IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i13p9976-d1177363.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

State/Academia Key Stakeholders’ Perceptions Regarding Bioeconomy: Evidence from Greece

Author

Listed:
  • Marios Trigkas

    (Laboratory of Forest Economics, Marketing, Innovation & Entrepreneurship, Department of Forestry, Wood Sciences & Design, University of Thessaly, 43100 Karditsa, Greece)

  • Glykeria Karagouni

    (Laboratory of Forest Economics, Marketing, Innovation & Entrepreneurship, Department of Forestry, Wood Sciences & Design, University of Thessaly, 43100 Karditsa, Greece)

Abstract

While researchers of the area try hard to conceptualize the bioeconomy, it appears that it is harder for the variety of stakeholders to agree on the critical elements that form sustainable bioeconomy models. The aim of the present paper is to gain insight into major players’ understanding of the bioeconomy concept to form policies and strategies or direct education and research. Using data collected from academia and state stakeholders in Greece, this paper articulates perceptions regarding the concept of bioeconomy from an academic, technological, and economic point of view. According to the results, the bioeconomy concept seems to be related to applied life and economic sciences, and engineering and technology sciences. Its technological interpretation regards innovation, new product development, and technologies. Empirical findings indicate an almost catholic acceptance of bioeconomy as an economic activity, no matter the science field or the state position of the stakeholders. They also highlight a clear need for synergies and a coherent cross-sectoral and interdisciplinary approach to produce novel knowledge, skills, technology, and innovation. The research contributes to the existing debate on the buzzing concept of the bioeconomy and fills a scientific gap at the regional level of a typical Mediterranean economy, enriching the related literature.

Suggested Citation

  • Marios Trigkas & Glykeria Karagouni, 2023. "State/Academia Key Stakeholders’ Perceptions Regarding Bioeconomy: Evidence from Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-14, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:13:p:9976-:d:1177363
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/13/9976/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/13/9976/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wiebke Jander & Sven Wydra & Johann Wackerbauer & Philipp Grundmann & Stephan Piotrowski, 2020. "Monitoring Bioeconomy Transitions with Economic–Environmental and Innovation Indicators: Addressing Data Gaps in the Short Term," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-18, June.
    2. Beate El-Chichakli & Joachim von Braun & Christine Lang & Daniel Barben & Jim Philp, 2016. "Policy: Five cornerstones of a global bioeconomy," Nature, Nature, vol. 535(7611), pages 221-223, July.
    3. Stefanie Linser & Markus Lier, 2020. "The Contribution of Sustainable Development Goals and Forest-Related Indicators to National Bioeconomy Progress Monitoring," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-25, April.
    4. Pasquale Marcello Falcone & Enrica Imbert, 2018. "Social Life Cycle Approach as a Tool for Promoting the Market Uptake of Bio-Based Products from a Consumer Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-22, March.
    5. 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.
    6. Stephen Sireci, 1998. "The Construct of Content Validity," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 83-117, November.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Sebastian Hinderer & Leif Brändle & Andreas Kuckertz, 2021. "Transition to a Sustainable Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-16, July.
    4. Asada, Raphael & Cardellini, Giuseppe & Mair-Bauernfeind, Claudia & Wenger, Julia & Haas, Verena & Holzer, Daniel & Stern, Tobias, 2020. "Effective bioeconomy? a MRIO-based socioeconomic and environmental impact assessment of generic sectoral innovations," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    5. Florian Siekmann & Sandra Venghaus, 2024. "Regional transformation pathways for the bioeconomy: A novel monitoring approach for complex transitions," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 28(3), pages 603-616, June.
    6. Maria Lourdes Ordoñez Olivo & Zoltán Lakner, 2023. "Shaping the Knowledge Base of Bioeconomy Sectors Development in Latin American and Caribbean Countries: A Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    7. 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.
    8. Daniela Firoiu & George H. Ionescu & Teodor Marian Cojocaru & Mariana Niculescu & Maria Nache Cimpoeru & Oana Alexandra Călin, 2023. "Progress of EU Member States Regarding the Bioeconomy and Biomass Producing and Converting Sectors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-22, September.
    9. Pasquale Marcello Falcone & Edgardo Sica, 2019. "Assessing the Opportunities and Challenges of Green Finance in Italy: An Analysis of the Biomass Production Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-14, January.
    10. Tina Highfill & Matthew Chambers, 2023. "Developing a National Measure of the Economic Contributions of the Bioeconomy," BEA Working Papers 0206, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
    11. Simen Pedersen & Kristin E. Gangås & Madhu Chetri & Harry P. Andreassen, 2020. "Economic Gain vs. Ecological Pain—Environmental Sustainability in Economies Based on Renewable Biological Resources," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-16, April.
    12. 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.
    13. Wiebke Jander & Sven Wydra & Johann Wackerbauer & Philipp Grundmann & Stephan Piotrowski, 2020. "Monitoring Bioeconomy Transitions with Economic–Environmental and Innovation Indicators: Addressing Data Gaps in the Short Term," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-18, June.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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).
    19. Rebolledo-Leiva, Ricardo & Moreira, María Teresa & González-García, Sara, 2023. "Progress of social assessment in the framework of bioeconomy under a life cycle perspective," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    20. Jim Philp, 2021. "Biotechnologies to Bridge the Schism in the Bioeconomy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-19, 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:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:13:p:9976-:d:1177363. 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.