SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 27 Sayı: 1

Sustainability and Carbon Footprint Assessment in the Forest Products Industry: The Case of a Sawmill

Orman Ürünleri Sanayisinde Sürdürülebilirlik ve Karbon Ayak İzinin Değerlendirilmesi: Kereste Fabrikası Örneği

Merve Cambazoğlu(ISPARTA UYGULAMALI BİLİMLER ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-5456-6454
Sezen Coşkun(ISPARTA UYGULAMALI BİLİMLER ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-7011-9187
Abdullah Sütçü(ISPARTA UYGULAMALI BİLİMLER ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-4200-917X
Pages
1–12
Publication Date
2026-02-12
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results obtained highlight the importance of efficient logistics management, renewable energy use and waste recycling strategies for reducing carbon footprint in wood material processing industries.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In recent years, efforts to identify and reduce the carbon footprint of the industrial sector have gained great importance in preventing global climate change.
📊
Key Findings & Data:IPCC Tier 1 method was used to calculate the carbon footprint and the environmental impacts of energy consumption, logistics activities and waste management were analyzed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results obtained highlight the importance of efficient logistics management, renewable energy use and waste recycling strategies for reducing carbon footprint in wood material processing industries.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Karbon ayak izi · orman ürünleri endüstrisi · kereste fabrikası

Abstract

In recent years, efforts to identify and reduce the carbon footprint of the industrial sector have gained great importance in preventing global climate change. Although the forest products industry is based on sustainable raw material utilization, certain levels of greenhouse gas emissions occur throughout the production processes. In this study, the environmental impacts of production processes in a sawmill operating in Türkiye were evaluated and the carbon footprint was calculated. Within the scope of the study, the stages from raw material supply to the final product are analyzed and emission amounts are determined. IPCC Tier 1 method was used to calculate the carbon footprint and the environmental impacts of energy consumption, logistics activities and waste management were analyzed. The findings of the study reveal the stages that cause carbon emissions in production processes and provide recommendations for sustainable production practices. The carbon footprint values of the product groups produced were calculated as 51.89 kgCO2e/m3-product for profiled timber and 23.79 kgCO2e/m3-product for construction timber. Raw material transportation (75.38%), electricity consumption (11%) and burning of wood-based residues (7.02%) are among the largest contributors to the facility's total carbon footprint. The results obtained highlight the importance of efficient logistics management, renewable energy use and waste recycling strategies for reducing carbon footprint in wood material processing industries.

Özet

Son yıllarda sanayi sektörünün küresel iklim değişikliğine karşı korunması amacıyla karbon ayak izinin belirlenmesi ve azaltılması üzerine çalışmalar büyük önem taşımaktadır. Orman ürünleri endüstrisi, sürdürülebilir hammadde kullanımına dayansa da üretim süreçleri boyunca belirli seviyelerde sera gazı emisyonu oluşturmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, Türkiye’de faaliyet gösteren bir kereste fabrikasında üretim süreçlerinin çevresel etkileri değerlendirilerek kereste fabrikasının karbon ayak izi hesaplanmıştır. Çalışma kapsamında, hammadde tedarikinden nihai ürün elde edilmesine kadar olan aşamalar analiz edilmiş ve emisyon miktarları belirlenmiştir. Karbon ayak izinin hesaplanmasında IPCC Tier 1 metodu kullanılmış ve enerji tüketimi, lojistik faaliyetler ile atık yönetiminin çevresel etkileri incelenmiştir. Çalışmanın bulguları, üretim süreçlerinde karbon emisyonuna neden olan aşamaları ortaya koymakta ve sürdürülebilir üretim uygulamalarına yönelik öneriler sunmaktadır. Üretilen ürün gruplarının karbon ayak izi değerleri, profil kereste için 51.89 kgCO2e/m3-ürün ve inşaatlık kereste için 23.79 kgCO2e/m3-ürün olarak hesaplanmıştır. Hammadde taşımacılığı (%75.38), elektrik tüketimi (%11) ve odun bazlı artıkların yakılması (%7.02) tesisin toplam karbon ayak izinin en büyük nedenleri arasındadır. Elde edilen sonuçlar, ahşap malzeme işleyen sanayilerde karbon ayak izinin azaltılması için verimli lojistik yönetimi, yenilenebilir enerji kullanımı ve atık geri dönüşüm stratejilerinin önemini vurgulamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Cambazoğlu, M., Coşkun, S., Sütçü, A. (2026). Sustainability and Carbon Footprint Assessment in the Forest Products Industry: The Case of a Sawmill. Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 27 Sayı: 1, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.17474/artvinofd.1670693

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (61)

  1. Alvarez S, Tobarra MA, Zafrilla JE (2019) Corporate and product carbon footprint under compound hybrid analysis: application to a Spanish timber company. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23(2): 496-507. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12759
  2. Bais-Moleman AL, Sikkema R, Vis M, Reumerman P, Theurl MC, Erb KH (2018) Assessing wood use efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions of wood product cascading in the European Union. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172:3942-3954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.153
  3. BEIS (2022) Department for Business, Energy Industrial Strategy UK Government GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting: Condensed Set 2022. Londra: Birleşik Krallık Hükûmeti. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas- reporting-conversion-factors-2022.
  4. Berg S, Karjalainen T (2003) Comparison of greenhouse gas emissions from forest operations in Finland and Sweden. Forestry, 76(3): 271-284. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/76.3.271
  5. Bergman RD, Bowe SA (2010) Environmental impact of manufacturing softwood lumber in northeastern and north central United States. Wood and Fiber Science. 42 (1): 67-78.
  6. Bergman R, Puettmann M, Taylor A, Skog KE (2014) The carbon impacts of wood products. Forest Products Journal, 64(7-8): 220-231. https://doi.org/10.13073/FPJ-D-14-00047
  7. Blackwell P, Walker J (2006) Sawmilling. In J. C. F. Walker (Ed.), Primary Wood Processing: Principles and practice, Springer: 203–232.
  8. Coşkun S, Doğan N (2021) Tekstil endüstrisinde karbon ayak izinin belirlenmesi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 25(1): 28-35. https://doi.org/10.19113/sdufenbed.670336
  9. Davey SM (2018) Regional forest agreements: origins, development and contributions. Australian Forestry, 81(2): 64-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049158.2018.1458701
  10. DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (2010) 2010 Guidelines to Defra / DECC's GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting: Methodology Paper for Emission Factors. London, UK: DEFRA. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2010
  11. Dias AC, Louro M, Arroja L, Capela I (2007) Carbon estimation in harvested wood products using a country-specific method: Portugal as a case study. Environmental Science & Policy, 10(3): 250-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2007.01.002
  12. Doğan NA (2019) Kumaş boyama, iplik boyama baskı ve konfeksiyon faaliyetlerinin karbon ayak izi hesabı. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Çevre Mühendisliği Anabilim Dalı, Isparta.
  13. Downie J, Stubbs W (2013) Evaluation of Australian companies’ scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions assessments. Journal of Cleaner Production, 56:156-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.09.010
  14. ETKB (2022) 2022 Yılı Üretim ve Tüketim Noktası Emisyon Faktörleri Raporu. T.C. Enerji ve Tabii Kaynaklar Bakanlığı. https://enerji.gov.tr//Media/Dizin/EVCED/tr/ÇevreVeİklim/ İklimDeğişikliği/EmisyonFaktorleri/2022_Uretim_Tuketim_EF.pdf Erişim: 28.04.2025.
  15. Erdil M, Yilgor N, Gungor Y (2017) Evaluation of carbon footprint for wood based panel ındustry in Turkey. PressAcademia Procedia, 5(1):10-18. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.564
  16. Erdil M, Yılgör N (2020) An assessment of carbon footprint in medium-density fiberboard (mdf) manufacturing: a case study of wood based panel production ın Turkey. Journal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal Sciences, 5(5): 841-848. https://doi.org/10.35229/jaes.836311
  17. Eshun JF, Potting J, Leemans R (2010) Inventory analysis of the timber industry in Ghana. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15(7): 715– 725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0207-0.
  18. Eshun JF, Potting J, Leemans R (2012) Wood waste minimization in the timber sector of Ghana: a systems approach to reduce environmental impact. J Clean Prod, 26:67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.12.025
  19. FIM (2017) Update on Global Timber Demand. https://greshamhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/b559c09a1d19574edffdb71b3KAİb249c_df1552964b6c5812ba8314ec47e52a42.pdf, Erişim: 15.03.2025.
  20. Goodier C (2011) Carbon Footprint Calculator. in: Mulvaney D. and Robbins P (Eds.) Green Technology: An A-to-Z Guide.
  21. Gunathilaka LFDZ, Gunawardana KD (2015) Carbon footprint calculation from cradle to grave: a case study of rubber manufacturing process in Sri Lanka. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 6(10):82-94.
  22. Huang YA, Weber CL, Matthews HS (2009) Categorization of scope 3 emissions for streamlined enterprise carbon footprinting. Environmental Science & Technology, 43(22): 8509–8515. https://doi.org/10.1021/es901643a.
  23. Inakollu S, Morin R, Keefe R (2017) Carbon footprint estimation in fiber optics industry: a case study of OFS Fitel, LLC. Sustainability, 9(5): 865-881. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050865
  24. International Energy Agency (IEA) (2021) Turkey 2021: Energy Policy Review. IEA. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/cc499a7b-b72a-466c-88ded792a9daff44/Turkey_2021_Energy_Policy_Review.pdf. Erişim Tarihi: 06.04.2025.
  25. IPCC (2006) Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Chapter 10: Emissions from Livestock and Manure Management. http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/ public/2006gl/pdf/ 4 _10_Ch10_ Livestock.pdf., Erişim Tarihi:14.04.2025.
  26. IPCC (2013) Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment- report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf, Erişim Tarihi:15.04.2025.
  27. IPCC (2019) Climate Change and Land an IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes In Terrestrial Ecosystems. General Guidance and Reporting. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/11/SRCCL-Full-Report-Compiled-191128.pdf, Erişim Tarihi:15.04.2025.
  28. IPCC TEAP (2005) Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons. Cambridge University Press. https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/sroc/sroc09.pdf
  29. Kara O, Şahin Ö, Bekar İ, Kayacan B (2019) Endüstriyel ağaç ve ahşap ürünleri sektörünün uluslararasi rekabet gücü analizi: Türkiye örneği. Ekonomik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 15(1): 15-32.
  30. Khatri P, Loeffler D, Bergman, RD, Nepal P (2025) On-site energy consumption and life-cycle environmental impacts of Sawmills in California. Forest Products Journal, 75(2): 95-108. https://doi.org/10.13073/FPJ-D-24-00040
  31. Kutnar A, Hill C (2014) Assessment of carbon footprinting in the wood industry. Assessment of Carbon Footprint in Different Industrial Sectors, 2: 135-172. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4585-75-06
  32. Lelieveld J, Klingmüller K, Pozzer A, Burnett RT, Haines A, Ramanathan V (2019) Effects of fossil fuel and total anthropogenic emission removal on public health and climate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(15): 7192-7197. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1819989116
  33. Lin W, Wang J, Saud P (2012) Assessment of Carbon Emission and Balance from Hardwood Lumber Processing in Central Appalachia. USA. In Proceedings of the 55th International Convention of Society of Wood Science and Technology, Beijing, China (pp. 27-31).
  34. Lindholm EL, Berg S (2005) Energy requirement and environmental impact in timber transport. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 20(2): 184–191. https://doi.org.tr/10.1080/02827580510008329.
  35. Martínez-Alonso C, Berdasco L (2015) Carbon footprint of sawn timber products of Castanea sativa mill. in the North of Spain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 102: 127-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.004
  36. McCallum D (2009) Carbon Footprint. Nelson Forest Ltd. (http://www.douglasfir.co.nz/resources/CarbonFootprint_2011.10.14.pdf) Erişim tarihi: 10.01.2025.
  37. Meza-Lopez P, Trujillo-Delgado MK, Burciaga-Alvarez AU, de la Cruz-Carrera R, Nájera-Luna JA (2021) Carbon footprint estimate in the primary wood processing industry in El Salto, Durango Estimación de la huella de carbono en la industria de transformación primaria de la madera en El Salto, Durango. Revista Chapingo Serie Ciencias Forestales y del Ambiente, 26(1):127-142. http://dx.doi.org/10.5154/r.rchscfa.2019.07.060
  38. Milota M, Puettmann ME (2017) Life-cycle assessment for the cradle-to-gate production of softwood lumber in the Pacific Northwest and Southeast Regions. Forest Products Journal, 67(5-6): 331-342. https://doi.org/10.13073/FPJ-D-16-00062
  39. Miner R, Perez-Garcia J (2007) The greenhouse gas and carbon profile of the global forest products industry. Forest Products Journal, 57(10): 80.
  40. Muthu SS (2016) The Carbon Footprint Handbook. Boca Raton, USA: CRC Press.
  41. Mutlu V, Özgür C, Bekaroğlu ŞŞK (2018) Kauçuk endüstrisinde karbon ayak izinin belirlenmesi. Bilge Internatiolan Journal of Science and Technology Research, 2(2): 139- 146 https://doi.org/10.30516/bilgesci.434223
  42. Puettmann ME, Wilson JB (2005) Life-cycle analysis of wood products: cradle-to-gate LCI of residential wood building materials. Wood and Fiber Science, 18-29.
  43. Puettmann ME, Bergman RP, Hubbard S, Johnson L, Lippke B, Oneil E, Wagner FG (2010) Cradle-to-gate life-cycle inventory of US wood products production: CORRIM Phase I and Phase II products. Wood and Fiber Science, 42(1):15-28.
  44. Ratnasingam J, Ramasamy G, Ioras F, Parasuraman N (2017) Assessment of the carbon footprint of rubberwood sawmilling in Peninsular Malaysia: challenging the green label of the material. BioResources, 12(2):3490-3503. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.12.2.3490-3503
  45. Rivela B, Hospido A, Moreira T, Feijoo G (2006a) Life cycle inventory of particleboard: a case study in the wood sector. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11:106-113. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2005.05.206
  46. Rivela B, Moreira MT, Muñoz I, Rieradevall J, Feijoo G (2006b) Life cycle assessment of wood wastes: a case study of ephemeral architecture. Science of the Total Environment, 357(1-3):1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.04.017
  47. Sahoo K, Bergman R, Runge T (2021) Life-cycle assessment of redwood lumber products in the US. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 26:1702-1720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01937-7
  48. Sarre AD, Davey SM (2021) The sustainable development goals, forests, and the role of Australian Forestry. Australian Forestry, 84(2):41-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049158.2021.1920207
  49. Saud P, Wang J, Sharma BD, Liu W (2015) Carbon impacts of hardwood lumber processing in the Northeastern United States. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 45(12):1699-1710. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2015-0082
  50. Tellnes LG, Ganne-Chedeville C, Dias A, Dolezal F, Hill C, Zea Escamilla E (2017) Comparative assessment for biogenic carbon accounting methods in carbon footprint of products: a review study for construction materials based on forest products. Forest, 10(5): 815-823. https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000516814
  51. Türkiye İhracatçılar Birliği Meclisi (TİM) (2023) https://tim.org.tr/tr/ Mobilya, Kâğıt ve Orman Ürünleri İhracatçı Birlikleri “Sürdürülebilirlik Eylem Planı”, Erişim tarihi: 02.02.2025.
  52. Uçar G (1988) Odun ve orman atıklarının enerji ve kimyasal madde kaynağı olarak değerlendirme olanakları-odun ve benzeri bitkisel biyokütlenin termik ayrıştırma yöntemleri. Journal of the Faculty of Forestry Istanbul University, 38(1):76-91.
  53. Üzer A (2023) AB Yeşil Mutabakatı (CBAM), Karbon Vergisi ve Gümrük İşlemleri. https://tiud.org.tr/2023/12/24/ab-yesil-mutabakati-cbam-karbon-vergisi-ve-gumruk-islemleri/ Erişim Tarihi: 18.01.2025.
  54. Werner F, Richter K (2007) Wooden building products in comparative LCA: a literature review. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 12(7):470-479. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.10.282.
  55. Werner F, Taverna R, Hofer P, Thürig E, Kaufmann E (2010) National and global greenhouse gas dynamics of different forest management and wood use scenarios: a model-based assessment. Environmental Science & Policy, 13(1): 72-85. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.10.282
  56. Wiedmann T, Minx J (2008) A definition of ‘carbon footprint’. Ecological Economics Research Trends, 1:1-11.
  57. Williamson TJ, Olweny M, Moosmayer V, Pullen SF, Bennetts H (2001) Environmentally friendly housing using timber-principles. Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation, Austalia.
  58. Wong R (2020) Green possibilities in a green industrial sector: the lumber industry. Physical Sciences Reviews, 5(9): 20190025. https://doi.org/10.1515/psr-2019-0025
  59. Yan H, Shen Q, Fan LC, Wang Y, Zhang L (2010) Greenhouse gas emissions in building construction: a case study of One Peking in Hong Kong. Build. Environ., 45:949–955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.09.014
  60. Yılmaz E (2024) Environmental impact assessment of melamine coated medium density fiberboard (MDF-LAM) production and cumulative energy demand: a case study in Türkiye. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 20: e02733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e02733
  61. Zheng X, Streimikiene D, Balezentis T, Mardani A, Cavallaro F, Liao H (2019) A review of greenhouse gas emission profiles, dynamics, and climate change mitigation efforts across the key climate change players. Journal of Cleaner Production, 234:1113-1133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.140