Next Article in Journal
Is China’s Urban Development Planning Sustainable? Evidence from the Transportation Sector in Cities Along the Belt and Road Initiative Route
Next Article in Special Issue
Cosmic-Ray Neutron Sensor Backpack for Assessing Spatial and Temporal Variations in Soil Water Content in an Agroforestry System in Northern Spain
Previous Article in Journal
The Role of Anticipated Regret in Farmers’ Land Conversion Decisions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 14
Issue 2
10.3390/land14020362
land-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Fostering Circularity in Agroforestry Biomass: A Regulatory Framework for Sustainable Resource Management

by
Tiago Bastos
1,2,
Leonel J. R. Nunes
1,3,4,5,6,7 and
Leonor Teixeira
1,2,*
1
Departamento de Economia, Gestão, Engenharia Industrial e Turismo (DEGEIT), Universidade de Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
2
Laboratório Associado de Sistemas Inteligentes (LASI), Instituto de Engenharia Eletrónica e Informática de Aveiro (IEETA), Universidade de Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
3
Escola Superior de Ciências Empresariais (ESCE), Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo, Rua da Escola Industrial e Comercial de Nun’Alvares, 4900-347 Viana do Castelo, Portugal
4
PROMETHEUS, Unidade de Investigação em Materiais, Energia, Ambiente para a Sustentabilidade, Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo, Rua da Escola Industrial e Comercial de Nun’Alvares, 4900-347 Viana do Castelo, Portugal
5
Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo, Rua da Escola Industrial e Comercial de Nun’Alvares, 4900-347 Viana do Castelo, Portugal
6
Unidade de Investigação em Governança, Competitividade e Políticas Públicas (GOVCOPP), Universidade de Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
7
Centro de Estudos Florestais (CEF), Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Universidade de Lisboa, Tapada da Ajuda, 1349-017 Lisboa, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2025, 14(2), 362; https://doi.org/10.3390/land14020362
Submission received: 21 January 2025 / Revised: 6 February 2025 / Accepted: 7 February 2025 / Published: 10 February 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Agroforestry Systems for Sustainable Land Management: Innovations and Challenges)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Sustainability is under threat due to inefficient waste management. In the industrial sector, mechanisms such as value chains and producer obligations have advanced circular economy practices. However, in the agroforestry sector, open burning of waste remains prevalent, resulting in resource loss and heightened fire risks. This scenario jeopardizes the environmental, social, and economic pillars of sustainability, underscoring the need for legal frameworks to ensure waste recovery. This study proposes a regulatory framework to enhance the circular economy in agroforestry waste management. A benchmarking analysis was conducted to examine waste recovery systems where circular economy principles are successfully implemented. Insights from these systems were integrated with an in-depth assessment of the agroforestry biomass recovery chain to develop actionable regulatory measures. The proposed framework includes measures such as mandatory delivery of biomass, creation of aggregation centers, and incentives for biomass recovery. These measures are tailored to reduce fire risks, improve resource efficiency, and align stakeholders’ practices with sustainability goals. Visual tools, including comparative tables and diagrams, illustrate the framework’s impact. The study highlights the potential of regulatory interventions to promote agroforestry waste recovery, supporting sustainable development. Future work should focus on pilot implementations to validate the framework’s effectiveness in real-world scenarios.

1. Introduction

The concept of sustainability presupposes a balance between three dimensions: the economic, environmental, and social components. The first factor corresponds to the guarantee of monetary profitability over time. The second pillar supposes keeping the basic characteristics of ecosystems and their interactions. The social sustainability factor aims to guarantee ethical and cultural values among citizens [1]. Associated with the concept of sustainability is the concept of circular economy (CE), which presupposes a change from the take–make–waste economy to a new approach, where product wastes have a new life after their expected end [2]. This concept, in addition to all the changes it requires in terms of manufacturing, such as changing processes, is also closely linked to the creation of additional value chains at the end of the products’ life and, for this reason, often the CE is linked to another concept, waste management [3]. The concept of circular economy could be understood as the consideration of materials in a connected loop to reduce pollution and resource consumption [4,5,6], being possible to find in the literature examples, such as bivalve industry [7]. Insights from similar global studies (e.g., Liu et al., 2024 [8]; Pradhan et al., 2024 [9]) underline the relevance of such measures for advancing sustainability. With the growing pressure for a greater need for products, there is also a greater production of waste that requires countries to take measures to manage this waste production, which can have various natures such as the payment of variable fees, depending on the amount of waste generated, or the obligation to deliver certain waste to certain competent entities [10]. The financing models of residual recovery chain are varied, from fees to producers or to final consumers, or even, managing waste as if it were a raw material [11,12,13].
Lignocellulosic biomass from agroforestry generated by traditional agricultural activities, such as pruning, or forestry activities, such as traditional fuel management activities [14]. These residual biomasses, known also as leftovers, have a very complex recovery chain, highly marked by high logistical costs that make their recovery process not viable [15,16,17]. Management entities even provide spaces (eco-points) to dispose of these biomasses, fostering CE achievement, aggregating biomass; however, there is a significant part that is burned, wasting its recovery potential [18]. The wasted potential is harmful, since these leftovers can be used for energy production, pellet production or even used in the pharmaceutical sector [18]. In addition to energy waste, typical fires to eradicate leftovers can take other proportions, becoming large-scale fires, which calls into question the three dimensions of sustainability [19]. The non-recovery scenario of residual biomasses may threaten the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in fire occurrence episode, despite the whole 17 SDGs may be enumerated, SDG1, 2, 3, 6, 13, 14 and 15 are the most addressed [20], in the domain of residual biomass wasting, it may impact SDG7.
In this scenario, aiming at a reduction in rural fire consequences, it seems clear that a possible solution is to recover the leftovers, strongly discouraging their open burning. In some countries, such as Portugal, the majority of landowners and, consequently main actors in this recovery, are private with economic motivations [21], that are difficult to attain, claiming for the need to develop political obligations to foster CE in the agroforestry context.
This study aims to develop a regulatory measures guide to increase circularity in agroforestry biomass recovery. Specifically, it seeks to identify successful practices in waste management, adapt them to the agroforestry context, and propose actionable measures that address logistical, environmental, and social challenges. The methodological approach of this study is structured around three primary objectives: (RO1) to benchmark existing waste recovery systems and identify transferable practices; (RO2) to analyze the current state of agroforestry biomass recovery, including its challenges and opportunities; and (RO3) to propose and evaluate regulatory measures aimed at promoting CE practices in this sector. In addition to the measures themselves, there is also an analysis of how measures could be implemented, as well as an analysis of the impact that these measures may have, considering those players involved in the recovery of these leftovers, on society and governmental entities. In methodological terms, this study employs benchmarking to analyze effective waste recovery systems, focusing on their regulatory frameworks and operational mechanisms. This approach facilitates the adaptation of successful practices to the agroforestry sector. This study focuses on the Portuguese region, with significant agroforestry activity and biomass production. Portugal faces unique challenges in biomass recovery, including high logistical costs and limited regulatory enforcement. By analyzing the regional context, this research provides insights applicable to similar agroforestry systems globally while addressing the specificities of Portuguese policies and practices. These results were combined with the vicissitudes of the agroforestry residual biomass valorization chain to culminate in the proposed regulation measures guide.

2. Methodological Approach

The objective of this work is to understand which regulatory measures may foster circularity in the agroforestry leftovers domain. This study was carried out in the Portuguese context, where it is possible to find some regulatory measures that foster waste recovery, in different contexts. The first phase of the study consisted of the understanding of actual waste recovery systems, which promote the CE, and are already implemented in Portugal (RO1). The benchmarking technique was chosen to fill this need, a methodology that is very valuable for comparing solutions, as seen in some works of literature [22]. In this study, benchmarking was not used to compare, but to collect highlights about other chains functioning. Using the methodological approach, the need was to perceive which are the main waste recovery chains that will be studied. A meeting with practitioners with some experience in these fields (waste recovery) was performed and a list of waste recovery chains was defined (visible in the results section). To complement this, the Portuguese Environment Association webpage was analyzed to validate the previous list. This benchmarking was carried out using the analysis of Decrees-Law, an analysis of information available in digital platforms from entities responsible for ensuring environmental principles and circular economy and from companies that collect, pay, and value waste. To complete this, an explorative literature review was conducted, where the specific terminology, about waste recovery chains identified in the previous phase of the study, was researched in the Scopus and Google Scholar databases. The abstracts of the results were analyzed if the abstract was relevant, it led to the paper being analyzed in detail.
The second phase, RO2, was aimed at perceiving the actual agroforestry leftovers’ recovery chain. This phase allowed us to understand how residual agroforestry biomass is generated, the biomass recovery potentialities, and the actual recovery chain, players, and tasks. In addition to this, it was also important to perceive the regulations. The expected outcome of this section was a framework that systematized the points cited. In procedural terms, this part was achieved through an exploratory literature review that combined terms, such as agroforestry residual biomass, lignocellulosic residual biomass, woody residual biomass, residual biomass supply chain, model, circular economy or residual biomass recovery.
In the third phase, the RO3 was achieved, the regulation measures that guide creation. Here, a crossing of the main highlights collected in the RO1 results with the vicissitudes of the agroforestry leftovers value chain, RO2, culminating in the proposed regulation measures guide. The third phase goes ahead with the measure proposal, presenting which mechanisms can be used to facilitate their compliance and analyzing the measures’ impact, considering the three dimensions of sustainability, and the impact that measures have on the players in the value chain for the recovery of these agroforestry leftovers, as well as the societal impact and the impact that could occur in government terms. Thus, for each measure, in addition to explaining the measure and its context, there is a presentation of how to enforce it and what its impacts are.
Figure 1 summarizes the methodological approach conducted in this study.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Waste Management Chains

Circular Economy and Portuguese Policies

Regarding the industry waste recovery in the Portuguese domain, some chains can be identified, such as waste cooking oil (WCO) (Decree-Law No. 267/2009), used tires or used lubricant oils (Decree-Law No. 152-D/2017). It is possible to state that some measures were taken to improve waste management in this area, trying to avoid high waste production, stimulating recycling practices and finding new ways of valorizing the residues, those being the main producers responsible for ensuring the destination of waste.
WCO could be understood as the oil used in cooking processes, such as frying, that could be produced by citizens, hotels, or restaurants [23]. As far as the collection of WCO is concerned, the companies responsible for oil collection emit certificates without charge for the collection and issuing services, paying, sometimes, a fee per liter of WCO [24]. This by-product presents valuable contributions, for example in polymer-based plastic production, since this consumes significant amounts of petroleum and WCO could present a valuable contribution, avoiding fossil fuel consumption [23]. WCO is significantly cheaper than other raw materials, for example in the Indian market. This “waste” could be around seven times cheaper than the closest priced virgin oil. In addition to the economic valorization, WCO has harmful consequences for ecosystems. As finalities, WCO could be applied at bio lubricant production [25] or being used in asphalt pavements to avoid cracks and improve mechanical properties [26]. Cheapness, local availability, and availability in big quantities are factors that attract people to consider this resource [27]. Figure 2 shows how the WCO recovery chain works.
Another chain that has regulatory CE paths is that of used tires [28]. Tires are constituted by five major components, natural and synthetic rubber, carbon steel black, and carbon steel to reinforcement and fabrics and fillings [29] and once a new tire is fitted, a used one must be delivered. To minimize the economic impact on the chain, a parcel is included in the end customer invoice, named Ecovalor, that allows the chain to function (available at https://www.valorpneu.pt/faqs, accessed on 15 November 2024). The distributor of new tires should be available to collect the used ones, and they are prohibited from refusing this collection [30]. The used tires could have three main destinations: the retread, where a rubber part is added to the used tire and it becomes a tire that can be used again; the recycling, which can lead to rubber granules, used for example on synthetic soccer pitches; and energy recovery, which can be used to produce energy [31,32,33,34].
The principle of Ecovalor is also applied to the management of used lubricant oil recovery chains, where producers pay this value for each quantity of oil to enable the integrated management of the entire oil recovery chain. In this case, the waste oil must be handed over to the relevant authorities, which can also collect it at no cost. The financing of the whole system is ensured by the sum of the Ecovalor paid by the various producers. The final destinations of this oil were regeneration, recycling, or energy recovery. Figure 3 summarizes the functioning of these two chains (used oil and used tires).

3.2. Residual Biomass Recovery Context

3.2.1. Agroforestry Circular Economy

The increase in population growth led to an expectation for major biomass needs. Based on the increasing biomass demand, and with the aim of not creating additional pressure in forestry, residual biomasses have gained attention [35]. Lignocellulosic biomass, since it is easily regenerated, and it is a good source of carbon, is one of the most important biomass types. However, a significant part of agroforestry leftovers (majority lignocellulosic biomass) is burnt, thus its potential is wasted [18]. The concept of CE has already been employed in the context of residual biomasses [36]. Biomass valorization could occur by the following processes: combustion, pyrolysis, gasification, fermentation, or anaerobic digestion. There are various possibilities for the final products, such as biofuels, electricity, or heating [37].
The recovery of lignocellulosic leftovers, such as straw, constitutes an opportunity to diversify family’s income in rural areas, to decrease the burning or the disposal of the leftovers. As a result, improvements in gas emission reduction and circular economy promotion [17,38]. However, this recovery is tagged by the high logistical costs or limited biomass supply [17]. In this study, the authors study the possibility of recovery of the straw, which proved very beneficial in environmental terms, easily perceived by the reduction of straw burning [17]. They study some policies such as the end of straw burning, financial support to the chain intervention and information diffusion.
The possibility of recovering vine pruning residual biomass was also revised in Jesus et al.’s work, where they concluded that these leftovers could be used to produce biofuels, bioenergy or pharmaceuticals [18]. Agroforestry biomass could also be used to produce wood pellets, which represents the creation of a value chain, an important aspect of promoting a circular economy [36]. Another sustainable application of agroforestry biomass is its use as mulch, particularly in post-fire scenarios. This practice prevents soil erosion, restores organic matter, and improves soil moisture retention, making it a viable alternative for waste management. Additionally, mulching contributes to ecosystem restoration by supporting soil regeneration and reducing the risk of further degradation in affected areas.
Concerning the biomass generated from olive production, traditional practices involve the burning of leftovers, or the shredding of leftovers and their consequent disposal in the land [39]. Technologies such as torrefaction and pyrolysis proved very useful in the recovery of olive pomace, a typical waste product that could be harmful to the environment, and that could be recovered to be used for energy production purposes [39]. Agroforestry biomass can be used to produce energy due to the efficiency of conversion techniques and the lack of environmental impact [40].
Concerning the policies related to the residual biomass recovery, with regards to the Portuguese context, Alves et al., propose a roadmap to the future of biomass valorization, where they identify the valorization of biomass to produce biofuels, such as biomethanol, the reduction in taxes to pellets, or the plans to decarbonization policies, as legislation policies [41].

3.2.2. Actual Context

The residual biomass recovery chain (RBSC) is tagged by complexity, involving various equipment types and various players [42]. Table 1 compares the challenges observed in current agroforestry biomass recovery with those identified in established waste recovery chains. By comparing these two contexts, this study identifies gaps in regulatory frameworks and logistical practices, forming the basis for the proposed measures. This comparison highlights opportunities to implement successful CE practices in the agroforestry sector.
Concerning the RBSC actors, four can be considered: the landowner, or biomass producer; the logger; the customer; and external entities that could provide services, such as equipment rental [42]. Despite the low viability of recovering biomass, agroforestry leftovers are generated because of agricultural and forestry activities, such as pruning or fuel management activities. Whether due to production needs or legal obligations, such as fuel management activities (Decree-Law No. 82/2021), agroforestry leftovers are generated. Although it is not possible to accurately estimate the amount of residual biomass of forest origin, in Portugal it is estimated that around 6.7 million tons of residual woody biomass can be generated annually. A significant part of this biomass is burned, primarily in open fields, contributing to environmental and fire hazards. However, in some rural areas, a portion is used for household heating, particularly where firewood remains an accessible and cost-effective energy source [18]. The burning of these leftovers is also responsible for the occurrence of fires, which put sustainability issues at risk [19]. As far as fire prevention is concerned, the legislation provides for the “clearing” of the land to avoid large combustible loads in the forest, but under certain conditions, the legislation also allows for burning (Decree-Law No. 14/2019). Burning is not the only possibility, though it is the preferred method for leftover disposal in biomass eco-points. This option, in addition to its optional character, still needs better strategies to improve the system, for example in logistical terms. Table 1, below, compares the results obtained in benchmarking with the agroforestry recovery context.
The data presented in Table 1 reveal significant differences between agroforestry biomass recovery and established waste recovery chains. Agroforestry systems are marked by high logistical costs [43] and limited adoption of advanced technologies, which hinder the economic viability of recovery efforts, especially in rural areas [44]. In contrast, established waste recovery chains benefit from centralized infrastructure and automation, which streamline operations and reduce costs. Additionally, regulatory frameworks in waste recovery chains are robust, with clear compliance mechanisms and financial incentives that ensure stakeholder engagement. Conversely, agroforestry biomass recovery lacks mandatory measures and effective enforcement, leading to low participation and inconsistent market demand for biomass products. Furthermore, while established systems prioritize emission reduction and resource recovery, agroforestry practices such as open burning contribute significantly to environmental degradation, including increased greenhouse gas emissions and fire risks.
Figure 4 illustrates the current agroforestry biomass recovery chain, highlighting its main phases: harvesting, transportation, optional storage, and delivery to the final consumer. This visual representation provides insights into the logistical and operational challenges of the current system, such as high costs and inefficiencies. It also serves as a basis for identifying opportunities to streamline the chain, aligning it with circular economy principles and improving resource recovery.

