Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

The Hurdles to Greater Adoption of Anaerobic Digesters

  • Cortney Cowley and B. Wade Brorsen

Abstract

Design of government policies that seek greater adoption of anaerobic digesters can benefit from a greater understanding of the motivations for adoption. Using a nationwide survey of U.S. dairy and swine producers, this study seeks to determine how policies, peer group influences, environmental beliefs, and farm characteristics affect the decision to adopt a digester. Results suggest that neighborhood effects, farm type and size, and nonmarket benefits of anaerobic digestion are important for predicting whether or not a producer will consider this technology for manure management. However, the decision to actually adopt is more dependent on government policies and economic considerations.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      The Hurdles to Greater Adoption of Anaerobic Digesters
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      The Hurdles to Greater Adoption of Anaerobic Digesters
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      The Hurdles to Greater Adoption of Anaerobic Digesters
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Corresponding author

Correspondence: Cortney Cowley ■ Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City2201 Farnam StreetOmaha, NE 68102402.221.5701 ■ Email: cortney.cowley@kc.frb.org.

Footnotes

Hide All

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City or the Federal Reserve System. Brorsen receives funding from the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station and the National Institute for Agriculture (NIFA) Hatch project OKL02939 as well as the A.J. and Susan Jacques Chair.

Considerable assistance with the survey from Wilbert Hundl, Jr. and Jayson Lusk and helpful comments from Rodney Holcomb, Jody Campiche, and Nathan Kauffman are gratefully acknowledged. The authors would also like to thank Todd Schmit, editor of the Journal, and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions.

Footnotes

References

Hide All
Baerenklau, K.A. 2005. “Toward an Understanding of Technology Adoption: Risk, Learning, and Neighborhood Effects.” Land Economics 81(1): 119.
Bishop, C.P., and Shumway, C.R.. 2009. “The Economics of Dairy Anaerobic Digestion with Coproduct Marketing.” Review of Agricultural Economics 31(3): 394410.
Bishop, C.P., Shumway, C.R., and Wadschneider, P.R.. 2010. “Agent Heterogeneity in Adoption of Anaerobic Digestion Technology: Integrating Economic, Diffusion, and Behavioral Innovation Theories.” Land Economics 86(3): 585608.
Blamey, R.K., Bennett, J.W., and Morrison, M.D.. 1999. “Yea-Saying in Contingent Valuation Surveys.” Land Economics 75(1): 126141.
Borenstein, S., Bushnell, J., Wolak, F.A., and Zaragoza-Watkins, M.. 2014. “Report of the Market Simulation Group on Competitive Supply/Demand Balance in the California Allowance Market and the Potential for Market Manipulation.” Paper presented at the public meeting of the Emissions Market Advisory Committee, Berkeley CA, 7 June.
Boyer, C.N., Lambert, D.M., Velandia, M., English, B.C., Roberts, R.K., Larson, J.A., Larkin, S.L., Paudel, K.P., and Reeves, J.M.. 2016. “Cotton Producer Awareness and Participation in Cost Sharing Programs for Precision Nutrient-Management Technology.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 41(1): 8196.
California State Assembly. 2006. “An Act to Add Division 25.5 (Commencing with Section 38500) to the Health and Safety Code, Relating to Air Pollution.” Assembly Bill No. 32.
Centner, T.J., 2003. “Regulating Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations to Enhance the Environment.” Environmental Science & Policy 6: 433440.
Chouinard, H.H., Paterson, T., Wandschneider, P.R., and Ohler, A.M.. 2008. “Will Farmers Trade Profits for Stewardship? Heterogeneous Motivations from Farm Practice Selection.” Land Economics 84(1): 6682.
Cooper, J.C., and Keim, R.W.. 1996. “Incentive Payments to Encourage Farmer Adoption of Water Quality Protection Practices.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 78: 5464.
DeVuyst, E.A., Pryor, S.W., Lardy, G., Eide, W., and Wiederholt, R.. 2011. “Cattle, Ethanol, and Biogas: Does Closing the Loop Make Economic Sense?Agricultural Systems 104: 609614.
Gloy, B.A., and Dressler, J.B.. 2010. “Financial Barriers to the Adoption of Anaerobic Digestion on US Livestock Operations.” Agricultural Finance Review 70(2): 157168.
Greene, W.H. 2012. Econometric Analysis, 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Holt, C.E. 2013. “Producers Willingness to Adopt a Prescribed Grazing System East of the 100th Meridian.” Master's Thesis, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, University of Tennessee.
Hawkins, R. and Wallace, S.. 2006. “Source of Income Effects for Demand Decisions and Taxable Consumption.” Applied Economics 38(20): 23712379.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 1996. “IPPC Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 2005.” Available online at https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/climate-changes-1995/ipcc-2nd-assessment/2nd-assessment-en.pdf. (accessed May 2014).
Kramer, J.M. Agricultural Biogas Casebook – 2004 Update. Available online at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.526.3134&rep=rep1&type=pdf. (accessed February 2017).
Kruger, C., Chen, S., MacConnell, C., Harrison, J., Shumway, R., Zhang, T., Oakley, K., Bishop, C., Frear, C., Davidson, D., and Bowers, K.. 2008. “High-Quality Fiber and Fertilizer as Co-products from Anaerobic Digestion.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 63(1): 12A13A.
Lazarus, W.F., and Rudstrom, M.. 2007. “The Economics of Anaerobic Digester Operation on a Minnesota Dairy Farm.” Review of Agricultural Economics 29(2): 349364.
Lambert, D.M., English, B.C., Harper, D.C., Larkin, S.L., Larson, J.A., Mooney, D.F., Roberts, R.K., Velandia, M., and Reeves, J.M.. 2014. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 39(1): 106123.
Massé, D.I, Rajagopal, R., and Singh, G.. 2014. “Technical and Operational Feasibility of Psychrophilic Anaerobic Digestion Biotechnology for Processing Ammonia-Rich Waste.” Applied Energy 120: 4955.
Moore, W.H. 1945. “Accounting for Sources of Income.” Journal of Accountancy 79(4): 285290.
Ndegwa, P.M., Hamilton, D.W., Lalman, J.A., and Cumba, H.J.. 2008. “Effects of Cycle-Frequency and Temperature on the Performance of Anaerobic Sequencing Batch Reactors (ASBRs) Treating Swine Waste.” Bioresource Technology 99(6): 19721980.
Nowak, P.J. 1987. “The Adoption of Agricultural Conservation Technologies: Economic and Diffusion Explanations.” Rural Sociology 52(2): 208220.
Poe, G.L., Bills, N.L., Bellows, B.C., Crosscombe, P., Koelsch, R.K., Kreher, M.J., and Wright, P.. 2001. “Will Voluntary and Educational Programs Meet Environmental Objectives? Evidence from a Survey of New York Dairy Farms.” Review of Agricultural Economics 23(2): 473491.
Rogers, E. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed. New York: Free Press.
Sanders, D.J., Roberts, M.C., Ernst, S.C., and Thraen, C.S.. 2010. “Digesters and Demographics: Identifying Support for Anaerobic Digesters on Dairy Farms.” Journal of Dairy Science 93(11): 55035508.
Stokes, J.R., Rajagopalan, R.M., and Stefanou, S.E.. 2008. “Investment in a Methane Digester: An Application of Capital Budgeting and Real Options.” Review of Agricultural Economics 30(4): 664676.
Taneja, G., Pal, B.D., Joshi, P.K., Aggarwal, P.K., and Tyagi, N.K.. 2014. Farmers’ Preferences for Climate-Smart Agriculture: An Assessment in the Indo-Gangetic Plain. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Discussion Paper 01337.
Tchobanoglous, G., Stensel, H.D., Tsuchihashi, R., Burton, F., Abu-Orf, M., Bowden, G., and Pfrang, W.. 2014. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Resource Recovery, 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
The Economist. 2014. Livestock Farming: Meat and Greens, 18 January.
Thompson, N.M. 2012. “Two Studies Evaluating Input Use in Soybean and Cotton Production.” MS thesis, University of Tennessee.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2015. USDA’s Building Blocks for Climate Smart Agriculture & Forestry – Fact Sheet. Available online at https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/State-Offices/Texas/newsreleases/pdf/climate-smart-fact-sheet.pdf. (accessed April 2015).
U.S. Department of Energy. 2014. Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency. Available online at http://www.dsireusa.org/. (accessed July 2014).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014a. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 19902012. EPA 430-R-14-003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014b. Operating Anaerobic Digester Projects. AgSTAR Database. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/agstar/projects/. (accessed May 30, 2014).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014c. State and Local Climate and Energy Program: Renewable Energy. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/statelocalclimate/state/topics/renewable.html. (accessed July 2014).
U.S. Government. 2013. Technical Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. Washington DC.
U.S. Government. 2016. Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. Washington DC.
Wang, Q., Thompson, E., Parsons, R., Rogers, G., and Dunn, D.. 2011. “Economic Feasibility of Converting Cow Manure to Electricity: A Case Study of the CVPS Cow Power Program in Vermont.” Journal of Dairy Science 94: 49374949.

Keywords

Type Description Title
PDF
Supplementary materials

Cowley and Wade Brorsen supplementary material 1
Cowley and Wade Brorsen supplementary material

 PDF (287 KB)
287 KB

The Hurdles to Greater Adoption of Anaerobic Digesters

  • Cortney Cowley and B. Wade Brorsen

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed