[Acosta-Milch L., Lucht W., Bondeau A., Beringer T. 2011. Integrated assessment of sustainability trade-offs and pathways for global bioenergy production: Framing a novel hybrid approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15: 2791–2809.]Search in Google Scholar
[Aguilar Rivera N., Galindo Mendoza M.G., Contreras Servín C., Fortanelli Martínez J. 2012. A methodological approach to sugar mill diversification and conversion. Ingeniería e Investigación, 32, 2: 23–27.]Search in Google Scholar
[Aguilar-Rivera N. 2014. Diversification index of the sugar agroindustry in Mexico Agricultura, sociedad y desarrollo, 11, 4: 441–462.]Search in Google Scholar
[Alckmin-Governor G., Goldemberg-Secretary J. 2004. Assessment of greenhouse gas emissions in the production and use of fuel ethanol in Brazil. Government of the State of São Paulo.]Search in Google Scholar
[Alemán-Nava G.S., Meneses-Jácome A., Cárdenas-Chávez D.L., Díaz-Chavez R., Scarlat N., Dallemand J.F., Ornelas-Soto N., García-Arrazola R., Parra R. 2015. Bioenergy in Mexico: Status and perspective. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 9, 1: 8–20.]Search in Google Scholar
[Amaya A. 2010. Sugarcane research and technology transfer—strategies for the next decade. Proceedings – International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, 27.]Search in Google Scholar
[Azapagic A., Perdan S. 2000. Indicators of sustainable development for industry: a general framework. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 78, 4: 243–261.]Search in Google Scholar
[Barrera I., Amezcua-Allieri M.A., Estupiñan L., Martínez T., Aburto J. 2016. Technical and economical evaluation of bioethanol production from lignocellulosic residues in Mexico: Case of sugarcane and blue agave bagasses. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 107: 91–101.]Search in Google Scholar
[Bechara R., Gomez A., Saint-Antonin V., Schweitzer J.M., Maréchal F., Ensinas A. 2018. Review of design works for the conversion of sugarcane to first and second-generation ethanol and electricity. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 91: 152–164.]Search in Google Scholar
[Brambila-Paz J.D.J., Martínez-Damián M.Á., Rojas-Rojas M.M., Perez-Cerecedo V. 2013. Real options, biorefineries and bioeconomy: the case of bioethanol and sugar. Agrociencia, 47, 3: 281–292.]Search in Google Scholar
[Brown D.G., Verburg P.H., Pontius R.G., Lange M.D. 2013. Opportunities to improve impact, integration, and evaluation of land change models. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5, 5: 452–457.]Search in Google Scholar
[Buchholz T.S., Volk T.A., Luzadis V.A. 2007. A participatory systems approach to modeling social, economic and ecological components of bioenergy. Energy Policy, 35: 6084–6094.]Search in Google Scholar
[Büyüközkan G., Karabulut Y. 2018. Sustainability performance evaluation: Literature review and future directions. Journal of Environmental Management, 217: 253–267.]Search in Google Scholar
[Cardoso T.F., Watanabe M.D., Souza A., Chagas M.F., Cavalett O., Morais E.R., Bonomi A. 2018. Economic, environmental, and social impacts of different sugarcane production systems. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 12, 1: 68-82.]Search in Google Scholar
[Cavalett O., Junqueira T.L., Dias M.O.S., Jesus C.D.F., Mantelatto P.E., Cunha M.P., Franco H.C.J., Cardoso T.F., Filho R.M., Rossell C.E.V., Bonomi A., 2011. Environmental and economic assessment of sugarcane first generation biorefineries in Brazil. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 14: 399–410.10.1007/s10098-011-0424-7]Search in Google Scholar
[Chauhan M.K., Chaudhary S., Kumar S. 2011. Life cycle assessment of sugar industry: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15, 7: 3445–3453.]Search in Google Scholar
[Chávez-Rodríguez M.F., Nebra S.A. 2010. Assessing GHG Emissions, Ecological Footprint, and Water Linkage for Different Fuels. Environmental Science & Technology, 44: 9252–9257.]Search in Google Scholar
[Ciegis R., Ramanauskiene J., Startiene G. 2015. Theoretical reasoning of the use of indicators and indices for sustainable development assessment. Engineering Economics, 63, 4: 33–40.]Search in Google Scholar
[Cobuloglu H.I., Büyüktahtakın İ.E. 2015. A stochastic multi-criteria decision analysis for sustainable biomass crop selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 42, 15: 6065–6074.]Search in Google Scholar
[Conadesuca. 2015. Sistema de Información de Costos de Producción de Caña de Azúcar. Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural y Pesca. México.]Search in Google Scholar
[Conadesuca. 2018. Sistema de Información de Costos de Producción de Caña de Azúcar. Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural y Pesca. México.]Search in Google Scholar
[Contreras A.M., Rosa E., Pérez M., Van Langenhove H., Dewulf J. 2009. Comparative life cycle assessment of four alternatives for using by-products of cane sugar production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17, 8: 772–779.]Search in Google Scholar
[de Oliveira Neto G.C., Pinto L.F.R., Amorim M.P.C., Giannetti B.F., de Almeida C.M.V.B. 2018. A framework of actions for strong sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production. 196: 1629–1643.10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.067]Search in Google Scholar
[Eggleston G., Lima I. 2015. Sustainability issues and opportunities in the sugar and sugar-bioproduct industries. Sustainability, 7, 9: 12209–12235.]Search in Google Scholar
[Elghali L., Clift R., Sinclair P., Panoutsou C., Bauen A. 2007. Developing a sustainability framework for the assessment of bioenergy systems. Energy Policy, 35: 6075–6083.]Search in Google Scholar
[FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). CROPWAT model (Online). Available at: http://www.fao.org/nr/water/infores_databases_cropwat.html. 2014a.]Search in Google Scholar
[FAO. CLIMWAT for CROPWAT. Available at: http://www.fao.org/nr/water.2014b.]Search in Google Scholar
[Fingerman K.R., Torn M.S., O’Hare M.H., Kammen D.M. 2010. Accounting for the water impacts of ethanol production. Environmental Research Letters, 5: 014020 7.]Search in Google Scholar
[Finguerut J. 2010. Sustainability in sugarcane processing in Brazil. Proceedings – International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, 27.]Search in Google Scholar
[Gan X., Fernandez I.C., Guo J., Wilson M., Zhao Y., Zhou B., Wu J. 2017. When to use what: Methods for weighting and aggregating sustainability indicators. Ecological Indicators, 81: 491–502.]Search in Google Scholar
[Gani F.Q., Hantoro R. 2018. An ANP (Analytic Network Process)-based Multi-Criteria Decision Approach for The Selection of Sugar-Cane Industry Development. IPTEK Journal of Proceedings Series, 1: 54–58.]Search in Google Scholar
[García C.A., Fuentes A., Hennecke A., Riegelhaupt E., Manzini F., Masera O. 2011. Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions and energy balances of sugarcane ethanol production in Mexico. Applied Energy, 88: 2088–2097.]Search in Google Scholar
[García C.A., García-Treviño E.S., Aguilar-Rivera N., Armendáriz C. 2016. Carbon footprint of sugar production in Mexico. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112: 2632–2641.]Search in Google Scholar
[Gasparatos A., Scolobig A. 2012. Choosing the most appropriate sustainability assessment tool. Ecological Economics, 80: 1–7.]Search in Google Scholar
[Gnansounou E., Alves C.M., Pachón E.R., Vaskan P. 2017. Comparative assessment of selected sugarcane biorefinery-centered systems in Brazil: A multi-criteria method based on sustainability indicators. Bioresource technology, 243: 600–610.10.1016/j.biortech.2017.07.00428704740]Search in Google Scholar
[Goldemberg J. Teixeira C.S., Guardabassi P. 2008. The sustainability of ethanol production from sugarcane. Energy Policy, 35: 2086–2097.]Search in Google Scholar
[Grigoletto-Duarte C., Gaudreau K., Gibson R.B., Malheiros T.F. 2013. Sustainability assessment of sugarcane-ethanol production in Brazil: A case study of a sugarcane mill in Sao Paulo state. Ecological Indicators, 30: 119–129.]Search in Google Scholar
[Gulisano G., Strano A., De Luca A.I., Falcone G., Iofrida N., Stillitano T. 2018. Evaluating the Environmental, Economic, and Social Sustainability of Agro-Food Systems through Life Cycle Approaches. Sustainable Food Systems from Agriculture to Industry: 123–152.]Search in Google Scholar
[Heinrichs R., Otto R., Magalhães A., Meirelles G.C. 2017. Importance of Sugarcane in Brazilian and World Bioeconomy. [in:] S. Dabbert, I. Lewandowski, J. Weiss, A. Pyka (eds) Knowledge-Driven Developments in the Bioeconomy. Springer, Cham: 205–217.]Search in Google Scholar
[Hoekstra A., Chapagain A. 2008. Globalization of Water: Sharing the Planet’s Freshwater Resources. Blackwell Publishing.]Search in Google Scholar
[Ingaramo A., Heluane H., Colombo M., Cesca M. 2009. Water and wastewater eco-efficiency indicators for the sugar cane industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17, 4: 487–495.]Search in Google Scholar
[Ishizaka A., Labib A. 2009. Analytic hierarchy process and expert choice: Benefits and limitations. OR Insight, 22, 4: 201–220.]Search in Google Scholar
[Ishizaka A., Labib A. 2011. Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert systems with applications, 38, 11: 14336–14345.]Search in Google Scholar
[Klimiuk E., Pawłowski A. 2016. Biofuels and sustainable development. [in:] Biomass for Biofuels. CRC Press: 11–22.10.1201/9781315226422-6]Search in Google Scholar
[Lang T., Schoen V., Hashem K., McDonald L., Parker J., Savelyeva A. 2017. The Environmental, Social, and Market Sustainability of Sugar. [in:] D. Barling (ed.) Advances in Food Security and Sustainability, 2, Elsevier: 115–136.]Search in Google Scholar
[Leal M.R.L., Nogueira L.A.H., Cortez L.A. 2013. Land demand for ethanol production. Applied Energy, 102: 266–271.]Search in Google Scholar
[Linnenluecke M.K., Nucifora N., Thompson N. 2018. Implications of climate change for the sugarcane industry. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 9, 1: e498.]Search in Google Scholar
[Liu G. 2014. Development of a general sustainability indicator for renewable energy systems: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 31: 611–621.]Search in Google Scholar
[Martínez-Guido S.I., González-Campos J.B., Ponce-Ortega J.M., Nápoles-Rivera F., El-Halwagi M.M. 2015. Optimal reconfiguration of a sugar cane industry to yield an integrated biorefinery. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy: 1–10.10.1007/s10098-015-1039-1]Search in Google Scholar
[Mekonnen M.M., Hoekstra A.Y. 2011. The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15, 5: 1577–1600.]Search in Google Scholar
[Moncada J., El-Halwagi M.M., Cardona C.A. 2013. Techno-economic analysis for a sugarcane biorefinery: Colombian case. Bioresource technology, 135: 533–543.]Search in Google Scholar
[Mugica-Álvarez V., Hernández-Rosas F., Magaña-Reyes M., Herrera-Murillo J., Santiago-De La Rosa N., Gutiérrez-Arzaluz M., González-Cardoso G. 2018. Sugarcane burning emissions: Characterization and emission factors. Atmospheric Environment, 193: 262–272.]Search in Google Scholar
[Mugica-Alvarez V., Santiago de la Rosa N., Figueroa-Lara J., Flores-Rodríguez J., Torres-Rodríguez M., Magaña-Reyes M., 2015. Emissions of PAHs derived from sugarcane burning and processing in Chiapas and Morelos México. Science of the Total Environment, 527: 474–482.10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.04.08925984704]Search in Google Scholar
[Munda G. 2016. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis and Sustainable Development. [in:] S. Greco (ed.) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, Springer, New York: 1235–1267.]Search in Google Scholar
[Nardo M., Saisana M., Saltelli A., Tarantola S., Hoffman A., Giovannini E. 2005. Handbook on constructing composite indicators. OECD Statistics Working Paper.]Search in Google Scholar
[Neumayer E. 2001. The human development index and sustainability—a constructive proposal. Ecological Economics, 39, 1: 101–114.]Search in Google Scholar
[Nguyen T.L.T., Gheewala S.H., Garivait S. 2008. Full chain energy analysis of fuel ethanol from cane molasses in Thailand. Applied Energy. 85: 722–734.10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.02.002]Search in Google Scholar
[Nguyen T.T., Kikuchi Y., Noda M., Hirao M. 2015. A New Approach for the Design and Assessment of Bio-based Chemical Processes toward Sustainability. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 54, 20: 5494–5504.]Search in Google Scholar
[Nikodinoska N., Mattivi M., Notaro S., Paletto A. 2015. Stakeholders’ appraisal of biomass-based energy development at local scale. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy, 7, 2: 023117.]Search in Google Scholar
[Pereira C.L.F., Ortega E. 2010. Sustainability assessment of large-scale ethanol production from sugarcane. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18: 77–82.]Search in Google Scholar
[Ramankutty N., Mehrabi Z., Waha K., Jarvis L., Kremen C., Herrero M., Rieseberg L.H. 2018. Trends in global agricultural land use: implications for environmental health and food security. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 69: 789–815.]Search in Google Scholar
[Rathore D., Nizami A.S., Singh A., Pant D. 2016. Key issues in estimating energy and greenhouse gas savings of biofuels: challenges and perspectives. Biofuel Research Journal, 3, 2: 380–393.]Search in Google Scholar
[Renouf M.A., Pagan R.J., Wegener M.K., 2013. Bio-production from Australian sugarcane: an environmental investigation of product diversification in an agro-industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 39: 87–96.10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.08.036]Search in Google Scholar
[Rincón L.E., Becerra L.A., Moncada J., Cardona C.A. 2014. Techno-Economic Analysis of the Use of Fired Cogeneration Systems Based on Sugar Cane Bagasse in South Eastern and Mid-Western Regions of Mexico. Waste Biomass Valorization, 5: 189–198.10.1007/s12649-013-9224-0]Search in Google Scholar
[Rockström J., Steffen W., Noone K., Persson Å., Chapin III F.S., Lambin E.F., Nykvist B. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461: 472–475.]Search in Google Scholar
[Saaty T.L. 1990. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48, 1: 9–26.]Search in Google Scholar
[Saaty T.L. 2008. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International journal of services sciences, 1, 1: 83–98.]Search in Google Scholar
[Saaty T.L. 2013. The modern science of multicriteria decision making and its practical applications: the AHP/ANP approach. Operations Research, 61, 5: 1101–1118.]Search in Google Scholar
[Santillán-Fernández A., Santoyo-Cortés V.H., García-Chávez L.R., Covarrubias-Gutiérrez I., Merino A. 2016. Influence of drought and irrigation on sugarcane yields in different agroecoregions in Mexico. Agricultural Systems, 143: 126–135.]Search in Google Scholar
[Santoyo-Castelazo E., Azapagic A. 2014. Sustainability assessment of energy systems: integrating environmental, economic and social aspects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 80: 119–138.]Search in Google Scholar
[Sarker T.C., Azam S.M.G.G., Bonanomi G. 2017. Recent advances in sugarcane industry solid by-products valorization. Waste and Biomass Valorization, 8, 2: 241–266.]Search in Google Scholar
[Schaidle J.A., Moline C.J., Savage P.E. 2011. Biorefinery sustainability assessment. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 30, 4: 743–753.]Search in Google Scholar
[Schmitz T.G., Lewis K.E. 2015. Impact of NAFTA on US and Mexican Sugar Markets. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 40, 3: 387–404.]Search in Google Scholar
[Sentíes-Herrera H.E., Gómez-Merino F.C., Valdez-Balero A., Silva-Rojas H.V., Trejo-Téllez L.I. 2014. The Agro-Industrial Sugarcane System in Mexico: Current Status, Challenges and Opportunities. Journal of Agricultural Science, 6, 4: 26–54.]Search in Google Scholar
[Sentíes-Herrera H.E., Trejo-Téllez L.I., Gómez-Merino F.C. 2017. The Mexican sugarcane production system: History, current status, and new trends. Sugarcane: Production systems, uses and economic importance: 39–71.]Search in Google Scholar
[Shukla S.K., Yadav S.K. 2017. Sustainability of smallholder sugarcane growers under changing climatic scenario. Current Advances in Agricultural Sciences (An International Journal), 9, 2: 197–203.]Search in Google Scholar
[Silalertruksa T., Gheewala S.H., Pongpat P. 2015. Sustainability assessment of sugarcane biorefinery and molasses ethanol production in Thailand using eco-efficiency indicator. Applied Energy, 160: 603–609.]Search in Google Scholar
[Silva M., Marques P., Coelho L., Nestler H., Castro P., Galhano C. 2018. Promoting Sustainability Through Agro-industrial Waste Valorisation. [in:] F. Alves, W. Leal Filho, U. Azeiteiro (eds) Theory and Practice of Climate Adaptation. Springer, Cham: 363–373.]Search in Google Scholar
[Subramanian N., Ramanathan R. 2012. A review of applications of Analytic Hierarchy Process in operations management. International Journal of Production Economics, 138, 2: 215–241.]Search in Google Scholar
[Talukdar D., Verma D.K., Malik K., Mohapatra B., Yulianto R. 2017. Sugarcane as a Potential Biofuel Crop. [in:] Ch. Mohan (ed.) Sugarcane Biotechnology: Challenges and Prospects. Springer, Cham: 123–137.]Search in Google Scholar
[Tomei J. 2015. The sustainability of sugarcane-ethanol systems in Guatemala: Land, labour and law. Biomass and Bioenergy. 82: 94–100.]Search in Google Scholar
[UNC (Unión Nacional de Cañeros A.C.). 2015. Estadísticas de la agroindustria azucarera.]Search in Google Scholar
[Veisi H., Liaghati H., Alipour A. 2016. Developing an ethics-based approach to indicators of sustainable agriculture using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Ecological Indicators, 60: 644–654.]Search in Google Scholar
[Walter A., Dolzan P., Quilodrán O., de Oliveira JG., Da silva C., Piacente F. Segerstedt A., 2011. Sustainability assessment of bio-ethanol production in Brazil considering land use change, GHG emissions and socio-economic aspects. Energy Policy, 39: 5703–5716.10.1016/j.enpol.2010.07.043]Search in Google Scholar
[Wang J.J., Jing Y.Y., Zhang C.F., Zhao J.H. 2009. Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13, 9: 2263–2278.]Search in Google Scholar
