IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v22y2016ipap41-50.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effective arguments for ecosystem services in biodiversity conservation – A case study on Finnish peatland conservation

Author

Listed:
  • Albrecht, Eerika
  • Ratamäki, Outi

Abstract

Political and socially constructed arguments about values and benefits originating from ecosystem services (ES) may improve the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation. In this article we show how effective biodiversity conservation is dependent on stakeholders’ rhetorical skills and their ability to introduce persuasive arguments for the target audience. We present a case study of a lengthy conflict to protect a mire area located in Eastern Finland. We follow locally constructed arguments and analyse their effectiveness with different audiences. Research data consist of interviews, newspaper articles and legal documents. Employing content analysis, we study the ES identified by different stakeholders and analyse the effectiveness and sources of arguments presented on behalf of those services. We differentiate between legal and political effectiveness as many ES arguments were effective in sustaining the prolonged conflict locally but ineffective in administrative courts. Legislation and scientific evidence are identified as the main sources for an effective argument in legal proceedings. This case is an example of how local residents require support from scientists in order to formulate effective arguments for legal audiences. Valid arguments for legal institutions are based on the protection of individual species or biotypes whereas political processes are more responsive to local ES valuations.

Suggested Citation

  • Albrecht, Eerika & Ratamäki, Outi, 2016. "Effective arguments for ecosystem services in biodiversity conservation – A case study on Finnish peatland conservation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 41-50.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:22:y:2016:i:pa:p:41-50
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041616303254
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Primmer, Eeva & Furman, Eeva, 2012. "Operationalising ecosystem service approaches for governance: Do measuring, mapping and valuing integrate sector-specific knowledge systems?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 85-92.
    2. Primmer, Eeva & Jokinen, Pekka & Blicharska, Malgorzata & Barton, David N. & Bugter, Rob & Potschin, Marion, 2015. "Governance of Ecosystem Services: A framework for empirical analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 158-166.
    3. Vivien A. Schmidt, 2013. "Democracy and Legitimacy in the European Union Revisited: Input, Output and ‘Throughput’," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 61(1), pages 2-22, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Saarikoski, Heli & Mustajoki, Jyri, 2021. "Valuation through deliberation - Citizens' panels on peatland ecosystem services in Finland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    2. Saarikoski, Heli & Mustajoki, Jyri & Hjerppe, Turo & Aapala, Kaisu, 2019. "Participatory multi-criteria decision analysis in valuing peatland ecosystem services—Trade-offs related to peat extraction vs. pristine peatlands in Southern Finland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 17-28.
    3. Mustajoki, Jyri & Saarikoski, Heli & Belton, Valerie & Hjerppe, Turo & Marttunen, Mika, 2020. "Utilizing ecosystem service classifications in multi-criteria decision analysis – Experiences of peat extraction case in Finland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    4. Primmer, Eeva & Saarikoski, Heli & Vatn, Arild, 2018. "An Empirical Analysis of Institutional Demand for Valuation Knowledge," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 152-160.
    5. Maczka, Krzysztof & Chmielewski, Piotr & Jeran, Agnieszka & Matczak, Piotr & van Riper, Carena J., 2019. "The ecosystem services concept as a tool for public participation in management of Poland’s Natura 2000 network," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 173-183.
    6. Saarikoski, Heli & Aapala, Kaisu & Artell, Janne & Grammatikopoulou, Ioanna & Hjerppe, Turo & Lehtoranta, Virpi & Mustajoki, Jyri & Pouta, Eija & Primmer, Eeva & Vatn, Arild, 2022. "Multimethod valuation of peatland ecosystem services: Combining choice experiment, multicriteria decision analysis and deliberative valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    7. Juutinen, Artti & Saarimaa, Miia & Ojanen, Paavo & Sarkkola, Sakari & Haara, Arto & Karhu, Jouni & Nieminen, Mika & Minkkinen, Kari & Penttilä, Timo & Laatikainen, Matti & Tolvanen, Anne, 2019. "Trade-offs between economic returns, biodiversity, and ecosystem services in the selection of energy peat production sites," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    8. Eerika Albrecht, 2018. "Discursive Struggle and Agency—Updating the Finnish Peatland Conservation Network," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-16, September.
    9. Felix Ekardt & Benedikt Jacobs & Jessica Stubenrauch & Beatrice Garske, 2020. "Peatland Governance: The Problem of Depicting in Sustainability Governance, Regulatory Law, and Economic Instruments," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-24, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mannetti, Lelani M. & Göttert, Thomas & Zeller, Ulrich & Esler, Karen J., 2017. "Expanding the protected area network in Namibia: An institutional analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PB), pages 207-218.
    2. Dunning, Kelly H., 2021. "Adaptive governance of recreational ecosystem services following a major hurricane," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    3. Sarkki, Simo & Karjalainen, Timo P., 2015. "Ecosystem service valuation in a governance debate: Practitioners' strategic argumentation on forestry in northern Finland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 13-22.
    4. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    5. Falk, Thomas & Spangenberg, Joachim H. & Siegmund-Schultze, Marianna & Kobbe, Susanne & Feike, Til & Kuebler, Daniel & Settele, Josef & Vorlaufer, Tobias, 2018. "Identifying governance challenges in ecosystem services management – Conceptual considerations and comparison of global forest cases," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PB), pages 193-203.
    6. Sattler, Claudia & Loft, Lasse & Mann, Carsten & Meyer, Claas, 2018. "Methods in ecosystem services governance analysis: An introduction," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 155-168.
    7. Keenan, Rodney J. & Pozza, Greg & Fitzsimons, James A., 2019. "Ecosystem services in environmental policy: Barriers and opportunities for increased adoption," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    8. Paavola, Jouni & Primmer, Eeva, 2019. "Governing the Provision of Insurance Value From Ecosystems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    9. Primmer, Eeva & Varumo, Liisa & Krause, Torsten & Orsi, Francesco & Geneletti, Davide & Brogaard, Sara & Aukes, Ewert & Ciolli, Marco & Grossmann, Carol & Hernández-Morcillo, Mónica & Kister, Jutta , 2021. "Mapping Europe’s institutional landscape for forest ecosystem service provision, innovations and governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    10. Sara Khoshkar & Monica Hammer & Sara Borgström & Berit Balfors, 2020. "Ways Forward for Advancing Ecosystem Services in Municipal Planning—Experiences from Stockholm County," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-16, August.
    11. Jax, Kurt & Furman, Eeva & Saarikoski, Heli & Barton, David N. & Delbaere, Ben & Dick, Jan & Duke, Guy & Görg, Christoph & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Harrison, Paula A. & Maes, Joachim & Pérez-Soba, M, 2018. "Handling a messy world: Lessons learned when trying to make the ecosystem services concept operational," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 415-427.
    12. Primmer, Eeva & Saarikoski, Heli & Vatn, Arild, 2018. "An Empirical Analysis of Institutional Demand for Valuation Knowledge," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 152-160.
    13. Maczka, Krzysztof & Matczak, Piotr & Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Rechciński, Marcin & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Cent, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2016. "Application of the ecosystem services concept in environmental policy—A systematic empirical analysis of national level policy documents in Poland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 169-176.
    14. Richard Hyman & Rebecca Gumbrell-McCormick, 2020. "(How) can international trade union organisations be democratic?," Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, , vol. 26(3), pages 253-272, August.
    15. Christoph Engel & Luigi Mittone & Azzurra Morreale, 2024. "Outcomes or participation? Experimentally testing competing sources of legitimacy for taxation," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 62(2), pages 563-583, April.
    16. Alexander Kentikelenis & Erik Voeten, 2021. "Legitimacy challenges to the liberal world order: Evidence from United Nations speeches, 1970–2018," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 721-754, October.
    17. Isuru Koswatte & Chandrika Fernando, 2022. "Policy Development for Crisis Management in the Context of Sri Lanka," Managing Global Transitions, University of Primorska, Faculty of Management Koper, vol. 20(3 (Fall)), pages 295-327.
    18. John R. Moodie & Viktor Salenius & Michael Kull, 2022. "From impact assessments towards proactive citizen engagement in EU cohesion policy," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(5), pages 1113-1132, October.
    19. Marlous Blankesteijn & Bart Bossink, 2020. "Assessing the Legitimacy of Technological Innovation in the Public Sphere: Recovering Raw Materials from Waste Water," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-16, November.
    20. Nikitas Konstantinidis & Konstantinos Matakos & Hande Mutlu-Eren, 2019. "“Take back control”? The effects of supranational integration on party-system polarization," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 297-333, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:22:y:2016:i:pa:p:41-50. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.