Follow the money: Understanding the Latin America and Caribbean mangrove restoration funding landscape to assist organizations and funders in improved social‐ecological outcomes

Recent attention to mangroves' social‐ecological benefits has increased funding for restoration projects. Despite such proliferation, little is known about the mangrove restoration funding landscape. To examine multiscale funding flows and relationships to restoration organizations and their project characteristics, we analyzed 115 surveys completed by the Caribbean and Latin American project managers. We categorized funder types by scale and type (e.g., International NGO) and projects as supported by in‐country, out‐country, or both funders. We identified relationships between funder type/scale and organization/project characteristics (e.g., size, inclusion of community information), which we illustrate using Sankey diagrams. Most funders were from the Global North (n = 165/275), primarily in the United States (n = 65) or broadly at the international scale (n = 59); however, Mexican funders were also prevalent (n = 35). Projects were mostly funded by out‐country (n = 43), then both (n = 36) and in‐country (n = 26). While similarities existed among funder type/scale and organization/project characteristic trends, notable exceptions existed (e.g., foreign government supported larger projects), which we detail and contextualize. We conclude with recommendations for funders and organizations, which include ways funders can better support projects using best practices (e.g., community engagement) and managed by smaller organizations, as well as ways organizations can better target funding based on their organization and project characteristics.


| INTRODUCTION
Mangroves, tropical coastal ecosystems valued for their socio-ecological benefits, are facing severe degradation and loss. With annual loss estimated at 1%, mangrove ecosystems may functionally disappear within 100 years (Duke et al., 2007;Ellison et al., 2020). Intact mangrove ecosystems support high biodiversity and provide numerous ecosystem services, including fish nurseries, wood products, tourism, and climate change mitigation and adaptation (Ellison et al., 2020;Walters et al., 2008). Mangroves are increasingly recognized for their importance in achieving nationally determined contributions and sustainable development efforts (e.g., blue economy; Friess et al., 2020), thereby providing benefits to both local communities and the global commonwealth. Recognition of mangroves' role in climate mitigation and adaptation has increased desire to conserve these ecosystems (Ellison et al., 2020;Friess et al., 2020;Su et al., 2021); in response, mangrove restoration is increasingly implemented as a conservation intervention (Duarte et al., 2020;Ellison et al., 2020;Su et al., 2021).
With proliferation of conservation and restoration efforts, funding landscapes are also changing. The number of actors involved is growing, including funders from diverse organizations (e.g., governments, NGOs) and scales (e.g., local, international). The role of non-state actors in shaping environmental governance and conservation broadly is increasingly recognized, with some arguing that NGOs', corporations', and states' roles can be indistinguishable (Armitage et al., 2012;Holmes, 2011). Numerous researchers highlight that a mismatch between growing demand for restoration and insufficient government capacity can lead to, with varying outcomes, nonstate actors filling roles of project funding, management, facilitation, or knowledge generation (Armitage et al., 2012;Betsill et al., 2021;Holmes, 2011). For example, due to financial resources held by the private sector, organizations are now turning to them to finance nature (e.g., Deutz et al., 2020). Increasingly, nonstate actors such as civil society and markets may intervene and dictate the international conservation agenda (Holmes, 2011;Holmes, 2012;Neumann, 2015). Understanding the funding landscape is fundamentally important as it can influence conservation prioritization. Although equitable and sociallyjust approaches are possible (Grimm et al., 2021;Zafra-Calvo et al., 2017), conservation in many tropical regions is still largely tied to postcolonial relations and embedded in neoliberal economic thinking (e.g., market-based approaches reducing government control of nature) and policies (e.g., privatization, commodification, Holmes, 2011;Neumann, 2015).
The role of nonstate actors as funders is evident in marine and coastal conservation. Although governments remain a predominate funder, there has been diversification of funder type, and other funders include the private sector, foundations, NGOs, bilateral/multilateral institutions, public expenditure, and more (Bayraktarov et al., 2020;Berger et al., 2019;Gatt et al., 2022). For example, CEA Consulting (2019) found that nonstate philanthropic funding for global marine conservation from the top 20 US philanthropic foundations nearly doubled between 2010 and 2016, and the amount of funds contributed by philanthropy has generally been comparable to those by official development assistance.
Despite increased restoration projects and influence of philanthropic actors, their role in coastal and marine conservation remains relatively understudied and an important priority Holmes, 2011). Furthermore, few studies have examined the mangrove restoration funding landscape (though see Bayraktarov et al., 2020;Gatt et al., 2022;Thompson, 2018), especially in the Western Hemisphere. Without understanding the mangrove restoration funding landscape, there is risk that projects are unequally distributed and do not align with conservation priorities (Holmes, 2011;Thompson, 2018). Therefore, our exploratory study identified funders of Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) mangrove restoration and examined trends as to which types of organizations and projects are funded by whom. Specifically, we answer the following questions and provide recommendations for organizations and funders based on our findings: 1. What types of institutions and countries fund mangrove restoration in LAC? 2. What, if any, relationships exist between funder type/ scale and funded organization/project characteristics? Specifically, a. organization type and size b. project size, length, monitoring, land tenure, and decision-makers c. inclusion of information from community 2 | METHODS

| Data collection
To identify funders and characteristics of organizations and LAC projects, we used best ethical practices in survey design, administration, and analysis, as detailed in Supporting Information Methods S1.2. Between December 2020 and April 2021, we conducted a 15-20 min online survey (available in English and Spanish) via Qualtrics survey software. Survey questions were based on gaps identified by literature on mangrove restoration (e.g., Ellison et al., 2020) and conversations with mangrove restoration project leads about their work; questions were primarily quantitative and close-ended (e.g., multiple choice), with few open-ended (e.g., funder names). We asked managers/ project leads broadly about their organization's mangrove restoration work, and about a specific project in detail. Although we examined many aspects of mangrove restoration, for this paper, we focus on funders and specific characteristics of organizations and projects (see Methods S2 for English and Spanish surveys).
We used purposive and snowball sampling to locate individuals and projects (Bernard, 2006). We searched Google for mangrove projects using "mangrove restoration" in English, Spanish, French, and Portuguese with different countries and regions as parameters (see Methods S1.2 for detailed search methods). Our survey was intended for managers/project leads, but we also contacted individuals working with such people to share the survey with their network. In total, we sent over 1100 emails, including those that bounced back, but not those forwarded by others. To maximize survey response, we sent three personalized emails with the survey links (Dillman et al., 2014). Although relying on email and online surveys could inadvertently exclude certain projects and populations, especially in areas without reliable internet, our sample focused on those at the organization level (i.e., not general community members) who had a greater likelihood of internet capacity. In addition, smartphones increase internet access and social media sampling techniques are effective in accessing "hard-to-reach" populations (Baltar & Brunet, 2012;Navarro, 2021). Therefore, by sharing the online survey through email and Facebook, a popular social media platform in the region, we hoped to increase response rates.

| Data analysis
For this paper, we only included surveys with responses listing funders, but we do not include any identifiable information in the analysis as answers were aggregated and analyzed by broader characteristics (e.g., organization type). We removed respondents who provided non-specific answers (e.g., seven organizations) and coded the remaining funders and project organizations by type and scale. Initial codes were developed based on literature and organization descriptions, and then refined iteratively and checked for accuracy by Smithsonian Institution's Marine Conservation Program Coordinator who is familiar with these organizations. If differences arose, we came to a consensus based on the overall coding scheme. Final funder types (FT) were: foreign government, multilateral, local/national government, international NGO, national/regional NGO, local NGO, national academic, foreign academic, foundation, business/ corporation, and local community. Project organization types were: national government, foreign government, national academic, foreign academic, international NGO, regional/ national NGO, local NGO, and business. As funders hailed from many countries, thereby reducing ability to find trends, we categorized projects by the scale of their funders (FS): funded entirely by funders from their country (in-country), entirely from funders outside their country (out-country), or a combination of in-country and out-country funders (both). For detailed explanation of FT/FS coding scheme, survey sampling and outreach, and addressing multiple responses from the same organization, see Methods S1.
To identify relationships between both FS and FT and organization/project characteristics, we conducted analyses using the Statistical Package SPSS. Analyses of statistical significance cannot easily be conducted on multiple response variables because they do not pass the test of independence (e.g., each respondent could have multiple responses for funders). Descriptive statistics using crosstab calculations are a common method for analyzing this type of data (Kent State University, 2022). To conduct crosstab calculations, we transformed FT data to categorical data, indicating if a project was or was not funded by a particular FT (e.g., two businesses funding a project would be counted as one business FT for the project). Therefore, the unit of analysis remained on FT within a project and not distinct funders related to the project. We conducted crosstab calculations comparing FT and the dependent variables: (1) organization type, (2) number of organization's projects, (3) organization total hectares restored/restoring, (4) project size, (5) project years, (6) type of monitoring conducted, (7) project land tenure, (8) decision-makers, and (9) community information included in the project.
We also conducted crosstab calculations to analyze the relationship between FS and multiple response variables: (1) project land tenure, (2) decision-makers, and (3) community information included. In addition, the non-multiple response dependent variable "organization type" did not meet the expected frequency count assumption for chi-square tests (Field, 2013); therefore, we conducted crosstab calculations to analyze that relationship. We used Kruskal-Wallis test to analyze relationships between FS and interval data: (1) number of organization's projects, (2) organization total hectares restored/ restoring, and (3) project years (Field, 2013).
To illustrate funding flows, we created Sankey diagrams (Schmidt, 2008) with the statistical package R and Network3D, where funding flows (links) connect FT or FS (source nodes on the left) and organization/project characteristics (target nodes on the right). To read Sankey diagrams, one follows the link from source node to target node; each link represents the percentage of the source node (FT, FS) that links to the corresponding target node (organization or project characteristic). Although totals often exceeded 100%, as responses were not mutually exclusive, percentages are still a useful metric for comparing within FT and FS. Because total percentage varied, we do not provide a scale reference (Otto et al., 2022). Simplified visuals have been used by others to illustrate relative proportions of different source nodes, target nodes, and links (e.g., Collins et al., 2022). To improve readability, we trimmed the Sankey diagrams to remove infrequent links (<1% of total links rounded to the nearest whole number). Given the number of variables we examined, we include in the manuscript only Sankey diagrams that illustrate notable differences, and results for some FS variables are not included in the results as they were not included in recommendations (see Figures S1 and S2 to view Sankey diagrams for variables where trends were similar across FT and FS, as well as all untrimmed Sankey diagrams).

| Funding landscape and funder type/scale links
In total, 254 surveys were attempted with 182 completed. For this analysis, we only include the 115 that answered funding questions in enough detail to code responses. Restoration projects occurred in most countries and territories in LAC (n = 33). Notable exceptions in our sample were Venezuela and Cuba. For the subsample in this paper, the greatest number of restoration projects occurred in Mexico (n = 21), followed by Columbia (n = 9); Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, and Guatemala all had six projects each (Guatemala was also part of two regional projects) ( Figure 1).
We use "funders" to not necessarily refer to discrete funders, as they could have funded multiple projects and be referenced more than once. Instead, "funders" represents the distinct times they are involved in mangrove restoration projects. Some funders could not be traced to a country due to generic responses (e.g., private business). Funders for which we could identify specific countries (n = 275) were mainly from the Global North (n = 165) and commonly from: US (n = 65) and International (i.e., no specific country, n = 59), followed by Mexico (n = 35), Columbia (n = 13), UK (n = 10), Germany (n = 9), Caribbean-wide (n = 8), the Netherlands (n = 8), and France (n = 7) ( Figure 2). All other countries had less than six funders, and in 10 instances, funders were the only one from their country. Eight projects reported being unfunded. Projects consisted of the following funder scales (FS): 26 in-country, 43 out-country, and 36 both. Overall, projects in most countries were primarily out-country or both, but exceptions existed, including some with few projects in the country; notable exceptions included Mexico with three out-country compared to six in-country and nine both (three reported no funders), and Columbia with one outcountry compared to five in-country and three both ( Figure 1).
For the 107 projects receiving funding, there were 209 funder type links (FTL) (i.e., number of times an FT F I G U R E 1 Number of mangrove restoration projects surveyed in LAC per country, categorized by funder scale: Out-country funding (blue), in-country funding (orange), both in-country and out-country funding (gray), and no funders (yellow). linked to an organization/project characteristic). The total FTL in our sample broke down as follows: local/ national government (n = 37), business (n = 29), foreign government (n = 28), international NGO (n = 27), foundation (n = 27), multilateral (n = 24), national/regional NGO (n = 12), national academic (n = 11), local NGO (n = 5), local community (n = 5), and foreign academic (n = 4) ( Figure S3). We report major trends for FT with more than 10 FTL; those with smaller numbers cannot provide much in the way of comparison, except in cases with a clear majority.
Throughout this paper, percentages explaining relationships between FT and organization/project refer to percentage of total FTL within an FT (e.g., "41% of business supported projects that were >1-3 years" would mean that 41% of the business FTL connected to >1-3 years). Unlike FTL, funder scale links (FSL) illustrate linkages between projects, categorized by their FS (outcountry, in-country, or both), and organization/project characteristics; therefore, their percentages refer to the percent of projects within that FS (e.g., "26% of out-country were managed by International NGO" would mean that 26% of all out-country FSL connected to International NGO).

| Funder type/scale and organization type/size
First, we examined the relationship between FT and organization type (Figure 3a). Foreign government, multilateral, and foundation most often funded projects led by regional NGOs (35%, 33%, and 37%). National academic predominantly funded projects managed by national academics (64%), with 55% at least partially funded through the same institution. International NGO primarily supported projects run by NGOs (78%), whether international (15%), regional (30%), or local (33%). Local/ national government more often funded domestic or regional organizations (76%), as opposed to those run by international organizations, governments, or academics; business was less likely to support national or foreign government (3%) and foreign academic (0%) projects.
Analysis of FS and project organization type ( Figure 3b) revealed that out-country were mostly managed by NGOs (international 26%, regional 27%, local 23%). In-country were mostly run by national academic (35%) or local NGOs (23%), followed by national governments (19%); no in-country was managed by any international-scale organization. Projects funded by both were mostly managed by regional NGOs (31%), followed by national universities (19%), national government (14%), and business (14%). No projects funded by both were managed by foreign governments. In addition to international funding, local NGOs were substantially incountry supported.
To compare relationships between FT and FS with organization size, we analyzed both number of mangrove restoration projects and total number of hectares restored/restoring (Figures 3c,d). Most FT supported organizations with either 2-3 or 4-9 projects, which were usually the highest or second-highest percentage of FTL. However, following organizations with 2-3 projects, foreign government and multilateral supported an almost equal percentage of organizations with 10-20 projects (foreign government 25%, multilateral 26%) as 4-9 projects (foreign government 25%, multilateral 29%). National academic equally funded organizations with 1, 2-3, and 10-20 projects (27%). Kruskal-Wallis test showed no significant differences in the number of mangrove restoration projects among different FS (H[2] = 1.677 p = .432).
Most FT funded organizations working on smaller scales, with total past and current restoration hectares falling within 0-10 or 11-50 hectares. This trend was especially visible in NGOs at all scales, national academic, and local/national government. A notable F I G U R E 2 Number of surveyed LAC mangrove restoration project funders per country. exception was foreign government, which was more likely to fund organizations restoring larger amounts of land; 25% of foreign government-funded projects restored 501-1500 ha, followed by 51-200 (21%), and >1500 and 11-50 ha (both 18%). Multilateral more often funded organizations restoring either 11-50 (26%) or 51-200 (26%) ha. Kruskal-Wallis test revealed no significant differences in the number of hectares restored by the organization among different FS (H(2) = 1.234, p = .540).
F I G U R E 3 Trimmed Sankey diagrams illustrating relationships between funder type/scale and organization characteristics (>1% of 209 links led to FTL with 0 and 1 link being dropped). In funder type Sankey diagrams, funding flows from funder type (left) to organization characteristics (right). In funder scale Sankey diagrams, the scale at which a project is funded (left) links to the organization characteristics Most FT primarily supported projects that were >1-3 years (Figure 4b). Fifty-seven percent of foreign governments supported projects in this range, with international NGO (48%), national/regional NGO (42%), and business (41%) closely following. However, some FT supported more projects in the >3-6-year range, such as local/ national government (47%) and multilateral (42%), although the latter was not much greater than projects in the >1-3 range (38%). Academics funded more longerterm projects (>3-6, >6 years). Most FT did not frequently support projects that were a year or less, but exceptions included national/regional NGO (33%), foundation (30%), and business (19%). Kruskal-Wallis test revealed a significant difference in the number of years projects were funded among different FS (H(2) = 6.199, p = .045). Pairwise comparisons with adjusted p-values showed a large effect size in funding duration between out-country (Mdn = 3) and both (Mdn = 4), (p = .039, r = .24).
Most FT primarily funded projects that included ecological and/or hydrological monitoring ( Figure S1). In most cases, ecological/hydrological was much greater than other types of monitoring for foreign government (54%), foundation (52%), and national/regional NGO (50%). Business and local/national government similarly funded projects conducting ecological/hydrological and social monitoring (48%, 41%) and ecological/hydrological only (41% both). Multilateral and international NGO, more frequently funded projects conducting ecological/ hydrological and social monitoring (46%, 41%) compared to ecological/hydrological only (33% both). Less common among all FT were those supporting projects conducting either only social or no monitoring.

| Funder type/scale and project stakeholder engagement
The next set of relationships involved land tenure, decision-making, and inclusion of community information. Most projects occurred on at least some national government-owned land, followed by local governmentowned land ( Figure S1). However, international NGO and foundation supported more projects on communityowned land than local government-owned land. Academic, both national and foreign, were more equally distributed among projects on national government land, local government land, community land, and in the case of national academic, other (e.g., Crown, ejido). For all FS, national government was also the primary land tenure for projects (out-country 79%, in-country 62%, both 67%) ( Figure S1). Both occurred on local governmentowned land at higher rates than out-country and in-country (39% vs. 26% and 19%).
We also asked respondents which individuals/groups made project decisions (Figure 5a,b). In many cases, funders supported projects where the national government and/or directors were a decision-maker. For most FT, especially academic funders, the community was more often a decision-maker than board of directors, property owners, or international conservation organization. However, 32% of foreign government and 37% of international NGO listed international conservation organizations as decision-makers. For FS, the most-reported decisionmaker was the national government (77% out-country, 54% in-country, 61% both) followed by directors (60% out-country, 46% in-country, 58% both). Yet, for both, community was included as a decision-maker in a higher proportion (56%) than out-country (44%) and in-country (39%). International conservation organizations were more often decisionmakers for projects with international funding (37% outcountry and 22% both vs. 8% in-country). In-country reported lower percentages of including stakeholder groups (27%) and local governments (15%) compared to out-country (44%, 42%) and both (33%, 28%).
In terms of information that the community provided the project, most FT and FS supported projects that included local or traditional ecological knowledge (LEK, TEK) (Figures 5c,d). Often, FT were next most likely to support projects that provided information on community needs, yet, foundation was as likely to fund projects including LEK/TEK as information on community needs F I G U R E 5 Trimmed Sankey diagrams illustrating relationships between funder type/scale and project engagement. In funder type Sankey diagrams, funding flows from funder type (left) to project engagement (right). In funder scale Sankey diagrams, the scale at which a project is funded (left) links to project engagement (right). Decision-maker and community inform aation allowed for multiple responses, resulting in more than 209 links between funder type and these characteristics. Therefore, seven and three links respectively were dropped in the >1% trimmed Sankeydiagrams. (48%). No national/regional or local NGO supported projects that included information on community structure, and most FT were below 20% for supporting projects that included community's other scientific knowledge. LEK/TEK was the most common information provided for all FS: out-country (49%), in-country (69%), and both (50%). Community needs was most reported for both (53%) and the second most reported for out-country (37%) and in-country (23%). Out-country reported higher levels of including information regarding community structure and makeup (28%) compared to in-country (12%) or both (17%). Few, if any, projects or FTLs, connected to projects using no information from the community.

| DISCUSSION
This exploratory study provided an initial characterization of LAC's mangrove restoration funding landscape, from which we crafted recommendations to assist (1) organizations in better accessing funds and (2) funders with supporting social-ecological outcomes ( Figure 6). These are broad suggestions and local/national contexts may influence applicability. The remainder of this discussion provides rationale for and references these recommendations, where RO = recommendation for organization, RF = recommendation for funder, and the number corresponds to those in Figure 6.

RecommendaƟons for organizaƟons:
1. NGOs should look to internaƟonal NGOs for funding. 2. Non-NGOs, especially government or business, should focus less on internaƟonal NGO funding. 3. DomesƟc organizaƟons should look at in-country sources, such as local/naƟonal government, although this might depend on the specific country and its resources. 4. Large-scale projects could look to foreign government or mulƟlateral funding sources. 5. Small-scale organizaƟons should focus less foreign governments and mulƟlateral funding and more on funding from NGOs, academics, and local/naƟonal governments. 6. New organizaƟons that only have one project might look to funding from naƟonal academic, business, foundaƟon, and internaƟonal organizaƟon. 7. A network of smaller organizaƟons could help access funds from foreign governments and mulƟlateral funding source by increasing their combined restoraƟon porƞolio. 8. Very short-term projects (one year or less) might find more opportuniƟes for funding from naƟonal/regional NGOs, foundaƟons, and business. 9. If a project is longer-term, organizaƟons might want to look to local/naƟonal governments, whereas those with shorter-term projects might want to look to internaƟonal funders.

RecommendaƟons for funders:
1. Be cognizant of the power that funders hold and their potenƟal to influence mangrove projects. 2. InternaƟonal funders: Consider funding projects in less wealthy countries, as countries with greater GDPs might be able to beƩer support their own programs through government iniƟaƟves. 3. Partner with local funders, when possible, to increase on-the-ground knowledge and local oversight. 4. Support collaboraƟon and networks of organizaƟons to achieve greater restoraƟon outcome while supporƟng organizaƟons tradiƟonally unable to access funds. 5. Invest in more long-term projects that allow for ecological/hydrological & social monitoring 6. Fund projects that use best pracƟces to improve social-ecological outcomes. 7. Focus on parƟcipatory methods to both increase knowledge of the area and enhance community/stakeholder engagement and buy-in. 8. Support/require local decision-makers, possibly increasing co-management approaches. 9. Include informaƟon on community structure and makeup to beƩer understand community power dimensions and include a wider diversity of community members. 10. Provide more funding for academic-run restoraƟon projects as they oŌen included community and were longer-term projects. 11. Expand restoraƟon beyond government-owned land, while supporƟng ways to ensure investment remains secure (e.g., easements). 12. Trust organizaƟons and enable them to have more ownership of the project.
F I G U R E 6 Recommendations for mangrove restoration organizations and funders to better access funding and support socialecological outcomes 4.1 | Restoration project and funding landscape Proportionally, our sample had similarities reported by others examining LAC mangrove restoration, such as more projects in Mexico and Columbia (Gatt et al., 2022). The high number of projects in Mexico could be due to its size and high mangrove cover relative to other LAC countries. However, differences also existed between our findings and others. Given the greater number of LAC projects in our sample, we identified projects from countries and regions not often present in other work (Duarte et al., 2020;Gatt et al., 2022). For example, Gatt et al.'s (2022) sample included 12% from LAC, Africa, and the Middle East combined, and no projects from Central America, the Guianas, Ecuador, Peru, and the Caribbean Islands (except the Bahamas); our paper's sample included 21 projects in Central America and 45 in the Caribbean Islands. However, Brazil was less represented in our sample than in Duarte et al. (2020), Gatt et al. (2022), and Su et al. (2021). This could be because the outreach email and surveys were in Spanish or English; respondents were asked to contact us for French or Portuguese translations. In addition, our sample included no projects in Cuba or Venezuela, despite ongoing mangrove restoration in these countries (Beck et al., 2020;Duarte et al., 2020). Geopolitical relationships could have played a role (e.g., emails unaccepted by system, difficulty accessing survey due to security notifications). Others working in Cuba informed us that due to trust concerns, data collection is difficult unless collected in person. Future research could minimize impacts from these sampling limitations by including more languages initially and onthe-ground data collection for certain countries. However, as discussed, mangrove restoration in LAC is under sampled; our research expands the number of projects identified in LAC, potentially because our methods include surveying projects, some of which might not be represented in peer-reviewed literature that formed others' samples (e.g., Duarte et al., 2020;Gatt et al., 2022;Su et al., 2021).
In answer to our first research question, the funding landscape in our sample skewed towards funders from a few countries, often the Global North (e.g., US, UK, EU countries), or organizations functioning at the international scale (e.g., international conservation organizations). Similarly, projects were more often funded from out-country (n = 43) and both (n = 36) than in-country (n = 26). These findings are in line with other conservation philanthropy research describing that funding typically flows from the Global North to the Global South where projects are located (e.g., Neumann, 2015). Due to potential funder influence on project priorities, the Global North can have a disproportionate effect on mangrove restoration agendas and priorities throughout the Global South (Holmes, 2012;Neumann, 2015). In our study this potential impact is illustrated by the fact that more than a third of projects funded by foreign government and international NGO indicated that international conservation organizations were a decision-maker. Therefore, funders should be cognizant of their power and influence and the role they can play, especially if they wish to better support social-ecological outcomes (RF1).
Although most funding was international, future research could explore why Mexico and Colombia have more internal funders than other countries. In some cases, one project might account for several funders; for example, one Columbian project was funded by four Columbian funders. However, Mexico, which had the most restoration projects (n = 21), had fewer out-countryfunded projects. Mexico might have more domestic funders because it is wealthier than neighboring countries (second-highest GDP in LAC; IMF, 2021) and has a topdown approach to governing natural resources (Nava & Ramírez-Herrera, 2011), which could lead to greater national/local government funding. If these factors result in more domestic funding, international funding may be needed more in countries with less wealth and government support (RF2). In addition, international funders might have greater influence in these other countries (RF1) The most prevalent FTL were local/national government, followed by business, foreign government, international NGO, foundation, and multilateral. Similar to Bayraktarov et al.'s (2020) and Gatt et al.'s (2022) findings of mangrove restoration studies at a global-level, our study found that LAC projects were often supported at least in part by either government or foreign funders (e.g., foreign development banks). Academics (national and foreign), NGOs at the national/regional/local level, and local community had fewer FTL, which is expected, as foreign groups and governments often have more finances to support projects than smaller, local/regional groups (CEA Consulting, 2019). However, the disparity in prevalence between these groups also indicated that foreign funders infrequently partner with local funders. Of 26 projects funded by both, two were supported by local community and four by local/regional NGO; although 17 were funded by local/national government, funders were usually at the national, not local, level. This can have implications for project success; local funders might have a better sense of organization and community capacity and needs, which may lead to greater project accountability through an ability to monitor and modify project management. As funders are further removed from projects, there may be a greater chance that they will be out of touch with what occurs on the ground, hold unreasonable expectations, and fail to identify problems in a timely manner (e.g., conflicts, misuse of funds, unmet targets). These aspects illustrate the potential benefits of national or international funders partnering with local funders (RF3).

| Relationships between funder type/ scale and organization characteristics
We identified clear relationships between organization characteristics and FT/FS. International NGO primarily supported and out-country projects were most frequently managed by NGOs at multiple scales, which could be in part due to funding restrictions of NGOs (e.g., unable to support governments) (RO1, RO2). Local/national government more likely supported projects managed by domestic or local organizations, and in-country funded projects were managed exclusively at this scale. These trends could suggest that local/national funders primarily seek out domestic organizations (RO3).
