4.6 Article

Circular Bioeconomy and the Forest-Wood Sector: Bridging the Gap between Policies and Disadvantaged Forest Areas

期刊

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/app13031349

关键词

bioeconomy; circular economy; forest sustainability; wood waste; wood by-products; wood recycling; upcycling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study explores the potential for circular bioeconomy adoption in disadvantaged forest areas by investigating the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats involved in the transition. The findings provide policy actors with suitable strategies to foster the circular bioeconomy in these areas, emphasizing the importance of their role in supporting investments, promoting know-how and cooperation, and addressing policy inconsistencies.
The adoption of circular bioeconomy (CBE) strategies in forest-wood supply chains is a possible avenue for the future of this sector. However, the uptake of CBE models may face several barriers in the coming years, particularly in disadvantaged forest areas lacking appropriate resources and a suitable business environment to start radical innovation pathways. Based on interviews with 29 representatives (business actors and other key informants) of the forest-food sector of the Salerno province (Italy), the current study investigated the main strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) involved in the transition of disadvantaged forest areas into a circular bioeconomy. Respondents also contributed to identifying the most suitable strategies in order to foster the CBE transition in the territory at hand. The paper offers an outlook for the potentialities of CBE in disadvantaged forest areas for policy actors, willing to bridge the gap between CBE agendas and territorial development challenges. The role of policy actors is particularly crucial, in order to patronize investments, stimulate improved know-how and cooperation, and fix policy inconsistencies related to biomass valorization.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据