National or supranational policies such as the EU Renewable Energy Directive (EU RED) prescribe both the assessment of the environmental impacts of biofuel and bioenergy production, as well as their impact on ecosystem services (ESS). However, it is not clear what differentiates environmental assessment (EA) and ESS studies. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and compared ESS and EA studies of biofuel and bioenergy production. We focused on topics such as whether both approaches allow for a holistic sustainability assessment of biofuel/bioenergy production, are suitable for practitioners, and which gaps for policymaking they can bridge. The results of the systematic review suggest that ESS studies tend to assess economic and social sustainability more prominently when compared to EA studies. Furthermore, ESS studies often assess ESS bundles and thereby cover multiple environmental impact categories, while EA studies focus more on selected environmental impacts (e.g., GHG emissions, air pollution, water quality and availability), targeting fewer environmental impacts to achieve slightly more feasible and reliable impact assessments (lower uncertainty). EA studies are dominated by life-cycle assessments. Contrastingly, ESS studies rather cover the entire social-ecological dimensions of biofuel and bioenergy production. Due to their systematic approach, they act as an envelope for multiple methodologies that can quantify the sustainability impacts of biofuel and bioenergy production. In this respect, it can be argued that ESS studies could support policymaking bridging some existing gaps such as the underrepresentation of social assessments in the EU RED.

国家或超国家政策，例如欧盟可再生能源指令（EU RED），规定了对生物燃料和生物能源生产的环境影响及其对生态系统服务（ESS）的影响的评估。但是，目前尚不清楚什么区别环境评估（EA）和ESS学习。因此，我们进行了系统的审查，并比较了ESS和EA对生物燃料和生物能源生产的研究。我们关注的主题包括：这两种方法是否都允许对生物燃料/生物能源生产进行全面的可持续性评估，是否适合从业人员，以及他们可以弥补哪些政策制定空白。系统评价的结果表明，与EA研究相比，ESS研究倾向于更显着地评估经济和社会可持续性。此外，环境与社会研究经常评估环境与社会分类，从而涵盖了多种环境影响类别，而环境与社会研究则更多地侧重于选定的环境影响（例如，温室气体排放，空气污染，水质和可利用性），其目标是减少对环境的影响，以实现略微可行的方案。可靠的影响评估（不确定性较低）。EA研究以生命周期评估为主导。相反，环境与社会研究则覆盖了生物燃料和生物能源生产的整个社会生态维度。由于其系统的方法，它们充当了多种方法的信封，可以量化生物燃料和生物能源生产对可持续性的影响。在这方面，可以争论的是，环境与社会研究可以支持弥补一些现有差距的政策制定，例如欧盟RED中社会评估的代表性不足。