Environmental Management

, Volume 58, Issue 3, pp 518–533 | Cite as

Payments for Improved Ecostructure (PIE): Funding for the Coexistence of Humans and Wolves in Finland

  • Juha Hiedanpää
  • Hanna Kalliolevo
  • Matti Salo
  • Jani Pellikka
  • Mikael Luoma


The gray wolf (Canis lupus) is a source of concern and a cause of damage to people’s livelihoods. In Finland, as in most countries, actual damages are compensated according to the real lost value. However, often, the suffered damages are larger than what is compensated, and worries and fears are not accounted for at all. The purpose of our transdisciplinary action research is to contribute to the process of modifying the scientific, administrative, and everyday habits of mind in order to meet the practical prerequisites of living with the wolf. In 2014, we planned and participated in a process designed to update Finland’s wolf population management plan. During our study, we applied e-deliberation, conducted a national wolf survey, and organized solution-oriented workshops in wolf territory areas around Finland. By applying abductive reasoning, we illustrate the basic features of an economic scheme that would help finance and coordinate practical modifications to the ecological, economic, and institutional circumstances and settings in wolf territory areas. The potential economic instrument is based on payments for improved ecostructures. In our paper, we describe the organization, functioning, and financing of this instrument in detail.


Gray wolf (Canis lupusDamage Habits Compensation Instrument design Ecostructure 


  1. Agarwala M, Kumar S, Treves A, Naughton-Treves L (2010) Paying for wolves in Solapur, India and Wisconsin, USA: comparing compensation rules and practice to understand the goals and politics of wolf conservation. Biol Conserv 143:2945–2955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anon (2005) Management plan for the wolf population in Finland. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  3. Anon (2015) Management plan for the wolf population in Finland. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  4. Belleflamme P, Lambert T, Schwienbacher A (2014) Crowdfunding: tapping the right crowd. J Bus Ventur 29:585–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bisi J, Kurki S (2008) The wolf debate in Finland expectations and objectives for the management of the wolf population at regional and National level. University of Helsinki, SeinäjokiGoogle Scholar
  6. Boitani L, Linnell JDC (2015) Bringing large mammals back: large carnivores in Europe. In: Pereira HM, Navarro L (eds) Rewilding European landscapes. Springer, London, pp 67–84Google Scholar
  7. Bulte E, Rondeau D (2005) Why compensating wildlife damages may be bad for conservation. J Wildl Manag 69:14–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chapron G, Kaczensky P, Linnell JDC et al (2014) Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. Science 346:1517–1519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Colander D, Kupers R (2014) Complexity and the art of public policy: solving society’s problems from the bottom up. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dewey J (1988) Human nature and conduct. The middle works, 1899–1924, vol 14. Southern Illinois University Press, CarbondaleGoogle Scholar
  11. Dickman AJ, Macdonald EW, Macdonald DW (2011) A review of financial instruments to pay for predator conservation and encourage human-carnivore co-existence. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:13937–13944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dillman DA (2000) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Duhigg C (2012) The power of habit. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Ekolo (2015) Joululahja sudensuojelun hyväksi (Christmas gift for wolf protection). http://www.ekolo.fi/tuote/joululahja-sudensuojelun-hyvaksi/susi15/. Accessed 4 Dec 2015
  15. Guston D (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci Technol Hum Values 26:399–408 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hejnowicz AP, Kennedy H, Rudd MA, Huxham MR (2015) Harnessing the climate mitigation, conservation and poverty alleviation potential of sea grasses: prospects for developing blue carbon initiatives and payment for ecosystem service programmes. Front Mar Sci 2:32. doi:10.3389/fmars.2015.00032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Herrero A, Tiilikainen R, Kauhala K (2013) Hyljevahingot ja vahinkohylkeet kalastajahaastatteluissa. In: Riista- ja kalatalous tutkimuksia ja selvityksiä, vol 12. Riista- ja kalatalouden tutkimuslaitos, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  18. Hiedanpää J (2005) The edges of conflict and consensus: a case for creativity in regional forest policy in Southwest Finland. Ecol Econ 55:485–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hiedanpää J, Borgström S (2014) Why do some institutional arrangements succeed—voluntary protection of forest biodiversity in Southwest Finland and of the golden eagle in Finnish Lapland. Nat Conserv 7:29–50. doi:10.3897/natureconservation.7.6497 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hiedanpää J, Bromley DW (2014) Payments for ecosystem services: durable habits, dubious nudges, doubtful efficacy. J Inst Econ 10:175–195Google Scholar
  21. Hiedanpää J, Bromley DW (2016) Environmental heresies: the quest for reasonable. Palgrave Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Hiedanpää J, Pellikka J, Ojalammi S (2016) Meet the parents: emotional regime and the reception of the grey wolf return in Southwestern Finland. Trace 2:4–27Google Scholar
  23. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 15:1277–1288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. John P, Cotterill S, Moseley A, Richardson L, Smith G, Stoker G, Wales G (2011) Nudge, nudge, think, think: experimenting with ways to change civic behaviour. Bloomsbury, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaartinen S, Luoto M, Kojola I (2009) Carnivore-livestock conflicts: determinants of wolf (Canis lupus) depredation on sheep farms in Finland. Biodivers Conserv 18:3503–3517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaartinen S, Antikainen H, Kojola I (2015) Habitat model for a recolonizing wolf (Canis lupus) population in Finland. Ann Zool Fenn 52:77–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kahneman D (2011) Thinking Fast and Slow. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Kojola I, Kuittinen J (2002) Wolf attacks on dogs in Finland. Wildl Soc Bull 30:498–501Google Scholar
  29. Kojola I, Hallikainen V, Mikkola K, Gurarie E, Heikkinen S, Kaartinen S, Nikula A, Nivala V (2016) Wolf visitations close to human residences in Finland: the role of age, residence density, and time of day. Biol Conserv 198:9–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lasrado LA (2013) Crowdfunding in Finland—a new alternative disruptive funding instrument for businesses. Master thesis. University of Tampere, TampereGoogle Scholar
  31. Law J, Mol A (2005) Boundary variations: an introduction. Environ Plan D 23:637–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leavy P (2011) Essentials of transdisciplinary research: using problem-oriented methodologies. Left Coast Press, Walnut CreekGoogle Scholar
  33. Luke (2016) Statement concerning the wolf population size in Finland. Natural resources institute Finland, Luke 677/00 04 05/2016. March 16 2016Google Scholar
  34. Mahanty S, Suich H, Tacconi L (2013) Access and benefits in payments for environmental services and implications for REDD+: lessons from seven PES schemes. Land Use Policy 31:38–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McCann L (2013) Transaction costs and environmental policy design. Ecol Econ 88:253–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McCann L, Colby B, Easter KW, Kasterine A, Kuperan KV (2005) Transaction cost measurement for evaluating environmental policies. Ecol Econ 52:527–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McDermott M, Mahanty S, Schreckenberg K (2012) Examining equity: a multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services. Environ Sci Policy 133:416–427Google Scholar
  38. Milder JC, Scherr SJ, Bracer C (2010) Trends and future potential of payment for ecosystem services to alleviate rural poverty in developing countries. Ecol Soc 15:4. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art4/. Accessed Nov 2015
  39. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  40. Ministry of Finance (2014) Yritysrahoituksen kehittäminen. News brief. http://vm.fi/yritysrahoituksen-kehittaminen. Accessed 25 Nov 2015
  41. Naughton-Treves L, Grossberg R, Treves A (2003) Paying for tolerance: rural citizen’s attitudes toward wolf depredation and compensation. Conserv Biol 17:1500–1511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nelson F (2009) Developing payments for ecosystem services approaches to carnivore conservation. Hum Dimens Wildl 14:381–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Niemi M, Pellikka J, Hiedanpää J (2014) Metsästyskoirien suojaaminen susilta. RKTL:n työraportteja 49. http://www.rktl.fi/www/uploads/pdf/uudet%20julkaisut/tyoraportit/metsastyskoirien_suojaaminen_susilta.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2015
  44. Nyhus P, Fischer H, Madden F, Osofsky S (2003) Taking the bite out of wildlife damage. Conserv Pract 4:37–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Orava R (2013) Luonnonarvokaupalla sudet haitasta hyödyksi. Pääkirjoitus Metsästäjä 6. http://www.lehtiluukku.fi/lehti/metsastaja/_read/6-2013/42679.html. Accessed 10 May 2015
  46. Ormerod P (2012) Positive linking: how networks can revolutionise the world. Faber and Faber, LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. Paavola S (2004) Abduction as a logic and methodology of discovery: the importance of strategies. Found Sci 9:267–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Paavola S, Hakkarainen K, Sintonen M (2006) Abduction with dialogical and trialogical means. Log J IGPL 14:137–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pascual U, Muradian R, Rodríguez LC, Duraiappah A (2010) Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: a conceptual approach. Ecol Econ 69:1237–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Peirce CS (1997) Pragmatism as a principle and method of right thinking: the 1903 Harvard lectures on pragmatism. State University of New York Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Peltola T, Heikkilä J (2015) Response-ability in wolf–dog conflicts. Eur J Wildl Res 61:711–721. doi:10.1007/s10344-015-0946-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pohja-Mykrä M (2014) Vahinkoeläinsodasta psykologiseen omistajuuteen—Petokonfliktin historiallinen tausta ja nykypäivän hallinta, vol 33. Ruralia-instituutti, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  53. Roe E (1998) Taking complexity seriously: policy analysis, triangulation and sustainable development. Springer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Salo M, Hiedanpää J, Luoma M, Pellikka J (2016) Nudging the impasse? lessons from the nationwide online wolf management forum in Finland. SubmittedGoogle Scholar
  55. Sarkki S, Puhakka R, Heikkinen I (2013) Boundary organisations between conservation and development: insights from Oulanka National Park, Finland. World Rev Entrep Manag Sustain Dev 9:37–63Google Scholar
  56. Schomers S, Matzdorf B (2013) Payments for ecosystem services: a review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries. Ecosyst Serv 6:16–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schwerdtner K (2009) From acceptance to support: when damage compensation turns into performance payments. In: Harris JD, Brown PL (eds) Wildlife: destruction conservation and biodiversity. Nova Science Publisher, New York, pp 325–331Google Scholar
  58. Schwerdtner K, Gruber B (2007) A conceptual framework for damage compensation schemes. Biol Conserv 134:354–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sjölander-Lindqvist A (2008) Local identity, science and politics invisible. J Environ Plan Policy 10:71–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Skogen K (2015) The persistence of an economic paradigm: unintended consequences in Norwegian wolf management. Hum Dimens Wildl 20:317–322. doi:10.1080/10871209.2015.1006796 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Solomon M (2006) Groupthink versus the wisdom of crowds: the social epistemology of deliberation and dissent. South J Philos 44:28–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sunstein CR (2003) Why societies need dissent. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  63. Sunstein CR (2013) Simpler: the future of government. Simon and Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  64. Suomen susi (2015) Suden salametsästyksen ilmiantorahasto. http://www.suomensusi.net/ilmiantorahasto. Accessed 4 Dec 2015
  65. Tikkunen M (2013) Suden (Canis lupus) aiheuttamiin koiravahinkoihin vaikuttavat tekijät. Master thesis. Biology Department, University of Oulu, OuluGoogle Scholar
  66. Treves A, Jurewicz RL, Naughton-Treves L, Wilcove DS (2009) The price of tolerance: wolf damage payments after recovery. Biodivers Conserv 18:4003–4021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Westlander G (2006) Researchers roles in action research. In: Nielsen KA, Svensson L (eds) Action research and interactive research. Shaker Publishing, Maastricht, pp 45–61Google Scholar
  68. Wunder S (2006) Are direct payments for environmental services spelling doom for sustainable forest management in the tropics? Ecol Soc 11:1–12Google Scholar
  69. Wunder S (2007) The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conserv Biol 21:48–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wunder S (2015) Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ 117:234–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wunder S, Engel S, Pagiola S (2008) Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecol Econ 65:834–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zabel A, Holm-Müller K (2008) Conservation performance payments for carnivore conservation in Sweden. Conserv Biol 22:247–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juha Hiedanpää
    • 1
  • Hanna Kalliolevo
    • 2
  • Matti Salo
    • 1
  • Jani Pellikka
    • 3
  • Mikael Luoma
    • 4
  1. 1.Natural Resources Institute FinlandTurkuFinland
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  3. 3.Natural Resources Institute FinlandHelsinkiFinland
  4. 4.Finnish Wildlife AgencySeinäjokiFinland

Personalised recommendations