A methodological analysis of foresight studies on bioeconomy’s future
PDF (Español (España))
XML (Español (España))

Keywords

Metodología prospectiva
Diamante de Popper
Bioeconomía
Gephi
innovación
análisis bibliométrico
experticia
creatividad
energía
biomasa
Objetivos del Desarrollo Sostenible
desarrollo tecnológico
recursos renovables
Biodegradabilidad Foresight methodologies
Popper’s Diamond
Bioeconomy
Gephi
innovation
bibliometric analysis
expertise
creativity
energy
biomass
Sustainable Development Goals
Technological development
renewable sources
biodegradability

How to Cite

Jaso Sánchez, M. A. (2021). A methodological analysis of foresight studies on bioeconomy’s future. Nova Scientia, 13(26). https://doi.org/10.21640/ns.v13i26.2272

Abstract

Innovation based on life sciences aims to meet environmental and development goals. Consequently, this paper aims to characterize the methodologies employed to explore bioeconomy’s future. Relying on the technology foresight’s capacity to combine tools to deal with technical and social complexity, we are interested in identifying which ones have predominated in scholarly research and how they supplement each other to explore the sector’s development and to design future scenarios.

Method: We conducted documentary research based on scholarly journals indexed at Scopus. Firstly, we performed a bibliometric analysis based on a dataset of 31 research articles published between 2015 and 2019. Secondly, we carried out a literature review in order to codify scope and methodology variables, so as to compare our results against the best practices as depicted by the Poppers’ Diamond. Found foresight tools were classified according to their reliance on “evidence”, “expertise”, “social interaction” and “creativity” sources. Finally, a network analysis and depiction of the complementarities among approaches and tools was performed in Gephi 0.9.2 software.

Results: Regarding the scope, we found an interest to explore scenarios towards 2030 (33%) and 2050 (5%), as well as a preference for national scale (43%), above international (38%) and subnational (20%) jurisdictions. Themes related energy and biomass’s environmental and economic feasibility, and to a minor extent, on bioeconomy as a whole. Concerning the methodological approaches, we found a strong prevalence on quantitative evidence (71%) and on experts’ opinion (21%) tools, neglecting the use of social interaction (8%) and creativity (0%) tools. 11 out of 33 customary tools were used in the foresight research articles, incorporating between 1 and 2 in each exercise (1.3 in average).

Conclusion: Our findings are distinguished from previous studies on prospective exercises that had documented the low relevance of the study sector in the choice of tools and showed the prevalence of qualitative tools. On the other hand, our results corroborate other studies that have detected the emergence of new fields of application and new combinations of tools. Within the bioeconomy’s case, by comparing the resulting approaches and tools against recommendations gathered from foresight literature, we find that both the number of tools employed as their level of combination become limited to explore transitions towards a new sustainable economic system supported by innovation resulting from life sciences. We contend that the analysis of technological trends needs to be supplemented by the analysis coming out from social interaction and creativity tools, in correspondence with the multiplicity of factors explaining the adoption of new technologies by broad social groups.

https://doi.org/10.21640/ns.v13i26.2272
PDF (Español (España))
XML (Español (España))

References

Aro, E. (2016). From first generation biofuels to advanced solar biofuels. Ambio, 45, 24-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0730-0

Baena, G. (2015). El antiazar: la planeación prospectiva estratégica. En Planeación prospectiva estratégica: Teorías, metodologías y buenas prácticas en América Latina. Coordinado por Guillermina Baena, 29-52, Ciudad de México: UNAM. https://www2.politicas.unam.mx/publicaciones/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Libro-PPE_interactivo1.pdf (17 de septiembre de 2019).

Bartolini, F., Angelini, L. G., Brunori, G., & Gava, O. (2015). Impacts of the CAP 2014-2020 on the agroenergy sector in Tuscany, Italy. Energies, 8(2), 1058-1079. https://doi.org/10.3390/en8021058

Bastian, M., Heymann, S. & Jacomy. (2009). Gephi: An Open Source Software for Exploring and Manipulating Networks. Ponencia presentada en el Third International ICWSM Conference en San Jose, California. https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/09/paper/view/154/1009 (17 de agosto de 2019).

Berger, Gaston. (1957). Sciences humaines et prévision. Revue des Deux Mondes, 1(3), 417-426. https://www.revuedesdeuxmondes.fr/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/c4e2f60bd0b6fe6e2acc7470a2702460.pdf (20 de enero de 2020).

Bergmann, Melanie et al. (Eds.). (2015). Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Switzerland: Springer.

Bijker, Wiebe. y Trevor Pinch. (1987). The Social Construction of Technological Systems. New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Londres: The MIT Press.

Blanc, S., Massaglia, S., Brun, F., Peano, C., Mosso, A., & Giuggioli, N. R. (2019). Use of bio-based plastics in the fruit supply chain: An integrated approach to assess environmental, economic, and social sustainability. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(9) https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092475

Börjesson Hagberg, M., Pettersson, K., & Ahlgren, E. O. (2016). Bioenergy futures in Sweden - modeling integration scenarios for biofuel production. Energy, 109, 1026-1039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.04.044

Bugge, M.M.; Hansen, T.; Klitkou, A. (2016). What is the bioeconomy? A review of the literature. Sustainability, 8(7), 691-713. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070691

Chinthapalli, R., et al. (2019). Bio-based Building Blocks and Polymers: Global Capacities, Production and Trends 2018-2023 (versión abreviada). Hürt: Nova Institute. https://european-biotechnology.com/fileadmin/Content/NewsAndStories/2019/Nova_exec.pdf (24 de agosto de 2019).

Choi, H. S., Grethe, H., Entenmann, S. K., Wiesmeth, M., Blesl, M., & Wagner, M. (2019). Potential trade-offs of employing perennial biomass crops for the bioeconomy in the EU by 2050: Impacts on agricultural markets in the EU and the world. GCB Bioenergy, 11(3), 483-504. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12596

Cuhls, K., Kayser, V., Grandt, S., Hamm, U., Reisch, L., & Daniel H. (2015). Global visions for the bioeconomy – An international Delphi-study. Berlin: Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research & German Bioeconomy Council. https://biooekonomierat.de/en/publications/?tx_rsmpublications_pi1%5Bpublication%5D=97&tx_rsmpublications_pi1%5Baction%5D=show&tx_rsmpublications_pi1%5Bcontroller%5D=Publication&cHash=a38d2f444b6269d2c2aaf7d1d3408626 (20 de enero de 2020).

Daar, A. S., Singer, P. A., & Acharya, T. (2003). Biotechnology and the UN's millennium development goals. Nature Biotechnology, 21(12), 1434-1436. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1203-1434

De Chant, Tim. (2002). Per square mile. https://persquaremile.com/2012/08/08/if-the-worlds-population-lived-like/ (23 de agosto de 2019).

Denzin, Norman & Yvonna Lincoln. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. En The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 1-32. compilado por

Denzin, Norman & Yvonna Lincoln. London: SAGE.

Department of Energy (DoE) et al. (2016). Federal Activities Report on the Bioeconomy Biomass R&D Board. http://www.biomass board.gov/pdfs/farb_2_18_16.pdf (20 de agosto de 2019).

Donat, Lena; Görlach, Benjamin; Evans, Nick. (2015). Report on the CECILIA2050 Final Conference Brussels, 30 June 2015. Deliverable D7.7. Berlin: Ecologic Institute. https://cecilia2050.eu/publications/285 (24 de agosto de 2019).

European Commission (EC). (2012). La innovación al servicio del crecimiento sostenible: Una bioeconomía para Europa. Commission Staff Working Document. Brussels: European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2777/6462

European Environment Agency (EEA). (2009). Looking back on looking forward: a review of evaluative scenario literature, Technical Report No. 3. Copenhagen: EEA. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/looking-back-on-looking-forward-a-review-of-evaluative-scenario-literature (23 de octubre del 2019).

European Foresight Monitoring Network (EFMN). (2009). Mapping Foresight: Revealing how Europe and other world regions navigate into the future. Brussels: European Commission. http://www.eurosfaire.prd.fr/7pc/bibliotheque/consulter.php?id=1743 (24 de agosto de 2019).

Farzad, S., Mandegari, M. A., Guo, M., Haigh, K. F., Shah, N., & Görgens, J. F. (2017). Multi-product biorefineries from lignocelluloses: A pathway to revitalisation of the sugar industry? Biotechnology for Biofuels, 10(87), 2-24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-017-0761-9

Foster, G. (2019). Low-carbon futures for bioethylene in the United States. Energies, 12(10), 2-20. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12101958

Gándara, Guillermo y Francisco Javier Osorio Vera. (Coords.). (2014). Métodos Prospectivos: Manual para el estudio y la construcción del futuro. México: Paidós.

Georghiou, Luke et al. (2008). The handbook of technology foresight: Concepts and practice. London: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Giaoutzi, Maria y Bartolomeo Sapio (Eds). (2013). Recent Developments in Foresight Methodologies. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5215-7

Godet, Michel. (1982). From forecasting to La Prospective: a new way of looking at futures. Journal of Forecasting, 1, 293-301. https://doi.org/10.1002/for.3980010308

Grubor, A., Milicevic, N., & Djokic, N. (2018). Serbian organic food consumer research and bioeconomy development. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(12), 4820-4832. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124820

Haddad, S., Britz, W., & Börner, J. (2019). Economic impacts and land use change from increasing demand for forest products in the European bioeconomy: A general equilibrium based sensitivity analysis. Forests, 10(1), 52-79. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10010052

Hagemann, N., Gawel, E., Purkus, A., Pannicke, N., & Hauck, J. (2016). Possible futures towards awood-based bioeconomy: A scenario analysis for germany. Sustainability (Switzerland), 8(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8010098

Hansen, L., & Bjørkhaug, H. (2017). Visions and expectations for the norwegian bioeconomy. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(3), 341-358. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9030341

Hausknost, D., Schriefl, E., Lauk, C., & Kalt, G. (2017). A transition to which bioeconomy? an exploration of diverging techno-political choices. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(4), 669-691. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040669

Heimann, T. (2019). Bioeconomy and SDGs: Does the bioeconomy support the achievement of the SDGs? Earth's Future, 7(1), 43-57. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EF001014

Hiltunen, E. (2006). Was it a Wild Card or Just Our Blindness to Gradual Change?, Journal of Future Studies, November, 11(2), 61-74. https://jfsdigital.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/112-A04.pdf (20 de enero de 2020).

Jasinevičius, G., Lindner, M., Verkerk, P. J., & Aleinikovas, M. (2017). Assessing impacts of wood utilisation scenarios for a Lithuanian bioeconomy: Impacts on carbon in forests and harvested wood products and on the socio-economic performance of the forest-based sector. Forests, 8(4), 133-150. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8040133

Jaso-Sánchez, Marco A. (2016). La prospectiva tecnológica en la planeación de la CTI en Argentina, Colombia, México y Perú: Una revisión desde el institucionalismo ideacional. En Mirada iberoamericana a las políticas de ciencia, tecnología e innovación: Perspectivas comparadas, coordinado por Rosalba Casas, Tiago Santos y Alexis Mercado, 135-160. Buenos Aires: CLACSO.

Jonsson, R., Rinaldi, F., Räty, M., & Sallnäs, O. (2016). Integrating forest-based industry and forest resource modeling. IForest, 9(5), 743-750. https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor1961-009

Junginger, H. M., Mai-Moulin, T., Daioglou, V., Fritsche, U., Guisson, R., Hennig, C., Wild, M. (2019). The future of biomass and bioenergy deployment and trade: A synthesis of 15 years IEA bioenergy task 40 on sustainable bioenergy trade. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 13(2), 247-266. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1993

Koukios, E., & Sacio-Szymańska, A. (2018). Assessing the emergence of bioeconomy by the Radical Technology Inquirer tool. European Journal of Futures Research, 6(1), 23-33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40309-018-0152-x

Latour, Bruno. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://www.bruno-latour.fr/node/70.html (20 de enero de 2020).

Litterbase. (2019). Distribution of litter types in different realms (916 publications), Alfred-Wegener Institut. Bremerhaven: AWI-Litterbase. https://litterbase.awi.de/litter_graph, (18 de febrero de 2019).

Longhurst, P. J., Tompkins, D., Pollard, S. J. T., Hough, R. L., Chambers, B., Gale, P., . . . Sweet, N. (2019). Risk assessments for quality-assured, source-segregated composts and anaerobic digestates for a circular bioeconomy in the UK. Environment International,127, 253-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.03.044

Loveridge, Denis. (2008). Forsight: The art and science of anticipating the future. New York: Rutdlge. https://bidi.uam.mx:6990/10.4324/9780203894156

Lundholm, A., Corrigan, E., & Nieuwenhuis, M. (2019). Implementing climate change and associated future timber price trends in a decision support system designed for irish forest management and applied to Ireland's western peatland forests. Forests, 10(3), 270-295. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10030270

Magruk, Andrzej. (2011). Innovativ classification of technology foresight methods. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 17(4), 700-715. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2011.649912

Manu, Alexander. (2007). The Imagination Challenge. Strategic Foresight and Innovation in the Global Economy. Berkeley: New Readers-Pearson Education. https://www.bookdepository.com/es/Imagination-Challenge-Alexander-Manu/9780321413659?ref=grid-view (20 de enero de 2020).

Mathijs, Erik et al. (2015). Sustainable Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries in the Bioeconomy: A Challenge for Europe. Brussels: European Commission – SCAR. https://ec.europa.eu/research/scar/pdf/ki-01-15-295-enn.pdf (27 de julio de 2019).

Medina, Javier y Ortegón Edgar. (2006). Manual de prospectiva y decisión estratégica: bases teóricas e instrumentos para América Latina y el Caribe. Santiago de Chile: CEPAL e Instituto Latinoamericano y del Caribe de Planificación Económica y Social (ILPES). https://www.cepal.org/es/publicaciones/5490-manual-prospectiva-decision-estrategica-bases-teoricas-instrumentos-america (17 de enero de 2020).

Neuman, Lawrence. (2014). Basics of Social Research: Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches. Edinburgh: Pearson. https://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/program/Neuman-Social-Research-Methods-Qualitative-and-Quantitative-Approaches-7th-Edition/PGM74573.html (20 de enero de 2020).

ONU. (2019). Perspectivas demográficas mundiales de la ONU, revisión 2019. https://www.un.org/es/sections/issues-depth/population/index.html (17 de agosto de 2019).

Peltomaa, J. (2018). Drumming the barrels of hope? bioeconomy narratives in the media. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(11),4278-4292, https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114278

Peñaloza, D., Erlandsson, M., Berlin, J., Wålinder, M., & Falk, A. (2018). Future scenarios for climate mitigation of new construction in Sweden: Effects of different technological pathways. Journal of Cleaner Production, 187, 1025-1035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.285

Philippidis, G., Bartelings, H., Helming, J., M’barek, R., Smeets, E., & van Meijl, H. (2019). Levelling the playing field for EU biomass usage. Economic Systems Research, 31(2), 158-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/09535314.2018.1564020

Piirainen, Kalle y Gonzalez, Rafael. (2015). Theory of and within foresight-What does a theory of foresight even mean?, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, (96). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.03.003

Popper, Rafael. (2008a). Foresight Methodology. En The Handbook of Technology Foresight: Concepts and Practice, editado por Luke Georgiouh, Jennfer Cassingena-Harper, Michael Keenan, Ian miles, y Rafael Popper, 44-89. London: Edward Elgar.

Popper, Rafael. (2008b). How are foresight methods selected?, Foresight, 10(6), 62-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14636680810918586

Poz, M. E. D., da Silveira, J. M. F. J., Bueno, C. S., & Rocha, L. A. (2017). Bio-based energy scenarios: Looking for waste. Procedia Manufacturing, 7, 478-489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2016.12.048

Rogers, J. N., Stokes, B., Dunn, J., Cai, H., Wu, M., Haq, Z., & Baumes, H. (2017). An assessment of the potential products and economic and environmental impacts resulting from a Billion Ton Bioeconomy. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 11(1), 110-128. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1728

Sachs, J., Schmidt-Traub, G., Kroll, C., Lafortune, G., & Fuller, G. (2015). Sustainable Development Report 2019. New York: Bertelsmann Stiftung and sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN). https://www.sdgindex.org/ (18 de enero de 2020).

Salter, B., Zhou, Y., Datta, S., & Salter, C. (2016). Bioinformatics and the politics of innovation in the life sciences: Science and the state in the United Kingdom, China, and India. Science Technology and Human Values, 41(5), 793-826. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243916631022

Saritas, O. y Burmaoglu, S. (2015). The evolution of the use of Foresight methods: a scientometric analysis of global FTA research output. Scientometrics, 105(1): 497-508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1671-x

Scarlat, N., Dallemand, J., Monforti-Ferrario, F., & Nita, V. (2015). The role of biomass and bioenergy in a future bioeconomy: Policies and facts. Environmental Development, 15, 3-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2015.03.006

Schot J. & Steinmueller, E. (2016). Framing Innovation Policy For Transformative Change: Innovation Policy 3.3, SPRU, Reino Unido. http://www.johanschot.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Framing-Innovation-Policy-for-Transformative-Change-Innovation-Policy-3.0-2016.pdf (23 de agosto de 2019).

Stirling, Andy. (2008). “Opening Up” and “Closing Down”: Power, Participation, and Pluralism in the Social Appraisal of Technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 33(2), 262–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243907311265

Technavio. (2017). Global Biopolymers Market 2017-2021. Londres: Infinity Research, Ltd. https://www.technavio.com/report/global-plastics-polymers-and-elastomers-global-biopolymers-market-2017-2021#utm_source=T5&utm_campaign=Media&utm_medium=BW (11 de marzo del 2019).

Toppinen, A., Röhr, A., Pätäri, S., Lähtinen, K., & Toivonen, R. (2018). The future of wooden multistory construction in the forest bioeconomy – A Delphi study from Finland and Sweden. Journal of Forest Economics, 31, 3-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2017.05.001

Tsiropoulos, I., Hoefnagels, R., van den Broek, M., Patel, M. K., & Faaij, A. P. C. (2017). The role of bioenergy and biochemicals in CO2 mitigation through the energy system – a scenario analysis for the Netherlands. GCB Bioenergy, 9(9), 1489-1509. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12447

Wen, X., Quacoe, D., Quacoe, D., Appiah, K., & Danso, B. A. (2019). Analysis on bioeconomy's contribution to GDP: Evidence from Japan. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(3), 712-729. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030712

Wietschel, L., Thorenz, A., & Tuma, A. (2019). Spatially explicit forecast of feedstock potentials for second generation bioconversion industry from the EU agricultural sector until the year 2030. Journal of Cleaner Production, 209, 1533-1544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.072

Yuan, D., Bassie, L., Sabalza, M., Miralpeix, B., Dashevskaya, S., Farre, G., . . . Christou, P. (2011). The potential impact of plant biotechnology on the Millennium Development Goals. Plant Cell Reports, 30(3), 249-265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-010-0987-5

Zeraoui, Zidane y Eduardo Balbi (Coords.). (2011). Introducción a la prospectiva. Puebla: ITESM y Montiel & Soriano Editores. http://catalogo.uces.edu.ar/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=10465 (20 de enero de 2020).

Zhukovskaya, Maya. (2015). Everything Connects: How to Transform and Lead in the Age of Creativity, Innovation and Sustainability. Foresight, 17(1), 88-90. https://doi.org/10.1108/fs-12-2014-0083

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2021 Nova Scientia