Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Principles, drivers and opportunities of a circular bioeconomy

Nature Food volume 2, pages 561–566 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

A Publisher Correction to this article was published on 25 August 2021

Abstract

A circular, bio-based economy could provide the pathway to a sustainable future. Here we present five ecological principles to guide biomass use towards a circular bioeconomy: safeguarding and regenerating the health of our (agro)ecosystems; avoiding non-essential products and the waste of essential ones; prioritizing biomass streams for basic human needs; utilizing and recycling by-products of (agro)ecosystems; and using renewable energy while minimizing overall energy use. Implementing these principles calls for a transformation of our current economic system, including fundamental changes to policies, technologies, organizations, social behaviour and markets.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Biomass flows in a circular bioeconomy.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Haberl, H., Erb, K.-H. & Krausmann, F. Human appropriation of net primary production: patterns, trends, and planetary boundaries. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 39, 363–391 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Krausmann, F. et al. Global human appropriation of net primary production doubled in the 20th century. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 10324–10329 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  ADS  Google Scholar 

  3. Foley, J. A. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. Steffen, W. et al. Planetary boundaries: guiding changing planet. Science 347, 1259855 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Muscat, A., de Olde, E. M., de Boer, I. J. M. & Ripoll-Bosch, R. The battle for biomass: a systematic review of food-feed-fuel competition. Glob. Food Sec. 25, 100330 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Befort, N. Going beyond definitions to understand tensions within the bioeconomy: the contribution of sociotechnical regimes to contested fields. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 153, 119923 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Jørgensen, S. E. & Nielsen, S. N. Application of ecological engineering principles in agriculture. Ecol. Eng. 7, 373–381 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Potting, J., Hekkert, M., Worrell, E. & Hanemaaijer, A. Circular Economy: Measuring Innovation in the Product Chain (PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2016).

  9. Van Kernebeek, H. R. J., Oosting, S. J., van Ittersum, M. K., Ripoll-Bosch, R. & de Boer, I. J. M. Closing the phosphorus cycle in a food system: insights from a modelling exercise. Animal 12, 1755–1765 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Scherhaufer, S., Moates, G., Hartikainen, H., Waldron, K. & Obersteiner, G. Environmental impacts of food waste in Europe. Waste Manag. 77, 98–113 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and Prevention (FAO, 2011).

  12. van den Bos Verma, M., de Vreede, L., Achterbosch, T. & Rutten, M. M. Consumers discard a lot more food than widely believed: Estimates of global food waste using an energy gap approach and affluence elasticity of food waste. PLoS ONE 15, e0228369 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Obesity and Overweight. WHO https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight (accessed 10 April 2020).

  14. Rico-Campà, A. et al. Association between consumption of ultra-processed foods and all cause mortality: SUN prospective cohort study. Brit. Med. J. 365, l1949 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Srour, B. et al. Ultra-processed food intake and risk of cardiovascular disease: prospective cohort study (NutriNet-Santé). Brit. Med. J. 365, l1451 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Daystar, J., Chapman, L., Moore, M., Pires, S. & Golden, J. Quantifying apparel consumer use behavior in six countries: addressing a data need in life cycle assessment modeling. J. Text. Apparel Technol. Manag. 11, 1–25 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Mottet, A. et al. Livestock: on our plates or eating at our table? A new analysis of the feed/food debate. Glob. Food Sec. 14, 1–8 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cashion, T., Le Manach, F., Zeller, D. & Pauly, D. Most fish destined for fishmeal production are food-grade fish. Fish Fish. 18, 837–844 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Garnett, T. Livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions: impacts and options for policy makers. Environ. Sci. Policy 12, 491–503 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Goodland, R. Environmental sustainability in agriculture: diet matters. Ecol. Econ. 23, 189–200 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Van Hal, O. et al. Upcycling food leftovers and grass resources through livestock: impact of livestock system and productivity. J. Clean. Prod. 219, 485–496 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Van Zanten, H. H. E. et al. Defining a land boundary for sustainable livestock consumption. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 4185–4194 (2018).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhou, S. et al. Balanced harvest: concept, policies, evidence, and management implications. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 29, 711–733 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Haberl, H. & Geissler, S. Cascade utilization of biomass: strategies for a more efficient use of a scarce resource. Ecol. Eng. 16, 111–121 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Suominen, T., Kunttu, J., Jasinevičius, G., Tuomasjukka, D. & Lindner, M. Trade-offs in sustainability impacts of introducing cascade use of wood. Scand. J. For. Res. 32, 588–597 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Churkina, G. et al. Buildings as a global carbon sink. Nat. Sustain. 3, 269–276 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Max-Neef, M. in Real-Life Economics (eds Ekins, P. & Max-Neef, M.) Ch. 7 (Routledge, 1992).

