Technology for Boosting Sustainability: A Web App-Based Information Model for Boosting Residual Biomass Recovery

Abstract

There is currently a growing need for energy, which, combined with climate change, has increased the focus on renewable energies. Among them, biomass energy takes the lion’s share, and this can create forestry pressures or lead to the excessive consumption of resources. To mitigate this situation, residual biomass from agroforestry has emerged as a valuable resource, supporting energy transition and mitigating these challenges. However, this biomass is traditionally burned, leading to large fires, as a result of the high logistical costs associated with the lack of information/coordination between those involved in the chain. Therefore, the primary objective of this work is to address this gap by presenting an information management model based on a web application, which aims to increase transparency, integrate stakeholders, and improve logistical decisions. In methodological terms, this study follows the principles of human-centered design, as well as an agile software development methodology. The results include the creation of a new, flexible information management ecosystem, which allows each stakeholder to take on different roles according to their needs in the chain. In addition, lean information management principles have been included in order to reduce waste in information content and flow.

1. Introduction

In recent years, the world has experienced a trend of population growth, resulting in an increased need for energy [1], with renewable sources gaining attention to avoid the emissions inherent in fossil fuels [2]. In this regard, residual biomass presents valuable opportunities since it can be converted into heat, electricity, biofuels, biochemicals, and biocomposites through different processes, e.g., combustion, pyrolysis, gasification, fermentation, or anaerobic digestion [3,4,5,6,7,8]. The opportunities associated with this resource contribute to Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 7: Affordable and Clean Energy [9]. Bioenergy produced from woody biomass is the main renewable energy source; it is projected that in 2025, it will represent 70% of total renewable energy sources across the world [10]. However, this usage can lead to concerns, such as exploitation of the resource or pressure on forestry [11]. The last point emphasizes the importance of residual biomass usage, which can avoid the use of new trees, which are responsible for CO₂ consumption, contributing to mitigating possible climate problems resulting from cutting biomass [12]. Residual biomass recovery makes a dual contribution to the nation’s objectives regarding decarbonization policies [10], increasing the renewable energy share and avoiding the exploitation of new trees. Residual biomass provides valuable energy policy contributions in countries with elevated agroforestry activity [13] and in developing nations [14] and poverty-stricken countries, since residual biomass acquisition is possible at lower prices, resulting in economic development [15]. In countries without fossil fuels, biomass energy can contribute to energy independence [16].

Despite this potential, a significant part of woody residual biomass originating from agroforestry activities goes unused or is burnt [17], justified by the costs/difficulties that landowners face in the management of these resources [18]. The lack of incentives and recycling strategies also contributes to burning activities, despite them being prohibited [19,20]. Furthermore, the chain responsible for residual biomass recovery, the residual biomass supply chain (RBSC), is burdened by high logistical costs caused by the interdependence of stages [21], a lack of information [16], individual decisions [22], feedstock characteristics [23], biomass seasonality [24], or a lack of people to operate in this domain [25]. Despite the characteristics of this chain, the high moisture content of biomass, high inert levels, and seasonality are other factors that hinder biomass recovery [5]. This non-recovery scenario is associated with increased fire hazards [26]. This phenomenon is explained since three conditions are needed for fire proliferation: ignition, fuel, and favorable climate conditions [27].

This landscape highlights the importance of recovering residual biomass to address sustainability concerns in different dimensions, emphasizing the need to optimize/improve the RBSC. Some mathematical models to aid decision-making processes can be identified in the literature [24,28,29,30]. However, given the specific nature of the problem and the causes of logistical costs, it is vital to optimize the chain by increasing information and transparency among different stakeholders. Exploration of this point is still scarce in the literature and constitutes an important research need.

