Backhouse, M. Lehmann, R., Lühmann, M. und A. Tittor. 2018. Bioökonomie als technologische Innovation. Zur Notwendigkeit alternativer Forschung und einer gesellschaftlichen Debatte. In: Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung (Hrsg.): Mit Bioökonomie die Welt retten? Neue Geschäftsmodelle und alte Strukturen. Berlin: Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung (Rundbrief 1/2018), 14-15.
Backhouse, M. 2018. Umwelt – Die neue Einhegung der Natur. In: Vogelpohl, Anne; Michel, Boris; Lebuhn, Henrik; Hoerning, Johanna; Belina, Bernd (Hg.): Raumproduktionen II. Theoretische Kontroversen und politische Auseinandersetzungen. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot. S. 60-80.
Biber-Freudenberger, L., Whitney, C., Beuchelt, T., Jaenicke, H., Kelboro, G., Schmitt, C. B., Sommer, J.-H., Denich, M. 2018. More inter- and transdisciplinary research needed in Agroecology. Rural 21, 52(2):31-33.
Dietz, T., Börner, J., Förster, J.J. and J. von Braun. 2018. Governance of the bioeconomy: A global comparative study of national bioeconomy strategies. ZEF Discussion Paper 264. Center for Development Research (ZEF), Bonn.
Escobar N., Tizado E.J., and J. Godar. 2018. Carbon footprint from Brazilian soybeans based on spatially-explicit life cycle inventories, including land use change. SETAC Europe 28th Annual Meeting. Responsible and innovative Research for Environmental Quality. 13-17 May 2018, Rome, Italy.
Gardner, T. A., M. Benzie, J. Börner, E. Dawkins, S. Fick, R. Garrett, J. Godar, A. Grimard, S. Lake, R.K. Larsen, N. Mardas, C.L. McDermott, P. Meyfroidt, M. Osbeck, M. Persson, T. Sembres, C. Suavet, B. Strassburg, A. Trevisan, C. West, P. Wolvekamp. 2018. Transparency and sustainability in global commodity supply chains. World Development, DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.05.025.
Hermans, F. 2018. Book Review: Innovation regional development and the life sciences; beyond clusters by Kean Birch. Research Policy 47(1): 305.
Hermans, F. 2018. The potential contribution of transition theory to the analysis of bioclusters and their role in the transition to a bioeconomy. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining (online first): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bbb.1861/full
Kamau, J.W., Stellmacher, T., Biber-Freudenberger, L. and C. Borgemeister. 2018. Organic and conventional agriculture in Kenya: A typology of smallholder farms in Kajiado and Murang’a counties. Journal of Rural Studies (57): 171–185.
Petit-Boix A, Devkota J, Phillips R, Vargas-Parra MV, Josa A, Gabarrell X, Rieradevall J, Apul D. 2018. Life cycle and hydrologic modeling of rainwater harvesting in urban neighborhoods: Implications of urban form and water demand patterns in the US and Spain. Journal of Cleaner Production 621, 434-443. » Read more
Schielein, J.; Börner, J.. 2018. Recent transformations of land-use and land-cover dynamics across different deforestation frontiers in the Brazilian Amazon. Land Use Policy, 76: 81-94. (Open Access)
Backhouse, Maria; Kalmring, Stefan; Nowak, Andreas. 2017. In Hörweite von Stuart Hall. Gesellschaftskritik ohne Gewähr. Argument Sonderband 317. Hamburg.
Backhouse, Maria; Lorenzen, Kristina; Lühmann, Malte; Puder, Janina; Rodríguez, Fabricio; Tittor, Anne. 2017. Bioeconomy Strategies in Comparison Commonalities, Contradictions and Blind Spots. Working Paper 1, Bioeconomy & Inequalities.
This Working Paper undertakes a comparative analysis of the bioeconomy strategies of the EU, OECD, US and Malaysia as well as official papers of the National Scientific Council of Argentina, the Ministry of Science of Brazil and the agriculture and energy strategies of Indonesia. The key questions of interest relate to the definition, problems and goals of the bioeconomy. A comparative view suggests divergent understandings of this concept. While bioeconomy and biotechnology are used almost synonymously in the OECD and US strategies, Germany and the EU define the bioeconomy as a biomass-based economy. All other definitions can be situated between these two groups. All strategies share the common feature of justifying the bioeconomy by referring to crisis -scenarios and global challenges, with climate change and population growth at the forefront. The argument is usually connected to food security, energy and water supply, and the finite nature of fossil resources. These problems are generally cited to justify the necessity for a transition towards the bioeconomy. Additionally, all papers share an optimistic position with regards to the use of biotechnological innovations to overcome socio-ecological crises. The advancement of bioenergy is an essential part of all bioeconomy strategies, although different levels of emphasis apply. Public support for the biotechnological optimization of plants and microorganisms as sources of energy is regarded as key, as well as the expansion of biorefineries and the development of next generation biofuels. To conclude, this working paper discusses contradictions in the bioeconomy strategies such as the limited participation and consideration of civil society actors as well as the omission of organic farming, while outlining possibilities for further research.
Basukala, A. K., Oldenburg, C., Schellberg, J., Sultanov, M., & Dubovyk, O. 2017. Towards improved land use mapping of irrigated croplands: performance assessment of different image classification algorithms and approaches. European Journal of Remote Sensing, 50(1):187-201. doi: 10.1080/22797254.2017.1308235.
CONTACT:
Center for Development Research (ZEF)
Genscherallee 3
D-53113 Bonn | Germany
