Forest owner perceptions of institutions and voluntary contracting for biodiversity conservation: Not crowding out but staying out

Ecological Economics

Volumn 103, Issue , 2014, Pages 1-10

  Primmer, Eeva ^a   Paloniemi, Riikka ^a   Similä, Jukka ^a   Tainio, Anna ^a  

^a FINNISH ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Finland)

Author keywords

Biodiversity; Conservation contracting; Forest owners; Institutions; Payments for ecosystem services

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS; ECOLOGICAL IMPACT; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; FACTOR ANALYSIS; FOREST; INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK; NATURE CONSERVATION; OWNERSHIP; PERCEPTION; WELFARE IMPACT; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

FINLAND;

EID: 84899835475     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.008     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Babbie E. The Practice of Social Research 2013, Cengage Learning, Wadsworth. 13th edition. International Edition.
2. Brouwer R., Tesfaye A., Pauw P. Meta-analysis of institutional-economic factors explaining the environmental performance of payments for watershed services. Environ. Conserv. 2011, 38(4):380-392.
3. Chan K.M.A., Satterfield T., Goldstein J. Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 74:8-18.
4. Coggan A., Buitelaar E., Whitten S.M., Bennett J. Intermediaries in environmental offset markets: actions and incentives. Land Use Policy 2013, 32:145-154.
5. Corbera E., Soberianis C.G., Brown K. Institutional dimensions of payments for ecosystem services: an analysis of Mexico's carbon forestry programme. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68:743-761.
6. Farley J., Costanza R. Payments for ecosystem services: from local to global. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:2060-2068.
7. Finnish Forest Research Institute Finnish Statistical Yearbook of forestry 2013. Vammalan Kirjapaino Oy, Sastamala 2013, 2013:450.
8. Frey B.S., Jegen R. Motivation crowding theory. J. Econ. Surv. 2001, 15(5):589-611.
9. Hiedanpää J. The edges of conflict and consensus: a case for creativity in regional forest policy in Southwest Finland. Ecol. Econ. 2005, 55:485-498.
10. Horne P. Forest owners' acceptance of incentive based policy instruments in forest biodiversity conservation - a choice experiment based approach. Silvae Sin. 2006, 40(1):169-178.
11. Huhtala A., Pouta E. User fees, equity and the benefits of public outdoor recreation services. J. For. Sci. 2007, 14:117-132.
12. Hujala T., Pykäläinen J., Tikkanen J. Decision making among Finnish nonindustrial private forest owners: the role of professional opinion and desire to learn. Scand. J. For. Res. 2007, 22(5):454-463.
13. Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services 2011, Oxford University Press, New York. P. Kareiva, H. Tallis, T.H. Ricketts, G.C. Daily, S. Polasky (Eds.).
14. Karppinen H., Korhonen M. Do forest owners share the public's values? An application of Schwartz's value theory. Silva Fennica 2013, 47(1). 16p.
15. Karppinen H. Objectives of non-industrial private forest owners: differences and future trends in southern and northern Finland. J. For. Econ. 1998, 4(2):147-174.
16. Korpela K.M., Ylén M., Tyrväinen L., Silvennoinen H. Favorite green, waterside and urban environments, restorative experiences and perceived health in Finland. Health Promot. Int. 2010, 25(2):200-210.
17. Kosoy N., Corbera E., Brown K. Participation in payments for ecosystem services: case studies from the Lacandon rainforest, Mexico. Geoforum 2008, 39:2073-2083.
18. Foundations, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations 2010, Earthscan, London. P. Kumar (Ed.).
19. Lindhjem H. 20years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: a meta-analysis. J. For. Econ. 2007, 12:251-277.
20. Mäkiniemi J.-P., Vainio A. Moral intensity and climate-friendly food choices. Appetite 2013, 66:54-61.
21. METSO Government Decision in Principle on an Action Programme to Protect Biodiversity in Forests in Southern Finland, the Western Parts of the Province of Oulu and the South-Western regions of the Province of Lapland 2002, (23 October 2002).
22. METSO Government Decision in Principle on an Action Programme to Protect Biodiversity in Forests in Southern Finland 2008-2016 (METSO-Programme) 27 March 2008. http://www.mmm.fi/attachments/metsat/5yckfcmWR/METSOResolution2008-2016_ENGL.pdf.
23. Muradian R., Corbera E., Pascual U., Kosoy N., May P.H. Reconciling theory and practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1202-1208.
24. North D.C. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance 1990, Cambridge University Press, (152).
25. Ollonqvist P. Forest policy objectives and institutions in Finland 1917-1997 - success story of forest policies in Finland. World Forests 2001, 3:437-439. Kluwer Academic Publishers. M. Palo, J. Uusivuori, G. Mery (Eds.).
26. Ostrom E. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action 1990, Cmbridge University Press, Cambridge, (280 pp.).
27. Paavola J. Institutions and environmental governance: a reconceptualization. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 63:93-103.
28. Pagiola S. Selling Forest Environmental Services: Market-based Mechanisms for Conservation and Development 2002, Earthscan Publications, (336 pp.).
29. Paloniemi R., Vainio A. Legitimacy and empowerment: combining two conceptual approaches for explaining forest owners' willingness to cooperate in nature conservation. J. Integr. Environ. Sci. 2011, 8(2):123-138.
30. Paloniemi R., Varho V. Changing ecological and cultural states and preferences of nature conservation policy: the case of nature values trade in South-Western Finland. J. Rural. Stud. 2009, 25(1):87-97.
31. Pannell D.J., Marshall G.R., Barr N., Curtis A., Vanclay F., Wilkinson R. Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2006, 46:1407-1424.
32. Pannell D.J. Public benefits, private benefits, and policy intervention for land-use change for environmental benefits. Land Econ. 2008, 84(2):225-240.
33. Pascual U., Muradian R., Rodríguez L.C., Duraiappah A. Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: a conceptual approach. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1237-1244.
34. Pattanayak S.K., Wunder S., Ferraro P.J. Show me the money: do payments supply environmental services in developing countries?. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2010, 4(2):254-274.
35. Porras I., Grieg-Gran M., Neves N. All That Glitters: A Review of Payments for Watershed Services in Developing Countries 2008, The International Institute for Environment and Development, London.
36. Primmer E. Policy, project and operational networks: channels and conduits for learning in forest biodiversity conservation. For. Policy Econ. 2011, 13(2):132-142.
37. Primmer E., Karppinen H. Professional judgment in non-industrial private forestry: forester attitudes and social norms influencing biodiversity conservation. For. Policy Econ. 2010, 12(2):136-146.
38. Primmer E., Paloniemi R., Similä J., Barton D.N. Evolution in Finland's forest biodiversity conservation payments and the institutional constraints on establishing new policy. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2013, 26(10):1137-1154. 10.1080/08941920.2013.820814.
39. Robalino J., Pfaff A., Villalobos L. Assessing the impact of institutional design of payments for environmental services: the Costa Rican experience. Ecosystem Services from Agriculture and Agroforesty: Measurement and Payment 2011, 305-318. Earthscan Ltd., London, UK. B. Rapide, F. De Clerk, J.F. Le Coq, J. Beer (Eds.).
40. Sagoff M. On the value of endangered and other species. Environ. Manag. 1996, 20(6):897-911.
41. Scott R.W. Institutions and Organizations 2001, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, (255). 2nd Edition.
42. Siiskonen Harri The conflict between traditional and scientific forest management in 20th century Finland. For. Ecol. Manag. 2007, 249:125-133.
43. Similä J., Pölönen I., Fredrikson J., Primmer E., Horne P. Biodiversity protection in private forests: an analysis of compliance. J. Environ. Law 2014, 1-21. 10.1093/jel/eqt029.
44. Vainio A. Why are forest owners satisfied with forest policy decisions? Legitimacy, procedural justice and perceived uncertainty. Soc. Justice Res 2011, 24:239-254.
45. Valkeapää A., Karppinen H. Citizens' view of legitimacy in the context of Finnish forest policy. For. Policy Econ. 2013, 28:52-59.
46. Vatn A. Rationality, institutions and environmental policy. Ecol. Econ. 2005, 55:203-217.
47. Vatn A. An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1245-1252.