Abstract
Deforestation impacts the ecosystem services provided by downstream coral reefs to coastal communities in multiple ways, such as through increased sedimentation and nutrification. However, connections between terrestrial and marine ecosystems are generally assessed at a single scale and from an ecological perspective alone, limiting our understanding of how watershed management affects the benefits accrued by coastal communities at different scales. Here we explore how ecological and societal benefits of watershed interventions (restoration, protection and sustainable agriculture) differ when considered regionally versus nationally in the Mesoamerican Reef region, by using linked land–sea ecosystem service models. Results from a regional approach prioritize implementing interventions in larger multinational watersheds, leading to neighbouring nations benefiting from increased sediment retention and healthy corals. For the national prioritization approach, selecting for smaller watersheds within individual countries resulted in more societal benefits, particularly increased coastal protection and nature-based tourism, at the cost of improved coral health for neighbouring nations. We demonstrate how planning at multiple scales across the region can improve ecosystem and societal benefits, resulting in win–win outcomes.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The ecosystem service and optimization data are available through figshare at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22679368.v1 (ref. 87).
Code availability
Links for downloading ROOT and the InVEST open-source software are available at naturalcapitalproject.stanford.edu. The source code is available at https://github.com/natcap/invest (ref. 88). Statistical analyses were performed using the software packages R (www.r-project.org) v.4.0.2 and are available at https://github.com/jade-md/mar_r2r_paper.git (ref. 89) and ArcGIS Desktop (www.esri.com) v.10.8 with Advanced licensing and extensions Spatial Analyst and Geostatistical Analyst.
References
Young, C. A. Belize’s ecosystems: threats and challenges to conservation in Belize. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 1, 18–33 (2008).
Alongi, D. M. Carbon sequestration in mangrove forests. Carbon Manag. 3, 313–322 (2012).
Börner, J. & Vosti, S. A. in Governing the Provision of Ecosystem Services (eds Muradian, R. & Rival, L.) 21–46 (Springer, 2013).
Pearson, T. R. H., Brown, S., Murray, L. & Sidman, G. Greenhouse gas emissions from tropical forest degradation: an underestimated source. Carbon Balance Manag. 12, 3 (2017).
Carlson, R., Foo, S. & Asner, G. Land use impacts on coral reef health: a ridge-to-reef perspective. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 562 (2019).
Barbier, E. Marine ecosystem services. Curr. Biol. 27, R507–R510 (2017).
Keesstra, S. et al. The superior effect of nature based solutions in land management for enhancing ecosystem services. Sci. Total Environ. 610–611, 997–1009 (2018).
Tulloch, V. J. D. et al. Minimizing cross-realm threats from land-use change: a national-scale conservation framework connecting land, freshwater and marine systems. Biol. Conserv. 254, 108954 (2021).
Delevaux, J. M. S. et al. Place-based management can reduce human impacts on coral reefs in a changing climate. Ecol. Appl. 29, e01891 (2019).
Suárez-Castro, A. F. et al. Global forest restoration opportunities to foster coral reef conservation. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 5238–5252 (2021).
Villarreal-Rosas, J., Vogl, A. L., Sonter, L. J., Possingham, H. P. & Rhodes, J. R. Trade-offs between efficiency, equality and equity in restoration for flood protection. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 014001 (2021).
Arkema, K. K. et al. Evidence-based target setting informs blue carbon strategies for nationally determined contributions. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 7, 1045–1059 (2023).
Chan, K. M. A. & Satterfield, T. The maturation of ecosystem services: social and policy research expands, but whither biophysically informed valuation? People Nat. 2, 1021–1060 (2020).
Mandle, L. et al. Increasing decision relevance of ecosystem service science. Nat. Sustain. 4, 161–169 (2021).
Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2015).
Yalew, S. G., Kwakkel, J. & Doorn, N. Distributive justice and sustainability goals in transboundary rivers: case of the Nile basin. Front. Environ. Sci. 8, 590954 (2021).
Hossen, M. A., Connor, J. & Ahammed, F. How to resolve transboundary river water sharing disputes. Water 15, 2630 (2023).
Folkard-Tapp, H. Deforestation in Belize - what, where and why. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.23.915447 (2020).
Prist, P. R. et al. Collaboration across boundaries in the Amazon. Science 366, 699–700 (2019).
Gao, J., Castelletti, A., Burlado, P., Wang, H. & Zhao, J. Soft-cooperation via data sharing eases transboundary conflicts in the Lancang–Mekong River basin. J. Hydrol. 606, 127464 (2022).
Paris, C. B. & Chérubin, L. M. River-reef connectivity in the Meso-American region. Coral Reefs 27, 773–781 (2008).
Burke, L. & Sugg, Z. Hydrologic Modeling of Watersheds Discharging Adjacent to the Mesoamerican Reef: Analysis Summary (World Resource Institute, 2006).
Berger, M., Canty, S. W. J., Tuholske, C. & Halpern, B. S. Sources and discharge of nitrogen pollution from agriculture and wastewater in the Mesoamerican Reef region. Ocean Coast. Manag. 227, 106269 (2022).
Delevaux, J. M. S. & Stamoulis, K. A. Prioritizing forest management actions to benefit marine habitats in data-poor regions. J. Soc. Conserv. Biol. 36, e13792 (2022).
Mandle, L., Tallis, H., Sotomayor, L. & Vogl, A. L. Who loses? Tracking ecosystem service redistribution from road development and mitigation in the Peruvian Amazon. Front. Ecol. Environ. 13, 309–315 (2015).
Tallis, H., Kennedy, C. M., Ruckelshaus, M., Goldstein, J. & Kiesecker, J. M. Handbook on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Impact Assessment Ch. 17 (ed. Geneletti, D.) 397–427 (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016).
Vucetich, J. A. et al. Just conservation: what is it and should we pursue it? Biol. Conserv. 221, 23–33 (2018).
Gourevitch, J. D. et al. Optimizing investments in national-scale forest landscape restoration in Uganda to maximize multiple benefits. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 114027 (2016).
Mandle, L. in Green Growth that Works: Natural Capital Policy and Finance Mechanisms from Around the World (eds Mandle, L. et al.) 61–79 (Island Press/Center for Resource Economics, 2019).
Gress, E., Voss, J. D., Eckert, R. J., Rowlands, G. & Andradi-Brown, D. A. in Mesophotic Coral Ecosystems (eds Loya, Y. et al.) 71–84 (Springer, 2019).
Chollett, I. et al. A case for redefining the boundaries of the Mesoamerican Reef ecoregion. Coral Reefs 36, 1039–1046 (2017).
Mejía-Ortíz, L. M. et al. in Natural History and Ecology of Mexico and Central America Ch. 3 (IntechOpen, 2021).
Harborne, A. R., Afzal, D. C. & Andrews, M. J. Honduras: Caribbean coast. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 42, 1221–1235 (2001).
Kjerfve, B., McField, M., Thattai, D. & Giró, A. Coral reef health in the Gulf of Honduras in relation to fluvial runoff, hurricanes, and fishing pressure. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 172, 112865 (2021).
Fonseca E., A. C. & Arrivillaga, A. in Latin American Coral Reefs (ed. Cortés, J.) 159–169 (Elsevier, 2003).
Chérubin, L. M., Kuchinke, C. P. & Paris, C. B. Ocean circulation and terrestrial runoff dynamics in the Mesoamerican region from spectral optimization of SeaWiFS data and a high resolution simulation. Coral Reefs 27, 503–519 (2008).
Liu, J., Herzberger, A., Kapsar, K., Carlson, A. K. & Connor, T. What Is Telecoupling? in Telecoupling: Exploring Land-Use Change in a Globalised World (eds Friis, C. & Nielsen, J. Ø.) 19–48 (Palgrave Macmillan Cham, 2019).
Merz, L., Yang, D. & Hull, V. A metacoupling framework for exploring transboundary watershed management. Sustainability 12, 1879 (2020).
Belize Updated Nationally Determined Contribution (National Climate Change Office, 2021); https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/NDC/2022-06/Belize%20Updated%20NDC.pdf
Plan Estratégico Institucional 2017–2032 (El Instituto Nacional de Bosques Guatemala, 2017); http://portal.inab.gob.gt/images/planeacionestretegica/1planestrategicoinstitucional/plan_estrategico_institucional_2017_2032.pdf
Contribución Nacional Determinada de Honduras (Dirección Nacional de Cambio Climático, 2021); https://funder.org.hn/actualizacion-contribucion/
Oportunidades de Restauración Del Paisaje Forestal en Guatemala (Mesa Nacional de Restauración del Paisaje Forestal de Guatemala, 2018); https://www.inab.gob.gt/images/publicaciones/guatemala_oportunidades_de_restauracion_en_guatemala.pdf
Delevaux, J. M. S. et al. Scenario planning with linked land–sea models inform where forest conservation actions will promote coral reef resilience. Sci. Rep. 8, 12465 (2018).
Beatty, C. et al. Landscapes, at Your Service: Applications of the Restoration Opportunities Optimization Tool (ROOT) (IUCN, 2018).
Soto, I. et al. Physical connectivity in the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System inferred from 9 years of ocean color observations. Coral Reefs 28, 415–425 (2009).
Andréfouët, S., Mumby, P., McField, M., Hu, C. & Muller-Karger, F. Revisiting coral reef connectivity. Coral Reefs 21, 43–48 (2002).
Fabricius, K. E. Effects of terrestrial runoff on the ecology of corals and coral reefs: review and synthesis. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 50, 125–146 (2005).
Burnett, K. M. et al. Restoring to the future: environmental, cultural, and management trade-offs in historical versus hybrid restoration of a highly modified ecosystem. Conserv. Lett. 12, e12606 (2019).
Brown, C. J. et al. Ecosystem services in connected catchment to coast ecosystems: monitoring to detect emerging trends. Sci. Total Environ. 869, 161670 (2023).
Lachs, L. & Oñate-Casado, J. in YOUMARES 9 - The Oceans: Our Research, Our Future (eds Jungblut, S. et al.) 243–260 (Springer, 2020).
Bosire, J. O. et al. Functionality of restored mangroves: a review. Aquat. Bot. 89, 251–259 (2008).
Erftemeijer, P. L. A., Riegl, B., Hoeksema, B. W. & Todd, P. A. Environmental impacts of dredging and other sediment disturbances on corals: a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 64, 1737–1765 (2012).
Jupiter, S. D. et al. Opportunities and constraints for implementing integrated land–sea management on islands. Environ. Conserv. 44, 1–13 (2017).
Guerry, A. D. et al. Modeling benefits from nature: using ecosystem services to inform coastal and marine spatial planning. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 8, 107–121 (2012).
Almada-Villela, P., Mcfield, M., Kramer, P., Kramer, P. R. & Arias-Gonzalez, E. in Status of Coral Reefs of the World 303–324 (2002).
Mapping Landslide Hazards in Central America (NASA Earth Observatory, 2020); https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/147542/mapping-landslide-hazards-in-central-america
De Mel, M. et al. Climate Risk Information for the Mesoamerican Reef Region (Center for Climate Systems Research at Columbia University, WWF-US and WWF-Mesoamerica, 2021); https://wwflac.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/climate_risk_columbia.pdf
Gove, J. M. et al. Coral reefs benefit from reduced land–sea impacts under ocean warming. Nature 621, 536–542 (2023).
Tatem, A. J. WorldPop, open data for spatial demography. Sci. Data 4, 1–4 (2017).
Drexler, K. Government extension, agroecology, and sustainable food systems in Belize milpa communities: a socio-ecological systems approach. J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev. 9, 85–97 (2020).
Ramírez, D., Mora, J. & Acosta, A. Belize: Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, 2013).
Merrill, R. Annual General Meeting Report (Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, 2010); https://www.agriculture.gov.bz/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Annual-Report-2010.pdf
Martín-Arias, V. et al. Modeled impacts of LULC and climate change predictions on the hydrologic regime in Belize. Front. Environ. Sci. 10, 848085 (2022).
Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015: Desk Reference (FAO, 2015); http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4808e.pdf
Meerman, J. & Clabaugh, J. Belize_Ecosystems_2017. Biodiversity and Environmental Resource Data System of Belize http://www.biodiversity.bz/ (2017).
Land Use Cover of Guatemala (DIGEGR, 2015).
Honduras Land Use Cover Map (Instituto de Conservacion de Forestales Geoportal, 2015).
Meerman, J. & Clabaugh, J. Belize_Ecosystems_2001. Biodiversity and Environmental Resource Data System of Belize http://www.biodiversity.bz/ (2001).
Land Use Cover of Guatemala (DIGEGR, 2001).
ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10.4 (ESRI, 2011).
InVEST 3.9 (Natural Capital Project, 2020); http://releases.naturalcapitalproject.org/invest-userguide/latest/
Mandle, L., Ouyang, Z., Salzman, J. & Daily, G. C. Green Growth that Works: Natural Capital Policy and Finance Mechanisms Around the World (Springer, 2019).
Hamel, P., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Sim, S. & Mueller, C. A new approach to modeling the sediment retention service (InVEST 3.0): case study of the Cape Fear catchment, North Carolina, USA. Sci. Total Environ. 524–525, 166–177 (2015).
Hamel, P. et al. Sediment delivery modeling in practice: comparing the effects of watershed characteristics and data resolution across hydroclimatic regions. Sci. Total Environ. 580, 1381–1388 (2017).
Wood, S. A., Guerry, A. D., Silver, J. M. & Lacayo, M. Using social media to quantify nature-based tourism and recreation. Sci. Rep. 3, 2976 (2013).
Arkema, K. K., Fisher, D. M., Wyatt, K., Wood, S. A. & Payne, H. J. Advancing sustainable development and protected area management with social media-based tourism data. Sustainability 13, 2427 (2021).
Fisher, D. M., Wood, S. A., Roh, Y.-H. & Kim, C.-K. The geographic spread and preferences of tourists revealed by user-generated information on Jeju Island, South Korea. Land 8, 73 (2019).
Arkema, K. et al. Embedding ecosystem services in coastal planning leads to better outcomes for people and nature. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 7390–7395 (2015).
Hamstead, Z. A. et al. Geolocated social media as a rapid indicator of park visitation and equitable park access. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 72, 38–50 (2018).
Keeler, B. L. et al. Recreational demand for clean water: evidence from geotagged photographs by visitors to lakes. Front. Ecol. Environ. 13, 76–81 (2015).
Arkema, K. K. et al. Coastal habitats shield people and property from sea-level rise and storms. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 913–918 (2013).
Silver, J. M. et al. Advancing coastal risk reduction science and implementation by accounting for climate, ecosystems, and people. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 556 (2019).
Arkema, K. K. et al. Assessing habitat risk from human activities to inform coastal and marine spatial planning: a demonstration in Belize. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 114016 (2014).
Perry, C. T. et al. Caribbean-wide decline in carbonate production threatens coral reef growth. Nat. Commun. 4, 1402 (2013).
Coral Cover (Healthy Reefs, 2020); https://www.healthyreefs.org/cms/healthy-reef-indicators/coral-cover/
Maritime Boundaries Geodatabase: Maritime Boundaries and Exclusive Economic Zones (200 nm), Version 11 (Flanders Marine Institute, 2019).
Delevaux, J. M. S. et al. Watershed interventions priority areas and ecosystem services from enhancing societal and ecological benefits through land–sea planning at multiple scales in the Mesoamerican region. figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22679368.v1 (2024).
Douglass, J. et al. InVEST: models that map and value the goods and services from nature that sustain and fulfill human life. GitHub https://github.com/natcap/invest (2024).
Delevaux, J. M. S. Watershed interventions priority areas and ecosystem services from enhancing societal and ecological benefits through land-sea planning at multiple scales in the Mesoamerican region. GitHub https://github.com/jade-md/mar_r2r_paper.git (2024).
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by the International Climate Initiative (IKI) Smart Coasts SA008126 (J.M.S.D., J.M.S., S.A.W., K.K.A., S.G.W., A.B.); the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (J.M.S.D., J.M.S., K.K.A.); the National Science Foundation Coastline and People prime agreement no./FAIN no. 2104-1376-00-C, 2209284/220928 (J.M.S.D.); and the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation (J.M.S.). The International Climate Initiative (IKI) Smart Coasts supported WWF Washington DC and WWF Mesoamerica (no. 12122 (original 19020); N.B., L.C., P.V., M.A.P., R.B.) and WWF MEX (no. 12120 (original 19017); A.C.V.V.). Healthy Reefs for Healthy People and ecological data collection was supported largely by the Summit Foundation no. 505217 (M.M.) and CORESCCAM BNP-PARIBAS foundation (philanthropy agreement 2020-00000009236; A.I.M.-C.). We thank A. Guerry (The Natural Capital Project at Stanford University), L. Bremer (University of Hawai’i) and A. Giro (Healthy Reefs for Healthy People, Guatemela) for providing feedback on this article. We also thank G. Verutes for helping with data gathering and workflow development.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors were involved in the conceptualization and methodology, and contributed to reviewing and editing. J.M.S.D., J.M.S., S.G.W., S.A.W., A.B. and K.K.A. conducted the formal analysis. J.M.S.D., J.M.S., S.G.W. and K.K.A. led the writing of the original draft. J.M.S.D., J.M.S., S.G.W., S.A.W., A.B. and K.K.A. developed computer code and software for the ecosystem service and optimization models. N.B., L.C., A.C.V.V., P.V., M.A.P., R.B., M.M. and A.I.M.-C. provided data and inputs on the design and implementation of the watershed interventions, ecosystem service and optimization models.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Sustainability thanks Kaline de Mello, Chelsie Romulo and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data
Extended Data Fig. 1 Increase in ecological and societal benefits provided by the watershed interventions across the full opportunity areas.
The benefits include sediment retention (tonne per year), coastal tourism (number of people/year), extent in area (ha) of healthy coral habitat (coral percent cover > 10%), targeted fish biomass (tonne per hectare), marine tourism (number of people/year), and coastal protection (number of kilometer). (Note: Coastal tourism under sustainable agriculture was not modeled. Marine tourism was modeled for the three countries).
Extended Data Fig. 2 Mapping change of ecosystem services and coral health under the watershed protection intervention.
(a) Increase in sediment retention, by watershed, in response to the watershed protection intervention (darker blue represents greater sediment retention), and associated reduction in marine Total Suspended Sediment (TSS) (darker green represents greatest reduction in TSS), (b) increase in area (ha) of healthy coral habitat (>10% coral cover) (summarized at 1,000 ha grid cells), (c) increase in coastal forest-based tourism, and increases in (d) coastal protection, (e) targeted fish biomass, and (f) marine tourism, relative to current conditions.
Extended Data Fig. 3 Mapping change of ecosystem services and coral health under the sustainable agriculture intervention.
(a) Increase in sediment retention, by watershed, in response to the sustainable agriculture intervention (darker blue represents greater sediment retention), and associated reduction in marine Total Suspended Sediment (TSS) (darker green represents greatest reduction in TSS), (b) increase in area (ha) of healthy coral habitat (>10% coral cover) (summarized at 1,000 ha grid cells), (c) coastal tourism was not modeled for this intervention (see Supplementary Information), and increases in (d) coastal protection, (e) targeted fish biomass, and (f) marine tourism, relative to current conditions.
Extended Data Fig. 4 Mapping the potential change in coastal and marine ecosystem services after implementing watershed interventions at the regional and national scales.
(a) increase coastal and marine tourism (number of people), (b) increase targeted fish biomass (t/ha), and (c) increase coastal protection, relative to current conditions.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Methods, Tables 1–8 and Figs. 1–6.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Delevaux, J.M.S., Silver, J.M., Winder, S.G. et al. Social–ecological benefits of land–sea planning at multiple scales in Mesoamerica. Nat Sustain (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-024-01325-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-024-01325-7