Next Article in Journal
Designing a Blockchain Model for the Paris Agreement’s Carbon Market Mechanism
Next Article in Special Issue
Testing a Framework to Co-Construct Social Innovation Actions: Insights from Seven Marginalized Rural Areas
Previous Article in Journal
The Nexus between Poverty and the Environment: A Case Study of Lijiang, China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives as Social Innovation for Governance and Practice: A Review of Responsible Mining Initiatives
Correction published on 17 July 2020, see Sustainability 2020, 12(14), 5767.

Governance of Social Innovation in Forestry

Institute of Forest, Environmental and Natural Resource Policy and European Forest Institute–EFI Forest Policy Research Network, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), Feistmantelstraße 4, 1180 Vienna, Austria
Department of Land, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry (TESAF), The University of Padova, Via dell'Università 16, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy
ÖAR GmbH, Alberstrasse 10, 8010 Graz, Austria
Llais y Goedwig, Unit 6 Dyfi Eco Parc, Machynlleth, Powys SY20 8AX, Wales, UK
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(3), 1065;
Received: 12 November 2019 / Revised: 30 January 2020 / Accepted: 31 January 2020 / Published: 3 February 2020
Over the last decade, the term social innovation has received increased attention as a potential solution to address complex global social problems and to add collective values to society. The forest sector has great potential for fostering employment, community development and reducing increased emigration from rural to urban areas. This potential is not always realised, especially in economically weak and remote rural areas. Hence, this paper tackles the question of how social innovations in forestry are able to succeed under adverse circumstances and contribute to respond to some of the before mentioned challenges? To answer this question, we first identified four very different cases across Europe that are compatible with the criteria of social innovation. Proceeding from this starting point, comparative research was undertaken with the aim to identify the cases´ specific features and key criteria for success. In the cases considered, it is evident that the sheer determination and voluntary investment of time and effort by key individuals, who were convinced of the value of the idea for the community, provided indispensable impetus to all four social innovations. In drawing its conclusions, this paper highlights the principal areas that need consideration and that hence have implications when developing supportive policies. Furthermore, we provide some insight into future research topics that would allow us to better understand the positive impacts of social innovation in the forest-based sector. View Full-Text
Keywords: forestry; forest sector; social entrepreneurship; forest ownership; collective action; cooperation forestry; forest sector; social entrepreneurship; forest ownership; collective action; cooperation
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Ludvig, A.; Rogelja, T.; Asamer-Handler, M.; Weiss, G.; Wilding, M.; Zivojinovic, I. Governance of Social Innovation in Forestry. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1065.

AMA Style

Ludvig A, Rogelja T, Asamer-Handler M, Weiss G, Wilding M, Zivojinovic I. Governance of Social Innovation in Forestry. Sustainability. 2020; 12(3):1065.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ludvig, Alice, Todora Rogelja, Marelli Asamer-Handler, Gerhard Weiss, Maria Wilding, and Ivana Zivojinovic. 2020. "Governance of Social Innovation in Forestry" Sustainability 12, no. 3: 1065.

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

Back to TopTop