IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i11p4142-d182017.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding Perceptions of the Bioeconomy in Austria—An Explorative Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Tobias Stern

    (Institute of Systems Sciences, Innovation and Sustainability Research, University of Graz, Merangasse 18/1, 8010 Graz, Austria)

  • Ursula Ploll

    (Institute for Food and Resource Economics, University of Bonn, Nussallee 19, 53115 Bonn, Germany)

  • Raphael Spies

    (Institute of Marketing and Innovation, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Feistmantelstraße 4, 1180 Vienna, Austria)

  • Peter Schwarzbauer

    (Institute of Marketing and Innovation, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Feistmantelstraße 4, 1180 Vienna, Austria)

  • Franziska Hesser

    (Wood K plus—Kompetenzzentrum Holz GmbH, Altenberger Straße 69, 4040 Linz, Austria)

  • Lea Ranacher

    (Wood K plus—Kompetenzzentrum Holz GmbH, Altenberger Straße 69, 4040 Linz, Austria)

Abstract

The bioeconomy provides new approaches to deal with environmental challenges by substituting fossil fuels for sustainable, renewable resources and fuels. In Europe, this process and discourse has mainly been driven from a strategic top-down level. This leads to a lack of inclusion of societal actors, which can consequently lead to reduced acceptance and engagement. Henceforth, in this study, we focus on exploring how the bioeconomy is perceived, understood and evaluated by a wider audience. Through convenience sampling, 456 interviews conducted with students, employees, farmers and pensioners living in Austria provide the database for the study. Due to the novelty of the study’s objective and the consequentially explorative research approach, qualitative and quantitative social science research methods are applied. The results indicate that the bioeconomy concept is associated with various themes and visions. These associated topics also have negative or positive implications. Furthermore, a division between two visions of the bioeconomy, a technology- and industry-driven vision and a vision defined by regional environmentalism, can be observed. The feasibility of a future bioeconomy identifies as the most critical aspect. Sustainable consumption was mentioned as an important topic of the bioeconomy by the participants, a result that could be of particular interest when creating an inclusive bioeconomy, since it calls for active involvement of consumers. The study also shows that responding farmers tend to believe that the bioeconomy will lead to more inequity.

Suggested Citation

  • Tobias Stern & Ursula Ploll & Raphael Spies & Peter Schwarzbauer & Franziska Hesser & Lea Ranacher, 2018. "Understanding Perceptions of the Bioeconomy in Austria—An Explorative Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-17, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:11:p:4142-:d:182017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/11/4142/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/11/4142/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lillian Hansen & Hilde Bjørkhaug, 2017. "Visions and Expectations for the Norwegian Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-17, February.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Vringer, Kees & Aalbers, Theo & Blok, Kornelis, 2007. "Household energy requirement and value patterns," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 553-566, January.
    5. Kes McCormick & Niina Kautto, 2013. "The Bioeconomy in Europe: An Overview," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(6), pages 1-20, June.
    6. Kleinschmit, Daniela & Pülzl, Helga & Secco, Laura & Sergent, Arnaud & Wallin, Ida, 2018. "Orchestration in political processes: Involvement of experts, citizens, and participatory professionals in forest policy making," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 4-15.
    7. McGuire, William J, 1976. "Some Internal Psychological Factors Influencing Consumer Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 2(4), pages 302-319, March.
    8. Sudbury-Riley, Lynn & Kohlbacher, Florian, 2016. "Ethically minded consumer behavior: Scale review, development, and validation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 2697-2710.
    9. Rolf Meyer, 2017. "Bioeconomy Strategies: Contexts, Visions, Guiding Implementation Principles and Resulting Debates," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-32, June.
    10. Jeffrey Barber, 2003. "Production, Consumption and the World Summit on Sustainable Development," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 63-93, March.
    11. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. Franz Grossauer & Gernot Stoeglehner, 2023. "Bioeconomy—A Systematic Literature Review on Spatial Aspects and a Call for a New Research Agenda," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-22, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Kieran Harrahill & Áine Macken-Walsh & Eoin O’Neill & Mick Lennon, 2022. "An Analysis of Irish Dairy Farmers’ Participation in the Bioeconomy: Exploring Power and Knowledge Dynamics in a Multi-actor EIP-AGRI Operational Group," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-39, September.
    5. Emilia Mary Balan & Cristina Georgiana Zeldea, 2023. "Bioeconomy in Romania: Investigating Farmers’ Knowledge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-29, May.
    6. Nina Golowko & Katrin Marquardt & Sonia Budz & Ulrike Stefanie Foerster-Metz (Foerster-Pastor), 2019. "German Students’ Perception of Bioeconomy – An Exploratory Study," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 21(50), pages 138-138, February.
    7. Ranacher, Lea & Ludvig, Alice & Schwarzbauer, Peter, 2019. "Depicting the peril and not the potential of forests for a biobased economy? A qualitative content analysis on online news media coverage in German language articles," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.
    8. repec:aud:audfin:v:21:y:2019:i:50:p:138 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. 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).
    10. Gianmaria Tassinari & Dušan Drabik & Stefano Boccaletti & Claudio Soregaroli, 2021. "Case studies research in the bioeconomy: A systematic literature review," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 67(7), pages 286-303.
    11. Sophia Dieken & Sandra Venghaus, 2020. "Potential Pathways to the German Bioeconomy: A Media Discourse Analysis of Public Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-24, September.
    12. repec:aud:audfin:v:21:y:2019:i:50:p:9 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Durwin H.J. Lynch & Pim Klaassen & Lan van Wassenaer & Jacqueline E.W. Broerse, 2020. "Constructing the Public in Roadmapping the Transition to a Bioeconomy: A Case Study from the Netherlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, April.
    14. Franz Grossauer & Gernot Stoeglehner, 2020. "Bioeconomy—Spatial Requirements for Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-28, March.
    15. Christina-Ioanna Papadopoulou & Efstratios Loizou & Fotios Chatzitheodoridis & Anastasios Michailidis & Christos Karelakis & Yannis Fallas & Aikaterini Paltaki, 2023. "What Makes Farmers Aware in Adopting Circular Bioeconomy Practices? Evidence from a Greek Rural Region," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-17, April.
    16. Luke Kelleher & Maeve Henchion & Eoin O’Neill, 2019. "Policy Coherence and the Transition to a Bioeconomy: The Case of Ireland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-25, December.
    17. Zabulionienė Erika & Pranskūnienė Rasa, 2021. "Personal Experiences of Bioeconomy Development: Autoethography Approach," Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development, Sciendo, vol. 43(3), pages 346-353, September.

    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. Juha Peltomaa, 2018. "Drumming the Barrels of Hope? Bioeconomy Narratives in the Media," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-14, November.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Carmen Priefer & Rolf Meyer, 2019. "One Concept, Many Opinions: How Scientists in Germany Think About the Concept of Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-21, August.
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Sebastian Hinderer & Leif Brändle & Andreas Kuckertz, 2021. "Transition to a Sustainable Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-16, July.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Sophia Dieken & Sandra Venghaus, 2020. "Potential Pathways to the German Bioeconomy: A Media Discourse Analysis of Public Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-24, September.
    14. Durwin H.J. Lynch & Pim Klaassen & Lan van Wassenaer & Jacqueline E.W. Broerse, 2020. "Constructing the Public in Roadmapping the Transition to a Bioeconomy: A Case Study from the Netherlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, April.
    15. Gabriel Cucui & Constantin Aurelian Ionescu & Ioana Raluca Goldbach & Mihaela Denisa Coman & Elena Liliana Moiceanu Marin, 2018. "Quantifying the Economic Effects of Biogas Installations for Organic Waste from Agro-Industrial Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-16, July.
    16. Franz Grossauer & Gernot Stoeglehner, 2020. "Bioeconomy—Spatial Requirements for Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-28, March.
    17. 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.
    18. Dan Costin Nițescu & Valentin Murgu, 2020. "The Bioeconomy and Foreign Trade in Food Products—A Sustainable Partnership at the European Level?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-20, March.
    19. 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.
    20. Kean Birch, 2016. "Emergent Imaginaries and Fragmented Policy Frameworks in the Canadian Bio-Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-16, October.

    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:10:y:2018:i:11:p:4142-:d:182017. 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.