Copyright copy 2016 by the author(s) Published here under license by the Resilience AllianceTolvanen A and J Aronson 2016 Ecological restoration ecosystem services and land use a European perspective Ecology andSociety 21(4)47 httpsdoiorg105751ES-09048-210447

Guest Editorial part of a Special Feature on Ecological Restoration Ecosystem Services and Land Use

Ecological restoration ecosystem services and land use a EuropeanperspectiveAnne Tolvanen 12 and James Aronson 34

ABSTRACT This special feature provides an overview on how the ecosystem service concept has been and can be incorporated intothe science practice and policies of ecological restoration (ER) and evidence-based land-use It includes an edited selection of eleveninvited and peer-reviewed papers based on presentations given during the 9th European Conference on Ecological Restoration in 2014The focus is on Europe but many contributors also make appraisals and recommendations at the global scale Based on the contributorspapers and our own overview of the promise of ecological restoration in the existing international treaties coalitions and conventionswe propose that the following actions could contribute to the positive impacts of ER on biodiversity maintenance ecosystem functioningprogressive mainstreaming the concepts of both ER and ecosystem services significant mitigation and offsetting of anthropogenicclimate change and lasting enhancement of both ecosystem and human health ER should be incorporated into land use planningwherever needed and the synergies and trade-offs of different land use scenarios should be assessed in terms of their impacts onecosystem services The discourse of ER should be enlarged wherever it is needed to include multifunctional land use thatsimultaneously supports sustainable production systems built environments and the quality and quantity of diverse ecosystem servicesThis approach will generate ecological social and economic benefits in the long run Monitoring and evaluation of ER projectsshould be a continuous process involving careful selection of indicators chosen with the full range of stakeholders in mind and asufficiently long-term perspective to catch the progress of long-term or highly dynamic ecosystem processes Scientists should activelyparticipate in policy and land management discussions in order to give their views on the potential outcomes of decisions Greatercooperation and exchanges are needed within the EU and globally in order to accelerate the upscaling improvement and mainstreamingof both large-scale ER and the science and application of the ecosystem services concept

Key Words Biodiversity climate change ecological rehabilitation ecological restoration ecosystem services European Union EU2020strategy land use policy SER Society for Ecological Restoration

INTRODUCTIONKnowledge of the potential of ecological restoration (ER) anddemand for scaling it up are on the rise worldwide The conceptand emerging science of ecosystem services will help because ERhelps address biodiversity and ecosystem services objectivessimultaneously (Bullock et al 2011) As is well known healthyecosystems - that is systems that are well-organized self-organizing and functioning in a coherent landscape matrix -contribute to and improve the health and well-being of people(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003)

What is new today is the awareness that we can - if we worktogether across disciplinary economic and ideological divides -actually augment renewable and cultivated natural capitalthrough ER thereby maintaining biodiversity and enhancing thequality and range of ecosystem goods and services on which ourown health and wellbeing depend (Brauman et al 2007 Aronsonet al 2016 and references therein)

The ecosystem service concept and the efforts to value ecosystemservices are attempts to create explicit and binding values relatedto non-monetary as well as monetary benefits derived from thoseservices Despite the concern that the inherent value of Naturemay be overlooked if economic valuation alone drives decision-making (Meine et al 2006 Schroumlter et al 2014) the ecosystemservices concept provides a common ground to discuss and takepolicy decisions regarding the environmental footprint and long-term desirability and sustainability of diverse land and water uses

(Naeem 2002 Aronson et al 2007 TEEB 2010 Neszlighoumlver et al2011 Alexander et al 2016) In this context it is critical to clarifythe possible roles limitations and opportunities provided by thescience and application of both ER and ecosystem services in thesafeguarding of biodiversity and the maintenance of well-functioning well-integrated ecosystems in our finite boundedworld (CBD 2012 Aronson and Alexander 2013)

The 9th European Conference on Ecological Restorationorganized by the Society for Ecological Restoration EuropeChapter (SERE) was held in Oulu Finland in August 2014 Thiswas the time when the planning of the fulfilment of 15restoration target had just begun in most EU countries Almost400 participants from 36 countries attended bringing experienceand perspectives from natural and social sciences EU policyspheres land management private companies consultancy firmsand NGOs concerned with restoration and conservation Thesedelegates gathered together to discuss the integration of theemerging science of ecosystem services the science and practiceof ER and myriad timely land use questions By collecting anedited selection of eleven papers presented during the Conferencethis special feature provides an overview and appraisal of how theecosystem service concept has been and can be incorporated intothe science practice and policies of ER and land-use Anotherspecial issue arising from the same SERE2014 conferenceaddresses the concept of biodiversity and ecosystem services atmining and industrial sites in particular (see Prach and Tolvanen2016)

1Natural Resources Institute Finland Oulu 2Department of Ecology and Genetics University of Oulu 3Missouri Botanical Garden St Louis M0USA 4Centre dEcologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive (UMR 5175-Campus du CNRS) Montpellier France

Ecology and Society 21(4) 47httpwwwecologyandsocietyorgvol21iss4art47

LEGISLATION AND POLICY RELATED TOECOLOGICAL RESTORATIONDuring the last decade ER has become increasingly prominentin global national and regional treaties coalitions and UNconventions The European Commission was a pioneer in theseefforts (European Commission 2011) through its BiodiversityStrategy 2020 program which includes a target to restore or moreaccurately - to begin restoring 15 of all degraded ecosystems inthe EU by 2020 The next year (CBD 2012) the UN Conventionon Biological Diversity took this same goal to a global scale Thenin 2015 strong support and soft laws calling for large-scaleecological restoration were provided by the UNCCD (2015)UNFCCC (2015) and the UN General Assembly (UN 2015)These conventions emphasize the feedback between landdegradation and anthropogenic climate change and assert thatER and sustainable land management are effective and essentialmeans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions Still a great dealremains to be done to improve the ecologically healthyrelationship between nature and culture to borrow from theMission statement of the Society for Ecological Restoration(SER) The Convention on Combatting Desertification(UNCCD) has launched a program to achieve Land DegradationNeutrality (Reed and Stringer 2016) in which ER is one of thekey components We also note the growing number ofgovernments creating new policies and laws with respect to ERand ecosystem services (Colombia Brazil South Africa NewZealand the US Canada among others and also the EU)

So far the progress of the implementation of the 15 restorationtarget in the EU has been modest All member states failed tohonor their commitment to deliver a sound national restorationprioritization framework by the end of 2014 (Cortina-Segarra etal 2016) and few member states have even started to work outtheir restoration prioritization framework or consider alternativestrategies to counterbalance ecosystem degradation There maybe many reasons for the poor implementation of EU biodiversitystrategy thus far such as costs and burdens placed on authoritiesand stakeholders the ability to simultaneously achieve the goalsof other EU policies (Milieu IEEP and ICF 2016) and in somecases impractical initial restoration targets in relation to the levelof degradation and land use (Kotiaho 2015) Joslashrgensen (2015)also points out in this special feature that there is a risk that thefocus of policy-makers may shift from biodiversity itself to theincentive to maximize restored areas in order to meet nationalcommitments to the EU goals The reason for concern on thissubject is that ER has three different roles in both CBD and EUbiodiversity policy documents namely as an objective as a targetand as a tool As ecological restoration itself has been listed asan objective of the EU policy meeting that objective through theuse of a tool deployed to reach a numerical target becomes anaccounting exercise instead of something more holistic and far-seeing (Joslashrgensen 2015)

Furthermore in the EU biodiversity offsetting is a recent policyapproach employed or evoked in attempts to better aligneconomic development with nature protection (Shoukens andCliquet 2016) The EU Nature directives are facing oppositionnot only from some businesses and industrial sectors but alsofrom some Member States that struggle with conservationobjectives In this special feature Shoukens and Cliquet (2016)provide an overview of compensation approaches and their

potential implications on the effectiveness of EU NatureDirectives They show that that ER cannot be used as mitigationin the context of the EU Nature Directives unless it can bedemonstrated that they directly mitigate or reduce the effectslinked to real estate development on the targeted areas or patchesof habitats Coordinated and proactive application of restorationand incorporation of adaptive management at permit of planninglevel could constitute a promising pathway towards moresustainable project development (Shoukens and Cliquet 2016)

EVALUATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICE DELIVERY INECOLOGICAL RESTORATIONCareful evaluation of ER is important in assessing the successand cost-efficiency of restoration projects not only forcommunicating the information generated but also for securingfuture funding and land areas for restoration projectsNevertheless formal evaluation often lacks altogether inrestoration projects or is restricted to a single or just a few post-restoration events (Suding 2011) Poor short-term and poorlydocumented evaluation creates a risk that inefficient or ineffectivemethods and tools will continue to be needlessly used (Nilsson etal 2016) In order to holistically assess the impacts of the varyingrestoration processes set in motion in a project evaluation shouldbe a continuous activity (Allen et al 2002) promoting adaptivemanagement In this special feature Nilsson et al (2016) developa conceptual framework for evaluating the process of ER Theyidentify three major phases planning implementation andmonitoring and show that evaluation can occur both within andbetween each of these phases To improve the restoration processand to transfer the knowledge and knowhow generated to futureprojects and programs more formal and more sustainedevaluation procedures are called for They should also involve allrelevant stakeholders and generate active documentation anddissemination of the results experiences successes and failures(Nilsson et al 2016)

A sufficiently long-term time frame is also needed to allowscientific evaluation of the impact of restoration projects onbiophysical parameters Especially in regions with shortvegetative growing seasons ecological processes may be slow toproceed with the result that some of the desired restorationoutcomes may take decades or even centuries to achieve But theprocesses per se are also important especially in highly dynamicecosystems In their contribution in this special issue Boerema etal (2016) show that in highly dynamic ecosystems a snapshotevaluation of a restoration project can give a false estimate orindication of success

The diversity of restoration aims has raised a number ofconceptual and practical implications for the way that restorationprojects are monitored and evaluated (Clewell and Aronson 2006Hughes et al 2016) Biodiversity targets which are often seen asthe principal target of restoration may be only partiallycorrelated with ecosystem service targets and outcomes As aresult metrics for monitoring biodiversity do not necessarilycoincide with those for monitoring ecosystem services Hughes etal (2016) discuss the choice of metrics for monitoring ecosystemservices and the difficulties of assessing the interactions betweenecosystem processes biodiversity changes and ecosystem servicesaffected by restoration projects They conclude that reporting theachievements of a project in terms of biodiversity metrics alone

Ecology and Society 21(4) 47httpwwwecologyandsocietyorgvol21iss4art47

gives a very different context for valuing its achievementscompared with reporting impacts on ecosystem service range andprovision Hence the choice of monitoring metrics and theincompatibilities of measurement scale and sampling design ofmany biodiversity and ecosystem service metrics can have asignificant impact on the results reported on who values what ina given restoration project on perceptions of cost-effectivenessand finally on how decisions are made based on the monitoringresults (Hughes et al 2016)

ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION WITHIN MULTIPLELAND USE SCHEMESAlready a decade ago de Groot (2006) pointed out thatmultifunctional land use is an operational concept tosimultaneously plan for and generate ecological social andeconomic benefits Although this view is commonly accepted nowmore efforts are needed to insure the integration - where needed- of ER as a land use in large-scale land use planningSocioeconomic drivers often motivate the decision to start an ERproject (Hagen et al 2013) In order to get support restorationprojects and larger programs need to demonstrate theirimportance and success in relation to other land uses and theecosystem services they each provide (Tolvanen et al 2012) Theyalso require the coordination of land uses and management overa larger area usually with a range of partners land owners andstakeholders (Adams et al 2016) For example Marttila et al2016 show in their contribution to this special feature thatexpectations about stream restoration outcomes reveal differentpriorities among sets of stakeholders in a given project How wellthese expectations on landscape value fisheries opportunitiesand regulating services etc are or may be met influencesperceptions of success or failure Adams et al (2016) alsoemphasize in this special issue that mutual trust amongstakeholders and institutional strategies are needed to ensure thatconservation and ecosystem services gains are not reversed whenfunding runs out private owners change priorities or land tenurechanges occur

As many benefits of ER are of non-market and public they arerarely represented or defended in conventional decision-makingprocesses An essential step in the process is to make theconsequences of different land use scenarios as explicit as possible(Decleer et al 2016) In their analysis of this problem Decleer etal (2016) show that the broader benefits of restoration eg thosearising from the avoidance or reduction of flood hazards and theincrease of tourism and recreation opportunities etc may welloutweigh the costs to individual landowners due to decrease offood production These kinds of quantitative analyses areimportant in identifying synergies and trade-offs amongalternative land use planning policies and restoration scenarios

Evidence-based land use policy relies on the availability ofscientific information (Decleer et al 2016 Kangas et al 2016)Nevertheless scientific information often requires complicatedanalyses and high level expert evaluation To have real effectscientific information should be inserted - and where neededsimplified - to fit into decision criteria andor tools wherebiodiversity conservation through set-asides and ER are assessedtogether with other land uses and the ecosystem services theyeach deliver In this way optimum management interventions andoperations can be targeted to the areas where they are best suited

For example in their contribution to this special feature Kangaset al (2016) develop ecological criteria to locate suitable areas fortourism and recreational infrastructure and to assess the successof nature conservation in a study region with concurrent needsfor the development of nature conservation tourism andrecreation and forestry Their method can be transferred andapplied to other regions and land uses such as the biodiversityconservation in the city planning (Kangas et al 2013) and thedevelopment of tourism and mining areas (Kangas TolvanenJuutinen unpublished manuscript) provided that the scoring isadapted to local conditions and available data sets (Kangas et al2016) Similar to the proposals of Decleer et al (2016) howeverthis quantitative assessment was made possible through of largeamounts of high quality data which may not always be possiblefor similar planning approaches elsewhere

Echoing Bullock et al (2011) and others Alexander et al (2016)argue that there is a strong inherent relationship between ER andthe ecosystem services concept with the latter providing someguidance on how ER may be planned and implemented atlandscape and regional scales Clearly science and technologyalone will not allow meeting the potential or the demand for large-scale ER Similarly jurisdiction will also not be enough to trulymainstream and assure longevity for restoration projects andprograms even though they may be essential to integrating themwithin larger landscape mosaics and regions (Ford et al 2015)

CONCLUSIONSSince 2014 discussion of the above-cited 15 target has beenlively in the EU unfortunately little has been achieved in relationto the key target (Cortina-Segarra et al 2016) Ongoing threatexists that the EU target to halt the degradation of biodiversitywill be watered down Scientists should actively participate in thepolitical discourse in order to keep ER in the agenda and givetheir views on the potential outcomes of land use decisionsConcerning climate change it should be acknowledged thatsustainable land management ecological rehabilitation (focusedprimarily on functionality) ER and integrated land use planningprovide immediate cost-effective and potentially large-scalemitigation benefits (UNCCD 2015) Furthermore land andecosystem degradation processes are known to be both causesand a consequence of anthropogenic climate change imprudentagricultural practices deforestation and ecosystem conversion ofnatural or semi-natural areas to built environments spur almost25 of total global greenhouse gas emissions (IPCC 2014) Theemissions can and should be reduced through more sustainableland use and management combined with land rehabilitation andecosystem restoration activities

In closing let us go back to our first sentence in this synthesispaper Knowledge of the potential of ecological restoration anddemand for scaling it up are on the rise worldwide Were on aroll - hopefully - and we need to nurture it In Europe as elsewherethe key challenge of achieving effective long-lasting ER in allecosystem types is that our exponential use of renewable and non-renewable natural capital must be weighed against the myriadbenefits to present and future generations to be gained frommaintaining biodiversity and healthy environments and therestoration and rehabilitation of degraded areas and ecosystemsMultidisciplinary research evaluation strategies and far-sightedand more just national policies must come to be the rule rather

Ecology and Society 21(4) 47httpwwwecologyandsocietyorgvol21iss4art47

than exceptions in the discussion around ER In periods ofeconomic and political jolts and crisis in particular it is temptingto seek quick solutions that bring short-term ease to the economybut these may well have devastating long-term environmentalconsequences adversely affecting the well-being of futuregenerations of humans and indeed all life on Earth

Responses to this article can be read online at httpwwwecologyandsocietyorgissuesresponsesphp9048

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge all organizations and foundations thatprovided financial support for the 9th European Conference onEcological Restoration and the present special feature NaturalResources Institute Finland (and the preceding Finnish ForestResearch Institute) LIFEPeatLandUse project (LIFE12 ENVFI000150) Metsaumlhallitus the Ministry of the EnvironmentMinistry of Agriculture and Forestry Federation of FinnishLearned Societies Maj and Tor Nessling Foundation Council ofOulu Region Vapo Oy Oulun Energia and the City of Oulu

LITERATURE CITEDAdams W M I D Hodge N A Macgregor and L Sandbrook2016 Creating restoration landscapes partnerships in large-scaleconservation in the UK Ecology and Society 21(3)1 httpdxdoiorg105751es-08498-210301

Alexander S J Aronson O Whaley and D Lamb 2016 Therelationship between ecological restoration and the ecosystemservices concept Ecology and Society 21(1)34 httpdxdoiorg1018901051-0761 (2002)012[1418EROSPP]20CO2

