IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jresou/v11y2022i2p11-d732962.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

European Hophornbeam Biomass for Energy Application: Influence of Different Production Processes and Heating Devices on Environmental Sustainability

Author

Listed:
  • Alessio Ilari

    (Department of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Via Brecce Bianche 10, 60131 Ancona, Italy)

  • Sara Fabrizi

    (Department of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Via Brecce Bianche 10, 60131 Ancona, Italy)

  • Ester Foppa Pedretti

    (Department of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Via Brecce Bianche 10, 60131 Ancona, Italy)

Abstract

Environmental sustainability has recently shifted towards biodiversity protection via governmental and intergovernmental initiatives (e.g., the UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, MA). The life cycle assessment, the widespread method for assessing environmental sustainability, was not created to evaluate impacts on biodiversity. However, several authors recognize its ability to estimate biodiversity loss drivers (impact indices on land use change and ecosystem). The study aims to apply LCA to the forest sector, precisely to the wood–energy chain of Hophornbeam, to cover suggestions of the MA for the biodiversity impact assessment. Six different scenarios for stove (3) and fireplace (3) wood production were analyzed, evaluating two baselines and four alternative scenarios, including sensitivity analyses related to transport distances for the raw materials. The functional unit is 1 MJ of energy. The fireplace combustion scenarios are relatively more sustainable than the stove ones are (2.95–3.21% less). The global warming potential (around 3 g CO 2 eq/MJ) is consistent with current European directives on the sustainability of biofuels and scientific literature. The scenarios showed similarities regarding the impact of the categories related to MA drivers. Although biodiversity is protected by limiting forest management, some authors argue that for some species (e.g., Hophornbeam), a rational tree felling could produce biofuels, increasing biodiversity.

Suggested Citation

  • Alessio Ilari & Sara Fabrizi & Ester Foppa Pedretti, 2022. "European Hophornbeam Biomass for Energy Application: Influence of Different Production Processes and Heating Devices on Environmental Sustainability," Resources, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-15, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:11:y:2022:i:2:p:11-:d:732962
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/11/2/11/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/11/2/11/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hartwick, John M, 1977. "Intergenerational Equity and the Investing of Rents from Exhaustible Resources," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(5), pages 972-974, December.
    2. Pierobon, Francesca & Zanetti, Michela & Grigolato, Stefano & Sgarbossa, Andrea & Anfodillo, Tommaso & Cavalli, Raffaele, 2015. "Life cycle environmental impact of firewood production – A case study in Italy," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 185-195.
    3. Narloch, Ulf & Drucker, Adam G. & Pascual, Unai, 2011. "Payments for agrobiodiversity conservation services for sustained on-farm utilization of plant and animal genetic resources," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1837-1845, September.
    4. Brassard, P. & Godbout, S. & Hamelin, L., 2021. "Framework for consequential life cycle assessment of pyrolysis biorefineries: A case study for the conversion of primary forestry residues," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    5. Fritz Balkau & Alberto Bezama & Noemie Leroy-Parmentier & Guido Sonnemann, 2021. "A Review on the Use of Life Cycle Methodologies and Tools in Sustainable Regional Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-41, September.
    6. Alessio Ilari & Ester Foppa Pedretti & Carmine De Francesco & Daniele Duca, 2021. "Pellet Production from Residual Biomass of Greenery Maintenance in a Small-Scale Company to Improve Sustainability," Resources, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-12, December.
    7. John Bongaarts, 2019. "IPBES, 2019. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 45(3), pages 680-681, September.
    8. Varun & Bhat, I.K. & Prakash, Ravi, 2009. "LCA of renewable energy for electricity generation systems--A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(5), pages 1067-1073, June.
    9. Sylvie Côté & Robert Beauregard & Manuele Margni & Louis Bélanger, 2021. "Using Naturalness for Assessing the Impact of Forestry and Protection on the Quality of Ecosystems in Life Cycle Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-29, August.
    10. Crowards, Tom M., 1998. "Safe Minimum Standards: costs and opportunities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 303-314, June.
    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. Hamilton, Kirk & Ley, Eduardo, 2010. "Measuring National Income and Growth in Resource-Rich, Income-Poor Countries," World Bank - Economic Premise, The World Bank, issue 28, pages 1-7, August.
    2. Busola D. Akintayo & Oluwafemi E. Ige & Olubayo M. Babatunde & Oludolapo A. Olanrewaju, 2023. "Evaluation and Prioritization of Power-Generating Systems Using a Life Cycle Assessment and a Multicriteria Decision-Making Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-18, September.
    3. Hala Abu-Kalla & Ruslana Rachel Palatnik & Ofira Ayalon & Mordechai Shechter, 2020. "Hoard or Exploit? Intergenerational Allocation of Exhaustible Natural Resources," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-20, December.
    4. Fernando Antonio Slaibe Postali & Fabiana Fontes Rocha, 2011. "Resource windfalls,fiscal effort and public spending: evidence from Brazilianmunicipalities," Anais do XXXVII Encontro Nacional de Economia [Proceedings of the 37th Brazilian Economics Meeting] 64, ANPEC - Associação Nacional dos Centros de Pós-Graduação em Economia [Brazilian Association of Graduate Programs in Economics].
    5. Cairns, Robert D. & Del Campo, Stellio & Martinet, Vincent, 2019. "Sustainability of an economy relying on two reproducible assets," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 145-160.
    6. John Sherwood & Anthony Ditta & Becky Haney & Loren Haarsma & Michael Carbajales-Dale, 2017. "Resource Criticality in Modern Economies: Agent-Based Model Demonstrates Vulnerabilities from Technological Interdependence," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 1-22, September.
    7. Schrader, Simon Elias & Benth, Fred Espen, 2022. "A stochastic study of carbon emission reduction from electrification and interconnecting cable utilization. The Norway and Germany case," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    8. Edward B. Barbier, 2003. "The Role of Natural Resources in Economic Development," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(2), pages 253-272, June.
    9. Michael Harris, 2001. "Revaluations and Capital Gains in the Context of Natural Resource Accounting," Working Papers 2001.08, School of Economics, La Trobe University.
    10. Francisco Correa Restrepo, 2015. "Una revisión analítica sobre el papel de la tierra en la teoría económica de David Ricardo," Revista Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, Universidad Militar Nueva Granada, vol. 0(1), pages 103-114, June.
    11. Nick Hanley & Louis Dupuy & Eoin McLaughlin, 2015. "Genuine Savings And Sustainability," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(4), pages 779-806, September.
    12. Christian Groth & Karl-Josef Koch & Thomas Steger, 2006. "Rethinking the Concept of Long-Run Economic Growth," CESifo Working Paper Series 1701, CESifo.
    13. Ashton Swartbooi & Kutemba K. Kapanji-Kakoma & Nicholas M. Musyoka, 2022. "From Biogas to Hydrogen: A Techno-Economic Study on the Production of Turquoise Hydrogen and Solid Carbons," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-14, September.
    14. Yek, Peter Nai Yuh & Cheng, Yoke Wang & Liew, Rock Keey & Wan Mahari, Wan Adibah & Ong, Hwai Chyuan & Chen, Wei-Hsin & Peng, Wanxi & Park, Young-Kwon & Sonne, Christian & Kong, Sieng Huat & Tabatabaei, 2021. "Progress in the torrefaction technology for upgrading oil palm wastes to energy-dense biochar: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    15. Bazhanov, Andrei, 2007. "The peak of oil extraction and consistency of the government's short- and long-run policies," MPRA Paper 2507, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh, 1999. "Materials, Capital, Direct/Indirect Substitution, and Mass Balance Production Functions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(4), pages 547-561.
    17. Thomas Aronsson & Karl-Gustaf Löfgren (ed.), 2010. "Handbook of Environmental Accounting," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 12796.
    18. Cabeza Gutes, Maite, 1996. "The concept of weak sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 147-156, June.
    19. Zugravu-Soilita, Natalia & Kafrouni, Rajwane & Bouard, Séverine & Apithy, Leïla, 2021. "Do cultural capital and social capital matter for economic performance? An empirical investigation of tribal agriculture in New Caledonia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    20. Seyhan, Demet & Weikard, Hans-Peter & van Ierland, Ekko, 2012. "An economic model of long-term phosphorus extraction and recycling," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 103-108.

    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:jresou:v:11:y:2022:i:2:p:11-:d:732962. 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.