More than food or fuel. Stakeholder perceptions of anaerobic digestion and land use; a case study from the United Kingdom

Röder, Mirjam

doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.07.003

Cited by 34 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Taking into account decentralization issues of bioenergy supply chains, it is essential to maintain a dialog with stakeholders in order to define the target criteria of this process. The bioenergy production industry requires multi-stakeholder approach, which guarantees that the different concerns, especially concerns directly affected by policy decisions, are heard and taken into account [38,39]. Stakeholders' dialogue helps to balance between economic development, environmental issues, and social concerns [40].…”

Section: Bioenergy Supply Chain Social Sustainability Risksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Sustainability Dilemma: Escape or Communicate? Managing Social Risks Upstream of the Bioenergy Supply Chain

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Supply chain risk management has been well researched over the years. However, management of social risks in bioenergy supply chains has been studied less in contemporary research. The ability of bioenergy companies to identify, properly address, and communicate social sustainability has become crucial for many global producers. In order to meet current EU’s energy and climate targets, the development of sustainable bioenergy production is vital. However, over last decade, research of bioenergy production supply chains has indicated that upstream areas of global bioenergy production systems are vulnerable in terms of social sustainability risks. The main objective of this research was to demonstrate how the socially sustainable supply chain practices in bioenergy supply chains can help a production company manage social risks and resources-use related conflicts upstream of the supply chain. These practices can be applied in the process of negotiation between bioenergy producers, local authorities, and communities for creating win-win situations for all parties while planning new bioenergy production systems. This study pays special attention to social sustainability risks at the upstream of the supply chain in countries of raw material origin. Use of social sustainability practices intends to help identify, assess, and address social risks of supply chain activities for bioenergy companies. Moreover, such practices aim at supporting companies and their stakeholders in making right choices and preparing effective strategies ahead of time. We based our research on empirical evidence and offer solutions to multi-national bioenergy production companies on how to manage social risks, allowing them to make the right decisions and necessary adjustments before entering potential markets. Our findings show that even avoidance of market entrance can carry sustainability-related social risks for both the company and the local communities. We suggest that although the financial element plays an important role in decision-making, the no-go decision often means missed opportunities for local communities to improve their respective sustainability states.

show abstract

Section: Bioenergy Supply Chain Social Sustainability Risksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Sustainability Dilemma: Escape or Communicate? Managing Social Risks Upstream of the Bioenergy Supply Chain

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, the emissions and costs associated with transporting waste mean that AD is most effective when positioned close to sites of waste production, particularly densely populated areas. Establishing plants in these areas can be more difficult, however, due to the price of land and planning considerations (Röder, ). We propose that AD deployment in the UK would benefit from further analysis of the social and political conditions that constrain, enable and direct the scale and speed of implementation.…”

Section: Background and Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To date, the political dimensions of AD deployment have received limited attention in the scientific literature. Some exceptions include Röder (), who established that although AD is commonly assessed in environmental and economic terms, the drivers of AD implementation are both more numerous and more complex than such evaluative metrics imply. Levidow and Papaioannou () and Levidow et al.…”

Section: Background and Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stepping‐up innovations in the water–energy–food nexus: A case study of anaerobic digestion in the UK

Hoolohan

Soutar

Suckling

et al. 2018

Geographical Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grand societal challenges such as climate change, poverty and biodiversity loss call for rapid and radical changes to systems of production and consumption. Consequently, there is a growing interest in the dynamics of innovation, both social and technical, to accelerate innovation diffusion so as to increase the possibility of a step‐change or large‐scale transition. Research on the water–energy–food nexus adds an additional dimension to existing discussions, calling for transitions that recognise the sustainability challenges facing three major resource domains, and the synergies and tensions involved in their management. This paper examines anaerobic digestion (AD) – an example of innovation with potential benefits across the water–energy–food nexus – to understand the conditions that influence the rate of AD implementation and the achievement of its potential multi‐sectoral benefits across the water–energy–food nexus. Interview data regarding 15 AD plants are examined alongside complementary data from interviews and workshops using the Technological Innovation Systems framework. This framework provides an analytical structure through which the processes that enable and constrain the implementation of AD in the UK can be examined, enabling the identification of potential mechanisms to support AD's wider and more effective deployment. The findings call for recognition of the unintended consequences of sectoral support mechanisms for technological adaptation, and consequent performance of AD in other resource domains and call for greater integration between policy mechanisms to enable AD to perform across the nexus. They also highlight a need to assimilate knowledge from multiple sources (including site‐specific understanding gained from experimentation) to enhance the base on which policy and decision‐making occurs. These findings contribute to existing literature on sustainable transitions by examining the complexities of multi‐sectoral resource management in the context of nexus research.

show abstract

“…Prominent bioenergy sustainability issues include: direct and indirect land-use change impacts; competition between land used for bioenergy and food, or for other land-based mitigation actions (reforestation and afforestation); interaction of bioenergy systems with food systems; implications to food prices, food security, land ownership and jobs; direct ecosystem and biodiversity impacts; impacts of biomass production on water systems; and air quality. The impact of biomass energy production on food prices is contentious and more complex than is often presented [63,64]; with a high proportion of bioenergy feedstocks coming from residues in IAM scenarios [32] the focus may shift from food versus fuel to food and fuel [65,66]. In sum, bioenergy production for BECCS has the potential for significant social and justice implications which could severely impede the deployment of BECCS at scale.…”

Section: Can Sufficient Biomass Be Provided Sustainably?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even though dedicated energy crops are common, agricultural residues can also be used, integrating bioenergy activities into existing systems (e.g. by adding an energy crop into the existing rotation) [89] or using final products, such as digestate from anaerobic digestion and biochar, within the agricultural or forest system. In these cases, considering greenhouse gas emissions and carbon balances solely in relation to an energy system does not capture the breadth of the trade-offs and possible impacts.…”

Section: Distributional Aspects and Emissions Accounting: How Does Bementioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges to the use of BECCS as a keystone technology in pursuit of 1.5⁰C

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-technical summaryBiomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is represented in many integrated assessment models as a keystone technology in delivering the Paris Agreement on climate change. This paper explores six key challenges in relation to large scale BECCS deployment and considers ways to address these challenges. Research needs to consider how BECCS fits in the context of other mitigation approaches, how it can be accommodated within existing policy drivers and goals, identify where it fits within the wider socioeconomic landscape, and ensure that genuine net negative emissions can be delivered on a global scale.

show abstract

More than food or fuel. Stakeholder perceptions of anaerobic digestion and land use; a case study from the United Kingdom

Cited by 34 publications

References 32 publications

Social Sustainability Dilemma: Escape or Communicate? Managing Social Risks Upstream of the Bioenergy Supply Chain

Social Sustainability Dilemma: Escape or Communicate? Managing Social Risks Upstream of the Bioenergy Supply Chain

Stepping‐up innovations in the water–energy–food nexus: A case study of anaerobic digestion in the UK

Challenges to the use of BECCS as a keystone technology in pursuit of 1.5⁰C

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About