The socio-economic impact assessment of biofuels production in South Africa: A rapid structured review of literature

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the SEIA of biofuel production in South Africa (Bloom, 2019).

Figure 2. Prisma flow chart of studies identification and selection process.

Figure 3. The number of publications by country/region of study.

Figure 4. Various biofuel feedstocks utilized.

Figure 5. The number of publications by year.

Table 1. Social impact assessment of biofuels

First Author Surname (year)	Country of study	Study objectives	Research methods	Key findings
Tian et al. (2021)	China	Investigate the current and future potential of growing rapeseed in winter fallow fields across the Yangtze River Basin and Impact on China’s food security and energy security.	integrated agro-ecological assessment methodology and the CHINAGRO-II model	The average potential yield of rapeseed was estimated to be 1 950 Kg/ha China’s oil and food security would also be significantly improved as a result of at least a 92% decrease in China’s rapeseed imports, and the production of rapeseed would not crowd out the production of major food crops, i.e., rice, wheat, and maize.
van der Hilst et al. (2018)	Brazil	Assess LUC dynamics and GHG emissions result from an increased global demand for bioethanol (+26X10^9L) when no corrective measures are taken and when corrective measures are taken.	Computable general equilibrium model (CGEM), spatiotemporal land use allocation model (LUC), and GIS-based carbon model.	When no corrective measures were taken, sugarcane production was projected to expand mainly at the expense of agricultural land, which lead to the loss of natural vegetation. An average emission of 26g of CO2eg/MJ bioethanol was also estimated when no corrective measures were taken. All LUC mitigation measures had the potential to reduce the loss of natural vegetation at a range of 18% to 96% as well as the LUC-related GHG emissions by a range of 7%-60%
Teter et al. (2018)	US	To quantify and compare the spatially varying water impacts of biofuel crops stemming from LUC induced by US biofuel policies.	Agro-economic model, biofuel environmental policy analysis model (BEPAM), and process-based crop-water modeling.	The water use impacts were pronounced in the regions where cropland pasture is converted to biofuels crops (water flows change on the order of 10% to 50%) due to a 0.7% increase in net irrigation requirement and an increase in transpiration.
Tarr et al. (2016).	US	Estimate the potential impact on habitat availability of meeting a realistic bioenergy target and the expected demand for wood pallets in North Carolina, US.	Forest economics models, spatially explicit state and transition simulations model, and species habitat models.	The realistic levels of demand for biofuels and wood pallets in North Carolina would be capable of causing considerable changes in the number of habitat species. The changes could be positive or negative depending upon species’ habitat associations and the biomass sources utilized to meet bioenergy demand, i.e., species that inhabit dense, shrubby vegetation as a result of forest biomass harvest increased, whereas field sparrow experienced habitat loss due to decrease in conventional forestry.
Verategen et al. (2016)	Brazil	Estimate direct and indirect LUC caused by increased demand for biofuels in Brazil. To quantify the crucial uncertainties in the modelling chain.	CGEM and LUC model.	Direct LUC’s Probabilities ranged from 0 to 0.77, and indirect LUC ranged from 0 to 0.43, reflecting that it is difficult to project where exactly the direct and Indirect LUC will occur, with more difficulties for indirect LUC than for the direct LUC. The direct LUC area was projected with great certainty (coefficient of variation =0.02), whereas indirect LUC remained uncertain (coefficient of variation of 0.72).
Schulze et al. (2016)	Germany	To estimate the impact of the expansion of short-rotation coppices (SRCs) on multiple ecosystem services (food crop yield, carbon storage, nutrient, and sediment retention) and biodiversity under different economic and policy-driven scenarios in the Mulde watershed in central Germany.	Spatially explicit economic simulation model and regression model	Only a significant increase in SRCs production area beyond regional demand of combined heat and power plant (CHPP) will have a negative impact on food production positive impact on biodiversity. The occurrence of sites with balanced ecosystem services (ESS) supply was strongly driven by biophysical factors than by SRC share in the landscape. Furthermore, increase the provision of regulatory services.
Bonsch et al. (2014)	Germany	To investigate the trade-offs between land and water requirements of large-scale bioenergy production.	Spatially explicit global land and water-use allocation model	It was found that the production of the targeted 300 EJ/year of bioenergy in 2095 from dedicated bioenergy crops is likely to double to 6400 KM^3 water withdrawals if no explicit water protection policies implemented. Under the scenario where irrigation of bioenergy crops is prohibited, the land requirement for bioenergy production increased substantially (+41%) and was mainly at the expense of cropland.

Table 2. Economic assessment studies of biofuels

First Author Surname (year)	Country of study	Study objectives	Research methods	Key findings
Landa et al. (2022)	Guinea-Bissau	Assess the economic feasibility of biodiesel production from microalgae in Guinea-Bissau.	TEA	The cost of biodiesel production was estimated to be 0.9 US$/kg on a cultivated area of 153 ha. This cost was found to be competitive with diesel production in the service station of Guinea-Bissau.
Pachόn et al. (2020).	South Africa	assessed the techno-economic feasibility of sugarcane-based bioethanol production in South Africa.	TEA	The scenario of a sugar mill (SM)-lactic acid and fuel (LF) was found to the economically feasible scenario, while SM-furfural and fuel (FF) and SM and only fuel (OF) scenario were not economically viable
Ndokwana and Fore (2018)	South Africa	investigated the economic feasibility of using maize as feedstock to produce bioethanol in South Africa.	CBA	Maize based bioethanol was not profitable. The profitability of the bioethanol plant was largely influenced by the prices of feedstock and bioethanol.
Seyffarth (2016)	Brazil	Assess the impact of rising biofuel production on commodity food markets in Brazil.	Econometrics	A statistically significant positive impact on sugarcane production and a statistically significant negative impact on rice, beans, and soybeans acreage were obtained. However, there was no statistically significant impact on areas for corn and manioc.

Table 3. Socio-economic impact assessment studies of biofuels

First Author Surname (year)	Country of study/region	Study objectives	Research methods	Key findings
English et al. (2022)	US	To estimate the annual gross break-even revenue of investment on three biorefinery facilities that are expected to produce SAF, diesel, and naphtha in the Central Appalachian region. Estimate the minimum selling price of sustainable aviation fuel. Estimate the economic impacts of the biorefinery facility on the Central Appalachian region.	Techno-economic analysis (TEA) and Input-output (IO) model.	The annual break-even gross revenue for biorefinery facilities was estimated at $193.7 million. The minimum selling price of SAF was estimated at $1.68 to $1.76 per liter, at the required rate of return on investment of 12.2%. The estimated economic impacts to the central Appalachian region include about $2.67 billion in economic activity with a multiplier of 1.7, a gross regional product of $1.28 billion, a 1200 direct employment increase and a $700 increase in labour income.
Nyarko et al. (2021)	Africa	Estimate the volumes of wood charcoal production in Africa, Estimate the environmental impacts and Socio-economic impacts of wood-charcoal production in Africa.	Descriptive statistics, multivariate analysis, and geospatial modeling techniques.	East Africa had the highest average volume of wood charcoal production (43.2% of production), followed by West Africa (32.1% of production); North Africa, the Middle East, and South Africa were the least producers, with about 11.6%, 115.5%, and 1.6%, respectively. Regions with the highest volume of wood charcoal production (East Africa and Africa) were estimated to have higher forest deforestation relative to regions with lower production volumes (North Africa, Middle East, and South Africa) A strong positive correlation was estimated between higher wood charcoal production, export quantity, and GDP (r=+0.67)
Hartly et al. (2018).	Mozambique	Estimate the economy-wide impact of expanding biofuel production in Mozambique under both commercial and smallholder-type farming models	CGEM	Expanding biofuel production was expected to increase Mozambique annual real GDP growth by 0.021%, increase employment by 56 000 jobs by 2025 and increase household welfare by 0.0012%

Table 4. Integrated socio-economic and environmental impact assessments

First Author Surname (year)	Country of study	Study objectives	Research methods	Key findings
Moreno et al. (2022)	US	Estimate the economic viability of using guayule bagasse for bioenergy production in the Southwest US, and, The environmental impact of producing bioenergy from guayule bagasse.	TEA and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)	The minimum selling price bagasse to fuel pathway required for the facility to be viable was estimated to be $9.26 per gallon of gasoline-equivalent and The minimum selling price of pellets from bagasse was estimated to be $176 per ton.
Yang et al. (2021).	Germany	Estimate the environmental and, Economic benefits of rapeseed-based biodiesel production in Central Germany.	Regional LCA and reduced gradient non-linear optimization method.	GHG emission for rapeseed was estimated to be lower by 56%-71% relative to the equivalent fossil-based fuels emissions. The rapeseed-based biodiesel plant was found profitable (Positive NPVs), with profitability increasing with an increase in the operating capacity.
Pascheco-López et al. (2021)	US	Compare the economic performances and Environmental performances of fossil-based, biomass-derived, and plastic waste-sourced fuel alternatives.	TEA and LCA	Diesel substitutes had a superior performance in terms of production cost reduction as an estimated 25% cost reduction was estimated. However, gasoline-based alternatives had a higher production cost than gasoline, about 57% to 130% higher. The diesel substitutes were found to lead to an estimated life cycle impact reduction of 54% on humans, 40% on ecosystems, and 98% on resources. The gasoline substitute, on the other hand, had a reduction of about 35% to 80% in resource scarcity.
Anejionu et al. (2020)	Italy	Investigates the environmental and Socio-economic effects of large-scale production of advanced biofuels (2G) in Sardina (Italy).	Oil and water assessment tool, integrated valuation of ecosystem services, trade-offs, and linkages mapper.	Overall the large-scale biofuel refinery could lead to positive environmental outcomes in Sardina in terms of improvement in habitat quality and reduction in GHGs emissions (3% GHG emission reduction per annum). However, negatives effects were projected on water availability, production of food and animal feed. The positive economic outcomes were projected in terms of employment and energy security.
Beckstrom et al. (2019)	US	Investigates the economic viability and Environmental impact of an algae biorefinery that integrates the complementarity functions of bioplastic feedstock and fuel production in the US.	TEA and LCA	The minimum biofuel selling price ($970/tonne) was found to be uncompetitive with oil prices. A drastic improvement in the environmental performance of biofuel was projected in the form of a 67–116% reduction in GHG emission relative to petroleum-based feedstocks.
Amezcua-Allie et al. (2019)	Mexico	To compare the economic feasibility of the implementation and, Environmental impact of the sugar production process using fuel oil or sugarcane bagasse for energy cogeneration of a sugar mill in Southern Mexico.	TEA and LCA	The use of sugarcane bagasse was cost-competitive relative to the fuel oil. The cost of using sugarcane bagasse was estimated to be 5.5 USD/GJ, while the fuel oil cost was 14 USD/GJ. Usage of sugarcane bagasse was also found to have a less negative impact on the environment relative to the usage of fuel oil, i.e., a potential environmental impact index of 2528 vs 20,200 PEI/GJ for the latter.
Martinkus et al. (2019)	US	Estimate the operational cost, The environmental impact and, Social effects of a wood-based. Biorefinery in the US.	TEA, LCA, and IO model	The highest transport costs of the biorefinery facility were estimated to be $86.4/BDMT. The facility was estimated to provide a significant number of jobs and significantly reduce GHG emissions.
Derose et al. (2019)	US	Assess the economic viability and environmental impact of processing high productivity, low lipid, high ash content algae into biofuels.	TEA and LCA	A minimum selling price of $12.85 and $10.41 GGE^−1 was estimated for biochemical and thermal-chemical pathways, respectively. A global warming reduction potential of 111.2g and 2g CO2 eq MJ fuel^−1 was estimated by biochemical and thermal chemical pathways, respectively.
de Souza et al. (2019)	Brazil	Evaluates the economic, and Environmental feasibility of sugarcane ethanol and cattle integration to avoid pasture and displacement into forests or sensitive lands.	TEA and LCA	The economic evaluation results for ethanol alone were similar to the one for integration; however, integration was estimated to lead to an extra carbon credit revenue of US$90 tonne^−1 Integration of ethanol and cattle production resulted in lower CO2 emission per kg (0.95 kg CO2eq) relative to ethanol alone (1.4kg CO2eq).
Wagner et al. (2018)	Germany	Assessing the environmental and Economic performance of miscanthus cultivated on marginal land for biogas production.	LCA and complementary life-cycle cost analysis	The cost of miscanthus-based biogas generation was estimated at 45.12 €/GJel, and utilization were considerably lower than those of maize which are estimated at 61.30 €/GJel
Chandra et al. (2017)	Fiji	Assess the economic, and Environmental impact of producing ethanol from molasses or sugarcane juice in Fiji.	TEA and LCA	Many economic benefits were identified, including an earning of FJ$7.2 million, employment creation and livelihoods improvements in Fiji, and The environmental benefit of saving 22 730 CO2 emissions annually.
Mayer et al. (2016)	Brazil	Assess the economic feasibility and The economic impact of ethanol production at a small-scale distillery with a production capacity of 30L/hr of hydrous ethanol fuel (HEF)	TEA and LCA	The feedstock cost was the major contributor to the net cost of HEF produced at a small scale. Under the assumption of no taxation (direct trade between ethanol producer and a final consumer), ethanol production was competitive relative to gasoline (the selling price of ethanol was less than the price of gasoline. If biofuels are taxed as other conventional fuels, ethanol production is not economically competitive (the selling price of ethanol was higher than the selling price of gasoline equivalent). The agricultural production stage was responsible for the most serious damage to the environment Equivalent), although the scenario can still pose some risks if the feedstock prices increase considerably.
Thurlow et al. (2016)	Tanzania	To evaluate the impacts of GHG emissions and The economic impact of producing biofuels in Tanzania.	CGEM, TEA, and Ex-ante carbon balance tool model.	The net GHG emissions were found higher when sugarcane is grown on land that is already cultivated. However, the net emissions were lower for small-scale production because they don’t use improved inputs, such as fertilizer. The carbon-payback period (CPP) for sugarcane-ethanol (number of years required to achieve carbon neutrality) produced on converted grasslands was 2–3 years, depending on the scale of farming. The sugarcane ethanol produced on deforested land has a much more extended period of 15–27 years. Biofuel production was found to increase GDP at factor cost, with GDP growth effects found more significant under large-scale farming systems with 100% land clearing. Biofuels also stimulate the growth of the rest of the economy by using other sectors’ products or raising personal incomes and consumption, improving rural households’ welfare while reducing rural poverty.

Bloom, J. (2019). Socio-economic impact assessment for the proposed afro fishing expansion project in the port of Mossel Bay. Afro Fishing (Pty)Ltd.

 Google Scholar

Tian, Z., Ji, Y., Xu, H., Qiu, H., Sun, L., Zhong, H., & Liu, J. (2021). The potential contribution of growing rapeseed in winter fallow fields across Yangtze River Basin to energy and food security in China. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 164, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105159

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

van der Hilst, F., Verstegen, J. A., Woltjer, G., Smeets, E. M. W., & Faaiji, A. P. C. (2018). Mapping land use changes resulting from biofuel production and the effect of mitigation measures. GCB Bioenergy, 10(11), 804–824. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.1253

 Google Scholar

Teter, J., Yeh, S., Khanna, M., Berndes, G., & Du, C. (2018). Water impacts of U.S. biofuels: Insights from an assessment combining economic and biophysical models. Plos One, 13(9), 1–22. (9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204298

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Verategen, J. A., van der Hilst, F., Wolter, G., Karssenberg, D., de Jong, S. M., & Faaij, A. P. C. (2016). What can and can’t we say about indirect land-use change in Brazil using an integrated economic – land-use change model? GCB Bioenergy, 8(3), 561–578. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12270

 Google Scholar

Schulze, J., Frank, K., Priess, J. A., & Meyer, M. A. (2016). Assessing regional-scale impacts of short rotation coppices on ecosystem services by modeling land-use decisions. Plos One, 11(4), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153862

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bonsch, M., Humpenöder, F., Popp, A., Bodirsky, B., Dietrich, J. P., Rolinsk, S., Biewald, A., Lotze-Campen, H., Weindll, I., Gerten, D., & Stevanovic, M. (2014). Trade-offs between land and water requirements for large-scale bioenergy production. GCB Bioenergy, 8(1), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12226

 Google Scholar

Landa, T. F., Kalid, R., Rocha, L. B., Padula, A. D., & Zimmerman, W. B. (2022). Techno-economic modeling to produce biodiesel from marine microalgae in sub-Saharan countries: An exploratory study in Guinea-Bissau. Biomass & bioenergy, 158, 2–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2022.106369

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pachόn, E. R., Mandade, P., & Gnansounou, E. (2020). Conversion of vine shoots into bioethanol and chemicals: Prospective LCA of biorefinery concept. Bioresource Technology, 303(5), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.122946

 Google Scholar

Ndokwana, A., & Fore, S. (2018). Economic assessment of bioethanol production from maize in South Africa. JEDT, 16(6), 973–994. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-05-2017-0052

 Google Scholar

Seyffarth, A. R. (2016). The impact of rising ethanol production on the Brazilian market for basic food commodities: An econometric assessment. Environmental and Resource Economics, 64(3), 511–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-015-9881-5

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

English, B. C., Menard, R. J., & Wilson, B. (2022). The economic impact of a renewable biofuel/energy industry supply chain using the renewable energy economic analysis layers modelling system. Frontiers in Energy Research Doi 10:3389/fenrg.2022.780795, 10, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2022.780795

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nyarko, I., Nwaogu, C., Miroslav, H., & Paseu, P. O. (2021). Socio-economic analysis of wood charcoal production as a significant output of forest bioeconomy in Africa. Forests, 12(5), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12050568

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Moreno, P. M., Sproul, E., & Quinn, J. C. (2022). Economic and environmental sustainability assessment of guayule bagasse to fuel pathways. Industrial Crops and Products, 178, 114644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2022.114644

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pascheco-López, A., Lechtenberg, F., Somoza-Tornos, A., Graells, M., & Espuña, A. (2021). Economic and environmental assessment of plastic waste pyrolysis products and biofuels as substitutes for fossil-based fuels. Frontiers in Energy Research, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2021.676233

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Anejionu, O. C. D., DiLucia, L., & Woods, J. (2020). Geospatial modelling of environmental and socio-economic impacts of large-scale production of advanced biofuel. Biomass & bioenergy, 142, 2–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2020.105789

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Amezcua-Allie, M. A., Martínez-Hernández, E., Anaya-Reza, O., Magdaleno-Molina, M., Malgarejo-Flores, L. A., Palmerín-Ruiz, M. E., Eguía-Lis, J. A. Z., Rosas-Moina, A., Enríquez-Ouy, M., & Arburto, J. (2019). Techno-economic analysis and life cycle assessment for energy generation from sugarcane bagasse: Case study for a sugar mill in Mexico. Food and Bioproducts Processing, 118, 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbp.2019.09.014

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Martinkus, N., Latta, G., Rijkhoff, S. A. M., Mueller, D., Hoard, S., Sasatani, D., Pierobon, F., & Wolcott, M. (2019). A multi-criteria decision support tool for biorefinery siting: Using economic, environmental, and social metrics for a refined siting analysis. Biomass & bioenergy, 128, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.105330

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Derose, K., DeMill, C., Davis, R. W., & Quinn, J. C. (2019). Integrated techno economic and life cycle assessment of the conversion of high productivity, low lipid algae to renewable fuels. Algal Research, 38, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2019.101412

 Google Scholar

de Souza, N. R. D., Fracarolli, J. A., Janqueira, T. L., Chagas, M. F., Cardoso, T. F., Watanabe, M. D. B., Cavelett, O., Venzke, F. S. P., Dale, B. E., Bonomi, A., & Cortez, L. A. B. (2019). Sugarcane ethanol and beef cattle integration in Brazil. Biomass & bioenergy, 120, 448–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2018.12.012

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chandra, V. V., Hemstock, S. L., De Ramon, N. A., Surroop, D., & Surroop, D. (2017). Environmental and economic study for a prospective ethanol industry in Fiji. Progress in Industrial Ecology – an International Journal, 11(2), 146–162. https://doi.org/10.1504/PIE.2017.10009839

 Google Scholar

Mayer, F. D., Brondon, M., Hoffmann, R., Feris, L. A., Marcilio, N. R., & Baldo, V. (2016). Small-scale production of hydrous ethanol fuel: Economic and environmental assessment. Biomass & bioenergy, 93, 168–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.07.011

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Thurlow, J., Branca, G., Felix, E., Maltsoglou, I., & Rincón, L. A. (2016). Producing biofuels in low-income countries: An integrated environmental and economic assessment for Tanzania. Environ Resource Econ, 64(2), 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-014-9863-z

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar