Raygoza-Limón and colleagues reject single-metric sustainability by treating bioenergy as a coupled environmental, social, economic, technological and regulatory system. Their systematic review harmonises life-cycle assessment, social life-cycle assessment, techno-economic analysis and institutional evidence published between 2010 and 2025. The iconic result is conditionality: bioenergy is not sustainable by category. Waste- and residue-based systems frequently outperform crop-based fuels, while land-use change, fertiliser emissions, labour vulnerability, biodiversity pressure and policy instability can undermine nominal carbon benefits. Methodologically, the paper makes trade-offs explicit by comparing greenhouse-gas reductions, energy returns, cost ranges, governance conditions and technological maturity. Sustainability therefore becomes a portfolio property requiring alignment across dimensions rather than optimisation of one indicator. The wider bridge is to systems assessment, circular economy and transition governance, where technological performance is understood as inseparable from land, labour, institutions and the standards through which environmental claims are calculated.
URBANISM MEETS ART