about 15% for urban wastes, as cited in Groot et al. (2014). Also in closing cycles of
nutrients, distance and transport costs, and logistics issues at large are key (Akram
et al. 2019).
The second main issue is that of externalities. While several methods have been
developed over time to assess non-market goods and externalities, most of them are
sufficiently reliable only when restricted to be used to assess average costs/benefits
and usually much less robust when used to evaluate demand/supply functions,
especially at the extremes. Needless to say, external costs may depend a lot on the
ability to assess impact pathways and dose–response. This is rather a difficult task
for the most relevant external effects attached to the bioeconomy technologies, such
as the contribution to (combat) climate change.
The dynamic insights discussed above also hint at the fact that the optimal rate of
recycling would change over time. This implies that it would be necessary to identify
an optimal pathway of development of the recycled component. This, however,
would be largely driven by expectations about future technology changes and related
costs, as well as about demand.
Observing the current landscape, however, solutions to these policy dilemmas
may come from a better ability of the system itself to adapt. Suitable business models
are a key issue that requires proactive adaptation by the sector, but also policies
ensuring a suitable environment. In connection to new business models, innovation
remains a key topic, especially in the direction to solve cost issues and to address
uncertainties in the emerging solutions.
1.5
Conclusion
While the bioeconomy concept largely relies on biomass flows that can to a good
extent be connected to concepts of circular economy, such as waste valorisation and
reuse, the bioeconomy is not inherently circular. Given the fact that biomass tends to
degrade into energy, on the contrary, and that the primary sources of input for the
bioeconomy is actually solar energy, the topic is rather that of the optimal (rather
than the maximum) level of circularity. In other words, the question is to what extent
it is really efficient and sustainable to close the cycles, also in relation to different
geographical perspectives and levels.
The current literature still approaches this issue from a largely simplified perspective driven by recent policy evolution, rather pointing at promoting circularity.
Attention should rather shift to a more focused and economics-based research in
two complementary directions:
(a) Empirical economic analysis of “supply of circular solutions” and derived
understanding of the optimal degree of circularity;
(b) Evidence-based analysis of socio-economic transition pathways and new business models.
8
D. Viaggi
nutrients, distance and transport costs, and logistics issues at large are key (Akram
et al. 2019).
The second main issue is that of externalities. While several methods have been
developed over time to assess non-market goods and externalities, most of them are
sufficiently reliable only when restricted to be used to assess average costs/benefits
and usually much less robust when used to evaluate demand/supply functions,
especially at the extremes. Needless to say, external costs may depend a lot on the
ability to assess impact pathways and dose–response. This is rather a difficult task
for the most relevant external effects attached to the bioeconomy technologies, such
as the contribution to (combat) climate change.
The dynamic insights discussed above also hint at the fact that the optimal rate of
recycling would change over time. This implies that it would be necessary to identify
an optimal pathway of development of the recycled component. This, however,
would be largely driven by expectations about future technology changes and related
costs, as well as about demand.
Observing the current landscape, however, solutions to these policy dilemmas
may come from a better ability of the system itself to adapt. Suitable business models
are a key issue that requires proactive adaptation by the sector, but also policies
ensuring a suitable environment. In connection to new business models, innovation
remains a key topic, especially in the direction to solve cost issues and to address
uncertainties in the emerging solutions.
1.5
Conclusion
While the bioeconomy concept largely relies on biomass flows that can to a good
extent be connected to concepts of circular economy, such as waste valorisation and
reuse, the bioeconomy is not inherently circular. Given the fact that biomass tends to
degrade into energy, on the contrary, and that the primary sources of input for the
bioeconomy is actually solar energy, the topic is rather that of the optimal (rather
than the maximum) level of circularity. In other words, the question is to what extent
it is really efficient and sustainable to close the cycles, also in relation to different
geographical perspectives and levels.
The current literature still approaches this issue from a largely simplified perspective driven by recent policy evolution, rather pointing at promoting circularity.
Attention should rather shift to a more focused and economics-based research in
two complementary directions:
(a) Empirical economic analysis of “supply of circular solutions” and derived
understanding of the optimal degree of circularity;
(b) Evidence-based analysis of socio-economic transition pathways and new business models.
8
D. Viaggi