Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 6 – uploaded by Rudolf Groot

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Fig. 5. An example of mapping of service provision using empirically derived relations between service observations and landscape properties.

Figure 5 An example of mapping of service provision using empirically derived relations between service observations and landscape properties.

Related Figures (11)

Fig. 2. Framework for linking ecosystems to human wellbeing (adapted from Haines-Young and Potschin, in press).
Fig. 2. Framework for linking ecosystems to human wellbeing (adapted from Haines-Young and Potschin, in press).
Source: Christie et al. (2008). Economic and non-economic techniques available to value biodiversity. Table 2
Source: Christie et al. (2008). Economic and non-economic techniques available to value biodiversity. Table 2
Table 1 (Continued ) (1) The main difference with the MEA is that supporting (of Habitat) services are limited to the nursery and genepool function and that biodiversity is not recognized as « separate service. Source: adapted from MA (2005) (1, and De Groot, 2006).
Table 1 (Continued ) (1) The main difference with the MEA is that supporting (of Habitat) services are limited to the nursery and genepool function and that biodiversity is not recognized as « separate service. Source: adapted from MA (2005) (1, and De Groot, 2006).
Fig. 3. Transition phases between natural and human-dominated (eco)systems.Source: CBD (2004) and MNP (2006).
Fig. 3. Transition phases between natural and human-dominated (eco)systems.Source: CBD (2004) and MNP (2006).
Main management states and related use of services for the main ecosystem (biome) types. * Wild/un-managed ecosystems: although human influence (in terms of pollution) has reached almost every corner of the planet (except maybe some deep sea environments), there are still many regions that are un-managed and still in a more-or-less natural/wild state. Also wildlife reserves, with no or very little human activity allowed, would fall under this category. Uses of these systems are mainly related to habitat and regulating services. > sustainably, extensively managed: the use of resources and services is limited to the natural productivity and carrying capacity of the system and the original species composition is largely kept intact. Other than harvesting activities and some “minor” infrastructure to allow use of the services there is no manipulation of the original oo Table 3
Main management states and related use of services for the main ecosystem (biome) types. * Wild/un-managed ecosystems: although human influence (in terms of pollution) has reached almost every corner of the planet (except maybe some deep sea environments), there are still many regions that are un-managed and still in a more-or-less natural/wild state. Also wildlife reserves, with no or very little human activity allowed, would fall under this category. Uses of these systems are mainly related to habitat and regulating services. > sustainably, extensively managed: the use of resources and services is limited to the natural productivity and carrying capacity of the system and the original species composition is largely kept intact. Other than harvesting activities and some “minor” infrastructure to allow use of the services there is no manipulation of the original oo Table 3
Fig. 4. Impact of land use change on bundles of ecosystem services.Source: Foley et al. (2005).
Fig. 4. Impact of land use change on bundles of ecosystem services.Source: Foley et al. (2005).
Fig. 6. Generalized functional relationships between the levels of ecosystem services provision (Y-axis) and the degree of loss of biodiversity related to different land use intensities (X-axis). Adapted from Braat et al. (2008).
Fig. 6. Generalized functional relationships between the levels of ecosystem services provision (Y-axis) and the degree of loss of biodiversity related to different land use intensities (X-axis). Adapted from Braat et al. (2008).
Most relevant ecological scales for the regulation services. Note that some services may be relevant at more than one scale. Based upon Hufschmidt et al. (1983), De Groot (1992), Kramer et al. (1995) and Van Beukering et al. (2003).
Most relevant ecological scales for the regulation services. Note that some services may be relevant at more than one scale. Based upon Hufschmidt et al. (1983), De Groot (1992), Kramer et al. (1995) and Van Beukering et al. (2003).
Fig. 7. Integrated Cost-Benefit Analysis of management alternatives for wetland and forest ecosystems.Source: Balmford et al. (2002).
Fig. 7. Integrated Cost-Benefit Analysis of management alternatives for wetland and forest ecosystems.Source: Balmford et al. (2002).
Related topics:
Spatial AnalysisDecision MakingEcologyEcological complexityEcosystem serviceConservation ManagementTotal Economic ValuePublic Policy
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved