Fenrg 09 771849

REVIEW
published: 24 January 2022

doi: 10.3389/fenrg.2021.771849
Social Science Applications in

Sustainable Aviation Biofuels
Research: Opportunities, Challenges,
and Advancements
Brian J. Anderson 1*, Daniel W. Mueller 2, Season A. Hoard 1,3, Christina M. Sanders 1 and
Sanne A. M. Rijkhoff 4
1
Division of Governmental Studies and Services, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, United States, 2United States Coast
Guard Academy, New London, CT, United States, 3School of Politics, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Washington State University,
Pullman, WA, United States, 4Deparment of Social Sciences, Texas A&M University—Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, TX,
United States
Social science has an important role in aviation biofuels research, yet social science
methods and approaches tend to be underdeveloped and under-utilized in the broader
aviation biofuels literature and biofuels overall. Over the last 5 years, social science
Edited by: approaches in aviation biofuels research, particularly site-selection, have made several
Mohammad Rehan, advances. Where early site-selection models either entirely excluded social science
King Abdulaziz University,
concepts or included only a few measurements using poor proxies, current models
Saudi Arabia
more accurately, and more comprehensively capture key social science concepts to
Reviewed by:
Richa Arora, better examine and predict project implementation success and long-term sustainability.
Punjab Agricultural University, India Despite several studies published within the last 20 years noting the need for more
Abdul-Sattar Nizami,
Government College University, empirical studies of social sustainability and improvement in incorporation of social
Lahore, Pakistan criteria, progress has remained rather stagnant in several areas. To help move the field
*Correspondence: forward, we conduct a review of the current state of social science research in aviation
Brian J. Anderson
biofuels with a focus on sustainability, site-selection, and public acceptance research,
[email protected]
identifying key approaches, important developments, and research gaps and weaknesses
Specialty section: of current approaches. While several review studies already exist, they tend to focus on a
This article was submitted to
single area of biofuels such as public acceptance. By broadening our review to several
Bioenergy and Biofuels,
a section of the journal areas, we are able to identify several common limitations across these areas that contribute
Frontiers in Energy Research to the continued underutilization of social science approaches in aviation biofuels. This
Received: 07 September 2021 includes the preference for practical and reliable indicators for social criteria that prioritize
Accepted: 13 December 2021
Published: 24 January 2022
quantitative methods over other approaches. Based on these limitations, we make several
Citation:
recommendations to improve social science research in aviation biofuels, including
Anderson BJ, Mueller DW, Hoard SA, ensuring that social scientists are key members of the research team, the adoption of
Sanders CM and Rijkhoff SAM (2022)
a mixed-methods research designs that combines quantitative and qualitative approaches
Social Science Applications in
Sustainable Aviation Biofuels that better measure some criteria and local-level impacts, and adequate resources for
Research: Opportunities, Challenges, social science research throughout biofuel development projects as these methods are
and Advancements.
Front. Energy Res. 9:771849.
often more time-consuming and costly to implement. We argue that implementing these
doi: 10.3389/fenrg.2021.771849 recommendations in future aviation biofuel development projects will improve social
Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 1 January 2022 | Volume 9 | Article 771849

Anderson et al. Social Science Applications
science approaches utilized in aviation biofuels research and address a long-

acknowledged gap in the field.
Keywords: aviation biofuel, social science, sustainability, social acceptance, modeling, methodology, research
methods
1 INTRODUCTION 2013; Pashaei Kamali et al., 2018; Gnansounou and Alves 2019b),
these studies focus on biofuels in general, or on one aspect of
The social sciences have much to contribute to aviation biofuels aviation biofuels development research, such as sustainability or
development, the broader literature and research in sustainability, site-selection, and do not attempt or only cursorily examine larger
and expertise in the effective and appropriate use of social science trends across different areas of the broader development literature.
research and methodology, such as survey design, This broader focus allows for identification of common limitations
implementation, and analysis. Despite this importance, social and issues in the way social science research and methods are
science research in the field continues to be undervalued, applied in aviation biofuels research and assertion of specific policy
underdeveloped, underrepresented or, at times, ignored across and practical recommendations to address these gaps and
the literature, especially in empirical studies. While there has been limitations. One of the best methods for improving social
improvement in recent studies, inclusion of social science science research and outcomes is to ensure that every biofuel
considerations in empirical sustainable aviation fuel research is development project is required to have a social science research
still in its early stages. Social science aspects, when employed, can team that is staffed with actual social scientists, with a variety of
play an important role in helping assess potential for acceptance methods backgrounds, that this team is equal to other counterparts
of biofuel-related projects (Marciano et al., 2014; Ahmad and Xu, in the project (as evidenced by at least one member being a Co-PI),
2019; Segreto et al., 2020), provide the opportunity to more fully and that the team is adequately funded to conduct long-term social
assess community capacity to sustain biofuel facilities (See science research at both the national, regional and local level
Martinkus et al., 2017; Rijkhoff et al., 2017; Martinkus et al., throughout the duration of the project.
2019; Mueller et al., 2020; Rijkhoff et al., 2021), and more fully We also argue an important area for future improvement, no
understand the sustainability of biofuel supply chains (See Wang matter the area of research, is more truly mixed-methods research
et al., 2017; Pashaei Kamali et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2019). that combines quantitative and qualitative measures, especially at
Despite these advancements, there are several limitations to the local level. While we acknowledge that quantitative methods
the application of social science research and methodologies in that combine social, economic and environmental criteria,
biofuels development. Part of the issue is the preference for especially in initial stages, are important, more resources need
accessible and reliable quantitative measures, especially in to be available in all stages of biofuel development to collect local
frameworks that attempt to combine environmental, level social measures through both quantitative and qualitative
economic, and social sustainability criteria. As many methods. Without this, the full impact of aviation biofuel
important social sustainability criteria are not easily accessible development, and ultimately the sustainability of this
without additional, often qualitative research, this preference development for current and future generations cannot be assessed.
leads to similar social criteria with questionable validity being This article is organized as follows. First, we provide an
employed. To be sure, social science has made important explanation of our review methodology, followed by a review
contributions in the field of biofuel development, but this of social sustainability, especially empirical social sustainability
work has much less prominence, less resources are committed research focusing on appropriate social criteria, identifying
to social aspects of biofuel development and sustainability, and current trends, and limitations. Next, we examine combined
ultimately, the consequence is that the understanding of social framework and models used in aviation biofuels research for
costs and benefits of biofuel development are lacking, especially at site-selection and life-cycle social sustainability research. The
the local level. literature on public acceptance of aviation biofuels is then
As more public and private attention and funding is being discussed as well as ways to improve these studies through
devoted to aviation biofuels research globally, this is an ideal time engagement with the broader biofuels acceptance literature.
to address social science research gaps in the field. To facilitate this Lastly, based on shared limitations of social science research in
process, a review of social science research was conducted in three empirical studies across these three broad areas,
broad areas of aviation biofuels research, sustainability, site- recommendations are provided for improvement of
selection, and public acceptance. Social science research and interdisciplinary research and engagement with the social
methodologies clearly exist outside these three broad areas; sciences to more fully evaluate aviation biofuel development.
however, much theoretical and empirical social science work in
the field is focused on these aspects of aviation biofuels
development; thus, addressing gaps in these areas has the 2 REVIEW METHODOLOGY
potential to move the field forward significantly. While several
good reviews of research in social sustainability, social criteria, and This review focuses on social science applications in aviation
site-selection exist (See Vallance et al., 2011; Kurka and Blackwood biofuels research with specific attention to empirical studies that

utilize social science methods and techniques, either wholly or in including economic, gender, educational, health, and cultural
part. Our aim is to identify how social science has been equality (Moldan et al., 2012), but even this generalization
incorporated into current and past empirical aviation biofuels oversimplifies the plethora of conceptual and empirical studies
research. This review is less concerned with conceptual issues and that attempt to examine social sustainability in different ways.
perspectives as many strong reviews, especially in sustainability, This conceptual muddle leads to various typologies and
already address these issues, and makes empirical applications its dimensions for social sustainability that can contribute to
central focus. As such, we identified three key areas in aviation further confusion (See Foladori 2005; Vallance et al., 2011;
biofuels research that constitute much of the social science Åhman 2013). Put simply, the definition of social
empirical research currently being used in the field, sustainability is still being developed and there is not one
sustainability, site-selection with a specific attention to generally accepted definition or operationalization of this
combined frameworks and modeling, and public acceptance. concept.
The analytical focus on these areas allows us to capture and In their review of sustainability literature, Vallance et al.
examine a wide variety of empirical studies across aviation (2011) distinguish between three types of social sustainability:
biofuels, identify commonalities in how social science research developmental social sustainability, bridge social sustainability,
and methodologies are currently applied, and highlight critical and maintenance social sustainability. Developmental social
areas for improvement. Based on this, we make recommendations sustainability is rooted in the definition of development found
for strengthening social science applications in the future across a in the previously mentioned Brundtland Report, and focuses on
vast array of empirical studies, specifically in studies concerning needs met through economic development, and tends to assume
aviation biofuel. positive social outcomes from this development. According to the
authors, “it captures the essence of a much larger construct that
attempts to address both tangible and less tangible necessities for
3 SUSTAINABILITY life which, in turn, was seen to depend on reviving growth;
changing the quality of growth; meeting essential needs for
An important concept in research on aviation biofuel is jobs, food, energy, water, and sanitation. . .” (p. 343). This
sustainability. However, it is often unclear what is meant literature focuses on sustainability in addressing basic, physical
precisely with this word, which leads to challenges of needs (McKenzie, 2004; Dudziak 2007), and examining equity in
measuring sustainability and thus makes it difficult to provide access to services, education and other factors that threaten
evidence of said sustainability in projects. Generally, society in the long term (Campbell 1996; Partridge 2005).
sustainability is viewed as a balance and trade-off between Bridge social sustainability is less anthropocentric and focuses
environmental sustainability, economic sustainability, and on the needs of the biophysical environment, while maintaining
social sustainability. This three-pillar approach of sustainability social sustainability “speaks to traditions, practices, preferences
has been conceptualized in several ways, among which and places people would like to see maintained (sustained) or
interconnected pillars (Basiago 1995; Moldan et al., 2012), improved” (Vallance et al., 2011, p. 345). These types of
dimensions (Stirling, 1999; Mori and Christodoulou, 2012); sustainability conflict cause confusion as the needs of the
components (Du and Jacobus, 2006; Zijp et al., 2015). Popular people (developmental) conflict with their desires
depictions of the model include venn diagrams, concentric circles, (maintenance) and the needs of the environment (bridge)
and pillars where sustainability is identified in the overlap (Vallance et al., 2011). Additionally, conflict occurs when you
between components or supported by the three separate examine whose needs are being met (as these needs are rarely met
pillars. This approach, while still prominent in the across groups of people), or whether maintenance of some
sustainability literature, has been criticized for being under- resources actually harms other resources and groups.
theorized and for over-simplified depictions that obfuscate the While Vallance et al. (2011) framework is referenced in more
meaning of sustainability, leading to inconsistent studies, it is not the only framework or typology which tends to
operationalization, and hindering understanding of the overall produce additional confusion. Åhman (2013) examines the
concept (Thompson, 1995; Purvis et al., 2019). many theoretical frameworks that exist in the social
This three-component approach also dominates the biofuels sustainability literature, including Vallance et al. (2011), and
sustainability research, and variations of this approach are differentiates between several themes: basic needs and equity,
present in several public and private biofuel certification education, quality of life, social capital, social cohesion,
schemes. Among the three components, social sustainability is integration and diversity, sense of place development/
particularly difficult to define, and across sustainably literatures maintenance, and others. The author argues for a larger
there are various interpretations of the concept. These definitions “polemic structure” based on similarities across the different
are often based, at least partially, upon the definition of frameworks and themes that helps us better understand the
sustainable development in the Brundtland Report, which concept “as a construct entailing value statements and scientific
defined sustainability as “development that meets the needs of methods as well as cultural, political, and economic positions”
the present without compromising the ability of future definitions (p. 1163). Because the conceptualization of social sustainability
to meet their own needs” (Brundtland, 1987, p. 40). As a whole, is complex and contentious, it should be no surprise that social
social sustainability conceptualization and operationalization indicators are equally contentious; scientists in a variety of
tends to focus on social equality across several dimensions, disciplines have debated appropriate indicators.

Similar to issues with conceptualization, the reliability, validity, and at times improper analysis and
operationalization of social sustainability is problematic. In generalization. A good source for those interested in using
terms of empirical research, social sustainability receives much survey methodology is Dillman et al. (2014) which covers
less attention than both the environmental and economic pillars design and implementation of phone, mail, and online surveys.
in biofuel sustainability research (See Demirbas 2004; Cherubini Studies ranking sustainability criteria have used both survey
et al., 2009; Acquaye et al., 2011; Clarens et al., 2011). In fact, methodology and stakeholder engagement but conclusion drawn
several recent studies continue to examine sustainability without are problematic given their sample sizes, questions, and analysis.
including social aspects or only focus on economic viability (See For instance, when social, environmental, and economic criteria
Diniz et al., 2018; Resurreccion et al., 2021). When social were ranked together, social criteria were ranked lower across
sustainability is included, it tends to focus on a developmental dimensions and often had the most disagreement across experts
perspective and more specifically basic needs. (Buchholz et al., 2009; Kurka and Blackwood 2013). Additionally,
Additionally, while several key certification schemes include where several social criteria were ranked highly in relevance,
social sustainability aspects, the extent to which it is addressed especially local level factors such as standard of living, they often
and whether it is included in monitoring and reporting standards performed poorly in reliability, practicality, and importance.
varies (Scarlet and Dallemand 2011; de Man and German, 2017). Social criteria were also rated significantly differently between
For instance, EU-RED (European Union’s Renewable Directive industrialized and non-industrialized countries (Buchholz et al.,
2009/28/EC) does not include social sustainability criteria, 2009). In their recommendations, Buchholz et al. (2009) did not
instead relegating aspects of social sustainability to biennial rule out any criteria, instead recommending more engagement to
reporting mechanisms (See de Man and German 2017). Not identify the top third criteria for assessment. In contrast, Kurka
only is this problematic from a theoretical standpoint, as one of and Blackwood (2013), based on feedback from experts,
the necessary pillars for overall sustainability is ignored or narrowed their list to the following two social criteria: regional
insufficiently examined, but the cumulative evidence from job creation (created jobs/kWh for plants and supply chains) and
several biofuel-related projects illustrates that “costs and regional food security (the percentage of total productive land use
benefits are unevenly distributed within and between change in favour of energy crop plantation).
communities, with consequences for the ways in which social, It is concerning that Kurka and Blackwood chose to narrow
economic, and environmental impacts are experienced” (Hodbod the list of social criteria based on results of their survey of experts.
and Julia, 2013). As a result, only certain actors are better First, Bussholz et al. (2009) had 46 global bioenergy experts
positioned to capitalize on biofuel production opportunities respond to their survey while Kurka and Blackwood had only
and poverty reduction in rural areas is not guaranteed with 13 total regional participants in their stakeholder forum. Both
biofuel expansion (Hodbod and Julia, 2013). Correa et al. these sample sizes necessitate limited generalization and caution,
(2019) make several recommendations for implementing and do not support making any preliminary decisions regarding
sustainable biofuel production systems and call for “rigorous these criteria. Additionally, these surveys used non-probability
assessments that integrate socioeconomic and environmental sampling, which makes sense given the sample size, which further
objectives at local, regional, and global scales”. Despite these limits any inferences to the larger population of biofuels experts.
calls, local level analysis is still lacking. Both studies also provide limited background on their
Social sustainability has received more attention in the last participants, stressing their expertise either regionally or
20 years; however, conceptual studies far outweigh empirical globally in biofuels. Kurka and Blackwood (2013) do state they
analysis in biofuels sustainability research (See Pashaei Kamali used non proportional quota sample to get a balance of
et al., 2018; Gnansounou and Alves 2019b). Among empirical participants from the following backgrounds: “local authorities,
studies, few have included social sustainability criteria in a the regulative body, the business support agency, environmental
broader attempt to identify appropriate indicators for biofuel protection, harvesting and supply, sawmilling, bioenergy
sustainability evaluations, often using systematic literature production, agriculture, forestry, and waste management”.
reviews to identify potential indicators and expert surveys or Based on the information given, it is unlikely that social
stakeholder engagement to rank potential indicators according to science experts were included in either study, or at least had
their relevance (relevance of criteria to system sustainability), very limited participation in ranking criteria. This would bias
practicality (existence of measurements, data availability, data results of the ranking exercises as it is unclear that those with
costs), reliability (reliability/reproducibility of available data), different backgrounds would have the expertise to effectively rank
importance (importance of criteria for assessing sustainability these criteria.
of system), and other metrics (See Buchholz et al., 2009; Kurka In their assessment of the literature, Pashaei Kamali et al.
and Blackwood 2013; Pashaei Kamali et al., 2018). (2018) only included social criteria stating that the social
Surveys are increasingly used in aviation biofuels in a variety of dimension of sustainability is far less developed than
ways, including but not limited to assessing public opinion and environmental and economic dimensions. These authors argue
support, identifying sustainability criteria, evaluating the impact that in order to assess social performance of biofuel supply chains,
of noise on health of populations, and stakeholder engagement. relevant social and governance issues must be identified, which
While several technological developments have made surveys should be done through case studies rather than attempting to
more accessible to researchers, limited prior experience with create a static framework and indicators (see also Wang et al.,
survey methodology can lead to surveys with questionable 2017, Wang et al., 2019). Through a case-study of the sugarcane

biojet fuel supply chain in Brazil, these authors included biofuel balanced. For instance, for reliability, survey respondents were
sector experts’ evaluations of social and governance issues found asked: “which issues do you consider reliable to in jet biofuel
in a systematic literature review according to their relevance, supply chain from ethanol? [sic]” Not only is question wording
practicality, reliability, importance, and simplicity. They found a confusing, but the response options were actually the least
high level of agreement between the literature review (factors important, very unimportant, neither important nor
examined by studies) and the sector experts, with the most unimportant, very important, the most important and I don’t
practical factors included in more empirical studies. For know. It is curious that the authors chose not to include just
instance, while human health and safety was identified as the important as a response option for a more balanced scale. In
most important and relevant issue, it was not rated as highly in future iterations, a seven point Likert scale could be used for more
practicality, reliability or simplicity, and was only included in one nuanced analysis (although more respondents would be
empirical study. In contrast, employment was rated most required). Based on the questionnaire we would make several
practical which may be why so many studies include it in revisions to the survey instrument for more reliable and valid
social criteria metrics. The authors found that social cohesion results.
and cultural diversity had the lowest rankings across all The importance of including social scientists to improve social
dimensions by experts and were addressed in no empirical sustainability research has been noted (see Vallance et al., 2011),
studies. There was also a high-level of support for including yet adequate participation of social scientists seems to be lacking
human health and safety, labor rights, and social development in even in more recent studies. Several issues lead to the subjugation
certification schemes for Brazil biojet fuel supply, but practicality of social sustainability and social concerns with limited
and reliability hinder their inclusion and implementation which improvement in measurements used in most empirical studies.
lead the authors to argue that “improvement in measurement and First, while the preference for both practical and reliable criteria is
data collection of these issues should be pursued urgently” understandable in terms of ease of access, use, and comparability
(Pashaei Kamali et al., 2018). across cases, it also preferences quantitative data over other
While the authors’ focus on social criteria is laudable and methods. This is problematic as data for many social issues,
much needed, it is important to note that this study has a particularly at the local level, are not widely available and often
relatively small sample size as well (39 valid responses) and qualitative. Reliability and practicality does not mean these are
the extent of participation of social scientists is unclear. The valid measurements of the concepts in question. The preference
authors identified five “expert groups” among their sample: of practical and reliable criteria therefore not only ignores data
academia, consultancy, certification body, government, and that may better reflect these concerns and issues but can
non-profit. While some of their academic experts, encourage empirical studies to leave social criteria out
consultancies, and non-profits may have social science altogether. Ultimately, this leads to data driven studies instead
expertise, this is not guaranteed and information to effectively of theory informed research.
evaluate whether this expertise is present is not provided. At a Second, as noted, the preference for this convenient data can
minimum, better background information needs to be provided prevent accurate and reliable analysis of social concerns at a local
in order to determine their ability to fully assess social factors. level. Even studies conducting case-study analysis (e.g. Kurka and
Studies examining social criteria need to include social science Blackwood 2013; Pashaei Kamali et al., 2018), do not effectively
experts in the field. The higher percentage of “no opinion” address these concerns of confusing levels of analysis as regional
responses for several social criteria suggest the participants did and local level concerns are not included. The use of national-
not have expertise to rank these options. Social science experts, level data can obfuscate the consequences of biofuel development
particularly at a regional and local level, are necessary to fully at the local level. Unfortunately, the preference for reliable and
assess these criteria and have better knowledge of what is practical quantitative measures encourages a lack of study at a
currently available. These studies are essential for identifying more localized level, or at the very least, incomplete studies with
criteria that can accurately assess sustainability and present the limited quantitative data. Hodbod and Julia, (2013) reviewed the
perfect opportunity to more fully engage social scientists in social sustainability analysis of supply chains and found a lack of
sustainability research. We also note some concerns with the studies at the local level. In fact, they argue that even studies that
questionnaire used that may impact how respondents answered include sustainability experts tend to focus on national or even
questions. It is not always easy to obtain the survey questionnaire more often, on international effects. Lacking the inclusion of
used in published research but access to the survey questionnaire experts at the local level overlooks the detrimental effects of
is essential to fully evaluate the methodology and results. First, sustainable development at this level (Hodbod and Julia, 2013),
some questions utilized in the Pashaei Kamali et al. (2018) study which is a significant issue. Based on our evaluation of the
may have potentially biased survey responses through question methods utilized in these studies and the conclusion drawn,
wording, such as using “more relevant” rather than rate the we would also recommend that social science experts with
relevance of the following options. Second, some definitions experience in survey methodology be included in this work.
provided may be unclear for some participants. Third, some Not only should they be present in the review process for
factors ranked need more explanation to ensure they are published studies but their experience in this field is necessary
interpreted by respondents the same way and in the way the for improvement of these methods and the conclusion drawn.
researchers intended. Lastly, often the survey response options While social indicators are often ignored or undervalued, there
did not match the question and the scales should have been better are at least some contributions to biofuel research that have

attempted to include social metrics in more holistic analyses. the research by Markevičius et al. (2010), reveals, as detailed
Much of this progress is occurring in combining social metrics in earlier, that most research on biofuels ignores social factors, even
broader modeling. This approach still tends to rely on though they are understood to be an equally important part of the
quantitative data and may not be able to perfectly capture three-pillar approach to sustainability. In fact, of the few studies
local conditions in communities where biofuel supply chains that Collotta et al. (2019) determined to be focused on social
are emerging, but it does indicate a genuine attempt by factors, most only focused on economic impacts of biofuel
researchers to pay more attention to social metrics and production related to revenues, while the remainder explored
include them when assessing the overall sustainability of a more nuanced social perspectives, such as the role that social
biofuel supply chain. In the next section, these contributions contexts and stakeholder values play in sustainability assessments
are explored. (Ekener et al., 2018), and how socioeconomic contexts of the
societies in which biofuels are produced can cause impacts of
biofuel production to be positive in some communities and
4 COMBINED FRAMEWORKS AND negative in others (Ekener-Petersen et al., 2014; Ribeiro and
MODELING Quintanilla 2015). Another comprehensive study of biofuel
LCSAs completed since 2008 supported the findings of
One important way the social sciences have contributed to Collotta et al. (2019), finding that while social indicators were
aviation biofuels research is through the development of examined in many analyses, of the over 100 analyses indexed, “the
combined frameworks and modeling to assess sustainability of main [social] indicator used is employment, and in many
biofuel supply chains and biorefinery site selection. These analyses, this is the only indicator considered” (Visentin et al.,
approaches attempt to blend traditional indicators of success 2020). This is in line with the previously mentioned study by
for biofuel supply chains, such as available feedstocks, Pashaei Kamali et al. (2018) which shows that within a decade,
infrastructure, economic factors, etc., with often overlooked biofuel experts have made progress in recognizing the importance
social indicators that are just as important to determining the of social metrics. However, in practice, these metrics are still
viability of these supply chains. Given that most of these attempts excluded due to issues with the practicality and ease of including
rely on quantitative data, the preference is to use quantitative them in quantitative models. Thus, social science is not only
indicators of social sustainability as well which is in conflict with overlooked in the more general sustainability analyses in aviation
the more appropriate qualitative approach of measuring social biofuel research, but there is also still a significant lack of the use
science sets. However, despite the combined modeling approach of proper metrics in the more specialized combined approach of
still cannot capture all important social data in a given for instance the life cycle sustainability assessments.
community, it marks a significant departure from the total While it is clear that social factors of sustainability remain
omission of social metrics in previous biofuel research. sidelined in the great bulk of biofuel LCSAs, these more nuanced
One major approach utilizing social assets includes the life approaches to sustainability assessments of biofuel supply chains
cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA or LCA), which is a tool remain important. By bringing attention to important social
designed to assess the environmental, economic, and social factors that can determine not only whether supply chains are
sustainability of a biofuel production chain by calculating the economically viable, but also whether biofuel production can
impact of the product from feedstock to end user (Fokaides and bring long-lasting positive social effects to the communities
Christoforou 2016). LCSA has existed for several decades but has where production takes place, LCSAs have the potential to
only recently been applied to biofuel production as biofuels enhance our understanding of the viability of biofuel
emerge as an important tool in the fight against climate production. As noted by Lan et al. (2020), “the conflicts and
change. An early study by Markevičius et al. (2010) developed relationships between stakeholders at varied scales and levels in
several metrics for sustainability popular in the literature at the [biofuel supply chains (BSC)] need a better understanding to
time including 15 social metrics (out of 35 total). These include, support effective BSC design at an early stage”. This suggests that
for example, cultural acceptability within communities, working a major challenge to the development of biofuel supply chains
conditions, and food security for social metrics, among others. and the research associated with them is the dearth of social
However, when the authors asked biofuel experts to rank the science research that assesses stakeholder relationship and other
most important sustainability metrics in terms of their relevance, social factors associated with biofuel production. The analysis by
practicality, reliability, and importance to biofuel production, Visentin et al. (2020) also reflects this, revealing that only a
social metrics were consistently ranked low in all four attributes, handful of the more than 100 LCSAs completed in the last decade
reflecting the inattentiveness of biofuels experts to social or so focused on social factors like supplier relations or
sustainability metrics, and the lack of social science community involvement beyond merely employment.
participation in these ranking studies. The need for more social science research and the greater
Collotta et al. (2019) reviewed 60 LCSA studies that examined attention to social factors that the social sciences have brought to
sustainability at various stages in the biofuel production chain biofuel production chains have resulted in the creation of social
and found that only a handful were attentive to social factors life cycle assessments (SLCA), which are variations of life cycle
related to biofuel production, including social well-being, and assessments that attempt to include more social factors when
social impacts to farmers and communities where biofuels are assessing biofuel production. While these assessments would also
produced and refined. This study, completed almost 10 years after be considered a form of LCSA, SLCAs emphasize the social

elements of sustainability in ways that LCSAs have ignored. more traditional indicators for site selection, arguing that higher
International guidelines, developed by the United Nations levels of these community traits would improve the
Environmental Programme, for how to undertake SLCAs have implementation process of biorefineries, while ignoring them
been around for over a decade (UNEP, 2009). Since then, several risks long-term success of biofuel production. Mueller et al.
studies have attempted to use SLCAs in the area of biofuel (2020) also attempt to use a capitals approach to biorefinery
production, to great success. Gnansounou and Alves (2019b) siting, using the Community Assets and Attributes Model
note that SLCA is still a relatively new technique without (CAAM) to develop strategies for biofuel project leaders to
standardization in tools and data. They also discuss biases that approach and interact with communities in positive ways,
result from the information collected. However, it should be further enhancing the chance of biorefinery success and
noted that social scientists are trained to deal with many of the viability. Figure 1 provides a visual representation of the
issues they discussed showing the importance of including social theoretical indicators feeding into calculation of the capitals
scientists when attempting to include social aspects in these contained in the CAAM model. Despite this progress, the
frameworks. Mattioda et al. (2020) also note that while SLCA focus is still on quantifiable measures of social assets, rather
is not standardized, it can be used across multiple different sectors than combining that with the more appropriate qualitative
to develop a much more holistic assessment of any production approach.1
supply chain. The authors provide nine examples of SLCA being These areas of research in biofuel supply chains all indicate a
used in biofuel production, all of which pay special attention to potential for a robust social science presence in biofuel research,
how biofuels affect various stakeholders, workers in the biofuel and the authors cited above reflect the need for even more social
industry, and community and societal effects of biofuel science scholars in the field. Unfortunately, many of the studies
production (Mattioda et al., 2020). This focus helps bring that attempt to incorporate social aspects do so only superficially
more empirical attention to the question of social “in a nonmethodological way” (Gnansounou and Alves 2019b).
sustainability and is important for moving both conceptual There are various potential methods for incorporating social
and empirical work on social sustainability forward. aspects more methodically and reliably in aviation biofuels
While SLCAs attempt to provide a more broad and holistic research but Gnansounou and Alves (2019b) criticize several
picture of a biofuel supply chain, from feedstock to end-user, approaches since they require more stakeholder engagement. For
many scholars have also narrowed in on specific stages of biofuel instance, they point out that SLCA is still lacking proper tools and
production, utilizing social science research to enhance our data (p. 126). It is encouraging that researchers and biofuel
understanding of every step of the biofuel supply chain. One project leaders understand that, in theory, social sustainability
example of this is biorefinery site selection, a process that relies on is just as important as economic and environmental
numerous biogeophysical indicators to find the most optimal sustainability, but unfortunate that they have, in practice,
location to build a biorefinery. These indicators can include shied away from the inclusion of social metrics in biofuel
distance to feedstock supplies, the presence of nearby highway research, largely due to the inconsistency of social metrics and
and railway infrastructure, and the economic viability of the the difficulty associated with measuring social traits. It is further
biorefinery, among others. In site selection literature, the focus is discouraging that the preference for quantitative measures may
often on long term accomplishments of industries, assuming that cause researchers to shy away from methods that may more
when the proper biogeophysical assets are present, a project will validly capture social sustainability due to the time and resources
likely succeed. However, without taking social assets into account, needed for these methods. However, aviation biofuel supply chain
a project might never get realized. By relying on biogeophysical viability cannot simply incorporate only the traditional
indicators alone, a vital component in site selection is thus biogeophysical and economic factors that usually go into
overlooked. determining the success of biofuel production. If sustainability
Some scholars have begun to focus on social factors: is the goal of these supply chains, then social sustainability must
Santibañez-Aguilar et al. (2014) attempt to factor in the social be considered, and that includes using the content expertise and
impact of biorefineries by calculating the number of jobs methods—qualitative as well as quantitative—of social scientists
generated by a facility, suggesting that more jobs would lead to ascertain a more holistic vision of what a truly sustainable
to positive social impacts in the community. Martinkus et al. biofuel supply chain really looks like.
(2014) go even further by developing a social asset factor that The complications and problems that come from severely
measures a community’s capacity for collective action, suggesting under-developed social sustainability criteria will continue as
that high social asset factor communities are better suited to long as the preference for uniform frameworks with easily
complex projects like the construction of biorefineries. This obtainable data remains. While this preference is
approach reflects the Social Hotspot Database method understandable, its dominance ensures that social
described by Gnansounou and Alves (2019a) and Rijkhoff sustainability will receive little empirical analysis or
et al. (2017) further develop Martinkus et al. (2014) work by improvement. There is a need in the aviation biofuels
creating a social asset framework that includes social, creative,
and human capital to assess community suitability for biofuel
projects. In a later paper, Martinkus et al. (2017) further refine 1
We recommend Gnansounou and Alves (2019a), for an overview of current
this capitals approach by building social, cultural, and human studies making use of integrated sustainability assessment (ISA) which is applied to
capital indicators into a decision support tool that also includes biofuel and biofuel feedstock production options.

FIGURE 1 | Visualization of the community assets and attributes model. Note: Based on Mueller et al. (2020).
literature, and the broader biofuels literature, for more forecasting and estimating outcomes more culturally sensitive
interdisciplinary research that includes social science research and accurate given that factors influencing public acceptance
experts, particularly those with expertise in various social issues evolve over time (Sovacool 2014). Systematic reviews of the
for the case in question. Additionally, while the dominance of literature on public approval include mainly studies that
quantitative methods in aviation biofuels research is examine public perceptions and acceptance of new
understandable, more mixed-methods research that include technologies in the broad sense (e.g., Cohen et al., 2014;
qualitative methods would greatly benefit our understanding Sovacool 2014; Drews and van den Bergh 2016; Segeto et al.,
of sustainability overall and social sustainability in particular. 2020). Specifically, research has shown that while there is strong
We agree with Pashaei Kamali et al. (2018) that case study support for transitions to renewable energy systems in the
analysis is important for identifying social sustainability abstract (Bertsch et al., 2016), there are many examples of
criteria, and mixed-method research could be especially opposition to specific projects at the local level, two examples
beneficial for identifying sustainability issues on a case-by-case being Upreti and van der Horst (2004), and Jobert et al. (2007).
basis, and at a local level. This does not preclude trying to adopt a Case studies and several meta-analyses (Brohmann et al., 2007;
somewhat unified framework for social criteria, but these Cohen et al., 2014; Segreto et al., 2020) include research of social
frameworks may be better developed through other methods, acceptance of renewable energy systems, including wind farms,
such as qualitative comparative analysis, rather than the methods biomass energy generation, and others. However, researchers
typically utilized in the aviation biofuels literature. have lamented the scarcity of scientific studies on public
An active area of social science research and concepts is the attitudes toward, and acceptance of, biofuels in general, and
literature on public acceptance of biofuels which can be sustainable aviation biofuels (SAFs) specifically (Filimonau and
considered as an important component of the supply chain Högström 2017; Ahmad and Xu, 2019; Løkke et al., 2021). This is
and sustainability. However, the application of these concepts worrisome for proponents of SAF, for while there may be potent
and methods has been underwhelming in regard to aviation arguments for adoption of SAF to mitigate climate change, lack of
biofuels specifically. Fortunately, the larger literature provides social acceptance is a key barrier for sustainable implementation
guidance on how to improve analysis of public acceptance of (see for example, Upreti and van der Horst 2004). While SAF
aviation biofuels for future studies. acceptance research can fruitfully draw from the existing
literature, SAF differs from most forms of sustainable energy
systems in its need for feedstock production, and its connection to
5 PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE OF BIOFUELS the aviation industry and its related benefits and risks. This is
apparent when examining public support for aviation biofuels,
Understanding public approval of aviation biofuels and the where factors such as airline ticket price can affect support for a
factors that make the public more (or less) supportive is an policy (for example, Lynch et al., 2017).
important part of social sustainability of aviation biofuel. Related to the difficulties of the conceptualization of public
Including public attitudes and perceptions helps to describe acceptance is its operationalization. In a meta-analysis of the
and explain various communities and cultures which literature on energy scholarship, Sovacool (2014) finds that only
potentially act as barriers to public support of biofuels. roughly 12.6 percent of articles include “human centered” (sic)
Moreover, the incorporation of public acceptance can make research methods. As mentioned in the discussion on

sustainability, the most often used methodological approach mainly focus on a single dimension of socio-political
focuses on quantitative measures which lack precision and acceptance.
accuracy of the social concepts. While the social science Most work has been done on the first of the three dimensions
inclusions in studies on public perceptions of SAF is both namely socio-political acceptance of SAF. Similar to the broader
qualitative and quantitative, quantitative approaches are acceptance of renewable energy literature, there seems to be
dominant. Specifically, surveys dominate these studies with widespread support for biofuel use in the aviation industry in
fewer incorporating field research, focus groups, or interviews theoretical terms, but there are reservations when it comes to the
(p. 11). It should be noted that these surveys greatly vary in terms practical implications. One way to operationalize the dimension
of sampling methods utilized, sample sizes, and the information of socio-political support for SAF is to use general attitudes
provided to fully assess results. Some provide detailed towards the use of aviation biofuels or general support for
information on sampling strategies, sample demographics, and biofuel policies. Lynch et al. (2017) operationalizing
operationalization and measurement for effective assessment of acceptance as support for specific national policies, found in
the methodology (See Dragojlovic and Einsiedel 2015; Spartz their case study of the Netherlands, that the Dutch support the
et al., 2015; Rice et al., 2020), while others may lack detailed idea of using biofuels to achieve a more environmentally friendly
information in one or more components (See Radics et al., 2016). aviation system. When it comes to using arable land and biomass
Also, it can be difficult to access the survey questionnaire as most for fuel instead of for the food industry, public concerns became
studies do not provide this information. While surveys have clear.2 Furthermore, the public indicated a lack of clarity on
several benefits, sophisticated surveys, especially those using whether SAFs result in a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
probability sampling, are costly even when conducting online and keeping the price of flying affordable (p. 136). Another study
surveys and may not appropriately measure the phenomena of in Europe explored a more general or broad support for
interest. Jensen and Andersen (2013) specifically argue that in- environmental policies in Sweden and found that only 18% of
depth, qualitative methods are important when examining the population had negative attitudes towards a mandate for
perceptions of new technologies—in this case aviation biofuel blending in the aviation industry (Larsson et al., 2020).
biofuels—that may not be familiar to participants. Others have Furthermore, Filimonau and Högström, (2017) used semi-
pointed out that due to the lack of prior research in this area, structured interviews of tourists to examine perceptions of the
exploratory, qualitative methods are needed (Filimonau and use of SAF in the United Kingdom civil aviation sector. Like the
Högström 2017). Despite these critiques, Løkke et al. (2021) studies above, they found that most were supportive of SAF
found that the predominant method of measuring public generally. In other words, people seem to be generally open and
opinion is still through surveys while employing in-depth supportive of environmental policies towards increasing
qualitative interviews and focus groups are better able to sustainability but remain skeptical to its implementation.
address the complexity of the factors impacting acceptance of The socio-political acceptance dimension thus seems to be in
biofuels. This is supported by a Moula et al. (2017) study conflict with the community acceptance dimension from time to
conducted in Finland. Conducting in person surveys, they time. In social psychology this effect is known as not in my
noted that several respondents were concerned they did not backyard, or NIMBY, which describes situations in which citizens
have enough information on the topic and may answer generally agree with the policy initiatives but retract their support
incorrectly. This could impact response rates to surveys, lead as soon as they find out that they might suffer negative
to non-response bias, and ultimately shows that some aspects of consequences in their immediate neighborhood. This
public support and acceptance are difficult to capture through a component of public acceptance of biofuel is relevant with
survey instrument. regard to combined frameworks such as LCSA and specifically
Given the lack of specific research on social approval in in studies on site selection. Apart from environmental
aviation biofuels, conceptualization, and operationalization of advantages, sustainable aviation biofuel initiatives may bring
public acceptance is vital. However, scholars disagree and use economic benefits for a business, city, or country and locals
various definitions. For instance, Ahmad and Xu, (2019) define may benefit from improved infrastructure and new jobs.
public acceptance of biofuels as the willingness to use biofuels, Nevertheless, the public may oppose such initiatives with
while Bertsch et al. (2016) describe acceptance “as an active or objections related to expected noise, traffic, and other
passive approval of a certain technology/product or policy.” individual costs. One of the main challenges to sustainable
Perhaps more useful, Wüstenhagen et al. (2007) provide a aviation biofuel is for external stakeholders to win the trust of
thorough overview of the conceptualization of social
acceptance of renewable energy innovation. They
conceptualize acceptance as having three categories or 2
It should be noted that the food price and land use concerns are largely associated
dimensions: socio-political acceptance (broad acceptance), with first- and second-generation biofuels that use crops such as corn or oil-based
community acceptance (acceptance of local projects and plants as feed stock. Third and fourth generation biofuels, produced by algae,
would not have the same need for arable land (Hasan et al., 2021), but may have
impacts), and market acceptance (or market adoption). This
other tradeoffs that affect its viability. Third and fourth generation biofuels are
framework might be applicable to the discussion of social relatively new developments, and research into public perceptions of these types of
acceptance of SAF. Table 1 illustrates the utility of the biofuels is lacking. Of course, it would be difficult to study perceptions of these
framework in categorizing studies examining different aspects more recent biofuels if people do not know how they are produced, and potential
of public acceptance of SAF. We show that current studies risks and benefits associated with this new technology.

TABLE 1 | Overview of operationalization of public acceptance of (aviation) biofuels.
Dimension of Technology Operationalization Method Example studies

social of acceptance
acceptance
Socio-political Aviation biofuels Support for national policies Survey Lynch et al. (2017), Larsson et al.
(2020)
Aviation biofuels Attitudes toward use of aviation biofuels Semi-structured interviews Filimonau and Högström, (2017)
Aviation biofuels Willingness to fly with SAF Online Survey Ahmad and Xu, (2019)
Biofuels Risk/Benefit perceptions Survey Cacciatore et al. (2016)
Community Renewable energy Willingness to pay Survey Liu et al. (2013)
Biomass energy Support for establishment of local Survey, In-depth interviews, focus Upreti and van der Horst (2004)
plant project groups
Biorefineries Risk/Benefit perceptions Survey Marciano et al. (2014)
Market Biofuels Willingness to purchase Survey Chaiyapa et al. (2021)
Aviation biofuels Drivers and Barriers Interviews Smith et al. (2017)
Aviation biofuels Outlook on adoption of aviation biofuels Semi-structured interviews Dodd et al. (2018)
Note: The listed dimensions of social acceptance are based on Wüstenhagen et al. (2007).
the public. These studies point to another way that socio-political Though studies using a qualitative approach in understanding and
acceptance of SAF has been operationalized namely as risk/ predicting SAF are limited, one important exception is the study by
benefit perceptions. Several studies have used perceptions of Filimonau and Högström, (2017) who used semi-structured
the risks and benefits of SAF as a proxy for acceptance. For interviews of tourists to examine perceptions of the use of SAF in
example, Cacciatore et al. (2016) calculate a net risk/benefit the United Kingdom civil aviation sector. It was found that while most
variable as part of their study of the impact of partisanship on tourists are supportive of SAF generally, they lack knowledge of the
perceptions of biofuels. Their findings point to several factors that environmental benefits of SAF use in the aviation industry (Filimonau
impact perceptions of benefits and risks of biofuels, including age, and Högström 2017). Building on this, Filimonau et al. (2018)
party identification, and media consumption (Cacciatore et al., conducted a survey of 306 respondents in Poland. Results of this
2016). While this study focused specifically on the impact of study suggest that knowledge of the application of biofuels in aviation
partisanship on risk/benefit perceptions of biofuels it did not then is indeed lacking, leading to participants’ concerns about the safety of
discuss how perceptions of risks and benefits impacts support for the technology. In both studies, the authors conclude that knowledge
biofuels. of biofuels and SAF specifically should be promoted by governmental
Scholarship about attitudes toward climate change, and and non-governmental actors to promote adoption of the technology
sustainable energy, indicate they are driven by four key things: more widely. This recommendation is echoed by Kim et al. (2019)
1) sociodemographics; 2) underlying values and beliefs; 3) who suggest that increased public knowledge of aviation biofuels and
perceptions about climate change and the energy industry; and its benefits may accelerate the transition from traditional fuel to SAF.
4) short term cues, such as information from stakeholders or news While increased knowledge is assumed to promote support, two
media (see Drews and Van den Bergh 2016 for an overview). There studies (though focusing on biofuels generally and not SAF), show
have been some attempts at developing a framework for that increased knowledge was actually correlated with negative
understanding the determinants of attitudes toward SAF. One perceptions of biofuels (Cacciatore et al., 2016; Lanzini et al.,
approach follows the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 1991) 2016). Indeed, more studies have shown—perhaps
and argues that knowledge, perceived concerns, perceived benefits, unsurprisingly—that support for biofuels decreases when
and social trust predict attitudes toward sustainable aviation fuel participants are primed with information about the potential for
(Ahmad and Xu, 2019). This framework has not been explored negative side effects of biofuel production (i.e., higher food prices, land
empirically, with only a small, descriptive pilot conducted to date. use changes, etc.) (Jensen and Andersen 2013; Fung et al., 2014;
This again shows that research in the area of social acceptance of Dragojlovic and Einsiedel 2015). This impact of new information can
biofuels is under-developed. More broadly, other frameworks have be moderated by partisanship, as demonstrated in a study looking at
been tested for understanding perceptions of biodiesel which support for a biofuels tax credit in the United States (Goldfarb and
include the four determinants mentioned previously but also add Kriner 2021).
attitude toward technologies, past and intended behavior, and trust Political beliefs, especially given the context within the
in key players (Amin et al., 2017). Utilizing participants in Malaysia, United States, are another potential determinant of attitudes
Amin et al. (2017) indicate that the most important predictors of toward SAF identified in the literature. In general, Democrats
attitudes toward biodiesel were perceptions of benefits and trust in in the United States have more positive evaluations of biofuels
key actors. It is useful to replicate these studies in other contexts: and the policies that support them (Dragojlovic and Einsiedel
what impacts perceptions in Malaysia may not be as salient in the 2014; Cacciatore et al., 2016; Goldfarb and Kriner 2021). Party
United States, for example. Additionally, there may be differences in affiliation has been shown to interact with perceptions of the risks
the way these variables affect public acceptance when it comes to and benefits, which in turn impacts support for biofuels (Fung
biodiesel compared to aviation biofuel. et al., 2014). That is, Republicans and Democrats weigh benefits

and risks differently. As suggested by one study, this may be et al. (2018) reviewed attitudes from 58 aviation-related organizations
because individuals view media representations of biofuels in several countries to examine why transitions to SAF have stalled.
through a partisan lens (Cacciatore et al., 2016). In summary, Given the complexity of all dimensions of social acceptance, these
researchers have examined socio-political acceptance for SAF and studies are a step in the right direction, but much more research is
have tried to explore the determinants of these general attitudes. needed.
From the few studies that have been conducted using To summarize, research into public acceptance of SAF is in its
predominantly quantitative approaches, there is some evidence infancy compared to the state of the literature on other types of
to suggest that knowledge of biofuels, partisanship, and trust in biofuels development. While drawing from literature on social
key actors can impact acceptance of biofuels. acceptance of other renewable energy technologies can provide
Though socio-political acceptance and community acceptance guidance, the unique aspects of SAF warrant focused research.
can be in conflict with one another, the latter has been widely
studied in the broader renewable energy literature. For example,
research has been conducted on the development of renewable 6 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
energy sources in rural China (Liu et al., 2013), a biomass energy
plant in the United Kingdom (Upreti and van der Horst 2004), or Despite calls to improve social sustainability research and better
biorefineries in the north-east United States (Marciano et al., examine local level effects of aviation biofuel development, these
2014). Multiple reviews of case studies and trends in social areas remain under-developed, and under-researched. Social
acceptance research of sustainable energy systems have been sustainability continues to be a conceptual muddle with
published (Brohmann et al., 2007; Segreto et al., 2020). These confusion on definitions and appropriate criteria. In addition
studies demonstrate the importance of context in understanding to conceptualization issues, social indicators used in empirical
how to best approach implementation of renewable energy research to assess sustainability remain underwhelming with
projects at the local level. In line with recommendations from questionable validity despite their reliability and practicality.
social science, many utilize in-depth, qualitative methods. Still, Moreover, the local level determinants and effects of aviation
the SAF acceptance literature has, to the best of our knowledge, biofuels remains under researched and under-estimated.
not yet attempted to examine site-specific reasons for the success This review of social science research in three broad areas of
or failure of an SAF project or policy. While there may be parallels aviation biofuels research, sustainability, site-selection, and public
between acceptance of renewable energy projects generally and acceptance, reveals common limitations that, if addressed, would
SAF projects specifically, the unique impacts of biofuels improve research in the field overall. Despite the body of
production (i.e., feedstock and processing) on local conceptual literature, sustainability, and more specifically social
communities and economies clearly calls for focused and sustainability remain ill-defined. Many attempts to incorporate
rigorous research in this area. There is thus a clear gap in the social sciences in aviation biofuel research fail to use accurate
literature around SAF acceptance, that resembles the limitations measures due to the lack of proper concepts. While combined
in research on social sustainability in general and in aviation frameworks and modeling provide better indicators for social
biofuel in particular. sustainability and related social concerns, the focus is still on
The third and last dimension of the framework of social acceptance quantifying these determinants that are often primarily of
of renewable energy innovation as conceptualized by Wüstenhagen qualitative nature. Similarly, studies incorporating public
et al. (2007) is market acceptance and has been more frequently acceptance of sustainable energy do not fully understand what
studied in the biofuels and SAF literature than socio-political and contributes to specific support. Findings suggest that while
community acceptance. The overview by Løkke et al. (2021) shows perceptions of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) are generally
that willingness to pay is one of the main measures of market positive, there is a lack of knowledge among the public on the
acceptance. For example, Rice et al. (2020) found that participants application and benefits of SAF, especially for third and fourth
are willing to pay more for sustainable aviation practices (including generation biofuels. Future studies should include how perceptions,
biofuels), but that willingness was moderated by ticket price, degree of community acceptance, and market acceptance of SAF, are affected by
greenhouse gas reduction, and gender. Similarly, Rains et al. (2017) political beliefs (Dragojlovic and Einsiedel 2014; Fung et al., 2014;
found that participants were willing to pay more for airfare if the Cacciatore et al., 2016), media representations (Delshad and Raymond
increase was due to adopting SAF. Market acceptance studies are also 2013), increased knowledge, and other factors. Furthermore, while
performed after the implementation of policies, for instance, after a surveys are increasingly used in aviation biofuels, the surveys
biofuels policy in Vietnam failed due to lack of market uptake, conducted thus far vary greatly in terms of sophistication and
residents of two cities were surveyed about their awareness of quality. The expense and time required to conduct a valid and
biofuels, motivations to use biofuels, and willingness to purchase reliable survey are often underestimated and this impacts
(Chaiyapa et al., 2021). Yet other studies have focused on market conclusion that can be drawn. Several review studies, especially in
acceptance from the perspectives of direct stakeholders instead of public acceptance and support of aviation biofuels, have shown the
from the public perspective. Smith et al. (2017) looked at the growing prevalence of surveys but to our knowledge a review of survey
acceptance and adoption of aviation biofuels among industry methodology in the field has not been developed. A future study
insiders and companies by conducting interviews with fuel supply examining survey methodology in particular with a goal of improving
chain stakeholders in the United States Pacific Northwest to explore current practice would be beneficial, especially as online surveys,
barriers and opportunities for transitioning to SAF. Similarly, Dodd online panels, and technology increases access to this method.

However, this does not mean surveys are always the appropriate social science backgrounds and research training, including both
method for gathering social data, especially in aviation biofuels qualitative and quantitative experience. Ensuring that some of these
research. team members also have experience with the case(s) being examined
An important limitation in all three areas is the preference for is also recommended. If surveys will be utilized, social scientists with
quantitative methods and indicators, especially in mixed-methods survey research backgrounds should be part of the development,
frameworks, that prioritize accessible, and reliable measures without implementation, and analysis phases, at least in an advisory role. As
additional local research. Many of the social impacts of biofuel stakeholder engagement is crucial to the success of biofuel
development do not lend themselves to easily quantifiable metrics development projects, it is also recommended that members of
and the preference for these types of indicators leads to, at best, an the social science team help lead these aspects and have experience in
incomplete assessment, and at worst, invalid conclusions, and different components of stakeholder engagement, including
inaccurate predictions. This preference also contributes to interviews, focus group, and survey methodologies.
inadequate research at the local level where biofuel development Further, the approach employed to understand social impacts of
has the most impact. To be sure, broader assessments of sustainability biofuel development projects should be mixed-method, including
criteria that include social criteria have received more attention in the both qualitative and quantitative methods as appropriate. This can
last 10 years and this is an important and necessary development. include the use of secondary data collected by outside sources but
However, focusing on quantitative methods and indicators is an should also include both qualitative and quantitative data collection
important limitation of this research that must be addressed. as appropriate. Incorporating social science considerations should
Truly mixed methods research that combines quantitative and occur throughout the duration of the project, and should include
qualitative assessment is needed and is severely lacking in metrics and goals at the local, regional, and national level.
aviation biofuels and the broader biofuel development Furthermore, it is necessary to integrate a plan for adequately
literature. Mixed methods approaches that combine funded post-project evaluation components to monitor long term
quantitative and qualitative methods are especially needed to impacts, especially at the local level. The importance of research
address limitations of evaluations at the local level, and expand design and data collection flexibility is also important as these
the indicators used to evaluate whether biofuel development is projects should be informed by not only current literature and
sustainable through a focus beyond “practical” indicators. projects in this area, but should also seek to develop appropriate
Although we agree with Pashaei Kamali et al. (2018) that case- metrics for their specific case.
studies of social issues are important to determine appropriate This review indicates that significant strides have taken place
social criteria to assess sustainability, these case studies must also in social sustainability and social science research in aviation
focus on community-level impacts to avoid becoming too focused biofuels over the last decade. We encourage scholars,
on the national or regional levels only. practitioners, and funding organizations to include social
science experts in current and future studies to ensure that
sustainability, all aspects of it, is achieved in aviation biofuel
7 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THIS initiatives. The recommendations provided can help ensure that
STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS social criteria are better addressed in the future and that social
scientists have adequate support and prominence within a project
To facilitate better and more consistent application of social to continue much needed work in the field.
science approaches in not only aviation biofuels research and
projects but the broader biofuels field, we recommend that
certification schemes include social sustainability criteria and AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
that these criteria be included in monitoring and reporting
standards. While we acknowledge that quantitative metrics are SH, DM, and SR contributed to the conception of the study. BA,
often the focus of these standards, we recommend flexibility in DM, SH, and CS wrote sections of the first draft of the article. All
the criteria reported and how the criteria are reported to better authors contributed to the article revision. SR provided Figure 1
suit a particular case and better capture localized impacts of and prepared the final article for publication.
biofuel supply chains.
As current criteria are inadequate in terms of social sustainability,
those conducting biofuel development and research projects should FUNDING
ensure that social sustainability and criteria are being adequately
addressed. To help ensure inclusion of this important component, This research was funded by the U.S. Federal Aviation
these projects should include a social science research team that is Administration Office of Environment and Energy through
equal to the other interdisciplinary team components and at least ASCENT, the FAA Center of Excellence for Alternative Jet
one member of the social science team should serve as a Co-PI for Fuels and the Environment, project 001(A) through FAA
the life of the project. Social science research should be adequately Award Number 13-C-AJFE-WaSU-013 under the supervision
funded throughout the project with consideration for time, travel of under the supervision of Dr. James Hileman and Nathan
(especially for qualitative data collection), and project adaptability as Brown. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or
researchers identify appropriate methods for data collection for a recommendations expressed in this material are those of the
specific case. Social science team members should have a range of authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the FAA.

REFERENCES Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., and Christian., L. M. (2014). Internet, Phone, Mail,
and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Hoboken, New Jersey:
John Wiley & Sons.
Acquaye, A. A., Wiedmann, T., Feng, K., Crawford, R. H., Barrett, J., Diniz, A. P. M. M., Sargeant, R., and Millar., G. J. (2018). Stochastic Techno-
Kuylenstierna, J., et al. (2011). Identification of ’Carbon Hot-Spots’ and Economic Analysis of the Production of Aviation Biofuel from Oilseeds.
Quantification of GHG Intensities in the Biodiesel Supply Chain Using Biotechnol. Biofuels. 11 (1), 161. doi:10.1186/s13068-018-1158-0
Hybrid LCA and Structural Path Analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (6), Dodd, T., Orlitzky, M., and Nelson, T. (2018). What Stalls a Renewable Energy
2471–2478. doi:10.1021/es103410q Industry? Industry Outlook of the Aviation Biofuels Industry in Australia,
Ahmad, S., and Xu, B. (2019). “Public Attitude towards Aviation Biofuels: A Pilot Germany, and the USA. Energy Policy. 123 (December), 92–103. doi:10.1016/
Study Findings,” Phil Greening, and Jamal Ouenniche. in Proceedings of 11th j.enpol.2018.08.048
International Conference on Applied Energy Vasteras, Sweden. Available at: Dragojlovic, N., and Einsiedel, E. (2014). The Polarization of Public Opinion on
http://www.energy-proceedings.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/958_Paper_ Biofuels in North America: Key Drivers and Future Trends. Biofuels. 5 (3),
0531091009.pdf.4 233–247. doi:10.1080/17597269.2014.913901
Åhman, H. (2013). Social Sustainability - Society at the Intersection of Dragojlovic, N., and Einsiedel, E. (2015). What Drives Public Acceptance of
Development and Maintenance. Local Environ. 18 (10), 1153–1166. Second-Generation Biofuels? Evidence from Canada. Biomass and
doi:10.1080/13549839.2013.788480 Bioenergy. 75 (April), 201–212. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.02.020
Amin, L., Hashim, H., Mahadi, Z., Ibrahim, M., and Ismail, K. (2017). Drews, S., and van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2016). What Explains Public Support for
Determinants of Stakeholders’ Attitudes Towards Biodiesel. Biotechnol. Climate Policies? A Review of Empirical and Experimental Studies. Clim. Pol.
Biofuels. 10 (1), 219. doi:10.1186/s13068-017-0908-8 16 (7), 855–876. doi:10.1080/14693062.2015.1058240
Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Du Pisani, J. A., and Jacobus, A. (2006). Sustainable Development - Historical
Human Decision Processes 50 (02), 179–211. Roots of the Concept. Environ. Sci. 3 (2), 83–96. doi:10.1080/
Basiago, A. D. (1995). Methods of Defining ’sustainability’. Sust. Dev. 3 (3), 15693430600688831
109–119. doi:10.1002/sd.3460030302 Dudziak, E. A. (2007). Information Literacy and Lifelong Learning in Latin
Benoît, C., and Bernard, M. United Nations Environment Programme, America: The Challenge to Build Social Sustainability. Inf. Development. 23
CIRAIG, and Processes and Services Interuniversity Research Centre for the (1), 43–47. doi:10.1177/0266666907075630
Life Cycle of Products (2013). Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Ekener, E., Hansson, J., Larsson, A., and Peck, P. (2018). Developing Life Cycle
Products. Paris, France: United Nations Environment Programme. Available at: Sustainability Assessment Methodology by Applying Values-Based
https://www.deslibris.ca/ID/236529. Sustainability Weighting - Tested on Biomass Based and Fossil
Bertsch, V., Hall, M., Weinhardt, C., and Fichtner, W. (2016). Public Acceptance Transportation Fuels. J. Clean. Prod. 181 (April), 337–351. doi:10.1016/
and Preferences Related to Renewable Energy and Grid Expansion Policy: j.jclepro.2018.01.211
Empirical Insights for Germany. Energy. 114 (November), 465–477. Ekener-Petersen, E., Höglund, J., and Finnveden, G. (2014). Screening Potential
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2016.08.022 Social Impacts of Fossil Fuels and Biofuels for Vehicles. Energy Policy. 73
Brundtland, G. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and (October), 416–426. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2014.05.034
Development: Our Common Future. United Nations General Assembly Filimonau, V., and Högström, M. (2017). The Attitudes of UK Tourists to the Use
document A/42/427 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/ of Biofuels in Civil Aviation: An Exploratory Study. J. Air Transport
documents/5987our-common-future.pdf (Accessed February 10, 1987), 1–300. Management. 63 (August), 84–94. doi:10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.06.002
Buchholz, T., Luzadis, V. A., and Volk, T. A. (2009). Sustainability Criteria for Filimonau, V., Mika, M., and Pawlusiński, R. (2018). Public Attitudes to Biofuel
Bioenergy Systems: Results from an Expert Survey. J. Clean. Prod. 17 Use in Aviation: Evidence from an Emerging Tourist Market. J. Clean. Prod. 172
(November), S86–S98. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.04.015 (January), 3102–3110. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.101
Cacciatore, M. A., Scheufele, D. A., Binder, A. R., and Shaw, B. R. (2016). Public Fokaides, P. A., and Christoforou, E. (2016). “Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment
Attitudes toward Biofuels: Effects of Knowledge, Political Partisanship, and of Biofuels,” in Handbook of Biofuels Production. Editors R. Luque and
Media Use. Polit. Life Sci. 31 (1/2), 36–51. doi:10.2990/31_1-2_36 K. Wilson. Second Edition (Clark: Woodhead Publishing), 41–60.
Campbell, S. (1996). Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities?: Urban Planning and doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-100455-5.00003-5
the Contradictions of Sustainable Development. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 62 (3), Foladori, G. (2005). Advances and Limits of Social Sustainability as an Evolving
296–312. doi:10.1080/01944369608975696 Concept. Can. J. Development Studies/Revue canadienne d’études du
Chaiyapa, W., Nguyen, K. N., Ahmed, A., VuVu, Q. T. H., Bueno, M., Wang, Z., développement. 26 (3), 501–510. doi:10.1080/02255189.2005.9669070
et al. (2021). Public Perception of Biofuel Usage in Vietnam. Biofuels. 12 (1), Fung, T. K. F., Choi, D. H., Scheufele, D. A., and Shaw, B. R. (2014). Public Opinion
21–33. doi:10.1080/17597269.2018.1442667 about Biofuels: The Interplay between Party Identification and Risk/Benefit
Clarens, A. F., NassauWhite, H., Resurreccion, E. P., White, M. A., and Colosi, L. Perception. Energy Policy. 73 (October), 344–355. doi:10.1016/
M. (2011). Environmental Impacts of Algae-Derived Biodiesel and j.enpol.2014.05.016
Bioelectricity for Transportation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (17), 7554–7560. Gnansounou, E., and Alves, C. M. (2019b). “Social Assessment of Biofuels,” in
doi:10.1021/es200760n Biofuels: Alternative Feedstocks and Conversion Processes for the Production
Cohen, J. J., Reichl, J., and Schmidthaler, M. (2014). Re-Focussing Research Efforts of Liquid and Gaseous Biofuels (Academic Press), 123–139. doi:10.1016/b978-
on the Public Acceptance of Energy Infrastructure: A Critical Review. Energy. 0-12-816856-1.00005-1
76 (November), 4–9. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2013.12.056 Gnansounou, E., and Alves, C. M. (2019a). “Integrated Sustainability Assessment
Collotta, M., Champagne, P., Tomasoni, G., Alberti, M., Busi, L., and Mabee, W. of Biofuels,” in Biofuels: Alternative Feedstocks and Conversion Processes for
(2019). Critical Indicators of Sustainability for Biofuels: An Analysis Through a the Production of Liquid and Gaseous Biofuels (Academic Press), 197–214.
Life Cycle Sustainabilty Assessment Perspective. Renew. Sustainable Energ. Rev. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-816856-1.00008-7
115 (November), 109358. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2019.109358 Goldfarb, J. L., and Kriner, D. L. (2021). U.S. Public Support for Biofuels Tax
Correa, D. F., Beyer, H. L., Joseph, E., Possingham, H. P., Thomas-Hall, S. R., and Credits: Cost Frames, Local Fuel Prices, and the Moderating Influence of
Schenk, P. M. (2019). Towards the Implementation of Sustainable Biofuel Partisanship. Energy Policy. 149 (February), 112098. doi:10.1016/
Production Systems. Renew. Sustainable Energ. Rev. 107 (June), 250–263. j.enpol.2020.112098
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2019.03.005 Hasan, M. A., Mamun, A. A., RahmanRahman, S. M., Malik, K., Al Amran, M. I.
de Man, R., and German, L. (2017). Certifying the Sustainability of Biofuels: U., Khondaker, A. N., et al. (2021). Climate Change Mitigation Pathways for the
Promise and Reality. Energy Policy 109 (October), 871–883. doi:10.1016/ Aviation Sector. Sustainability. 13 (7), 3656. doi:10.3390/su13073656
j.enpol.2017.05.047 Brohmann, B., Feenstra, Y., Heiskanen, E., Hodson, M., Mourik, R., Raven, R., et al.
Delshad, A., and Raymond, L. (2013). Media Framing and Public Attitudes Toward (2007). Factors Influencing the Societal Acceptance of New Energy
Biofuels. Rev. Pol. Res. 30 (2), 190–210. doi:10.1111/ropr.12009 Technologies: Meta-Analysis of Recent European Projects in European

Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption and Production, Basel, Switzerland, Moula, M. M. E., Nyári, J., and Bartel, A. (2017). Public Acceptance of Biofuels in
June 20–22, 2007. the Transport Sector in Finland. Int. J. Sustainable Built Environ. 6 (2), 434–441.
Hodbod, J., and Tomei, J. (2013). Demystifying the Social Impacts of Biofuels at doi:10.1016/j.ijsbe.2017.07.008
Local Levels: Where Is the Evidence? Geogr. Compass. 7 (7), 478–488. Mueller, D., Hoard, S., Roemer, K., Sanders, C., Rijkhoff, S. A. M., and Rijkhoff, M.
doi:10.1111/gec3.12051 (2020). Quantifying the Community Capitals Framework: Strategic Application
Jensen, M., and Andersen, A. H. (2013). Biofuels: A Contested Response to Climate of the Community Assets and Attributes Model. Community Development. 51
Change. Sustainability: Sci. Pract. Pol. 9 (1), 42–56. doi:10.1080/ (5), 535–555. doi:10.1080/15575330.2020.1801785
15487733.2013.11908106 Partridge, E. (2005). “Social Sustainability”: A Useful Theoretical Framework?
Jobert, A., Laborgne, P., and Mimler, S. (2007). Local Acceptance of Wind Energy: Ausralasian Political Science Association Annual Conference (Dunedin,
Factors of Success Identified in French and German Case Studies. Energy Policy. New Zealand. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/3678834/Social_
35 (5), 2751–2760. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.005 sustainability_a_useful_theoretical_framework.
Kurka, T., and Blackwood, D. (2013). Participatory Selection of Sustainability Pashaei Kamali, F., Borges, J. A. R., Osseweijer, P., and Posada, J. A. (2018).
Criteria and Indicators for Bioenergy Developments. Renew. Sustainable Energ. Towards Social Sustainability: Screening Potential Social and Governance
Rev. 24 (August), 92–102. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.03.062 Issues for Biojet Fuel Supply Chains in Brazil. Renew. Sustainable Energ.
Lan, K., Park, S., and Yao, Y. (2020). “Key Issue, Challenges, and Status Quo of Rev. 92 (September), 50–61. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.078
Models for Biofuel Supply Chain Design,” in Biofuels for a More Sustainable Purvis, B., Mao, Y., and Robinson, D. (2019). Three Pillars of Sustainability: In
Future. Editors J. Ren, A. Scipioni, A. Manzardo, and H. Liang (Elsevier), Search of Conceptual Origins. Sustain. Sci. 14 (3), 681–695. doi:10.1007/
273–315. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-815581-3.00010-5 s11625-018-0627-5
Lanzini, P., Testa, F., and Iraldo, F. (2016). Factors Affecting Drivers’ Willingness Radics, R. I., Dasmohapatra, S., and Kelley, S. S. (2016). Public Perception of
to Pay for Biofuels: the Case of Italy. J. Clean. Prod. 112 (January), 2684–2692. Bioenergy in North Carolina and Tennessee. Energ Sustain. Soc. 6 (1), 17.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.080 doi:10.1186/s13705-016-0081-0
Larsson, J., Matti, S., and Nässén, J. (2020). Public Support for Aviation Policy Rains, T., Winter, S. R., Rice, S., Milner, M. N., Bledsaw, Z., and Anania, E. C.
Measures in Sweden. Clim. Pol. 20 (10), 1305–1321. doi:10.1080/ (2017). Biofuel and Commercial Aviation: Will Consumers Pay More for it? Int.
14693062.2020.1759499 J. Sustainable Aviation. 3 (3), 217. doi:10.1504/IJSA.2017.086846
Liu, W., Wang, C., and Mol, A. P. J. (2013). Rural Public Acceptance of Renewable Resurreccion, E. P., Roostaei, J., Martin, M. J., Maglinao, R. L., Zhang, Y., and
Energy Deployment: The Case of Shandong in China. Appl. Energ. 102 Kumar, S. (2021). The Case for Camelina-Derived Aviation Biofuel:
(February), 1187–1196. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.06.057 Sustainability Underpinnings from a Holistic Assessment Approach. Ind.
Løkke, S., Aramendia, E., and Malskær, J. (2021). A Review of Public Opinion on Crops Prod. 170 (October), 113777. doi:10.1016/j.indcrop.2021.113777
Liquid Biofuels in the EU: Current Knowledge and Future Challenges. Biomass Ribeiro, B. E., and Quintanilla, M. A. (2015). Transitions in Biofuel Technologies:
and Bioenergy. 150 (July), 106094. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2021.106094 An Appraisal of the Social Impacts of Cellulosic Ethanol Using the Delphi
Lynch, D. H. J., Klaassen, P., and Broerse, J. E. W. (2017). Unraveling Dutch Method. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change. 92 (March), 53–68. doi:10.1016/
Citizens’ Perceptions on the Bio-Based Economy: The Case of Bioplastics, Bio- j.techfore.2014.11.006
Jetfuels and Small-Scale Bio-Refineries. Ind. Crops Prod. 106 (November), Rice, C., Ragbir, N. K., Rice, S., and Barcia, G. (2020). Willingness to Pay for
130–137. doi:10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.10.035 Sustainable Aviation Depends on Ticket Price, Greenhouse Gas Reductions and
Marciano, J. A., Lilieholm, R. J., Teisl, M. F., Leahy, J. E., and Neupane, B. (2014). Gender. Technology Soc. 60 (February), 101224. doi:10.1016/
Factors Affecting Public Support for Forest-Based Biorefineries: A Comparison j.techsoc.2019.101224
of Mill Towns and the General Public in Maine, USA. Energy Policy. 75 Rijkhoff, S. A. M., Hoard, S. A., Gaffney, M. J., and Smith, P. M. (2017).
(December), 301–311. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2014.08.016 Communities Ready for Takeoff. Polit. Life Sci. 36 (1), 14–26. doi:10.1017/
Markevičius, A., Katinas, V., Perednis, E., and Tamašauskienė, M. (2010). Trends pls.2017.6
and Sustainability Criteria of the Production and Use of Liquid Biofuels. Renew. Rijkhoff, S. A. M., Martinkus, N., Roemer, K., Laninga, T. J., and Hoard, S. A.
Sustainable Energ. Rev. 14 (9), 3226–3231. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2010.07.015 (2021). A Capitals Approach to Biorefinery Siting Using an Integrative
Martinkus, N., Rijkhoff, S. A. M., Hoard, S. A., Shi, W., Smith, P., Gaffney, M., et al. Model in Energy Impacts: A Multidisciplinary Exploration of North
(2017). Biorefinery Site Selection Using a Stepwise Biogeophysical and Social American Energy Development, Editor J. B. Jacquet, J. H. Haggerty, and
Analysis Approach. Biomass and Bioenergy. 97 (February), 139–148. G. L. Theodori (Logan, UT: Social Ecology Press and Utah State University
doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.12.022 Press), 176–214.
Martinkus, N., Shi, W., Lovrich, N., Pierce, J., Smith, P., and Wolcott, M. (2014). Santibañez-Aguilar, J. E., González-Campos, J. B., Ponce-Ortega, J. M., Serna-
Integrating Biogeophysical and Social Assets into Biomass-To-Biofuel Supply González, M., El-Halwagi, M. M., Mahmoud, M., et al. (2014). Optimal
Chain Siting Decisions. Biomass and Bioenergy. 66 (July), 410–418. doi:10.1016/ Planning and Site Selection for Distributed Multiproduct Biorefineries
j.biombioe.2014.04.014 Involving Economic, Environmental and Social Objectives. J. Clean. Prod.
Martinkus, N., Latta, G., Rijkhoff, S. A. M., Mueller, D., Hoard, S. A., Sasatani, D., 65 (February), 270–294. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.004
et al. (2019). A Multi-Criteria Decision Support tool for Biorefinery Siting: Scarlat, N., and Dallemand, J.-F. (2011). Recent Developments of Biofuels/
Using Economic, Environmental, and Social Metrics for a Refined Siting Bioenergy Sustainability Certification: A Global Overview. Energy Policy. 39
Analysis. Biomass and Bioenergy. 128, 105330. doi:10.1016/ (3), 1630–1646. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.12.039
j.biombioe.2019.105330 Segreto, M., Principe, L., Desormeaux, A., Torre, M., Tomassetti, L., Tratzi, P., et al.
Mattioda, R. A., Tavares, D. R., Casela, J. L., and Junior, O. C. (2020). “Social Life (2020). Trends in Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy Across Europe-A
Cycle Assessment of Biofuel Production,” in Biofuels for a More Sustainable Literature Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 17 (24), 9161. doi:10.3390/
Future. Editors J. Ren, A. Scipioni, A. Manzardo, and H. Liang (Elsevier), ijerph17249161
255–271. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-815581-3.00009-9 Smith, P. M., Gaffney, M. J., Shi, W., Hoard, S., Armendariz, I. I., and Mueller, D.
McKenzie, S. (2004). “Social Sustainability: Towards Some Definitions.” Hawke W. (2017). Drivers and Barriers to the Adoption and Diffusion of Sustainable
Research Institute Working Paper Series. MagillSouth Australia: University of Jet Fuel (SJF) in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. J. Air Transport Management. 58
South Australia. Available at: http://www.hawkecentre.unisa.edu.au/ (January), 113–124. doi:10.1016/j.jairtraman.2016.10.004
institute/. Sovacool, B. K. (2014). What Are We Doing Here? Analyzing Fifteen Years of
Moldan, B., Janoušková, S., and Hák, T. (2012). How to Understand and Measure Energy Scholarship and Proposing a Social Science Research Agenda. Energ.
Environmental Sustainability: Indicators and Targets. Ecol. Indicators. 17 Res. Soc. Sci. 1 (March), 1–29. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2014.02.003
(June), 4–13. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.04.033 Spartz, J. T., Rickenbach, M., and Shaw, B. R. (2015). Public Perceptions of
Mori, K., and Christodoulou, A. (2012). Review of Sustainability Indices and Bioenergy and Land Use Change: Comparing Narrative Frames of
Indicators: Towards a New City Sustainability Index (CSI). Environ. Impact Agriculture and Forestry. Biomass and Bioenergy. 75 (April), 1–10.
Assess. Rev. 32 (1), 94–106. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2011.06.001 doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.01.026

Stirling, A. (1999). The Appraisal of Sustainability: Some Problems and Possible Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., and Bürer, M. J. (2007). Social Acceptance of
Responses. Local Environ. 4 (2), 111–135. doi:10.1080/13549839908725588 Renewable Energy Innovation: An Introduction to the Concept. Energy Policy.
Thompson, P. B. (1995). The Spirit of the Soil: Agriculture and Environmental 35 (5), 2683–2691. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.001
Ethics. London ; New York: Environmental Philosophies Series. Zijp, M., Heijungs, R., van der Voet, E., van de Meent, D., Huijbregts, M.,
UNEP (2009). United Nations Environment Programme (2010), UNAP Annual Hollander, A., et al. (2015). An Identification Key for Selecting Methods for
Report 2009: Seizing the Green Opportunity. Available at: https://www.unep.org/ Sustainability Assessments. Sustainability. 7 (3), 2490–2512. doi:10.3390/
resources/annual-report/unep-2009-annual-report (Accessed February, 2010). su7032490
Upreti, B. R., and van der Horst, D. (2004). National Renewable Energy Policy and Local
Opposition in the UK: The Failed Development of a Biomass Electricity Plant. Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
Biomass and Bioenergy. 26 (1), 61–69. doi:10.1016/S0961-9534(03)00099-0 absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
Vallance, S., Perkins, H. C., and Dixon, J. E. (2011). What Is Social Sustainability? A potential conflict of interest.
Clarification of Concepts. Geoforum. 42 (3), 342–348. doi:10.1016/
j.geoforum.2011.01.002 Publisher’s Note: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
Visentin, C., Trentin, A. W. d. S., Braun, A. B., and Thomé, A. (2020). Life Cycle and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of
Sustainability Assessment: A Systematic Literature Review Through the the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in
Application Perspective, Indicators, and Methodologies. J. Clean. Prod. 270 this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
(October), 122509. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122509 endorsed by the publisher.
Wang, Z., Osseweijer, P., and Duque, J. P. (2017). “Assessing Social Sustainability
for Biofuel Supply Chains: The Case of Aviation Biofuel in Brazil,” in IEEE Copyright © 2022 Anderson, Mueller, Hoard, Sanders and Rijkhoff. This is an open-
Conference on Technologies for Sustainability (SusTech), 1–5. doi:10.1109/ access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
sustech.2017.8333474 License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted,
Wang, Z., Pashaei Kamali, F., Osseweijer, P., and Posada, J. A. (2019). provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the
Socioeconomic Effects of Aviation Biofuel Production in Brazil: A original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic
Scenarios-Based Input-Output Analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 230, 1036–1050. practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.145 with these terms.

Fenrg 09 771849

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fenrg 09 771849

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fenrg 09 771849

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REVIEW

published: 24 January 2022

Social Science Applications in

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 1 January 2022 | Volume 9 | Article 771849

science approaches utilized in aviation biofuels research and address a long-

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 2 January 2022 | Volume 9 | Article 771849

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 3 January 2022 | Volume 9 | Article 771849

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 4 January 2022 | Volume 9 | Article 771849

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 5 January 2022 | Volume 9 | Article 771849

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 6 January 2022 | Volume 9 | Article 771849

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 7 January 2022 | Volume 9 | Article 771849

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 8 January 2022 | Volume 9 | Article 771849

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 9 January 2022 | Volume 9 | Article 771849

TABLE 1 | Overview of operationalization of public acceptance of (aviation) biofuels.

Dimension of Technology Operationalization Method Example studies

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 10 January 2022 | Volume 9 | Article 771849

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 11 January 2022 | Volume 9 | Article 771849

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 12 January 2022 | Volume 9 | Article 771849

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 13 January 2022 | Volume 9 | Article 771849

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 14 January 2022 | Volume 9 | Article 771849

Frontiers in Energy Research | www.frontiersin.org 15 January 2022 | Volume 9 | Article 771849

You might also like