# Economic Assessment of Ecosystem Services Provided by the Sangomar Marine Protected Area in the Saloum Delta Biosphere Reserve (Fatick, Senegal)

Assane Ka, Sérigne Modou Sarr, Alioune Badara Diop, Aliousseyni Ly, Pape Diène Faye, et al.

Diène Faye, Ousmane Cissé, Mamadou Sy, Daouda Ngom, Bernard Riéra

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Assane Ka, Sérigne Modou Sarr, Alioune Badara Diop, Aliousseyni Ly, Pape Diène Faye, et al. Economic Assessment of Ecosystem Services Provided by the Sangomar Marine Protected Area in the Saloum Delta Biosphere Reserve (Fatick, Senegal). Open Journal of Ecology, 2025, 15 (03), pp.239-259. 10.4236/oje.2025.153014. hal-05197504

HAL Id: hal-05197504

https://hal.science/hal-05197504v1

Submitted on 2 Aug 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Economic Assessment of Ecosystem Services Provided by the Sangomar Marine Protected Area in the Saloum Delta Biosphere Reserve (Fatick, Senegal)

Assane Ka<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />*, Sérigne Modou Sarr<fnref n="2" />, Alioune Badara Diop<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />*, Aliousseyni Ly<fnref n="2" />,<fnref n="3" />, Pape Diène Faye<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />,<fnref n="4" />, Ousmane Cissé<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />, Mamadou Sy<fnref n="2" />, Bernard Riera<fnref n="5" />, Daouda Ngom<fnref n="6" />

**How to cite this paper:** Ka, A., Sarr, S.M., Diop, A.B., Ly, A., Faye, P.D., Cissé, O., Sy, M., Riera, B. and Ngom, D. (2025) Ecosystem Assessment of Ecosystem Services Provided by the Sangomar Marine Protected Area in the Saloum Delta Biosphere Reserve (Fatick, Senegal). *Open Journal of Ecology*, **15**, 239-259.

https://doi.org/10.4236/oje.2025.153014

Received: December 28, 2024

Accepted: March 14, 2025

Published: March 17, 2025

Copyright © 2025 by author(s) and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0).

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Open Access

## Abstract

The Sangomar Marine Protected Area (AMPS) plays an important socio-economic, ecological and cultural role. However, since its creation, little information exists on its total economic value, which is generally difficult for local people to perceive. This study is a contribution to the assessment of the economic value of the AMPS. To do this, surveys were carried out in three villages of Dionewar (Dionewar, Falia and Niodior) using focus groups for all types of ecosystem service with specific socio-professional categories, fisheries services and managers. The criteria measured concerned the identification of stakeholders, the population's perception of the services and their monetary value. The results show that the majority of stakeholders in the AMPS are fishermen (48%), carters (42%) and women who process fish and forest products (29%). A total of 19 ecosystem services were inventoried, and divided into 4 categories (provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services). The most important services in terms of scores were nursery (8.71), soil formation (8.43) and the water cycle (8.38). The total economic value of the AMPS was estimated at 2,808,323,563 FCFA, with regulating services having the highest value (61.87%), followed by provisioning services (22.53%). These results should serve as a decision-making tool to raise awareness of the importance

<footnote n="1">¹Regional School of Integrated Post-University Management of Forests and Tropical Territories (ERAIFT), Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Alioune DIOP University of Bambey (UADB), Higher Institute of Agricultural and Rural Training, Bambey, Senegal</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Institute of Water and Energy Sciences Including Climate Change, Pan African University, University of Tlemcen, Tlemcen, Algeria</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴Senghor Alexandrie University, Alexandria, Egypt</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵MNHN, CNRS, Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶Department of Plant Biology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Cheikh Anta Diop University (UCAD), Dakar, Senegal</footnote>

<footnote>Email: *assaneka86@hotmail.com, *aliounebadaradiop36@gmail.com</footnote>
of the AMPS among the population and political decision-makers.

## Keywords

Ecosystem Services, Total Economic Value, Sangomar Marine Protected Area, Economic Valuation, Dionewar Municipality

# 1. Introduction

The preservation and maintenance of livelihoods, as well as human development, depend largely on biodiversity [1]. Since the 1970s, global biodiversity has declined by around 52% [2]. This decline in biodiversity led, at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, the establishment of several international commitments to protect the environment, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) [3]. Nevertheless, the loss of biodiversity is still being felt around the world, prompting the international community to draw up a set of twenty objectives known as the “Aichi Targets”, which should be achieved by 2020. These targets were adopted at the 10th Conference of the Parties (COP) to the CBD at the Nagoya Summit in 2010. These targets aimed to enhance the benefits derived from ecosystems and ecosystem services [4].

Wetlands are among the richest and most productive ecosystems on the planet due to their high biological diversity [5]. They provide a wide range of goods and services essential to human well-being. People around the world have long benefited from the ecosystem services provided by wetlands [4]. This is one of the major conclusions of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) and one of the key messages of the Ramsar Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP) [6] cited by NOUMEYI [4].

The integration of the notion of biodiversity into the jargon of economics began in the mid 1990s [7] with the creation of the economics of biodiversity movement with the publication of the article by COSTANZA *et al.* [8]. This publication proposed, for the first time, an approach for calculating the monetary value of the world's biodiversity and demonstrated the importance of economic valuation in informing and guiding biodiversity conservation policies by translating the benefits of biodiversity into economic gains [9].

The United Nations Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) programme formalised this role in 2005 [10]. The MEA aims to raise awareness among policymakers of the importance of protecting the environment to safeguard economic activity and the well-being of the population. It does this by identifying all the ecosystem services provided by natural areas and estimating their economic value in order to assess their contribution to human well-being [9].

Since then, valuing the ecosystem services provided by ecosystems has been a way of convincing political decision-makers to protect ecological units threatened by human actions, particularly in Africa [4].
The total economic value of the ecosystem services provided by biodiversity is very poorly assessed in Africa [11]-[13]. Indeed, according to a study based on online publications [13] cited by [9], developing countries apply few economic valuation methods for biodiversity [8]. The few studies conducted in Africa on the economic valuation of ecosystems have often used models from Northern countries without taking into account the realities of developing countries (DCs) in the choice of valuation methods to be applied [13]. Moreover, the bibliographical research carried out by HAMID [9] revealed that even the application of the contingent valuation method to quantify Consent to Pay (CTP) in favour of biodiversity conservation is very rare on the African continent. Ultimately, the Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory (EVRI) database showed that out of 265 contingent valuation studies listed, only 3.39% originated from the African continent [9].

Despite the difficulties mentioned above, the total economic valuation of ecosystems is today an essential tool for explaining to African leaders and local communities the role of marine protected areas in the production of human well-being [14] cited by HAMID [9], and a justification of the need to ensure their integral protection, particularly in Africa where economic development takes precedence over nature conservation [9]. It is in this context that this study focuses on the evaluation of ecosystem services in the Sangomar Marine Protected Area (AMPS). The main objective of this study is to contribute to the economic evaluation of the ecosystem services provided by the Sangomar Marine Protected Area (MPA) in the Saloum Delta in Senegal.

# 2. Materials and Methods

## 2.1. Study Area

The study has been conducted in the Fatick region, in the Sangomar Marine Protected Area (AMPS), located between latitudes 13°35' and 14°10' north and longitudes 16°50' and 17°00' west, and covering the communes of Palmarin and Dionewar. The AMPS is bounded to North by the Joal Fadiouth MPA, to the South by the Saloum Delta National Park and to the East by the Palmarin Community Nature Reserve (RNC) and the Communes of Bassoul and Djirnda [15] (Figure 1). The main activities are fishing and malacological gathering, processing of fish products, agriculture and livestock farming [16]. Temperatures range from 17°C in January to 37°C in June, with an average of 27°C. A short rainy season lasting around four months, with low intensity in July and August, with average rainfall of 155.1 to 265.7 mm following the arrival of the monsoon, the hot, humid wind that blows from mid-June to mid October and brings rain (Foundiougne weather service, 2016). The commune is characterised by the presence of leached and slightly leached tropical ferruginous soils, low-lying areas or basins and halomorphic soils. Surface water in the area is mainly made up of the Atlantic Ocean, which runs alongside the western part of the local authority. The Saloum River is also a major source of water, feeding several bo-
longs and ponds in the region. Vegetation in the AMPS varies from mangrove forests to dryland forests, shrub savannahs and herbaceous ground cover. The AMPS is also rich in wildlife. These include migratory birds (pink flamingos, pelicans, terns, green bee-eaters, grey herons, etc.), mammals such as hyenas, jackals, raptors, genets, patas monkeys, etc, reptiles (marine turtle, crocodile, Nile monitor, python, snake, etc.) and aquatic fauna (fish, arches, shrimp, mu- rex cymbium, etc.) [16].

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. Location of the SMPA.</figcaption></figure>

## 2.2. Sampling Method

The study was conducted in the villages of Niodior, Falia and Dionewar in the Dionewar municipality, which is centred on the AMPS. The choice of this com- mune was justified by the activities carried out by its population in the AMPS. Purposive sampling was adopted for this research. Taking into account the eco- system services provided by the AMPS, all socio-professional categories were sur- veyed. These included women who process fish products, gatherers of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) grouped together in the Resource Management Commit- tee (COGERE), pirogue operators, hoteliers, carters, fishmongers, farmers, stock- breeders, honey producers, tourist guides, salt producers and households affected by high winds. Given the difficulty of assessing ecosystem services, and in order to ensure the reliability of the information, focus group interviews were conducted in each village and for each category of service targeting the specific socio-profes- sional group. For each socio-professional category, the focus group involved 10 members chosen, with the help of the manager, on the basis of their experience in the field (over 3 years), their strong involvement and their knowledge of the field. In addition, semi-structured individual surveys were carried out among AMPS agents and those of the fishing service in the said villages. To assess the importance
of the various types of service, each focus group participant was assigned a score (ranging from 1 to 10) to each type of service.

## 2.3. Data Collection

The study assessed the total economic value of 4 categories of ecosystem services: provisioning, cultural, regulatory and support services. The general information gathered was the identification of the types of stakeholders and the frequency of use of the services. To assess the total economic value, a specific questionnaire was drawn up for each category of service. For supply services, the questionnaire provided information on the different types of products harvested and processed, the frequency and quantity harvested and the unit market price. For the regulation services, the information requested included the number of houses located within 300 m of the coast in order to quantify the cost of avoided damage to these houses, as well as the number of houses or infrastructures damaged by violent winds and the expenditure incurred in repairing them (replacement cost method). As for the support service, the questionnaire provided information on the AMPS budget and investment by its various partners. With the cultural service, the tourist campaign, the price and duration of stays and the price to be paid for walks were the main information collected.

## 2.4. Data Analysis and Processing

The importance of the different types of services (scores) was submitted to Anova using R 4.3.1 software. The Excel spreadsheet was used for the calculations and figures.

To assess the annual economic value of the supply service, NTFPs harvested and processed, fishery products and agriculture were considered. Formula 1 was used:

$$ \text{Annual economic value of supply services} = \sum \text{annual quantity harvested}(i) * \text{market cost}(i) \quad (1) $$

where *i* is the service provided.

Livestock services were estimated using the replacement cost method. The quantity of fodder was estimated on the basis of the work of NDIAYE [17], according to whom the minimum consumption of concentrated feed is estimated at one to two bags of concentrates per month, depending on the size of the herd. It should be noted that in these villages, the animals are left to graze freely.

In the case of cultural services, tourism, including walking, and shipping were taken into account. They were evaluated by equations 2 and 3 respectively:

$$ \text{Annual economic value of tourism} = \text{number of days in the tourism campaign} * \text{average daily number of tourists} * \text{average daily rate} \quad (2) $$

$$ \text{Annual economic value of shipping services} = \text{Number of average daily passengers} * \text{number of daily journeys} * 365 * \text{price per person} \quad (3) $$

Given the remote and rural nature of the study area, local people are not aware of the cultural services associated with education and contemplation. As a result,
it was not possible for the local people, the main beneficiaries, to assess the economic value of these services.

With regard to regulating services, carbon sequestration, erosion regulation and strong winds were taken into account. For carbon sequestration, a land use map of the AMPS was designed using QGis software. According to PROGED-2; KAUFFMAN and BHOMIA [18] [19] mangroves sequester 55 t x ha⁻¹x yr⁻¹, open forests 52.60 t x ha⁻¹x yr⁻¹ and wooded savannahs 30 t x ha⁻¹x yr⁻¹ and shrublands 45.21 t x ha⁻¹x yr⁻¹. The average price of ton of carbon sold on the voluntary market is between 1850 and 5250 FCFA, i.e. an average of 3550 FCFA.t⁻¹ [4]. Thus, the annual value of sequestration was given by formula (4).

$$ 
\begin{array}{l}
\text{Annual Economic value of carbon sequestration} = \sum \text{Annual sequestrated quantity per ecological unit (i)} \quad (4) \\
\quad \ast \text{Voluntary carbon market cost (i)}
\end{array}
$$

where *i* is the service provided.

With regard to the regulation of erosion and flooding, the assessment was made using the method of the replacement cost of infrastructure, particularly houses located less than 300 m from the coast. According to NOUMEYI [4], mangroves reduce by three quarters the destructive effect of erosion and strong winds for houses located less than 300 m from the coast. According to AJONINA et al. [20], the gains in restoration costs allocated to mangrove ecosystems for protection against flooding and moderation of the effects of high winds amount to 40%. On the other hand, for the regulation of the effects of violent winds, the economic evaluation of the expenditure incurred for the repair of damaged houses or infrastructures was carried out. Formulas 5 and 6 were therefore applied.

$$ 
\begin{array}{l}
\text{Annual economic value of Flood and erosion protection} = \\
\sum \text{Total cost of infrastructures located from 300 m less than the mangroves (i)} \quad (5) \\
\ast 40\% \text{ of protection due to mangroves (i)}
\end{array}
$$

where *i* is the service in question.

$$ 
\begin{array}{l}
\text{Annual economic value of moderate violent winds} = \sum \text{expenses on wind-damaged homes (i)} \quad (6) \\
\ast 40\% \text{ of protection due to mangroves (i)}
\end{array}
$$

where *i* is the service provided.

To assess the economic value of each category of service, the sum of the different types of service making up the category was calculated.

The support service was evaluated using the method of NDIAYE [17], according to which the value of this service is equal to the sum of the WHPA budget and the amount of investments made by partners for biodiversity conservation.

The total economic value was assessed by adding together the values of the 4 service categories.

# 3. Results

## 3.1. Key Actors at the SMPA

Fishermen are in the majority (48%), followed by women who process fish and
forestry products (29%). On the other hand, tourist guides, hoteliers, livestock farmers and fishmongers account for the smallest proportions (1, 1, 2 and 2% respectively) (Figure 2).

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2. Breakdown of actors per activity.</figcaption></figure>

Indirect actors in the AMPS—carters—are in the majority (42%), followed by box hire companies and resellers with the same proportion (16%). However, conservation and development NGOs are in the minority (4%) (Figure 3).

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3. Breakdown of indirect actors per activity.</figcaption></figure>
## 3.2. Ecosystem Services Types at SMPA Ecological Units

The Sangomar Marine Protected Area (SMPA) provides a total of four ecosystem services to the inhabitants of the Dionewar municipality. These include: provisioning services, which are the goods that people obtain directly from the MPA, such as collecting firewood, fishing, gathering NTFPs, food and medicines. Regulating services, which serve to regulate the ecosystem and combat flooding, coastal erosion and violent winds. Support services, which serve to support the other services. Cultural services, which are the intangible products that communities derive from the MPA, such as tourism, walking, education and research (Table 1).

<table><caption>Table 1. Different types of ecosystem services provided by the AMPS according to users.</caption><thead><tr><th>Typology of ecosystem services</th><th>Ecosystem services</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Procurement services</td><td><ul><li>Fishing;</li><li>Collecting wood;</li><li>NTFP harvesting;</li><li>Shellfish;</li><li>Oyster fishing;</li><li>Agriculture;</li><li>Breeding;</li><li>Food (fish, oysters);</li><li>Pharmacopoeia.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Regulatory services</td><td><ul><li>Physical barrier (moderates violent winds and combats flooding and erosion);</li><li>Carbon sequestration;</li><li>Climate regulation.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Cultural services</td><td><ul><li>Education and research;</li><li>Recreational activities (walks, etc.);</li><li>Navigation (Taxi pirogue);</li><li>Tourism;</li><li>Aesthetics (mangroves, bolongs, islands, etc.).</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Support services</td><td><ul><li>Soil formation;</li><li>Water cycle;</li><li>The Nursery.</li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table>

## 3.3. Residents' Perceptions of Ecosystem Services at SMPA

People's perception of the importance of the types of ecosystem services, expressed as a score ranging from 1 to 10. Analysis of the figure shows that the highest score is given to nursery (8.71), followed by soil formation (8.43) and the water cycle (8.38). However, the population attaches less importance to salt mining, pharmacopoeia and animal husbandry, with respectively a scores of 7.15, 6.92 and 5.77 (Figure 4).
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4. Public perception of the ecosystem services provided by the AMPS.</figcaption></figure>

## 3.4. Total Economic Value of the SMPA Ecosystem Services

### 3.4.1. Fishing

The total economic value derived from fishing is estimated at CFAF 528,600,000 per year⁻¹ for the three villages, with CFAF 484,000,000 per year⁻¹ for Niodior, CFAF 36,200,000 per year⁻¹ for Dionewar and CFAF 8,400,000 per year⁻¹ for Falia (Table 2).

<table><caption>Table 2. Incomes from fishing and fish products.</caption><thead><tr><th>Villages</th><th>Uses</th><th>Quantity (t)</th><th>Unit price FCFA</th><th>Annual value FCFA</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4">Niodior</td><td>Fish</td><td>90</td><td>400,000</td><td>36,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>Molluscs</td><td>100</td><td>800,000</td><td>80,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>Crustaceans</td><td>30</td><td>1,000,000</td><td>30,000,000</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Subtotal 1</strong></td><td><strong>220</strong></td><td><strong>2,200,000</strong></td><td><strong>484,000,000</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Dionewar</td><td>Fish</td><td>100</td><td>250,000</td><td>25,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>Molluscs</td><td>10</td><td>700,000</td><td>7,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>Crustaceans</td><td>7</td><td>600,000</td><td>4,200,000</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Subtotal 2</strong></td><td><strong>117</strong></td><td><strong>1,550,000</strong></td><td><strong>36,200,000</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Falia</td><td>Fish</td><td>7</td><td>400,000</td><td>2,800,000</td></tr><tr><td>Molluscs</td><td>4</td><td>1,000,000</td><td>4,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>Crustaceans</td><td>2</td><td>800,000</td><td>1,600,000</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Subtotal 3</strong></td><td><strong>13</strong></td><td><strong>2,200,000</strong></td><td><strong>8,400,000</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">GENERAL TOTAL</td><td></td><td>528,600,000 FCFA</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
### 3.4.2. Revenue from the Three Fish and Forestry Product Processing Sites

The total economic value of processing fish and forestry products in the three villages is estimated at 45,161,000 FCFA.year⁻¹ with the highest value (22,300,000 FCFA.year⁻¹) recorded in Dionewar followed by Falia (11,475,000 FCFA.year⁻¹) and Niodior (11,386,000 FCFA.year⁻¹) (Table 3).

<table><caption>Table 3. Incomes from processing fish and forestry products in the three villages.</caption><thead><tr><th>Villages</th><th>Uses</th><th>Total weight (kg)</th><th>Number of bags processed</th><th>Unit price (FCFA)</th><th>Annual value (FCFA)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">Niodior</td><td>Arch or shell (loincloths)</td><td>780</td><td>2340</td><td>2000</td><td>4,680,000</td></tr><tr><td>Murex (Tufta)</td><td>360</td><td>728</td><td>2000</td><td>1,456,000</td></tr><tr><td>Cymbium (Yett)</td><td>360</td><td>1080</td><td>2500</td><td>2,700,000</td></tr><tr><td>Oysters</td><td>200</td><td>400</td><td>2000</td><td>800,000</td></tr><tr><td>"Ditakh"</td><td>1800</td><td>700</td><td>2500</td><td>1,750,000</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Subtotal 1</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td><strong>11,386,000 FCFA</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Arch or shell (loincloths)</td><td>960</td><td>2800</td><td>2000</td><td>5,600,000</td></tr><tr><td>Murex (Tufta)</td><td>1000</td><td>1800</td><td>2000</td><td>3,600,000</td></tr><tr><td>Cymbium (Yett)</td><td>2500</td><td>1400</td><td>2500</td><td>3,500,000</td></tr><tr><td>Oysters</td><td>2000</td><td>1500</td><td>2000</td><td>3,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>(Yokhoss "Ditakh")</td><td>480</td><td>300</td><td>2500</td><td>750,000</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="7">Dionewar</td><td>Dakhar</td><td>1440</td><td>800</td><td>2500</td><td>2,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>Sipax prawns</td><td>480</td><td>500</td><td>4000</td><td>2,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>Tamarind</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Khéthiakh" smoked fish</td><td>1000</td><td>700</td><td>1500</td><td>1,050,000</td></tr><tr><td>Bissap sorrel</td><td>100</td><td>200</td><td>2500</td><td>500,000</td></tr><tr><td>Honey</td><td>240</td><td>150</td><td>2000</td><td>300,000</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Subtotal 2</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td><strong>22,300,000 FCFA</strong></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### 3.4.3. Incomes from Fishing Licences

The amount payable for fishing licences varies according to the type of licence:

**Permit B**, reserved for pirogue owners with canoes between 1 and 13 m long. They pay a fee of 15,000 FCFA.year⁻¹ per canoe.

**Permit C**, reserved for pirogue owners with canoes longer than 13m. They pay an annual fee of 25,000 FCFA⁻¹ per pirogue.

The fishing services station registers a total of 90 type B fishing licences and 55 type C fishing licences each year. The total monetary value generated by the grant-
ing of fishing licences for the three villages is estimated at FCFA 2,725,000 per year⁻¹. This total value conceals disparities within the villages, with the highest amount recorded in Dionewar (1,225,000 FCFA), followed by Niodior (950,000 FCFA). year⁻¹) and Falia (550,000 FCFA). year⁻¹) (Table 4).

<table><caption>**Table 4.** Incomes from fishing licences.</caption><thead><tr><th>Villages</th><th>Types of licence</th><th>Number</th><th>Cost per unit</th><th>Annual value FCFA</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Niodior</td><td>B licence (1 to 13 metres)</td><td>30</td><td>15,000</td><td>450,000</td></tr><tr><td>C licence (13 metres and over)</td><td>20</td><td>25,000</td><td>500,000</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Subtotal 1</strong></td><td></td><td><strong>950,000</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Dionewar</td><td>B licence (1 to 13 metres)</td><td>40</td><td>15,000</td><td>600,000</td></tr><tr><td>C licence (13 metres and over)</td><td>25</td><td>25,000</td><td>625,000</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Subtotal 2</strong></td><td></td><td><strong>1,225,000</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Falia</td><td>B licence (1 to 13 metres)</td><td>20</td><td>15,000</td><td>300,000</td></tr><tr><td>C licence (13 metres and over)</td><td>10</td><td>25,000</td><td>250,000</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Subtotal 3</strong></td><td></td><td><strong>550,000</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">GENERAL TOTAL</td><td>FCFA 2,725,000</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### 3.4.4. Revenues from Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs)

The total economic value of NTFPs is estimated at 20,607,000 FCFA). year⁻¹ for all three villages, with the highest value noted in Dionewar (9,320,000 FCFA). year⁻¹), followed by Falia (8,000,000 FCFA). year⁻¹) and Niodior (3,287,000 FCFA). year⁻¹) (Table 5).

<table><caption>**Table 5.** Income from NTFP collection by local people.</caption><thead><tr><th>Villages</th><th>NTFPS</th><th>Quantity (30 Kg breakdowns)</th><th>Unit price (FCFA)</th><th>Annual value (FCFA)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Niodior</td><td>"Ditakh</td><td>400</td><td>4000</td><td>1,600,000</td></tr><tr><td>Pain de singe (Bouy)</td><td>100</td><td>15,000</td><td>1,500,000</td></tr><tr><td>Coco</td><td>1500</td><td>125</td><td>187,000</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Dionewar</td><td><strong>Subtotal 1</strong></td><td></td><td><strong>3,287,000</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>"Ditakh</td><td>1080</td><td>4000</td><td>4,320,000</td></tr><tr><td>Pain de singe (Bouy)</td><td>800</td><td>6000</td><td>4,800,000</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Coco</td><td>100</td><td>2000</td><td>200,0000</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>Subtotal 2</strong></td><td></td><td><strong>9,320,000</strong></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
Continued

<table><tr><td></td><td>"Ditakh</td><td>1000</td><td>4000</td><td>4,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>Falia</td><td>Pain de singe<br>(Bouy)</td><td>800</td><td>5000</td><td>4,000,000</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Subtotal 3</td><td></td><td>8,000,000</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">GRAND TOTAL (FCFA)</td><td></td><td>20,607,000 FCFA.year<sup>-1</sup></td><td></td></tr></table>

### 3.4.5. Women's Income at Salt Extraction Sites in Niodior

In total, salt production in the village of Niodior alone is estimated at 12,000,000 FCFA per year⁻¹ (Table 6).

