Collective stakeholder representations and perceptions of drivers of novel biomass-based value chains

Abstract European Union (EU) policies aim to enable novel biomass-based value chains which require collaboration among their stakeholders. However little is known about how stakeholders collectively represent the scope and boundary of drivers that enhance or limit these novel biomass-based value chains. Thus, the objective of this article is to present the first comprehensive set of results about the collective representations and perceptions of novel biomass-based value chain drivers held by German stakeholders. These results were produced using Group Concept Mapping (GCM), a bottom-up and participatory mixed methods-based approach. The results include a multivariate estimated concept map comprising 54 drivers spatially distributed across eight interrelated clusters. The spatial organization of clusters on the concept map provides insights on their interrelatedness and conceptual configuration which reveal stakeholders’ concept breadth and depth of novel biomass value chains. Moreover, the relative importance and relative feasibility measures for each cluster of drivers were obtained. These measures indicate significant statistical differences between perceived relative importance and feasibility ratings. A discussion compares the results with available empirical evidence to further interpret the interrelatedness of the clusters, and provide additional insights regarding effective policy formulation for enabling novel biomass-based value chains.

[1]  L. Martin Cloutier,et al.  Collective Economic Conceptualization of Strategic Actions by Québec Cidermakers: A Mixed Methods–Based Approach , 2017 .

[2]  Stefan Seuring,et al.  Supply chain and logistics issues of bio-energy production. , 2011 .

[3]  N. Noorderhaven,et al.  Structural antecedents of corporate network evolution , 2011 .

[4]  Luc Cassivi,et al.  The effects of using system dynamics-based decision support models: testing policy-makers’ boundaries in a complex situation , 2017, J. Decis. Syst..

[5]  M. Porter TECHNOLOGY AND COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE , 1985 .

[6]  L. Levidow,et al.  Divergent Paradigms of European Agro-Food Innovation , 2013 .

[7]  K. McCormick,et al.  Towards a Bioeconomy in Europe: National, Regional and Industrial Strategies , 2015 .

[8]  Sam Devlin,et al.  From value chains to technological platforms: The effects of crowdfunding in the digital game industry , 2017 .

[9]  J. Buysse,et al.  Ensuring continuous feedstock supply in agricultural residue value chains : a complex interplay of five influencing factors , 2018 .

[10]  I. Lewandowski Securing a sustainable biomass supply in a growing bioeconomy , 2015 .

[11]  Guido Van Huylenbroeck,et al.  Managing innovation in the bioeconomy : an open innovation perspective , 2016 .

[12]  André Faaij,et al.  Bio-energy in Europe: changing technology choices , 2006 .

[13]  R. Seva,et al.  Affective Responses in the Purchase of Consumer Eco Products , 2016 .

[14]  Riccardo Vecchiato,et al.  Environmental uncertainty, foresight and strategic decision making: an integrated study. , 2012 .

[15]  Mary Kane,et al.  Quality and rigor of the concept mapping methodology: a pooled study analysis. , 2012, Evaluation and program planning.

[16]  Paul B. Thompson,et al.  The Agricultural Ethics of Biofuels: A First Look , 2008, The Ethics of Nanotechnology, Geoengineering and Clean Energy.

[17]  Lasse Okkonen,et al.  Socio-economic impacts of a local bioenergy-based development strategy – The case of Pielinen Karelia, Finland , 2016 .

[18]  P. Schoemaker,et al.  Strategic assets and organizational rent , 1993 .

[19]  Orla Shortall,et al.  Are plants the new oil? Responsible innovation, biorefining and multipurpose agriculture , 2015 .

[20]  David Danks,et al.  Unifying the Mind: Cognitive Representations as Graphical Models , 2014 .

[21]  Scott R. Rosas,et al.  Group concept mapping methodology: toward an epistemology of group conceptualization, complexity, and emergence , 2017 .

[22]  Mary Kane,et al.  Concept Mapping for Planning and Evaluation , 2006 .

[23]  Andreas Pyka,et al.  From commodity-based value chains to biomass-based value webs: The case of sugarcane in Brazil’s bioeconomy , 2018 .

[24]  André Faaij,et al.  Governance of the emerging bio-energy markets , 2007 .

[25]  Vesa A. J. Karvonen,et al.  The main factors affecting the entry of SMEs into bio-based industry , 2017 .

[26]  Ruth Meinzen-Dick,et al.  Methods for studying collective action in rural development , 2004 .

[27]  Kes McCormick,et al.  The Bioeconomy in Europe: An Overview , 2013 .

[28]  Maeve Henchion,et al.  Consensus, caveats and conditions: International learnings for bioeconomy development , 2018 .

[29]  Martin Kaltschmitt,et al.  Competition – Supporting or preventing an increased use of bioenergy? , 2007, Biotechnology journal.

[30]  William M. K. Trochim,et al.  An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. , 1989 .

[31]  Paul Upham,et al.  Framing environmental sustainability challenges for research and innovation in European policy agendas , 2011 .

[32]  Jochen Markard,et al.  Creating and shaping innovation systems: Formal networks in the innovation system for stationary fuel cells in Germany , 2011 .

[33]  W. Trochim Concept mapping: Soft science or hard art? , 1989 .

[34]  R. Quitzow,et al.  Acceptance of bio‐based products in the business‐to‐business market and public procurement: Expert survey results , 2017 .

[35]  N. Scarlat,et al.  The role of biomass and bioenergy in a future bioeconomy: Policies and facts , 2015 .

[36]  J. Chauvet,et al.  New innovative ecosystems in France to develop the Bioeconomy. , 2018, New biotechnology.

[37]  Hayri Önal,et al.  Renewable energy policies and competition for biomass: Implications for land use, food prices, and processing industry , 2016 .

[38]  CarusMichael,et al.  European Bioeconomy in Figures , 2016 .

[39]  Scott R. Rosas Multi-map comparison for group concept mapping: an approach for examining conceptual congruence through spatial correspondence , 2017 .

[40]  Anna Ekman,et al.  Bioresource utilisation by sustainable technologies in new value-added biorefinery concepts - two case studies from food and forest industry , 2013 .

[41]  S. Bröring,et al.  The emerging research landscape on bioeconomy: What has been done so far and what is essential from a technology and innovation management perspective? , 2015 .

[42]  S. Bröring,et al.  Emerging value chains within the bio-economy: structural changes in the case of phosphate recovery , 2018 .

[43]  J. Swinnen,et al.  The global bio‐economy , 2013 .

[44]  Kirsti Dautzenberg,et al.  Biofuel chain development in Germany: Organisation, opportunities, and challenges , 2008 .

[45]  Timothy F. Smith,et al.  Environmental Sustainability: A Case of Policy Implementation Failure? , 2017 .

[46]  J. H. Ward Hierarchical Grouping to Optimize an Objective Function , 1963 .

[47]  R. Kaplinsky Globalisation and Unequalisation: What Can Be Learned from Value Chain Analysis? , 2000 .

[48]  Mari S. Chinn,et al.  The farm to biorefinery continuum: A techno-economic and LCA analysis of ethanol production from sweet sorghum juice , 2014 .

[49]  Fredric Bauer,et al.  Technological innovation systems for biorefineries: a review of the literature , 2017 .

[50]  Alexandra Purkus,et al.  Handling uncertainty in bioenergy policy design – A case study analysis of UK and German bioelectricity policy instruments , 2015 .

[51]  William M. K. Trochim,et al.  The complexity of concept mapping for policy analysis , 2005 .

[52]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[53]  N. Sick,et al.  Oil prices as a driving force in the diffusion of renewables , 2015 .

[54]  S. Zahra,et al.  Absorptive Capacity: A Review, Reconceptualization, and Extension , 2002 .

[55]  Sharmistha Bagchi-Sen,et al.  Limits to policy-led innovation and industry development in US biofuels , 2017, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[56]  M. Boehlje,et al.  The Increasing Multifunctionality of Agricultural Raw Materials: Three Dilemmas for Innovation and Adoption , 2011 .