The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Securing Interactions between Ecosystems, Ecosystem Services and Human Well-being

2009 ◽  
pp. 53-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rik Leemans
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment ◽  
Ecosystem Assessment

scholarly journals Measuring conditions and trends in ecosystem services at multiple scales: the Southern African Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (SA f MA) experience

2005 ◽  
Vol 360 (1454) ◽  
pp. 425-441 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.S van Jaarsveld ◽  
R Biggs ◽  
R.J Scholes ◽  
E Bohensky ◽  
B Reyers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Multiple Scales ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Irrigated Agriculture ◽  
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment ◽  
Fuel Wood ◽  
Ecosystem Assessment ◽  
Extinction Rates ◽  
Land Use Decisions ◽  
High Infant Mortality

The Southern African Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (SA f MA) evaluated the relationships between ecosystem services and human well-being at multiple scales, ranging from local through to sub-continental. Trends in ecosystem services (fresh water, food, fuel-wood, cultural and biodiversity) over the period 1990–2000 were mixed across scales. Freshwater resources appear strained across the continent with large numbers of people not securing adequate supplies, especially of good quality water. This translates to high infant mortality patterns across the region. In some areas, the use of water resources for irrigated agriculture and urban–industrial expansion is taking place at considerable cost to the quality and quantity of freshwater available to ecosystems and for domestic use. Staple cereal production across the region has increased but was outstripped by population growth while protein malnutrition is on the rise. The much-anticipated wood-fuel crisis on the subcontinent has not materialized but some areas are experiencing shortages while numerous others remain vulnerable. Cultural benefits of biodiversity are considerable, though hard to quantify or track over time. Biodiversity resources remain at reasonable levels, but are declining faster than reflected in species extinction rates and appear highly sensitive to land-use decisions. The SA f MA sub-global assessment provided an opportunity to experiment with innovative ways to assess ecosystem services including the use of supply–demand surfaces, service sources and sink areas, priority areas for service provision, service ‘hotspots’ and trade-off assessments.

scholarly journals Ecosystem Services: The Key to Human Well-Being

Forests ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 480
Author(s):  
Alessandro Paletto ◽  
Sara Favargiotti
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Ecosystem Assessment

Since the publication of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), the global interest for “ecosystem services” has rapidly grown in scientific studies and policy makers’ agenda [...]

scholarly journals Calculating Cultural Ecosystem Services as part of Greenspace Management?

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 16-21
Author(s):  
Jocelyn M. Gavitt ◽  
Richard C. Smardon
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment ◽  
Cultural Ecosystem Services ◽  
Cultural Services ◽  
Ecosystem Assessment ◽  
Upstate New York ◽  
The Us ◽  
Water Based ◽  
Science And Education

Lake related greenspace provides many benefits to residents and visitors, which often get unnoticed. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Project (2005) proposed the valuation of ecosystem services, defined as regulatory, provisional, ecosystem support, providing cultural services from natural resources, free of charge. The challenge here is: How can we use cultural ecosystem services derived from scenic landscapes for Greenspace management and assessment? Cultural ecosystem services received international recognition as part of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Project (2005). Also, ecosystems services encompass regulatory, provisional and ecosystem support. For this article, we are particularly concerned with cultural services, which include recreation, science and education, spiritual/historical as well as aesthetic functions. De Groot (2002) and Farber (2006) provided descriptions of cultural Ecosystem services. De Groot (2002) describes Information functions as comprising of; aesthetic information, recreation, cultural-artistic information and spiritual/historical information. Farber (2005) description of cultural services includes; aesthetic, recreation, science/education, and spiritual/historical functions. This article examines the existing literature with the objective of assessing ecosystem cultural services related to water-based scenic landscape resources and applies it to an Upstate New York lake landscape. Careful accounting of greenspace ecosystem services is presented as applied to lakeshore residents, village residents and town/watershed residents and other lake greenspace users utilizing the US Environmental Protection Agency’s user benefit calculations to yield over 10.6 million dollars of benefits per year (Smardon 2018).

scholarly journals Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

2009 ◽  
Vol 106 (5) ◽  
pp. 1305-1312 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. R. Carpenter ◽  
H. A. Mooney ◽  
J. Agard ◽  
D. Capistrano ◽  
R. S. DeFries ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment ◽  
Ecosystem Assessment

Creating Wild Capital from the Ecosystem Services Model

Wild Capital ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 12-37
Author(s):  
Barbara K. Jones
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Endangered Species Act ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Opportunity Costs ◽  
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
A Value

By failing to assign nature value in our current Anthropocene, the opportunity costs of diminishing biodiversity are not recognized in the marketplace, leading to significant negative consequences for both nature and humanity. Polluting water, destroying habitats, or exterminating species should each lessen nature’s value, but if nature has never been assigned a value, that loss is not recognized and development becomes the default. The words “wild capital” remind us that nature should be viewed as an asset like any other, and that in doing so we are better equipped to appreciate its long-term worth. Since the ecosystem services model (ES) ties together the ecological, social, and economic needs of human well-being, it is well situated to assign nature value and from that make a case for nature as natural capital. To assist in policy decisions, ES has offered a path based on the language of economics, making it appealing to economists, while to conservationists, it has turned an argument about the negative effects of development on wildlife into a more fruitful dialogue about how beneficial conservation is for human well-being. ES is also compatible with efforts at sustainability and the goals of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.

scholarly journals Going Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: An Index System of Human Dependence on Ecosystem Services

PLoS ONE ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. e64581 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wu Yang ◽  
Thomas Dietz ◽  
Wei Liu ◽  
Junyan Luo ◽  
Jianguo Liu
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Index System ◽  
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment ◽  
Ecosystem Assessment

scholarly journals Assessing Ecosystem Services in Mangroves: Insights from São Tomé Island (Central Africa)

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Filipa Afonso ◽  
Pedro M. Félix ◽  
Paula Chainho ◽  
Joshua A. Heumüller ◽  
Ricardo F. de Lima ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Central Africa ◽  
Local Communities ◽  
High Variability ◽  
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment ◽  
Ecosystem Assessment ◽  
Human Wellbeing ◽  
Coastal Systems ◽  
Management Plans

Mangroves are some of the most productive coastal systems on the planet and provide valuable ecosystem services (ES). They are especially important in threatened ecosystems and developing countries, where they are likely to have direct impacts on local communities. An approach based on ES allows assessing ecosystems across the domains of ecology, sociology and economy. This study focused on the evaluation of ES in mangroves and started by creating a comprehensive global list of mangrove ES based on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. These services were then quantified using the best available indicators for mangrove systems. The mangroves of Diogo Nunes, São João dos Angolares and Malanza, located in the São Tomé Island, were used to illustrate the challenges in applying ES indicators in this type of ecosystems. The obtained results confirmed that mangroves can provide important and diverse services. However, the high variability among mangrove systems affects their ability to deliver ES, requiring caution for the extrapolation across regions. This assessment emphasizes how the ES framework can be used as a tool to develop management plans that integrate conservation goals and human wellbeing.

Abiotic ecosystem services: an effective tool for geoconservation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucie Kubalíková
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Environmental Conservation ◽  
International Classification ◽  
Ecosystem Assessment ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Use Of Resources ◽  
European Environmental Agency ◽  
Environmental Agency

<p>In the last decades, the concept of ecosystem services has become important to nature conservation. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005) demonstrated the importance of ecosystems for human well-being and identified the services that ecosystems provide to society. Nevertheless, geodiversity (abiotic nature) as an indispensable component of ecosystems was underestimated (Gray 2011). Based on this, the concepts of "abiotic ecosystem services" or “geosystem services” were defined and discussed (Gordon, Barron 2012, Gray 2013, Van Ree, van Beukering 2016).</p><p>The role of geodiversity in ecosystem services has been already recognized, but in specific cases with problems and ambiguities (Brilha et al. 2018, Gray 2018). Practical applications combining geodiversity research and the concept of abiotic ecosystem services are still rather scarce, but it is evident that the wider use of this concept can provide a framework for (geo)conservation activities, sustainable use of resources or educational and tourist activities. The application of the abiotic ecosystem services concept can also enable better communication with policymakers and facilitate the “infiltration” of geodiversity’s importance into care plans for protected sites, regional strategic documents or legislation and policies (Brilha et al. 2018, Schrodt et al. 2019).</p><p>Abiotic ecosystem services are already included in the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (European Environmental Agency 2018). Nevertheless, there are still several methodological questions regarding the possible practical application.</p><p>The case study is focused on the assessment of abiotic ecosystem services at Stránská skála Rock in Brno (Czech Republic). It is a site protected by law (National Natural Monument since 1978) and currently, a new care plan is prepared. The ecosystem services concept is used to assess the abiotic components of the site (limestone outcrops, abandoned quarries, cave systems). Two approaches are applied (Gray 2013 and European Environmental Agency 2018) and their suitability or ambiguities are discussed. Based on the application of the concepts, the value of geodiversity can be fully recognized and the management of the site thus can be more effective.</p><p> </p><p>References:</p><p>Brilha J et al. (2018) Geodiversity: An integrative review as a contribution to the sustainable management of the whole of nature. Environmental Science and Policy 86:19–28</p><p>European Environmental Agency (2018) Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services V5.1. https://cices.eu/resources/</p><p>Gordon JE, Barron HF (2012) Valuing geodiversity and geoconservation: developing a more strategic ecosystem approach. Scottish Geographical Journal, 128:278–297</p><p>Gray M (2011) Other nature: geodiversity and geosystem services. Environmental Conservation 38(3):271–274</p><p>Gray M (2013) Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature. Second Edition. Wiley Blackwell, 495 p</p><p>Gray M (2018) The confused position of the geosciences within the “natural capital” and “ecosystem services” approaches. Ecosystem Services 34A:106-112</p><p>MEA – Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC.</p><p>Schrodt F et al. (2019) To advance sustainable stewardship, we must document not only biodiversity but geodiversity. PNAS 116(33):16155–16158</p><p>Van Ree CCDF, van Beukering PJH (2016) Geosystem services: A concept in support of sustainable development of the subsurface. Ecosystem Services 20:30–36</p><p> </p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document