IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aes/amfeco/v21y2019i50p9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Transition to Bioeconomy: Perceptions and Behaviors in Central and Eastern Europe

Author

Listed:
  • Daniela Pasnicu

    (National Scientific Research Institute for Labour and Social Protection)

  • Mihaela Ghenta

    (National Scientific Research Institute for Labour and Social Protection)

  • Aniela Matei

    (National Scientific Research Institute for Labour and Social Protection)

Abstract

The implementation of bio-economy, respectively the transition from a fossil fuel-based development to an economy that uses biological resources and innovation in biological sciences requires the formulation of new strategies and policies focused on comprehensive analyzes. The aim of this study is to contribute to a better understanding of the concept and policies of bioeconomy and to analyze citizens' behaviors and perceptions about the development of bioeconomy in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. The comparative vision has the role to in identifying differences and similarities between national systems and is captured by applying a cluster analysis. The data are from European official statistics – EUROSTAT, plus data collected under Eurobarometer 88.1, from the European Commission and European Parliament. The analysis of the data shows that there are differences between the countries considered, from the perspective of the socio-economic context and also in terms of behaviors that support the bioeconomy. Further efforts are needed in the development of the bioeconomy to achieve both economic growth and employment opportunities as well as the development of behavior centered on the sustainability and resource efficiency of the resource.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniela Pasnicu & Mihaela Ghenta & Aniela Matei, 2019. "Transition to Bioeconomy: Perceptions and Behaviors in Central and Eastern Europe," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 21(50), pages 1-9, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:aes:amfeco:v:21:y:2019:i:50:p:9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.amfiteatrueconomic.ro/temp/Article_2787.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Zilberman & Eunice Kim & Sam Kirschner & Scott Kaplan & Jeanne Reeves, 2013. "Technology and the future bioeconomy," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 44(s1), pages 95-102, November.
    2. Kes McCormick & Niina Kautto, 2013. "The Bioeconomy in Europe: An Overview," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(6), pages 1-20, June.
    3. Joachim Braun & Regina Birner, 2017. "Designing Global Governance for Agricultural Development and Food and Nutrition Security," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(2), pages 265-284, May.
    4. Schmid, Otto & Padel, Susanne & Levidow, Les, 2012. "The Bio-Economy Concept and Knowledge Base in a Public Goods and Farmer Perspective," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 1(1), pages 1-18, April.
    5. Anastasia Peshkovskaya & Tatiana Babkina & Mikhail Myagkov, 2018. "Social context reveals gender differences in cooperative behavior," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 213-225, July.
    6. Tobias Stern & Ursula Ploll & Raphael Spies & Peter Schwarzbauer & Franziska Hesser & Lea Ranacher, 2018. "Understanding Perceptions of the Bioeconomy in Austria—An Explorative Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-17, November.
    7. Louise Staffas & Mathias Gustavsson & Kes McCormick, 2013. "Strategies and Policies for the Bioeconomy and Bio-Based Economy: An Analysis of Official National Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(6), pages 1-19, June.
    8. Markus M. Bugge & Teis Hansen & Antje Klitkou, 2016. "What Is the Bioeconomy? A Review of the Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-22, July.
    9. Lundvall, Bengt-Ake & Johnson, Bjorn & Andersen, Esben Sloth & Dalum, Bent, 2002. "National systems of production, innovation and competence building," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 213-231, February.
    10. Stefania Bracco & Ozgul Calicioglu & Marta Gomez San Juan & Alessandro Flammini, 2018. "Assessing the Contribution of Bioeconomy to the Total Economy: A Review of National Frameworks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-17, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Grigorescu Adriana & Maer Matei Monica Mihaela & Mocanu Cristina & Zamfir Ana-Maria, 2019. "Key drivers and skills need for innovative companies focused on sustainability," Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, Sciendo, vol. 13(1), pages 717-727, May.
    2. Emilia Mary Balan & Cristina Georgiana Zeldea, 2023. "Bioeconomy in Romania: Investigating Farmers’ Knowledge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-29, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:aud:audfin:v:21:y:2019:i:50:p:9 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Lisa Biber-Freudenberger & Amit Kumar Basukala & Martin Bruckner & Jan Börner, 2018. "Sustainability Performance of National Bio-Economies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-20, August.
    3. Christina-Ioanna Papadopoulou & Efstratios Loizou & Katerina Melfou & Fotios Chatzitheodoridis, 2021. "The Knowledge Based Agricultural Bioeconomy: A Bibliometric Network Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-15, October.
    4. Erik Gawel & Nadine Pannicke & Nina Hagemann, 2019. "A Path Transition Towards a Bioeconomy—The Crucial Role of Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-23, May.
    5. Befort, N., 2020. "Going beyond definitions to understand tensions within the bioeconomy: The contribution of sociotechnical regimes to contested fields," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    6. Benoit Mougenot & Jean-Pierre Doussoulin, 2022. "Conceptual evolution of the bioeconomy: a bibliometric analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 1031-1047, January.
    7. George B. Frisvold & Steven M. Moss & Andrea Hodgson & Mary E. Maxon, 2021. "Understanding the U.S. Bioeconomy: A New Definition and Landscape," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-24, February.
    8. Kean Birch, 2016. "Emergent Imaginaries and Fragmented Policy Frameworks in the Canadian Bio-Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-16, October.
    9. Lillian Hansen & Hilde Bjørkhaug, 2017. "Visions and Expectations for the Norwegian Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-17, February.
    10. Leonard Prochaska & Daniel Schiller, 2021. "An evolutionary perspective on the emergence and implementation of mission-oriented innovation policy: the example of the change of the leitmotif from biotechnology to bioeconomy," Review of Evolutionary Political Economy, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 141-249, April.
    11. Rolf Meyer, 2017. "Bioeconomy Strategies: Contexts, Visions, Guiding Implementation Principles and Resulting Debates," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-32, June.
    12. Carmen Priefer & Rolf Meyer, 2019. "One Concept, Many Opinions: How Scientists in Germany Think About the Concept of Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-21, August.
    13. Laibach, Natalie & Börner, Jan & Bröring, Stefanie, 2019. "Exploring the future of the bioeconomy: An expert-based scoping study examining key enabling technology fields with potential to foster the transition toward a bio-based economy," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    14. Daniel Hausknost & Ernst Schriefl & Christian Lauk & Gerald Kalt, 2017. "A Transition to Which Bioeconomy? An Exploration of Diverging Techno-Political Choices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-22, April.
    15. Lovrić, Nataša & Lovrić, Marko & Mavsar, Robert, 2020. "Factors behind development of innovations in European forest-based bioeconomy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    16. Sophia Dieken & Sandra Venghaus, 2020. "Potential Pathways to the German Bioeconomy: A Media Discourse Analysis of Public Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-24, September.
    17. Franz Grossauer & Gernot Stoeglehner, 2020. "Bioeconomy—Spatial Requirements for Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-28, March.
    18. Tatiana Danescu & Sorinel Capusneanu & Dan Ioan Topor & Andreea Marin-Pantelescu & Loredana Ciurlau, 2019. "Comparative Analysis of Master Programs in Bioeconomy and Their Development Perspectives in the Universities of Romania," Academic Journal of Economic Studies, Faculty of Finance, Banking and Accountancy Bucharest,"Dimitrie Cantemir" Christian University Bucharest, vol. 5(1), pages 106-113, March.
    19. Juha Peltomaa, 2018. "Drumming the Barrels of Hope? Bioeconomy Narratives in the Media," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-14, November.
    20. Hurmekoski, Elias & Lovrić, Marko & Lovrić, Nataša & Hetemäki, Lauri & Winkel, Georg, 2019. "Frontiers of the forest-based bioeconomy – A European Delphi study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 86-99.
    21. Durwin H.J. Lynch & Pim Klaassen & Lan van Wassenaer & Jacqueline E.W. Broerse, 2020. "Constructing the Public in Roadmapping the Transition to a Bioeconomy: A Case Study from the Netherlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    bioeconomy; transition; social preference; human behaviour; cluster analysis.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J10 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - General
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aes:amfeco:v:21:y:2019:i:50:p:9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Valentin Dumitru (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aseeero.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.