The use of knowledge in evidence-informed voluntary conservation of Finnish forests

Salomaa, Anna; Paloniemi, Riikka; Hujala, Teppo; Rantala, Salla; Arponen, Anni; Niemelä, Jari

doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2016.09.004

Cited by 29 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 35 publications

(78 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several types of knowledge exist in biodiversity conservation and decision-making concerning the use of forests, for example scientific knowledge and local, non-professional or indigenous knowledge (Berkes et al 2000;Giessen and Böcher 2009;Fortmann and Ballard 2011). Local knowledge is related to local places and people, and is produced and utilised by them (Geertz 2000;Salomaa et al 2016). A person who has no professional status through education or occupation concerning a certain subject produces non-professional knowledge, and this knowledge is based on their experiences and the social norms for interpreting those experiences (Bamberg 2013).…”

Section: Knowledge Types and Forms And Their Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A person who has no professional status through education or occupation concerning a certain subject produces non-professional knowledge, and this knowledge is based on their experiences and the social norms for interpreting those experiences (Bamberg 2013). Knowledge types may intertwine at the local level and contain nature-related, cultural or social knowledge (Yli-Pelkonen and Kohl 2005;Salomaa et al 2016). These various knowledge types may take different forms: some are tacit by nature, others may be codified or encapsulated.…”

Section: Knowledge Types and Forms And Their Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both authorities can enter into conservation contracts with forest owners. In principle, forest owners may choose between permanent or fixed-term conservation, environmental subsidy agreements or nature management projects (Salomaa et al 2016). The programme was launched in 2008 and will continue at least until 2025.…”

Section: Forest Management Planning and Advisory Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Different organisational strategies affect practices and hence the professionals have varying resources and objectives when they meet with forest owners. Forest owners in Finland receive services and information from several actors that operate in a multi-actor network consisting of representatives of the state administration, various market-driven service providers and NGOs, which operate mainly with issues related to nature conservation (Salomaa et al 2016;Vainio et al 2018).…”

Section: Forest Owner Advisory and Regulatory Service Providers In Fimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Knowledge use in the management of privately owned forests: a focus on decision support services for multi-objective forest use

Pynnönen¹

2020

Diss. For.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Knowledge Types and Forms And Their Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Knowledge Types and Forms And Their Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Forest Management Planning and Advisory Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Forest Owner Advisory and Regulatory Service Providers In Fimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Knowledge use in the management of privately owned forests: a focus on decision support services for multi-objective forest use

Pynnönen¹

2020

Diss. For.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Workshops involved 59 participants including local landowners (not overlapping with the survey respondents), forestry and conservation authorities, forestry professionals, researchers, and nature enthusiasts. Participant selection was based on nominations from regional experts and on snowball sampling (Salomaa et al 2016). To elicit debate, the discussions were structured around statements concerning the implementation of environmental policies (Mickwitz 2003), including the Forest Biodiversity Program and the roles of different actors in landscape-level conservation (Annex D).…”

Section: Dialogue Workhopsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating Social and Ecological Knowledge for Targeting Voluntary Biodiversity Conservation

Paloniemi

Hujala

Rantala

et al. 2017

CONSERVATION LETTERS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Improving the effectiveness of voluntary biodiversity policies requires developing trans-disciplinary conservation plans that consider social constraints to achieving ecological objectives. We integrated data on landowners' willingness to participate in voluntary conservation efforts with ecological data on conservation values in a spatial prioritization, and found that doing so considerably reduced the loss in conservation value caused by landowners' reluctance to participate. We learned that conducting prioritization with stakeholder input gained through dialogue during field visits could be beneficial for increasing the legitimacy of conservation plans with stakeholders. Thus, in addition to developing a methodology for using data on stakeholder perceptions of conservation in spatial prioritization, our study suggests that engaging landowners and other stakeholders in the conservation prioritization process will improve the success of conservation plans.

show abstract

Low knowledge of national biodiversity symbols among urban South Africans limits their potential value as conservation flagship species

Tshikombeni,

Shackleton,

Ntshudu

2023

People and Nature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most countries have declared one or more animal or plant species to be among their national symbols, termed here national biodiversity symbols. National biodiversity symbols are the species formally or informally recognised by societies and countries as having meaning to one or more of national identity, values and unity. It has been proposed previously that national biodiversity symbols can be used as flagship species to advance habitat conservation in their respective countries. However, this assumes that the symbols are well‐known and revered by the citizens of the country concerned. We examined this assumption via direct interviews with 382 urban residents in four towns in South Africa, which is a mega‐biodiversity country with five national biodiversity symbols (a national tree, flower, animal, bird and fish). We found that less than 3% of the urban respondents could name all five species, ranging from 6% for the national tree to 40% for both the national flower and national animal. Knowledge of other national symbols (flag and anthem) were equally low. The number of national biodiversity symbols known increased with income and education level of respondents. Despite limited knowledge of which species were the national biodiversity symbols, almost two‐thirds of respondents felt that having national biodiversity symbols was important for promoting national identity. These findings show that from a heritage perspective a great deal more awareness needs to be developed in South Africa around the national biodiversity symbols. From a conservation perspective, it indicates that the national biodiversity symbols are unlikely, at this stage at least, to be useful as flagship species for habitat conservation programmes. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

show abstract

The use of knowledge in evidence-informed voluntary conservation of Finnish forests

Cited by 29 publications

References 35 publications

Knowledge use in the management of privately owned forests: a focus on decision support services for multi-objective forest use

Knowledge use in the management of privately owned forests: a focus on decision support services for multi-objective forest use

Integrating Social and Ecological Knowledge for Targeting Voluntary Biodiversity Conservation

Low knowledge of national biodiversity symbols among urban South Africans limits their potential value as conservation flagship species

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About