Sam Van Holsbeeck

Dr. Sam Van Holsbeeck

University of the Sunshine Coast
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

11Years (2016-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
3 May 2021 in Austral Ecology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
MLMike J Lawes
Mike J Lawes
LWLeigh‐Ann Woolley
Leigh‐Ann Woolley
Sam Van HolsbeeckSam Van Holsbeeck
Sam Van Holsbeeck
BMBrett P. Murphy
Brett P. Murphy
GBGeoffrey E. Burrows
Geoffrey E. Burrows
JMJeremy J. Midgley
Jeremy J. Midgley

13 December 2021 in Energies
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Biljana KulišićBiljana Kulišić
Biljana Kulišić
BGBruno Gagnon
Bruno Gagnon
JSJörg Schweinle
Jörg Schweinle
Sam Van HolsbeeckSam Van Holsbeeck
Sam Van Holsbeeck
Mark BrownMark Brown
Mark Brown
HMHeather MacDonald
Heather MacDonald
This research investigates how biomass supply chains (BSChs) for bioenergy within the broader bioeconomy could contribute to the post-COVID-19 recovery in three dimensions: boosting economic growth, creating jobs, and building more resilient and cleaner energy systems in four future scenarios, in the short term (by 2023) and long term (by 2030). A SWOT analysis on BSChs was used for generating a questionnaire for foresight by a two-round Delphi study. To interpret the results properly, a short survey and literature review is executed to record BSChs behavior during the pandemic. In total, 23 (55% response rate) and 28 (46% response rate) biomass experts from three continents participated in the Delphi and the short survey, respectively. The strongest impact from investment in BSChs would be on economic growth, followed by a contribution to the resilient and cleaner energy systems and job creation. The effects would be more visible in the long- than in the short-term period. Investments with the most impact on recovery are those that improve biomass material efficiency and circularity. Refurbishment of current policies to enhance the supply of biomass as a renewable resource to the future economy is a must.

1 August 2016 in Forest Ecology and Management
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Sam Van HolsbeeckSam Van Holsbeeck
Sam Van Holsbeeck
VCVera De Cauwer
Vera De Cauwer
MRMaaike De Ridder
Maaike De Ridder
EFEsther Fichtler
Esther Fichtler
HBHans Beeckman
Hans Beeckman
JMJan Mertens
Jan Mertens

3 March 2020 in Energies
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Sam Van HolsbeeckSam Van Holsbeeck
Sam Van Holsbeeck
Mark BrownMark Brown
Mark Brown
SSSanjeev Srivastava
Sanjeev Srivastava
MGMohammad Reza Ghaffariyan
Mohammad Reza Ghaffariyan
The use of forest biomass for bioenergy in Australia represents only 1% of total energy production but is being recognized for having the potential to deliver low-cost and low-emission, renewable energy solutions. This review addresses the potential of forest biomass for bioenergy production in Australia relative to the amount of biomass energy measures available for production, harvest and transport, conversion, distribution and emission. Thirty-Five Australian studies on forest biomass for bioenergy are reviewed and categorized under five hierarchical terms delimiting the level of assessment on the biomass potential. Most of these studies assess the amount of biomass at a production level using measures such as the allometric volume equation and form factor assumptions linked to forest inventory data or applied in-field weighing of samples to predict the theoretical potential of forest biomass across an area or region. However, when estimating the potential of forest biomass for bioenergy production, it is essential to consider the entire supply chain that includes many limitations and reductions on the recovery of the forest biomass from production in the field to distribution to the network. This review reiterated definitions for theoretical, available, technological, economic and environmental biomass potential and identified missing links between them in the Australian literature. There is a need for further research on the forest biomass potential to explore lower cost and lowest net emission solutions as a replacement to fossil resources for energy production in Australia but methods the could provide promising solutions are available and can be applied to address this gap.

4 September 2025 in Fire
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Jady Damien SmithJady Damien Smith
Jady Damien Smith
Francis E. PutzFrancis E. Putz
Francis E. Putz
Sam Van HolsbeeckSam Van Holsbeeck
Sam Van Holsbeeck
Green Firebreaks (GFBs), strips of strategically placed low-flammability vegetation, represent a proactive complement to other approaches to wildfire management. This review, which summarises the literature to elucidate GFBs’ potential to reduce fire spread and intensity, revealed that empirical studies validating their effectiveness remain scarce. It also revealed that comparisons of GFB techniques are challenging due to spatial and temporal complexity combined with inconsistent methods and terminology. Several researchers note that GFB effectiveness requires that their design is appropriate for the site conditions. Furthermore, GFBs are not a stand-alone solution to the wildfire problem, and a lack of consideration for trade-offs may undermine their effectiveness, particularly under extreme weather conditions. As climate change intensifies drought and heat, vegetation moisture content must be a key design factor given that even low-flammability vegetation becomes fuel under extreme drought conditions. In addition, poorly designed GFBs may unintentionally alter wind dynamics and increase ember transport and fire spread. There is a broad consensus in the literature that appropriately designed GFBs can complement wildfire management while providing additional biodiversity and other benefits. To achieve their potential, research is required for GFB designs to be site-specific, responsive to trade-offs, and effective in providing multiple benefits under different climate change scenarios.

5 September 2020 in Forests
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Sam Van HolsbeeckSam Van Holsbeeck
Sam Van Holsbeeck
SESättar Ezzati
Sättar Ezzati
DRDominik Roser
Dominik Roser
Mark BrownMark Brown
Mark Brown
Research Highlights: A set of 128 potential bioenergy facility locations is established and evaluated based on the transport cost to select optimal locations. Background and Objectives: The identification of optimal facility locations to process recovered forest biomass is an important decision in designing a bioenergy supply chain at the strategic planning level. The result of this analysis can affect supply chain costs and the overall efficiency of the network, due to the low density and dispersed nature of forest biomass and the high costs associated with its logistics operations. In this study, we develop a two-stage decision support system to identify the optimal site locations for forest biomass conversion based on biomass availability, transport distance and cost. Materials and Methods: In the first stage, a GIS-based analysis is designed to identify strategic locations of potential bioenergy sites. The second stage evaluates the most cost-effective locations individually using a transportation cost model, based on the results from stage one. The sensitivity of inputs, such as maximum allowable transport cost, the distance of transport and their relations to the profit balance, and changes in fuel price are tested. The method is applied to a real case study in the state of Queensland, Australia. Results and Conclusions: The GIS analysis resulted in 128 strategic candidate locations being suggested for bioenergy conversion sites. The logistics analysis estimated the optimal cost and transportation distance of each one of the locations and ranked them according to the overall performance between capacities of 5 and 100 MW.