IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i2p527-d477921.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Key Indicators and Social Acceptance for Bioenergy Production Potential as Part of the Green Economy Transition Process in Local Areas of Lapland

Author

Listed:
  • Karetta Timonen

    (Sustainability Science and Indicators Research Group/Bioeconomy and Environment Research Unit, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Latokartanonkaari 9 PL 2, 00791 Helsinki, Finland)

  • Anu Reinikainen

    (Sustainability Science and Indicators Research Group/Bioeconomy and Environment Research Unit, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Latokartanonkaari 9 PL 2, 00791 Helsinki, Finland)

  • Sirpa Kurppa

    (Sustainability Science and Indicators Research Group/Bioeconomy and Environment Research Unit, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Latokartanonkaari 9 PL 2, 00791 Helsinki, Finland)

  • Inkeri Riipi

    (Sustainability Science and Indicators Research Group/Bioeconomy and Environment Research Unit, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Latokartanonkaari 9 PL 2, 00791 Helsinki, Finland)

Abstract

The aim of this article was to create key indicators for measuring the implementation potential of the green economy transition at a local level in a northernmost, natural biomass-rich environment. The case area to test the set of indicators was the village of Saija in Lapland. The work presented in this article is based on a communicative cooperative research and development project. The selection process for the appropriate indicators is based on a conceptual framework for developing local sustainability indicators and the thematic framework follows the key dimensions of the green economy (ecosystem resilience, resource efficiency and social equity). When selecting the local-level indicators, a strong emphasis was placed on the special characteristics of the local area and the availability and validity of the data. Layman villagers and data policy relevance (in this case green economy) were also taken into consideration. The key indicators developed as a result included: the increment of growing forest stock in relation to the drain on growing forest stock, the village population, the bioenergy consumption share, the utilization share of side streams, the bioenergy production potential, capital outflow, demographic dependency ratio, the ratio between employed and working age residents and the number of forest owners in relation to area households. The key indicators are targeted for use in supporting local decision-making and monitoring and assessing development activities and their effectiveness in the process of the green economy transition. The indicators measure the most critical factors for green economy transition in a local area and identify the most optimal development opportunities when moving towards green growth. In the measurement of the transition potential of the green economy, it was found that the case area’s imported fossil energy consumption could be substituted with self-sufficient bioenergy production utilizing the area’s own raw materials. There is extensive potential for the utilization of manure (an agricultural side stream) and forest resources (forestry side streams) at the local level, especially since forests account for 98% of Lapland’s land area. In support of the change from fossil-based energy consumption towards bioenergy production, plans for a biogas plant were examined for self-sufficient bioenergy production and this appeared to be the initial key process in the path of the green economy transformation in the case village of Saija.

Suggested Citation

  • Karetta Timonen & Anu Reinikainen & Sirpa Kurppa & Inkeri Riipi, 2021. "Key Indicators and Social Acceptance for Bioenergy Production Potential as Part of the Green Economy Transition Process in Local Areas of Lapland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-20, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:2:p:527-:d:477921
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/2/527/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/2/527/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Didem Dizdaroglu, 2017. "The Role of Indicator-Based Sustainability Assessment in Policy and the Decision-Making Process: A Review and Outlook," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-28, June.
    2. Agterbosch, Susanne & Meertens, Ree M. & Vermeulen, Walter J.V., 2009. "The relative importance of social and institutional conditions in the planning of wind power projects," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 393-405, February.
    3. Simon Bell & Stephen Morse, 2004. "Experiences with sustainability indicators and stakeholder participation: a case study relating to a 'Blue Plan' project in Malta," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 1-14.
    4. Haohui Wu & Yajuan Yu & Shanshan Li & Kai Huang, 2018. "An Empirical Study of the Assessment of Green Development in Beijing, China: Considering Resource Depletion, Environmental Damage and Ecological Benefits Simultaneously," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-25, March.
    5. Catalina Turcu, 2013. "Re-thinking sustainability indicators: local perspectives of urban sustainability," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(5), pages 695-719, June.
    6. Hippu Salk Kristle Nathan & B. Sudhakara Reddy, 2008. "A conceptual framework for development of sustainable development indicators," Development Economics Working Papers 22344, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    7. Robin Kundis Craig & J.B. Ruhl, 2010. "Governing for Sustainable Coasts: Complexity, Climate Change, and Coastal Ecosystem Protection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(5), pages 1-28, May.
    8. Min Wang & Xianli Zhao & Qunxi Gong & Zhigeng Ji, 2019. "Measurement of Regional Green Economy Sustainable Development Ability Based on Entropy Weight-Topsis-Coupling Coordination Degree—A Case Study in Shandong Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-18, January.
    9. Natalia Vukovic & Vladimir Pobedinsky & Sergey Mityagin & Andrei Drozhzhin & Zhanna Mingaleva, 2019. "A Study on Green Economy Indicators and Modeling: Russian Context," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-13, August.
    10. Paul Upham, 2000. "Scientific consensus on sustainability: the case of The Natural Step," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(4), pages 180-190.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Raphaël Dias Brandao & Evelyne Thiffault & Annie Levasseur, 2022. "Development of a Multi-Criteria Analysis Decision-Support Tool for the Sustainability of Forest Biomass Heating Projects in Quebec," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-20, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Joanna Godlewska & Edyta Sidorczuk-Pietraszko, 2019. "Taxonomic Assessment of Transition to the Green Economy in Polish Regions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-25, September.
    2. Yongsheng Sun & Lianjun Tong & Daqian Liu, 2020. "An Empirical Study of the Measurement of Spatial-Temporal Patterns and Obstacles in the Green Development of Northeast China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-19, December.
    3. Hogan, Jessica L. & Warren, Charles R. & Simpson, Michael & McCauley, Darren, 2022. "What makes local energy projects acceptable? Probing the connection between ownership structures and community acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    4. Jia Peng & Xianli Hu & Xinyue Fan & Kai Wang & Hao Gong, 2023. "The Impact of the Green Economy on Carbon Emission Intensity: Comparisons, Challenges, and Mitigating Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-21, July.
    5. Wirth, Steffen, 2014. "Communities matter: Institutional preconditions for community renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 236-246.
    6. Javier García López & Raffaele Sisto & Javier Benayas & Álvaro de Juanes & Julio Lumbreras & Carlos Mataix, 2021. "Assessment of the Results and Methodology of the Sustainable Development Index for Spanish Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-29, June.
    7. Adams, Michelle & Wheeler, David & Woolston, Genna, 2011. "A participatory approach to sustainable energy strategy development in a carbon-intensive jurisdiction: The case of Nova Scotia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2550-2559, May.
    8. Runhui Lin & Yuan Gui & Zaiyang Xie & Lu Liu, 2019. "Green Governance and International Business Strategies of Emerging Economies’ Multinational Enterprises: A Multiple-Case Study of Chinese Firms in Pollution-Intensive Industries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-32, February.
    9. Tachia Chin & Francesco Caputo & Yi Shi & Mario Calabrese & Chiraz Aouina‐Mejri & Armando Papa, 2022. "Depicting the role of cross‐cultural legitimacy for responsible innovation in Asian‐Pacific business models: A dialectical systems view of Yin‐Yang harmony," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(6), pages 2083-2093, November.
    10. Rui Zhang & Yong Ma & Jie Ren, 2022. "Green Development Performance Evaluation Based on Dual Perspectives of Level and Efficiency: A Case Study of the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-24, July.
    11. Svatava Janoušková & Tomáš Hák & Bedřich Moldan, 2018. "Global SDGs Assessments: Helping or Confusing Indicators?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-14, May.
    12. Xin Huang & Juqin Shen & Fuhua Sun & Lunyan Wang & Pengchao Zhang & Yu Wan, 2023. "Study on the Spatial and Temporal Distribution of the High–Quality Development of Urbanization and Water Resource Coupling in the Yellow River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-26, August.
    13. George Halkos & George Papageorgiou, 2016. "Spatial environmental efficiency indicators in regional waste generation: a nonparametric approach," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(1), pages 62-78, January.
    14. Paraskevi Ovezikoglou & Dimitrios Aidonis & Charisios Achillas & Christos Vlachokostas & Dionysis Bochtis, 2020. "Sustainability Assessment of Investments Based on a Multiple Criteria Methodological Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-13, August.
    15. Shin-Liang Chan & Wann-Ming Wey & Pin-Huai Chang, 2014. "Establishing Disaster Resilience Indicators for Tan-sui River Basin in Taiwan," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 115(1), pages 387-418, January.
    16. Asma Fahim & Qingmei Tan & Bushra Naz & Qurat ul Ain & Sibghat Ullah Bazai, 2021. "Sustainable Higher Education Reform Quality Assessment Using SWOT Analysis with Integration of AHP and Entropy Models: A Case Study of Morocco," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-19, April.
    17. Tancredi Pascucci & Giuseppina Maria Cardella & Brizeida Hernàndez-Sànchez & Jose Carlos Sànchez-Garcìa, 2022. "Environmental Sensitivity to Form a Sustainable Entrepreneurial Intention," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-17, August.
    18. Margarida Rodrigues & Mário Franco, 2018. "Measuring the Performance in Creative Cities: Proposal of a Multidimensional Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-21, November.
    19. Carmela Gargiulo & Antonio Sforza & Claudio Sterle & Floriana Zucaro, 2018. "An Optimization Model Fitting the Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment Tools," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-16, September.
    20. Qi Zhang & Esther Hiu-Kwan Yung & Edwin Hon-Wan Chan, 2021. "Meshing Sustainability with Satisfaction: An Investigation of Residents’ Perceptions in Three Different Neighbourhoods in Chengdu, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-32, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:2:p:527-:d:477921. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.