IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v271y2014icp10-20.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing environmental costs and impacts of forestry activities: A multi-method approach to environmental accounting

Author

Listed:
  • Buonocore, Elvira
  • Häyhä, Tiina
  • Paletto, Alessandro
  • Franzese, Pier Paolo

Abstract

Concerns about greenhouse gas emissions and a possible future shortage of fossil resources are leading to a growing demand for wood biomass as a renewable material and energy source. In this context, forestry activities are increasing to meet the larger demand for wood biomass supply. Hence, there is also an increasing need for assessing environmental costs and impacts of forestry operations, considering both direct and indirect inputs supporting wood production systems as well as main outputs, co-products, and by-products. In this study, a multi-method assessment encompassing material, energy, and emergy demand as well as relevant emissions was implemented to explore the environmental performance and sustainability of timber and wood biomass production in the Alpine context of Fiemme and Fassa Valleys, Province of Trento (Italy). The Energy Return On Investment (EROI) calculated for timber and wood chips production was 51.9 and 28.1. These output/input energy ratios showed that the products’ energy content was high compared to the direct and indirect fossil energy invested in both production processes. The global to local ratio of abiotic material calculated for timber and wood chips was 3.58 and 2.95, proving that about 2 times more matter flows were extracted and processed elsewhere than locally to supply the production processes. The fraction of renewable emergy calculated for timber and wood chips was 81% and 75% while the Emergy Yield Ratio (EYR) was 4.57 and 3.86, respectively, proving that the forestry system is considerably supported by renewable and locally available resources. The release of CO2 was 855 and 133t CO2/yr when considering the whole Fiemme and Fassa Valleys. These last figures, compared to the potential of the two valleys for greenhouse gas mitigation, showed the ability of the investigated forestry sector to perform within the limits of the local carrying capacity in terms of CO2 emissions. Finally, the scenario analysis highlighted the maximum production level compatible with a sustainable forest exploitation. In conclusion, the development of a multi-method approach to environmental accounting allowed a comprehensive assessment of forestry operations, providing a tool useful for local managers and policy makers committed to implement an environmentally sound management of forestry activities.

Suggested Citation

  • Buonocore, Elvira & Häyhä, Tiina & Paletto, Alessandro & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2014. "Assessing environmental costs and impacts of forestry activities: A multi-method approach to environmental accounting," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 271(C), pages 10-20.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:271:y:2014:i:c:p:10-20
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.02.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380013000884
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.02.008?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. Ritthoff, Michael & Rohn, Holger & Liedtke, Christa, 2002. "Calculating MIPS: Resource productivity of products and services," Wuppertal Spezial, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, volume 27, number 27e.
    2. Korhonen, Jouni & Wihersaari, Margareta & Savolainen, Ilkka, 2001. "Industrial ecosystem in the Finnish forest industry: using the material and energy flow model of a forest ecosystem in a forest industry system," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 145-161, October.
    3. Ulgiati, S. & Ascione, M. & Bargigli, S. & Cherubini, F. & Franzese, P.P. & Raugei, M. & Viglia, S. & Zucaro, A., 2011. "Material, energy and environmental performance of technological and social systems under a Life Cycle Assessment perspective," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(1), pages 176-189.
    4. Raugei, Marco & Fullana-i-Palmer, Pere & Fthenakis, Vasilis, 2012. "The energy return on energy investment (EROI) of photovoltaics: Methodology and comparisons with fossil fuel life cycles," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 576-582.
    5. Cutler J. Cleveland & Peter A. O’Connor, 2011. "Energy Return on Investment (EROI) of Oil Shale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(11), pages 1-16, November.
    6. Lindner, Marcus & Suominen, Tommi & Palosuo, Taru & Garcia-Gonzalo, Jordi & Verweij, Peter & Zudin, Sergey & Päivinen, Risto, 2010. "ToSIA—A tool for sustainability impact assessment of forest-wood-chains," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(18), pages 2197-2205.
    7. Buonocore, Elvira & Franzese, Pier Paolo & Ulgiati, Sergio, 2012. "Assessing the environmental performance and sustainability of bioenergy production in Sweden: A life cycle assessment perspective," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 69-78.
    8. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo & Ulgiati, Sergio, 2011. "Economic and environmental performance of electricity production in Finland: A multicriteria assessment framework," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 223(1), pages 81-90.
    9. Goio, Ilaria & Gios, Geremia & Pollini, Claudio, 2008. "The development of forest accounting in the province of Trento (Italy)," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 177-196, June.
    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. Vassallo, P. & Paoli, C. & Buonocore, E. & Franzese, P.P. & Russo, G.F. & Povero, P., 2017. "Assessing the value of natural capital in marine protected areas: A biophysical and trophodynamic environmental accounting model," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 355(C), pages 12-17.
    2. Zeke Marshall & Paul E. Brockway, 2020. "A Net Energy Analysis of the Global Agriculture, Aquaculture, Fishing and Forestry System," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 1-27, June.
    3. Picone, F. & Buonocore, E. & D’Agostaro, R. & Donati, S. & Chemello, R. & Franzese, P.P., 2017. "Integrating natural capital assessment and marine spatial planning: A case study in the Mediterranean sea," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 361(C), pages 1-13.
    4. Patterson, Murray & McDonald, Garry & Hardy, Derrylea, 2017. "Is there more in common than we think? Convergence of ecological footprinting, emergy analysis, life cycle assessment and other methods of environmental accounting," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 362(C), pages 19-36.
    5. J. Dunlap & J. R. Schramski, 2024. "An Energy Analysis of Managed Forestry Systems: Accounting for Foregone Biomass as an Indicator of Ecosystem Impact Alongside Conventional Energy Metrics," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 1-13, September.
    6. Aguilar-Gómez, Carlos R. & Arteaga-Reyes, Tizbe T. & Gómez-Demetrio, William & Ávila-Akerberg, Víctor D. & Pérez-Campuzano, Enrique, 2020. "Differentiated payments for environmental services: A review of the literature," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    7. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo & Paletto, Alessandro & Fath, Brian D., 2015. "Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 12-23.
    8. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2014. "Ecosystem services assessment: A review under an ecological-economic and systems perspective," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 289(C), pages 124-132.
    9. Franzese, Pier Paolo & Buonocore, Elvira & Donnarumma, Luigia & Russo, Giovanni F., 2017. "Natural capital accounting in marine protected areas: The case of the Islands of Ventotene and S. Stefano (Central Italy)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 360(C), pages 290-299.
    10. Buonocore, Elvira & Vanoli, Laura & Carotenuto, Alberto & Ulgiati, Sergio, 2015. "Integrating life cycle assessment and emergy synthesis for the evaluation of a dry steam geothermal power plant in Italy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 476-487.
    11. A. Paletto & G. Giacovelli & G. Grilli & J. Balest & I. De Meo, 2014. "Stakeholders' preferences and the assessment of forest ecosystem services: a comparative analysis in Italy," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 60(11), pages 472-483.
    12. Xin Li & Fei Guo & Jiaqi Wang, 2024. "A path towards enterprise environmental performance improvement: How does CEO green experience matter?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 820-838, February.

    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. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo & Paletto, Alessandro & Fath, Brian D., 2015. "Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 12-23.
    2. Nikodinoska, Natasha & Buonocore, Elvira & Paletto, Alessandro & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2017. "Wood-based bioenergy value chain in mountain urban districts: An integrated environmental accounting framework," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 186(P2), pages 197-210.
    3. Franzese, Pier Paolo & Buonocore, Elvira & Donnarumma, Luigia & Russo, Giovanni F., 2017. "Natural capital accounting in marine protected areas: The case of the Islands of Ventotene and S. Stefano (Central Italy)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 360(C), pages 290-299.
    4. Buonocore, Elvira & Franzese, Pier Paolo & Ulgiati, Sergio, 2012. "Assessing the environmental performance and sustainability of bioenergy production in Sweden: A life cycle assessment perspective," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 69-78.
    5. L. Hay & A. H. B. Duffy & R. I. Whitfield, 2017. "The S‐Cycle Performance Matrix: Supporting Comprehensive Sustainability Performance Evaluation of Technical Systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 45-70, January.
    6. Zhaoyang Kong & Xiucheng Dong & Bo Xu & Rui Li & Qiang Yin & Cuifang Song, 2015. "EROI Analysis for Direct Coal Liquefaction without and with CCS: The Case of the Shenhua DCL Project in China," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-22, January.
    7. Rótolo, G.C. & Montico, S. & Francis, C.A. & Ulgiati, S., 2015. "How land allocation and technology innovation affect the sustainability of agriculture in Argentina Pampas: An expanded life cycle analysis," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 79-93.
    8. Hu, Yan & Hall, Charles A.S. & Wang, Jianliang & Feng, Lianyong & Poisson, Alexandre, 2013. "Energy Return on Investment (EROI) of China's conventional fossil fuels: Historical and future trends," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 352-364.
    9. Buonocore, Elvira & Vanoli, Laura & Carotenuto, Alberto & Ulgiati, Sergio, 2015. "Integrating life cycle assessment and emergy synthesis for the evaluation of a dry steam geothermal power plant in Italy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 476-487.
    10. Kong, Zhaoyang & Dong, Xiucheng & Jiang, Qingzhe, 2019. "Forecasting the development of China's coal-to-liquid industry under security, economic and environmental constraints," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 253-266.
    11. Agostinho, Feni & Bertaglia, Ana B.B. & Almeida, Cecília M.V.B. & Giannetti, Biagio F., 2015. "Influence of cellulase enzyme production on the energetic–environmental performance of lignocellulosic ethanol," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 315(C), pages 46-56.
    12. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2014. "Ecosystem services assessment: A review under an ecological-economic and systems perspective," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 289(C), pages 124-132.
    13. Virginia Di Nino & Ivan Faiella, 2013. "The �new� non-conventional hydrocarbons: the solution to the energy conundrum?," Questioni di Economia e Finanza (Occasional Papers) 205, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    14. Diana Tuomasjukka & Staffan Berg & Marcus Lindner, 2013. "Managing Sustainability of Fennoscandian Forests and Their Use by Law and/or Agreement: For Whom and Which Purpose?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-32, December.
    15. Marileena Koskela & Jarmo Vehmas, 2012. "Defining Eco‐efficiency: A Case Study on the Finnish Forest Industry," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(8), pages 546-566, December.
    16. Nock, Destenie & Baker, Erin, 2019. "Holistic multi-criteria decision analysis evaluation of sustainable electric generation portfolios: New England case study," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 242(C), pages 655-673.
    17. Charles Guay-Boutet, 2023. "Estimating the Disaggregated Standard EROI of Canadian Oil Sands Extracted via Open-pit Mining, 1997–2016," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 1-21, March.
    18. Hong, Sanghyun & Kim, Eunsung & Jeong, Saerok, 2023. "Evaluating the sustainability of the hydrogen economy using multi-criteria decision-making analysis in Korea," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 485-492.
    19. Enrica Leccisi & Marco Raugei & Vasilis Fthenakis, 2016. "The Energy and Environmental Performance of Ground-Mounted Photovoltaic Systems—A Timely Update," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-13, August.
    20. Alagoz, B. Baykant & Kaygusuz, Asim & Akcin, Murat & Alagoz, Serkan, 2013. "A closed-loop energy price controlling method for real-time energy balancing in a smart grid energy market," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 95-104.

    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:eee:ecomod:v:271:y:2014:i:c:p:10-20. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    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.