Open access peer-reviewed chapter
Abstract
Development and the unsustainable use of natural resources in the coastal zone of the Mekong Delta, Vietnam, as well as erosion are threatening the protection function of the mangrove forests which protect the land behind the dyke from flooding and storms and provide co-benefits and livelihood for people in the coastal zone. These threats will be exacerbated by the impacts of climate change. Tidal flats and mangrove forests are an energy conversion system that provides ecosystem-based coastal protection. In sites where the mangrove belt has been destroyed and the tidal flat eroded, restoration of the tidal flats is a precondition for mangrove rehabilitation. Permeable bamboo fences, arranged in a T-shape, are effective for reducing erosion, stimulating sedimentation and thereby restoring tidal flats and re-creating conditions for mangrove regeneration. This cost-effective approach is only feasible within specific boundary conditions. Mangroves need to be protected from future anthropogenic destruction. This can best be achieved though co-management with the local people.
Keywords
- ecosystem-based adaptation
- coastal protection
- erosion protection
- mangrove regeneration
- co-management
1. Introduction
The coastal zone of the Mekong Delta in Vietnam is facing cumulative challenges including the unsustainable use of natural resources, pollution, development, population growth and increased consumption. These challenges are exacerbated by the impacts of climate change—increased intensity of storms, flooding and sea level rise—resulting in erosion of the muddy coastlines [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7].
As a result, 15.5% of the population of Vietnam is exposed to high coastal flood risk [8]. The traditional response to erosion and flooding is coastal protection through dykes, revetments and seawalls. This is very expensive, does not work on soft soils of mud coasts [9] and the possibility of increasing the dyke height is also limited due to the load bearing capacity of the muddy soil. The construction of concrete coastal protection elements may lead to maladaptations, or path dependencies [10, 11]. Wave attenuation by mangroves is an effective use of ecosystem services that protects dykes from erosion and the land behind the dykes from flooding, storms and sea levels rise. In sites where erosion has eroded the foreshore and destroyed the mangrove forest in front of the dyke, tidal flat management is required to restore the eroded tidal flat. This will create the pre-conditions for regeneration or rehabilitation of mangrove forests.
This can be achieved through appropriate and site-specific approaches to coastal protection. Over the last decade more and more literature has become available on this topic and authors use different terms to describe coastal protection systems that incorporate natural elements such as mangroves and tidal flats: area coastal protection [12], ecosystem-based coastal defence [13], ecological engineering [14, 15], building with nature [16, 17], engineering with nature [18], nature-based coastal defence structures [19]. All these solutions involve mangroves, which in 2011 [20] were described as important physical ecosystem engineers that can control sedimentation processes and coastal protection.
Coastal ecosystems provide cumulative benefits [21] and mangroves contribute to this by providing a wide range of ecosystem services [22, 23] which include shoreline stabilisation and protection of coastal areas from wave impacts and storms [24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29]. Using these ecosystem services can contribute to adaptation pathways that lessen cumulative pressures on coastal areas and livelihoods [30, 31]. Ecosystem-based (or area) coastal protection considers the whole area of the tidal flats and mangrove forests as an “energy conversion system” and is therefore a very effective ecosystem-based system for coastal protection. Seagrass beds and/or coral reefs become part of the area coastal protection system in sites where they grow.
Muddy tidal flats are an important stabilising element of the coastal protection system. They decrease the incoming wave energy and thereby protect the coast from flooding and erosion. The higher the tidal flat, the greater the wave dissipation capacity. This results in a considerable decrease in the wave load at the dyke. The wave reduction effect is even bigger when mangrove forests grow on the tidal flats. The resulting decrease in wave height and length leads to a shortened wave run-up which decreases the dyke height needed and thereby lowers construction costs [32, 33, 34, 35].
Vietnam is one of the six Southeast Asian nations where up to 80% of the 62% of global human-driven mangrove losses between 2000 and 2016 occurred [6]. The main anthropogenic drivers in Southeast Asia are conversion of mangrove forests to aquaculture and agriculture followed by logging. Once degraded or destroyed, the process of natural erosion is exacerbated [36]. Rates of mangrove loss have been slowing in recent years, suggesting that the importance of mangroves is becoming more widely recognised and that better management practices are being put in place [37, 38]. Nevertheless, good management practices are still often neglected in favour of mangrove planting to offset historic and ongoing mangrove loss. This can lead to malpractices in mangrove planting [39, 40, 41, 42] and highlights the need for more effective mangrove conservation.
Conservation, in the sense of protection and management, of existing ecosystems and of managed land is more effective than rehabilitation.1 Protection and management contributes 80% of the potential for cost effective climate mitigation from Nature-based Solutions2 on land [45]. The most effective pathway therefore is to maintain the health of existing mangrove forests and reduce the rate of mangrove destruction or degradation. This can best be achieved though the participatory involvement of local people and co-management or shared governance [46, 47, 48, 49, 50]. Large-scale planting of mangroves in contrast, may increase the mangrove area in the short-term, but the long-term effectiveness is limited, and involves the risk of being used as an offset for the continued destruction of existing functional and diverse mature forests. Mangrove planting, using the wrong species in the wrong sites, may also result in collateral damage to existing or adjacent habitats, biodiversity trade-off and negative impacts on the local population [41, 51, 52, 53].
Over the last at least 75 million years [54], mangroves have developed unique characteristics to cope with shoreline evolution which do not necessarily follow succession of other forest types [55, 56]. Mangrove foresters therefore need a sound understanding of mangrove ecology but also of coastal processes (waves, tides, currents and sediment transport), hydrology and morphodynamics (spatial and temporal), and use it for conservation, planting and management decisions [50, 51]. Mangroves are well-adapted to dynamic tropical coasts that are subject to destructive storms and generally recover quickly from both minor and major periodic disturbances through natural regeneration, without the need for planting [57, 58, 59, 60, 61]. In contrast, human interventions, such as dykes, dams and upstream hydropower developments, usually lead to permanent changes which may create conditions which are unsuitable for natural regeneration of mangroves.
Along muddy tropical coastlines and estuaries where severe erosion or human impact has destroyed the mangrove belt, restoration of tidal flats and their fine sediment balance is a precondition for mangrove regeneration or rehabilitation [12, 16, 35, 62, 63, 64].
This chapter will describe how eroded tidal flats (Figure 1) can be restored using bamboo T-fences as a cost-effective ecosystem-based solution which re-creates the site conditions suitable for mangrove regeneration or rehabilitation and, in addition, provides co-benefits, biodiversity conservation, and human wellbeing. The chapter also briefly explains how mangrove forests can be protected and sustainably managed and thereby reducing the risk of mangrove degradation or destruction in the future.
Figure 1.
Eroded tidal flat. The dyke protection with concrete and
2. The T-fences
Systematic land-reclamation work using breakwaters has been carried out in the Wadden Sea in Germany, The Netherlands and Denmark since the eighteenth century [65, 66]. Restoration of tidal flats, with the aim of area coastal protection, using the same principles, namely T-shaped fences, was adapted to the situation in the Mekong Delta using local materials. The most effective design of breakwaters was tested and permeable, T-shaped bamboo fences filled with soft brushwood provided the best results [67]. In other areas of the Mekong Delta cost parallel Melaleuca fences were used [68] and a comprehensive overview of managing erosion of mangrove-mud coasts with permeable dams from 5 countries in Asia and South America is provided in [64].
In the Lower Mekong Delta, a total of 7500 m of permeable T-shaped bamboo fences were installed on the east coast in Soc Trang and Bac Lieu Provinces [34]. In addition, 925 m were installed in Ca Mau Province between 2015 and 2016 (Figure 2).
Figure 2.
Map of field sites in the Mekong Delta, Viet Nam; sluice gate 4 is about 1 km southwest of No Pol.
Before placing any structures in the sea, it is important to have a sound understanding of coastal processes, hydrology and morphodynamics. This, and monitoring their impact on tidal flat restoration, will ensure that design specifications are appropriate for the site and that lee erosion can be minimised.
2.1 Numeric modelling
Numeric modelling of hydro- and sediment-dynamics provides the sound understanding and projecting of natural forces which are shaping the shoreline in order to plan the optimal placement as well as providing important boundary conditions for the design and construction of the T-fences. Information about the wave climate is essential when designing the bamboo fences. However, field measurements of waves cannot cover all weather conditions. Therefore, a numerical wave model SWAN (Simulating WAves Nearshore, www.swan.tudelft.nl) was setup, calibrated and verified to obtain the missing information using available data and data from field measurements from Vinh Tan. The numeric modelling was done in three steps. In a larger investigation area of approximately 250 km in north-south and 40 km in west-east-direction a wave model was set up from Vung Tau to Ganh Hao. The results were used as design parameters for the bamboo fences. The SWAN model was then coupled with the hydrodynamic model RMA-Kalypso (http://kalypso.wb.tu-harburg.de) to simulate currents and wave-induced currents. The results were used as input in the morphodynamic model GENESIS (Generalised Model for Simulating Shoreline Change) to simulate the shoreline changes [69] in the area of Vinh Tan based on the current and wave regimes. Structural measures such as conventional breakwaters but also the bamboo T-fences were integrated in the model and the resulting effects were simulated.
Boundary condition data on tides and wind from existing stations together with data on currents, waves, sediment concentrations and bathymetry recorded in the field were used to gain and improve the knowledge about hydrodynamic and morphodynamic processes [4, 12, 67, 70].
The modelling showed that recreating the former coastline by connecting existing headlands as shown in Figure 3 will minimise lee erosion. The idealised shoreline is a relatively stable morphologic situation which often indicates the former shoreline. Closing the eroded gaps in the mangrove belt will create a “close to natural” situation without significant downdrift erosion.
Figure 3.
Placement of T-fences to minimise lee erosion (Bac Lieu Province, Viet Nam, photo Cong Ly and G.E. Wind 2013).
2.2 Planning, design and construction of appropriate breakwaters
When designing the most effective structures to restore eroded tidal flats, their design, positioning and arrangement needs to be tested. This process started with an experimental design test and was afterwards tested and modified in the field.
The wave dampening effects of conventional breakwaters (rubble mounds) and different designs using bamboo were tested in a wave flume: 2 rows of spaced bamboo poles, 4 rows of densely packed bamboo poles, and 2 rows of bamboo poles with brushwood in between (the latter is shown in Figure 4). Bamboo was selected due to its strength, local availability and costs [71]. The densely packed design was based on bamboo fences constructed along the Upper Gulf of Thailand (Figure 5) since 2005 [72].
Figure 4.
Physical modelling of wave transmission through bamboo fence, scale 1:20 (photo T. Albers 2010).
Figure 5.
Bamboo fences in Khok Kha, Samut Sakhon Province, Thailand (photo K. Schmitt 2011).
The design with 2 rows of bamboo poles with brushwood in between provided the best results (Figure 6) and was therefore tested in the field. Different installation techniques were used to find the most efficient construction method. This included the application of a manual head ram, pressure using the weight of several people and pressure combined with vibrations, at a later stage an excavator on a pontoon was used to push the poles with the excavator shovel into the mud. Tensile tests were carried out with single and groups of poles until failure to verify the material parameters used in the theoretical design of the bamboo fences. The optimum diameter was derived from the design approach and the tensile tests. Also the calculated depths of embedment could be verified. During the first field tests different tying materials (ropes, hemp rope, rattan and stainless-steel wire) and tying techniques were tested in order to find an optimised design and construction method [67].
Figure 6.
Three different scenarios of wave transmission coefficients of bamboo fences under various hydrological conditions (modified from [
Two designs were installed at the coast in Soc Trang in 2011, a double row of bamboo fences filled with soft and one filled with stiff brushwood bundles. Wave height measurements were carried out for about 6 months to quantify the wave transmission effect of the fences during various storm and tidal conditions. Pressure transducers were installed 5 m from the fence on the sea- and landward side. The data were analysed and then summarised in significant wave heights of periods of 15 min [12].
The comparison of the results of the wave dampening effect of the physical model in the wave flume and field measurements are summarised in Figure 6. It shows the wave transmission coefficient kT in relation to a quotient of the freeboard RC and the initial significant wave height HS. The solid lines represent the best-fit through the measured values. The black triangles are the results of the physical modelling while the red squares and blue Xs are the results of the field measurements. Flexible bundles lead to smaller wave transmission coefficients than stiff bundles, and thus have a larger wave dampening effect. They can reach up to an 80% reduction of the initial wave height. This was also confirmed by [73] who concluded that fence porosity drastically affects attenuation of both high- and low-frequency waves [74] applied the numerical model SWASH to simulate the wave transmission of bamboo fences. Although the model showed transmission coefficients that were up to 30% higher than in the field study, i.e., lower wave reduction than measured, there are matching trends between the simulation results and the field measurements due to different input parameters.
The arrangement of the permeable bamboo fences consists of a long-shore and a cross-shore part. The long-shore parts dampen the incoming wave energy and the cross-shore parts decrease the long-shore currents as can be seen in Figure 7.
Figure 7.
Wave dampening effect of bamboo T-fences, Ca Mau Province, Viet Nam (photo R. Sorgenfrei 2016).
Flow and sediment transport patterns through the permeable fences and the gaps improve sediment input and accelerate the sediment consolidation process. The long-shore fences break the waves and the cross-shore parts catch sediments suspended in long-shore currents. The gaps in the long-shore fences increase sediment input into the fields created by the fences during flood tide. During ebb tide, drainage is accelerated through the gaps, and this increases the speed of the soil consolidation process in the fields (Figure 8).
Figure 8.
Flow patterns and sediment transport in the fields protected by the fences (Vf = current velocity during flood tide, Ve = current velocity during ebb tide) (from [
2.3 Fence design, boundary conditions and monitoring
The results of the field measurements and the numeric modelling, and the analysis of sediment accretion monitoring and natural regeneration of mangroves, as well as maintenance data from construction sites of bamboo T-fences were used to define the design and boundary conditions of the bamboo fences.
The fences consist of two rows of vertical bamboo poles with a mean diameter of 8 cm and brushwood bundles in the gap. The distance between the two rows is 0.40 m for cross-shore sections and 0.50 m for the long-shore sections. The distance between the vertical poles is about 0.30 m. A double row of horizontal poles is connected to the vertical poles on each side. The brushwood bundles consist of small, soft bamboo branches. Stainless steel wire is used to tie the joints. A double layer of
Figure 9.
Design of the permeable bamboo fences and resulting wave transmission (from [
The breaking force of the bamboo was estimated based on a literature review and verified by the tensile tests. The calculation of the loads on the front row of the bamboo fence resulting from current forces and acceleration forces of the tidal current as well as waves was done based on the superposition method by Morison, O’Brian, Johnson and Schaaf [75]. The rear row of the bamboo fence is loaded by the horizontal current- and tide-induced forces transmitted by the brushwood wall. The calculation of the resulting loads was done with the Coastal Engineering Design and Analysis System (CEDAS—https://www.veritechinc.com/products/cedas) based on the approaches of Miche-Rundgren and Sainflou [76] also considering slamming forces of breaking waves. Abnormal forces can result from the impact of floating items like flotsam or vessels. To address this, an impact of a 300 kg item was taken into account. Additionally a man weight of 1 kN as a vertical load was assumed for each bamboo pile.
The bamboo poles transfer horizontal loads to the ground by an elastic clamping of the pole. Thus, the static system is a bending resistant pile backed by the surrounding soil. For the geotechnical design the subgrade reaction method was used [77]. It is inferred that the horizontal pressure between the bamboo pole and the soil is proportional to the horizontal displacement of the pole. The proportionality factor ks (bedding modulus) can vary with the depth. In this case the parable of Titze was applied, that offers a good description of the distribution of ks [78]. The characteristics of the sand layer were used for the geotechnical design. The embedment depth is thus the depth in the sand layer. The mud layer is considered as a buffer layer that can grow and shrink due to external factors such as increase or decrease of incoming wave energy and does not have load-bearing attributes.
Disintegrating bamboo structures in the Upper Gulf of Thailand release floating debris which damages mangrove tree stems [72]. This problem has not been observed in the Mekong Delta where much less bamboo is used for the breakwaters then in Thailand (see Figure 5). Furthermore, the embedment depths is more than 2 times the above ground fence height, the poles are connected with stainless steel wire and monitoring and life-cycle-management ensures proper functioning of the infrastructure component. This minimises the risk of mangrove damage through floating debris. In addition, the effect of floating items with an impact of a 300 kg was considered in the fence design.
The following boundary conditions must be fulfilled to ensure that the fences, as described above, can be applied successfully:
Muddy environment; medium grain size diameter of top layer of the mud d50 < 0.03 mm
Significant wave height Hs < 0.90 m
Mean wave period Tm < 8 s
Small gradient of the tidal flat <1:1000
Hight of the fence <1.40 m (while the crest height of the fence is equivalent to the mean high-water level during spring tide)
These five boundary conditions are summarised in Figure 10. The x-axis shows 2 parameters, namely significant wave height Hs and mean wave period Tm.
Figure 10.
Five key boundary conditions within which application of bamboo T-fences is feasible (modified from
Only if all parameters measured are within the blue rectangle with rounded corners is the application of bamboo T-fences feasible. The colour gradient in the rectangle indicates that there is no clear boundary of applicability. If the limiting criteria are exceeded to some extent, adaptations, such as strengthening with concrete poles, must be considered. If the limiting criteria are greatly exceeded, an application of T-fences is not feasible.
There are additional limiting factors which should be considered. The thickness of the top mud layer indicates the amount of sediments in the system to restore the eroded tidal flats. In the Mekong Delta, > 0.50 m of mud layer has shown to be sufficient at providing enough sediment to restore sever erosion (Figure 1, the picture in Figures 11 and 12).
Figure 11.
Natural regeneration of
Figure 12.
