Publications

@article{Saltelli2020,

title = {The technique is never neutral. How methodological choices condition the generation of narratives for sustainability},

author = {Andrea Saltelli and Lorenzo Benini and Silvio Funtowicz and Mario Giampietro and Matthias Kaiser and Erik Reinert and Jeroen P. Sluijs},

url = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1462901119304721},

doi = {10.1016/j.envsci.2020.01.008},

issn = {14629011},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-04-01},

journal = {Environmental Science & Policy},

volume = {106},

pages = {87--98},

abstract = {textcopyright 2020 The Authors How to tackle uncertainties and ensure quality in integrated assessment for sustainability? To what extent does the choice of the methodology condition the narrative produced by the analysis? The present work argues that the two questions are tightly coupled. The technique is never neutral. If we are the tools of our tools, as suggested by Thoreau, then it can also be said that language is not only a vehicle for communication, it is the driver as well. For this reason, in sustainability assessment it is not unusual to discern a close relationship between arguments made and methods adopted. In the present work a set of six reflexive analytical tools \textendash we call them lenses \textendash is suggested which could be pooled to the effect to appraise and improve the quality of integrated assessment and the resulting sustainability narratives, and to alleviate the constraints of the method-argument dependency. None of the lenses is new and each has been used before. Never have they been used together. The lenses are (i) Post-normal science (PNS), (ii) Controversy studies, (iii) Sensitivity auditing, (iv) Bioeconomics, (v) Ethics of science for governance, and (vi) Non-Ricardian economics. The six lenses are illustrated together with a set of case/narratives/arguments. The lenses allow some narratives \textendash or methodologies \textendash to be shown as either implausible or inadequate, and new narratives to be developed to tackle pressing sustainability issues, which expand the horizon of possible strategies for a solution.},

keywords = {Bioeconomics, Circular economy, Controversy studies, Decarbonization, Ethical matrices, Ethics, European environment agency, Food ethics, Green growth, Heterodox economics, Honeybees, Insectageddon, Integrated assessment, Nexus water-energy-food, Non-ricardian economics, Post normal science, Relational ecology, Sensitivity auditing, sustainability, Transitions},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Vivien2019,

title = {The Hijacking of the Bioeconomy},

author = {F. -D. Vivien and M. Nieddu and N. Befort and R. Debref and M. Giampietro},

url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.01.027 https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0921800918308115},

doi = {10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.01.027},

issn = {09218009},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-05-01},

journal = {Ecological Economics},

volume = {159},

pages = {189--197},

publisher = {Elsevier},

abstract = {Georgescu-Roegen used the term bioeconomy to refer to a radical ecological perspective on economics he developed in the 1970s and 1980s. In recent years, it has also become a buzzword used by public institutions to announce and describe a supposed current economic and ecological transition. We see in this use an attempt of semantic hijacking of the original term. To support this claim we analyze three different interpretations of the term bioeconomy, presenting each of them as narratives combining distinct visions of future economic development, technical trajectories and imaginaries associated with a particular relationship to nature. Finally, we discuss these narratives in relation to the endorsement they receive by different stakeholders.},

keywords = {Bioeconomics, Bioeconomy, Biorefinery, Biotechnology, Georgescu-Roegen},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}