Effects of Liquidity Constraints, Risk and Related Time Effects on the Adoption of Perennial Energy Crops

  • Géraldine BocquéhoEmail author
Part of the Natural Resource Management and Policy book series (NRMP, volume 40)


This chapter highlights the crucial role of liquidity, risk, and related time effects in explaining farmers’ willingness to grow perennial energy crops as a renewable energy source. I first review the scarce empirical evidence from surveys and focus groups about how liquidity constraints hinder adoption, and present additional results from simulation approaches based on optimization models. Then, I evaluate the extent to which perennial energy crops can be considered as a risky enterprise, and emphasize the importance of assessing risks at farm level to uncover potential diversification benefits. I also show how time considerations generate further related issues, due to intertemporal fluctuations in the income stream, investment irreversibility, and land reallocation. This chapter also highlights relevant policy and contract schemes to overcome the barriers to adoption described above. Establishment grants and cash advance systems are widespread and efficient ways of limiting liquidity effects on adoption as long as moral hazards are managed and conversion back to conventional crops is discouraged. Risk barriers are mostly managed through private long-term production contracts between farmers and biomass processors.


Agricultural innovation Herbaceous energy crops Advanced biofuels Farmers’ behavior Land allocation choices 

JEL Codes

Q16 Q12 D81 


  1. Abadi Ghadim, A.K., and D.J. Pannell. 1999. A conceptual framework of adoption of an agricultural innovation. Agricultural Economics 21 (2): 145–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abadi Ghadim, A.K., D.J. Pannell, and M.P. Burton. 2005. Risk, uncertainty, and learning in adoption of a crop innovation. Agricultural Economics 33 (1): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexander, C., R. Ivanic, S. Rosch, W. Tyner, S.Y. Wu, and J.R. Yoder. 2012. Contract theory and implications for perennial energy crop contracting. Energy Economics 34 (4): 970–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amacher, G.S., M. Ollikainen, and E. Koskela. 2009. Economics of forest resources. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, J., J. Dillon, and J. Hardaker. 1977. Agricultural decision analysis. Ames: State University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Barry, P.J., and L.J. Robison. 2001. Agricultural finance: Credit, credit constraints, and consequences. In Handbook of agricultural economics, vol. 1, ed. B.L. Gardner, and G.C. Rausser, 513–571. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  7. Bellamy, P.E., P.J. Croxton, M.S. Heard, S.A. Hinsley, L. Hulmes, S. Hulmes, P. Nuttall, R.F. Pywell, and P. Rothery. 2009. The impact of growing miscanthus for biomass on farmland bird populations. Biomass and Bioenergy 33 (2): 191–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Binswanger, H.P., and D.A. Sillers. 1983. Risk aversion and credit constraints in farmers’ decision-making: A reinterpretation. Journal of Development Studies 20 (1): 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blancard, S., J.P. Boussemart, W. Briec, and K. Kerstens. 2006. Short- and long-run credit constraints in French agriculture: A directional distance function framework using expenditure-constrained profit functions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88 (2): 351–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bocquého, G. 2012. Risk, time and adoption of perennial energy crops: Insights from the French setting. PhD dissertation, Paris Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  11. Bocquého, 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
  12. Bocquého, G., F. Jacquet, and A. Reynaud. 2014. Expected utility or prospect theory maximisers? Assessing farmers’ risk behaviour from field-experiment data. European Review of Agricultural Economics 41 (1): 135–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bocquého, G., F. Jacquet, and A. Reynaud. 2015. Adoption of perennial crops and behavioral risk preferences. An empirical investigation among French farmers. In Paper presented at the 9èmes journées de recherches en sciences sociales INRA-SFER-CIRAD, Nancy, 11–12 Dec 2015.Google Scholar
  14. Boehmel, C., I. Lewandowski, and W. Claupein. 2008. Comparing annual and perennial energy cropping systems with different management intensities. Agricultural Systems 96: 224–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brandão, M., L. Milà i Canals, and R. Clift. 2011. Soil organic carbon changes in the cultivation of energy crops: implications for GHG balances and soil quality for use in LCA. Biomass and Bioenergy 35 (6): 2323–2336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Breen J., D. Clancy, B. Moran, and F. Thorne. 2009. Modelling the potential supply of energy crops in Ireland: results from a probit model examining the factors affecting willingness to adopt. Rural Economy Research Centre (RERC) Working Paper Series, Teagasc, Athenry.Google Scholar
  17. Carriquiry, M.A., X. Du, and G.R. Timilsina. 2011. Second generation biofuels: Economics and policies. Energy Policy 39 (7): 4222–4234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ciaian, P., and J.F. Swinnen. 2009. Credit market imperfections and the distribution of policy rents. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91 (4): 1124–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Crutzen, P.J., A.R. Mosier, K.A. Smith, and W. Winiwarter. 2008. N2O release from agro-biofuel production negates global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 8 (2): 389–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. David P.A. 1969. A Contribution to the Theory of Diffusion, vol Memorandum no. 71. Research Center in Economic Growth, Stanford University, Stanford.Google Scholar
  21. Deverell, R., K. McDonnell, S. Ward, and G. Devlin. 2009. An economic assessment of potential ethanol production pathways in Ireland. Energy Policy 37 (10): 3993–4002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dixit, A.K., and R.S. Pindyck. 1994. Investment under uncertainty. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Fargione, J., J. Hill, D. Tilman, S. Polasky, and P. Hawthorne. 2008. Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319 (5867): 1235–1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Faustmann, M. 1849. Berechnung des Wertes welch en Waldboden sowie noch nicht haubare Holzbestände für die Weldwirtschaft besitzen. Allgemeine Forst-und Jagd-Zeitung 25: 441–445.Google Scholar
  25. Feder, G. 1980. Farm size, risk aversion and the adoption of new technology under uncertainty. Oxford Economic Papers-New Series 32 (2): 263–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Frechette, D.L. 2005. How does aversion to intertemporal variation affect hedging behavior? Agricultural Economics 33 (3): 389–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gasol, C.M., F. Brun, A. Mosso, J. Rieradevall, and X. Gabarrell. 2010. Economic assessment and comparison of acacia energy crop with annual traditional crops in Southern Europe. Energy Policy 38 (1): 592–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grisley, W., and E.D. Kellogg. 1983. Farmers’ subjective probabilities in northern Thailand: An elicitation analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 65 (1): 74–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hansen, E.M., B.T. Christensen, L.S. Jensen, and K. Kristensen. 2004. Carbon sequestration in soil beneath long-term miscanthus plantations as determined by 13C abundance. Biomass and Bioenergy 26 (2): 97–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hardaker, J.B., and L. Gudbrand. 2010. Probabilities for decision analysis in agricultural and rural resource economics: the need for a paradigm change. Agricultural Systems 103: 345–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Havlík, P., U.A. Schneider, E. Schmid, H. Böttcher, S. Fritz, R. Skalský, K. Aoki, S.D. Cara, G. Kindermann, F. Kraxner, S. Leduc, I. McCallum, A. Mosnier, T. Sauer, and M. Obersteiner. 2011. Global land-use implications of first and second generation biofuel targets. Energy Policy 39 (10): 5690–5702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heaton, E.A., F.G. Dohleman, and S.P. Long. 2008. Meeting US biofuel goals with less land: the potential of Miscanthus. Global Change Biology 14: 2000–2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Helby, P., H. Rosenqvist, and A. Roos. 2006. Retreat from Salix—Swedish experience with energy crops in the 1990s. Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (5): 422–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Herberich, D.H., and J. List. 2012. Digging into background risk: Experiments with farmers and students. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 94 (2): 457–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Janda K., L. Kristoufek, and D. Zilberman. 2012. Biofuels: policies and impacts. Agricultural Economics—Czech 58: 372–386.Google Scholar
  37. Jensen, J.R., K.E. Halvorsen, and D.R. Shonnardb. 2011a. Ethanol from lignocellulosics, U.S. federal energy and agricultural policy, and the diffusion of innovation. Biomass and Bioenergy 35 (4): 1440–1453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jensen, K., C.D. Clark, P. Ellis, B. English, J. Menard, M. Walsh, and Ugarte D. de la Torre. 2007. Farmer willingness to grow switchgrass for energy production. Biomass and Bioenergy 31 (11–12): 773–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jensen, K.L., C.D. Clark, B.C. English, and R.J. Menard. 2011b. Preferences for marketing arrangements by potential switchgrass growers. Journal of Cooperatives 25: 16–43.Google Scholar
  40. Jonsson A.C., M. Ostwald, T. Asplund, and V. Wibeck. 2011. Barriers to and drivers of the adoption of energy crops by Swedish farmers: An empirical study. In Paper presented at the world renewable energy congress, Linköping, 8–13 May 2011.Google Scholar
  41. Just, R.E., and D. Zilberman. 1983. Stochastic structure, farm size and technology adoption in developing agriculture. Oxford Economic Papers-New Series 35 (2): 307–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kahle, P., S. Beuch, B. Boelcke, P. Leinweber, and H.R. Schulten. 2001. Cropping of Miscanthus in Central Europe: biomass production and influence on nutrients and soil organic matter. European Journal of Agronomy 15: 171–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kasmioui, O.E., and R. Ceulemans. 2012. Financial analysis of the cultivation of poplar and willow for bioenergy. Biomass and Bioenergy 43: 52–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Khanna, M., B. Dhungana, and J.C. Clifton-Brown. 2008. Costs of producing miscanthus and switchgrass for bioenergy in Illinois. Biomass and Bioenergy 32 (6): 482–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Koundouri, P., C. Nauges, and V. Tzouvelekas. 2006. Technology adoption under production uncertainty: Theory and application to irrigation technology. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88 (3): 657–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lange, M. 2011. The GHG balance of biofuels taking into account land use change. Energy Policy 39 (5): 2373–2385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Larson J.A., B.C. English, L. He. 2008. Risk and return for bioenergy crops under alternative contracting arrangements. In Paper presented at the integration of agricultural and energy systems conference, Atlanta, 12–13 Feb 2008.Google Scholar
  48. Lence, S.H. 2000. Using consumption and asset return data to estimate farmers’ time preferences and risk attitudes. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82 (4): 934–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lychnaras, V., and U.A. Schneider. 2011. Multi-farm economic analysis of perennial energy crops in Central Greece, taking into account the CAP reform. Biomass and Bioenergy 35 (1): 700–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Marra, M., D.J. Pannell, and A.K. Abadi Ghadim. 2003. The economics of risk, uncertainty and learning in the adoption of new agricultural technologies: where are we on the learning curve? Agricultural Systems 75 (2–3): 215–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Melillo, J.M., J.M. Reilly, D.W. Kicklighter, A.C. Gurgel, T.W. Cronin, S. Paltsev, B.S.F.X. Wang, A.P. Sokolov, and C.A. Schlosser. 2009. Indirect emissions from biofuels: How important? Science 326 (1397): 1397–1399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Menapace, L., G. Colson, and R. Raffaelli. 2012. Risk aversion, subjective beliefs, and farmer risk management strategies. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 95 (2): 384–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mola-Yudego, B., and P. Pelkonen. 2008. The effects of policy incentives in the adoption of willow short rotation coppice for bioenergy in Sweden. Energy Policy 36 (8): 3062–3068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Monti, A., S. Fazio, V. Lychnaras, P. Soldatos, and G. Venturi. 2007. A full economic analysis of switchgrass under different scenarios in Italy estimated by BEE model. Biomass and Bioenergy 31 (4): 177–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mosquera, M., K. Grogan, E. Evans, and T. Spreen. 2013. A framework for determining the period when a perennial crop is no longer profitable after a disease outbreak. Theoretical Economics Letters 3: 171–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Qualls, D.J., K.L. Jensen, C.D. Clark, B.C. English, J.A. Larson, and S.T. Yen. 2012. Analysis of factors affecting willingness to produce switchgrass in the southeastern United States. Biomass and Bioenergy 39: 159–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rämö, A.K., E. Järvinen, T. Latvala, R. Toivonen, and H. Silvennoinen. 2009. Interest in energy wood and energy crop production among Finnish non-industrial private forest owners. Biomass and Bioenergy 33 (9): 1251–1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Reynaud, A., and S. Couture. 2012. Stability of risk preference measures: results from a field experiment on French farmers. Theory and Decision 73 (2): 203–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ridier, A. 2012. Farm level supply of short rotation woody crops: Economic assessment in the long-term for household farming systems. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 60: 357–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Roos, A., H. Rosenqvist, E. Ling, and B. Hektor. 2000. Farm-related factors influencing the adoption of short-rotation willow coppice production among Swedish farmers. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B—Soil & Plant Science 50 (1): 28–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rosenqvist, H., A. Roos, E. Ling, and B. Hektor. 2000. Willow growers in Sweden. Biomass and Bioenergy 18 (2): 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Samuelson, P.A. 1967. General proof that diversification pays. The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 2 (1): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Searchinger, T., R. Heimlich, R.A. Houghton, F. Dong, A. Elobeid, J. Fabiosa, S. Tokgoz, D. Hayes, and T.H. Yu. 2008. Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319 (5867): 1238–1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Semere, T., and F.M. Slater. 2007. Invertebrate populations in miscanthus (Miscanthus×giganteus) and reed canary-grass (Phalaris arundinacea) fields. Biomass and Bioenergy 31 (1): 30–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Serra, T., D. Zilberman, and J.M. Gil. 2008. Differential uncertainties and risk attitudes between conventional and organic producers: the case of Spanish arable crop farmers. Agricultural Economics 39 (2): 219–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sherrington, C., and D. Moran. 2010. Modelling farmer uptake of perennial energy crops in the UK. Energy Policy 38 (7): 3567–3578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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 (7): 2504–2512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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): 764–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. USDA 2012. Biomass crop assistance program. Accessed 28 Dec 2012.
  71. Villamil, M.B., A.H. Silvis, and G.A. Bollero. 2008. Potential miscanthus’ adoption in Illinois: Information needs and preferred information channels. Biomass and Bioenergy 32 (12): 1338–1348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Yang, X., N.D. Paulson, and M. Khanna. 2015. Optimal mix of vertical integration and contracting for energy crops: Effect of risk preferences and land quality. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy.Google Scholar
  73. Zilberman, D., G. Hochman, D. Rajagopal, S. Sexton, and G. Timilsina. 2013. The impact of biofuels on commodity food prices: Assessment of findings. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 95 (2): 275–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LEFAgroParisTech, INRANancyFrance

Personalised recommendations