Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
What is more typical than the measurement of the public perceptions of biofuel markets is the
measurement of WTP for green electricity, of which biomass is one possible fuel. Several studies
have shown a large gap between the number of people who say they are willing to pay more for
green electricity and the number who actually do so when given the option by their electric power
provider (e.g., Borchers et al. 2007; Wiser 2007; Hite et al. 2008).
Another typical way that public perceptions of biofuel markets in the United States are mea-
sured is through studies gauging public perceptions of climate change. For instance, Dietz et al.
(2007) examined people's attitudes toward eight possible climate change mitigation policies, includ-
ing several that would make biomass combustion and liquid biofuel consumption in vehicles more
economically viable. Policies that had the least direct economic impact on consumers, such as the
reduction of government subsidies for fossil fuels, had the most support, whereas direct taxes, such
as a 60-cent per gallon gasoline tax, had the least. Our three-state public opinion survey included
sections on public perception and attitudes toward global climate change similar to Dietz et al.
(2007), but also explicitly addressed cellulosic ethanol as a possible solution plus a section that
addressed the WTP for this fuel (Solomon and Johnson 2009b).
12.4.2 m
Ethodology
The survey was mailed to 1500 households throughout Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.
Rural addresses received 60% of the surveys so as to increase the number of farm and forest own-
ers in the sample. An expanded version of Dillman's tailored design method was used to increase
the response rate (Clendenning et al. 2004). This entailed sending out a presurvey notification
letter, multiple survey mailings, and reminder postcards between mailings. A $2 bill was sent with
the first survey as a thank you. The surveys were sent in three rounds between November 2007
and January 2008. After accounting for bad addresses, the final survey size was 1432. A total of
745 households returned a survey for an overall response rate of 52%. For this analysis, a further
75 surveys were discarded for not providing complete answers to all of the relevant questions.
The survey responses were then weighted to correct for the aforementioned oversampling and
for slightly varying response rates from different states, adjusting the results based on the actual
populations on the basis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau for the rural and urban subpopula-
tions in the three states.
As noted earlier, the survey had sections. The first section included 44 Likert scale questions that
asked respondents about their opinions of climate change, energy cost and consumption, and the
environment. The second section was a spilt sample contingent valuation method and “fair share”
survey that measured WTP for cellulosic ethanol fuel in the states surveyed (Solomon and Johnson
2009b). Owners of farms or forests were asked several additional non-Likert scale questions to
determine if the owners had forest residues or waste biomass they would want to sell. The average
time to complete the survey was approximately 30 min.
12.4.3 r
ESultS
Table 12.2 shows the raw average responses and the weighted responses to the questions regarding
public attitudes and beliefs toward cellulosic ethanol. Respondents who chose “don't know” for
answers were excluded from the average. There was some agreement that making biofuels would
be helpful to local economies. Farmers and forestland owners exhibited greater support for a local
biofuel economy than did the general population. It is interesting to note that not a single farm
or forest owner (
n
= 93) was indecisive (“neither agree nor disagree”) to the statement “America
should produce its own energy.” Similarly, only one farm owner and one forest owner responded
with “neither agree nor disagree” to the statement “Making more biofuels, like corn ethanol, would
be good for my area's economy.” For non-farm and forest owners, this option was selected 16%
and 14%, respectively.
