Advancing sustainable bioenergy: Evolving stakeholder interests and the relevance of research

Environmental Management

Volumn 51, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 339-353

  Johnson, Timothy Lawrence ^d   Bielicki, Jeffrey M ^b   Dodder, Rebecca S ^a   Hilliard, Michael R ^c   Ozge Kaplan, P ^a   Andrew Miller, C ^a  

^a Office of Research and Development   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^c OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

^d DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bioenergy; Biofuels; Decision making; Participatory processes; Research; Stakeholder engagement; Sustainability

Indexed keywords

BIO-ENERGY; BIOENERGY PRODUCTIONS; BIOMASS FEEDSTOCK; DECISION MAKING PROCESS; INFORMATION NEED; PARTICIPATORY PROCESS; POLICY COMMUNITY; RESEARCH GAPS; RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES; RESEARCH QUESTIONS; SOCIAL IMPACT; STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT; STAKEHOLDER GROUPS; STAKEHOLDER INTEREST; STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION; STAKEHOLDER VALUES; TECHNICAL RESEARCH; TECHNICAL UNDERSTANDING; VALUE SYSTEMS;

BIOFUELS; DECISION MAKING; RESEARCH;

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

BIOENERGY; BIOFUEL; DECISION MAKING; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; STAKEHOLDER; SUSTAINABILITY;

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ALCOHOL PRODUCTION; ARTICLE; BIOENERGY; BIOFUEL PRODUCTION; BIOMASS ENERGY; CLIMATE CHANGE; CROP PRODUCTION; DECISION MAKING; ENERGY RESOURCE; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY; FUNDING; GREENHOUSE GAS; HUMAN; LAND USE; LEGAL ASPECT; LIVESTOCK; NATURAL SCIENCE; PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH; SCIENTIST; SOCIOLOGY;

BIOFUELS; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; DECISION MAKING;

EID: 84874106124     PISSN: 0364152X     EISSN: 14321009     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00267-012-9884-8     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Altman I, Johnson T (2008) The choice of organizational form as a non-technical barrier to agro-bioenergy industry development. Biomass and Bioenergy 32:28-34
2. Ayoub N, Martins R, Wang K, Seki H, Naka Y (2007) Two levels decision system for efficient planning and implementation of bioenergy production. Energy Conversion and Management 48(3):709-723
3. Bammer G (2005) Integration and implementation sciences: building a new specialization. Ecology and Society 10(2):6. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/ vol10/iss2/art6/. Accessed 03 Aug 2009
4. Brown ME, Hintermann B, Higgins N (2009) Markets, climate change, and food security in West Africa. Environmental Science and Technology 43(21):8016-8020
5. Buchholz TS, Volk TA, Luzadis VA (2007) A participatory systems approach to modeling social, economic, and ecological components of bioenergy. Energy Policy 35(12):6084-6094
6. Buchholz T, Rametsteiner E, Volk TA, Luzadis VA (2009a) Multi criteria analysis for bioenergy systems assessments. Energy Policy 37:484-495
7. Buchholz T, Luzadis VA, Volk TA (2009b) Sustainability criteria for bioenergy systems: results from an expert survey. Journal of Cleaner Production 17:S86-S98
8. Campbell JE, Lobell DB, Field CB (2009) Greater transportation energy and GHG offsets from bioelectricity than ethanol. Science 324:1055-1057
9. Cash DW et al (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100(14):8086-8091
10. Chess C, Purcell K (1999) Public participation and the environment: do we know what works? Environmental Science and Technology 33(16):2685-2692
11. Clark W, Mitchell R, Cash D, Alcock F (2002) Information as influence: how institutions mediate the impact of scientific assessments on global environmental affairs. Harvard Kennedy School Faculty Research Working Paper, RWP02-044. http://www.hks.harvard.edu/gea/pubs/rwp02-044.htm. Accessed 12 Aug 2010
12. Costello R, Finnell J (1998) Institutional opportunities and constraints to biomass development. Biomass and Bioenergy 15(3):201-204
13. Cruse RM, Herndl CG (2009) Balancing corn stover harvest for biofuels with soil and water conservation. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 64(4):286-291
14. Dominguez-Faus R, Powers SE, Burken JG, Alvarez PJ (2009) The water footprint of biofuels: a drink or drive issue? Environmental Science and Technology 43(9):3005-3010
15. Dwivedi P, Alavalapati JRR (2009) Stakeholders' perceptions on forest biomass-based bioenergy development in the southern US. Energy Policy 37:1999-2007
16. Elghali L, Clift R, Sinclair P, Panoutsou C, Bauen A (2007) Developing a sustainability framework for the assessment of bioenergy systems. Energy Policy 35:6075-6083
17. Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky S, Hawthorne P (2008) Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319(5867):1235-1238
18. Farrell AE, Plevin RJ, Turner BT, Jones AD, O'Hare M, Kammen DM (2006) Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science 311(5760):506-508
19. Feldman, DL, and others (2008) Making decision-support information useful, useable, and responsive to decision-maker needs. In: Beller-Simms N (ed) Decision-support experiments and evaluations using seasonal-to-interannual forecasts and observational data: a focus on water resources. Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.3 Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Washington, DC, pp 101-140
20. Fletcher RJ, Robertson BA, Evans J, Doran PJ, Alavalapati JRR, Schemske DW (2011) Biodiversity conservation in the era of biofuels: risks and opportunities. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9(3):161-168
21. Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Basic Books, New York
22. Glicken J (2000) Getting stakeholder participation 'right': a discussion of participatory processes and possible pitfalls. Environmental Science and Policy 3:305-310
23. Grimble R (1998) Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management. Socioeconomic Methodologies. Best Practice Guidelines. Natural Resources Institute, Chatham, UK. http://www.nri.org/publications/bpg/bpg02.pdf. Accessed 16 Dec 2011
24. Guston DH (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Science, Technology and Human Values 26(4):399-408
25. Hadorn GH, Bradley D, Pohl C, Rist S, Wiesmann U (2006) Implications of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research. Ecological Economics 60:119-128
26. Hayes D, Babcock B, Fabiosa J, Tokgoz S, Elobeid A, Yu T, Dong F, Hart C, Thomson W, Meyer S, Chavez E, Pan S (2009) Biofuels: potential production capacity, effects on grain and livestock sectors, and implications for food prices and consumers. Journal of Agriculture and Applied Economics 41(2):465-491
27. Jones SA, Fischhoff B, Lach D (1999) Evaluating the science-policy interface for climate change research. Climatic Change 43:581-599
28. Karlen DL, Lal R, Follett RF, Kimble JM, Hatfield JL, Miranowski JM, Cambardella CA, Manale A, Anex RP, Rice CW (2009) Crop residues: the rest of the story. Environmental Science and Technology 43(21):8011-8015
29. Kates RW et al (2001) Sustainability science. Science 292(5517):641-642
30. Keeney D (2008) Ethanol USA. Environmental Science and Technology 43(1):8-11
31. Kurkalova L, Secchi S, Gassman PW (2010) Corn stover harvesting: potential supply and water quality implications. In: Khanna M, Scheffran J, Zilberman D (eds) Handbook of bioenergy economics and policy. Springer, New York, pp 307-323
32. Libecap G (1995) The conditions for successful collective action. In: Keohane RO, Ostrom E (eds) Local commons and global interdependence: heterogeneity and cooperation in two domains. Sage Publications, Ltd., London, pp 161-190
33. Martin LL (1995) Heterogeneity, linkage and commons problems. In: Keohane RO, Ostrom E (eds) Local commons and global interdependence: heterogeneity and cooperation in two domains. Sage Publications, Ltd., London, pp 71-91
34. Mayfield CA, Foster CD, Smith CT, Gan J, Fox S (2007) Opportunities, barriers, and strategies for forest bioenergy and bio-based product development in the southern United States. Biomass and Bioenergy 31:631-637
35. McCormick K, Kaberger T (2007) Key barriers for bioenergy in Europe: economic conditions, know-how and institutional capacity, and supply chain co-ordination. Biomass and Bioenergy 31:443-452
36. Melillo JM, Reilly JM, Kicklighter DW, Gurgel AC, Cronin TW, Paltsev S, Felzer BS, Wang X, Sokolov AP, Schlosser CA (2009) Indirect emissions from biofuels: how important? Science 326(5958):1397-1399
37. Mitchell RB, Clark WC, Cash DW (2006) Information and influence. In: Mitchell RB, Clark WC, Cash DW, Dickson NM (eds) Global environmental assessments. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 307-338
38. National Research Council (1996) Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Panel on Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making, Stern PC, Fineberg HV (eds). Committee on Risk Characterization Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC
39. National Research Council (2008) Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Panel on Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Thomas D, Stern PC (eds). Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC
40. National Research Council (2009) Informing decisions in a changing climate. panel on strategies and methods for climate-related decision support, committee on the human dimensions of global change, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC
41. Peelle E (2000) Biomass stakeholder views and concerns: Environmental organizations and some trade groups. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/TM-1999/271. http://www.ornl.gov/~webworks/cpr/v823/rpt/105115.pdf. Accessed 16 Jun 2010
42. Pohl C (2008) From science to policy through transdisciplinary research. Environmental Science and Policy 11:46-53
43. Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation 141:2417-2431
44. Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J, Prell C, Quinn CH, Stringer LC (2009) Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management 90:1933-1949
45. 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. Environmental Science and Technology 46:1309-1315
46. Robertson GP et al (2008) Sustainable biofuels redux: science-based policy is essential for guiding an environmentally sustainable approach to cellulosic biofuels. Science 322(5898):49-50
47. Roos A, Graham RL, Hektor B, Rakos C (1999) Critical factors to bioenergy implementation. Biomass and Bioenergy 17:113-126
48. Rosch C, Kaltschmitt M (1999) Energy from biomass: do non-technical barriers prevent an increased use? Biomass and Bioenergy 16:347-356
49. Royal Society (2008) Sustainable biofuels: prospects and challenges. The Royal Society, London. http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2008/ sustainable-biofuels/. Accessed 4 Jan 2012
50. Sarewitz D (2004) How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science and Policy 7:385-403
51. Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton RA, Dong F, Elobeid A, Fabiosa J, Tokgoz S, Hayes D, Yu T-H (2008) Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319(5867):1238-1240
52. Susskind L, McKearnan S, Thomas-Larmer J (1999) The consensus building handbook: a comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks
53. U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Department of Agriculture (2009) Sustainability of biofuels: Future research opportunities; Report from the October 2008 Workshop. DOE/SC-0114. http://genomicsgtl.energy.gov/biofuels/ sustainability/ and http://www.ree.usda.gov/. Accessed 28 Apr 2010
54. USEPA (2010) Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis. EPA-420-R-10-006. Washington, DC: Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf. Accessed 17 Feb 2010
55. Van Dommelen A, De Snoo GR (2006) Scientific transparency for sustainable biotechnology. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development 5(4):415-425
56. von Geibler J, Kristof K, Bienge K (2010) Sustainability assessment of entire forest value chains: integrating stakeholder perspectives and indicators in decision support tools. Ecological Modeling 221(18):2206-2214
57. Walker GB, Senecah SL, Daniels SE (2006) From the forest to the river: citizens' views of stakeholder engagement. Human Ecology Review 13(2):193-202
58. Williams PRD, Inman D, Aden A, Heath GA (2009) Environmental and sustainability factors associated with next-generation biofuels in the U.S.: what do we really know? Environmental Science and Technology 43(13):4763-4775