Quantifying trade-offs between ecological gains, economic costs, and landowners’ preferences in boreal mire protection

This is a sel -a chi ed e sion o an o iginal a icle. This e sion may di e om he o iginal in pagina ion and ypog aphic de ails. Au ho (s): Ti le: Yea : Ve sion: Copy igh : Righ s: Righ s u l: Please ci e he o iginal e sion: CC BY 4.0 h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/ Quan i ying ade-o s be ween ecological gains, economic cos s, and landowne s’ p e e ences in bo eal mi e p o ec ion © 2021 he Au ho s Published e sion Nieminen, Eini; Ka eksela, San u; Halme, Panu; Ko iaho, Janne Saka i Nieminen, E., Ka eksela, S., Halme, P., & Ko iaho, J. S. (2021). Quan i ying ade-o s be ween ecological gains, economic cos s, and landowne s’ p e e ences in bo eal mi e p o ec ion. Ambio, 50(10), 1841-1850. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s13280-021-01530-0 2021 RESEARCH ARTICLE Quan i ying ade-o s be ween ecological gains, economic cos s, and landowne s’ p e e ences in bo eal mi e p o ec ion Eini Nieminen , San u Ka eksela, Panu Halme, Janne Saka i Ko iaho Recei ed: 5 Ma ch 2020 / Re ised: 29 No embe 2020 / Accep ed: 29 Janua y 2021 Abs ac P i a e land o en encompasses biodi e si y ea u es o high conse a ion alue, bu i s p o ec ion is no s aigh o wa d. Commonly, landowne s’ pe spec i es a e igh ully allowed o in luence conse a ion ac ions. This unlikely comes wi hou consequences on biodi e si y o o he aspec s such as economic conside a ions, bu hese consequences a e a ely quan i a i ely conside ed in decision-making. In he con ex o bo eal mi e p o ec ion in Finland, we epo how acknowledging landowne s’ esis ance o p o ec ion changes he combina ion o mi es selec ed o conse a ion compa ed o igno ing landowne s’ opinions. Using spa ial p io i iza ion, we quan i y ade- o s a ising be ween he amoun o landowne s’ esis ance, p o ec ed biodi e si y, and inancial cos s in di e en conse a ion scena ios. Resul s show ha he ade-o s canno be ully a oided. Ne e heless, we show ha he sys ema ic examina ion o he ade-o s opens up op ions o alle ia e hem. This can p omo e he e alua ion o di e en conse a ion policy ou comes, enabling be e - in o med conse a ion decisions and mo e e ec i e and socially sus ainable alloca ion o conse a ion esou ces. Keywo ds Conse a ion policy P i a e land p o ec ion  Sys ema ic conse a ion planning T ade-o analysis  Volun a y conse a ion Zona ion INTRODUCTION In he ace o global en i onmen al h ea s such as clima e change (IPCC 2018) and biodi e si y decline (Di zo e al. 2014), we lands con ibu e ema kably o he wellbeing o na u e and human. They p o ide globally signi ican ecosys em se ices such as clima e egula ion, wa e eg- ula ion and pu i ica ion, and ec ea ion (Zedle and Ke che 2005; de G oo e al. 2012). In addi ion o hei high eco- nomic, social, and cul u al alues (e.g.,de G oo e al. 2012; Pa on e al. 2015; Papayannis and P i cha d 2018), we - lands se e as habi a s o as numbe o species o many axa (Junk e al. 2006). Pea lands a e we lands co e ing app oxima ely 4–4.6 million km 2 o ca. 3% o global land a ea (Pa ish e al. 2008). O e 80% o hem a e loca ed on bo eal a eas (Yu e al. 2010). I p o ec ed and es o ed, pea lands ha e a high po en iali y in mi iga ing clima e change as hei capaci y o s o e ca bon is conside able in ela ion o hei a ea: globally, hey s o e wice as much ca bon as he o es biomass (Lei eld and Meniche i 2018). When we lands in gene al a e ecosys ems cha ac e ized by he p esence o wa e (Ramsa 1971), pea lands’ biodi e si y and hei unc ion as ecosys ems depend speci ically on a wa e Table le el (e.g.,Laine e al. 1995; Haapaleh o e al. 2011; Maana ilja e al. 2014). Wa e able can be a ec ed by human-induced hyd ological changes occu ed on he pea land’s ca chmen , he e o e dis u bing o changing he unc ion o an o iginal pea land ecosys em (Tah anainen 2011). Due o pea lands’ and o he we lands’ dependence on wa e , hei p o ec ion can be e ec i e in a long e m only when hei hyd ological p ocesses a e sa egua ded which o en means se ing aside ela i ely la ge con inuous a eas. On many we land ypes, land-use p essu es a e o ha e his o ically been high so o en hey a e deg aded and/ o exposed o an in ensi e compe i ion be ween di e en o ms o land use (e.g.,Vasande e al. 2003; Pin e al. 2011). Fu he mo e, in se e al coun ies such as he UK, he USA, and Finland, mos o he we lands a e p i a ely Supplemen a y In o ma ion The online e sion con ains supplemen a y ma e ial a ailable a h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s13280- 021-01530-0. ÓThe Au ho (s) 2021 www.k a.se/en 123 Ambio h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s13280-021-01530-0 owned (B own e al. 2001; Bain e al. 2011; Alanen and Aapala 2015). Fo hese easons, p o ec ing la ge con in- uous a eas can be challenging in e ms o economy and/o social accep abili y. Volun a y conse a ion app oaches (Kamal e al. 2015) ha e posi i e e ec s in biodi e si y p o ec ion bo h in an ecological and a social manne : hey ha e e.g., dec eased o es loss and de elopmen (Nol e e al. 2019), a ge ed p io i y a eas o biodi e si y (Fishe and Dills 2012), and ackled biodi e si y con lic s be ween p i a e landowne s and en i onmen al go e nance (Paloniemi and Tikka 2008). The downside o ocusing conse a ion e o s only on lands o conse a ion-minded owne s seems o be he ade-o s ha exis be ween landowne s’ p e e ences and conse a ion a ge s, causing he la e no o be e icien ly me (Gue e o e al. 2010; Knigh e al. 2011; Adams e al. 2014). Landowne s can be pe suaded o pa icipa e in conse a ion ini ia i es by paying mo e (e.g., So ice e al. 2013), which inc eases conse a ion cos s wi hou s ill necessa ily achie ing he same biodi e si y le el o be p o ec ed han i an op imal se o a eas could be eely chosen o p o ec ion (Lewis e al. 2011). Sys ema ic spa ial p io i iza ion is a land-use planning app oach whe e di e gen land-use needs and es ic ions can be a emp ed o ma ch oge he and po en ial ade-o s be ween hem o be quan i ied (e.g., Moilanen e al. 2011). In a spa ial conse a ion p io i iza ion, u iliza ion o bio- di e si y in o ma ion has adi ionally ecei ed a majo ole (Knigh and Cowling 2007). In a eal-wo ld conse - a ion decision-making, howe e , i is no he ecological conside a ions alone, bu he social, inancial, poli ical, and ecological ac o s oge he ha de e mine he inal con- se a ion implemen a ion (Ka eksela e al. 2018). Hence, inclusion o socie al aspec s in conse a ion p io i iza ion is needed o p omo e he up ake o he esul s (Ban e al. 2013). In eg a ion o economic cos s has been cus oma y o o e a decade (Naidoo e al. 2006), bu only du ing he ecen yea s o he socie al aspec s such as al e na i e poli ical scena ios (Di Minin e al. 2017), alues and p e e ences o people (Whi ehead e al. 2014; B own e al. 2019), and p i a e landowne s’ willingness o pa icipa e (Gue e o e al. 2010; Knigh e al. 2011; Adams e al. 2014; Nielsen e al. 2016; Paloniemi e al. 2018) ha e been inco po a ed in o spa ial conse a ion p io i iza ion. When p o ec ing p i a e land, conside ing landowne s’ pe spec i es o p o ec ion is equen , bu i s e ec s on conse a ion ou comes a e no o en quan i a i ely epo ed (bu see Gue e o e al. 2010; Knigh e al. 2011; Adams e al. 2014). To ou knowledge, po en ial ade-o s ela ed o a le el o p o ec ed biodi e si y, inancial cos s o conse a ion, and ci izen landowne s’ conse a ion p e - e ences ha e no been p e iously s udied in he con ex o pea lands (we land ecosys ems, e.g., mi es, ha ac i ely o m pea ). In his pape , we de ec ed and quan i ied po en ial ade-o s a ising om olun a iness equi emen o p o ec ion by compa ing h ee al e na i e spa ial p io - i iza ions in he case o complemen ing he ne wo k o p o ec ed mi es in Finland. Ou wo k was mo i a ed by he challenges aced in he implemen a ion o he Comple- men a y Mi e P o ec ion P og am (he ea e CMPP; Ala- nen and Aapala 2015; Ka eksela e al. 2020). O iginally, CMPP was based on he Na u e Conse a ion Ac allowing land exp op ia ions o conse a ion pu poses i a land- owne would ha e esis ed es ablishing p o ec ed a ea on his/he land. The Ac also obliga es he go e nmen o pay a ull economic compensa ion o landowne s, whe he hei lands a e p o ec ed based on a olun a iness o exp op ia- ions. The spa ial p io i iza ion aiming o selec mi es o CMPP was made like all he mi es chosen as candida es o p o ec ion we e a ailable (Ka eksela e al. 2020), wi hou paying a en ion o landowne s’ p e e ences. Jus be o e CMPP implemen a ion was abou o be s a ed, he go - e nmen changed i s poli ics and e ised CMPP o be based pu ely on landowne s’ willingness o p o ec ( he com- pensa ion p ac ice s aying equal), which changed he p epa a ion and he p io i iza ion p oblem o CMPP ema kably. We in eg a ed da a o landowne s’ esis ance o hei lands’ p o ec ion in o spa ial p io i iza ion o CMPP si e selec ion. We i s compa ed he esul s o wo p io i iza- ion analyses. In he i s one, exp op ia ions o mi e p ope ies owned by conse a ion- esis an owne s we e allowed. In he second one, only mi es owned comple ely by conse a ion-minded landowne s could be p o ec ed. This excluded om p o ec ion such mi es ha we e owned bo h by willing and unwilling landowne s, ep esen ing he need o se aside mi es as hyd ological en i ies o achie e long- e m e ec i eness in hei p o ec ion. These wo p i- o i iza ions imi a ed he si ua ions be o e and a e CMPP was e ised o be a olun a y p og am. Nex , we designed a p io i iza ion model ha allowed, bu aimed o minimize, he p o ec ion o esis ing landowne s’ land, while cos - e icien ly ying o maximize he le el o biodi e si y ep esen a ion in he p ospec i e mi e conse a ion ne - wo k. Compa isons be ween all he h ee p io i iza ions allowed us o quan i y how he ade-o s conce ning he a e age p o ec ed ep esen a ion o biodi e si y ea u es, conse a ion cos s, and landowne s’ esis ance o p o ec- ion a ied depending on how much he esis ance was allowed o limi he p io i iza ion. Ou analysis shows ha al hough ade-o s be ween ecological, economic, and social ma e s aced by biodi e si y p o ec ion canno be ully a oided, he e a e s ill oppo uni ies o alle ia e hem. Ou p io i iza ion analysis and discussion d awn om i s esul s can be applicable o o he la ge-scale conse a ion ini ia i es ha aim o p o ec mos ly p i a ely owned 123 ÓThe Au ho (s) 2021 www.k a.se/en Ambio we lands, pea lands, o o he such ecosys ems ha o en equi e se ing aside la ge con inuous a eas in o de o main ain hei unc ions. MATERIALS AND METHODS S udy case This s udy conside s mi e ecosys ems as a case. ‘Mi e’ is a gene al e m o na u al and semi-na u al pea lands ac i ely o ming pea (Lindsay 2018). When p epa ing CMPP in Finland, app oxima ely 117 000 ha o unp o ec ed mi es we e o be assigned o p o ec ion (Alanen and Aapala 2015). The spa ial p io i iza ion aiming o selec mi es o p o ec- ion co e ed o ally 929 000 ha, including he candida e mi es o p o ec ion (327 300 ha) and he al eady p o ec ed mi es (601 700 ha) (Alanen and Aapala 2015). Including he exis ing mi e conse a ion ne wo k in o p io i iza ions enabled o de ec biodi e si y ea u es poo ly co e ed by he cu en ne wo k and o selec o p o ec ion such mi es ha would po en ially e ain hem (Ka eksela e al. 2020). O iginally, he e was a poli ical ag eemen o implemen CMPP acco ding o he Na u e Conse a ion Ac , which allows land exp op ia ions o conse a ion pu poses wi hou landowne s’ consen (Salomaa e al. 2018). Rega dless o whe he p i a e land is p o ec ed olun a ily o ia exp op ia ions, he Ac equi es all p o ec ed si es o be economically ully compensa ed o landowne s om public unds (Alanen and Aapala 2015). Addi ionally, public igh s o access a e e y b oad in Finland ensu ing ha landowne s and all o he ci izens a e allowed e.g., o isi p i a e si es and pick be ies and mush ooms he e, ega dless o whe he he si es a e p o ec ed o no (Min- is y o he En i onmen 2016). Due o poli ical changes, howe e , he possibili y o land exp op ia ions was ejec ed om CMPP (Salomaa e al. 2018). In he new si ua ion, landowne s’ consen was needed o p o ec ion o hei land. In public delibe a ion, he ejec ion was p aised o acknowledging p i a e p ope y igh s, bu also c i icized because olun a ily p o ec ing mi es as hyd ological en i- ies was seen po en ially challenging as landowne ship in Finland is e y agmen ed and majo i y o he candida e mi es a e owned by mo e han one pe son. Da a Biodi e si y da a con ained 91 ea u e laye s including mi e complexes, i.e., geomo phological o m o a mi e pool (31 laye s), mi e habi a ypes (39), small wa e s (1), plan s and mosses (1 laye o c i ically endange ed, endange ed and ulne able species, 1 o nea h ea ened, egionally h ea ened and da a de icien species, and 1 o leas conce ned bu o he wise in e es ing species), and modeled likelihoods o occu ences o bi ds a o ing mi e habi a s (17). Cos da a laye (1) was based on each mi e’s inancial compensa ion alue, including he alue o land a ea, ee s and, and an adminis a i e cos (Alanen and Aapala 2015). Mi e-speci ic di ching le el, i.e., p opo ion o a ea di ched, se ed as a habi a condi ion laye (1) e lec ing he ecological in ac ness lowe ed by d ainage p essu e. See Ka eksela e al. (2020) o a de ailed desc ip ion o he biodi e si y and condi ion da a. Da a on landowne s’ esis ance o p o ec ion (1 laye ) we e based on a landowne su ey and on nego ia ions wi h o es y and pea mining companies, bo h implemen ed by Finnish Minis y o he En i onmen . Su ey was sen o he ci izen owne s o 562 candida e mi es ha we e p o- posed o p o ec ion. One o he ques ions asked was: ‘‘Would you conside p o ec ing you p ope y shown in an a ached map o he ma ke p ice?’’ In he ime o pe - o ming he su ey, p ices o si es we e no ye calcula ed. Answe op ions we e ‘‘Yes’’, ‘‘I don’ know’’, and ‘‘No’’. We conside ed all ‘‘No’’ answe s as a esis ance o p o- ec ion and all ‘‘Yes’’ and ‘‘I don’ know’’ answe s as a posi i e a i ude. Due o he lack o ime, Minis y o he En i onmen decided he su ey would be sen only o ci izen owne s o hose candida e mi es ha we e sug- ges ed o p o ec ion and loca ed in he 10 mos sou he n p o inces (Alanen and Aapala 2015; Appendix S1, Fig. S1; Table S1). In addi ion, 58% o su ey ecipien s did no answe . The e o e, using only he obse ed p e e ences o landowne s would ha e es ic ed he analysis a ea imp ac ical small o p io i iza ions so o ge a ull da a co e age, we ex apola ed ci izen landowne s’ obse ed esis ance o p o ec ion o co e all he candida e mi es owned by ci izens. As landowne s’ a i ude owa d con- se a ion can depend on hei ela ionship o egional en i onmen al au ho i ies (Salomaa e al. 2016), we made ex apola ions independen ly o each o he 10 sou he n p o inces, based on hei obse ed dis ibu ions o esis- ance. In each p o ince, we calcula ed he esis ance dis- ibu ion om he obse ed mi e-speci ic esis ances. Following he dis ibu ions, we hen andomized he esis ance pe cen ages o he mi es lacking obse ed esis ance. Th ee no he n p o inces we e o ally excluded om he su ey, so o candida e mi es loca ed on hem, we andomized he pe cen ual a e age esis ances ollow- ing he combined obse ed esis ance dis ibu ion o all 10 sou he n p o inces included o he su ey. Finally, we had a esis ance laye including bo h he obse ed esis ance o ci izen-, s a e-, and company-owned candida e mi es and he ex apola ed esis ance o hose ci izen-owned candi- da e mi es, which we e no co e ed by he obse ed esis ance da a. Fo mo e in o ma ion o he landowne da a and ex apola ion, see Appendix S1. ÓThe Au ho (s) 2021 www.k a.se/en 123 Ambio We in es iga ed co ela ions be ween he ex apola ed esis ance da a and biodi e si y, cos , and a ea da a o see, i he ex apola ion p ocess c ea ed any andom co ela- ions be ween he da ase s. No co ela ions we e ound (see Appendix S2). All da a laye s we e con e ed o 50 950 m as e da a. Spa ial p io i iza ions Spa ial p io i iza ions we e made using Zona ion so wa e 4.0.0 (Moilanen e al. 2005,2014). Mi es we e p io i ized as planning uni s o ming hyd ologically connec ed en i- ies, de ined by mi e expe s. P io i iza ion model also included weigh s o he biodi e si y ea u es (see Appendix S3); a hie a chical mask o sepa a e candida e mi es om he exis ing p o ec ed mi e ne wo k and enabling emphasis o hose candida e mi es whose ea u es bes complemen he al eady p o ec ed mi es (Appendix S3); adminis a i e uni s, i.e., o es ege a ion zones, o conside bo h local and na ional scale a i y o he biodi- e si y ea u es (Appendix S3); and an in e ac ion con- nec i i y o emphasize he candida e mi es ha loca e nea al eady p o ec ed mi es o nea o he candida e mi es, aiming o ensu e ecological connec i i y (Fig. 1). Addi- ionally, a cos laye and a condi ion laye we e applied o de-emphasize high-p iced mi es and mi es wi h lowe ed ecological condi ion due o di ches, espec i ely. Fo a mo e de ailed desc ip ion o he p io i iza ion model, see Ka eksela e al. (2020). Fo h ee di e en p io i iza ions, we designed h ee scena ios ha di e ed in how hey conside ed landowne s’ esis ance o p o ec ion. In Volun a y scena io, all candi- da e mi es ha ing a leas one esis ing owne (ei he a ci izen o a company) we e excluded om p o ec ion ega dless o hei a e age biodi e si y ea u e ep esen- a ion o inancial cos s. In Obliga o y scena io, mi es wi h high ea u e ep esen a ion bu low cos s we e aimed, igno ing landowne s’ esis ance o p o ec ion. In Balancing scena io, esis ance was conside ed as a con inuous a i- able, i.e., p opo ion o each candida e mi e’s landowne s esis ing p o ec ion. He e, we ga e a nega i e weigh o esis ance in o de o de-emphasize esis ed mi es in p i- o i iza ion. To de e mine a sui able le el o nega i e weigh o esis ance, we i e a ed he analysis wi h se e al di e ing le els o weigh ing and in es iga ed he ela ed ade-o s (Appendix S3). Fo his example case, we we e able o ind a alue esul ing in a solu ion wi h ela i ely small loss in biodi e si y ep esen a ion, bu signi ican ly lowe landowne s’ esis ance han Obliga o y scena io.In o he wo ds, Balancing scena io aimed simul aneously o a oid esis ed mi es while s ill emphasizing high o e all ea u e ep esen a ion and low cos s. Fig. 1 Schema ic isualiza ion o he p io i iza ions o he h ee scena ios (Volun a y,Obliga o y, and Balancing ones). Fo a de ailed desc ip ion, see ex and Ka eksela e al. (2020) 123 ÓThe Au ho (s) 2021 www.k a.se/en Ambio Compa ison be ween scena ios We compa ed he scena ios by obse ing hei le els o a e age biodi e si y ea u e ep esen a ion p o ec ed (% o o al ea u e ep esen a ion included in p io i iza ions), cos s (million eu os), and esis ance (% o all landowne s). To make compa isons comp ehensible, we chose Volun a y scena io as a e e ence o wo o he scena ios because i explici ly de ines he candida e mi es ha a e comple ely ee om landowne s’ esis ance o p o ec ion. We com- pa ed Obliga o y and Balancing scena ios’ a e age ea u e ep esen a ion, cos s, and o al p o ec ed a ea agains hose se by Volun a y scena io. RESULTS O he o al 929 000 ha included in he p io i iza ions, he exis ing p o ec ed mi e ne wo k co e ed 64.8% (601 700 ha) and he candida e mi es 35.2% (327 300 ha) (Fig. 2). 