Accepted Manuscript

Biomass-Related Sustainability: A review of the Literature and Interpretive

Structural Modeling

Susana Garrido Azevedo, Tiago Sequeira, Marcelo Santos, Luis Mendes

PII: S0360-5442(19)30070-2

DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2019.01.068

Reference: EGY 14541

To appear in: Energy

Received Date: 07 August 2018

Accepted Date: 14 January 2019

Please cite this article as: Susana Garrido Azevedo, Tiago Sequeira, Marcelo Santos, Luis
Mendes, Biomass-Related Sustainability: A review of the Literature and Interpretive Structural
Modeling, Energy (2019), doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2019.01.068

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
BIOMASS-RELATED SUSTAINABILITY:
A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND INTERPRETIVE STRUCTURAL MODELING

Abstract
In this paper we identify a concept of countries’ biomass-related sustainability through a
revision of the literature and the opinion of professionals, and identify the main reasons that
prevent biomass from being a major source of energy production (adversities and
constraints). The Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) methodology was used for
establishing the causal and hierarchical relationships among the variables linked with the
adversities and constraints associated with the production of biofuel from biomass and their
impact on countries’ biomass-related sustainability. At the base of the concept of biomass
related countries’ sustainability we identify an important constraint associated with the high
energy production costs, but also the necessity of supporting new investments, which will
drive technological innovations in this sector and allow for an increase in efficiency. The
paper presents an innovative approach to the research of biofuel production from biomass by
suggesting not only a concept of countries’ biomass-related sustainability but also by
exploring causal and hierarchical relationships between adversities/constraints of biofuel
production and impact on countries’ sustainability.

Keywords: Bioenergy, biomass, sustainability, countries’ development.

JEL Codes: O13, O25, O35, Q23, Q42, Q43.

___________________

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1. Introduction

Energy is the lifeblood of technological and economic development, and countries’ energy
choices have effects on climate change, economic growth, politics, and on the shape of
international alliances and commitments ([1] Chow, Kopp, & Portney, 2003; [2] Ramalho et
al., 2018; [3] Sequeira & Santos, 2018a; [4] Sequeira and Santos, 2018b). Increasing energy
consumption led to a growing use of fossil energy, driving climate change (e.g. greenhouse
gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide), and eventually deterred economic development
([5] Li, Luo, & Lu, 2017; [6] Csereklyei, Varas, & Stern, 2016).

The decreasing availability of fossil fuel energy sources and their geographic distribution
with a concentration in politically unstable countries, along with major global environmental
concerns due to climate change have brought increasing attention to the development of
renewable energy sources ([7] Sgroi et al., 2018; [8] Neves et al., 2018; [3] Sequeira &
Santos, 2018a). In fact, some recent articles have shown that countries climb an energy ladder
through development, leaving lower and dirtier rungs of the ladder in order to become cleaner
in their energy use ([9] Burke, 2010; [10] Andreas et al., 2017). However, some other authors
conclude that countries’ transitions to cleaner sources of energy depend crucially on political
institutions, namely democracy (e.g. [2] Ramalho et al., 2018; [4] Sequeira & Santos, 2018b).
While some international organizations such as the International Energy Agency (IEA) have
noted an incredibly low percentage of energy produced from biomass sources, some micro-
and case studies have noted its importance for rural communities and its enormous potential
for growth at the country level. For example, estimates indicate the annual demand for
biomass for energy is estimated to increase from the current level of 5.7 exajoule (EJ) to 10.0
EJ in 2020 ([11] Bentsen & Felby, 2012), just in the European Union, and according to [12]
Smeets et al. (2007), a global technical potential for biomass is estimated to be possibly as
high as 1500 EJ/year by 2050. However, a sensitivity analysis conducted by [13] Dornburg et
al. (2010) lowers that estimate to approximately 200–500 EJ/year in 2050 when taking into
consideration water limitations, biodiversity protection, and food demand.

From the literature review in this article it becomes clear that while biomass is still a minor
source of energy worldwide, it is rising in proportion in the energy mix. This may result from
the application of different and new technologies that convert biomass to liquids, briquettes,
pellets, or a gaseous mixture known as a synthesis gas to enhance their heat value and
combustion efficiency ([14] Kudoh et al., 2015).

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Additionally, bioenergy from biomass is already quite important in remote regions of the
poorest countries, albeit with some security issues. Notwithstanding, due to the existing
resources worldwide and biomass’ regeneration capacity, if well managed, it has great
potential to grow and become one of the major sources for energy, substituting non-
renewable sources and mitigating climate change. From the literature, there is no consensus
on the influence of bioenergy from biomass on sustainability. [5] Li, Luo, & Lu (2017) argue
that an increase in the use of biomass as a source of energy has the potential to increase
sustainability. However, according to [14] Kudoh et al. (2015), there are also some
potentially negative issues, seen in the implementation of policies for the enhanced use of
biomass related to environmental or social concerns regarding increased greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, loss of biodiversity, adverse impacts on communities’ livelihoods, and
increasing food insecurity. Moreover, large-scale bioenergy production from biomass may
intensify existing pressures on water resources and deforestation ([15] Popp et al., 2014).
Growing concern for these issues, especially in relation to biomass use for generating energy,
has led to the emergence of initiatives for assessing bioenergy sustainability, such as ([16]
Ramirez-Contreras & Faaij, 2018): sustainability indicators, certification systems, and
legislation for processing bioenergy feedstock, as well as producing and consuming
bioenergy.

Biomass as a source of energy is a very recent field of study. However, there is no definition
of the contribution of the bioenergy production from the biomass to the countries’
sustainability (or sustainable development).

Collecting and analyzing that disperse literature, we define variables that are influenced by
biomass use as a fuel for energy production that are simultaneously related to the economic,
social, and environmental dimensions of sustainability. Our main aim is to contribute to the
literature, providing it with a concept of countries’ biomass-related sustainability. To this end,
we found variables linked with sustainability, summarized as the following: supporting
investment, research, improving competitiveness; decreasing the price for the consumer;
developing rural areas; improving forestry management; and improving the circular economy
and the quality of the environment. However, some constraints and adversities on the use of
biomass as a source of energy were also identified: high production and transportation costs;
land and crops substitution by forestry to produce biomass, thereby decreasing the supply of
livestock and other agricultural products; low scale effects on production; risks for security
and health derived from inefficient use.

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
As a second contribution, we also want to identify the main reasons that prevent biomass
from being a major source of energy production and thus of the (sustainable) development of
countries, that is, identify some adversities and constraints associated with the production of
bioenergy from the biomass. An empirical application on biomass related sustainability faces
two types of challenges: (i) the values available for output (and consumption) from biomass
energy sources are rather modest at the country level (see e.g. [9] Burke, 2010; [2] Ramalho
et al., 2018; [4] Sequeira & Santos, 2018b)1; and even more important (ii) the level of detail
that we have reached with the literature review is such that it would be impossible to obtain
country level proxies for such variables, which are mostly qualitative ones. We thus
implemented an interpretive structural modeling (ISM), a well-established methodology for
identifying relationships among specific (usually qualitative) items that define a problem or
an issue ([17] Watson, 1978). This methodology has the advantage of being a scientific
approach based on experts’ opinions and applied knowledge, thus approaching the issue from
the supply side of the energy market. Because of this, its results should be of great interest to
professionals in the field. This has the final goal of understanding why some countries do not
increase biomass as a source of energy.

Our application to Portugal has two main reasons: the country is rich in sources of biomass
and relatively scarce on other sources of energy, namely those linked with coal and oil, and it
has an energy trade deficit. Portuguese forests occupy more than 1/3 of the country’s 100,000
square kilometers and its management has been quite difficult and affected by considerable
loss due to fires, which have been increasing due to global warming, among other
institutional and governance reasons. Besides being applied to Portugal, as the method is
based on a wide review of the literature, it can be replicable for other countries wishing to
increase the importance of biomass in their energy mix. These reasons have justified many
studies that have been performed on biomass for energy and sustainability concerns using
Portugal as an important case study ([18] Afgan et al., 2007; [19] Nunes et al., 2017; [20]
Valente et al., 2016).

Our results show that economic factors such as the cost of energy associated with
government intervention may drive the incentives to innovation in the biomass sector, which
together with the costs of biomass itself determine productivity within the sector. Biomass-
related sustainability is linked with economic factors (fossil fuels dependence, renewable
energy consumption), social factors linked with more jobs and the revitalization of rural areas
1 According to the International Energy Agency, the biomass and waste share in total primary energy
production reached 9.8% in 2016 for a total of 13760 Mtoe, although values are much smaller as a share of
electricity production.

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
and environmental factors linked with more sustainable forest management. Additionally, our
biomass-related sustainability concept has policy implications for both climate change and
development. In fact, in addition to identifying the factors that can influence development and
climate change through acting on the biomass sector, we also (through ISM) provide a
hierarchical analysis of the variables. Thus, our study approaches the constraints associated
with the production of biofuel from biomass and relates them with sustainability.

In the following section we approach the literature studying the relationship between biomass
and development.2 Then, in Section 3 we go further into the literature that relates the use of
biomass to energy production and the three dimensions of sustainability. Our aim there is to
provide a biomass related sustainability concept from the literature. In Section 4 we
implement our ISM approach and present the results. In Section 5 we discuss the results and
define the biomass related sustainability driven by our results. Section 6 concludes.

2. Biomass and (Sustainable) Development

Since the publication of the 1972 Growth Limits ([21] Meadows et al., 1972), the
international community has sought an alternative development model promoting a
sustainable pathway for global economic development, social progress, and environmental
protection ([22] Jiahua, 2015). Closely linked to quality of life and environmental impact,
energy consumption is one of the key driving factors of the world development and, as a
result, reducing energy dependence on traditional energy sources is a cornerstone of
European policies for establishing safe, competitive, sustainable, and renewable energy ([7]
Sgroi, Donia, & Alesi, 2018). Nevertheless, several countries still rely mostly on fossil-based
energy sources, in systems with supply insecurity. In such a context, the Kyoto Protocol in
1997 represents a milestone in committing countries to using different energy sources,
both renewable and environmentally friendly, and encouraging a reduced use of carbon
intensive energy sources ([23] Musa et al., 2018; [24] Ladanai & Vinterbäck, 2009).

Using biomass to provide energy is one of the most versatile options for increasing the
proportion of renewable energy in the global energy system ([25] Slade, Saunders, Gross, &
Bauen, 2011). Referred to as the fourth largest energy source (after coal, oil, and natural gas),
biomass is the largest and most important renewable energy option today, and can be used to

2 Note that the concept of development (mainly used in Economics) is interchangeable with sustainable
development. Also, the notion of sustainability, often used in Business and Management, is quite close to that
of development, as it encompasses economic, social, and environmental aspects.

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
produce different forms of energy. Together with other renewable energy options, biomass is
capable of providing all the energy services necessary to a modern society, and when
compared to other renewables, biomass resources are common and widespread across the
world ([24] Ladanai & Vinterbäck, 2009). Recent statistics indicate that biomass and waste
contributed to almost 10% of the total primary energy production ([26] IEA, 2018).

Biomass energy (bioenergy) sources include wood (currently the largest biomass resource),
landfill gas, certain crops, diverse kinds of residues, organic components of industrial wastes,
and even algae, among other potential sources. [27] Lainez et al. (2018) highlight several
potential sources of biomass, such as waste, residues and by-products from crop and animal
production systems, industrial and municipal solid waste from human activities, as well as
other non-conventional and promising sources of biomass coming from the cultivation of
algae and microorganisms. Indeed, biomass feedstock for bioenergy production comes from a
wide range of sources such as switchgrass, willows, poplars, straw, corn stover, conventional
wood, wood waste, thinnings, and residues. These can be used in several general processes
for the production of fuels and chemicals through four major conversion channels:
fermentation, hydrothermal liquefaction, pyrolysis, and combustion/co-firing ([28] Williams
et al., 2016). Biomass’ multiple uses are often summarized as the six “fs”: food, feed, fuel,
feedstock, fiber, and fertilizer ([29] Rosillo-Calle, de Groot, Hemstock, & Woods, 2015).
Bioenergy is readily obtained from wood, twigs, straw, dung, agricultural residues, among
other sources, burned directly for heat, or to generate electricity, or fermented into alcohol
fuels, anaerobically digested to biogas, or gasified to produce high-energy gas ([29] Rosillo-
Calle, de Groot, Hemstock, & Woods, 2015).

Bioenergy is increasingly recognized as an energy source able to provide modern consumers

with convenient, reliable, and affordable services, but [29] Rosillo-Calle, de Groot,
Hemstock, & Woods (2015) stress the growing need to develop and produce bioenergy for
modern applications.

Biomass has high moisture content that is not efficient to process by conventional
technologies, as a significant amount of energy goes into the drying process. To overcome
this drawback, hydrothermal processing is efficient as it eliminates the costly drying step by
thermal disintegration of biomass into hot compressed water, a solid (bio-char), a liquid (bio-
oil or bio-crude), or a gas (e.g., hydrogen, methane). The process also leads to by-products
that can be used for power generation and the recovery of useful nutrients ([30] Kumar et al.,
2018).

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
In recent years the number of countries exploiting biomass opportunities for energy supply
has increased rapidly, helping to make biomass sources attractive and promising options in
comparison to other renewable energy sources ([24] Ladanai & Vinterbäck, 2009). The
climate-healing logic, along with the imperative to find alternatives to increasingly expensive
fossil fuels, has led to policy incentives in the developed world to increase the use of biofuels
in transport and the volume of biomass consumed for heat and electricity ([31] Ferrier, 2011).
Indeed, bioenergy has an increasingly important role, and can no longer be considered a
“transitional energy source” as often portrayed in the past, and accordingly, several policies
supporting bioenergy have been introduced in recent years in many countries around the
world ([29] Rosillo-Calle, de Groot, Hemstock, & Woods, 2015).

Many studies have been performed to foresee the future scenario concerning bioenergy’s
demand and supply. Overall, biomass’ global use for energy purposes has steadily increased,
doubling over the last four decades, and the world’s bioenergy potential seems to be large
enough to meet the global energy demand in 2050, surpassing 1,000 EJ, with sufficient
political support ([24] Ladanai & Vinterbäck, 2009).

However, due to the complex nature of biomass production and use (e.g. difficulties in
estimating resource availability, long-term sustainable productivity, wide range of conversion
technologies, range of biomass energy end-uses and supply chains, competing uses of
biomass resources), there are great variations between the many attempts to estimate the
potential for biomass energy use, particularly at a global scale, and especially because the
availability of biomass energy sources varies greatly according to the level of socio-economic
development ([32] Rosillo-Calle, 2015).

