Search

Funding Information: This work was supported by the Academy of Finland Project PortRight (Grant No. 323798 , 323800 , 325430 ). We would like to thank stakeholders who actively participated in the workshops and brought their expertise and experience to the process. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s) Environmental management problems are often portfolio problems where the task is to find a set of actions that meets different objectives (e.g., the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions) and constraints (e.g., costs). We report experiences from deploying multiple operations research (OR) methods in a real decision-making setting and discuss the insights gained from this process. The applied methods were Multi-Attribute Value Theory (MAVT), the project portfolio selection tool Your Own Decision Aid (YODA) and Robust Portfolio Modelling (RPM). The methods were applied in a portfolio case evaluating three peatland rewetting options (“No action”, “Restoration”, “Damming”) for 79 drained peatland stands in an important recreational and nature conservation area in southern Finland. The pros and cons of the methods were evaluated, as well as their key methodological challenges, in a participatory environmental portfolio case. The applied methods yielded similar results in terms of the superiority of rewetting options. The strength of MAVT was its ability to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of all three rewetting options for a single peatland stand. YODA's strength was its simplicity and the possibility to apply it independently via the Internet. RPM made it possible to determine the priority of peatland stands within constraints, even without precise preference information. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic evaluation of three methods representing different ‘method categories’ (MAVT, multi-criteria elimination, portfolio decision analysis) applied to a real environmental problem.

Highlights • The StrateGIS tool helps to evoke discussion on well-being across sectoral silos. • The tool provides a way to fill the gap between academic and practical approaches. • Practitioners are well placed to combine scientific and local knowledge. • Practitioner knowledge is very important in selecting and adjusting the criteria. • Local GIS experts have an important role in using spatial planning-support tools. Worldwide urbanisation emphasises the importance of planning for cities that sustain and promote the well-being of their residents. The planning of a living environment that supports well-being requires both intersectoral cooperation between policy sectors and interaction between researchers and practitioners. With 12 case studies (of 11 Finnish municipalities and one city region), we provide a description of a knowledge co-production process originating from the use of a new planning-support tool called StrateGIS that can be used for discovering built-environment indicators for integrated planning for well-being. Based on spatial multi-criteria analysis, we also investigate how the tool fostered intersectoral discussion among practitioners during the process. Practitioner knowledge was merged with scientific knowledge at different stages of the process: in structuring the value tree, in setting the objectives, in selecting the criteria and in defining the spatial representation for each criterion. Intersectoral discussion during the process was seen as fruitful and relatively easy despite the different types of expertise present in the workshops. Based on our results, the local experts specialised in spatial data have an intermediary role between practitioners since they can build understanding of how data is translated into spatial information when using a spatial planning-support tool.

The ecosystem service (ES) concept has increasingly been applied in environmental planning, while there are several decades of experience in applying multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in complex planning situations. The aim of this article is to assess how the ES concept has been used in water management projects together with MCDA and to examine the experiences gained and make recommendations to overcome any identified challenges. Our conclusions are based on a systematic analysis of 23 articles that were selected among 206 articles focused on water-related studies using, for example, the terms multi-criteria and ecosystem services in the title, abstract or keywords. Here, we explore (i) at what level of detail ESs are included in the decision hierarchy, (ii) the pros and cons of the complementary use of the two approaches, and (iii) how the potential challenges related to the use of MCDA, such as the large number of criteria, double-counting, or assigning criteria weights, are addressed in the selected cases. The results reveal large differences between the case studies. It is shown that only a few case studies used ES categories to classify criteria in the decision hierarchy, that these cases included different numbers of ES criteria and non-ES criteria, and that most case studies elicited stakeholder preferences in MCDA. Although the paper focuses on water management projects, the conclusions regarding the advantages and pitfalls of the complementary use of the methods, as well as our recommendations, are also applicable to other environmental management contexts.

Knowledge on when, where and how Public Participation Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS) influence planning decisions has been spotty and incomplete. To fill the gap, we assessed the influence ...

Suomen alkuperäisestä 10,4 miljoonan hehtaarin suoalasta yli puolet on ojitettu metsä- ja maatalouden sekä turvetuotannon tarpeisiin. Etelä-Suomessa ojitus on ollut voimakkainta: keskimäärin noin 75 prosenttia ja monin paikoin vielä suurempi osa soista on ojitettu. Suot ovat Euroopan luontotyypeistä kaikkein uhanalaisin luontotyyppiryhmä ja Suomella on erityisvastuu soiden suojelusta. Kaikkiaan 54 prosenttia Suomen 50 suoluontotyypistä on uhanalaisia ja lisäksi 20 prosenttia on silmällä-pidettäviä. Ensisijaisesti Suomen soilla elävistä lajeista 11 prosenttia eli yhteensä 120 lajia on uhanalaisia. Uhanalaisilla lajeilla ja luontotyypeillä on korkea riski hävitä Suomesta. Mittava ojitus näkyy suolajiston ja -luontotyyppien uhanalaisuuden lisäksi myös vesistöhaittoina, soilta hävinneenä hiilivarastona ja muina heikentyneinä ekosysteemipalveluina. Uutena uhkana suoluonnolle on rahkasammaleen kuoriminen suon pinnasta. Soita ennallistetaan eli palautetaan kohti luonnontilaa ojia tukkimalla ja patoamalla sekä vesiä uudelleen ohjailemalla ja poistamalla ylimääräistä puustoa. Ennallistamisella pyritään ensisijaisesti suoluontotyyppien tilan parantamiseen ja suolajiston palauttamiseen. Tutkimusten valossa ennallistaminen johtaa suon oleellisten ekologisten toimintojen palautumiseen nopeasti, pääsääntöisesti vajaassa vuosikymmenessä. Lajiston palautuminen vaikuttaa lupaavalta, mutta on toimintojen palautumista hitaampaa. Kaikki ennallistamisen vaikutukset eivät ole myönteisiä lyhyellä aikavälillä. Soiden ennallistaminen lisää metaanipäästöjä, jonka seurauksena kokonaiskasvihuonekaasupäästöt voivat kasvaa seuraavan 10–20 vuoden aikana. Pitkällä aikavälillä päästöt alkavat kuitenkin usein vähentyä ja etenkin rehevät suot ennallistuvat hiilinieluiksi. Karuilla suoluontotyypeillä ilmastovaikutus voi olla pitkään kielteinen. Vesistöjen ravinne-kuormitus voi kasvaa etenkin rehevien soiden ennallistamisen seurauksena, mutta haitallinen vaikutus on pääsääntöisesti lyhyt, ja jo vuosikymmenen kuluttua ennallistettu suo puhdistaa valuma-alueen vesiä ja toimii luonnontilaisen suon tavoin tasaten valumia. Ennallistaminen on tärkeä työkalu historiallisten luontohaittojen korjaamisessa ja luonnon monimuotoisuuden turvaamisessa. Ennallistamisen hyödyissä ja haitoissa on joitakin tietopuutteista johtuvia epävarmuuksia, mutta vaikuttaa siltä, että soiden pitkäjänteinen ennallistaminen on kokonaisuuden kannalta suoluonnolle, vesistöille ja ilmastolle parempi ratkaisu kuin ennallistamatta jättäminen. Luontopaneeli korostaa, että nimenomaan soiden ennallistamiskysymyksessä on tärkeää ymmärtää, että hiilensidontaa ja ilmaston-muutosta hillitseviä ratkaisuja voidaan tehdä monilla erilaisilla soista riippumattomilla keinoilla, mutta suoluontotyyppien erityispiirteet ja lajisto eivät ole turvattavissa ilman soiden ennallistamista. Ennallistamisen lisäksi luonnontilaisen kaltaisena säilyneen suoluonnon lisäsuojeluun tulee panostaa merkittävästi. Suomen Luontopaneeli on laatinut tämän yhteenvedon suositukset luontopolitiikan suunnittelun ja päätöksenteon tueksi perustuen asettamansa asiantuntijatyöryhmän kattavaan vertaisarvioituun selvitykseen soiden ennallistamisen suoluonto-, vesistö- ja ilmastovaikutuksista

