Next Article in Journal
Impact of Penetrations of Connected and Automated Vehicles on Lane Utilization Ratio
Next Article in Special Issue
Utilization of Agro-Industrial Wastes for the Production of Quality Oyster Mushrooms
Previous Article in Journal
Explorations of Young People’s Sense of Place Using Urban Design Qualities in Surabaya, Indonesia
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 1
10.3390/su14010466
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Smart and Sustainable Bioeconomy Platform: A New Approach towards Sustainability

by
Gaspare D’Amico
1,*,
Katarzyna Szopik-Depczyńska
2,
Riccardo Beltramo
3,
Idiano D’Adamo
4 and
Giuseppe Ioppolo
1
1
Department of Economics, University of Messina, Via dei Verdi 75, 98122 Messina, Italy
2
Department of Corporate Management, Institute of Management, University of Szczecin, Cukrowa 8, 71004 Szczecin, Poland
3
Department of Management, University of Turin, Corso Unione Sovietica 218 bis, 10134 Turin, Italy
4
Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome, Via Ariosto 25, 00185 Rome, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(1), 466; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su14010466
Submission received: 2 December 2021 / Revised: 23 December 2021 / Accepted: 30 December 2021 / Published: 2 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Circular Bioeconomy)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The smart and sustainable bioeconomy represents a comprehensive perspective, in which economic, social, environmental, and technological dimensions are considered simultaneously in the planning, monitoring, evaluating, and redefining of processes and operations. In this context of profound transformation driven by rapid urbanization and digitalization, participatory and interactive strategies and practices have become fundamental to support policymakers, entrepreneurs, and citizens in the transition towards a smart and sustainable bioeconomy. This approach is applied by numerous countries around the world in order to redefine their strategy of sustainable and technology-assisted development. Specifically, real-time monitoring stations, sensors, Internet of Things (IoT), smart grids, GPS tracking systems, and Blockchain aim to develop and strengthen the quality and efficiency of the circularity of economic, social, and environmental resources. In this sense, this study proposes a systematic review of the literature of smart and sustainable bioeconomy strategies and practices implemented worldwide in order to develop a platform capable of integrating holistically the following phases: (1) planning and stakeholder management; (2) identification of social, economic, environmental, and technological dimensions; and (3) goals. The results of this analysis emphasise an innovative and under-treated perspective, further stimulating knowledge in the theoretical and managerial debate on the smart and sustainable aspects of the bioeconomy, which mainly concern the following: (a) the proactive involvement of stakeholders in planning; (b) the improvement of efficiency and quality of economic, social, environmental, and technological flows; and (c) the reinforcement of the integration between smartness and sustainability.

1. Introduction

Current rates of urbanization and industrialization generate a wide range of issues that affect bioeconomy, such as waste recycling [1,2], energy conservation [3], water dissipation [4], traffic congestion [5], social disparities [6], healthcare emergencies [7], loss of biodiversity [8], land utilization difficulties [9], atmospheric and acoustic pollution [10], infrastructure and facilities obsolescence [11,12], food valorisation [13], forest management [14], safety and cyber-security [15,16], sustainable economic development [17], and so on. Consequently, the social, economic, and environmental challenges that emerge from urbanization and industrialization and the opportunities to address these issues more adequately through technology place the bioeconomy at the centre of the academic and managerial debate, as it plays a crucial role in supporting a smart and sustainable transition [18,19,20,21,22].
According to the summit [23], the term smart and sustainable bioeconomy used in this article refers to a centre of “production, utilization, conservation and transformation of biological resources which—through digital technologies—aim to provide real time and continuous data and information that contribute to improve the circularity and efficiency of waste, water, energy, agriculture, health, education, mobility, telecommunications, and governance.” In fact, bioeconomy strategies and practices are at the centre of several international frameworks, such as the report on “challenges, visions and ways forward of the cities of the future” implemented by [24], the study on “new perspectives on urbanization of cities in the world” [25], and the 2030 UN Agenda for Sustainable Development [26]. In [27,28], authors identified a wide range of bioeconomy strategies and practices in line with diverse goals and targets of the UN 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development, such as food security (Goals 1 and 2), water quality (Goal 6), energy efficiency (Goal 7), inclusive economic development (Goal 8), waste prevention and reuse (Goal 12), and prevention of life below water and on land (Goals 14 and 15). Likewise, the report [29] recommends policymakers, urban planners, and managers to strengthen “the sustainable management of resources, facilitating ecosystem conservation, regeneration, restoration and resilience in the face of new and emerging challenges”.
Therefore, policymakers, entrepreneurs, and citizens are required to rethink the bioeconomy paradigm through the implementation of smart and sustainable initiatives in order to optimize the social, economic, and environmental processes and operations [30,31,32,33]. To this end, it is essential to enhance the understanding and awareness of bioeconomic flows and reorient their circulation in order to support a forward-looking and dynamic vision of the bioeconomy as the engine of smart and sustainable solutions [34,35,36,37].
The transition towards a smart and sustainable bioeconomy strives to address through a data-based approach the ever-increasing quantity of renewable biological resources, such as plant resources, agri-food production, forests, marine and livestock resources, microorganisms, algae, as well as waste, by-products and wastewater of agro-industrial origin, and the consequent congestion, in order to reduce the anthropogenic pressure on built and natural settlements [38,39,40,41]. Specifically, this new form of smart and sustainable bioeconomy, through the utilization of digital platforms and dashboards [18,42,43], holistically combines a wide range of information and communication technologies (ICTs), such as sensors [44,45], real-time monitoring stations [46], cameras [47], GPS tracking systems [48], big-data analysis techniques [49], artificial intelligence [50], augmented reality [51], blockchain [52], Internet of Things (IoT) [53], cloud computing [54], smart grids [55], satellites [56], nanotechnologies [57], advanced biotechnologies [58], and drones [59].
The information and communication technologies (ICTs) listed above ensure a real time and fully transparent authentication, traceability, treatment, analysis and evaluation of data, and information on bioeconomic resources from source to customer while providing agility, security, and efficiency along the production and distribution processes [60,61]. Consequently, the pervasive and intensive dissemination of fixed and mobile digital devices is revolutionizing the circularity of raw materials and secondary raw materials, by-products, chemicals, biofuels, bioplastics, urban and industrial waste, and wastewater, generating a wide and diversified range of data and information useful for policymakers, planners, managers, agricultural entrepreneurs, scientists, growers, logistics companies, biorefinery workers, chemical and technological companies, etc., able to optimize the use of natural and non-natural resources and improve the quality of their interactions [62,63]. In this regard, information and communication technologies (ICTs) allow a proactive and holistic approach capable of improving the mechanization and commercialization of practices along the bioeconomy chain through innovations, such as precision farming [64], precision livestock [65], sustainable packaging [66], and industry 4.0 [67].
Conversely, the lack of detailed and real-time data and information determines a wide range of uncertainties related, for example, to the timing of procurement, production, distribution and transformation, quality, location, and consumption, which leads to an under-optimization of bioeconomic flows [68]. Hence, the connectivity, variety, proximity, flexibility, coordination capacity, diversity, foresight, interdependence, collaboration, adaptability, creativity, efficiency, agility, self-organization, robustness, and resourcefulness of bioeconomy data and information provided by fixed and mobile digital equipment are therefore essential not only to minimize economic, social, and environmental costs but also as tools to refurbish other dimensions, such as mobility, telecommunications, health, education, and safety.
According to the “Future transitions for the Bioeconomy into Sustainable Development and a Climate-Neutral Economy report,” elaborated by the European Commission’s Knowledge Centre for Bioeconomy, the bioeconomy employs around 17.5 million people (almost 9% of its workforce), generating 614 billion euros of added value (about 5% of its GDP). Furthermore, if we include the tertiary bioeconomy sector based on digital services, which amounts to 872 billion euros, we reach an overall European extent of the bioeconomy of 1.5 trillion euros (almost 10% of its GDP) [69].
This growing importance of bioeconomy has provided a wide range of strategies and practices at the global level [23]. In this sense, the development of bioeconomy policies has become increasingly complex and varied [70]. In general, the strategies and practices of the bioeconomy tend to differ on the basis of factors related for example to technological advances [71], the availability of natural resources [72], cultural and institutional progress [73], and the development of the economic system [74]. In Germany, for example, the bioeconomy is clearly recognized as an inter-sectoral concept and refers not only to biological resources but also embraces social aspects, such as multi-level governance, stakeholders’ management, and people empowerment [75,76]. Otherwise, Japan prioritizes the “biotechnological” vision, emphasizing the role of digital technologies such as Big Data, Artificial Intelligence, and Internet of Things [77]. On the other hand, the United States focuses more on the safety and security aspects, such as the cyber protection from biological threats, the development of biotechnologies for military use, and the preservation of sensitive infrastructure and biological data [78]. Given their significant and varied availability of biological resources, Costa Rica [79] and South Africa [80] embrace sustainable bioprospecting practices for scientific and commercial purposes, while Thailand [81], Italy [82], and Nordic Council of Ministers [83] are committed to the conservation of biodiversity and natural ecosystems for tourism activities.
Therefore, the current theoretical and managerial discussion is increasingly focused on the role of biotechnology, nanotechnology, and information and communication technologies (ICTs) in the bioeconomy [84]. In this regard, Costa Rica [79] coined the term “advanced bioeconomy” in order to highlight the importance of digitalization in improving the circularity of natural and non-natural resources. At the same time, the intensive and pervasive use of digital technologies in the bioeconomy highlights a wide range of challenges and issues within the social, economic, and environmental spheres [85].
On the basis of reports, master plans, and documents elaborated by governments, ministries, departments, agencies, and research centres, the following article provides a detailed overview of the bioeconomy strategies and practices implemented globally in order to develop a multidimensional platform able to holistically integrate the phases that characterize the smart and sustainable bioeconomy decision-making process. In summary, the proposed overview aims to explain the different approaches developed at a global level and to strengthen the understanding of (a) planning and stakeholder management; (b) identification of the social, economic, environmental, and technological dimensions; and (c) setting of the goals to be pursued. To do this, an in-depth analysis was conducted on a wide range of countries, such as South Africa, Costa Rica, USA, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand, Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and so on, which have developed a plethora of smart and sustainable bioeconomy initiatives in order to improve the planning, collection, monitoring, and analysis of economic, social, environmental, and technological flows. In this sense, by identifying and analysing a wide range of smart and sustainable strategies and practices, the study fills a gap in the theoretical and managerial literature of the bioeconomy, providing a further piece in the debate between policymakers, entrepreneurs, scientists, planners, and citizens.
Hence, the study is structured in this manner: Section 2 outlines the methodology. Section 3 proposes the smart and sustainable bioeconomy platform, identifying and analysing the phases that characterize the smart and sustainable bioeconomy at a global level. Section 4 offers considerations on the role of smart and sustainable bioeconomy in future challenges. Finally, Section 5 provides the conclusions.

2. Materials and Methods

This paper provides a systematic review of the literature of strategies and practices implemented worldwide in order to develop a multidimensional platform capable of analysing and integrating the phases that characterize the smart and sustainable bioeconomy decision-making process. To do this, a wide range of globally implemented bioeconomy strategies and practices was investigated. The research took place in three different phases: identification, operational, and results (see Figure 1).
In Phase 1—Identification, the search question, the keywords, a series of inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the search databases are outlined. With regard to the aim and research question of this paper, the study aims to provide a clear and exhaustive analysis, developing a platform capable of integrating in a systemic and holistic way the aspects of each operational phase of the smart and sustainable bioeconomy decision-making process. Therefore, the study focuses on the following research question: with which strategies and practices is the global context facing the transition towards the smart and sustainable bioeconomy? In this regard, the study of the smart and sustainable bioeconomy offers a multidisciplinary perspective of circular economy. Specifically, the scientific areas embrace agricultural, forest and marine economics, logistics, industrial organization, strategic management, technology and innovation management, data science, information and communication technologies, environmental and IT engineering, energy management, sustainable development, public policy analysis, geography, urban governance, territorial planning, etc.
In terms of sources, the investigation was based on the exploration and integration of a wide range of sources, such as urban and industrial reports and master plans, government documents, non-academic research, official websites, publications of ministries, departments, divisions, agencies, committees, research institutes, universities, etc. In parallel, scientific literature, such as peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, conference proceedings, and any other source in line with the development of the smart and sustainable bioeconomy, was used to verify and integrate basic information. As for the databases, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, Scopus, and institutional websites were used. To do this, the following keywords were used: (“bioeconomy”) AND (“sustainable bioeconomy”) AND (“circular bioeconomy”) AND (“circular bioeconomy”) AND (“green economy”) AND (“blue economy”) AND (“forest bioeconomy”) AND (“biobased economy”) AND (“circular economy”) AND (“smart bioeconomy”) AND (“smart and sustainable bioeconomy”) AND (“bioeconomy strategy” OR “bioeconomy strategies”) AND (“bioeconomy policy” OR “bioeconomy policies”) AND (“biotechnology”) AND (“bioeconomy development”) AND (“bioregion” OR “bioregions”) AND (“biological practices” OR “biological solutions”) AND (“bioenergy”) AND (“biomass”).
In order to further refine the search, all the selected sources (n = 317) were screened following different inclusion and exclusion criteria, in line with the objective and the research question. Specifically, the inclusion criteria include (1) appropriateness with the purpose of the study; (2) theoretical and managerial robustness; (3) scientific rigor; and (4) consistency with the long-term and novel perspective of the study. As exclusion criteria, sources with partial information and inconsistent with the research topic were not included in the search. The screening generated a detailed and complete overview (n = 88) that encompasses the strategies and policies of smart and sustainable bioeconomy implemented by Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay, Uruguay, the United States of America, Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Russia, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the UK (see Table A1 in Appendix A). The large number and varied typology of countries taken into consideration undoubtedly constitutes a strength of the study, as it represents almost all the countries involved in the transition towards the smart and sustainable bioeconomy. In this regard, the plurality of bioeconomy strategies and practices highlights the difference, the gap, and the prevailing focus between countries with diverse social, economic, environmental, and technological infrastructures. In this sense, a large number of countries around the world are not equipped to collect, monitor, analyse, and evaluate bioeconomic flows through real-time monitoring stations, sensors, digital tracking systems, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cloud computing, etc.
In Phase 2—Operational. Based on the analysis of the previous phase, a platform was created, capable of providing a theoretical and managerial approach to the development of the smart and sustainable bioeconomy. Specifically, the platform for the smart and sustainable bioeconomy represented in Figure 2 is characterized by the three following phases: (1) planning and stakeholder management; (2) identification of smart and sustainable bioeconomy dimensions; and (3) goals. Furthermore, each phase provided a holistic perspective, emphasizing aspects related to smartness and sustainability.
In Phase 3—Results. The grouping of the initiatives developed by the countries taken into consideration in the investigation around the phases that characterize the smart and sustainable bioeconomy platform provides a framework capable of providing a review of the bioeconomy practices and strategies implemented globally.

3. Results

Based on the literature, the strategies and practices of the bioeconomy implemented globally were considered, analysed, and grouped. The result is a multidimensional platform illustrated in Figure 2 able to describe the smart and sustainable development in the bioeconomy in a holistic perspective. In detail, the phases that characterize the proposed smart and sustainable bioeconomy platform are divided into: (1) planning and stakeholder management; (2) identification of smart and sustainable bioeconomy dimensions; and (3) goals (Figure 2, vertical reading).

3.1. Planning and Stakeholder Management

Regarding the first phase (as represented in Figure 2), most of the bioeconomy strategies and practices investigated involve a wide range of stakeholders coordinated by government institutions. In general, these co-design activities take various forms, such as inter-ministerial committees, working groups, expert and public consultations, inter-ministerial collaborations, and partnerships. At the same time, bioeconomy policies planning are delegated to representatives of ministries, departments, agencies, committees, executive offices, councils, cabinets, associations, research centres, and steering groups. For example, the Bio-Circular-Green Economy (BCG) strategy in Thailand is characterized by an expert consultation process coordinated by the Thai minister of science and technology [81]. Similarly, South Africa [80], Costa Rica [79], Japan [86], Malaysia [87], Austria [88], and Latvia [89] involve in the strategy the ministries and departments of science, innovation, and technology. In the USA, the President of the United States has coordinated the Office of Science and Technology Policy of the White House in the elaboration of the Bioeconomy Blueprint [78]. Otherwise, the Council of Science, Technology, and Innovation of Japan has decentralized to the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST), the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO), the National Institute of Technology and Evaluation (NITE), and the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED) [86]. Likewise, the Finnish Technical Research Centre VTT, which operates under the mandate from the ministry of economic affairs and labour and the Finnish innovation fund SITRA, were involved in the planning activities [90]. In Malaysia, the bioeconomy is entrusted to the Bioeconomy Corporation owned by the Malaysian ministry of finance, administered by the National Bioeconomy Council (NBC), supported by the Bioeconomy International Advisory Panel, and chaired by the Malaysian Prime Minister [87]. Differently, the Austrian inter-ministerial collaboration involves the federal ministry of transport, innovation, and technology and the federal ministry of sustainability and tourism [88,91]. In general, the ministry of economy coordinates bioeconomy strategies and practices in Finland, France, Italy, Latvia, Spain, and the UK. Industry and trade ministries have been involved in South Africa, Costa Rica, Japan, Malaysia, and Norway. Specifically, Japan embraces the Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO) and the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA).
The ministries and departments of agriculture, forestry, and fisheries are active in most of the countries considered. South Africa also integrates the department of environmental affairs [80]. Costa Rica includes the ministry of agriculture and livestock and the ministry of environment and energy [79]. Japan involves the National Agriculture and Food Research Organization (NARO) [86]. In addition to the ministry of agriculture, agrifood, and forests, France includes the ministry of ecology, sustainable development, and energy [92]. The Presidency of the Italian Council of Ministers has delegated the minister of the environment, land, and sea; the committee of the Italian regions; the Territorial Cohesion Agency; and the Italian Technology Clusters for Green Chemistry, Agrifood, and Blue Growth, the former drafting of the BIT I strategy [93]. Similarly, the strategy adopted by Latvia is characterized by an inter-ministerial group formed by the ministry of agriculture, economy, environmental protection, and regional development [89]. Otherwise, the Austrian bioeconomy strategy was implemented through a public consultation supervised by the Vienna University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences [91]. Furthermore, South Africa, Japan, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, and Latvia involve ministries from health, education, research, and welfare. In this regard, Norway has established a wide range of partnerships between the ministries of education, research, local government, modernization, and foreign affairs [94,95].

3.2. Identification of Smart and Sustainable Bioeconomy Dimensions

The investigation of the dimensions of the smart and sustainable bioeconomy involves a wide range of sectors, such as energy, waste, water, education, governance, and health, which mainly depend on environmental, social, economic, and technological characteristics of the context in which they circulate. However, the analysis of the countries taken into consideration and engaged in the transition towards the smart and sustainable bioeconomy shows a predominance of the fields of automated agriculture, industrial biotechnology and nanotechnology, smart grids for the optimized circulation of biomass, genetics, genomics, chemistry, medicine, marine and terrestrial biodiversity, and biorefinery.
The strategies and practices of smart and sustainable bioeconomy shared among the countries analysed emphasise the importance of industrial districts and knowledge-sharing centres in the fields of biotechnology, nanotechnology, genomics, genetics, and precision automation. In this regard, the UK is characterised as a thriving environment for innovation, entrepreneurship, and scientific research. In recent years, through the Synbio for Growth program, start-ups related to biology have received nearly 500 million pounds of funding in order to develop increasingly innovative bioeconomic products and processes [96,97]. At the same time, the economic initiatives adopted in Spain and Malaysia include digital technologies as centralised refrigeration systems, temperature tracking sensors, and prediction systems able to ensure greater nutritional quality and to reduce waste during the processing, packaging, storage, and distribution phases of the cold chain. Furthermore, in the economic dimension, it is interesting to specify the role of sustainable and virtual tourism within the naturalistic areas of Costa Rica, Finland, and Thailand.
Regarding the agricultural dimension, South Africa ranks first among African countries in agricultural biotechnology, producing more than 85% of genetically modified corn and soybeans. In this sense, by strengthening native crops (e.g., fortified sorghum, rooibos, and shrub honey), the bioeconomy strategy aims to satisfy the market demand for niche natural products [80]. At the same time, agriculture 4.0 initiatives, such as real-time monitoring of fertilizer and water use, precision automation, innovative plant selection methods to cope with drought, flood and insect resistance, and systems of vertical and modular agriculture, are present in Costa Rica, Thailand, Austria, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Spain, and the UK. Differently, Malaysia has implemented a wide range of initiatives covering the development of animal vaccines, biological fertilizers and pesticides, plant micropropagation, and livestock farming through tracking systems [87]. Austria and Finland focus on how to improve forest resource management. As nearly 80% of Finland’s total area is characterised by forests, the Finnish forestry industry is a leader in wood processing, implementing a multitude of low-water consumption processes [90]. Likewise, Austria and Japan promote forestry in the sustainable construction sector in order to minimise environmental impacts, using bio-based chemicals, bioplastics, and compostable and biodegradable materials. Regarding the energy dimension, the strategic axes of the bioeconomy plans of Austria, Costa Rica, and France focus on the production of bioenergy derived from the residual biomass from urban and industrial processes and operations in order to replace fossil fuels with high environmental impact for powering public transport, heating homes, biofertilizers, animal feed, etc. In this sense, Japan aims to use biomaterials with high performance in terms of weight, durability, and safety [86]. In Malaysia, the National Biomass Strategy focuses on the reuse of palm oil to generate bioenergy, biofuels, and bio-based organic products. On the other hand, Thailand has created a capillary system of power plants connected through blockchain-enabled smart grids with the aim of producing clear energy from renewable resources. At the same time, the strategy aims to convert biomass and agricultural by-products into bioplastics, fibres and pharmaceutical products. In general, most countries that include the energy component in the bioeconomy strategy integrate digital technologies such as smart grids, weather forecasting and monitoring systems, and so on. Within the energy dimension, the biorefinery initiatives are adopted by a multitude of countries globally. Indeed, Ireland, Latvia, Norway, Spain, and the UK dedicate great attention to the development of biorefineries in order to ensure a sustainable conversion of residual biomass (e.g., biolubricants, bioplastics, food additives, cosmetics, solvents, chemicals, etc.). Specifically, in Ireland, we highlight the AgriChemWhey project led by Glandia integrated with the dairy processing industry; the BioMarine Ingredients marine biorefinery, which converts raw materials into proteins, oil, and calcium; and the Biorefinery Glas project, which optimises the circularity of glass. In the UK, other examples include the alliance of several biorefineries as BioPilotsUK and the regional innovation cluster, BioVale, in Yorkshire and the Humber, which focus on bio-waste reuse and advanced biorefining. In order to address water scarcity in numerous areas of the country, South Africa is promoting improvements in wastewater treatment through computerized management of water flows. In Europe, the Finnish forestry industry is already leading in this sector by developing technologies for water recycling in its processes. Likewise, the Italian government has launched several projects, such as the PRIMA and BLUEMED initiatives, in order to promote sustainable management of water in the Mediterranean region [82]. The Spanish bioeconomic strategy summarizes the importance of the efficient use of water resources, promoting adequate water management and its reuse in other dimensions, such as construction, logistics, and health. Regarding waste management, Costa Rica intends develops the sustainable management and valorisation of residual solid waste, interurban biological corridors, and urban design approaches inspired by biological principles, processes, and systems. Given the increase in global marine plastic pollution, the Japanese strategy focuses on organic waste and wastewater, converting waste into high-value substances. Similarly, in Ireland, particular emphasis is placed on management and the valorisation of marine waste. The bioeconomy strategy in Germany further focuses on waste streams (e.g., organic waste, urban and industrial wastewater, carbon dioxide and synthesis gas). Furthermore, the strategy highlights the need for innovative methods and processes for the efficient processing and recycling of challenging resources, such as metals or phosphorus.
In the health dimension, South Africa focuses on supporting research and development initiatives of bio-based chemicals and industrial biotechnology in order to better tackle infant mortality, HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria infections. At the same time, bioprospection plays a crucial role in the development of new drugs, vaccines, diagnostics, and medical devices. On the other hand, in European countries, such as Austria, Italy, Germany, Latvia, and the UK, the health dimension mainly encompasses healthy diets and eating habits and psycho-physical well-being. The USA, through the Bioeconomy Blueprint, underlines the positive impacts of genetic engineering, synthetic biology, and bioinformatics on public health. To this end, U.S. federal agencies are incentivized to prioritise bio-based and sustainable materials in public procurement and their implementation and dissemination through technology transfer and easier market access. France, Japan, and Malaysia mainly focus on biopharmaceuticals, regenerative and precision medicine, omics technologies, nutrition, sport, and digital healthcare. Specifically, the digital health strategies and practices aim to generate personalized and categorised nutrition plans through a detailed research of consumer behaviours and preferences.

3.3. Goals

From an economic perspective, the smart and sustainable bioeconomy strategies and practices adopted aim to increase the competitiveness of the agricultural and industrial sectors in national and international markets. Specifically, the increase of the employment rate is the goal set by South Africa, the USA, Malaysia, France, Germany, Ireland, and Latvia. At the same time, the USA has mainly focused on the elaboration of training programs and career updating. Differently, Germany aims to increase employment rate in rural areas. The Latvian strategy intends to address the structural changes in agriculture such as the reduction of small and medium-sized enterprises and the decrease in the workforce due to the progressive digitalisation of processes. Therefore, the development of the smart and sustainable bioeconomy aims to decarbonise the production and consumption processes. In this sense, Costa Rican and Italian strategies have coined the term “circular bioeconomy” to emphasise the circularity of biological resources. According to Costa Rica, the circular bioeconomy contributes to reducing the carbon footprint of production processes and generates new market niches for consumers interested in minimizing their impacts on the environment. Similarly, Japan integrates circularity into the bioeconomy strategy in order to meet diversified needs. Furthermore, a key aspect recalled in a multitude of strategies is the development of public-private partnerships. Specifically, the USA, Japan, Austria, and the UK underline the need for a collaborative environment where industry and government interact dynamically in the implementation of regulatory processes that favour investment in research and development and commercialization of bio-inventions. Japan, for example, encourages the evolvement of international hubs capable of attracting the best start-ups in the field of biotechnology. Conversely, Austria focuses on how to mobilise private capital and the financial systems in the development of smart and sustainable bioeconomy initiatives.
From an environmental point of view, the smart and sustainable bioeconomy strategies and practices investigated aim to address climate change and environmental conservation through a plethora of initiatives related to waste and water management, renewable energy, and land-use optimization. In this sense, the reports of Austria and France refer to the achievement of the targets of the Paris Agreement on the climate. According to the Austrian guidelines, the smart and sustainable bioeconomy will significantly contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. At the same time, Japan, Latvia, and Thailand expressly recall the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations 2030 Agenda. Differently, South Africa, Norway, and Spain do not explicitly indicate the Sustainable Development Goals among their objectives, but various initiatives lead to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and contributing to a more sustainable use of biological resources. Japan includes CO2 reduction, land-use improvement, water management optimization, and food security. In this sense, the Irish bioeconomic strategy is based on the principles of sustainability, cascade, precaution, and food first. Likewise, Italy envisages the three following macro-areas: (1) certifications and quality standards; (2) agri-food, forestry, and marine pilot initiatives at local level; and (3) safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Finally, the social dimension includes a wide range of ethical and legal issues. For example, Costa Rica and Japan prioritise social inclusion and equity aspects. In addition, Costa Rica takes into account the creation of opportunities for country’s youth and indigenous communities. Conversely, Malaysia focuses primarily on people’s health and well-being through reduced health care costs, early disease detection, and cheaper and more accessible medicines. Italy, on the other hand, promotes various initiatives in order to increase awareness, updating of skills, education, attitude, training, and entrepreneurship throughout the bioeconomy. Finally, Germany considers the importance of systems thinking and holistic approaches capable of creating synergies, identifying such conflicts, and minimizing them on the basis of scientific knowledge.

4. Discussion

The strategies and practices of smart and sustainable bioeconomy developed globally and investigated in this study confirm the advances in the scientific literature on the role of technology in the circularity of social, environmental, and economic flows of industrial and urban processes and operations [98]. At the same time, the initiatives identified and analysed support the observations of [99] on the smart and sustainable bioeconomy, where they emphasise the contribution of biotechnology, omics technologies, nanotechnology, precision mechanics, blockchain, and smart grids. Therefore, the theoretical and managerial debate demonstrates the significance assigned to the smart and sustainable bioeconomy [100]. In this sense, the smart and sustainable bioeconomy platform certifies that the planning and stakeholders management; the identification of social economic, environmental, and technological dimensions; and the definition of the goals is a challenging and complex issue that requires a multidimensional and holistic approach, in which a wide range of aspects must be taken into account simultaneously.
However, the stakeholders involved; the economic, social, environmental, and technological dimensions; and the goals of the smart and sustainable bioeconomy argue that the context in which the countries perform is much more hybrid and multi-layered with respect to the reductive conception that the economic, social, environmental, and technological pillars are important and to be pursued. Therefore, we do not claim that these issues have not been previously described and emphasized in the literature, but we declare that the proposed platform holistically highlights the actors engaged, the activated smart and sustainable dimensions of bioeconomy, and the goals to be achieved of a wide range of countries involved globally in this transition.
Firstly, the scientific literature on smart and sustainable bioeconomy underlines the crucial role of proactive, participatory and multi-level governance [101,102,103]. The authors [33,104] affirm that a distributed governance of the bioeconomy characterized by scalable coordination, consensus transmission protocols, and flexibility in decision-making processes is necessary for greater adaptability and efficiency of processes and operations. In this regard, Section 3.1 ‘Planning and Stakeholder Management’, confirms the necessary bottom-up approach, specifying the role of a plethora of actors, such as ministries, departments and councils of science, innovation and technology, ministries of economy and trade, agriculture, fisheries and forests, foreign trade organizations, international cooperation agencies, research centres, universities, and biotechnology and nanotechnology companies.
In accordance with Section 3.2 ‘Identifications of the dimensions of the smart and sustainable bioeconomy’, digital technologies, such as real-time monitoring stations, smart grids, weather forecasting systems, automatic irrigation systems, precision machinery, etc., improve the fluidity and timeless of flows that circulate in agriculture, fisheries, forests, logistics, health, education, waste, and water. In this sense, the theoretical literature on smart and sustainable bioeconomy emphasises the pre-eminent role of technology in the extraction, tracking, and evaluation phases [105,106]. However, the development of digital technologies in the bioeconomy can encounter criticalities in underdeveloped or developing countries not equipped with adequate economic, technological, social, and environmental structures [107].
Section 3.3 ‘Goals’ highlights a multitude of purposes that confirm and support the current theoretical literature. In summary, from an economic point of view, smart and sustainable bioeconomy strategies and practices embrace the following: (a) the planning and development of agricultural processes and operations with low environmental impacts; (b) the design of industrial parks, international hubs, and start-up clusters in order to share knowledge; (c) the competitiveness of industrial sectors in national and international markets; (d) the creation and enhancement of highly skilled employment in the fields of biotechnology, genetics, and nanotechnology; and (e) the ability to attract and mobilise private capital and funding for the development of digital technologies and bio-inventions. However, the significant investments in planning, installation, integration, maintenance, and redefinition of digital technologies for the smart and sustainable bioeconomy undoubtedly represent a barrier to entry for underdeveloped countries [108]. In this regard, the search for national and international funding is crucial in the transition towards the smart and sustainable bioeconomy [109]. At European level, the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) [110], which embrace regional funds (ERDF) [111] and agriculture and rural development funds (EAFRD) [112], and Smart Specialization Strategies (RIS3) [113,114] aim to facilitate the modernization of the bioeconomy throughout the Europe.
Regarding the environmental perspective, the identified smart and sustainable bioeconomy strategies and practices confirm relevant issues, such as waste, water and wastewater management, energy efficiency, and land use [115,116]. In this sense, Austria and France based their goals with the Paris Agreement on Climate, while Japan, Latvia, and Thailand recall the environmental goals of the United Nations 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development.
Finally, the social dimension of the smart and sustainable bioeconomy includes several aspects, such as social inclusion, ethics, and legality [117,118]. Regarding the social sphere, the balance of governance between the various ministries, departments, cabinets, agencies, committees, municipal, regional or state owned utilities, divisions, universities, and research centres involved in planning, monitoring, and evaluating smart and sustainable bioeconomy policies emphasizes the need for multidimensional and participatory decision-making processes [101,119,120,121]. In this regard, the term “orchestration” is coined as a fundamental aspect for understanding the evolution of complex systems towards inclusive and participatory models [122,123,124,125]. At the same time, motivational, behavioural, and cognitive issues persist, such as the lack of (a) awareness of the benefits of proactive co-participation of the stakeholders involved; (b) knowledge of technological devices functioning; (c) citizens’, entrepreneurs’, and businesses’ understanding of the practices of production, distribution, and consumption of sustainable bioeconomic products and services; and (d) trust in safeguarding the privacy and security of sensitive data. In this regard, the smart and sustainable bioeconomy highlights technical challenges relating to the quality and robustness of the data and information collected, their degree of security, and their ability to be converted into useful feedback [126]. Furthermore, various countries investigated embrace the health and psycho-physical well-being of people, focusing on reducing healthcare costs through personalized medicine, prevention, nutrition, and more accessible medicines.
Therefore, the proposed platform indicates that the planning and stakeholders management, the identification of the smart and sustainable dimensions of the bioeconomy, and the definition of the goals to be pursued must be carried out taking into consideration the social, economic, environmental, and technological factors holistically. This bottom-up and multidimensional approach is confirmed and emphasised by the theoretical literature on bioeconomy and our investigation of strategies and practices adopted globally.

5. Conclusions

The era of growing urbanization and datafication pushes us to rethink how to tackle sustainable development. In this context, smart and sustainable bioeconomy offers a renewed perspective towards resilient and intelligent future. In recent years, smart and sustainable bioeconomy initiatives are gaining increasing importance in the technical-spatial context in order to collect, monitor, process, and evaluate a large amount of data and to improve the quality and efficiency of industrial and urban processes and operations and therefore the functioning of our countries. In this regard, the importance of smart and sustainable bioeconomy is demonstrated by the numerous strategies and practices implemented by countries, such as Austria, Costa Rica, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Malaysia, South Africa, Thailand, and so on. Therefore, the bioeconomy enabled by sensors, real-time monitoring stations, tracking systems, Internet of Things, smart grids, precision mechanics, automation, etc., have the potential to improve the circularity of dimensions, such as waste, water and wastewater, energy, land, biodiversity, economy, health, safety, education, and agriculture. The aim of this study is to provide a clear and comprehensive overview of the concept of smart and sustainable bioeconomy, developing a platform capable of integrating a wide range of bio-initiatives implemented at a global level. Specifically, the smart and sustainable bioeconomy platform illustrated in Figure 2 describes the phases of planning and stakeholder management; identification of economic, social, environmental, and technological dimensions; and the definition of the goals that characterise the smart and sustainable bioeconomy decision-making process. In this sense, the proposed platform improves the understanding of the functioning of smart and sustainable bioeconomy. At the same time, the exploration of the smart and sustainable bioeconomy requires not only a qualitative perspective of the strategies and practices as proposed in this study but also further quantitative research to assess and interpret their social, economic, environmental, and technological impacts. However, the difficulties encountered in obtaining quantitative data on the initiatives investigated undoubtedly represent a limitation to our research. Therefore, the future perspective of this paper is to enrich it with a quantitative approach in order to provide a complete and exhaustive point of view for future analyses.
Hence, in order to summarise the results of this study, we underline and list the following highlights: (a) the effective and efficient implementation of the smart and sustainable bioeconomy requires continuous planning, monitoring, and analysis of the social, economic, technological, and environmental dimensions; (b) the smart and sustainable bioeconomy can improve the participation, accountability, and comprehension of citizens, local authorities, and companies; and (c) the smart and sustainable bioeconomy generates a multitude of social, economic, and environmental challenges still under observation by the scientific and managerial community today.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.D.; supervision, G.I.; visualization, K.S.-D., R.B. and I.D.; writing—original draft, G.D., K.S.-D., R.B., I.D. and G.I.; writing—review and editing, G.D., K.S.-D., R.B., I.D. and G.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

This research is carried out by the Commodity Science Team of the “Lean & Quality Solutions Lab,” Department of Economics, University of Messina. The authors thank the editor and anonymous referees for their valuable observations.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Summary of sources grouped in the geographical areas. Source: Authors.
Table A1. Summary of sources grouped in the geographical areas. Source: Authors.
Africa
EthiopiaGhanaKenyaMalawiMaliMauritiusMozambiqueNamibiaNigeriaRwandaSenegalSouth AfricaTanzaniaUganda
Source[127,128,129][130][131,132,133,134][135][136,137][138][139][140][141][142][143][80][144][145]
Americas
ArgentinaBrazilCanadaColombiaCosta RicaEcuadorMexicoParaguayUruguayUSA
Source[146][147,148][149,150][151,152,153,154][79][155][156][157][158,159,160][78]
Asia/Pacific
AustraliaChinaIndiaIndonesiaJapanMalaysiaNew ZealandRussiaSouth KoreaSri LankaThailand
Source[161,162,163][164,165,166,167][168,169,170][171,172][86][87][173,174][175,176][177,178][179,180][81]
Europe
AustriaBelgiumCroatiaCzech RepublicDenmarkFinlandFranceGermanyIrelandItalyLatviaLithuaniaNetherlands
Source[88,91][181][182][183][184,185,186][90][92][75,187][188][82,93][89][189][190]
NorwayPortugalSloveniaSpainSwedenUK
Source[94,95][191,192][193][194,195][196][96,97]

References

  1. Mak, T.M.W.; Xiong, X.; Tsang, D.C.W.; Yu, I.K.M.; Poon, C.S. Sustainable food waste management towards circular bioeconomy: Policy review, limitations and opportunities. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 297, 122497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Aldieri, L.; Ioppolo, G.; Vinci, C.P.; Yigitcanlar, T. Waste recycling patents and environmental innovations: An economic analysis of policy instruments in the USA, Japan and Europe. Waste Manag. 2019, 95, 612–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Muscat, A.; de Olde, E.M.; Kovacic, Z.; de Boer, I.J.M.; Ripoll-Bosch, R. Food, energy or biomaterials? Policy coherence across agro-food and bioeconomy policy domains in the EU. Environ. Sci. Policy 2021, 123, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Nagarajan, D.; Lee, D.-J.; Chen, C.-Y.; Chang, J.-S. Resource recovery from wastewaters using microalgae-based approaches: A circular bioeconomy perspective. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 302, 122817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Andersson, I.; Grundel, I. Regional policy mobilities: Shaping and reshaping bioeconomy policies in Värmland and Västerbotten, Sweden. Geoforum 2021, 121, 142–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sanz-Hernández, A.; Sanagustín-Fons, M.V.; López-Rodríguez, M.E. A transition to an innovative and inclusive bioeconomy in Aragon, Spain. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2019, 33, 301–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Haines, A. Health in the bioeconomy. Lancet Planet. Health 2021, 5, e4–e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Primmer, E.; Varumo, L.; Krause, T.; Orsi, F.; Geneletti, D.; Brogaard, S.; Aukes, E.; Ciolli, M.; Grossmann, C.; Hernández-Morcillo, M.; et al. Mapping Europe’s institutional landscape for forest ecosystem service provision, innovations and governance. Ecosyst. Serv. 2021, 47, 101225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Liobikiene, G.; Chen, X.; Streimikiene, D.; Balezentis, T. The trends in bioeconomy development in the European Union: Exploiting capacity and productivity measures based on the land footprint approach. Land Use Policy 2020, 91, 104375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Musonda, F.; Millinger, M.; Thrän, D. Optimal biomass allocation to the German bioeconomy based on conflicting economic and environmental objectives. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 309, 127465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Salvador, R.; Puglieri, F.N.; Halog, A.; de Andrade, F.G.; Piekarski, C.M.; De Francisco, A.C. Key aspects for designing business models for a circular bioeconomy. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 124341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Souza, T.M.L.; Morel, C.M. The COVID-19 pandemics and the relevance of biosafety facilities for metagenomics surveillance, structured disease prevention and control. Biosaf. Health 2021, 3, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sharma, P.; Gaur, V.K.; Sirohi, R.; Varjani, S.; Kim, S.H.; Wong, J.W.C. Sustainable processing of food waste for production of bio-based products for circular bioeconomy. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 325, 124684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sanz-Hernández, A. Privately owned forests and woodlands in Spain: Changing resilience strategies towards a forest-based bioeconomy. Land Use Policy 2021, 100, 104922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kearns, P.W.E.; Kleter, G.A.; Bergmans, H.E.N.; Kuiper, H.A. Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy at OECD: Future Trends. Trends Biotechnol. 2021, 39, 965–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sun, D.; Wu, L.; Fan, G. Laboratory information management system for biosafety laboratory: Safety and efficiency. J. Biosaf. Biosecurity 2021, 3, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Refsgaard, K.; Kull, M.; Slätmo, E.; Meijer, M.W. Bioeconomy—A driver for regional development in the Nordic countries. New Biotechnol. 2021, 60, 130–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Watanabe, C.; Naveed, N.; Neittaanmäki, P. Digital solutions transform the forest-based bioeconomy into a digital platform industry—A suggestion for a disruptive business model in the digital economy. Technol. Soc. 2018, 54, 168–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Watanabe, C.; Naveed, N.; Neittaanmäki, P. Digitalized bioeconomy: Planned obsolescence-driven circular economy enabled by Co-Evolutionary coupling. Technol. Soc. 2019, 56, 8–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. D’Adamo, I.; Falcone, P.M.; Morone, P. A new socio-economic indicator to measure the performance of bioeconomy sectors in Europe. Ecol. Econ. 2020, 176, 106724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Nallapaneni, M.K.; Chopra, S.S. Sustainability and resilience of circular economy business models based on digital ledger technologies. In Proceedings of the Waste Management and Valorisation for a Sustainable Future, Seoul, Korea, 26–28 October 2021. [Google Scholar]
  22. Kershaw, E.H.; Hartley, S.; McLeod, C.; Polson, P. The sustainable path to a circular bioeconomy. Trends Biotechnol. 2021, 39, 542–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Global Bioeconomy Summit. Global Bioeconomy Policy Report (IV): A Decade of Bioeconomy Policy Development around the World; Secretariat of the Global Bioeconomy Summit: Berlin, Germany, 2020; Available online: https://gbs2020.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/GBS-2020_Global-Bioeconomy-Policy-Report_IV_web.pdf (accessed on 2 December 2021).
  24. European Commission. Cities of Tomorrow—Challenges, Visions, Ways Forward; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2011; Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/citiesoftomorrow/citiesoftomorrow_final.pdf (accessed on 2 December 2021).
  25. OECD. Cities in the world: A new perspective on urbanisation. In OECD Urban Studies; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. United Nations (UN). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/70/1); General Assembly; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015; Available online: https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E (accessed on 1 December 2021).
  27. Calicioglu, Ö.; Bogdanski, A. Linking the bioeconomy to the 2030 sustainable development agenda: Can SDG indicators be used to monitor progress towards a sustainable bioeconomy? New Biotechnol. 2021, 61, 40–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Ronzon, T.; Sanjuán, A.I. Friends or foes? A compatibility assessment of bioeconomy-related sustainable development goals for European policy coherence. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 254, 119832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. New Urban Agenda. United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III) in Quito, Ecuador; United Nations General Assembly (A/RES/71/256). 2017. Available online: https://uploads.habitat3.org/hb3/NUA-English.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2021).
  30. Van Lancker, J.; Wauters, E.; Van Huylenbroeck, G. Managing innovation in the bioeconomy: An open innovation perspective. Biomass Bioenergy 2016, 90, 60–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kircher, M.; Breves, R.; Taden, A.; Herzberg, D. How to capture the bioeconomy’s industrial and regional potential through professional cluster management. New Biotechnol. 2018, 40, 119–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Stegmann, P.; Londo, M.; Junginger, M. The circular bioeconomy: Its elements and role in European bioeconomy clusters. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. X 2020, 6, 100029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Dieken, S.; Dallendörfer, M.; Henseleit, M.; Siekmann, F.; Venghaus, S. The multitudes of bioeconomies: A systematic review of stakeholders’ bioeconomy perceptions. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 1703–1717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Näyhä, A. Transition in the Finnish forest-based sector: Company perspectives on the bioeconomy, circular economy and sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 209, 1294–1306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bröring, S.; Laibach, N.; Wustmans, M. Innovation types in the bioeconomy. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 266, 121939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kuckertz, A.; Berger, E.S.C.; Brändle, L. Entrepreneurship and the sustainable bioeconomy transformation. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2020, 37, 332–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Fava, F.; Gardossi, L.; Brigidi, P.; Morone, P.; Carosi, D.A.R.; Lenzi, A. The bioeconomy in Italy and the new national strategy for a more competitive and sustainable country. New Biotechnol. 2021, 61, 124–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. D’Adamo, I.; Gastaldi, M.; Morone, P.; Rosa, P.; Sassanelli, C.; Settembre-Blundo, D.; Shen, Y. Bioeconomy of sustainability: Drivers, opportunities and policy implications. Sustainability 2021, 14, 200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wydra, S. Measuring innovation in the bioeconomy—Conceptual discussion and empirical experiences. Technol. Soc. 2020, 61, 101242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gonçalves, M.; Freire, F.; Garcia, R. Material flow analysis of forest biomass in Portugal to support a circular bioeconomy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 169, 105507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ioppolo, G.; Heijungs, R.; Cucurachi, S.; Salomone, R.; Kleijn, R. Urban metabolism: Many open questions for future. In Pathways to Environmental Sustainability: Methodologies and Experiencesi; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 23–32. [Google Scholar]
  42. Naveed, N.; Watanabe, C.; Neittaanmäki, P. Co-evolutionary coupling leads a way to a novel concept of R&D—Lessons from digitalized bioeconomy. Technol. Soc. 2020, 60, 101220. [Google Scholar]
  43. Pelli, P.; Lähtinen, K. Servitization and bioeconomy transitions: Insights on prefabricated wooden elements supply networks. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 244, 118711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Aiello, G.; Giovino, I.; Vallone, M.; Catania, P.; Argento, A. A decision support system based on multisensor data fusion for sustainable greenhouse management. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 4057–4065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. D’Amico, G.; L’Abbate, P.; Liao, W.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Ioppolo, G. Understanding sensor cities: Insights from technology giant company driven smart urbanism practices. Sensors 2020, 20, 4391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Jedermann, R.; Praeger, U.; Lang, W. Challenges and opportunities in remote monitoring of perishable products. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2017, 14, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Tavakoli, H.; Gebbers, R. Assessing nitrogen and water status of winter wheat using a digital camera. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2019, 157, 558–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Shamshiri, R.R. Exploring GPS data for operational analysis of farm machinery. Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2013, 5, 3281–3286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rizzi, J.; Nystuen, I.; Debella-Gilo, M.; Søvde, N.E.; Solbjørg, E. Big data and machine learning in the bioeconomy sector: Preliminary results from the Norwegian case. In Geophysical Research Abstracts; EGU2019-16256-1; EGU General Assembly 2019; EGU: Munich, Germany, 2019; Volume 21. [Google Scholar]
  50. OECD. The Digitalisation of Science, Technology and Innovation: Key Developments and Policies; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. European Commission. 100 Radical Innovation Breakthroughs for the Future; Directorate-General for Research and Innovation: Brussels, Belgium, 2019; Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/research_and_innovation/knowledge_publications_tools_and_data/documents/ec_rtd_radical-innovation-breakthrough_052019.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2021).
  52. Klerkx, L.; Rose, D. Dealing with the game-changing technologies of Agriculture 4.0: How do we manage diversity and responsibility in food system transition pathways? Global Food Secur. 2020, 24, 100347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Nallapaneni, M.K.; Dash, A.; Singh, N.K. Internet of things (IoT): An opportunity for energy-food-water nexus. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Power Energy, Environment and Intelligent Control (PEEIC), Greater Noida, India, 13–14 April 2018; pp. 68–72. [Google Scholar]
  54. European Commission. The Junction of Health, Environment and the Bioeconomy: Foresight and Implications for European Research & Innovation Policies; Directorate-General for Research and Innovation: Brussels, Belgium, 2015; Available online: https://www.kowi.de/Portaldata/2/Resources/horizon2020/coop/Foresight-Junction-Health-ENV-Bioeconomy-.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2021).
  55. Electricity Advisory Committee. Smart Grid: Enabler of the New Energy Economy. 2008. Available online: https://www.ctc-n.org/sites/www.ctc-n.org/files/resources/final-smart-grid-report.pdf (accessed on 2 December 2021).
  56. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Country Fact Sheet on Food and Agriculture Policy Trends; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2018; Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/i7696e/i7696e.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2021).
  57. Parisi, C.; Vigani, M.; Rodríguez-Cerezo, E. Agricultural Nanotechnologies: What are the current possibilities? Nanotoday 2015, 10, 124–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Arujanan, M.; Singaram, M. The biotechnology and bioeconomy landscape in Malaysia. New Biotechnol. 2018, 40, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Frisvold, G.B.; Moss, S.M.; Hodgson, A.; Maxon, M.E. Understanding the U.S. bioeconomy: A new definition and landscape. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Miehe, R.; Bauernhansl, T.; Beckett, M.; Brecher, C.; Demmer, A.; Drossel, W.-G.; Elfert, P.; Full, J.; Hellmich, A.; Hinxlage, J.; et al. The biological transformation of industrial manufacturing—Technologies, status and scenarios for a sustainable future of the German manufacturing industry. J. Manuf. Syst. 2020, 54, 50–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Galanakis, C.; Rizou, M.; Aldawoud, T.M.S.; Ucak, I.; Rowan, N.J. Innovations and technology disruptions in the food sector within the COVID-19 pandemic and post-lockdown era. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 110, 193–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Rantala, S.; Swallow, B.; Paloniemi, R.; Raitanen, E. Governance of forests and governance of forest information: Interlinkages in the age of open and digital data. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 113, 102123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Wydra, S.; Hüsing, B.; Köhler, J.; Schwarz, A.; Schirrmeister, E.; Voglhuber-Slavinsky, A. Transition to the bioeconomy—Analysis and scenarios for selected niches. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 294, 126092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Vaintrub, M.O.; Levit, H.; Chincarini, M.; Fusaro, I.; Giammarco, M.; Vignola, G. Review: Precision livestock farming, automats and new technologies: Possible applications in extensive dairy sheep farming. Animal 2021, 15, 100143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zhang, M.; Wang, X.; Feng, H.; Huang, Q.; Xiao, X.; Zhang, X. Wearable Internet of Things enabled precision livestock farming in smart farms: A review of technical solutions for precise perception, biocompatibility, and sustainability monitoring. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 312, 127712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Escursell, S.; Llorach-Massana, P.; Roncero, M.B. Sustainability in e-commerce packaging: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 280, 124314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. D’Amico, G.; Szopik-Depczyńska, K.; Dembińska, I.; Ioppolo, G. Smart and sustainable logistics of Port cities: A framework for comprehending enabling factors, domains and goals. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 69, 102801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Mertens, A.; Van Lancker, J.; Buysse, J.; Lauwers, L.; Van Meensel, J. Overcoming non-technical challenges in bioeconomy value-chain development: Learning from practice. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 231, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Fritsche, U.; Brunori, G.; Chiaramonti, D.; Galanakis, C.; Hellweg, S.; Matthews, R.; Panoutsou, C. Future Transitions for the Bioeconomy towards Sustainable Development and a Climate-Neutral Economy—Knowledge Synthesis Final Report; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2020; Available online: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/54a1e679-f634-11ea-991b-01aa75ed71a1/language-en (accessed on 1 December 2021).
  70. Woźniak, E.; Tyczewska, A.; Twardowski, T. Bioeconomy development factors in the European Union and Poland. New Biotechnol. 2021, 60, 2–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Wohlgemuth, R.; Twardowski, T.; Aguilar, A. Bioeconomy moving forward step by step—A global journey. New Biotechnol. 2021, 61, 22–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Borgström, S. Reviewing natural resources law in the light of bioeconomy: Finnish forest regulations as a case study. For. Policy Econ. 2018, 88, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Sanz-Hernández, A.; Esteban, E.; Garrido, P. Transition to a bioeconomy: Perspectives from social sciences. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 224, 107–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Ferreira, V.; Pié, L.; Terceño, A. Economic impact of the bioeconomy in Spain: Multiplier effects with a bio social accounting matrix. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 298, 126752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. The Federal Government. National Bioeconomy Strategy; Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Division “Sustainable Economy; Bio-Economy”: Berlin, Germany, 2020; Available online: https://www.bmbf.de/upload_filestore/pub/BMBF_Nationale_Biooekonomiestrategie_Langfassung_eng.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2021).
  76. Purkus, A.; Lüdtke, J. A systemic evaluation framework for a multi-actor, forest-based bioeconomy governance process: The German Charter for Wood 2.0 as a case study. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 113, 102113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. The Cabinet Office. Decision of the Council for Integrated Innovation Strategy; German Embassy: Tokyo, Japan, 2020; Available online: https://www.dwih-tokyo.org/files/2020/10/bio2020_honbun_en_rev-1.pdf (accessed on 2 December 2021).
  78. The White House. National Bioeconomy Blueprint; The White House: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. Available online: http://www.ascension-publishing.com/BIZ/Bioeconomy-Blueprint.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2021).
  79. Costa Rica. National Bioeconomy Strategy. 2020. Available online: https://gbs2020.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/PolicyBrief-Bioeconomy-Strategy-Costa-Rica.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2021).
  80. The Bio-Economy Strategy; Department of Science and Technology: Pretoria, South Africa, 2013. Available online: https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201409/bioeconomy-strategya.pdf (accessed on 27 November 2021).
  81. Thailand. BCG in Action. 2021. Available online: https://www.nxpo.or.th/th/en/bcg-in-action/ (accessed on 26 November 2021).
  82. Implementation Action Plan (2020–2025) for the Italian Bioeconomy Strategy BIT II; National Bioeconomy Coordination Group of the Presidency of Council of Ministers: Rome, Italy, 2020. Available online: http://cnbbsv.palazzochigi.it/media/1962/implementation-action-plan_bioeconomy_28_-7-2020.pdf (accessed on 25 November 2021).
  83. Nordic Council of Ministers. Nordic Bioeconomy Programme. 15 Action Points for Sustainable Change; Nordic Council of Ministers: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2018. Available online: https://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1222743/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2021).
  84. Orejuela-Escobar, L.; Landázuri, A.C.; Goodell, B. Second generation biorefining in Ecuador: Circular bioeconomy, zero waste technology, environmental and sustainable development: The nexus. J. Bioresour. Bioprod. 2021, 6, 83–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Vorgias, C. Bioeconomy challenges and open issues. J. Biotechnol. 2018, 280, S10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Japan Association of Bioindustries Executives. Bioeconomy Vision of Japan for 2030; JABEX: Tokyo, Japan, 2016; Available online: https://www.jba.or.jp/jabex/pdf/2016/JABEX_vision_digest(english160420).pdf (accessed on 1 December 2021).
  87. Federal Government, Malaysia. Bioeconomy Transformation Programme; Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation: Putrajaya, Malaysia, 2015. Available online: http://www.bioeconomycorporation.my/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/publications/BTP_AR_2015.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2021).
  88. Bioeconomy—RTI Strategy; Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research: Wien, Austria, 2018; Available online: https://nachhaltigwirtschaften.at/resources/nw_pdf/biooekonomie-fti-strategie-ag2-2018.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2021).
  89. Latvian Bioeconomy Strategy 2030; Ministry of Agriculture: Riga, Latvia, 2018. Available online: https://www.zm.gov.lv/public/files/CMS_Static_Page_Doc/00/00/01/46/58/E2758-LatvianBioeconomyStrategy2030.pdf (accessed on 23 November 2021).
  90. The Finnish Bioeconomy Strategy; Ministry of the Environment and Ministry of Employment and the Economy: Helsinki, Finland, 2014. Available online: https://www.biotalous.fi/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/The_Finnish_Bioeconomy_Strategy_110620141.pdf (accessed on 24 November 2021).
  91. Bioeconomy—A Strategy for Austria; Council of Ministers: Wien, Austria, 2019. Available online: https://www.bmbwf.gv.at/en/Topics/Research/Research-in-Austria/Strategic-focus-and-advisory-bodies/Strategies/Bioeconomy-Strategy.html (accessed on 29 November 2021).
  92. A Bioeconomy Strategy for France. 2018–2020 Action Plan; Ministry of Agriculture and Food: Paris, France, 2018. Available online: https://agriculture.gouv.fr/bioeconomy-strategy-france-2018-2020-action-plan (accessed on 24 November 2021).
  93. Braia, L. The Smart Specialisation Strategy and the Bioeconomy Cluster in the Basilicata Region. Brussels. 2016. Available online: https://www.slideshare.net/LucaBraia1/luca-braia-the-smart-specialisation-strategy-and-the-bioeconomy-cluster-in-the-basilicata-region (accessed on 23 November 2021).
  94. Bardalen, A. The Norwegian Bioeconomy Strategy—Structural Changes and Green Shift in the Economy. Riga. 2016. Available online: https://www.norden.lv/Uploads/2016/08/26/1472194554_.pdf (accessed on 26 November 2021).
  95. Capasso, M.; Klitkou, A. Socioeconomic Indicators to Monitor Norway’s Bioeconomy in Transition; Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education: Oslo, Norway, 2020; Available online: https://www.forskningsradet.no/contentassets/a5128e4978d74df090fd7858d767b010/nifureport2020-5-1.pdf (accessed on 28 November 2021).
  96. Growing the Bioeconomy; HM Government: London, UK, 2018. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/761856/181205_BEIS_Growing_the_Bioeconomy__Web_SP_.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2021).
  97. National Plan for Industrial Biotechnology. Driving Progress to 2025; Scottish Enterprise: Glasgow, UK, 2019; Available online: https://www.sdi.co.uk/media/1673/national-plan-for-ib-2019-pdf.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2021).
  98. Dupont-Inglis, J.; Borg, A. Destination bioeconomy—The path towards a smarter, more sustainable future. New Biotechnol. 2018, 40, 140–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Rahman, M.; Morsaline Billah Md Hack-Polay, D.; Alam, A. The use of biotechnologies in textile processing and environmental sustainability: An emerging market context. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 159, 120204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Krüger, A.; Schäfers, C.; Busch, P.; Antranikian, G. Digitalization in microbiology—Paving the path to sustainable circular bioeconomy. New Biotechnol. 2020, 59, 88–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Egea, F.J.; Torrente, R.G.; Aguilar, A. An efficient agro-industrial complex in Almería (Spain): Towards an integrated and sustainable bioeconomy model. New Biotechnol. 2018, 40, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Ioppolo, G.; Cucurachi, S.; Salomone, R.; Shi, L.; Yigitcanlar, T. Integrating strategic environmental assessment and material flow accounting: A novel approach for moving towards sustainable urban futures. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019, 24, 1269–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Näyhä, A. Finnish forest-based companies in transition to the circular bioeconomy—Drivers, organizational resources and innovations. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 110, 101936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. D’Amato, D.; Korhonen, J. Integrating the green economy, circular economy and bioeconomy in a strategic sustainability framework. Ecol. Econ. 2021, 188, 107143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Tylecote, A. Biotechnology as a new techno-economic paradigm that will help drive the world economy and mitigate climate change. Res. Policy 2019, 48, 858–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Wang, S.; Li, Y.; Chen, Q.; Feng, X.; Shi, X.; Huang, Y.; Mei, L.; Li, W.; Liu, H.; Qi, X.; et al. Integration of biosafety surveillance through Biosafety Surveillance Conceptual Data Model. Biosaf. Health 2019, 1, 98–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Solarte-Toro, J.C.; Alzate, C.A.C. Biorefineries as the base for accomplishing the sustainable development goals (SDGs) and the transition to bioeconomy: Technical aspects, challenges and perspectives. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 340, 125626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. D’Amico, G.; Arbolino, R.; Shi, L.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Ioppolo, G. Digital technologies for urban metabolism efficiency: Lessons from urban agenda partnership on circular economy. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Honjo, Y.; Nagaoka, S. Initial public offering and financing of biotechnology start-ups: Evidence from Japan. Res. Policy 2018, 47, 180–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Guillen, J.; Asche, F.; Carvalho, N.; Fernández Polanco, J.M.; Llorente, I.; Nielsen, R.; Nielsen, M.; Villasante, S. Aquaculture subsidies in the European Union: Evolution, impact and future potential for growth. Mar. Policy 2019, 104, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Agovino, M.; Casaccia, M.; Crociata, A.; Sacco, P.L. European Regional Development Fund and pro-environmental behaviour. The case of Italian separate waste collection. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 2019, 65, 36–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Sin, A.; Nowak, C. Comparative analysis of EAFRD’s measure 121 (“Modernization of agricultural holdings”) implementation in Romania and Poland. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2014, 8, 678–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  113. Polido, A.; Pires, S.M.; Rodrigues, C.; Teles, F. Sustainable development discourse in Smart Specialization Strategies. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 240, 118224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Deakin, M.; Mora, L.; Reid, A. The research and innovation of Smart Specialisation Strategies: The transition from the Triple to Quadruple Helix. In Proceedings of the 27th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development, Rome, Italy, 1–2 March 2018; pp. 94–103. [Google Scholar]
  115. O’Brien, M.; Wechsler, D.; Bringezu, S.; Schaldach, R. Toward a systemic monitoring of the European bioeconomy: Gaps, needs and the integration of sustainability indicators and targets for global land use. Land Use Policy 2017, 66, 162–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Angouria-Tsorochidou, E.; Teigiserova, D.A.; Thomsen, M. Limits to circular bioeconomy in the transition towards decentralized biowaste management systems. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 164, 105207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Pätäri, S.; Arminen, H.; Albareda, L.; Puumalainen, K.; Toppinen, A. Student values and perceptions of corporate social responsibility in the forest industry on the road to a bioeconomy. For. Policy Econ. 2017, 85, 201–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Lazaro-Mojica, J.; Fernandez, R. Review paper on the future of the food sector through education, capacity building, knowledge translation and open innovation. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2021, 38, 162–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Giurca, A.; Metz, T. A social network analysis of Germany’s wood-based bioeconomy: Social capital and shared beliefs. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2018, 26, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Böcher, M.; Töller, A.E.; Perbandt, D.; Beer, K.; Vogelpohl, T. Research trends: Bioeconomy politics and governance. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 118, 102219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Guerrero, J.E.; Hansen, E. Company-level cross-sector collaborations in transition to the bioeconomy: A multi-case study. For. Policy Econ. 2021, 123, 102355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Berthet, E.T.; Hickey, G.M.; Klerkx, L. Opening design and innovation processes in agriculture: Insights from design and management sciences and future directions. Agric. Syst. 2018, 165, 111–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Wallin, I.; Pülzl, H.; Secco, L.; Sergent, A.; Kleinschmit, D. Research trends: Orchestrating forest policy-making: Involvement of scientists and stakeholders in political processes. For. Policy Econ. 2018, 89, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Cordella, A.; Paletti, A. Government as a platform, orchestration, and public value creation: The Italian case. Gov. Inf. Q. 2019, 36, 101409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Otero-Muras, I.; Carbonell, P. Automated engineering of synthetic metabolic pathways for efficient biomanufacturing. Metab. Eng. 2021, 63, 61–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Pelai, R.; Hagerman, S.M.; Kozak, R. Biotechnologies in agriculture and forestry: Governance insights from a comparative systematic review of barriers and recommendations. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 117, 102191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Ethiopia. Ethiopia’s Climate-Resilient Green Economy. 2011. Available online: https://www.preventionweb.net/files/61504_ethiopiacrge.pdf (accessed on 26 November 2021).
  128. National Strategy and Plan of Action for Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Development in Ethiopia (2015–2025); Ministry of Health and Ministry of Industry: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2015. Available online: https://www.who.int/phi/publications/Ethiopia_strategy_local_poduction.pdf (accessed on 26 November 2021).
  129. International Council of Biotechnology Associations. Biotechnology: Driving Solutions for Sustainable Development; ICBA: Washington, DC, USA, 2019; Available online: https://www.bio.org/sites/default/files/2019-11/ICBA%202019_SDG%20Brochure_Final.pdf (accessed on 27 November 2021).
  130. Draft Bioenergy Policy for Ghana; Energy Commission: Accra, Ghana, 2010; Available online: https://www.cleancookingalliance.org/binary-data/RESOURCE/file/000/000/69-1.pdf (accessed on 28 November 2021).
  131. Kenya. A National Biotechnology Development Policy. 2006. Available online: https://www.embrapa.br/documents/1355145/14854343/National+biotechnology+Awareness+Strategy.pdf/d424fec3-7dfa-470f-9aee-923b9af24d04 (accessed on 26 November 2021).
  132. Strategy for Developing the Bio-Diesel Industry in Kenya (2008–2012); Ministry of Energy, Renewable Energy Department: Nairobi, Kenya, 2008. Available online: https://kerea.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/National-Biodiesel-Strategy-2008-2012.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2021).
  133. Draft Strategy and Action Plan for Bioenergy and LPG Development in Kenya; Ministry of Energy and Petroleum: Nairobi, Kenya, 2015. Available online: https://kepsa.or.ke/download/draft-strategy-and-action-plan-for-bioenergy-and-lpg-development-in-kenya/ (accessed on 24 November 2021).
  134. Green Economy Strategy and Implementation Plan 2016–2030; Government of Kenya, Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources: Nairobi, Kenya, 2016. Available online: http://www.environment.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/GESIP_Final23032017.pdf (accessed on 24 November 2021).
  135. Malawi National Export Strategy; Government of Malawi: Lilongwe, Malawi, 2013. Available online: https://kulimamalawi.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Malawi-National-Export-Strategy-NES-Main-Volume.pdf (accessed on 26 November 2021).
  136. Stratégie Nationale de Development des Biocarburants au Mali; Agence Nationale de Développment des Biocarburants: Bamako, Mali, 2009. Available online: http://www.bio-step.eu/fileadmin/BioSTEP/Bio_strategies/Mali_Biofuel_strategie_2009.pdf (accessed on 27 November 2021).
  137. Strategie de Developpment de la Maitrise de l’energie au Mali. Groupe de la Banque Africaine de Developpment; Department Regionale Ouest II ORWB: Bamako, Mali, 2010; Available online: https://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Project-and-Operations/%C2%B2Mali%20-%20Strat%C3%A9gie%20de%20d%C3%A9veloppement%20de%20m%C3%AEtrise%20de%20l’%C3%A9nergie_02.pdf (accessed on 28 November 2021).
  138. Cervigni, R.; Scandizzo, P.L. The Ocean Economy in Mauritius: Making It Happen, Making It Last; World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2017; Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10986/28562 (accessed on 29 November 2017).
  139. Green Growth Mozambique—Policy Review and Recommendations for Action; African Development Bank, Energy, Environment and Climate Change Department (ONEC): Mozambique, 2015; Available online: https://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Generic-Documents/Transition_Towards_Green_Growth_in_Mozambique_-_Policy_Review_and_Recommendations_for_Action.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2021).
  140. Namibia. The National Programme on Research, Science, Technology and Innovation. 2014. Available online: https://www.ncrst.na/files/downloads/ee9_NCRST_NPRSTI%202014%20to%202017.pdf (accessed on 26 November 2021).
  141. Abuja, Nigeria. Official Gazette of the Nigerian Bio-Fuel Policy and Incentives. 2007. Available online: https://storage.googleapis.com/cclow-staging/o3f5giwh2pmpdx3ncoasbht74v8g?GoogleAccessId=laws-and-pathways-staging%40soy-truth-247515.iam.gserviceaccount.com&Expires=1622990071&Signature=n6hQcVEqz08201WbnRzW16uj0%2BtkdANdbCi962CxeamEWyilqy3DQMeqNO0TlwtJIL7WEpcWyFHPqnMcfpCyU2mGxLgh9cbPWrbzs0K5ZOkIf6NtOeO8jVkk88VMRRDrwmT2Shr9%2Fh8jeEjxBAGSAqlSJ5LXK0ggdPNJrlDNmK%2BRGwtxRnoiPMknKD6EhyRjwcNQY2GfD1XNaOQgFOeiFj%2FJIjSCSTspPN4L71F%2Bc8GNGE4Tr8H5RWd6rlCPr8uyosv2iuiS4s3Jap7FEakxt0Vcq37WmUBVVrqRBrYLUvmqtqPA8C6FY9O3GXCzsbzgsCdSwjwCoa9xcHIApTe3Qg%3D%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3D%22f%22%3B+filename%2A%3DUTF-8%27%27f&response-content-type=application%2Fpdf (accessed on 26 November 2021).
  142. Rwanda. Green Growth and Climate Resilience. National Strategy for Climate Change and Low Carbon Development. 2011. Available online: https://storage.googleapis.com/cclow-staging/3bz89qjih4msz1lzm4hix4o0n1ar?GoogleAccessId=laws-and-pathways-staging%40soy-truth-247515.iam.gserviceaccount.com&Expires=1622990647&Signature=c2ozAjQWfCDpBb6Tq2okElgUE7yin5qcz4x4c7MfK572kFvNIRJvynqx%2FPJZbjI18Own45RAoyapjcqSueBQULf%2FiNGkgG1VxBEX3N3iMkc8mbqrcNTXkGt2%2BREG6DdGAc8S0vjOQJAJfHKYxyAdMVbzXQFnr2oVTT%2BTpQ5WqHTtINcx1T7hUhea%2FAtY65f4TW%2B6NTR%2Buln9ikuokw%2B2BRKnmyLH4OkzEN1VMMmrWCXyRXXwVdyWhLHehKHYYKQpFwzA2vBXEo%2BY5F5LP1XrmjYUGkAqzdSFMuPbz7W8rYAt8E1FBrVaXdIAo0K4E2bhj0VMbX3%2FQjOtqs2IjzaW1Q%3D%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3D%22f%22%3B+filename%2A%3DUTF-8%27%27f&response-content-type=application%2Fpdf (accessed on 26 November 2021).
  143. Senegal Economic Update. Learning from the Past for a Better Future; World Bank Group: Senegal, 2014; Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/21504/942580WP0Box380alEconomicUpdate0010.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 26 November 2021).
  144. National Biotechnology Policy; Ministry of Communication, Science and Technology: Dodoma, Tanzania, 2010; Available online: http://www.tzonline.org/pdf/Biotecchnology_Policy_WEBB1.pdf (accessed on 26 November 2021).
  145. The Potential of Bio-Fuel in Uganda. An Assessment of Land Resources for Bio-fuel Feedstock Suitability; National Environment Management Authority: Kampala, Uganda, 2010; Available online: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/9199/-The%20Potential%20of%20Bio-fuel%20in%20Uganda%3A%20An%20assessment%20of%20land%20resources%20for%20bio-fuel%20feedstock%20suitability-2010Bio-fuels%20in%20Uganda.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y (accessed on 26 November 2021).
  146. Argentina. La Bioeconomía como Estrategia para el Desarrollo Argentino. 2019. Available online: https://fibamdp.files.wordpress.com/2020/06/la-bioeconomicc81a-como-estrategia-para-el-desarrollo-argentino.pdf (accessed on 24 November 2021).
  147. National Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation; Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovations and Communications: Brasilia, Brazil, 2016. Available online: https://portal.insa.gov.br/images/documentos-oficiais/ENCTI-MCTIC-2016-2022.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2021).
  148. Plano de Ação em Ciência, Tecnologia e inovação em Bioeconomia; Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovações e Comunicações (MCTIC): Brasilia, Brazil, 2018. Available online: https://antigo.mctic.gov.br/mctic/export/sites/institucional/ciencia/SEPED/Arquivos/PlanosDeAcao/PACTI_BIOECONOMIA_web.pdf (accessed on 2 December 2021).
  149. A Forest Bioeconomy Framework for Canada. Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 2017. Available online: https://www.ccfm.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/10a-Document-Forest-Bioeconomy-Framework-for-Canada-E.pdf (accessed on 26 November 2021).
  150. Canada’s Bioeconomy Strategy. Leveraging our Strengths for a Sustainable Future. Bioindustrial Innovation Canada. 2019. Available online: https://www.fpac.ca/wp-content/uploads/b22338_1906a509c5c44870a6391f4bde54a7b1.pdf (accessed on 26 November 2021).
  151. Política para el Desarrollo Commercial de la Biotecnología a Partir del uso Sostenible de la Biodiversidad; Departamento Nacional de Planeación, República de Colombia: Bogotá, Colombia, 2011. Available online: http://repositorio.colciencias.gov.co/bitstream/handle/11146/231/1541-Desarrollo%20Ccial%20Biotecnolog%c3%ada%20CONPES%203697_2011_%201.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 26 November 2021).
  152. Programa Nacional de Biocomercio Sostenible (2014–2024); Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible: Bogotá, Colombia, 2014. Available online: https://www.minambiente.gov.co/images/NegociosVerdesysostenible/pdf/biocomercio_/PROGRAMA_NACIONAL_DE_BIOCOMERCIO_SOSTENIBLE.pdf (accessed on 26 November 2021).
  153. Colombia Bio. 2016. Available online: https://minciencias.gov.co/sites/default/files/upload/paginas/colombiabio-program-2016.pdf (accessed on 26 November 2021).
  154. Política de Crecimiento Verde; Consejo Nacional de Política Económica Y Social, Departamento Nacional de Planeación, República de Colombia: Bogotá, Colombia, 2018; Available online: http://www.andi.com.co/Uploads/CONPES%20CV%203934.pdf (accessed on 24 November 2021).
  155. Ecuador. The Bioeconomy: A Catalyst for the Sustainable Development of Agriculture and Rural Territories in LAC; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: San Jose, Costa Rica, 2019; Available online: http://www.iica-ecuador.org/sisbio/doc_informacion/IICA_Cap4_Eng_V4.pdf (accessed on 27 November 2021).
  156. Mexico. La Bioeconomía. Nuevo Marco para el Crecimiento Sostenible en América Latina; Editorial Pontificia Universidad Javeriana: Bogotà, Colombia, 2019; Available online: https://agritrop.cirad.fr/592946/7/ID592946.pdf (accessed on 27 November 2021).
  157. Paraguay. Estrategia Nacional y Plan de Acción para la Conservación de la Biodiversidad del Paraguay 2015–2020. Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (PNUD) y Fondo para el Medio Ambiente Mundial (FMAM). Asunción. 2016, p. 190. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/py/py-nbsap-v2-es.pdf (accessed on 27 November 2021).
  158. Plan Sectorial Biotecnología; Gabinete Productivo: Montevideo, Uruguay, 2012; Available online: https://www.miem.gub.uy/sites/default/files/plan_sectorial_biotecnologia.pdf (accessed on 27 November 2021).
  159. Uruguay Agrointeligente. Los Desafíos para Desarrollo Sostenible; Ministerio De Ganadería, Agricultura Y Pesca: Montevideo, Uruguay, 2017. Available online: https://www.gub.uy/ministerio-ganaderia-agricultura-pesca/sites/ministerio-ganaderia-agricultura-pesca/files/2019-12/libro%20completo%20con%20hipervinculos.pdf (accessed on 27 November 2021).
  160. Aportes para una Estrategia de Desarrollo 2050; Dirección de Planificación: Montevideo, Uruguay, 2019; Available online: https://observatorioplanificacion.cepal.org/sites/default/files/plan/files/Estrategia_Desarrollo_2050.pdf (accessed on 27 November 2021).
  161. Smith, M. Developing a Bioeconomy in South Australia. Adelaide Thinker in Residence; Government of South Australia, Department of the Premier and Cabinet: Adelaide Australia, 2005. Available online: https://www.dunstan.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/TIR_Reports_2004_Smith.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2021).
  162. Bird, J. Opportunities for Primary Industries in the Bioenergy Sector. In National RD&E Strategies; Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation: Kingston, Australia, 2011; Available online: https://www.agrifutures.com.au/wp-content/uploads/publications/11-079.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2021).
  163. National Marine Science Plan (2015–2025); National Marine Science Committee, Australian Government: Coffs Harbor, Australia, 2015. Available online: https://www.marinescience.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/National-Marine-Science-Plan.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2021).
  164. Beijing, China. The Outline of the 12th Five-Year Program for National Economic and Social Development of the People’s Republic of China. 2011. Available online: https://www.asifma.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/prc-12th-fyp1.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2021).
  165. Circular of the State Council on Issuing the National 13th Five-Year Plan for the Development of Strategic Emerging Industries; PRC State Council: Beijing, China, 2016. Available online: https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/Circular-of-the-State-Council-on-Issuing-the-National-13th-Five-Year-Plan-for-the-Development-of-Strategic-Emerging-Industries.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2021).
  166. KPMG. The 13th Five-Year Plan—China’s Transformation and Integration with the World Economy. 2016. Available online: https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/cn/pdf/en/2016/10/13fyp-opportunities-analysis-for-chinese-and-foreign-businesses.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2021).
  167. Linster, M.; Yang, C. China’s Progress towards Green Growth: An International Perspective; OECD Green Growth Papers, No. 2018/05; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  168. Biotechnology Policy 2015–2020; Government of Andhra Pradesh, India: Andhra Pradesh, India, 2015. Available online: https://investuttarakhand.com/themes/backend/acts/act_english1575360796.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2021).
  169. National Biotechnology Development Strategy 2015–2020; Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science & Technology, Government of India: New Delhi, India, 2015. Available online: http://dbtindia.gov.in/sites/default/files/DBT_Book-_29-december_2015.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2021).
  170. BIRAC. India Bioeconomy Report 2020; Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Council: New Delhi, India, 2020; Available online: https://birac.nic.in/webcontent/1594624763_india_bioeconomy_rep.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2021).
  171. Government Regulation on National Energy Policy. National Energy Policy, The President of the Republic of Indonesia. 2014. Available online: https://policy.asiapacificenergy.org/sites/default/files/National%20Energy%20Policy%202014_0.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2021).
  172. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Assessing the Contribution of Bioeconomy to Countries’ Economy; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2018; Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/I9580EN/i9580en.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2021).
  173. Primary Sector Science Roadmap; Ministry for Primary Industries: Wellington, New Zealand, 2017. Available online: https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/18383-primary-sector-science-roadmap-te-ao-turoa-strengthening-new-zealands-bioeconomy-for-future-generations (accessed on 29 November 2021).
  174. Agritech Industry Transformation Plan; Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment, New Zealand Government: Wellington, New Zealand, 2020. Available online: https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/11572-growing-innovative-industries-in-new-zealand-agritech-industry-transformation-plan-july-2020-pdf (accessed on 29 November 2021).
  175. Popov, V.; Prospects of Bioeconomy in the Russian Federation. National Technology Platform, Bioindustry and Bioresources—Biotech2030. 2012. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/sti/emerging-tech/Popov.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2021).
  176. Russian Government Roadmap for Development of Biotechnology; Government of the Russian Federation: Moscow, Russia, 2013. Available online: https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/report/downloadreportbyfilename?filename=Russian%20Government%20Roadmap%20for%20Development%20of%20Biotechnology_Moscow_Russian%20Federation_9-20-2013.pdf (accessed on 28 November 2021).
  177. Biotechnology in Korea; Italian Trade Agency: Rome, Italy, 2014. Available online: https://www.infomercatiesteri.it/public/images/paesi/123/files/Korea%20Biotech%20Report.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2021).
  178. Biotechnology in Korea; Ministry of Education, Science and Technology: Seoul, Korea, 2020; Available online: https://www.kribb.re.kr/eng/file/Biotechnology_in_Korea_0905.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2021).
  179. Bioenergy in Sri Lanka: Resources, Applications and Initiatives. Practical Action Consulting. 2010. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08b12ed915d622c000aab/PISCES_Sri_Lanka_Bioenergy_Working_Paper.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2021).
  180. Musafer, N. Biomass energy in Sri Lanka: Retrospective and prospective analysis. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Materials for Clean Energy and Health applications (AMCEHA 2019), Jaffna, Sri Lanka, 6–8 February 2019; Available online: https://www.bioenergysrilanka.lk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Biomass-Energy-in-Sri-Lanka.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2021).
  181. Bioeconomy in Flanders; Environment, Nature and Energy Department, Flemish Government: Brussels, Belgium, 2019; Available online: https://publicaties.vlaanderen.be/view-file/13902 (accessed on 29 November 2021).
  182. Rural Development Programme of the Republic of Croatia for the Period 2014–2020; Ministry of Agriculture, Directorate for Management of EU Funds for Rural Development, EU and International Co-operation: Zagreb, Croatia, 2016. Available online: https://ruralnirazvoj.hr/files/documents/Programme_2014HR06RDNP001_3_1_en.pdf (accessed on 27 November 2021).
  183. Bioeconomy Concept in the Czech Republic from the Perspective of the Ministry of Agriculture; Ministry of Agriculture: Praha, Czechia, 2019. Available online: http://eagri.cz/public/web/file/630927/Koncepce_biohospodarstvi_v_CR_z_pohledu_MZe_na_leta_2019_24.pdf (accessed on 27 November 2021).
  184. Denmark at Work. Plan for Growth for Water, Bio & Environmental Solutions; The Danish Government: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2013. Available online: https://eng.em.dk/media/10603/12-03-13-summary-plan-for-growth-for-water-bio-etc.pdf (accessed on 27 November 2021).
  185. Research 2025—Promising Future Research Areas; Danish Agency for Science and Higher Education: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2018. Available online: https://ufm.dk/en/publications/2018/filer/forsk25_katalog_eng_enkelt.pdf (accessed on 26 November 2021).
  186. Strategy for Circular Economy; Ministry of Environment and Food and Ministry of industry, Business and Financial Affairs, The Danish Government: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2018. Available online: https://stateofgreen.com/en/uploads/2018/10/Strategy-for-Circular-Economy-1.pdf (accessed on 25 November 2021).
  187. National Policy Strategy on Bioeconomy; Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture: Berlin, Germany, 2014. Available online: https://www.bioways.eu/download.php?f=62&l=en&key=c21c2ea7e095424f3545c66da7b98821 (accessed on 23 November 2021).
  188. National Policy Statement on the Bioeconomy; Government of Ireland: Dublin, Ireland, 2018. Available online: https://assets.gov.ie/2244/241018115730-41d795e366bf4000a6bc0b69a136bda4.pdf (accessed on 23 November 2021).
  189. Integrated Science, Studies and Business Centres (Valleys); Ministry of Education, Science and Sport, Republic of Lithuania: Vilnius, Lithuania, 2019. Available online: https://www.smm.lt/web/en/science1/science_1 (accessed on 25 November 2021).
  190. The Position of the Bioeconomy in the Netherlands; Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2018. Available online: https://www.government.nl/documents/leaflets/2018/04/01/the-position-of-the-bioeconomy-in-the-netherlands (accessed on 26 November 2021).
  191. Neto, C.P. Forest-Based Biorefineries: The Pulp and Paper Industry; RAIZ—Forest and Paper Research Institute: Aveiro, Portugal; The Navigator Company: Setúbal, Portugal, 2019; Available online: https://scar-europe.org/images/CASA/Events/Portugal_20may2019/presentations/Carlos_Neto.pdf (accessed on 28 November 2021).
  192. Vasconcelos, V.; Moreira-Silva, J.; Moreira, S. Portugal Blue Bioeconomy Roadmap—BLUEandGREEN; CIMAR: Matosinhos, Portugal, 2019; p. 68. Available online: https://www2.ciimar.up.pt/pdfs/resources/roadmap_digital_hGBit_.pdf (accessed on 28 November 2018).
  193. Transition to a Green Economy in Slovenia; Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2016. Available online: https://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/sites/default/files/transition_to_a_green_economy_in_slovenia.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2021).
  194. Overbeek, G.; de Bakker, E.; Beekman, V.; Davies, S.; Kiresiewa, Z.; Delbrück, S.; Ribeiro, B.; Stoyanov, M.; Vale, M. Review of Bioeconomy Strategies at Regional and National Levels. 2016. Available online: http://www.bio-step.eu/fileadmin/BioSTEP/Bio_documents/BioSTEP_D2.3_Review_of_strategies.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2021).
  195. Escudero, J. Overview of State of Play on Bioeconomy in Spain; 3rd Workshop “Facilitating Development of Bioeconomy Policy—Needs and Gaps”; Brussels, Belgium. 2019. Available online: https://www.scar-swg-sbgb.eu/lw_resource/datapool/_items/item_64/ws3_spain.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2021).
  196. Swedish Research and Innovation Strategy for a Bio-Based Economy; Swedish Energy Agency VINNOVA, The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning: Stockholm, Sweden, 2012. Available online: https://www.formas.se/download/18.462d60ec167c69393b91e60f/1549956092919/Strategy_Biobased_Ekonomy_hela.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2021).
Sustainability 14 00466 g001 550
Figure 1. Methodology. Source: Authors.
Figure 1. Methodology. Source: Authors.
Sustainability 14 00466 g001
Sustainability 14 00466 g002 550
Figure 2. Smart and sustainable bioeconomy platform. Source: Authors.
Figure 2. Smart and sustainable bioeconomy platform. Source: Authors.
Sustainability 14 00466 g002
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

D’Amico, G.; Szopik-Depczyńska, K.; Beltramo, R.; D’Adamo, I.; Ioppolo, G. Smart and Sustainable Bioeconomy Platform: A New Approach towards Sustainability. Sustainability 2022, 14, 466. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su14010466

AMA Style

D’Amico G, Szopik-Depczyńska K, Beltramo R, D’Adamo I, Ioppolo G. Smart and Sustainable Bioeconomy Platform: A New Approach towards Sustainability. Sustainability. 2022; 14(1):466. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su14010466

Chicago/Turabian Style

D’Amico, Gaspare, Katarzyna Szopik-Depczyńska, Riccardo Beltramo, Idiano D’Adamo, and Giuseppe Ioppolo. 2022. "Smart and Sustainable Bioeconomy Platform: A New Approach towards Sustainability" Sustainability 14, no. 1: 466. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su14010466

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop