IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i4p839-d1117056.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ex-Ante Eco-Efficiency Assessment of Dendromass Production: Conception and Experiences of an Innovation Project

Author

Listed:
  • Franziska Hesser

    (Wood K Plus—Competence Centre for Wood Composites and Wood Chemistry, Kompetenzzentrum Holz GmbH, Altenberger Straße 69, 4040 Linz, Austria)

  • Daniela Groiß-Fürtner

    (Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Institute of Marketing and Innovation, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Feistmantelstraße 4, 1180 Vienna, Austria)

  • Leona Woitsch

    (Wood K Plus—Competence Centre for Wood Composites and Wood Chemistry, Kompetenzzentrum Holz GmbH, Altenberger Straße 69, 4040 Linz, Austria)

  • Claudia Mair-Bauernfeind

    (Institute of Environmental Systems Sciences, University of Graz, Merangasse 18, 8010 Graz, Austria)

Abstract

Rising demand for bio-based products exerts growing pressure on natural resources such as wood. The agricultural technique of short rotation coppice (SRC) to produce dendromass from fast growing trees has gained relevance to ease the pressure of demand for wood from forests. The European-funded project Dendromass4Europe supports the establishment of SRC in Western Slovakia and its biomass use for four new bio-based materials, in the context of a developing bioeconomy. Along with the development of the SRC and material value chains, eco-efficiency assessment is carried out to anticipate areas of critical concern and derive measures for improvement. Among many other assessment approaches, eco-efficiency assessment was conducted by combining Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and socio-economic assessment to optimize the whole production system towards eco-efficiency. An LCA study provided necessary data to assess the environmental performance. The added value and revenue results from the socio-economic assessment were used to assess the economic performance. The value chain of the moulded fibre parts shows the best eco-efficiency value, but only because its economic performance is comparatively strong. The lightweight boards have the least environmental impact but do not perform so well in terms of eco-efficiency. The overall eco-efficiency of the full value chain can be optimized only with a specific combination of all four dendromass-based materials within the whole production system.

Suggested Citation

  • Franziska Hesser & Daniela Groiß-Fürtner & Leona Woitsch & Claudia Mair-Bauernfeind, 2023. "Ex-Ante Eco-Efficiency Assessment of Dendromass Production: Conception and Experiences of an Innovation Project," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-16, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:4:p:839-:d:1117056
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/4/839/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/4/839/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chris Van staden, 2003. "The relevance of theories of political economy to the understanding of financial reporting in South Africa: the case of value added statements," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(2), pages 224-245, June.
    2. Monia Niero & Michael Z. Hauschild & Simon B. Hoffmeyer & Stig I. Olsen, 2017. "Combining Eco-Efficiency and Eco-Effectiveness for Continuous Loop Beverage Packaging Systems: Lessons from the Carlsberg Circular Community," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 21(3), pages 742-753, June.
    3. Silalertruksa, Thapat & Gheewala, Shabbir H. & Pongpat, Patcharaporn, 2015. "Sustainability assessment of sugarcane biorefinery and molasses ethanol production in Thailand using eco-efficiency indicator," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 603-609.
    4. Hoffmann, Dunja, 2009. "Creation of regional added value by regional bioenergy resources," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(9), pages 2419-2429, December.
    5. Kunnika Changwichan & Thapat Silalertruksa & Shabbir H. Gheewala, 2018. "Eco-Efficiency Assessment of Bioplastics Production Systems and End-of-Life Options," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-15, March.
    6. Erik Gawel & Nadine Pannicke & Nina Hagemann, 2019. "A Path Transition Towards a Bioeconomy—The Crucial Role of Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-23, May.
    7. Yang, Ying-Hsien & Lin, Sue-Jane & Lewis, Charles, 2009. "Reduction of acidification from electricity -- Generating industries in Taiwan by Life Cycle Assessment and Monte Carlo optimization," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1575-1582, April.
    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. Simone Blanc & Stefano Massaglia & Filippo Brun & Cristiana Peano & Angela Mosso & Nicole Roberta Giuggioli, 2019. "Use of Bio-Based Plastics in the Fruit Supply Chain: An Integrated Approach to Assess Environmental, Economic, and Social Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-18, April.
    2. Danilo Arcentales-Bastidas & Carla Silva & Angel D. Ramirez, 2022. "The Environmental Profile of Ethanol Derived from Sugarcane in Ecuador: A Life Cycle Assessment Including the Effect of Cogeneration of Electricity in a Sugar Industrial Complex," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-24, July.
    3. Sebastian Spierling & Venkateshwaran Venkatachalam & Marina Mudersbach & Nico Becker & Christoph Herrmann & Hans-Josef Endres, 2020. "End-of-Life Options for Bio-Based Plastics in a Circular Economy—Status Quo and Potential from a Life Cycle Assessment Perspective," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-20, July.
    4. Oriana Gava & Fabio Bartolini & Francesca Venturi & Gianluca Brunori & Angela Zinnai & Alberto Pardossi, 2018. "A Reflection of the Use of the Life Cycle Assessment Tool for Agri-Food Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-16, December.
    5. Ana Fonseca & Edgar Ramalho & Ana Gouveia & Filipa Figueiredo & João Nunes, 2023. "Life Cycle Assessment of PLA Products: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-19, August.
    6. Alberto Bezama & Carlo Ingrao & Sinéad O’Keeffe & Daniela Thrän, 2019. "Resources, Collaborators, and Neighbors: The Three-Pronged Challenge in the Implementation of Bioeconomy Regions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-18, December.
    7. Kirchherr, Julian & Reike, Denise & Hekkert, Marko, 2017. "Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 221-232.
    8. Sebastian Hinderer & Leif Brändle & Andreas Kuckertz, 2021. "Transition to a Sustainable Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-16, July.
    9. Oliver Maaß & Philipp Grundmann, 2018. "Governing Transactions and Interdependences between Linked Value Chains in a Circular Economy: The Case of Wastewater Reuse in Braunschweig (Germany)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-29, April.
    10. 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).
    11. Johannes Matschewsky, 2019. "Unintended Circularity?—Assessing a Product-Service System for its Potential Contribution to a Circular Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-27, May.
    12. E. Sardianou & V. Nikou & K. Evangelinos & I. Nikolaou, 2024. "What are the key dimensions that CE emphasizes on? A systematic analysis of circular economy definitions," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 547-562, September.
    13. Raphaëlle Stewart & Monia Niero, 2018. "Circular economy in corporate sustainability strategies: A review of corporate sustainability reports in the fast‐moving consumer goods sector," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(7), pages 1005-1022, November.
    14. Alexandru Giurca & Liviu Nichiforel & Petru Tudor Stăncioiu & Marian Drăgoi & Daniel-Paul Dima, 2022. "Unlocking Romania’s Forest-Based Bioeconomy Potential: Knowledge-Action-Gaps and the Way Forward," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-24, November.
    15. Bozzolan, Nicola & Mohren, Frits & Grassi, Giacomo & Schelhaas, Mart-Jan & Staritsky, Igor & Stern, Tobias & Peltoniemi, Mikko & Šebeň, Vladimír & Hassegawa, Mariana & Verkerk, Pieter Johannes & Patac, 2024. "Preliminary evidence of softwood shortage and hardwood availability in EU regions: A spatial analysis using the European Forest Industry Database," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    16. 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.
    17. Xianning Wang & Zhengang Ma & Jiusheng Chen & Jingrong Dong, 2023. "Can Regional Eco-Efficiency Forecast the Changes in Local Public Health: Evidence Based on Statistical Learning in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-19, January.
    18. Zhang, Bo & Sarathy, S. Mani, 2016. "Lifecycle optimized ethanol-gasoline blends for turbocharged engines," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 38-53.
    19. repec:ers:journl:v:xv:y:2012:i:sie:p:109-132 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Gabisa, Elias W. & Gheewala, Shabbir H., 2020. "Can substitution of imported gasoline by locally produced molasses ethanol in Ethiopia be sustainable? An eco-efficiency assessment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    21. Leire Barañano & Naroa Garbisu & Itziar Alkorta & Andrés Araujo & Carlos Garbisu, 2021. "Contextualization of the Bioeconomy Concept through Its Links with Related Concepts and the Challenges Facing Humanity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-18, July.

    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:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:4:p:839-:d:1117056. 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.