Next Article in Journal
Active Distribution Network Modeling for Enhancing Sustainable Power System Performance; a Case Study in Egypt
Next Article in Special Issue
Green New Deal Policy of South Korea: Policy Innovation for a Sustainability Transition
Previous Article in Journal
Importance of Proper Monetary Liquidity: Sustainable Development of the Housing and Stock Markets
Previous Article in Special Issue
Making Use of Evaluations to Support a Transition towards a More Sustainable Energy System and Society—An Assessment of Current and Potential Use among Swedish State Agencies
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Studying the Transition towards a Circular Bioeconomy—A Systematic Literature Review on Transition Studies and Existing Barriers

1
Institut für Technologie und Management, Technische Universität Berlin (TU Berlin), 10623 Berlin, Germany
2
Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies e.V., 14467 Potsdam, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 1 October 2020 / Revised: 23 October 2020 / Accepted: 27 October 2020 / Published: 29 October 2020

Abstract

:
The European Commission’s strategic long-term vision for 2050, “A Clean Planet for All”, identifies the bioeconomy and the circular economy as key strategic areas for achieving a climate-neutral economy. Focus is given to the sustainability of biomass and the circularity of materials. However, in order to facilitate the transition toward a sustainable bio-based circular economy and to unlock its potential, strong accompanying measures are required. These should be designed based on a systematic understanding of transition drivers and barriers. This paper, after providing a systematic review of transition research on the circular bioeconomy, focuses on the identification and classification of transition barriers, clustering them into relevant categories. Moreover, it provides a comparison of the barriers identified by various frameworks.

1. Introduction

The development of a sustainable bioeconomy has been identified as a key building block in the fight against climate change, while simultaneously addressing the increasing demand for food, feed, energy, materials and products [1]. Indeed, almost 50 countries around the globe recently adopted national bioeconomy strategies as a pathway towards more sustainable ways of production, especially regarding to the achievements of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) [2]. However, the bioeconomy is not automatically sustainable [3]. The existence of diverse conflicting goals requires to always consider both positive and negative effects [4] and to develop and implement sustainably criteria in relation to social environmental and economic aspects.
The concept of bioeconomy is often related to the circular economy, “where the value of products, materials and resources is maintained in the economy for as long as possible, and the generation of waste minimized” [5]. The European Commission’s strategic long-term vision for 2050, “A Clean Planet for All”, identifies both concepts as key strategic areas for achieving a climate-neutral economy, highlighting the importance of sustainable biomass production and processing and the circularity of materials [6]. However, in order to facilitate the transition toward a sustainable bio-based, circular economy and to unlock its potential, strong accompanying measures and an enabling policy framework are required.
The literature on sustainability transitions argues that, to be effective, policy interventions should build on a systemic understanding of transition processes and their dynamics. In this vein, scholars have developed analytical approaches to help structure the analysis of technologies or sectors and related transition dynamics [7,8]. Due to its specific nature, the transition into a bioeconomy poses particular challenges to analysis of the ongoing transition processes and the identification of related entry-points for policy. Most importantly, the transition to a circular bioeconomy is not limited to the introduction of new technologies within a particular end-use or industrial sector. Rather, it implies the transformation of multiple sectors and the development of new value chains. This raises the question of how existing analytical approaches from the transitions literature are applied to identify policy entry-points.
During the last years, the number of scientific publications addressing bioeconomy-related topics has increased. However, considering that the emerging research field involves different disciplines, a holistic and multidisciplinary vision that is able to cope with the complexity of reality is still lacking [9]. To fill this gap, there is a need to develop an integrated analytical perspective for analyzing the transition towards a bioeconomy. Efforts to synchronize the empirical contributions that form part of the broad research field provide a first step in this direction. Gaining a broader picture is especially important to avoid “a ‘silo’ mentality and enabling the concept of the bioeconomy and its associated objectives to become mainstreamed” [10]. To understand the requirements of a supportive policy framework, comparing and combining findings from studies with different methodological and sectoral origins can be a helpful tool.
Taking this as a starting point, this paper provides a systematic review of transition research on the bioeconomy, with a particular focus on how existing research identifies transition barriers as a basis for the identification of policy options. The paper begins with a short review of the particularities of the transition to a circular bioeconomy and identifies related challenges for performing analysis of system dynamics. It then briefly discusses the main analytical approaches from the transition literature and how they tackle the task of identifying transition barriers and related policy entry-points. Following this, the paper performs a systematic review of existing transition studies. This review provides a quantitative assessment of the various dimensions addressed in these studies, such as analytical focus, geographical scope and the sectoral focus. In a second step, the paper focuses on the transition barriers identified in these studies and how these vary based on both the analytical focus and approach taken. For this, it provides a categorization of the barriers identified in the studies and then maps them onto the different analytical dimensions addressed by the studies. The paper closes with a discussion of the main findings from the review and their implications for further research on the transition to a circular bioeconomy.
The manuscript is the first paper to conduct a systematic review of the transitions literature towards a circular bioeconomy, focusing on the identification of barriers in this context. With this, it adds important insights to the discussion of the transition to a circular bioeconomy and how this is being addressed by the current literature. It points out important gaps in the literature and identifies avenues for further development of the research agenda, in particular as this pertains to the identification of entry-points for policy making. The conducted research provides a systematic understanding of the strengthens and weakness of a transition towards a circular bioeconomy and therefore could help identify more sustainable and innovative solutions for facilitating both production and consumption systems.

2. Challenges for Research addressing the Transition towards a Bioeconomy

The concept of a bioeconomy has remained ambiguous over the years and has given rise to varying interpretations [11]. The generic nature of the concept, which is partly rooted in the engagement of different scientific disciplines within the research field [9], leads to operationalization problems related to the identification of relevant attributes that define economic actions linked to the bioeconomy. In this sense, Maciejczak [12] argues that the bioeconomy should not be understood as brand new economic phenomena or a new sector. According to Maciejczak [12], the originality of the bioeconomy, which distinguishes the phenomena from the traditional use of biomass (e.g., bread baking) is rooted in two factors: sustainability and efficiency of renewable resources. In the same vein, Pelli and Lähtinen [13] state that traditional and new bioeconomy evolve side-by-side, and processual changes come hand-in-hand with the gradual reconfiguration of established regimes. The difficulty of delimiting the new bioeconomy from the old bioeconomy is also reflected in the ongoing debate on measuring and monitoring the bioeconomy. It is argued that established classification systems, such as the Nomenclature statistique des activités économiques dans la Communauté européenne (NACE), which were established to classify economic activities in the European Community, come up against limiting factors in terms of the identification of economic activities related to the bioeconomy [14]. Compared with other sustainability transitions, such as the renewable energy transition where economic activities related to renewable energy sources can be detected with traditional classification systems, the mapping of the bioeconomy requires a set of new categories to narrow down the phenomenon.
Furthermore, the bioeconomy is not limited to a particular end-product. There is a broad set of products linked to the transition, with strong variation regarding the characteristics of related value chains. Kaplinsky and Morris [15] refer to value chains as “the full range of activities which are required to bring a product or service from conception, through the different phases of production (involving a combination of physical transformation and the input of various producer services), delivery to final consumers, and final disposal after use”. Porter [16] distinguishes between activities that are linked to producing, marketing, and delivering the product and those related to creating or developing inputs or factors, which also includes required planning and management. For firms, each of these activities creates a chance for differentiation from their competitors within a certain industry, leading to competitive advantages [16].
With a view on environmental innovation and competitive advantages, Porter and van der Linde [17] distinguish between two broad forms of innovations with different effects on the value chains of firms: one only addresses the way companies comply with pollution control, and the second improves, in addition, the product or/and processes. Similarly, current work on eco-innovations often emphasizes on two different types: end-of-pipe technologies, which reduces pollution emissions by implementing add-on measures; and cleaner production, which includes the use of cleaner products and production methods [18]. Following this distinction, innovations related to the bioeconomy are associated with the second form.
However, with a more fine-scaled differentiation combining different innovation typology frameworks and emphasising the particularities of the bioeconomy, Bröring et al. [19] developed a comprehensive bioeconomy innovation typology. This typology includes four innovation types, which are specific to the bioeconomy: (i) Substitute Products, which refers to the bio-based replacement of fossil-based products and can be fed into existing value chains; (ii) New Processes, which refers to innovations that improve the performance of a process or create new value chain connections and processing opportunities (e.g., an innovative and efficient way to produce bioethanol of lignocellulose); (iii) New Products, which is associated with entirely new bio-based products with new functions; (iv) New Behavior, which describes innovations that are linked to a new way of doing things, such as changes at the customer side; new business models increasing circularly or applying cascading concepts; or new stakeholder collaborations.
The plurality of innovation types described by Bröring et al. [19] also lead to challenges for research. In this sense, Wydra [20] identified important differences in value chains linked to the bioeconomy. In his work, he elaborates on differences in drop-in character, volume and price, quantity of feedstock, maturity stage, and the potential advantage of value chains. Due to these differences, “the potential drivers, barriers, and consequences differ significantly between the value chains” [20]. This makes it especially difficult to generalize findings rooted in the observation of a particular case. Hence, there is a need to carefully balance broad analytical perspectives and narrow observations addressing particular innovations. Due to the strong diversity of value chains, generic studies could risk overlooking contextual variations, while studies with a highly specific character could lead to results with low external validity.

3. Theoretical Frameworks and Their Perspectives on Barriers

In the context of sustainable development, transitions are defined as a shift in socio-technical systems that requires a fundamental re-orientation of societal development, which involve a wide set of changes and interlinked transformations in markets, state, society, science and technology and their relations [21]. To analyze such sustainability transitions, a number of different analytical perspectives have emerged in the literature [7]. These theoretical frameworks frequently originate from the research field of innovation studies. According to Smith et al. [22], the perspective of innovation research helps us to understand the emergence of more sustainable production and consumption practices and formulate recommendations for a shift away from unsustainable alternatives. However, when addressing a sustainability transition, there is a need to extend this perspective of innovation studies [22]. Urmetzer et al. [23] highlight that the imparting of technological knowledge must be accompanied by instruction in other types of knowledge, particularly the transformative knowledge necessary to equip the protagonists of a bioeconomy transformation.
According Smith at al. [22], research into sustainable development requires a change in the objective of studies from a focus on the successful emergence of cleaner technologies to a rather far-reaching change to the entire production and consumption system. Building on the need to extend the perspectives of existing theoretical frameworks, the option to combine conceptual approaches is intensively discussed [24]. Such contributions often follow the objective to promote the applicability of conceptual approaches to assess policies or identify possible interventions by analyzing system dynamics and related barriers to system transformation as a basis for identifying ways of overcoming these barriers [25]. For this purpose, a reflection on the conceptualization of problems within the literature is especially important, as different classifications of problems could lead to confusion among political decision-makers [26]. In the following, we briefly describe the most prominent approaches applied in sustainable transition studies [8], namely Multi-level Perspective (MLP), the Technological Innovation Systems (TIS), the Strategic Niche Management (SNM), or the Transition Management (TM), and their treatment of transition barriers
Technology Innovation Systems [27,28,29,30] often refer to blocking mechanisms, which are “obstacles to the formation of powerful functions and, thus, to technology diffusion and capital goods industry development” ([31], p. 25). An example of such an obstacle is a poorly articulated demand, which has negative effects on TIS functions knowledge creation, guidance of search, and market formation [32]. Within the TIS literature, scholars also use the term system weaknesses, which should be the center of TIS studies as it allows policy interventions to be detected [33]. For a better understanding of problems, Wieczorek and Hekkert [26] argue that the design of an effective policy framework by exploring functional weaknesses requires a coupled functional-structural analysis.
Scholars observing transitions though Multi-Level Perspectives [22,34,35] emphasize the three analytical levels: niches, regimes, and landscapes. Regimes are considered structures that account for the stability of an existing system and “refers to the semi-coherent set of rules that orient and coordinate the activities of the social groups that reproduce the various elements of socio-technical systems” ([36], p. 25). It is argued that the influence of structures varies depending on their degree of institutionalization, which goes along with the phenomenon of path dependency [37]. The concept of path-dependency [38] often serves as a conceptual basis for understanding barriers. Regarding carbon-saving technologies, it is argued that “industrial economies have become locked into fossil fuel-based technological systems through a path-dependent process driven by technological and institutional increasing returns to scale” [39]. However, to analyze transition failures in relation to regime stability, studies go beyond the observation of the corporate aspects of path dependency by emphasizing mechanisms, such as barriers linked to the existence of dominant business models or institutional isomorphism [40].
Strategic Niche Management [41,42,43] emphasizes so-called socio-technical niches that serve as “local breeding spaces for new technologies, in which they get a chance to develop and grow” ([43], p. 185). Important elements for niche development are expectations and visions, social networks, and learning processes [42]. From an SNM perspective, scholars observe various interacting factors that could impede transitions, such as barriers related to production, demand, government policy and regulatory frameworks, culture, or infrastructure [43].
Transition Management [44,45,46] is used to better coordinate and legitimize policy and mobilize capacities to solve problems. TM scholars focus on a transition arena and all stakeholders within this area and strongly emphasize visions affecting change [44]. From a TM perspective, scholars often take advantage of an operational model called transition management cycle, which includes the capacity to (i) structure the problem and establish the transition arena, (ii) develop a transition agenda and images, (iii) carry out transition experiments, and (iv) evaluate the experiment [46]. Through connecting and ordering activities using this cycle, TM identifies barriers through a learning-by-doing focus [47].
As this short discussion reveals, various analytical approaches imply different conceptualizations and approaches to tackling barriers. Consequently, the choice of a particular analytical framework comes with different interpretations of transition problems. However, it is argued that some of the existing theoretical frameworks are rather complementary [25]. In our study, we aim to contribute to the understanding the perspectives on existing theoretical frameworks by systematically reviewing the barriers identified in transition studies with different theoretical foundations. In doing so, we seek not only to provide a comprehensive overview of transition barriers but also to shed light on how the choice of analytical perspective influences the identification of barriers.

4. Methods and Data Collection

Our systematic review of the transition literature follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [48]. We applied PRISMA guidelines to ensure the consistency of our work. The PRISMA flow diagram is a helpful tool for emphasizing each step of the review process, which in turn increases transparency. Figure 1 presents the four-step process and the number of studies considered at each stage.
For the selection of relevant publications, we used the interdisciplinary academic database Web of Science (WoS). In order to reduce the risk of selection biases, we chose a systematic approach, which enabled us to identify a large number of publications that represent the research field as precisely as possible, while avoiding individual decisions to include or exclude a certain publication. Therefore, we used thee Cited Reference Search function in WoS as a starting point for the selection. This function enabled to create a list of studies that cited selected publication. As a basis for this approach, we used transition core literature, included in Appendix A. In addition, we refined the outcome by using the keywords: bioeconomy, bio-economy, bio-based economy, biobased economy, renewable AND circular economy, and biomass AND circular economy. This process led to an output of 202 publications. After excluding duplicates, a list of 73 studies remained.
In order to select and include only relevant literature in the final sample, the publication should meet three criteria: (i) the study addresses a phenomenon related to the bioeconomy; (ii) the study adopts an empirical approach; and (iii) their research questions aim at understanding the transition towards a bioeconomy. After excluding conceptual and descriptive papers, as well as literature that does not address transition barriers in a broader sense, a total selection of 58 empirical transition studies remained. The studies in our sample are published between 2009 and the beginning of 2020. However, only two studies were published before 2015, while the number of publications started to increase in 2015. 84% of the selected literature was published from 2017 onwards. The studies are published in 27 different journals. However, 50% of them are published in the following four journals: Journal of Cleaner Production (eleven); Sustainability (ten); Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions (four); and Forest Policy and Economics (four). A list of all reviewed publications is included in Appendix B.

4.1. Reviewing Process

Figure 2 shows the methodology we applied to answer the research questions. The first part of the review process aimed at gaining an overview of the research field by conducting a quantitative systematic review of transition studies related to the circular bioeconomy, which also involved a reflection on applied frameworks within the research field. The second part included a summary and categorization of barriers to the transition towards a circular bioeconomy identified in the selected publications.

4.1.1. Systematic Literature Review and Analysis of Theoretical Frameworks

In order to understand how scholars use theoretical frameworks to analyze the transition, a systematic analysis of the selected transition studies was conducted. As shown in Table 1, each publication was reviewed along four major dimensions: main objectives of the study, addressed sectors and value chains, geographical scale, and theoretical framework used.

4.1.2. Review of Identified Barriers

The categorization of barriers identified in the transition literature was facilitated by scientific software for qualitative data analysis Maxqda, which enables a systematic analysis of the content of documents through the function of labelling and structuring. In order to create a scheme to categorize barriers, we implemented a coding process without pre-structuring the material. In social science, open coding processes based on a comparative observation of qualitative data are often rooted in Grounded Theory, which is especially appropriate for the purpose of generating theories and discovering notions beyond existing theoretical approaches [49,50,51]. The approach allowed a fine-scaled observation of the identified barriers in transition studies through the process of comparing and splitting or merging codes. In order to summarize the identified barriers, we reviewed the publications word by word, using the MAXQDA coding function, which allowed us to structure the text of documents by using labels to shortly describe its content. To do so, we focused on the results, discussion, and conclusion sections of the studies and labeled all sentences or paragraphs that describe a barrier with a headline that summarized their content. To make this process clearer, an example from one of the first reviewed studies is provided: “Eight (out of 21) CEOs indicated that a number of bio-based companies are competing with each other for the same biomass [52].” We labeled this sentence as “Competition for resources due to competitive use of input material” and used the same label for findings from other publications identifying the same problem. This process involved the constant comparing and splitting or merging of labels. On a larger scale, all findings related to the availability of material were grouped in a sub-category called “Difficulties to obtain input material”. Besides competition for biomass, this sub-category also comprises other labels linked to input material, such as identified problems in biomass production. During the labeling process, these sub-categories of barriers were thematically grouped in more generic categories. Likewise, the described example forms part of the category “Technology and Material”. In the end, a structure along six categories emerged: Policies and Regulations, Technology and Material, Market and Investment Conditions, Social Acceptance, Knowledge and Networks, and Sectoral Routines and Structures. The categories should serve as overall labels that build the upper layer of the coding system and cluster the barrier sub-category thematically. During the reviewing process of the last publications, we found no new barrier sub-categories, which indicates that the data analysis had reached a saturation [50]. After coding all the selected publications, we observed how the identification of barriers varied in terms of main objectives, sectors and value chains, theoretical frameworks, and geographical scale. To understand the background of the identified barriers, we emphasized the four dimensions presented in Table 1 as a second step. Therefore, a qualitative data analysis was conducted by using the MAXQDA function for comparative analysis of cases and groups, which enabled us to compare the frequency of identified barriers in relation to investigated dimensions (e.g., different theoretical frameworks).

5. Results

5.1. Systematic Review of Transition Studies Addressing Bioeconomy

In this Section, the results of the systematic literature review of 58 studies addressing the transition towards a circular bio-based economy are presented on the basis of the four dimensions investigated.

5.1.1. Main Objectives of the Studies

As shown in Figure 3, most of the analyzed studies (38%) aim at identifying relevant factors influencing the transition to a circular bioeconomy. Among others, these factors include identification of the strengths and weaknesses of innovation systems, assessment of the impact of certain events or aspects facilitating or challenging the transition, or the identification of favorable conditions of a successful transition. Fewer studies (28%) aim at mapping the stakeholders and their role, positions and/or expectations in regard to the transition. In these studies, focus is given to the type of actors in networks, the involved stakeholders in projects, and the interactions and knowledge exchange among stakeholders. 17% of the studies focused on understanding changes within established sectors and incumbent firms and/or their roles in the transition, including changes over time; they also analyzed the role of certain sectors, such as the agricultural sector, in the transition; additionally, they investigated how firms adopted new strategies and changed their (unsustainable) practices. Another 17% explored policies and their effect on the transition as a whole or on certain aspects, by comparing national policies or assessing existing strategies or policies in a certain country.

5.1.2. Sectoral Focus and Addressed Value Chains

The analyzed studies either have a broader focus on observing sectoral change (see the green box in Figure 4) or explore a clearly defined product by analyzing selected value chains or a value chain step (see the grey box in Figure 4). Furthermore, there are studies that observe the transition towards a bioeconomy in general (see the blue box in Figure 4). For example, Strom-Andersen [53] explores the role of incumbents in the transition by focusing on the Norwegian meat-processing sector, while Carraresi et al. [54] analyze bottlenecks and challenges for chain actors aiming at implementing novel value chains related to phosphate recovery. Furthermore, some studies focus on value chain steps such as the development of biomass production or processing. Examples include Magrini et al. [55], who address biomass production by exploring the main lock-in effects that limit the widespread occurrence of cropping diversity; or Giurca and Spath [56], who analyze weaknesses and required policies related to the development of lignocellulosic biorefining in Germany. An example of a publication that focuses on the transition towards a bioeconomy in general is a study conducted by Bosman and Rotmans [57], which compared governance efforts to promote the transition towards a bioeconomy in the Netherlands and Finland.
The results of the systematic review of the addressed sectors and value chains indicates that the interests of transition scholars cover a wide spectrum of industries. In this sense, the literature reflects the multi-sectoral and complex character of the bioeconomy. Our analysis shows that 43% of the studies observe changes within sectors unrelated to a particular value chain or a value chain step, while the other 57% focus on value chain(s) from different types of biomass or value chain steps. Among these studies, transition scholars most frequently address value chains with wood-based building blocks. Additionally, scholars explore bio-based value chains from primary, as well as secondary, biomass. However, compared with biomass from the primary sector, value chains from waste and by-products play a less important role in the analyzed publications. The focus of the literature appeals equally balanced between addressing the use of biomass for energy and fuel production and its application for other purposes within manufacturing sectors (e.g., the construction sector).

5.1.3. Geographical Scales

In terms of the geographical dimension, as indicated in Figure 5, scholars mostly explore the transition towards a bioeconomy through national-level analysis. Namely, 53% of studies draw their conclusions referring to one certain country. The four most common countries are Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Germany. However, 21% of the publications analyze the transition on a regional or local scale, while another 12% adopt a cross-national perspective by comparing or using the data from two or more countries.

5.1.4. Applied Frameworks

As shown in Figure 6, TIS was the most common framework adopted by 20% of the analyzed studies and MLP the second (14%). According to our findings, SNM was used by 7% of the transition studies, while TM was only applied once. 12% of the studies adopted a combination or extension of the presented framework by linking it to other approaches. Most of them built on MLP. In 14% of the studies, the scholars introduced a new approach, while 31% adopted a different framework (e.g., an approach based on classical institutional economics).

5.2. Systematic Analysis of the Application Practice of Theoretical Frameworks

This section shows the major differences among the studied theoretical frameworks by analyzing the four investigated dimensions and related aspects.

5.2.1. Main Objectives of the Studies

As presented in Table 2, our analysis shows that TIS is the most frequently used framework when analyzing policies and their effects on the transition to a bioeconomy, and it is often used to identify or assess influential factors (e.g., focusing on strengths and weaknesses). However, it is not applied to studies that focus on changes among incumbent firms. By analyzing the application of MLP, we observed a contrary tendency. The framework is mostly applied in studies that aim at exploring the changes carried out by incumbent firms or their role in the transition to a bioeconomy, while scholars aiming to analyze policies tend to choose another framework over MLP.

5.2.2. Sectors and Value Chains

Figure 7 summarizes the frequency of the application of different frameworks in respect to different sectors and value chains. Our results indicate that there is no clear tendency to choose a certain framework to analyze a particular sector. However, we observe that TIS is often used to address innovation systems around biorefineries, while MLP is frequently used among scholars observing change within the primary and construction sectors. Furthermore, compared with TIS, MLP is more frequently used to observe sectoral change and less to explore phenomena through a value chain perspective.

5.2.3. Geographical Scales

In terms of the geographical perspective, our results show that TIS, MLP and the so-defined “other/new” frameworks are mostly used for studies that focus on a national level (see Table 3). On the other hand, SNM studies are distributed along all types of geographical scales.

5.3. Barriers that Hamper the Transition towards a Bioeconomy Identified in the Literature

In this chapter, we present the identified barriers in transition literature and the results of their categorization into categories and sub-categories. We also provide a summary of the most mentioned barriers in literature.

Categories and Sub-Categories of Barriers

The coding process of the identified barriers led to the emergence of six categories. (I) Policy and Regulation, which includes barriers related to existing or missing policies or regulations and policy implementation problems. (II) Technology and Materials, which encompasses technical issues related to the application of technologies and the development of products, as well as the availability of input materials, supplier structures, and physical infrastructures. (III) Market and Investment Conditions, which involves barriers related to market demand and creation, and to the mobilization and availability of financial resources. (IV) Social Acceptance, which contains barriers related to public awareness, interest and engagement, and public opposition. (V) Knowledge and Networks, which includes barriers related to the creation and application of knowledge and to the existence and development of efficient networks. (VI) Sectoral Routines and Structures, which contains barriers related to the willingness and restrictiveness of incumbents, lock-ins that develop over time, and challenges related to dominant standards.
Table 4 provides an overview of the barriers, categories and related sub-categories, indicating as well the number of papers that identified one or more barriers (one count per paper).
Our analysis shows that the selected publications place less emphasis on barriers related to the categories Social Acceptance and Technology and Materials, while a total of forty or more publications identified barriers related to Knowledge and Networks, Sectoral Routines and Structures, Policies and Regulations and Market and Investment Conditions. Besides the differences among the categories, we also observed an unequal distribution among the different sub-categories of the barriers. The most frequently identified barrier sub-categories were Implementation problems of policies (e.g., missing engagement of certain industrial actors and society) and Unfavorable policies and politics (e.g., lack of harmonization and policy coordination). It cannot be said conclusively whether these imbalances are related to the relative importance of the different categories or sub-categories of the barriers, or whether it is related to a bias in the analytical frameworks. Box 1 provides and overview of the most frequently identified barriers for each category.
Box 1. Overview of the most frequently identified barriers for each category
Within the category Policy and Regulation, the most mentioned barrier is Missing consensus on the direction of change (e.g., due to a missing common understanding, competing goal or alternative solution) (identified in 17 studies), which forms part of the sub-category Implementation problems. A relatively large number of different barriers are clustered as Missing policies, including the Lack of technology push policies and the Lack of demand-pull policy instruments, each identified in 11 publications. Within the sub-category Unfavorable policies and politics, a total of 16 studies identified Lack of long-term perspective and unsteady political direction as barriers to the transition.
Within the category Technology and Material, the barrier Lack of input resource and difficulties to mobilize feedstock was the most mentioned (11 studies), followed by Competition for resources due to competitive use of input material (10 studies).
Among the barriers categorized as Market and Investment conditions, the most mentioned problems are Low profitability and high demand for financial resources (23 publications). A further frequently identified barrier is Uncertain returns due to technological novelty and uncertain political support (15 publications) and Cheaper competition from fossil-base materials or products (14 publications). Within the sub-category Unfavorable investment conditions, problems related to Small demand and lack of dominant design are the most mentioned problems (14 studies).
The category Social Acceptance copes with two aspects. First, the scholars refer to the role of society as consumers with preferences for bio-based products. Second, fewer studies identify barriers related to the more active role of society in the transition towards a bioeconomy as citizens expressing their opposition or support in social or political participation. These tendencies can be found within both sub-categories of the barriers. The most mentioned barrier within the category is Low public acceptance (identified by 11 studies), followed by Lack of awareness (identified in 8 publications).
Among barriers related to Knowledge and Networks, the barrier Different or conflicting priorities, goals, visions or expectations within networks or stakeholder groups is the most frequently addressed problem (22 publications). A further issue that hampers the development of functioning networks is Difficulties in stakeholder involvement and missing key actors within networks (17 studies). In terms of research and knowledge development, Lack of cooperation, weak exchange networks, and coordination problems are presented as issues by 12 studies and are therefore the most mentioned within this sub-category.
Within the category Sectoral Routines and Structures, the most identified barriers are related to Lock-in effect in established systems, technologies and (buying) practices (mentioned in 14 studies). Furthermore, barriers related to Lack of strategies, low ambition to change or risk-averse attitudes are frequently mentioned (13 studies).

5.4. Systematic Analysis of Identified Barriers in Relation to the Studies Background

5.4.1. Main Objectives of the Studies

Table 5 presents the distribution of studies that identify one or more barriers within a category in relation to the main objectives of the study. Our findings show that barriers within the category Market and Investment Conditions, Knowledge and Networks and Social Acceptance are most frequently identified by studies addressing key factors, while more studies that address polices as their main objective found barriers related to Technology and Materials and Policies and Regulations. The category Sectoral Routines and Structure is mostly addressed by studies aiming to assess the role of incumbent firms, as well as publications that identify and assess policies.

5.4.2. Sectors and Value Chains

Table 6 presents the distribution of papers that address one or more barrier(s) forming a certain category in relation to the sector or value chain. The outcome shows that, on average, studies adopting a value chain perspective identified the largest number of barrier sub-categories. These studies most frequently addressed barriers relating to Technology and Material, Market and Investment Conditions, and Knowledge and Networks, while publications that observed change within a certain sector more frequently addressed barriers within the Sectoral Routines and Structures category. Barriers clustered as Policies and Regulations and Social Acceptance were most frequently addressed by studies that observed the bioeconomy in general.

5.4.3. Geographical Scales

Our results, indicate that studies observing the transition from a cross-national perspective identify, on average, nine barrier sub-categories, while publications that draw their conclusions from national- and European-level data find approximately seven different sub-categories. Within the categories Policies and Regulations and Sectoral Routines and Structures, studies that combine or compare data from more than one country identify more barriers, compared with studies with different geographical scales. Barriers related to Market and Investment Conditions are more often identified by studies with a national perspective, and problems linked to Technology and Material and Social Acceptance are more often identified by studies that use regional-level data. This may indicate that social acceptance is more salient at a local level than on a broader societal level. Table 7 illustrates the percentage of studies that identify at least one barrier within a certain category in relation to geographical dimensions.

5.4.4. Theoretical Frameworks

As illustrated in Table 8, our analysis shows that, on average, a study that analyzes the transition to a bioeconomy through the lens of TIS discovers a broader range of sub-categories, compared with other frameworks. On average, each study that applied the TIS approach identified barriers that can be clustered in 9.5 different sub-categories, while studies that adopted frameworks classified as others covered approximately six sub-categories; MLP studies found seven and SNM approximately eight different sub-categories of barriers. In order to explore the differences between the studies and gain further insight, we analyzed the identified barrier clustered along each sub-category in more depth. In this regard, we found that most barriers related to Missing policies are observed though the lens of TIS. The same accounts for barriers linked to Unfavorable policies and politics and Implementation problems. This could be explained by the outcome of the analysis of the research questions (chapter 4.2.1), which indicates that TIS is frequently used to assess policies. Also, within the category Market and Investment Conditions, TIS studies identified the largest number of barriers. Within the category Social Acceptance, the barriers are only identified by studies that apply TIS, MLP, or frameworks categorized as “Others/New”. On average, barriers related to Networks and Knowledge are more frequently addressed by studies that build on the conception framework of SNM. Furthermore, our results show that most barriers related to Lock-ins in infrastructures and business models and Challenges related to standards are findings of MLP studies.

6. Discussion of Results

In this paper, we systematically analyzed how the transition towards a circular bioeconomy is studied by transition scholars, taking into account four dimensions—the main objective of the studies, the analytical framework applied, the geographical focus and the sectoral or value-chain focus of the studies. The main findings of our study are summarized in Table 9.
The results highlight that much work has been done to contribute to the understanding of the transition to a bioeconomy by observing factors influencing the transition, such as the impact of certain events [58], or by identifying supportive transition preconditions [59]. In addition, scholars are strongly concerned with the identification of the “actors/stakeholders” of the bioeconomy, e.g., by conducting Social Network Analysis [60].
We observed a tendency in the studies to either focus on change within a specific sector, such as historical development within incumbent firms, or to adopt a value chain perspective by exploring the emergence of novel value chains. The result is that scholars cover a wide range of sectors and value chains, reflecting the multi-sectoral [61] and complex character of the bioeconomy. However, we also noted that some sectors, such as textile and pharma, are not addressed by the analyzed transition studies. The results also highlight that studies of the transition to a bioeconomy mainly focus on wood-based and agriculture-based value chains. This may be linked to the fact that Northern European countries, characterized by a strong forest-based bioeconomy [62], are often the focus of investigation. It also indicates, however, that the concept of a circular bioeconomy and its implications for changes to existing sectors plays a less prominent role than the emergence of new, bio-based value chains. This is an important gap in the literature.
The geographical dimension revealed a major focus on national-level studies and a research gap in terms of studies at an European Union level. Again, this may be related to the multi-dimensional and multi-sectoral aspects of the bioeconomy. The bioeconomy strongly depends on the primary sector, which has a strong local or regional dimension. Nevertheless, its development is influenced by higher levels of governance. This points to the challenge of integrating different dimensions of analysis, in this case the various levels of governance. Moreover, it is important to note that studies applying a TIS approach do not address developments at a regional or local level, while only a small share of MLP studies do so. Indeed, the review process of identified barriers highlighted the importance of studying the regional and national particularities influencing the transition process. Deepening knowledge of the role of these conditions could help make insights from in-depth studies applicable to learning about similar cases. Hence, we consider cross-national or cross-regional studies as fruitful contributions to identifying the impact of varying conditions in terms of resource availability and national and regional regulatory frameworks for transition towards a bioeconomy.
The conducted review of the major barriers hampering transition towards a bioeconomy shows how the choice of a particular theoretical framework shapes the perspectives of studies on transition problems. More specifically, our analysis shows that studies analyzing the transition through TIS identified barriers along all categories of barriers, highlighting the important role of TIS in conducting transition studies. Indeed, most of the barriers related to missing policies are identified only by TIS, while both, TIS and MLP studies, identified a broad range of barriers within the sub-category to Unfavorable Policies and Politics and Implementation Problems. Furthermore, TIS studies did not identify a broad range of challenges related to the production of biomass and dependency on local conditions. As expected, on average, most challenges related to Networks and Knowledge were identified by SNM studies.
Furthermore, our findings indicate that only few studies emphasize on barriers related to Social Acceptance. This is in line with the findings of other literature reviews, which argue that, despite the need for a broad involvement of disciplines, the bioeconomy research field is still dominated by studies related to engineering, chemistry, medicine or biology, while social and economic perspectives are underrepresented [9]. Similarly, Piefer et al. [63] argue that the currently dominating technology-based view of transition pathways leads to certain shortcomings in regard to the addressed research topics, mainly in social science. In this sense, we observed that, even though some publications elaborate on the role of society as consumers of bio-based products, the studies hardly emphasize society as citizens with an active role expressing their preferences or opposition through political or social participation. In this sense, Ladu et al. [64] highlight a need for improving the policy mix by redesigning social dimension policy measures to support the desired transition to a circular forest bioeconomy. Imbert et al. [65] argue that awareness raising represents an important policy driver that has an important facilitating role in reinforcing the overall impact of the overall policy mix. This is particularly important for establishing a circular bioeconomy, which leverages recycling and the use of waste as a feedstock [66]. Indeed, customers’ perception and acceptance of the new waste-generated material is key to its success. However, consumer-facing issues such as consumer acceptance are under-represented in the literature and need to be better explored [6] in order to enable a successful shift to a circular bioeconomy.
Finally, we observed that, in the majority of the analyzed studies, the sustainability of particular aspects of the transition was assumed, while only a few critically reflect on the sustainability of the analyzed phenomena (e.g., [67]).

7. Conclusions

As highlighted above, research into the circular bioeconomy remains fragmented, focusing on relatively isolated dimensions of the transition. Analysis that seeks to link different geographic dimensions or sectoral and value-chain-based foci is rare. This also means that the identification of barriers takes place in different spheres, failing to link aspects related to the incumbent regime with the challenges of emerging technologies and industries. As Weber and Rohracher [25] point out, MLP and TIS therefore provide complementary perspectives. For the bioeconomy field, however, a complementary approach may not be sufficient to make relevant progress in identifying policy entry-points, as the emergence of new technologies is strongly related to the need to integrate them in existing sectoral structures. This paper suggests that to derive a truly comprehensive set of barriers for policy formulation, a combined perspective is needed. To do so, additional conceptual development, aimed at integrating these perspectives in a single approach, might be promising.
There are few attempts to integrate a value chain perspective within a sector-based perspective. This highlights a research gap and calls for the need to study how sectorial transitions (e.g., the chemistry or plastic manufacturing sectors) and the development of new value chains are related to each other in the transition to a circular bioeconomy. This is also apparent from the barriers that emerge from studies taking a TIS or an MLP approach, respectively. While TIS studies are more likely to identify policy-related and network-related barriers, MLP studies reveal issues related to sectoral routines and lock-in effects. Correspondingly, most MLP studies follow a sectoral logic and do not address specific value chains, while TIS studies follow the opposite logic. It is likely that this stems from the focus on structural changes in MLP and the focus on the emergence of new technologies and the related institutional and structural features.
Alternatively, it may be fruitful to conduct a more in-depth, integrated study of barriers, drawing on the existing literature and aiming for the development of specific policy conclusions. Such a study could take this review as a starting point. To provide a manageable focus for such an endeavor, such a study might focus on the central concepts of a circular bioeconomy, such as the cascading use of biomass. This could help frame the analysis according to the intended logic of a circular bioeconomy rather than basing it on pre-existing structures or emerging technologies alone.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.G., L.L., and R.Q.; methodology A.G. and L.L.; software, A.G.; validation, A.G., L.L. and R.Q.; formal analysis, A.G. and L.L.; investigation, A.G.; resources, A.G., and L.L.; data curation, A.G.; writing—original draft preparation, A.G. and L.L.; writing—review and editing, A.G., L.L., and R.Q.; visualization, A.G., L.L., and R.Q.; supervision, L.L. and R.Q.; project administration, L.L.; funding acquisition, L.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work has been financed by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) through the project “BioTOP-Transition oriented innovation policies for bioeconomy” (FZK 031B0781B).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

AuthorYearTitleJournal
Geels, F.W.2002Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-studyRESEARCH POLICY
Schot, J. and Geels, F.W.2007Typology of sociotechnical transition pathwaysRESEARCH POLICY
Geels, F.W.2004From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems-Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory RESEARCH POLICY
Kemp, R., Schot, J. and Hoogma, R.1998Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche managementTECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
Smith, A., Stirling, A. and Berkhout, F.2005The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitionsRESEARCH POLICY
Hekkert, M. P., Suurs, R. A. A., Negro, S. O., et al.2007Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological changeTECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE
Schot, J. and Geels, F.W.2008Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policyTECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
Smith, A., Voss, J. and Grin, J.2010Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective and its challengesRESEARCH POLICY
Geels, F.W.2010Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspectiveRESEARCH POLICY
Loorbach, D.2010Transition Management for Sustainable Development: A Prescriptive, Complexity-Based Governance FrameworkGOVERNANCE-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF POLICY ADMINISTRATION AND INSTITUTIONS
Rip, A. and Kemp, R. 1998Technological changeHUMAN CHOICE AND CLIMATIC CHANGE
Malerba, F.2002Sectoral systems of innovation and productionRESEARCH POLICY
Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., Carlsson, B., Lindmark, S. and Rickne, A.2008Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systemsRESEARCH POLICY
Carlsson, B. and Stankiewicz, R.1991On the nature, function and composition of technological systemsEVOLUTIONARY ECONOMICS

Appendix B

AuthorYearTitleJournal
Kedron, P. and Bagchi-Sen, S.2017Limits to policy-led innovation and industry development in US biofuelsTECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
Bauer, F., Hansen, T. and Hellsmark, H.2018Innovation in the bioeconomy-dynamics of biorefinery innovation networksTECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
Sutherland, L.-A., Peter, S., & Zagata, L. 2015Conceptualising multi-regime interactions: The role of the agriculture sector in renewable energy transitions. RESEARCH POLICY
Mossberg, J., Soderholm, P., Hellsmark, H. and Nordqvist, S.2018Crossing the biorefinery valley of death? Actor roles and networks in overcoming barriers to a sustainability transitionENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATION AND SOCIETAL TRANSITIONS
Mertens, A., Van Lancker, J., Buysse, J., Lauwers, L. and Van Meensel, J.2019Overcoming non-technical challenges in bioeconomy value-chain development: Learning from practiceJOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
Carraresi, L., Berg, S. and Broring, S.2018Emerging value chains within the bioeconomy: Structural changes in the case of phosphate recoveryJOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
Swagemakers, P; Garcia, MDD; Wiskerke, JSC2018Socially-Inclusive Development and Value Creation: How a Composting Project in Galicia (Spain) Hit the Rocks’SUSTAINABILITY
Falcone, P. M.2018Analysing stakeholders’ perspectives towards a socio-technical change: The energy transition journey in Gela MunicipalityAIMS ENERGY
Giurca, A. and Spath, P.2017A forest-based bioeconomy for Germany? Strengths, weaknesses and policy options for lignocellulosic biorefineriesENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATION AND SOCIETAL TRANSITIONS
Hedeler, B., Lettner, M., Stern, T., Schwarzbauer, P. and Hesser, F.2020Strategic decisions on knowledge development and diffusion at pilot and demonstration projects: An empirical mapping of actors, projects and strategies in the case of circular forest bioeconomyFOREST POLICY AND ECONOMICS
Hellsmark, H. and Soderholm, P.2017Innovation policies for advanced biorefinery development: key considerations and lessons from SwedenJOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
Hellsmark, H., Mossberg, J., Soderholm, P. and Frishammar, J.2016Innovation system strengths and weaknesses in progressing sustainable technology: the case of Swedish biorefinery developmentBIOFUELS BIOPRODUCTS & BIOREFINING-BIOFPR
Van Lancker, J., Wauters, E. and Van Huylenbroeck, G.2019OPEN INNOVATION IN PUBLIC RESEARCH INSTITUTES-SUCCESS AND INFLUENCING FACTORSBIOMASS & BIOENERGY
Wydra, S.2019Value Chains for Industrial Biotechnology in the Bioeconomy-Innovation System AnalysisSUSTAINABILITY
van Leeuwen, K; de Vries, E; Koop, S; Roest, K2018The Energy & Raw Materials Factory: Role and Potential Contribution to the Circular Economy of the NetherlandsENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Magrini, M. B., Befort, N. and Nieddu, M.2019Technological Lock-In and Pathways for Crop Diversification in the Bio-EconomyAGROECOSYSTEM DIVERSITY: RECONCILING CONTEMPORARY AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Rex, E., Rosander, E., Royne, F., Veide, A. and Ulmanen, J.2017A systems perspective on chemical production from mixed food waste: The case of bio-succinate in SwedenRESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING
Giurca, Alexandru2020Unpacking the network discourse: Actors and storylines in Germany’s wood-based bioeconomyJOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
Grundel, I, Dahlstrom, M 2016A Quadruple and Quintuple Helix Approach to Regional Innovation Systems in the Transformation to a Forestry-Based BioeconomyJOURNAL OF THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY
Korhonen, J, Giurca, A, Brockhaus, M, Toppinen, A 2018Actors and Politics in Finland’s Forest-Based Bioeconomy NetworkSUSTAINABILITY
Luhas, J., Mikkila, M., Uusitalo, V. and Linnanen, L.2019Product Diversification in Sustainability Transition: The Forest-Based Bioeconomy in FinlandSUSTAINABILITY
Pannicke, N, Gawel, E, Hagemann, N, Purkus, A, Strunz, S 2015The Political Economy of Fostering a Wood-based Bioeconomy in GermanyGERMAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
Joelsson, J. M., Warneryd, M., Alwarsdotter, Y., Brucher, J. and Heuts, L.2017FROM GREEN FOREST TO GREEN COMMODITY CHEMICALS-EXPERIENCES FROM CROSS-SECTOR COLLABORATION AND CONSEQUENCES FOR IMPLEMENTATIONPAPERS OF THE 25TH EUROPEAN BIOMASS CONFERENCE
Lazarevic, D., Kautto, P. and Antikainen, R.2020Finland’s wood-frame multi-storey construction innovation system: Analysing motors of creative destructionFOREST POLICY AND ECONOMICS
Toppinen, A., Sauru, M., Patari, S., Lahtinen, K. and Tuppura, A.2019Internal and external factors of competitiveness shaping the future of wooden multistory construction in Finland and SwedenCONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS
Ehrenfeld, W. and Kropfhausser, F.2017Plant-based bioeconomy in Central Germany-a mapping of actors, industries and placesTECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
Giurca, A. and Metz, T.2018A social network analysis of Germany’s wood-based bioeconomy: Social capital and shared beliefsFOREST POLICY AND ECONOMICS
Metze, T., Schuitmaker, T. J., Bitsch, L. and Broerse, J.2017Breaking barriers for a bio-based economy: Interactive reflection on monitoring water qualityENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY
Scordato, L., Bugge, M. M. and Fevolden, A. M.2017Directionality across Diversity: Governing Contending Policy Rationales in the Transition towards the BioeconomySUSTAINABILITY
Vivien, FD, Nieddu, M, Befort, N, Debref, R, Giampietro, M 2019The Hijacking of the BioeconomyECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS
Wreford, A., Bayne, K., Edwards, P. and Renwick, A.2019Enabling a transformation to a bioeconomy in New ZealandENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATION AND SOCIETAL TRANSITIONS
Bauer, F. and Fuenfschilling, L.2019Local initiatives and global regimes-Multi-scalar transition dynamics in the chemical industryJOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
Purkus, A., Hagemann, N., Bedtke, N. and Gawel, E.2018Towards a sustainable innovation system for the German wood-based bioeconomy: Implications for policy designJOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
Bosman, R. and Rotmans, J.2016Transition Governance towards a Bioeconomy: A Comparison of Finland and The NetherlandsSUSTAINABILITY
Lopolito, A., Prosperi, M.,; Sisto, R., De Meo, E.2015Translating local stakeholders’ perception in rural development strategies under uncertainty conditions: An application to the case of the bio-based economy in the area of Foggia (South Italy)JOURNAL OF RURAL STUDIES
Hansen, L. and Bjorkhaug, H.2017Visions and Expectations for the Norwegian BioeconomySUSTAINABILITY
Hodgson, E., Ruiz-Molina, M. E., Marazza, D., Pogrebnyakova, E., Burns, C., Higson, A., Rehberger, M., Hiete, M., Gyalai-Korpos, M., Di Lucia, L., Noel, Y., Woods, J. and Gallagher, J.2016Horizon scanning the European bio-based economy: a novel approach to the identification of barriers and key policy interventions from stakeholders in multiple sectors and regionsBIOFUELS BIOPRODUCTS & BIOREFINING-BIOFPR
Bueno, CD, da Silveira, JMFJ, Buainain, AM, Dal Poz, MES 2018Applying an IPC network to identify the bioenergy technological frontierREVISTA BRASILEIRA DE INOVACAO
Sanz-Hernandez, A., Sanagustin-Fons, M. V. and Lopez-Rodriguez, M. E.2019A transition to an innovative and inclusive bioeconomy in Aragon, SpainENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATION AND SOCIETAL TRANSITIONS
Groves, C., Sankar, M. and Thomas, P. J.2018Second-generation biofuels: exploring imaginaries via deliberative workshops with farmersJOURNAL OF RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION
Tani, A.2018A Strategic Niche Management approach for shaping bio-based economy in EuropeOPEN AGRICULTURE
Vandermeulen, V, Van der Steen, M, Stevens, CV, Van Huylenbroeck, G 2012Industry expectations regarding the transition toward a biobased economyBIOFUELS BIOPRODUCTS & BIOREFINING-BIOFPR
Cavicchi, B., Palmieri, S. and Odaldi, M.2017The Influence of Local Governance: Effects on the Sustainability of Bioenergy InnovationSUSTAINABILITY
Giezen, M2018Shifting Infrastructure Landscapes in a Circular Economy: An Institutional Work Analysis of the Water and Energy SectorSUSTAINABILITY
Lyytimaki, J2018Renewable energy in the news: Environmental, economic, policy and technology discussion of biogasSUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION
Bennett, S. J. and Pearson, P. J. G.2009From petrochemical complexes to biorefineries? The past and prospective co-evolution of liquid fuels and chemicals production in the UKCHEMICAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH & DESIGN
Pelli, P and Lahtinen, K 2020Servitization and bioeconomy transitions: Insights on prefabricated wooden elements supply networksJOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
Bosman, R., Loorbach, D., Rotmans, J. and van Raak, R.2018Carbon Lock-Out: Leading the Fossil Port of Rotterdam into TransitionSUSTAINABILITY
Mores, G. D., Finocchio, C. P. S., Barichello, R. and Pedrozo, E. A.2018Sustainability and innovation in the Brazilian supply chain of green plasticJOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
Busu, C. and Busu, M.2019ECONOMIC MODELING IN THE MANAGEMENT OF TRANSITION TO BIOECONOMYAMFITEATRU ECONOMIC
Lyytimaki, J.;,Nygren, NA., Pulkka, A. and Rantala, S.2018Energy transition looming behind the headlines? Newspaper coverage of biogas production in FinlandENERGY SUSTAINABILITY AND SOCIETY
Imbert, E., Ladu, L., Morone, P. and Quitzow, R.2017Comparing policy strategies for a transition to a bioeconomy in Europe: The case of Italy and GermanyENERGY RESEARCH & SOCIAL SCIENCE
Imbert, E., Ladu, L., Tani, A. and Morone, P.2019The transition towards a bio-based economy: A comparative study based on social network analysisJOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Falcone, P. M., Tani, A., Tartiu, V. E. and Imbriani, C.2020Towards a sustainable forest-based bioeconomy in Italy: Findings from a SWOT analysisFOREST POLICY AND ECONOMICS
Hansen, L 2019The Weak Sustainability of the Salmon Feed Transition in Norway-A Bioeconomic Case StudyFRONTIERS IN MARINE SCIENCE
Strom-Andersen, Nhat2019Incumbents in the Transition Towards the Bioeconomy: The Role of Dynamic Capabilities and Innovation Strategies JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
Scordato, L., Klitkou, A., Tartiu, V. E. and Coenen, L.2018Policy mixes for the sustainability transition of the pulp and paper industry in SwedenJOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
Soderholm, K., Bergquist, A. K. and Soderholm, P.2017The transition to chlorine free pulp revisited: Nordic heterogeneity in environmental regulation and R&D collaborationJOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION

References

  1. European Commission. A Sustainable Bioeconomy for Europe: Strengthening the Connection Between Economy, Society and the Environment; COM(2018) 673 Final; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  2. Böcher, M.; Töller, A.E.; Perbandt, D.; Beer, K.; Vogelpohl, T. Research trends: Bioeconomy governance and politics. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Gomez San Juan, M.; Bogdanski, A.; Dubois, O. Towards Sustainable Bioeconomy—Lessons Learned from Case Studies; Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2019; p. 132. [Google Scholar]
  4. Von Braun, J. Bioeconomy and Its Set of Innovations for Sustainability. Ind. Biotechnol. 2020, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. European Commission. Closing the Loop—An Eu Action Plan for the Circular Economy; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  6. European Commission. A Clean Planet for All. A European Strategic Long-Term Vision for a Prosperous, Modern, Competitive and Climate Neutral Economy; COM(2018) 773 final; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  7. Köhler, J.; Geels, F.W.; Kern, F.; Markard, J.; Onsongo, E.; Wieczorek, A.; Alkemade, F.; Avelino, F.; Bergek, A.; Boons, F.; et al. An agenda for sustainability transitions research. State of the art and future directions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2019, 31, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Zolfagharian, M.; Walrave, B.; Raven, R.; Romme, A.G. Studying transitions. Past, present, and future. Res. Policy 2019, 48, 103788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sanz-Hernández, A.; Esteban, E.; Garrido, P. Transition to a bioeconomy. Perspectives from social sciences. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 224, 107–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Kelleher, L.; Henchion, M.; O’Neill, E. Policy Coherence and the Transition to a Bioeconomy: The Case of Ireland. Sustainability 2019, 11, 7247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Bugge, M.M.; Hansen, T.; Klitkou, A. What Is the Bioeconomy? A Review of the Literature. Sustainability 2016, 8, 691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Maciejczak, M. What are production determinants of bioeconomy. Probl. World Agric. 2015, 15, 137–146. [Google Scholar]
  13. Pelli, P.; Lähtinen, K. Servitization and bioeconomy transitions. Insights on prefabricated wooden elements supply networks. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 244, 118711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ehrenfeld, W.; Kropfhäußer, F. Plant-based bioeconomy in Central Germany—A mapping of actors, industries and places. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2016, 29, 514–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Kaplinsky, R.; Morris, M. A Handbook for Value Chain Research; IDRC: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  16. Porter, M.E. Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strat. Mgmt. J. 1991, 12, 95–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Porter, M.E.; Van der Linde, C. Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. J. Econ. Perspect. 1995, 9, 97–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wang, C.H. How organizational green culture influences green performance and competitive advantage: The mediating role of green innovation. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2019, 30, 666–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bröring, S.; Laibach, N.; Wustmans, M. Innovation types in the bioeconomy. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 266, 121939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wydra, S. Value Chains for Industrial Biotechnology in the Bioeconomy-Innovation System Analysis. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Grin, J.; Rotmans, J.; Schot, J. Transitions to Sustainable Development. New Directions in the Study of Long Term Transformative Change, 1st ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA; London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  22. Smith, A.; Voß, J.P.; Grin, J. Innovation studies and sustainability transitions. The allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Res. Policy 2010, 39, 435–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Urmetzer, S.; Lask, J.; Vargas-Carpintero, R.; Pyka, A. Learning to change: Transformative knowledge for building a sustainable bioeconomy. Ecol. Econ. 2020, 167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Markard, J.; Truffer, B. Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: Towards an integrated framework. Res. Policy 2008, 37, 596–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Weber, K.M.; Rohracher, H. Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change. Res. Policy 2012, 41, 1037–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wieczorek, A.J.; Hekkert, M.P. Systemic instruments for systemic innovation problems. A framework for policy makers and innovation scholars. Sci. Public Policy 2012, 39, 74–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hekkert, M.P.; Suurs, R.A.; Negro, S.O.; Kuhlmann, S.; Smits, R.E. Functions of innovation systems. A new approach for analysing technological change. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2007, 74, 413–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Bergek, A.; Jacobsson, S.; Carlsson, B.; Lindmark, S.; Rickne, A. Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis. Res. Policy 2008, 37, 407–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Negro, S.O.; Suurs, R.A.; Hekkert, M.P. The bumpy road of biomass gasification in the Netherlands. Explaining the rise and fall of an emerging innovation system. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2008, 75, 57–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Markard, J.; Hekkert, M.; Jacobsson, S. The technological innovation systems framework. Response to six criticisms. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2015, 16, 76–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Bergek, A. Shaping and Exploiting Technological Opportunities: The Case of Renewable Energy Technology in Sweden. Ph.D. Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  32. Johnson, A.; Jacobsson, S. Inducement and Blocking Mechanisms in the Development of a New Industry: The Case of Renewable Energy Technology in Sweden. In Technology and the Market: Demand, Users and Innovation; Coombs, R., Green, K., Walsh, V., Richards, A., Eds.; Edward Elgar Pub: Cheltenham, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  33. Hellsmark, H.; Mossberg, J.; Söderholm, P.; Frishammar, J. Innovation system strengths and weaknesses in progressing sustainable technology. The case of Swedish biorefinery development. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 131, 702–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Rip, A.; Kemp, R. (Eds.) Technological Change; Battelle Press: Columbus, OH, Canada, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  35. Geels, F. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes. A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res. Policy 2002, 31, 1257–1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Geels, F. The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions. Responses to seven criticisms. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2011, 1, 24–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Fuenfschilling, L.; Truffer, B. The structuration of socio-technical regimes—Conceptual foundations from institutional theory. Res. Policy 2014, 43, 772–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Dosi, G. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Res. Policy 1982, 11, 147–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Unruh, G.C. Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 2000, 28, 817–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wells, P.; Nieuwenhuis, P. Transition failure. Understanding continuity in the automotive industry. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2012, 79, 1681–1692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Geels, F.; Raven, R. Non-linearity and Expectations in Niche-Development Trajectories. Ups and Downs in Dutch Biogas Development (1973–2003). Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2006, 18, 375–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Schot, J.; Geels, F.W. Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys. Theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2008, 20, 537–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kemp, R.; Schot, J.; Hoogma, R. Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation. The approach of strategic niche management. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 1998, 10, 175–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rotmans, J.; Kemp, R.; Van Asselt, M. More evolution than revolution. Transition management in public policy. Foresight 2001, 3, 15–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Loorbach, D. Transition Management for Sustainable Development. A Prescriptive, Complexity-Based Governance Framework. Governance 2010, 23, 161–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Loorbach, D. Transition management. In New Mode of Governance for Sustainable Development: Nieuwe Vorm Van Governance Voor Duurzame Ontwikkeling = Transitiemanagement; Erasmus University Rotterdam: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  47. Van der Brugge, R.; van Raak, R. Facing the adaptive management challenge: Insights from transition management. Ecol. Soc. 2007, 12, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009, 339, b2535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Glaser, B. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative Research; Aldine de Gruyter: New York, NY, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
  50. Corbin, J.M.; Strauss, A. Grounded theory research. Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qual. Sociol. 1990, 13, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mey, G.; Mruck, K. Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie; VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften (GWV): Wiesbaden, Germany, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  52. Vandermeulen, V.; Van der Steen, M.; Stevens, C.V.; Van Huylenbroeck, G. Industry expectations regarding the transition toward a biobased economy. BiofuelsBioprod. Bioref. 2012, 6, 453–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Strøm-Andersen, N. Incumbents in the Transition Towards the Bioeconomy: The Role of Dynamic Capabilities and Innovation Strategies. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Carraresi, L.; Berg, S.; Bröring, S. Emerging value chains within the bioeconomy. Structural changes in the case of phosphate recovery. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 183, 87–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Magrini, M.B.; Béfort, N.; Nieddu, M. Technological Lock-In and Pathways for Crop Diversification in the Bio-Economy. In Agroecosystem Diversity; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 375–388. [Google Scholar]
  56. Guiana, A.; Späth, P. A forest-based bioeconomy for Germany? Strengths, weaknesses and policy options for lignocellulosic biorefineries. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 153, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Bosman, R.; Rotmans, J. Transition Governance towards a Bioeconomy: A Comparison of Finland and The Netherlands. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Lazarevic, D.; Kautto, P.; Antikainen, R. Finland’s wood-frame multi-storey construction innovation system: Analysing motors of creative destruction. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Grundel, I.; Dahlström, M. A Quadruple and Quintuple Helix Approach to Regional Innovation Systems in the Transformation to a Forestry-Based Bioeconomy. J. Knowl. Econ. 2016, 7, 963–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Giurca, A.; Metz, T. A social network analysis of Germany’s wood-based bioeconomy. Social capital and shared beliefs. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2018, 26, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. D’Adamo, I.; Falcone, P.M.; Morone, P. A New Socio-economic Indicator to Measure the Performance of Bioeconomy Sectors in Europe. Ecol. Econ. 2020, 176, 106724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lovrić, M.; Lovrić, N.; Mavsar, R. Mapping forest-based bioeconomy research in Europe. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 110, 101874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Priefer, C.; Jörissen, J.; Frör, O. Pathways to Shape the Bioeconomy. Resources 2017, 6, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Ladu, L.; Imbert, E.; Quitzow, R.; Morone, P. The role of the policy mix in the transition toward a circular forest bioeconomy. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 110, 101937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Imbert, E.; Ladu, L.; Morone, P.; Quitzow, R. Comparing policy strategies for a transition to a bioeconomy in Europe: The case of Italy and Germany. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 33, 70–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Scarpi, D.; Russo, I.; Confente, I.; Hazen, B. Individual antecedents to consumer intention to switch to food waste bioplastic products: A configuration analysis. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Pannicke, N.; Gawe, E.; Hagemann, N.; Purkus, A.; Strunz, S. The Political Economy of Fostering a Wood-based Bioeconomy in Germany. Ger. J. Agric. Econ. 2015, 64, 224–243. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. The review process linked to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Source: adapted from Moher et al., 2009.
Figure 1. The review process linked to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Source: adapted from Moher et al., 2009.
Sustainability 12 08990 g001
Figure 2. Analytical steps and research questions. Source: own elaboration.
Figure 2. Analytical steps and research questions. Source: own elaboration.
Sustainability 12 08990 g002
Figure 3. Main objectives. Source: own elaboration.
Figure 3. Main objectives. Source: own elaboration.
Sustainability 12 08990 g003
Figure 4. Addressed sectors and value chains. Source: own elaboration.
Figure 4. Addressed sectors and value chains. Source: own elaboration.
Sustainability 12 08990 g004
Figure 5. Addressed geographical regions.
Figure 5. Addressed geographical regions.
Sustainability 12 08990 g005
Figure 6. Applied frameworks. Source: own elaboration.
Figure 6. Applied frameworks. Source: own elaboration.
Sustainability 12 08990 g006
Figure 7. Frequency of the application of the frameworks in relation to “sectors and value chains”. Source: Own elaboration.
Figure 7. Frequency of the application of the frameworks in relation to “sectors and value chains”. Source: Own elaboration.
Sustainability 12 08990 g007
Table 1. Investigated aspects in the systematic literature review.
Table 1. Investigated aspects in the systematic literature review.
Investigate DimensionInvestigated AspectsDescription
Main objectives of the studyKey factors Studies that aim at identifying and assessing factors influencing the transition to a bioeconomy.
Changes in established sectorsStudies that address the change of established sectors or incumbent firms and/or their roles. The starting point here is pre-defined companies or a certain sector.
Networks and StakeholdersStudies that aim at identifying involved stakeholders and/or their positions and expectations.
PoliciesStudies with the objective to identify or assess policies and their impact on the transition towards a bioeconomy.
Sectors and value chainsSectorsStudies that address the transition within a clearly defined sector. Identified sectors include chemistry, the plastic manufacturing sector, the pulp and paper manufacturing sector, the construction and building sector, the fuel and energy producing sector, and the primary sector.
Value chainsStudies with a value chain perspective observe economic activities related to one or more clearly defined value chain(s) or value chain step(s). Hence, these publications are not limited to the observation of firms or organizations from one sector only. Besides studies that focus on the observation of wood- or agricultural-based value chains or value chains from waste and by-products, we also distinguish between studies focusing on the value chain steps of biomass production or biomass processing.
Bioeconomy in general Studies that observe the transition towards a bioeconomy in general (e.g., comparing policies form different countries to promote the use of biomass for industrial purposes unrelated to a certain sector).
Geographical scaleNational, Regional, European Studies with a focus on national, local/regional, or European level, using data form one country or one region, or European level data, respectively.
Cross national, Cross regionalThe research is based on compering or combining national level data from two or more countries or local level data from two or more regions.
Other e.g., global.
Theoretical frameworksTIS and frameworks linked to TISStudies that adopted TIS/a framework linked to TIS.
MLP and frameworks linked to MLPStudies that adopted MLP/a framework linked to MLP.
SNM and frameworks linked to SNMStudies that adopted SNM/a framework linked to SNM.
TM and frameworks linked to TMStudies that adopted TM/a framework linked to TM.
OtherStudies that apply a framework unrelated to the four named above.
NewStudies that introduce and apply a new approach.
Source: own elaboration.
Table 2. Percentage of papers applying different frameworks in relation to “main objectives”.
Table 2. Percentage of papers applying different frameworks in relation to “main objectives”.
TISMLPSNMTMOther/New
Key factors50.041.750.0-30.8
Stakeholders14.38.325.050.042.3
Incumbent firms-50.0 50.025.0
Policies35.7-25.0-15.4
Source: own elaboration.
Table 3. Percentage of papers applying different frameworks in relation to a “geographical perspective”.
Table 3. Percentage of papers applying different frameworks in relation to a “geographical perspective”.
TISMLPSNMTMOther/New
National64.358.325.050.046.2
Local or Regional-16.725.050.026.9
Cross-National14.325.025.0-38.5
Other (e.g., cross-local, European, global)21.4-25.0-41.7
Source: own elaboration.
Table 4. Categorization of transition barriers identified.
Table 4. Categorization of transition barriers identified.
Categories of Barrier Total No. of PapersSub-Categories of Barriers No. of Papers Per Sub-Category
Policies and Regulations44Missing policies23
Unfavorable policies and politics29
Policy Implementation problems29
Technology and Material26Difficulties to obtain input material19
Missing physical infrastructure7
Technical barriers related to production and industrial application10
Market and Investment Conditions40Unfavorable market environment27
Issues in market creation19
Unfavorable investment conditions11
Social Acceptance22Public opposition13
Lack of public awareness, interest, and engagement6
Knowledge and Networks48Difficulties with network formation25
Coordination and communication problems18
Different views and expectations within networks25
Problems with research and knowledge development24
Lack of information and knowledge12
Missing skills and competences16
Sectoral Routines and Structures43Low willingness and restrictiveness to change27
Lock-ins in infrastructures and business models21
Challenges related to standards 13
Source: own elaboration.
Table 5. Percentage of papers identifying one or more barriers in relation to the “main objectives of the studies”.
Table 5. Percentage of papers identifying one or more barriers in relation to the “main objectives of the studies”.
Key FactorsStakeholdersIncumbent FirmsPolicies
Policies and Regulations86.468.840.0100.0
Technology and Material54.531.320.070.0
Market and Investment conditions77.362.570.060.0
Social Acceptance45.537.520.040.0
Knowledge and Networks90.987.570.070.0
Sectoral Routines and Structures72.768.880.080.0
Source: own elaboration.
Table 6. Percentage of papers identifying one or more barriers in relation to “sectors and value chains”.
Table 6. Percentage of papers identifying one or more barriers in relation to “sectors and value chains”.
Studies that Observe Change within a Particular SectorStudies with a Value Chain PerspectiveStudies Observing Bioeconomy in General
Policies and Regulations57.175.8100.0
Technology and Material21.460.627.3
Market and Investment Conditions57.181.845.5
Social Acceptance35.736.445.5
Knowledge and Networks78.684.881.8
Sectoral Routines and Structures92.972.754.5
Source: own elaboration.
Table 7. Percentage of papers identifying one or more barriers in relation to “geographical scale”.
Table 7. Percentage of papers identifying one or more barriers in relation to “geographical scale”.
NationalRegionalCross-NationalCross-RegionalEuropeanOther
Policies and Regulations77.466.785.7100.0100.050.0
Technology and Material41.958.342.950.0-50.0
Market and Investment Conditions77.475.057.150.050.025.0
Social Acceptance45.241.728.6-0.025.0
Knowledge and Networks80.683.3100.050.0100.075,0
Sectoral Routines and Structures80.650.0100.050.050.075,0
Source: own elaboration.
Table 8. Categorization of identified barriers and their conceptual origins.
Table 8. Categorization of identified barriers and their conceptual origins.
TIS
(14 Studies)
MLP
(12 Studies)
SNM
(4 Studies)
TM
(2 Studies)
Other/New
(26 Studies)
∑ of Paper% of Paper∑ of Paper% of Paper∑ of Paper% of Paper∑ of Paper% of Paper∑ of Paper% of Paper
Policy and Regulation
Missing policies1178.6433.3250.0-- 726.9
Unfavorable policies and politics1071.4650.0125.0150.01346.2
Implementation problems1071.4541.7375.0150.01346.2
Technology and Materials
Difficulties to obtain input material642.9433.3250.0--934.6
Missing physical infrastructure535.7--125.0--13.8
Technical barriers to production and industrial application535.7216.6125.0--311.5
Market and Investment Conditions
Unfavorable market environment964.3758.3250.0150.01346.2
Issues in market creation535.7541.7250.0-- 726.9
Unfavorable investment conditions1071.4325.0125.0150.0846.2
Social Acceptance
Public opposition428.6433.3-- -- 1038.5
Lack of public awareness, interest, and engagement17.1325.0-- --726.9
Networks and Knowledge
Difficulties in network formation857.1541.7250.0150.01246.1
Coordination and communication problems857.1541.7125.0-- 519.2
Different views and expectations within networks750.0541.7375.0150.01038.5
Problems in research and knowledge development857.1433.3375.0--1246.1
Lack of information and knowledge321.4325.0125.0--623.1
Missing skills and competences428.6325.0375.0--623.1
Sectoral Routines and Structures
Low willingness and restrictiveness to change857.1541.7125.02100.01142.3
Lock-ins in infrastructures and business models750.0758.3250.0150.0934.6
Challenges related to standards 428.6433.3-- -- 519.2
Averages of identified sub-categories of barriers per paper9.57.07.84.56.4
Source: own elaboration.
Table 9. Summary of the main findings of the systematic literature review.
Table 9. Summary of the main findings of the systematic literature review.
Investigated Dimension Results of the Analysis addressing the Research Field in GeneralResults of the Analysis addressing the Applied Frameworks within the Research FieldResults of the Analysis addressing identified Barriers
Main objectivesMost studies had the objective to analyze key factors and the role and perspectives of actors. Understanding the role of policies and changes within established sectors were less investigated aspects.TIS was mostly used to analyze policies and their effects; MLP was used for exploring the changes carried out by incumbent firms or their role in the transition.Studies assessing policies and publications addressing key factors identify nine sub-categories of barrier per document, while studies aiming at observing stakeholders and incumbent firms identify less than six.
Sectors and value chainsFew studies analyzed the transition towards the bioeconomy in general. The others focused on a wide range of sectors (major focusing on fuels and energy). In addition, the majority of the studies observed changes within sectors unrelated to a particular value chain or value chain step. Studies with a value-chain-focus most frequently analyzed wood-based building blocks. There was not a clear tendency to choose a certain framework to analyze a particular sector. However, TIS is often used to address innovation systems around biorefineries, while MLP is frequently used for observing change within the primary and construction sectors.Studies with a value chain perspective identified the largest number of sub-categories of barriers per paper, mostly related to Technology and Material, Market and Investment Conditions, and Knowledge and Networks. Publications focusing on a certain sector addressed more barriers within the Sectoral Routines and Structures category. Barriers clustered as Policies and Regulations and Social Acceptance were most frequently addressed by studies that observe the bioeconomy in general.
Geographical scaleMost of the studies observed the transition with a national focus, mostly on north European countries. Also relevant were studies focusing on a regional or local scale. Very minor studies were carried out at an EU level.TIS, MLP and “other/new” frameworks were mostly used for studies that focused on a national level. SNM studies in our selection were distributed along all types of geographical scales.Studies with a cross-national perspective identified, on average, nine barrier sub-categories, while publications that drew their conclusions from national- and European-level data found approximately seven sub-categories of barriers.
Applied Theoretical frameworksTIS was the most applied theoretical framework, followed by MLP and SNM. However, a large number of the studies made use of alternative approaches that combined one or two frameworks, most of them building on MLP.n.a. Studies adopting TIS discovered a broader range of barriers, mostly, but not exclusively, related to policies.
Source: own elaboration.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gottinger, A.; Ladu, L.; Quitzow, R. Studying the Transition towards a Circular Bioeconomy—A Systematic Literature Review on Transition Studies and Existing Barriers. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8990. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218990

AMA Style

Gottinger A, Ladu L, Quitzow R. Studying the Transition towards a Circular Bioeconomy—A Systematic Literature Review on Transition Studies and Existing Barriers. Sustainability. 2020; 12(21):8990. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218990

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gottinger, Alexandra, Luana Ladu, and Rainer Quitzow. 2020. "Studying the Transition towards a Circular Bioeconomy—A Systematic Literature Review on Transition Studies and Existing Barriers" Sustainability 12, no. 21: 8990. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218990

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop