Why do some institutional arrangements succeed? Voluntary protection of forest biodiversity in Southwestern Finland and of the Golden Eagle in Finnish Lapland

Hiedanpää, Juha; Borgström, Suvi

doi:10.3897/natureconservation.7.6497

Cited by 14 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Specifically, related economic approaches may crowd out other non-economic motivations (Gómez-Baggethun & Ruiz-Pérez 2011; Rode et al 2015). Research from outside the ecosystem services community demonstrates that committed action for nature rests on grounds other than economic values, such as the development of trust between stakeholders and other moral standards (Flint et al 2013; Hiedanpää & Borgström 2014; Sponarski et al 2014) and room for autonomous action in conservation initiatives (Dedeurwaerdere et al 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motivations for committed nature conservation action in Europe

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYDespite ongoing efforts to motivate politicians and publics in Europe regarding nature conservation, biodiversity continues to decline. Monetary valuation of ecosystem services appears to be insufficient to motivate people, suggesting that non-monetary values have a crucial role to play. There is insufficient information about the motivations of actors who have been instrumental in successful conservation projects. We investigated the motivations underlying these biodiversity actors using the ranking of cards and compared the results with the rankings of motivations of a second group of actors with more socially related interests. For both groups of actors, their action relating to biodiversity was supported in general by two groups of motivations related to living a meaningful life and moral values. The non-biodiversity actors also noted that their action relating to biodiversity rested more on beauty, place attachment and intrinsic values in comparison with their main non-biodiversity interests. Our results have implications for environmental policy and biodiversity conservation in that the current tendency of focusing on the economic valuation of biodiversity fails to address the motivations of successful actors, thereby failing to motivate nature conservation on an individual level.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motivations for committed nature conservation action in Europe

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is based on voluntary agreements, payments, and fixed-term protection. Natural values trading is a wellreputed instrument among landowners and the forest resources administration (Hiedanpää and Borgström 2014). Its positive reputation is also the reason why the wildlife administration is attached to it.…”

Section: Call Of the Piementioning

confidence: 99%

Payments for Improved Ecostructure (PIE): Funding for the Coexistence of Humans and Wolves in Finland

Hiedanpää

Kalliolevo

Salo

et al. 2016

Environmental Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The gray wolf (Canis lupus) is a source of concern and a cause of damage to people's livelihoods. In Finland, as in most countries, actual damages are compensated according to the real lost value. However, often, the suffered damages are larger than what is compensated, and worries and fears are not accounted for at all. The purpose of our transdisciplinary action research is to contribute to the process of modifying the scientific, administrative, and everyday habits of mind in order to meet the practical prerequisites of living with the wolf. In 2014, we planned and participated in a process designed to update Finland's wolf population management plan. During our study, we applied e-deliberation, conducted a national wolf survey, and organized solution-oriented workshops in wolf territory areas around Finland. By applying abductive reasoning, we illustrate the basic features of an economic scheme that would help finance and coordinate practical modifications to the ecological, economic, and institutional circumstances and settings in wolf territory areas. The potential economic instrument is based on payments for improved ecostructures. In our paper, we describe the organization, functioning, and financing of this instrument in detail.

show abstract

“…Indeed, some of the RBP payments are made available as collective rewards (e.g. Zabel and Holm-Müller, 2008;de Lijster and Prager, 2012;Hiedanpää and Borgström, 2014). It is plausible that, in the future, the RBP approach will contribute to such socio-economic co-benefits as building community cohesion and multi-party networking around agricultural land-use.…”

Section: #Table 2 Here#mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The focus on outcomes that is implied in such payments makes the process of design and implementation reliant on adaptive management and the capacity of land managers for innovation. This, in turn, requires the development of multi-party governance systems and experiment-driven environmental policy (Hiedanpää and Borgström, 2014). Refining policy tools and delivery requires a cultural change in the way that farmers engage with policy on the ground involving, inter alia, clearer goals and results orientation (Buckwell et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Time to look for evidence: Results-based approach to biodiversity conservation on farmland in Europe

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increased use of annual payments to land managers for ecological outcomes indicates a growing interest in exploring the potential of this approach. In this viewpoint, we drew on the experiences of all schemes paying for biodiversity outcomes/results on agricultural land operating in the EU and EFTA countries with the aim of reviewing the decisive elements of the schemes' design and implementation as well as the challenges and opportunities of adopting a results-based approach. We analysed the characteristics of results-based schemes using evidence from peer-reviewed literature, technical reports, scheme practitioners and experts in agri-environment-climate policy. We developed a typology of the schemes and explored critical issues influencing the feasibility and performance of results-based schemes. The evidence to date shows that there are at least 11 advantages to the results-based approach not found in management-based schemes with similar objectives, dealing with environmental efficiency, farmers' participation and development of local biodiversity-based projects. Although results-based approaches have specific challenges at every stage of design and implementation, for many of these the existing schemes provide potential solutions. There is also some apprehension about trying a results-based approach in Mediterranean, central and eastern EU Member States. We conclude that there is clear potential to expand the approach in the European Union for the Rural Development programming period for 2021-2028. Nevertheless, evidence is needed about the approach's efficiency in delivering conservation outcomes in the long term, its additionality, impact on the knowledge and attitudes of land managers and society at large, development of ways of rewarding the achievement of actual results, as well as its potential for stimulating innovative grassroots solutions.

show abstract

Why do some institutional arrangements succeed? Voluntary protection of forest biodiversity in Southwestern Finland and of the Golden Eagle in Finnish Lapland

Cited by 14 publications

References 32 publications

Motivations for committed nature conservation action in Europe

Motivations for committed nature conservation action in Europe

Payments for Improved Ecostructure (PIE): Funding for the Coexistence of Humans and Wolves in Finland

Time to look for evidence: Results-based approach to biodiversity conservation on farmland in Europe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About