3 Ecosystems and

Human Well-being

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 Human well-being has several key components: the basic material need

good life, freedom and choice, health, good social relations, and perso

curity. Well-being exists on a continuum with poverty, which has been d

as “pronounced deprivation in well-being.”

 How well-being and ill-being, or poverty, are expressed and experien

context- and situation-dependent, reflecting local social and personal f

such as geography, ecology, age, gender, and culture. These concepts are 

plex and value-laden.

 Ecosystems are essential for human well-being through their provisi

regulating, cultural, and supporting services. Evidence in recent deca

escalating human impacts on ecological systems worldwide raises co

about the consequences of ecosystem changes for human well-being

 Human well-being can be enhanced through sustainable human inter

with ecosystems with the support of appropriate instruments, institutio

ganizations, and technology. Creation of these through participation and 

parency may contribute to people’s freedoms and choices and to inc

economic, social, and ecological security.

 Some believe that the problems from the depletion and degradation o

logical capital can be largely overcome by the substitution of physic

human capital. Others believe that there are more significant limits to 

substitutions. The scope for substitutions varies by socioeconomic stat

 We identify direct and indirect pathways between ecosystem change a

man well-being, whether it be positive or negative. Indirect effects are c

terized by more complex webs of causation, involving social, econom

political threads. Threshold points exist, beyond which rapid changes 

man well-being can occur.

 Indigent, poorly resourced, and otherwise disadvantaged communit

generally the most vulnerable to adverse ecosystem change. Spirals

positive and negative, can occur for any population, but the poor are 

vulnerable.

MA_CF-71-84.pmd 71 7/9/2003, 6:19 AM
 Functioning institutions are vital to enable equitable access to ecosystem s

vices. Institutions sometimes fail or remain undeveloped because of powe

individuals or groups. Bodies that mediate the distribution of goods and s

vices may also be appropriated for the benefit of powerful minorities.

 For poor people, the greatest gains in well-being will occur through more 

uitable and secure access to ecosystem services. In the long run, the rich c

contribute greatly to human well-being by reducing their substantial impa

on ecosystems and by facilitating greater access to ecosystem services by t

poor.

 We argue ecological security warrants recognition as a sixth freedom of eq

weight with participative freedom, economic facilities, social opportunit

transparency guarantees, and protective security.

Introduction

As noted in earlier chapters, the impacts of human activities on e

tems have increased rapidly in the last few decades. While the majo

these can be considered beneficial to human well-being, there is gr

evidence of adverse effects. Clear analysis of these undesirable im

and their consequences for people has been difficult because of the n

ous other causes of ecosystem change that operate and interact at di

social, geographical, and temporal scales. For some people, especially 

buffered by relative affluence, the problem is scarcely visible—or a

accorded low priority. Yet millions of others experience every day th

rimental consequences of ecosystem changes.

Consideration of purely local and overt environmental defici

such as visible pollution, is no longer a sufficient framework to ass

relationship between the environment and human well-being. T

cently evident larger-scale changes to the world’s ecosystems must 

looked at closely (McMichael 2001).

The dependence of humans on ecosystem services reflects direc

profound co-evolutionary processes that underlie the origins of Earth

sphere. The biosphere and its ecosystems provide life support to a

cies, as described in Chapter 2. Further, the biosphere is itself the p

of life on Earth. The composition of the atmosphere and soil, the c

of nutrients through waterways, and many other ecological assets 

the result of living processes—and all are maintained and replenis

living ecosystems.

The effects of adverse ecosystem changes on human well-being 

classed as direct and indirect. Direct effects occur with some imm

MA_CF-71-84.pmd 72 7/9/2003, 6:19 AM
through locally identifiable biological or ecological pathways. For 

impairment of the water-cleansing capacity of wetlands may adv

fect those who drink that water. Building dams can increase m

breeding and thus the transmission of malaria. The deforestatio

sides can expose downstream communities to the hazards of floo

Indirect effects take a toll on well-being through more comp

of causation, including through social, economic, and political rou

may take decades to have an impact. For example, where farmlan

irrigation become saline, crop yields are reduced; this in turn m

human nutritional security, child growth and development, and 

bility to infectious diseases. Beyond threshold points, limited or 

supplies of fresh water may exacerbate political tensions, impair l

nomic activity (and livelihoods)—including industry—and re

thetic amenity. These dynamic, interacting processes jeopardiz

aspects of human well-being.

The impacts of adverse ecosystem change do not fall evenly o

populations. Indigent, poorly resourced, and otherwise disadvanta

munities are generally the most vulnerable. Further, many poor ru

lations rely disproportionately on the integrity and functions of l

systems and are likely to lack the means to import ecosystem 

Impoverishment as a result of adverse ecosystem change may so

lead to a downwards spiral for such people. In all instances, the 

achieve well-being is reduced by the diminished availability of e

services.

Key Components of Human Well-being

There have been many formulations and definitions of human w

(Alkire 2002). Most commentators would agree that it inclu

material needs for a good life, the experience of freedom, health

security, and good social relations. Together, these provide the c

for physical, social, psychological, and spiritual fulfillment.

A distinction is sometimes made between the determinants of 

to well-being and its constituents—that is, well-being as an end (

2001). In other words, well-being is experiential, what people va

and doing. The determinants are sometimes expressed as comm

puts, many of which are provided by ecosystem services. The

food, fiber, fuel, clean water, materials for shelter, marketed cr

stock, forest products, and minerals. Enabling physical, enviro

and social conditions and access—for example, to resources and 

MA_CF-71-84.pmd 73 7/9/2003, 6:19 AM
are also relevant as determinants of or means to well-being. Viewed 

this frame, some key elements of well-being can be both determinan

constituents. For example, education and health can be both ends in 

selves and the means to experience well-being.

There is widespread agreement that well-being and poverty a

two extremes of a multidimensional continuum. In fact, the World 

opment Report 2000/01 defined poverty as “the pronounced depriva

well-being” (World Bank 2001).

How well-being and ill-being, or poverty, are expressed and exper

is context- and situation-dependent, reflecting local social and pe

factors such as geography, ecology, age, gender, and culture (Prescott

2001). Although these concepts are recognized as complex and value

some elements are nevertheless widespread—if not universal. This w

dent in the “voices of the poor” research (Narayan et al. 1999; 20

which poor people in 23 countries were asked to reflect, analyze, a

press their ideas of the bad and the good life. The respondents s

many aspects, including the importance of secure and adequate liveli

cultural and spiritual activities, and the ability to provide for thei

dren. Repeatedly, they indicated five linked components (see Figur

 the necessary material for a good life (including secure and ad

livelihoods, income and assets, enough food at all times, shelter

ture, clothing, and access to goods);

 health (including being strong, feeling well, and having a healthy 

cal environment);

 good social relations (including social cohesion, mutual respect

gender and family relations, and the ability to help others and p

for children);

 security (including secure access to natural and other resources, 

of person and possessions, and living in a predictable and contr

environment with security from natural and human-made disa

and

 freedom and choice (including having control over what happe

being able to achieve what a person values doing or being).

These five dimensions reinforce each other, whether positively o

tively. A change in one often brings about changes in the other

shaded space in Figure 3.1 represents the experience of living and b

including stress, pain, and anxiety in the bad life and peace of min

spiritual experience in the good life.

MA_CF-71-84.pmd 74 7/9/2003, 6:19 AM
In this multidimensional formulation, there are negative and 

webs of interactions. On the side of ill-being and the bad life, th

headed arrows represent negative directions of causality: for exam

people are vulnerable to sickness, which in turn makes them po

social relations make people vulnerable to shocks, which in turn 

material poverty and so on; and all of these contribute to powe

On the side of well-being and the good life, having materiall

facilitates physical strength, enabling a better livelihood, while 

cial relations can provide security against stresses and shocks. In 

curity is likely to increase material well-being and so on. And al

enhance freedom of choice and action.

Overall, development can thus be seen as the enhancemen

being. It entails transitions for those who are deprived—from c

of ill-being or the “bad life” to well-being or the “good life.”

One condition for personal well-being is the capability to a

achieve that which individuals value doing and being in situatio

namic change. At the social level this may contribute to conflicts

tating trade-offs between the well-being of different individuals an

Trade-offs may occur when, for example, material capital is accum

a cost of environmental security or cultural or spiritual values. Th

a temporal dimension concerning the well-being of others in the 

Addressing these issues leads into the sphere of values. This 

for decision-makers. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (M

not take a position, but we note that one proposed approach to th

FIGURE 3.1 The Main Dimensions of Well-being and its Obverse, Ill-bein

MA_CF-71-84.pmd 75 7/9/2003, 6:19 AM
flicts and trade-offs is a framework that combines concepts of 

sustainability, livelihood, capability, and ecosystem stewardship. Th

related to a value-based notion of well-being in which socially an

logically responsible behavior plays a part (Chambers 1997a). This 

relates to the negative and positive effects of individuals’ lives, a

and non-actions on ecosystems and on other people—both now 

the future. Negative effects manifest especially through the unsusta

consumption of resources, the degradation of ecosystems, and the 

impacts of the behaviors of people who are richer and more powe

those who are poorer and weaker. Positive effects include sustainab

tionships between people and ecosystems, as well as the provisio

enhancement of present and future livelihoods, capabilities, and h

well-being.

Linkages between Ecosystem Services and Human Well-being

These formulations recognize that the relationship of ecosystem 

tions and the flow of services to the well-being of groups of people 

as individuals is diverse and complex. Further, it changes over time. 

ecosystem changes are planned, but many are inadvertent conseq

of other human activities. Human interventions in nature have had 

pected and surprising consequences, some of which have harmed a

ther impoverished those who are disadvantaged. Equitable and su

able well-being depends heavily on links with ecosystem services a

who gains and who loses over time from their use. As noted in Cha

the MA has identified four major categories of ecosystem service

bear directly on human well-being: provisioning, regulating, cultur

supporting services.

The provisioning function of ecosystems supplies goods and oth

vices that sustain various aspects of human well-being. By the same 

shortages of food, fiber, and other products have adverse effects on h

well-being, via both direct and indirect pathways. Adverse impa

livelihoods are of particular importance. In both social and enviro

tal contexts, livelihood sustainability has three aspects:

 a livelihood is sustainable “when it can cope with and recove

stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and 

both now and in the future” (DFID 1999);

 a livelihood is sustainable in a social context when it enhances o

not diminish the livelihoods of others; and

MA_CF-71-84.pmd 76 7/9/2003, 6:19 AM
 a livelihood is sustainable when it does not deplete or disrup

tems to the prejudice of the livelihoods and well-being of othe

in the future.

Biodiversity is fundamental to many ecosystem services. For 

it provides sustainability and resilience vital for the livelihoods 

ing strategies of many people, especially the rural poor. They oft

ecosystem services, and thereby reduce their vulnerability, throug

and complex mixes of activities over the seasons. For them, bio

has a stabilizing and buffering function. It provides multiple s

ecosystem services, as well as fallback options for food and other 

when times are bad (Davies 1996; Chambers 1997b; Carney 1

1998; Koziell 1998; Scoones 1998; Neffjes 2000).

The regulating functions of ecosystems also affect human well

multiple ways. These include the purification of air, fresh water

flooding or drought, stabilization of local and regional climate, an

and balances that control the range and transmission of certain 

including some that are vector-borne. Without these regulatory f

the varied populations of human and animal life are inconceiva

changes to an ecosystem’s regulatory function may have consequ

human health and other components of well-being.

Ecosystems also have many consequences for human well-bein

the cultural services they provide—through, for example, totemi

sacred groves, trees, scenic landscapes, geological formations, or r

lakes. These attributes and functions of ecosystems influence the 

recreational, educational, cultural, and spiritual aspects of huma

ence. Many changes to these ecosystems, through processes of d

contamination, depletion, and extinction, therefore have neg

pacts on cultural life and human experience.

Supporting services are essential for sustaining each of the ot

ecosystem services. Thus the link between supporting services an

well-being occurs indirectly.

The diverse links between ecosystem services and the dete

and constituents of human well-being are illustrated in Figure 

spatial and temporal forms of these links, as well as their comple

greatly. Some relationships are immediate; others are lagged. For 

impairment of food production causes hunger today and malnut

fore long, bringing lassitude, impaired ability to concentrate a

and increased vulnerability to infectious diseases. Examples of lon

lags include the clearing of mangroves, which impairs the reple

MA_CF-71-84.pmd 77 7/9/2003, 6:19 AM
FIGURE 3.2 Ecosystem Services and Their Links to Human Well-being

Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. These includ

sioning, regulating, and cultural services, which directly affect people, and sup

services needed to maintain the other services. Changes in these services affect 

well-being through impacts on security, the necessary material for a good life, hea

social and cultural relations. These constituents of well-being are in turn influe

and have an influence on the freedoms and choices available to people. (See also Dur

2002.)

MA_CF-71-84.pmd 78 7/9/2003, 6:19 AM
of fish stocks (Naylor et al. 2000), salinization created by badly 

shrimp aquaculture, depletion of groundwater for irrigation, an

pact of introduced species.

Some larger-scale environmental stresses heighten tensions, l

possible conflict, and threaten well-being by causing health 

(Homer-Dixon 1994). For example, Ethiopia and the Sudan, w

both upstream of Egypt, increasingly need the Nile’s water for t

crops. Worldwide, approximately 40 percent of the world’s po

living in 80 countries, now faces some level of water shortage 

2000). The construction of large dams, though of benefit throu

tion and power generation, can create new stresses—particularly 

oping countries—by leading to increased levels of schistosomiasis 

et al. 1981) or displacing people through flooding (Roy 1999; Wo

mission on Dams 2000).

The dual challenge for society is thus to retain and, indeed, 

sufficient level of ecosystem services in a way that contributes t

hancement of human well-being and the reduction of poverty

recognition of these links (see Box 3.1) and of substitutability am

various forms of capital will help policy-makers and other stakeh

make informed decisions. Those, in turn, may produce the most 

and equitable outcome.

Substitutability and Well-being

Ecosystem services can be conceptualized as flows parallel to th

physical and human capital. Some of these services can also be 

replaced by using physical capital. For instance, limited amount

air and water can be obtained by air-conditioning a space or by 

ter filters. In other words, partial substitutability exists for at le

ecosystem services. Some commentators believe that the probl

the depletion and degradation of ecological capital can be larg

come by the accumulation of knowledge and of manufactured an

capital. There are limits to substitution possibilities, however, and 

for substitutions varies by social, economic, and cultural conditi

In fact, the substitution possibilities open to a community dep

cally on economic status. A resource can be a luxury for others ev

it is a necessity for some. Politically, commercial demand can e

rank local needs, especially under nondemocratic regimes

biodiversity is lost, ecotourists can go somewhere else, where it st

International public opinion, not to mention pressure from a 

MA_CF-71-84.pmd 79 7/9/2003, 6:19 AM
elite, is often at best tepid. Local needs are frequently overridden b

siders’ demands (Guard and Masaiganah 1997).

When wetlands, forests, and woodlands are converted (for agric

for example, or urban development), local communities may suff

them, and especially the poorest, there are few substitutes or choic

privileged others, whose “ecological footprints” dwarf those of th

and weak (Wackernagel and Rees 1995), there are often substitutes—

thing else, often somewhere else. Issues of common and conflicting 

ests and of reducing demands can be expected to surface. The qu

that may arise is whether long-term and secure well-being for the w

relatively affluent people will lie in living more lightly on Earth 

ensuring a better life and a fairer share of ecosystem services for tho

BOX 3.1 Environment, Population, Poverty, and Well-being:

A Complex Relationship

The downward spiral that links environment, poverty, health, and well-bein

complex. Both poverty and environmental degradation, via independent pathw

jeopardize well-being and health.

