IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eneeco/v55y2016icp292-302.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Farmers' willingness to contract switchgrass as a cellulosic bioenergy crop in Kansas

Author

Listed:
  • Fewell, Jason E.
  • Bergtold, Jason S.
  • Williams, Jeffery R.

Abstract

Farmers' adoption of cellulosic biofuel feedstock enterprises plays an important role in the future of agriculture and the renewable fuels \industry. However, no set markets currently exist for bioenergy feedstocks outside of very localized geographic locations and farmers may be reluctant to produce the feedstocks without contracts that help mitigate uncertainty and risk. This study examines farmers' willingness to grow switchgrass under contract using a stated choice approach. Data were collected using an enumerated survey of Kansas farmers and analyzed using latent class logistic regression models. Farmers whose primary enterprise is livestock are less inclined to grow switchgrass. Shorter contracts, greater harvest flexibility, crop insurance, and cost-share assistance increase the likelihood that farmers will grow switchgrass for bioenergy production.

Suggested Citation

  • Fewell, Jason E. & Bergtold, Jason S. & Williams, Jeffery R., 2016. "Farmers' willingness to contract switchgrass as a cellulosic bioenergy crop in Kansas," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 292-302.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:55:y:2016:i:c:p:292-302
    DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2016.01.015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988316300184
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Meyerhoff, Jurgen & Bartczak, Anna & Liebe, Ulf, 2012. "Protester or non-protester: a binary state? on the use (and non-use) of latent class models to analyse protesting in economic valuation," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 56(3), September.
    2. William Breffle & Edward Morey & Jennifer Thacher, 2011. "A Joint Latent-Class Model: Combining Likert-Scale Preference Statements With Choice Data to Harvest Preference Heterogeneity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(1), pages 83-110, September.
    3. Gallagher, Paul W. & Dikeman, Mark & Fritz, John & Wailes, Eric & Gauthier, Wayne & Shapouri, Hosein, 2003. "Supply and Social Cost Estimates for Biomass from Crop Residues in the United States," ISU General Staff Papers 200304010800001493, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    4. Daniel G. De La Torre Ugarte & Burton C. English & Kim Jensen, 2007. "Sixty Billion Gallons by 2030: Economic and Agricultural Impacts of Ethanol and Biodiesel Expansion," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1290-1295.
    5. Mapemba, Lawrence D. & Epplin, Francis M., 2004. "Lignocellulosic Biomass Harvest And Delivery Cost," 2004 Annual Meeting, February 14-18, 2004, Tulsa, Oklahoma 34730, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    6. Marie Walsh & Daniel de la Torre Ugarte & Hosein Shapouri & Stephen Slinsky, 2003. "Bioenergy Crop Production in the United States: Potential Quantities, Land Use Changes, and Economic Impacts on the Agricultural Sector," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(4), pages 313-333, April.
    7. Dicks, Michael R. & Campiche, Jody L. & Torre Ugarte, Daniel de la & Hellwinckel, Chad M. & Bryant, Henry L. & Richardson, James W., 2009. "Land Use Implications of Expanding Biofuel Demand," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(02), August.
    8. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    9. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, April.
    10. Epplin, Francis M. & Clark, Christopher D. & Roberts, Roland K. & Hwang, Seonghuyk, 2007. "AJAE Appendix: Challenges to the Development of a Dedicated Energy Crop," American Journal of Agricultural Economics Appendices, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(5), December.
    11. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    12. Bangsund, Dean A. & DeVuyst, Eric A. & Leistritz, F. Larry, 2008. "Evaluation of Breakeven Farm-gate Switchgrass Prices in South Central North Dakota," Agribusiness & Applied Economics Report 37845, North Dakota State University, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics.
    13. Fewell, Jason & Lynes, Melissa & Williams, Jeffery & Bergtold, Jason, 2013. "Kansas Farmers Interest and Preferences for Growing Cellulosic Bioenergy Crops," Journal of the ASFMRA, American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers.
    14. Hipple, Pat & Duffy, Michael, 2002. "Farmer's Motivation for Adoption of Switchgrass," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10347, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    15. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    16. Paul Gallagher & Mark Dikeman & John Fritz & Eric Wailes & Wayne Gauthier & Hosein Shapouri, 2003. "Supply and Social Cost Estimates for Biomass from Crop Residues in the United States," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(4), pages 335-358, April.
    17. Bangsund, Dean A. & DeVuyst, Eric A. & Leistritz, F. Larry, 2008. "Evaluation of Breakeven Farm-gate Switchgrass Prices in South Central North Dakota-Summary," Agribusiness & Applied Economics Report 42253, North Dakota State University, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics.
    18. Brian Roe & Thomas L. Sporleder & Betsy Belleville, 2004. "Hog Producer Preferences for Marketing Contract Attributes," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 115-123.
    19. Nguyen, Nam-Ky & Miller, Alan J., 1992. "A review of some exchange algorithms for constructing discrete D-optimal designs," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 489-498, November.
    20. Altman, Ira J. & Boessen, Christian R. & Sanders, Dwight R., 2007. "Contracting for Biomass: Supply Chain Strategies for Renewable Energy," 2007 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2007, Mobile, Alabama 34907, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    21. Alexander, Corinne & Ivanic, Rasto & Rosch, Stephanie & Tyner, Wallace & Wu, Steven Y. & Yoder, Joshua R., 2012. "Contract theory and implications for perennial energy crop contracting," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 970-979.
    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. repec:eee:resene:v:52:y:2018:i:c:p:87-101 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Switchgrass; Cellulosic biofuel; Stated choice survey; Farmer adoption; Latent class;

    JEL classification:

    • Q1 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture
    • Q2 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation
    • Q4 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy

    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:eneeco:v:55:y:2016:i:c:p:292-302. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eneco .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.