Biomass and Bioenergy 125 (2019) 79–94

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Biomass and Bioenergy

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

Review

A systematic review of the sustainability assessment of bioenergy: The case T

of gaseous biofuels
Alejandro Padilla-Rivera, María Guadalupe Paredes, Leonor Patricia Güereca∗
Instituto de Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Coyoacán, 04510, México City, Mexico

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: In recent years, achieving sustainability in renewable energy systems has become important for achieving future
Sustainability assessment economic prosperity and energy security all over the world; therefore, multiple attempts have been made to
Systematic review assess their sustainability. This means that in addition to considering the technological and economic factors,
Bioenergy environmental and social aspects should also be considered. However, the wide-ranging concept of sustainability
Gaseous biofuels
and the various methodological frameworks presented make their interpretation and correct implementation
Renewable energy
difficult. In this research, through a systematic literature review, we summarize and analyze the current research
Sustainability of bioenergy
on the sustainability assessment of bioenergy production/use (also referred as gaseous biofuels) for electricity
and heat generation. Sustainability approaches and their underlying factors from the three dimensions of sus-
tainability were consolidated and structured in this systematic review. In addition, a set of indicators (en-
vironmental, social and economic) is provided based on the literature analyzed that decision makers can use to
evaluate the sustainability performance of bioenergy systems. The main finding indicates that although there are
various international efforts on measuring sustainability, only 32 of studies of the 8542 works initially screened
(less than 1%) have an integrated approach that considers all three aspects of sustainability, i.e., environmental,
economic and social aspects. In most cases, the focus is on one of the three aspects. Additionally, 50% of the
studies evaluated included another dimension, i.e., a cultural, institutional or technical dimension. These results
support the idea that a multidimensional sustainability assessment is feasible and facilitates decision-making
processes towards a sustainable energy future.

1. Introduction stakeholders in decision-making strategies and processes is needed. This

Renewable energy should play an important role in achieving sus-
tainability. The principal goal of using renewable energy is to reduce
the potential for global warming and to improve national energy se-
curity in the face of depleted fossil fuels reserves [1]. Although efforts
have promoted the use of energy policies mandating, in most cases, the
replacement of fossil fuels with “eco-friendly” technologies, these po-
licies may not be as effective and “green” as they are supposed to be due
to indirect impacts on ecosystems and society [1].
In this context, the incorporation of the sustainability concept is
particularly relevant to the energy sector, whose performance plays a
leading role in economic and social development, as well as in terms of
environmental issues [2]. As a result, multiple attempts have been
made to develop a more integrated analysis towards a sustainable en-
ergy sector for most countries worldwide. Therefore, a sustainability
assessment process that incorporates several criteria in the formulation
of energy policies and technological roadmaps and that involves the
means not only considering technological or economic factor but also
environmental and social indicators. However, the wide-ranging con-
cept of sustainability and the various methodological frameworks pre-
sent varied interpretations and implementations depending on the ap-
proach and objective behind each project [3].
According to Peura [4], a sustainable energy system should include
the following four fundamental components: 1) rational use of energy
(RUE); 2) renewable energy sources (RES); 3) sustainable management
and 4) the integration of RUE and RES. However, the integration of
these factors is still missing in the current research, since one renewable
energy source might be attractive for heat production and not as at-
tractive for electricity or transport purposes. For example, solar energy
sources are best suited for remote or underdeveloped areas that have
bright sunshine [5], and wind energy sources are best suited to be near
the sea. Similarly, hydroelectric, geothermal, and ocean thermal en-
ergies are appropriate in different contexts, and each renewable source
performs differently; the best option depends on the location/purpose/

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: lguerecah@iingen.unam.mx (L.P. Güereca).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.03.014
Received 20 October 2018; Received in revised form 15 March 2019; Accepted 22 March 2019
Available online 20 April 2019
0961-9534/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Padilla-Rivera, et al.
season. Among the multiple energy sources, biofuels (also known as
bioenergy) have become one of the most popular renewable energy
sources because the availability of raw material (biomass) everywhere
throughout the year is sufficiently abundant for its large scale appli-
cation, which allows it to have a high potential among the world's
energy sources [6].
In this sense, the gaseous biofuels (biogas, biomethane, hydrogen,
and syngas), which could be used for electricity generation and/or
heating and transport fuel, are generally regarded as a sustainable en-
ergy systems because they reduce emissions, provide a base load en-
ergy, generate jobs and contribute to economic growth [7]. In addition,
the potential utilization of the waste derived from the process (diges-
tate) could be used as fertilizer to reduce dependence on energy-in-
tensive mineral fertilizers. Furthermore, gaseous biofuels can be pro-
duced from multiple types of biomass feedstocks, for example, biogas,
could be derived through anaerobic digestion, sewage sludge, and
landfill sites. Hydrogen, meanwhile, could be derived by a number of
renewable processes (electrolysis of water using electricity, photo-
catalytic splitting of water using TiO2, gasification of food waste,
sewage sludge and biomass, pyrolysis of biomass, and by different
biological processes) [8].
Only a few papers about the sustainability of bioenergy production
and use have analyzed the conceptual and methodological develop-
ments towards sustainable use/management of bioenergy within the
last decade. In 2010, Gupta et al. [9], focused their work on the com-
parison of the use of different biofuels in gas turbines for power gen-
eration; these systems were analyzed based on Jatropha (Jatropha
curcus) and Karanja (Pongamia pinnata) substrates in the Indian context.
On the other hand, Muench and Guenther [10], conducted a systematic
review of different bioenergy life cycle assessments (LCAs); the main
goal of the survey was to give an overview of the environmental impact
of biomass electricity and heat, and the second goal was to discuss the
methodological choices in the LCA approach.
In addition, a comprehensive study related to environmental as-
sessment research under a sustainability approach was performed by
Wu et al., [11]. In this work, a cosmic exergy methodology was in-
troduced, which was used to assess an integrated agricultural model in
Hubei, China. Moreover, Hijazi et al. [12], assessed biogas production
and its effects on the environment due to Greenhouse Gases (GHG)
emissions and other environmental impacts.
Martin-Gamboa et al. [2], addressed the combination of LCA ap-
proaches and data envelopment analysis (DEA) for the sustainability
assessment of energy systems. In this work, the most common criteria,
data sources and tools used were identified. The central focus of the
study was to explore and elucidate the potentials of these combined
approaches within sustainability oriented multi-criteria decision ana-
lysis (MCDA) in the energy field. On the other side, Lora Grando et al.
[13], reviewed the evaluation of research and development of bioe-
nergy production in Europe. Through a technological perspective, the
relation between academic research and technology development in the
last thirty years was demonstrated, and it was found that Germany led
in research and commercial technological applications, followed by
Italy, Spain and Sweden.
Yasar et al. [14], analyzed different types of biogas plants and their
economic aspects along with technological and operational assess-
ments. They concluded that important savings could be achieved with
the implementation of biogas production. Additionality, they found that
fixed dome type biogas plants were more economical with the shortest
payback period of approximately four months. Finally, Sahota et al.
[15], presented the state of the art of current biogas technologies and
also discussed the future perspectives for overcoming the challenges
associated with upgrading.
Despite the policy development and frameworks towards a sus-
tainable production/use of the bioenergy sector, these reviews are often
focusing on only one or a few components of sustainability and vary
greatly in their scope and level of detail.
80
Biomass and Bioenergy 125 (2019) 79–94
In this regard, to date, no review of the assessment of sustainable
bioenergy from biomass has included a detailed quantitative and qua-
litative analysis of the environmental, social and economic dimensions
of sustainability. We believe that a review that shows the indicators or a
composite index of gaseous biofuel production could be a powerful tool
for policy making and public communication by providing information
on countries and corporate performance in fields such as environ-
mental, economic, social, or technological improvements. This work
should provide a solid knowledge base to improve the efficiency of such
systems and move sustainable energy systems forward. At the same
time, by conceptualizing the sustainability assessments, the complex
and complicated information of the bioenergy sector is analyzed and
communicated.
In this respect, the purpose of this paper is to summarize the current
information on the sustainability assessment of bioenergy production/
use (also referred as gaseous biofuels) that involves electricity and heat
generation, from the entire process. The primary goal is to analyze the
methodological choices and to compare the indicators/indexes used to
assess the sustainability performance of bioenergy production.
2. Research methodology
For this paper, we consider a “sustainability assessment” to be an
integrated assessment in which the goal is to make a positive con-
tribution to sustainability. In summary, we propose the following ap-
proaches/tools to represent a sustainability assessment, which consists
of three general categorization areas based on Pope et al. [16], and
Gibson [17]:
1. Indicators and indices, which are further broken down into non-
integrated (environmental pressure indicators, regional flow in-
dicators) and integrated (sustainability national income, environ-
mental sustainability index, human development index) categories.
They represent the state of economic, social and environmental
development in a defined region.
2. Product-related assessment tools, with a focus on the flows in the
connection with the product and the consumption of goods and
services from a life cycle perspective (life cycle assessment, product
material flow analysis, product energy analysis). The tools in this
category focus on evaluating different flows in relation to various
products or services instead of regions\;
3. Integrated assessment, which uses a collection of tools that are
usually focused on policy change (local to global scale) or project
(local) implementation (system dynamics, system representation,
multicriteria analysis, impact assessment). Integrated assessment
consists of a wide-array of tools for managing complex indices. They
are generally an ex-ante focus and are carried out the form of sce-
narios.
2.1. Selection and criteria inclusion of the analyzed studies
The research methodology is represented in Fig. 1. We used the
systematic review principles proposed by Tranfield et al. [18], and used
the standardized technique for assessing and reporting environmental
assessment data ([10]) to gain an understanding of the sustainability
aspects of gaseous biofuels. The literature was searched via the search
engines of major publishers, i.e., Science Direct, Emerald, Springer
Link, MDPI and Wiley. An iterative process, synonymous with the
sustainability assessment (assessment, evaluation, performance) of
gaseous biofuels (biomass, bioenergy, biogas, biomethane, sewage gas,
biohydrogen), was used to derive information from the abstracts of
published papers. The search words were connected by Boolean op-
erators and were applied to the titles of works. After the first search, a
total of 8452 studies were identified for our systematic review.
To select the final studies to be included in this review, a practical
screening was conducted that consisted of the following two steps: 1)
A. Padilla-Rivera, et al.
Fig. 1. Systematic review flow diagram Adapted from Ref. [20].
the setting of inclusion criteria and 2) the strategy for selecting the
potential studies [19].
2.1.1. Inclusion criteria
To be included in our systematic review, first, a practical screening
of the titles and abstracts was conducted following the next inclusion
criteria. A study had to meet the following criteria to be included:
• The study must be an article published in a peer review journal in
the English language within the last ten years (2008–2018). Thus,
other publication forms (conference proceedings, books, newspaper
articles, unpublished works) were not included.
• The study must deal with, either separately or mixed, the social,
economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability. Studies
focused on a single dimension or two dimensions of sustainability
were not retained.
• The study must include at least one scenario of evaluation belonging
entirely to the gaseous biofuels sector, i.e., theoretical studies as
well as studies focus on liquid biofuels were not considered.
2.1.2. Studies selection
In the second stage, the identified articles were subjected to a
double screening. A first sorting of the articles’ titles and abstracts al-
lowed us to include 943 potentially relevant studies. Each of these 943
articles were reviewed and assessed according to the inclusion criteria.
The second screening went beyond the title and abstract into the full
text of the papers. 911 studies did not fulfil the inclusion criteria.
Therefore, after the two-step practical screening, the literature review
on the sustainability assessment of gaseous biofuels finally involves 32
potentially relevant studies that met all the inclusion criteria.
All the papers that fulfilled the practical and methodological in-
clusion criteria were analyzed and coded using qualitative data ana-
lysis. A qualitative synthesis has been used to undertake and discuss the
methodological choices in the preparation of indicators, which are re-
commended at the end of this review.
81
Biomass and Bioenergy 125 (2019) 79–94
3. Characteristics of the included studies
This section describes the set of reviewed studies and their key
features, as follows: the biomass feedstock, the final product generated,
the regional context, the methods used to evaluate the sustainability
and the objective/scope of study (Table 1).
3.1. Biomass substrates
The following section shows the different types of substrates used to
produced energy. They were categorized, according to Stucki (2011), as
crops (28%), harvest residues (21%), manure (13%), industrial organic
waste (16%), municipal organic waste (MOW) (16%), sewage sludge
(6%), and forest residues (13%). Twelve percent of the studies did not
mention the type of substrate used to make the sustainability assess-
ments. Even though crop feedstock has been the subject of the greatest
number of independent studies, residues have a strong overall re-
presentation, which could mean that waste substrates are a promising
alternative to energy crops to secure the long-term feedstock supply.
3.2. Regional context
Most of the studies reviewed focused on a European context (53%).
Within this category, Germany ranks first as the country with the
highest number of studies (16%), followed by Italy (6%), the United
Kingdom (6%), Sweden (6%) and other European countries (19%). It is
important to mention that Germany is currently the world leader in the
deployment of biogas production technology, which could be asso-
ciated with two factors, i.e., the country's strong rejection of nuclear
energy, and its tradition of being of one of the pioneers of developing
anaerobic digestion (AD) technologies (Karl Imhoff developed an
anaerobic wastewater treatment unit in 1906) [13]. In addition, the
government of Germany has reinforced and incentivized this leadership
by giving financial support for the alternative energy sources and
promoting the use of organic material as substrates for biogas produc-
tion.
Italy, the country with the second greatest number of publications
on the topic, has shown interest in this area through some successful
 Table 1
Key features of the sample of studies reviewed for sustainability assessment of bioenergy.
Reference code Reference Objective/Scope Regional context Feedstock Approach to assess sustainability Final product

1 [21] Development of method to assess sustainability of biogas generation Sweden Crops, MOW Integrated assessment (multi-criteria method) Bio-methane
2 [22] Propose and approach for supporting policymakers to deploy sustainable Mozambique Not mentioned Product related-assessment (Life cycle approach) Not mentioned
A. Padilla-Rivera, et al.

bioenergy systems
3 [23] Development a multi-criteria evaluation model to identify and prioritize Denmark Not mentioned Integrated assessment (multi-criteria method, Heat and electricity
bioenergy sector analytical hierarchy)
4 [24] Propose a framework of sustainability indicators of waste-to-energy systems Singapore MOW Product related-assessment (Life cycle approach) Electricity
5 [25] Provide decision support taking environmental, social and economic Germany Forest residues Integrated assessment (multi-criteria method) Heat and electricity
perspectives into consideration regarding to the energetic use of biomass
6 [26] Develop a method for systematic assessment of sustainability of feedstocks Sweden Industrial organic wastes Integrated assessment (multi-criteria method) Bio-methane
for biogas production
7 [27] Analyze the effectiveness of generic themes of existing frameworks for Germany Energy crops Hybrid (Product related-integrated assessment)- Biogas
covering the key sustainability issues for German biogas generation System representations
8 [28] Evaluate suitable areas for biomass production considering interactions and Italy Harvest residues and forest residues Indicators/Indices Electricity
trade-offs between energy sources and ecosystems services
9 [29] Improve the sustainability of energy system and develop methodology to Canada Harvest residues and forest residues Integrated assessment (multi-criteria method) Hydrogen
evaluate sustainability of fuel
10 [30] Propose a new sustainability assessment framework to compare selected Brazil Industrial organic wastes Hybrid (Product related-integrated assessment)- Electricity
options of bio refineries MCDA and LCA
11 [31] Assess the sustainability of biogas plants Tanzania Manure Integrated assessment (semi-structured Biogas
interviews and observations)
12 [32] Provide a comprehensive sustainability evaluation of crops China Harvest residues Product related-assessment Biogas
13 [33] Formulate a set of energy sustainability indicators to assess the impact of Mexico MOW Indicators-Indices Biogas
biogas generation
14 [34] Conduct a holistic sustainability life cycle assessment of biogas generation Finland MOW Hybrid (Product related-integrated assessment)- Biogas
LCA and interviews

82
15 [35] Present an integrated assessment tool to assist policy makers in formulating Iran Industrial organic wastes Integrated assessment- Multi-criteria method and Biogas
best sustainable bioenergy option fuzzy logic
16 [36] Explore multi-criteria decision methods and decision-making process to Germany Not mentioned Integrated assessment (multi-criteria methods- Biogas
create social acceptance to bioenergy projects PROMETHEE)
17 [37] Elaborate recommendations for dealing with feedstocks for securing Germany Not mentioned Indicators-Indices Not mentioned
sustainable biomass supply in a bio-economy
18 [38] Contribute to the sustainability of renewable energy Peru Manure Integrated assessment (Systems representations- Biogas
Interviews)
19 [39] Contribute to increased use of sustainable cooking energy by selecting most Uganda Harvest residues Integrated assessment (multi-criteria methods- Biogas
efficient technologies PROMETHEE)
20 [40] Assess the sustainability of different sugarcane cultivation practices Thailand Industrial Organic wastes Product related-assessment (LCA) Not mentioned
21 [41] Present the concept and indicators for assessing sustainability of energy Germany Energy crops Product related-assessment (LCA and GEMIS and Heat and electricity
production from biomass database for energy)
22 [42] Develop a multi-criteria decision-making framework for prioritizing the China Sewage sludge Integrated assessment- MCDA Electricity
alternative technologies for sludge-to-energy
23 [43] Exemplify the application of prototype sustainability frameworks design to Mexico Energy crops Product-related assessment (LCA and economic Electricity/
evaluate bio-refineries analysis) methane/heat
24 [44] Develop a decision-support framework for an integrated sustainability Mexico Harvest residues and forest residues Hybrid (Product related-integrated assessment)- Electricity
assessment of energy systems to identify most sustainable options MCDA and LCA
25 [45] Develop and test a sustainability assessment method based on system United Kingdom Harvest residues and forest residues Integrated assessment- System representations Heat and electricity
thinking approaches and using stakeholder engagement (participatory groups)
26 [46] Present an approach to structure the goal and scope definition of the Italy Energy crops Product-related assessment (LCA) Hydrogen
framework for the life cycle sustainability analysis
27 [47] Assess the sustainability of biomass resources in the country Switzerland Energy crops, harvest residues, Integrated assessment (Interviews) Electricity
industrial organic wastes and forest
residues
28 [48] Develop and apply multi-criteria analysis for sustainability assessment and Scotland Energy crops Integrated assessment (MCDA- PROMETHEE) Heat and electricity
ranking renewable energy technologies
(continued on next page)
Biomass and Bioenergy 125 (2019) 79–94
A. Padilla-Rivera, et al. Biomass and Bioenergy 125 (2019) 79–94

government initiatives in recent years focusing on the research and

development of renewable energy and on a system of obligations and

Not mentioned

Not mentioned
incentives [53]. Additionally, the country also has an abundance of
Final product

biomass and waste materials, which are used in the AD processes, re-
sulting in the production of biogas as one of the main energy sources.
Biogas

Biogas Elsewhere in Europe, some important legislative marks have had a

positive influence on the rising of biogas production in the Eurozone as
Integrated assessment (Institutional Analysis and

Hybrid (Product related-integrated assessment- well as local government policies that are offering funding for new
Integrated-assessment (Semi-qualitative tool)

Integrated assessment (expert-based surveys)

biogas projects. One example is the Landfill Directive, which promotes

agent paradigm to simulate stakeholder

the use biodegradable wastes to produce biogas [54].

America is well represented with 19% of the studies in the sample,
Approach to assess sustainability

in which the most frequently represented country is Mexico (9%). This

is mainly due to legal measures to support the use of renewable sources
of energy. For example, the law on the use of renewable energy and
financing of energy transition, approved in 2008, sets a limit on the
electricity produced from fossil fuels of 65% in 2024, 60% in 2035 and
MCDA, LCA, GIS)

50% in 2050 [55]. The general law on climate change, approved in

2012, sets a target of 35% share of clean generation technologies in
behavior)

2024. However, there is still work to be done, as bioenergy only re-

presents less than 1% of renewable energy.
In contrast, the rest of the studies are from Asia, with 16%, and
Manure, MOW and forest residues

Africa, with 13%. In Asia, China leads in biogas production because it is

an important aspect of China's energy strategy. This increase in im-
Manure and forest residues

portance, as all over the world, comes from government policy. For
example, the Chinese government put forward a call to find alternative
energy sources to replace oil in 1957, setting off the second biogas wave
in China. Biogas, as one of the bright spots in new countryside con-
Energy crops

Energy crops

struction, has already played a huge role in improving rural production

Feedstock

and living conditions, expediting the agricultural development trans-

formation, impelling rural energy conservation and emission reduc-
tions, and protecting the environment [56].
Regional context

United Kingdom

3.3. Final product

South Africa
Netherlands
Europe

Multiple conversion technologies were found in the assessment of

gaseous biofuels in this review. Many of the processes are suitable for
either the direct conversion of biomass or the conversion of inter-
Illustrate how LCA, GIS and multi-period budgeting can be used as structure
Show modeling challenges and how they can be addressed with model agent
Evaluate the sustainability performance of selected feedstocks to generate

mediate types of biomass. The factors that influence the choice of a

Evaluate and compare aspects of sustainability of maize-based cropping

conversion process include the type and quantity of biomass feedstock

for detailed analysis of complex bio-energy systems to provide better

and the desired form of the produced energy. Biomass can be converted
into useful products or exploitable energy via four main process
(Fig. 2), which are as follows: anaerobic digestion (44%), gasification
(19), pyrolysis (6%) and co-firing (3%).
From the 32 studies in the sample, the final products produced by
the conversion technology were as follows: 19% electricity, 19% elec-
systems framework to model process of biogas
systems to determine strong and weak points

tricity and heat, 6% hydrogen, and 3% co-firing biomass (16% did not
mentioned the type of conversion technology used to produced bioe-
nergy).
According to Fig. 3, the main products derived from biomass are
electricity and heat; however, biomethane and hydrogen have shown
sustainability performance

an increase in use in the transportation sector. Labutong et al. [57], and

Hijazi et al. [12], claim that biogas should be used for Combined Heat
and Power (CHP) on site rather than upgraded to biomethane to max-
Objective/Scope

imize GHG mitigation. It is important to highlight that smaller engines

(less than 100 kW electrical power output) have significantly lower
bio-energy

electrical efficiencies and higher pollutant concentrations in the ex-

haust gas than engines in the range of 300 kW power output and up
[58]. Consequently, a higher electrical efficiency leads to less biogas
Reference

consumption for the same amount of electricity produced and, thus, a

lower specific environmental impact.
[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]
Table 1 (continued)

The exportation of heat has been as a hotspot in many studies. The

inherent inefficiencies and difficulties of storing low-temperature heat
Reference code

or transportation over large distances, together with its lower economic

value compared to electricity, are significant barriers to heat utilization
beyond the premises of the farm. According to Hijazi et al. [12], sup-
29

30

31

32

plying heat to a district heating system will be efficient and

83
A. Padilla-Rivera, et al.
Fig. 2. Final product obtained from substrates N = 32. *(multiple biomass substrate comparison) Adapted from Ref. [59].
economically affordable only if sufficient heat demand is present within
a distance of less than 1.5 km. Heat from biogas CHP can be used in
combination with a wood-chip heating plant for heating residential and
public buildings in the neighborhood. If the heat output from CHP is
used to substitute fossil fuels, then considerable mitigation of en-
vironmental impacts can be achieved.
3.4. Approaches to represent sustainability assessment
To assess the sustainability performance of bioenergy in the sample
of studies, three approaches were categorized to represent a sustain-
ability assessment, indicators/indices, product-related assessment tools
and integrated assessment. Table 1 shows the distribution of these types
of approaches to represent sustainability assessments. The use of in-
tegrated assessment models in 53% (34% multicriteria decision analy-
sis–MCDA, 19% system representations) of the studies emerges as the
most common tools for sustainability assessment; in particular, MCDA.
For the remaining approaches, the product related-assessment (22%) is
the second most used tool to evaluate the sustainability of bioenergy
systems. In this case, the relevance of life cycle methodologies provides
performance indicators not only to assess the traditional aspect of
sustainability, namely, the environment aspect, but also to combine the
different dimensions (social, economic, environmental). Hybrid ap-
proaches (16%) play a special role because they combine product re-
lated-assessment (life cycle methodologies) and integrated assessment
(MCDA) to normalize and to weight the indicators to generate suit-
ability indices. Indicators/indexes were only applied in 13% of the
studies, which implies that most authors decided to choose other
methodologies to assess sustainability.
4. Results and discussion
This section analyzes the criteria most commonly used to evaluate
the sustainability of bioenergy processes and discusses the influence of
methodological choices when sustainability is evaluated.
4.1. Descriptive analysis of sustainability assessment studies
4.1.1. Environmental dimension
There are several major categories of environmental impacts related
84
Biomass and Bioenergy 125 (2019) 79–94
to gaseous biofuels production. The environmental impacts generated
by the biogas production highlight its multiple environmental benefits,
as it is an environmentally friendly energy generation solution. These
expected benefits include GHG emission reductions, renewable energy
generation, odor nuisance avoidance, high-quality fertilizer generation,
as well as opportunities for reducing the use of nonrenewable fertili-
zers. To quantify the impacts on the environment, methodological im-
pact assessment approaches can be used as a part of the sustainability
assessment.
The impact categories can be divided into problem-oriented mid-
point and damage-oriented endpoint categories. Problem-oriented ap-
proaches focus on environmental problems that lie in the middle of the
environmental cause and effect chain, while damage-oriented ap-
proaches focus on the end of the chain. This distinction, however, could
imply more inherent uncertainty in endpoint approaches because a
larger part of the ecosystem must be modeled, and the cumulative ef-
fects must be considered. While midpoints approaches provide a more
detailed and scientific decision basis, endpoint approaches are simpler
to interpret and easier to communicate to decision makers [10].
In the present review, midpoint categories were applied in most of
the sustainability assessment works. Fig. 3 shows the main impact ca-
tegories considered in this systematic review. Climate change/GHG
emissions, land use change, biodiversity, water use and water man-
agement, acidification and eutrophication are the impact categories
discussed below since they represent the most analyzed categories in
the papers reviewed.
The most common indicator used is climate change/GHG emissions
(56%). This criterion is one of the most widely used to evaluate the
sustainability of renewables energies [48], mainly motivated by the
international community to implement strategies aiming at limiting the
average increase of the global temperature.
Several approaches analyzing the climate change/GHG emissions
indicator can be found in this review. The principal approach is the
quantification of the life cycle emissions of bioenergy production,
comparing scenarios with different feedstocks. It included cultivation,
production and upgrading of the biogas and transportation and
spreading of digestate as fertilizer. The main objective of this approach
is to quantify the indirect/direct GHG emissions savings (if any)
through the entire biogas production process. The inclusion of climate
change enables the analysis of GHG emissions from a life cycle
A. Padilla-Rivera, et al.
Fig. 3. Number of occurrences per indicators in each sustainability dimension. Indicators with two or three occurrences are not presented in the graphic.
perspective, in contrast to traditional approaches typically limited to
direct CO2 emissions.
The second indicator most often included is land use change (38%).
The amount of land needed to supply fuel demands directly depends on
the type of biomass used. This category is an important criterion to
consider not only for bioenergy but all renewable energy, since they are
typically in competition for land, which may be used for other activ-
ities, such as agricultural, recreational or conservational purposes.
However, it can be very difficult to know if bioenergy production from
a certain type of feedstock will induce any indirect land use changes
and, in that case, to estimate the implications. If a changed utilization of
biomass leads to important indirect consequences for society and eco-
systems, these could be either positive or negative and will depend on
local conditions [26]. For example, the use of land for power generation
creates an opportunity for humans, which could be translated to an
85
Biomass and Bioenergy 125 (2019) 79–94
improvement in the local economy [60].
Biodiversity (31%) is another important category assessed; this is a
significant factor for a stable ecosystem since conserving the variety of
life forms is a relevant aspect in environmental assessments [25]. The
evaluation of this category could incentivize compatible cultivation
practices that would preserve biological diversity, including domestic
species and local varieties, avoiding invasive species or impacts caused
by the use of machinery, fertilizers and pesticides [35].
Water use (25%) and water management (22%) are essential parts
and should be considered in bioenergy systems assessments. These
criteria refer to the withdrawal of water from surface or ground water
for the production and processing of bioenergy feedstocks. The less
water needed throughout a life cycle, the more sustainable the bioe-
nergy concept. The water used for the irrigation of the bioenergy
feedstock and bioenergy conversion facilities should not exceed the
A. Padilla-Rivera, et al.
total actual renewable water resources.
Other environmental categories frequently used in the LCA ap-
proach play an important role when the whole environmental dimen-
sion is being evaluated. Muench and Guenther [10] mentioned two
other impact categories commonly used in the LCA studies of bioenergy
systems, i.e., acidification potential (16%) (which generates several air
pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, ammonia and other sulfur and ni-
trogen compounds that damage forests and lakes) and eutrophication
potential (18%) (which is a criterion caused by excess nutrients that
lead to increased algae growth).
Finally, waste management (18%), erosion (18%) and energy use
(18%) are also among the mid-range criteria used for the evaluation of
the environmental pillar of sustainability.
4.1.2. Social dimension
Social performance is an important area in the domain of gaseous
biofuels, particularly in environmental sciences, Thus, scholars are in-
creasingly striving to achieve a comprehensive understanding and valid
measure of social performance to influence the overall sustainability.
The main frameworks found for social performance measurement are as
follows: GRI sustainability reporting guidelines, UNEP and SETAC
guidelines and methodological sheets, UN millennium and sustainable
development goals, SAI SA 800, ISO 2600, among others [61].
The social criteria for assessing bioenergy production in the 32
studies in this review are divided into 57 subcategories. To provide a
more compressive analysis, the subcategories were divided into the
following six impact categories: human rights, working conditions,
health and safety, governance and socioeconomic repercussions. The
impact categories are logical groupings related to the social issues of
interest to stakeholders and decision makers. These six impact cate-
gories aggregate the subcategories within a theme of interest to a sta-
keholder. However, only the most frequented subcategories are ana-
lyzed in detail in this section, the remaining subcategories are provided
in the Supplementary Material.
4.1.2.1. Working conditions. Job creation/employment (50%) is the
criterion most often used in the social dimension; it refers to the
increase in direct and indirect employment opportunities because of the
production and use of bioenergy systems. Direct jobs are created by the
production itself, for example, workers who work in manufacturing,
installation or operation or maintenance activities and jobs such as
managers or administrative staff. Indirect jobs are related to those
employed in supplying the inputs to the bioenergy project, for example,
the contractor, bankers, accountants or suppliers that provide the
necessary materials. On the other hand, it is commonly seen that
with the usage of local bioenergy facilities for electricity or heat supply,
the bioenergy village's chimney sweep jobs are also replaced because
the number of individual heating systems will decrease [62].
4.1.2.2. Governance. The second most used criterion is the social
acceptance/public perception (28%). This subcategory has been an
issue of interest among researchers when bioenergy technologies are
being assessed [60]. The social acceptability and the potential for
conflict generation, which are mutually connected, are important to
promote sustainable bioenergy use. For example, a negative assessment
of the public acceptance of different renewable energy technologies is
an obstacle, as it creates public opposition to the expansion of and
investment in the new renewables sector [48]. However, assessing the
social acceptance of bioenergy technologies is not an easy task. Despite
many attitude surveys that generally show high levels of public support
for renewable energy in principle, actual projects are often met with
local opposition and contribute to numerous requests for planning
permission being refused or projects becoming ‘stuck’ in the planning
system, a concept which is commonly referred to as “not in my back
yard (NIMBY)” (in this review, it is marked as aesthetics/green image,
16%)
86
Biomass and Bioenergy 125 (2019) 79–94
Community involvement (22%) and public participation (22%) are
two mechanisms through which people can express their opinions and,
in some instances, can have an influence on decisions, in this case,
bioenergy decisions. Both criteria have been widely recognized as local
change tools that can educate people, facilitate information about an
agency's activities and enable individuals to influence managing deci-
sions. In terms of bioenergy, Eigner-thiel et al. [25], pointed out that
the following groups should be equally considered in the biomass de-
cision-making process: farmers, academics, heat and electricity clients,
local administrators, local communities, NGOs, as well as, men and
women. The following three different levels of participation are iden-
tified:
1) Participation in the planning process - All stakeholders are involved
in the planning and decision process;
2) Participation via information - This is provided to obtain partici-
pation by means informal events or meetings, brochures and flyers;
and,
3) Participation in finance decisions - Individuals who have con-
tributed to the finances and have the opportunity to influence the
usage of the investment, for example, determining the price of heat
and raw materials; in this way, the people who participate in the
finances will receive financial gain and may increase an individual's
sense of self-efficiency.
4.1.2.3. Socioeconomic repercussions. The local development/
contribution to the local economy (25%) estimates the total social
and economic impacts that are associated with the renewable energy
initiatives, principally, the local new investments. Many researchers
[63–65] agree that for many governments and policy makers, job
creation is a central motivation for developing and promoting
renewable energy technologies. Philanthropic and community
development projects are also common, some of which are related to
education on science and technology, rural roads for transport,
providing electricity, as well as recreational initiatives [43].
4.1.2.4. Health and safety. Health and safety (25%) is one of the most
important aspects to be assessed in the production and operation of
bioenergy systems; however, it has been recognized as a major barrier
in the deployment of this technology. Awareness of this criterion is a
barrier because several key market actors for the implementation of
these technologies are not familiar with the technology. Many
researchers indicate that bioenergy systems are subject to the same
general health and safety principles, codes of practice, design,
installation and operation standards that apply to gas, oil or coal
fired boiler systems. In this criterion, the local community and those
who operate and maintain bioenergy systems as well as the designers
and constructors are involved. For instance, the main health impacts
from the combustion of fossil fuels in power plants arise from emissions
of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter and
heavy metals.
4.1.2.5. Human rights. No child labor (1%), no discrimination (1%),
and fair trading (1%) are subcategories evaluated in only three works;
however, these issues are increasingly important in research,
regulation, and corporate practice. The widespread practice of child
labor is one of the single greatest threats to any poverty eradication
program. The child laborers of today are the generation on which
sustainable development depends, but they are at risk of becoming a
forgotten generation. Sustainable development requires participation
by every nation and every person for it to be successful, and successful
development cannot leave anybody behind.
Discrimination is intertwined with human rights instruments, such
as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is one of the funda-
mental International Labor Organization (ILO) conventions that are to
be introduced into the legislation of every member of the ILO and that
A. Padilla-Rivera, et al.
are recognized by the WTO as internally applicable standards. A lack of
equal opportunity for everyone is a huge obstacle to sustainable de-
velopment. As an example, gender equality is, first and foremost, a
human right. Women are entitled to live in dignity and in freedom from
want and from fear. Empowering women is also an indispensable tool
for advancing development and reducing poverty. Empowered women
contribute to the health and productivity of families and communities
and to improved prospects for the next generation.
Fair trading or forced labor is relevant to sustainable development
since the abolition of forced labor is an official target for the interna-
tional community, as it is the subject of one of the fundamental ILO
conventions. Therefore, it has to be included in the legislation of all
countries of the ILO.
For further information on detailed indicators, the theories and
empirical experience of social performance measurement research is
found in a review by Kuhneen and Hahn [61].
4.1.3. Economic dimension
The economic dimension of bioenergy production implies that a
system secures sufficient revenues to ensure an economically sound and
continuous operation over a period of analysis [66]. The economic ef-
fect has been recognized as critical, since, as a case in point, the high
cost of bioenergy may impede the adoption of an energy system, even if
it is environmentally and socially acceptable [24].
According to Lee and Ofori-Boateng [67], economic sustainability
assessment of production plants involves the evaluation of four major
economic factors, namely, total capital investment (TCI), total pro-
duction cost (TPC), profitability, and sensitivity indicators. TCI includes
the amount of money required to finance the purchasing of equipment
as well as its auxiliary parts, spare parts, construction of the plant, and
the acquisition of items necessary for plant operation. TCI comprises
fixed capital investment (FCI) and working capital (WC). The FCI, also
called the bare module cost (CBM), is the cost involved or investment
needed to supply all the production facilities, as well as to supply the
construction overhead and plant components that are directly or in-
directly related to the production processes. WC is the amount of money
needed to start the project.
TCP involves the cost needed to run the project, including mar-
keting of the products. The variable costs consist of direct and indirect
costs. Generally, the variable costs may include the costs of raw ma-
terials, utilities, miscellaneous materials, shipping and packaging, etc.
Fixed costs also include the cost of maintenance, operating labor, su-
pervision, plant overhead, capital charges, insurance rates, and royal-
ties.
The methods used in estimating the profitability of the project are as
follows:
• The rate of return on investment (ROI) is defined as the ratio of the
average cumulative cash flow to the total initial investment ex-
pressed as a percentage;
• The payback period is the minimum length of time theoretically
necessary to recover the original investment, without interest, in the
form of cash flow to the project based on total income less all costs
excluding depreciation;
• The breakeven point is the time of the plant's life where there is
neither net profit nor net loss. It is the level above which the pro-
duction rate must be exceeded to make a profit;
• The discounted cash flow rate of return (DCCFRR) is used to cal-
culate the present worth of future earnings and it is sensitive to the
interest rate, and;
• The net present/future value accounts for the time value of money.
The money earned in any year can be put to work (reinvested) as
soon as it is available and starts to earn a return, i.e., the break-even
point (BEP) These indicators can clearly justify the economic fea-
sibility of a production plant
87
Biomass and Bioenergy 125 (2019) 79–94
Sensitivity indicators are important to identify critical factors and
assess their various impacts on the economic assessment. Normally, a
sensitivity analysis is carried out on production plants to evaluate the
variations in the projected performance of the plan within the main
assumptions and conditions that the projects are based.
Among the 57 economic indicators assessed in the economic di-
mension of sustainability (Supplementary Material), only two of them
have high occurrence in the studies under this review. The two main
economic criteria are investments (50%) and operating and main-
tenance (O & M) costs (31%). Investments are defined as the sum of all
incurred expenses until plant operation begins, while the operating
costs occur during operation and depend on the capacity utilization
[68]. In terms of bioenergy, the following cost components need to be
considered: investments (one-time), biomass (annual), wages (annual),
transport (annual), interest on borrowed capital (annual), dividends for
capital contributions (annual), repairs (annual) and miscellaneous (e.g.,
accounting, trade tax or bookkeeping; annual). For the O & M costs,
some authors, such as Gujba et al. [69], defined these costs as follows:
total cost of generating electricity, variable costs, fuel costs, salaries,
and day-to-day costs within the facilities.
The other economic aspects are those related to macroeconomic
sustainability. This criterion refers to the contribution of energy tech-
nologies or plans to improve macroeconomic performance. Fig. 6 shows
the remaining categories, which are as follows: price of the final pro-
duct (13%), feasibility (13%), profitability (9%) and productivity (9%).
Finally, in the category “other categories with two” (16%), the fol-
lowing are included: contribution to the economy, economic perfor-
mance, potential risks, price volatility and tax revenue.
It is important to mention that due to the economic challenges of
running new energy systems, especially more environmentally friendly
ones, government or municipal subsides are reportedly a key economic
consideration required for sustainability. The subsides may in be in the
form of a carbon tax, biofuel tax break, investment or public educa-
tional program [24]. However, in this review, only Gnansounou et al.
[30], utilized a subsidized indicator to measure the economic dimen-
sion of sustainability. In this sense, Mangoyana and Smith [70] sug-
gested encouraging a local bioenergy market to improve the economic
viability.
4.1.4. Other dimensions
The previous sections covered different approaches to address the
three dimensions of sustainability in the evaluation of bioenergy pro-
duction. This section discusses the approaches that included other di-
mensions of sustainability, such as technical or cultural dimensions.
As discussed in the “Research Methodology”, the concept of sus-
tainability has contradictions and limitations, in which sustainability
embraces a traditional holistic approach, integrating social, ecological
and economic dimensions, and more recently, a local turn has a greater
appreciation for other dimensions, such as cultural or technical di-
mensions, as significant components of sustainability [71].
In this review, multiple works (42%) evaluate an extra dimension of
sustainability. In working towards developing a sustainability plan in
bioenergy and biofuels, sustainability should act as a lens for us to
evaluate the current realty and future planning initiatives and the effect
they have on society.
The technical dimension focuses on ensuring the correct operation
of the systems during their lifespan. This dimension (25%) deals with
the fulfillment of the local energy, the reliability of the systems, the
operation and maintenance tasks, and technical support availability.
This dimension aims to address the need to ensure safe technical so-
lutions in energy provision, and it is considered one of the keys to
achieving sustainability [38]. In the current review, efficiency (13%),
functionality (9%), renewability and transport (6%) are the dimensions
included most often. The rest of the indicators are only evaluated in one
study under this review.
The policy/governance/institutional dimension is the one that
A. Padilla-Rivera, et al.
Fig. 4. Number of occurrences per indicators in technical, policy and cultural dimension.
mostly evaluates the appropriateness of the management model de-
signed. This dimension focuses on how the organization's capacities are
reinforced within the community, on how the human capacities are
strengthened, on the level of accountability, and, finally, on the users'
participation in decision-making processes, which is a key factor for the
development process to succeed. As shown in Fig. 4, there is a low
occurrence in the studies reviewed; only the biomass policy (13%) has a
significant representation among the studies.
Finally, the cultural considerations in sustainability recognize that a
community's vitality and quality of life are closely related to the vitality
and quality of its cultural engagement, expression, dialogue, and cele-
bration. This dimension further demonstrates that the contribution of
culture to building lively cities and communities where people want to
live, work, and visit plays a major role in supporting social and eco-
nomic health. The key to cultural sustainability is fostering partner-
ships, exchange, and respect between the different streams of govern-
ment, business, and arts organizations. Culture, as the fourth pillar,
promotes these partnerships and is quickly gaining currency in policy
and planning initiatives.
4.2. Methodological choices
Establishing the set of choices used to evaluate sustainability is a
crucial step in the pursuit of sustainable energy systems. In this study, we
reviewed 32 studies; they were categorized as indicators/indices
[28,33,37], product-related assessment tools [22,24,32,40,41,43,46] and
integrated assessment [21,23,25,26,29,31,35,36,38,39,42,45,47–51]. In
addition, five studies presented a hybrid integrated-product related ap-
proach [27,30,52,72,73].
Within the wide range of approaches evaluated, the integrated as-
sessment is the method with the highest occurrence in the sample
(Fig. 5). According to the categorization proposed by Ness et al. [74],
Fig. 5 shows the most commonly used frameworks and the number of
occurrences found in the sample.
As shown in Fig. 5, the most common integrated assessment is the
multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) category; this agrees with Su-
ganthi et al. [75], who established that with the latest advancements
taking place in the information technology sector, the MCDA models
88
Biomass and Bioenergy 125 (2019) 79–94
have gained momentum in the energy sector. MCDA determines the
relative importance of each variable to the decision at hand (weighting)
and then mathematically combines the score and weight to give an
overall performance score for each alternative, which, in the case of a
sustainability assessment, is effectively a relative sustainability score
[76]. In addition, this approach has the advantage of incorporating both
qualitative and quantitative data into the process.
Within this category, it is common to find the multi-attribute value
theory (MATV) and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Another
group found, based on the decision maker's preferences and outranking
methods, the use of concordance indices, such as ELECTRE, or pre-
ference indices, such as in PROMETHEE.
Finally, a third group of MCDAs, i.e., nonclassic methods, mainly
refer to fuzzy set approaches and the distance to target methods. Fuzzy
logic deals with reasoning that is approximate, having linguistic values
rather than crisp values, while distance to target methods are founded
on optimizing the distance each element/alternative reaches under the
geometric evaluation of criteria relationships.
According to Fig. 5, five studies, called hybrid methods in this re-
view, use the combination of life cycle approaches and MCDA. This
hybrid approach benefits from the advantages of both methodologies,
while overcoming some of their limitations. This model was found to
very robust because MCDA identifies goals and objectives and then
seeks to spot the trade-offs between them, while life cycle thinking
typifies the group of tools that account for the flow of inputs and out-
puts of energies and materials throughout all stages of a product's life
[77].
Although the use of MCDA for sustainability assessment in industrial
sectors is significantly extended, its application to bioenergy systems is
still untapped. In this respect, the minor role currently found in this
review in the sustainability assessment of bioenergy systems should be
understood as an opportunity.
The remaining categories in Fig. 5 show a lower number of occur-
rences. The system representations methods mainly refer to interviews/
surveys/focus groups. A key characteristic of these approaches is that
they are dynamic and evolve interventions to achieve a vision, policy
changes or a project that might be the subject of a sustainability as-
sessment. Similarly, the system may be modeled with the goal of
A. Padilla-Rivera, et al.
Fig. 5. In depth view of methodological choices of studies under review. N = 32.
transitioning to a more sustainable state or achieving or maintaining
resilience.
5. Extending life cycle thinking indicators for measuring the
sustainability impacts of bioenergy systems
This section focuses on the emerging tools of life cycle thinking to
evaluate the three dimensions of sustainability via the evaluation of
bioenergy systems modeling with a life cycle approach. As mentioned in
Section 3.4, establishing the set of tools to be used in the assessment is a
crucial step in the measurement of bioenergy sustainability. These
criteria selected in the sustainability assessment of bioenergy systems
play a key role in the reporting of the best alternative.
Many environmental tools for ensuring environmental sustainability
have been used to carry out the environmental impact assessment of
bioenergy systems, such as environmental risk assessments, life cycle
commonality metrics, ecological footprints and ecoefficiency; however,
within the wide range of tools for measuring sustainability, the in-
tegrated assessment, particularly life cycle assessment (LCA), is one of
the most appropriate and robust assessment frameworks for the eva-
luation of the potential impacts of a product's entire life cycle – from
raw materials extraction to final disposal - because it is holistic, sys-
tematic and rigorous.
5.1. Life cycle assessment (LCA)
LCA is an environmental (originally) assessment tool used to eval-
uate the impacts of a product over its life cycle (extraction of raw
materials, transportation, manufacture, use, final disposal, reuse, and
recycling). LCA is an effective tools for evaluating the environmental
feasibility and sustainability of fuels. Normally, the LCA results and
evaluation methods for multiple feedstocks and production technolo-
gies include the net energy and material balance calculations [67].
Many studies worldwide have focused on biogas production systems.
This provides a solid knowledge base for both policy makers and en-
gineers to improve the efficiency of such systems and reduce their en-
vironmental impacts [12].
In accordance with the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) 14040 and 14044 standards, an LCA is carried
out using four main interdependent phases or methodological
89
Biomass and Bioenergy 125 (2019) 79–94
frameworks [78], namely, as follows:
a) The goal and scope definition is the first step and it comprises the
following:
• Functional unit (FU), which provides a reference to which all
inputs and outputs of the system are connected and must be
uniform throughout the LCA study. The FU is the basis of the LCA
study, and it quantitatively measures the product's functions for
possible comparisons of the assessed product/process with others;
• System boundary, which specifies the inclusion or exclusion of
processes for the inventory analysis;
• Assumptions and limitations, which normally depend on the study
case analyzed;
• Impact categories selection, in which the potential environmental
impacts are chosen under objective and scientific recommenda-
tions; and
• Allocation, which helps to assign the environmental loads within
the production system, especially when multiple products and
coproducts are produced in the same system.
b) Life cycle inventory analysis (LCI), in this stage, all input and output
flows are stated with their respective amounts in relation to the FU.
It involves data collection and calculation procedures to quantify the
relevant inputs and outputs. The data for each unit process within
the system boundaries include energy, materials, emissions to air,
discharges to water and soil and wastes.
c) Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). The aim of this phase is to
evaluate the potential environmental impacts using the LCI results.
In general, this process involves associating inventory data with
specific environmental impact categories and category indicators.
The LCIA phase includes the following mandatory elements: selec-
tion of impact categories, classification (assignment of LCI results),
characterization (calculation of category indicator results); while
normalization (calculation of the magnitude of category results re-
lative to reference information), grouping and weighting are listed
as optional elements.
d) Interpretation is the phase in which the findings from the LCI and
the LCIA are considered together to deliver results that are con-
sistent with the defined goal and scope and which reach conclusions,
explain limitations and provide recommendations.
A. Padilla-Rivera, et al.
Fig. 6. Number and percentage of studies using-life cycle indicators for the
sample of studies reviewed for sustainability assessment of bioenergy systems
N = 32.
LCA in biofuels has been the most common environment impact
assessment tool used to evaluate the production of biofuels and bioe-
nergy over their life cycles. However, the life cycle is recognized as
lacking in spatial and temporal depth, and some environmental impact
categories, such as biodiversity, land use, etc., and most economic and
social impact categories, e.g., food security, water security, and energy
security, are unable to be assessed sufficiently [79]; this is because they
are often difficult to quantify.
The relevance of life cycle methodologies to provide performance
indicators is further explored in Fig. 6. From this review, 25% of the
studies addressing the environmental dimension use life cycle in-
dicators, which is linked to the afovailability of mature methodological
frameworks for LCA. On the other hand, only 9% and 6% of the studies
addressing the economic and social dimensions, respectively, include
indicators with a life cycle perspective, which is probably associated
with the lack of development and a well-established and broadly ac-
cepted methodology for the evaluation of social and economic impacts
based on the life cycle assessment approach [80].
To compensate for the lack of capacity of LCAs to measure social
and economic impacts (which are often the primary concern of the
decision takers stakeholder groups), some other life cycle thinking ap-
proaches and concepts, such as life cycle costing (LCC), the social life
cycle assessment (SLCA) and the value chain approach or analysis, have
been developed [81].
This trend towards a whole life cycle sustainability assessment
(LCSA) is observed in only one of the studies under review. Chong et al.
[24], proposed and developed a sustainability indicator framework
applicable in life cycle sustainability assessments. However, relevant
challenges still need to be addressed to make the methodology a sound
source of indicators.
5.2. Social life cycle assessment
The inclusion of social aspects in the LCA methodology has been an
issue of interest since the last decade, mainly after the publication of the
guidelines for social life cycle assessment (SLCA), which followed the
framework of the ISO standard for LCA [82]. The SLCA is a tool for the
systematic assessment of the socioeconomic aspects of supply chains.
The guidelines present key elements to be considered in the goal and
scope definition, inventory analysis and impact assessment and inter-
pretation phases of a SLCA. The SLCA approach proposes a two-type
classification of social impacts, i.e., by stakeholders’ categories and
impact categories.
Many authors have applied the SLCA framework indicators as well
as indicators proposed in the corresponding methodological sheets
[83–85]. Other authors developed their own indicator sets with
90
Biomass and Bioenergy 125 (2019) 79–94
multiple approaches [86–89]. Further, in 2013, the Roundtable for
Product Social Metrics was established with the aim of harmonizing
principles, methodologies, impact categories and performance in-
dicators for product social impact assessments. As a result, the Hand-
book for Product Social Impact Assessment [90] was published together
with six pilots studies of six different products. The handbook is mainly
based on the guidelines for SCLA and corporate level standards (GRI)
and ISO 26000. This new approach provides a set of indicators for each
stakeholder category, a more pragmatic approach to assess social issues
at the product level and a method to convert performance indicators to
the reference unit.
However, unlike conventional LCAs with relatively clear cause and
effect chains, in SLCA, these parameters are difficult to correlate with
regard to the production activities and their potential social effects,
making if often quite challenging to select appropriate indicators. In
relation to limited data availability, many SLCAs, which have been
applied to national data to set up the SLCIs and use global references for
characterization, still lack site-specific data and focus on one life cycle
stage and then compare the findings to another alternative. Only a few
SLCA studies that collect indicator values from organizations along the
production system and characterize them using primarily quantitative
regional-specific references have been published.
Apart from the Handbook and some modifications of the original
SLCA approach, no considerable progress has been made since the re-
lease of the guidelines in the last five years [91]. There is still no
complete and broadly accepted methodology for SCLA [80]. Until now,
despite these initial efforts, limitations can be listed on both the in-
ventory and impact assessment level. If SCLA prevents the application
on a wider scale, the following two main issues need to be clarified: 1)
confusion on the goal and scope, and 2) lack of data and practical tools
[92].
5.3. Life cycle costing
The 3rd pillar of sustainability is the economic aspect. There has
been a wide range of established tools for estimating costs and rev-
enues. Finding and estimating the cost and economic related data is less
than a challenge compared to the environmental life cycle data. The life
cycle costing (LCC) approach has been developed to be used in parallel
with LCA in a consistent manner. LCC is an assessment of all the costs
associated with the life cycle of a product system that are directly
covered by any one or more of the actors in the product life cycle with
the inclusion of externalities that are anticipated to be internalized in
the decision-relevant future. This requires a structuring of the costs
according to the life cycle stages, in which the focus is on money flows
(similar to material and energy flows) and taking the stakeholders’
perspective into account. LCA and LCC represent two different ways of
extracting indicators from the same system.
Despite the continuous methodological developments of the LCC
analysis over the last years, it is so far rarely used in process industries
or academia to decide between alternative technologies [91]. Most of
the studies combined LCC with the evaluation of environmental im-
pacts. Thus, various methodologies exist to quantify and represent eco-
efficiency, i.e., the ratio between environmental pressure and economic
growth; although, not all of them follow the life cycle concept.
The relevance of the full LCC in sustainability assessment as the
most elaborated method to assess the economic part of eco-efficiency
analysis so far has been debated and questioned in the literature [93].
On one hand, the arguments are that by focusing mainly on the costs for
the individual, LCC fails to consider the broad (global) perspective in-
herent to sustainability; on the other hand, by addressing monetary
costs, it fails to consider the different capitals relevant to sustainability.
However, one must consider the purpose and stakeholder perspective of
an LCC or eco-efficiency study before raising those arguments.
Despite all the criticism and open issues, LCC and eco-efficiency
analyses, in general, are seen in the current literature as valuable
A. Padilla-Rivera, et al.
concepts to maximize value creation while minimizing the use of re-
sources and the emissions of pollutants. These analyses offer an in-
tegrated management framework of concepts, techniques and proce-
dures to think how to best operationalize sustainable actions to achieve
the identified business value [94]. However, future efforts in metho-
dological improvements, standardization and better adaption to cor-
porate operational decision making are needed to gain a wider accep-
tance [95].
5.4. Life cycle sustainability assessment
Aside from being an environmental impact assessment tool, LCA
mostly addresses the decision maker's questions concerning local and
regional environmental impacts; it also has the weakness of being static
and, therefore, not able to predict mid-term to long term changes in the
impacts considered.
In measuring the different sustainability impacts of bioenergy pro-
duction, new integrated metrics and tools considering the triple di-
mensions of sustainability and their interactions should be developed.
In response, the life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) has been
suggested as a tool to achieve holistic, environmental, economic and
social aspects of sustainability assessment. The SLCA is an instrument
for conducting comparative socioeconomic evaluations of products,
processes and entire supply chains. It offers holistic indicators that sa-
tisfy the informational needs of all relevant stakeholders while also
considering qualitative indicators in its evaluation [96].
Clopffer and Ciroth [97] proposed a life cycle sustainability as-
sessment (LCSA = LCA + LCC + SLCA) given that, analogous to the
LCA approach (ISO 14040), the SLCA must be carried out in three
phases, as follows: the definition of the goal and scope of the research
(similar system boundaries and functional units are considered when
comparing alternative systems), the life cycle inventory, and the eva-
luation and interpretation of results [89]. However, it is still necessary
to consider the interlinkages of the hotspots and consider the multiple
stakeholders’ inputs to create a more robust integrated LCSA for any
system at an open, transparent virtual level.
Furthermore, the establishment of the SLCA has remained in an
early developmental stage so far due to methodological difficulties, and
a thorough evaluation of this method is still on-going. Methodological
problems, such as the lack of suitable procedures for the objective
measurement of qualitative socioeconomic aspects (e.g., the negative
perception of changes in the landscape) have strongly hindered the
establishment of the SLCA.
Computational tools recently emerged as supports that can help in
modeling the critical elements that affect system behavior to achieve
economic, social and environmentally efficient outcomes. Halog and
Manik [98] implemented a modeling and simulation system, considered
as a laboratory experiment, in which the critical elements in the real
world are identified and modeled and then used to create dynamic
computational sustainability assessments for any system investigated.
The methods explained above have their own respective data avail-
ability challenges but in pursuit of addressing urgent sustainable de-
velopment issues; the SLCA is an attempt to connect the basic principles
and methods of science, engineering and technology to formulating
sustainability-related government policies and corporate decisions to
inform actions that lead to environmental, energy and societal sus-
tainability.
5.5. Future research for MCDA methods for bioenergy systems
There are gaps in the breadth of literature regarding the sustain-
ability assessment of bioenergy. For bioenergy systems to properly be
considered as multicriteria problems, it is necessary that all suitable
aspects are examined from a sustainable perspective, i.e., from the so-
cial, environmental and economical dimensions. In addition, deploy-
ment of bioenergy technologies in developed countries is expected to
91
Biomass and Bioenergy 125 (2019) 79–94
increase in the coming years as carbon reduction policies and targets
begin to gather force. Much of the reviewed literature appears to aim at
influencing and making recommendations to policy makers rather than
addressing problems regarding location selection, supply of fuel or ca-
pacity selection using multicriteria methods. These operational and
development issues are suitable for multicriteria treatment, and such
methods could allow for more successful and efficient developments.
Future work should engage clearly with current developments in the
bioenergy industry to identify relevant problems during the im-
plementation and design phases. In this sense, anticipatory life cycle
assessments to support research and innovation in the bioenergy sector
could guide innovation towards beneficial environmental, social and
economic outcomes.
This review identifies that the works using MCDA in the bioenergy
systems to date could be the most balanced against the potential ap-
plications of such methods which face single issues from traditional
methods in the bioenergy industry; however, more analysis is necessary
to make this statement. With a minimum of technical and energetic
effort, MCDA should help decision makers who have to determine the
most sustainable biomass concept for a certain area. The aim of MCDA
in bioenergy is the ex-ante assessment of a few individual options by
explicitly considering a decision-maker's subjective preferences with
regard to decision support and planning (monitoring and control vs
planning and choice).
While MCDA methods may be the easiest to apply to certain sub-
problems of the bioenergy industry, they may give more helpful support
when applied in combination with other methods to obtain a truly
optimal design from the viewpoint of all stakeholders. The intention of
this paper is to systematically classify the existing literature, which
applied sustainability assessment to the bioenergy industry and pro-
vides a direction for future research on supporting the design of existing
and future bioenergy schemes towards sustainable energy use. The
main suggestions for future work are twofold. First, a better under-
standing of optimal system configuration could be realized by in-
tegrating multicriteria methods and applying such methods to more
decisions in the development process; and second, there is scope to
expand the use of MCDA methods in bioenergy, thus allowing a better
understanding of the tradeoffs being made in decisions.
This work has used search terms revolving around the bioenergy
industry only. It is likely that methods exist in other industry sectors,
such as, other renewable energies, that could be suitable for addressing
the problems being faced by the bioenergy industry at present.
6. Conclusions
In this systematic review, we have synthesized various studies that
were implemented to measure the sustainability of gaseous biofuels.
The sustainability assessment was divided into the type of biomass
used, the type of gaseous biofuel, the regional context, and the in-
dicators used in the social, environmental and economic dimensions.
One of the main findings is that although there are various inter-
national efforts on measuring sustainability, only 32 studies of the 8542
works initially screened (less than 1%) have an integral approach that
considers all three environmental, economic and social aspects. In most
cases, the focus is on one of the three aspects. It was also found that
50% of the studies evaluated (16/32) included another dimension, i.e.,
cultural, institutional or technical dimensions. These results support the
idea that a multidimensional sustainability assessment is feasible and
facilitates decision-making processes towards a sustainable energy fu-
ture.
Despite the methodological choices, MCDA provided a holistic view
for the sustainability assessment of gaseous biofuels. MCDA presented
advantages in terms of practicality and objectivity because it de-
termines the relative importance of each variable to the decision
(weighting) and then mathematically combines the score and weight to
give an overall performance score for each alternative, which provides
A. Padilla-Rivera, et al.
the overall efficiency, term efficiencies and sustainability benchmarks
of each scenario under evaluation.
On the other hand, life cycle thinking has been applied to assess the
environmental impacts and to a much lesser extent, to assess the eco-
nomic (life cycle costing) and social implications (social life cycle as-
sessment). However, in the context of sustainable development, all
three aspects are required to make a comprehensive sustainability as-
sessment using the lifecycle approach. The life cycle sustainability as-
sessment is an instrument used to achieve a holistic assessment, in-
cluding the environmental, economic and social aspects of
sustainability assessment.
Based on the increase in the number of hybrids tools, dual ap-
proaches have emerged as a decision-making process oriented towards
a sustainable energy system. The combination of the life cycle metho-
dology and MCDA is a feasible approach that takes advantage of the
appropriate criteria selection and quantification of the LCA, while
MCDA enriches the interpretation of the life cycle evaluation, providing
an easy tool to report sustainability scores and benchmark bioenergy
decisions.
The uncertainties related to the data in the life cycle methodology
benefit from the use of the MCDA approaches, modeling approaches
and software supports that have previously been developed with life
cycle thinking approaches.
Regardless of the selection of indicators, it is determined that the
following set of indicators have been the most commonly used, and
therefore, they could help decision makers to evaluate the sustainability
performance of energy systems:
• Environmental: Climate change, land use change, biodiversity,
water use and water quality protection;
• Social: Job creation, social acceptance, contribution to local
economy, health and safety and community involvement; and
• Economic: Investment costs, O&M costs, productivity, product cost
and feasibility.
Acknowledgments
The financial support granted by “Fondo de Sustentabilidad
Energética SENER – CONACYT (Mexico)”, through the project 247006
Gaseous Biofuels Cluster, is gratefully acknowledged.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.03.014.
References
[1] S. Hadian, K. Madani, A system of systems approach to energy sustainability as-
sessment: are all renewables really green? Ecol. Indicat. 52 (2015) 194–206 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.11.029.
[2] M. Martín-Gamboa, D. Iribarren, D. García-Gusano, J. Dufour, A review of life-cycle
approaches coupled with data envelopment analysis within multi-criteria decision
analysis for sustainability assessment of energy systems, J. Clean. Prod. 150 (2017)
164–174, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.017.
[3] M. Cinelli, S.R. Coles, K. Kirwan, Analysis of the potentials of multi criteria decision
analysis methods to conduct sustainability assessment, Ecol. Indicat. 46 (2014)
138–148, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.06.011.
[4] P. Peura, From Malthus to sustainable energy - theoretical orientations to reforming
the energy sector, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 19 (2013) 309–327, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.025.
[5] D. Rathore, D. Pant, A. Singh, A. Nizami, I.M. Ismail, Life Cycle Assessment of
Renewable Energy Sources, (2013), pp. 269–289, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-
4471-5364-1.
[6] P. Abdeshahian, J.S. Lim, W.S. Ho, H. Hashim, C.T. Lee, Potential of biogas pro-
duction from farm animal waste in Malaysia, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 60
(2016) 714–723, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.117.
[7] A.K. Boulamanti, S. Donida Maglio, J. Giuntoli, A. Agostini, Influence of different
practices on biogas sustainability, Biomass Bioenergy 53 (2013) 149–161 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.02.020.
[8] A. Scragg, 5 gaseous biofuels, in: A. Scragg (Ed.), Gaseous Biofuels, CABI,
92
Biomass and Bioenergy 125 (2019) 79–94
Wallingford, 2009, pp. 81–104.
[9] K.K. Gupta, A. Rehman, R.M. Sarviya, Bio-fuels for the gas turbine: a review,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (2010) 2946–2955, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.
2010.07.025.
[10] S. Muench, E. Guenther, A systematic review of bioenergy life cycle assessments,
Appl. Energy 112 (2013) 257–273, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.06.
001.
[11] X. Wu, F. Wu, X. Tong, J. Wu, L. Sun, X. Peng, Emergy and greenhouse gas as-
sessment of a sustainable, integrated agricultural model (SIAM) for plant, animal
and biogas production: analysis of the ecological recycle of wastes, Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 96 (2015) 40–50, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.01.010.
[12] O. Hijazi, S. Munro, B. Zerhusen, M. Effenberger, Review of life cycle assessment for
biogas production in Europe, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 54 (2016) 1291–1300,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.013.
[13] R. Lora Grando, A.M. de Souza Antune, F.V. da Fonseca, A. Sánchez, R. Barrena,
X. Font, Technology overview of biogas production in anaerobic digestion plants: a
European evaluation of research and development, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 80
(2017) 44–53, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.079.
[14] A. Yasar, S. Nazir, R. Rasheed, A.B. Tabinda, M. Nazar, Economic review of different
designs of biogas plants at household level in Pakistan, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
74 (2017) 221–229, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.128.
[15] S. Sahota, G. Shah, P. Ghosh, R. Kapoor, S. Sengupta, P. Singh, V. Vijay, A. Sahay, V.
K. Vijay, I.S. Thakur, Cr, (2018). doi:10.1016/j.biteb.2018.01.002.
[16] J. Pope, A. Bond, J. Hugé, A. Morrison-Saunders, Reconceptualising sustainability
assessment, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 62 (2017) 205–215, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.eiar.2016.11.002.
[17] R.B. Gibson, Application of a contribution to sustainability test by the joint review
panel for the Canadian mackenzie gas project, Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 29
(2011) 231–244, https://doi.org/10.3152/146155111X12959673796209.
[18] D. Tranfield, D. Denyer, P. Smart, Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review, Br. J. Manag. 14
(2003) 207–222, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375.
[19] P. Alderson, Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook 4.2.2, Wiley & Sons, 2004.
[20] R. Radics, S. Dasmohapatra, S.S. Kelley, Bioenergy Perception, (2015) https://
bioresources.cnr.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/BioRes_10_4_8770_
REVIEW_Radics_DK_Systematic_Review_Bioenergy_Perception_Studies_7627.pdf ,
Accessed date: 20 February 2019.
[21] J. Ammenberg, R. Feiz, Assessment of feedstocks for biogas production, part
II—results for strategic decision making, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 122 (2017)
388–404, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.01.020.
[22] L. Augusto, H. Nogueira, L. Gustavo, A. De Souza, L. Augusto, B. Cortez, Sustainable
and integrated bioenergy assessment for Latin America , Caribbean and Africa (
SIByl-LACAf ): the path from feasibility to acceptability, Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 76 (2017) 292–308, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.163.
[23] M. Bojesen, L. Boerboom, H. Skov-Petersen, Towards a sustainable capacity ex-
pansion of the Danish biogas sector, Land Use Pol. 42 (2015) 264–277, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.07.022.
[24] Y.T. Chong, K.M. Teo, L.C. Tang, A lifecycle-based sustainability indicator frame-
work for waste-to-energy systems and a proposed metric of sustainability, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 56 (2016) 797–809, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.11.
036.
[25] S. Eigner-thiel, M. Schmehl, J. Ibendorf, Sustainable Bioenergy Production - An
Integrated Approach, (2013), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6642-6.
[26] R. Feiz, J. Ammenberg, Assessment of feedstocks for biogas production, part I—a
multi-criteria approach, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 122 (2017) 373–387, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.01.019.
[27] V. Gasso, F.W. Oudshoorn, E. de Olde, C.A.G. Sørensen, Generic sustainability as-
sessment themes and the role of context: the case of Danish maize for German
biogas, Ecol. Indicat. 49 (2015) 143–153 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.
10.008.
[28] E. Gissi, M. Gaglio, M. Reho, Sustainable energy potential from biomass through
ecosystem services trade-off analysis: the case of the Province of Rovigo (Northern
Italy), Ecosyst. Serv. 18 (2016) 1–19 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.01.
004.
[29] N.V. Gnanapragasam, B.V. Reddy, M.A. Rosen, A Methodology for assessing the
sustainability of hydrogen production from solid fuels, Sustainability 2 (2010)
1472–1491, https://doi.org/10.3390/su2061472.
[30] E. Gnansounou, C.M. Alves, E.R. Pachón, P. Vaskan, Comparative assessment of
selected sugarcane biorefinery-centered systems in Brazil: a multi-criteria method
based on sustainability indicators, Bioresour. Technol. 243 (2017) 600–610 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.07.004.
[31] L. Gulbrandsen, Development Implications and Sustainability of Biogas Plants in
Njombe District , Tanzania, (2011), pp. 1–94.
[32] J. Hu, T. Lei, Z. Wang, X. Yan, X. Shi, Z. Li, X. He, Q. Zhang, Economic, environ-
mental and social assessment of briquette fuel from agricultural residues in China –
a study on flat die briquetting using corn stalk, Energy 64 (2014) 557–566 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.10.028.
[33] S. Juárez-Hernández, A. Castro-González, Assessing the impact of biogas on the
energy sustainability of an urban restaurant in Mexico, Ing. Invest. Tecnol. 17
(2016) 61–71, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riit.2016.01.006.
[34] T. Ketola, T. Salmi, Sustainability life cycle comparison of biofuels: sewage the
saviour? Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 21 (2010) 796–811, https://doi.org/10.
1108/14777831011077655.
[35] S. Khishtandar, M. Zandieh, B. Dorri, A multi criteria decision making framework
for sustainability assessment of bioenergy production technologies with hesitant
fuzzy linguistic term sets: the case of Iran, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 77 (2017)
A. Padilla-Rivera, et al.
1130–1145 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.212.
[36] N. Lerche, I. Wilkens, M. Schmehl, S. Eigner-Thiel, J. Geldermann, Using methods of
Multi-Criteria Decision Making to provide decision support concerning local bioe-
nergy projects, Socioecon. Plann. Sci. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2017.
08.002.
[37] I. Lewandowski, Securing a sustainable biomass supply in a growing bioeconomy,
Glob. Food Sec. 6 (2015) 34–42, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2015.10.001.
[38] P. Lillo, L. Ferrer-Martí, Á. Fernández-Baldor, B. Ramírez, A new integral man-
agement model and evaluation method to enhance sustainability of renewable
energy projects for energy and sanitation services, Energy Sustain. Dev. 29 (2015)
1–12, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2015.08.003.
[39] C. Okello, Assessing Sustainability of Bioenergy Systems in Developing Countries:
Methodological Development and Application, (2014), p. 210 http://www.fedoa.
unina.it/10041/1/C_Okello_2014.pdf.
[40] J. Prasara-A, S.H. Gheewala, Sustainability of sugarcane cultivation: case study of
selected sites in north-eastern Thailand, J. Clean. Prod. 134 (2016) 613–622,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.029.
[41] C. Rosch, J. Skarka, K. Raab, V. Stelzer, Energy production from grassland - as-
sessing the sustainability of different process chains under German conditions,
Biomass Bioenergy 33 (2009) 689–700, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.
10.008.
[42] J. Ren, H. Liang, L. Dong, Z. Gao, C. He, M. Pan, L. Sun, Sustainable development of
sewage sludge-to-energy in China: barriers identification and technologies prior-
itization, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 67 (2017) 384–396, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.rser.2016.09.024.
[43] J.C. Sacramento-Rivero, F. Navarro-Pineda, L.E. Vilchiz-Bravo, Evaluating the
sustainability of biorefineries at the conceptual design stage, Chem. Eng. Res. Des.
107 (2016) 167–180, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2015.10.017.
[44] E. Santoyo-Castelazo, H. Gujba, A. Azapagic, Life cycle assessment of electricity
generation in Mexico, Energy 36 (2011) 1488–1499, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2011.01.018.
[45] P. Sinclair, B. Cohen, Y. Hansen, L. Basson, R. Clift, Stakeholder engagement within
the sustainability assessment of bioenergy: case studies in heat, power and per-
ennial and annual crops from the UK, Biomass Bioenergy 73 (2015) 11–22, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.11.017.
[46] M. Stefanova, C. Tripepi, A. Zamagni, P. Masoni, Goal and scope in life cycle sus-
tainability analysis: the case of hydrogen production from biomass, Sustainability 6
(2014) 5463–5475, https://doi.org/10.3390/su6085463.
[47] B. Steubing, R. Zah, P. Waeger, C. Ludwig, Bioenergy in Switzerland: assessing the
domestic sustainable biomass potential, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (2010)
2256–2265 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.03.036.
[48] M. Troldborg, S. Heslop, R.L. Hough, Assessing the sustainability of renewable
energy technologies using multi-criteria analysis: suitability of approach for na-
tional-scale assessments and associated uncertainties, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
39 (2014) 1173–1184 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.160.
[49] P. Upham, B. Smith, Using the Rapid Impact Assessment Matrix to synthesize bio-
fuel and bioenergy impact assessment results: the example of medium scale bioe-
nergy heat options, J. Clean. Prod. 65 (2014) 261–269 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2013.09.041.
[50] V.P. Vasileiadis, A.C. Moonen, M. Sattin, S. Otto, X. Pons, P. Kudsk, A. Veres,
Z. Dorner, R. van der Weide, E. Marraccini, E. Pelzer, F. Angevin, J. Kiss,
Sustainability of European maize-based cropping systems: economic, environmental
and social assessment of current and proposed innovative IPM-based systems, Eur.
J. Agron. 48 (2013) 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2013.02.001.
[51] R. Verhoog, A. Ghorbani, G.P.J. Dijkema, Modelling socio-ecological systems with
MAIA: a biogas infrastructure simulation, Environ. Model. Softw 81 (2016) 72–85,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.03.011.
[52] C.C.C. von Doderer, T.E. Kleynhans, Determining the most sustainable lig-
nocellulosic bioenergy system following a case study approach, Biomass Bioenergy
70 (2014) 273–286, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.08.014.
[53] G. Carrosio, Energy production from biogas in the Italian countryside: policies and
organizational models, Energy Policy 63 (2013) 3–9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2013.08.072.
[54] C. Morton, Anaerobic Digestion: 2015, (2015).
[55] M. Rios, M. Kaltschmitt, Electricity generation potential from biogas produced from
organic waste in Mexico, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 54 (2016) 384–395, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.033.
[56] L. Chen, L. Zhao, C. Ren, F. Wang, The progress and prospects of rural biogas
production in China, Energy Policy 51 (2012) 58–63, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2012.05.052.
[57] N. Labutong, J. Mosley, R. Smith, J. Willard, N. Resources, Life-Cycle modeling and
environmental impact assessment of commercial scale by, (2012), pp. 1–125.
[58] S. Amiri, D. Henning, B.G. Karlsson, Simulation and introduction of a CHP plant in a
Swedish biogas system, Renew. Energy 49 (2013) 242–249, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.renene.2012.01.022.
[59] C. Cambero, T. Sowlati, Assessment and optimization of forest biomass supply
chains from economic, social and environmental perspectives – a review of litera-
ture, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 36 (2014) 62–73, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
RSER.2014.04.041.
[60] A. Maxim, Sustainability assessment of electricity generation technologies using
weighted multi-criteria decision analysis, Energy Policy 65 (2013) 284–297,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.09.059.
[61] M. Kuehnen, R. Hahn, Indicators in social life cycle assessment: a review of fra-
meworks, theories, and empirical experience, J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (2017) 1547–1565,
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12663.
[62] R.A. Efroymson, V.H. Dale, M.H. Langholtz, Socioeconomic indicators for
93
Biomass and Bioenergy 125 (2019) 79–94
sustainable design and commercial development of algal biofuel systems, GCB
Bioenergy 9 (2017) 1005–1023, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12359.
[63] M. Beccali, M. Cellura, M. Mistretta, Decision-making in energy planning.
Application of the Electre method at regional level for the diffusion of renewable
energy technology, Renew. Energy 28 (2003) 2063–2087, https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0960-1481(03)00102-2.
[64] B.B. Brown, E.K. Yiridoe, R. Gordon, Impact of single versus multiple policy options
on the economic feasibility of biogas energy production: swine and dairy operations
in Nova Scotia, Energy Policy 35 (2007) 4597–4610, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2007.03.023.
[65] J. Burton, K. Hubacek, Is small beautiful? A multicriteria assessment of small-scale
energy technology applications in local governments, Energy Policy 35 (2007)
6402–6412, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.08.002.
[66] J. den Boer, E. den Boer, J. Jager, LCA-IWM, A decision support tool for sustain-
ability assessment of waste management systems, Waste Manag. 27 (2007)
1032–1045, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.02.022.
[67] K.T. Lee, C. Ofori-Boateng, Environmental Sustainability Assessment of Biofuel
Production from Oil Palm Biomass, (2013), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-
4451-70-3.
[68] J. Geldermann, O. Rentz, The reference installation approach for the techno-eco-
nomic assessment of emission abatement options and the determination of bat ac-
cording to the IPPC-directive, 12 (2004) 389–402, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-
6526(03)00032-5.
[69] H. Gujba, Y. Mulugetta, A. Azapagic, Environmental and economic appraisal of
power generation capacity expansion plan in Nigeria, Energy Policy 38 (2010)
5636–5652, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.05.011.
[70] R.B. Mangoyana, T.F. Smith, Decentralised bioenergy systems: a review of oppor-
tunities and threats, Energy Policy 39 (2011) 1286–1295, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enpol.2010.11.057.
[71] L. Seghezzo, The five dimensions of sustainability, Environ. Pol. 18 (2009)
539–556, https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010903063669.
[72] T. Ketola, T. Salmi, Sustainability life cycle comparison of biofuels: sewage the
saviour? Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 21 (2010) 796–811, https://doi.org/10.
1108/14777831011077655.
[73] E. Santoyo-Castelazo, A. Azapagic, Sustainability assessment of energy systems:
integrating environmental, economic and social aspects, J. Clean. Prod. 80 (2014)
119–138, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.061.
[74] B. Ness, E. Urbel-Piirsalu, S. Anderberg, L. Olsson, Categorising tools for sustain-
ability assessment, Ecol. Econ. 60 (2007) 498–508, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2006.07.023.
[75] L. Suganthi, S. Iniyan, A.A. Samuel, Applications of fuzzy logic in renewable energy
systems - a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 48 (2015) 585–607, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.037.
[76] D. Geneletti, V. Ferretti, A. Morrison-Saunders, A. Pope, J. Bond (Eds.), Chapter 11:
Multicriteria Analysis for Sustainability Assess- Ment: Concepts and Case Studies,
Handb. Sustain. Assess., Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK., 2015.
[77] A. Bettley, S. Burnley, Towards sustainable operations management integrating
sustainability management into operations management strategies and practices,
Handb. Performability Eng, 2008, pp. 875–904, , https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-
84800-131-2_53.
[78] International Organization for Standardisation, ISO 1440 Environmental manage-
ment-life cycle assessment-principles and framework, London Br. Stand. Inst.
(2006), https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.332.7550.1107.
[79] O. Arodudu, K. Helming, H. Wiggering, A. Voinov, Towards a more holistic sus-
tainability assessment framework for agro-bioenergy systems — a review, Environ.
Impact Assess. Rev. 62 (2017) 61–75, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.07.008.
[80] J. Martínez-Blanco, J. Rieradevall, A. Antón, P. Muñoz, Multifunctionality-solving
approaches of compost application in crop rotations, J. Clean. Prod. 64 (2014)
384–395, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.014.
[81] M. Finkbeiner, E.M. Schau, A. Lehmann, M. Traverso, Towards life cycle sustain-
ability assessment, Sustainability 2 (2010) 3309–3322, https://doi.org/10.3390/
su2103309.
[82] C. Benoît, G.A. Norris, D. Aulisio, Social Hotspots Database the GUIDELINES for
SOCIAL LIFE CYCLE, (2009).
[83] C. Benoit, J. Parent, I. Kuenzi, J.-P. Reveret, Developing a Methodology for Social
Life Cycle Assessment: the North American Tomato's CSR Case, (2007).
[84] J. Franze, A. Ciroth, A comparison of cut roses from Ecuador and The Netherlands,
Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 16 (2011) 366–379, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-
0266-x.
[85] L.C. Dreyer, M.Z. Hauschild, J. Schierbeck, Characterisation of social impacts in
LCA. Part 2: implementation in six company case studies, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.
15 (2010) 385–402, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0159-4.
[86] A. Padilla-Rivera, J.M. Morgan-Sagastume, A. Noyola, L.P. Güereca, Addressing
social aspects associated with wastewater treatment facilities, Environ. Impact
Assess. Rev. 57 (2016) 101–113, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2015.11.007.
[87] M. Peruzzini, F. Gregori, A. Luzi, M. Mengarelli, M. Germani, A social life cycle
assessment methodology for smart manufacturing: the case of study of a kitchen
sink, J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 7 (2017) 24–32, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jii.2017.04.001.
[88] S.R. Wu, J. Chen, D. Apul, P. Fan, Y. Yan, Y. Fan, P. Zhou, Causality in social life
cycle impact assessment (SLCIA), Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20 (2015) 1312–1323,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0915-6.
[89] S. Henke, L. Theuvsen, Social life cycle Assessment : socioeconomic evaluation of
biogas plants and short rotation Coppices, Proc. Food Syst. Dyn. 0 (2014) 373–383
http://centmapress.ilb.uni-bonn.de/ojs/index.php/proceedings/article/view/407.
[90] J. Fontes, P. Tarne, M. Traverso, P. Bernstein, Product social impact assessment, Int.
J. Life Cycle Assess. (2016) 547–555, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1125-6.
A. Padilla-Rivera, et al.
[91] N. Minkov, M. Finkbeiner, S. Sfez, J. Dewulf, A. Manent, E. Rother, P. Weyell,
D. Kralisch, D. Schowanek, A. Lapkin, M. Jones, A. Azapagic, Current State of LCSA:
MEASURE Roadmap for Sustainability Assessment in European Process Industries
Background Document, (2016), p. 636816.
[92] C. Benoît Norris, Data for social LCA, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 19 (2014) 261–265,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0644-7.
[93] A. Jørgensen, M. Finkbeiner, M.S. Jørgensen, M.Z. Hauschild, Defining the baseline
in social life cycle assessment, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 15 (2010) 376–384, https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0176-3.
[94] S. Harbi, M. Margni, Y. Loerincik, J. Dettling, G. Sonnemann, M. Margni (Eds.), Life
Cycle Management as a Way to Operationalize Sustainability within Organizations
BT - Life Cycle Management, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2015, pp. 23–33, ,
94
Biomass and Bioenergy 125 (2019) 79–94
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7221-1_3.
[95] H. Dyckhoff, A. Quandel, K. Waletzke, Rationality of eco-efficiency methods: is the
BASF analysis dependent on irrelevant alternatives? Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20
(2015) 1557–1567, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0957-9.
[96] UNEP, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Guidelines for Social Life
Cycle Assessment of Products, (2009).
[97] W. Klöpffer, A. Ciroth, Is LCC relevant in a sustainability assessment? Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess. 16 (2011) 99–101, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0249-y.
[98] A. Halog, Y. Manik, Advancing integrated systems modelling framework for life
cycle sustainability assessment, Sustainability 3 (2011) 469–499, https://doi.org/
10.3390/su3020469.