How Education and Communication Shape Our Circular Bioeconomy Future
Imagine our current economic system as a leaky bucket. We constantly pour in precious natural resources—water, minerals, fossil fuels, forests—only to have them leak out as waste and pollution after just one use.
This linear "take-make-waste" approach has brought us to the brink of environmental crisis, with climate change, resource depletion, and pollution threatening our planet's future 1 . But what if we could create a bucket that doesn't leak? What if we could design a system where waste becomes food for new products, energy is renewable and sustainable, and resources circulate indefinitely?
This vision lies at the heart of two powerful concepts: the circular economy and bioenergy—and their success depends not on technology alone, but on how we educate and communicate them to society 2 8 .
Recent research reveals that while technological innovations abound, we're failing to effectively communicate these solutions to the public, students, and even professionals who need to implement them.
Our current system wastes 90% of raw materials, creating environmental damage and economic inefficiency.
The circular economy represents a radical reimagining of our economic systems. Unlike our current linear model where resources are extracted, used, and discarded, a circular economy aims to close the loop on resource flows. It's based on three fundamental principles:
The European Union has recognized the tremendous potential of this approach, developing measures to accelerate the transition toward circularity in production and consumption patterns 1 .
Bioenergy represents another crucial piece of the sustainability puzzle. As one of the most widely used renewable energy sources globally, bioenergy derives power from organic materials—plant matter, agricultural waste, and even algae 1 .
When integrated within a circular framework, bioenergy can transform what would otherwise be waste into valuable energy sources while reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.
The beautiful synergy between these concepts lies in their complementary nature: the circular economy provides the framework for minimizing resource inputs and waste outputs, while bioenergy offers a way to valorize whatever waste streams inevitably remain.
To understand how these crucial concepts are being communicated and educated, researchers conducted a systematic literature review following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines—a rigorous methodology that ensures comprehensive and unbiased analysis of existing research 1 4 .
They developed 12 Boolean operators combining terms related to circular economy, bioenergy, communication, and education.
Using specialized software, they executed 36 separate queries across three major databases: Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar.
The search covered an entire decade of research (2009-2019), yielding thousands of potential studies.
Through a careful screening process, they narrowed these down to 74 peer-reviewed articles and conference papers that directly addressed their research focus 4 .
What makes this research particularly innovative is its application of the DESLOCIS framework (Descriptors for a Systematic Literature Review on Social Sciences), which allowed for standardized assessment of the methodological quality and approaches across studies 4 6 .
The analysis revealed that research on circular economy and bioenergy from education and communication perspectives remains surprisingly underdeveloped. Of the millions of scientific articles published during the decade studied, only 74 met the criteria for direct relevance—indicating how marginally these crucial topics have been addressed 1 2 .
The methodological formalization (the rigor and sophistication of research approaches) was generally low across most studies. Most publications were descriptive rather than analytical, focusing primarily on presenting educational proposals or interventions rather than critically examining their effectiveness 2 .
| Characteristic | Percentage | Dominant Approaches |
|---|---|---|
| Research Type | ||
| Descriptive | 65% | Proposal presentation, intervention description |
| Analytical | 35% | Critical analysis, effectiveness evaluation |
| Methodological Formalization | ||
| Low | 60% | Small samples, basic analytical techniques |
| Medium | 30% | Moderate samples, mixed methods |
| High | 10% | Large samples, advanced statistics |
| Field of Knowledge | ||
| Engineering | 45% | Technical educational proposals |
| Social Sciences | 38% | Critical analysis, perception studies |
| Education | 12% | Curriculum development, learning outcomes |
| Other | 5% | Interdisciplinary approaches |
One exemplary study from the analysis illustrates both the potential and limitations of current research. Halder and colleagues (2016) conducted a cross-cultural investigation into students' intentions to use bioenergy, applying the Theory of Planned Behavior to understand how attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control influence behavioral intentions 3 .
| Factor | Finland | Sweden | Taiwan |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attitude toward bioenergy | Strong positive correlation with usage intention | Moderate positive correlation | Strong positive correlation |
| Subjective norms | Weak influence | Strong influence | Moderate influence |
| Perceived behavioral control | Moderate correlation | Strong correlation | Moderate correlation |
| Overall model prediction | 62% of variance explained | 57% of variance explained | 65% of variance explained |
The study revealed that while attitudes toward bioenergy were generally positive across cultures, significant differences existed in how social influences affected behavioral intentions. In some countries, peer and family opinions played a substantial role in shaping students' openness to bioenergy, while in others, individual attitudes were more influential 3 .
Based on the systematic review, researchers have identified several crucial components for effective education and communication about circular economy and bioenergy concepts:
Predicts intention to engage in sustainable behaviors. Useful for designing campaigns to promote bioenergy adoption.
Ensures rigorous systematic literature reviews. Essential for mapping knowledge gaps in circular economy education.
Standardized assessment of social science research. Helps evaluate methodological quality of studies.
Engages emotions and facilitates knowledge retention. Effective for communicating circular economy success stories.
Simulates complex systems and decision-making. Useful for teaching trade-offs in circular bioeconomy design.
Identifies cultural variations in perceptions. Critical for adapting messages for different regional contexts.
The systematic review clearly indicates that the field must evolve beyond descriptive studies toward more transformative research approaches. Future studies should:
The research suggests several pathways for enhancing circular bioeconomy education:
The transition to a circular bioeconomy represents one of the most significant transformations in human history—a complete reimagining of how we produce, consume, and relate to the natural world that sustains us.
While technological innovations are crucial, this systematic review reminds us that social transformation must accompany technical transformation 2 8 .
The limited maturity of research on circular economy and bioenergy education and communication reveals a critical gap in our sustainability efforts. We have brilliant solutions but lack the sophisticated strategies needed to engage diverse audiences in implementing them. Closing this gap requires recognizing that effective communication is not merely about transmitting information but about co-creating meanings, addressing concerns, and building trust across different value systems 8 .
The journey from linear to circular is ultimately a journey from disconnect to reconnect—reconnecting our economy with our ecology, our waste with our wealth, and our individual actions with our collective future.
As individuals, educators, communicators, and policymakers, we all have roles to play in advancing this conversation.
Whether through formal education programs, public communication campaigns, or community engagement initiatives, we must elevate the importance of how we talk about and teach circularity.