Search

The 2018 European bioeconomy strategy sets a new vision for Europe's sustainable development: a transition to regenerative resource usage that embraces circular principles. Similarly, various member states have developed national bioeconomy strategies. To be effective, such strategies require methodologically sound monitoring tools that support the alignment of national and urban policies. Indeed, cities are central to the bioeconomy, mobilizing ever increasing amounts of biogenic materials. To better understand the suitability of national bioeconomy strategies for guiding urban circular bioeconomy transitions, this paper examines the composition, features, and topical coverage of national bioeconomy indicator sets with a threefold analysis: (1) assessment of the integration of circularity principles in the sets and their alignment with existing policy frameworks; (2) appraisal of quality and the fulfillment of the sets' functional purposes; (3) evaluation of the breadth and depth of tackled issues. Of the 27 EU member states, only nine have a dedicated bioeconomy strategy, of which four propose an indicator set. While there is a general lack of sophisticated monitoring, the tools proposed after the publication of the 2018 bioeconomy strategy (Germany and Italy) follow indicator development standards rigorously. They include circularity in their notion of bioeconomy and combine indicators for a comprehensive, substantial, informative and politically relevant analysis. These characteristics strongly improve the potential for alignment and coherence with urban-level bioeconomy monitoring efforts. Although national measuring tools are not intended to cover all urban needs, the findings of this paper give insight into their remaining gaps and highlight improvement pathways for an efficient EU-wide circular bioeconomy transition. [Display omitted] • Most EU national bioeconomy strategies lack sophisticated indicator sets. • National bioeconomy strategies should favor alignment with other policy levels. • Thoroughly developed indicator sets allow targeted answers to environmental change. • Recent strategies follow indicator development standards more rigorously. • Recent indicator sets enable monitoring of urban circular bioeconomy transitions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Frugal innovation can help to foster sustainability and address global challenges, like building economic growth, addressing various social needs, and protecting the environment. However, if one wants to measure the sustainability impacts of frugal innovation or enable companies to make empirically informed decisions between frugal and alternative innovation, the question of how to assess these empirical impacts arises. The main objectives of this paper are the identification of approaches and indicators for assessing the sustainability impacts of frugal innovation and the analysis of empirical findings relating to prior assessments. To this end, a systematic literature review was conducted, which identified 15 texts, and a qualitative content analysis was employed to evaluate their contents. From these analyses two main approaches for assessment emerged. First, the assessment based on the triple bottom line or the dimensions of sustainability (ecological, social, and economic). Second, assessment against the Sustainability Development Goals. In the identified texts, the sustainability dimensions are preferred over the Sustainable Development Goals for assessing the sustainability impacts of frugal innovation. From the 15 identified texts, 13 use qualitative indicators and two quantitative (conceptual) indicators. To answer the research question of the paper, a set of 47 qualitative indicators relating to integrated dimensions of sustainability for the assessment of the sustainability impacts of frugal innovation is proposed. In addition, this paper presents new insights relating to the empirical evidence of sustainability impacts of frugal innovation. Approximately 60% of 334 empirical findings from 70 different cases related to the Sustainable Development Goals contribute to the five (socially and economically focused) SDGs 8, 3, 10, 12, and 9. After a transformation to the Triple Bottom Line, these findings contribute predominantly to the economic and social dimensions (in each case 45%), and only slightly to the ecological dimension (the remaining 10%). In turn, 164 empirical results from 77 different cases related to the Triple Bottom Line show an almost similar contribution to all three sustainability dimensions with a small lead of the economic dimension. Nonetheless, in the opinion of the author, these findings confirm other studies, that from an empirical perspective, frugal innovation can be described as inherently socially and economically sustainable and ecological sustainability is mostly not the primary focus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]