Innovation in Agriculture: Incentives for Adoption and Supply Chain Development for Energy Crops

  • Madhu KhannaEmail author
  • David Zilberman
  • Ruiqing Miao
Part of the Natural Resource Management and Policy book series (NRMP, volume 40)


The literature on technology adoption provides key insights that can explain the incentives and barriers to the adoption of new energy crops for producing biofuels to displace fossil fuels. Energy crops are perennials with high upfront costs and establishment lags. They also differ from conventional crops in their riskiness. Their production involves foregoing returns from existing uses of the land. These features differ spatially and across farmers due to difference in farmer risk and time preferences. Understanding patterns of adoption is important for designing farming systems, supply chains, and policies. The literature investigates the influence on the adoption decision of many sources of heterogeneity across time and location including differences in the characteristics of technologies, farmers, market conditions, and policy incentives. Factors likely to influence adoption are explained using the example of two high-yielding and promising energy crops: miscanthus and switchgrass. Energy crop adoption decision is shown to be based on monetary factors (profit and costs) and the composition of mechanisms to address risk and uncertainty available to a region, as well as the risk and time preferences, attitudes, and beliefs of farmers. The paper ends with a discussion of market mechanisms and policy incentives to induce adoption and create supply chains needed to engender this industry.


Adoption Energy crops Miscanthus Supply chain Switchgrass 


  1. Adams, P. W., G.P. Hammond, M.C. McManus, and W.G. Mezzullo. 2011. Barriers to and drivers for UK bioenergy development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (2): 1217–1227.Google Scholar
  2. Arthur, W.B. 1994. Increasing returns and path dependence in the economy. USA: The University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bocqueho, G., and F. Jacquet. 2010. The adoption of switchgrass and miscanthus by farmers: Impact of liquidity constraints and risk preferences. Energy Policy 38 (5): 2598–2607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Byerlee, D., and E.H. de Polanco. 1986. Farmers’ stepwise adoption of technological packages: evidence from the Mexican Altiplano. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 68 (3): 519–527.Google Scholar
  5. Chen, X. 2010. A dynamic analysis of U.S. biofuels policy impact on land use, greenhouse gas emissions and social welfare. Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
  6. Chen, X., H. Huang, M. Khanna, and H. Önal. 2011. Meeting the mandate for biofuels: implications for land use, food, and fuel prices. In The intended and unintended effects of US agricultural and biotechnology policies, pp. 223–267. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Clifton-brown, J. C., and P. F. Stampfl. 2004. Miscanthus biomass production for energy in Europe and its potential contribution to decreasing fossil fuel carbon emissions. Global Change Biology 10 (4): 509–518.Google Scholar
  8. David, P.A. 1975. Technical choice, innovation and economic growth: essays on American and British experience in the nineteenth century. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Feder, G., R.E. Just and D. Zilberman. 1985. Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: a survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change 33 (2): 255–298.Google Scholar
  10. Foster, A. D., and M. R. Rosenzweig. 2010. Microeconomics of technology adoption. Annual Review of Economy 2 (1): 395–424.Google Scholar
  11. Freeh, E.D. 2011. Biomass energy crop production and residential pellet consumption in the midwestern U.S. M.S. Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
  12. Ghadim, A.K.A., and D.J. Panell. 1999. A conceptual framework of adoption of an agricultural innovation. Agricultural Economics 21: 145–154.Google Scholar
  13. Hipple, P.C., and M.D. Duffy. 2002. Farmers’ motivations for adoption of switchgrass. In: Trends in New Crops and New Uses, (eds.) J. Janick and A. Whipkey pp. 252–266. Alexandria, VA: ASHS Press.Google Scholar
  14. Jain, A.K., M. Khanna, M. Erickson, and H. Huang. 2010. An integrated biogeochemical and economic analysis of bioenergy crops in the midwestern United States. GCB Bioenergy 2 (5): 217–234.Google Scholar
  15. Jensen, K., et al. 2007. Farmer willingness to grow switchgrass for energy production. Biomass and Bioenergy 31: 773–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Khanna, M., X. Chen, H. Huang, and H. Onal. 2011. Supply of cellulosic biofuel feedstocks and regional production patterns. American Journal of Agricultural Economics: Papers and Proceedings 93 (2): 473–480.Google Scholar
  17. Khanna, M., M. Isik, and A. Winter Nelson. 2000. Investment in site specific crop management under uncertainty: implications for nitrogen pollution control and environmental policy. Agricultural Economics 24 (1): 9–12.Google Scholar
  18. Khanna, M., J.J. Louviere, and X. Yang, Motivations to grow energy crops: the role of crop and contract attributes. Agricultural Economics, (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  19. Lobell, D.B., K.G. Cassman, and C.B. Field. 2009. Crop yield gaps: their importance, magnitudes, and causes. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 34 (1): 179–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mattison, E., and K. Norris. 2007. Intentions of UK farmers toward biofuel crop production: implications for policy targets and land use change. Environmental Science and Technology 41 (16): 5589–5594.Google Scholar
  21. McCormick, K., and T. Kåberger. 2007. Key barriers for bioenergy in Europe: economic conditions, know-how and institutional capacity, and supply chain co-ordination. Biomass and Bioenergy 31 (7): 443–452.Google Scholar
  22. McWilliams, B., and D. Zilberman. 1996. Time of technology adoption and learning by using. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 4 (2): 139–154.Google Scholar
  23. Paulrud, S., and T. Laitila. 2010. Farmers’ attitudes about growing energy crops: A choice experiment approach. Biomass and Bioenergy 34 (12): 1770–1779.Google Scholar
  24. Rogers, E.M. 1962. Diffusion of innovations, 1st ed. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  25. Rogers, E.M. 1983. Diffusion of innovations, 3rd ed. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  26. Sherrington, C., J. Bartley, and D. Moran. 2008. Farm-level constraints on the domestic supply of perennial energy crops in the UK. Energy Policy 36: 2504–2512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sherrington, C., and D. Moran. 2010. Modelling farmer uptake of perennial energy crops in the UK. Energy Policy 38: 3567–3578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Smeets, E.M.W., I.M. Lewandowski, and A.P.C. Faaij. 2009. The economical and environmental performance of miscanthus and switchgrass production and supply chains in a European setting. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13 (6–7): 1230–1245.Google Scholar
  29. Song, F., J. Zhao, and S.M. Swinton. 2011. Switching to perennial energy crops under uncertainty and costly reversibility. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 93 (3): 768–783.Google Scholar
  30. Styles, D., F. Thorne, and M.B. Jones. 2008. Energy crops in Ireland: An economic comparison of willow and miscanthus production with conventional farming systems. Biomass and Bioenergy 32 (5): 407–421.Google Scholar
  31. Sunding, D., and D. Zilberman. 2001. The agricultural innovation process: research and technology adoption in a changing agricultural sector. In Handbook of agricultural and resource economics, eds. Bruce Gardner and Gordon Rausser, pp. 207–261. Amsterdam, North Holland.Google Scholar
  32. Tarde, G. 1890. Les lois de l’imitation. Paris: Alcan. English edn: The Laws of Imitation, trans Parsons EC. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
  33. Thorsell, S., et al. 2004. Economics of a coordinated biorefinery feedstock harvest system: lignocellulosic biomass harvest cost. Biomass and Bioenergy 27: 327–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Upham, P., and S. Shackley. 2007. Local public opinion of a proposed 21.5 MW(e) biomass gasifier in Devon: questionnaire survey results. Biomass and Bioenergy 31: 433–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Upreti, B.R. 2004. Conflict over biomass energy development in the United Kingdom: some observations and lessons from England and Wales. Energy Policy 32 (6): 785–800.Google Scholar
  36. Upreti, B.R., and D.v.d. Horst. 2004. National renewable energy policy and local opposition in the UK: the failed development of a biomass electricity plant. Biomass and Bioenergy 26: 61–69.Google Scholar
  37. Vanclay, F., and G. Lawrence. 1994. Farmers rationality and the adoption of environmentally sound practices; a critique of the assumptions of traditional agricultural extension. European Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 1: 59–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Varvel, G.E., K.P. Vogel, R.B. Mitchell, R.F. Follett, and J.M. Kimble. 2008. Comparison of corn and switchgrass on marginal soils for bioenergy. Biomass and bioenergy 32 (1): 18–21.Google Scholar
  39. Velandia, M., D. Lambert, J. Fox, J. Walton, E. Sanford, and R. Roberts. 2010. Intent to continue growing switchgrass as a dedicated energy crop: a survey of switchgrass producers in east Tennessee. European Journal of Social Sciences 15 (3): 299–312.Google Scholar
  40. Villamil, M.B., A.H. Silvis, and G.A. Bollero. 2008. Potenial for miscanthus’ adoption in Illinois: Information needs and preferred information channels. Biomass and Bioenergy 32: 1338–1348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wuepper, D., and T. Lybbert. 2017. Perceived Self-Efficacy and Economic Development. Annual Review of Resource Economics (forthcoming).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Consumer EconomicsUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsUniversity of California at BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  3. 3.Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural SociologyAuburn UniversityAuburnUSA

Personalised recommendations