The role of the Red Lists of Ecosystems in leveraging sustainability changes in Finland – perceptions of the assessors

References

• Abson DJ, Fischer J, Leventon J, Newig J, Schomerus T, Vilsmaier U, von Wehrden H, Abernethy P, Ives CD, Jager NW, et al. 2017. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio. 46(1):30–13. doi:10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alaniz AJ, Pérez‐Quezada JF, Galleguillos M, Vásquez AE, Keith DA. 2019. Operationalizing the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems in public policy. Conserv Lett. 12(5):e12665. doi:10.1111/conl.12665.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amendment to the Forest Act (1085/2013).
   Google Scholar
• Berkes F. 2009. Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. J Environ Manage. 90(5):1692–1702. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Betts J, Young RP, Hilton-Taylor C, Hoffmann M, Rodr´ıguez JP, Stuart SN, Milner-Gulland EJ. 2019. A framework for evaluating the impact of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Conserv Biol. 34(3):632–643. doi:10.1111/cobi.13454.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bland LM, Bland LM, Keith DA, Miller RM, Murray NJ, Rodríguez JP. 2015. Guidelines for the application of IUCN Red List of Ecosystems categories and criteria, Version 1.0. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. doi:10.2305/IUCN.CH.2016.RLE.1.en.
   Google Scholar
• Bland LM, Nicholson E, Miller RM, Andrade A, Carré A, Etter A, Ferrer‐Paris JR, Herrera B, Kontula T, Lindgaard A, et al. 2019. Impacts of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems on conservation policy and practice. Conserv Lett. 12(5):e12666. doi:10.1111/conl.12666.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carey G, Crammond B. 2015. Systems change for the social determinants of health. BMC Public Health. 15(1):662. doi:10.1186/s12889-015-1979-8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chan KMA, Boyd DR, Gould RK, Jetzkowitz J, Liu J, Muraca B, Naidoo R, Olmsted P, Satterfield T, Selomane O, et al. 2020. Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability. People Nat. 2(3):693–717. doi:10.1002/pan3.10124.
   Google Scholar
• Clark WC, van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L, Gallopin GC. 2016. Crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development. PNAS. 113(17):4570–4578. doi:10.1073/pnas.1601266113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Convention on Biological Diversity. 1992. The convention on biological diversity. Nairobi: United Nations Environmental Program.
   Google Scholar
• Davila F, Plant R, Jacobs B. 2021. Biodiversity revisited through systems thinking. Environ Conserv. 48:16–24. doi:10.1017/S0376892920000508.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorninger C, Abson DJ, Apetrei CI, Derwort P, Ives CD, Klaniecki K, Lam DPM, Langsenlehner M, Riechers M, Spittler N, et al. 2020. Leverage points for sustainability transformation: a review on interventions in food and energy systems. Ecol Econ. 171:106570. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106570.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Environmental Protection Act (527/2014).
   Google Scholar
• Finnish Government. 2012. Government resolution on the strategy for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in Finland for the years 2012–2020. Saving Nature for People.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer J, Abson DJ, Dorresteijn I, Hanspach J, Hartel T, Jannik Schultner J, Sherren K. 2022. Using a leverage points perspective to compare social-ecological systems: a case study on rural landscapes. Ecosyst People. 18(1):119–130. doi:10.1080/26395916.2022.2032357.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer J, Riechers M. 2019. A leverage points perspective on sustainability. People Nat. 1(1):115–120. doi:10.1002/pan3.13.
   Google Scholar
• Folke C, Jansson Å, Rockström J, Olsson P, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, Crépin A-S, Daily G, Danell K, Ebbesson J, et al. 2011. Reconnecting to the biosphere. Ambio. 40(7):719. doi:10.1007/s13280-011-0184-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Global Biodiversity Outlook 5. 2020. Secretariat of the convention on biological diversity.
   Google Scholar
• Gustafsson KM, Lidskog R. 2013. Boundary work, hybrid practices, and portable representations: an analysis of global and national coproductions of Red Lists. Nat Cult. 8(1):30–52. doi:10.3167/nc.2013.080103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 15(9):1277–1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [IPBES] Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. 2019. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bonn, Germany: IPBES Secretariat.
   Google Scholar
• Jørstad E, Skogen K. 2010. The Norwegian Red List between science and policy. Environ Sci. Policy. 13(2):115–122. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2009.12.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keith DA, Rodríguez JP, Brooks TM, Burgman MA, Barrow EG, Bland L, Comer PJ, Franklin J, Link J, McCarthy MA, et al. 2015. The IUCN Red List of Ecosystems: motivations, challenges, and applications. Conserv Lett. 8(3):214–226. doi:10.1111/conl.12167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kontula T, Raunio A. 2019. Threatened habitat types in Finland 2018 - Red List of habitats results and basis for assessment. The Finnish Environment 2.
   Google Scholar
• Kröger M, Raitio K. 2017. Finnish forest policy in the era of bioeconomy: a pathway to sustainability? For Policy Econ. 77:6–15. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2016.12.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leventon J, Abson DJ, Lang DJ. 2021. Leverage points for sustainability transformations: nine guiding questions for sustainability science and practice. Sustain Sci. 16(3):721–726. doi:10.1007/s11625-021-00961-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lidgren A, Rodhe H, Huisingh D. 2006. A systemic approach to incorporate sustainability into university courses and curricula. J Clean Prod. 14(9–11):797–809. doi:10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2005.12.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lidskog R. 2014. Representing and regulating nature: boundary organisations, portable representations, and the science-policy interface. Environ Polit. 24(4):670–687. doi:10.1080/09644016.2013.898820.
   Google Scholar
• Mace GM, Collar NJ, Gaston KJ, Hilton-Taylor C, Akçakaya HR, Leader-Williams N, Milner-Gulland EJ, Stuart SN. 2008. Quantification of extinction risk: iUCN’s system for classifying threatened species. Conserv Biol. 22(6):1424–1442. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01044.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manlosa AO, Schultner J, Dorresteijn I, Fischer J. 2019. Leverage points for improving gender equality and human well-being in a smallholder farming context. Sustain Sci. 14:529–541. doi:10.1007/s11625-018-0636-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maxwell SL, Fuller RA, Brooks TM, Watson JEM. 2016. Biodiversity: the ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nature. 536(7615):143–145. doi:10.1038/536143a.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meadows D 2001. Dancing with systems. Whole Earth. 106:58–63.
   Google Scholar
• Meadows DH. 1999. Leverage points – places to intervene in a system. Hartland, VT: The Sustainability Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Miller CA, Wyborn C. 2020. Co-production in global sustainability: histories and theories. Environ Sci. Policy. 113:88–95. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministry of Environment and Finnish Environment Institute. 2021, Oct 26. Uhanalaiset lajit [Vulnerable species]. https://www.ymparisto.fi/fi-fi/luonto/lajit/uhanalaiset_lajit.
   Google Scholar
• Mora C, Tittensor DP, Adl S, Simpson, AGB, Worm B. 2011. How many species are there on earth and in the ocean? PLoS Biol. 9(8):e1001127. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Action Plan. 2013–2020. National action plan for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in Finland 2013–2020. Saving Nature for People.
   Google Scholar
• Nutley S, Boaz A, Davies H, Fraser A. 2019. New development: what works now? Continuity and change in the use of evidence to improve public policy and service delivery. Public Money Manag. 39(4):310–316. doi:10.1080/09540962.2019.1598202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Brien K, Sygna L. 2013. Responding to climate change: the three spheres of transformation. Proc Conf Transform Chang Clim. 16–23.
   Google Scholar
• O’Neill DW, Fanning AL, Lamb WF, Steinberger JK. 2018. A good life for all within planetary boundaries. Nat Sustain. 1:88–95. doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0021-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otero I, Farrell KN, Pueyo S, Kallis G, Kehoe L, Haberl H, Plutzar C, Hobson P, García‐Márquez J, Rodríguez‐Labajos B, et al. 2020. Biodiversity policy beyond economic growth. Conserv Lett. 13(4):e12713. doi:10.1111/conl.12713.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pyle RM. 2003. Nature matrix: reconnecting people and nature. Oryx. 37(2):206–214. doi:10.1017/S0030605303000383.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pynnönen S, Salomaa A, Rantala S, Hujala T. 2019. Technical and social knowledge discontinuities in the multi-objective management of private forests in Finland. Land Use Policy. 88:104156. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabaud S, Coreau A, Mermet L. 2020. Red lists of threatened species—Indicators with the potential to act as strategic circuit breakers between science and policy. Environ Sci. Policy. 113:72–79. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.04.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riousset P, Flachsland C, Kowarsch M. 2017. Global environmental assessments: impact mechanisms. Environ Science & Policy. 77:260–267. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.02.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose DC, Sutherland WJ, Amano T, González-Varo JP, Robertson RJ, Simmons BI, Wauchope HS, Kovacs E, Durán AP, Vadrot ABM, et al. 2018. The major barriers to evidence-informed conservation policy and possible solutions. Conserv Lett. 11(5):e12564. doi:10.1111/conl.12564.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosengren LM, Raymond CM, Sell M, Vihinen H. 2020. Identifying leverage points for strengthening adaptive capacity to climate change. Ecosyst People. 16(1):427–444. doi:10.1080/26395916.2020.1857439.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salomaa A, Juhola S. 2020. How to assess sustainability transformations: a review. Global Sustainability. 3(e24):1–12. doi:10.1017/sus.2020.17.
   Google Scholar
• Salomaa A, Paloniemi R, Ekroos A. 2018. The case of conflicting Finnish peatland management – Skewed representation of nature, participation and policy instruments. J Environ Manage. 223(1):694–702. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.06.048.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stuart SN, et al. 2017. IUCN’s encounter with 007: safeguarding consensus for conservation. Oryx. 53(4):741–747. doi:10.1017/s0030605317001557.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turnhout E, Dewulf A, Hulme M. 2016. What does policy-relevant global environmental knowledge do? The cases of climate and biodiversity. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 18:65–72. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2015.09.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turunen J. 2008. Development of Finnish peatland area and carbon storage. Boreal Environ Res. 13:319–334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venter O, Sanderson EW, Magrach A, Allan JR, Beher J, Jones KR, Possingham HP, Laurance WF, Wood P, Fekete BM, et al. 2016. Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nat Commun. 7(1):12558. doi:10.1038/ncomms12558.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar