The use of knowledge in evidence-informed voluntary conservation of Finnish forests

Forest Policy and Economics

Volumn 73, Issue , 2016, Pages 90-98

  Salomaa, Anna ^a   Paloniemi, Riikka ^b   Hujala, Teppo ^c   Rantala, Salla ^b   Arponen, Anni ^a   Niemelä, Jari ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b FINNISH ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^c FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

Author keywords

Conservation politics; Evidence based policy; Forest biodiversity; Knowledge use; Policy implementation; Stakeholders

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION;

CONSERVATION POLITICS; EVIDENCE-BASED; FOREST BIODIVERSITY; KNOWLEDGE USE; POLICY IMPLEMENTATIONS; STAKEHOLDERS;

FORESTRY;

EID: 84986593142     PISSN: 13899341     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.09.004     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Adams, W.M., Sandbrook, C., Conservation, evidence and policy. Oryx 47:3 (2013), 329–335, 10.1017/S0030605312001470.
2. Appelstrand, M., Participation and societal values: the challenge for lawmakers and policy practioners. Forest Policy Econ. 4 (2002), 281–290, 10.1016/s1389-9341(02)00070-9.
3. Bazeley, P., Jackson, K., Qualitative Data Analysis with NVivo. 2013, Sage Publications, London (328p).
4. Berg, B., Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. 2001, Allyn and Bacon, Boston (304p).
5. Böcher, M., How does science-based policy advice matter in policy making? The RIU model as a framework for analyzing and explaining processes of scientific knowledge transfer. Forest Policy Econ. 68 (2016), 65–72.
6. Böcher, M., Krott, M., The RIU model as an analytical framework for scientific knowledge transfer: the case of the “decision support system forest and climate change”. Biodivers. Conserv. 23:14 (2014), 3641–3656, 10.1007/s10531-014-0820-5.
7. Borie, M., Hulme, M., Framing global biodiversity: IPBES between mother earth and ecosystem services. Environ. Sci. Pol. 54 (2015), 487–496, 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.05.009.
8. Carlsson, J., Eriksson, L.O., Öhman, K., Nordström, E.-M., Combining scientific and stakeholder knowledge in future scenario development — a forest landscape case study in northern Sweden. Forest Policy Econ. 61 (2015), 122–134, 10.1016/j.forpol.2015.08.008.
9. Cash, D., Clark, W., Alcock, F., Dickson, N., Eckley, N., Guston, D., Mitchell, R., Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS 100:14 (2003), 8086–8091, 10.1073/pnas.1231332100.
10. Cook, C.N., Mascia, M.B., Schwartz, M.W., Possingham, H.P., Fuller, R.A., Achieving conservation science that bridges the knowledge-action boundary. Conserv. Biol. 27:4 (2013), 669–678, 10.1111/cobi.12050.
11. Doremus, H., A policy portfolio approach to biodiversity protection on private lands. Environ. Sci. Pol. 6 (2003), 217–232, 10.1016/s1462-9011(03)00036-4.
12. Ellefson, P.V., Integrating science and policy development: case of the national research council and US national policy focused on non-federal forests. Forest Policy Econ. 1 (2000), 81–94, 10.1016/s1389-9341(99)00006-4.
13. Finnish Official Statistics, Ownership of Forest Land. 2015, Natural Resources Institute Finland, Helsinki http://stat.luke.fi/en/ownership-forest-land (Accessed 15.6.2016).
14. Fortmann, L., Ballard, H., Sciences, knowledge and the practice of forestry. Eur. J. For. Res. 130 (2011), 467–477, 10.1007/s10342-009-0334-y.
15. Funtowicz, S., Ravetz, J.R., Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25 (1993), 735–755, 10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-l.
16. Geertz, C., Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology. 2000, Basic Books, USA.
17. Giessen, L., Böcher, M., Rural governance, forestry, and the promotion of local knowledge: the case of the German rural development programme ‘Active Regions’. Small Scale For. 8:2 (2009), 211–230.
18. Government of Finland, Finnish Government Resolution on the Forest Biodiversity Programme for Southern Finland 2008–2016 (METSO)., 2008 27.3.2008 [in Finnish] http://www.metsonpolku.fi/download/noname/%7BA51BCBD0-0CAB-47B9-8F3B-C7482A8DDFF4%7D/115128 (Accessed 21.6.2016).
19. Government of Finland, Finnish Government Resolution on the Continuation of Forest Biodiversity Programme for Southern Finland 2014–2025., 2014 5.6.2014 [in Finnish] http://www.ym.fi/download/noname/%7BE4BA4C28-3815-4E62-87B5-AF9226CF749C%7D/100323 (Accessed 21.6.2016).
20. Hasanagas, N.D., Managing information in forest policy networks: distinguishing the influential actors from the “postmen”. Forest Policy Econ. 68 (2016), 73–80.
21. Hiedanpää, J., European-wide conservation versus local well-being: the reception of the Natura 2000 Reserve Network in Karvia, SW-Finland. Landsc. Urban Plan. 61 (2002), 113–123.
22. Janse, G., Information search behaviour of European forest policy decision-makers. Forest Policy Econ. 8:6 (2006), 579–592, 10.1016/j.forpol.2004.10.001.
23. Janse, G., Communication between forest scientists and forest policy-makers in Europe – a survey on both sides of the science/policy interface. Forest Policy Econ. 10:3 (2008), 183–194, 10.1016/j.forpol.2007.10.001.
24. Jenkins, W., Policy Analysis: A Political and Organizational Perspective. 1978, Martin Robertson, London (278p).
25. Jordan, A., Wurzel, R., Zito, A., Brückner, L., European governance and the transfer of ‘new’ environmental policy instruments (NEPIs) in the European Union. Public Adm. 81:3 (2003), 555–574, 10.1111/1467-9299.00361.
26. Kangas, A., Saarinen, N., Saarikoski, H., Leskinen, L.A., Hujala, T., Tikkanen, J., Stakeholder perspectives about proper participation for regional Forest programmes in Finland. Forest Policy Econ. 12:3 (2010), 213–222, 10.1016/j.forpol.2009.10.006.
27. Klenk, N.L., Wyatt, S., The design and management of multi-stakeholder research networks to maximize knowledge mobilization and innovation opportunities in the forest sector. Forest Policy Econ. 61 (2015), 77–86, 10.1016/j.forpol.2015.06.008.
28. Korhonen, K., Hujala, T., Kurttila, M., Diffusion of voluntary protection among family forest owners: decision process and success factors. Forest Policy Econ. 26 (2013), 82–90, 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.08.010.
29. Koskela, T., Anttila, S., Syrjänen, K., Kuusela, S., METSOn tilannekatsaus 2014. Luonnonvara- ja biotalouden tutkimus, 28, 2015 in Finnish http://jukuri.luke.fi/handle/10024/485986 (Accessed21.6.2016).
30. Krueger, R.A., Casey, M.A., Focus groups. A Practical Guide for Applied Research, 2015, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (252p).
31. Laita, A., Horne, P., Kniivilä, M., Komonen, A., Kotiaho, J., Lahtinen, M., Mönkkönen, M., Rämö, A.-K., METSO-ohjelman väliarvio. 2012, 2012 in Finnish http://www.metsonpolku.fi/download/noname/%7B9C59F8AD-1C03-4C94-8E29-19E910D71447%7D/116640 (Accessed 16.6.2016).
32. Mickwitz, P., A framework for evaluating environmental policy instruments: context and key concepts. Evaluation 9:4 (2003), 415–436, 10.1177/1356389003094004.
33. Nagasaka, K., Böcher, M., Krott, M., Are forest researchers only scientists? Case studies on the roles of researchers in Japanese and Swedish forest policy processes. Forest Policy Econ. 70 (2016), 147–154.
34. Oliver, K., Innvar, S., Lorenc, T., Woodman, J., Thomas, J., A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv. Res., 14(2), 2014, 10.1186/1472-6963-14-2.
35. Paloniemi, R., Tikka, P., Ecological and social aspects of biodiversity conservation on private lands. Environ. Sci. Pol. 11:3 (2008), 336–346, 10.1016/j.envsci.2007.11.001.
36. Primmer, E., Paloniemi, R., et al. An approach to analysing scale-sensitivity and scale-effectiveness of governance in biodiversity conservation. Padt, F., Opdam, P., et al. (eds.) Scale-Sensitive Governance of the Environment, 2014, John Wiley & Sons, Oxford, 241–262.
37. Pullin, A.S., Knight, T.M., Support for decision making in conservation practice: an evidence-based approach. J. Nat. Conserv. 11:3 (2003), 83–90, 10.1078/1617-1381-00040.
38. Salomaa, A., Paloniemi, R., Kotiaho, J.S., Kettunen, M., Apostolopoulou, E., Cent, J., Can green infrastructure help to conserve biodiversity?. Environ. Plann. C Gov. Policy, 2016, 10.1177/0263774X16649363 (in press).
39. Sarkki, S., Niemelä, J., Tinch, R., van den Hove, S., Watt, A., Young, J., Balancing credibility, relevance and legitimacy: a critical assessment of trade-offs in science–policy interfaces. Sci. Public Policy 41:2 (2014), 194–206, 10.1093/scipol/sct046.
40. Spilsbury, M.J., Nasi, R., The interface of policy research and the policy development process: challenges posed to the forestry community. Forest Policy Econ. 8 (2006), 193–205, 10.1016/j.forpol.2004.09.001.
41. Stevanov, M., Böcher, M., Krott, M., Krajter, S., Vuletic, D., Orlovic, S., The Research, Integration and Utilization (RIU) model as an analytical framework for the professionalization of departmental research organizations: case studies of publicly funded forest research institutes in Serbia and Croatia. Forest Policy Econ. 37 (2013), 20–28.
42. Sutherland, W.J., Pullin, A.S., Dolman, P.M., Knight, T.M., The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19:6 (2004), 305–308, 10.1016/s0169-5347(04)00073-4.
43. van Kerkhoff, L., Lebel, L., Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 31:1 (2006), 445–477, 10.17226/11652.
44. Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kohl, J., The role of local ecological knowledge in sustainable urban planning: perspectives from Finland. Sustain.: Sc. Prac. Policy, 1(1), 2005.