• Energy Research

The bioeconomy has emerged as a popular, but ambiguous vision for a sustainable future. Its implementation depends not only on novel products and production processes, but also on balancing diverse interests, values, and interpretations of the concept. The German government’s plan to develop a sustainable bioeconomy in response to structural change in the lignite mining regions provides a unique opportunity to investigate what pathways towards the bioeconomy are supported by society. In order to characterize bioeconomy visions prevalent in public perception, we conducted a computer-assisted, mixed-methods discourse analysis of German-language newspaper articles published between 2010 and 2019. Results show that a techno-economic vision is dominant over ecological and social aspects, suggesting only one clear pathway to the German bioeconomy, which is increasingly criticized in the public debate.

The bioeconomy has emerged as a popular, but ambiguous vision for a sustainable future. Its implementation depends not only on novel products and production processes, but also on balancing diverse interests, values, and interpretations of the concept. The German government’s plan to develop a sustainable bioeconomy in response to structural change in the lignite mining regions provides a unique opportunity to investigate what pathways towards the bioeconomy are supported by society. In order to characterize bioeconomy visions prevalent in public perception, we conducted a computer-assisted, mixed-methods discourse analysis of German-language newspaper articles published between 2010 and 2019. Results show that a techno-economic vision is dominant over ecological and social aspects, suggesting only one clear pathway to the German bioeconomy, which is increasingly criticized in the public debate.

Against the backdrop of climate and environmental pressures, as well as limited resource availability and trade conflicts, devising policies for energy and the use of natural resources in general becomes exceedingly complex. Moreover, policies are required to account for interrelations between individual resources and between different sectors and policy fields, but implementation often lacks. To evaluate the current state of integrated policy design in the EU, a review of European energy, water, and agricultural policies was conducted. Using a qualitative comparative research approach, the objective was to identify and explain the differing degrees and variations in policy integration among them. To this aim, the concepts “Environmental Policy Integration” and “Water-Energy-Land Nexus” were jointly applied as analytical frameworks. The analysis revealed that currently, different authorities are endowed with largely sectoral mandates. Accordingly, the respective sectoral policy sets are historically grown based on differing sets of formal and informal rules and processes, thus making policy integration among the sectors, let alone within the nexus, a highly challenging task.

Against the backdrop of climate and environmental pressures, as well as limited resource availability and trade conflicts, devising policies for energy and the use of natural resources in general becomes exceedingly complex. Moreover, policies are required to account for interrelations between individual resources and between different sectors and policy fields, but implementation often lacks. To evaluate the current state of integrated policy design in the EU, a review of European energy, water, and agricultural policies was conducted. Using a qualitative comparative research approach, the objective was to identify and explain the differing degrees and variations in policy integration among them. To this aim, the concepts “Environmental Policy Integration” and “Water-Energy-Land Nexus” were jointly applied as analytical frameworks. The analysis revealed that currently, different authorities are endowed with largely sectoral mandates. Accordingly, the respective sectoral policy sets are historically grown based on differing sets of formal and informal rules and processes, thus making policy integration among the sectors, let alone within the nexus, a highly challenging task.

Abstract Following intense debates about a new global development agenda, in 2015 the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were introduced based on the commitment for international collaboration to promote sustained and inclusive economic growth, social development, and environmental protection. In accordance with these objectives, the ‘food–energy–water’ (FEW) nexus developed as an integrative concept to optimize the interdependent uses of the different nexus resources in order to achieve a sustainable, fair allocation of these resources while enabling economic growth. Addressing this challenge, various FEW nexus indices have been published to allow the global comparison of countries’ nexus statuses. Given the complexity of nexus thinking, measuring the state of the nexus is a challenging task in need of a clear methodology. Based on the comparative analysis of selected nexus indices – including our own nexus index (the STE FEW Security Index) – and their underlying methodical approaches, in this paper we discuss the consistency and inconsistencies among these indices as well as their resulting implications.

Abstract Following intense debates about a new global development agenda, in 2015 the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were introduced based on the commitment for international collaboration to promote sustained and inclusive economic growth, social development, and environmental protection. In accordance with these objectives, the ‘food–energy–water’ (FEW) nexus developed as an integrative concept to optimize the interdependent uses of the different nexus resources in order to achieve a sustainable, fair allocation of these resources while enabling economic growth. Addressing this challenge, various FEW nexus indices have been published to allow the global comparison of countries’ nexus statuses. Given the complexity of nexus thinking, measuring the state of the nexus is a challenging task in need of a clear methodology. Based on the comparative analysis of selected nexus indices – including our own nexus index (the STE FEW Security Index) – and their underlying methodical approaches, in this paper we discuss the consistency and inconsistencies among these indices as well as their resulting implications.