IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/appene/v102y2013icp241-253.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How sustainable is bioenergy production in the Philippines? A conjoint analysis of knowledge and opinions of people with different typologies

Author

Listed:
  • Acosta, Lilibeth A.
  • Enano, Nelson H.
  • Magcale-Macandog, Damasa B.
  • Engay, Kathreena G.
  • Herrera, Maria Noriza Q.
  • Nicopior, Ozzy Boy S.
  • Sumilang, Mic Ivan V.
  • Eugenio, Jemimah Mae A.
  • Lucht, Wolfgang

Abstract

We elicited people’s preferences on policy issues related to bioenergy through survey and investigated the cluster typologies that influence these preferences using cluster and conjoint analysis. Three typologies (i.e. idealist, ambivalent, realist) were identified from clustering the respondents’ familiarity on bioenergy and opinion on its effects on food security and economy in the Philippines. The “idealist” has optimistic opinions on bioenergy production, “realist” recognises the existing land use competition between bioenergy and food production, and “ambivalent” does not have clear opinion on the effects of bioenergy on food security and economy. Majority of realists are located in Mindanao and idealists in Luzon. The segmentation of the respondents aimed to identify the characteristics of people belonging to different typologies and to understand how the typologies influence the policy preferences for the different sustainability determinants of bioenergy. These determinants were based on the STRAP (sustainability trade-offs and pathways) framework for the integrated assessment of bioenergy sustainability. The results reveal that respondents with ambivalent typology, which are mostly farmers and farm workers, lack the necessary awareness to be able to play an active role in the bioenergy production chain. As main actors in the production of biomass feedstock for bioenergy, it is important that they gain not only general awareness but also practical knowledge on bioenergy production and its impacts on agricultural development. The respondents with realist typology in Mindanao give high importance to social justice due to unrests caused by religious conflicts and widespread poverty. Hence, unless these issues are resolved, it is hardly possible to make use of the huge bioenergy potential in this region. In general, respondents in all cluster typologies give more importance to sustainability determinants that are directly associated to their daily living. However, determinants relating to energy security and technology progress, which are not location-specific, are necessary to sustain domestic bioenergy production.

Suggested Citation

  • Acosta, Lilibeth A. & Enano, Nelson H. & Magcale-Macandog, Damasa B. & Engay, Kathreena G. & Herrera, Maria Noriza Q. & Nicopior, Ozzy Boy S. & Sumilang, Mic Ivan V. & Eugenio, Jemimah Mae A. & Lucht,, 2013. "How sustainable is bioenergy production in the Philippines? A conjoint analysis of knowledge and opinions of people with different typologies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 241-253.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:102:y:2013:i:c:p:241-253
    DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.09.063
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261912007040
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.09.063?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zhou, Adrian & Thomson, Elspeth, 2009. "The development of biofuels in Asia," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(Supplemen), pages 11-20, November.
    2. Acosta-Michlik, Lilibeth & Lucht, Wolfgang & Bondeau, Alberte & Beringer, Tim, 2011. "Integrated assessment of sustainability trade-offs and pathways for global bioenergy production: Framing a novel hybrid approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 2791-2809, August.
    3. Sayadi, Samir & Gonzalez Roa, M. Carmen & Calatrava Requena, Javier, 2005. "Ranking versus scale rating in conjoint analysis: Evaluating landscapes in mountainous regions in southeastern Spain," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 539-550, December.
    4. Sheng Goh, Chun & Teong Lee, Keat, 2010. "Will biofuel projects in Southeast Asia become white elephants?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 3847-3848, August.
    5. Blamey, R. K. & Bennett, J. W. & Louviere, J. J. & Morrison, M. D. & Rolfe, J., 2000. "A test of policy labels in environmental choice modelling studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 269-286, February.
    6. Georges, Jessica, 2012. "Energizing Livelihoods: The Impact of the Biofuel Act in the Philippines," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124952, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Moran, Dominic & McVittie, Alistair & Allcroft, David J. & Elston, David A., 2007. "Quantifying public preferences for agri-environmental policy in Scotland: A comparison of methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 42-53, June.
    8. Toubia, Olivier & Hauser, John & Simester, Duncan, 2003. "Polyhedral Methods for Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Working papers 4285-03, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    9. Gao, Zhifeng & Yu, Xiaohua & House, Lisa, 2009. "Using Choice Experiment to Estimate Consumer Valuation: the Role of Experiment Design and Attribute Information Loads," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49406, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Thomas, H. Stevens & White, Sarah & Kittredge, David B. & Dennis, Donald, 2002. "Factors affecting NIPF landowner participation in management programs: a Massachusetts case study," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 169-184.
    11. Tano, Kouadio & Kamuanga, Mulumba & Faminow, Merle D. & Swallow, Brent, 2003. "Using conjoint analysis to estimate farmer's preferences for cattle traits in West Africa," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 393-407, July.
    12. Sasaki, Nophea & Knorr, Wolfgang & Foster, David R. & Etoh, Hiroko & Ninomiya, Hiroshi & Chay, Sengtha & Kim, Sophanarith & Sun, Sengxi, 2009. "Woody biomass and bioenergy potentials in Southeast Asia between 1990 and 2020," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(Supplemen), pages 140-150, November.
    13. Paul E. Green & Abba M. Krieger & Yoram Wind, 2001. "Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 31(3_supplem), pages 56-73, June.
    14. J. S. Clancy, 2008. "Are biofuels pro-poor? Assessing the evidence," The European Journal of Development Research, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 416-431.
    15. Peter J. Lenk & Wayne S. DeSarbo & Paul E. Green & Martin R. Young, 1996. "Hierarchical Bayes Conjoint Analysis: Recovery of Partworth Heterogeneity from Reduced Experimental Designs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 173-191.
    16. Faaij, Andre P.C., 2006. "Bio-energy in Europe: changing technology choices," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 322-342, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ramadhar Singh, Randy & Clarke, Ricardo M. & Chadee, Xsitaaz T., 2023. "A just energy transition for a hydrocarbon rich SIDS," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    2. Sumabat, Ana Karmela & Lopez, Neil Stephen & Yu, Krista Danielle & Hao, Han & Li, Richard & Geng, Yong & Chiu, Anthony S.F., 2016. "Decomposition analysis of Philippine CO2 emissions from fuel combustion and electricity generation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 795-804.
    3. Qingbin Wang & Laurel Valchuis & Ethan Thompson & David Conner & Robert Parsons, 2019. "Consumer Support and Willingness to Pay for Electricity from Solar, Wind, and Cow Manure in the United States: Evidence from a Survey in Vermont," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-13, November.
    4. Lilibeth A. Acosta & Damasa B. Magcale-Macandog & K. S. Kavi Kumar & Xuefeng Cui & Elena A. Eugenio & Paula Beatrice M. Macandog & Arnold R. Salvacion & Jemimah Mae A. Eugenio, 2016. "The Role of Bioenergy in Enhancing Energy, Food and Ecosystem Sustainability Based on Societal Perceptions and Preferences in Asia," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-26, April.
