IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i18p11226-d909297.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Potential Availability of Wood Biomass from Urban Trees: Implications for the Sustainable Management of Maintenance Yards

Author

Listed:
  • Marcello Biocca

    (Consiglio per la Ricerca in Agricoltura e l’analisi dell’Economia Agraria (CREA), Centro di Ricerca Ingegneria e Trasformazioni Agro-Alimentari, Monterotondo, 00015 Rome, Italy)

  • Pietro Gallo

    (Consiglio per la Ricerca in Agricoltura e l’analisi dell’Economia Agraria (CREA), Centro di Ricerca Ingegneria e Trasformazioni Agro-Alimentari, Monterotondo, 00015 Rome, Italy)

  • Giulio Sperandio

    (Consiglio per la Ricerca in Agricoltura e l’analisi dell’Economia Agraria (CREA), Centro di Ricerca Ingegneria e Trasformazioni Agro-Alimentari, Monterotondo, 00015 Rome, Italy)

Abstract

The current energy situation requires the effective utilization of all available resources, and residual wood biomass from urban forestry may represent an excellent opportunity for increasing the presence of short-range energy sources. In urban forestry management, two main operations can provide large amounts of wood biomass: The felling and pruning of trees. These operations are carried out with two principal techniques that differ in terms of mechanization intensity (i.e., accessing the trees’ crown with mechanized aerial lifts or utilizing ropes—tree-climbing). This study has investigated 18 felling and 15 pruning yards, carried out with aerial lifts (17 yards) or tree-climbing (16 yards), most of them located in the city of Rome (Italy), one of the greenest European capitals. The operations were sampled with time studies, and five elements of work time were measured from the beginning of work to the transport of the residual biomass to the loading point, using centesimal stopwatches and video recording. The total observation time amounted to 152.0 h. The total residual biomass was assessed. The cost calculation for each yard took into account fixed, variable, and labor costs. A set of variables for each yard (including several site characteristics, trees’ size, fuel consumption, carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions, energy consumption, costs of yards, biomass, and work times) was analyzed. This study can contribute to enhancing tree maintenance sustainability in urban sites and estimating the quantity of residual wood biomass obtainable from urban forestry maintenance in the city of Rome.

Suggested Citation

  • Marcello Biocca & Pietro Gallo & Giulio Sperandio, 2022. "Potential Availability of Wood Biomass from Urban Trees: Implications for the Sustainable Management of Maintenance Yards," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-16, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:18:p:11226-:d:909297
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/18/11226/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/18/11226/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Li, Y. & Zhou, L.W. & Wang, R.Z., 2017. "Urban biomass and methods of estimating municipal biomass resources," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1017-1030.
    2. Velázquez-Martí, B. & Sajdak, M. & López-Cortés, I., 2013. "Available residual biomass obtained from pruning Morus alba L. trees cultivated in urban forest," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 27-33.
    3. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    4. Giorgia Bagagiolo & Vincenzo Laurendi & Eugenio Cavallo, 2017. "Safety Improvements on Wood Chippers Currently in Use: A Study on Feasibility in the Italian Context," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 7(12), pages 1-19, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Goran Krsnik & Sonia Reyes-Paecke & Keith M. Reynolds & Jordi Garcia-Gonzalo & José Ramón González Olabarria, 2023. "Assessing Relativeness in the Provision of Urban Ecosystem Services: Better Comparison Methods for Improved Well-Being," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, May.
    2. Alexander V. Rusanov, 2019. "Dacha dwellers and gardeners: garden plots and second homes in Europe and Russia," Population and Economics, ARPHA Platform, vol. 3(1), pages 107-124, April.
    3. Hui, Ling Chui & Jim, C.Y., 2022. "Urban-greenery demands are affected by perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices, and socio-demographic and environmental-cultural factors," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    4. Monika Kopecká & Daniel Szatmári & Konštantín Rosina, 2017. "Analysis of Urban Green Spaces Based on Sentinel-2A: Case Studies from Slovakia," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-17, April.
    5. Veerkamp, Clara J. & Schipper, Aafke M. & Hedlund, Katarina & Lazarova, Tanya & Nordin, Amanda & Hanson, Helena I., 2021. "A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    6. Wen, Shaoting & Buyukada, Musa & Evrendilek, Fatih & Liu, Jingyong, 2020. "Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses of co-combustion/pyrolysis of textile dyeing sludge and incense sticks: Regression and machine-learning models," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 463-474.
    7. Ahmet Tolunay & Çağlar Başsüllü, 2015. "Willingness to Pay for Carbon Sequestration and Co-Benefits of Forests in Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-27, March.
    8. Massoni, Emma Soy & Barton, David N. & Rusch, Graciela M. & Gundersen, Vegard, 2018. "Bigger, more diverse and better? Mapping structural diversity and its recreational value in urban green spaces," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 502-516.
    9. Somajita Paul & Harini Nagendra, 2017. "Factors Influencing Perceptions and Use of Urban Nature: Surveys of Park Visitors in Delhi," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-23, April.
    10. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    11. Aggelos Tsaligopoulos & Stella Kyvelou & Nefta-Eleftheria Votsi & Aimilia Karapostoli & Chris Economou & Yiannis G. Matsinos, 2021. "Revisiting the Concept of Quietness in the Urban Environment—Towards Ecosystems’ Health and Human Well-Being," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-19, March.
    12. Jonas Smit Andersen & Sara Maria Lerer & Antje Backhaus & Marina Bergen Jensen & Hjalte Jomo Danielsen Sørup, 2017. "Characteristic Rain Events: A Methodology for Improving the Amenity Value of Stormwater Control Measures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-18, October.
    13. Jeroen Degerickx & Martin Hermy & Ben Somers, 2020. "Mapping Functional Urban Green Types Using High Resolution Remote Sensing Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-35, March.
    14. Holt, Alison R. & Mears, Meghann & Maltby, Lorraine & Warren, Philip, 2015. "Understanding spatial patterns in the production of multiple urban ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 33-46.
    15. Karen T. Lourdes & Chris N. Gibbins & Perrine Hamel & Ruzana Sanusi & Badrul Azhar & Alex M. Lechner, 2021. "A Review of Urban Ecosystem Services Research in Southeast Asia," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, January.
    16. Qindong Fan & Xiaoyu Yang & Chenming Zhang, 2022. "A Review of Ecosystem Services Research Focusing on China against the Background of Urbanization," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-17, July.
    17. Célestin Adeito Mavunda & Madjouma Kanda & Fousséni Folega & Demirel Maza-esso Bawa & Bilouktime Badjare & John Katembo Mukirania & Marra Dourma & Koffi Akpagana, 2023. "Kinshasa Province (Democratic Republic of Congo): Typology of Peri-Urban Ecosystems Providing Edible Insects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-19, August.
    18. Leon Yan-Feng Gaw & Alex Thiam Koon Yee & Daniel Rex Richards, 2019. "A High-Resolution Map of Singapore’s Terrestrial Ecosystems," Data, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-10, August.
    19. De Valck, Jeremy & Beames, Alistair & Liekens, Inge & Bettens, Maarten & Seuntjens, Piet & Broekx, Steven, 2019. "Valuing urban ecosystem services in sustainable brownfield redevelopment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 139-149.
    20. Kaiwen Su & Jie Ren & Chuyun Cui & Yilei Hou & Yali Wen, 2022. "Do Value Orientations and Beliefs Play a Positive Role in Shaping Personal Norms for Urban Green Space Conservation?," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-15, February.

    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:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:18:p:11226-:d:909297. 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.