Skip to main content
PMC home page
Ambio logoLink to Ambio
. 2022 Dec 9;52(3):546–555. doi: 10.1007/s13280-022-01811-2

Potential of seagrass habitat restorations as nature-based solutions: Practical and scientific implications in Indonesia

Husen Rifai 1, Jay Mar D Quevedo 2, Kevin Muhamad Lukman 1, Calyvn F A Sondak 3, Johan Risandi 1,4, Udhi Eko Hernawan 1, Yuta Uchiyama 5, Rohani Ambo-Rappe 6, Ryo Kohsaka 2,✉
PMCID: PMC9849659  PMID: 36484926

Abstract

Seagrasses offer diverse ecosystem services, yet, they are among the most threatened ecosystems. When degraded or destroyed, their services are lost or reduced in the process, affecting, for instance, local communities directly dependent on their livelihood provision. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that climate change is projected to worsen over time; thus, there is an urgent need for mitigation strategies in practice and also in the longer term. This work aims to provide an alternative perspective of seagrass restoration as a nature based solution (NbS) on a global scale, yet, giving an emphasis on tropical regions such as Indonesia. We focused on seagrass restorations which are not yet well established in comparison with other restoration programs (e.g., mangroves) despite their critical roles. We present in this work how restoring seagrass meadows fits the global standard of NbS published by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The results of this study can serve as a basis for promoting seagrass restorations as NbS against climate change particularly in countries with a wide extent of seagrass coverage.

Keywords: Blue carbon, Climate change mitigation, Ecosystem services, Local stakeholders, Societal challenges

Introduction

Seagrasses are marine flowering plants found on the coasts of all continents except Antarctica (Duarte 2002). Seagrass meadows are among the most important and productive marine ecosystems globally, providing multiple and essential ecosystem services that directly or indirectly benefit people (Cullen-Unsworth et al. 2014). For instance, seagrass meadows provide a habitat for multiple life stages of commercially valuable fishes and invertebrates, support local communities as food and livelihood sources, improve water quality, stabilize sediment and prevent resuspension, and offer coastal protection services by attenuating wave and tidal current energy (e.g., Fourqurean et al. 2012; Christianen et al. 2013; Unsworth et al. 2014; Quevedo et al. 2020, 2022; McKenzie et al. 2021). Additionally, seagrasses along with mangroves and salt marshes, collectively known as blue carbon ecosystems (BCEs), have gained renewed global attention for their essential role in climate change mitigation (Duarte et al. 2013) because of their efficient sediment accumulation capacity, which makes them sequester and store organic carbon in sediments for the long term (Miyajima et al. 2021). Thus, recently, there has been an increase in scientific investigations of seagrass blue carbon, for instance, in policy and financial scheme discussions such as in carbon–neutral policies and carbon offsetting (e.g., Kuwae et al. 2022).

Despite all the essential benefits they provide at the local and global scales, there has been a decline in seagrass cover globally, which is mainly attributed to anthropogenic disturbances (Duarte 2002; Orth et al. 2006). For instance, in Southeast Asia, where seagrass diversity is considered a global hotspot, seagrass meadows are declining, with an estimated average decline of 5% per year from 2000 to 2020 due to multiple human-induced stressors such as increasing coastal populations, unregulated coastal development, unsustainable tourism industry, and destructive fishing techniques (Waycott et al. 2009; Fortes et al. 2018). Among the countries in Southeast Asia, Indonesia, which has the largest extent of seagrass meadows (Fortes et al. 2018), has seen a decline of 30–40% in seagrass cover since the 1960s caused by multiple stressors including aquaculture expansion and coastal development (Alongi et al. 2016; Unsworth et al. 2018b). When these ecosystems are degraded, their beneficial ecosystem services are reduced or lost in the process (Cullen-Unsworth et al. 2014). In Indonesia, seagrass degradation could potentially lose 5.62–8.40 tons of sequestered C ha-1 y-1 (Wahyudi et al. 2020), which is at least two-fold higher than the global average (2.78 ton C ha-1 y-1) (Duarte et al. 2013). Meanwhile, at the local level, it can potentially affect coastal communities, particularly their livelihoods (e.g., Lukman et al. 2021; Quevedo et al. 2021a). Thus, a call to improve the management, conservation, and restoration of seagrasses is urgently needed in Indonesia (Unsworth et al. 2018b; Rifai et al. 2022), which is in line with global initiatives such as United Nations (UN) Decade on Ecosystem Restoration from 2021 to 2030 (Fischer et al. 2021).

Historically, seagrass restoration efforts have been typically implemented across small spatial extents limited to a few hectares partially due to the time and money required for the methods used (Orth et al., 2006). In addition, there is also a lack of up-to-date information on the status and condition of many seagrass meadows, which are essential details to have for seagrass conservation (Unsworth et al. 2019). Seagrasses, in general, received limited attention both in scientific investigation and management agendas, and are often included with other ecosystems. For example, in the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES 2018) regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Asia and the Pacific, seagrasses are given a separate focus as “seagrass beds” and “other algal communities” along with “mangroves” or “coral and other reefs.”

However, current trends of seagrass restoration and conservation are increasing partially because of the renewed interest in seagrass meadows in the blue carbon (climate change mitigation) contexts (Shilland et al. 2021), though, it is known that seagrass rehabilitation or restoration is a slow process, with years to decades to observe a successful recolonization (Leschen et al. 2010). Aside from its significant contribution to global climate change mitigation, seagrass restoration leads to the recovery of other beneficial ecosystem services such as improved water quality, increased epifauna invertebrate population, and fishery industry (Lefcheck et al. 2017; Edward 2018; Orth et al. 2020). Thus, seagrass restoration can be considered a nature-based solution (NbS), which is defined by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN 2016) as “actions to protect, manage and restore natural or modified ecosystems, that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits.” The concept of NbS as described above, therefore, relates or overlaps with other approaches such as Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA), where adaptation policies and measures are geared toward the management of the natural environment (ecosystems) to reduce the vulnerability of society to climate change (Vignola et al. 2009). According to the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), the concept of EbA is similar or related to NbS (both approaches aim to manage the nature or ecosystems to produce positive outcomes—ecosystem services or benefits for society [Nesshöver et al. 2017]), however, NbS includes a broader range of approaches with safeguards, such as those that contribute to adaptation and mitigation (IPCC 2022). Thus, NbS has often been used as an ‘umbrella concept’ for these established concepts (e.g., EbA, Green–blue infrastructure, Ecosystem Approach) (Nature 2017; Nesshöver et al. 2017).

