Ecosystem services (ES) has been used as a valuation language to respond to the global biodiversity and climate change crisis, as well as to the need for nature conservation and restoration1,2. Research on ES has taken place since the publication of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment3 which aimed to highlight the multiple benefits of nature while recognizing the complexity of the interactions between social and ecological systems. Structural approaches to the monetary valuation of provisioning, regulating, and supporting services have been developed4,5. Subsequently, research on ES has emphasised the need to broaden the valuation language beyond economic and ecological values6-9. This has been done by paying more attention to the ecological values, societal benefits and cultural ES that highlight the multiple benefits of nature and therefore support biodiversity conservation10-12. Furthermore, governance and management are an integral part of the ES framework that provides human benefits from the biophysical flows to the social system. Less attention has been paid to abiotic, e.g. provided by water, than to biotic ES, as the abiotic ES assessment was developed later than the biotic13,14. Recent studies tackle the interplay between anthropogenic inputs and abiotic elements by studying the co-production of ES15,16. SERVICO2 will increase the ES knowledge of headwater catchments, focusing on the less developed abiotic ES.
Regarding socio-ecological aspects, we aim to improve consideration of the impacts on the CO2 and other GHG regulation ES in all relevant policies, to carry out a socio-ecological valuation of the ES, and to increase citizens’ awareness. To do so, we will organize co-creation workshops in 5 countries. We will coordinate a multi-actor process that aims to co-create knowledge with scientists and stakeholders. Social sciences suggest that the aimed transition and management and governance of socio-ecological systems are more successful when the direction to steer has been co-visioned17,18. ES valuation will be conducted according to the CICES 5.2 scheme. Work Package 1 (WP1) will be devoted to these tasks.
In WP1, our objectives include conducting a socio-ecological valuation of ecosystem services (ES) to enhance the consideration of CO2 regulation in relevant policies and increase public awareness. WP1 comprises five tasks:
Task 1.1: Development of an ES assessment framework:
We will establish a SERVICO2 framework for assessing ES that are pertinent to atmospheric CO2.
Task 1.2: ES assessment in the study catchments:
Using the framework developed in Task 1.1, we will assess the ES in the 13 study catchments. By conducting ES assessments in these 13 SERVICO2 sites, we can compare the results across Europe.
Task 1.3: Stakeholder mapping:
In each catchment, we will create stakeholder maps to identify and locate key stakeholders involved in the management of aquatic resources and other natural resources relevant to atmospheric CO2. The stakeholder maps will serve as valuable tools for planning and designing stakeholder engagement and co-creation activities across the 13 catchments (see task T1.5).
Task 1.4: Factsheet on ES provided by headwater catchments:
We will develop a factsheet to inform policymakers and the wider research community about the ES relevant to the C balance. The factsheet will summarize the results from SERVICO2, and provide policy recommendations to guide governance and management.
Task 1.5: Co-creation in five countries:
Co-creation workshops will be organized in Spain, Italy, Czech Republic, Sweden, and Finland. Drawing from lessons learned in previous projects (such as DRyVER) and employing future-forward thinking, we will co-create knowledge on aquatic ES and atmospheric CO2 management and governance in the studied headwater catchments.
1 Costanza, R. et al. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change 26, 152-158, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002 (2014).
2 De Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A. & Boumans, R. M. J. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological economics 41, 393-408 (2002).
3 Reid, W. V. et al. Ecosystems and human well-being-Synthesis: A report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (Island Press, 2005).
4 TEEB. Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB. (Earthscan, 2010).
5 Haines-Young, R. & Potschin, M. Common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES, Version 4.1). European Environment Agency 33, 107 (2012).
6 Hauck, J., Görg, C., Varjopuro, R., Ratamäki, O. & Jax, K. Benefits and limitations of the ecosystem services concept in environmental policy and decision making: some stakeholder perspectives. Environmental Science & Policy 25, 13-21 (2013).
7 Gómez-Baggethun, E. & Martín-López, B. in Handbook of ecological economics 260-282 (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015).
8 Jackson, S. & Palmer, L. R. Reconceptualizing ecosystem services: Possibilities for cultivating and valuing the ethics and practices of care. Progress in Human Geography 39, 122-145 (2015).
9 Comberti, C., Thornton, T. F., Wyllie de Echeverria, V. & Patterson, T. Ecosystem services or services to ecosystems? Valuing cultivation and reciprocal relationships between humans and ecosystems. Global Environmental Change 34, 247-262, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.07.007 (2015).
10 Farber, S. C., Costanza, R. & Wilson, M. A. Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecological economics 41, 375-392, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00088-5 (2002).
11 Primmer, E. et al. Governance of Ecosystem Services: A framework for empirical analysis. Ecosystem Services 16, 158-166, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.05.002 (2015).
12 Hirons, M., Comberti, C. & Dunford, R. Valuing Cultural Ecosystem Services. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 41, 545-574, doi:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085831 (2016).
13 García-Llorente, M. et al. Biophysical and sociocultural factors underlying spatial trade-offs of ecosystem services in semiarid watersheds. Ecology and Society 20, doi:10.5751/es-07785-200339 (2015).
14 Teixeira, H. et al. Linking biodiversity to ecosystem services supply: Patterns across aquatic ecosystems. Science of The Total Environment 657, 517-534, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.440.
15 Tasser, E., Leitinger, G., Tappeiner, U. & Schirpke, U. Shaping the European Alps: Trends in landscape patterns, biodiversity and ecosystem services. CATENA 235, 107607, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2023.107607 (2024).
16 Cook, D., Malinauskaite, L., Davíðsdóttir, B. & Ögmundardóttir , H. Co-production processes underpinning the ecosystem services of glaciers and adaptive management in the era of climate change. Ecosystem Services 50, 101342, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101342 (2021).
17 Tàbara, J. D. & Pahl-Wostl, C. Sustainability Learning in Natural Resource Use and Management. Ecology and Society 12 (2007).
18 Coenen, F., Huitema, D. & O’Toole Jr, L. J. Participation and the quality of environmental decision making. Vol. 14 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012).