Allen C D M Savage D A Falk K F Suckling T WSwetnam T Schulke P B Stacey P Morgan M Hoffman andJ T Klingel 2002 Ecological restoration of southwesternponderosa pine ecosystems a broad perspective EcologicalApplications 121418-1433 httpsdoiorg1018901051-0761(2002)012[1418erospp]20co2

Aronson J and S Alexander 2013 Ecosystem restoration is nowa global priority time to roll up our sleeves Restoration Ecology 21293-296 httpdxdoiorg101111rec12011

Aronson J S J Milton and J N Blignaut editors 2007Restoring natural capital science business and practice Islandpress Washington DC httpdxdoiorg103368er24122

Aronson J C C M Blatt and T B Aronson 2016 Restoringecosystem health to improve human health and well-beingphysicians and restoration ecologists unite in a common causeEcology and Society 21(4)39 httpdxdoiorg105751es-08974-210439

Boerema A L Geerts L Oosterlee S Temmerman and PMeire 2016 Ecosystem service delivery in restoration projectsthe effect of ecological succession on the benefits of tidal marshrestoration Ecology and Society 21(2)10 httpdxdoiorg105751es-08372-210210

Brauman K A G C Daily T K Duarte and H A Mooney2007 The nature and value of ecosystem services An overviewhighlighting hydrologic services Annual Review of Environmentand Resources 3267-98 httpdxdoiorg101146annurevenergy32031306102758

Bullock J M J Aronson A C Newton R F Pywell and J MRey-Benayas 2011 Restoration of ecosystem services andbiodiversity conflicts and opportunities Trends in Evolution andEcology 26541-549 httpdxdoiorg101016jtree201106011

Clewell AF and J Aronson 2006 Motivations for theRestoration of Ecosystems Conservation Biology 20420-428httpdxdoiorg101111j1523-1739200600340x

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 2012 UNEPCBDCOP Decision XI16 Ecosystem restoration Convention onBiological Diversity Hyderabad India [online] URL httpwwwcbdintdocdecisionscop-11cop-11-dec-16-enpdf

Cortina-Segarra J K Decleer and J Kollmann 2016 Speedrestoration of EU ecosystems Nature 535231 httpdxdoiorg101038535231d

Decleer K J Wouters S Jacobs J Staes T Spanhove P Meireand R Van Diggelen 2016 Mapping wetland loss and restorationpotential in Flanders (Belgium) an ecosystem service perspectiveEcology and Society 21(4)46 httpsdoiorg105751ES-08964-210446

de Groot H 2006 Function-analysis and valuation as a tool toassess land use conflicts in planning for sustainable multi-functional landscapes Landscape and Urban Planning 75175-186 httpdxdoiorg101016jlandurbplan200502016

European Commission 2011 The EU Biodiversity strategy to2020 33 pp [online] URL httpeceuropaeuenvironmentnatureinfopubsdocsbrochures202020Biod20brochure20final20lowrespdf

Ford A E S H Graham and P C L White 2015 Integratinghuman and ecosystem health through ecosystem ServicesFrameworks EcoHealth 12660-671 httpdxdoiorg101007s10393-015-1041-4

Hagen D K Svavarsdottir C Nilsson A Tolvanen KRaulund-Rasmussen Aacute L Aradoacutettir A Fosaa and GHalldorsson 2013 Ecological and social dimensions ofecosystem restoration in the Nordic countries Ecology andSociety 18(4)34 httpdxdoiorg105751es-05891-180434

Hughes F M R W M Adams S H M Butchart R H FieldK S-H Peh and S Warrington 2016 The challenges ofintegrating biodiversity and ecosystem services monitoring andevaluation at a landscape-scale wetland restoration project in theUK Ecology and Society 21(3)10 httpdxdoiorg105751es-08616-210310

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2014Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report Contribution ofWorking Groups I II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report ofthe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC GenevaSwitzerland 151 pp [online] URL httpipccchpdfassessment-reportar5syrSYR_AR5_FINAL_fullpdf

Ecology and Society 21(4) 47httpwwwecologyandsocietyorgvol21iss4art47

Joslashrgensen D 2015 Ecological restoration as objective targetand tool in international biodiversity policy Ecology and Society 20(4)43 httpdxdoiorg105751es-08149-200443

Kangas K M A Tolvanen O Tarvainen A Nikula V NivalaE Huhta and A Jaumlkaumllaumlniemi 2016 A method for assessingecological values to reconcile multiple land use needs Ecologyand Society 21(3)5 httpdxdoiorg105751es-08590-210305

Kangas K A Tolvanen M Keraumlnen and J Moilanen 2013Oulun luonnon monimuotoisuus VILMO-Viheralueverkosto jaluonnon monimuotoisuus [in Finnish] Finnish Forest ResearchInstitute and the City of Oulu Finland [online] URL httpwwwoukaficdocument_libraryget_fileuuid=69340961-aa5f-44ea-82c4-9e22a26eaacbampgroupId=64220

Kotiaho J 2015 Target for ecosystem repair is impracticalNature 51933 httpdxdoiorg101038519033a

Marttila M K Kylloumlnen and T P Karjalainen 2016 Socialsuccess of in-stream habitat improvement from fisheriesenhancement to the delivery of multiple ecosystem servicesEcology and Society 21(1)4 httpdxdoiorg105751es-08118-210104

Meine C M Souleacute and R F Noss 2006 A mission-drivendiscipline the growth of conservation biology ConservationBiology 20631-651 httpdxdoiorg101111j1523-1739200600449x

Milieu IEEP and ICF 2016 Evaluation Study to support theFitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives March 2016[online] URL httpd2ouvy59p0dg6kcloudfrontnetdownloadsstudy_evaluation_to_support_fitness_check_of_nature_directives__finalpdf

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003 Ecosystems and HumanWell-being A Framework for Assessment 266 pp Island PressWashington DC

Naeem S 2002 Ecosystem consequences of biodiversity loss theevolution of a paradigm Ecology 83(6)1537-1552 httpdxdoiorg1018900012-9658(2002)083[1537ecoblt]20co2

Neszlighoumlver C J Aronson J Blignaut F Eppink A Vakrou HWittmer and R de Groot 2011 Investing in ecologicalinfrastructure In P Ten Brink editor The economics ofecosystems and biodiversity in national and international policymaking pp 1-448 Earthscan London UK

Nilsson C A L Aradottir D Hagen G Halldoacutersson KHoslashegh R J Mitchell K Raulund-Rasmussen K SvavarsdoacutettirA Tolvanen and S D Wilson 2016 Evaluating the process ofecological restoration Ecology and Society 21(1)41 httpdxdoiorg105751es-08289-210141

Prach K and A Tolvanen 2016 How can we restorebiodiversity and ecosystem services in mining and industrial sitesEnvironmental Science and Pollution Research 2313732-13744httpdxdoiorgs11356-016-7113-3

Reed M S and L C Stringer 2016 Land DegradationDesertification and Climate Change Routledge New York

Schroumlter M E H van der Zanden A P E van OudenhovenR P Remme H M Serna-Chavez R S de Groot and P Opdam2014 Ecosystem services as a contested concept a synthesis of

critique and counter-arguments Conservation Letters 7514-523httpdxdoiorg101111conl12091

Schoukens H and A Cliquet 2016 Biodiversity offsetting andrestoration under the European Union Habitats Directivebalancing between no net loss and deathbed conservationEcology and Society 21(4)10 httpdxdoiorg105751es-08456-210410

Suding K N 2011 Toward an era of restoration in ecologysuccesses failures and opportunities ahead Annual Review ofEcology Evolution and Systematics 42465-487 httpdxdoiorg101146annurev-ecolsys-102710-145115

Tolvanen A A Juutinen and R Svento 2012 Preferences oflocal people for the use of peatlands the case of the richestpeatland region in Finland Ecology and Society 18(2)19 httpdxdoiorg105751es-05496-180219

TEEB 2010 The Economics of Ecosystems and BiodiversityMainstreaming the Economics of Nature A synthesis of theapproach conclusions and recommendations of TEEB [online]URL httpwwwuneporgpdfLinkClickpdf

United Nations (UN) 2015 Transforming Our World The 2030Agenda for Sustainable Development [online] URLhttpssustainabledevelopmentunorgpost2015transformingourworld

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification(UNCCD) 2009 Basic facts about desertification and theConvention [online] URL httpwwwunccdintListsSiteDocumentLibraryPublicationsfactsheets-engpdf

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification(UNCCD) 2015 UN Convention to Combat DesertificationLand matters for climate Reducing the gap and approaching thetarget 24 pp [online] URL httpwwwunccdintListsSiteDocumentLibraryPublications2015Nov_Land_matters_Foshyr_Climate_ENGpdf

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) 2015 United Nations Framework Convention onClimate Change Paris agreement [online] URLhttpunfcccintparis_agreementitems9485php