9. Choices in regard to the definitions and conceptual
9.2 Choices taken in this study
In the following, the major standpoints taken so far in this study in relation to the conceptual variation and considerations found in the reviewed literature are given. These points are guided by our understanding of the literature and what is thought to be best applicable to the ecological and socio-economic context of the boreal environment and Finnish society.
For the most important standpoints the reasons and arguments are given within this list.
1) We use the concept “ecosystem good and services”
systematically together with “ecosystem services” to emphasize the significant role of tangible ecosystem goods alongside non-tangible services in our national context.
2) We will recognize explicitly the hybrid forms of goods and services, where a final product is an “organic” composition of the two in varying proportions (picking berries for household purposes include recreational experiences). One common strategy in product development for added value is to improve the ‘total product’ by combining or bundling goods and services.
3) Following the “mainstream” we include “man-made” ecosystems and their goods and services such as originated from “open air” agroecosystems. We recognize the importance of “urban” ecosystem services, although the scope of our synthesis excludes urban ecosystem services as such. However, urban forests and shores of lakes are included, as their infrastructure development is modest compared to urban parks, and their services otherwise do not much differ from near-by “rural” forests or lakes. Urban development as such reflects the transformation of “natural”
ecosystems or already “man modified“ ecosystems, like agricultural lands near expanding cities, to housing and infrastructure. Artificial lakes are other examples when one (sometimes natural, sometimes degraded) ecosystem is transformed into a new and different, still perhaps in some sense “nature-like” ecosystem.
4) We consider that all ecosystems in Finland have been (Ch. 2 on land use history) and are under some anthropogenic influence – including what is called as natural forests and peatlands, although in many cases this impact has been and is minor. All ecosystems are nowadays under human protection and control, many also (like most forests) under active sustainable (forest) management. This means that even in “nature-like” Finland there hardly are any ecosystem goods and services, where there is no human input at all involved;, rather all ecosystem goods and services are
produced jointly by ecosystems and human inputs, though the latter sometimes only thinly. Delineation of ecosystem goods and services as only those without human input does not fit well into this context.
5) We include peat harvesting for energy and top/upper sub-surface biotic/abiotic soil resources as goods, although recognizing that energy peat utilization changes essentially peatland ecosystems to something else that it used to be. This
“something else“ is a strongly modified ecosystem (but yet an ecosystem) with altered ecosystem services (depending also on which kind of use it will be returned after peat extraction). Among peatland ecosystems in Finland there are a considerable amount of areas which are drained for wood production. They are transformed ecosystems, of which some are turning to be more like forests and some still look more like peatlands, in particular if drainage systems are not maintained (Ch. 2.4). In the longer land use history a large part of agricultural fields used to be forest and peatland or lakes. If abandoned, fields either naturally or by afforestation turns back to forests. This is also a part of land use dynamics in Finland as is urbanization and infrastructure development as described in point 3 above.
6) We will include explicitly ecosystem disservices (pollinosis, borreolis, danger of wild animals) and hazardous goods (poisonous mushrooms and berries) into our assessment.
7) Recognizing that many ecosystem services are joint products of several ecosystems we would like to give some attention on considerations about joint multi-ecosystem production.
Many ecosystem services such as landscape or recreational opportunities from the consumers’ point of views are products of several ecosystems: forests, peatlands, lakes and agroecosystems. Large biodiversity conservation areas are usually composed of a mosaic of ecosystems. So are also larger watershed areas. We also emphasize that in a single ecosystem several ecosystem services are produced and the emphasis in good or service does not usually cause exclusion of all other services. However, interactions and trade-offs are
common both within the goods and services of one ecosystem and between different ecosystems. The latter interactions often get a form of negative externalities, as are the impacts of forest drainage or intensively cultivated agroecosystems on water quality of fresh water ecosystems.
8) We do not consider only final ecosystem services, but also intermediate services. Furthermore, we emphasize that determining final and intermediate services is context dependent and especially in economic valuation separating these services is highly important in order to avoid double-counting.
9) Economic importance of any ecosystem goods and services does not only depend on their value “as such” on-site or as a part of the final good used. Sometimes the larger importance is related to the production and value chain, which are derived from certain ecosystem goods and services. This is apparent in agricultural production and food industries, in wood using industrial chains and in tourism based on the attractions of lakes, forests and open fjeld ecosystems. These chains need to identified and counted as well, although it as such may not change the “original” price tag given in economic accounting.
10) The sub-arctic zone of the northernmost of Finland, located beyond the northern or above alpine timber line consists of large areas of bare fjelds, usually surrounded by low birch forests with scattered pine trees in lower places. Some open peatland areas are found among the mainly mineral soils of the fjeld zone. It is very distinct composition of tundra-like ecosystems and landscape, with its own typical ecosystem services. Sub-arctic ecosystem services will be briefly characterised separately from the services of the major four ecosystems (forests, peatland, agro- and aquatic ecosystems), identification and classification of which is going on alongside and after this report.
References
1. Balmford, A., Fisher, B., Green, R.E., Naidoo, R., Strassburg, B., Turner, V.K. & Rodrigues, A.S.L. 2011. Bringing Ecosystem Services into the Real World: An Operational Framework for Assessing the Economic Consequences of Losing Wild Nature.
Environmental & Resource Economics 48: 161-175.
2. Bateman, I.J., Mace, G.M., Fezzi, C., Atkinson, G. & Turner, K.
2011. Economic analysis for ecosystem assessments.
Environmental and Resource Economics 48: 177-218.
3. Becker, G.S. 1965. A theory of the allocation of time. The Economic Journal 75: 493-517.
4. Björn, I. 2000. Kaikki irti metsästä: metsän käyttö ja muutos taigan reunalla itäisimmässä Suomessa erätaloudesta vuoteen 2000. Suomen historiallinen seura. 268 p.
5. Bockstael, N.E. 1995. Travel cost models. In: Bromley, D.W.
(ed.). The handbook of environmental economics. Blackwell Publishers, London. p. 655-671.
6. Boyd, J. & Banzhaf, S. 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units.
Ecological Economics 63(2–3): 616–626.
7. Boyd, J. & Krupnick, A. 2009. The definition and choice of environmental commodities for nonmarket valuation. Resources for the future. Discussion paper 09-35. Washington, DC.
8. Brown, T.C., Bergstrom, J.C. & Loomis, J.B. 2007. Defining, valuing and providing ecosystem goods and services. Natural Resources Journal 47(2): 329–376.
9. Burkhard, B., de Groot, R., Costanza, R., Seppelt, R., Jorgensen, S.E. & Potschin, M. 2012. Solutions for sustaining natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators 21: 1-6.
10. Burton, P.J. & Macdonald, S.E. 2011. The Restorative Imperative: Challenges, Objectives and Approaches to Restoring Naturalness in Forests. Silva Fennica 45(5): 843-863.
11. Cajander, A.K. 1917. Metsänhoidon perusteet 2. Suomen
12. Cajander, A.K. 1926. The theory of forest types. Acta For.
Fenn. 29: 1-108.
13. Carlowitz, H.C. 1713. “Sylvicultura oeconomica”. Huuri, O., Huuri, L. & Oja, S. 1989. Selostus vuonna 1713 julkaistusta Hannss Carl von Carlowitzin teoksesta Sylvicultura Oeconomica = An account of Sylvicultura Oeconomica by Hannss Carl von Carlowitz, published in 1713 / Olavi Huuri, Leena Huuri, Seppo Oja ; [English section transl. by John Derome]. Helsinki. Metsäntutkimuslaitos.
14. CBD 2009. COP 9 Decision IX/7: Ecosystem approach.
Available at: http://www.cbd.int/ecosystem
15. Costanza, R. 2008. Ecosystem services: multiple classification systems are needed. Biological Conservation 141: 350-352.
16. Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruedo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P. & van den Belt, M. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 15 (387):
253-260.
17. Daily, G.C. 1997. Nature's services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington DC.
18. Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, L., Ricketts, T.H., Salzman, J. & Shallenberger, R.
2009. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver.
Front. Ecol. Environ. 7(1): 21-28.
19. Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs).
2007. Well-being: International policy interventions. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. London.
20. de Groot, R.S. 1992. Functions of Nature: evaluation of nature in environmental planning, management and decision-making. Wolters Noordhoff BV, Groningen. 345 p.
21. de Groot, R.S., Wilson, M. & Boumans, R. 2002. A typology for the description, classification and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 41(3): 393-408.
22. de Groot, R., Fisher, B., Christie, M., Aronson, J., Braat, L., Gowdy, J., Haines-Young, R., Maltby, E., Neuville, A., Polasky, S., Portela, R. & Ring, I. 2010. Integrating the ecological and
economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. Chapter 1. TEEB.
23. Driver, B. & Brown, P. 1978. The opportunity spectrum concept in outdoor recreation supply inventories: A rationale.
Proceedings of the Integrated Renewable Resource Inventories Workshop. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM – 55, 24-31. Environment and Behavior 23(1): 3-26.
24. EC. 2008. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity.
European Commission, Brussels.
25. Finnish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry. 2011. Finnish Forest Research Institute. Vammalan Kirjapaino Oy, Sastamala. 469 p.
26. Finnish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry. 2012. Finnish Forest Research Institute. Vammalan Kirjapaino Oy, Sastamala. 454 p.
27. Fisher, B., Turner, R.K. & Morling, P. 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol. Econ.
68(3): 643-653.
28. Fritzboeger, B. & Soendergaard, P. 1995. A short history of forest uses. In: Hytönen, M. (ed.). Multiple-use forestry in the Nordic countries. The Finnish Forest Research Institute. p. 11-41.
29. Fu, B-J., Su, C-H., Wei, Y-P., Willet, I.R., Lü, Y-H. & Liu, G-H.
2011. Double counting in ecosystem services valuation: causes and countermeasures. Ecological Research 26(1): 1-14.
30. Garcia-Conzalo, J. 2007. Effects of management on timber production and carbon stocks in boreal forest ecosystem under changing climate: a model approach. The Finnish Society of Forest Science. Dissertationes Forestales 42:1-48.
31. Gómez-Baggethun, E., de Groot, R., Lomas, P. & Montes, C.
2010. The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and payment schemes.
Ecological Economics 69: 1209-1218.
32. Groffman, P.M., Driscoll, C.T., Likens, G.E., Fahey, T.J., Holmes, R.T., Eagar, C. & Aber, J.D. 2004. Nor gloom of night: a new conceptual model for the Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study.
BioScience 54: 139-148.
33. Haila, Y. 2010. Ekososiaalinen symbioosi. In: Hiedanpää, J., Suvantola, L. & Naskali, A. (eds.). Hyödyllinen luonto:
ekosysteemipalvelut hyvinvointimme perustana. Vastapaino.
Tampere. p. 53-74.
34. Haila, Y. & Levins, R. 1992. Humanity and nature: ecology, science and society. Pluto Press, London. 270 p.
35. Haines-Young, R. & Potschin, M. 2010a. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In:
Raffaelli, D. & Frid, C. (eds.). Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis. BES Ecological Reviews Series. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. p. 110-139.
36. Haines-Young, R. & Potschin, M. 2010b. Proposal for a Common International Classification of Ecosystem Goods and Services (CICES) for Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting. Prepared for EEA for the UN Committee of Experts on Environmental-Economic Accounting, 23-25 June 2010, New York.
37. Haines-Young, R. & Potschin, M. 2011. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): 2011 Update. European Environment Agency.
38. Haines-Young, R. & Potschin, M. 2012. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES, Version 4.1). European Environment Agency.
39. Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., Maguire, C., Petersen, J-E. &
Weber, J-L. 2012. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES V4): Consultation Briefing Note.
European Environment Agency.
40. Hannelius, S. & Kuusela, K. 1995. Finland. The country of evergreen forests. Forssan Kirjapaino Oy. 192 p.
41. Hanski, I. 2011. Tutkimus luonnonsuojelun perustana. In:
Niemelä, J., Furman, E., Halkka, A., Hallanaro, E-L. & Sorvari, S.
(eds.). 2011. Ihminen ja ympäristö. Gaudeamus. Helsinki. p.
237-241.
42. Harju-Autti, A. 2011. Matkailu. Toimialaraportti/2011.
TEM:n ja ELY-keskusten julkaisu. 66 p.
43. Heady, E.O. 1952. Economics of agricultural production and resource use. Englewood Cliffs. Prentice Hall Inc. 850 p.
44. Heikinheimo, O. 1915. Kaskiviljelyksen vaikutus Suomen metsiin. Acta Forestalia Fennica 4(2).
45. Helander, B.A. 1949. Suomen metsätalouden historia. WSOY.
546 p.
46. Helenius, J., Hyvönen, T. & Tiainen, J. 2004. Maatalous-ekosysteemi. In: Tiainen, J., Kuussaari, M., Laurila, I.P. &
Toivonen, T. (eds.). Elämää pellossa. Suomen maatalous-ympäristön monimuotoisuus. Edita. Helsinki. p. 62-74.
47. Helle, T. 1982. Peuran ja poron jäljillä. Kirjayhtymä. Vaasa.
160 p.
48. Hiedanpää, J., Suvantola, L. & Naskali, A. 2010. Hyödyllinen luonto: ekosysteemipalvelut hyvinvointimme perustana.
Vastapaino. Tampere. 283 p.
49. Hoffrén, J. 1994. Ympäristötaloustieteen perusteet.
Gaudeamus. 125 p.
50. Hollo, E.J. 2004a. Vedet varallisuutena. In: Walls, M. &
Rönkä, M. (eds.). 2004. Veden varassa. Suomen vesiluonnon monimuotoisuus. Edita. Helsinki. p. 252-254.
51. Hollo, E.J. 2004b. Euroopan unionin vesioikeus. In: Walls, M.
& Rönkä, M. (eds.). 2004. Veden varassa. Suomen vesiluonnon monimuotoisuus. Edita. Helsinki. p. 261-270.
52. Horppila, J. & Muotka, T. 2011. Järvien ja jokien monet ongelmat. In: Niemelä, J., Furman, E., Halkka, A., Hallanaro, E-L.
& Sorvari, S. (eds.). Ihminen ja ympäristö. Gaudeamus. Helsinki.
53. Hytönen, M. (ed.). 1995. Multiple-use forestry in the Nordic countries. The Finnish Forest Research Institute. 460 p.
54. Hytönen, M. 2009. Ekosysteemilähestymistapa metsien hoidossa ja käytössä – kirjallisuusselvitys. Metlan työraportteja 139: 1-132.
55. Johnston, R.J. & Russell, M. 2011. An operational structure for clarity in ecosystem service values. Ecological Economics 70:
2243-2249.
56. Jonsson, B.G., Kouki, J. & Kuuluvainen, T. 2011. Northern Primeval Forests – Ecology, Conservation and Management.
Silva Fennica 45(5): 783-784.
57. Joosten, H. & Clarke, D. 2002. Wise Use of Mires and Peatlands – Background and Principles Including a Framework for Decision-making. International Mire Conservation Group and International Peat Society. 304 p.
58. Jutikkala, E. 1933. Asutuksen leviäminen Suomessa 1600-luvun alkuun mennessä. In: Suomen kulttuurihistoria I.
59. Järnefelt, H. 1952. Limnological classification of lakes. Fennia 72: 202–208.
60. Kairesalo, T. & Hartikainen, H. 2004. Maa- ja vesi-ekosysteemien rajapinnat. In: Walls, M. & Rönkä, M. (eds.).
Veden varassa. Suomen vesiluonnon monimuotoisuus. Edita.
Helsinki. p. 60-65.
61. Kangas, J. & Kokko, A. (eds.). 2001. Metsän eri käyttömuotojen arvottaminen ja yhteensovittaminen.
Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen tiedonantoja 800. 366 p.
62. Kellomäki, S. 2005. Metsäekologia. 3. uudistettu painos. Silva Carelica 7: 1-297.
63. Kellomäki, S. 2009. Trees, forests and forest ecosystems. In:
Kellomäki, S. (ed.). Forest resources and sustainable management. Papermaking science and technology. Book 2.
Finnish Paper Engineers’ Association. Gummerus. Jyväskylä. p.
16-96.
64. Kellomäki, S. & Väisänen, H. 1997. Modelling the dynamics of the boreal forest ecosystems for climate change studies in the boreal conditions. Ecological modeling 97: 121-140.
65. Kettunen, M., Vihervaara, P., Kinnunen, S., D’Amato, D., Badura, T., Argimon, M. & ten Brink, P. 2012. Socio-economic importance of ecosystem services in the Nordic Countries – Synthesis in the context of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen.
293 p. Available also at: www.TEEBweb.org
66. Knight, T.M., McCoy, M.W., Chase, J.M., McCoy, K.A. &
Holt, R.D. 2005. Trophic cascades across ecosystems. Nature 437:
880-883.
67. Kniivilä, M., Horne, P., Hytönen, M., Jäppinen, J-P., Naskali, A., Primmer, E. & Rinne, J. 2011. Monia hyötyjä metsistä – ekosysteemipalveluiden yhteistuotanto ja tuotteistaminen. PTT raportteja 227: 1-66.
68. Koivula, E., Saastamoinen, O., Hentinen, L., Loikkanen, T., Määttä, M., Peltonen, A., Saarinen, J. & Tyrväinen, L. 2005.
Metsät ja luontomatkailu: nykytila ja kehittämistarpeita. In:
Koivula, E. & Saastamoinen, O. (eds.). Näkökulmia luontomatkailuun ja sen tulevaisuuteen. Joensuun yliopisto, metsätieteellisen tiedekunnan tiedonantoja 165: 7- 61.
69. Kouki, J. & Niemelä, P. 1997. The biological heritage of Finnish forests. In: Opas, L.L. (ed.). Finnish Forests. University of Joensuu. Joensuu. p.13-33.
70. Kremen, C. 2005. Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? Ecological Letters 8: 468-479.
71. Kuisma, M. 1993. Metsäteollisuuden maa: Suomi, metsät ja kansainvälinen järjestelmä 1600-1920. Suomen Historiallisen Seuran Toimituksia 1055. 782 p.
72. Kuuluvainen, T. & Aakala, T. 2011. Natural forest dynamics in boreal Fennoscandia: a review and classification. Silva Fennica 45(5): 823-841.
73. Kuuluvainen, T., Saaristo, L., Keto-Tokoi, P., Kostamo, J., Kuuluvainen, J., Kuusinen, M., Ollikainen, M. & Salpakivi-Salomaa, P. (eds.). 2004. Metsän kätköissä: Suomen metsä-luonnon monimuotoisuus. Edita.
74. Laitinen, E. 2012. Luontoistaloudesta kaupalliseen metsätalouteen (1850-1950). In: Roiko-Jokela, H. (ed.). Ihminen ja metsä - kohtaamisia arjen historiassa 2. 0sa 2. p. 15-206.
75. Lobo, G. 2001. Ecosystem Functions Classification.
76. Lummaa, K., Rönkä, M. & Vuorisalo, T. 2012.
Ympäristötutkimus – monta tiedettä ja monta monitieteisyyttä.
In: Lummaa, K., Rönkä, M. & Vuorisalo, T. (eds.). Monitieteinen ympäristötutkimus. Gaudeamus. p. 15-23.
77. Luoma, P., Vanhanen, J. & Tommila, P. 2011. Distributed Bio-Based Economy – Driving Sustainable Growth. SITRA. Helsinki.
78. Maa- ja metsätalousministeriö. 2013. Available at:
http://www.mmm.fi/fi/index/etusivu/kalastus_riista_porot/poro talous.html
79. Mace, G.M. & Bateman, I. (Coordinating Lead Authors). 2011.
Chapter 2: Conceptual Framework and Methodology. In: The UK National Ecosystem Assessment Technical Report. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge. Available at: http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=m%2bvhAV3c9uk%3d&tabi d=82
80. Maltby, E. (ed.). 2009. Functional Assessment of Wetlands.
Towards Evaluation of Ecosystem Services. Woodhead Publ., Abington, Cambridge.
81. Mannerkoski, H. 2012. Metsien ilmastolliset ja ekologiset suojavaikutukset. University of Eastern Finland. Department of Forest Sciences. Silva Carelica 57: 1-295.
82. Mannermaa, K. & Tallavaara, M. 2012. Touko Kauppisen artikkeli ”Söimme itsemme suomalaisiksi”. Helsingin Sanomat 4.9.2012.
83. Manning, R. 1999. Studies in Outdoor Recreation. Search and Research for Satisfaction. Second edition. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. 374 p.
84. Mantau, U., Merlo, M., Sekot, W. & Welcker, B. 2001.
Recreational and environmental markets for forest enterprises: a new approach towards marketability of public goods.
Wallimgford. CABI Publishing. 541 p.
85. Matero, J. & Saastamoinen, O. 2007. In search of marginal environmental valuations - ecosystem services in Finnish forest accounting. Ecological Economics 61(1): 101-114.
86. Matero, J., Saastamoinen, O. & Kouki, J. 2003. Metsien tuottamat ekosysteemipalvelut ja niiden arvottaminen.
[Ecosystem services produced by forests and their valuation.]
Metsätieteen aikakauskirja 3/2003: 355-384. (In Finnish.)
87. Maynard, S. & Cork, S. 2011. Classification and prioritization of ecosystem services. Issue paper. Prepared for Expert Group Meeting on Ecosystem Accounting, 5-7 December 2011.
Available at:
www.unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seeaLES/egm/Issue8_
Aus.pdf
88. Maynard, S., James, D. & Davidson, A. 2010. The Development of Ecosystem Services Framework for South East Queensland. Environmental Management 45: 881-895.
89. Michelsen, K-E. 1995. History of Forest Research in Finland.
Part 1. The Unknown Forest. The Finnish Forest Research Institute. 142 p.
90. Miina, J., Pukkala, T., Hotanen, J-P. & Salo, K. 2010.
Optimizing the joint production of timber and bilberries. Forest Ecology and Management 259: 2065-2071.
91. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2003. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment. Island Press, Washington.
92. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005a. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: General Synthesis. Island Press.
Washington, DC.
93. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005b. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute. Washington, DC.
94. Moberg, F. & Folke, C. 1999. Ecological goods and services of coral reef ecosystems. Ecological Economics 29: 215-233.
95. Muotka, T., Hyvärinen, M. & Siikamäki, P. 2004. Virtavedet.
In: Walls, M. & Rönkä, M. (eds.). Veden varassa. Suomen vesiluonnon monimuotoisuus. Edita. Helsinki. p. 44-59.
96. Mäler, K.G., Aniyar, S. & Jansson, Å. 2009. Accounting for ecosystems. Environmental & Resource Economics 42: 39-51.
97. Määttä, K. & Pulliainen, K. 2003. Johdatus ympäristö-taloustieteeseen. Talentum oyj. 224 p.
98. NASA. 1988. Earth system science: a closer view. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Washington, DC.
99. Naskali, A. 2010. Ekosysteemipalvelun termodynaamiset juuret. In: Hiedanpää, J., Suvantola, L. & Naskali, A. (eds.).
Hyödyllinen luonto: ekosysteemipalvelut hyvinvointimme perustana. Vastapaino. Tampere. p. 33-51.