The NbS can be categorized into five main approaches including (1) ecosystem restoration, (2) issue-specific ecosystem-related, (3) ecosystem-based management, (4) ecosystem protection approaches, and (5) infrastructure-related approaches (Cohen-Shacham et al. 2016). In this paper, we specifically focused on the seagrass ecosystem restoration approach as NbS to, for instance, climate change (United Nations Environment Programme 2020). To date, applying seagrass restoration in the context of NbS is still limited globally in comparison with other ecosystems such as mangroves (e.g., Gijsman et al. 2021; Quevedo et al. 2021b). This paper aims to address this knowledge gap and provide a different perspective on seagrass restorations. Specifically, we used the global standards of NbS published by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN 2020) and provided substantial evidence on how seagrass restoration fits the criteria of IUCN’s framework (Table 1). There are eight criteria published by the IUCN (2020), however, we only focused on criterions one to five since we aim to provide conceptual evidence of seagrass restoration as NbS. The other three criteria (criterions 6 to 8) are related to implementation and mainstreaming actions (Quevedo et al., 2021b). We envisage that by providing NbS perspectives of seagrass restorations, the approach will be more appealing to stakeholders and policymakers, especially in the context of climate change mitigation and adaptation through carbon sequestration and other valuable ecosystem services (e.g., Wahyudi et al. 2020; Quevedo et al. 2022).

Table 1.

The eight criteria of the global standard of nature-based solutions (NbS) (IUCN 2020)

Criteria Description
1 NbS effectively address societal challenges
2 The design of NbS is informed by scale
3 NbS result in a net gain in biodiversity and ecosystem integrity
4 NbS are economically viable
5 NbS is based on inclusive, transparent, and empowering governance processes
6 NbS equitably balance trade-offs between the achievement of their primary goal(s) and the continued provision of multiple benefits
7 NbS are managed adaptively, based on evidence
8 NbS are sustainable and mainstreamed within an appropriate jurisdictional context
Open in a new tab

Criterion 1: Seagrass restorations address societal challenges

The first criterion ensures that NbS effectively addresses societal challenges, understands clearly these challenges, and delivers substantive benefits to human well-being in response to these challenges (IUCN 2020). There are several major societal challenges mentioned by the IUCN (2016) such as climate change mitigation and adaptation, disaster risk reduction, and economic and social development. Climate change has become an increasingly discussed issue due to its impact on humans, and many climate change mitigation efforts have been carried out by optimizing the utilization of resources on land and sea (Dewi et al. 2020). Conservation and restoration of BCEs, such as seagrass meadows, are excellent examples of NbS to achieve sustainable development goals (SDGs) of climate action (Herr and Landis 2016; Fauzi et al. 2021).

Seagrasses potentially mitigate the impacts of climate change, for instance, they could reduce the impact of sea-level rise, and have a great ability to lower sea surface temperature (Rustam et al. 2017). Additionally, these habitats have a high potential as large organic carbon sinks because of their efficient sediment accumulation capacity, which makes them sequester and store organic carbon in sediments for the long term (Miyajima et al. 2021). However, there are countries (e.g., Indonesia, the Philippines) where communities are less aware of the role of seagrass meadows in climate change mitigation (Lukman et al. 2021; Quevedo et al. 2021a). In greater Southeast Asia, there is the challenge of socio-economic and cultural disconnect for the seagrass ecosystems due to the lack of appreciation and understanding of seagrass utilization and value (Fortes et al. 2018). Thus, capacity building of coastal communities to increase the awareness and utilization of seagrass ecosystem services, which is beneficial for the socio-economic aspects (e.g., fishing and gleaning livelihood source, tourism potential) (Quevedo et al. 2022), will be needed as an integral part of the NbS management.

Indonesia is one of the countries with expansive seagrass habitats; enabling them to store a significant portion of the world’s blue carbon, thus, these important habitats will significantly assist the country’s mitigation efforts in reducing the impact of climate change (Rifai et al. 2022). To date, the state of Indonesia’s seagrass compromises both resilience to climate change and ecosystem services provision (Unsworth et al. 2018a). A science-backed or evidence-based plan for restoring degraded BCEs will build climate change resilience and improve livelihoods (Murdiyarso et al. 2018). For example, a low-carbon development agenda consisting of blue carbon development programs and governance support could unlock the social, environmental, and economic benefits of blue carbon (Murdiyarso et al. 2015). Moreover, the inclusion of blue carbon in the Paris Agreement has created a platform for Indonesia to put coastal conservation at the heart of climate mitigation (Unsworth et al. 2018a). However, to date, there are no specific laws and/or regulations in Indonesia dedicated to seagrass ecosystems (Rifai et al. 2022), despite the country’s recognition to manage and conserve carbon sinks (Stankovic et al. 2022). Nevertheless, a new set of regulations with guidelines and plans for carbon trading to achieve their nationally determined contribution (NDC) (Situmorang and Putri 2022) is currently under preparation (Stankovic et al. 2021). As described in Presidential Regulation No. 98 of 2021, the carbon trading scheme will cover energy, agriculture, forestry, and other sectors (Situmorang and Putri 2022). This progress can open opportunities for the implementation of seagrass restoration in Indonesia as NbS to address the impacts of climate change.

Criterion 2: Seagrass restorations can cover a wide scale

Among the criteria, this criterion is complex since it discusses that NbS designs should (a) recognize and respond to interactions between economy, society, and ecosystems, (b) integrate with other complementary interventions and promote synergies across sectors, (c) and incorporate risk identification and risk management beyond the intervention site (IUCN 2020). The review article of Tan et al. (2020) presents a good example of how seagrass restoration fits the second criteria of NbS. For instance, they presented pre-restoration considerations including (1) clear accountability and (2) adequate resourcing and strategic prioritization of efforts, which we cautiously interpreted as design considerations before implementing NbS. In the first consideration, Tan et al. (2020) highlighted that enabling policies and legislations will facilitate broad-scale seagrass restoration efforts; citing the Catchment Management Framework in Victoria, Australia, which incorporates environmental, economic, and social considerations for coordinated management, as an example. In the second consideration, they further emphasized the importance of identifying the intervention site, where synergies among sectors (e.g., social, environmental, and cost) are possible. Moreover, Tan et al. (2020) discussed that restoration programs should be holistic and cover a broader scale (e.g., whole landscape and associated benefits) rather than a single entity.

