IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare12/124428.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Design of substrate supply contracts for biogas plants

Author

Listed:
  • Reise, Christian
  • Liebe, Ulf
  • Musshoff, Oliver

Abstract

For a sustainable development of energy production in biogas plants, the continuous supply with substrates is essential. To the authors’ knowledge, there have not been carried out any quantitative investigations of farmers’ choices with regard to supply contracts for biogas plants. Thus, it has been only possible to a limited extent to make predictions for a targeted design of supply contracts. We therefore investigated different factors, which might be relevant for the conclusion of substrate supply contracts, by conducting a survey with 178 German farmers. The survey included a choice experiment, in which participants were confronted with different contract attributes (features). These attributes were varied systematically and thus revealed the influence of each individual feature on the probability of contract conclusion. It becomes clear that the farmers interviewed prefer to conclude contracts with other farmers or with a bioenergy village to non-agricultural investors. The probability of contract conclusion decreases with an increasing lifetime of the contract. However, a contract with a higher sales price is more attractive for the farmers. The investigation of the characteristics of respondents shows that the amount of the premium for one additional year of contractual lifetime depends on the individual valuation of the entrepreneurial freedom of the respective farm manager. It cannot be established that risk-averse farmers tend to prefer contracts with fixed prices over contracts with price adjustment clauses. In addition, there are no great differences in the choice behaviour of farmers who have signed a substrate supply contract and farmers without this experience. Regarding the expansion of renewable energies, these findings are meaningful for a target-aimed design of supply contracts.

Suggested Citation

  • Reise, Christian & Liebe, Ulf & Musshoff, Oliver, 2012. "Design of substrate supply contracts for biogas plants," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124428, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare12:124428
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.124428
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/124428/files/2012AC%20Reise%20CP.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.124428?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Oliver Musshoff & Norbert Hirschauer, 2008. "Investment planning under uncertainty and flexibility: the case of a purchasable sales contract ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(1), pages 17-36, March.
    2. Enneking, Ulrich, 2003. "Die Analyse von Lebensmittelpräferenzen mit Hilfe von Discrete-Choice-Modellen am Beispiel ökologisch produzierter Wurstwaren," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 52(05), pages 1-14.
    3. Key, Nigel D., 2004. "Agricultural Contracting and the Scale of Production," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 33(2), pages 1-17, October.
    4. Steinhorst, Martin P. & Bahrs, Enno, 2011. "Die Analyse der Rationalität im Verhalten von Stakeholdern des Agribusiness anhand eines Experiments," 51st Annual Conference, Halle, Germany, September 28-30, 2011 114490, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    5. Schaper, Christian & Emmann, Carsten H. & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2011. "Der Markt für Bioenergie 2011," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 60(Supplemen), pages 1-20, February.
    6. Peter Bogetoft & Henrik Ballebye Olesen, 2002. "Ten rules of thumb in contract design: lessons from Danish agriculture," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 29(2), pages 185-204, June.
    7. Schulze Steinmann, Matthias & Holm-Muller, Karin, 2010. "Thünensche Ringe der Biogaserzeugung – der Einfluss der Transportwürdigkeit nachwachsender Rohstoffe auf die Rohstoffwahl von Biogasanlagen," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 59(01), pages 1-12, March.
    8. Schulze Steinmann, Matthias & Holm-Muller, Karin, 2010. "Thünensche Ringe der Biogaserzeugung – der Einfluss der Transportwürdigkeit nachwachsender Rohstoffe auf die Rohstoffwahl von Biogasanlagen," Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, vol. 59(1).
    9. Schmitz, Kim & Schmitz, P. Michael & Wronka, Tobias C., 2003. "Bewertung von Landschaftsfunktionen mit Choice Experiments," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 52(08), pages 1-11.
    10. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    11. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    12. Steffen Andersen & Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2008. "Eliciting Risk and Time Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(3), pages 583-618, May.
    13. Tiedemann, Torben & Breustedt, Gunnar & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2011. "Risikoberücksichtigung in der nicht parametrischen Effizienzanalyse: Auswirkungen auf die Effizienzbewertung von deutschen Schweinemastbetrieben," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 60(04), pages 1-15, November.
    14. Brian Roe & Thomas L. Sporleder & Betsy Belleville, 2004. "Hog Producer Preferences for Marketing Contract Attributes," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 115-123.
    15. Ani L. Katchova & Mario J. Miranda, 2004. "Two-Step Econometric Estimation of Farm Characteristics Affecting Marketing Contract Decisions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 88-102.
    16. Gebrezgabher, Solomie A. & Meuwissen, Miranda P.M. & Oude Lansink, Alfons G.J.M., 2010. "Costs of Producing Biogas at Dairy Farms in The Netherlands," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 1(1), pages 1-10.
    17. Loewenstein, George, 1999. "Experimental Economics from the Vantage-Point of Behavioural Economics," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 109(453), pages 23-34, February.
    18. Matthias Benz, "undated". "Entrepreneurship as a non-profit-seeking activity," IEW - Working Papers 243, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    19. Reise, Christian & Musshoff, Oliver & Granoszewski, Karol & Spiller, Achim, 2012. "Which factors influence the expansion of bioenergy? An empirical study of the investment behaviours of German farmers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 133-141.
    20. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2005. "Individual Risk Attitudes: New Evidence from a Large, Representative, Experimentally-Validated Survey," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 511, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    21. Enno Bahrs & Stephan Kroll & Matthias Sutter, 2008. "Trading Agricultural Payment Entitlements: An Experimental Investigation of Bilateral Negotiations," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(5), pages 1201-1207.
    22. David R. Just & Steven Y. Wu, 2009. "Experimental Economics and the Economics of Contracts," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1382-1388.
    23. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, November.
    24. Key, Nigel D. & MacDonald, James M., 2006. "Agricultural Contracting Trading Autonomy for Risk Reduction," Amber Waves:The Economics of Food, Farming, Natural Resources, and Rural America, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, pages 1-6, February.
    25. List John A. & Sinha Paramita & Taylor Michael H., 2006. "Using Choice Experiments to Value Non-Market Goods and Services: Evidence from Field Experiments," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-39, January.
    26. Jongick Jang & Frayne Olson, 2010. "The role of product differentiation for contract choice in the agro-food sector," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 37(2), pages 251-273, June.
    27. Lisa A. Cameron, 1999. "The Importance of Learning in the Adoption of High-Yielding Variety Seeds," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(1), pages 83-94.
    28. Tiedemann, Torben & Breustedt, Gunnar & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2011. "Risikoberücksichtigung in der nicht parametrischen Effizienzanalyse: Auswirkungen auf die Effizienzbewertung von deutschen Schweinemastbetrieben," Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, vol. 60(4).
    29. Cheung, Yin-Wong & Friedman, Daniel, 1998. "A comparison of learning and replicator dynamics using experimental data," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 263-280, April.
    30. Brian E. Roe & David R. Just, 2009. "Internal and External Validity in Economics Research: Tradeoffs between Experiments, Field Experiments, Natural Experiments, and Field Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1266-1271.
    31. G. A. A. Wossink, 2003. "Biodiversity conservation by farmers: analysis of actual and contingent participation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 30(4), pages 461-485, December.
    32. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    33. Nigel Key, 2005. "How much do farmers value their independence?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 33(1), pages 117-126, July.
    34. Ping Qin & Fredrik Carlsson & Jintao Xu, 2011. "Forest Tenure Reform in China: A Choice Experiment on Farmers’ Property Rights Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(3), pages 473-487.
    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. 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.
    2. Sauthoff, Saramena & Anastassiadis, Friederike & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2015. "Analyzing farmers' preferences for substrate supply contracts for sugar beets," DARE Discussion Papers 1509, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).

    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. Reise, Christian & Liebe, Ulf & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2012. "Präferenzen von Landwirten bei der Gestaltung von Substratlieferverträgen für Biogasanlagen: Ein Choice-Experiment," Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, vol. 61(3).
    2. Reise, Christian & Liebe, Ulf & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2012. "Präferenzen von Landwirten bei der Gestaltung von Substratlieferverträgen für Biogasanlagen: Ein Choice-Experiment," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 61(03), pages 1-16, August.
    3. Granoszewski, Karol & Spiller, Achim, 2013. "Langfristige Rohstoffsicherung in der Supply Chain Biogas: Status Quo und Potenziale vertraglicher Zusammenarbeit," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 260820, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    4. Mußhoff, Oliver & Hirschauer, Norbert & Fahlbusch, Markus, 2014. "An Investigation into the Factors which Determine Farmers’ Acceptance of Supply Contracts: The Ethanol Beet Example," Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, vol. 63(1).
    5. Mußhoff, Oliver & Hirschauer, Norbert & Fahlbusch, Markus, 2014. "An Investigation into the Factors which Determine Farmers’ Acceptance of Supply Contracts: The Ethanol Beet Example," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 63(01), pages 1-15, March.
    6. Frasa, Stefanie & Carlberg, Jared & Hogan, Robert, 2015. "Use of Contracts by Prairie Agricultural Producers," Working Papers 232328, Structure and Performance of Agriculture and Agri-products Industry (SPAA).
    7. Syster C. Maart-Noelck & Oliver Musshoff & Moritz Maack, 2013. "The impact of price floors on farmland investments: a real options based experimental analysis," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(35), pages 4872-4882, December.
    8. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    9. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    10. Buchholz, Matthias & Danne, Michael & Musshoff, Oliver, 2022. "An experimental analysis of German farmers’ decisions to buy or rent farmland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    11. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2008. "Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: Evidence from an empirical study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 275-285, November.
    12. Richard G. Newell & Juha Siikamäki, 2014. "Nudging Energy Efficiency Behavior: The Role of Information Labels," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(4), pages 555-598.
    13. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Lagerkvist, Carl Johan, 2004. "Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare - transportation of farm animals to slaughter versus the use of mobile abattoirs," Working Papers in Economics 149, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    14. Venus, Terese E. & Sauer, Johannes, 2022. "Certainty pays off: The public's value of environmental monitoring," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    15. Jan Vanstockem & Liesbet Vranken & Brent Bleys & Ben Somers & Martin Hermy, 2018. "Do Looks Matter? A Case Study on Extensive Green Roofs Using Discrete Choice Experiments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, January.
    16. Felicetta Carillo & Francesco Caracciolo & Luigi Cembalo, 2017. "Do durum wheat producers benefit of vertical coordination?," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 5(1), pages 1-13, December.
    17. Tobias Holmsgaard Larsen & Thomas Lundhede & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2020. "Assessing the value of surface water and groundwater quality improvements when time lags and outcome uncertainty exist: Results from a choice experiment survey across four different countries," IFRO Working Paper 2020/12, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    18. Mußhoff, O. & Hirschauer, N., 2012. "Naive Deckungsbeitragsvergleiche führen bei Vorverträgen in die Ire – Lieferung von Industrierüben zur Bioethanolherstellung," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 47, March.
    19. Imran Khan & Hongdou Lei & Gaffar Ali & Shahid Ali & Minjuan Zhao, 2019. "Public Attitudes, Preferences and Willingness to Pay for River Ecosystem Services," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-17, October.
    20. Granoszewski, K. & Spiller, A., 2014. "Vertragliche Zusammenarbeit bei der energetischen Biomasselieferung: Einstellungen und Bindungsbereitschaften von deutschen Landwirten," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 49, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aare12:124428. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.html .

    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.