How national bioeconomy strategies address governance challenges arising from forest-related trade-offs

References

• BMELV, R. 533. (2011). Forest Strategy 2020. Sustainable forest management – an opportunity and a challenge for society.
   Google Scholar
• BAFU. (2013). Waldpolitik 2020. Visionen, Ziele und Massnahmen für eine nachhaltige Bewirtschaftung des Schweizer Waldes.
   Google Scholar
• Schweizerischer Bundesrat. (2013). Botschaft zum ersten Massnahmenpaket der Energiestrategie 2050 (Revision des Energierechts) und zur Volksinitiative “Für den geordneten Ausstieg aus der Atomenergie (Atomausstiegsinitiative)”. Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft, Bern.
   Google Scholar
• BMEL. (2014). Nationale Politikstrategie Bioökonomie. Nachwachsende Ressourcen und biotechnologische Verfahren als Basis für Ernährung, Industrie und Energie.
   Google Scholar
• BAFU. (2015). Handbuch Programmvereinbarungen im Umweltbereich 2016–2019. Mitteilung des BAFU als Vollzugsbehörde an Gesuchsteller.
   Google Scholar
• Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment. (2016). Nature for Life. Norway’s national biodiversity action plan. Report to the Storting (White Paper).
   Google Scholar
• BAFU, BFE, SECO. (2017). Ressourcenpolitik Holz. Strategie, Ziele und Aktionsplan Holz.
   Google Scholar
• EC. (2018). A sustainable Bioeconomy for Europe: Strengthening the connection between economy, society and the environment. COM(2018) 673 final.
   Google Scholar
• Norwegian Ministries. (2018). Familiar resources – undreamt possibilities. The Government’s Bioeconomy Strategy.
   Google Scholar
• Forest Europe, M.C. on the P. of F. in E. (2020). State of Europe’s Forests 2020. Ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe, Bratislava.
   Google Scholar
• Aggestam, Filip, & Pülzl, Helga. (2018). Coordinating the uncoordinated: The EU forest strategy. Forests, 9(3), 125. http://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/9/3/125
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahlqvist, T., & Sirvio, H. (2019). Contradictions of spatial governance: Bioeconomy and the management of State space in Finland Avainsanat. Antipode, 51(2), 395–418. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12498
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennich, T., Belyazid, S., Kopainsky, B., & Diemer, A. (2018). The bio-based economy: Dynamics governing transition pathways in the Swedish forestry sector. Sustainability, 10(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/su10040976
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blattert, C., Lemm, R., Thees, O., Hansen, J., Lexer, M. J., & Hanewinkel, M. (2018). Segregated versus integrated biodiversity conservation: Value-based ecosystem service assessment under varying forest management strategies in a Swiss case study. Ecological Indicators, 95(Part 1), 751–764. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.08.016
   Google Scholar
• Boecher, M., Toeller, A. E., Perbandt, D., Beer, K., & Vogelpohl, T. (2020). Research trends: Bioeconomy politics and governance. Forest Policy and Economics, 118, 1–6. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102219
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borgstrom, S. (2018). Reviewing natural resources law in the light of bioeconomy: Finnish forest regulations as a case study. Forest Policy and Economics, 88, 11–23. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.10.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellison, D., Lundblad, M., & Petersson, H. (2014). Reforming the EU approach to LULUCF and the climate policy framework. Environmental Science & Policy, 40, 1–15. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.03.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eyvindson, K., Repo, A., & Monkkonen, M. (2018). Mitigating forest biodiversity and ecosystem service losses in the era of bio-based economy. Forest Policy and Economics, 92, 119–127. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.04.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer, K., Stenius, T., & Holmgren, S. (2020). Swedish forests in the bioeconomy: Stories from the national forest program. Society & Natural Resources, 33(7), 896–913. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2020.1725202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gawel, E., Purkus, A., Pannicke, N., & Hagemann, N. (2018). A governance framework for a sustainable bioeconomy: Insights from the case of the German wood-based bioeconomy. In W. Leal Filho, D. Pociovălișteanu, P. Borges de Brito, & I. Borges de Lima (Eds.), Towards a sustainable bioeconomy: Principles, challenges and perspectives, World Sustainability Series (pp. 517–537). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73028-8_26
   Google Scholar
• Geijer, E., Bostedt, G., & Brännlund, R. (2011). Damned if you do, damned if you do not – reduced climate impact vs. Resource and Energy Economics, 33(1), 94–106. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2010.01.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guerrero, J. E., & Hansen, E. (2021). Company-level cross-sector collaborations in transition to the bioeconomy: A multi-case study. Forest Policy and Economics, 123, 102355. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102355
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo, J. G., & Gong, P. C. (2019). Assessing the impacts of rising fuelwood demand on Swedish forest sector: An intertemporal optimization approach. Forest Policy and Economics, 105, 91–98. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.05.020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hafner, M., Fehr, L., Springorum, J., Petkau, A., & Johler, R. (2020). Perceptions of bioeconomy and the desire for governmental action: Regional actors’ connotations of wood-based bioeconomy in Germany. Sustainability, 12(23), 1–13. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239792
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Höfer, T., Sunak, Y., Siddique, H., & Madlener, R. (2016). Wind farm siting using a spatial analytic hierarchy process approach: A case study of the Städteregion Aachen. Applied Energy, 163, 222–243. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.10.138
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmgren, S., D’Amato, D., & Giurca, A. (2020). Bioeconomy imaginaries: A review of forest-related social science literature. Ambio, 49(12), 1860–1877. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01398-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2007). Design principles for policy mixes: Cohesion and coherence in ‘New governance arrangements’. Policy and Society, 26(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S1449-4035(07)70118-2
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2013). Patching vs packaging in policy formulation: Assessing policy portfolio design. Politics and Governance, 1(2), 170–182. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.12924/pag2013.01020170