The study of Valdez et al. (2020) is another example of how seagrass restoration if implemented in the context of NbS meets the second criterion. They reviewed and documented the beneficial effects of integrating positive species interactions in seagrass restoration designs. For instance, in long-distance facilitations, which occur when seagrasses are benefited by other species that are in adjacent areas or not in direct contact (e.g., mangroves), challenges in seagrass restoration such as light limitation and nutrient stress can be mitigated; mangroves can remove particulates from the water, thus, help in addressing light available for seagrasses (van de Koppel et al. 2015). Valdez et al. (2020) noted that integrating long-distance facilitation into site selection for restoration projects will likely result in a positive outcome, though further research is needed.

Seagrass restoration helps protect tropical beaches from erosion (James et al. 2019), which in turn protects nearby physical assets (e.g., hotels, beachfront pavements) and the economy (e.g., tourism industry). Thus, nature-based foreshore stabilization can be implemented as a long-term solution in coastal areas with high erosion rates, as documented in the study conducted by James et al. (2019). Their study showed the long-term efficacy of nature-based beach management by evaluating coastal areas with vegetation and without vegetation. In Indonesia, coastal erosion hinders the socio-economic development of coastal zones such as on the northern coast of Java Island. Implementing seagrass restoration is an alternative to traditional hard-built structures (e.g., seawalls, jetties), and it can be a more sustainable and resilient long-term solution (Solihuddin et al. 2021). Alternatively, seagrass restoration can be applied together with existing hard-built infrastructures. The presence of coastal vegetations at the offshore side of the infrastructures dissipate wave energy, which in turn reduces the load to built structures, thereby prolonging the service and protection of other physical assets (Vuik et el. 2016).

Criterion 3: Seagrass restorations can result in biodiversity gain and ecosystem integrity

This criterion sets guidelines that NbS result in a net gain to biodiversity and ecosystem integrity (IUCN 2020). The design and implementation of NbS must consider the integrity of the target ecosystem and proactively seek to enhance the connectivity with other ecosystems. Furthermore, by identifying clear and measurable biodiversity outcomes, NbS can set targets for conservation activities. There are existing studies that documented increased biodiversity following a successful seagrass restoration program. For instance, the study conducted by Edward (2018) in the Gulf of Mannar, India showed that the population of associated organisms such as fish and other macrofauna was proportional to the increase of seagrass cover. Similarly, Lefcheck et al. (2017) observed that after less than a decade of seagrass restoration in the coastal bays of the midwestern Atlantic, USA, the invertebrate community became richer and exhibited greater variation in functional traits resulting from the increasing density of eelgrass. Additionally, successful seagrass restoration programs have led to ecosystem integrity with evidence showing a rapid recovery of seagrass ecosystem services (Orth et al. 2020).

One of the indicators to develop NbS under this criterion is that the current state of seagrass meadows in the target site should be well established (IUCN 2020). This becomes a challenge since the global distribution and status of seagrass meadows are difficult to monitor and map, and there are still regions with seagrass meadows remaining to be explored (Unsworth et al. 2019). However, studies and techniques on seagrass mapping are advancing and more regions are now being identified and quantified. For instance, McKenzie et al. (2022) mapped the seagrass cover of the Great Barrier Reef using combined methods of field-based in situ mapping, high earth boundary tracking, high earth mapping with unoccupied aerial systems, and satellite-capture imagery mapping. These technologies when combined produce more accurate seagrass maps. Similarly, Nguyen et al. (2022) used combined methods of in situ mapping using handheld devices and object-based classification mapping (remote sensing) to produce high-resolution seagrass map images of Nam Yet Island, Vietnam. Recently, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drones and deep learning techniques have been used and proven to obtain higher-resolution images for seagrass mapping (e.g., Tahara et al. 2022). These advancements suggest that seagrasses are currently receiving more scientific and practical attention compared to earlier periods.

In Indonesia, the nationwide mapping of seagrass meadows conducted by Hernawan et al. (2021) has paved the way for other Indonesian scientists to strategically identify areas across the country that need restoration projects, particularly those pressured by anthropogenic activities. For instance, in Bontang, East Kalimantan province, seagrass meadows are severely damaged by fishing activities, which in turn affects the livelihoods of small-scale fishers (Irawan et al. 2019). In Karimunjawa Island, Central Java province, pollution discharge from domestic wastes threatens seagrass meadows as perceived by coastal communities (Quevedo et al. 2021a). A similar scenario was observed in Spermonde Archipelago, South Sulawesi province, where seagrasses’ condition was affected by the nutrient loading, turbidity, and total suspended solids resulting from domestic solid and liquid wastes, which prompted a restoration project in 2016 (Ambo-Rappe 2022).

As NbS strives to enhance the connectivity between ecosystems, this implies the notion of seagrasses as part of a larger ecosystem (e.g., along with coral reefs and mangroves). Such connectivity can be done to resolve existing challenges, such as the case observed in Wakatobi National Park, Indonesia, where initiatives of fruit tree plantations and local ecological knowledge to identify threats to seagrass and educational programs facilitated the stabilization of river banks and reducing sediment deposition to the coast (Unsworth et al. 2019). The notion of people’s involvement in seagrass restoration activities to enhance biodiversity is another important aspect of NbS, which will be further elaborated in Criteria 5.

Criterion 4: Seagrass restorations are economically viable

This criterion emphasizes that NbS should be economically feasible to be conducted through the support of financial institutions and/or incentive schemes (IUCN 2020). There are several studies documenting that coastal ecosystem restorations including seagrasses are economically viable as they provide net benefits, which is defined as the monetary value of ecosystem services generated by the restored ecosystem (Stewart-Sinclair et al. 2021).

