Willingness to pay for E85 from corn, switchgrass, and wood residues

Energy Economics

Volumn 32, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 1253-1262

  Jensen, Kimberly L ^a   Clark, Christopher D ^a   English, Burton C ^a   Menard, R Jamey ^a   Skahan, Denise K ^a   Marra, Adrienne C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

Author keywords

Contingent choice exercise; Corn grain; Ethanol; Random parameters logit; Switchgrass; Willingness to pay; Wood wastes

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT CHOICE EXERCISE; CORN GRAIN; RANDOM PARAMETERS LOGIT; SWITCHGRASS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

AUTOMOTIVE FUELS; ETHANOL; FEEDSTOCKS; GASOLINE; WOOD PRODUCTS;

ECONOMICS;

AUTOMOBILE; BIOFUEL; CONTINGENT VALUATION; ETHANOL; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

AUTOMOTIVE ENGINES; CORN; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; ETHANOL; FUELS; GASOLINE; WOOD PRODUCTS; WOOD WASTE;

PANICUM VIRGATUM; ZEA MAYS;

EID: 78149408580     PISSN: 01409883     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2010.06.002     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Abbott P.C.Hurt, Tyner W. What's driving food prices?. Farm Foundation Issue Report 2008, (July).
2. Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC), USDOE. Starch- and sugar-based ethanol feedstocks, Internet site, (2009a). http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/ethanol/feedstocks_starch_sugar.html.
3. Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) USDOE, Alternative fueling station total counts by state and fuel type. Internet site, (2009b). http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/stations_counts.html?print.
4. Babcock B. Breaking the link between food and biofuels. CARD Briefing Paper 08-BP 53 2008, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, (July).
5. Borchers A.J.Duke, Parsons G. Does willingness to pay for green energy differ by source?. Energy Policy 2007, 35:3327-3334. June.
6. Brown R., Rosenberg N., Hays C., Easterling W., Mearns L. Potential production and environmental effects of switchgrass and traditional crops under current and greenhouse-altered climate in the Central United States: a simulation study. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 2000, 78(1):31-47. (March).
7. Energy Information Administration USDOE (EIA). Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007: summary of provisions. Internet site: http://eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/aeo_2008analysispapers/eisa.html.
8. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Clean Air Act. Internet site: http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/.
9. Hanley N., Mourato S., Wright R. Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation?. Journal of Economic Surveys 2001, 15(30):435-462.
10. Harrison W. The food versus fuel debate: implications for consumers. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 2009, 41(2):493-500. (August).
11. Hensher D., Greene W. The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Working Paper ITS-WP-02-01 2002, Institute of Transport Studies, The University of Sydney.
12. Jeanty P., Haab T., Hitzhusen F. Willingness to pay for biodiesel in diesel engines: a stochastic double bounded contingent valuation survey. Selected Paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Portland, OR, July 23-26 2007.
13. Johnson R. Including holdout choice tasks in conjoint studies. Sawtooth software research paper series, Sequim 1997.
14. Krinsky I., Robb A. Three methods for calculating the statistical properties of elasticities: a comparison. Empirical Economics 1991, 16(2):199-209.
15. Lavin F., Hanemann W. Taste indicators and heterogeneous revealed preferences for congestion in recreation demand. UCB CUDARE Working Papers Number 1075 2008, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, University of California, Berkeley.
16. Li H., Jenkins-Smith H., Silva C., Berrens R., Herron K. Public support for reducing US reliance on fossil fuels: investigating household willingness-to-pay for energy research and development. Ecological Economics 2009, 68(3):731-742.
17. Mau P., Eyzaguirre J., Jaccard M., Collins-Dodd C., Tiedemann K. The neighbor effect: simulating dynamics in consumer preferences for new vehicle technologies. Ecological Economics 2008, 68(1-2):504-516.
18. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in Econometrics 1973, Academic Press, New York. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
19. McLaughlin S., Bouton J., Bransby D., Conger B., Ocumpaugh W., Parrish D., Taliaferro C., Vogel K., Wullschleger S. Developing switchgrass as a bioenergy crop. Perspectives on New Crops and New Uses 1999, 282-299. ASHS Press, Alexandria, VA. J. Janick (Ed.).
20. Nalley L., Hudson D. The potential viability of biomass ethanol as a renewable fuel source: a discussion. Staff Report 15808, Mississippi State University, Department of Agricultural Economics 2003.
21. Nahuelhual L., Loureiro M., Loomis J. Using random parameters to account for heterogeneous preferences in contingent valuation of public open space. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 2004, 29(03):297-311.
22. Orme B. Fine-Tuning CBC and Adaptive CBC Questionnaires. Research Paper Series, Sawtooth Software, Sequim, WA 2009, Available online at: http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/finetune.pdfhttp://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/finetune.pdf.
23. Petrolia D., Bhattacharjee S., Hudson D., Herndon C. Do Americans want ethanol? A comparative contingent valuation study of willingness to pay for E-10 and E-85. Energy Economics 2009, 32(1):121-128.
24. Potoglou D., Kanaroglou P. Household demand and willingness to pay for clean vehicles. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 2007, 12(4):264-274. (June).
25. Revelt D., Train K. Mixed logit with repeated choices: households' choices of appliance efficiency level. The Review of Economics and Statistics 1998, 80(4):647-657.
26. Renewable Fuels Association. 2009 Ethanol Industry Outlook. Internet Site: (2009). http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/pdf/outlook/RFA_Outlook_2009.pdf.
27. Sawtooth Software On Interaction Effects and CBC Designs 1998, Sawtooth Solutions, Sequim, WA, Available online at: www.sawtoothsoftware.com/education/ss/ss8.shtml.
28. Skipper D., Van de Velde L., Popp M., Vickery G., Van Huylenbroeck G., Verbeke W. Consumers' perceptions regarding tradeoffs between food and fuel expenditures: a case study of U.S. and Belgian fuel users. Biomass and Bioenergy 2009, 33(6-7):973-987. (June-July).
29. Solomon B., Johnson N. Valuing climate protection through willingness to pay for biomass ethanol. Ecological Economics, Methodological Advancements in the Footprint Analysis 2009, 68(7):2137-2144. (May 15).
30. Train K. Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Economics 1998, 74(2):230-239.
31. Train K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2003, Cambridge University Press, New York.
32. Trostle R. Global agricultural supply and demand: factors contributing to the recent increases in food commodity prices. Outlook Report No. WRS-0801 2008, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, (July).
33. Ulmer J., Huhnke R., Bellmer D., Cartmell D. Acceptance of ethanol-blended gasoline in Oklahoma. Biomass & Bioenergy 2004, 27(5):437-444.
34. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Crop production. Report Cr Pr 2-2 (9-09) 2009, National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, (September).
35. Van de Velde L., Verbeke W., Popp M., Buysse J., Van Huylenbroeck G. Perceived importance of fuel characteristics and its match with consumer beliefs about biofuels in Belgium. Energy Policy 2009, 37(8):3183-3193. (August).
36. Wang M. Well-to-wheels energy and greenhouse gas emission results and issues of fuel ethanol. The Lifecycle Carbon Footprint of Biofuels Proceedings of a Conference in Miami Beach, FL 2008, (January 29).
37. Westcott P. Ethanol expansion in the United States: how will the agricultural sector adjust?. Outlook Report No. FDS-07D-01 2007, Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, (May).
38. Yacobucci B., Capehart T. Selected issues related to an expansion of the renewable fuel standard (RFS): an update. Report RL34265 2008, Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC.