Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T09:57:02.905Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Sustainability Transition and the Bioeconomy

from Part II

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2023

Piergiuseppe Morone ,
Dalia D'Amato ,
Nicolas Befort  and
Gülşah Yilan
Piergiuseppe Morone
Affiliation:
Unitelma Sapienza
Dalia D'Amato
Affiliation:
Finnish Environment Institute (Suomen Ympäristökeskus - SYKE)
Nicolas Befort
Affiliation:
NEOMA BS
Gülşah Yilan
Affiliation:
Unitelma Sapienza University of Rome
Get access

Summary

Our objective in this chapter is to elaborate on the concepts of transition and paradigm shift and further discuss the concept of sustainability transition. We applied the transition theory proposed by Geels (2010) to the case of bioeconomy. This theory proposes a multi-level perspective for framing socio-technical sustainability transitions. The chapter identifies dynamics and actors involved in the purposive sustainability transition at a micro (e.g., pilot projects, emerging technologies), meso (e.g., leading sectors and industries), and macro (global social, economic, and environmental drivers) levels.

Keywords

sustainability transitionmulti-level perspectivecircular bioeconomyjust transition
Type
Chapter
Information
The Circular Bioeconomy
Theories and Tools for Economists and Sustainability Scientists
 , pp. 86 - 106
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Antikainen, M., & Valkokari, K. (2016). A framework for sustainable circular business model innovation. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(7), 5–12.Google Scholar
Bosman, R., & Rotmans, J. (2016). Transition governance towards a bioeconomy: A comparison of Finland and the Netherlands. Sustainability, 8(10), 1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caniëls, M. C. J., & Romijn, H. A. (2008). Strategic niche management: Towards a policy tool for sustainable development. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(2), 245–266.Google Scholar
D’Amato, D., Veijonaho, S., & Toppinen, A. (2020). Towards sustainability? Forest-based circular bioeconomy business models in Finnish SMEs. Forest Policy and Economics, 110, 101848.Google Scholar
European Commission. (2018). A sustainable bioeconomy for Europe: Strengthening the connection between economy, society and the environment. European Commission.–2018.–URL: https://Ec.Europa.Eu/Research/Bioeconomy/Pdf/Ec_bioeconomy_Strategy_2018.Pdf (Дата Обращения 25.02. 2020).Google Scholar
Foxon, T. J., Hammond, G. P., & Pearson, P. J. G. (2010). Developing transition pathways for a low carbon electricity system in the UK. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(8), 1203–1213.Google Scholar
Fritsche, U., & Rösch, C. (2020). The Conditions of a Sustainable Bioeconomy. In Bioeconomy for Beginners, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 177–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8–9), 1257–1274.Google Scholar
Geels, F. W. (2010). Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Research Policy, 39(4), 495–510.Google Scholar
Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Fuchs, G., … Wassermann, S. (2016). The enactment of socio-technical transition pathways: A reformulated typology and a comparative multi-level analysis of the German and UK low-carbon electricity transitions (1990–2014). Research Policy, 45(4), 896–913.Google Scholar
Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), 399–417.Google Scholar
Geels, F. W., & Smit, W. A. (2000). Failed technology futures: Pitfalls and lessons from a historical survey. Futures, 32(9–10), 867–885.Google Scholar
Hekkert, M. P., Suurs, R. A. A., Negro, S. O., Kuhlmann, S., & Smits, R. E. H. M. (2007). Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(4), 413–432.Google Scholar
Hetemäki, L., Hanewinkel, M., Muys, B., … Potoćnik, J. (2017). Leading the Way to a European Circular Bioeconomy Strategy, Vol. 5, European Forest Institute Joensuu, Finland.Google Scholar
Kemp, R., Loorbach, D., & Rotmans, J. (2007). Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 14(1), 78–91.Google Scholar
Kemp, R., Schot, J., & Hoogma, R. (1998). Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 10(2), 175–198.Google Scholar
Kershaw, E. H., Hartley, S., McLeod, C., & Polson, P. (2021). The sustainable path to a circular bioeconomy. Trends in Biotechnology, 39(6), 542–545.Google Scholar
Kivimaa, P., & Kern, F. (2016). Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 45(1), 205–217.Google Scholar
Loorbach, D., & Rotmans, J. (2006). Managing Transitions for Sustainable Development. In Understanding Industrial Transformation, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 187–206.Google Scholar
Lopolito, A., Morone, P., & Sisto, R. (2011). Innovation niches and socio-technical transition: A case study of bio-refinery production. Futures, 43(1), 27–38.Google Scholar
Markard, J., & Truffer, B. (2008). Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: Towards an integrated framework. Research Policy, 37(4), 596–615.Google Scholar
Morone, P., Lopolito, A., Anguilano, D., Sica, E., & Tartiu, V. E. (2016). Unpacking landscape pressures on socio-technical regimes: Insights on the urban waste management system. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 20, 62–74.Google Scholar
Morone, P., Tartiu, V. E., & Falcone, P. (2015). Assessing the potential of biowaste for bioplastics production through social network analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 90, 43–54.Google Scholar
OECD. (2018). Meeting Policy Challenges for a Sustainable Bioeconomy, OECD. doi:10.1787/9789264292345-enGoogle Scholar
Owen, R., Brennan, G., & Lyon, F. (2018). Enabling investment for the transition to a low carbon economy: government policy to finance early stage green innovation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 31, 137–145.Google Scholar
Pagotto, M., & Halog, A. (2016). Towards a circular economy in Australian agri-food industry: An application of input-output oriented approaches for analyzing resource efficiency and competitiveness potential. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 20(5), 1176–1186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., & Asselt, M. (2001). Transition management: A promising policy perspective. In Interdisciplinarity in Technology Assessment, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 165–197.Google Scholar
Schot, J., & Geels, F. W. (2008). Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: Theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(5), 537–554.Google Scholar
Sillanpää, M., & Ncibi, C. (2017). A Sustainable Bioeconomy, Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-55637-6Google Scholar
Stegmann, P., Londo, M., & Junginger, M. (2020). The circular bioeconomy: Its elements and role in European bioeconomy clusters. Resources, Conservation & Recycling: X, 6, 100029.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, Penguin.Google Scholar
Turnheim, B., & Geels, F. W. (2012). Regime destabilisation as the flipside of energy transitions: Lessons from the history of the British coal industry (1913–1997). Energy Policy, 50, 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Y., & Zhi, Q. (2016). The role of green finance in environmental protection: Two aspects of market mechanism and policies. Energy Procedia, 104, 311–316.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×