Search

Hydropower, as a flexible energy source, has sparked renewed interest in the ongoing decarbonisation of the society. Simultaneously, a wider transformation of the socio-ecological system towards more sustainable practices of energy production is required. Our paper draws from the sustainable transformation theory and the concepts of transformability, hydro-social cycle, and aquatic regime to study a system of water governance and regulation in Finland. Our case study data consists of 16 semi-structured interviews and 207 news articles from Yle national broadcast company. We studied the policy frames to reveal how the water governance actors understand, view and make sense of future river use and restoration, and how they utilise the frames for strategic purposes. Results demonstrate that the future river use and restoration were framed by four modes of thinking: 1) hydropower as a ‘cultural trauma’, 2) restoring rivers and dam removal after hydropower construction and operation to improve ecological flows in rivers, 3) improving the social acceptance of hydropower and dam removal, and 4) improving the efficiency of the hydropower regime as a flexible source of power. Our paper shows that to enable pathways for socio-ecological-technical transformations of aquatic ecosystems further scientific scrutiny should be focused on reconciliation of the interest of river restoration, recreational uses of aquatic environments and the flexible energy function of hydropower in energy transition. Removal of migration barriers and small-scale hydropower plants and building fishways and bypasses are part of this transformation. Furthermore, the river regulation needed to give impoundment facilities the flexibility, causes changes in water levels which may be a potential source of conflict between riparian residents and hydropower operators. Therefore, more emphasis should be placed on water governance that recognises the local dynamics and interactions within the social-ecological systems.

This article examines the public perceptions on the drafting process of Finnish Climate Act amendment, which is a legislation on the climate policy that aims to mitigate climate change and secure adaptive capacity. In this paper we present results of a thematic analysis, which reveals citizens' perceptions of the procedural values, with respect to transparency, participation, and acceptance, and the objectives of the amendment, such as the climate neutrality target for 2035. The research data consisted of 2,458 answers to a citizen survey on the Finnish Climate Change Act amendment. Our results reveal that the opinions of citizens ranged from highlighting the urgency of political action to climate denials, with varying perceptions on process and proposed outcomes. While over half of citizens felt positively about the 2035 climate neutrality target created in the Climate Change Amendment Act, only a third believed that there was appropriate opportunity for public participation in the amendment process. Based on these findings, we suggest that participatory and transparent processes in legislative drafting are prerequisites for the sustainability transition and the implementation of international climate mitigation targets. publishedVersion

Nature's contributions to people (NCP) support people's quality of life and are generated by an interplay of both natural and anthropogenic capitals, known as NCP co-production, which also includes ecosystem services. A governance system of formal and informal institutions on different yet interlinked spatial, administrative, and temporal scales influences the management of these capitals underpinning the co-production of NCP. While the field of NCP governance is well established, the role of governance on natural and anthropogenic capitals in NCP co-production is under-researched, which might undermine its integration into decision-making. Here, we analyse how governance of anthropogenic capitals influencing NCP co-production has been researched in the scientific literature. We conducted two systematic literature reviews of publications on ecosystem service governance and ecosystem service and NCP co-production. We distinguish different modes of governance directed at NCP co-production following the classification described by Primmer et al. (2015)—hierarchical, scientific-technical, (adaptive)-collaborative governance and the governing of strategic behaviour. These governance modes resemble the pluralism in ecosystem services governance as they involve various actors and governance approaches. We tie these governance modes to the anthropogenic capitals (human, social, physical, or financial) involved in NCP co-production at the respective administrative, spatial, and temporal scales. Our results show that the literature refers to a variety of combinations of governance modes and anthropogenic capitals involved in NCP co-production. Anthropogenic capitals are mostly studied in multiple governance modes, with material NCP being the most commonly NCP investigated. Our results highlight a major research gap in the NCP co-production literature, which currently neglects the role of governance when assessing the interplay of anthropogenic and natural capitals. Nature's contributions to people (NCP) support people's quality of life and are generated by an interplay of both natural and anthropogenic capitals, known as NCP co-production, which also includes ecosystem services. A governance system of formal and informal institutions on different yet interlinked spatial, administrative, and temporal scales influences the management of these capitals underpinning the co-production of NCP. While the field of NCP governance is well established, the role of governance on natural and anthropogenic capitals in NCP co-production is under-researched, which might undermine its integration into decision-making. Here, we analyse how governance of anthropogenic capitals influencing NCP co-production has been researched in the scientific literature. We conducted two systematic literature reviews of publications on ecosystem service governance and ecosystem service and NCP co-production. We distinguish different modes of governance directed at NCP co-production following the classification described by Primmer et al. (2015)—hierarchical, scientific-technical, (adaptive)-collaborative governance and the governing of strategic behaviour. These governance modes resemble the pluralism in ecosystem services governance as they involve various actors and governance approaches. We tie these governance modes to the anthropogenic capitals (human, social, physical, or financial) involved in NCP co-production at the respective administrative, spatial, and temporal scales. Our results show that the literature refers to a variety of combinations of governance modes and anthropogenic capitals involved in NCP co-production. Anthropogenic capitals are mostly studied in multiple governance modes, with material NCP being the most commonly NCP investigated. Our results highlight a major research gap in the NCP co-production literature, which currently neglects the role of governance when assessing the interplay of anthropogenic and natural capitals.

This article aims to reveal the political positioning of ‘mire nature’ in Finnish peatland policy and law. The data analysed include the latest policy documents, laws and regulations related to mires and peat extraction. Analysis is based on frame analysis (i.e. how an object is defined and positioned) and ideas drawn from a political ecology approach. Two main frames can be identified within the Finnish legal and policy framework: peat as a natural resource to be utilised for national energy sufficiency and economic competitiveness, and peat as a valuable source of biodiversity and an integral element of global ecosecurity. Analysis reveals the degree to which the definition of issues or objects in legal and policy terms is important in determining outcomes. It also reveals that national policies have swung back and forth and are prone to economic power struggles. Furthermore, while laws and regulations have offered strong and longstanding support for the extractive use of peat, the latest regulatory developments show a break from this trend. However, the arguments and facts concerning climate change are poorly integrated with Finnish peatland policy and law.