Circular Bioeconomy for Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems: An Editorial Introduction

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:Provides a comprehensive overview of circular bioeconomy research gaps and empirical evidence across multiple regions, useful for shaping future research agendas.

🏢実務担当者:Highlights farm-level practices (e.g., integrated crop-livestock systems, composting) that can improve economic and environmental performance, relevant for agribusiness and extension services.

🏛政策担当者:Emphasizes the need for standardized definitions, investment in farmer knowledge, and cross-sectoral governance to enable circular bioeconomy scaling.

This special issue advances a multi‐scalar, empirically grounded understanding of circular bioeconomy transitions in agriculture and food systems by integrating systems‐level analyses with farm‐ and household‐level evidence from diverse developing and emerging economies. The key findings include (1) circular bioeconomy research in agrifood systems in Australia and New Zealand is rapidly expanding but highly fragmented, dominated by technical perspectives with inconsistent definitions and limited social science engagement, with Australia emphasising technological recycling and New Zealand focussing more on ecological and social redesign; (2) there is a substantial untapped potential to integrate land, marine, forest and water resources into Indonesia's circular bioeconomy through converting diverse biomass residues into bio‐based products, but scaling is constrained by limited technical capacity, infrastructure gaps, policy fragmentation and high investment costs; (3) there exists pronounced heterogeneity in circular bioeconomy readiness, with most southeast Asian countries facing high agrifood emissions and low material‐use efficiency, while performance advantages in innovation and efficiency are concentrated in a few economies; (4) technical skill gaps and awareness deficits are the primary, system‐shaping constraints on crop‐residue bioenergy adoption, with spillover effects that hinder infrastructure, markets and coordination in the circular bioeconomy; (5) adoption of integrated crop–livestock systems increases bio‐fertiliser use, reduces chemical fertiliser expenditure among younger farmers and raises farm revenue without increasing costs, demonstrating the economic and environmental viability of farm‐level circular bioeconomy practices; and (6) composting spent mushroom substrate delivers the highest productivity gains compared with on‐farm deposition and distant dumping, with farmers' management choices shaped by education, extension access, infrastructure quality and mobility. These findings highlight that policies should standardise circular bioeconomy definitions and metrics, invest in farmer knowledge and extension as first‐order enablers and coordinate cross‐sector infrastructure and governance to unlock scale.

• semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.70110first seen 2026-06-23 06:06:56