CHAPTER 3

THE ROLE OF ECOSYSTEMS

IN CLIMATE CHANGE
ADAPTATION AND DISASTER
RISK REDUCTION

Noralene Uy and Rajib Shaw

ABSTRACT

In the context of natural disasters and climate change, ecosystems are

critical natural capital because of their ability to regulate climate and
natural hazards. This chapter examines the important role of ecosystems
and their services in disaster risk reduction and climate change adapta-
tion. It discusses the relevance of adopting ecosystem-based approaches in
managing risks brought about by a changing climate.

Keywords: Ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction; ecosystem-based

adaptation

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the value of intact and well-functioning ecosystems has

been increasingly recognized in disaster risk reduction and climate change

Ecosystem-Based Adaptation
Community, Environment and Disaster Risk Management, Volume 12, 41–59
Copyright r 2012 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 2040-7262/doi:10.1108/S2040-7262(2012)0000012009
41
42 NORALENE UY AND RAJIB SHAW

adaptation. There is growing evidence of the important role that ecosystems

play in supporting the goals of a safer and resilient society. The case for
ecosystem approaches is strongly argued because of the huge potential and
multiple benefits to be achieved in putting ecosystems at the center of
disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation decision-making and
policy.
Ecosystem decline and climate change have been identified in the
Global Assessment Reports as among the four underlying drivers of risk
to poverty and disaster (International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
[ISDR], 2009). Ecosystem decline puts vulnerable communities at risk by
reducing the resilience of natural systems and human societies against the
impacts of climate change and increased risks of disaster. Specifically, the
impacts of climate change and human activities put a lot of pressure on
ecosystem structure and function, resulting to reduced ecosystem services
as well as lower resilience (Forslund et al., 2009). These, in turn, impact
on communities, especially the poor who are highly dependent on
ecosystems for livelihoods (Bapna, McGray, Mock, & Withey, 2009;
International Institute for Sustainable Development [IISD] et al., 2003;
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MA], 2005). Additionally, MA
(2005) and Johnson, Malk, Szaro, and Sexton (1999) identify climate
change as one of the direct drivers of changes in ecosystems. Global
environmental change, especially brought about by climate change, poses
a serious threat to human well-being because mankind’s future is directly
dependent on the sustainability of ecosystems (World Resources Institute
[WRI], 2000).
Ecosystems play a vital role in human well-being because of the numerous
benefits that can be derived from them. For instance, the provisioning
services of ecosystems are essential because of their implications to food
security and livelihoods, which are closely linked to disaster and climate
change. The structures and functions of ecosystems that combine to deliver
the services and benefits they provide for people comprise the natural infra-
structure of the ecosystem (Smith & Barchiesi, n.d.).
This chapter examines the role of ecosystems in responding to climate
change and addressing disaster risks. In the context of natural disasters and
climate change, ecosystems are critical natural capital because of their
ability to regulate climate and natural hazards. Well-managed ecosystems
can support disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation by
continuing to provide protective functions as well as other ecosystem
services that are threatened by climate change.
The Role of Ecosystems in CCA and DRR 43

Climate and Natural Hazard Regulation

The regulating services of ecosystems directly influence climate and natural

hazards. These regulating and protective functions provide water regulation,
storage, and retention; disturbance regulation (e.g., storm protection,
flood control, drought recovery); erosion control; and sediment retention
(Costanza et al., 1997; Sudmeier-Rieux, Masundire, Rizvi, & Rietbergen,
2006). In climate regulation, ecosystems affect climate through (i) warming,
(ii) cooling, (iii) water redistribution/recycling, and (iv) regional rainfall
patterns. Ecosystems, both natural and managed, exert a strong influence on
climate and air quality as sources and sinks of pollutants, reactive gases,
greenhouse gases, and aerosols, and due to physical properties that affect
heat and water fluxes. Anderson-Texeira et al. (2012) show that natural
ecosystems are found to have higher climate regulation values than
agroecosystems because of the differences in biogeochemical services, thus
reinforcing the importance of protecting tropical forests. In natural hazard
regulation, on the other hand, ecosystems affect both the probability and
severity of events and modulate the effects of extreme events. For example,
soils store large amounts of water, facilitate transfer of surface water to
groundwater, and prevent or reduce flooding. Furthermore, natural buffers
such as mangroves, barrier beaches, wetlands, and lakes attenuate hazards
by absorbing runoff peaks and storm surges.

Ecosystem Provisioning

The provisioning services of ecosystems indirectly impact on the coping

capacity of human beings against climate change and natural hazards
through food insecurity, water shortage, poor shelter, and inadequate
livelihoods. Provisioning services such as food, fresh water, wood, fiber,
medicine, and fuel are critical for daily sustenance and living, and
ultimately, human well-being. For the poor who are highly dependent on
natural resources, ecosystems essentially provide livelihood resources. The
alteration of the supply of provisioning services can lead to the increase in
human vulnerability (Schroter, 2009). Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar in 2005
showed how preexisting vulnerabilities due to the degraded conditions of
coastal vegetation influenced livelihood recovery efforts, thus increasing
socioeconomic vulnerability to hazard impacts (Partnership for Environ-
ment and Disaster Risk Reduction [PEDRR], 2010).
44 NORALENE UY AND RAJIB SHAW

ECOSYSTEMS AND DISASTER RISK REDUCTION

Ecosystem management is central to building resilience of communities and

nations under the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), especially HFA
Priority 4 that identifies disaster risk reduction as an integral objective of
environment-related policies and plans, including land use, natural resource
management, and adaptation to climate change (ISDR, 2005). Subse-
quently, the 2011 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction
(ISDR, 2011) lists mainstreaming ecosystem approaches in disaster risk
management as a key element to success.
As mentioned above, the regulating and provisioning services provided by
ecosystems can reduce disaster risk and climate change impacts. The hazard
mitigation functions of ecosystems lessen physical as well as socioeconomic
vulnerabilities. Table 1 describes the hazard mitigation functions of some
ecosystems (Bell & Wheeler, 2006; PEDRR, 2010).
Many studies have demonstrated the important role of ecosystems in
modulating the effects of hazards. Ecosystems are often called natural
buffers, natural barriers, natural infrastructures, green and blue infra-
structures, bioshields, and protective greenbelt, among others, in disaster
literature. Being such, they reduce physical exposure to natural hazards and,
thus, mitigate hazard impacts. Studies done after the 2004 Indian Ocean
Tsunami, for instance, provide ample evidence of the crucial roles that
coastal forests and trees (e.g., mangroves) play in protecting lives, resources,
and infrastructure from coastal hazards, especially tsunamis (Braatz,
Fortuna, Broadhead, & Leslie, 2007; Chang et al., 2006; Danielsen et al.,
2005; Forbes & Broadhead, 2007; Yanagisawa et al., 2009). On the role of
coral reefs, studies in Hikkaduwa, Sri Lanka, where reefs are in a marine
park, showed that tsunami damage reached only 50 meters inland and waves
were only 2 to 3 meters high as compared to Peraliya, where reefs have
been extensively destroyed by coral mining, which experienced waves
10 meters high and damage and flooding up to 1.5 kilometers inland (The
World Bank & the United Nations, 2010).
Similarly, Das and Vincent (2009) showed statistical evidence from a
sample of 409 villages on how mangroves reduced death toll during the 1999
super cyclone in Orissa. Furthermore, Costanza et al. (2008) showed the
important value of wetlands in reducing flooding associated with hurricanes
in the United States, calculating it to amount to an average of USD 8,240
per hectare per year, with coastal wetlands estimated to provide USD 23.2
billion a year in storm protective services. In a study of Sri Lanka’s
Muturajawia marsh, a 3,100 hectare coastal peat bog that buffers and
The Role of Ecosystems in CCA and DRR 45

Table 1. Hazard Mitigation Functions of Ecosystems.

Ecosystem Hazard Mitigation

Mountain forests and other  Vegetation cover and root structures protect against erosion
vegetation on hillsides and increase slope stability by binding soil together;
preventing landslides
 Forests protect against rockfall and stabilize snow reducing
the risk of avalanches
 Catchment forests, especially primary forest, reduce risk of
floods by increasing infiltration of rainfall and delaying peak
floodwater flows, except when soils are fully saturated
 Forests on watersheds are important for water recharge and
purification, drought mitigation, and safeguarding drinking
water supply for some of the world’s major cities
Wetlands and floodplains  Wetlands and floodplains control floods in coastal areas,
inland river basins, and mountain areas subject to glacial
melt
 Peat lands, wet grasslands, and other wetlands store water
and release it slowly, reducing the speed and volume of
runoff after heavy rainfall or snowmelt in springtime
 Coastal wetlands, tidal flats, deltas, and estuaries reduce the
height and speed of storm surges and tidal waves
 Marshes, lakes, and floodplains release wet season flows
slowly during drought periods
Coastal ecosystems, such as  Coastal ecosystems function as a continuum of natural
mangroves, salt marshes, buffer systems protecting against hurricanes, storm surges,
coral reefs, barrier flooding, and other coastal hazards – a combined protection
islands, and sand dunes from coral reefs, sea grass beds, and sand dunes/coastal
wetlands/coastal forests is particularly effective. Research
has highlighted several cases where coastal areas protected
by healthy ecosystems have suffered less from extreme
weather events than more exposed communities
 Coral reefs and coastal wetlands such as mangroves and salt
marshes absorb (low-magnitude) wave energy, reduce wave
heights, and reduce erosion from storms and high tides
 Coastal wetlands buffer against saltwater intrusion and
adapt to (slow) sea-level rise by trapping sediment and
organic matter
 Nonporous natural barriers such as sand dunes (with
associated plant communities) and barrier islands dissipate
wave energy and act as barriers against waves, currents,
storm surges, and tsunami

Drylands  Natural vegetation management and restoration in drylands

contributes to ameliorate the effects of drought and control
desertification, as trees, grasses, and shrubs conserve soil and
retain moisture
46 NORALENE UY AND RAJIB SHAW

Table 1. (Continued )
Ecosystem Hazard Mitigation

 Shelterbelts, greenbelts, and other types of living fences act

as barriers against wind erosion and sandstorms
 Maintaining vegetation cover in dryland areas and
agricultural practices such as use of shadow crops, nutrient-
enriching plants, and vegetation litter increases resilience to
drought
 Prescribed burning and creation of physical firebreaks in dry
landscapes reduces fuel loads and the risk of unwanted large-
scale fires
Urban ecosystem  Urban forests contribute to reduction in emissions through
energy savings and the reduction of the urban heat island
effect, directly by shading heat-absorbing surfaces and
indirectly through evapotranspirational cooling. Trees shade
and shelter buildings reducing energy associated with cooling
and heating and reducing overall local temperatures of the
urban heat island, which can further reduce cooling-related
energy use
 Trees can reduce heating energy use by acting as windbreaks
around buildings and blocking cold winter winds
 Trees reduce pollution through filtration
 Promoting natural vegetation everywhere in the city
strengthens resistance to floods and droughts by preventing
soil erosion and absorbing rainwater, thereby improving
drainage

regulates flood water discharge into the sea, the annual value of this
protective service is estimated at more than USD 5 million or USD 1,750 per
hectare (Emerton & Bos, 2004). According to the Ramsar Convention on
Wetlands, riparian vegetation stabilizes riverbanks, and if lost, the cost is
estimated at up to USD 425 per meter of bank. Finally, forests have an
estimated economic value in preventing avalanches ranging from less than
USD 100 per hectare per year for some of the landscapes in the Swiss Alps
to more than USD 170,000 per hectare per year for tourist venues and towns
(ProAct Network, 2008).
Subsequently, soft or ecological engineering approaches are now
increasingly recognized as a form of structural defense rather than hard
engineering alternatives (e.g., steel fabrications, poured concrete, or shifted
rocks). According to ProAct Network (2008), these natural protection
structures can (i) enhance community ownership of disaster risk reduction
The Role of Ecosystems in CCA and DRR 47

(DRR); (ii) adapt to changing conditions, including recovery after a major

damage-causing event; (iii) be more readily applied in poor countries as they
are more cost-effective; (iv) be maintained with less external assistance; and
(v) prevent and reverse environmental degradation. As a cost-effective
solution, the Nature Conservancy (2010) describes how an initial investment
of USD 1.1 million to plant 12,000 hectares of mangrove trees to act as
buffer to a 110-kilometer-long sea dike in Vietnam saved an estimated USD
7.3 million per year in sea dike maintenance and benefited an estimated
7,500 families by protecting lives and agriculture.
Nevertheless, natural buffers cannot offer complete protection that
combining both natural and hard defenses may be more effective (PEDRR,
2010; ProAct Network, 2008). There are many factors that may limit the
ecosystem’s ability to provide protection against hazards such as ecosystem
composition (e.g., stand size, density, species) and health, and the type and
intensity of hazard event (PEDRR, 2010). In a study by Perez-Maqueo,
Intralawan, and Martinez (2007), results suggest that a combination of
infrastructure and relatively well-preserved natural ecosystems (semi-altered
ecosystems) seem to offer a good protection service against the impact of
hurricanes in terms of human lives. ‘‘Use of ecosystems as ‘bioshields’ is not a
panacea for decreasing people’s vulnerability to natural disasters and should
be accompanied by other measures such as early warning systems and disaster
preparedness’’ (Feagin et al., 2010).
It should be realized that natural disasters not only affect people but also
ecosystems, bringing negative consequences to the ecosystem services that
they provide. Some of the environmental impacts may include (i) direct
damage to the natural resources and infrastructure, affecting ecosystem
functions; (ii) acute emergencies from the uncontrolled, unplanned, or
accidental release of hazardous substances, especially from industries; and
(iii) indirect damage as a result of postdisaster relief and recovery operations
that fail to take ecosystems and ecosystem services into account (PEDRR,
2010). For example, Mainka and McNeely (2011) describe the environ-
mental damage resulting from disasters such as the loss of Panda habitat in
Sichuan and the creation of a natural lake that increases flooding risks in
Pakistan following the two earthquakes and the accumulated debris in
lagoons and inland salt intrusion in Sri Lanka after the 2004 tsunami.
Ecosystem destruction can exacerbate preexisting vulnerabilities or create
new vulnerabilities and risk patterns, thus influencing the ability of both
people and ecosystem to recover from disasters (PEDRR, 2010).
Adopting ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction is most relevant to
reduce exposure and vulnerability through hazard mitigation or regulation
48 NORALENE UY AND RAJIB SHAW

as well as enhancement of livelihood capacities and resilience (Gupta &

Nair, 2012; Uy, Takeuchi, & Shaw, 2012). PEDRR (2010) identifies seven
core elements on implementing ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction,
such as (i) recognize the multiple functions and services provided by
ecosystems, including natural hazard protection or mitigation; (ii) link
ecosystem-based risk reduction with sustainable livelihoods and develop-
ment; (iii) combine investment in ecosystems with other effective DRR
strategies, including hard engineering options; (iv) address risks associated
with climate change and extreme events and reduce their impact on
ecosystem services; (v) enhance governance capacities for ecosystem-based
DRR through multisector, multidisciplinary platforms; (vi) involve local
stakeholders in decision-making; and (vii) utilize existing instruments and
tools in ecosystems management and enhance their DRR value. Harnessing
the potential of ecosystems for disaster risk reduction offers many
opportunities in view of increasing disasters and the new risks posed by
climate change.

ECOSYSTEMS AND CLIMATE CHANGE

ADAPTATION

The threat of possible grave consequences of climate change to natural and

human systems makes adaptation imperative. Adaptation, in human sys-
tems, is defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as the
process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects, in order
to moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities. In natural systems, it
refers to the process of adjustment to actual climate and its effects where
human intervention may facilitate adjustment to expected climate (Inter-
governmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2012). The definition
suggests that ecosystems are constantly undergoing changes and that
humans play an important role in deciding actions to respond to climate
changes, which can affect both ecosystem and society.
The link between protective or regulating services and disaster risk
reduction and climate change adaptation makes ecosystems important for
action and policy formulation of adaptation strategies. Ecosystems can be
utilized in activities to adapt to climate change such as planting mangroves
to enhance coastal resilience or trees to stabilize the soil and prevent erosion
and landslide when torrential rains come. With regard to policy, ecosystems
can form the basis of a framework or approach such as ecosystem-based
The Role of Ecosystems in CCA and DRR 49

adaptation. Sudmeier-Rieux and Ash (2009) cite some reasons why eco-
systems matter in a changing climate, including (i) human well-being
depends on ecosystems that also enable people to withstand, cope with, and
recover from disasters; (ii) ecosystems (e.g., wetlands, forests, coastal
systems) can provide cost-effective natural buffers; (iii) healthy and diverse
ecosystems are more resilient to extreme weather events; and (iv) ecosystem
degradation, especially forests and peatlands, reduces the ability of natural
systems to sequester carbon.
The link between climate change, ecosystem degradation, and the
increasing risk of climate-related disasters strongly emphasizes the vulner-
ability of communities at risk. In the following, this link is explored.

Climate Change Exacerbates Ecosystem Degradation

In recent decades, changes have been observed in populations and repro-

ductive biology of organisms, geographic range, species composition of
communities, and the structure and functioning of ecosystems (McCarty,
2001; Walther et al., 2002). The study by Parmesan and Yohe (2003)
showing a climate fingerprint across natural systems supports the IPCC
(2007) conclusion that physical and biological systems on all continents and
in most oceans are already being affected by recent climate changes.
Although direct attribution to climate change is difficult, these findings draw
attention to the growing need to understand the ecological consequences of
climate change, especially on biodiversity and ecosystem services. This will
be critical in guiding climate change adaptation investment decisions among
complex adaptation options under severe uncertainty (Wintle et al., 2011).

Climate Change Increases the Risks of Climate-Related Disasters

Table 2 shows data from Emergency events database (EM-DAT), listing the
high occurrence and destructive impacts of climate-related disasters (i.e.,
climatological, hydrological, and meteorological) in Asia for the period
1983–2012. It can be observed that water-related disasters are dominant,
revealing that water is at the center of climate change impacts. Climate
change can create hotspots of vulnerability – where adaptation must be
prioritized – in such areas as low-lying deltas and coastal megacities,
drylands, small islands, and mountains and their rivers (Smith & Barchiesi,
n.d.). On extreme impacts and disasters, IPCC (2012) states that a changing
50 NORALENE UY AND RAJIB SHAW

Table 2. Summary of Climate-Related Disasters in Asia, 1983–2012.

Type of Disaster Number of Killed Total Damage
Events Affected (in 000 USD)

Drought 101 5,028 1,245,498,044 33,731,347

Cold wave 64 6,504 5,998,229 1,466,133
Extreme winter conditions 9 1,889 79,279,834 21,940,000
Heat wave 45 8,932 45,801 401,000
Wildfire/forest fire 44 726 3,188,251 11,892,500
Shrub/grassland fire 8 22 6 –
Flood/unspecified 257 31,021 530,450,797 32,930,129
Flash flood 250 17,216 156,277,457 25,707,434
General flood 784 75,301 2,240,477,328 259,030,591
Storm surge/coastal flood 39 2,060 18,173,383 8,472,324
Avalanche 44 2,457 57,867 50,000
Debris flow 1 106 – –
Landslide 227 13,395 7,913,922 2,666,916
Subsidence 1 287 2,838
Storm/unspecified 204 6,915 46,786,240 4,029,756
Local storm 157 5,445 187,074,882 7,944,022
Tropical cyclone 625 369,134 473,467,747 151,332,062

Source: EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database, www.em-dat.net –

Université Catholique de Louvain – Brussels –Belgium

climate leads to changes in the frequency, intensity, spatial extent, duration

and timing of weather and climate extremes, and can result in unprece-
dented extremes. It also reports with high confidence that the increasing
exposure of people and economic assets has been the major cause for the
long-term increases in economic losses from weather and climate-related
disasters.

Ecosystem Degradation Triggers more Disasters and Reduces

Nature’s and Societies’ Resilience Against Climate Change
Impacts and Disasters

A strong causal relationship can be observed between poverty, degraded

ecosystems, and higher disaster risk, especially for communities living in
marginal or environmentally degraded areas that often have limited live-
lihood alternatives, compete over scarce resources, have weak governance
structures, and lack access to healthcare and other services (United Nations
The Role of Ecosystems in CCA and DRR 51

Environment Programme [UNEP], n.d.). The vicious cycle of ecosystem

degradation causing disasters that greatly affect people, resulting in ecosystem
changes and further degradation, compromises the ability of ecosystems and
people to respond to and recover from hazardous events. The increasing risk
of climate-related disasters requires a combination of reduced exposure to
hazards, reduced sensitivity to their effects, and increased adaptive capacity in
order to reduce vulnerabilities to disasters and climate change (Smith &
Barchiesi, n.d.).

Ecosystem Degradation Reduces Carbon Sequestration

in the Ecosystems

Ecosystems are crucial in regulating and stabilizing the climate at all

levels from global to local. Marine and terrestrial ecosystems, for instance,
have significant mitigation capacity absorbing half of the anthropogenic
emissions by acting as huge buffers between emissions and the warming
caused by them, and storing large amounts of carbon fixed in biomass,
soils, and the oceans (CEEweb for Biodiversity, 2012). Appropriate
ecosystem management at a global scale can make a significant contri-
bution to reducing anthropogenic emissions and can serve as a safety net
against possible failures to achieving agreement on emissions reduction or
setting targets that are correct and can be met (Munang, Rivington, Liu, &
Thiaw, 2009).
Protected area networks, one of many ecosystem-based approaches, are
recognized to be uniquely placed to assist climate change mitigation and
adaptation through sequestration as well as disaster relief and supplying
human needs. Proponents of the protected areas concept argue that although
many natural and managed ecosystems can help in addressing climate
change, protected areas have several advantages including (i) recognition
(often legal), (ii) long-term commitment to protect, (iii) agreed management
and governance approaches, and (iv) management planning and capacity, all
considered to be the most cost-effective option (Dudley et al., 2010). Other
measures that show high carbon sequestering potential include higher organic
matter inputs on arable land, the introduction of perennials (e.g., grasses,
trees) on arable set-aside land for conservation or biofuel purposes, the
expansion of organic or low input farming systems, raising of water tables in
farmed peatland, and the introduction of zero or conservation tillage
(EASAC, 2009).
52 NORALENE UY AND RAJIB SHAW

BENEFITS OF APPLYING AN ECOSYSTEM-BASED

APPROACH TO CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION
AND DRR

The ecosystem service of protection provided by natural ecosystems such as

forests, coastal mangroves, coral reefs, riparian habitats is identified as a
priority for hazard mitigation and risk reduction. Natural geological
systems such as sedimentation and long-shore drift can also be harnessed to
facilitate the development of barrier islands, providing added protection to
vulnerable coastal communities (ProAct Network, 2010). In arguing for
protected area networks, Stolton, Dudley, and Randall (2008) identify three
direct roles that protected areas can play in preventing or mitigating
disasters arising out of natural hazards such as (i) maintaining natural
ecosystems (e.g., coastal mangroves, coral reefs, floodplains, and forests)
that may help buffer against natural hazards; (ii) maintaining traditional
cultural ecosystems that have an important role in mitigating extreme
weather events (e.g., agroforestry systems, terraced crop-growing, and fruit
tree forests in arid lands); and (iii) providing an opportunity for active or
passive restoration of such systems where they have been degraded or lost.
Sudmeier-Rieux and Ash (2009) view disasters as social constructs
determined largely by such factors as how a society manages its environment,
how prepared it is to face adversity, and what resources are available for
recovery. According to Moser and Satterthwaite (2008), the more assets
people have, the less vulnerable they are, and the greater the erosion of
people’s assets, the greater their insecurity. In terms of livelihood assets,
ecosystem-based approaches ensure the rapid recovery of ecosystems on
which local livelihoods depend on; bring the greatest improvements to
present-day livelihoods while minimizing the impact of future disasters; and
enhance communities’ capacity to recover their livelihoods.
The Nature Conservancy (2009) describes the advantages of using
ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation, such as

(i) align with and enhance poverty alleviation and sustainable develop-
ment strategies,
(ii) are ready now, are likely to be more accessible to rural and poor
communities, and are cost-effective,
(iii) increase local engagement and action, driving resource management to
local communities,
(iv) enable vulnerable communities to participate directly in developing
and applying the most appropriate strategies for their location,
The Role of Ecosystems in CCA and DRR 53

(v) are precautionary and address risk management, ensuring that long-
term natural resources that provide resilience are not destroyed by
short-term or emergency responses to a crisis,
(vi) provide both protective (e.g., mangroves buffering storm surges) and
provisioning services (e.g., food and fiber) that hard infrastructure
cannot provide,
(vii) improve local livelihoods as people’s access to natural resources and
jobs are secured,
(viii) can contribute to climate change mitigation by conserving or
enhancing carbon stock or by reducing emissions caused by ecosystem
degradation and loss, and
(ix) build on existing investments in biodiversity conservation, protected
areas networks, and natural resource management by indigenous
peoples, local communities, and the private sector.

THE WAY FORWARD

Disaster risks, especially those posed by climate change, will reduce the
resilience of natural and human ecosystems in the coming years. Global
environmental changes will affect communities at risk, especially the poor
and marginalized. To minimize these risks, ecosystem management that
maximizes ecosystem services and biodiversity for disaster risk reduction
and climate change adaptation should be undertaken. In ensuring that eco-
systems services are maintained, ‘‘sound natural resource and environmental
management as well as disaster management require a holistic, multi-
disciplinary and inter-sectoral approach, environmental awareness of the
dangers of resource depletion, a coherent and comprehensive policy to guide
the process, and institutional framework for effective program implementa-
tion’’(Suda, 2000, p. 102). Also, management frameworks can support in
spreading risk by providing opportunities to diversify patterns of resource
use and undertake alternative activities and lifestyles (Adger, Hughes,
Folke, Carpenter, & Rockstrom, 2005).
New models of local and national governance that include multisectoral
processes, stakeholder participation, and flexible institutions may be
required in implementing ecosystem-based approaches (Toivonen, n.d.). It
is important to consider ecosystems not from a reductionist point of view or
with narrow interpretations in ecology but as social-ecological systems
influenced by external factors relating to physical, economic, social, and
54 NORALENE UY AND RAJIB SHAW

institutional attributes. This would entail an analytical examination of the

dynamics of both natural and human systems with regard to, for instance,
ecosystem health, land use and structures, livelihoods and assets, education
and awareness,; and governance and institutions. Understanding the inter-
actions, processes, and linkages from different dimensions that influence the
ecosystem would provide an opportunity to design management strategies
that target specific needs and achieve resilience goals more efficiently while
addressing risk reduction and climate change concerns.
The link between ecosystem management and natural disasters is clearly
demonstrated when effective ecosystem management minimizes potential
impacts of natural hazards before a disaster occurs (Mainka & McNeely,
2011). UNEP (n.d.a) summarizes the opportunities for environment in
disaster risk reduction as follows: (i) engage environmental managers fully
in national disaster risk management mechanisms, (ii) include risk reduction
criteria in environmental regulatory frameworks, (iii) assess environmental
change as a parameter of risk, (iv) utilize local knowledge in community-
based disaster risk management, (v) engage the scientific community to
promote environmental research and innovation, (vi) protect and value
ecosystem services, (vii) consider environmental technologies and designs
for structural defenses, (viii) integrate environmental and disaster risk
considerations in spatial planning, (ix) prepare for environmental emergen-
cies, and (xi) strengthen capacities for environmental recovery.
According to UNEP (n.d.b), four complementary strategies are required
in implementing an ecosystem approach: (1) political commitment to raise
the profile of ecosystems in climate change policy setting at local, national,
and international levels; (2) investment related to ecosystem manage-
ment and protection, especially as part of a global climate change fund;
(3) incentives to reduce emissions, ease existing pressures on ecosystems, and
support changes that increase environmental resilience and resource
sustainability; and (4) comprehensive information that foster closer links
between ecosystem management, climate change adaptation, and disaster
risk reduction communities as well as between science, economics, politics,
and policy. Some fundamental principles to guide in developing an effective
ecosystem-based adaptation strategy include (i) focusing on reducing
nonclimate stresses, (ii) involving local communities, (iii) multipartner
strategy development, (iv) building upon existing good practices in natural
resource management, (v) adopting adaptive management approaches,
(vi) integrating ecosystem-based adaptation with wider adaptation strate-
gies, and (vii) communicating and educating (Colls, Ash, & Ikkala, 2009).
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC]
The Role of Ecosystems in CCA and DRR 55

(2011) recommends several activities that may be considered to enhance

ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation at all levels, such as the
following:

(i) Targeted awareness-raising, both within the adaptation community

and within areas of responsibility for ecosystem management;
(ii) Capacity-building;
(iii) Further research;
(iv) Developing guidelines, tools, principles, etc.;
(v) Activities enhancing collaboration and coordination between relevant
organizations;
(vi) Identifying the pool of expertise and organizations that are best suited
to support ongoing activities related to ecosystem-based adaptation in
the fields of science, policy, and implementation;
(vii) Identifying Parties’ needs and ways in which countries can be
supported when implementing activities; and
(viii) Increasing collaboration on activities related to ecosystems and
adaptation between the three Rio Conventions, especially at the
national level.

The science is clear on the central role of ecosystems in disaster risk

reduction and climate change adaptation. This is the reason many
organizations are calling for action for the role of ecosystem management
to be recognized in the political arena. In the UNFCCC COP15, for
instance, UNEP (2009) calls for (i) political commitment at the highest level
if ecosystem management is to have the adequate weight it deserves in the
post-2012 climate change regime; (ii) systematic integration of ecosystem
management into climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction
policy frameworks and practices; and (iii) adequate financial, technological,
and knowledge resources to be allocated for integrating ecosystem
management in climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction
portfolios, including national policy-setting and awareness-raising, capacity-
building, and planning and practices.
At present, there are gaps on the lack of quantitative evidence and
awareness on the benefits of ecosystem-based approaches for reducing
disaster risks and adapting to climate change. The approaches, require-
ments, economic value, and multiple benefits of healthy ecosystems are
poorly known and undervalued, particularly by decision-makers, planners,
and practitioners (ProAct Network, 2010). Addressing these gaps should be
prioritized as well as collaboration and engagement of a variety of actors
56 NORALENE UY AND RAJIB SHAW

strengthened in ecosystem management, disaster risk reduction, and climate

change adaptation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The first author is thankful for a research scholarship grant from the
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) of
the Government of Japan and support from the Program on Sustainability/
Survivability Science for a Resilient Society Adaptable to Extreme Weather
Conditions (GCOE-ARS) and the Global Center for Education and
Research on Human Security Engineering for Asian Megacities (GCOE-
HSE) of Kyoto University.

REFERENCES
Adger, W. N., Hughes, T. P., Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., & Rockstrom, J. (2005). Social-
ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science, 309, 1036–1039.
Anderson-Texeira, K. J., Snyder, P. K., Twine, T. E., Cuadra, S. V., Costa, M. H., & DeLucia,
E. H. (2012). Climate-regulation services of natural and agricultural ecoregions of the
Americas. Nature Climate Change, 2, 177–181.
Bapna, M., McGray, H., Mock, G., & Withey, L. (2009). Enabling adaptation: Priorities for
supporting the rural poor in a changing climate. Issue Brief. Washington, DC: World
Resources Institute.
Bell, R., & Wheeler, J. (2006). Talking trees: An urban forestry toolkit for local governments.
Bonn, Germany: ICLEI.
Braatz, S., Fortuna, S., Broadhead, J., & Leslie, R. (Eds.) (2007). Proceedings of the regional
technical workshop: Coastal protection in the aftermath of the Indian Ocean Tsunami:
What role for forests and trees? Food and Agriculture Organization, Khao Lak,
Thailand.
CEEweb for Biodiversity. (2012). The necessity of ecosystem-based adaptation to climate
change at national level. Danubius. Available at http://danube-cooperation.com/
danubius/2012/01/29/the-necessity-of-ecosystem-based-adaptation-to-climate-change-
at-national-level/. Retrieved on 16 May, 2012.
Chang, S. E., Adams, B. J., Alder, J., Berke, P. R., Chuenpagdee, R., Ghosh, S., & Wabnitz, C.
(2006). Coastal ecosystems and tsunami protection after the December 2004 Indian
Ocean Tsunami. Earthquake Spectra, 22(3), 863–887.
Colls, A., Ash, N., & Ikkala, N. (2009). Ecosystem-based adaptation: A natural response to
climate change. Switzerland: IUCN.
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., y, & van den
Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature,
387, 253–260.
The Role of Ecosystems in CCA and DRR 57

Costanza, R., Perez-Maqueo, O., Martinez, M. L., Sutton, P., Anderson, S. J., & Mulder, K.
(2008). The value of coastal wetlands to hurricane prevention. Ambio, 37(4), 241–248.
Danielsen, F., Sorensen, M. K., Olwig, M. F., Selvam, V., Parish, F., Burgess, N. D., y, &
Suryadiputra, N. (2005). The Asian Tsunami: A protective role for coastal vegetation.
Science, 310, 643
Das, S., & Vincent, J. R. (2009). Mangroves protected villages and reduced death toll during
Indian super cyclone. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(18), 7357–
7360.
Dudley, N., Stolton, S., Belokurov, A., Krueger, L., Lopoukhine, N., MacKinnon, K., y
Sekhran, N. (2010). Natural solutions: Protected areas helping people cope with climate
change. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN-WCPA.
Emerton, L., & Bos, E. (2004). Counting ecosystems as an economic part of water infrastructure.
Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
European Academies Science Advisory Council. (2009). Ecosystem services and biodiversity in
Europe. London, UK: The Royal Society.
Feagin, R. A., Mukherjee, N., Shanker, K., Baird, A. H., Cinner, J., Kerr, A. M., y, &
Dahdouh-Guebas, F. (2010). Shelter from the storm? Use and misuse of coastal
vegetation bioshields for managing natural disasters. Conservation Letters, 3, 1–11.
Forbes, K., & Broadhead, J. (2007). The role of coastal forests in the mitigation of tsunami
impacts. Bangkok, Thailand: Food and Agriculture Organization Regional Office for
Asia and the Pacific.
Forslund, A., Renofalt, B. M., Barchesi, S., Cross, K., Davidson, S., Farrell, T., y, & Smith,
M. (2009). Securing water for ecosystems and human well-being: The importance of
environmental flows. Swedish Water House Report 24. Stockholm, Sweden: SIWI.
Gupta, A. K., & Nair, S. S. (2012). Ecosystem approach to disaster risk reduction. New Delhi,
India: National Institute of Disaster Management.
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), International Union for
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), and Stockholm Environment
Institute (SEI). (2003). Livelihoods and climate change. Winnipeg, Canada: IISD.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation
and vulnerability. In M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden &
C. E. Hanson (Eds.), Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2012). Managing the risks of extreme events and
disasters to advance climate change adaptation, In C. B. Field, V. Barros, T. F. Stocker,
Q. Dahe, D. J. Dokken, K. L. Ebi, y, & P.M. Midgley, (Eds.), A special report of
working groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. (2005). Hyogo framework for action 2005–2015:
Building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters. Geneva, Switzerland:
United Nations.
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. (2009). 2009 Global assessment report on disaster
risk reduction: Revealing risk, redefining development. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations.
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. (2011). 2011 Global assessment report on disaster
risk reduction: Revealing risk, redefining development. Geneva, Switzerland: United
Nations.
58 NORALENE UY AND RAJIB SHAW

Johnson, N. C., Malk, A. J., Szaro, R. C., & Sexton, W. T. (Eds.). (1999). Ecological
stewardship: A common reference for ecosystem management. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Mainka, S. A., & McNeely, J (2011). Ecosystem considerations for postdisaster recovery:
Lessons from China, Pakistan and elsewhere for recovery planning in Haiti. Ecology and
Society, 16(1).
McCarty, J. P. (2001). Ecological consequences of recent climate change. Conservation Biology,
15(2), 320–331.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Moser, C., & Satterthwaite, D. (2008). Towards pro-poor adaptation to climate change in the
urban centres of low- and middle-income countries. Human Settlement Discussion paper
series. IIED, Climate Change and Cities 3, London, UK.
Munang, R., Rivington, M., Liu, J., & Thiaw, I. (2009). Ecosystem management: Part of the
climate change solution. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP.
Parmesan, C., & Yohe, G. (2003). A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts
across natural systems. Nature, 421, 37–42.
Partnership for Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction (PEDRR). (2010). Demonstrating
the role of ecosystem-based management for disaster risk reduction. PEDRR. Available at
http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/2011/en/bgdocs/PEDRR_2010.pdf.
Retrieved on 16 May 2012.
Perez-Maqueo, O., Intralawan, A., & Martinez, M. L. (2007). Coastal disasters from the
perspective of ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 63, 273–284.
ProAct Network. (2008). The role of environmental management and eco-engineering in disaster
risk reduction and climate change adaptation. Nyon, Switzerland: ProAct Network.
ProAct Network. (2010). Maximising ecosystem services for disaster risk reduction. Briefing
Note. ProAct Network, Nyon, Switzerland.
Schroter, D. (2009). Our vulnerability to changes in ecosystem services. In A. G. Patt,
D. Schroter, R. J. T. Klein & A. C. de la Vega-Leinert (Eds.), Assessing vulnerability to
global environmental change: Making research useful for adaptation decision making and
policy (pp. 97–114). London: Earthscan.
Smith, D. M., & Barchiesi, S. (n.d.). Environment as infrastructure – resilience to climate change
impacts on water through investments in nature. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Stolton, S., Dudley, N., & Randall, J. (2008). Natural security: Protected areas and hazard
mitigation. Gland, Switzerland: WWF.
Suda, C. A. (2000). Natural disaster preparedness, environmental degradation and sustainable
development in Kenya. African Study Monographs, 21(3), 91–103.
Sudmeier-Rieux, K., & Ash, N. (2009). Environmental guidance note for disaster risk reduction:
Healthy ecosystems for human security (Revised edition). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Sudmeier-Rieux, K., Masundire, H., Rizvi, A., & Rietbergen, S. (Eds.). (2006). Ecosystems,
livelihoods and disasters: An integrated approach to disaster risk management. Gland,
Switzerland: IUCN.
The Nature Conservancy. (2009). Adapting to climate change: Ecosystem-based approaches for
people and nature. Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy.
The Nature Conservancy. (2010). Ecosystem-based adaptation can be cost effective: Resilient
nature, resilient people. Discussion paper. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.
The World Bank and the United Nations. (2010). Natural hazards, unnatural disasters: The
economics of effective prevention. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
The Role of Ecosystems in CCA and DRR 59

Toivonen, H. (n.d.). Decision making for ecosystems in a changing climate: Time to mainstream
ecosystem-based approaches. Available at http://www.worldresourcesreport.org/
responses/decision-making-ecosystems-changing-climate-time-mainstream-ecosystem-
based-approaches. Retrieved on 7 June 2012.
United Nations Environment Programme. (n.d.a). Environment and vulnerability: Emerging
perspectives. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP.
United Nations Environment Programme. (n.d.b). Ecosystem management: Part of the climate
change solution. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP.
United Nations Environment Programme. (2009). The role of ecosystem management in climate
change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. Paper 2. Copenhagen Discussion Series.
UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2011). Ecosystem-based
approaches to adaptation: Compilation of information. FCCC/SBSTA/2011/INF.8.
Bonn, Germany: UNFCCC.
Uy, N., Takeuchi, Y., & Shaw, R. (2012). An ecosystem-based resilience analysis of Infanta,
Philippines. Environmental Hazards. http://DOI:10.1080/17477891.2012. 688794.
Walther, G. R., Post, E., Convey, P., Menzel, A., Parmesan, C., Beebee, T. J. C., y, & Bairlein,
F. (2002). Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature, 416, 389–395.
Wintle, B. A., Bekessy, S. A., Keith, D. A., van Wilgen, B. W., Cabeza, M., Schroder, B., y, &
Possingham, H. P. (2011). Ecological-economic optimization of biodiversity conserva-
tion under climate change. Nature Climate Change, 1, 355–359.
World Resources Institute. (2000). People and ecosystems: A fraying web of life. A guide to world
resources 2000–2001. Washington, DC: WRI.
Yanagisawa, H., Koshimura, S., Goto, K., Miyagi, T., Imamura, F., Ruangrassamee, A., &
Tanavud, C. (2009). The reduction effects of mangrove forest on a Tsunami based on
field surveys at Pakarang Cape, Thailand and numerical analysis. Estuarine, Coastal and
Shelf Science, 81, 27–37.