IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ifma11/345599.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

PR - The Future Contribution Of Bioenergy Enterprises To Rural Business Viability In The U.K. (p39-53)

Author

Listed:
  • Tate, Graham
  • Mbzibain, Aurelian

Abstract

Bioenergy has been granted an official role in the UK to contribute significantly to sustainability targets in the coming years and yet the position with farmers and rural entrepreneurs is generally confused. Financial support, electricity tariffs, the availability of advice and the profit foregone from other enterprises have all fluctuated. The level of adoption of the new technology is not as advanced as in other EU countries. This study seeks to discover why this could be by exploring the entrepreneurial, financial and motivational environments that bioenergy adopters are working in. The following hypotheses have been developed: 1. The entrepreneurial environment for bioenergy development in the UK is sympathetic to the needs of this emerging industry; 2. Adopters of bioenergy are positively motivated towards the venture; and3. Farm based bioenergy enterprises make a positive contribution to overall farm business viability. The UK government is looking to rural entrepreneurs to play a role in this through the adoption of bioenergy technologies which can contribute towards achieving the country’s energy and climate change targets and at the same time offer potential farm enterprises that could be viable long-term contributors to farm enterprise sustainability (NFU, 2008). The rate of adoption of bioenergy on-farms has been lower than expected suggesting that government objectives might not be achieved. This study extends and applies the concepts of entrepreneurship environment and country institutional profiles (Busenitz et al., 2000; Gnyawali and Fogel, 1994; Kostova, 1997) to a specific domain of entrepreneurship in the land based bioenergy sector in the UK. The UK bioenergy industry is comprised of a number of enterprises that reflect a relatively densely populated country that has historically comprised an even split between livestock/grass based enterprises and arable based enterprises. The former attracts interest in anaerobic digestion and biogas, whilst the latter attracts interest in biofuels and the combustion of wholecrops and crop residues for heat and power. The methodology and results of this study are expected to provide a framework geared towards stimulating the uptake of bioenergy on land based enterprises as a means for their regeneration and growth. A capital decision making model for the bioenergy sector is expected comprising of both qualitative and quantitative business drivers which explain the viability of farm based enterprises. This model should provide a basis for policy formulation as well as serve as an investment decision tool for all stakeholders involved with capital investment decisions in bioenergy enterprises.

Suggested Citation

  • Tate, Graham & Mbzibain, Aurelian, 2011. "PR - The Future Contribution Of Bioenergy Enterprises To Rural Business Viability In The U.K. (p39-53)," 18th Congress, Methven, New Zealand, 2011 345599, International Farm Management Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ifma11:345599
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.345599
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/345599/files/11_TateMbzibain_P39-53.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.345599?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. Sherrington, Chris & Moran, Dominic, 2010. "Modelling farmer uptake of perennial energy crops in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3567-3578, July.
    2. Beate Rotefoss & Lars Kolvereid, 2005. "Aspiring, nascent and fledgling entrepreneurs: an investigation of the business start-up process," Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(2), pages 109-127, March.
    3. Michael Burton & Dan Rigby & Trevor Young, 1999. "Analysis of the Determinants of Adoption of Organic Horticultural Techniques in the UK," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(1), pages 47-63, January.
    4. Georgine Fogel, 2001. "An Analysis of Entrepreneurial Environment and Enterprise Development in Hungary," Journal of Small Business Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 103-109, January.
    5. Mitchell, Catherine & Connor, Peter, 2004. "Renewable energy policy in the UK 1990-2003," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(17), pages 1935-1947, November.
    6. Gerard Mcelwee, 2006. "Farmers As Entrepreneurs: Developing Competitive Skills," Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship (JDE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 11(03), pages 187-206.
    7. Garry D Bruton & David Ahlstrom & Tomas Puky, 2009. "Institutional differences and the development of entrepreneurial ventures: A comparison of the venture capital industries in Latin America and Asia," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 40(5), pages 762-778, June.
    8. Joyce Willock & Ian J. Deary & Gareth Edwards‐Jones & Gavin J. Gibson & Murray J. McGregor & Alistair Sutherland & J. Barry Dent & Oliver Morgan & Robert Grieve, 1999. "The Role of Attitudes and Objectives in Farmer Decision Making: Business and Environmentally‐Oriented Behaviour in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 286-303, May.
    9. Estay, Christophe, 2004. "Setting up Businesses in France and the USA:: A Cross Cultural Analysis," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 452-463, August.
    10. Upreti, Bishnu Raj, 2004. "Conflict over biomass energy development in the United Kingdom: some observations and lessons from England and Wales," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 785-800, April.
    11. Jing Zhang & Poh-Kam Wong, 2008. "Networks vs. market methods in high-tech venture fundraising: the impact of institutional environment," Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(5), pages 409-430, September.
    12. Alina M. Zapalska & Helen Dabb & Geoff Perry, 2003. "Environmental Factors Affecting Entrepreneurial Activities: Indigenous Maori Entrepreneurs of New Zealand," Asia Pacific Business Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(2), pages 160-177, December.
    13. Buchholz, Thomas & Rametsteiner, Ewald & Volk, Timothy A. & Luzadis, Valerie A., 2009. "Multi Criteria Analysis for bioenergy systems assessments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 484-495, February.
    14. Tharakan, Pradeep J. & Volk, Timothy A. & Lindsey, Christopher A. & Abrahamson, Lawrence P. & White, Edwin H., 2005. "Evaluating the impact of three incentive programs on the economics of cofiring willow biomass with coal in New York State," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 337-347, February.
    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. Tate, Graham & Mbzibain, Aurelian, 2011. "The future contribution of bioenergy enterprises to rural business viability in the United Kingdom," International Journal of Agricultural Management, Institute of Agricultural Management, vol. 1(2), pages 1-15.
    2. Bayard, Budry & Jolly, Curtis, 2007. "Environmental behavior structure and socio-economic conditions of hillside farmers: A multiple-group structural equation modeling approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 433-440, May.
    3. Mathijs, Erik, 2002. "Social Capital and Farmers' Willingness to Adopt Countryside Stewardship Schemes," 13th Congress, Wageningen, The Netherlands, July 7-12, 2002 6981, International Farm Management Association.
    4. Glithero, N.J. & Ramsden, S.J. & Wilson, P., 2013. "Barriers and incentives to the production of bioethanol from cereal straw: A farm business perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 161-171.
    5. Iyer, Gokul & Hultman, Nathan & Eom, Jiyong & McJeon, Haewon & Patel, Pralit & Clarke, Leon, 2015. "Diffusion of low-carbon technologies and the feasibility of long-term climate targets," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 90(PA), pages 103-118.
    6. 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.
    7. Eswarlal, Vimal Kumar & Vasudevan, Geoffrey & Dey, Prasanta Kumar & Vasudevan, Padma, 2014. "Role of community acceptance in sustainable bioenergy projects in India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 333-343.
    8. Masini, Andrea & Menichetti, Emanuela, 2013. "Investment decisions in the renewable energy sector: An analysis of non-financial drivers," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 510-524.
    9. Danis, Wade M. & De Clercq, Dirk & Petricevic, Olga, 2011. "Are social networks more important for new business activity in emerging than developed economies? An empirical extension," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 394-408, August.
    10. Mafakheri, Fereshteh & Nasiri, Fuzhan, 2014. "Modeling of biomass-to-energy supply chain operations: Applications, challenges and research directions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 116-126.
    11. Dale, Virginia H. & Kline, Keith L. & Buford, Marilyn A. & Volk, Timothy A. & Tattersall Smith, C. & Stupak, Inge, 2016. "Incorporating bioenergy into sustainable landscape designs," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 1158-1171.
    12. Junyon Im & Sunny Sun, 2015. "Profits and outreach to the poor: The institutional logics of microfinance institutions," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 95-117, March.
    13. Rakesh Sambharya & Martina Musteen, 2014. "Institutional environment and entrepreneurship: An empirical study across countries," Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 314-330, December.
    14. Francoise Contreras & Inge de Dreu & Juan C. Espinosa, 2017. "Examining the Relationship between Psychological Capital and Entrepreneurial Intention: An Exploratory Study," Asian Social Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(3), pages 1-80, March.
    15. Ishizaka, Alessio & Siraj, Sajid & Nemery, Philippe, 2016. "Which energy mix for the UK (United Kingdom)? An evolutive descriptive mapping with the integrated GAIA (graphical analysis for interactive aid)–AHP (analytic hierarchy process) visualization tool," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 602-611.
    16. Bienvenu Dagoudo Akowedaho & Inoussa Guinin Asso & Bruno Charles Pierre O’heix & Soulé Akinhola Adéchian & Mohamed Nasser Baco, 2022. "Access to Land for Agricultural Entrepreneurial Activities in the Context of Sustainable Food Production in Borgou, according to Land Law in Benin," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-16, August.
    17. Dinica, Valentina, 2009. "Biomass power: Exploring the diffusion challenges in Spain," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(6-7), pages 1551-1559, August.
    18. Connor, Peter M. & Xie, Lei & Lowes, Richard & Britton, Jessica & Richardson, Thomas, 2015. "The development of renewable heating policy in the United Kingdom," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 733-744.
    19. Burton, Michael P. & Rigby, Dan & Young, Trevor, 2003. "Modelling the adoption of organic horticultural technology in the UK using Duration Analysis," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(01), pages 1-26, March.
    20. René Díaz-Pichardo & Cecilia Cantú-González & Patricia López-Hernández & Gerard McElwee, 2012. "From Farmers to Entrepreneurs," Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies, Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India, vol. 21(1), pages 91-116, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Resource/Energy Economics and 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:ags:ifma11:345599. 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/ifmaaea.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.