Social Innovation as a Prospect for the Forest Bioeconomy: Selected Examples from Europe
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Conceptual Framework: Theories of Social Innovation and the Forest Bioeconomy
2.2. Two Stages of Social Innovation and Three Types of Relevance for the Forest Bioeconomy
- Social benefits and needs (A): Social innovation covering forest owners’ objectives in combination with fulfilling social benefits and needs.
- Sustainable rural development (B): Social innovation covering forest policy objectives in consistency with regional/rural development.
- Participation and collective action (C): Social innovation covering collective civil society involvement, community forestry, and interactions in the forestry actors’ network.
2.3. Document and Literature Analysis
- From what level do the documents originate?
- How is social innovation described in the policy documents? (categories for perception of social innovation)
- How is the forest bioeconomy described in the policy documents? (categories for perception of forest bioeconomy)
- What policy instruments are suggested for social innovation and the forest bioeconomy? (categories for monetary, legal, informational)
- Who are the main audiences or beneficiaries of the social innovation and the forest bioeconomy strategy? (categories for community support, socially excluded groups, participation, beneficiaries, private, semi-private, the role of public institutions, notions of civil society, notions of stakeholders)
- How is the budget allocated to specific measures? (power distribution)
- How is the role of public institutions designed in the strategies?
- What is the concept of social innovation?
- What is the concept of the forest bioeconomy?
- How do the authors deal with institutional change, transformative change in relation to rural problems, and marginalization?
- What role does the forest industry have in the articles?
- How are social problems overcome and how are solutions designed towards a forest bioeconomy?
2.4. Interview Data
3. Results
3.1. Forestry and Social Innovation in the Bioeconomy Strategy
3.2. Social Innovation in Forest Bioeconomy Social and Business Activities
3.2.1. Social Benefits and Needs: Social Inclusion of Vulnerable Groups in Forest Bioeconomy Activities
3.2.2. Sustainable Rural and Regional Development through Forest Bioeconomy Activities
3.2.3. Participation and Collective Action in the Forest Bioeconomy: Engagement in Decision Making Through New Actors’ Constellations in Forestry
4. Conclusions and Future Outlook
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Górriz-Mifsud, E.; Burns, M.; Marini Govigli, V. Civil society engaged in wildfires: Mediterranean forest fire volunteer groupings. For. Policy Econ. 2019, 102, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hewitt, R.J.; Bradley, N.; Baggio Compagnucci, A.; Barlagne, C.; Ceglarz, A.; Cremades, R.; McKeen, M.; Otto, I.M.; Slee, B. Social Innovation in Community Energy in Europe: A Review of the Evidence. Front. Energy Res. 2019, 7, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ludvig, A.; Weiss, G.; Sarkki, S.; Nijnik, M.; Živojinović, I. Mapping European and forest related policies supporting social innovation for rural settings. For. Policy Econ. 2018, 97, 146–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melnykovych, M.; Nijnik, M.; Soloviy, I.; Nijnik, A.; Sarkki, S.; Bihun, Y. Social-ecological innovation in remote mountain areas: Adaptive responses of forest-dependent communities to the challenges of a changing world. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 613–614, 894–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nijnik, M.; Secco, L.; Miller, D.; Melnykovych, M. Can social innovation make a difference to forest-dependent communities? For. Policy Econ. 2019, 100, 207–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Secco, L.; Pisani, E.; Da Re, R.; Rogelja, T.; Burlando, C.; Vicentini, K.; Pettenella, D.; Masiero, M.; Miller, D.; Nijnjk, M. Towards a method of evaluating social innovation in forest-dependent rural communities: First suggestions from a science-stakeholder collaboration. For. Policy Econ. 2019, 104, 9–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guide to Social Innovation; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2013; Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/presenta/social_innovation/social_innovation_2013.pdf and https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/policy/social_en (accessed on 30 July 2019).
- European Union. A Sustainable Bioeconomy for Europe: Strengthening the Connection between Economy, Society and the Environment, Updated Bioeconomy Strategy; European Union: Luxembourg, 2018; p. 107. [Google Scholar]
- Paterman, C.; Aguilar, A. The origins of the bioeconomy in the European Union. New Biotech. 2018, 40, 20–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leipold, S.; Petit-Boix, A. The circular economy and the bio-based sector–perspectives of European and German stakeholders. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 201, 1125–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moulaert, F. The International Handbook on Social Innovation; Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Bell, J.; Lino, P.; Dodd, T.; Szilva, N.; Nanou, C.; Mega, V.; Campos, P. EU ambition to build the world’s leading bioeconomy–Uncertain times demand innovative and sustainable solutions. New Biotech. 2018, 40, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolfslehner, B.; Linser, S.; Pülzl, H.; Bastrup-Birk, A.; Camia, A.; Marchetti, M. Forest Bioeconomy—A New Scope for Sustainability Indicators; From Science to Policy 4; European Forest Institute, EFI: Joensuu, Finland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Rotmans, J.; Loorbach, D. Complexity and transition management. J. Ind. Ecol. 2009, 13, 184–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD. Fostering Innovation to Address Social Challenges. Workshop Proceedings, OECD Innovation Strategy, 2018. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/47861327.pdf (accessed on 28 June 2017).
- Sinclair, S.; Baglioni, S. Social Innovation and Social Policy–Promises and Risks. Soc. Policy Soc. 2014, 13, 469–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Staffas, L.; Gustavsson, M.; McCormick, K. Strategies and Policies for the Bioeconomy and Bio-Based Economy: An Analysis of Official National Approaches. Sustainability 2013, 5, 2751–2769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hurmekoski, E.; Hetemäki, L. Studying the Future of the Forest Sector: Review and Implications. For. Policy Econ. 2013, 34, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD/LEED Forum on Social Innovations. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/fr/cfe/leed/forum-social-innovations.htm (accessed on 22 August 2017).
- Bock, B. Social Innovation and Sustainability; how to disentangle the buzzword and its application in the field of agriculture and rural development. Stud. Agric. Econ. 2012, 114, 57–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cajaiba-Santana, G. Social innovation: Moving the field forward. A conceptual framework. Techn. For. Soc. Chang. 2014, 82, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Union. Social Innovation—A Decade of Changes, A BEPA Report; European Bureau of Policy Advisers: Luxembourg, 2014; Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/13403/attachments/1/translations (accessed on 28 June 2017).
- Hämäläinen, T.; Heiskala, R. Social Innovations, Institutional Change and Economic Performance: Making Sense of Structural Adjustment Processes in Industrial Sectors, Regions and Societies; Edward Elgar Publishing in association with Sitra, the Finnish Innovation Fund: Cornwall, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Howaldt, J.; Schwarz, M. Social Innovation: Concepts, Research Fields and International Trends; IMA/ZLW Publisher: Aachen, Germany, 2010; p. 75. [Google Scholar]
- Phills, J.A.; Deigelmeier, K.; Miller, D.T. Rediscovering Social Innovation. Standford Soc. Innov. Rev. 2008, 6, 34–43. [Google Scholar]
- Pol, E.; Ville, S. Social Innovation: Buzz word or enduring term? J. Socio-Econ. 2009, 38, 878–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Polman, N.; Slee, W.; Kluvánková, T.; Dijkshoorn, M.; Nijnik, M.; Gezik, V.; Soma, K. Classification of Social Innovations for Marginalized Rural Areas; Deliverable 2.1, Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas (SIMRA), SIMRA report; SIMRA, 2017; p. 32. Available online: http://www.simra-h2020.eu/ (accessed on 4 October 2019).
- Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas (SIMRA). Available online: http://www.simra-h2020.eu/ (accessed on 4 October 2019).
- Laakkonen, A.; Hujala, T.; Pykäläinen, J. Integrating intangible resources enables creating new types of forest services-developing forest leasing value network in Finland. For. Policy Econ. 2018, 99, 157–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carina, E.; Keskitalo, H. Globalisation and Change in Forest Ownership and Forest Use; Natural resource management in transition Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2017; Available online: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1057/978-1-137-57116-8 (accessed on 4 October 2019).
- Mayring, P. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse, 9th ed.; Beltz: Weinheim/Basel, Switzerland, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Ludvig, A.; Corradini, G.; Asamer-Handler, M.; Pettenella, D.; Verdejo, V.; Martínez, S.; Weiss, G. The Practice of Innovation: The Role of Institutions in Support of Non-Wood Forest Products. Bioprod. Bus. J. 2016, 1, 73–84. [Google Scholar]
- Weiss, G.; Ollonqvist, P.; Slee, B. How to support Innovation in the Forest Sector: Summary and Conclusions. In Innovation in Forestry: Territorial and Value Chain Relationships; Weiss, G., Pettenella, D., Ollonqvist, P., Slee, B., Eds.; CABI: Brussels, Belgium, 2011; pp. 303–321. [Google Scholar]
- Brink, H. Validity and reliability in qualitative research. Curationis 1993, 16, 35–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flick, U. An Introduction to Qualitative Research, 5th ed.; Sage Publisher House: Thousand Oaks, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Whitehead, T. Basic Classical Ethnographic Research Methods Secondary Data Analysis, Fieldwork, Observation/Participant Observation, and Informal and Semi-Structured Interviewing, (EICCARS) Working Paper Series; University of Maryland: Maryland, MD, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Rogelja, T.; Secco, L.; Ludvig, A.; Weiss, G.; Shannon, M. Forest-based social innovation in Slovenia: The development of the Charcoal Land initiative. In Proceedings of the ISRIC 2018 Conference “Bridging Social and Business Innovation”, Heidelberg, Germany, 5–7 September 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Wilkes-Allemann, J.; Ludvig, A. The role of social innovation in negotiations about recreational infrastructure in forests-A mountain-bike case study in Switzerland. For. Policy Econ. 2019, 100, 227–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ludvig, A.; Wilding, M.; Thorogood, A.; Weiss, G. Social innovation in the Welsh Woodlands: Community based forestry as collective third-sector engagement. For. Policy Econ. 2018, 95, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forest Policy and Innovation Database. Available online: http://policydatabase.boku.ac.at/ (accessed on 22 August 2017).
- Mustalahti, I. The responsive bioeconomy: The need for inclusion of citizens and environmental capability in the forest based bioeconomy. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 3781–3790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hausknost, D.; Schriefl, E.; Lauk, C.; Kalt, G. A transition to which bioeconomy? An exploration of diverging techno-political choices. Sustainability 2017, 9, 669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dupont-Inglis, J.; Borg, A. Destination bioeconomy. The path towards a smarter, more sustainable future. New Biotechnol. 2018, 40, 140–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- D’Amato, D.; Droste, N.; Allen, B.; Kettunen, M.; Lähtinen, K.; Korhonen, J.; Leskinen, P.; Matthies, B.D.; Toppinen, A. Green, circular, bio economy: A comparative analysis of sustainability avenues. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 168, 716–734. [Google Scholar]
- Social Biomass Farm (Sozialer Biomassehof SOBIO). Available online: http://www.biomassehof-stmk.at/projekte/sozialer-biomassehof.html (accessed on 26 July 2019).
- CARITAS Waldprojekt (Caritas Forest Project). Available online: https://www.vol.at/caritas-feiert-20-jahre-waldprojekt/5987516 (accessed on 26 July 2019).
- Di Iacovo, F.; Moruzzo, R.; Rossignoli, C.; Scarpellini, A. Transition Management and Social Innovation in Rural Areas: Lessons from Social Farming. J. Agric. Edu. Ext. 2014, 20, 327–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Renner, R.; Haubenhofer, D. Political Cultures reflected in the social recognition of new practices: A comparison of green care farming in Austria and the Netherlands. In Green Care for Human Therapy, Social Innovation, Rural Economy and Education, Nova Biomedical; Gallis, C., Ed.; Nova Science Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 215–229. [Google Scholar]
- Haubenhofer, D.; Elings, M.; Hassink, J.; Hine, E. The Development of Green Care in Western European Countries. Explore (NY) 2010, 6, 106–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elsen, T.V.; Finuola, R. Policies and Strategies of Green Care in Europe. In Green Care for Human Therapy, Social Innovation, Rural Economy and Education, Nova Biomedical; Gallis, C., Ed.; Nova Science Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 189–215. [Google Scholar]
