IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i12p2139-d985566.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Forestry Bioeconomy Contribution on Socioeconomic Development: Evidence from Greece

Author

Listed:
  • Stavros Kalogiannidis

    (Department of Business Administration, University of Western Macedonia, 51100 Grevena, Greece)

  • Dimitrios Kalfas

    (Department of Agriculture, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Western Macedonia, 53100 Florina, Greece)

  • Efstratios Loizou

    (Department of Regional and Cross-Border Development, University of Western Macedonia, 50100 Kozani, Greece)

  • Fotios Chatzitheodoridis

    (Department of Regional and Cross-Border Development, University of Western Macedonia, 50100 Kozani, Greece)

Abstract

Forests are of utmost importance for sustainability because of their ongoing contributions to biodiversity protection, fertility management in agricultural areas, and the well-being of people. However, few studies have focused on the extent to which the bioeconomy of forests impacts a country’s social and economic development. This study aimed to examine the bioeconomy contribution of forestry to social and economic development using Greece as a case study. Data was collected from 312 professionals in the forestry and finance sectors of Greece using a survey questionnaire. Forests are associated with direct and indirect contributions that impact human livelihood and contribute toward a country’s economic development. However, the role of forestry in development is affected by policy-related and human-made challenges. The difficulties are primarily caused by shifts in how economic activity is distributed from the agricultural to the industrial to the service sectors, different government policies intended to increase forest cover, and in other instances, as a result of the role of global capital and trade. The forestry contributions to global commerce, national economies, employment, and family incomes remain consistent throughout all these patterns of loss, stabilization, and recovery. It was established that the bioeconomy can increase the benefits of forests by further exploiting forest wealth (biomass, resins) with the direct and indirect benefits for forest-related societies and local economies. In addition, the management and exploitation of forests by adopting bioeconomy practices, allows the attainment of important skills, knowledge, and new fields of entrepreneurship.

Suggested Citation

  • Stavros Kalogiannidis & Dimitrios Kalfas & Efstratios Loizou & Fotios Chatzitheodoridis, 2022. "Forestry Bioeconomy Contribution on Socioeconomic Development: Evidence from Greece," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-22, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:12:p:2139-:d:985566
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/12/2139/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/12/2139/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stavros Kalogiannidis & Dimitrios Kalfas & Fotios Chatzitheodoridis & Olympia Papaevangelou, 2022. "Role of Crop-Protection Technologies in Sustainable Agricultural Productivity and Management," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-21, September.
    2. P. J. Stephenson & Anca Damerell, 2022. "Bioeconomy and Circular Economy Approaches Need to Enhance the Focus on Biodiversity to Achieve Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-20, August.
    3. Lillemets, Jüri & Fertő, Imre & Viira, Ants-Hannes, 2022. "The socioeconomic impacts of the CAP: Systematic literature review," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    4. Li, Yanshu & Mei, Bin & Linhares-Juvenal, Thaís, 2019. "The economic contribution of the world's forest sector," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 236-253.
    5. Konstantinos Ioannou & Georgios Tsantopoulos & Garyfallos Arabatzis & Zacharoula Andreopoulou & Eleni Zafeiriou, 2018. "A Spatial Decision Support System Framework for the Evaluation of Biomass Energy Production Locations: Case Study in the Regional Unit of Drama, Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-22, February.
    6. Stavros Kalogiannidis & Ermelinda Toska & Fotios Chatzitheodoridis & Dimitrios Kalfas, 2022. "Using School Systems as a Hub for Risk and Disaster Management: A Case Study of Greece," Risks, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-18, April.
    7. Dimitrios Kalfas & Fotios Chatzitheodoridis & Efstratios Loizou & Katerina Melfou, 2022. "Willingness to Pay for Urban and Suburban Green," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-21, February.
    8. 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.
    9. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    10. Costanza, Robert & de Groot, Rudolf & Braat, Leon & Kubiszewski, Ida & Fioramonti, Lorenzo & Sutton, Paul & Farber, Steve & Grasso, Monica, 2017. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 1-16.
    11. Maximilian Kardung & Kutay Cingiz & Ortwin Costenoble & Roel Delahaye & Wim Heijman & Marko Lovrić & Myrna van Leeuwen & Robert M’Barek & Hans van Meijl & Stephan Piotrowski & Tévécia Ronzon & Johanne, 2021. "Development of the Circular Bioeconomy: Drivers and Indicators," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, January.
    12. Piotr Jurga & Efstratios Loizou & Stelios Rozakis, 2021. "Comparing Bioeconomy Potential at National vs. Regional Level Employing Input-Output Modeling," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-17, March.
    13. Petr Kupec & Jana Marková & Petr Pelikán & Martina Brychtová & Sabina Autratová & Jitka Fialová, 2022. "Urban Parks Hydrological Regime in the Context of Climate Change—A Case Study of Štěpánka Forest Park (Mladá Boleslav, Czech Republic)," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-19, March.
    14. Christina-Ioanna Papadopoulou & Efstratios Loizou & Katerina Melfou & Fotios Chatzitheodoridis, 2021. "The Knowledge Based Agricultural Bioeconomy: A Bibliometric Network Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-15, October.
    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. 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.
    2. Shujun Liu & Xinzhuan Yao & Degang Zhao & Litang Lu, 2021. "Evaluation of the ecological benefits of tea gardens in Meitan County, China, using the InVEST model," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 7140-7155, May.
    3. Stephen C. L. Watson & Adrian C. Newton, 2018. "Dependency of Businesses on Flows of Ecosystem Services: A Case Study from the County of Dorset, UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-14, April.
    4. Jones, Sarah K. & Boundaogo, Mansour & DeClerck, Fabrice A. & Estrada-Carmona, Natalia & Mirumachi, Naho & Mulligan, Mark, 2019. "Insights into the importance of ecosystem services to human well-being in reservoir landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    5. Jian Zhang & Hengxing Xiang & Shizuka Hashimoto & Toshiya Okuro, 2021. "Observational Scale Matters for Ecosystem Services Interactions and Spatial Distributions: A Case Study of the Ussuri Watershed, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-16, September.
    6. Sipei Pan & Jiale Liang & Wanxu Chen & Jiangfeng Li & Ziqi Liu, 2021. "Gray Forecast of Ecosystem Services Value and Its Driving Forces in Karst Areas of China: A Case Study in Guizhou Province, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-20, November.
    7. Heinze, Alan & Bongers, Frans & Ramírez Marcial, Neptalí & García Barrios, Luis E. & Kuyper, Thomas W., 2022. "Farm diversity and fine scales matter in the assessment of ecosystem services and land use scenarios," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    8. Xinyu Ouyang & Xiangyu Luo, 2022. "Models for Assessing Urban Ecosystem Services: Status and Outlooks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-20, April.
    9. Annaêl Barnes & Alexandre Ickowicz & Jean-Daniel Cesaro & Paulo Salgado & Véronique Rayot & Sholpan Koldasbekova & Simon Taugourdeau, 2023. "Improving Biodiversity Offset Schemes through the Identification of Ecosystem Services at a Landscape Level," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-25, January.
    10. Hérivaux, Cécile & Grémont, Marine, 2019. "Valuing a diversity of ecosystem services: The way forward to protect strategic groundwater resources for the future?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 184-193.
    11. Tao, Yu & Tao, Qin & Sun, Xiao & Qiu, Jiangxiao & Pueppke, Steven G. & Ou, Weixin & Guo, Jie & Qi, Jiaguo, 2022. "Mapping ecosystem service supply and demand dynamics under rapid urban expansion: A case study in the Yangtze River Delta of China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    12. Maund, Phoebe R. & Irvine, Katherine N. & Dallimer, Martin & Fish, Robert & Austen, Gail E. & Davies, Zoe G., 2020. "Do ecosystem service frameworks represent people’s values?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    13. Liu Yang & Hongzan Jiao, 2022. "Spatiotemporal Changes in Ecosystem Services Value and Its Driving Factors in the Karst Region of China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-21, May.
    14. Tusznio, Joanna & Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Rechciński, Marcin & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2020. "Application of the ecosystem services concept at the local level – Challenges, opportunities, and limitations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    15. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    16. Falk, Thomas & Spangenberg, Joachim H. & Siegmund-Schultze, Marianna & Kobbe, Susanne & Feike, Til & Kuebler, Daniel & Settele, Josef & Vorlaufer, Tobias, 2018. "Identifying governance challenges in ecosystem services management – Conceptual considerations and comparison of global forest cases," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PB), pages 193-203.
    17. David Doran & Tim O’Higgins, 2020. "Applications of a Novel Method of Ecosystem Services Assessment into Local Policy Making in the River Blackwater Estuary, Ireland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-16, October.
    18. Teixeira, Heitor Mancini & Vermue, Ardjan J. & Cardoso, Irene Maria & Peña Claros, Marielos & Bianchi, Felix J.J.A., 2018. "Farmers show complex and contrasting perceptions on ecosystem services and their management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PA), pages 44-58.
    19. Takashi Hayashi & Daisuke Kunii & Masayuki Sato, 2021. "A Practice in Valuation of Ecosystem Services for Local Policymakers: Inclusion of Local-Specific and Demand-Side Factors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-17, October.
    20. Weitzman, Jenny, 2019. "Applying the ecosystem services concept to aquaculture: A review of approaches, definitions, and uses," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 194-206.

    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:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:12:p:2139-:d:985566. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.