People and mangroves in the Philippines: fifty years of coastal environmental change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historical research has enhanced understanding of past human influences on forests and provides insights that can improve current conservation efforts. This paper presents one of the first detailed studies of mangrove forest history. Historical changes in mangroves and their use were examined in Bais Bay and Banacon Island, Philippines. Cutting to make space for fish ponds and residential settlement has dramatically reduced the distribution of mangroves in Bais, although forest has expanded rapidly near the mouth of the largest river where soils from nearby deforested hillsides have been deposited as sediments along the coast. Heavy cutting of mangroves for commercial sale of firewood occurred under minor forest product concessions in Bais and Banacon between the late 1930s and 1979. Cutting for domestic consumption of fuel and construction wood by local people has been widespread in both areas, although rates of cutting have varied in space and over time as a result of changing demographic pressures and in response to cutting restrictions imposed by firewood concessionaires, fish pond owners and government officials. People in both Bais and Banacon have responded to declining local forest availability by planting mangroves. Early motivations to plant reflected the desire to have a ready supply of posts for construction of fish weirs. Many have also planted to protect fishpond dykes and homes from storm damage, and increasing numbers now plant as a means to establish tenure claims over mangrove areas. However, planted stands have tended to be species monocultures and to bear only limited resemblance to natural mangrove forests. In contrast to many upland forests, opportunities for protection and restoration of mangroves are limited by virtue of a highly restricted natural distribution and by competing land uses that are likely to intensify in the future. Understanding historical patterns of change can be instructive to conservationists, but the future remains laden with uncertainties.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".