Abstract
This paper deals with processes and outcomes of sustainable bioenergy development in Emilia Romagna. It draws on an on-going research project concerning inclusive innovation in forest-based bioenergy and biogas in Norway, Sweden, Finland and Italy. The goal is to explore how local governance impacts on inclusive innovation processes and triple bottom sustainability of bioenergy development in Emilia Romagna and, ultimately, to contribute to the debate on the bioeconomy. It thus compares the case of biogas and forest-based bioenergy production. The study adopts an analytical framework called Grounded Innovation (GRIP) and the local governance approach. The study uses qualitative methods and particularly semi-structured interviews and governance analysis. The key results show different outcomes on both inclusive innovation and triple bottom-line dimensions. Biogas has not fostered inclusiveness and triple bottom line sustainability benefits, contrary to forest-based bioenergy. The findings indicate that the minor role of local actors, particularly municipalities, in favour of industrial and national interests may jeopardise the sustainability of biobased industries. Besides, policies limited to financial incentives may lead to a land-acquisition rush, unforeseen local environmental effects and exacerbate conflicts.
Highlights
The paper draws on the evidence gathered during the research work of the TRIBORN project and other relevant studies (e.g., [1])
Both the case study and the case study unit splits into sub-categories, i.e., the case of bioenergy development governance is distinguished in biogas and forest-based bioenergy production, while the case study unit includes two geographical areas within the region, namely the Po Valley and the Apennines
As ISTAT statistics [85] show, the “Padana Plain” or Po Valley in the region accounts for approximately 48% of the regional land and the Apennines for remaining part (52%)
Summary
The paper draws on the evidence gathered during the research work of the TRIBORN project (the project that financed this study) and other relevant studies (e.g., [1]) These studies prove that, bioenergy is expected to benefit rural societies and economies, it has in many cases generated harmful consequences, such as a rush to land acquisition, by means of external entrepreneurs and multinationals; social conflicts, soil quality degradation and unexpected costs (e.g., [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]). We could consider bioenergy production as an economic activity that has an impact on the surrounding natural and anthropic environment (e.g., soil, water, air, and landscape), stimulating the reaction of the communities who live nearby Whether this response is positive or negative, it will certainly affect the political, business, financial and environmental decisions that will carry on the transition process at different levels. The policies, processes and outcomes it generates and, whether changes could be necessary
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
