Local acceptance and heterogeneous externalities of biorefineries

Biofuels can potentially reduce lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from energy use and help address the climate change problem. However, the siting and operation of a biofuel production facility can impact the members of the host community both positively (e.g. local jobs and income) and negatively (e.g. pollution and noise). Such ambivalent and heterogeneous external impacts result in either local support or opposition to the facility, which in turn becomes a key factor affecting biorefinery location decisions, and subsequent success of biorefineries. While a number of prior studies have analyzed economic and environmental impacts of biofuels, systematic analysis of local acceptability of biofuel production facilities is lacking. Our study explores factors that influence community attitudes towards biofuel facilities. We assess the strength of acceptability or opposition by estimating the local community's willingness to pay (WTP) either to support or to oppose a proposed biorefinery. We posit that such WTP estimates provide a more comprehensive measure of local acceptability. Results also suggest that county level socio-economic characteristics significantly influence these attitudes and WTP.

[1]  Jinhua Zhao,et al.  From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number? , 2012 .

[2]  D Walton,et al.  Self and others' willingness to pay for improvements to the paved road surface , 2004 .

[3]  Patrick Devine-Wright,et al.  Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy , 2005 .

[4]  Leann M. Tigges,et al.  Getting to Yes or Bailing on No: The Site Selection Process of Ethanol Plants in Wisconsin† , 2012 .

[5]  A. Murphy,et al.  Modelling Winners and Losers in Contingent Valuation of Public Goods: Appropriate Welfare Measures and Econometric Analysis , 2001 .

[6]  Catherine L. Kling,et al.  A new explanation for the WTP/WTA disparity , 2001 .

[7]  Bengt Kriström,et al.  Accounting for Negative, Zero and Positive Willingness to Pay for Landscape Change in a National Park , 2009 .

[8]  D. Moran,et al.  What does the public want from agriculture and the countryside? A review of evidence and methods , 2004 .

[9]  A. McCartney.  The Social Value of Seascapes in the Jurien Bay Marine Park: An Assessment of Positive and Negative Preferences for Change , 2006 .

[10]  B. Kriström.  Spike Models in Contingent Valuation , 1997 .

[11]  Maarten Wolsink,et al.  Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes: Equity and fairness instead of ‘backyard motives’ , 2007 .

[12]  Tri Basuki Joewono,et al.  Exploring the Willingness and Ability to Pay for Paratransit in Bandung, Indonesia , 2009 .

[13]  M. Wolsink,et al.  Wind power implementation in changing institutional landscapes: An international comparison. , 2007 .

[14]  Aaron M. McCright,et al.  Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States , 2011 .

[15]  J. Cooper.  Optimal Bid Selection for Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys , 1993 .

[16]  K. McCormick.  Communicating bioenergy: a growing challenge , 2010 .

[17]  M. Jones-Lee.  Personal willingness to pay for prevention: evaluating the consequences of accidents as a basis for preventive measures. , 1993, Addiction.

[18]  J. Keith,et al.  Preservation or Use: A Contingent Valuation Study of Wilderness Designation in Utah , 1996 .

[19]  M. Loureiro,et al.  Addressing Heterogeneous Preferences Using Parametric Extended Spike Models , 2004 .

[20]  R. Berrens,et al.  Addressing Negative Willingness to Pay in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation , 2001 .

[21]  Timothy C. Haab,et al.  Referendum Models and Economic Values: Theoretical, Intuitive, and Practical Bounds on Willingness to Pay , 1998 .

[22]  Maarten Wolsink,et al.  Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support , 2000 .

[23]  Gary Taylor,et al.  Locational Choices of the Ethanol Industry in the Midwest Corn Belt , 2010 .

[24]  K. McConnell,et al.  A Review of Wta/Wtp Studies , 2000 .

[25]  D. Elston,et al.  Modelling the Non-market Environmental Costs and Benefits of Biodiversity Projects Using Contingent Valuation Data , 2001 .

[26]  T. Randall Fortenbery,et al.  The Location Decisions of Biodiesel Refineries , 2012, Land Economics.

[27]  Jeffrey M. Wooldridge,et al.  Solutions Manual and Supplementary Materials for Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data , 2003 .

[28]  M. Loureiro,et al.  A comparison of a parametric and a non-parametric method to value a non-rejectable public good , 2004 .

[29]  Timothy C. Haab,et al.  Referendum Models and Negative Willingness to Pay: Alternative Solutions , 1997 .

[30]  Rolf Wüstenhagen,et al.  Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept , 2007 .

[31]  Sharifah Rafidah Wan Alwi,et al.  Issues of social acceptance on biofuel development , 2014 .

[32]  Ausilio Bauen,et al.  Policy regimes and funding schemes to support investment for next‐generation biofuels in the USA and the EU‐27 , 2013 .

[33]  B. Amigun,et al.  Community Perspectives on the Introduction of Biodiesel Production in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa , 2011 .

[34]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  THE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF DISCRETE-RESPONSE CV DATA , 1996 .

[35]  D. Nagin,et al.  Public preferences for rehabilitation versus incarceration of juvenile offenders: evidence from a contingent valuation survey , 2006 .

[36]  Timothy C. Haab,et al.  Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation , 2002 .

[37]  Sandro Sacchelli,et al.  Social Acceptance Optimization of Biomass Plants: a Fuzzy Cognitive Map and Evolutionary Algorithm Application , 2014 .

[38]  Maarten Wolsink,et al.  Planning of renewables schemes: Deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation , 2007 .

[39]  Theresa Selfa,et al.  Global benefits, local burdens? The paradox of governing biofuels production in Kansas and Iowa , 2010, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems.

[40]  D. Freedman,et al.  Endogeneity in Probit Response Models , 2008, Political Analysis.

[41]  John N. Saddler,et al.  Biomass logistics as a determinant of second‐generation biofuel facility scale, location and technology selection , 2010 .

[42]  Martin Soland,et al.  Local acceptance of existing biogas plants in Switzerland , 2013 .

[43]  Anders Roos,et al.  Critical factors to bioenergy implementation. , 1999 .