Abstract:The transformation towards a knowledge-based bioeconomy has the potential to serve as a contribution to a more sustainable future. Yet, until now, bioeconomy policies have been only insufficiently linked to concepts of sustainability transformations. This article aims to create such link by combining insights from innovation systems (IS) research and transformative sustainability science. For a knowledge-based bioeconomy to successfully contribute to sustainability transformations, the IS' focus must be broadened beyond techno-economic knowledge. We propose to also include systems knowledge, normative knowledge, and transformative knowledge in research and policy frameworks for a sustainable knowledge-based bioeconomy (SKBBE). An exploration of the characteristics of this extended, "dedicated" knowledge will eventually aid policymakers in formulating more informed transformation strategies.
Western economies nowadays are confronted with a predicted productivity slowdown resulting in diminishing rates of economic growth. While some scholars see these developments as an indication of the approaching end of growth due to fully exploited technological opportunities, this article contends that the possibilities for radical, paradigm changing innovations are far from being exploited. Building on contributions from Schumpeter and Georgescu-Roegen, we argue that the human capacity to expand technological and intellectual frontiers must not be underestimated. In a selective retrospect, our narrative identifies and describes four historical incidents reflecting different perceptions of the power of the human mind. It synthesizes the mentioned economists’ viewpoints with the effects of these incidents to reproduce the intellectual roots of the recently developed concept of Dedicated Innovation Systems (DIS). We conclude that traditional macro-level indicators are not suitable to capture transformation processes, which is why we propose to interpret growth indicators and the alleged productivity slowdown quite differently. We argue that human ingenuity and transformation processes dedicated to sustainability will open up new opportunity spaces, thereby combining an increase in economic welfare and social justice with a reduction of negative environmental impact.
A probabilistic assessment of climate change and related impacts should consider a large range of potential future climate scenarios. State-ofthe-art climate models, especially coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation models and Regional Climate Models (RCMs) cannot, however, be used to simulate such a large number of scenarios. This paper presents a methodology for obtaining future climate scenarios through a simple scaling methodology. The projections of several key meteorological variables obtained from a few regional climate model runs are scaled, based on different global-mean warming projections drawn in a probability distribution of future global-mean warming. The resulting climate change scenarios are used to drive a hydrological and a water management model to analyse the potential climate change impacts on a water resources system. This methodology enables a joint quantification of the climate change impact uncertainty induced by the global-mean warming scenarios and the regional climate response. It is applied to a case study in Switzerland, a water resources system formed by three interconnected lakes located in the Jura Mountains. The system behaviour is simulated for a control period (19611990) and a future period (20702099). The potential climate change impacts are assessed through a set of impact indices related to different fields of interest (hydrology, agriculture and ecology). The results obtained show that future climate conditions will have a significant influence on the performance of the system and that the uncertainty induced by the inter-RCM variability will contribute to much of the uncertainty of the prediction of the total impact. This research has been conducted within the 20012004 EU funded project SWURVE.
Successful transitions to a sustainable bioeconomy require novel technologies, processes, and practices as well as a general agreement about the overarching normative direction of innovation. Both requirements necessarily involve collective action by those individuals who purchase, use, and co-produce novelties: the consumers. Based on theoretical considerations borrowed from evolutionary innovation economics and consumer social responsibility, we explore to what extent consumers’ scope of action is addressed in the scientific bioeconomy literature. We do so by systematically reviewing bioeconomy-related publications according to (i) the extent to which consumers are regarded as passive vs. active, and (ii) different domains of consumer responsibility (depending on their power to influence economic processes). We find all aspects of active consumption considered to varying degrees but observe little interconnection between domains. In sum, our paper contributes to the bioeconomy literature by developing a novel coding scheme that allows us to pinpoint different aspects of consumer activity, which have been considered in a rather isolated and undifferentiated manner. Combined with our theoretical considerations, the results of our review reveal a central research gap which should be taken up in future empirical and conceptual bioeconomy research. The system-spanning nature of a sustainable bioeconomy demands an equally holistic exploration of the consumers’ prospective and shared responsibility for contributing to its coming of age, ranging from the procurement of information on bio-based products and services to their disposal.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.