IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jresou/v11y2022i5p44-d809017.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Societal Evaluation of Bioeconomy Scenarios for Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Katrin Zander

    (Agricultural and Food Marketing, University of Kassel, 34127 Witzenhausen, Germany)

  • Sabine Will

    (Agriculture, Nutritional Sciences and Landscape Development, Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, 06406 Bernburg, Germany)

  • Jan Göpel

    (Institute for Environmental Sciences, University Koblenz-Landau, 76829 Landau, Germany)

  • Christopher Jung

    (Centre for Environment and Systems Research, University of Kassel, 34109 Kassel, Germany)

  • Rüdiger Schaldach

    (Centre for Environment and Systems Research, University of Kassel, 34109 Kassel, Germany)

Abstract

Transitioning to a bio-based economy is widely perceived as a necessary way to tackle climate change and other key environmental challenges. Given the major socio-economic consequences that such a transition entails for people’s everyday lives, it is crucial to take account of citizens’ perceptions and levels of acceptance of these changes. This study applies a holistic approach to gain an understanding of how citizens in Germany assess possible developments associated with transitioning to a bioeconomy. We developed three future scenarios modelling the impacts on people’s day-to-day lives of adopting different elements of a bioeconomy and of replacing fossil resources with biogenic resources to a lesser or greater extent by 2050. German citizens were asked to evaluate the different scenarios through a quantitative online survey. Although the respondents largely preferred the scenario of “Bioeconomy Change” entailing the most substantial changes in resource use, many also expressed concerns about the possible negative socio-economic effects of this scenario, including fears of increased product prices, declining living standards, and greater social injustice. The results show that younger people and women are more in favour of changes towards a bioeconomy than men and older people. Since the acceptance of bio-technical innovations increases with greater knowledge about such innovations and their usefulness, the transformation process must make use of sound communication strategies that involve all societal groups by engaging them in constructive dialogue.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:11:y:2022:i:5:p:44-:d:809017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/11/5/44/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/11/5/44/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Carmen Priefer & Juliane Jörissen & Oliver Frör, 2017. "Pathways to Shape the Bioeconomy," Resources, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-23, February.
    3. Richard Owen & Phil Macnaghten & Jack Stilgoe, 2012. "Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(6), pages 751-760, December.
    4. Justus Wesseler & Joachim von Braun, 2017. "Measuring the Bioeconomy: Economics and Policies," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 275-298, October.
    5. Spangenberg, Joachim H. & Lorek, Sylvia, 2019. "Sufficiency and consumer behaviour: From theory to policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 1070-1079.
    6. 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.
    7. Justus Wesseler & Joachim von Braun, 2017. "Measuring the Bioeconomy: Economics and Policies," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 275-298, October.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Joan Costa-Font & Elias Mossialos, 2006. "The Public as a Limit to Technology Transfer: The Influence of Knowledge and Beliefs in Attitudes towards Biotechnology in the UK," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 31(6), pages 629-645, November.
    11. Sleenhoff, Susanne & Landeweerd, Laurens & Osseweijer, Patricia, 2015. "Bio-basing society by including emotions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 78-83.
    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. Markus Vogt & Ivo Frankenreiter, 2022. "Bioeconomy: The Innovative Twin of Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-13, November.

    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. Walther Zeug & Alberto Bezama & Urs Moesenfechtel & Anne Jähkel & Daniela Thrän, 2019. "Stakeholders’ Interests and Perceptions of Bioeconomy Monitoring Using a Sustainable Development Goal Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-24, March.
    2. Andrew M. Neill & Cathal O’Donoghue & Jane C. Stout, 2020. "A Natural Capital Lens for a Sustainable Bioeconomy: Determining the Unrealised and Unrecognised Services from Nature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-24, September.
    3. 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.
    4. Mauricio Alviar & Andrés García-Suaza & Laura Ramírez-Gómez & Simón Villegas-Velásquez, 2021. "Measuring the Contribution of the Bioeconomy: The Case of Colombia and Antioquia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-26, February.
    5. Kutay Cingiz & Hugo Gonzalez-Hermoso & Wim Heijman & Justus H. H. Wesseler, 2021. "A Cross-Country Measurement of the EU Bioeconomy: An Input–Output Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-39, March.
    6. Zeug, Walther & Bezama, Alberto & Thrän, Daniela, 2020. "Towards a holistic and integrated Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of the bioeconomy: Background on concepts, visions and measurements," UFZ Discussion Papers 7/2020, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    7. 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.
    8. Valeria Ferreira Gregorio & Laia Pié & Antonio Terceño, 2018. "A Systematic Literature Review of Bio, Green and Circular Economy Trends in Publications in the Field of Economics and Business Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-39, November.
    9. P. J. Stephenson & Anca Damerell, 2022. "Bioeconomy and Circular Economy Approaches Need to Enhance the Focus on Biodiversity to Achieve Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-20, August.
    10. 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.
    11. Vincent Smith & Justus H. H. Wesseler & David Zilberman, 2021. "New Plant Breeding Technologies: An Assessment of the Political Economy of the Regulatory Environment and Implications for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, March.
    12. 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).
    13. Maximilian Kardung & Kutay Cingiz & Ortwin Costenoble & Roel Delahaye & Wim Heijman & Marko Lovrić & Myrna van Leeuwen & Robert M’Barek & Hans van Meijl & Stephan Piotrowski & Tévécia Ronzon & Johanne, 2021. "Development of the Circular Bioeconomy: Drivers and Indicators," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, January.
    14. Avinash Manjula-Basavanna & Anna M. Duraj-Thatte & Neel S. Joshi, 2024. "Mechanically Tunable, Compostable, Healable and Scalable Engineered Living Materials," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-11, December.
    15. Sebastian Hinderer & Leif Brändle & Andreas Kuckertz, 2021. "Transition to a Sustainable Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-16, July.
    16. Hempel, Corinna & Will, Sabine & Zander, Katrin, 2019. "Societal Perspectives on a Bio‐economy in Germany: An Explorative Study Using Q Methodology," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 10(01), January.
    17. Kumeh, Eric Mensah & Kyereh, Boateng & Birkenberg, Athena & Birner, Regina, 2021. "Customary power, farmer strategies and the dynamics of access to protected forestlands for farming: Implications for Ghana's forest bioeconomy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    18. Wen, Lanjiao & Chatalova, Lioudmila, 2021. "Will transaction costs and economies of scale tip the balance in farm size in industrial agriculture? An illustration for non-food biomass production in Germany," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 13(2).
    19. Maciejczak, Mariusz, 2023. "Nature Based Innovations in the Development of Bioeconomy," Roczniki (Annals), Polish Association of Agricultural Economists and Agribusiness - Stowarzyszenie Ekonomistow Rolnictwa e Agrobiznesu (SERiA), vol. 2023(2).
    20. Davide Viaggi & Matteo Zavalloni, 2021. "Bioeconomy and Circular Economy: Implications for Economic Evaluation in the Post-COVID Era," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 1(4), pages 1257-1269, December.

    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:gam:jresou:v:11:y:2022:i:5:p:44-:d:809017. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.