5.5.1
Agricultural ecosystems
As a part of a wider landscape study (Pouta et al.
2014), MTT studied Finnish citizens’ perceptions of ecosystem services provided by agricultural landscapes and their importance. The data were collected in April 2012 by randomly sampling 3,016 individuals from the Internet panel of a private survey company, Taloustutkimus. After a pilot sur-vey of 100 people, 800 people completed the final survey, which resulted in a response rate of 27%.
The data were for the most part representative of the general population.
The survey focused on various ecosystem ser-vices citizens may experience from agricultural landscapes. Respondents were presented with a typical Southern Finnish agricultural landscape that also contained forest stripes, and asked about the extent of ecosystem services they perceived the landscape produces.
Respondents found food production to be the most important ecosystem service of agricultural landscapes (Figure 5.5.1). Cultural services were also considered highly important. Of the cultural services, the three most important ecosystem ser-vices were landscape, recreation and the strength-ening of humans’ place attachment. Ecosystems’
ability to promote local culture was also considered significant. In addition to this, several regulating and supporting services, such as pollination and improving air quality, were evaluated as relevant.
The survey data also revealed the difficulty the general public had in evaluating regulating servic-es, as the number of “don’t know” responses was
considerably higher for regulating services than for cultural or provisioning services.
The perceptions of the produced ecosystem services correlated significantly, implying that those respondents who considered the produc-tion of cultural services to be extensive also per-ceived a high level of provisioning and regulat-ing services from agricultural ecosystems. High perceived levels of regulating and provisioning services were strongly correlated. The respond-ents’ perceptions of high level of ecosystem ser-vices were positively associated with the female gender, middle age, and living in rural areas par-ticularly in parts of the country other than the Helsinki-Uusimaa region.
5.5.2
Urban forests
Ecosystem services in nearby forests as perceived by residents were studied by Hauru, Eskelinen Yli-Pelkonen, Kuoppamäki and Setälä in the City of Lahti, Finland. A postal survey was sent to local residents in the Kiveriö residential area in Febru-ary 2013. To get the idea of important ecosystem services in the area, the residents were also asked what purposes they use their nearby forests for.
Residents (n = 197) recognized several benefits both for themselves and for society in general.
Benefits mentioned were a posteriori classified into categories.
Benefits (number of mentions) that the residents felt their nearby forests (i.e. forests situated within a close distance to their homes; 82 m on average) provide for themselves were: psychological restora-tion such as relaxarestora-tion (n = 74), recrearestora-tional bene-fits such as physical exercise and dog walking (n = 52), values related to existence of nature (including connection to nature, n = 36), aesthetic experiences such as beauty, sounds and odors (n = 35), forest products (n = 31), environmental regulation (n = 31), education (n = 26), positive feelings (n = 26) and amenity values such as coziness and living comfort (n = 13).
Benefits that the residents felt their nearby for-ests provide for society in general were similar to those at the personal level: recreational experiences (n = 60), increase in aesthetic quality (n = 47), psy-chological restoration (n = 36), environmental regu-lation (n = 29), existence of nature, e.g. biodiversity, birds and vegetation (n = 23), forest products (n = 22), education (n = 13) and monetary benefits such as increased demand for the area (n = 10).
Only a few disadvantages were mentioned and those were mostly related to human behavior, e.g.
dog feces, fear of violence and falling trees.
It was also found that residents used their near-by forests for many purposes both in the summer and in the winter. The most frequently mentioned purpose of use was physical exercise (ca. 70% of the respondents chose this alternative both in summer and in winter). Enjoying the beauty of nature (ca.
50% mentioned this), observing nature (ca. 36%) and different purposes related to psychological res-toration and getting away from everyday routines were often mentioned (ca. 40% mentioned a benefit related to psychological restoration).
All in all nearby forests (i.e. forests that are locat-ed within walking distance from a person’s home) provide many benefits to local residents, most of which are ‘cultural’, i.e. immaterial or experiential in nature. This means that nearby urban forests that may not be economically or ecologically the
’highest quality’ compared to e.g. rural pristine or silvicultural forests, are highly valuable for local residents because they offer easily accessible places to get away from everyday stress, to experience aesthetic pleasure, to do physical exercises, to ed-ucate children, to get in contact with nature and many other benefits.
1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00
produces water for household consumption produces non-food agricultural products improves surface water quality strengthens social relations and networks
provides pest and plant diseases control produces new soil provides spiritual experiences produces wood produces bio energy support diversity, resistance of species provides non-food forest products hinders natural disasters (floods, erosion) supports water circle supports diversity of culture supports nature tourism support active living and self-fulfilment mediates nutrition circle and storage provides place for learning supports favourable climate supports photosynthesis and biomass production improves air quality promotes local culture supports pollination strengthens humans attachment to place supports recreation and exercising brings joy from visual landscape produces food
none little some a lot very much
figure 5.5.1. Citizens’ evaluations of the ecosystem services produced by the agriculture landscape. the respondents were shown a photograph of typical south finnish agricultural landscape with forest stripes.
68 The Finnish Environment 1en | 2015
table 5.5.1. the perceived ecosystem services from peatlands in Lieksa, north Karelia, based on silvennoinen (2012).
Dark blue: mentioned by respondents, light blue: pointed out from the list of ecosystem services.
main category of es ecosystem service natural peatland Drained peatland
Local General Local General
Provisioning services Berries and mushrooms Game
timber Cultural services recreation
Landscape experience
existence values of biodiversity Learning, teaching, research regulating and
maintenance services Climate control
Water fluctuation control habitat services
figure 5.5.2. Different individuals perceive the importance of ecosystem services from peatlands very differently (tolvanen et al. 2012).
5.5.3
Peatlands
There are no comprehensive studies on Finnish people’s perceptions of ecosystem services from peatlands. Silvennoinen (2012), however, presents results concerning two peatland areas in North Ka-relia. The study did not aim to value the ecosystem services in monetary terms, but allowed qualitative assessment of their importance. In the interviews local people (23) identified the ecosystem services they perceive from either a natural or a drained peatland area in Lieksa. The results also provide people’s perceptions of the services obtained on social level. Table 5.5.1 summarizes the results.
The natural peatland provided cultural services in particular, such as recreation, but concerning provisioning services, berries and mushrooms were also important. Regulating services, identi-fied from the list provided for respondents, related to water fluctuation control and climate control.
Whilst the drained peatland offered mainly provi-sioning services, it did also provide a recreational environment.
Individuals can perceive the importance of ecosystem services very differently. The hetero-geneity of the importance of various ecosystems services from peatlands is illustrated in Tolvanen et al. (2012) (Figure 5.5.2). Their study identified three different citizen groups. Environmentalists emphasized hydrological regulation, maintenance of habitats, and recreation. Production-oriented in-dividuals perceived particularly the income from provisioning services as important. They also con-sidered peatlands an important energy source. The perceptions of the third group lie between the two other groups.
5.6