IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v73y2016icp58-67.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social preferences toward energy generation with woody biomass from public forests in Montana, USA

Author

Listed:
  • Campbell, Robert M.
  • Venn, Tyron J.
  • Anderson, Nathaniel M.

Abstract

In Montana, USA, there are substantial opportunities for mechanized thinning treatments on public forests to reduce the likelihood of severe and damaging wildfires and improve forest health. These treatments produce residues that can be used to generate renewable energy and displace fossil fuels. The choice modeling method is employed to examine the marginal willingness of Montanans' to pay (MWTP) for woody biomass energy produced from treatments in their public forests. The survey instrument elicited social preferences for important co-benefits and costs of woody biomass energy generation in Montana, namely the extent of healthy forests, the number of large wildfires, and local air quality. Positive and statistically significant MWTP is found for woody biomass energy generation, forest health and air quality. MWTP to avoid large wildfires is statistically insignificant. However, MWTP for woody biomass energy diminishes quickly, revealing that Montanans do not support public forestland management that produces more than double the current level of woody biomass harvested for energy generation. These findings can be used by policy makers and public land managers to estimate the social benefits of utilizing residues from public forest restoration or fuel treatment programs to generate energy.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:73:y:2016:i:c:p:58-67
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.08.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934116302568
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.08.008?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. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Moon, Amanda, 2009. "Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-17.
    2. Loomis, John B. & Le, Hung Trong & Gonzales-Caban, Armando, 2005. "Testing transferability of willingness to pay for forest fire prevention among three states of California, Florida and Montana," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 125-140, December.
    3. Roe, Brian & Teisl, Mario F. & Levy, Alan & Russell, Matthew, 2001. "US consumers' willingness to pay for green electricity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(11), pages 917-925, September.
    4. Dickie, Mark & Messman, Victoria L., 2004. "Parental altruism and the value of avoiding acute illness: are kids worth more than parents?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 1146-1174, November.
    5. Bergmann, Ariel & Hanley, Nick & Wright, Robert, 2006. "Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 1004-1014, June.
    6. Kaval, Pamela & Loomis, John & Seidl, Andy, 2007. "Willingness-to-pay for prescribed fire in the Colorado (USA) wildland urban interface," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(8), pages 928-937, May.
    7. Gustavsson, Leif & Börjesson, Pål & Johansson, Bengt & Svenningsson, Per, 1995. "Reducing CO2 emissions by substituting biomass for fossil fuels," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 20(11), pages 1097-1113.
    8. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    9. Li, Hui & Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Silva, Carol L. & Berrens, Robert P. & Herron, Kerry G., 2009. "Public support for reducing US reliance on fossil fuels: Investigating household willingness-to-pay for energy research and development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 731-742, January.
    10. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    11. Longo, Alberto & Markandya, Anil & Petrucci, Marta, 2008. "The internalization of externalities in the production of electricity: Willingness to pay for the attributes of a policy for renewable energy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 140-152, August.
    12. Alvarez-Farizo, Begona & Hanley, Nick, 2002. "Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 107-116, January.
    13. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    14. Susaeta, Andres & Lal, Pankaj & Alavalapati, Janaki & Mercer, Evan, 2011. "Random preferences towards bioenergy environmental externalities: A case study of woody biomass based electricity in the Southern United States," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1111-1118.
    15. Derek T. O'Donnell & Tyron J. Venn & David E. Calkin, 2014. "Are wildfire management resources in the United States efficiently allocated to protect resources at risk? A case study from Montana," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 318-332.
    16. Solomon, Barry D. & Johnson, Nicholas H., 2009. "Valuing climate protection through willingness to pay for biomass ethanol," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 2137-2144, May.
    17. Soliño, Mario & Farizo, Begoña A. & Vázquez, María X. & Prada, Albino, 2012. "Generating electricity with forest biomass: Consistency and payment timeframe effects in choice experiments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 798-806.
    18. Hallmann, Fanfan W. & Amacher, Gregory S., 2014. "Uncertain emerging biomass markets, ecosystem services, and optimal land use," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 46-56.
    19. Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey (ed.), 2001. "The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2028.
    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. Kuznetsov, G.V. & Nigay, N.A. & Syrodoy, S.V. & Gutareva, N. Yu & Malyshev, D. Yu, 2022. "A comparative analysis of the characteristics of the water removal processes in preparation for incineration of typical wood waste and forest combustible materials," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PE).
    3. Zhou, J. & Tabata, T., 2022. "Economic, societal, and environmental evaluation of woody biomass heat utilization: A case study in Kobe, Japan," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 256-268.
    4. Solomon, Barry D. & Barnett, John Brad & Wellstead, Adam M. & Rouleau, Mark D., 2020. "Deciphering support for woody biomass production for electric power using an ecosystem service framework," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    5. 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).

