IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i9p3557-d351048.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Gain vs. Ecological Pain—Environmental Sustainability in Economies Based on Renewable Biological Resources

Author

Listed:
  • Simen Pedersen

    (Campus Evenstad, Faculty of Applied Ecology, Agricultural Sciences and Biotechnology, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, No-2480 Koppang, Norway)

  • Kristin E. Gangås

    (Campus Evenstad, Faculty of Applied Ecology, Agricultural Sciences and Biotechnology, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, No-2480 Koppang, Norway)

  • Madhu Chetri

    (Campus Evenstad, Faculty of Applied Ecology, Agricultural Sciences and Biotechnology, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, No-2480 Koppang, Norway)

  • Harry P. Andreassen

    (Campus Evenstad, Faculty of Applied Ecology, Agricultural Sciences and Biotechnology, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, No-2480 Koppang, Norway
    Harry P. Andreassen sadly passed away 21 May 2019.)

Abstract

There are two main international strategies concerning how to ensure a sustainable environment: one is to develop a globally bio-based economy, or bioeconomy, to meet the increased demand of goods and products to maintain our well-being and to reduce climate change. On the other hand, there is an aim to decrease the negative impacts on nature and natural habitats to conserve and maintain ecosystems and control the loss of biodiversity. There is a trade-off between these two strategies; as we increase the commitment to the bioeconomy by intensifying biomass production, we will simultaneously challenge biodiversity through the increased pressure on, and the utilization of, biological raw materials. Here, we first review and discuss the challenges and opportunities in terrestrial and marine ecosystems for the production of biomass for the bioeconomy. We focus on the trade-offs between economic sustainability on one hand, and environmental sustainability and resilience on the other hand. We conclude with a discussion of the various bioeconomy strategies. Finally, we present a conceptual model on how to sustainably develop the bioeconomies (by introducing the concept of optimizing the economic gain/ecological pain ratio) to be able to manage the biodiversity in a sustainable way.

Suggested Citation

  • Simen Pedersen & Kristin E. Gangås & Madhu Chetri & Harry P. Andreassen, 2020. "Economic Gain vs. Ecological Pain—Environmental Sustainability in Economies Based on Renewable Biological Resources," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-16, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:9:p:3557-:d:351048
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/9/3557/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/9/3557/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edward B. Barbier, 2012. "Progress and Challenges in Valuing Coastal and Marine Ecosystem Services," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 6(1), pages 1-19.
    2. Stefania Bracco & Ozgul Calicioglu & Marta Gomez San Juan & Alessandro Flammini, 2018. "Assessing the Contribution of Bioeconomy to the Total Economy: A Review of National Frameworks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-17, May.
    3. Vincent Egenolf & Stefan Bringezu, 2019. "Conceptualization of an Indicator System for Assessing the Sustainability of the Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-20, January.
    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. Arnold, J. E. Michael & Perez, M. Ruiz, 2001. "Can non-timber forest products match tropical forest conservation and development objectives?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 437-447, December.
    6. 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. Denis Maragno & Carlo Federico dall’Omo & Gianfranco Pozzer & Niccolò Bassan & Francesco Musco, 2020. "Land–Sea Interaction: Integrating Climate Adaptation Planning and Maritime Spatial Planning in the North Adriatic Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-29, July.
    2. Augustinas Maceika & Andrej Bugajev & Olga Regina Šostak & Tatjana Vilutienė, 2021. "Decision Tree and AHP Methods Application for Projects Assessment: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-33, May.

    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. Wiebke Jander & Sven Wydra & Johann Wackerbauer & Philipp Grundmann & Stephan Piotrowski, 2020. "Monitoring Bioeconomy Transitions with Economic–Environmental and Innovation Indicators: Addressing Data Gaps in the Short Term," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-18, June.
    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. Asada, Raphael & Cardellini, Giuseppe & Mair-Bauernfeind, Claudia & Wenger, Julia & Haas, Verena & Holzer, Daniel & Stern, Tobias, 2020. "Effective bioeconomy? a MRIO-based socioeconomic and environmental impact assessment of generic sectoral innovations," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Britz, Wolfgang & Li, Jingwen & Shang, Linmei, 2021. "Combining large-scale sensitivity analysis in Computable General Equilibrium models with Machine Learning: An Example Application to policy supporting the bio-economy," Conference papers 333285, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    6. Tina Highfill & Matthew Chambers, 2023. "Developing a National Measure of the Economic Contributions of the Bioeconomy," BEA Working Papers 0206, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
    7. Altenburg, Tilman & Bauer, Steffen & Brandi, Clara & Brüntrup, Michael & Malerba, Daniele & Never, Babette & Pegels, Anna & Stamm, Andreas & To, Jenny & Volz, Ulrich, 2022. "Ökologische Strukturpolitik: Ein starker Profilbaustein für die deutsche Entwicklungszusammenarbeit," IDOS Discussion Papers 8/2022, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    8. Mauricio Alviar & Andrés García-Suaza & Laura Ramírez-Gómez & Simón Villegas-Velásquez, 2021. "Measuring the Contribution of the Bioeconomy: The Case of Colombia and Antioquia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-26, February.
    9. Maximilian Kardung & Kutay Cingiz & Ortwin Costenoble & Roel Delahaye & Wim Heijman & Marko Lovrić & Myrna van Leeuwen & Robert M’Barek & Hans van Meijl & Stephan Piotrowski & Tévécia Ronzon & Johanne, 2021. "Development of the Circular Bioeconomy: Drivers and Indicators," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, January.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    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. Jim Philp, 2021. "Biotechnologies to Bridge the Schism in the Bioeconomy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-19, December.
    14. Idiano D’Adamo & Pasquale Marcello Falcone & Enrica Imbert & Piergiuseppe Morone, 2022. "Exploring regional transitions to the bioeconomy using a socio-economic indicator: the case of Italy," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 39(3), pages 989-1021, October.
    15. 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.
    16. Liobikiene, Genovaite & Chen, Xueli & Streimikiene, Dalia & Balezentis, Tomas, 2020. "The trends in bioeconomy development in the European Union: Exploiting capacity and productivity measures based on the land footprint approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    17. Ishtiyak Ahmad Peerzada & James Chamberlain & Mohan Reddy & Shalini Dhyani & Somidh Saha, 2021. "Policy and Governance Implications for Transition to NTFP-Based Bioeconomy in Kashmir Himalayas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-23, October.
    18. 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.
    19. Eirini Kaminioti & Constantina Kottaridi & Claire Economidou, 2022. "Bioeconomy and Corporate GRI Reporting: a Case Study Analysis," Circular Economy and Sustainability,, Springer.
    20. 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.

    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:12:y:2020:i:9:p:3557-:d:351048. 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.