Environmental Management

, Volume 59, Issue 3, pp 505–521 | Cite as

Identification of the Criteria for Decision Making of Cut-Away Peatland Reuse



The total area of abandoned milled peatlands which need to be rehabilitated for sustainable land-use is nearly 10,000 ha in Estonia. According to the agreement between Estonia and the European Union, Estonia has to create suitable conditions for restoration of 2000 ha of abandoned cut-away peatlands by 2023. The decisions on rehabilitation of abandoned milled peatlands have so far relied on a limited knowledgebase with unestablished methodologies, thus the decision making process needs a significant improvement. This study aims to improve the methodology by identifying the criteria for optimal decision making to ensure sustainable land use planning after peat extraction. Therefore relevant environmental, social and economic restrictive and weighted comparison criteria, which assess reuse alternatives suitability for achieving the goal, is developed in cooperation with stakeholders. Restrictive criteria are arranged into a decision tree to help to determine the implementable reuse alternatives in various situations. Weighted comparison criteria are developed in cooperation with stakeholders to rank the reuse alternatives. The comparison criteria are organised hierarchically into a value tree. In the situation, where the selection of a suitable rehabilitation alternative for a specific milled peatland is going to be made, the weighted comparison criteria values need to be identified and the presented approach supports the optimal and transparent decision making. In addition to Estonian context the general results of the study could also be applied to a cut-away peatlands in other regions with need-based site-dependent modifications of criteria values and weights.


Peatland rehabilitation Milled peatland Decision making Stakeholders Decision tree Criteria system 


  1. Anderson BF (2002) The three secrets of wise decision making. Single Reef, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker D, Bridges D, Hunter R, Johnson G, Krupa J, Murphy J, Sorenson K (2001) Guidebook to decision-making methods: developed for the department of energy. Department of Energy, USA, WSRC-IM-2002-00002Google Scholar
  3. Barthelmes A, Couwenberg J, Risager M, Tegetmeyer C, Joosten H (2015) Peatlands and climate in ramsar context: a nordic-baltic perspective. Nordic Council of Ministers, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  4. Bottero M, Ferretti V, Pomariko S (2014) Assessing different possibilities for the reuse of an open-pit quarry using the choquet integral. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 21:25–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burton M, Zahedi SJ, White B (2012) Public preferences for timeliness and quality of mine site rehabilitation. The case of bauxite miningin Western Australia. Resour Policy 37:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke D, Rieley J (2010) Strategy for responsible peatland management. Saarijärven Offset, SaarijärviGoogle Scholar
  7. De Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RMJ (2002) A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econom 41:393–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Department for Communities and Local Government (2009) Multi-criteria analysis: a manual. Communities and Local Government Publications, WetherbyGoogle Scholar
  9. Drawish TM, Stehouwer A, Khater C, Jomaa I, Miller D, Sloan J, Shaban A, Hamze M (2010) Rehabilitation of deserted quarries in lebanon to initial land cover or alternative land uses. In: Land Degradation and Desertification: Assessment, Mitigation and Remediation, pp 333–345. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-8657-0_25
  10. Estonian Republic Earth’s Crust Act (Maapõueseadus) (2004) Riigi teataja I, 84, 572Google Scholar
  11. Fontana V, Radtke A, Fedrigotti VB, Tappeiner U, Tasser E, Zerbe S, Buchholz T (2013) Comparing land-use alternatives: using the ecosystem services concept to define a multi-criteria decision analysis. Ecol Econom 93:128–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grimble R, Wellard K (1997) Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of concepts, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agric Syst 55:173–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hearth (2004) Incorporating community objectives in improved wetland management: the use of the analytic hierarchy process. J Environ Manage 70:263–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huang IB, Keisler J, Linkov I (2011) Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: ten years of applications and trends. Sci Total Environ 409:3578–3594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hugron S, Bussières J, Rochefort L (2013) Tree plantations within the context of ecological restoration of peatlands: practical guide. Peatland Ecology Research Group, Université Laval, QuébecGoogle Scholar
  16. Hämäläinen RP, Alaja S (2008) The threat of weighting biases in environmental decision analysis. Ecol Econom 68:556–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ilomets M (2001) Mis saab jääksoodest? (What is going on with the abandoned milled peatlands?) Eesti Loodus 6:218–221Google Scholar
  18. Janssen R, Goosen H, Verhoeven ML, Verhoeven JTA, Omtzigt AQA, Maltby E (2005) Decision support for integrated wetland management. Environ Model Softw 20:215–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Joosten H, Taipo-Biström M-L, Tol S (2012) Peatlands – guidance for climate change mitigation through conservation, rehabilitation and sustainable use, 2nd edn. Mitigation of climate change in agriculture series Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  20. Klavins M, Kokorite I, Springe G, Skuja A, Parele E, Rodinov V, Druvietis I, Strake S, Urtans A (2010) Water quality in cutaway peatland lakes in Seda mire, Latvia. Ecohydrol Hydrobiol 10(1):61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Langemeyer J, Gomez-Baggethun E, Hasse D, Scheuer S, Elmqvist T (2016) Bridging the gap between ecosystem service assessments and land-use planning through multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). Environ Sci Policy 62:45–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leupold S, Jeglum J (2004) After use of cutaway peatlands – an overview of options and management planning. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, UmeaGoogle Scholar
  23. Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Kiker G, Batchelor C, Bridges T, Ferguson E (2006) From comparative risk assessment to multi-criteria decision analysis and adaptive management: recent developments and applications. Environ Int 32:1072–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maljanen M, Sigurdsson BD, Guðmundsson J, Óskarsson H, Huttunen JT, Martikainen PJ (2010) Greenhouse gas balances of managed peatlands in the Nordic countries – present knowledge and gaps. Biogeosciences 7:2711–2738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Minister of Environment 26 of May 2005 Regulation no 43. RTL (2005) 60, 865Google Scholar
  26. Minister of Environment 28. of December 1995 Regulation no 44. RTL (1996) 11, 89Google Scholar
  27. Mäkiranta P, Hytönen J, Aro L, Maljanen M, Pihlatie M, Potila H, Shurpali NJ, Laine J, Lohina A, Matrikainen PJ, Minkkinen K (2007) Soil greenhouse gas emissions from afforested organic soil croplands and cutaway peatlands. Boreal Environ Res 12:159–175Google Scholar
  28. OECD (2015) Stakeholder engagement for inclusive water governance, OECD studies on water. OECD Publishing, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Omann I (2000) How can multi-criteria decision analysis contribute to environmental policy making? A case study on macro-sustainability in Germany. Third international conference of the european society for ecological economics, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  30. Orru M (2010) Dependence of Estonian peat deposit properties on landscape types and feeding conditions. TUT Press, Tallinn, EstoniaGoogle Scholar
  31. Paal J, Hein K, Heinsoo K, Holm B, Ilomets M, Ivask M, Karofeld E, Kõpp V, Leiner E, Lode E, Melts I, Niitlaan E, Orru M, Paal T, Pikk J, Pikka J, Raadla K, Raudsep R, Saarmets T, Triisberg T (2011) Jääksood, nende kasutamine ja korrastamine. (Milled peatlands, their post-harvest usage and rehabilitation). VALI trükikoda, Tartu, Keskkonnainvesteeringute Keskus ja Eesti TurbaliitGoogle Scholar
  32. Paal, J, Ilomets, M, Karofeld, E, Truus, L, Leibak, E, Lode, E, Pajula, R, Pikka, J, Kull, A (2014) Korrastatavate jääksoode valik ja korrastamise tulemuste hindamine. Metoodiline juhend. (Selection of post-harvest peatlands for rehabilitation and evaluation of rehabilitation results. Methodological guidelines.) KeskkonnaministeeriumGoogle Scholar
  33. Parish F, Sirin A, Charman D, Joosten H, Minayeva T, Silvius M, Stringer L (2008) Assessment on peatlands, biodiversity and climate change: main report. Global Environment Centre, Kuala Lumpur, and Wetlands International, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  34. Peatlands and Uplands Biodiversity Delivery Group (2010) Guidelines for Peatland RestorationGoogle Scholar
  35. Ploompuu T, Ilomets M (2011) Mahajäetud Alu turbaala korrastamise projekt. Keskkonnaministeerium, TallinnGoogle Scholar
  36. Quinty F, Rocefort L (2003) Peatland restoration guide, 2nd edn. Canadian Sphagnum Peat Moss Association; New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources and Energy, QuébecGoogle Scholar
  37. Ramst R, Orru M (2009) Eesti mahajäetud turbatootmisalade taastaimestumine. Eesti Põlevloodusvarad ja –jäätmed 1 – 2:6–7Google Scholar
  38. Rawlins A, Morris J (2010) Social and economic aspects of peatland management in Northern Europe, with particular reference to the English case. Geoderma 154:242–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 141:2417–2431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J, Prell C, Quinn CH, Stringer LC (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manage 90:1933–1949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Renou F, Egan T, Wilson D (2006) Tomorrow’s landscapes: studies in the after-uses of industrial cutaway peatlands in Ireland. Suoseura – Finn Peatland Soc 57(4):97–107Google Scholar
  42. Sanchez-Lozano JM, Teruel-Solano J, Soto-Elvira PL, García-Cascales MS (2013) Geographical information systems (GIS) and multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods for the evaluation of solar farms locations: case study in south-eastern Spain. Renew Sust Energ Rev 24:544–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sasso PD, Ottolino MA, Caliandro LP (2012) Identification of quarries rehabilitation scenarios: a case study within the metropolitan area of Bari (Italy). Environ Manage 49:1174–1191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shurpali NJ, Biasi C, Jokinen S, Hyvönen N, Martikainen PJ (2013) Linking water vapor and CO2 exchange from a perennial bioenergy crop on a drained organic soil in eastern Finland. Agric For Meteorol 168:47–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Soltanmohammadi H, Osanloo M, Bazzazi AA (2010) An analytical approach with a reliable logic and a ranking policy for post-mining land-use determination. Land Use Policy 27:364–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhang YJ, Li AJ, Fung T (2012) Using GIS and multi-criteria decision analysis for conflict resolution in land use planning. Procedia Environ Sci 13:2264–2273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tasa T, Starast M, Jõgar K, Paal T, Kruus M, Williams HL (2015) Lowbush blueberry plantation age influences natural biodiversity onan abandoned extracted peatland. Ecol Eng 84:336–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tolvanen A, Juutinen A, Svento R (2013) Preferences of local people for the use of peatlands: the case of the richest peatland region in Finland. Ecol Soc 18(2):19Google Scholar
  49. Turner RK, van den Bergh JCJM, Söderqvist T, Barendregt A, van der Straaten J, Maltby E, van Ierland EC (2000) Ecological-economic analysis of wetlands: scientific integration for management and policy. Ecol Econom 35:7–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Värnik R, Oper L, Luik H, Roosmaa Ü, Kall K, Prants J (2011) Energiakultuuride (päideroo) kasvatamise ja kasutamise majanduslik hinnang Eestis. Eesti Maaülikool, TartuGoogle Scholar
  51. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (2011b) Guidelines on quarry rehabilitation. Cement sustainability initiative (CSI). Atar Roto Presse SA, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  52. Woziwoda B, Kopeć D (2014) Afforestation or natural succession? Looking for the best way to manage abandoned cut-over peatlands for biodiversity conservation. Ecol Engineer 63:143–152Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tallinn UniversityTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations