Constructing a Sustainable Bioeconomy: Multi-scalar Perceptions of Sustainability

  • Aparajita Banerjee
  • Chelsea L. Schelly
  • Kathleen E. Halvorsen
Part of the World Sustainability Series book series (WSUSE)


Bioenergy holds significant promise to mitigate the climate-related problems associated with fossil fuel use in heat, electricity, and transportation fuel production. Many governments are encouraging bioeconomy growth with new policies. International trade between bioenergy producing and consuming nations has increased over the years. Developed countries with significant greenhouse gas emission (GHG) emission reduction goals are replacing fossil fuels with bioenergy, creating new export commodities for developing nations. However, increased bioeconomy development can put local social, economic, and environmental conditions in bioenergy producing areas at risk. To minimize the potentially adverse impacts of bioenergy development on existing socioeconomic and environmental conditions, several sustainability certification programs have recently been developed. However, there may be significant differences in how actors across multiple scales, including international non-governmental organizations, state and national governments, and local community members perceive a sustainable bioeconomy. In this chapter, we look specifically at two bioenergy development cases, one in the context of economic development in Latin America (jatropha-based bioenergy development in Yucatan, Mexico) and another in the context of a post-industrialized nation (wood-based bioenergy development in Wisconsin, USA) to understand how different actors view sustainability. Our conclusions suggest that, first, developing a sustainable bioeconomy requires addressing sustainability in all stages in the supply chain, and that, second, community perceptions matter in developing a sustainable bioeconomy, thus there is value in a bottom-up approach to policymaking.


Bioenergy development Bioenergy policy Public perceptions of bioenergy 



This work was funded by the National Science Foundation’s Partnerships in International Research and Education (PIRE) Program


  1. Aguilar FX, Song N, Shifley S (2011) Review of consumption trends and public policies promoting woody biomass as an energy feedstock in the US. Biomass Bioenerg 35(8):3708–3718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bain C (2011) Local ownership of ethanol plants: what are the effects on communities? Biomass Bioenergy 35(4):1400–1407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banerjee A, Schelly C, Halvorsen KE (2017) Understanding public perceptions of wood-based electricity production in Wisconsin, United States: place-based dynamics and Social Representations. Environ Sociol 23:1–13Google Scholar
  4. Becker DR, Larson D, Lowell EC (2009) Financial considerations of policy options to enhance biomass utilization for reducing wildfire hazards. Forest Policy and Economics 11(8):628–635Google Scholar
  5. Becker DR, Moseley C, Lee C (2011) A supply chain analysis framework for assessing state-level forest biomass utilization policies in the United States. Biomass Bioenerg 35(4):1429–1439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biernacki P, Waldorf D (1981) Snowball sampling: problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociol Methods Res 10(2):141–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dale VH, Efroymson RA, Kline KL, Langholtz MH, Leiby PN, Oladosu GA, Davis MR, Downing ME, Hilliard MR (2013) Indicators for assessing socioeconomic sustainability of bioenergy systems: a short list of practical measures. Ecol Ind 26:87–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Delmas MA, Montes-Sancho MJ (2011) US state policies for renewable energy: context and effectiveness. Energy Policy 39(5):2273–2288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dimitropoulos A, Kontoleon A (2009) Assessing the determinants of local acceptability of wind-farm investment: a choice experiment in the Greek Aegean Islands. Energy Policy 37(5):1842–1854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dodds A (2012) Comparative public policy. Palgrave Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Dornburg V, van Dam J, Faaij A (2007) Estimating GHG emission mitigation supply curves of large-scale biomass use on a country level. Biomass Bioenerg 31(1):46–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Drezner DW (2001) Globalization and policy convergence. Int Stud Rev 3(1):53–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DSIRE; Database for State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (2016) Incentives/policies by State: federal: policies for renewables and efficiency. Available online 6 June 2016
  14. Durst PB, McKenzie PJ, Brown CL, Appanah S (2006) Challenges facing certification and eco-labelling of forest products in developing countries. Int For Rev 8(2):193–200Google Scholar
  15. Eastmond A, Garcia C, Fuentes A, Becerril-Garcia J (2014) Mexico. In: Solomon BD, Bailis R (eds) Sustainable development of biofuels in Latin America and the Caribbean. Springer, New York, pp 203–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ekardt F, Von Bredow H (2012) Extended emissions trading versus sustainability criteria: managing the ecological and social ambivalences of bioenergy. Renew Energy Law Policy Rev, 49–69Google Scholar
  17. Ekins P (2004) Step changes for decarbonising the energy system: research needs for renewables, energy efficiency and nuclear power. Energy Policy 32(17):1891–1904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eltham DC, Harrison GP, Allen SJ (2008) Change in public attitudes towards a Cornish wind farm: implications for planning. Energy Policy 36(1):23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Evans AM, Perschel RT, Kittler BA (2013) Overview of forest biomass harvesting guidelines. J Sustain For 32(1–2):89–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Halvorsen KE, Barnes JR, Solomon BD (2009) Upper Midwestern USA ethanol potential from cellulosic materials. Soc Nat Resour 22(10):931–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Halvorsen KE, Selfa TA, Becker DS, Hinrichs C (eds) (2011) Special issue: socioeconomic dimensions of U.S. bioenergy. Biomass Bioenergy 35(4)Google Scholar
  22. Heichel S, Pape J, Sommerer T (2005) Is there convergence in convergence research? An overview of empirical studies on policy convergence. J Eur Publ Policy 12(5):817–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Herrick S, Kovach J, Padley E, Wagner C, Zastrow D (2009) Wisconsin’s forestland woody biomass harvesting guidelines. WI DNR Division of Forestry and Wisconsin Council on Forestry, Madison, WIGoogle Scholar
  24. Junginger M, Goh CS, Faaij A (eds) (2013) International bioenergy trade: history, status & outlook on securing sustainable bioenergy supply, demand and markets, vol 52. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  25. Kivimaa P, Mickwitz P (2011) Public policy as a part of transforming energy systems: framing bioenergy in Finnish energy policy. J Clean Prod 19(16):1812–1821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Laird FN, Stefes C (2009) The diverging paths of German and United States policies for renewable energy: sources of difference. Energy Policy 37(7):2619–2629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lantiainen S, Song N (2015) Review and comparative analysis of US and EU public policies promoting wood energy. In: Dell G, Egger C (eds) World sustainable energy days next 2014. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, pp 89–94Google Scholar
  28. Lipp J (2007) Lessons for effective renewable electricity policy from Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom. Energy Policy 35(11):5481–5495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Manning P, Taylor G, Hanley ME (2015) Bioenergy, food production and biodiversity—an unlikely alliance? GCB Bioenergy 7(4):570–576Google Scholar
  30. Sagar AD, Kartha S (2007) Bioenergy and sustainable development? Annu Rev Environ Resour 32:131–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Selfa T, Bain C, Moreno R, Eastmond A, Sweitz S, Bailey C, Pereira GS, Souza T, Medeiros R (2015) Interrogating social sustainability in the biofuels sector in Latin America: tensions between global standards and local experiences in Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia. Environ Manage 56(6):1315–1329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Solomon BD, Barnes JR, Halvorsen KE (2007) Grain and cellulosic ethanol: history, economics, and energy policy. Biomass Bioenerg 31(6):16–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Solomon BD, Banerjee A, Acevedo A, Halvorsen KE, Eastmond A (2015) Policies for the sustainable development of biofuels in the pan American region: a review and synthesis of five countries. Environ Manage 56(6):1276–1294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sorda G, Banse M, Kemfert C (2010) An overview of biofuel policies across the world. Energy Policy 38(11):6977–6988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Teddlie C, Yu F (2007) Mixed methods sampling a typology with examples. J Mixed Methods Res 1(1):77–100Google Scholar
  36. Tongco MDC (2007) Purposive sampling as a tool for informant selection. Ethnobotany Res Appl 5:147–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wiser R, Porter K, Grace R (2005) Evaluating experience with renewables portfolio standards in the United States. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 10(2):237–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Witzel A (2000) The problem-centered interview. For Qual Soc Res 1(1)Google Scholar
  39. Wüstenhagen R, Wolsink M, Bürer MJ (2007) Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: an introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 35(5):2683–2691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zoellner J, Schweizer-Ries P, Wemheuer C (2008) Public acceptance of renewable energies: Results from case studies in Germany. Energy Policy 36(11):4136–4141CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aparajita Banerjee
    • 1
  • Chelsea L. Schelly
    • 1
  • Kathleen E. Halvorsen
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Social Sciences, Environmental and Energy Policy ProgramMichigan Technological UniversityHoughtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Social Sciences, Environmental and Energy Policy Program, and School of Forest Resources and Environmental ScienceMichigan Technological UniversityHoughtonUSA

Personalised recommendations