3.3. Proposed Regulation Measures Guide

3.3.1. Measure 1: Mandatory Delivery of Agroforestry Leftovers

One relevant aspect highlighted by benchmarking is the mandatory nature of collections imposed by these laws (Decree-Law No. 267/2009 and 152-D/2017) to ensure recovery chain functioning. Therefore, the first measure that will be discussed will be the mandatory delivery of leftovers. In other words, the producer/landowner, when s/he has a load of leftovers, must have a declaration confirming that s/he has delivered the leftovers load to a responsible entity (final consumer). The inspection by entities that already carry out inspections on land, such as foresters who appear as fundamental players to ensure this obligation. The integration of drones and artificial intelligence (AI) into agroforestry waste management can significantly enhance monitoring and compliance. Drones can be used for real-time inspections, mapping, and data collection, while AI tools can analyze large datasets to identify patterns, optimize routes, and predict potential issues. These technologies improve efficiency, reduce operational costs, and ensure adherence to regulatory measures, particularly in remote or hard-to-access areas. Other systems such as Geographical Information Systems (GIS) may also be used to facilitate the identification of properties. These technologies may be integrated with BUPi (“Balcão Único do Prédio”, which can be translated as “One-Stop Property Desk”), a digital platform designed to facilitate land registration and property regularization [45], which refers to a Portuguese obligation, where landowners must register their properties, facilitating landowner identification processes. However, the leftovers do not only come from forest “cleaning” operations; they are a significant part of agricultural activities, such as pruning. In these leftovers, when producers sell the products, it should be mandatory to present the leftovers’ delivery declarations. In the case of producers for leftover consumption, who do not sell anything, such as micro-producers, they often have fireplaces and use these leftovers there and therefore they are not included in this model.
This solution may entail extra costs for governmental entities; however, the expected economic benefits are great, as the solution is expected to reduce combustible loads and, consequently, fires. In environmental and social terms, the reduction in fires is also beneficial, with reduced emissions being an advantage of this measure and constituting indirect economic gains, e.g., healthcare. In terms of social and environmental image, there are also improvements, as without fires there is less pollution. In addition to this, there is a greater recovery of leftovers for energy production, which is a direct contribution to decarbonization policies. In social terms, there is a considerable shared population that has more ecological thoughts and, in this sense, it could be an added value. The social losses, such as deaths, loss of crops, and loss of homes, will also drop, with fire occurrence dropping.
This measure for the producer/landowner may result in additional costs, despite the biomass being valuable. With the implementation of this measure there will be an increase in supply, which, according to the laws of economics, generates a lower price. Therefore, since biomass is mandatory and has many logistical costs, most producers will not be able to sell the biomass and may even have to pay for collection or must deliver the leftovers to final customers, ensuring transport. For the logger, the benefits are also not in a positive sense; according to Bastos et al., they sometimes even receive less to sell the biomass [44]. In other contexts, the logger also takes the leftovers as if it were a “courtesy”, having access to free biomass for later recovery. When biomass is stored for later recovery, there is a significant risk of degradation due to insect infestations and fungal growth. These factors can compromise the quality and usability of the biomass. To mitigate these risks, proper storage conditions, such as ventilated and dry storage areas, should be implemented. Additionally, periodic inspections and the use of antifungal treatments could further reduce the likelihood of biomass degradation. In this mandatory scenario, unless the logger became an entity capable of issuing collection certificates, this biomass could not be delivered to it, losing this possible extra gain. Issuing collection certificates refers to a formal process in which entities authorized by regulatory bodies provide documentation verifying that biomass has been delivered to approved facilities. These certificates serve as proof of compliance with mandatory delivery regulations, ensuring that biomass is properly recovered and utilized within the circular economy framework. Long-term storage of chipped woody biomass poses additional risks, such as spontaneous combustion, particularly when stored in large piles under high humidity and temperature conditions. The action of fungi can further exacerbate these risks by generating heat within the biomass piles. To address these challenges, best practices include limiting pile sizes, ensuring proper aeration, and maintaining moisture levels below critical thresholds. These measures can significantly reduce the likelihood of combustion and ensure the safety of storage sites. As far as the final consumer is concerned, there is a clear benefit, as there is more supply and the price drops. Eventually, new businesses may emerge, and the market will return to the previous equilibrium point; however, in the initial phase, this will not be the case, resulting in benefits for the final consumer. Below in Table 2, it is possible to perceive which is the impact of measure 1 on agroforestry recovery chain stakeholders.

3.3.2. Measure 2: Proposal to Create Leftover Aggregator Centers

To make up for the difficulties faced by producers, who, in addition to the costs they already must pay for clearing land, this obligation proposed by measure 1 could lead to even more costs. To compensate for this, one solution could be the creation of aggregation centers, measure 2. In other words, instead of having a producer–end consumer link, the alternative could be to create biomass aggregation centers, in which producers give away their biomass in exchange for a collection declaration and then the center takes care of the follow-up. Here, this aggregation can add value, for example by reducing collection routes, making this “whole” greater than the sum of its “parts”. Here, the product is valued, which could result in a higher value for the biomass and could generate some profits for the producer, who obtains a share of the profits corresponding to the quantity delivered. The value of aggregation can be further increased if these centers have pre-treatment mechanisms, which can be shredders or dried. These mechanisms further enhance the value of the biomass, making it more appealing to the consumer and generating more value for the producer since shredded biomass can be worth three times more than raw biomass. In this point, technologies such as AI could be interesting to facilitate the biomass needs regarding pretreatment activities.
Here, in economic terms, there is a clear investment needed in staff to work in the centers and in infrastructure to host these centers. This cost could be borne by public entities and amortized by the savings mentioned in the previous section. In environmental terms, the benefits could be the same as in the previous section. In social terms, in addition to the benefits inherent in reducing the risk of fire, it could also generate additional income for producers, who in many cases are elderly people living on low pensions and could have an extra income here.
Analyzing the players in the chain, society and management entities, the clear difference between this measure and the previous one lies in the producer, who, in addition to the expense generated in the previous model, can now have access to extra income, and for this reason, it will be considered to have an impact in a positive direction. Another player that is also affected is the final consumer, who without these centers had biomass at low prices (many times 0), now they may have to pay some amount; however, with there being more biomass, even if aggregated, prices will fall, and biomass will be more affordable than what is currently purchased. For this reason, the final consumer will stay with the positive impacts of the major. This measure may negatively impact loggers, as they will lose access to low-cost biomass. However, it creates a more equitable system for producers/landowners, providing them with additional revenue opportunities. Table 3 summarizes the impact of measure 2 on stakeholders of the agroforestry recovery chain.

3.3.3. Measure 3: Reward for Placing Biomass in Eco-Points

Currently, in rural areas, it is possible to see several biomass eco-points, where producers place their agroforestry leftovers. However, this option is not mandatory, with the producer being able to deliver, or not. Here, assuming measure 1 as stated, and that measure 2 may not be viable in small production environments, the solution may be to make these containers intelligent. The solution for measure 3 would be to create a system integrated into the current eco-points in which the producer could use a card to access the eco-point, which would open and “read” the amount of biomass inserted. Here, the system itself generated the delivery note for the leftovers and created an account for each producer where the quantities of biomass delivered were added up. In the end, depending on the return that the recovery of the eco-point gave, the greater the producer’s return would be. The logic would be analogous to that of rubbish bins, where the producer pays depending on what s/he puts in, here s/he would receive depending on what s/he puts in. Concerning economic questions, there is a clear investment needed in technological gadgets, technological infrastructure, and software. This cost could be made by public entities (government entities) and amortized by the savings mentioned in Section 3.3.1 (reducing rural fires). In environmental terms, the benefits could be the same as in the previous sections. In social terms, the benefits are closer to measure 2, since the additional revenues to the producer/landowner are also considered, but still less than measure 2, because not any pre-treatment activities are made.
The results of measures 2 and 3 appear to try to reduce the pressure that measure 1 can create on the producer in economic terms. These results differ from other chains because they have financing mechanisms and do not need these additional dynamics. Measure 3 focuses on enhancing an existing system, particularly in towns, to maximize benefits for producers and landowners. By preventing traditional biomass burning, this measure not only reduces fire risks but also increases biomass availability. Table 4 summarizes the impact of measure 3 on stakeholders of the agroforestry recovery chain.

3.3.4. Measure 4: Difficulty in Obtaining Licenses for Burning

Despite the logistical costs identified and the obligations that the measures mentioned above try to implement, inspection using technology may not be possible and in human terms, it may also be unfeasible to monitor all land. Furthermore, rewarding all producers economically may become unfeasible, meaning producer motivation is not a sufficient condition. In this sense, many producers may simply resort to burning the leftovers, instead of giving them the proper destination for recovery. Burning in Portugal has an easy permit system that allows burning at certain times of the year just a click away. Thus, measure 4 does not appear as a new measure, but rather as a review of what currently exists, proposing an additional difficulty in the burning authorization process. This measure is simpler and does not entail additional costs, and it can be said that the only economic impact lies in the reduction in returns generated by indirect taxes on pyrotechnic material. The economic, environmental, and social benefits of reducing fires remain. This measure can still be crucial in reducing fires, as it reduces negligent attitudes towards fire, therefore being an added value for the state and society. As for the actors, it could be harmful for the producer, as they may incur expenses if measures 2 and 3 are not carried out. For logging companies, this measure is neutral, since producers who burn leftovers do not hand them over.
Measure 4 is a result also identified in the literature, which could be easily perceived, since if burning was easy, the desire to change would be less [17]. Loggers are largely unaffected by this measure, as biomass burning does not typically involve their operations. Across all three measures, societal and governmental entities benefit significantly, despite some initial costs to the government. The final consumer is also positively impacted, as increased biomass availability leads to lower prices. Table 5 summarizes the impact of measure 4 on stakeholders of the agroforestry recovery chain.
Another significant factor in managing most of these chains is the concept of Ecovalor, a fee paid by producers or consumers to support the functioning of the recovery chain for waste generated by the associated products. In the context of agroforestry, applying Ecovalor could involve extending this fee to agroforestry products. For instance, Ecovalor could be applied to olive grove products, or a portion of the proceeds from wood sales could be allocated to an integrated leftover management system. However, this approach faces a potential challenge: many land plots may not produce sufficient material to justify economic valorization. For example, land may need to be cleared for safety reasons, generating agroforestry leftovers without any inherent economic value, unlike waste derived from products specifically designed to have market value.

3.4. Analysis of Measures Impact on Agroforestry Chain Stakeholders

The analysis of the proposed policy roadmap indicates that all measures have a positive impact on three key stakeholders: final consumers, society, and government entities. For society and government entities, the benefits are clear, particularly in reducing fire hazards through increased biomass recovery. Additionally, diverting biomass from open burning to alternative uses enhances renewable energy availability, reducing reliance on fossil fuels and lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Although some measures may entail initial costs for government entities, these expenses are outweighed by savings in direct and indirect firefighting costs. Also, increased biomass recovery could generate additional tax revenue from biomass processing, partially offsetting the government’s investment in implementing the proposed measures. Initially, the proposed measures might seem disadvantageous to loggers, as they would no longer have unrestricted access to residual biomass, which is often considered a low-cost byproduct of logging operations. However, the regulations aim to create a more equitable system for all stakeholders. Furthermore, loggers in Portugal are increasingly adopting advanced technologies, such as mechanized harvesters and transport systems, which can streamline the biomass recovery process. These technologies improve efficiency and reduce operational costs, potentially offsetting the challenges posed by regulatory changes.
From the perspective of sustainable development and the three pillars of sustainability, the proposed measures offer clear contributions. In terms of the economic pillar, these measures reduce the need for burning agroforestry leftovers, which decreases the risk of rural fires. This reduction can result in significant cost savings in firefighting efforts, allowing resources to be redirected toward preventive initiatives, such as implementing the proposed policies. Environmentally, the measures help reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with fires. Additionally, agroforestry leftovers, as a form of biomass, can be utilized as a renewable energy source, adding value to the energy sector. These contributions play a critical role in mitigating climate change and advancing decarbonization policies. Socially, the measures are strongly tied to reducing rural fires, which leads to meaningful social benefits, such as minimizing property damage, preserving landscapes, and, most importantly, protecting human lives.

4. Conclusions

The concept of the circular economy is well-established in various sectors, including waste recovery, with significant implications for sustainability, ranging from public health improvements to economic growth. Government regulations play a pivotal role in fostering circularity. However, there is a notable gap in regulations that promote the circular economy specifically in the context of agroforestry waste. Reducing the generation of these residues is not a viable solution, as the activities that produce them are essential for agricultural productivity and fuel load management. Therefore, it is critical to ensure a sustainable destination for this waste, which is often burned openly, increasing fire risks. This paper proposes a policy framework to address this regulatory gap and enhance the agroforestry waste circular economy potential, contributing directly to the United Nations SDG, particularly SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), SDG 13 (Climate Action), and SDG 15 (Life on Land). Although focused on the Portuguese context, the findings of this study have broader implications, as many agroforestry systems globally face similar logistical and regulatory challenges. The implementation of these regulatory measures may face several challenges, including high logistical costs, resistance from stakeholders, and the limited availability of advanced monitoring technologies in rural areas. Addressing these challenges will require targeted investments, public–private partnerships, and tailored communication strategies to align stakeholder interests and ensure compliance. The feasibility of using advanced technologies, such as drones and AI, in rural environments depends on factors like infrastructure, cost, and technical expertise. While these technologies can significantly improve monitoring and operational efficiency, their adoption in rural settings may require targeted investments, government incentives, and capacity-building programs to ensure accessibility and effectiveness.
While the proposed framework provides valuable insights, its theoretical nature is a limitation. Empirical validation through case studies or pilot projects is necessary to evaluate its practical applicability. Future research should focus on quantifying the economic, environmental, and social impacts of these measures and examining their adaptability to diverse regional and policy contexts. Theoretically, this guideline contributes to the literature by addressing an underexplored area and highlighting its research potential. Practically, it offers a political roadmap outlining specific measures and implementation strategies. Additionally, it examines the impact of these measures on various stakeholders in the supply chain, serving as a foundation for discussions with experts or, in the future, for real-world implementation. Future work could involve validating the model with experts and conducting hypothetical case studies to quantitatively assess the proposed framework’s effectiveness.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.B., L.J.R.N. and L.T.; methodology, L.J.R.N. and L.T.; validation, T.B., L.J.R.N. and L.T.; formal analysis, T.B., L.J.R.N. and L.T.; investigation, T.B., L.J.R.N. and L.T.; resources, L.J.R.N. and L.T.; data curation, T.B., L.J.R.N. and L.T.; writing—original draft preparation, T.B., L.J.R.N. and L.T.; writing—review and editing, T.B., L.J.R.N. and L.T.; visualization, T.B., L.J.R.N. and L.T.; supervision, L.J.R.N. and L.T.; project administration, L.J.R.N. and L.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia/MCTES, through national funds and, when applicable, co-financed by the FEDER, under the new partnership agreement PT2020, grant number PCIF/GVB/0083/2019. The participation of the author Tiago Bastos in this work was financed by the Foundation for Science and Technology through financial support via funds from national budget and community budget through the FSE. The author Leonel Nunes’ participation in this work was partially financed by national funds through FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., within the scope of project UIDP/05975/2020 of the Research Unit on Materials, Energy, and Environment for Sustainability (PROMETHEUS), project UIDB/04058/2020 and UIDP/04058/2020 of the Research Unit on Governance, Competitiveness, and Public Policies (GOVCOPP), and project UIDB/00239/2020 of the Forest Research Centre (CEF) with the identifier DOI 10.54499 (UIDB/00239/2020). The author Leonor Teixeira was supported by Institute of Electronics and Informatics Engineering of Aveiro (IEETA) supported by Portuguese funds through the FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, in the context of the project UIDB/00127/2020.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Muniz, R.N.; da Costa Júnior, C.T.; Buratto, W.G.; Nied, A.; González, G.V. The Sustainability Concept: A Review Focusing on Energy. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Alarcón, F.; Cortés-Pellicer, P.; Pérez-Perales, D.; Sanchis, R. Sustainability vs. Circular economy from a disposition decision perspective: A proposal of a methodology and an applied example in SMEs. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Castro Oliveira, J.; Lopes, J.M.; Farinha, L.; Silva, S.; Luízio, M. Orchestrating entrepreneurial ecosystems in circular economy: The new paradigm of sustainable competitiveness. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2022, 33, 103–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kara, S.; Hauschild, M.; Sutherland, J.; McAloone, T. Closed-loop systems to circular economy: A pathway to environmental sustainability? CIRP Ann. 2022, 71, 505–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ghisellini, P.; Cialani, C.; Ulgiati, S. A review on circular economy: The expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 114, 11–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Korhonen, J.; Honkasalo, A.; Seppälä, J. Circular economy: The concept and its limitations. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 143, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Magalhães, F.C.; Bellei, P.; Flores-Colen, I.; da Costa, E.M. Blue Circular Economy—Reuse and Valorization of Bivalve Shells: The Case of Algarve, Portugal. Recycling 2024, 9, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Liu, G.; Zhang, F.; Deng, X. Economic development lowering inequality in China’s household food greenhouse gas footprints. Cell Rep. Sustain. 2024, 1, 100259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pradhan, P.; Subedi, D.R.; Dahal, K.; Hu, Y.; Gurung, P.; Pokharel, S.; Kafle, S.; Khatri, B.; Basyal, S.; Gurung, M.; et al. Urban agriculture matters for sustainable development. Cell Rep. Sustain. 2024, 1, 100217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Shvetsova, O.A.; Lee, J.H. Minimizing the environmental impact of industrial production: Evidence from south Korean waste treatment investment projects. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gobbi, C. Designing the reverse supply chain: The impact of the product residual value. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2011, 41, 768–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Massarutto, A.; de Carli, A.; Graffi, M. Material and energy recovery in integrated waste management systems: A life-cycle costing approach. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 2102–2111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Bain, A.; Shenoy, M.; Ashton, W.; Chertow, M. Industrial symbiosis and waste recovery in an Indian industrial area. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2010, 54, 1278–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chidozie, B.C.; Ramos, A.L.; Ferreira, J.V.; Ferreira, L.P. Residual agroforestry biomass supply chain simulation insights and directions: A systematic literature review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gital, Y.; Bilgen, B. Biomass supply chain network design under uncertainty, risk and resilience: A systematic literature review. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2024, 193, 110270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wang, X.T.; Cao, J.X.; Lv, Y. Resource allocation and route planning under the collection price uncertainty for the biomass supply chain. Biosyst. Eng. 2024, 241, 68–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Del Valle, T.M.; Yang, X.; Jiang, P. Evaluation of straw and agricultural policy impacts on the sustainability of the straw-based bioeconomy with an agent-based model. Biomass Bioenergy 2024, 184, 107177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jesus, M.; Romaní, A.; Mata, F.; Domingues, L. Current options in the valorisation of vine pruning residue for the production of biofuels, biopolymers, antioxidants, and bio-composites following the concept of biorefinery: A review. Polymers 2022, 14, 1640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. de Oliveira, E.; Lobo-do-Vale, R.; Colaço, M.C. Incident analysis of traditional burns in Portugal. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2023, 95, 103852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Martin, D.A. Linking fire and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 662, 547–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Girona-García, A.; Cretella, C.; Fernández, C.; Robichaud, P.R.; Vieira, D.C.S.; Keizer, J.J. How much does it cost to mitigate soil erosion after wildfires? J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 334, 117478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Bastos, T.; Teixeira, L.C.; Matias, J.C.O.; Nunes, L.J.R. Optimizing the agroforestry residual biomass supply chain: A disruptive tool for mitigating logistic costs and enhancing forest management. Results Eng. 2023, 20, 101500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Onn, M.; Jalil, M.J.; Yusoff, N.I.S.M.; Edward, E.B.; Wahit, M.U. A comprehensive review on chemical route to convert waste cooking oils to renewable polymeric materials. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2024, 211, 118194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bertoldi, P.; Rezessy, S.; Lees, E.; Baudry, P.; Jeandel, A.; Labanca, N. Energy supplier obligations and white certificate schemes: Comparative analysis of experiences in the European Union. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 1455–1469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Negi, R.S.; Singh, R.K.; Atray, N.; Singh, S.K. Potential valorization of used cooking oil into novel biolubricating grease through chemical modification and its performance evaluation. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2023, 205, 117555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Attahiru, Y.B.; Mohamed, A.; Eltwati, A.; Burga, A.A.; Ibrahim, A.; Nabade, A.M. Effect of waste cooking oil on warm mix asphalt block pavement–A comprehensive review. Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C 2023, 129, 103310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ahmad, G.; Imran, S.; Farooq, M.; Shah, A.N.; Anwar, Z.; Rehman, A.U.; Imran, M. Biodiesel production from waste cooking oil using extracted catalyst from plantain banana stem via RSM and ANN optimization for sustainable development. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mikulski, M.; Ambrosewicz-Walacik, M.; Hunicz, J.; Nitkiewicz, S. Combustion engine applications of waste tyre pyrolytic oil. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2021, 85, 100915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Al-Kayiem, H.H.; Bhayo, B.A.; Magaril, E.; Ravi, P. Rudimentary assessment of waste-to-wealth of used tires crumbs in thermal energy storage. Recycling 2022, 7, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Campbell-Johnston, K.; Friant, M.C.; Thapa, K.; Lakerveld, D.; Vermeulen, W.J. How circular is your tyre: Experiences with extended producer responsibility from a circular economy perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 270, 122042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Torretta, V.; Rada, E.C.; Ragazzi, M.; Trulli, E.; Istrate, I.A.; Cioca, L.I. Treatment and disposal of tyres: Two EU approaches. A review. Waste Manag. 2015, 45, 152–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Van Beukering, P.J.; Janssen, M.A. Trade and recycling of used tyres in Western and Eastern Europe. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2001, 33, 235–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kole, P.J.; Löhr, A.J.; Van Belleghem, F.G.; Ragas, A.M. Wear and tear of tyres: A stealthy source of microplastics in the environment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Korniejenko, K.; Kozub, B.; Bąk, A.; Balamurugan, P.; Uthayakumar, M.; Furtos, G. Tackling the circular economy challenges—Composites recycling: Used tyres, wind turbine blades, and solar panels. J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, 243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Di Fraia, S.; Fabozzi, S.; Macaluso, A.; Vanoli, L. Energy potential of residual biomass from agro-industry in a Mediterranean region of southern Italy (Campania). J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 277, 124085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Costa, M.; Buono, A.; Caputo, C.; Carotenuto, A.; Cirillo, D.; Costagliola, M.; Di Blasio, G.; La Villetta, M.; Macaluso, A.; Martoriello, G. The “INNOVARE” project: Innovative plants for distributed poly-generation by residual biomass. Energies 2020, 13, 4020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Galán-Martín, Á.; del Mar Contreras, M.; Romero, I.; Ruiz, E.; Bueno-Rodríguez, S.; Eliche-Quesada, D.; Castro-Galiano, E. The potential role of olive groves to deliver carbon dioxide removal in a carbon-neutral Europe: Opportunities and challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 165, 112609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Piedra-Jimenez, F.; Torres, A.I.; Rodriguez, M.A. A robust disjunctive formulation for the redesign of forest biomass-based fuels supply chain under multiple factors of uncertainty. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2024, 181, 108540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Nunes, L.J.; Loureiro, L.M.; Sá, L.C.; Silva, H.F. Evaluation of the potential for energy recovery from olive oil industry waste: Thermochemical conversion technologies as fuel improvement methods. Fuel 2020, 279, 118536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hermoso-Orzáez, M.J.; Mota-Panizio, R.; Carmo-Calado, L.; Brito, P. Thermochemical and economic analysis for energy recovery by the gasification of WEEE plastic waste from the disassembly of large-scale outdoor obsolete luminaires by LEDs in the alto alentejo region (Portugal). Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 4601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Alves, A.S.; Nunes, L.J.; Matias, J.C.; Espadinha-Cruz, P.; Godina, R. An integrated PROMETHEE II-Roadmap model: Application to the recovery of residual agroforestry biomass in Portugal. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 445, 141307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rijal, P.; Bras, P.; Garrido, S.; Matias, J.; Pimentel, C.; Carvalho, H. Residual Forestry Biomass Supply Chain: A Mapping Approach. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 2023, 14, 244–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Malladi, K.T.; Sowlati, T. Biomass logistics: A review of important features, optimization modeling and the new trends. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 94, 587–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bastos, T.; Teixeira, L.C.; Nunes, L.J. Forest 4.0: Technologies and digitalization to create the residual biomass supply chain of the future. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 467, 143041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Balcão Único do Prédio. Available online: https://bupi.gov.pt/ (accessed on 13 January 2025).
Land 14 00362 g001
Figure 1. Summary of the methodological approach taken in this study.
Figure 1. Summary of the methodological approach taken in this study.
Land 14 00362 g001
Land 14 00362 g002
Figure 2. Diagram of how the WCO chain works.
Figure 2. Diagram of how the WCO chain works.
Land 14 00362 g002
Land 14 00362 g003
Figure 3. Diagram of how used tires and used oil chains work (the dashed arrows represent who pays the Ecovalor: the orange in the used oil chain and the blue in the used tires chain).
Figure 3. Diagram of how used tires and used oil chains work (the dashed arrows represent who pays the Ecovalor: the orange in the used oil chain and the blue in the used tires chain).
Land 14 00362 g003
Land 14 00362 g004
Figure 4. Summary of actual agroforestry biomass recovery scenario.
Figure 4. Summary of actual agroforestry biomass recovery scenario.
Land 14 00362 g004
Table 1. Comparison of challenges and opportunities between agroforestry biomass recovery and established waste recovery chains, highlighting key aspects for the implementation of circular economy practices.
Table 1. Comparison of challenges and opportunities between agroforestry biomass recovery and established waste recovery chains, highlighting key aspects for the implementation of circular economy practices.
AspectAgroforestry Biomass RecoveryEstablished Waste Recovery Chains
Logistical CostsHigh; often uneconomical in rural settingsModerate; centralized infrastructure reduces costs
Stakeholder EngagementLimited; low awareness and motivation among producersHigh; clear financial incentives and regulatory compliance
Technological AdoptionLow; reliance on traditional methodsHigh; use of automation and advanced monitoring systems
Regulatory FrameworksWeak; lacks mandatory compliance mechanismsStrong; well-defined policies and enforcement structures
Market DemandFluctuating; biomass value depends on local marketsStable; established markets for recyclable materials
Environmental ImpactHigh; open burning leads to emissions and fire risksLow; emphasis on resource recovery and emissions reduction
Table 2. Summary of measure 1 impact to the 5 actors (“+”—positive impact; “−”—negative impact and “=”—neutral impact).
Table 2. Summary of measure 1 impact to the 5 actors (“+”—positive impact; “−”—negative impact and “=”—neutral impact).
MeasureProducer/LandownerLoggerFinal ConsumerSocietyGovernment Entities
1−−+++
Table 3. Summary of measure 2 impacts on the 5 actors (“+”—positive impact; “−”—negative impact and “=”—neutral impact).
Table 3. Summary of measure 2 impacts on the 5 actors (“+”—positive impact; “−”—negative impact and “=”—neutral impact).
MeasureProducer/LandownerLoggerFinal ConsumerSocietyGovernment Entities
2+−+++
Table 4. Summary of measure 3 impacts on the 5 actors (“+”—positive impact; “−”—negative impact and “=”—neutral impact).
Table 4. Summary of measure 3 impacts on the 5 actors (“+”—positive impact; “−”—negative impact and “=”—neutral impact).
MeasureProducer/LandownerLoggerFinal ConsumerSocietyGovernment Entities
3+−+++
Table 5. Summary of measure 4 impacts on the 5 actors (“+”—positive impact; “−”—negative impact and “=”—neutral impact).
Table 5. Summary of measure 4 impacts on the 5 actors (“+”—positive impact; “−”—negative impact and “=”—neutral impact).
MeasureProducer/LandownerLoggerFinal ConsumerSocietyGovernment Entities
4−=+++
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

Bastos, T.; Nunes, L.J.R.; Teixeira, L. Fostering Circularity in Agroforestry Biomass: A Regulatory Framework for Sustainable Resource Management. Land 2025, 14, 362. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14020362

AMA Style

Bastos T, Nunes LJR, Teixeira L. Fostering Circularity in Agroforestry Biomass: A Regulatory Framework for Sustainable Resource Management. Land. 2025; 14(2):362. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14020362

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bastos, Tiago, Leonel J. R. Nunes, and Leonor Teixeira. 2025. "Fostering Circularity in Agroforestry Biomass: A Regulatory Framework for Sustainable Resource Management" Land 14, no. 2: 362. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14020362

APA Style

Bastos, T., Nunes, L. J. R., & Teixeira, L. (2025). Fostering Circularity in Agroforestry Biomass: A Regulatory Framework for Sustainable Resource Management. Land, 14(2), 362. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14020362

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