Some commentators maintain that an approximate inverted U-shaped relat

ship exists between income and environmental degradation. That is, as the ave

income of a population increases, many forms of environmental degradation 

tially increase before the availability of wealth, literacy, and regulatory institut

combine to reduce the problem (Grossman and Krueger 1995).

The poor, however, derive their sustenance and livelihoods from healthy ec

tems such as grasslands, forests, and cropland. Why do they degrade the very a

that are the source of their own present and future incomes? Does their pov

make them barter the future for the present? Studies in the past decade from m

parts of the developing world show that this usually happens when local social i

tutions that govern the use of “the commons” break down (Chopra et al. 1

Chopra and Gulati 2001; Jodha 2001; Markandya 2001). This may be due to 

operation of a combination of factors, including commercialization, population 

sure, and bad governance. When appropriate sets of property rights are put in f

the process can be contained.

Most of the documented examples of an inverted U-shaped relationship ref

local pollution such as river or air pollution. In contrast, the indices for man

today’s larger-scale environmental problems (such as greenhouse gas emissions 

the release of activated nitrogen) display a continuous increase (Vitousek e

1997; Butler 2000). These are problems of the “global commons” (Dasgupta 1

Buck 1998) for which there is not yet clear feedback in terms of perceived co

quences that influence the richer populations. Finding appropriate intervent

for them will require the agency of global institutions.

MA_CF-71-84.pmd 80 7/9/2003, 6:19 AM
are poor and deprived. In any case, there are vital policy questio

how to achieve well-being for all, and especially for those who ex

it least.

Balancing Priorities: Present Versus Future

The relationship between ecosystem change and human well-b

both current and future dimensions. The overexploitation of ec

may temporarily increase material well-being and alleviate pove

may prove unsustainable. That is, to solve today’s pressing proble

ety is often tempted to deplete tomorrow’s ecological resource b

can jeopardize future well-being and, in some cases, even surviv

The World Commission on Environment and Development 

posed a now widely accepted definition of sustainable develo

“development that meets the needs of the present without com

ing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” 

1987:43). That is, each generation should bequeath to its suc

least as large a productive base as it inherited. Thus the conce

tainable development incorporates not only intragenerational 

intergenerational equity.

In practice, can the present generation be expected to pu

tainable development policies? After all, parents care about 

current and future well-being of their children. Since their c

well-being will depend upon the well-being of their grandchildr

that of their grandchildren will in turn depend upon the

grandchildren’s, and so on—parents will tend to take at least 

count of the interests of their distant descendants, even if the

rectly interested only in their children.

Such individual concerns find a reflection in societal prefere

when prevailing property rights and other institutional structures t

into account. This is rarely the case. Instead, bad or weakly fun

institutions not only permit adverse consequences for human w

from past and present actions but also hold no one to account. O

damage to ecosystems is the result of elite and powerful groups, 

mestic and international, extracting short-term values for qui

thereby overriding the often longer-term interest of individuals 

communities (Jepson et al. 2001). If property rights to local ec

are ill defined or inadequately protected, such actions can have l

adverse effects on ecosystem services that no one is responsible 

MA_CF-71-84.pmd 81 7/9/2003, 6:19 AM
Just as such actions can adversely affect contemporaries, they ca

unintended consequences over time. For example, fish farms crea

clearing mangroves can benefit economically the company that h

ated the farms, but the action will inflict future damage on thos

would otherwise have depended on the mangroves for provisioning

lating, supporting, and cultural services (Gilbert and Janssen 1998

2002).

Institutions and Freedoms

Earlier sections demonstrated how many of the constituents or de

nants of well-being were directly or indirectly provided by ecosyste

vices. It has also been shown that ecosystem services are not infini

are subject to scarcity. Although there are potentials for substitut

with other forms of capital, thresholds exist beyond which substitu

not possible. For example, while many pharmaceuticals can be pro

synthetically, the therapeutic potential of extinct, undiscovered s

can never be developed.

Scarcity and the chance to add value provide powerful incenti

individuals or groups to try to gain privileged access and rights-of

many ecosystems and their services. They do this by influencing t

litical, economic, and social institutions that govern their access

agement, and use (Ostrom 1990; Acheson 1993; Alston et al. 

Ensmiger 1997).

Institutions—formal and informal—mediate the link between e

tem services and the constituents and determinants of human well-

For example, institutions for community forest management in Indi

successfully facilitated access to forest products for local commu

(Chopra and Dasgupta 2002).

In most cases, inequitable distribution of or access to ecosystem

their services occurs when formal or informal institutions break 

(Binswager 1989; Jaganathan 1989; Duraiappah 1998). This ha

either when institutions do not exist or when they are inefficient o

fective. There are many reasons for institutional failure. Commonly

erful individuals or groups prevent the establishment of institu

Existing bodies that mediate the distribution of goods and service

also be appropriated for the benefit of powerful minorities. Agric

subsidies in western industrial countries are an example of this.

Creating, revising, and modifying institutions is a social proces

tain preconditions, or “freedoms,” are necessary to ensure that this p

MA_CF-71-84.pmd 82 7/9/2003, 6:19 AM
is equitable and fair. These freedoms, by permitting a fair and 

social process, play a critical role in preventing or mitigating ins

failure. Five freedoms that have been identified are participative 

economic facilities, social opportunities, transparency guarantees

tective security (Jordan 1996; Sen 1999; Chopra and Duraiappah 

For example, access by the poor to credit at reasonable interest ra

provision of an economic facility—has been facilitated by mi

schemes, such as the Grameen Bank, a formal institution (Yunu

We have, in this chapter, added a sixth freedom to the five jus

ecological security. We define this as the minimum level of e

stock (an ecological safety net), defined by respective communitie

an open and participatory process, that is required to provide the 

ing services needed to ensure a sustainable flow of provisioning

ing, and cultural ecosystem services. We stress that ecosystems 

services are not only instrumental for improving well-being, bu

constitutive elements of well-being. For example, microbiolog

equate water, needed for good health, may also be valued for asp

as its purity and ease of access.

Contrary to the view that some of these freedoms are luxuri

rable until some level of macroeconomic growth has been ach

argue that they are complementary, rather than substitutes. Soci

cal, economic, and ecological freedoms are essential if equity, 

justice, and choice are to be addressed. In order to take advantag

nomic facilities, for instance, it is essential to have some social o

ties, such as health and education, available (Drèze and Sen 20

similar fashion, it is necessary to have participative freedom and 

ency guarantees if ecological security is to truly benefit local com

These six freedoms provide the space that allows individuals 

their rights—legal, political, social, ecological—and to create in

to protect and oversee a fair and equitable distribution of these 

all members of society. In this manner, individuals, especially the 

given the ability to make their own choices for self-determinat

process allows them to become agents of change.

Conclusion

The well-being of present and future human populations depend

logically sustainable and socially equitable ways of living in the 

determining how to achieve these, value judgments have to be m

cerning equity and ecosystem stewardship. These are the sphere 

MA_CF-71-84.pmd 83 7/9/2003, 6:19 AM
makers. Depending on context, decision-makers are faced with que

of who gains and who loses in rights, access, and the ability to enjo

system services.

Toward these ends, and toward the reduction of poverty, an es

step is fuller understanding of the myriad ways in which human act

and well-being are related to ecosystem changes and services. Such 

standings will always be needed to inform and support responsible a

sighted governance. It is implicit in this chapter that enhancing 

understandings will be an essential and permanent part of human end

To achieve sustainable well-being for all will be a perennial cha

And in the constant flux and interaction of ecosystems and peop

answers can ever be final.

MA_CF-71-84.pmd 84 7/9/2003, 6:19 AM