• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Cleaner Production >Thinking green, circular or bio: Eliciting researchers' perspectives on a sustainable economy with Q method
【24h】

Thinking green, circular or bio: Eliciting researchers' perspectives on a sustainable economy with Q method

机译：以绿色，循环或生物的方式思考：通过Q方法激发研究人员对可持续经济的观点

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The continuous emergence of new ideas and terms simultaneously enables and impedes the advancement of sustainability, because of an increasingly complex conceptual landscape. This study aims at highlighting combinations of sustainability concepts (circular, green and bioeconomy) and of development models (growth, steady-state, degrowth) which selected researchers have considered priorities for pursuing sustainability transformations. Leading scholars working on sustainability issues were asked to rank 36 statements describing activities related to either circular, green, bio, growth, steady-state or degrowth economy. Using Q methodology, an exploratory approach to the identification of shared or diverging opinions, three archetypical perspectives were identified across the respondents: 1. circular solutions towards economic-environmental decoupling in a degrowth perspective; 2. a mix of circular and green economy solutions; 3. a green economy perspective, with an emphasis on natural capital and ecosystem services, and critical towards growth. Economic growth was perceived negatively across all perspectives, in contrast to the current lack of political and societal support for degrowth ideas. Neither did bioeconomy-oriented activities have support among the participating researchers, even though half of the respondents were working with bioeconomy issues, which are currently high on the political agenda. The lack of support for pro-growth and bioeconomy solutions are unexpected results given the current political discourses. While the results are not to be generalised beyond the sample, they provide valuable orientation for emerging and under-investigated research and policy directions. If bioeconomy policies are to be implemented on a broader scale, it seems worthwhile evaluating the acceptability of the bioeconomy agenda among various societal actors. Furthermore, our results point to the (still under explored) potential of formulating synergic circular, green and bioeconomy policies, possibly without a focus on economic growth. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
机译：由于日益复杂的概念环境，新思想和新术语的不断出现同时使可持续发展受到阻碍。这项研究旨在突出可持续性概念（循环，绿色和生物经济）和发展模型（增长，稳态，退化）的组合，这些模型已被选定的研究人员考虑了追求可持续性转型的优先事项。研究可持续性问题的领先学者被要求对描述循环经济，绿色经济，生物经济，增长经济，稳态经济或退化经济相关活动的36条陈述进行排名。使用Q方法（一种探索性的方法，用于识别共享或分歧的观点），在受访者中确定了三种原型观点：1.循环经济解决方案，以消退的角度解决经济与环境之间的脱钩问题； 2.循环经济和绿色经济解决方案的混合； 3.绿色经济观点，强调自然资本和生态系统服务，对增长至关重要。与当前缺乏政治和社会支持消极观念的观点相反，从各个角度看，经济增长都是负面的。尽管一半的受访者正在就生物经济问题开展工作，但目前在政治议程中处于首位的问题，以生物经济为导向的活动也没有得到参与研究人员的支持。鉴于当前的政治论断，缺乏对促进增长和生物经济解决方案的支持是出乎意料的结果。尽管不应将结果概括为样本之外的结果，但它们为新兴和研究不足的研究与政策方向提供了有价值的方向。如果要在更大范围内实施生物经济政策，似乎值得评估各种社会行为者对生物经济议程的接受程度。此外，我们的研究结果指出了制定协同循环，绿色和生物经济政策的潜力（尚在探索中），而可能没有将重点放在经济增长上。 （C）2019作者。由Elsevier Ltd.发布

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号