What is the bioeconomy? 27
differences in the understanding of this concept, which are put forward in the
academic literature. Broadly speaking, we find that it is possible to distinguish
between three ideal type visions of what a bioeconomy constitutes (see also
Levidow et al., 2013; Staffas, Gustavsson & McCormick, 2013). Reflecting
on the importance of bioeconomy research in the fields of natural and
engineering science, it is perhaps not surprising that at least the first two
visions appear to be significantly influenced by a technical perspective:
1 A bio- technology vision that emphasises the importance of bio- technology
research and application and commercialisation of bio- technology in
different sectors.
2 A bio- resource vision that focuses on the role of research, development and
demonstration (RD & D) related to biological raw materials in sectors
such as agriculture, marine, forestry and bioenergy, as well as on the
establishment of new value chains. Whereas the bio- technology vision
takes a point of departure in the potential applicability of science, the
bio- resource vision emphasises the potentials in upgrading and conversion of the biological raw materials.
3 A bio- ecology vision that highlights the importance of ecological processes
that optimise the use of energy and nutrients, promote biodiversity and
avoid monocultures and soil degradation. While the previous two visions
are technology- focused and give a central role to RD & D in globalised
systems, this vision emphasises the potential for regionally concentrated
circular and integrated processes and systems.
Importantly, these visions should not be considered completely distinct from
each other, but rather as ideal type visions of the bioeconomy. Thus, while
certain actors are predominantly associated with the different visions such as
the OECD (the bio- technology vision), the European Commission (the bioresource vision) and the European Technology Platform TP Organics (the
bio- ecology vision) (Levidow et al., 2013; Staffas et al., 2013), it is also highlighted that the visions interrelate. For example, initial policy work in the
European Commission was significantly influenced by existing work on the
bio- technology vision (Richardson, 2012). (Similarly, individual papers
included in the bibliometric analysis (Section 2.3) may often not subscribe to
a single understanding of the bioeconomy concept; however, the aim in this
part of the analysis is not to classify all bioeconomy papers according to the
different visions, but rather to identify the key interpretations of the bioeconomy concept, which are put forward in the academic literature.)
In the following, we identify key features of the three bioeconomy visions,
focusing specifically on implications in terms of overall aims and objectives,
value creation, drivers and mediators of innovation, and spatial focus. This is
summarised in Table 2.7.
differences in the understanding of this concept, which are put forward in the
academic literature. Broadly speaking, we find that it is possible to distinguish
between three ideal type visions of what a bioeconomy constitutes (see also
Levidow et al., 2013; Staffas, Gustavsson & McCormick, 2013). Reflecting
on the importance of bioeconomy research in the fields of natural and
engineering science, it is perhaps not surprising that at least the first two
visions appear to be significantly influenced by a technical perspective:
1 A bio- technology vision that emphasises the importance of bio- technology
research and application and commercialisation of bio- technology in
different sectors.
2 A bio- resource vision that focuses on the role of research, development and
demonstration (RD & D) related to biological raw materials in sectors
such as agriculture, marine, forestry and bioenergy, as well as on the
establishment of new value chains. Whereas the bio- technology vision
takes a point of departure in the potential applicability of science, the
bio- resource vision emphasises the potentials in upgrading and conversion of the biological raw materials.
3 A bio- ecology vision that highlights the importance of ecological processes
that optimise the use of energy and nutrients, promote biodiversity and
avoid monocultures and soil degradation. While the previous two visions
are technology- focused and give a central role to RD & D in globalised
systems, this vision emphasises the potential for regionally concentrated
circular and integrated processes and systems.
Importantly, these visions should not be considered completely distinct from
each other, but rather as ideal type visions of the bioeconomy. Thus, while
certain actors are predominantly associated with the different visions such as
the OECD (the bio- technology vision), the European Commission (the bioresource vision) and the European Technology Platform TP Organics (the
bio- ecology vision) (Levidow et al., 2013; Staffas et al., 2013), it is also highlighted that the visions interrelate. For example, initial policy work in the
European Commission was significantly influenced by existing work on the
bio- technology vision (Richardson, 2012). (Similarly, individual papers
included in the bibliometric analysis (Section 2.3) may often not subscribe to
a single understanding of the bioeconomy concept; however, the aim in this
part of the analysis is not to classify all bioeconomy papers according to the
different visions, but rather to identify the key interpretations of the bioeconomy concept, which are put forward in the academic literature.)
In the following, we identify key features of the three bioeconomy visions,
focusing specifically on implications in terms of overall aims and objectives,
value creation, drivers and mediators of innovation, and spatial focus. This is
summarised in Table 2.7.