AnalysisWhich factors influence the expansion of bioenergy? An empirical study of the investment behaviours of German farmers
Introduction
To achieve a climate-friendly energy supply in Germany in the long term, the expansion of renewable energies is seen as essential (BMU and BMELV, 2009). This expansion could be supported by a change in economic and political conditions. The recently amended German Renewable Energy Act (Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz, EEG), for instance, promotes the generation of electricity from renewable energy sources. Among other things, the EEG is intended to encourage investments in renewable energy systems that generate energy from biomass (BMU and BMELV, 2009). In particular, it fixes the rates that network operators must pay for electricity from renewable sources over a 20-year period (§16 EEG). The additional costs for the production of this electricity are paid by the customers. For the investor, this leads to a reduction of risk exposure on the revenue side.
It has been observed that farmers respond very differently to these incentives. Some farmers have invested in biogas plants, while others have not invested. This might be caused by farm-specific benefit and cost effects that are associated with the investment in a biogas plant. For example, the production of biogas requires the additional cultivation of energy crops, in many cases maize. This might have differing economic effects and should be seen in the context of the existing cultivation of maize and changes regarding crop rotation. However, it may also be the case that farmers make suboptimal decisions due to incomplete information and limited cognitive abilities in processing information, a phenomenon Simon (1956) refers to as ‘bounded rationality’ (see also Kahneman, 2003, Gigerenzer and Selten, 2001, Selten, 1990). Frör (2008) used the concept of bounded rationality regarding environmental valuation. According to this concept, decision makers may come to different results even if they have the same entrepreneurial objectives and face identical business conditions. Bounded rationality does not refer to any deviation from the goal of profit maximisation, but rather to inconsistency in the decision-making behaviour. To estimate the consequences of the aforementioned economic incentives promoting bioenergy production, it is important to understand the decision-making behaviour of farmers including the impact of bounded rationality.
Thus far, a number of studies have examined the general decision-making behaviour of farmers (see, e.g., Berger, 2001, Edwards-Jones, 2006, Ilbery, 1978, Willock et al., 1999). Furthermore, several authors have analysed the economics of biogas plants (see, e.g., Gebrezgabher et al., 2010, Heissenhuber and Berenz, 2006, Keymer, 2009, Wulf et al., 2006), the (spatial) diffusion of biogas plants (see, e.g., Madlener and Schmid, 2008, Markard et al., 2008, Negro and Hekkert, 2008) as well as the production of agricultural raw materials for these plants (see, e.g., Karpenstein-Machan, 2005). To the best of our knowledge, there is no quantitative study of the decision-making behaviour of farmers in the context of investments in biogas plants. For that reason, no models are known that explain the characteristics of different implementations of bioenergy investments. Moreover, predictions of the effects arising from changes in political surrounding conditions have been limited.
The aim of this paper is to contribute to the understanding of the decision-making behaviour of farmers in the context of investments in bioenergy. To this end, we have conducted a survey in which farm managers were interviewed and confronted with a hypothetical investment in a specific biogas plant. The necessary substratum for the biogas plant would be cultivated on land that is currently used for wheat production. To our knowledge, we are the first discussing the following questions:
- 1.
Which conversion threshold — measured as (critical) wheat price — is necessary to motivate the respondent to invest in the biogas plant and change the existing production program?
- 2.
What are the driving factors that influence this conversion threshold (i.e., individual risk attitude, valuation of sustainability effects, etc.)? To what extent can the observed decision-making behaviour of farmers be attributed to bounded rationality?
- 3.
Could the expansion of bioenergy be reasonably promoted by an investment subsidy? How is this subsidy appreciated by the farmers in terms of their investment decision?
- 4.
Is there a difference in the observed decision-making behaviour of farmers with prior experience with investments in bioenergy compared to farmers not familiar with this kind of investment?
The paper proceeds as follows: In Section 2, the design of the survey and the methodology are described in detail. Section 3 presents the results of the survey analysis for the outcome of the investment threshold of the hypothetical investment and its potential influencing factors. The explanatory power of the influencing factors is determined and the effect of an investment subsidy on the investment behaviour is illustrated. Subsequently, the result for the observed decision-making behaviour of farmers who have prior experience with investments in bioenergy is compared to that of farmers not familiar with this investment area. The article ends with conclusions (Section 4).
Section snippets
Research Design
An understanding of the decision-making behaviour of farmers is essential to adequately predict the effects arising from political changes with respect to investment conditions. The observation of farmers' real decisions is of little use in this context. On a farm, investment decisions related to a capital-intensive object (such as a biogas plant) are relatively rare. Moreover, basic conditions differ among farms (e.g., the financial resources). So it is hardly possible to draw comparisons (
Empirical Results and Discussion
Section 3.1 presents the results for the trigger price and the influencing factors. In Section 3.2, the explanatory power of the influencing factors is examined using a regression model. Section 3.3 shows the effect of an investment subsidy on the investment behaviour. In Section 3.4, the results of investors and non-investors are compared. For clarity reasons, all data were converted into €/dt wheat.
Conclusions
In the context of a sustainable energy supply and for policy impact analysis, it is important to understand the (different) development of investments in biogas plants at the farm level to make adequate predictions of effects arising from changes in surrounding conditions. In this paper, the decision-making behaviour of farmers in the context of these investments is investigated. As part of a questionnaire, farm managers were confronted with a hypothetical decision situation regarding an
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the editor, two anonymous reviewers, Dr. Oleg Nenadić and Holger Reise for their valuable comments and suggestions. We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Ministry for Science and Culture of Lower Saxony (MWK).
References (42)
- et al.
Developing a scale for assessing risk attitudes of agricultural decision maker
International Food and Agribusiness Management Review
(2000) Agent-based spatial models applied to agriculture: a simulation tool for technology diffusion, resource use changes and policy analysis
Agricultural Economics
(2001)- et al.
Decision-making under environmental uncertainty
Ecological Economics
(1995) Bounded rationality in contingent valuation: empirical evidence using cognitive psychology
Ecological Economics
(2008)- et al.
The internalization of externalities in the production of electricity: willingness to pay for the attributes of a policy for renewable energy
Ecological Economics
(2008) - et al.
Sustainability-guided promotion of renewable electricity generation
Ecological Economics
(2005) - et al.
Reconciling theory and practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services
Ecological Economics
(2010) - et al.
The optimal size for biogas plants
Biomass and Bioenergy
(2008) - et al.
Farmers' attitudes, objectives, behaviors, and personality traits: the Edinburgh study of decision making on farms
Journal of Vocational Behavior
(1999) - et al.
Balancing of greenhouse gas emissions and economic efficiency for biogas-production through anaerobic co-fermentation of slurry with organic waste
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment
(2006)
Ausgewählte Daten und Fakten der Agrarwirtschaft 2010, Berlin
Nationaler Biomasseaktionsplan für Deutschland
Principles of Corporate Finance
The technical efficiency impact of farm credit programmes: a case study of Northern Germany
Journal of Agricultural Economics
Modelling farmer decision-making: concepts, progress and challenges
Animal Science
Handreichung — Biogasgewinnung und -nutzung. FNR, Gülzow
Zur Bedeutung entscheidungstheoretischer Anomalien für die Ökonomik
Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik
Dynamic microeconometric approaches to analysing agricultural policy
Costs of producing biogas at dairy farms in The Netherlands
International Journal on Food System Dynamics
Calculated Risks: How to Know When Numbers Deceive You
Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox
Cited by (40)
Analysis of agricultural waste/byproduct biomass potential for bioenergy: The case of Tunisia
2024, Energy for Sustainable DevelopmentAn analysis of the social and private return to land use change from agriculture to renewable energy production in Ireland
2023, Journal of Cleaner ProductionCitation Excerpt :For governments hoping for farmers to convert land from agriculture to renewable energy production, it will be necessary to subsidise these new technologies so that they are economically competitive with agriculture. Going beyond straight income comparisons, the experience of the 2007 Bioenergy Scheme highlights the role of risk in farmers’ decision making, which may require a risk premium be added to subsidy payments to convince farmers to switch from agriculture (Anand et al., 2019; Reise et al., 2012). The output multipliers show the potential of the bioenergy value chain to contribute significantly to economic activity in Ireland.
Barriers and opportunities for bioenergy expansion in Chinese rural areas
2022, Energy for Sustainable DevelopmentDealing with heterogeneity and complexity in the analysis of the willingness to invest in community renewable energy in rural areas
2021, Technological Forecasting and Social ChangeCitation Excerpt :Wüstenhagen and Menichetti (2012) demand the need of a bounded rationality perspective (Simon, 1955) in the analysis of the decisions of professional investors in RE to shed light on the role of cognitive aspects shaping risk perceptions and return expectations. Similar to Reise et al. (2012) and Dóci and Gotchev (2016), this study adopts this perspective to analyze the decisions of citizens as non-professional investors in rural CRE projects. We acknowledge that perceptions of risk and return matter and are influenced by cognitive factors.
The hidden costs of renewables promotion: The case of crop-based biogas
2017, Journal of Cleaner ProductionAre we making decisions in a sustainable way? A comprehensive literature review about rationalities for sustainable development
2017, Journal of Cleaner Production