Abstract
Woody biomass has gained increased attention as a source of renewable energy. However, its categorization as a sustainable source of energy remains controversial, as its carbon neutrality depends on its end use, moisture content, bulk density, and the distance between the source of biomass and its end use. Due to these mediating factors, policies largely shape its sustainability and ability to mitigate emissions. This paper organizes and evaluates the current state of research through a systematic review of global literature from 2011 to 2021 (n = 345) on the governance of the production, transportation, sale, and use of woody biomass for energy. Peer-reviewed literature emphasizes the role of woody biomass as a decentralized energy source for individual households and communities, focusing on its harvest, transport, and localized energy conversion. Policies primarily address land management and energy infrastructure rather than direct emissions reduction. Research gaps in policy within the Global South underscore the need to examine biomass regulation in regions with limited energy diversity. The key factors that drive the sustainable uptake of woody biomass include strict sustainability criteria, fiscal incentives, technological development, and wood utilization from across its value chain. Effective policy implementation increases rural employment, boosts rural economies, provides energy security to remote areas, improves overall environmental sustainability, reduces emissions, and improves land management practices. Our systematic review reveals that future research should focus on improving conversion efficiencies in small-scale systems, reducing emissions in the international trade of woody biomass, and using the wood value chain to increase the profitability of bioenergy products.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Renewable energy sources (RES) are a vital tool in decarbonizing national energy sectors. Among RES, bioenergy, defined by the US Department of Energy as a form of renewable energy that is derived from recently living organic materials, has recently gained prominence as a low- or net-zero carbon alternative to traditional fossil fuels [1]. At present, bioenergy accounts for nearly one-tenth of the world’s primary energy supply [2]. The contribution of modern bioenergy (excluding open fires and simple cookstoves) to final energy demand is five times higher than wind and solar combined [2].
Bioenergy is produced from sources such as agricultural plants, woody biomass, and waste. This paper focuses primarily on woody biomass. The USDA Forest Service (FS) defines woody biomass as “the trees and woody plants, including limbs, tops, needles, leaves, and other woody parts, grown in a forest, woodland, or rangeland environment, that are the by‐products of forest management” [3]. Forms of woody biomass used to produce bioenergy include pellets, chips, logs of fuelwood, charcoal, briquettes, wood shavings and waste wood from industry operations. In recent years, international policies have accelerated bioenergy use for electricity, heat, and transport biofuels. Bioenergy has replaced fossil fuels primarily in three forms: ethanol for gasoline in the transportation sector, densified biomass for coal in the electricity sector, and pelletized biomass for various fuels in heating [4]. It is important to note that ethanol is produced from agricultural residue, and is not a focus of this review. The heating sector is a major market for bioenergy. Biofuel demand is projected to increase by 28% over the next five years from its current levels of 146 billion liters per year [2]. However, the uptake rate of bioenergy and the claim that biomass is a carbon neutral energy source depends on the source of bioenergy, the calculation of carbon sequestration and emissions, and the policy context that shapes the production and use of biomass for energy [5]. Though critics argue that claims of carbon neutrality for bioenergy is an accounting error [6, 7], proponents consider it an important alternative to fossil fuels and a critical energy source for decarbonization [8, 9].
The sustainability of bioenergy depends on the policies that regulate its use and the adoption of voluntary sustainability standards that can be attached to these policies. National support policies, such as feed-in-tariffs (FiTs), have increased the capacity of bioenergy by an average of 8 GW per year in the last five years [2]. The International Energy Agency (IEA) recommends stronger policy globally to ensure adoption, innovation, and sustainability of bioenergy to be on track for its Net-Zero by 2050 scenario. However, there is a large disparity in the policies and forms of bioenergy use in the Global North and South. The latter is still heavily reliant on traditional bioenergy use which has been linked to indoor air pollution, health complications, and high mortality rates [10]. Attending to regional differences in bioenergy production, transportation, and use is therefore essential when evaluating the role of bioenergy in the transition to a decarbonized energy sector.
Due to the prominence of woody biomass energy, and a lack of literature that compares peer-reviewed research on the policies that govern where it is grown, harvested, transported, and used, we provide a review and synthesis of global bioenergy policy research. The contributions of this paper are threefold. First, we identify and structure global growing literature on woody biomass policies to identify research gaps. Second, we cluster research by the Global North and Global South to determine regional trends in the policies that determine the production, transportation, sale, and use of woody biomass for energy production as well as its positive and negative outcomes. Finally, we synthesize our results to discuss critical insights into woody biomass policy, identify policy lessons for the sustainable uptake of bioenergy, and highlight research and policy differences between the Global North and South.
2 Methodology and data collection
We began our review by searching for articles related to any policies affecting the use of woody biomass for energy using the Web of Science and Scopus research databases. We developed a simplified search string following standard search protocol methods to identify articles that contained information on the subject (woody biomass for energy production) and the phenomenon (related policy and governance) of interest [11]. We selected to focus on articles that included “wood” or “woody biomass” to find articles with information on policies relevant to the production of energy from woody biomass, rather than focusing on one or more types of woody biomass used for energy production (e.g. charcoal, cordwood, etc.). We did not focus or limit our literature search to a particular time period in order to capture all relevant articles. Additional information about our search protocol can be found in the appendix (Appendix: Search Protocol). We completed our literature search in February 2021, finding a total of 845 articles from Web of Science and 423 articles from SCOPUS, with 389 articles identified by both databases. Combining both databases resulted in 1,657 unique articles.
To evaluate relevance, two individuals (coders) screened the titles and abstracts of all articles in the combined dataset, identifying articles that contained information about policies and governance related to the use of woody biomass for energy. The coders dual-screened 15% of all articles (n = 249) in two stages, with the aim of ensuring high intercoder reliability. After the first stage, the intercoder reliability was suitably high with a Cohen’s Kappa (κ) score of 0.832. Cohen’s Kappa measures the agreement between variables, in this case the classification of a manuscript as relevant [12]. Kappa measurements above 0.8 are often considered reliable, but to improve inter-rater reliability beyond the threshold of reliability, the coders reviewed and discussed an additional 100 papers. The discussion and subsequent coding further improved the final intercoder reliability score (κ = 0.994).
Screening the 1,657 articles identified 345 articles that contained information on policies and governance related to the production of woody biomass for energy. We reviewed and coded relevant articles to identify trends in research and policy according to a set of 16 variables (Table S1 in appendix). As part of this, the articles were categorized on the basis of whether to location of research focus was in the Global North, the Global South, or applied to all countries. We analyzed the data using Microsoft Excel and the programming language R. Specifically, we considered the positive and negative drivers of woody biomass use for energy production, the positive and negative outcomes of using woody biomass for energy, and regional differences that define research and policy on woody biomass for energy production in the Global North and South.
3 Results
3.1 Trends in bioenergy policy research publications
Our review find that the number of articles on policy related to woody biomass for energy production increased slightly from 28 in 2011 to 36 in 2020. 2017 contained the greatest number of articles deemed relevant for this review with over 50 articles. The period between 2017 and 2020 shows a higher number of journal articles on average than the previous years (Fig. 1a). This increase in research output on bioenergy may be in part attributed to the focus on bioenergy as a RES and as a method for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in the Paris Agreement in 2015 [13] or by preexisting national policies, such as the Renewable Fuel Standard in the United States, which mandates the replacement of petroleum-based fuel with RES, including woody biomass [14].
a Frequency of journal articles by year, b and c. Frequency of articles that focus on different countries or regions
Articles in this review primarily focus on the Global North and the analysis only includes literature published till February 2021, explaining why 2021 has fewer articles (Fig. 1a). As shown in Fig. 1b and c, nine of the ten most frequently occurring countries or regions were from the Global North. It is important to note that in Fig. 1b we identify the European Union (EU) as a separate region in our analysis. This is because numerous studies within our dataset focused on EU-wide policies instead of the policies of a specific country, a phenomenon that is not replicated elsewhere. Note that the EU includes the United Kingdom for articles written before 2020 but not for the ones written after. The international coverage of EU policies represents a distinctive and noteworthy feature of this region that we assess in this research. The United States had the maximum number of articles while EU had the second most (Fig. 1b and c). Finland was the second most frequently appearing country while India was the only country from the Global South in the list. The gap between articles from the Global North and the Global South can be attributed to several potential factors. First, this review only analyzes articles written in English which may have excluded several articles from the Global South. Second, there exists a geographic bias which results in more articles being published from the Global North than South, resulting in a North–South research gap across academic disciplines [15]. Finally, there may be less research on the interface between woody biomass use and energy policy in the Global South than the North. Out of the 354 journal articles assessed in this review, only 7 are global in scope. Among these, most discuss global biofuel trade, and none discuss the global policy landscape.
To understand the aim for different woody biomass policies as identified in the peer reviewed literature, we identified the regulatory motivation of policies within the peer reviewed literature. Since one article may have included information on policy motivation, it is important to note that one article may have more than one policy motivation. Figure 2a represents the cumulative frequencies for individual policy rationales. Economic policy rationales refer to the cost-effectiveness of woody biomass, any may alter behavior through subsidies, taxes, fines, or other methods [16, 17]. Environmental rationales seek to alter the use of woody biomass for energy to reduce environmental impacts, such as carbon emissions or forest conservation [8, 16]. And socio-cultural rationales for policy argue for or against the use of woody biomass based on health, historical uses, or cultural preferences for woody biomass usage [18, 19]. Some articles discussed multiple policy rationales, either because they discussed multiple policies or because a given policy sought to regulate woody biomass for energy to effect economic, environmental, or socio-cultural change. Environmental rationales were the most common for the articles we reviewed, and they comprised over half of all policy rationales (n = 262). Economic justifications were also common, accounting for 35% rationales. Socio-cultural rationales were comparatively less common (n = 60), and they occurred primarily among policies in the Global South.
Proportionate representation (waffle charts) of article information including a The type of stated rational for different woody biomass policies. b The number of articles with (“Yes”) or without (“No”) a primary policy focus. c The number of different policy types mentioned. d The number of different woody biomass fuel types mentioned. e The end uses discussed. f The focus area within the woody biomass supply chain discussed. g The number of different usage locations identified
As shown in Fig. 2b, nearly 61% of the articles reviewed had policy as the primary focus, and 38 percent did not. Among those with a policy focus, the most common policy types were land use or resource management policies and energy efficiency or infrastructure policies (Fig. 2c). Policies that focused on climate change or emissions reductions were less frequent in our review.
The most frequently studied fuel types are shown in Fig. 2d Pellets and fuelwood were the most common forms of woody biomass identified in the literature. Countries with legislation or sustainability standards, like those in the EU, were more likely to use pellets or chips. Whereas literature that focused on countries engaged in the use of woody biomass for cooking primarily used collected fuelwood or charcoal. “Other” fuels primarily included waste wood or residue but also extended to dung, biochar, gasified wood, and straw-based construction material. Agricultural residue, although not woody biomass, was also mentioned in papers and is therefore included in our analysis. Among the uses of woody biomass-based bioenergy, heating dominated (31%) the list with usage in electricity (28%) and cooking (24%) following closely. Here, it is important to note that transportation is the largest sector when it comes to bioenergy use due to global biofuel mandates. First generation biofuels are produced primarily from food crops [20]. However, woody biomass is a source for second generation biofuels, which are not yet available at the same scale as first-generation biofuels. Though our review does not capture many articles that focus on the use of woody biomass for transportation, as the technology and availability of second-generation biofuels advances, this may become a more prominent end-use for woody biomass [21]. Our review, therefore, covers more articles that research the use of biomass for cooking, heating, and electricity generation than for transportation (Fig. 2e).
This review finds that policies regulating woody biomass are primarily implemented at the production stage, i.e., in the forest or plantation, at the wood processing stage, or the wood to bioenergy processing stage (Fig. 2f). Land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF) regulations constitute most of the policies governing plantations whereas sustainability standards are applicable to all three of these stages. There is a relative lack of policies governing the transportation of wood from the source to the plants or governing the use of waste for bioenergy. According to the IEA, to meet the Net-Zero Scenario, bioenergy produced from waste needs substantially higher policy attention. Biofuels produced from wastes and crop residue should make up 45 percent of biofuels consumed in 2030 in the Net Zero Scenario, up from about 7 percent in 2020 [2].
