Assessing Public Preferences for Forest Biomass Based Energy in the Southern United States

Abstract

This article investigated public preferences for forest biomass based liquid biofuels, particularly ethanol blends of 10% (E10) and 85% (E85). We conducted a choice experiment study in three southern states in the United States: Arkansas, Florida, and Virginia. Reducing atmospheric CO 2 , decreasing risk of wildfires and pest outbreaks, and enhancing biodiversity were presented to respondents as attributes of using biofuels. Results indicated that individuals had a positive extra willingness to pay (WTP) for both ethanol blends. The extra WTP was greater for higher blends that offered larger environment benefits. The WTPs for E10 were $0.56 gallon -1 , $0.58 gallon -1 , and $0.48 gallon -1 , and for E85 they were $0.82 gallon -1 , $1.17 gallon -1 , and $1.06 gallon -1 in Arkansas, Florida, and Virginia, respectively. Although differences in WTP for E10 were statistically insignificant among the three states, significant differences were found in the WTP for E85 between AR and FL and between AR and VA. Preferences for the environmental attributes appeared to be heterogeneous, as respondents' were willing to pay a premium for E10 in all three states to facilitate the reduction of CO 2 and the improvement of biodiversity but were not willing to pay more for E85 in order to enhance biodiversity.

Factors affecting drivers' willingness to pay for biofuels: the case of Italy

“…Few studies focus on the specific biofuel sector, since only in recent years ethanol (mainly produced in the US and Brazil) and biodiesel (mainly produced in the EU) reached relevant production figures (Anderson, 2012;Solomon and Johnson, 2009). Available evidence is not conclusive as different studies reach inconsistent results; however, it emerges a general pattern where drivers are willing to pay a little premium for ethanol, and WTP for E85 is higher than that for E10 given the broader environmental benefits associated with the former (Jensen et al, 2010;Petrolia et al, 2010;Susaeta et al, 2010). There is also evidence that some individuals would be accepting to run their vehicles on 2G ethanol only if available at a discounted price (Li and McCluskey, 2014), thus showing a negative WTP.…”

Social Acceptance of a Multi-Purpose Reservoir in a Recently Deglaciated Landscape in the Swiss Alps

“…In the context of global energy transition from non-renewable to renewable energy sources, there has been widespread documentation of social acceptance of renewable energy projects [19] such as wind [20][21][22][23], biomass [24,25], and solar energy [26][27][28]. Surprisingly, the literature has poorly documented research on social acceptance of hydropower projects, particularly in economically developed countries [13,29].…”

A technical and socioeconomic approach to estimate forest residues as a feedstock for bioenergy in northern Mexico

“…The survey's design and the identification of attributes were based on previous works developed elsewhere (Susaeta et al 2010;Gruchy et al 2012;Joshi et al 2013). Another great advantage of using choice experiment methods is the flexibility of combining qualitative and quantitative attributes.…”