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, Michael. (2019). Procedural policy tools and the temporal dimensions of policy design. Resilience, robustness and the sequencing of policy mixes. International Review of Public Policy, 1(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4000/irpp.310
   Google Scholar
• Ingrao, C., Bacenetti, J., Bezama, A., Blok, V., Goglio, P., Koukios, E. G., Lindner, M., Nemecek, T., Siracusa, V., Zabaniotou, A., & Huisingh, D. (2018). The potential roles of bio-economy in the transition to equitable, sustainable, post fossil-carbon societies: Findings from this virtual special issue. Journal of Cleaner Production, 204, 471–488. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.068
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juerges, N., Arts, B., Masiero, M., Hoogstra-Klein, M., Borges, J. G., Brodrechtova, Y., Brukas, V., Canadas, M. J., Carvalho, P. O., Corradini, G., Corrigan, E., Felton, A., Karahalil, U., Karakoc, U., Krott, M., van Laar, J., Lodin, I., Lundholm, A., … Sarı, B. (2021). Power analysis as a tool to analyse trade-offs between ecosystem services in forest management: A case study from nine European countries. Ecosystem Services, 49, 101290. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101290
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juerges, N., Leahy, J., & Newig, J. (2018). Actor perceptions of polycentricity in wind power governance. Environmental Policy and Governance, 28(6), 383–394. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1830
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleinschmit, D., Arts, B., Giurca, A., Mustalahti, I., Sergent, A., & Pülzl, H. (2017). Environmental concerns in political bioeconomy discourses. International Forestry Review, 19(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1505/146554817822407420
   Google Scholar
• Kröger, M., & Raitio, K. (2017). Finnish forest policy in the era of bioeconomy: A pathway to sustainability? Forest Policy and Economics, 77, 6–15. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.12.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ladu, L., Imbert, E., Quitzow, R., & Morone, P. (2020). The role of the policy mix in the transition toward a circular forest bioeconomy. Forest Policy and Economics, 110, 101937. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.05.023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2010). Explaining institutional change. Ambiguity, agency, and power. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nordbeck, R., & Steurer, R. (2016). Multi-sectoral strategies as dead ends of policy integration: Lessons to be learned from sustainable development. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34(4), 737–755. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X15614696
   Google Scholar
• Pakizer, K., Fischer, M., & Lieberherr, E. (2020). Policy instrument mixes for operating modular technology within hybrid water systems. Environmental Science and Policy, 105, 120–133. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.12.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pröbstl-Haider, U., Lund-Durlacher, D., Antonschmidt, H., & Hödl, C. (2018). Mountain bike tourism in Austria and the Alpine region – towards a sustainable model for multi-stakeholder product development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(4), 567–582. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1361428
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pülzl, H., Kleinschmit, D., & Arts, B. (2014). Bioeconomy – an emerging meta-discourse affecting forest discourses? Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 29(4), 386–393. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2014.920044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scarlat, N., Dallemand, J.-F., Monforti-Ferrario, F., & Nita, V. (2015). The role of biomass and bioenergy in a future bioeconomy: Policies and facts. Environmental Development, 15, 3–34. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2015.03.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulze, E. D., Sierra, C. A., Egenolf, V., Woerdehoff, R., Irslinger, R., Baldamus, C., Stupak, I., & Spellmann, H. (2020). The climate change mitigation effect of bioenergy from sustainably managed forests in Central Europe. GCB Bioenergy, 12(3), 186–197. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12672
   Google Scholar
• Schütte, G. (2018). What kind of innovation policy does the bioeconomy need? New Biotechnology, 40, 82–86. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2017.04.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh, A., Christensen, T., & Panoutsou, C. (2021). Policy review for biomass value chains in the European bioeconomy. Global Transitions, 3, 13–42. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glt.2020.11.003
   Google Scholar
• Stein, A., Netsi, E., Lawrence, P. J., Granger, C., Kempton, C., Craske, M. G., Nickless, A., Mollison, J., Stewart, D. A., Rapa, E., West, V., Scerif, G., Cooper, P. J., & Murray, L. (2018). Mitigating the effect of persistent postnatal depression on child outcomes through an intervention to treat depression and improve parenting: A randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Psychiatry, 5(2), 134–144. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30006-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SEA, VINNOVA, Formas. (2012). Swedish research and innovation strategy for a bio-based economy. https://www.formas.se/download/18.462d60ec167c69393b91e60f/1549956092919/Strategy_Biobased_Ekonomy_hela.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Troxler, D., & Zabel, A. (2021). Clearing forests to make way for a sustainable economy transition in Switzerland. Forest Policy and Economics, 129, 102511. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102511
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Werner, F., Taverna, R., Hofer, P., Thurig, E., & Kaufmann, E. (2010). National and global greenhouse gas dynamics of different forest management and wood use scenarios: A model-based assessment. Environmental Science & Policy, 13(1), 72–85. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2009.10.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winkel, G., Gleißner, J., Pistorius, T., Sotirov, M., & Storch, S. (2011). The sustainably managed forest heats Up: Discursive struggles over forest management and climate change in Germany. Critical Policy Studies, 5(4), 361–390. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2011.628002
   Google Scholar
• Wolfslehner, B., Linser, S., Pülzl, H., Bastrup-Birk, A., Camia, A., & Marchetti, M. (2016). Forest bioeconomy–a new scope for sustainability indicators. European Forest Institute.
   Google Scholar