What is the bioeconomy? 21
graphs were created with NetDraw developed by Borgatti (2002). The
network graphs were based on degree centrality measures. The structure of
the identified network was analysed by identifying cliques. A clique is a subset of the network in which the nodes are more closely and intensely tied to
each other than they are tied to other members of the network.
2.2.2 Literature review
The literature review aims to examine differences in the understanding of the
bioeconomy concept. It is based on a subset of the papers included in the
bibliometric analysis. The main inclusion criterion was that papers had to
include a discussion of the bioeconomy. Importantly, the resulting bioeconomy visions described in Section 2.4 should not be understood as visions promoted by the academic writers, but as bioeconomy visions that result from
academic analysis of the actions of policymakers, industry actors, etc.
In order to improve our understanding of the underpinnings and conditions for the emergence of the bioeconomy, we included papers that concentrated on conceptual aspects such as innovation and value creation, driving
forces, governance and the spatial focus of the bioeconomy. We thus
excluded papers that primarily discussed technical issues. The review consisted
of a screening of the abstracts of 110 papers. From these we made a discretionary selection of 65 papers that were considered relevant to the analysis.
These papers were then read by between two and four persons in order to
enhance reliability. The content of the papers was summarised in a database,
considering aspects such as research objectives, methods, scope regarding geography and industry sector, and main conclusions. Differing opinions concerning individual articles were resolved in discussions. The database provided
the point of departure for identifying papers containing relevant content on
bioeconomy aims and objectives, value creation processes, drivers and mediators of innovation, or spatial focus. These papers were then re- read and synthesised into the analysis presented in Section 2.4.
2.3 Bibliometric analysis of scientific literature on the
bioeconomy
We identified 453 papers for the period 2005 to 2014. Figure 2.1 shows that
the topic has gained increasing attention in the scientific discourse.
The total number of citations achieved by the whole sample was 9207, but
the distribution of citations is skewed (see Table 2.1). The three most- cited
papers received 18% of all citations. The 15 most- cited papers received 41%
of the citations. Forty- one papers received one citation, and 55 papers
received no citations.
It is more interesting to look at the average number of citations per year
than the total number of citations because older papers will by default tend to
achieve more citations than the most recent papers. Still, the results do not
graphs were created with NetDraw developed by Borgatti (2002). The
network graphs were based on degree centrality measures. The structure of
the identified network was analysed by identifying cliques. A clique is a subset of the network in which the nodes are more closely and intensely tied to
each other than they are tied to other members of the network.
2.2.2 Literature review
The literature review aims to examine differences in the understanding of the
bioeconomy concept. It is based on a subset of the papers included in the
bibliometric analysis. The main inclusion criterion was that papers had to
include a discussion of the bioeconomy. Importantly, the resulting bioeconomy visions described in Section 2.4 should not be understood as visions promoted by the academic writers, but as bioeconomy visions that result from
academic analysis of the actions of policymakers, industry actors, etc.
In order to improve our understanding of the underpinnings and conditions for the emergence of the bioeconomy, we included papers that concentrated on conceptual aspects such as innovation and value creation, driving
forces, governance and the spatial focus of the bioeconomy. We thus
excluded papers that primarily discussed technical issues. The review consisted
of a screening of the abstracts of 110 papers. From these we made a discretionary selection of 65 papers that were considered relevant to the analysis.
These papers were then read by between two and four persons in order to
enhance reliability. The content of the papers was summarised in a database,
considering aspects such as research objectives, methods, scope regarding geography and industry sector, and main conclusions. Differing opinions concerning individual articles were resolved in discussions. The database provided
the point of departure for identifying papers containing relevant content on
bioeconomy aims and objectives, value creation processes, drivers and mediators of innovation, or spatial focus. These papers were then re- read and synthesised into the analysis presented in Section 2.4.
2.3 Bibliometric analysis of scientific literature on the
bioeconomy
We identified 453 papers for the period 2005 to 2014. Figure 2.1 shows that
the topic has gained increasing attention in the scientific discourse.
The total number of citations achieved by the whole sample was 9207, but
the distribution of citations is skewed (see Table 2.1). The three most- cited
papers received 18% of all citations. The 15 most- cited papers received 41%
of the citations. Forty- one papers received one citation, and 55 papers
received no citations.
It is more interesting to look at the average number of citations per year
than the total number of citations because older papers will by default tend to
achieve more citations than the most recent papers. Still, the results do not