1. bookVolume 23 (2019): Issue 3 (December 2019)
    “Special Issue of Environmental and Climate Technologies Part II: Energy, bioeconomy, climate changes and environment nexus”
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2255-8837
First Published
26 Mar 2010
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

The Evaluation of Factors Affecting Bioeconomy Development Using Transdisciplinary Approach

Published Online: 13 Dec 2019
Volume & Issue: Volume 23 (2019) - Issue 3 (December 2019) - “Special Issue of Environmental and Climate Technologies Part II: Energy, bioeconomy, climate changes and environment nexus”
Page range: 360 - 369
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2255-8837
First Published
26 Mar 2010
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

Bioeconomy is a target that European Union has set to be achieved; however, despite the planning documents, strategies and the financial support already given to promote it, the development of bioeconomy is slow and has not shown any significant development in the recent years. In this research bioeconomy system that consists of seven factors: production, technology, climate change, infrastructure, bioresources, and pollution, is being evaluated. The selection of factors is based on literature review and opinions of the expert group. The main aim of the research is to understand which are the most influential factors within the bioeconomy system, particularly, which factors the highest attention should be paid to in the policy and strategy documents implementation on a national level. To evaluate the chosen bioeconomy system, a multi-criteria decision-making method TOPSIS was used. The TOPSIS method was performed by using transdisciplinary approach components, which emphasise the complexity of bioeconomy. The results have shown that the main three factors within bioeconomy system are bioresources, climate change and production. The least important factors are technologies and infrastructure.

Keywords

[1] Economic Forum. Insight Report. The Global Risks Report 2019. 14th Edition. Economic Forum, 2019.Search in Google Scholar

[2] Pérez-Suárez R., López-Menéndez A. J. Growing green? Forecasting CO2 emissions with environmental Kuznets curves and logistic growth models. Environmental Science & Policy 2015:54:428–437. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.07.01510.1016/j.envsci.2015.07.015Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[3] Wu L., Liu S., Liu D., Fang Z., Xu H. Modelling and forecasting CO2 emissions in the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) countries using a novel multi-variable grey model. Energy 2015:79:489–495. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2014.11.05210.1016/j.energy.2014.11.052Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[4] United Nations. World Population Prospects 2019. Highlights. New York, 2019.Search in Google Scholar

[5] European Technology Platform. The European Bioeconomy in 2030. Delivering Sustainable Growth by addressing the Grand Societal Challenges, 2017.Search in Google Scholar

[6] European Commission. A sustainable Bioeconomy for Europe: strengthening the connection between economy, society and the environment. Updated Bioeconomy Strategy. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018.Search in Google Scholar

[7] Latosov E., Volkova A., Siirde A., Thalfeldt M., Kurnitski J. The Impact of Parallel Energy Consumption on the District Heating Networks. Environmental and Climate Technologies 2019:23(1):1–13. doi:10.2478/rtuect-2019-000110.2478/rtuect-2019-0001Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[8] Ayeronfe F., Kassim A., Hung P., Ishak N., Syarifah S., Aripin A. Production of Ligninolytic Enzymes by Coptotermes curvignathus Gut Bacteria. Environmental and Climate Technologies 2019:23(1):111–121. doi:10.2478/rtuect-2019-000810.2478/rtuect-2019-0008Search in Google Scholar

[9] Bisikirske D., Blumberga D., Vasarevicius S., Skripkiunas G. Multicriteria Analysis of Glass Waste Application. Environmental and Climate Technologies 2019:23(1):152–167. doi:10.2478/rtuect-2019-001110.2478/rtuect-2019-0011Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[10] Gulum M., Bilgin A. Measurement and Prediction of Density and Viscosity of Different Diesel-Vegetable Oil Binary Blends. Environmental and Climate Technologies 2019:23(1):214–228.10.2478/rtuect-2019-0014Search in Google Scholar

[11] European Commission. Innovating for Sustainable Growth. A bioeconomy for Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2012.Search in Google Scholar

