IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i19p7987-d420275.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Potential Pathways to the German Bioeconomy: A Media Discourse Analysis of Public Perceptions

Author

Listed:
  • Sophia Dieken

    (Institute of Energy and Climate Research: Systems Analysis and Technology Evaluation (IEK-STE), Forschungszentrum Jülich, Wilhelm-Johnen-Straße, 52428 Jülich, Germany)

  • Sandra Venghaus

    (Institute of Energy and Climate Research: Systems Analysis and Technology Evaluation (IEK-STE), Forschungszentrum Jülich, Wilhelm-Johnen-Straße, 52428 Jülich, Germany)

Abstract

The bioeconomy has emerged as a popular, but ambiguous vision for a sustainable future. Its implementation depends not only on novel products and production processes, but also on balancing diverse interests, values, and interpretations of the concept. The German government’s plan to develop a sustainable bioeconomy in response to structural change in the lignite mining regions provides a unique opportunity to investigate what pathways towards the bioeconomy are supported by society. In order to characterize bioeconomy visions prevalent in public perception, we conducted a computer-assisted, mixed-methods discourse analysis of German-language newspaper articles published between 2010 and 2019. Results show that a techno-economic vision is dominant over ecological and social aspects, suggesting only one clear pathway to the German bioeconomy, which is increasingly criticized in the public debate.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:19:p:7987-:d:420275
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/19/7987/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/19/7987/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giurca, Alexandru, 2020. "Unpacking the network discourse: Actors and storylines in Germany's wood-based bioeconomy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    2. Ranacher, Lea & Ludvig, Alice & Schwarzbauer, Peter, 2019. "Depicting the peril and not the potential of forests for a biobased economy? A qualitative content analysis on online news media coverage in German language articles," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Kes McCormick & Niina Kautto, 2013. "The Bioeconomy in Europe: An Overview," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(6), pages 1-20, June.
    7. Kean Birch, 2016. "Emergent Imaginaries and Fragmented Policy Frameworks in the Canadian Bio-Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-16, October.
    8. Tobias Stern & Ursula Ploll & Raphael Spies & Peter Schwarzbauer & Franziska Hesser & Lea Ranacher, 2018. "Understanding Perceptions of the Bioeconomy in Austria—An Explorative Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-17, November.
    9. Juha Peltomaa, 2018. "Drumming the Barrels of Hope? Bioeconomy Narratives in the Media," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-14, November.
    10. Reusswig, Fritz & Braun, Florian & Heger, Ines & Ludewig, Thomas & Eichenauer, Eva & Lass, Wiebke, 2016. "Against the wind: Local opposition to the German Energiewende," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 214-227.
    11. 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.
    12. Puttkammer, Judith & Grethe, Harald, 2015. "The Public Debate on Biofuels in Germany: Who Drives the Discourse?," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 64(04), December.
    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. Charisios Achillas & Dionysis Bochtis, 2020. "Toward a Green, Closed-Loop, Circular Bioeconomy: Boosting the Performance Efficiency of Circular Business Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-6, December.
    2. Emilia Mary Balan & Cristina Georgiana Zeldea, 2023. "Bioeconomy in Romania: Investigating Farmers’ Knowledge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-29, May.
    3. Sören Richter & Nora Szarka & Alberto Bezama & Daniela Thrän, 2022. "What Drives a Future German Bioeconomy? A Narrative and STEEPLE Analysis for Explorative Characterisation of Scenario Drivers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-32, March.
    4. 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.
    5. Mijailoff, Julián Daniel & Burns, Sarah Lilian, 2023. "Fixing the meaning of floating signifier: Discourses and network analysis in the bioeconomy policy processes in Argentina and Uruguay," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).

    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. Sebastian Hinderer & Leif Brändle & Andreas Kuckertz, 2021. "Transition to a Sustainable Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-16, July.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Valeria Ferreira Gregorio & Laia Pié & Antonio Terceño, 2018. "A Systematic Literature Review of Bio, Green and Circular Economy Trends in Publications in the Field of Economics and Business Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-39, November.
    5. 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.
    6. 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).
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. 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.
    10. Mijailoff, Julián Daniel & Burns, Sarah Lilian, 2023. "Fixing the meaning of floating signifier: Discourses and network analysis in the bioeconomy policy processes in Argentina and Uruguay," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    11. Juha Peltomaa, 2018. "Drumming the Barrels of Hope? Bioeconomy Narratives in the Media," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-14, November.
    12. Durwin H.J. Lynch & Pim Klaassen & Lan van Wassenaer & Jacqueline E.W. Broerse, 2020. "Constructing the Public in Roadmapping the Transition to a Bioeconomy: A Case Study from the Netherlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, April.
    13. Luke Kelleher & Maeve Henchion & Eoin O’Neill, 2019. "Policy Coherence and the Transition to a Bioeconomy: The Case of Ireland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-25, December.
    14. repec:aud:audfin:v:21:y:2019:i:50:p:9 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Lillian Hansen & Hilde Bjørkhaug, 2017. "Visions and Expectations for the Norwegian Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-17, February.
    16. Tobias Stern & Ursula Ploll & Raphael Spies & Peter Schwarzbauer & Franziska Hesser & Lea Ranacher, 2018. "Understanding Perceptions of the Bioeconomy in Austria—An Explorative Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-17, November.
    17. 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.
    18. Franz Grossauer & Gernot Stoeglehner, 2020. "Bioeconomy—Spatial Requirements for Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-28, March.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.

    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:19:p:7987-:d:420275. 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.