Next Article in Journal
The Dynamics of Indian Labour: Ramifications for Future of Work and Sustainability
Previous Article in Journal
Baseline Soil Dioxin Levels from Sites Where Municipal Solid Waste Incineration Construction Is Planned throughout China: Characteristics, Sources and Risk Assessment
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 12
10.3390/su15129311
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Definition and Classification of Potential of Forest Wood Biomass in Terms of Sustainable Development: A Review

by
Julija Konstantinavičienė
1,2,* and
Vlada Vitunskienė
1
1
Faculty of Bioeconomy Development, Vytautas Magnus University, 44248 Kaunas, Lithuania
2
Institute of Forestry, LAMMC, 58344 Kėdainiai, Lithuania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(12), 9311; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129311
Submission received: 8 May 2023 / Revised: 27 May 2023 / Accepted: 31 May 2023 / Published: 8 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Bioeconomy of Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The role of sustainable biomass, including wood biomass, is becoming increasingly important due to the European Green Deal. In the context of developing a sustainable bioeconomy, the use of wood depends on many physical, biological, technological, environmental, economic, social and political constraints. This study presents a systematic literature review by types of wood biomass potential. The literature review has shown that there is a lack of a comprehensive framework for wood biomass potential (for all needs, not only for energy production) in terms of sustainable development and that there is no general agreement on how to describe the sustainable potential of wood biomass nor how to measure it. Furthermore, the analysis has revealed certain uncertainties in describing the constraints of the potential of wood biomass. These uncertainties highlight the complexity of understanding the concept of sustainable wood biomass potential. The study addressed a definition potential of forest wood biomass for the needs of energy and industry in terms of sustainable development. The theoretical, technical and sustainable potentials of wood biomass were defined and their constraints were detailed. This study’s contributions to the conceptual clarity of the definition of the sustainable potential of wood biomass are (1) the definition of forest sustainable development, (2) the definition and classification of the potential of wood biomass, and (3) the synthesis of conceptual frameworks for the sustainable potential of wood biomass from forests.

1. Introduction

The new EU Forestry Strategy is a flagship element of the European Green Deal and a key measure of the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 [1]. The first action of this strategy is to promote the sustainable use of wood-based resources. The forest sector is an important part of economic and other needs; forests create multiple benefits, such as raw material for a wide range of renewable products, and play an important role in biodiversity and in the global carbon cycle. Forest areas are the largest carbon store on earth [2], so forests slow the rate of global warming. However, this does not mean that forest harvesting is never a good idea [3]. It is emphasised that the regulating, supporting and cultural services of the forest ecosystem are as important for the sustainable development of society as the provisioning services [4].
Wood is the most versatile renewable material on earth, but at the same time, there is a need to better understand how to use the biomass potential of forest wood in a sustainable way [5]. According to FAOSTAT data, there are 4059 million hectares of forest in the world, which covered 31% of the total land area in 2020. Forests in the EU cover 159 million hectares and accounted for 38% of the total land area in the same year. The EU’s forest accounted for 5% of the world’s forest area. According to FAOSTAT data, the greatest share of the extracted wood biomass is used as roundwood; this accounted for 79% in the European Union and 51% in the world in 2020, followed by the share used as wood fuel.
The sustainable use of wood is particularly important for a bioeconomy based on renewable resources [6] and for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (such as the 7th, 13th and 15th). The challenges of sustainability are increasingly complex and consequently, it is very difficult to identify a point of equilibrium [7]. Ensuring sustainable development is a necessary precondition for a successful forest-based bioeconomy and a realistic understanding of the potential of forest resources is therefore needed [8]. The bioeconomy can reconcile economic growth with environmental responsibility; indeed, the sustainability of the resource base, processes and products, as well as the circular processes of material flows, are conditions for a sustainable bioeconomy [7]. Wood is one of the basic materials used in bioeconomic processes, but the bioeconomy will only be effective if resources are used much more sustainably. The use of renewable resources is one of the key sustainable and environmentally friendly approaches to producing useful daily products, and such a strategy can ensure the sustainable production and consumption of renewable resources with economic benefits [9]. Therefore, it is not only necessary to achieve an economy that is more based on biological resources, but also to ensure that these resources are used as sustainably as possible.
There are currently over 7.9 billion people in the world and the United Nations projects that the global population will reach 10.4 billion by 2100 [10]. It is predicted that biomass use will increase by about 70–80% [11] and that such an increase in global demand for biomass, including wood biomass [5,12,13,14,15], may affect forest supply and use. Wood biomass will be needed in much larger quantities than today and, therefore, this biomass should be used sustainably. Sustainable forest management and cascade wood use (when wood is used for material production in the first place, and the residues are used for energy [16]) are two necessary prerequisites for any sustainable use of wood biomass [17]. It is necessary to improve the understanding of how the biomass potential of forest wood can be harnessed in sustainable ways [5]. A circular bioeconomy should be based on sustainable wood [3], and knowledge of the actual sustainably available biomass is necessary for implementing a bioeconomy strategy concept [16].
The actual availability of sustainable wood depends on different constraints, i.e., physical, biological, technological, ecological, economic, social, and political. Therefore, the definition of wood biomass potential in terms of sustainable development, based on interdisciplinary research in economics and forestry, is necessary. In the last decade, researchers [16,18,19,20,21,22,23] and institutions have focused on the conceptualisation of biomass potential; however, both theoretical discourse and empirical research focus on bioenergy needs only. There is a particular lack of research on the potential of wood biomass for all needs (not for energy only) at the regional or local level. It is noted that a definition of the potential of wood biomass has not been developed. The literature review showed that there is a lack of clarity when analysing the constraints associated with the potential of wood biomass.
This review addresses a definition and classification of the potential of forest wood biomass in terms of sustainable development and seeks to identify its specific constraints. Only wood biomass from the forest is analysed in this study; meanwhile, wood from industry and after usage is excluded. A definition of forest wood biomass potential should consider four main principles: (1) a definition should include wood biomass for all needs, both industry and energy; (2) a definition should be easy to understand as a theoretical framework (what components the potential includes and what constraints the potential has must be clearly defined); (3) a definition must consider the principles of sustainability; and (4) a theoretical framework of this definition should be easy to apply when preparing the methodology for the empirical evaluation of this potential.

2. Methodology

A literature review is the main method used to consider new insights that are generated based on existing studies [21]. This study is based on elements of a combination of semi-systematic and integrative review methodologies. The main purpose of a semi-systematic review method is to overview the research area, using thematic or content analysis. This analysis method is useful for identifying components of a theoretical concept [24]. The main purpose of the integrative review method is to critique and synthesise. Such literature reviews are useful in order to create a classification, theoretical framework, and conceptualisations [24]. Because “the conceptual analysis was designed to trace the major concepts of sustainable development” [25] (p. 180), this study uses conceptual analysis, which reviews the multidisciplinary literature on biomass and its potential definition in terms of sustainable development. In a such way, this study contributes to reducing the conceptual lack of clarity in the definition and classification of the sustainable potential of wood biomass for energy and industrial purposes, and the lack of clarity in the description of constraints of the potential of wood biomass. This study also aims to contribute to reducing the conceptual lack of clarity in the literature regarding the definition and classification of the sustainable potential of wood biomass by means of knowledge systematisation.
The literature was searched using relevant keywords such as “wood biomass”, “biomass potential”, “wood potential”, “wood biomass potential”, “forest biomass potential”, “concept of biomass potential”, “types of biomass potential”, “constraints of wood biomass potential”, “theoretical biomass potential”, “technical biomass potential”, and “sustainable wood biomass potential”. The literature search covered the period of 1995 to 2023 to include research papers that were published in English-language academic journals. Institution reports were also included. The literature review provided relevant information for our study aim, regardless of the scientific field. In most research studies, only the biomass potential for energy production was analysed. However, when analysing the potential of forest wood biomass, it is essential to consider all needs, not just bioenergy production.
The description of different biomass potential types was analysed, the constraints of biomass potential were identified and described, the sustainable biomass potential was examined and biomass potential assessment research that had been previously conducted was summarised. During the analytical process, the approaches were compared in terms of their similarities and differences, their shortcomings were identified, the constraints were elaborated, a new typology for wood biomass potential was developed and all components were described. On this basis, a new definition of wood biomass potential in terms of sustainable development was created as a new theoretical model. Scientific terminology is important to explain knowledge [26]. However, sometimes challenges concerning terminology arise because occasionally the same terminology is used to describe different things. Therefore, in this study, for each term used, a description is given of what this term or category includes.
In the first part of this study, the review applied to the definition of forest sustainable development and biomass in a broad sense; in addition, the potential of wood biomass for not only energy purposes is presented. In the second part of this study, the theoretical, technical and sustainable potentials of forest wood biomass and constraints are distinguished. Discussion and conclusions are presented at the end of this study.

