Global mismatch between ecosystem service supply and demand driven by climate change and human activity
Assessing the balance between ecosystem service supply and demand (ESSD) relationship and identifying its driving factors is essential for addressing ecosystem degradation. While previous local-scale studies have highlighted climate change and human activities as critical influences, their roles at...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2025-07-01
|
| Series: | Environmental Science and Ecotechnology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666498425000511 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Assessing the balance between ecosystem service supply and demand (ESSD) relationship and identifying its driving factors is essential for addressing ecosystem degradation. While previous local-scale studies have highlighted climate change and human activities as critical influences, their roles at a global scale remain poorly understood. Here, we analyze the global dynamics of supply–demand relationships for four key ecosystem services—food production, carbon sequestration, soil conservation, and water yield—over the period 2000–2020. We find that ESSD relationships generally exhibit spatially high supply-low demand and quantitatively surplus characteristics. Climate change and human activity influence ESSD relationships in dual-directional pathways. Specifically, they positively affect food production and soil conservation in 80.69 % and 72.50 % of global regions respectively; while negatively influencing carbon sequestration and water yield in 76.74 % and 62.44 % of global regions respectively. Human activity primarily shapes the ESSD relationships for food production and carbon sequestration, with mean contribution rates of 66.54 % and 60.80 % respectively; whereas climate change exerts greater control over soil conservation and water yield, with mean contribution rates of 54.62 % and 55.41 % respectively. Our findings clarify the direction (positive or negative), mode (individual or combined), contribution rates, and geographic distribution of these impacts. This research closes a critical gap in understanding global ESSD relationships and provides essential insights to inform sustainable ecosystem management from local to global scales. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2666-4984 |