The most frequent use of biomass in the articles was household use (accounting for 39 percent of use cases) followed by use in small facilities (Fig. 2g). Household use consists primarily of heating in cold regions or for both heating and cooking using stoves in the Global South. According to the articles, bioenergy was frequently used at a small-scale in both regions—powering villages, localities, or households across the globe [18]. Its use in electricity was supplemental to electricity from baseload sources such as coal, natural gas, or nuclear. However, in states such as California, it has also been used to produce base load power [22].
3.2 Positive and negative associations with the use of woody biomass
In our qualitative analysis of the papers, we summarized the positive and negative outcomes of woody biomass discussed in each paper. Within these summaries, we flagged the most frequently appearing words to highlight key themes. Tables 1 and 2 list the most frequently appearing words in these summaries along with key takeaways that summarize the positive (or negative) woody biomass use outcomes associated with that word. It is important to note that some words have been grouped together (such as “emission” and “renewable”) as they were associated with similar takeaways (in this case, the lowered emissions associated with woody biomass use help meet emissions and renewable energy use targets).
3.3 Global biomass and bioenergy policies
Figure 3 shows the distribution of policy types by country in the articles reviewed. As seen in the figure, the most common policy types are land use and energy infrastructure in most countries. However, in the case of Nordic countries such as Sweden and Finland, climate change and emissions reduction policies govern woody biomass use more than energy infrastructure ones. Furthermore, on a global scale, climate change emissions reduction policies were more frequently mentioned in journal articles when compared to land use ones. This can, in part, be attributed to the presence of policies discouraging the traditional use of woody biomass in developing regions to reduce emissions, indoor air pollution, and related negative implications for health [62]. It is important to note that countries in the Global South do regulate charcoal for climate reasons, but have fewer to no regulations on collected firewood [50].
Frequency of policy type by region/country
Tables S2a and S2b in the appendix identify the primary socio-economic and political drivers of woody biomass use from key papers that informed our review from the Global North and South. They also highlight factors which have hindered the adoption of bioenergy across sectors. While many policies are economically oriented and regulate biomass specifically, its use can be encouraged by disincentivizing the use of fossil fuels. Increasing taxation for fossil fuels and capping emissions from coal, natural gas, and heavy-duty oil can create market signals for woody biomass utilization [71].
4 Discussion
Our review of global literature finds articles that assess the use and regulation of woody biomass differ markedly in their focus between the Global North and South, but across geographies focus on the contribution woody biomass can make to small-to-medium industrial uses or household uses for heating, electricity, and cooking. Further, the greatest amount of evidence on woody biomass policy comes from the Global North. The sustainability of bioenergy is notably enhanced when locally sourced biomass is employed. It is imperative to acknowledge, however, that the applicability of the aforementioned statement varies with the type of biomass, with off-grid (decentralized) initiatives predominantly manifesting as small-scale or biogas projects, as opposed to the predominant grid connection observed in larger biomass plants, particularly in Europe. Woody biomass also helps remote communities—that have traditionally lacked access to a central electricity grid—access energy [72]. If managed sustainably, bioenergy has several benefits, especially in enhancing rural livelihoods and regional economies. However, household fuelwood or charcoal use has been linked to indoor air pollution and negative health impacts. In the developing economies of West Africa and Asia, woody biomass is usually unclean and highly polluting when burnt. This can lead to detrimental health outcomes such as bronchitis and lung cancer. Absence from work due to sickness further lowers labor productivity and household income. Women and children are often responsible for collecting wood, which is time intensive and impacts their ability to attain a formal education [6]. Many of these negative ramifications of biomass use can be addressed by regulations, using different type of fuels, and incentivizing sustainability. In the sections below, we first discuss topical differences in this literature between research focused on the Global North and South before elaborating the different methods by which policies affect the sustainable use of woody biomass for energy.
4.1 Institutional capacity building and policy design
Reviewing literature on woody biomass policy finds that in the Global North, research often focuses on policy design, whereas in the Global South research tends to focus on institutional as well as administrative needs. A number of articles in the Global North highlight the use of different policy types for increasing the use of woody biomass, reducing the emissions from this fuel type, or improving sustainability along the value chain [8, 52]. Though there are some articles that focus on such policy design in the Global South [18, 73] most articles focus on the need for improved monitoring and management of forest resources to aid in policy design for woody biomass use [39, 74], better tracking of how woody biomass is collected and by whom [19, 75], and the importance of advancing cleaner types of woody biomass fuel to improve human health and reduce carbon emissions [76]. Assessing woody biomass as a global phenomenon—rather than one dominated my regional trends and interests—points to the importance of applying lessons from the Global South to the North and vice-versa. For example, relatively few articles evaluate the need or importance of enhanced monitoring and evaluation of household woody biomass usage in the Global North, despite gaps in research on the amount and value chains that support it for heating [77]. Further, ensuring that lessons on policy design are tailored to contexts in the Global South will remain critically important, as woody biomass often serves as a primary component of household energy portfolios with fewer options for substitution. This is especially true when considering the use of woody biomass by socioeconomic status and distance from urban centers [65, 78].