3. Results

3.1. Forest Sustainable Development Definition

Science has been developing sustainability concepts for a long time, and the vision of sustainable development has changed over time. The primary understanding of the global forest resource only began in the 1920s [27]. The theory of sustainable development has gone through three phases: the embryonic period (before 1972), which saw the pursual of the sustainable use of natural resources; the molding period (1972–1987), during which sustainable development was defined, although this definition was vague and lacked reliability; and the developing period (1987–present), which contains more practical ideas [28]. The development of the concept of forest sustainability began in 1664, when, for the first time, the practice of using forest resources showed a possible negative impact on future generations [29]. However, the term “sustainability” was only first used after 50 years in 1713, in Carlowitz’s monograph about the issue of sustainable forestry [28].
Sustainable development contains the concept of need and the idea of limitation [30]. The essence of the concept of sustainability was formulated for the first time in this way in 1987, regarding the need to meet the needs of current generations without depriving future generations of the opportunity to meet theirs [31,32]. However, this definition is difficult to understand [33]. The report “Our Common Future” is taken as a starting point for the concept of sustainable development, but it is not a finished process [34]. The concept of the sustainable use of forests was defined in this way in 1993 at the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE); the sustainable use of forests is the use of forests while maintaining their biological diversity, productivity, vitality, ability to recover, and capacity now and in the future to satisfy ecological, economic and social functions at the regional, national and global levels, without harming other ecosystems. The new EU forest strategy [35] emphasises sustainable forest management and the role of forests in implementing the EU’s climate change goals (protecting accumulated CO2 in trees, forest floor and soil). A summary of the most important events related to the forest in terms of sustainable development is presented in Table 1.
Sometimes, sustainability is classified in these three ways: strong sustainability (nature-centred view), weak sustainability (economic value-centred view) [28,40] and absurdly strong sustainability [28], which believes that the exploitation and utilisation of ecosystems should be eliminated. Territorial levels of cohesion are also distinguished: national [41], regional [42], provincial and local [43,44]. Although the term “sustainability” is frequently used in forestry science, there is much confusion as it is not clearly defined due to differences in approaches to sustainability [45]. The term “sustainability” is seldom defined unequivocally [46,47]. The concept of sustainability lacks materiality and clarity. Thus, it is necessary to include all three aspects of sustainability, i.e., economic, environmental and social, in the definition of wood biomass potential.

3.2. Definition of Biomass

The first biomass research started in 1940 with marine areas [48]. After the 1950s, the onset of the oil crisis led to biomass research. Many studies with the term “biomass” come from the fields of ecology, environment and biotechnology [48]. Most scientific research on biomass has been conducted in the USA, England and Germany [49]. “Biomass is the total mass of living organisms in a given area or of a given species, usually expressed as dry weight, including above- and below-ground living biomass” [50]. The definition of biomass is explained as material of biological origin [51,52]. Biomass is considered to be the biodegradable parts of biological products, residues and wastes from agriculture, forestry and other industries, and as biodegradable parts of industrial wastes [53]. Biomass is a definition for all organic material and includes terrestrial and aquatic vegetation, as well as all organic waste [49,54]. Biomass is also a biological residue and waste [55]. Biomass is defined as biological material from the material flow account of the national economy.
Biomass is a broad, heterogeneous and interdisciplinary concept, as biomass can be classified primarily by the sector in which it is produced, i.e., agriculture, forestry, industrial manufacturing and municipal waste [16,51,55,56]. McKendry [54] defines four main types of biomass, namely woody plants, herbaceous plants, aquatic plants and manure. In addition, the individual biomass types are classified according to the use of the biomass [57], i.e., food for humans, market fodder, other uses of agricultural biomass, industrial wood and fuelwood. It is worth noting that the definition of biomass is often analysed from the perspective of technologists [52] when the main focus is on biomass as an energy source. For this reason, the term “wood biomass” is most often used to refer to organic material used for energy production [58]. The scientific literature discourse focuses exclusively on the potential of wood biomass for bioenergy purposes [18,19,20], but there is no general context for all wood biomasses.
It is also important to understand the differences between the terms “woody or wood biomass” and “forest or forestry wood biomass”. Hetsch [59] describes wood biomass as stem wood, forest harvesting residues, biomass from short rotation plantations and outside the forest, and also industry co-products and recovered wood. Lewandowski [52] describes wood biomass as biomass from trees and shrubs. FAO defines wood biomass as the mass of the wood part of alive and dead trees, including above and below-ground woody biomass. Burg et al. [19] describe wood biomass as wood from forest and landscape maintenance, wood residues and waste. Smeets and Faaij [60] (p. 353) provide the following definition for wood biomass: “all of the aboveground woody biomass of trees, including all products made from woody biomass”. Wood biomass can originate not only from forest land [61]. The term “forestry biomass” is described as including the biological accumulation of different above- and below-ground biomass in forests.
The term “forest biomass” is often treated as the total biomass from the forest, including non-wood forest products [62,63,64]. However, sometimes the term “forest biomass” is used only to mean wood biomass from the forest [35,65,66]. It is the above- and below-ground wood biomass and dead wood in the forest. Forest wood biomass is described as the total tree biomass growth [22] and as the wood biomass from forests. It is important not to forget that forest wood biomass consists not only of “primary biomass from forests” (all roundwood harvested and removed), but also “secondary biomass from forests”. This includes residues from forest-based industry, and waste (post-consumer wood) [35,65,67]. According to other classifications [17], forest biomass primary includes forest products, primary forest residues (logging residues), secondary forest residues (wood processing industry by-products and residues) and wood waste (post-consumer wood). According to Syrbe et al. [66], a sustainable supply of woody biomass is possible if residues mainly from the wood processing industry are used.
Scientific research does not have a deep awareness of the wood biomass that is actually sustainable available for implementing a bioeconomic strategy concept [16], nor does it have an awareness of the total wood biomass required for all needs. In this work, wood biomass is analysed for both industry and for energy purposes; therefore, it is appropriate to use the term forest wood biomass. In this study, forest wood biomass is defined as all the wood stored in the forest that can be used for wood industry or bioenergy, excluding non-wood forest products. Figure 1 shows the wood biomass classification. Only the wood from the forest is analysed in this study.

3.3. Definition of Wood Biomass Potential

The perceptions and terminology of biomass potential can be varied. Biomass potential varies among countries depending on geography, the availability of resources, biodiversity, technology and the economy [68]. The academic literature describes various types of biomass potential, such as theoretical, technical, economic, sustainable, etc. (Table 2).

