A Case Study of Ecosystem Services in Urban Planning in Finland: Benefits, Rights and Responsibilities

References

• Agrawal, A. (2001). Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Development, 29(10), 1649–1672. doi: 10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00063-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albert, C., Hauck, J., Buhr, N., & von Haaren, C. (2014). What ecosystem services information do users want? Investigating interests and requirements among landscape and regional planners in Germany. Landscape Ecology, 29(8), 1301–1313. doi: 10.1007/s10980-014-9990-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, J., Sheate, W. R., Phillips, P., & Eales, R. (2013). Ecosystem services in environmental assessment—Help or hindrance? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 40, 3–13. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2012.11.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buciega, A., Pitarch, M. D., & Esparcia, J. (2009). The context of rural–urban relationships in Finland, France, Hungary, The Netherlands and Spain. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 11(1), 9–27. doi: 10.1080/15239080902774929
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). (2014). Ecosystem Approach. Convention on Biological Diversity [web page]. Retrieved from http://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/default.shtml
   Google Scholar
• CBD–COP10. (2010). Agenda item 4.2 Annex: Strategic Plan for Biodiversity for the Period 2011–2020 “Living in harmony with nature”.
   Google Scholar
• Chan, K. M. A., Satterfield, T., & Goldstein, J. (2012). Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics, 74, 8–18. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., … van den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253–260. doi: 10.1038/387253a0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., & Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 260–272. doi: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EC (European Commission). (2011). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 (Brussels, 3.5.2011, COM 244 final).
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, B., Turner, R. K., & Morling, P. (2009). Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics, 68(3), 643–653. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geneletti, D. (2013). Ecosystem services in environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 40, 1–2. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2013.02.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gomez-Baggethun, E., & Barton, D. N. (2013). Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecological Economics, 86, 235–245. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauck, J., Görg, C., Varjopuro, R., Ratamäki, O., & Jax, K. (2013). Benefits and limitations of the ecosystem services concept in environmental policy and decision making: Some stakeholder perspectives. Environmental Science and Policy, 25, 13–21. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.08.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (2006). Transforming governance: Challenges of institutional adaptation and a new politics of space. European Planning Studies, 14(3), 299–320. doi: 10.1080/09654310500420792
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hein, L., van Koppen, K., de Groot, R. S., & van Ierland, E. C. (2006). Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 57(2), 209–228. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hezri, A. A. (2004). Sustainability indicator system and policy processes in Malaysia: A framework for utilisation and learning. Journal of Environmental Management, 73, 357–371. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.07.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiedanpää, J., Suvantola, L., & Naskali, A. (2010). Hyödyllinen luonto: ekosysteemipalvelut hyvinvointimme perustana. Tampere: Vastapaino.
   Google Scholar
• Høyer, K. G., & Næss, P. (2001). The ecological traces of growth: Economic growth, liberalization, increased consumption and sustainable urban development? Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 3(3), 177–192. doi: 10.1002/jepp.84
   Google Scholar
• Itkonen, P., Kopperoinen, L., Viinikka, A., Olazábal, E., & Heikinheimo, V. (2015). Case: Mapping green infrastructure and ecosystem services in the Helsinki-Uusimaa Region. In J.-P. Jäppinen & J. Heliölä (Eds.), Towards a sustainable and genuinely green economy. The value and social significance of ecosystem services in Finland (TEEB for Finland). Synthesis and roadmap (pp. 46–58). The Finnish Environment 1en/2015. The Finnish Ministry of Environment, Helsinki.
   Google Scholar
• Kareiva, P., Tallis, H., Ricketts, T. H., Daily, G. C., & Polasky, S. (2011). Natural capital: Theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kumar, M., & Kumar, P. (2008). Valuation of the ecosystem services: A psycho-cultural perspective. Ecological Economics, 64, 808–819. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.05.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lahti. (2010). Asemakaava ja asemakaavan muutoksen selostus. Kytölänmäen asemakaavan laajennus, Kytölä, 1.vaihe [Report for the land use plan of Kytölä, phase 1, in Finnish].
   Google Scholar
• Laurans, Y., Rankovic, A., Mermet, L., Billé, R., & Pirard, R. (2013). Actual use of ecosystem services valuation for decision-making: Questioning a literature blindspot. Journal of Environmental Management, 119, 208–219. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.01.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lockie, S. (2013). Market instruments, ecosystem services, and property rights: Assumptions and conditions for sustained social and ecological benefits. Land Use Policy, 31, 90–98. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.08.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maes, J., Egoh, B., Willemen, L., Liquete, C., Vihervaara, P., Schägner, J. P., … Bidoglio, G. (2012). Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosystem Services, 1, 31–39. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.06.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MEA. (2005). Millennium ecosystem assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• MoE (Ministry of the Environment). (2007). Everyman's right in Finland. Public access to the countryside: Rights and responsibilities. Helsinki: Ministry of Environment.
   Google Scholar
• Morris, R. K. A. (2011). The application of the Habitats Directive in the UK: Compliance or gold plating? Land Use Policy, 28(1), 361–369. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.04.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nadin, V. (2007). The emergence of the spatial planning approach in England. Planning Practice and Research, 22(1), 43–62. doi: 10.1080/02697450701455934
   Google Scholar
• NEAT (National Ecosystem Assessment Toolkit). (2014). Case study: North Davon and Torridge joint local plan. Retrieved from http://neat.ecosystemsknowledge.net/devon.html
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, D. R., … Shaw, M. R. (2009). Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(1), 4–11. doi: 10.1890/080023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niemelä, J., Saarela, S. R., Söderman, T., Kopperoinen, L., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Väre, S., & Kotze, D. J. (2010). Using the ecosystem services approach for better planning and conservation of urban green spaces: A Finland case study. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19(11), 3225–3243. doi: 10.1007/s10531-010-9888-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norgaard, R. B. (2010). Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecological Economics, 69, 1219–1227. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pascual, U., Muradian, R., Rodríguez, L. C., & Duraiappah, A. (2010). Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: A conceptual approach. Ecological Economics, 69(6), 1237–1244. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plant, R., & Ryan, P. (2013). Ecosystem services as a practicable concept for natural resource management: Some lessons from Australia. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 9(1), 44–53. doi: 10.1080/21513732.2012.737372
   Google Scholar
• Portman, M. E. (2013). Ecosystem services in practice: Challenges to real world implementation of ecosystem services across multiple landscapes – A critical review. Applied Geography, 45, 185–192. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.09.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potschin, M. B., & Haines-Young, R. H. (2011). Ecosystem services: Exploring a geographical perspective. Progress in Physical Geography, 35(5), 575–594. doi: 10.1177/0309133311423172
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Primmer, E. (2011). Analysis of institutional adaptation: Integration of biodiversity conservation into forestry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(16), 1822–1832. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Primmer, E., & Furman, E. (2012). Operationalising ecosystem service approaches for governance: Do measuring, mapping and valuing integrate sector-specific knowledge systems? Ecosystem Services, 1, 85–92. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Primmer, E., & Karppinen, H. (2010). Professional judgment in non-industrial private forestry: Forester attitudes and social norms influencing biodiversity conservation. Forest Policy and Economics, 12(2), 136–146. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2009.09.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Primmer, E., Paloniemi, R., Similä, J., & Barton, D. N. (2013a). Evolution in Finland's forest biodiversity conservation payments and the institutional constraints on establishing new policy. Society & Natural Resources, 26(10), 1137–1154. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2013.820814
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Primmer, E., Similä, J., Schröter-Schlaack, C., & Barton, D. N. (2013b) Best practice guidelines on the role of multi-level governance and institutions in policy. POLICYMIX Technical Brief, 9. Retrieved from http://policymix.nina.no/Portals/policymix/Documents/Research%20topics/WP6/Technical%20brief%20issue%209_WP6_d63.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Raffaelli, D., & White, P. C. L. (2013). Ecosystems and their services in a changing world: An ecological perspective. Advances in Ecological Research, 48, 1–70. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-417199-2.00001-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sagoff, M. (1996). On the value of endangered and other species. Environmental Management, 20(6), 897–911. doi: 10.1007/BF01205970
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, A., Carter, C., Hölzinger, O., Everard, M., Rafaelli, D., Hardman, M., … Taft, A. (2014). UK National Ecosystem Assessment Follow-on. Work Package Report 10: Tools – Applications, Benefits and Linkages for Ecosystem Science (TABLES). UNEP-WCMC, LWEC, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, A. J., Carter, C., Reed, M. R., Larkham, P., Adams, D., Morton, N., … Coles, R. (2013). Disintegrated development at the rural–urban fringe: Re-connecting spatial planning theory and practice. Progress in Planning, 83, 1–52. doi: 10.1016/j.progress.2012.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, R. W. S. (2001). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations (4th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press. 368 p.
   Google Scholar
• Söderman, T., Kopperoinen, L., Yli-Pelkonen, V., & Shemeikka, P. (2012). Ecosystem services criteria for sustainable development in urban regions. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 14(2), 1250008-1–1250008-48. doi: 10.1142/S1464333212500081
   Google Scholar
• Stepanova, O., & Bruckmeier, K. (2013). Resource use conflicts and Urban–Rural resource use dynamics in Swedish coastal landscapes: Comparison and synthesis. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 15(4), 467–492. doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2013.778173
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TEEB. (2010). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Mainstreaming the economics of nature: A synthesis of the approach. Conclusions and recommendations of TEEB.
   Google Scholar
• Tewdwr-Jones, M., Gallent, N., & Morphet, J. (2010). An anatomy of spatial planning: Coming to terms with the spatial element in UK planning. European Planning Studies, 18(2), 239–257. doi: 10.1080/09654310903491572
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Troy, A., & Wilson, M. A. (2006). Mapping ecosystem services: Practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecological economics, 60, 435–449. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.04.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner, K. (1991). Economics and wetland management. Ambio, 20(2), 59–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turnpenny, J., Russell, D., & Jordan, A. (2014). The challenge of embedding an ecosystem services approach: Patterns of knowledge utilisation in public policy appraisal. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32, 247–262. doi: 10.1068/c1317j
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UKNEA. (2011). The UK national ecosystem assessment: Synthesis of the key findings. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC.
   Google Scholar
• Vatn, A. (2005). Rationality, institutions and environmental policy. Ecological Economics, 55, 203–217. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vatn, A. (2010). An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 69(6), 1245–1252. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vatn, A., & Bromley, D. W. (1994). Choices without prices without apologies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26(2), 129–148. doi: 10.1006/jeem.1994.1008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vatn, A., & Bromeley, D. W. (1995). Choices without Prices without Apologies. In D.W. Bromley (Ed.), The handbook of environmental economics (pp. 3–25). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Waylen, K. A., Hastings, E. J., Banks, E. A., Holstead, K. L., Irvine, R. J., & Blackstock, K. L. (2014). The need to disentangle key concepts from ecosystem-approach Jargon. Conservation Biology, 28(5), 1215–1224. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12331
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiss, C. H. (1999). The interface between evaluation and public policy. Evaluation, 5(4), 468–486. doi: 10.1177/135638909900500408
   Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, S. (2004). Focus group research. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method, and practice (pp. 177–199). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Yli-Pelkonen, V. (2008). Ecological information in the political decision making of urban land-use planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51(3), 345–362. doi: 10.1080/09640560801977224
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar