# Territorial transformation through circular bioeconomy transitions: Multiple case studies in the agri-food waste system on Reunion Island

Clément Jacquet, Tiago Teixeira da Silva Siqueira

► To cite this version:

Clément Jacquet, Tiago Teixeira da Silva Siqueira. Territorial transformation through circular bioeconomy transitions: Multiple case studies in the agri-food waste system on Reunion Island. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 2025, 57, pp.101038. 10.1016/j.eist.2025.101038. hal-05237330

HAL Id: hal-05237330

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05237330v1

Submitted on 3 Sep 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

ELSEVIER

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eist

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Research article

# Territorial transformation through circular bioeconomy transitions: Multiple case studies in the agri-food waste system on Reunion Island

Clement Jacquet<sup>a,b</sup>, Tiago Teixeira Da Silva Siqueira<sup>a,b</sup>

## ARTICLE INFO

**Keywords:**

Circular economy

Food system

Transition

Transformation

Multi-level perspective

Innovation

Insular territoire

## ABSTRACT

Circular bioeconomy is attracting increasing attention from public authorities and private stakeholders as a way to drive sustainable transitions in agri-food waste systems. The study of this concept can be particularly relevant in island contexts, which are highly dependent on external resources due to the importation of goods and services. This article analyzes the transition through a circular bioeconomy within the agri-food waste system in Reunion Island. To this end, we adopt a comprehensive approach integrating the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) and territorial transformation frameworks. Both stakeholder perceptions of the circular bioeconomy concept and the limitations of its operationalization were analyzed, together with the diversity of circular bioeconomy innovation initiatives that have emerged and the role of public stakeholders in fostering their development. A stakeholder mapping and 44 semi-structured interviews were conducted. Analysis of the ideal dimension revealed that the reference framework surrounding the concept of circular bioeconomy remains ambiguous, particularly its implementation in the territoire. Analysis of the material dimension identified 40 innovation initiatives, grouped in three main categories representing the main pathways of transition: (i) replacing imported materials by local or more renewable alternatives; (ii) increasing the consumption of local food; and (iii) enhancing circularity through the expansion of organic matter recycling. Analysis of the institutional dimension highlighted the role of public action in supporting the emergence of circular bioeconomy innovation initiatives. Finally, certain stakeholders occupy privileged positions in dominant regimes positioning them as key drivers of circular bioeconomy transition on Reunion Island.

E-mail addresses: clement.jacquet@cirad.fr (C. Jacquet), siqueira@cirad.fr (T. Teixeira Da Silva Siqueira).

<footnote><sup>a</sup> CIRAD, UMR SELMET, 7 chemin de l'IRAT, 97410 Saint-Pierre, La Réunion. SELMET, Univ Montpellier, CIRAD, INRAE, Institut Agro, Montpellier, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> National Polytechnic Institute of Toulouse, INRAE, UMR AGIR, Toulouse, France</footnote>
# 1. Introduction

Population growth, climate change impacts, and resource scarcity raise concerns about the ability of agri-food waste systems<fnref n="1" /> to meet growing food and energy demand, necessitating their transitions toward more sustainable and resilient models. In this context, circular bioeconomy is emerging at the intersection of bioeconomy and circular economy, as a way to drive these transitions. Although the concept of bioeconomy does not seem to be fully stabilized, we define it as a biomass-based economy, promoting biotechnologies, and the development of biorefineries and their derived products (bioenergy, bio-based products...) (Vivien et al., 2019). Also, we define circular economy as: "an economic system founded on business models that eliminate the 'end-of-life' concept by prioritizing reduction, reuse, and recycling of materials throughout production, distribution, and consumption processes. Its objective is to achieve sustainability transformations by fostering environmental quality, economic prosperity, and social equity for the benefit of present and future generations" (Kirchherr et al., 2017). While increasing food security (Philp, 2018), the circular bioeconomy is supposed to reduce environmental impacts, and promoting local economic development (Ghisellini et al., 2016; Leipold et al., 2021). Although these benefits remain the subject of controversy (Giampietro and Funtowicz, 2020), circular bioeconomy is strongly encouraged in the framework of European policies (e.g., European Circular Economy Action Plan (European Commission, 2020)) and further supported at national and regional levels (e.g., AGEc Law), which regulate and incentivize the implementation of circular bioeconomy practices (Leipold et al., 2021).

In island context characterized by strong dependence on imported resource, circular bioeconomy appears to be an important way of driving transitions (Kleinpeter et al., 2023; Russeil, 2023). Our case study, Reunion Island, a French island located east of Madagascar, is no exception. In 2021, Reunion Island imported €6.2 billion of commodities and exported only €376 million (Insee, 2022). Its agricultural sector follows this trend, as it imports large quantities of animal feed and synthetic mineral fertilizers (DAAF La Réunion-douanes, 2019; Urcoopa, 2019). Given the inherent constraints of island territoires (e.g. biophysical limits), developing a circular bioeconomy could be seen as a relevant approach to strengthen their autonomy while respecting their environmental and resource constraints (Rahman, 2022; Rockström et al., 2023). However in the literature, few studies examine the favorable conditions for establishing circular bioeconomy innovations in agri-food waste systems and the transformations it entails for the territoire (Ntsondé, 2020; Pachoud et al., 2022; Upadhayay et al., 2024). In response, we address this theoretical gap by focusing on the concept of territoire, which we believe is essential for understanding the complexity and multidimensionality of circular bioeconomy transitions. Based on Muchnik and Lopez's (1997) work defining territoire as: "an elaborated space, socially constructed, culturally marked and institutionally regulated ". We follow the French social geography prism by considering Reunion Island as a unique territoire: i) delimited physically by its insularity, ii) primarily understood through its unique historical and cultural dimensions embodied by stakeholders: "The territoire is the space of belonging, understood as a lived space of everyday practices that is strongly linked to the imaginaries and identities of its inhabitants and embedded in power relation" (Biaggio et al., 2025), iii) and regulated by multi institutional levels (Hooghe and Marks, 2001). The territoire of Reunion Island has been deeply shaped by its colonial history, which forged social and cultural dynamics and left a lasting legacy that remains visible today. Notably, within the island's agri-food waste system, where sugarcane cultivation is a key part of this heritage, remaining the dominant crop on Reunion Island and used to produce sugar for export. Then, although Reunion Island may appear geographically isolated, it remains closely interconnected with other territoires. European institutions, the French State, and its regional and departmental levels play a direct role in its governance through the implementation of programs, public policies, financial instruments, and regulatory frameworks applied at the local level.

Studying territorial transformation involves focusing our attention on the: "systemic, radical, and voluntarist changes, affecting the structures, practices, and dynamics of a territoire across all its dimensions" (Brand and Wissen, 2017). And, consequently, moving away from an exclusively sectoral and technological approach, which is more commonly found in studies on transitions (Pachoud et al., 2022). In this regard, our study explores territorial transformation through the lens of the circular bioeconomy transitions in agri-food waste system. To do so, we relied on the complementarity between evolutionary conceptual framework of the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) (Geels, 2002), which characterizes transitions trajectories through innovations, and the Geography of Transitions framework proposed by Pachoud et al. (2022) which explores the ideal, material, and institutional dimensions of the territorial transformation. First, we analyzed how stakeholders perceive the concept of circular bioeconomy and the challenges they identify when it comes to putting the concept into practice. Second, we highlighted circular bioeconomy innovations developed within the territoire of Reunion Island. Finally, we examined the role of institutional stakeholders and regulatory frameworks in supporting their implementation.

# 2. Literature review

## 2.1. Circular bioeconomy in agri-food waste systems

Historically, agri-food waste system integrates circular bioeconomy principles by the complementarity between crop and livestock. This synergy enables the production of various types of biomasses that can be used for human consumption, animal production, energy

<footnote n="1">¹ We define the *agri-food waste system* as the integration of multiple sectors (waste, energy, agriculture) providing services to society, including maintaining food security, providing resources for animal feed, producing bioenergy, preserving local knowledge and traditions, creating new economic opportunities through biomolecule and material production, and reducing pollution through the treatment of organic waste. This concept considers stakeholders, from producers to consumers, as well as public policies, institutions, and the system of rules, norms, and mechanisms that shape their actions (Lamine, 2012).</footnote>
production, or to fertilize the soil. Consequently, the bioeconomy is deeply embedded within the agri-food waste system, where varying degrees of circularity can be observed depending on how resources are recovered and reintegrated (FAO, 2021; Huang et al., 2015).

Agri-food waste systems are at the heart of transitions challenges in which fossil materials can be replaced by renewable bio-
resources (Allain et al., 2022). The use of these biomasses can help reduce both incoming and outgoing metabolic flows of a territoire.
Studies in territorial ecology have specifically addressed these questions from a metabolic perspective, highlighting material, energy,
and information flows, and how their management could contribute to more sustainability transformations (Barles et al., 2011; Buclet
and Donsimoni, 2021). These approaches and the concept of circular bioeconomy converge in their common objective of rethinking
resource use within the territoire. In parallel, as highlighted by Madelrieux (2023), bioeconomy and circular economy should also be
seen as a way to reduce society's metabolism by: (i) prioritizing the reduction of resource flows in and out, and second, increasing the
circularity of internal flows, (ii) encouraging uses that limit competition between biomass uses, (iii) valuing crop products and
co-products for food or energy, (iv) particularly for livestock, a major challenge is to reduce the inputs used for cropping and livestock
rearing and losses of nutrients to the environment, (v) enhancing nitrogen recovery through the complementarity of crop-livestock
systems, (vi) reducing food waste, and (vii) changing human and animal dietary patterns. However, as some authors point out, a
circular bioeconomy is not a guarantee of sustainability (Stegmann et al., 2020), as excessive use of biomass in a circular logic can have
rebound effects and negative environmental impacts (Andrew and Pigosso, 2024; Brookes, 1990; Castro et al., 2022).

As a consequence, agri-food waste systems play a crucial role in societal transitions. However, the vast majority of studies addressing transitions through a circularity logic focus on industrial sectors such as non-food consumption (energy and non-food uses as starch or agricultural wood as building material) or transportation, with very few addressing agri-food waste systems (Dourmad et al., 2019; Toplicean and Datcu, 2024; Upadhayay et al., 2024; Wilde and Hermans, 2024). Yet, deciphering transitions in biomass-producing systems such as the agri-food waste system cannot rely on a single sectoral approach. As Wohlfahrt et al. (2019) point out: ‘studies of bioeconomy systems mostly consider them through only one sectorial lens’. In practice, this means that emphasis is placed on specific value chains such as biofuel production, carbon storage, agro-industrial waste recycling, raw material production, and crop diversification (Chodkowska-Miszczuk et al., 2021; Gabrielle et al., 2018; Székács, 2017). This focus is quite surprising considering that the circular bioeconomy is by essence multi-sectoral and complex, due to: i) the heterogeneity of stakeholders and processes involved in its development within a territoire (Lewandowski, 2015), ii) the spatial and temporal distribution of bioresources (Napolitano et al., 2016), and iii) the interdependencies between sectors stemming from the multiple uses of the same biomass and its co-products (Vlad and Toma, 2022). This observation calls for moving beyond the commonly adopted sectoral approach, and instead striving to integrate as fully as possible all sectors involved in the development of the circular bioeconomy within agri-food waste systems.

## 2.2. *The multi-level perspective and the analysis of territorial transformation to better understand transitions through circular bioeconomy in agri-food waste systems*

The evolutionary conceptual framework of the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) (Geels, 2002; 2011) is mainly used to study inno-
vation trajectories (Rip and Kemp, 1998). These trajectories are determined by interactions between the landscape, the dominant
regime, and socio-technical niches (Geels, 2002). According to this framework, several components such as markets, networks,
knowledge, policy, practices, infrastructures, and culture, form the relatively stable framework of regimes within which stakeholders
coordinate and implement actions. These same regimes interact with the socio-technical landscape and can reconfigure, for example,
political developments, regulations, climate change, or new societal preferences. According to this framework, innovations emerge
simultaneously from initiatives led by small networks of stakeholders, which are also known as niche innovations. These innovations
seek to establish themselves within the dominant socio-technical regimes where practices and norms are firmly established, and
interact with the exogenous landscape of the territoire (Rip and Kemp, 1998). This framework also provides insights into the overall
mechanisms of interactions between dominant regimes and niches (Smith, 2007), and the complementarities - or lack thereof - be-
tween stakeholders' strategies (Rothaermel, 2001). In the specific case of agri-food waste system, these dominant regimes regulate the
uses of biomass by selecting certain innovations. For example, they may contribute to the emergence of innovations that support
energy production at the expense of food production or innovations that aim to generate income rather than reduce greenhouse gas
emissions (Zink and Geyer, 2017). However, describing the structure and functioning of socio-technical regimes and niches (i.e. their
stabilization or destabilization) remains particularly challenging in the agri-food waste system, as it simultaneously involves multiple
sectors (Loorbach et al., 2017). As a consequence, several questions persist regarding how transformation participates in the recon-
figuration of regimes and how these regimes interact with niches in innovation processes and societal transformations (Geels, 2011).

Transition geography can provide elements of response by examining the territorial transformation (Köhler et al., 2019). In particular, Pachoud et al. (2022) suggest focusing on the three dimensions of territorial transformation. The first, the material dimension reflects the valuation of territorial resources to meet both the needs of the stakeholders and the challenges of sustainability. The second, the ideal dimension includes the imaginaries, representations and beliefs of the stakeholders. Here, imaginaries encompass all the representations, values, identities, and forms of attachment that a collective share regarding a territoire and its future (Debarbieux, 2008). They constitute a framework of thought and action that structures territorial transformation dynamics and are shaped by both individual and collective experiences, as well as by the affective attachment to the lived territoire (Amblard et al., 2018). On one hand, representations are embedded within imaginaries and serve as more concrete images that an individual or group forms of something, shaped by beliefs, experiences, and discourses (Brennetot and Didelon-Loiseau, 2024). Beliefs, on the other hand, refer to the shared convictions about the territoire and its evolution. These beliefs can be questioned or renewed in response to
landscape transformations (such as climate or economic crises) or through local initiatives that convey new narratives and visions of the territoire (Wittmayer et al., 2019). Finally, the institutional dimension encompasses both top-down and bottom-up dynamics. It is defined by multiple institutional levels that implement formal rules and regulations within the territoire, while local stakeholders interpret these rules and develop at the same time their own informal norms (Pachoud et al., 2022).

As previously discussed, studying the agri-food waste system requires taking into account multiple sectors. In this context, the notion of territoire offers significant analytical potential through its geographical lens to grasp this complexity, whereas the MLP framework remains largely sectoral. Conversely, the MLP provides a useful framework for positioning innovations according to their level of stability (niches/regimes), which is valuable for analyzing transitions. The recent work of Pachoud and Koop (2024) proposes a possible articulation of these two approaches by mobilizing the concepts of dominant and emerging territorialities, which they tested empirically in a case study. However, uncertainties remain as to how to study transitions through circular bioeconomy while simultaneously integrating the multiplicity of sectors and types of innovations that coexist within an agri-food waste system. For these reasons, we propose an alternative way to harness this complementarity to study transitions through circular bioeconomy in agri-food waste systems. To do so, based on the framework proposed by Pachoud et al. (2022), we analyze the three dimensions of territorial transformation: (i) the ideal dimension through the stakeholders' representations of the concept of circular bioeconomy and the limitations to its operationalization; (ii) The material dimension combined with the MLP approach by examining the diversity of innovation initiatives at the territorial level (iii) the institutional dimension by examining the role of public action in the emergence of these circular bioeconomy initiatives.

# 3. Methods

## 3.1. Study context: the agri-food waste system in reunion island

The demographic transition that occurred over the past 50 years, caused French overseas departments, which are mainly composed of islands, to lose their food and energy autonomy (ADEME, 2023). Reunion Island, located in the southern Indian Ocean, is no exception: 77 % of food products (ADEME, 2022) and 85 % of the energy consumed on the island are imported (SPL énergie Reunion, 2022). In order to reduce the territoire dependence, European, national, and local political stakeholders aim to structure local supply chains and encourage the production and consumption of local products (Department de la Reunion, 2019). Located in a tropical climate, Reunion Island has the particularity of being able to produce biomass throughout the year. However, due to its geographic isolation and strong dependence on biomass imports, the territoire remains highly exposed to supply disruption risks. This situation calls for a rethinking of biomass governance on the island, particularly through a circularity lens, in order to reduce its vulnerability while contributing to its sustainability transformations. The uninterrupted growth of biomass ensures a steady potential for valorization but also demands continuous management efforts, as seen with green waste or forage production in prairies. This is also the case for other types of biomass, such as: i) bagasse, a co-product of sugarcane, which is the main crop in Reunion Island, is used as fuel, and provides 10 % of the electricity for its 885,000 inhabitants (Albioma, 2023), ii) other sugarcane co-products (vinasse, sugar mill residues) which are returned to the soil, iii) livestock effluents are spread on fields, partially renewing soil fertility, and iv) some green waste, household organic waste, and agro-industrial wastes are composted (Martin-Ferrari, 2020).

However, several issues persist because (i) the majority of agricultural inputs are imported, 220,000 tons for livestock feed and 32,000 tons for mineral fertilizers (DAAF, 2021), (ii) some agricultural plots are under or over-fertilized relative to the real crop needs (Alvanitakis et al., 2023), (iii) the majority of household organic waste is still used as landfill (Agorah, 2024), and (iv) the potential for growing forage crops is not yet fully exploited (Achard, 2019). At the same time, a circular bioeconomy appears to be emerging in the territoire to address these issues, thereby legitimizing our interest in studying the transformation through circular bioeconomy in the agri-food waste system of Reunion Island.

<table><caption>**Table 1**

Interviewed stakeholders from the agri-food waste system in Reunion Island.</caption><thead><tr><td>Stakeholder Category</td><td>Number of people interviewed</td><td>Interview code</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Public agencies</td><td>7</td><td>1-7</td></tr><tr><td>Animal and plant interprofessional</td><td>3</td><td>8-10</td></tr><tr><td>Animal and vegetal cooperatives</td><td>6</td><td>11-16</td></tr><tr><td>Animal feed and vegetal suppliers</td><td>2</td><td>17-18</td></tr><tr><td>Agricultural innovation and transfer network</td><td>2</td><td>19-20</td></tr><tr><td>Farmer</td><td>1</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>Vegetable supplier</td><td>1</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>Large retail outlet</td><td>1</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>Syndicate for waste management</td><td>1</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>Horticultural, agro-industries, organic vegetable growing, pastoral associations</td><td>4</td><td>25-28</td></tr><tr><td>Composting network</td><td>1</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>Agro-industries</td><td>2</td><td>30-31</td></tr><tr><td>Energy-producing company</td><td>1</td><td>32</td></tr><tr><td>Consulting firms</td><td>2</td><td>33-34</td></tr><tr><td>Start-ups</td><td>2</td><td>35-36</td></tr><tr><td>Research centers</td><td>2</td><td>37-38</td></tr></tbody></table>
## 3.2. A qualitative approach based on a multiple case study

This study is based on an analysis of stakeholder discourses and a multiple case study that investigates innovation initiatives led by stakeholders within the agri-food waste system of Reunion Island (Yin, 2018). Due to the diversity of stakeholders and the social dynamics shaping each innovation initiative, the multiple case study approach provides an in-depth analysis of these elements within the complex and varied contexts in which they interact (Alexandre, 2013; Gagnon, 2012).

Data were collected in three main steps. First, eight researchers were brought together for a stakeholder mapping activity to identify the key stakeholders behind the circular bioeconomy innovation initiatives in the agri-food waste system in Reunion Island. Based on the results of this mapping, we interviewed 38 representative stakeholders (Table 1). Citizen initiatives have not been identified in this case, but they could certainly be relevant to this diagnostic.

From May to June 2023, a total of 44 semi-structured interviews were conducted, lasting between 1h30 and 2 hours. Our interview guide featured open-ended questions to allow greater freedom of expression for the respondents. The interview was structured in two parts (Olivier de Sardan, 2009): the first part focused on the participants' representations of the concept of circular bioeconomy, explored its role and the limitations associated with its implementation in the agri-food waste system in Reunion Island. The second part examined the nature of the stakeholders and the innovation initiatives related to the circular bioeconomy they support. The interviews also allowed us to collect extensive data on the context that led to the emergence and establishment of these initiatives, including the resources used, and the nature and roles of the stakeholders involved.

## 3.3. Data analysis

The interviews were anonymized, and the information collected during the surveys was manually transcribed. The data was triangulated to provide a comprehensive overview of the complex situations encountered (Fusch et al., 2018; Saunders et al., 2018). We used it to test the validity of an individual's statements (Flick, 2011; Olivier de Sardan, 2009). In addition, we conducted a thematic analysis by grouping the information collected based on the ideal, material, and institutional dimensions of the territorial transformation.

The ideal dimension was primarily investigated by analyzing the interviewees' discourses. First, to identify the principles associated with their definitions of a circular bioeconomy according to the 9R framework proposed by Kirchherr et al. (2017): Refuse, Rethink, Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Refurbish, Remanufacture, Repurpose, Recycle, and Recover. We then counted the frequency of occurrences of the principles mentioned by the interviewees. Second, we analyzed the limitations to the implementation of circular bioeconomy in the agri-food waste system in Reunion Island. We also counted the frequency of occurrences of the limitations mentioned. The results were transformed into diagrams showing the frequency of the elements in the stakeholders' discourses, along with verbatim quotes<fnref n="2" /> to illustrate the key messages.

To understand how pathways for transitions through circular bioeconomy appear in the agri-food waste system, the material dimension was explored by studying the context of emergence and implementation of innovation initiatives. Here, the importance given to resources, along with the new collective dynamics emerging in the territoire to meet stakeholders needs, is reflected in the innovations developed by local stakeholders (François et al., 2013). This included characterizing the type of resources used and the stakeholders involved in its development. Consequently, each initiative served as a case study that represents a circular bioeconomy innovation and was classified into three main categories to capture the diversity of innovations developed within the territoire. Furthermore, to identify an innovation as a "niche innovation," we rely on MLP framework, describing the concept of niche as "a protected space where radical innovations emerge and develop before potentially transforming the dominant regime" (Geels, 2011). In that perspective, two criteria were used to categorize innovations as either niche or regime innovations. The first and most important criterion is the degree of radicality<fnref n="3" /> of the innovation. Niche innovation is often developed through experimental approaches and is characterized by a high degree of radicality, requiring profound institutional adjustments contrary to innovation anchored in dominant regime involving incremental changes. Our second criterion is the position of the stakeholder developing the innovation. In the MLP framework, niches are often driven by alternative stakeholders operating within small networks, whereas innovations embedded within regimes are generally led by stakeholders already anchored in well-established networks.

Finally, to explore the institutional dimension, we focused on the contribution of public actions, particularly the role of public stakeholders, regulations, and norms that operate at the territorial level in the emergence and implementation of these innovation initiatives. We therefore asked project leaders whether they had received public funding for their projects, and how public policies, regulations, and norms had influenced its initiatives. Furthermore, we examined the specific contributions of stakeholders to the projects, focusing on the stages at which they were involved throughout the innovation development process. To complement these findings, we also consulted non-peer-reviewed sources such as institutional documents.

<footnote n="2">² The authors translated the statements from French</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Here, we draw on the work of Van Driel and Schot (2005) who proposed a definition of radical innovation that was later integrated into MLP framework. Unlike incremental innovation, which enhances current practices without questioning the underlying system, radical innovation can open new sociotechnical trajectories by disrupting established systems and creating space for alternative practices. As a result, making a distinction between radical innovation and incremental innovation is not easy and requires a deep understanding of how the dominant system operates, as well as of the ongoing alternatives emerging within the territoire.</footnote>
# 4. Results

## 4.1. The ideal dimension: the stakeholders' representations of the roles in and the limitations to the operationalization of circular bioeconomy

All the stakeholders surveyed said that they had heard of the concept of circular economy or circular bioeconomy, although they did not necessarily associate them with each other. Six of the 9R principles in Kirchherr et al.'s (2017) framework about the role of circular bioeconomy were mentioned by the stakeholders (Fig. 1). "Rethink" was the most frequently mentioned principle (32 times). Rethink was associated with: (i) rethinking the new use of resources: "it's about promoting local biomass to reduce the island's external dependency", interview 13; (ii) rethinking the reorganization of stakeholders among themselves: "It's the local economy with the fewest intermediaries possible" interview 9; (iii) rethinking consumers' lifestyles: "It starts with the consumer", interview 6. The principle "reduce" was mentioned 9 times, focused on reducing the production of waste and greenhouse gas emissions: "It's about reducing waste, using the least resources upstream," interview 16. "Repurpose" was also mentioned 9 times: "It's about reinjecting waste into product use loops," interview 7. Finally, the principles of "Reuse," "Remanufacture" and "Recycle", were the least frequently mentioned. The analysis of the stakeholders' representations also revealed very few explicit mentions of the term biomass in their definitions.

Our analysis of the discourses also allowed us to identify five main limitations to the operationalization of the concept of circular bioeconomy (Fig. 2). The most frequently mentioned limitation (17 times) concerned the lack of suitable processing and valorization pathways for residual biomasses on the island. We interpreted this as being linked to a lack of: (i) human resources, as mentioned in interview 36: "We would need new jobs and skills to valorize waste"; (ii) material resources, related to the volume of biomass mentioned in interview 23: "Having such a large volume of biomass makes its distribution more challenging". Conversely, have too little biomass and the geographical dispersion of deposits would result in: "high cost of waste treatment" interview 17. The second most frequently mentioned limitation (12 times) is that the benefits of increased circularity of biomasses remain too vague for some stakeholders: "What's the advantage for farmers of getting involved in a circular bioeconomy? It just adds one more constraint", interview 2. This ambiguity increased when thinking about the circular bioeconomy in a territoire: "What about the hierarchy of uses, biomass for energy or food?" interview 7. The third most frequently mentioned limitation (6 times) concerned the lack of data and agronomic references that would promote the agricultural use of biomass: "There aren't any studies of our soils and of the nutritional value of biomass used as fertilizer", interview 3. The fourth limitation mentioned (5 times) referred to regulations that the interviewees perceived as being insufficient: "There is a gap between what is written in the text and what happens in reality", interview 14. Finally, the competitiveness of the circular economic model compared to the dominant linear model (5 times) was also considered to be a limitation to the development of circularity: "The world is still too globalized and linear and only responds to the law of the market", interview 28; "Farmers tend to go for what is easiest for them", interview 17. All the limitations cited by the respondents once again emphasize the fact that the framework and implementation of a circular bioeconomy in agri-food waste systems are complex.

## 4.2. The material dimension: a diversity of innovations grouped under three main categories of circular bioeconomy initiatives

We identified 40 circular bioeconomy innovation initiatives in the agri-food waste system on Reunion Island mainly embedded in the dominant socio-technical regime, plus a few in niches. Our analysis of the material dimension of the initiatives enabled us to distinguish three main categories of innovation initiatives that contribute to transitions through circular bioeconomy (Table 2): (i) replacing imported materials by local or more renewable ones, (ii) increasing the consumption of local food products, and (iii) enhancing circularity by increasing the recycling of organic matter.

Category (i) innovation initiative is supported by both public and private stakeholders. Firstly, agricultural cooperatives are trying to find alternatives for materials imported from other territoires. This is exemplified by the creation of a 'fodder bank' where two cattle cooperatives and a pastoral association are trying to coordinate storage of some of the fodder produced during the rainy season. The aim is to anticipate the needs of breeders in order to reduce the purchase of imported feed concentrates in the dry season (Achard,

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1.** Frequency of mentions of circular bioeconomy principles according to the stakeholders interviewed.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. Limitations mentioned by stakeholders.</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**Table 2**</caption>

Diversity of circular bioeconomy innovation initiatives in the agri-food waste system in Reunion Island.

<table><thead><tr><th>Categories of innovation initiatives</th><th>Replace imported materials by local or more renewable materials</th><th>Increase consumption of local food products</th><th>Strengthen circularity by increasing organic matter recycling</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Niche innovations</strong></td><td>Alternatives to horticultural peat, Animal bedding made from sugarcane straw, Production of organic sugarcane and rum</td><td>Creation of a label guaranteeing the local origin of meat, Construction of a local sales outlet, territorial food projects, Raising awareness of organic and local food in schools</td><td>Production of fertilizer from fish waste</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Innovations anchored in dominant regimes</strong></td><td>

2019). Other organizational innovations are underway, such as the creation of a digital platform by an association of agro-industries that lists sources of available agro-industrial biomass deposits and connects stakeholders interested in valorizing them. Among the technical innovations we identified, is a local biodegradable mulch that can be used in market gardens instead of imported plastic mulch, and bedding for poultry that can be made of sugarcane straw or of the wood shavings produced by local sawmills. In 2023, a major stakeholder in the island's energy sector stopped using coal, that was previously used for half the year to generate electricity and replaced it by imported wood pellets, a co-product of the wood industry that may not be local, but is at least renewable. Similarly, a horticultural association, has stopped using imported peat, a fossil organic material, as a support for cuttings, and is now using a mixture of local compost.

Category (ii) innovation initiatives identified aims to change consumers' eating habits by encouraging more consumption of local products. These initiatives are mainly piloted by stakeholders involved in dominant regimes, particularly public stakeholders, especially by means of awareness raising actions. Territorial food projects are a good example, as they are organized by local authorities, including municipalities. The coordinators of these projects aim to bring consumers and producers closer together through school gardens, community gardens, waste sorting, tasting of 'légumes lontans' (traditional Creole vegetables), as well as by supplying school cafeterias with local products. These awareness raising actions encourage circular bioeconomy initiatives. In the case of composting projects in schools, awareness is a lever to overcome existing obstacles via social acceptance. Other initiatives are led by private stakeholders, one example being a livestock cooperative that is creating local outlets for direct sales from the slaughterhouse, thus bypassing large retailers. Reducing intermediaries makes locally produced meat cheaper for consumers plus reduces the need for transport and plastic packaging. Lastly, a label has been created by interprofessional livestock structures to promote the consumption of locally produced meat.

Category (iii) innovation initiatives concern strengthening the territoire circularity through the valorization of local organic matter by anaerobic digestion and (co)-composting units. The stakeholders involved in this category mainly belong to the dominant socio-technical regime, in particular, livestock cooperatives and waste treatment sectors. The challenges involved in managing the livestock effluents produced on farms are driving these stakeholders to innovate. Indeed, livestock cooperatives support their members in both individual and collective initiatives for composting livestock effluents and separating the phases of pig slurry. This includes potential economic valorization through the sale of effluents transformed into amendments and fertilizers. The shredded green waste produced by the waste treatment sectors can be mixed with livestock effluents to produce compost. Thus, the expansion of composting not only concerns the agricultural sector but also the urban sector, the most recent example being the composting of leftovers from school meals. Another initiative led by stakeholders from the dominant socio-technical regime aims to bring together stakeholders from the livestock and plant sectors in a committee to promote knowledge sharing, the pooling of skills, and to encourage the
valorization of livestock effluents. This category also includes minority niche innovation initiatives, like the one led by a startup that produces agricultural fertilizer from fish waste. Finally, public research organizations also contribute to the production of the data needed to support this circular bioeconomy dynamic by valorizing local organic materials.

### 4.3. *The institutional dimension: the role of public action in the emergence and implementation of circular bioeconomy innovation initiatives*

Our study shows that at different levels (national, regional and local authorities), public action initiated by public agencies plays a significant role in the implementation of policies at the territorial level thanks to their capacity to mobilize local stakeholders in transitions dynamics. For example, through the Environmental Planning and Housing Agency (DEAL Reunion, 2021), the State co-ordinated the development of a 'Roadmap for a Circular Economy (French acronym FREC). The roadmap highlights: (i) the concept of circular economy in the territoire, and (ii) the objectives of the circular economy through 50 measures aimed at reducing resource consumption and waste production by 2030. However, both the contours of the concept and its operationalization in the territoire still seem to be too vague, for example, among all the measures, only one mentions the use of local biomass. The regional authority and the local administration also play an important role in the transitions through circular bioeconomy as they manage European and national funds. These funds allow the financing of individual and collective innovation initiatives. The regional authority and the local administration also fund research and transfer initiatives aimed at building locally adapted knowledge to facilitate the development of other circular bioeconomy innovation initiatives in the territoire, and additionally, play a role in connecting stakeholders and providing assistance with administrative procedures related to project development.

At another level, local public stakeholders participate to the development of circular bioeconomy by providing financial support and assistance to initiatives aimed at changing consumer behavior. Public actions also contribute to the development of circular bioeconomy through regulatory frameworks. For example, the General Tax on Polluting Activities (French acronym TGAP<fnref n="4" />) and the Household Waste Collection Tax (French acronym TEOM<fnref n="5" />) encourage waste sector stakeholders to adopt a circular model by increasing recycling rates for waste that is typically landfilled or incinerated. Similarly, Installations Classified for Environmental Protection (ICPE<fnref n="6" />) standards define maximum doses of effluents to be spread on agricultural land, prompting farmers to seek alternative solutions for managing their livestock effluents (e.g., co-composting with green waste, phase separation, anaerobic digestion). Furthermore, starting in 2024, a new requirement for source separation of organic waste, decrees that all producers of waste, including households, businesses, and local authorities, find solutions like composting or anaerobic digestion to recycle their organic waste (*Direction de l'information légale et administrative, 2024*).

## 5. Discussion: contributions of MLP and territorial transformation frameworks to better understand transition through circular bioeconomy in the agri-food waste system

### 5.1. *Transitions primarily driven by stakeholders embedded in dominant regimes*

In the agri-food waste system of Reunion Island, niche innovations offer opportunities for transitions through circular bioeconomy. However, these transitions are mainly driven by stakeholders who are embedded in the dominant sociotechnical regimes. Our findings provide a perspective that contrasts with studies emphasizing the significant role of niches in innovation processes (e.g., (Geels, 2020)). Indeed, in Reunion Island's agri-food waste system, circular bioeconomy innovations emerge thanks to stakeholders who leverage networks that are already well-established in the territoire. Several factors may explain these conclusions. The first is related to our methodology. It is more difficult to identify stakeholders developing niche innovations at the specific moment of the diagnostic rather than through continuous monitoring, as innovation anchored in regimes tend to be more stabilized. The second reason stems from the conceptual framework of the MLP, which draws a relatively strict distinction between niches and regimes. However, when studying the bioeconomy within agri-food waste systems, this dichotomy appears less clear-cut, as multiple sociotechnical systems are involved in the valorization of the same biomass (e.g., energy, food, agriculture, and waste management) (Vlahos et al., 2017). This specificity immediately complicates the delineation of the innovation system, which contrasts, for instance, with socio-ecological approaches that rely on more tangible spatial boundaries (Smith and Stirling, 2010). Then, the third reason is linked to the oligopolistic structure of island territoire markets, which provides significant advantages to these stakeholders, allowing them to quickly secure and establish their innovations (Deidda, 2016). The specific structuration of these regimes thus allows for the selection of particular innovations (Hermet & Rochoux, 2014).

Among the stakeholders embedded in dominant regimes, inter-professional plant and livestock organizations play a crucial role in supporting innovation initiatives. These institutionalized organizations advocate for the shared interests of local sector stakeholders

<footnote n="4">⁴ The General Tax on Polluting Activities will increase from €25 to €65 per ton of waste produced from 2022 to 2025 (Joulin, 2021)</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ The Household Waste Collection Tax is a local tax that municipalities can levy to fund the collection and treatment of household waste. The amount of this tax increases if the quantity of waste produced by the household increases (*Direction de l'information légale et administrative, 2024*).</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ Installations Classified for Environmental Protection (Ministère de la transition écologique, 2019)</footnote>
against external market pressures, contingent on member contributions. As central players in the transformation of transitions in the agri-food system, they hold a strategic position in mediating compromises between the needs of the public and private sectors (Bodiguel, 2017). This observation aligns with a growing body of literature emphasizing the role of intermediary<sup>7</sup> actors as key enablers and catalysts in sustainability transitions. In particular, the work of Kivimaa et al. (2019) established a typology of five categories of intermediaries. Agricultural inter-professional organizations can be associated with the category of "regime-based transition intermediaries". Indeed, by maintaining strong connections with public institutions, they are able to foster an enabling environment for innovation development, thereby playing an incremental and reformist practical action in transition dynamics (Kivimaa, 2014). In contrast, industrial structures, which have primarily been studied in the energy sector, operate with a sectoral and horizontal coordination (Parag and Janda, 2014). However, agricultural inter-professional organizations distinguish themselves by vertically integrating value chains, and focusing on aligning the interests of various stakeholders, from producers to consumers (Szabó et al., 2005). For example, in our case study, they coordinate the implementation of technical (e.g., shared facilities for slaughtering and waste processing) and funding solutions (e.g., POSEI<sup>8</sup>) to enhance the innovation capacity of agricultural cooperatives but also involve consumers in consultation workshops. Consequently, agricultural inter-professional contribute directly to the selection and stabilization of innovations within dominant regimes. In contrast, niche stakeholders, who are not part of these networks, often face project delays and, at times, are obliged to abandon their initiatives.

## 5.2. From territorial transformation to governance of transitions: toward reconfigurations of dominant regimes

The simultaneous analysis of the ideal, material, and institutional dimensions provides initial insights to understand the governance of territorial transitions (Leloup et al., 2023; Pachoud et al., 2022; Rey-Valette et al., 2011). Our study revealed that, in its materiality, the transitions through circular bioeconomy in the agri-food waste system of Reunion Island are supported by a wide diversity of innovation initiatives that underpin three main trajectories for the territoire: (i) the replacement of imported materials by local or more renewable ones; (ii) increasing consumption of local food products; and (iii) the improvement of the island's circularity thanks to the increase in organic matter recycling. The original territorial approach we use allowed us to trace the pathways of transitions through circular bioeconomy by integrating multiple sectors constituting the agri-food waste system. Within each category, the identified innovations directly contribute to transformative changes at the territorial level. These innovations have replaced established practices that were deeply embedded in stakeholders' routines and habits. This includes the substitution of previously imported materials such as charcoal, plastic mulch, compost, fodder, fertilizers, pesticides, or animal bedding, either by producing them locally or by sourcing more sustainable alternatives. Some initiatives also promote shifts in consumption practices by encouraging citizens to reduce food waste and to consume more locally produced goods. Other innovations have led to significant changes in biowaste management, moving away from landfilling or incineration toward recycling practices such as composting or methanization. They also include new approaches to livestock effluent management that help prevent soil over-fertilization and reduce environmental risks. Altogether, these emerging innovations serve as significant markers of change and contribute directly to new model of coordination and resource valorization, thereby fostering regime reconfigurations.

The analysis of the institutional dimension highlighted the significant role played by public stakeholders. These stakeholders operate at different levels (State, local authorities, and municipalities) and encourage the emergence of initiatives. On one hand, they establish standards that encourage and/or require the implementation of initiatives (Horbach et al., 2012; Yue et al., 2022), while providing administrative and financial support for projects. On the other hand, they participate to anchor the concept of circular bioeconomy by reshaping stakeholders' perceptions and behaviors through projects involving citizen mobilization (e.g., awareness activities against food waste in territorial food projects) and the implementation of incentive and regulatory measures. Here, the TGAP as an incentive mechanism, encourage stakeholders to move away from landfill disposal and to seek new ways to valorize waste. Meanwhile, the ICPE standards impose a strict legal framework on agricultural activities that may pose environmental risks (e.g., pollution, nuisances). By requiring stakeholders to reduce their environmental impacts or implement specific waste management systems, these regulations encourage the adoption of more sustainable solutions, such as the recycling of organic waste and sharing waste treatment equipments (e.g., composting platforms, anaerobic digestion units). Paradoxically, the analysis of the ideal dimension highlighted two essential points. According to the representations of the stakeholders, transitions through circular bioeconomy are hampered by lack of coordination among the different components of regimes. This could be due to regulations deemed to be unsuitable for the local context or the lack of competitiveness of a circular model, which hampers the development of local recycling sectors, thus corroborating the findings of Rótolo et al. (2022). Secondly, as highlighted in the work of Allain et al. (2022), stakeholders recognize circular bioeconomy as a useful concept for rethinking the territoire. However, the contours of its operationalization to collectively engage the transitions of agri-food waste systems remain unclear. These elements raise concerns about the lack of a suitable framework for agri-food waste systems, particularly those in island contexts, which are characterized by a strong dependence

<footnote n="7"><sup>7</sup> Kivimaa et al. (2019) define intermediary actors as : “stakeholders and platforms that positively influence sustainability transition processes by linking stakeholders and activities, and their related skills and resources, or by connecting transition visions and demands of networks of stakeholders with existing regimes in order to create momentum for socio-technical system change, to create new collaborations within and across niche technologies, ideas and markets, and to disrupt dominant unsustainable socio-technical configurations”.</footnote>

<footnote n="8"><sup>8</sup> The Programme of Options Specific to Remoteness and Insularity ('Programme d'Options Spécifiques à l'Éloignement et à l'Insularité' POSEI) is a European program designed for the outermost regions of the European Union. It aims to support agricultural development by providing subsidies to finance local sectors and offering assistance to reduce the costs of importing certain products (DAAF, 2022).</footnote>
on imported resources, already scarce local resources, and a high potential for competition over biomass uses. Thus, the main challenge faced by transitions through circular bioeconomy in agri-food waste systems is the co-construction of a territorial governance that will enable greater coherence among the various components of the regimes.

## 6. Conclusion

Circular bioeconomy offers an opportunity to engage in transitions toward more sustainable agri-food waste systems. This is particularly true in territoire marked by rapid population growth, ever increasing pressure on resources, and the notable interdependence of biomass uses. Based on the complementary frameworks of MLP and territorial transformation, this article aims to enhance the understanding of the transition through circular bioeconomy in the agri-food waste system on Reunion Island. This work identifies stakeholders' perceptions of the circular bioeconomy concept and the challenges to its operationalization, explores the diversity of innovation initiatives, examines the conditions for their emergence, and the role of public stakeholders in its development.

Firstly, our results highlight the diversity of innovation initiatives present in the agri-food waste system in Reunion Island. In particular, in an insular territoire, the circular bioeconomy is materialized through: (i) the replacement of imported materials by local or more renewable ones; (ii) an increase in food consumption of local products; and (iii) the strengthening of the island's circularity through the development of organic matter recycling. Secondly, due to the privileged position held by certain private stakeholders within the regimes, they emerge as the main proponents of innovation initiatives through circular bioeconomy. Public stakeholders also play a key role in regime reconfiguration by supporting the emergence of initiatives through incentive and regulatory frameworks, awareness campaigns, the strengthening of local networks, and the development of scientific references adapted to the territoire. However, analysis of the ideal dimension revealed that the advantages and contours for the operationalization of the circular bioeconomy concept remain vague. The lack of articulation and coherence among the various components of the regimes thus constitutes the main constraint to the diffusion of the circular bioeconomy on Reunion Island.

To move forward, this study would benefit from a complementary analysis focusing on the informal rules and norms established by stakeholders as recommended by the territorial transformation framework and analysis of its institutional dimension. Furthermore, it would benefit from a deeper exploration of the political dimension. In particular, it would be relevant to investigate whether the development of innovations has contributed to the emergence of conflicts within the territoire, or whether power dynamics have favored the emergence of certain innovations at the expense of others. This also involves identifying the interests of both dominant and alternative stakeholders engaged in these transitions, analyzing the narratives they promote, and examining the barriers to a deep transformation of the agri-food waste system.

Given the increasing value of different kinds of biomass, analyzing usage conflicts and possible compromises for building a genuine synergy between activities is a promising research avenue. Finally, regarding public policy, our results confirm the importance of continuing to work on co-constructing an operationalizable reference framework for circular bioeconomy to support the transitions of agri-food waste systems in island territoires.

### CRediT authorship contribution statement

Clement Jacquet: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Tiago Teixeira Da Silva Siqueira: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Validation, Supervision, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization.

### Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:

Tiago Teixeira da Silva Siqueira reports financial support was provided by French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development (CIRAD). Clement Jacquet reports a relationship with French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development (CIRAD) that includes: employment. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

### Acknowledgements

The authors express their gratitude to Jean-Philippe Choisis and Kassi Ange Emmanuel Kouadio for help with earlier versions of this paper. This research was edited in the framework agreement between Cirad, Région Réunion, Département de La Réunion and the French Ministry of Agriculture and Food (DAAF), within the project "Compromis en Agriculture pour un Territoire Durable" (CAP-TERRE), financed by the European Union and Région Réunion in FEDER Program. This work was co-funded by the French Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME).

### Supplementary materials

Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.eist.2025.101038.
# Data availability

The data that has been used is confidential.

# References

Achard, P., 2019. Spatialisation des Flux de Fourrages Pour la Mise en Place D'une Filière Fourragère Structurée à L'échelle de La Réunion 4.

ADEME, 2022. I. mpact environnemental de l'alimentation en Outre-Mer - Réunion [WWW Document]. La librairie ADEME. URL https://librairie.ademe.fr/consommer-autrement/5680-impact-environnemental-de-l-alimentation-en-outre-mer-reunion.html (Accessed 20 April 2024).

ADEME, 2023. Outre-mer: une autonomie alimentaire limitée | vie-publique.Fr [WWW Document]. URL http://www.vie-publique.fr/en-bref/290380-outre-mer-une-autonomie-alimentaire-limitee (Accessed 14 September 2023).

Agorah, 2024. OBSERVATOIRE RÉUNIONNAIS DES DÉCHETS. AGORAH Agence d'urbanisme de La Réunion. URL https://www.agorah.com/index.php/observatoire-reunionnais-des-dechets/ (Accessed 7 October 2024).

Albioma, 2023. La Réunion - Albioma [WWW Document]. URL https://www.albioma.com/implantation/la-reunion/ (Accessed 19 April 2023).

Alexandre, M., 2013. La rigueur scientifique du dispositif méthodologique d'une étude de cas multiple. Rechqual 32, 26-56. https://doi.org/10.7202/1084611ar.

Allain, S., Ruault, J.-F., Moraine, M., Madelrieux, S., 2022. The 'bioeconomics vs bioeconomy' debate: beyond criticism, advancing research fronts. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 42, 58-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.11.004.

Alvanitakis, M., Kerdodé, C., Versini, A., Conrozier, R., Vayssières, J., 2023. Bilan des Gisements de MAFORs et Des Besoins Des Cultures à L'échelle des Communes de La Réunion en Vue de L'autonomisation en Fertilisants de l'île [WWW Document]. URL https://agritrop.cirad.fr/608131/ (Accessed 7 October 2024).

Amblard, L., Berthomé, G.-E.-K., Houdart, M., Lardon, S., 2018. L'action collective dans les territoires. Questions structurantes et fronts de recherche. Géogr. Écon. Soc. 20, 227-246. https://doi.org/10.3166/ges.20.2017.0032.

Andrew, E., Pigosso, D.C.A., 2024. Multidisciplinary perspectives on rebound effects in sustainability: a systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 470, 143366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143366.

Barles, S., Buclet, N., Billen, G., 2011. L'écologie territoriale: du métabolisme des sociétés à la gouvernance des flux d'énergie et de matières. In: Proceedings Du 1er Colloque International Du CIST. Collège International des Sciences du Territoire (CIST). Paris, France, pp. 16-22.

Biaggio, C., Koop, K., Pachoud, C., Noûs, C., 2025. Territoire, pp. 144-160. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119753995.ch9.

Bodiguel, L., 2017. L'expérience française au service du développement des interproifications agricoles dans l'Union européenne. Rev. l'Union Eur. 261.

Brand, U., Wissen, M., 2017. Social-ecological transformation. International Encyclopedia of Geography. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118786352.wiebg0690.

Brennetot, A., Didelon-Loiseau, C., 2024. Représenter le Territoire: Concepts, Définitions, Construction, Espace Et Territoires. Presses universitaires de Rennes, Rennes.

Brookes, L., 1990. The greenhouse effect: the fallacies in the energy efficiency solution. Energy Policy 18, 199-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-4215(90)90145-T.

Buclet, N., Donsimoni, M., 2021. Dossier «L'économie circulaire: modes de gouvernance et développement territorial» – métabolisme territorial et capabilités: une articulation entre enjeux économiques et écologiques. Nat. Sci. Soc. 28. https://doi.org/10.1051/nss/2020035.

Castro, C.G., Trevisan, A.H., Pigosso, D.C.A., Mascarenhas, J., 2022. The rebound effect of circular economy: definitions, mechanisms and a research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 345, 131136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131136.

Chodkowska-Miszczuk, J., Martinát, S., van der Horst, D., 2021. Changes in feedstocks of rural anaerobic digestion plants: external drivers towards a circular bioeconomy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 148, 111344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111344.

Département de la Réunion. 2019. Agripei 2030: Un Modèle Agricole Ambitieux Pour La Réunion [WWW Document]. URL https://www.departement974.fr/actualite/agripei-2030-un-modele-agricole-ambitieux-pour-reunion (Accessed 20 April 2023).

DAAF, 2022. POSEI [WWW Document]. URL https://daaf.reunion.agriculture.gouv.fr/posei-r390.html (Accessed 17 March 2023).

DAAF La Réunion-douanes, 2019. Extractions Base des Douanes Année 2018.

DAAF, A., 2021. Une Baisse des Volumes Importés en 2021.

DEAL Réunion, 2021. Feuille de Route Économie Circulaire (FREC) de La Réunion [WWW Document]. URL https://www.reunion.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/feuille-de-route-economie-circulaire-frec-de-la-a1023.html (Accessed 20 April 2023).

Debarbieux, B., 2008. Construits identitaires et imaginaires de la territorialité: variations autour de la figure du «montagnard». Ann. Géogr. 660661, 90-115. https://doi.org/10.3917/ag.660.0090.

Deidda, M., 2016. Insularity and economic development: a survey. Int. Rev. Econ. 63, 107-128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12232-015-0238-8.

Direction de l'information légale et administrative. 2024. Taxe ou Redevance D'enlèvement des Ordures Ménagères (TEOM ou REOM) | Service-public.Fr [WWW Document]. URL https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F22730 (Accessed 25 October 2024).

Dourmad, J.-Y., Guilbaud, T., Tichit †, M., Bonaudo, T., 2019. Les productions animales dans la bioéconomie. INRAE Prod. Anim. 32, 205-220. https://doi.org/10.20870/productions-animales.2019.32.2.2485.

European Commission, 2020. EUR-Lex - 52020DC0098 - EN - EUR-Lex [WWW Document]. URL https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1583933814386&uri=COM:2020:98: FIN (accessed 8.21.25).

FAO, 2021. The State of Food and Agriculture 2021. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb4476en.

Flick, U., 2011. Triangulation. In: Oelerich, G., Otto, H.-U. (Eds.), Empirische Forschung und Soziale Arbeit. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp. 323-328. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-92708-4_23.

François, H., Hirczak, M., Senil, N., 2013. De la ressource à la trajectoire: quelles stratégies de développement territorial? Géogr. Écon. Soc. 15, 267-284. https://doi.org/10.3166/ges.15.267-284.

Fusch, P., Fusch, G.E., Ness, L.R., 2018. (PDF) Denzin's Paradigm Shift: Revisiting Triangulation in Qualitative Research [WWW Document]. URL https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341373408_Denzins_Paradigm_Shift_Revisiting_Triangulation_in_Qualitative_Research (Accessed 25 October 2024).

Gabrielle, B., Barbottin, A., Wohlfahrt, J., 2018. The environmental impacts of non-food biomass production through land-use changes: scope, foci and methodology of current research. In: Réchauchère, O., Bispo, A., Gabrielle, B., Makowski, D. (Eds.), Sustainable Agriculture Reviews 30: Environmental Impact of Land Use Change in Agricultural Systems. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 39-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96289-4_3.

Gagnon, Y.-C., 2012. L'étude de Cas Comme Méthode de Recherche, 2e éd. Presses de l'Université du Québec. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv18ph7wf.

Geels, F.W., 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res. Policy 31, 1257-1274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8.

Geels, F.W., 2011. The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: responses to seven criticisms. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 1, 24-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002.

Geels, F.W., 2020. Micro-foundations of the multi-level perspective on socio-technical transitions: developing a multi-dimensional model of agency through crossovers between social constructivism, evolutionary economics and neo-institutional theory. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 152, 119894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119894.

Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., Ulgiati, S., 2016. A review on circular economy: the expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J. Clean. Prod. Towards Post Fossil Carbon Soc. 114, 11-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007.

Giampietro, M., Funtowicz, S.O., 2020. From elite folk science to the policy legend of the circular economy. Environ. Sci. Policy. 109, 64-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.04.012.

Hermet, F., Rochoux, J.-Y., 2014. Vie chère et pauvreté à La Réunion. Inf. Soc. 186, 90-97. https://doi.org/10.3917/inso.186.0090.

Hooghe, L., Marks, G., 2001. Multi-Level Governance and European Integration.
Horbach, J., Rammer, C., Rennings, K., 2012. Determinants of eco-innovations by type of environmental impact — the role of regulatory push/pull, technology push and market pull. Ecol. Econ. 78, 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.005.

Huang, J., Tichit, M., Poulot, M., Darly, S., Li, S., Petit, C., Aubry, C., 2015. Comparative review of multifunctionality and ecosystem services in sustainable agriculture. J. Environ. Manage. 149, 138–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.10.020.

Insee, 2022. Commerce Extérieur - Des Importations et Exportations Très Dynamiques en 2021 - Bilan Économique 2021 - La Réunion | Insee [WWW Document]. URL. https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/6451824?sommaire=6324763 (Accessed 15 December 2023).

Joulin, M., 2021. Tout Ce vous Devez Savoir sur la Hausse de la TGAP en 2022. UPCYCLE. URL. https://www.upcycle.org/tout-ce-vous-devez-savoir-sur-la-hausse-de-la-tgap/ (Accessed 4 August 2023).

Köhler, J., Geels, F.W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., Alkemade, F., Avelino, F., Bergek, A., Boons, F., Fünfschilling, L., Hess, D., Holtz, G., Hyysalo, S., Jenkins, K., Kivimaa, P., Martiskainen, M., McMeekin, A., Mühlemeier, M.S., Nykvist, B., Pel, B., Raven, R., Rohracher, H., Sandén, B., Schot, J., Sovacool, B., Turnheim, B., Welch, D., Wells, P., 2019. An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 31, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004.

Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., Hekkert, M., 2017. Conceptualizing the circular economy: an analysis of 114 definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 127, 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrecl.2017.09.005.

Kivimaa, P., Boon, W., Hyysalo, S., Klerkx, L., 2019. Towards a typology of intermediaries in sustainability transitions: a systematic review and a research agenda. In: Research Policy, New Frontiers in Science, Technology and Innovation Research from SPRU's 50th Anniversary Conference, 48, pp. 1062–1075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.006.

Kivimaa, P., 2014. Government-affiliated intermediary organisations as actors in system-level transitions. Res. Policy 43, 1370–1380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.02.007.

Kleinpeter, V., Alvanitakis, M., Vigne, M., Wassenaar, T., Lo Seen, D., Vayssières, J., 2023. Assessing the roles of crops and livestock in nutrient circularity and use efficiency in the agri-food waste system: A set of indicators applied to an isolated tropical island. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 188, 106663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrecl.2022.10.0663.

Lamine, C., 2012. «Changer de système»: une analyse des transitions vers l'agriculture biologique à l'échelle des systèmes agri-alimentaires territoriaux. Terrains Travaux 20, 139–156. https://doi.org/10.3917/tt.020.0139.

Leipold, S., Petit-Boix, A., Luo, A., Helander, H., Simoens, M., Ashton, W., Babbitt, C., Bala, A., Bening, C., Birkved, M., Blomsma, F., Boks, C., Boldrin, A., Deutz, P., Domenech, T., Ferronato, N., Gallego Schmid, A., Giurco, D., Hobson, K., Xue, B., 2021. Lessons, Narratives and Research Directions for a Sustainable Circular Economy. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs.429660/v1.

Leloup, F., Moyart, L., Pecqueur, B., 2023. Gouvernance, action publique et cohésion ou comment piloter nos territoires. La gouvernance territoriale: d'un mode de coordination à un processus de cohésion territoriale? Géogr. Econ. Soc. 25, 145–161. https://doi.org/10.3166/ges.2023.0007.

Lewandowski, I., 2015. Securing a sustainable biomass supply in a growing bioeconomy. Glob. Food Sec. 6, 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2015.10.001.

Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N., Avelino, F., 2017. Sustainability Transitions research: transforming science and practice for societal change. Annu Rev. Environ. Resour. 42, 599–626. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021340.

Madelrieux, S., 2023. Bioéconomie et Économie Circulaire: Lecture Critique et Place de l'élevage | INRAE Productions Animales [WWW Document]. URL. https://productions-animaux.org/article/view/7430# (Accessed 16 August 2023).

Martin-Ferrari, D., 2020. Économie Circulaire, le Passage à l'acte a Commence! 20.

Ministère de la transition écologique, 2019. Tout Savoir Sur les ICPE [WWW Document]. URL. https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/politiques-publiques/savoir-icpe-nomenclature-gestion-declaration (Accessed 25 October 2024).

Muchnik, J., Lopez, E., 1997. Petites Entreprises et Grands Enjeux: le Développement Agroalimentaire Local - L'Harmattan - Torrossa [WWW Document]. URL. https://www.torrossa.it/tresources/an/5123297 (Accessed 26 March 2025).

Napolitano, G., Bizzarri, G., Micaud, J., 2016. How sustainability is addressed in official bioeconomy strategies at international, national and regional levels, 48.

Ntsondé, J., 2020. Entre Utopie et Action Collective, Comment Accompagner la Transition des Territoires vers L'économie Circulaire?: Le Cas de la Commande Publique dans le Secteur de la Construction. Regulation. https://doi.org/10.4000/regulation.19199.

Olivier de Sardan, J.-P., 2009. Jean-Pierre OLIVIER DE SARDAN, La rigueur du qualitatif. Les contraintes empiriques de l'interprétation socio-anthropologique. Bulletin Amades. Anthropologie Médicale Appliquée au Développement Et à la Santé https://doi.org/10.4000/amades.1080.

Pachoud, C., Koop, K., 2024. Comment analyser les transformations soutenables dans les territoires? Application de la perspective multidimensionnelle de transformation territoriale au Coeur des Bauges. Géogr. Econ. Soc. 26, 301–324. https://doi.org/10.1684/ges.2024.12.

Pachoud, C., Koop, K., George, E., 2022. Societal transformation through the prism of the concept of territoire: a French contribution. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 45, 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2022.10.001.

Parag, Y., Janda, K.B., 2014. More than filler: middle actors and socio-technical change in the energy system from the “middle-out”. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 3, 102–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.07.011.

Philp, J., 2018. Realising the Circular Bioeconomy.

Rótolo, G.C., Vassillo, C., Rodriguez, A.A., Magnano, L., Milo Vaccaro, M., Civit, B.M., Covacevich, M.S., Arena, A.P., Ulgiati, S., 2022. Perception and awareness of circular economy options within sectors related to agriculture in Argentina. J. Clean. Prod. 373, 133805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133805.

Rahman, S., 2022. Can the Caribbean Localize its Food System? Exploring Strategies to Promote Circular Food Systems in the Caribbean islands. University of Waterloo.

Rey-Valette, H., Pinto, M., Maurel, P., Chia, E., Guihéneuf, P.-Y., Michel, L., Nougaredes, B., Soulard, C.-T., Jarrige, F., Guillemot, S., Cunnac, M., Mathé, S., Barbe, E., Ollagnon, M.-E., Delorme, G., Prouhèze, N., Laurent, A., Suita, L.-A., Bertrand, J., Dieudonné, C., Morvan, R., Champrigaud, A., 2011. Guide pour la Mise en Ouvre de la Gouvernance en Appui au Développement Durable des Territoires 155.

Rip, Kemp, 1998 Rip, A., Kemp, R., 1998. Technological change. In: Rayner, S., Malone, E.L. (Eds.), Human Choice and Climate Change, vol. 2. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, pp. 327–399.

Rockström, J., Gupta, J., Qin, D., Lade, S.J., Abrams, J.F., Andersen, L.S., Armstrong McKay, D.I., Bai, X., Bala, G., Bunn, S.E., Ciobanu, D., DeClerck, F., Ebi, K., Gifford, L., Gordon, C., Hasan, S., Kanie, N., Lenton, T.M., Loriani, S., Liverman, D.M., Mohamed, A., Nakicenovic, N., Obura, D., Ospina, D., Prodani, K., Rammelt, B., Sakschewski, B., Scholtens, J., Stewart-Koster, B., Tharammal, T., van Vuuren, D., Verburg, P.H., Winkelmann, R., Zimm, C., Bennett, E.M., Bringezu, S., Broadgate, W., Green, P.A., Huang, L., Jacobson, L., Ndehedehe, C., Pedde, S., Rocha, J., Scheffer, M., Schulte-Uebbing, L., de Vries, W., Xiao, C., Xu, C., Xu, X., Zafra-Calvo, N., Zhang, X., 2023. Safe and just Earth system boundaries. Nature 619, 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06083-8.

Rothaermel, F.T., 2001. Complementary assets, strategic alliances, and the incumbent's advantage: an empirical study of industry and firm effects in the biopharmaceutical industry. Res. Policy 30, 1235–1251. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00142-6.

Russel, V., 2023. Perspectives D'autonomisation Alimentaire-Electrique de l'île de La Réunion: Enseignements de la Modélisation Spatiale Dynamique et de L'anticipation Participative (phdthesis). Université de La Réunion.

Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H., Jinks, C., 2018. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual. Quant. 52, 1893–1907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8.

Smith, A., Stirling, A., 2010. The politics of social-ecological resilience and sustainable socio-technical transitions. Ecol. Soc. 15, 11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03218-150111.

Smith, A., 2007. Translating sustainabilities between green niches and socio-technical regimes. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manage 19, 427–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320701403334.

SPL énergie Réunion, 2022. Bilan Énergétique de La Réunion | Observatoire Énergie Réunion [WWW Document]. URL. https://oer.spl-horizonreunion.com/presentation-de-loer/nos-publications/bilan-energetique-de-la-reunion (Accessed 20 April 2024).

Stegmann, P., Londo, M., Junginger, M., 2020. The Circular Bioeconomy: its elements and role in European bioeconomy clusters. Resourc. Conserv. Recycl. X 6, 100029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crcx.2019.100029.
Székács, A., 2017. Environmental and ecological aspects in the overall assessment of bioeconomy. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 30, 153-170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-017-9651-1

Szabó, D., Gábor, Bardos, K., 2005. Vertical Coordination by Contracts in Agribusiness - An Empirical Research in the Hungarian Dairy Sector. Institute of Economics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

Toplicean, I.-M., Datcu, A.-D., 2024. An overview on bioeconomy in agricultural sector, biomass production, recycling methods, and circular economy considerations. Agriculture 14, 1143. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14071143.

Upadhayay, S., Alqassimi, O., Khashadourian, E., Sherm, A., Prajapati, D., 2024. Development in the Circular economy concept: systematic review in context of an umbrella framework. Sustainability 16, 1500. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16041500.

Urcoopa, 2019. Données Communiquées lors Dela Collecte de Données Réalisée Dans le Cadre du Projet GABIR.

Van Driel, H., Schot, J., 2005. Radical innovation as a multilevel process: introducing floating grain elevators in the port of Rotterdam. Technol. Cult. 46, 51-76. https://doi.org/10.1353/tech.2005.0011.

Vivien, F.-D., Nieddu, M., Befort, N., Debref, R., Giampietro, M., 2019. The hijacking of the bioeconomy. Ecol. Econ. 159, 189-197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.01.027.

Vlad, I.M., Toma, E., 2022. The assessment of the bioeconomy and biomass sectors in central and eastern European countries. Agronomy 12, 880. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12040880.

Vlahos, G., Karanikolas, P., Koutsouris, A., 2017. Integrated farming in Greece: a transition-to-sustainability perspective. Int. J. Agric. Resour. Govern. Ecol. 13, 43-59. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJARGE.2017.084033.

Wilde, K., Hermans, F., 2024. Transition towards a bioeconomy: comparison of conditions and institutional work in selected industries. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 50, 100814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2024.100814.

Wittmayer, J.M., Backhaus, J., Avelino, F., Pel, B., Strasser, T., Kunze, I., Zuijderwijk, L., 2019. Narratives of change: how social innovation initiatives construct societal transformation. Futures 112, 102433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2019.06.005.

Wohlfahrt, J., Ferchaud, F., Gabrielle, B., Godard, C., Kurek, B., Loyce, C., Therond, O., 2019. Characteristics of bioeconomy systems and sustainability issues at the territorial scale. A review. J. Clean. Prod. 232, 898-909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.385.

Yin, R.K., 2018. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods in SearchWorks Catalog [WWW Document]. URL https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/12326443 (Accessed 8 October 2024).

Yue, D., Sarkar, A., Guang, C., 2022. Impacts of incentive and disincentive mechanisms for ensuring environmentally friendly livestock waste management. Animals 12, 2121. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12162121.

Zink, T., Geyer, R., 2017. Circular economy rebound. J. Ind. Ecol. 21. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12545.