Sandra PhD Conference 2012

647 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
647
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
374
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Sandra PhD Conference 2012

  1. 1. Sandra  J.  Velarde   ANU  Crawford  School  of  Public  Policy  and   CSIRO  Energy  Transformed  Flagship   Supervisory  Panel:     A/Professor  Luca  Tacconi  (ANU)   Luis  Rodriguez  (CSIRO)         Deborah  O’Connell  (CSIRO)   27th  November  2012   Growing  trees  as  bioenergy  crops  needs   more  than  economic  incen4ves  
  2. 2. What  incenSves  could  moSvate   landholders  to  set  up  the  criScal  mass  of   tree  planSngs  required  for  developing  a   bioenergy  industry?  
  3. 3. Tullamore
  4. 4. 1.  What  factors  underlie  landholders’   willingness  to  adopt  tree  bioenergy  crops?   2.  What  are  landholders’  preferences  on  the   incenSves  offered  to  moSvate  them  to  set  up   new  tree  biomass  planSngs?   3.  What  are  influencing  factors  for  building  a   criScal  mass  of  producers  to  start  a  new   biomass  for  energy  industry?  
  5. 5. 1.  Preliminary  survey:  several  iteraSons    12   expert  interviews  and  group  feedback  while   waiSng  for  ethics  clearance   2.  Pilot  surveys:  +40  surveys  at  3  agricultural   shows:  Canowindra,  Morongla  and  Bribaree   3.  Final  survey:     -­‐  Stage  1:  NaSonal  Agricultural  Field  Days:   16-­‐18th  October,  Orange:  162  surveys   -­‐  Stage  2:  NaSonal  Cherry  FesSval,  30th  –  2nd   December,  Young    
  6. 6. 1.  Farming  data  (5  q.)   2.  Trees  in  your  property  (5-­‐8  q.)   3.  Demographic  data  (6  q.)   4.  Final  comments  or  quesSons  (1  q.)   Total:  21  quesSons  
  7. 7. Typical  property:  588  acres  (238  has)  Orange,    
  8. 8. 1.  Farming  data  (5)   2.  Trees  in  your  property  (5-­‐8)   3.  Demographic  data  (6)   4.  Final  comments  or  quesSons  (1)  
  9. 9. A   B   C   Length  of  contract   (years)   25   15   Neither  A  nor  B  =   No  addiSonal   income  ($0)   Annual  return  ($/acre)   76.00   53.00   Flexibility  to  choose   harvesSng  company   No   Yes   I  would  prefer  this   opSon   [      ]   [      ]   [      ]  
  10. 10. n=162    survey  respondents   49%  would  NOT   plant  trees  as   energy  crops   51%  would  plant   trees  as  energy   crops   48%  choose   opSon  A  or  B   (n=38)   52%  choose   opSon  C   (n=41)  
  11. 11. n=41  those  who  chose  all  opSon  C   26  other   reason   5  interested  but   opSons  not   alracSve   3  need  real  life   examples/market   3  more  info  risk/ returns   4  a  mix  of  the   above  
  12. 12. n=39  those  who  chose  all  opSon  C   12  nothing   5  interested  if  I   had  financial   need   4  -­‐  200%  higher   financial  returns   3  -­‐  100%  financial   returns   2  -­‐  50%  higher   returns   11  other  
  13. 13. n=162    survey  respondents   79  would  NOT   plant  trees  as   energy  crops   83  would  plant   trees  as  energy   crops   50  provided   comments   29  no   comments  
  14. 14. IncenSve  design:  ImplicaSons   • No  trust:  companies/government  (7)   • bad  past  experiences  (4)   • Not  suitable  land  (6)   • NegaSve  views  about  trees:  no  value,   unproducSve  land,  fire  hazard  (4)   • PercepSons  about  landholders   themselves:  resistance  to  change  (2)   • PosiSve  percepSons  about  trees:   Providers  of  environmental  services  but   not  to  be  harvested  (5)   • Insufficient  financial  incenSve  (8)   • Species:  Not  pine,  yes  naSves  (7)   • Control  over  land  (5)  
  15. 15. Thank  you   Research  supported  by:     CSIRO  Energy  Transformed  Flagship   Scholarship   Crawford  School     Tui<on  Scholarship

×