Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Bethel Valley Road, PO Box 2008, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6036, USA.
Environ Manage. 2013 Feb;51(2):279-90. doi: 10.1007/s00267-012-0014-4. Epub 2013 Jan 16.
Defining and measuring sustainability of bioenergy systems are difficult because the systems are complex, the science is in early stages of development, and there is a need to generalize what are inherently context-specific enterprises. These challenges, and the fact that decisions are being made now, create a need for improved communications among scientists as well as between scientists and decision makers. In order for scientists to provide information that is useful to decision makers, they need to come to an agreement on how to measure and report potential risks and benefits of diverse energy alternatives in a way that allows decision makers to compare options. Scientists also need to develop approaches that contribute information about problems and opportunities relevant to policy and decision making. The need for clear communication is especially important at this time when there is a plethora of scientific papers and reports and it is difficult for the public or decision makers to assess the merits of each analysis. We propose three communication guidelines for scientists whose work can contribute to decision making: (1) relationships between the question and the analytical approach should be clearly defined and make common sense; (2) the information should be presented in a manner that non-scientists can understand; and (3) the implications of methods, assumptions, and limitations should be clear. The scientists' job is to analyze information to build a better understanding of environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic aspects of the sustainability of energy alternatives. The scientific process requires transparency, debate, review, and collaboration across disciplines and time. This paper serves as an introduction to the papers in the special issue on "Sustainability of Bioenergy Systems: Cradle to Grave" because scientific communication is essential to developing more sustainable energy systems. Together these four papers provide a framework under which the effects of bioenergy can be assessed and compared to other energy alternatives to foster sustainability.
定义和衡量生物能源系统的可持续性具有一定难度，因为这些系统较为复杂，相关科学尚处于发展初期，而且需要对固有特定情境的企业进行概括。这些挑战，以及当下需要做出决策这一事实，使得科学家之间以及科学家与决策者之间需要加强沟通。为了让科学家为决策者提供有用的信息，他们需要就如何衡量和报告不同能源替代品的潜在风险和效益达成一致，以便决策者能够对各种选择进行比较。科学家还需要制定相关方法，提供与政策和决策制定相关的问题和机会信息。在当前科学文献和报告繁多，公众或决策者难以评估每份分析的优点的情况下，清晰的沟通尤为重要。我们为那些能够为决策提供帮助的科学家提出了三条沟通准则：（1）问题与分析方法之间的关系应清晰明确且符合常理；（2）信息应以非科学家能够理解的方式呈现；（3）方法、假设和局限性的影响应清晰明了。科学家的工作是分析信息，以更好地了解能源替代品的环境、文化和社会经济可持续性方面。科学过程需要跨学科和跨时间的透明度、辩论、审查和合作。本文是关于“生物能源系统可持续性：从摇篮到坟墓”特刊中论文的介绍，因为科学交流对于开发更可持续的能源系统至关重要。这四篇论文共同提供了一个框架，可以据此评估生物能源的影响，并与其他能源替代品进行比较，以促进可持续性。
