Constraints and opportunities in harvesting woody biomass: perspectives of foresters and loggers in the Northeastern United States

ABSTRACT

Extensive forest resources make the Northeastern United States a promising source of woody biomass. Managing overstocked stands, common to the region, has been a major challenge due to a significant proportion of the harvest being low-value products. There are also various socio-economic and ecological factors that constrain the harvest decision. The objectives of the study were to compare and identify the key components, circumstances, and constraints related to the harvesting of small-diameter trees (SDT), regionally; to test if the responses varied between different job and experience categories; and to understand the perspectives of foresters and loggers to improve the current constraints. An online survey with 270 inputs from foresters and loggers in the Northeastern United States showed that, on average, 24% of the total harvest residue comprised small-diameter trees. The strongest agreement was on utilizing woody biomass for bioenergy and institutional heat energy. The primary reason for harvesting woody biomass was to satisfy the landowner’s objectives and for maintaining aesthetic value. The major constraints in woody biomass harvesting were the lack of markets and higher trucking distance. Respondent recommendations strongly emphasized the need for new and improved markets, infrastructure, and increased support from government.

KEYWORDS:

• Decision-making context
• bioenergy markets
• online survey
• policy recommendations
• renewable energy production
• woody biomass

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/14942119.2023.2299158.

Notes

1. Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program (US EPA 2015).

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the Agricultural Research Service [#5407527]; Cooperative Forestry Research Unit, University of Maine; Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station [#ME042415 and #ME041903]; National Institute of Food and Agriculture [#2019-67020-29287].