250 L. Scordato et al.
the other two visions in how they portray and bring sustainability into the
bioeconomy discourse.
Overall, the analysis has shown that the conceptual framework consisting of
the three visions of the bioeconomy, applied to the submissions in the national
hearing process, has proved to be a relevant and appropriate tool. The study has
categorised the different submissions into the three respective visions, and the
conceptual framework has thereby helped clarify how the different submissions
express and represent diverging perspectives on the bioeconomy. This said,
there seems to be extensive agreement across the various submissions in terms
of seeing the bioeconomy as an opportunity to address societal challenges such
as climate change. The divergence of perspectives rather relates to the means by
which these societal challenges should be addressed.
The contending visions observed among the public submissions illustrate
how socio- technical transitions often comprise competing points of view and
values. The chapter has illustrated how the different responses to the public
inquiry may contribute to a destabilisation of the existing (fossil) regime;
whereas some of the actors in the existing regime oppose the new possibilities
of the circular and sustainable bioeconomy, others embrace these and wish to
contribute to the shaping of an alternative regime. This may cause a shift in the
power balance between the various stakeholders involved. In particular, the
policy strategy on the bioeconomy needs to deal with emerging tensions, such
as the balance and relationship between economic growth and sustainability.
In this sense, the chapter has illustrated the relevance of the transformational policy framework of Weber and Rohracher (Geels, 2004), in terms of
how giving direction to a socio- technical transition can be complicated by
coordinating and balancing the different interests and stakeholders involved.
Still, it remains crucial to ensure broad and democratic involvement and
reflexivity across different stakeholders and interests in the process of shaping
the bioeconomy of tomorrow.
References
Birch, K. (2016). Emergent imaginaries and fragmented policy frameworks in the
Canadian bio- economy. Sustainability, 8(1007), 1–16.
Birch, K., Levidow, L., & Papaioannou, T. (2010). Sustainable capital? The neoliberalization of nature and knowledge in the European “knowledge- based bioeconomy”. Sustainability, 2(9), 2898–2918. doi:10.3390/su2092898.
Bosman, R., & Rotmans, J. (2016). Transition governance towards a bioeconomy: A
comparison of Finland and the Netherlands. Sustainability, 8(10), 1–20.
Bugge, M. M., Hansen, T., & Klitkou, A. (2016). What is the bioeconomy? A review
of the literature. Sustainability, 8(7), 1–22.
de Besi, M., & McCormick, K. (2015). Towards a bioeconomy in Europe: National,
regional and industrial strategies. Sustainability, 7(8), 10461–10478.
De Witt, A., Osseweijer, P., & Pierce, R. (2015). Understanding public perceptions
of biotechnoogy through the “Integrative Worldview Framework”. Public Understanding of Science, 26(1), 70–88.
the other two visions in how they portray and bring sustainability into the
bioeconomy discourse.
Overall, the analysis has shown that the conceptual framework consisting of
the three visions of the bioeconomy, applied to the submissions in the national
hearing process, has proved to be a relevant and appropriate tool. The study has
categorised the different submissions into the three respective visions, and the
conceptual framework has thereby helped clarify how the different submissions
express and represent diverging perspectives on the bioeconomy. This said,
there seems to be extensive agreement across the various submissions in terms
of seeing the bioeconomy as an opportunity to address societal challenges such
as climate change. The divergence of perspectives rather relates to the means by
which these societal challenges should be addressed.
The contending visions observed among the public submissions illustrate
how socio- technical transitions often comprise competing points of view and
values. The chapter has illustrated how the different responses to the public
inquiry may contribute to a destabilisation of the existing (fossil) regime;
whereas some of the actors in the existing regime oppose the new possibilities
of the circular and sustainable bioeconomy, others embrace these and wish to
contribute to the shaping of an alternative regime. This may cause a shift in the
power balance between the various stakeholders involved. In particular, the
policy strategy on the bioeconomy needs to deal with emerging tensions, such
as the balance and relationship between economic growth and sustainability.
In this sense, the chapter has illustrated the relevance of the transformational policy framework of Weber and Rohracher (Geels, 2004), in terms of
how giving direction to a socio- technical transition can be complicated by
coordinating and balancing the different interests and stakeholders involved.
Still, it remains crucial to ensure broad and democratic involvement and
reflexivity across different stakeholders and interests in the process of shaping
the bioeconomy of tomorrow.
References
Birch, K. (2016). Emergent imaginaries and fragmented policy frameworks in the
Canadian bio- economy. Sustainability, 8(1007), 1–16.
Birch, K., Levidow, L., & Papaioannou, T. (2010). Sustainable capital? The neoliberalization of nature and knowledge in the European “knowledge- based bioeconomy”. Sustainability, 2(9), 2898–2918. doi:10.3390/su2092898.
Bosman, R., & Rotmans, J. (2016). Transition governance towards a bioeconomy: A
comparison of Finland and the Netherlands. Sustainability, 8(10), 1–20.
Bugge, M. M., Hansen, T., & Klitkou, A. (2016). What is the bioeconomy? A review
of the literature. Sustainability, 8(7), 1–22.
de Besi, M., & McCormick, K. (2015). Towards a bioeconomy in Europe: National,
regional and industrial strategies. Sustainability, 7(8), 10461–10478.
De Witt, A., Osseweijer, P., & Pierce, R. (2015). Understanding public perceptions
of biotechnoogy through the “Integrative Worldview Framework”. Public Understanding of Science, 26(1), 70–88.