IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Results from a stakeholder survey on bioeconomy monitoring and perceptions on bioeconomy in Germany


  • Zeug, Walther
  • Kluson, Forrest Rafael
  • Mittelstädt, Nora
  • Bezama, Alberto
  • Thrän, Daniela


Our current economic systems are transgressing planetary boundaries globally and yet societal needs are not sufficiently and equally fulfilled. Fostering the bioeconomy as an economy based on renewable resources can be a transformation towards a sustainable future, to fulfill societal needs within planetary boundaries. However, sustainability is not intrinsic to the bioeconomy and consequently advanced and comprehensive monitoring systems on a national scale are needed. In the systemic modeling and monitoring of the German bioeconomy (SYMOBIO) a comprehensive national monitoring framework in the context of global dynamics was developed, and a first pilot report of monitoring results was published and presented to the public in June 2020. Stakeholder participation plays a role in informing monitoring from the beginning. Consequently, in this study we aim at evaluating the pilot report and monitoring as well as the general perception of the bioeconomy by an open survey. We collected approximately 100 responses, mainly from the stakeholder group "science". Most stakeholders are moderately satisfied with the monitoring and reporting. However, social aspects of the bioeconomy like hunger, poverty and inequalities are considered to be underrepresented, and the socio-economic perspective is viewed as too narrow. Future monitoring efforts should be oriented more on international agreed frameworks like the SDGs and be comparable to other monitoring systems and levels. Regarding general perceptions of the bioeconomy, a majority of stakeholders have a vision of a socio-ecological transformation, in contrast to German and European strategies which are seen as business-as-usual capitalism using additional renewable resources. Even though most stakeholders see the current development of bioeconomy critically, they consider the future development as open and encourage a sustainable bioeconomy that creates sustainable consumption and production patterns, global responsibility and compliance with planetary boundaries, as well as economic and ecological justice and participation shaping the overall economy. Our analysis underpins previous perspectives from stakeholder workshops and is embedded in increasingly polarizing societal mentalities of transformations.

Suggested Citation

  • Zeug, Walther & Kluson, Forrest Rafael & Mittelstädt, Nora & Bezama, Alberto & Thrän, Daniela, 2021. "Results from a stakeholder survey on bioeconomy monitoring and perceptions on bioeconomy in Germany," UFZ Discussion Papers 8/2021, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ufzdps:82021

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. James D Ward & Paul C Sutton & Adrian D Werner & Robert Costanza & Steve H Mohr & Craig T Simmons, 2016. "Is Decoupling GDP Growth from Environmental Impact Possible?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-14, October.
    2. Daniel W. O’Neill & Andrew L. Fanning & William F. Lamb & Julia K. Steinberger, 2018. "A good life for all within planetary boundaries," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 1(2), pages 88-95, February.
    3. 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.
    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. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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).
    2. D. D’Amato, 2021. "Sustainability Narratives as Transformative Solution Pathways: Zooming in on the Circular Economy," Circular Economy and Sustainability,, Springer.
    3. 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.
    4. Manuel Hafner & Lukas Fehr & Jan Springorum & Artur Petkau & Reinhard Johler, 2020. "Perceptions of Bioeconomy and the Desire for Governmental Action: Regional Actors’ Connotations of Wood-Based Bioeconomy in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-13, November.
    5. Haberl, Helmut & Schmid, Martin & Haas, Willi & Wiedenhofer, Dominik & Rau, Henrike & Winiwarter, Verena, 2021. "Stocks, flows, services and practices: Nexus approaches to sustainable social metabolism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    6. Anna Katharina Keil, 2021. "Just Transition strategies for the Austrian and German automotive industry in the course of vehicle electrification," Working Paper Reihe der AK Wien - Materialien zu Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft 213, Kammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte für Wien, Abteilung Wirtschaftswissenschaft und Statistik.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Hertog, Iris Maria & Brogaard, Sara & Krause, Torsten, 2022. "Barriers to expanding continuous cover forestry in Sweden for delivering multiple ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    10. Parvathi Jayaprakash & R. Radhakrishna Pillai, 2022. "The Role of ICT for Sustainable Development: A Cross-Country Analysis," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 34(1), pages 225-247, February.
    11. Dirk Lauinger & Romain G. Billy & Felipe Vásquez & Daniel B. Müller, 2021. "A general framework for stock dynamics of populations and built and natural environments," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 25(5), pages 1136-1146, October.
    12. Sarah-Louise Ruder & Sophia Rose Sanniti, 2019. "Transcending the Learned Ignorance of Predatory Ontologies: A Research Agenda for an Ecofeminist-Informed Ecological Economics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-29, March.
    13. Yeray Hernandez & Gustavo Naumann & Serafin Corral & Paulo Barbosa, 2020. "Water Footprint Expands with Gross Domestic Product," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-6, October.
    14. Rostami-Tabar, Bahman & Ali, Mohammad M. & Hong, Tao & Hyndman, Rob J. & Porter, Michael D. & Syntetos, Aris, 2022. "Forecasting for social good," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 1245-1257.
    15. Assa, Jacob, 2021. "Less is more: The implicit sustainability content of the human development index," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    16. Katarzyna Cheba & Iwona Bąk, 2021. "Environmental Production Efficiency in the European Union Countries as a Tool for the Implementation of Goal 7 of the 2030 Agenda," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-19, July.
    17. Banos, Vincent & Deuffic, Philippe & Brahic, Elodie, 2022. "Engaging or resisting? How forest–based industry and private forest owners respond to bioenergy policies in Aquitaine (Southwestern France)," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    18. Olatz Azurza-Zubizarreta & Izaro Basurko-PerezdeArenaza & Eñaut Zelarain & Estitxu Villamor & Ortzi Akizu-Gardoki & Unai Villena-Camarero & Alvaro Campos-Celador & Iñaki Barcena-Hinojal, 2021. "Urban Energy Transitions in Europe, towards Low-Socio-Environmental Impact Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-29, October.
    19. Stephen Deets & Vikki Rodgers & Sinan Erzurumlu & David Nersessian, 2020. "Systems Thinking as a Tool for Teaching Undergraduate Business Students Humanistic Management," Humanistic Management Journal, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 177-197, December.
    20. zu Ermgassen, Sophus & Drewniok, Michal & Bull, Joseph & Walker, Christine Corlet & Mancini, Mattia & Ryan-Collins, Josh & Serrenho, André Cabrera, 2022. "A home for all within planetary boundaries: pathways for meeting England’s housing needs without transgressing national climate and biodiversity goals," OSF Preprints 5kxce, Center for Open Science.

    More about this item


    bioeconomy; sustainability; monitoring; stakeholder participation;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:zbw:ufzdps:82021. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: .

    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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.