What have we learnt?

Bioenergy markets and policy

Over the past fifteen years, we have advanced our understanding of bioenergy systems by investigating technology adoption at the farm level, the dynamics of regional markets, the design of policy instruments, and expert perceptions of carbon-mitigation targets. The interdisciplinary work spans empirical surveys in rural China, econometric modeling in the Nordic region, multi-criteria policy design in Europe, and pan-European expert elicitation, offering a comprehensive view of the bioenergy transition.

Bioenergy Adoption. In rural China, farmers’ use of agricultural residues for energy remains constrained by both infrastructure and awareness. A survey of 359 households in Shaanxi Province found that biowaste is predominantly used for on-farm biogas or fertilizer, while other residue streams go largely untapped due to inadequate collection facilities and limited training (Xu et al., 2022b). In a complementary study of 594 farmers, only 13% were aware of modern bioenergy options, and willingness to adopt was strongly linked to education level and current reliance on coal or electricity (Xu et al., 2022a). Both studies highlight the need for targeted incentives and capacity-building to expand bioenergy uptake in rural communities.

Biomass valorization. Our recent studies explore innovative pathways to valorize agricultural and industrial lignocellulosic residues—such as spent mushroom substrate (SMS) and tomato plant waste—through hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) and green chemistry approaches, aiming to produce value-added compounds for the wood sector. HTL of SMS and tomato residues yields phenols, organic acids, and ketones with strong antifungal properties, capable of inhibiting wood-decaying fungi by over 80% at 10% dilution, while maintaining lower ecotoxicity than commercial wood preservatives (Barbero-López et al., 2024). Complementing this, comprehensive reviews of wood-derived extractives identify natural antifungal and antioxidant agents—e.g., lignans, tannins, terpenes, and stilbenes—with demonstrated efficacy against pathogens, and potential use in wood adhesives and biopreservatives (Papamatthaiakis et al., 2021). Further, refined classification frameworks now map valorization potential by integrating biomass composition, extractive type, and application domain, enabling the screening of underutilized wood species and residues for high-value biochemicals, particularly in the bio-based material and coatings sectors (Papamatthaiakis et al., 2025). Together, these approaches offer a circular bioeconomy pathway for converting wood and agri-residues into functional chemicals, reducing waste and supporting sustainable materials innovation.

Market Dynamics. At the regional level, vector error-correction models and structural-break analysis reveal tight interdependencies between wood fuels and broader renewable outputs, as well as sensitivity to major economic and policy shocks. Using Nordic data (1960–2017), Khanam et al. (2020) showed that positive shocks in wood-fuel production raise overall renewable-energy output by about 80%, while innovations in other renewables suppress wood-fuel use by over 75%. Earlier, Khanam et al. (2015) identified structural breaks in Finnish and Swedish roundwood and sawnwood series coinciding with the 1970s oil crises, 1990s EU accession, and mid-2000s climate-policy roll-outs, illustrating how external events reshape forest-product markets.

Policy Instruments. Economic simulations and stakeholder-driven methods underscore the importance of mixed policy packages and participatory design. A duopoly substitution model demonstrated that combining solid-biomass subsidies with fossil-fuel taxes maximizes social welfare—shifting biofuel demand up by 19%, reducing fossil-fuel use by 13%, and increasing substitution by 31% (Khanam et al., 2014). In Croatia, fuzzy AHP and stakeholder partitioning produced a coordinated renewable-transport mix that cut investment needs by 75% compared to least-cost approaches (Kulišić et al., 2021). Expanding this framework to the eleven-country BioEast macro-region showed consensus on sourcing two-thirds of transport renewables from domestic biomass, despite marked national divergences in priorities (Kulišić et al., 2022).

Expert Perceptions. Pan-European expert surveys reveal deep skepticism about meeting the EU’s “20-20-20” targets. In 2017, nearly half of 187 experts doubted the 20% renewables goal, 60% judged current GHG policies insufficient, and 85% expected energy-efficiency objectives to be missed (Khanam et al., 2017). More recently, the willingness of European experts to reduce personal carbon footprints was moderate in housing, food, energy, and waste domains but uniformly low in transport, with Central and South-Eastern Europe exhibiting the strongest commitment to change (Khanam et al., 2022).

Stakeholder Knowledge and Educational Perspectives. Complementing empirical and market analyses, studies on the knowledge, attitudes, and educational backgrounds of future bioenergy stakeholders reveal critical gaps and opportunities in capacity building. Chinese university students generally hold positive attitudes toward renewable energy but exhibit more reserved views on forest‐based bioenergy, and report a strong desire for enhanced curricular and extension‐service information (Qu et al., 2011). Among forestry professionals trained in national courses, low-carbon lifestyles are widespread, yet their current practices and stated preferences for forest bioenergy diverge—professionals recognize broad potential for renewables but less so for woody biomass, and call for stronger government–industry collaboration to align ecosystem functions with energy objectives (Qu et al., 2012). Cross-national comparisons of Bachelor forestry students in Brazil, China, and Finland further underscore shared valuation of field experiences and environmental‐protection competencies, alongside consistent interest in public‐forest management roles, suggesting that integrating experiential learning with transnational curricular harmonization could foster a generation of practitioners better equipped to navigate the bioenergy transition (Arevalo et al., 2012).

References

Arevalo, J., Mola-Yudego, B., Pelkonen, P., & Qu, M. (2012). Students’ views on forestry education: A cross-national comparison across three universities in Brazil, China and Finland. Forest Policy and Economics, 25, 123–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.08.015Barbero-López, A., Papamatthaiakis, N., Eronen, E., Haapala, A., & Mola-Yudego, B. (2024). Hydrothermal liquefaction of tomato and spent mushroom residues for antifungal bio-oils in wood protection. Industrial Crops and Products, 212, 115155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2024.115155Khanam, T., Matero, J., Mola-Yudego, B., Sikanen, L., & Rahman, A. (2014). Assessing external factors on substitution of fossil fuel by biofuels: Model perspective from the Nordic region. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-014-9608-xKhanam, T., Rahman, A., Mola-Yudego, B., & Pykäläinen, J. (2015). Identification of structural breaks in the forest product markets: How sensitive are they to changes in the Nordic region? Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-015-9681-9Khanam, T., Rahman, A., Mola-Yudego, B., Pelkonen, P., Pérez, Y., & Pykäläinen, J. (2017). Achievable or unbelievable? Expert perceptions of the European Union targets for emissions, renewables, and efficiency. Energy Research & Social Science, 34, 144–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.06.040Khanam, T., Rahman, A., & Mola-Yudego, B. (2020). Renewable energy and wood fuel productions in the Nordic region: Can it be changed? Journal of Cleaner Production, 276, 123547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123547Khanam, T., Rahman, A., Mola-Yudego, B., Xu, X., Moula, M. M. E., & Pelkonen, P. (2022). Assessing the awareness and willingness of European experts to reduce their carbon footprint in everyday consumption. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 97, 106889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106889Kulišić, B., Dimitriou, I., & Mola-Yudego, B. (2021). From preferences to concerted policy on mandated share for renewable energy in transport. Energy Policy, 155, 112355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112355Kulišić, B., Dimitriou, I., & Mola-Yudego, B. (2022). Positioning the biofuel policy in the bioeconomy of the BioEast macro-region. Biofuels, 13(7), 833–842. https://doi.org/10.1080/17597269.2021.1984165Papamatthaiakis, N., Barbero-López, A., Haapala, A., & Mola-Yudego, B. (2021). Wood extractives as natural bioactive compounds: Potential applications in wood protection and adhesives. Forest Products Journal, 71(4), 368–379. https://doi.org/10.13073/FPJ-D-21-00045Papamatthaiakis, N., Barbero-López, A., Haapala, A., & Mola-Yudego, B. (2025). Mapping wood residue valorization potential: A framework for classification and application in bio-based materials. Sustainable Materials and Technologies, 35, e00500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2025.e00500Qu, M., Ahponen, P., Tahvanainen, L., Gritten, D., Mola-Yudego, B., & Pelkonen, P. (2011). Chinese university students’ knowledge and attitudes regarding forest bio-energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(8), 3649–3657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.002Qu, M., Ahponen, P., Tahvanainen, L., Gritten, D., Mola-Yudego, B., & Pelkonen, P. (2012). Practices and perceptions on the development of forest bioenergy in China from participants in national forestry training courses. Biomass and Bioenergy, 40, 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.01.050Xu, X., Liu, G., & Mola-Yudego, B. (2022). Barriers and opportunities for bioenergy expansion in Chinese rural areas. Energy for Sustainable Development, 70, 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2022.06.012Xu, X., Mola-Yudego, B., Selkimäki, M., Zhang, X., & Qu, M. (2022). Determinants of farmers’ waste generation and disposal in rural areas of central China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 9011–9021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20491-9 [PDF]

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse