Languages:
Table 2.2. Trends in the Human Use of Ecosystem Services and Enhancement or Degradation of the Service Around the Year 2000 - Cultural servicesLegend
Click on the links below for similar tables on:
* = Low to medium certainty. All other trends are medium to high certainty. NA = Not assessed within the MA. In some cases, the service was not addressed at all in the MA (such as ornamental resources), while in other cases the service was included but the information and data available did not allow an assessment of the pattern of human use of the service or the status of the service. † = The categories of “Human Benefit” and “Enhanced or Degraded” do not apply for supporting services since, by definition, these services are not directly used by people. (Their costs or benefits would be double-counted if the indirect effects were included). Changes in supporting services influence the supply of provisioning, cultural, or regulating services that are then used by people and may be enhanced or degraded. a For provisioning services, human use increases if the human consumption of the service increases (e.g., greater food consumption); for regulating and cultural services, human use increases if the number of people affected by the service increases. The time frame is in general the past 50 years, although if the trend has changed within that time frame the indicator shows the most recent trend. b For provisioning services, we define enhancement to mean increased production of the service through changes in area over which the service is provided (e.g., spread of agriculture) or increased production per unit area. We judge the production to be degraded if the current use exceeds sustainable levels. For regulating and supporting services, enhancement refers to a change in the service that leads to greater benefits for people (e.g., the service of disease regulation could be improved by eradication of a vector known to transmit a disease to people). Degradation of a regulating and supporting services means a reduction in the benefits obtained from the service, either through a change in the service (e.g., mangroves loss reducing the storm protection benefits of an ecosystem) or through human pressures on the service exceeding its limits (e.g., excessive pollution exceeding the capability of ecosystems to maintain water quality). For cultural services, enhancement refers to a change in the ecosystem features that increase the cultural (recreational, aesthetic, spiritual, etc.) benefits provided by the ecosystem. The time frame is in general the past 50 years, although if the trend has changed within that time frame the indicator shows the most recent trend. Source: MA Related publication:
Other Figures & Tables on this publication: Direct cross-links to the Global Assessment Reports of the Millennium Assessment Box 1. Biodiversity and Its Loss— Avoiding Conceptual Pitfalls Box 1.1. Linkages among Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services, and Human Well-being Box 1.2. Measuring and Estimating Biodiversity: More than Species Richness Box 1.3. Ecological Indicators and Biodiversity Box 1.4. Criteria for Effective Ecological Indicators Box 2.1. Social Consequences of Biodiversity Degradation (SG-SAfMA) Box 2.2. Economic Costs and Benefits of Ecosystem Conversion Box 2.3. Concepts and Measures of Poverty Box 2.4. Conflicts Between the Mining Sector and Local Communities in Chile Box 3.1. Direct Drivers: Example from Southern African Sub-global Assessment Box 4.1. An Outline of the Four MA Scenarios Box 5.1. Key Factors of Successful Responses to Biodiversity Loss Figure 3.3. Species Extinction Rates Figure 1.3. The 8 Biogeographical Realms and 14 Biomes Used in the MA Figure 1.4. Biodiversity, Ecosystem Functioning, and Ecosystem Services Figure 2. How Much Biodiversity Will Remain a Century from Now under Different Value Frameworks? Figure 2.1. Efficiency Frontier Analysis of Species Persistence and Economic Returns Figure 3.3. Species Extinction Rates Figure 3.4. Red List Indices for Birds, 1988–2004, in Different Biogeographic Realms Figure 3.7. The Living Planet Index, 1970–2000 Figure 3.10. Main Direct Drivers Figure 3.12. Extent of Cultivated Systems, 2000 Figure 3.13. Decline in Trophic Level of Fisheries Catch since 1950 Figure 3.14. Estimated Global Marine Fish Catch, 1950–2001 Figure 3.15. Estimates of Forest Fragmentation due to Anthropogenic Causes Figure 3.15. Estimates of Forest Fragmentation due to Anthropogenic Causes Figure 3.15. Estimates of Forest Fragmentation due to Anthropogenic Causes Figure 3.15. Estimates of Forest Fragmentation due to Anthropogenic Causes Figure 3.15. Estimates of Forest Fragmentation due to Anthropogenic Causes Figure 3.15. Estimates of Forest Fragmentation due to Anthropogenic Causes Figure 3.16. Fragmentation and Flow in Major Rivers Figure 3.17 Trends in Global Use of Nitrogen Fertilizer, 1961–2001 (million tons) Figure 3.18 Trends in Global Use of Phosphate Fertilizer, 1961–2001 (million tons) Figure 3.20. Historical and Projected Variations in Earth’s Surface Temperature Figure 4. Trade-offs between Biodiversity and Human Well-being under the Four MA Scenarios Figure 4.3. Land-cover Map for the Year 2000 Figure 4.4. Conversion of Terrestrial Biomes Figure 4.5. Forest and Cropland/Pasture in Industrial and Developing Regions under the MA Scenarios Figure 4.6. Changes in Annual Water Availability in Global Orchestration Scenario by 2100 Figure 6.1. How Much Biodiversity Will Remain a Century from Now under Different Value Frameworks? Figure 6.2. Trade-offs between Biodiversity and Human Well-being under the Four MA Scenarios Table 1.1. Ecological Surprises Caused by Complex Interactions | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