The use of peatlands and the multiple but mutually exclusive ecosystem services they provide is a highly debated issue worldwide. We used a participatory multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to address multiple value dimensions and trade-offs related to peatland ecosystem services in Southern Finland. We evaluated five peatland policy scenarios against provisioning, regulating and cultural ecosystem services as well as socio-economic factors, and engaged key stakeholders in framing the assessment and assigning criteria weights. The MCDA process showed that while peat extraction can basically be reconciled with preserving the most important biodiversity values in Finland, the conflict between peat extraction and carbon stock as well as water quality impacts and the related amenity values is irreconcilable. The role of the participatory MCDA process in promoting learning and reflection was smaller than expected but it did facilitate learning about the flows of peatland ecosystem services. The role of the participants was important not only in making value judgements but also in contributing to the impact assessment, thereby supporting the calls for transdisciplinarity in ecosystem service assessments. Highlights • MCDA supported a systematic scrutiny of the key aspects in the peatland debate. • The process facilitated cognitive learning on peatland ecosystem services. • MCDA helped to articulate social values related to peatlands. • The role of MCDA in promoting value reflection was smaller than expected.

Sanna Marinin hallitus on sitoutunut luonnon monimuotoisuuden tilan parantamiseen ja luontokadon pysäyttämiseen. Lupaus on äärimmäisen tärkeä. Luonnon ekosysteemien heikennys uhkaa elintärkeiden eko-systeemipalveluiden tuotantoa sekä ihmisten terveyttä, hyvinvointia ja turvallisuutta. Maailman talousfoorumi on nostanut luontokadon viiden vakavimman ihmiskuntaa uhkaavan riskin joukkoon. Myös Suomen luontotyyppien ja lajiston uhanalaisuustilanne on hälyttävä. Hallituksen kehysriihessä päätetään hallitusohjelman toteuttamisesta ja lunastetaan vuoden 2019 eduskuntavaalien lupaukset luonto- ja ilmastotoimista. Myös EU:n uusi biodiversiteettistrategia velvoittaa Suomea panostamaan luonnonsuojeluun entistä enemmän.

Suomi on toistaiseksi selvinnyt koronaviruksen (COVID-19) aiheuttamasta kriisistä taloudellisesti verrokkimaita paremmin, mutta työllisyystilanne on silti heikentynyt ympäri maata ja talouden ennustetaan supistuvan noin 4,7 prosenttia vuonna 20201. Negatiivisten talousvaikutusten minimoimiseksi hallitus on suuntaamassa EU:n elpymisvälineestä varoja käytettäväksi toimiin, jotka samanaikaisesti auttavat ratkaisemaan aikamme kahta merkittävää kriisiä: ilmastonmuutosta ja luontokatoa. Kyse on aidosti vakavista kriiseistä. Esimerkiksi Maailman talousfoorumi on listannut luonnon ekosysteemien romahduksen ja ilmastonmuutoksen torjunnan epäonnistumisen sekä vaikutuksiltaan että todennäköisyydeltään viiden vakavimman ihmiskuntaa uhkaavan riskin joukkoon. Elämämme on täysin riippuvainen ekosysteemien ja lajien olemassaolosta ja niiden toiminnasta. Suomen Luontopaneeli katsoo, että elvytystoimien pitää kokonaisuudessaan auttaa yhteiskuntaamme selviämään koronan aiheuttamasta talouden supistumisesta niin, että elvytystoimet samalla aikaansaavat siirtymän kohti hiilineutraaliutta ja luonnon kokonaisheikentymättömyyttä. Tässä kannanotossa Luontopaneeli arvioi ympäristöministeriön kestävän elvytyksen työryhmän ja Suomen ilmastopaneelin esittämien sekä muutamien muiden elvytystoimien luontovaikutuksia ja antaa suosituksia elvytystoimien mahdollisten haitallisten luontovaikutusten välttämiseksi. Kuvaan 1 (sivulla 3) on koottu Luontopaneelin näkemys eri toimenpiteiden luonnon monimuotoisuus- ja elvytysvaikutuksista. Lähtökohta ja tavoite on luonnon kokonaisheikentymättömyys (engl. “no net loss of the integrity of ecosystems”). Suomen maaekosysteemien, sisävesien ja meriluonnon tilan heikkeneminen tulee pysäyttää seuraavien vuosikymmenten kuluessa. Osa toimenpiteistä vaikuttaa luonnon monimuotoisuuteen suoraan, esimerkiksi maankäytön kautta, ja osa epäsuorasti ilmastonmuutoksen (ks. tietolaatikko s. 7 ), ilmansaasteiden (s. 10) tai rehevöittävien ravinteiden (s. 11) kautta. Moni taloutta elvyttävä ja hiilineutraaliutta edistävä toimi voi aiheuttaa luontohaittaa. Kyse ei ole vastakkainasettelusta vaan siitä, että aidosti hyvät toimet voivat olla elvyttävyys-, ilmasto- tai luontovaikutuksiltaan ristiriitaisia. Tällaiset toimet tulisi suunnitella niin, että ne ovat yhdenmukaisia luonnon kokonaisheikentymättömyystavoitteen kanssa. Väistämättömät haitat tulee hyvittää luonnolle ekologisilla kompensaatioilla (ks. s. 4). Tämän kannanoton tarkoitus on tunnistaa ristiriitoja ja löytää keinoja lieventää niitä. Jokaisen toimenpiteen vaikutukset on arvioitu ja niiden osalta on esitetty ehdotukset siitä, kuinka mahdollisia haitallisia luontovaikutuksia voidaan pienentää.

The European Union (EU) Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires EU member states to produce and implement river basin management plans, which are to be designed and updated via participatory processes that inform, consult with, and actively involve all interested stakeholders. The assumption of the European Commission is that stakeholder participation, and institutional adaptation and procedural innovation to facilitate it, are essential to the effectiveness of river basin planning and, ultimately, the environmental impact of the Directive. We analyzed official documents and the WFD literature to compare implementation of the Directive in EU member states in the initial WFD planning phase (2000-2009). Examining the development of participatory approaches to river basin management planning, we consider the extent of transformation in EU water governance over the period. Employing a mixed quantitative and qualitative approach, we map the implementation "trajectories" of 13 member states, and then provide a detailed examination of shifts in river basin planning and participation in four member states (Germany, Sweden, Poland and France) to illustrate the diversity of institutional approaches observed. We identify a general tendency towards increased, yet circumscribed, stakeholder participation in river basin management in the member states examined, alongside clear continuities in terms of their respective pre-WFD institutional and procedural arrangements. Overall, the WFD has driven a highly uneven shift to river basin-level planning among the member states, and instigated a range of efforts to institutionalize stakeholder involvement-often through the establishment of advisory groups to bring organized stakeholders into the planning process.

Deliberative valuation of ecosystem services is expected to capture the diversity of values related to ecosystem services and to facilitate learning and reconsideration of previously held preferences and positions. This paper reports on a study of a deliberative non-monetary valuation process that was designed to address the value of peatland ecosystem services in Southern Finland. Three parallel citizen panels were organised in order to consider the relative merits of energy peat extraction and peatland protection and to assign value to peatland ecosystem services. The results suggest that increased understanding of peatlands' role in carbon storage, together with reflection on the underlying value positions, led the panellists to adopt a more critical view of energy peat use. All three panels came independently to the same conclusion that peat extraction should be gradually phased out and replaced with renewable energy production. The results also sustain the hypothesis that deliberative settings evoke citizen preferences as the arguments used in the discussions were predominantly public spirited, referring to the common good instead of individual interests. We discuss the outcomes and factors that influenced the deliberations and make recommendations for effective deliberative designs.

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.

The ecosystem services literature rests on the premise that an increased understanding of ecosystems, ecosystem services and, in particular, the value of ecosystem services will feed to decision-making. Yet, there is little evidence for the assumed demand and applicability of valuation knowledge in real-life policy and decision-making processes, and the use of such knowledge has received little in-depth analytical attention. Motivated by these observations, we have conducted an empirical analysis of ecosystem service value knowledge use. Our analysis of policy actors' experiences and expectations regarding value knowledge in Finland's peatland policy draws on ten interviews with eleven policy actors. Focusing on the usefulness and uses of valuation knowledge, we analyze the ways in which values are framed and value knowledge is expected to influence the rights to use ecosystem services. Our analysis shows that policy actors expect a better understanding of ecosystem service values to support the consideration of benefits. Yet, what they view as crucial knowledge needs aligns with their sectoral or organizational position as well as the interests they represent. Hence, valuation does not provide a solution to distributional debates or conflicts over rights, but it can have an important function as the provider of background knowledge.

The promise that ecosystem service assessments will contribute to better decision-making is not yet proven. We analyse how knowledge on ecosystem services is actually used to inform land and water management in 22 case studies covering different social-ecological systems in European and Latin American countries. None of the case studies reported instrumental use of knowledge in a sense that ecosystem service knowledge would have served as an impartial arbiter between policy options. Yet, in most cases, there was some evidence of conceptual learning as a result of close interaction between researchers, practitioners and stakeholders. We observed several factors that constrained knowledge uptake, including competing interests and political agendas, scientific disputes, professional norms and competencies, and lack of vertical and horizontal integration. Ecosystem knowledge played a small role particularly in those planning and policy-making situations where it challenged established interests and the current distribution of benefits from ecosystems. The factors that facilitated knowledge use included application of transparent participatory methods, social capital, policy champions and clear synergies between ecosystem services and human well-being. The results are aligned with previous studies which have emphasized the importance of building local capacity, ownership and trust for the long-term success of ecosystem service research. EEA Santa Cruz Fil: Saarikoski, Heli. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia Fil: Primmer, Eeva. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia Fil: Saarela, Sanna-Riikka. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia Fil: Antunes, Paula. Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia. Centre for Environmental and Sustainability Research; Portugal Fil: Baró, Francesc. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Institute of Environmental Science and Technology; España. Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute; España Fil: Berry, Pam. University of Oxford. Environmental Change Institute; Gran Bretaña Fil: Garcia Blanko, Gemma. Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation. Energy and Environment Division. Parque Tecnológico de Bizkaia; España Fil: Gómez-Baggethun, Erik. Norwegian University of Life Sciences. Department of International Environment and Development Studies; Noruega. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA); Noruega Fil: Carvalho, Lawrence. Center for Ecology and Hydrology; Gran Bretaña Fil: Dick, Jan. Center for Ecology and Hydrology; Gran Bretaña Fil: Dunford, Robert. University of Oxford. Environmental Change Institute; Gran Bretaña. Lancaster Environment Centre. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; Gran Bretaña Fil: Hanzu, Mihail. Romanian National Institute for Research and Development in Silviculture; Rumania Fil: Harrison, Paula A. Lancaster Environment Centre. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; Gran Bretaña Fil: Izakovicova, Zita. Slovak Academy of Science. Institute of Landscape Ecology; Eslovaquia Fil: Kertész, Miklós. Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Centre for Ecological Research. Institute of Ecology and Botany; Hungría Fil: Kopperoinen, Leena. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia Fil: Köhler, Berit. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA); Noruega Fil: Langemeyer, Johannes. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Institute of Environmental Science and Technology; España. Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute. Barcelona Lab for Urban Environmental Justice and Sustainability; España Fil: Lapola, David. Universidade Estadual de Campinas. Center for Meteorological and Climatic Studies Applied to Agriculture (CEPAGRI); Brasil Fil: Liquete, Camino. Joint Research Centre (JRC). European Commission; Italia Fil: Luque, Sandra. National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture; Francia Fil: Mederly, Peter. Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra. Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences; Eslovaquia Fil: Niemelä, Jari. University of Helsinki. Department of Environmental Sciences; Finlandia Fil: Palomo, Ignacio. University of the Basque Country. Basque Centre for Climate Change; España. Fil: Martínez Pastur, Guillermo José. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Austral de Investigaciones Cientificas; Argentina Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina. Comisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica; Argentina Fil: Preda, Elena. University of Bucharest. Research Center in Systems Ecology and Sustainability; Rumania Fil: Priess, Joerg A. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research; Alemania Fil: Santos, Rui Ferreira Dos. Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia. Centre for Environmental and Sustainability Research; Portugal Fil: Schleyer, Christian. Alpen-Adria-University Klagenfurt. Institute of Social Ecology; Austria. University of Kassel. Section of International Agricultural Policy and Environmental Governance; Alemania Fil: Turkelboom, Francis. Research Institute for Nature and Forest; Bélgica Fil: Vadineanu, Angheluta. University of Bucharest. Research Center in Systems Ecology and Sustainability; Rumania Fil: Verheyden, Wim. Research Institute for Nature and Forest; Bélgica Fil: Vikström, Suvi. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia Fil: Young, Juliette. Center for Ecology and Hydrology; Gran Bretaña Fil: Aszalós, Réka. Institute of Ecology and Botany, MTA Centre for Ecological Research; Hungría

The concept of ecosystem services is widely used in the scientific literature and increasingly also in policy and practice. Nevertheless, operationalising the concept, i.e. putting it into practice, is still a challenge. We describe the approach of the EU-project OpenNESS (Operationalisation of Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital), which was created in response to this challenge to critically evaluate the concept when applied to real world problems at different scales and in different policy sectors. General requirements for operationalization, the relevance of conceptual frameworks and lessons learnt from 27 case study applications are synthesized in a set of guiding principles. We also briefly describe some integrative tools as developed in OpenNESS which support the implementation of the principles. The guiding principles are grouped under three major headlines: “Defining the problem and opening up the problem space”, “Considering ethical issues” and “Assessing alternative methods, tools and actions”. Real world problems are often “wicked” problems, which at first are seldom clear-cut and well-defined, but often rather complex and subject to differing interpretations and interests. We take account of that complexity and emphasise that there is not one simple and straightforward way to approach real world problems involving ecosystem services. The principles and tools presented are meant to provide some guidance for tackling this complexity by means of a transdisciplinary methodology that facilitates the operationalisation of the ecosystem services concept.

The aim of EKLIPSE is to develop a mechanism to inform European-scale policy on biodiversity and related environmental challenges. This paper considers two fundamental aspects of the decision-support mechanism being developed by EKLIPSE: 1) the engagement of relevant actors from science, policy and society to jointly identify evidence for decision making; and 2) the networking of scientists and other holders of knowledge on biodiversity and other relevant evidence. The mechanism being developed has the potential not only to build communities of knowledge holders but to build informal networks among those with similar interests in evidence, be they those that seek to use evidence or those who are building evidence, or both. EKLIPSE has been successful in linking these people and in contributing to building informal networks of requesters of evidence, and experts of evidence and its synthesis. We have yet to see, however, significant engagement of formal networks of knowledge holders. Future success, however, relies on the continued involvement with and engagement of networks, a high degree of transparency within the processes and a high flexibility of structures to adapt to different requirements that arise with the broad range of requests to and activities of EKLIPSE.

As biodiversity continues to decline despite our increased knowledge of the drivers and consequences of biodiversity loss, much of the current focus is on strengthening interfaces between biodiversity knowledge and policy-making. While many of the challenges associated with science–policy interfaces are well known, what is less well studied is the more specific issue of how to integrate the broad range of knowledge relating to complex issues such as biodiversity and ecosystem services, to inform decision-making at regional and global scales. Based on a formative evaluation of the development of a European Network of Knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem services, we identify key themes to build a broad biodiversity science community capable of developing integrated knowledge to inform decision-making. Based on these findings we outline future steps for the successful integration of knowledge in decision-making at the European, and also the global scale, in particular the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

Participatory approaches and computerised tools such as decision support systems (DSS) represent conflicting tendencies in state-of the-art sustainable forest management. As a result, there may be considerable tension between these two developments in practice. The objective of this paper is to explore how participatory approaches and DSS could be brought together to improve planning processes and to explore how DSS could be adapted in their use or combined with other tools to enable successful participatory planning. From a review of the literature, we identified criteria related to successful participatory planning. From these criteria, we selected those a DSS can influence and created a short list of the criteria that could be used to evaluate participatory processes where DSS are applied. The evaluation criteria with particular relevance for DSS that we identified are as follows: fairness, opportunity to influence outcome, quality and selection of information, cost-effectiveness, challenging status quo and fostering creative thinking, structured decision-making process, transparency, and independence and neutrality of process. We also scrutinised existing forest DSS and identified features that may enable DSS to address these criteria. The features of DSS we identified that may support participatory processes are as follows: group decision support, possibilities to include other values than timber production, flexibility of system to include non-traditional forest data and management options, and multi-criteria decision analysis tools. We argue that the DSS to be used should be assessed to clarify, how it can be used in the specific planning situation and how it should be complemented with other available and non-computerised tools.

Made available in DSpace on 2018-12-11T16:50:30Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2018-02-01 The Ecosystem Services (ES) concept highlights the varied contributions the environment provides to humans and there are a wide range of methods/tools available to assess ES. However, in real-world decision contexts a single tool is rarely sufficient and methods must be combined to meet practitioner needs. Here, results from the OpenNESS project are presented to illustrate the methods selected to meet the needs of 24 real-world case studies and better understand why and how methods are combined to meet practical needs. Results showed that within the cases methods were combined to: i) address a range of ES; ii) assess both supply and demand of ES; iii) assess a range of value types; iv) reach different stakeholder groups v) cover weaknesses in other methods used and vi) to meet specific decision context needs. Methods were linked in a variety of ways: i) as input–output chains of methods; ii) through learning; iii) through method development and iv) through comparison/triangulation of results. The paper synthesises these case study-based experiences to provide insight to others working in practical contexts as to where, and in what contexts, different methods can be combined and how this can add value to case study analyses. Environmental Change Institute, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Road Centre for Ecology & Hydrology Maclean Building, Benson Lane, Crowmarsh Gifford Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Lancaster Environment Centre, Library Avenue, Bailrigg Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Bush Estate Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Gaustadalléen 21 Leuphana University of Lüneburg Faculty of Sustainability Institute of Ethics and Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research, Scharnhorststraβe 1 Environmental Social Science Research Group (ESSRG Ltd.), Rómer Flóris u. 38. Department of Decision Sciences Corvinus University of Budapest, Fővám tér 8. Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Kliniekstraat 25 Finnish Environment Institute, P.O. Box 140 Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Permoserstraße 15 CoKnow Consulting – Coproducing Knowledge for Sustainability CENSE – Centre for Environmental and Sustainability Research Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia Universidade Nova de Lisboa Institute of Ecology and Botany Centre for Ecological Research Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Alkotmány u. 2-4 National Institute for Research and Development in Forestry “Marin Dracea”, Eroilor Blvd 128 Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA) Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) Edifici Z (ICTA-ICP), Carrer de les Columnes s/n, Campus de la UAB European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, 57 rue Cuvier, Paris Cedex 05 Urban Environment and Territorial Sustainability Area Energy and Environment Dividision Parque Tecnológico de Bizkaia C/Geldo, Edificio 700 University of Bucharest – Research Center in Systems Ecology and Sustainability, Splaiul Independentei 91-95 Department of International Environment and Development Studies (Noragric) Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), P.O. Box 5003 European Commission – Joint Research Centre (JRC), Via E. Fermi 2749 Institute of Landscape Ecology Slovak Academy of Sciences, Štefánikova 3 IRSTEA National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture UMR TETIS, 500 rue JF Breton UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista Ecology Department – LabTerra, Av.24-A, 1515 CEP Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas (CADIC CONICET), Houssay 200, Ushuaia (9140) IBRAD (Indian Institute of Bio Social Research and Development), VIP Road, Kestopur, Prafulla Kanan Department of Environmental Sciences, P.O. Box 65, FI-00014 University of Helsinki Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI), P.O.Box 20412-0200 Basque Centre for Climate Change, Alameda de Urquijo 4 INCLINE – Interdisciplinary Climate Change Research Group Instituto de Astronomia e Geofísica USP – Universidade de São Paulo, R. do Matão, 1226 – Butantã Wageningen University & Research – Marine (WUR), P.O.Box 57 IRIDRA, Via La Marmora Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute (IMIM) PRBB, Carrer Doctor Aiguader 88 UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista Ecology Department – LabTerra, Av.24-A, 1515 CEP

Made available in DSpace on 2018-12-11T17:17:07Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2018-02-01 The operational challenges of integrated ecosystem service (ES) appraisals are determined by study purpose, system complexity and uncertainty, decision-makers’ requirements for reliability and accuracy of methods, and approaches to stakeholder–science interaction in different decision contexts. To explore these factors we defined an information gap hypothesis, based on a theory of cumulative uncertainty in ES appraisals. When decision context requirements for accuracy and reliability increase, and the expected uncertainty of the ES appraisal methods also increases, the likelihood of methods being used is expected to drop, creating a potential information gap in governance. In order to test this information gap hypothesis, we evaluate 26 case studies and 80 ecosystem services appraisals in a large integrated EU research project. We find some support for a decreasing likelihood of ES appraisal methods coinciding with increasing accuracy and reliability requirements of the decision-support context, and with increasing uncertainty. We do not find that information costs are the explanation for this information gap, but rather that the research project interacted mostly with stakeholders outside the most decision-relevant contexts. The paper discusses how alternative definitions of integrated valuation can lead to different interpretations of decision-support information, and different governance approaches to dealing with uncertainty. Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Gaustadalléen 21 Environmental Social Science Research Group (ESSRG Ltd.), Rómer Flóris u.38 Department of Decision Sciences Corvinus University of Budapest, Fővám tér 8 Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Bush Estate, Penicuik Leuphana University of Lüneburg Faculty of Sustainability Institute of Ethics and Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research, Scharnhorststraβe 1 Department of International Environment and Development Studies (Noragric) Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), P.O. Box 5003, N-1432 Ås Research Group Nature and Society Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Kliniekstraat 25 Wageningen University and Research Environmental Research (Alterra), P.O. Box 47 ENVS Aarhus University Department of Applied Research and Agricultural Extension Madrid Institute for Rural Agricultural and Food Research and Development (IMIDRA) Ctra. Madrid-Barcelona (N-II), KM. 38.200, 28802 Alcalá de Henares Finnish Environment Institute, P.O. Box 140 Environmental Change Institute, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Road Centre for Ecology & Hydrology Maclean Building, Benson Lane, Crowmarsh Gifford Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Postboks 5685 Torgarden Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3) Scientific Campus of the University of the Basque Country, Sede Building 1, 1st Floor Department of Environmental Sciences, P.O. Box 65, FI-00014 University of Helsinki Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA) Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) Edifici Z (ICTA-ICP), Carrer de les Columnes s/n, Campus de la UAB, 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès Wageningen University and Research Marine Research (IMARES), P.O. Box 57, 1780 AB, Den Helder, Wageningen Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Tr. A. Hlinku 1 Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Permoserstraße 15 National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture IRSTEA UMR TETIS, 500 rue JF BRETON CENSE – Centre for Environmental and Sustainability Research Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia Universidade Nova de Lisboa Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI), P.O. Box 20412-0200 Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas (CADIC CONICET), Houssay 200, Ushuaia (9140) Tierra del Fuego Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation Energy and Environment Division Parque Tecnológico de Bizkaia C/Geldo, Edificio 700 National Institute for Research and Development in Forestry “Marin Dracea”, Eroilor Blvd 128 Institute of Ecology and Botany MTA Centre for Ecological Research, Alkotmány u. 2-4. IRIDRA Srl, Via La Marmora, 51 University of Bucharest – Research Center in Systems Ecology and Sustainability, Splaiul Independentei 91-95 IBRAD (Indian Institute of Bio Social Research and Development), VIP Road, Kestopur, Prafulla Kanan UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista Ecology Department – LabTerra, Av.24-A, 1515 CEP, 13506-900 UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista Ecology Department – LabTerra, Av.24-A, 1515 CEP, 13506-900

Made available in DSpace on 2018-12-11T17:15:22Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2018-02-01 The ecosystem service (ES) concept is becoming mainstream in policy and planning, but operational influence on practice is seldom reported. Here, we report the practitioners’ perspectives on the practical implementation of the ES concept in 27 case studies. A standardised anonymous survey (n = 246), was used, focusing on the science-practice interaction process, perceived impact and expected use of the case study assessments. Operationalisation of the concept was shown to achieve a gradual change in practices: 13% of the case studies reported a change in action (e.g. management or policy change), and a further 40% anticipated that a change would result from the work. To a large extent the impact was attributed to a well conducted science-practice interaction process (>70%). The main reported advantages of the concept included: increased concept awareness and communication; enhanced participation and collaboration; production of comprehensive science-based knowledge; and production of spatially referenced knowledge for input to planning (91% indicated they had acquired new knowledge). The limitations were mostly case-specific and centred on methodology, data, and challenges with result implementation. The survey highlighted the crucial role of communication, participation and collaboration across different stakeholders, to implement the ES concept and enhance the democratisation of nature and landscape planning. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Bush Estate Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Kliniekstraat 25 Social-ecological Systems Lab Department of Ecology Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Calle Darwin no. 2, Campus de Cantoblanco Finnish Environment Institute, P.O. Box 140 Institute of Landscape Ecology Slovak Academy of Sciences, Akademická 2 Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences Constantine the Philosopher University, Trieda A. Hlinku 1 Environmental Social Science Research Group (ESSRG Ltd.), Rómer Flóris u. 38. Department of Decision Sciences Corvinus University of Budapest, Fővám tér 8. Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Permoserstraße 15 CoKnow Consulting – Coproducing Knowledge for Sustainability, Jesewitz CENSE – Centre for Environmental and Sustainability Research Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia Universidade Nova de Lisboa, 2829-516 Caparica Institute of Ecology and Botany MTA Centre for Ecological Research, Alkotmány u. 2-4. Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA) Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) Edifici Z (ICTA-ICP), Carrer de les Columnes s/n, Campus de la UAB Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Gaustadalléen 21 Environmental Change Institute, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Road Wageningen University and Research Environmental Research (Alterra), P.O. Box 47 European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, 57 rue Cuvier, FR-75231 Paris Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Maclean Building, Benson Lane, Crowmarsh Gifford Urban Environment and Territorial Sustainability Area Energy and Environment Dividision Parque Tecnológico de Bizkaia C/Geldo, Edificio 700 University of Bucharest - Research Center in Systems Ecology and Sustainability, Splaiul Independentei 91-95 European Commission – Joint Research Centre (JRC), Via E. Fermi 2749 Institute of Landscape Ecology Slovak Academy of Sciences, Štefánikova 3 UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista Ecology Department – LabTerra, Av. 24-A, 1515 CEP: 13506-900, Rio Claro IRSTEA National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture UMR TETIS, 500 rue JF BRETON Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas (CADIC CONICET), Houssay 200 Leuphana University of Lüneburg Faculty of Sustainability Institute of Ethics and Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research, Scharnhorststraβe 1 IBRAD (Indian Institute of Bio Social Research and Development), VIP Road, Kestopur, Prafulla Kanan Department of Environmental Sciences, P.O. Box 65, FI-00014 University of Helsinki Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI), P.O. Box 20412-0200 Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), CC 332 (9400), Río Gallegos Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral (UNPA) Río Gallegos Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) INCLINE – Interdisciplinary Climate Change Research Group Instituto de Astronomia e Geofísica USP – Universidade de São Paulo, R. do Matão, 1226 - Butantã Wageningen University & Research – Marine (WUR), P.O. Box 57 National Institute for Research and Development in Forestry “Marin Dracea”, Eroilor Blvd 128 Institute of Nature Conservation and Landscape Management Szent István University, Páter Károly u. 1. Norwegian University of Life Science (NMBU), Universitetstunet 3 Department of Applied Research and Agricultural Extension Madrid Institute for Rural Agricultural and Food Research and Development (IMIDRA), Ctra. Madrid-Barcelona (N-II), KM. 38.200, 28802 Alcalá De Henares Department of International Environment and Development Studies (Noragric) Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), P.O. Box 5003 Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Fakkelgården VISTA Analyse A/S, Meltzers gate 4 University of Girona, Plaça de Sant Domènec, 3 Basque Centre for Climate Change, Alameda de Urquijo 4 Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Postboks 5685 Sluppen De Økonomiske Råd, Amaliegade 44 UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista Ecology Department – LabTerra, Av. 24-A, 1515 CEP: 13506-900, Rio Claro

A range of methods are available for assessing ecosystem services. Methods differ in their aims; from mapping and modelling the supply and demand of ecosystem services to appraising their economic and non-economic importance through valuation techniques. Comprehensive guidance for the selection of appropriate ecosystem service assessment methods that address the requirements of different decision-making contexts is lacking. This paper tackles this gap using the experience from 27 case studies which applied different biophysical, socio-cultural and monetary valuation methods to operationalise the ecosystem service concept towards sustainable land, water and urban management. A survey of the reasons why the case study teams selected particular methods revealed that stakeholder-oriented reasons, such as stakeholder participation, inclusion of local knowledge and ease of communication, and decision-oriented reasons, such as the purpose of the case study and the ecosystem services at stake, were key considerations in selecting a method. Pragmatic reasons such as available data, resources and expertise were also important factors. This information was used to develop a set of linked decision trees, which aim to provide guidance to researchers and practitioners in choosing ecosystem service assessment methods that are suitable for their context.

International audience; Nine Bayesian Belief Networks (BBNs) were developed within the OpenNESS project specifically for modelling ecosystem services for case study applications. The novelty of the method, its ability to explore problems, to address uncertainty, and to facilitate stakeholder interaction in the process were all reasons for choosing BBNs. Most case studies had some local expertise on BBNs to assist them, and all used expert opinion as well as data to help develop the dependences in the BBNs. In terms of the decision scope of the work, all case studies were moving from explorative and informative uses towards decisive, but none were yet being used for decision-making. Three applications incorporated BBNs with GIS where the spatial component of the management was critical, but several concerns about estimating uncertainty with spatial modelling approaches are discussed. The tool proved to be very flexible and, particularly with its web interface, was an asset when working with stakeholders to facilitate exploration of outcomes, knowledge elicitation and social learning. BBNs were rated as very useful and widely applicable by the case studies that used them, but further improvements in software and more training were also deemed necessary.

Progress towards sustainable development ultimately depends on policy makers' and practitioners' capacities to protect Natural Capital (NC) stocks so that they are not exploited beyond Earth's capability to renew them. This involves a sound understanding of the benefits and values derived by society from NC and ecosystem services (ES). Scientific evidence to support this understanding is growing rapidly, but access to the data, methods, tools and expertise that underpins this evidence base is fragmented, particularly at the science - policy - practice interfaces. Two large EU research projects have therefore developed a joint knowledge platform - called Oppla - aimed at providing access to a wide range of resources on NC and ES. This new approach in the EU Research Area aims not only at integrating knowledge into one single platform, but also at making this knowledge operational amongst communities of science, policy and practice. Furthermore, it fosters the more efficient use of research funds by providing an open and freely available platform in which existing and new NC and ES projects can integrate their outcomes. This paper focuses on the knowledge integration and some guidance tools within Oppla to help users to find research outcomes.

International audience; In environmental valuation, although it is well recognised that the choice of method heavily affects the outcome, little is known on how existing valuation methods actually elicit the different values. Through the assessment of real-life applications of valuation of nature, this study tracks down the suitability of 21 valuation methods for 11 value types and assesses the methodological requirements for their operationalization. We found that different valuation methods have different suitabilities to elicit diverse value-types. Some methods are more specialized than others, but every method has blind spots, which implies risks of biased decision-making. We summarized different value-types according to three value dimensions: non-anthropocentric, relational and instrumental. No single valuation method is able to capture this full spectrum of values of nature. Covering all value dimensions requires careful selection of complementary valuation methods. This study also demonstrates that performing such an integrated valuation does not necessarily entail more resources, as for every value dimension, methods with low to medium operational requirements are available. With this study, we aim to provide guidance for selecting a complementary set of valuation methods in order to develop integrated valuation in practice that includes values of all stakeholders into environmental decision-making. In special issue synthesizing OpenNESS.

Despite the widespread use of the concept of ecosystem services, there is still much uncertainty over the precise understanding of basic terms such as ‘ecosystem services’, ‘benefits’ and ‘values’. This paper examines alternative ways of defining and classifying ecosystem services by using the specific example of boreal forests in Finland. We find the notion of final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS) operable, and suggest using it in economic valuation and other priority setting contexts, as well as in the selection of indicators. However, in the context of awareness raising it might be more effective to retain the well-established terminology of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Our analysis shows that the cascade model ( Potschin and Haines-Young, 2011. Progress in Physical Geography 35(5), 575–594 ) is helpful in distinguishing between ecosystem structures, processes, services, benefits and values by making the sequence of links visible. Johnston and Russell’s (2011. Ecological Economics 70(12), 2243–2249) operational mechanism for determining FEGSs proves also instrumental in separating intermediate (e.g. carbon sequestration) and final ecosystem services (e.g. reduction of atmospheric carbon). However, we find their definition of importance, which is based on willingness to pay, too narrow. Furthermore, we favour the CICES approach, which defines ecosystem services as the direct contributions that ecosystems – whether natural or semi-natural – make to human well-being.

Nature is perceived and valued in starkly different and oftenconflicting ways. This paper presents the rationale for theinclusive valuation of nature's contributions to people (NCP) indecision making, as well as broad methodological steps fordoing so. While developed within the context of theIntergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), this approach is more widely applicable toinitiatives at the knowledge?policy interface, which require apluralistic approach to recognizing the diversity of values. Weargue that transformative practices aiming at sustainablefutures would benefit from embracing such diversity, which require recognizing and addressing power relationships across stake holder groups that hold different values on human nature relations and NCP Fil: Pascual, Unai. University Of Cambridge; Reino Unido Fil: Balvanera, Patricia. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; México Fil: Díaz, Sandra Myrna. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina Fil: Pataki, György. Corvinus University of Budapest; Hungría Fil: Roth, Eva. University of Southern Denmark; Dinamarca Fil: Stenseke, Marie. University Goteborg; Suecia Fil: Watson, Robert T.. University of East Anglia; Reino Unido Fil: Basak Dessane, Esra. Project House; Turquía Fil: Islar, Mine. Lund University; Suecia Fil: Kelemen, Eszter. Environmental Social Science Research Group; Hungría Fil: Maris, Virginie. Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive; Francia Fil: Quaas, Martin. Kiel University; Alemania Fil: Subramanian, Suneetha M. United Nations University; Japón Fil: Wittmer, Heidi. Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research; Alemania Fil: Adlan, Asia. University of Khartoum; Sudán Fil: Ahn, SoEun. Korea Environment Institute; Corea del Sur Fil: Al-Hafedh, Yousef S. King Abdulaziz City for Science & Technology; Arabia Saudita Fil: Amankwah, Edward. Center for Environmental Governance; Ghana Fil: Berry, Pam. University of Washington; Estados Unidos Fil: Bilgin, Adem. University of Oxford; Reino Unido Fil: Breslow, Sara J. Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs of Turkey; Turquía Fil: Bullock, Craig. University College Dublin; Reino Unido Fil: Caceres, Daniel Mario. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias. Departamento de Desarrollo Rural; Argentina Fil: Daly-Hassen, Hamed. University of Carthage; Túnez Fil: Figueroa, Eugenio. Universidad de Chile; Chile Fil: van den Belt, Marjan. Victoria University of Wellington; Nueva Zelanda Fil: Verma, Madhu. Indian Institute of Forest Management; India Fil: Wickson, Fern. GenØk Centre for Biosafety, Siva innovasjonssenter; Noruega Fil: Yagi, Noboyuki. The University of Tokyo; Japón

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.

The paper seeks to shed new light on both the dynamics and possibilities for resolving complex land use conflicts by examining the development of the Great Bear Rainforest (GBR) Agreement in British Columbia, Canada. This agreement signalled a major policy change in the region by increasing the protection of old growth forests from 9% to 33% of the total planning area and by promoting more environmentally friendly logging practices though the establishment of ecosystem-based management. It also gave rise to new land use planning relationships between the Province and First Nations. Our analysis shows that ‘success’ in reaching agreement in land use conflicts can be better understood when political science's work on policy regimes and their background conditions is combined with planning theory's work on deliberative processes. We suggest that collaborative planning theory can complement the policy regime approach by highlighting how process design and the interactions that occur within policy arenas provide the physical and organisational spaces for dialogue, collaboration and policy change. The policy regime approach, on the other hand, helps draws attention to the dynamics of policy processes and consequent changes in governance relations that motivate actors to work together, instead of against each other.

The EU Water Framework Directive introduces the principle of integrated river basin management, incorporating both the idea of spatial fit between ecosystems and social systems and a requirement to integrate water management across scales and sectors. In designing their implementation setups, member states must therefore address both the roles of different institutional actors and the interplay among institutions. In this paper, we will explore strengths and weaknesses of different institutional arrangements for integrated water management through a comparative analysis of river basin management planning processes in six countries around the Baltic Sea. We use theories on multi-level governance, regime interplay and institutional effectiveness. We find that, in most cases, central governments have played a dominant role in the formulation of river basin management plans, while local influence has been somewhat limited. The tight procedural deadlines of the directive appear to have pushed for more centralisation than originally intended by the countries. But the analysis also shows that interplay mechanisms such as norms, ideas and incentives do promote effective institutional interplay and may serve to overcome coordination problems of implementation structures. Moreover, it is expected that institutional interplay will improve over time resulting in more integrated management.

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 article explores the interdependence of state, civil society, and market actors in resolving environmental conflicts through new governance arrangements. Based on policy documents and in-depth interviews, the study shows that the government-led Land and Resource Management Plans concerning the coastal rainforests in British Columbia depended for their success on governance efforts that environmental organizations and forestry corporations initiated and carried through independently outside the formal planning processes. These nonstate actors, on the other hand, chose to engage with the provincial government, the First Nations, and the planning processes representing a large number of stakeholders, in order to gain the necessary legitimacy, certainty, and resources for the solutions created during their bilateral negotiations. The results show that when able to consciously coordinate separate processes and roles in the governance of forests, actors can create space for new solutions in seemingly intrac...

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.

Land use planning was modernised in Finland at the turn of the millennium. Simultaneously, river basin planning based on the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) markedly changed the environmental goals for water bodies. The WFD’s main objective is to achieve good ecological status in all water bodies by the year 2015. To meet this objective, traditional water protection measures are planned for preventing and reducing eutrophication in water bodies suffering from diffuse pollution, which is the major obstacle reaching a good ecological status in Finnish waterbodies. The need for an alternative and broader selection of water protection methods is nevertheless evident due to the low efficiency and high costs of traditional means. We have studied the potential to integrate water protection objectives into land use planning and found several interfaces between river basin planning and land use planning in Finland. The emphasis is on the prevention of diffuse pollution originating from different land use practices. Our study highlights the linkages between the two planning processes and proposes ideas for further integration by drawing on the experiences gained from two pilot studies focusing mainly on water protection measures, which provide support to achieving the ecological objectives of WFD.

The paper analyses stakeholder involvement and public participation in preparing Regional Forest Programmes (RFP) in Finland. Such programmes establish the outlines for regional forest management, setting targets and action plans for industrial timber use, non-wood production, recreational activities, and nature conservation in each region. Our analysis suggests that the RFP process has brought together a significant cross-section of actors who meet on a regular basis. Hence, it has become an institutionalised cooperation between key stakeholder organisations. It has facilitated information exchange and learning about issues pertaining to forest management practices, timber markets, and protection of biodiversity. Engaging the general public in the RFP process has, however, been mostly ineffectual. The process has also fallen short of the expectations to reconcile different perspectives and produce jointly accepted strategies. The biggest challenges lie in finding approaches to address conflicts constructively and to draw up a RFP that will contribute to actual changes in forest management activities.

Participation is seen as an important aspect of sustainable forest management (SFM). Especially important are the policy processes, where the effectiveness of the policy is determined by the commitment of the stakeholders to the selected policy. There are, however, different opinions as to what constitutes a successful participatory process. In this study, we analysed the stakeholder perspectives about proper participation process in Regional Forest Programme preparation in Finland using Q-methodology. We found four different perspectives: pragmatic consensus-seekers, reformers, expertise-oriented actors and participation sceptics. The pragmatists seek for consensus, but purely on traditional forestry issues. The reformers, on the other hand, wanted to introduce other aspects into the process and opposed the dominant position of the traditional forestry network in the RFP process. The expertise-oriented group was ready to discuss different aspects, but wanted to promote the power of experts. The sceptics wanted to allocate the minimum effort to participation. The results suggest that framing and organizing the process, reaching commitment, roles of different information, and the ways of taking into account the views of general public should be emphasized in future RFP's.

Environmental sociologists are faced with an epistemological dilemma: the ideal of objective and neutral science has lost its credibility, yet the notion of scientific knowledge as a purely social construct without any access to truth is troubling as well, threatening to lead to the ‘abyss of relativism’ in which it is not possible to differentiate between more or less reliable claims about the environment. This paper will suggest that a revision of scientific realism by two feminist theorists, Louise Antony and Lynn Nelson, will help environmental sociologists out of the trap of relativism without committing them to an objectivist notion of knowledge; instead, it emphasises the epistemological value of ‘biases’ and therefore promotes democratic and reflexive processes which are open to various forms of knowledge and ways of reasoning.

The author discusses the notion of environmental controversies as frame conflicts through a case study of the waste-policy dialogue in Finland. The argument that intractable policy controversies result from internally consistent but incompatible normative – prescriptive scripts which name and frame problems differently is explored. Different waste-policy frames are identified and it is suggested that these frames do indeed contribute to the stubbornness of on-going debate on incineration versus waste reduction. However, the importance of interest, identities, and ineffectual communication in these controversies is also highlighted, and it is suggested that consensus building can result in practical agreements even in the face of seemingly incompatible frames.

This article proposes that a feminist interpretation of naturalized epistemology provides a sound basis for a deliberative planning approach. It preserves the grounds for making reasoned choices between competing validity claims while promoting a view of planning as a diverse and deliberative enterprise attentive to various ways of knowing and modes of expression. The solution is based on a revised notion of objectivity that emphasizes the important function of biases—values, experiences, and contextual commitments—in “truth tracking.”

More than 20 ordinances on waste have been issued in Finland since the National Waste Act came into force in 1994. Effects and effectiveness of this regulation have recently been analysed in an R&D project called WAPO. The materials and methods used in WAPO were mainly based on case studies on regional and company scales. According to WAPO, the infrastructure of waste management and the recovery of wastes have greatly improved in Finland in the 1990s. By contrast, the waste policy has not been able to upgrade waste prevention, the primary objective in the hierarchy defined by the Finnish Waste Act and the EUs waste policy. To overcome this drawback, the use of economic policy instruments are recommended to be extended and directed towards enhancing efficient use of natural resources and materials. Self-regulation within industry, e.g. the use of environmental management systems (EMSs), is one solution that has been proposed as an alternative to more intensive use of economic instruments. Although the attitudes and experiences of enterprises with respect to EMSs are positive, their real influence on company behaviour needs to be further studied. Extended producer responsibility (EPR) systems in waste management appear to have great potential. However, their main effect hitherto has been intensified recovery of waste. This fact may have influenced the slightly dissatisfied general attitude towards the Finnish EPR systems. New initiatives are needed in waste policy because the amounts of waste in Finland, as well as in other parts of Europe, are continually growing. Simultaneously, the scope of policy should be drastically broadened from mere wastes to society's overall cycles of materials and products.