In this sense, the goal of the present work is to create an information flow model, based on a web application, that addresses the problem expounded. Since the solution aims to serve all RBSC stakeholders, who vary in terms of knowledge, scholarship, or digital skills, the solution was created following human-centered design (HCD) to better suit users’ needs. In addition, to avoid waste in information flows, the philosophy of lean information management (LIM) was followed [31]. In this regard, value stream mapping (VSM) presents a valuable solution for mapping information flows [32]. This combination also makes an innovative contribution, as the literature does not yet present the impact of these concepts on the RBSC level. These philosophies will culminate in an increase in the value of solutions, transitioning from an information channel to a value-added information channel. To develop the solution, an agile software development methodology was chosen, in which different RBSC stakeholders and a software consultancy team participate in the final development of the application-based model.

The structure of this work is as follows. Section 2 provides a brief theoretical background to clarify the study scope and importance. Section 3 details the methodological approach carried out. In Section 4, results are presented in a scenario simulation logic, and the work finishes with Section 5 and Section 6 that present discussion and conclusions, respectively.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Residual Biomass Recovery: Concepts and Importance

Mainly due to the tendency towards growth across the population, energy needs have increased [33,34]. The consumption of fossil fuels—oil, natural gas, or coal—has challenged sustainability concerns, particularly in the environmental pillar [35]. In this regard, to answer sustainability needs, the energy mix based on fossil fuels has changed to low-emissions fuels, such as bioenergy [36]. The concept of renewable energy has gained attention in recent years as a way of fulfilling energy needs while meeting concerns over preserving sustainability. In this field, sun or wind have been used as energy sources; however, the major renewable energy source is biomass, accounting for 14% of total energy sources, and this value is expected to rise in 2025 to 15–50% [33]. The usage of this resource, mainly boosted by countries’ policies, has resulted in harmful consequences such as threats to food security or overproduction, which affects soil conditions and consumes large quantities of water, affecting biodiversity [37]. Biomass energy can also create pressure on forestry. To overcome these challenges, residual biomass arises as a potential solution [11]. The concept of biomass can be understood as any byproduct originating from a plant/animal or recently dead species [38]. Regarding biomass feedstock, forests; agricultural, short-rotation plantations; the organic elements of municipal solid trash; or energy crops can be enumerated as bioenergy sources [39,40]. In the domain of residual biomass, various types can be found such as wood biomass, municipal solid waste, or landfill gas [41]. In this work, references to residual biomass will not consider all these types, considering only lignocellulosic/woody biomass that arises from traditional agroforestry activities. Pruning activities or forest operations, such as woody exploitation or fuel management operations, are examples of these activities [42]. Branches, tops, or stumps are examples of these residual biomasses [5,42,43,44,45]. These lignocellulosic resources can be converted into fuels or chemicals by means of biological, thermochemical, and catalytic processes [46]. Regarding biofuels, torrefaction, pyrolysis, gasification, and liquification can be found in thermochemical processes, where anaerobic digestion and fermentation can be visible in biochemical processes [22,47].

As well as their energetic potential, these leftovers have another contribution: fire risk reduction. According to Quishpe-Vásquez et al. [27], three conditions are required to propagate a fire: ignition, fuel, and favorable climate conditions. Associated with this arising residual biomass from agroforestry activities, as explained in the previous paragraph, and despite mandatory regulations across different countries, many farmers/biomass owners burn this resource. Despite the energetic potential being wasted, this burning can be the first condition for the occurrence of fires as the ignition, and the non-recovery of these leftovers can also contribute to the second condition for fire proliferation, fuel. For this reason, burning leftovers marks the beginning of a significant number of fires. Episodes of fire are associated with sustainability concerns; economically, fires are responsible for various expenses and losses [48,49]; environmentally, they are responsible for gas emissions [50] or soil and water contamination [51]; and socially, they are responsible for deaths and illnesses, mainly caused by inhalation of gases [52]. Fire emissions can contribute to climate change, as well as the non-recovery of residual biomass, which can culminate in excessive use of fossil fuels or in the felling of living trees responsible for CO₂ elimination. Here, the conclusion is that it is possible that burning residual biomass can contribute to fostering fires, since they contribute to the third condition for fire proliferation.

This framework makes the need for residual biomass recovery evident, avoiding fire damaging consequences and fostering the renewable energy paradigm. This schematization is visible in Figure 1.

