IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i17p13237-d1232424.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Digitalisation in Bioeconomy in the Baltic States and Poland

Author

Listed:
  • Sandija Zeverte-Rivza

    (Institute of Economics and Finance, Faculty of Economics and Social Development, Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies, Svetes Street 18, LV-3001 Jelgava, Latvia
    Celteh Ltd., Purvini, LV-3701 Dobele, Latvia)

  • Laura Girdziute

    (Department of Applied Economics, Finance and Accounting, Faculty of Bioeconomy Development, Vytautas Magnus University, K. Donelaičio Str. 58, 44248 Kaunas, Lithuania)

  • Agnieszka Parlińska

    (Institute of Economics and Finance, Warsaw University of Life Sciences—SGGW, Nowoursynowska Street 166, 02-787 Warsaw, Poland)

  • Peteris Rivza

    (Institute of Computer Systems and Data Science, Faculty of Information Technologies, Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies, Liela Street 2, LV-3001 Jelgava, Latvia)

  • Anastasija Novikova

    (Department of Applied Economics, Finance and Accounting, Faculty of Bioeconomy Development, Vytautas Magnus University, K. Donelaičio Str. 58, 44248 Kaunas, Lithuania)

  • Ina Gudele

    (Celteh Ltd., Purvini, LV-3701 Dobele, Latvia)

Abstract

The agricultural and food production sectors have a predominant role in the bioeconomy of the European Union (EU), followed by wood production. These sectors make significant contributions not only to national economies but also to local areas, in particular the rural ones. Although the digitalisation of businesses within the bioeconomy sector transforms the enterprises, improving the value chains and creating benefits for the rural communities where these enterprises are situated, there are still many barriers to digitalisation. This study has a dual aim: first, to analyse bioeconomy in the EU and the state of digitalisation in the EU, and second, to assess the barriers of the bioeconomy sector and ways to support digital transformation within this sector, focusing on agriculture as the main contributor to bioeconomy in the EU, taking Lithuania, Latvia, and Poland as the case studies. The cluster analysis was explored for the study of the digitalisation and R&D indicators of the EU. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to determine digitalisation scenarios of the bioeconomy sector in Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. Four stakeholder groups were selected as experts for the study: (i) national government, (ii) advisory and extension, (iii) research, and (iv) entrepreneurship. The findings of the cluster analysis identified 4 clusters in the EU, showing different levels of digitalisation. Strong links between digitalisation and R&D were also found. In this context, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland were assigned to the low-performing cluster. The results of the AHP for the case studies of Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland indicate the overall need for prioritization of support for digital transformation using national and EU funding to achieve better results. Nonetheless, AHP findings also suggested that the opinions of the national government, consulting, and research experts were more aligned throughout all three countries, but the entrepreneurs’ opinions differed from these groups. These findings provide quantitative information regarding digitalisation in the bioeconomy of the EU. They also offer additional qualitative information about scenarios and criteria for increasing the level of digitalisation in the bioeconomy sector in Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, which could be useful for policy-makers. This research could also have practical implications for shaping the future trajectory of the bioeconomy policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Sandija Zeverte-Rivza & Laura Girdziute & Agnieszka Parlińska & Peteris Rivza & Anastasija Novikova & Ina Gudele, 2023. "Digitalisation in Bioeconomy in the Baltic States and Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-20, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:17:p:13237-:d:1232424
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/17/13237/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/17/13237/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gaspare D’Amico & Katarzyna Szopik-Depczyńska & Riccardo Beltramo & Idiano D’Adamo & Giuseppe Ioppolo, 2022. "Smart and Sustainable Bioeconomy Platform: A New Approach towards Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-22, January.
    2. Jana Stofkova & Matej Krejnus & Katarina Repkova Stofkova & Peter Malega & Vladimira Binasova, 2022. "Use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and Selected Methods in the Managerial Decision-Making Process in the Context of Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-20, September.
    3. Tatyana Boikova & Sandija Zeverte-Rivza & Peteris Rivza & Baiba Rivza, 2021. "The Determinants and Effects of Competitiveness: The Role of Digitalization in the European Economies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-22, October.
    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. Ehlers, Melf-Hinrich & Huber, Robert & Finger, Robert, 2021. "Agricultural policy in the era of digitalisation," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    6. Adamowicz, Mieczysław, 2020. "Bioeconomy as A Concept for The Development of Agriculture and Agribusiness," Problems of Agricultural Economics / Zagadnienia Ekonomiki Rolnej 311272, Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics - National Research Institute (IAFE-NRI).
    7. Thomas L. Saaty, 1994. "How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 24(6), pages 19-43, December.
    8. Irina Canco & Drita Kruja & Tiberiu Iancu, 2021. "AHP, a Reliable Method for Quality Decision Making: A Case Study in Business," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-14, December.
    9. 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).
    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. Truant, Elisa & Giordino, Daniele & Borlatto, Edoardo & Bhatia, Meena, 2024. "Drivers and barriers of smart technologies for circular economy: Leveraging smart circular economy implementation to nurture companies' performance," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).

    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. Christina-Ioanna Papadopoulou & Efstratios Loizou & Fotios Chatzitheodoridis, 2022. "Priorities in Bioeconomy Strategies: A Systematic Literature Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-15, October.
    2. Hung, Ngo Thai, 2023. "Green investment, financial development, digitalization and economic sustainability in Vietnam: Evidence from a quantile-on-quantile regression and wavelet coherence," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 186(PB).
    3. Sueun Jung & Jihyun Lee, 2023. "Exploring a Conceptual Framework of Koreans’ Residential Satisfaction Based on Maslow’s Human Needs: A Qualitative and Quantitative Integrated Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-40, September.
    4. Bhatta, Arun & Bigsby, Hugh R. & Cullen, Ross, 2011. "Alternative to Comprehensive Ecosystem Services Markets: The Contribution of Forest-Related Programs in New Zealand," 2011 Conference, August 25-26, 2011, Nelson, New Zealand 115350, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    5. Daniel Schatz & Rabih Bashroush, 0. "Economic valuation for information security investment: a systematic literature review," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-24.
    6. Sahar Validi & Arijit Bhattacharya & P. J. Byrne, 2020. "Sustainable distribution system design: a two-phase DoE-guided meta-heuristic solution approach for a three-echelon bi-objective AHP-integrated location-routing model," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 290(1), pages 191-222, July.
    7. Chandratilake, S.R. & Dias, W.P.S., 2013. "Sustainability rating systems for buildings: Comparisons and correlations," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 22-28.
    8. Britz, Wolfgang & Li, Jingwen & Shang, Linmei, 2021. "Combining large-scale sensitivity analysis in Computable General Equilibrium models with Machine Learning: An Example Application to policy supporting the bio-economy," Conference papers 333285, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    9. Certa, Antonella & Hopps, Fabrizio & Inghilleri, Roberta & La Fata, Concetta Manuela, 2017. "A Dempster-Shafer Theory-based approach to the Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) under epistemic uncertainty: application to the propulsion system of a fishing vessel," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 69-79.
    10. Bertomeu, M. & Romero, C., 2001. "Managing forest biodiversity: a zero-one goal programming approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 197-213, June.
    11. Hyunjin Lim & Sunkuk Kim & Yonggu Kim & Seunghyun Son, 2021. "Relative Importance Analysis of Safety Climate Evaluation Factors Using Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-14, April.
    12. Ormerod, R.J., 2014. "Critical rationalism in practice: Strategies to manage subjectivity in OR investigations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 235(3), pages 784-797.
    13. Carayannis, Elias G. & Goletsis, Yorgos & Grigoroudis, Evangelos, 2018. "Composite innovation metrics: MCDA and the Quadruple Innovation Helix framework," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 4-17.
    14. Sunita Guru & Jitendra Nenavani & Vipul Patel & Nityesh Bhatt, 2020. "Ranking of perceived risks in online shopping," DECISION: Official Journal of the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Springer;Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, vol. 47(2), pages 137-152, June.
    15. Georgios Archimidis Tsalidis, 2022. "Human Health and Ecosystem Quality Benefits with Life Cycle Assessment Due to Fungicides Elimination in Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-12, January.
    16. Rimvydas Labanauskis & Aurelija Kasparavičiūtė & Vida Davidavičienė & Dovilė Deltuvienė, 2018. "Towards quality assurance of the study process using the Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 6(2), pages 799-819, December.
    17. Yusuf Ersoy & Ali Tehci, 2023. "Relationship marketing orientation in healthcare organisations with the AHP method," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 33(1), pages 35-45.
    18. Ali Yalcin & Fikri Bulut, 2007. "Landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS and digital photogrammetric techniques: a case study from Ardesen (NE-Turkey)," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 41(1), pages 201-226, April.
    19. Dianfa Wu & Zhiping Yang & Ningling Wang & Chengzhou Li & Yongping Yang, 2018. "An Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model and AHP Weighting Uncertainty Analysis for Sustainability Assessment of Coal-Fired Power Units," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-27, May.
    20. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.

    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:17:p:13237-:d:1232424. 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.