EU agri-innovation policy: two contending visions of the bio-economy

By Les Levidow, Kean Birch, T. Papaioannou. 2012

150 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Management of Technology and Innovation, Molecular Biology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2848dd6da7e1abd1591137c06d084b5fc5ac9a56

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Agricultural and Biological Sciences

1. R. Meyer
2. Rick Bosman
3. Jan Rotmans
4. M. Besi
5. Daniel Hausknost
6. Ernst Schriefl
7. G. Kalt
8. C. Lauk

In Management of Technology and Innovation

1. R. Meyer
2. Jan Rotmans
3. K. McCormick
4. Niina Kautto
5. Derk A. Loorbach
6. René Kemp

In Molecular Biology

1. R. Meyer
2. T. Heimann
3. K. McCormick
4. Niina Kautto

Citations in the corpus

• What Is Sustainable Agriculture? A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2015, 7, 7833-7865 (2015, unknown): “As it was our aim to obtain clusters of different positions regarding sustainable agriculture, a special approach had to be taken for those papers that juxtapose two or more positions regarding sustainable agriculture [10,14,16,17,38]: In order to separate these positions, these articles were divide”
• The Bioeconomy in Europe: An Overview (2013, methodology): “, organic agro-food organisations) and expert proposals [49,50].”
• A Transition to Which Bioeconomy? An Exploration of Diverging Techno-Political Choices (2017, background): “Imaginaries, as defined in critical discourse analysis, “pre-figure a possible and intended reality, which includes an objective and a strategy to achieve it” ([4], p.”
• Bioeconomy and SDGs: Does the Bioeconomy Support the Achievement of the SDGs? (2019, background): “Furthermore, scholars, governments, and international organization have published their anticipation of effects from bioeconomy activities (BMBF, 2010; BMEL, 2014; Deininger, 2013; European Commission, 2012; FAO, 2016; GBS, 2015; Levidow et al., 2012; Zilberman et al., 2013).”
• Towards a Bioeconomy in Europe: National, Regional and Industrial Strategies (2015, background): “[6] note that the bioeconomy is still a new concept and it is yet to be fully integrated into policy; therefore, the creation of strategies will significantly influence how future priorities for the bioeconomy are defined and policies implemented at all governance levels.”
• Transition Governance towards a Bioeconomy: A Comparison of Finland and The Netherlands (2016, background): “This is also the case in the bioeconomy [14–16].”
• Bioeconomy Strategies: Contexts, Visions, Guiding Implementation Principles and Resulting Debates (2017, background): “Instead of biotechnology and/or conversion technologies for new value chains, the technical focus is on agroecological techniques and methods such as increasing plant genetic diversity, improving nutrient recycling, enhancing biodiversity and improving health of soils, crops and livestock [54].”
• Perceptions of the Fourth Agricultural Revolution: What’s In, What’s Out, and What Consequences are Anticipated? (2020, background): “As we enter into a predicted fourth agricultural revolution, scholars have argued that we need to be clear about what future innovation trajectories look like, including which technologies are prioritised over others (Levidow et al. 2012; Schlaile et al. 2017; Klerkx and Begemann 2020; Klerkx and Ro”