[12] McCormic K., Kautto N. The Bioeconomy in Europe: An Overview. Sustainability 2013:5(6):2589–2608. doi:10.3390/su506258910.3390/su5062589Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[13] Griestop L., Colthorpe J., et al. Bioeconomy in everyday life. Berlin: Biocom AG, 2016.Search in Google Scholar

[14] Lamers P., Searcy E., et al. Developing the global bioeconomy: technical, market, and environmental lessons from bioenergy. Academic Press, 2016.Search in Google Scholar

[15] Bioeconomy in Flanders. The vision and strategy of the Government of Flanders for a sustainable and competitive bioeconomy in 2030. Departement Omgeving, 2014.Search in Google Scholar

[16] Boger J., et al. Principles for Fostering the Transdisciplinary Development of Assistive Technologies. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 2017:12(5):480–490. doi:10.3109/17483107.2016.115195310.3109/17483107.2016.115195327052793Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[17] Carus M., et al. How to shape the next level of the European bio-based economy. The reasons for the delay and the prospects of recovery in Europe. Huerth: Nova-Institut, 2016.Search in Google Scholar

[18] Muizniece I., Kubule A., Blumberga D. Towards understanding the transdisciplinary approach of the bioeconomy nexus. Energy Procedia 2018:147:175–180. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2018.07.05210.1016/j.egypro.2018.07.052Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[19] Petrenko C., Searle S. Assessing the profitability of growing dedicated energy versus food crops in four European countries. The International Council on Clean Transportation. Working paper 2016.Search in Google Scholar

[20] Klein J. T., Habeli R., et al. Transdisciplinarity: Joint Problem Solving among Science, Technology, and Society. An Effective Way for Managing Complexity. Switzerland: Birkhauser Basel, 2001.Search in Google Scholar

[21] Mobjork M. Consulting versus participatory transdisciplinarity: A refined classification of transdisciplinary research. Futures 2010:42(8):866–873.10.1016/j.futures.2010.03.003Search in Google Scholar

[22] Klein J. T. Prospects for transdisciplinarity. Futures 2004:36(4):515–526. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.00710.1016/j.futures.2003.10.007Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[23] Klein J. T., et al. Transdisciplinarity: joint problem solving among science, technology, and society: an effective way for managing complexity. Springer Science & Business Media, 2001.Search in Google Scholar

[24] Popa F., Guillermin M., Dedeurwaerdere T. A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: From complex systems theory to reflexive science. Futures 2015:65:45–56. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2014.02.00210.1016/j.futures.2014.02.002Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[25] Stirling A. Discussion paper on “Transdisciplinary nexus methods”. The Nexus Network. Social, Technological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability. Sussex: University of Sussex, 2015.Search in Google Scholar

[26] Duckett D., Feliciano D., Martin-Ortega J., Munoz-Rojas J. Tackling wicked environmental problems: The discourse and its influence on praxis in Scotland. Landscape and Urban Planning 2016:154:44–56. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.03.01510.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.03.015Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[27] Bergendahl J. A., Sarkis J., Timko M. T. Transdisciplinarity and the food energy and water nexus: Ecological modernization and supply chain sustainability perspectives. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2018:133:309–319. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.00110.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.001Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[28] Zierhofer W., Burger, P. Disentangling transdisciplinarity: an analysis of knowledge integration in problem-oriented research. Science & Technology Studies 2007:20(1):51–74.10.23987/sts.55219Search in Google Scholar

[29] Mobjork M. Consulting versus participatory transdisciplinarity: A refined classification of transdisciplinary research. Futures 2010:42(8):866–873. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2010.03.00310.1016/j.futures.2010.03.003Search in Google Scholar

[30] Hester P. T. An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods. International Journal of Operations research 2013:10(2):56–66.Search in Google Scholar

[31] Jansone Z., Muizniece I., Blumberga D. Analysis of wood bark use opportunities. Energy Procedia 2017:128:268–274. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.09.07010.1016/j.egypro.2017.09.070Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[32] Kubule A., Indzere Z., Muizniece I. Modelling of the Bioeconomy system using Interpretive structural modelling. Agronomy Research 2019:17(4):1665–1678. doi:10.15159/ar.19.170Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo