Recent reviews stated that the complex and context-dependent nature of human decisionmaking resulted in ad-hoc representations of human decision in agent-based land use change models (LUCC ABMs) and that these representations are often not explicitly grounded in theory. However, a systematic survey on the characteristics (e.g. uncertainty, adaptation, learning, interactions and heterogeneities of agents) of the representation of human decision in LUCC ABMs is missing. To inform this debate we performed a quantitative review of 134 LUCC ABM papers using a standardised questionnaire with a particular focus on the characteristics and the theoretical foundation of human decision-making. Thereby, we investigated whether implementations of human decision-making in current LUCC ABMs are theory based. Additionally, we assessed to which degree key factors such as learning, interaction or economic, environmental or social influence factors are considered in human decision making sub-models. We show that most human decision sub-models are not explicitly based on a specific theory and if so they are mostly based on economic theories. In contrast, promising psychological theories such as the theory of planned behaviour are the exception. The key factors of human decision sub-models showed a huge diversity and are not strongly related to neither the characteristics of the specific studied systems (e.g. rural vs. urban or its geographic location) nor the applied theoretical paradigm. We finish by presenting approaches for consolidating and enlarging the theoretical basis for modelling human decision-making.

The bioeconomy is a worldwide used strategy to cope with ecological, social, and economic sustainability challenges. However, we analyze current bioeconomy strategies and trends to point out potential sustainability conflicts and transition challenges. Our analysis shows that the bioeconomy is not sustainable per se, as mere input substitution may entail welfare losses. Instead, it requires further debates and actions to avoid exacerbation of ecological and social strains. Sustainability has to be the key concept behind the bioeconomy and predominantly requires (1) sustainability of the resource base and (2) sustainability of processes and products, especially by (3) circular processes of material fluxes, not least to gain consumer acceptance for bio-based products. Otherwise, the bioeconomy would only entail the substitution of fossil resources for bio-based resources potentially lacking the generation of additional societal and ecological benefits and contribution to climate mitigation. As markets alone will not suffice to fulfil this path transition towards a sustainable bioeconomy, we argue that innovative governance is necessary to reduce competitive drawbacks compared to fossil resources (enabling function) and to secure ecological, social, and economic sustainability requirements (limiting function).

Driven by the growing awareness of the finite nature of fossil raw materials and the need for sustainable pathways of industrial production, the bio-based economy is expected to expand worldwide. Policy strategies such as the European Union Bioeconomy Strategy and national bioeconomy strategies foster this process. Besides the advantages promised by a transition towards a sustainable bioeconomy, these processes have to cope with significant uncertainties as many influencing factors play a role, such as climate change, technological and economic development, sustainability risks, dynamic consumption patterns and policy and governance issues. Based on a literature review and an expert survey, we identify influence factors for the future development of a wood-based bioeconomy in Germany. Four scenarios are generated based on different assumptions about the development of relevant influence factors. We discuss what developments in politics, industry and society have a central impact on shaping alternative futures. As such, the paper provides a knowledge base and orientation for decision makers and practitioners, and contributes to the scientific discussion on how the bioeconomy could develop. We conclude that the wood-based bioeconomy has a certain potential to develop further, if adequate political framework conditions are implemented and meet voter support, if consumers exhibit an enhanced willingness to pay for bio-based products, and if among companies, a chance-oriented advocacy coalition of bioeconomy supporters dominates over proponents of fossil pathways.

No abstract

No abstract