IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i4p976-d138218.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Bio-Based Economy: Dynamics Governing Transition Pathways in the Swedish Forestry Sector

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)

  • Birgit Kopainsky

    (System Dynamics Group, Department of Geography, University of Bergen, Postboks 7802, NO-5020 Bergen, Norway)

  • Arnaud Diemer

    (Center for Studies and Research on Internal Development (CERDI), University of Clermont-Auvergne, FR-320, 63009 Clermont-Ferrand, France)

Abstract

A transition to a bio-based economy would entail change in coupled social–ecological systems. These systems are characterised by complexity, giving rise to potential unintended consequences and trade-offs caused by actions aiming to facilitate a transition process. Yet, many of the analyses to date have been focusing on single and predominantly technological aspects of the bio-based economy. The main contribution of our work is to the development of an integrated understanding of potential future transition pathways, with the present paper focusing specifically on terrestrial biological resources derived from the forestry sector in Sweden. Desired change processes identified include a transition to diversified forest management, a structural change in the forestry industry to enable high-value added production, and increased political support for the bio-based economy concept. Hindrances identified include the ability to demonstrate added values for end consumers of novel biomass applications, and uncertainty linked to a perceived high level of polarisation in the forestry debate. The results outline how these different processes are interrelated, allowing for the identification of high order leverage points and interventions to facilitate a transition to a bio-based economy.

Suggested Citation

  • Therese Bennich & Salim Belyazid & Birgit Kopainsky & Arnaud Diemer, 2018. "The Bio-Based Economy: Dynamics Governing Transition Pathways in the Swedish Forestry Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-18, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:4:p:976-:d:138218
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/4/976/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/4/976/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Krystyna Stave, 2010. "Participatory System Dynamics Modeling for Sustainable Environmental Management: Observations from Four Cases," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(9), pages 1-23, September.
    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. Ford, David N. & Sterman, John., 1997. "Expert knowledge elicitation to improve mental and formal models," Working papers WP 3953-97., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    4. Krystyna Stave & Birgit Kopainsky, 2015. "A system dynamics approach for examining mechanisms and pathways of food supply vulnerability," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 5(3), pages 321-336, September.
    5. 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. Manuel E. Morales & Arnaud Diemer, 2019. "Industrial Symbiosis Dynamics, a Strategy to Accomplish Complex Analysis: The Dunkirk Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, April.
    2. Manuel Morales & Arnaud Diemer, 2019. "Industrial Symbiosis Dynamics, a Strategy to Accomplish Complex Analysis: The Dunkirk Case Study," Post-Print hal-02127581, HAL.
    3. Piergiuseppe Morone, 2018. "Sustainability Transition towards a Biobased Economy: Defining, Measuring and Assessing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-6, July.
    4. 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.
    5. Mansoor Maitah & Daniel Toth & Luboš Smutka & Kamil Maitah & Veronika Jarolínová, 2020. "Income Differentiation as a Factor of Unsustainability in Forestry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-14, June.
    6. Manuel Morales & Arnaud Diemer, 2019. "Industrial Symbiosis Dynamics, a Strategy to Accomplish Complex Analysis: The Dunkirk Case Study [Dynamique de la symbiose industrielle, une stratégie pour réaliser une analyse complexe: l'étude de," Post-Print hal-02539477, HAL.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    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. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Kean Birch, 2016. "Emergent Imaginaries and Fragmented Policy Frameworks in the Canadian Bio-Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-16, October.
    11. Filippo Caporale & Jimena Mateo-Martín & Muhammad Faizan Usman & Carsten Smith-Hall, 2020. "Plant-Based Sustainable Development—The Expansion and Anatomy of the Medicinal Plant Secondary Processing Sector in Nepal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-20, July.
    12. 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.
    13. Sebastian Hinderer & Leif Brändle & Andreas Kuckertz, 2021. "Transition to a Sustainable Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-16, July.
    14. 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).
    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. Yuliia Maksymiv & Valentyna Yakubiv & Nadia Pylypiv & Iryna Hryhoruk & Iryna Piatnychuk & Nazariy Popadynets, 2021. "Strategic Challenges for Sustainable Governance of the Bioeconomy: Preventing Conflict between SDGs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-12, July.
    17. Giampietro, Mario, 2019. "On the Circular Bioeconomy and Decoupling: Implications for Sustainable Growth," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 143-156.
    18. 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.
    19. 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).
    20. 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.

    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:4:p:976-:d:138218. 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.