Sie können Operatoren mit Ihrer Suchanfrage kombinieren, um diese noch präziser einzugrenzen. Klicken Sie auf den Suchoperator, um eine Erklärung seiner Funktionsweise anzuzeigen.
Findet Dokumente, in denen beide Begriffe in beliebiger Reihenfolge innerhalb von maximal n Worten zueinander stehen. Empfehlung: Wählen Sie zwischen 15 und 30 als maximale Wortanzahl (z.B. NEAR(hybrid, antrieb, 20)).
Findet Dokumente, in denen der Begriff in Wortvarianten vorkommt, wobei diese VOR, HINTER oder VOR und HINTER dem Suchbegriff anschließen können (z.B., leichtbau*, *leichtbau, *leichtbau*).
Developing Criteria for an Emerging Land Use - Sphagnum Moss Harvesting - Through Stakeholder Engagement and Consequent Potential Sphagnum Harvesting Area in Finland
Dieser Artikel geht auf die sich herausbildende Landnutzung der Sphagnum-Moosernte ein und hebt ihr Potenzial als nachhaltige Alternative zum Torf in Kultursubstraten hervor. Durch Einbeziehung von Interessengruppen und räumliche Analysen identifiziert die Studie geeignete Erntegebiete in Finnland, wobei der Schwerpunkt auf degradierten Torfmooren liegt. Schlüsselthemen sind der ökologische Nutzen des Sphagnum-Mooses, die Kriterien für die Standortwahl und die wirtschaftliche Durchführbarkeit der Ernte. Der Artikel kommt zu dem Schluss, dass die Ernte von Sphagnum-Moos mit ordnungsgemäßem Management und regulatorischen Rahmenbedingungen erheblich zu nachhaltigen Landnutzungspraktiken beitragen und eine praktikable Lösung für die Umweltauswirkungen der Torfgewinnung bieten könnte.
KI-Generiert
Diese Zusammenfassung des Fachinhalts wurde mit Hilfe von KI generiert.
Abstract
Sphagnum mosses are a dominant plant group in boreal and temperate peatlands, significantly contributing to peat accumulation and, consequently, terrestrial carbon stock. Sphagnum moss as a potentially renewable alternative for peat is an emerging raw material in the horticultural growing medium industry – hence Sphagnum is harvested or farmed in multiple countries worldwide. In Finland, Sphagnum harvesting is a new land use of peatlands, currently conducted on a small scale, preferentially on sites previously affected by other types of land use. However, with ample suitable harvesting areas available, such as forestry drained peatlands with low timber production, Sphagnum harvesting has the potential to become a significant land use practice. To assess the available Sphagnum harvesting land resources in Finland, we employed collaborative working methods, including repeated workshops with stakeholders and semi-structured interviews to establish criteria for site selection. Through stakeholder engagement, the criteria were selected, further modified, and used in spatial analysis to delineate potential harvesting areas and estimate land area. The criteria formulation involved several stages, including identifying existing land-use restrictions and other possible constraints on peatlands, and assessing where suitable Sphagnum yield and production costs can be achieved. The resulting area estimate ─ 241,000 hectares of potential Sphagnum harvesting area ─ is substantial, accounting for up to 3% of all peatland areas in Finland. It also exceeds the estimated area needed for Sphagnum harvesting to replace peat as a growing medium in Finland. The stakeholder engagement process revealed the need for further regulation of Sphagnum harvesting if the activity is upscaled.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Introduction
Northern peatlands play a crucial role in terrestrial carbon (C) sequestration, storing an estimated 400–500 Pg C as peat (Loisel et al. 2014), which accounts for nearly 50% of the atmospheric CO2 stock (Le Quéré et al. 2018). Sphagnum mosses, a dominant plant group in boreal and temperate peatlands, are key contributors to peat accumulation (Clymo and Hayward 1982; Van Breemen 1995). Beyond their ecological role, Sphagnum mosses possess exceptional physical and chemical properties, such as high water retention capacity, antimicrobial activity, pH regulation, and tolerance to desiccation, making them an ideal candidate for use as a horticultural growing medium (Taskila et al. 2016, McKeon-Bennett and Hodkinson 2021, Guêné-Nanchen and St-Hilaire 2022, Müller and Glatzel 2021).
Globally, of the total of 67 million m3 (M m3) of growing media used annually, approximately 40 M m3 consists of peat (Blok et al. 2021). In Finnish greenhouse cultivation, peat is the most used growing medium, accounting for up to 90% of the used growing media (Silvan et al. 2019). In Finland in the year 2021, the extraction for horticultural, bedding and environmental peat was 3.5 M m3 (Natural resources institute Finland 2021) of which an estimated 1–2 M m3 is used for growing media purposes (Silvan et al. 2019, Heiskanen 2021), while 2.7 M m3 of peat was extracted for energy (Natural resources institute Finland 2021) with declining trend. The use of peat has become increasingly less attractive due to its significant environmental impacts, including greenhouse gas emissions and the detrimental effects of peat extraction on mire ecosystems and biodiversity.
Anzeige
One option to replace peat in growing media uses is Sphagnum moss. If Sphagnum regrowth can be ensured, Sphagnum moss can be considered more sustainable than peat (McKeon-Bennett et al. 2021, Müller and Glatzel 2021). Gaudig et al. (2018) distinguish two different paths for Sphagnum harvesting: Sphagnum gathering, i.e., collecting from wild populations that are not managed or minimally managed and Sphagnum farming, i.e., cultivating Sphagnum biomass for harvesting. Sphagnum gathering is done in some scale, e.g., in Chile and Finland and Sphagnum farming trials have been conducted in, e.g., Canada, Germany, The Netherlands, Latvia, China and Japan (Gaudig et al. 2018, Gao et al. 2023, Pouliot et al. 2015, Hoshi 2017). There are also ongoing trials in Finland in an old peat extraction area in South Ostrobothnia region and in Eastern Finland near Joensuu. The area used for Sphagnum harvesting is still minimal if compared to the potential need for replacing peat in growing media (Hirschler et al. 2022). In Finland, the area for Sphagnum harvesting is currently 224 ha on 31 separate sites (Geological Survey of Finland 2025) and there is no statistics on the harvested volumes.
As Sphagnum harvesting removes the carbon sequestered to the living vegetation and prevents peat accumulation, it is essential to ensure Sphagnum renewal to consider Sphagnum harvesting a sustainable practice. Site selection should target areas where suitable water table levels can be achieved, where nutrient levels are low, and active measures, such as moss layer transfer by spreading Sphagnum moss fragments (described in Quinty and Rochefort 2003) and water table management, should be implemented after harvesting. Harvesting should also be targeted to already degraded sites such as unproductive forestry drained areas, where mire ecosystem is degraded but the tree growth is not sufficient for commercial harvesting. To target the harvesting to the living moss and to prevent problems related to high water levels afterwards, use of low-disturbance machinery and a moderate harvesting depth not exceeding 25 cm is recommended (Myllyviita et al., preprint 2025). When regrowth is ensured, transitioning to Sphagnum moss harvesting in a cyclical and renewable basis (i.e., farming, on forestry drained peatlands or other degraded peat areas) could help mitigate the climate impact of growing media production (Gaudig et al. 2018). There are not yet results from long-term trials on Sphagnum farming in Finland, thus the measures for sustainable production are based on experience from other countries. There is no consensus on the optimal rotation time for Sphagnum farming in Finland, but an assumption based on earlier experience has been between 20–30 years (see Silvan et al. 2019). Based on the research carried on harvested sites in Finland, greenhouse gas emissions are dependent on the water table and vegetation succession. Harvesting generally lowers the soil surface which may lead to high water tables and pooling of water before vegetation growth compensates the lowering. Karjalainen et al. (2025) describe how CO2 uptake may temporarily increase in harvesting sites, but at the same time, methane emissions are elevated, especially on wet sites. On the study sites described in Karjalainen et al. (2025), it took on average 5–7 years after harvesting for the GHG balance to resemble that of an unharvested control site. Life cycle analysis of Sphagnum moss growing medium (Myllyviita et al., preprint 2025) shows that when renewal of Sphagnum is successful and site conditions favorable, Sphagnum moss can achieve a negative carbon footprint. There are also impacts on water quality from Sphagnum harvesting: underlying peat soil may become subject to erosion, which in turn may increase the load of organic matter, solids, total phosphorus, and nitrogen to the watercourses (Laine-Petäjäkangas et al. 2024).
Finland is divided into two main peatland regions: raised bogs in the western and southern parts of the country and aapa mires in the northern and eastern parts of the country. Currently, the majority of the Sphagnum harvesting activity has occurred in the raised bog region, where nutrient-poor mire site types and Sphagnum species commonly regarded as most suited (species from subgenera Acutifolia and Sphagnum) for growing media prevail. Nevertheless, based on the information provided by the producers, there is a wide variety of species that can be used in growing media products. Thus, the peatland region or species may not fully limit the harvesting activity in different parts of the country.
It has been estimated that replacing peat entirely with Sphagnum biomass as a growing medium in Finland would require approximately 60,000 ha of land for Sphagnum harvesting (Silvan et al. 2019). This estimate is based on an annual need to replace 2 million m3 of extracted peat, an average Sphagnum moss harvest yield of around 1000 m3/ha, and a 30-year harvesting cycle, after which the same area could be harvested again.
Anzeige
Due to the fairly recent start of the Sphagnum harvesting activity, there is no direct legislation or regulation for Sphagnum harvesting in Finland. However, Laakso and Heinilä (2023) highlight several existing Acts that are applicable to Sphagnum harvesting, including the Forest Act, Nature Conservation Act, Environmental Protection Act, and Water Act. They also point out the need for clearer regulatory measures, potentially through the Environmental Protection Act (527/2014), or the development of soil legislation. In practice, non-binding guidelines influence peatland land use, such as the National Peatland Strategy (Finnish Government 2012), which restricts land-use changes to peatlands that have already been impacted by drainage and have lost their natural state. Additionally, a committee has been established to address regulatory concerns and provide guidelines for Sphagnum harvesting (Ministry of the Environment 2022). Overall, the lack of clear guidelines has caused concerns among stakeholders (SLL 2020a; SLL 2020b; SLL 2022), and the need to develop regulatory framework before the sector expands further is widely recognized (Ministry of the Environment 2022).
The aims of this study were to develop criteria for identifying suitable Sphagnum harvesting areas and to assess the available land resources in Finland based on these criteria. We concentrate on the Sphagnum harvesting in the manner of gathering from degraded sites not necessarily prepared for harvesting activity. To reach broad acceptance and recognition, the criteria were defined in collaboration with relevant stakeholders. We then applied these criteria to estimate the total land area suitable for Sphagnum harvesting and examined how variations in the criteria impact the resulting land area distribution across Finland.
Material and methods
Defining Criteria for Recognizing Potential Sphagnum Harvesting Sites
As a baseline for forming the criteria for Sphagnum harvesting, we used the work carried out by the committee set by the Finnish Ministry of the Environment to address the questions and set guidelines to Sphagnum harvesting (Ministry of the Environment 2022). Our work consisted of three parts: stakeholder engagement, criteria formation and spatial analysis (Fig. 1), described in detail below.
Fig. 1
Schematic presentation of the workflow for the study. Steps 1–9 are numbered. Stakeholders participating in workshops comprised environmental NGO and organizations, authorities, harvesting industry representatives and researchers
The work was initiated by holding a workshop in November 2022 (Fig. 1, step 1) for stakeholders including environmental NGO and organizations (the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation), authorities (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland, Ministry of the Environment, ELY Centre), harvesting industry representatives and researchers (University of Eastern Finland, Natural Resources Institute Finland, Geological Survey of Finland) to discuss Sphagnum harvesting and farming in Finland and relevant criteria that should either limit or steer Sphagnum harvesting site selection. The workshop applied semi-structured stakeholder discussions in groups of 5–7 people with a facilitator, to record and evaluate the different values and views on the topic. The discussion topics in the workshop were ecological, technical and production cost-related criteria for Sphagnum harvesting site selection, renewal of Sphagnum in harvested areas and Sphagnum farming. Based on the results of the workshop, we categorized the criteria to have a basis in Strict policy and natural state classification, Policy, Yield and Production cost (Fig. 1, step 3).
Strict policy and natural state
The “Natural state” classification on Finnish peatlands (in peatland basin level, area of 5 ha or more) was created by the Geological Survey of Finland to be applied in land use planning. The scale is from 0 to 5, 0 being the most degraded and 5 being pristine. In natural state 0, draining has altered the hydrology irreversibly, and vegetation has changed drastically. The water table has lowered thoroughly in the peatland basin. In natural state 1, draining has altered the water regime thoroughly, and changes in vegetation are distinct. The water table has lowered thoroughly in the peatland basin. In natural state 2, undrained parts remain in the peatland basin, but drainage prevents hydrological connections between the peatland and surrounding mineral soil areas. For raised bogs, drainage has affected the water regime of the center of the bog and the sloping parts around it. Drainage partially affects the areas where there are no ditches as well. Typical mire vegetation has been altered: for example, increased dwarf shrubs and saplings. In natural state 3, most of the peatland basin is undrained. On aapa mires, drainage doesn’t completely prevent water from entering from surrounding areas and doesn’t cause significant drying further away from ditches. On raised bogs, ditching can affect lagg areas (for more detailed description, see Toivonen et al. 2022). The natural state of a peatland describes the drainage status of a peatland basin and how it affects the hydrology and vegetation. As the degree of drainage and its effect on hydrology and vegetation have a gradual variation, the automatically outlined natural state for a peatland basin is always an approximation and often a compromise between two classes (Toivonen et al. 2022). The Finnish National Peatland strategy (Finnish Government 2012) recommends that land use change should take place only on peatlands of the lowest natural states: 0 and 1, 2 with discretion (considering regional aspects, see Ministry of the Environment 2015) and 3 in exceptional cases. In workshops, it was agreed that the natural state classification should be used to exclude the most pristine peatlands from Sphagnum harvesting land use, thus only peatlands with a natural state of 0–2 were included in the spatial analysis.
In addition, we investigated strict policies and laws that limit land use on peatlands as no-go areas for Sphagnum harvesting, namely state-owned protected areas, privately owned protected areas, Natura 2000-areas, Wilderness reserves, the especially important habitats protected under the Forest Act and archeological cultural environment heritage sites.
From peat extraction regulation, we decided to adopt a criterion to not locate Sphagnum harvesting sites on important groundwater bodies to not compromise aquifer water condition (Water Act, VL 587/2011, Väyrynen et al. 2008). Similar to peat extraction also this land use could potentially affect the water table and run-off leading to degradation of a groundwater body. As an example, we considered surroundings (30 m) of natural springs and groundwater bodies that are important water sources or connected to ecosystems dependent on groundwater supply, such as spring-fed fens and spring-fed ponds (Britschgi et al. 2018) unsuitable for Sphagnum moss harvesting.
Policy
In the workshop, valuable areas not protected by law but worth keeping out of Sphagnum harvesting activities were recognized. Based on discussions, areas proposed for conservation in the Complementary mire conservation program (Alanen and Aapala 2015) were considered ecologically too valuable for Sphagnum harvesting. These areas have been recognized to have particularly high nature values or importance for enhancing connectivity of protected mire sites (Aapala et al. 2021).
As stated before, the natural state class of a peatland is defined for a whole peatland basin. However, the drainage situation can differ drastically within one peatland basin (Toivonen et al. 2022). Based on the workshop, it was considered important to ensure that Sphagnum harvesting should focus on areas truly influenced by previous drainage, and not on the sections of peat basins that still support rather intact peatland vegetation and functions. To facilitate this, we adopted a distance of 50 m from drainage from Sallinen et al. (2019) to describe and target the peatland area that is influenced by a ditch.
Yield
In the yield category, we defined factors that affect the amount of Sphagnum moss to be retrieved. Sphagnum harvesting industry representatives contributed to this criteria category in particular. We ruled out areas that lack Sphagnum cover for technical reasons: namely, peat extraction sites and agricultural peat fields as these are included in peatland data within a natural state of 0. The potential for Sphagnum harvesting has been recognized in forestry drained peatlands. Our aim was to target areas that likely have a Sphagnum cover or areas that would be suitable for reinstating Sphagnum moss growth before Sphagnum harvesting, and where renewal after harvesting could be ensured. We aimed to target the nutrient-poorer oligo- and ombrotrophic, originally treeless peatland types, where Sphagnum growth has proved to be greater after restoration, as opposed to more nutrient-rich meso- and eutrophic forested peatland types (Laatikainen et al. 2025). As we did not have reliable enough spatial data on mire site types for all Finnish peatlands, we used tree volume of a maximum of 30 m3/ha as a criterion, to indirectly target these nutrient-poor peatland types. Thresholds of ≤10 and ≤50 m3/ha were also discussed and implemented in spatial analysis. Low density of tree stand on drained peatland can be seen as an indication of lower nutrient levels, and Sphagnum mosses are naturally more abundant in nutrient-poor (poor fen, bog, pine mire) than in nutrient-rich peatlands (fens and spruce mires). Low density of the tree stand can also indicate poor success of forestry draining, meaning a higher water table level that is more favorable for Sphagnum mosses. These open areas are prone to more light as well, which can favor Sphagnum mosses. 30 m3/ha has been used as a threshold for low tree production on drained peatlands (Laiho et al. 2016). Low volume of the tree stand indicates poor tree growth and suggests that drainage has not been successful and therefore water table could still be somewhat suitable for Sphagnum moss growth.
Production cost
Production cost was recognized to affect the suitability of an area for commercial Sphagnum harvesting. Location is key in the regional scale (vicinity of growth medium processing plants) and local scale (access to the area by road). We formed criteria based on the local scale and did not consider processing plant distances. In the first draft for spatial analysis, we used 500 m as a maximum distance from the edge of the harvesting site to the road, but also considered distances of 300 m and 100 m. The size of the area also contributes to the practical usefulness of a harvesting area. Industry representatives considered 5 ha minimum area for a harvesting site. If multiple, potential harvesting sites were closely situated (700 m or less), a minimum area per site was set to 0.5 ha.
Spatial analysis drafts and feedback
While forming criteria, we emphasized factors that would be useful in spatial analysis – one requirement being that there had to be available spatial data on the matter. Based on discussions in the first workshop, suitable datasets were acquired and the first draft for spatial analysis was done (Fig. 1, steps 2 and 4) using the criteria described above. The analysis was done using ArcGIS Pro 3.2.2. software. Processing details and datasets are described in “Spatial analysis to define the potential Sphagnum harvesting area in Finland”.
During the criteria forming process, we asked professionals from two Sphagnum harvesting companies to evaluate the areas that resulted from this first draft for spatial analysis (Fig. 1, step 5). We sent both parties a random sample of 30 areas for evaluation from different municipalities, both in South Ostrobothnia, and held a semi-structured interview to discuss the suitability of the sample areas for Sphagnum harvesting (Fig. 2). We asked the people responsible for the harvesting planning to evaluate the suitability of the area for Sphagnum harvesting on a scale from 1–5 (1 being not suitable and 5 excellent suitability) and to give other feedback, if any. We instructed them to use all data that they would normally use when evaluating Sphagnum harvesting areas but asked them not to consider the effect of landownership. The evaluation was done without field visits, based on available data and worker’s knowledge on local conditions and prerequisites for the business.
Sphagnum harvesting companies gave us feedback on area size: small areas were deemed unprofitable. In both municipalities, almost half (15 and 14) of the 30 sample areas were between 0.5–2 ha, as 0.5 ha was set as the minimum area size in the first workshop. We also got feedback on accessing the area: some sample areas were considered too far from the roads, as the maximum distance to the road was set to 500 m based on the first workshop. We got criticism on some of the areas having too much tree cover and hence expected poor yield. We also got feedback on areas being too narrow strips, following the margin ditches of peatlands.
Some of the sample areas (6 out of 60) were deemed as areas with excellent suitability, some even being areas that were already in plans or in use for Sphagnum harvesting (5/60). Most of the areas were deemed unsuitable, with mean score from one municipality being 1.53 and another municipality 2.86. If the areas that got feedback based on small size, accessibility by road or too high tree volume are not counted, as these parameters could be amended, mean scores would be 2.86 (n = 7) and 4 (n = 11), respectively. When looking at areas that would be chosen with completed criteria (changing area size and distance to road), mean scores are 2.1 and 3.55, respectively.
Based on the feedback, we decided to adjust the following parameters for the second draft of spatial analysis (Fig. 1, step 6): the minimum size of areas that are closely situated was increased from 0.5 to 2 ha and maximum distance to the road was decreased from 500 m to 300 m.
Fig. 2
An example of potential harvesting area outlined in the first spatial analysis. These areas were evaluated by the Sphagnum harvesting companies. a Polygons 1, 2 and 3 around an open mire, limiting to 50 m vicinity of surrounding ditches. On a scale from 0 to 5, these polygons were scored at 3 and 4. Lower scores resulted from concerns on accessing the area, uncertainty of the amount of available Sphagnum resource (on polygon number 3) and being partly too wet (on polygon number 1). b Polygons 4 and 5 next to a peat extraction area. These polygons were scored at 4 and 5
The resulting areas from the second draft of spatial analysis and main topics in Sphagnum harvesting companies’ feedback were presented in the second workshop in April 2024 organized online for the stakeholders using similar group discussions and facilitators as in the first workshop (Fig. 1, step 7). The stakeholder groups invited were the same as in the first workshop, and there were only slight changes in the attendees: this time, the ministry representatives were not present and researchers from the Finnish Environment Institute attended. Discussion topics were associated with criteria, as opposed to a more general Sphagnum harvesting theme in the first workshop. Criteria within each category were discussed in groups. Based on the discussions, some modifications to the criteria thresholds were made: for example, distance to drainage was increased from 50 m to 100 m. This completed the criteria formation process (Fig. 1, step 8). At the end of the workshop, consensus on the final criteria was measured on a scale from “not satisfied” to “satisfied”. All the participants were at least on average satisfied with the outcome.
Spatial analysis to define the potential Sphagnum harvesting area in Finland
After completing the criteria formation, the final spatial analysis was executed (Fig. 1, step 9). The spatial analysis began with vector data on peatlands of natural states of 0–5. We used automatically delineated peatland polygons from Toivonen et al. (2022) that cover peatlands of 5 ha and larger in Finland, including information on natural state classes, and selected those belonging to classes 0–2. We report the area of potential harvesting sites based on different criteria separately for each of these natural state classes. We do this because the workshops did not reach a full consensus on which of these natural state classes to aim for. In addition, measures preceding Sphagnum harvesting differ based on how degraded the harvesting site is.
From these polygons, we erased areas that were excluded through the Strict policy category: Natura 2000 -areas and other protected areas, Forest act habitats, groundwater bodies classified as E, 1, I, 1E and 2E, springs with a 30-m buffer zone, and archeological cultural environment heritage sites with a 10-m buffer zone. Spatial data on Natura 2000 areas, other protected areas and groundwater bodies were acquired from the Finnish Environmental Institute (2023a, b, c). Spatial data on habitats protected under the Forest Act was acquired from the Forest Centre (2022), data on archaeological cultural environment heritage sites from Finnish Heritage Agency (2023) and data for springs from the Topographic Database of the National Land Survey of Finland (2023).
To consider criteria from Policy category, we erased Complementary mire conservation program proposed areas based on spatial data acquired from the Finnish Environmental Institute (2023d). In addition, we included only areas that were within 100 m from ditches. To do this, we first retrieved vector data on ditches from the Topographic Database of the National Land Survey of Finland and made a 100-m buffer polygon of ditches. We then only considered potential areas that intersected with the ditch buffer zone.
Criteria in the Yield category were considered in spatial analysis by selecting only areas with low tree volume. For tree volumes, we used MS-NFI (Multi-Source National Forest Inventory) raster maps from years 2015 and 2021 (Natural Resources Institute Finland 2023). MS-NFI maps describe the forest parameters in Finland as thematic maps with a resolution of 16 × 16 m. MS-NFI maps are a result of combining field data from NFI field plots, satellite imagery, digital map data, and other available georeferenced data (Mäkisara et al. 2022). Areas low in tree volume due to harvesting between the years 2015 and 2021 were ruled out using raster calculation: If tree volume decreased more than 30 m3 between the years, it was considered a tree harvesting area and excluded from further spatial analysis. Raster cells with tree volume under 11, 31 and 51 m3/ha were converted into polygons. We used the intersection tool to match areas resulting from the policy category to low tree volume areas. To recognize and exclude peat extraction areas and agricultural peat fields, we used spatial data from the Topographic Database of the National Land Survey of Finland.
Criteria in the production cost category were implemented by calculating area for each resulting polygon. Before this, polygons were merged and dissolved and aggregated with a small margin to make sure all polygons that shared a border or an angle were considered as one. After this, polygons under 2 ha were dismissed. Small polygons (2 to under 5 ha) that are close by were recognized with the aggregate polygons tool (aggregation distance 700 m, minimum size 6 ha, minimum hole size 0.5 ha). Small polygons under 5 ha were discarded if they did not intersect with aggregated polygons. For resulting polygons, the distance to road was calculated from each area margin. Polygons within 300 m from roads were selected as potential harvesting sites. For spatial data on roads, we used Digiroad (road categories 1–7, all suited for forestry logistics) from the Finnish Transport Infrastructure Agency (2023).
To showcase how the potential harvesting area is situated in Finland, Kernel Density (in the Spatial Analysis Tools) was calculated to identify potential Sphagnum harvesting areas on a regional scale. Potential harvesting areas were first converted from polygons to points. The raster cell size of 1 km and search radius of 25 km were used in the Kernel Density analysis. Each kernel was weighted for the potential harvesting area size.
Results
Criteria
Based on workshops with stakeholders and feedback from Sphagnum harvesting companies, a set of criteria was developed to identify areas where harvesting could be feasible (Table 1). The formulation of these criteria involved several stages: first, identifying existing land-use restrictions on peatlands (i.e., strict policy and natural state classification); second, determining additional constrains (policy); where suitable areas for harvesting are available or have the potential for establishing new Sphagnum moss cover through hydrological restoration before harvesting (yield); and finally, assessing which of these areas could be applicable for commercial use (production cost) (Fig. 1).
Table 1
Completed criteria as a result of Criteria formation through stakeholder engagement (Step 8 in Fig. 1)
Included
Excluded
Strict policy and natural state classification
Natural states 0–2
Natural states 3–5
Protected areas: state owned and private
Natura 2000 -areas
Wilderness reserves
Habitats protected under the Forest Act
Groundwater bodies that are important water sources or connected to ecosystems dependent on ground water supply
Natural springs (30 m buffer zone)
Archeological cultural environment heritage sites (10 m buffer zone)
Policy
Near ditches (≤100 m)
Distance to ditches (>100 m)
Complementary mire conservation program areas
Yield
Tree volume ≤ 30 m3/ha
Tree volume > 30 m3/ha
Agricultural peat fields
Peat extraction sites
Production cost
Near roads (≤300 m)
Distance to roads (>300 m)
Area size > 5 (isolated areas) OR > 2–5 ha (areas connected or of < 700 m distance to others)
Criteria are presented based on whether they include or exclude areas based on the criterion. Criteria categories are Strict policy and natural state classification, Policy, Yield and Production cost. These criteria were used for completed spatial analysis (Step 9 in Fig. 1)
Land area suitable for Sphagnum harvesting
Of Finland’s total peatland area, which covers 9.1 million ha (Mha) (Turunen and Valpola 2020), 6.2 Mha of peatland basins >5 ha have been delineated and classified based on their natural states (Toivonen et al. 2022). This classified area was used as the total peatland area considered in our study (Table 2). Within this, 3.6 Mha falls under natural state classes 0–2. Based on strict policy and policy criteria, 3.1 Mha of these peatlands could potentially be used for Sphagnum harvesting (Table 2). However, when considering moss yield criteria, 233,000 ha are excluded due to their classification as agricultural land or peat extraction site (see “Defining criteria for recognizing potential Sphagnum harvesting sites”). Furthermore, applying the tree stand volume criteria within the yield category (≤30 m3/ha) significantly decreases the potential area to 416,000 ha. When additional production cost criteria—such as the maximum allowable distance between harvesting areas and the nearest road, as well as the minimum viable harvesting area size—are factored in, the total suitable area for Sphagnum harvesting in Finland is reduced to 241,000 ha. The delineations of the resulting areas are publicly available in the Hakku -geological data product service of the Geological Survey of Finland (2024). While initially more hectares fall within natural state classes 0 or 1 compared to class 2, the final assessment—accounting for potential harvesting yield—indicates that a greater portion of the suitable areas are located in peatlands classified as natural state 2 rather than 0 or 1 (Table 2).
Table 2
a Potential Sphagnum harvesting area resulting from spatial analysis
The final result, after considering all restricting factors, is presented in the Production cost column. The progressive impact of each criteria category on the total land area is shown from left to right. The effect of changes in thresholds in the Yield and Production cost categories are presented in tables b and c. The effect of change in Policy category (with 50 m distance to ditch) and its consecutive effect on the Yield and Production cost is shown in Table S1 in the Supplementary material. *The total peatland area (6183,400 ha) also contains the natural states 3, 4, and 5 (854,268 ha, 798,749 ha, and 931,415 ha, respectively)
While potential harvesting areas were recognized from each region in Finland (Fig. 3a), most of the potential harvesting areas are situated in Northern Ostrobothnia, Kainuu, the southern parts of Lapland, and along the western coast of Finland (Fig. 3b). Municipalities with some of the highest Kernel Density values are Pudasjärvi, Utajärvi, Vaala, and Ranua.
Fig. 3
Potential Sphagnum harvesting sites in Finland. Sites are shown as a points and b Kernel density (equal interval) of potential harvesting areas. The color illustrates the relative density, not the specific units
Impacts of alternative criteria on potential harvesting area
We examined how different parameters for some criteria affect the resulting harvesting area. In the strict policy category, no compromises were made as all excluded areas were considered no-go areas, but the impacts of choosing stricter or looser policy on natural states is presented in Table 2.
In the policy category, the effect of using stricter policy on impact of ditches, namely reducing the distance to the nearest ditches to 50 m compared to 100 m was examined. Choosing the stricter policy of 50 m reduced the potential harvesting area by ~100,000 ha, leading to 143,000 ha potential harvesting area (see the effect of all changes in thresholds when the distance to ditch is 50 m in Supplementary material in Table S1).
In Yield category, the effects of different tree volume (≤10, ≤30 and ≤50 m3/ha) thresholds as a criterion were compared (Table 2b). The tree volume has drastic impact in harvesting area. Compared to 416,000 ha land area based on the ≤30 m3/ha threshold, allowing a bigger tree volume, the resulting total land area is bigger, namely 688,000 ha with threshold of ≤50 m3/ha. When restricting selection to ≤10 m3/ha, the land area is only 197,000 ha (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4
Hectares (ha) in Yield category calculated with different tree volume thresholds
In the production cost category, the impacts of different minimum distances to the road were calculated (Table 2c). Distance to road affected the resulting land area as follows: Without considering distance to road at all, potential harvesting area would have been 331,000 ha (area based on yield category limited by the size of single harvesting sites only). Of this, 285,000 ha was within 500 m, 241,000 within 300 m, and 143,000 ha within 100 m from road.
Discussion
Stakeholder engagement
The work of formulating the harvesting criteria was built on top of the results of the National peatland strategy (Finnish Government 2012) and the committee that addressed the questions and set guidelines to Sphagnum harvesting (Ministry of the Environment 2022). As the subject of Sphagnum harvesting was known to have conflicting interests in economic and nature perspectives, stakeholder engagement was seen instrumental to the criteria formulation process. Stakeholder deliberation is promoted for example by EU to mainstream responsible research and innovation (Nielsen et al. 2017) and for effective outcomes, identification of the key stakeholders is considered essential already at the planning phase of the work (Nielsen et al. 2017, reed et al. 2018). We thus paid special attention to finding relevant stakeholders and ensuring their balanced participation in the criteria formulation process. We selected workshops as one working method proven to be well-suited for advancing complex and ill-defined matters (Hermanns et al. 2017, Ørngreen and Levinsen 2017) such as this criteria formation, combining complex set of items related to land use, legislation, policy steering, ecology, economics, and social and practical issues. The first workshop and feedback from harvesting companies in parallel with spatial analysis created material for discussion and decision-making on the criteria for the second workshop. After a wide range of views presented in the first workshop, an acceptable consensus was reached within the second workshop, which implies that the selected working methods were effective in delivering a set of criteria that caters somewhat to the needs of different stakeholders. The considerably long time between the two workshops (1.5 years) may also have contributed to the acceptable results of the second workshop, as the debate around the topic had had time to settle and stakeholders had become more aware of the prerequisites of the Sphagnum harvesting activities.
Criteria for Sphagnum harvesting sites
To facilitate future development of binding legislation or other policy steering for Sphagnum harvesting, developing site selection criteria and testing the impacts of different criteria parameters on potential harvesting area was seen as elemental. We divided the criteria into four categories to facilitate the process.
Most of the criteria included in the strict policy category, largely based on existing legislation (such as protected areas or groundwater bodies), were well accepted by the stakeholders. However, the criterion natural state classifications of peatlands, that was adopted from the National peatland strategy (Finnish Government 2012), where it was at first hand developed for guiding the peat extraction site selection, caused disagreement. The Natural state classification itself is based on a high amount of data from both remotely sensed and field observations with high accuracy. Yet the basis for classification (for example, the definition of a “peatland basin”) and guidelines for its use have been debated. In this case, the stakeholders disagreed on which natural states would be feasible for Sphagnum harvesting. Two polar opinions were discussed: Sphagnum harvesting should be strictly steered to peatland basins with natural state 0 or 1, that typically do not contain undrained sections i.e., areas at which characteristic peatland structure and functions remain (Toivonen et al. 2022). This raised concerns on how to ensure renewal of Sphagnum mosses on such severely hydrologically degraded sites, and it was argued that yield and passive renewal of Sphagnum moss are inadequate at such peatlands. Based on this, it was suggested that Sphagnum harvesting should be directed to basins with natural states 2 and 3. As the spatial data on natural state classification on all peatland basins in Finland is automatically classified (Toivonen et al. 2022), concerns were raised about its reliability. Especially in category 2, there could be more pristine parts within the peatland basin than per the classification description. Similarly, the use of natural state classification in the context of peat extraction has encountered criticism, especially on how the peatland-basin level classification neglects smaller-scale variation in habitat condition (Herranen 2018). As an outcome, at this study we considered natural states of 0–2 as recommended in the National peatland strategy (Finnish Government Valtioneuvosto 2012) with a presumption that harvesting companies need to be prepared to take active measures to ensure Sphagnum moss renewal. This decision was considered somewhat satisfactory by all parties.
To overcome the deficiencies of the natural state classification, and to respond to the need to create sustainable practices, two more criteria were created comprising the policy category. Firstly, it was agreed with the stakeholders that harvesting should be limited to the already degraded, drained parts of the peatland basin, despite the natural state class. The surface topography, vegetation, peat properties and amount of water entering the area have severe and site-specific effects on the effectiveness of the drainage in peatlands, but we did not find a way to incorporate these variables to the analysis. We thus used a limit of 50 m from the nearest ditch for classifying areas that are drainage-influenced vs. undrained, based on earlier experiences and generalizations on the reach of drainage impact on peatland vegetation (Sallinen et al. 2019). However, the spatial analysis showed that 50 m distance often led to narrow strips not economically feasible based on the feedback from harvesting companies. Consequently, we changed the limit to 100 m, adopted from Ågren et al. (2024) for classifying areas that are drained vs. undrained based on distance from ditch. This, of course, is also a generalization, and the effect of the drainage varies based on the site properties. Secondly, areas with recognized high natural values belonging to the Complementary mire conservation program proposal were considered not suitable for Sphagnum harvesting. Most of the area (79%) in that proposal is, however, situated on peatlands with a natural state higher than 2, thus this criterion seldom further affects harvesting site selection.
While the yield category related to the amount of Sphagnum material available for harvesting is not essential for legislative or regulative purposes, it greatly affects the economic feasibility of the activity. The amount of Sphagnum mosses in drained peatlands is known to vary based on peatland site type, so that the nutrient-poor sites, in Finnish classification, Dwarf shrub type and Cladonia type (Laine et al. 2018), tend to have more abundant Sphagnum cover even decades after drainage (Laine et al. 1995, Kokkonen et al. 2019). In addition, the more effective the drainage is, the lower the abundance of Sphagnum mosses (Ågren et al. 2024). Based on unpublished data (the Geological Survey of Finland) and discussions with harvesting professionals, the low density of trees that we applied in the spatial analysis of the potentially suitable harvesting area is a relatively good preliminary estimate for high Sphagnum yield and therefore for the suitability of harvesting areas. Nevertheless, in practice, a field verification is needed when planning real harvesting activities.
In our spatial analysis, the yield category had the biggest impact on the area estimated suitable for Sphagnum harvesting. At the same time this category had the highest uncertainty. We had to rely on the available tree volume data as an indirect indicator of the Sphagnum yield, as the spatial data available on peatland site types in Finland (Middleton et al. 2023) was not applicable for detailed examinations.
In the Production cost criteria category we particularly emphasized harvesting companies’ input. The most important criteria were the distance to the road and size of harvesting area, for which based on the discussions in the first workshop and on person-to-person discussions with the harvesting company professionals, were given limits 500 m and 0.5 ha, respectively. Nevertheless, only when the areas resulting from the first draft were presented in the real context in the GIS software combined with aerial imagery, the professionals of the harvesting companies could truly evaluate the outcome of these choices. Consequently, this led to changes in the parameters (to 300 m distance to road and 2 ha area size) to better correspond with the current site selection practices and also likely to correspond with the actual potential of sites for Sphagnum harvesting.
Another aspect affecting the production costs is the distance to the nearest existing growth medium processing plants. As we aimed at country-wide spatial analysis for potential areas for Sphagnum harvesting in this study, such regional aspects were not considered. However, the spatial analysis showed high harvesting potential in the regions of current harvesting activity, namely in Southern and Central Ostrobothnia.
Potential Sphagnum harvesting area in Finland
Our spatial analysis indicates that potential Sphagnum harvesting areas are primarily located in Finland’s most peatland-rich regions, as expected. The identified sites vary widely, ranging from severely degraded forestry-drained peatlands to the outskirts of bogs and fens with pristine topographic characteristics, with most sites falling somewhere in between. We estimate that 241,000 ha is suitable for Sphagnum harvesting, a substantial area, accounting for up to 3% of all peatland area of Finland. When compared to the estimated land requirement of 60,000 ha needed to replace peat-based growing media in Finland (Silvan et al. 2019), our findings suggest that the potential area (241,000 ha) far exceeds this demand.
Identified criteria not possible to include into the spatial analyses
Several aspects that influence the implementation on Sphagnum harvesting, which could not be conveyed into the spatial analysis, were identified during the criteria development process. Land ownership is a major constraint, as harvesting is only viable on sites where landowners find the transition from forestry to Sphagnum cultivation economically appealing. In Finland, fragmented land ownership may further complicate the feasibility of Sphagnum harvesting, particularly when hydrologically unified or economically large enough areas are divided among multiple landowners with differing goals. Additionally, some roads providing access to potential harvesting sites are privately owned, which may restrict transportation and logistics.
Species protected under the Nature Conservation Act, Decree, or EU Habitats Directive were not included as criteria in the spatial analysis. This exclusion was due to technical challenges, as some sensitive species data is generalized to protect their locations and is therefore unsuitable for spatial modeling. Consequently, it remains the responsibility of Sphagnum harvesting companies to investigate the designated area for protected species before initiating operations.
Another critical factor raised during stakeholder workshops was the renewal potential of Sphagnum moss after harvesting, which is essential for the long-term sustainability of the harvesting activity. Ideally, harvesting should be limited to sites where hydrological restoration and techniques such as moss layer transfer (described in Quinty and Rochefort 2003) can effectively support the regeneration of Sphagnum moss. Thus, site-specific assessments should always be carried out before harvesting.
Conclusions
This study presents a structured approach to developing criteria and estimating potential areas for an emerging land use in a complex setting that integrates legal frameworks, policies, views and needs of various stakeholder groups. To address the sometimes conflicting views and interests, we actively involved stakeholders in the criteria development process through workshops and discussions.
Our findings suggest that, given the potential harvesting area identified in our analysis and the growing demand for sustainable growing media, Sphagnum harvesting has potential to become a significant land use practice in peatland-rich regions. However, we have identified several challenges in current practices that must be addressed to ensure Sphagnum harvesting is truly renewable, as well as both climate-wise and economically sustainable.
During the workshops, renewal of the harvested areas was repeatedly emphasized as the greatest obstacle for sustainability. One solution for this would be Sphagnum paludiculture with a cyclic harvesting method that would also partly answer to the needs of climate protection. It would start from rewetting of a degraded peatland, after which Sphagnum moss cover is allowed to establish and grow prior to first harvesting, then renewal of Sphagnum moss is ensured with practices such as moss layer transfer technique and water table management, and harvesting is repeated in a cycle of 10–30 years depending on Sphagnum growth speed. This cyclic production style would, in the long run, reduce the area needed for Sphagnum harvesting, and it would ensure that Sphagnum mosses and peatland functions are re-established after harvesting. In addition, it could offer a commercially attractive way to improve the hydrology of unproductive drained peatlands, a measure that Turunen and Valpola (2020) point out as one of the key measures to sustainable carbon management of peatlands. Moreover, Sphagnum paludiculture on cut-over peatlands and former peat fields should be promoted.
The estimated potential harvesting area of 241,000 ha should not be viewed as a fixed value but rather an example of the opportunities available based on specific methodological choices made in a stepwise process. It serves as an informative example of the potential within Finland and provides a foundation for policy development and land use planning. Despite the inherent uncertainties, the estimated area highlights the considerable opportunities for scaling up this activity. Stakeholder engagement has further underscored the need to develop regulatory frameworks to guide this emerging land use. Establishing clear regulations will be essential to ensure sustainable harvesting practices and the production of high-quality, environmentally responsible end products.
Supporting information
Potential Sphagnum moss harvesting sites: free downloadable dataset on the potential harvesting sites for Sphagnum moss biomass. The data includes the delineation of the object and a natural state class. https://hakku.gtk.fi/en/locations?id=505.
We thank Janne Kivilompolo for help in the finalizing the spatial data product and all the stakeholders for participating in the criteria formation process.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Developing Criteria for an Emerging Land Use - Sphagnum Moss Harvesting - Through Stakeholder Engagement and Consequent Potential Sphagnum Harvesting Area in Finland
Verfasst von
Oona Allonen
Maija Lampela
Jukka Turunen
Elina Heininen
Anna M. Laine
Aapala K, Kartano L, Määttänen A-M, Alanen A (2021) Soidensuojelun täydennysehdotus—Tilannekatsaus 2015–2020. Complementary mire conservation programme Situation report 2015-2020. Publ Minist Environ 2021:16.
Ågren AM, Anderson O, Lidberg W, Öquist M, Hasselquist EM (2024) Ditches show systematic impacts on soil and vegetation properties across the Swedish forest landscape. Ecol Manag 555:121707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2024.121707CrossRef
Alanen A, Aapala K (2015) Soidensuojelutyöryhmän ehdotus soidensuojelun täydentämiseksi. Proposal of the Mire Conservation Group for supplemental mire conservation. Rep Minist Environ 26/2015:1–175.
Britschgi R, Rintala J, Puharinen S-T (2018) Pohjavesialueet - Opas määrittämiseen, luokitukseen ja suojelusuunnitelmien laadintaan. Groundwater areas - a guide for their designation and classification and preparation of protection plans. Environ Adm Guide 3/2018:1796–1653.
Clymo RS, Hayward PM (1982) The ecology of Sphagnum. In A. J. E. Smith (Ed.), Bryophyte ecology (pp. 229–289). Chapman and Hall. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-5891-3_8
Gao Q, Yang G, Xue J, Huang X (2023) Characteristics of n-alkyl lipids in cultivated Sphagnum and their preservation potential in the topsoil of Sphagnum farmlands in southwest China. Org Geochem 185:104677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orggeochem.2023.104677CrossRef
Gaudig G, Krebs M, Prager A, Wichmann S, Barney M, Caporn SJM, Emmel M, Fritz C, Graf M, Grobe A, Gutierrez Pacheco S, Hogue-Hugron S, Holzträger S, Irrgang S, Kämäräinen A, Karofeld E, Koch G, Koebbing JF, Kumar S, Matchutadze I, Oberpaur C, Oestmann J, Raabe P, Rammes D, Rochefort L, Schmilewksi G, Sendžikaitė J, Smolders A, St-Hilaire B, van de Riet B, Wright B, Wright N, Zoch L, Joosten H (2018) Sphagnum farming from species selection to the production of growing media: A review. Mires Peat 20:1–30. https://doi.org/10.19189/MaP.2018.OMB.340CrossRef
Geological Survey of Finland (2025) Sphagnum moss harvesting sites (freely available spatial data product) https://hakku.gtk.fi/en/locations?id=232 (Site accessed 2.6.2025)
Hermanns T, Helming K, König HJ, Schmidt K, Li Q, Faust H (2017) Sustainability impact assessment of peatland-use scenarios: confronting land use supply with demand. Ecosyst Serv 26:365–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.002CrossRef
Herranen N (2018) Luonnonarvojen huomioon ottaminen turvetuotannon sijoittamisessa (”Ecological values and peat production”, abstract available in English). Ympäristöjuridiikka 2–3/2018:9–41.
Hirschler O, Osterburg B, Weimar H Glasenapp S, Ohmes MF (2022) Peat replacement in horticultural growing media: Availability of bio-based alternative materials. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 64 p. Thünen Working Paper 190, https://doi.org/10.3220/WP1648727744000
Karjalainen SK, Anttila J, Maanavilja L, Hamedianfar A, Laine AM (2025) Carbon dioxide and methane gas exchange following sphagnum moss harvesting in boreal peatland. J Environ Manag 373:123357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123357CrossRef
Kokkonen NAK, Laine AM, Laine J, Vasander H, Kurki K, Gong J, Tuittila E-S (2019) Responses of peatland vegetation to 15-year water level drawdown as mediated by fertility level. J Veg Sci 30(6):1206–1216. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12794CrossRef
Laakso T, Heinilä A (2023) Rahkasammalen korjuun ohjauskeinot ja niiden kehittäminen (Assessment of the current legal framework from the point of view of Sphagnum moss harvesting and the need for regulatory action, abstract available in English). Publ Univ East Finl-Rep Stud Soc Sci Bus Stud 20:ISBN 978-952-61-4908-0
Laatikainen A, Kolari THM, Tahvanainen T (2025) Sphagnum moss layer growth after restoration of forestry-drained peatlands in Finland. Restor Ecol 33(4):e70008. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.70008CrossRef
Laiho R, Tuominen S, Kojola S, Penttilä T, Saarinen M, Ihalainen A (2016) Heikkotuottoiset ojitetut suometsät - missä ja paljonko niitä on? (Unproductive forestry-drained peatlands - location and total area). Metsätieteen aikakauskirja 2:73–93
Laine-Petäjäkangas A, Anttila J, Maanavilja L, Uusheimo S, Vuorenmaa J, Myllyviita T, Lampela M, Karvonen J, Hamedianfar A, Allonen O, Grönroos J, Lehtoranta S, Ikkala L, Karjalainen S, Kivilompolo J, Silvan N, Sutinen H, Turunen J (2024) Rahkasammalesta ilmastoviisas kasvualusta – mahdollisuudet kokonaiskestävään korjuuseen (RahKoo) -hankkeen loppuraportti (“Climate-Smart Growing Medium from Sphagnum Moss – Opportunities for Sustainable Harvesting (RahKoo)”-project report). Geological Survey of Finland, Open File Research Report 80/2024. https://hakku.gtk.fi/fi/publications?id=100112
Laine J, Vasander H, Laiho R (1995) Long-term effects of water level drawdown on the vegetation of drained pine mires in southern Finland. J Appl Ecol 32(4):785–802. https://doi.org/10.2307/2404818CrossRef
Laine J, Vasander H, Hotanen J-P, Nousiainen H, Saarinen M, Penttilä T (2018) Suotyypit ja turvekankaat – kasvupaikkaopas (Forest peatland and heathy peatland types - classification guide). 160. Metsäkustannus Oy, Helsinki, Finland ISBN 978-952-338-036-3 (in Finnish)
Loisel J, Yu Z, Beilman DW, Camill P, Alm J, Amesbury MJ, Anderson D, Andersson S, Bochicchio C, Barber K, Belyea LR, Bunbury J, Chambers FM, Charman DJ, De Vleeschouwer F, Fiałkiewicz-Kozieł B, Finkelstein SA, Gałka M, Garneau M, Zhou W (2014) A database and synthesis of northern peatland soil properties and Holocene carbon and nitrogen accumulation. Holocene 24(9):1028–1042. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959683614538073CrossRef
Mäkisara K, Katila M, Peräsaari J (2022) The Multi-Source National Forest Inventory of Finland - methods and results 2017 and 2019. Nat Resour Bioecon Stud 90/2022. Helsinki. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-380-538-5
McKeon-Bennett MMP, Hodkinson TR (2021) Sphagnum moss as a novel growth medium in sustainable indoor agriculture systems. Curr Opin Environ Sci Health 22:100269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2021.100269CrossRef
Middleton M, Laatikainen M, Kivilompolo J, Harju A, Lerssi J, Valkama M, Pitkänen T, Pohjankukka J, Balazs A, Tuominen S, Zelioli L, Farahnakian F, Nevalainen P, Heikkonen J (2023) Technical description for the peatland site type data of Finland. GTK Open File Work Report https://tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkisto/73_2023.pdf
Ministry of the Environment (2015) Suot ja turvemaat maakuntakaavoituksessa (Peatlands in regional land use planning). Suomen ympäristö 7 | 2015. pp. 112. Ministry of the Environment. Helsinki. ISSN 1796-1637 (in Finnish) http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-11-4460-8
Müller R, Glatzel S (2021) Sphagnum farming substrate is a competitive alternative to traditional horticultural substrates for achieving desired hydro-physical properties. Mires Peat 27(21):1–12. https://doi.org/10.19189/MaP.2021.OMB.StA.2157CrossRef
Myllyviita T, Karjalainen S, Anttila J, Grönroos J, Turunen J, Lehtoranta S, Laine AM (preprint 2025) Life Cycle Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Sphagnum Moss Harvesting and Use: Comparison with Horticultural Peat” for Consideration by Ecological Engineering (SSRN Scholarly Paper 5114669). Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5114669
Natural Resources Institute Finland (2023) File service for publicly available data. https://kartta.luke.fi/index-en.html (accessed 21 March 2023)
Nielsen M, Bryndum N, Bedsted B (2017) Organising stakeholder workshops in research and innovation – between theory and practice. J Public Delib 13(2). https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.285
Ørngreen R, Levinsen KT (2017) Workshops as a Research Methodology. Electron J E-Learn 15(1):70–81
Reed MS, Vella S, Challies E, de Vente J, Frewer L, Hohenwallner-Ries D, Huber T, Neumann RK, Oughton EA, Sidoli del Ceno J, van Delden H (2018) A theory of participation: what makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work?. Restor Ecol 26:S7–S17. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12541CrossRef
Sallinen A, Tuominen S, Kumpula T, Tahvanainen T (2019) Undrained peatland areas disturbed by surrounding drainage: a large scale GIS analysis in Finland with a special focus on aapa mires. Mires Peat ume 24:1–22. https://doi.org/10.19189/MaP.2018.AJB.391CrossRef
Silvan N, Sarkkola S, Laiho R (2019) Rahkasammalbiomassa ja sen korjuuseen soveltuvat suot Suomessa (Summary available in English: Peatlands suitable for harvesting of renewable Sphagnum moss biomass in Finland). Suo 70(2–3):41–53
Toivonen T, Herranen T, Kivilompolo J, Kujala H, Laatikainen M, Suomi T, Turunen J, Valo O, Vähäkuopus T (2022) GTK:n tutkimien soiden tutkimustilanne ja luonnontilaisuusluokitukset maakunnittain. Summary available in English: Peatland research by the Geological Survey of Finland and classification of the natural state of peatlands. Geological Survey of Finland, Open File Research Report 40/2022 (in Finnish) https://tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkisto/40_2022.pdf
