Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i20p5705-d276881.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bioeconomy Transitions through the Lens of Coupled Social-Ecological Systems: A Framework for Place-Based Responsibility in the Global Resource System

Author

Listed:
  • Liesbeth de Schutter

    (Institute for Ecological Economics, Vienna University of Economics and Business, 1020 Vienna, Austria)

  • Stefan Giljum

    (Institute for Ecological Economics, Vienna University of Economics and Business, 1020 Vienna, Austria)

  • Tiina Häyhä

    (Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden
    International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, 2361 Laxenburg, Austria)

  • Martin Bruckner

    (Institute for Ecological Economics, Vienna University of Economics and Business, 1020 Vienna, Austria)

  • Asjad Naqvi

    (Institute for Ecological Economics, Vienna University of Economics and Business, 1020 Vienna, Austria
    International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, 2361 Laxenburg, Austria)

  • Ines Omann

    (Institute for Ecological Economics, Vienna University of Economics and Business, 1020 Vienna, Austria)

  • Sigrid Stagl

    (Institute for Ecological Economics, Vienna University of Economics and Business, 1020 Vienna, Austria)

Abstract
Bioeconomy strategies in high income societies focus at replacing finite, fossil resources by renewable, biological resources to reconcile macro-economic concerns with climate constraints. However, the current bioeconomy is associated with critical levels of environmental degradation. As a potential increase in biological resource use may further threaten the capacity of ecosystems to fulfil human needs, it remains unclear whether bioeconomy transitions in high income countries are sustainable. In order to fill a gap in bioeconomy sustainability assessments, we apply an ontological lens of coupled social-ecological systems to explore critical mechanisms in relation to bioeconomy activities in the global resource system. This contributes to a social-ecological systems (SES)-based understanding of sustainability from a high income country perspective: the capacity of humans to satisfy their needs with strategies that reduce current levels of pressures and impacts on ecosystems. Building on this notion of agency, we develop a framework prototype that captures the systemic relation between individual human needs and collective social outcomes on the one hand (micro-level) and social-ecological impacts in the global resource system on the other hand (macro-level). The BIO-SES framework emphasizes the role of responsible consumption (for physical health), responsible production (to reduce stressors on the environment), and the role of autonomy and self-organisation (to protect the reproduction capacity of social-ecological systems). In particular, the BIO-SES framework can support (1) individual and collective agency in high income country contexts to reduce global resource use and related ecosystem impacts with a bioeconomy strategy, (2) aligning social outcomes, monitoring efforts and governance structures with place-based efforts to achieve the SDGs, as well as (3), advancing the evidence base and social-ecological theory on responsible bioeconomy transitions in the limited biosphere.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:20:p:5705-:d:276881
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/20/5705/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/20/5705/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cecilie Friis & Jonas Østergaard Nielsen, 2017. "On the System. Boundary Choices, Implications, and Solutions in Telecoupling Land Use Change Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-20, June.
    2. Reinhard Steurer, 2013. "Disentangling governance: a synoptic view of regulation by government, business and civil society," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 46(4), pages 387-410, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Gerber, Julien-François & Scheidel, Arnim, 2018. "In Search of Substantive Economics: Comparing Today's Two Major Socio-metabolic Approaches to the Economy – MEFA and MuSIASEM," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 186-194.
    5. Jean-Yves Courtonne & Julien Alapetite & Pierre-Yves Longaretti & Denis Dupré & Emmanuel Prados, 2015. "Downscaling material flow analysis: the case of the cereals supply chain in France," Working Papers hal-01142357, HAL.
    6. Steinberger, Julia K. & Roberts, J. Timmons, 2010. "From constraint to sufficiency: The decoupling of energy and carbon from human needs, 1975-2005," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 425-433, December.
    7. Faye Duchin, 2017. "Resources for Sustainable Economic Development: A Framework for Evaluating Infrastructure System Alternatives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-15, November.
    8. Lisa Scordato & Markus M. Bugge & Arne Martin Fevolden, 2017. "Directionality across Diversity: Governing Contending Policy Rationales in the Transition towards the Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-14, February.
    9. Costanza, Robert & Fisher, Brendan & Ali, Saleem & Beer, Caroline & Bond, Lynne & Boumans, Roelof & Danigelis, Nicholas L. & Dickinson, Jennifer & Elliott, Carolyn & Farley, Joshua & Gayer, Diane Elli, 2007. "Quality of life: An approach integrating opportunities, human needs, and subjective well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 267-276, March.
    10. Koch, Max & Buch-Hansen, Hubert & Fritz, Martin, 2017. "Shifting Priorities in Degrowth Research: An Argument for the Centrality of Human Needs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 74-81.
    11. Jean-Yves Courtonne & Julien Alapetite & Pierre-Yves Longaretti & Denis Dupre, 2015. "Downscaling material flow analysis: the case of the cereal supply chain in France," Post-Print halshs-01321742, HAL.
    12. Chater, Nick & Loewenstein, George, 2016. "The under-appreciated drive for sense-making," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 126(PB), pages 137-154.
    13. Vincent Egenolf & Stefan Bringezu, 2019. "Conceptualization of an Indicator System for Assessing the Sustainability of the Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-20, January.
    14. Louis Meuleman & Ingeborg Niestroy, 2015. "Common But Differentiated Governance: A Metagovernance Approach to Make the SDGs Work," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(9), pages 1-27, September.
    15. Thomas Dietz & Jan Börner & Jan Janosch Förster & Joachim Von Braun, 2018. "Governance of the Bioeconomy: A Global Comparative Study of National Bioeconomy Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, September.
    16. Heimann, Tobias, 2019. "Bioeconomy and SDGs: Does the Bioeconomy Support the Achievement of the SDGs?," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 225998, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    17. Brand-Correa, Lina I. & Steinberger, Julia K., 2017. "A Framework for Decoupling Human Need Satisfaction From Energy Use," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 43-52.
    18. Ramon Felipe Bicudo da Silva & Mateus Batistella & Yue Dou & Emilio Moran & Sara McMillan Torres & Jianguo Liu, 2017. "The Sino-Brazilian Telecoupled Soybean System and Cascading Effects for the Exporting Country," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-19, August.
    19. Courtonne, Jean-Yves & Alapetite, Julien & Longaretti, Pierre-Yves & Dupré, Denis & Prados, Emmanuel, 2015. "Downscaling material flow analysis: The case of the cereal supply chain in France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 67-80.
    20. 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.
    21. Gabriel, Cle-Anne & Bond, Carol, 2019. "Need, Entitlement and Desert: A Distributive Justice Framework for Consumption Degrowth," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 327-336.
    22. 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.
    23. 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.
    24. Parajuli, Ranjan & Dalgaard, Tommy & Jørgensen, Uffe & Adamsen, Anders Peter S. & Knudsen, Marie Trydeman & Birkved, Morten & Gylling, Morten & Schjørring, Jan Kofod, 2015. "Biorefining in the prevailing energy and materials crisis: a review of sustainable pathways for biorefinery value chains and sustainability assessment methodologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 244-263.
    25. Erling Holden & Kristin Linnerud & David Banister, 2017. "The Imperatives of Sustainable Development," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(3), pages 213-226, May.
    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. Simen Pedersen & Kristin E. Gangås & Madhu Chetri & Harry P. Andreassen, 2020. "Economic Gain vs. Ecological Pain—Environmental Sustainability in Economies Based on Renewable Biological Resources," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-16, April.
    2. 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.
    3. Franz Grossauer & Gernot Stoeglehner, 2023. "Bioeconomy—A Systematic Literature Review on Spatial Aspects and a Call for a New Research Agenda," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-22, January.
    4. 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.
    5. Davide Viaggi & Matteo Zavalloni, 2021. "Bioeconomy and Circular Economy: Implications for Economic Evaluation in the Post-COVID Era," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 1(4), pages 1257-1269, December.
    6. 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).

    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. 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.
    2. Idiano D’Adamo & Pasquale Marcello Falcone & Enrica Imbert & Piergiuseppe Morone, 2022. "Exploring regional transitions to the bioeconomy using a socio-economic indicator: the case of Italy," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 39(3), pages 989-1021, October.
    3. 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.
    4. P. J. Stephenson & Anca Damerell, 2022. "Bioeconomy and Circular Economy Approaches Need to Enhance the Focus on Biodiversity to Achieve Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-20, August.
    5. 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.
    6. Juha Peltomaa, 2018. "Drumming the Barrels of Hope? Bioeconomy Narratives in the Media," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-14, November.
    7. 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.
    8. Marco Capasso & Antje Klitkou, 2020. "Socioeconomic Indicators to Monitor Norway’s Bioeconomy in Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-28, April.
    9. Jochen Dürr & Marcelo Sili, 2022. "New or Traditional Approaches in Argentina’s Bioeconomy? Biomass and Biotechnology Use, Local Embeddedness, and Sustainability Outcomes of Bioeconomic Ventures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-28, November.
    10. Bogner, Kristina & Dahlke, Johannes, 2022. "Born to transform? German bioeconomy policy and research projects for transformations towards sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    11. Marco Bianchi & Carlos Tapia & Ikerne del Valle, 2020. "Monitoring domestic material consumption at lower territorial levels: A novel data downscaling method," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 24(5), pages 1074-1087, October.
    12. Wiebke Jander & Sven Wydra & Johann Wackerbauer & Philipp Grundmann & Stephan Piotrowski, 2020. "Monitoring Bioeconomy Transitions with Economic–Environmental and Innovation Indicators: Addressing Data Gaps in the Short Term," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-18, June.
    13. Ayrapetyan, David & Hermans, Frans, 2020. "Introducing a multiscalar framework for biocluster research: A meta-analysis," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 12(9).
    14. 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).
    15. Alejandro Padilla-Rivera & Sara Russo-Garrido & Nicolas Merveille, 2020. "Addressing the Social Aspects of a Circular Economy: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-17, September.
    16. Mechthild Donner & Hugo de Vries, 2023. "Innovative business models for a sustainable circular bioeconomy in the french agrifood domain," Post-Print hal-04047682, HAL.
    17. Sebastian Hinderer & Leif Brändle & Andreas Kuckertz, 2021. "Transition to a Sustainable Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-16, July.
    18. 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).
    19. Jiajia Huan & Ling Han, 2022. "Potential Contribution to Carbon Neutrality Strategy from Industrial Symbiosis: Evidence from a Local Coal-Aluminum-Electricity-Steel Industrial System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-14, February.
    20. Whiting, Kai & Carmona, Luis Gabriel & Brand-Correa, Lina & Simpson, Edward, 2020. "Illumination as a material service: A comparison between Ancient Rome and early 19th century London," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).

    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:11:y:2019:i:20:p:5705-:d:276881. 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.