IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v102y2014icp83-93.html

Integrating life-cycle assessment and choice analysis for alternative fuel valuation

Author

Listed:
  • Winden, Matthew
  • Cruze, Nathan
  • Haab, Tim
  • Bakshi, Bhavik

Abstract

This study monetizes the environmental damage and human health risk externalities associated with the life-cycle production and use of ethanol biofuels from corn-based and cellulosic feedstocks. An integrated economic-environmental assessment framework couples the measured emission impacts from the fuels with individuals' preferences regarding each fuel's externalities. This framework allows the welfare values associated with gasoline and ethanol's externalities to be derived and compared. The results of the study reveal that the production and consumption of corn starch ethanol produce declines in environmental and health outcomes of $1.23 per gallon relative to gasoline for an 85% blend. Depending on the feedstock source, cellulosic based ethanol blends produce modest gains in environmental and health outcomes valued at between $0.04 and $0.06 per gallon relative to gasoline.

Suggested Citation

  • Winden, Matthew & Cruze, Nathan & Haab, Tim & Bakshi, Bhavik, 2014. "Integrating life-cycle assessment and choice analysis for alternative fuel valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 83-93.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:102:y:2014:i:c:p:83-93
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.03.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800914000883
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.03.008?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 look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baral, Anil & Bakshi, Bhavik R., 2010. "Emergy analysis using US economic input–output models with applications to life cycles of gasoline and corn ethanol," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(15), pages 1807-1818.
    2. Hertel, Thomas & Golub, Alla & Jones, Andrew & O'Hare, Michael & Plevin, Richard & Kammen, Daniel, 2009. "Global Land Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts of U.S. Maize Ethanol: The Role of Market-Mediated Responses," GTAP Working Papers 3160, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
    3. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, Enero-Abr.
    4. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2002. "Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2427.
    5. Searchinger, Timothy & Heimlich, Ralph & Houghton, R. A. & Dong, Fengxia & Elobeid, Amani & Fabiosa, Jacinto F. & Tokgoz, Simla & Hayes, Dermot J. & Yu, Hun-Hsiang, 2008. "Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12881, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    6. Kusiima, Jamil M. & Powers, Susan E., 2010. "Monetary value of the environmental and health externalities associated with production of ethanol from biomass feedstocks," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 2785-2796, June.
    7. Murphy, James & Delucchi, Mark, 1998. "A Review of the Literature on the Social Cost of Motor Vehicle Use in the United States," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt1tk1s936, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    8. Ian W. H. Parry & Margaret Walls & Winston Harrington, 2007. "Automobile Externalities and Policies," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 45(2), pages 373-399, June.
    9. Yano, Yuki & Blandford, David & Surry, Yves R., 2010. "Do Current U.S. Ethanol Policies Make Sense?," Policy Issues 93686, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    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. Baral, Nabin & Rabotyagov, Sergey, 2017. "How much are wood-based cellulosic biofuels worth in the Pacific Northwest? Ex-ante and ex-post analysis of local people's willingness to pay," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 99-106.
    2. Vance, C. & Sweeney, J. & Murphy, F., 2022. "Space, time, and sustainability: The status and future of life cycle assessment frameworks for novel biorefinery systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    3. Linzenich, Anika & Arning, Katrin & Bongartz, Dominik & Mitsos, Alexander & Ziefle, Martina, 2019. "What fuels the adoption of alternative fuels? Examining preferences of German car drivers for fuel innovations," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 249(C), pages 222-236.

    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. Petrolia, Daniel & Interis, Matthew & Hwang, Joonghyun, 2015. "Single-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Elicitation Formats: Do Results Differ and by How Much?," Working Papers 212479, Mississippi State University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    2. Proost, Stef & Van Dender, Kurt, 2012. "Energy and environment challenges in the transport sector," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 77-87.
    3. Baral, Nabin & Rabotyagov, Sergey, 2017. "How much are wood-based cellulosic biofuels worth in the Pacific Northwest? Ex-ante and ex-post analysis of local people's willingness to pay," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 99-106.
    4. Don Fullerton & Li Gan & Miwa Hattori, 2015. "A model to evaluate vehicle emission incentive policies in Japan," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 17(1), pages 79-108, January.
    5. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    6. Wetzstein, M. & Wetzstein, H., 2011. "Four myths surrounding U.S. biofuels," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 4308-4312, July.
    7. Dhakal, Bhubaneswor & Yao, Richard T. & Turner, James A. & Barnard, Tim, 2012. "Recreational users' willingness to pay and preferences for changes in planted forest features," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 34-44.
    8. Sexton, Steven & Eyer, Jonathan, 2016. "Leveling the playing field of transportation fuels: Accounting for indirect emissions of natural gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 21-31.
    9. Rinaldo Brau, 2008. "Demand-Driven Sustainable Tourism? A Choice Modelling Analysis," Tourism Economics, , vol. 14(4), pages 691-708, December.
    10. Ji, Yongjie & Rabotyagov, Sergey & Kling, Catherine L., 2014. "Crop Choice and Rotational Effects: A Dynamic Model of Land Use in Iowa in Recent Years," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170366, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Bounie, Nathan & Adoue, François & Koning, Martin & L'Hostis, Alain, 2019. "What value do travelers put on connectivity to mobile phone and Internet networks in public transport? Empirical evidence from the Paris region," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 158-177.
    12. Takahiko Kiso, 2019. "Evaluating New Policy Instruments of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards: Footprint, Credit Transferring, and Credit Trading," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(2), pages 445-476, February.
    13. Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2004. "What's it worth? An examination of historical trends and future directions in environmental valuation," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(3), pages 419-443, September.
    14. Safirova, Elena A. & Houde, Sébastien & Harrington, Winston, 2008. "Marginal Social Cost Pricing on a Transportation Network: Comparison of Second-Best Policies," RFF Working Paper Series dp-07-52, Resources for the Future.
    15. Daniel R. Petrolia & Matthew G. Interis & Joonghyun Hwang, 2018. "Single-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Scaling Elicitation Formats: Do Results Differ and by How Much?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(2), pages 365-393, February.
    16. Norton, Daniel & Hynes, Stephen, 2014. "Valuing the non-market benefits arising from the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 84-96.
    17. Rinaldo Brau & Matteo Lippi Bruni, 2008. "Eliciting the demand for long‐term care coverage: a discrete choice modelling analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(3), pages 411-433, March.
    18. Creutzig, Felix & McGlynn, Emily & Minx, Jan & Edenhofer, Ottmar, 2011. "Climate policies for road transport revisited (I): Evaluation of the current framework," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2396-2406, May.
    19. Johnston, Robert J. & Schultz, Eric T. & Segerson, Kathleen & Besedin, Elena Y. & Ramachandran, Mahesh, 2013. "Stated Preferences for Intermediate versus Final Ecosystem Services: Disentangling Willingness to Pay for Omitted Outcomes," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(1), pages 98-118, April.
    20. Dandres, Thomas & Gaudreault, Caroline & Seco, Pablo Tirado & Samson, Réjean, 2014. "Uncertainty management in a macro life cycle assessment of a 2005–2025 European bioenergy policy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 52-61.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • Q42 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Alternative Energy Sources
    • Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling

    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:eee:ecolec:v:102:y:2014:i:c:p:83-93. 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/ecolecon .

    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.