IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v15y2022i3p1011-d737883.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Use of Participatory Processes in Wood Residue Management from a Circular Bioeconomy Perspective: An Approach Adopted in Italy

Author

Listed:
  • Alessandro Paletto

    (Consiglio per la Ricerca in Agricoltura e l’Analisi dell’Economia Agraria (CREA), Research Centre for Forestry and Wood, P.za Nicolini 1, 38123 Trento, Italy)

  • Claudia Becagli

    (Consiglio per la Ricerca in Agricoltura e l’Analisi dell’Economia Agraria (CREA), Research Centre for Agriculture and Environment, 50125 Firenze, Italy)

  • Francesco Geri

    (Department of Agriculture, Food, Environment and Forestry, Consorzio Interuniversitario Istituto Nazionale di Studi su Agribusiness e Sostenibilità, University of Florence, 50125 Firenze, Italy)

  • Sandro Sacchelli

    (Department of Agriculture, Food, Environment and Forestry, Consorzio Interuniversitario Istituto Nazionale di Studi su Agribusiness e Sostenibilità, University of Florence, 50125 Firenze, Italy)

  • Isabella De Meo

    (Consiglio per la Ricerca in Agricoltura e l’Analisi dell’Economia Agraria (CREA), Research Centre for Agriculture and Environment, 50125 Firenze, Italy)

Abstract

The circular bioeconomy is aimed at achieving sustainable development through high efficiency utilization and resource recycling, and through combining environmental, economic and social objectives. Although the implementation of circular bioeconomy principles is based on a bottom-up approach, the participatory process has often been neglected. To overcome this problem, the present study investigated a case-study with a three-step participatory process. The process aimed to evaluate a forest-wood supply chain with consideration of the circular bioeconomy principles. A set of indicators was identified and assessed by a pool of experts. Then the members of a forest-wood supply chain were consulted to implement the identified actions. Finally, a focus group was organized with key stakeholders to discuss critical issues and strategies for enhancing the forest-wood supply chain locally. The results show that the proposed set of indicators is a useful tool to evaluate the performance of the forest-wood supply chain considering the circular bioeconomy principles. The results of the participatory process and related indicators’ assessment identified the main weaknesses of the forest-wood supply chain. The main strategies to develop the local forest-wood supply chain toward the circular bioeconomy principles were also defined with a participatory approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Alessandro Paletto & Claudia Becagli & Francesco Geri & Sandro Sacchelli & Isabella De Meo, 2022. "Use of Participatory Processes in Wood Residue Management from a Circular Bioeconomy Perspective: An Approach Adopted in Italy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-17, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:3:p:1011-:d:737883
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/3/1011/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/3/1011/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Buchy, M. & Hoverman, S., 2000. "Understanding public participation in forest planning: a review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 15-25, May.
    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. Sandra Notaro & Elisabetta Lovera & Alessandro Paletto, 2022. "Behaviours and attitudes of consumers towards bioplastics: An exploratory study in Italy," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 68(4), pages 121-135.
    2. Christina-Ioanna Papadopoulou & Fotios Chatzitheodoridis & Efstratios Loizou & Piotr Jurga, 2024. "Operational taxonomy of farmers' towards circular bioeconomy in regional level," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 1-27, June.
    3. Marcin Zbieć & Justyna Franc-Dąbrowska & Nina Drejerska, 2022. "Wood Waste Management in Europe through the Lens of the Circular Bioeconomy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-9, June.

    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. Kumar, Sushil & Kant, Shashi, 2005. "Bureaucracy and new management paradigms: modeling foresters' perceptions regarding community-based forest management in India," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 651-669, May.
    2. Tyrvainen, Liisa & Gustavsson, Roland & Konijnendijk, Cecil & Ode, Asa, 2006. "Visualization and landscape laboratories in planning, design and management of urban woodlands," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(8), pages 811-823, November.
    3. Germain, Rene H. & Floyd, Donald W. & Stehman, Stephen V., 2001. "Public perceptions of the USDA Forest Service public participation process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3-4), pages 113-124, November.
    4. Floress, Kristin & Vokoun, Melinda & Huff, Emily Silver & Baker, Melissa, 2019. "Public perceptions of county, state, and national forest management in Wisconsin, USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 110-120.
    5. Lawrence, Anna & Deuffic, Philippe & Hujala, Teppo & Nichiforel, Liviu & Feliciano, Diana & Jodlowski, Krzysztof & Lind, Torgny & Marchal, Didier & Talkkari, Ari & Teder, Meelis & Vilkriste, Lelde & W, 2020. "Extension, advice and knowledge systems for private forestry: Understanding diversity and change across Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    6. Winkel, Georg & Lovrić, Marko & Muys, Bart & Katila, Pia & Lundhede, Thomas & Pecurul, Mireia & Pettenella, Davide & Pipart, Nathalie & Plieninger, Tobias & Prokofieva, Irina & Parra, Constanza & Pülz, 2022. "Governing Europe's forests for multiple ecosystem services: Opportunities, challenges, and policy options," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    7. Sajjad Ali & Dake Wang & Talib Hussain & Xiaocong Lu & Mohammad Nurunnabi, 2021. "Forest Resource Management: An Empirical Study in Northern Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-19, August.
    8. Wallin, Ida & Carlsson, Julia & Hansen, Hans Peter, 2016. "Envisioning future forested landscapes in Sweden – Revealing local-national discrepancies through participatory action research," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 25-40.
    9. Silva Larson & Thomas G Measham & Liana J Williams, 2009. "Remotely Engaged? A Framework for Monitoring the Success of Stakeholder Engagement in Remote Regions," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2009-11, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    10. Khadka, Chiranjeewee & Hujala, Teppo & Wolfslehner, Bernhard & Vacik, Harald, 2013. "Problem structuring in participatory forest planning," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 1-11.
    11. Hatsue Koizumi & Hiromi Yamashita, 2021. "Deficit Lay or Deficit Expert: How Do “Experts†in Environmental Projects Perceive Lay People and Lay Knowledge?," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, July.
    12. Loureiro, Maria L. & Dominguez Arcos, Fernando, 2012. "Applying Best–Worst Scaling in a stated preference analysis of forest management programs," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 381-394.
    13. Kangas, Annika & Laukkanen, Sanna & Kangas, Jyrki, 2006. "Social choice theory and its applications in sustainable forest management--a review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 77-92, November.
    14. Kangas, A. & Saarinen, N. & Saarikoski, H. & Leskinen, L.A. & Hujala, T. & Tikkanen, J., 2010. "Stakeholder perspectives about proper participation for Regional Forest Programmes in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 213-222, March.
    15. Kangas, Annika & Heikkilä, Juuso & Malmivaara-Lämsä, Minna & Löfström, Irja, 2014. "Case Puijo—Evaluation of a participatory urban forest planning process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 13-23.
    16. Hiltunen, Veikko & Kurttila, Mikko & Leskinen, Pekka & Pasanen, Karri & Pykäläinen, Jouni, 2009. "Mesta: An internet-based decision-support application for participatory strategic-level natural resources planning," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 1-9, January.
    17. Sarmiento Barletti, Juan Pablo & Larson, Anne M. & Hewlett, Christopher & Delgado, Deborah, 2020. "Designing for engagement: A Realist Synthesis Review of how context affects the outcomes of multi-stakeholder forums on land use and/or land-use change," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    18. Berninger, Kati & Kneeshaw, Daniel & Messier, Christian, 2009. "Effects of presenting forest simulation results on the forest values and attitudes of forestry professionals and other forest users in Central Labrador," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 140-147, March.
    19. Singer, Benjamin & Giessen, Lukas, 2017. "Towards a donut regime? Domestic actors, climatization, and the hollowing-out of the international forests regime in the Anthropocene," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 69-79.
    20. Saverio Miccoli & Fabrizio Finucci & Rocco Murro, 2014. "Social Evaluation Approaches in Landscape Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(11), pages 1-15, November.

    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:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:3:p:1011-:d:737883. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.