IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i6p887-d99466.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Route to Sustainability—Prospects and Challenges of the Bio-Based Economy

Author

Listed:
  • Therese Bennich

    (Department of Physical Geography, Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Salim Belyazid

    (Department of Physical Geography, Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden)

Abstract

The bio-based economy has been increasingly recognized in the sustainability debate over the last two decades, presented as a solution to a number of ecological and social challenges. Its premises include climate change mitigation, cleaner production processes, economic growth, and new employment opportunities. Yet, a transition to a bio-based economy is hampered by risk factors and uncertainties. In this paper, we explore the concept of a bio-based economy, focusing on opportunities of achieving sustainability, as well as challenges of a transition. Departing from an understanding of sustainability provided by the weak and strong sustainability paradigms, we first outline the definition and development of the bio-based economy from a theoretical perspective. Second, we use Sweden as an example of how a transition towards a bio-based economy has been evolving in practice. The review indicates that the proposed direction and strategies of the bio-based economy are promising, but sometimes contradictory, resulting in different views on the actions needed for its premises to be realized. Additionally, current developments adhere largely to the principles of the weak sustainability paradigm. In order for the bio-based economy to develop in accordance with the notion of strong sustainability, important steps to facilitate a transition would include acknowledging and addressing the trade-offs caused by biophysical and social limits to growth.

Suggested Citation

  • Therese Bennich & Salim Belyazid, 2017. "The Route to Sustainability—Prospects and Challenges of the Bio-Based Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-18, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:6:p:887-:d:99466
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/6/887/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/6/887/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Viaggi, Davide, 2018. "Towards an economics of the bioeconomy: four years later," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 5(2), September.
    2. Marian R. Chertow, 2000. "The IPAT Equation and Its Variants," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 4(4), pages 13-29, October.
    3. Grossman, G.M & Krueger, A.B., 1991. "Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement," Papers 158, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Public and International Affairs.
    4. Johan Sanders & Diederik Van der Hoeven, 2008. "Opportunities for a Bio-based Economy in the Netherlands," Energies, MDPI, vol. 1(3), pages 1-15, November.
    5. 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.
    6. Krausmann, Fridolin & Gingrich, Simone & Eisenmenger, Nina & Erb, Karl-Heinz & Haberl, Helmut & Fischer-Kowalski, Marina, 2009. "Growth in global materials use, GDP and population during the 20th century," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2696-2705, August.
    7. Eric Neumayer, 2013. "Weak versus Strong Sustainability," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14993.
    8. Arvesen, Anders & Bright, Ryan M. & Hertwich, Edgar G., 2011. "Considering only first-order effects? How simplifications lead to unrealistic technology optimism in climate change mitigation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(11), pages 7448-7454.
    9. World Commission on Environment and Development,, 1987. "Our Common Future," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780192820808.
    10. Kean Birch & Les Levidow & Theo Papaioannou, 2010. "Sustainable Capital ? The Neoliberalization of Nature and Knowledge in the European “Knowledge-based Bio-economy”," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(9), pages 1-21, September.
    11. George Philippidis & Robert M’barek & Emanuele Ferrari, 2016. "Drivers of the European Bioeconomy in Transition (BioEconomy2030): an exploratory, model-based assessment," JRC Research Reports JRC98160, Joint Research Centre.
    12. Tim Jackson, 2011. "Societal transformations for a sustainable economy," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 35(3), pages 155-164, August.
    13. Swinda F. Pfau & Janneke E. Hagens & Ben Dankbaar & Antoine J. M. Smits, 2014. "Visions of Sustainability in Bioeconomy Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-28, March.
    14. Mark R. Finlay, 2003. "Old Efforts at New Uses: A Brief History of Chemurgy and the American Search for Biobased Materials," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 7(3‐4), pages 33-46, 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. 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.
    2. Stefan Bößner & Francis X. Johnson & Zoha Shawoo, 2020. "Governing the Bioeconomy: What Role for International Institutions?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, December.
    3. Delia-Elena Diaconașu & Ionel Bostan & Cristina Căutișanu & Irina Chiriac, 2022. "Insights into the Sustainable Development of the Bioeconomy at the European Level, in the Context of the Desired Clean Environment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-14, September.
    4. 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.
    5. Constantine Iliopoulos & Vladislav Valentinov, 2018. "Member Heterogeneity in Agricultural Cooperatives: A Systems-Theoretic Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-22, April.
    6. Tévécia Ronzon & Susanne Iost & George Philippidis, 2022. "Has the European Union entered a bioeconomy transition? Combining an output-based approach with a shift-share analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 8195-8217, June.
    7. Magdalena Fallde & Johan Torén & Elisabeth Wetterlund, 2017. "Energy System Models as a Means of Visualising Barriers and Drivers of Forest-Based Biofuels: An Interview Study of Developers and Potential Users," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-19, October.
    8. D'Amato, D. & Korhonen, J., 2021. "Integrating the green economy, circular economy and bioeconomy in a strategic sustainability framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    9. Louw, Jeanne & Dogbe, Eunice S. & Yang, Bin & Görgens, Johann F., 2023. "Prioritisation of biomass-derived products for biorefineries based on economic feasibility: A review on the comparability of techno-economic assessment results," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    10. Iliopoulos, Constantine & Valentinov, Vladislav, 2018. "Member heterogeneity in agricultural cooperatives: A systems-theoretic perspective," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 10(4), pages 1-22.
    11. Ymène Fouli & Margot Hurlbert & Roland Kröbel, 2022. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Canadian Agriculture: Policies and Reduction Measures," SPP Briefing Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 15(13), 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. 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).
    2. 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.
    3. Rolf Meyer, 2017. "Bioeconomy Strategies: Contexts, Visions, Guiding Implementation Principles and Resulting Debates," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-32, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Kean Birch, 2016. "Emergent Imaginaries and Fragmented Policy Frameworks in the Canadian Bio-Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-16, October.
    6. Therese Bennich & Salim Belyazid & Birgit Kopainsky & Arnaud Diemer, 2018. "Understanding the Transition to a Bio-Based Economy: Exploring Dynamics Linked to the Agricultural Sector in Sweden," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-22, May.
    7. Lovrić, Nataša & Lovrić, Marko & Mavsar, Robert, 2020. "Factors behind development of innovations in European forest-based bioeconomy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    8. Gołębiewski, Jarosław, 2020. "Employment And Added Value In Europen Union Bioeconomy – A Sustainable Development Perspective," Roczniki (Annals), Polish Association of Agricultural Economists and Agribusiness - Stowarzyszenie Ekonomistow Rolnictwa e Agrobiznesu (SERiA), vol. 2020(4).
    9. Leire Barañano & Naroa Garbisu & Itziar Alkorta & Andrés Araujo & Carlos Garbisu, 2021. "Contextualization of the Bioeconomy Concept through Its Links with Related Concepts and the Challenges Facing Humanity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-18, July.
    10. Rick Bosman & Jan Rotmans, 2016. "Transition Governance towards a Bioeconomy: A Comparison of Finland and The Netherlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-20, October.
    11. Sotiropoulou, Irene & Deutz, Pauline, 2021. "Understanding the bioeconomy: a new sustainability economy in British and European public discourse," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 10(4), December.
    12. Juha Peltomaa, 2018. "Drumming the Barrels of Hope? Bioeconomy Narratives in the Media," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-14, November.
    13. 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.
    14. Louis Dupuy, 2012. "International Trade and Sustainability : A survey," Working Papers hal-00701426, HAL.
    15. Swinda F. Pfau & Janneke E. Hagens & Ben Dankbaar & Antoine J. M. Smits, 2014. "Visions of Sustainability in Bioeconomy Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-28, March.
    16. 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.
    17. Anjum, Zeba & Burke, Paul J. & Gerlagh, Reyer & Stern, David I., "undated". "Modeling the Emissions-Income Relationship Using Long-Run Growth Rates," Working Papers 249422, Australian National University, Centre for Climate Economics & Policy.
    18. C. Seri & A. de Juan Fernandez, 2021. "The relationship between economic growth and environment. Testing the EKC hypothesis for Latin American countries," Papers 2105.11405, arXiv.org.
    19. Yutong Zhang & Wei Zhou & Danxue Luo, 2023. "The Relationship Research between Biodiversity Conservation and Economic Growth: From Multi-Level Attempts to Key Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-19, February.
    20. Weidner, Helmut, 2005. "Global equity versus public interest? The case of climate change policy in Germany," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Civil Society and Transnational Networks SP IV 2005-102, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.

    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:9:y:2017:i:6:p:887-:d:99466. 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.