Abstract
Forest wood biomass can address multiple energy needs in the form of firewood, chips, charcoal, briquettes and pellets, as well as feedstock needs for the biofuels industry in renewable ways. Short rotation coppiced hardwoods mainly of poplars, willows and sycamores have been recognized as the most promising for energy production, but for industrial applications they need to have their productivity rates increased. Transgenic trees improved in terms of growth rates, site adaptability and stress tolerance can be used in this direction to achieve faster results than other available approaches, such as silvicultural methods or traditional breeding techniques. However, transgenic trees need to undergo through a very strict regulatory process, which involves biosafety and risk assessment controls prior to commercialization. The very strict regulatory framework of transgenic plants reflects mainly the public concerns regarding their impacts on public health and the environment.
This paper discusses the main market considerations in terms of the regulation processes and public acceptance for woody biomass energy products of transgenic origin. Also, it presents results of a study from Greece, initiated in the frame of the EU COST Action FP0905 with the aim to explore consumers’ attitudes towards the woody biomass energy products of transgenic origin. Field interviews based on a structured questionnaire were conducted on a random sample of 418 consumers all over the country. Multivariate statistical analysis was performed then on 220 consumers, the ones who stated that they would buy such woody biomass energy products. Principal Components Analysis indicated that the main factors affecting consumers’ purchasing behaviour towards those products were marketing issues, product quality features and health safety issues. Through cluster techniques, three groups of consumers with similar consumption behaviour were identified: (a) opportunists, (b) consumers interested in health protection issues and (c) consumers influenced by marketing issues. Discriminant Analysis was performed to predict cluster membership and a nonparametric test to profile each consumer group according to personal characteristics and attitude towards the establishment of transgenic forest plantations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aguilera J, Nielsen KM, Sweet J (2013) Risk assessment of GM trees in the EU: current regulatory framework and guidance. iForest 6:127–131
Brunner AM, DiFazio J, Li SP, Shevchenko O, Montgomery BE, Mohamed R, Wei H, Ma C, Elias AA, Vanwormer K, Strauss SH (2007) Genetic containment of forest plantations. Tree Genet Genomes 3:75–100
Carman N, Langelle O, Perry A, Petermann A, Danna Smith JD, Tokar B (2006) Ecological and social impacts of fast growing timber plantations and genetically engineered trees. http://www.forestethics.org/downloads/GEtreeport.pdf
Chen M (2007) Consumers attitudes and purchase intentions in relation to organic foods in Taiwan: moderating effects of food-related personality traits. Food Qual Prefer 18:1008–1021
Davis AA, Trettin CC (2006) Sycamore and sweetgum plantation productivity on former agricultural land in South Carolina. Biomass Bioenergy 30:769–777
El-Lakany MH (2004) Are genetically modified trees a threat to forests? Unasylva 217 55(1):45–47
ELSTAT (2011). http://www.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE/PAGE-database
FAO (2008) The potential environmental, cultural and socio-economic impacts of genetically modified trees. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/13/INF/6, p 17
FAO (2010) Forests and genetically modified trees. FAO, Rome, Italy, p 235
Farnum P, Lucier A, Meilan R (2007) Ecological and population genetics research initiatives for transgenic trees. Tree Genet Genomes 3:119–133
Gartland K, Crow R, Fenning T, Gartland J (2003) Genetically modified trees: production, properties, and potential. J Arboricult 29(5):259–266
Häggman H, Find JM, Pilate G, Gallardo F, Ruohonen-Lehto M, Kazana V, Migliacci F, Ionita L, Sijacic-Nikolic M, Donnarumma F, Harfouche A, Biricolti S, Glandorf B, Tsourgiannis L, Minol K, Paffetti D, Fladung M, Vettori C (2012) Biosafety of genetically modified forest trees (GMTs) –COST Action FP0905- a common action of European scientists. In: 2nd international conference of the IUFRO working party 2.09.02. Mendel lectures & Plenary MLP-3, Brno, p 13
Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (1998) Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall, New Jersey
Halpin C, Thain SC, Tilston EL, Guiney E, Lapierre C, Hopkins DW (2007) Ecological impacts of trees with modified lignin. Tree Genet Genomes 3(2):101–110
Harfouche A, Meilan R, Altman A (2011) Tree genetic engineering and applications to sustainable forestry and biomass production. Trends Biotechnol 29(1):11–17
Hinchee M, Rottman W, Mullinax L, Zhang C, Chang S, Cunningham M, Pearson L, Nehra N (2009) Short-rotation woody crops for bioenergy and biofuels applications. Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 45(6):619–629
McCluskey J, Grimsrud K, Ouchi H, Wahl T (2003) Consumer response to genetically modified food products in Japan. Agric Resour Econ Rev 32(2):222–231
Oppenheim AN (2000) Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. Continuum, New York
Sedjo RA (2004) Transgenic trees: implementation and outcomes of the Plant Protection Act, Apr 2004. Discussion paper 04–10, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, p 28
Sedjo RA (2006) Toward commercialization of genetically engineered forests: economic and social considerations, Mar 2006. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, p 46
Sedjo RA (2010) Transgenic trees for biomass. The effects of regulatory restrictions and court decisions on the pace off commercialization. AgBioForum 13(4):391–397
Thomas S (2001) Ethical and social considerations in commercial uses of food and fiber crops. In: Strauss SH, Brandshaw HD (eds) Proceedings of the 1st international symposium on ecological and societal aspects of transgenic plantations, College of Forestry, Oregon State University, 92–98
Tsourgiannis L, Eddison J, Warren M (2008) Factors affecting the marketing channel choice of sheep and goat farmers in the region of East Macedonia in Greece regarding the distribution of their milk production. Small Rumin Res 79:87–97
Van Frankenhuyzen K, Beardmore T (2004) Current status and environmental impact of transgenic forest trees. Can J Forest Res 34:1163–1180
Verwer C, Buiteveld J, Koelewijn HP, Tolkamp W, de Vries SMG, van der Meer PJ (2010) Genetically modified trees, status trends and potential environmental risks. Wagengingen, Altera, Altera-Report 2039, p 62
Zhu JY, Pan XJ (2010) Woody biomass pre-treatment for cellulosic ethanol production: technology and energy consumption evaluation. Bioresour Technol 101:4992–5002
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tsourgiannis, L. et al. (2015). Would Consumers Be Willing to Buy Woody Biomass Energy Products of Transgenic Origin?. In: Karasavvoglou, A., Ongan, S., Polychronidou, P. (eds) EU Crisis and the Role of the Periphery. Contributions to Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10133-0_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10133-0_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-10132-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-10133-0
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)