Cited by 101Bioeconomy and Sustainability DevelopmentSustainable Supply Chain ManagementAgricultural and Food Sciences

Cascading utilization of wood: a matter of circular economy?

Open access
Mair, Claudia, Stern, Tobias·2017·Current Forestry Reports

Abstract

The aim of this study was to analyze the differences and similarities between the concepts circular economy (CE) and cascading utilization (CU) and the interactions between these concepts. The method chosen for this study was a qualitative content analysis, which was conducted on academic CU publications that appeared between 1990 and 2016. To identify connections between CU and CE, the findings of this study are compared to the results of a recent review on CE. From the perspective of the broader goals of CE and CU, both concepts promise to increase resource efficiency by supporting the multiple use of a resource. Research conducted on both concepts has included analyses of the environmental impacts of the CU or CE systems and descriptions of frameworks and tools used to develop cascade chains or measure the circularity of a given resource. Even though the concepts have many similarities, the research has mostly been conducted independently, and the number of connections between the two concepts is surprisingly low. In general, the results of the analysis supported the hypothesis that CU and CE have many parallels and similarities. The CU concept addresses primarily resource management whereas CE provides a more holistic approach. Practically, the publications on CE include considerations of many kinds of resources, whereas publications on CU include a stronger focus on bio-based materials. Despite these differences, CU was shown to clearly fit into the CE concept in that it provides a specific focus on the utilization possibilities (e.g., reuse, recycling, and up-cycling) of a given resource. The term CU may be used whenever one or more of these measures are used.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40725-017-0067-y

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Despite the political promotion of cascading use, research has yet to study this strategy in the circular economy context.

    “Despite the political promotion of cascading use, research has yet to study this strategy in the CE context.”

    From Transforming the bio-based sector towards a circular economy: What can we learn from wood cascading? (2020) · cites this paper as Mair and Stern, 2017

    The Introduction says the European Commission promotes cascading use of biomass. The Circular Economy section says the two concepts are rarely mentioned together in indexed research, not that they have never been studied together; the paper itself examines their relationship. The claim overstates that research gap. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Both concepts (cascading and circular economy) share some similarities but most research has been conducted independently.

    “Both concepts share some similarities but most research has been conducted independently (Mair and Stern, 2017).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mair, C., & Stern, T.
Affiliations
University of Graz (AT)
Venue
Current Forestry Reports
Published
2017-08-30
Volume
3
Issue
4
Pages
281-295
ISSN
2198-6436 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2752385196
Cited by
101
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5
FWCI
18.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Forestry Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Unipub UB Graz (Universität Graz) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
University of Graz
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Bioeconomy and Sustainability Development
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Sustainable Supply Chain Management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Agricultural and Food Sciences
Keywords
circular economy, wood utilization, bio-based materials, resource efficiency, reuse, recycling, upcycling, circularity measurement, resource management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review