- Mulgan, G. The Process of Social Innovation. Innov. Technol. Gov. Glob. 2006, 1, 145–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murray, R.; Caulier-Grice, J.; Mulgan, G. The Open Book of Social Innovation; NESTA, The Young Foundation: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Adloff, F. Zivilgesellschaft Theorie und politische Praxis; Campus Verlag: Frankfurt, Germany, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Whitehead, I.; Hansmann, R.; Lohrberg, F.; Živojinović, I.; Bernasconi, A.; Jones, N. The role of partnerships and the Third Sector in the development and delivery of urban forestry and green infrastructure. In The Urban Forest: Cultivating Green Infrastructure for People and the Environment; Pearlmutter, D., Calfapietra, C., Samson, R., O’Brien, L., Krajter Ostoić, S., Sanesi, G., Alonso del Amo, R., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 259–282. [Google Scholar]
5 Key Objectives in the Updated Bio-Economy Strategy [8] (p. 26) | Role of SI Amongst Principal Objectives in the Forest Bioeconomy Strategy (Strong, Medium, Weak) | Forestry as a Supplier of Key Objectives of the Bioeconomy | Key Aspects of SI in Forest Bioeconomy Covered (Strong, Medium, Weak) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Social Benefits and Needs (A) | Sustainable Rural/Regional Development (B) | Participation and Collective Action (C) | |||
Objective #1: Ensuring food security | Weak | Food and farming: -edible NWFPs -watershed management -feed for livestock | medium | medium | weak |
Objective #2: Managing natural resources sustainably | weak (to medium) | Sustainable forest management: -efficient use of biological resources | weak | medium | weak |
Objective #3: Reducing dependence on nonrenewable resources | medium (to weak) | Sustainable timber production: -substitution through harvested wood products -substitution through energy use | weak | medium | weak |
Objective #4: Mitigation and adapting to climate change | weak | Tackling climate change: -forests as carbon sinks -harvested wood products as carbon sinks -resilience and risk prevention through forests | weak | medium | weak |
Objective #5: Creating jobs and maintaining European competitiveness | strong | The forest economy and the wood-based industries: -forest sector workforce -employment in rural and urban areas -green jobs -service provision -services to the forest sector -innovative services, goods and products [32,33] -newly emerging societal trends and emerging markets -new startups | strong | strong | medium |
Key Targets of SI | Activities in the Forest Bioeconomy | Main Focus of the Activities | Assets for the Forest Bioeconomy | Principal Organizational Format of the Activity |
---|---|---|---|---|
(A) Social benefits and needs: Addressing and fostering social inclusion | Forest bioeconomy enterprises targeting vulnerable groups (Social biomass plants (AT and SI), Waldprojekt (AT), Green Care (EU wide), Green Care Forest (AT), Social Farming (EU wide), Forest production projects with former drug addicts (EU wide and AT)) | Social inclusion | Economic and cultural benefit for forest owners and enhancement of social values. | Charity, Social Enterprise, NGO |
(B) Sustainable rural development: Addressing rural/regional economy | Institutional innovations such as the formation of labels and brands amongst collectives of forest owners: Regional or nature marketing labels; regional development initiatives and bioenergy initiatives ((Nature parks (AT), Charcoal initiatives (SI) [37], chestnut associations (IT), bioenergy (AT)) | Economic revenue and soft values such as strengthening of social stability and identity with the income to the region, but also “intangible services” in the forest bioeconomy [23] | Networking and business benefits for forest owners, local empowerment, and economic development. | Business |
(C) Participation and collective action: Engagement of civil society, forest owners, and forestry actors | Volunteering (e.g., volunteer reforestation projects in Austrian Mountain regions (AT)) and voluntary cooperation for joint goals (fire brigades (ESP [1]); Mountain bike trails (CH) [38]), communal engagement for woodland management with social, cultural and economic benefits (Woodland Skills Centre, Coppice Wood College (Wales) [39]) | Collective activities of multiple stakeholders with a communal goal | Cooperation and trust building around a common goal for all actors involved. | All forms: New organizations and new institutional arrangements, NGO, strong volunteer engagement |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ludvig, A.; Zivojinovic, I.; Hujala, T. Social Innovation as a Prospect for the Forest Bioeconomy: Selected Examples from Europe. Forests 2019, 10, 878. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10100878
Ludvig A, Zivojinovic I, Hujala T. Social Innovation as a Prospect for the Forest Bioeconomy: Selected Examples from Europe. Forests. 2019; 10(10):878. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10100878
Chicago/Turabian StyleLudvig, Alice, Ivana Zivojinovic, and Teppo Hujala. 2019. "Social Innovation as a Prospect for the Forest Bioeconomy: Selected Examples from Europe" Forests 10, no. 10: 878. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10100878