Transitions in biofuel technologies: An appraisal of the social impacts of cellulosic ethanol using the Delphi method

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Volumn 92, Issue , 2015, Pages 53-68

  Ribeiro, Barbara E ^a,b   Quintanilla, Miguel A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SALAMANCA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Biofuels; Delphi; Ethanol; Social impacts

Indexed keywords

CELLULOSIC ETHANOL; CROPS; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; ETHANOL; MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY; CELLULOSIC BIOMASS; DELPHI; ETHANOL PRODUCTION; POLITICAL CONTEXT; SOCIAL IMPACT; TECHNICAL DIMENSIONS; TECHNOLOGICAL TRANSITION;

BIOFUELS;

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY; BIOFUEL; CELLULOSE; DELPHI ANALYSIS; ENERGY CROP; SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; SUSTAINABILITY;

EID: 84916899347     PISSN: 00401625     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2014.11.006     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Aerni P. A new approach to deal with the global food crisis. ATDF J. 2008, 5(1/2):16-31.
2. Ajanovic A. Biofuels versus food production: does biofuels production increase food prices?. Energy 2011, 36(4):2070-2076.
3. Bailey C., Dyer J.F., Teeter L. Assessing the rural development potential of lignocellulosic biofuels in Alabama. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35(4):1408-1417.
4. Baines J., Baker J., Brophy L., Rielly A., Thompson J., Yasin Y. Social monitoring can contribute to ex-ante SIAs: a case of New Zealand wind farm planning. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2012, 30(3):195-206.
5. Baka J. What wastelands? A critique of biofuel policy discourse in South India. Geoforum 2014, 54:315-323.
6. Barben D., Fisher E., Selin C., Guston D.H. Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: foresight, engagement, and integration. The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies 2008, 979-1000. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London. E.J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, J. Wajcman (Eds.).
7. Becker H.A. Social impact assessment. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2001, 128:311-321.
8. Benoît C., Norris G.A., Valdivia S., Ciroth A., Moberg A., Bos U., Prakash S., Ugaya C., Beck T. The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time!. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2010, 15:156-163.
9. Beus C.E., Dunlap R.E. Conventional versus alternative agriculture: the paradigmatic roots of the debate. Rural. Sociol. 1990, 55:590-616.
10. Bijker W.E., Bal R., Hendriks R. The Paradox of Scientific Authority: the Role of Scientific Advice in Democracies 2009, The MIT Press, Cambridge.
11. Borrion A.L., McManus M.C., Hammond G.P. Environmental life cycle assessment of bioethanol production from wheat straw. Biomass Bioenergy 2012, 47:9-19.
12. Boucher P., Smith R., Millar K. Biofuels under the spotlight: the state of assessment and potential for integration. Sci. Public Policy 2014, 41(3):283-293.
13. Bryman A. Social Research Methods 2012, Oxford University Press, Oxford. 4th ed.
14. Burdge R., Robertson R.A. Social impact assessment and the public involvement process. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 1990, 10:81-80.
15. Buytaert V., Muys B., Devriendt N., Pelkmans L., Kretzschmar J.G., Samson R. Towards integrated sustainability assessment for energetic use of biomass: a state of the art evaluation of assessment tools. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2011, 15:3918-3933.
16. Cherubini F., Bird N.D., Cowie A., Jungmeier G., Schlamadinger B., Woess-Gallasch S. Energy- and greenhouse gas-based LCA of biofuel and bioenergy systems: Key issues, ranges and recommendations. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2009, 53:434-447.
17. Clason D.L., Dormody T.J. Analyzing data measured by individual Likert-type items. J. Agric. Educ. 1994, 35(4):31-35.
18. Collingridge D. The Social Control of Technology 1980, Frances Pinter, London.
19. Cuhls K. From forecasting to foresight processes - new participative foresight activities in Germany. J. Forecast. 2003, 22:93-111.
20. Dalkey N., Helmer O. An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Manag. Sci. 1963, 9(3):458-467.
21. Doornbosch R., Steenblik R. Biofuels: is the Cure Worse than the Disease? 2007, Roundtable on Sustainable Development/OECD, Paris.
22. Dovers S.R. A framework for scaling and framing policy problems in sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 1995, 12:93-106.
23. Esteves A.M., Franks D., Vanclay F. Social impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2012, 30(1):34-42.
