• Energy Research
• 8. Economic growth close
• 1. No poverty close
• BE close
• GB close
• University of Antwerp close

Abstract Floods are challenging the resilience of societies all over the world. In many countries there are discussions on diversifying the strategies for flood risk management, which implies some sort of policy change. To understand the possibilities of such change, a thorough understanding of the forces of stability and change of underlying governance arrangements is required. It follows from the path dependency literature that countries which rely strongly on flood infrastructures, as part of flood defense strategies, would be more path dependent. Consequently there is a higher chance to find more incremental change in these countries than in countries that have a more diversified set of strategies. However, comparative and detailed empirical studies that may help scrutinize this assumption are lacking. To address this knowledge gap, this paper investigates how six European countries (Belgium, England, France, The Netherlands, Poland and Sweden) essentially differ with regard to their governance of flood risks. To analyze stability and change, we focus on how countries are responding to certain societal and ecological driving forces (ecological turn; climate change discourses; European policies; and the increasing prevalence of economic rationalizations) that potentially affect the institutional arrangements for flood risk governance. Taking both the variety of flood risk governance in countries and their responses to driving forces into account, we can clarify the conditions of stability or change of flood risk governance arrangements more generally. The analysis shows that the national-level impact of driving forces is strongly influenced by the flood risk governance arrangements in the six countries. Path dependencies are indeed visible in countries with high investments in flood infrastructure accompanied by strongly institutionalized governance arrangements (Poland, the Netherlands) but not only there. Also more diversified countries that are less dependent on flood infrastructure and flood defense only (England) show path dependencies and mostly incremental change. More substantial changes are visible in countries that show moderate diversification of strategies (Belgium, France) or countries that ‘have no strong path yet’ in comprehensive flood risk governance (Sweden). This suggests that policy change can be expected when there is both the internal need and will to change and a barrage of (external) driving forces pushing for change.

Highlights •Biomass resource constraints impact the effectiveness of bioeconomy policies. •Bioeconomy policies may have an important impact on the sector structure in the long run, but the sector growth remains ultimately constrained by the availability of inputs. •Solutions to reduce the biomass constraint have to be included in innovation policy for the biobased economy.

The future of climate change is a wicked problem for resource prioritisation. How do we couple climate and multi-risk information with egalitarian distributive justice? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) considers that multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) can help. We use stochastic multi-attribute analysis (SMAA), a variant of MCDA, to prioritise funding allocations for 26 fragile countries with a humanitarian response plan under an era of climatic losses and damages (l&d). The SMAA combines field data from the crisis-measuring INFORM Severity and stakeholder preference information from the United Nations, European Union, World Bank, research and public sectors, and civil society. Our analysis primarily agrees with current humanitarian funding. Still, countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria and Myanmar are disproportionately underfunded, while Ukraine and Syria receive undue support. An equitable coupling is actionable – yet questions on how far to pragmatically attribute l&d for adequate financing arise.

Nature-based solutions (NBS) are widely regarded as cost-effective responses to climate change and environmental degradation that also provide numerous co-benefits. However, despite significant policy attention, NBS plans often fail to materialize due to public budget shortfalls. Alongside traditional public finance, the international debate increasingly urges the mobilization of private capital for NBS through alternative financing (AF) techniques. In this scoping review, we examine the literature on a) the AF models connected to NBS and b) the drivers and barriers associated with these AF models in terms of their financial technicity and their embeddedness in the political, economic, social, technological, legal/institutional, and environmental/spatial ("PESTLE") context. Although many models are discussed, the results indicate that none can be considered full substitutes for traditional public finance. Barriers and drivers converge around seven overarching tensions: new revenue and risk distribution vs. uncertainty, budgetary and legal pressure vs. political willingness and risk aversion, market demand vs. market failures, private sector engagement vs. social acceptance and risks, legal and institutional conduciveness vs. inertia, and upscaling potential vs. environmental risks and land use. Future research should focus on a) how to further integrate NBS monitoring, quantification, valuation, and monetization into AF models, b) systemic and empirical approaches to improve the understanding of the applicability and transferability of AF models, and c) an exploration of the potential qualities and social risks of AF models in NBS governance arrangements.

The purpose of this study is to determine if aquaponic systems can reduce food insecurity in the semi-arid regions of Brazil and generate income for the beneficiaries. Aquaponics is a potentially sustainable way to produce food based on gardening, hydroponics and aquaculture. A case study, based on a project called Aquaponova, was developed. The aquaponic systems currently used in the project are non-commercial and designed for households with limited resources. The data based on six existing systems within this project were used to compare the costs and the benefits. The cost–benefit analysis covers four scenarios and three financing options. The results show that aquaponic systems have a large potential and can reduce food insecurity in semi-arid regions while generating income for the beneficiaries. Even if the system only produces 40% of the total estimated production, the system will still be feasible. However, the low opportunity cost of labour is an essential factor for obtaining these positive results. Moreover, the social benefits, such as a community spirit and the health benefits of the system, should not be underestimated.

Addressing nautical bottlenecks is crucial for optimizing the utilization of inland waterways and maximizing the economic benefits of transports. To maximize economic benefits, a study was conducted to validate a key performance indicator (KPI)-based framework. This framework offers a structured approach to assessing the impact of resolved nautical bottlenecks on the economic benefits of inland waterway transport (IWT). To validate the applicability of the KPI framework, interviews with eleven experts were conducted. The goal was to prioritize each KPI based on their insights. The results of the interviews shed light on the relevance and coherence of both the individual KPIs and the overall KPI framework. The experts confirmed the importance of measures related to transportation efficiency, such as reduced transit times, increased vessel throughput, and enhanced reliability. The validated KPI-based framework serves as a valuable tool for policymakers, industry stakeholders, and researchers. It enables the assessment of the effects of resolving nautical bottlenecks in inland waterway systems. Future research should focus on quantifying the multifaceted impacts, making this framework even more useful for decision-making processes concerning investments in infrastructure upgrades and maintenance.

AbstractBioenergy (i.e., bioheat and bioelectricity) could simultaneously address energy insecurity and climate change. However, bioenergy’s impact on climate change remains incomplete when land use changes (LUC), soil organic carbon (SOC) changes, and the auxiliary energy consumption are not accounted for in the life cycle. Using data collected from Belgian farmers, combined heat and power (CHP) operators, and a life cycle approach, we compared 40 bioenergy pathways to a fossil-fuel CHP system. Bioenergy required between 0.024 and 0.204MJ (0.86MJth+0.14 MJel)−1, and the estimated energy ratio (energy output-to-input ratio) ranged from 5 to 42. SOC loss increased the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of residue based bioenergy. On average, the iLUC represented ∼67% of the total GHG emissions of bioenergy from perennial energy crops. However, the net LUC (i.e., dLUC+iLUC) effects substantially reduced the GHG emissions incurred during all phases of bioenergy production from perennial crops, turning most pathways based on energy crops to GHG sinks. Relative to fossil-fuel based CHP all bioenergy pathways reduced GHG emissions by 8–114%. Fluidized bed technologies maximize the energy and the GHG benefits of all pathways. The size and the power-to-heat ratio for a given CHP influenced the energy and GHG performance of these bioenergy pathways. Even with the inclusion of LUC, perennial crops had better GHG performance than agricultural and forest residues. Perennial crops have a high potential in the multidimensional approach to increase energy security and to mitigate climate change. The full impacts of bioenergy from these perennial energy crops must, however, be assessed before they can be deployed on a large scale.