B i o - b a s e d a n d A p p l i e d E c o n o m i c s BAE Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 169-184, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10881 Copyright: © 2021 D. Viaggi, F. Bartolini, M. Raggi. Open access, article published by Firenze University Press under CC-BY-4.0 License. Firenze University Press | www.fupress.com/bae Citation: D. Viaggi, F. Bartolini, M. Raggi (2021). The Bioeconomy in eco- nomic literature: looking back, looking ahead. Bio-based and Applied Eco- nomics 10(3): 169-184. doi: 10.36253/bae- 10881 Received: May 16, 2021 Accepted: October 29, 2021 Published: January 11, 2022 Data Availability Statement: All rel- evant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Competing Interests: The Author(s) declare(s) no conflict of interest. Editor: Fabio Gaetano Santeramo. Discussants: Paolo Sckokai, Gianluca Brunori. ORCID DV: 0000-0001-9503-2977 FB: 0000-0002-8946-3110 MR: 0000-0001-6960-1099 BAE 10th Anniversary paper The Bioeconomy in economic literature: looking back, looking ahead Davide Viaggi1,*, Fabio Bartolini2, Meri Raggi3 1 Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, University of Bologna, Italy 2 Department of Chemical, Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Sciences, University of Fer- rara, Italy 3 Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Bologna, Italy *Corresponding author. E-mail: davide.viaggi@unibo.it Abstract. The objective of this paper is to provide a review of recent economic litera- ture related to the Bioeconomy, in particular aimed at identifying relevant pathways for future research in this field. The paper is organised in four main parts. First, we illustrate the economic role of the Bioeconomy and its key statistics in the EU. Second we review economic topics related to the Bioeconomy production in a mainly private (company, consumer, market) perspective. Then we extend our attention to the review of wider social and environmental aspects with a focus on ecosystem services. Finally, we discuss the interplay of the above topics and cross cutting issues in the attempt to identify the most promising pathways for further research. While the economic litera- ture is growing fast in all the fields of the Bioeconomy, we highlight in particular the need of more economic research focusing on transitions and innovation. However, we also highlight the need to take a system perspective and accounting explicitly for the trade-offs among the many objectives that the Bioeconomy is expected to target and to better account of the costs and benefits affecting different stakeholder groups. Keywords: bioeconomy, sustainable development, bio-based economy, circular econo- my, ecosystem services. JEL codes: Q57. 1. INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES The editorial of the first issue of the journal Bio-based and applied econom- ics in spring 2012 was entitled “From Agricultural to Bio-based economics? Con- text, state-of-the-art and challenges”. The paper reviewed the trends in agricul- tural economic literature and asked whether there was a shift from traditional sectoral economics, such as agricultural economics, towards a more general dis- cipline that could have been called “bio-based economics” (Viaggi et al., 2012). That title, in itself, provided somehow an agenda for the journal, and envisaged a potential evolution of the discipline in the next decade, though, at that time, the Bioeconomy was largely unknown by academic research in economics. Since that article appeared, a lot of events and changes occurred: the Bioeconomy has become mainstream, while more and more countries have http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode 170 Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 169-184, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10881 Davide Viaggi, Fabio Bartolini, Meri Raggi their Bioeconomy strategy. The EU published an update of its Bioeconomy strategy in 2018, while Italy went under two versions of its country strategy. The recent strategies in Europe, in particular the one from the EU, re-define the Bioeconomy as an aggregate of sectors using biological resources, emphasising the interconnection with ecosystems and the general con- tribution to economic development, while technologies, in particular biotechnologies, are much less prominent (European Commission, 2018). The Green Deal strat- egy has renewed the importance of the Bioeconomy and the circular economy, as the main means to achieve the transformative changes required to addresses global challenges, as the Bioeconomy can potentially create synergies among the various dimensions of sustainabil- ity (Giampietro, 2019; Peters, Jandrić and Hayes, 2020) secondary and tertiary resource flows and helps to iden- tify what can and cannot be re-circulated within the metabolic pattern of social-ecological systems. Adopting the biophysical view, it becomes clear that the industrial revolution represented a linearization of material and energy flows with the goal to overcome the low pace and density of biological transformations. The required level of productivity of production factors in contemporary developed economies (flows per hour of labor and per hectare of land use). The economic literature on the Bioeconomy has been growing steadily. At the end of April 2021, Scopus reports 849 papers in the fields of Social sciences, Eco- nomics and econometrics, and Business management and accounting, with title, keywords or abstracts men- tioning the Bioeconomy. Papers published in 2020 were 187 in comparison to 21 published in 2012, while papers published in 2021 were already 97 at the time of writing this paper. The literature on the Bioeconomy is taking shape, but did not substitute the literature in agricultural eco- nomics or food economics, both sectors being, on the contrary, flourishing. The Bioeconomy literature is rath- er focusing on new value chains and on topics that are more relevant for the Bioeconomy as a whole than for individual sectors. The objective of this paper is to provide a review of recent economic literature related to the Bioeconomy, in particular aimed at identifying relevant pathways for future research in the field. The approach is based on a literature review, but is far from being systematic. The papers used derive main- ly from a screening of the Scopus database after search- ing for the keyword “Bioeconomy” and selecting papers in Economics, Business & management and Social sci- ences, or Bioeconomy and Ecosystem services. Then papers were selected based on a subjective evaluation of their ability to provide insights about recent trends, focusing mostly on the more recent papers. The outcome is discussed following an organisation of topics derived from an update of the structure proposed by Viaggi (2018). Though potentially relevant, for reasons of space we on purpose exclude studies focusing on descriptive developments on one single product and environmen- tal assessment studies such as LCA, as well as studies describing the Bioeconomy in individual countries. The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. In section 2 we illustrate key statistics and trends of Bio- economy in the EU. In section 3 we review economic topics related to the Bioeconomy production in a mainly private (company, consumer, market) perspective. In sec- tion 4 we extend the topic to the review of wider social and environmental aspects with a focus on ecosystem services. In section 5, we discuss the interplay of the above and selected cross-cutting issues, in the attempt to identify the most promising pathways for further research. Section 6 concludes. 2. STATISTICS AND TRENDS OF THE BIOECONOMY IN THE EU In spite of the relevance of the Bioeconomy, statistics related to the sector are still at a development stage. The main problem to obtain clear figures is the lack of a con- solidated and harmonised methodology, which makes also difficult the comparison of results across countries. Also for sectors with well-established statistics (e.g. ener- gy) disaggregating the Bioeconomy component may be a challenge. The two main approaches for quantifying the Bio- economy are the input-based and the output-based approach. The former attempts to measure the propor- tion of biomass in inputs used for the production of bio- based products (see for example Efken et al., 2016; Luke, 2019), while the latter tries to measure the biomass con- tent of bio-based products (see for example Capasso and Klitkou, 2020; Vandermeulen et al., 2011). In 2018 the International Sustainable Bioeconomy Working Group (ISBWG) published a review of approach- es, applications and indicators to measure economic, social and natural resources aspects of Bioeconomy in dif- ferent EU countries (Bracco et al., 2018). From 2017, the European Commission and the Nova-Institute have pre- sented a common output approach for a cross-country comparison in some publications where a quantification of performance indicators relying on sectors and sub-sec- tors of the Bioeconomy for all EU member States are illus- 171The Bioeconomy in economic literature: looking back, looking ahead Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 169-184, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10881 trated (Ronzon and M’Barek, 2017; Ronzon et al., 2017; Ronzon and M’Barek, 2018; Piotrowski et al., 2019). Ronzon et al. (2020) updates the methodology and data presented previously in 2018 and proposes a meth- odology based on the following approaches: a) for the sectors that fully belong to the Bioeconomy, existing statistics are harmonized and used; b) for those sectors which only partially belong to the Bioeconomy, esti- mation of a “bio-based share” is derived from experts’ consultations. In particular, agriculture, forestry, fish- ing, the manufacturing of food, beverages, tobacco, and paper are considered as sectors fully belonging to the Bioeconomy. Other sectors, like the manufacture of textiles, wearing apparel, leather, wood products, fur- niture, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, plastics and rub- ber and the production of electricity are included only partially in the Bioeconomy. Eurostat is the main data source for a quantification of socio-economic relevance in all sectors of the Bioeconomy in EU. In particular, PRODCOM (Eurostat, 2020) and the Structural Busi- ness Statistics (SBS, Eurostat, 2020a) database are the two main data sources. The principal indicators pre- sented in the reports are the turnover, the employment and the value added. From Porc et al. (2020) Figure 1 reports the percent- age share of turnover in the Bioeconomy in EU-28 in 2017 and the trends between sectors over the 2008–2017 period. The Bioeconomy as a whole shows a continuous increase from 2008 (turnover less than 2 trillion) to 2017 (turnover over 2,4 trillion Euro). Almost half of the Bio- economy turnover comes from the food and beverages sectors, that also account for the majority of the increase over the period, while about a quarter is produced by agriculture and forestry. The last quarter is obtained by bio-based industries. Ronzon et al. (2020) provide the EU Bioeconomy data in the post Brexit situation (Table 1). They estimat- ed that Bioeconomy employed around 17.5 million peo- ple, and created €614 billion of value added in 2017. It is relevant to note that this data represents about 8.9% of the EU-27 labour force and 4.7% of the EU-27 GDP. The updated analysis of Ronzon et al. (2020) also elaborates on the different trends and country develop- ments of the Bioeconomy. In particular, they identify four groups of EU countries based on their performanc- es on two dimensions: a) apparent labour productiv- ity, and b) location quotient of the Bioeconomy (i.e. the specialisation rate of labour market in the Bioeconomy). The groups showing structural differences between national Bioeconomies, are: - High specialisation (location quotient≥ 1.5) and below average apparent labour productivity (≤ half the EU-27 level): Eastern Member States (Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Latvia, Croatia, Lithuania), Por- tugal, and Greece; this group is characterized by manufacturing of textiles and/or wood products with labour-intensive production and an high rate of Bio- economy jobs located in agriculture, forestry, and fishing and aquaculture (biomass production sectors). - Low specia listation (location quotient ≤ 1.3) and medium-high apparent labour productivity (between half the EU-27 level and the EU-27 level): Estonia and Central Member States (Slovenia, Hun- gary, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Slovakia) and Malta; in this group, apparent labour productivity is higher than the previous group, mainly in agriculture, for- estry, and bio-plastics manufacturing. - Low specialisation (location quotient ≤ 0.9) and an apparent labour productivity above the EU-27 lev- el (but less than double the EU-27 level): Western Figure 1. Turnover in the Bioeconomy in EU 28: percentage between sectors and trends over 2008-2017 (Porc et al., 2020). 172 Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 169-184, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10881 Davide Viaggi, Fabio Bartolini, Meri Raggi Member States (Austria, Italy, Spain, France Germa- ny, Luxembourg), characterised by more diversified in high productive biomass manufacturing sectors. - Low specialisation (location quotient ≤ 0.9) and an apparent labour productivity more than double the EU-27 level: Northern Member States (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden). The study by Ronzon et al. (2020) also highlights trends over the 2008-2017 period for the apparent labour productivity and location quotient of the Bioeconomy in the EU27 member states, showing that different speed of increase are in place. Consequently, while the composi- tion of the four groups did not change, the heterogeneity of the EU’s Bioeconomy remains and get stronger. The quantifications presented in this section refer mainly to a set of studies that apply the same analytical methods refining and updating over time. Nevertheless, the discussion on alternative methods, different rate in sectors or choice in including/excluding sub-sectors still evolves and needs to be further developed in order to ensure advances in the Bioeconomy definition for practi- cal purposes (see for example Vivien et al., 2019). 3. DEMAND, SUPPLY, MARKETS AND CHAIN ORGANISATION IN THE BIOECONOMY 3.1 Demand Demand for Bioeconomy products come from the combination of two main forces, consumers and policy, that need to be understood in the light of major sce- narios and driving forces providing incentives for soci- etal change. Part of the literature focuses on classical analyses of demand elasticity of Bioeconomy products (Schier et al., 2021; traditional forest products markets change and diversify. Fossil-based inputs in the chemical, tex- tile, apparel and downstream industries can be replaced by lignocellulose-based products such as dissolving pulp, cellulose-based chemical derivatives and textile fibres. When looking ahead, these previous niche prod- ucts are likely to gain in economic importance. So far, little attention has been paid to the characteristics of macroeconomic relations of emerging lignocellulose- based materials on macroeconomic level. Key economic parameters for such materials are not available neither at regional nor at global level. Schier et al. (2021) to con- tribute to a better understanding of the market behavior of emerging forest products that are not yet covered by forest products market analysis. Therefore, they inves- tigate how lignocellulose-based products respond to changes of main economic drivers and compute global market elasticities for dissolving pulp, cellulose-based chemical derivatives and textile fibres. To conduct the evaluation, they first test historical input data for non- constancy in time series due to structural changes using change-point estimator (MOSUM test in Skjerstad et al., 2021). However, a large part of the literature rather points attention to consumers behaviour in the Bioecon- omy as linked to the issue of acceptance of new product and differential willingness to pay. Table 1. Number of persons employed, value added, and apparent labour productivity by sector of the Bioeconomy (EU-27, 2017). (Ronzon et al., 2020). Sector Workers Value Added Apparent Labour Productivity (Number of Persons Employed) (€ million) (€000 per Person Employed) Agriculture 9,273,470 188,519 20 Forestry 517,480 25,301 49 Fishing 166,610 6698 40 Manufacture of food, beverages, and tobacco 4,398,761 215,311 49 Manufacture of bio-based textiles 692,906 21,103 30 Manufacture of wood products and furniture 1,424,540 47,268 33 Manufacture of paper 590,456 41,702 71 Manufacture of bio-based chemicals, pharmaceuticals, plastics, and rubber (excluding biofuels) 396,712 60,312 152 Manufacture of liquid biofuels 20,506 3216 157 Production of bioelectricity 22,550 4208 187 Bioeconomy 17,503,992 613,637 35 173The Bioeconomy in economic literature: looking back, looking ahead Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 169-184, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10881 Early literature was largely driven by attention to potential negative impacts of biotechnologies and will- ingness to pay (WTP) to avoid products implying the use of e.g. GMO crops. The most recent literature is more related to WTP for positive Bioeconomy-related attributes (such as bio-based nature of feedstock in com- parison to fossil materials) or for new products. For example in Petruch and Walcher (2021) the the public perception of wood as a sustainable building material that can facilitate the shift towards a bio-based econo- my is crucial. This study aimed to explore the attitudes towards timber construction among young millenni- als in Austria, a cohort that in the coming years will increasingly occupy decision-making positions and gain purchasing power. Most recent studies tend to integrate concepts from psychology and behavioural economics into consumer studies, revealing the complexity of choices on Bioecon- omy products. An example is provided by Wensing et al. (2020) explaining why the food industry is increasingly interested in pro-environmental packaging alternatives- such as bio-based plastic. As the market share for bio- based plastic packaging is still small, strategies to raise consumer awareness and willingness to pay are increas- ingly investigated. Another relevant area of recent research concerns the fact that consumers are not deciding in isolation and, on the contrary, are more and more networked. In this context, how the digitalisation and the role of on- line intellectual capital impact on consumers behaviour related to the Bioeconomy is a key issue. Vătămănescu et al. (2018) address a demand-side perspective of bioecon- omy by laying emphasis on the digitalization of markets and, subsequently, on the consumption patterns at the macroeconomic scale. They investigates the influences of online intellectual capital on bio products consump- tion in two European countries (Romania and Italy). The imperative for a sustainable economic model corroborat- ed with the advances in digital technologies usage have reconfigured consumers’ approaches and expectations and availed new forms of consumer behaviour. Among these, the development of consumer-based online com- munities and of the online intellectual capital have often come forth as an undertaking of empowered consumers pursuing knowledge-based consumption patterns. The quest for sustainable, bio-labeled products on the digi- tal markets has cemented the formation of new social aggregations built on the similarity of interests, goals, values, expectations, preferences, etc., giving way to consistent communication and interaction flows among their members and engendering profound transforma- tions in today’s society. The behavioural aspects highlighted above can be detected through consumer studies but also by address- ing stakeholder views (Kakadellis, Woods and Harris, 2021), which may help in gaining a more aggregated view of different positions and understanding interac- tions among groups. Being a new concept, in addition attached to a num- ber of socially relevant attributes (such as climate change, sustainability, biological resources), the development of the Bioeconomy is connected to visions, imagery and per- ceptions by the different stakeholders involved. Several papers address this issue. Some of them emphasise the general positive perception of renewable vs. non renew- able products, in particular at consumer level (Navráti- lová et al., 2020), while others emphasise the contrasting views and the different potential positions by different stakeholders. However, the review by Holmgren, D’Amato and Giurca (2020) concludes that most of the scientific lit- erature tends to reproduce policy concepts linked to weak sustainability rather than introducing original ideas into the process of Bioeconomy development. Media and communication are also important in shaping these aspects. Early work on genetic modifica- tions has shown the potential role of media in chang- ing public opinion. More recent research on this topic thought reveals relatively little attention on elaborating novel ideas and rather a discourse mostly driven by gov- ernment positions (Sanz-Hernández et al., 2020). An important part of demand is driven by public policies. This has been relevant up to now in particular in the bioenergy sector, with studies largely focusing on biofuel mandates or biogas production depending on aspect most relevant in each country. 3.2 Supply The primary production of biomass needed for the Bioeconomy is the first issue in supply analysis. This is addressed in different ways through technical economic studies investigating, for example, the land footprint, land bio-capacity, degree of (de)coupling and self-suffi- ciency (Naah, 2020). From an economic point of view, supply elasticity of specific products is also an issue for analysis (Schier et al., 2021). Also concepts such as the need to exploit economies of scale and reduce transaction costs are addressed with respect to biomass production (Wen and Chatalova, 2021). Farm level incentives and trade-offs among different product streams are a key to supply analysis (Jansen et al., 2021), in particular in the context of the competition for land use by most Bioeconomy supply chains. 174 Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 169-184, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10881 Davide Viaggi, Fabio Bartolini, Meri Raggi Not surprisingly, in a growing and innovative sector, many supply-side papers focus on specific new products either at the level of biomass production or processing, such as microalgae (Orejuela-Escobar et al., 2021), new sources of protein including insects and seaweeds (van der Heide et al., 2021), forest Bioeconomy and new for- est-based products (Kallio, 2021; Jonsson et al., 2021). Biorefinery are a key approach to biomass pro- cessing, aimed at the valorisation of different sources (including waste) into a range of valuable products and are becoming the object of a dedicated stream of eco- nomic research (Clauser et al., 2021). Another interesting area of research is that concern- ing emerging links among different value chains. These are rather countless and are part of the main nature of the Bioeconomy. Some of them are even surprising from the point of view of old technologies, for example the connection between the wood production and aquacul- ture (Solberg et al., 2021). 3.3 Markets The study of markets for Bioeconomy products largely relates to two issues: development of new markets and relationships among markets of Bioeconomy prod- ucts and other products, in particular competing prod- ucts based on fossil resources. The first point entails in particular the issues of launching new products on the market, even when they are already at a stage advanced enough for marketing and even more when they are in the process of moving from research to market through innovation processes. The difficulties and the actions needed to activate new products is visible in the example on market implemen- tation of active and intelligent packaging (AIP) technolo- gies specifically for fiber-based food packaging provided by (Tiekstra et al., 2021). They identify the following areas of concern: a) market drivers that affect develop- ment; b) the gap between science and industry, c) the gap between legislation and practice; d) cooperation between the producing stakeholders within the value chain, and e) the gap between the industry and consumers. The second point (relationship with non-Bioeconomy markets) concerns directly the perceived specificity of Bioeconomy products. Assuming Bioeconomy products are perfect substitutes of fossil-based products, the early models mostly focused on interaction between bio-based and non-bio-based products, and related market shares, due to different marginal costs. In addition, in the most recent literature this has expanded to considering the issue for recycled vs. non recycled. The interaction among the three (four) types can be addressed as well. When the product is different in terms of attributes, instead, the issue is more market differentiation than costs-competition, also in relation to consumer segmen- tation. Finally, the problem of externalities and public goods needs to be taken into account. Many positive attributes of Bioeconomy products take the nature of public goods or externalities, which implies that market itself cannot take them fully into account and will tend to produce the Bioeconomy goods in a sub-optimal amount. This issue is better discussed in the next section. To address some of the topics above, the role of policies is key. Besides direct incentives, mentioned in demand and supply, certification, often related to sus- tainability, can be a strategic tool to connect demand and supply (Vogelpohl, 2021). 3.4 Organisation and business models Organisation aspects of the Bioeconomy derives from two main issues. The first is the growing degree of separability among different stages in Bioeconomy processes. The second is the emergence of specific tech- nologies in the treatment of biomass around the concept of biorefinery. An intermediate and connected issue is that of flexibility both in feedstock and processing, that allows plants to switch from one feedstock to the other and from one product to the other. As an answer to these trends, new concepts are increasingly being used to represent complex systems. One is that of value web approaches. Biomass value webs can be defined as “complex systems of interlinked value chains in which biomass products and by-products are produced, processed, traded, and consumed” (Callo- Concha et al., 2020). Examples of use of value webs con- cern the representation of different Bioeconomy systems in the context of developing countries (Callo-Concha et al., 2020; Naah, 2020; Virchow et al., 2016). Some of these approaches are supported and build on analyses of biomass flows (Gonçalves, Freire and Garcia, 2021). Networking and collaboration are an important part of the new organisation landscape emerging for the Bioeconomy and several papers address this issue, in particular looking at collaboration among companies (Guerrero and Hansen, 2021), but also among different actors. In most cases, the key topic for collaboration is that of innovation. Also part of the literature focuses on innovative business models related to the Bioeconomy. They rath- er often address the specific topic of circular Bioec- onomy (Donner and Radić, 2021; Donner et al., 2021). Business models are a particularly relevant concept in 175The Bioeconomy in economic literature: looking back, looking ahead Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 169-184, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10881 relation to the innovation process and to the interpre- tation of the ability of the innovation systems to speed up innovation development and uptake, also in relation to appropriate policy instruments (Gatto and Re, 2021). Salvador et al. (2021) review the literature on business models and Bioeconomy and identify key aspects for implementing and managing business models, namely; “the role of innovation and new markets, taking the customer perspective into account in the value creation process and being close to customers, adequate man- agement of logistics and feedstock collection systems, being aware of different routes for valuing biomass, seeking technological development, building resilient value chains, and focusing on value creation to cover costs. Issues that need addressing in the existing lit- erature include product-service-systems, take back-sys- tems, seasonal availability of resources, social impacts, rebound effects, and aquatic activities.” The topic of circular Bioeconomy has taken an increasing relevance over time, due to its potential to reduce environmental impact and better exploit the eco- nomic value of biological resources. Large part of it is related to food waste (Ferreira, Pié and Terceño, 2021; Santagata et al., 2021). The current state of the art in pat- ents shows that this field is still far from expressing its full potential. Ferreira, Pié and Terceño (2021) conclude their review by highlighting that for further progressing towards an impactful circular Bioeconomy, further evi- dence is needed that circular Bioeconomy products “are indeed preferable to their fossil-based counterparts, from both the economic and societal points of view, includ- ing environmental sustainability, and to communicate extensively the findings to the society at large.” 3.5 Innovation mechanisms and entrepreneurship Innovation is at the core of the Bioeconomy and was actually the main field of research at the early stag- es of the development of the sector. Two main areas of concern appear from the literature. The first regards the shape taken by innovation systems. This partly con- nect to wider approaches to innovation, for example the triplequadruple or quintuple helix approach (Grun- del and Dahlström, 2016). The second concerns the impact of regulation and its effects in shaping innova- tion pathways. With growing investment in demonstration plants, for example in the field of biorefineries, attention is also moving to managerial difficulties. For example, using a survey concerning pilot and demonstration plants in Sweden, Mossberg et al. (2020) provide a description of various challenges, such as the division of responsibil- ity for the operation and ownership, unclear roles and objectives, and the lack of specific competences and resources in the actor networks. Research also concerns new areas of innovation and technology as they emerge. Large part of economic research related to Bioeconomy is in the field of biotech innovations. Recently, an emerging field of research is that of digitalisation also in view of its potential sup- port to collaboration in management and innovation processes (Ryymin, Lamberg and Pakarinen, 2021). The application of digital innovation hub concept to the Bio- economy is a promising pathway to boost networking and innovation (Aragonés et al., 2020). Governance of innovation systems is also a widely addressed issue (Toivonen, Vihemäki and Toppinen, 2021), with implication in shaping the form of supply chain network and its impact on the sustainability (see section 4). Innovation and research are connected to economic development also through education and intellectual capital. Though little explored by the literature, Cristea et al. (2020) highlight that education, innovation and research, along with main Bioeconomy features, are at the core of economic development in the EU. New business models and innovation are strictly linked to the issue of entrepreneurship. Kuckertz, Berger and Brändle (2020) provide a holistic framework on the role of entrepreneurships in the Bioeconomy identifying three main aspects: entrepreneurial activity on the micro level, entrepreneurial ecosystems (or clusters and inno- vation systems) on the meso level, and governmental vision and support on the macro level. While entrepre- neurship is identified as important in most of the Bio- economy strategies worldwide, actions to strengthen its role are often lacking or too weak (Kuckertz, 2020). The connection between entrepreneurship and aca- demic activities is also a relevant area of debate, in particular in relationship to emerging new processes (Rosenlund and Legrand, 2021). 3.6 Governance and political economy Governance and policies are cross-cutting areas of concern in all the previous points and specific policies are mentioned above in relation to issues they intend to address. Some cross cutting issues are however worth to be mentioned here. While there are now many Bio- economy strategies worldwide, Bioeconomy policies as such are almost absent. On the contrary, there are important policy interventions in specific sectors of the Bioeconomy (e.g. energy, agriculture). As a result, the literature on policies related to the Bioeconomy is rather 176 Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 169-184, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10881 Davide Viaggi, Fabio Bartolini, Meri Raggi fragmented and largely incorporated in sectorial poli- cies, such as agriculture and forestry. This is a more or less important topic depending on the sector. For exam- ple the topic of Bioeconomy has a much higher degree of attention in connection to forestry (Elomina and Pülzl, 2021) than in connection to agriculture. Governance landscape for forest Bioeconomy and ecosystem services in Europe is mapped by Primmer et al. (2021). Besides a lot of work on national or local policies and governance approaches, the international dimen- sion of the Bioeconomy is now emerging, together with a growing attention at the role of international institutions (Bößner, Johnson and Shawoo, 2021). Political economy analyses of regulation have accompanied the development of the Bioeconomy, with a stronger focus on new technologies and, in particular, biotechnologies (Smith, Wesseler and Zilberman, 2021). Recent political economy contributions also touch the more theoretical and global vision of the Bioecon- omy. For example, Vertommen, Pavone and Nahman (2021) propose the concept of “global fertility chains”, which “articulates the reproductive Bioeconomy as a nexus of intraconnected practices, operations, and transactions between enterprises, states, and house- holds across the globe, through which reproductive ser- vices and commodities are produced, distributed, and consumed”. Potential for sharing good practices and replication in policy and governance solutions is also an issue in a period when the sector is expanding (Andersson and Grundel, 2021). A notable area of research is that concerning the potential of the Bioeconomy for development. At local level, this discussion is partially related to the valorisa- tion of marginal areas. The recent literature advocated that this opportunity is not straightforward in the cur- rent settings and it would require the designing of a new “‘resilience governance’ based on integration, innovation and future orientation to rural transformation” (Sanz- Hernández, 2021) 4. BIOECONOMY, SDG AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES The literature shows conflicting views on the poten- tial contribution of the Bioeconomy to sustainability, with the academic debate on its benefits and risks driven by strong polarised opnions (Kirkels, 2012). Pfau et al., (2014) identify different visions on the impact of the Bio- economy on society that span from unconditional sus- tainability as an inherent characteristic (i.e. using bio- mass to replace fossil resources, see for example Székács, 2017) to potential harm due to increasing competition with the food sector, changes in the demand for pro- ductive factors or unknown environmental and social consequences (see for example DeBoer et al., 2020). These multiple visions of the Bioeconomy can be a con- sequence of the evolution of the Bioeconomy concept itself (Vivien et al., 2019), or of the nature of the socio- technological transition of the Bioeconomy that requires deep knowledge and technology as drivers of its devel- opment (Vainio, Ovaska and Varho, 2019). Therefore, reconciling environmental and social goals with eco- nomic development requires a deep understanding of the human-biosphere-technosphere nexus (Giampietro, 2019). This complexity has the practical consequences that the economic literature on Bioeconomy fails to provide a comprehensive assessment of their positive or negative impact on sustainability and ecosystem service (Heimann, 2019) and properly addressing these issues requires strong multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research. The sustainable management of biological resource and their circular transformation in food, feed, energy, and biomaterials relies on improving social well- being through ecosystem services (Figure 2). Although El-Chichakli et al., (2016) consider the Bioeconomy as directly or indirectly involved in reach- ing several millennium development goals, (i.e. food security (SDG 2), prosperity and economic growth (SDG Figure 2 Circular Bioeconomy and wellbeing. Source: European Forest Institute. 177The Bioeconomy in economic literature: looking back, looking ahead Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 169-184, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10881 2; 8, 9, 11, and 12), protection of natural capital (SDG 6; 7; 14 and 15) and the mitigation of climate change (SDG 13), its linkages to the provision of ecosystem ser- vices are not yet established (D’Amato, Bartkowski and Droste, 2020). The prerogative of the ecosystem servic- es concept is to help understanding the synergies and trade-offs between various societal objectives highlight- ing the natural capital contribution to human wellbe- ing (Fisher, Turner and Morling, 2009). However, the provision of services depends on the socio-technological context of individuals or groups of beneficiaries (Oteros- Rozas et al., 2014). While the contribution of the Bioeconomy on pro- visioning services is quite evident, other ecosystem ser- vices (i.e. regulating, cultural and supporting) are less investigated (D’Amato, Bartkowski and Droste, 2020). Lower attention is often given to the indirect effects on ecosystem services through a different land and resource management. Table 2 provides an overview of the pos- sible Bioeconomy contribution on the ecosystem service. The bulk of studies that link the Bioeconomy with ecosystem services concerns the provisioning service by forest and agricultural systems. They are perceived as a primary source of biomass from the Bioeconomy (Bugge, Hansen and Klitkou, 2016; D’Amato, Bartkows- ki and Droste, 2020). Differently, the literature study- ing circular-economy in the Bioeconomy sector remains anchored to the provisioning sector but with the use of municipality or industrial waste or co-products as a pri- mary source of biomass (DeBoer et al., 2020). Except for biomass from algae for animal feed or energy provision, the contribution of marine ecosystems to the Bioecono- my is less investigated. Van Schoubroeck et al. (2018), in a recent review, compare the sustainability of different types of bioeconomic products. The authors observe that bio-based chemical production has been investigated less than bioenergy and biofuels. Hamelin et al. (2019) argue that the source of biomass is the main factor lead- ing to sustainability. While the urban greenery manage- ment (i.e. residue from managing public green spaces or roadside vegetation) and, agricultural, industrial, and municipal waste are considered sustainable as implicit in the circular economy1, the sustainability of biomass from dedicated crops or by-products (i.e. straw, manure, residues, co-product from food (wheat, maize), and non- 1 Although the debate about circular economy assumes implicitly and simultaneously economic growth, protection of natural environment and social equity, its real contribution on ecosystem services remains quite vague. Millar, McLaughlin and Börger, (2019) note a minor effect of circular economy with respect the linear model due to the existence of a) absence of an agreed definition of circular economy; b) the per- sistence of trade-off among sustainability dimensions and c) lack of knowledge about long term and rebound effects. food crops (i.e. hemp) or by forestry and forestry resi- dues is largely debated. Many studies have described a potentially harmful impact of Bioeconomy on ecosys- tem services due to shirking the global food security or reducing the adaptive capacities of local food system due to simplification of cultivated crops (Marsden and Farioli, 2015). As for a local or regional biorefinery, cul- tivation of first- or second-generation biomass affects ecosystem services. The development of biomass crops instead of traditional crops can impact the landscape quality (Cattaneo, Marull and Tello, 2018) and reduce the crop diversity (Bartolini, Gava and Brunori, 2017) with a further increase in exposure to climatic or market risks (Bartolini et al., 2015). Some authors, comparing the dedicated crops to invasive species, consider the food systems more likely to be food-insecure (see, for exam- ple, Ferdinands et al., 2011). In contrast, other authors have highlighted the positive impact on soil quality (Schrama et al., 2018) and on reducing water demand (Bartolini, Gava and Brunori, 2017) and the synergies in providing a feedstock supply while enhancing ecosystem services for perennial crops (Mitchell et al., 2016). The other ecosystem services are less investigated by the lit- erature due to the complexity of socio-technical trans- formation of the ecological system (Giampietro, 2019), to the difficulties in define and assess the counterfactual carbon-based production and technology (Spierling et al., 2018) or to the lack of understanding of the nexus between direct and indirect changes in land use with multifunctional ecosystem (Egenolf and Bringezu, 2019). The contribution of the Bioeconomy to climate change is a debated topic. On the one hand, the litera- ture has shown that the Bioeconomy can sequester car- bon from the atmosphere into biomass or store carbon in bioproducts, consistently with its main objective to replace fossil-based feedstocks with renewable sources (European Economic and Social Committee, 2018). On the other hand, several studies provide shreds of evi- dence supporting incremental effects of CO2 emissions due to mainly indirect land-use changes or deforesta- tion (Weiss et al., 2012; Marchetti et al., 2014; Haddad, Britz and Börner, 2019). Bais-Moleman et al. (2018) pin- point that the cascade approach could shrink the climate change mitigation potential of biomass used by altering the efficiency of solutions among alternative uses. Egenolf and Bringezu (2019) show that a very com- plex multilevel interaction exists, highlighting pos- sible trade-offs and synergies across scale and space. Such complexity can be a consequence of the differ- ent governance structures of the Bioeconomy (Dietz et al., 2018), as governance can affect either the typol- ogy of the supply chain itself and the value exchanges 178 Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 169-184, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10881 Davide Viaggi, Fabio Bartolini, Meri Raggi among the constellation of actors involved in the sup- ply chain. Growing concerns arose about bioprocessing due to access to technology and knowledge, with the possibility of further creating disparities among coun- tries between those with high capacities to create and internalise added value from industrial biotechnology and those that remain biomass growers. Moreover, the environmental upgrading of some Bioeconomy value chain may cause outsourcing of environmental damages in these countries with high export but low environ- mental and social standers (Fuchs, Brown and Roun- sevell, 2020). The inclusion of a specific concept on the governance of Bioeconomy (i.e. cascade and circularity) can move toward sustainability by prioritising high- value biomass uses (health, pharmaceuticals, chemistry, construction), instead of, for example, bioenergy (El- Chichakli et al., 2016). 5. DISCUSSION The concept of Bioconomy is in the process of becoming mainstream. Over time it has moved from a focus on innovation in some specific sectors (biotech, bio-based materials, bioenergy), to the broader identi- fication with all sectors using biological resources. In addition, the connections with sustainability, ecosys- tem services, circular economy and climate change have Table 2. summarises the linkages between ecosystem services, SDGs and Bioeconomy. Ecosystem service SDGs1 Examples of Bioeconomy contribution Provisioning SDG 2 End huger More efficient animal production and cultivation (i.e. new vaccines and molecular diagnostics to reduce antibiotic use or use of a bio-based product as feed for animal) SDG 3 Good Health and well being Sustainable medicines: biopharmaceuticals and microbiome-based approaches; improving knowledge on genetic resources SDG 7 Affordable and Clean Energy Use of biomass instead of carbon-based products (Biofuel, biogas, wood from forestry systems) SDG 8 Economic Growth (Economy) Re-connect local and actors in new supply chain networks based on form better material/ energy flow. New green and innovative business model, income and job opportunities SDG 9 Industry, Innovation & Infrastructure Substitution of non-renewable with bio-based and renewable products could link a rural regeneration or re-industrialisation process; investment in R&D in marginal areas. Development of green infrastructure of new green section (i.e. bio-construction, pharmaceutical and medical technology) Regulating SDG 6 Clean Water (Water) Biological wastewater treatment (in developing countries), with the inclusion of water nutrients removal 14 Life Below Water Increasing aquatic biodiversity by reducing pressure on marine ecosystems making more efficient aquaculture productions and bio-products products (i.e. genetically modified tilapia in developed countries) 15 Life on Land Increase terrestrial biodiversity through decoupling farm and industry from the fossil-fuel industry Soil regeneration through co-products or by-products (i.e. digestate used as fertiliser) Mediation of wastes or toxic substances Cultural Aesthetics 17 Partnerships (Partnerships) Build partnerships Develop new business opportunities from the extensive farming system and agro-forestry Re-balance the material and energy flows between rural and urban systems Supporting SDG 11 Sustainable Cities Reduction of emission and waste by using biomass form local production, recycling systems or from urban waste SDG 12 responsible production and consumption Integration and use of renewable resources, or the diffusion of innovative and sustainable production and biotechnology can improve the efficiency of material and energy cycles as well as create new and multiple material and energies loop. Diffusion of bio-based products and material would alter reduce the plastic waste or improve the efficiency of waste disposal and/or material recycle 13 Climate Action (Climate) Bioeconomy is contribute strongly in carbon storage and in reducing emission by making C02 into the bio-based chemicals and biofuels Source Own elaboration. 1 Yang et al. (2020) provide an explanation of the linkages between Ecosystem services and SDGs. 179The Bioeconomy in economic literature: looking back, looking ahead Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 169-184, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10881 become more prominent and taking shape in more con- crete policy and business actions. In this section, we discuss the most promising path- way for research after considering two horizontal issues: the topic of conflicting objectives on the Bioeconomy and the issue of methods. The transition to the Bioeconomy is subject to trade- offs among different sustainability dimensions, includ- ing the possibility to alter ecosystem services function- ing. While strategies promoting the Bioeconomy typi- cally put emphasis on the expected beneficial effects it can bring, the consideration of SDGs clearly highlights a number of potential conflicts among different objectives related to the Bioeconomy. The different views on Bioeconomy can generate tension among stakeholders and shrink the Bioeconomy impact on sustainability or make its transition more dif- ficult or risky. Some authors have argued that difficul- ties in social acceptance of the Bioeconomy arise from the typology of innovation itself, which implies a large amount of asymmetric information among actors along the supply chain. Other authors argue that the devel- opment of technology often has not paid attention to stakeholders’ needs and to its acceptability, but merely to achieving a large adoption, making very complex the communication about the practical benefits of the Bio- economy (Mukhtarov et al., 2017). This was particularly evident in the early stages of Bioeconomy development, in which the advanced biotechnological innovation has shaped the debate on the transition towards a Bioecon- omy purely on the acceptability of GMOs, which is par- tially a misleading debate without fully understanding the potential of many other existing technologies (Cha- potin and Wolt, 2007). In addition, Gava et al. (2017) show that the actors involved in Bioeconomy value chains are strongly different from the traditional agri- cultural networks, making dialogues among these stake- holders difficult. Partly for this reason, perception and vision studies are key to the understanding of the Bioeconomy. Vision analysis of the transition process start to emerge also for the agricultural sector, moving attention beyond sustain- able intensification and rather highlighting the topic of landscape and country level diversification (Bayne and Renwick, 2021). Some of the trends above have been dramatically touched by the COVID pandemic. Some literature is emerging about the Bioeconomy in the post-covid era, in particular in relation to food security (Farcas et al., 2021). Different branches of Bioeconomy research have been using different methods and concepts, with a large use of qualitative methods. To fully understand the possible trade-off implied by the Bioeconomy, there is a strong requirement for scien- tific advances to understand different opportunity costs and environmental benefits and costs among alternatives pathways in each specific ecosystem. Although the LCA is the most used method in the literature, it is still far from measuring the proper impact of the Bioeconomy on the ecosystems and the complexity of nexus between biomass sources, bioproducts, supply chain governance and ecosystem services provided (D’Amato, Bartkowski and Droste, 2020) The changing landscape and the increase in data is also bringing changes in methods. Among others, mod- elling intended for simulation and forecasting is a grow- ing field of activity for the Bioeconomy. Cingiz et al. (2021) use an input-output model of the EU Bioeconomy. Ferreira, Pié and Terceño (2021) use a bio-socio account- ing matrix approach to assess the impact of Bioeconomy in Spain. Gatune, Ozor and Oriama (2021) model Bioec- onomy futures in eastern Africa using the International Futures (IFs) modelling platform, based on the dynamic interaction of demographic, social, economic and envi- ronmental factors. Farm level models including Bioeconomy-specif- ic concerns are also emerging. For example, Jansen et al. (2021) develop a farm level decision making model including the choice of quality, losses and bio-based alternatives. Given the number of variables affecting the devel- opment of the Bioeconomy, it is not surprise that sev- eral studies further cast the problems in the framework of scenario analysis (Rojas Arboleda et al., 2021) and/ or transition theory (Wydra et al., 2021). An example of modelling scenarios related to forestry is provided by Morland and Schier (2020). Based on the above, the most interesting trends of the recent Bioeconomy literature rest probably in the search for a more systemic view of the sector, or, at least, in the attempt to account for cross-sector interrelation- ships and for the consequent market and organisational changes. The areas of innovation and organisation are probably two of the most relevant for understanding the Bioeconomy, with a growing role of the latter. The com- bination of qualitative and quantitative methods can allow to provide evidence-based support to policy while at the same time offering the possibility to account for views from different stakeholder groups. 6. CONCLUSIONS Looking back and looking forward, the economic literature on the Bioeconomy appears to be still at this 180 Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 169-184, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10881 Davide Viaggi, Fabio Bartolini, Meri Raggi inception while the sector of the Bioeconomy is tak- ing shape and tends to become mainstream. The period from the 2010 to 2020 has been to some extent explora- tory in keeping pace with strategy and policy documents providing a vision of the Bioeconomy, as well as in exploring new sectors developing within the Bioecono- my. A variety of different economic aspects of the Bioec- onomy have been addressed, from consumer behaviour to governance issues. The drivers that have pushed for the development of the Bioeconomy remain very prominent and attention can be expected to grow in the next future. This will also depend on the ability of policy to bring together in a consistent way the many areas of intervention present- ly affecting the Bioeconomy. Although many countries have developed specific policies or even programs on the Bioeconomy, the literature shed light on the lack of a clear policy landscape to support a sustainable transition of the Bioeconomy. Reaching the challenge set out by UN 2030 agenda also requires a multilevel policy frame- work with the design of a mix of policy instruments addressing the negative impacts (short term objectives), together with policies promoting ecosystem services provision and supporting the scaling up of a sustainable Bioeconomy (long term objectives). Altogether, this promises to become an even more interesting field for economic research in the next future. In this context, it may be expected that the next decade will be key to see to what extent the literature on the Bioeconomy will consolidate into a well-defined field of economic research. In turn, economic literature can likely help the further development of the sector. Two key challenges can be envisaged in this direc- tion. First, economics will need to take up the need for more holistic and systemic views required by the sector. Secondly, research will need to better account for the role of citizens and institution, with a stronger consideration of equity in the distribution of private and public costs and benefits. Summing together these issues, economics may contribute to the engagement of different views and in facilitating reflexive spaces to co-create shared transi- tion pathways toward a sustainable Bioeconomy. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge thoughtful comments on an earlier draft from Paolo Sckokai e Gian- luca Brunori REFERENCES Andersson, I. and Grundel, I. (2021). Regional policy mobilities: Shaping and reshaping Bioeconomy policies in Värmland and Västerbotten, Sweden. Geoforum, 121, 142–151. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.02.005 Aragonés, M.M. et al. (2020). Digital innovation hubs as a tool for boosting biomass valorisation in region- al bioeconomies: Andalusian and South-East Irish case studies. Journal of Open Innovation: Technolo- gy, Market, and Complexity, 6(4), 1–26. doi: 10.3390/ joitmc6040115 Bais-Moleman, A., Sikkema, R., Visc, M., Reumerman, P., Theurl, M.C. and Erb, K.H. (2018). Assessing wood use efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions of wood product cascading in the European Union. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 3942-3954. doi: 10.1016/j. jclepro.2017.04.153. Bartolini, F., Angelini L.G., Brunori, G. and Gava, O. (2015). Impacts of the CAP 2014-2020 on the agroenergy sector in Tuscany, Italy. Energies, 8(2), 1058–1079. doi: 10.3390/en8021058 Bartolini, F., Gava, O. and Brunori, G. (2017). Biogas and EU’s 2020 targets: evidence from a regional case study in Italy. Energy Policy, 109, 510–519. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.07.039 Bayne, K. and Renwick, A. (2021). Beyond sustainable intensification: Transitioning primary sectors through reconfiguring land‐use. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(6). doi: 10.3390/su13063225 Bößner, S., Johnson, F.X. and Shawoo, Z. (2021). Gov- erning the Bioeconomy: What role for internation- al institutions?. Sustainability (Switzerland). 13(1), 1–24. doi: 10.3390/su13010286 Bracco, S., Calicioglu, O., Gomez San Juan, M. and Flam- mini, A. (2018). Assessing the Contribution of Bio- economy to the Total Economy: A Review of Nation- al Frameworks. Sustainability, 10, 1698. Bugge, M.M., Hansen, T. and Klitkou, A. (2016). What is the Bioeconomy? A review of the literature. Sustain- ability (Switzerland), 8(7). doi: 10.3390/su8070691 Callo-Concha, D., Jaenicke, H., Schmitt, H.J. and Denich, M. (2020). Food and Non-food biomass production, processing and use in sub-Saharan Africa: Towards a regional Bioeconomy. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(5). doi: 10.3390/su12052013 Capasso, M. and Klitkou, A. (2020). Socioeconomic Indi- cators to Monitor Norway’s Bioeconomy in Transi- tion. Sustainability, 12, 3173. Cattaneo, C., Marull, J. and Tello, E. (2018). Landscape Agroecology. The dysfunctionalities of industrial agriculture and the loss of the circular Bioeconomy 181The Bioeconomy in economic literature: looking back, looking ahead Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 169-184, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10881 in the Barcelona Region, 1956-2009. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(12). doi: 10.3390/su10124722 Chapotin, S.M. and Wolt, J.D. (2007). Genetically modi- fied crops for the bioeconomy: meeting public and regulatory expectations. Transgenic Res.,16, 675–688. Cingiz, K., Gonzalez-Hermoso, H., Heijman, W. and Wesseler, J.H.H. (2021). A cross‐country measure- ment of the EU Bioeconomy: An input–output approach. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(6). doi: 10.3390/su13063033 Clauser, N.M., González, G., Mendieta, C.M., Kruyeniski, J., Area, M.C. and Vallejos, M.E. (2021). Biomass Waste as Sustainable Raw Material for Energy and Fuels. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13, 794. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su13020794 Cristea, M., Noja, G.G., Marcu, N., Siminică, M., and Ţîrcă, D.M. (2020). Modelling EU bioeconomy credentials in the economic development framework: the role of intellectual capital. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 26(6), 1139- 1164. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2020.13159 D’Amato, D., Bartkowski, B. and Droste, N. (2020). Reviewing the interface of Bioeconomy and ecosys- tem service research. Ambio, 49(12), 1878–1896. doi: 10.1007/s13280-020-01374-0 DeBoer, J., Panwar, R., Kozak, R. and Cashore, B. (2020). Squaring the circle: Refining the competitiveness logic for the circular Bioeconomy. Forest Policy and Eco- nomics, 110. 101858. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2019.01.003 Dietz, T. Börner, J., Förster, J.J. and von Braun, J. (2018). Governance of the Bioeconomy: A global compara- tive study of national Bioeconomy strategies. Sustain- ability (Switzerland), 10(9). doi: 10.3390/su10093190 Donner, M., Vernique, A., Broeze, J., Kayser, K. and De Vries, H. (2021) ‘Critical success and risk factors for circular business models valorising agricultur- al waste and by-products. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 165, 105236. doi: 10.1016/j.rescon- rec.2020.105236 Donner, M. and Radić, I. (2021).Innovative circular busi- ness models in the olive oil sector for sustainable mediterranean agrifood systems. Sustainability (Swit- zerland), 13(5), 1–23. doi: 10.3390/su13052588 Egenolf, V. and Bringezu, S. (2019). Conceptualization of an indicator system for assessing the sustainability of the Bioeconomy.Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(2). doi: 10.3390/su11020443 El-Chichakli, B., von Braun, J., Lang, C., Barben, D. and Philip, J. (2016). Policy: Five cornerstones of a global Bioeconomy. Nature, 535, 221–223. Efken, J., Dirksmeyer, W., Kreins, P. and Knecht, M. (2016). Measuring the importance of the Bioecon- omy in Germany: Concept and illustration. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 77, 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2016.03.008 Elomina, J. and Pülzl, H. (2021). How are forests framed? An analysis of EU forest policy. Forest Policy and Economics, 127. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102448 European Commission. (2018). A sustainable Bioeco- nomy for Europe: strengthening the connection between economy, society and the environment. Updated Bioeconomy Strategy. Bruxelles. European Economic and Social Committee. (2018). Bio- economy – contributing to achieving the EU’s climate and energy goals and the UN’s sustainable develop- ment goals. Eurostat (2020). PRODCOM-Statistics on the production of manufactured goods, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ web/prodcom/data/database Eurostat (2020a). Structural business statistics (SBS), https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?- dataset=sbs_na_ind_r2&lang=de Farcas, A.C., Galanakis, C.M., Socaciu, C., Pop, O.L., Tibulca, D., Paucean, A., Jimborean, M.A., Fogarasi, M., Salanta, L.C., Tofana, M. and Socaci, S.A. (2021). Food Security during the Pandemic and the Impor- tance of the Bioeconomy in the New Era. Sustainabil- ity, 13, 150. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010150 Ferreira, V., Pié, L. and Terceño, A. (2021). Econom- ic impact of the Bioeconomy in Spain: Multiplier effects with a bio social accounting matrix. Jour- nal of Cleaner Production, 298. doi: 10.1016/j.jcle- pro.2021.126752 Fisher, B., Turner, R.K. and Morling, P. (2009). Defin- ing and classifying ecosystem services for decision making’, Ecological Economics, 68(3), 643–653. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014 Fuchs, R., Brown, C. and Rounsevell, M. (2020). Europe’s Green Deal offshores environmental damage to oth- er nations. Nature, 586(7831), 671–673. doi: 10.1038/ d41586-020-02991-1 Gatto, F. and Re, I. (2021). Circular Bioeconomy business models to overcome the valley of death. A systematic statistical analysis of studies and projects in emerg- ing bio-based technologies and trends linked to the sme instrument support. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(4), 1–37. doi: 10.3390/su13041899 Gatune, J., Ozor, N. and Oriama, R. (2021).Modelling Bioeconomy futures for Eastern Africa. Foresight, 23(2), 226–241. doi: 10.1108/FS-03-2020-0032 Gava, O., Favilliu, E., Bartolini, F. and Brunori G. (2017). Knowledge networks and their role in shaping the relations within the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System in the agroenergy sector. The case 182 Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 169-184, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10881 Davide Viaggi, Fabio Bartolini, Meri Raggi of biogas in Tuscany (Italy). Journal of Rural Studies, 56, 100–113. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.09.009 Giampietro, M. (2019). On the Circular Bioeconomy and Decoupling: Implications for Sustainable Growth. Ecological Economics,162, 143–156. doi: 10.1016/j. ecolecon.2019.05.001 Gonçalves, M., Freire, F. and Garcia, R. (2021). Material flow analysis of forest biomass in Portugal to support a circular Bioeconomy. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 169. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105507 Grundel, I. and Dahlström, M. (2016). A Quadruple and Quintuple Helix Approach to Regional Innovation Systems in the Transformation to a Forestry-Based Bioeconomy. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 7(4). doi: 10.1007/s13132-016-0411-7 Guerrero, J.E. and Hansen, E. (2021). Company-level cross-sector collaborations in transition to the Bio- economy: A multi-case study. Forest Policy and Eco- nomics, 123(2). doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102355 Haddad, S., Britz, W. and Börner, J. (2019). Econom- ic impacts and land use change from increasing demand for forest products in the European Bioecon- omy: A general equilibrium based sensitivity analysis. Forests, 10(1). doi: 10.3390/f10010052 Hamelin, L., Borzęcka, M., Kozak, M. and Pudelko, R. (2019). A spatial approach to Bioeconomy: Quan- tifying the residual biomass potential in the EU-27. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 100, 127–142. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2018.10.017 van der Heide, M.E., Lene, S., Nørgaard, J.V. and Merete, S. (2021). The potential of locally-sourced european protein sources for organic monogastric production: A review of forage crop extracts, seaweed, starfish, mussel, and insects. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(4), 2303. doi: 10.3390/su13042303 Heimann, T. (2019). Bioeconomy and SDGs: Does the Bioeconomy Support the Achievement of the SDGs?. Earth’s Future, 7(1), 43–57. doi: 10.1029/2018EF001014 Holmgren, S., D’Amato, D. and Giurca, A. (2020). Bioeco- nomy imaginaries: A review of forest-related social science literature. Ambio, 49(12), 1860–1877. doi: 10.1007/s13280-020-01398-6 Jansen, S., Foster, W., Anríquez, G. and Ortega, J. (2021). Understanding farm-level incentives within the Bio- economy framework: Prices, product quality, losses, and bio-based alternatives. Sustainability (Switzer- land), 13(2), 450. doi: 10.3390/su13020450 Jonsson, R., Rinaldi, F., Pilli, R., Fiorese, G., Hurmekoski, E., Cazzaniga, N., Robert, N. and Camia, A. (2021). Boosting the EU forest-based Bioeconomy: Mar- ket, climate, and employment impacts. Technologi- cal Forecasting and Social Change, 163, 120478. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120478 Kakadellis, S., Woods, J. and Harris, Z.M. (2021). Friend or foe: Stakeholder attitudes towards biodegradable plastic packaging in food waste anaerobic digestion. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 169. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105529 Kallio, A.M.I. (2021). Wood-based textile fibre market as part of the global forest-based Bioeconomy’. For- est Policy and Economics, 123. doi: 10.1016/j.for- pol.2020.102364 Kirkels, A.F. (2012). Discursive shifts in energy from bio- mass: A 30 year European overview. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(6), 4105–4115. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2012.03.037 Kuckertz, A. (2020). Bioeconomy transformation strat- egiesworldwide require stronger focus on entrepre- neurship. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(7). doi: 10.3390/su12072911 Kuckertz, A., Berger, E.S.C. and Brändle, L. (2020). Entre- preneurship and the sustainable Bioeconomy transfor- mation. Environmental Innovation and Societal Tran- sitions, 37, 332–344. doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2020.10.003 LUKE. (2019). The Principles for Monitoring the Bio- economy, Luke—Natural Resources Institute Fin- land: Helsinki, Finland. https://www.luke.fi/wp-con- t e nt / up l o a d s / 2 0 2 0 / 1 0 / pr i n c ip l e s - f or- m on it or- ing-eng_14102019.pdf Marchetti, M., Vizzarri. M., Lasserre, B., Sallustio, L. and Tavone, A. (2014). Natural capital and Bioeconomy: Challenges and opportunities for forestry. Annals of Silvicultural Research, 38(2), 62–73. doi: 10.12899/ ASR-1013 Marsden, T. and Farioli, F. (2015). Natural powers: from the bio-economy to the eco-economy and sustainable place-making. Sustainability Science, 10(2), 331–344. doi: 10.1007/s11625-014-0287-z Millar, N., McLaughlin, E. and Börger, T. (2019). The Circular Economy: Swings and Roundabouts?. Eco- logical Economics, 158, 11–19. doi: 10.1016/j.ecole- con.2018.12.012 Morland, C. and Schier, F. (2020). Modelling Bioecon- omy scenario pathways for the forest products mar- kets with emerging lignocellulosic products. Sus- tainability (Switzerland), 12(24), 1–15. doi: 10.3390/ su122410540 Mossberg, J., Frishammar, J. and Hellsmark, H. (2020). Managerial and organizational challenges encoun- tered in the development of sustainable technology: Analysis of Swedish biorefinery pilot and demonstra- tion plants. Journal of Cleaner Production, 276. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124150 183The Bioeconomy in economic literature: looking back, looking ahead Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 169-184, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10881 Naah, J.B.S.N. (2020). Community-level analysis of val- ue webs of biomass-based resources: A case study among local actors in Ghana. Sustainability (Switzer- land), 12(4). doi: 10.3390/su12041644 Navrátilová, L., Výbošťok, J., Dobšinská, Z., Šálka, J., Pichlerová, M. and Pichler V. (2020). Assessing the potential of bioeconomy in Slovakia based on pub- lic perception of renewable materials in contrast to non-renewable materials. Ambio, 49, 1912–1924. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01368-y Orejuela-Escobar, L., Gualle, A., Ochoa-Herrera, V. and Philippidis, G.P. (2021). Prospects of Microalgae for Biomaterial Production and Environmental Applica- tions at Biorefineries. Sustainability, 13, 3063. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su13063063 Oteros-Rozas, E., Martín-López, B., González, J.A., Plieninger, T., López, C.A. and Montes, C. (2014). Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services in a transhumance social-ecological network. Regional Environmental Change, 14,  1269–1289. doi: 10.1007/ s10113-013-0571-y. Peters, M.A., Jandrić, P. and Hayes, S. (2020). Biodigital technologies and the Bioeconomy: The Global New Green Deal?. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1–12. doi: 10.1080/00131857.2020.1861938 Petruch, M. and Walcher, D. (2021). Timber for future? Attitudes towards timber construction by young mil- lennials in Austria - Marketing implications from a representative study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 294. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126324 Pfau, S.F., Hagens, J.E., Dankbaar, B. and Smits, A.J.M. (2014). Visions of Sustainability in Bioeconomy Research. Sustainability, 6, 1222-1249. https://doi. org/10.3390/su6031222 Piotrowski, S., Carus, M. and Carrez, D. (2019). Europe- an Bioeconomy in Figures 2008–2016. nova-Institute for Ecology and Innovation, Hürth, Germany. Porc, O., Hark, N., Carus, M., Dammer, L. and Carrez, D. (2020). European Bioeconomy in Figures 2008–2017, nova-Institute for Ecology and Innovation, Hürth, Germany. Primmer, E., Varumo, L., Krause, T., Orsi, F., Geneletti, D., Brogaard, S., Aukes, E., Ciolli, M., Grossmann, C., Hernández-Morcillo, M., Kister, J., Kluvánková, T., Loft, L., Maier, C., Meyer, C., Schleyer, C., Spacek, M. and Mann C. (2021). Mapping Europe’s institutional landscape for forest ecosystem service provision, inno- vations and governance. Ecosystem Services, 47. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101225 Rojas Arboleda, M., Pfeiffer, A., Bezama, A. and Thrän, D. (2021). Anticipatory study for identifying the key influential factors of the biogas system in Germany contributing to the energy system of 2050. Futures, 128. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2021.102704 Ronzon, T. and M’Barek, R. (2017). Quantifying econom- ic indicators of the European Bioeconomy. In Bioeco- nomy Report 2016, Klinkenberg, M., Sanchez Lopez, J., Hadjamu, G., Belward, A., Camia, A., Eds., JRC Scientific and Policy Report. EUR 28468 EN. Ronzon, T., Piotrowski, S., M’Barek, R. and Carus, M. (2017). A systematic approach to understanding and quantifying the EU’s Bioeconomy. Bio-based and Applied Economics, 6(1), 1-17. https://doi. org/10.13128/BAE-20567 Ronzon, T. and M’Barek, R. (2018). Socioeconomic Indi- cators to Monitor the EU’s Bioeconomy in Transition. Sustainability, 10, 1745 Ronzon, T.,Piotrowski, S., Tamosiunas, S., Dammer, L., Carus, M. and M’Barek, R. (2020). Developments of Economic Growth and Employmentin Bioeconomy Sectors across the EU. Sustainability, 12, 4507 Rosenlund, J. and Legrand, C. (2021). Algaepreneurship as academic engagement: Being entrepreneurial in a lab coat. Industry and Higher Education, 35(1), 28–37. doi: 10.1177/0950422220929279 Ryymin, E., Lamberg, L. and Pakarinen, A. (2021). How to digitally enhance Bioeconomy collaboration: mul- tidisciplinary research teamideation for technol- ogy innovation. Technology Innovation Manage- ment Review, 10(11), 31–39. doi: 10.22215/TIMRE- VIEW/1401 Salvador, R., Puglieri, F.N., Halog, A., de Andrade, F.G., Piekarski, C.M. and De Francisco, A.C. (2021). Key aspects for designing business models for a circular Bioeconomy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 278. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124341 Santagata, R., Ripa, M., Genevose, A. and Ulgiati, S. (2021). Food waste recovery pathways: Challenges and opportunities for an emerging bio-based circu- lar economy. A systematic review and an assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 286. doi: 10.1016/j. jclepro.2020.125490 Sanz-Hernández, A., Esteban, E., Marco, P. and Soriano, G. (2020). Forest Bioeconomy in the media discourse in Spain. Ambio, 49(12), 1897–1911. doi: 10.1007/ s13280-020-01390-0 Sanz-Hernández, A. (2021). Privately owned forests and woodlands in Spain: Changing resilience strategies towards a forest-based Bioeconomy. Land Use Policy, 100. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104922 Schier, F., Morland, C., Dieter, M. and Weimer, H. (2021). Estimating supply and demand elasticities of dis- solving pulp, lignocellulose-based chemical deriva- tives and textile fibres in an emerging forest-based 184 Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(3): 169-184, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-10881 Davide Viaggi, Fabio Bartolini, Meri Raggi Bioeconomy. Forest Policy and Economics, 126. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102422 Skjerstad, S.H.F., Kallio, A.M.I., Bergland, O. and Solberg, B. (2021). New elasticities and projections of global demand for coniferous sawnwood. Forest Policy and Economics, 122. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102336 Smith, V., Wesseler, J.H.H. and Zilberman, D. (2021). New plant breeding technologies: An assessment of the political economy of the regulatory environment and implications for sustainability. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(7). doi: 10.3390/su13073687 Solberg, B., Moiseyev, A., Hansen, O.H., Horn, J.H. and Øverland M. (2021). Wood for food: Economic impacts of sustainable use of forest biomass for salm- on feed production in Norway. Forest Policy and Economics, 122. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102337 Székács, A. (2017). Environmental and Ecological Aspects in the Overall Assessment of Bioeconomy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 30(1), 153–170. doi: 10.1007/s10806-017-9651-1 Tiekstra, S., Dopico-Parada, A., Koivula, H., Lahti, J. and Buntinx, M. (2021). Holistic approach to a success- ful market implementation of active and intelligent food packaging. Foods, 10(2), 465. doi: 10.3390/ foods10020465 Toivonen, R., Vihemäki, H. and Toppinen, A. (2021). Pol- icy narratives on wooden multi-storey construction and implications for technology innovation system governance. Forest Policy and Economics, 125. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102409 Vainio, A., Ovaska, U. and Varho, V. (2019). Not so sustain- able? Images of Bioeconomy by future environmental professionals and citizens. Journal of Cleaner Produc- tion, 210, 1396–1405. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.290 Van Schoubroeck, S., Van Dael, M., Van Passel, S. and Malina R. (2018). A review of sustainability indicators for biobased chemicals. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 94, 115-126 Vandermeulen, V., Prins, W., Nolte, S., Van Huylenbro- eck, G. (2011). How to measure the size of a bio- based economy: Evidence from Flanders. Biomass Bioenergy, 35, 4368–4375 Vătămănescu, E-M., Alexandru, V-A., Cristea, G., Radu, L. and Chirica, O. (2018). A demand-side perspec- tive of Bioeconomy: The influence of online intellec- tual capital on consumption. Amfiteatru Economic, 20(49), 553–566. doi: 10.24818/EA/2018/49/536 Vertommen, S., Pavone, V. and Nahman, M. (2021). Global Fertility Chains: An Integrative Political Econ- omy Approach to Understanding the Reproductive Bioeconomy. Science Technology and Human Values. doi: 10.1177/0162243921996460 Viaggi, D., Mantino, F., Mazzocchi, M., Moro, D. and Stefani, G. (2012). From Agricultural to Bio-based Economics? Context, State of the Art and Challeng- es. Bio-Based and Applied Economics, 1(1), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.13128/BAE-10816 Viaggi, D. (2018). The Bioeconomy Delivering Sustain- able Green Growth. CABI Publishing. Virchow, D., Beuchelt, T.D., Kuhn, A. and Denich, M. (2016). Biomass-based value webs: A novel perspec- tive for emerging bioeconomies in Sub-Saharan Afri- ca, Technological and Institutional Innovations for Marginalized Smallholders in Agricultural Develop- ment, 225-238. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-25718-1_14 Vivien, F.D., Nieddu, M., Befort, N., Debref, R. and Giampietro. M. (2019). The Hijacking of the Bio- economy. Ecological Economics, 159, 189–197. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.01.027 Vogelpohl, T. (2021). Transnational sustainability certi- fication for the Bioeconomy? Patterns and discourse coalitions of resistance and alternatives in biomass exporting regions. Energy, Sustainability and Society, 11(1). doi: 10.1186/s13705-021-00278-5 Weiss, M., Haufe, J., Carus, M., Brandão, M., Bringezu, S., Hermann, B. and Patel, M.K. (2012). A Review of the Environmental Impacts of Biobased Materials. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 16(s1), s169-s181. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00468.x Wen, L. and Chatalova, L. (2021). Will transaction costs and economies of scale tip the balance in farm size in industrial agriculture? An illustration for non-food biomass production in Germany. Sustainability (Swit- zerland), 13(2). doi: 10.3390/su13020733 Wensing, J., Caputo, V., Carraresi, L. and Bröring, S. (2020). The effects of green nudges on consumer valuation of bio-based plastic packaging. Ecolog- ical Economics, 178, 106783. doi: 10.1016/j.ecole- con.2020.106783 Wydra, S., Hüsing, B., Köhler, J., Schwarz, A., Schirrmeis- ter, E. and Voglhuber-Slavinsky, A. (2021). Transi- tion to the Bioeconomy – Analysis and scenarios for selected niches. Journal of Cleaner Production, 294. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126092 Yang, S., Wenwu Zhao, W., Liu, Y., Cherubini, F., Fu, B. and Pereira, P. (2020). Prioritizing sustainable development goals and linking them to ecosystem services: A global expert’s knowledge evaluation. Geography and Sustainability, 1(4), 321–330. doi: 10.1016/j.geosus.2020.09.004 Volume 10, Issue 3 - 2021 Firenze University Press The Bioeconomy in economic literature: looking back, looking ahead Davide Viaggi1,*, Fabio Bartolini2, Meri Raggi3 The contribution of research to agricultural policy in Europe Alan Matthews Drinking Covid-19 away: wine consumption during the first lockdown in Italy Giulia Gastaldello*, Daniele Mozzato, Luca Rossetto Estimating a global MAIDADS demand system considering demography, climate and norms Wolfgang Britz The evolution of organic market between third-party certification and participatory guarantee systems Gianluca Iannucci1, Giovanna Sacchi2,*