Developing Socio-ecological Research in Finland: Challenges and Progress Towards a Thriving LTSER Network

  • Eeva FurmanEmail author
  • Taru Peltola
Part of the Human-Environment Interactions book series (HUEN, volume 2)


At the time of planning the national LTER network (FinLTSER) in Finland, the approach of linking social and ecological issues in solving environmental problems was already well embedded in science and policy institutions and practices. A broad community of environmental, natural and social scientists had been carrying out problem-oriented research related to environmental issues for many years before the concept of LTSER platforms raised wide interest among Finnish research institutes. In this article, we analyse the research culture leading to this high level of interest and enthusiasm regarding socio-ecological research during the development phase of the FinLTSER network. By using interview and other materials from the process of establishment of the FinLTSER, this chapter analyses the initiation of the network, the very first steps taken by the platforms and the challenges faced during this period.


Socio-ecological Interdisciplinary FinLTSER Platform Long term ecological research Long term socio-ecological research 


  1. ALTER-Net. (2005). A long term biodiversity, ecosystem and awareness research network. Accessed July 15, 2011.
  2. Bowker, G. (2000). Biodiversity datadiversity. Social Studies of Science, 30(5), 643–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Corley, E. A., Boardman, P. C., & Bozeman, B. (2006). Design and the management of multi-institutional research collaborations: Theoretical implications from two case studies. Research Policy, 35, 975–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ellis, R., & Waterton, C. (2005). Caught between the cartographic and the ethnographic imagination: The whereabouts of amateurs, professionals, and nature in knowing biodiversity. Environment and Planning D, 23, 673–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Endter-Wada, J., Blahna, D., Krannich, R., & Brunson, M. (1998). A framework for understanding social science contributions to ecosystem management. Ecological Applications, 8, 891–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. FinLTSER. (2005). Finnish long-term socio-ecological research network. FinLTSER. Accessed July 15, 2011.
  7. Furman, E., Kivimaa, P., Kuuppo, P., Nykänen, M., Väänänen, P., Mela, H., & Korpinen, P. (2006). Experiences in the management of research funding programmes for environmental protection. Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) 43. Retrieved January 28, 2011, from
  8. Haberl, H., Winiwarter, V., Andersson, K., Ayres, R. U., Boone, C. G., Castillio, A., Cunfer, G., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Freudenburg, W. R., Furman, E., Kaufmann, R., Krausmann, F., Langthaler, E., Lotze-Campen, H., Mirtl, M., Redman, C. A., Reenberg, A., Wardell, A. D., Warr, B., & Zechmeister H. (2006). From LTER to LTSER: Conceptualizing the socio-economic dimension of long-term socio-ecological research. Ecology and Society, 11(2), 13. [Online] Retrieved from
  9. Haila, Y. (2001a). Ympäristöherätys. In Y. Haila & P. Jokinen (Eds.), Ympäristöpolitiikka: Mikä ympäristö, kenen politiikka (pp. 21–46). Tampere: Vastapaino.Google Scholar
  10. Haila, Y. (2001b). Tieteellisen tiedon merkitys. In Y. Haila & P. Jokinen (Eds.), Ympäristöpolitiikka: Mikä ympäristö, kenen politiikka. Vastapaino: Tampere.Google Scholar
  11. Haila, Y., & Dyke, C. (Eds.). (2006). How nature speaks: The dynamics of the human ecological condition. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Haila, Y., & Levins, R. (1992). Humanity and nature: Ecology, science and society. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hiedanpää, J., Suvantola, L., & Naskali, A. (Eds.). (2010). Hyödyllinen luonto: Ekosysteemipalvelut, hyvinvointimme perustana. Tampere: Vastapaino. (Nature as a benefit. Ecosystem services as the basis for our well-being).Google Scholar
  14. ILTER. (1993). International long term ecological research. Accessed July 15, 2011
  15. Kamppinen, M., Raivola, P., Jokinen, P., & Karlsson, H. (1995). Riskit yhteiskunnassa: Maallikot ja asiantuntijat päätösten tekijöinä. Helsinki: Gaudeamus. (Risks in Society. Laymen and experts as decision makers).Google Scholar
  16. Karasti, H., & Kuitunen, P. (2011). Socio-technical considerations: Initiating information management within the Finnish LTSER Network. In K. Krauze, M. Mirtl, & M. Frenzel (Eds.), LTER Europe – The next generation of ecosystem research: A guide through European Long-Term Ecological Research Networks, Sites and Processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Knuutila, S., Rannikko, P., Oksa, J., Hämynen, T., Itkonen, H., Kilpeläinen, H., et al. (2008). Kylän paikka: Uusia tulkintoja Sivakasta ja Rasimäestä. Helsinki: SKS.Google Scholar
  19. Kotakorpi, E. (2007). Yhteiskunnallisen ympäristötutkimuksen alalta väitelleiden työelämään sijoittuminen (1991–2006) (The career development of PhD’s in environmental social science (1991–2006). Retrieved January 27, 2011 from YHTYMÄ graduate school Web site:
  20. Kwa, C. (2005). Local ecologies and global science: Discourses and strategies of the international geosphere-biosphere programme. Social Studies of Science, 35(6), 923–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lehtinen, A. (2005). Esipuhe (Prologue). In A. Lehtinen (Ed.), Maantiede, tila, luontopolitiikka − Johdatus yhteiskunnalliseen ympäristötutkimukseen. Joensuu: Joensuu University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lehtinen, A., & Rannikko, P. (1994a). Esipuhe (Prologue). In: A. Lehtinen & P. Rannikko (Eds.), Pasilasta Vuotokselle: Ympäristökamppailujen uusi aalto. Helsinki: Gaudeamus (From Pasila to Vuotos. The new wave of environmental conflicts).Google Scholar
  23. Lehtinen, A., & Rannikko, P. (Eds.) (1994b). Pasilasta Vuotokselle: Ympäristökamppailujen uusi aalto. Helsinki: Gaudeamus (From Pasila to Vuotos. The new wave of environmental conflicts).Google Scholar
  24. Lehtinen, A., & Rannikko, P. (Eds.). (2003). Oikeudenmukaisuus ja ympäristö. Helsinki: Gaudeamus (Justice and environment).Google Scholar
  25. Lehtinen, A., Donner-Amnell, J., & Sæther, B. (Eds.). (2004). Politics of forests: Northern forest-industrial regimes in the age of globalisation. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  26. LTER-Europe. (2005). European Long-term ecological research network. Accessed 15 July 2011
  27. Määttä, T. (2007). Lukijalle (To the reader). In T. Määttä (Ed.), Ympäristöpolitiikan ja oikeuden vuosikirja 2007 (p. 5). Joensuu: Joensuu university press.Google Scholar
  28. Massa, I., & Rahkonen, O. (Eds.). (1995). Riskiyhteiskunnan talous: Suomen talouden ekologinen modernisaatio. Helsinki: Gaudeamus. (The economy of risk society. The ecological modernization of the Finnish Economy).Google Scholar
  29. Mauz, I., Peltola, T., Granjou, C., Buijs, A., & Van Bommel, S. (2012). How scientific visions matter. Insights from three long-term socio-ecological research (LTSER) platforms under construction in Europe. Environmental Science and Policy 19–20, 90–99.Google Scholar
  30. McCallin, A. (2006). Interdisciplinary researching: Exploring the opportunities and risks of working together. Nursing and Health Sciences, 8, 88–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mirtl, M. (2010). Introducing the next generation of ecosystem research in Europe: LTER-Europe’s multifunctional and multi-scale approach. In F. Müller, C. Baessler, H. Schubert, & S. Klotz (Eds.), Long-term ecological research: Between theory and application (pp. 75–93). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mirtl, M., Boamrane,M., Braat, L., Furman, E., Krauze, K., Frenzel, M., Gaube, V., Groner, E., Hester, A., Klotz, S., Los, W., Mautz, I., Peterseil, J., Richter, A., Schentz, H., Schleidt, K., Schmid, M., Sier, A., Stadler, J., Uhel, R., Wildenberg, M., & Zacharias, S. (2009). LTER-Europe design and implementation report – Enabling “next generation ecological science”: Report on the design and implementation phase of LTER-Europe under ALTER-Net & management plan 2009/2010. Vienna: Umweltbundesamt, Environment Agency Austria.Google Scholar
  33. Petts, J., Owens, S., & Bulkeley, H. (2007). Crossing boundaries: Interdisciplinarity in the context of urban environments. Geoforum, 39, 593–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Phillipson, J., Lowe, P., & Bullock, J. M. (2009). Navigating the social sciences: Interdisciplinarity and ecology. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46, 261–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rannikko, P., & Määttä, T. (Eds.). (2009). Luonnonvarojen hallinnan legitimiteetti. Tampere: Vastapaino. (The legitimacy of natural resources governance).Google Scholar
  36. Redman, C. L., Grove, J. M., & Kuby, L. H. (2004). Integrating social science into the long-term ecological research (LTER) network: Social dimensions of ecological change and ecological dimensions of social change. Ecosystems, 7, 161–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Uiterkamp, A., & Vlek, C. (2007). Practice and outcomes of multidisciplinary research for environmental sustainability. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 175–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yli-Pelkonen, V., & Niemelä, J. (2006). Use of ecological information in urban planning: Experiences from the Helsinki metropolitan area, Finland. Urban Ecosystems, 9, 211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Finnish Environment InstituteHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Finnish Environment InstituteJoensuuFinland

Personalised recommendations