Evaluation of Three Forest-Based Bioenergy Development Strategies in the Inland Northwest, United States

Saul, Darin; Newman, Soren; Peterson, S R; Kosse, Eli; Jacobson, Ryan; Keefe, Robert F.; Devadoss, Stephen; Laninga, Tamara; Moroney, J.

doi:10.1093/jofore/fvy042

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In East Texas, Gan and Smith [45] concluded that the electricity generation from woody biomass could generate about 1320 jobs and contribute about $352 million in total output. Recently, [46] used an input-output analysis to evaluate the profitability and socio-economic impact of three forest-based bioenergy development strategies in the northwest USA. Their results show total economic impact on employment is small, however the production of bioenergy will contribute about $152 million annually and generate over 2000 jobs in the region.…”

Section: Modeling Forest Bioenergy Economic Impactsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential Economic Impacts of Allocating More Land for Bioenergy Biomass Production in Virginia

Ochuodho

Alavalapati

Lal

et al. 2019

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The growing attention to renewable energy and rural development has created greater demand for production of biomass feedstock for bioenergy. However, forest growth rates and the amount of land in most existing forests may not be sufficient to sustainably supply the forest biomass required to support existing forest products industries and the expanding bioenergy industry. Additionally, concerns about agricultural land use competition have dampened expansion of biomass production on agricultural land base. One of the ways to meet the growing forest biomass feedstock demand for bioenergy production is by allocating currently marginal non-forested land for growing bioenergy feedstocks. In Virginia, about 80% of forestland is under nonindustrial private forest ownership. The land use allocation decisions of these private owners are critical for the supply of the forest biomass feedstock to support bioenergy production. We apply a computable general equilibrium model to assess the economy-wide impacts of forestland owners’ willingness to plant pine on non-forested land for woody bioenergy in Virginia. We consider three counterfactual scenarios of biomass feedstock supply increase as intermediate demand for bioenergy production based on forestland owners’ willingness to accept biomass bid prices to set aside more non-forested land for biomass production in Virginia under general equilibrium conditions. Overall, the results show an increase in social welfare and household utility but a marginal decline in GDP. However, increased demand of biomass from logging sector depressed the manufacturing sector (the wood manufacturing sub-sector particularly), which also relies on the logging sector for its intermediate inputs. Results from this study provide insights into the bioenergy land use competition debate, and pathways towards sustainable bioenergy feedstock supply.

show abstract

Section: Modeling Forest Bioenergy Economic Impactsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential Economic Impacts of Allocating More Land for Bioenergy Biomass Production in Virginia

Ochuodho

Alavalapati

Lal

et al. 2019

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Contribution of Biomass Supply Chains for Bioenergy to Sustainable Development Goals

Blair

Gagnon

Klain

et al. 2021

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work evaluates the relationships between bioenergy and related biomass supply chains and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Using Nilsson et al. (2016) seven-point scoring framework, the relationships between biomass supply for bioenergy and the SDGs were evaluated based on existing synthesis papers, modeling studies and empirical analyses, and expert knowledge. To complement this, contributions to SDG targets of 37 best practice case studies from around the world were documented. In reviewing these case studies, it was found that when supply chains are implemented appropriately and integrated with existing systems, they can have overwhelmingly positive contributions. Beyond directly contributing to SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), at least half of all case studies supported progress toward SDGs 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), and 12 (Responsible Production and Consumption); however, the ways in which supply chains contributed often differed. Agricultural biomass supply chains (energy crops and residues) were most likely to contribute to SDGs 2 (Zero Hunger) and 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), while waste and forest supply chains were most likely to contribute to SDG 15 (Life on Land). The development of bioenergy systems in rural and indigenous communities also indirectly supports societal SDGs such as SDGs 1 (No Poverty), 4 (Quality Education), 5 (Gender Inequality), and 10 (Reduced Inequalities). This work informs how SDGs can be used as a normative framework to guide the implementation of sustainable biomass supply chains, whether it is used for bioenergy or the broader bioeconomy. Recommendations for key stakeholders and topics for future work are also proposed.

show abstract

Evaluation of Three Forest-Based Bioenergy Development Strategies in the Inland Northwest, United States

Cited by 2 publications

References 21 publications

Potential Economic Impacts of Allocating More Land for Bioenergy Biomass Production in Virginia

Potential Economic Impacts of Allocating More Land for Bioenergy Biomass Production in Virginia

Contribution of Biomass Supply Chains for Bioenergy to Sustainable Development Goals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About