| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Miljand, Matilda, et al.
(författare)
-
Voluntary agreements to protect private forests : a realist review
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Forest Policy and Economics. - : Elsevier. - 1389-9341 .- 1872-7050. ; 128
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- There is increasing political interest in the use of voluntary agreements (VA) as a policy instrument. The attraction has grown also in environmental policy, VAs are expected to be less costly, more effective and more cost-efficient than regulation. Using a realist review methodology, our analysis focuses on the effect of contextual factors and mechanisms on private forest owners' willingness to enter into formal voluntary nature conservation agreements. The framework we use to analyse the effects includes: forest owner characteristics, forest attributes, institutional context and process, advisors and other forest owners, and contract design, for contextual factors – and economic attitudes, environmental attitudes, sense of autonomy, sense of justice and fairness, trust as well as knowledge, for mechanisms. The analysis allowed merging findings from different types of VAs in varying contexts in a systematized way, and consolidating evidence of how the mechanisms influence the programme implementation process, and its outcome. 43 reviewed articles, from an originally retrieved set of 2231 papers, provide evidence for environmental attitudes supporting willingness to enter into an agreement. Environmental attitudes are strengthened by forest owners' wishes to protect a heritage, suggesting considerable influence through personal, emotional attachment to the forest. This finding shows the central role played by sense of autonomy, with economic compensation also importantly affecting the willingness to enter a VA. Along with these results, the developed comprehensive analytical framework shows how VAs can become more effective if tailored for different contexts and types of forest owners.
|
|
| 3. |
- Primmer, Eeva, et al.
(författare)
-
Caught between personal and collective values : biodiversity conservation in European decision-making
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Environmental Policy and Governance. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 1756-932X .- 1756-9338. ; 27:6, s. 588-604
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Individual decision-makers at different governance levels operate in social contexts, which means that they sometimes need to compromise their personal values. Yet, this dissonance is rarely the direct target of empirical analyses of environmental decision-making. We undertake a Q-analysis of decision-makers' personal perspectives and the perspectives they perceive to dominate in their decision-making contexts. Our empirical analysis addresses biodiversity conservation, which has traditionally been justified with intrinsic value- and science-based arguments. The arguments have recently been broadened with the concept of ecosystem services, highlighting human benefits and values. This evolving context is interesting because of the new rise of anthropocentric values, which can lead to decision-makers experiencing dissonance. Our analysis of interviews with 43 biodiversity conservation decision-makers from nine European countries reveals four personally held perspectives that highlight different, yet partly overlapping, values – intrinsic, human benefit, conservation and connection – as well as three perspectives perceived to dominate in decision-making – utilitarian, insurance and knowledge values. The comparison of personally held and perceived dominant perspectives points to one major conflict: those decision-makers who personally associate with intrinsic values and perceive utilitarian values to dominate in decision-making experience dissonance. By contrast, personally held human benefit values are accommodated well in decision-making contexts and decision-makers who perceive insurance values to dominate experience the least conflict with personally held values. These findings demonstrate the potential of arguments stressing long-term benefits for easing tension and conflicts in conservation decision-making, and the usefulness of empirically testing of the coincidence of individual and social values.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Primmer, Eeva, et al.
(författare)
-
Mapping Europe's institutional landscape for forest ecosystem service provision, innovations and governance
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Ecosystem Services. - : Elsevier BV. - 2212-0416. ; 47
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- There has been a strong quest for mapping and assessing ecosystem services (ES) to support governance. Yet, the institutional landscape that governs ES provision across multiple contexts has received less attention. We fill this research gap by developing and operationalising a framework for the analysis of policy documents that address European forest ES provision. By coding and analysing references to forest ES as well as innovations and governance mechanisms addressing these ES in national strategies on forest, biodiversity and bioeconomy, we map the institutional landscape of forest ES provision in Europe. We further analyse how biophysical supply of forest ES is connected to policies paying attention to ES and identifying innovations and governance for their provision. Innovations identified in policies centre around value chains of wood and bioenergy or biodiversity conservation, while non-wood forest products, cultural heritage, and recreation receive little attention. Biophysical supply of provisioning ES is connected to policies emphasising many innovations, while little supply of regulating ES could trigger service innovations and several new governance mechanisms. As forest ecosystems have received much attention in global, European and national sustainability policies, our institutional mapping illustrates that there is room for more use of innovations in promoting ES provision.
|
|
| 6. |
- Tinch, Rob, et al.
(författare)
-
Arguments for biodiversity conservation : factors influencing their observed effectiveness in European case studies
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Biodiversity and Conservation. - : SPRINGER. - 0960-3115 .- 1572-9710. ; 27:7, s. 1763-1788
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Making a strong case for biodiversity protection is central to meeting the biodiversity targets in international agreements such as the CBD and achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Effective arguments are needed to convince diverse actors that protection is worthwhile, and can play a crucial role in closing the implementation gap between biodiversity policy targets and outcomes. Drawing on a database of arguments from 11 European case studies, along with additional interview and case study material from all 13 case studies of the BESAFE project, we analysed relationships between potential and observed effectiveness of arguments. Our results show that strong logic, robustness, and timing of arguments are necessary but not sufficient conditions for arguments to be effective. We find that use of multiple and diverse arguments can enhance effectiveness by broadening the appeal to wider audiences, especially when arguments are repeated and refined through constructive dialogue. We discuss the role of framing, bundling and tailoring arguments to audiences in increasing effectiveness. Our results provide further support for the current shift towards recognition of value pluralism in biodiversity science and decision-making. We hope our results will help to demonstrate more convincingly the value of biodiversity to stakeholders in decision processes and thus build better cases for its conservation.
|
|
| 7. |
- Varumo, Liisa, et al.
(författare)
-
D 2.2 Mapping of forest ecosystem services and institutional frameworks : Final report
- 2019
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Promoting or upscaling governance and business innovations requires an understanding about the conditions and contexts that support a particular innovation. Indeed, context can importantly condition the emergence of new ideas as well as their stabilization and system-level uptake. Ecosystems and the services they provide can be considered this kind of context for innovations because they vary across the landscape. Furthermore, the ways in which ecosystem services (ES) are governed can importantly condition the emergence and up-take of new ideas. These institutional, structural and procedural conditions vary across different administrative units, for example countries or regions. As both ecological and institutional context matters for innovations in the forest sector, we capture these variations and provide a basis for a more context-relevant analysis of innovation evolution, which potentially supports replication and upscaling of innovations. In general, there is a good spatial understanding of Europe’s forest ecosystem services (FES) but ecosystem service supply and demand have been matched only as rough estimates of scarcity. What is missing so far is a thorough analysis of the societal demand for FES, as expressed in policy, and the combination of biophysical and institutional mapping. We propose that societal demand can be derived from formal goals and argumentation in public strategies and laws, as these are the results of processes engaging societal actors and expertise. In the past years, several European policies have gradually taken up the notion of ES, and the European Forest Strategy fares well in its reference and integration of ES. However, what is missing is an analysis of the extent and the ways in which national forest related policies recognise FES and how this recognition coincides with ecosystem service supply at the spatial scale. By analysing how different EU, national and regional policies address forest ecosystem service relevant innovations, governance mechanisms and actors, we develop a deeper understanding of the biophysical-institutional landscape that can condition innovation in the forest sector. Based on our biophysical and institutional mapping, InnoForESt can identify niche innovations and their transferability, upscaling and further co-learning in comparable high potential context regions. This report describes the justification for mapping specific FES and policies and reports the methods applied in conducting the biophysical and institutional mapping as well as the findings. The report is supplemented by a coarse level map interface that can be used to visually analyse the coincidence of biophysical FES supply and institutional FES demand, innovations and governance, as expressed in forest strategies. The biophysical mapping of FES conducted for this report focused on the supply of ES and relied on simple mapping methods. The mapping process followed four main steps: 1) Identification of FES; 2) Definition of the indicators to map the selected FES; 3) Production of Pan-European maps of selected FES, 4) analysis of hotspots, synergies and trade-offs and spatial bundles of FES. Given the European focus of the study, the identification of FES and definition of related indicators built on the CICES classification and the set of MAES indicators. Indicators were then refined based on the availability of adequate spatially-explicit data at the European level. A total of 13 indicators were eventually defined and maps produced for each of these. As maps of FES showed ES supply on a per unit area basis, the potential of a region or a country to provide a given FES requires considering the actual extent of forests in that region or country. The analysis of hotspots, synergies and trade-offs and bundles of FES, which was carried out on a subset of eight FES, allows policy makers to get further insights about FES concentrations and coincidence. Deliverable 2.2 InnoForESt 6 The institutional mapping was carried out to identify current and future policy demand for ES. The policy demand was analysed through detailed policy document analysis, for which a protocol and database were developed and iterated among the team. The initial document analysis conducted in 2018 covered the most relevant national or regional forest, biodiversity and bio-economy strategies in the InnoForESt case study areas and at the EU level, altogether 31 policy documents. The document analysis was reported through an online survey that was used to produce a database, with both quantitative grading of weight in the document and qualitative text examples. The document analysis focused on ten FES: wood, bioenergy, non-wood forest products, game, biodiversity conservation, erosion and water protection, climate regulation, resilience, cultural heritage, recreation. Additionally, the analysis considered innovation type and stage, actor responsibilities and rights as well as new governance mechanisms, for all these ten FES. Our analysis illustrates that both the biophysical distribution of FES and the policy targeting FES differ across Europe. The analysis of biophysical FES supply through bundles shows that biophysical FES tend to be related to the climatic-ecological gradient, with cultural-agricultural FES being concentrated in the Mediterranean area, wood and water FES in the central area, soil carbon FES in the northernmost area and a mix of all FES in the north-eastern area. In terms of demand for FES, our analysis shows that countries do differ in how much weight they place on different FES in their strategies. Wood and bioenergy stand out as the focal FES for both forest and bio-economy policies, while biodiversity conservation is the only FES that is in some form mentioned in all analysed policy documents. The documents identify innovations, actor roles and governance mechanisms in detail for those ecosystem services that they directly address. The analysis of policies shows that biodiversity conservation is supported with innovations. New product ideas are about wood and biomass, sometimes recognising a long value chain. Also networking innovations and market-based rearrangements centre on procurement of raw material, recognising the responsibilities and rights of industry and land-owners. With our analysis combining data on FES provision across the European landscape and document analysis of European forest, biodiversity and bio-economy policies, we show that there is a slight tendency in policies to address and detail innovations and governance for scarce forest ecosystem services. By analysing how different EU, national and regional policies address different forest relevant innovations, governance mechanisms and actors our analysis provides a deeper understanding of the biophysical-institutional landscape that can condition innovation in the forest sector, and ideally, identify opportunities for transferring and upscaling innovations.
|
|
| 8. |
- Widman, Ulrika, 1986-
(författare)
-
Protecting forests through partnerships
- 2016
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This thesis addresses the potential of private-public partnerships (PPPs) to involve private forest owners in formal forest protection. These partnerships have been widely advocated as means to engage actors from diverse sectors in collaborative new relationships, formed in a step-wise manner, to improve management of resources that combine public and private goods. Nature Conservation Agreements (NCAs) are the first kind of PPPs to be used in Swedish forest protection. NCAs were introduced in 1993 and are agreements based in civil law between a private forest owner and the Swedish Forest Agency or County Administrative Board. Although NCAs were introduced to promote interest in nature conservation among forest owners, the response has been rather weak. Thus, in 2010 the government launched a pilot project called the Komet program, in which private forest owners in selected pilot areas initiated protective measures. Although criticized by environmental non-governmental organizations, the government decided after the pilot project terminated in 2014 to implement the Komet program’s working methods nationwide. In this thesis, PPPs’ potential to contribute to forest protection is analyzed by applying the “Ladder of Partnership Activity” framework, developed to study global PPPs, with appropriate modifications for a national context. The framework incorporates, in a stepwise manner, context, the actors’ motives relating to trust-building, the creation of collaborative advantages in the partnering process and the institutionalization of PPPs. The thesis contributes to an empirical understanding of top-down and bottom-up PPP processes. It is based on studies in which qualitative research methods were applied to examine selected cases presented in four papers, designated Papers I-IV. The main sources of information are qualitative interviews with involved forest actors and policy documents they have produced. Papers I and II focus particularly on trust-building and the partnering process as perceived by involved forest actors, while Papers III and IV address the institutionalization of PPPs and their requirements to change the political order of forest protection in accordance with governmental objectives. The results show that willingness to adopt PPPs is dependent on past experience of collaborative efforts. They also show there is substantial discretion in involved actors’ interpretation of prescribed guidelines, and their motives may vary substantially. However, as long as they share the same ultimate objective, i.e. to protect forests, PPPs may still be successfully established. A major potential problem is that public officials tend to prioritize protection of biodiversity, while forest owners want to protect social values and unproductive (“useless”) forests. Thus, shared motives are essential to establish trust and initiate collaborative efforts. The voluntary element of initiatives supported by the Komet program appears to be essential for deliberation. PPPs need to be implemented nationwide to be institutionalized. However, the Swedish government has not provided sufficient resources and leadership capacity to enable PPPs to play their envisaged role in its forest governance system. If the government wants to adopt bottom-up approaches, it needs to provide sufficient resources so that the partnerships does not compete with other formal instruments and protection arrangements. Furthermore, coordination within and between sectors needs to be improved to clarify the purpose of the policy recommendations.
|
|
