IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v16y2022i1p5-d1008623.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Categorisation of Biogas Plant Operators in Germany with Regards to Their Intention to Use Straw Pellets as Innovative and Sustainable Substrate Alternative

Author

Listed:
  • Sören Mohrmann

    (Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, University of Göttingen, 37073 Göttingen, Germany)

  • Verena Otter

    (Business Management & Organisation Group, Wageningen University, 6706 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands)

Abstract

The cultivation of renewable raw materials on arable land is challenged by the ongoing fuel-versus-food debate resulting from increases in maize cultivation, shorter crop rotations and land competition. Accordingly, the current legal framework for biogas production in Germany focuses on limiting cultivation of traditional biogas substrates, such as silage maize, and promoting the use of various alternatives, such as waste materials and by-products. One new sustainable substrate alternative is the use of cereal straw compacted to pellets. Although straw pellets generally have good fermentation properties, they are still rarely used in German biogas production. Since earlier research on agricultural production practices in general has shown that farmers can be divided into groups regarding their acceptance behaviour and the speed to successfully adopt innovative practices and technologies on their farm, this study addresses the research question: How can biogas plant operators in Germany be categorised with regards to their intention to use straw pellets as innovative and sustainable substrate alternatives? In order to answer this question an exploratory factor analysis and subsequent hierarchical cluster analysis was conducted with survey data obtained from German biogas plant operators ( n = 309) in early 2021. Based on variables indicating the intention to use and use behaviour regarding straw pellets in biogas plants, four clusters are identified. Plant operator’s innovativeness , perceived risk and the influence of social environment show differences between the clusters. Additionally, the characteristics of the innovation “straw pellets”, such as economic performance and sustainability , were assessed differently by the four clusters of German biogas plant operators. While the clusters do not show significant differences in the socio-demographic characteristics, they do so in the farm characteristics ( farm activities besides biogas production , size of the plant , the proportion of slurry/dung and silage maize ). According to the results two of the four clusters have a higher acceptance of straw pellets, which also means that they are earlier in considering the actual use. The initiation of regional working groups, information campaigns and financial incentives can support plant operators, especially in the two clusters of potential early adopters, in accepting straw pellets. This should ultimately result in a faster and wider use of straw pellets as substrates in the whole biogas sector.

