




































Global Sustainability Research                            ISSN: 2833-986X                                                 
https://doi.org/10.56556/gssr.v2i3.585 

                                                                  

 
 

Global Scientific Research   72 
 

REVIEW ARTICLE  

Sustainable Development in Europe: A Review of the Forestry Sector's Social, Environmental, and 

Economic Dynamics 

 

Asif Raihan 

 

Institute of Climate Change, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi 43600, Selangor, Malaysia 

 

Corresponding author: Asif Raihan: asifraihan666@gmail.com 

Received: 21 July, 2023, Accepted: 15 September, 2023, Published: 24 September, 2023 

 

 

Abstract 

Despite their resilience, forest ecosystems become increasingly impacted by extreme climatic events, fires, and pathogen 

outbursts, which have considerable economic repercussions. How forest management solves these difficulties will affect 

human health, environmental variety, productivity, and forest ecosystem recuperation from exogenic distresses. Assuming 

forests provide ecosystem services essential to society and humanity along with wood, a better understanding of forest 

ecosystems seems essential to defining a development policy that meets ecological safeguard and energy and climate goals. 

According to the UN 2030 Agenda's Sustainable Development Goals, European forest management practices still don't 

provide a clear picture of ecological conditions, monetary estimate, and biodiversity. In light of the existing research, this 

article reviews and discusses recent European forestry industry trends and the environmental-economic nexus' complexity. 

Wood use has social consequences for regions adapting to ecological change, from rising temperatures to landscape 

modifications. This paper confirms that the technical-economic dimensions of forestry affect short-term economic 

dynamics, sector growth prospects, supply chain organization, company interconnections, and investment strategies. 

Forestry practices conserve species and habitats while boosting sustainable timber production. The European Commission's 

policy direction is to gradually encourage public and private entities to embark on worthy circular economy pathways, 

which will result in more jobs, material recycling, minimized carbon emissions, and community-added value. Forestry 

should contribute more holistically to sustainable development at diverse spatial dimensions. This includes focusing on 

environmental and economic aims in light of the recognition of relevant features that may guide forthcoming research and 

policy action while enhancing cooperation among member nations and local experts. 

 

Keywords: Forest resources; Wood; Conservation; Circular economy; Sustainability; European Union 

 

 

Introduction  

 

The European Union's economic resurgence from the Great 

Recession has not been accompanied by widespread and 

consistent expansion across the continent. An underlying 

uncertainty regarding future socioeconomic dynamics is 

outlined by the possessions of the epidemic catastrophe 

and, more lately, the geo-political war on the Eastern tip of 

the region, with corresponding energy issues (Martinho, 

2022; Raihan & Tuspekova, 2022a; Zakeri et al., 2022). 

The potential to shift toward a completely circular 

economy and an extremely sustainable development 

pathway is hampered in many cases by this vagueness, 

which has large but similarly varied implications on the 

distinct production segments (Raihan & Tuspekova, 2023a; 

Anghel & Jones, 2023; Raihan et al., 2023a). Even before 

the pandemic, regional and local markets were mostly 

responsible for managing these difficulties, often with 

great effectiveness (Allam et al., 2022; Raihan et al., 

2022a; Voumik et al., 2023a). Global and local climate 

change have made certain supply chains especially 

vulnerable to ecological, territorial, and community 

concerns (Nocentini et al., 2017; Ghadge et al., 2020; 

Raihan & Voumik, 2022a; Raihan et al., 2022b; Isfat & 



Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   73 
 

Raihan, 2022; Voumik et al., 2022; Ghosh et al., 2023; 

Raihan & Himu, 2023; Sultana et al., 2023; Voumik et al., 

2023b) due to their exposure to continuous transformations 

reflecting the ecological transition (Raihan et al., 2022c). 

Simultaneously, it was shown that forest ecosystems are 

ever more vulnerable to hazards like extreme climatic 

events, fire, pathological epidemics, and general 

anthropological actions, all of which have significant (yet 

poorly quantified) economic impacts (Corona, 2019; 

Pecchi et al., 2019; Ali et al., 2022; Raihan & Tuspekova, 

2023b). How these problems are dealt with by forest 

management will have far-reaching consequences for 

human health, biodiversity, productivity (economic and 

ecological), and the capability of forest ecologies to 

withstand external distresses (Begum et al., 2020; Raihan 

& Tuspekova, 2022b; Raihan et al., 2023b). Forests 

provide numerous ecological services that are important to 

civilization and social interests (Raihan et al., 2018; 

Angelstam et al., 2019; Raihan et al., 2018; Doimo et al., 

2020; Newton et al., 2020; Raihan et al., 2021a; Raihan et 

al., 2023c), and not just wood stuff (Raihan et al., 2021b; 

Raihan & Tuspekova, 2022c; Raihan et al., 2023d). 

Businesses and society as a whole benefit from a focus on 

environmental sustainability since it lowers risk, 

encourages innovation and entrepreneurship, and makes 

supply chains more competitive (Lazdinis et al., 2019; 

Aszalós et al., 2022; Raihan & Tuspekova, 2022d; Raihan 

et al., 2022d). The International Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC) has reaffirmed the value of forests and associated 

prolific segments, showing how CO2 emissions can be cut 

by as much as a third using only environmentally friendly 

methods (Raihan & Tuspekova, 2022e; Raihan & Voumik, 

2022a). That’s why it’s important to support companies 

and management techniques that strengthen interdependent 

supply chains and forest ecosystems (Masson-Delmotte et 

al., 2021; Raihan & Tuspekova, 2022f). Europe’s forestry 

industry serves many purposes, from creating jobs and 

boosting rural economies to consolidating (at least 

indirectly) the recreational pleasures associated with 

mature forests (Corona et al., 2016). Spending time in 

woods has been shown time and over again to be beneficial 

for stress reduction, mood elevation, and even health 

recovery (Grilli & Sacchelli, 2020). Lawbreakers, 

psychiatric patients, youngsters emotionally troubled, and 

people with psychological healthiness concerns are just 

some of the populations who have been the focus of 

numerous research that have investigated the efficacy of 

forest-related therapy lineups in improving their condition 

(Shin et al., 2010; Raihan & Tuspekova, 2022g). 

Forests play an important role in delivering ecosystem 

facilities (Raihan & Tuspekova, 2022h), including an 

extensive array of recreational and tourism events like 

picnicking, hiking, and biking, and this fact has been 

widely disseminated thanks to numerous worldwide 

enterprises, such as the European edges COST act E39. 

Thus, there has been a push to acknowledge forests’ 

potential as places for recreation, stress reduction, and 

relaxation (Grilli & Sacchelli, 2020). While forestry has 

obvious economic benefits, wood also has major 

manufacturing and energy uses, the latter of which is 

expected to rise in the current geopolitical context (Zakeri 

et al., 2022; Skyrman, 2022). Given our nation’s rich forest 

history, this appears to be a beneficial development; but it 

is also seen negatively because it may reduce demand for 

wood used in higher-value manufacturing processes. 

Meanwhile, a structural issue of reliance on foreign supply 

plagues businesses, particularly furniture industries 

(Santos et al., 2019; Ghadge et al., 2020). Data from 

authoritative sources suggests, albeit in a roundabout way, 

that the inherent vulnerability of forest formations is 

becoming more apparent and increasingly accompanying 

with the financial and communal dynamics of confined 

regions, demonstrating a foundation of instability and 

ambiguity and diminishing the probable flexibility of 

whole areas to worldwide changes (MacDicken, 2015). 

When the adjacent circumstances (accessibility, 

absorptivity to modernization, networking, trade openness) 

are unfavorable, doing business can be extremely 

challenging, especially in economically underprivileged 

circumstances like national and peripheral zones in the 

ancient landmass (Bowditch et al., 2020). 

The present article draws on a literature analysis to 

examine the changing face of European forestry and to 

outline the environmental and economic complexities that 

define the forest industry. Significant communal 

insinuations for resident regions familiarizing themselves 

with ongoing ecological alteration, from global warming to 

topography modifications, stem from the widespread usage 

of a significant natural resource like wood (Garbarino et 

al., 2020; Raihan et al., 2022e). In line with previous 

research, this review article recommends the significance 

of the technological-financial attribute of forestry in the 

sustainable development routes of regions and counties 

(Hazarika et al., 2019), which influences short-range 

economic dynamics, sector expansion possibilities, supply 

chain organization, interconnectedness among 

corporations, and financing approaches in general. 

Simultaneously, this review’s contribution provides 



Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   74 
 

evidence that simplistic interpretations based on purely 

‘technical’ points of view cannot capture the nuances of 

forestry and its inherent interaction with additional 

economic segments and ecological challenges. This 

research, on the other hand, lends credence to the idea that 

including a ‘holistic’ interpretation of forestry into 

sustainable development pathways across spatial scales 

would be beneficial. Only by defining future avenues of 

theoretical research and empirical examination it might be 

possible to achieve the social, environmental, and 

economic goals of forestry that are essential to its success. 

This review article is structured as follows to answer the 

important query of sustainable development in every 

manufacturing segment with pertinent implications on the 

environmental quality. In the second section, this article 

presents a quick look at the shifting landscape of European 

forests. The consequences of forestry on the natural world 

are the subject of the third section. The fourth section 

summarizes authorized statistics and introduces an 

ephemeral examination of the prolific interconnectedness 

amid the forestry sector and the furniture manufacturing in 

Europe, outlining the financial utilization of forest 

resources besides the supply chain of wood-furniture. The 

sustainability-focused framework of European forest 

policy and its most recent developments are summed up in 

the fifth section. The review article concludes with an 

exposed discussion of the key questions at play in the 

debate over forestry’s environmental and economic 

influence in developed markets, potentially differentiating 

between central and peripheral locations, where forestry 

signifies a pertinent added value in country structures that 

might be better adjusted with the feature of ecological 

reinforcement. 

 

Recent dynamics in European forest resources 

 

Deforestation is increasing at a degree of yearly 10 million 

ha (FAO, 2020), while forest area is decreasing at an 

alarming rate of 4.7 million ha annually on average. Brazil, 

Congo, Indonesia, Tanzania, Angola, Paraguay, Cambodia, 

Myanmar, Mozambique, and Bolivia are among the nations 

with the biggest net (year average) forest cover losses 

throughout the last decade (FAO, 2020). However, over the 

last 30 years, there has been a greater recognition of the 

significance of forest conservation measures, leading to an 

increase of nearly 200 million hectares of protected forest 

areas from 1990 to 2020 (FAO, 2020). European Union 

(EU) land and about 6% of marine zones (encompassing 

roughly 850,000 km2) are protected by the Natura 2000 

network, one of the newest projects introduced and the 

biggest coordinated network of protected sites in the EU. 

This system was developed in response to the Habitats 

Directive and the Birds Directive with the goals of 

protecting endangered species in their natural 

environments and ensuring the continued functioning of 

ecosystems for future generations (Evans, 2012). 

Establishment of forest cover, specifically in peripheral 

regions of developed nations, is a feature of advanced 

economies (Pagnutti et al., 2013), which are consistent 

with trends observed in Europe’s forests. One of the most 

significant shifts in land use over the past two centuries in 

Europe was the increase in forest cover, which was spurred 

on by widespread reforestation efforts. However, the 

acceleration of technical improvements that intensified the 

farming systems on reduced ranges is also a result of rural 

emigration; these changes have freed up land-dwelling for 

the recolonization of forests, especially on unrestrained and 

formerly farmed land (Frei et al., 2020; Santarsiero et al., 

2023). Western European forest cover grew by over 30 

percent in the half-century after WWII (Charru et al., 

2017). Central-Eastern and Southern Europe saw slower 

rates of growth (20% and 16%) compared to Northern 

Europe, where forests were before now the dominant land 

covering by the middle of the previous century. Still, forest 

area has increased practically everywhere up to now, 

though it has slowed down significantly meanwhile the 

immediate 1990s. Western Europe is the only region where 

this trend has reversed. There will be 10.2 million hectares 

more of forest in Europe by 2020 than there were in 1990. 

About 45% of the land cover of the European Union (EU) 

was comprised by forests and woodlands in 2020 

(excluding inland seas), making the EU home to about 5 

percent of the Earth’s total forest acreage (Forest Europe, 

2020). As an illustration of long-term tendencies, less than 

0.4% and 0.3% of land conversions in Europe have been 

accounted for by afforestation and deforestation, 

respectively, in current ages (Forest Europe, 2020). 

Sweden’s forest assets are predicted at 30.3 million 

hectares in 2020 (Purwestri et al., 2020), making it 

Europe’s largest forest area. While the only other member 

state was Finland with a concentration of over 20 million 

hectares, Spain recorded the second-largest area at 28 

million hectares (Palátová et al., 2022). Following closely 

behind was France, with 18.1 million hectares of forest, 

followed by Italy and Germany, each with roughly 11 

million ha of forest (Cook, 2020). In 2020, half of the 

territory of the 8 member countries will be covered by 

forests. Slovenia (62.8%), Finland (76.2%), and Sweden 



Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   75 
 

(74.5%) had the greatest rates in comparison to their 

respective national areas. Forests cover between 50 and 60 

percent of the land in Estonia, Latvia, Spain, Portugal, and 

Greece, but they cover between 11 and 16 percent in the 

Netherlands, Ireland, and Denmark, respectively. Only 

Sweden saw a decline in forest cover between 1990 and 

2020 (-0.4%), while three Mediterranean European nations 

(Italy, Croatia, and Cyprus) saw increases of more than 8% 

during the same time period (Forest Europe, 2020; Kumar 

et al., 2021). 

The effects of human activity have been profound on the 

structure and content of European forests. Only 26 percent 

of wild species and 15 percent of forest ecosystems gain a 

positive conservation category (EEA, 2015). In addition to 

sequestering 13 percent of Europe’s emissions, housing an 

overriding portion of terrestrial biodiversity, plus making 

important contributions to climate change mitigation, it has 

been predicted that forests eliminate roughly 430 million 

tons of atmospheric CO2 annually (Nabuurs et al., 2018; 

Raihan & Said, 2022). In 2050, cities will be home to 

roughly 84% of Europe’s population (Pesaresi et al., 2016), 

have major effects on air and soil conditions and, by 

extension, the health of people across Europe, particularly 

the young and the old. Most ecoregions in Europe can 

expect an upsurge in temperatures and a decrease in 

precipitation in the future, and this will occur at a more 

rapid rate compared to the remainder of the globe due to 

the impact of an inevitable change in the composition of 

the Earth’s atmosphere. Urban forestation initiatives, 

which involve an enormous rise in planting to improve the 

microclimate and quality of air in urban areas by capturing 

carbon dioxide and protecting the soil coming from the sun 

and rain, are one of the most common ways of coping with 

the impacts of global warming on cities (Escobedo et al., 

2019; Raihan et al., 2022f). Figure 1 presents the forest 

dynamics components under European classifications. 

 

 
Figure 1. Forest dynamics under European classifications (Ivanova et al., 2022). 



Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   76 
 

 

Vital ecosystem facilities and goods are provided by all 

urban natural areas, including a wide range of green covers 

(forests, botanical gardens, urban parks, street tree, 

plantations, and cemeteries; edifice swathe rejuvenation is 

a relatively new addition to this list) (Escobedo et al., 

2011). These include, but are not limited to, the 

maintenance of habitat attributes, the control of air, soil, 

water, and climate, besides the provision of food and water 

(Raihan et al., 2023e). In addition, urban forests, 

particularly in developed states, may show a pivotal part in 

resolving resource struggles as a hallmark of modern 

globalization (Hayter & Clapp, 2020) that arise from the 

tension between manufacturing urgencies and 

environmental and social needs (Whiteman et al., 2015; 

Raihan et al., 2022g; Raihan et al., 2023f). Finally, no 

authorized map casing vast spatial levels can be regarded 

acceptable in directing the issue of forest distribution in 

Europe (Yousefpour et al., 2018). This question can be 

answered more precisely with the use of official statistics 

(such as fine-scale agricultural censuses and geo-spatial 

statistics from forest inventories) and land-use maps.  

 

Influence of forestry on the environment 

 

Inadequate forest management has the potential to 

jeopardize or even destroy forest resources and services. 

Still, forestry practices are a major reason why forest 

habitats and species are in a poor conservation position 

(Cutino et al., 2018; Raihan et al., 2022h; Raihan, 2023a). 

In this regard, forestry techniques across Europe range 

from total lack of managing caused by abandonment or 

protectionist policies to be restricted management or 

intensive short rotation forestry designed to provide 

electricity biomass (Pergola et al., 2022). However, 

management regimes that mimic natural disturbances can 

have a significant impact on stand structure, potentially 

leading to an increase in biodiversity over time while also 

reducing the rate at which forests undergo change 

(Kuuluvainen et al., 2021; Raihan, 2023b). Although 

forestry may have an effect on plant diversity and wildlife, 

it is generally less severe than agriculture practices due to 

the very inadequate usage of fertilizers, which are typically 

lone used for weeding prior to reforestation campaigns or 

to indulgence conifer over broad-leafed regeneration 

(Muys et al., 2022). Since the use of biocides is extremely 

rare in the forestry industry, managed forests employ these 

products at a fraction of the rate and with far less frequency 

than agricultural systems (Freer-Smith et al., 2019; Raihan, 

2023c). The absence of tree species diversity, variation of 

tree phase, and unusual ecosystems like deadwood all 

contribute to managed forests having substantially lower 

biodiversity than natural forests (Freer-Smith et al., 2019; 

Raihan, 2023d). Given that stand age is a critical factor in 

the delivery of forest ecosystem services (Sutherland et al., 

2016), it may be unfair to label it as yet another “victim” 

of modern forestry practices like clearcutting of medium-

aged besides old stands, which may reduce the quantity and 

quality of forest functions (Jonsson et al., 2020; Raihan, 

2023e). 

Old growth forests are threatened by intensive forestry 

practices, which can lead to their temporary extinction 

(DellaSala et al., 2022). Unfortunately, the loss of biomass 

from old-growth and primary forests in Europe is 

continuing (Svensson et al., 2019), primarily for economic 

reasons, leading to a typical outline of forest degradation, 

comprising of the transformation of these surroundings 

into secondary forests (Angelstam & Manton, 2021) and 

the extinction of individual species dependent on 

deadwood or old trees (Raihan, 2023f). Finally, forest 

utilization practices (such as extracting non-timber goods, 

timber harvesting, converting natural forests to plantations, 

and roads and amenities construction) and the slow 

introduction of plant species for merchantable agroforestry 

practices can all contribute to the foreign invasive species 

introduction and proliferation (Ohimain, 2022). Figure 2 

presents the environmental services and economic 

opportunities provided by the forests. 

 

Economic utilization of forest resources and wood 

furniture supply chain 

 

Even if the total forest area in Europe has remained 

relatively unchanged over time, this does not rule out the 

possibility of significant changes in the region’s forests. 

Both human activities, especially the removal of biomass; 

and ecological maturity or other natural processes affect 

forest ecosystems (Jaafar et al., 2020). Statistics from 

across the country supply data reflecting the depiction of 

the light and shade in the commercial utilization of forests, 

which may be deemed intensive only in particular regional 

scenarios, despite a general tendency toward broadening 

and asset under-use at the local level (Canadas & Novais, 

2014; Raihan, 2023g). In fact, the average rate of forest 

usage (comparison of yearly volume lost versus yearly 

volume expansion of the remaining forest stock) across 

Europe in recent years has stayed far below 1 (EIR, 2018). 



Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   77 
 

This suggests that there are prospects for larger harvests in 

various contexts and that, while timber production has 

differed by nation, it has persisted extremely sustainably. 

This presumption is based on a global scale analysis that 

compares national levels of GDP growth and consumer 

spending using varying data quality benchmarks. Some 

protected areas may not be viable if intensive logging is 

practiced on a regional scale (Bösch, 2021). 

 

 
Figure 2. Environmental services and economic opportunities provided by the forests (FAO, 2023). 

 

In some fractions of Europe (specifically in confined 

contexts in Eastern Europe), overexploitation of forest 

resources may still be an issue today (Bălăcescu, 2020). 

Even at a finer spatial scale (prefectures, municipalities), 

the situation is likely to get more convoluted. However, 

even in the most economically developed countries, 

accessible data rarely allows for such precision. In 2020, 

the total volume of timber in EU-27 woods was roughly 

27.6 billion cubic meters (bcm). Germany and Sweden 

have the largest timber stocks amongst EU countries, 

totaling about 3.7 bcm (13.3 percent of the total EU-27). 

Other countries with sizable wood reserves include France 

(3.1 bcm and 11.1 percent), Poland (2.7 bcm and 9.9 

percent), Finland (2.5 bcm and 8.5 percent), and Romania 



Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   78 
 

(2.4 bcm and 8.5 percent) (Forest Europe, 2020). In spite 

of the challenges it faces, these numbers show that 

Europe’s forestry industry has room to grow economically 

and portray a positive function in the future of many 

countryside regions (Perunová & Zimmermannová, 2022). 

The conventional forestry segment (forest management, 

harvesting, sawmilling, forest products and processing) in 

the EU employs over 2 million people and generates a 

gross added value of more than €100 million per year 

(Tiebel et al., 2022). There are nearly 16 million private 

forest proprietors in the EU. Forests can be held by 

anybody from individual families to governments to 

investors in huge estates (Weiss et al., 2019; Raihan, 

2023h). Yet over 60% of the forest area is owned privately 

(Maesano et al., 2018). By combining agricultural and 

forestry output, many farms provide economic 

diversification (Ficko et al., 2019). In 2017, the EU-27’s 

forestry sector contributed 0.2% of the EU’s entire GDP 

with a gross value added of 26.2 billion euros, a rise of 

1.5% from the previous year. Finland, Sweden, France, and 

Germany accounted for just over 50% of the total value 

added. They were all worth between €3.2 billion and €3.8 

billion. About half of the EU-27 countries had forestry 

account for gross value added below 0.3% of total. In 

contrast to the European average of 1.0%, this proportion 

was higher in Finland (1.9%), Latvia (1.7%), and Estonia 

(1.2%) (Forest Europe, 2020). 

Nearly half a million Europeans have found work in the 

forestry sector in recent years, laying the groundwork for a 

wide range of rural sectors and professions, such as forest 

management, tourism, wood industries, and hunting (FAO, 

2020). But the manpower requirements of logging and 

forestry vary widely among the Member States. Kajanus et 

al. (2019) note that the pattern and peculiarities of 

individual forest, tree density, species affected from the 

harvesting activities, and the topography landscape all have 

a role in the possibility for effective utilization of forest 

modernization. Poland (73,000), Romania (48,000), 

Sweden (41,000), and Germany (40,000) had the highest 

employment rates (Da Silva & Schweinle, 2022). There 

was a little drop (-0.2%) in forestry jobs in the EU between 

2008 and 2018 (Cook, 2020). Eastern European countries 

like Hungary (+50%, with over 7,000 more employees) and 

Poland (+11%, with more than 11,000 new jobs, equal to 

+18% over the last decade) have seen increases in their 

employment rates in recent years. To the contrary, Croatia 

saw the largest decline in forestry employment (-55%, or 

17,000 jobs) over a ten-year period (FAO, 2020). 

The principal goods of forestry, along with fuelwood, 

industrial roundwood is an essential material for the 

manufacturing of sawn wood and veneers. According to 

Brack (2018), Europe is a major player in the global 

roundwood market. The EU-27 countries rely heavily on 

the manufacturing of timber products (Lovri’c et al., 2020). 

In 2018, the wood industry’s 397,000 businesses accounted 

for nearly a fifth of the overall manufacturing segment. 

These businesses directly or indirectly employed 3.1 

million people (10.5% of the manufacturing sector’s 

workforce) and generated 138.6 billion euro in added 

value. According to data from 2018, 19.6% of all 

manufacturing establishments in the European Union were 

involved in the manufacture of wood commodities (Cook, 

2020). When compared to the percentage of value added 

(7.1%), it is obvious that small and medium-sized firms 

(those employing between 51 and 249 people) are the 

backbone of the wood production industry (Socoliuc et al., 

2020). 

Europe’s roundwood output has been on the rise over the 

past few decades, with a temporary dip in 2007–2008 due 

to the economic catastrophe. However, manufacture has 

shown encouraging signs of recovery since 2010, and has 

fully regained to pre–crisis stages (458 million m3) since 

2013 (Schier et al., 2022). Recently, it was anticipated that 

output was 490 million m3 in 2018, an increase of 5.5 

percent from 2017 and a considerable increase of 21.2 

percent from 2000 (FAO, 2020). Hardwoods showed 

remarkable stability in output while conifers, which 

account for three-fifths of the entire roundwood output 

(60.4%, or 296 million m3), showed greater volatility 

(Cook, 2020). The number of cubic meters of roundwood 

harvested in Sweden in 2018 was 75.1% higher than in 

2017, at 75.1 million. German roundwood production (71.8 

million m3), Finnish roundwood production (68.3 million 

m3), French roundwood production (48.2 million m3), and 

Polish roundwood production (46.9 million m3) together 

account for nearly two thirds (63.3 %) of the EU’s 

roundwood production. In 2018, it was predicted that the 

European Union’s total sawn wood production was 109 

million m3, up from a decade earlier (+11.7%). Sawn 

timber production in the EU remained led by Germany 

(21.9%) and Sweden (16.9%), as in previous years. Only 

Finland in the European Union (EU) recorded a double-

digit percentage of global wood production (10.9%). 

Germany (+4.6 million m3, or +23.7 percent), Finland 

(+2.0 million m3, or +19.8 percent), and Romania (+1.3 

million m3, or +35.9 percent) were the primary contributors 



Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   79 
 

to the EU’s rising sawn wood production between 2008 

and 2018.  

However, total EU roundwood production fell by 2% from 

2019 to 2020, to 488 million m3, ending an eight-year 

period of continuous growth (Eurostat, 2021). In spite of 

this, roundwood output is 21% higher than it was in 2000. 

Figure 3 presents the percentage change in roundwood 

production in the EU between 2000 and 2020. Since 2000, 

roundwood production has increased across the board, with 

the largest increases being in the Netherlands (+185 

percent), Slovenia (+73 percent), Germany (+57 percent), 

Poland (+56 percent), Croatia (+43 percent), and Romania 

(+37 percent). Some of those nations had quite humble 

beginnings. Cyprus (-58 percent), France (-28 percent), and 

Hungary (16 percent) saw the biggest percentage drops in 

their respective annual wood harvests (Eurostat, 2021). 

 

 
Figure 3. Percentage change in roundwood production in the EU between 2000 and 2020 (Eurostat, 2021)

The usage of wood as a sustainable energy source has been 

on the rise. In 2020, about a quarter (23 percent) of EU 

roundwood production was used for fuelwood, while the 

remaining 77% was used for industrial purposes such as 

sawing, veneering, or pulping and papermaking. The 

percentage of total wood used for fuel therefore increased 

by six percentage points since the year 2000.  Fuelwood 

constituted the bulk of roundwood output in some Member 

States in 2020; the Netherlands (78 percent) and Cyprus 

(74 percent). In contrast, over 90 percent of roundwood 

production in Slovakia and Sweden was reported to be 

industrial roundwood (Eurostat, 2021). Notwithstanding 

the above economic data’s testimony to the health of the 

wood-furniture supply chain, the European wood business 

has felt the effects of the decline in manufacturing 

employment, especially between 2000 and 2019 (9.6%) 



Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   80 
 

(Marschinski & Turegano, 2019). The integer of people 

engaged in the production of furniture and wood 

merchandise fell by nearly a quarter (26.3% and 24.9%, 

respectively) and men progressively made up the majority 

of these industries’ workforces (Cook, 2020). More than 

80% of workers in the forestry industry were men in 2019, 

but only 83.4% of those employed in the production of 

wood and its end product were men (Cook, 2020). 

Similarly, only 77.3% of those employed in the furniture 

manufacturing industry were men. 

 

European policy context and new developments in 

forestry 

 

As deforestation is expected to cause a widespread loss of 

forest canopy and wooden assets in numerous regions, the 

European Commission is working to increase protections 

for forests by promoting global value channels not leading 

to deforestation or forest degradation. Since 1980, the 

European Union (EU) has established forestry sector 

guidelines and action programs that are sometimes applied 

in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), especially in 

rural development policies (Sarvaová et al., 2019). During 

the 1990s, forestry went from being a tertiary component 

of the CAP to an integral part of European sustainable 

development policy, leading to the adoption of the EU’s 

Forest Policy in 1998 (Galiana et al., 2013; Raihan, 2023i). 

It served as the very first benchmark guideline to include 

Member State action instructions in line with sustainable 

forest management principles (Rametsteiner & Mayer, 

2004; Raihan, 2023j). The 2005 Forest Action Plan (FAP) 

served as the primary mechanism for putting the Strategy 

into action, with the stated goal of “enhancing the forest 

heritage of the Union, maintaining and strengthening the 

multifunctional role of forests through active and aware 

management of the forests” (Aggestam & Pülzl, 2020). To 

increase the availability of renewable and ecologically 

friendly raw materials, the function of forests was bolstered 

in climate change mitigation and adaptation guidelines 

with the introduction of the new European Forest Policy in 

2013 and subsequent amendments (Aggestam & Giurca, 

2021). Figure 4 presents the policy areas pertinent to forest 

policy in the European Union. 

  

 
Figure 4. Policy areas pertinent to forest policy in the European Union. 



Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   81 
 

The forest policy has provided a uniform structure for 

community strategies and a fine-tuning of the forest 

strategies of each member country (Falcone et al., 2020; 

Aszalós et al. 2022). This is all in service to fostering 

sustainable forest management with an eye toward 

effective resource utilization. Rehabilitation, resiliency, 

and proper preservation of all ecosystems, not only those 

characterized by forests, must be a primary priority 

to achieve a sustainable and climate-neutral economy by 

2050 (Fetting, 2020; Raihan et al., 2022i). This new 

community strategy is strongly rooted in the Green Deal 

and the biodiversity policy for the 2030 Agenda objective. 

These measures sought to improve the conservation and 

restoration of forest resources, increase sustainable 

management, and boost monitoring and the effectiveness 

of distributed organizing so that these ecosystems could 

perform a multifunctional part in mitigating GHG 

emissions and sequestering CO2 equivalents (Palah et al., 

2020). This approach also includes efforts to promote the 

development of alternative resources and goods in addition 

to those of fossil sources and to encourage the growth of a 

forest economy that is not dependent on the harvesting of 

trees (Ladu et al., 2020; Viaggi et al., 2021). This is to 

further support a sustainable forest bio-economy for a 

future with zero climate impact. This included ecotourism 

based on the new strategy switching to the EU Forest 

Policy approved in 2013 and reviewed in 2018. The 

updated plan was released in July of 2021. Finally, a plan 

for planting as a minimum 3 billion more trees in the EU 

by 2030 was included next to the strategy’s emphasis on 

sustainable reforestation (and afforestation) (Lee et al., 

2023). 

This tactic is tied to the CAP by design and benefits from 

the CAP’s operational interventions, which help make rural 

areas more thriving and prosperous (Lier et al., 2022). The 

major financial support for the safeguarding and 

sustainable management of communal forests comes from 

these initiatives, which encourage versatile forestry and 

sustainable forest management and combine it with 

additional growth indicators (advice and offerings, 

education, expenditures, collaboration) that react to 

particular regional requirements (Gordeeva et al., 2022). 

These measures also encourage forest growth through 

reforestation and the revival of agroforestry arrangements; 

they furnish operative and monetary instruments for fire 

and disaster preclusion; restoration following damage; 

investments in climate change adaptation and mitigation; 

and economic procedures for compensation and 

inducements for boosting the monetary worth of 

woodlands and pre-industrial timber (Ascoli et al., 2023). 

In a highly dynamic environment such as the present one, 

the European Commission has articulated the Next 

Generation EU as a solution to the catastrophe due to the 

epidemic, with the three struts being social 

interconnection, the green economy, and the digital 

transformation (Fabbrini, 2022). From this vantage point, 

the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism seeks to shield 

EU-made goods from less environmentally friendly 

imports made by countries beyond the EU’s borders 

(Mörsdorf, 2022). The “Fit for 55” package mandates that 

the region become carbon neutral by 2050, with the interim 

objective being reached by 2030 (Köhl et al., 2021; Raihan, 

2023k). 

Because they are seen as vital (and steadily increasing) 

contributions in the shift and advancements of renewables, 

member nations will also be expected to meet a goal for the 

allocation of key basic equipment. The European Union 

estimates that the furniture industry could benefit from the 

circular economy by creating an additional 160,000 jobs, 

reusing or recycling an additional 3.3 to 5.7 tons of 

materials, preventing the emission of an additional 3.3 to 

5.7 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, and 

increasing the value of the local economy by 4.9 billion 

euros. Because of this, Baumgartner (2019) argues that 

supply of wood and the furniture business have the 

problem of moving quickly enough to fully capitalize on 

the prospects presented by a truly sustainable development. 

However, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) 

confirmed in 2018 that biomass burning can be classified 

as an emission-free energy resource (Raihan & Tuspekova, 

2022i; Raihan et al., 2023g). This fundamental assertion 

endures to handle worldwide efforts on climate change 

despite the lack of scientific evidence. However, most 

academics agree that switching back to firewood as an 

energy source will significantly exacerbate the 

environment and pose a hazard to forests (Schlesinger, 

2018; Raihan & Tuspekova, 2022j). To compound matters 

for businesses producing high-quality wood goods like 

furniture manufacturers, this political stance will have a 

detrimental effect on the availability of wood supplies. 

 

Discussion  

 

This research provides actual evidence for the intricate 

ecological-economic nexus that drives forestry and the 

forest industry as a whole. Ecologically speaking, a deeper 

understanding of forest ecosystems is a vital piece of data 

needed to support a competitive supply chain strategy 



Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   82 
 

aimed at achieving the Sustainable Development Goals 

(Moreau et al., 2022). These goals were implemented by 

all nations as a feature of the United Nations 2030 Agenda 

and aim to protect the environment and reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions. Miina et al. (2020) and Rosa et al. (2023) 

note that current data on forest management techniques in 

Europe is insufficient to provide an inclusive picture of 

ecological health, economic assessment, and biodiversity. 

In addition, it is possible that national statistics are 

incomplete since they exclude logging operations that 

serve essential (and likely informal) needs, such as house 

heating (Picard et al., 2021). There is an immediate need 

for more precise statistics on forest management 

techniques and their influence on forest reserves, as well as 

more accurate measurement of forest land-use and 

associated change over (Gschwantner et al., 2019; Raihan, 

2023l). Better data on forest area and management changes 

will be available thanks to remote techniques (Chirici et al., 

2020; Filizzola et al., 2022). High-resolution data on 

forests, including the density of tree cover, type of forest, 

and characteristics of small woody trees, will be made 

available through the European Environment Agency’s 

(EEA) adoption of the Global Monitoring and 

Environmental Surveillance (GMES) system (Chianucci et 

al., 2021). An exact monetary assessment of resource 

reserves, that is yet lacking at present (Loomis et al., 2019; 

Raihan, 2023m), requires all of this data. 

Sawmills and other forest-use infrastructure are 

progressively disappearing across Europe, despite the 

region’s relatively constant wood and other commodity 

production. The opposite is true; forest cover and volume, 

along with forests’ ability to sequester carbon, have grown 

steadily over the past few decades. While this is 

encouraging, it also comes with a caveat: the forests are 

increasingly at risk from both natural disasters (such as 

change of climatic conditions, floods, and landslides) and 

agrarian desertion, that can cause economic uncertainty 

and ecological deprivation, particularly in poor and remote 

areas (Angra & Sapountzaki, 2022; Zhang et al., 2022). 

Official statistics face a challenge when they are tasked 

with assessing the forest reserve, primarily in relations to 

good-quality wood intended for the furniture 

manufacturing chain. These statistics are meant to support 

a broad outline of economic and environmental trends to 

the aggregate user, with the goal of encouraging 

enhancements in records inclusiveness, statistic 

consistency, and timely update. By working together more 

closely, member nations and regional authorities can 

improve the quality of economic analyses and plan for the 

more efficient and environmentally friendly utilization of 

forest resources (Edwards et al., 2022). Due to the 

multifaceted nature of forest supply chain issues, it is 

challenging to keep tabs on them using only official 

statistics (Garcia & Hora, 2017; Raihan, 2023n). While 

confirming the necessity for a larger interpretation of the 

many organizational components, such as the problem of 

assessing natural resources, in the economic analysis, this 

paper does the opposite. For instance, incomplete statistics, 

inconsistent methodological definitions, and sparse 

geographical detail continue to define this axis in the 

present day. 

To keep products, components, and materials as valuable 

as possible within the economy for as long as possible, area 

operatives appear to gain a heightened knowledge of the 

magnitude of investing at the firm level (Mhatre et al., 

2021). These measures, which call for a shift in corporate, 

territorial, and individual perspective and a fundamental 

rethinking of the way we produce and consume, are 

intended to steer the manufacture and consumption 

structures toward further effectual pathways by means of 

incessant and reformative sequences that reduce resource 

use, waste, and emissions in manufacture procedures 

(Sahoo et al., 2019; Raihan et al., 2022j). The adoption of 

circular techniques that ensure environmental 

sustainability over the medium term is increasingly 

common across all industries, with circular principles 

progressing most rapidly across furniture manufacturing 

firms, the supply chain’s most dynamic link (Jarre et al., 

2020; Raihan & Voumik, 2022b). 

Most of the resources utilized in the manufacture of lumber 

appear to be destined for incineration or disposal. Dead 

branch off, barks, residues, and debris are typically simply 

seen as something to be thrown away. Despite being 

classified as waste, these materials may have a happy 

ending after all, leading to a valuable second use and a 

strong market position (Pieratti et al., 2019; Raihan, 

2023o). Most mulch on the market has traveled from far 

away to get to your garden. This adds a new dimension to 

the quest to reclaim the abandoned bark. Barks and dead 

branches are often burned for cheap thermoelectricity, 

despite the fact that they can have significant nutrient value 

and serve an important role in soil protection. In addition 

to peat and other soil conditioners, residues can be used as 

a high-carbon fertilizer. The usage of "cascade" timber is 

encouraged in a circular forest management system. It 

entails giving material recovery a higher priority than wood 

combustion for energy production. The implementation of 

this idea benefits the regional timber supply chain and the 



Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   83 
 

economies of communities located in economically 

vulnerable locations near woods (Jarre et al., 2020; Raihan, 

2023p). In this view, a tree trunk is a resource that should 

be put to good use across multiple industries, from 

construction and interior design to paper production and 

textiles. 

As Mair and Stern (2017) point out, "cascade" wood is a 

great way to practice thinking about forests as resources 

with multiple uses that benefit both the environment and 

human society. As such, effective info campaigns and 

territorial passageway constructions, unspoken as vital 

ideologies of data and distribution of information and 

performs, are necessary for interventions on the timber-

furniture supply chain labor market, especially in light of 

the sustainability of environmental and the transition of 

energy more generally (Marcinek & Smol, 2020; Raihan, 

2023q). Companies in the supply chain have been shown 

to have a heightened recognition of the significance of 

energy and climate challenges, as well as the insistence of 

strategic solutions to environmental concerns (Adami & 

Schiavon, 2021; Lazaridou et al., 2021; Raihan & 

Tuspekova, 2022k). The potential for economically 

encouraging and promoting active enterprises from a 

viewpoint of not only positive environmental behavior, but 

also of technological advancement, ensures a fair transition 

on all fronts (economics, ecology, and information) toward 

novel manufacturing circumstances which are sustainable 

across a long period and resiliency to swift worldwide 

shifts in societies and environmental systems (Marques et 

al., 2020). 

 

Conclusion  

 

This paper looked at the many ways in which forestry 

contributes to society economically, including the 

formation of additional occupations, the revitalization of 

rural areas, and the improvement of people's physical and 

mental health through leisure activities. In addition to the 

direct economic benefits, forestry also benefits from the 

downstream input of wood, which is used extensively in 

the timber sector and continues to perform a large 

responsibility in the global energy mix. An increasing 

number of people are beginning to recognize the social and 

ecological advantages of ecotourism and additional 

practices of sustainable forest management. In this setting 

of opposites, the regulatory and institutional structure is 

highly variable and inconsistent in its ability to safeguard 

the sustainable management and protection of forests. It is 

strongly suggested that in the following years, new 

technical and product developments, as well as new 

legislative and programmatic tools, be implemented. 

 

Declaration 

 

Acknowledgment: Not Applicable. 

 

Funding: This research received no funding. 

 

Conflict of Interest: The author declares no conflict of 

interest. 

 

Authors contribution: Asif Raihan contributed to 

conceptualization, visualization, methodology, reviewing 

literature, extracting information, synthesize, and 

manuscript writing. 

 

Data availability: The author confirms that the data 

supporting the findings of this study are available within 

the article. 

 

References 

 

Adami, L., & Schiavon, M. (2021). From circular economy 

to circular ecology: a review on the solution of 

environmental problems through circular waste 

management approaches. Sustainability, 13(2), 925. 

Aggestam, F., & Giurca, A. (2021). The art of the “green” 

deal: Policy pathways for the EU Forest 

Strategy. Forest Policy and Economics, 128, 102456. 

Aggestam, F., & Pülzl, H. (2020). Downloading Europe: A 

regional comparison in the uptake of the EU forest 

action plan. Sustainability, 12(10), 3999. 

Ali, A. Z., Rahman, M. S., & Raihan, A. (2022). Soil 

carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems as a 

mitigation strategy of climate change: a case study 

from Dinajpur, Bangladesh. Advances in 

Environmental and Engineering Research, 3(4), 1-15. 

Allam, Z., Bibri, S. E., & Sharpe, S. A. (2022). The rising 

impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia–

Ukraine war: energy transition, climate justice, global 

inequality, and supply chain 

disruption. Resources, 11(11), 99. 

Angelstam, P., Elbakidze, M., Axelsson, R., Khoroshev, A., 

Pedroli, B., Tysiachniouk, M., & Zabubenin, E. 

(2019). Model forests in Russia as landscape 

approach: Demonstration projects or initiatives for 

learning towards sustainable forest 



Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   84 
 

management?. Forest Policy and Economics, 101, 96-

110. 

Angelstam, P., & Manton, M. (2021). Effects of forestry 

intensification and conservation on green 

infrastructures: A spatio-temporal evaluation in 

Sweden. Land, 10(5), 531. 

Anghel, V., & Jones, E. (2023). Is Europe really forged 

through crisis? Pandemic EU and the Russia–Ukraine 

war. Journal of European Public Policy, 30(4), 766-

786. 

Angra, D., & Sapountzaki, K. (2022). Climate change 

affecting forest fire and flood risk—Facts, predictions, 

and perceptions in central and south 

Greece. Sustainability, 14(20), 13395. 

Ascoli, D., Plana, E., Oggioni, S. D., Tomao, A., Colonico, 

M., Corona, P., ... & Barbati, A. (2023). Fire-smart 

solutions for sustainable wildfire risk prevention: 

Bottom-up initiatives meet top-down policies under 

EU green deal. International Journal of Disaster Risk 

Reduction, 92, 103715. 

Aszalós, R., Thom, D., Aakala, T., Angelstam, P., Brūmelis, 

G., Gálhidy, L., ... & Keeton, W. S. (2022). Natural 

disturbance regimes as a guide for sustainable forest 

management in Europe. Ecological 

Applications, 32(5), e2596. 

Bălăcescu, M. C. (2020). Romania’s National Plan against 

Illegal Logging: An Analysis of the Public 

Proposal. Journal of Development Policy, Research & 

Practice (JoDPRP), 4(1), 1-40. 

Baumgartner, R. J. (2019). Sustainable development goals 

and the forest sector—A complex 

relationship. Forests, 10(2), 152. 

Begum, R. A., Raihan, A., & Said, M. N. M. (2020). 

Dynamic impacts of economic growth and forested 

area on carbon dioxide emissions in Malaysia. 

Sustainability, 12(22), 9375. 

Bösch, M. (2021). Institutional quality, economic 

development and illegal logging: A quantitative cross-

national analysis. European Journal of Forest 

Research, 140(5), 1049-1064. 

Bowditch, E., Santopuoli, G., Binder, F., Del Rio, M., La 

Porta, N., Kluvankova, T., ... & Tognetti, R. (2020). 

What is Climate-Smart Forestry? A definition from a 

multinational collaborative process focused on 

mountain regions of Europe. Ecosystem Services, 43, 

101113. 

Brack, D. (2018, May). Sustainable consumption and 

production of forest products. In United Nations 

Forum on Forests. Geneva, Switzerland. 

Brizga, J., & Khadraoui, S. E. (2022). The Circular 

Economy and Green Jobs in the EU and Beyond. 

London Publishing Partnership, Foundation for 

European Progressive Studies. London, UK. 

Canadas, M. J., & Novais, A. (2014). Bringing local 

socioeconomic context to the analysis of forest 

owners’ management. Land use policy, 41, 397-407. 

Charru, M., Seynave, I., Hervé, J. C., Bertrand, R., & 

Bontemps, J. D. (2017). Recent growth changes in 

Western European forests are driven by climate 

warming and structured across tree species climatic 

habitats. Annals of Forest Science, 74(2), 1-34. 

Chianucci, F., Puletti, N., Grotti, M., Bisaglia, C., 

Giannetti, F., Romano, E., Brambilla, M., Mattioli, W., 

Cabassi, G., & Bajocco, S. (2021). Influence of image 

pixel resolution on canopy cover estimation in poplar 

plantations from field, aerial and satellite optical 

imagery. Annals of Silvicultural Research, 46(1), 8-

13. 

Chirici, G., Giannetti, F., McRoberts, R. E., Travaglini, D., 

Pecchi, M., Maselli, F., ... & Corona, P. (2020). Wall-

to-wall spatial prediction of growing stock volume 

based on Italian National Forest Inventory plots and 

remotely sensed data. International Journal of Applied 

Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 84, 101959. 

Cook, E. (2020). Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery 

Statistics—2020 Edition. Publications Office of the 

European Union, Luxembourg. 

Corona, P. (2019). Global change and silvicultural 

research. Annals of Silvicultural Research, 43(1), 1-3. 

Corona, P., Calvani, P., Mugnozza, G. S., & Pompei, E. 

(2008). Modelling natural forest expansion on a 

landscape level by multinomial logistic 

regression. Plant Biosystems-An International 

Journal Dealing with all Aspects of Plant 

Biology, 142(3), 509-517. 

Corona, P., Cutini, A., Chiavetta, U., & Paoletti, E. (2016). 

Forest-food nexus: a topical opportunity for human 

well-being and silviculture. Annals of Silvicultural 

Research, 40(1), 1-10. 

Cutino, I., Pasta, S., Maggiore, C. V., Badalamenti, E., & 

La Mantia, T. (2018). The role of dominant tree cover 

and silvicultural practices on the post-fire recovery of 

Mediterranean afforestations. Ann. Silvic. Res, 42, 20-

31. 

Da Silva, E. J., & Schweinle J. (2022). Green Forest Jobs 

in the Pan-European Region. FOREST EUROPE. 

Bonn, Germany. 



Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   85 
 

DellaSala, D. A., Mackey, B., Norman, P., Campbell, C., 

Comer, P. J., Kormos, C. F., ... & Rogers, B. (2022). 

Mature and old-growth forests contribute to large-

scale conservation targets in the conterminous United 

States. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 5, 

979528. 

Doimo, I., Masiero, M., & Gatto, P. (2020). Forest and 

wellbeing: Bridging medical and forest research for 

effective forest-based initiatives. Forests, 11(8), 791. 

Edwards, P., Brukas, V., Brukas, A., Hoogstra-Klein, M., 

Secco, L., & Kleinschmit, D. (2022). Development of 

forest discourses across Europe: A longitudinal 

perspective. Forest Policy and Economics, 135, 

102641. 

EEA. (2015). State of Nature in the EU. European 

Environment Agency (EEA), Technical Report No 

2/2015, Luxembourg. 

EIR. (2018). Environmental Indicator Report 2018. In 

Support to the Monitoring of the Seventh Environment 

Action Programme. EEA-European Environment 

Agency, Luxembourg. 

Escobedo, F. J., Giannico, V., Jim, C. Y., Sanesi, G., & 

Lafortezza, R. (2019). Urban forests, ecosystem 

services, green infrastructure and nature-based 

solutions: Nexus or evolving metaphors?. Urban 

Forestry & Urban Greening, 37, 3-12. 

Escobedo, F. J., Kroeger, T., & Wagner, J. E. (2011). Urban 

forests and pollution mitigation: Analyzing ecosystem 

services and disservices. Environmental 

pollution, 159(8-9), 2078-2087. 

Eurostat. (2021). Roundwood production up by 21% in 20 

years. Available at: 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-

news/-/ddn-20211213-1 (Accessed 20 July 2023). 

Evans, D. (2012). Building the European union’s Natura 

2000 network. Nature conservation, 1, 11-26. 

Fabbrini, F. (2022). Italy’s national recovery and resilience 

plan: context, content and challenges. Journal of 

Modern Italian Studies, 27(5), 658-676. 

Falcone, P. M., Tani, A., Tartiu, V. E., & Imbriani, C. 

(2020). Towards a sustainable forest-based 

bioeconomy in Italy: Findings from a SWOT 

analysis. Forest policy and Economics, 110, 101910. 

FAO. (2020). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020. 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations, Rome. 

FAO. (2023). Forests and climate change, Climate Smart 

Agriculture Sourcebook. Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 

Fetting, C. (2020). The European green deal. ESDN 

report, 53. ESDN Office, Vienna, Austria. 

Ficko, A., Lidestav, G., Dhubháin, Á. N., Karppinen, H., 

Zivojinovic, I., & Westin, K. (2019). European private 

forest owner typologies: A review of methods and 

use. Forest Policy and Economics, 99, 21-31. 

Filizzola, C., Carlucci, M. A., Genzano, N., Ciancia, E., 

Lisi, M., Pergola, N., ... & Tramutoli, V. (2022). 

Robust Satellite-Based Identification and Monitoring 

of Forests Having Undergone Climate-Change-

Related Stress. Land, 11(6), 825. 

Forest Europe. (2020). State of Europe’s Forests 2020, 

Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in 

Europe— Forest Europe. Zvolen, Slovak Republic. 

Freer-Smith, P. H., Muys, B., Bozzano, M., Drössler, L., 

Farrelly, N., Jactel, H., ... & Orazio, C. 

(2019). Plantation forests in Europe: challenges and 

opportunities (Vol. 9, pp. 1-52). Joensuu, Finland: 

European Forest Institute. 

Frei, T., Derks, J., Fernández-Blanco, C. R., & Winkel, G. 

(2020). Narrating abandoned land: Perceptions of 

natural forest regrowth in Southwestern Europe. Land 

Use Policy, 99, 105034. 

Galiana, L., Aguilar, S., & Lázaro, A. (2013). An 

assessment of the effects of forest-related policies 

upon wildland fires in the European Union: Applying 

the subsidiarity principle. Forest Policy and 

Economics, 29, 36-44. 

Garbarino, M., Morresi, D., Urbinati, C., Malandra, F., 

Motta, R., Sibona, E. M., ... & Weisberg, P. J. (2020). 

Contrasting land use legacy effects on forest landscape 

dynamics in the Italian Alps and the 

Apennines. Landscape Ecology, 35, 2679-2694. 

Garcia, C. A., & Hora, G. (2017). State-of-the-art of waste 

wood supply chain in Germany and selected European 

countries. Waste management, 70, 189-197. 

Ghadge, A., Wurtmann, H., & Seuring, S. (2020). 

Managing climate change risks in global supply 

chains: a review and research agenda. International 

Journal of Production Research, 58(1), 44-64. 

Ghosh, S., Hossain, M. S., Voumik, L. C., Raihan, A., 

Ridzuan, A. R., & Esquivias, M. A. (2023). Unveiling 

the Spillover Effects of Democracy and Renewable 

Energy Consumption on the Environmental Quality of 

BRICS Countries: A New Insight from Different 

Quantile Regression Approaches. Renewable Energy 

Focus, 46, 222-235. 



Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   86 
 

Gordeeva, E., Weber, N., & Wolfslehner, B. (2022). The 

New EU Forest Strategy for 2030—An Analysis of 

Major Interests. Forests, 13(9), 1503. 

Grilli, G., & Sacchelli, S. (2020). Health benefits derived 

from forest: A review. International journal of 

environmental research and public health, 17(17), 

6125. 

Gschwantner, T., Alberdi, I., Balázs, A., Bauwens, S., 

Bender, S., Borota, D., ... & Zell, J. (2019). 

Harmonisation of stem volume estimates in European 

National Forest Inventories. Annals of forest 

science, 76(1), 1-23. 

Hayter, R., & Clapp, A. (2020). The remapping of forest 

governance: From shareholder to 

stakeholder. Knowledge for governance, 375-395. 

Hazarika, R., & Jandl, R. (2019). The Nexus between the 

Austrian forestry sector and the sustainable 

development goals: a review of the 

interlinkages. Forests, 10(3), 205. 

Hudiburg, T. W., Law, B. E., Moomaw, W. R., Harmon, M. 

E., & Stenzel, J. E. (2019). Meeting GHG reduction 

targets requires accounting for all forest sector 

emissions. Environmental Research Letters, 14(9), 

095005. 

Isfat, M., & Raihan, A. (2022). Current practices, 

challenges, and future directions of climate change 

adaptation in Bangladesh. International Journal of 

Research Publication and Reviews, 3(5), 3429-3437. 

Ivanova, N., Fomin, V., & Kusbach, A. (2022). Experience 

of forest ecological classification in assessment of 

vegetation dynamics. Sustainability, 14(6), 3384. 

Jaafar, W. S. W. M., Maulud, K. N. A., Kamarulzaman, A. 

M. M., Raihan, A., Sah, S. M., Ahmad, A., Saad, S. N. 

M., Azmi, A. T. M., Syukri, N. K. A. J., and Khan, W. 

R. (2020). The influence of forest degradation on land 

surface temperature – A case study of Perak and 

Kedah, Malaysia. Forests 11(6), 670. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/f11060670 

Jarre, M., Petit-Boix, A., Priefer, C., Meyer, R., & Leipold, 

S. (2020). Transforming the bio-based sector towards 

a circular economy-What can we learn from wood 

cascading?. Forest Policy and Economics, 110, 

101872. 

Jonsson, M., Bengtsson, J., Moen, J., Gamfeldt, L., & 

Snäll, T. (2020). Stand age and climate influence forest 

ecosystem service delivery and 

multifunctionality. Environmental Research 

Letters, 15(9), 0940a8. 

Kajanus, M., Leban, V., Glavonjić, P., Krč, J., Nedeljković, 

J., Nonić, D., ... & Eskelinen, T. (2019). What can we 

learn from business models in the European forest 

sector: Exploring the key elements of new business 

model designs. Forest Policy and Economics, 99, 145-

156. 

Kumar, A., Adamopoulos, S., Jones, D., & Amiandamhen, 

S. O. (2021). Forest biomass availability and 

utilization potential in Sweden: A review. Waste and 

Biomass Valorization, 12, 65-80. 

Kuuluvainen, T., Angelstam, P., Frelich, L., Jõgiste, K., 

Koivula, M., Kubota, Y., ... & Macdonald, E. (2021). 

Natural disturbance-based forest management: 

Moving beyond retention and continuous-cover 

forestry. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 4, 

629020. 

Ladu, L., Imbert, E., Quitzow, R., & Morone, P. (2020). 

The role of the policy mix in the transition toward a 

circular forest bioeconomy. Forest policy and 

economics, 110, 101937. 

Lazaridou, D. C., Michailidis, A., & Trigkas, M. (2021). 

Exploring environmental and economic costs and 

benefits of a forest-based circular economy: A 

literature review. Forests, 12(4), 436. 

Lazdinis, M., Angelstam, P., & Pülzl, H. (2019). Towards 

sustainable forest management in the European Union 

through polycentric forest governance and an 

integrated landscape approach. Landscape 

Ecology, 34, 1737-1749. 

Lier, M., Köhl, M., Korhonen, K. T., Linser, S., Prins, K., 

& Talarczyk, A. (2022). The New EU Forest Strategy 

for 2030: A New Understanding of Sustainable Forest 

Management?. Forests, 13(2), 245. 

Loomis, J. J., Knaus, M., & Dziedzic, M. (2019). 

Integrated quantification of forest total economic 

value. Land Use Policy, 84, 335-346. 

Lovrić, M., Lovrić, N., & Mavsar, R. (2020). Mapping 

forest-based bioeconomy research in Europe. Forest 

Policy and Economics, 110, 101874. 

MacDicken, K. G. (2015). Global forest resources 

assessment 2015: what, why and how?. Forest 

Ecology and Management, 352, 3-8. 

Maesano, M., Ottaviano, M., Lidestav, G., Lasserre, B., 

Matteucci, G., Scarascia Mugnozza, G., & Marchetti, 

M. (2018). Forest certification map of 

Europe. iForest-Biogeosciences and Forestry, 11(4), 

526. 



Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   87 
 

Mair, C., & Stern, T. (2017). Cascading utilization of wood: 

a matter of circular economy?. Current Forestry 

Reports, 3, 281-295. 

Marcinek, P., & Smol, M. (2020). Bioeconomy as one of 

the key areas of implementing a circular economy 

(CE) in Poland. Environmental Research, Engineering 

and Management, 76(4), 20-31. 

Marques, A., Cunha, J., De Meyer, A., & Navare, K. 

(2020). Contribution towards a comprehensive 

methodology for wood-based biomass material flow 

analysis in a circular economy setting. Forests, 11(1), 

106. 

Marschinski, R., & Turegano, D. M. (2019). Reassessing 

the decline of EU manufacturing: A Global value 

chain analysis. Publications Office of the European 

Union, Luxembourg. 

Martinho, V. J. P. D. (2022). Impacts of the COVID-19 

pandemic and the Russia–Ukraine conflict on land use 

across the world. Land, 11(10), 1614. 

Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S. L., 

Péan, C., Berger, S., ... & Zhou, B. (2021). Climate 

change 2021: the physical science basis. Contribution 

of working group I to the sixth assessment report of the 

intergovernmental panel on climate change. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 

Mhatre, P., Panchal, R., Singh, A., & Bibyan, S. (2021). A 

systematic literature review on the circular economy 

initiatives in the European Union. Sustainable 

Production and Consumption, 26, 187-202. 

Miina, J., Kurttila, M., Calama, R., de-Miguel, S., & 

Pukkala, T. (2020). Modelling non-timber forest 

products for forest management planning in 

Europe. Current Forestry Reports, 6, 309-322. 

Modugno, S., Balzter, H., Cole, B., & Borrelli, P. (2016). 

Mapping regional patterns of large forest fires in 

Wildland–Urban Interface areas in Europe. Journal of 

environmental management, 172, 112-126. 

Moreau, L., Thiffault, E., Cyr, D., Boulanger, Y., & 

Beauregard, R. (2022). How can the forest sector 

mitigate climate change in a changing climate? Case 

studies of boreal and northern temperate forests in 

eastern Canada. Forest Ecosystems, 9, 100026. 

Mörsdorf, G. (2022). A simple fix for carbon leakage? 

Assessing the environmental effectiveness of the EU 

carbon border adjustment. Energy Policy, 161, 

112596. 

Muys, B., Angelstam, P., Bauhus, J., Bouriaud, L., Jactel, 

H., Kraigher, H., ... & Van Meerbeek, K. 

(2022). Forest biodiversity in Europe (p. 79). Joensuu, 

Finland: European Forest Institute. 

Nabuurs, G. J., Arets, E. J., & Schelhaas, M. J. (2018). 

Understanding the implications of the EU-LULUCF 

regulation for the wood supply from EU forests to the 

EU. Carbon balance and Management, 13, 1-10. 

Newton, P., Kinzer, A. T., Miller, D. C., Oldekop, J. A., & 

Agrawal, A. (2020). The number and spatial 

distribution of forest-proximate people globally. One 

Earth, 3(3), 363-370. 

Nocentini, S., Buttoud, G., Ciancio, O., & Corona, P. 

(2017). Managing forests in a changing world: the 

need for a systemic approach. A review. Forest 

Systems, 26(1), eR01-eR01. 

Ohimain, E. I. (2022). Benefits and Threats of Biodiversity 

Conservation in Stubbs Creek Forest Reserve, Nigeria. 

In Biodiversity in Africa: Potentials, Threats and 

Conservation (pp. 109-142). Singapore: Springer 

Nature Singapore. 

Pagnutti, C., Bauch, C. T., & Anand, M. (2013). Outlook 

on a worldwide forest transition. PloS one, 8(10), 

e75890. 

Palahí, M., Hetemäki, L., & Potocnik, J. (2020). 

Bioeconomy: the missing link to connect the dots in 

the EU Green Deal. European Forest Institute. 

Joensuu, Finland. 

Palátová, P., Purwestri, R. C., & Marcineková, L. (2022). 

Forest bioeconomy in three European countries: 

Finland, the Czech Republic and the Slovak 

Republic. International Forestry Review, 24(4), 594-

606. 

Pecchi, M., Marchi, M., Giannetti, F., Bernetti, I., Bindi, 

M., Moriondo, M., ... & Chirici, G. (2019). Reviewing 

climatic traits for the main forest tree species in 

Italy. iForest-Biogeosciences and Forestry, 12(2), 

173. 

Pendrill, F., Persson, U. M., Godar, J., & Kastner, T. (2019). 

Deforestation displaced: trade in forest-risk 

commodities and the prospects for a global forest 

transition. Environmental Research Letters, 14(5), 

055003. 

Pergola, M. T., Saulino, L., Castellaneta, M., Rita, A., 

Pecora, G., Cozzi, M., ... & Ripullone, F. (2022). 

Towards sustainable management of forest residues in 

the southern Apennine Mediterranean mountain 

forests: a scenario-based approach. Annals of Forest 

Science, 79(1), 1-13. 

Perunová, M., & Zimmermannová, J. (2022). Analysis of 

forestry employment within the bioeconomy labour 



Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   88 
 

market in the Czech Republic. Journal of Forest 

Science, 68(10), 385-394. 

Pesaresi, M., Melchiorri, M., Siragusa, A., & Kemper, T. 

(2016). Atlas of the human planet—mapping human 

presence on earth with the global human settlement 

layer. Publications Office of the European Union, 

European Commission, Luxembourg. 

Picard, N., Leban, J. M., Guehl, J. M., Dreyer, E., 

Bouriaud, O., Bontemps, J. D., ... & Marty, P. (2021). 

Recent increase in European forest harvests as based 

on area estimates (Ceccherini et al. 2020a) not 

confirmed in the French case. Annals of Forest 

Science, 78, 1-5. 

Pieratti, E., Paletto, A., De Meo, I., Fagarazzi, C., & 

Giovannini, M. R. M. (2019). Assessing the forest-

wood chain at local level: A Multi-Criteria Decision 

Analysis (MCDA) based on the circular bioeconomy 

principles. Annals of Forest Research, 62, 123-138. 

Purwestri, R. C., Hájek, M., Šodková, M., Sane, M., & 

Kašpar, J. (2020). Bioeconomy in the National Forest 

Strategy: A comparison study in Germany and the 

Czech Republic. Forests, 11(6), 608. 

Raihan, A. (2023a). Toward sustainable and green 

development in Chile: dynamic influences of carbon 

emission reduction variables. Innovation and Green 

Development, 2, 100038.  

Raihan, A. (2023b). The dynamic nexus between economic 

growth, renewable energy use, urbanization, 

industrialization, tourism, agricultural productivity, 

forest area, and carbon dioxide emissions in the 

Philippines. Energy Nexus, 9, 100180.  

Raihan, A. (2023c). The contribution of economic 

development, renewable energy, technical 

advancements, and forestry to Uruguay's objective of 

becoming carbon neutral by 2030. Carbon Research, 

2, 20.  

Raihan, A. (2023d). The influences of renewable energy, 

globalization, technological innovations, and forests 

on emission reduction in Colombia. Innovation and 

Green Development, 2, 100071.  

Raihan, A. (2023e). A review on the integrative approach 

for economic valuation of forest ecosystem services. 

Journal of Environmental Science and Economics, 

2(3), 1-18.  

Raihan, A. (2023e). An econometric evaluation of the 

effects of economic growth, energy use, and 

agricultural value added on carbon dioxide emissions 

in Vietnam. Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, 

7, 665-696. 

Raihan, A. (2023f). Nexus between Greenhouse gas 

emissions and its determinants: the role of renewable 

energy and technological innovations towards green 

development in South Korea. Innovation and Green 

Development, 2, 100066.  

Raihan, A. (2023g). Nexus between information 

technology and economic growth: new insights from 

India. Journal of Information Economics, 1(2), 37-48.  

Raihan, A. (2023h). A concise review of technologies for 

converting forest biomass to bioenergy. Journal of 

Technology Innovations and Energy, 2(3), 10-36.  

Raihan A (2023i) Nexus between economy, technology, 

and ecological footprint in China. Journal of Economy 

and Technology, 1. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ject.2023.09.003 

Raihan, A. (2023j). An econometric assessment of the 

relationship between meat consumption and 

greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. 

Environmental Processes, 10(2), 32.  

Raihan, A. (2023k). Economic growth and carbon emission 

nexus: the function of tourism in Brazil. Journal of 

Economic Statistics, 1(2), 68-80.  

Raihan, A. (2023l). Economy-energy-environment nexus: 

the role of information and communication technology 

towards green development in Malaysia. Innovation 

and Green Development, 2, 100085.  

Raihan, A. (2023m). Exploring Environmental Kuznets 

Curve and Pollution Haven Hypothesis in Bangladesh: 

The Impact of Foreign Direct Investment. Journal of 

Environmental Science and Economics, 2(1), 25-36.  

Raihan, A. (2023n). Nexus between economic growth, 

natural resources rents, trade globalization, financial 

development, and carbon emissions toward 

environmental sustainability in Uruguay. Electronic 

Journal of Education, Social Economics and 

Technology, 4(2), 55-65.  

Raihan, A. (2023o). Green energy and technological 

innovation towards a low-carbon economy in 

Bangladesh. Green and Low-Carbon Economy. 

https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewGLCE32021340 

Raihan, A. (2023p). A review of the global climate change 

impacts, adaptation strategies, and mitigation options 

in the socio-economic and environmental sectors. 

Journal of Environmental Science and Economics, 

2(3), 36-58.  

Raihan, A. (2023q). An overview of the energy segment of 

Indonesia: present situation, prospects, and 

forthcoming advancements in renewable energy 



Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   89 
 

technology. Journal of Technology Innovations and 

Energy, 2(3), 37-63.  

Raihan, A., Begum, R. A., Said, M. N. M., & Abdullah, S. 

M. S. (2018). Climate change mitigation options in the 

forestry sector of Malaysia. Journal Kejuruteraan, 1, 

89-98.  

Raihan, A., Begum, R. A., Mohd Said, M. N., & Abdullah, 

S. M. S. (2019). A review of emission reduction 

potential and cost savings through forest carbon 

sequestration. Asian Journal of Water, Environment 

and Pollution, 16(3), 1-7.  

Raihan, A., Begum, R. A., & Said, M. N. M. (2021a). A 

meta-analysis of the economic value of forest carbon 

stock. Geografia–Malaysian Journal of Society and 

Space, 17(4), 321-338. 

Raihan, A., Begum, R. A., Said, M. N. M., & Pereira, J. J. 

(2021b). Assessment of carbon stock in forest biomass 

and emission reduction potential in Malaysia. Forests, 

12(10), 1294. 

Raihan, A., Begum, R. A., Nizam, M., Said, M., & Pereira, 

J. J. (2022a). Dynamic impacts of energy use, 

agricultural land expansion, and deforestation on CO2 

emissions in Malaysia. Environmental and Ecological 

Statistics, 29, 477-507.  

Raihan, A., Begum, R. A., Said, M. N. M., & Pereira, J. J. 

(2022b). Relationship between economic growth, 

renewable energy use, technological innovation, and 

carbon emission toward achieving Malaysia’s Paris 

agreement. Environment Systems and Decisions, 42, 

586-607.  

Raihan, A., Farhana, S., Muhtasim, D. A., Hasan, M. A. U., 

Paul, A., & Faruk, O. (2022c). The nexus between 

carbon emission, energy use, and health expenditure: 

empirical evidence from Bangladesh. Carbon 

Research, 1(1), 30.  

Raihan, A., & Himu, H. A. (2023). Global impact of 

COVID-19 on the sustainability of livestock 

production. Global Sustainability Research, 2(2), 1-

11. 

Raihan, A., Ibrahim, S., & Muhtasim, D. A. (2023a). 

Dynamic impacts of economic growth, energy use, 

tourism, and agricultural productivity on carbon 

dioxide emissions in Egypt. World Development 

Sustainability, 2, 100059.  

Raihan, A., Muhtasim, D. A., Farhana, S., Hasan, M. A. U., 

Paul, A., & Faruk, O. (2022d). Toward environmental 

sustainability: Nexus between tourism, economic 

growth, energy use and carbon emissions in 

Singapore. Global Sustainability Research, 1(2), 53-

65.  

Raihan, A., Muhtasim, D. A., Farhana, S., Hasan, M. A. U., 

Pavel, M. I., Faruk, O., Rahman, M., & Mahmood, A. 

(2022e). Nexus between economic growth, energy 

use, urbanization, agricultural productivity, and 

carbon dioxide emissions: New insights from 

Bangladesh. Energy Nexus, 8, 100144.  

Raihan, A., Muhtasim, D. A., Farhana, S., Hasan, M. A. U., 

Pavel, M. I., Faruk, O., Rahman, M., & Mahmood, A. 

(2023b). An econometric analysis of Greenhouse gas 

emissions from different agricultural factors in 

Bangladesh. Energy Nexus, 9, 100179.  

Raihan, A., Muhtasim, D. A., Farhana, S., Pavel, M. I., 

Faruk, O., & Mahmood, A. (2022f). Nexus between 

carbon emissions, economic growth, renewable 

energy use, urbanization, industrialization, 

technological innovation, and forest area towards 

achieving environmental sustainability in Bangladesh. 

Energy and Climate Change, 3, 100080. 

Raihan, A., Muhtasim, D. A., Farhana, S., Rahman, M., 

Hasan, M. A. U., Paul, A., & Faruk, O. (2023c). 

Dynamic linkages between environmental factors and 

carbon emissions in Thailand. Environmental 

Processes, 10, 5.  

Raihan, A., Muhtasim, D. A., Khan, M. N. A., Pavel, M. I., 

& Faruk, O. (2022g). Nexus between carbon 

emissions, economic growth, renewable energy use, 

and technological innovation towards achieving 

environmental sustainability in Bangladesh. Cleaner 

Energy Systems, 3, 100032.  

Raihan, A., Muhtasim, D. A., Pavel, M. I., Faruk, O., & 

Rahman, M. (2022h). An econometric analysis of the 

potential emission reduction components in Indonesia. 

Cleaner Production Letters, 3, 100008.  

Raihan, A., Muhtasim, D. A., Pavel, M. I., Faruk, O., & 

Rahman, M. (2022i). Dynamic impacts of economic 

growth, renewable energy use, urbanization, and 

tourism on carbon dioxide emissions in Argentina. 

Environmental Processes, 9, 38. 

Raihan, A., Pavel, M. I., Muhtasim, D. A., Farhana, S., 

Faruk, O., & Paul, A. (2023d). The role of renewable 

energy use, technological innovation, and forest cover 

toward green development: Evidence from Indonesia. 

Innovation and Green Development, 2(1), 100035.  

Raihan, A., Pereira, J. J., Begum, R. A., & Rasiah, R. 

(2023e). The economic impact of water supply 

disruption from the Selangor River, Malaysia. Blue-

Green Systems, 5(2), 102-120.  



Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   90 
 

Raihan, A., Rashid, M., Voumik, L. C., Akter, S., & 

Esquivias, M. A. (2023f). The dynamic impacts of 

economic growth, financial globalization, fossil fuel 

energy, renewable energy, and urbanization on load 

capacity factor in Mexico. Sustainability, 15(18), 

13462.  

Raihan, A., & Said, M. N. M. (2022). Cost–benefit analysis 

of climate change mitigation measures in the forestry 

sector of Peninsular Malaysia. Earth Systems and 

Environment, 6(2), 405-419. 

Raihan, A., & Tuspekova, A. (2022a). Nexus between 

energy use, industrialization, forest area, and carbon 

dioxide emissions: new insights from Russia. Journal 

of Environmental Science and Economics, 1(4), 1-11.  

Raihan, A., & Tuspekova, A. (2022b). Dynamic impacts of 

economic growth, renewable energy use, urbanization, 

industrialization, tourism, agriculture, and forests on 

carbon emissions in Turkey. Carbon Research, 1(1), 

20.  

Raihan, A., & Tuspekova, A. (2022c). Toward a sustainable 

environment: Nexus between economic growth, 

renewable energy use, forested area, and carbon 

emissions in Malaysia. Resources, Conservation & 

Recycling Advances, 15, 200096.  

Raihan, A., & Tuspekova, A. (2022d). Towards 

sustainability: dynamic nexus between carbon 

emission and its determining factors in Mexico. 

Energy Nexus, 8, 100148.  

Raihan, A., & Tuspekova, A. (2022e). Dynamic impacts of 

economic growth, energy use, urbanization, tourism, 

agricultural value-added, and forested area on carbon 

dioxide emissions in Brazil. Journal of Environmental 

Studies and Sciences, 12(4), 794-814.  

Raihan, A., & Tuspekova, A. (2022f). Dynamic impacts of 

economic growth, energy use, urbanization, 

agricultural productivity, and forested area on carbon 

emissions: new insights from Kazakhstan. World 

Development Sustainability, 1, 100019.  

Raihan, A., & Tuspekova, A. (2022g). Nexus between 

emission reduction factors and anthropogenic carbon 

emissions in India. Anthropocene Science, 1(2), 295-

310.  

Raihan, A., & Tuspekova, A. (2022h). Nexus between 

economic growth, energy use, agricultural 

productivity, and carbon dioxide emissions: new 

evidence from Nepal. Energy Nexus, 7, 100113.  

Raihan, A., & Tuspekova, A. (2022i). The nexus between 

economic growth, renewable energy use, agricultural 

land expansion, and carbon emissions: new insights 

from Peru. Energy Nexus, 6, 100067.  

Raihan, A., & Tuspekova, A. (2022j). Role of economic 

growth, renewable energy, and technological 

innovation to achieve environmental sustainability in 

Kazakhstan. Current Research in Environmental 

Sustainability, 4, 100165.  

Raihan, A., & Tuspekova, A. (2022k). The nexus between 

economic growth, energy use, urbanization, tourism, 

and carbon dioxide emissions: New insights from 

Singapore. Sustainability Analytics and Modeling, 2, 

100009.  

Raihan, A., & Tuspekova, A. (2023a). The role of 

renewable energy and technological innovations 

toward achieving Iceland’s goal of carbon neutrality 

by 2040. Journal of Technology Innovations and 

Energy, 2(1), 22-37.  

Raihan, A., & Tuspekova, A. (2023b). Towards net zero 

emissions by 2050: the role of renewable energy, 

technological innovations, and forests in New 

Zealand. Journal of Environmental Science and 

Economics, 2(1), 1-16.  

Raihan, A., & Voumik, L. C. (2022a). Carbon emission 

dynamics in India due to financial development, 

renewable energy utilization, technological 

innovation, economic growth, and urbanization. 

Journal of Environmental Science and Economics, 

1(4), 36-50.  

Raihan, A., & Voumik, L. C. (2022b). Carbon emission 

reduction potential of renewable energy, remittance, 

and technological innovation: empirical evidence from 

China. Journal of Technology Innovations and Energy, 

1(4), 25-36.  

Raihan, A., Voumik, L. C., Nafi, S. M., & Kuri, B. C. 

(2022j). How Tourism Affects Women's Employment 

in Asian Countries: An Application of GMM and 

Quantile Regression. Journal of Social Sciences and 

Management Studies, 1(4), 57-72.  

Raihan, A., Voumik, L. C., Yusma, N., & Ridzuan, A. R. 

(2023g). The nexus between international tourist 

arrivals and energy use towards sustainable tourism in 

Malaysia. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 11, 

575. 

Rametsteiner, E., & Mayer, P. (2004). Sustainable forest 

management and pan: European forest 

policy. Ecological Bulletins, 51-57. 

Roeland, S., Moretti, M., Amorim, J. H., Branquinho, C., 

Fares, S., Morelli, F., ... & Calfapietra, C. (2019). 

Towards an integrative approach to evaluate the 



Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   91 
 

environmental ecosystem services provided by urban 

forest. Journal of Forestry Research, 30, 1981-1996. 

Roleček, J., & Řepka, R. (2020). Formerly coppiced old 

growth stands act as refugia of threatened biodiversity 

in a managed steppic oak forest. Forest Ecology and 

Management, 472, 118245. 

Rosa, F., Di Fulvio, F., Lauri, P., Felton, A., Forsell, N., 

Pfister, S., & Hellweg, S. (2023). Can forest 

management practices counteract species loss arising 

from increasing European demand for forest biomass 

under climate mitigation scenarios?. Environmental 

Science & Technology, 57(5), 2149-2161. 

Sahoo, K., Bergman, R., Alanya-Rosenbaum, S., Gu, H., & 

Liang, S. (2019). Life cycle assessment of forest-based 

products: A review. Sustainability, 11(17), 4722. 

Santarsiero, V., Lanorte, A., Nolè, G., Cillis, G., Tucci, B., 

& Murgante, B. (2023). Analysis of the Effect of Soil 

Erosion in Abandoned Agricultural Areas: The Case of 

NE Area of Basilicata Region (Southern 

Italy). Land, 12(3), 645. 

Santos, A., Carvalho, A., Barbosa-Póvoa, A. P., Marques, 

A., & Amorim, P. (2019). Assessment and 

optimization of sustainable forest wood supply 

chains–A systematic literature review. Forest Policy 

and Economics, 105, 112-135. 

Sarvašová, Z., Ali, T., Đorđević, I., Lukmine, D., Quiroga, 

S., Suárez, C., ... & Franz, K. (2019). Natura 2000 

payments for private forest owners in Rural 

Development Programmes 2007–2013-a comparative 

view. Forest policy and economics, 99, 123-135. 

Schier, F., Iost, S., Seintsch, B., Weimar, H., & Dieter, M. 

(2022). Assessment of possible production leakage 

from implementing the EU Biodiversity Strategy on 

forest product markets. Forests, 13(8), 1225. 

Schlesinger, W. H. (2018). Are wood pellets a green 

fuel?. Science, 359(6382), 1328-1329. 

Shin, W. S., Yeoun, P. S., Yoo, R. W., & Shin, C. S. (2010). 

Forest experience and psychological health benefits: 

the state of the art and future prospect in 

Korea. Environmental health and preventive 

medicine, 15(1), 38-47. 

Skyrman, V. (2022). Industrial restructuring, spatio-

temporal fixes and the financialization of the North 

European forest industry. Competition & Change, 

10245294221133534. 

Socoliuc, M., Cosmulese, C. G., Ciubotariu, M. S., 

Mihaila, S., Arion, I. D., & Grosu, V. (2020). 

Sustainability reporting as a mixture of CSR and 

sustainable development. A model for micro-

enterprises within the romanian forestry 

sector. Sustainability, 12(2), 603. 

Sultana, T., Hossain, M. S., Voumik, L. C., & Raihan, A. 

(2023). Does globalization escalate the carbon 

emissions? Empirical evidence from selected next-11 

countries. Energy Reports, 10, 86-98.  

Sutherland, I. J., Bennett, E. M., & Gergel, S. E. (2016). 

Recovery trends for multiple ecosystem services 

reveal non-linear responses and long-term tradeoffs 

from temperate forest harvesting. Forest Ecology and 

Management, 374, 61-70. 

Svensson, J., Andersson, J., Sandström, P., Mikusiński, G., 

& Jonsson, B. G. (2019). Landscape trajectory of 

natural boreal forest loss as an impediment to green 

infrastructure. Conservation Biology, 33(1), 152-163. 

Tiebel, M., Mölder, A., & Plieninger, T. (2022). 

Conservation perspectives of small-scale private forest 

owners in Europe: A systematic review. Ambio, 51(4), 

836-848. 

Viaggi, D., Bartolini, F., & Raggi, M. (2021). The 

Bioeconomy in economic literature: looking back, 

looking ahead. Bio-based and Applied 

Economics, 10(3), 169-184. 

Voumik, L. C., Islam, M. J., & Raihan, A. (2022). 

Electricity production sources and CO2 emission in 

OECD countries: static and dynamic panel analysis. 

Global Sustainability Research, 1(2), 12-21.  

Voumik, L. C., Mimi, M. B., & Raihan, A. (2023a). Nexus 

between urbanization, industrialization, natural 

resources rent, and anthropogenic carbon emissions in 

South Asia: CS-ARDL approach. Anthropocene 

Science, 2(1), 48-61.  

Voumik, L. C., Ridwan, M., Rahman, M. H., & Raihan, A. 

(2023b). An Investigation into the Primary Causes of 

Carbon Dioxide Releases in Kenya: Does Renewable 

Energy Matter to Reduce Carbon Emission?. 

Renewable Energy Focus, 47, 100491.  

Wang, Y., Niemelä, J., & Kotze, D. J. (2022). The delivery 

of Cultural Ecosystem Services in urban forests of 

different landscape features and land use 

contexts. People and Nature, 4(5), 1369-1386. 

Weiss, G., Lawrence, A., Lidestav, G., Feliciano, D., 

Hujala, T., Sarvašová, Z., ... & Živojinović, I. (2019). 

Research trends: Forest ownership in multiple 

perspectives. Forest Policy and Economics, 99, 1-8. 

Whiteman, A., Wickramasinghe, A., & Piña, L. (2015). 

Global trends in forest ownership, public income and 

expenditure on forestry and forestry 



Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   92 
 

employment. Forest Ecology and Management, 352, 

99-108. 

Yin, H., Brauer, M., Zhang, J. J., Cai, W., Navrud, S., 

Burnett, R., ... & Liu, Z. (2021). Population ageing and 

deaths attributable to ambient PM2· 5 pollution: a 

global analysis of economic cost. The Lancet 

Planetary Health, 5(6), e356-e367. 

Yousefpour, R., Augustynczik, A. L. D., Reyer, C. P., 

Lasch-Born, P., Suckow, F., & Hanewinkel, M. (2018). 

Realizing mitigation efficiency of European 

commercial forests by climate smart 

forestry. Scientific reports, 8(1), 1-11. 

Zhang, Y., Miao, C., Zhu, J., Gao, T., Sun, Y., Zhang, J., ... 

& Yang, K. (2022). The impact of landslides on 

chemical and microbial properties of soil in a 

temperate secondary forest ecosystem. Journal of 

Forestry Research, 33(6), 1913-1923. 

Zakeri, B., Paulavets, K., Barreto-Gomez, L., Echeverri, L. 

G., Pachauri, S., Boza-Kiss, B., ... & Pouya, S. (2022). 

Pandemic, war, and global energy 

transitions. Energies, 15(17), 6114. 

 


