IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/jhtiwp/115.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Bioökonomie aus Sicht der Bevölkerung

Author

Listed:
  • Hempel, Corinna
  • Will, Sabine
  • Zander, Katrin

Abstract

Der Wandel unserer fossilbasierten Wirtschaftsweise hin zu einer nachhaltigeren biobasierten Ökonomie erfordert eine breite gesellschaftliche Akzeptanz. Grundlegend dafür sind Kenntnisse über die Meinungen, Einstellungen und Zweifel der Bevölkerung. Aufbauend auf einer Q-Studie über die gesellschaftlichen Meinungsbilder bezüglich der Bioökonomie im Allgemeinen, wurden Gruppendiskussionen zu konsumrelevanten Aspekten im Besonderen durchgeführt. Die Teilnehmenden diskutierten im Spannungsfeld von Suffizienzstrategien und der Entwicklung innovativer Technologien. Darauf folgte eine deutschlandweite Onlinebefragung, die Erkenntnisse aus den ersten beiden Erhebungsschritten aufgriff, wodurch Ergebnisse quantifiziert werden konnten. Auf Basis gemeinsamer gesellschaftlicher Perspektiven zur Bioökonomie besteht eine sehr große Heterogenität in Bezug auf die Einschätzung und Umsetzung verschiedener Handlungsoptionen zur Schonung von Umwelt und Ressourcen in der Gesellschaft insgesamt. Viele Menschen fühlen sich schlecht informiert und haben daher Schwierigkeiten, die "richtigen" Entscheidungen zu treffen. Sie wünschen sich Unterstützung seitens der Politik, welcher eine relativ große Verantwortung bei der Weiterentwicklung der Bioökonomie zugesprochen wird. Allerdings ist der Grat zwischen dem Wunsch nach Unterstützung und dem Gefühl der Bevormundung durch den Staat sehr schmal. Die Akzeptanz verschiedener staatlicher Maßnahmen ist ein Feld, das zukünftig noch verstärkt untersucht werden sollte.

Suggested Citation

  • Hempel, Corinna & Will, Sabine & Zander, Katrin, 2019. "Bioökonomie aus Sicht der Bevölkerung," Thünen Working Papers 115, Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute, Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:jhtiwp:115
    DOI: 10.3220/WP1545134625000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/196148/1/1664483985.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3220/WP1545134625000?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Barry, John & Proops, John, 1999. "Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 337-345, March.
    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. Will, Sabine & Zander, Katrin, 2020. "Szenarien einer Bioökonomie für Deutschland aus gesellschaftlicher Perspektive," Thünen Working Papers 147, Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute, Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.

    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. Buckwell, Andrew & Fleming, Christopher & Muurmans, Maggie & Smart, James & Mackey, Brendan, 2020. "Revealing the dominant discourses of stakeholders towards natural resource management in Port Resolution, Vanuatu, using Q-method," 2020 Conference (64th), February 12-14, 2020, Perth, Western Australia 305231, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. Ágnes Nemcsicsné Zsóka, 2007. "The role of organisational culture in the environmental awareness of companies," Journal of East European Management Studies, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 12(2), pages 109-131.
    3. Elena Zepharovich & Michele Graziano Ceddia & Stephan Rist, 2020. "Land-Use Conflict in the Gran Chaco: Finding Common Ground through Use of the Q Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-16, September.
    4. Latvala, Terhi & Mandolesi, Serena & Nicholas, Phillipa & Zanoli, Raffaele, 2013. "Identifying Expectations for Innovations in Management Practices in Dairy Sector by Using Q Methodology," 2013 International European Forum, February 18-22, 2013, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 164734, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    5. Jaung, Wanggi & Putzel, Louis & Bull, Gary Q. & Kozak, Robert & Markum,, 2016. "Certification of forest watershed services: A Q methodology analysis of opportunities and challenges in Lombok, Indonesia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 51-59.
    6. Greg Munno & Álvaro Salas Castro & Tina Nabatchi & Christian M. Freitag, 2022. "Four Perspectives on a Sustainable Future in Nosara, Costa Rica," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-23, December.
    7. Andrés Lorente de las Casas & Ivelina Mirkova & Francisco J. Ramos-Real, 2021. "Stakeholders’ Perceptions of the Possible Energy Sustainability Solutions in the Hotels of the Canary Islands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-26, June.
    8. Maria Backhouse & Malte Lühmann & Anne Tittor, 2022. "Global Inequalities in the Bioeconomy: Thinking Continuity and Change in View of the Global Soy Complex," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-15, May.
    9. 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).
    10. Hall, Clare & Sandilands, Victoria, 2006. "Public Attitudes to the Welfare of Broiler Chickens," Working Papers 45998, Scotland's Rural College (formerly Scottish Agricultural College), Land Economy & Environment Research Group.
    11. 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.
    12. Clare Hall & Anita Wreford, 2012. "Adaptation to climate change: the attitudes of stakeholders in the livestock industry," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 207-222, February.
    13. Davis, Georgina & Phillips, Paul S. & Read, Adam D. & Iida, Yuki, 2006. "Demonstrating the need for the development of internal research capacity: Understanding recycling participation using the Theory of Planned Behaviour in West Oxfordshire, UK," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 115-127.
    14. Evon Scott & Giorgos Kallis & Christos Zografos, 2019. "Why environmentalists eat meat," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-9, July.
    15. Kangas, A. & Saarinen, N. & Saarikoski, H. & Leskinen, L.A. & Hujala, T. & Tikkanen, J., 2010. "Stakeholder perspectives about proper participation for Regional Forest Programmes in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 213-222, March.
    16. Sebastian Hinderer & Leif Brändle & Andreas Kuckertz, 2021. "Transition to a Sustainable Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-16, July.
    17. Kangas, Annika & Heikkilä, Juuso & Malmivaara-Lämsä, Minna & Löfström, Irja, 2014. "Case Puijo—Evaluation of a participatory urban forest planning process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 13-23.
    18. Marjolein Visser & James Moran & E.C. Regan & M. Gormally & M. Sheehy Skeffington, 2007. "How users and non-users perceive turlough management under the converging EU agendas of Natura 2000 and CAP in Ireland," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/115027, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    19. Sy, Mariam Maki & Rey-Valette, Hélène & Simier, Monique & Pasqualini, Vanina & Figuières, Charles & De Wit, Rutger, 2018. "Identifying Consensus on Coastal Lagoons Ecosystem Services and Conservation Priorities for an Effective Decision Making: A Q Approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 1-13.
    20. Schaal, Tamara & Jacobs, Annie & Leventon, Julia & Scheele, Ben C. & Lindenmayer, David & Hanspach, Jan, 2022. "‘You can’t be green if you’re in the red’: Local discourses on the production-biodiversity intersection in a mixed farming area in south-eastern Australia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:zbw:jhtiwp:115. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vtigvde.html .

    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.