IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v142y2022ics1389934122000879.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Regional sustainability transition through forest-based bioeconomy? Development actors' perspectives on related policies, power, and justice

Author

Listed:
  • Halonen, Maija
  • Näyhä, Annukka
  • Kuhmonen, Irene

Abstract

Forests and forest-based bioeconomy have central roles in the contemporary sustainability transition. However, the transition towards a bioeconomy is loaded with tensions regarding economic growth, ecological integrity, and social justice. These tensions reproduce varying transition discourses. Political actors at the level of the European Union (EU) and nation states take part in the processes creating the discourses and aim to govern the forest bioeconomy-based transition in certain directions viewed as favourable.

Suggested Citation

  • Halonen, Maija & Näyhä, Annukka & Kuhmonen, Irene, 2022. "Regional sustainability transition through forest-based bioeconomy? Development actors' perspectives on related policies, power, and justice," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:142:y:2022:i:c:s1389934122000879
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102775
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934122000879
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102775?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matteo De Besi & Kes McCormick, 2015. "Towards a Bioeconomy in Europe: National, Regional and Industrial Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-18, August.
    2. D'Amato, Dalia & Veijonaho, Simo & Toppinen, Anne, 2020. "Towards sustainability? Forest-based circular bioeconomy business models in Finnish SMEs," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    3. Bernhard Truffer & Lars Coenen, 2012. "Environmental Innovation and Sustainability Transitions in Regional Studies," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(1), pages 1-21, November.
    4. Giurca, Alexandru, 2020. "Unpacking the network discourse: Actors and storylines in Germany's wood-based bioeconomy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    5. Befort, N., 2020. "Going beyond definitions to understand tensions within the bioeconomy: The contribution of sociotechnical regimes to contested fields," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    6. Gibbs, David & O'Neill, Kirstie, 2017. "Future green economies and regional development: a research agenda," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 68392, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Ramcilovic-Suominen, Sabaheta & Kotilainen, Juha, 2020. "Power relations in community resilience and politics of shifting cultivation in Laos," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    8. David Gibbs & Kirstie O’Neill, 2017. "Future green economies and regional development: a research agenda," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(1), pages 161-173, January.
    9. Danny MacKinnon & Andrew Cumbers & Andy Pike & Kean Birch & Robert McMaster, 2009. "Evolution in Economic Geography: Institutions, Political Economy, and Adaptation," Economic Geography, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 85(2), pages 129-150, April.
    10. Coenen, Lars & Benneworth, Paul & Truffer, Bernhard, 2012. "Toward a spatial perspective on sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 968-979.
    11. Danny MacKinnon & Andrew Cumbers & Andy Pike & Kean Birch & Robert McMaster, 2009. "Evolution in Economic Geography: Institutions, Political Economy, and Adaptation," Economic Geography, Clark University, vol. 85(2), pages 129-150, April.
    12. Krott, Max & Bader, Axel & Schusser, Carsten & Devkota, Rosan & Maryudi, Ahmad & Giessen, Lukas & Aurenhammer, Helene, 2014. "Actor-centred power: The driving force in decentralised community based forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 34-42.
    13. Kes McCormick & Niina Kautto, 2013. "The Bioeconomy in Europe: An Overview," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(6), pages 1-20, June.
    14. Pynnönen, Sari & Salomaa, Anna & Rantala, Salla & Hujala, Teppo, 2019. "Technical and social knowledge discontinuities in the multi-objective management of private forests in Finland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    15. Takala, Tuomo & Lehtinen, Ari & Tanskanen, Minna & Hujala, Teppo & Tikkanen, Jukka, 2019. "The rise of multi-objective forestry paradigm in the Finnish print media," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.
    16. Kunttu, Janni & Hurmekoski, Elias & Heräjärvi, Henrik & Hujala, Teppo & Leskinen, Pekka, 2020. "Preferable utilisation patterns of wood product industries' by-products in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    17. Takala, Tuomo & Lehtinen, Ari & Tanskanen, Minna & Hujala, Teppo & Tikkanen, Jukka, 2020. "Discoursal power and multi-objective forestry in the Finnish print media," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    18. Kröger, Markus & Raitio, Kaisa, 2017. "Finnish forest policy in the era of bioeconomy: A pathway to sustainability?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 6-15.
    19. Nchanji, Yvonne Kiki & Ramcilovic-Suominen, Sabaheta & Kotilainen, Juha, 2021. "Power imbalances, social inequalities and gender roles as barriers to true participation in national park management: The case of Korup National Park, Cameroon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    20. Lindberg, Marie Byskov & Markard, Jochen & Andersen, Allan Dahl, 2019. "Policies, actors and sustainability transition pathways: A study of the EU’s energy policy mix," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    21. Markard, Jochen & Raven, Rob & Truffer, Bernhard, 2012. "Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 955-967.
    22. Fuenfschilling, Lea & Truffer, Bernhard, 2016. "The interplay of institutions, actors and technologies in socio-technical systems — An analysis of transformations in the Australian urban water sector," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 298-312.
    23. Carlota Perez, 2010. "Technological revolutions and techno-economic paradigms," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 185-202, January.
    24. Markus M. Bugge & Teis Hansen & Antje Klitkou, 2016. "What Is the Bioeconomy? A Review of the Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-22, July.