Seagrass restoration has been conducted to recover ecosystem services or benefits lost due to habitat degradation (Rezek et al. 2019). Multiple co-benefits obtained from a restored habitat could highlight the economic viability of seagrass restoration projects and encourage other groups to conduct such activities. For instance, in Australia, recovery of ecosystem functions through seagrass restoration can potentially produce net benefit ranging from AUD 40 000 ha−1 to AUD 7.8 million ha−1 (Rogers et al. 2019). In Virginia, USA, a 7-km2 of restored eelgrass has removed 9,600 tons of CO2 from the atmosphere over 15 years which is equivalent to financial benefits of as much as US$ 87 000 or about US$ 124 ha−1 (Oreska et al. 2020). In Atlantic coastal lagoons, after 10 years, well-developed restored seagrass meadows provide important multiple co-benefits such as housing diverse animal communities, sequestering substantial stocks of carbon and nitrogen, and facilitating the restoration of previously depleted seagrass associated fauna “the bay scallops” (Orth et al. 2020). However, despite the economic viability of restored seagrass meadows, it is widely recognized that their re-establishment are time consuming, frequently requiring years to decades (Tan et al. 2020). Meanwhile, in areas where seagrass restoration is perceived as a way to promote a state shift, from an unvegetated to a vegetated state, coastal managers and practitioners should understand and consider the factors limiting the transition to meet their expectations and restoration goals (Paulo et al. 2019).

The cost for seagrass restoration is approximately US$ 700 000 ha−1, which is much lower than the cost for coral reef restoration which is nearly US$ 3 000 000 ha−1 (Bayraktarov et al. 2015). Moreover, under a best scenario, seagrass restorations can yield a positive internal rate of returns (IRR) of 3% and a cost–benefit ratio of 1.7, indicating that the benefit exceeded the cost (de Groot et al. 2013). In this case, it has been calculated the time to return on investment for seagrass restoration is more than 70 years (Stewart-Sinclair et al. 2021). This longer time frame could be an important predictor of a net benefit in seagrass restoration, however, the future cost would decline after the installation of the restoration project, and a minimum amount will be required for maintenance and monitoring (de Groot et al. 2013).

The restoration cost can also be influenced by the selected restoration method and the addition of advanced equipment involved in setting up seagrass restoration projects. For instance, in Australia, mechanical seagrass plantation such as the use of an ecosub system (a mechanical device used to cut and plant large sods) will cost AUD 1 000 000 ha−1, covering the design and development, fabrication, testing, and site selection (Paling et al. 2009). In contrast, manual plantation will only cost AUD 16 000–34 000 ha−1 if conducted by volunteers and AUD 84 000–168 000 ha−1 if the restoration is conducted by professionals (Paling et al. 2009). The selection between seed- or transplant-based methods for seagrass restoration is also an important factor in determining the length of maintenance and monitoring period of the restoration site. When seeds are used for seagrass restoration, it is estimated to take only 10 years to recover in comparison with natural recovery which takes 100 years (Reynolds et al. 2016). For example, a large-scale seed-based seagrass restoration has been conducted in midwestern Atlantic coastal lagoons, leading to a rapid recovery of the previously degraded seagrass bed after 10 years (Orth et al. 2020). However, using seeds and seedlings in seagrass restorations can be challenging, especially when the sites are exposed to, for instance, high wave energy (Paling et al. 2009) or the presence of seed predators such as shore crabs, hermit crabs, and sea urchins (Infantes et al. 2016). Thus, site selection for seagrass transplantation using seeds should be properly observed to ensure the successful growth of the planted seeds.

In Indonesia, a long-term seagrass restoration has been conducted in the Spermonde region, South Sulawesi using multiple seagrass species in a 600-m2 area. The project, which started with roughly 10% of seagrass transplant coverage, had a total cost of approximately US$ 100 000 covering the preparation cost, initial installation, and a 3-year monitoring program. A successful rate was obtained after 7 years through the indication of an increased cover of restored seagrass meadows, more diverse faunal communities, and increased coastal protection from erosion (Asriani et al. 2019).

Criterion 5: Seagrass restorations empower local stakeholders

The fifth criterion of the global standard of NbS states that “NbS acknowledges, involves and responds to the concerns of a variety of stakeholders, especially rights holders” (IUCN 2020, p. 14). This criterion has five indicators including (1) feedback and grievance resolution mechanism, (2) participation is based on mutual respect, (3) stakeholders have been identified and involved, (4) collaborative decision-making process, and (5) respect boundaries and enable joint decision-making (IUCN 2020). Seagrass restorations fit this criterion well since ensuring the successful implementation of this activity requires a great understanding of ecological science and a comprehensive approach toward the integration of human participation into all stages of restoration measures (Wylie et al. 2016). Engaging local communities residing adjacent to seagrass areas in all restoration activities is an integral part of seagrass restoration projects. This is because the fundamental objectives of ecosystem restoration such as seagrass restoration include the recovery of degraded habitats to support biodiversity and providing various goods and services to local people (Fischer et al. 2021). Moreover, seagrass restoration projects can be considered successful if local communities provide full support to the project implementation (Bennett and Dearden 2014).

Given that seagrass restoration projects have high labor costs since many people are needed to collect restoration materials and deploy the transplant units to the restoration site, the involvement of communities (citizen scientists) and volunteers will significantly reduce this cost (Tan et al. 2020). In addition, there are other benefits of engaging local community members in seagrass restoration activities. First, involving local communities in all stages of restoration efforts will generate a sense of ownership and encourage community members to return and provide more of their time (Tanner et al., 2014). Second, citizen scientist participation will allow a larger and longer-term data collection leading to a greater understanding of the seagrass life cycle (Jones et al. 2018). Third, local community involvement will allow rapid knowledge transfer from seagrass scientists to community members which is very useful to increase the understanding of seagrass-related matters among the people (Tanner et al. 2014; Jones et al. 2018).

Unlike mangrove or coral restoration programs, however, there is no incentive from the Indonesian government to foster community involvement in seagrass restoration projects. Moreover, Rifai et al. (2022) noted that the participation of local stakeholders in seagrass restoration activities is hindered by their lack of awareness and appreciation of the functions and services of seagrass habitats. The lack of awareness and appreciation is considered the biggest threat to seagrass conservation (Unsworth et al. 2019). Thus, there is a need to enhance the awareness to foster active participation of the people in seagrass restoration activities.

Potential implementation of seagrass restoration in the context of NbS in Indonesia

Under the Paris Agreement in 2015, Indonesia has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 29% with the national budget, and up to 41% with global support by 2030 (Murdiyarso et al. 2018). Following this commitment, Indonesia has proposed a plan to include blue carbon in its NDC at the Conference of the Parties (COP) 22 meeting. Then, at COP 25, Indonesia has clearly stated to include blue carbon ecosystems such as seagrass and mangrove ecosystems as a means to address climate change. However, Indonesia’s seagrass meadows are currently in moderate condition, allowing opportunities to be improved (Hernawan et al. 2021). The declining condition of seagrass meadows in the country suggests that restoration programs are urgently needed.

Seagrass restoration programs in Indonesia, in general, are limited (Asriani et al. 2018), about 22 restoration projects recorded from 1987 to the present, despite the urgency to restore seagrass meadows in the country (Hernawan et al. 2021; Rifai et al. 2022). Additionally, the outcome of these projects is not well documented since publications of results or project reports were limited to a few (Williams et al. 2017; Ambo-Rappe 2022). There is also the concern about the lack of restoration activities due to the relatively lesser attention given to seagrasses compared with other ecosystems such as mangroves (Nadiarti et al. 2012). We argue that there is a need to revisit how Indonesia can implement seagrass restoration programs that can produce similar trends observed in mangrove restoration activities. One approach is introducing seagrass restoration in the context of NbS particularly in addressing climate change (UNEP 2020). There is an opportunity in Indonesia to implement seagrass restoration in the context of NbS to meet their national commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

In this paper, we presented a different perspective of seagrass restorations. Interpreting the five criteria of the global standard of NbS (IUCN 2020), we summarized and reflected here on the potential of seagrass restoration as NbS in Indonesia. The country has a wide extent of seagrass cover, enabling them to store a significant amount of the world’s blue carbon, thereby putting them on the global map as an important ally to climate change mitigation (Hernawan et al. 2021; Rifai et al. 2022). Recent estimates showed that Indonesia’s seagrass meadows can store up to 368.5 Tg C or about 1.7% of the total blue carbon reservoir in the world (Alongi et al. 2016). Using the US standard of carbon pricing at $ 10 ton-1 in 2016 (Hamrick and Gallant 2017), it is estimated that the value of Indonesia’s seagrass meadows related to carbon stock services (Alongi et al. 2016) is approximately US$ 3 685 000 000. As we carefully provided evidence that seagrass restorations are economically viable (see Criterion 4), we envisage that this new perspective will attract international organizations (e.g., Conservation International) and investors (e.g., World Bank) to consider utilizing seagrass restorations as NbS to address global climate change through, for example, voluntary carbon market schemes (Shilland et al. 2021). This scheme, which refers to voluntary payments made by individuals or organizations from regional to global based on a chosen carbon standard (Shilland et al. 2021), can be a reliable source of funds to ensure the sustainability of seagrass restoration projects in Indonesia. This will be in line with the NDC goal of Indonesia as the government strongly encourages the implementation of the carbon tax (Situmorang and Putri 2022), though, currently, the Ministry of Finance through the Fiscal Policy Agency (BKF) is still preparing the roadmap to implement this concept and discussing the potential of implementation with House of Representative members of Indonesia.

Conclusion

We presented here conceptual evidence on how seagrass restoration meets the first five criteria of NbS proposed by IUCN (2020), namely (1) addressing societal challenges, (2) covering a large scale, (3) recovering biodiversity loss, (4) economically viable, and (5) empowering local societies. Looking at Indonesia’s case, there is a potential for implementing seagrass restoration in the context of NbS. However, the lack of the national budget and low awareness of the communities regarding the importance of seagrass restoration can hinder the implementation of this concept. To address these issues, we argue that all stakeholders (e.g., the scientific community, government, local communities, and non-government organizations) need to collaborate to solve the underpinning problems effectively; capacity building and seagrass awareness campaigns, efficient and realistic restoration designs, and implementation of payment for ecosystem services. By implementing seagrass restorations in the context of NbS, we envisage that it will attract more restoration activities in Indonesia compared to the present, thereby, degraded seagrass ecosystems will recover quickly, allowing them to provide maximum ecosystem services that are integral in the era of climate change.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Yaya Ihya Ulumuddin and Dr. Yoshitaka Miyake for their valuable support in the completion of this manuscript. This work is funded by Rumah Program Kebencanaan-OR Kebumian & Maritim BRIN-2022; Riset Pengembangan Kapasitas (RPK) COREMAP CTI-LIPI [5942.SDA.001]-2021; Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) through the Science and Technology Research Partnership for Sustainable Development Program (SATREPS) – Comprehensive Assessment and Conservation of Blue Carbon Ecosystems and Their Services in the Coral Triangle (BlueCARES) project; Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research Grant Number CBA2020-05SY-Kohsaka; JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP22H03852; JP21K18456; JP20K12398; JP17K02105; JST RISTEX Grant Number JPMJRX20B3, JST Grant Number JPMJPF2110; Heiwa Nakajima Foundation (2022); and Asahi Group Foundation (2022).

Biographies

Husen Rifai

is a Researcher at the Research Center for Oceanography–National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN). His research interests include seagrass ecology, seagrass restoration and management, and seagrass dynamics.

Jay Mar D. Quevedo

is a Specially Appointed Researcher at the Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo. His research interests include blue carbon ecosystems, socio-ecological systems, and natural resource management.

Kevin Muhamad Lukman

is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Research Center for Oceanography–National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN). His research interests include blue carbon ecosystems, social and policy science, and community development.

Calyvn F. A. Sondak

is an Associate Professor at the Department of Marine Science, Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science, Sam Ratulangi University. His research interests include environmental economics, ecosystem services valuation, and seagrass and seaweed ecology.

Johan Risandi

is a Research Associate at the Marine Research Center, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries. His research interests include coastal engineering and nearshore processes, nature-based coastal protection, and hydrodynamics modeling.

Udhi Eko Hernawan

is a Senior Researcher at the Research Center for Oceanography–National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN). His research interests include marine ecology, population genetics, and seagrass management.

Yuta Uchiyama

is an Assistant Professor at the Graduate School of Human Development and Environment, Kobe University. His research interests include environmental science, socio-ecological systems, and environmental policy and society.

Rohani Ambo-Rappe

is a Professor at the Department of Marine Science, Faculty of Marine Science and Fisheries, Hasanuddin University. Her research interests include seagrass ecology, seagrass habitat assessment, and seagrass restoration and management.

