1 Introduction

Data are seen as a solution to many societal problems (OECD 2019). Access to environmental data is seen as enhancing democracy and enabling innovations (Davies et al. 2013; Huijboom and van den Broek 2011; European Commission 2020a; Eskelinen et al. 2017), helping in reaching the UN Sustainable Development Goals (UNECE 2020) and sustainability transitions more broadly (Yarime 2018), and can even be considered a fundamental right (Kravchenko 2010; Aarhus Convention; Escazú Agreement). The Aarhus Convention on access to environmental information, right to participate in environmental matters and access to efficient legal remedies is binding for Finland.

Access to forest data and information is an important part of access to environmental data and information (Rantala et al. 2020), considering the importance of forests for both local species and societies and for earth systems. Governments use forest data for planning, licensing, and monitoring, and data are shared between government branches to enhance the knowledge base and to cut costs (Kim et al. 2014). Forest data are shared between researchers (Fady et al. 2014) and between governments and researchers (Liang and Gamarra 2020). Individual citizens, non-governmental organizations and private sector organizations are also increasingly asking for and gaining access to forest data (Rantala et al. 2020). Making forests “smart”, i.e., digital and connected (Gretzel et al. 2015; Gabrys 2020), is expected to contribute to more democratic and just forest governance (Meyers et al. 2009; Meyers 2014) and to enhance the recognition of forest ecosystem services and the different values of forests (Daily et al. 2009). Forest data are needed for reporting, measuring, and possibly redirecting various environmental policy efforts, as well as private sectors environmental action (Vihervaara et al. 2017). Lack of data or functioning measuring tools is a key barrier standing in the way of biodiversity action for companies (Lehtiniemi and Närhi 2022).

In this discussion paper, we discuss how Finnish citizens and companies can benefit from forest data, and how the benefits of data are conditioned by institutions that shape rights to forests and markets in forests and forests ecosystem services (Nguyen et al. 2020; Rantala et al. 2022).

By “forest data”, we refer to data on what exists and happens in the forests, including their natural resources and ecosystem services. Such data could include, e.g., habitat types, species index, amount of carbon dioxide bound on a site, volume of timber and its growth per year, volume of non-timber forest products, availability and accessibility for recreation and tourism, geospatial locations of everything above, utilization and utilization plans of everything above, and economic values of everything above. Information on forest land ownership is also relevant. Both the state and other public institutions as well as private citizens own significant amounts of forest in Finland.

National Forest Inventory in Finland has been conducted since 1921, and data products can be accessed on Natural Resource Institute’s (Luke) website. Further, the Metsään.fi service by the Finnish Forest Centre (Metsäkeskus) shares information regarding e.g., forest habitats, tree stands and forest use on private forest land. In 2018, the Forest Information Act (419/2011) was renewed increasing access to data on private forests, the largest category of forest ownership (Rantala et al. 2020). At the EU level, the Commission is expected to propose a new regulation in 2023 on harmonizing forest data to improve decision making concerning European forests (European Commission 2022). Finland as the most forested EU country needs a vision on how forest data can support enhanced value provision from forest ecosystem services and enhanced realization of fundamental and human rights now and in the future.

Our discussion on the benefits of forest data is informed by insights from two workshops organized in Helsinki and in Kuusamo, Finland, in 2018, additional interviews with potential forest data users in Kuusamo in 2019 (described in more detail in Supplementary file 1), and reviews of relevant literature and legal provisions in force in the summer of 2023.

2 Rights and markets condition how actors benefit from forest data

The values of forest data are connected to the values of forests through the actors that have a stake in the forest resources, and the institutions that govern access to data and resources (Rantala et al. 2022). Institutions, or rules of the game – formal rules such as laws but also social norms and shared strategies (Crawford and Ostrom 1995) – condition human action in relation to resources and hence the opportunities to benefit from data and forests. Thus, it is logical that forest data institutions are designed or negotiated to enable the capture of benefits of forests through data, and data are never “neutral” but always connected to the diverse interests that spurred their production (Rantala et al. 2022). Forests have private value for individuals and firms, and public value that includes economic, sociocultural, and ecological value (Benington 2011; Rantala et al. 2020).

In relation to both forest data and forest resources, property rights are a particularly relevant category of institutions. Because questions of access and ownership condition who gets to benefit from forests, many discussions on the benefits of forests data revolve around who has rights to forests and the law concerning forest use. If property owners have all the rights to forests with no duties towards others or the society, increased access to forest data will not automatically lead to more even sharing of forest benefits in the society through private and public value creation. Whether non-owners can use forest data to derive more value from forest ecosystem services depends on their access rights, gathering rights, and environmental rights that are either based on law and/or resolved in well-functioning forest ecosystem service markets. For data on suitable gathering, hiking, camping, swimming, and climbing places to be beneficial, the rules on these activities must be clear. Under environmental rights and in environmental service markets, biodiverse environments, carbon sequestration, and clean water are major elements and functions of forests.

The use of private and public forests in Finland is regulated by the Forest Act (1093/1996, modified by Act 1085/2013), constrained by international agreements, European Union law, and the Constitution (731/1999). In the general Western model, landowners have rights concerning their property (Nichiforel et al. 2020). Landowners decide on harvesting forests, while the Forest Act mandates forest renewal thereafter. Neighbors, recreational users, or tourism companies have no say. Forests with nature values can be voluntarily protected under the Forest Biodiversity Programme for Southern Finland (METSO) (Ministry of Environment 2023a), and forest owners can voluntarily enter carbon sequestration programs.

In addition to the rights of landowners, the rights of others are relevant for defining benefits of forests enabled by data (cf., Rantala et al. 2022). Finnish citizens have a right to a healthy environment, and they share the responsibility to protect the environment (Finnish Constitution, Section 20.1). The EU has an ambitious biodiversity strategy (EU Commission 2020) the national implementation of which Finland needs to consider (Lehtiniemi and Närhi 2022), particularly under the Nature Protection Act (9/2023), and the national climate neutrality goal by 2035 is enshrined in the Climate Act (423/2022). Everyone’s rights (formerly known as everyman’s rights) to roam private lands are based on tradition, not on written law. On indigenous rights, Finland has signed the (non-binding) UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. According to the Finnish Constitution, the Sámi have a right to uphold their culture (17.3 §). The Sámi community in Finland has urged the Finnish government to ratify the International Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples (ILO 169), a binding international convention that includes traditional land and water use. For the Sámi, this means reindeer herding. A UN report on the rights of Sámi (United Nations Human Rights Council 2016) concludes that current Finnish legislation does not adequately safeguard the rights of the Sámi, referring to the Mining Act (621/2011, and the implementation of the Metsähallitus Act (234/2016) that governs the use of state-owned forests. The climate goals and the move away from fossil fuels may mean more mines and more wind energy, both of which may threaten nature protection, tourism, and the Sámi way of life.

All societal interests in Finnish forests are increasingly hard to fulfill and settle. Increased access to forest data may highlight the tensions between forest owners, indigenous peoples as traditional users and governors, other users, non-users, future generations, and nature itself. Increased access to data may empower non-landowners to demand the realization of their environmental rights, everyone’s rights, and indigenous rights. They may particularly start to demand conservation and the protection of carbon sinks and storages. In this way, renewed forest data institutions enabling increased access to data function as impetus for renewal in forest governance (Rantala et al. 2022).

3 Benefits of forest data

3.1 Forest ecosystem services and forest rights

Forests provide several types of ecosystem services that enable the appropriation of public and private benefits (Masiero et al. 2019; IUCN 2019). Barrio and Loureiro (2010) list biodiversity/habitat preservation, carbon storage, watershed services, goods, recreational opportunities, and scenic landscapes. Ecosystem services can be categorized into “regulating”, “supporting”, “provisioning” and “cultural” services (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003; United Nations 2014). “Regulating services” of forests refer to their role in erosion control, flood prevention, climate regulation, carbon sequestration and water purification, and “supporting services” relate to nutrient cycling, soil formation, and biodiversity (United Nations 2014). All the ways in which forest ecosystems mediate or moderate the environment can be grouped as ecological functions (Forest Europe 2014). “Provisioning services” are physical forest products, including wood, fiber, food such as berries and mushrooms, and medicinal plants (European Environment Agency 2016), here named products. “Cultural services” are non-material outputs, referring to forests as sources of physical and mental wellbeing and recreation (Paracchini et al. 2014), also including their spiritual values (Clark 2011; Ritter and Dauksta 2013). Here, we call these experiences. As implied in the concept, all ecosystem services rely on ecosystems: if the nature is degraded, its capacity to produce not only ecological functions but also safe and healthy products and experiences is diminished. Further, climate change and biodiversity loss are increasingly a part of business. Forest data are valuable for risk assessment as well as for corporate responsibility work.

Among the public benefits of forest data, ecological functions are vital and life-sustaining for everyone. Products and experiences constitute private benefits for individual persons and for business sectors and public economic benefits through the bioeconomy and the tourism industry. Enhanced protection against forest threats and disturbances can create both private and public benefits (Table 1). Finally, we identify a category of public benefits of forest data related to political values (Benington 2011): enhanced democracy in forest governance through increased access to forest data and information, including increased civic participation, equity and legitimacy of decision making, and realization of forest-related rights (Table 2).

3.2 Enhanced ecological functions

The Finnish boreal forests cover 23 million hectares, 75% of the land area (Lier et al. 2019). Vast majority are heath forest, while there are some herb-rich forests in the southern parts of the country. However, 79% of the total amount of forested habitats in Southern Finland and 56% of the total amount of forested habitats in Northern Finland are endangered. Larger conservation areas are concentrated in the Northern parts (Ministry of Environment 2023b).

Data on species, habitats and biodiversity is needed for nature protection, i.e., conservation (König et al. 2019; Underwood et al. 2018; Turner 2014), and increased access to data is presumed to lead to enhanced and more effective nature protection. Biodiversity data allows the identification of valuable nature sites and actions to protect them. The Finnish Museum of Natural History (Luomus) has the Finnish Biodiversity Info Facility (FinBIF, Laji.fi) which contains species-level nature data open to everyone (Schulman et al. 2021). In the Metsään.fi service, the Finnish Museum of Natural History and the Finnish Forest Centre share their data on the nests of predatory birds to forest owners, expecting the nesting trees to be saved (Luomus 2019). Misuse is a threat, and it is monitored.

Designation of critical habitat may cause controversy, as it often means significant limits to the way that land can be used by private landowners. In the interviews, it was noted how open data can potentially heighten forest-related conflicts: if valuable nature sites are identifiable through open forest and biodiversity data, demands for more nature to be protected may enter public discussion and create pressure for stricter case-by-case judgments and stricter new laws.

Forest carbon data are a focus of major global attention (Cook-Patton et al. 2021). Finnish Natural Resource Institute (Luke) provides forest carbon sink data at the Metsainfo.luke.fi site. Access to carbon flow and carbon stock data may evoke demands for legally protecting specific forests that are important carbon sinks and storages. Carbon data can also be used as the basis for mandatory or voluntary carbon markets where landowners and communities managing forests can earn income from carbon sequestration and storage. The payers would be public or private actors that need or want to compensate/offset their carbon emissions. In Finland and broader in the EU, the sinks and emissions of the land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector are calculated and regulated, but official EU or Finland carbon sink markets do not yet exist. In Finland, the forest management associations have launched the Hiilipalvelu service where forest owners can voluntarily sequester more carbon through extra fertilization and receive a compensation (Metsänhoitoyhdistys 2023; Green Carbon Finland Oy 2022).

In addition to those related to biodiversity and carbon, ecological functions provided by forests also include watershed services (water quantity and quality), soil stabilization and erosion control, and air quality (García-Nieto et al. 2013).

