of tourism attributes (cultural and people,
et al., 2006), specifically designed for commercial reef fisheries, ecosystems and landscapes, beaches, other forms of entertain-
(ii) a comparative assessment of fishing effort and (iii) a compara- ment). They highlighted that marine ecosystem attributes and
tive assessment of tourism attractiveness resulting from objective MPA images represent approximately 20% of all the images in both
indicators of site accessibility (e.g. distance to airport, infrastruc- sites. In Vanuatu sites, there is little international investment so
ture, price) for visitors. In Vanuatu, two villages served as control the benefits are primarily received locally and by the national pri-
sites (Table 1). In Saint Martin however, it was not possible to vate sector. In St. Martin, part of the tourism sector is owned by
 N. Pascal et al. / Ecosystem Services 30 (2018) 3–13 7

international investors (Tourism and Transport Consult, 2005) but, assumptions incorporated into a scenario that takes into account
to our knowledge, no leakage calculations have been assesed. the potential for development of tourism and fisheries in each
The determination of the contribution of the MPA to the pro- country. Following existing studies (Wielgus et al., 2008), the pro-
duction of ES3 must take into account that the ES is more depen- jections cover a period of 25 years after the creation of the MPA.
dent on physical than biological factors (Pascal et al., 2016). As This range was proposed in similar studies to reflect the ecological
MPAs strengthened mainly the biological factors, with little evi- responses of ecosystems to the tested scenario (Balmford et al.,
dence of influence on the physical factors driving the production 2008). The period starts from the first payment of investment costs
of the ES (Halpern, 2003) and without any supporting literature, and/or the beginning of enforcement activities (2001 for Saint Mar-
a low factor (5%) of the value of the ES, was proposed. Private tin and 2002/2004 for Vanuatu). A Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) is cal-
and public infrastructure at both sites experience protection from culated on the flows of average values of impacts on all ES and
coastal processes due to ES3. costs. We apply a discount rate of 10% in computing present values
Regarding bequest value (ES4) that people may ascribe to the (Ehrlich, 2008) even though lower discount rates have been argued
coral reef, none of the available studies assessed were sufficiently to be more appropriate when assessing investment in nature
precise to determine the role played by the MPA in the valuation. (TEEB, 2010b) in order have the most disadvantageous situation
Therefore, based on existing evidence of MPA impacts on habitats possible (Weitzman, 2001). Using this rate strengthens any posi-
and biodiversity (Sale et al., 2005), we applied a contributing factor tive conclusions (BCR > 1) that are reached.
of 35% on the ES valuation.
The effect of the MPA on the ES5 is calculated as the proportion 2.7. Sensitivity analysis
of the grants or assistance received due to its existence. The role
was assessed through interviews with grant recipients (village Sensitivity analyses were carried out to better understand the
committees, NGOs or MPA managers). robustness of our estimates (Cesar and Chong, 2006). Analyses
The impacts of the MPA on ES6 were based on the existing lit- focused on the different estimates of the MPA factors for each of
erature and expert opinions, in order to assess the level of conver- the 6 ES (Table 3). The chosen method is through an ‘‘extreme case”
sion or degradation threats on the mangrove habitats in Saint approach that allows, through non-intensive techniques, the iden-
Martin. Based on an annual loss surface of habitat avoided by the tification of those inputs that generate the most sensitivity
existence of the MPA regulations (3–25 ha.y 1 of mangrove habitat (Boardman et al., 1996). The levels presented are based on mini-
non destroyed), the factor of the MPA was estimated at 10%. mum and maximum estimates of the factor, whereas the best esti-
The benefits for ES4, ES5, and ES6 can be far-reaching (Balmford mate represents the average value. Sensitivity analyses were
et al., 2008). They can be experienced by the local, national and conducted for the BCR and RoI results.
international communities in terms of the existence value, conser- An additional sensitivity analysis was carried out on the best
vation of biodiversity, and the removal of carbon from the estimate of the BCR for different discount rates (5%, 7%, 10%)
atmosphere. (Pearce et al., 2006).

2.5. Costs of MPAs

3. RESULTS
Different kinds of MPA costs were distinguished: direct opera-
tional costs, initial investment and opportunity costs. The direct 3.1. Impacts on ES
operational costs include administration, employment, monitoring
and enforcement. The investment costs refer to the establishment The mean economic impacts have been estimated at US$ 44,200
costs, transaction costs, and material assets such as boats, buoys, (+/ 19,800) per year per km2 for the five MPAs in Vanuatu and US$
signboards, etc. The opportunity costs consider all the losses of 29,800 per year per km2 for the MPA in Saint Martin (Table 3). For
potential earnings such as losses in the fishery revenues, longer both case studies, the effects of the MPA on tourism, represent the
displacement time for fishermen or loss from the time spent in greatest proportion of the total effect (60–70%). Tourism effects
the MPA management. The jobs created by the MPAs (in manage- were followed by effects on the fishery added value (25%) in Van-
ment, monitoring and enforcement) were considered here as a uatu and coastal protection (23%) in Saint Martin.
cost, considering that in the absence of the MPA, workers would On a per surface area basis, the MPA impacts on the tourism sec-
have obtained another similar level of job elsewhere. Other oppor- tor were similar across sites (Table 3). ES2 associated with the MPA
tunity costs linked to the MPA establishment for tourism (e.g. new generates a value of US$ 21,446 in 2010 in Saint Martin, shared
advertising material, relocation of tours, etc.) are very limited in among the private nautical sector (15%), scuba diving (15%), day
both islands and have not been incorporated in the study. For charters (10%), boat rental (10%) and glass-bottom boats (10%). In
investment costs, normal rules of accountancy were applied to cal- 2009 in Vanuatu, the average ES2 was assessed at US$ 33,000 with
culate annual amortizing costs (i.e. based on life expectancy of the a MPA impact ($US 25,375) shared between day tours (60%) and
assets). guest-houses (40%). The differences in the contributions of MPA
impacts in the ES2 values (8% and 70% for Saint Martin and Vanu-
2.6. Economic and financial analysis atu respectively) highlight the different motivations and expendi-
ture behaviours between the specific nature tourism niche in
The ex-post Return on Investment (RoI) was calculated follow- Vanuatu and a mass tourism destination in Saint Martin. Comple-
ing standard methods (Campbell and Brown, 2003). It is based on mentary results about other MPA impacts per ES are given in
the observed historic cash flows of impacts on ES1 and ES2 and Table 3.
compared to the direct and investment costs (without amortizing).
RoI was calculated on discounted values for the period from the 3.2. Financial and economic results
creation of each MPA, to the study date (10 years for Saint Martin
and 6–8 years for Vanuatu). The total direct costs without amortizing (Table 4) are US$
In addition to the ex-post study, an ex-ante CBA was under- 1,800 per year and US$ 300,000 per year for Vanuatu and Saint
taken based on the present values of projections of the impacts Martin, respectively. However, on a per area basis, these direct
(Wielgus et al., 2008). Projections are made under simplifying costs are quite similar (US$ 12,100 vs 10,700 per year per km2).
8 N. Pascal et al. / Ecosystem Services 30 (2018) 3–13

Table 3
Synthesis of the main results in terms of ES valuation and MPA impacts.
1 2
2009 and 2010 data, US$.y .km of MPA
ES valuation MPA impacts
Vanuatu (mean) St Martin Vanuatu (mean) St Martin
Subsistence and commercial fishery (ES1) 42.846 837 10.863 235
Tourism (ES2) 32.614 329.290 25.375 21.446
Coastal protection (ES3) 34.319 83.586 3.339 6.822
Bequest value (ES4) 8.745 N.A. 2.993 N.A.
Social capital (ES5) 1.675 589 1.648 589
CO2 sequestration (ES6) N.A. 6.842 N.A. 683
TOTAL MPA impacts 120.199 421.144 44.218 29.775

Table 4 Table 6
Synthesis of the main results in terms of MPA costs. Synthesis of the main results for RoI ratios and present values of observed MPA
1 2
impacts since the MPA creation up to 2009–2010.
MPA costs (US$.y .km
2
of MPA) Present values (t = 10%) - since creation of MPA MPA impacts (US$.km of
MPA)
Vanuatu St Martin
(mean) Vanuatu St Martin
(mean)
Direct costs without amortizing 12.110 10.740
Initial investment and material assets 56.231 18.912 Subsistence and commercial fishery (ES1) 15.115 729
Amortizing costs 8.033 2.128 Tourism (ES2) 34.013 66.471
Opportunity costs 0 2.514
TOTAL MPA financial impacts (1) 49.128 67.200
TOTAL MPA annual costs with amortizing costs 20.143 15.382 TOTAL MPA financial costs (2) 27.932 41.945
RoI ((1)-(2))/(2) 0,8 0,6

The BCR is calculated as the expected net benefits of the MPA over 3.3. Sensitivity analysis
a 25-year project life and evaluated at a 10% discount rate (Table 5).
Using these parameters, we calculate a BCR between 2 and 4.1. The The results of the analysis show a relative sensitivity of the BCR
longer the MPA life, the higher the ratio, due to the initial estab- and RoI results to different levels of MPA factors (Fig. 2) with a 2-
lishment costs being spread over more years. It also reflects the fold difference between minimum and maximum levels. In partic-
potential of future development of the tourism and fisheries sec- ular, in cases where all factors are set to their minimum vaue, the
tors in Vanuatu. Vanuatu RoI becomes negative and the Saint Martin RoI ratio is
The positive BCR for all the studied MPAs demonstrates that close to zero after 6 years of activity, meaning that costs have
investment in marine reserves, in addition to conservation of coral exceeded or equalized the benefits. This result reflects (i) that more
reefs, is an effective means of investing in economic development. time is necessary to compensate for the costs of MPA and/or (ii) the
The results of the RoI are based on the present values of investment was too high with respect to the economic benefits.
observed impacts from the date of the MPA creation up to 2009– The results of the analysis on discount rates show a low sensi-
2010 (Table 6). The mean RoI of Vanuatu MPAs is 0.8 (+/ 0.6) after tivity (i.e. less than 20% difference between minimum and maxi-
6–8 years of activity. For Saint Martin, the RoI is 0.6 after 10 years mum) to the different levels on the 25-year projections (Fig. 3).
of activity. The positive results of RoI mean that the benefits exceed
the costs after several years of activity and that public investment
should be considered. It confirms the previous statement, that 4. Discussion
investment in MPAs can produce benefits which are greater than
the costs, even if based only on the historic fishery and tourism 4.1. Methodological approaches and reliability
business benefits (ES1 and ES2).
This study provides some important information for decision-
making on marine conservation and the need for extensive empir-
ical studies on MPA impacts. Credible evaluations of common con-
Table 5 servation instruments are rare (Miteva et al., 2012) and calls for
Synthesis of the main results for BCR and present values of projected MPA impacts rigorous evaluation of protected areas (PAs) have been made
under scenario 2 (25 years). repeatedly (Vincent, 2010). It has been observed that assessments
Present values (t = 10%) - 25y projections MPA impacts (US$.km 2
of of tropical marine parks are often inaccurate as they value the
MPA) resource protected and not the protection provided (Pendleton,
Vanuatu (mean) St Martin 1995). In spite of such warnings, economic valuations of the added
Subsistence and commercial fishery (ES1) 73.378 1.511
value, provided by management are still scarce, especially com-
Tourism (ES2) 188.587 144.188 pared to the more static and descriptive studies that estimate Total
Coastal protection (ES3) 15.136 42.637 Economic Values (Wielgus et al., 2010).
Bequest value (ES4) 21.968 0 Our analysis has presented valuations carried out by utilising a
Social capital (ES5) 15.666 3.679
mix of data sources, including experimental fishery with control-
CO2 sequestration (ES6) 0 4.271
impact approach, empirical observations from surveys, transfer
TOTAL MPA impacts (1) 314.734 196.286
benefit and expert opinions. Even though the study demonstrates
TOTAL MPA economic costs (2) 76.165 92.363
that investment in marine reserves, in addition to conserving coral
BCR (1)/(2) 4,1 2,1
reefs, is an effective means of encouraging local economic develop-
 N. Pascal et al. / Ecosystem Services 30 (2018) 3–13 9

Maximum contributing factors

Best estimate St Martin BCR

Vanuatu BCR

Minimum contributing factors

0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0

Maximum contributing factors

Best estimate St Martin RoI

Vanuatu RoI

Minimum contributing factors

-0,2 0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4

Fig. 2. Sensitivity analysis of BCR and RoI to main uncertainties on MPA factor.

10%

7% St Martin BCR
Vanuatu BCR

5%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Fig. 3. Sensitivity analysis of BCR based on three discount rates (t = 10%, 7% and 5%).

ment, the benefit-cost ratios have proven to be sensitive to the pri- marginal increase in the area or quality of the ecosystem will not
mary uncertainties regarding the extent to which MPAs impact ES necessarily translate into a proportional increase in services. In
provision. This raises the requirement for (i) filling scientific gaps particular, the ecosystem is likely to respond very differently at
regarding impacts of MPAs on ES, with multidisciplinary inputs, extremely small sizes (Halpern, 2003) or when it is close to disap-
in order to provide robust information for decision-making and, pearance (threshold effects) (Ban et al., 2011). These relationships
(ii) future studies to include more systematically designed sensi- are unlikely to be linear, although due to the difficulty in estimat-
tivity analyses. As noted by François and Pascal (2012), in their ing these values, this has been the overwhelming assumption in
review of 17 CBAs on MPAs on coral reef ecosystems, most CBAs the literature reviewed. Dynamic links between investment and
neglect to provide any sensitivity analyses on the results. The ana- ecosystem services are far from being well-known and almost all
lysts should employ the use of non-intensive sensitivity analysis of the reviewed studies have focused on average values. The mar-
techniques, in order to identify those inputs that generate the ginal values of ES that depend directly on the ecosystem’s produc-
greatest sensitivity. Several such methods are available (EPA tivity can only be estimated if an ecological function which
2009), including extreme case (min–max) analyses, Monte Carlo provides the change in service, exists in the literature. Different
and variance-based methods. authors (Cesar, 1996, Cesar and Beukering, 2002, Gunawardena
Additionally, for most of the ES, the relationship with coral reef and Rowan, 2005) have estimated the marginal change in the value
ecosystems is non-linear (Jennings and Polunin, 1995, Halpern, of fisheries by looking at the increase in production from a mar-
2003, Barbier et al., 2008, Ban et al., 2011), which means that a ginal change in the ecosystem and the consequent change in pro-
10 N. Pascal et al. / Ecosystem Services 30 (2018) 3–13

ducer surplus. ES that are valued by estimating a demand curve and importance) and the technical challenge in identifying the
(stated and revealed preferences, hedonic methods) can also be flows of dispersion of marine species (Sale et al., 2005), economists
marginally measured, but these methods are more demanding, will need to use proxies and make simplified assumptions in order
both methodologically and in terms of data. to most efficiently affect individual human behavior toward social
Our study has provided some clear inputs for this production objectives.
function, by demonstrating empirical MPA impacts on fishery ES.
Results are derived from a relatively time consuming regime with 4.3. Advocacy
a program of experimental fishery, control-impact approach and
RCA statistical analysis. Results showed an increase in productivity The results of this study have provided information which can
for the principal gear, estimated to vary from 6% to 33% increase in be used by decision-makers regarding investment in marine
the CPUE in Vanuatu, similar to findings of the few other available reserves as a conservation and development tool for local popula-
studies (Russ and Alcala, 1998). Even if variation is substantial (five tions. Our findings are complementary with the few peer-reviewed
fold between minimum and maximum CPUE increase) and more papers on the subject of CBAs in the domain of coral reef eco-
empirical studies are necessary, these results should provide a base nomics. One study using a similar approach, was conducted by
for other MPA studies through benefit transfer, or through calibra- White et al. (2000) in Olango island, Cebu (Philippines) and
tion of the many existing bio-economic fishery models. Other showed a very strong justification on the part of local and national
observed effects were not valued, such as: (i) less variability on fish government and private sector groups to invest in the manage-
harvest per trip (Cote et al., 2001) and, (ii) larger-sized fish caught ment of reefs to generate current annual net revenue ranging from
for villages with MPAs (Halpern and Warner, 2002). US$ 38,300–63,400 per km2. Another similar approach was pro-
For tourism, results were derived primarily from surveys with vided by Cesar and Chong (2006), who assessed the economic
end-users to determine the role of the MPA and marine attributes interest in establishing a MPA in Portland Bight Area (Jamaica).
enhanced by MPA in their choice destination. The range of factors The authors found a total (incremental) benefit estimated around
was high (between 10% and 70%) and reflects the variability of the US$ 40.8 million (in the pessimistic tourism case), hence justifying
tourism context faced by MPAs. The ecological attributes and/or the US$ 19.2 million costs involved in the MPA implementation
the presence of the MPA will have different weights in the motiva- over 25 years. Calculating the financial benefits based on the size
tion of tourists to visit the sites. In Vanuatu, the tourism context is of the Jamaican MPA, shows a rough figure of US$ 21,700 per year
a small-scale accommodation sector attracting primarily a per km2. Though slightly greater, our key-figures ranging from US$
‘‘nature- tourism” segment, for which MPAs represent an impor- 30,000 (Saint Martin) and US$ 44,000 (Vanuatu) per km2, are still
tant attraction. In Saint Martin, with a mass tourism sector based consistent with all these findings.
mainly on the model of the 3Ss (Sea, Sand and Sun), the MPA Most other CBAs for coral reef management are found in the
and/or ecological attributes of the site (e.g. scenic beauty and the grey literature. For example, studies in South Africa and Vietnam
presence of emblematic species) do not appear to be an important found Net Present Values of MPAs, estimated at US$ 10.4 million
aspect of tourism attractiveness. In both cases, the MPA impact on (Turpie et al., 2006) and US$ 18.9 million (Nam and Beukering,
the tourism ES was the most important in monetary terms. This 2013), respectively. However, these results are difficult to link with
importance highlights the weight of this relationship between our single MPA figures. Other CBA reports significantly differ from
MPAs and tourism linked to nature. our objectives as they focus on analysing other management
Even though it is important to bear in mind the difficulty of iso- options. For example, Fahrudin (2003) looked at the economic
lating any factor in the selection process of the destination by tour- effect of reducing coral threats (cyanide and coral collection) in
ists (Tourism and Transport Consult, 2005, Parry and McElroy, Indonesia, while Beukering et al. (2007) analysed the management
2009), the approach of determining the MPA factor through end- options of six MPAs in Hawaii, and Clarke et al. (2010) assessed the
user surveys has provided some clear insight about this MPA cost and benefits of a zoning extension of a marine park in
impact. Australia.
It may be important to complement the CBA with more specific
4.2. Spatial boundary of analysis indicators about effectiveness for nature conservation (Tallis et al.,
2010). In our case we relied on areas of protected reef as an indica-
The spatial boundary has rarely been discussed systematically tor of conservation, but other studies have demonstrated that
and specifically in the reviewed CBAs (François and Pascal, 2012). MPAs are not a ‘‘silver bullet” for all marine conservation issues
Most studies define and delimit the ecosystem being studied, and (Boersma and Parrish, 1999).
some explicitly limit their analysis to the local communities and To our knowledge, the juxtaposition of measures of local finan-
areas directly interacting with the ecosystem (‘‘local” economy), cial returns (RoI) and of broader economic measures of project net
but these limits generally do not coincide with the area impacted benefits (BCR) to bridge the gap between incentives for local stew-
by the ecosystem processes, nor the economic jurisdiction ardship on one hand and total economic value on the other, has
(Balmford et al., 2008). Several authors concur that spatial under- been used infrequently in the environmental economics scientific
standing of ES is a key variable in the implementation of the major- literature. By comparing it with the BCR, the indicator RoI provides
ity of economic instruments (Balmford et al., 2008). Indeed, less complete information, not including benefits absent from mar-
identification of areas where the processes required to generate kets (ES3 to 5) as well as opportunity costs. The RoI was intended
ES are central to accurately improve their management. For exam- to highlight the cash flows for the local economy, in addition to
ple, the larval dispersal and migration areas of key species for fish- fisheries and tourism, which represent both concrete sources of
ing, or as dive attractions are often not in the same location as the local cash incomes and implicit income through harvested food-
fishing grounds and dive sites (Kinlan et al., 2005). Similarly, the stuff. Focusing on flows of observable impacts and avoiding the
site where the added value of fishing and tourism is generated, projections bias, it may complement the BCR with results that
may be different from the area where the benefit is found (resi- are easier to understand or accept. Financial decision-makers
dence tax, pre-paid package tourism, etc.) (Burke et al., 2008). (e.g. public finance), accustomed to the CBA and RoI tools (Arrow
However, appropriate policy formation based upon spatially expli- et al., 1996) may feel more comfortable basing their budget alloca-
cit economic values is rife with theoretical and empirical limita- tion tradeoffs on both results. As highlighted by other authors (de
tions. Considering the complexity of these processes (variability Wit et al., 2012) it is important to prove that public investments in
 N. Pascal et al. / Ecosystem Services 30 (2018) 3–13 11

natural assets provide yields with adequate returns, as does invest- Acknowledgements
ment in other infrastructure and services, such as housing and
education. The study conducted in the South Pacific was developed within
In parallel, the BCR and RoI financial approach may bring con- the framework of the Coral Reef Initiatives for the Pacific (CRISP)
crete information about potential returns for private sources of mainly funded by the Agence Française de Développement (AFD)
financing for conservation (Parker et al.,2012). In the case of the and the Fonds Français pour l’Environnement Mondial (FFEM).
impact investment funds (Achleitner et al., 2011) or the Socially The study from the Caribbean was sponsored by the Initiative Fra-
Responsible Investment (SRI) funds (Van den Bossche et al., nçaise pour les Récifs Coralliens (IFRECOR), co-funded by the
2010), where capital is invested with the explicit expectation of French Ministry of Oversea Territories and the French Ministry of
financial, social and environmental returns, the Internal Rate of Ecology and Sustainable Development.
Return (IRR) and the RoI are common indicators for investment The paper has been vigilantly reviewed by Linwood Pendleton,
selection (Littlefield, 2011). Many requirements for viable and Acting Chief Economist of the US National Oceanic and Atmo-
effective investment of this type are still necessary (conservation spheric Administration, and by two another anonymous reviewers.
market institutions, quantifying benefits, business models, It has been improved on many occasions thanks to their precious
accounting and auditing standards) (Miteva et al., 2012) and this advice.
work is an initial step in this new field.

References
5. Conclusion
Achleitner, A.-K., Heinecke, A., Noble, A., Schoning, M., Spiess-Knafl, W., 2011.
Unlocking the mystery: an introduction to social investment. Innovations:
The study has provided some insights into the trade-offs Technol. Governance Globalization 6, 145–154.
between a pressing need for informed decision making on the envi- Arrow, K.J., Cropper, M.L., Eads, G.C., Hahn, R.W., Lave, L.B., Noll, R.G., Portney, P.R.,
Russell, M., Schmalensee, R.L., Smith, V.K., Stavin, 1996. Is there a role for
ronment and the requirement for extensive empirical studies on benefit-cost analysis in environmental, health, and safety regulation? Science
MPA impacts. As we have shown, CBAs have demonstrated both 272, 221–222.
promising results and significant limitations. Results can be sensi- Balmford, A., Gravestock, P., Hockley, N., McClean, C.J., Roberts, C.M., 2004. The
worldwide costs of marine protected areas. Procd. Natl. Acad. Sci. 101, 9694–
tive to the uncertainties and knowledge gaps regarding MPA 9697.
impacts on ES, however CBAs of environmental investments (such Balmford, A, Rodrigues, A, Walpole, M, ten Brink, P, Kettunen, M, Braat, L, de Groot,
as MPAs) are complex exercises and methods must still be consol- R, 2008. Review on the economics of biodiversity loss: scoping the science.
Report produced for the European Commision under contract ENV/070307/
idated. There is a need to improve the ecological knowledge base in
2007/486089/ETU/B2 - 60 pp.
relation to CBAs, such as the requirement to address the links Ban, N.C., Adams, V.M., Almany, G.R., Ban, S., Cinner, J.E., McCook, L.J., Mills, M.,
between investment, ecosystem processes and ecosystem services. Pressey, R.L., White, A., 2011. Designing, implementing and managing marine
This study has proposed several approaches for the valuation of protected areas: Emerging trends and opportunities for coral reef nations. J. Exp.
Marine Biol. Ecol. 408, 21–31.
these links with the ES of fisheries and tourism. It also showed evi- Ban, N.C., Bax, N.J., Gjerde, K.M., Devillers, R., Dunn, D.C., Dunstan, P.K., Halpin, P.N.,
dence that the selected MPAs produced benefits for local stake- 2014. Systematic conservation planning: a better recipe for managing the high
holders through their impacts on ES; commercial and subsistence seas for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. Conserv. Lett. 7 (1), 41–
54.
fishermen (through impacts on ES1), tourism businesses (ES2), Barbier, E.B., Koch, E.W., Silliman, B.R., Hacker, S.D., Wolanski, E., Primavera, J.,
landowners (ES3), local populations (ES4 and ES5) and the interna- Granek, E.F., Polasky, S., Aswani, S., Cramer, L.A., Stoms, D.M., Kennedy, C.J., Bael,
tional community (ES6) all benefited from the establishment and D., Kappel, C.V., Perillo, G.M.E., Reed, D.J., 2008. Coastal ecosystem-based
management with nonlinear ecological functions and values. Science 319, 89–
management of these MPAs. The evidence of local benefits and 98.
their distribution patterns has been recognized as a way of increas- Barnes-Mauthe, M., Oleson, K.L.L., Brander, L.M., Zafindrasilivonona, B., Oliver, T.A.,
ing support from local populations (Whittingham et al., 2003). For van Beukering, P.J.H., 2015. Social capital as an ecosystem service: evidence
from a locally managed marine area. Ecosyst. Serv.
multilateral agencies and public finance decision-makers, this Beukering, P.V., Brander, L., Tompkins, E., McKenzie, E. (eds.), 2007. Valuing the
study also demonstrated that investing in MPAs can be effective Environment in Small Islands.
both for the conservation of nature and to fullfil local economic Boardman, A.E., Greenberg, D.H., Vining, A.R., Weimer, D.L., 1996. Cost-Benefit
Analysis: Concepts and Practice. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
development objectives. Financial and economic analyses of ES
Boersma, P.D., Parrish, J.K., 1999. Limiting abuse: marine protected areas, a limited
may enable benchmarks with other investments in infrastructure solution. Ecol. Econ. 31, 287–304.
or public services and change the false idea that investing in nature Bouillon, S., Rivera-Monroy, V.H., Twilley, R.R., Kairo, J.G., 2009. Mangroves. The
produces low returns (de Wit et al., 2012). If adequately communi- Management of Natural Coastal Carbon Sinks. Gland Switzerland. IUCN, pp. 13–
20.
cated, these results can allow for more informed decisions regard- Burke, L., Greenhalgh, S., Prager, D., Cooper, E., 2008. Coastal Capital – Economic
ing budget allocations. Such nature based solutions for economic Valuation of Coral Reefs in Tobago and St. Lucia. Working Paper Washington,
development challenges, provide excellent examples of the condi- DC: World Resources Institute Available online at http://wwwwriorg/ coastal-
capital
tions under which investments in nature’s wealth, also result in the Campbell, H.F., Brown, R.P.C., 2003. Benefit-cost Analysis Financial and Economic
increase in the wealth of nations. Appraisal Using Spreadsheets Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, United
In addition to strengthening support from policy makers, these Kingdom.
Cesar, H., 1996. Economic Analysis of Indonesian Coral Reefs. Environment
results also show a potential basis for the establishment of Department, The World Bank Group, Washington, DC, p. 103.
exploratory marine PES, by helping in the identification of the ben- Cesar, H., Beukering, P.V., 2002. Economic Valuation of the Coral Reefs of Hawaii.
eficiaries of improved marine ES (Engel et al., 2008). Clear values of Pacific Sci. 58, 231–242.
Cesar, H., Chong, C.K., 2006. Economic Valuation and Socioeconomics of Coral Reefs:
ES and impacts of investment can serve to ‘‘fine tune” the instru- Methodological Issues and Three Case Studies. WorldFish Center - Economic
ment in negotiations between providers and buyers (The Valuation and Policy Priorities for Sustainable Management of Coral Reefs
Katoomba Group and Marketplace, 2010). In parallel, the private Technical report, 250 pp.
Clua, E., Legendre, P., Vigliola, L., Magron, F., Kulbicki, M., Sarramegna, S., Labrosse,
financing of conservation with innovative tools such as impact
P., Galzin, R., 2006. Medium scale approach (MSA) for improved assessment of
investing funds (Littlefield, 2011), where capital is invested with coral reef fish habitat. J. Exp. Marine Biol. Ecol. 333, 219–228.
the explicit expectation of economic, social and environmental Cote, I.M., Mosqueira, I., Reynolds, J.D., 2001. Effects of marine reserve
returns, may be attracted by some aspects of the benefit-cost ratios characteristics on the protection of fish populations: a meta-analysis. J. Fish
Biol. 59 (A), 178–189.
for MPAs, since it could make the business case for coral reef de Wit, M., van Zyl, H., Crookes, D., Blignaut, J., Jayiya, T., Goiset, V., Mahumani, B.,
conservation. 2012. Including the economic value of well-functioning urban ecosystems in
12 N. Pascal et al. / Ecosystem Services 30 (2018) 3–13

financial decisions: evidence from a process in Cape Town. Ecosystem Services Park, T.A., Bowker, J.M., Leeworthy, V.R., 2000. Valuing snorkeling visits to the
2, 38–44. Florida keys with stated and revealed preference models. J. Environ. Manage.
Defra, 2008. An introductory guide to valuing ecosystem services. Department for 65, 301–312.
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ref: PB12852 - 68 pp. Website: http:// . The Little Biodiversity Finance Book. Global Canopy Programme, Oxford.
www.defra.gov.uk/ Parry, C.E., McElroy, J.L., 2009. The supply determinants of small island tourist
Duarte, C.M., Middleburg, J.J., 2005. Major role of marine vegetation on the oceanic economies. Ann. Tourism Res. 2 (1), 13–22.
carbon cycle. Biogeosciences 2, 1–8. Parsons, G.R., Thur, S.M., 2007. Valuing changes in the quality of coral reef
Dunn, D.C., Ardron, J., Bax, N., Bernal, P., Cleary, J., Cresswell, I., Halpin, P.N., 2014. ecosystems: a stated preference study of scuba diving in the Bonaire National
The convention on biological diversity’s ecologically or biologically significant Marine Park. working paper no 2007–18 http://lerner.udel.edu/
areas: origins, development, and current status. Marine Policy 49, 137–145. economics/workingpaper.htm
Ehrlich, P.R., 2008. Key issues for attention from ecological economists, Environ. Pascal, N., 2013. Coral Reef Ecosystem Services Economic Valuation Experiences
Develop. Econ., 13: 1–20 C. From The South Pacific. PhD dissertation Doctor of Philosophy, Department of
Engel, S., Pagiola, S., Wunder, S., 2008. Designing payments for environmental Marine Sciences, UPC, Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya (Spain), Supervisor
services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecol. Econ. 65 (2008), Dr Francesc Maynou and DrEric Clua
663–674. Pascal, N., Allenbach, M., Brathwaite, A., Burke, L., Leport, G., Clua, E., 2016.
Fahrudin, A., 2003. ‘‘Extended cost benefit analysis of present and future use of Economic valuation of coral reef ecosystem service of coastal protection: a
Indonesian coral reefs: An Empirical Approach to Sustainable Management of pragmatic approach. Ecosyst. Serv. 21 (1), 72–80.
Tropical Marine Resources.” Dissertation, Christiand-Albrechts University, Kiel, Pearce, D., Atkinson, G., Mourato, S., 2006. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the
225pp Environment: recent developments. OECD (Organisation For Economic Co-
Forest Trends Ecosystem Marketplace, Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 2014. Operation and Development), ISBN 92-64-01004-1 – Ó OECD 2006- Technical
Maneuvering the Mosaic: State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2013. A Report report, 315 pages http://wwwsourceoecdorg/environment/9264010041
by Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace & Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Pendleton, L.H., 1995. Valuing coral reef protection. Ocean Coastal Manage. 26 (2),
105 p. 119–131.
Fox, H.E., Holtzman, J.L., Haisfield, K.M., McNally, C.G., Cid, G.A., Mascia, M.B., Peters-Stanley, M., Hamilton, K., Yin, D., 2013. Leveraging the Landscape. State of
Pomeroy, R.S., 2014. How are our MPAs doing? Challenges in assessing global the Forest Carbon Markets 2012. Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace -
patterns in marine protected area performance. Coastal Manage. 42 (3), 207– Annual report, 105 pp
226. Putnam, R.D., 2006. E Pluribus Unim: diversity and community in the twenty-first
François, O., Pascal, N., 2012. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Coral Reefs and Mangroves: A century. Scandinavian Political Stud. 30 (2), 137–174.
Review of the Literature. Technical report - T 03IF2012 - IFRECOR: Initiative Raboteur, J., Rodes, M-F., 2006. Application de la méthode d’évaluation contingente
Française pour les Récifs Coralliens - Plan d’action 2011–2015 TIT économie - 43 aux récifs coralliens dans la Caraibe: étude appliquée à la zone de Pigeon de la
pp Guadeloupe Vertigo - la revue électronique en sciences de l’environnement,
Garrigós-Simón, F.J., Galdón-Salvador, J.L., Gil-Pechuán, I., 2015. The economic Volume 7 Numéro 1 | avril 2006,
sustainability of tourism growth through leakage calculation. Tourism Econ. 21, Rastoin, E., 2011. Formalisation et réalisation du protocole de suivi de la
721–739. fréquentation et enquêtes de perception dans le cadre de l’évaluation des
Gowdy, J.M., 2007. Toward an experimental foundation for benefit-cost analysis. bénéfices socio-économiques de la Réserve Naturelle Nationale de Saint-Martin.
Ecol. Econ. 63 (4), 649–655. Mémoire de fin d’études Spécialisation halieutique d’Agrocampus Ouest Pour
Gunawardena, M., Rowan, J.S., 2005. Economic valuation of a mangrove ecosystem l’obtention du Diplôme d’Agronomie Approfondie d’AgroParisTech, cursus
threatened by shrimp aquaculture in Sri Lanka. Environ. Manage. 36 (4), 535– ingénieur agronome
550. Rosenberger, R.S., Loomis, J.B., 2001. Benefit transfer of outdoor recreation use
Hajkowicz, S., Perraud, J.M., Dawes, W., DeRosw, R., 2005. The strategic landscape values: A technical document supporting the Forest Service Strategic Plan (2000
investment model: a tool for mapping optimal environmental expenditure. revision). Gen Tech Rep RMRS-GTR-72 Fort Collins, CO: US Department of
Environ. Model. Software 20 (10), 1251–1262. Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station 59 pp
Halpern, B.S., 2003. The impact of marine reserves: do reserves work and does Rudd, M.A., Danylchuk, A.J., Gore, S.A., Tupper3, M.H., 2001. Are marine protected
reserve size matter? Ecol. Appl. 13 (1), S117–S137. areas in the turks and caicos islands ecologically or economically valuable?
Halpern, B.S., Warner, R.R., 2002. Marine reserves have rapid and lasting effects. Russ, G.R., Alcala, A.C., 1998. Natural fishing experiments in marine reserves 1983–
Ecol. Lett. 5, 361–366. 1993: roles of life history and fishing intensity in family responses. Coral Reefs
INSEE, 2008. Les flux touristiques entre l’aéroport Pôle Caraiïbes et la métropole en 17, 399–412.
