IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v92y2020ics0264837717314357.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Context sensitive policy instruments: A multi-criteria decision analysis for safeguarding forest habitats in Southwestern Finland

Author

Listed:
  • Sironen, Susanna
  • Primmer, Eeva
  • Leskinen, Pekka
  • Similä, Jukka
  • Punttila, Pekka

Abstract

Environmental and conservation decisions are often complex, which results in complexity also in policy assessments. Conservation decisions have implications for different stakeholders and typically draw on multidisciplinary knowledge bases, incorporating natural, physical and social sciences, politics and ethics. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is a potentially important tool for supporting conservation policy decisions. This article reports a spatially referenced MCDA of policy instrument scenarios for conserving forest biodiversity in Southwestern Finland. The effects of the realistic policy instruments designed in dialogue with stakeholders included voluntary permanent conservation, enforced spatially concentrated permanent conservation, voluntary permanent conservation with active nature management, and voluntary temporary conservation. These instruments were compared by combining forest-owner survey, MCDA and ex ante impact evaluation. The main objective was to find the forest biodiversity conservation instrument that would produce the highest total benefit. The effects of the different instruments were evaluated with ecological, economic, social, and institutional criteria after a 20-year time period. The results showed minor differences between the instruments, with voluntary permanent and voluntary temporary conservation producing the largest total benefit. Despite the small differences, the analysis was robust in showing that voluntary instruments were more favourable than enforced permanent conservation.

Suggested Citation

  • Sironen, Susanna & Primmer, Eeva & Leskinen, Pekka & Similä, Jukka & Punttila, Pekka, 2020. "Context sensitive policy instruments: A multi-criteria decision analysis for safeguarding forest habitats in Southwestern Finland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:92:y:2020:i:c:s0264837717314357
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104460
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837717314357
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104460?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 & Paloniemi, Riikka & Similä, Jukka & Tainio, Anna, 2014. "Forest owner perceptions of institutions and voluntary contracting for biodiversity conservation: Not crowding out but staying out," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 1-10.
    2. Hauck, Jennifer & Görg, Christoph & Varjopuro, Riku & Ratamäki, Outi & Maes, Joachim & Wittmer, Heidi & Jax, Kurt, 2013. "“Maps have an air of authority†: Potential benefits and challenges of ecosystem service maps at different levels of decision making," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 25-32.
    3. Keeney,Ralph L. & Raiffa,Howard, 1993. "Decisions with Multiple Objectives," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521438834.
    4. Eiswerth, Mark E. & Haney, J. Christopher, 2001. "Maximizing conserved biodiversity: why ecosystem indicators and thresholds matter," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 259-274, August.
    5. Jacobs, Sander & Dendoncker, Nicolas & Martín-López, Berta & Barton, David Nicholas & Gomez-Baggethun, Erik & Boeraeve, Fanny & McGrath, Francesca L. & Vierikko, Kati & Geneletti, Davide & Sevecke, , 2016. "A new valuation school: Integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 213-220.
    6. Coggan, Anthea & Whitten, Stuart M. & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Influences of transaction costs in environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1777-1784, July.
    7. Strager, Michael P. & Rosenberger, Randall S., 2006. "Incorporating stakeholder preferences for land conservation: Weights and measures in spatial MCA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 627-639, June.
    8. Strager, Michael P. & Rosenberger, Randall S., 2006. "Incorporating stakeholder preferences for land conservation: Weights and measures in spatial MCA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 79-92, June.
    9. Ralph L. Keeney, 1982. "Feature Article—Decision Analysis: An Overview," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 803-838, October.
    10. Juutinen, Artti & Mäntymaa, Erkki & Ollikainen, Markku, 2013. "Landowners’ conservation motives and the size of information rents in environmental bidding systems," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 128-148.
    11. Lindhjem, Henrik & Mitani, Yohei, 2012. "Forest owners’ willingness to accept compensation for voluntary conservation: A contingent valuation approach," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 290-302.
    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. Takala, Tuomo & Brockhaus, Maria & Hujala, Teppo & Tanskanen, Minna & Lehtinen, Ari & Tikkanen, Jukka & Toppinen, Anne, 2022. "Discursive barriers to voluntary biodiversity conservation: The case of Finnish forest owners," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    2. Idiano D’Adamo & Massimo Gastaldi, 2022. "Sustainable Development Goals: A Regional Overview Based on Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-15, August.
    3. Zhang, Huiming & Huang, Jiying & Hu, Ruohan & Zhou, Dequn & Khan, Haroon ur Rashid & Ma, Changxian, 2020. "Echelon utilization of waste power batteries in new energy vehicles: Review of Chinese policies," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    4. Cruz-Daraviña, Paola Andrea & Bocarejo Suescún, Juan Pablo, 2021. "Freight operations in city centers: A land use conflict in urban planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    5. Mónica de Castro-Pardo & João C. Azevedo, 2021. "A Goal Programming Model to Guide Decision-Making Processes towards Conservation Consensuses," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-25, February.
    6. D’Adamo, Idiano & Gastaldi, Massimo & Ioppolo, Giuseppe & Morone, Piergiuseppe, 2022. "An analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in Italian cities: Performance measurements and policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).

    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. Susanna Sironen & Laura Mononen, 2018. "Spatially Referenced Decision Analysis of Long-Term Forest Management Scenarios in Southwestern Finland," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-46, September.
    2. Miljand, Matilda & Bjärstig, Therese & Eckerberg, Katarina & Primmer, Eeva & Sandström, Camilla, 2021. "Voluntary agreements to protect private forests – A realist review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    3. Volker Meyer & Sebastian Scheuer & Dagmar Haase, 2009. "A multicriteria approach for flood risk mapping exemplified at the Mulde river, Germany," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 48(1), pages 17-39, January.
    4. Parnphumeesup, Piya & Kerr, Sandy A., 2011. "Stakeholder preferences towards the sustainable development of CDM projects: Lessons from biomass (rice husk) CDM project in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3591-3601, June.
    5. Blackstock, K.L. & Kelly, G.J. & Horsey, B.L., 2007. "Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 726-742, February.
    6. Mäntymaa, Erkki & Juutinen, Artti & Tyrväinen, Liisa & Karhu, Jouni & Kurttila, Mikko, 2018. "Participation and compensation claims in voluntary forest landscape conservation: The case of the Ruka-Kuusamo tourism area, Finland," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 14-24.
    7. Palola, Pirta & Bailey, Richard & Wedding, Lisa, 2022. "A novel framework to operationalise value-pluralism in environmental valuation: Environmental value functions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    8. Rabotyagov, Sergey S. & Lin, Sonja, 2013. "Small forest landowner preferences for working forest conservation contract attributes: A case of Washington State, USA," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 307-330.
    9. Maria Cerreta & Pasquale De Toro, 2012. "Strategic Environmental Assessment of Port Plans in Italy: Experiences, Approaches, Tools," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(11), pages 1-34, November.
    10. Jinyang Deng & David Dyre, 2009. "Linking Tourism Resources and Local Economic Benefits: A Spatial Analysis in West Virginia," Working Papers Working Paper 2009-06, Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University.
    11. Jared Abigail Valencia-Salvador & Fabio Humberto Sepúlveda-Murillo & Miguel Alfonso Flores-Sánchez & Norely Margarita Soto Builes, 2022. "Spatial Distribution of Social Inequality in the Metropolitan District of Quito, Ecuador," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 163(2), pages 753-769, September.
    12. Angelis, Aris & Kanavos, Panos, 2017. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for evaluating new medicines in Health Technology Assessment and beyond: The Advance Value Framework," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 137-156.
    13. Jamile Eleutério Delesposte & Luís Alberto Duncan Rangel & Marcelo Jasmim Meiriño & Ramon Baptista Narcizo & André Armando Mendonça de Alencar Junior, 2021. "Use of multicriteria decision aid methods in the context of sustainable innovations: bibliometrics, applications and trends," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 501-522, December.
    14. Garmendia, Eneko & Gamboa, Gonzalo, 2012. "Weighting social preferences in participatory multi-criteria evaluations: A case study on sustainable natural resource management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 110-120.
    15. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2008. "Multi-attribute preference modelling and regional land-use planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 325-335, April.
    16. Berthomé, Guy-El-Karim & Thomas, Alban, 2017. "A Context-based Procedure for Assessing Participatory Schemes in Environmental Planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 113-123.
    17. Farid El Wahidi & Julien Radoux & Quentin Ponette & Pierre Defourny, 2015. "Entity-Based Landscape Modelling to Assess the Impacts of Different Incentives Mechanisms on Argan Forest Dynamics," Land, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-27, November.
    18. Barton, D.N. & Kelemen, E. & Dick, J. & Martin-Lopez, B. & Gómez-Baggethun, E. & Jacobs, S. & Hendriks, C.M.A. & Termansen, M. & García- Llorente, M. & Primmer, E. & Dunford, R. & Harrison, P.A. & T, 2018. "(Dis) integrated valuation – Assessing the information gaps in ecosystem service appraisals for governance support," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 529-541.
    19. Brianne Suldovsky & Daniel Taylor-Rodríguez, 2021. "Epistemic engagement: examining personal epistemology and engagement preferences with climate change in Oregon," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(3), pages 1-18, June.
    20. Imran Jamali & Ulla Mörtberg & Bo Olofsson & Muhammad Shafique, 2014. "A Spatial Multi-Criteria Analysis Approach for Locating Suitable Sites for Construction of Subsurface Dams in Northern Pakistan," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(14), pages 5157-5174, November.

    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:lauspo:v:92:y:2020:i:c:s0264837717314357. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.