Participatory multi-criteria decision analysis in valuing peatland ecosystem services—Trade-offs related to peat extraction vs. pristine peatlands in Southern Finland

Abstract The use of peatlands and the multiple but mutually exclusive ecosystem services they provide is a highly debated issue worldwide. We used a participatory multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to address multiple value dimensions and trade-offs related to peatland ecosystem services in Southern Finland. We evaluated five peatland policy scenarios against provisioning, regulating and cultural ecosystem services as well as socio-economic factors, and engaged key stakeholders in framing the assessment and assigning criteria weights. The MCDA process showed that while peat extraction can basically be reconciled with preserving the most important biodiversity values in Finland, the conflict between peat extraction and carbon stock as well as water quality impacts and the related amenity values is irreconcilable. The role of the participatory MCDA process in promoting learning and reflection was smaller than expected but it did facilitate learning about the flows of peatland ecosystem services. The role of the participants was important not only in making value judgements but also in contributing to the impact assessment, thereby supporting the calls for transdisciplinarity in ecosystem service assessments.

[1]  Theodor J. Stewart,et al.  Multiple criteria decision analysis - an integrated approach , 2001 .

[2]  Sandra Luque,et al.  Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice , 2017 .

[3]  A. Lepistö,et al.  A National-Scale Nutrient Loading Model for Finnish Watersheds—VEMALA , 2015, Environmental Modeling & Assessment.

[4]  Raimo P. Hämäläinen,et al.  Web-HIPRE - Global decision support by value tree and AHP analysis , 1999 .

[5]  John Forester,et al.  The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes , 1999 .

[6]  Martin Drechsler,et al.  Deliberative Multicriteria Evaluation , 2006 .

[7]  R. Gregory,et al.  Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental risk management: A decision-focused approach , 2007 .

[8]  E. Garmendia,et al.  Public participation for sustainability and social learning: Concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe , 2010 .

[9]  Mika Marttunen,et al.  The Decision Analysis Interview Approach in the Collaborative Management of a Large Regulated Water Course , 2008, Environmental management.

[10]  Anssi Ahtikoski,et al.  Use of decision analysis interviews to support the sustainable use of the forests in Finnish Upper Lapland. , 2011, Journal of environmental management.

[11]  Arild Vatn,et al.  Is there anything like a citizen? A descriptive analysis of instituting a citizen's role to represent social values at the municipal level , 2010 .

[12]  L. Greene.  EHPnet: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , 2000, Environmental Health Perspectives.

[13]  R. Howarth,et al.  A novel deliberative multicriteria evaluation approach to ecosystem service valuation , 2017 .

[14]  E. Mckenzie,et al.  Understanding the Use of Ecosystem Service Knowledge in Decision Making: Lessons from International Experiences of Spatial Planning , 2014 .

[15]  P. Sands.  The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , 1992 .

[16]  Igor Linkov,et al.  Environment models and decisions , 2014, Environment Systems and Decisions.

[17]  Eeva Primmer,et al.  An Empirical Analysis of Institutional Demand for Valuation Knowledge , 2018, Ecological Economics.

[18]  K. Chan,et al.  Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values , 2012 .

[19]  Kaisu Aapala,et al.  Soidensuojelutyöryhmän ehdotus soidensuojelun täydentämiseksi , 2015 .

[20]  T. Seager,et al.  Application of Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Environmental Decision Making , 2005, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[21]  W. Kenyon,et al.  Evaluating flood risk management options in Scotland: A participant-led multi-criteria approach , 2007 .

[22]  Robert Fish,et al.  What are shared and social values of ecosystems , 2015 .

[23]  K. Minkkinen.  Effect of forestry drainage on the carbon balance and radiative forcing of peatlands in Finland , 1999 .

[24]  Giuseppe Munda,et al.  Social multi-criteria evaluation: Methodological foundations and operational consequences , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[25]  Paula Antunes,et al.  Participatory multi-criteria analysis of irrigation management alternatives: the case of the Caia irrigation district, Portugal , 2011 .

[26]  J. Mustajoki,et al.  Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and Cost-Benefit Analysis: Comparing alternative frameworks for integrated valuation of ecosystem services , 2016 .

[27]  G. Munda.  Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation for a Sustainable Economy , 2007 .

[28]  Suzanne A. Pierce,et al.  Modelling with stakeholders e Next generation , 2015 .

[29]  Thomas Elmqvist,et al.  Bridging the gap between ecosystem service assessments and land-use planning through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) , 2016 .

[30]  Pete Smith,et al.  The role of peatlands in climate regulation , 2016 .

[31]  A. Stirling.  Analysis, participation and power: justification and closure in participatory multi-criteria analysis , 2006 .

[32]  Pim Martens,et al.  Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges , 2012, Sustainability Science.

[33]  Teemu Tahvanainen,et al.  Abrupt ombrotrophication of a boreal aapa mire triggered by hydrological disturbance in the catchment , 2011 .

[34]  Noel E. Davidson,et al.  Valuing Wetlands: guidance for valuing the benefits derived from wetland ecosystem services , 2006 .

[35]  P. Kortelainen,et al.  Controls on the export of C, N, P and Fe from undisturbed boreal catchments, Finland , 2006, Aquatic Sciences.

[36]  H. Keune,et al.  Negotiated Complexity in Ecosystem Services Science and Policy Making , 2013 .

[37]  S. Stagl.  Multicriteria evaluation and public participation: the case of UK energy policy , 2006 .

[38]  C. Raymond,et al.  Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services , 2014 .

[39]  M S Reed,et al.  Participatory scenario development for environmental management: a methodological framework illustrated with experience from the UK uplands. , 2013, Journal of environmental management.

[40]  J. Mustajoki,et al.  Participatory multi-criteria assessment as ‘opening up’ vs. ‘closing down’ of policy discourses: A case of old-growth forest conflict in Finnish Upper Lapland , 2013 .

[41]  L. Festinger.  Cognitive dissonance. , 1962, Scientific American.

[42]  A. Vatn.  An institutional analysis of methods for environmental appraisal , 2009 .

[43]  Anil Graves,et al.  Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[44]  Stanley T. Asah,et al.  Valuing nature's contributions to people: the IPBES approach , 2017 .

[45]  Gonzalo Gamboa,et al.  Weighting social preferences in participatory multi-criteria evaluations: a case study on sustainable natural resource management , 2012 .

[46]  Graham Smith,et al.  Deliberative Democracy and the Environment , 2003 .

[47]  Andrea De Montis,et al.  Assessing the quality of different MCDA methods , 2004 .

[48]  W. Edwards,et al.  Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research , 1986 .

[49]  D. Geneletti.  Assessing the impact of alternative land-use zoning policies on future ecosystem services , 2013 .

[50]  A. Straton,et al.  Exploring and Evaluating Scenarios for a River Catchment in Northern Australia Using Scenario Development, Multi-criteria Analysis and a Deliberative Process as a Tool for Water Planning , 2011 .

[51]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs , 1976 .

[52]  Outi Ratamäki,et al.  Effective arguments for ecosystem services in biodiversity conservation – A case study on Finnish peatland conservation , 2016 .

[53]  Michael Jacobs,et al.  Citizens and wetlands: evaluating the Ely citizens’ jury , 2000 .

[54]  N. Videira,et al.  Bringing stakeholders together to articulate multiple value dimensions of ecosystem services , 2018, Ocean & Coastal Management.

[55]  J. Spangenberg,et al.  Precisely incorrect? Monetising the value of ecosystem services § , 2010 .