Hope and skepticism: Farmer and local community views on the socio-economic benefits of agricultural bioenergy

被引:53
作者
Rossi, Alissa M. [1 ]
Hinrichs, C. Clare [1 ]
机构
[1] Penn State Univ, Dept Agr Econ & Rural Sociol, University Pk, PA 16802 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
Co-firing; Ethanol; Iowa; Kentucky; Panicum virgatum; Rural revitalization; SWITCHGRASS; ENVIRONMENT; RESOURCE; BIOFUELS;
D O I
10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.08.036
中图分类号
S2 [农业工程];
学科分类号
0828 ;
摘要
U.S. government policies and programs promoting agricultural bioenergy development have tended to prioritize national goals of energy security, economic growth and environmental improvement, while marginalizing the local experiences, views and concerns of farmers and rural communities that will produce the needed energy crops. Based on qualitative field interviews with 48 farming and non-farming participants in two switch-grass bioenergy projects (in southern Iowa and in northeastern Kentucky), this paper examines local perspectives on the potential opportunities, drawbacks, and tradeoffs of the emerging agricultural bioeconomy for rural people and places. Individual project participants expressed both positive and negative perceptions about the impacts of the agricultural bioeconomy, with local and regional revitalization being the benefit most desired and also least expected. Skepticism about the social impacts of the agricultural bioeconomy often stemmed from observations of corporate control in agriculture more generally. This research suggests that narrow instrumental views of farmers and rural communities as technical providers of energy feedstocks can be misleading, because they omit the local social and cultural context that complicates rural responses and receptivity to the development of the agricultural bioeconomy. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1418 / 1428
页数:11
相关论文
共 33 条
[1]   The choice of organizational form as a non-technical barrier to agro-bioenergy industry development [J].
Altman, Ira ;
Johnson, Thomas .
BIOMASS & BIOENERGY, 2008, 32 (01) :28-34
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1994, CONSTRUCTING SOCIAL, DOI DOI 10.1016/j.ufug.2012.11.004
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2003, BIORENEWABLE RESOURC
[4]  
Biomass Research and Development Board, 2008, NAT BIOF ACT PLAN
[5]  
Biomass Technical Advisory Council, 2006, VIS BIOEN BIOB PROD
[6]  
Biomass Technical Advisory Council, 2002, ROADM BIOM TECHN US
[7]   Knowledge in action: Local knowledge as a development resource and barriers to its incorporation in natural resource research and development [J].
Blaikie, P ;
Brown, K ;
Stocking, M ;
Tang, L ;
Dixon, P ;
Sillitoe, P .
AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS, 1997, 55 (02) :217-237
[8]  
Brouwer F, 2004, ADV ECOL ECON, P1
[9]  
Brown D.L., 2004, Challenges for rural America in the twenty-first century
[10]   A participatory systems approach to modeling social, economic, and ecological components of bioenergy [J].
Buchholz, Thomas S. ;
Volk, Timothy A. ;
Luzadis, Valerie A. .
ENERGY POLICY, 2007, 35 (12) :6084-6094