Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Communicating About Bioenergy Sustainability

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Defining and measuring sustainability of bioenergy systems are difficult because the systems are complex, the science is in early stages of development, and there is a need to generalize what are inherently context-specific enterprises. These challenges, and the fact that decisions are being made now, create a need for improved communications among scientists as well as between scientists and decision makers. In order for scientists to provide information that is useful to decision makers, they need to come to an agreement on how to measure and report potential risks and benefits of diverse energy alternatives in a way that allows decision makers to compare options. Scientists also need to develop approaches that contribute information about problems and opportunities relevant to policy and decision making. The need for clear communication is especially important at this time when there is a plethora of scientific papers and reports and it is difficult for the public or decision makers to assess the merits of each analysis. We propose three communication guidelines for scientists whose work can contribute to decision making: (1) relationships between the question and the analytical approach should be clearly defined and make common sense; (2) the information should be presented in a manner that non-scientists can understand; and (3) the implications of methods, assumptions, and limitations should be clear. The scientists’ job is to analyze information to build a better understanding of environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic aspects of the sustainability of energy alternatives. The scientific process requires transparency, debate, review, and collaboration across disciplines and time. This paper serves as an introduction to the papers in the special issue on “Sustainability of Bioenergy Systems: Cradle to Grave” because scientific communication is essential to developing more sustainable energy systems. Together these four papers provide a framework under which the effects of bioenergy can be assessed and compared to other energy alternatives to foster sustainability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baskaran L, Jager HI, Schweizer PE, Srinivasan R (2010) Progress toward evaluating the sustainability of switchgrass as a bioenergy crop using the SWAT model. Trans Am Soc Agric Biol Eng 53:1547–1556

    Google Scholar 

  • Bright RM, Cherubini F, Astrup R, Bird N, Cowie AL, Ducey MJ, Marland G, Pingoud K, Savolainen I, Stromman AH (2012) A comment to “large-scale bioenergy from additional harvest of forest biomass is neither sustainable nor greenhouse gas neutral”: important insights beyond greenhouse gas accounting. Glob Change Biol Bioenergy 4:617–619

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brundtland GH (ed) (1987) Our common future: the world commission on environment and development. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • CBES (Center for BioEnergy Sustainability, Oak Ridge National Laboratory) (2009) Sustainability of bioenergy systems: cradle to grave. Report from 2009 workshop. ORNL/CBES-002, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Center for BioEnergy Sustainability. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/ees/cbes/EPA/SBSWorkshop_Report.pdf. Accessed 9 Jan 2013

  • CBES (Center for BioEnergy Sustainability, Oak Ridge National Laboratory) (2010) Land-use change and bioenergy: report from the 2009 workshop, ORNL/CBES-001, US Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Center for BioEnergy Sustainability. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/ees/cbes/workshops/LandReportCover.pdf. Accessed 9 Jan 2013

  • CSBP (2012) Draft provisional standard for sustainable production of agricultural biomass. Council on Sustainable Biomass Production. http://www.csbp.org/CSBPStandard.aspx. Accessed 9 Jan 2013

  • Dale VH (2002) Science and decision making. In: Costanza R, Jorgensen SE (eds) Understanding and solving environmental problems in the 21st century: toward a new, integrated hard problem science. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 139–152

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dale VH, Brown S, Haeuber RA, Hobbs NT, Huntly N, Naiman RJ, Riebsame WE, Turner MG, Valone TJ (2000) Ecological principles and guidelines for managing the use of land. Ecol Appl 10:639–670

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale VH, Kling C, Meyer JL, Sanders J, Stallworth H, Armitage T, Wangsness D, Bianchi TS, Blumberg A, Boynton W, Conley DJ, Crumpton W, David MB, Gilbert D, Howarth RW, Lowrance R, Mankin K, Opaluch J, Paerl H, Reckhow K, Sharpley AN, Simpson TW, Snyder C, Wright D (2010) Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dale VH, Kline KL, Wright LL, Perlack RD, Downing M, Graham RL (2011) Interactions among bioenergy feedstock choices, landscape dynamics and land use. Ecol Appl 21:1039–1054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dale VH, Efroymson RA, Kline KL, Langholtz MH, Leiby PN, Oladosu GA, Davis MR, Downing ME, Hilliard MR (2013) Indicators for assessing socioeconomic sustainability of bioenergy systems: a short list of practical measures. Ecol Indic 26:87–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domac J, Richards LK, Risovic S (2005) Socio-economic drivers in implementing bioenergy projects. Conference: Joint IEA bioenergy workshop sustainable bioenergy production systems—environmental, operational and social implications. Belo Horizonte, Brazil

  • Efroymson RA, Dale VH, Bielicki J, McBride A, Smith R, Parish E, Schweizer P, Kline KL, Shaw D (2013) Environmental indicators of biofuel sustainability: what about context? Environ Manage. doi:10.1007/s00267-012-9907-5

  • Eisenbies MH, Vance ED, Aust WM, Seiler JR (2009) Intensive utilization of harvest residues in southern pine plantations: quantities available and implications for nutrient budgets and sustainable site productivity. Bioenergy Res 2:90–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) (2007) US Pub.L. 110-140. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h6enr.txt.pdf. Accessed 9 Jan 2013

  • Fischhoff B (2011) Applying the science of communication to the communication of science. Clim Change 108:701–705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gawande A (2002) Complications: a surgeon’s notes on an imperfect science. Cahners Business Information, Newton, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • GBEP (2011) The global bioenergy partnership sustainability indicators for bioenergy, 1st edn (final version, Dec 15, 2011). GBEP Secretariat, FAO, Environment, climate change and Bioenergy Division, Rome, Italy. ftp://ext-ftp.fao.org/nr/data/nrc/gbep/Report%2016%20December.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec 2011

  • Grainger A (2008) Difficulties in tracking the long-term global trend in tropical forest area. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:818–823

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hart Energy Consulting (2010) Land use change: science and policy review. Hart Energy Consulting, Houston, TX. http://www.hartenergyconsulting.com. Accessed 9 Jan 2013

  • Huertas A, Adler D (2012) Is news corp. failing science? Representations of climate science on Fox News Channel and in the Wall Street Journal Opinion. Union of Concerned Scientists. Cambridge, MA, USA. http://www.ucsusa.org/publications. Accessed 9 Jan 2013

  • Ice GG, Schilling E, Vowell J (2010) Trends in forestry best management practices implementation. J Forest 108:267–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Ince P (2010) Global sustainable timber supply and demand. In: Sustainable development in the forest products industry, Chap 2. Universidade Fernando Pessoa, Porto. pp. 29–41

  • IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2006) Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories: agriculture, forestry and other land use, vol 4

  • IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2011) IPCC Special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation. Prepared by working group III of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Seyboth K, Matschoss P, Kadner S, Zwickel T, Eickemeier P, Hansen G, Schlömer S, von Stechow C (eds) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2011) TC 248. Project committee: sustainability criteria for bioenergy. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_technical_committee?commid=598379. Accessed 9 Jan 2013

  • Johnson TL, Bielicki JM, Dodder RS, Hilliard MR, Kaplan PO, Miller CA (2013) Advancing sustainable bioenergy: evolving stakeholder interests and the relevance of research. Environ Manage. doi:10.1007/s00267-012-9884-8

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline KL, Dale VH, Lee R, Leiby P (2009) In defense of biofuels, done right. Issues Sci Technol 25(3):75–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline KL, Dale VH, Grainger A (2010) Challenges for bioenergy emission accounting. Science e-letter. 2 March 2010. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/326/5952/527#13024

  • Kline KL, Oladosu GA, Dale VH, McBride AC (2011) Scientific analysis is essential to assess biofuel policy effects: in response to the paper by Kim and Dale on “indirect land use change for biofuels: testing predictions and improving analytical methodologies”. Biomass Bioenergy 35:4488–4491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lattimore B, Smith T, Richardson J (2010) Coping with complexity: designing low-impact forest bioenergy systems using an adaptive forest management framework and other sustainable forest management tools. For Chron 86:20–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee JSH, Rist L, Obidzinski K, Ghazoul J, Koh LP (2011) No farmer left behind in sustainable biofuel production. Biol Conserv 144:2512–2516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynd LR, Aziz RA, Cruz CHD, Chimphango AFA, Cortez LAB, Faaij A, Greene N, Keller M, Osseweijer P, Richard TL, Sheehan J, Chugh A, van der Wielen L, Woods J, van Zyl WH (2011) A global conversation about energy from biomass: the continental conventions of the global sustainable bioenergy project. Interface Focus 1:271–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macrina FL (2011) Digitizing the coin of the realm. Am Sci 999:378–381

    Google Scholar 

  • Mastrandrea MD, Field CB, Stocker TF, Edenhofer O, Ebi KL, Frame DJ, Held H, Kriegler E, Mach KJ, Matschoss PR, Plattner G, Yohe GW, Zwiers FW (2010) Guidance note for lead authors of the IPCC fifth assessment report on consistent treatment of uncertainties. Intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC). http://www.ipcc.ch/. Accessed 9 Jan 2013

  • McBride A, Dale VH, Baskaran L, Downing M, Eaton L, Efroymson RA, Garten C, Kline KL, Jager H, Mulholland P, Parish E, Schweizer P, Storey J (2011) Indicators to support environmental sustainability of bioenergy systems. Ecol Ind 11:1277–1289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick K (2010) Communicating bioenergy: a growing challenge. Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefin 4:494–602

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan MG, Dowlatabadi H, Henrion M, Keith D, Lempert R, McBride S, Small M, Wilbanks T (2009) Best practice approaches for characterizing, communicating and incorporating scientific uncertainty in climate decision making. US Climate Change Science Program, Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.2. http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap5-2/final-report. Accessed 9 Jan 2013

  • Muth DJ, McCorkle DS, Koch JB, Bryden KM (2012) Modeling sustainable agricultural residue removal at the subfield scale. Agron J 104:970–981

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers IB (1987) Introduction to type. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC (National Research Council) (2010) Verifying greenhouse gas emissions: methods to support international climate agreements. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

  • Oladosu G, Kline KL, Martinez R, Eaton L (2011) Sources of corn for ethanol production in the United States: a review and decomposition analysis of the empirical data. Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefin 5:640–653

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Parish ES, Hilliard M, Baskaran LM, Dale VH, Griffiths NA, Mulholland PJ, Sorokine A, Thomas NA, Downing ME, Middleton R (2012) Multimetric spatial optimization of switchgrass plantings across a watershed. Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefin 6(1):58–72

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Parish E, Kline KL, Dale VH, Efroymson RA, McBride AC, Johnson T, Hilliard MR, Bielicki JM (2013) A multi-scale comparison of environmental effects from gasoline and ethanol production. Environ Manage. doi:10.1007/s00267-012-9983-6

  • Peck P, Bennett SJ, Bissett-Amess R, Lenhart J, Mozaffarian H (2009) Examining understanding, acceptance, and support for the biorefinery concept among EU policy-makers. Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefin 3:361–383

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pilgrim S, Harvey M (2010) Battles over biofuels in Europe: NGOs and the politics of markets. Sociol Res Online 15(3):4. doi:10.5153/sro.2192. http://www.socresonline.org.uk/15/3/4.html

  • Repo A, Kankanen R, Tuovinen JP, Antikainen R, Tuomi M, Vanhala P, Liski J (2012) Forest bioenergy climate impact can be improved by allocating forest residue removal. Glob Change Biol Bioenergy 4:202–212

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ridley CE, Clark CM, LeDuc SD, Bierwagen BG, Lin BB, Mehl A, Tobias DA (2012) Biofuels: network analysis of the literature reveals key environmental and economic unknowns. Environ Sci Technol 46:1309–1315

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson GP, Dale VH, Doering OC, Hamburg SP, Melillo JM, Wander MM, Parton WJ, Adler PR, Barney JN, Cruse RM, Duke CS, Fearnside PM, Follett RF, Gibbs HK, Goldemberg J, Mladenoff DJ, Ojima D, Palmer MW, Sharpley A, Wallace L, Weathers KC, Wiens JA, Wilhelm WW (2008) Sustainable biofuels redux. Science 322(5898):49–50. doi:10.1126/science.1161525

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rohracher H, Bogner T, Spath P, Faber F (2005) Improving the public perception of bioenergy in the EU. http://www.europa.nl/energy/res/sectors/doc/bioenergy/bioenergy_perception.pdf. Accessed 9 Jan 2013

  • RSB (2010) RSB principles and criteria. École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne. http://rsb.epfl.ch/files/content/sites/rsb2/files/Biofuels/Version2/PCsV2/10-11-12RSBPCsVersion2.pdf. Accessed 9 Jan 2013

  • Schmidt MWI, Torn MS, Abiven S, Dittmar T, Guggenberger G et al (2011) Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property. Nature 478:49–56

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sjolie HK, Latta GS, Adams DM, Solberg B (2011) Impacts of agent information assumptions in forest sector modeling. J For Econ 17:169–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Swartzman G (1996) Resource modeling moves into the courtroom. Ecol Model 92:277–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tannert C, Elvers HD, Jandrig B (2007) The ethics of uncertainty. In the light of possible dangers, research becomes a moral duty. EMBO Rep 8(10):892–896

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tieger PD, Barron-Tieger B (1992) Do what you are: discover the perfect career for you through the secrets of personality type. Little Brown & Co, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • US EPA SAB (Science Advisory Board) (2012) SAB review of EPA’s accounting framework for biogenic CO2 emissions from stationary sources. A framework for assessing and reporting on ecological condition. Report EPA-SAB-12-011. http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/WebReportsLastFiveBOARD/57B7A4F1987D7F7385257A87007977F6/$File/EPA-SAB-12-011-unsigned.pdf. Accessed 9 Jan 2013

  • van Dam J, Junginger M, Faaij A, Jurgens I, Best G, Fritsche U (2008) Overview of recent developments in sustainable biomass certification. Biomass Bioenergy 32:749–780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Velde L, Verbeke W, Popp M, Van Huylenbroeck G (2010) The importance of message framing for providing information about sustainability and environmental aspects of energy. Energy Policy 38:5541–5549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Velde L, Vandermeulen V, Van Huylenbroeck G, Verbeke W (2011) Consumer information (in) sufficiency in relation to biofuels: determinants and impact. Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefin 5:125–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke W (2007) Consumer attitudes toward genetic modification and sustainability: implications for the future of biorenewables. Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefin 1:215–225

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wicke B, Verweij P, van Meijl H, van Vuuren DP, Paaij APC (2012) Indirect land use change: review of existing models and strategies for mitigation. Biofuels 3(1):87–100

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wilhere GF (2009) Three paradoxes of habitat conservation plans. Environ Manage 44:1089–1098

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was partially supported by the US Department of Energy (DOE) under the Biomass Technologies Office. Oak Ridge National Laboratory is managed by the UT-Battelle, LLC, for DOE under Contract DE-AC05-00OR22725. Comments from Rebecca Efroymson, Matt Langholtz, and three anonymous reviewers were very helpful. Dr. Frederick O’Hara edited an earlier version of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Bethel Valley Road, P.O. Box 2008, Oak Ridge, TN, 37831-6036, USA

    Virginia H. Dale & Keith L. Kline

  2. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA

    Donna Perla

  3. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, USA

    Al Lucier

Authors
  1. Virginia H. Dale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Keith L. Kline
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Donna Perla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Al Lucier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Virginia H. Dale.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dale, V.H., Kline, K.L., Perla, D. et al. Communicating About Bioenergy Sustainability. Environmental Management 51, 279–290 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-0014-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-0014-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation