IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v40y2019ics2212041618305345.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Changing forest stakeholders’ perception of ecosystem services with linguistic nudging

Author

Listed:
  • Isoaho, K.
  • Burgas, D.
  • Janasik, N.
  • Mönkkönen, M.
  • Peura, M.
  • Hukkinen, J.I.

Abstract

This paper explores whether the perceptions of forest owners and professionals could be nudged towards more sustainable management practices by adjusting a policy text’s metaphorical content. Recent research has demonstrated a link between information interventions and preference change, but there is a need to further explore individuals’ reactions to information on forest-based ecosystem services and to link these to the design of policy instruments. We contribute to narrowing this gap by nudging the content of a policy text comparing rotation forest management (RFM) and continuous cover forestry (CCF), and exposing it to forest stakeholders. The research is carried out in Finland, the so-called ‘forest nation’ of Europe, whose economy and culture is closely tied to forests. The results highlight a deep-rooted opinion divide between Finnish forest owners and professionals: the professionals reacted significantly more negatively towards policy text emphasising continuous cover practice than forest owners. Our results support the use of linguistic nudging as a complement to other policy instruments, but they also highlight the challenges of using one-fits-all approaches to make policies more palatable. In our study, the stakeholders’ different reaction to nudge was also explained by their age, and type and degree of prior knowledge on forest management.

Suggested Citation

  • Isoaho, K. & Burgas, D. & Janasik, N. & Mönkkönen, M. & Peura, M. & Hukkinen, J.I., 2019. "Changing forest stakeholders’ perception of ecosystem services with linguistic nudging," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:40:y:2019:i:c:s2212041618305345
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101028
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041618305345
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101028?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michalek, Gabriela & Meran, Georg & Schwarze, Reimund & Yildiz, Özgür, 2016. "Nudging as a new "soft" policy tool: An assessment of the definitional scope of nudges, practical implementation possibilities and their effectiveness," Economics Discussion Papers 2016-18, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    2. Bao Jiayi & Ho Benjamin, 2015. "Heterogeneous Effects of Informational Nudges on Pro-social Behavior," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 15(4), pages 1619-1655, October.
    3. Norgaard, Richard B., 2010. "Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1219-1227, April.
    4. Matthies, Brent D. & Kalliokoski, Tuomo & Eyvindson, Kyle & Honkela, Nina & Hukkinen, Janne I. & Kuusinen, Nea J. & Räisänen, Petri & Valsta, Lauri T., 2016. "Nudging service providers and assessing service trade-offs to reduce the social inefficiencies of payments for ecosystem services schemes," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(P1), pages 228-237.
    5. Asah, Stanley T. & Guerry, Anne D. & Blahna, Dale J. & Lawler, Joshua J., 2014. "Perception, acquisition and use of ecosystem services: Human behavior, and ecosystem management and policy implications," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 180-186.
    6. Antal, Miklós & Hukkinen, Janne I., 2010. "The art of the cognitive war to save the planet," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 937-943, March.
    7. Paul J. Ferraro & Michael K. Price, 2013. "Using Nonpecuniary Strategies to Influence Behavior: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(1), pages 64-73, March.
    8. Paul H Thibodeau & Lera Boroditsky, 2011. "Metaphors We Think With: The Role of Metaphor in Reasoning," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(2), pages 1-11, February.
    9. Matthies, Brent D. & Vainio, Annukka & D'Amato, Dalia, 2018. "Not so biocentric – Environmental benefits and harm associated with the acceptance of forest management objectives by future environmental professionals," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 128-136.
    10. Kröger, Markus & Raitio, Kaisa, 2017. "Finnish forest policy in the era of bioeconomy: A pathway to sustainability?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 6-15.
    11. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa L. & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2007. "The affect heuristic," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1333-1352, March.
    12. Johanna Wolf & Susanne C. Moser, 2011. "Individual understandings, perceptions, and engagement with climate change: insights from in‐depth studies across the world," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(4), pages 547-569, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eyvindson, Kyle & Duflot, Rémi & Triviño, María & Blattert, Clemens & Potterf, Mária & Mönkkönen, Mikko, 2021. "High boreal forest multifunctionality requires continuous cover forestry as a dominant management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    2. Gutierrez-Castillo, Ana & Penn, Jerrod & Tanger, Shaun & Blazier, Michael A., 2022. "Conservation easement landowners' willingness to accept for forest thinning and the impact of information," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ison, Ray & Blackmore, Chris & Iaquinto, Benjamin L., 2013. "Towards systemic and adaptive governance: Exploring the revealing and concealing aspects of contemporary social-learning metaphors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 34-42.
    2. Peth, Denise & Mußhoff, Oliver & Funke, Katja & Hirschauer, Norbert, 2018. "Nudging Farmers to Comply With Water Protection Rules – Experimental Evidence From Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 310-321.
    3. Delgado, Luisa E. & Marín, Víctor H., 2016. "Well-being and the use of ecosystem services by rural households of the Río Cruces watershed, southern Chile," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 81-91.
    4. Ray Ison & Catherine Allan & Kevin Collins, 2015. "Reframing water governance praxis: Does reflection on metaphors have a role?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 33(6), pages 1697-1713, December.
    5. van den Belt, Marjan & Stevens, Sharon M., 2016. "Transformative agenda, or lost in the translation? A review of top-cited articles in the first four years of Ecosystem Services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 60-72.
    6. Andrew S. Mitchell, 2020. "Mode-2 Knowledge Production within Community-Based Sustainability Projects: Applying Textual and Thematic Analytics to Action Research Conversations," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-29, November.
    7. Maczka, Krzysztof & Chmielewski, Piotr & Jeran, Agnieszka & Matczak, Piotr & van Riper, Carena J., 2019. "The ecosystem services concept as a tool for public participation in management of Poland’s Natura 2000 network," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 173-183.
    8. Aryal, Kishor & Maraseni, Tek & Apan, Armando, 2023. "Examining policy−institution−program (PIP) responses against the drivers of ecosystem dynamics. A chronological review (1960–2020) from Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    9. Stefano Clò & Tommaso Reggiani & Sabrina Ruberto, 2024. "Consumption Feedback and Water Saving: A Field Intervention Evaluation in the Metropolitan Area of Milan," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 87(9), pages 2259-2308, September.
    10. Tomas Bonavia & Josué Brox-Ponce, 2018. "Shame in decision making under risk conditions: Understanding the effect of transparency," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-16, February.
    11. ITO Koichiro & IDA Takanori & TANAKA Makoto, 2015. "The Persistence of Moral Suasion and Economic Incentives: Field experimental evidence from energy demand," Discussion papers 15014, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    12. Hui, Ling Chui & Jim, C.Y., 2022. "Urban-greenery demands are affected by perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices, and socio-demographic and environmental-cultural factors," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    13. Grigoriadis, Theocharis, 2017. "Religion, administration & public goods: Experimental evidence from Russia," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 42-60.
    14. Gigi Foster, 2020. "The behavioural economics of government responses to COVID-19," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 4(S3), pages 11-43, December.
    15. Samahita, Margaret & Holm, Håkan J., 2020. "Mining for Mood Effect in the Field," Working Papers 2020:2, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    16. Brown, Joe & Hamoudi, Amar & Jeuland, Marc & Turrini, Gina, 2017. "Seeing, believing, and behaving: Heterogeneous effects of an information intervention on household water treatment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 141-159.
    17. de Melo, Gioia & Piaggio, Matías, 2015. "The perils of peer punishment: Evidence from a common pool resource framed field experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 376-393.
    18. Jacob LaRiviere & Mikolaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & Katherine Simpson, 2016. "What is the Causal Impact of Knowledge on Preferences in Stated Preference Studies?," Working Papers 2016-12, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    19. Falk, Armin & Boneva, Teodora & Chopra, Felix, 2021. "Fighting Climate Change: the Role of Norms, Preferences, and Moral Values," CEPR Discussion Papers 16343, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    20. Céline Nauges & Dale Whittington, 2019. "Social Norms Information Treatments in the Municipal Water Supply Sector: Some New Insights on Benefits and Costs," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(03), pages 1-40, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:40:y:2019:i:c:s2212041618305345. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.