Suggested Citation

  • Sören Mohrmann & Verena Otter, 2022. "Categorisation of Biogas Plant Operators in Germany with Regards to Their Intention to Use Straw Pellets as Innovative and Sustainable Substrate Alternative," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-26, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2022:i:1:p:5-:d:1008623
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/1/5/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/1/5/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christopher Schmid & Thomas Horschig & Alexandra Pfeiffer & Nora Szarka & Daniela Thrän, 2019. "Biogas Upgrading: A Review of National Biomethane Strategies and Support Policies in Selected Countries," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-24, October.
    2. W. Viscusi & Owen Phillips & Stephan Kroll, 2011. "Risky investment decisions: How are individuals influenced by their groups?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 81-106, October.
    3. Deimel, Mark & Theuvsen, Ludwig & Ebbeskotte, Christof, 2008. "Von der Wertschöpfungskette zum Netzwerk: methodische Ansätze zur Analyse des Verbundsystems der Veredelungswirtschaft Nordwestdeutschlands," DARE Discussion Papers 0810, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    4. Cornelis Gardebroek & Alfons G.J.M. Oude Lansink, 2004. "Farm‐specific Adjustment Costs in Dutch Pig Farming," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(1), pages 3-24, March.
    5. Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge & Beach, E. Douglas & Huang, Wen-Yuan, 1994. "The Adoption of IPM Techniques By Vegetable Growers in Florida, Michigan and Texas," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(1), pages 158-172, July.
    6. Ignaciuk, Wiktor & Sulewski, Piotr, 2021. "Conditions of Development of The Agricultural Biogas Industry in Poland in The Context of Historical Experiences and Challenges of The European Green Deal," Problems of Agricultural Economics / Zagadnienia Ekonomiki Rolnej 319782, Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics - National Research Institute (IAFE-NRI).
    7. Foster, Andrew D & Rosenzweig, Mark R, 1995. "Learning by Doing and Learning from Others: Human Capital and Technical Change in Agriculture," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(6), pages 1176-1209, December.
    8. Britz, Wolfgang & Delzeit, Ruth, 2013. "The impact of German biogas production on European and global agricultural markets, land use and the environment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1268-1275.
    9. Kathrin Hasler & Hans-Werner Olfs & Onno Omta & Stefanie Bröring, 2017. "Drivers for the Adoption of Different Eco-Innovation Types in the Fertilizer Sector: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-22, November.
    10. Hyland, John J. & Heanue, Kevin & McKillop, Jessica & Micha, Evgenia, 2018. "Factors underlying farmers' intentions to adopt best practices: The case of paddock based grazing systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 97-106.
    11. Arnaud Reynaud & Stéphane Couture, 2012. "Stability of risk preference measures: results from a field experiment on French farmers," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 203-221, August.
    12. 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.
    13. Beer, Lara & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2020. "Factors influencing German farmer’s decision to grow alley cropping systems as ecological focus areas: a regression analysis," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 23(4), June.
    14. Emmann, Carsten H. & Arens, Ludwig & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2013. "Individual acceptance of the biogas innovation: A structural equation model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 372-378.
    15. Kröger, Rhena & Konerding, Jan Robert & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2016. "Identifikation von Einflussfaktoren auf die Nutzung von Güllefeststoffen als Gärsubstrat in Biogasanlagen," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 65(02), June.
    16. Daniele Mozzato & Paola Gatto & Edi Defrancesco & Lucia Bortolini & Francesco Pirotti & Elena Pisani & Luigi Sartori, 2018. "The Role of Factors Affecting the Adoption of Environmentally Friendly Farming Practices: Can Geographical Context and Time Explain the Differences Emerging from Literature?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-23, August.
    17. Lantz, Mikael & Svensson, Mattias & Bjornsson, Lovisa & Borjesson, Pal, 2007. "The prospects for an expansion of biogas systems in Sweden--Incentives, barriers and potentials," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 1830-1843, March.
    18. Voss, J. & Schaper, C. & Spiller, A. & Theuvsen, L., 2009. "Innovationsverhalten in der deutschen Landwirtschaft – Empirische Ergebnisse am Beispiel der Biogasproduktion," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 44, March.
    19. Faiers, Adam & Neame, Charles, 2006. "Consumer attitudes towards domestic solar power systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(14), pages 1797-1806, September.
    20. Mola-Yudego, Blas & Dimitriou, Ioannis & Gonzalez-Garcia, Sara & Gritten, David & Aronsson, Pär, 2014. "A conceptual framework for the introduction of energy crops," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 29-38.
    21. Steinhorst, M.P. & Empl, J.-B. & Bahrs, E., 2015. "Interdependenzen zwischen Risikoeinstellungen und Entscheidungen in der Planung sowie im Betrieb von Biogasanlagen," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 50, March.
    22. Veronika Hannus & Johannes Sauer, 2021. "Understanding Farmers’ Intention to Use a Sustainability Standard: The Role of Economic Rewards, Knowledge, and Ease of Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-21, September.
    23. Wellner, Katharina & Theuvsen, Ludwig & Heise, Heinke, 2019. "Die Teilnahmebereitschaft deutscher Landwirte an der Initiative Tierwohl - Wodurch wird sie beeinflusst?," 59th Annual Conference, Braunschweig, Germany, September 25-27, 2019 292274, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    24. Bartoli, A. & Cavicchioli, D. & Kremmydas, D. & Rozakis, S. & Olper, A., 2016. "The impact of different energy policy options on feedstock price and land demand for maize silage: The case of biogas in Lombardy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 351-363.
    25. Yari Vecchio & Giulio Paolo Agnusdei & Pier Paolo Miglietta & Fabian Capitanio, 2020. "Adoption of Precision Farming Tools: The Case of Italian Farmers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-16, January.
    26. Friedrich Rübcke von Veltheim & Heinke Heise, 2021. "German Farmers’ Attitudes on Adopting Autonomous Field Robots: An Empirical Survey," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-19, March.
    27. Knowler, Duncan & Bradshaw, Ben, 2007. "Farmers' adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 25-48, February.
    28. James Breen & Darragh Clancy & Brian Moran & Fiona Thorne, 2009. "Modelling the potential supply of energy crops in Ireland: results from a probit model examining the factors affecting willingness to adopt," Working Papers 0905, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    29. Christian Schaper & Ludwig Theuvsen & Achim Spiller, 2010. "Risikoneigung und Risikoverhalten von Milch-erzeugern: Eine Typologisierung," Journal of Socio-Economics in Agriculture (Until 2015: Yearbook of Socioeconomics in Agriculture), Swiss Society for Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, vol. 3(1), pages 157-193.
    30. Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge & Beach, E. Douglas & Huang, Wen-Yuan, 1994. "The Adoption Of Ipm Techniques By Vegetable Growers In Florida, Michigan And Texas," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(1), pages 1-15, July.
    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. Mohrmann, Sören & Schaper, Christian & Otter, Verena, 2022. "Strohpellets als innovatives Alternativsubstrat in der Biogasproduktion: Ergebnisse einer empirischen Analyse," 62nd Annual Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, September 7-9, 2022 329607, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    2. Beer, Lara & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2020. "Factors influencing German farmer’s decision to grow alley cropping systems as ecological focus areas: a regression analysis," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 23(4), June.
    3. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    4. Magali Aubert & Orane Debrune & Joël Huat & Laurent Parrot, 2017. "The institutional environment as an essential support to agro ecology: the case of the formal market gardeners in Mayotte," Post-Print hal-02733930, HAL.
    5. Magali Aubert & Jean Marie Codron & Sylvain Rousset & Murat Yercan, 2017. "Which factors lead tomato growers to implement integrated pest management? Evidence from Turkey," Post-Print hal-02735805, HAL.
    6. Otter, Verena & Deutsch, Maximilian, 2023. "Did policy lose sight of the wood for the trees? An UTAUT-based partial least squares estimation of farmers acceptance of innovative sustainable land use systems," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    7. Codron, Jean-Marie & Adanacioğlu, Hakan & Aubert, Magali & Bouhsina, Zouhair & El Mekki, Abdelkader Ait & Rousset, Sylvain & Tozanli, Selma & Yercan, Murat, 2014. "The role of market forces and food safety institutions in the adoption of sustainable farming practices: The case of the fresh tomato export sector in Morocco and Turkey," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 268-280.
    8. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    9. Wollni, Meike & Andersson, Camilla, 2014. "Spatial patterns of organic agriculture adoption: Evidence from Honduras," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 120-128.
    10. Hermann, Daniel & Musshoff, Oliver & Agethen, Katrin, 2014. "I will never switch sides: an experimental approach to determine drivers for investment decisions of conventional and organic hog farmers," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 183084, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Xuezhen Xu & Fang Wang & Tao Xu & Sufyan Ullah Khan, 2023. "How Does Capital Endowment Impact Farmers’ Green Production Behavior? Perspectives on Ecological Cognition and Environmental Regulation," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-27, August.
    12. L. Toma & A. P. Barnes & L.-A. Sutherland & S. Thomson & F. Burnett & K. Mathews, 2018. "Impact of information transfer on farmers’ uptake of innovative crop technologies: a structural equation model applied to survey data," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 864-881, August.
    13. Magali Aubert & Geoffroy Enjolras, 2016. "Do short food supply chains go hand in hand with environment-friendly practices? An analysis of French farms," International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 12(2), pages 189-213.
    14. Röder, Mirjam, 2016. "More than food or fuel. Stakeholder perceptions of anaerobic digestion and land use; a case study from the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 73-81.
    15. Tiffany Shih & Brian Wright, 2011. "Agricultural Innovation," NBER Chapters, in: Accelerating Energy Innovation: Insights from Multiple Sectors, pages 49-85, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Antonia Grohmann & Sahra Sakha, 2015. "The Effect of Peer Observation on Consumption Choices: Experimental Evidence," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1525, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    17. Margarita Velandia & Roderick Rejesus & Christopher Clark & Karen L. DeLong & Annette Wszelaki & Susan Schexnayder & Kimberly Jensen, 2020. "Evaluating the Relationship between Fruit and Vegetable Growers Use of Plastic Biodegradable Mulches, and Environmental Stewardship and Labor Savings: The Case of Tennessee Fruit and Vegetable Farmers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, March.
    18. Yanbing Wang & Niklas Möhring & Robert Finger, 2023. "When my neighbors matter: Spillover effects in the adoption of large‐scale pesticide‐free wheat production," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 54(2), pages 256-273, March.
    19. Daxini, Amar & O’Donoghue, Cathal & Ryan, Mary & Buckley, Cathal & Barnes, Andrew P., 2018. "Factors influencing farmers' intentions to adopt nutrient management planning: accounting for heterogeneity," 166th Seminar, August 30-31, 2018, Galway, West of Ireland 276183, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Keshav Lall Maharjan & Clarisse Gonzalvo & Wilson Aala, 2022. "Dynamics of Environmental Conservation Agriculture (ECA) Utilization among Fujioka Farmers in Japan with High Biodiversity Conservation Awareness but Low ECA Interest," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-16, April.

    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:16:y:2022:i:1:p:5-:d:1008623. 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.