IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v15y2022i10p3721-d818923.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Industrial End-Users’ Preferred Characteristics for Wood Biomass Feedstocks

Author

Listed:
  • Kalvis Kons

    (Skogforsk, The Forestry Research Institute of Sweden, Uppsala Science Park, SE-751 83 Uppsala, Sweden)

  • Boško Blagojević

    (Department of Water Management, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Novi Sad, Trg. D. Obradovica 8, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia)

  • Blas Mola-Yudego

    (School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland (UEF), F-80101 Joensuu, Finland
    Department of Crop Production Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden)

  • Robert Prinz

    (Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Yliopistokatu 6 B, F-80100 Joensuu, Finland)

  • Johanna Routa

    (Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Yliopistokatu 6 B, F-80100 Joensuu, Finland)

  • Biljana Kulisic

    (Department for Renewable Energy Sources, Climate and Environmental Protection, Energy Institute Hrvoje Pozar (EIHP), Savska c.163, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia)

  • Bruno Gagnon

    (Economic Analysis Division, Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, ON K1A 0E4, Canada)

  • Dan Bergström

    (Department of Forest Biomaterials and Technology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-901 83 Umeå, Sweden)

Abstract

The use of sustainably sourced biomass is an important tool for mitigating the effects of climate change; but biomass is far from being a homogeneous resource. The aim of this study was to examine the decision-making process of industrial end-users considering biomass procurement. An online, two-part survey generated responses from 27 experienced professionals, representing a portfolio of facilities varying in size, technology, and biomass types, across Australia, Canada, Finland, and Sweden. A PAPRIKA conjoint analysis approach was used to analyze the data so that the attributes that influenced procurement decisions could be weighted and ranked. The results provided an insight into end-users’ views on factors including facility location, size, and biomass storage, handling, and procurement for different wood-based industrial services. The most important decision-making attribute appeared to be the type of biomass assortment, at individual, national, and aggregated levels. Of seven sub-categories of biomass assortments, sawdust (35%) was the most preferred type followed by stem wood chips (20%) and energy wood (15%). We concluded that, from the end-user’s perspective, a pre-defined biomass assortment is the most important factor when deciding on feedstock procurement at a bioenergy facility. These results help us better understand end-users’ perceptions of biomass properties in relation to their conversion processes and supply preferences and can inform product development and the securement of new niches in alternative business environments by existing and future biohubs.

Suggested Citation

  • Kalvis Kons & Boško Blagojević & Blas Mola-Yudego & Robert Prinz & Johanna Routa & Biljana Kulisic & Bruno Gagnon & Dan Bergström, 2022. "Industrial End-Users’ Preferred Characteristics for Wood Biomass Feedstocks," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-22, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:10:p:3721-:d:818923
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/10/3721/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/10/3721/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mola-Yudego, Blas & Selkimäki, Mari & González-Olabarria, José Ramón, 2014. "Spatial analysis of the wood pellet production for energy in Europe," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 76-83.
    2. Kulisic, Biljana & Dimitriou, Ioannis & Mola-Yudego, Blas, 2021. "From preferences to concerted policy on mandated share for renewable energy in transport," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    3. Aguilar, Francisco X., 2009. "Investment preferences for wood-based energy initiatives in the US," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2292-2299, June.
    4. Waheed A. Rasaq & Mateusz Golonka & Miklas Scholz & Andrzej Białowiec, 2021. "Opportunities and Challenges of High-Pressure Fast Pyrolysis of Biomass: A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-20, August.
    5. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    6. Schillo, R. Sandra & Isabelle, Diane A. & Shakiba, Abtin, 2017. "Linking advanced biofuels policies with stakeholder interests: A method building on Quality Function Deployment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 126-137.
    7. 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.
    8. Selkimäki, Mari & Mola-Yudego, Blas & Röser, Dominik & Prinz, Robert & Sikanen, Lauri, 2010. "Present and future trends in pellet markets, raw materials, and supply logistics in Sweden and Finland," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(9), pages 3068-3075, December.
    9. Samuel D. Bond & Kurt A. Carlson & Ralph L. Keeney, 2008. "Generating Objectives: Can Decision Makers Articulate What They Want?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(1), pages 56-70, January.
    10. Larsen, Rune & Rich, Jeppe & Rasmussen, Thomas Kjær, 2019. "Hub-based truck platooning: Potentials and profitability," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 249-264.
    11. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Claxton, Karl & Stoddart, Greg L. & Torrance, George W., 2015. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780199665884.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Pitak, Lakkana & Sirisomboon, Panmanas & Saengprachatanarug, Khwantri & Wongpichet, Seree & Posom, Jetsada, 2021. "Rapid elemental composition measurement of commercial pellets using line-scan hyperspectral imaging analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    2. Proskurina, Svetlana & Heinimö, Jussi & Mikkilä, Mirja & Vakkilainen, Esa, 2015. "The wood pellet business in Russia with the role of North-West Russian regions: Present trends and future challenges," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 730-740.
    3. Proskurina, Svetlana & Rimppi, Heli & Heinimö, Jussi & Hansson, Julia & Orlov, Anton & Raghu, KC & Vakkilainen, Esa, 2016. "Logistical, economic, environmental and regulatory conditions for future wood pellet transportation by sea to Europe: The case of Northwest Russian seaports," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 38-50.
    4. Nunes, João & Freitas, Helena, 2016. "An indicator to assess the pellet production per forest area. A case-study from Portugal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 99-105.
    5. Proskurina, Svetlana & Alakangas, Eija & Heinimö, Jussi & Mikkilä, Mirja & Vakkilainen, Esa, 2017. "A survey analysis of the wood pellet industry in Finland: Future perspectives," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 692-704.
    6. Ishizaka, Alessio & Siraj, Sajid, 2018. "Are multi-criteria decision-making tools useful? An experimental comparative study of three methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 462-471.
    7. Mohebalian, Phillip M. & Aguilar, Francisco X., 2018. "Design of tropical forest conservation contracts considering risk of deforestation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 451-462.
    8. Irina Pokhilenko & Luca M. M. Janssen & Aggie T. G. Paulus & Ruben M. W. A. Drost & William Hollingworth & Joanna C. Thorn & Sian Noble & Judit Simon & Claudia Fischer & Susanne Mayer & Luis Salvador-, 2023. "Development of an Instrument for the Assessment of Health-Related Multi-sectoral Resource Use in Europe: The PECUNIA RUM," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 155-166, March.
    9. Winfried Steiner & Harald Hruschka, 2002. "A Probabilistic One-Step Approach to the Optimal Product Line Design Problem Using Conjoint and Cost Data," Review of Marketing Science Working Papers 1-4-1003, Berkeley Electronic Press.
    10. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Don Husereau, 2020. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Services Provided by Community Pharmacists," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 375-392, June.
    11. Merja Halme & Kari Linden & Kimmo Kääriä, 2009. "Patients’ Preferences for Generic and Branded Over-the-Counter Medicines," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(4), pages 243-255, December.
    12. Dufhues, T. & Buchenrieder, G., 2004. "Der Beitrag der Conjoint Analyse zur nachfrageorintierten Entwicklung des ländlichen Finanzsektors in Vietnam," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 39.
    13. Martinovici, A., 2019. "Revealing attention - how eye movements predict brand choice and moment of choice," Other publications TiSEM 7dca38a5-9f78-4aee-bd81-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    14. Comino, E. & Ferretti, V., 2016. "Indicators-based spatial SWOT analysis: supporting the strategic planning and management of complex territorial systems," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 64142, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Andrew J. Mirelman & Miqdad Asaria & Bryony Dawkins & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson & Peter Berman, 2020. "Fairer Decisions, Better Health for All: Health Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Paul Revill & Marc Suhrcke & Rodrigo Moreno-Serra & Mark Sculpher (ed.), Global Health Economics Shaping Health Policy in Low- and Middle-Income Countries, chapter 4, pages 99-132, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    16. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, March.
    17. Wang, Zhiwei & Lei, Tingzhou & Chang, Xia & Shi, Xinguang & Xiao, Ju & Li, Zaifeng & He, Xiaofeng & Zhu, Jinling & Yang, Shuhua, 2015. "Optimization of a biomass briquette fuel system based on grey relational analysis and analytic hierarchy process: A study using cornstalks in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 523-532.
    18. Mahesh Balan U & Saji K. Mathew, 2021. "Personalize, Summarize or Let them Read? A Study on Online Word of Mouth Strategies and Consumer Decision Process," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 627-647, June.
    19. Shin, Jungwoo & Hwang, Won-Sik, 2017. "Consumer preference and willingness to pay for a renewable fuel standard (RFS) policy: Focusing on ex-ante market analysis and segmentation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 32-40.
    20. Haaijer, Marinus E., 1996. "Predictions in conjoint choice experiments : the x-factor probit model," Research Report 96B22, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).

    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:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:10:p:3721-:d:818923. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.