  28. Doyal, L. & Gough, I. A Theory of Human Need (Macmillan, 1991).

  29. Bos-Brouwers, H., Langelaan, B. & Sanders, J. Chances for biomass. Wageningen University UR https://edepot.wur.nl/248866 (2012).

  30. Sandin, G. & Peters, G. M. Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling – a review. J. Clean. Prod. 184, 353–365 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A. & Seppälä, J. Circular economy: the concept and its limitations. Ecol. Econ. 143, 37–46 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Castro, M. B. G., Remmerswaal, J. A. M., Brezet, J. C. & Reuter, M. A. Exergy losses during recycling and the resource efficiency of product systems. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 52, 219–233 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Bergen, S. D., Bolton, S. M. & Fridley, J. L. Design principles for ecological engineering. Ecol. Eng. 18, 201–210 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Vidal, O., Goffé, B. & Arndt, N. Metals for a low-carbon society. Nat. Geosci. 6, 894–896 (2013).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  35. Grandell, L. & Höök, M. Assessing rare metal availability challenges for solar energy technologies. Sustainability 7, 11818–11837 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Kovacic, Z., Strand, R. & Völker, T. The Circular Economy in Europe (Routledge, 2019).

  37. Dammer, L. & Essel, R. Quo Vadis, Cascading Use of Biomass? (nova Institute for Ecology and Innovation, 2015).

  38. Cascading Use of Biomass: Opportunities and Obstacles in EU Policies 2013–2016 (Birdlife Europe & European Environmental Bureau, 2014).

  39. Zabaniotou, A. Redesigning a bioenergy sector in EU in the transition to circular waste-based bioeconomy: a multidisciplinary review. J. Clean. Prod. 177, 197–206 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Termeer, C. J. A. M. & Metze, T. A. P. More than peanuts: transformation towards a circular economy through a small-wins governance framework. J. Clean. Prod. 240, 118272 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Velenturf, A. P. M. et al. Circular economy and the matter of integrated resources. Sci. Total Environ. 689, 963–969 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  ADS  Google Scholar 

  42. de Boer, I. J. M. & Van Ittersum, M. K. Circularity in Agricultural Production (Wageningen University & Research, 2018); https://edepot.wur.nl/470625

  43. Van Eijk, F. Barriers & Drivers Towards a Circular Economy (Acceleratio, 2015); https://www.circulairondernemen.nl/uploads/e00e8643951aef8adde612123e824493.pdf

  44. Teigiserova, D. A., Hamelin, L. & Thomsen, M. Review of high-value food waste and food residues biorefineries with focus on unavoidable wastes from processing. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 149, 413–426 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Gifford, R. & Nilsson, A. Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: a review. Int. J. Psychol. 49, 141–157 (2014).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Steg, L. & Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 29, 309–317 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Nyborg, K. et al. Social norms as solutions. Science 354, 42–43 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  ADS  Google Scholar 

  48. Kollmuss, A. & Agyeman, J. Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 8, 239–260 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Rothgerber, H. Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: masculinity and the justification of meat consumption. Psychol. Men Masculin. 14, 363–375 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Shove, E., Watson, M. & Spurling, N. Conceptualizing connections: energy demand, infrastructures and social practices. Eur. J. Soc. Theory 18, 274–287 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Barnes, S. J. Out of sight, out of mind: plastic waste exports, psychological distance and consumer plastic purchasing. Glob. Environ. Change 58, 101943 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Richter, B. Knowledge and perception of food waste among German consumers. J. Clean. Prod. 166, 641–648 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Schanes, K., Dobernig, K. & Gözet, B. Food waste matters: a systematic review of household food waste practices and their policy implications. J. Clean. Prod. 182, 978–991 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Aschemann-Witzel, J., de Hooge, I., Amani, P., Bech-Larsen, T. & Oostindjer, M. Consumer-related food waste: causes and potential for action. Sustainability 7, 6457–6477 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Priefer, C., Jörissen, J. & Bräutigam, K. R. Food waste prevention in Europe: a cause-driven approach to identify the most relevant leverage points for action. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 109, 155–165 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Ölander, F. & Thøgersen, J. Informing versus nudging in environmental policy. J. Consum. Policy 37, 341–356 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Söderholm, P. Taxing virgin natural resources: lessons from aggregates taxation in Europe. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55, 911–922 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Growth Within: A Circular Economy Vision for a Competitive Europe (Ellen Macarthur Foundation, 2015); https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/EllenMacArthurFoundation_Growth-Within_July15.pdf

  59. Spierling, S., Venkatachalam, V., Behnsen, H., Herrmann, C. & Endres, H. Bioplastics and Circular Economy—Performance Indicators to Identify Optimal Pathways (Springer, 2019).

  60. Van Zanten, H., Mollenhorst, H., Klootwijk, C. W., van Middelaar, C. E. & de Boer, I. J. M. Global food supply: land use efficiency of livestock systems. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21, 747–758 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Odegard, I., Croezen, H. & Bergsma, G. Cascading of Biomass: 13 Solutions for a Sustainable Bio-based Economy-Making Better Choices for Use of Biomass Residues, By-products and Wastes (CE Delft, 2012).

  62. Szarka, N., Wolfbauer, J. & Bezama, A. A systems dynamics approach for supporting regional decisions on the energetic use of regional biomass residues. Waste Manage. Res. 36, 332–341 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Koppelmaki, K., Helenius, J. & Schulte, R. P. O. Nested circularity in food systems: a Nordic case study on connecting biomass, nutrient and energy flows from field scale to continent. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 164, 105218 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Mayer, A. L. Importing timber, exporting ecological impact. Science 308, 359–360 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Mayer, A., Schaffartzik, A., Haas, W. & Rojas-Sepúlveda, A. Patterns of Global Biomass Trade: Implications for Food Sovereignty and Socio-Environmental Conflicts (EJOLT, 2015).

  66. Raworth, K. A doughnut for the Anthropocene: humanity’s compass in the 21st century. Lancet Planet. Health 1, e48–e49 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. O’Neill, D. W., Fanning, A. L., Lamb, W. F. & Steinberger, J. K. A good life for all within planetary boundaries. Nat. Sustain. 1, 88–95 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement no. 689669. The present work reflects only the authors’ views and the funding agency cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Animal Production Systems group, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Abigail Muscat, Evelien M. de Olde, Raimon Ripoll-Bosch & Imke J. M. de Boer

  2. Farming Systems Ecology group, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Hannah H. E. Van Zanten

  3. Public Administration and Policy group, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Tamara A. P. Metze & Catrien J. A. M. Termeer

  4. Plant Production Systems group, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Martin K. van Ittersum

Authors
  1. Abigail Muscat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Evelien M. de Olde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Raimon Ripoll-Bosch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hannah H. E. Van Zanten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tamara A. P. Metze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Catrien J. A. M. Termeer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Martin K. van Ittersum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Imke J. M. de Boer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors wrote the paper. I.J.M.d.B. and M.K.v.I. conceptualized the principles. A.M., I.J.M.d.B., E.M.d.O. and R.R.-B. conceptualized and expanded the principles. A.M., I.J.M.d.B., E.M.d.O., H.H.E.v.Z. were responsible for visualization. A.M. prepared the original draft. E.M.d.O., R.R.-B., H.H.E.V.Z., T.A.P.M., C.J.A.M.T., M.K.v.I. and I.J.M.d.B. supervised, reviewed and edited.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abigail Muscat.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Food thanks Nick Holden, Trisha Toop and Bruce Dale for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Muscat, A., de Olde, E.M., Ripoll-Bosch, R. et al. Principles, drivers and opportunities of a circular bioeconomy. Nat Food 2, 561–566 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00340-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00340-7

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing