Land 2023 , 12 , 305
17of 20
be taken into account, as well as diverse types of entrepreneurs and companies (often small-scale). Supporting smaller projects and activities could empower landowners in rural areas and help them in diversifying their products and services, thus allowing them to have wider sources of support for their living. In doing this, recognizing different innovation types, including social and institutional is very important. This, in the long run, could support entrepreneurial activities, development and proliferation of rural areas. Author Contributions: G.W.: Supervision, Conceptualization; Methodology; Data synthesising and analysis; Writing—review & editing. A.L.: Conceptualization; Data synthesising; Methodology; Writing—review & editing. I.Ž.: Conceptualization; Data synthesising and analysis; Methodology; Writing—original draft, reviewing & editing; Visualization; Submission and Correspondence. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: The research was undertaken within the STARTREE project (“Multipurpose trees and non-wood forest products: a challenge and opportunity”) and has been funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration under grant agreement No. 311919. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study in the frame of STARTREE Project. Data Availability Statement: Data will be made available on request. Acknowledgments: We are thankful to all interview partners and all the project partners who supported the data collection work. We thank to all four reviewers for constructive comments. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References 1. A Sustainable Bioeconomy for Europe: Strengthening the Connection between Economy, Society and the Environment, Updated Bioeconomy Strategy ; European Union: Luxembourg, 2018; p. 107. 2. Biancolillo, I.; Paletto, A.; Bersier, J.; Keller, M.; Romagnoli, M. A literature review on forest bioeconomy with a bibliometric network analysis. J. For. Sci. 2020 , 66 , 265–279. [CrossRef] 3. Kleinschmit, D.; Lindstad, B.H.; Thorsen, B.J.; Toppinen, A.; Roos, A.; Baardsen, S. Shades of green: A social scientific view on bioeconomy in the forest sector. Scand. J. For. Res. 2014 , 29 , 402–410. [CrossRef] 4. Pfau, S.F.; Hagens, J.E.; Dankbaar, B.; Smits, A.J.M. Visions of sustainability in bioeconomy research. Sustainability 2014 , 6 , 222–1249. [CrossRef] 5. Bugge, M.; Hansen, T.; Klitkou, A. What is the bioeconomy? A review of the literature. Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 691. [CrossRef] 6. Palah í , M.; Pantsar, M.; Costanza, R.; Kubiszewski, I.; Potocˇnik, J.; Stuchtey, M.; Nasi, R.; Lovins, H.; Giovannini, E.; Fioramonti, L. Investing in Nature as the True Engine of our Economy: A 10-Point Action Plan for a Circular Bioeconomy of Wellbeing ; Knowledge to Action 02; European Forest Institute: Joensuu, Finland, 2020; p. 58. 7. Jonsson, R.; Rinaldi, F.; Pilli, R.; Fiorese, G.; Hurmekoski, E.; Cazzaniga, N.; Robert, N.; Camia, A. Boosting the EU forest-based Bioeconomy: Market, climate, and employment impacts. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021 , 163 , 120478. [CrossRef] 8. Ollikainen, M. Forestry in bioeconomy—Smart green growth for the humankind. Scand. J. For. Res. 2014 , 29 , 360–366. [CrossRef] 9. Roos, A.; Stendahl, M. The emerging bioeconomy and the forest sector. In Forests, Business and Sustainability ; Panwar, R., Kozak, R., Hansen, E., Eds.; Routledge: Abington, PA, USA; New York, NY, USA; New York, NY, USA, 2015; p. 23. 10. Lovric, M.; Mutke, S.; G ó rriz Mifsud, E.; Martinez de Arano, I.; Pettenella, D.; Vidale, E.; Prokofieva, I.; Mavsar, R. Non-timber forest products and the European bioeconomy: Status and transition pathways. In The Bioeconomy and Non-Timber Forest Products ; Smith-Hall, C., Chamberlain, J., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2022; p. 298. [CrossRef] 11. Aggestam, F.; Giurca, A. Implementing Circular-Bioeconomy Principles across Two Value Chains of the Wood-Based Sector: A Conceptual Approach. Land 2022 , 11 , 2037. [CrossRef] 12. Jankovsk ý ,M.;Garc í a-J á come, S.P.; Dvorˇ á k, J.; Nyarko, I.; H á jek, M. Innovations in Forest Bioeconomy: A Bibliometric Analysis. Forests 2021 , 12 , 1392. [CrossRef] 13. Ragauskas, A.J.; Williams, C.K.; Davison, B.H.; Britovsek, G.; Cairney, J.; Eckert, C.A.; Frederick, W.J.; Hallet, J.P.; Leak, D.J.; Liotta, C.L. The path forward for biofuels and biomaterials. Science 2006 , 311 , 484–489. [CrossRef] 14. Paletto, A.; Bernardi, S.; Pieratti, E.; Teston, F.; Romagnoli, M. Assessment of environmental impact of biomass power plants to increase the social acceptance of renewable energy technologies. Heliyon 2019 , 5 , e02070. [CrossRef] 15. Ludvig, A.; Živojinovic´, I.; Hujala, T. Social Innovation as a Prospect for the Forest Bioeconomy: Selected Examples from Europe. Forests 2019 , 10 , 878. [CrossRef]
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online