As discussed before, countries with legislation or sustainability standards, like those in the EU, were more likely to use pellets or chips. Whereas literature focuses on countries engaged in the use of woody biomass for cooking primarily used collected fuelwood or charcoal. The latter are more polluting sources of woody biomass and were noted to be related to lower income groups in developing regions. Wood pellets are environmentally and economically superior as compared to other forms of biofuel due to an energy density nearly four times that of fresh wood [48]. They add positive local value and are especially suitable for use in heating homes due to their convenience of handling, cleanliness, stable energy characteristics, and ease-of-use [79]. Converting harvest residues into wood pellet has various positive benefits including an increase in stumpage value, poverty alleviation, energy security, and emission reduction [39]. In the southeastern United States, when we contrast the total carbon alteration with the total pellet production, it lessens the year-to-year volatility, resulting in a favorable long-term greenhouse gas advantage for each ton of pellet manufactured [80]. Furthermore, torrefied pellets (pellets created from biomass that is roasted, ground, and then pelletized) are cheaper to transport than typical pellets even though the cost of production may be higher [81]. The use of traditional woodstoves has transitioned to less-emitting modern stoves through government incentives. Furthermore, in some countries such as Vietnam, the use of woodstoves transitioned to pellets or biogas as income levels rose [82]. The importance of woody biomass in providing available and low-cost energy for household needs as well as small industries raises important findings for energy equity. On the one hand, woody biomass is important for many household energy budgets, and policies that would seek to change how and with what consequences individuals harvest and use woody biomass should consider the importance of providing alternative and low-cost energy options, lest their impacts generate inequitable outcomes for the poorest or otherwise most vulnerable members of a population [83]. On the other hand, improving the sustainability of woody biomass use, both in terms of carbon emissions as well as in terms of human health, is of critical importance. Thus, policies and actions that seek to promote cleaner types of woody biomass, such as pelletized or torrefied biomass, have the potential to improve human well-being while promoting climate mitigation [16, 84,85,86].
4.2 Fiscal incentives
Policy driven financial incentives are among the most effective tools to drive the use of woody biomass for bioenergy in both the Global North and South. The initial inertia in biomass adoption can be overcome by providing project developers with investment incentives, power purchase agreements, guaranteed minimum prices, and exemptions for the import of equipment [87]. Tax credits have been successful in driving bioenergy globally. Carbon taxes and bioenergy subsidies raise prices of competing fuels [88]. Government investment into developing regional bio-economies and long-term market frameworks, tax disbursement, and regulatory assistance can increase investor confidence [89, 90].
The exact price and nature of these incentives differs by region and local attitudes. Liu et al. recommend a carbon tax of “above $39/t CO2, or an aggregate carbon tax of $7/t CO2 on fossil fuels and an endogenous subsidy of $22t/CO2 reduction on renewables” to promote the use of cellulosic ethanol and reduce lifecycle GHG emissions in the state of Washington [91]. In Finland, the adoption of descending premium tariffs linked to emission allowance prices, along with adjustments in peat fuel excise taxes, can incentivize utilization [92]. Likewise, in Estonia and Finland, the advancement of solid biomass use has been bolstered by alterations in fossil fuel taxation for heat production, the gradual elimination of fossil fuel subsidies, and the provision of subsidies for electricity generated in combined heat and power (CHP) plants. These incentives are commonly administered through FiTs.
Other examples of fiscal policies for woody biomass include an environmental tax exemption for wood-based fuels used for heat production, a general tax refund for power plants using forest chips as fuel, and subsidies for using small-sized trees from precommercial thinning in Scotland [93]. Within the Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) region, the adoption of eco-friendly cooking technologies, such as briquettes, was facilitated through the streamlining of regulatory obstacles for the establishment of new briquette enterprises. This was complemented by targeted tax exceptions and an expansion of consumption to include novel industrial and other consumer sectors. Investors actively seek avenues to mitigate these uncertainties by pursuing governmental backing. Potential methods through which governments can provide support to their domestic briquette sector encompass initiatives like tax holidays, permanent or temporary value added tax (VAT) exemptions, import waivers for briquette production machinery, and subsidies directed at extruder machines [94].
4.3 Value chain benefits
Policies that target when and how different woody biomass products are used often aim to enhance the sustainability of bioenergy. For example, the United States’ Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 set targets for second-generation biofuels which were been strengthened over time [95]. Second generation biofuels are produced from the fermentation of cellulose. Thus, woody biomass can contribute to second generation biofuels, as do other forms of biomass, such as perennial grasses [96, 97]. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 introduced specific incentives for cellulosic bioethanol, extended the tax credit for biodiesel fuel excise, and granted a $0.3 per liter income tax credit to small-scale biodiesel producers. At present, both the United States and the European Union are broadening their resource bases by pursuing research and development focused on second and third generation biofuel feedstock, as well as advanced biomass conversion technology [75]. Second generation biofuels also demonstrate superior performance in relation to other assessed criteria, as long as they do not originate from dedicated plantations that directly compete for agricultural land [21].
Environmental sustainability is also enhanced through the cascade use of wood [98]. Cascading use refers to the use of biomass in sequential steps the seek to maximize the efficient use of wood products and recover energy from them at the end of the product life cycle. In Slovenia, intensively managing forests followed by cascade use of wood and establishing wood value chains has helped drive biomass use [99]. In systems not entirely operated on bioenergy, co-firing helps achieve emissions targets. Co-firing allows burning biomass with coal in pre-existing plants, making the process economically and environmentally efficient. It is often used during the transition period of a power plant to comply with emission regulations. Greater co-firing rate at pulverized-fuel power plants leads to reduced CO2 emissions without retrofitting [81]. Bertrand et al. predict that co-firing has great potential for creating jobs in the coal and forest industries [100]. However, if co-firing steadily displaces investments in carbon-free technologies over time, this may result in net increases in carbon emissions. In this case, the CO2 emissions from electricity would be higher in the long run compared with what they would be under a true energy transition in which true renewables dominate the fleet of power plants [100].
4.4 Sustainability criteria
Carbon neutrality is defined as having a balance between emitting carbon and absorbing carbon from the atmosphere in carbon sinks [101]. The carbon neutrality of bioenergy depends largely on the presence of appropriate, uniform, and equitable sustainability standards. For example, biomass use can be discouraged if the official forestry standard is inaccessible to small private woodland owners due to different objectives and plans for woodlands. Large amount of woodland makes sustainable sourcing enforcement difficult. In southeast United Kingdom, there is a lack of monitoring of felling licenses that translates to wood being harvested illegally, and the environmental impacts of wood-based fuel are difficult to ascertain. Training programs for wood-based fuel production are not robust, difficult to access, and not appealing to small firms because their interests are not represented [102]. Danish energy companies have addressed these issues with sustainability criteria in a voluntary industry agreement since 2016. Medium to large energy companies in Denmark documented that 57% and 70% of their biomass sourcing followed the sustainability criteria in 2016 and 2017, respectively [103].
Ng'andwe et al. recommend the formation of public–private partnerships (PPPs) in Zambia through private enterprises such as the Timber Development Agency. Investment in afforestation technology, forest conservation, carbon trade and ecosystem services could all be promoted by PPPs and other partnerships. This would assist in reduction of illegal logging and reduce costs of sustainable forest management [104]. In the context of trade between the southeastern US and the EU, measuring the impacts from the EU's sustainability guidelines on forest carbon and pellet greenhouse gas (GHG) balance presents challenges. However, research suggests that these guidelines might be influencing production away from ecologically sensitive forest types that exhibit limited responsiveness to evolving market dynamics. A comparison between the cumulative alteration in carbon and the production of pellets serves to decrease year-to-year fluctuations, ultimately leading to a positive long-term GHG advantage per metric ton of pellets manufactured [80].
To address concerns effectively, policies need to establish a robust track record of delivering strong ecological, climate, and social performance within forest energy supply chains. Despite the presence of “sustainability certification,” there are instances where labor conditions, monocultures, or illegal trade are not adequately considered, particularly when biomass originates from international boundaries. To counteract these issues, both the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) II and the Timber Regulation have been established to advance the sustainability of biomass sourcing [105]. Compliance with RED II necessitates that biofuel producers disclose the origin of their feedstock. In particular, the RED II introduces sustainability for forestry feedstocks as well as GHG criteria for solid biomass fuels (including woody biomass). Moreover, clauses within the Timber Regulation are strategically designed to counter the trade of unlawfully harvested timber and timber products, involving three pivotal obligations: prohibition of illegally sourced timber and its products within the EU market, substantial “due diligence” requirements placed on traders, and the enforcement of chain of custody prerequisites (such as maintaining records of suppliers and customers) [105].
5 Conclusion
This review identified distinct differences between trends in the global uses of woody biomass for energy. Most notably, woody biomass is primarily used by low-income communities for cooking in the Global South. They often use forms of woody biomass such as collected firewood and charcoal. Hence, woody biomass is associated with negative outcomes for health and a lack of education among women and children as they spend hours collecting firewood. As income levels rise, households switch to natural gas stoves. In the Global North, woody biomass is primarily used for heating in colder regions. The biomass is often in its less-emitting pelletized form. The literature suggests a need for technology transfer from the North to South that can help low-income and islanded communities in the Global South use woody biomass in clean manner. Governments of the Global South have incentivized a transition to natural gas stoves to improve health and education outcomes. However, with sufficient capacity building and resource-sharing between the North and South, communities can be incentivized to directly transition to clean energy systems.
The transition toward bioenergy relies on the advancement in technology, breakthroughs in terms of technical performance and cost effectiveness. To accelerate the development of district heat and power generation from forest biomass, supportive policies and incentives are required to overcome the immaturity of the forest biomass value chain. As discussed, the profit margin of bioenergy products can be increased by extracting high value products first and using the residue for lower value energy production. Future research must consider ways to improve conversion efficiencies in small-scale systems such as district-level heating systems, reducing emissions in the international trade of woody biomass, and using the wood value chain to increase the profit margin of bioenergy products to reduce reliance on artificially introduced government subsidies.
Data availability
Data will be made available upon request.
Code availability
Code will be made available on request. Part of code has been provided as supplemental material.
References
Bioenergy basics. Energy.gov. 2024. https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/bioenergy-basics. Accessed 12 Jan 2024.
World Energy Outlook 2021. World Energy Outlook. OECD iLibrary. 2023. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/energy/world-energy-outlook-2021_14fcb638-en. Accessed 13 Oct 2023.
Region 6—state. 2024. https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/communityforests/?cid=fseprd502769. Accessed 13 Oct 2023.
Mullins KA, Venkatesh A, Nagengast AL, Kocoloski M. Regional Allocation of Biomass to U.S. Energy Demands under a Portfolio of Policy Scenarios. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48(5):2561–8. https://doi.org/10.1021/es405222w.
Zanchi G, Pena N, Bird N. Is woody bioenergy carbon neutral? A comparative assessment of emissions from consumption of woody bioenergy and fossil fuel. GCB Bioenergy. 2012;4(6):761–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01149.x.
Booth MS. Not carbon neutral: assessing the net emissions impact of residues burned for bioenergy. Environ Res Lett. 2018;13(3): 035001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaac88.
Philippidis G, Bartelings H, Helming J, M’barek R, Smeets E, Van Meijl H. The good, the bad and the uncertain: bioenergy use in the European Union. Energies. 2018;11(10):10. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11102703.
Kunttu J. Preferable utilisation patterns of wood product industries’ by-products in Finland. Forest Policy Econ. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.101946.
Fingerman KR, Nabuurs G-J, Iriarte L, Fritsche UR. Opportunities and risks for sustainable biomass export from the south-eastern United States to Europe. Biofuels Bioprod Bioref. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1845.
Mangoyana RB, Smith TF. Decentralised bioenergy systems: a review of opportunities and threats. Energy Policy. 2011;39(3):1286–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.11.057.
Cooke A, Smith DM, Booth A. The benefits of a systematic search strategy when conducting qualitative evidence synthesis; the SPIDER tool. Qual Health Res. 2012;22(10):1435–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312452938.
Xia Y. Correlation and association analyses in microbiome study integrating multiomics in health and disease. Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci. 2020;171:309–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pmbts.2020.04.003.
Gough C, et al. Challenges to the use of BECCS as a keystone technology in pursuit of 1.5 °C. Glob Sustain. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2018.3.
Kesan JP, Yang H-S, Peres IF. An empirical study of the impact of the renewable fuel standard (RFS) on the production of fuel ethanol in the U.S. Utah L Rev. 2017;2017(1):159–206.
Skopec M, Issa H, Reed J, Harris M. The role of geographic bias in knowledge diffusion: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020;5(1):2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0088-0.
Carvalho RL, et al. Environmental sustainability of bioenergy strategies in Western Kenya to address household air pollution. Energies. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13030719.
Chiriboga G. “Energy return on investment (EROI) and life cycle analysis (LCA) of biofuels in Ecuador. Heliyon. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04213.
Bhattacharya SC. Wood energy in India: status and prospects. Energy. 2015;85:310–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.03.043.
Sufo Kankeu R, Sonwa DJ, Eba’a Atyi R, Moankang Nkal NM. Quantifying post logging biomass loss using satellite images and ground measurements in Southeast Cameroon. J For Res. 2016;27:1415–26.
Rodionova MV, et al. Biofuel production: challenges and opportunities. Int J Hydrog Energy. 2017;42(12):8450–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.11.125.
Havlík P, et al. Global land-use implications of first and second generation biofuel targets. Energy Policy. 2011;39(10):5690–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.03.030.
Tittmann P. The wood in the forest: why California needs to reexamine the role of biomass in climatepolicy. Calif Agr. 2015;69(3):133–7. https://doi.org/10.3733/ca.v069n03p133.
Quinn RJ, et al. Life cycle assessment of forest biomass energy feedstock in the Northeast United States. GCB Bioenergy. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12725.
Dwivedi P, Johnson E, Greene D, Baker S. Tracking economic and environmental indicators of exported wood pellets to the United Kingdom from the Southern United States: lessons for policy? Bioenerg Res. 2016;9(3):907–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-016-9749-8.
Daigneault A, Sohngen B, Sedjo R. Economic approach to assess the forest carbon implications of biomass energy. Environ Sci Technol. 2012;46(11):5664–71. https://doi.org/10.1021/es2030142.
Broughel AE. Impact of state policies on generating capacity for production of electricity and combined heat and power from forest biomass in the United States. Renew Energy. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.09.058.
Birdsey R, Duffy P, Smyth C, Kurz WA, Dugan AJ, Houghton R. Climate, economic, and environmental impacts of producing wood for bioenergy. Environ Res Lett. 2018;13(5): 050201. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aab9d5.
Costanza JK, Abt RC, McKerrow AJ, Collazo JA. Bioenergy production and forest landscape change in the Southeastern United States. GCB Bioenergy. 2017;9(5):924–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12386.
Barnett B. An evaluation of the UK’s use of SFM standards to procure solid woody biomass for electricity generation using sustainable bioenergy criteria. Biofuels. 2016;7(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/17597269.2015.1118775.
Jacobson M. Plantation forestry and pellet production in Kenya. Biomass Bioenergy. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2020.105519.
Sola P, Schure J, Eba’a Atyi P, Gumbo P, Okeyo P. Politiques et pratiques en matière de bois-énergie dans certains pays d’Afrique subsaharienne—un examen critique. Bois For Trop. 2019. https://doi.org/10.19182/bft2019.340.a31690.
Varnagirytė-Kabašinskienė I, Lukminė D, Mizaras S, Beniušienė L, Armolaitis K. Lithuanian forest biomass resources: legal, economic and ecological aspects of their use and potential. Energ Sustain Soc. 2019;9(1):41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-019-0229-9.
Brewer JP II, Vandever S, Johnson JT. Towards energy sovereignty: biomass as sustainability in interior Alaska. Sustain Sci. 2018;13(2):417–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0441-5.
de Jong S, Hoefnagels R, Wetterlund E, Pettersson K, Faaij A, Junginger M. Cost optimization of biofuel production—the impact of scale, integration, transport and supply chain configurations. Appl Energy. 2017;195:1055–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.03.109.
Dampier JEE, Shahi C, Lemelin RH, Luckai N. Assessment of potential local and regional induced economic impact of an energy policy change in rural Northwestern Ontario. Energ Sustain Soc. 2016;6(1):14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-016-0079-7.
Chin H-C. A PLS-MGA analysis of farming characteristics on the intentions of smallholder oil palm planters to collect palm residues for biofuel production. Biomass Bioenergy. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2018.11.012.
Kishita Y, Nakatsuka N, Akamatsu F. Scenario analysis for sustainable woody biomass energy businesses: the case study of a Japanese rural community. J Clean Prod. 2017;142:1471–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.161.
Nikodinoska N, Buonocore E, Paletto A, Franzese PP. Wood-based bioenergy value chain in mountain urban districts: an integrated environmental accounting framework. Appl Energy. 2017;186:197–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.04.073.
Simangunsong BCH, et al. Potential forest biomass resource as feedstock for bioenergy and its economic value in Indonesia. Forest Policy Econ. 2017;81:10–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.03.022.
Lintunen J. Essays in environmental and resource economics. 2019.
Paredes-Sánchez JP, López-Ochoa LM, López-González LM, Las-Heras-Casas J, Xiberta-Bernat J. Energy utilization for distributed thermal production in rural areas: a case study of a self-sustaining system in Spain. Energy Convers Manage. 2018;174:1014–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.08.080.
Hennig C, Gawor M. Bioenergy production and use: comparative analysis of the economic and environmental effects. Energy Convers Manage. 2012;63:130–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2012.03.031.
Bilgili F. A revisited renewable consumption-growth nexus. A continuous wavelet approach through disaggregated data. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.02.017.
Nakahara Y, et al. Discussion on regional revitalization using woody biomass resources as renewable energy. Int J Energy Environ Eng. 2019;10(2):243–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40095-019-0300-5.
Kline KL, et al. Bioenergy and biodiversity: key lessons from the Pan American region. Environ Manage. 2015;56(6):1377–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0559-0.
Martínez Londoño EA, Cañón Barriga JE, Palm M. Solid biofuels production from energy crops in Colombia: challenges and opportunities: energy crops in Colombia. Biofuels Bioprod Bioref. 2016;10(4):359–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1646.
Martire S, Tuomasjukka D, Lindner M, Fitzgerald J, Castellani V. Sustainability impact assessment for local energy supplies’ development—the case of the alpine area of Lake Como, Italy. Biomass Bioenerg. 2015;83:60–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.08.020.
Bajwa DS, Peterson T, Sharma N, Shojaeiarani J, Bajwa SG. A review of densified solid biomass for energy production. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2018;96:296–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.07.040.
Lindegaard KN, et al. Short rotation plantations policy history in Europe: lessons from the past and recommendations for the future. Food Energy Secur. 2016;5(3):125–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.86.
Vásquez Lavin F, Barrientos M, Castillo Á, Herrera I, Ponce Oliva RD. Firewood certification programs: key attributes and policy implications. Energy Policy. 2020;137:111160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111160.
Kim SJ, Baker JS, Sohngen BL, Shell M. Cumulative global forest carbon implications of regional bioenergy expansion policies. Resour Energy Econ. 2018;53:198–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2018.04.003.
Guo Z, Hodges DG, Young TM. Woody biomass policies and location decisions of the woody bioenergy industry in the southern United States. Biomass Bioenerg. 2013;56:268–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.05.016.
Olsen Y, et al. Emissions and source allocation of carbonaceous air pollutants from wood stoves in developed countries: a review. Atmos Pollut Res. 2020;11(2):234–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apr.2019.10.007.
Mai-Moulin T, et al. Sourcing overseas biomass for EU ambitions: assessing net sustainable export potential from various sourcing countries. Biofuels Bioprod Bioref. 2019;13(3):850–850. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.2010.
Fritsche UR, Iriarte L, de Jong J, Agostini A, Scarlat N. Extending the EU renewable energy directive sustainability criteria to solid bioenergy from forests. Nat Resour Forum. 2014;38(2):129–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12042.
Parish ES, Herzberger AJ, Phifer CC, Dale VH. Transatlantic wood pellet trade demonstrates telecoupled benefits. Ecol Soc. 2018;23(1):28. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09878-230128.
Burgess PJ, et al. A framework for reviewing the trade-offs between, renewable energy, food, feed and wood production at a local level. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2012;16(1):129–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.142.
Fletcher E, Adeboye PT, Duedu KO. Toward a sustainable bioeconomy in West Africa: a focus on biorefining. Biofuels Bioprod Bioref. 2017;11(5):775–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1793.
Villazón Montalván RA, de Medeiros Machado M, Pacheco RM, Nogueira TMP, de Carvalho Pinto CRS, Fantini AC. Environmental concerns on traditional charcoal production: a global environmental impact value (GEIV) approach in the southern Brazilian context. Environ Dev Sustain. 2019;21(6):3093–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0177-0.
Morrison B, Golden JS. Southeastern United States wood pellets as a global energy resource: a cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment derived from empirical data. Int J Sustain Energ. 2018;37(2):134–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2016.1188816.
Söderberg C, Eckerberg K. Rising policy conflicts in Europe over bioenergy and forestry. Forest Policy Econ. 2013;33:112–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.09.015.
Bamwesigye D, et al. “Charcoal and wood biomass utilization in Uganda: the socioeconomic and environmental dynamics and implications. Sustainability. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208337.
Han P. Household-level analysis of the impacts of electricity consumption on welfare and the environment in Cambodia: empirical evidence and policy implications. Econ Modell. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2019.11.025.
Mwirigi J, et al. Socio-economic hurdles to widespread adoption of small-scale biogas digesters in Sub-Saharan Africa: a review. Biomass Bioenerg. 2014;70:17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.02.018.
Sana A, Kafando B, Dramaix M, Meda N, Bouland C. Household energy choice for domestic cooking: distribution and factors influencing cooking fuel preference in Ouagadougou. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08427-7.
Coelho ST, Sanches-Pereira A, Tudeschini LG, Goldemberg J. The energy transition history of fuelwood replacement for liquefied petroleum gas in Brazilian households from 1920 to 2016. Energy Policy. 2018;123:41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.08.041.
Sikka M, Thornton TF, Worl R. Sustainable biomass energy and indigenous cultural models of well-being in an Alaska forest ecosystem. Ecol Soc. 2013;18(3):38. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05763-180338.
Jiang W, et al. The impact of the biomass crop assistance program on the United States forest products market: an application of the global forest products model. Forest. 2019. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10030215.
Barrette J, Thiffault E, Achim A, Junginger M, Pothier D, De Grandpré L. A financial analysis of the potential of dead trees from the boreal forest of eastern Canada to serve as feedstock for wood pellet export. Appl Energy. 2017;198:410–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.03.013.
Caurla S, Delacote P, Lecocq F, Barkaoui A. Stimulating fuelwood consumption through public policies: an assessment of economic and resource impacts based on the French Forest Sector Model. Energy Policy. 2013;63:338–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.111.
Proskurina S, Alakangas E, Heinimö J, Mikkilä M, Vakkilainen E. A survey analysis of the wood pellet industry in Finland: future perspectives. Energy. 2017;118:692–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.10.102.
Beeton TA, Galvin KA. Wood-based bioenergy in western Montana: the importance of understanding path dependence and local context for resilience. Ecol Soc. 2017;22(2):9. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09157-220209.
Yang J, Dai G, Ma L, Jia L, Wu J, Wang X. Forest-based bioenergy in China: status, opportunities, and challenges. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2013;18:478–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.10.044.
Bär R, Heinimann A, Ehrensperger A. Assessing the potential supply of biomass cooking fuels in Kilimanjaro region using land use units and spatial Bayesian networks. Energy Sustain Dev. 2017;40:112–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2017.05.007.
Ohimain EI. A review of the Nigerian biofuel policy and incentives (2007). Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2013;22:246–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.01.037.
Iiyama M, et al. Productivity of Jatropha curcas under smallholder farm conditions in Kenya. Agroforest Syst. 2013;87(4):729–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-012-9592-7.
Buchholz T, Keeton WS, Gunn JS. Economics of integrated harvests with biomass for energy in non-industrial forests in the Northeastern US forest. Forest Policy Econ. 2019;109: 102023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102023.
Sovacool BK. Confronting energy poverty behind the bamboo curtain: a review of challenges and solutions for Myanmar (Burma). Energy Sustain Dev. 2013;17(4):305–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2013.03.010.
García-Maroto I, Muñoz-Leiva F, Rey-Pino JM. Qualitative insights into the commercialization of wood pellets: the case of Andalusia, Spain. Biomass Bioenerg. 2014;64:245–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.02.013.
Galik CS, Abt RC. Sustainability guidelines and forest market response: an assessment of European Union pellet demand in the Southeastern United States. GCB Bioenergy. 2016;8(3):658–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12273.
Agar DA. A comparative economic analysis of torrefied pellet production based on state-of-the-art pellets. Biomass Bioenerg. 2017;97:155–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.12.019.
Saksena S, Tran CC, Fox J. Household cooking fuel use in rural and peri-urban Viet Nam: a multilevel longitudinal analysis of supply side factors. Energy Sustain Dev. 2018;44:47–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2018.03.001.
Teller-Elsberg J, Sovacool B, Smith T, Laine E. Fuel poverty, excess winter deaths, and energy costs in Vermont: Burdensome for whom? Energy Policy. 2016;90:81–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.12.009.
Sessions J, et al. Can biochar link forest restoration with commercial agriculture? Biomass Bioenerg. 2019;123:175–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.02.015.
Zahno M, Michaelowa K, Dasgupta P, Sachdeva I. Health awareness and the transition towards clean cooking fuels: evidence from Rajasthan. PLoS ONE. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231931.
Bailey J, Gerasopoulos E, Rojas-Rueda D, Benmarhnia T. Potential health and equity co-benefits related to the mitigation policies reducing air pollution from residential wood burning in Athens, Greece. J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng. 2019;54(11):1144–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2019.1629211.
Tun MM, Juchelkova D, Win MM, Thu AM, Puchor T. Biomass energy: an overview of biomass sources, energy potential, and management in Southeast Asian countries. Resources. 2019;8(2):81. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8020081.
Bentsen NS, Nilsson D, Larsen S. Agricultural residues for energy: a case study on the influence of resource availability, economy and policy on the use of straw for energy in Denmark and Sweden. Biomass Bioenerg. 2018;108:278–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.11.015.
Hand AM, Tyndall JC. A qualitative investigation of farmer and rancher perceptions of trees and woody biomass production on marginal agricultural land. Forests. 2018;9(11):11. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9110724.
Abrams J, Becker D, Kudrna J, Moseley C. Does policy matter? The role of policy systems in forest bioenergy development in the United States. Forest Policy Econ. 2017;75:41–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.12.007.
Liu B, Shumway CR, Yoder JK. Lifecycle economic analysis of biofuels: accounting for economic substitution in policy assessment. Energy Econ. 2017;67:146–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2017.06.002.
Proskurina S, Sikkema R, Heinimö J, Vakkilainen E. Five years left—how are the EU member states contributing to the 20% target for EU’s renewable energy consumption; the role of woody biomass. Biomass Bioenerg. 2016;95:64–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.09.016.
Cao T, Hyytiäinen K, Hurttala H, Valsta L, Vanclay JK. An integrated assessment approach to optimal forest bioenergy production for young Scots pine stands. For Ecosyst. 2015;2(1):19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-015-0043-6.
Mwampamba TH, Owen M, Pigaht M. Opportunities, challenges and way forward for the charcoal briquette industry in sub-Saharan Africa. Energy Sustain Dev. 2013;17(2):158–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2012.10.006.
Janssen R, Turhollow AF, Rutz D, Mergner R. Production facilities for second-generation biofuels in the USA and the EU: current status and future perspectives. Biofuels Bioprod Bioref. 2013;7(6):647–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1451.
Bryngemark E. The competition for forest raw materials in the presence of increased bioenergy demand : partial equilibrium analysis of the Swedish case. 2019. https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-72540. Accessed 11 Jan 2024.
Hellwinckel C, Clark C, Langholtz M, Eaton L. Simulated impact of the renewable fuels standard on US Conservation Reserve Program enrollment and conversion. GCB Bioenergy. 2016;8(1):245–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12281.
Zubizarreta-Gerendiain A, Pukkala T, Peltola H. Effects of wood harvesting and utilisation policies on the carbon balance of forestry under changing climate: a Finnish case study. Forest Policy Econ. 2016;62:168–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.08.007.
Leban V, Malovrh ŠP, Stirn LZ, Krč J. Forest biomass for energy in multi-functional forest management: Insight into the perceptions of forest-related professionals. For Policy Econ. 2016;71:87–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.07.005.
Bertrand V. Co-firing coal with wood pellets in the US coal power stations: a risky solution? Int J Energy Environ Econ. 2017;25:177.
What is carbon neutrality and how can it be achieved by 2050? News, European Parliament. 2024. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20190926STO62270/what-is-carbon-neutrality-and-how-can-it-be-achieved-by-2050. Accessed 12 Jan 2024.
Emmanuel-Yusuf D, Morse S, Leach M. Resilience and livelihoods in supply chains (RELISC): an analytical framework for the development and resilience of the UK wood fuel sector. Sustainability. 2017;9(4):660. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040660.
Larsen S, Bentsen NS, Stupak I. Implementation of voluntary verification of sustainability for solid biomass—a case study from Denmark. Energ Sustain Soc. 2019;9(1):33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-019-0209-0.
Ng’Andwe P, Chungu D, Ratnasingam J, Ramananantoandro T, Donfack P, Mwitwa J. Forestry industry development in Zambia: an opportunity for public private partnership for small and medium enter- prises.
Sluka C, Peck PC. Stakeholder dynamics in the EU forest energy sector: key issues to manage and ways forward. Biofuels Bioprod Bioref. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1501.
Acknowledgements
Our research process benefited from insightful comments from I. Weber. D. Lutz reviewed earlier versions of this manuscript.
Funding
We thank The Arthur L. Irving Institute for Energy & Society at Dartmouth College for funding assistance for research and publication. The funders had no role in the study design, research question, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or the preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The review was ideated and designed by JTE, who also performed the literature search. The data analysis was conducted by JTE and SP. SP wrote the first draft of the manuscript, which was critically revised by JTE. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Pandey, S., Erbaugh, J.T. Driving sustainable uptake: a systematic review of global literature on policies governing woody biomass for energy. Discov Sustain 5, 28 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00205-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00205-6