IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v113y2020ics1389934119302229.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A systemic evaluation framework for a multi-actor, forest-based bioeconomy governance process: The German Charter for Wood 2.0 as a case study

Author

Listed:
  • Purkus, Alexandra
  • Lüdtke, Jan

Abstract

Sustainable forestry and wood utilisation can play an important role in strengthening a renewable resource-based bioeconomy. Governing associated structural change processes is a complex task; it involves handling multiple demands on forests in a changing climate and the creation and perpetuation of innovation-friendly framework conditions in a variety of sectors and industries. In Germany, the Charter for Wood 2.0 (“Charta für Holz 2.0”) has been established as a multi-actor governance process to increase contributions of sustainable forestry and wood use to climate change mitigation, value creation and resource efficiency. This article develops the methodological framework for the evaluation accompanying the Charter.

Suggested Citation

  • Purkus, Alexandra & Lüdtke, Jan, 2020. "A systemic evaluation framework for a multi-actor, forest-based bioeconomy governance process: The German Charter for Wood 2.0 as a case study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:113:y:2020:i:c:s1389934119302229
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102113
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934119302229
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102113?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brunnhofer, Magdalena & Gabriella, Natasha & Schöggl, Josef-Peter & Stern, Tobias & Posch, Alfred, 2020. "The biorefinery transition in the European pulp and paper industry – A three-phase Delphi study including a SWOT-AHP analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    2. Schimmelpfennig, Sonja & Heidecke, Claudia & Beer, Holger & Bittner, Florian & Klages, Susanne & Krengel, Sandra & Lange, Stefan, 2018. "Klimaanpassung in Land- und Forstwirtschaft: Ergebnisse eines Workshops der Ressortforschungsinstitute FLI, JKI und Thünen-Institut," Thünen Working Papers 86, Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute, Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.
    3. Magro, Edurne & Wilson, James R., 2013. "Complex innovation policy systems: Towards an evaluation mix," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1647-1656.
    4. Sonja Schimmelpfennig & Claudia Heidecke & Holger Beer & Florian Bittner & Susanne Klages & Sandra Krengel & Stefan Lange (eds.), 2018. "Klimaanpassung in Land- und Forstwirtschaft – Ergebnisse eines Workshops der Ressortforschungsinstitute FLI, JKI und Thünen-Institut," Thünen Working Paper 268143, Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut (vTI), Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.
    5. Feliciano, D. & Blagojević, D. & Böhling, K. & Hujala, T. & Lawrence, A. & Lidestav, G. & Ludvig, A. & Turner, T. & Weiss, G. & Zivojinovic, I., 2019. "Learning about forest ownership and management issues in Europe while travelling: The Travellab approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 32-42.
    6. Carlsson, B & Stankiewicz, R, 1991. "On the Nature, Function and Composition of Technological Systems," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 93-118, April.
    7. Rametsteiner, Ewald & Weiss, Gerhard, 2006. "Assessing policies from a systems perspecitve -- Experiences with applied innovation systems analysis and implications for policy evaluation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(5), pages 564-576, July.
    8. Ladu, Luana & Imbert, Enrica & Quitzow, Rainer & Morone, Piergiuseppe, 2020. "The role of the policy mix in the transition toward a circular forest bioeconomy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    9. Anna J. Wieczorek & Marko P. Hekkert, 2012. "Corrigendum to 'Systemic instruments for systemic innovation problems: A framework for policy makers and innovation scholars'," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(6), pages 842-842, December.
    10. Cornwall, Andrea & Aghajanian, Alia, 2017. "How to Find out What’s Really Going On: Understanding Impact through Participatory Process Evaluation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 173-185.
    11. Clarysse, Bart & Wright, Mike & Mustar, Philippe, 2009. "Behavioural additionality of R&D subsidies: A learning perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 1517-1533, December.
    12. Erik Arnold, 2004. "Evaluating research and innovation policy: a systems world needs systems evaluations," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 3-17, April.
    13. Abdullah Gök & Jakob Edler, 2012. "The use of behavioural additionality evaluation in innovation policy making," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(4), pages 306-318, September.
    14. Annemarie van Zeijl-Rozema & Ron Cörvers & René Kemp & Pim Martens, 2008. "Governance for sustainable development: a framework," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(6), pages 410-421.
    15. Rogge, Karoline S. & Reichardt, Kristin, 2016. "Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1620-1635.
    16. Maria Angeles Diez, 2001. "The Evaluation of Regional Innovation and Cluster Policies: Towards a Participatory Approach," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(7), pages 907-923, October.
    17. Anna J. Wieczorek & Marko P. Hekkert, 2012. "Systemic instruments for systemic innovation problems: A framework for policy makers and innovation scholars," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(1), pages 74-87, February.
    18. Lazarevic, David & Kautto, Petrus & Antikainen, Riina, 2020. "Finland's wood-frame multi-storey construction innovation system: Analysing motors of creative destruction," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    19. Toppinen, Anne & Röhr, Axel & Pätäri, Satu & Lähtinen, Katja & Toivonen, Ritva, 2018. "The future of wooden multistory construction in the forest bioeconomy – A Delphi study from Finland and Sweden," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 3-10.
    20. Jakob Edler & Martin Berger & Michael Dinges & Abdullah Gök, 2012. "The practice of evaluation in innovation policy in Europe," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(3), pages 167-182, July.
    21. Tévécia Ronzon & Robert M’Barek, 2018. "Socioeconomic Indicators to Monitor the EU’s Bioeconomy in Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-22, May.
    22. Patton, Michael Quinn & Horton, Douglas, 2008. "Utilization-focused evaluation for agricultural innovation," ILAC Briefs 52533, Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative.
    23. Magro, Edurne & Wilson, James R., 2019. "Policy-mix evaluation: Governance challenges from new place-based innovation policies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    24. Eyvindson, Kyle & Repo, Anna & Mönkkönen, Mikko, 2018. "Mitigating forest biodiversity and ecosystem service losses in the era of bio-based economy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 119-127.
    25. Rüter, Sebastian & Werner, Frank & Forsell, Nicklas & Prins, Christopher & Vial, Estelle & Levet, Anne-Laure, 2016. "ClimWood2030 - Climate benefits of material substitution by forest biomass and harvested wood products: Perspective 2030. Final report," Thünen Reports 42, Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute, Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Weiss, Gerhard & Hansen, Eric & Ludvig, Alice & Nybakk, Erlend & Toppinen, Anne, 2021. "Innovation governance in the forest sector: Reviewing concepts, trends and gaps," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    2. Julija Konstantinavičienė & Vlada Vitunskienė, 2023. "Definition and Classification of Potential of Forest Wood Biomass in Terms of Sustainable Development: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-19, June.
    3. Bussola, Francesca & Falco, Enzo & Aukes, Ewert & Stegmaier, Peter & Sorge, Stefan & Ciolli, Marco & Gagliano, Caterina & Geneletti, Davide, 2021. "Piloting a more inclusive governance innovation strategy for forest ecosystem services management in Primiero, Italy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    4. Hetemäki, L. & D'Amato, D. & Giurca, A. & Hurmekoski, E., 2024. "Synergies and trade-offs in the European forest bioeconomy research: State of the art and the way forward," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    5. Carlos Humberto González Escobar & Juan Carlos Granobles Torres & Abel Osvaldo Villa Rodríguez, 2024. "A Critical Analysis of the Dynamics of Stakeholders for Bioeconomy Innovation: The Case of Caldas, Colombia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-20, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Haddad, Carolina R. & Bergek, Anna, 2023. "Towards an integrated framework for evaluating transformative innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    2. Matthijs Janssen, 2016. "What bangs for your bucks? Assessing the design and impact of transformative policy," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 16-05, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Dec 2016.
    3. Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S. & Howlett, Michael, 2019. "Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: New approaches and insights through bridging innovation and policy studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    4. Janssen, Matthijs J., 2019. "What bangs for your buck? Assessing the design and impact of Dutch transformative policy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 78-94.
    5. Hilde Nykamp, 2020. "Policy Mix for a Transition to Sustainability: Green Buildings in Norway," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-17, January.
    6. Graf, Holger & Kalthaus, Martin, 2018. "International research networks: Determinants of country embeddedness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1198-1214.
    7. Dirk Meissner & Sandrine Kergroach, 2021. "Innovation policy mix: mapping and measurement," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 197-222, February.
    8. Reichardt, Kristin & Rogge, Karoline S. & Negro, Simona O., 2017. "Unpacking policy processes for addressing systemic problems in technological innovation systems: The case of offshore wind in Germany," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1217-1226.
    9. Laatsit, Mart & Lindholm-Dahlstrand, Åsa & Nilsson, Magnus, 2023. "Capturing the system-level effects of innovation policy: an assessment of publicly funded innovative entrepreneurship in Sweden," Papers in Innovation Studies 2023/12, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    10. Diercks, Gijs & Larsen, Henrik & Steward, Fred, 2019. "Transformative innovation policy: Addressing variety in an emerging policy paradigm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 880-894.
    11. Jonas Heiberg & Bernhard Truffer, 2021. "The emergence of a global innovation system – a case study from the water sector," GEIST - Geography of Innovation and Sustainability Transitions 2021(09), GEIST Working Paper Series.
    12. Kim, Yeong Jae & Wilson, Charlie, 2019. "Analysing energy innovation portfolios from a systemic perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    13. Ghazinoory, Sepehr & Nasri, Shohreh & Ameri, Fatemeh & Montazer, Gholam Ali & Shayan, Ali, 2020. "Why do we need ‘Problem-oriented Innovation System (PIS)’ for solving macro-level societal problems?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    14. Burghard, Uta & Dütschke, Elisabeth & Caldes, Natalia & Oltra, Christian, 2022. "Cross-border concentrated solar power projects - opportunity or dead end? A study into actor views in Europe," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    15. Hellsmark, Hans & Frishammar, Johan & Söderholm, Patrik & Ylinenpää, Håkan, 2016. "The role of pilot and demonstration plants in technology development and innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1743-1761.
    16. Emmanuel Muller & Andrea Zenker & Miriam Hufnagl & Jean-Alain Héraud & Esther Schnabl & Teemu Makkonen & Henning Kroll, 2017. "Smart specialisation strategies and cross-border integration of regional innovation systems: Policy dynamics and challenges for the Upper Rhine," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(4), pages 684-702, June.
    17. Rohe, Sebastian & Oltmer, Marie & Wolter, Hendrik & Gmeiner, Nina & Tschersich , Julia, 2022. "Forever Niche: Why do organic vegetable varieties not diffuse?," Papers in Innovation Studies 2022/8, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    18. Danish Ahmad Mir & Christopher N.H. Doll & Robert Lindner & Muhammad Tabish Parray, 2020. "Explaining the Diffusion of Energy-Efficient Lighting in India: A Technology Innovation Systems Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-16, November.
    19. Vroon, Tjebbe & Teunissen, Erik & Drent, Marlon & Negro, Simona O. & van Sark, Wilfried G.J.H.M., 2022. "Escaping the niche market: An innovation system analysis of the Dutch building integrated photovoltaics (BIPV) sector," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    20. Edmondson, Duncan L. & Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S., 2019. "The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:113:y:2020:i:c:s1389934119302229. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.