IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i24p7235-d298759.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Resources, Collaborators, and Neighbors: The Three-Pronged Challenge in the Implementation of Bioeconomy Regions

Author

Listed:
  • Alberto Bezama

    (Department of Bioenergy, Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), 04318 Leipzig, Germany)

  • Carlo Ingrao

    (Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Kore University of Enna, 94100 Enna, Italy)

  • Sinéad O’Keeffe

    (Department of Bioenergy, Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), 04318 Leipzig, Germany)

  • Daniela Thrän

    (Department of Bioenergy, Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), 04318 Leipzig, Germany
    Bioenergy Systems Department, Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum (DBFZ), 04318 Leipzig, Germany)

Abstract

Over the last decade, the bioeconomy has become increasingly important and visible in international policy agendas, with several strategies being recently developed. The implementation of bio-based technologies mostly takes place on a regional scale. Therefore, from a regional perspective, a key question revolves around what main challenges are associated with technological developments that could catalyze the implementation of sustainable bioeconomy regions. In this study, a cross-cutting analysis was carried out to determine these challenges. First, interviews were conducted with industry practitioners and scientists working in the bioeconomy field. These interviews were supplemented with a literature review to determine the status quo of bioeconomy strategies and their implementation, particularly on a regional level. A multidisciplinary workshop was then organized to identify the most relevant challenges in the short- and mid-term associated with establishing bioeconomy regions. The results show that there is a three-pronged challenge in innovative technological development from a regional perspective: (1) Resources: The establishment of sustainable regional feedstock strategies and supplies for supporting the bio-industrial sector; (2) collaborators: The establishment of a regional “critical mass” by fostering supply chain clusters and networks; and (3) neighbors: Understanding the local dynamics of societal trends and preferences and social acceptance of bio-technologies and their representative bio-based products.

Suggested Citation

  • Alberto Bezama & Carlo Ingrao & Sinéad O’Keeffe & Daniela Thrän, 2019. "Resources, Collaborators, and Neighbors: The Three-Pronged Challenge in the Implementation of Bioeconomy Regions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-18, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:24:p:7235-:d:298759
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/24/7235/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/24/7235/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Corsatea, Teodora Diana, 2014. "Increasing synergies between institutions and technology developers: Lessons from marine energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 682-696.
    2. Tonini, Davide & Vadenbo, Carl & Astrup, Thomas Fruergaard, 2017. "Priority of domestic biomass resources for energy: Importance of national environmental targets in a climate perspective," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 295-309.
    3. Arancibia, Florencia, 2013. "Challenging the bioeconomy: The dynamics of collective action in Argentina," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 79-92.
    4. Hanna Helander & Anna Petit‐Boix & Sina Leipold & Stefan Bringezu, 2019. "How to monitor environmental pressures of a circular economy: An assessment of indicators," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 23(5), pages 1278-1291, October.
    5. 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.
    6. Daniel Reißmann & Daniela Thrän & Alberto Bezama, 2018. "Key Development Factors of Hydrothermal Processes in Germany by 2030: A Fuzzy Logic Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-20, December.
    7. Pätäri, Satu & Tuppura, Anni & Toppinen, Anne & Korhonen, Jaana, 2016. "Global sustainability megaforces in shaping the future of the European pulp and paper industry towards a bioeconomy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 38-46.
    8. Walmsley, Timothy Gordon & Ong, Benjamin H.Y. & Klemeš, Jiří Jaromír & Tan, Raymond R. & Varbanov, Petar Sabev, 2019. "Circular Integration of processes, industries, and economies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 507-515.
    9. Michael Kühnen & Rüdiger Hahn, 2017. "Indicators in Social Life Cycle Assessment: A Review of Frameworks, Theories, and Empirical Experience," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 21(6), pages 1547-1565, December.
    10. Jakob Hildebrandt & Sinéad O'Keeffe & Alberto Bezama & Daniela Thrän, 2019. "Revealing the Environmental Advantages of Industrial Symbiosis in Wood‐Based Bioeconomy Networks: An Assessment From a Life Cycle Perspective," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 23(4), pages 808-822, August.
    11. Davide Longato & Giulia Lucertini & Michele Dalla Fontana & Francesco Musco, 2019. "Including Urban Metabolism Principles in Decision-Making: A Methodology for Planning Waste and Resource Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-19, April.
    12. Levidow, Les & Borda-Rodriguez, Alexander & Papaioannou, Theo, 2014. "UK bioenergy innovation priorities: Making expectations credible in state-industry arenas," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 191-204.
    13. Pasquale Marcello Falcone & Enrica Imbert, 2018. "Social Life Cycle Approach as a Tool for Promoting the Market Uptake of Bio-Based Products from a Consumer Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-22, March.
    14. Jianliang Wang & Yuru Yang & Yongmei Bentley & Xu Geng & Xiaojie Liu, 2018. "Sustainability Assessment of Bioenergy from a Global Perspective: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-19, August.
    15. 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.
    16. Ferreira, Jorge Brantes & da Rocha, Angela & da Silva, Jorge Ferreira, 2014. "Impacts of technology readiness on emotions and cognition in Brazil," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(5), pages 865-873.
    17. Gardner, John & Webster, Andrew, 2016. "The social management of biomedical novelty: Facilitating translation in regenerative medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 90-97.
    18. Devine-Wright, Patrick & Batel, Susana & Aas, Oystein & Sovacool, Benjamin & Labelle, Michael Carnegie & Ruud, Audun, 2017. "A conceptual framework for understanding the social acceptance of energy infrastructure: Insights from energy storage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 27-31.
    19. 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.
    20. Michael Novotny & Cali Nuur, 2013. "The transformation of pulp and paper industries: the role of local networks and institutions," International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 5(1), pages 41-57.
    21. Friedl, Christina & Reichl, Johannes, 2016. "Realizing energy infrastructure projects – A qualitative empirical analysis of local practices to address social acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 184-193.
    22. 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.
    23. Michael Martin & Frida Røyne & Tomas Ekvall & Åsa Moberg, 2018. "Life Cycle Sustainability Evaluations of Bio-based Value Chains: Reviewing the Indicators from a Swedish Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-17, February.
    24. Strazzera, Elisabetta & Statzu, Vania, 2017. "Fostering photovoltaic technologies in Mediterranean cities: Consumers’ demand and social acceptance," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 102(PB), pages 361-371.
    25. Arbolino, Roberta & Boffardi, Raffaele & Ioppolo, Giuseppe, 2019. "The effectiveness of European energy policy on the Italian system: Regional evidences from a hierarchical cluster analysis approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 47-61.
    26. Rafiaani, Parisa & Kuppens, Tom & Dael, Miet Van & Azadi, Hossein & Lebailly, Philippe & Passel, Steven Van, 2018. "Social sustainability assessments in the biobased economy: Towards a systemic approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P2), pages 1839-1853.
    27. Sven Wydra, 2019. "Value Chains for Industrial Biotechnology in the Bioeconomy-Innovation System Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-16, April.
    28. Giampietro, Mario, 2019. "On the Circular Bioeconomy and Decoupling: Implications for Sustainable Growth," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 143-156.
    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. Juan Romero-Luis & Manuel Gertrudix & María del Carmen Gertrudis Casado & Alejandro Carbonell-Alcocer, 2023. "Biotechnology and Bio-Based Products Perceptions in the Community of Madrid: A Representative Survey Dataset," Data, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-6, May.
    2. 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).
    3. Macht, Janine & Klink-Lehmann, Jeanette & Hartmann, Monika, 2023. "Don't forget the locals: Understanding citizens' acceptance of bio-based technologies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    4. Lena Jarosch & Walther Zeug & Alberto Bezama & Matthias Finkbeiner & Daniela Thrän, 2020. "A Regional Socio-Economic Life Cycle Assessment of a Bioeconomy Value Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-15, February.

    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. Hannah Karlewski & Annekatrin Lehmann & Klaus Ruhland & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2019. "A Practical Approach for Social Life Cycle Assessment in the Automotive Industry," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-60, August.
    2. Escobar, Neus & Laibach, Natalie, 2021. "Sustainability check for bio-based technologies: A review of process-based and life cycle approaches," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    3. Pasquale Marcello Falcone & Sara González García & Enrica Imbert & Lucía Lijó & María Teresa Moreira & Almona Tani & Valentina Elena Tartiu & Piergiuseppe Morone, 2019. "Transitioning towards the bio‐economy: Assessing the social dimension through a stakeholder lens," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1135-1153, September.
    4. Alejandro Padilla-Rivera & Sara Russo-Garrido & Nicolas Merveille, 2020. "Addressing the Social Aspects of a Circular Economy: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-17, September.
    5. Zaman Sajid & Nicholas Lynch, 2018. "Financial Modelling Strategies for Social Life Cycle Assessment: A Project Appraisal of Biodiesel Production and Sustainability in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-19, September.
    6. 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).
    7. Muluken Elias Adamseged & Philipp Grundmann, 2020. "Understanding Business Environments and Success Factors for Emerging Bioeconomy Enterprises through a Comprehensive Analytical Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-18, October.
    8. Leire Barañano & Olatz Unamunzaga & Naroa Garbisu & Siebe Briers & Timokleia Orfanidou & Blasius Schmid & Inazio Martínez de Arano & Andrés Araujo & Carlos Garbisu, 2022. "Assessment of the Development of Forest-Based Bioeconomy in European Regions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-19, April.
    9. Rizal Taufiq Fauzi & Patrick Lavoie & Luca Sorelli & Mohammad Davoud Heidari & Ben Amor, 2019. "Exploring the Current Challenges and Opportunities of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, January.
    10. Ricardo J. Bonilla-Alicea & Katherine Fu, 2019. "Systematic Map of the Social Impact Assessment Field," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-30, July.
    11. Pasquale Marcello Falcone & Enrica Imbert, 2018. "Social Life Cycle Approach as a Tool for Promoting the Market Uptake of Bio-Based Products from a Consumer Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-22, March.
    12. D'Adamo, Idiano & Falcone, Pasquale Marcello & Imbert, Enrica & Morone, Piergiuseppe, 2020. "A Socio-economic Indicator for EoL Strategies for Bio-based Products," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    13. Ayrapetyan, David & Hermans, Frans, 2020. "Introducing a multiscalar framework for biocluster research: A meta-analysis," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 12(9).
    14. 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.
    15. Nils Thonemann & Anna Schulte & Daniel Maga, 2020. "How to Conduct Prospective Life Cycle Assessment for Emerging Technologies? A Systematic Review and Methodological Guidance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-23, February.
    16. Flávio Mattos & João Luiz Calmon, 2023. "Social Life Cycle Assessment in Municipal Solid Waste Management Systems with Contribution of Waste Pickers: Literature Review and Proposals for New Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-18, January.
    17. Alberto Bezama & Jakob Hildebrandt & Daniela Thrän, 2021. "Integrating Regionalized Socioeconomic Considerations onto Life Cycle Assessment for Evaluating Bioeconomy Value Chains: A Case Study on Hybrid Wood–Concrete Ceiling Elements," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-17, April.
    18. Sharma, Rozi & Malaviya, Piyush, 2023. "Ecosystem services and climate action from a circular bioeconomy perspective," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    19. Chengliang Zhang & Tong Xu & Hualiang Feng & Shaohua Chen, 2019. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Landfills: A Review and Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-15, April.
    20. Sebastian Hinderer & Leif Brändle & Andreas Kuckertz, 2021. "Transition to a Sustainable Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-16, July.

    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:11:y:2019:i:24:p:7235-:d:298759. 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.