Forest Ecostructure and Its Change in Finland, Germany and Peru

  • Juha HiedanpääEmail author
  • Carsten Mann
  • Harri Hänninen
  • Matti Salo
  • Jose Carlos Orihuela
Part of the World Forests book series (WFSE, volume 24)


This chapter addresses institutions in forest ecosystem service governance and policy. Adopting an institutionalist perspective, the chapter looks at rules, social norms and their enforcement characteristics that hinder or slow down environmental forest economy transformations in three countries, Finland, Germany and Peru. The chapter applies ecostructure as a key theoretical concept. The ecostructure is an intertwined institutional and ecosystemic architecture that brings organization to a particular social-ecological function. This chapter provides relevant theoretical advice to assist transformations towards the sustainable provision of forest ecosystem services and translates these into practical considerations about how such transformations may be possible on the ground.


Ecosystem services Ententionality Institutions Sustainability transition 


  1. Albert, C., Hauck, J., Buhr, N., & von Haaren, C. (2014). What ecosystem services information do users want? Investigating interests and requirements among landscape and regional planners in Germany. Landscape Ecology, 29, 1301–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartkowski, B., Lienhoop, N., & Hansjürgens, B. (2015). Capturing the complexity of biodiversity: A critical review of economic valuation studies of biological diversity. Ecological Economics, 113, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck, U. (1988). Gegengifte: Die Organisierte Unverantwortlichkeit. Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. Blackman, A., Corral, L., Lima, E. S., & Asner, G. P. (2017). Titling indigenous communities protects forests in the Peruvian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114, 4123–4128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. BMEL—Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (2014). The forests in Germany. Selected results pf the third national forest inventory. Retrieved 8 May 2018 from
  6. Borys, A., Suckow, F., Reyer, C., Gutsch, M., & Lasch-Born, P. (2016). The impact of climate change under different thinning regimes on carbon sequestration in a German forest district. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 21(6), 861–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowles, S. (2004). Microeconomics: Behavior, institutions, and evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bromley, D. W. (2006). Sufficient reason: Volitional pragmatism and the meaning of economic institutions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Byrnes, J. E., Gamfeldt, L., Isbell, F., Lefcheck, J. S., Griffin, J. N., Hector, A., et al. (2014). Investigating the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality: challenges and solutions. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 5(2), 111–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Colander, D., & Kupers, R. (2014). Complexity and the art of public policy: Solving society’s problems from the bottom up. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coomes, O. T., Takasaki, Y., Abizaid, C., & Arroyo-Mora, J. P. (2016). Environmental and market determinants of economic orientation among rain forest communities: evidence from a large-scale survey in western Amazonia. Ecological Economics, 129, 260–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Commons, J.R. (1990). Institutional economics: Its place in political economy. (Original 1934). London: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Deacon, T. W. (2012). Incomplete nature: How mind emerged from matter. New York: WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  14. de Groot, R., Brander, L., van der Ploeg, S., Costanza, R., Bernard, F., Braat, L., et al. (2012). Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 50–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dornelas, M., Gotelli, N. J., McGill, B., Shimadzu, H., Moyes, F., Sievers, C., et al. (2014). Assemblage time series reveal biodiversity change but not systematic loss. Science, 344(6181), 296–299.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Dwyer, J., et al. (2015). Public Goods and Ecosystem Services from Agriculture and ForestryA conceptual approach. Pegasus Project Deliverable WP1.1. Brussels: IEEP. Grant Agreement 633814.Google Scholar
  17. ECLAC-OECD (2016) Environmental performance reviews: Peru 2016. Highlights and recommendations. Santiago: ECLAC.Google Scholar
  18. Edwards, P., & Kleinschmit, D. (2013). Towards a European forest policy—conflicting courses. Forest Policy and Economics, 33, 87–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. E-yearbook of food and natural resource statistics for 2016. Statistical facts on agriculture, forestry, fisheries and hunting in Finland. (2017). Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 30/2017. Retrieved 7 July 2019 from
  20. Farley, J., & Costanza, R. (2010). Payments for ecosystem services: from global to local. Ecological Economics, 69, 2060–2068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Federal Forest Act (1975). Act on the conservation of forests and the promotion of forestry. Retrieved 7 July 2019 from
  22. Finnish Bioeconomy Strategy—Sustainable growth from bioeconomy. (2014). Edita Prima Ltd. Retrieved 7 July 2019 from
  23. Finnish Forest Centre Act 2011/418 (amendments up to 1326/2016). Retrieved 7 July 2019 from [Only in Finnish.].
  24. Forest Act 1093/1996 (amendments up to 567/2014). Retrieved 7 July 2019 from
  25. Forest Data Act (2017). Hallituksen esitys eduskunnalle laiksi Suomen metsäkeskuksen metsätietojärjestelmästä annetun lain muuttamisesta, (HE 170/2017 vp). [Government proposal to the Parliament to amend the Act on the Forestry Information System of the Finnish Forestry Center]. Retrieved 7 July 2019 from [Only in Finnish.].
  26. Forest Management Association Act 534/1998 (amendments up to 1091/2013). Retrieved 7 July 2019 from [Only in Finnish.].
  27. Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(89), 1257–1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Government Programme (2015). Finland, a land of solutions. Strategic Programme of Prime Minister Juha Sipilä’s Government, 29 May 2015. Government Publications 12/2015. ISBN PDF 978-952-287-185-5. Retrieved 7 July 2019 from
  29. Griggs, D., Stafford-Smith, M., Gaffney, O., Rockström, J., Öhman, M. C., Shyamsundar, P., et al. (2013). Policy: Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature, 495, 305–307.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Grin, J., Rotmans, J., & Schot, J. (2010). Transitions to sustainable development—New directions in the study of long term transformation change. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gutsch, et al. (2018). Balancing trade-offs between ecosystem services in Germany’s forests under climate change. Environmental Research Letters, 13(4), 045012Google Scholar
  32. Haltia, E., Rämö, A-K., Pynnönen, S., Valonen, M., Horne, P. (2017). Miksi metsien taloudellisia mahdollisuuksia jätetään käyttämättä?Metsänomistajien aktiivisuus ja siihen vaikuttaminen. [Why are the financial opportunities of forests left unused?—Activity of forest owners and influencing it]. PTT Raports 255.Google Scholar
  33. Hauck, J., Schweppe-Kraft, B., Albert, C., Görg, C., Jax, K., Jensen, R., et al. (2013). The promise of the ecosystem services concept for planning and decision-making. GAIA, 22, 232–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hiedanpää, J., & Bromley, D. W. (2016). Environmental heresies: the quest for reasonable. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hiedanpää, J., Kotilainen, J., & Salo, M. (2011). Unfolding the organised irresponsibility: ecosystem approach and the quest for forest biodiversity in Finland, Peru, and Russia. Forest Policy and Economics, 13(3), 159–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hiedanpää, J., Salo, M., & Kotilainen, J. (2015). Teleodynamics and institutional change: The hardship of protecting the Amur tiger, big-leaf mahogany, and gray wolf. Journal for Nature Conservation, 26, 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hodgson, G. M. (2003). The hidden persuaders: institutions and individuals in economic theory. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 27(2), 159–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hooper, D. U., Adair, E. C., Cardinale, B. J., Byrnes, J. E., Hungate, B. A., Matulich, K. L., et al. (2012). A global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change. Nature, 486(7401), 105.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Hänninen, H., Karppinen, H., Leppänen, J. (2011). Suomalainen metsänomistaja 2010 [Finnish Forest Owner 2010]. Metlan työraportteja 208.Google Scholar
  40. Kies, U., Mrosek, T., & Schulte, A. (2008). A statistics-based method for cluster analysis of the forest sector at the national and subnational level in Germany. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 23, 445–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kind, C., et al. (2010). Analyse des deutschen Marktes zur freiwilligen Kompensation von Treibhausgasemissionen. Studie im Auftrag der Deutschen Emissionshandelsstelle im Umweltbundesamt. Climate Change Nr. 10/2010, Dessau-Roßlau.Google Scholar
  42. Kivimaa, P., & Mickwitz, P. (2011). Public policy as a part of transforming energy systems: framing bioenergy in Finnish energy policy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(16), 1812–1821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Le Blanc, D. (2015). Towards Integration at Last? The Sustainable Development Goals as a Network of Targets. Sustainable Development, 23(3), 176–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lascoumes, P., & Le Gales, P. (2007). Introduction: Understanding Public Policy through Its Instruments? From the Nature of Instruments to the Sociology of Public Policy Instrumentation. Governance, 20(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Latour, B. (2018). Down to Earth, Politics in the New Climatic Regime. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  46. Lear, J. (2006). Radical Hope: Ethics in the Face of Cultural Devastation. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Loft, L., Mann, C., & Hansjürgens, B. (2015). Challenges in ecosystem services governance: Multi-levels, multi-actors, multi-rationalities. Ecosystem Services, 16, 150–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2014). The service-dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate, and directions. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. INSPIRE—Infrastructure for spatial information in the European Community (2007) INSPIRE EU Directive. Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE). Official Journal of the European Union L 108/1, Volume 50. Retrieved 7 July 2019 from
  50. Karppinen, H., & Berghäll, S. (2015). Forest owners’ stand improvement decisions: Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior. Forest Policy and Economics, 50, 275–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Klein, N. (2018). No is not enough: Resisting Trump’s shock politics and winning the world we need. Chicago: Haymarket Books.Google Scholar
  52. Klerkx, L., Hall, A., & Leeuwis, C. (2009). Strengthening agricultural innovation capacity: are innovation brokers the answer? International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, 8(56), 409–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kotiaho, J. S. (2017). On effective biodiversity conservation, sustainability of bioeconomy, and honesty of the Finnish forest policy. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 54(1–4), 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kröger, M., & Raitio, K. (2017). Finnish forest policy in the era of bioeconomy: A pathway to sustainability? Forest Policy and Economics, 77, 6–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kumela, H., & Hänninen, H. (2011). Metsänomistajien näkemykset metsänkäsittelymenetelmien monipuolistamisesta [Forest owners’ views on diversification of forest management]. Metlan työraportteja 203.Google Scholar
  56. Makkonen, M., Huttunen, S., Primmer, E., Repo, A., & Hildén, M. (2015). Policy coherence in climate change mitigation: An ecosystem service approach to forests as carbon sinks and bioenergy sources. Forest Policy and Economics, 50, 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mann, C., & Plieninger, T. (2017). The potential of landscape labelling approaches for integrated landscape management in Europe. Landscape Research, 42(8), 904–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mann, C., Loft, L., & Hansjürgens, B. (2015). Governance of ecosystem services: Lessons learned for sustainable institutions. Ecosystem Services, 16, 275–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mann, C., & Absher, J. D. (2014). Strategies for adjusting policies to institutional, cultural and biophysical context conditions: The case of conservation banking in California. Land Use Policy, 36, 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Matthies, B. D., D’Amato, D., Berghäll, S., Ekholm, T., Hoen, H. F., Holopainen, J., et al. (2016). An ecosystem service-dominant logic?—Integrating the ecosystem service approach and the service-dominant logic. Journal of Cleaner Production, 124, 51–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mattila, O. (2015). Towards service-dominant thinking in the Finnish forestry service market. Dissertationes Forestales 198. 61 p.Google Scholar
  62. MEA. (2005). Millennium ecosystem assessment Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  63. Meadowcroft, J. (2009). What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition management, and long term energy transitions. Policy Sciences, 42(4), 323–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mejía, E., Cano, W., de Jong, W., Pacheco, P., Tapia, S., & Morocho, J. (2015). Actores, aprovechamiento de madera y mercados en la Amazonía peruana (Vol. 145). Lima: CIFOR.Google Scholar
  65. MINAM (2014). Estrategia Nacional de Biodiversidad Biológica al 2021. Plan de Acción 2014–2018. Lima: Ministerio del Ambiente.Google Scholar
  66. Mokyr, J. (1990). The lever of riches: Technological creativity and economic progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  67. National forest strategy 2025—Government resolution of 12 February 2015 (2015). Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 6b/2015. ISBN 978-952-453-912-8 (online). Retrieved 7 July 2019 from
  68. North, D. C. (2005). Understanding the process of institutional change. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Olsson, P., Folke, C., Galaz, V., Hahn, T., Schultz, L. (2007). Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management: creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve, Sweden. Ecology and Society, 12(1).Google Scholar
  70. Orihuela, J. C. (2017). Assembling participatory Tambopata: Environmentality entrepreneurs and the political economy of nature. Forest Policy and Economics, 80, 52–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325(5939), 419–422.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. Pacheco, P., Mejía, E., Cano, W., & de Jong, W. (2016). Smallholder forestry in the Western Amazon: Outcomes from forest reforms and emerging policy perspectives. Forests, 7(9), 193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Pelkonen, P. (2017). Suomen Metsäkeskusta, metsänhoitoyhdistyksiä ja metsätietojärjestelmää koskevien lainsäädäntöuudistusten vaikutukset ja tavoitteiden toteutuminen. Arviointiraportti 22.10.2017. Impact of the legislative reforms concerning the Finnish Forest Center, Forest Management Associations and the forest information system, and the achievement of objectives. The evaluation report,
  74. Personal Data Act (523/1999). Retrieved 7 July 2019 from
  75. Pihlainen, S., Tahvonen, O., & Niinimäki, S. (2014). The economics of timber and bioenergy production and carbon storage in Scots pine stands. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 44(9), 1091–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Pistorius, T., Schaich, H., Winkel, G., Plieninger, T., Bieling, C., Konold, W., et al. (2012). Lessons for REDDplus: a comparative analysis of the German discourse on forest functions and the global ecosystem services debate. Forest Policy and Economics, 18, 4–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Piu, H. C., & Menton, M. (2013). Contexto de REDD + en Perú: Motores, actores e instituciones. Lima: CIFOR.Google Scholar
  78. Primmer, E., Jokinen, P., Blicharska, M., Barton, D. N., Bugter, R., & Potschin, M. (2015). Governance of ecosystem services: A framework for empirical analysis. Ecosystem Services, 16, 158–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. PSI Directive—Directive on the re-use of public sector information (2003). Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information. Official Journal of the European Union L 345/90, EN 31.12.2003.Google Scholar
  80. Pynnönen, S., Haltia, E., Rämö, A.-K. (2017). Metsäammattilaisten näkemyksiä metsätaloudellisen passiivisuuden syistä. [Forest Professionals’ Views on Inactivity in Forestry] PTT Työpapereita 185.Google Scholar
  81. Pynnönen, S., Paloniemi, R., & Hujala, T. (2018). Recognizing the interest of forest owners to combine nature-oriented and economic uses of forests. Small-scale Forestry, 17(4), 443–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. RAISG (2016). Cartografía histórica de áreas naturales protegidas y territorios indígenas en la Amazonía. Red Amazónica de Información Socioambiental Georrefenciada.l Retrieved 7 July 2019 from
  83. Ravikumar, A., Sears, R. R., Cronkleton, P., Menton, M., & Pérez-Ojeda del Arco, M. (2017). Is small-scale agriculture really the main driver of deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon? Moving beyond the prevailing narrative. Conservation Letters, 10(2), 170–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Rival, L., & Roldan, M. (2013). Introduction: Governing the provision of ecosystem services. In R. Muradian & L. Rival (Eds.), Governing the provision of ecosystem services (pp. 1–17). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  85. Rodrik, D. (2018). Straight talk on trade: Ideas for a sane world economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Roering, H.-W. (2004). Study on Forestry in Germany. Working Paper of the Institute of Economics 2004/16. Federal Research Center for Forestry and Forest Products Hamburg.Google Scholar
  87. Salo, M., Helle, S., & Toivonen, T. (2011). Allocating logging rights in Peruvian Amazonia—Does it matter to be local? PLoS ONE, 6(5), e19704.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  88. Salo, M., Puro, J.-P., & Knuuti, K. (2013). Control and intimacy in the Amazonian reality: Newspaper rhetoric on forest sector reform in Peru. Land Use Policy, 35, 226–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Salo, M., Sirén, A., & Kalliola, R. (2014). Diagnosing wild species harvest: resource use and conservation. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  90. Sattler, C., Reutter, M., Schäfer, A. (2017). Inventarisierung bestehender Online-Marktplätze. Ist-Situation der Kommodifizierung von Ökosystemleistungen und Biodiversität. Project Report AgoraNatur 06/2017.Google Scholar
  91. Schleyer, C., Görg, C., Hauck, J., & Winkler, K. J. (2015). Opportunities and challenges for mainstreaming the ecosystem services concept in the multi-level policy-making within the EU. Ecosystem Services, 16, 174–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Schusser, C., Krott, M., Logmani, J., Sadath, N., Yufanyi Movuh, M. C., & Salla, M. (2013). Community Forestry in Germany, a Case Study Seen Through the Lens of the International Model. Journal of Sustainable Development, 6(9), 88–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Schröter, M., van der Zanden, E. H., van Oudenhoven, A. P., Remme, R. P., Serna-Chavez, H. M., De Groot, R. S., et al. (2014). Ecosystem services as a contested concept: a synthesis of critique and counter-arguments. Conservation Letters, 7(6), 514–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Sears, R. R., & Pinedo-Vasquez, M. (2011). Forest policy reform and the organization of logging in Peruvian Amazonia. Development and Change, 42(2), 609–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Sotirov, M., Schüll, E., Sällnas, O., Borges, J., Jonsson, R., Riemer, A., Eriksson, E. (2014). Future scenarios of forest management in Europe. Integral second policy brief.Google Scholar
  96. Takala, T., Hujala, T., Tanskanen, M., & Tikkanen, J. (2017). The order of forest owners’ discourses: Hegemonic and marginalised truths about the forest and forest ownership. Journal of Rural Studies, 55, 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. TEEB DE—Natural Capital Germany (2016). Ecosystem services in rural areasBasis for human wellbeing and sustainable economic development. Summary for decision-makers. Leibniz University Hanover, Hanover, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research—UFZ, Leipzig.Google Scholar
  98. Temperli, C., Stadelmann, G., Thürig, E., & Brang, P. (2017). Silvicultural strategies for increased timber harvesting in a Central European mountain landscape. European Journal of Forest Research, 136, 493–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. UBA. (2016). Berichterstattung unter der Klimarahmenkonvention der Vereinten Nationen 2015–Nationaler Inventarbericht zum Deutschen Treibhausgasinventar 1990–2013 Climate Change 2/2016. Dessau: Umweltbundesamt.Google Scholar
  100. Young, O. (2002). The Institutional dimension of environmental change. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Van Der Plas, F., Manning, P., Allan, E., Scherer-Lorenzen, M., Verheyen, K., Wirth, C., et al. (2016). Jack-of-all-trades effects drive biodiversity–ecosystem multifunctionality relationships in European forests. Nature Communications, 7, 11109.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  102. Vatn, A. (2005). Institutions and the environment. London: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  103. Winkel, G. (2007). Waldnaturschutzpolitik in Deutschland. Bestandsaufnhamen, Analysen und Entwurf einer Story-Line. Remagen-Oberwinter: Verlag Dr. Kessel.Google Scholar
  104. Winkel, G., & Sotirov, M. (2016). Whose integration is this? European forest policy between the gospel of coordination, institutional competition, and a new spirit of integration. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34(3), 496–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Viszlai, I., Barredo, J. I., & San-Miguel-Ayanz, J. (2016). Payments for forest ecosystem servicesSWOT analysis and possibilities for implementation. JRC Technical Reports.Google Scholar
  106. Wolters, S., Nett, K., Tänzler, D., Wilkening, K., Götz, M., Krebs, J.-M., & Vogel, D. (2015). Aktualisierte Analyse des deutschen Marktes zur freiwilligen Kompensation von Treibhausgasemissionen. UBA Texte Climate Change 02/15Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juha Hiedanpää
    • 1
    Email author
  • Carsten Mann
    • 3
  • Harri Hänninen
    • 2
  • Matti Salo
    • 1
  • Jose Carlos Orihuela
    • 4
  1. 1.Natural Resources Institute FinlandTurkuFinland
  2. 2.Natural Resources Institute FinlandHelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.Eberswalde University for Sustainable DevelopmentEberswaldeGermany
  4. 4.Pontifical Catholic University of PeruSan MiguelPeru

Personalised recommendations