Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Dec;49(12):1925-1942.
doi: 10.1007/s13280-020-01376-y. Epub 2020 Oct 13.

Bioeconomy perception by future stakeholders: Hearing from European forestry students

Mauro Masiero  1 , Laura Secco  2 , Davide Pettenella  2 , Riccardo Da Re  2 , Hanna Bernö  3 , Ariane Carreira  4 , Alexander Dobrovolsky  5 , Blanka Giertlieova  6 , Alexandru Giurca  7 , Sara Holmgren  3 , Cecilia Mark-Herbert  3 , Lenka Navrátilová  6 , Helga Pülzl  8 , Lea Ranacher  8   9 , Alessandra Salvalaggio  7 , Arnaud Sergent  4 , Juuso Sopanen  10 , Cristoph Stelzer  8 , Theresa Stetter  7 , Lauri Valsta  10 , Jozef Výbošťok  6 , Ida Wallin  7
Affiliations

Bioeconomy perception by future stakeholders: Hearing from European forestry students

Mauro Masiero et al. Ambio. 2020 Dec.

Abstract

This article provides useful information for universities offering forestry programs and facing the growing demand for bioeconomy education. An explorative survey on bioeconomy perception among 1400 students enrolled in 29 universities across nine European countries offering forestry programs was performed. The data have been elaborated via descriptive statistics and cluster analysis. Around 70% of respondents have heard about the bioeconomy, mainly through university courses. Students perceive forestry as the most important sector for bioeconomy; however, the extent of perceived importance of forestry varies between countries, most significantly across groups of countries along a North-South European axis. Although differences across bachelor and master programs are less pronounced, they shed light on how bioeconomy is addressed by university programs and the level of student satisfaction with this. These differences and particularities are relevant for potential development routes towards comprehensive bioeconomy curricula at European forestry universities with a forestry focus.

Keywords: Bioeconomy; Education; Forest-based bioeconomy; Forestry students; Future stakeholders; Perception.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Respondents who have (yes)/haven’t (no) heard about bioeconomy: figures for all respondents and per attended program
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Main information sources on bioeconomy for respondents. Note Multiple choices are allowed; therefore, total values do not equal the number of respondents. AUT Austria, ESP Spain, FIN Finland, FRA France, GER Germany, ITA Italy, RUS Russian Federation, SLK  Slovakia, SWE Sweden
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Hierarchical cluster analysis dendrograms showing different clusters identified via 23 variables reported in Table 2 for two different datasets considered: a BSc, MSc and PhD and b BSc and MSc
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Plot charts of key variables used for the cluster analysis. Note: 1. AUT BSc, 2. ESP BSc, 3. FIN BSc, 4. FRA BSc, 5. GER BSc, 6. ITA BSc, 7. RUS BSc, 8. SVK BSc, 9. SWE BSc, 10. AUT MSc, 11. ESP MSc, 12. FIN MSc, 13. FRA MSc, 14. GER MSc, 15. ITA MSc, 16. RUS MSc, 17. SVK MSc, 18. SWE MSc, 19. AUT PhD, 20. FIN PhD, 21. FRA PhD, 22. GER PhD, 23. ITA PhD, 24. SVK PhD and 25. SWE PhD
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Clustering of perceived values for a bioeconomy within attended university programs (variable block 2.1) and b perceived current role of forests within bioeconomy (variable block 2.2)
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Visual summary and mapping of clustering for perceived FBB today’s issues, future drivers and impacts (variable block 2.3)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bauer F. Narratives of biorefinery innovation for the bioeconomy-conflict, consensus or confusion? Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. 2018;28:96–107. doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2018.01.005. - DOI
    1. Birch K, Levidow L, Papaioannou T. Sustainable capital? The neoliberalization of nature and knowledge in the European “knowledge-based bio-economy”. Sustainability. 2010;2:2898–2918. doi: 10.3390/su2092898. - DOI
    1. Bugge MM, Hansen T, Klitkou A. What is the bioeconomy? A review of the literature. Sustainability. 2016 doi: 10.3390/su8070691. - DOI
    1. D’Amato D, Droste N, Allen M, Kettunen K, Lähtinen J, Korhonen P, Leskinen BD, Matthies, Toppinen A. Green, circular, bio economy: A comparative analysis of sustainability avenues. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2017;168:716–734. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.053. - DOI
    1. Drejerska, N. 2017. Employment in vs. education for the bioeconomy. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Scientific Conference Rural Development 2017, ed. A., Raupelienė. 10.15544/RD.2017.245.

LinkOut - more resources