Yu, Z. C. Northern peatland carbon stocks and dynamics: A review. Biogeosciences 9, 4071–4085. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-4071-2012 (2012).
Google Scholar
Zedler, J. B. & Kercher, S. Wetland resources: Status, trends, ecosystem services, and restorability. Ann. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30, 39–74. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144248 (2005).
Google Scholar
Nuutinen, S. et al. The role of peatlands in finnish wood production the role of peatlands in Finnish wood production-an analysis based on large-scale forest scenario modelling. Silva Fennica 34, 131–153 (2000).
Google Scholar
Tanneberger, F. et al. The power of nature-based solutions: How peatlands can help us to achieve key EU sustainability objectives. Adv. Sustain. Syst. 5, 2000146 (2021).
Google Scholar
Paavilainen, E. & Päivänen, J. Peatland Forestry Vol. 111 (Springer, 1995).
Bhattacharjee, J. et al. Development of aerial photos and LIDAR data approaches to map spatial and temporal evolution of ditch networks in peat-dominated catchments. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 147, 04021006 (2021).
Google Scholar
Chapman, S. et al. Exploitation of Northern peatlands and biodiversity maintenance: A conflict between economy and ecology. Front. Ecol. Environ. 1, 525 (2003).
Google Scholar
Ramchunder, S. J., Brown, L. E. & Holden, J. Catchment-scale peatland restoration benefits stream ecosystem biodiversity. J. Appl. Ecol. 49, 182–191 (2012).
Google Scholar
Nieminen, M. et al. Post-drainage stand growth and peat mineralization impair water quality from forested peatlands. J. Environ. Qual. 51, 1211–1221 (2022).
Google Scholar
Ilmonen, J., Mykrä, H., Virtanen, R., Paasivirta, L. & Muotka, T. Responses of spring macroinvertebrate and bryophyte communities to habitat modification: Community composition, species richness, and red-listed species. Freshw. Sci. 31, 657–667 (2012).
Google Scholar
Elo, M., Penttinen, J. & Kotiaho, J. S. The effect of peatland drainage and restoration on Odonata species richness and abundance. BMC Ecol. 15, 11 (2015).
Google Scholar
Laine, A. M., Mehtätalo, L., Tolvanen, A., Frolking, S. & Tuittila, E.-S. Impacts of drainage, restoration and warming on boreal wetland greenhouse gas fluxes. Sci. Total Environ. 647, 169–181 (2019).
Google Scholar
Laine, A. M. et al. Restoration of managed pine fens: Effect on hydrology and vegetation. Appl. Veg. Sci. 14, 340–349 (2011).
Google Scholar
Menberu, M. W. et al. Water-table-dependent hydrological changes following peatland forestry drainage and restoration: Analysis of restoration success. Water Resour. Res. 52, 3742–3760 (2016).
Google Scholar
Worrall, F. et al. The impact of peatland restoration on local climate: Restoration of a cool humid Island. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 124, 1696–1713 (2019).
Google Scholar
Lehan, K., McCarter, C. P. R., Moore, P. A. & Waddington, J. M. Effect of stockpiling time on donor-peat hydrophysical properties: Implications for peatland restoration. Ecol. Eng. 182, 106701 (2022).
Google Scholar
Haapalehto, T., Kotiaho, J. S., Matilainen, R. & Tahvanainen, T. The effects of long-term drainage and subsequent restoration on water table level and pore water chemistry in boreal peatlands. J. Hydrol. 519, 1493–1505 (2014).
Google Scholar
Haapalehto, T. et al. Recovery of plant communities after ecological restoration of forestry-drained peatlands. Ecol. Evol. 7, 7848–7858 (2017).
Google Scholar
Hedberg, P. et al. Vegetation recovery after multiple-site experimental fen restorations. Biol. Conserv. 147, 60–67 (2012).
Google Scholar
Kangas, L. et al. Photosynthetic traits of Sphagnum and feather moss species in undrained, drained and rewetted boreal spruce swamp forests. Ecol. Evol. 4, 381–396 (2014).
Google Scholar
Kareksela, S. et al. Fighting carbon loss of degraded peatlands by jump-starting ecosystem functioning with ecological restoration. Sci. Total Environ. 537, 268–276 (2015).
Google Scholar
Maanavilja, L., Kangas, L., Mehtätalo, L. & Tuittila, E.-S. Rewetting of drained boreal spruce swamp forests results in rapid recovery of Sphagnum production. J. Appl. Ecol. 52, 1355–1363 (2015).
Google Scholar
Maanavilja, L., Aapala, K., Haapalehto, T., Kotiaho, J. S. & Tuittila, E.-S. Impact of drainage and hydrological restoration on vegetation structure in boreal spruce swamp forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 330, 115–125 (2014).
Google Scholar
Soini, P., Riutta, T., Yli-Petäys, M. & Vasander, H. Comparison of vegetation and CO2 dynamics between a restored cut-away peatland and a pristine fen: Evaluation of the restoration success. Restor. Ecol. 18, 894–903 (2010).
Google Scholar
Tolvanen, A., Saarimaa, M., Tuominen, S. & Aapala, K. Is 15% restoration sufficient to safeguard the habitats of boreal red-listed mire plant species?. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 23, e01160 (2020).
Young, D. M., Baird, A. J., Morris, P. J. & Holden, J. Simulating the long-term impacts of drainage and restoration on the ecohydrology of peatlands. Water Resour. Res. 53, 6510–6522 (2017).
Google Scholar
Artz, R. R. E. et al. The potential for modelling peatland habitat condition in Scotland using long-term MODIS data. Sci. Total Environ. 660, 429–442 (2019).
Google Scholar
Kreyling, J. et al. Rewetting does not return drained fen peatlands to their old selves. Nat. Commun. 12, 5693 (2021).
Google Scholar
CBD. Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020, Including Aichi Biodiversity Targets. https://www.cbd.int/sp/ (2010).
European Commission. The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/brochures/2020%20Biod%20brochure%20final%20lowres.pdf (2011).
Cortina-Segarra, J., Decleer, K. & Kollmann, J. Speed restoration of EU ecosystems. Nature 535, 231–231 (2016).
Google Scholar
European Commission. Biodiversity strategy for 2030. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/biodiversity-strategy-2030_en (2020).
European Commission. Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on nature restoration. Preprint at https://environment.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-06/Proposal%20for%20a%20Regulation%20on%20nature%20restoration.pdf (2022).
Cortina-Segarra, J. et al. Barriers to ecological restoration in Europe: Expert perspectives. Restor. Ecol. 29, e13346 (2021).
Google Scholar
Tanneberger, F. et al. The peatland map of Europe. Mires Peat 19, 1–17 (2017).
Korhonen, K. T. et al. Suomen metsät 2009–2013 ja niiden kehitys 1921–2013. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-326-467-0 (2017).
Statistics Finland. Energian kokonaiskulutus energianlähteittäin (In Finnish). https://pxweb2.stat.fi/PxWeb/pxweb/fi/StatFin/StatFin__ehk/statfin_ehk_pxt_12st.px/ (2022).
National Forestry Accounting plan for Finland. Submission of National Forestry Accounting plan including forest reference level (2021–2025) for Finland. https://mmm.fi/documents/1410837/1504826/NFAP_Finland_draft+29.11.2018.pdf/df0a7982-030f-35a2-63a8-e003362aa022 (2018).
Laasasenaho, K., Lensu, A., Rintala, J. & Lauhanen, R. Landowners’ willingness to promote bioenergy production on wasteland−future impact on land use of cutaway peatlands. Land Use Policy 69, 167–175 (2017).
Google Scholar
Buchholz, T. & Volk, T. Profitability of willow biomass crops affected by incentive programs. Bioenergy Res. 6, 53–64 (2013).
Google Scholar
Juutinen, A. et al. Cost-effective land-use options of drained peatlands–integrated biophysical-economic modeling approach. Ecol. Econ. 175, 106704 (2020).
Google Scholar
Tolvanen, A., Juutinen, A. & Svento, R. Preferences of local people for the use of peatlands: The case of the richest peatland region in Finland. Ecol. Soc. 18, art19 (2013).
Google Scholar
Glenk, K., Faccioli, M., Martin-Ortega, J., Schulze, C. & Potts, J. The opportunity cost of delaying climate action: Peatland restoration and resilience to climate change. Glob. Environ. Chang. 70, 102323 (2021).
Google Scholar
Martin-Ortega, J. et al. Linking ecosystem changes to their social outcomes: Lost in translation. Ecosyst. Serv. 50, 101327 (2021).
Google Scholar
Moxey, A. & Moran, D. UK peatland restoration: Some economic arithmetic. Sci. Total Environ. 484, 114–120 (2014).
Google Scholar
Glenk, K., Schaafsma, M., Moxey, A., Martin-Ortega, J. & Hanley, N. A framework for valuing spatially targeted peatland restoration. Ecosyst. Serv. 9, 20–33 (2014).
Google Scholar
Bullock, C. H. & Collier, M. When the public good conflicts with an apparent preference for unsustainable behaviour. Ecol. Econ. 70, 971–977 (2011).
Google Scholar
Liu, W., Fritz, C., van Belle, J. & Nonhebel, S. Production in peatlands: Comparing ecosystem services of different land use options following conventional farming. Sci. Total Environ. 875, 162534 (2023).
Google Scholar
Glenk, K. & Martin-Ortega, J. The economics of peatland restoration. J. Environ. Econ. Policy 7, 345–362 (2018).
Google Scholar
Grammatikopoulou, I. & Vačkářová, D. The value of forest ecosystem services: A meta-analysis at the European scale and application to national ecosystem accounting. Ecosyst. Serv. 48, 101262 (2021).
Google Scholar
Juutinen, A. et al. Trade-offs between economic returns, biodiversity, and ecosystem services in the selection of energy peat production sites. Ecosyst. Serv. 40, 101027 (2019).
Google Scholar
Kasimir, Å., He, H., Coria, J. & Nordén, A. Land use of drained peatlands: Greenhouse gas fluxes, plant production, and economics. Glob. Chang. Biol. 24, 3302–3316 (2018).
Google Scholar
Tata, H. L. Paludiculture: Can it be a trade-off between ecology and economic benefit on peatland restoration?. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 394, 012061 (2019).
Google Scholar
Rana, P. & Tolvanen, A. Transferability of 34 red-listed peatland plant species models across boreal vegetation zone. Ecol. Indic. 129, 107950 (2021).
Google Scholar
Nyborg, K. Project evaluation with democratic decision-making: What does cost-benefit analysis really measure?. Ecol. Econ. 106, 124–131 (2014).
Google Scholar
Laiho, R. et al. Heikkotuottoiset ojitetut suometsät–missä ja paljonko niitä on?. Metsätieteen aikakauskirja https://doi.org/10.14214/ma.5957 (2016).
Google Scholar
Tolvanen, A. et al. Quantification and valuation of ecosystem services to optimize sustainable re-use for low-productive drained peatlands. Luonnonvara- ja biotalouden tutkimus 48/2018 (2018).
Rantala, S., Pekkinen, E. & Tammiruusu, S. Finnish Forestry Practice and Management (Metsäkustannus, 2011).
Hyvärinen, E., Juslen, A., Kemppainen, E. & Uddström, A. The 2019 Red List of Finnish Species (Ympäristöministeriö & Suomen ympäristökeskus, 2019).
Phillips, S. J. & Dudík, M. Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: New extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography 31, 161–175 (2008).
Google Scholar
Salminen, H., Lehtonen, M. & Hynynen, J. Reusing legacy FORTRAN in the MOTTI growth and yield simulator. Comput. Electron. Agric. 49, 103–113 (2005).
Google Scholar
Salminen, H. & Hynynen, J. M. A growth and yield simulation system. in Forest modelling for ecosystem management, forest certification, and sustainable management. (eds. LeMay, V. & Marshall, P.) 488 (2001).
Hynynen, J. et al. Long-term impacts of forest management on biomass supply and forest resource development: A scenario analysis for Finland. Eur. J. For. Res. 134, 415–431 (2015).
Google Scholar
Hynynen, J. et al. Scenario Analysis for the Biomass Supply Potential and the Future Development of Finnish Forest Resources. (2014).
Repola, J., Hökkä, H. & Salminen, H. Models for diameter and height growth of Scots pine, Norway spruce and pubescent birch in drained peatland sites in Finland. Silva Fennica https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.10055 (2018).
Google Scholar
Laurén, A. et al. Drainage and stand growth response in peatland forests—description, testing, and application of mechanistic peatland simulator susi. Forests 12, 1–23 (2021).
Google Scholar
Hökkä, H. et al. Defining guidelines for ditch depth in drained scots pine dominated peatland forests. Silva Fennica https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.10494 (2021).
Google Scholar
Sikström, U. & Hökkä, H. Interactions between soil water conditions and forest stands in boreal forests with implications for ditch network maintenance. Silva Fennica 50, 1416 (2016).
Google Scholar
Hökkä, H., Stenberg, L. & Laurén, A. Modelling depth of drainage ditches in forested peatlands of Finland. Balt For. 26, 1–9 (2020).
Google Scholar
Venäläinen, A., Tuomenvirta, H., Pirinen, P. & Drebs, A. A basic Finnish climate data set 1961–2000–description and illustrations. Reports no 2005:5. https://www.oulu.fi/oulugis/doc/data_description.pdf (2005).
Hökkä, H. et al. Long-term impact of ditch network maintenance on timber production, profitability and environmental loads at regional level in Finland: A simulation study. Forestry 90, 234–246 (2017).
Chang, S. J. & Gadow, K. V. Application of the generalized Faustmann model to uneven-aged forest management. J. For. Econ. 16, 313–325 (2010).
Official Statistics of Finland 2020. Cost-of-living Index 1951:10=100. Consumer Price Index [e-Publication] https://www.stat.fi/til/khi/2020/11/khi_2020_11_2020-12-14_tau_003_fi.html (2020).
Makrickas, E., Manton, M., Angelstam, P. & Grygoruk, M. Trading wood for water and carbon in peatland forests? Rewetting is worth more than wood production. J. Environ. Manag. 341, 117952 (2023).
Google Scholar
Saarimaa, M. et al. Predicting hotspots for threatened plant species in boreal peatlands. Biodivers. Conserv. 28, 1173–1204 (2019).
Google Scholar
Haapalehto, T. O., Vasander, H., Jauhiainen, S., Tahvanainen, T. & Kotiaho, J. S. The effects of peatland restoration on water-table depth, elemental concentrations, and vegetation: 10 years of changes. Restor. Ecol. 19, 587–598 (2011).
Google Scholar
Keleher, M. J. & Rader, R. B. Bioassessment of artesian springs in the Bonneville Basin, Utah, USA. Wetlands 28, 1048–1059 (2008).
Google Scholar
Koivusalo, H. et al. Impacts of ditch cleaning on hydrological processes in a drained peatland forest. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 12, 1211–1227 (2008).
Google Scholar
Sarkkola, S. et al. Role of tree stand evapotranspiration in maintaining satisfactory drainage conditions in drained peatlands. Can. J. For. Res. 40, 1485–1496 (2010).
Google Scholar
Brounen, D., de Jong, A. & Koedijk, K. Corporate finance in Europe: confronting theory with practice. Financ. Manag. 4, 71–101 (2004).
Knoke, T., Paul, C. & Härtl, F. A critical view on benefit-cost analyses of silvicultural management options with declining discount rates. For. Policy Econ. 83, 58–69 (2017).
Google Scholar
Price, C. Declining discount rate and the social cost of carbon: Forestry consequences. J. For. Econ. 31, 39–45 (2018).
Hepburn, C. J. & Koundouri, P. Recent advances in discounting: Implications for forest economics. J. For. Econ. 13, 169–189 (2007).
Pasqual, J., Padilla, E. & Jadotte, E. Technical note: Equivalence of different profitability criteria with the net present value. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 142, 205–210 (2013).
Google Scholar
Horsburgh, N., Tyler, A., Mathieson, S., Wackernagel, M. & Lin, D. Biocapacity and cost-effectiveness benefits of increased peatland restoration in Scotland. J. Environ. Manag. 306, 114486 (2022).
Google Scholar
Kurttila, M. et al. Applying a multi-criteria project portfolio tool in selecting energy peat production areas. Sustainability 12, 1705 (2020).
Google Scholar