IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/agrerw/v42y2013i01p176-195_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social Cost of Biomass Energy from Switchgrass in Western Massachusetts

Author

Listed:
  • Timmons, David

Abstract

Producing biomass energy requires much land, and effects of biomass production on ecosystem services could greatly affect total biomass energy cost. This study estimates switchgrass production cost in western Massachusetts at three levels: private production cost, private cost plus social cost of nitrogen fertilizer externalities, and those costs plus the social opportunity cost of foregone forest ecosystem services. Values for nitrogen externalities and forest ecosystem services estimated with benefit transfer suggest that social cost is much greater than private switchgrass production cost. The benefit-transfer estimates are only first approximations, but conclusions are robust to a large range of values.

Suggested Citation

  • Timmons, David, 2013. "Social Cost of Biomass Energy from Switchgrass in Western Massachusetts," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(1), pages 176-195, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:agrerw:v:42:y:2013:i:01:p:176-195_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1068280500007681/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Richardson, Leslie & Loomis, John & Kroeger, Timm & Casey, Frank, 2015. "The role of benefit transfer in ecosystem service valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 51-58.
    2. Bauer, Dana Marie & Johnston, Robert J., 2013. "Foreword: The Economics of Rural and Agricultural Ecosystem Services: Purism versus Practicality," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 42(1), pages 1-13, April.

    More about this item

    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:cup:agrerw:v:42:y:2013:i:01:p:176-195_00. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/age .

    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.