Conservation contracts in habitat protection in southern Finland

Environmental Science and Policy

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 271-278

  Tikka, Päivi M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

Conservation contracts; Fixed period conservation; Key habitats; Private lands; Voluntary protection

Indexed keywords

CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; ECOLOGY; ENDANGERED SPECIES; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FINLAND; FOREST; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SOCIAL ASPECT; SPECIES HABITAT;

EID: 0038668876     PISSN: 14629011     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1462-9011(03)00045-5     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Doremus, H., 2003. A policy portfolio approach to biodiversity protection on private lands. Environ. Sci. Policy 6 (3).
2. Etelä-Suomen metsien suojelutoimikunta, 2002. Etelä-Suomen, Oulun läänin länsiosan ja Lapin läänin lounaisosan metsien monimuotoisuuden turvaamisen toimintaohjelma. Suomen ympäristö 583. Ympäristöministeriö, Helsinki.
3. Ferraro P.J.Global habitat protection: limitations of development interventions and a role for conservation performance payments Conserv. Biol. 154 2001 990-1000
4. Finnish Forest Research Institute, 2001. Finnish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry. Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery 2001:52. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Vammala.
5. Frank, G., Müller, F., 2003. Voluntary approaches in protection of forests in Australia. Environ. Sci. Policy 6 (3).
6. Gustafsson L.De Jong J.Norén M.Evaluation of Swedish woodland key habitats using red-listed bryophytes and lichens Biodiversity Conserv. 88 1999 1101-1114
7. Hanski I.Extinction debt and species credit in boreal forests: modelling the consequences of different approaches to biodiversity conservation Ann. Zoologici Fennici 374 2000 271-280
8. Hansson L.Key habitats in Swedish managed forests Scand. J. Forest Res. Suppl. 3 2001 52-61
9. Innes R.Polasky S.Tschirhart J.Takings, compensation and endangered species protection on private lands J. Econ. Perspect. 123 1998 35-52
10. Johansson P.Gustafsson L.Red-listed and indicator lichens in woodland key habitats and production forests in Sweden Can. J. Forest Res. 319 2001 1617-1628
11. Karppinen H.Values and objectives of non-industrial forest owners in Finland Silva Fennica 321 1998 43-59
12. Karppinen H.Hänninen H.Forest conservation and economic utilization: public attitudes in Finland J. Forest Econ. 61 2000 55-79
13. Kirby, K.J., 2003. Woodland conservation in privately-owned cultural landscapes: the English experience. Environ. Sci. Policy 6 (3).
14. Kiviranta, E., 1997. Metsäverotus. WSOY, Porvoo.
15. Knight R.L.Private lands: the neglected geography Conserv. Biol. 132 1999 223-224
16. Komonen A.Penttilä R.Lindgren M.Hanski I.Forest fragmentation truncates a food chain based on an old-growth forest bracket fungus Oikos 901 2000 119-126
17. Lehtonen, E., Kuuluvainen, J., Pouta, E., Rekola, M., Chuan-Zhong, L., 2003. Non-market benefits of forest conservation in Southern Finland. Environ. Sci. Policy 6 (3).
18. Maa-ja metsätalousministeriö, 2000. Maa-ja metsätalousministeriön päätös metsätalouden ympäristötuesta, päätös No. 144/2000. Maa-ja metsätalousministeriö, Helsinki.
19. Polasky S.Doremus H.Rettig B.Endangered species conservation on private land Contemp. Econ. Policy 154 1997 66-76
20. Rekola M.Pouta E.Kuuluvainen J.Tahvonen O.Li C.-Z.Incommensurable preferences in contingent valuation: the case of Natura 2000 Network in Finland Environ. Conserv. 273 2000 260-268
21. Rassi, P., Alanen, A., Kanerva, T., Mannerkoski, I. (Eds.), 2001. The 2000 Red List of Finnish Species. Ministry of the Environment and Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki (in Finnish with English summary).
22. Sairinen, R., 2000. Regulatory reform of Finnish environmental policy. Centre for Urban and Regional Studies Publications A27. Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo.
23. Shogren J.F.Hayes D.J.Resolving differences in willingness to pay and willingness to accept: reply Am. Econ. Rev. 871 1997 241-244
24. Shogren J.F.Shin S.Y.Hayes D.J.Kliebenstein J.B.Resolving differences in willingness to pay and willingness to accept Am. Econ. Rev. 841 1994 255-270
25. Simberloff D.Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: is single-species management passé in the landscape era? Biol. Conserv. 833 1998 247-257
26. Simberloff D.Management of boreal forest biodiversity-a view from the outside Scand. J. Forest Res. Suppl. 3 2001 105-118
27. Simpson R.D.Sedjo R.A.Paying for the conservation of endangered ecosystems: a comparison of direct and indirect approaches Environ. Develop. Econ. 1 1996 241-257
28. Tversky A.Kahnemann D.Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference-dependent model Q. J. Econ. 1064 1991 1039-1061
29. Vehkala, M.-M, Vainio, A., 2000. Luonnonsuojelun yhteiskunnallinen ulottuvuus. Luonnonsuojeluohjelmien toteuttamisen sosio-ekonomiset vaikutukset Väli-Suomessa 1990-luvulla. Vaasan yliopiston tutkimuslaitoksen julkaisu No. 83. Vaasan yliopiston tutkimuslaitos.
30. Viherkenttä, T., 1993. Uusi kiinteistövero, 2. Painos. Lakimiesliiton kustannus, Helsinki.
31. Working group on the need for forest protection in southern Finland and Ostrobothnia, 2000. Forest protection in southern Finland and Ostrobothnia. The Finnish Environment 437. Ministry of Environment, Helsinki (in Finnish with English summary).
32. Ympäristöhallinto, A. 2003. Suojeluohjelmien ja muiden päätösten toteutumistilanne 1.1.2002; http://www.ymparisto.fi/luosuo/alueet/toteut02.htm, 20 January 2003.