Reviewing the interface of bioeconomy and ecosystem service research

Abstract

The bioeconomy is currently being globally promoted as a sustainability avenue involving several societal actors. While the bioeconomy is broadly about the substitution of fossil resources with bio-based ones, three main (competing or complementary) bioeconomy visions are emerging in scientific literature: resource, biotechnology, and agroecology. The implementation of one or more of these visions into strategies implies changes to land use and thus ecosystem services delivery, with notable trade-offs. This review aims to explore the interdisciplinary space at the interface of these two concepts. We reviewed scientific publications explicitly referring to bioeconomy and ecosystem services in their title, abstract, or keywords, with 45 documents identified as relevant. The literature appeared to be emerging and fragmented but eight themes were discernible (in order of decreasing occurrence frequency in the literature): a. technical and economic feasibility of biomass extraction and use; b. potential and challenges of the bioeconomy; c. frameworks and tools; d. sustainability of bio-based processes, products, and services; e. environmental sustainability of the bioeconomy; f. governance of the bioeconomy; g. biosecurity; h. bioremediation. Approximately half of the documents aligned to a resource vision of the bioeconomy, with emphasis on biomass production. Agroecology and biotechnology visions were less frequently found, but multiple visions generally tended to occur in each document. The discussion highlights gaps in the current research on the topic and argues for communication between the ecosystem services and bioeconomy communities to forward both research areas in the context of sustainability science.

The limitations of bioeconomy LCA studies for understanding the transition to sustainable bioeconomy

“…Conventional environmental LCA as applied to bioeconomy resources and technologies over the last 15 years will not provide sufficient information to allow an assessment of the sustainability of bioeconomy, since they have not addressed the system holistically and have not considered difficult questions such as fair share of resources (Wohlfahrt et al 2019 ), rates of exploitation that are renewable, environmental thresholds and buffering capacity (D’Amato et al 2020 ), balanced consumption (El-Chichakli, 2016 ) and circularity (European Commission 2014 ). The transition to bioeconomy requires more than simply replacing the fossil fuels; it is a complex and irreversible adaptation of the whole system, which involves innovation, new lifestyles and changes to governance (Pyka et al 2022 ).…”

Circular Bio-economy—Paradigm for the Future: Systematic Review of Scientific Journal Publications from 2015 to 2021

“…The term 'ecotechnology' fascinates Haddaway et al (2018) [309] who have traced the coinage back to the 1970s-technology for a circular bioeconomy when viewed from an ecological perspective. However, the agro-ecological and biotechnological perspectives have not attracted as much attention from researchers, as the resource-management perspective of a bioeconomy [386].…”

Exploring Environmental and Economic Costs and Benefits of a Forest-Based Circular Economy: A Literature Review

“…In the first position, the study of Hamelin et al [19] reveals, through their article, the importance of forestry residues as a key feedstock for the European bioeconomy. Then [20] analyzed the three concepts of circular, green, and bioeconomy and identify the linkage among BE, CE and forest sector companies. Husgafvel, Linkosalmi and Dahl were the most prolific authors, who contributed with the two most cited articles.…”