Author
Listed:
- Ohmura, Tamaki
- Creutzburg, Leonard
- Lieberherr, Eva
Abstract
Different policy instruments can pursue the same policy goal, such as climate change mitigation, while serving very different individual interests. The question of how carbon should be stored, e.g. as a standing stock (forest sink) or in timber for material use (timber sink) is a prime example of such a goal that can be pursued with different policy options and instruments. What is more, for stakeholders and policymakers there is no clear evidence-based recommendation for which sink to prioritize, which leads to diverging preferences for a policy. We argue that the differences in preferences are not based on the effectiveness of the policy instrument in achieving the (environmental) goal, but on two other factors: 1) the existence of an instrument constituency promoting one specific policy option and related policy instruments, and 2) the degree of governmental intervention associated with an instrument. We use the concept of an instrument constituency to explain the preference for one policy option with different instruments over another in the absence of an evidence-based recommendation for a solution. Using the case study of the Swiss constituent state (canton) of Lucerne, we analyse interest groups, politicians and public-administrative actors' core beliefs in relation to nature conservation and nature-use, their policy preferences regarding forest versus timber sink as well as their preferences for different policy instruments to promote the forest and/or timber sink. Using data from an online survey conducted in 2020, we find two coalitions of actors: one holding the core belief that nature conservation takes priority over nature-use, the other prioritizing nature-use and assuming that these objectives can be pursued simultaneously. In sum, we observe an instrument constituency forming around a timber sink instrument in the form of a certification scheme in this Swiss case. The instrument which was developed by the timber industry, is integrated into the national compliance carbon market and supported by a broad range of respondents both holding nature conservation and nature-use core beliefs. Whether our application of the instrument constituency concept can explain international cases where the certification for forest sinks has gained ground during the last years, is a question to be addressed in future research.
Suggested Citation
Ohmura, Tamaki & Creutzburg, Leonard & Lieberherr, Eva, 2026.
"Sinking into standing forests or timber for climate change mitigation: Instrument constituencies and policy preferences,"
Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
Handle:
RePEc:eee:forpol:v:182:y:2026:i:c:s1389934125002655
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103686
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
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:182:y:2026:i:c:s1389934125002655. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.