Have a personal or library account? Click to login
The Evaluation of Factors Affecting Bioeconomy Development Using Transdisciplinary Approach Cover

The Evaluation of Factors Affecting Bioeconomy Development Using Transdisciplinary Approach

Environmental and Climate Technologies
Volume 23 (2019): Issue 3 (December 2019)
By: Zane Indzere,  Maira Melvere,  Indra Muizniece and  Dagnija Blumberga  
Open Access
|Dec 2019

References

  1. [1] Economic Forum. Insight Report. The Global Risks Report 2019. 14th Edition. Economic Forum, 2019.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  2. [2] Pérez-Suárez R., López-Menéndez A. J. Growing green? Forecasting CO2 emissions with environmental Kuznets curves and logistic growth models. Environmental Science & Policy 2015:54:428–437. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.07.01510.1016/j.envsci.2015.07.015
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  3. [3] Wu L., Liu S., Liu D., Fang Z., Xu H. Modelling and forecasting CO2 emissions in the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) countries using a novel multi-variable grey model. Energy 2015:79:489–495. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2014.11.05210.1016/j.energy.2014.11.052
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  4. [4] United Nations. World Population Prospects 2019. Highlights. New York, 2019.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  5. [5] European Technology Platform. The European Bioeconomy in 2030. Delivering Sustainable Growth by addressing the Grand Societal Challenges, 2017.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  6. [6] European Commission. A sustainable Bioeconomy for Europe: strengthening the connection between economy, society and the environment. Updated Bioeconomy Strategy. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  7. [7] Latosov E., Volkova A., Siirde A., Thalfeldt M., Kurnitski J. The Impact of Parallel Energy Consumption on the District Heating Networks. Environmental and Climate Technologies 2019:23(1):1–13. doi:10.2478/rtuect-2019-000110.2478/rtuect-2019-0001
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  8. [8] Ayeronfe F., Kassim A., Hung P., Ishak N., Syarifah S., Aripin A. Production of Ligninolytic Enzymes by Coptotermes curvignathus Gut Bacteria. Environmental and Climate Technologies 2019:23(1):111–121. doi:10.2478/rtuect-2019-000810.2478/rtuect-2019-0008
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  9. [9] Bisikirske D., Blumberga D., Vasarevicius S., Skripkiunas G. Multicriteria Analysis of Glass Waste Application. Environmental and Climate Technologies 2019:23(1):152–167. doi:10.2478/rtuect-2019-001110.2478/rtuect-2019-0011
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  10. [10] Gulum M., Bilgin A. Measurement and Prediction of Density and Viscosity of Different Diesel-Vegetable Oil Binary Blends. Environmental and Climate Technologies 2019:23(1):214–228.10.2478/rtuect-2019-0014
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  11. [11] European Commission. Innovating for Sustainable Growth. A bioeconomy for Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2012.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  12. [12] McCormic K., Kautto N. The Bioeconomy in Europe: An Overview. Sustainability 2013:5(6):2589–2608. doi:10.3390/su506258910.3390/su5062589
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  13. [13] Griestop L., Colthorpe J., et al. Bioeconomy in everyday life. Berlin: Biocom AG, 2016.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  14. [14] Lamers P., Searcy E., et al. Developing the global bioeconomy: technical, market, and environmental lessons from bioenergy. Academic Press, 2016.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  15. [15] Bioeconomy in Flanders. The vision and strategy of the Government of Flanders for a sustainable and competitive bioeconomy in 2030. Departement Omgeving, 2014.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  16. [16] Boger J., et al. Principles for Fostering the Transdisciplinary Development of Assistive Technologies. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 2017:12(5):480–490. doi:10.3109/17483107.2016.115195310.3109/17483107.2016.115195327052793
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  17. [17] Carus M., et al. How to shape the next level of the European bio-based economy. The reasons for the delay and the prospects of recovery in Europe. Huerth: Nova-Institut, 2016.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  18. [18] Muizniece I., Kubule A., Blumberga D. Towards understanding the transdisciplinary approach of the bioeconomy nexus. Energy Procedia 2018:147:175–180. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2018.07.05210.1016/j.egypro.2018.07.052
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  19. [19] Petrenko C., Searle S. Assessing the profitability of growing dedicated energy versus food crops in four European countries. The International Council on Clean Transportation. Working paper 2016.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  20. [20] Klein J. T., Habeli R., et al. Transdisciplinarity: Joint Problem Solving among Science, Technology, and Society. An Effective Way for Managing Complexity. Switzerland: Birkhauser Basel, 2001.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  21. [21] Mobjork M. Consulting versus participatory transdisciplinarity: A refined classification of transdisciplinary research. Futures 2010:42(8):866–873.10.1016/j.futures.2010.03.003
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  22. [22] Klein J. T. Prospects for transdisciplinarity. Futures 2004:36(4):515–526. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.00710.1016/j.futures.2003.10.007
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  23. [23] Klein J. T., et al. Transdisciplinarity: joint problem solving among science, technology, and society: an effective way for managing complexity. Springer Science & Business Media, 2001.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  24. [24] Popa F., Guillermin M., Dedeurwaerdere T. A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: From complex systems theory to reflexive science. Futures 2015:65:45–56. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2014.02.00210.1016/j.futures.2014.02.002
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  25. [25] Stirling A. Discussion paper on “Transdisciplinary nexus methods”. The Nexus Network. Social, Technological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability. Sussex: University of Sussex, 2015.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  26. [26] Duckett D., Feliciano D., Martin-Ortega J., Munoz-Rojas J. Tackling wicked environmental problems: The discourse and its influence on praxis in Scotland. Landscape and Urban Planning 2016:154:44–56. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.03.01510.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.03.015
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  27. [27] Bergendahl J. A., Sarkis J., Timko M. T. Transdisciplinarity and the food energy and water nexus: Ecological modernization and supply chain sustainability perspectives. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2018:133:309–319. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.00110.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.001
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  28. [28] Zierhofer W., Burger, P. Disentangling transdisciplinarity: an analysis of knowledge integration in problem-oriented research. Science & Technology Studies 2007:20(1):51–74.10.23987/sts.55219
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  29. [29] Mobjork M. Consulting versus participatory transdisciplinarity: A refined classification of transdisciplinary research. Futures 2010:42(8):866–873. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2010.03.00310.1016/j.futures.2010.03.003
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  30. [30] Hester P. T. An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods. International Journal of Operations research 2013:10(2):56–66.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  31. [31] Jansone Z., Muizniece I., Blumberga D. Analysis of wood bark use opportunities. Energy Procedia 2017:128:268–274. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.09.07010.1016/j.egypro.2017.09.070
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  32. [32] Kubule A., Indzere Z., Muizniece I. Modelling of the Bioeconomy system using Interpretive structural modelling. Agronomy Research 2019:17(4):1665–1678. doi:10.15159/ar.19.170
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/rtuect-2019-0101 | Journal eISSN: 2255-8837 | Journal ISSN: 1691-5208
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 360 - 369
Published on: Dec 13, 2019
Published by: Riga Technical University
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year
Keywords:
Analysis,
bioeconomy,
development,
evaluation,
factors,
multi-criteria decision-making analysis,
strategy,
TOPSIS,
transdisciplinary approach
Related subjects:
Life sciences,
Life sciences, other

© 2019 Zane Indzere, Maira Melvere, Indra Muizniece, Dagnija Blumberga, published by Riga Technical University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 23 (2019): Issue 3 (December 2019)Next article