Decision support systems in forest management: requirements from a participatory planning perspective

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 tool

Participatory multi-criteria decision analysis in valuing peatland ecosystem services : Trade-offs related to peat extraction vs. pristine peatlands in Southern Finland

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

Transcending sectoral boundaries? Discovering built-environment indicators through knowledge co-production for enhanced planning for well-being in Finnish cities

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

Climate change adaptation tools for environmental risk mitigation of acid sulfate soils

Layman's repor

Exploring operational ecosystem service definitions : the case of boreal forests

Highlights • We examine alternative ways of defining and classifying ecosystem services by using an example of a boreal forest in Finland. • We suggest using the notion of final ecosystem goods and services in economic valuation and other priority setting contexts. • In the context of awareness raising it might be more effective to retain the well-established terminology of the M A. • We find a definition of ecosystem services value, which is based on willingness to pay, too narrow. • We suggest regarding both natural and semi-natural ecosystem outputs as ecosystem services.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

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and Cost-Benefit Analysis : Comparing alternative frameworks for integrated valuation of ecosystem services

Highlights • MDCA methods can account for multiple dimensions of well-being. • They can facilitate open and transparent public debate on ecosystem services. • Non-aggregative approaches to MCDA are recommended in the face of value conflict. • MCDA cannot provide representative information of the values of wider population . • Further research is needed on the potential of hybrid methodologies.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