3.3.1. Theoretical Potential of Wood Biomass

Bentsen and Felby [71] claim that the theoretical potential of biomass builds on methodology from the natural sciences. The theoretical potential of wood biomass can be defined as the maximum amount of wood biomass available during a certain period in a certain geographic area. This potential is defined as the maximum yield of all utilisable wood per year [18], or as the maximum annual biophysical availability of the biomass [18,19,67]. It is the overall, maximum amount of forest biomass that could be harvested annually within fundamental bio-physical limits [74,75], and the maximum sustained yield of all utilisable wood throughout each region [20]. The theoretical potential of wood biomass is the upper limit of available wood biomass at a certain point in time [17]. It is emphasised that the overall biomass depends on the land available for the biomass allocated to producing biomass [79] on the forest area that is available for wood supply [71].
The theoretical potential of forest wood biomass for energy purposes is considered as wood logging residues [82,84]. The analysis showed that the theoretical potential of wood biomass is usually analysed with certain technical and ecological constraints, and often eliminates protected areas [21,60,74,75]. However, environmental legislation and established obligations are not always followed. For example [87], deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon is at the highest level for 15 years, and 94% of this deforestation is illegal.
This potential depends on biophysical constraints, e.g., on climatic conditions, soil fertility, ecosystem health, forest management strategies [17], and also on the forest area. In addition, the theoretical potential of forest wood shows forest wood resources’ contribution to Global Carbon Cycles. As the forest grows [50], the carbon stock increases due to an increase in the above-ground and below-ground biomass. Carbon is transferred from above-ground biomass to harvested wood products. Due to logging residues and natural disturbance, carbon is transferred to the atmosphere and to soil organic matter. Therefore, the theoretical potential of forest wood biomass can show how much forests can sequester and store carbon, and thus an “estimation of the forest carbon stocks will enable us to assess the amount of carbon loss during deforestation” [3] (p. 5).
The theoretical potential of forest wood biomass can be defined as the maximum amount of total wood biomass in a country’s forests that could theoretically be extracted for the wood industry and energy production. This potential includes above-ground and below-ground forest wood biomass and deadwood in a forest. The theoretical potential of forest wood biomass does not have external constraints. Therefore, in this study, we make the assumption that the theoretical potential of forest wood biomass has no constraint, and comprises 100% of the wood biomass in the forest.
The theoretical potential of forest wood biomass can be determined based on the country’s annual wood increment and total wood biomass in the forest. Statistical data and calculation coefficients of underground forest wood biomass can be used for assessment. Additionally, Smeets et al. [23] describe the geographical potential of wood biomass as a fraction of the theoretical wood biomass potential in bioenergy. According to the authors, a geographical wood biomass potential is limited by the land area.

3.3.2. Technical Potential of Wood Biomass

The technical potential of wood biomass usually is defined as biomass that is available technically. Most studies in the literature [18,20,21,70,72,73] define the technical potential of wood biomass as the total biomass theoretically available during a year, assuming that it is available technically. Bentsen and Felby [71] (p. 14) describe the technical biomass potential as “what is achievable with current applied or best available technology and practices”. However, these studies analyse the technical potential of wood biomass only in the context of energy. These and other studies [59,60,74,75,78], which include wood not only for energy purposes, lack clarity on what specific constraints determine the technical potential. The technical potential is not necessarily equal to an economic or sustainable potential [71]. Given the different constraints, Hennig et al. [16], Steubing et al. [15], Burg et al. [19] and Thees et al. [20] suggest that the sustainable biomass potential should be differentiated from the technical potential. However, the main problem in these studies is that the difference between the technical and sustainable potential of wood biomass remains not very clear. For Parzych [73], the technical potential depends on the quality of available logging equipment and technology. Different studies in the literature also consider topographic constraints [76,77]. Other researchers call them geographic (restriction of land area) constraints [23] or physically inaccessible areas due to factors such as the steepness of terrain [60]. Three main constraints regarding the technical biomass potential are identified in the literature: technical constraints, accessibility constraints (topographic/geographic constraints; physically inaccessible land), and land-use constraints (Table 3).
Some studies analyse the technical biomass potential of wood with other constraints and add ecological constraints, e.g., nature reserves [67,78], economic constraints, e.g., production costs [58], and other non-technical constraints, although they do not specify which ones [21,67]. It is concluded that in the literature, the technical potential of wood biomass does not have a specific and detailed structure, the definitions are not consistent, and it is not clear which constraints must be considered. A review of studies on the potential of wood biomass reveals a lack of clear differences between the technical and sustainable wood biomass potentials.
Therefore, the technical potential of forest wood biomass should not include non-technical constraints, in order to separate the technical biomass potential from the ecological, economic and socio-political constraints (which can be evaluated in analyses of sustainable biomass potential). This study assumes that protected areas are ecological constraints and legal regulations are social–political constraints, and that they cannot be considered constraints of technical biomass potential the same as all other non-technical constraints. Logistical constraints of the technical biomass potential can be considered only those constraints that occur when forest harvesting and extraction techniques cannot perform their functions due to the physical inaccessibility of forest land, the terrain of the land and the capacity of the technology. Technical costs are not considered constraints (they can be analysed only as economic constraints).
The technical potential of forest wood biomass can be defined as part of the theoretical potential of forest wood biomass, which is achievable using current applied technology and topographic conditions, without considering environmental, socio-political and economic constraints. This potential includes above-ground forest wood biomass and logging residues that can be harvested or collected technically and that are available topographically. Dead wood is considered as a loss in wood production and is not included in this potential. The technical potential of forest wood biomass has two main constraints: topographic and technological. Forest areas are considered inaccessible due to their topographic conditions when the forest part has a complex topography; this includes when (1) the terrain is severely rough, e.g., slopes, mountain slopes, etc., and (2) when there is little road availability. The level of technology in EU countries is advanced enough to harvest the total amount of wood in the country, if the availability of forests, according to their topographical characteristics, is the same everywhere. However, there are always logging residues after harvesting. In order to assess the technical biomass potential, it is necessary to additionally calculate how much the technique can collect from different fractions of logging residues. Statistical data (above-ground, inaccessible forest areas) and calculation coefficients (logging residues) can be used for assessment.

3.3.3. Economic (Market) Potential of Wood Biomass

Economic biomass potential is part of the technical biomass potential that can be produced at economically profitable levels [23]. This potential includes areas classified as available for supply [58,60]. Lopez et al. [76] and Parzych [73] define the economic wood biomass potential as the amount of wood biomass that can be harvested considering the current economic conditions. Hetsch [59] describes the economic wood biomass potential as the amount of wood biomass that could be cut and given to the market, and this depends on wood prices and harvesting costs. Lee et al. [77] note that the economic wood biomass potential depends on technological costs. Batidzirai et al. [18] equate the market biomass potential to the economic potential, and define it as the share of the technical potential; this depends on both the cost of production and the price of biomass feedstock. Other studies [76,77] argue that the market biomass potential should be evaluated by taking into account policy implementation, investor response and regional competition. Additionally, de Souza et al. [81] describe the techno-economic potential of biomass as a fraction of the technical potential whose value meets the economic profitability criteria.

3.3.4. Ecological Potential of Wood Biomass

Several studies identify this biomass potential type as part of the economic wood biomass potential with ecological constraints, and determine that it can be used to prevent a decrease in the biodiversity of forests [60]. For this, biodiversity protection and nature conservation should be about 10% of the country’s forest area [69]. The definition of ecological wood biomass potential is associated with CO2 emissions [80] by summing up all emissions related to raw material production, transportation, etc.

