Literature DB >> 23322126

Communicating about bioenergy sustainability.

Virginia H Dale1, Keith L Kline, Donna Perla, Al Lucier.   

Abstract

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

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23322126     DOI: 10.1007/s00267-012-0014-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Manage        ISSN: 0364-152X            Impact factor:   3.266


  11 in total

1.  Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property.

Authors:  Michael W I Schmidt; Margaret S Torn; Samuel Abiven; Thorsten Dittmar; Georg Guggenberger; Ivan A Janssens; Markus Kleber; Ingrid Kögel-Knabner; Johannes Lehmann; David A C Manning; Paolo Nannipieri; Daniel P Rasse; Steve Weiner; Susan E Trumbore
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2011-10-05       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Advancing sustainable bioenergy: evolving stakeholder interests and the relevance of research.

Authors:  Timothy Lawrence Johnson; Jeffrey M Bielicki; Rebecca S Dodder; Michael R Hilliard; P Ozge Kaplan; C Andrew Miller
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2012-06-21       Impact factor: 3.266

3.  The ethics of uncertainty. In the light of possible dangers, research becomes a moral duty.

Authors:  Christof Tannert; Horst-Dietrich Elvers; Burkhard Jandrig
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 8.807

4.  Difficulties in tracking the long-term global trend in tropical forest area.

Authors:  Alan Grainger
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2008-01-09       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Three paradoxes of habitat conservation plans.

Authors:  George F Wilhere
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2009-11-10       Impact factor: 3.266

6.  Interactions among bioenergy feedstock choices, landscape dynamics, and land use.

Authors:  Virginia H Dale; Keith L Kline; Lynn L Wright; Robert D Perlack; Mark Downing; Robin L Graham
Journal:  Ecol Appl       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.657

7.  Comparing scales of environmental effects from gasoline and ethanol production.

Authors:  Esther S Parish; Keith L Kline; Virginia H Dale; Rebecca A Efroymson; Allen C McBride; Timothy L Johnson; Michael R Hilliard; Jeffrey M Bielicki
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2012-12-02       Impact factor: 3.266

8.  Environmental indicators of biofuel sustainability: what about context?

Authors:  Rebecca A Efroymson; Virginia H Dale; Keith L Kline; Allen C McBride; Jeffrey M Bielicki; Raymond L Smith; Esther S Parish; Peter E Schweizer; Denice M Shaw
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2012-07-24       Impact factor: 3.266

Review 9.  Biofuels: network analysis of the literature reveals key environmental and economic unknowns.

Authors:  Caroline E Ridley; Christopher M Clark; Stephen D Leduc; Britta G Bierwagen; Brenda B Lin; Adrea Mehl; David A Tobias
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2012-01-09       Impact factor: 9.028

10.  A global conversation about energy from biomass: the continental conventions of the global sustainable bioenergy project.

Authors:  Lee Rybeck Lynd; Ramlan Abdul Aziz; Carlos Henrique de Brito Cruz; Annie Fabian Abel Chimphango; Luis Augusto Barbosa Cortez; Andre Faaij; Nathanael Greene; Martin Keller; Patricia Osseweijer; Tom L Richard; John Sheehan; Archana Chugh; Luuk van der Wielen; Jeremy Woods; Willem Heber van Zyl
Journal:  Interface Focus       Date:  2011-02-02       Impact factor: 3.906

View more
  1 in total

1.  Bioenergy and Biodiversity: Key Lessons from the Pan American Region.

Authors:  Keith L Kline; Fernanda Silva Martinelli; Audrey L Mayer; Rodrigo Medeiros; Camila Ortolan F Oliveira; Gerd Sparovek; Arnaldo Walter; Lisa A Venier
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2015-06-24       Impact factor: 3.266

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.