Ecological Complexity 7 (2010) 410–420
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ecological Complexity
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecocom
Ecosystem services–A tool for sustainable management of human–environment
systems. Case study Finnish Forest Lapland
Petteri Vihervaara a,*, Timo Kumpula b, Ari Tanskanen b, Benjamin Burkhard c
a
Department of Biology, Section of Biodiversity and Environmental Science, University of Turku, FI-20014 Turku, Finland
Department of Geography, University of Joensuu, 80101 Joensuu, Finland
c
Ecology Center, Christian Albrechts University Kiel, 24098 Kiel, Germany
b
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history:
Received 9 March 2009
Received in revised form 3 December 2009
Accepted 3 December 2009
Available online 29 December 2009
The concept of ecosystem services (ESs) is a relatively new scientific methodology, offering a possible
approach to the prevention of ecological problems caused by human action and to the resolution of
conflicts arising from land-use questions. Since ESs were launched as a major conceptual tool in the
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005), interest in them has been increasing. Despite the
scientific as well as economic and political enthusiasm for the ES approach, only few case studies have as
yet been published. We studied the interface between ESs and landscape planning in Forest Lapland, in
northern Finland. In the article, we present a methodology and various databases which can be used in
applied research on ESs. We classify the ESs offered by various biotopes of the study area, and examine
the effects of different land-use forms on the provision of ESs. On the basis of our results, we suggest
possible uses of the European CORINE land cover database in case studies.
ß 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Conflict
CORINE land cover database
Landscape planning
Land-use change
Methodology
1. Introduction
1.1. Ecosystem services and nature management
Complexity is common to all coupled human–environment
systems (Li, 2004; Loehe, 2004). Such systems have been studied
previously under various titles, including ecological economics and
landscape ecology, and most recently as the concept of Ecosystem
Services (ESs) (MA, 2005). According to the UN-supported Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), as of now over 60% of the world’s
ESs have been degraded. The ES approach merges different
paradigms and research traditions of the social, economic and
environmental sciences. However, the methods used in landscape
ecology, such as metapopulation modelling and remote sensing, are
also important for ES research. Ecosystem management has
traditionally focused on the sustainable production of game, fish
and wildlife, and in particular of forestry products (Franklin, 1997).
Trepidation over biodiversity loss and habitat fragmentation have
motivated the development of rules for sustainable management
(CBD Secretariat, 2004; Hanski and Ovaskainen, 2003). Commercial
actors, such as forest industry operators, have developed their own
rules for sustainable management, on the one hand to protect the
long-term production of resources, but also in response to pressure
from stakeholders, such as NGOs (WWF-IUCN, 2004). During the last
20 years, major changes have taken place in natural resource
management practices, especially in forestry, in Finland as in many
other countries in Europe and North America (Hall, 2001; Hickey and
Innes, 2005; Metsätalouden kehittämiskeskus Tapio, 2006; Vihervaara and Kamppinen, 2009).
In this article, we have the following aims:
(1) to introduce the methodology and various databases used in an
applied study on ESs;
(2) to classify the ESs offered by the various biotopes of the study
area in Forest Lapland;
(3) to examine the effect of different forms of land-use on the
provision of ESs in the study area.
We also discuss possible uses of the European CORINE land
cover database in ES studies, and the opportunities and pitfalls
involved in the methodology used.
1.2. Current needs of empirical ecosystem service studies
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +358 400 472045.
E-mail addresses: sajuvi@utu.fi (P. Vihervaara), timo.kumpula@joensuu.fi
(T. Kumpula), [email protected].fi (A. Tanskanen),
[email protected] (B. Burkhard).
1476-945X/$ – see front matter ß 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.12.002
The characteristics of coupled human–environment systems
remain difficult to measure, model and quantify by empirical
methods (see Zurlini et al., 2006; Graymore et al., 2009). The
P. Vihervaara et al. / Ecological Complexity 7 (2010) 410–420
emphasis in ecosystem conservation studies has traditionally been
on species and biodiversity conservation. The recent expansion of
conservation thinking, which includes the dependence of human
well-being on healthy ecosystems and the goods and services they
produce, seems to be giving new vigour to sustainable ecosystem
management and conservation.
Naidoo et al. (2008) have stressed certain urgent needs for ES
research: (1) global ES assessments must generate better maps
showing where ESs are produced; (2) it has to quantify the
likelihood of land-use conversion and its probable impact on
service provision; and (3) we need to understand the value and
flow of benefits to nearby and distant human populations. We
assume that, in addition to these, other current challenges are (4)
to select relevant indicators and scales to assess changes in ESs, (5)
to determine ESs in different habitats and cultural circumstances,
and (6) to combine the relevant results in a form which is also
understandable for decision-makers.
Naidoo et al. (2008) were able to find data for four ESs to
represent their global geographic distribution: carbon sequestration, carbon storage, grassland production of livestock, and water
provision. They conclude that major efforts will be required in
order to quantify and map even a fraction of the most important
ESs. In our case, we have done so at a regional level in northern
Finland.
1.3. Ecological basis of ecosystem services
At the beginning of the human–environment relationships
described by ESs, there are ecosystem processes and functions such
as soil formation, the photosynthesis of autotrophic plants or the
cycling of energy, matter and water. In contemporary terms, these
are called supporting ESs (MA, 2005). Actually, they do not merely
support other forms of ESs, but are in fact prerequisites for their
performance. Looking at the different supporting services, it
becomes obvious that distinctive ecosystem structures and
functions are needed for their operation (Fig. 1). The cycling of
energy, matter and water, a specific diversity of key species, and
suitable abiotic conditions are crucial components in the description of ecosystem functioning (Müller, 2005). These factors are
included in the concepts of ‘ecosystem integrity’ and ‘ecosystem
health’, which aim at preserving those structures and functions
that are necessary to keep the system adaptive (i.e. resilient against
disturbances) and sustainable in the provision of ESs (Burkhard
et al., 2008). Supporting services provide materials and functions
necessary for the availability of provisioning, regulating and
cultural ecosystem goods and services. These in turn are
indispensable prerequisites for human well-being (Müller and
Burkhard, 2007).
The dependence of provisioning services–which include the
supply of products that can be consumed or used by people directly
(e.g. food, water, fiber, fuel or building material)–on supporting
services is apparent. Regulating services, including for example
water and air purification, climate regulation and disease control,
411
can on the one hand be utilized by humankind directly; on the
other hand they include important components of ecosystem
processes and functioning. Thus, there are mutual relationships
with human well-being and provisioning, cultural and supporting
services. Hence, the concept of the ES provides a useful tool to link
natural systems and human society. In Forest Lapland, where such
sources of livelihood as forestry, reindeer husbandry, gold-digging
or tourism are strongly dependent on natural resources and intact
ecosystems, these linkages are even more obvious than in the
industrialized regions of Central Europe (Burkhard and Müller,
2008).
1.4. Introduction to the case study: the forest conflict and other
challenges to land use in Forest Lapland
In the Arctic, ecological processes such as tree reproduction,
photosynthesis and decomposition are slow (CAFF, 2001; Wielgolaski, 1997; Stark, 2002), and ecosystems are therefore very fragile
under sudden human impact. Arctic biodiversity is not very high
compared to southern latitudes, making it an interesting platform
for ES research. The local flora and fauna have evolved and adapted
to the harsh environmental conditions, but not to the high rate and
impact of modern land-use changes caused for instance by
forestry. Tree trunks harvested in Forest Lapland, for instance,
are often 200–300 years old (Sihvo et al., 2006; Wallenius, 2007),
compared to trees harvested at an age of 50–100 years (or even
less) in most other parts of Europe (Kankaanpää et al., 2002;
Sippola, 2002; Rounsevell et al., 2006).
The controversial debate over land use in Forest Lapland has
long been ongoing (Hallikainen et al., 2006; Sihvo et al., 2006;
Heikkinen, 2007; Raitio, 2008; Liimatainen et al., 2006; Harkki,
2002). The main participants in this complex issue are forestry
people, reindeer herders, the nature protection authorities and
activists, tourism people, and miners. The most difficult conflict is
that between the forestry people and the alliance of reindeer
herders and conservationists. The importance of tourism has
increased considerably in terms of employment rate and income
(Table 1) (Fotiou et al., 2003; Kauppila and Saarinen, 2008);
tourism in Lapland currently employs more people than any other
industry (Saarinen, 2002; Keskimölö and Pirkonen, 2006). The
main attraction factors for tourists are the area’s ‘clean’ nature,
wildlife and nature conservation areas (e.g. Buckley, 1999).
Recreational services and the increasing importance of tourism
have been seen to justify nature conservation (Eagles and McCool,
2002).
At the same time forestry has been facing radical changes,
leading for example to the closure of Finland’s northernmost pulp
factory in Kemijärvi where part of the wood logged in Forest
Lapland had been processed. One underlying reason behind the
land-use conflict is the unresolved question of land ownership in
Lapland, between the indigenous Sámi people and the State of
Table 1
Income and employee values of main land-use forms in Finnish Lapland (Keskimölö
and Pirkonen, 2006).
Fig. 1. Relevance of ecosystem integrity for the provision of other ecosystem
services and human well-being.
Forest industry
Tourism
Forestry
Reindeer herding
Metsähallitus nature
resource services
Gathering
Hunting
Fishing
Income value
(million s)
Employee value
(man-year)
1196
377
218
50
1
2700
3472
1635
2500
173
8
7
5
830
–
–
412
P. Vihervaara et al. / Ecological Complexity 7 (2010) 410–420
Fig. 2. CORINE2000 land-use classification of the research area in Forest Lapland, Finland.Source: CLC2000 Landcover Database (25m): ßSYKE (partly ßMMM, MML, VRK).
Finland. There have been several attempts to solve this problem,
but a consensus is still lacking (e.g. Heikkuri et al., 2000; Sihvo
et al., 2006; Raitio, 2008).
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area
The study area is located in Finnish Lapland, and can be
described in terms of two different factors: (1) the biological and
landscape ecology of the area, and (2) its administrative borders.
The latter are relevant in assessing human well-being on the basis
of municipality-based statistical data and with regard to environmental management.
2.1.1. Biological and geographical setting
The study area lies at the border zone between the Arctic
tundra and the boreal forest biomes. This vegetation zone is called
‘‘Forest Lapland’’ (‘‘Metsä-Lappi’’ in Finnish). The forest is
dominated by Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) from the treeline of
spruce (Picea abies) to that of pine. Mountain birches (Betula
pubescens ssp. czerepanovii) follow after pines, with their upper
growth limit above 150–200 m. As a typical ecotone or transition
zone, the forest-tundra acts as a buffer between boreal forest and
open tundra (CAFF, 2001). The area also includes rivers, lakes,
ponds and peatlands.
The study covered an area of 9880 km2, bordering on the
artificial lakes of Lokka and Porttipahta in the south and Lake Inari
in the north. The artificial lakes were built between the 1960s and
1970s as reservoirs for electricity generation. The vegetation
growth period in Forest Lapland varies from 100 to 140 days; heat
summation ranges from 600 to 750 degree days (d.d.) (1971–
2000), compared to 750–1000 d.d. in other parts of commercially
used forests of northern Finland (Metsätalouden kehittämiskeskus
Tapio, 2006). Precipitation varies from 320 to 420 mm per year.
Most of the forests in the region with less than 750 d.d. are socalled protection forests, in which logging and reforestation have
to carried out with particular care (Hyppönen et al., 2003; Forest
Act, 1996).
2.1.2. Administrative zones
The study area belongs to the province of Lapland, sub-province
of North Lapland. It overlaps with two municipalities: the southern
part is in Inari, the northern part in Sodankylä. The county plan of
North Lapland, which regulates land use, was recently accepted by
the Finnish government (Valtioneuvoston päätös YM2/5222/
2006). Northern Finland is divided into 56 reindeer-herding
districts, of which we focus on three: Lappi, Hammastunturi and
Ivalo (Fig. 2). All three districts have a long tradition of reindeer
herding. Other land-use forms have developed in different ways in
the individual districts. The Hammastunturi district has relatively
low rates of both forestry and tourism. In the Lappi district there is
more tension over land use, because of the role of forestry and two
large water reservoirs as well as a large National Park with tourism.
The Ivalo district has been a major area of forestry since the 1940s.
2.2. The role of nature conservation
The proportions of nature conservation areas were studied with
a view to estimating their meaning for ES production. Various
types of protected areas are located in the study area: the Urho
Kekkonen National Park, the wilderness areas of Hammastunturi
and Sarmitunturi, the Sompio Nature Park, protected bogs and
mires, and sites belonging to the EU’s Natura 2000 network
(Lindqvist and Posio, 2005). These conservation areas are important for biodiversity and for human well-being, in that they offer
recreation opportunities and access to the natural heritage.
2.3. Ecosystem services and CORINE land cover system
The European CORINE2000 land cover database (CLC2000) was
tested for its suitability to assess ES production in the study area in
the baseline year 2000. The land cover of Finland has been mapped
as part of the European CORINE2000 Land Cover project (CLC2000
P. Vihervaara et al. / Ecological Complexity 7 (2010) 410–420
413
Fig. 3. Databases available for ecosystem service assessment.
Finland, 2005): it includes a satellite image map and a raster land
cover database with 25 m 25 m resolution covering the whole of
Finland. This database has been generalized so as to fit in with the
European land cover map, with a minimum mapping unit of 25 ha.
The CLC2000 comprises 44 land cover classes, of which 34 occur in
Forest Lapland. In addition, we surveyed other possible databases
which might be useful for regional ES assessment (Fig. 3; see
Section 2.5).
The data on the ESs produced by different CLC2000 classes, i.e.
CORINE habitats, were collected by means of an intensive
literature search, expert interviews, and in part our own
estimates. A total of twenty open interviews were conducted
with experts from universities and research institutes, NGOs,
representatives of different land-use groups and other stakeholders, eliciting their opinions on relevant ESs, the ES production
capacity of the habitats, and land-use impact on ES provisioning.
The ESs identified were classified, following the most common
and widely accepted classifications of the MA (2005), into
provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services. The
selection of relevant ESs was based on the needs of the local
community and on an examination of potential indicators
(Table 2). The capacity of each CORINE habitat to produce
particular ESs was assessed using a tripartite scale, with 0 = low,
1 = medium, and 2 = high capacity. The results of this ES matrix
(including estimates for all sub-classes) were summarized
according to the above-mentioned four classes of ESs, and
distribution maps of ESs based on these average values were
produced with GIS (cf. Burkhard et al., 2009).
We calculated so-called Habitat values to indicate the capacity
of each CORINE habitat to provide particular ESs in the Forest
Lapland vegetation zone. We then calculated areal ES capacity
(AESC) indices for each reindeer-herding district and for the study
area as a whole, so as to allow regional comparisons. The following
formula was used to calculate the AESC indices:
X X HABITAT AHABITAT
IAESC ¼
ATOTAL
where XHABITAT is the Habitat value (average of ES production
capacity per habitat), AHABITAT is the area of the CORINE class in the
region, and ATOTAL is the area of the region in focus. These indices
were calculated separately for all three reindeer-herding districts
and for the study area as a whole.
Table 2
Selected ecosystem process-oriented ecosystem services, potential indicators and trends.
Supporting service
Photosynthesis
Nutrient cycling
Soil formation
Regulating service
Local and regional climate regulation
Carbon sequestration
Pollination
Flood prevention
Erosion prevention
Nutrient sequestration
Potential indicator
Trend
Net primary production
N, P or other elements turnover rates
Accumulation of organic materials in soils
Varying
1
1
Potential indicator
Trend
Temperature amplitudes
Biomass growth
Availability of pollinators
Number of floods causing damages
Loss of soil particles by wind or water; vegetation cover
N, P or other nutrients
2
Varying
1
1
2
1
414
P. Vihervaara et al. / Ecological Complexity 7 (2010) 410–420
2.4. Land-use forms
We selected nine forms of land use the impact of which on the
provision of ESs we wanted to study: (1) nature conservation, (2)
road network, (3) mining claims, (4) reindeer herding, including
both winter and summer pastures and the human activities
accompanying them, (5) forestry, including clear-cutting, thinning
and light selection felling, (6) snowmobile and husky safaris and
routes with buffers of 4 and 400 m, (7) hiking and skiing routes
with a buffer of 4 m, (8) historical sites, and (9) artificial lakes.
These land-use categories can be shared with hard ones (2, 3, 5, 9)
and soft ones (1, 4, 6, 7, 8) based on the intensity of their impact on
land cover and ES production. However, several generalizations
had to be made here. For example, different intensities of reindeer
herding have a varying effect on the land cover. Very intensive
herding might lead to over-grazing, thereby causing severe
vegetation damage and ultimately erosion (Stark, 2002).
The impacts of these different forms of land use were assessed
in two ways. We first assessed the impact of each land-use
category on each ES category, using a five-step scale from 2
(highly negative impact, i.e. a process-decreasing effect) to +2
(highly positive, i.e. a process-enhancing effect). Secondly, we
constructed a matrix of the interactive impacts of the land uses,
using the same five-step scale, and showed the results in a network
diagram. We also estimated variations in the effects on different
ESs and other land-use categories.
2.5. Databases and GIS analysis
All these methods–remote sensing, geographical information
systems (GIS), statistical analyses, the survey of the literature and
expert interviews–were used to build up a land-use and landscapechange database for the ES analysis (Fig. 3). The CLC2000
classification was used as a main resource. It is comparable across
Europe and cost-effective to use. Some of the CLC2000 classifications classes were unsuitable for evaluating for example important
reindeer pastures. In particular forest classes lack separate
categories for pine and spruce, clear-cuttings, or young and old
forests, which are important from example from the point of view
of reindeer herding. Old spruce forests with arboreal lichen are
very important late winter pastures. The CLC2000 data was partly
reclassified. Sparse forest, the <10% class, was classified as clearcutting, but this had to be corrected with a digital elevation model
in order to distinguish it from the open fjell class in areas above
320 m asl. The peatland class of CLC2000 was replaced using the
more accurate peatland mask of the Finnish National Land Survey.
Likewise agriculture land was corrected using the NLS GIS
database.
CLC2000 and data from the National Land Survey, Metsähallitus
(Forest and Park Service), the Reindeer Herders’ Association, the
Finnish Ministry of Employment and Economy, and Finland’s
environmental administration were used to map land use in the
area. Supplementary data were collected in interviews, for
instance with the head of the reindeer-herding districts, who
located summer and winter reindeer pastures, the best Bryoria
lichen forests, pasture fences and reindeer round-up areas. These
data were converted to GIS layers.
The CLC2000 data did not contain sufficiently detailed
information on the road network, paths and infrastructure in
the area. Detailed data were provided by the Finnish National Land
Survey and buffer zones of direct and indirect impacts were
created around roads, paths and other infrastructure. The resulting
layers of road and infrastructure were merged with the CORINE
classification. The ES production capacity values of the improved
CLC2000 classification classes (Section 2.3) were assigned to the
individual polygons. In addition, the values of the impact of
different land-use types on the provision of ESs were assigned to
the land-use polygons (Section 2.4). In evaluating the impact of
each type of land use on the provision of a given ES, the mutual
effects between the land-use types were taken into account. For
example: How does snowmobiling affect reindeer herding? How
do nutrient loads from husky safaris affect the ecosystems? Thus,
different scales had to be assessed. For example, spatial habitat loss
due to road construction is not necessarily significant at the level of
the landscape, but in terms of wilderness, or increased use of the
area because of improved accessibility the ramifications might be
considerable. Finally, the spatial extent of the land cover classes
and their capacity to provide ESs were evaluated at the level of the
reindeer-herding district.
3. Results
3.1. Provision of ecosystem services by habitats
In a first step, we identified the ESs provided in the individual
CORINE habitats, and calculated the Habitat values (Table 3). We
calculated the surface areas of improved CLC2000 classes in each
reindeer-herding district (Table 4). Only ESs of significance or
concern for humans in the study area were considered (based on
the literature and on the opinions of experts). The services
provided were identified as follows:
Provisioning services: provision of (P1) semi-domesticated
reindeer; (P2) game (especially moose, hares and birds); (P3) fish;
(P4) berries and mushrooms; (P5) fodder (including ground and
arboreal lichens and hays); (P6) medicines (e.g. sundews Drosera
spp. and spruce resin cream); (P7) wood (especially pine for pulp,
paper and sawmill material, but also birch and spruce for firewood
and household use); (P8) water for drinking; (P9) energy (including
falling waste and hydropower potential); (P10) genetic resources.
Regulating services: (R1) local and regional climate regulation;
(R2) carbon sequestration and storage; (R3) pollination; (R4) flood
protection; (R5) erosion prevention; (R6) nutrient sequestration.
Cultural services: (C1) natural heritage of Sámi and local
cultures; (C2) landscape aesthetics; (C3) intrinsic value of nature
and biodiversity; (C4) recreation and silence.
Supporting services: (S1) photosynthesis; (S2) nutrient cycling;
(S3) soil formation.
According to the improved CLC2000 polygons, the most
common habitat in the study area was coniferous forest,
accounting for 33.0% of the total area. The proportion of mixed
forest was 20.9%; marshes and bogs accounted for 11.0%, still
waters for 10.6%, forestry areas for 10.2%, and broad-leaved forests
for 6.0%. The variation in habitat distribution among the reindeerherding districts is shown in Table 4 (see also Fig. 2). The AESC
indices are given in Table 5. Finally, the ES production capacity of
CORINE habitats and the distribution of ESs in the year 2000 are
shown in the maps, Fig. 4a–d.
3.2. Impact of different land-use forms on the provision of
ecosystem services
Differences in land-use pressures were compared in the three
reindeer-herding districts. Land-use patterns varied between
districts. The proportion of forestry areas in the Ivalo reindeerherding district was 16.6%, while in Hammastunturi it was only
9.6% and in Lappi 6.4%. On the other hand, protected areas
accounted for 51.5% of the land in Hammastunturi and 48.1% in
Lappi, but only 25.5% in the Ivalo district. The road network density
and the area of mineral deposit claims were highest in the Ivalo
district (Table 6). Semi-domesticated reindeer graze all over the
area, although there are differences between summer and winter
pastures.
P. Vihervaara et al. / Ecological Complexity 7 (2010) 410–420
415
Table 3
Ecosystem service production capacity by CORINE habitats, where 0 = unimportant or neutral, 1 = minor or medium importance, 2 = very important. Habitat values represent
averages and indicate the capacity of a habitat to provide particular ecosystem services in the Forest Lapland vegetation zone.
Forestry Sand, bare
Fjell
Marshes, Running Still
Sparse
Artificial Agricultural Broad- Coniferous Mixed Grasslands
area
rocks, etc. vegetation
bogs
water water
forest
forest and moors mountain
surfaces
areas
leaved
forests
forest
Provisioning
Reindeer
Game
Fish
Berries, mushrooms
Fodder
Medicines
Wood
Water
Energy
Genetic resources
Habitat value
Regulating
Local and regional
climate
Carbon sequestration
Pollination
Flood prevention
Erosion prevention
Nutrient sequestration
Habitat value
Cultural
Local and Sami cultures
Esthetic landscape
Intrinsic value of
nature and BD
Recreation
Habitat value
Supporting
Photosynthesis
Nutrient cycling
Soil formation
Habitat value
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
0
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
0
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
2
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
2
1
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
2
1
2
0
2
1
2
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
0.0
0.6
1.1
1.6
1.5
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.2
0.5
1.2
0.9
0.9
0
0
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
0
1
2
1
2
1
2
0
0
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
0
2
1
1
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
2
2
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
2
0
1
1.0
0.8
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.2
0.7
0.7
0.3
0.3
1.7
0.7
1.0
1
0
0
2
1
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
0.3
0.8
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.8
0.3
2.0
2.0
1.5
2.0
2.0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
0
1
1
0
0.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
1.3
0.3
1.7
Table 4
Surface areas (km2) and percentages (%) of CORINE habitats per reindeer-herding district.
Artificial Agricultural Broad-leaved Coniferous
surfaces
areas
forest
forest
Mixed
forest
Forestry Sand, bare
Fjell
Marshes, Running
Sparse
Grasslands
area
rocks, etc. vegetation
bogs
water
mountain
and
forests
moors
Still
water
Hammastunturi 11.6
Ivalo
22.4
Lappi
6.2
1.7
3.5
0.6
301.3
103.6
191.7
748.1
1115.7
1394.5
538.7
617.2
914.0
43.0
24.8
152.8
137.4
65.4
181.1
242.4
476.1
286.3
0.1
0.3
0.0
9.5
4.5
106.2
166.4
140.7
778.6
10.8
13.0
21.6
304.6
273.3
469.4
Total (km2)
5.8
596.6
3258.3
2069.9
220.7
383.8
1004.9
0.4
120.2
1085.7
45.4
1047.2
40.2
Hammastunturi
Ivalo
Lappi
0.46
0.78
0.14
0.07
0.12
0.01
11.98
3.62
4.26
29.74
38.99
30.96
21.42
21.57
20.29
1.71
0.87
3.39
5.46
2.28
4.02
9.64 0.00
16.64 0.01
6.36 0.00
Total (%)
0.41
0.06
6.04
32.98
20.95
2.23
3.88
10.17 0.00
Table 5
Areal ecosystem service capacity (AESC) indices for comparison of different regions
(here reindeer-herding districts). Indices indicate the regional capacity to provide
particular ecosystem services.
Provisioning
Regulating
Cultural
Supporting
Hammastunturi
Ivalo
Lappi
1.248
1.280
1.268
1.308
1.289
1.346
1.771
1.661
1.781
1.623
1.625
1.607
Total study area
1.266
1.320
1.744
1.616
0.38
0.16
2.36
122
6.61
4.92
17.29
0.43
0.45
0.48
12.11
9.55
10.42
10.99
0.46
10.60
Land-use impacts on the production capacity of specified ESs
were assessed, and the results show that hard land-use forms,
which alter the land cover significantly, have more negative
impacts on ES production than soft ones (Table 7). As an example,
the average impact of each land-use form on ESs was calculated
(excluding cells with multiple impacts). Based on these values,
mining claims and forestry had the strongest negative impact,
followed by road network and artificial lakes. Nature conservation
was the only land-use form that increased the capacity for
provisioning services production. Some differences were observed
in regulating services, in which reindeer-herding, and snowmobile
and husky safaris had a negative effect. Artificial lakes, on the other
416
P. Vihervaara et al. / Ecological Complexity 7 (2010) 410–420
hand, had a varying but overall slightly positive effect on
regulating services. Hard land-use forms had a negative impact
on cultural services, while most of the soft land-use forms had
positive impacts despite snowmobile and husky safaris. For
supporting services, the overall influence of all hard land-use
forms was found to be negative, while soft land-use forms had a
positive or neutral impact.
3.3. Mutual relations between land-use forms
The intensity of different land-use forms in the study area and
their relations to each other vary considerably. Hard forms of land
use had a more negative impact on other forms than soft ones
(Fig. 5). For instance, mining and forestry more or less eliminate
tourism and recreation. In contrast, conservation and recreation,
the presence of historical sites, reindeer herding and tourism in
general support each other or have only a minor mutual negative
impact. Nature conservation and the presence of historical sites
may legislatively restrict the feasibility of hard land-use forms. A
road network can have a twofold impact. On the one hand, it
improves the accessibility of remote areas; this may benefit the
human use of certain ESs, such as timber exploitation. At the same
time, however, roads also fragment natural habitats and increase
the potential pressure for instance for hunting, fishing or berrypicking. The construction of new roads will increase noise and
degrade the cultural values of remote wilderness areas. Historical
sites and moderate reindeer herding are relatively systemcompatible forms of land use, with neither a negative nor a
positive effect on most other forms. Artificial lakes have a strong
negative impact on other land uses.
4. Discussion
4.1. Distribution of ecosystem services
Several points can be highlighted when interpreting the
distribution maps of main ES classes (Fig. 4a–d). First, it can be
seen that the production capacity level of supporting services is
Fig. 4. (a–d) Distribution of ecosystem services.
P. Vihervaara et al. / Ecological Complexity 7 (2010) 410–420
417
Fig. 4. (Continued ).
Table 6
Acreages of reindeer-herding districts, protected areas and other land-use surfaces. In upper part values mean square kilometers (km2), except for recreational hiking and
skiing routes, where it means route length; in lower part values mean percents (%). Meters in parentheses mean buffer zone. Protected areas include national and nature
parks, wilderness areas, protection programmes for eskers, birds, groundwater, peatland, shores, and Natura 2000 sites.
Total area
Protected
Roads
Mining claims
Snowmobile/
husky (4 m)
Hammastunturi
Ivalo
Lappi
2515.5
2861.2
4504.2
1296.0
729.0
2166.0
6.43
11.97
4.75
3.92
9.39
2.39
0.49
1.00
0.60
Total
9880.8
4191.0
23.16
15.69
Snowmobile/
husky (400 m)
Recr. routes
(km)
Recr. routes
(2 m)
Artificial
lakes
50.64
99.14
60.36
122.00
497.47
218.00
0.17
0.42
0.21
0.00
0.00
406.00
2.09
210.14
837.47
0.81
406.00
Hammastunturi
Ivalo
Lappi
51.5
25.5
48.1
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
3.5
1.3
–
–
–
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.0
Total
42.4
0.2
0.2
0.0
2.1
–
0.0
4.1
P. Vihervaara et al. / Ecological Complexity 7 (2010) 410–420
418
Table 7
Impact of land use on ecosystem services.
Nature
conservation
Provisioning
Reindeer
Game
Fish
Berries, mushrooms
Fodder
Medicines
Wood
Water
Energy
Genetic resources
Average impact
Regulating
Local and Regional climate
Carbon sequestration
Pollination
Flood prevention
Erosion prevention
Nutrient sequestration
Average impact
Cultural
Local and Sami cultures
Esthetic landscape
Intrinsic value of nature and BD
Recreation
Average impact
Supporting
Photosynthesis
Nutrient cycling
Soil formation
Average impact
Road
network
Mining
claims
Reindeer
herding
Forestry
Snowmobile/
husky
Recreational
hiking and skiing
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
0
2
2
2
0
1
1
0
2/0
1
0
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
0/+1
2
0
0
1
0
0
2
2
0
2
2
1
2
1
1/1
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1/0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
+1.4
0.9
1.5
0.3
1.4
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.8
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
2/1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
0
1
0.0.7
0.5
0.0.3
1.0
0.5
0.2
0.0
+0.2
0
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
0
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1/+1
0
1
0
1/+1
2
1
0
1
2
2
2
1/+1
+2.0
0.3
1.8
+0.5
2.0
1.0
+0.3
2
2
2
2/0
0
2
2
1
2
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1/+1
2
+2.0
1.0
1.7
+0.3
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
1
1
1
0
2
0
+0.8
2
2
2
2
Historical
sites
+1.0
Artificial
lakes
2.0
medium or high in all reindeer-herding districts–also of intensive
forestry sites in the study area (Fig. 4a). The level of supporting
services is low in urban areas only. Secondly, the distribution of
regulating and provisioning services is quite similar for both
(Fig. 4b and c), but their level is decreased from high to medium in
forestry areas (Fig. 2). That can be seen especially along the borders
of the Ivalo and Lappi districts, where the national park is bounded
by heavily forested areas. Moreover, highlands and fells are areas,
where the production capacity of regulating services is naturally
low. Urban areas seem to have negative impact on provisioning
services more than on regulating services. Third, and perhaps the
most interesting point, is shown in the distribution map of cultural
services (Fig. 4d). The highest cultural values are found in the
native, un-managed habitats, which in our case are chiefly
wilderness areas, national parks or other conservation areas, but
also water bodies. The production capacity was significantly
decreased in forestry and urban areas.
4.2. Forestry and cultural services: where the conflict originates
Fig. 5. Interactions between main land-use forms. Green arrows mean positive
impact, and red means negative. Arrow thickness indicates impact magnitude. (For
interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred
to the web version of the article.)
Boreal forests produce manifold goods and services: fiber for
energy, wood for paper and sawmills, lichens and shelter for
reindeer, and game for hunters. They perform carbon sequestration, stabilize the local micro-climate, and prevent erosion.
Ranking the most important values might vary depending on
the stakeholder in question. In the context of cultural ecosystem
services, the intrinsic value of wilderness areas is so high that they
receive both national and international support and justification.
The so-called ‘everyman’s rights’ are a special set of regulations,
P. Vihervaara et al. / Ecological Complexity 7 (2010) 410–420
based on cultural values, that provide free access to nature in
Finland. The majority of provisioning as well as regulating services
benefit the local population directly, but only reindeer herders still
gain most of their income from nature goods. Our results
demonstrate a clear decline in the level of cultural services in
forestry areas. The more ecologically defined regulating and
provisioning services are not decreased so drastically.
An examination of the land-use pattern (Fig. 5) shows three
different actors, with different interactions: (1) nature conservation is at the bottom, and is a ‘‘public good’’, which supports other
soft land-use forms but restricts hard ones; (2) recreation, together
with tourism-related land uses, has special social but also
increasing economic importance; (3) hard land-use forms have
various negative impacts on all others, but have been economically
important, especially for local communities. From this perspective,
forestry has a highly negative impact on two of the other land-use
forms assessed, mining claims have a negative impacts on three
others, and artificial lakes on six (Fig. 5).
Nature conservation areas make up 42.4% of the study area, and
consist mainly of Natura 2000 habitats of old-growth boreal pine
forests. These forests have recently been identified as habitat types
of international importance (Raunio et al., 2008). The question
arises, whether this means that the remaining, unprotected forests
can be used for forestry without conflict.
4.3. The potential of the CORINE land cover database and other
data sources
The focus in this research was on the suitability of the CLC2000
database for ES research. In addition, we examined the availability of
other sources of land-use and land cover data. The CLC2000 database
has excellent coverage in most European countries, and is thus a
valuable source of data for ES assessments on a larger scale, as in
Metzger et al. (2008). The quality of the data, however, may vary
between countries, and the relatively low resolution may cause
problems. Depending on the ESs studied, the minimum recommended mapping unit of 25 ha of the CLC2000 (CLC2000, 2005) may
be too coarse to reveal certain spatially small-scale features, such as
road networks, power lines or buildings. Other sources of data
therefore have to be included for local assessments (Fig. 3). In
particular road networks and infrastructure were mapped too
coarsely in CLC2000. The Finnish National Survey provided detailed
information on roads, power lines, infrastructure, agriculture fields
and peatland. In order to take into account regional peculiarities,
some CLC2000 classes were excluded from the assessment because
of their marginality. One major problem in forest areas was the
vagueness of the forest classes. CLC2000 uses only three classes of
forest: deciduous, coniferous, and mixed. In addition to these, two
classes of sparse forest (<10% and 10–30% tree cover) are available,
but without any species information. By means of reclassification
and using DEM we were able to create a clearcutting class out of the
sparse forest (<10%) class. The CLC2000 forest classes also fail to give
information on forest age, which is a key element in the Forest
Lapland conflict. For reindeer herders and conservationists, the old
forests represent the most important land cover. From the ES
perspective, the age of the forest is a very important factor. For this
purpose we recommend using other datasets, such as the forest
pattern database of Metsähallitus (SUTI-GIS) in Finland, or
constructing a more detailed forest classification from satellite
images. In some regions, landscape change can be rapid. Thus
continuous updating is needed, which may be problematic.
5. Conclusions
Our study demonstrates that a lack of concrete data does not
have to be a limiting factor for an ES assessment in landscape
419
planning. The processing of different materials from social,
geographical and ecological databases is challenging, but it is
necessary in order to achieve long-term sustainability and
consensus among varying land-use pressures. Selecting indicators
to assess relevant ESs in a specific case and on a specific scale is
important in order to identify particular ‘‘problem-sheds’’. The
indices applied in our case study can be used either spatially,
comparing ES properties between separate regions, or temporally,
comparing changes in ES provision in one region at different times.
Assessment methods for supporting services can be more
universal, because of the similar, relatively general needs of all
humans. Needs for provisioning and cultural services may be
strongly culturally dependent and may therefore vary in different
regional settings. The CLC2000 database can probably be used for
ES assessments on a larger, national and continental scale. For
proper regional and local assessments, however, it needs to be
combined with other, local databases. We encourage the
development of greater compatibility of assessment methodology
in future studies, with particular focus for instance on the use of
more detailed classifications of habitats and habitats’ capacity to
produce ESs.
Our methodology for ES indices emphasizes the regional
importance of large habitats. But, this should be handled with
care: it might lead to an interpretation whereby other habitats,
with smaller values, are less important for ESs production. Many
small areas can be very important for some special ES feature. For
instance the habitat class of running water was assigned a
relatively low index value due to its small surface. However, it is of
huge importance for instance for recreation, fish production and
water regulation. An improved evaluation of ES production,
involving a wide range of experts and precisely identified habitats
rather than the sometimes inaccurate CLC2000 classes, could
perhaps give sharper results.
The sustainable use of natural resources and biodiversity are
based on the idea that the yields of goods and services obtained
from ecosystems, such as animal populations, will not decline
over time (Boyce and Haney, 1997). This determination of
sustainability can be set as a goal of sustainable landscape
planning, in which the continuous production of ESs should be
secured in the long term. Taking into account the very low
growth rates of boreal forests north of the Arctic circle, it is
arguable whether timber provisioning services can be used in a
sustainable manner in these regions at all (Cyffka et al., 1999;
Burkhard, 2004).
It is extremely important to study ESs and their importance for
human well-being in order to avoid conflicts in land use. As noted
above, cultural ESs show a high contrast between protected and
intensively used areas. It could be argued that harder land-use
forms, which may convert the land cover drastically, do not
immediately reduce the capacity for supporting or regulating
services. In the long run, however, even a slight decline in the
production capacity for provisioning or any other class of services
will lead to unsustainable development. Our estimates are fairly
general; our principal focus has been on the development and
application of a methodological framework. Nevertheless, the
results should encourage environmental decision-makers to
identify and strengthen positive interactions between different
land-use forms.
The application of the concept of ESs has proved to have great
potential for introducing and developing new tools for researchers,
stakeholders and decision-makers. It can help to take ecosystem
characteristics, and their importance for human well-being, better
into account. We conclude that our approach to the regional
distribution of ESs can contribute to a better understanding of
coupled human–environment systems and to expert-based decision-making in the future.
420
P. Vihervaara et al. / Ecological Complexity 7 (2010) 410–420
Acknowledgments
The project has been supported by funding from the Academy of
Finland and the German DAAD for researcher exchange project no.
123651 (2007–2009), ‘‘Changing landscape management in rural
Finland (CLMIRF)’’; by funding from the Academy of Finland for
project no. 111152, ‘‘Corporate environmental responsibility and
the ecosystem approach’’ (CORECO); and by the Maj and Tor
Nessling Foundation. We also thank to park superintendent Sakari
Kankaanpää for supporting in field work, and to Ellen Valle for
checking the language of this paper.
References
Boyce, M.S., Haney, A. (Eds.), 1997. Ecosystem Management: Applications for
Sustainable Forest and Wildlife Resources. Yale University Press, New Haven
and London.
Buckley, R., 1999. Tools and indicators for managing tourism in parks. Ann. Tourism
Res. 26 (1), 207–210.
Burkhard, B., 2004. Ecological assessment of the reindeer husbandry system in
Northern Finland. EcoSyst. Suppl. Bd. 43.
Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Müller, F., Windhorst, W., 2009. Landscapes’ capacities to
provide ecosystem services—a concept for land-cover based assessments.
Landsc. Online 15, 1–22.
Burkhard, B., Müller, F., Lill, A., 2008. Ecosystem health indicators. In: Jørgensen,
S.E., Fath, B.D. (Eds.), Ecological Indicators, vol. [2] of Encyclopedia of
Ecology, 5 vols. Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 1132–1138.
Burkhard, B., Müller, F., 2008. Indicating human–environment system properties:
case study Northern Fenno-Scandinavian Reindeer Herding. Ecol. Indicat. 8,
828–840.
CAFF (Program for the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna), 2001. Arctic Flora
and Fauna: Status and Conservation. Edita, Helsinki, Finland.
CBD Secretariat, 2004. The Ecosystem Approach, CBD Guidelines. Secretariat of the
Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. http://www.biodiv.org/doc/
meetings/suse/rwsuafr-01/other/rwsuafr-01-oth-ea-text-en.pdf [retrieved 12
January 2007].
CLC2000 Finland. Final Report, 2005. Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), Geoinformatics and Land Use Division (GEO).
Cyffka, B., Zierdt, M., Will, N., Rauchhaus, U., 1999. Anthropogen bedingte Sukzessionsstadien des borealen Nadelwalds in Finnisch- und Russisch-Lappland und
die Möglichkeiten ihrer nachhaltigen Nutzung. (in German). Norden Heft, 13.
Schriftenreihe des Arbeitskreises Norden, Bremen, pp. 317–332.
Eagles, P.F.J., McCool, S.F., 2002. Tourism in National Parks and Protected Areas:
Planning and Management. CABI Publishing, New York.
Forest Act, 1996/1093.
Fotiou, S., Lundvall, P., Salonen, N., Sievänen, T., Suopajärvi, L., 2003. Sustainable
Ecotourism–Integration of Conservation and Usage in Natura 2000 Areas. The
Finnish Environment, Nature and Natural Resources 651. Lapland Regional
Environment Centre.
Franklin, J.F., 1997. Ecosystem management: an overview. In: Boyce, M.S., Haney, A.
(Eds.), Ecosystem Management: Applications for Sustainable Forest and Wildlife Resources. Yale University Press, New Haven and London, pp. 21–53.
Graymore, M.L.M., Wallis, A.M., Richards, A.J., 2009. An index of regional sustainability: a GIS-based multiple criteria analysis decision support system for
progressing sustainability. Ecol. Complex. 6 (4), 453–462, doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.08.006.
Hall, J.P., 2001. Criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management. Environ.
Monitor. Assess. 67, 109–119.
Hallikainen, V., Jokinen, M., Parviainen, M., Pernu, L., Puoskari, J., Rovanperä, S.,
Seppä, J., 2006. Inarilaisten käsityksiä metsätaloudesta ja muusta luonnonkäytöstä. Metsätieteen aikakauskirja 4, 453–474.
Hanski, I., Ovaskainen, O., 2003. Metapopulation theory for fragmented landscapes.
Theor. Popul. Biol. 64, 119–127.
Harkki, S., 2002. Policies of Destruction: Analysis of the Implementation of the
Convention on Biological Diversity in the Protection of Forest Ecosystems in
Finland. Greenpeace.
Heikkinen, I., 2007. Wilderness areas in Forest Lapland and their use. Statement at
the Briefing of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry on Forest Conservation
in Forest Lapland, 9 March 2007, Ministry of Environment, Helsinki.
Heikkuri, P., Stolt, E., Seipäjärvi, M., 2000. Ivalon alue-ekologinen suunnitelma.
Metsähallituksen metsätalouden julkaisuja, 35.
Hickey, G.M., Innes, J.L., 2005. Monitoring sustainable forest management in
different jurisdictions. Environ. Monitor. Assess. 108, 241–260.
Hyppönen, M., Varmola, M., Juntunen, V., Lohi, T., Mikkola, K., Mäkitalo, K., Timonen,
M., 2003. Metsien uudistuminen suojametsäalueella. Metsätieteen aikakausikirja 1, 31–45.
Kankaanpää, S., Müller-Wille, L., Susiluoto, P., Sutinen, M.-L. (Eds.), 2002. Northern
Timberline Forests: Environmental and Socio-economic Issues and Concerns.
The Finnish Forest Research Institute, Kolari.
Kauppila, P., Saarinen, J. (Eds.), 2008. Inarin matkailueurot ja–työpaikat. Nordia
Tiedonantoja 1, Pohjois-Suomen maantieteellisen seuran ja Oulun yliopiston
maantieteen laitoksen julkaisuja.
Keskimölö, A., Pirkonen, J. (Eds.), 2006. Lapin metsäohjelma 2006–2010. Metsäkeskus Lappi.
Li, B.L., 2004. Editorial. Ecol. Complex. 1, 1–2.
Liimatainen, M., Manninen, O., Mustonen, R., Harkki, S., 2006. Metsä-Lapin suojelemattomat metsäerämaat. Greenpeace, Luonto-Liitto and Suomen luonnonsuojeluliitto.
Lindqvist, E., Posio, P. (Eds.), 2005. Lapin Natura-opas. Ympäristöopas, Luonto ja
luonnonvarat 124, Lapin ympäristökeskus.
Loehe, C., 2004. Challenges of ecological complexity. Ecol. Complex. 1, 3–6.
MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005. Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
Metsähallitus (Finnish Forest and Park Service). Website: www.metsa.fi [retrieved
9.1.2009].
Metsätalouden kehittämiskeskus Tapio, 2006. Hyvän metsänhoidon suositukset.
Metsäkustannus Oy.
Metzger, J.M., Schröter, D., Leemans, R., Cramer, W., 2008. A spatially explicit and
quantitative vulnerability assessment of ecosystem service change in Europe.
Reg. Environ. Change 8, 91–107.
Müller, F., 2005. Indicating ecosystem and landscape organisation. Ecol. Indicat. 5
(4), 280–294.
Müller, F., Burkhard, B., 2007. An ecosystem based framework to link landscape
structures, functions and services. In: Mander, Ü., Wiggering, H., Helming, K.
(Eds.), Multifunctional Land-Use. Meeting Future Demands for Landscape
Goods and Services. Springer, pp. 37–64.
Naidoo, R., Balmford, A., Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Green, R.E., Lehner, B., Malcolm, T.R.,
Ricketts, T.H., 2008. Global mapping of Ecosystem Services and conservation
priorities. PNAS 105 (28), 9495–9500.
Raitio, K., 2008. You can’t please everyone–conflict management practices, frames
and institutions in Finnish State forests. Joensuun yliopiston yhteiskuntatieteellisiä julkaisuja, 86.
Raunio, A., Schulman, A., Kontula, T. (Eds.), 2008. Suomen luontotyyppien uhanalaisuus. Suomen ympäristökeskus, Helsinki. Suomen ympäristö 8/2008.
Rounsevell, M.D.A., Reginster, I., Araújo, M.B., Carter, T.R., Dendoncker, N., Ewert, F.,
House, J.I., Kankaanpää, S., Leemans, R., Metzger, M.J., Schmit, C., Smith, P., Tuck,
G., 2006. A coherent set of future land use change scenarios for Europe. Agric.
Ecosyst. Environ. 114, 57–68.
Saarinen, J., 2002. Tourism in the Northern Wilderness Areas: Wilderness discourses and the development of nature-based tourism in Northern Finland.
In: Ecotourism, Wilderness and Mountains: Issues, Strategies and Regional
Development, Conference Proceedings. Department of Tourism, University of
Otago, Dunedin.
Sihvo, J., Grödahl, K., Stolt, E., Tuovinen, T., Salmi, J., 2006. Ylä-Lapin luonnonvarasuunnitelma kausi 2006–2010. Metsähallituksen metsätalouden julkaisuja 57.
Sippola, A.-L., 2002. Biodiversity in Finnish wilderness areas: historical and cultural
constraints to preserve species and habitats. In: Watson, A.E. (Ed.), Wilderness
in the Circumpolar North: Searching for Compatibility in Ecological, Traditional
and Ecotourism Value. US department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Stark, S., 2002. Reindeer Grazing and Soil Nutrient Cycling in Boreal and Tundra
Ecosystems, Oulu.
Valtioneuvoston päätös YM2/5222/2006. Pohjois-Lapin maakuntakaavan vahvistaminen. 27.12.2007.
Vihervaara, P., Kamppinen, M., 2009. The Ecosystem Approach in Corporate Environmental Management—Expert Mental Models and Environmental Drivers in
the Finnish Forest Industry. Corporate social responsibility and environmental
management 16 (2), 79–93.
Wallenius, T., 2007. Suomen vanhin elävä mänty on yli 764-vuotias. Helsingin
Sanomat 7.8.2007.
Wielgolaski, F.E., 1997. Polar and alpine tundra. Ecosystems of the World, vol. 3.
Amsterdam, Lausanne, New York, Oxford, Shannon, Singapore, Tokyo.
WWF International, IUCN The World Conservation Union 2004. Changing realities.
Ecosystem Approach and Sustainable Forest Management. Arborvitae Special.
Zurlini, G., Riitters, K., Zaccarelli, N., Petrosillo, I., Jones, K.B., Rossi, L., 2006.
Disturbance patterns in socio-ecological system at multiple scales. Ecol. Complex. 3, 119–128.