Case studies research in the bioeconomy: A systematic literature review

https://doi.org/10.17221/21/2021-AGRICECONCitation:

Tassinari G., Drabik D., Boccaletti S., Soregaroli C. (2021): Case studies research in the bioeconomy: A systematic literature review. Agric. Econ. – Czech, 67: 286–303.

supplementary materialdownload PDF

Case study research plays a crucial role in studying the development of the bioeconomy. The versatility of the empirical method coupled with the uncertainty surrounding the bioeconomy concept requires a consistent and comparable application of the method to obtain valid and generalizable results. To stimulate such systematization, we first need to know the state of case studies in bioeconomy research. This article reviews the recent literature with a qualitative content analysis facilitated by systematic text coding. Our results provide an overview of how the narratives of the concept of bioeconomy affect the versatility of the case study research. Based on the low density of the illustrated semantic networks, we conclude that future empirical research on bio-based phenomena should be more transdisciplinary and rely more on cross-sectoral approaches. Further work is also required in developing common research protocols that support transparency and replicability of case studies in the bioeconomy.

References:
Aagaard-Hansen J. (2007): The challenges of cross-disciplinary research. Social Epistemology, 21: 425–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691720701746540
 
Aghaei C.A., Salehi H., Yunus M.M., Farhadi H., Fooladi M., Farhadi M., Ale Ebrahim N. (2013): A comparison between two main academic literature collections: Web of science and Scopus databases. Asian Social Science, 9: 18–26.
 
Aksnes D.W., Sivertsen G. (2019): A criteria-based assessment of the coverage of Scopus and Web of Science. Journal of Data and Information Science, 4: 1–21. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2019-0001
 
Angelstam P., Naumov V., Elbakidze M., Manton M., Priednieks J., Rendenieks Z. (2018): Wood production and biodiversity conservation are rival forestry objectives in Europe's Baltic Sea region. Ecosphere, 9. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2119
 
Barratt M., Choi T.Y., Li M. (2011): Qualitative case studies in operations management: Trends, research outcomes, and future research implications. Journal of Operations Management, 29: 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2010.06.002
 
Battaglia M.P. (2008): Non-Probability Sampling. Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. California, SAGE Publications: 1–4.
 
Bauer F., Hansen T., Hellsmark H. (2018): Innovation in the bioeconomy – Dynamics of biorefinery innovation networks. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 30: 935–947. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2018.1425386
 
Benbasat I., Goldstein D.K., Mead M. (1987): The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11: 369–386. https://doi.org/10.2307/248684
 
Bentsen N.S., Nilsson D., Larsen S. (2018): Agricultural residues for energy – A case study on the influence of resource availability, economy and policy on the use of straw for energy in Denmark and Sweden. Biomass and Bioenergy, 108: 278–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.11.015
 
Binz C., Truffer B., Coenen L. (2014): Why space matters in technological innovation systems – Mapping global knowledge dynamics of membrane bioreactor technology. Research Policy, 1: 138–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.07.002
 
Boons F., Wagner M. (2009): Assessing the relationship between economic and ecological performance: Distinguishing system levels and the role of innovation. Ecological Economics, 68: 1908–1914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.02.012
 
Borge L., Bröring S. (2017): Exploring effectiveness of technology transfer in interdisciplinary settings: The case of the bioeconomy. Creativity and Innovation Management, 26: 311–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12222
 
Bugge M.M., Hansen T., Klitkou A. (2016): What is the bioeconomy? A review of the literature. Sustainability, 8: 691. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070691
 
Carraresi L., Berg S., Bröring S. (2018): Emerging value chains within the bioeconomy: Structural changes in the case of phosphate recovery. Journal of Cleaner Production, 183: 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.135
 
Cavaye A.L.M. (1996): Case study research: A multi-faceted research approach for IS. Information Systems Journal, 6: 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.1996.tb00015.x
 
Corcelli F., Fiorentino G., Vehmas J., Ulgiati S. (2018): Energy efficiency and environmental assessment of papermaking from chemical pulp – A Finland case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 198: 96–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.018
 
Creswell J.W., Hanson W.E., Clark Plano V.L., Morales A. (2007): Qualitative research designs: Selection and implementation. The Counseling Psychologist, 35: 236–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006287390
 
Dautzenberg K., Hanf J. (2008): Biofuel chain development in Germany: Organisation, opportunities, and challenges. Energy Policy, 36: 485–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.08.010
 
Denscombe M. (2014): The Good Research Guide for Small-Scale Social Research Projects. 5th Ed. UK, McGraw-Hill Education: 36.
 
Dubé L., Paré G. (2003): Rigor in information systems positivist case research: Current practices, trends, and recommendations. MIS Quarterly, 27: 597–636. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036550
 
Eisenhardt K.M. (1989): Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14: 532–550. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308385
 
Etikan I. (2016): Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5: 1. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
 
European Commission (2018): A Sustainable Bioeconomy for Europe: Strengthening the Connection between Economy, Society and the Environment. Publications Office of the EU: 1–103. Available at https://doi.org/10.2777/478385 (accessed Jan 3, 2020).
 
European Commission (2019): The European Green Deal, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. European Commission. Available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2019%3A640%3AFIN (accessed Jan 9, 2020).
 
FAO (2019): Towards Sustainable Bioeconomy Guidelines. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-bs923e.pdf (accessed Jan 10, 2020).
 
Flood R.L. (1999): Rethinking the Fifth Discipline: Learning within the Unknowable. London, New York, Psychology Press: 92.
 
Fuldauer L.I., Parker B.M., Yaman R., Borrion A. (2018): Managing anaerobic digestate from food waste in the urban environment: Evaluating the feasibility from an interdisciplinary perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 185: 929–940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.045
 
Georgescu-Roegen N. (1977): Inequality, limits and growth from a bioeconomic viewpoint. Review of Social Economy, 35: 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/00346767700000041
 
Golembiewski B., Sick N., Bröring S. (2015): The emerging research landscape on bioeconomy: What has been done so far and what is essential from a technology and innovation management perspective? Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 29: 308–317.
 
Greene J., Hall J. (2010): Dialectics and pragmatism: Being of consequence. In: Tashakkori A.M., Teddlie C.B. (eds): Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. United Kingdom, SAGE: 119–144.
 
Grünbaum N.N. (2007): Identification of ambiguity in the case study research typology: What is a unit of analysis? Qualitative Market Research, 10: 78–97. https://doi.org/10.1108/13522750710720413
 
Harzing A.W., Alakangas S. (2016): Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106: 787–804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9
 
Kabyanga M., Balana B.B., Mugisha J., Walekhwa P.N., Smith J., Glenk K. (2018): Economic potential of flexible balloon biogas digester among smallholder farmers: A case study from Uganda. Renewable Energy, 120: 392–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.12.103
 
Kardung M., Cingiz K., Costenoble O., Delahaye R., Heijman W., Lovrić M., van Leeuwen M., M'Barek R., van Meijl H., Piotrowski S., Ronzon T., Sauer J., Verhoog D., Verkerk P.J., Vrachioli M., Wesseler J.H.H., Zhu B.X. (2021): Development of the circular bioeconomy: Drivers and indicators. Sustainability, 13: 413. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010413
 
Maimbo H., Pervan G. (2005): Designing a case study protocol for application in IS research. In: Proceedings Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, PACIS 2005, Bangkok, Thailand, July 7–10, 2005: 106.
 
Markard J., Raven R., Truffer B. (2012): Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Research Policy, 41: 955–967.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.013
 
Mengistu T.W., Gupta S., Birner R. (2018): Analysis of maize biomass use in Ethiopia and its implications for food security and the bioeconomy. Food Security, 10: 1631–1648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-018-0865-5
 
Merriam S.B. (1998): Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass: 26–43.
 
Miles M.B., Huberman A.M. (1994): Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. London, Sage Publications: 117.
 
Naumov V., Manton M., Elbakidze M., Rendenieks Z., Priednieks J., Uhlianets S., Yamelynets T., Zhivotov A., Angelstam P. (2018): How to reconcile wood production and biodiversity conservation? The Pan-European boreal forest history gradient as an "experiment". Journal of Environmental Management, 218: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.03.095
 
Newton R.W., Little D.C. (2018): Mapping the impacts of farmed Scottish salmon from a life cycle perspective. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23: 1018–1029. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1386-8
 
OECD (1998): 21st Century Technologies: Promises and Perils of a Dynamic Future. Paris, OECD Publishing: 30.
 
Patermann C., Aguilar A. (2018): The origins of the bioeconomy in the European Union. New Biotechnology, 40: 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2017.04.002
 
Purkus A., Hagemann N., Bedtke N., Gawel E. (2018): Towards a sustainable innovation system for the German wood-based bioeconomy: Implications for policy design. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172: 3955–3968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.146
 
Riffe D., Lacy S., Fico F., Watson B. (2014): Analyzing Media Messages: Using Quantitative Content Analysis in Research. 3rd Ed. New York, London, Routledge: 101.
 
Robson C., McCartan K. (2016): Real-World Research. 4th Ed. Chichester, West Sussex, Wiley: 45–66.
 
Runeson P., Höst M. (2009): Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering, 14: 131–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-008-9102-8
 
Saldaña J. (2013): The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. 2nd Ed. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC, SAGE: 1–41.
 
Sheppard A.W., Gillespie I., Hirsch M., Begley C. (2011): Biosecurity and sustainability within the growing global bioeconomy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 3: 4–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2010.12.011
 
Singlitico A., Goggins J., Monaghan R.F.D. (2018): Evaluation of the potential and geospatial distribution of waste and residues for bio-SNG production: A case study for the Republic of Ireland. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 98: 288–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.09.032
 
Skvortsova T.A., Denisova I.P., Romanenko N.G., Sukhovenko A.V. (2018): Innovations and support for quality in agriculture: A case study. European Research Studies Journal, 21: 423–431. https://doi.org/10.35808/ersj/1192
 
Staffas L., Gustavsson M., McCormick K. (2013): Strategies and policies for the bioeconomy and bio-based economy: An analysis of official national approaches. Sustainability, 5: 2751–2769. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5062751
 
Stake R.E. (1995): The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications: 49–68.
 
Starik M., Rands G.P. (1995): Weaving an integrated web: Multilevel and multisystem perspectives of ecologically sustainable organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20: 908–935. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9512280025
 
Stern T., Ploll U., Spies R., Schwarzbauer P., Hesser F., Ranacher L. (2018): Understanding perceptions of the bioeconomy in Austria – An explorative case study. Sustainability, 10: 4142. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114142
 
Stewart P. (2001): Complexity theories, social theory, and the question of social complexity. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 31: 323–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/004839310103100303
 
Talavyria M.P., Lymar V.V., Baidala V.V. (2015): Improvement of the bioeconomy development analysis instruments: European Union Projects and Germany experience. Економіка АПК, 11: 89–95.
 
Toledo D., Briceño T., Ospina G. (2018): Ecosystem service valuation framework applied to a legal case in the Anchicaya region of Colombia. Ecosystem Services, 29: 352–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.022
 
Vivien F. D., Nieddu M., Befort N., Debref R., Giampietro M. (2019): The hijacking of the bioeconomy. Ecological Economics, 159: 189–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.01.027
 
Wang D., Li J., Wang Y., Wan K., Song X., Liu Y. (2017): Comparing the vulnerability of different coal industrial symbiosis networks under economic fluctuations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 149: 636–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.137
 
Wesseler J., von Braun J. (2017): Measuring the bioeconomy: Economics and policies. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 9: 275–298. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100516-053701
 
Yin R.K. (2014): Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 5th Ed. Newbury Park, SAGE: 3–68.
 
supplementary materialdownload PDF

© 2022 Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences | Prohlášení o přístupnosti