CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 80Bioeconomy and Sustainability DevelopmentSustainability and Climate Change GovernanceUniversity-Industry-Government Innovation Models

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A social network analysis of Germany’s wood-based bioeconomy: Social capital and shared beliefs

Giurca, Alexandru, Metz, Thomas·2018·Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions
DOI 10.1016/j.eist.2017.09.001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.eist.2017.09.001

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. Agranoff, 1998, Multinetwork management: collaboration and the hollow state in local economic policy, J. Public Adm. Res. Theory, 8, 67, 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024374 · DOI
  2. Borg, 2014, Social capital and governance: a social network analysis of forest biodiversity collaboration in Central Finland, For. Policy Econ., 50, 90, 10.1016/j.forpol.2014.06.008 · DOI
  3. Borgatti, 2009, Network analysis in the social sciences, Science, 323, 892, 10.1126/science.1165821 · DOI
  4. Burt, 2000, The network structure of social capital, Res. Organ. Behav., 22, 345, 10.1016/S0191-3085(00)22009-1 · DOI
  5. Carlsson, 2002, Innovation systems: analytical and methodological issues, Res. Policy, 31, 233, 10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00138-X · DOI · Paper page
  6. Cashore, 2000, Policy networks and firm behaviours: governance systems and firm reponses to external demands for sustainable forest management, Policy Sci., 33, 1, 10.1023/A:1004728206505 · DOI
  7. Chamlee-Wright, 2011, Social capital, lobbying and community-based interest groups, Public Choice, 149, 167, 10.1007/s11127-011-9834-7 · DOI
  8. Coleman, 1988. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital Author (s): James S. Coleman Source: The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 94, Supplement: Organizations and Institutions: Sociological and Economic Approaches to the Analysis of Social Structure 94. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Corlew, 2015, Using social network analysis to assess communications and develop networking tools among climate change professionals across the Pacific Islands region, Psychosoc. Interv., 24, 133, 10.1016/j.psi.2015.07.004 · DOI
  10. Fadeeva, 2005, Translation of sustainability ideas in tourism networks: some roles of cross-sectoral networks in change towards sustainable development, J. Clean. Prod., 13, 175, 10.1016/S0959-6526(03)00124-0 · DOI
  11. Freeman, 1977, A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness, Sociometry, 10.2307/3033543 · DOI
  12. Giurca, 2017, A forest-based bioeconomy for Germany? strengths, weaknesses and policy options for lignocellulosic biorefineries, J. Clean. Prod., 153, 51, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.156 · DOI
  13. Granovetter, 1973, The strength of weak ties, Am. J. Sociol., 78, 1360, 10.1086/225469 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Hagemann, 2016, Possible futures towards a wood-based bioeconomy: a scenario analysis for Germany, Sustainability, 8, 98, 10.3390/su8010098 · DOI
  15. Heaney, 2008, Coalition dissolution, mobilization, and network dynamics in the U.S. antiwar movement, Res. Soc. Movements Conflicts Chang., 28, 39, 10.1016/S0163-786X(08)28002-X · DOI
  16. Hekkert, 2007, Functions of innovation systems: a new approach for analysing technological change, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 74, 413, 10.1016/j.techfore.2006.03.002 · DOI
  17. Hellsmark, 2016, Innovation system strengths and weaknesses in progressing sustainable technology: the case of Swedish biorefinery development, J. Clean. Prod., 131, 702, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.109 · DOI
  18. Henry, 2011, Belief systems and social capital as drivers of policy network structure: the case of California regional planning, J. Public Adm. Res. Theory, 21, 419, 10.1093/jopart/muq042 · DOI
  19. Hojnacki, 2012, Studying organizational advocacy and influence: reexamining interest group research, Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci., 15, 379, 10.1146/annurev-polisci-070910-104051 · DOI
  20. Ingold, 2011, Network structures within policy processes: coalitions, power, and brokerage in swiss climate policy, Policy Stud. J., 39, 435, 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00416.x · DOI
  21. Kleinschmit, 2014, Shades of green: a social scientific view on bioeconomy in the forest sector Shades of green: a social scientific view on bioeconomy in the forest sector, Scand. J. For., 29, 402, 10.1080/02827581.2014.921722 · DOI
  22. Kleinschmit, 2017, Environmental concerns in political bioeconomy discourses, Int. For. Rev., 19, 1
  23. Krott, 2006, Measuring bridges between sectors: causative evaluation of cross-sectorality, For. Policy Econ., 8, 555, 10.1016/j.forpol.2005.07.004 · DOI
  24. Markard, 2015, Socio-technical transitions and policy change – advocacy coalitions in Swiss energy policy, Environ. Innov. Soc. Transitions, 18, 215, 10.1016/j.eist.2015.05.003 · DOI
  25. McCormick, 2013, The bioeconomy in europe: an overview, Sustainability, 5, 2589, 10.3390/su5062589 · DOI
  26. Musiolik, 2012, Networks and network resources in technological innovation systems: towards a conceptual framework for system building, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 79, 1032, 10.1016/j.techfore.2012.01.003 · DOI
  27. Newell, 2000, Trust and inter-organizational networking, Hum. Relat., 53, 1287, 10.1177/a014106 · DOI
  28. Newman, 2007, Homophily and agency: creating effective sustainable development networks, Environ. Dev. Sustain., 9, 79, 10.1007/s10668-005-9004-5 · DOI
  29. Pülzl, 2014, Bioeconomy – an emerging meta-discourse affecting forest discourses?, Scand. J. For. Res., 29, 386, 10.1080/02827581.2014.920044 · DOI
  30. Paletto, 2015, Social network analysis to support stakeholder analysis in participatory forest planning, Soc. Nat. Resour., 28, 1108, 10.1080/08941920.2015.1014592 · DOI
  31. Prell, 2009, Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management, Soc. Nat. Resour., 22, 501, 10.1080/08941920802199202 · DOI
  32. Purkus, 2017, Towards a sustainable innovation system for the German wood-based bioeconomy: implications for policy design, J. Clean. Prod
  33. Sabatier, 1988, An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy – oriented learning therein, Policy Sci., 21, 129, 10.1007/BF00136406 · DOI
  34. Scholz, 2008, Do networks solve collective action problems? Credibility, search, and collaboration, J. Polit., 70, 393, 10.1017/S0022381608080389 · DOI
  35. Sotirov, 2016, Toward a cognitive theory of shifting coalitions and policy change: linking the advocacy coalition framework and cultural theory, Policy Sci., 49, 125, 10.1007/s11077-015-9235-8 · DOI
  36. Toppinen, 2017, The future of wooden multistory construction in the forest bioeconomy – a Delphi study from Finland and Sweden, J. For. Econ.
  37. van Alphen, 2010, Evaluating the development of carbon capture and storage technologies in the United States, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 14, 971, 10.1016/j.rser.2009.10.028 · DOI
  38. van Lancker, 2016, Managing innovation in the bioeconomy: an open innovation perspective, Biomass Bioenergy, 90, 60, 10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.03.017 · DOI
  39. Varone, 2016, Studying policy advocacy through social network analysis, Eur. Polit. Sci. Rev., 1
  40. Weible, 2005, Comparing policy networks: marine protected areas in california, Policy Stud. J., 33, 181, 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2005.00101.x · DOI
  41. Weible, 2005, Beliefs and perceived influence in a natural resource conflict: an advocacy coalition approach to policy networks, Polit. Res. Q., 58, 461, 10.1177/106591290505800308 · DOI
  42. Wieczorek, 2012, Systemic instruments for systemic innovation problems: a framework for policy makers and innovation scholars, Sci. Public Policy, 39, 74, 10.1093/scipol/scr008 · DOI
  43. Wirth, 2011, Context matters: how existing sectors and competing technologies affect the prospects of the Swiss Bio-SNG innovation system, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 78, 635, 10.1016/j.techfore.2011.01.001 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 80

Metadata

Authors
Giurca, A., & Metz, T.
Affiliations
University of Freiburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Giurca, Alexandru
ORCID
Giurca, Alexandru
Venue
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-03
Volume
26
Pages
1-14
ISSN
2210-4224 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.eist.2017.09.001
OpenAlex
W2756232437
Cited by
80
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5
FWCI
16.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions (publishedVersion)
Funders
Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts of Baden-Württemberg
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Bioeconomy and Sustainability Development
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › University-Industry-Government Innovation Models
Keywords
innovation systems, social capital, shared beliefs, organizational networks, brokerage, trust, policy preferences, collective action, knowledge sharing, Germany

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A social network analysis of Germany’s wood-based bioeconomy: Social capital and shared beliefs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.eist.2017.09.001
The paper
Giurca, A., & Metz, T. (2018). A social network analysis of Germany’s wood-based bioeconomy: Social capital and shared beliefs. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.09.001