3.3.5. Sustainable Potential of Wood Biomass

The sustainable potential of biomass is a subtraction of the environmental, technical, economic, and social constraints from the theoretical biomass potential [19]. Often, the sustainable biomass potential is subdivided into the already used potential and not used (remaining) biomass potential [18,19,20]. Sometimes, the used potential is described as the implementation of potential. Smeets et al. [23], Batidzirai et al. [21], Levanowski [58], Panoutsou [67], and Vis and Dees [78] define this as part of the potential that can be implemented within a certain period of time, taking into account the economic, institutional, social and political constraints. Deels et al. [74] and Verkerk et al. [75] distinguish between base potential (as a sustainable potential) and high potential (with fewer constraints compared to the base potential, which has a strong focus on the use of wood for producing energy).
Most reviewed studies analyse the sustainable potential of wood biomass but do not describe the constraints of this potential, or describe it only partially, without specifying ways to measure sustainable potential. For example, Thees et al. [20] and Erni et al. [17] describe the sustainable potential of wood biomass as the share of the theoretical biomass potential that can actually be used considering ecological and socio-economic constraints. They note that only ecological and socio-economic constraints determine the difference between the theoretical and sustainable wood biomass potentials, but do not detail these constraints.
A review of the multidisciplinary literature on the potential of wood biomass in terms of sustainable development shows that this definition is treated very differently. These studies used different calculation approaches. Thees et al. [20] calculate the sustainable potential of wood biomass as the theoretical potential of wood biomass minus the previously added deadwood, minus the wood grown in protected and natural forest reserves, and minus the harvest losses (residues) left in the forest. Hetsch [59] analyses the sustainable potential of forest wood biomass as the current use potential and the additional potential (additional bio-technical and socio-economic potential). The additional bio-technical potential is calculated based on the net annual increment in a forest; 12% was deducted for bark and 10% was deducted for harvest losses. The additional socio-economic potential was calculated by assuming that 35% of the additional available bio-technical potential could be mobilised for wood supply.
The sustainable potential of biomass is the amount of biomass that can be removed without damaging its soil quality, ecological integrity and sustainability, as well as its future productivity. The general order of the terms related to sustainable biomass potential is as follows: theoretical potential > geographical potential > technical potential > economic potential > ecological potential > sustainable potential [71]. However, there has been no general agreement on how to identify the wood biomass potential in terms of sustainability development until now.
The concept of sustainable forest management was defined in 1993 [36]. The criteria for sustainable forest management (SFM) have been defined as the standards by which sustainable forest management may be assessed with regard to its essential processes. The system of these criteria has been improved, and now it comprises seven criteria [38]. The sustainable potential of forest wood biomass can be defined as part of the technical potential of forest wood, which can be harvested and collected from the forest within all environmental, socio-political and economic constraints. The sustainable potential of forest wood biomass has six main constraints, which relate to the criteria of SFM (Table 4).
It should be noted that the scientific literature deals with various definitions of wood biomass potential and its typologies; however, its research mainly focuses on the potential of wood for bioenergy needs only. The analysis of the literature showed that most of these studies examine the theoretical, technical and sustainable biomass potentials, that some authors describe the economic potential (market), and that only a few studies identify the geographical, ecological and techno-economic potential. The description of these potentials shows that the geographical biomass potential is a fraction of the theoretical biomass potential. We can therefore assume that the difference between the theoretical and geographical biomass potentials can be treated as constraints of the technical biomass potential. Part of the economic and part of the ecological biomass potential constitute the sustainable biomass potential. Therefore, the economic (market), techno-economic and ecological potentials can be treated as the constraints of the sustainable biomass potential. Consequently, this allows us to define the definition of the potential of forest wood biomass according to three main potentials, namely theoretical, technical and sustainable wood biomass potential.
The definition of the potential of forest wood biomass (PFWB) in terms of sustainable development and its typologies is presented in Figure 2 by the tree shape. Each potential has specific and clearly defined constraints. The main principles of this definition emerge: biological, available and safe. Only the wood from the forest is analysed in this study; wood from industry and after usage is excluded.
Wood biomass from protected areas should not be included in the sustainable potential of forest wood biomass due to environmental and socio-political constraints. The environmental and socio-political constraints often overlap due to political commitments to environmental protection. In addition, according to the World Conservation Union, 10% is a protection of the most important global ecosystems. The amount of wood biomass that is above the annual increment of a forest should be excluded in the annual sustainable potential of forest wood biomass (environmental and socio-political constraints). Sustainable forestry management is defined as harvest management based on a balance between the forest’s net annual increment and the annual felling of forest wood. The rule of balancing harvesting and the forest’s increment is widely recognised as a concept of sustainability [45,88]. Based on the analysed literature [45,62,88,89,90,91,92], this ratio between the net annual increment and the annual felling determines the current and future availability of wood. Therefore, this indicator can be used to assess the forest wood biomass potential in terms of sustainability.
The other ecological constraint Is the extraction of logging residues. The process of extracting logging residues also significantly decreases nutrients in the soil [91,92]. Therefore, the important question is how much does logging residue extraction need to be forbidden in order to conserve carbon stored in the forest floor and soil, and minimise GHG emissions (environmental constraint). Supposedly, the ecological threshold for the removal of logging residues should be about 50%. It is believed [59] that there are various ecological reasons for not using the below-ground biomass; therefore, this potential source of supply is, and in the future will most likely remain, untapped. At the same time, the extraction of all logging residues from forests is economically profitable because of technical costs (economic constraint).
The most economically useful option is when all wood biomass harvested and collected from the forest is used. Proxy indicators, such as domestic wood biomass consumption and self-sufficiency on forest wood biomass, as well as the import dependence indicator, are used to assess this. All of this is the primary sustainable potential of forest wood biomass. In conclusion, it is stated that the sustainable potential of forest wood biomass has ecological and socio-political constraints, such as protected areas, an imbalance between the amount of wood felled and the annual expansion of a forest, the volume of logging residues over the ecological threshold, and economic constraints, such as using all-wood biomass that has been harvested and collected from the forest and all-wood wastes.
Forests have a hugely important role in a country’s economy and society. Therefore, the forest conservation status should be continuously improved. The EU forest area has become bigger in recent decades thanks to natural processes, afforestation, sustainable management and active restoration [35]. The new EU forest strategy [35] also focuses on sustainable re- and afforestation. Using this strategy, a roadmap of at least 3 billion trees should be planted in the EU by 2030 in order to further support a sustainable forest-based bioeconomy for a climate-neutral future. The guidelines on Biodiversity-Friendly Afforestation, Reforestation and Tree Planting [1,93] support a commitment to the European Green Deal, which aims to improve the forested area of the EU both in quantity and quality.

