REFERENCES
1. Smeets, E. M. W.; Faaij, A. P. C. Bioenergy potentials from forestry in 2050: an assessment of the drivers that determine the potentials. Clim. Chang. 2006, 81, 353-90.
2. IEA. Bioenergy - a sustainable and reliable energy source; International Energy Agency Bioenergy: Paris, France, 2009. Available from: https://www.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Executive-Summary-Bioenergy-a-sustainable-reliable-energy-source.pdf [Last accessed on 9 Apr 2026].
3. McKechnie, J.; Colombo, S.; Chen, J.; Mabee, W.; MacLean, H. L. Forest bioenergy or forest carbon? Assessing trade-offs in greenhouse gas mitigation with wood-based fuels. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 789-95.
4. Bentsen, N. S. Carbon debt and payback time - Lost in the forest? Renew. Sustain. Energy. Rev. 2017, 73, 1211-7.
6. Harris, N. L.; Gibbs, D. A.; Baccini, A.; et al. Global maps of twenty-first century forest carbon fluxes. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2021, 11, 234-40.
7. Ragauskas, A. J.; Williams, C. K.; Davison, B. H.; et al. The path forward for biofuels and biomaterials. Science 2006, 311, 484-9.
8. IPCC. 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories; 2006. Available from: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/ [Last accessed on 9 Apr 2026].
9. Liu, W.; Yu, Z.; Xie, X.; Von Gadow, K.; Peng, C. A critical analysis of the carbon neutrality assumption in life cycle assessment of forest bioenergy systems. Environ. Rev. 2018, 26, 93-101.
10. Kouchaki-Penchah, H.; Bahn, O.; Vaillancourt, K.; Moreau, L.; Thiffault, E.; Levasseur, A. Impact of biogenic carbon neutrality assumption for achieving a net-zero emission target: insights from a techno-economic analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 57, 10615-28.
11. IEA. Tracking clean energy progress 2023; Paris, 2023. Available from: https://www.iea.org/reports/tracking-clean-energy-progress-2023 [Last accessed on 9 Apr 2026].
12. European Commission. Brief on biomass for energy in the European Union; 2019. Available from: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC109354 [Last accessed on 10 Apr 2026].
13. FAO. The state of the world’s forests 2022. FAO: Rome, Italy; 2022, 166p. Available from: https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/cb9360en [Last accessed on 10 Apr 2026].
14. Steel, E. A.; Stoner, O.; Podschwit, H.; et al. Global wood fuel production estimates and implications. Nat. Commun. 2025, 16, 6227.
15. FAO. Available from: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FO [Last accessed on 9 Apr 2026].
16. Lauri, P.; Havlík, P.; Kindermann, G.; Forsell, N.; Böttcher, H.; Obersteiner, M. Woody biomass energy potential in 2050. Energy. Policy. 2014, 66, 19-31.
17. Giuntoli, J.; Barredo, J.; Avitabile, V.; et al. The quest for sustainable forest bioenergy: win-win solutions for climate and biodiversity. Renew. Sustain. Energy. Rev. 2022, 159, 112180.
18. Cowie, A. L.; Berndes, G.; Bentsen, N. S.; et al. Applying a science‐based systems perspective to dispel misconceptions about climate effects of forest bioenergy. GCB. Bioenergy. 2021, 13, 1210-31.
19. Pulles, T.; Gillenwater, M.; Radunsky, K. CO2 emissions from biomass combustion accounting of CO2 emissions from biomass under the UNFCCC. Carbon. Manag. 2022, 13, 181-9.
20. Welfle, A. J.; Almena, A.; Arshad, M. N.; et al. Sustainability of bioenergy - Mapping the risks & benefits to inform future bioenergy systems. Biomass. Bioenergy. 2023, 177, 106919.
21. Buchholz, T.; Hurteau, M. D.; Gunn, J.; Saah, D. A global meta‐analysis of forest bioenergy greenhouse gas emission accounting studies. GCB. Bioenergy. 2015, 8, 281-9.
22. Martín-Gamboa, M.; Marques, P.; Freire, F.; Arroja, L.; Dias, A. C. Life cycle assessment of biomass pellets: a review of methodological choices and results. Renew. Sustain. Energy. Rev. 2020, 133, 110278.
23. Eck NJ, Waltman L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 2010, 84, 523-38.
24. Kim, A.; Mutel, C. L.; Froemelt, A.; Hellweg, S. Global sensitivity analysis of background life cycle inventories. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56, 5874-85.
25. Finnveden, G.; Hauschild, M. Z.; Ekvall, T.; et al. Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 91, 1-21.
26. University of Maryland. Integration and application network. Available from: https://ian.umces.edu/media-library/ [Last accessed on 9 Apr 2026].
27. Lan, K.; Zhang, B.; Lee, T.; Yao, Y. Soil organic carbon change can reduce the climate benefits of biofuel produced from forest residues. Joule 2024, 8, 430-49.
28. Ameray, A.; Bergeron, Y.; Valeria, O.; Montoro, Girona. M.; Cavard, X. Forest carbon management: a review of silvicultural practices and management strategies across boreal, temperate and tropical forests. Curr. Forestry. Rep. 2021, 7, 245-66.
29. Jandl, R.; Lindner, M.; Vesterdal, L.; et al. How strongly can forest management influence soil carbon sequestration? Geoderma 2007, 137, 253-68.
30. FAO. Unified bioenergy terminology; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2004. Available from: https://www.fao.org/4/j4504e/j4504e00.pdf [Last accessed on 9 Apr 2026].
31. FAO. FAO yearbook of forest products 2018; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020. Available from: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/7b616ad1-8225-4c41-b493-2d867230cabe/content [Last accessed on 9 Apr 2026].
32. Bianchini, L.; Colantoni, A.; Venanzi, R.; Cozzolino, L.; Picchio, R. Physicochemical properties of forest wood biomass for bioenergy application: a review. Forests 2025, 16, 702.
33. Gao, Y.; Wang, M.; Raheem, A.; et al. Syngas production from biomass gasification: influences of feedstock properties, reactor type, and reaction parameters. ACS. Omega. 2023, 8, 31620-31.
34. Yu, Q.; Wang, Y.; Van Le, Q.; et al. An overview on the conversion of forest biomass into bioenergy. Front. Energy. Res. 2021, 9, 684234.
35. Alizadeh, P.; Mupondwa, E.; Tabil, L. G.; Li, X.; Cree, D. Life cycle assessment of bioenergy production from wood sawdust. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 427, 138936.
36. Bhar, R.; Tiwari, B. R.; Sarmah, A. K.; Brar, S. K.; Dubey, B. K. A comparative life cycle assessment of different pyrolysis-pretreatment pathways of wood biomass for levoglucosan production. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 356, 127305.
37. Dwivedi, P.; Khanna, M.; Bailis, R.; Ghilardi, A. Potential greenhouse gas benefits of transatlantic wood pellet trade. Environ. Res. Lett. 2014, 9, 024007.
38. Gough, C.; Upham, P. Biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS or Bio‐CCS). Greenhouse. Gases. 2011, 1, 324-34.
39. Fernanda, Rojas. Michaga. M.; Michailos, S.; Akram, M.; et al. Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) potential in jet fuel production from forestry residues: a combined techno-economic and life cycle assessment approach. Energy. Convers. Manag. 2022, 255, 115346.
40. Myllyviita, T.; Soimakallio, S.; Judl, J.; Seppälä, J. Wood substitution potential in greenhouse gas emission reduction-review on current state and application of displacement factors. For. Ecosyst. 2021, 8, 42.
41. Groen, E. A.; Bokkers, E. A. M.; Heijungs, R.; De, Boer. I. J. M. Methods for global sensitivity analysis in life cycle assessment. Int. J. Life. Cycle. Assess. 2016, 22, 1125-37.
42. Janowiak, M.; Connelly, W. J.; Dante-Wood, K.; et al. Considering forest and grassland carbon in land management; General Technical Report, Washington Office: Washington, DC, 2017.
43. Loehle, C. Carbon accounting for forest products: carbon debt and the time dimension. For. Sci. 2025, 71, 39-52.
44. Sterman, J.; Moomaw, W.; Rooney-Varga, J. N.; Siegel, L. Does wood bioenergy help or harm the climate? Bull. Atomic. Sci. 2022, 78, 128-38.
45. Norton, M.; Walloe, L.; Brack, D.; Booth, M.; Jones, M. B. Time is of the essence when it comes to forest bioenergy. GCB. Bioenergy. 2021, 14, 108-9.
46. Galik, C. S.; Abt, R. C. The effect of assessment scale and metric selection on the greenhouse gas benefits of woody biomass. Biomass. Bioenergy. 2012, 44, 1-7.
47. Cherubini, F.; Peters, G. P.; Berntsen, T.; Strømman, A. H.; Hertwich, E. CO2 emissions from biomass combustion for bioenergy: atmospheric decay and contribution to global warming. GCB. Bioenergy. 2011, 3, 413-26.
48. Cherubini, F.; Gasser, T.; Bright, R.; Ciais, P.; Strømman, A. H. Linearity between temperature peak and bioenergy CO2 emission rates. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2014, 4, 983-7.
49. Jonker, J. G. G.; Junginger, M.; Faaij, A. Carbon payback period and carbon offset parity point of wood pellet production in the South‐eastern United States. GCB. Bioenergy. 2013, 6, 371-89.
50. Nabuurs, G.; Arets, E. J.; Schelhaas, M. European forests show no carbon debt, only a long parity effect. For. Policy. Econ. 2017, 75, 120-5.
51. Favero, A.; Daigneault, A.; Sohngen, B.; Baker, J. A system‐wide assessment of forest biomass production, markets, and carbon. GCB. Bioenergy. 2022, 15, 154-65.
52. Egnell, G.; Björheden, R. Options for increasing biomass output from long-rotation forestry. In: Lund PD, Byrne J, Berndes G, Vasalos IA, editors, Advances in Bioenergy. Wiley; 2015. pp. 285-92.
53. Levasseur, A.; Lesage, P.; Margni, M.; Deschênes, L.; Samson, R. Considering time in LCA: dynamic LCA and its application to global warming impact assessments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 3169-74.
54. Levasseur, A.; Lesage, P.; Margni, M.; Samson, R. Biogenic carbon and temporary storage addressed with dynamic life cycle assessment. J. Ind. Ecol. 2012, 17, 117-28.
55. Shi, S.; Yan, X. A critical review on spatially explicit life cycle assessment methodologies and applications. Sustain. Prod. Consump. 2024, 52, 566-79.
56. Arvesen, A.; Humpenöder, F.; Navarrete, Gutierrez. T.; et al. Advancing life cycle assessment of bioenergy crops with global land use models. Environ. Res. Commun. 2025, 6, 125004.
57. Howard, C.; Dymond, C. C.; Griess, V. C.; Tolkien-Spurr, D.; van Kooten, G. C. Wood product carbon substitution benefits: a critical review of assumptions. Carbon. Balance. Manag. 2021, 16, 9.
58. Leturcq, P. GHG displacement factors of harvested wood products: the myth of substitution. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 20752.
59. Thrän, D.; Dotzauer, M.; Lenz, V.; Liebetrau, J.; Ortwein, A. Flexible bioenergy supply for balancing fluctuating renewables in the heat and power sector-a review of technologies and concepts. Energy. Sustain. Soc. 2015, 5, 35.
60. Tong, D.; Farnham, D. J.; Duan, L.; et al. Geophysical constraints on the reliability of solar and wind power worldwide. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 6146.
61. Brown, M. L.; Canham, C. D.; Buchholz, T.; Gunn, J. S.; Donovan, T. M. Net carbon sequestration implications of intensified timber harvest in Northeastern U.S. forests. Ecosphere 2024, 15, e4758.
62. Picciano, P.; Aguilar, F. X.; Burtraw, D.; Mirzaee, A. Environmental and socio-economic implications of woody biomass co-firing at coal-fired power plants. Resour. Energy. Econ. 2022, 68, 101296.
63. Francesconi, W.; Vanegas-cubillos, M.; Bax, V. Carbon footprints of forest degradation and deforestation by “basic-needs populations”: a review. Carbon. Footprints. 2023, 2, 4.
64. Peng, L.; Searchinger, T. D.; Zionts, J.; Waite, R. The carbon costs of global wood harvests. Nature 2023, 620, 110-5.
65. Jurasinski, G.; Barthelmes, A.; Byrne, K. A.; et al. Active afforestation of drained peatlands is not a viable option under the EU Nature Restoration Law. Ambio 2024, 53, 970-83.
66. Gelfand, I.; Sahajpal, R.; Zhang, X.; Izaurralde, R. C.; Gross, K. L.; Robertson, G. P. Sustainable bioenergy production from marginal lands in the US Midwest. Nature 2013, 493, 514-7.
67. Mehmood, M. A.; Ibrahim, M.; Rashid, U.; et al. Biomass production for bioenergy using marginal lands. Sustain. Prod. Consump. 2017, 9, 3-21.
68. Zhang, B.; Lan, K.; Harris, T. B.; Ashton, M. S.; Yao, Y. Climate-smart forestry through innovative wood products and commercial afforestation and reforestation on marginal land. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2023, 120, e2221840120.
69. Hellweg, S.; Benetto, E.; Huijbregts, M. A. J.; Verones, F.; Wood, R. Life-cycle assessment to guide solutions for the triple planetary crisis. Nat. Rev. Earth. Environ. 2023, 4, 471-86.
70. Mendoza Beltran, A.; Cox, B.; Mutel, C.; et al. When the background matters: using scenarios from integrated assessment models in prospective life cycle assessment. J. Ind. Ecol. 2018, 24, 64-79.
71. Lindahl, K. B.; Sténs, A.; Sandström, C.; et al. The Swedish forestry model: more of everything? For. Policy. Econ. 2017, 77, 44-55.
72. Lundmark, T.; Bergh, J.; Hofer, P.; et al. Potential roles of swedish forestry in the context of climate change mitigation. Forests 2014, 5, 557-78.
73. Liu, W.; Ashton, M. S.; Ducey, M. J.; Bradford, M. A.; Kuebbing, S. E. Sustainable forest management for carbon, wood and biodiversity must consider natural disturbance regimes. Environ. Res. Lett. 2025, 20, 064020.
74. Gan, J.; Cashore, B. Opportunities and challenges for integrating bioenergy into sustainable forest management certification programs. J. Forest. 2013, 111, 11-6.
75. Kneeshaw, D. D.; Leduc, A.; Messier, C.; et al. Development of integrated ecological standards of sustainable forest management at an operational scale. For. Chron. 2000, 76, 481-93.
76. Waste to Wisdom. Utilizing forest residues for the production of bioenergy and biobased products. Award number DE-EE0006297. 2018; 78p.
77. Franzen, K.; Favero, A.; Milliken, C.; Wade, C. Assessing GHG emissions implications of forest residue use for energy production. GCB. Bioenergy. 2025, 17, e70045.
78. Limenih, B. Y.; Stoeckl, N.; O'reilly-wapstra, J.; Volker, P. Managing forest residues for biodiversity, bioenergy, and smoke reduction: insights from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Tasmania, Australia. Energy. Policy. 2024, 195, 114351.
79. Titus, B. D.; Brown, K.; Helmisaari, H.; et al. Sustainable forest biomass: a review of current residue harvesting guidelines. Energ. Sustain. Soc. 2021, 11, 10.
80. U.S. Department of Energy. 2016 billion-ton report: advancing domestic resources for a thriving bioeconomy; DOE/EE-1440, ORNL/TM-2016/160; 2016.
81. Mandley, S.; Daioglou, V.; Junginger, H.; Van Vuuren, D.; Wicke, B. EU bioenergy development to 2050. Renew. Sustain. Energy. Rev. 2020, 127, 109858.
82. Parish, E. S.; Herzberger, A. J.; Phifer, C. C.; Dale, V. H. Transatlantic wood pellet trade demonstrates telecoupled benefits. Ecol. Soc. 2018, 23, art28.
83. Visser, L.; Hoefnagels, R.; Junginger, M. Wood pellet supply chain costs - A review and cost optimization analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy. Rev. 2020, 118, 109506.
84. Svensson, J.; Andersson, J.; Sandström, P.; Mikusiński, G.; Jonsson, B. G. Landscape trajectory of natural boreal forest loss as an impediment to green infrastructure. Conserv. Biol. 2019, 33, 152-63.
85. Achat, D. L.; Fortin, M.; Landmann, G.; Ringeval, B.; Augusto, L. Forest soil carbon is threatened by intensive biomass harvesting. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 15991.
86. Liu, C. L. C.; Kuchma, O.; Krutovsky, K. V. Mixed-species versus monocultures in plantation forestry: Development, benefits, ecosystem services and perspectives for the future. Global. Ecol. Conserv. 2018, 15, e00419.
87. Hua, F.; Bruijnzeel, L. A.; Meli, P.; et al. The biodiversity and ecosystem service contributions and trade-offs of forest restoration approaches. Science 2022, 376, 839-44.
88. Pett-Ridge, J.; Ammar, H. Z.; Aui, A.; et al. Roads to removal: options for carbon dioxide removal in the United States; LLNL-TR-852901; Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 2023.
89. Aguilar, F. X.; Sudekum, H.; McGarvey, R.; Knapp, B.; Domke, G.; Brandeis, C. Impacts of the US southeast wood pellet industry on local forest carbon stocks. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 19449.
90. Dale, V. H.; Parish, E.; Kline, K. L.; Tobin, E. How is wood-based pellet production affecting forest conditions in the southeastern United States? For. Ecol. Manag. 2017, 396, 143-9.
91. Wang, W.; Dwivedi, P.; Abt, R.; Khanna, M. Carbon savings with transatlantic trade in pellets: accounting for market-driven effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 2015, 10, 114019.
92. Kanemoto, K.; Moran, D.; Lenzen, M.; Geschke, A. International trade undermines national emission reduction targets: new evidence from air pollution. Global. Environ. Chang. 2014, 24, 52-9.
93. Searchinger, T. D.; Beringer, T.; Holtsmark, B.; et al. Europe's renewable energy directive poised to harm global forests. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 3741.
94. Gao, Y.; Skutsch, M.; Masera, O.; Pacheco, P. A global analysis of deforestation due to biofuel development; Center For International Forestry Research (CIFOR); 2011.
95. Norton, M.; Baldi, A.; Buda, V.; et al. Serious mismatches continue between science and policy in forest bioenergy. GCB. Bioenergy. 2019, 11, 1256-63.
96. Murphy, F.; Mcdonnell, K. Investigation of the potential impact of the Paris Agreement on national mitigation policies and the risk of carbon leakage; an analysis of the Irish bioenergy industry. Energy. Policy. 2017, 104, 80-8.
97. Weidema, B. P.; Pizzol, M.; Schmidt, J.; Thoma, G. Attributional or consequential life cycle assessment: a matter of social responsibility. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 174, 305-14.
98. Roos, A.; Ahlgren, S. Consequential life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems - A literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 189, 358-73.
99. Bamber, N.; Turner, I.; Arulnathan, V.; et al. Comparing sources and analysis of uncertainty in consequential and attributional life cycle assessment: review of current practice and recommendations. Int. J. Life. Cycle. Assess. 2019, 25, 168-80.
100. Buongiorno, J.; Raunikar, R.; Zhu, S. Consequences of increasing bioenergy demand on wood and forests: an application of the Global Forest Products Model. J. Forest. Econ. 2011, 17, 214-29.
101. Börjesson, P.; Hansson, J.; Berndes, G. Future demand for forest-based biomass for energy purposes in Sweden. For. Ecol. Manag. 2017, 383, 17-26.
102. Richardson, K.; Steffen, W.; Lucht, W.; et al. Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Sci. Adv. 2023, 9, eadh2458.
103. Jåstad, E. O.; Bolkesjø, T. F.; Trømborg, E.; Rørstad, P. K. Integration of forest and energy sector models - New insights in the bioenergy markets. Energy. Convers. Manag. 2021, 227, 113626.
104. Kim, S. J.; Baker, J. S.; Sohngen, B. L.; Shell, M. Cumulative global forest carbon implications of regional bioenergy expansion policies. Resour. Energy. Econ. 2018, 53, 198-219.
105. Favero, A.; Baker, J.; Sohngen, B.; Daigneault, A. Economic factors influence net carbon emissions of forest bioenergy expansion. Commun. Earth. Environ. 2023, 4, 41.
106. Cantegril, P.; Paradis, G.; Lebel, L.; Raulier, F. Bioenergy production to improve value-creation potential of strategic forest management plans in mixed-wood forests of Eastern Canada. Appl. Energy. 2019, 247, 171-81.
107. Costanza, J. K.; Abt, R. C.; Mckerrow, A. J.; Collazo, J. A. Bioenergy production and forest landscape change in the southeastern United States. GCB. Bioenergy. 2016, 9, 924-39.
108. Kraxner, F.; Nordström, E.; Havlík, P.; et al. Global bioenergy scenarios - Future forest development, land-use implications, and trade-offs. Biomass. Bioenergy. 2013, 57, 86-96.
109. Wicke, B.; Verweij, P.; Van Meijl, H.; Van Vuuren, D. P.; Faaij, A. P. Indirect land use change: review of existing models and strategies for mitigation. Biofuels 2014, 3, 87-100.
110. Galik, C. S.; Benedum, M. E.; Kauffman, M.; Becker, D. R. Opportunities and barriers to forest biomass energy: a case study of four U.S. states. Biomass. Bioenergy. 2021, 148, 106035.
111. Calvert, K.; Mabee, W. More solar farms or more bioenergy crops? Mapping and assessing potential land-use conflicts among renewable energy technologies in eastern Ontario, Canada. Appl. Geogr. 2015, 56, 209-21.
112. Sharma, N.; Bohra, B.; Pragya, N.; Ciannella, R.; Dobie, P.; Lehmann, S. Bioenergy from agroforestry can lead to improved food security, climate change, soil quality, and rural development. Food. Energy. Secur. 2016, 5, 165-83.
113. Dauber, J.; Brown, C.; Fernando, A. L.; et al. Bioenergy from “surplus” land: environmental and socio-economic implications. BioRisk 2012, 7, 5-50.
114. Zurba, M.; Bullock, R. Bioenergy development and the implications for the social wellbeing of Indigenous peoples in Canada. Ambio 2020, 49, 299-309.
115. Sténs, A.; Bjärstig, T.; Nordström, E. M.; Sandström, C.; Fries, C.; Johansson, J. In the eye of the stakeholder: the challenges of governing social forest values. Ambio 2016, 45, 87-99.
116. Buck, H. J. Challenges and opportunities of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) for communities. Curr. Sustain. Renew. Energy. Rep. 2019, 6, 124-30.
117. Gamborg, C.; Millar, K.; Shortall, O.; Sandøe, P. Bioenergy and land use: framing the ethical debate. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics. 2011, 25, 909-25.
118. Cambero, C.; Sowlati, T. Incorporating social benefits in multi-objective optimization of forest-based bioenergy and biofuel supply chains. Appl. Energy. 2016, 178, 721-35.
119. Brady, M. A.; Sharma, S.; Baral, H.; Nasi, R. Bioenergy sustainability in the global South: constraints and opportunities. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR); 2023.
120. Buonocore, J. J.; Salimifard, P.; Michanowicz, D. R.; Allen, J. G. A decade of the U.S. energy mix transitioning away from coal: historical reconstruction of the reductions in the public health burden of energy. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 054030.
121. Tran, H.; Juno, E.; Arunachalam, S. Emissions of wood pelletization and bioenergy use in the United States. Renew. Energy. 2023, 219, 119536.
122. Koester, S.; Davis, S. Siting of wood pellet production facilities in environmental justice communities in the southeastern United States. Environ. Justice. 2018, 11, 64-70.
123. Shrader-frechette, K. S.; Preisser, W. C. Renewable technologies and environmental injustice: subsidizing bioenergy, promoting inequity. Environ. Justice. 2013, 6, 88-93.
124. Dale, V. H.; Efroymson, R. A.; Kline, K. L.; et al. Indicators for assessing socioeconomic sustainability of bioenergy systems: A short list of practical measures. Ecol. Ind. 2013, 26, 87-102.
125. Kożuch, A.; Cywicka, D.; Górna, A. Forest biomass in bioenergy production in the changing geopolitical environment of the EU. Energies 2024, 17, 554.
126. Mandley, S. J.; Wicke, B.; Junginger, M.; Van Vuuren, D. P.; Daioglou, V. The implications of geopolitical, socioeconomic, and regulatory constraints on European bioenergy imports and associated greenhouse gas emissions to 2050. Biofuels. Bioprod. Bioref. 2022, 16, 1551-67.
127. White, W. A. Chapter 6 - Economic and social barriers affecting forest bioenergy mobilisation: a review of the literature. In: Mobilisation of forest bioenergy in the boreal and temperate biomes. Elsevier; 2016. pp. 84-101.
128. Klein, D.; Höllerl, S.; Blaschke, M.; Schulz, C. The contribution of managed and unmanaged forests to climate change mitigation - a model approach at stand level for the main tree species in bavaria. Forests 2013, 4, 43-69.
129. Rogalsky, D. K.; Mendola, P.; Metts, T. A.; Martin, W. J. 2nd. Estimating the number of low-income americans exposed to household air pollution from burning solid fuels. Environ. Health. Perspect. 2014, 122, 806-10.
130. Holmgren, S.; D'Amato, D.; Giurca, A. Bioeconomy imaginaries: a review of forest-related social science literature. Ambio 2020, 49, 1860-77.
131. Stojilovska, A.; Dokupilová, D.; Gouveia, J. P.; et al. As essential as bread: Fuelwood use as a cultural practice to cope with energy poverty in Europe. Energy. Res. Soc. Sci. 2023, 97, 102987.
132. NAACP. Just energy policies: reducing pollution and creating jobs; 2013. Available from: https://www.southeastsdn.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Just-Energy-Policies-Reducing-Pollution-and-Creating-Jobs.pdf [Last accessed on 10 Apr 2026].
133. Ruml, A.; Chen, C.; Kubitza, C.; et al. Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing synergies for a just bioeconomy transition. Energy. Res. Soc. Sci. 2025, 125, 104089.
