IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v116y2015icp78-83.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bio-basing society by including emotions

Author

Listed:
  • Sleenhoff, Susanne
  • Landeweerd, Laurens
  • Osseweijer, Patricia

Abstract

A bio-based economy needs a bio-minded society since the required actions are of a collective scale. Engagement of civic society is crucial but disregarded by some of the advocates of the bio-based turn. Connecting society to this complex transition is difficult and so far insufficient. Technocratic one-directional communication strategies that aim to nurture public trust and support for the transition to a bio-based economy often backfire. Besides, ‘tamed’, institutionalised public participation approaches to legitimise policies may frustrate the public rather than facilitate engagement. What is needed is an approach that engages the public as active citizens, in an open-ended process. This pre-conditional ‘state of engagement’ can only exist when the public feels it holds a stake and has a voice. Initiating such engagement is not possible through rational deliberative processes. In this paper we consider and explore the value of emotions for strengthening public engagement. We argue for a mentality change with regard to the potential role of citizens in a bio-based economy.

Suggested Citation

  • Sleenhoff, Susanne & Landeweerd, Laurens & Osseweijer, Patricia, 2015. "Bio-basing society by including emotions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 78-83.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:116:y:2015:i:c:p:78-83
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.04.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180091500169X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.04.011?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kean Birch & Les Levidow & Theo Papaioannou, 2010. "Sustainable Capital ? The Neoliberalization of Nature and Knowledge in the European “Knowledge-based Bio-economy”," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(9), pages 1-21, September.
    2. Dan Kahan, 2010. "Fixing the communications failure," Nature, Nature, vol. 463(7279), pages 296-297, January.
    3. Dan M. Kahan & Ellen Peters & Maggie Wittlin & Paul Slovic & Lisa Larrimore Ouellette & Donald Braman & Gregory Mandel, 2012. "The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(10), pages 732-735, October.
    4. Cuppen, Eefje & Breukers, Sylvia & Hisschemöller, Matthijs & Bergsma, Emmy, 2010. "Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 579-591, January.
    5. Fischer, Anke & Glenk, Klaus, 2011. "One model fits all? -- On the moderating role of emotional engagement and confusion in the elicitation of preferences for climate change adaptation policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1178-1188, April.
    6. John May, 2007. "The Triangle of Engagement: An Unusual Way of Looking at the Usual Suspects," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(1), pages 69-75, February.
    7. Sabine Roeser, 2010. "Intuitions, emotions and gut reactions in decisions about risks: towards a different interpretation of 'neuroethics'," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 175-190, March.
    8. 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.
    9. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa L. & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2007. "The affect heuristic," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1333-1352, March.
    10. Hedlund-de Witt, Annick, 2012. "Exploring worldviews and their relationships to sustainable lifestyles: Towards a new conceptual and methodological approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 74-83.
    11. Frame, Bob & Brown, Judy, 2008. "Developing post-normal technologies for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 225-241, April.
    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. Barbara Ribeiro & James A. Turner, 2021. "Sustainability Buckets: A Flexible Heuristic for Facilitating Strategic Investment on Place-Dependent Sustainability Narratives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-18, August.
    2. Kieran Harrahill & Áine Macken-Walsh & Eoin O’Neill & Mick Lennon, 2022. "An Analysis of Irish Dairy Farmers’ Participation in the Bioeconomy: Exploring Power and Knowledge Dynamics in a Multi-actor EIP-AGRI Operational Group," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-39, September.
    3. Liobikiene, Genovaite & Chen, Xueli & Streimikiene, Dalia & Balezentis, Tomas, 2020. "The trends in bioeconomy development in the European Union: Exploiting capacity and productivity measures based on the land footprint approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    4. Liobikienė, Genovaitė & Miceikienė, Astrida & Brizga, Janis, 2021. "Decomposition analysis of bioresources: Implementing a competitive and sustainable bioeconomy strategy in the Baltic Sea Region," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    5. Katrin Zander & Sabine Will & Jan Göpel & Christopher Jung & Rüdiger Schaldach, 2022. "Societal Evaluation of Bioeconomy Scenarios for Germany," Resources, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-19, 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. 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).
    2. Robert Inkpen & Brian Baily, 2020. "Environmental beliefs and their role in environmental behaviours of undergraduate students," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 10(1), pages 57-67, March.
    3. Lovrić, Marko & Lovrić, Nataša & Mavsar, Robert, 2020. "Mapping forest-based bioeconomy research in Europe," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    4. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.
    5. Smrithi Talwar, 2021. "Culturally mediated perceptions of climate change risks in New Zealand," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 1-10, January.
    6. Kevin Winter & Matthew J. Hornsey & Lotte Pummerer & Kai Sassenberg, 2022. "Anticipating and defusing the role of conspiracy beliefs in shaping opposition to wind farms," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 7(12), pages 1200-1207, December.
    7. 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).
    8. Sotiropoulou, Irene & Deutz, Pauline, 2021. "Understanding the bioeconomy: a new sustainability economy in British and European public discourse," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 10(4), December.
    9. Swinda F. Pfau & Janneke E. Hagens & Ben Dankbaar & Antoine J. M. Smits, 2014. "Visions of Sustainability in Bioeconomy Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-28, March.
    10. Simon Donner, 2014. "Finding your place on the science – advocacy continuum: an editorial essay," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 124(1), pages 1-8, May.
    11. Juha Itkonen, 2015. "Social ties and concern for global warming," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 132(2), pages 173-192, September.
    12. 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.
    13. Kathie M. d'I. Treen & Hywel T. P. Williams & Saffron J. O'Neill, 2020. "Online misinformation about climate change," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(5), September.
    14. Agneman, Gustav & Henriks, Sofia & Bäck, Hanna & Renström, Emma, 2024. "On the nexus between material and ideological determinants of climate policy support," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    15. Sophie Urmetzer & Michael P. Schlaile & Kristina B. Bogner & Matthias Mueller & Andreas Pyka, 2018. "Exploring the Dedicated Knowledge Base of a Transformation towards a Sustainable Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-22, May.
    16. Kean Birch, 2016. "Emergent Imaginaries and Fragmented Policy Frameworks in the Canadian Bio-Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-16, October.
    17. Lucia Savadori & Giuseppe Espa & Maria Michela Dickson, 2020. "The polarizing impact of numeracy, economic literacy, and science literacy on attitudes toward immigration," Papers 2011.02362, arXiv.org.
    18. Zachary A. Wendling & Shahzeen Z. Attari & Sanya R. Carley & Rachel M. Krause & David C. Warren & John A. Rupp & John D. Graham, 2013. "On the Importance of Strengthening Moderate Beliefs in Climate Science to Foster Support for Immediate Action," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(12), pages 1-18, December.
    19. MacFarlane, Douglas & Hurlstone, Mark J. & Ecker, Ullrich K.H., 2020. "Protecting consumers from fraudulent health claims: A taxonomy of psychological drivers, interventions, barriers, and treatments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 259(C).
    20. 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.

    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:eee:ecolec:v:116:y:2015:i:c:p:78-83. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.