Ryo Kohsaka

is a Professor at the Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo. His research interests include ecosystem services, natural resource management, geographical indications, and landscape approaches

Declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

The original online version of this article was revised due to a retrospective Open Access order.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Change history

9/8/2023

A Correction to this paper has been published: 10.1007/s13280-023-01916-2

References

  1. Alongi DM, Murdiyarso D, Fourqurean JW, Kauffman JB, Hutahaean A, Crooks S, Lovelock CE, Howard J, et al. Indonesia’s blue carbon: A globally significant and vulnerable sink for seagrass and mangrove carbon. Wetlands Ecology and Management. 2016;24:3–13. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ambo-Rappe R. The success of seagrass restoration using Enhalus acoroides seeds is correlated with substrate and hydrodynamic conditions. Journal of Environmental Management. 2022;310:114692. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114692. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Asriani N, Ambo-Rappe R, Lanuru M, Williams SL. Macrozoobenthos community structure in restored seagrass, natural seagrass and seagrass less areas around Badi Island, Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2019;253:012034. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bayraktarov E, Saunders MI, Abdullah S, Mills M, Beher J, Possingham HP, Mumby PJ, Lovelock CE. The cost and feasibility of marine coastal restoration. Ecological Applications. 2015;26:1055–1074. doi: 10.1890/15-1077. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bennett NJ, Dearden P. Why local people do not support conservation: Community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand. Marine Policy. 2014;44:107–116. [Google Scholar]
  6. Christianen MJA, van Belzen J, Herman PMJ, van Katwijk MM, Lamers LPM, van Leent PJM, Bouma TJ. Low-canopy seagrass beds still provide important coastal protection services. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e62413. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062413. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cohen-Shacham E, Walters G, Janzen C, Maginnis S, editors. Nature-based Solutions to Address Global Societal Challenges, xiii + 97. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cullen-Unsworth LC, Nordlund LM, Paddock J, Baker S, McKenzie LJ, Unsworth RKF. Seagrass meadows globally as a coupled social–ecological system: Implications for human wellbeing. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2014;83:387–397. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.06.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. de Groot RS, Blignaut J, Van Der Ploeg S, Aronson J, Elmqvist T, Farley J. Benefits of investing in ecosystem restoration. Conservation Biology. 2013;27:1286–1293. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12158. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Dewi CSU, Yona D, Samuel PD, Maulidiyah RA, Syahrir A, Putri YE, Rakhmawan H, Fikri M. Distribution and healthy status of seagrass bed in Lamongan coastal area. E3S Web of Conferences. 2020;153:01003. [Google Scholar]
  11. Duarte C. The future of seagrass meadows. Environmental Conservation. 2002;29:192–206. [Google Scholar]
  12. Duarte CM, Kennedy H, Marbà N, Hendriks I. Assessing the capacity of seagrass meadows for carbon burial: Current limitations and future strategies. Ocean and Coastal Management. 2013;83:32–38. [Google Scholar]
  13. Edward JKP. Rehabilitation of coastal habitat: A vital management tool for protecting biodiversity and livelihood against climatic and non-climatic factors. International Journal of Environment and Sustainability. 2018;7:57–71. [Google Scholar]
  14. Fauzi AI, Sakti AD, Robbani BF, Ristiyani M, Agustin RT, Yati E, Nuha MU, Anika N, et al. Assessing potential climatic and human pressures in Indonesian coastal ecosystems using a spatial data-driven approach. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information. 2021;10:778. [Google Scholar]
  15. Fischer J, Riechers M, Loos J, Martin-Lopez B, Temperton VM. Making the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration a Social-Ecological Endeavour. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2021;36:20–28. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2020.08.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Fortes MD, Ooi JLS, Tan YM, Prathep A, Bujang JS, Yaakub SM. Seagrass in Southeast Asia: A review of status and knowledge gaps, and a road map for conservation. Botanica Marina. 2018;61:269–288. [Google Scholar]
  17. Fourqurean JW, Duarte CM, Kennedy H, Marbà N, Holmer M, Mateo MA, Apostolaki ET, Kendrick GA, et al. Seagrass ecosystems as globally significant carbon stock. Nature Geosciences. 2012;5:505–509. [Google Scholar]
  18. Gijsman R, Horstman EM, van der Wal D, Friess DA, Swales A, Wijnberg KM. Nature-based engineering: A review on reducing coastal flood risk with mangroves. Frontiers in Marine Science. 2021;8:702412. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hamrick, K., and M. Grant. 2017. Unlocking potential. State of the voluntary carbon markets 2017. Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace. Washington, DC.
  20. Hernawan UE, Rahmawati S, Ambo-Rappe R, Sjafrie NDM, Hadiyanto H, Yusup DS, Nugraha AH, La Nafie YA, et al. The first nation-wide assessment identifies valuable blue-carbon seagrass habitat in Indonesia is in moderate condition. Science of the Total Environment. 2021;782:6818. [Google Scholar]
  21. Herr, D., and E. Landis. 2016. Coastal blue carbon ecosystems. Opportunities for Nationally Determined Contributions. Policy Brief. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN and Washinton, DC, USA: TNC.
  22. Infantes E, Crouzy C, Moksnes P-O. Seed predation by the shore crab Carcinus maenas: A positive feedback preventing eelgrass recovery? PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0168128. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168128. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. IPBES. 2018. The IPBES regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Asia and the Pacific. Karki, M., S.S. Sellamuttu, S. Okayasu, and W. Suzuki. (Eds.) Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. 612 pages.
  24. IPCC. 2022. Summary for policymakers [Pörtner, H.-O, D.C. Roberts, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, M. Tignor, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, et al. (Eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Pörtner, H.-O., D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdrof, et al. (Eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. In Press.
  25. Irawan, A., Supriharyono, J. Hutabarat, Ambariyanto. 2019. Threat of small scale capture fisheries on the fish biodiversity in seagrass beds of Bontang, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. AACL Bioflux 12: 2286–2297.
  26. IUCN. 2016. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Members’ Assembly. Resolution 6.069: Defining Nature-based Solutions, WCC-2016-Res-069. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
  27. IUCN . Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions. A user-friendly framework for the verification, design and scaling up of NbS. 1. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  28. James RK, Silva R, van Tussenbroek BI, Escudero-Castillo M, Mariño-Tapia I, Dijkstra HA, van Westen RM, Pietrzak JD, et al. Maintaining tropical beaches with seagrass and algae: A promising alternative to engineering solutions. BioScience. 2019;69:136–142. [Google Scholar]
  29. Jones BL, Unsworth RKF, McKenzie LJ, Yoshida RL, Cullen-Unsworth LC. Crowdsourcing conservation: The role of citizen science in securing a future for seagrass. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2018;134:210–215. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.11.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kuwae T, Watanabe A, Yoshihara S, Suehiro F, Sugimura Y. Implementation of blue carbon offset crediting for seagrass meadows, macroalgal beds, and macroalgae farming in Japan. Marine Policy. 2022;138:104996. [Google Scholar]
  31. Lefcheck JS, Marion SR, Orth RJ. Actively restored ecosystems as a refuge for biological diversity: A case study from eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) Estuaries and Coasts. 2017;40:200–212. [Google Scholar]
  32. Leschen AS, Ford KH, Evans NT. Successful eelgrass (Zostera marina) restoration in a formerly eutrophic estuary (Boston Harbor) supports the use of a multifaceted watershed approach to mitigating eelgrass loss. Estuarine and Coasts. 2010;33:1340–1354. [Google Scholar]
  33. Lukman KM, Uchiyama Y, Quevedo JMD, Kohsaka R. Local awareness as an instrument for management and conservation of seagrass ecosystem: Case of Berau Regency, Indonesia. Ocean and Coastal Management. 2021;203:105451. [Google Scholar]
  34. McKenzie LJ, Langlois LA, Roelfsema CM. Improving approaches to mapping seagrass within the great barrier reef: From field to spaceborne earth observation. Remote Sensing. 2022;14:2604. [Google Scholar]
  35. McKenzie LJ, Yoshida RL, Aini JW, Andréfouet S, Colin PL, Cullen-Unsworth LC, Hughes AT, Payri CE, et al. Seagrass ecosystem contributions to people's quality of life in the Pacific Island Countries and Territories. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2021;167:112307. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Miyajima T, Hamaguchi M, Hori M. Evaluation of the baseline carbon sequestration rates of Indo-Pacific temperate and tropical seagrass meadows sediments. Ecological Research. 2021;37:9–20. [Google Scholar]
  37. Murdiyarso D, Purbopuspito J, Kauffman JB, Warren MW, Sasmito SD, Donato DC, Manuri S, Krisnawati H, et al. The potential of Indonesian mangrove forests for global climate change mitigation. Nature Climate Change. 2015;5:1089–1092. [Google Scholar]
  38. Murdiyarso D, Sukara E, Supriatna J, Koropitan A, Mumbunan S, Juliandi B, Jompa J. Creating blue carbon opportunities in the maritime archipelago Indonesia. Policy Brief. 2018 doi: 10.17528/cifor/007058. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Nadiarti A, Riani E, Djuwita I, Budiharsono S, Pubayanto A, Asmus H. Challenging for seagrass management in Indonesia. Journal of Coastal Development. 2012;15:234–242. [Google Scholar]
  40. Nature ‘Nature-based solutions’ is the latest green jargon that means more than you might think. Nature. 2017;541:133–134. doi: 10.1038/541133b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Nesshöver C, Assmuth T, Irvine KN, Rusch GM, Waylen KA, Delbaere B, Haase D, Jones-Walters L, et al. The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: An interdisciplinary perspective. Science of the Total Environment. 2017;579:1215–1227. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Nguyen DH, Ngo TD, Vu VD, Du QVV. Establishing distribution maps and structural analysis of seagrass communities based on high-resolution remote sensing images and field surveys: A case study at Nam Yet Island, Truong Sa Archipelago, Vietnam. Landscape and Ecological Engineering. 2022;18:405–419. [Google Scholar]
  43. Nordlund LM, Jackson EL, Nakaoka M, Samper-Villarreal J, Beca-Carretero P, Creed JC. Seagrass ecosystem services—What’s next? Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2018;134:145–151. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.09.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Oreska MP, McGlathery KJ, Aoki LR, Berger AC, Berg P, Mullins L. The greenhouse gas offset potential from seagrass restoration. Scientific Reports. 2020;10:7325. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-64094-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Orth RJ, Carruthers TJB, Dennison WC, Duarte CM, Fourqurean JW, Heck KL, Huges AR, Kendrick GA, et al. A global crisis for seagrass ecosystems. BioScience. 2006;56:987–996. [Google Scholar]
  46. Orth RJ, Lefcheck JS, Mcglathery KS, Aoki L, Luckenbach MW, Moore KA, Oreska MPJ, Snyder R, et al. Restoration of seagrass habitat leads to rapid recovery of coastal ecosystem services. Science Advances. 2020;6:1–9. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abc6434. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Paling, E.I., M. Fonseca, M.M. van Katwijk, and M. van Keulen. 2009. Seagrass restoration. In Coastal wetlands: an integrated ecosystem approach, eds. G.M.E. Perillo, E. Wolanski, D.R. Cahoon, and M.M. Brinson, 687–713.
  48. Paulo D, Cunha AH, Boavida J, Serrão EA, Gonçalves EJ, Fonseca M. Open coast seagrass restoration. Can we do it? Large scale seagrass transplants. Frontiers in Marine Science. 2019;6:52. [Google Scholar]
  49. Quevedo JMD, Uchiyama Y, Kohsaka R. Perceptions of the seagrass ecosystems for the local communities of Eastern Samar, Philippines: Preliminary results and prospects of blue carbon services. Ocean and Coastal Management. 2020;191:Article 105181. [Google Scholar]
  50. Quevedo JMD, Uchiyama Y, Lukman KM, Kohsaka R. How blue carbon ecosystems are perceived by local communities in the Coral Triangle: Comparative and empirical examinations in the Philippines and Indonesia. Sustainability. 2021;13:127. [Google Scholar]
  51. Quevedo JMD, Uchiyama Y, Kohsaka R. Local perceptions of blue carbon ecosystem infrastructures in Panay Island, Philippines. Coastal Engineering Journal. 2021;63:227–247. [Google Scholar]
  52. Quevedo JMD, Uchiyama Y, Kohsaka R. Understanding rural and urban perceptions of seagrass ecosystem services for their blue carbon conservation strategies in the Philippines. Ecological Research. 2022 doi: 10.1111/1440-1703.12325. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Reynolds LK, Wycott M, McGlathery KJ, Orth RJ. Ecosystem services returned through seagrass restoration. Restoration Ecology. 2016;24:583–588. [Google Scholar]
  54. Rezek RJ, Furman BT, Jung RP, Hall MO, Bell SS. Long-term performance of seagrass restoration projects in Florida. Scientific Reports. 2019;9:15514. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-51856-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Rifai H, Hernawan UE, Zulpikar F, Sondakh CFA, Ambo-Rappe R, Sjafrie NDM, Irawan A, Dewanto HY, et al. Strategies to improve management of Indonesia’s blue carbon seagrass habitats in marine protected areas. Coastal Management. 2022;50:93–105. [Google Scholar]
  56. Rogers, A.A., M.P. Burton, J. Statton, M.W. Fraser, G. Kendrick, E. Sinclair, D. Gorman, M. Vanderklift, et al. 2019. Benefits and costs of alternate seagrass restoration approaches. Report to the National Environmental Science Programme, Marine Biodiversity Hub, 43.
  57. Rustam A, Sudirman N, Ati RNA, Salim HL, Rahayu YP. Seagrass ecosystem carbon stock in the small islands: Case study in Spermonde Island, South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Jurnal Segara. 2017;13:97–106. [Google Scholar]
  58. Seddon N, Daniels E, Davis R, Chausson A, Harris R, Hou-Jones X, Huq S, Kapos V, et al. Global recognition of the importance of nature-based solutions to the impacts of climate change. Global Sustainability. 2020;3:e15. [Google Scholar]
  59. Situmorang, M., and A. Putri. 2022. Indonesia: The Implementation of carbon economic value In Indonesia: Key points of Presidential Regulation No. 98 Of 2021. Nusantara Legal Partnership. Available here https://www.mondaq.com/waste-management/1200576/the-implementation-of-carbon-economic-value-in-indonesia-key-points-of-presidential-regulation-no-98-of-2021#:~:text=PR%2098%2F2021%20underlies%20the,and%2C%20(ii)%20adaptation. Accessed 2 Nov 2022.
  60. Shilland R, Grimsditch G, Ahmed M, Bandeira S, Kennedy H, Potouroglou M, Huxham M. A question of standards: Adaptating carbon and other PES markets to work for community seagrass conservation. Marine Policy. 2021;129:104574. [Google Scholar]
  61. Solihuddin T, Husrin S, Salim HL, Kepel TL, Mustikasari E, Heriati A, Ati RNA, Purbani D, et al. Coastal erosion on the north coast of Java: Adaptation strategies and coastal management. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2021;777:012035. [Google Scholar]
  62. Stankovic M, Ambo-Rappe R, Carly F, Dangan-Galon F, Fortes MD, Hossain MS, Kiswara W, Luong CV, et al. Quantification of blue carbon in seagrass ecosystems of Southeast Asia and their potential for climate change mitigation. Science of the Total Environment. 2021;783:146858. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146858. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Stewart-Sinclair PJ, Klein CJ, Bateman IJ, Lovelock CE. Spatial cost–benefit analysis of blue restoration and factors driving net benefits globally. Conservation Biology. 2021;35:1850–1860. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13742. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Tahara S, Sudo K, Yamakita T, Nakaoka M. Species level mapping of a seagrass bed using an unmanned aerial vehicle and deep learning technique. PeerJ. 2022;10:e14017. doi: 10.7717/peerj.14017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Tan YM, Dalby O, Kendrick GA, Statton J, Sinclair EA, Fraser MW, Macreadie PI, Gillies CL, et al. Seagrass restoration is possible: Insights and lessons from Australia and New Zealand. Frontiers in Marine Science. 2020;7:617. [Google Scholar]
  66. Tanner JE, Irving AD, Fernandes M, Fotheringham D, McArdle A, Murray-Jones S. Seagrass rehabilitation off metropolitan Adelaide: A case study of loss, action, failure and success. Ecological Management and Restoration. 2014;15:168–179. [Google Scholar]
  67. UNEP . Out of the blue: The value of seagrasses to the environment and to people. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  68. Unsworth RKF, Ambo-Rappe R, Jones BL, La Nafie YA, Irawan A, Hernawan UE, Moore AM, Cullen-Unsworth LC. Indonesia’s globally significant seagrass meadows are under widespread threat. Science of the Total Environment. 2018;643:279–286. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.315. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Unsworth RKF, Hinder SL, Bodger OG, Cullen-Unsworth LC. Food supply depends on seagrass meadows in the coral triangle. Environmental Research Letters. 2014;9:Article 094005. [Google Scholar]
  70. Unsworth RKF, McKenzie LJ, Collier CJ, Cullen-Unsworth LC, Duarte CM, Eklöf JS, Jarvis JC, Jones BJ, et al. Global challenges for seagrass conservation. Ambio. 2019;48:801–815. doi: 10.1007/s13280-018-1115-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Unsworth RKF, McKenzie LJ, Nordlund LM, Cullen-Unsworth LC. A changing climate for seagrass conservation? Current Biology. 2018;28:R1229–R1232. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2018.09.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Valdez S, Zhang YS, van der Heide T, Vanderklift MA, Tarquinio F, Orth RJ, Silliman BR. Positive ecological interactions and the success of seagrass restoration. Frontiers in Marine Science. 2020;7:91. [Google Scholar]
  73. van de Koppel J, van der Heide T, Altieri AH, Eriksson BK, Bouma TJ, Olff H, Silliman BR. Long-distance interactions regulate the structure and resilience of coastal ecosystems. Annual Review of Marine Science. 2015;7:139–158. doi: 10.1146/annurev-marine-010814-015805. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Vignola R, Locatelli B, Martinez C, Imbach P. Ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change: What role for policy-makers, society and scientists? Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. 2009;14:691. [Google Scholar]
  75. Vuik V, Jonkman SN, Borsje BW, Suzuki T. Nature-based flood protection: The efficiency of vegetated foreshores for reducing wave loads on coastal dikes. Coastal Engineering. 2016;116:42–56. [Google Scholar]
  76. Wahyudi AJ, Rahmawati S, Irawan A, Hadiyanto H, Prayudha B, Hafizt M, Afdal A, Adi NS, et al. Assessing carbon stock and sequestration of the tropical seagrass meadows in Indonesia. Ocean Science Journal. 2020;55:85–97. [Google Scholar]
  77. Waycott M, Duarte CM, Carruthers TJB, Orth RJ, Dennison WC, Olyanik S, Calladine A, Fourqurean JW, et al. Accelerating loss of seagrass across the globe threatens coastal ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2009;106:1237–12381. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0905620106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Williams SL, Ambo-Rappe R, Sur C, Abbott JM, Limbong SR. Species richness accelerates marine ecosystem restoration in the Coral Triangle. Proceeding of National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2017;114:11986–11991. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1707962114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Wylie L, Sutton-Grier AE, Moore A. Keys to successful blue carbon projects: Lessons learned from global case studies. Marine Policy. 2016;65:76–84. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Ambio are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES