Haider Mahmood*
| Gowhar Meraj | Muhammad Shahid Hassan | Maham Furqan
© 2024 The authors. This article is published by IIETA and is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
OPEN ACCESS
Bioenergy could have deep effects on economic, social, and environmental sustainability. Thus, the present research aims to review the potential risks and benefits of bioenergy production and consumption. For this purpose, we follow the approach of a systematic review and collect the 105 studies on bioenergy from the Scopus database. The literature suggests that bioenergy is the largest source of replacement of fossil fuels compared to other renewable energy sources and helps to conserve the environment. However, bioenergy production targeted at forest land could have environmental problems as forests are a big source of carbon sinks and biodiversity. Nevertheless, bioenergy consumption is environmentally friendly and releases the least emissions compared to all types of fossil fuels. Moreover, the installation and operational costs of bioenergy are lesser compared to other renewable energy sources. Thus, bioenergy is a cost-effective solution to replace fossil fuels compared to other renewable energy sources. However, bioenergy production replacing the existing crops could reduce the availability of land and water for other agricultural products, which can be responsible for food shortages and rising food prices. Thus, bioenergy production could cause food insecurity with the rapidly growing population worldwide. However, bioenergy could have many other benefits from economic and social dimensions. Thus, the literature has suggested government intervention to achieve net positive benefits from bioenergy production and consumption. Particularly, the literature has suggested public and private spending on R&D activities to find better sources and technologies for bioenergy production and to improve biomass and overall agriculture productivity. Moreover, literature has suggested using marginal lands, other unutilized lands, crop and forest residues, and wastes for biomass production to reduce the pressure on forests and croplands to ensure both food security and environmental conservation.
food security, bioenergy, environment, agriculture
The energy demand is rising worldwide due to the rising population and economic growth. The global population is likely to approach 9 billion in 2050, which may accelerate the demand for nutrition and energy [1, 2]. The most of energy demand is served by fossil fuels, which have heavy environmental concerns for the global economies and are responsible for global warming [3]. Bioenergy is serving a minute proportion of global energy demand [4], which is 6% of the global energy supply as of the year 2022 [5]. However, it is the largest renewable energy source compared to other renewable sources. Bioenergy was the largest source of power and heating before the Industrial Revolution [6]. However, fossil fuels have become the major source of energy after the Industrial Revolution. Hence, the world has realized the importance of bioenergy to protect the environmental effect of fossil fuels, which is expected to significantly contribute to energy needs by the year 2050 [7]. Bioenergy production and consumption carry many potential risks and benefits, which have been presented in Figures 1 and 2.
Figure 1. Potential risks of bioenergy
Figure 2. Potential benefits of bioenergy
In the potential benefits, if bioenergy can be produced with the latest technologies to avoid emissions from bioenergy production [8], then bioenergy would help in reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. Particularly, bioenergy can help in reducing GHGs on the energy consumption side if it is replaced with fossil fuels [9]. Contrariwise, the conversion from fossil fuels to bioenergy can reduce the demand and price of fossil fuels [10]. Consequently, the lower price can motivate more fossil fuel consumption. Therefore, the net environmental effect of this conversion is uncertain.
The bioenergy is mostly sourced from oil seeds, starch, and sugar-rich agriculture products [11]. Moreover, grass and some woody crops can be used for bioenergy [12]. The literature realizes the great potential of bioenergy sources [13]. However, bioenergy production may increase the need for water, which may result in water scarcity [14]. Moreover, deforestation, due to biomass production with forest resources, may put pressure on the natural ecosystem and reduce carbon sinks [15]. Forests are an eminent source to reduce climate change [16]. The conversion from forest to agricultural land could bring a substantial increase in CO2 emissions and the same may be expected in grassland conversion [17]. Popp et al. [18] proposed a model to make a balance between energy, the economy, and the environment. To sustain the bioenergy, the production chain should be improved. However, biomass production would have an indirect effect on agriculture production by replacing food crops with bioenergy crops [19].
The debate on the relationship between bioenergy and the environment gave birth to the triple concept phenomenon of economic, environmental, and social dimensions of bioenergy [3, 20]. Thus, the literature gave recommendations for sustainable economic growth through sustainable sources [21], which could have optimal economic and environmental solutions. So, the sustainable use of resources would have pleasant environmental outcomes [22]. Otherwise, un-optimal policies would have the environmental, economic, and social problems of the tri-dimensional relationship between bioenergy, food, and environment [23].
In summary, the faster-growing population is fostering the energy demand, which has environmental concerns and is responsible for global warming due to primary reliance on fossil fuels. In the renewable energy domain, bioenergy is the largest source among the other renewable sources. However, bioenergy could have direct and indirect effects on land utilization, water resources, and ecology [24]. Indirect environmental issues of biomass production for bioenergy by deforestation are unclear [4]. Moreover, food security may emerge if agricultural resources are substituted with bioenergy instead of food production [25]. Thus, the triple concept phenomenon including economy, environment, and society may emerge in the relationship between bioenergy, food, and the environment, which demands sustainable practices in the production and consumption of bioenergy. Considering these perspectives, recent literature has reviewed the water-food-energy-environment relationship in the global and regional perspective [26-29] and bioenergy-biodiversity-ecosystem [30]. Still, a gap exists in reviewing the comprehensive role of bioenergy in the energy-environment-food security relationships, which the present study is going to review. Bioenergy production and consumption have both potential risks and benefits. Therefore, it looks pertinent to thoroughly explore all possible dimensions of bioenergy to float useful policies. Thus, the present research aims to review all possible positive and negative effects of bioenergy on land use, water use, food prices, food security, energy security, and economic, social, and environmental sustainability to evaluate the possible risks and benefits of bioenergy comprehensively and to discuss the latest development in the topic as well.
Scopus database was consulted to search for the most appropriate study in the context of discussing the role of bioenergy on the environment‑energy‑food Security nexus. The keywords were searched as ("bioenergy" OR "biomass" OR “bioethanol” OR “biodiesel” OR “biogas” OR “bio-ethers” OR “bio-hydrogen” OR “cellulose” OR “solid biofuels” OR “algae-based fuel”) AND ("environment" OR "environmental sustainability" OR "emissions" OR "water pollution" OR "soil pollution" OR “deforestation” OR “land use” OR “water use” OR “biodiversity” OR “ecology” OR “transportation” OR “forest”) AND (“food security” OR “agriculture productivity” OR “agriculture resources” OR “food prices” OR “food supply”) AND (“fossil fuels” OR “renewable energy” OR “solar energy” OR “cooking energy” OR “transport energy” OR “nuclear energy”) AND (“economic sustainability” OR “social sustainability”). We found 429 articles with the search of these keywords. Then, we start reading the titles, abstract, and keywords of the articles to see their suitability as per the objective of the review to find the scope of the studies discussing the risks and benefits of bioenergy related to land use, water resources, food prices, food security, other energy sources, and economic, social, and environmental sustainability. We excluded the studies from the review, which did not match the mentioned objectives of the study. In this way, we select 105 articles for review and do thorough analyses of the articles to extract the most prominent findings related to the economic, social, and environmental sustainability of bioenergy production and consumption.
In an estimate, demand for bioenergy is expected to rise triple by 2095 [4]. Thus, this increasing demand for bioenergy would raise the demand for agricultural resources for biomass production. The increasing demand for land would reduce food production on one hand and also would increase the cost of production of bioenergy, which would inflate bioenergy prices [31]. Bioenergy demand is expected to increase to one-quarter of the total global energy demand by 2095 [18]. To meet this demand, the production and supply of bioenergy would create extra pressure on forests and croplands [32]. In another estimate, the demand for bioenergy is expected to increase by 1/5th of total energy consumption by 2050 [7]. The production of such bioenergy would require doubling the land use for bioenergy production [4], which could reduce land availability for food production. This situation would result in poverty, hunger, and food insecurity with a given projection of a 9 billion global population by 2050.
To reduce the issue of food insecurity from bioenergy production, biomass should be produced on non-agricultural land [33]. The tradeoff of land allocation for either bioenergy or food production becomes more critical due to the changing cropland usage. Melnikova et al. [32] claim that the use of cropland is increasing over time with both scenarios with stringent or less stringent forest conservation policies. However, Winberg et al. [34] offer a solution of using perennial and woody crops for bioenergy production instead of putting pressure on croplands for biomass production. In this way, croplands will not be disturbed due to biomass production. Nevertheless, this approach could increase an additional burden on the forest sector as wood is already a valuable resource for energy [35]. The additional use of wood for bioenergy could be responsible for deforestation. In the case of forest conservation policy, food prices would increase due to a rise in the demand for agricultural irrigation due to the use of water for biomass production in croplands [36]. Thus, bioenergy production also competes for water resources and could increase water prices [37]. Thus, bioenergy is competing for both land and water resources in the agriculture sector and is responsible for the rising cost of production of food crops [38]. Moreover, Wang et al. [39] claimed that bioenergy production would be responsible for water withdrawals.
Considering the adverse effects of bioenergy production on forests and croplands, some studies recommend to use of marginal lands or other unused lands to reduce pressure on forests or croplands [40, 41]. However, both approaches would lead to higher production costs and lower profits from bioenergy reduction [42], which needs government action to support the higher production costs for bioenergy. Contrarily, Geoghegan and O'Donoghue [43] did a comparative study and found that the production of bioenergy feedstock was more profitable than other uses of agricultural land. Considering both scenarios, market mechanisms could play an important role in the optimal allocation of land use for bioenergy. Moreover, government policies can significantly influence the choice of type of land for biomass production. By providing subsidies for the production of bioenergy crops, governments can provide a competitive edge to producers for the production of bioenergy on unused and marginal lands [44], which could influence land use decisions. In the context of the water scarcity issue in the context of bioenergy, the literature suggested wastewater treatment to resolve this issue [45-48] and to improve the water efficiency in bioenergy production as well [49, 50].
The global food need is increasing due to the increasing population [1]. Food production should be increased at the same rate of population growth to ensure food security in the future [4]. Food security could be achieved by increasing the efficiency of agriculture inputs [51] and also by increasing efficiency in food processing as well [52]. However, bioenergy production also needs agricultural inputs [53], which can reduce the agricultural resources for food production and lead to increased food insecurity [54]. Thus, bioenergy production reduces food production, which is called an indirect effect of bioenergy on food insecurity [55]. Literature has also discussed the direct effect of bioenergy production on food insecurity, which is defined as a direct use of food crops for bioenergy production [56]. Both direct and indirect impacts would reduce the food supply in the market and could be responsible for food shortages and food insecurity [57].
As discussed above, bioenergy production would create pressure on agricultural resources, which is a challenge for meeting food security. Therefore, bioenergy and food production are facing a tradeoff in using farm inputs [58]. Moreover, rising urbanization along with a desired higher living standards is further expected to amplify food demands as well [59]. However, a substantial portion of food is wasted within the supply chain [60]. Moreover, pests, pathogens, and weeds are also contributing to a great loss of potential food yield before harvest and would escalate food insecurity issues [4]. In a proposed solution, Tagwi and Chipfupa [61] claim that the competition between bioenergy and food can be resolved with presence of the modern advancements in agricultural productivity. In the same way, Tarafdar et al. [62] observed significant improvements in agricultural intensity and efficiency. However, the challenge of meeting global food requirements is still persisting, which will be responsible for food insecurity by the year 2050 [4].
In the bioenergy-food security nexus, there is an urgent need to enhance food security in response to an ever-increasing global population. Food security can only be achieved by a significant increase in agricultural yield and productivity [63]. Moreover, policymakers should prevent food cropland for bioenergy production to ensure food security. Hence, governments should watch the potential tradeoff between food production and bioenergy generation in their resource management [13]. Moreover, there is an urgent need to improve the efficiency of agricultural inputs and to reduce wastage from the whole food supply chain to ensure food security [64].
A projection has shown that global energy requirement is rising sharply but renewable energy will contribute only one-fifth of energy requirement by the year 2035 [4]. In this tough situation, bioenergy is a blessing for the renewable energy market as it can contribute significantly and help in achieving the sustainable development goals of the United Nations as well [65, 66]. Bioenergy is the biggest source of renewable energy, which carries the 4th position in total energy consumption after oil, gas, and coal [67, 68]. Among the other uses, bioenergy contributes a significant amount to heat and cooking energy including both modern biomass and traditional ways [6]. The sources of bioenergy are forests’ residuals, wood, food, and other energy crops from the agriculture sector [69]. Moreover, modern technologies have emerged to use biomass in the cooking industry, which promotes the use of bioenergy for cooking purposes. Thus, bioenergy has more scope for heating and cooking purposes compared to the transport sector. In comparison, bioenergy is efficient for electricity production compared to heat production [6]. Thus, the electricity production should be produced from bioenergy sources instead of fossil fuels.
Horta Nogueira et al. [70] argued that bioenergy captures less solar energy compared to photovoltaic technology. Thus, photovoltaic technology is much better than bioenergy. Moreover, it needs more land for equivalent energy capture [71]. Bioenergy is expected to contribute around one-fifth of total energy consumption by the year 2050 [4] but needs double the land compared to the present use [72]. The demand for bioenergy is constantly increasing, which is expected to rise by 100 EJ in 2055 and by three times in the year 2095 [4]. In this scenario, bioenergy is the future of the world even carrying some discussed negative aspects. On the other hand, fossil fuels are the largest sources of global energy demand but have serious environmental concerns and are responsible for global warming. Therefore, the world has realized the importance of bioenergy as the largest and cheapest source of bioenergy such as bioethanol, biodiesel, biogas, bio-ethers, bio-hydrogen, cellulose, solid biofuels, and algae-based fuel [73, 74]. Moreover, bioenergy is a low-cost substitute for fossil fuels compared to other renewable sources. Thus, governments should support bioenergy production with the least effects on agriculture and forest resources to have optimal benefits.
Bioenergy has great potential for ecological and environmental protection if resources for bioenergy can be utilized optimally [62]. Moreover, efficient technologies in bioenergy production would reduce pollution to protect against climate change [8]. Most importantly, bioenergy would have the greatest potential for GHG reduction if replaced by fossil fuels and keeping land use and forestation unchanged [9]. Bioenergy depends on various sources including solid, liquid, and gas forms [75]. The environmental effect of bioenergy production depends on multiple factors. For instance, it depends on land use [76], which is a direct effect. The environmental effects can be linked with the fact either production is planned on currently used agricultural land or some unutilized land is focused. If unutilized land is planned for bioenergy, then it may directly affect land use and ecology [77]. In this way, the production of bioenergy crops will not affect the production of other crops to reduce its indirect effects. However, the environmental effects will be directly linked to GHG emissions out of production and consumption of bioenergy feedstock [78]. In comparison, the consumption of bioenergy releases less pollution than fossil fuels and could have pleasant net environmental effects [28, 79]. Moreover, bioenergy is considered a relatively low-cost substitute for fossil fuels [80]. Because installation and running costs of nuclear and renewable energy projects are significantly higher than production of bioenergy [81]. Thus, bioenergy is a quick and cheap way to replace fossil fuels and reduce global warming.
The indirect effect of the production of bioenergy can be more complex than the direct effects. For instance, the production of bioenergy crops may use grassland and forests and could affect the ecosystem and environment [76, 82]. For instance, the land allocated to biomass would raise the total global agricultural land by reducing grassland and forests [12, 83], which would be responsible for CO2 emissions. Thus, Prieto et al. [6] suggested producing bioenergy with lesser changes in global land use. In contrast, Oláh et al. [10] argue that land usage changes with deforestation minutely contribute to global GHG emissions. They also suggested that the emissions from bioenergy production can further be reduced if sustainable biomass production policies and standards can be introduced and implemented. The forests are a big source of carbon storage and are also balancing biodiversity and the ecosystem [84]. Therefore, deforestation may have a great impact on the climate and environment. However, to protect deforestation from biomass production, agricultural land can be used more efficiently with higher productivity with the help of technological innovations [76]. Therefore, efficient production of bioenergy is needed to play its role in sustainable production and environment [81].
The use of residues from crops and forests for bioenergy production can reduce the need for land for biomass production [78, 85]. Furthermore, the alternative uses of biomass should also be reduced to increase its share in bioenergy production [81]. The use of bioenergy from trees would have a great impact on climate change as trees are a great source of carbon stores [86]. Growing trees takes a long time so it would be difficult to replace the trees in the short run [87]. To avoid this problem, bioenergy should be produced from forest biomass other than trees, i.e., by-products and waste products of timber and paper [88, 89]. In this way, we can reduce GHG emissions from bioenergy without harming forests. In comparison, the ultimate use of fossil fuels or bioenergy depends on market mechanisms and market prices. The price and cost of production would be the right signal to utilize either any fossil fuels or bioenergy. In addition, government policies and support would also determine the optimal use of any fossil fuels or bioenergy resources [90].
In conclusion, bioenergy instead of fossil fuels significantly reduces global GHG emissions if we ignore the indirect environmental effects of bioenergy [79]. Moreover, bioenergy is the best alternative to fossil fuels to achieve a sustainable transportation sector. However, the indirect effects of bioenergy production would have environmental and ecological concerns, which need attention for sustainable production of bioenergy. Thus, the optimal policy and technological solution are urgently needed to have a net pleasant effect of bioenergy production on the environment and biodiversity [23]. One solution to protect biodiversity is to utilize residues, surplus, and wastes from the forestry and agriculture sectors [78, 85]. Public policies and market mechanisms should also play an equal role in determining the optimal use of bioenergy to ensure economic, social, ecological, and environmental sustainability [23]. By utilizing unused land for bioenergy production with a combination of sound ecological policies, the world can navigate a path toward bioenergy demands. It has a great potential for environmental sustainability if efficient technologies are employed in its production and also land and water resources are utilized optimally. Particularly, bioenergy has great potential to mitigate GHG emissions if biofuels are replaced by fossil fuels in transportation [56, 91, 92]. The largest direct benefit of bioenergy is a significant contribution to reducing GHG emissions by replacing fossil fuel consumption while maintaining unchanged land use [83]. To have the optimal advantage, bioenergy crops should be cultivated on currently unutilized agricultural land and forest areas without harming biodiversity. Otherwise, deforestation would have environmental and ecological problems if bioenergy production is targeted by using forest resources. Deforestation would result in reducing carbon sinks and biodiversity losses [15]. To mitigate the indirect effects of bioenergy on the agriculture sector, governments should promote technological innovations to increase agricultural productivity [76]. Moreover, the utilization of residues from crops and forests for bioenergy production may also have the potential to mitigate the indirect effect of bioenergy production [78, 84, 85]. Besides, governments should also establish high ecological and environmental standards to have maximum positive spillovers of bioenergy to sustain the energy sector in the economies [90].
Local bioenergy production has great potential for economic and social sustainability [93, 94]. For instance, bioenergy in its whole supply chain increases job opportunities [95], which could reduce the unemployment rate. Particularly, it has the potential to reduce unemployment in rural areas to support the marginal group of the population [96]. In addition, it can also promote jobs in bio-refinery industries [97]. It would also help in rural development and could help in reducing rural-urban income disparities [98]. Hence, it can reduce poverty and income inequality in the country [99]. Moreover, infrastructure development to support bioenergy production may help other aspects of regional community life and social development [100]. In addition, the bioenergy from solid and industrial waste would reduce solid pollution in both cities and rural areas [101, 102]. Furthermore, bioenergy could significantly contribute to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and economic progress of the country. Moreover, it can reduce the pressure on the balance of trade in the net-energy importer economies [103]. It may also help to stabilize local energy prices by reducing the dependence on volatile international fossil fuel markets, which could also ensure energy security in the local economy [50].
The governments of biomass-producer countries are spending on R&D activities to find better sources and technologies for bioenergy production [104], which helps create new industries and markets. Moreover, the governments are also providing incentives for bioenergy production to support this cleaner source of energy, which can also encourage private R&D activities and could develop better and cost-efficient bioenergy technologies [105]. Moreover, bioenergy is also a cost-effective and economically sustainable substitute for fossil fuels compared to other renewable sources [80], which can improve the public health and social and environmental outlook of societies. For instance, installation and operational costs of bioenergy are substantially lower in comparison to other sources of energy such as nuclear and renewable energy projects [106]. Thus, bioenergy represents a convenient and economical approach to replacing fossil fuels and curtailing global warming. The governments should promote the all discussed social and economic benefits of bioenergy by providing financial and non-financial incentives to the producers and consumers of bioenergy.
The rapidly growing global population is exerting huge pressure on energy and food demand, thus presenting significant challenges for sustainability and environmental protection. Bioenergy is a significant source of energy in the renewable energy market and the literature has investigated the different dimensions of bioenergy. The present research has reviewed the bioenergy literature investigating the risks and benefits associated with bioenergy. For this purpose, the Scopus database is consulted and the 105 studies are selected based on a systemic review approach. The findings from the reviewed literature suggest that bioenergy has both potential risks and benefits. The risks include the direct and indirect effects of bioenergy on food insecurity. The direct effect explains that food crops are used for bioenergy production, which may reduce the availability of food for consumption purposes and result in food insecurity. Moreover, biomass production is using land and water resources, which is reducing the availability of these resources for food crops. Thus, bioenergy is leading to food shortages and is responsible for rising food prices, which may increase food insecurity. Another stream of literature discusses the use of forest resources for biomass production instead of agricultural land. However, the use of forest resources is responsible for environmental problems as forests are a big source of carbon sinks and are also responsible for the loss of biodiversity.
The literature has also discussed the potential benefits of bioenergy. On the consumption side, bioenergy is the least polluter compared to all types of fossil fuels. Thus, the consumption of bioenergy could promote environmental sustainability. Moreover, the installation and operational cost of bioenergy is also lower than other renewable energy sources. Thus, bioenergy consumption is the cheapest renewable energy option to conserve the environment from fossil fuel consumption. Carrying these costs and environmental benefits, bioenergy carries the largest proportion of global renewable energy consumption compared to other renewable energy sources. Moreover, bioenergy carries many social and economic benefits for the societies and economies. The literature has suggested that bioenergy production helps in generating job opportunities in rural areas and the bioenergy industries. Thus, it helps to promote social sustainability in reducing unemployment in marginal groups of rural areas. Moreover, it also promotes economic sustainability by reducing overall unemployment in the economies and supporting economic growth. Besides, bioenergy helps to reduce poverty and income disparity in the communities. In addition, bioenergy production reduces the balance of trade problems in the case of net energy importer economies, stabilizes energy prices, and reduces energy poverty. Moreover, bioenergy helps to generate infrastructure in rural areas, which also helps to raise rural community life and social development. Additionally, bioenergy from solid and industrial waste helps to reduce solid and industrial pollution. Moreover, bioenergy also motivates governments to spend on R&D activities to find new sources and technologies for bioenergy production, which helps in the diversification of the economies by developing new industries and markets in the economy.
The literature has suggested the policy implications to reduce the associated risks with bioenergy and to increase the potential benefits of bioenergy. Following the findings of the literature, we suggest to use of marginal lands and other utilized lands to reduce the pressure on agricultural land, water, and other resources. This implication would be helpful to sustain the availability of land for food crops and also will reduce the pressure on the forest areas for biomass production. In this way, food security will be improved and forests will be saved to protect the environment and biodiversity. Thus, environmental problems from deforestation and food insecurity risks can be controlled. Moreover, crop and forest residues should be used for bioenergy production to reduce the pressure of biomass production on croplands. Moreover, the efficiency and productivity of agriculture inputs should be improved with R&D activities and agriculture waste should be reduced. In addition, the governments should invest in R&D activities and should provide tax concessions and subsidies for R&D activities in the private sector to develop new sources and technologies for bioenergy. Besides, the governments should provide financial incentives to biomass producers to increase bioenergy production, which will help reduce fossil fuel dependence to save the environment from fossil fuel emissions. Moreover, this implication will also help increase the economic and social benefits of bioenergy production. Last but not least, governments should adopt tight ecological and environmental policies to reduce the negative environmental effects of biomass production on forest areas.
The authors extend their appreciation to Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University for funding this research work (Grant No.: 2023/RV/03).
[1] Maja, M.M., Ayano, S.F. (2021). The impact of population growth on natural resources and farmers’ capacity to adapt to climate change in low-income countries. Earth Systems and Environment, 5(2): 271-283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41748-021-00209-6
[2] Schulterbrandt Gragg, R., Anandhi, A., Jiru, M., Usher, K.M. (2018). A conceptualization of the urban food-energy-water nexus sustainability paradigm: Modeling from theory to practice. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 6: 0133. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2018.00133
[3] Wang, X., Dong, Z., Sušnik, J. (2023). System dynamics modelling to simulate regional water-energy-food nexus combined with the society-economy-environment system in Hunan Province, China. Science of the Total Environment, 863: 160993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160993
[4] Popp, J., Lakner, Z., Harangi-Rákos, M., Fári, M. (2014). The effect of bioenergy expansion: Food, energy, and environment. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 32: 559-578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.056
[5] IEA. (2023). Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2023. https://www.iea.org/energy-system/renewables/bioenergy.
[6] Prieto, J., Ajnannadhif, R., Fernández-del Olmo, P., Coronas, A. (2023). Integration of a heating and cooling system driven by solar thermal energy and biomass for a greenhouse in Mediterranean climates. Applied Thermal Engineering, 221: 119928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2022.119928
[7] Haberl, H., Erb, K.H., Krausmann, F., Running, S., Searchinger, T.D., Kolby Smith, W. (2013). Bioenergy: How much can we expect for 2050? Environmental Research Letters, 8(3): 031004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/031004
[8] Ioannou, A.E., Laspidou, C.S. (2022). Resilience analysis framework for a water-energy-food nexus system under climate change. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10: 0125. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.820125
[9] Rajabi Hamedani, S., Villarini, M., Marcantonio, V., di Matteo, U., Monarca, D., Colantoni, A. (2023). Comparative energy and environmental analysis of different small-scale biomass-fueled CCHP systems. Energy, 263: 125846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.125846
[10] Oláh, J., Lengyel, P., Balogh, P., Harangi-Rákos, M., Popp, J. (2017). The role of biofuels in food commodity prices volatility and land use. Journal of Competitiveness, 9(4): 81-93. https://doi.org/10.7441/joc.2017.04.06
[11] Zhang, Y., Waldhoff, S., Wise, M., Edmonds, J., Patel, P. (2023). Agriculture, bioenergy, and water implications of constrained cereal trade and climate change impacts. PLoS ONE, 18(9): e0291577. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291577
[12] Iordan, C.M., Giroux, B., Næss, J.S., Hu, X., Cavalett, O., Cherubini, F. (2023). Energy potentials, negative emissions, and spatially explicit environmental impacts of perennial grasses on abandoned cropland in Europe. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 98: 106942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106942
[13] Nahar Myyas, R., Tostado-Véliz, M., Gómez-González, M., Jurado, F. (2023). Review of bioenergy potential in Jordan. Energies, 16(3): 1393. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16031393
[14] Albrecht, T.R., Crootof, A., Scott, C.A. (2018). The water-energy-food nexus: A systematic review of methods for nexus assessment. Environmental Research Letters, 13(4): 043002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa9c6
[15] Králík, T., Knápek, J., Vávrová, K., Outrata, D., Romportl, D., Horák, M., Jandera, J. (2023). Ecosystem services and economic competitiveness of perennial energy crops in the modelling of biomass potential - A case study of the Czech Republic. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 173: 113120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.113120
[16] Goldemberg, J., Coelho, S.T. (2013). Bioenergy: How much? Environmental Research Letters, 8(3): 031005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/031005
[17] Naina Mohamed, S., Jayabalan, T., Muthukumar, K. (2019). Simultaneous bioenergy generation and carbon dioxide sequestration from food wastewater using algae microbial fuel cell. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 45(1): 2913-2921. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2019.1666932
[18] Popp, A., Dietrich, J.P., Lotze-Campen, H., et al. (2011). The economic potential of bioenergy for climate change mitigation with special attention given to implications for the land system. Environmental Research Letters, 6(3): 034017. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034017
[19] Fathima, A.A., Sanitha, M., Tripathi, L., Muiruri, S. (2023). Cassava (Manihot esculenta) dual use for food and bioenergy: A review. Food and Energy Security, 12(1): 380. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.380
[20] Viccaro, M., Caniani, D., Masi, S., Romano, S., Cozzi, M. (2022). Biofuels or not biofuels? The “Nexus Thinking” in land suitability analysis for energy crops. Renewable Energy, 187: 1050-1064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.02.008
[21] Tovar-Facio, J., Guerras, L.S., Ponce-Ortega, J.M., Martín, M. (2021). Sustainable energy transition considering the water-energy nexus: A multiobjective optimization framework. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 9(10): 3768-3780. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.0c08694
[22] Susnik, J., Staddon, C. (2021). Evaluation of water-energy-food (WEF) Nexus research: Perspectives, challenges, and directions for future research. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 58(6): 1189-1198. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12977
[23] Teitelbaum, Y., Yakirevich, A., Gross, A., Sorek, S. (2020). Simulations of the water food energy nexus for policy driven intervention. Heliyon, 6(8): e04767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04767
[24] Botai, J.O., Botai, C.M., Ncongwane, K.P., et al. (2021). A review of the water-energy-food nexus research in Africa. Sustainability, 13(4): 1762. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041762
[25] Ledari, M.B., Saboohi, Y., Azamian, S. (2023). Water- food- energy- ecosystem nexus model development: Resource scarcity and regional development. Energy Nexus, 10: 100207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nexus.2023.100207
[26] Jain, S.K., Sikka, A.K., Alam, M.F. (2023). Water-energy-food-ecosystem nexus in India—A review of relevant studies, policies, and programmes. Frontiers in Water, 5: 8198. https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2023.1128198
[27] Lucca, E., El Jeitany, J., Castelli, G., Pacetti, T., Bresci, E., Nardi, F., Caporali, E. (2023). A review of water-energy-food-ecosystems nexus research in the Mediterranean: Evolution, gaps and applications. Environmental Research Letters, 18(8): 083001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ace375
[28] Khedwal, R.S., Chaudhary, A., Sindhu, V.K., Yadav, D.B., Kumar, N., Chhokar, R.S., Dahiya, S. (2023). Challenges and technological interventions in rice-wheat system for resilient food-water-energy-environment nexus in north-western Indo-Gangetic Plains: A review. Cereal Research Communications, 51(4): 785-807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42976-023-00355-9
[29] Rezaei Kalvani, S., Celico, F. (2023). The water-energy-food nexus in European countries: A review and future perspectives. Sustainability, 15(6): 4960. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064960
[30] Winberg, J., Smith, H.G., Ekroos, J. (2023). Bioenergy crops, biodiversity and ecosystem services in temperate agricultural landscapes—A review of synergies and trade‐offs. GCB Bioenergy, 15(10): 1204-1220. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.13092
[31] Ciaian, P. (2011). Interdependencies in the energy-bioenergy-food price systems: A cointegration analysis. Resource and Energy Economics, 33(1): 326-348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2010.07.004
[32] Melnikova, I., Ciais, P., Tanaka, K., Vuichard, N., Boucher, O. (2023). Relative benefits of allocating land to bioenergy crops and forests vary by region. Communications Earth & Environment, 4(1): 230. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00866-7
[33] He, Y., Jaiswal, D., Long, S.P., Liang, X.Z., Matthews, M.L. (2024). Biomass yield potential on US marginal land and its contribution to reach net‐zero emission. GCB Bioenergy, 16(2): e13128. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.13128
[34] Winberg, J., Ekroos, J., Smith, H.G. (2024). Abandonment or biomass production? Phytodiversity responses to land-use changes of semi-natural grasslands in northern Europe. Biological Conservation, 294: 110632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2024.110632
[35] Schelhas, J., Hitchner, S., Brosius, J.P. (2024). What family forest owners talk about when they talk about trees: Bioenergy and forest landscapes in the US South. Trees, Forests and People, 17: 100606.
[36] Fang, Y.R., Hossain, M.S., Peng, S., Han, L., Yang, P. (2024). Sustainable energy development of crop straw in five southern provinces of China: Bioenergy production, land, and water saving potential. Renewable Energy, 224: 120134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2024.120134
[37] Jafarinejad, S., Hernandez, R.R., Bigham, S., Beckingham, B.S. (2023). The intertwined renewable energy-water-environment (REWE) nexus challenges and opportunities: A case study of California. Sustainability, 15(13): 10672. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310672
[38] Yourek, M., Liu, M., Scarpare, F.V., et al. (2023). Downscaling global land-use/cover change scenarios for regional analysis of food, energy, and water subsystems. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 11: 5771. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1055771
[39] Wang, J., Duan, Y., Jiang, H., Wang, C. (2024). China's energy-water-land system co-evolution under carbon neutrality goal and climate impacts. Journal of Environmental Management, 352: 120036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120036
[40] Hou, W., Yi, Z. (2023). Adaptability comparison and application assessment of various bioenergy grasses on different marginal lands in China. Energy, 285: 129483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.129483
[41] Yu, Z., Zhang, F., Gao, C., Mangi, E., Ali, C. (2024). The potential for bioenergy generated on marginal land to offset agricultural greenhouse gas emissions in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 189: 113924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113924
[42] Wu, F., Pfenninger, S., Muller, A. (2024). Land-free bioenergy from circular agroecology—A diverse option space and trade-offs. Environmental Research Letters, 19(4): 044044. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ad33d5
[43] Geoghegan, C., O'Donoghue, C. (2024). A spatial analysis of the economic returns to land‐use change from agriculture to renewable energy production: Evidence from Ireland. GCB Bioenergy, 16(9): e13185. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.13185
[44] Chen, M., Chen, Y., Zhang, Q. (2024). Assessing global carbon sequestration and bioenergy potential from microalgae cultivation on marginal lands leveraging machine learning. Science of the Total Environment, 948: 174462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.174462
[45] Vassalle, L., Ferrer, I., Passos, F., Mota Filho, C.R., Garfí, M. (2023). Nature-based solutions for wastewater treatment and bioenergy recovery: A comparative life cycle assessment. Science of the Total Environment, 880: 163291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163291
[46] Mohammadi, F., Sahebi, H., Abdali, H. (2023). Biofuel production from sewage sludge network under disruption condition: Studying energy-water nexus. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery, 13(4): 2921-2931. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-021-01566-y
[47] Ibro, M.K., Ancha, V.R., Lemma, D.B., Lenhart, M. (2023). Enhancing biogas production from food waste and water hyacinth: Effect of co-substrates and inoculum ratios. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-023-05193-7
[48] El-Ramady, H., Brevik, E.C., Bayoumi, Y., et al. (2022). An overview of agro-waste management in light of the water-energy-waste nexus. Sustainability, 14(23): 15717. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315717
[49] Renninger, H.J., Pitts, J.J., Rousseau, R.J. (2023). Comparisons of biomass, water use efficiency and water use strategies across five genomic groups of Populus and its hybrids. GCB Bioenergy, 15(1): 99-112. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.13014
[50] Haghjoo, R., Choobchian, S., Morid, S., Abbasi, E. (2022). Development and validation of management assessment tools considering water, food, and energy security nexus at the farm level. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 16: 100206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2022.100206
[51] Fabiani, S., Vanino, S., Napoli, R., Nino, P. (2020). Water energy food nexus approach for sustainability assessment at farm level: An experience from an intensive agricultural area in central Italy. Environmental Science & Policy, 104: 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.10.008
[52] Chen, X., Önal, H. (2016). Renewable energy policies and competition for biomass: Implications for land use, food prices, and processing industry. Energy Policy, 92: 270-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.02.022
[53] Agrawal, A., Bakshi, B.R., Kodamana, H., Ramteke, M. (2024). Multi-objective optimization of food-energy-water nexus via crops land allocation. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 183: 108610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2024.108610
[54] Pacetti, T., Lombardi, L., Federici, G. (2015). Water-energy nexus: A case of biogas production from energy crops evaluated by water footprint and life cycle assessment (LCA) methods. Journal of Cleaner Production, 101: 278-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.084
[55] Sesma-Martín, D., Rubio-Varas, M.D.M. (2019). The weak data on the water-energy nexus in Spain. Water Policy, 21(2): 382-393. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2019.081
[56] Kim, H., Lazurko, A., Linney, G., et al. (2024). Understanding the role of biodiversity in the climate, food, water, energy, transport and health nexus in Europe. Science of the Total Environment, 925: 171692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.171692
[57] Ajanovic, A. (2011). Biofuels versus food production: Does biofuels production increase food prices? Energy, 36(4): 2070-2076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.05.019
[58] Zhang, C., Chen, X., Li, Y., Ding, W., Fu, G. (2018). Water-energy-food nexus: Concepts, questions and methodologies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 195: 625-639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.194
[59] Lombardi, G., Parrini, S., Atzori, R., Stefani, G., Romano, D., Gastaldi, M., Liu, G. (2023). Sustainable agriculture, food security and diet diversity. The case study of Tuscany, Italy. Ecological Modelling, 458: 109702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2021.109702
[60] Tan, Y., Hai, F., Popp, J., Oláh, J. (2022). Minimizing Waste in the food supply chain: Role of information system, supply chain strategy, and network design. Sustainability, 14(18): 11515. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811515
[61] Tagwi, A., Chipfupa, U. (2022). Participation of smallholder farmers in modern bioenergy value chains in Africa: Opportunities and constraints. BioEnergy Research, 16(1): 248-262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-022-10451-z
[62] Tarafdar, A., Varjani, S., Khanal, S., You, S., Pandey, A. (2023). Biotechnology for resource efficiency, energy, environment, chemicals, and health. BioEnergy Research, 16(1): 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-023-10574-x
[63] Villamor, G.B. (2023). Gender and water-energy-food nexus in the rural highlands of Ethiopia: Where are the trade-offs? Land, 12(3): 585. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12030585
[64] Villamayor-Tomas, S., Grundmann, P., Epstein, G., Evans, T., Kimmich, C. (2015). The water-energy-food security nexus through the lenses of the value chain and the institutional analysis and development frameworks. Water Alternatives, 8(1): 735-755.
[65] Welfle, A.J., Almena, A., Arshad, M.N., et al. (2023). Sustainability of bioenergy-mapping the risks & benefits to inform future bioenergy systems. Biomass and Bioenergy, 177: 106919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2023.106919
[66] Welfle, A., Röder, M. (2022). Mapping the sustainability of bioenergy to maximise benefits, mitigate risks and drive progress toward the sustainable development goals. Renewable Energy, 191: 493-509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.03.150
[67] Burg, V., Rolli, C., Schnorf, V., Scharfy, D., Anspach, V., Bowman, G. (2023). Agricultural biogas plants as a hub to foster circular economy and bioenergy: An assessment using substance and energy flow analysis. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 190: 106770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106770
[68] Melikoglu, M., Cinel, A.M. (2020). Food waste-water-energy nexus: Scrutinising sustainability of biodiesel production from sunflower oil consumption wastes in Turkey till 2030. Environmental Technology & Innovation, 17: 100628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2020.100628
[69] Awogbemi, O., Kallon, D.V.V. (2023). Application of biochar derived from crops residues for biofuel production. Fuel Communications, 15: 100088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfueco.2023.100088
[70] Horta Nogueira, L.A., Moreira, J.R., Schuchardt, U., Goldemberg, J. (2013). The rationality of biofuels. Energy Policy, 61: 595-598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.112
[71] Smith, W.K., Zhao, M., Running, S.W. (2012). Global bioenergy capacity as constrained by observed biospheric productivity rates. BioScience, 62(10): 911-922. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.10.11
[72] Krausmann, F., Erb, K.H., Gingrich, S., Haberl, H., Bondeau, A., Gaube, V., Lauk, C., Plutzar, C., Searchinger, T.D. (2013). Global human appropriation of net primary production doubled in the 20th century. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(25): 10324-10329. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211349110
[73] Hasan, M., Abedin, M.Z., Amin, M.B., Nekmahmud, M., Oláh, J. (2023). Sustainable biofuel economy: A mapping through bibliometric research. Journal of Environmental Management, 336: 117644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117644
[74] Kouhgardi, E., Zendehboudi, S., Mohammadzadeh, O., Lohi, A., Chatzis, I. (2023). Current status and future prospects of biofuel production from brown algae in North America: Progress and challenges. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 172: 113012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.113012
[75] Jie, P., Li, Z., Ren, Y., Wei, F. (2023). Economy-energy-environment optimization of biomass gasification CCHP system integrated with ground source heat pump. Energy, 277: 127554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.127554
[76] Alamanos, A., Koundouri, P., Papadaki, L., Pliakou, T. (2022). A system innovation approach for science-stakeholder interface: Theory and application to water-land-food-energy nexus. Frontiers in Water, 3: 744773. https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2021.744773
[77] Li, H., Li, M., Fu, Q., Singh, V.P., Liu, D., Xu, Y. (2023). An optimization approach of water-food-energy nexus in agro-forestry-livestock system under uncertain water supply. Journal of Cleaner Production, 407: 137116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137116
[78] Chukwuma, O.B., Rafatullah, M., Umar, M.F., Tajarudin, H.A., Ismail, N. (2023). Fruit and vegetable waste: A viable feedstock for bioenergy. In Quality Control in Fruit and Vegetable Processing: Methods and Strategies. Taylor and Francis, Oxford, United Kingdom. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003304999
[79] Leivas, R., Laso, J., Abejón, R., Margallo, M., Aldaco, R. (2020). Environmental assessment of food and beverage under a nexus water-energy-climate approach: Application to the spirit drinks. Science of the Total Environment, 720: 137576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137576
[80] Hiloidhari, M., Sharno, M.A., Baruah, D., Bezbaruah, A.N. (2023). Green and sustainable biomass supply chain for environmental, social and economic benefits. Biomass and Bioenergy, 175: 106893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2023.106893
[81] Loh, P.M., Twumasi, Y.A., Ning, Z.H., Anokye, M., Armah, R.N.D., Apraku, C.Y., Oppong, J., Namwamba, J.B., Kangwana, L., Mjema, J. (2023). Bioenergy: Examining the efficient utilization of agricultural biomass as a source of sustainable renewable energy in Louisiana. Journal of Sustainable Bioenergy Systems, 13(3): 99-115. https://doi.org/10.4236/jsbs.2023.133006
[82] Ringler, C., Bhaduri, A., Lawford, R. (2013). The nexus across water, energy, land and food (WELF): Potential for improved resource use efficiency? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(6): 617-624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.11.002
[83] Dixit, P.N., Richter, G.M., Coleman, K., Collins, A.L. (2023). Bioenergy crop production and carbon sequestration potential under changing climate and land use: A case study in the upper River Taw catchment in southwest England. Science of the Total Environment, 900: 166390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.166390
[84] Song, J., Liu, C., Xing, J., Yang, W., Ren, J. (2023). Linking bioenergy production by agricultural residues to sustainable development goals: Prospects by 2030 in China. Energy Conversion and Management, 276: 116568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2022.116568
[85] Fayaz, U., Bashir, I., Fayaz, J., Bashir, O., Manzoor, S., Amin, T., Bhat, S.A. (2023). Food processing byproducts: Their applications as sources of valuable bioenergy and recoverable products. In Integrated Waste Management Approaches for Food and Agricultural Byproducts, pp. 25-80. Apple Academic Press, Florida, United States.
[86] Farghali, M., Mohamed, I.M.A., Osman, A.I., Rooney, D.W. (2022). Seaweed for climate mitigation, wastewater treatment, bioenergy, bioplastic, biochar, food, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics: A review. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 21(1): 97-152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-022-01520-y
[87] Saravanan, A., Karishma, S., Senthil Kumar, P., Rangasamy, G. (2023). A review on regeneration of biowaste into bio-products and bioenergy: Life cycle assessment and circular economy. Fuel, 338: 127221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.127221
[88] Kumar Sarangi, P., Subudhi, S., Bhatia, L., Saha, K., Mudgil, D., Prasad Shadangi, K., Pattnaik, B., Arya, R.K. (2022). Utilization of agricultural waste biomass and recycling toward circular bioeconomy. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(4): 8526-8539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20669-1
[89] Kumar, V., Vangnai, A.S., Sharma, N., et al. (2023). Bioengineering of biowaste to recover bioproducts and bioenergy: A circular economy approach towards sustainable zero-waste environment. Chemosphere, 319: 138005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.138005
[90] Almulla, Y., Ramirez, C., Joyce, B., Huber-Lee, A., Fuso-Nerini, F. (2022). From participatory process to robust decision-making: An Agriculture-water-energy nexus analysis for the Souss-Massa basin in Morocco. Energy for Sustainable Development, 70: 314-338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2022.08.009
[91] Adetunji, C.O., Akram, M., Adetuyi, B.O., et al. (2023). Application of biofuels for bioenergy: Recent advances. In Next‐Generation Algae: Volume I: Applications in Agriculture, Food and Environment, pp. 331-360. Wiley, New York, United States. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119857839.ch15
[92] Moioli, E., Salvati, F., Chiesa, M., Siecha, R.T., Manenti, F., Laio, F., Rulli, M.C. (2018). Analysis of the current world biofuel production under a water-food-energy nexus perspective. Advances in Water Resources, 121: 22-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2018.07.
[93] Fedorova, E., Pongrácz, E. (2019). Cumulative social effect assessment framework to evaluate the accumulation of social sustainability benefits of regional bioenergy value chains. Renewable Energy, 131: 1073-1088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.07.070
[94] Cambero, C., Sowlati, T. (2016). Incorporating social benefits in multi-objective optimization of forest-based bioenergy and biofuel supply chains. Applied Energy, 178: 721-735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.06.079
[95] Masum, M.F.H., Sahoo, K., Dwivedi, P. (2019). Ascertaining the trajectory of wood-based bioenergy development in the United States based on current economic, social, and environmental constructs. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 11(1): 169-193. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100518-093921
[96] Radics, R.I., Dasmohapatra, S., Kelley, S.S. (2016). Use of linear programming to‐optimize the social, environmental, and economic impacts of using woody feedstocks for pellet and‐torrefied pellet production. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 10(4): 446-461. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1658
[97] Bressanin, J.M., Geraldo, V.C., Gomes, F.D.A.M., et al. (2021). Multiobjective optimization of economic and environmental performance of fischer-tropsch biofuels production integrated to sugarcane biorefineries. Industrial Crops and Products, 170: 113810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2021.113810
[98] Nepal, S., Tran, L.T. (2019). Identifying trade-offs between socio-economic and environmental factors for bioenergy crop production: A case study from northern Kentucky. Renewable Energy, 142: 272-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.04.110
[99] Rebolledo-Leiva, R., Moreira, M.T., González-García, S. (2023). Progress of social assessment in the framework of bioeconomy under a life cycle perspective. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 175: 113162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113162
[100] Li, K., Song, J., Duan, H., Wang, S. (2018). Integrated assessment of straw utilization for energy production from views of regional energy, environmental and socioeconomic benefits. Journal of Cleaner Production, 190: 787-798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.191
[101] Alidoosti, Z., Govindan, K., Pishvaee, M.S., Mostafaeipour, A., Hossain, A.K. (2021). Social sustainability of treatment technologies for bioenergy generation from the municipal solid waste using best worst method. Journal of Cleaner Production, 288: 125592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125592
[102] Msemwa, G.G., Ibrahim, M.G., Fujii, M., Nasr, M. (2022). Phytomanagement of textile wastewater for dual biogas and biochar production: A techno-economic and sustainable approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 322: 116097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116097
[103] Magne, A., Khatiwada, D., Cardozo, E. (2024). Assessing the bioenergy potential in South America: Projections for 2050. Energy for Sustainable Development, 82: 101535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2024.101535
[104] Rocha-Meneses, L., Luna-delRisco, M., González, C.A., Moncada, S.V., Moreno, A., Sierra-Del Rio, J., Castillo-Meza, L.E. (2023). An overview of the socio-economic, technological, and environmental opportunities and challenges for renewable energy generation from residual biomass: A case study of biogas production in Colombia. Energies, 16(16): 5901. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16165901
[105] Blumenstein, B., Siegmeier, T., Selsam, F., Möller, D. (2018). A case of sustainable intensification: Stochastic farm budget optimization considering internal economic benefits of biogas production in organic agriculture. Agricultural Systems, 159: 78-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.10.016
[106] Wu, W., Hasegawa, T., Ohashi, H., et al. (2019). Global advanced bioenergy potential under environmental protection policies and societal transformation measures. GCB Bioenergy, 11(9): 1041-1055. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12614