    25. Mario Polèse & Richard Shearmur, 2006. "Why some regions will decline: A Canadian case study with thoughts on local development strategies," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 85(1), pages 23-46, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Di Letizia, Gerardo & De Lucia, Caterina & Pazienza, Pasquale & Cappelletti, Giulio Mario, 2023. "Forest bioeconomy at regional scale: A systematic literature review and future policy perspectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    2. Banos, Vincent & Deuffic, Philippe & Brahic, Elodie, 2022. "Engaging or resisting? How forest–based industry and private forest owners respond to bioenergy policies in Aquitaine (Southwestern France)," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    3. Ramcilovic-Suominen, Sabaheta & Kröger, Markus & Dressler, Wolfram, 2022. "From pro-growth and planetary limits to degrowth and decoloniality: An emerging bioeconomy policy and research agenda," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    4. Christina-Ioanna Papadopoulou & Efstratios Loizou & Fotios Chatzitheodoridis, 2022. "Priorities in Bioeconomy Strategies: A Systematic Literature Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-15, October.
    5. Rebolledo-Leiva, Ricardo & Moreira, María Teresa & González-García, Sara, 2023. "Progress of social assessment in the framework of bioeconomy under a life cycle perspective," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    6. Alberto Bezama & Jakob Hildebrandt & Daniela Thrän, 2022. "Analyzing the Potential Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts of Regional Energy Integration Scenarios of a Bio-Based Industrial Network," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-14, November.
    7. Palátová, P. & Rinn, R. & Machoň, M. & Paluš, H. & Purwestri, R.C. & Jarský, V., 2023. "Sharing economy in the forestry sector: Opportunities and barriers," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    8. Radek Rinn & Vilém Jarský, 2022. "Analysis of Financial Support for Forestry in the Czech Republic from the Perspective of Forest Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-25, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ron Boschma, Lars Coenen, Koen Frenken, Bernhard Truffer & Lars Coenen & Koen Frenken & Bernhard Truffer, 2016. "Towards a theory of regional diversification," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1617, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jul 2016.
    2. Befort, N., 2020. "Going beyond definitions to understand tensions within the bioeconomy: The contribution of sociotechnical regimes to contested fields," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    3. Sandro Montresor & Francesco Quatraro, 2020. "Green technologies and Smart Specialisation Strategies: a European patent-based analysis of the intertwining of technological relatedness and key enabling technologies," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(10), pages 1354-1365, October.
    4. Strambach, Simone & Pflitsch, Gesa, 2020. "Transition topology: Capturing institutional dynamics in regional development paths to sustainability," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    5. Schot, Johan & Kanger, Laur, 2018. "Deep transitions: Emergence, acceleration, stabilization and directionality," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1045-1059.
    6. Sangeetha Chandrashekeran, 2016. "Multidimensionality and the multilevel perspective: Territory, scale, and networks in a failed demand-side energy transition in Australia," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 48(8), pages 1636-1656, August.
    7. Hansen , Teis & Coenen , Lars, 2013. "The Geography of Sustainability Transitions: A Literature Review," Papers in Innovation Studies 2013/39, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    8. Davide Castellani & Giovanni Marin & Sandro Montresor & Antonello Zanfei, 2020. "Foreign Direct Investments and Regional Specialization in Environmental Technologies," SEEDS Working Papers 0620, SEEDS, Sustainability Environmental Economics and Dynamics Studies, revised Apr 2020.
    9. Malmberg Anders & Malmberg Bo & Maskell Peter, 2023. "Population age structure – An underlying driver of national, regional and urban economic development," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 67(4), pages 217-233, December.
    10. Jonas Heiberg & Christian Binz & Bernhard Truffer, 2020. "The Geography of Technology Legitimation. How multi-scalar legitimation processes matter for path creation in emerging industries," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2034, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Aug 2020.
    11. Attila Havas & Doris Schartinger & K. Matthias Weber, 2022. "Innovation Studies, Social Innovation, and Sustainability Transitions Research: From mutual ignorance towards an integrative perspective?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 2227, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    12. Köhrsen, Jens, 2018. "Exogenous shocks, social skill, and power: Urban energy transitions as social fields," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 307-315.
    13. Sebastian Hinderer & Leif Brändle & Andreas Kuckertz, 2021. "Transition to a Sustainable Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-16, July.
    14. Troxler, David & Zabel, Astrid, 2021. "Clearing forests to make way for a sustainable economy transition in Switzerland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    15. Heiberg, Jonas & Truffer, Bernhard & Binz, Christian, 2022. "Assessing transitions through socio-technical configuration analysis – a methodological framework and a case study in the water sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    16. Danny Mackinnon & Stuart Dawley & Andy Pike & Andrew Cumbers, 2018. "Rethinking Path Creation: A Geographical Political Economy Approach," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1825, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jun 2018.
    17. Sophia Dieken & Sandra Venghaus, 2020. "Potential Pathways to the German Bioeconomy: A Media Discourse Analysis of Public Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-24, September.
    18. Sotiropoulou, Irene & Deutz, Pauline, 2021. "Understanding the bioeconomy: a new sustainability economy in British and European public discourse," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 10(4), December.
    19. Contesse, Maria & Duncan, Jessica & Legun, Katharine & Klerkx, Laurens, 2021. "Unravelling non-human agency in sustainability transitions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    20. Barbieri, Nicolò & Consoli, Davide, 2019. "Regional diversification and green employment in US metropolitan areas," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 693-705.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:142:y:2022:i:c:s1389934122000879. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

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

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

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

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

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