Deconstructing the attractiveness of biocluster imaginaries

Figures & data

Table 1. Classification of environmental sustainability discourses.

		Attitude towards industrialisation
		Radical	Reformist
Place of the environment	Imaginative (integrated)	‘Green radicalism’	‘Ecological modernisation’
	Prosaic (separated)	‘Survivalism’	‘Problem solving’

Note: adapted from Dryzek (1997, p. 14).

Table 2. Overview of bioeconomy imaginaries.

	Biotech economy	Bioresource economy	Biosphere economy	Bio-ecology economy
Dryzek’s sustainability discourse	Problem solving	Ecological modernisation	Survivalism	Green radicalism
Typical references	Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2009)	European Commission (2012)	Georgescu-Roegen (1978)	Levidow et al. (2013), Schmid et al. (2012)
Definition	A science-based economy driven by industrial biotechnology	A biomass-based economy	An ecological economy that is compatible with the biosphere	An ecological economy within local conditions
Aims and objectives	Economic growth and employment	Economic growth and sustainability	Human survival	Biodiversity of ecosystems, soil conservation
Research and technology	Industrial biotech as a goal: the main driver of progress	Biotech as a means to boost primary production and feedstock	Technology necessary to fit human activity within global biochemical cycles	Promotes co-production of knowledge and alternatives based on agro-ecological principles
Value creation	Application of biotech, commercialisation of R&D	Conversion and upgrading of bioresources	Focus on ‘degrowth’	Localisation of production systems with territorial identity
Role of the primary sector	Mostly irrelevant	Narrow: Provision of raw materials	Part of global circular value chains	Focus on agro-ecological farming practices including landscape values

Based on Bugge et al. (2016), Dryzek (1997), Schmid et al. (2012), and Vivien et al. (2019).

Table 3. Number of respondents, by actor type and nationality.

	DE*	NL**
Regional Government/Policy	4	3
Regional Development Promotional Agency	1	1
NGO (Environment & Consumer Protection)	4	0
University (of Applied Sciences)	2	4
Research Institute/R&D Service Provider/Cluster management units	3	2
Company (Industrial Economy)	3	5
Agriculture & Forestry Business Association	1	0
Industrial Business Association	3	0
Total	21	15

*Stakeholders from Saxony-Anhalt, Saxony and Thuringia.

**Stakeholders from Brabant, Zeeland and Zuid Holland.

Figure 1. Q-methodology grid.

Figure 2. Representation of bioeconomy imaginaries in stakeholder narratives.

Figure 3. Shared narratives in relation to different sociotechnical imaginaries of a (bio)cluster.

Figure 4. Consensual and contested imaginaries in Q-methodology results.

Dryzek, J. S. (2005). The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1997)

 Google Scholar

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2009). The bioeconomy in 2030: Designing a policy agenda. OECD Publishing.

 Google Scholar

European Commission (EC). (2012). Innovating for Sustainable Growth: A Bioeconomy for Europe. (COM (2012) 60). Brussels.

 Google Scholar

Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1978). De la science économique `a la bioeconomie. Revue D'économie Politique, 88(3), 337–382. https://doi.org/10.2307/1056148

 Google Scholar

Levidow, L., Birch, K., & Papaioannou, T. (2013). Divergent paradigms of European agro-food innovation. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 38(1), 94–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243912438143

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Schmid, O., Padel, S., & Levidow, L. (2012). The bio-economy concept and knowledge base in a public goods and farmer perspective. Bio-Based and Applied Economics, 1(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.125698

 Google Scholar

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

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Vivien, F. D., Nieddu, M., Befort, N., Debref, R., & Giampietro, M. (2019). The hijacking of the bioeconomy. Ecological Economics, 159, 189–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.01.027

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar