Factors affecting public support for forest-based biorefineries: A comparison of mill towns and the general public in Maine, USA

Energy Policy

Volumn 75, Issue , 2014, Pages 301-311

  Marciano, James A ^a   Lilieholm, Robert J ^a   Teisl, Mario F ^a   Leahy, Jessica E ^a   Neupane, Binod ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MAINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cellulosic biofuels; Forestry; Social acceptability

Indexed keywords

CELLULOSIC ETHANOL; ECONOMICS; FORESTRY; REFINING; WATER POLLUTION;

CELLULOSIC BIOFUELS; INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS; INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT; RANDOM UTILITY MODEL; RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES; SIMILAR COEFFICIENT; SOCIAL ACCEPTABILITY; SUSTAINABLE RESOURCES;

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS;

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY; BIOFUEL; FORESTRY; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; MILL; PERCEPTION; RENEWABLE RESOURCE;

MAINE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84921916867     PISSN: 03014215     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.08.016     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Allison P.D., Christakis N.A. Logit models for sets of ranked items. Sociol. Methodol. 1994, 24:199-228.
2. Arnold F.H. The race for new biofuels. Eng. Sci. 2008, 2:12-19.
3. Considerations and Recommendations for Retaining Woody Biomass on Timber Harvest Sites in Maine. Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station 2010, 761. University of Maine, Misc. Publication. J. Benjamin (Ed.).
4. Benjamin J., Lilieholm R.J., Damery D. Challenges and opportunities facing the northeast bioproducts industry. J. For 2009, 107:125-131.
5. Benjamin J., Lilieholm R.J., Coup C. Forest biomass harvests: a "special needs" operation?. North. J. Appl. For 2010, 27:45-49.
6. Biorefinery "Financial Case" Team, 2007. The Case for the Integrated Thermochemical Forest Products Biorefinery, Draft. Unpublished Report. 30 November 2007.
7. Bergmann A., Colombo S., Hanley N. Rural versus urban preferences for renewable energy developments. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 65:616-625.
8. Brohmann B., Feenstra Y., Heiskanen E., Hodson M., Mourik R., Prasad G., Raven R. Factors influencing the societal acceptance of new, renewable and energy efficiency technologies: meta-analysis of recent European projects. European Roundtable for Sustainable Consumption and Production, Basel 2007, 20-22.
9. Brown L.R. Food or Fuel: New Competition for the World's Cropland 1980, Worldwatch Institute, Washington DC, 43 pp.
10. Brunson M.W. A Definition of "Social Acceptability" in Ecosystem Management. US Forest Service General Technical Report PNW 1996, 7-16.
11. Burningham K., Thrush D. Pollution concerns in context: a comparison of local perceptions of the risks associated with living close to a road and a chemical factory. J. Risk Res. 2004, 7:213-232.
12. Cacciatore M.A., Binder A.R., Scheufele D.A., Shaw B.R. Public attitudes toward biofuels: effects of knowledge, political partisanship, and media use. Politics Life Sci. 2012, 31:36-51.
13. Cordano M., Welcomer S.A., Scherer R.F. An analysis of the predictive validity of the New Ecological Paradigm scale. J. Environ. Educ. 2003, 34:22-28.
14. Curtis B. 2007 Year in Review U.S. Ethanol Industry: The Next Reflection Point 2008, Department of Energy. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/2007ethanolreview.pdf.
15. Delshad A.B., Raymond L., Sawicki V., Wegener D.T. Public attitudes toward political and technological options for biofuels. Energy Policy 2010, 38:3414-3425.
16. Devine-Wright P. Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 2005, 8:125-139.
17. Devine-Wright P. Reconsidering Public Attitudes and Public Acceptance of Renewable Energy Technologies: A Critical Review 2007, University of Manchester School of Environment and Development. Available at:. http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/research/beyond_nimbyism.
18. Devine-Wright P. A Cross-national, Comparative Analysis of Public Understanding of, and Attitudes toward Nuclear, Renewable, and Fossil-fuel Energy Sources 2008, Institute of Energy and Sustainable Development, INTUSER, (EU 5th Framework Project Grant).
19. Dickerson K., Rubin J. Maine Bioproducts Business Pathways 2008, University of Maine's Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center, Forest Bioproducts Research Initiative, and the School of Economics.
20. Domac J., Richards K., Risovic S. Socio-economic drivers in implementing bioenergy projects. Biomass Bioenergy 2005, 28:97-106.
21. Domínguez J.M., Olivares M. Are biofuels socially accepted in Guayaquil? In: International Association of Agricultural Economists 2012 Conference 2012, 2012. (August 18-24), Foz do Iguacu, Brazil.
22. DTI Scottish Executive, 2003. Attitudes and Knowledge of Renewable Energy amongst the General Public. Report Findings. Available at http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewables/policy_pdfs/nationalreport.pdf.
23. EPA Sustainability Research Strategy. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 600/S-07/001 2007, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, (October 2007 [online]). http://www.epa.gov/sustainability/pdfs/EPA-12057_SRS_R4-1.pdf.
24. Eurobarometer, 2003. Energy: Issues, Options and Technologies. Eurobarometer Special Report 169, Wave 57.
25. European Commission Climate Change: Special Eurobarometer 2011, 372. Director General for Communication, European Commission, Brussels.
26. Fast S. Public Opinion and Communicative Action around Renewable Energy Projects 2013, University of Ottawa.
27. Gallup Politics, 2013. Americans' Concerns About Global Warming on the Rise. Available at (accessed on 20 October, 2013). http://www.gallup.com/poll/161645/americans-concerns-global-warming-rise.aspx.
28. Greene W.H. Econometric Analysis 2000, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. fourth ed.
29. Hsu D.D. Life cycle assessment of gasoline and diesel produced via fast pyrolysis and hydroprocessing. Biomass Bioenergy 2012, 45:41-47.
30. Kim H., Kim S., Dale B.E. Biofuels, land use change, and greenhouse gas emissions: some unexplored variables. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43:961-967.
31. Kotchen M.J., Reiling S.D. Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 32:93-107.
32. Lancaster K. A new approach to consumer theory. J. Polit. Economy 1966, 74:132-157.
33. Larson, E.D. et al., 2006. A Cost Benefit Assessment of Gasification-Based Biorefining in the Kraft Pulp and Paper Industry. 21 December 2006.
34. Lilieholm R.J., Lammert P.R., Lord G.N., Trosper S.L. 2010 Directory of Primary Wood Processors in Maine 2011, University of Maine School of Forest Resources and the Maine Forest Service, 143 pp.
35. Maine Forest Products Council Maine's Forest Economy 2013, Augusta, Maine.
36. Manski C., Lerman S. The estimation of choice probabilities from choice based samples. Econometrica 1977, 45:1977-1988.
37. Mao H. Technical Evaluation of a Hardwood Biorefinery Using "Near Neutral" Hemicellulose Pre-Extraction Process 2007, (Masters Thesis), Chemical Engineering. University of Maine.
38. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in Econometrics 1974, 105-142. Academic Press, New York, NY. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
39. McFadden D. Economic choices. Am. Econ. Rev 2001, 91:351-378.
40. Milbrandt, A., 2005. A Geographic Perspective on the Current Biomass Resource Availability in the United States. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Report NREL/TP-560-39181.
41. Monroe M.C., Oxarart A. Woody biomass outreach in the southern United States: a case study. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35:1465-1473.
42. Musall F.D., Kuik O. Local acceptance of renewable energy-a case study from southeast Germany. Energy Policy 2011, 39:3252-3260.
43. Noblet C.L., Farrow K.H., Rubin J. Biofuels development in Maine: using trees to oil the wheels of sustainability. Maine Policy Rev. 2012, 21:56-66.
44. Polatidis H., Haralambopoulos D.A. Renewable energy systems: a societal and technological platform. Renewable Energy 2007, 32:329-341.
45. Savvanidou E., Zervas E., Tsagkarakis K. Social acceptance of biofuels. Energy, Environment, Ecosystems, Development and Land Architecture 2009, 208-213.
46. Savvanidou E., Zervas E., Tsagarakis K.P. Public acceptance of biofuels. Energy Policy 2010, 38:3482-3488.
47. Singer C. Stakeholder Attitudes toward Forest-residual Based Biofuels in Washington State 2013, University of Washington.
48. Solomon B.D., Johnson N.H. Valuing climate protection through willingness to pay for biomass ethanol. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68:2137-2144.
49. Stankey G.H., Shindler B. Formation of social acceptability judgments and their implications for management of rare and little-known species. Conserv. Biol. 2006, 20:28-37.
50. Susaeta A., Alavalapati J., Lal P., Matta J.R., Mercer E. Assessing public preferences for forest biomass based energy in the southern United States. Environ. Manage. 2010, 45:697-710.
51. Sustainable Energy Ireland, 2003. Attitudes towards Wind Farms and Wind Energy in Ireland, Dublin.
52. Thayer R.L., Freeman C.M. Altamont: public perceptions of a wind energy landscape. Landscape Urban Plann. 1987, 14:379-398.
53. Thurston L.L. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol. Rev. 1927, 34:273-286.
54. Upreti B.R., Horst D.V.D. National renewable energy policy and local opposition in the UK: the failed development of a biomass electricity plant. Biomass Bioenergy 2004, 26:61-69.
55. U.S. Department of Energy, 2007. U.S. Ethanol Industry in Review: The Next Inflection Point.
56. U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Billion-ton Update: Biomass Supply for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry. R.D. Perlack and B.J. Stokes, (Leads), ORNL/TM-2011/224 2011, 227. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
57. U.S. Department of Energy Transportation Energy Data Book 2013, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 31st ed.
58. University of Wisconsin Survey Shows High Interests in Biofuels 2009, University of Wisconsin-Madison. http://www.news.wisc.edu/releases/15175.
59. Upham P. Applying environmental-behaviour concepts to renewable energy siting controversy: reflections on a longitudinal bioenergy case study. Energy Policy 2009, 37:4273-4283.
60. van Calker K.J., Berentsen P.B.M., Giesen G.W.J., Huirne R.B.M. Identifying and ranking attributes that determine sustainability in Dutch dairy farming. Agric. Hum. Values 2003, 22:53-63.
61. van Calker K.J., Berentsen P.B.M., Romero C., Giesen G.W.J., Huirne R.B.M. Development and application of a multi-attribute sustainability function for Dutch dairy farming systems. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 57:640-658.
62. van der Horst D. NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of locations and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy citing controversies. Energy Policy 2007, 35:2705-2714.
63. van Heiningen A.R.P. Converting a kraft pulp mill into an integrated forest products bio-refinery. Pulp Pap. Can. 2006, 107:38-43.
64. Wang M.Q., Han J., Haq Z., Tyner W.E., Wu M., Elgowainy A. Energy and greenhouse gas emission effects of corn and cellulosic ethanol with technology improvements and land use changes. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35:1885-1896.
65. Warren C.R., Lumsden C., O'Dowd S., Birnie R.V. "Green on green": public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 2005, 48:853-875.
66. Wüstenhagen R., Wolsink M., Bürer M.J. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: an introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 2007, 35:2683-2691.
67. Zoellner J., Schweizer-Ries P., Wemheuer C. Public acceptance of renewable energies: results from case studies in Germany. Energy Policy 2008, 36:4136-4141.