Comparing forest sector modelling and qualitative foresight analysis : Cases on wood products industry

Scenario analyses are widely used in forest sector foresight studies, being typically based on either qualitative or quantitative approaches. As scenario analyses are used for informing decision-makers, it is of interest to contrast the similarities and differences between the scenario processes and outcomes using quantitative and qualitative approaches and to explore the underlying causes of differences. This paper uses the output from a qualitative scenario study to design forest sector model (FSM) scenarios and compares the results from the two approaches. We analyse two cases on wood products markets in Norway: i) Wood products suppliers establish a developer firm specializing on wood construction to boost demand, and ii) Levying a carbon tax while reducing CO2 emissions in cement production. Comparing the qualitative studies (innovation diffusion analysis, backcasting and Delphi) and FSM analyses (NorFor model), the results resemble for case ii) but deviate strongly for case i). Notably, the strategy aiming to boost the demand for domestic wood products leads in NorFor mainly to an increase in imports with limited impact on Norwegian sawnwood production. Causes of the discrepancies are discussed. Despite the challenges of combining the two frameworks, we believe that the method where assumptions based on stakeholder input or other qualitative research approaches are elaborated in a FSM and compared, should be more explored. Importantly, applying various methods and frameworks allows for complementing and diversifying the picture, and thus improving the knowledge base. (C) 2017 Department of Forest Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umea. Published by Elsevier GmbH.Peer reviewe

What About Wood? : “Nonwood” Construction Experts' Perceptions of Environmental Regulation, Business Environment, and Future Trends in Residential Multistory Building in Finland

Despite the sustained interest in multistory wood-frame construction (WMC) along with an expanding bioeconomy, the rate of market uptake has been modest outside North America. Changing environmental values and regulation are expected to boost WMC adoption along with an expanding bioeconomy, yet the future prospects of WMC are typically explored with an empirical focus on the actors that are already active in WMC. To address the possible bias, this paper elicits the views of nonwood actors (i.e., construction company managers and executives in the areas of procurement and project planning with no prior experience in WMC), through 10 semistructured interviews. The results indicate that the nonwood actors do not necessarily oppose WMC as such, but there remain competitive barriers for a major market growth of WMC related to, for example, lack of standardization and significant enough productivity benefits to motivate adopting a new potentially risky construction practice. Based on comparisons with previous literature, the most notable differences in opinions between wood actors and nonwood actors regarded the direction and strength of the impact of consumer preferences on WMC demand. While acknowledging that this is a crude comparison without statistical significance, one can observe similarities in the distribution of answers for the questions unrelated to WMC, but more dispersion for those addressing WMC. Yet, while the attitudes toward wood as a construction material seem to differ, both thPeer reviewe

Climate change mitigation in the forest-based sector: a holistic view

Non peer reviewe

Outlook for the forest-based bioeconomy

Non peer reviewe

Contribution of wood-based products to climate change mitigation

Forest-based products––often referred to as harvested-wood products (HWPs)––can influence the climate through two separate mechanisms. Firstly, when wood is harvested from forests, the carbon contained in the wood is stored in the HWP for months to decades. If the amount of wood entering the market exceeds the amount of wood being discarded annually, this can lead to a HWP sink impact. Secondly, HWPs typically have a lower fossil carbon footprint than alternative products, so, for example, using wood in construction can lower fossil emissions by reducing the production of cement and steel, resulting in a substitution impact. The international greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting conventions and the related Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change guidance covers the HWP sink impact, but not the substitution impacts. The HWP sink impact is restricted to tracing biogenic carbon flows, whereas the substitution impact typically covers fossil carbon flows exclusively. Importantly, the substitution and HWP sink impacts do not represent the climate- change mitigation impact of wood use, as such. Instead, they are important pieces of the broader puzzle of GHG flows related to the forest sector. This chapter presents the state-of-the-art approaches for determining the HWP sink and substitution impacts, and concludes with the policy and research implications.Non peer reviewe

Pitkän aikavälin katsaus puurakentamisen markkinoihin

Peer reviewe

Does expanding wood use in construction and textile markets contribute to climate change mitigation?

Wood use is expanding to new markets, driven by the need to substitute fossil-intensive products and energy. Wood products can contribute to climate change mitigation, if they have a lower fossil footprint than alternative products serving the same function. However, the climate change mitigation potential is contingent on the net fossil and biogenic emissions over time, as well as the realism of the counterfactual scenario and market assumptions. This study aims to improve the consistency of assessing the avoided fossil emissions attributed to changes in wood use, and to estimate the additional mitigation potential of increased wood use in construction and textile markets based on wood harvested in Finland. The results show that, compared to baseline, an increase in the market share of wood leads to an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration by 2050. Thus, the substitution impacts of wood use are not large enough to compensate for the reduction in forest carbon sinks in the short and medium term. This outcome is further aggravated, considering the decarbonization of the energy sector driven by the Paris Agreement, which lowers the fossil emissions of competing sectors more than those of the forest sector. The expected decarbonization is a highly desirable trend, but it will further lengthen the carbon parity period associated with an increase in wood harvest. This creates a strong motive to pursue shifts in wood uses instead of merely expanding all wood uses.Peer reviewe

What makes a European forest-based bioeconomy competitive?

Peer reviewe

Risk perception and political leaning explain the preferences of non-industrial private landowners for alternative climate change mitigation strategies in Finnish forests

Understanding landowners' willingness to act on climate change is important for effective climate policy. This study investigates the determinants of Finnish non-industrial private forest owners' preferences for alternative climate change mitigation strategies related to forests and wood use. The study tests hypotheses concerning the role of risk perception and political leaning for the support of seven alternative strategies with varying degree of disruption to the current logic of commercial forestry in Finland, which further aligns with the temporal delay in the impact of climate change mitigation strategies that landowners are willing to accept. Based on 887 survey responses from three regions, the study finds that forest owners generally support all but one of the seven strategies: reduced harvest. Results from ordinal logistic regression models further indicate that along with socio-demographic determinants, higher perceived risk and left-wing leaning with a university degree explain support for more disruptive strategies with more immediate mitigation impact (increased conservation, reduced harvest), while lower perceived risk and right-wing leaning without a university degree tend to associate with support for the less disruptive strategies (intensified management, increased harvest), both of which arguably sideline the urgency of climate action. In the highly politicized matter of harvest levels in Finland, the study also finds that right-wing leaning may negate the effect of higher education, which otherwise predicts greater support for more disruptive strategies. Implications for policy at the climate-forest nexus are derived.Peer reviewe