14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Enviro‐economic and feasibility analysis of industrial hemp value chain: A systematic literature review

      1 , 1 , 1
      GCB Bioenergy
      Wiley

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          A recent renaissance of industrial hemp has been driven by a plethora of ecologically amicable products and their profitability. To identify its environment and economic fate across the value chain (VC), this study conducts a systematic review of 98 studies published in ScienceDirect, Web of Science, and Scopus‐indexed journals. The thematic content of the articles is categorized using three deductively derived classification categories: lifecycle analysis ( n = 40), VC analysis ( n = 30), and feasibility analysis ( n = 28). Bibliometric analysis indicates that the majority (>90%) of the studies were conducted in selected regions of Europe or North America, with further findings around regionally prioritized industrial hemp products, such as hempcrete in Southwest Europe, solid biofuel in North European states, and textile fiber and bio‐composites in East Europe and North America. Lifecycle analysis studies highlight nitrogenous fertilizer use during industrial hemp cultivation as a major ecological hotspot, which is taking a toll on the climate change index. However, hemp‐based products are generally climate‐friendly solutions when contrasted against their fossil fuel counterparts, with hempcrete in particular a highly touted carbon‐negative (−4.28 to −36.08 kg CO 2 eq/m 2) product. The review also identifies key issues within the hemp VC and presents innovative solutions alongside the recognition of value‐adding opportunities. Furthermore, feasibility analysis indicates unprofitability in using hemp for bioenergy production and there is a relative cost worthiness of hemp bio‐composites and hempcrete at the upstream level. Positive returns are observed under co‐production schemes. In contemplating the literature findings, we discussed and identified gap in existing literature for future exploration, including more studies to provide insights from the Global South, and the production of industrial hemp under a biophysically constrained landscape.

          Related collections

          Most cited references163

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies.

            The expansion of evidence-based practice across sectors has lead to an increasing variety of review types. However, the diversity of terminology used means that the full potential of these review types may be lost amongst a confusion of indistinct and misapplied terms. The objective of this study is to provide descriptive insight into the most common types of reviews, with illustrative examples from health and health information domains. Following scoping searches, an examination was made of the vocabulary associated with the literature of review and synthesis (literary warrant). A simple analytical framework -- Search, AppraisaL, Synthesis and Analysis (SALSA) -- was used to examine the main review types. Fourteen review types and associated methodologies were analysed against the SALSA framework, illustrating the inputs and processes of each review type. A description of the key characteristics is given, together with perceived strengths and weaknesses. A limited number of review types are currently utilized within the health information domain. Few review types possess prescribed and explicit methodologies and many fall short of being mutually exclusive. Notwithstanding such limitations, this typology provides a valuable reference point for those commissioning, conducting, supporting or interpreting reviews, both within health information and the wider health care domain.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.

              Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement-a reporting guideline published in 1999-there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (www.prisma-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                GCB Bioenergy
                GCB Bioenergy
                Wiley
                1757-1693
                1757-1707
                June 2024
                May 03 2024
                June 2024
                : 16
                : 6
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Institute for Life Science and Environment University of Southern Queensland Toowoomba Queensland Australia
                Article
                10.1111/gcbb.13141
                fa049dc7-2c4b-4380-8336-a9409d538b50
                © 2024

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article