24. European Commission European Parliament resolution of 11 September 2013 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Directive 299/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources 2013, (P7 TA(2013)0357).
25. Farrell A.E., Plevin R.J., Turner B.T., Jones A.D., O'Hare M., Kammen D.M. Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science 2006, 311:506-508.
26. Faruk A.C., Lamming R.C., Cousins P.D., Bowen F.E. Analyzing, mapping and managing environmental impacts along supply chains. J. Ind. Ecol. 2002, 5(2):13-36.
27. González-García S., Moreira M.T., Feijoo G. Comparative environmental performance of lignocellulosic ethanol from different feedstocks. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2010, 14:2077-2085.
28. Gopalakrishnan G., Negri M.C., Wang M., Wu M., Snyder S.W., Lafreniere L. Biofuels, land and water: a systems approach to sustainability. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43:6094-6100.
29. Green H., Hunter C., Moore B. Assessing the environmental impact of tourism development: the use of the Delphi technique. Tour. Manag. 1990, 11(2):111-120.
30. Hahn-Hägerdal B., Galbe M., Gorwa-Grauslund M.F., Lidén G., Zacchi G. Bioethanol - the fuel of tomorrow from the residues of today. Trends Biotechnol. 2006, 24(12):549-556.
31. Hasson F., Keeney S. Enhancing rigour in the Delphi technique research. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2011, 78:1695-1704.
32. Hussler C., Muller P., Rondé P. Is diversity in Delphi panelist groups useful? Evidence from a French forecasting exercise on the future of nuclear energy. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2011, 78:1642-1653.
33. Jorgensen A., Le Bocq A., Nazarkina L., Hauschild M. Methodologies for social life cycle assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2008, 13:96-103.
34. Kaercher J.A., Schneider R.C.S., Klamt R.A., Da Silva W.L.T., Schmatz W.L., Szarblewski M.S., Machado E.L. Optimization of biodiesel production for self-consumption: considering its environmental impacts. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 46:74-82.
35. Kumar S., Singh S.P., Mishra I.M., Adhikari D.K. Recent advances in production of bioethanol from lignocellulosic biomass. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2009, 32(4):517-526.
36. Landeta J. Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2005, 73:467-482.
37. Larson E.D. A review of life-cycle analysis studies on liquid biofuel systems for the transport sector. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2006, 10:109-126.
38. Lawrence D.P. Quality and effectiveness of environmental impact assessments: lessons and insights from ten assessments in Canada. Proj. Apprais. 1997, 12(4):219-232.
39. Limayen A., Ricke S.C. Lignocellulosic biomass for bioethanol production: current perspectives, potential issues and future prospects. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2012, 38:449-467.
40. Linstone H.A., Turoff M. The Delphi Method. Techniques and Applications 2002, Institute of Technology (electronic book), New Jersey.
41. Linstone H.A., Turoff M. Delphi: a brief look backward and forward. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2011, 78:1712-1719.
42. Loveridge D., Saritas O. Ignorance and uncertainty: influences on future-oriented technology analysis. Tech. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2012, 24(8):753-767.
43. Mabee W.E., McFarlane P.N., Saddler J.N. Biomass availability for lignocellulosic ethanol production. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35:4519-4529.
44. Matheson S., Lence B., Furst J. Distributive fairness considerations in sustainable project selection. Hydrol. Sci. J. 1997, 42(2):531-548.
45. Menon V., Rao M. Trends in bioconversion of lignocellulose: biofuels, platform chemicals and biorefinery concept. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2012, 38:522-550.
46. Mohr A., Raman S. Lessons from first generation biofuels and implications for the sustainability appraisal of second generation biofuels. Energy Policy 2013, 63:114-122.
47. Naik S.N., Goud V.V., Rout P.K., Dalai A.K. Production of first and second generation biofuels: a comprehensive review. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2010, 14:578-597.
48. Parente R., Anderson-Parente J. A case study of long-term Delphi accuracy. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2011, 78:1705-1711.
49. Pinch T.J., Bijker W.E. The social construction of facts and artifacts: or how the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology might benefit each other. The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology 1993, 17-50. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England. W.E. Bijker, T.P. Hughes, T.J. Pinch (Eds.).
50. Quintanilla M.A. The design and evaluation of technologies: some conceptual issues. Philosophy of Technology in Spanish Speaking Countries 1993, 173-195. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. C. Mitcham (Ed.).
51. Quintanilla M.A. Tecnología: un enfoque filosófico y otros ensayos de filosofía de la tecnología 2005, Fondo de Cultura Económica, México, D.F.
52. Raikes P., Jensen M.F., Ponte S. Global commodity chain analysis and the French filière approach: comparison and critique. Econ. Soc. 2000, 29(3):390-417.
53. Renewable Fuels Association 2012 World Fuel Ethanol Production Available at:, (last accessed on 1 February 2014). http://ethanolrfa.org/pages/World-Fuel-Ethanol-Production.
54. Ribeiro B.E. From first to second generation biofuels: putting social aspects on the scale. Energy Issues and Social Sciences. Theories and Applications 2012, 79-94. McGraw-Hill, Milan. A. Agustoni, M. Maretti (Eds.).
55. Ribeiro B.E. Beyond commonplace biofuels: social aspects of ethanol. Energy Policy 2013, 57:355-362.
56. Ribeiro, B.E. (2013b), "What matters for host communities of biofuel projects: local public perception of ethanol in Spain". Unpublished raw data.
57. Rowe G., Wright G. The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis. Int. J. Forecast. 1999, 15:353-375.
58. Sanchez O., Cardona C. Trends in biotechnological production of fuel ethanol from different feedstocks. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99:5270-5295.
59. Scapolo F., Miles I. Eliciting experts' knowledge: a comparison of two methods. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2006, 73:679-704.
60. Scharlemann J.P.W., Laurance W.F. How green are biofuels?. Science 2008, 319:43-44.
61. Selfa T., Kulcsar L., Bain C., Goe R., Middendorf G. Biofuels Bonanza?: Exploring community perceptions of the promises and perils of biofuels production. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35:1379-1389.
62. Shortall O.K. "Marginal land" for energy crops: exploring definitions and embedded assumptions. Energy Policy 2013, 62:19-27.
63. Sims R.E.H., et al. An overview of second generation biofuel technologies. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101:1570-1580.
64. Solomon B.D., Barnes J.R., Halvorsen K.E. Grain and cellulosic ethanol: history, economic and energy policy. Biomass Bioenergy 2007, 31:416-425.
65. Sun Y., Cheng J. Hydrolysis of lignocellulosic materials for ethanol production: a review. Bioresour. Technol. 2002, 83:1-11.
66. Swinton S.M., Babcock B.A., James L.K., Bandaru V. Higher US crop prices trigger little area expansion so marginal land for biofuel crops is limited. Energy Policy 2011, 39:5254-5258.
67. Tichy G. The over-optimism among experts in assessment and foresight. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2004, 71:341-363.
68. Tilman D., Hill J., Lehman C. Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity grassland biomass. Science 2006, 314:1598-1600.
69. Timilsina G.R., Shrestha A. How much hope should we have for biofuels?. Energy 2011, 36(4):2055-2069.
70. Tran T.A., Daim T. A taxonomic review of methods and tools applied in technology assessment. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2008, 75:1396-1405.
71. Upham P., Smith B. Using the Rapid Impact Assessment Matrix to synthesize biofuel and bioenergy impact assessment results: the example of medium scale bioenergy heat options. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65:261-269.
72. Van den Ende J., Mulder K., Knot M., Moors E., Vergragt P. Traditional and modern technology assessment. Towards a toolkit. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 1998, 58(1/2):5-21.
73. Van Schooten M., Vanclay F., Slootweg R. Conceptualizing social change processes and social impacts. The International Handbook of Social Impact Assessment: Conceptual and Methodological Advances 2003, 74-91. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Reino Unido. H.A. Becker, F. Vanclay (Eds.).
74. Vanclay F. Conceptualising social impacts. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2002, 22:183-211.
75. Vanclay F. International principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2003, 21(1):5-11.
76. Verbruggen A. Revocability and reversibility in societal decision-making. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 85:20-27.
77. Viikari L., Vehmaanpera J., Koivula A. Lignocellulosic ethanol: from science to industry. Biomass Bioenergy 2012, 46:13-24.
78. Vizayakumar K., Mohapatra P.K.J. Environmental impact analysis of a coalfied. J. Environ. Manag. 1992, 34:79-103.
79. Winner L. Where technological determinism went. Visions of STS: Counterpoints in Science, Technology and Society Studies 2001, 11-17. State University of New York Press, Albany. S.H. Cutcliffe, C. Mitcham (Eds.).
80. Wright W., Reid T. Green dreams or pipe dreams? Media framing of the U.S. biofuels movement. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35:1390-1399.