100. Naskali, A., Hiedanpää, J. & Suvantola, L. 2006. Biologinen monimuotoisuus talouskysymyksenä. Suomen ympäristö 4: 1-142.
101. Niemelä, J., Furman, E., Halkka, A., Hallanaro, E-L. &
Sorvari, S. (eds.). 2011. Ihminen ja ympäristö. Gaudeamus.
Helsinki.
102. Norberg, J. 1999. Linking nature’s services to ecosystems:
some general ecological concepts. Ecological Economics 29: 183-202.
103. Odling-Smee, F.J., Laland, K.N. & Feldman, N.W. 2003.
Niche Construction: The Neglected Process in Evolution.
Monographs in Population Biology 37.
104. Odum, E.P. 1971. Fundamentals of ecology. 3rd edition. W. B.
Saunders Co. Toronto. 574 p.
105. Ojea, E., Martin-Ortega, J. & Chiabai, A. 2012. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for economic valuation: the case
of forest water services. Environmental Science & Policy 19-20:
1-15.
106. Oksanen, M. 2012. Ympäristöetiikan perusteet. Luonne, historia ja käsitteet. Gaudeamus. 340 p.
107. Pagiola, S., von Ritter, K. & Bishop, J. 2004. Assessing the Economic Value of Conservation. Environmental Department Paper No. 101. The World Bank, Washington, DC. 48 p.
108. Palmer, M.A. & Filoso, S. 2009. Restoration of ecosystem services for environmental markets. Science 325: 575–576.
109. Pellervon taloustutkimus (PTT). 2012. Vihreän kasvun jäljillä. PTT-Katsaus 1/2012.
110. Perman, R., Ma, Y., McGilvray, J. & Common, M. 1999.
Natural Resource & Environmental Economics. Second Edition.
Longman.
111. Perry, D.A., Iren, H. & Hart, S.C. 2008. Forest ecosystems.
Second edition. The John Hopkins University Press.
112. Petäjistö, L. & Selby, A. 2012. Luontomatkailun yritys-toiminta Suomessa. Metlan työraportteja/Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 246. 53 p. Available at:
http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2012/mwp246.htm 113. Primmer, E. & Furman, E. 2012. Operationalising ecosystem service approaches for governance: Do measuring, mapping and valuing integrate sector-specific knowledge systems? Ecosystem Services 1(1): 85-92.
114. Pulliainen, K. 1979. Ympäristötaloustieteen perusteet:
kokonaistaloudellinen näkökulma. Kustannuskiila.
115. Pulliainen, K. & Seiskari, P. 1972. Ympäristömme systeemit.
Tammi. 148 p.
116. Pykälä, J. 2011. Niityt hoitamalla piiloon. In: Niemelä, J., Furman, E., Halkka, A., Hallanaro, E-L. & Sorvari, S. (eds.).
Ihminen ja ympäristö. Gaudeamus. Helsinki.
117. Päivänen, J. & Hånell, B. 2012. Peatland ecology and forestry: a sound approach. University of Helsinki, Department of Forest Sciences. Publications 3: 1-267.
118. Rastetter, E.B. 1996. Validating models of ecosystem response to global change. Bioscience 46: 190-198.
119. Ratamäki, O., Vihervaara, P., Furman, E. & Tuomisaari, J.
2011. Ekosysteemipalveluiden tutkimus osaksi ympäristö- ja
luonnonvarojen hallintaa. Suomen ympäristökeskuksen raportteja 7/2011. 66 p.
120. Riegert, C., Bader, A. & Costanza, R. 2010. German cultural history of forestry and forest functions since the early 19th century". In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Available at:
http://www.eoearth.org/article/German_cultural_history_of_for estry_and_forest_functions_since_the_early_19th_century 121. Ruuskanen, M. 2010. Paikalliset polttoaineet. Kuinka turpeesta tuli osa Suomen energiahuoltoa. Vapoviesti 4/2012.
122. Saastamoinen, O. 1978. Luonnonsuojelu ja talousteoria.
122. Saastamoinen, O. 1978. Luonnonsuojelu ja talousteoria.