IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v25y2023i8d10.1007_s10668-022-02383-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The main determinants of changes in biomass extraction: the decomposition analysis approach

Author

Listed:
  • Genovaitė Liobikienė

    (Vytautas Magnus University Agriculture Academy)

  • Ričardas Krikštolaitis

    (Vytautas Magnus University)

  • Astrida Miceikienė

    (Vytautas Magnus University Agriculture Academy)

Abstract

Sustainability is highlighted in renewed European Union (EU) bioeconomy strategy. Sustainable bioeconomy requires improvement in the productivity level of bioresources, which is included in almost all national bioeconomy strategies. However, the aspects of sustainable bioeconomy were analyzed rather scarcely. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to reveal how productivity (or conversely, intensity) level contributes to the changes in biomass extraction in all EU countries. Applying the decomposition of impact (I), population, (P), affluence, (A); and technology (IPAT) approach, the results showed that in separate EU countries and analyzed periods, the changes in biomass extraction were different. During the period of economic growth (2000–2007) and transition (2008–2012), biomass extraction decreased in more than half of all EU countries. The decline of value added in the agriculture sector and/or reduction in biomass intensity level were the main determinants of these changes. Meanwhile, during the bioeconomy strategy period (2013–2018), the reduction in biomass extractions was observed in only six EU countries. During this period, the productivity level of biomass increased and offset the economic and population growth only in Greece, Italy and Malta. Thus, due to advanced technologies in these countries, the economy grew but biomass extraction decreased. Meanwhile, in Estonia, Germany and Poland, despite the reduction in value added in the agriculture sector, the growth of the intensity level of biomass determined the increase in extraction of biomass. Therefore, this study showed that achievement of sustainable bioeconomy principles in the majority of EU countries remains a great challenge, and countries should make all efforts to enhance the productivity level of biomass.

Suggested Citation

  • Genovaitė Liobikienė & Ričardas Krikštolaitis & Astrida Miceikienė, 2023. "The main determinants of changes in biomass extraction: the decomposition analysis approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(8), pages 7987-8003, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:25:y:2023:i:8:d:10.1007_s10668-022-02383-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-022-02383-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-022-02383-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-022-02383-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Swinda F. Pfau & Janneke E. Hagens & Ben Dankbaar & Antoine J. M. Smits, 2014. "Visions of Sustainability in Bioeconomy Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-28, March.
    2. George Philippidis & Ana I. Sanjuán-López, 2018. "A Re-Examination of the Structural Diversity of Biobased Activities and Regions across the EU," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-13, November.
    3. Scarlat, Nicolae & Dallemand, Jean-François & Fahl, Fernando, 2018. "Biogas: Developments and perspectives in Europe," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 129(PA), pages 457-472.
    4. Liobikiene, Genovaite & Chen, Xueli & Streimikiene, Dalia & Balezentis, Tomas, 2020. "The trends in bioeconomy development in the European Union: Exploiting capacity and productivity measures based on the land footprint approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    5. Beate El-Chichakli & Joachim von Braun & Christine Lang & Daniel Barben & Jim Philp, 2016. "Policy: Five cornerstones of a global bioeconomy," Nature, Nature, vol. 535(7611), pages 221-223, July.
    6. Urmetzer, Sophie & Lask, Jan & Vargas-Carpintero, Ricardo & Pyka, Andreas, 2020. "Learning to change: Transformative knowledge for building a sustainable bioeconomy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    7. Maximilian Kardung & Kutay Cingiz & Ortwin Costenoble & Roel Delahaye & Wim Heijman & Marko Lovrić & Myrna van Leeuwen & Robert M’Barek & Hans van Meijl & Stephan Piotrowski & Tévécia Ronzon & Johanne, 2021. "Development of the Circular Bioeconomy: Drivers and Indicators," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, January.
    8. Huang, Cheng & Han, Ji & Chen, Wei-Qiang, 2017. "Changing patterns and determinants of infrastructures’ material stocks in Chinese cities," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 47-53.
    9. Genovaite Liobikiene & Tomas Balezentis & Dalia Streimikiene & Xueli Chen, 2019. "Evaluation of bioeconomy in the context of strong sustainability," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(5), pages 955-964, September.
    10. Román-Collado, Rocío & Cansino, José M. & Botia, Camilo, 2018. "How far is Colombia from decoupling? Two-level decomposition analysis of energy consumption changes," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 687-700.
    11. Lillian Hansen & Hilde Bjørkhaug, 2017. "Visions and Expectations for the Norwegian Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-17, February.
    12. Heimann, Tobias, 2019. "Bioeconomy and SDGs: Does the Bioeconomy Support the Achievement of the SDGs?," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 225998, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    13. Fishman, Tomer & Schandl, Heinz & Tanikawa, Hiroki, 2015. "The socio-economic drivers of material stock accumulation in Japan's prefectures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 76-84.
    14. Asada, Raphael & Stern, Tobias, 2018. "Competitive Bioeconomy? Comparing Bio-based and Non-bio-based Primary Sectors of the World," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 120-128.
    15. Yuanhong Tian & Matthias Ruth & Dajian Zhu, 2017. "Using the IPAT identity and decoupling analysis to estimate water footprint variations for five major food crops in China from 1978 to 2010," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 2355-2375, December.
    16. Giampietro, Mario, 2019. "On the Circular Bioeconomy and Decoupling: Implications for Sustainable Growth," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 143-156.
    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. Mauricio Alviar & Andrés García-Suaza & Laura Ramírez-Gómez & Simón Villegas-Velásquez, 2021. "Measuring the Contribution of the Bioeconomy: The Case of Colombia and Antioquia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-26, February.
    2. Sebastian Hinderer & Leif Brändle & Andreas Kuckertz, 2021. "Transition to a Sustainable Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-16, July.
    3. Wen, Lanjiao & Chatalova, Lioudmila, 2021. "Will transaction costs and economies of scale tip the balance in farm size in industrial agriculture? An illustration for non-food biomass production in Germany," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 13(2).
    4. Delia-Elena Diaconașu & Ionel Bostan & Cristina Căutișanu & Irina Chiriac, 2022. "Insights into the Sustainable Development of the Bioeconomy at the European Level, in the Context of the Desired Clean Environment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-14, September.
    5. Lanjiao Wen & Lioudmila Chatalova, 2021. "Will Transaction Costs and Economies of Scale Tip the Balance in Farm Size in Industrial Agriculture? An Illustration for Non-Food Biomass Production in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-18, January.
    6. P. J. Stephenson & Anca Damerell, 2022. "Bioeconomy and Circular Economy Approaches Need to Enhance the Focus on Biodiversity to Achieve Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-20, August.
    7. Daniela Firoiu & George H. Ionescu & Teodor Marian Cojocaru & Mariana Niculescu & Maria Nache Cimpoeru & Oana Alexandra Călin, 2023. "Progress of EU Member States Regarding the Bioeconomy and Biomass Producing and Converting Sectors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-22, September.
    8. Befort, N., 2020. "Going beyond definitions to understand tensions within the bioeconomy: The contribution of sociotechnical regimes to contested fields," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    9. Xuezhou Wen & Daniel Quacoe & Dinah Quacoe & Kingsley Appiah & Bertha Ada Danso, 2019. "Analysis on Bioeconomy’s Contribution to GDP: Evidence from Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, January.
    10. Sharma, Rozi & Malaviya, Piyush, 2023. "Ecosystem services and climate action from a circular bioeconomy perspective," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    11. Idiano D’Adamo & Pasquale Marcello Falcone & Enrica Imbert & Piergiuseppe Morone, 2022. "Exploring regional transitions to the bioeconomy using a socio-economic indicator: the case of Italy," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 39(3), pages 989-1021, October.
    12. D'Amato, D. & Korhonen-Kurki, K. & Lyytikainen, V. & Matthies, B.D. & Horcea-Milcu, A-I., 2022. "Circular bioeconomy: Actors and dynamics of knowledge co-production in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    13. Andrew M. Neill & Cathal O’Donoghue & Jane C. Stout, 2020. "A Natural Capital Lens for a Sustainable Bioeconomy: Determining the Unrealised and Unrecognised Services from Nature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-24, September.
    14. Tévécia Ronzon & Susanne Iost & George Philippidis, 2022. "Has the European Union entered a bioeconomy transition? Combining an output-based approach with a shift-share analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 8195-8217, June.
    15. Lisa Biber‐Freudenberger & Candan Ergeneman & Jan Janosch Förster & Thomas Dietz & Jan Börner, 2020. "Bioeconomy futures: Expectation patterns of scientists and practitioners on the sustainability of bio‐based transformation," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(5), pages 1220-1235, September.
    16. D'Amato, D. & Korhonen, J., 2021. "Integrating the green economy, circular economy and bioeconomy in a strategic sustainability framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    17. Tuğba Yeğin & Muhammad Ikram, 2022. "Performance Evaluation of Green Furniture Brands in the Marketing 4.0 Period: An Integrated MCDM Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-32, August.
    18. Durwin H.J. Lynch & Pim Klaassen & Lan van Wassenaer & Jacqueline E.W. Broerse, 2020. "Constructing the Public in Roadmapping the Transition to a Bioeconomy: A Case Study from the Netherlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, April.
    19. Stephanie Lang & Giulia Minnucci & Matthias Mueller & Michael P. Schlaile, 2023. "The Role of Consumers in Business Model Innovations for a Sustainable Circular Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-19, June.
    20. Liobikienė, Genovaitė & Miceikienė, Astrida & Brizga, Janis, 2021. "Decomposition analysis of bioresources: Implementing a competitive and sustainable bioeconomy strategy in the Baltic Sea Region," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).

    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:spr:endesu:v:25:y:2023:i:8:d:10.1007_s10668-022-02383-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.