IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ijofsd/345306.html

Societal Perspectives on a Bio‐economy in Germany: An Explorative Study Using Q Methodology

Author

Listed:
  • Hempel, Corinna
  • Will, Sabine
  • Zander, Katrin

Abstract

Bio‐economy describes an economy based on renewable instead of fossil resources. To ensure the success of this transformation it is necessary to involve society into the process. Q methodology was used to empirically assess people’s perspectives on bio‐economy in Germany. Using a Q‐type factor analysis three perspectives were identified. “Sufficiency and close affinity to nature” focuses on natural/ecological relations, while “Technological Progress” favours technologies to become less dependent on fossil resources. The third perspective “Not at any price” is rather concerned about economic trade‐offs. People’s viewpoints could be useful for politicians and stakeholders to improve communication and knowledge building on bio‐economy in Germany.

Suggested Citation

  • Hempel, Corinna & Will, Sabine & Zander, Katrin, 2019. "Societal Perspectives on a Bio‐economy in Germany: An Explorative Study Using Q Methodology," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 10(01), January.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ijofsd:345306
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.345306
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/345306/files/SOCIETAL%20PERSPECTIVES%20ON%20A.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.345306?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carmen Priefer & Juliane Jörissen & Oliver Frör, 2017. "Pathways to Shape the Bioeconomy," Resources, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-23, February.
    2. Baker, Rachel Mairi, 2006. "Economic rationality and health and lifestyle choices for people with diabetes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(9), pages 2341-2353, November.
    3. Schmid, Otto & Padel, Susanne & Levidow, Les, . "The Bio-Economy Concept and Knowledge Base in a Public Goods and Farmer Perspective," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 1(01), pages 1-18.
    4. Barry, John & Proops, John, 1999. "Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 337-345, March.
    5. Assefa, G. & Frostell, B., 2007. "Social sustainability and social acceptance in technology assessment: A case study of energy technologies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 63-78.
    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. 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).
    2. Hempel, Corinna & Will, Sabine & Zander, Katrin, 2019. "Bioökonomie aus Sicht der Bevölkerung," Thünen Working Papers 115, Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute, Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.
    3. 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.
    4. Schulz, Tobias & Ohmura, Tamaki & Troxler, David & Lieberherr, Eva, 2024. "Forest clearances, compensatory afforestation and biodiversity offsetting in forests: Balancing flexibility and equivalency in Switzerland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    5. Christian Morland & Franziska Schier, 2020. "Modelling Bioeconomy Scenario Pathways for the Forest Products Markets with Emerging Lignocellulosic Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-15, December.

    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. Hempel, Corinna & Will, Sabine & Zander, Katrin, "undated". "Societal Perspectives on a Bio-Economy in Germany: An Explorative Study Using Q Methodology," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276871, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    2. Joshua Henkel, 2022. "Economics & Biology: The whole is something besides the parts – a complementary approach to a bioeconomy," Bremen Papers on Economics & Innovation 2210, University of Bremen, Faculty of Business Studies and Economics.
    3. Katrin Zander & Sabine Will & Jan Göpel & Christopher Jung & Rüdiger Schaldach, 2022. "Societal Evaluation of Bioeconomy Scenarios for Germany," Resources, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-19, 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. Biancolillo Ilaria & Paletto Alessandro & Bersier Jacques & Keller Michael & Romagnoli Manuela, 2020. "A literature review on forest bioeconomy with a bibliometric network analysis," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 66(7), pages 265-279.
    6. 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.
    7. Jiayuan Li, 2018. "Translating Idea into Reality? A Q-Methodological Investigation of Chinese Local Officials’ Response to the Initiative of a Happiness Index," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 139(2), pages 433-452, September.
    8. Tatiana Danescu & Sorinel Capusneanu & Dan Ioan Topor & Andreea Marin-Pantelescu & Loredana Ciurlau, 2019. "Comparative Analysis of Master Programs in Bioeconomy and Their Development Perspectives in the Universities of Romania," Academic Journal of Economic Studies, Faculty of Finance, Banking and Accountancy Bucharest,"Dimitrie Cantemir" Christian University Bucharest, vol. 5(1), pages 106-113, March.
    9. Zoltán Szakály & Péter Balogh & Enikő Kontor & Zoltán Gabnai & Attila Bai, 2020. "Attitude toward and Awareness of Renewable Energy Sources: Hungarian Experience and Special Features," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-25, December.
    10. Buckwell, Andrew & Fleming, Christopher & Muurmans, Maggie & Smart, James & Mackey, Brendan, "undated". "Revealing the dominant discourses of stakeholders towards natural resource management in Port Resolution, Vanuatu, using Q-method," 2020 Conference (64th), February 12-14, 2020, Perth, Western Australia 305231, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    11. James Sumberg & Thomas Yeboah & Justin Flynn & Nana Akua Anyidoho, 2017. "Young people’s perspectives on farming in Ghana: a Q study," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 9(1), pages 151-161, February.
    12. Christine Byrch & Kate Kearins & Markus Milne & Richard Morgan, 2007. "Sustainable “what”? A cognitive approach to understanding sustainable development," Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 4(1), pages 26-52, March.
    13. Di Letizia, Gerardo & De Lucia, Caterina & Pazienza, Pasquale & Cappelletti, Giulio Mario, 2023. "Forest bioeconomy at regional scale: A systematic literature review and future policy perspectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    14. Sofia Maniatakou & Håkan Berg & Giorgos Maneas & Tim M. Daw, 2020. "Unravelling Diverse Values of Ecosystem Services: A Socio-Cultural Valuation Using Q Methodology in Messenia, Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-25, December.
    15. Wilson, Christopher & van der Velden, Maja, 2022. "Sustainable AI: An integrated model to guide public sector decision-making," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    16. Antoine Boche & Clément Foucher & Luiz Fernando Lavado Villa, 2022. "Understanding Microgrid Sustainability: A Systemic and Comprehensive Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-29, April.
    17. Ágnes Nemcsicsné Zsóka, 2007. "The role of organisational culture in the environmental awareness of companies," Journal of East European Management Studies, Rainer Hampp Verlag, vol. 12(2), pages 109-131.
    18. Zvirgzdiņš Jānis & Plotka Kaspars & Geipele Sanda, 2018. "Eco-Economics in Cities and Rural Areas," Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management, Sciendo, vol. 6(1), pages 88-99, July.
    19. Rajé, Fiona, 2007. "Using Q methodology to develop more perceptive insights on transport and social inclusion," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(6), pages 467-477, November.
    20. Wiśniewska, Agnieszka & Liczmańska-Kopcewicz, Katarzyna & Pypłacz, Paula, 2022. "Antecedents of young adults’ willingness to support brands investing in renewable energy sources," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 177-187.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:ags:ijofsd:345306. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/centmde.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.