Search

Sewage sludge management is crucial for water utilities to move towards a circular valorisation of resources. The current literature focuses mainly on the technological aspects of sludge management strategies. However, the current discussion of these strategies does not consider possible pressures arising from the utilities' civil society stakeholders and from policymakers. To fill this gap, this paper develops a conceptual framework, based on the current literature, that identifies the utility's key decisions on sludge management strategies (valorisation route, overperformance and vertical integration), and links them to possible pressures arising from civil society and existing regulations. Subsequently, the study validates the framework through a multiple explanatory case study, investigating the empirical relevance of such pressures in six water utilities across Europe. The influence of citizens and municipalities is found to be crucial in the choice of sludge valorisation routes. Economic instruments, command and control instruments and, new to the literature, regulatory uncertainty are found to be key policy features influencing utilities' decisions on sludge management. The paper provides a first-of-its-kind investigation that highlights the mechanisms through which policymakers and civil society stakeholders shape utilities' sewage sludge management strategies. The results complement and extend existing theoretical knowledge on the role of institutional pressures in the implementation of sustainable environmental systems. • Stakeholders' influences on utilities' sludge management choices are conceptualised. • Policymakers and civil society influence utilities' sludge management choices. • Incentives, obligations, regulatory uncertainty shape sludge management choices. • Citizens and municipalities drive utilities' sludge management choices. • Utilities' characteristics moderate the impact of institutional influences on their choices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Investment products labelled as sustainable, as well as regulations on sustainable finance, such as the EU taxonomy for sustainable activities, are on the rise globally. While some of these products and regulations include forests and forestry, the forest–sustainable finance nexus is largely unexplored in academic research. This paper systematically analyses the emerging expert debate spanning across the financial and forest sectors. We conducted 51 in-depth qualitative interviews with experts from financial institutions, timberland and impact investors, international organizations, civil society organizations and academia. We chose mainly experts from Europe, as one of the regions spearheading the topic globally. Based on these, we identify five main narratives on the nexus between sustainable finance and forests. These narratives are strikingly different regarding such dimensions as emphasis on risks versus opportunities, preference for public versus private governance and investments, as well as on the sustainability of forest-related investments per se. While financial sector experts are mainly concerned about financial risks, and only partially about deforestation risks, forest sector experts with financial expertise promote investment opportunities either for the asset class, or to increase private investment in tropical forests. In contrast, some experts from both the forest and financial sectors explicitly exclude forests as investable assets for the private sector, seeing them instead as pure public goods. We conclude with underlining the importance of more cross-sectoral dialogue, but also research, to both critically assess and advance the role of sustainable finance policy and practice in supporting forest conservation, restoration, and sustainable management. • We analyse the link between sustainable finance and forests based on 51 expert interviews. • Five distinct narratives can be distinguished, differing strongly regarding several dimensions. • Differences include varying risk/opportunity, private/public governance, and forest/sustainability emphases. • Financial sector experts prefer mitigating financial risks, and partially deforestation ones. • Forest sector experts aim to increase investment opportunities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Integrative forest management approaches, aiming to combine the provision of multiple forest ecosystem services in the same forest area, are popular forest management concepts in Europe. Their understanding and application varies, however, across the continent. This paper looks at one dimension of integrative forest management approaches in particular – the integration of nature conservation measures into forest management; focusing on its understanding and application, as well as current and future social, technological, ecological, economic and political factors enabling or hampering this integration. Drawing on 42 qualitative in-depth interviews with national experts and forest practitioners, our study provides insights into the integration of nature conservation measures into forest management systems aimed at wood production and the provision of other forest ecosystem services under various conditions. Across the investigated countries, the main factors perceived to facilitate this integration are the personal motivations and knowledge of forest managers and their long-term economic thinking related to the resilience of the forest in the face of climate and societal change. In turn, the main factors perceived as hampering the integration are current wood-market demands, and a lack of (public) financial incentives. Public pressure is also perceived as an important influencing factor, which can both impede or support integration. Other ambiguous factors include societal knowledge and related knowledge gaps, relationships between local stakeholders, and the legal framework in which forest management operates. The study concludes with suggestions of how to enhance the uptake of the integration of nature conservation measures into forest management in Europe. • Societal pressure seen as an important driver for integrative approaches. • Societal pressure perceived to impact both uptake and method of conservation measures. • Intrinsic motivation of foresters and economic sustainability support measure uptake. • The wood market and lack of public finances hamper the integration of nature conservation. • Tension between uptake of integrative approaches and economic goals reported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]