butler wood availability - university of vermontcfcm/symposium/pdfs/butler.pdf · towards biomass,...
TRANSCRIPT
Biophysical vs. Social Availability of Wood in the Northeastern
U.S.
Brett J. Butler, Marla Lindsay, Paul Catanzaro, David Kittredge,
Zhao Ma, and Tom Stevens
Woody Biomass Energy Research SymposiumApril 28‐30, 2011 Burlington, VT
Conclusions
1. Social constraints are more important than biophysical constraints
– Especially owners’ attitudes and size of holdings
2. Hypothetical participation rate in Massachusetts is low
– Most influenced by harvest plans, attitudes towards biomass, and management plans
– Price is only marginally significant
2
Biomass Across the Northeastern U.S.
3
Source: Blackard et al. 2008. Mapping U.S. forest biomass. Rem. Sens. Env.
Biomass by Ownershipin the Northeastern U.S.
4
How Much Wood/Biomass/Timber is Really Available?
• How to define availability?
• What are the constraints affecting availability?
• What are the implications?
5
Constraints ‐ Abstractly
6
Constraints – Mathematically
Where:
• BiomassA: total amount of available biomass
• Biomassi: amount of biomass represented by plot i
• ReductionRateij: biomass availability reduction rate
7
( )∑ ∏= =
⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛−=
n
ii
k
jijA BiomassateReductionRBiomass
1 1
1
Physical and Biological Constraints
• Physical– Slope
– Physiographic class
– Site productivity
• Biological– Stand size
8
Social Constraints
• Financial– Holding size– Accessibility– Development pressure
• Political– Riparian areas– Zoning regulations
• Landowner– Harvesting likelihood
9
Biomass Availability by Constraint
10
Biomass Availability by State
11
Published in 2010 in the Northern Journal of Applied Forestry
12
Massachusetts Landowner Biomass Survey
13
Approach
• Massachusetts family forest owners with 10+ ac
• n = 439
• Asked about– Their land
– Ownership objectives
– Their opinions about woody biomass
– Aesthetics
– Willingness to participate14
Respondents
• Acreage– mean of 50 acres
• Farmers: – 20% of respondents
• Ownership objectives: – Beauty– Home– Privacy
• Timber Harvesting: – 50% have– 23% “would never”
• Management Plan:– 20% of respondents
15
Aesthetics
16
A.
B.
C.
71%
Ranked as Top Choice
17%
12%
Attitudes Towards Biomass
17
Willingness to Harvest Biomass
Where:• y = probability of accepting biomass harvest offer• β = regression coefficients• x = explanatory variables• ε = error term
18
εβ += ii xy*
i
i
x
x
i eey β
β
+==
1)1(Prob
Adjusted for uncertainty
Willingness to Harvest Biomass
Significant
• Price of biomass (+)
• Plans to harvest (+)
• Enrolled in current use (+)
• Has management plan (‐)
• Views biomass as a positive economic factor (+)
• Gender ‐male (+)
NON‐ Significant• Destination• Aesthetics• Home on woodland• Forested acres• Had harvested• Manages for timber• Manages for nature• Views biomass as a negative
environmental impact• Age• Education• Income
19
Supply Curve
20
Conclusions
1. Social constraints are more important than biophysical constraints
– Especially owners’ attitudes and size of holdings
2. Hypothetical participation rate in Massachusetts is low
– Most influenced by harvest plans, attitudes towards biomass, and management plans
– Price is only marginally significant
21
Comments or questions?
Brett Butler
U.S. Forest Service, Amherst, MA
www.fia.fs.fed.us/nwos
www.FamilyForestResearchCenter.org
22
EXTRA SLIDES
23
For example:
PLOTi BIOi RR1 RR2 RR3 BIOA
1 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 ((1‐0)x(1‐0)x(1‐0))*100 100
2 100 0.75 0.00 0.00 ((1‐0.75)x(1‐0)x(1‐0))*100 25
3 100 0.75 0.75 0.75 ((1‐0.75)x(1‐0.75)x(1‐0.75))*100
1.56
Total: 126.56
24
Physical Constraints
25
Xeric Mesic Hydric
Physiographic Class
020
4060
8010
0
<25 25-49 50-74 75+
Slope
Percent
020
4060
8010
0
0-19 20-49 50-84 85-119 120+
Site Productivity
Cubic feet per acre per year
020
4060
8010
0
Biological Constraint
26
Small Medium Large
Tree Size
020
4060
8010
0
Financial Constraints
27
1-19 20-49 50-99 100-499 500+
Size of Forest Holdings
Acres
020
4060
8010
0
<0.5 0.5-0.9 1.0+
Distance to Nearest Road
Miles
020
4060
8010
0
<1000 1000-1999 2000-2999 3000+
Human Population Pressure
Population gravity index
020
4060
8010
0
Political Constraints
28
<50 50-99 100-149 150-499 500+
Distance to Nearest Water
Feet0
2040
6080
100
<50 50-99 100-149 150-499 500+
Human Population Density
People per square mile
020
4060
8010
0
Landowner Constraints
29
0 1 2 3
Ownership Attitude
Attitude index
020
4060
8010
0
Sensitivity Analysis: Threshold
30
Sensitivity Analysis: Reduction Rate
31
Contingent Valuation (CV) Biomass Survey
• Model– Willing to harvest residual woody biomass as part of a traditional harvest (yes/no)
• Preference Uncertainty in CV– Addressed with commonly used approach– Respondents rate certainty on scale 1‐5– Recoded a “yes” as a “no” if respondent was at all uncertain (answered 1‐4)
• Our approach safeguards against hypothetical bias in CV
32
Background
• Biomass is a hot topic
• Our project:– Biomass conversion
– Feedstock and economics
– Biomass supply• Landowners’ concerns
• Factors influencing participation
33
Biomass Opinion Questions
• Negative environmental impact [Factor 1]– Leaving it is important to wildlife habitat– Removing it depletes soil nutrients– Using it increases air pollution– Harvesting it significantly deforests
• Positive economic impact [Factor 2]– Using it could positively impact local economy– Harvesting it could supply renewable energy– Using it could positively impact US ability to address climate change
34
Willingness to Harvest Biomass
Variable Coefficient z P>|z|Price of biomass 0.0021 2.13 0.033Destination: local school 0.22 ‐0.48 0.630Destination: electric power plant ‐0.25 ‐.054 0.590
Aesthetics (Picture 1) ‐0.29 ‐0.76 0.450Home on woodland ‐0.08 ‐0.18 0.860
Forested acres ‐0.002 ‐0.62 0.534
Had harvested 0.27 0.59 0.554
Plans to harvest 1.07 2.25 0.024
Chapter 61 enrolled 0.88 1.95 0.051
Management plan ‐1.23 ‐2.27 0.024
Manages for timber ‐0.45 ‐0.90 0.370
Manages for nature ‐0.05 ‐0.11 0.913
Biomass factor: neg env’l impact ‐0.20 ‐0.95 0.342
Biomass factor: pos econ impact 0.51 2.22 0.02735
Willingness to harvest biomass
36
Variable Coefficient z P>|z|
Age (65+) 0.05 0.12 0.908
Education (≤ High School) 0.27 0.46 0.647
Education (Graduate Degree) 0.30 0.61 0.540
Income less than $50,000 ‐0.02 ‐0.03 0.976
Income more than $100,000 ‐0.22 ‐0.51 0.612
Gender (male=1) 1.02 1.70 0.089
Constant ‐3.74 ‐3.97 0.000
Estimated Participation Rates
37
aAll other variables are set to their mean value, see Table 2.
Supply response0
100
200
300
400
500
Bio
mas
s pric
e pe
r acr
e
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Participation rate
Average respondent
38