A range of methods are available for assessing ecosystem services. Methods differ in their aims; from mapping and modelling the supply and demand of ecosystem services to appraising their economic and non-economic importance through valuation techniques. Comprehensive guidance for the selection of appropriate ecosystem service assessment methods that address the requirements of different decision-making contexts is lacking. This paper tackles this gap using the experience from 27 case studies which applied different biophysical, socio-cultural and monetary valuation methods to operationalise the ecosystem service concept towards sustainable land, water and urban management. A survey of the reasons why the case study teams selected particular methods revealed that stakeholder-oriented reasons, such as stakeholder participation, inclusion of local knowledge and ease of communication, and decision-oriented reasons, such as the purpose of the case study and the ecosystem services at stake, were key considerations in selecting a method. Pragmatic reasons such as available data, resources and expertise were also important factors. This information was used to develop a set of linked decision trees, which aim to provide guidance to researchers and practitioners in choosing ecosystem service assessment methods that are suitable for their context

The aim of this study was to analyse the sustainability impacts of allocating material from energy use to material use by adding cascaded wood into production of wood products. A case study is presented, where we analyse sustainability impacts of cascade use alternatives compared to the non-cascade use practice in particleboard production within the province of North Karelia, Finland. Direct impacts are captured using sustainability indicators representing environmental, economic and social aspects of sustainability. Results show that introducing cascaded wood can increase carbon storage in wood products, employment and production costs. Energy use and GHG emissions increase as well, when the total industrial activity during the lifetime of wood increases. We conclude that cascade use can improve resource efficiency as it enables the use of wood multiple times before combustion; however, the amount of waste wood for energy generation decreases locally, and alternative sources of energy need to be identified.

The utilization rate of woody biomass in eastern Finland is high and expected to increase further in the near future as set out in several regional, national and European policies and strategies. The aim of this study was to assess the sustainability impacts of changes in fuel consumption patterns. We investigated fossil and woody biomass-based energy production chains in the region of North Karelia, focusing on some economic, environmental and social indicators. Indicators were selected based on stakeholder preferences and evaluated using the Tool for Sustainability Impact Assessment (ToSIA). The analysis was based on representative values from National Forest Inventory data, scientific publications, national and regional statistics, databases, published policy targets and expert opinion. From the results it became evident that shifting from fossil to wood-based energy production implies some trade-offs. Replacing oil with woody biomass in energy production would increase the local value added remaining in the region, create employment opportunities and would reduce total GHG emissions. However, firewood, wood chips from small-diameter trees from early thinning and wood pellets have high production costs. Moreover, large greenhouse gas emission resulted from wood pellet production. The case study generated valuable reference data for future sustainability assessments and demonstrated the usefulness of ToSIA as a tool presenting existing knowledge on sustainability impacts of alternative energy supply chains to inform decision making.

There is a variety of different methods for carrying out sustainability impact assessments of energy value chains. The different methods can use the same, or similarly named, indicators, but the methods make different assumptions about the system boundaries and differ in the purpose of the assessment, and this can lead to confusion when communicating the results of different studies. A method expansion of Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) was developed and tested to allow comparison of environmental indicators of energy use and generation, energy balance and greenhouse gas emission as calculated according to three different methods: (1) direct value chain environmental impacts (referred to as SIA in this paper), (2) direct plus indirect impacts following a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach, and (3) a method based on European Sustainability Criteria (ESC) for solid biomass. The Tool for Sustainability Impact Assessment (ToSIA 2.0) was used for this method expansion. Indicator values following the three different approaches were calculated for a typical Nordic bioenergy harvesting chain producing forest wood chips. The indicator values for SIA, LCA and ESC are made comparable side by side, and give thus more insight on the difference and purpose of the three different methods when applied to the same harvesting chain.