IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i2p509-d199073.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Residual Biomass from Dutch Riverine Areas—From Waste to Ecosystem Service

Author

Listed:
  • Astrid E. Bout

    (Institute for Science in Society, Faculty of Science, Radboud University Nijmegen, 6500 GL Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    Rijkswaterstaat Oost-Nederland, Eusebiusbuitensingel 66, 6828 HZ Arnhem, The Netherlands
    Both authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Swinda F. Pfau

    (Institute for Science in Society, Faculty of Science, Radboud University Nijmegen, 6500 GL Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    Both authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Erwin van der Krabben

    (Institute for Management Research, Radboud University Nijmegen, 6500 HK Nijmegen, The Netherlands)

  • Ben Dankbaar

    (Institute for Science in Society, Faculty of Science, Radboud University Nijmegen, 6500 GL Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    Institute for Management Research, Radboud University Nijmegen, 6500 HK Nijmegen, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Dutch riverine areas are managed intensively to ensure the provision of various ecosystem services. Vegetation management, including pruning and mowing, produces a woody and grassy biomass as a by-product. In the past, this residual biomass has been treated as a waste product. Now there is a change of perspective; biomass is valued as a potential additional ecosystem service instead of a waste product. In this study, we explore the transition from waste to ecosystem service of residual biomass in Dutch water management organisations. We found several trends in the organisation of biomass use. There is a development away from the traditional approach of choosing the cheapest or easiest way to get rid of biomass towards exploring various uses of biomass that fulfil additional, societally relevant, functions. This trend alters the organisation of vegetation management and subsequent biomass use. Selection based on sustainable biomass uses is gaining importance, and there is a growing desire within public organisations to be able to steer towards sustainable use of residual biomass. However, there is a lack of applicable, objective ranking instruments.

Suggested Citation

  • Astrid E. Bout & Swinda F. Pfau & Erwin van der Krabben & Ben Dankbaar, 2019. "Residual Biomass from Dutch Riverine Areas—From Waste to Ecosystem Service," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-14, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:2:p:509-:d:199073
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/2/509/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/2/509/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Swinda F. Pfau & Janneke E. Hagens & Ben Dankbaar & Antoine J. M. Smits, 2014. "Visions of Sustainability in Bioeconomy Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-28, March.
    2. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    3. Searchinger, Timothy & Heimlich, Ralph & Houghton, R. A. & Dong, Fengxia & Elobeid, Amani & Fabiosa, Jacinto F. & Tokgoz, Simla & Hayes, Dermot J. & Yu, Hun-Hsiang, 2008. "Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12881, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    4. Thomas Dietz & Jan Börner & Jan Janosch Förster & Joachim Von Braun, 2018. "Governance of the Bioeconomy: A Global Comparative Study of National Bioeconomy Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, September.
    5. Naik, S.N. & Goud, Vaibhav V. & Rout, Prasant K. & Dalai, Ajay K., 2010. "Production of first and second generation biofuels: A comprehensive review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 578-597, February.
    6. Rick Bosman & Jan Rotmans, 2016. "Transition Governance towards a Bioeconomy: A Comparison of Finland and The Netherlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-20, October.
    7. Chandra, R. & Takeuchi, H. & Hasegawa, T., 2012. "Methane production from lignocellulosic agricultural crop wastes: A review in context to second generation of biofuel production," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 1462-1476.
    8. Grizzetti, B. & Lanzanova, D. & Liquete, C. & Reynaud, A. & Cardoso, A.C., 2016. "Assessing water ecosystem services for water resource management," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 194-203.
    9. Faaij, Andre P.C., 2006. "Bio-energy in Europe: changing technology choices," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 322-342, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Suopajärvi, Hannu & Pongrácz, Eva & Fabritius, Timo, 2013. "The potential of using biomass-based reducing agents in the blast furnace: A review of thermochemical conversion technologies and assessments related to sustainability," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 511-528.
    2. Ayrapetyan, David & Hermans, Frans, 2020. "Introducing a multiscalar framework for biocluster research: A meta-analysis," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 12(9).
    3. Ayrapetyan, David, 2023. "Technological innovations and sustainability transitions in the bioeconomy: A multiscalar approach toward the development of bioclusters," EconStor Theses, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, number 278703, September.
    4. Urmetzer, Sophie & Lask, Jan & Vargas-Carpintero, Ricardo & Pyka, Andreas, 2020. "Learning to change: Transformative knowledge for building a sustainable bioeconomy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    5. Sarah Jansen & William Foster & Gustavo Anríquez & Jorge Ortega, 2021. "Understanding Farm-Level Incentives within the Bioeconomy Framework: Prices, Product Quality, Losses, and Bio-Based Alternatives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-21, January.
    6. Rodriguez, Cristina & Alaswad, A. & Benyounis, K.Y. & Olabi, A.G., 2017. "Pretreatment techniques used in biogas production from grass," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 68(P2), pages 1193-1204.
    7. Sophie Urmetzer & Michael P. Schlaile & Kristina B. Bogner & Matthias Mueller & Andreas Pyka, 2018. "Exploring the Dedicated Knowledge Base of a Transformation towards a Sustainable Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-22, May.
    8. Marko Lovec & Luka Juvančič, 2021. "The Role of Industrial Revival in Untapping the Bioeconomy’s Potential in Central and Eastern Europe," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-20, December.
    9. Benoit Mougenot & Jean-Pierre Doussoulin, 2022. "Conceptual evolution of the bioeconomy: a bibliometric analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 1031-1047, January.
    10. Ioannis Souliotis & Nikolaos Voulvoulis, 2021. "Natural Capital Accounting Informing Water Management Policies in Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-24, October.
    11. Matteo De Besi & Kes McCormick, 2015. "Towards a Bioeconomy in Europe: National, Regional and Industrial Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-18, August.
    12. Exley, G. & Hernandez, R.R. & Page, T. & Chipps, M. & Gambro, S. & Hersey, M. & Lake, R. & Zoannou, K.-S. & Armstrong, A., 2021. "Scientific and stakeholder evidence-based assessment: Ecosystem response to floating solar photovoltaics and implications for sustainability," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    13. George B. Frisvold & Steven M. Moss & Andrea Hodgson & Mary E. Maxon, 2021. "Understanding the U.S. Bioeconomy: A New Definition and Landscape," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-24, February.
    14. Walther Zeug & Alberto Bezama & Urs Moesenfechtel & Anne Jähkel & Daniela Thrän, 2019. "Stakeholders’ Interests and Perceptions of Bioeconomy Monitoring Using a Sustainable Development Goal Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-24, March.
    15. Chaudry, Sofia & Bahri, Parisa A. & Moheimani, Navid R., 2015. "Pathways of processing of wet microalgae for liquid fuel production: A critical review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 1240-1250.
    16. Bengtsson, Selma & Fridell, Erik & Andersson, Karin, 2012. "Environmental assessment of two pathways towards the use of biofuels in shipping," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 451-463.
    17. Kumari, Dolly & Singh, Radhika, 2018. "Pretreatment of lignocellulosic wastes for biofuel production: A critical review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 877-891.
    18. Bernhard Stürmer & Johannes Schmidt & Erwin Schmid & Franz Sinabell, 2011. "A Modeling Framework for the Analysis of Biomass Production in a Land Constrained Economy. The Example of Austria," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 41748, April.
    19. D'Amato, D. & Korhonen-Kurki, K. & Lyytikainen, V. & Matthies, B.D. & Horcea-Milcu, A-I., 2022. "Circular bioeconomy: Actors and dynamics of knowledge co-production in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    20. de Queiroz-Stein, Guilherme & Martinelli, Fernanda S. & Dietz, Thomas & Siegel, Karen M., 2024. "Disputing the bioeconomy-biodiversity nexus in Brazil: Coalitions, discourses and policies," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:2:p:509-:d:199073. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.