<table><caption>Table 6. Income from salt production in niodior.</caption><thead><tr><td>Salt mining</td><td>Quantity (t)</td><td>Unit price (FCFA)</td><td>Annual value (FCFA)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Puits du sel 1</td><td>7</td><td>1,000,000</td><td>7,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>Puits du sel 2</td><td>5</td><td>1,000,000</td><td>5,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>GENERAL TOTAL</td><td></td><td>12,000,000</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### 3.4.6. Farming Recipes at Falia

The total monetary value of agriculture is estimated at 8,100,000 FCFA.year⁻¹ (Table 7).

<table><caption>Table 7. Revenue from agriculture.</caption><thead><tr><td>Speculation</td><td>Quantity (t)</td><td>Unit price (FCFA)</td><td>Annual value (FCFA)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Peanut</td><td>20</td><td>180,000</td><td>3,600,000</td></tr><tr><td>Cowpeas</td><td>5</td><td>300,000</td><td>1,500,000</td></tr><tr><td>But</td><td>7</td><td>400,000</td><td>2,800,000</td></tr><tr><td>Tomato/Crate</td><td>50</td><td>4000</td><td>200,000</td></tr><tr><td>TOTAL</td><td></td><td></td><td>8,100,000</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 3.4.7. Livestock Income at Falia

The total monetary value of livestock production is estimated at CFAF 9,600,000 per year⁻¹ (Table 8).

<table><caption>Table 8. Revenues from the livestock sector.</caption><thead><tr><td>Speculation</td><td>Quantity (t)</td><td>Unit price (FCFA)</td><td>Annual value (FCFA)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Meat and livestock products (cattle)</td><td>30</td><td>320,000</td><td>9,600,000</td></tr></tbody></table>

Revenue from firewood at Dionewar
The total monetary value of fuelwood is estimated at **6,000,000 FCFA.year**⁻¹ (Table 9).

<table><caption>Table 9. Incomes from firewood collection.</caption><thead><tr><th>Speculation</th><th>Quantity/drug/cargo</th><th>Unit price (FCFA)</th><th>Annual value (FCFA)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Firewood</td><td>300</td><td>20,000</td><td>6,000,000</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 3.4.8. Cultural Services

#### Incomes from shipping (pirogue operators)

There are a total of 04 shuttles, called “couriers” by the inhabitants of the three villages. The pirogue boats run the shuttles throughout the week, with an average of 2 trips per day and **35 passengers per pirogue per day**. Prices vary from **350 to 1000 FCFA**. The total monetary value of navigation is estimated at **66,977,500 FCFA per year**⁻¹ (Table 10).

<table><caption>Table 10. Revenue from shipping.</caption><thead><tr><th>Journeys</th><th>Number of journeys/day</th><th>Number of passengers/Pirogue</th><th>Unit price/Passenger (FCFA)</th><th>Annual value (FCFA)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Djiffere-Niodior</td><td>2</td><td>35</td><td>500</td><td>12,775,000</td></tr><tr><td>Niodior-Djiffere</td><td>1</td><td>55</td><td>1000</td><td>20,075,000</td></tr><tr><td>Subtotal 1</td><td></td><td>32,850,000</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Dionewar-Falia</td><td>2</td><td>55</td><td>350</td><td>14,052,500</td></tr><tr><td>Falia-Dionewar</td><td>2</td><td>55</td><td>500</td><td>20,075,000</td></tr><tr><td>Subtotal 2 (FCFA)</td><td></td><td>34,127,500</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>GRAND TOTAL (FCFA)</td><td></td><td>66,977,500</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### 3.4.9. Paillote Recipes (Tourism)

A total of 08 straw huts were found along the shores of the villages of Dionewar and Falia, run by local people to accommodate tourists. The monetary value of tourism was estimated at **60,840,000 FCFA.year**⁻¹, with the highest amount recorded in Dionewar (47,160,000 FCFA) and the lowest in Falia (13,680,000 FCFA) (Table 11).

### 3.4.10. Regulatory Affairs

#### Carbon sequestration

Land use in the AMPS is dominated by aquatic environments (freshwater and marine) (85.09%), although the uses and activities are not comparable between the different environments, the marine environment being largely represented. This is followed by mangroves (8.24%), savannahs (4.58%) and tannas (0.86%). Crops occupy the smallest area (0.001%). Thus, the total monetary value of carbon sequestration in the AMPS is estimated at **1,450,105,563 FCFA.an**⁻¹ with **796,004,963 FCFA.an**⁻¹.
FCFA.an⁻¹ for mangroves, 604,872,963 FCFA.year⁻¹ for savannahs (trees and shrubs) and 49,227,637 FCFA.year⁻¹ for forests (Table 12).

<table><caption>Table 11. Incomes from straw huts.</caption><thead><tr><th>Villages</th><th>Hotels/Camps</th><th>Average number of tourists/week</th><th>Average length of stay</th><th>Average room/night and restaurant rates (FCFA)</th><th>Annual value (FCFA)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Dionewar</td><td>Camp 1 Dionewar</td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td>35,000</td><td>29,400,000</td></tr><tr><td>Camp 2 Dionewar</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>20,000</td><td>5,760,000</td></tr><tr><td>People working for accommodation</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>12,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>Subtotal 1 (FCFA)</td><td></td><td></td><td>47,160,000</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Falia camp</td><td>6</td><td>4</td><td>17,500</td><td>10,080,000</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Falia</td><td>Employees</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>3,600,000</td></tr><tr><td>Subtotal 2 (FCFA)</td><td></td><td>13,680,000</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">GRAND TOTAL (FCFA)</td><td></td><td>60,840,000</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 12. Incomes from carbon sequestration by ecological units.</caption><thead><tr><th>Ecological unit</th><th>Average stock of carbon (t·ha<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>Area of each ecological unit (ha)</th><th>Total quantity stored in the AMPS (t·ha<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>Total monetary value of carbon (FCFA·year<sup>-1</sup>)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Mangroves</td><td>55</td><td>4076.85</td><td>224226.75</td><td>796,004,963</td></tr><tr><td>Shrubby savannahs</td><td>45.21</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Wooded savannah</td><td>30</td><td>2265.48</td><td>170386.75</td><td>604,872,963</td></tr><tr><td>Forests</td><td>52.60</td><td>263.63</td><td>13866.94</td><td>49,227,637</td></tr><tr><td>GRAND TOTAL (FCFA)</td><td></td><td></td><td>1,450,105,563</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### 3.4.11. Protecting Mangroves from Strong Winds

The estimated monetary value for the moderation of the effects of violent winds by the mangrove ecosystem of the AMPS was 16,680,000 FCFA.year⁻¹ for all three villages. The highest value was recorded in Niodior (10,800,000 FCFA.year⁻¹), followed by Falia (1,280,000 FCFA.year⁻¹) and Dionewar (4,600,000 FCFA.year⁻¹) (Table 13).

### 3.4.12. Protecting Mangroves against Erosion and Flooding

The monetary value of the AMPS mangrove ecosystem for protection against coastal erosion and flooding is estimated at 270,800,000 FCFA.year⁻¹ within the three villages. The village of Dionewar has the highest value at 164,000,000 FCFA.year⁻¹ (Table 14).
<table><caption>Table 13. Incomes from carbon sequestration by ecological units.</caption><thead><tr><th>Villages</th><th>Infrastructure and homes affected</th><th>Quantity</th><th>Average expenditure/infrastructure/year in FCFA</th><th>Total expenditure (FCFA.year<sup>-1</sup>)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="6">Niodior</td><td>Inhabited houses</td><td>30</td><td>300,000</td><td>9,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>Mosques</td><td>2</td><td>5,000,000</td><td>10,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>Processing unit</td><td>1</td><td>8,000,000</td><td>8,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>Subtotal 1</td><td>33</td><td>13,300,000</td><td>27,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>After correction<br>(40% protection due to mangroves)</td><td></td><td>5,320,000</td><td>10,800,000</td></tr><tr><td>Inhabited houses</td><td>20</td><td>250,000</td><td>5,000,000</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Dionewar</td><td>Mosques</td><td>1</td><td>2,000,000 (Town Hall grant)</td><td>2,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>Lycée</td><td>1</td><td>1,500,000</td><td>1,500,000</td></tr><tr><td>Electricity pole</td><td>3</td><td>1,000,000</td><td>3,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>Subtotal 2</td><td>55</td><td>6,750,000</td><td>11,500,000</td></tr><tr><td>After correction<br>(40% protection due to mangroves)</td><td></td><td>2,700,000</td><td>4,600,000</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Falia</td><td>Inhabited houses</td><td>10</td><td>400,000</td><td>400,000</td></tr><tr><td>Mosque</td><td>1</td><td>2,000,000</td><td>2,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>Electricity poles</td><td>2</td><td>400,000</td><td>800,000</td></tr><tr><td>TOTAL</td><td>13</td><td>2,800,000</td><td>3,200,000</td></tr><tr><td>After correction<br>(40% protection due to mangroves)</td><td></td><td>1,120,000</td><td>1,280,000</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Grand total for the three villages after correction</td><td></td><td>16,680,000 F</td><td>CFA</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 14. Incomes from protecting mangroves from coastal erosion and flooding.</caption><thead><tr><th>Villages</th><th>Types Infrastructure</th><th>Number</th><th>Average total construction cost/ infrastructure/year (FCFA)</th><th>Total construction cost/year (FCFA)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="6">Niodior</td><td>Stone houses</td><td>10</td><td>6,000,000</td><td>60,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>Mosques</td><td>3</td><td>10,000,000</td><td>30,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>Processing unit</td><td>1</td><td>20,000,000</td><td>20,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>Drinking water points</td><td>1</td><td>2,000,000</td><td>2,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>TOTAL</td><td>15</td><td>38,000,000</td><td>112,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>After correction<br>(40% protection due to mangroves)</td><td></td><td>15,200,000 F</td><td>44,800,000</td></tr></tbody></table>
Continued

<table><tbody><tr><td rowspan="6">Dionewar</td><td>Stone houses</td><td>40</td><td>8,000,000</td><td>320,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>Mosques</td><td>1</td><td>15,000,000</td><td>30,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>Processing unit</td><td>1</td><td>20,000,000</td><td>20,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>Lycée</td><td>1</td><td>40,000,000</td><td>40,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>TOTAL</td><td>43</td><td>83,000,000</td><td>410,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>After correction<br>(40% protection due to mangroves)</td><td></td><td>33,200,000</td><td>164,000,000</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Falia</td><td>Stone houses</td><td>30</td><td>4,000,000</td><td>120,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>Mosque</td><td>1</td><td>15,000,000</td><td>15,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>Processing unit</td><td>1</td><td>20,000,000</td><td>20,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>TOTAL</td><td>32</td><td>39,000,000</td><td>155,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>After correction<br>(40% protection due to mangroves)</td><td></td><td>15,600,000</td><td>62,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>Grand total for the three villages after correction</td><td></td><td></td><td>270,800,000 FCFA</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 3.4.13. Support Services

Analysis of Table 15 shows that the total monetary value of support services is estimated at 276,000,000 FCFA, most of which (247,000,000 FCFA) comes from Financial and Technical Partners (FTPs) who finance conservation, restoration and processing activities.

<table><caption>Table 15. Incomes from technical and financial partners and the Senegalese government for the operation of the AMPS.</caption><thead><tr><td>Financing structures</td><td>Annual value (FCFA)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>State of Senegal (operating and investment)</td><td>29,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>PTF</td><td>247,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>TOTAL</td><td>276,000,000</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 3.4.14. Total Economic Value of MPAS Ecosystem Services

The total economic value of the ecosystem services provided by the AMPS is estimated at 2,808,323,563 FCFA, which is separated into use values, which contain the highest regulatory services, estimated at CFAF 1,737,585,563, year⁻¹ (61.87%), provisioning services, estimated at CFAF 632,793,000, year⁻¹ (22.53%), and cultural services, estimated at CFAF 161,945,000, year⁻¹ (5.77%). The non-use values include only support services estimated at 276,000,000 FCFA, year⁻¹ (9.83%) (Table 16).
<table><caption>**Table 16.** Summary table of the total monetary value of ecosystem services provided by the WHPA.</caption><thead><tr><th>Types of values</th><th>Ecosystem services</th><th>TEV in FCFA.year<sup>-1</sup></th><th>Share of each SE (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Use values</td><td>Procurement services</td><td>632,793,000</td><td>22.53</td></tr><tr><td>Cultural services</td><td>161,945,000</td><td>5.77</td></tr><tr><td>Regulatory services</td><td>1,737,585,563</td><td>61.87</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Sub-total use values = 2,532,503,563</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Non-use values</td><td>Support services</td><td>276,000,000</td><td>9.83</td></tr></tbody></table>

# 4. Discussion

## 4.1. Key Actors Identification

This study shows that the majority of stakeholders (48%) are fishermen who ply their trade in the AMPS. Fishing is the main activity in the Dionewar municipality, and most of the young people in the municipality are involved in this activity. At AMPS level, we find the following players: fishermen, women who process fishery and forestry products, NTFP gatherers, firewood collectors, hoteliers, carters, fishmongers, salt producers, honey producers, breeders, farmers, ice-cream sellers, crate hirers, outboard mechanics and resellers who make a profit from the AMPS. The latter contribute to the management of AMPS resources. These results corroborate those of FALL [21], for the Saint Louis AMP, where all these actors are found. In addition, women, who represent 29% of stakeholders, are much more active in the processing of fish and forest products. These results corroborate those of NDIAYE et al. [22] for the Kayar MPA, where 23% of women are involved in processing. According to a study by DEME [23], more than 80% of the fish and forest products processing sector is managed by women.

## 4.2. Public Perception on the SMPA's Ecosystem Services

This study shows that the entire population of the Dionewar municipality is aware of the AMPS. The population's knowledge of the AMPS is obvious because the Dionewar is a peninsula located within the AMPS. In addition, almost all the inhabitants of the Dionewar municipality gave a higher score (8.71/10) to the nursery of fish species. This is due to the fact that fishing is the main activity in the area and, according to them, the mangroves are a breeding ground for fish. This result corroborates that of HAMID [9] in the Banc d'Arguin-Mauritania National Park, where people gave a score of 9.10/10 to the nursery. In fact, all the respondents gave good scores to soil formation (8.43/10) and the water cycle (8.38/10) because, according to them, soil and water support all the other existing services, as shown by HAMID [9] in the Banc d'Arguin-Mauritania National Park. However, this dependence of the population on mangroves has been shown by DIOP et al. [24] in the Delta du Saloum National Park in Senegal.
**4.3. Economic Value of SMPA's Ecosystem Services**

The regulating services estimated at 1,737,585,563 FCFA.year⁻¹ are the most im-
portant ecosystem services offered by the AMPS. This result is due to the fact that
the AMPS has mangrove ecosystems as well as tree and shrub savannahs and for-
est that sequester a significant amount of carbon also playing an important role in
protecting against coastal erosion and flooding and moderating violent winds.
These results corroborate those of SALL [25] for the Gandoul.

Marine Protected Area (AMPG), where regulatory services are more important, estimated at FCFA 5,203,055,447 per year⁻¹. In addition, the total economic value of fishery products in Dionewar fell from 982,732,100 FCFA.year⁻¹ in 2017 to 528,600,000 FCFA.year⁻¹ in 2023, a decrease of 454,132,100 FCFA.year⁻¹ [15]. This decline is due to the destruction of the mangrove ecosystem, the increase in the number of fishermen in the area, the effects of climate change and the abandonment of fishing by many young people because of illegal emigration. These results corroborate those of NDIAYE *et al.* [22], who found the same reasons (destruction of mangroves, increase in the number of fishermen, etc.) for the decline in fish products in the Kayar MPA. In addition, supply services estimated at CFAF 632,793,000 per year⁻¹ are also important in the AMPS, helping to achieve food security and increase people’s incomes, thereby enabling them to improve their living conditions. These results are in line with those of SALL [25] for the AMPG and the Palmarin Community Nature Reserve (RNCP), and those of BADIANE *et al.* [26]; DIEDHIOU *et al.* [27] for the Abéné MPA, where provisioning and regulating services have the highest economic value. In addition, these same studies have been carried out in many MPAs in Senegal, such as the Aire Marine Protégée de Gandoul (AMPG), the RNCP by SALL [25] and in the AMPS by MBODJ [15]. The same work has also been carried out in the sub-region of Mauritania, in the Banc d’Arguin National Park by HAMID [9] and in the mangroves and associated forests of the Douala-Edéa coastal landscape in Cameroon by NOUMEYI [4]. The total economic value of the ecosystem services provided by the AMPS estimated at 2,808,323,563 FCFA.an⁻¹ is much higher than that found 1,102,474,400 FCFA.an⁻¹ by MBODJ [15]. This is due to the fact that he estimated only the direct use values of the AMPS, whereas the present study focused on all the values (use and non-use). This total economic value is much lower than that found by FALL [21] for the Saint Louis MPA, estimated at 13,395,318,050 FCFA.year⁻¹. This is due to the fact that Fall’s sample was larger than ours because the Saint Louis MPA encompasses more than 08 villages that act directly on the MPA’s resources whereas at the AMPS level, only three villages benefit directly from the AMPS. Given the total economic value of the ecosystem services provided by the AMPS, the latter still deserves to be better protected.

**5. Conclusion and Perspectives**

This study focuses on the economic evaluation of ecosystem services provided by
the Sangomar Marine Protected Area (AMPS). The study shows that the most
common stakeholders in the AMPS are fishermen, carters and women who pro-
cess fish and forest products, while the least represented are honey producers, salt
producers, farmers, livestock breeders and hoteliers. These respondents cited 19
ecosystem services, which were divided into regulatory services, provisioning ser-
vices, support services and cultural services. In the opinion of the people, the most
important types of service were nursery services, with a score of 8.71, followed by
soil formation (8.43) and the water cycle (8.38). In monetary terms, the highest value
was recorded for regulation services (1,737,585,563 FCFA.year⁻¹), followed by sup-
ply services (632,793,000 FCFA.year¹), support services (276,000,000 FCFA.year⁻¹)
and cultural services (161,945,000 FCFA.year¹). This gives a significant value of
2,808,323,563 FCFA.year⁻¹ for the AMPS. The results of this study should be a
means of convincing the political authorities and local communities to better pro-
tect the Protected Areas (PA).

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the UNESCO MAN AND BIOSPHERE (MAB) programme.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

References

[1] UNEP (2007) Mangroves of Western and Central Africa. UNEP, Regional Sea Programme UNEP.

[2] World Wide Fund (WWF) (2014) People, Species, Spaces and Ecosystems. Living Planet Report 2014, WCMC.
http://www.unep.wcmc.org/resources/publications/EP_WCMC_bio_series/26.htm

[3] Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (2015). National Strategy & Action Plan for Biodiversity.

[4] Noumeyi, S.M.J. (2015). Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Goods and Services: The Case of Mangroves and Associated Forests in the Douala-Edéa Coastal Landscape in Cameroon. Diploma Master, Université Senghor.

[5] UNEP (2014). The Importance of Mangroves to People: A Call to Action. United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre.

[6] De Groot, R.S., Stuip, M., Finlayson, M. and Davidson, N. (2007) Valuing Wetlands: Guidance on Estimating the Benefits Derived from Wetland Ecosystem Services. Ramsar Convention.

[7] Méral, P. (2012) Le concept de service écosystémique en économie: Origine et tendances récentes. *Natures Sciences Sociétés*, **20**, 3-15.
https://doi.org/10.1051/nss/2012002
https://www.nss-journal.org/articles/nss/pdf/2012/01/nss120002.pdf

[8] Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., et al. (1997) The Value of the World's Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. *Nature*, **387**, 253-260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0

[9] Hamid, M.L.A. (2018) Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services Offered by Marine
Protected Areas in West Africa: Example Parc National du Banc d'Arguin-Mauritanie. Doctoral Dissertation, Université Montpellier.
https://theses.hal.science/tel-02047962/document

[10] MEA (2005) Rapport de synthèse de l'évaluation des écosystèmes pour le millénaire.

[11] Abaza, H. and Rietbergen-Mccracken, J. (1998) Environmental Assessment. Environmental Economics Series No. 26, 14 p.

[12] Christie, M., Fazey, I., Cooper, R., Hyde, T., Deri, A., Hughes, L., et al. (2008) An Evaluation of Economic and Non-Economic Techniques for Assessing the Importance of Biodiversity to People in Developing Countries. Defra, London.

[13] Christie, M., Fazey, I., Cooper, R., Hyde, T. and Kenter, J.O. (2012) An Evaluation of Monetary and Non-Monetary Techniques for Assessing the Importance of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services to People in Countries with Developing Economies. *Economic Economics*, **83**, 67-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.012

[14] Hearne, R.R. (1996) Economic Valuation of Use and Non-Use Values of Environmental Goods and Services in Developing Countries. *Project Appraisal*, **11**, 255-260.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02688867.1996.9727552
https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/tiap18

[15] Mbodj, I. (2017) Contribution to the Initial Economic Assessment of the Direct Use Values of the Sangomar Marine Protected Area (MPA). Final Dissertation for the Eaux et Forêts Engineering Degree at the Institut Supérieur de Formation Agricole et Rurale (ISFAR Ex ENCR).

[16] Plan d'Aménagement et de Gestion (PAG) de sangomar (2014). Plan d'Aménagement et Gestion de l'aire marine protégée de Sangomar (Final Version). PAG, 15-47.

[17] Ndiaye, A. (2017) Contribution à l'évaluation socioéconomique des biens et services écosystémiques de la Réserve Naturelle d'Intérêt Communautaire de la Somone (RNICS). Mémoire d'Ingénieur agronome, spécialité Eaux et Forêts à l'Ecole Nationale Supérieure d'Agriculture (ENSA).

[18] PROGEDE-2 (2016) Rapport d'évaluation des stocks de carbone dans les massifs forêtiers de la zone d'intervention du PROGEDE 2.

[19] Kauffman, J.B. and Bhomia, R.K. (2017) Ecosystem Carbon Stocks of Mangroves across Broad Environmental Gradients in West-Central Africa: Global and Regional Comparisons. *PLOS ONE*, **12**, e0187749.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187749

[20] Ajonina, G.J.G., Kairo, G., Grimsditch, T., Sembres, G., Chuyong, D.E., Mibog, A. et al. (2014) Carbon Pools and Multiple Benefits of Mangroves in Central Africa: Assessment for REDD+.
https://www.ambienteysociedad.org.co/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/REDD-carbon_lores-1.pdf

[21] Fall, S. (2018) Contribution à l'évaluation socioéconomique des biens et services écosystémiques de l'Aire Marine Protégée de Saint-Louis (Sénégal).
https://chm.cbd.int/api/v2013/documents/EF5130E7-3FEA-13F9-B281-97F78B1EB4D4/attachments/207091/Evaluation%20BSE%20AMP%20Saint%20Louis.pdf

[22] Ndiaye, S. (2022) Perceptions des populations sur les services écosystémiques de l'aire marine protégée de Kayar à l'ouest du Sénégal. *Revue Ecosystèmes et Paysages*, **2**, 53-68. https://doi.org/10.59384/recopays.tg2204

[23] Deme, M. (2015) Consultation Report: Regional Study. Cross-Border Fish Trade in the CCLME Area. CCLME/FAO Project.

[24] Diop, A.B., Samb, C.O., Barry, M., Ndour, A.A., Cisse, O., Mukenza, M.M., et al.
(2024) Spatio-Temporal Dynamics of the Mangrove in the Saloum Delta National Park (SDNP), Senegal. *Revue Écosystèmes et Paysages (Togo)*, 4, 1-17.

[25] Sall, N.F. (2017) Assessment of the EGS of the Gandoul Marine Protected Area (AMPG) and the Palmarin Community Nature Reserve (RNCP). Final Report, Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland and Secretariat on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada (Ramsar Technical Report 3/CBD Technical Publications Series 27).

[26] Badiane, M., Camara, B., Ngom, D. and Diédhiou, M.A.A. (2019) Community Perception of Traditional Agroforestry Parks with Faidherbia albida (Del.) Chev. in Basse Casamance, Senegal. *Afrique SCIENCE*, **15**, 214-226.
https://rivieresdusud.uasz.sn/xmlui/handle/123456789/658

[27] Diedhiou, A. (2021) Perception des populations sur les services écosystémiques des aires protégées: Cas de l'Aire Marine Protégée d'Abéné, Sénégal. *Revue Ecosystèmes et Paysages*, **1**, 73-84. https://doi.org/10.59384/recopays.tg1106