Nevertheless, the share of biomass in final energy consumption is lowest in countries where
the percentage of poor people is lowest ([33] IEA, 2017b), which is also confirmed by [9]
Burke (2010). However, as highlighted by [32] Rosillo-Calle (2015), and [24] Ladanai and
Vinterbäck (2009), until the early 19th century biomass was the main source of energy in
most developed countries (at that time) and remains so in many developing countries. In this
context, wood biomass is a major renewable energy source in the developing world and
represents a large proportion of rural energy supply ([34] Hashiramoto, 2007). Indeed, [29]
Rosillo-Calle, de Groot, Hemstock, and Woods (2015) highlight that biomass energy is the
number one source of primary energy for three-quarters of the world’s population, who live
in developing countries, mentioning that in some countries, such as Burundi, Ethiopia, Nepal,
Rwanda, Sudan, and Tanzania, biomass represents more than 95 percent of primary energy

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
sources, and is used not only for home cooking, but also in many agricultural, manufacturing,
and service industries.

According to [35] Guerrero-Lemus and Shephard (2017), the supply of biomass in Africa and
Latin America has grown considerably since 1990, with the majority of the biomass being
derived from solids. But even within Africa, biomass use varies a great deal between the
Maghreb regions (with a very low reliance on traditional biomass-based energy consumption)
and Sub-Saharan countries (with a strong dependence on traditional biomass), with such
variations being attributed to lower GDP per capita, dominance of rural areas, ease of access
to forest/agricultural waste, and availability of fossil fuels ([35] Guerrero-Lemus & Shephard,
2017). Concerning Latin America, where GDP per capita is higher, the reliance on
traditional biomass is much lower than in Africa ([35] Guerrero-Lemus & Shephard, 2017).

About 2.4 billion people still rely on traditional biomass (e.g. wood, agricultural residues,
dung) for cooking and heating purposes, and according to the [33] IEA’s (2017b) World
Energy Outlook-2017 projections (IEA-2017), this number will increase to 2.6 billion by
2030, with biomass use in developing countries still representing over half of residential
energy consumption at the end of the Outlook period. This is especially important because, as
stressed by the IEA, an extensive use of biomass through traditional and inefficient ways and
the limited availability of electricity and modern fuels are manifestations of poverty,
restraining economic and social development ([33] IEA, 2017b).

3. Sustainability and the use of Biomass: a review of the literature

We review the literature so that we can define variables that are influenced by biomass use as
a source of energy production and that are simultaneously related to the dimensions of
sustainability. Our aim is to contribute to the literature by providing it with a concept of
biomass-related sustainability. We will also assess the adversities and constraints that have
prevented biomass from becoming a major source of energy until today.

3.1. The Biomass related concept of Sustainability

Sustainability and sustainable development are terms widely employed but seldom defined
unequivocally. Although there has been a debate about the definition of sustainability ([36]
Johnston et al. 2007:61), the most used definition belongs to the Brundtland Commission:
“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their needs” ([37] WCED 1987). According to [38] Wang (2005),

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
sustainability is the balance between financial growth, ecological improvement, and ethical
equity. In that sense sustainability and development are interchangeable concepts at the
country level. More, [39] Dyllick, and Hockerts (2002) draw on the Brundtland Commission
and consider that corporate sustainability consists of meeting the needs of a corporation’s
stakeholders without compromising its ability to meet the needs of future stakeholders. In this
line, [40] Schaltegger, Burritt, and Petersen (2003) define it as a business approach that
influences the environmental, social, and economic effects of a company in its sustainable
development and toward the sustainable development of the economy and society.

As can be seen by the above definitions, the concept of sustainability is aligned with the
Triple Bottom Line approach (TBL) developed by [41] Elkington (1998), which considers
sustainable development as a three-dimensional concept involving economic growth and
social well-being in harmony with environment.

The economic dimension, also known as the “traditional” dimension, has long been used in
the analysis of topics related to the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and
services. In contrast to the social and environmental dimension, the economic dimension is
mainly quantitative in nature. According to [42] Delai and Takahashi (2013), this dimension
is associated with the creation of wealth.

The environmental dimension refers to the natural capital of an enterprise or society. This
evidence has alerted industry leaders and policy makers to implement measures that can
promote new patterns of consumption and production to drive sustainable development. The
Europe 2020 Strategy sets out some environmental objectives designed to ensure, within this
period, a change to the current models of the impact on natural capital. The specific
objectives of the 2020 Strategy are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase the
renewable energy, and increase energy efficiency ([43] European Commission 2012).
According to [44] Streimikiene et al. (2016), the increased use of renewable energy
contributes to the reduction of energy import dependency and to the faster transition to a
green economy, which is in line with the Europe 2020 Strategy. It is estimated that improving
resource efficiency along value chains could reduce material input requirements by 17% to
24% by 2030 ([45] Meyer, 2011), and a better use of resources could represent a potential
global savings of 630 billion € per year for European industry ([46] Europe INNOVA 2012).

Despite the extremely complex nature of bioenergy, many different technologies involved,
and several different related issues (e.g. socio-economics, greenhouse gas mitigation
potential), the interest of the international community in socio-economic implications related

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
to moving society toward a more widespread use of renewable energies is considerable ([47]
Domac, Richards, & Risovic, 2005).

Attractive at all stages of development, due to its potential integration with all possible
development strategies worldwide, and being based on resources that can be used on a
sustainable basis all around the globe, bioenergy is not only an effective option for the
provision of energy services from a technological perspective, but also provides opportunities
to address questions other than energy, and can be a path toward issues related to economic,
national, environmental, and political security ([48] Ladanai & Vinterbäck, 2009). Indeed, the
sustainability potential of global biomass for energy is widely recognized ([48] Ladanai &
Vinterbäck, 2009), and many studies have focused on understanding the main benefits
inherent to an increasing use of biomass as an energy source all over the world.

For example, recent energy scenarios such as those developed by the International Energy
Agency (IEA) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimate clearly
that bioenergy may provide a major contribution to a future low-carbon energy system ([25]
Slade, Saunders, Gross, & Bauen, 2011). IEA’s modeling estimates that if global climate
change commitments are fulfilled, modern bioenergy would be a central component of a
future low carbon global energy system, playing a significant role in helping to decarbonize
industries such as aviation, shipping, and long-haul road transport ([49] IEA, 2017a).

In most countries, socioeconomic benefits of bioenergy use are also recognized as important
driving forces in increasing the share of bioenergy in the total energy supply, with regional
job creation and economic benefits probably being the two greatest issues regarding biomass
use in energy production ([47] Domac, Richards, & Risovic 2005). For example, as
highlighted by [7] Sgroi, Donia, and Alesi (2018), there are several advantages supporting the
process of bio-gasification, such as investment cost-effectiveness, excellent energy yields,
ease of operation, accumulated experience of construction firms, and especially, great
environmental sustainability. Reporting findings from a case study following the
development of a biogas recovery plant in a farm located in Central Sicily, [7] Sgroi, Donia,
and Alesi (2018) describe how the investment resulted in consistent cash flows for the
company after an eight-year period, when financial costs supported (external financing) for
the development of the plant decreased. Nevertheless, the authors highlight the importance of
a continuous and efficient control of plant management in order to avoid financial slippages.

In addition to such economic benefits, several other outcomes have been reported in the
literature, such as thermal utilization of agricultural and forest wastes, re-cultivation of

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
unused farming areas, reduced dependence on fuel imports ([50] Hein & Spliethoff, 1995),
creation of new job opportunities (both direct and indirect), and lower vulnerability to outside
shocks, thereby contributing to security of supply ([51] Allgeier, Caratti, & Sandberg, 1995),
among many others.

Briefly, biomass-based energy is usually related to sustainable development, ranging from

economic growth and reduced energy trade deficits, including significant technological
development, significant contributions to social and rural areas development, as well as a path
for global environmental problems mitigation. Thus, using biomass as a source of energy and
the three dimensions of sustainability are intrinsically linked.

Tables 1a, 1b, and 1c summarize the literature’s approaches regarding sustainability effects of
biomass use concerning each of the three dimensions of sustainability. In particular, the tables
highlight the main variables corresponding to each of the three dimensions of sustainability
that are generally explored in literature. Concerning the economic dimension, the literature
focuses on supporting new investment and R&D in biomass projects, especially through
public-private partnerships and foreign direct investment (FDI); allowing projects feasibility,
studying a number of cases for which returns measures are assessed; providing affordable
energy, evaluating the costs for consumers; strengthening industry and country
competitiveness through potential reduction of costs; and reducing dependence on fossil fuels
and imports, and ensuring energy security. These last three variables are closely linked as
they can be achieved as a bundle when investing in some renewable energy projects.

Second, within the social dimension, the literature has focused essentially on job creation, the
energy price to the consumer, revitalizing rural territories, and allowing for better living
standards. On the social dimension side, government interventions may result in decreasing
the consumption costs of biomass, which would be higher relying on the competitive market.

Third, the environmental dimension of sustainability has been approached studying the
reduction in greenhouse emissions, the valuing of residuals such as ashes and oils for
fertilizers and for the extraction of proteins. Also, the environmental dimension includes the
protection or mitigation of impacts of biomass projects on biodiversity, encouraging forest
management, analyzing the supply chain and how biomass projects can help the sustainable
management of forestry through, e.g., regulation. Additionally, another sustainability proxy
(from the environmental point of view) is the decarbonizing of some sectors such as the
transportation sector (through the production of biofuels from biomass) and the thermal

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
sector. Finally, some of the contributions analyze the increase in consumption based on
biomass, examining the accomplishment of specific targets or the effects of certain policies.

As has become clear from this literature review, this is a very recent literature in also a very
recent renewable sector, which seems to be gaining importance, namely in providing secure
energy for the rich and for the poor. From the literature review of the sustainability effects of
biomass we can retain the following challenges for the sector itself and for countries that aim
to develop it:

o Despite an increasing trend, official numbers show that the proportion of energy coming
from biomass is still very low;
o Case studies conducted in rural areas (especially in developing countries) show that the
source is very important (even in proportion) but security (e.g. for health) is still an
important issue;
o Many case and country studies show the importance of biomass for rural populations as
a source of cheap energy and as a source of revitalization of depopulated territories;
o Biomass can act as a way of decreasing oil and coal dependence and reducing imports
mainly in richer countries;
o If there are externalities identified such as social and environmental gains in
sustainability, there may be a reason to subsidize the production to make this source of
energy more affordable to the poor. Specific incentive pricing policies may deserve
further studies as well as the quantification of such externalities.

12

Variables
Supporting new investments
Driving innovation and new
emerging technologies
Allowing projects feasibility (pay-
back, savings, ROI, Net Present
Value) for investors
Providing affordable energy
Strengthening industry/country
competitiveness
Reducing dependence on fossil
fuels
Reducing imports from third
countries
Ensuring energy security
Table 1a. Biomass related (Economic) Sustainability
Brief description
Public policies that promote investment,
public-private partnerships, job creation, FDI,
country cases: Czech Rep, Spain, Finland, EU.
Public policies and cooperation between
private and public that drives innovation.
Evaluation of projects for production of
bioenergy from different products (plants,
algaes, meat, bones)
Evaluation of economic benefits to consumers
of energies.
Industry and country competitiveness in
attracting investment (forage genetics,
sugarcane, UK)
Bio-energy strategy with the objective of
reducing dependence on fossil fuels.
Bionergy projects with the aim of substituting
imports.
Bionergy projects with the aim of energy
security in its supply.
Supporting literature
[27] Lainez et al. (2018); [52] Lins et al. (2014); [51] Allgeier, Caratti, & Sandberg, (1995); [53] Nunes (1995); [54]
Dvořák, et al. (2017); [55] Mengal, et al. (2018); [56] Karttunen, et al. (2016)
[27] Lainez et al. (2018); [52] Lins et al. (2014); [57] Palz (1995); [58] Costello (1995); [59] Ou-Yang et al. (2018);
[48] Lalani, et al. (2018); [55] Mengal, et al. (2018)
[24] Ladanai, & Vinterbäck (2009); [60] Salgado et al. (2018); [27] Lainez et al. (2018); [61] El Shimi, & Moustafa
(2018); [62] Apuy et al. (2017); [63] Califano, Mongiello, & Freda (2017); [48] Lalani, et al. (2018); [7] Sgroi,
Donia, & Alesi (2018); [64] Darda et al. (2019)
[33] IEA (2017b). [31] Ferrier, G. (2011); [53] Nunes (1995); [35] Guerrero-Lemus, & Shephard (2017); [65] Khan,
& Martin (2016)
[47] Domac, Richards, & Risovic (2005); [31] Ferrier, G. (2011); [66] Junqueira, Cavalett, & Bonomi (2016); [67]
Barrett et al. (2015); [68] Butcher (2014); [69] Paulova et al. (2015).
[70] Grosshans, et al (2012); [71] Berry et al. (2017); [24] Ladanai, & Vinterbäck (2009); [27] Lainez et al. (2018);
[51] Allgeier, Caratti, & Sandberg, (1995); [72] Smakman (1995); [73] Kircher, 2015; [74] Saravanan et al. (2018).
[50] Hein, & Spliethoff, (1995); [75] Samuels (1984); [76] Gironès et al. (2018); [77] Pesce et al. (2017); [78]
Piwowar, & Dzikuć (2016)
[24] Ladanai, & Vinterbäck (2009); [79] GBEP (2008); [47] Domac, Richards, & Risovic (2005); [53] Nunes
(1995); [80] Navickas, Švažas, & Gušcinskiene (2017); [81] Singh (2016)

Table 1b. Biomass related (Social) Sustainability

Variables
Driving job creation and
fixing in rural regions
Brief description
Job creation of biomass projects, namely in rural regions in
Cambodia: Colombia, Spain, China, EU.
Supporting literature
[24] Ladanai, & Vinterbäck (2009); [47] Domac, Richards, & Risovic (2005); [27] Lainez et al. (2018);
[51] Allgeier, Caratti, & Sandberg, (1995); [82] Zhou, et al. (2017); [83] Talukdar, et al. (2017); [54]
Dvořák, et al. (2017); [27] Lainez, et al. (2018); [84] Villada Duque, López Lezama, & Muñoz Galeano
(2017); [56] Karttunen, et al. (2016)

Allowing energy price for Price interventions in the market and analysis of prices in certain [85] Hutton et al. (2006); [86] Pode, R., Diouf, & Pode (2015); [87] Li, Yu, & Yu (2013); [88] Ping, Jiang,
households markets of biomass in the consumer, namely in the US. & Li (2012); [89] Song, et al. (2012); [90] Sagastume Gutiérrez, et al. (2018)

Underutilized marginal cropland in rural regions; effects of biomass [71] Berry et al. (2017); [29] Rosillo-Calle, de Groot, Hemstock, & Woods (2015); [50] Hein, & Spliethoff,
Revitalizing rural regions
projects in revitalizing rural areas. (1995); [51] Allgeier, Caratti, & Sandberg, (1995); [58] Costello (1995)

Assess living standards provided by biomass, improving living

Allowing living standards [32] Rosillo-Calle (2015); [47] Domac, Richards, & Risovic (2005); [91] Guo, Zhao, & Zhao (2017); [92]
standards, namely in rural areas in China (also comparing costs of
improvements Gonzalez-Salazar et al. (2017); [93] Chen et al. (2016)
extending grids with the costs of micro-grids)

13

Variables
Reducing greenhouse gas
emissions
Valuing by-products and residues
Allowing habitat restoration and
degraded lands restoration
Fostering forest management
Decarbonizing the energy sector
Consolidating renewable energy
consumption
Table 1c. Biomass related (Environmental) Sustainability
Brief description
Evaluates the reduction of greenhouse emissions due to
biomass
Valuing of residuals such as ashes and oil e.g. as fertilizers
and for polyphenols and proteins extraction.
Protection of species and evaluation of mitigation measures
of the effect biomass projects have on biodiversity.
Focus on the supply chain of biomass and on its biomass
projects interactions with forestry management.
Production of biomass-to-liquid biofuels to decarbonize
(specifically) the transport and the thermal sectors.
Target renewable energy consumption; biomass for heating
households.
Supporting literature
[71] Berry et al. (2017); [29] Rosillo-Calle, de Groot, Hemstock, & Woods (2015); [24] Ladanai, &
Vinterbäck (2009); [50] Hein, & Spliethoff, (1995); [94] Ghislain, (1995); [72] Smakman (1995); [90]
Sagastume Gutiérrez, et al. (2018); [95] Sathaye et al. (2011); [96] Bryan et al. (2008); [97] Evans et al.
(2010); [98] Styles and Jones (2007).
[71] Berry et al. (2017); [29] Rosillo-Calle, de Groot, Hemstock, & Woods (2015); [99] Ribeiro, Tarelho, &
Gomes (2018); [100] Yu et al. (2015)
[71] Berry et al. (2017); [29] Rosillo-Calle, de Groot, Hemstock, & Woods (2015); [101] Svedarsky et al
(2016); [70] Grosshans, et al (2012); [94] Ghislain, (1995).
[29] Rosillo-Calle, de Groot, Hemstock, & Woods (2015); [102] Robiansyah (2018); [103] Yan (2018);
[104] Dar et al. (2017); [105] Leban et al. (2016); [106] Saladini et al. (2016).
[29] Rosillo-Calle, de Groot, Hemstock, & Woods (2015); [49] IEA, (2017a); [72] Smakman (1995); [90]
Sagastume Gutiérrez, et al. (2018); [107] Chary et al. (2018); [108] Bhutto et al. (2016); [109] Wilson et al.
(2012)
[71] Berry et al. (2017); [53] Nunes (1995); [90] Sagastume Gutiérrez, et al. (2018); [110] Las-Heras-Casas
et al. (2018); [111] Proskurina et al. (2016)
14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3.2. Potential adversities and constraining factors for Biomass as an energy source

Nevertheless, despite the several benefits recognized, an increasing use of biomass-based

energy is subject to several potential adversities and constraining factors that may
discourage following such a strategy or to public resistance to a change-over in this
direction, and thus several challenges need to be addressed in the short and medium term.

For example, high energy production costs from biomass (although varying with the type
of application), best use of available land, “too-rapid” introduction of biomass if not
enough attention is paid to its long-term environmental effects, changing crops, from those
for food production to non-food production (changes in farming practices, new
equipment), changing landscape caused by new crop, in particular bushes and trees, may
cause resistance to a change-over from the public ([51] Allgeier, Caratti, & Sandberg,
1995). As highlighted by [72] Smakman (1995), high costs of biomass and the economy of
scale for small biomass plants remain serious handicaps associated with a growing use of
biomass-based energies.

Moreover, the shift in the energy mix requires additional significant investments in
infrastructures, equipment, and R&D, and replacing current inefficient and low-intensive
management systems with best practices and technologies is a prerequisite for achieving
bioenergy’s substantially high potential in all regions ([24] Ladanai & Vinterbäck, 2009).
Such concern is shared by several researchers around the world, such as [101] Svedarsky
et al. (2016), who highlight that the progress of biomass fuel’s competitiveness in the US
depends largely on improvements concerning efficiency in harvesting, processing, and
transportation infrastructures. In addition, concerning better technologies, [31] Ferrier
(2011) also stresses a special need for better and cheaper storage issues, as well as other
controls (Smart Grid) to deal with intermittency and bad weather, attenuating biomass-
feedstock supply uncertainty.

Energy planners should therefore consider the application of advanced technologies to

convert raw biomass (often burned very inefficiently and thus giving rise to wasted
energy), into modern, convenient energy carriers (e.g. electricity, liquid or gaseous fuels,
or processed solid fuels), in order to increase energy extraction from biomass sources ([29]
Rosillo-Calle, de Groot, Hemstock, & Woods, 2015). The use of traditional
biomass energy contributed to more than 577,000 premature deaths in Africa and 74,000 in

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Latin America in 2012 (mostly in low and middle-income countries), especially among
women and children. Modernizing biomass-based technology is thus beneficial not only
for the economy, but also for human health improvements, as well as for better social and
environmental contexts ([35] Guerrero-Lemus & Shephard, 2017).

Biomass’ more efficient production and wider uses in the future depends on the
availability of reasonably advanced technologies, and it is therefore important to
investigate potentials for biomass, such as modern biofuels powering gas turbines ([29]
Rosillo-Calle, de Groot, Hemstock, & Woods, 2015).

Still concerning traditional uses of biomass, the International Energy Agency ([33] IEA,
2017b) highlights several significant concerns:

o About time spent gathering fuel: scarcity of local sources and corresponding hours
spent gathering fuelwood and other forms of biomass further afield reduces the
time people can devote to more productive activities, such as farming and
education;
o About energy efficiency: In developing countries, biomass fuels are often burned in
inefficient stoves;
o About health matters: The inefficient use of biomass can lead to serious health
damage from indoor smoke pollution (e.g. respiratory diseases, obstetrical
problems, blindness, heart diseases).
o About agricultural productivity: The extensive use of biomass energy reduces
agricultural productivity, because residues and dung are also widely used as
fertilizer.

4. Biomass and Sustainability: an Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM)

approach to the Biomass Sector

The literature review above identifies many adversities and constraints associated with the
production of bioenergy from biomass and positive impacts they could have on countries’
sustainable development.

4.1. Interpretive Structural Modeling Methodology

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) was created by J. Warfield in 1973 ([112] Warfield,
1974; [113] Sage, 1977) to study problems that are complex and subjective. ISM is a mapping-
theoretic method that pertains to the causal mapping family of approaches. As argued by [114]
Klein & Kozlowski (2000), ISM is useful when a multilevel research design is required in
which the outcome of the research cannot be predicted based on available research. Its basic
idea is to use experts’ practical experience and knowledge to decompose a complicated system
into several sub-systems and devise a multilevel structural model ([115] Warfield, 1976). In
that sense, ISM is used to identify and summarize relationships among specific variables that
define a problem and to analyze the influence of one variable on other variables ([113] Sage,
1977; [112] Warfield, 1974; [116] Thakkar et al., 2008).

As its name suggests, ISM stands for interpretive, structural, and modeling methodology. It is
interpretive because the relationship among the elements is derived by a group of members’
expressed opinion. It is structural because is based on an overall structure that is extracted
from the complex set of variables. Finally, it is named modeling due to the fact that the
specific relationships and the overall structure can be portrayed in a graphical model ([117]
Singh & Kant, 2013). It helps to impose order and direction on the complexity of
relationships among various elements of a system ([118] Singh et al., 2003).

4.2. Selection Process of research variables

To use the Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) the number of variables identified in the
literature review (see Table 1) was reduced to the most important, based on a study conducted
among a panel of twelve academics having a sound knowledge and understanding of
bioenergy and sustainability, using an interview protocol (Appendix B).3 Adversities and
constraints associated with the production of bioenergy from biomass and the positive impacts
they could have on countries’ sustainability that resulted from this selection process are
identified in Table 1.A in Appendix A. The analysis obtained from experts’ opinion is
extremely important to support the selection of the variables used in this study. To obtain
these results we followed the following steps: 1. Obtain scores for Adversities and constraints
associated with the production of bioenergy from biomass and the Positive impacts of
bioenergy from Biomass on countries’ sustainability from experts’ opinions; 2. the sum of

3 Researchers who accepted to collaborate in this study, at this preliminary stage, were from Portugal (Universidade da Beira
Interior, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Universidade de Aveiro) and from Finland (Aalto University).

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

scores for each variable was calculated (Ʃ Ei); and 3. variables were ranked by their order of
importance. The ranking process of variables is illustrated in Appendix A (Table 1A.). The
adversities and constraints variables associated with the production of bioenergy from biomass
that are ranked in the top of the list are the ones that follow the rule of thumb described in
point 4. Applying the rule resulted in selecting the following three variables: “More efficiency
in harvesting, processing, and transportation infrastructures.”; “High energy production costs”;
and “High costs of biomass”. The same method was used in the case of variables related to the
impacts of bioenergy from biomass on countries’ sustainability, which leads to the selection of
10 variables; 4. The rule of thumb to select variables was that the score be higher than 45 (as
e.g. in [119] Kangas et al., 1998). Table 2 identifies the variables selected that will be used in
the application of the ISM methodology.

Table 2: Ranking of variables according to their importance

Variables Ranking
Adversities and constraints associated with the production of bioenergy from biomass
More efficiency in harvesting, processing, and transportation infrastructure 1
High energy production costs 2
High costs of biomass 2
Positive impacts on countries’ sustainability
Reducing dependence on fossil fuels 1
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions 2
Supporting new investments 3
Driving job creation and fixing in rural regions 4
Driving innovation and new emerging technologies 5
Revitalizing rural regions 6
Promoting forest management 7
Consolidating renewable energy consumption 8
Allowing projects feasibility for investors 9
Valuing by-products and residues 10

4.3. Application of the Interpretive Structural Modeling

After the previous variables reduction, the ISM methodology was applied. In this paper the
ISM is used to help elucidate and visualize relationships between adversities and constraints
associated with the production of bioenergy from biomass and the biomass related
sustainability of countries. The typical steps in ISM approaches are described as follows
([120] Charan et al., 2008; [121] Talib et al., 2011).
 Step 1 - select a group of experts having sound knowledge and understanding of the
research topic.

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

 Step 2 – the group of experts (also named as the panel group) work together to document
the adversities and constraints associated with the production of bioenergy from biomass
and the positive impacts of bioenergy from Biomass on countries’ sustainability.
 Step 3 - using the panel group, the relationships among the research variables are defined.
In detail, the direction of the relationship (if any) between any two pairwise comparisons
between the adversities/constraints associated with the production of bioenergy from
biomass (A) and the countries’ biomass-related sustainability (B) – e.g., from A to B, from
B to A, in both directions between A and B, or A and B unrelated, is specified.
 Step 4 - based on an adjacent matrix, a binary matrix (elements of which are 0 or 1) that
reflects the directed relationships among all the adversities/constraints associated with the
production of bioenergy from biomass and the positive impacts on countries’ sustainability
is computed. A reachability matrix is developed from the Structural Self-Interaction
Matrix (SSIM) and thereafter is checked for transitivity. The reachability matrix identifies
if there is a direct or indirect relationship from A to B.
 Step 5 - the reachability matrix is decomposed to create structural models, that is, a
directed graph is drawn and the transitive links are removed. This is an algorithm-based
process that groups the research variables into different levels, depending upon their
interrelationships.

The result of implementing the method is a multilevel ISM model in which the relationships
among variables are clarified. To this end, in our research, interviews with a panel of experts
were executed (steps 1 to 3). In this case three professionals from the biomass sector were
consulted and four experts in countries’ sustainability and bioenergy from biomass from the
academia. Table 2.A. shows the panel of experts’ profile. An interview protocol was
developed (Appendix B) to identify the type of relationships existing between
adversities/constrains associated with the production of bioenergy from biomass and the
biomass related concept of countries’ sustainability.4

4.3.1 - Structural Self-Interaction Matrix – SSIM

The SSIM aims to identify the type of relationships among a set of variables ([122] Raj et al.,
2008). In this case, the interview protocol was used to determine the type of relationships
between variables, attending to the way that one variable (i) affects another (j). The symbols
used to describe the type of relationship between selected variables, and to show the direction
4The panel of experts was informed about the main objective of the study as well as the meaning of each variable, to
ensure that responses reached would be relevant to the study.

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

of the relationship, are the following: V – demonstrates the relationship from the variable i to j
(i.e. variable i helps to achieve variable j); A – demonstrates the relationship from variable j to
i (i.e. variable j helps to achieve variable i); X – This symbol is used to demonstrate a
relationship in both directions (i.e. variables i and j help to achieve each other); O – This
symbol is used when there is no relationship between variables. Following this, the SSIM was
computed (Table 3).

The SSIM matrix in Table 3 is interpreted in the following way: The variable 1 named “High
energy production costs” helps to achieve four variables, therefore the symbol “V” exists in
line 1 and in the intersection with the following ones: 13. “Consolidating renewable energy
consumption”, 11. “Valuing by-products and residues”, 7. “Reducing dependence on fossil
fuels”, and 5. “Driving innovation and new emerging technologies”. The same variable has no
relationship with the following variables: 12. “Promoting forest management”, 10. “Reducing
greenhouse gas emissions”, 9. “Revitalizing rural regions”, 8. “Driving job creation and fixing
in rural regions”, 6. “Allowing projects feasibility for investors”, 4. “Supporting new
investments”, 3. “More efficiency in harvesting, processing, and transportation infrastructure,
and 2. “High costs of biomass”; the absence of relationship is represented by the symbol “O”.
Furthermore, variable 2. “High costs of biomass”, is achieved through variables 13.
“Consolidating renewable energy consumption”, and 7. “Reducing dependence from fossil
fuels”, and thus relationships are represented by the symbol “A”. Finally, variables 3. “More
efficiency in harvesting, processing, and transportation infrastructure” and 13. “Consolidating
renewable energy consumption” help to achieve each other, and thus the relationship is
represented by “X”. The same interpretation could be performed with the other cells of the
table.

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 3. Final structural self-interaction matrix

Variable j
13 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
12
Variable i

1 High energy production costs V O V O O O V O V O O O -

2 High costs of biomass A V V O V O A O V V V -
3 More efficiency in harvesting, processing, and X V O V O V O X A A -
transportation infrastructure
4 V V V O V V V V X -
Supporting new investments

5 V V V V O V V O -
Driving innovation and new emerging technologies
6 Allowing projects feasibility for investors O V A O X V V -
Variable i
7 Reducing dependence on fossil fuels X V A V O O -
8 Driving job creation and fixing in rural regions O X A O X -
9 Revitalizing rural regions O V X X -
10 Reducing greenhouse gas emissions A O A -
11 Valuing by-products and residues X X -
12 Promoting forest management V -
13 Consolidating renewable energy consumption -

4.3.2 –Reachability Matrix and the transitivity process

In a further step, the SSIM has been converted into a binary matrix, called the initial
reachability matrix (see Table 3A) by replacing V, A, X, and O by 1 and 0, depending on the
situation. According to several authors ([123] Azevedo et al., 2013; [124] Faisal, 2010; [125]
Govindan et al., 2013) the conversion follows a set of rules:

- If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is V then the (i, j) entry in the initial reachability matrix
becomes 1 and the (j, i) entry becomes 0.
- If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is A, then the (i, j) entry in the initial reachability matrix
becomes 0 and the (j, i) entry becomes 1.
- If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is X then the (i, j) entry in the initial reachability matrix
becomes 1 and the (j, i) entry becomes 1.
- If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is O, then the (i, j) entry in the initial reachability matrix
becomes 0 and the (j, i) entry also becomes 0.

The initial reachability matrix for research variables was built following these rules (Table
3.A). Then, the final reachability matrix was constructed based on the transitivity principle,
and thus some of the cells of the initial reachability matrix were filled by inference. As a
result, the final reachability matrix is based on entries from the pairwise comparisons and
some inferred entries. The transitivity concept is used to make this inference and fill the gaps,

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

if any. In fact according to [124] Faisal, 2010, any transitive links that may exist between
different variables should be investigated. After using the transitivity concept, the final
reachability matrix is obtained ([122] Raj et al., 2008). The transitivity principle is based on
the following: if a variable ‘I’ is related to ‘j’ and ‘j’ is related to ‘k’, then transitivity implies
that variable ‘I’ is necessarily related to ‘k’. The application of the transitivity principle is
illustrated in Table 4.A. After the application of the transitivity principle, the final
Reachability matrix was obtained (Table 4). The final reachability matrix makes it possible to
identify the reachability and antecedent sets for each variable (see e.g. [112] Warfield, 1974).

In fact, in this matrix the driving power and the dependence of each variable (adversities and
constraints associated with the production of bioenergy from biomass and the biomass-related
sustainability of countries) are also shown. The driving power for each variable corresponds to
the total number of variables (including itself) which it may affect. Dependence of a variable
is the total number of variables (including itself) which may be affecting it. These driving
powers and dependencies are used below in the MICMAC analysis (Matrix of Cross Impact –
Multiplications Applied to Classification) ([126] Arcade et al., 1999), where the “Adversities
and constraints associated with the production of bioenergy from biomass” and the “biomass
related sustainability of countries” will be classified into four groups – autonomous,
dependent, linkage, and independent practices. For example, Table 4 shows that besides being
related to itself, the variable 1 “High energy production costs” is also related to the following
variables: 2 “High costs of biomass”; 3 “More efficiency in harvesting, processing, and
transportation infrastructure”; 4 “Supporting new investments”; 7 “Reducing dependence on
fossil fuels”; 8 “Driving job creation and fixing in rural regions”; 10 “Reducing greenhouse
gas emissions”; 11 “Valuing by-products and residues”, and 13 “Consolidating renewable
energy consumption”. Additionally, “High costs of biomass”, “Supporting new investments”,
“Driving innovation and new emerging technologies”, “reducing dependence on fossil fuels”,
“Promoting forest management”, and “Consolidating renewable energy consumption” are the
variables with the most driving power. Finally, most variables have high dependence power
except “High energy production costs”, “Supporting new investments”, “Driving innovation
and new emerging technologies”.

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 4. Final Reachability Matrix

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Driving Power

1 High energy production 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 10

costs
2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12
High costs of biomass
3 More efficiency in 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
harvesting, processing, and
4 Supporting
transportation new 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12
10
investments
infrastructure
5 Driving innovation and 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
new emerging technologies
6 emerging
Allowing projects 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
feasibility for investors
7 Reducing dependence on 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
fossil fuels
8 Driving job creation and 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 6
fixing in rural regions
9 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
Revitalizing rural regions
10 Reducing greenhouse gas 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
emissions
11 Valuing by-products and 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
residues
12 Promoting forest 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
management
13 Consolidating renewable 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
energy consumption
Dependence Power 1 12 11 5 7 10 11 13 12 12 12 12 12

Note: The bold and italics values show the influencing or driving relationship between variable i and variable
j through transitivity analysis, i.e. indirect relationship.

4.2.3 - Reachability matrix, partitions, and the ISM Model

From the final reachability matrix, for each variable, the reachability set and antecedent sets
are derived (see e.g. [115] Warfield, 1976; [124] Faisal, 2010). The antecedent set consists of
the variable itself and the other variables that may help to achieve it. Subsequently, the
intersection set for each variable is the intersection of the corresponding reachability and
antecedent sets. If the reachability set and the intersection set are the same, the variable is
considered to be in level 1 and is given the top position in the ISM hierarchy, meaning that
the variable would not help in achieving any other variable above its own level. After the
identification of the top-level elements, it is discarded from the other remaining variables.
Once the top-level element is identified (see Table 5.A), it is separated out from the other
elements. Then, the same process is repeated to determine the elements in the next level. This
process is continued until the level of each element is found. Through these levels we build
the diagram of the final ISM model, which is presented in Figure 1. From Table 5.A, it is
seen that “Reducing dependence on fossil fuels” (variable 7), “Driving job creation and fixing
in rural regions” (variable 8), “Revitalizing rural regions” (variable 9), “Promoting forest

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

management” (variable 12), and “Consolidating renewable energy consumption” (variable

13) are found at Level I. Thus, they would be positioned at the top of the ISM model.

In Figure 1 it is possible to identify the research variables, the relationships among them, and
also the hierarchical level to which each variable belongs. We see in Figure 1 that the “High
energy production costs” is at the base of our model, which means that it is the main driver to
achieve the other variables that are part of our study. In particular, it acts on “Driving
innovation and new emerging technologies”. Then, “Driving innovation and new emerging
technologies” (which influences and is influenced by “Supporting new investments”)
determines “More efficiency in harvesting, processing, and transportation infrastructures”. In
turn, the “More efficiency in harvesting, processing, and transportation infrastructures”
variable supports “Reducing greenhouse gas emissions”. At the top of the ISM-based figure
we have “Reducing dependence on fossil fuels”, “Driving job creation and fixing in rural
regions”, “Revitalizing rural regions”, ”Promoting forest management”, and “Consolidating
renewable energy consumption”, which are supported by “Allowing projects feasibility for
investors” and “Valuing by-products and residues”.

7. Reducing 8. Driving job 13. Consolidating

9. Revitalizing 12.Promoting forest
dependence on creation and fixing renewable energy
rural regions management
fossil fuels in rural regions consumption

6. Allowing 11. Valuing by-

projects feasibility products and
for investors residues

10. Reducing
greenhouse gas
emissions

3. More efficiency in
harvesting, processing,
2. High costs of biomass and transportation
infrastructure

4. Supporting new 5. Driving innovation

investments and new emerging
technologies

1. High energy
production costs

Figure 1 – Final Representation of the ISM model: Relationships between adversities and 24
constraints associated with the production of bioenergy from biomass and the countries’
biomass-related sustainability.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

At the base of the concept of biomass related countries’ sustainability we can observe an
important constraint associated with the production of bioenergy from the biomass (1. High
energy production costs), but just next we can also find some positive impacts on countries’
sustainability (4. Supporting new investments) which drive technological innovations in this
sector (5. Driving innovation and new emerging technologies). These relationships are in line
with the Technological Innovation System principles ([127] Carlsson and Stankiewicz 1991; [128]
Carlsson 1997) that consider the existence of a set of structural elements (institutions, actors,
and networks) that directly influence the development and diffusion of a specific technology.
Specifically, in the case of bioenergy produced from the biomass, renewable energies policies
have an important influence in the direction and growth of the innovation path. According to
Figure 1 more efficient activities related to the production of biomass “3. More efficiency in
harvesting, processing and transportation infrastructure” contributes to reducing the
environmental impact of bioenergy production from biomass “10. Reducing greenhouse gas
emissions”. A combination of these costs and technological factors leads to increasing
productivity in the sector. Variable 4 (supporting new investments) is also a cornerstone for
driving innovation and increasing efficiency, which is a sign of the importance of public incentives
to invest in this renewable sector, which was also pointed out in our literature review (see e.g.
[27] Lainez et al. 2018; [52] Lins et al. 2014; [54] Dvořák et al. 2017). However, the literature is
not consensual. As an example, [129] Suurs & Hekkert (2009) consider that the extent to which
the production of bioenergy from biomass is desirable from an ecological, social, and economic
sustainability perspective (and therefore “deserve” policy incentives) has been subject to severe
controversy. Interestingly, the variables “11. Valuing by-products and residues” and “6. Allowing
projects feasibility for investors” are dependent on reducing CO2 emissions (which is caused by
greater efficiency in the sector). This can be attributed to the government incentives in place
(such as feed-in-tariffs and emission standards), which determine the feasibility of such
renewable and less polluting projects. Naturally, the possibility of valuing by-products in the
market also influences whether projects are viable or not (e.g. [56] Karttunen, et al. 2016 focus
on this issue for the case of Finland). Those two variables finally influence the three dimensions
of biomass-related sustainability:

 Macro(economic), through the reduction of countries’ dependence on fossil fuels (7.

Reducing dependence on fossil fuels); This is because biomass is considered to be one

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

of the most abundant resources in the world, representing (just after coal and oil) the
third largest energy resource in the world ([130] Rahman et al. 2013).
 Social, through driving job creation and fixing those jobs in rural areas, revitalizing
them (9. Revitalizing rural regions); From the perspective of [131] Kulcsar et al.
(2016) the local opportunities and constraints on the use of natural resources influence
decision making and therefore policy regarding local and regional development
associated with biofuels.
 Environmental, through promoting forest management (12. Promoting forest
Management) and the consolidation of consumption from renewable energy sources
and climate change mitigation (13. Consolidating renewable energy consumption). In
biomass combustion, the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere may be greater
than for fossil fuel per unit of energy because of lower energy content of biomass. This
can temporarily increase the amount of carbon in the atmosphere at the start of using
energy biomass compared to fossil fuels. However, over a longer period, the net
climate impacts associated with the bioenergy produced from biomass can change by a
balance between carbon uptake and emissions related to functioning and management
of forest ecosystem ([132] Kilpeläinen et al. 2016). Also, according to [133] Steffen et
al. (2015), to guarantee a sustainable future for our society the natural resources
available worldwide should be used without exceeding the environmental resilience
capacity. Climate change substantially intensifies the risks of exceeding such capacity,
through the multiple possible uses of biomass, unless global policies for sustainable
development and climate change are implemented in an integrated manner for a wide
range of specific geographic conditions and contexts ([134] Strapasson et al., 2017).

5. Discussion and a Definition of Biomass-related Sustainability

In the literature review we identified a number of variables linked to what we have called the
biomass related countries’ sustainability. In the economic field of the biomass-related concept
of countries’ sustainability we detected mainly concerns with the government incentives to
biomass production, nationwide energy trade dependence, ensuring industry competitiveness
and affordable prices, and the feasibility of projects. For instance, also according to [27]
Lainez et al. (2018), government incentives are important pillars to enhance existing value
chains including the biomass chain, and the bioeconomy is an essential part of economic
growth through creating new jobs and fostering investments. In the social field of

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

sustainability we found employment, affordable prices, development of rural areas, and

improving standard of living as the main concerns. In this line, [54] Dvořák et al. (2017)
concluded that biomass processing offers the highest employment per MWh, which benefits
employment in economically fragile rural areas. The same authors argue that due to strong
expected growth of the renewable energy sector, potential welfare impacts should be more
wisely planned and managed, mainly because of their impacts on domestic labor markets. In
the environmental dimension of sustainability we found issues such as reducing polluting
emissions, valuing of residuals, habitat restoration and preservation, forest management,
decarbonizing the energy sector, and consolidating renewable energy consumption. Although
these concepts were identified, we could not assess how they can be related to each other.

We apply the ISM methodology to discover relationships between variables, as described in

Section 4. With this, we have not only related variables with each other, but also reduced the
number of variables that are most valuable for defining the issue of biomass-related
countries’ sustainability to the following ones: 4. supporting new investments; 5. driving
innovation and new emerging technologies; 6. allowing projects feasibility for investors; 7.
reducing dependence on fossil fuels; 8. driving job creation and fixing in rural regions; 9.
revitalizing rural regions (summarized in the figure as employment and development of rural
regions); 10. reducing greenhouse gas emissions; 11. valuing by-products and residues; 12.
promoting forest management5, and 13. consolidating renewable energy consumption. Figure
2 illustrates our findings from both the literature review and the quantitative ISM approach.

5 9 and 10 are summarized in Figure 2 as Forest Management and Valuing.

27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

• Reducing Greenhouse
gas emmisions
• Habitat restoration Driving Forces

Environmental
• Forest management
and valuing by-
products* COSTS IN THE
• Decarbonizing energy
sector
• Consolidation
ENERGY SECTOR
renewable energy
consumption
• Valuing by-products*

•Investment & FDI

INNOVATIO
•Innovation
Economic
•Reduce Trade
Dependence on fuel
•Projects Feasibility &
Industry Competition
• Government Intervention
• Energy Security
N
•Valuing by-products*

•Employment and
development in Rural
GOVERNMENT
Social

regions
•Affordable Prices (for
the poorest)
•Living Standards

Figure 2 –Representation of the countries’ biomass-related Sustainability

Note: * Valuing by-products from the biomass industry were initially classified in the Environmental dimension but it also has an
economic component, so in this figure it appears also in the Economic dimension.

Figure 2 illustrates the driving forces of biomass-related sustainability as costs (higher

relative costs of oil tends to favor investments in renewable energies such as biomass),
innovation (better technology tends to reduce costs of production), and government (as
government incentives seem to remain essential to guarantee the feasibility of biomass
projects – including not only fiscal measures but also pollution standards). Pollution
standards seem to be important as the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is crucial in
linking the driving forces to the feasibility of projects and to the possibility of rewards from
by-products. Thus, there is a clear interdependence between environmental and economic
sustainability issues concerning the biomass sector. Then there are mainly economic factors
affecting social factors, which are related essentially to the development of rural areas.

28
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

6. Conclusions and Prospects of Future Research

We performed the first literature review to date focusing on the importance of biomass as a
source of energy for countries’ sustainability. As biomass in its several formats is a recent
source of energy, it has been given much attention in country (and regional) case studies
([135] Wang and Watanabe, 2016; [136] Paulo et al., 2015; [137] Delivand et al., 2015; [138]
Ozoegwu et al., 2017). We classified the literature according to the triple bottom line
focusing on the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainability. With that
revision of the literature we identify variables that could define what we have called the
countries’ biomass-related sustainability (Table 1a., Table 1b., and Table 1.c). In this
literature review, we also identify constraints and adversities concerning bioenergy
production coming from biomass such as: i) more efficiency in harvesting, processing, and
transportation infrastructure; ii) high energy production costs; and iii) high costs of biomass.

In order to detail the relationship between variables, a quantitative analysis was not feasible
for two reasons: (i) the use of biomass is still characterized by very small numbers within
countries and (ii) quantitative variables that proxied the ones identified in the literature are
not available at the country level. In fact, most variables identified in the literature review can
be approached only qualitatively. Using results from the extensive review of the literature, the
whole set of variables identified was reduced to the most important ones, through an
interview protocol applied to a panel of experts having a sound knowledge and understanding
of bioenergy from biomass and sustainability. Then, we use an Interpretive Structural
Modeling (ISM) approach appropriate to address problems that are complex ([139] Eswarlal
et al. 2011), as is the concept of countries’ biomass-related sustainability. This method allows
us to address qualitative variables based on experts’ evaluation to infer causal relationships
between research variables and “enables handling the complexity of the system and resolves
it into easily comprehendible form by working out the hierarchical arrangement of system
variables” ([140] Qureshi et al. 2008: 234). Summing up, the ISM provides an ordered,
directional framework for complex problems, and gives decision makers a realistic picture of
their situation and the variables involved ([141] Attri et al. 2013). With the ISM a different
and more complete analysis of the phenomenon was performed when compared to some
alternative works available in the literature that are based essentially on case studies, most of
which concentrate on constraints to investing in biomass. This is an important advantage of
this work over the contributions made on this issue so far.

29
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Our results show that economic factors such as the cost of energy associated with government
intervention may drive the incentives to innovation in the Biomass sector, which together
with the costs of biomass itself determines productivity within the sector. The biomass-
related sustainability is linked with economic factors (fossil fuels dependence, renewable
energy consumption), social factors linked with more jobs and revitalizing rural areas, and
environmental factors linked with more sustainable forest management and regulatory
governance. These conclusions are consistent with those of [142] Mertzanis (2018), who
argues that the national levels of economic, financial, and human development, along with
regulatory governance conditions and social and legal structures, all play a role in
determining firms' energy performance.

These results are important for practitioners in the biomass industry (e.g. professionals,
potential market entrants) and policy makers, as well as to future research. First, results show
that government policies, regulations, and market costs must be at the center of any private
decision. Additionally, they also show that innovation is essential to increase efficiency in the
biomass sector and remain in the market. This is in line with the [143] OECD (2012), which
argues that renewable energies through the increased use of new technologies and skills,
learning capacity growth, and innovation will contribute to improvement of the efficiency of
supported processes. This efficiency improvement will consequently spawn companies that
produce bioenergy more competitively in the market ([69] Paulova et al. 2015).

Policy makers should be aware that government intervention (subsidies, tariffs, regulations,
emissions standards) is at the base for reducing fossil fuels dependence and boosting
employment and rural areas’ development based on the biomass industry. As a consequence,
such measures have influence on the (sustainable) development of countries and on
mitigating climate change through acting in the biomass sector. This same perspective is
shared by [74] Saravanan et al. (2018), who argue that the biofuel policies are essential to
change the world’s dependence on fossil fuels for a better tomorrow. These authors give the
example of India, where the National Biofuel Policy helps in regulating biofuels production
and their marketing. Also, the result from this study is supported by [96] Bryan et al. (2008),
[97] Evans et al. (2010), and [98] Styles and Jones (2007), since they state that biomass
production for use in electricity generation can contribute to the mitigation of climate change
through the reduction of the direct CO2 and through the replacement of higher CO2 emitting
fuels such as coal and oil. Moreover, the relationship between renewable energies, such as the
case of biofuel produced from biomass, and sustainability, is enhanced in the work of [95]

30
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Sathaye et al. (2011). The mitigation of dangerous climate changes will be a strong driving
force for the use of renewable energies worldwide, which are projected to play a central role
in most GHG mitigation strategies, which must be technically feasible and economically
efficient so that any cost burdens are minimized.

Also, to help policy decisions, further research should be concluded on the positive and
negative external effects of the biomass sector to allow policy makers to decide about the
rationality of subsidizing or taxing activities in this sector, and thus (according to our results)
whether or not they should provide incentives to country biomass-related sustainability.

Various governments (US, Brazil, India, Japan, and China) have stimulated biofuel
production and consumption by setting mandatory levels for biofuel usage, and the EU’s
Renewable Energy Directive stipulated a 20% share in total energy consumption from
renewable sources by 2020. Also, the Renewable Energy Directive and the Fuel Quality
Directive lay down a set of sustainability criteria that biofuels must comply with ([144]
Burrell et al. 2012). Moreover, sustainability challenges and solutions depend on geographic
setting (e.g., availability of feedstock sources), socioeconomic conditions (e.g., inducing
energy demand), inequalities within and across societies, fragmented institutions, and existing
infrastructure (e.g., electric grids) ([145] Holling, 1997), but also on a varying normative
understanding of the connotation of sustainability ([146] Lele and Norgaard, 1996).

This study opens prospects for future research on at least two different and parallel lines of
research: (i) the incentives and policies that foster the implementation of biomass
technologies in electricity generation; (ii) comparative countries studies on the
implementation of biomass as a major or increasing source of energy production, focusing on
the technological and skills differences between countries in that sector that is so important in
the future of energy and electricity production.

References

[1] Chow, J., Kopp, R.J., & Portneym P.R. (2003). Energy Resources and Global Development.
Science, 302, 1528-1531.
[2] Ramalho, E., Sequeira, T., & Santos, M. (2018). The Effect of Income on the Energy Mix: are
democracies more sustainable? Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy
Dimensions, 51: 10-21.

31
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[3] Sequeira, T. & Santos, M. (2018a). Does Country-Risk Influence Electricity Production
Worldwide? Journal of Policy Modeling, in press: doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2018.01.013.
[4] Sequeira, T. & Santos, M. (2018b). Renewable Energy and Politics: A systematic review and
new evidence. Journal of Cleaner Production, 192: 553-568.
[5] Li, M., Luo, N. & Lu, Y. (2017). Biomass Energy Technological Paradigm (BETP): Trends in
This Sector. Sustainability, 9(4), 1-28.
[6] Csereklyei Z., Varas, M., & Stern, D. (2016). Energy and economic growth: The 524 stylized
facts. Energy Journal 37(2), 223-255.
[7] Sgroi, F., Donia, E., & Alesi, D. R. (2018). Renewable energies, business models and local
growth. Land use Policy, 72, 110-115.
[8] Neves, D., Baptista, P., Simões, M., Silva, C.A., & Figueira, J.R. (2018). Designing a
municipal sustainable energy strategy using multi-criteria decision analysis. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 176, 251-260.
[9] Burke, P. (2010). Income, resources, and electricity mix. Energy Economics 32: 613- 626.
[10] Andreas, J., Burns, C. & Touza, J. (2017). Renewable Energy as a Luxury? A Qualitative
Comparative Analysis of the Role of the Economy in the EU’s Renewable Energy
Transitions During the Double Crisis. Ecological Economics 142; 81-90.
[11] Bentsen, N. &Felby, C. (2012). Biomass for energy in the European Union – a review of
bioenergy resource assessments, Biotechnology for Biofuels, 5:25.
[12] Smeets, E.M.V., Faaij, A.P.C., Lewandowski, I.M., & Turkenburg, W.C. (2007). A bottom-
up assessment and review of global bioenergy potentials to 2050. Energy Combustion
Science, 33, pp. 56-106.
[13] Dornburg, V., Vuuren, D.V., Ven, G.V, et al. (2010). Bioenergy revisited: key factors in
global potentials of bioenergy. Energy Environmental Science, 3, pp. 258-267.
[14] Kudoh; Y., Sagisaka, M., Chen, S.S, Elauria, J.C., Gheewala, S.H., Hasanudin, U., Romero,
J., Sharma, J.V., & Shi, X. (2015). Region-Specific Indicators for Assessing
the Sustainability of Biomass Utilisation in East Asia. Sustainability, Vol 7, N0. 12, pp
16237-16259.
[15] Popp, J., Lakner, Z., Harangi-Rákos, M., & Fári, M. (2014). The effect of bioenergy
expansion: Food, energy, and environment. Renewable and Sustainable, Energy Reviews,
Volume 32, April 2014, Pages 559-578.
[16] Ramirez-Contreras, N.E. & Faaij, A.P. (2018). A review of key international biomass and
bioenergy sustainability frameworks and certification systems and their application and

32
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

implications in Colombia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. November 2018

96:460-478.
[17] Watson, R. (1978). Interpretive Structural Modeling- A useful tool for worth assessment?
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 11, 165-185.
[18] Afgan, N., Carvalho, M., & Jovanovic, M. (2007). Biomass-fired power plant: the
sustainability option, International Journal of Sustainable Energy Vol. 26, No. 4, December
2007, 179–193.
[19] Nunes, L., Matias, J., & Catalão, J. (2017). Biomass in the generation of electricity in
Portugal: A review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 71, May, Pages
373-378.
[20] Valente, M.; L. Lourenco-Gomes; A. Botelho, L. Pinto; M. Valente; S. Sousa (2016). Using
stated preference methods to assess environmental impacts of forest biomass power plants in
Portugal, Environment Development and Sustainability; 18(5), 1323-1337.
[21] Meadows, Donella H., Meadows Dennis, L., Ran, Jorgen, & Behrens, William W., III.
(1972). The Limits to Growth. Universe Books.
[22] Jiahua, P. (2015). Ecological civilization: A new development paradigm. China Economist,
10(4): 44-71.
[23] Musa, S. D., Zhonghua, T., Ibrahim, A. O., & Habib, M. (2018). China's energy status: A
critical look at fossils and renewable options. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 81, 2281-2290.
[24] Ladanai, S. & Vinterbäck, J. (2009). Global Potential of Sustainable Biomass for Energy.
Report 013, Uppsala: SLU, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of
Energy and Technology.
[25] Slade, R., Saunders, R., Gross, R., & Bauen, A. (2011). Energy from biomass: the size of the
global resource - An assessment of the evidence that biomass can make a major contribution
to future global energy supply. London: Imperial College Centre for Energy Policy and
Technology and UK Energy Research Centre.
[26] IEA (2018). World Energy Balances. https://www.iea.org/statistics/balances/ (Accessed 7th
December of 2018).
[27] Lainez, M., González, J. M., Aguilar, A., & Vela, C. (2018). Spanish strategy on
bioeconomy: Towards a knowledge based sustainable innovation. New Biotechnology, 40,
87-95.

33
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[28] Williams, C.L., Westover, T.L., Emerson, R.M., Tumuluru, J.S., & Li, C. (2016). Sources Of
Biomass Feedstock Variability And The Potential Impact On Biofuels Production.
BioEnergy Research, Vol. 9, N0.1, pp 1–14.
[29] Rosillo-Calle, F., de Groot, P., Hemstock, S.L., & Woods, J. (2015). The Biomass
Assessment Handbook: Energy for a Sustainable Environment (2nd Ed.). Routledge Studies
in Bioenergy, New York: Routledge.
[30] Kumar, M., Olajire, A., & Kumar, O.A. (2018). A review on the current status of various
hydrothermal technologies on biomass feedstock. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, Vol. 81, Part 2, pp. 1742-1770.
[31] Ferrier, G. (2011). The Clean Energy Industry in California: An Economic Analysis
Assessing the Current Market in the Global Economy. San Diego, CA: Environmental
Business International, Inc.
[32] Rosillo-Calle, F. (2015). Overview of Biomass Energy. In Rosillo-Calle, F., de Groot, P.,
Hemstock, S.L., & Woods, J. (2015). The Biomass Assessment Handbook: Energy for a
Sustainable Environment (2nd Ed.). Routledge Studies in Bioenergy, New York: Routledge.
[33] IEA (2017b). World Energy Outlook 2017. International Energy Agency, Paris: OECD.
ISBN: 978-92-64-28205-6.
[34] Hashiramoto, O. (2007). Wood-product trade and policy issue. In, Dubé, Y., & Schmithüsen,
F. (Eds). Cross-Sectoral Policy Developments in Forestry (Section 3, pp. 24-35), Rome,
Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
[35] Guerrero-Lemus, R. & Shephard, L. E. (2017). Biomass for heating and power production.
Lecture Notes in Energy, 38, 121-148.
[36] Johnston, P., Mark Everard, M., David Santillo, D., & Karl-Henrik, R. (2007). Reclaiming
the Definition of Sustainability. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 14(1):60-6.
[37] WCED, World Commission on Environmental and Development (1987). Our Common
Future. http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-ov.htm (accessed July 20, 2016).
[38] Wang, L. (2005). Promote Strategic EIA to Promote Sustainable Development. Chinese
Township Enterprise Magazine. (12).08.31002.
[39] Dyllick, T. & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the Business Case for Corporate Sustainability.
Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2): 130-141.
[40] Schaltegger, S., Burritt, R., & Petersen, H. (2003). An Introduction to Corporate
Environmental Management: Striving for Sustainability. Sheffield, U.K.: Greenleaf
Publishing.

34
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[41] Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with Forks: Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business.
UK: Capstone Publishing Ltd.
[42] Delai, I. & Takahashi, S. (2013). Corporate sustainability in emerging markets: Insights from
the practices reported by the Brazilian retailers. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 47: pp.
211-221.
[43] European Commission. Directive 2012/27/EU Of The European Parliament And Of The
Council. (2012). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1399375464230&uri=CELEX:32012L0027 (accessed August 02,
2016).
[44] Streimikiene, D., Strielkowski, W., Bilan, Y., & Mikalauskas, I. (2016). Energy dependency
and sustainable regional development in the Baltic States – a review. Geographica Pannonica
20(2): 79–87.
[45] Meyer, B. (2011). Macroeconomic modelling of sustainable development and the links
between the economy and the environment.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/studies_modeling/pdf/report_macroeconomic.pdf
(accessed July 21, 2016).
[46] Europe INNOVA. Guide to resource efficiency in manufacturing: Experiences from
improving resource efficiency in manufacturing companies. (2012). https://www.greenovate-
europe.eu/sites/default/files/publications/REMake_Greenovate!Europe%20-
%20Guide%20to%20resource%20efficient%20manufacturing%20(2012).pdf (accessed
August 21, 2016).
[47] Domac, J., Richards, K., & Risovic, S. (2005). Socio-economic drivers in implementing
bioenergy projects. Biomass and Bioenergy, 28(2), 97-106.
[48] Lalani, B., Al-Eter, B., Kassam, S. N., Bapoo, A., & Kassam, A. (2018). Potential for
conservation agriculture in the dry marginal zone of central Syria: A preliminary assessment.
Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(2)10.3390/su10020518
[49] IEA (2017a). Technology Roadmap: Delivering Sustainable Bioenergy. International Energy
Agency, Paris: OECD.
[50] Hein, K.R.G. & Spliethoff, H. (1995). EU Clean Coal Technology 1993/1994 Programme –
Technical Overview of the Project Combined Combustion of Coal and Biomass. In Chartier,
P., Beenackers, A.A.C-M., & Grassi, G. (Eds). Biomass for Energy, Environment,
Agriculture and Industry, Proceeding of the 8th European Biomass Conference, Vienna,
Austria, 3-5 October. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.

35
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[51] Allgeier, H.J., Caratti, G., & Sandberg, O. (1995). Towards a European BIO-ENERGY
Strategy. In Chartier, P., Beenackers, A.A.C-M., & Grassi, G. (Eds). Biomass for Energy,
Environment, Agriculture and Industry, Proceeding of the 8th European Biomass
Conference, Vienna, Austria, 3-5 October. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.
[52] Lins, C., Williamson, L.E. Leitner, S., & Teske, S. (2014). 10 years of renewable energy
progress. Paris: Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century. ISBN: 978-3-
9815934-4-0
[53] Nunes, P. (1995). The role of Biomass in the European Energy Policy – Keynote Address. In
Chartier, P., Beenackers, A.A.C-M., & Grassi, G. (Eds). Biomass for Energy, Environment,
Agriculture and Industry, Proceeding of the 8th European Biomass Conference, Vienna,
Austria, 3-5 October. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.
[54] Dvořák, P., Martinát, S., der Horst, D. V., Frantál, B., & Turečková, K. (2017). Renewable
energy investment and job creation; a cross-sectoral assessment for the Czech Republic with
reference to EU benchmarks. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 69, 360-368.
[55] Mengal, P., Wubbolts, M., Zika, E., Ruiz, A., Brigitta, D., Pieniadz, A., & Black, S. (2018).
Bio-based industries joint undertaking: The catalyst for sustainable bio-based economic
growth in Europe. New Biotechnology, 40, 31-39.
[56] Karttunen, K., Ahtikoski, A., Hynynen, J., Salminen, H., & Ranta, T. (2016). Impact of forest
management decision making on forest biomass supply in regional level of Finland. Paper
presented at the European Biomass Conference and Exhibition Proceedings,
2016(24thEUBCE) 194-199.
[57] Palz, W. (1995). Bioenergy R&D Strategy. In Chartier, P., Beenackers, A.A.C-M., & Grassi,
G. (Eds). Biomass for Energy, Environment, Agriculture and Industry, Proceeding of the 8th
European Biomass Conference, Vienna, Austria, 3-5 October. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science
Ltd.
[58] Costello, R. (1995). Biomass in IEA: Implementing Agreements – A Perspective. In Chartier,
P., Beenackers, A.A.C-M., & Grassi, G. (Eds). Biomass for Energy, Environment,
Agriculture and Industry, Proceeding of the 8th European Biomass Conference, Vienna,
Austria, 3-5 October. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.
[59] Ou-Yang, C., Chen, H.-W., Ho, C.-H., Chou, J.-C., Yuan, Y.-T., Ho, C.-L., Hsueh, H.-T.,
Chen, S.-T., Liao, P.-C., & Chao, L.K. (2018). Value chain analysis of algal bioenergy and
carbon capture integrated with a biotechnology innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production,
180, 349-359.

36
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[60] Salgado, M.A.H., Tarelho, L.A.C., Matos, A., Robaina, M., Narváez, R., & Peralta, M.E.
(2018). Thermoeconomic analysis of integrated production of biochar and process heat from
quinoa and lupin residual biomass. Energy Policy, 114, 332-341.
[61] El Shimi, H. I. & Moustafa, S. S. (2018). Biodiesel production from microalgae grown on
domestic wastewater: Feasibility and Egyptian case study. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 82, 4238-4244.
[62] Apuy, M., Lahjie, A. M., Simarangkir, B. D. A. S., Ruslim, Y., & Kristiningrum, R. (2017).
Traditional plants in forest gardens of west Kutai, Indonesia: Production and financial
sustainability. Biodiversitas, 18(3), 1207-1217.
[63] Califano, F., Mongiello, C., & Freda, C. (2017). Combined heat and power production from
meat and bone meal via gasification and gas turbine: Technical and economic analysis.
Waste and Biomass Valorization, 8(3), 975-986.
[64] Darda, S., Papalas, T., & Zabaniotou, A. (2019). Review: Biofuels journey in Europe:
Currently the way to low carbon economy sustainability is still a challenge. Journal of
Cleaner Production. 20, 208:575-588.
[65] Khan, E. U. & Martin, A. R. (2016). Review of biogas digester technology in rural
Bangladesh. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 62, 247-259.
[66] Junqueira, T. L., Cavalett, O., & Bonomi, A. (2016). The virtual sugarcane biorefinery - A
simulation tool to support public policies formulation in bioenergy. Industrial Biotechnology,
12(1), 62-67.
[67] Barrett, B. A., Faville, M. J., Nichols, S. N., Simpson, W. R., Bryan, G. T., & Conner, A. J.
(2015). Breaking through the feed barrier: Options for improving forage genetics. Animal
Production Science, 55(7), 883-892.
[68] Butcher, C. (2014). UK struggles to attract low-carbon investment. Power, 158(5), 1-15.
[69] Paulova, L., Petra Patakova, P., Branska, B., Rychtera, M., & Melzoch, K. (2015).
Lignocellulosic Ethanol: Technology Design And Its Impact On Process Efficiency.
Biotechnology Advances, Vol. 33, No. 6, Part 2,pp. 1091-1107.
[70] Grosshans, R.E., Gass, P., Dohan, R., Roy, D., Venema, H.D., & McCandless, M. (2012).
Cattail Harvesting for Carbon Offsets and Nutrient Capture: A “Lake Friendly” greenhouse
gas project. Winnipeg, Manitoba: International Institute for Sustainable Development.
[71] Berry, P., Yassin, F., Grosshans, R., & Lindenschmidt, K.-E. (2017). Surface water retention
systems for cattail production as a biofuel. Journal of Environmental Management, 203, 500-
509.

37
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[72] Smakman, G.J.J. (1995). Economics, Environment and Development. In Chartier, P.,
Beenackers, A.A.C-M., & Grassi, G. (Eds). Biomass for Energy, Environment, Agriculture
and Industry, Proceeding of the 8th European Biomass Conference, Vienna, Austria, 3-5
October. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.
[73] Kircher, M. (2015). Sustainability of biofuels and renewable chemicals production
from biomass. Current Opinion in Chemical Biology. 29:26-31.
[74] Saravanan, A.P., Mathimani, T., Deviram, G., Karthik Rajendran, K., & Pugazhendhi, A.
(2018). Biofuel policy in India: a review of policy barriers in sustainable marketing of
biofuel. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 193, pp. 734-747.
[75] Samuels, G. (1984). Potential production of energy cane for fuel in the Caribbean. Energy
Progress, 4(4), 249-251.
[76] Gironès, V. C., Peduzzi, E., Vuille, F., & Maréchal, F. (2018). On the assessment of the CO2
mitigation potential of woody biomass. Frontiers in Energy Research, 5
10.3389/fenrg.2017.00037
[77] Pesce, G. R., Negri, M., Bacenetti, J., & Mauromicale, G. (2017). The biomethane, silage and
biomass yield obtainable from three accessions of cynara cardunculus. Industrial Crops and
Products, 103, 233-239.
[78] Piwowar, A. & Dzikuć, M. (2016). Outline of the economic and technical problems
associated with the co-combustion of biomass in Poland. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 54, 415-420.
[79] GBEP (2008). A review of the current state of bioenergy development in G8 + 5 countries.
Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
[80] Navickas, V., Švažas, M., & Gušcinskiene, J. (2017). Biomass clusters as a national energy
security factor. Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues, 6(3), 523-531.
[81] Singh, J. (2016). A roadmap for production of sustainable, consistent and reliable electric
power from agricultural biomass – an Indian perspective. Energy Policy, 92, 246-254.
[82] Zhou, H., Qian, Y., Kraslawski, A., Yang, Q., & Yang, S. (2017). Life-cycle assessment of
alternative liquid fuels production in China. Energy, 139, 507-522.
10.1016/j.energy.2017.07.157.
[83] Talukdar, D., Verma, D. K., Malik, K., Mohapatra, B., & Yulianto, R. (2017). Sugarcane as a
potential biofuel crop. In Mohan, C. (Ed.), Sugarcane biotechnology: Challenges and
prospects (pp. 123-137), Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG.
10.1007/978-3-319-58946-6_9

38
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[84] Villada Duque, F., López Lezama, J. M., & Muñoz Galeano, N. (2017). Effects of incentives
for renewable energy in Colombia. [Efectos de los incentivos para energías renovables en
Colombia] Ingenieria y Universidad, 21(2).
[85] Hutton, G., Rehfuess, E., Tediosi, F., & Weiss, S. (2006). Evaluation of the costs and
benefits of household energy and health interventions at global and regional levels. Geneva,
Switzerland: World Health Organization. ISBN: 978 92 4 159479 0
[86] Pode, R., Diouf, B., & Pode, G. (2015). Sustainable rural electrification using rice husk
biomass energy: A case study of Cambodia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 44,
530-542.
[87] Li, H., Yu, D., & Yu, Y. (2013). A preliminary study of an innovative biomass waste aerobic
degradation system for hot water heating. Ceramic Transaction, 239, 69-77.
[88] Ping, X., Jiang, Z., & Li, C. (2012). Social and ecological effects of biomass utilization and
the willingness to use clean energy in the eastern Qinghai-Tibet plateau. Energy Policy, 51,
828-833.
[89] Song, N., Aguilar, F. X., Shifley, S. R., & Goerndt, M. E. (2012). Factors affecting wood
energy consumption by U.S. households. Energy Economics, 34(2), 389-397.
[90] Sagastume Gutiérrez, A., Cabello Eras, J. J., Huisingh, D., Vandecasteele, C., & Hens, L.
(2018). The current potential of low-carbon economy and biomass-based electricity in Cuba.
the case of sugarcane, energy cane and marabu (dichrostachys cinerea) as biomass sources.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 2108-2122.
[91] Guo, S., Zhao, H., & Zhao, H. (2017). The most economical mode of power supply for
remote and less developed areas in China: Power grid extension or micro-grid?
Sustainability, 9(6).
[92] Gonzalez-Salazar, M. A., Venturini, M., Poganietz, W., Finkenrath, M., & Leal, M. R.
(2017). Combining an accelerated deployment of bioenergy and land use strategies: Review
and insights for a post-conflict scenario in Colombia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 73, 159-177.
[93] Chen, Q., Yang, H., Liu, T., & Zhang, L. (2016). Household biomass energy choice and its
policy implications on improving rural livelihoods in Sichuan, China. Energy Policy, 93,
291-302.
[94] Ghislain, G. (1995). Environmental Issues and Biomass. In Chartier, P., Beenackers, A.A.C-
M., & Grassi, G. (Eds). Biomass for Energy, Environment, Agriculture and Industry,
Proceeding of the 8th European Biomass Conference, Vienna, Austria, 3-5 October. Oxford,
UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.

39
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[95] Sathaye, J., Lucon, O., Rahman, A., Christensen, J. M., Denton, F., Fujino, J., Zhang, Y.
(2011). Renewable Energy in the Context of Sustainable Development. In O. Edenhofer, R.
Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier,
G. Hansen, S. Schlömer, C. Von Stechow (Eds.), IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy
Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (Vol. Chapter 9). Cambridge University Press.
[96] Bryan, B.A., Ward, J., & Hobbs, T. (2008). An assessment of the economic and
environmental potential of biomass production in an agricultural region. Land Use
Policy, 25, pp. 533-549.
[97] Evans, A., Strezov, V., & Evans, T.J. (2010). Sustainability considerations for electricity
generation from biomass. Renewable and. Sustainable. Energy Reviews., 14, pp. 1419-1427.
[98] Styles, D. & Jones, M.B. (2007). Energy crops in Ireland: quantifying the potential life-cycle
greenhouse gas reductions of energy-crop electricity. Biomass Bioenergy, 31, pp. 759-772.
[99] Ribeiro, J. P., Tarelho, L., & Gomes, A. P. (2018). Incorporation of biomass fly ash and
biological sludge in the soil: Effects along the soil profile and in the leachate water. Journal
of Soils and Sediments, forthcoming (First Online: 19 February 2018), 1-9.
[100] Yu, X., Bals, O., Grimi, N., & Vorobiev, E. (2015). A new way for the oil plant biomass
valorization: Polyphenols and proteins extraction from rapeseed stems and leaves assisted
by pulsed electric fields. Industrial Crops and Products, 74, 309-318.
10.1016/j.indcrop.2015.03.045
[101] Svedarsky, D., Bruggman, J., Ellis-Felege, S., Grosshans, R., Lane, V., Norrgard, R.,
Knutsen, G., Clarke, R., Ripplinger, D., Ostlund, A., Lewis, J., Granfors, J., & Brenny, T.
(2016). Cattail Management in the Northern Great Plains: Implications for Wetland
Wildlife and Bioenergy Harvest. Crookston, Minnesota, US: University of Minnesota.
[102] Robiansyah, I. (2018). Diversity and biomass of tree species in Tambrauw, West Papua,
Indonesia. Biodiversitas, 19(2), 377-386.
[103] Yan, Y. (2018). Integrate carbon dynamic models in analyzing carbon sequestration impact
of forest biomass harvest. Science of the Total Environment, 615, 581-587.
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.326
[104] Dar, J. A., Rather, M. Y., Subashree, K., Sundarapandian, S., & Khan, M. L. (2017).
Distribution patterns of tree, understorey, and detritus biomass in coniferous and broad-
leaved forests of western Himalaya, India. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 36(8), 787-805.
[105] Leban, V., Pezdevšek Malovrh, Š., Zadnik Stirn, L., & Krč, J. (2016). Forest biomass for
energy in multi-functional forest management: Insight into the perceptions of forest-related
professionals. Forest Policy and Economics, 71, 87-93.

40
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[106] Saladini, F., Vuai, S. A., Langat, B. K., Gustavsson, M., Bayitse, R., Gidamis, A.
B.;,Belmakki, M., Owis, A. S., Rashamuse, K., Sila, D. N., & Bastianoni, S. (2016).
Sustainability assessment of selected biowastes as feedstocks for biofuel and biomaterial
production by emergy evaluation in five African countries. Biomass and Bioenergy.
85:100-108.
[107] Chary, K., Aubin, J., Guindé, L., Sierra, J., & Blazy, J.. (2018). Cultivating biomass locally
or importing it? LCA of biomass provision scenarios for cleaner electricity production in a
small tropical island. Biomass and Bioenergy, 110, 1-12.
[108] Bhutto, A. W., Qureshi, K., Abro, R., Harijan, K., Zhao, Z., Bazmi, A. A., Abbas, T., & Yu,
G. (2016). Progress in the production of biomass-to-liquid biofuels to decarbonize the
transport sector-prospects and challenges. RSC Advances, 6(38), 32140-32170.
[109] Wilson, T. O., McNeal, F. M., Spatari, S., G. Abler, D., & Adler, P. R. (2012). Densified
biomass can cost-effectively mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and address energy
security in thermal applications. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(2), 1270-
1277. 10.1021/es202752b
[110] Las-Heras-Casas, J., López-Ochoa, L. M., Paredes-Sánchez, J. P., & López-González, L.
M. (2018). Implementation of biomass boilers for heating and domestic hot water in multi-
family buildings in Spain: Energy, environmental, and economic assessment. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 176, 590-603.
[111] Proskurina, S., Sikkema, R., Heinimö, J., & Vakkilainen, E. (2016). Five years left – how
are the EU member states contributing to the 20% target for EU's renewable energy
consumption; the role of woody biomass. Biomass and Bioenergy, 95, 64-77.
[112] Warfield, J.W. (1974). Developing interconnected matrices in structural modeling. IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics; 4(1):51–81.
[113] Sage, A. (1977). Interpretive Structural Modelling: Methodology for Large-scale Systems,
pp 91–164. McGraw-Hill, New York.
[114] Klein, K. & Kozlowski, S. W. (2000). Multilevel theory, research and methods in
organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
[115] Warfield, J. (1976). Societal systems: planning, policy and complexity. Wiley, New York.
[116] Thakkar, J., Kanda, A., & Deshmukh, S. (2008). Interpretive structural modeling (ISM) of
IT-enablers for Indian manufacturing SMEs. Information Management & Computer
Security; 16:.113-136.

41
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[117] Singh, D. & Kant, R. (2013). Knowledge management barriers: An interpretive structural
modeling approach, International Journal of Management Science and Engineering
Management, 3:2, 141-150.
[118] Singh M.D., Shankar R., Narain R. & Agarwal A. (2003). An interpretive structural
modeling of knowledge management in engineering industries. Journal of Advances in
Management Research, 1(1), 28–40.
[119] Kangas, J., Alho, J.M., Kolehmainen, O., & Mononen, A. (1998). Analysing consistency of
experts’ judgements – case of assessing forest biodiversity. Forest Science 44, 610–617.
[120] Charan, P. Shankar, R., & Baisya, R.K. (2008), Analysis of interactions among the
variables of supply chain performance measurement system implementation, Business
Process Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 512-529.
[121] Talib, F., Rahman, Z., & Qureshi, M. (2011). Analysis of interaction among the barriers to
total quality management implementation using interpretive structural modeling approach.
Benchmarking International Journal 18(4):563–587.
[122] Raj, T., Shankar, R., & Suhaib, M. (2008). An ISM approach for modeling the enablers of
flexible manufacturing system: the case for India, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 46, No. 24, pp. 6883-6912.
[123] Azevedo, S., Carvalho, H., & Cruz‐Machado, V. (2013). Using interpretive structural
modelling to identify and rank performance measures: An application in the automotive
supply chain, Baltic Journal of Management, Vol. 8 Issue: 2, pp.208-230.
[124] Faisal, M.N (2010). Analysing the barriers to corporate social responsibility in supply
chains: an interpretive structural modelling approach, International Journal of Logistics
Research and Applications: A Leading Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 13, No.
3, pp. 179-195.
[125] Govindan. K, Devika. K, Mathiyazhagan. K, Jabbour, A., & Jabbour, C. (2013). Analysing
green supply chain management practices in Brazil’s electrical/electronics industry using
interpretive structural modelling, International Journal of Environmental Studies, Vol. 70,
No. 4, pp. 477-493.
[126] Arcade, S., Godet, M., Meunier, F., & Roubelat, F. (1999). Structural Analysis with the
MICMAC Method & Actors’ Strategy with MACTOR Method in Futures Research
Methodology. American Council for the United Nations University: The Millennium
Project.
[127] Carlsson, B. & R. Stankiewicz (1991). On the nature, function and composition of
technological systems. Journal of Evolutionary Economics (1): 93-118.

42
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[128] Carlsson, B. (1997). Technological Systems and Industrial Dynamics. Cleveland, Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
[129] Suurs, R.A. & Hekkert, M.P (2009). Competition between first and second generation
technology: lessons from the formation of a biofuels innovation system in The Netherlands.
Energy, 34, pp. 669-679.
[130] Rahman, S.R., AlMahmud, N., Rahman, M.D.; Yeakub Hussain, M.D., & Ali, S. (2013).
Overview of biomass energy. International Journal of Engineering Research
Technology, 2 (11), pp. 379-385.
[131] Kulcsar, L. J., Selfa, T., & Bain, C. M. (2016). Privileged access and rural vulnerabilities:
Examining social and environmental exploitation in bioenergy development in the
American Midwest, Journal of Rural Studies, October 2016 47 Part A:291-299.
[132] Kilpeläinen, A., Ashraful, A., Torssonen, P., Ruusuvuori, H., Kellomäki, S., & Peltola, H.
(2016). Effects of Intensive Forest Management on Net Climate Impact of Energy Biomass
Utilisation From Final Felling of Norway Spruce. Biomass And Bioenergy, Vol. 87, Pages
1-8.
[133] Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E., Biggs, R.,
Carpenter, S., Vries, W., Wit, C., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G., Persson, L.,
Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., & Sörlin, S. (2015). Planetary Boundaries: Guiding human
development on a changing planet. Science Vol. 347 no. 6223.
[134] Strapasson, A., Woods, J., Chum , H., Kalas , N., Shah, N., & Ro Sillo–Calle, F. (2017). On
the global limits of bioenergy and land use for climate change mitigation, Bioenergy (9),
1721–1735.
[135] Wang, L. & Watanabe, T (2016). Factors affecting farmers’ risk perceptions
regarding biomass supply: A case study of the national bioenergy industry in northeast
China. Journal of Cleaner Production. 139:517-526.
[136] Paulo, H., Azcue, X., Barbosa-Póvoa, A. P., & Relvas, S. (2015). Research paper: Supply
chain optimization of residual forestry biomass for bioenergy production: The case study of
Portugal. Biomass and Bioenergy. 83:245-256.
[137] Delivand, M.K., Cammerino, A. R., Garofalo, P., & Monteleone, M. (2015). Optimal
locations of bioenergy facilities, biomass spatial availability, logistics costs and GHG
(greenhouse gas) emissions: a case study on electricity productions in South Italy. Journal
of Cleaner Production. 15, 99:129-139.
[138] Ozoegwu, C. G., Eze, C., Onwosi, C. O., Mgbemene, C. A., & Ozor, P. A. (2017).
Biomass and bioenergy potential of cassava waste in Nigeria: Estimations based partly on

43
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

rural-level garri processing case studies, Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews; MAY
2017; 72; 625-638.
[139] Eswarlal, V.K., Dey, P.K., & Shankar, R. (2011). Enhanced Renewable Energy Adoption
for Sustainable Development in India: Interpretive Structural Modeling Approach. World
Renewable Energy Congress, (2011) No. 5, 351-358.
[140] Qureshi M.N., Kumar D., & Kumar P. (2008). An integrated model to identify and classify
the key criteria and their role in the assessment of 3PL services providers. Asia Pacific J
Marketing and Logistics, 20:2:227-249.
[141] Attri, R., Dev, N., & Sharma, V. (2013). Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) approach:
An Overview. Research Journal of Management Sciences, Vol. 2(2), pp.3-8.
[142] Mertzanis, C. (2018). Institutions, development and energy constraints. Energy, Vol. 142, 1,
962-982.
[143] OECD, (2012). Linking renewable energy to rural development [online]. OECD green
growth studies, OECD Publishing [cited 30 November 2018]. Available from Internet:
http://www.keepeek.com/DigitalAsset-Management/oecd/urban-rural-and-regional-
development/linking-renewable-energy-torural-development_9789264180444-en#page134
[144] Burrell, A., Hubertus Gay, S., & Kavallari, A. (2012). The Compatibility of
EU Biofuel Policies with Global Sustainability and the WTO. World Economy., Vol. 35
Issue 6, p784-798.
[145] Holling, C.S. (1997). Regional responses to global change. Conservation Ecology, 1(2).
[146] Lele, S. & R.B. Norgaard (1996). Sustainability and the scientist’s burden. Conservation
Biology, 10(2), pp. 354-365.

44
 APPENDIX A ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1.A. Experts' Ranking (first stage, Section 4.1.): Adversities and constraints associated with the production of
bioenergy from biomass and the positive impacts they have on countries’ sustainability
(Experts’ answers from 1 to 5) Experts (E) Ʃ Ei

Adversities and constraints associated with the production of

E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 E10 E11 E12
bioenergy from biomass
More efficiency in harvesting, processing, and transportation
4 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 2 4 4 3 47
infrastructures.
High energy production costs 3 5 4 4 4 5 4 3 2 3 4 5 46

High costs of biomass 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 3 4 2 4 4 46

Changing crops, from those for food production to non-food
3 2 5 4 3 4 5 5 5 3 3 3 45*
production
Application of advanced technologies to convert raw biomass
4 4 5 3 3 5 3 4 4 4 4 2 45*
into modern, convenient energy carriers
Economy of scale for small biomass plants remains serious
5 2 4 3 4 5 4 3 5 3 2 4 44*
handicap
Better and cheaper storage 4 2 4 4 2 5 3 5 3 4 4 3 43*

Long-term environmental effects 3 4 2 2 2 5 4 4 5 4 2 2 39*

Significant investments in infrastructures, equipment, and
2 3 4 4 4 5 2 3 2 2 4 3 38*
R&D
Controls systems (Smart Grid) to deal with intermittency and
bad weather, attenuating biomass-feedstock supply 3 1 4 2 2 5 2 4 4 4 3 3 37*
uncertainty
Impacts of bioenergy from Biomass on countries’
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 E10 E11 E12 Ʃ Ei
sustainability
Reducing dependence on fossil fuels 5 4 5 3 5 5 4 3 3 5 5 4 51

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions 3 4 5 3 5 5 3 5 4 4 5 5 51

Supporting new investments 4 5 5 4 4 5 4 4 4 3 4 4 50

Driving job creation and fixing in rural regions 4 3 5 4 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 3 50

Driving innovation and new emerging technologies 4 5 5 4 3 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 49

Revitalizing rural regions 4 2 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 49

Promoting forest management 5 3 5 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 5 4 48

Consolidating renewable energy consumption 5 3 5 3 3 5 3 4 4 4 5 4 48

Allowing projects feasibility for investors 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 3 2 4 4 4 47

Valuing by-products and residues 5 3 5 3 4 5 3 5 3 4 3 4 47

Decarbonizing the energy sector 4 2 5 3 3 5 4 4 4 3 5 3 45*

Strengthening industry competitiveness 5 4 4 3 3 5 3 3 2 4 3 5 44*

Reducing imports from third countries 5 1 4 3 5 5 2 3 3 5 4 3 43*

Ensuring energy security 5 3 4 3 3 5 2 2 4 4 4 4 43*

Allowing energy price for households 3 4 3 4 4 5 3 3 3 4 3 4 43*

Providing affordable energy 4 1 5 3 4 5 5 2 2 5 3 3 42*

Allowing living standards improvements 3 3 3 4 4 5 3 2 3 4 4 4 42*

Allowing habitat restoration and degraded lands restoration 4 2 5 3 4 4 2 4 2 4 4 3 41*

Note: * Excluded from the study according to the exclusion criteria.

45
 ACCEPTED
Table 2.A MANUSCRIPT
. Profile of experts (second stage, Section 4.2.)
PROFESSIONALS
Sector Primary product(s). Number of employees
Professional 1 Chemical Industry Gum Resin Derivatives 90
Professional 2 Biomass Torrified pellet 45
Professional 3 Energy Woodpellets 9
ACADEMICS
Scientific Area Affiliation
Academic 1 Industrial Engineering University of Aveiro
Academic 2 Sustainability, Operations Universidade Nova de Lisboa
Academic 3 Sustainability and biomass
Management University of Beira Interior
Academic 4 Sustainability Instituto Politécnico de Coimbra

Table 3.A. Initial Reachability Matrix

Variable j 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Variable
1 Highi energy production costs 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1

2 High costs of biomass 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0

3 More efficiency in harvesting, processing, and 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1

transportation infrastructure
4 Supporting new investments 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1

5 Driving innovation and new emerging 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1

technologies
6 Allowing projects feasibility for investors 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0

7
Variable i
Reducing dependence on fossil fuels 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1

8 Driving job creation and fixing in rural regions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0

9 Revitalizing rural regions 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0

10 Reducing greenhouse gas emissions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0

11 Valuing by-products and residues 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

12 Promoting forest management 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1

13 Consolidating renewable energy consumption 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1

46
 Table 4.A –ACCEPTED
Application of theMANUSCRIPT
transitivity principle
Variable (i,j) Variable (i,m) Variable (m,j) Variable (i,j)
Variable (1,2)=0 Variable (1,7)=1 Variable (7,2)=1 Variable (1,2)=1
Variable (1,3)=0 Variable (1,5)=1 Variable (5,3)=1 Variable (1,3)=1
Variable (1,4)=0 Variable (1,5)=1 Variable (5,4)=1 Variable (1,4)=1
Variable (1,8)=0 Variable (1,5)=1 Variable (5,8)=1 Variable (1,8)=1
Variable (1,10)=0 Variable (1,5)=1 Variable (5,10)=1 Variable (1,10)=1
Variable (1,12)=0 Variable (1,5)=1 Variable (5,12)=1 Variable (1,12)=1
Variable (2,6)=0 Variable (2,3)=1 Variable (3,6)=1 Variable (2,6)=1
Variable (2,7)=0 Variable (2,4)=1 Variable (4,7)=1 Variable (2,7)=1
Variable (2,8)=0 Variable (2,4)=1 Variable (4,8)=1 Variable (2,8)=1
Variable (2,10)=0 Variable (2,3)=1 Variable (3,10)=1 Variable (2,10)=1
Variable (2,13)=0 Variable (2,3)=1 Variable (3,13)=1 Variable (2,13)=1
Variable (3,2)=0 Variable (3,12)=1 Variable (12,2)=1 Variable (3,2)=1
Variable (3,7)=0 Variable (3,6)=1 Variable (6,7)=1 Variable (3,7)=1
Variable (3,9)=0 Variable (3,6)=1 Variable (6,9)=1 Variable (3,9)=1
Variable (3,11)=0 Variable (3,12)=1 Variable (12,11)=1 Variable (3,11)=1
Variable (4,2)=0 Variable (4,7)=1 Variable (7,2)=1 Variable (4,2)=1
Variable (4,10)=0 Variable (4,5)=1 Variable (5,10)=1 Variable (4,10)=1
Variable (5,2)=0 Variable (5,7)=1 Variable (7,2)=1 Variable (5,2)=1
Variable (5,9)=0 Variable (5,8)=1 Variable (8,9)=1 Variable (5,9)=1
Variable (6,2)=0 Variable (6,7)=1 Variable (7,2)=1 Variable (6,2)=1
Variable (6,10)=0 Variable (6,7)=1 Variable (7,10)=1 Variable (6,10)=1
Variable (6,11)=0 Variable (6,9)=1 Variable (9,11)=1 Variable (6,11)=1
Variable (6,13)=0 Variable (6,7)=1 Variable (6,13)=1 Variable (6,13)=1
Variable (7,3)=0 Variable (7,13)=1 Variable (13,3)=1 Variable (7,3)=1
Variable (7,4)=0 Variable (7,2)=1 Variable (2,4)=1 Variable (7,4)=1
Variable (7,5)=0 Variable (7,2)=1 Variable (2,5)=1 Variable (7,5)=1
Variable (7,8)=0 Variable (7,12)=1 Variable (12,8)=1 Variable (7,8)=1
Variable (7,9)=0 Variable (7,10)=1 Variable (10,9)=1 Variable (7,9)=1
Variable (7,11)=0 Variable (7,12)=1 Variable (12,11)=1 Variable (7,11)=1
Variable (8,2)=0 Variable (8,12)=1 Variable (12,2)=1 Variable (8,2)=1
Variable (8,6)=0 Variable (8,9)=1 Variable (9,6)=1 Variable (8,6)=1
Variable (9,2)=0 Variable (9,12)=1 Variable (12,2)=1 Variable (9,2)=1
Variable (9,7)=0 Variable (9,11)=1 Variable (11,7)=1 Variable (9,7)=1
Variable (9,13)=0 Variable (9,11)=1 Variable (11,13)=1 Variable (9,13)=1
Variable (10,6)=0 Variable (10,9)=1 Variable (9,6)=1 Variable (10,6)=1
Variable (10,8)=0 Variable (10,9)=1 Variable (9,8)=1 Variable (10,8)=1
Variable (10,11)=0 Variable (10,9)=1 Variable (9, 11)=1 Variable (10,11)=1
Variable (10,12)=0 Variable (10,9)=1 Variable (9,12)=1 Variable (10,12)=1
Variable (10,13)=0 Variable (10,11)=1 Variable (11,13)=1 Variable (10,13)=1
Variable (11,2)=0 Variable (11,12)=1 Variable (12,2)=1 Variable (11,2)=1
Variable (11,3)=0 Variable (11,13)=1 Variable (13,3)=1 Variable (11,3)=1
Variable (12,3)=0 Variable (12,13)=1 Variable (13,3)=1 Variable (12,3)=1
Variable (12,5)=0 Variable (12,2)=1 Variable (2,5)=1 Variable (12,5)=1
Variable (12,6)=0 Variable (12,11)=1 Variable (11,6)=1 Variable (12,6)=1
Variable (12,7)=0 Variable (12,13)=1 Variable (13,7)=1 Variable (12,7)=1
Variable (12,9)=0 Variable (12,11)=1 Variable (11,9)=1 Variable (12,9)=1
Variable (12,10)=0 Variable (12,13)=1 Variable (13,10)=1 Variable (12,10)=1
Variable (13,5)=0 Variable (13,2)=1 Variable (2,5)=1 Variable (13,5)=1
Variable (13,6)=0 Variable (13,11)=1 Variable (11,6)=1 Variable (13,6)=1
Variable (13,8)=0 Variable (13,11)=1 Variable (11,8)=1 Variable (13,8)=1
Variable (13,9)=0 Variable (13,2)=1 Variable (2,9)=1 Variable (13,9)=1
Variable (13,12)=0 Variable (13,11)=1 Variable (11,12)=1 Variable (13,12)=0

47
 ACCEPTED
Table 5.A: Partition
Reachability Set
MANUSCRIPT
of reachability matrix
Antecedent Set Intersection Level

Interaction 1

1. High energy production costs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13 1 1

2. High costs of biomass 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11,12,

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, 11,12,13
13

3. More efficiency in harvesting, processing, and 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13
transportation infrastructure 13
4. Supporting new investments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 1,2, 4,5, 7 2, 4,5,7

5. Driving innovation and new emerging 2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 1,2, 4, 5,7, 12, 13 2,4, 5, 7, 12, 13
technologies
6. Allowing projects feasibility for investors 2,3,6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 2,3,6,8,9,10, 11,12,13

7. Reducing dependence on fossil fuels 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13 1,2,3,4,5, 6,7,9,11,12,13 2,3,4,5,6,7,9,11,12,13 I

8. Driving job creation and fixing in rural regions 2,3,6,8,9,12 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 2,3,6,8,9,12 I

9. Revitalizing rural regions 2,6,7,8,9,10, 11,12,13 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, 10,11,12,13 2,6,7,8,9,10, 11,12,13 I

10. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions 6,8,9,10, 11, 12,13 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, 9,10,11,12,13 6,9,10,11, 12,13

11. Valuing by-products and residues 2,3,6,7,8,9,10, 11, 12,13 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9, 10,11,12,13 2,3,6,7,9,10, 11,12,13

12. Promoting forest management 2,3,5,6,7,8,9, 10,11,12,13 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, 10,11,12, 13 2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10, 11,12, 13 I

13. Consolidating renewable energy consumption 2,3,5,6,7,9,10, 11,12,13 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10, 11,12,13 2,3,5,6,7,9,10, 11,12,13 I

Interaction 2

1.High energy production costs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11 1 1

2.High costs of biomass 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11 2,3,4,5, 6,11

3.More efficiency in harvesting, processing, and

2, 3, 6, 10, 11 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11 2, 3, 6, 11
transportation infrastructure

4.Supporting new investments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 1,2, 4,5 2, 4,5

5.Driving innovation and new emerging technologies 2,3,4,5,9,10,11 1,2, 4, 5 2,4, 5

6.Allowing projects feasibility for investors 2,3,6, 9, 10, 11 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11 2,3,6,9, 10,11 II

10. Reducing greenhouse gas emisions 6,9,10, 11 1,2,3,4,5,6, 9,10,11 6,9,10,11

11.Valuing by-products and residues 2,3,6, 9,10,11 1,2,3,4,5,6,9,10,11 2,3,6,9, 10,11 II

Interaction 3

1.High energy production costs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 1 1

2.High costs of biomass 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 2,3,4,5

3.More efficiency in harvesting, processing, and 2, 3, 10 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 2, 3

transportation infrastructure
4.Supporting new investments 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10 1,2, 4,5 2, 4,5

5.Driving innovation and new emerging technologies 2,3,4,5,9,10 1,2, 4, 5 2,4, 5

10. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions 9,10 1,2,3,4,5,9,10 9,10 III

Interaction 4

1.High energy production costs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 1 1

2.High costs of biomass 2, 3, 4, 5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 2,3,4,5 IV
3.More efficiency in harvesting, processing, and 2, 3 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 2, 3 IV
transportation infrastructure
4.Supporting new investments 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 1,2, 4,5 2, 4,5
5.Driving innovation and new emerging technologies 2,3,4,5,9 1,2, 4, 5 2,4, 5
Interaction 5
1.High energy production costs 1,4, 5 1 1 VI

4.Supporting new investments 4, 5, 9 1,4,5 4,5 V

5.Driving innovation and new emerging technologies 4,5,9 1,4, 5 4, 5 V

48
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
APPENDIX B (Not for publication)
B.1 – Structured Interview Protocol
This framework is intended to support research regarding the study of the relationship between the use of
bioenergy from biomass and the sustainability of countries. To attain this objective a selection process of the
impacts of bionergy from biomass on countries' sustainability and Adversities and constraining factors associated
with the production of bioenergy is undertaken

Indeed, the sustainability potential of global biomass for energy is widely recognized ([24] Ladanai, & Vinterbäck,
2009), and many studies have focused on understanding the main benefits inherent to an increasing use of biomass
as energy source, all around the world. In most countries, socioeconomic benefits of bioenergy use are also
recognized as significant driving forces in increasing the share of bioenergy in the total energy supply, with regional
job creation and economic benefits probably being the two most significant issues regarding biomass use in energy
production
A.1. Respondents’ characterization

From Academia

- Expertise area: _______________________________________

- Affiliation: ___________________________________________

1 - For the following impacts of using bioenergy from biomass, please give your perception about their
importance for the sustainability of countries, using the following scale:

1 – Not at all important; 2 - Low importance; 3 – Indifferent; 4 - Moderately important; 5 - Extremely important.

Impacts of bioenergy from Biomass on countries’ sustainability 1 2 3 4 5

Supporting new investments
Driving innovation and new emerging technologies
Allowing projects feasibility for investors
Providing affordable energy
Strengthening industry competitiveness
Reducing dependence on fossil fuels
Reducing imports from third countries
Ensuring energy security
Driving job creation and fixing in rural regions
Allowing energy price for households
Revitalizing rural regions
Allowing living standards improvements
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions
Valuing by-products and residues
Allowing habitat restoration and degraded lands restoration
Promoting forest management
Decarbonizing the energy sector
Consolidating renewable energy consumption

2 - Despite the several benefits associated with the increased use of bioenergy from biomass, it is also subject to
several potential adversities and constraining factors which may discourage its use.
Among the following adversities and constraints please give your perception about their importance to discourage
the use of bioenergy from biomass.

49
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1 – Not at all important; 2 - Low importance; 3 – Indifferent; 4 - Moderately important; 5 - Extremely important.

Adversities and constraining factors associated with the production of bioenergy from 1 2 3 4 5
biomass
High energy production costs
long-term environmental effects
changing crops, from those for food production to non-food production
high costs of biomass
Economy of scale for small biomass plants remains a serious handicap
Significant investments in infrastructures, equipment, and R&D
More efficiency in harvesting, processing, and transportation infrastructures.
better and cheaper storage
Controls systems (Smart Grid) to deal with intermittency and bad weather, attenuating biomass-feedstock
supply uncertainty

Application of advanced technologies to convert raw biomass into modern, convenient energy carriers

B.2 – ISSM Questionnaire

This questionnaire is intended to support the research regarding the study of the relationship between the use of bioenergy from biomass and the
sustainability of countries. To attain this objective a selection process of the main advantages, adversities, and constraints associated with the use
of bioenergy from biomass must be previously performed. To go on with this study, we appreciate if you could fill in the next questionnaire. It
takes only a few minutes.
A.1. Respondents’ characterization
From Academia
- Expertise area: ______________________
- Affiliation: _________________________
From industry:
Product Lines: ______________________
Company size (employees): __________________
Job of the respondent: _______________________________
The following table intends to register the perception of professionals and academics about the impact of adversities and constraints of
bioenergy from biomass on the sustainability of countries. Please, fill in the table considering the following symbols:
V - variable i will help to achieve variable j
A - variable J will help to achieve variable i
X - variable i and J will help to achieve each other
O - variable i and J are unrelated.
Variable j
13 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 1
12 2
Variable i
1 High energy production costs
2 High costs of biomass
3 More efficiency in harvesting, processing, and
transportation infrastructure
4 Supporting new investments
5 Driving innovation and new technologies
6 emerging projects feasibility for investors
Allowing
7 Reducing dependence on fossil fuels
8 Driving job creation and fixing in rural regions
9 Revitalizing rural regions
10 Reducing greenhouse gas emissions
11 Valuing by-products and residues
12 Fostering forest management
13 Consolidating renewable energy consumption

Thanks for your collaboration.

Variable i

50
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

“Biomass related Sustainability: A review of the literature and interpretive

structural modeling”

Journal: Energy
By Susana Garrido Azevedo, Tiago Sequeira, Marcelo Santos, Luis Mendes

Highlights

 We develop a new concept of biomass-based sustainability of countries;

 We implement an interpretive structural modelling approach;
 We identify government policies and market costs as essential to innovation;
 Economic may imply Social Sustainability;
 There are interdependencies between Economic and Environmental
Sustainability.