Browse

Journals By Subject

Life Sciences, Agriculture & Food
Chemistry
Medicine & Health
Materials Science
Mathematics & Physics
Electrical & Computer Science
Earth, Energy & Environment
Architecture & Civil Engineering
Education
Economics & Management
Humanities & Social Sciences
Multidisciplinary

Books

Publish Conference Abstract Books
Upcoming Conference Abstract Books
Published Conference Abstract Books
Publish Your Books
Upcoming Books
Published Books

Proceedings

Events

Events
Five Types of Conference Publications

Join

Join as Editorial Board Member
Become a Reviewer

Information

For Authors
For Reviewers
For Editors
For Conference Organizers
For Librarians
Article Processing Charges
Special Issue Guidelines
Editorial Process
Manuscript Transfers
Peer Review at SciencePG
Open Access
Copyright and License
Ethical Guidelines
Submit an Article
Research Article | | Peer-Reviewed

Local Perceptions of Ecosystem Services Provided by Forest and Mangrove Ecosystems in the Saloum Delta National Park, Senegal

Assane Ka*,  Serigne Modou Sarr,  Bocar Samba Ba,  Alioune Badara Diop,  Aliousseyni Ly,  Papa Diene Faye,  Dogo Seck
Published in American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry (Volume 13, Issue 5)
Received: 16 August 2025     Accepted: 27 August 2025     Published: 19 September 2025
Views:       Downloads:
Download PDF
Abstract

This paper focused on the perceptions of communities living along the Saloum Delta National Park (SDNP), located in the Saloum Delta Biosphere Reserve (SDBR), of the ecosystem services (ES) provided by the mangrove and forest ecosystems. Through semi-structured surveys of 103 individuals in seven villages, the analysis revealed that the SDNP offers a diversity of 21 ecosystem services classified into three categories: provisioning, regulation and cultural. The most popular ones are fishing (72.8%), oyster harvesting (65.1%), pharmacopoeia (64.1%), firewood (54.4%), aesthetics (90.3%) and protection against erosion (93.2%). The species Rhizophora mangle stands out as the best known and most widely used mangrove, with a high use value (UV= 3.09) and a strong informant consensus (FCI> 0.97). Although socio-demographic factors do not significantly influence the use of services, occupation (particularly farmers) and area play a role in the diversity of uses. The services provided by mangroves are more numerous and better known than those provided by forests, reflecting the ongoing dependence of populations on this ecosystem. These results underline the strategic importance of the PNDS in local development and point out for sustainable and participatory management of its resources, through development of fishery products, strengthening of facilities, raising awareness of rational exploitation and the restoration of degraded habitats, particularly mangroves.

Published in American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry (Volume 13, Issue 5)
DOI 10.11648/j.ajaf.20251305.11
Page(s) 225-244
Creative Commons

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

Copyright

Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Science Publishing Group
Previous article
Keywords

Saloum Delta National Park (SDNP), Ecosystem Services, Community Perceptions, Mangrove, Forest, Use Value (UV), Informant Consensus Factor (ICF)

1. Introduction
Biosphere reserves are areas of terrestrial and coastal/marine ecosystems that aim to promote solutions to reconcile the conservation of biodiversity and sustainability
[1]
. In addition to their function of conserving biological diversity, biosphere reserves contribute to sustainable human development through provision of goods and ecosystem services. These goods and services are referred to as "ecosystem services"
[2]
, defined by
[3]
as "the benefits that people derive from ecosystems". The
[3]
has grouped ecosystem services into four main categories:
(i) provisioning or production services such as food, water, wood and fiber;
(ii) regulating services, which include climate regulation, flood control, disease control, water quality and waste assimilation;
(iii) cultural services, which include recreational and aesthetic values and spiritual benefits; and
(iv) supporting services, which include soil formation, photosynthesis and cyclical elements.
The Saloum Delta Biosphere Reserve (SDBR) covers 334,000 ha of the 500,000 ha covered by the Saloum Delta watershed. It occupies almost the entire estuarine zone of the Sine Saloum delta, i.e. more than 2/5ths of its area
[4]
. The Saloum Delta National Park (PNDS) covers 76,000 hectares. The park combines the characteristics of a marine, estuarine, lacustrine and palustrine wetland
[5]
, and stands out for its high biodiversity potential, particularly for the important role it plays in the migration of Western Palearctic birds, in the global hydrological cycle and in the supply of water for the conservation of biological diversity, human consumption, agricultural production and recreation
[5]
. Local populations benefit from fish products (fish, shrimps, oysters, arches, cymbiums and murex), forest products (firewood and timber, honey, Daterium senegalensis, Saba senegalensis, pain se singe) and ecotourism products
[6]
. The diversity of services and specific ecosystems thus represents significant potential for the development of local populations
[6]
.
However, a regressive trend has been reported for all ecosystems and for most animal and plant species. Tree cover has declined by more than 50% in 20 years. This decline is accompanied by a 22% loss in floristic diversity, fragmentation of ecosystems and threats of habitat loss. The gallery forests are the most threatened on the mainland. The over-salination of certain channels is at the root of the loss of biodiversity in the mangrove ecosystem. The maritime part is currently marked by marine erosion, which in places is making certain bird and sea turtle breeding islands vulnerable. Reduced rainfall is also one of the main causes of this deterioration in the wild habitat. Added to this are the covetousness of people living on the periphery (who are highly dependent on natural resources because of their relative poverty), pressure from land ownership and wildlife poaching
[4, 7, 5]
.
In addition, the protected area management approach currently being implemented makes these sites important levers in the fight against poverty on their periphery. The Government of Senegal, with the support of the Sustainable Management of Wetlands to Strengthen Food Security and Ecosystem Resilience in West Africa (GDZHAO) project, is aiming to provide these sites with the means to cope with poverty.
(GDZHAO), aims to provide wetland users and managers with tools for planning, negotiating and monitoring conservation and sustainable development actions in wetlands. The implementation of sustainable management mechanisms requires data on the goods and services associated with peripheral populations.
It is in this context that the present study is being carried out, with the general aim of understanding the perceptions of local people regarding the various ecosystem services provided by the Saloum Delta National Park (SDNP).
2. Saloum Delta National Park (SDNP) Presentation
2.1. Geographical Context
This study was carried out in the Saloum estuary, located on the Petite Côte in west-central Senegal. The area lies between latitudes 13°35' and 14°10' North and longitudes 16°50' and 17°00' West. The estuary, classified as an inverted estuary due to its atypical hydrological functioning, takes the form of an arm of the sea penetrating deep into the land, framed by particularly dense mangrove vegetation. It covers an estimated area of around 80,000 hectares and is structured around three main islands: Gandoul in the north, Bettenty in the centre and Fathala in the south
[8-10]
. These island units are separated by a heavily silted-up estuarine zone, known locally as "Diombos"
[11]
.
The mangrove is mainly located in the western part of the Saloum region. It is bounded by the department of Fatick to the north, the Gambia to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the west, and part of the department of Foundiougne to the east
[12]
. Geomorphologically, the Saloum estuary is made up of four main distinct areas:
(i) barrier beaches of recent and Quaternary origin,
(ii) sandy terraces of between 1 and 2 metres in height,
(iii) terraces of between 0.5 and 1 metre in height, and
(iv) mangrove swamps and tannes.
There are three main types of tannes: flooded tannes, living tannes and herbaceous tannes. Fieldwork was carried out at seven (07) study sites located in the commune of Toubacouta: Missirah (13°40'; 16°30'), Djinack Bara and Diatoko (13°60'; 16°53'), Massarinko (13°35'; -16°28'), Bettenty (13°40'; 16°37'), Bagadadji (13°39'; -16°29') and Bossinkang (13°72'; 16°57') (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Study area.
2.2. Socio-Economic and Climatic Data of Toubacouta Municipality
Figure 2. Rainfall in Toubacouta from 2000 to 2022 (ANACIM, 2022).
The municipality of Toubacouta covers an area of 170 km2 and has an estimated population of 37,529, with an average density of 220 inhabitants/km2
[13]
. The population is characterised by a high proportion of young people. The main sources of income include agriculture, fishing, livestock farming, the collection of non-timber forest products, as well as activities related to tourism and handicrafts. Other economic sectors, such as salt extraction and shellfish processing, also play a significant role. Involvement in these different activities is often influenced by the ethnicity and preferences of the men in the community.
In terms of climate profile, Toubacouta is located in a tropical Sudano-Guinean climate zone. This is characterised by a relatively short rainy season, lasting around three months, and a long dry season lasting nine months. The main winds affecting the region are the continental trade winds and the monsoon
[14]
. Annual temperatures range from 20.6°C to 36.8°C, while average annual rainfall varies between 600 and 900 mm
[14]
.
2.3. Soil, Flora and Hydrological Characteristics of the Municipality of Toubacouta
The municipality has a markedly heterogeneous soil profile, with five main soil types. These include ferruginous tropical soils, known locally as "Dior soils". These are characterised by their light texture and high permeability. There are also predominantly sandy-clay soils, known as "Deck-Dior", which combine a loose structure, stability and a high organic matter content. Hydromorphic or 'Deck' soils are particularly rich in nutrients and organic matter. Then there are the tannas, which cover around 5% of the total surface area. These soils, which are acidic and salty, have limited fertility, making their agricultural use uncertain
[14]
.
The natural vegetation of Toubacouta is diverse. It includes gallery forests, wooded savannahs and shrubby savannahs. The commune is also bordered by mangrove formations, represented by species such as Rhizophora racemosa G. Mey, Rhizophora mangle L., Avicennia africana P. Beauv, Laguncularia racemosa (L.) C. F. Gaertn. and Conocarpus erectus L. Behind the mangrove is a narrow area of tanne, home to halophilic vegetation. This consists of a herbaceous layer dominated by Sesuvium portulacastrum L. and Paspalum vaginatum Sw., and a shrub layer including Tamarix senegalensis DC, Elaeis guineensis Jacq. and Acacia sieberiana DC.
The ecological conditions of the municipality, especially in the diversity of flora, the presence of several watercourses, a relatively humid climate and the existence of protected areas such as Néma, Sangako and the Saloum Delta National Park (PNDS) favour a notable wealth of fauna
[14]
. Finally, Toubacouta's hydrographic network is very dense. It is made up of run-off water and at least 151 low-lying areas throughout the municipality
[14]
.
3. Methodology
3.1. Sampling
In order to understand the community's perception about the socio-economic and ethnobotanical importance of the PNDS, surveys were carried out among the local population. For the sake of representativeness, seven (07) villages located on the park were involved. These were Bagadadji, Djinack Bara, Bettenty, Massarinko, Missirah, Djinack Diatoko and Bossinkang. To determine the number of people in each village, the databases of the Agence Nationale de la Statistique et de la Démographie (ANSD) and the PNDS were used. The number of people to be surveyed was selected on the basis of Ficher's formula 1. Out of 15003, 103 were selected, representing a sampling rate of 0.69%. The sample size for each village was proportional to its size in the total population (Table 1).
nf=n1+nN 
n = 1/d2 nf= sample size;
d = degree of error =10%;
N = total number of people.
Table 1. Distribution of respondents by village.

Villages

Number of people

Sample

Bagadadji

196

3

Massarinko

686

5

Djinack Bara

618

4

Bettenty

7486

49

Missirah

2978

20

Djinack Diatoko

204

3

Bossinkang

2835

19

Total

15003

103
3.2. Conduct of the Surveys
The surveys conducted were semi-structured. Respondents were selected randomly and interviewed individually. The survey questionnaire covered the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents, the importance of ecosystem services and the different forms of use.
3.3. Data Processing
The data was collected using the Kobotoolbox tool and then processed using Excel. The Tukey test, at the 5% threshold, was used to separate the means after the ANOVA test, using R software (version 3.4.2). Khi2 tests of independence followed by correspondence factor analysis and hierarchical ascending classification were applied to classify villages according to ecosystem services and to determine the importance of ecosystem services according to socio-demographic characteristics (religion, level of education, age and gender). The ethnobotanical studies involved calculating the following parameters:
3.3.1. Frequency of Quotations
We determined the frequency of quotation (FC) for each category of use. This is obtained from formula (1) below:
FC=Number of citations for use of the serviceNumber of surveyed people*100(1)
When FC is close to 0, the service can be considered to be lightly used, while a FC close to 100 indicates that the service is strongly used
[15]
. The frequency with which SEs are cited, showing the number of times, a service was cited by a respondent, is calculated and grouped according to the four SE categories.
Use value (UV)
For each service cited, a Use Value (UV) defined by Phillips et al (1994) was determined. The use value is a way of expressing the relative importance of each service for the population of provisioning services
[16, 17]
according to the following formula (2):
VU=∑UN(2)
U: number of times a service is cited for a usage category and
N: total number of respondents
3.3.2. Informative Consensus Factor (ICF)
The level of public consensus on the uses of ES was determined by calculating the Informant Consensus Factor (ICF) defined by
[16]
. The value of the ICF varies between 0 and 1 and indicates a high level of consensus when it tends towards 1
[18]
. A high value of ICF (closer to 1) is obtained when only one or a small number of services are cited by a large proportion of informants for a category of use. Conversely, its value is lower (closer to 0) when a wide variety of services are cited for the same use
[19]
. The CFI is calculated using formula (3) below:
FCI=Nur -NtNur -1(3)
Where:
Nur = number of citations for each category,
Nt = number of services for the same category.
3.3.3. Level of Fidelity (NF)
The level of Fidelity (NF) of a species was calculated in relation to different categories of use using the following formula (4)
[17]
.
NF=Number of citations of the species for one use categoryNumber of citations of the species for all use categories*100(4)
4. Results
4.1. Identification of the Socio-Demographic Profile of Communities Bordering the SDNP
Analysis of variance reveals no significant difference between villages regarding age (P-value = 0.136). However, arithmetically, the oldest people were found in Bagadadji (53±22 years old), Missirah (42±7 years old) and Djinack Diatoko (42±3 years old) and the Betenty (38±12 years), Bossinkang (36±11 years), Djinack bara (39±3 years) and Djinack Diatoko (39±3 years). Massarinko (34±8 years).
There was a significant difference between villages according to their level of education (P- value= 0.0459). The majority of the PNDS population is educated in Koranic schools. In Betenty, on the other hand, 16.32% of respondents had attained primary education and 20% of respondents in Massarinko had reached university level (Table 2).
A highly significant difference (P-value< 0.0001) was observed between villages in terms of gender and occupation. Women were predominantly represented in the villages of Bagadadji (66.67%), Betenty (79.59%), Bossinkang (68.42%) and Missirah (89.47%) compared with the villages of Djinack bara, Djinack Diatoko and Massarinko, where men are more represented (100%). Fishing (fish, prawns, oysters) is the main activity in all the villages in the PNDS. However, agriculture dominates in the village of Massarinko and is practised by 60% of respondents (Table 2).
Table 2. Socio-economic and demographic characteristics.

Villages

Bagadadji

Betenty

Bossinkang

Djinack bara

Djinack Diatako

Massarinko

Missirah

P-value

Gender

Women

66,67

79,59

68,42

0

0

0

89,47

< 0,0001

Men

33,33

20,41

31,58

100

100

100

15,79

Age

53±22

38±12

36±11

39±3

42±3

34±8

42±7

0.136

Education rate (%)

Koranic school

100

83,67

100

100

100

80

100

0.0459

Primairy

0

8,16

0

0

0

0

0

Secondary

0

8,16

0

0

0

0

0

University

0

0

0

0

0

20

0

Occupation (%)

Fishman

66,67

100

100

100

100

40

100

< 0,0001

Farmers

33,33

0

0

0

0

60

0
4.2. Ecosystem Services Provided by the PNDS to Local Communities
The PNDS provides a variety of ecosystem services to the local population. A total of 21 services, divided into 3 categories (provisioning, regulating and cultural) were cited by the population surveyed. Provisioning (50%) was the most frequently cited category, followed by cultural services (27%) and regulation (23%). Among supply services, fish (72.82%), oysters (65.05%), pharmacopoeia (64.08%), firewood (54.37%) and shellfish (49.51%) were the most popular. For cultural services, aesthetics (90.29%), ancestral value (67.96%), tourism (30.10%) and recreational value (19.42%) are the most cited. In terms of regulating services, protection against erosion and flooding (93.20%), protection of animal habitats (47.57%) and protection against strong winds (32.04%) are the most frequently mentioned (Figure 3).
Figure 3. PNDS services ranking.
4.3. Variation in Ecosystem Services by Village
The Khi2 independence test showed a strong dependence between villages and provisioning services (P-value = 1.87e-9), cultural services (P-value = 4.63e-6) and support or regulation services (P-value = 2.2e-16). Hierarchical ascending classification enabled us to distinguish 4 groups of villages (G1, G2, G3 and G4) according to services (Figure 4).
Massarinko represents the first group (G1), where agriculture, education and research are more common.
Group G2 consists of Bagadadji, which is characterised by beekeeping and livestock breeding.
Group G3 comprises the villages of Betenty and Bossinkang, and is characterised by a high diversity of use categories, including fishing (fish, oysters, shellfish), gathering of non-timber forest products (NTFPs), pharmacopoeia, processing of fish products, protection against erosion, wind and flooding, habitat protection, ancestral and recreational values, and wood (fuel, timber). The third group, G4, includes Missirah, Djinack Bara and Djinack Diatako, which are characterised by services related to tourism, aesthetics and shade, as well as pharmacopoeia (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Ranking services provided by village.
4.4. Diversity of Mangrove Services
Figure 5. mangroves services ranking in PNDS.
According to the population surveyed, the PNDS mangrove provides a total of 17 services, again divided into 3 categories: supply, regulation and cultural. Fish fishing (72.82%), oyster fishing (65.05%) and pharmacopoeia (64.08%) were the most cited for the supply service. For the regulation service, the mangrove fights against erosion and flooding (93.20%), fights against violent winds (32.04%) and protects fish (47.57%). In terms of cultural services, aesthetics was cited most often (90.29%), followed by ancestral value (67.96%) and tourism (30.10%) (Figure 5).
4.5. Diversity of Forest Services
Figure 6 provides information on the ecosystem services obtained in the forest of the PNDS. This analysis shows that the respondents benefit from 6 ecosystem services divided into 3 categories: supply (70.85%), cultural (16.46%) and regulation (2.69%). Among supply needs, firewood (67.96%), NTFPs (54.37%) and pharmacopoeia (30.1%) are the most valued. For cultural needs, aesthetics is cited most often (57.28%). With regard to regulating services, shade was mentioned by 5.83% of respondents.
Figure 6. Ranking services provided by the forest.
4.6. Analysis of the Population's Perception of the Ecosystem Services of the PNDS
4.6.1. Diversity and Knowledge of Mangrove Species
Figure 7. Citation frequencies of known mangrove species.
Figure 7 highlights the surveyed population's knowledge of mangrove species. Of the 6 mangrove species present in the area, Rhizophora mangle is by far the best known, cited by 99.03% of respondents. Avicennia africana and Rhizophora racemosa are also known by 26.21% and 4.85% of respondents respectively.
4.6.2. Influence of Socio-Demographic Factors on Mangrove Species
Knowledge of mangrove species depends on socio-demographic factors. Ethnicity (P-value= 0.447), gender (P-value= 0.881), level of education (P-value= 0.205), occupation (P-value = 0.179) and age (P-value = 0.0993) do not influence knowledge of mangrove species.
However, the ANOVA test showed that the number of species cited is very strongly influenced by locality (P< 0.0001). The average number of species known is 2 for the villages of Bagadadji and Bossinkang, compared with 1 for the villages of Betenty, Djinack bara, Djinack Diatako, Massarinko and Missirah (Figure 8).
Figure 8. Variation of known mangrove species by village.
4.6.3. Influence of Socio-Demographic Factors on the Use of Mangrove Species
Table 3 shows the variation in the frequency of use of species according to socio-demographic parameters. The latter did not influence usage frequencies (P≥0.05). Nevertheless, the use of mangrove species was higher among women (4.29±3.05) and older people (4.12±3.03%). The Bambara (8.74%) and the Socé (4.1±2.83%) are the most decisive in the uses of the species. Farmers (4.85±3.54%) had a greater influence than fishermen (4.05±2.75%). In terms of level of education, frequencies were higher among university graduates (8.74%) and those educated in Koranic schools (4.17±2.80%).
Table 3. Influence of socio-demographic factors on the use of mangrove species.

Factors

Modalities

Average of use

P-value

Sexe

Hommes

3,58±1,95

0,228

Femmes

4,29±3,05

Age

< 45

4,12±3,03

0,907

> 45

4,05±2,66

Ethnic groups

Bambara

8,74±00

0,198

Peulh

1,46±0,69

Sérère

3,88±1,75

Socé

4,1±2,83

Literacy

Koranic school

4,17±2,80

0,0991

Primary

2,43±0,56

Secondary

2,18±1,46

University

8,74±00

Profession

farmer

4,85±3,54

0,567

fishman

4,05±2,75
4.6.4. Influence of Socio-Demographic Factors on Ecosystem Services
Table 4 shows the variation in the frequency of use of ecosystem services according to age, gender, ethnicity, level of education and occupation. Comparison of means tests showed no significant difference for all socio-demographic factors (P≥0.05) except for occupation (P-value=0.000493). Mangrove services are more appreciated by women (7.86±1.85%), older people (7.88±3.59%) and Bambaras (9.71±00%). In terms of level of education, the frequency of use of cash is highest among university graduates (9.71±00%). In terms of occupation, use of services was significantly more frequent among farmers (11.89±9.05%) than among fishermen (7.50±1.84%).
Table 4. Socio-economic and socio-demographic influence on factors on mangrove services.

Factors

Modalities

Use mean frequency

P-value

Gender

Men

7,25±3,60

0,258

Women

7,86±1,85

Age

< 45

7,88±3,59

0,562

> 45

7,57±1,85

Ethnic groups

Bambara

9,71±00

0,821

Peulh

7,77±1,37

Sérère

7,23±1,29

Socé

7,69±2,65

Education rate

Koranic school

7,75±2,59

0,505

Primary

6,80±1,12

Secondary

6,31±1,68

University

9,71±00

Profession

Farmer

11,89±9,05

0.000493

Fishman

7,50±1,84
4.6.5. Variation in Mangrove Services by Village
The use frequency of mangrove services varied significantly between villages (P-value = 0.035). However, mangrove services are more appreciated in the villages of Bossinkang (8.23%), Betenty (7.07%), Bagadadji (6.80%) and Djinack Diatoko (6.80%) (Figure 9).
Figure 9. Frequency use of mangrove services per village.
4.6.6. Overall Preferences for Mangrove Species
Analysis of Table 5 shows that the use values obtained by considering the different use categories vary according to the species. Among mangrove species, Rhizophora mangle is the most valued species (VU = 3.09), followed by Avicennia africana (VU = 0.91) and Rhizophora racemosa (VU = 0.19).
Table 5. Use values of mangrove species.

Species

Number of citations

Use value (VU)

Rhizophora racemosa

20

0,19

Rhizophora mangle

318

3,09

Avicennia africana

94

0,91
4.6.7. Consensus Factors and Fidelity Levels of Mangrove Services and Species
Table 6 shows a broad consensus among respondents on the various ecosystem services identified in the mangrove. The CFI is greater than 0.9 for all the ecosystem services provided by the mangrove, which shows that the populations are in complete agreement about these services. In other words, high CFI values are obtained when only one or a small number of services are cited by a large proportion of informants for a category of use and which can be identified with the NF.
Table 6. Informative consensus table of ecosystem services provided by mangroves.

Service

Number of Citations

Number of services

FCI

Provisioning service

400

8

0,98

Regulation department

184

5

0,97

Cultural department

215

5

0,98
Examination of Table 7 shows that all the species known to the population are used by local people. Table 7 also shows a low level of fidelity (NF) varying between 7.41 and 26.73% for the most cited species and the highest use categories. The NF for the use of Rhizophora mangle is high for aesthetics (26.73%), pharmacopoeia (22.64%) and the protection of fish (16.04%). Rhizophora racemosa is used more for oyster fishing (25%) and firewood (20%). Avicennia africana is valued more for shade (14.81%) and more or less for pharmacopoeia (17.28%).
Table 7. Level of fidelity (%) of mangrove species.

Species

Aesthetics

Wood heating

Oyster fishing

Pharmacopoeia

shading

Animal protection fishery

R racemosa

20

20

25

20

0

15

R mangle

26,73

14,15

20,44

22,64

0,00

16,04

A africana

13,58

7,41

19,75

17,28

14,81

13,58

L racemosa

0

0

0

0

0

0

C erectus

0

0

0

0

0

0
4.6.8. Sociodemographic Factors Influencing Forest Species and Ecosystem Services
Table 8 shows the variation in the frequency of use of forest species according to socio- demographic factors. Comparison of means tests showed no significant difference for age, sex, ethnicity, level of education or occupation (P≥0.05). On the other hand, the frequency of use of species was more significant for women (4.65±3.78%), younger people (4.80±3.41%) and farmers (5.34±4.08%). In terms of ethnic groups, forest species were more popular with the Bambara (7.77±00%) and the Sérères (4.96±3.84%). The better educated, particularly university students (7.77±00%) and secondary school students (7.52±0.49%), are more involved in the use of species.
Table 8. Influence of socio-demographic factors on forest species.

Factors

Modalities

Mean Frequency of use

P-value

Gender

Men

4,16±3,11

0,521

Women

4,65±3,78

Age

< 45

3,85±3,89

0,213

> 45

4,80±3,41

Ethnic groups

Bambara

7,77±00

0,577

Peulh

1,94±2,74

Sérère

4,96±3,84

Socé

4,47±3,56

Education rate

corani school

4,24±3,55

0,139

Primary

6,55±4,58

Secondary

7,52±0,49

University

7,77±00

Profession

Famer

5,34±4,08

0,633

Fishman

4,46±3,58
Table 9 shows the variation in the frequency of use of forest services according to socio- demographic factors. Comparison of means tests showed no significant difference for age, gender, ethnicity, level of education or occupation (P≥0.05). The frequency of use of services was higher among men (2.27±1.29%) than among women (2.02±1.55%). The Bambara (4.85±00%) and the Socé (2.09±1.45%) benefit more from forest services. In terms of level of education, use is highest among university graduates (4.85±00%). In terms of occupation, farmers (3.40±1.25%) were more important in the use of forest service.
Table 9. Influence of socio-demographic factors on the use of forest services.

