No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The bioeconomy provides new approaches to deal with environmental challenges by substituting fossil fuels for sustainable, renewable resources and fuels. In Europe, this process and discourse has mainly been driven from a strategic top-down level. This leads to a lack of inclusion of societal actors, which can consequently lead to reduced acceptance and engagement. Henceforth, in this study, we focus on exploring how the bioeconomy is perceived, understood and evaluated by a wider audience. Through convenience sampling, 456 interviews conducted with students, employees, farmers and pensioners living in Austria provide the database for the study. Due to the novelty of the study’s objective and the consequentially explorative research approach, qualitative and quantitative social science research methods are applied. The results indicate that the bioeconomy concept is associated with various themes and visions. These associated topics also have negative or positive implications. Furthermore, a division between two visions of the bioeconomy, a technology- and industry-driven vision and a vision defined by regional environmentalism, can be observed. The feasibility of a future bioeconomy identifies as the most critical aspect. Sustainable consumption was mentioned as an important topic of the bioeconomy by the participants, a result that could be of particular interest when creating an inclusive bioeconomy, since it calls for active involvement of consumers. The study also shows that responding farmers tend to believe that the bioeconomy will lead to more inequity.

The concept of bioeconomy supports the diversification strategies of forest-based industries to create new value chains and contribute to economic growth and sustainability. The use of side streams or by-products of the pulp and paper industry (PPI) is seen as a promising approach. In line with this, the idea of substituting fossil-based materials and products is frequently discussed. One such example is the use of lignin as a bio-based alternative for fossil-based phenols. Lignin-based products not only have to fulfil identical technical requirements as their fossil-based counterparts, they are also expected to be more sustainable. This study conducts an integrated hotspot analysis of two lignin valorisation pathways during R&D. The analysis considers the provision of technical kraft lignin as a by-product of a state-of-the-art kraft pulp mill, followed by valorisation, either via solvent fractionation or via base-catalysed depolymerisation (BCD), and the final application of the valorised lignins in phenol formaldehyde resins. As a two-step approach, first of all, the environmental hotspots (e.g., energy-intensive process steps) along the valorisation pathways are identified. Secondly, a variation analysis is carried out, which involves the identification of sustainability levers (e.g., selection of solvents). Identifying those levers at an early research stage helps to support the R&D process towards sustainable product development.

Purpose The choice of materials used for a vehicle can contribute to reduce negative environmental and social impacts. Bio-based materials are considered a promising solution; however, the sustainability effects still need to be assessed. Depending on the material assessed, it is questionable which environmental and social impact categories or subcategories should be included since recommendations in guidelines are vague and case studies in this regard are limited. Therefore, this study aims to shed light on the choice of impact categories, methods, and indicators for E-LCA and S-LCA when assessing wood as substitute for conventional materials in automotive applications. Method The research is based on a literature review covering 115 case studies of S-LCAs and E-LCAs focusing either on wood-based products or on components in automotive applications. The selected case studies were analyzed according to the following criteria: considered stakeholder groups and chosen subcategories (S-LCA sample), sector or product system (S-LCA sample), year of publication and geographical scope (S-LCA and E-LCA sample), chosen LCIA method(s) and impact categories, objective(s) of the studies, analyzed materials and used software support (E-LCA samples). Results and discussion For S-LCA some relevant social topics for bio-based product systems, like food security or land- and worker-related concerns, could be identified. The E-LCA literature suggests that the objective and material type determine calculation approaches and impact category choices. Some material-related environmental issues like biodiversity loss in the case of bio-based product systems or ecotoxicity for steel and toxicity in the case of aluminum could be identified. For S-LCA the geographical and sectorial context and the affected stakeholders are the determining factors for methodical choices, however, the results show almost no difference in subcategory choice and geographical context. Influencing factors for methodical choices in E-LCA might be the objective of the study, data availability, the up-to-dateness of the LCIA approach, the geographical scope of the study, the materials analyzed, and the availability of software support. Conclusion Some relevant environmental and social impact categories as well as influencing factors on methodical choices could be identified from existing literature. However, a clear picture on these issues could not be drawn. Further research is needed on the motivation of researches on certain methodical choices as well as on environmental issues connected with materials or geographical-related social topics.

The establishment of new value chains raises expectations in economic and social benefits. To determine whether these expectations can be fulfilled or whether there are also negative consequences, social aspects should be assessed as early as the R&D phase. Potential social impacts can be assessed with the help of a social life cycle assessment (SLCA). A common problem in SLCA studies is the large number of social aspects. Thus, it is important to prioritize the most relevant aspects. Scholars agree that socioeconomic indicators should not be selected on a purely intuitive and common sense basis and that a standardized approach is missing. A three-step process has been developed to identify the most vulnerable and relevant social aspects. These three steps were implemented into a case study to empirically test the method. Short-rotation-coppice as an alternative form of agricultural dendromass production is one possibility to obtain wood resources for the processing of bio-based products. The use of agricultural land for dendromass production promises additional income for the region’s farmers and job opportunities for the local population. The extant literature shows that the most frequently addressed impacts are related to workers’ health and safety aspects. The outcome of this study aims to support future research by identifying an appropriate approach for the selection of indicators in SLCA. For studies with a similar focus, the proposed set of indicators can be used as a framework in itself or serve as a basis for the choice of relevant social indicators.

Short rotation plantations (SRP), also called short rotation coppice, can contribute to bioeconomy by satisfying the rising demand for wood raw material while strengthening the rural economy. However, farmers all over Europe show limited adoption of SRP. Marginal lands are considered a promising option for producing SRP biomass and avoiding conflicts with food production. This study focuses on the Malacky region in Western Slovakia because of suitable land quality and a board production site close by providing a significant local market for the produced biomass. Qualitative interviews in 2018 explored personal and situational factors that influenced local farmers’ (N = 19) willingness to adopt SRP. Slovakia’s land fragmentation in combination with the required landowner’s consent, competition with food production, and lack of identification with SRP were identified as prominent barriers. The economic benefit from using low quality lands and environmental benefits from SRP were identified incentives. Moreover, the study found agricultural cooperatives more open to SRP than agricultural business companies, as they are more interested in the economic benefits and prefer agricultural activity over fallow land. Because the study identified conflicting views about the possible impacts of SRP on the environment and the rural community, it is considered crucial to provide farmers with science-based facts on these issues. This aspect should also be acknowledged to increase acceptance of stakeholders, such as land owners, governmental actors, and the general public, which is needed to develop measures to encourage SRP.