In terms of size, most FT funded organizations that had 2-3 or 4-9 projects and 0-10 or 11-50 total hectares restored, as well as working on individual projects of 0-10 ha. This seems promising for small-scale organizations, but given fewer FT supported organizations with only one project, it might be difficult for new groups to secure funds. Competition for funding among conservation organizations is strong, and Sanders et al. (2021) stated that many new or smaller organizations express difficulty obtaining funding. Lack of funding for new organizations or projects could impede expansion of mangrove restoration at the local scale. Foreign government, and to a lesser extent, multilateral, more often funded organizations with more restoration hectares in their portfolio; foreign government was also more likely to fund large-scale projects (RO4). Therefore, a small-scale organization without much restoration history would likely have less success accessing funds from foreign government and multilateral sources (RO5, RO6). Potentially, creating a network could allow smaller organizations to pool their resources and portfolios to access larger funds (RO7). Although this could be challenging if organizations are competing for limited funding dollars (Balboa, 2017), effective mangrove restoration must scale across the land/ seascape. Given this, funders could shift their approach to support collaborations that can provide greater restoration outcomes, while also supporting organizations traditionally unable to access larger funds (RF4).

| Funders potential impact on projects and effectiveness of socioecological restoration
Despite identifying relationships between FT and projects, we cannot determine if funders shaped projects, organizations designed their own projects and then searched for funding, or a combination of both. Given inherent power dimensions (e.g., relying on a funder for support) and nonanonymous reporting, we did not ask organizations to reveal their relationships with funders. However, given past research, we speculate that funders likely have some influence, whether explicitly (e.g., reporting requirements) or implicitly (e.g., funding calls). For example, NGOs might align projects with funder missions to receive funding or include funders, increasingly from private foundations, on their boards (Balboa, 2017;Holmes, 2012). Our sample also included business funders (14% of FTL); more research can examine if there is influence of corporate values, potentially representing "philanthrocapitalism" (i.e., conservation philanthropy that supports market-based solutions and deregulation of the state, Holmes, 2012). Funder project prioritization is also a concern because over time priorities might shift, such as reduced focus on Blue Carbon, or certain funders (e.g., business) might be less concerned with long-term success, leading organizations to seek new funding sources or pivot their focus. Future research should interview/survey funders to understand their priorities and how they make funding decisions. In short, are they shaping mangrove restoration through their funding prioritization?
If funders influence mangrove restoration projects, at least in part, project types prioritized tended to be smallscale and shorter-term. In particular, international FT were less likely to fund projects for a longer timeframe than local/national government or academic funders (RO8, RO9). In addition to challenges mentioned regarding small-scale restoration, effectiveness can be limited in short-term projects due to lack of monitoring (RF5, RF6), which is crucial for project success and understanding effective measures (Ellison et al., 2020;Lee et al., 2019). Regular monitoring after planting is needed in the first and subsequent years to measure success and adapt to changes, especially because mangrove survival rates are correlated with continued care, and in some cases, reproduction only begins between 3 and 5 years (Hai et al., 2020;Primavera & Esteban, 2008). Most respondents indicated that they conducted monitoring (usually ecological/hydrological), but given project lengths, it can be assumed that in many instances it was sporadic and short-term (Ellison et al., 2020). Although one might expect funders would want to ensure their investment produces desired effects (RF5), several FT were less likely to provide funding for these longer-term projects. Gatt et al. (2022) also found a lack of funding for long-term monitoring. Personal communications indicated that funders are reluctant to support monitoring, and Lovett et al. (2007) stated that some funders view monitoring as "unscientific, too expensive, and wasteful." Monitoring might also receive less attention because it is not as exciting as pictures illustrating tree planting. For organizations relying on donors or for which public relations is important, optics can play a role in funding decisions (Balboa, 2017;Holmes, 2011); actual follow-up on success may be of less interest.
Another aspect of effective restoration is the extent of community involvement (Brown et al., 2014;Ellison et al., 2020). Walters et al. (2008) found that socioeconomic factors (e.g., TEK, land tenure, social organization) played a large role in determining success of mangrove reforestation. In addition, Ellison et al. (2020) stated that most failures with mangrove restoration projects result from "lack of community involvement, appropriate governance structures, and alignment of objectives and goals of external agents…and local stakeholders." It can take 5-10 years to build trust and a willingness to participate among community members, and up to 50% of project budgets might need to support this process (Lovelock & Brown, 2019). However, many projects were funded for shorter timeframes, so budgets likely primarily supported planting (Lee et al., 2019). Therefore, despite many funders supporting projects that included ecological/hydrological and social monitoring, we question their ability to assess long-term social benefits and community involvement; some benefits and costs might not appear for several years (e.g., storm protection) (Lee et al., 2019). If funders are willing to support longer-term projects with more social monitoring, they could require that projects include community involvement and monitoring to assess whether social benefits are actualized (RF6, RF7, RF8).
Interestingly, funders most often supported projects reporting that the community provided LEK/TEK to the project. This differs from studies where conservation projects disregarded LEK/TEK, at times even blaming local resource users (Brondo, 2015;Walters et al., 2008). However, there may be a growing shift in how conservationists view and include LEK/TEK, as Indigenous and local knowledge, values, and practices is increasingly recognized for their importance in understanding and addressing social-environmental issues at local and global scales (Brondízio et al., 2021). Additional research should assess how intentional, accurate, frequent, and expansive this inclusion is through surveys or interviews of community members. Although many projects asked about community needs, information about community structure and makeup were not often included, except for in the case of out-country (28%). This omission can neglect community power dynamics and result in conflicts, such as benefits concentrated among members who are vocal, in charge, or from the majority group (Belsky, 1999) (RF9). Interestingly, no national/regional or local NGO and few in-country or both supported projects that included this information. Similarly, out-country and both reported higher percentages of stakeholder groups and local governments being decision-makers compared to in-country. These considerations might not be a central concern for domestic groups, unlike international organizations who might have heightened awareness after previously neglecting this information, resulting in conflicts or failed conservation interventions (Balboa, 2017).
Examining decision-makers can provide a greater understanding of how restoration projects function. Given that community was not a primary decision-maker in projects supported by most FT, it could indicate limited community involvement in important positions, leading certain groups to be unheard (Grimm et al., 2021;Neumann, 2015). However, academics often supported projects where the community was a decision-maker. This could be because of the nature of projects; following community-based conservation best practices (Berkes, 2004) or funders being academic funding institutions, which provide support based on research quality, not accountability to a board or shareholders (RF10). Most FT primarily supported projects where one decision-maker was the national government, possibly because they were the landowner in the situation (RF11). This can be problematic because it cannot be assumed the organization or community has a strong relationship with the national government, and it can exacerbate conflicts (e.g., resource access). Directors also were common decision-makers, which might allow for more of a collaborative approach between organizations and other decision-makers. It is possible that some of these examples represent co-management between government agencies and other organizations. Co-management can allow government agencies and other stakeholders (e.g., communities, NGOs) to share decision-making, responsibility, and accountability (Hai et al., 2020) (RF8). Future research can examine the extent to which comanagement exists in this region, as well as subsequent impacts. For example, if co-management is an approach used in mangrove restoration, who are the co-managers and how does that affect decision-making in a project? Does a co-management approach empower community members more?

| Funder trust
As seen in other conservation philanthropy research, funders determine who receives money based on priorities and preferred approaches (Holmes, 2012). However, another factor in funding decisions is trust. Although trust has been examined in analyses of other conservation issues (Horowitz, 2010), conservation philanthropy research should expand research on this topic, as funders may make decisions based on who they trust with their money. Funders may fear selecting organizations that cannot meet project goals, leading them to support organizations with proven track records, who, in funders' eyes, are more likely to successfully complete projects (Thompson, 2018). Funders may also worry that money will be misused. These factors could lead them to be less trusting of small or new organizations to control the project (RF12). For example, personal communications revealed that some funders are hesitant to support projects on non-government land because they worry that their investment will not be protected long-term. As our results show, most FTan funded projects that occurred on at least some land owned by national or local governments, and similarly, for all FS, the national government was the primary land tenure for projects. Emphasizing government land as a requirement for funding can be challenging in LAC (RF11), especially in countries where mangroves occur mostly on private land (e.g., Belize, Ellison et al., 2020;Lovelock & Brown, 2019) or where protections that Global North funders might expect do not exist, either because mangroves exist in "paper parks" or extractive use of public and protected lands is allowed (Rife et al., 2013).

| CONCLUSION
This study addressed an important knowledge gap by reporting on the mangrove restoration funding landscape and projects in LAC, an underrepresented region in the literature (Deutz et al., 2020;Gatt et al., 2022;Su et al., 2021). In addition, by providing recommendations based on these findings, we illustrate ways that funders can better support social-ecological outcomes and that organizations can better access funding opportunities. As this study was exploratory in nature, the use of multiple response choice questions allowed us to gain an overview of potential responses, which future research can use to create surveys designed to conduct additional statistical analyses. Overall, we hope this study facilitates expansion of research in this region and mangrove restoration funding more broadly.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Kerry Grimm, Kevin Grady, and Petter Axelsson were involved in conceptualization, research design, and survey instrument development. Kerry Grimm administered the survey and oversaw data management. Kerry Grimm and Jessica Archibald analyzed the data and drafted the manuscript. Kerry Grimm created the Sankey diagrams. All authors were involved in editing and revising manuscript drafts.