    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. Campbell, Robert & Venn, Tyron & Anderson, Nathaniel, 2015. "Quantifying Social Preferences toward Woody Biomass Energy Generation in Montana, USA," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205678, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Alló, Maria & Loureiro, Maria L., 2014. "The role of social norms on preferences towards climate change policies: A meta-analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 563-574.
    3. Soon, Jan-Jan & Ahmad, Siti-Aznor, 2015. "Willingly or grudgingly? A meta-analysis on the willingness-to-pay for renewable energy use," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 877-887.
    4. Mattmann, Matteo & Logar, Ivana & Brouwer, Roy, 2016. "Wind power externalities: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 23-36.
    5. Cicia, Gianni & Cembalo, Luigi & Del Giudice, Teresa & Palladino, Andrea, 2012. "Fossil energy versus nuclear, wind, solar and agricultural biomass: Insights from an Italian national survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 59-66.
    6. Abdullah, Sabah & Mariel, Petr, 2010. "Choice experiment study on the willingness to pay to improve electricity services," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4570-4581, August.
    7. Susaeta, Andres & Lal, Pankaj & Alavalapati, Janaki & Mercer, Evan, 2011. "Random preferences towards bioenergy environmental externalities: A case study of woody biomass based electricity in the Southern United States," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1111-1118.
    8. Brennan, Noreen & Van Rensburg, Thomas M, 2016. "Wind farm externalities and public preferences for community consultation in Ireland: A discrete choice experiments approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 355-365.
    9. Gracia, Azucena & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Pérez y Pérez, Luis, 2012. "Can renewable energy be financed with higher electricity prices? Evidence from a Spanish region," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 784-794.
    10. Komarek, Timothy M. & Lupi, Frank & Kaplowitz, Michael D., 2011. "Valuing energy policy attributes for environmental management: Choice experiment evidence from a research institution," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 5105-5115, September.
    11. Caporale, Diana & De Lucia, Caterina, 2015. "Social acceptance of on-shore wind energy in Apulia Region (Southern Italy)," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 1378-1390.
    12. Oerlemans, Leon A.G. & Chan, Kai-Ying & Volschenk, Jako, 2016. "Willingness to pay for green electricity: A review of the contingent valuation literature and its sources of error," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 875-885.
    13. Dalia Streimikiene & Tomas Balezentis & Ilona Alisauskaite-Seskiene & Gintare Stankuniene & Zaneta Simanaviciene, 2019. "A Review of Willingness to Pay Studies for Climate Change Mitigation in the Energy Sector," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-38, April.
    14. Soliño, Mario & Farizo, Begoña A. & Vázquez, María X. & Prada, Albino, 2012. "Generating electricity with forest biomass: Consistency and payment timeframe effects in choice experiments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 798-806.
    15. Joalland, Olivier & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre, 2023. "Developing large-scale offshore wind power programs: A choice experiment analysis in France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    16. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2015. "Using discrete choice experiments to regulate the provision of water services: do status quo choices reflect preferences?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 300-324, June.
    17. Anders Dugstad & Kristine Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2020. "Scope elasticity and economic significance in discrete choice experiments," Discussion Papers 942, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    18. Demel, Simona & Longo, Alberto & Mariel, Petr, 2020. "Trading off visual disamenity for renewable energy: Willingness to pay for seaweed farming for energy production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    19. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2012. "Do status quo choices reflect preferences? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in the context of water utilities' investment planning," CEPE Working paper series 12-87, CEPE Center for Energy Policy and Economics, ETH Zurich.
    20. Westerberg, Vanja Holmquist & Lifran, Robert & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2010. "To restore or not? A valuation of social and ecological functions of the Marais des Baux wetland in Southern France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2383-2393, October.

    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:forpol:v:73:y:2016:i:c:p:58-67. 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/forpol .

    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.