4. Discussion

Understanding the sustainable potential of wood biomass is crucial for planning resource use and for improving the country’s ability to achieve sustainability goals. The varying methodologies and classifications of biomass resources can be used to assess the biomass potential [19]. Depending on that, the potential of wood biomass can be interpreted differently.
The review above demonstrates different approaches to the definition and classification of wood biomass potential. The purpose of the literature review was to bring together research about wood biomass potential, elaborate and detail the constraints, determine their similarities and differences, identify shortcomings, and develop a framework for the definition of the biomass potential of forest wood in terms of sustainable development. When examining each biomass potential, a lack of a consistent description of the constraints was noted. The main conclusion from the analysis of the literature was that the definition of wood biomass potential in scientific study is mostly oriented towards wood biomass for energy, while disregarding wood for production and logging residues.
The reviewed studies used different constraints to describe different types of wood biomass potential, but not all of them or only some of them adopt the sustainability principles. In studies that embrace wood biomass only for energy, to assess the technical wood biomass potential, only harvested wood was analysed. A review of the literature reveals a lack of clear differences between sustainable and technical biomass potentials [16,18,19,20,59,71,74,75]. One of the constraints associated with the technical biomass potential identified in the literature was land-use constraints. Land-use constraints [55,60,76,77] include protected areas. However, here comes a contradiction, because protected areas should be included in the ecological constraints. Lee et al. [77] explain that a protected area not should be included in technical potential because wood from protected areas cannot be technically exploited. Smeets et al. [69] suggest that the technical biomass potential is limited by the technology used and the natural circumstances. Deels et al. [74] and Verkerk et al. [75] define the technical biomass potential as the absolute maximum amount of biomass, while assuming the absolute minimum of technical constraints. These definitions seem to be the most appropriate to describe the technical potential of forest wood biomass.
In addition, some studies analyse the technical potential of wood biomass with non-technical constraints, e.g., with ecological [67,78], and economic constraints [58]. However, when non-technical constraints are included, the identification of the technical potential of forest wood biomass does not make sense, as its difference from the sustainable potential remains unclear. Smeets and Faaij [60], with regard to both wood biomass potentials (theoretical and technical), also excluded the protected areas and the 10% of forests that are for the protection of biodiversity conservation. This is the main difference from our definition of wood biomass potential in terms of sustainability.
The definition of the sustainable potential of forest wood biomass can be also explained based on the theory of the human appropriation of net primary production [94], which is defined as the difference between the net primary production of the hypothetical biomass and the amount of biomass currently available.
The ratio between the net annual increment and annual felling of forest wood is an important indicator that helps one to understand the potential of forest wood biomass for wood production and the conditions it provides for biodiversity [62]. Therefore, it is important to qualitatively define this indicator. Some sources [36] indicate that when this ratio is greater than 100%, the sustainability of forest use is evaluated as bad, 95–100% is evaluated as satisfactory, and less than 95% is evaluated as good. Other sources [62] indicate that 70% is the recommended ratio between the net annual increment and annual felling of forest wood to ensure sustainable forest management. The highest ratio is in Sweden (102%) and Austria (90%), and the lowest in Turkey (37%) and Italy (39%) [90]. In recent years, the volume of annual forest felling in Lithuania has not exceeded 70% of the net annual increment of forest wood [95]. According to EUROSTAT data in EU countries, this ratio is 65%.
This review highlights the importance of the sustainable potential of forest wood biomass. An understanding of the sustainable potential of forest wood biomass is crucial for improving the country’s ability to cope with sustainability challenges. Therefore, education on the sustainable potential of forest wood biomass can promote understanding and the actions required to achieve sustainable goals and promote the bioeconomy. Such education needs to be greater for society, as well as forest owners and managers. Achieving sustainable goals and strongly motivating forest owners and managers is a special requirement, because they are the main enablers of change within the sustainable forest-based bioeconomy in the EU.

5. Conclusions

The literature review highlights different constraints of the potential of forest wood biomass. The advantage of this definition is the focus on the biomass of forest wood for all needs, not just for energy. We conducted this review to increase the conceptual clarity around the definition and classification of the potential of forest wood biomass in terms of sustainable development.
The theoretical framework of this definition has clearly defined constraints with regard to the sustainable potential of forest wood biomass; therefore, it can be applied as the methodological outline for preparing a technique by which to empirically assess the potential of forest wood biomass in terms of sustainable development. The application of such a methodology will enable a comparison of this potential at different time and spatial levels. The presented constraints of potential are based on all principles of sustainability. Therefore, they can be used as criteria for the assessment of the sustainable potential of forest wood biomass. There is a need for further research on the potential of forest wood biomass in terms of sustainable development.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, J.K. and V.V.; methodology, J.K. and V.V.; writing—original draft preparation, J.K.; writing—review and editing, J.K. and V.V.; supervision, V.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the European Social Fund under the No 09.3.3-LMT-K-712 “Development of Competencies of Scientists, Other Researchers, and Students through Practical Research Activities” measure. Grant No: 09.3.3-LMT-K-712-23-0026.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses and interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript and in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. European Parliament. EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Available online: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/biodiversity-strategy-2030_en (accessed on 3 November 2022).
  2. Vashum, K.T.; Jayakumar, S. Methods to estimate above-ground biomass and carbon stock in natural forests—A review. J. Ecosyst. Ecography 2012, 2, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. FAO. Time to Realise the Potential of Sustainable Wood for the Planet. Available online: https://www.lifegate.com/sustainable-wood-planet (accessed on 10 August 2022).
  4. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Current State and Trends; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  5. Hetemäki, L.; Nasi, R.; Palahi, M.; Cerutti, P.; Mausch, K. The Future of Wood-towards Circular Bioeconomy. 2021. Available online: https://efi.int/publications/future-wood-towards-circular-bioeconomy-2022-01-04 (accessed on 1 May 2023).
  6. Purkus, A.; Lüdtke, J. A systemic evaluation framework for a multi-actor, forest-based bioeconomy governance process: The German Charter for Wood 2.0 as a case study. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 113, 102113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. D’Adamo, I.; Gastaldi, M.; Morone, P.; Rosa, P.; Sassanelli, C.; Settembre-Blundo, D.; Shen, Y. Bioeconomy of sustainability: Drivers, opportunities and policy implications. Sustainability 2021, 14, 200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wolfslehner, B.; Linser, S.; Pülzl, H.; Bastrup-Birk, A.; Camia, A.; Marchetti, M. Forest Bioeconomy—A New Scope for Sustainability Indicators. European Forest Institute; 2016. JRC105224. Available online: http://www.efi.int/files/attachments/publications/efi_fstp_4_2016.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2023).
  9. Sen, K.Y.; Baidurah, S. Renewable biomass feedstocks for production of sustainable biodegradable polymer. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 2021, 27, 100412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Population Prospects 2022, Online Edition. Available online: https://population.un.org/wpp (accessed on 26 May 2023).
  11. OECD. Global Material Resources Outlook to 2060: Economic Drivers and Environmental Consequences; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2018; p. 214. [Google Scholar]
  12. European Environment Agency. The European environment—State and outlook 2020. Knowledge for Transition to a Sustainable Europe. 2019. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/publications/soer-2020 (accessed on 1 May 2023).
  13. Brack, D. The Impacts of the Demand for Woody Biomass for Power and Heat on Climate and Forests; Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  14. Nepal, P.; Abt, K.L.; Skog, K.E.; Prestemon, J.P.; Abt, R.C. Projected market competition for wood biomass between traditional products and energy: A simulated interaction of US regional, national, and global forest product markets. For. Sci. 2019, 65, 14–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Favero, A.; Daigneault, A.; Sohngen, B. Forests: Carbon sequestration, biomass energy, or both? Sci. Adv. 2002, 6, eaay6792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Hennig, C.; Brosowski, A.; Majer, S. Sustainable feedstock potential–a limitation for the bio-based economy? J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 123, 200–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Erni, M.; Burg, V.; Bont, L.; Thees, O.; Ferretti, M.; Stadelmann, G.; Schweier, J. Current (2020) and long-term (2035 and 2050) sustainable potentials of wood fuel in Switzerland. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Steubing, B.; Zah, R.; Waeger, P.; Ludwig, C. Bioenergy in Switzerland: Assessing the domestic sustainable biomass potential. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 2258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Burg, V.; Bowman, G.; Erni, M.; Lemm, R.; Thees, O. Analyzing the potential of domestic biomass resources for the energy transition in Switzerland. Biomass Bioenergy 2018, 111, 60–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Thees, O.; Erni, M.; Lemm, R.; Stadelmann, G.; Zenner, E.K. Future potentials of sustainable wood fuel from forests in Switzerland. Biomass Bioenergy 2020, 141, 105647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Batidzirai, B.; Smeets, E.M.W.; Faaij, A.P.C. Harmonising bioenergy resource potentials—Methodological lessons from review of state of the art bioenergy potential assessments. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 6598–6630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lauri, P.; Havlík, P.; Kindermann, G.; Forsell, N.; Böttcher, H.; Obersteiner, M. Woody biomass energy potential in 2050. Energy Policy 2014, 66, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Smeets, E.M.; Faaij, A.P.; Lewandowski, I.M.; Turkenburg, W.C. A bottom-up assessment and review of global bio-energy potentials to 2050. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2007, 33, 56–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Snyder, H. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 104, 333–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Jabareen, Y. A new conceptual framework for sustainable development. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2008, 10, 179–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wodzicki, T.J. Challenges concerning terminology and methodology in forest sciences. For. Res. Pap. 2019, 80, 233–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. MacDicken, K.G. Global forest resources assessment 2015: What, why and how? For. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 352, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Shi, L.; Han, L.; Yang, F.; Gao, L. The evolution of sustainable development theory: Types, goals, and research prospects. Sustainability 2019, 11, 7158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Wiersum, K.F. 200 years of sustainability in forestry: Lessons from history. Environ. Manag. 1995, 19, 321–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. O’Neill, D.W.; Fanning, A.L.; Lamb, W.F.; Steinberger, J.K. A good life for all within planetary boundaries. Nat. Sustain. 2018, 1, 88–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). Our Common Future. Oxford University PresWCED, S.W. S. World commission on environment and development. Our Common Future 1987, 17, 1–91. [Google Scholar]
  32. European Commission. Sustainable Europe by 2030. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publications/reflection-paper-towards-sustainable-europe-2030_en (accessed on 20 January 2023).
  33. Suominen, T.; Kunttu, J.; Jasinevičius, G.; Tuomasjukka, D.; Lindner, M. Trade-offs in sustainability impacts of introducing cascade use of wood. Scand. J. For. Res. 2017, 32, 588–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mebratu, D. Sustainability and sustainable development: Historical and conceptual review. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 1998, 18, 493–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. European Commission. Communication: New EU Forest Strategy for 2030. Available online: https://commission.europa.eu/document/cf3294e1-8358-4c93-8de4-3e1503b95201_en (accessed on 9 August 2022).
  36. MCPFE. Resolution H1. General Guidlines for the Sustainable Management of Forests in Europe. In Proceedings of the Second MCPFE, Helsinki, Finland, 16–17 June 1993; p. 5. [Google Scholar]
  37. MCPFE. Annex 1 of the Resolution L2 Pan-European criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management. In Proceedings of the Third Ministral Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, Lisbon, Portugal, 2–4 June 1998; p. 14. [Google Scholar]
  38. MCPFE. Improved Pan-European indicators for sustainable forest management as adopted by the MCPFE expert level meeting. In Proceedings of the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europa, Vienna, Austria, 7–8 October 2002. [Google Scholar]
  39. The Montréal Process Working Group (Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, the Russian Federation, the United States of America and Uruguay). Technical notes on implementation of the montréal process criteria and indicators. In Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests, 3rd ed.; 2009; 100p. Available online: https://montreal-process.org/documents/publications/techreports/2009p_2.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2023).
  40. Neumayer, E. Weak versus Strong Sustainability: Exploring the Limits of Two Opposing Paradigms. In Measuring the Immeasurable, 2nd ed.; Bell, S., Morse, S., Eds.; Sustainability Indicators: London, UK, 2012; 228p. [Google Scholar]
  41. Grainger, A. Miškų tvarumo rodiklių sistemos kaip procedūrinės politikos priemonės pasauliniame aplinkos valdyme. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2012, 22, 147–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gerdessen, J.C.; Pascucci, S. Data Envelopment Analysis of sustainability indicators of European agricultural systems at regional level. Agric. Syst. 2013, 118, 78–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Rodrigues, M.; Ibarra, P.; Echeverría, M.; Perez-Cabello, F.; Riva, J.D.L. A method for regional-scale assessment of vegetation recovery time after high-severity wildfires: Case study of Spain. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 2014, 38, 556–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ojea, E.; Ruiz-Benito, P.; Markandya, A.; Zavala, M.A. Wood provisioning in Mediterranean forests: A bottom-up spatial valuation approach. For. Policy Econ. 2012, 20, 78–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hahn, W.A.; Knoke, T. Sustainable development and sustainable forestry: Analogies, differences, and the role of flexibility. Eur. J. For. Res. 2010, 129, 787–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Azevedo, S.G.; Sequeira, T.; Santos, M.; Mendes, L. Biomass-related sustainability: A review of the literature and interpretive structural modeling. Energy 2019, 171, 1107–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Fortune, J.; Hughes, J. Modern academic myths. In Systems for Sustainability; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1997; pp. 125–130. [Google Scholar]
  48. Holme, N.A. The biomass of the bottom fauna in the English Channel off Plymouth. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. 1997, 32, 1–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Chen, H.; Ho, Y.S. Highly cited articles in biomass research: A bibliometric analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 49, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. IPCC. 2006 IPPC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Available online: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_02_Ch2_Generic.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2023).
  51. FAO. Unified Bioenergy Terminology. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/j4504e/j4504e00.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2023).
  52. Lewandowski, I. Bioeconomy. In Shaping the Transition to a Sustainable, Biobased Economy; University of Hohenheim: Stuttgart, Germany, 2018; p. 356. [Google Scholar]
  53. Europos Komisija. Gairės. Biomasės Aspektai. SAR Gairės Nr. 3, 2012 m. Spalio 17 d. Redakcija (Galutinė). Available online: https://am.lrv.lt/uploads/am/documents/files/KLIMATO%20KAITA/ES%20ATL%20sistema/Gair%C4%97s%20biomas%C4%97s%20aspektams.DOC?__cf_chl_tk=gMl2kMhP7qnliYEyPEG3sgE1cd4AwIo5XR7021VgRTU-1685675791-0-gaNycGzNC3s (accessed on 1 May 2023). (In Lithuanian).
  54. McKendry, P. Energy production from biomass (part 1): Overview of biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 2002, 83, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Brosowski, A.; Thrän, D.; Mantau, U.; Mahro, B.; Erdmann, G.; Adler, P.; Stinner, W.; Reinhold, G.; Hering, T.; Blanke, C. A review of biomass potential and current utilisation—Status quo for 93 biogenic wastes and residues in Germany. Biomass Bioenergy 2016, 95, 257–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Gumartini, T. Biomass energy in the Asia-Pacific region: Current status, trends and future setting. In Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study II; Working Paper No. APFSOS II/WP/2009/26; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Bangkok, Thailand; Quebec City, QC, Canada, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  57. Krausmann, F.; Erb, K.H.; Gingrich, S.; Lauk, C.; Haberl, H. Global patterns of socioeconomic biomass flows in the year 2000: A comprehensive assessment of supply, consumption and constraints. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65, 471–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lewandowski, I. Securing a sustainable biomass supply in a growing bioeconomy. Glob. Food Secur. 2015, 6, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hetsch, S. Potential Sustainable Wood Supply in Europe; United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  60. Smeets, E.M.; Faaij, A.P. Bioenergy potentials from forestry in 2050: An assessment of the drivers that determine the potentials. Clim. Chang. 2017, 81, 353–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Camia, A.; Giuntoli, J.; Jonsson, K.; Robert, N.; Cazzaniga, N.; Jasinevičius, G.; Avitabile, V.; Grassi, G.; Barredo Cano, J.I.; Mubareka, S. The Use of Woody Biomass for Energy Production in the EU; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2021.
  62. European Environment Agency. Forest: Growing Stock, Increment and Fellings. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/forest-growing-stock-increment-and-fellings-3 (accessed on 14 April 2023).
  63. FAO. Global Forest Resources Assessment. Main Report. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/ca9825en/ca9825en.pdf (accessed on 30 April 2023).
  64. FAO. Global Forest Resources Assessment. Terms and Definitions. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/I8661EN/i8661en.pdf (accessed on 30 April 2023).
  65. Titus, B.D.; Brown, K.; Helmisaari, H.-S.; Vanguelova, E.; Stupak, I.; Evans, A.; Clarke, N.; Guidi, C.; Bruckman, V.J.; Varnagiryte-Kabasinskiene, I.; et al. Sustainable forest biomass: A review of current residue harvesting guidelines. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2021, 11, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Syrbe, R.U.; Han, T.T.; Grunewald, K.; Xiao, S.; Wende, W. Residential Heating Using Woody Biomass in Germany—Supply, Demand, and Spatial Implications. Land 2022, 11, 1937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Panoutsou, C. Modeling and Optimization of Biomass Supply Chains. In Top-Down and Bottom-Up Assessment for Agricultural, Forest and Waste Feedstock; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  68. Antar, M.; Lyu, D.; Nazari, M.; Shah, A.; Zhou, X.; Smith, D.L. Biomass for a sustainable bioeconomy: An overview of world biomass production and utilization. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 139, 110691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Smeets, E.; Faaij, A.; Lewandowski, I.; Turkenburg, W.C. A Quick Scan of Global Bio-Energy Potentials to 2050. An Analysis of the Regional Availability of Biomass Resources for Export in Relation to the Underlying Factors. Report NWS-E-2004-109 ISBN 90-393-3909-0, Copernicus Institute. 2004. Available online: https://www.biomassmurder.org/lobbyfacts/2004-03-00-university-utrecht-copernicus-institute-a-quickscan-of-global-bio-energy-potentials-to-2050-english.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2023).
  70. IEA; FAO. Bioenergy Roadmap Development and Implementation. New Bioenergy Roadmap Guide Released Jointly by IEA and FAO. Available online: https://www.iea.org/news/new-bioenergy-roadmap-guide-released-jointly-by-iea-and-fao (accessed on 16 September 2020).
  71. Bentsen, N.S.; Felby, C. Technical potentials of biomass for energy services from current agriculture and forestry in selected countries in Europe, the Americas and Asia. For. Landsc. 2010, 55, 131. [Google Scholar]
  72. Ojolo, S.; Orisaleye, J.; Ismail, S.; Abolarin, S. Technical Potential of Biomass Energy in Nigeria. Ife J. Technol. 2012, 21, 60–65. Available online: http://ijt.oauife.edu.ng/index.php/ijt/article/view/110 (accessed on 24 April 2023).
  73. Parzych, S. The potential opportunities for using wood biomass in energy production. For. Res. Pap. 2015, 76, 256–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Dees, M.; Elbersen, B.; Fitzgerald, J.; Vis, M.; Anttila, P.; Forsell, N.; Ramirez-Almeyda, J.; García Galindo, D.; Glavonjic, B.; Staritsky, I.; et al. A spatial data base on sustainable biomass cost-supply of lignocellulosic biomass in Europe—Methods & data sources. In Project Report. S2BIOM—A Project Funded under the European Union 7th Framework Programme for Research. Grant Agreement n°608622; Chair of Remote Sensing and Landscape Information Systems, Institute of Forest Sciences, University of Freiburg: Freiburg, Germany, 2017; 176p. [Google Scholar]
  75. Verkerk, P.J.; Fitzgerald, J.B.; Datta, P.; Dees, M.; Hengeveld, G.M.; Lindner, M.; Zudin, S. Spatial distribution of the potential forest biomass availability in Europe. For. Ecosyst. 2019, 6, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Lopez, A.; Roberts, B.; Heimiller, D.; Blair, N.; Porro, G. US Renewable Energy Technical Potentials. In A GIS-Based Analysis (No. NREL/TP-6A20-51946); National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  77. Lee, N.; Grue, N.; Rosenlieb, E. Task 2 Report—A GIS-Based Technical Potential Assessment of Domestic Energy Resources for Electricity Generation: Energy Alternatives Study for the Lao People’s Democratic Republic: Smart Infrastructure for the Mekong Program; Technical Report NREL/TP-7A40-70470; National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2018. Available online: www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/70470.pdf (accessed on 24 April 2023).
  78. Vis, M.; Dees, M. Biomass Resource Assessment Handbook: Harmonisation of Biomass Resource Assessments, Best Practices and Methods Handbook; VDM Verlag Dr. Müller GmbH & Co.: Saarbrücken, Germany, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  79. Field, C.B.; Campbell, J.E.; Lobell, D.B. Biomass energy: The scale of the potential resource. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2008, 23, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Van Holsbeeck, S.; Brown, M.; Srivastava, S.K.; Ghaffariyan, M.R. A review on the potential of forest biomass for bioenergy in Australia. Energies 2020, 13, 1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Souza, L.L.P.D.; Lora, E.E.S.; Hamedani, S.R.; Palacio, J.C.E.; Cioccolanti, L.; Villarini, M.; Comodi, G.; Colantoni, A. Life cycle assessment of prospective scenarios maximizing renewable resources in the Brazilian electricity matrix. Renew. Energy Focus 2023, 44, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Hamelin, L.; Borzęcka, M.; Kozak, M.; Pudełko, R. A spatial approach to bioeconomy: Quantifying the residual biomass potential in the EU-27. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 100, 127–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Stolarski, M.J.; Warmiński, K.; Krzyżaniak, M.; Olba–Zięty, E.; Akincza, M. Bioenergy technologies and biomass potential vary in Northern European countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 133, 110238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Senocak, A.A.; Goren, H.G. Forecasting the biomass-based energy potential using artificial intelligence and geographic information systems: A case study. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 2022, 26, 100992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Nandimandalam, H.; Gude, V.G. Renewable wood residue sources as potential alternative for fossil fuel dominated electricity mix for regions in Mississippi: A techno-economic analysis. Renew. Energy 2022, 200, 1105–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Bao, K.; Bieber, L.M.; Kürpick, S.; Radanielina, M.H.; Padsala, R.; Thrän, D.; Schröter, B. Bottom-up assessment of local agriculture, forestry and urban waste potentials towards energy autonomy of isolated regions: Example of Réunion. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2022, 66, 125–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. ICV (Instituto Centro de Vida). An Unprecedented Study Shows Illegalities in 94% of Converted Ecosystems in the Amazon and the MATOPIBA Region. Available online: https://www.icv.org.br/2021/05/an-unprecedented-study-shows-illegalities-in-94-of-converted-ecosystems-in-the-amazon-and-the-matopiba-region/ (accessed on 19 June 2022).
  88. Endres, A.; Querner, I. Die Ökonomie Natürlicher Ressourcen, Kohlhammer 2; Auflage: Stuttgart, Germany, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  89. Maes, W.H.; Fontaine, M.; Rongé, K.; Hermy, M.; Muys, B. A quantitative indicator framework for stand level evaluation and monitoring of environmentally sustainable forest management. Ecol. Indic. 2011, 11, 468–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Forest Europe. State of Europe’s Forests. Report 2015. Available online: https://foresteurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/soef_21_12_2015.pdf (accessed on 11 April 2023).
  91. Hanssen, K.H.; Fløistad, I.S.; Granhus, A.; Søgaard, G. Harvesting of logging residues affects diameter growth and pine weevil attacks on Norway spruce seedlings. Scand. J. For. Res. 2018, 33, 40–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Ranius, T.; Hämäläinen, A.; Egnell, G.; Olsson, B.; Eklöf, K.; Stendahl, J.; Rudolphi, J.; Sténs, A.; Felton, A. The effects of logging residue extraction for energy on ecosystem services and biodiversity: A synthesis. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 209, 409–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. European Commission. Guidelines on Biodiversity-Friendly Afforestation, Reforestation and Tree Planting. 2023. Available online: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/guidelines-biodiversity-friendly-afforestation-reforestation-and-tree-planting_en (accessed on 25 May 2023).
  94. Haberl, H. Human Appropriation of Net Primary Production as An Environmental lndicator: Implications for Sustainable Development. Report. R. Swed. Acad. Sci. 1997, 26, 143–146. [Google Scholar]
  95. Valstybinė Miškų Tarnyba. Oficialiosios Miškų Statistikos Metaduomenys. Available online: http://www.amvmt.lt/Images/Veikla/STAT/Oficialiojistatistika/OMS_metaduomenys.pdf (accessed on 24 April 2023). (In Lithuanian).
Sustainability 15 09311 g001 550
Figure 1. The classification of wood biomass.
Figure 1. The classification of wood biomass.
Sustainability 15 09311 g001
Sustainability 15 09311 g002 550
Figure 2. Types of the potential of forest wood biomass (PFWB).
Figure 2. Types of the potential of forest wood biomass (PFWB).
Sustainability 15 09311 g002
Table
Table 1. Summary of the most important events related to the forest in terms of sustainable development.
Table 1. Summary of the most important events related to the forest in terms of sustainable development.
TimeEventResults
1992Earth Summit and United Nations Sustainable Development Conference in Rio de Janeiro Although there was no specific convention on forests, there was a clear recognition of the importance of forests and the fact that forest resources should be managed sustainably to meet the social, economic, environmental, cultural and spiritual needs of present and future generations.
1992The International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) The guidelines for the sustainable management of natural tropical forests were developed as a tool to monitor and assess forests.
1993–to nowMinisterial Conference on the Protection of Forests Europe (MCPFE). It is a pan-European ministerial-level voluntary political process for the promotion of the sustainable management of European forests.From 1993 until 2021, eight conferences were initiated. Through these processes, general guidelines for sustainable forest management (SFM) in Europe were developed. The main aim was to identify measurable criteria and indicators. The six European criteria are as follows: (1) the maintenance and appropriate enhancement of forest resources and their contribution to global carbon cycles; (2) the maintenance of forest ecosystem health and vitality; (3) the maintenance and encouragement of the productive functions of forests; (4) the maintenance, conservation and appropriate enhancement of biological diversity in forest ecosystems; (5) the maintenance and appropriate enhancement of protective functions in forests; and (6) the maintenance of other socio-economic functions and conditions [36,37,38].
2004United Nations Forum of Forests (UNFF)The seven thematic elements of sustainable forest management were as follows: (1) the extent of forest resources; (2) forest biological diversity; (3) forest ecosystem health and vitality; (4) productive functions of forests; (5) protective functions of forests; (6) socio-economic functions of forests; and (7) legal, policy and institutional framework [39].
2009Montréal Process A set of 54 indicators for 7 criteria for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Forests.
2012Rio20+ United Nations Conference on Sustainable DevelopmentThe beginning of the process of developing a set of sustainable development goals.
2016The International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) A set of 7 criteria and 58 indicators for sustainable tropical forest management.
2019European Green DealThe European Commission has adopted policies fit for reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels, in order to ensure that there are no net emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 and that economic growth is decoupled from resource use [32].
2020EU biodiversity strategy for 2030Effective restoration measures to restore degraded ecosystems.
2021EU forest strategy for 2030The measures proposed in the strategy are as follows: promoting sustainable forest management (SFM), including encouraging the sustainable use of wood-based resources, as well as improving the size and biodiversity of forests, promoting alternative forest industries, and protecting the EU’s remaining primary and old-growth forests [35].
2022New Nature Restoration LawA proposal for a Nature Restoration Law has been adopted. It is a key element of the EU Biodiversity Strategy, which calls for binding targets to restore degraded ecosystems.
2023Guidelines on Biodiversity-Friendly Afforestation, Reforestation and Tree PlantingA set of practical recommendations to better implement biodiversity-friendly afforestation, reforestation and tree-planting projects.
Table
Table 2. Types of potential of wood biomass.
Table 2. Types of potential of wood biomass.
Literature SourcesTypes of Potential of Wood Biomass
E/EITheo-reticalGeographicalTech-nicalEcono-micMarketTechno-EconomicEcolo-gical (Environ-Mental)Sustainable = Used + Unused
Sustai-nableUsedUnused (Additional)
Smeets et al. [69]E++++
Smeets et al. [23]E++++
Smeets and Faaij [60]EI+ ++ +
Batidzirai et al. [21]E+ +++ +
IEA, FAO [70]E+ +
Thees et al. [20]E+ + ++
Levanowski [58]E+ ++
Steubing et al. [18]E+ + +++
Bentsen and Felby [71] E +
Brosowski et al. [55]E+ +
Burg et al. [19]E+ + +++
Ojolo et al. [72]E+ +
Parzych [73]E+ ++
Panoutsou [67]E+ +++
Dees et al. [74]EI+ + ++
Verkerk et al. [75]EI+ + ++
Lopez et al. [76]E+ +++
Hetsch [59]E ++
Lee et al. [77]EI+ +++
Vis and Dees [78]EI+ ++
Hennig et al. [16]E+ ++ +
Lauri et al. [22]E+ +++
Erni et al. [17]E+ +
Field et al. [79]E+
Van Holsbeeck et al. [80]E+ ++ +
de Souza et al. [81]E +
Hamelin et al. [82]E+
Stolarski et al. [83]E+ +
Senocak and Goren [84]E+
Nandimandalam and Gude [85]E+ +
Bao et al. [86] +
E—biomass for energy, EI—wood biomass for energy and industry.
Table
Table 3. Constraints of technical potential of wood biomass.
Table 3. Constraints of technical potential of wood biomass.
LiteratureTechnological ConstraintsTopographic/Geographic ConstraintsPhysical Constraints (Inaccessible Land)Land-Use Constraints (Protected Areas) Other Not Technical Constraints
Smeets et al. [69] +
Smeets et al. [23] +
Smeets and Faaij [60]+ +
Hetsch [59] +
Steubing et al. [18]+ +
Bentsen and Felby [71]+
Vis and Dees [78] + +
Batidzirai et al. [21]+ ++
Ojolo at al. [72]+ +
Lopez et al. [76] ++ +
Lauri et al. [22] +
Levanowski [58]+ ++
Parzych, 2015 [73] +
Brosowski et al., 2016 [55] + +
Table
Table 4. The main constraints of the sustainable potential of forest wood biomass in the context of SFM.
Table 4. The main constraints of the sustainable potential of forest wood biomass in the context of SFM.
Constraints of Sustainable Potential of Forest Wood BiomassType of PotentialThe Criteria of SFMEssential Principle
Biological constraintTheoretical potentialForest resources and their contribution to Global Carbon Cycles Resource principle
Topographic constraintTechnical potential -Availability principle
Technological constraintTechnical potential-Availability principle
Social–political constraintSustainable potential Legal, policy and institutional framework Social–political principle
Economic constraintSustainable potentialProductive functions of forest resources
Other socio-economic functions of forest resources 		Economic principle
Ecological constraintSustainable potentialForest health and vitality
Biological diversity in forest ecosystems
Protective functions of forest resources		Ecological principle
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Konstantinavičienė, J.; Vitunskienė, V. Definition and Classification of Potential of Forest Wood Biomass in Terms of Sustainable Development: A Review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9311. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129311

AMA Style

Konstantinavičienė J, Vitunskienė V. Definition and Classification of Potential of Forest Wood Biomass in Terms of Sustainable Development: A Review. Sustainability. 2023; 15(12):9311. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129311

Chicago/Turabian Style

Konstantinavičienė, Julija, and Vlada Vitunskienė. 2023. "Definition and Classification of Potential of Forest Wood Biomass in Terms of Sustainable Development: A Review" Sustainability 15, no. 12: 9311. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129311

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop