IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v6y2014i3p1222-1249d33738.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Visions of Sustainability in Bioeconomy Research

Author

Listed:
  • Swinda F. Pfau

    (Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, Faculty of Science, Radboud University Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9010, Nijmegen 6500 GL, The Netherlands)

  • Janneke E. Hagens

    (Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, Faculty of Science, Radboud University Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9010, Nijmegen 6500 GL, The Netherlands)

  • Ben Dankbaar

    (Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, Faculty of Science, Radboud University Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9010, Nijmegen 6500 GL, The Netherlands
    Institute for Management Research, Radboud University Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9108, Nijmegen 6500HK, The Netherlands)

  • Antoine J. M. Smits

    (Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, Faculty of Science, Radboud University Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9010, Nijmegen 6500 GL, The Netherlands)

Abstract

The rise of the bioeconomy is usually associated with increased sustainability. However, various controversies suggest doubts about this assumed relationship. The objective of this paper is to identify different visions and the current understanding of the relationship between the bioeconomy and sustainability in the scientific literature by means of a systematic review. After a search in several databases, 87 scientific journal articles were selected for review. Results show that visions about the relationship between bioeconomy and sustainability differ substantially. Four different visions were identified, including: (1) the assumption that sustainability is an inherent characteristic of the bioeconomy; (2) the expectation of benefits under certain conditions; (3) tentative criticism under consideration of potential pitfalls; and (4) the assumption of a negative impact of the bioeconomy on sustainability. There is considerable attention for sustainability in the scientific bioeconomy debate, and the results show that the bioeconomy cannot be considered as self-evidently sustainable. In further research and policy development, good consideration should therefore be given to the question of how the bioeconomy could contribute to a more sustainable future. Furthermore, it is stressed that the bioeconomy should be approached in a more interdisciplinary or trans-disciplinary way. The consideration of sustainability may serve as a basis for such an approach.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:6:y:2014:i:3:p:1222-1249:d:33738
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/6/3/1222/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/6/3/1222/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hoefnagels, Ric & Banse, Martin & Dornburg, Veronika & Faaij, André, 2013. "Macro-economic impact of large-scale deployment of biomass resources for energy and materials on a national level—A combined approach for the Netherlands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 727-744.
    2. Becker, Dennis R. & Skog, Kenneth & Hellman, Allison & Halvorsen, Kathleen E. & Mace, Terry, 2009. "An outlook for sustainable forest bioenergy production in the Lake States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5687-5693, December.
    3. Kes McCormick & Niina Kautto, 2013. "The Bioeconomy in Europe: An Overview," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(6), pages 1-20, June.
    4. Robin Kundis Craig & J.B. Ruhl, 2010. "Governing for Sustainable Coasts: Complexity, Climate Change, and Coastal Ecosystem Protection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(5), pages 1-28, May.
    5. 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.
    6. Arancibia, Florencia, 2013. "Challenging the bioeconomy: The dynamics of collective action in Argentina," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 79-92.
    7. Tanksale, Akshat & Beltramini, Jorge Norberto & Lu, GaoQing Max, 2010. "A review of catalytic hydrogen production processes from biomass," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 166-182, January.
    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. Boehlje, Michael & Broring, Stefanie, 2011. "The Increasing Multifunctionality of Agricultural Raw Materials: Three Dilemmas for Innovation and Adoption," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 14(2), pages 1-16, May.
    10. Bergmann, J.C & Tupinambá, D.D & Costa, O.Y.A & Almeida, J.R.M & Barreto, C.C & Quirino, B.F, 2013. "Biodiesel production in Brazil and alternative biomass feedstocks," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 411-420.
    11. Kgathi, Donald L. & Mfundisi, K.B. & Mmopelwa, G. & Mosepele, K., 2012. "Potential impacts of biofuel development on food security in Botswana: A contribution to energy policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 70-79.
    12. Smyth, Stuart J. & Falck-Zepeda, José B. & Gray, Richard S. & Nassem, Anwar & Paarlberg, Robert & Phillips, Peter W. B. & Pray, Carl E. & Savastano, Sara & Scandizzo, Pasquale L. & Scatasta, Sara & We, 2010. "Policy recommendations from the 13th ICABR conference on the emerging bioeconomy," MPRA Paper 25600, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Olli Lehtonen & Lasse Okkonen, 2013. "Regional socio-economic impacts of decentralised bioeconomy: a case of Suutela wooden village, Finland," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 245-256, February.
    14. Bartolini, Fabio & Viaggi, Davide, 2012. "An analysis of policy scenario effects on the adoption of energy production on the farm: A case study in Emilia–Romagna (Italy)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 454-464.
    15. Johan Sanders & Diederik Van der Hoeven, 2008. "Opportunities for a Bio-based Economy in the Netherlands," Energies, MDPI, vol. 1(3), pages 1-15, November.
    16. 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.
    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. 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).
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. Kean Birch, 2016. "Emergent Imaginaries and Fragmented Policy Frameworks in the Canadian Bio-Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-16, October.
    5. Lovrić, Marko & Lovrić, Nataša & Mavsar, Robert, 2020. "Mapping forest-based bioeconomy research in Europe," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    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. Rick Bosman & Jan Rotmans, 2016. "Transition Governance towards a Bioeconomy: A Comparison of Finland and The Netherlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-20, October.
    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. 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.
    10. Rolf Meyer, 2017. "Bioeconomy Strategies: Contexts, Visions, Guiding Implementation Principles and Resulting Debates," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-32, June.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Sanz-Hernández, Alexia & Jiménez-Caballero, Paula & Zarauz, Irene, 2022. "Gender and women in scientific literature on bioeconomy: A systematic review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    16. Farhad Mukhtarov & Andrea Gerlak & Robin Pierce, 2017. "Away from fossil-fuels and toward a bioeconomy: Knowledge versatility for public policy?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(6), pages 1010-1028, September.
    17. Therese Bennich & Salim Belyazid, 2017. "The Route to Sustainability—Prospects and Challenges of the Bio-Based Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-18, May.
    18. Nikola Sagapová, 2022. "From environmental thinking in economics to bioplastics: promising material for a sustainable (bio)economy," Economics Working Papers 2022-01, University of South Bohemia in Ceske Budejovice, Faculty of Economics.
    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.

    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:6:y:2014:i:3:p:1222-1249:d:33738. 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.