IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ufzdps/82021.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Results from a stakeholder survey on bioeconomy monitoring and perceptions on bioeconomy in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Zeug, Walther
  • Kluson, Forrest Rafael
  • Mittelstädt, Nora
  • Bezama, Alberto
  • Thrän, Daniela

Abstract

Our current economic systems are transgressing planetary boundaries globally and yet societal needs are not sufficiently and equally fulfilled. Fostering the bioeconomy as an economy based on renewable resources can be a transformation towards a sustainable future, to fulfill societal needs within planetary boundaries. However, sustainability is not intrinsic to the bioeconomy and consequently advanced and comprehensive monitoring systems on a national scale are needed. In the systemic modeling and monitoring of the German bioeconomy (SYMOBIO) a comprehensive national monitoring framework in the context of global dynamics was developed, and a first pilot report of monitoring results was published and presented to the public in June 2020. Stakeholder participation plays a role in informing monitoring from the beginning. Consequently, in this study we aim at evaluating the pilot report and monitoring as well as the general perception of the bioeconomy by an open survey. We collected approximately 100 responses, mainly from the stakeholder group "science". Most stakeholders are moderately satisfied with the monitoring and reporting. However, social aspects of the bioeconomy like hunger, poverty and inequalities are considered to be underrepresented, and the socio-economic perspective is viewed as too narrow. Future monitoring efforts should be oriented more on international agreed frameworks like the SDGs and be comparable to other monitoring systems and levels. Regarding general perceptions of the bioeconomy, a majority of stakeholders have a vision of a socio-ecological transformation, in contrast to German and European strategies which are seen as business-as-usual capitalism using additional renewable resources. Even though most stakeholders see the current development of bioeconomy critically, they consider the future development as open and encourage a sustainable bioeconomy that creates sustainable consumption and production patterns, global responsibility and compliance with planetary boundaries, as well as economic and ecological justice and participation shaping the overall economy. Our analysis underpins previous perspectives from stakeholder workshops and is embedded in increasingly polarizing societal mentalities of transformations.

Suggested Citation

  • Zeug, Walther & Kluson, Forrest Rafael & Mittelstädt, Nora & Bezama, Alberto & Thrän, Daniela, 2021. "Results from a stakeholder survey on bioeconomy monitoring and perceptions on bioeconomy in Germany," UFZ Discussion Papers 8/2021, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ufzdps:82021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/248425/1/1780993706.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Daniel W. O’Neill & Andrew L. Fanning & William F. Lamb & Julia K. Steinberger, 2018. "A good life for all within planetary boundaries," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 1(2), pages 88-95, February.
    3. James D Ward & Paul C Sutton & Adrian D Werner & Robert Costanza & Steve H Mohr & Craig T Simmons, 2016. "Is Decoupling GDP Growth from Environmental Impact Possible?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-14, October.
    4. 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.
    5. Andreas Nicolaidis Lindqvist & Sarah Broberg & Linda Tufvesson & Sammar Khalil & Thomas Prade, 2019. "Bio-Based Production Systems: Why Environmental Assessment Needs to Include Supporting Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-26, 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. 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).
    2. Anna Katharina Keil, 2021. "Just Transition strategies for the Austrian and German automotive industry in the course of vehicle electrification," Working Paper Reihe der AK Wien - Materialien zu Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft 213, Kammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte für Wien, Abteilung Wirtschaftswissenschaft und Statistik.
    3. Andrew M. Neill & Cathal O’Donoghue & Jane C. Stout, 2020. "A Natural Capital Lens for a Sustainable Bioeconomy: Determining the Unrealised and Unrecognised Services from Nature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-24, September.
    4. Liesbeth de Schutter & Stefan Giljum & Tiina Häyhä & Martin Bruckner & Asjad Naqvi & Ines Omann & Sigrid Stagl, 2019. "Bioeconomy Transitions through the Lens of Coupled Social-Ecological Systems: A Framework for Place-Based Responsibility in the Global Resource System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-23, October.
    5. 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.
    6. D. D’Amato, 2021. "Sustainability Narratives as Transformative Solution Pathways: Zooming in on the Circular Economy," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 231-242, June.
    7. Manuel Hafner & Lukas Fehr & Jan Springorum & Artur Petkau & Reinhard Johler, 2020. "Perceptions of Bioeconomy and the Desire for Governmental Action: Regional Actors’ Connotations of Wood-Based Bioeconomy in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-13, November.
    8. Haberl, Helmut & Schmid, Martin & Haas, Willi & Wiedenhofer, Dominik & Rau, Henrike & Winiwarter, Verena, 2021. "Stocks, flows, services and practices: Nexus approaches to sustainable social metabolism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    9. Aryal, Kishor & Maraseni, Tek & Apan, Armando, 2023. "Examining policy−institution−program (PIP) responses against the drivers of ecosystem dynamics. A chronological review (1960–2020) from Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    10. Castro, Damaris & Bleys, Brent, 2023. "Do people think they have enough? A subjective income sufficiency assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    11. zu Ermgassen, Sophus & Drewniok, Michal & Bull, Joseph & Walker, Christine Corlet & Mancini, Mattia & Ryan-Collins, Josh & Serrenho, André Cabrera, 2022. "A home for all within planetary boundaries: pathways for meeting England’s housing needs without transgressing national climate and biodiversity goals," OSF Preprints 5kxce, Center for Open Science.
    12. Ragnheiður Bogadóttir, 2020. "The Social Metabolism of Quiet Sustainability in the Faroe Islands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-18, January.
    13. Hametner, Markus, 2022. "Economics without ecology: How the SDGs fail to align socioeconomic development with environmental sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    14. Andreoni, Valeria, 2020. "The energy metabolism of countries: Energy efficiency and use in the period that followed the global financial crisis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    15. Davine N. G. Janssen & Eunice Pereira Ramos & Vincent Linderhof & Nico Polman & Chrysi Laspidou & Dennis Fokkinga & Duarte de Mesquita e Sousa, 2020. "The Climate, Land, Energy, Water and Food Nexus Challenge in a Land Scarce Country: Innovations in the Netherlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-27, December.
    16. Felipe Vásquez & Gibran Vita & Daniel B. Müller, 2018. "Food Security for an Aging and Heavier Population," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-19, October.
    17. Sergio Soza-Amigo & Jean Pierre Doussoulin, 2024. "Structural Changes in Chile’s Industries to Reduce Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 ) Emissions: An Emissions Multiplier Product Matrix Analysis (eMPM)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-19, August.
    18. Gavin Melles, 2021. "Figuring the Transition from Circular Economy to Circular Society in Australia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-20, September.
    19. Savin, Ivan & Drews, Stefan & van den Bergh, Jeroen, 2021. "Free associations of citizens and scientists with economic and green growth: A computational-linguistics analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    20. Chun Chih Chen, 2021. "The path to a 2025 nuclear-free Taiwan: An analysis of dynamic competition among emissions, energy, and economy," Energy & Environment, , vol. 32(4), pages 668-689, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    bioeconomy; sustainability; monitoring; stakeholder participation;
    All these keywords.

    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:ufzdps:82021. 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/doufzde.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.