    5. Costa, Fabrício Rodrigues & Ribeiro, Carlos Antonio Alvares Soares & Marcatti, Gustavo Eduardo & Lorenzon, Alexandre Simões & Teixeira, Thaisa Ribeiro & Domingues, Getulio Fonseca & Castro, Nero Lemos, 2020. "GIS applied to location of bioenergy plants in tropical agricultural areas," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 911-918.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Acosta-Michlik, Lilibeth & Lucht, Wolfgang & Bondeau, Alberte & Beringer, Tim, 2011. "Integrated assessment of sustainability trade-offs and pathways for global bioenergy production: Framing a novel hybrid approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 2791-2809, August.
    2. Lilibeth A. Acosta & Damasa B. Magcale-Macandog & K. S. Kavi Kumar & Xuefeng Cui & Elena A. Eugenio & Paula Beatrice M. Macandog & Arnold R. Salvacion & Jemimah Mae A. Eugenio, 2016. "The Role of Bioenergy in Enhancing Energy, Food and Ecosystem Sustainability Based on Societal Perceptions and Preferences in Asia," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-26, April.
    3. Olivier Toubia & Duncan I. Simester & John R. Hauser & Ely Dahan, 2003. "Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 273-303.
    4. Hasan, M.H. & Mahlia, T.M.I. & Nur, Hadi, 2012. "A review on energy scenario and sustainable energy in Indonesia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 2316-2328.
    5. John Liechty & Duncan Fong & Eelko Huizingh & Arnaud Bruyn, 2008. "Hierarchical Bayesian conjoint models incorporating measurement uncertainty," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 141-155, June.
    6. Kick, Markus & Littich, Martina, 2015. "Brand and Reputation as Quality Signals on Regulated Markets," EconStor Preprints 182503, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    7. Xinfang (Jocelyn) Wang & Jeffrey D. Camm & David J. Curry, 2009. "A Branch-and-Price Approach to the Share-of-Choice Product Line Design Problem," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(10), pages 1718-1728, October.
    8. Lynd Bacon & Peter Lenk, 2012. "Augmenting discrete-choice data to identify common preference scales for inter-subject analyses," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 453-474, December.
    9. Braun, Alexander & Schmeiser, Hato & Schreiber, Florian, 2016. "On consumer preferences and the willingness to pay for term life insurance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(3), pages 761-776.
    10. Jeffrey D. Camm & James J. Cochran & David J. Curry & Sriram Kannan, 2006. "Conjoint Optimization: An Exact Branch-and-Bound Algorithm for the Share-of-Choice Problem," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 435-447, March.
    11. Kristensen, Søren Bech Pilgaard & Birch-Thomsen, Torben & Rasmussen, Kjeld & Rasmussen, Laura Vang & Traoré, Oumar, 2014. "Cassava as an energy crop: A case study of the potential for an expansion of cassava cultivation for bioethanol production in Southern Mali," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 381-390.
    12. Min Ding & Rajdeep Grewal & John Liechty, 2005. "Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis," Framed Field Experiments 00139, The Field Experiments Website.
    13. Halme, Merja & Kallio, Markku, 2011. "Estimation methods for choice-based conjoint analysis of consumer preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 214(1), pages 160-167, October.
    14. Wise, Marshall & Dooley, James & Luckow, Patrick & Calvin, Katherine & Kyle, Page, 2014. "Agriculture, land use, energy and carbon emission impacts of global biofuel mandates to mid-century," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 763-773.
    15. James Cochran & David Curry & Rajesh Radhakrishnan & Jon Pinnell, 2014. "Political engineering: optimizing a U.S. Presidential candidate’s platform," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 215(1), pages 63-87, April.
    16. Forsell, Nicklas & Guerassimoff, Gilles & Athanassiadis, Dimitris & Thivolle-Casat, Alain & Lorne, Daphné & Millet, Guy & Assoumou, Edi, 2013. "Sub-national TIMES model for analyzing future regional use of biomass and biofuels in Sweden and France," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 415-426.
    17. Kumar, S. & Shrestha, Pujan & Abdul Salam, P., 2013. "A review of biofuel policies in the major biofuel producing countries of ASEAN: Production, targets, policy drivers and impacts," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 822-836.
    18. Buonomenna, M.G. & Bae, J., 2015. "Membrane processes and renewable energies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 1343-1398.
    19. Pérez y Pérez, Luis & Egea, Pilar & de-Magistris, Tiziana, 2019. "When agrarian multifunctionality matters: identifying heterogeneity in societal preferences for externalities of marginal olive groves in Aragon, Spain," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 85-92.
    20. Gabriela D. Oliveira & Luis C. Dias, 2020. "The potential learning effect of a MCDA approach on consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 293(2), pages 767-787, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:102:y:2013:i:c:p:241-253. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/405891/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.