Theoretical perspectives on innovation 53
energies. The bioeconomy might signal a shift (or return) to a circular
economy and a society that replaces fossil fuels with renewable energy
sources. Yet the broad coverage of the term also means that there are diverging perspectives on the bioeconomy. While some argue that we need to use
more pesticides and precision fertilisation in agriculture, others prescribe socalled “no till” and biodiversity to avoid diseases and soil degradation. Rather
than a lack of knowledge of how to run the bioeconomy, there is a large
variety of contrasting recipes for how to arrive at more circular and sustainable modes of production and consumption. As a consequence, one challenge
is to also make sense of these different views and perspectives. In Chapter 2,
we outlined three visions of the bioeconomy, which represent one way to
handle this breadth in perspectives (Bugge, Hansen & Klitkou, 2016).
3.3 The roles of waste in the bioeconomy
A major strategy in the transition towards the bioeconomy is an improved
exploitation of organic residues – previously referred to as waste – and sidestreams from industrial production and household consumption. This implies
creating a circular economy in which the outputs from one value chain are
used as inputs in another. Hence, what has been formerly regarded as waste
in one sector is now turned into a resource for another sector, representing a
smarter and more sustainable way of organising and exploiting limited energy
and resources.
Figure 3.1 below presents the waste pyramid, which hierarchically ranks
different waste treatment options according to their level of sustainability; waste
disposal and energy recovery are the least favoured options, while recycling,
reuse and prevention are the more favoured and sustainable options. The latter
preferred types are usually more resource- and energy- efficient, although there
can be trade- offs between resource and energy savings, and they often, though
not always, involve lower greenhouse gas emissions. It is, however, important
to carefully assess the multiple life cycle impacts for specific options rather than
assuming higher or lower general sustainability based on the pyramid’s categories (see Chapter 14). Moreover, a specific option may encompass several
categories, for example the treatment of waste in a biogas plant involves both
recovery (of energy) and recycling (use of the digestate as fertiliser).
The waste pyramid illustrates how side- streams and residues may be processed and utilised in different ways (European Commission, 2008). Historically, waste disposal in landfills has gradually been replaced by innovative and
potentially more sustainable forms of waste management, focusing first on
energy recovery, and then on recycling, reuse, minimisation and, ultimately,
waste prevention. In this book, we conceptualise each of these forms of
management as integrated socio- technical systems of production and consumption
consisting of key elements, i.e. actors, capabilities, networks, institutions and
infrastructures. The composition and characteristics of these elements condition the system’s innovative abilities.
energies. The bioeconomy might signal a shift (or return) to a circular
economy and a society that replaces fossil fuels with renewable energy
sources. Yet the broad coverage of the term also means that there are diverging perspectives on the bioeconomy. While some argue that we need to use
more pesticides and precision fertilisation in agriculture, others prescribe socalled “no till” and biodiversity to avoid diseases and soil degradation. Rather
than a lack of knowledge of how to run the bioeconomy, there is a large
variety of contrasting recipes for how to arrive at more circular and sustainable modes of production and consumption. As a consequence, one challenge
is to also make sense of these different views and perspectives. In Chapter 2,
we outlined three visions of the bioeconomy, which represent one way to
handle this breadth in perspectives (Bugge, Hansen & Klitkou, 2016).
3.3 The roles of waste in the bioeconomy
A major strategy in the transition towards the bioeconomy is an improved
exploitation of organic residues – previously referred to as waste – and sidestreams from industrial production and household consumption. This implies
creating a circular economy in which the outputs from one value chain are
used as inputs in another. Hence, what has been formerly regarded as waste
in one sector is now turned into a resource for another sector, representing a
smarter and more sustainable way of organising and exploiting limited energy
and resources.
Figure 3.1 below presents the waste pyramid, which hierarchically ranks
different waste treatment options according to their level of sustainability; waste
disposal and energy recovery are the least favoured options, while recycling,
reuse and prevention are the more favoured and sustainable options. The latter
preferred types are usually more resource- and energy- efficient, although there
can be trade- offs between resource and energy savings, and they often, though
not always, involve lower greenhouse gas emissions. It is, however, important
to carefully assess the multiple life cycle impacts for specific options rather than
assuming higher or lower general sustainability based on the pyramid’s categories (see Chapter 14). Moreover, a specific option may encompass several
categories, for example the treatment of waste in a biogas plant involves both
recovery (of energy) and recycling (use of the digestate as fertiliser).
The waste pyramid illustrates how side- streams and residues may be processed and utilised in different ways (European Commission, 2008). Historically, waste disposal in landfills has gradually been replaced by innovative and
potentially more sustainable forms of waste management, focusing first on
energy recovery, and then on recycling, reuse, minimisation and, ultimately,
waste prevention. In this book, we conceptualise each of these forms of
management as integrated socio- technical systems of production and consumption
consisting of key elements, i.e. actors, capabilities, networks, institutions and
infrastructures. The composition and characteristics of these elements condition the system’s innovative abilities.