Biofuels Bonanza?: Exploring community perceptions of the promises and perils of biofuels production
Introduction
In a recent paper, environmental sociologist Arthur Mol [1] argues that important social dimensions of biofuels production have been overlooked in recent debates that have been dominated by natural and environmental scientists. In fact, in addition to concerns about fostering energy independence in the context of depleting oil reserves, one of the primary reasons why many countries have been promoting and subsidizing biofuels production is in an attempt to reverse the ongoing social and economic crises affecting rural areas of many OECD countries, due to low prices and continued overproduction of agricultural commodities [2], [3], [4]. However, the expanded acreage and production of biofuels in many countries has led to heated debates about the environmental consequences, and more recently, to concerns about impacts on food security of the poor as land is diverted from food to fuel crops [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Many analysts realize that biofuels production presents an opportunity for agricultural producer countries, many of which are developing countries, but that higher food prices could threaten the food security of the poor in developing countries as well [4], [11].
Applying a sociology of networks and flows approach to the analysis of the expansion of the biofuels industry globally, Mol characterizes biofuels regions as being either locally or nationally organized. In place of the focus on the static categories of states and societies as key actors in political-economic sociology, sociologists of networks and flows emphasize the importance of flows (of power, finance, technology, information) that define the contemporary era of globalization [12], [13]. Sociology of networks and flows research suggests that power in these networks is in the ‘space of flows’ that are related to access to, inclusion in, and control over these flows, while the ‘space of place’ describes the place-bound location of production outside the network that is rendered essentially powerless [12], [13]. While for Castells, the networks and flows mainly refer to information and technology, in Mol’s formulation, the space of flows includes material and environmental flows, especially flows of energy [1], [14]. While many poorer developing countries produce biofuels regionally for local consumption with limited state involvement, in countries such as Brazil and the US, biofuels (specifically ethanol) production has strong state involvement, well developed infrastructure, and is organized into national biofuels regions that are part of a globally integrated network [1]. In Europe, the state has also played a major role in stimulating biofuels (mainly biodiesel) production through policies subsidizing production and consumption, but recent critiques of social and environmental consequences from non-governmental organization (NGOs) have made a direct impact on renewable energy policies, leading to reductions in renewable energy targets from biofuels for the European Union [8], [9], [15] With the increasing concentration and global integration of ethanol production in national biofuels regions such as the Midwestern US, locally- and regionally-organized biofuels production, distribution, and consumption are increasingly sidelined from global circuits. Whether this is positive or negative in the long run remains to be seen.
However, even within nationally-organized biofuels regions, such as the US Midwest, there is considerable differentiation between communities in which biofuels production is located. While a great deal of attention has been paid to concerns about the environmental externalities of biofuels production, such as deforestation of tropical forests for biofuels crop production, and about vulnerabilities of the poor in developing countries due to rising food prices because of the shift from food to fuel crop production, little research has focused on the social vulnerabilities of communities hosting biofuels production within national biofuels regions. As specific communities are locales for biofuels production, there is a need to explore how communities are affected by the siting of grain-based ethanol plants, and what community members perceive and experience to be the promises, and the perils, of the emergence of biofuels industry. While integrated into global networks, the ethanol plants still have local impacts. Although many have assumed the rural development benefits of biofuels production, little research has examined empirically what social and economic benefits communities gain. This paper employs a community case study approach to examine community perceptions toward biofuels production in three rural communities hosting ethanol plants in the states of Kansas and Iowa in the Midwestern US. The paper is organized into the following sections. In the first section we discuss prior research on community level impacts of economic restructuring and how this informs the study of communities with ethanol plants. We then provide a description of the historical development of our three cases study communities. Following that description, we present a short description of the methods used and data drawn from community surveys, individual and focus group interviews in all three case study communities. We then present our findings and implications for other communities.
Section snippets
Rural community change
A recent study described results drawn from a nationwide survey of US rural residents that examined several factors that foster and/or challenge economic and social resiliency in rural communities [16]. This study confirmed that as globalization processes continue to restructure rural economies, increasingly agricultural and manufacturing jobs are being replaced by service sector employment. According to the typology they developed to characterize rural regions, most of the rural communities in
The development of national biofuels regions
The expansion of biofuels development has been promoted as an opportunity for revitalization of stagnant and declining rural communities in the U.S. Since the 1980s Farm Crisis, continued low prices for agricultural commodities across the Great Plains and the Midwestern US have furthered ongoing farm loss, farm consolidation and economic decline. This has contributed toward dramatic population losses in large regions of the Corn Belt and Great Plains regions in the Midwest [29], [37]. Counter
Sampling & Data Collection methods
The research design for this study employed a mixed methods approach using both quantitative and qualitative methods. The quantitative component of the research design employed survey research for the purpose of measuring the perceived impacts of the local ethanol plant among residents in each case study community. A random sample of households from each case study community was selected. Each sample was limited to households located within the city boundaries of the community in which the
Findings
Several questions on the survey elicited information about how community residents perceived the impacts of the plant on the community. In our analysis we only used data from city residents (not county residents) so that the data are comparable across all three communities. We asked community residents to rate the overall significance of the plant to the local economy and to rank various economic, social and environmental impacts of the plant on the community. Overall about one third of
Conclusions about social vulnerabilities
In recent years, the fragile nature of the current grain-based biofuels industry has been exposed. As of January 2009, throughout the US, 176 ethanol plants were operating, another 220 were planned, and 45 were under construction [39]. However, 28 plants were not producing, 19 were cancelled, and 33 were on hold [39]. In Kansas in the last year, two plants have gone bankrupt and the construction of many more have been stalled either temporarily or permanently due to downturns in the demand for
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, ELSI (Ethical, Legal and Societal Implications) Program. Thanks for research assistance provided by Albert Iaroi, Uma Sarmistha, and Allison Teeter; thanks also to Ben Munro for making the map.
References (51)
- et al.
Meat processing and Garden City, KS: boom and bust
J Rural Stud
(2006) Boundless biofuels: between environmental sustainability and vulnerability
Sociol Ruralis
(2007)A review of the current state of bioenergy development in G8 + 5 countries’, global bioenergy partnership
(2007)Biofuels for transportation: global potential and implications for sustainable agriculture and energy in the 21st Century
The state of food and agriculture: biofuels: prospects, risks and opportunities
(2008)- et al.
Food versus biofuels: environmental and economic costs
Hum Ecol
(2009) - et al.
Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt
Science
(2008) - et al.
Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change
Science
(2008) The Gallagher review of the indirect effects of biofuels production
(2008)Another inconvenient truth: how biofuels policies are deepening poverty and accelerating climate change
The market and food security implications of the development of biofuel production
Note on rising food prices. World Bank policy research working paper 4682
The information age: economy, society and culture: the rise of the network society
Global complexity
Agrofuels: fueling or fooling Europe?
Place matters: challenges and opportunities in four rural Americas
Community change and community theory
Yankee city
Cultural, structural and social-psychological study of selected American farm communities: field manual
Addictive economies: extractive industries and vulnerable localities in a changing world economy
Rural Sociol
Problems of resource dependency in US rural communities
Prog Rural Pol Plann
Underdeveloping the Amazon: extraction, unequal exchange, and the failure of the modern state
Debt and dispossession: farm loss in America’s heartland
Income and well-being of farms and the farm financial crisis
Rural Sociol
Cited by (53)
Sustainable technology acceptability: Mapping technological, contextual, and social-psychological determinants of EU stakeholders’ biofuel acceptance
2022, Renewable and Sustainable Energy ReviewsSocial acceptance of third-generation biofuels
2022, 3rd Generation Biofuels: Disruptive Technologies to Enable Commercial ProductionThe synergy between stakeholders for cellulosic biofuel development: Perspectives, opportunities, and barriers
2021, Renewable and Sustainable Energy ReviewsCitation Excerpt :Biorefineries create water pollution and competition, as well as increased water rates. This is particularly relevant in areas facing water stress, such as Kansas [47]. Community values and culture might be compromised when implementing biofuel production in rural areas.
How can we engage farmers in bioenergy development? Building a social innovation strategy for rice straw bioenergy in the Philippines and Vietnam
2020, Energy Research and Social ScienceHow do the research and public communities view biofuel development?
2020, Renewable and Sustainable Energy ReviewsCitation Excerpt :Although the deficits between the actual production and the mandate are often attributed to limited technology development, the social view, especially regarding the lack of synchronization or synergy between public, research, and other communities, represent another important barrier that hinders the realization of biofuel development goals [39]. Traditional social science methods such as such surveys and focus group interviews have been used to explore social issues related to biofuel development, such as community acceptance [39], psychology [40], and stakeholder perceptions of biofuel [41–43]. Although existing studies shed light in a piecemeal way on issues that are relevant to public concerns regarding biofuels, outstanding questions remain to be answered in order to form a systematic picture of barriers to promoting government mandates for biofuel development and assessing convergent solutions to stubborn problems that slow implementation.