Cost-efficient management of peatland to enhance biodiversity in Finland

Abstract

Peatlands provide a variety of ecosystem services besides being important ecosystems for biodiversity. Sustainable peatland management requires that its impacts are identified, and all management is allocated in a cost-efficient manner. In this study, we assessed how peatland management influences the habitat suitability of red-listed plant species and the financial performance of management measured as net present value (NPV). The study was done in three landscapes in Finland. We considered four peatland management scenarios i.e., no management activity (NOMANAGE), hydrological restoration (REST), wood harvesting for bioenergy (BIOENERGY), and timber production (TIMBER). The NPVs of different management scenarios were compared to the habitat suitability of red-listed peatland plant species. A cost-impact analysis was used, with TIMBER as a baseline scenario, to find out which alternative scenario would be the most cost-efficient in contributing to habitat suitability. Our study shows that potential habitat areas were significantly different between the scenarios. REST provided the largest potential habitat areas, followed by BIOENERGY, NOMANAGE, and TIMBER. TIMBER provided the best financial performance when low interest rates were used. REST and BIOENERGY were more cost-efficient in enhancing potential habitat areas than NOMANAGE. REST would improve suitable habitats and provide financial benefits when a higher interest rate was used. In conclusion, even a win-win condition could be achieved in some cases (33%), in which higher NPV was achieved simultaneously with improved potential habitat areas. The study provides information for alleviating the economic barriers of restoration and targeting land use and management options cost-efficiently.

Figure 1

The geographical location of the study regions. Stand-wise data were derived from the databases of Metsähallitus (https://www.metsa.fi/en) and the Finnish Forest Center (https://www.metsakeskus.fi/en). The map was created using QGIS software (version 3.32.0, http://qgis.org).

Figure 2

Simulated mean volumes for trees (A: pine, B: spruce, C: birch, D: other deciduous trees), water balance (E), mean proportion of drained peatlands (F), and mean proportion of undrained peatlands (G) for each management scenario across 100 years. A box shows the first quartile to the third quartile. The line inside the box represents the median, whereas the whisker shows the minimum and maximum values. Please note the different scaling between figures.

Figure 3

Total potential habitat area for studied plant species (33 species in Salamajärvi, 32 in Mujejärvi, 33 in Olvassuo) for each management scenario. The mean values were calculated across 100 years. A box shows the first quartile to the third quartile value. The line inside the box represents the median, whereas the whisker shows the minimum and maximum values. Bars with the same letters are not significantly different based on 95% confidence limits.

Figure 4

Net present values (NPV) € ha⁻¹ associated with each management scenario. A box shows the first quartile to the third quartile value. The line inside the box represents the median, whereas the whisker shows the minimum and maximum NPVs associated with each scenario. Interest rate 2–5%.

Figure 5

Median (line inside the box), minimum and maximum cost (whisker) of adding an extra hectare suitable for red-listed species, € ha⁻¹. Minimum and maximum costs indicate cost-impact values for individual regions (Salamajärvi, Mujejärvi, or Olvassuo), while the box represents the first quartile to the third quartile value across the three study regions. Interest rate 2–5%. In calculating cost-impact values, TIMBER was set as the base scenario, and negative values indicate a win–win situation in relation to TIMBER.