1. Introduction
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. This also holds true for forest policy. Most recently, policy and debate seem to be concentrating on the role that the economy and the markets and their instruments can play in such a transition from a fossil fuel-based to a ‘bio-based economy’ or ‘bio-economy’ [
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10]. The economy is also considered as a solution for ‘all types’ of social or ecological problems, as has been critically discussed in recent research [
5,
7].
Given the strong expectations regarding the role that forestry could and should play in the ‘bio-economy’, e.g., Globally: [
11,
12]; Europe: [
13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19,
20,
21,
22]; Finland: [
23,
24,
25]; Sweden: [
26,
27]; Germany: [
28,
29,
30,
31,
32,
33,
34]; and Austria: [
35,
36,
37,
38], we find it valuable to focus this paper on the actual perceptions of influential actors on how to best address future forest land-use issues and disputes [
1].
First of all, given the prevailing belief in the primacy of the market with respect to general as well forest-related bio-economy policies [
5,
7,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19,
20,
21,
22,
23,
24,
25,
26,
27,
28,
29,
30,
31,
32,
33,
34,
35,
36,
37,
38], we need to examine the role of the state, markets, and society as the main drivers or facilitators of change, which has been a topic of considerable debate [
5]. This is the first aim of this paper. 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.
By identifying the perceptions or preferences of the influential or most important actors from forest initiatives related to the primary facilitators for solving future forest disputes, we can shed light on whether and in which contexts bio-economy expectations for the strong role of markets are likely. In examining the main facilitators, our analysis will provide empirical data on more general perceptions or preferences, which will indirectly reveal actor values that are considered to be more stable than the situational interests [
47,
48,
49] of actors in policy or initiative networks. In this paper, forest initiatives are defined as ‘any cooperation of actors that aims to solve conflicts, disputes or problems related to the local or regional use or protection of forests and their products or services, including further utilization of these products’.
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 (not part of this paper), or the main facilitators or appropriate instruments for solving future problems (in this paper). Actor beliefs, also called stated beliefs, can be conceptualized as complex ‘belief systems’ consisting of deep core and core values or beliefs and secondary aspects or situative interests, e.g., using a category system and content analysis of published policies or documents [
48,
49].
Here, we use quantitative questionnaires to gain an initial understanding of the preferences or perceptions of the influential actors and, hence, their beliefs. These quantitative estimates then help to focus future qualitative analysis (interviews) by providing a better idea of the key actor interests and values, thus enabling their further description. This is necessary for further analysis and distinction of willingness, e.g., the separation of willingness from capacities as applied in some actor-centred approaches [
39,
40,
41].
Perceptions and preferences are considered equal. For example, when asking an actor to identify and prioritize goals, we can estimate the preference of an actor for various goals. This we consider equal to the actor’s perception on how important a goal is for himself or herself. These preferences or perceptions, hence actor beliefs, can reveal both situation-dependent and context-driven interests, as well as more general values, e.g., if and how nature or forests should be used.
In the context of the main facilitators (e.g., the state, market, society, or nature) and most appropriate policy instruments, we can derive long-term values (e.g., state vs. market; society vs. nature; domination of market vs. regulation instruments—or rather an instrument mix). With respect to preferences for policy instruments, an interest-relation could, however, be more likely (e.g., if an actor is strongly subsidy dependent, he or she more likely prefers positive financial incentives). These empirical insights allow us to assess and more definitively discuss research debates on the role of the state, the market, or society, as stated below.
In their theses, Mickler and Schraml et al. (2008) [
1] highlight the varying roles of the state, market, and society across key issues or disputes regarding forest land use. They expect the market and economic factors to impact multi-functionality and lead to additional harvesting, although, at least indirectly, the state would be needed to ‘protect sustainability’. In addition, to ‘combat’ climate change, it is probably the state that should provide, e.g., financial incentives [
1]. The economisation or financialisation of nature is also discussed in the context of the concept of the ‘bio-economy’ [
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7]. On the one hand, neo-liberalism favours a slim state and the more prominent role of markets, while on the other hand, the development of a new economic system, e.g., bio-economy, would probably favour a stronger state [
5]. Some authors argue that the state will maintain its power despite or because of the strengthening of markets, public-private partnerships, etc., through the ‘bio-economy’ [
2,
5]. Bio-economy policies contain determinants of both a neoliberal laissez-faire and an interventionist state, calling for a strong but different state [
2,
5], thereby occluding alternative approaches [
7,
8,
9] in order to legitimate and facilitate a ‘growth-oriented model of ecological modernization’ [
3,
4,
6,
7,
50]. Some authors conclude that this has already been done with some ‘success’ [
51,
52]. The ‘bio-economy’ concept is also interesting, as it promises ‘to overcome current and future problems of unsustainable use of the earth’s resources and global social and ecological challenges’ [
5,
7]. Several policies also argue that the forest sector will not only contribute wood, but also other bio-based products or ecosystem services to a future bio-economy; hence, these products or services will be provided by and contribute to the markets of a bio-economy, although there are concerns regarding biodiversity [
6,
10] if other forest ecosystem products are increased in the future.
The second aim of our paper is to analyse the actors’ beliefs and preferences regarding the facilitators (e.g., the state, the market) and policy instruments (e.g., dictates/bans, positive financial incentives, awareness raising) in concrete issue contexts. To consider a broad set of relevant issues or disputes, i.e., ‘key issues’, regarding future forest land use, we can build on a set of key issues developed by Mickler and Schraml et al. (2008) [
1], who identified twelve theses for the development of forests and land use. Their theses are the result of a Delphi study, where actors in the forest sector were asked to assess future developments and demands for facilitation or steering in the forest sector of Germany in 2100.
They claim, for instance, that in the future, the
multi-functionality of forests will be renegotiated among actors, and that it will be considered from an increasingly economic perspective. Increasing economisation or financialisation of forests will come at the cost of ecological and societal interests. As a consequence, ‘forest policy’, i.e., the state, should provide incentives to support the ecological values of forests [
1].
Another thesis argues that in the future, market demand will lead to increasing
harvesting intensities, to an overexploitation of forests and to a softening of international sustainability standards, meaning that markets and their instruments would also prevail in wood production issues [
1], e.g., over state control. Furthermore, they state that forests will be strongly affected by
climate change, which would demand a strong facilitation role with respect to pro-active risk management and integrative forest management [
1]. Due to
increasing globalisation and market demand, the forest sector will need stronger cooperation with other sectors. This would be achieved if there was more cooperation among forest owners with respect to wood production and marketing and if vertical integration in the value-chain were improved [
1].
Another thesis argues that forests will be increasingly appreciated by the public for their
recreational purposes, but there will not be a noticeable willingness to pay for such services. Overcoming this discrepancy is considered to be another long-term task, e.g., calling for facilitation by the state [
1].
The above qualitative research and theses provide us with some of the key issues considered to be relevant for future forestry. These were useful for developing a holistic set of issues, i.e., land-use disputes, for our questionnaire sheet. For the results section in this paper, we have aggregated the issues into groups more generally relating to wood production, social, or ecological themes. This is a common distinction, which was also used in the above Delphi research. Additionally, the above research provides us with expectations for some dominant facilitators or policy instruments.
As noted above, the overarching question of our paper is, what are the actual perceptions of influential actors on how to best address future forest land-use disputes? We will analyse and specify the primary facilitators and the most appropriate policy instruments for concrete issues/disputes, actor groups, and countries. This will enable us, as well as future research in this field, to verify or assess the aspirations of policies, contents of discourses, or scientific debates, and theses or results, some of which are presented or related to the above.
In light of these discussions [
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19,
20,
21,
22,
23,
24,
25,
26,
27,
28,
29,
30,
31,
32,
33,
34,
35,
36,
37,
38], we formulate the following hypotheses:
The market will be the dominant driver in solving key disputes regarding future forest land use.
In disputes where the market creates potentially negative side effects (e.g., costs created by tourism or recreation or declining social and ecological functions) or where no market can be formally identified (climate change effects), state support is needed.
To analyse the perceptions of influential actors about who should primarily facilitate disputes on future forest land use and what the most appropriate instruments are to best achieve this, we initially applied the Actor-centred Analytical Approach (AAA) [
39,
53] and used Social Network Analysis (SNA) in one part of a quantitative semi-structured questionnaire to identify the influential or most important actors. For the perception analysis presented in this paper, the SNA was only used as a sampling or selection procedure. The identified actors (SNA) were asked to also respond to another part of the quantitative semi-structured questionnaire, with twelve items covering broad issues or disputes with respect to future forest land use [
1].
For our analysis, we focus on data from
local forest initiatives and on the
influential or most important actors only. This operationalization of the analysis is relevant for the interpretation of the results and is explained as follows: We assumed that the changes or innovations for solving disputes regarding future forest land use would most likely be initiated by actors and their activities in various
local forest initiatives, and could therefore be best identified or at least predicted by analysing such initiatives. We further assumed that the direction of these changes, as well as the preferred facilitators and policy instruments applied in the future, depend on the influential actors’ perceptions. Therefore, our 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. The initiatives included participatory mountain forest initiatives, forest intervention zones, afforestation projects, forest owner associations, and model forest and labelling initiatives. In this paper, we do not compare more interest-related actor perceptions, e.g., the goals of the initiatives. Instead, we focus at a more general level and use data on actor beliefs regarding the main facilitators and most appropriate instruments for solving future problems of forest land use [
1], even outside of and independent from the respective initiatives analysed.
For our analysis in this paper, we were able to build on the identification of the
influential or most important actors from the various above-mentioned forest initiatives. In this respect, we refer to our results that have already been partly published elsewhere in a number of papers [
40,
41,
54]. These papers are on actor influence and the interest-related preferences of actors within forest initiatives. They are also based on the AAA and SNA, using different parts of the quantitative questionnaires and qualitative analysis.
4. Discussion and Conclusions
In this paper, following a literature discussion in the introduction, the assumption was made that the market would have a dominant role as the facilitator for all key issues or disputes on future forest land use and that market instruments would accordingly be considered to be most appropriate by the government and non-government actors of various initiatives (Hypothesis 1). We further specified this assumption (Hypothesis 2) such that we expected that state-related instruments (esp. laws) would be considered to be more appropriate where, given the domination of the market, the market potentially creates negative side effects or the market as such is difficult to identify formally.
Research has shown or discussed that an economic emphasis will be placed on the multi-functionality of forests [
1] and that market demand will lead to increasing harvesting intensities [
1]. This would mean that markets and their instruments would prevail in wood production issues. The economisation or financialisation of nature is also discussed in the context of the ‘bio-economy’ concept [
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7]. Indeed, our results show a clear preference for the market and its instruments when it comes to wood mobilisation issues such as wood production and marketing. The state and state-related instruments do not play an important role in these ‘traditional’ forestry issues. This supports our assumption (Hypothesis 1). This is especially true for ‘roundwood commercialisation from private forests’, where the market is considered to be a strong facilitator (amongst the five choices for main facilitators) by both NGOs (32%) and GOs (45%), while the state is given little relevance (NGOs 9%, GOs 3%) and there is a clear priority for the liberal formation of prices (NGOs 37%, GOs 32%) rather than for laws, taxes, or positive financial incentives (ranging between 5% and 11%) (among the eight choices for most appropriate instruments). Individual forest owners do, however, accompany the state as a main facilitator (NGOs 45%, GOs 46%). Also, with respect to ‘roundwood production from private forests’, the market is given more priority as a main facilitator (NGOs 19%, GOs 43%) than the state (NGOs 12%, GOs 14%), and liberal price formation is still a prominent instrument (NGOs 24%, GOs 16%), along with advice and training (NGOs 16%, GOs 20%), in contrast to laws or taxes (between 7% and 12%). Here, individual forest owners play an even larger role as the main facilitators, especially from the perception of NGOs (NGOs 61%, GOs 39%).
However, our results also show that for the development of new markets (energy transition, new applications for wood), the state is thought to have a stronger role, together with the market, as the main facilitator compared to ‘traditional’ issues. To facilitate roundwood production for energy transition, the state is clearly considered to be relevant by NGOs (24%) and GOs (41%), together with the market (NGOs 39%, GOs 42%) and individual forest owners (for NGOs: 30%). Also, with respect to facilitating new areas of application for wood, the state (NGOs 30%, GOs 21%) is strongly relevant, together with the market (NGOs 52%, GOs 48%) and society (for GOs: 29%). The most appropriate instruments are to a lesser extent found among those that are market-based, whereas preferences cover a broad mix of instruments, including laws or incentives (especially when compared to roundwood commercialisation from private forests). Therefore, we agree with other authors that the bio-economy concept calls for a strong but different state [
2,
5] and facilitates a ‘growth-oriented model of ecological modernization’ [
3,
4,
6,
7,
50]. These results, however, partly reject our assumption (Hypothesis 1) that the market is the clearly dominant leader in all future forest land-use disputes. Instead, it seems more appropriate to assume strong cooperation between the state and the market in areas of new market development (e.g., bio-economy). This conclusion, however, requires further research and triangulation with qualitative data.
Recent research concludes that the future economic emphasis is expected to come at the cost of ecological and societal interests [
1]. ‘Forest policy’, i.e., the state, should therefore provide incentives to support the ecological value of forests [
1]. Then again, the ‘bio-economy’ concept promises ‘to overcome current and future problems of unsustainable use of the earth’s resources and global social and ecological challenges’ [
5,
7]; that is, the market will solve the problems. Our results show, across all the socio-ecological, societal, and other issues to be solved in the future, that the market and its instruments are not considered to have dominant roles. Instead, the state is given a strong position across these issues, and laws or incentives are considered to be the most appropriate instruments, along with public relations and awareness raising.
The state is clearly considered to be a main facilitator regarding the provision of ecosystem services (NGOs 61%, GOs 67%), the adaptation of forests to climate change (NGOs 46%, GOs 65%), nature conservation on private forest land (NGOs 46%, GOs 43%), soil and infrastructure protection by private forests (NGOs 71%, GOs 57%), new leisure activities in forests (NGOs 35%, GOs 34%; together with society: NGOs 34%, GOs 43%), population development in rural regions (NGOs 65%, GOs 55%), wind power facilities in forest areas (NGOs 53%, GOs 87%), and the role of hunting in forest management (NGOs 44%, GOs 47%).
With the exception of addressing population development in rural regions (here, financial incentives prevail: NGOs 35%, GOs 31%), laws are considered dominant or important instruments in all of the above areas of dispute, particularly for wind power (NGOs 32%, GOs 46%) and hunting issues (NGOs 38%, GOs 41%). Public relations and awareness raising are given relatively high relevance in the provision of ecosystem services, the adaptation of forests to climate change, new leisure activities, and population development in rural areas. Financial incentives are given relatively high relevance in nature conservation on private forest land and the provision of protective functions of forests (soil, infrastructure), and dominate in rural population development issues (as noted above).
These results seem to be in accordance with the concerns about the effects of solely economically-driven forest land use [
1], and the criticism and scepticism with respect to the promises of the ‘bio-economy’ concept and the ability or willingness of the market to deal with public goods [
5,
7]. This supports our assumption (Hypothesis 2) that state instruments will become prominent where market instruments may fail, but only to a certain extent, given that the precondition (Hypothesis 1) of the dominant role of the market as a facilitator for the future is not met in these issues. Here, a specification would be needed that in areas of market failure and disinterest, the state and state instruments gain dominant roles. Hence, a future ‘bio-economy’ market appears not to provide for multi-functional forest management ‘per-se’. If these societal and ecological goals are considered relevant, a clear state contribution would be needed.
We can also show that for the provision of ecosystem services, the market and its instruments are not considered to play an important role in the future. This is also contradictory to the promises of a multi-functional ‘bio-economy’ [
6,
10] or discourses on payments for ecosystem services (and rejects Hypothesis 1 and supports Hypothesis 2). Finally, it is interesting that for the adaptation of forests to climate change, ‘leaving it to nature’ is given some relevance by the actors, while this is not the case for the issue of nature protection on private forest land (for both, we find the state as the dominant facilitator, in support of Hypothesis 2).
Comparing the regions, it is difficult to draw general conclusions. What we can conclude is that across the various disputes on future forest land use, the perceptions of actors from different regions seem to be more similar than expected given the diverse European conditions covered. Generally, the regions’ positions can often be grouped by their similarity into Portuguese and Spanish, Slovenian and German, and Latvian positions. For many wood mobilisation-related themes, a preference for the market is most clearly found in Portuguese and Latvian positions (supporting Hypothesis 1). A strong similarity in all of the regions’ positions is only found in the role of the state for ecosystem services provision and to some extent also in the role of the state for facilitating the provision of protective functions of forests given the challenges of climate change (supporting Hypothesis 2).
Finally, it could be shown in this paper that by applying perception analysis with sampling based on the AAA and the quantitative parts of SNA, one is already able to shed more light on the influential actors’ core values and beliefs, as expressed by their perceptions and preferences about who should primarily facilitate disputes on future forest land use and what instruments would be most appropriate to best achieve this. However, data used for the analysis in this paper are based only on quantitative results from the SNA-sampling-based perception analysis. In the tradition of a post-positivist approach, we recognize that total networks do not exist due to various limitations, and we therefore consider the quantitative results from the SNA, as well as those from perception analysis, as estimates from partial networks or SNA-sampling-based analysis, respectively, and that both need further triangulation with qualitative data. These estimates are valuable for verifying and specifying our hypotheses and can provide input for further research. Furthermore, comprehensive results provide a valuable and rich basis for a more focused additional analysis regarding specific future disputes or comparisons of the regions, for theory or hypothesis development, and for specification or verification through further (qualitative) methods.
Methodically, we can conclude that the so-called ‘perception analysis’, which was already introduced in the first phase of the analysis to gain quantitative estimates on actor perceptions, increases effort only marginally, but is able to produce very valuable results needed for many further analyses. The data obtained are also promising for identifying clusters or coalitions of beliefs and preferences, similar to ‘advocacy coalitions’. This allows for a combination with (quantitative) values or estimates on actor power or influence and for the identification of not only the influential actors, but also the most probable dominant pathways for future change.