Luke
 

Multimethod valuation of peatland ecosystem services: Combining choice experiment, multicriteria decision analysis and deliberative valuation

dc.contributor.authorSaarikoski, Heli
dc.contributor.authorAapala, Kaisu
dc.contributor.authorArtell, Janne
dc.contributor.authorGrammatikopoulou, Ioanna
dc.contributor.authorHjerppe, Turo
dc.contributor.authorLehtoranta, Virpi
dc.contributor.authorMustajoki, Jyri
dc.contributor.authorPouta, Eija
dc.contributor.authorPrimmer, Eeva
dc.contributor.authorVatn, Arild
dc.contributor.departmentid4100311010
dc.contributor.departmentid4100311010
dc.contributor.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9833-5903
dc.contributor.organizationLuonnonvarakeskus
dc.date.accessioned2022-09-05T06:18:43Z
dc.date.accessioned2025-05-28T11:07:33Z
dc.date.available2022-09-05T06:18:43Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.description.abstractThis paper presents a multi-method valuation study using discrete choice experiment, participatory multi-criteria decision analysis and deliberative citizens’ panels to evaluate the value of peatland ecosystem services in southern Finland. All three valuation studies addressed the same scenarios and drew on the same biophysical assessment data to facilitate a comparison of the valuation processes as well as the results. The results indicate that people place high value on regulating and cultural ecosystem services, especially on biodiversity, and less value on energy peat. The experiences sustain the argument that learning is important as people rarely have ordered set of preferences for unfamiliar objects like regulating services. They also illustrate the scope of citizen and consumer preferences and support the assumptions that preferences may change as a result of well-informed group deliberation. In terms of integration, the lesson learned is that regardless of the preference elicitation method, all valuation studies would benefit from structured and participatory approach when defining the scenarios as well as attributes and their levels. Furthermore, full integration is not possible among different valuation methods, which can be conceptualized as value articulating institutions, operating under different rationalities.
dc.description.vuosik2022
dc.format.bitstreamtrue
dc.format.pagerange21 p.
dc.identifier.olddbid494740
dc.identifier.oldhandle10024/552181
dc.identifier.urihttps://jukuri.luke.fi/handle/11111/21677
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:fi-fe2022090557264
dc.language.isoen
dc.okm.corporatecopublicationei
dc.okm.discipline520
dc.okm.internationalcopublicationon
dc.okm.openaccess2 = Hybridijulkaisukanavassa ilmestynyt avoin julkaisu
dc.okm.selfarchivedon
dc.publisherElsevier BV
dc.relation.articlenumber101471
dc.relation.doi10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101471
dc.relation.ispartofseriesEcosystem Services
dc.relation.issn2212-0416
dc.relation.volume57
dc.rightsCC BY 4.0
dc.source.identifierhttps://jukuri.luke.fi/handle/10024/552181
dc.subjectecosystem services
dc.subjectValuation
dc.subjectMulti-criteria decision analysis
dc.subjectchoice experiment method
dc.subjectDeliberative valuation
dc.subjectCitizens’ jury
dc.subjectMultimethod study
dc.teh41007-00011700
dc.tehOHFO-Puskuri-3
dc.titleMultimethod valuation of peatland ecosystem services: Combining choice experiment, multicriteria decision analysis and deliberative valuation
dc.typepublication
dc.type.okmfi=A1 Alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä aikakauslehdessä|sv=A1 Originalartikel i en vetenskaplig tidskrift|en=A1 Journal article (refereed), original research|
dc.type.versionfi=Publisher's version|sv=Publisher's version|en=Publisher's version|

Tiedostot

Näytetään 1 - 1 / 1
Ladataan...
Name:
Saarikoski_et_al_2022.pdf
Size:
3.14 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Saarikoski_et_al_2022.pdf

Kokoelmat