IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v161y2022ics0301421521006315.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Forest bioenergy as a land and wildfire management tool: Economic valuation under different informational contexts

Author

Listed:
  • Pinto, Lígia Costa
  • Sousa, Sara
  • Valente, Marieta

Abstract

Forest biomass use for energy production is not only an increasingly popular renewable source of energy, but has also been proposed as a tool for forest management, which can help reduce the incidence of forest fires. Similarly, an adequate management of biomass is a cornerstone of a more circular economy. Acknowledging this triple advantage of using forest biomass for energy production, the present paper studies the public acceptability of promoting the production, management and use of this resource, using a non-market valuation methodology and controlled information exposure. We test the sensitivity of the stated willingness-to-pay by randomly exposing respondents to information about the potential advantages and disadvantages of forest biomass energy. A questionnaire was developed and implemented in Portugal in September 2019. We find that respondents value the increase in the use of forest biomass for energy production and that, when exposed to the information scenarios relating to national benefits as well as fire prevention benefits, increase their valuation. Information on local benefits does not significantly increase stated willingness to pay, but on local costs decreases the amounts stated. Overall, there is public support for forest bioenergy and scope to improve it through policies exploring these dimensions of public support.

Suggested Citation

  • Pinto, Lígia Costa & Sousa, Sara & Valente, Marieta, 2022. "Forest bioenergy as a land and wildfire management tool: Economic valuation under different informational contexts," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:161:y:2022:i:c:s0301421521006315
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112765
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421521006315
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112765?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. Carneiro, Patrícia & Ferreira, Paula, 2012. "The economic, environmental and strategic value of biomass," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 17-22.
    2. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, June.
    3. Wustenhagen, Rolf & Wolsink, Maarten & Burer, Mary Jean, 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2683-2691, May.
    4. Anabela Botelho & Lina Lourenço-Gomes & Lígia Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2016. "Using stated preference methods to assess environmental impacts of forest biomass power plants in Portugal," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 1323-1337, October.
    5. Joselin Herbert, G.M. & Unni Krishnan, A., 2016. "Quantifying environmental performance of biomass energy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 292-308.
    6. Evans, Annette & Strezov, Vladimir & Evans, Tim J., 2010. "Sustainability considerations for electricity generation from biomass," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(5), pages 1419-1427, June.
    7. Soliño, Mario & Prada, Albino & Vázquez, María X., 2010. "Designing a forest-energy policy to reduce forest fires in Galicia (Spain): A contingent valuation application," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 217-233, August.
    8. Barrio, Melina & Loureiro, Maria L., 2010. "A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1023-1030, March.
    9. Ribeiro, Fernando & Ferreira, Paula & Araújo, Madalena & Braga, Ana Cristina, 2014. "Public opinion on renewable energy technologies in Portugal," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 39-50.
    10. Giergiczny, Marek & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Żylicz, Tomasz & Angelstam, Per, 2015. "Choice experiment assessment of public preferences for forest structural attributes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 8-23.
    11. Frombo, Francesco & Minciardi, Riccardo & Robba, Michela & Sacile, Roberto, 2009. "A decision support system for planning biomass-based energy production," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 362-369.
    12. Schubert, Renate & Blasch, Julia, 2010. "Sustainability standards for bioenergy--A means to reduce climate change risks?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 2797-2805, June.
    13. Dwivedi, Puneet & Alavalapati, Janaki R.R., 2009. "Stakeholders' perceptions on forest biomass-based bioenergy development in the southern US," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1999-2007, May.
    14. Campbell, Robert M. & Venn, Tyron J. & Anderson, Nathaniel M., 2018. "Heterogeneity in Preferences for Woody Biomass Energy in the US Mountain West," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 27-37.
    15. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    16. Stadelmann-Steffen, Isabelle, 2019. "Bad news is bad news: Information effects and citizens’ socio-political acceptance of new technologies of electricity transmission," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 531-545.
    17. Sasaki, Nophea & Knorr, Wolfgang & Foster, David R. & Etoh, Hiroko & Ninomiya, Hiroshi & Chay, Sengtha & Kim, Sophanarith & Sun, Sengxi, 2009. "Woody biomass and bioenergy potentials in Southeast Asia between 1990 and 2020," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(Supplemen), pages 140-150, November.
    18. Campbell, Robert M. & Venn, Tyron J. & Anderson, Nathaniel M., 2016. "Social preferences toward energy generation with woody biomass from public forests in Montana, USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 58-67.
    19. Suntana, Asep S. & Vogt, Kristiina A. & Turnblom, Eric C. & Upadhye, Ravi, 2009. "Bio-methanol potential in Indonesia: Forest biomass as a source of bio-energy that reduces carbon emissions," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(Supplemen), pages 215-221, November.
    20. Federico Belotti & Partha Deb & Willard G. Manning & Edward C. Norton, 2015. "twopm: Two-part models," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 15(1), pages 3-20, March.
    21. Andrea De Montis & Corrado Zoppi, 2009. "Contingent Valuation of renewable energy innovations: vegetal biomass in Italy," International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 11(1/2/3), pages 218-233.
    22. Miranda, Marie Lynn & Hale, Brack, 2001. "Protecting the forest from the trees: the social costs of energy production in Sweden," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 26(9), pages 869-889.
    23. Soliño, Mario & Vázquez, María X. & Prada, Albino, 2009. "Social demand for electricity from forest biomass in Spain: Does payment periodicity affect the willingness to pay?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 531-540, February.
    24. Palan, Stefan & Schitter, Christian, 2018. "Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 22-27.
    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. 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.
    2. Misal, Haleema & Varela, Elsa & Voulgarakis, Apostolos & Rovithakis, Anastasios & Grillakis, Manolis & Kountouris, Yiannis, 2023. "Assessing public preferences for a wildfire mitigation policy in Crete, Greece," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(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. 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.
    2. Anabela Botelho & Lina Lourenço-Gomes & Lígia Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2016. "Using stated preference methods to assess environmental impacts of forest biomass power plants in Portugal," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 1323-1337, October.
    3. Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2019. "Valuing recreational enhancements in the San Patricio Urban Forest of Puerto Rico: A choice experiment approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    4. Lígia M. Costa Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2021. "Explaining the Social Acceptance of Renewables through Location-Related Factors: An Application to the Portuguese Case," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-13, January.
    5. Dugstad, Anders & Grimsrud, Kristine & Kipperberg, Gorm & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2020. "Acceptance of wind power development and exposure – Not-in-anybody's-backyard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    6. Huber, Christoph & Huber, Jürgen, 2020. "Bad bankers no more? Truth-telling and (dis)honesty in the finance industry," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 472-493.
    7. Sagebiel, Julian & Glenk, Klaus & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2017. "Spatially explicit demand for afforestation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 190-199.
    8. Kwak, So-Yoon & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2015. "The public’s value for developing ocean energy technology in the Republic of Korea: A contingent valuation study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 432-439.
    9. Liu, Liwei & Ye, Junhong & Zhao, Yufei & Zhao, Erdong, 2015. "The plight of the biomass power generation industry in China – A supply chain risk perspective," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 680-692.
    10. Ebers Broughel, Anna, 2019. "On the ground in sunny Mexico: A case study of consumer perceptions and willingness to pay for solar-powered devices," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 1-1.
    11. Baharoon, Dhyia Aidroos & Rahman, Hasimah Abdul & Fadhl, Saeed Obaid, 2016. "Publics׳ knowledge, attitudes and behavioral toward the use of solar energy in Yemen power sector," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 498-515.
    12. Lapierre, Margaux & Le Velly, Gwenolé & Bougherara, Douadia & Préget, Raphaële & Sauquet, Alexandre, 2023. "Designing agri-environmental schemes to cope with uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    13. Sacchelli, Sandro & De Meo, Isabella & Paletto, Alessandro, 2013. "Bioenergy production and forest multifunctionality: A trade-off analysis using multiscale GIS model in a case study in Italy," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 10-20.
    14. Čábelková, Inna & Strielkowski, Wadim & Streimikiene, Dalia & Cavallaro, Fausto & Streimikis, Justas, 2021. "The social acceptance of nuclear fusion for decision making towards carbon free circular economy: Evidence from Czech Republic," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    15. Kosorić, Vesna & Huang, Huajing & Tablada, Abel & Lau, Siu-Kit & Tan, Hugh T.W., 2019. "Survey on the social acceptance of the productive façade concept integrating photovoltaic and farming systems in high-rise public housing blocks in Singapore," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 197-214.
    16. Muth, D.J. & Bryden, K.M. & Nelson, R.G., 2013. "Sustainable agricultural residue removal for bioenergy: A spatially comprehensive US national assessment," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 403-417.
    17. Banerjee, Onil & Crossman, Neville & Vargas, Renato & Brander, Luke & Verburg, Peter & Cicowiez, Martin & Hauck, Jennifer & McKenzie, Emily, 2020. "Global socio-economic impacts of changes in natural capital and ecosystem services: State of play and new modeling approaches," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    18. Groh, Elke D. & Möllendorff, Charlotte v., 2020. "What shapes the support of renewable energy expansion? Public attitudes between policy goals and risk, time, and social preferences," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    19. Ouvrard, Benjamin & Abildtrup, Jens & Stenger, Anne, 2020. "Nudging Acceptability for Wood Ash Recycling in Forests: A Choice Experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    20. Liu, Zhaoyang & Hanley, Nick & Campbell, Danny, 2020. "Linking urban air pollution with residents’ willingness to pay for greenspace: A choice experiment study in Beijing," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).

    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:enepol:v:161:y:2022:i:c:s0301421521006315. 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/enpol .

    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.