2007. Insee, enquête flux touristiques 2007 Sale, F.P., Cowen, R.K., Danilowicz, B.S., Jones, P.J.S., Kritzer, J.P., Lindeman, K.C.,
IUCN-WCPA, 2008. Establishing Marine Protected Area Networks—Making It Planes, S., Polunin, N.V.C., Russ, G.R., 2005. Critical science gaps impede use of
Happen. Washington, DC: IUCN-World Commission on Protected Areas, no-take fishery reserve. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 74–80.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and The Nature Salm, R.V., Clark, J.R., Siirila, E., 2000. Marine and coastal protected areas: a guide for
Conservancy, 118 p planners and managers, IUCN
Jennings, S., Polunin, N.V.C., 1995. Comparative size and composition of yield from Sifleet S, Pendleton L, Murray BC (2011) State of the science on coastal blue carbon:
six Fijian reef fisheries. J. Fish Biol. 46, 28–46. a summary for policy makers. Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy
Kinlan, B.P., Gaines, S.D., Lester, S.E., 2005. Propagule dispersal and the scales of Solutions Report NI R 11-06 (2011) - 12 pp
marine community process. Divers. Distrib. 11, 139–148. Smith, E.P., 2002. BACI design. Encyclopedia of. Environmetrics 1, 141–148.
Laurans, Y., Pascal, N., Binet, T., Brander, L., Clua, E., David, G., Rojat, D., Seidl, A., Tallis H, Yukuan W, Bin F, Bo Z, Wanze Z, Min C, Tam C, Daily G (2010) The Natural
2013. Economic valuation of ecosystem services from coral reefs in the South Capital Project, Bull. British Ecol. Soc., 41, 1: 10–13.
Pacific: taking stock of recent experience. J. Environ. Manage. 116 (2013), 135– TEEB (2010a) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Report for Business -
144. Executive Summary.
Legendre, P., Anderson, M.J., 1999. Distance-based redundancy analysis: testing TEEB (2010b) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and
multispecies responses in multifactorial ecological experiments. Ecol. Economic Foundations. Edited by Pushpam Kumar Published 6th October 2010
Monographs 69 (1), 1–24. by Routledge – 456 pages
Littlefield, E., 2011. Impact investing: roots & branches. innovations: technology. The Katoomba Group, Marketplace E (2010) Paying Poseidon: Financing the
Governance Globalization 6, 19–25. Protection of Valuable Ecosystem Services. Technical Report, Forest Trends,
Malterre, P., Bissery, C., Garnier, R., Mazeas, F., 2011. Rapport final PAMPA de Saint- The Katoomba Group, and UNEP IISBN: 978-1-932928-42-6, 80 pp
Martin, site pilote pour les Antilles françaises Rapport Technique PAMPA. Mars Tourism and Transport Consult (2005) St. Maarten Tourism Master Plan – TourMap.
2011, 63p. Final Report & Action Plan, 283 pp
Miteva, D.A., Pattanayak, S.K., Ferraro, P.J., 2012. Evaluation of biodiversity policy Turpie J, J. Barnes, J. Arntzen, B. Nherera, G. Lange, Buzwani B (2006) Economic value
instruments: what works and what doesn’tt? Oxford Rev. Econ. Policy 28, 69– of the Okavango Delta, Botswana, and implications for management..
92. International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland, and
Mora, C., Andrefouet, S., Costello, M.J., Kranenburg, C., Rollo, A., Veron, J., Gaston, K.J., Department of Environmental Affairs, Gabarone, Switzerland
Myers, R.A., 2006. Coral reefs and the global network of marine protected areas. US EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) (2013) Social cost of carbon..
Science 312, 1750–1751. Climate Change Division, US EPA Available at www epagov/climatechange/
Murray, B.C., Aaron Jenkins, W., Samantha Sifleet, Pendleton, L., Baldera, A., 2010. EPAactivities/economics/scchtml
Payments for blue carbon: potential for protecting threatened coastal habitats. Van den Bossche, F., Rogge, N., Devooght, K., Van Puyenbroeck, T., 2010. Robust
Policy brief: Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke corporate social responsibility investment screening. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1159–1169.
University, 12 pp Vanuatu National Statistics Office (2008) Main report on Household Income and
Nam, K., Beukering, P.J.H.V., 2013. Economics of Conservation for the Hon Mun Expenditure Survey (HIES), 2006. Household Income and Expenditure Survey.
Marine Protected Area in Vietnam, Nature’s Wealth, Cambridge University Press Vanuatu National Statistics Office
Web: http://dxdoiorg/101017/CBO9781139225311008 Vincent, J.R., 2010. Microeconomic analysis of innovative environmental programs
Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, 2011. Blue Carbon Data Set. in developing countries. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 4 (2), 221–233.
Last Updated: 30 November 2011 Available at: http://nicholasinstitute.duke. Weitzman, M.L., 2001. Gamma discounting. Am. Econ. Rev. (AER) 91 (1), 260–271.
edu/oceans/bluecarbon/blue-carbon-project White, A.T., Vogt, H.P., Arin, T., 2000. Philippine coral reefs under threat: the
O’Garra, T., 2012. Economic valuation of a traditional fishing ground on the coral economic losses caused by reef destruction. Marine Pollut. Bull. 40 (7), 598–
coast in Fiji. Ocean Coastal Manage. 56, 44–55. 605.
 N. Pascal et al. / Ecosystem Services 30 (2018) 3–13 13

Whittingham, E., Campbell, J., Townsley, P., 2003. Poverty and Reefs. DFID–IMM– Wielgus, J., Sala, E., Gerber, L.R., 2008. Assessing the ecological and economic
IOC/UNESCO, 260pp benefits of a no-take marine reserve. Ecol. Econ. 67, 32–40.
Wielgus, J., Cooper, E., Torres, R., Burke, L., 2010. Coastal Capital: Dominican Wilkie, D.S., Morelli, G.A., Demmer, J., Starkey, M., Telfer, P., Steil, M., 2006. Parks
Republic. Case studies on the economic value of coastal ecosystems in the and people: assessing the human welfare effects of establishing protected areas
Dominican Republic Working Paper Washington DC World Resources Institute for biodiversity conservation. Conserv. Biol. 20 (1), 247–249.
Wielgus, J., Gerber, L.R., Sala, E., Bennett, J., 2009. Including risk in stated-preference Wilson, M.A., Hoehn, J.P., 2006. Valuing environmental goods and services using
economic valuations: experiments on choices for marine recreation. J. Environ. benefit transfer: the state-of-the art and science. Ecol. Econ. 60, 335–343.
Manage. 90, 3401.