Abstract
Despite strong expectations regarding the role that forestry, with its multitude of potential benefits, could and should play in the ‘bio-economy’, little research has been done on the actual perceptions of influential actors on how to best address future forest land-use disputes. We want to shed light on whether and in which contexts expectations regarding the bio-economy, e.g., the strong role of markets, are likely. The paper analyses influential actors’ core values and beliefs about the primary facilitators and the most appropriate instruments for resolving disputes over future forest land use. We used Social Network Analysis-based sampling and a quantitative semi-structured questionnaire, which included a preference analysis with twelve items covering broad issues and disputes related to future forest land use, to identify actors’ beliefs about and preferences for facilitators and policy instruments within key issues for future land use. The respondents were asked to identify one of five ‘primary facilitators’ (state, market, society, individual citizens/owners, leave it to nature) and distribute six points to a maximum of three preferred instruments (eight items, covering a broad set of instruments, from dictates or bans to awareness raising). The results are based on the perceptions of the influential or most important actors from various innovative government and private forest initiatives in Bavaria (Germany), Slovenia, Castilla y León (Spain), Nordeste (Portugal), and Latvia (481 actor responses, 109 initiatives). The initiatives included participatory mountain forest initiatives, forest intervention zones, afforestation projects, forest owner associations, and model forest and labelling initiatives. The results provide insight into the similarities and differences between European countries and actor groups regarding the preferred facilitators and instruments for solving future forest problems. In light of disagreement in the literature on the role of the state or markets in future forest land use and the bio-economy, our results show that the market and its instruments are considered to play a dominant role in wood mobilisation. With respect to all other issues (socio-ecological, societal, other), the state or other institutions and their instruments gain priority. The state is considered to play a stronger role in developing new markets, e.g., for energy transition or new uses of wood, contrary to liberal market expectations. Ecological and social problems are considered to be outside of the market domain. Here, the state is called in, e.g., to steer recreational issues, the provision of ecosystem services, or the improvement of the protective function. The clearest preference across all regions is for the state to secure the provision of ecosystem services, in contrast to calls for future markets to regulate this field.
Highlights
In discourses and policies, there has been considerable debate with respect to the main facilitators and instruments that can successfully guide us in a transition towards a more economically, socially, and ecologically sustainable future
With our ‘preference/perception analysis’, we indirectly reveal or identify actor interests or values, which can be retrieved from their preferences or perceptions, or, in other words, from their beliefs with respect to, e.g., goals related to initiatives, or the main facilitators or appropriate instruments for solving future problems
Hereinafter, we describe in brief the Actor-centred Analytical Approach (AAA), which is relevant to the sampling and forms one important basis of the analysis presented in this paper, as well as for other aspects of research on the same initiatives focusing on the identification of the most important and most influential actors
Summary
There has been considerable debate with respect to the main facilitators and instruments that can successfully guide us in a transition towards a more economically, socially, and ecologically sustainable future. Existing empirical evidence from analytical forest policy research has revealed the strong prevailing role of state actors in national and international forest policy, networks, and governance [39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46] This is in contrast to expectations for the stronger ‘empowerment’, rather than just ‘participation’, of non-governmental actors, as generally anticipated by supporters of ‘modern’ or ‘good’ governance. Despite the above-mentioned empirical evidence regarding the role of the state, one could expect—given the above-stated anticipation of the rise of the market and its actors in bio-economy policy and discourses—the market to receive primary attention with respect to solving future forest problems
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.