Factors

Modalities

Mean Frequency of use

P-value

Gender

Men

2,27±1,29

0,426

Women

2,02±1,55

Age

< 45

1,74±1,59

0,121

> 45

2,27±1,40

Ethnic groups

Bambara

4,85±00

0,311

Peulh

1,94±2,75

Sérère

1,94±1,46

Socé

2,09±1,45

Education rate

Koranic school

2,02±1,48

0,162

Primary

2,43±1,68

Secondary

2,91±00

University

4,85±00

Profession

Famer

3,40±1,25

0,0734

Fishman

2,05±1,47
4.6.9. Relationships Between Forest Services, Villages, and Preferences for Forest Species
A highly significant difference (P-value<0.0001) was observed between villages regarding the services obtained from the forest. Forest services were valued more highly in Massarinko, Bossinkang and Betenty, with mean frequencies of use of 3.69%, 3.27% and 2.28% respectively (Figure 10).
Figure 10. Use Frequency of forest services by village
Table 10 shows respondents' preferences for forest species in the PNDS. Overall, Neocarya macrophylla, Detarium senegalense and Cocos nucifera are the species most used by respondents, with usage values (VU) of 1.25, 1.23 and 1.09 respectively. On the other hand, the services of Adansonia digitata (VU =0.7) and Anacardium occidentale (VU = 0.36) are less appreciated by respondents.
Table 10. Use values of forest species cited.

Species

Number of mentions

Use value (VU)

Detarium senegalense

127

1,23

Neocarya macrophylla

129

1,25

Adansonia digitata

72

0,70

Anacardium occidentale

37

0,36

Cocos nucifera

112

1,09
4.6.10. Consensus Factors and Fidelity Levels of Forest Services and Species
Table 11 shows that local people make greater use of forest provisioning services, characterised by a use value of 78.64%, followed by cultural services (VU = 62.14%). Informants' consensus factors ranged from 0.67 to 0.99. The highest CFIs were recorded for supply and cultural services (0.99 and 0.98 respectively). However, the consensus was lower for the regulation service (CFI = 0.67). All the species cited by the population were used for provisioning, 60% for regulation and 22% for cultural services.
Table 11. Informant consensus factors on the ecosystem services provided by the forest.

Services

Number of citations

VU (%)

Number of species

FCI

Supply service

404

78,64

5

0,99

Regulation department

7

6,8

3

0,67

Cultural services

112

62,14

3

0,98
Table 12 shows a level of fidelity varying between 1.55 and 65.28% for the most cited species and the highest use categories. The NFs are higher for NTFPs. The NFs for the A. digitata use are high for NTFPs (65.28%) and pharmacopoeia (27.78%). N. macrophylla and D. senegalensis are more valued for fuelwood (42.64 and 41.73% respectively). A. occidentale is also valued for NTFPs (62.16%), shade (8.11%) and fodder (13.51%). C. nucifera is valued more for its aesthetic appeal (50%).
Table 12. Fidelity level of forest species.

Species

NTFP

Fuelwood

Shade

Pharmacopoeia

Fodder

Aesthetics

D. senegalensis

39,37

41,73

1,57

17,32

0,00

0,00

N. macrophylla

39,53

42,64

1,55

16,28

0,00

0,00

A. digitata

65,28

0,00

0,00

27,78

0,00

6,94

Western A.

62,16

0,00

8,11

16,22

13,51

0,00

C. nucifera

50,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

50,00
5. Discussion
5.1. Socio-Economic Breakdown of Respondents
The results show that the PNDS is predominantly populated by the Socés. A demographic dynamic was observed, with a distribution of gender according to activities in the area. The two main activities are fishing (fish and oyster fishermen) and agriculture. This type of result was also obtained by
[20]
who noted that fishing and agriculture were the two main activities in the communes of Oukout and Santhiaba Manjaque (Lower Casamance). The men are more involved in fishing and farming, while the women (adults) are involved in harvesting oysters.
[21]
and
[22]
have shown that oyster harvesting, the second most important activity after fishing, is practiced mainly by women in the village of Kafountine (Lower Casamance estuary) and in the PNDS. However,
[23]
found that 26.46% of men were involved in oyster gathering, compared with 51.26% of women. According to the same authors, young people (< 20 years old) are not very involved in oyster harvesting in the Noumbiel province of Burkina Faso.
Mangrove oyster farming in the PNDS is an unstructured artisanal activity. The majority of the population is educated mainly through schools and has no skills in this type of farming. Nevertheless, farmers carry out individual activities and, where necessary, form family-based groups to pool production resources, as shown by
[24]
.
5.2. Diversity of Services Offered by the PNDS to Local Populations
The local populations mentioned a diversity of 21 ecosystem services provided by the PNDS. These services are divided into three categories (provisioning, regulation and cultural). This diversity is high compared with those found by
[25]
in the Lac de Guiers area of Senegal, where 13 ecosystem services were mentioned. This difference justifies the diversity of activities carried out in mangroves. Provisioning (50%) is the most cited category, followed by cultural services (27%) and regulation (23%). The fact that provisioning ecosystem services are often highly valued by people living in rural areas can be explained by his close relationship with ecosystems
[26]
.
The Khi2 test of independence showed a strong dependence between villages and the categories of services provided by the PNDS. Hierarchical ascending classification (HAC) was used to distinguish 4 groups of villages according to services. Agriculture, education and research are more common in Massarinko. Bee-keeping and animal husbandry activities are practiced in Bagadadji. The villages of Betenty and Bossinkang are characterised by a wide variety of uses, in particular fishing (fish, oysters, shellfish), NTFP gathering and the search for firewood. Tourism, aesthetics, shading and pharmacopoeia are more popular in Missirah, Djinack Bara and Djinack Diatako. According to
[27]
, the livelihoods of most of these inhabitants derive from the exploitation of renewable natural resources, mainly living aquatic resources, forest resources, agricultural resources, livestock, beekeeping and tourism. The distribution of service categories could be explained by the position of the villages, depending on whether they are mainland or island villages. The island villages of Betenty and Bossinkang are home to fishing communities with growing needs for firewood. This same trend was observed by
[27]
, who found large fishing households in Betenty (36) and Bossinkang (20) in their study.
5.3. Diversity of Mangrove Services
According to the population surveyed, the PNDS mangrove provides a total of 17 services, again divided into three categories: supply, regulation and cultural. The CFI is high for each of the three categories and reflects a general consensus of the local populations around these three categories of ecosystem services. The provisioning service is the most cited by the population and therefore the most important, with a high consensus factor (0.98). According to
[20]
, this could be explained by the many food resources available in mangroves, which can be directly consumed or used by the coastal population. According to
[28]
, traditional societies, which have occupied these coastal areas in a very discontinuous manner since the 16th century, have always used the mangrove as a source of wood (source of energy, construction of structures, etc.), but also for fishing and agriculture. Among the mangrove supply services in the PNDS, fish fishing (72.82%), oyster fishing (65.05%), pharmacopoeia (64.08%) and firewood (54.37%) are the most cited by the population. These results corroborate those of
[29]
who found that the majority of the population of the Abéné marine protected area (MPA) exploits mangrove products, mainly fish. According to
[17]
, the fishery resources most exploited in Senegal by the local population are fish (72.7%), molluscs (39.4%) and crustaceans (38.4%). The massive use of mangrove wood could be justified by the fact that oyster farming requires a greater or lesser quantity of wood for cooking oysters
[20]
. In fact, wood fuel in the form of firewood or charcoal is the main source of domestic energy for coastal households
[30]
. In their study of the Mangagoulack Community Heritage Area (MCA),
[29]
showed that mangroves are also used in the construction of houses, orchard fences and market gardens. Mangroves are also used in traditional pharmacopoeia, according to the local population. Its leaves are used to combat hemorrhage and fever. In the same context,
[31]
had already shown that mangrove leaves are used to treat certain illnesses such as malaria, diarrhea and stomach aches, and to ease women's pain before and after childbirth.
Importance was also given to cultural services, with an informative consensus factor of 0.98. Aesthetics were cited more often (90.29%) by the PNDS population, followed by ancestral value (67.96%) and tourism (30.10%). The same trend was found by
[32]
, according to whom cultural services are the second most valued ecosystem service after provisioning services in the Kalounayes managed forest (Senegal). However, in the same forest, sacred wood was the most valued cultural service with 42% of expressions of use
[32]
. The high proportion of ancestral value cited shows that the population of the PNDS considers mangroves to be a cultural heritage to be conserved.
[25]
found a cultural service less valued by the population of the Lac de Guiers area. According to him, this weak cultural dimension is due to the fact that certain traditional customs are beginning to disappear in this area, which is undergoing constant socio-economic change. According to
[6]
, tourism provides socio-economic benefits for improving the living conditions of local populations in the PNDS. These benefits manifest themselves in the development of economic activities (tourist guides, hotel work, etc.) which, in turn, employ part of the community.
The mangrove regulation service, despite being the third ecosystem service, is very important for the PNDS population with a high CFI (0.97). This consensus is similar to that found by
[33]
for the regulation service in the Lac de Guiers area, which is 0.98 Protection against erosion and flooding (93.20%), against strong winds (32.04%) and fish stocks (47.57%) were the most frequently cited services. The regulating service accounts for 7.9% of the services cited for the Kalissaye wetland of international importance (Ziguinchor, Senegal), due to the role of the mangrove as a barrier against the advancing sea
[20]
. In the same vein,
[34]
and
[35]
state that the mangrove is a favorable support for biodiversity as a habitat, nesting, reproduction and feeding site for many animal and plant species.
The use of mangrove ecosystem services varies significantly according to socio-professional category (P-value =0.000493). Farmers are more involved in the use of mangrove ecosystem services. This could be explained by farmers' awareness of the diversity of services provided by the mangrove. In fact, in addition to supply services, regulation services are also valued by farmers, in particular protection against erosion and flooding and the fight against violent winds, which are favorable to the development of their crops or speculations. These results are in line with those of
[36]
, which show that farmers perceive the importance of services more strongly, particularly the supply service.
5.4. Importance of Mangrove Species and Local Knowledge
Socio-demographic factors (ethnicity, gender, level of education, occupation and age) do not influence knowledge and use of mangrove species. Only three species are known by the population. Rhizophora mangle is by far the best known species, cited by 99.03% of respondents. Avicennia africana and Rhizophora racemosa are also known by 26.21% and 4.85% of respondents respectively. Laguncularia racemosa and Conocarpus erectus are the least known species. The high citation of Rhizophora mangle could be explained by the dominance of this species in the PNDS mangrove. The same observation was made by
[37]
, who found Rhizophora mangle in the mangroves of the Saloum Delta Biosphere Reserve, R. mangle as the most present and widespread species. However, these results are out of phase with those of
[22]
who noted in his study on "the ecology and spatio-temporal dynamics of mangroves in Togo", a dominance of the species R. racemosa within the conserved mangroves.
[29]
also showed that Laguncularia racemosa and Conocarpus erectus are the least known species compared with the other species (Rhizophora and Avicennia germinans) in the Mangagoulack Community Heritage Area (Casamance, Senegal). At the same time,
[32]
showed the low representation of Laguncularia racemosa and Conocarpus erectus in the PNDS mangrove.
The number of species cited is very strongly influenced by areas (P< 0.0001). The species are better known in Bagadadji and Bossinkang. This explains the high frequency of use of mangrove services in these villages. There is therefore a dependency between knowledge of the species and their frequency of use by the populations. This dependence was also demonstrated by
[29]
, who found high usage frequencies for species where they were better known.
Use value (UV) is a way of expressing the relative importance of each species for the population
[38, 39]
. Rhizophora mangle is the most highly valued species (UV = 3.09), followed by Avicennia africana (UV = 0.91) and Rhizophora racemosa (UV = 0.19). The high VU of Rhizophora mangle further explains the high dominance of this species in the PNDS. The authors
[40]
have also shown that Rhizophora mangle is the only species to be present in all zones (peripheral, buffer and central).
This ranking highlights the importance of Rhizophora mangle as a primary resource for coastal communities, and suggests that mangrove management should focus on preserving this species, while taking into account the potential and values of other less-used but important species for local biodiversity.
Determining the NFs for each species enabled us to identify the major ecosystem services for each species. The NFs for Rhizophora mangle are high for aesthetics, pharmacopoeia and the protection of fish animals. Rhizophora racemosa is used more for oyster fishing and firewood. Avicennia africana is valued more for shade and more or less for pharmacopoeia. These results confirm those of
[41]
, which showed that mangroves provide a range of products for construction, firewood, tannin, fodder, fishery resources and plant-based medicines. People's preference for Rhizophora racemosa wood has also been observed by
[33]
in Côte d'Ivoire and
[42]
in Cameroon.
[43]
, which testify to the effectiveness of Rhizophora racemosa wood as a good fuel.
5.5. Diversity of Services Provided by the Forest
Local people mentioned a diversity of ecosystem services provided by forests and trees. They have a strong perception of both direct and indirect ecosystem services
[26, 44]
. The studies covered all the categories of ecosystem services provided and perceived by local people. They listed a diversity of 6 ecosystem services provided by woody species, which are distributed between the three categories of ecosystem services, namely provisioning (70.85%), regulating (16.46%) and cultural (2.69%). The predominance of provisioning services could be explained by the fact that almost all people go to the forest to gather non-timber forest products, fodder, medicines and fish. These results are similar to those obtained by
[45, 46]
. The values observed show that there is a precise species selection criterion and information is exchanged between populations in the context of their uses (aesthetics, fodder, PNFL, shade, pharmacopoeia, energy wood). These woody species are generally conserved and protected because they are also a significant source of income for the people who use them
[47, 48]
. The classification presented gives a synoptic view of the diversity of ecosystem services at the level of each species and enables us to assess the relative importance of each of the categories represented
[18]
. Among supply needs, fuelwood (67.96%), NTFPs (54.37%) and pharmacopoeia (30.1%) are the most valued. For cultural needs, aesthetics is cited most often (57.28%). With regard to regulating services, shade was mentioned by 5.83% of respondents. The massive use of wood is explained by the fact that this product is used as firewood to prepare their meals. These results corroborate those of
[49, 50]
, which show that woody plants are a main source of energy and provide people with service wood and timber. Another study carried out in the municipality of Greater Letaba in South Africa showed that timber, fuelwood and edible plants were the most important ecosystem services
[51]
.
There is a strong public consensus (67% to 99%) on the use of ecosystem services. But it is strongest for the provisioning service (99%), with a very high use value (78%). This high degree of consensus for most uses is explained not only by their availability, but also by the fact that they are linked to everyday life. The products needed for these services are used almost every day to the point of being a tradition in the area. The study also reveals that supply services are the most represented, followed by cultural services and regulatory services. The CFI for each of the three categories is high, reflecting a general consensus among local populations around these three categories of ecosystem services. The classification presented in this study and the use of CFI as a discriminating factor constitute an innovation, as they provide a synoptic view of the diversity of ecosystem services for the different species identified and enable the relative importance of each of the categories represented to be assessed
[18]
. Determining the NFs in each category revealed some major ecosystem services. In the provisioning services category, high NF values were obtained for fuelwood, fruit consumption (NTFPs) and the use of bark in traditional medicine. Most of these values are higher than those found in the Sahelo-Sudanian zone of Senegal according to
[16]
.
5.6. Importance of Forest Species and Local Knowledge
Knowledge of woody species does not depend on socio-demographic factors. This consensus reflects, on the one hand, people's good knowledge of their environment
[52]
and, on the other hand, the reliability of ethnobotanical surveys as a means of rapidly estimating the state of vegetation in a locality
[53]
. These results contradict those of
[54]
, which showed that knowledge of agroforestry species depends on socio-demographic factors such as age, level of education, ethnicity and gender. Gender is a determining attribute in the use of forest species. In the study area, women play a central role in the use of different forest species. In addition to their responsibilities as housewives, they are the main players involved in developing and exploiting these resources. Men, on the other hand, concentrate mainly on fishing activities, which limits their involvement in the use of forest species. This repartition of tasks highlights the influence of gender on practices and methods of using natural resources. These results corroborate those of numerous ethnobotanical studies, which positively associate women with traditional knowledge of phytotherapy, due to their role in domestic activities. Indeed,
[55]
find that it is women who are responsible for preparing recipes for their own care and that of their children in traditional medicine. Age and level of education also have no influence on trends in the use of forest species. This can be explained by the fact that in the area, knowledge and skills are generally acquired and passed on from one generation to the next at an early age. In their studies,
[56]
and
[57]
explain the influence of age by the fact that traditional medicinal knowledge is passed on from ancestors (the wise) to descendants (the young) to such an extent that the two types of individuals have practically the same level of knowledge. This suggests that the usefulness of woody species is well considered by all socio-professional strata in the PNDS.
According to the conclusions of
[58]
, the more ecologically important a tree species is, the more uses it has. Our results therefore highlight the usefulness of trees for ecosystem services. Of the 5 species listed, some have higher use values than others. However, the high use values of Neocarya macrophylla (1.25), Detarium senegalense (1.23) and Cocos nucifera (1.09) demonstrate their central role in meeting people's needs. These species contribute to virtually all the categories of ecosystem services identified by the local population. They are what are known as multi-use species. This could also be linked to their accessibility. In fact, the non-timber forest products of these species are a considerable source of food for rural populations, especially during the lean season
[30, 16]
. Woody species also provide sources of income through the sale of their fruits.
A. digitata (65.28%) and A. occidentale (62.16%) stand out among the species most commonly used for food (NTFPs). The fruits, seeds, leaves and gum of these species improve the nutritional status of rural populations
[19, 59, 60]
. Gathering the products of these spontaneous species also provides people with income. The preferred woody species for people's energy needs are D. senegalensis (41.73%) and N. macrophylla (42.64%). Wood fuel in the form of firewood or charcoal is the main source of domestic energy for households
[19, 61]
. Pharmacopoeia is a category of supply service cited by the population if we refer to the percentage of expressions of use (30.1%). Certain species (A. digitata, A. occidentale, N. macrophylla, D. senegalensis) are much in demand by the people who use them for health care, as conventional pharmaceutical products are often beyond the reach of households because of their high cost. A fourth category of service provided by woody vegetation in the various villages is fodder. The proteins found in woody vegetation in the dry season are an essential part of livestock diets
[62]
. A single species, characteristic of the ecosystems of the PNDS, A. occidentale, is the only one cited by respondents and the most palatable to livestock. They provide livestock with a considerable food supplement
[62]
to complement the herbaceous fodder in straw form, which is nutritionally unbalanced and sometimes even absent. Shade is the only use cited by local people for regulating services, and A. occidentale (8.11%), N. macrophylla (1.55%) and D. senegalensis (1.57%) are the species most in demand. Shade is particularly useful in the terroir zone, where most socio-economic activities take place in the high tropical heat
[63]
. C. nucifera (6.94%) and A. digitata (50%) play an essential role in the aesthetics of the region. This can be explained by the fact that these are the species most favored in reforestation for the functions of shade, landscape aesthetics and carbon sequestration
[63]
.
6. Conclusion
Our work has enabled us to document local perceptions of the ecosystem goods and services provided by the forest and mangrove ecosystems of the PNDS, highlighting the richness, diversity and complexity of community uses and representations. The results show that local populations recognise the multidimensional importance of the park, particularly in terms of provisioning, cultural and regulatory services, with a marked prevalence of mangrove services. The analysis revealed that the mangrove, more than the forest, is a vital resource for the communities, both for its fishery resources and for the ecological and cultural functions it fulfils. Despite this recognition, uses are not significantly influenced by socio-demographic factors, with the exception of occupation for certain types of service, which shows a collective appropriation of natural resources. In addition, the high use value and high informant consensus around certain species, notably Rhizophora mangle and Detarium senegalense, underline the need to integrate local knowledge into conservation policies. These results confirm the value of adopting a participatory and integrated management approach, based on the sustainable development of ecosystem services and the effective involvement of local communities. The conservation of the PNDS, as an ecological and socio-cultural and socio-cultural heritage, represents a strategic lever for sustainable territorial development and the socio-ecological resilience of local populations.
Abbreviations

ANSD

National Agency of Statistics and Demography

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization

CF

Frequency of Citations

FCI

Informant Consensus Factor

MEA

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

NF

Fidelity Level

PAG

Development and Management Plan

PCD

Communal Development plan

PFNL

Non-timber Forest Products

PNDS

Saloum Delta National Park

UNESCO

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

USV

Use Value
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere (MAB) programme.
Author Contributions
Assane Ka: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing
Serigne Modou Sarr: Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing
Bocar Samba Ba: Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing
Alioune Badara Diop: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing
Aliousseyni Ly: Visualization, Writing – review & editing
Papa Diene Faye: Visualization
Dogo Seck: Visualization, Writing – review & editing
Declaration of Data Availability
Data will be available on request.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
[1] Unesco (1996), Biosphere Reserves: The Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework of the World Network, UNESCO, Paris, 23p.
[2] Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P., & van den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(6630), 253-260.

https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0

[3] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends. Vol. 5. Washington, DC, Island Press.
[4] Dia, I. M. M. (2003). Elaboration and implementation of an integrated management plan - The Saloum Delta Biosphere Reserve, Senegal. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Xiv. PP130.
[5] Management Plan (PAG) for the Saloum Delta National Park (PNDS) (2010 - 2014). Direction des Parcs Nationaux (DPN). PP86.
[6] Faye M. (2023). Évaluation des stratégies et niveaux d'utilisation des ressources naturelles du Parc National du Delta du Saloum (PNDS) par les populations riveraines: cas de la commune de Toubacouta. Master’s Dissertation, Université Alioune Diop de Bambey, Senegal, 68p.
[7] DIEDHIOU, A. A. (2012). Sustainable mangrove management and conservation project in Senegal. PP8, Institut de la Francophonie pour le Développement Durable (IFDD). (2021). Ecosystems and wetlands in the French-speaking world: preservation, restoration and enhancement for the survival of biodiversity (The Saloum Delta in Senegal, an exceptional ecosystem). NUM116, 1st QUARTER 2021.
[8] Pritchard D. W., 1967. What is an estuary: physical viewpoint. Lauff G. H. (ed.) Estuaries. Am. Ass. Adv. Sci. Publ, (83): 3-5.
[9] Marius C., 1979. Effects of drought on the phytogeographical and pedological evolution of the mangrove in Basse-Casamance. Bulletin of IFAN, 41, 671-691.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/39878317.pdf

[10] Diop E. S., Soumare A., Diallo N. and Guisse A., 1997. Recent changes of the mangroves of the Saloum River Estuary, Senegal. Mangroves and salt Marshes,, (1): 163- 172.
[11] Marius C., 1977. Explanatory note for the 1:50,000 soil map. Iles du Saloum. Centre O. R. S. T. O. M. de Dakar, 50 p.
[12] Sarr A., 1990. Contribution à l'étude écologique et socio-économique de la mangrove du Sine Saloum, Sénégal. Dissertation for the Diplôme d'Ingénieur des Eaux, Forêts et Chasses. Centre universitaire de Dschang - Institut National de Développement Rural, 90 p.
[13] Pdc, 2016. Plan de Développement Communal de la commune de Toubacouta, Report, 124 p.
[14] Pag, 2020. Development and Management Plan for the Saloum Delta National Park (PNDS) 2015-2021. Rapport version provisoire, 98 p.
[15] Nghonda, D. N., Muteya, H. K., Moyene, A. B., Malaisse, F., Sikuzani, Y. U., Kalenga, W. M., & Bogaert, J. (2023). Socio-Economic Value and Availability of Plant-Based Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) within the Charcoal Production Basin of the City of Lubumbashi (DR Congo). [Preprint]. Environmental and Earth Sciences.

https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202309.1127.v1

[16] Ngom D., Charahabil M., Sarr O., Bakhoum A., Akpo L. E. (2014), "Perceptions communautaires sur les services écosystèmiques d'approvisionnement fournis par le peuplement ligneux de la Réserve de Biosphère du Ferlo (Sénégal)", VertigO -Volume 14 Number 2 URL:

https://doi.org/10.4000/vertigo.15188

[17] Badiane M., Camara B., Ngom D. Et Diedhiou M. A. A. (2019), Perception communautaire des parcs agroforestiers traditionnels à Faidherbia albida (Del.) Chev. en Basse Casamance, Sénégal", Afrique SCIENCE 15(1) (2019) 214 - 226 ISSN 1813-548X,

http://www.afriquescience.net

[18] Dieng S. D., Diop M., Goudiaby A., Niang-Diop F., Faye L., Guiro I., Sambou S., Lykke A. M., Sambou B. (2016). Characterization of ecosystem services provided by Cordyla pinnata in the periphery of the Patako Classified Forest in Senegal. VertigO, 16(2) 1492 - 8442.
[19] Ngom D. (2013). Diversité végétale et quantification des services écosystémiques de la réserve de biosphère du Ferlo (Nord-Sénégal), Thesis, ED- École doctorale Sciences de la Vie, de la Santé et de l'Environnement, Université Cheikh Anta DIOP de Dakar (SEV/UCAD), Dakar, 167p.
[20] Diatta I. F. (2023). Characterisation de la mangrove et de ses services écosystémiques: cas de la zone humide d'importance internationale Kalissaye (Ziguinchor, Sénégal). UASZ Master's thesis, 54p.
[21] Soumare S., Fall A., Marega O., Adrieu J. (2020). Dynamique spatio-temporelle de la mangrove de Kafountine dans l'estuaire de la Basse-Casamance des années 1972 à nos jours: Approche par télédétection. IOSR Journal of Engineering (IOSRJEN), 10(9), 2020, pp. 01-14.
[22] Diop A. B., Samb C. O., Barry M., Ndour A. A., Cisse O., Mukenza M. M., Kouagou S. R., Mweru J.-P. M., Diansambu M. I., Bogaert J. (2024). Spatio-temporal dynamics of the mangrove in the Saloum Delta National Park (PNDS), Senegal. Revue Écosystèmes et Paysages, 4(1): 1-17.

https://doi.org/10.59384/recopays.tg4102

[23] Kienou V., Coulibaly N. D., (2020). Socio-economic characteristics of a river oyster farm in Noumbiel province, southwest Burkina Faso. Science et technique, Sciences naturelles et appliquées, Vol. 39, no 1, 13p.
[24] Grandcolas D., 1997. Les femmes et la collecte des huîtres dans le Saloum (Sénégal). Centre de Recherches Océanographiques de Dakar - Thiaroye, Scientific Document No. 143, Dakar, Senegal, 76 p.
[25] Ndiaye C. A. B. (2023). Evaluation of the ecosystem services of woody vegetation using the community approach in the Lac de Guiers area, Senegal. Master’s Dissertation, École Nationale Supérieure d’Agriculture (ENSA), Senegal, 66p.
[26] Martin-Lopez B., Iniesta-Arandia I., Garcia M., Palomo I., Casadoarzuaga I., del amo D. G., Gonzales J. A., (2012). "Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences", PLoS one, 7(6), e38970.
[27] Weigel J. Y, Charpin A., Morand P. (2016). Méthode d'évaluation diachronique des effets de la protection d'un socio-écosystème estuarien sur la vulnérabilité économique des ménages de pêcheurs Le cas de l'aire marine protégée de Bamboung et des Îles Betenty (Sénégal), 16p.
[28] Diop S. (1990). La côte ouest-africaine: Du Saloum (Sénégal) à la Mellacorée (Rép. de Guinée). ORSTM, 366.
[29] Diédhiou A., Sambou A., Sarr S. M. (2021). Perception des populations sur les services écosystémiques des aires protégées: Cas de l'Aire Marine Protégée d'Abéné, Sénégal. Rev Écosystèmes et Paysages (Togo), 2021, No 01, vol 01; 73-84pp e-ISSN (Online): 2790-3230.
[30] Sarr O., Bakhoum A., Diatta S., Akpo L. E. (2013). The tree in a Sudano-Sahelian environment in the groundnut basin (Centre-Senegal), Journal of Applied Biosciences, 61, pp. 4515- 4529.

https://doi.org/10.4314/jab.v61i0.85598

[31] Bassène O. A., Cubizolle H. Cormier Salem M. C., Sy B. A. (2013). The impact of demographic and socioeconomic changes on the perception and management of the mangrove in Basse Casamance (Senegal), vol 88-4/2013, pp. 299-315.
[32] Sambou A., Camara B., Goudiaby A. O. K., Coly A., Badji A. (2018). Perception of local populations on the ecosystem services of the Kalounayes classified and managed forest (Senegal). Revue Francophone du Développement Durable, special issue n°6.
[33] Ndiaye S, Ndiaye M, Sambou A, Koffi E. E. (2023). Perceptions des populations sur les services écosystémiques de l'aire marine protégée de Kayar à l'ouest du Sénégal. Rev Écosystèmes et Paysages (Togo), 2(2), 53-68pp.
[34] Cormier-Salem M. C. (1999). Rivière du sud: Société et mangrove ouest-africaine, Paris, édition IRD, vol 1, 416 p.
[35] UICN (1999). Plan de gestion de la Réserve de Biosphère du Delta du Saloum: Zonage et plan Dakar: IUCN, Volume 2, 89 p.
[36] Thiemann M., Riebl R., Haensel M., Schmitt T. M., Steinbauer M. J., Landwehr T., Fricke U., Redlich S., Koellner T. (2022). Perceptions of ecosystem services: Comparing socio-cultural and environmental influences. PLOS ONE, 17(10), e0276432.
[37] Ndour, N., (2005). Caractérisation et étude de la dynamique des peuplements de mangrove du Delta du Saloum (République du Sénégal), Dakar, Faculté des Sciences et techniques, Thèse de troisième cycle, Université Cheikh Anta Diop, 180 p.
[38] Fousseni F., Andrianamenoso R., Kperkouma W., Agbelessessi W., Madjouma K., Hodabalo P., Aniko P.-A., Komlan B., Koffi, A. (2017). Ecology and spatio-temporal dynamics of mangroves in Togo. VertigO: la revue électronique en sciences de l'environnement, 17(3).
[39] Sopt K., Oldeland J., Bognounou F., Schmiedel U., Thiombiano A. (2012), "Ethnobotanical knowledge and valuation of woody plants species: a comparative analysis of three ethnic groups from the sub-Sahel of Burkina Faso", Environment, Development and Sustainability, 14(5), pp. 627-649.
[40] N'Decky L. K. (1996). Implications socio-culturelles de l'introduction de nouvelles variétés de riz dans les mangroves de la Casamance, Master's thesis, Université Gaston Berger de Saint-Louis, 92 p.
[41] Bohoussou CN, N'da DH, Birba JJ. B. (2022). Durabilité des Peuplements de Mangrove au Large de la Lagune Ebrié dans les Sous-préfectures de Toukouzou, Jacqueville et Attoutou (sud de la Côte d'ivoire). ESI Preprints, 7: 535-535.

https://doi.org/10.19044/esipreprint.7.2022

[42] Mbevo FP, Tchindjang M, Fongnzossie, E. (2017). Remote sensing analysis of the vulnerability of the mabe mangrove reserve to climate change between 1986 and 2014. Territoires d'Afrique, 9: 53-65.

https://hdl.handle.net/2268/238117

[43] Muhamad D, Okubo S, Harashina K., Gunawan B., Takeuchi K. 2014. Living close to forests enhances people s׳ perception of ecosystem services in a forest-agricultural landscape of West Java, Indonesia. Ecosystem Services, 8, p. 197-206.
[44] Carnol M, Verheyen K. (2010). Ecosystem services in mixed and pure forests: perception des utilisateurs et connaissances scientifiques. Forêt Wallonne 106: 49-59.
[45] Cheikh Youssef A, Ashekele H, Shapi M Et Matengu K. 2011. Ethnobotanical study of indigenous knowledge on medicinal plant use by traditional healers in Oshkoto region, Nambia. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, (2011) 7 - 10.
[46] Laminou M. O, Boube M, Saley K, Oumarou B. G, Ali M. 2017. Usages Socio-économiques Des Espèces Ligneuses Au Sahel: Cas De Guidan Roumdji Au Niger. European Scientific Journal, September 2017 edition Vol. 13, No 26 (2017) ISSN: 1857 - 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431.
[47] Massaoudou M., Larwanou M. (2015). Characterisation of woody stands in Faidherbia albida (Del) A. Chev. and Prosopis africana (Guill., Perrot et Rich.) Taub. parks of Centre-Sud Nigérien. Journal of Applied Biosciences, 94: 8890-8906.

https://doi.org/10.4314/jab.v94i1.6

[48] Madjimbe G., Goalbaye T., Belem M. O., Ngarikla B. (2018). Evaluation of Timber Resources and their exploitation as fuelwood and service wood in the Department of Barh kôh in southern Chad. International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences, 12(6): 2856 2870.

https://doi.org/10.4314/ijbcs.v12i6.30

[49] Mensah S. (2016). Selected key ecosystem services, functions, and the relationship with biodiversity in natural forest ecosystems. Doctoral dissertation, Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University.
[50] Deguene B., Touckia G. I., Simboli O., Loumeto J. J. (2018). Analysis of ethnobotanical uses of rare tree species in forest concessions in the southwest of the Central African Republic. Rev. Cames, 6(2) 2424-7235.
[51] Hadonou-Yovo A. G., Houessou L., Lougbegnon T., Adebi Y., Sinasson G., Semevo D., Lange U., Boko M. (2019). Diversity and forms of use of woody species in the Mono Biosphere Reserve (Benin). VertigO, 19(2) 0-21.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276432

[52] Cisse M, Bationo B. A, Traore S, Boussim I. J. (2019). Perception of agroforestry species and their ecosystem services by three ethnic groups in the Boura watershed, Sudanian zone of Burkina Faso. BOIS & FORETS DES TROPIQUES, 338, 29.

https://doi.org/10.19182/bft2018.338.a31680

[53] Alam M. S., Masum K. M. and Mamun R. (2005). Tree species diversity and management practices of woodlot in the homegarden of the offshore Island of Bangladesh. Pakistan. Journal of Biological Sciences 8(4). 561-566.
[54] Agbankpe A. J., Dougnon T. V., Bankole H. S., Yehouenou B., Yedomonhan H., Legonou M., Dougnon T. J. (2014). Ethnobotanical study of therapeutic leafy vegetables used in the treatment of diarrhoea in South-Benin (West Africa). International Journal of Biological Chemistry, 8(4): 1784-1795.
[55] Dougnon T. V., Attakpa E., Bankole H., Hounmanou Y. M. G., Dehou R., Agbankpe J., De Souza M., Fabiyi K., Gbaguidi F. Et Baba-Moussa L. (2016). Ethnobotanical study of medicinal plants used against a contagious skin disease: Human scabies in South-Benin. Revue CAmES - Série Pharmacopée et Medecine Africaine 18(1): 16-22.
[56] Guèze M., Luz A. C., Paneque-Galvez J., Macia M. J., Orta-Martinez M., Pino J., Reyes-Garcia V. (2014). "Are ecologically important tree species the most useful? A case study from indigenous people in the Bolivian Amazon", Economic Botany, 68(1), pp. 1-15.
[57] Diop M., Kaya B., Niang A., Olivier A. (2005). Les Espèces Ligneuses et Leurs Usages: Les préférences des paysans dans le Cercle de Ségou, au Mali, ICRAF working paper no. 9, World Agroforestry Centre Nairobi, Kenya.
[58] Lykke A. M., Kristensen M. K., Ganaba S. (2004). Valuation of local use and dynamics of 56 woody species in the Sahel, Biodiversity and Conservation, 13, pp. 1961-1990.

https://doi.org/10.1023/B: BIOC.0000035876.39587.1a

[59] Ayantunde A. A., Hiernaux P., Briejer M., Udo H., Tabo R. (2009). Uses of local plant species by agropastoralists in South-western Niger. Ethnobotany Research and Applications 7, pp. 53-66.

https://doi.org/10.17348/era.7.0.53-66

[60] Fao (1992). Foresterie en zones arides, Guide à l'intention des techniciens de terrain, Cahier FAO Conservation, 143p.
[61] Boutrais J. (1980). L'arbre et le bœuf en zone soudano-guinéenne in L'arbre en Afrique tropicale: La fonction et le signe, Cahiers ORSTOM, séries Sciences Humaines vol XVII, n 3-4, pp. 235-246.
[62] Theilade I, Hansen H. H., Krog M. (2007). Ethnobotanical Knowledge: Implications for Participatory Forest Management, The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies, 6, 1, 14 p.
[63] Vroh B. T. A., Tiebre M. S., Ouattara D., N'guessan K. E. (2014). The Dékpa d'Agbaou forest reserve, an example of plant diversity conservation on mining sites in Côte d'Ivoire, International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies, 6(2): 162.

http://www.ijias.issr-journals.org

Cite This Article
Plain Text BibTeX RIS

  • APA Style

    Ka, A., Sarr, S. M., Ba, B. S., Diop, A. B., Ly, A., et al. (2025). Local Perceptions of Ecosystem Services Provided by Forest and Mangrove Ecosystems in the Saloum Delta National Park, Senegal. American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 13(5), 225-244. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajaf.20251305.11

    Copy | Download

    ACS Style

    Ka, A.; Sarr, S. M.; Ba, B. S.; Diop, A. B.; Ly, A., et al. Local Perceptions of Ecosystem Services Provided by Forest and Mangrove Ecosystems in the Saloum Delta National Park, Senegal. Am. J. Agric. For. 2025, 13(5), 225-244. doi: 10.11648/j.ajaf.20251305.11

    Copy | Download

    AMA Style

    Ka A, Sarr SM, Ba BS, Diop AB, Ly A, et al. Local Perceptions of Ecosystem Services Provided by Forest and Mangrove Ecosystems in the Saloum Delta National Park, Senegal. Am J Agric For. 2025;13(5):225-244. doi: 10.11648/j.ajaf.20251305.11

    Copy | Download 

  • @article{10.11648/j.ajaf.20251305.11,
  author = {Assane Ka and Serigne Modou Sarr and Bocar Samba Ba and Alioune Badara Diop and Aliousseyni Ly and Papa Diene Faye and Dogo Seck},
  title = {Local Perceptions of Ecosystem Services Provided by Forest and Mangrove Ecosystems in the Saloum Delta National Park, Senegal
},
  journal = {American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry},
  volume = {13},
  number = {5},
  pages = {225-244},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajaf.20251305.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajaf.20251305.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajaf.20251305.11},
  abstract = {This paper focused on the perceptions of communities living along the Saloum Delta National Park (SDNP), located in the Saloum Delta Biosphere Reserve (SDBR), of the ecosystem services (ES) provided by the mangrove and forest ecosystems. Through semi-structured surveys of 103 individuals in seven villages, the analysis revealed that the SDNP offers a diversity of 21 ecosystem services classified into three categories: provisioning, regulation and cultural. The most popular ones are fishing (72.8%), oyster harvesting (65.1%), pharmacopoeia (64.1%), firewood (54.4%), aesthetics (90.3%) and protection against erosion (93.2%). The species Rhizophora mangle stands out as the best known and most widely used mangrove, with a high use value (UV= 3.09) and a strong informant consensus (FCI> 0.97). Although socio-demographic factors do not significantly influence the use of services, occupation (particularly farmers) and area play a role in the diversity of uses. The services provided by mangroves are more numerous and better known than those provided by forests, reflecting the ongoing dependence of populations on this ecosystem. These results underline the strategic importance of the PNDS in local development and point out for sustainable and participatory management of its resources, through development of fishery products, strengthening of facilities, raising awareness of rational exploitation and the restoration of degraded habitats, particularly mangroves.
},
 year = {2025}
}

    Copy | Download 

  • TY  - JOUR
T1  - Local Perceptions of Ecosystem Services Provided by Forest and Mangrove Ecosystems in the Saloum Delta National Park, Senegal

AU  - Assane Ka
AU  - Serigne Modou Sarr
AU  - Bocar Samba Ba
AU  - Alioune Badara Diop
AU  - Aliousseyni Ly
AU  - Papa Diene Faye
AU  - Dogo Seck
Y1  - 2025/09/19
PY  - 2025
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajaf.20251305.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajaf.20251305.11
T2  - American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry
JF  - American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry
JO  - American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry
SP  - 225
EP  - 244
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-8591
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajaf.20251305.11
AB  - This paper focused on the perceptions of communities living along the Saloum Delta National Park (SDNP), located in the Saloum Delta Biosphere Reserve (SDBR), of the ecosystem services (ES) provided by the mangrove and forest ecosystems. Through semi-structured surveys of 103 individuals in seven villages, the analysis revealed that the SDNP offers a diversity of 21 ecosystem services classified into three categories: provisioning, regulation and cultural. The most popular ones are fishing (72.8%), oyster harvesting (65.1%), pharmacopoeia (64.1%), firewood (54.4%), aesthetics (90.3%) and protection against erosion (93.2%). The species Rhizophora mangle stands out as the best known and most widely used mangrove, with a high use value (UV= 3.09) and a strong informant consensus (FCI> 0.97). Although socio-demographic factors do not significantly influence the use of services, occupation (particularly farmers) and area play a role in the diversity of uses. The services provided by mangroves are more numerous and better known than those provided by forests, reflecting the ongoing dependence of populations on this ecosystem. These results underline the strategic importance of the PNDS in local development and point out for sustainable and participatory management of its resources, through development of fishery products, strengthening of facilities, raising awareness of rational exploitation and the restoration of degraded habitats, particularly mangroves.

VL  - 13
IS  - 5
ER  -

    Copy | Download

Author Information

  • Assane Ka

    Doctoral School of Science and Technology and Social Sciences, Higher Institute of Agricultural and Rural Training Senegal, Alioune DIOP University, Bambey, Senegal

    Research Fields: Forestry, Protected area and biosphere reserve manager, Remote sensing, Project Management

    Contact Email

    http://orcid.org/0009-0004-1411-2633

  • Serigne Modou Sarr

    Doctoral School of Science and Technology and Social Sciences, Higher Institute of Agricultural and Rural Training Senegal, Alioune DIOP University, Bambey, Senegal

    Research Fields: Fisheries science

    Contact Email

    http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6313-2164

  • Bocar Samba Ba

    Department of Agri-Food Economics and Consumer Sciences, Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Laval University, Quebec, Canada

    Research Fields: Environmental economics

    Contact Email

    http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3552-0183

  • Alioune Badara Diop

    School of Integrated Planning and Management of Forests and Tropical Territories, Regional Post-University, Kinshasa, Congo

    Research Fields: Mangrove ecosystem, Forest management

    Contact Email

    http://orcid.org/0009-0009-1547-8350

  • Aliousseyni Ly

    Institute of Water and Energy Sciences Including Climate Change, Pan African University, University of Tlemcen, Tlemcen, Algeria

    Research Fields: Agronomist, Climate change & Disaster Risk Management

    Contact Email

    http://orcid.org/0009-0006-1442-640X

  • Papa Diene Faye

    Doctoral School of Science and Technology and Social Sciences, Higher Institute of Agricultural and Rural Training Senegal, Alioune DIOP University, Bambey, Senegal; Interdisciplinary Doctoral School in African Development, Senghor University, Alexandrie, Egypt

    Research Fields: Forestry, Forest management

    Contact Email

    http://orcid.org/0009-0004-1196-8102

  • Dogo Seck

    National Academy of Science and Technology of Senegal, Dakar, Senegal

    Research Fields: Tropical agriculture, Agroecology, Entomology, Post-harvest loss reduction, Food security and food safety in Africa

    Contact Email

    http://orcid.org/0009-0009-3229-9047

Download PDF
Submit an Article
  • Abstract
  • Keywords

  • Document Sections

    1. 1. Introduction
    2. 2. Saloum Delta National Park (SDNP) Presentation
    3. 3. Methodology
    4. 4. Results
    5. 5. Discussion
    6. 6. Conclusion
    Show Full Outline
  • Abbreviations
  • Acknowledgments
  • Author Contributions
  • Declaration of Data Availability
  • Conflicts of Interest
  • References
  • Cite This Article
  • Author Information

About Us

Science Publishing Group (SciencePG) is an Open Access publisher, with more than 300 online, peer-reviewed journals covering a wide range of academic disciplines.

Learn More About SciencePG

Products

Information

Important Link

Copyright © 2012 -- 2025 Science Publishing Group – All rights reserved.