Abstract This article conducts a systematic literature review of journal articles on innovation in forestry and forest-based industries. We include international, English language, peer-reviewed research articles included in the scientific databases Scopus and Web of Science since the 1980s. Our search for articles that specifically mention “innovation/innovativeness” and “forest/wood/timber” from a social science perspective resulted in 230 studies. Our analysis provides a quantitative overview of institutional contexts, science fields, methods, and topical orientations. On the basis of qualitative content analyses, we also describe the historical development of the research field, summarize the main insights for the central research themes on firm and system levels, and illustrate the state-of-knowledge for selected innovation fields. We conclude with research trends and gaps with regard to the applied research approaches and methods. Overall, the established concepts and approaches from innovation research are well received in forest sector innovation studies, although newer trends could be taken up more progressively. The analysed articles apply various quantitative and qualitative methods and are dominated by country and (sub-)sectoral case studies. A greater variety of methods could enrich the knowledge base and a stronger application of comparative analyses across countries and sectors could substantiate previous findings.

中文翻译：

---

林业和林业产业创新研究的四个十年——系统文献综述

摘要 本文对有关林业和林业产业创新的期刊文章进行了系统的文献综述。我们收录了自 1980 年代以来科学数据库 Scopus 和 Web of Science 中包含的国际英语、同行评审研究文章。我们从社会科学的角度搜索了特别提到“创新/创新”和“森林/木材/木材”的文章，结果有 230 项研究。我们的分析提供了对制度背景、科学领域、方法和主题方向的定量概述。在定性内容分析的基础上，我们还描述了研究领域的历史发展，总结了企业和系统层面中心研究主题的主要见解，并说明了选定创新领域的知识状况。我们总结了在应用研究方法和方法方面的研究趋势和差距。总体而言，创新研究的既定概念和方法在林业部门创新研究中广受欢迎，尽管可以更积极地采用新趋势。所分析的文章应用了各种定量和定性方法，并以国家和（子）行业案例研究为主。更多种类的方法可以丰富知识库，更强有力地跨国家和部门进行比较分析可以证实先前的发现。尽管可以更渐进地采用新的趋势。所分析的文章应用了各种定量和定性方法，并以国家和（子）行业案例研究为主。更多种类的方法可以丰富知识库，更强有力地跨国家和部门进行比较分析可以证实先前的发现。尽管可以更渐进地采用新的趋势。所分析的文章应用了各种定量和定性方法，并以国家和（子）行业案例研究为主。更多种类的方法可以丰富知识库，更强有力地跨国家和部门进行比较分析可以证实先前的发现。