Search

The Ecosystem Service concept is a widely used framework to examine the links between the functioning of ecosystems and human well-being. There is a broad range of ecosystem services, which are often classified hierarchically as provisioning, regulating and cultural services. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), an approach for analyzing complex problems that involve trade-offs between multiple objectives, has increasingly been applied in the ecosystem service context. In MCDA, a problem is typically represented hierarchically as a value tree, which resembles the hierarchical structure of the ecosystem service classifications. However, in practice, there are several potential pitfalls that could distort the analysis, if some commonly used ecosystems service classification was directly used as the basis of an MCDA value tree. In this paper, we discuss these potential pitfalls and how to avoid them. Our discussion is illustrated with experience from a case study focusing on the ecosystem services provided by the peatlands in Finland.

Severe droughts cause substantial damage to different socio-economic sectors, and even Finland with abundant water resources is not immune to their impacts. To assess the implications of a severe drought in Finland, we carried out a national scale drought impact analysis. First, we simulated water levels and discharges during the severe drought of 1939&ndash, 1942 (the reference drought) in present-day Finland with a hydrological model. Second, we estimated how climate change would alter droughts. Thirdly, we assessed the impact of drought on key water use sectors, with a focus on hydropower and water supply. The results indicate that the long-lasting reference drought causes the discharges to decrease at most by 80% compared to average annual minimum discharges. The water levels generally fall to the lowest levels in the largest lakes in Central and South-Eastern Finland. Climate change scenarios project on average a small decrease in the lowest water levels during droughts. Severe drought would have a significant impact on water-related sectors, reducing water supply, and hydropower production. In this way drought is a risk multiplier for the water&ndash, energy&ndash, food security nexus. We suggest that the resilience to droughts could be improved with region-specific drought management plans and by including drought on existing regional preparedness exercises.

Severe droughts can affect water security even in countries with ample water resources. In addition, droughts are estimated to become more frequent in several regions due to changing climate. Drought affects many socio-economic sectors (e.g., agriculture, water supply, and industry), as it did in 2018 in Finland. Understanding the basin-wide picture is crucial in drought management planning. To identify vulnerable and water stressed areas in Finland, a water use-to-availability analysis was executed with a reference drought. Water stress was analyzed with the Water Depletion Index WDI. The analysis was executed using national water permits and databases. To represent a severe but realistic drought event, we modelled discharges and runoffs from the worst drought of the last century in Finland (1939&ndash, 1942). The potential for performing similar analyses in data scarce contexts was also tested using estimates from global models as a screening tool. The results show that the South and Southwest of Finland would have problems with water availability during a severe drought. The most vulnerable areas would benefit from drought mitigation measures and management plans. These measures could be incorporated into the EU River Basin Management Plans.

Water security demands guaranteeing economic, social and environmental sustainability and simultaneously addressing the diversity of risks and threats related to water. Various frameworks have been suggested to support water security assessment. They are typically based on indexes enabling national comparisons, these may, however, oversimplify complex and often contested water issues. We developed a structured and systemic way to assess water security and its future trends via a participatory process. The framework establishes a criteria hierarchy for water security, consisting of four main themes: the state of the water environment, human health and well-being, the sustainability of livelihoods, and the stability, functions and responsibility of society. The framework further enables the analysis of relationships between the water security criteria as well as between water, energy and food security. The framework was applied to a national water security assessment of Finland in 2018 and 2030. Our experience indicates that using the framework collaboratively with stakeholders provides a meaningful way to improve understanding and to facilitate discussion about the state of water security and the actions needed for its improvement.

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), also termed as multi-criteria assessment (MCA), is a powerful policy appraisal tool but as Stirling (2006) has suggested, it can be used both for opening up and closing down policy discourses. Our analysis of MCA in addressing a conflict between state forestry and indigenous Sami reindeer herding in Upper Lapland, Finland, illustrates MCA's potential in promoting open discussion about policy alternatives and their consequences, and also its limitations in highly controversial policy processes. The key features of the MCA process that served to open up policy discourse were the plural and conditional conclusions, which illustrated the diversity of viewpoints bearing on the Upper Lapland resource management conflict. The main risk of MCA to close down policy processes is to hide the scoring process and let the participants to focus only on the weighing stage. In the article, we present a novel approach to “interrogate uncertainties” and open up the information base. The Upper Lapland case study also illustrates the limits of MCA in the face of fundamental questions of ethical principle. MCA was helpful in addressing the problem situation that was formulated in terms of two competing livelihoods, forestry and reindeer herding, but unhelpful when the problem situation was formulated in terms of indigenous Sami people struggle for land rights.

Analytic–deliberative techniques have been suggested as a promising approach to ecosystem service (ES) valuation but are still at an experimental stage. This paper contributes to the development of ES valuation in the environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure by introducing an analytic–deliberative approach to assessing restoration options for a regulated river in Finland. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) with a value-focused approach was applied and compared with a desktop application of the ES-focused MCDA approach. We found out that the concept of ES could bring added value to the assessment process by: 1) enabling the framing and valuing especially of provisioning services — final ecosystem services, such as salmon catch in a more understandable way for the stakeholders, and 2) taking into account ecosystem processes and supporting services more precisely. However, some potential dangers of using the ES-based approach could include ES's appearing as a distant mode of thinking to affected groups and other stakeholders, and neglect of the trade-offs between ES and other relevant value and impact categories. Thus, although the ES framework is promising, it should not form a rigid ‘checklist’ way of making assessments but should rather be used to widen perspectives about potential issues in linking ecosystem properties to human benefits and values. It is argued that by combining the ES framework with the interactive MCDA approach, we can form a comprehensive and integrated approach to incorporating ESs into EIA.

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methods has been promoted as an alternative approach to monetary economic valuation of ecosystem services in Cost-Benefit Analysis framework (CBA). We discuss the potential of MCDA in providing a framework for integrated valuation of ecosystem services. We conclude that MCDA does in general perform better than CBA and associated monetary valuation techniques in several aspects that are essential in ecosystem service valuation. These include the ability of a valuation method to account for multiple dimensions of well-being, including ecological and economic as well as cultural and moral aspects of a policy or management problem and to facilitate open and transparent public debate on the pros and cons of alternative courses of action, including the distribution of gains and losses across beneficiaries of ecosystem services. The capacity of MCDA to articulate values related to ecosystem services depends on individual methods used in the MCDA process. More importantly, it depends of the ways in which the process is organized and facilitated. However, MCDA cannot provide representative information of the values of wider population. Further empirical and theoretical research is needed on the potential of hybrid methodologies to combine monetary valuation and MCDA in fruitful ways. Ecosystem services Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Cost-Benefit Analysis Integrated valuation Non-monetary valuation

The European Union Water Framework Directive (WFD) has created a demand for comparing the benefits and costs of the remedial measures. A major part of the benefits from improved water quality relate to the increased recreational value. However, there is a lack of easily operative and widely applicable quantitative methods to assess the benefits of improved water quality for recreational use. We present a new model to link physical indicators of water quality, water feasibility indicators for different recreational uses, individuals’ perceptions concerning the current feasibility of water for recreational purposes and monetary measures of water-related recreation benefits. The model has been applied to nine lakes, three rivers and one large coastal area in Finland. In this paper, we present the principles of the method and the results from one case study. In Finland, the method has been applied for the economic analysis required in the WFD.

Controversy between alternative uses of forests in Finnish Upper Lapland has been going on for decades, and in recent years it has been escalated to a serious conflict. The core of the conflict is the adverse impacts of forestry on old forests which are important grazing areas for reindeer and which are regarded as intact nature and wilderness areas. This paper describes the experiences of applying multi-criteria decision analysis interview approach on this conflict. The approach provides tools for structuring the problem and preferences of the stakeholders as well as for analyzing the effects of different alternatives in a common framework. We focus on the practical experiences gained from the application of this approach in this context. Multi-criteria decision analysis was found to be a useful approach to evaluate the economic, ecological and cultural aspects of this intense conflict. The obtained experiences also support the view that the approach works best when tightly integrated into the planning process.

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a generic term for approaches supporting the systematic evaluation of alternatives in problems involving multiple criteria and stakeholders. One of the most challenging tasks is to gather preference information from stakeholders in a way that both reflects their true opinions and meets the theoretical requirements of the applied MCDA approach. Various techniques have been used in practice, including interviews and decision conferences. In this paper, we present a new cost-efficient approach in which an analyst generates weight profiles for various stakeholder groups. That is, instead of personally asking specific trade-off questions from the stakeholders, weight profiles are developed on the basis of more general preference information collected from the stakeholders. The potential advantages of this approach are: (i) the collection of the preferences using surveys is less laborious than personal interviews or decision conferences and (ii) the risk of cognitive biases in the weight elicitation can be reduced, because the most challenging task of MCDA — assigning weights to the criteria — is left to the analyst, who should be aware of typical biases and how to avoid them. We developed and tested the approach in a contested public decision-making situation related to the development of a new residential area. We utilised the data gathered from the participants of the workshops (21) as well as the data from a web survey including 177 responds via a randomly sampled closed survey, in addition to 484 responds via an open survey. Four preference profiles each having specific weight distributions to criteria were developed, using a multi-stage procedure. Four development alternatives were compared as based on the developed preference profiles. We were able to realise the MCDA process within a very tight time schedule, create plausible preference profiles and summarise each alternative’s pros and cons from different perspectives. However, we also identified several issues which have to be paid more attention in future cases or require further research.

Public involvement is a process that involves the public in the decision making of an organization, for example a municipality or a corporation. It has developed into a widely accepted and recommended policy in environment altering projects. The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) took force in 2000 and stresses the importance of public involvement in composing river basin management plans. Therefore, the need to develop public involvement methods for different situations and circumstances is evident. This paper describes how various public involvement methods have been applied in a development project involving the most heavily regulated lake in Finland. The objective of the project was to assess the positive and negative impacts of regulation and to find possibilities for alleviating the adverse impacts on recreational use and the aquatic ecosystem. An exceptional effort was made towards public involvement, which was closely connected to planning and decision making. The applied methods were (1) steering group work, (2) survey, (3) dialogue, (4) theme interviews, (5) public meeting and (6) workshops. The information gathered using these methods was utilized in different stages of the project, e.g., in identifying the regulation impacts, comparing alternatives and compiling the recommendations for regulation development. After describing our case and the results from the applied public involvement methods, we will discuss our experiences and the feedback from the public. We will also critically evaluate our own success in coping with public involvement challenges. In addition to that, we present general recommendations for dealing with these problematic issues based on our experiences, which provide new insights for applying various public involvement methods in multi-objective decision making projects.