3.3 Enhanced product innovation

Increased access to timber data is expected to make Finnish forestry more efficient (Venäläinen et al. 2015; Holopainen et al. 2014). In 2018, the gross value of forest industry production in Finland was over 23.4 billion euro. Pulp, paper, paperboard, packaging materials and sawnwood are the most important products. Side streams are used also for biodiesel and bio-oils, and wood fibers have potential for the medicines, functional foods, plastics, cosmetics, and textiles industries. (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2021.) In addition to timber sellers, efficient forest management will benefit the timber buyers in the form of good-quality raw material. In Finland, timber data are collected by the Forest Centre and published at the Metsään.fi website. The data are collected using laser scanning, aerial photography, sample plot measurements, and site visits. For forest owners, the site suggests logging or forestry actions for each forest stand. The site offers advice on calculating how much carbon one’s forest can sequester but does not provide these numbers directly. Forestry service providers can see stand-specific data if the forest owner has consented to it in Metsään.fi, and several companies are offering forest management services based on the data. UPM and Stora Enso, two large forest industry companies, offer mobile apps where one can see the value of one’s forest as well as recommended actions. MetsäForest, the part of Metsä Group specializing in timber trade and forest services, offers forest owners a possibility to visit their forests in virtual reality. Reaching the best possible income from loggings is a clear benefit for forest-owners, however loggings in general are a potential cause of conflicts between them and other forest users. Logging plans and open data about them may bring conflicting forest values to the surface. In Finland, negative opinions on clear-cuts have increased (Kangas and Niemeläinen 1996; Valkeapää and Karppinen 2013; Pöntinen 2021). Three recent citizens’ initiatives at the Finnish national level have called for legislation to limit clear-cuts in Finnish forests. A citizens’ initiative can be submitted to the parliament if signed by 50 000 citizens (Finnish Constitution, Section 53.3). One of the three forestry-related initiatives proceeded to the parliament (VN/1699/2018). The parliament did not prohibit clear-cuts in state-owned forests as suggested by citizens, but economic targets for state forestry were modified, and discussion on forestry methods was promoted.

Non-wood forest products are a growing business area in Finland, and their valorization is a major research focus (Sacchelli et al. 2021). Based on everyone’s rights. wild berries and mushrooms can be gathered without any permit regardless of who owns the forest. Gathering forest products is also very common: 70% of Finns pick berries or mushrooms (Finnish Food Authority 2021). The Natural Resource Institute (Luke) and the Finnish Environment Institute (Syke) offer some open databases. Important berries include bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus L.), lingonberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea L.), crowberry (Empetrum nigrum L.), cloudberry (Rubus chamaemorus L.), raspberry (Rubus idaeus L.), cranberry (Vaccinium oxycoccos L.), and sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides L.). The annual crop of forest berries is estimated at over 500 million kg, of which under 10% is currently gathered (Arktiset Aromit 2023; Himelrick 2001). The revenue from gathered berries is approximately 15–20 million euros per year (Kantar TNS Agro 2020). The value of household use is higher, though: the average Finn consumes eight kilograms of wild berries per person per year (Arktiset Aromit 2023; Himelrick 2001). According to Finnish Food Authority (2023), 3–16 million kilograms of mushrooms are picked each year. Better berry or mushroom data are presumed to prompt more people to look for extra revenue or for new household uses. A service by the company Innofactor, Mustikkaan.fi, predicts when and where bilberries will ripen, based on temperature data from the Finnish Meteorological Institute and the historical bilberry ripening data from the Finnish Museum of Natural History. The “competing” Marjahavainnot.fi web page by the Natural Resource Institute (Luke) and 4H, in turn, presents citizen observations on different berries on maps. According to the Finnish Natural Resource Institute, their berry crop forecasts are interesting for both domestic pickers and for companies. At our Kuusamo workshop and interviews, identification of sites for the commercial harvest of wild foods, including herbs and spruce sprouts, was considered an interesting new opportunity. New high-value products, e.g., medicine and cosmetics, could be developed. Potential disbenefits with opening or sharing non-wood forest product data were also discussed. Increasingly useful and valuable data may lead into a need to clarify everyone’s rights to avoid conflicts between landowners and users, such as berry pickers venturing too close to private homes or businesses creating value from non-wood forest products on private land based on everyone’s rights.

3.4 Enhanced experience innovation

Increased access to forest data can contribute to enhanced forest experiences. Nature is an important source for physical and mental wellbeing (Hartig et al. 1991; Bell et al. 2007; Joye et al. 2014; Puhakka et al. 201), and exposure to biodiverse environments is beneficial through its impacts on our microbiota and the immune system (Ruokolainen et al. 2017). In Finland, nature tourism relies on forests, marshland, fells in Lapland, lakes and rivers, and the Baltic Sea. Everyone’s rights in Finland allow one to walk, ski, cycle, and put up a tent in all forests. In the waters, one can swim, boat, and fish with a rod and line. In the winter, one can walk, ski and skate on ice. (Ministry of Environment 2023c.) Forests offers opportunities for hiking, biking, and scenic landscapes (Barrio and Loureiro 2010), and forest data can give ideas to new sites for relaxation, recreation, learning, immunity boost, identification of sites for nature photography and for identification of potential sites for building free-time residences. In addition to nature as such, forests have cultural and industrial heritage that may interest tourists and locals alike. Historical data and narratives could be used to create new services. Forests can provide emotionally extraordinary and transformative “peak” experiences (Kirillova et al. 2017). Service providers could use data to help deepen attachment to places (Birbaum et al. 2021) and to make experiences even more meaningful (Buhalis and Sinatra 2019; Pohjola et al. 2020). In developing “smart” tourism (Caragliu et al. 2011; Gretzel et al. 2015; Buhalis and Amaranggana 2015), forests could be seen as spaces where tourists and other public and private actors create value together (Suntikul and Jachna 2016; Mariani et al. 2018), blending the physical space with real-time interaction with others (Buhalis 2019; Garcia et al. 2019; Gretzel et al. 2016; Ciasullo et al. 2018). Big data including visitor behavior and IoT (Internet of Things) sensor data can be used to enhance the overall, long-term sustainability of nature tourism operations and stakeholder networks (Koo et al. 2019; Pohjola et al. 2020), for example through helping to manage tourism flows in sensitive areas (Gretzel et al. 2015; Boes et al. 2016; Caruso et al. 2017). The Finnish Metsähallitus offers the Nationalparks.fi (Luontoon.fi) service where one can search destinations and activities on maps. In the Eräluvat.fi portal, one can buy permits for the methods of fishing that are not covered by everyone’s right, for hunting, and for snowmobile use. This portal covers activities in state-owned forests governed by Metsähallitus. In our workshops, the development of “one-stop shops”, i.e., places for finding all relevant data and services for recreation, stirred great interest.

However, it was acknowledged in the interviews that as with the berry-pickers, recreational use or tourism may lead to conflicts with landowners. Particularly business activities, such as guided hiking, nature photography or horseback tours were mentioned as prone to cause controversy and needed to be delicately navigated with the landowners. Information about sacred sites should always be treated as sensitive and accompanied with advice on how to respect religious and cultural rights, which may not be compatible with opening such data and information. For example, a sacred site for the Sámi indigenous people, the Ukonsaari (in Sámi: Äijih) island in the Lake Inari was recently closed from tourists after decades of controversy (Kaleva 2020).

Virtual nature tourism and digital twins of nature destinations may present as alternatives for the tourism growth paradigm (Fuchs et al. 2020). Virtual green care or virtual nature therapy may offer possibilities (White et al. 2018). Finnish company OiOi provides a Virtual Nature Experience which is described as “an immersive and interactive space that imitates nature as it is”. Landscape videos bring the four seasons of Finnish year cycle and different times of day into built environments, including soundscape. Another Finnish company, Halipuu, has released Forest in your Pocket, a mobile app that enables people to virtually visit a Laplandic forest, with a personal live guide. Virtual nature tourism does not seem to conflict with landowners’ rights to real property. The question of whether landowners should receive some compensation has not been addressed. Photography and filming in private forests is allowed under everyone’s right, yet landowners may feel discomfort about commercial activities, and any long-term operations would go beyond everyone’s rights. In the future, virtual forests might have a role in fulfilling citizens’ environmental rights and their right to health.

3.5 Enhanced protection against threats and disturbances

Data on forest threats and disturbances is important for all forest ecosystem services as disturbances such as pests, wildfires and storms can compromise the productive capacity of forests (Francini et al. 2022 about disturbance data and carbon sinks). Climate change is increasing the conditions suitable for insects and fungi as well as the occurrence of forest fires and storms. Pest species pose a major threat to the health of global forests, and fungal pathogens carried with pests can amplify the negative effects of pests and cause significant damage in their own right (Linnakoski and Forbes 2019). Fuel load and moisture content of trees will impact the damage caused by forest fires, and data on vulnerable forest types, locations, and vegetation structures may help in fire risk mitigation. While forest fires may be detrimental for human activities, they benefit multiple species, especially through nutrient dynamics (Knelman et al. 2017). In Finland, data on threats to forests is available in the Metsainfo.luke.fi service, and as Valonen et al. (2019) anticipated, the Metsään.fi service by Finnish Forest Centre has also been developed to allow the forestry sector to identify and share information regarding the threats. Data on soil microbes (Raison and Khanna 2011) or tree microbes (Steidinger et al. 2019) may be important for developing forest health solutions.

3.6 Enhanced democracy of forest governance

The democracy benefits of increased access to forest data are based on data enabling and empowering citizens more effectively and equitably to participate in public decision-making. Transparency and openness are important for citizen empowerment. The more citizens know about nature, natural resources, and ecosystem services, including their value for different stakeholders and for society, the better equipped they are to decide on policies for the benefit of themselves, others, and future generations. Data may spark citizens to demand the realization of their existing rights or to demand new rights, or it may spark the creation of market-based governance systems. If one needs more rights than granted by the law, one can either try to change the laws, or one can try to buy such rights on the markets.

Forest data can be powerful if citizens and indigenous peoples have substantive legal rights to benefit from the forest ecosystem services. If property owners have all the rights to forests with no duties towards others or the society, forest data will not enhance equity and justice in relation to forests, contrary to the expectations.

The benefits of environmental data for environmental goals such as biodiversity protection and climate change mitigation thus depend on the foundations in environmental law and ecosystem service governance. Data on suitable hiking/camping/swimming/climbing/gathering places is not beneficial for recreational users and tourists if these activities are not allowed either by law or through contract. For forest owners, voluntarily engaging in ecosystem service trade may seem easier to accept than any legal restrictions to loggings. However, for non-owners, it may seem unjust if everyone else pays for biodiversity and carbon removal except the property owners. If citizens can legally demand ecosystem services such as clean water, biodiversity, and carbon sequestration, they can use data as a basis for their claims towards the State, and the State has a duty to respect, protect, and fulfill their rights.

4 Conclusions and discussion

In this discussion paper, we have explored the benefits of increased access to forest data and how the benefits of those data depend on rights to forests. Suppl. file 2 summarizes main forest info databases, and Suppl. file 3 summarizes the main laws that are relevant for benefiting from forests. Data may empower non-landowners to uphold their rights and support renewal of laws in the democratic governance sphere. At the same time this may highlight the tensions between forest owners, indigenous peoples as traditional users and governors, other users, non-users, future generations, and nature itself.

Democracy is essentially about negotiations over who has rights and benefits and who has duties and responsibilities. Environmental rights, everyone’s rights and indigenous rights in Finland need to exist in practice, not merely on paper. Forests are essential for both carbon regulation and biodiversity conservation, and enhanced understanding and transparent discussion on these vital functions is welcome. The physical and mental health impacts of forest experiences, the cultural and economic values of innovative non-wood forest products, and the impacts of nature-based tourism on employment and livelihoods also need to be fully recognized in Finland.

In the free markets sphere, increased access to data can facilitate the development of services for rights-holders and enable the creation of trading systems for ecosystem services. Biodiversity and carbon data services are developed for offset traders, forestry and forest health information services for landowners, berry info services for pickers and bioproduct companies, and recreational and destination info services for recreational users and tourism companies.

For the vision of enhanced micro-level and macro-level benefits of forest data to realize, forest data needs to be accessible and usable for citizens, businesses, NGOs, and public organizations. There can be impediments related to quality, compatibility, comparability, and metadata (Zuiderwijk et al. 2012). User interfaces must encompass the perspectives of users and practitioners (Ofoeda et al. 2019). Continuous development of data services will be needed.

We suggest at least these building blocks should be combined in forest data platforms (Fig. 1):

Fig. 1. Data, rights, and markets for enhanced forest ecosystem services.

Ideally through such a data-enabled, democratic, and transparent process, citizens are empowered, forest governance is increasingly just, and businesses utilize their competences and networks to the fullest. Data should aid in fitting the competing interests together through enhanced public participation and deliberation involving increasingly multiple voices in forest governance – acknowledging unavoidable trade-offs between the competing interests but seeking satisfactory compromises.

Declaration of interests

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Acknowledgements

The empirical work referred to here was supported by the Governing Digital Commons project (GoDiCo, Academy of Finland, 2017–2021, decision number 309979). Writing of this discussion paper was supported by the GoDiCo project and the 2035Legitimacy project (Strategic Research Council, Academy of Finland, funding period 2020–2023, decision number 352405).

Author contributions

Lähteenmäki-Uutela wrote the original manuscript and the revised manuscript. Everyone else provided additions. Rantala, Swallow and Paloniemi organized the workshops in the GoDiCo project. They participated particularly in planning the article structure and in writing the introduction and the conclusions. Pohjola wrote the parts about experiences and forest tourism. Lehtiniemi wrote the parts about the accessibility of forest data. Paloniemi secured funding for the GoDiCo project and led the GoDiCo project.

References

Arktiset Aromit (2023) https://www.arktisetaromit.fi/. Accessed 5 July 2023.

Bell S, Tyrväinen L, Sievänen T, Pröbstl U, Simpson M (2007) Outdoor recreation and nature tourism: a european perspective. Living Rev Landsc Res 1, article id 2. https://doi.org/10.12942/lrlr-2007-2.

Birnbaum L. Wilhelm C, Chilla T, Kröner S (2021) Place attachment and digitalisation in rural regions. J Rural Stud 87: 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.09.015.

Boes K, Buhalis D, Inversini A (2016) Smart tourism destinations: ecosystems for tourism destination competitiveness. Int J Tour Cities 2: 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJTC-12-2015-0032.

Buhalis D (2019) Technology in tourism – from information communication technologies to eTourism and smart tourism towards ambient intelligence tourism: a perspective article. Tour Rev 75: 267–272. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-06-2019-0258.

Buhalis D, Amaranggana A (2015) Smart tourism destinations. In: Xiang Z, Tussyadiah I (eds) Information and communication technologies in tourism. ENTER 2015 Proceedings, Lugano, Springer-Verlag, Wien, pp 377–390. ISBN 9783319143422.

Buhalis D, Sinatra Y (2019) Real-time co-creation and nowness service: lessons from tourism and hospitality. J Travel Tour Mark 36: 563–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2019.1592059.

Caragliu A, Del Bo C, Nijkamp P (2011) Smart cities in Europe. J Urban Technol 18: 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2011.601117.

Caruso MC, Giuliano R, Pompei F, Mazzenga F (2017) Mobility management for smart sightseeing. International Conference of Electrical and Electronic Technologies for Automotive 2017, Turin, Italy, pp 1–6. https://doi.org/10.23919/EETA.2017.7993231.

Ciasullo MV, Troisi O, Cosimato S (2018) How digital platforms can trigger cultural value co-creation? – a proposed model. J Serv Sci Manag 11: 161–181. https://doi.org/10.4236/jssm.2018.112013.

Clark WA (2011) Clarifying the spiritual values of forests and their role in sustainable forest management. J Study Relig Nat Cult 5: 18–38. https://doi.org/10.1558/jsrnc.v5i1.18.

Cook-Patton SC, Shoch D, Ellis PW (2021) Dynamic global monitoring needed to use restoration of forest cover as a climate solution. Nat Clim Chang 11: 366–368. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01022-9.

Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Mooney HA, Pejchar L, Ricketts TH, Salzman J, Shallenberger R (2009) Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ 7: 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1890/080025.

Davies T, Perini F, Alonso JM (2013) Researching the emerging impacts of open data ODDC conceptual framework. ODDC Working Papers #1.

Eskelinen T, Räsänen T, Santti U, Happonen A, Kajanus M (2017) Designing a business model for environmental monitoring services using fast MCDS innovation support tools. Technol Innov Manag Rev 7: 36–46. http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1119.

European Commission (2020a) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A European strategy for data. COM/2020/66 final.

European Commission (2020b) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 Bringing nature back into our lives. COM/2020/380 final.

European Environment Agency (2016) European forest ecosystems. State and trends. EEA Report No 5/2016.

Fady B, Benard A, Pichot C, Peiffer M, Leban JM, Dreyer E (2014) The open data debate: a need for accessible and shared data in forest science. Ann For Sci 71: 523–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-014-0375-3.

Finnish Food Authority (2021) Mushroom information. https://www.ruokavirasto.fi/henkiloasiakkaat/tietoa-elintarvikkeista/elintarvikeryhmat/ruokasienet/sienestys/. Accessed 11 February 2021.

Finnish Food Authority (2023) Ruokasienet. [Edible mushrooms]. https://www.ruokavirasto.fi/elintarvikkeet/elintarvikeala/tuote--ja-toimialakohtaiset-vaatimukset/muut-tuotekohtaiset-vaatimukset/ruokasienet/. Accessed 14 November 2023.

Forest Centre (2018) Muinaisjäännöksille johdattava seikkailusovellus voitti metsähaasteen. [Adventure app leading to archaeological sites won forest challenge].

Forest Centre (2019) The Strategy of the Finnish Forest Centre. Update 23.8.2019.

Forest Europe (2014) Expert Group and Workshop on a pan-European approach to valuation of forest ecosystem services. Final report. https://foresteurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Report_Valuation_FES_ForestEurope.pdf.

Francini S, McRoberts RE, Giovanni D’Amico G, Coops NC, Hermosilla T, White JC, Wulder MA, Marchetti M, Scarascia Mugnozza G, Chirici G (2022) An open science and open data approach for the statistically robust estimation of forest disturbance areas. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 106, article id 102663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2021.102663.

Gabrys J (2020) Smart forests and data practices: from the internet of trees to planetary governance. Big Data Soc 7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720904871.

García-Nieto AP, García-Llorente M, Iniesta-Arandia I, Martín-López B (2013) Mapping forest ecosystem services: from providing units to beneficiaries. Ecosyst Serv 4: 126–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.03.003.

Giessen L, Buttoud G (2014) Defining and assessing forest governance. Forest Policy and Economics 49: 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.11.009.

Graci S, Maher PT, Peterson B, Hardy A, Vaugeois N (2019) Thoughts from the think tank: lessons learned from the sustainable indigenous tourism symposium. J Ecotourism 2: 189–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2019.1583754.

Green Carbon Finland Oy (2022) https://greencarbon.fi/. Accessed 5 July 2023.

Gretzel U, Koo C, Sigala M, Xiang Z (2015) Smart tourism: convergence of technologies, experiences and theories. Electron Mark 25: 175–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-015-0194-x.

Gretzel U, Zhong L, Koo C, Morrison A, Morrison A (2016) Application of smart tourism to cities. Int J Tour Cities 2: 216–233. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJTC-04-2016-0007.

Hartig T, Mang M, Evans GW (1991) Restorative effects of natural environment experiences. Environ Behav 23: 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916591231001.

Himelrick D (2001) Wild berries in Finland. Small Fruits Rev 1: 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1300/J301v01n03_08.

Holopainen M, Vastaranta M, Hyyppä J (2014) Outlook for the next generation’s precision forestry in Finland. Forests 5: 1682–1694. https://doi.org/10.3390/f5071682.

IUCN (2019) Restoring forest ecosystems provides multiple benefits to society. https://www.iucn.org/news/europe/201905/restoring-forest-ecosystems-provides-multiple-benefits-society. Accessed 3 November 2023.

Joye Y, Pals R, Steg L, Lewis-Evans B (2014) Correction: new methods for assessing the fascinating nature of nature experiences. PLoS ONE 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1371/annotation/b4b68a93-1449-4df7-9788-6abe0cbbf6a0.

Kaleva (2020) Inarijärven jylhä Ukonsaari on saamelaisten tunnetuin pyhä paikka Suomessa. [The Ukonsaari island in lake Inari is the most famous sacred place for the Sami in Finland]. 24.08.2020. https://www.kaleva.fi/inarijarven-jylha-ukonsaari-on-saamelaisten-tunnet/2765515. Accessed 1 February 2022.

Kangas J, Niemeläinen P (1996) Opinion of forest owners and the public on forests and their use in Finland. Scand J For Res 11: 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827589609382936.

Kantar TNS Agro Oy (2020) Marsi 2019, luonnonmarjojen ja -sienten kauppaantulomäärät. [The traded amounts of wild berries and mushrooms]. Ruokavirasto, Maatalousosasto.

Kim GH, Trimi S, Chung JH (2014) Big-data applications in the government sector. Commun ACM 57: 78–85. https://doi.org/10.1145/2500873.

Kirillova K, Lehto X, Cai L (2017) What triggers transformative tourism experiences? Tour Recreat Res 42: 498–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2017.1342349.

Knelman JE, Graham EB, Ferrenberg S, Lecoeuvre A, Labrado A, Darcy JL, Nemergut DR, Schmidt SK (2017) Rapid shifts in soil nutrients and decomposition enzyme activity in early succession following forest fire. Forests 8, article id 347. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8090347.

König C, Weigelt P, Schrader J, Taylor A, Kattge J, Kreft H (2019) Biodiversity data integration – the significance of data resolution and domain. PLoS Biol 17, article id e3000183. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000183.

Koo C, Mendes-Filho L, Buhalis D (2019) Guest editorial. Tour Rev 74: 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-02-2019-208.

Kravchenko S (2010) Is access to environmental information a fundamental human right? Or Rev Int’l L 11. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1657118.

Lawrence A (2010) The personal and political of volunteers’ data: towards a national biodiversity database for the UK. In: Laurence A (ed) Taking stock of nature. Participatory biodiversity assessment for policy, planning and practice. Cambridge University Press, pp 251–265. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511676482.012.

Lehtiniemi H, Närhi J (2022) Yhteenveto kansallisen luonnon monimuotoisuusstrategian sidosryhmätilaisuuksista. [A summary of stakeholders events for the national biodiversity strategy]. Ympäristöministeriö. https://api.hankeikkuna.fi/asiakirjat/d409fc87-ca01-4ba8-b733-90706a7cfbc6/6c3bde5c-ebf5-4a88-a00d-d3352abd5040/YHTEENVETO_20220623062430.pdf. Accessed 3 November 2023.

Liang J, Gamarra JGP (2020) The importance of sharing global forest data in a world of crises. Sci Data 7, article id 424. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-00766-x.

Lier M, Korhonen KT, Packalen T, Sauvula-Seppälä T, Tuomainen T, Viitanen J, Mutanen A, Vaahtera E, Hyvärinen J (2019) Finland’s forests 2019: based on FOREST EUROPE criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management. Natural Resources Institute (Luke). http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2019091628400.

Linnakoski R, Forbes KM (2019) Pathogens – the hidden face of forest invasions by wood-boring insect pests. Front Plant Sci 10, article id 90. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.00090.

Luomus (2019) Haukanpesät tietoon pesinnän turvaamiseksi. [Hawk nest information to secure nesting]. https://www.luomus.fi/fi/uutinen/haukanpesat-tietoon-pesinnan-turvaamiseksi. Luonnontieteellinen museo, 10.5.2019. Accessed 6 February 2022.

Maes J, Teller A, Erhard M (2014) Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services. Indicators for ecosystem assessments under action 5 of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Publications office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

Mäntymaa E, Juutinen A, Tyrväinen L, Karhua J, Kurttila M (2018) Participation and compensation claims in voluntary forest landscape conservation: the case of the Ruka-Kuusamo tourism area, Finland. J For Econ 33: 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2018.09.003.

Mäntyvaara H (2018) Avoin metsätieto käyttöön kilpailulla – voittaja selviää viikonloppuna. [Open forest data to use throug a competition – winner will be declared in the weekend]. https://forest.fi/fi/artikkeli/avoin-metsatieto-kayttoon-kilpailulla-voittaja-selviaa-viikonloppuna/. Suomen Metsäyhdistys. Accessed 16 November 2020.

Masiero M, Pettenella D, Boscolo M, Barua SK, Animon I, Matta JR (2019) Valuing forest ecosystem services: a training manual for planners and project developers. Forestry Working Paper No. 11. FAO, Rome.

Mayers J (2014) Social justice in forests: gains made and tactics that work. A report from the Forest Governance Learning Group. IIED Research Report, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London. http://pubs.iied.org/13574IIED.

Metsänhoitoyhdistys (2023) Usein kysyttyä hiilipalvelusta. [Frequently asked questions about the carbon service]. https://www.mhy.fi/usein-kysyttya-hiilipalvelusta. Accessed 5 July 2023.

Meyers J, Bhattacharya P, Diaw CM, Kismadi B, Long C, Macqueen DJ, Morrison E, Mosse M, Opoku K, Ngubane S, Sibale B, Quang Tan N, Twesigye B, Vermeulen S (2009) Just forest governance: how small learning groups can have big impact. IIED Briefing, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London. http://hdl.handle.net/10535/6145.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) Ecosystems and human well-being. A framework for assessment. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and Island Press. https://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Framework.html. Accessed 3 November 2023.

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (2021). Forest industry in Finland. https://mmm.fi/en/forests/use-of-wood/forest-industry. Accessed 11 February 2021.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2020) Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP). Response by the government of Finland to the questionnaire on “Right to land under the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples: a human rights focus”.

Ministry of Environment (2021) Luontotiedon hallinta. Alatyöryhmän raportti 2/2021. [Governance of nature information. Task group report].

Ministry of Environment (2023a) Forest Biodiversity Programme for Southern Finland (METSO). https://ym.fi/en/forest-biodiversity-programme-for-southern-finland-metso. Accessed 3 November 2023.

Ministry of Environment (2023b) Metsäluontotyyppien uhanalaisuus. [Endangerment of forest habitats]. https://www.ymparisto.fi/fi/luonto-vesistot-ja-meri/luonnon-monimuotoisuus/luontotyyppien-monimuotoisuus/luontotyyppien-uhanalaisuus/metsat. Accessed 23 May2023.

Ministry of Environment (2023c) Everyman’s rights. Legislation and practice. https://www.expat-finland.com/pdf/everymans_right.pdf. Accessed 5 July 2023.

Nguyen MD, Ancev T, Randall A (2020) Forest governance and economic values of forest ecosystem services in Vietnam. Land Use Policy 97, article id 103297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.03.028.

Nichiforel L, Deuffic P, Jellesmark Thorsen B, Weiss G, Hujala T, Keary K, Lawrence A, Avdibegović M, Dobšinská Z, Feliciano D, Górriz-Mifsud E, Hoogstra-Klein M, Hrib M, Jarský V, Jodłowski K, Lukmine D, Pezdevšek Malovrh S, Nedeljković J, Nonić D, Krajter Ostoić S, Pukall K, Rondeux J, Samara T, Sarvašová Z, Scriban RE, Šilingienė R, Sinko M, Stojanovska M, Stojanovski V, Stoyanov T, Teder M, Vennesland B, Wilhelmsson E, Wilkes-Allemann J, Živojinović I, Bouriaud L (2020) Two decades of forest-related legislation changes in European countries analysed from a property rights perspective. For Policy Econ 115, article id 102146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102146.

OECD (2019) Enhancing access to and sharing of data: reconciling risks and benefits for data re-use across societies. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/276aaca8-en.

Ofoeda J, Boateng R, Effah J (2019) Application programming interface (API) research: a review of the past to inform the future. Int J Enterp Inf Syst 15: 76–95. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEIS.2019070105.

Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807763.

Paracchini ML, Zulian G, Kopperoinen L, Maes J, Schägner JP, Termansen M, Zandersen M, Perez-Soba M, Scholefield PA, Bidoglio G (2014) Mapping cultural ecosystem services: a framework to assess the potential for outdoor recreation across the EU. Ecol Indic 45: 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.04.018.

Pohjola T, Lemmetyinen A, Dimitrovski D (2020) Value co-creation in dynamic networks and e-tourism. In: Xiang Z, Fuchs M, Gretzel U, Höpken W (eds) Handbook of e-tourism. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05324-6_92-1.

Pöntinen P (2021) Suojelun suosio kasvaa. [Conservation is gaining popularity]. Suomen Kuvalehti 10/2021: 18–23.

Premke K, Attermeyer K, Augustin J, Cabezas A, Casper P, Deumlich D, Gelbrecht J, Gerke HH, Gessler A, Hans-Peter Grossart H-P, Hilt S, Hupfer M, Kalettka T, Kayler Z, Lischeid G, Sommer M, Zak D (2016) The importance of landscape diversity for carbon fluxes at the landscape level: small-scale heterogeneity matters. WIREs Water 3: 601–617. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1147.

Puhakka R, Pitkänen K, Siikamäki P (2017) The health and well-being impacts of protected areas in Finland. J Sustain Tour 25: 1830–1847. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2016.1243696.

Raison RJ, Khanna PK (2011) Possible impacts of climate change on forest soil health. In: Singh BP, Cowie AL (eds) Soil health and climate change. Singer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, pp 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20256-8_12.

Rantala S, Swallow B, Paloniemi R, Raitanen E (2020) Governance of forests and governance of forest information: interlinkages in the age of open and digital data. For Policy Econ 113, article id 102123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102123.

Rantala S, Swallow B, Lähteenmäki-Uutela A, Paloniemi R (2022) Forest data governance as a reflection of forest governance: institutional change and endurance in Finland and Canada. Environ Sci Policy 136: 751–760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.07.031.

Rasmus S, Kojoja I, Turunen M, Norberg H, Kumpula J, Ollila T (2020) Mission impossible? Pursuing the co-existence of viable predator populations and sustainable reindeer husbandry in Finland. J Rural Stud 80. 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.08.017.

Ritter E, Dauksta D (2013) Human–forest relationships: ancient values in modern perspectives. Environ Dev Sustain 15: 645–662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-012-9398-9.

Ruokolainen L, Lehtimäki J, Karkman A, Haahtela T, von Hertzen L, Fyhrquist N (2017) Holistic view on health: two protective layers of biodiversity. Ann Zool Fenn 54: 39–49. https://doi.org/10.5735/086.054.0106.

Sacchelli S, Borghi C, Fratini R, Bernetti I (2021) Assessment and valorization of non-wood forest products in Europe: a quantitative literature review. Sustainability 13, article id 3533. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063533.

Schulman L, Lahti K, Piirainen E, Heikkinen M, Raitio O, Juslén A (2021) The Finnish biodiversity information facility as a best-practice model for biodiversity data infrastructures. Sci Data 8, article id 137. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-00919-6.

Steidinger BS, Crowther TW, Liang J, Van Nuland ME, Werner GDA, Reich PB, Nabuurs GJ, de Miguel S, Zhou M, Picard N, Herault B, Zhao X, Zhang C, Routh D, Peay KG (2019) Climatic controls of decomposition drive the global biogeography of forest-tree symbioses. Nature 569: 404–408. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1128-0.

Suntikul W, Jachna T (2016) The co-creation/place attachment nexus. Tour Manag 52: 276–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.06.026.

Suutarinen J, Kojola I (2017) Poaching regulates the legally hunted wolf population in Finland. Biol Conserv 215: 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.08.031.

Turner W (2014) Sensing biodiversity. Science 346: 301–302. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1256014.

Underwood E, Taylor K, Tucker G (2018) The use of biodiversity data in spatial planning and impact assessment in Europe. Res Ideas Outcomes 4, article id e28045. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.4.e28045.

UNECE (2020) Seventh meeting of the Task Force on Access to Information under the Aarhus convention. https://unece.org/environmental-policy/events/seventh-meeting-task-force-access-information-under-aarhus-convention. Accessed 3 November 2023.

United Nations (2014) The value of forests. Payments for ecosystem services in a green economy. Geneva Timber and Forest Study Paper 34. https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/timber/publications/SP-34Xsmall.pdf. Accessed 3 November 2023.

United Nations Human Rights Council (2016) Report of the special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples on the human rights situation of the Sámi people in the Sámi region of Norway, Sweden and Finland. 9 August 2016, A/HRC/33/42/Add.3. https://www.refworld.org/docid/57cd77714.html. Accessed 11 February 2021.

Valkeapää A, Karppinen H (2013) Citizens’ view of legitimacy in the context of Finnish forest policy. For Policy Econ 28: 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.01.004.

Valonen M, Haltia E, Horne P, Maidell M, Pynnönen S, Sajeva M, Stenman V, Raivio K, Iittainen V, Greis K, Laitinen K (2019) Finland’s model in utilising forest data Metsään.fi-website’s background, implementation and future prospects. PTT reports 261. https://www.ptt.fi/wp-content/uploads/media/report-261-1.pdf. Accessed 3 November 2023.

Venäläinen P, Räsänen T, Hämäläinen J (2015) Potential business models for forest big data. Metsäteho Report 235. DIGILE’s Data to Intelligence (D2I) program.

Vihervaara P, Auvinen A-P, Mononen L, Törmä M, Ahlroth P, Anttila S, Böttcher K, Forsius M, Heino J, Heliölä J, Koskelainen M, Kuussaari M, Meissner K, Ojala O, Tuominen S, Viitasalo M, Virkkala R (2017) How essential biodiversity variables and remote sensing can help national biodiversity monitoring. Glob Ecol Conserv 10: 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2017.01.007.

White MP, Yeo NL, Vassiljev P, Lundstedt R, Wallergård M, Albin M, Lõhmus M (2018) A prescription for “nature” – the potential of using virtual nature in therapeutics. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat 14: 3001–3013. https://doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S179038.

Yarime M (2018) Learning and open data in sustainability transitions: evolutionary implications of the theory of probabilistic functionalism. Environ Syst Decis 38: 88–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-017-9668-z.

Zuiderwijk A, Janssen M, Choenni S, Meijer R, Alibaks RS (2012) Socio-technical impediments of open data. EJEG 10: 156–172.

Total of 99 references.