IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v8y2016i7p691-d74234.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Is the Bioeconomy? A Review of the Literature

Author

Listed:
  • Markus M. Bugge

    (Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education (NIFU), P.O. Box 2815 Tøyen, Oslo NO-0608, Norway)

  • Teis Hansen

    (Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education (NIFU), P.O. Box 2815 Tøyen, Oslo NO-0608, Norway
    Department of Human Geography, Lund University, Sölvegatan 10, Lund SE-22362, Sweden
    Centre for Innovation, Research and Competence in the Learning Economy (CIRCLE), Lund University, P.O. Box 117, Lund SE-22100, Sweden)

  • Antje Klitkou

    (Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education (NIFU), P.O. Box 2815 Tøyen, Oslo NO-0608, Norway)

Abstract

The notion of the bioeconomy has gained importance in both research and policy debates over the last decade, and is frequently argued to be a key part of the solution to multiple grand challenges. Despite this, there seems to be little consensus concerning what bioeconomy actually implies. Consequently, this paper seeks to enhance our understanding of what the notion of bioeconomy means by exploring the origins, uptake, and contents of the term “bioeconomy” in the academic literature. Firstly, we perform a bibliometric analysis that highlights that the bioeconomy research community is still rather fragmented and distributed across many different fields of science, even if natural and engineering sciences take up the most central role. Secondly, we carry out a literature review that identifies three visions of the bioeconomy. The bio-technology vision emphasises the importance of bio-technology research and application and commercialisation of bio-technology in different sectors of the economy. The bio-resource vision focuses on processing and upgrading of biological raw materials, as well as on the establishment of new value chains. Finally, the bio-ecology vision highlights sustainability and ecological processes that optimise the use of energy and nutrients, promote biodiversity, and avoid monocultures and soil degradation.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:8:y:2016:i:7:p:691-:d:74234
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/7/691/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/7/691/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Philip Cooke, 2006. "Global Bioregional Networks: A New Economic Geography of Bioscientific Knowledge," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(9), pages 1265-1285, April.
    2. 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.
    3. David Zilberman & Eunice Kim & Sam Kirschner & Scott Kaplan & Jeanne Reeves, 2013. "Technology and the future bioeconomy," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 44(s1), pages 95-102, November.
    4. Brown, Nik & Machin, Laura & McLeod, Danae, 2011. "Immunitary bioeconomy: The economisation of life in the international cord blood market," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(7), pages 1115-1122, April.
    5. Kes McCormick & Niina Kautto, 2013. "The Bioeconomy in Europe: An Overview," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(6), pages 1-20, June.
    6. Philip Cooke, 2009. "The Economic Geography Of Knowledge Flow Hierarchies Among Internationally Networked Medical Bioclusters: A Scientometric Analysis," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 100(3), pages 332-347, July.
    7. David Wield & Rebecca Hanlin & James Mittra & James Smith, 2013. "Twenty-first century bioeconomy: Global challenges of biological knowledge for health and agriculture," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(1), pages 17-24, January.
    8. Kevin Morgan, 2015. "Smart Specialisation: Opportunities and Challenges for Regional Innovation Policy," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(3), pages 480-482, March.
    9. Coenen , Lars & Hansen , Teis & Rekers , Josephine V., 2015. "Innovation Policy for Grand Challenges. An Economic Geography Perspective," Papers in Innovation Studies 2015/13, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    10. Smith, Katherine R., 2013. "Economic Science and Public Policy," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 42(01), pages 1-8, April.
    11. 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.
    12. Schuitmaker, Tjerk Jan, 2012. "Identifying and unravelling persistent problems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 79(6), pages 1021-1031.
    13. Matthew Kearnes, 2013. "Performing synthetic worlds: Situating the bioeconomy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(4), pages 453-465, July.
    14. Sarah A. Low & Andrew M. Isserman, 2009. "Ethanol and the Local Economy," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 23(1), pages 71-88, February.
    15. 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.
    16. Rosemann, Achim, 2014. "Standardization as situation-specific achievement: Regulatory diversity and the production of value in intercontinental collaborations in stem cell medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 72-80.
    17. Kent, Julie, 2008. "The fetal tissue economy: From the abortion clinic to the stem cell laboratory," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(11), pages 1747-1756, December.
    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. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. Carmen Priefer & Juliane Jörissen & Oliver Frör, 2017. "Pathways to Shape the Bioeconomy," Resources, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-23, February.
    5. Laibach, Natalie & Börner, Jan & Bröring, Stefanie, 2019. "Exploring the future of the bioeconomy: An expert-based scoping study examining key enabling technology fields with potential to foster the transition toward a bio-based economy," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    6. 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.
    7. 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).
    8. 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.
    9. Matteo De Besi & Kes McCormick, 2015. "Towards a Bioeconomy in Europe: National, Regional and Industrial Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-18, August.
    10. 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.
    11. Mónica Duque-Acevedo & Luis Jesús Belmonte-Ureña & Natalia Yakovleva & Francisco Camacho-Ferre, 2020. "Analysis of the Circular Economic Production Models and Their Approach in Agriculture and Agricultural Waste Biomass Management," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-32, December.
    12. 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.
    13. Kean Birch, 2016. "Emergent Imaginaries and Fragmented Policy Frameworks in the Canadian Bio-Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-16, October.
    14. 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.
    15. Sebastian Hinderer & Leif Brändle & Andreas Kuckertz, 2021. "Transition to a Sustainable Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-16, July.
    16. 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).
    17. 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.
    18. Christina-Ioanna Papadopoulou & Efstratios Loizou & Katerina Melfou & Fotios Chatzitheodoridis, 2021. "The Knowledge Based Agricultural Bioeconomy: A Bibliometric Network Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-15, October.
    19. Therese Bennich & Salim Belyazid & Birgit Kopainsky & Arnaud Diemer, 2018. "Understanding the Transition to a Bio-Based Economy: Exploring Dynamics Linked to the Agricultural Sector in Sweden," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-22, May.
    20. Jürges, Nataly, 2016. "Wahrnehmungen und Funktionen in der Transformation zur Bioökonomie: Eine Akteursanalyse im Politikfeld "Boden"," UFZ Discussion Papers 6/2016, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).

    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:8:y:2016:i:7:p:691-:d:74234. 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.