2.2. Residual Biomass Supply Chain: Actors, Stages, and Challenges

RBSC is the chain responsible for the recovery of leftovers discussed in the previous section, lignocellulosic residual biomass. According to Wang et al. [53], RBSC comprises six stages: feedstock development, harvesting, transportation, storage, pretreatment, and conversion. Since it refers to residual biomass, the feedstock development will not be considered in this study model, and thus RBSC will comprise only three mandatory stages: harvesting/collection, transportation, and delivery to the end consumer. The aim of the first phase is obtaining biomass, which may include cutting, retrieval, or collection [54]. The three tasks are not mandatory; for example, leftovers can be found at the roadside and no cutting/retrieval operation is needed, or, on the other hand, biomass take the form of an invasive species, where the flow must start with cutting. The second RBSC phase includes the passage of biomass from the collection point to the delivery point, where the chain closes. Storage and pretreatment activities (e.g., chipping, densification, drying [24]) are not mandatory for RBSC to function; however, they are important activities to add value to biomass, mitigating inherent biomass characteristics such as high inert levels, high moisture content, volume, and form variation, or seasonality [16,55], which decreases interest in this resource. However, characteristics such as abundance, renewability [56], and low cost [28] boost interest in this resource [56]. Regarding the main actors in RBSC, there are four: (i) the landowner who has the property or the biomass, (ii) the logger who is responsible for land operations, and (iii) the end consumer. When additional activities are required, such as renting equipment, the fourth actor appears, the external service provider [55].

BSC is often affected by high logistical costs [57], with significant dependence on the different tasks [21]. However, despite this dependence, RBSC management is also characterized by individual decisions, without synergies to boost this industry [22]. Information is an important part of the success of any organization or supply chain (SC) [58]. It is thus noticeable that, due to the lack of communication/coordination between RBSC stakeholders, it faces a challenge that implies an increase in malfunctions [16,55]. This lack of coordination can also be justified by the lack of means of communication, where word of mouth is the only solution for exchanging information, resulting in misinformation. An example of this lies in terms of the valorization of residual biomass, where landowners are often forced to sell it at prices set by loggers (often the customers of this biomass) under penalty for not selling biomass [55].

Despite regulatory measures such as the prohibition of burning or even the creation of open spaces where people can deposit this type of resource, the functioning of RBSC has proven to be poor, with open burning being its main destination [59]. In this context, in an increasingly digital world with better access to the internet, the proposal of connected web-based digital platforms appears promising in mitigating the inherent communication problem in this chain. The basis of this model relies on the links between individuals that have biomass and individuals that acquire it (e.g., conversion plants, pellet production industry). Platforms will function as a biomass marketplace, where transporters and management entities are actors, responsible for collecting and delivering biomass to the final consumer, and for ensuring the functioning of the app-based model and helping digitally excluded potential users, respectively [60,61]. The VSM for RBSC is visible in Figure 2.

2.3. Lean Philosophy: Waste and Lean Information Management

In competitive markets, where variability, short product development cycles, or high competitiveness exist, lean manufacturing has been proven to be an effective methodology. It has another characteristic that has enhanced its success: the focus on the customer [62]. The main driver of lean thinking is waste reduction, where seven types of waste are identified: transportation, inventory, motion, waiting, overproduction, overprocessing, and defects. However, an eighth type of waste has been added: human talent [63].

The basis of the LIM concept is lean thinking principles, where continuously searching for and consequently removing new waste are pillars [64]. In an information context, some waste can be identified, such as difficulties in information access, additional activities to ensure information accuracy, or tasks malfunctioning due to a lack of precise, real-time information. Information duplication or the need for manual tasks to ensure that the information in the systems is correct can also be considered as barriers to the adoption of lean principles [31]. According to the same author [31], LIM has five major principles: value, value stream, flow, pull, and continuous improvement. Briefly, value refers to the capacity of delivering value in the information that arrives at the end-user. Value stream indicates the need for information mapping to understand its movement. The third pillar, flow, aims to ensure that any duplicated information or unnecessary information is provided to end-users or that all parties have access to the necessary information in real-time. The fourth pillar, pull, claims to ensure that information/additional features are only added into systems if and when they are needed. The last LIM pillar, continuous improvement, has the objective of not accepting actual systems as universal truths, calling for a continuous search for optimizing systems/processes. Regarding the information model/flow, VSM constitutes a valuable tool since it allows the representation of information paths and information processors, ensuring that successful information management is followed [32].

3. Methodological Approach

In terms of achieving the purpose of the study, and since this is an application-based information model, the refinement and consequent validation of the solution presented was centered on LIM principles to ensure the greatest objectivity and value of the information that reaches users. Furthermore, as this is an application to be used by humans, it was sought to incorporate the principles of user-centered design philosophy in this development to avoid bad experiences for users [65].

Furthermore, in software development, one of the most widely used methodologies is the agile philosophy. This approach was chosen, where small increments are made and validated to increase the match between customer expectations and software features, since it has proven efficient in reducing the risk of failure [66]. We have thus tried to ensure that development from concept to implementation is always in short cycles, with development followed by validation. Those involved in the development process range from the research team to a consultancy team with experience in the biomass industry in the implementation phase. In terms of validation, various mechanisms have been adopted, always involving RBSC stakeholders. As already described, the aim of this work is to develop an information model, supported by web technologies, which will enable the various players in the chain to come closer together.

The first step of the methodology was based on the literature, whereby the exploratory review technique was used to contextualize the problem and define the first requirements. After this review phase, the next step was the first validation with stakeholders. Two data collection techniques were used here: a questionnaire and a workshop. The objective of the first tool was to evaluate the preliminary model from the literature, using a Likert scale. The other moment of evaluation came at the same time with the aim of adding/reformulating requirements by collecting qualitative information. At this point, stakeholders with various positions in the RBSC were asked to highlight which functionalities the technology/platform should provide, which challenges the chain faces, and which should be considered in the next development. In the next development, a platform concept was created, where different actors and specific requirements were defined. In addition to the concept, a horizontal prototype (a sequence of mock-ups) was developed as a proof of concept. The inclusion of the prototyping phase in this development cycle was considered, as this technique allows the engagement of users on validation/testing phases [67]. Thus, the results of this first phase were the target of the second evaluation phase, which took place in a focus group format with stakeholders and experts on the topic. After this evaluation, the information model, the design of the various stakeholder profiles, and, consequently, the specific requirements were altered, resulting in a new concept version. As with the first development of the solution, the prototyping technique was used as proof of concept. In this sense, the model/concept and prototype of this moment was used to enter the development phase with technology that allows the transition from the mock-up solution to a functional solution.

A consultancy team specializing in software for the biomass sector was used to develop this system. In addition to contributing to the development, they also participated as experts in research inherent in the validation and development of the system. In this context, the first stage of validation/refining consisted of a focus group in which two teams took part: the research team and the consultancy team. The first participated as specialists in information systems, LIM, and the specifics of RBSC management. The second team was involved in supporting user needs from the point of view of usability and user experience. This last team was crucial, as they knew the user’s needs and acted as the human at the center of the solution’s design. The purpose of the first focus group was to present the specifics of the problem and the previously developed concepts. The consulting team presented their work in the biomass industry. After this, both teams were responsible for studying how the solutions/needs presented by the complementary team could be used to develop the new model. So, a month later, a second focus group was held with the same actors, resulting in the general operating model for the platform. Following this, and because of the principles of agile software development management, the solution was developed and validated monthly for three months. During this phase, the focus was on the specific details required to meet the needs of the overall model. At the end of this period, the next step was to hold a new, larger focus group, where RBSC experts were invited to validate the solution developed in the previous period. The model was presented and validated, as was the application that would enable it to be used. Figure 3 summarizes the methodological approach used in this study.

