IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v15y2012icp140-145.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An assessment of nonindustrial private forest landowner willingness to harvest woody biomass in support of bioenergy production in Mississippi: A contingent rating approach

Author

Listed:
  • Gruchy, Steven R.
  • Grebner, Donald L.
  • Munn, Ian A.
  • Joshi, Omkar
  • Hussain, Anwar

Abstract

The economic feasibility of utilizing woody biomass to produce biofuel lies in the willingness to harvest by non-industrial private forest (NIPF) landowners, who control 71% of forestland in the southern United States. A mail survey was distributed to NIPF landowners throughout Mississippi to elicit their preferences concerning the utilization of logging residues from harvesting operations to produce bioenergy. When presented with hypothetical situations that compared the bioenergy utilization harvesting attributes along with those of standard clearcutting in pine plantations, more landowners preferred those associated with the bioenergy utilization scenarios, even when more money was offered for the standard clearcutting option. Older landowners with larger landholdings were less likely to prefer the bioenergy scenarios. Landowners with more formal education who were financially motivated, considered habitat management an important goal, and thought global climate change was an important issue, were more likely to prefer the bioenergy utilization scenario over the standard clearcut. This indicates that a market for logging residues, in the form of wood-based bioenergy, could increase NIPF landowner harvest rates based solely on the different harvesting attributes, and that most woody biomass feedstocks from pine plantations would be available for the production of bioenergy in Mississippi.

Suggested Citation

  • Gruchy, Steven R. & Grebner, Donald L. & Munn, Ian A. & Joshi, Omkar & Hussain, Anwar, 2012. "An assessment of nonindustrial private forest landowner willingness to harvest woody biomass in support of bioenergy production in Mississippi: A contingent rating approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 140-145.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:15:y:2012:i:c:p:140-145
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2011.09.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934111001626
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.09.007?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. Roe, Brian & Boyle, Kevin J. & Teisl, Mario F., 1996. "Using Conjoint Analysis to Derive Estimates of Compensating Variation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 145-159, September.
    2. G.C., Shivan & Mehmood, Sayeed R., 2010. "Factors influencing nonindustrial private forest landowners' policy preference for promoting bioenergy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(8), pages 581-588, October.
    3. repec:bla:jecsur:v:15:y:2001:i:3:p:435-62 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Gregory, S. Amacher & Christine Conway, M. & Sullivan, Jay & Gregory, S. Amacher, 2003. "Econometric analyses of nonindustrial forest landowners: Is there anything left to study?," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 137-164.
    5. John Mackenzie, 1993. "A Comparison of Contingent Preference Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(3), pages 593-603.
    6. Hartman, Richard, 1976. "The Harvesting Decision When a Standing Forest Has Value," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 14(1), pages 52-58, March.
    7. Kevin J. Boyle & Thomas P. Holmes & Mario F. Teisl & Brian Roe, 2001. "A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(2), pages 441-454.
    8. Stevens, T. H. & Belkner, R. & Dennis, D. & Kittredge, D. & Willis, C., 2000. "Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 63-74, January.
    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. Aguilar, Francisco X. & Daniel, Marissa “Jo” & Cai, Zhen, 2014. "Family-forest Owners’ Willingness to Harvest Sawlogs and Woody Biomass: The Effect of Price on Social Availability," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 0, pages 1-21.
    2. Keith L. Kline & Virginia H. Dale & Erin Rose & Bruce Tonn, 2021. "Effects of Production of Woody Pellets in the Southeastern United States on the Sustainable Development Goals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-19, January.
    3. Dulys, Elena & Swinton, Scott & Klammer, Sarah, 2016. "What Drives the Potential Supply of Timber Residues from Private Lands?," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 242363, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Quan-Hoang Vuong & Quang-Loc Nguyen & Ruining Jin & Minh-Hieu Thi Nguyen & Thi-Phuong Nguyen & Viet-Phuong La & Minh-Hoang Nguyen, 2023. "Increasing Supply for Woody-Biomass-Based Energy through Wasted Resources: Insights from US Private Landowners," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-20, May.
    5. Leban, Vasja & Pezdevšek Malovrh, Špela & Zadnik Stirn, Lidija & Krč, Janez, 2016. "Forest biomass for energy in multi-functional forest management: Insight into the perceptions of forest-related professionals," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 87-93.
    6. Pradipta Halder & Javier Arevalo & Liisa Tahvanainen & Paavo Pelkonen, 2014. "Benefits and Challenges Associated with the Development of Forest-Based Bioenergy Projects in India: Results from an Expert Survey," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-12, March.
    7. Gutierrez, Ana L. & Penn, Jerrod & Tanger, Shaun & Blazier, Michael, 2020. "Conservation Easement Landowners’ WTA Compensation to Thin their Forest," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304551, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Galik, Christopher S., 2015. "Exploring the determinants of emerging bioenergy market participation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 107-116.
    9. Khanal, Puskar N. & Grebner, Donald L. & Munn, Ian A. & Grado, Stephen C. & Grala, Robert K. & Henderson, James E., 2017. "Evaluating non-industrial private forest landowner willingness to manage for forest carbon sequestration in the southern United States," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 112-119.
    10. Wolde, Bernabas & Lal, Pankaj & Burli, Pralhad, 2017. "Forestland owners’ willingness to consider multiple ways of supplying biomass simultaneously: Implications for biofuel incentive policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 183-190.
    11. Joshi, Omkar & Grebner, Donald L. & Hussain, Anwar & Grado, Stephen C., 2013. "Landowner knowledge and willingness to supply woody biomass for wood-based bioenergy: Sample selection approach," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 97-109.
    12. repec:ags:aaea16:235752 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Sarah Mittlefehldt & Erin Bunting & Emily Huff & Joseph Welsh & Robert Goodwin, 2021. "New Methods for Assessing Sustainability of Wood-Burning Energy Facilities: Combining Historical and Spatial Approaches," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-18, November.
    14. Ugarte Lucas, Paula & Gamborg, Christian & Lund, Thomas Bøker, 2022. "Sustainability concerns are key to understanding public attitudes toward woody biomass for energy: A survey of Danish citizens," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 181-194.
    15. Fanny Groundstroem & Sirkku Juhola, 2021. "Using systems thinking and causal loop diagrams to identify cascading climate change impacts on bioenergy supply systems," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 26(7), pages 1-48, October.
    16. Mutandwa, Edward & Grala, Robert K. & Petrolia, Daniel R., 2019. "Estimates of willingness to accept compensation to manage pine stands for ecosystem services," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 75-85.
    17. Omoyemeh J. Ile & Hanna McCormick & Sheila Skrabacz & Shamik Bhattacharya & Maricar Aguilos & Henrique D. R. Carvalho & Joshua Idassi & Justin Baker & Joshua L. Heitman & John S. King, 2022. "Integrating Short Rotation Woody Crops into Conventional Agricultural Practices in the Southeastern United States: A Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-26, December.
    18. Marzano, Mariella & Dandy, Norman & Papazova-Anakieva, Irena & Avtzis, Dimitrios & Connolly, Tom & Eschen, René & Glavendekić, Milka & Hurley, Brett & Lindelöw, Åke & Matošević, Dinka & Tomov, Rumen &, 2016. "Assessing awareness of tree pests and pathogens amongst tree professionals: A pan-European perspective," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 164-171.
    19. Milis, Kevin & Peremans, Herbert & Springael, Johan & Van Passel, Steven, 2019. "Win-win possibilities through capacity tariffs and battery storage in microgrids," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1-1.
    20. Qu, Mei & Lin, Ying & Liu, Can & Yao, Shunbo & Cao, Yang, 2016. "Farmers׳ perceptions of developing forest based bioenergy in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 581-589.
    21. Josset, Clement & Shanafelt, David W. & Abildtrup, Jens & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Probabilistic typology of private forest owners: A tool to target the development of new market for ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    22. Mutandwa, Edward & Grala, Robert K. & Grebner, Donald L., 2016. "Family forest land availability for the production of ecosystem services in Mississippi, United States," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 18-24.
    23. Choudhury, Hari K. & Goswami, Kishor, 2013. "Determinants of expansion of area under jatropha plantation in North East India: A Tobit analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 46-52.
    24. Pokharel, Raju & Grala, Robert K. & Grebner, Donald L., 2017. "Woody residue utilization for bioenergy by primary forest products manufacturers: An exploratory analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(P1), pages 161-171.
    25. Thapa, Bhawna & Chapagain, Binod P. & McMurry, Scott T. & Smith, Loren M. & Joshi, Omkar, 2024. "Understanding landowner participation in the Conservation Reserve Program in the U.S. High Plains region," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(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. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro & Ruiz-Gauna, Itziar & Campos, Pablo, 2016. "Testing convergent validity in choice experiments: Application to public recreation in Spanish stone pine and cork oak forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 130-148.
    2. Gorm Kipperberg & Douglas Larson, 2012. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Community Recycling Programs," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 53(4), pages 577-604, December.
    3. Willmarth, Blake & Turner, Robert, 2010. "Respondent Consistency in a Tournament-Style Contingent Choice Survey," Working Papers 2010-05, Department of Economics, Colgate University.
    4. Yiling Deng & Ian A. Munn & Haibo Yao, 2021. "Attributes‐based conjoint analysis of landowner preferences for standing timber insurance," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 24(4), pages 421-444, December.
    5. Harrison, R. Wes & Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Fields, Deacue, 2001. "Theoretical And Empirical Considerations Of Eliciting Preferences And Model Estimation In Conjoint Analysis," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20680, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    6. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    7. Emma McIntosh, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments within a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 855-868, September.
    8. Harrison, R. Wes & Mclennon, Everald, 2004. "Analysis of Consumer Preferences for Biotech Labeling Formats," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(1), pages 1-13, April.
    9. Vokoun, Melinda & Amacher, Gregory S. & Sullivan, Jay & Wear, Dave, 2010. "Examining incentives for adjacent non-industrial private forest landowners to cooperate," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 104-110, February.
    10. Julia Touza & Charles Perrings & María Chas Amil, 2010. "Harvest Decisions and Spatial Landscape Attributes: The Case of Galician Communal Forests," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(1), pages 75-91, May.
    11. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2001. "Logit Models For Pooled Contingent Valuation And Contingent Rating And Ranking Data: Valuing Benefits From Forest Biodiversity Conservation," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20616, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. Farber, Stephen & Griner, Brian, 2000. "Valuing watershed quality improvements using conjoint analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 63-76, July.
    13. Qu, Mei & Lin, Ying & Liu, Can & Yao, Shunbo & Cao, Yang, 2016. "Farmers׳ perceptions of developing forest based bioenergy in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 581-589.
    14. van den Berg, Bernard & Al, Maiwenn & Brouwer, Werner & van Exel, Job & Koopmanschap, Marc, 2005. "Economic valuation of informal care: The conjoint measurement method applied to informal caregiving," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(6), pages 1342-1355, September.
    15. Arifin, Bustanul & Swallow, Brent M. & Suyanto, S. & Coe, Richard D., 2009. "A conjoint analysis of farmer preferences for community forestry contracts in the Sumber Jaya Watershed, Indonesia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 2040-2050, May.
    16. David F. Layton & Gardner Brown & Mark L. Plummer, 1999. "Valuing Multiple Programs to Improve Fish Populations," Working Papers 0042, University of Washington, Department of Economics.
    17. Frateschi, Carlofilippo & Lazzaro, Elisabetta & Palma Martos, Luis, 2009. "A Comparative Econometric Analysis of Museum Attendance by Locals and Foreigners: The Cases of Padua and Seville/Un análisis econométrico comparado de las asistencias a los museos por parte del públic," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 27, pages 177-198, Abril.
    18. Swallow, Stephen K. & Opaluch, James J. & Weaver, Thomas F., 2001. "Strength-of-Preference Indicators and an Ordered-Response Model for Ordinarily Dichotomous, Discrete Choice Data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 70-93, January.
    19. Poe, Gregory, 1997. ""Maximizing the Environmental Benefits per Dollar Expended" An Economic Interpretation and Review of Agricultural Environmental Benefits and Costs," EB Series 186405, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    20. Sullivan, Jay & Aggett, Jonathan & Amacher, Greg & Burger, James, 2005. "Financial viability of reforesting reclaimed surface mined lands, the burden of site conversion costs, and carbon payments as reforestation incentives," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 247-258, December.

    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:forpol:v:15:y:2012:i:c:p:140-145. 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/forpol .

    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.