{"title":"Farmers’ willingness to introduce short-rotation tree plantations on agricultural land: A case study in southern Sweden","authors":"Elin Anander , Pål Börjesson , Lovisa Björnsson , Kristina Blennow","doi":"10.1016/j.biombioe.2024.107424","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>To meet climate targets, expanding <em>Populus</em> spp. tree cultivation is proposed as a potential biomass feedstock, especially on agricultural land that does not come into conflict with food production. However, biomass potential assessments typically overlook landowners' perspectives, risking a gap between theoretical potentials and realisation. Here, we test empirical consequences of two hypotheses based on a survey targeting southern Swedish farmers: 1) Relying exclusively on agricultural land cover data to identify abandoned agricultural land leads to an overestimation of the total agricultural land that can be utilised for future biomass production from <em>Populus</em> spp. feedstocks. 2) The absence of data on farmers' intentions to cultivate fast-growing tree species on agricultural land leads to overestimation of the potential biomass supply from <em>Populus</em> spp. in biomass assessments. Findings suggest that less than 50 % of farmers with unsubsidised arable land, which is often assumed to be abandoned, would consider cultivating these tree species on this type of land (26 % [7–48]). Furthermore, only 11 % [6–17] would consider cultivating <em>Populus</em> spp. on agricultural land overall during 2021–2030, indicating a generally low level of interest among farmers. However, higher rates were observed in forested areas. The projected near-future cultivation potential of 2.0 kha [1.1–3.0] suggests an at least threefold overestimation in previous theoretical assessments. This study highlights a disparity between biophysical land data and producer perspectives, showing that neglecting farmers’ perspectives risks overestimating the biomass supply, potentially leading to misguided expectations and inefficient policies. Our findings support targeted policy recommendations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":253,"journal":{"name":"Biomass & Bioenergy","volume":"191 ","pages":"Article 107424"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biomass & Bioenergy","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0961953424003775","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
To meet climate targets, expanding Populus spp. tree cultivation is proposed as a potential biomass feedstock, especially on agricultural land that does not come into conflict with food production. However, biomass potential assessments typically overlook landowners' perspectives, risking a gap between theoretical potentials and realisation. Here, we test empirical consequences of two hypotheses based on a survey targeting southern Swedish farmers: 1) Relying exclusively on agricultural land cover data to identify abandoned agricultural land leads to an overestimation of the total agricultural land that can be utilised for future biomass production from Populus spp. feedstocks. 2) The absence of data on farmers' intentions to cultivate fast-growing tree species on agricultural land leads to overestimation of the potential biomass supply from Populus spp. in biomass assessments. Findings suggest that less than 50 % of farmers with unsubsidised arable land, which is often assumed to be abandoned, would consider cultivating these tree species on this type of land (26 % [7–48]). Furthermore, only 11 % [6–17] would consider cultivating Populus spp. on agricultural land overall during 2021–2030, indicating a generally low level of interest among farmers. However, higher rates were observed in forested areas. The projected near-future cultivation potential of 2.0 kha [1.1–3.0] suggests an at least threefold overestimation in previous theoretical assessments. This study highlights a disparity between biophysical land data and producer perspectives, showing that neglecting farmers’ perspectives risks overestimating the biomass supply, potentially leading to misguided expectations and inefficient policies. Our findings support targeted policy recommendations.
期刊介绍:
Biomass & Bioenergy is an international journal publishing original research papers and short communications, review articles and case studies on biological resources, chemical and biological processes, and biomass products for new renewable sources of energy and materials.
The scope of the journal extends to the environmental, management and economic aspects of biomass and bioenergy.
Key areas covered by the journal:
• Biomass: sources, energy crop production processes, genetic improvements, composition. Please note that research on these biomass subjects must be linked directly to bioenergy generation.
• Biological Residues: residues/rests from agricultural production, forestry and plantations (palm, sugar etc), processing industries, and municipal sources (MSW). Papers on the use of biomass residues through innovative processes/technological novelty and/or consideration of feedstock/system sustainability (or unsustainability) are welcomed. However waste treatment processes and pollution control or mitigation which are only tangentially related to bioenergy are not in the scope of the journal, as they are more suited to publications in the environmental arena. Papers that describe conventional waste streams (ie well described in existing literature) that do not empirically address ''new'' added value from the process are not suitable for submission to the journal.
• Bioenergy Processes: fermentations, thermochemical conversions, liquid and gaseous fuels, and petrochemical substitutes
• Bioenergy Utilization: direct combustion, gasification, electricity production, chemical processes, and by-product remediation
• Biomass and the Environment: carbon cycle, the net energy efficiency of bioenergy systems, assessment of sustainability, and biodiversity issues.