Eric Agyemang, Kwadwo Ofori-Dua, Peter Dwumah, John Boulard Forkuor
{"title":"Towards responsible resource utilization: A review of sustainable vs. unsustainable reuse of wood waste.","authors":"Eric Agyemang, Kwadwo Ofori-Dua, Peter Dwumah, John Boulard Forkuor","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0312527","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Abundant wood waste is generated globally, but the literature lacks a framework distinguishing sustainable versus unsustainable reuse practices. This gap hinders policy makers and stakeholders from effectively supporting responsible resource utilization. As such, this scoping review aimed to address this gap by evaluating wood waste reuse practices through ecological, financial, and social sustainability lenses. A comprehensive database search yielded 1,150 records, narrowed to 106 included studies through eligibility screening. Data on study details and sustainability factors was extracted without a formal quality appraisal. The protocol ensures a rigorous evidence-mapping approach. The findings revealed that sustainable uses included renewable energy, adsorbents, construction materials, and composting applications. However, toxic preservatives, uncontrolled emissions from burning, intensive harvesting impacts, and contamination risks from uncontrolled mulching perpetuate ecological, social, and financial challenges. Preventing contamination and managing sustainability trade-offs are key priorities. Research innovations, stringent quality control, and supportive policies are imperative to distinguish practices aligned with sustainability principles from those inadvertently causing harm. This review provides a comprehensive framework for making informed decisions to progress wood waste systems toward responsible resource utilization.</p>","PeriodicalId":20189,"journal":{"name":"PLoS ONE","volume":"19 12","pages":"e0312527"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS ONE","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312527","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abundant wood waste is generated globally, but the literature lacks a framework distinguishing sustainable versus unsustainable reuse practices. This gap hinders policy makers and stakeholders from effectively supporting responsible resource utilization. As such, this scoping review aimed to address this gap by evaluating wood waste reuse practices through ecological, financial, and social sustainability lenses. A comprehensive database search yielded 1,150 records, narrowed to 106 included studies through eligibility screening. Data on study details and sustainability factors was extracted without a formal quality appraisal. The protocol ensures a rigorous evidence-mapping approach. The findings revealed that sustainable uses included renewable energy, adsorbents, construction materials, and composting applications. However, toxic preservatives, uncontrolled emissions from burning, intensive harvesting impacts, and contamination risks from uncontrolled mulching perpetuate ecological, social, and financial challenges. Preventing contamination and managing sustainability trade-offs are key priorities. Research innovations, stringent quality control, and supportive policies are imperative to distinguish practices aligned with sustainability principles from those inadvertently causing harm. This review provides a comprehensive framework for making informed decisions to progress wood waste systems toward responsible resource utilization.
期刊介绍:
PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides:
* Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright
* Fast publication times
* Peer review by expert, practicing researchers
* Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact
* Community-based dialogue on articles
* Worldwide media coverage