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

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.eneco.2016.01.015?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. 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), pages 1-17.
    2. Heid, Walter G., Jr., 1984. "Turning Great Plains Crop Residues and Other Products Into Energy," Agricultural Economic Reports 307969, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, October.
    6. 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.
    7. Hipple, Pat & Duffy, Michael, 2002. "Farmer's Motivation for Adoption of Switchgrass," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10347, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, October.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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(2), August.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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), pages 1-13, December.
    19. Torre Ugarte, Daniel de la & Walsh, Marie E. & Shapouri, Hosein & Slinsky, Stephen P., 2003. "The Economic Impacts of Bioenergy Crop Production on U.S. Crop Production," Agricultural Economic Reports 33997, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.
    22. 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.
    23. 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.
    24. 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, vol. 2013, pages 1-22, June.
    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. Burli, Pralhad H. & Nguyen, Ruby T. & Hartley, Damon S. & Griffel, L. Michael & Vazhnik, Veronika & Lin, Yingqian, 2021. "Farmer characteristics and decision-making: A model for bioenergy crop adoption," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 234(C).
    2. McCarty, Tanner & Sesmero, Juan, 2021. "Contracting for perennial energy crops and the cost-effectiveness of the Biomass Crop Assistance Program," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    3. Van Deynze, B., 2018. "The Effects of Experience on Landowner Preferences over Bioenergy Feedstocks," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277001, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Zemo, Kahsay Haile & Termansen, Mette, 2018. "Farmers’ willingness to participate in collective biogas investment: A discrete choice experiment study," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 87-101.
    5. Kung, Chih-Chun & Zhang, Ning & Choi, Yongrok & Xiong, Kai & Yu, Jiangli, 2019. "Effectiveness of crop residuals in ethanol and pyrolysis-based electricity production: A stochastic analysis under uncertain climate impacts," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 267-276.
    6. Halit Üster & Gökhan Memişoğlu, 2018. "Biomass Logistics Network Design Under Price-Based Supply and Yield Uncertainty," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 474-492, March.
    7. Kung, Chih-Chun & Wu, Tao, 2021. "Influence of water allocation on bioenergy production under climate change: A stochastic mathematical programming approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    8. Sharma, Bijay P. & Yu, T. Edward & English, Burton C. & Boyer, Christopher N. & Larson, James A., 2020. "Impact of government subsidies on a cellulosic biofuel sector with diverse risk preferences toward feedstock uncertainty," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    9. Mamun, Saleh & Hansen, Jason K. & Roni, Mohammad S., 2020. "Supply, operational, and market risk reduction opportunities: Managing risk at a cellulosic biorefinery," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    10. Burli, Pralhad & Lal, Pankaj & Wolde, Bernabas & Jose, Shibu & Bardhan, Sougata, 2019. "Factors affecting willingness to cultivate switchgrass: Evidence from a farmer survey in Missouri," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 20-29.

    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. Fewell, Jason E. & Bergtold, Jason S. & Williams, Jeffery R., 2011. "Farmers’ Willingness to Grow Switchgrass as a Cellulosic Bioenergy Crop: A Stated Choice Approach," 2011 Annual Meeting, June 29-July 1, 2011, Banff, Alberta,Canada 109776, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    2. Bergtold, Jason S. & Shanoyan, Aleksan & Fewell, Jason E. & Williams, Jeffery R., 2017. "Annual bioenergy crops for biofuels production: Farmers' contractual preferences for producing sweet sorghum," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 724-731.
    3. Lynes, Melissa K. & Bergtold, Jason S. & Williams, Jeffery R. & Fewell, Jason E., 2012. "Determining Farmers’ Willingness-To-Grow Cellulosic Biofuel Feedstocks on Agricultural Land," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124777, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Lynes, Melissa K. & Bergtold, Jason S. & Williams, Jeffery R. & Fewell, Jason E., 2016. "Willingness of Kansas farm managers to produce alternative cellulosic biofuel feedstocks: An analysis of adoption and initial acreage allocation," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 336-348.
    5. Kwabena Krah & Daniel R Petrolia & Angelica Williams & Keith H Coble & Ardian Harri & Roderick M Rejesus, 2018. "Producer Preferences for Contracts on a Risky Bioenergy Crop," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 40(2), pages 240-258.
    6. 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, vol. 2013, pages 1-22, June.
    7. Walsh, Marie E., 2005. "Non-Traditional Sources of Biomass Feedstocks," Energy from Agriculture: New Technologies, Innovative Programs and Success Stories, December 14-15, 2005, St. Louis, Missouri 7625, Farm Foundation.
    8. Okwo, Adaora & Thomas, Valerie M., 2014. "Biomass feedstock contracts: Role of land quality and yield variability in near term feasibility," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 67-80.
    9. Kassu Wamisho Hossiso & Aaron Laporte & David Ripplinger, 2017. "The Effects of Contract Mechanism Design and Risk Preferences on Biomass Supply for Ethanol Production," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(3), pages 339-357, June.
    10. Mario Soliño & Begoña A Farizo, 2014. "Personal Traits Underlying Environmental Preferences: A Discrete Choice Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-7, February.
    11. Gevrek, Z.Eylem & Uyduranoglu, Ayse, 2015. "Public preferences for carbon tax attributes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 186-197.
    12. Catalina M. Torres Figuerola & Nick Hanley & Sergio Colombo, 2011. "Incorrectly accounting for taste heterogeneity in choice experiments: Does it really matter for welfare measurement?," CRE Working Papers (Documents de treball del CRE) 2011/1, Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra").
    13. Moon, Jin-Young & Apland, Jeffrey & Folle, Solomon & Mulla, David, 2016. "A Watershed Level Economic Analysis of Cellulosic Biofuel Feedstock Production with Consideration of Water Quality," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 5(3).
    14. Hackbarth, André & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Willingness-to-pay for alternative fuel vehicle characteristics: A stated choice study for Germany," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 89-111.
    15. Z. Eylem Gevrek & Ayse Uyduranoglu, 2015. "Public Preferences for Carbon Tax Attributes," Working Paper Series of the Department of Economics, University of Konstanz 2015-15, Department of Economics, University of Konstanz.
    16. Wendong Zhang & Brent Sohngen, 2018. "Do U.S. Anglers Care about Harmful Algal Blooms? A Discrete Choice Experiment of Lake Erie Recreational Anglers," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(3), pages 868-888.
    17. Eric Ruto & Guy Garrod & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Valuing animal genetic resources: a choice modeling application to indigenous cattle in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 89-98, January.
    18. Richard Yao & Riccardo Scarpa & John Rose & James Turner, 2015. "Experimental Design Criteria and Their Behavioural Efficiency: An Evaluation in the Field," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(3), pages 433-455, November.
    19. Julia Blasch & Robert W. Turner, 2016. "Environmental art, prior knowledge about climate change, and carbon offsets," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 6(4), pages 691-705, December.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Switchgrass; Cellulosic biofuel; Stated choice survey; Farmer adoption; Latent class;
    All these keywords.

    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.

    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/eneco .

    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.