IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v26y2024i9d10.1007_s10668-023-03571-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Carbon footprint and sustainability assessment of wood utilisation in Hungary

Author

Listed:
  • András Polgár

    (University of Sopron)

Abstract

Forest management allows the sustained removal of significant amounts of carbon from the atmosphere. Within different activities in the forest, wood utilisation has the most significant man-made environmental impact which affects the carbon balance, which is important to know, to be able to accurately identify its role in climate change. This study aims to determine the carbon footprint of logging during utilisation based on scenario analysis in national default and theoretical assortment structures (11 additional scenarios for each forest stand) within the entire life cycle of raw wood products. Based on a common functional unit (100 m3 of cut wood), a comparative environmental life cycle analysis (LCA) for intermediate and final cutting was performed in shortwood forestry work systems in beech (Fagus spp.), oak (Quercus spp.), spruce (Picea spp.), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), and hybrid poplar (Populus x euramericana) stands in Hungary. After obtaining the results, the present study calculated the carbon footprint order for the utilisation life cycle phases and the entire tree utilisation life cycle. The distribution of absolute carbon footprint (ACF: considered emitted CO2 from fossil and biotic origins together) by final cutting exhibited the following order: hybrid poplar (6%)—spruce (8%)—beech (26%)—oak (27%)—black locust (33%). The ACF ranking for the whole technological life cycle (intermediate and final cutting, 400 m3 of cut wood) was hybrid poplar– spruce—oak—beech–black locust. The carbon footprint rankings of the studied stands were expanded to the national level.

Suggested Citation

  • András Polgár, 2024. "Carbon footprint and sustainability assessment of wood utilisation in Hungary," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(9), pages 24495-24519, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:26:y:2024:i:9:d:10.1007_s10668-023-03571-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-023-03571-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-023-03571-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-023-03571-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Murphy, Fionnuala & Devlin, Ger & McDonnell, Kevin, 2014. "Forest biomass supply chains in Ireland: A life cycle assessment of GHG emissions and primary energy balances," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 1-8.
    2. Cherubini, Francesco & Bird, Neil D. & Cowie, Annette & Jungmeier, Gerfried & Schlamadinger, Bernhard & Woess-Gallasch, Susanne, 2009. "Energy- and greenhouse gas-based LCA of biofuel and bioenergy systems: Key issues, ranges and recommendations," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 434-447.
    3. Ayres, Robert U & Kneese, Allen V, 1969. "Production , Consumption, and Externalities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 282-297, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh, 1999. "Materials, Capital, Direct/Indirect Substitution, and Mass Balance Production Functions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(4), pages 547-561.
    2. Atkinson, Scott E. & Tsionas, Mike G., 2021. "Generalized estimation of productivity with multiple bad outputs: The importance of materials balance constraints," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 292(3), pages 1165-1186.
    3. Figge, Frank & Hahn, Tobias & Barkemeyer, Ralf, 2014. "The If, How and Where of assessing sustainable resource use," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 274-283.
    4. Toman, Michael & Lile, Ronald D. & King, Dennis M., 1998. "Assessing Sustainability: Some Conceptual and Empirical Challenges," Discussion Papers 10756, Resources for the Future.
    5. Considine, Timothy J. & Larson, Donald F., 2006. "The environment as a factor of production," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 645-662, November.
    6. Juanjo Galan & Daniela Perrotti, 2019. "Incorporating Metabolic Thinking into Regional Planning: The Case of the Sierra Calderona Strategic Plan," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(1), pages 152-171.
    7. Stern, David I., 1997. "Limits to substitution and irreversibility in production and consumption: A neoclassical interpretation of ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 197-215, June.
    8. Suh, Sangwon, 2004. "Functions, commodities and environmental impacts in an ecological-economic model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 451-467, April.
    9. Roma, Antonio & Pirino, Davide, 2009. "The extraction of natural resources: The role of thermodynamic efficiency," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2594-2606, August.
    10. Ghodeswar, Archana & Oliver, Matthew E., 2022. "Trading one waste for another? Unintended consequences of fly ash reuse in the Indian electric power sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    11. Bruckner, Martin & Wood, Richard & Moran, Daniel & Kuschnig, Nikolas & Wieland, Hanspeter & Maus, Victor & Börner, Jan, 2019. "FABIO - The Construction of the Food and Agriculture Biomass Input-Output Model," Ecological Economic Papers 27, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    12. Carl Obst & Lars Hein & Bram Edens, 2016. "National Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Assets and Their Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(1), pages 1-23, May.
    13. Eksi, Guner & Karaosmanoglu, Filiz, 2017. "Combined bioheat and biopower: A technology review and an assessment for Turkey," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 1313-1332.
    14. María Jesús Beltrán & Esther Velázquez, 2011. "Del metabolismo social al metabolismo hídrico," Documentos de Trabajo de la Asociación de Economía Ecológica en España 01_2011, Asociación de Economía Ecológica en España.
    15. Simonis, Udo E., 1987. "Umwelt und volkswirtschaftliche Gesamtrechnung: eine konzeptionelle Perspektive," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 108-119.
    16. Krausmann, Fridolin & Haberl, Helmut, 2002. "The process of industrialization from the perspective of energetic metabolism: Socioeconomic energy flows in Austria 1830-1995," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 177-201, May.
    17. Padi, Richard Kingsley & Douglas, Sean & Murphy, Fionnuala, 2023. "Techno-economic potentials of integrating decentralised biomethane production systems into existing natural gas grids," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 283(C).
    18. Lundgren, Jakob, 2022. "Unity through disunity: Strengths, values, and tensions in the disciplinary discourse of ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    19. Baerenklau, Kenneth A. & Nergis, Nermin & Schwabe, Kurt A., 2007. "Effects of Nutrient Restrictions on Confined Animal Facilities: Insights from a Structural Model," 2007 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, 2007, Portland, Oregon 10253, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    20. Rausser, Gordon C. & Papineau, Maya, 2008. "Managing R&D Risk in Renewable Energy," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt41j9f6ks, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.

    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:spr:endesu:v:26:y:2024:i:9:d:10.1007_s10668-023-03571-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.