4. Results

4.1. App-Based Information Model

The model operates within a need/answer logic, where some actors create needs, and others provide answers to these needs. Thus, the model focused on a dissociation between the role of the stakeholder in the chain and the role played in this information model. Here, only two profiles are considered: the requester and the service provider (SP). The first actor represents the part that has the need, which can vary and can be from the landowner’s side or from the end consumer’s side. This logic was chosen to create new models, answering different needs, as explained in Section 2.2, where some activities may occur in a non-mandatory form. This point follows LIM logic, where only relevant information (needs) is included and directed, promoting a clear, clean flow of information.

The model can either operate within a push logic, where the biomass owner leverages the system, or a pull logic, where the end consumer orders a certain amount of biomass (leftovers). In this scenario, residual biomass was generated from agroforestry activities, such as pruning or forestry operations, and only needs a destination. In a push scenario, biomass producers communicate their need for biomass, assuming the requester role, and some entities will respond to this need, acting as an SP. Here, the question arises of whether the requester must choose who will perform the service, or whether they can communicate without SP nomination. At this point, the model has two ways to operate, through orders or opportunities. Orders are needs in which the requester selects the SP directly, while in opportunities, the SP is not selected and the need goes to a list, within a marketplace logic, where different SPs can “apply” to do the service, and, after that, the requester makes the final decision on who will perform the service. The first example illustrated here is the biomass collection needed by a biomass producer, as shown in Figure 4.

Another feature provided by the platform is the removal of fuel loads. This point, although already regulated in several countries, is marked by misinformation and a logger monopoly. At this point, landowners act as a requester, and the need is for fuel load removal, also known as fuel management activities. In this second scenario, the model logic is identical, where the SP is capable of removing the vegetation and is not a transporter, as in Figure 4. In this example, orders can be allocated directly or in the form of opportunities. This example may also be applied to stump removal, after forestry exploitation. Figure 5 shows the information/service performance flow for the need for biomass collection.

In the scenario in Figure 5, no destination for biomass was discussed because the model allows for different situations. In some situations, an SP can ensure the biomass delivery to the end consumer without additional action in the system. In other cases, an SP can leave biomass on the land, and the landowner must communicate a new need (need present in Figure 4). In other cases, the SP that carried out fuel removal operations can store these leftovers and after that, enter the system as a requester, with his/her need being to sell biomass. Figure 6, presented below, represents the RBSC ecosystem interaction, starting with a landowner/biomass producer and culminating in a biomass end consumer.

Moving on to the pull logic, the end consumer appears as the requester. In this scenario, the need is for the purchase of biomass, where the end consumer should indicate what kind of leftovers they want. Here, end consumers have the option to choose whether they want a specific supplier, creating an order, or whether they prefer to launch an opportunity. The biomass supplier can be the SP that collects/cuts, accumulating more than one type of service provision. The landowner, in this scenario, can act as an SP, supplying biomass. This representation can be visualized in Figure 6. The end consumer can also request only the transportation service in this model; for example, they may have an agreement with a residual biomass owner, and collection/transportation is missing. In this case, end consumers can request transportation, as shown in Figure 7.

The need of the SP, who at some point cuts/collects and stores biomass, lies in selling biomass. At this point, the person responsible for cutting/collecting assumes the role of requester, the need is selling biomass, and the SP will be someone who purchases the biomass, as seen in Figure 6. Here, the SP may be the end customer, such as a power plant or pellet company, or it may be an intermediate biomass aggregator that makes several purchases to provide larger volumes of biomass to end consumers.

Another topic that can be seen in some locations relies on eco-points/logistical parks that function as aggregator centers, where individuals, mainly small biomass producers, can dispose of their biomass. Usually, the governmental entity is responsible for ensuring the proper disposal of leftovers. In this case, this entity can act as a requester and ask a transportation service for the biomass in these eco-points/parks. Some biomass producers or end consumers may have the need to value some biomass, and, in this case, they can require pre-treatment activities for a set of leftovers, as seen in Figure 8.

Below, in Figure 9, an example can be seen of RBSC ecosystem flows, as provided by the described model, where the same individual can behave as a requester or SP. Note that all arrows are linked from the requester to the SP.

The main outcomes of this model are greater communication, substantially improving response times compared to the current scenario (which is often communicated verbally), and centralized communication, avoiding errors associated with a lack of dispersed storage. The marketplace will reduce the number of interactions needed to achieve a goal, since before this model, it required the process of surveying potential SPs, making individual contact to find out conditions and further contact to deliver the service.

4.2. Web Application Concept

Regarding platform intervention, in addition to the two profiles identified in model functioning, there is the facilitator, who was incorporated into this ecosystem to help digitally excluded people. The facilitator figure acts as someone capable of communicating digitally excluded individuals’ needs, e.g., a parish council member or neighbor. This profile does not alter the model above, since it can be understood as a requester.

Regarding specific system requirements, all needs created in the system must be associated with a certain location. The location represents land or a conversion plant, and as attributes, designation, address, and the representation of the location polygon in a geolocation system should be filled. After creating the location, the requester can create an order where the service type, the service area, the leftovers type, and the service date must be chosen. After that, the system will automatically inform them of which SPs are capable of answering this need, and the requester should choose one. The illustration of the order requesting process is represented in Figure 10a. On the opportunity side, the forms are identical to the order, differing only in the mandatory character of SP nomination. The opportunity creation process is illustrated in Figure 10b. It is important to note that service needs choice by the requester and is performed based on predefined services, in other words, the service is not a free text field, but a drop-down with pre-defined services. This requirement is particularly important, since small typing errors could damage the functioning of the system.

To complete the match regarding service, the SP must communicate which service(s) they provide. However, it cannot communicate the service without a location associated. This information is important, since in service communication, the SP will not only have to inform service typology as well as maximum service distance and the estimated value for the service (EUR/h or EUR/ha). It is important to note that different services can have different locations; in other words, SPs can have different locations for different services. This information is particularly relevant when the app suggests SP candidates. The last point was inserted to avoid an excess of information for SPs and information without value; those service conditions act as a filter of which information will be displayed for SPs.

When an order is made, the SP receives a notification to which they must answer favorably or not. At this point, several order stages may occur between order being made and order acceptance, such as budget making or budget evaluation. Between different stages, requester and SPs are notified on the platform and must change the order status. There is an opportunity for SPs who meet the requirements to have access to a board where they can see opportunity details and are available to communicate interest. When interest is communicated, the information is returned to the requester that should choose the SP. Carrying out this choice, the opportunity becomes an order and will follow the same flow. Although this point may seem contradictory to LIM philosophy, many people might not adhere to the model due to lack of knowledge, resulting in the creation of a more complex but necessary flow, fulfilling the LIM value, value stream, and flow principles. Below, in Figure 11 an order/opportunity flow is represented, showing the interaction between the requester, SP, and platform.

The system has a fourth actor, the management entity (ME), which is the party responsible for the entire system functioning. As a specific feature of this role, it has access to indicators for platform coursing, e.g., how many users are in the system and which are their profiles, how many orders/opportunities are performed in the system, or which are locations that most adhere to the system. This information is relevant to app-based model dissemination, where understanding model functioning can be valuable to make decisions. Another feature of the ME’s role is platform parametrization, which is responsible for creating the list of services, order status, or the leftover type. This point is particularly relevant to fulfill the LIM pull principle. Where a user needs other service typologies or leftovers, they are obligated to communicate it to the ME for evaluation, and consequently, creation.

Table 1. Summary of system actors and respective descriptions.

Actor	Description
Requester	The person who has a need, which can be biomass transportation, fuel loads removal, or biomass acquisition.
Service Provider (SP)	The person who answers the need, which can be a transport provider, forestry operator, or biomass seller.
Facilitator	The person who acts for the requester. They do not have the need but have permission to communicate the need into the system.
Management Entity (ME)	The entity responsible for ensuring the platform functions well. It can change platform parametrization and assess information about the platform’s impact.

presents the system actors with a description and examples of individual platform interactions.

Below, a compilation of six interfaces from a real implemented platform is presented in Figure 12.

The first image, Figure 12a, shows the registration form, where new users must enter their details to be able to use the platform. Users must also choose which user profile they want from the three already presented (requester, facilitator, and service provider). Figure 12b shows the requester’s interface, identical to that of the facilitators, where they can create their properties using the “+” sign and consult the list of properties they have already entered. Within each property, in addition to indicating the respective information, they must also register their needs (orders or opportunities), as shown in Figure 12c. Regarding localization, this information can be filled manually or through a geographical information system, which will allow time to be saved, waste to be eliminated, and lean principles to be fostered. Figure 12d shows a list of requests that each service provider has access to, where they can click on each one to follow it up. Figure 12e shows the opportunities interface, where all the opportunities that fit in with the service providers’ responses are displayed, and the service provider can express interest. Finally, Figure 12f shows a dashboard, only accessible to the management entity, where it can see the distribution of the various properties distributed geographically, the number of requests and their distribution throughout the year, or the number of users per profile.

5. Discussion

Comparing the RBSC design with the information model obtained, it can be perceived that the latter will answer the needs of the former. However, the information model goes ahead, allowing additional features such as the incorporation of fire risk reduction mechanisms. The flexibility inherent to the model will relax the restriction that this model only answers to the residual biomass supply chain, being usable in a biomass supply chain (BSC) context, with different services and leftovers (in BSC referred to as raw material). This system gives a holistic view of non-use residual biomass problems, creating a bridge to the development of new business models such as biomass collection and residual biomass selling, which is traditionally acquired at low costs, or it will allow pre-treatment activities in fields that are not visible. In addition, the model will change existing businesses; for example, although stump removal already exists, it is not performed in all properties. The platform information will also increase knowledge about the residual biomass industry, which can transform business. For example, some forestry machinery is heavy, with huge dimensions, making it unfeasible to use in certain circumstances. This scenario can lead to the creation/replacement of the current machinery with something smaller and more flexible, more adequate for small producers.

Analyzing the literature results, it is understandable that this topic is not extensively discussed, with the works [60,61] being the relevant literature in the domain of app-based models across RBSC. As already stated, in both works, the flow was made unidirectionally, with specific app profiles which are linked to the position that individuals occupied in RBSC, representing the major difference. In this configurable ecosystem, the various RBSC stakeholders relax the restriction of this position in RBSC to appear as requesters or SPs with a specific need, simplifying the flows. The role of individuals will be dependent on the need, and chain position will not restrict the individual position. This change to simple information flows will also approximate the chain of stakeholders, avoiding non-answers by a member conditioning the functioning of the model. This linkage in both directions will allow the system to operate in pull mode, where biomass will only be available at a system where the final consumer wants it, which will mitigate the challenge of biomass seasonality. Other relevant work, also considering the maintenance of the player’s position in the RBSC in the information model, includes the provision of services other than just the collection and recovery of biomass (such as cutting) [68]. In terms of similarities, this model includes the marketplace logic referenced in the three studies, as well as the management entity, responsible for the proper functioning of the ecosystem.

Information systems in SC management have proven crucial to improving sustainability concerns. Potentialities such as the collection and exchange of information in real time, as demonstrated in the solution proposed in this work, achieved using a web application and the emerging Internet of Things (IoT) technology [69], allow for greater knowledge of the chain as a whole. Information systems in the SC also allow data on carbon emissions from material flows to be monitored, something that was not part of the purpose of this work, but which can add value to the solution presented. Optimization of the logistical stages is also a benefit of the Information System, where the centralization of information can improve the decision-making of the various SPs [70]. This will result in a reduction in unnecessary machinery movement, which can result in a reduction in the consumption of fossil fuels associated with the transport of machinery, and monetary savings, improving sustainability in various dimensions [71,72].

Regarding the social and sustainable impact of the platform, it is perceivable that in economic terms, the app will foster SDGs 8 and 9, mainly due to the creation of new business models [73] and the innovation across existent models, fostering the development of new job opportunities and boosting local economies [74]. In Thailand, the recovery of residual biomass allows farmers to save money to produce energy [75]. In economic terms, biomass recovery will contribute to an increase in renewable energy share, representing a decrease in the acquisition of fossil fuels, leading to energy independence and economic savings [74]. Concerning the environmental pillar, biomass recovery will allow clean energy, fostering SDG 7 [76]. Biomass recovery, associated with a reduction in fire risk and which results in a reduction in gas emissions and soil and water contamination, contributes to SDGs 6, 7, 13, and 15. At the social level, these models can allow new business development, mainly in socially undeveloped areas, allowing a generation of additional revenues, fostering SDGs 1 and 10. Furthermore, the occurrence of fire has associated deaths and diseases provoked by gas inhalation, which, with this model, can be reduced, contributing to SDG 3.

In Figure 13, below, the interaction between technology, LIM, RBSC, and sustainability is represented. The first two concepts will ensure the well-functioning of information flow, creating an optimized RBSC. This creation will directly result in the recovery of greater quantities of residual biomass, which can mitigate sustainability concerns. In sum, this technology can boost sustainability, showing how technology can act for the well-being of the population.

The lack of application of the solution in a real context means that the entire discussion of positive outcomes in terms of sustainability is based on expected outcomes, supported by the literature. Thus, to complement the analysis, some indicators can be listed as metrics for assessing the impact of the solution in various dimensions, acceptance of the model, environmental impact and socio-economic impact. In terms of the first point, the number of requests made, the number of requests answered, or the number of locations entered into the system can be listed. In terms of the second dimension, the amount of biomass recovered, or the number of fires avoided (cross-referenced with areas where biomass has been cut/recovered), can be listed. Finally, the number of economic transactions and the average prices charged by SPs for specific services/conditions can help interpret how the model is leveraging improvements in the social responsibility of agroforestry systems or demonstrating any inaccessibility to certain types of services.

6. Conclusions

The use of residual biomass looks very promising for mitigating sustainability problems, as it increases the share of renewable energy produced while reducing pressure on forests. In addition, this recovery seems to be a way of addressing the fires that traditionally arise because of the eradication of waste by fire. In this scenario, the need to reduce misinformation and increase connections to mitigate logistical challenges and increase the recovery of this biomass is a priority. This work, therefore, makes a number of theoretical and practical contributions. In theoretical terms, the following contributions can be highlighted:

• Presentation of an information management model based on a web application for a context marked by logistical challenges associated with a lack of information/knowledge;
• Presentation of a flexible model that can be adapted to different contexts (allowing different problems to be managed), enabling simple and targeted exchanges of information;
• Highlighting the flexibility and parameterizable nature of the solutions as signs of their increased robustness in the face of specific contexts;
• Highlighting the role of the LIM and HCD in the context of the RBSC.
• In practical terms, the following contributions stand out:
• Creation of centralized information and knowledge that will allow potential users to make better decisions;
• Creation of a liberalized market for services that will avoid the traditional values “imposed” by service providers;
• Resolution of sustainability concerns associated with the burning of leftovers that affect not only stakeholders but the population in general;
• Possibility of developing new business models, in line with the system’s needs;
• Improvements in the management of potential energy resources for nations.

7. Limitations and Future Work

In terms of limitations, we can point to the consideration of only one context for the development of the system, where knowledge of the problem from the perspective of other nations could enhance the generalizability of the conclusions, increasing their level of confidence. Furthermore, another limitation lies in the fact that a case study was not carried out in a real context; in other words, the solution developed/presented was not tested in longitudinal terms to measure its potential. Despite the HCD principles followed in the development, the lack of quantitative data, particularly with regard to the acceptance/usability of the platform, can also be pointed out as a limitation of the work. Future work could include measuring the impact of the solution (in terms of socio-economic and environmental impact) as a result of its use by stakeholders. The refinement of the model, as a result of end-user needs, should also be considered, as well as the definition of configurable parameterizations that best respond to needs, thus avoiding possible deaths of the model due to ignorance of standard needs. In the more distant future, the solution could be implemented in different countries to see what impact it can have in different contexts and what contextual assumptions limit the generalization of its operation. To increase the value of the solution, it could be connected to remote image detection technologies, which, combined with AI algorithms, could make it easier to identify areas in need of service, preventing the producer from having to do this task and increasing the efficiency of the system.