Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Benefits from and threats to European treeline ecosystem services: an exploratory study of stakeholders and governance

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Regional Environmental Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The concept of ecosystem services (ES) is being increasingly applied in environmental governance and science. To safeguard key ES in changing and complex social–ecological systems such as treeline areas, we need to (1) map key ES in different types of treeline landscapes, (2) identify the stakeholders benefiting from and threatening ES, and (3) examine how ES could be governed more sustainably. We explore these questions in European treeline areas by using quantitative and qualitative social science techniques to analyse responses from a survey of local scientific experts in 20 altitudinal and polar treeline areas in 15 European countries. In contrast to the prevalent consideration of treeline areas as a single type of a social–ecological system, we show that European treeline areas can be divided into two types that significantly differ in the delivery of ES. Our analyses allowed us to categorize stakeholders according to their benefits from and threats to ES; “Green key players” formed the most numerous group, while smaller number of stakeholder groups was categorized as “Harmless crowd”, “Occasional stressors”, and “Risky users”. However, behaviour of stakeholders is very much site-specific. Of 595 pairs of stakeholders analysed, we found <5 EU-wide “Allies” and “Opponents”. Recommendations for improved governance include adjusting governance instruments to specific problems in divergent treeline systems and creating participatory structures where stakeholders better interact with scientists and can genuinely influence management decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arnstein S (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plan 35(4):216–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bäckstrand K (2006) Democratizing global environmental governance? Stakeholder democracy after the world summit on sustainable development. Eur J Int Relat 12:467–498. doi:10.1177/1354066106069321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beniston M (2003) Climatic change in mountain regions: a review of possible impacts. Clim Change 59(1–2):5–31

    Article  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd J, Banzhaf S (2007) What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol Econ 63:616–626. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briner S, Huber R, Bebi P, Elkin C, Schmatz DR, Grêt-Regamey A (2013) Trade-offs between ecosystem services in a mountain region. Ecol Soc 18(3):35. doi:10.5751/ES-05576-180335

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistrano D, DeFries RS, Díaz S, Dietz T et al (2009) Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment. PNAS 106(5):1305–1312. doi:10.1073/pnas.0808772106

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cash D, Adger W, Berkes F, Garden P, Lebel L, Olsson P, Pritchard L, Young O (2006) Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecol Soc 11(2):8. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art8/

  • CICES (2013) Towards a Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services. http://cices.eu/

  • Costanza R (2008) Ecosystem services: multiple classification systems are needed. Biol Conserv 141(2):350–352. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2007.12.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daily GC (ed) (1997) Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • EEA (2010) Europe’s ecological backbone: recognising the true value of our mountains. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Ficko A (2014) Visualization of ecosystem services. The equilateral triangle of Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services. Biotechnical Faculty, Department of Forestry and Renewable Forest Resources, Ljubljana

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ 68:643–653. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forrest JL, Wikramanayake E, Shrestha R, Areendran G, Gyeltshen K, Maheshwari A, Mazumdar S, Naidoo R, Thapa GJ, Thapa K (2012) Conservation and climate change: assessing the vulnerability of snow leopard habitat to treeline shift in the Himalaya. Biol Conserv 150:129–135. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2012.03.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz SO, Ravetz J (1993) Science for the postnormal age. Futures 25:739–755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Görg C, Rauschmayer F (2009) Multi-level governance and politics of scale—the challenge of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. In: Kütting G, Lipschutz R (eds) Environmental governance, power and knowledge in a local-global world. Routledge, London and New York, pp 81–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabherr G (2009) Biodiversity in the high ranges of the Alps: ethnobotanical and climate change perspectives. Glob Environ Change 19:167–172. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.01.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grêt-Regamey A, Brunner SH, Kienast F (2012) Mountain ecosystems services: who cares? Mt Res Dev 32:23–34. doi:10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-10-00115.S1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grêt-Regamey A, Brunner SH, Altwegg J, Christen M, Bebi P (2013) Integrating expert knowledge into mapping ecosystem services trade-offs for sustainable forest management. Ecol Soc 18(3):34. doi:10.5751/ES-05800-180334

    Google Scholar 

  • Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2013) Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4, August–December 2012. EEA framework contract no. EEA/IEA/09/003. www.cices.eu

  • Harrison PA, Vandewalle M, Sykes MT, Berry PM, Bugter R, de Bello F et al (2010) Identifying and prioritising services in European terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. Biodivers Conserv 19:2791–2821. doi:10.1007/s10531-010-9789-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harsch MA, Hulme PE, McGlone MS, Duncan RP (2009) Are treelines advancing? A global meta-analysis of treeline response to climate warming. Ecol Lett 12:1040–1049. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01355.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauck J, Görg C, Varjopuro R, Ratamäki O, Jax K (2013) Benefits and limitations of the ecosystem service concept in environmental policy and decision making: some stakeholder perspectives. Environ Sci Policy 25:13–21. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2012.08.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heikkinen HI, Sarkki S, Jokinen M, Fornander DE (2010) Global area conservation ideals versus the local realities of reindeer herding in northernmost Finland. Int J Bus Glob 4:110–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heikkinen HI, Sarkki S, Nuttall M (2012) Users or producers of ecosystem services? A scenario exercise for integrating conservation and reindeer herding in northeast Finland. Pastoralism 2:11. doi:10.1186/2041-7136-2-11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heikkinen HI, Lepy E, Sarkki S, Komu T (2013) Challenges in acquiring a social licence to mine in the globalising Arctic. Polar Rec. doi:10.1017/S0032247413000843

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtmeier F-K (2012) Impacts of wild herbivorous mammals and birds on the altitudinal and northern treeline ecotones. Landsc Online 30:1–28. doi:10.3097/LO.201230

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtmeier F-K, Broll G (2005) Sensitivity and response of northern hemisphere altitudinal and polar treelines to environmental change at landscape and local scales. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 14:395–410. doi:10.1111/j.1466-822x.2005.00168.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howe A, Suichb H, Virac B, Mace GM (2014) Creating win-wins from trade-offs? Ecosystem services for human well-being: a meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies in the real world. Glob Environ Change 28:263–275. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.07.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber R, Bugmann H, Buttler A, Rigling A (2013a) Sustainable land-use practices in European mountain regions under global change: an integrated research approach. Ecol Soc 18(3):37. doi:10.5751/ES-05375-180337

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber R, Rigling A, Bebi P, Brand FS, Briner S, Buttler A, Elkin C et al (2013b) Sustainable land use in mountain regions under global change: synthesis across scales and disciplines. Ecol Soc 18(3):36. doi:10.5751/ES-05499-180336

    Google Scholar 

  • IUCN, UNEP-WCMC (2014) The world database on protected areas (WDPA). UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK. www.protectedplanet.net

  • Karjalainen TP, Marttunen M, Sarkki S, Rytkönen A-M (2013) Integrating ecosystem services into environmental impact assessment: an analytic–deliberative approach. Environ Impact Assess 40:54–64. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2012.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Körner C, Paulsen J (2004) A world-wide study of high altitude treeline temperatures. J Biogeogr 31:713–732. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2003.01043.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Saout S, Hoffmann M, Shi Y, Hughes A, Bernard C, Brooks TM, Bertzky B, Butchart SHM, Stuart SN, Badman T, Rodrigues ASL (2013) Protected areas and effective biodiversity conservation. Science 342:803–805. doi:10.1126/science.1239268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonelli G, Pelfini M, Morra di Cella U, Garavaglia V (2011) Climate warming and the recent treeline shift in the European Alps: the role of geomorphological factors in high-altitude sites. Ambio 40:264–273. doi:10.1007/s13280-010-0096-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luck GW, Harrington R, Harrison PA, Kremen C, Berry PM, Bugter R, Dawson TP et al (2009) Quantifying the contribution of organisms to the provision of ecosystem services. Bioscience 59:223–235. doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.3.7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MA - Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystem and human well-being. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Messerli B, Ives JD (1997) Mountains of the world: a global priority. Parthenon, London and New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Motta R, Morales M, Nola P (2006) Human land-use, forest dynamics and tree growth at the treeline in the Western Italian Alps. Ann For Sci 63:739–747. doi:10.1051/forest:2006055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, Polasky S, Tallis H, Cameron DR, Chan KMA et al (2009) Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ 7(1):4–11. doi:10.1890/080023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nijnik M, Mather A (2008) Analysing public preferences for woodland development in rural landscapes in Scotland. Landsc Urban Plan 86:267–275. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.03.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nijnik M, Zahvoyska L, Nijnik A, Ode A (2008) Public evaluation of landscape content and change. Land Use Policy 26:77–86. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.03.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nijnik M, Miller D, Nijnik A, Fiorini S, Vogt N, Brondizio E, Morrice J (2011) Public participation for planning the sustainable use of natural resources and landscape change: methodology development. Int J Interdiscip Soc Sci 5(11):303–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Nijnik M, Nijnik A, Bergsma E, Matthews R (2013) Heterogeneity of experts’ opinion regarding opportunities and challenges of tackling deforestation in the tropics: a Q method application. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change. doi:10.1007/s11027-013-9529-0

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (2010) Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Glob Environ Change 20:550–557. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oteros-Rozas E, Martín-López B, Gonzáles JA, Plieninger T, López CA, Montes C (2014) Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services in a transhumance social–ecological network. Reg Environ Change 14:1269–1289. doi:10.1007/s10113-013-0571-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paloniemi P, Apostolopoulou E, Primmer E, Grodzinska-Jurcak M, Henle K, Ring I, Kettunen M, Tzanopoulos J, Potts S, van den Hove S, Marty P, McConville A, Similä J (2012) Biodiversity conservation across scales: lessons from a science–policy dialogue. Nat Conserv 2:7–19. doi:10.3897/natureconservation.2.3144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauschmayer F, van den Hove S, Koetz T (2009) Participation in EU biodiversity governance: how far beyond rhetoric? Environ Plann C 27:42–58. doi:10.1068/c0703j

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 141:2417–2431. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J, Prell C et al (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manage 90:1933–1949. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandström C, Pellikka J, Ratamäki O, Sande A (2009) Management of large carnivores in Fennoscandia: new patterns of regional participation. Hum Dimens Wildl 14(1):37–50. doi:10.1080/10871200802304726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkki S (2011) The site strikes back: multi-level forest governance and participation in northern Finland. PhD thesis. Thule Institute & Discipline of Anthropology, University of Oulu, Finland. Acta Univ Ouluensis B 102

  • Sarkki S, Heikkinen HI (2010) Social movements’ pressure strategies during forest disputes in Finland. J Nat Resour Policy Res 2(3):281–296. doi:10.1080/19390459.2010.487991

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkki S, Heikkinen HI (2015) Why do environmentalists not consider compromises as legitimate? Combining value- and process-based explanations from Finnish forest controversies. For Policy Econ 50:110–117. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2014.08.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkki S, Heikkinen HI, Karjalainen TP (2013) Sensitivity in transdisciplinary projects: case of reindeer management in northern Finland. Land Use Policy 34:183–192. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.03.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidl R, Schelhaas M-J, Lindner M, Lexer MJ (2009) Modelling bark beetle disturbances in a large scale forest scenario model to assess climate change impacts and evaluate adaptive management strategies. Reg Environ Change 9:101–119. doi:10.1007/s10113-008-0068-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sustainable development in the European Union (2013) Monitoring report of the EU sustainable development strategy. EUROSTAT, statistical books. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research is linked to the European Cost Action ES1203, Enhancing the resilience capacity of SENSitive mountain FORest ecosystems under environmental change (SENSFOR). Our thanks go to Prof. Kari Laine and other colleagues for their helpful comments on the questionnaire design, to respondents of the survey, to anonymous reviewers of this paper, and to Sue Morris for proofreading. M.N. is also grateful for the support provided by the Scottish Government under the RESAS Programme. We would also like to thank the reviewers for their helpful advice.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Thule Institute, University of Oulu, P.O. Box 7300, 90014, Oulu, Finland

    Simo Sarkki

  2. Department of Forestry and Renewable Forest Resources, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Vecna pot 83, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Andrej Ficko

  3. Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development, Weberplatz 1, 01217, Dresden, Germany

    Karsten Grunewald

  4. The James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen, AB15 8QH, UK

    Maria Nijnik

Authors
  1. Simo Sarkki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrej Ficko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Karsten Grunewald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maria Nijnik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simo Sarkki.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 214 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sarkki, S., Ficko, A., Grunewald, K. et al. Benefits from and threats to European treeline ecosystem services: an exploratory study of stakeholders and governance. Reg Environ Change 16, 2019–2032 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0812-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0812-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation