Protecting Finland's Natural Treasures
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Sustainable Development Strategy of the Baltic Sea Cycle Route Copenhagen - Rostock - Gdańsk (2030)
Sustainable development strategy of the Baltic Sea Cycle Route Copenhagen - Rostock - Gdańsk (2030) Gdańsk, November 2017 r. 1 Zawartość 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Target groups .................................................................................................................................. 6 3. Planned outputs of the document .................................................................................................. 7 4. Baltic Sea Cycle Route - general information .................................................................................. 7 4.1. Denmark .................................................................................................................................. 8 4.2. Germany: Land Schleswig-Holstein ....................................................................................... 10 4.3. Germany: Land Mecklemburg-Vorpommern ........................................................................ 11 4.4. Poland: Zachodniopomorskie Voivodeship ........................................................................... 12 4.5. Poland: Pomorskie Voivodeship ........................................................................................ 1413 4.6. Poland: Warmia and Mazury Voivodeship ............................................................................ 15 4.7. Russia Federation: Kaliningrad District ................................................................................. -
Principles of Protected Area Management in Finland
Principles of Protected Area Management in Finland Nature Protection Publications of Metsähallitus. Series B 217 Metsähallituksen luonnonsuojelujulkaisuja. Sarja B 217 Translation and editing: Mervi Heinonen Översättning: Pimma Åhman. Cover: Ecological management of the Medvastö-Stormossen Natura 2000 network site. Photo: Jari Kostet. © Metsähallitus, Vantaa 2016 ISSN-L 1235-8983 ISSN (printed) 1235-8983 ISSN (online) 1799-5388 ISBN 978-952-295-150-2 (printed) ISBN 978-952-295-151-9 (pdf) Edita Prima Oy, Helsinki, 2016 Principles of Protected Area Management in Finland DOCUMENTATION PAGE PUBLISHED BY Metsähallitus PUBLICATION DATE 25.2.2016 COMMISSIONED BY DATE OF APPROVAL 3.4.2014 CONFIDENTIALITY Public REGISTRATION NO. MH 2562/2014/06.02.03 PROTECTED AREA TYPE NAME OF SITE NATURA 2000 SITE REGIONAL ORGANISATION AUTHOR(S) Metsähallitus TITLE Principles of Protected Area Management in Finland ABSTRACT Most of Finland’s protected area surface is state-owned and managed by the government agency Metsähallitus, Parks & Wildlife Finland (formerly Natural Heritage Services, NHS). “The Principles of Protected Area Management in Finland – Guidelines on the aims, functions and management of state-owned protected areas” was approved for publication by Metsähallitus (then the Finnish Forest and Park Service) originally in 1992. These recommendations were updated several times. In 2007, the guidelines were revised completely and their coverage enhanced. In 2010, and further now in 2014, the structure and theme emphasis were somewhat altered and quite a few supplementations and specifications were added. The document describes the role of protected areas in the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, defines protected areas in Finland and explains the basis of their adaptive planning and management. -
Visitation Numbers 2020
Metsähallitus, Parks & Wildlife Finland The Visitation Numbers in 2020 of National Parks, National Hiking Areas and Other Protected and Hiking Areas of Recreational Importance. All Areas Managed by Metsähallitus. Source: the ASTA Visitor Information System of Metsähallitus. National Parks Visitation Numbers Archipelago National Park 79,300 Bothnian Bay National Park 5,000 Bothnian Sea National Park 99,300 Ekenäs Archipelago National Park 58,300 Gulf of Finland National Park 17,700 HelvetinjärviNational Park 80,200 Hiidenportti National Park 18,500 Hossa National Park 111,300 Isojärvi National Park 38,300 Kauhaneva–Pohjankangas National Park 29,200 Koli National Park 236,000 Kolovesi National Park 19,900 Kurjenrahka National Park 96,000 Lauhanvuori National Park 22,700 Leivonmäki National Park 37,600 Lemmenjoki National Park 21,700 Liesjärvi National Park 74,200 Linnansaari National Park 34,700 Nuuksio National Park 367,500 Oulanka National Park 235,800 Pallas–Yllästunturi National Park 563,100 Patvinsuo National Park 24,800 Petkeljärvi National Park 32,100 Puurijärvi and Isosuo National Park 19,200 Pyhä-Häkki National Park 28,200 Pyhä–Luosto National Park 204,500 Päijänne National Park 28,900 Repovesi National Park 233,000 Riisitunturi National Park 67,100 Rokua National Park 22,300 Salamajärvi National Park 25,900 Seitseminen National Park 60,800 Sipoonkorpi National Park 204,000 Southern Konnevesi National Park 49,100 Syöte National Park 113,500 Teijo National Park 123,000 Tiilikkajärvi National Park 19,500 Torronsuo National Park 53,600 -
The Visitation Numbers in 2019 of National Parks, National Hiking Areas and Other Protected and Hiking Areas of Recreational Importance
Metsähallitus, Parks & Wildlife Finland The Visitation Numbers in 2019 of National Parks, National Hiking Areas and Other Protected and Hiking Areas of Recreational Importance. All Areas Managed by Metsähallitus. Source: the ASTA Visitor Information System of Metsähallitus. National Parks Archipelago National Park 72,600 Bothnian Bay National Park 6,500 Bothnian Sea National Park 82,800 Ekenäs Archipelago National Park 51,800 Gulf of Finland National Park 17,400 HelvetinjärviNational Park 39,700 Hiidenportti National Park 13,900 Hossa National Park 96,500 Isojärvi National Park 23,600 Kauhaneva–Pohjankangas National Park 14,200 Koli National Park 201,800 Kolovesi National Park 16,800 Kurjenrahka National Park 86,200 Lauhanvuori National Park 14,500 Leivonmäki National Park 24,700 Lemmenjoki National Park 18,300 Liesjärvi National Park 52,800 Linnansaari National Park 39,400 Nuuksio National Park 330,600 Oulanka National Park 189,300 Pallas–Yllästunturi National Park 561,200 Patvinsuo National Park 16,600 Petkeljärvi National Park 19,700 Puurijärvi and Isosuo National Park 9,000 Pyhä-Häkki National Park 19,400 Pyhä–Luosto National Park 169,700 Päijänne National Park 16,800 Repovesi National Park 126,600 Riisitunturi National Park 43,700 Rokua National Park 18,000 Salamajärvi National Park 20,200 Seitseminen National Park 45,900 Sipoonkorpi National Park 110,000 Southern Konnevesi National Park 35,300 Syöte National Park 77,300 Teijo National Park 108,400 Tiilikkajärvi National Park 16,000 Torronsuo National Park 31,100 Urho Kekkonen National -
Print This Article
Scientific Annals of Economics and Business 66 (4), 2019, 573-595 DOI: 10.2478/saeb-2019-0041 Emerging Practices in Facebook at National Parks Josué Gutiérrez-Barroso* , Alberto Javier Báez-García** , Francisco Flores-Muñoz*** Abstract The main purpose of this paper is to contribute to analyze recent data about the behavior of national park administrations on Facebook. As public organizations, they endeavor to proactively communicate information to citizens, promoting transparency and accountability. It is important to study the case of national parks because of their relevant role in preserving natural and cultural heritage and promoting a very rich scenario of policy-making and responsible local and global citizenship. Some insights have arisen for political management of these institutions. According to the analysis of the results, it is shown that there exists a significant presence of these entities in Facebook, even if this type of communication is perhaps in its infancy. The results suggest that a potential factor (country in which each park is located and the corresponding administration style) exists, in order to explain significant differences between parks. Keywords: national parks; online transparency; institutional dialogue; corporate Facebook; social media. JEL classification: D8; R5; Z1; Z3. 1. INTRODUCTION In the context of the global crisis and post-crisis, trust in corporations and public bodies has suffered tremendously. Transparency is still at the center of the discourse, as a key solution to guarantee an almost continuous monitoring of public managers and corporations. Trust in organizations, both public and private, along with the link between trust and corporate transparency and behavior, have been explored in a general sense (Swift, 2001), and by each interest group; i.e., for customers (Castaldo et al., 2009), shareholders (Godfrey, 2005) and employees (Rawlins, 2008), among others.