The steps from eroded foreshore through flood plain restoration to mangrove regeneration/rehabilitation. Effective protection of the mangroves can prevent re-occurrence of erosion due to degradation or destruction of the mangroves (from [
Further, it must be considered that bamboo attracts shipworms (wood-burrowing bivalves with wormlike bodies,
The duration of submergence and exposure to waves also affect the effort required for maintenance. Long submersion weakens the construction material and larger wave forces influence the stability of the connections. The longer the duration of submergence and the higher the degree of exposure to waves, the larger is the effort required for maintenance. Of course, both input parameters correlate, since wave heights can be larger in deeper water.
T-fence monitoring and maintenance ensures proper functioning of the infrastructure component. During the first year after construction visual inspections should be carried out at monthly intervals and maintenance should be carried out where necessary. After that, visual inspections and maintenance should be carried out as a minimum after every storm season. Seasonal GPS (Global Positioning System) surveys of the shoreline at low tide can provide information if the T-fences have impacts on the shape of the nearby coastline.
2.4 Effects of T-fences
The reduction in wave height and thus in orbital velocities under waves and the flow and sediment transport in the fields created by T-fences leads to accelerated sedimentation rates [4, 70]. The reduction of wave action on the landward side of the fences also accelerates the consolidation of the mud and thus increases the stability of the sediments against erosion. The resulting restoration of the tidal flats creates the precondition for mangrove regeneration (Figure 11).
The 4 fixed-photo pictures in Figure 11 were taken between 2012 and 2015. In November 2012 the coast parallel elements of the T-fences and the gap are still visible. In the foreground gabions are visible, placed at the front of the dyke to protect it from erosion and overtopping. In February 2013 the beginning of the sedimentation can clearly be seen on the left side of the picture. In November 2013 consolidation of sediments has started from the edge towards the gaps in the T-fences. This is indicated by the change in mud colour which is darker on the right were natural regeneration of
2.5 Costs and benefits
The costs for the construction of bamboo T-fences were about US$ 50–60 per meter in 2008, the costs per meter for a 3.5 m high concrete dyke were US$ 2270 [79], based on an average exchange rate in 2008 of 16,300 Vietnam Dong per US$.
The lifespan of bamboo fences (5–7 years, pers. comm. Worapol Douglomchan 2011, Khok Kha, Samut Sakhon Province, Thailand) is sufficient for the restoration of tidal flats at coasts with adequate supply of fine-grained sediment. If sediment- and morphodynamics change over time, bamboo T-fences—in contrast to concrete construction elements of coastal protection—can easily be adjusted.
A comprehensive review of economic values of mangrove ecosystem services is provided by [21]. In northern Vietnam, for example, an initial investment of USD 1.1 million in mangrove planting saved an estimated USD 7.3 million a year in sea dyke maintenance [80]. A study from Soc Trang compared the values of mangrove planting with a dyke upgrade based on saved wealth and saved health3 [81]. The saved wealth index per USD invested for mangroves is about 19 times higher than for the dyke upgrade. In addition, mangroves are able to provide health benefits of 243 Disability-Adjusted Life Years in 20 years whereas the dyke upgrade does not deliver any positive health impacts [82].
3. Mangrove management
After successful restoration of sites suitable for mangrove growth, natural regeneration of mangroves will occur if environmental conditions are below key biophysical thresholds [12, 83]. If rates of natural regeneration are insufficient, supplementary planting of mangroves may be necessary. In such cases, appropriate species need to be planted at the right sites and at the correct time [12, 41, 84]. It is, however, essential to address the underlying factors leading to mangrove deforestation and degradation. This can best be achieved through effective protection and management of mangroves otherwise the cycle of anthropogenic degradation/destruction and expensive restoration will continue uninterrupted (Figure 12). Involving local people through co-management has shown to achieve this in an effective way which, in addition, provides co-benefits for the local population [46, 47, 48, 49].
Mangrove co-management is based on participatory negotiation, joint decision-making, a degree of power-sharing, and a fair distribution of benefits among all stakeholders. It empowers local people to negotiate with local authorities and take over the management of mangroves. A partnership agreement between the resource users and local authorities will give the user group the right to use natural resources sustainably on a defined area of state-owned land (in the case of Vietnam Protection Forest) while being held responsible for the sustainable management and effective protection of those resources.
In Au Tho B village in Soc Trang Province, mangrove co-management resulted in enhanced biodiversity, improved coastal protection and enhanced livelihoods through more income from fisheries as well as better collaboration between local people and local authorities [49]. The mangrove area under co-management in front of the village increased between 2008 and 2022 from about 70 to almost 280 ha without any planting.
4. Summary
Coastal areas are complex and dynamic ecosystems that face cumulative challenges and uncertainties due to human impacts and climate change. To address the uncertainties, complexity and adaptive capacity, a number of adaptation strategies should be used. These should contain different site specific and appropriate solutions to coastal protection and mangrove rehabilitation to avoid maladaptation, path dependencies and ultimately a reduction in adaptive capacity [31, 85, 86].
A diverse strategy which does not rely on concrete structures and which combines appropriate site-specific elements can respond in a flexible way to future scenarios about flow regimes and sediment patterns. The dynamic coastline of the Mekong Delta, for example, is largely influenced by sediment transport from the Mekong River which is predicted to diminish by 50% in 2050–2060 mainly due to hydropower development in the catchment area [87]. The need for a coastal defence strategy which is viable over time has also been identified as the solution for the dynamic mud-bank mangrove system along the coast of Guyana [88].
Knowledge of the main drivers of coastline changes and the way they influence the coastline and mangrove cover and of historical processes and coastal dynamics is also important for the development of adaptation strategies [5, 36, 89].
Fore shore management, including the stimulation of sedimentation using bamboo T-fences, is a cost-effective and sustainable approach, which does not cause any major interference with natural coastal morphodynamics if the placement of the T-fences more or less recreates the original coastline. The application therefore requires measurements of currents, waves, sediment concentrations and bathymetry as well as a sound understanding of mangrove ecology and coastal dynamics.
The wave transmission effect of bamboo T-fences is sufficient to significantly reduce wave heights and stimulate sedimentation on the landward side. The construction is cost-efficient and often more feasible than massive concrete structures on soft soil.
However, the application of T-fences has clear limits. It is only feasible within specific boundary conditions and T-fences must be sustained through a sound life-cycle-management including a maintenance strategy. If the site exceeds the amount of exposure to waves and duration of submergence, the effort for maintenance increases a lot and ultimately the use of T-fences becomes impractical. The applicability, design and layout of the T-fences, therefore, must be checked for every site and modified if required. For sites which exceed the limiting criteria to a large extent alternative solutions must be put in place.
It is essential that the mangroves are protected from human impacts once natural regeneration has occurred or mangroves have been planted otherwise the cycle of anthropogenic degradation/destruction and expensive restoration will continue. This can best be achieved by involving local people in effective protection and management of mangroves through co-management. Mangrove conservation can also supports the process of natural regeneration without the need for planting.
Ecosystem-based coastal protection using mangroves delivers a wide range of benefits. Mangrove forests provide co-benefits and livelihood for people living in the coastal zone. They contribute to protection from erosion, flooding, storms and rising sea levels. Furthermore, mangroves sequester greenhouse gases, protect biodiversity, provide a more economical solution to address coastal threats and can adapt to changing conditions.
References
- 1.
Lee SY, Dunn RJK, Young RA, Connolly RM, Dale PER, Dehayr R, et al. Impact of urbanization on coastal wetland structure and function. Austral Ecology. 2006; 31 (2):149-163. DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-9993.2006.01581.x - 2.
Carew-Reid J. Rapid Assessment of the Extent and Impact of Sea Level Rise in Viet Nam. Climate Change Discussion Paper 1. Brisbane: ICEM International Centre for Environmental Management; 2007. p. 74 - 3.
Schmidt-Thome P, Nguyen TH, Pham TL, Jarva J, Nuottimäki K. Climate change in Vietnam. In: Climate Change Adaptation Measures in Vietnam. SpringerBriefs in Earth Sciences. Cham: Springer; 2014. pp. 7-15. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-12346-2 - 4.
Schmitt K, Albers T. Area coastal protection and the use of bamboo breakwaters in the Mekong Delta. In: Nguyen DT, Takagi H, Esteban M, editors. Coastal Disasters and Climate Change in Vietnam: Engineering and Planning Perspectives. Elsevier Insights; 2014. pp. 107-132. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-800007-6.00005-8 - 5.
Joffre OM, Schmitt K. A brief history of mangrove distribution and coastline development in Soc Trang Province, Vietnam, to address coastal management strategies. Advances in Global Change Research. 2019; 64 :67-85. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-90400-9_5 - 6.
Goldberg L, Lagomasino D, Thomas N, Fatoyinbo T. Global declines in human-driven mangrove loss. Global Change Biology. 2020; 26 (10):5844-5855. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.15275 - 7.
IPCC. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. In: Pörtner H-O, Roberts DC, Tignor M, Poloczanska ES, Mintenbeck K, Alegría A, Craig M, Langsdorf S, Löschke S, Möller V, Okem A, Rama B, editors. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2022. p. 3056. DOI: 10.1017/9781009325844 - 8.
Rentschler J, Salhab M, Jafino BA. Flood exposure and poverty in 188 countries. Nature Communications. 2022; 13 (1):1-11. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-30727-4 - 9.
Kempfert H-G, Raithel M. Experiences on dike foundations and land fills on very soft soils. In: Proc. Intern. Workshop ISSMGE - Techn. Committee TC 36 “Foundation in Difficult Soft Soil Conditions”. Mexico City; 2002. pp. 176-181 - 10.
IPCC. Climate change 2001: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. In: McCarthy D, Canziani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS, editors. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001. p. 1032. DOI: 10.1002/joc.775 - 11.
Barnett J, O’Neill S. Maladaptation. Global Environmental Change. 2010; 20 (2):211-213. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.11.00 - 12.
Schmitt K, Albers T, Pham TT, Dinh SC. Site-specific and integrated adaptation to climate change in the coastal mangrove zone of Soc Trang Province, Viet Nam. Journal of Coastal Conservation. 2013; 17 (3):545-558. DOI: 10.1007/s11852-013-0253-4 - 13.
Temmerman S, Meire P, Bouma TJ, Herman PMJ, Ysebaert T, De Vriend HJ. Ecosystem-based coastal defence in the face of global change. Nature. 2013; 504 (7478):79-83. DOI: 10.1038/nature12859 - 14.
Borsje BW, van Wesenbeeck BK, Dekker F, Paalvast P, Bouma TJ, van Katwijk MM, et al. How ecological engineering can serve in coastal protection. Ecological Engineering. 2011; 37 (2):113-122. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2010.11.02 - 15.
Cheong S-M, Silliman B, Wong PP, van Wesenbeeck B, Kim C-K, Guannel G. Coastal adaptation with ecological engineering. Nature Climate Change. 2013; 3 (9):787-791. DOI: 10.1038/nclimate1854 - 16.
Winterwerp JC, Erftemeijer PLA, Suryadiputra N, Eijk P, Zhang L. Defining eco-morphodynamic requirements for rehabilitating eroding mangrove-mud coasts. Wetlands. 2013; 33 (3):515-526. DOI: 10.1007/s13157-013-0409-x - 17.
de Vriend HJ, van Koningsveld M, Aarninkhof SGJ, de Vries MB, Baptist MJ. Sustainable hydraulic engineering through building with nature. Journal of Hydro-Environment Research. 2015; 9 (2):159-171. DOI: 10.1016/j.jher.2014.06.004 - 18.
Bridges TS, Bourne EM, King JK, Kuzmitski HK, Moynihan EB, Suedel BC. Engineering with Nature: An Atlas. ERDC/EL SR-18-8. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center; 2018. p. 261. DOI: 10.21079/11681/2792 - 19.
Schoonees T, Gijón Mancheño A, Scheres B, Bouma TJ, Silva R, Schlurmann T, et al. Hard structures for coastal protection, towards greener designs. Estuaries and Coasts. 2019; 42 (7):1709-1729. DOI: 10.1007/s12237-019-00551-z - 20.
Gutiérrez JL, Jones CG, Byers JE, Arkema KK, Berkenbusch K, Commito JA, et al. Physical ecosystem engineers and the functioning of estuaries and coasts. In: Wolanski E, McLusky DS, editors. Treatise on Estuarine and Coastal Science. Vol. 7. Waltham: Academic Press; 2011. pp. 53-81. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-374711-2.00705-1 - 21.
Barbier EB, Hacker SD, Kennedy C, Koch EW, Stier AC, Silliman BR. The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecological Monographs. 2011; 81 (2):169-193. DOI: 10.1890/10-1510.1 - 22.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Wetlands and Water Synthesis. Washington DC, USA: World Resources Institute. 2005; 68. Available from: http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.358.aspx.pdf. [Accessed: January 18, 2023] - 23.
Barbier EB. Valuing ecosystem services as productive inputs. Economy Policy. 2007; 22 (49):177-229. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0327.2007.00174.x/full - 24.
Mazda Y, Magi M, Kogo M, Hong P. Mangroves as a coastal protection from waves in the Tong King Delta, Vietnam. Mangroves and Salt Marshes. 1997; 1 :127-135. DOI: 10.1023/A:1009928003700 - 25.
Alongi DM. Mangrove forests: Resilience, protection from tsunamis, and responses to global climate change. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 2008; 76 :1-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecss.2007.08.02 - 26.
Zhang K, Liu H, Li Y, Xu H, Shen J, Rhome J, et al. The role of mangroves in attenuating storm surges. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 2012; 102-103 :11-23. DOI: 0.1016/j.ecss.2012.02.021 - 27.
Lee SY, Primavera JH, Dahdouh-Guebas F, McKee K, Bosire JO, Cannicci S, et al. Ecological role and services of tropical mangrove ecosystems: A reassessment. Global Ecology and Biogeography. 2014; 23 :726-743. DOI: 10.1111/geb.12155 - 28.
Marois DE, Mitsch WJ. Coastal protection from tsunamis and cyclones provided by mangrove wetlands—A review. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management. 2015; 11 (1):71-83. DOI: 10.1080/21513732.2014.997292 - 29.
Sandilyan S, Kathiresan K. Mangroves as bioshield: An undisputable fact. Ocean and Coastal Management. 2015; 103 :94-96. DOI: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.11.011 - 30.
Arkema KK, Guannel G, Verutes G, Wood SA, Guerry A, Ruckelshaus M, et al. Coastal habitats shield people and property from sea-level rise and storms. Nature Climate Change. 2013; 3 (10):913-918. DOI: 10.1038/nclimate1944 - 31.
Smith TF, Thomsen DC, Gould S, Schmitt K, Schlegel B. Cumulative pressures on sustainable livelihoods: Coastal adaptation in the Mekong Delta. Sustainability. 2013; 5 (1):228-241. DOI: 10.3390/su5010228 - 32.
Horstman EM, Dohmen-Janssen CM, Narra PMF, van den Berg NJF, Siemerink M, Hulscher SJMH. Wave attenuation in mangroves: A quantitative approach to field observations. Coastal Engineering. 2014; 94 :47-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.coastaleng.2014.08.005 - 33.
Spalding MD, McIvor AL, Beck MW, Koch EW, Möller I, Reed DJ, et al. Coastal ecosystems: A critical element of risk reduction. Conservation Letters. 2014; 7 (3):293-301. DOI: 10.1111/conl.12074 - 34.
Albers T, Schmitt K. Dyke design, floodplain restoration and mangrove co-management as parts of an area coastal protection strategy for the mud coasts of the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Wetlands Ecology and Management. 2015; 23 (6):991-1004. DOI: 10.1007/s11273-015-9441-3 - 35.
Reed D, van Wesenbeeck B, Herman PMJ, Meselhe E. Tidal flat-wetland systems as flood defenses: Understanding biogeomorphic controls. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 2018; 213 :269-282. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecss.2018.08.017 - 36.
Thomas N, Lucas R, Bunting P, Hardy A, Rosenqvist A, Simard M. Distribution and drivers of global mangrove forest change, 1996-2010. PLoS One. 2017; 12 (6):1-14. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179302 - 37.
Friess DA, Yando ES, Abuchahla GMO, Adams JB, Cannicci S, Canty SWJ, et al. Mangroves give cause for conservation optimism, for now. Current Biology. 2020; 30 (4):R153-R154. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2019.12.054 - 38.
Spalding M, Leal M. The state of the World’s Mangroves. Global Mangrove Alliance. 2021; 2021 :79 - 39.
Turner R, Lewis R. Hydrologic restoration of coastal wetlands. Wetlands Ecology and Management. 1997; 4 (2):65-72 - 40.
Samson MS, Rollon RN. Growth performance of planted mangroves in the Philippines: Revisiting forest management strategies. Ambio. 2008; 37 (4):234-240. DOI: 10.1579/0044-7447(2008)37[234:gpopmi]2.0.co;2 - 41.
Lee SY, Hamilton S, Barbier EB, Primavera J, Lewis RR. Better restoration policies are needed to conserve mangrove ecosystems. Nature Ecology and Evolution. 2019; 3 (6):870-872. DOI: 10.1038/s41559-019-0861-y - 42.
Wodehouse DCJ, Rayment MB. Mangrove area and propagule number planting targets produce sub-optimal rehabilitation and afforestation outcomes. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 2019; 222 :91-102. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecss.2019.04.003 - 43.
Field CD. Mangrove rehabilitation: Choice and necessity. Hydrobiologia. 1999; 413 :47-52. DOI: 10.1023/A:1003863415354 - 44.
Cohen-Shacham E, Walters G, Janzen C, Maginnis S. Nature-Based Solutions to Address Societal Challenges. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature; 2016. p. 79. DOI: 10.2305/IUCN.CH.2016.13.en - 45.
Girardin CAJ, Jenkins S, Seddon N, Allen M, Lewis SL, Wheeler CE, et al. Nature-based solutions can help cool the planet - if we act now. Nature. 2021; 593 (7858):191-194. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-021-01241-2 - 46.
