Bioeconomy imaginaries: A review of forest-related social science literature

Abstract

This review article examines how social science literature co-produces various imaginaries of forest-based bioeconomy transformations and pathways for reaching desired ends. Based on an analysis of 59 research articles, we find that despite a growing number of social sciences studies on the forest-based bioeconomy, much of the research tends to replicate a bioeconomy imaginary articulated in EU and national bioeconomy policies and strategies. Accordingly, the research primarily reproduces a weak approach to sustainability, which prioritize economic growth and competitiveness. Expectations are largely directed at national and regional corporate interests and forest industrial renewal, while the state has a supportive rather than restricting role. We discuss the findings against the role of social sciences, and conclude that social science scholars may adopt various strategies if interested in opening up forest-based policy debates and offer alternative imaginaries of sustainable bioeconomy transformations.

Reviewing the interface of bioeconomy and ecosystem service research

“…Broadly speaking, the bioeconomy promotes resources derived from living biomass as alternatives to fossil resources, with knowledge and innovation being key enablers of such a shift. However, multiple understandings and definitions of the bioeconomy have been advanced in policy and science (Bugge et al 2016;Dietz et al 2018;Holmgren et al 2020).…”

Social dimensions of a forest-based bioeconomy: A summary and synthesis

“…Beyond this directly attributed agency, the articles also reveal that political ideas have been taken up. Holmgren et al (2020) assume that social scientific literature follows the general ideas of a forest bioeconomy as presented in political strategies. Starting from an understanding that ''social transformations are a long-term democratic project where definition of new socially shared meaning (…) and the inclusion of new actors are central (…)'', leads the authors to a critical conclusion that social scientific analyses of forest bioeconomy lack a broader and critical perspective.…”

“…Some articles start from the assumption that replacing fossil-based materials and products is in general a first step in transformation towards sustainability that serves ecological needs (Navrátilová et al 2020;Kylkilahti et al 2020). Holmgren et al (2020) confirm that this normative starting point, whereby sustainability is limited to the use of renewable bio-based products replacing fossil-based products and hinting at long-term sustainable yield of forest biomass, is used in the social scientific discourse on bioeconomy. Others start from a more open, partly critical perspective (D'Amato et al 2020; Sanz-Hernandez et al 2020) assessing whether and how sustainability is addressed in certain fora or by specific groups.…”

“…A high level of geographical spread internationally is an indicator of (political) attention paid to the bioeconomy, with about 50 countries having already established a bioeconomy strategy, including countries in South America and Asia (Bioökonomierat 2018). In contrast, the focus of social scientific studies on bioeconomy is less widespread but rather dominated by articles from authors with affiliations in northern industrial countries, particularly from Northern Europe (Finland, Sweden and Germany) (Holmgren et al 2020 highlight that this is not only true for purely social scientific studies but also for those dealing with the interlinkage between bioeconomy and ecosystem services. This article shows that the authors of the reviewed articles are from the same countries, the US, Germany and Finland, with co-authorship strongly interconnected within a European network.…”

Forest-based bioeconomy in sub-Saharan Africa: Looking at benefits and burdens from a social sustainability standpoint

“…contrasting positions on bioeconomy, identified two types of bioeconomy implementation pathways: a technology-based approach and a socio-ecological approach. Holmgren et al (2020) also identified in their review three rationales for promoting forest bioeconomy which are, in order of dominance in the review: decarbonizing and maintaining economic growth; forest bioeconomy as a pathway to sustainability; and forest bioeconomy as a fundamental societal transformation. According to Böcher (2020), however, the bioeconomy largely remains aimed at promoting a political way to achieve sustainability without needing to challenge existing paths.…”