53.7% o a e age ep esen a ion o biodi e si y ea u es included in he p io i iza ions we e si ua ed on he exis ing p o ec ed mi e ne wo k (Fig. 2; Table 1). Volun a y scena io, alloca ing o p o ec ion all candi- da e mi es comple ely ee om landowne s’ esis ance, inc eased he a e age p o ec ed ep esen a ion o biodi- e si y ea u es by 26.1% ( om p esen 53.7 o 67.7%), wi h he cos s o 97.9 million eu os (Table 1, Appendix S4, Fig. S3). P o ec ed o al a ea inc eased wi h 115 400 ha (19.2%), which is close o he o iginal p oposal (117 000 ha) (Alanen and Aapala 2015). Wi h he same a e age ep esen a ion o biodi e si y ea u e as in Volun a y scena io, he a ea p o ec ed and he cos s needed o p o ec i we e much lowe bo h in Balancing and Obliga o y scena ios han in Volun a y scena io. Bo h Balancing and Obliga o y scena ios we e able o ul ill he a e age ea u e ep esen a ion o Volun- a y scena io by almos hal he a ea (59 800 and 62 500 ha s. 115 400, espec i ely) (Table 1, Appendix S4, Fig. S3a). Acco dingly, he cos s o p o ec ion dec eased ema kably. Balancing scena io paid 66.4 million eu os less and Obliga o y scena io 70.1 million eu os less han Volun a y scena io.Balancing scena io pe o med well in keeping he o al landowne s’ esis ance low a 5.0%, while in Obliga o y scena io he o al esis ance was 16.8%. Wi h he same budge o p o ec ion as in Volun a y scena io,Balancing scena io esul ed in 10.5% la ge o al Fig. 2 P opo ion o he exis ing p o ec ed mi e ne wo k and he candida e mi es and he biodi e si y ea u e ep esen a ion co e ed by he exis ing ne wo k. Thick black lines ep esen he a e age ep esen a ion o biodi e si y ea u es (53.7%) and o al a ea (64.8%) co e ed by exis ing p o ec ed mi e ne wo k. G een cu es ep esen a e age ea u e ep esen a ion, ed cu es landowne s’ o al esis ance o p o ec ion, and blue cu es conse a ion cos s in each scena io. Solid colo ed lines ep esen Volun a y scena io, colo ed do ed lines Balancing scena io, and colo ed dashed lines Obliga o y scena io. A e age ea u e ep esen a ion does no each 100% because he included mi e complexes and habi a s su e om dec eased condi ion caused by d ainage, exp essed by he cu es ÓThe Au ho (s) 2021 www.k a.se/en 123 Ambio a ea o p o ec ion wi h 12.3% highe a e age ea u e ep esen a ion han Volun a y scena io (Table 1, Appendix S4, Fig. S3b). To al esis ance s ill s ayed ela i ely low a 7.2%. In Obliga o y scena io, o al a ea p o ec ed was 54.8% la ge and he a e age ea u e ep esen a ion 18.2% highe han in Volun a y scena io. A ea p o ec ed co e ed al eady o e hal o he candida e mi es (176 600 ha) and he o al esis ance inc eased o 52.5%. Wi h he same o al a ea p o ec ed as in Volun a y scena io (115 400 ha), Balancing scena io achie ed 10.5% highe a e age ea u e ep esen a ion wi h 17.1 million eu os lowe cos s han Volun a y scena io (Table 1, Appendix S4, Fig. S3c). Balancing scena io pe o med a he well also in minimizing he o al esis ance as i emained ela i ely low a 6.7%. Rela i e o Volun a y scena io,Obliga o y scena io co e ed 9.0% mo e a e age ea u e ep esen a ion wi h 42.1 million eu os lowe cos s. Howe e , he o al esis ance inc eased o 33.7%. DISCUSSION In his pape , we ha e demons a ed ha when selec ing si es o p o ec ion, i is possible no only o conside di - e en social, ecological, and economic aspec s, bu also o iden i y and quan i y ade-o s be ween hem. This allows p o iding de ailed in o ma ion o he ela ed comp omises o he decision-making p ocess (see also e.g.,Gue e o e al. 2010; Knigh e al. 2011; Adams e al. 2014; Ka eksela e al. 2020). In ou case o bo eal mi e p o ec ion, he dimensions o he ade-o s be ween he le el o a e age p o ec ed bio- di e si y ea u es, inancial cos s o conse a ion, and he amoun o landowne s’ esis ance o p o ec ion a ied ema kably depending on how he landowne s’ esis ance was conside ed in he p io i iza ion. Balancing and Obli- ga o y scena ios we e able o p o ec he same le el o a e age ea u e ep esen a ion han Volun a y scena io wi h lowe cos s and smalle a ea. When hei o al cos was es ic ed o ha o Volun a y scena io, hey p o ec ed mo e biodi e si y and mo e a ea. When o al a ea p o ec ed in hem was es ic ed o he one a ailable o p o ec ion in Volun a y scena io, hey p o ec ed mo e biodi e si y wi h lowe cos s. In summa y, cos -e iciency was ema kably low in Volun a y scena io. This is p oblema ic as conse - a ion esou ces a e o en sca ce wi h espec o conse - a ion aims and equi emen s (Geldmann e al. 2018), meaning ha less money would be a ailable o o he conse a ion pu poses and s ill, he biodi e si y e ec o he scena io is in e io compa ed o he o he scena ios (see also Lewis e al. 2011). Impo an ly, howe e , Balancing scena io aiming o simul aneously bo h minimize landowne s’ esis ance o Table 1 A e age ep esen a ion o biodi e si y ea u es, inancial cos s, and a ea o exis ing p o ec ed mi e ne wo k and Volun a y,Balancing, and Obliga o y scena ios when a e age ea u e ep esen a ion, cos s, o a ea has been ixed acco ding o he alues p oduced by Volun a y scena io A e age ea u e ep esen a ion ixed Cos s ixed A ea ixed Biodi e si y % a Cos M€ b A ea % (ha) a Resis ance % b Biodi e si y % a Cos M€ b A ea % (ha) a Resis ance % b Biodi e si y % a Cos M€ b A ea % (ha) a Resis ance % b Exis ing PAs 53.7 | na na 64.8 | na (601 700 | na) na 53.7 | na na 64.8 | na (601 700 | na) na 53.7 | na na 64.8 | na (601 700 | na) na Volun a y scena io 67.7 | 37.2 97.9 77.2 | 35.3 (717 100 | 115 400) 0 67.7 | 37.2 97.9 77.2 | 35.3 (717 100 | 115 400) 0 67.7 | 37.2 97.9 77.2 | 35.3 (717 100 | 115 400) 0 Balancing scena io 67.8 | 37.3 c 31.5 71.2 | 18.3 (661 500 | 59 800) 5.0 76.0 | 60.1 97.8 c 78.5 | 39.1 (729 200 | 127 500) 7.2 74.8 | 56.7 80.8 77.2 | 35.3 (717 100 | 115 400) 6.7 Obliga o y scena io 67.7 | 37.2 27.8 71.5 | 19.1 (664 200 | 62 500) 16.8 80.0 | 70.8 97.8 c 84.0 | 54.6 (780 300 | 178 600) 52.5 73.8 | 53.7 55.8 77.1 c | 35.1 (716 400 | 114 700) c 33.7 a The i s numbe ep esen s %- alues (hec a es in b acke s) a e p o ec ion (exis ing PAs ?selec ed candida e mi es), while he second numbe a e he e ical line shows he %- alues (hec a es in b acke s) o he candida e mi es ha we e included in o he scena ios b The numbe s ep esen alues calcula ed o he candida e mi es ha we e included in o he scena ios c As he p io i iza ion was conduc ed in planning uni s, he a ea o cos s canno be ixed exac ly he same in each scena io (i.e., cu in he middle o a planning uni ). This esul s small a ia ion o he ixed numbe s 123 ÓThe Au ho (s) 2021 www.k a.se/en Ambio p o ec ion and cos -e icien ly maximize ep esen a ion o biodi e si y ea u es seemed o each i s goals. I was able o achie e nea ly he same a e age ea u e ep esen a ion as Obliga o y scena io, while i alloca ed signi ican ly less lands o conse a ion- esis an landowne s o p o ec ion. I s cos s we e in e media e compa ed o o he scena ios meaning ha i s cos -e iciency was highe han ha o Volun a y scena io. Rega dless o Balancing scena io’sabili y o alle ia e he ade-o s, i should be no ed ha i is wo hy o i s name mainly om a wide socie al pe spec i e. Fo single esis ing landowne s, en o cing p o ec ion s ill ep esen s an ex eme. Land exp op ia ions a e made o a compelling public need such as la ge in as uc u e ini ia i es, and hey ypically cause a con lic be ween indi iduals’ igh s and he needs o he socie y. In he case o biodi e si y con- se a ion, exp op ia ions may also cause in en ional ha ming o biodi e si y ea u es by landowne s i hey y o a oid p o ec ion (Lueck and Michael 2003; Simmons e al. 2018). In Finland, exp op ia ions o conse a ion pu poses ha e been less es ic i e om landowne s’ poin o iew han exp op ia ions o he mos in as uc u e ini ia i es as people ha e no been displaced in conse- quence o conse a ion. Addi ionally, b oad public igh s o access ensu e an en ance o p i a e land wi h ce ain cons ain s ega dless o whe he he land is p o ec ed o no , which could alle ia e he expe ienced ha m caused by en o ced p o ec ion (Minis y o he En i onmen 2016). Since di e en o ms o olun a y conse a ion app oaches acili a e accep ance o conse a ion amongs local people and make p o ec ion mo e success ul in he long un (e.g., Paloniemi and Tikka 2008), also lands o he emaining esis ing landowne s in Balancing scena io should p e e ably be p o ec ed ia olun a y means. Con- se a ion willingness can be boos ed e.g., by imp o ing landowne s’ knowledge and con incing hem o he high ecological alue o hei land since hey may no know o unde s and he lack o compensa o y si es conce ning endange ed biodi e si y ea u es (Oli e and McCune 2017). The me hod used in his s udy can se e as a ool o make he ade-o s conc e e o s akeholde s by explici ly isualizing hem (see also e.g., Ka eksela e al. 2020). Addi ionally, u he inc easing he le el o inancial compensa ion could pe suade unwilling landowne s o become mo e ecep i e o conse a ion (e.g., So ice e al. 2013). In ou case, he inancial compensa ion o landowne s was a uni o m paymen based on an a ea o a mi e and, i ele an , on an economic alue o i s ee s and. Ins ead o a uni o m paymen , designing an agglome a ion bonus mechanism could pe suade landowne s o p o ec a well-connec ed habi a ensemble (Pa khu s e al. 2002; D echsle e al. 2010; o u he discussion, see also Nieminen 2020). Such incen i e mechanisms could alle ia e he challenge ha agmen ed landowne ship causes in p o ec ing habi a s equi ing spa- ial connec edness and he e o e, could p o ide highe ecological p o i compa ed o a uni o m paymen . I needs o be no ed, howe e , ha e en a la ge compensa ion may no sa is y all landowne s since o he han economic ea- sons such as place a achmen (Selinske e al. 2015)o dislike o go e nmen egula ion (Oli e and McCune 2017) canno be compensa ed wi h money. S ill in ou case, cos di e ences be ween Volun a y and wo o he scena ios aise an in e es ing op ion o inc ease esis an landowne s’ conse a ion willingness by paying mo e. In Obliga o y and Balancing scena ios, landowne s o he mos biodi- e si y- ich mi es esis ing p o ec ion could be pe suaded o p o ec by inc easing he compensa ion le el mul i old om hei cu en le el be o e hei o al cos s would ma ch hose o Volun a y scena io. O e all, success ully implemen ing la ge-scale p o ec- ion o mi es o o he s uc u ally connec ed ecosys ems should ollow se e al s eps ha a e included e.g., in he Sys ema ic Conse a ion Planning amewo k (Ma gules and P essey 2000). Fi s , landowne s’ p e e ences should be acknowledged in a e y ea ly planning s age, hus enabling ecologically e ec i e si e selec ion while aiming a a oiding esis ed si es. Second, ade-o s be ween di e en aspec s and hei possible solu ions should be ho oughly analyzed and quan i ied. Thi d, enough esou ces should be alloca ed o ensu e p o ec ion o he si es ha hos i eplaceable bio- di e si y ea u es o ha e o he wise a signi ican ly high conse a ion e ec . Consequen ly, i could be possible o educe he likelihood o he somewha undemoc a ic si ua- ion seen in Volun a y scena io, whe e a single unwilling landowne among many willing ones shi s a whole mi e o be ou o each o p o ec ion, causing conse a ion oppo - uni ies o be los o diminished o he socie y. Ob iously, econciling mul iple di e ing needs o a ious g oups o people and mul iple equi emen s o a ious biodi e si y ea u es will ne e be ee om p ac ical and mo al chal- lenges (Ba a ia e al. 2020), bu as we ha e shown, many o he challenges can be alle ia ed and esol ed. CONCLUSIONS Pea lands and o he we lands should be p o ec ed as hyd o- logically connec ed and unc ional en i ies, which makes hei conse a ion challenging especially i hey a e la gely p i a ely owned and/o hei landowne ship is agmen ed. When making a sys ema ic ese e si e p io i iza ion o such ecosys ems, ca ego ical exclusion o si es owned by e en one pe son ha esis biodi e si y conse a ion on he /his land leads o an ecologically and economically ine icien conse a ion solu ion, whe eas igno ing landowne s’ ÓThe Au ho (s) 2021 www.k a.se/en 123 Ambio p e e ences can o i y conse a ion con lic s by including mul i ude o esis an landowne s’ lands in o he conse a- ion solu ion. Ins ead, a ecommended app oach would be o make a ese e si e selec ion wi h a p io i iza ion model ha aims o minimize inclusion o esis an landowne s’ lands while simul aneously cos -e icien ly maximizing he ep- esen a ion o p o ec ed biodi e si y ea u es. The model allows de e mining he conse a ion solu ion ha is based on si es owned by conse a ion-minded landowne s, while ecognizing he si es ha a e pa icula ly impo an o i e- placeable o biodi e si y, bu ace esis ance o p o ec ion by landowne s. I he mos impo an si es can be p o ec ed e.g., ia alloca ing mo e conse a ion esou ces on hem, he conse a ion solu ion eaches highe cos -e iciency han he solu ion ca ego ically excluding all he esis ed si es, bu s ill has high ecological gains as he solu ion igno ing landown- e s’ p e e ences. A la ge, quan i ica ion o he ade-o s a ising om biodi e si y p o ec ion helps o p edic and e alua e conse a ion policy ou comes, enabling be e -in- o med conse a ion decisions. Tools such as he demon- s a ed p io i iza ion model ha alle ia es ade-o s be ween di e en aspec s has a po en ial o assis p ac ical conse a ion planning and enable ecologically, socially, and economically e ec i e biodi e si y conse a ion. Acknowledgemen s We hank A. Alanen o p o iding da a o his s udy, K. Aapala and S. Rehell o answe ing ques ions conce ning da a, and R. Paloniemi o commen s conce ning ex apola ion o he su ey esponses. This s udy was unded by Maj and To Nessling Founda ion and Kone Founda ion (g an s o Eini Nieminen), and by he Finnish Minis y o he En i onmen (San u Ka eksela, Me Zo II -p ojec ). Funding Open access unding p o ided by Uni e si y o Jy a ¨skyla ¨ (JYU). Open Access This a icle is licensed unde a C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 4.0 In e na ional License, which pe mi s use, sha ing, adap a ion, dis ibu ion and ep oduc ion in any medium o o ma , as long as you gi e app op ia e c edi o he o iginal au ho (s) and he sou ce, p o ide a link o he C ea i e Commons licence, and indica e i changes we e made. The images o o he hi d pa y ma e ial in his a icle a e included in he a icle’s C ea i e Commons licence, unless indica ed o he wise in a c edi line o he ma e ial. I ma e ial is no included in he a icle’s C ea i e Commons licence and you in ended use is no pe mi ed by s a u o y egula ion o exceeds he pe mi ed use, you will need o ob ain pe mission di ec ly om he copy igh holde . To iew a copy o his licence, isi h p://c ea i ecommons. o g/licenses/by/4.0/. REFERENCES Adams, V.M., R.L. P essey, and N. S oeckl. 2014. Es ima ing landholde s’ p obabili y o pa icipa ing in a s ewa dship p og am, and he implica ions o spa ial conse a ion p io i ies. PLoS ONE.h ps://doi.o g/10.1371/jou nal.pone.0097941. Alanen, A., and K. Aapala. 2015. P oposal o he Mi e Conse a ion G oup o supplemen al mi e conse a ion. Repo s o he Minis y o he En i onmen 26 | 2015. h p://hdl.handle.ne / 10138/158285 (in Finnish, English summa y). Bain, C.G., A. Bonn, R. S oneman, S. Chapman, A. Coupa , M. E ans, B. Gea ey, M. Howa , e al. 2011. IUCN UK Commission o Inqui y on Pea lands. Edinbu gh: IUCN UK Pea land P og amme. h ps://u ly. i/1 g . Ban, N.C., M. Mills, J. Tam, C.C. Hicks, S. Klain, N. S oeckl, M.C. Bo ill, J. Le ine, e al. 2013. A social–ecological app oach o conse a ion planning: Embedding social conside a ions. F on- ie s in Ecology and he En i onmen 11: 194–202. h ps://doi. o g/10.1890/110205. Ba a ia, C., M.P. Nelson, and A.D. Wallach. 2020. The mo al esidue o conse a ion. Conse a ion Biology.h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/ cobi.13463. B own, M.J., G.M. Smi h, and J. McCollum. 2001. We land o es s a is ics o he Sou h A lan ic S a es. Resou ce Bulle in SRS- 62. U.S. Depa men o Ag icul u e, Fo es Se ice. h ps://www. s s. s.usda.go /pubs/ b/ b_s s062.pd . B own, G., C. McAlpine, J. Rhodes, D. Lunney, R. Goldingay, K. Fielding, S. He he ing on, M. Hopkins, e al. 2019. In eg a ion o social spa ial da a o assess conse a ion oppo uni ies and p io i ies. Biological Conse a ion 236: 452–463. h ps://doi.o g/ 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.06.002. Di zo, R., H.S. Young, M. Gale i, G. Ceballos, N.J.B. Isaac, and B. Collen. 2014. De auna ion in he An h opocene. Science 345: 401–406. h ps://doi.o g/10.1126/science.1251817. D echsle , M., F. Wa ¨ zold, K. Johs , and J.F. Shog en. 2010. An agglome a ion paymen o cos -e ec i e biodi e si y conse a- ion in spa ially s uc u ed landscapes. Resou ce and Ene gy Economics 32: 261–275. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j. eseneeco. 2009.11.015. Fishe , J.R.B., and B. Dills. 2012. Do p i a e conse a ion ac i i ies ma ch science-based conse a ion p io i ies? PLoS ONE.h ps:// doi.o g/10.1371/jou nal.pone.0046429. Geldmann, J., L. Coad, M.D. Ba nes, I.D. C aigie, S. Woodley, A. Balm o d, T.M. B ooks, M. Hockings, e al. 2018. A global analysis o managemen capaci y and ecological ou comes in e es ial p o ec ed a eas. Conse a ion Le e s 11: 1–10. h ps:// doi.o g/10.1111/conl.12434. de G oo , R., L. B ande , S. Van De Ploeg, R. Cos anza, F. Be na d, L. B aa , M. Ch is ie, N. C ossman, e al. 2012. Global es ima es o he alue o ecosys ems and hei se ices in mone a y uni s. Ecosys em Se ices 1: 50–61. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.ecose . 2012.07.005. Gue e o, A.M., A.T. Knigh , H.S. G an ham, R.M. Cowling, and K.A. Wilson. 2010. P edic ing willingness- o-sell and i s u ili y o assessing conse a ion oppo uni y o expanding p o ec ed a ea ne wo ks. Conse a ion Le e s 3: 332–339. h ps://doi.o g/ 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00116.x. Haapaleh o, T.O., H. Vasande , S. Jauhiainen, T. Tah anainen, and J.S. Ko iaho. 2011. The e ec s o pea land es o a ion on wa e - able dep h, elemen al concen a ions, and ege a ion: 10 Yea s o changes. Res o a ion Ecology 19: 587–598. h ps://doi.o g/10. 1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00704.x. IPCC. 2018. In Global Wa ming o 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Repo on he impac s o global wa ming o 1.5°C abo e p e-indus ial le els and ela ed global g eenhouse gas emission pa hways, in he con ex o s eng hening he global esponse o he h ea o clima e change, sus ainable de elopmen , and e o s o e adi- ca e po e y, eds. V. Masson-Delmo e, P. Zhai, H.-O. Po ¨ ne , D. Robe s, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pi ani, W. Mou ouma-Okia, e al. In e go e nmen al Panel on Clima e Change. h ps://www. 123 ÓThe Au ho (s) 2021 www.k a.se/en Ambio