Borrini-Feyerabend G, Taghi Farvar M, Nguinguiri JC, Ndangang V. Co-Management of Natural Resources: Organising, Negotiating and Learning-by-Doing. Heidelberg, Kasparek Verlag; 2000. 95. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327039413_Co-management_of_natural_resources_organising_negotiating_and_learning-by-doing . [Accessed: January 18, 2023] - 47.
Borrini-Feyerabend G, Pimbert M, Farvar MT, Kothari A, Renard Y. Sharing Power: Learning by Doing in co-Management of Natural Resources throughout the World. Tehran: IEED and IUCN/CEESP/CMWG, Cenesta; 2004. p. 456. Available from: https://www.iied.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/migrate/G01089.pdf [Accessed: January 18, 2023] - 48.
Erdman E, Merrill P, Mongdong M, Arsyad I, Harahap Z, Pangalila R, et al. Building Effective Co-Management Systems for Decentralized Protected Areas Management in Indonesia: Bunaken National Park Case Study. Jakarta, Indonesia: Natural Resources Management Program; 2004. p. 137 - 49.
Schmitt K. Mangrove planting, community participation and integrated management in Soc Trang Province, Viet Nam. In: Macinthosh DJ, Mahindapala R, Markopoulos M, editors. Sharing Lessons on Mangrove Restoration. Bangkok, Thailand: Mangroves for the Future and Gland. Switzerland: IUCN; 2012. pp. 205-225. Available from: http://mangrovesforthefuture.org/assets/Repository/Documents/Call-for-Action-and-Proceedings-from-2012-Colloquium-Mamallapuram-India.pdf. [Accessed: January 18, 2023] - 50.
Hai NT, Dell B, Phuong VT, Harper RJ. Towards a more robust approach for the restoration of mangroves in Vietnam. Annals of Forest Science. 2020; 77 (1). DOI: 10.1007/s13595-020-0921-0 - 51.
Schmitt K, Duke NC. Mangrove management, assessment, and monitoring. In: Pancel L, Köhl M, editors. Tropical Forestry Handbook. 2nd ed. Vol. 2. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2016. pp. 1725-1759. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-54601-3_126 - 52.
Scheidel A, Work C. Forest plantations and climate change discourses: New powers of ‘green’ grabbing in Cambodia. Land Use Policy. 2018; 77 :9-18. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.04.057 - 53.
Lewis S, Wheeler CE, Mitchard ETA, Koch A. Regenerate natural forests to store carbon. Nature. 2019; 568 (7750):25-28. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-01026-8 - 54.
Gee CT. The mangrove palm Nypa in the geologic past of the new world. Wetlands Ecology and Management. 2001; 9 (3):181-203. DOI: 10.1023/A:1011148522181 - 55.
Duke NC, Ball MC, Ellison JC. Factors influencing biodiversity and distributional gradients in mangroves. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters. 1998; 7 (1):27-47. DOI: 10.2307/2997695 - 56.
Alongi DM. Icarus revisited: Tropical forests, REDD+ and ecosystem dynamics. Carbon Management. 2013; 4 (5):469-472. DOI: 10.4155/cmt.13.4 - 57.
Jimenez J, Lugo A, Cintron G. Tree mortality in mangrove forests. Biotropica. 1985; 17 (3):177-185. DOI: 10.2307/2388214 - 58.
FAO. Mangrove Forest Management Guidelines. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 1994. p. 321 - 59.
Alongi DM. The Energetics of Mangrove Forests. New York: Springer Science + Business Media B. V; 2009. p. 211 - 60.
Long J, Giri C, Primavera J, Trivedi M. Damage and recovery assessment of the Philippines’ mangroves following Super Typhoon Haiyan. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2016; 109 (2):734-743. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.06.080 - 61.
Primavera JH, del Cruz M, Montilijao C, Consunji H, del Paz M, Rollon RN, et al. Preliminary assessment of post-Haiyan mangrove damage and short-term recovery in Eastern Samar, Central Philippines. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2016; 109 (2):744-750. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.05.050 - 62.
Winterwerp JC, Borst WG, de Vries MB. Pilot study on the erosion and rehabilitation of a mangrove mud coast. Journal of Coastal Research. 2005; 21 (2):223-230. DOI: 10.2112/03-832A.1 - 63.
Elliott M, Mander L, Mazik K, Simenstad C, Valesini F, Whitfield A, et al. Ecoengineering with ecohydrology: Successes and failures in estuarine restoration. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 2016; 176 :12-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecss.2016.04.003 - 64.
Winterwerp JC, Albers T, Anthony EJ, Friess DA, Mancheño AG, Moseley K, et al. Managing erosion of mangrove-mud coasts with permeable dams – Lessons learned. Ecological Engineering. 2020; 158 :106078. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2020.106078 - 65.
Probst B. Deichvorlandbewirtschaftung im Wandel der Zeit. Die Küste. 1996; 58 :47-60 - 66.
Bakker J, Esselink P, Dijkema KS, van Duin WE, de Jong DJ. Restoration of salt marshes in the Netherlands. Hydrobiologia. 2002; 478 :29-51. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017-1335-1_3 - 67.
Albers T, von Lieberman N. Current and Erosion Modelling Survey. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Management of Natural Resources in the Coastal Zone of Soc Trang Province. Vietnam. 2011; 2011 :72. Available from:http://coastal-protection-mekongdelta.com/download/library/34.Current%20and%20Erosion%20Modelling%20Survey%20in%20Soc%20Trang_2011_EN.pdf. [Accessed: January 28, 2023] - 68.
Van Cuong C, Brown S, To HH, Hockings M. Using Melaleuca fences as soft coastal engineering for mangrove restoration in Kien Giang, Vietnam. Ecological Engineering. 2015; 81 :256-265. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.04.031 - 69.
Hanson H, Kraus NC. GENESIS: Generalized model for simulating shoreline change, report 1: Technical reference. Tech. Rep. CERC-89-19. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksbur. 1989; 185 p & 6 appendix. 1989. Available from: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA217305. [Accessed: January 28, 2023] - 70.
Albers T, San DC, Schmitt K. Shoreline management guidelines: Coastal protection in the lower Mekong Delta. In: Deutsche Gesellschaft für International Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. Soc Trang, Vietnam; 2013. p. 124. Available from: http://coastal-protection-mekongdelta.com/download/library/40.Shoreline-Management-Guidelines_EN.pdf [Accessed: January 18, 2023] - 71.
Halide H, Brinkman R, Ridd P. Designing bamboo wave attenuators for mangrove plantations. Indian Journal of Marine Sciences. 2004; 33 (3):220-225 - 72.
Pranchai A, Jenke M, Berger U. Well-intentioned, but poorly implemented: Debris from coastal bamboo fences triggered mangrove decline in Thailand. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2019; 146 (July):900-907. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.07.055 - 73.
Thieu Quang T, Mai TL. Monsoon wave transmission at bamboo fences protecting mangroves in the lower Mekong Delta. Applied Ocean Research. 2020; 101 :102259. DOI: 10.1016/j.apor.2020.102259 - 74.
Dao T, Stive MJF, Hofland B, Mai T. Wave damping due to wooden fences along mangrove coasts. Journal of Coastal Research. 2018; 34 (6):1317-1327. DOI: 10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-18-00015.1 - 75.
Sarpkaya T. Force on a circular cylinder in viscous oscillatory flow at low Keulegan-Carpenter numbers. Journal of Fluid Mechanics. 1986; 165 :61-71. DOI: 10.1017/S0022112086002999 - 76.
SPM. Shore protection manual. Coastal Engineering Research Center. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers PC Box 631 Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180 r Vv H I 1984. 4th ed. Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA; 1984. p. 800. Available from: https://www.academia.edu/39978786/SHORE_PROTECTION_MANUAL_DEPARTMENT_OF_THE_ARMY_Waterways_Experiment_Station_Corps_of_Engineers_PC_Box_631_Vicksburg_Mississippi_39180_r_Vv_H_I_1984_Approved_For_Public_Release_Distribution_Unlimited_Prepared_for_DEPARTMENT_OF_THE_ARMY. [Accessed: January 18, 2023] - 77.
Ziaie-Moayed R, Janbaz M. Effective parameters on modulus of subgrade reaction in clayey soils. Journal of Applied Sciences. 2009; 9 (2):4006-4012. DOI: 10.3923/jas.2009.4006.4012 - 78.
Terzaghi K, Peck RB, Mesri G. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons. New York: Chichester, Brisbane, Toronto, Singapore; 1996. p. 512 - 79.
Hillen M. Safety Standards Project: Risk Analysis for New Sea Dike Design Guidelines in Vietnam. Delft University of Technology. Delft; 2008. p. 68. Available from: https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:59fd0624-9ad9-4eb7-ad9c-14164e904dfc/datastream/OBJ/download. [Accessed: January 18, 2023] - 80.
Brown O, Crawford A, Hammill A. Natural disasters and resource rights, building resilience, rebuilding lives. International institute for. Sustainable Development. 2006; 2006 :28. Available from:https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/tas_natres_disasters.pdf [Accessed: January 18, 2023] - 81.
Stadelmann M, Michaelowa A, Butzengeiger-Geyer S, Köhler M. Universal metrics to compare the effectiveness of climate change adaptation projects. In: Leal Filho W, editor. Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2015. pp. 2143-2160. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-38670-1_128 - 82.
Köhler M, Michaelowa A. Saved health, saved wealth: An approach to quantifying the benefits of climate change adaptation. In: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. Eschborn, Germany; 2013. p. 52. Available from: https://www.adaptationcommunity.net/?wpfb_dl=139. [Accessed: January 18, 2023] - 83.
Friess DA, Rogers K, Lovelock CE, Krauss KW, Hamilton SE, Lee SY, et al. The state of the World's mangrove forests: Past, present, and future. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 2019; 44 (1):89-115. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033302 - 84.
Lovelock CE, Brown BM. Land tenure considerations are key to successful mangrove restoration. Nature Ecology and Evolution. 2019; 3 (8):1135. DOI: 10.1038/s41559-019-0942-y - 85.
Munang RT, Thiaw I, Rivington M. Ecosystem management: Tomorrow’s approach to enhancing food security under a changing climate. Sustainability. 2011; 3 :937-954. DOI: 10.3390/su3070937 - 86.
Magnan AK, Schipper ELF, Burkett M, Bharwani S, Burton I, Eriksen S, et al. Addressing the risk of maladaptation to climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. 2016; 7 (5):646-665. DOI: 10.1002/wcc.409 - 87.
Nguyen VM, Nguyen VD, Nguyen NH, Kummu M, Merz B, Apel H. Future sediment dynamics in the Mekong Delta floodplains: Impacts of hydropower development, climate change and sea level rise. Global Planet Change. 2015; 127 :22-33. DOI: 10.3390/su3070937 - 88.
Anthony EJ, Gratiot N. Coastal engineering and large-scale mangrove destruction in Guyana, South America: Averting an environmental catastrophe in the making. Ecological Engineering. 2012; 47 :268-273. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.07.005 - 89.
Richards DR, Friess DA. Rates and drivers of mangrove deforestation in Southeast Asia, 2000-2012. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2016; 113 (2):344-349. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1510272113
Notes
- The terms rehabilitation and restoration are often used synonymously, but they have distinct meanings and are used in this chapter accordingly. Rehabilitation means "to make suitable again" while restoration to rebuild, to re-establish. In an ecological context, rehabilitation refers to "return … degraded mangrove land to a fully functional mangrove ecosystem regardless of the original state of the degraded land", or in other words to convert a degraded system to a more stable condition ([43], p. 47).
- Nature-based Solutions (NbS) are actions addressing key societal challenges through the protection, sustainable management and restoration of both natural and modified ecosystems, benefiting both biodiversity and human well-being [44].
- Saved Wealth covers the monetary value of public infrastructure, private property and income loss; Saved Health covers avoided disease, disability and live loss, it is a concept to quantify the burden of disability and death, expressed as the number of years lost due to disability and early death.