IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eneeco/v80y2019icp20-29.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Factors affecting willingness to cultivate switchgrass: Evidence from a farmer survey in Missouri

Author

Listed:
  • Burli, Pralhad
  • Lal, Pankaj
  • Wolde, Bernabas
  • Jose, Shibu
  • Bardhan, Sougata

Abstract

Switchgrass is considered as one of the important feedstocks that can contribute towards the attainment of bioenergy goals set under the Renewable Fuels Standard. Yet, the commercial viability of switchgrass based bioenergy is a much debated topic owing to supply side challenges emanating from limited raw materials. It is therefore critical to understand the crucial role of the farmer by studying the willingness to cultivate switchgrass dedicated for bioenergy. To our knowledge, this is the first survey undertaken to assess the farmer preferences and participation in bioenergy markets after the new administration has assumed office, and provides some important insights. Our analysis reveals that the risk attitudes of farmers have an important bearing on their willingness to cultivate switchgrass. Having prior awareness of switchgrass makes farmers less likely to adopt whereas a preference to cultivate a crop after seeing them on demonstration plots at university extension meetings positively influences willingness decisions. Landholdings under pasture/grazing use and under forest/woodland use increases farmer willingness to cultivate switchgrass. On the other hand, having land under the Conservation Reserve Program, lands that experienced flooding or water stress in recent years, or lands that confront erosion issues did not have a significant influence on farmer willingness. While the inherent uncertainty of the cellulosic bioenergy industry is well known, policies that provide a safety net to protect farmers from the downside are an important issue for farmers who are willing to cultivate switchgrass.

Suggested Citation

  • Burli, Pralhad & Lal, Pankaj & Wolde, Bernabas & Jose, Shibu & Bardhan, Sougata, 2019. "Factors affecting willingness to cultivate switchgrass: Evidence from a farmer survey in Missouri," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 20-29.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:80:y:2019:i:c:p:20-29
    DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2018.12.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988318304912
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.eneco.2018.12.009?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. Markel, Evan & Sims, Charles & English, Burton C., 2018. "Policy uncertainty and the optimal investment decisions of second-generation biofuel producers," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 89-100.
    2. Fewell, Jason E. & Bergtold, Jason S. & Williams, Jeffery R., 2016. "Farmers' willingness to contract switchgrass as a cellulosic bioenergy crop in Kansas," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 292-302.
    3. Li, Chao & Hayes, Dermot J. & Jacobs, Keri L., 2018. "Biomass for bioenergy: Optimal collection mechanisms and pricing when feedstock supply does not equal availability," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 403-410.
    4. Schmit, T.M. & J., Luo & Conrad, J.M., 2011. "Estimating the influence of U.S. ethanol policy on plant investment decisions: A real options analysis with two stochastic variables," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1194-1205.
    5. Feng Song & Jinhua Zhao & Scott M. Swinton, 2011. "Switching to Perennial Energy Crops Under Uncertainty and Costly Reversibility," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(3), pages 764-779.
    6. Dumortier, Jerome & Kauffman, Nathan & Hayes, Dermot J., 2017. "Production and spatial distribution of switchgrass and miscanthus in the United States under uncertainty and sunk cost," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 300-314.
    7. Lynes, Melissa K. & Bergtold, Jason S. & Williams, Jeffery R. & Fewell, Jason E., 2016. "Willingness of Kansas farm managers to produce alternative cellulosic biofuel feedstocks: An analysis of adoption and initial acreage allocation," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 336-348.
    8. Sherrington, Chris & Bartley, Justin & Moran, Dominic, 2008. "Farm-level constraints on the domestic supply of perennial energy crops in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 2504-2512, July.
    9. Cheryl R. Doss & Michael L. Morris, 2000. "How does gender affect the adoption of agricultural innovations?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 25(1), pages 27-39, June.
    10. Luo, Yi & Miller, Shelie A., 2017. "Using Game Theory to Resolve the “Chicken and Egg” Situation in Promoting Cellulosic Bioenergy Development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 29-41.
    11. Giannoccaro, Giacomo & Berbel, Julio, 2012. "The Determinants of Farmer’s Intended Behaviour Towards the Adoption of Energy Crops in Southern Spain: an Application of the Classification Tree-Method," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 1(2), pages 1-14, August.
    12. Hipple, Pat & Duffy, Michael, 2002. "Farmer's Motivation for Adoption of Switchgrass," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10347, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    13. Lal, Pankaj & Wolde, Bernabas & Alavalapati, Janaki & Burli, Pralhad & Munsell, John, 2016. "Forestland owners' willingness to plant pine on non-forested land for woody bioenergy in Virginia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 52-57.
    14. Bocquého, G. & Jacquet, F., 2010. "The adoption of switchgrass and miscanthus by farmers: Impact of liquidity constraints and risk preferences," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 2598-2607, May.
    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. Burli, Pralhad H. & Nguyen, Ruby T. & Hartley, Damon S. & Griffel, L. Michael & Vazhnik, Veronika & Lin, Yingqian, 2021. "Farmer characteristics and decision-making: A model for bioenergy crop adoption," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 234(C).
    2. Xianbo Cheng & Yu Tao & Conghong Huang & Jialin Yi & Dan Yi & Fei Wang & Qin Tao & Henghui Xi & Weixin Ou, 2022. "Unraveling the Causal Mechanisms for Non-Grain Production of Cultivated Land: An Analysis Framework Applied in Liyang, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-20, October.
    3. Baral, Nawa Raj & Mishra, Shruti K. & George, Anthe & Gautam, Sagar & Mishra, Umakant & Scown, Corinne D., 2022. "Multifunctional landscapes for dedicated bioenergy crops lead to low-carbon market-competitive biofuels," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    4. Bijan Abadi & Taher Azizi-Khalkheili & Mohammad Reza Morshedlooc, 2023. "What factors determine the conversion of wild medicinal and aromatic resources to cultivated species? An intention and behavior analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(8), pages 8031-8053, August.
    5. Burli, Pralhad & Lal, Pankaj & Wolde, Bernabas & Jose, Shibu & Bardhan, Sougata, 2021. "Perceptions about switchgrass and land allocation decisions: Evidence from a farmer survey in Missouri," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).

    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. Lynes, Melissa K. & Bergtold, Jason S. & Williams, Jeffery R. & Fewell, Jason E., 2016. "Willingness of Kansas farm managers to produce alternative cellulosic biofuel feedstocks: An analysis of adoption and initial acreage allocation," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 336-348.
    2. Burli, Pralhad & Lal, Pankaj & Wolde, Bernabas & Jose, Shibu & Bardhan, Sougata, 2021. "Perceptions about switchgrass and land allocation decisions: Evidence from a farmer survey in Missouri," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    3. McCarty, Tanner & Sesmero, Juan, 2021. "Contracting for perennial energy crops and the cost-effectiveness of the Biomass Crop Assistance Program," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    4. Vyn, Richard J. & Virani, Tasneem & Deen, Bill, 2012. "Examining the economic feasibility of miscanthus in Ontario: An application to the greenhouse industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 669-676.
    5. Monge, Juan J. & Ribera, Luis A. & Jifon, John L. & Silva, Jorge A. da & Richardson, James W., 2014. "Economics and Uncertainty of Lignocellulosic Biofuel Production from Energy Cane and Sweet Sorghum in South Texas," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 46(4), pages 1-28, November.
    6. McCarty, Tanner & Sesmero, Juan, 2014. "Uncertainty, Irreversibility, and Investment in Second-Generation Biofuels," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 179201, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Bergtold, Jason S. & Shanoyan, Aleksan & Fewell, Jason E. & Williams, Jeffery R., 2017. "Annual bioenergy crops for biofuels production: Farmers' contractual preferences for producing sweet sorghum," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 724-731.
    8. Witzel, Carl-Philipp & Finger, Robert, 2016. "Economic evaluation of Miscanthus production – A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 681-696.
    9. Ge, Jiaqi & Sutherland, Lee-Ann & Polhill, J. Gary & Matthews, Keith & Miller, Dave & Wardell-Johnson, Douglas, 2017. "Exploring factors affecting on-farm renewable energy adoption in Scotland using large-scale microdata," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 548-560.
    10. Kwabena Krah & Daniel R Petrolia & Angelica Williams & Keith H Coble & Ardian Harri & Roderick M Rejesus, 2018. "Producer Preferences for Contracts on a Risky Bioenergy Crop," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 40(2), pages 240-258.
    11. Majeed, Fahd & Khanna, Madhu & Miao, Ruiqing & Blanc, Elena & Hudiburg, Tara & DeLucia, Evan, 2020. "Designing payments for GHG mitigation to induce low carbon bioenergy production," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304394, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Ruiqing Miao & Madhu Khanna, 2017. "Effectiveness of the Biomass Crop Assistance Program: Roles of Behavioral Factors, Credit Constraint, and Program Design," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 39(4), pages 584-608.
    13. Adams, P.W.R. & Lindegaard, K., 2016. "A critical appraisal of the effectiveness of UK perennial energy crops policy since 1990," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 188-202.
    14. Mooney, Daniel F. & Barham, Bradford L. & Lian, Chang, 2013. "Sustainable Biofuels, Marginal Agricultural Lands, and Farm Supply Response: Micro-Evidence for Southwest Wisconsin," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150510, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Halit Üster & Gökhan Memişoğlu, 2018. "Biomass Logistics Network Design Under Price-Based Supply and Yield Uncertainty," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 474-492, March.
    16. P. Mathiou & Stelios Rozakis & Rafal Pudelko & A. Faber & A. Petsakos, 2014. "Utility maximising supply response: the case of perennial biomass plantations in Poland," Working Papers 2014-3, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    17. Ye, Fanglin & Paulson, Nicholas & Khanna, Madhu, 2014. "Technology uncertainty and learning by doing in the cellulosic biofuel investment," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 169789, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Clancy, D. & Breen, J.P. & Thorne, F. & Wallace, M., 2012. "The influence of a Renewable Energy Feed in Tariff on the decision to produce biomass crops in Ireland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 412-421.
    19. Xian, Hui & Karali, Berna & Colson, Gregory & Wetzstein, Michael E., 2015. "Diesel or compressed natural gas? A real options evaluation of the U.S. natural gas boom on fuel choice for trucking fleets," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 90(P2), pages 1342-1348.
    20. Miao, Ruiqing & Khanna, Madhu, 2015. "Costs of Meeting the Cellulosic Biofuel Mandate with an Energy Crop with Establishment Cost and Yield Risk: Implications for Policy," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212458, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Bioenergy; Cellulosic; Farmer preference; Willingness; Switchgrass; Missouri;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q12 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Micro Analysis of Farm Firms, Farm Households, and Farm Input Markets
    • Q15 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Land Ownership and Tenure; Land Reform; Land Use; Irrigation; Agriculture and Environment
    • Q16 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - R&D; Agricultural Technology; Biofuels; Agricultural Extension Services
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy
    • Q42 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Alternative Energy Sources
    • Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:eneeco:v:80:y:2019:i:c:p:20-29. 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/locate/eneco .

    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.