IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v181y2025ics1389934125002369.html

Frame analysis of attitudes towards forest-based bioenergy in Europe: Exploring the criticism to improved dialogue

Author

Listed:
  • Bergquist, Daniel
  • Caselunghe, Elvira
  • Egnell, Gustaf
  • de Jong, Johnny

Abstract

The objective of this study is to investigate the criticism against forest-based bioenergy. It is based on a qualitative study and provides a comprehensive understanding of critical attitudes towards forest-based bioenergy among environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) in Europe. Through semi-structured interviews with 12 representatives from Swedish and European ENGOs a frame analysis was done. The analysis shows how these respondents conceptualize challenges related to forest-based bioenergy, what processes that underpin these views and what concrete solutions the respondents suggest to the risks they perceive. Frames refer to what arguments the respondents use to justify their opinions and conclusions, whereas framing is the process of applying their frames to situations. The analysis also accounts for system boundaries set among the respondents, since that influences their problem definitions and conclusions. The ENGO representatives reported rigorous and profound criticism of forest-based bioenergy and, not the least, of current forestry practices in general. Also, respondents within the same ENGO differed in approach to forest-based bioenergy, which suggests that individual characteristics need consideration for dialogue to be constructive. Lack of trust was identified as one major obstacle for constructive dialogue. Understanding the socio-personal factors and diversity in perspectives behind forest-based bioenergy criticism is crucial for development that is socially acceptable. To this end, policy processes need to involve facilitation and well-designed dialogue processes oriented towards mutual learning, where actors are invited early and allowed to engage in the very problem definition. Crucial is also to maintain continuity among the participants. To get a complete picture of the discourse on forest-based bioenergy a similar analysis of proponents would complement this study.

Suggested Citation

  • Bergquist, Daniel & Caselunghe, Elvira & Egnell, Gustaf & de Jong, Johnny, 2025. "Frame analysis of attitudes towards forest-based bioenergy in Europe: Exploring the criticism to improved dialogue," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:181:y:2025:i:c:s1389934125002369
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103657
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934125002369
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103657?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Uwe R. Fritsche & Leire Iriarte & Johnny Jong & Alessandro Agostini & Nicolae Scarlat, 2014. "Extending the EU Renewable Energy Directive sustainability criteria to solid bioenergy from forests," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 0(2), pages 129-140, May.
    2. Mai-Moulin, T. & Hoefnagels, R. & Grundmann, P. & Junginger, M., 2021. "Effective sustainability criteria for bioenergy: Towards the implementation of the european renewable directive II," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    3. Aekjuthon Phounglamcheik & Nils Johnson & Norbert Kienzl & Christoph Strasser & Kentaro Umeki, 2022. "Self-Heating of Biochar during Postproduction Storage by O 2 Chemisorption at Low Temperatures," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-16, January.
    4. Leif Gustavsson & Kim Pingoud & Roger Sathre, 2006. "Carbon Dioxide Balance of Wood Substitution: Comparing Concrete- and Wood-Framed Buildings," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 667-691, May.
    5. Söderberg, Charlotta & Eckerberg, Katarina, 2013. "Rising policy conflicts in Europe over bioenergy and forestry," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 112-119.
    6. Kallio, A. Maarit I. & Solberg, Birger & Käär, Liisa & Päivinen, Risto, 2018. "Economic impacts of setting reference levels for the forest carbon sinks in the EU on the European forest sector," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 193-201.
    7. Näyhä, Annukka & Wallius, Venla, 2024. "Actors, discourses and relations in the Finnish newspapers' forest discussion: Enabling or constraining the sustainability transition?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    8. Takala, Tuomo & Tanskanen, Minna & Brockhaus, Maria & Kanniainen, Teija & Tikkanen, Jukka & Lehtinen, Ari & Hujala, Teppo & Toppinen, Anne, 2023. "Is a sustainability transition possible within the decision-support services provided to Finnish forest owners?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    9. Anke Fischer & Sofie Joosse & Lars Hallgren & Lotten Westberg, 2024. "How research on communication can help to understand the management of natural resources and sustainability transformations: practices, concerns and new perspectives on environmental communication," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 67(9), pages 1871-1885, July.
    10. Shanto Iyengar & Douglas S. Massey, 2019. "Scientific communication in a post-truth society," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116(16), pages 7656-7661, April.
    11. Buijs, Arjen & Lawrence, Anna, 2013. "Emotional conflicts in rational forestry: Towards a research agenda for understanding emotions in environmental conflicts," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 104-111.
    12. Nousiainen, Daniela & Mola-Yudego, Blas, 2022. "Characteristics and emerging patterns of forest conflicts in Europe - What can they tell us?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    13. Garcia, Gino & Mann, Carsten & Cremer, Tobias, 2025. "An integrated conflict analysis approach for the sustainable supply of Forest Ecosystem Services in Germany - the case of forest-based biofuel production," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    14. Ericsson, Karin & Huttunen, Suvi & Nilsson, L.J.Lars J. & Svenningsson, Per, 2004. "Bioenergy policy and market development in Finland and Sweden," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(15), pages 1707-1721, October.
    15. Uwe R. Fritsche & Leire Iriarte & Johnny de Jong & Alessandro Agostini & Nicolae Scarlat, 2014. "Extending the EU Renewable Energy Directive sustainability criteria to solid bioenergy from forests," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 38(2), pages 129-140, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Riemann, Lena, 2025. "Effective communication about forests and trees: An analytical framework for communication among segmented audiences," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    2. Marian Drăgoi & Veronica Toza, 2019. "Did Forestland Restitution Facilitate Institutional Amnesia? Some Evidence from Romanian Forest Policy," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-19, June.
    3. Giuntoli, J. & Barredo, J.I. & Avitabile, V. & Camia, A. & Cazzaniga, N.E. & Grassi, G. & Jasinevičius, G. & Jonsson, R. & Marelli, L. & Robert, N. & Agostini, A. & Mubareka, S., 2022. "The quest for sustainable forest bioenergy: win-win solutions for climate and biodiversity," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    4. Jonsson, Ragnar & Rinaldi, Francesca & Pilli, Roberto & Fiorese, Giulia & Hurmekoski, Elias & Cazzaniga, Noemi & Robert, Nicolas & Camia, Andrea, 2021. "Boosting the EU forest-based bioeconomy: Market, climate, and employment impacts," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    5. Wang, Weiye & Zhai, Daye & Li, Xinyang & Fang, Haowen & Yang, Yuanyuan, 2024. "Conflicts in mangrove protected areas through the actor-centred power framework - Insights from China," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    6. Brodrechtova, Yvonne, 2024. "Assessing actor power in the trade-offs between ecosystem services affecting forest management – A case study from Central Slovakia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    7. Bergstén, Sabina & Stjernström, Olof & Pettersson, Örjan, 2018. "Experiences and emotions among private forest owners versus public interests: Why ownership matters," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 801-811.
    8. Solberg, Birger & Moiseyev, Alex & Hansen, Jon Øvrum & Horn, Svein Jarle & Øverland, Margareth, 2021. "Wood for food: Economic impacts of sustainable use of forest biomass for salmon feed production in Norway," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    9. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chris, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    10. repec:ags:aaea22:344038 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Behroozeh, Samira & Hayati, Dariush & Karami, Ezatollah, 2022. "Determining and validating criteria to measure energy consumption sustainability in agricultural greenhouses," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    12. Bongsuk Sung & Myung-Bae Yeom & Hong-Gi Kim, 2017. "Eco-Efficiency of Government Policy and Exports in the Bioenergy Technology Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-18, September.
    13. Iversen, Sara V. & Naomi, van der Velden & Convery, Ian & Mansfield, Lois & Holt, Claire D.S., 2022. "Why understanding stakeholder perspectives and emotions is important in upland woodland creation – A case study from Cumbria, UK," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    14. Sathre, Roger & Gustavsson, Leif, 2009. "Process-based analysis of added value in forest product industries," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 65-75, January.
    15. Szajkó, Gabriella & Rácz, Viktor József & Kis, András, 2024. "The role of price incentives in enhancing carbon sequestration in the forestry sector of Hungary," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    16. Sunil Ashra, 2010. "Pollution Externalities and Government Policy," Journal of Infrastructure Development, India Development Foundation, vol. 2(1), pages 15-49, June.
    17. Balcaen, Pieter & Buts, Caroline & Bois, Cind Du & Tkacheva, Olesya, 2023. "The effect of disinformation about COVID-19 on consumer confidence: Insights from a survey experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    18. Fassina, Caroline & Jarvis, Diane & Tavares, Silvia & Coggan, Anthea, 2022. "Valuation of ecosystem services through offsets: Why are coastal ecosystems more valuable in Australia than in Brazil?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    19. Selkimäki, Mari & Mola-Yudego, Blas & Röser, Dominik & Prinz, Robert & Sikanen, Lauri, 2010. "Present and future trends in pellet markets, raw materials, and supply logistics in Sweden and Finland," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(9), pages 3068-3075, December.
    20. Oluwaseun Aleshinloye & Majeed Orolade & Olatosimi Fadahunsi, 2024. "Infodemic During Pandemic: Policy Lessons for Nigeria," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 8(4), pages 760-781, April.
    21. Sampo Soimakallio & Tuomo Kalliokoski & Aleksi Lehtonen & Olli Salminen, 2021. "On the trade-offs and synergies between forest carbon sequestration and substitution," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 1-17, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:181:y:2025:i:c:s1389934125002369. 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.