Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Bioenergy—Global Coverage and Policy Implications

  • Pradipta Halder
  • Javier Arevalo
  • Blas Mola-Yudego
  • David Gritten


Development of bioenergy systems is gaining momentum globally and bioenergy stakeholders are numerous and their perceptions are diverse. The study explored perceptions of bioenergy stakeholders by reviewing scholarly literature and complementing and validating them against primary data. The number of publications on stakeholders’ perceptions of bioenergy is increasing while geographical focus and stakeholder analysis vary considerably. Among the stakeholders, biomass producers, public, and experts are widely studied groups while the least explored are students and private developers. The majority of the studies have been conducted in North America and Europe, which indicate the importance of bioenergy in their energy policies and the role of stakeholders to influence bioenergy development in those countries. The study found that the stakeholders’ perceptions of bioenergy were not uniform and varied considerably even within a particular stakeholder group. More support for second- and third-generation biofuels is apparent compared to corn-based ethanol production. Factors such as age, gender, education, income level, and land ownership appear to influence stakeholders’ perceptions of bioenergy. The paper recommends raising awareness of bioenergy among different stakeholders and involving them while planning future bioenergy projects to improve their perceptions of bioenergy and reduce the chances of opposition. There is also a need for enhancing collaboration between renewable energy and educational policies so that young students become aware of bioenergy and can act as agents of change in our quest for renewable energies.


Bioenergy Stakeholders Perceptions 



The authors acknowledge the cooperation by the Finnish NIPFs and the IFS officials who participated in the surveys. The authors are thankful to Barnali Sarkar for improving the language of the manuscript and the financial contribution received from the Institute for Natural Resources, Environment and Society (LYY) at the University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland. Finally, the postdoctoral research grant from the Kone Foundation (Helsinki, Finland) is also acknowledged for providing support to prepare the article.


  1. Acosta-Michlik L, Lucht W, Bondeau A et al (2011) Integrated assessment of sustainability trade-offs and pathways for global bioenergy production: framing a novel hybrid approach. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15:2791–2809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguilar F, Garrett HEG (2009) Perspectives of woody biomass for energy: survey of state foresters, State energy biomass contacts, and National Council of Forestry Association Executives. J For 107:297–306Google Scholar
  3. Amigun B, Musango JK, Brent AC (2011) Community perspectives on the introduction of biodiesel production in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. Energy 36:2502–2508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Augustenborg CA, Finnan J, McBennett L et al (2012) Farmers’ perspectives for the development of a bioenergy industry in Ireland. GCB Bioenergy 4:597–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bailey JA, Gordon R, Burton D et al (2008) Factors which influence Nova Scotia farmers in implementing energy efficiency and renewable energy measures. Energy 33:1369–1377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bohlin F, Roos A (2002) Wood fuel supply as a function of forest owner preferences and management styles. Biomass Bioenergy 22:237–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Claudy MC, Michelsen C, O’Driscoll A et al (2010) Consumer awareness in the adoption of microgeneration technologies: an empirical investigation in the Republic of Ireland. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 14:2154–2160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Convery I, Robson D, Ottitsch A et al (2012) The willingness of farmers to engage with bioenergy and woody biomass production: a regional case study from Cumbria. Energy Policy 40:293–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Corner A, Venables D, Spence A et al (2011) Nuclear power, climate change and energy security: exploring British public attitudes. Energy Policy 39:4823–4483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Delshad AB, Raymond L, Sawicki V et al (2010) Public attitudes toward political and technological options for biofuels. Energy Policy 38:3414–3425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Devine-Wright P, Walker G, Hunter S et al (2007) An empirical study of public beliefs about community renewable energy projects in England and Wales. Working Paper 2: Community Energy Initiatives Project, pp. 1–20Google Scholar
  12. Donaldson T, Preston LE (1995) The stakeholder theory of corporation: concepts, evidence and implication. Acad Manag Rev 20:65–91Google Scholar
  13. Dwivedi P, Alavalapati JRR (2009) Stakeholders’ perceptions on forest biomass-based bioenergy development in the southern US. Energy Policy 37:1999–2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. EECA (Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority) (2008). Public perceptions of renewable energy, New Zealand. Accessed 19 Aug 2012
  15. Eurobarometer (2007) Energy technologies: knowledge, perceptions, measures. Accessed 19 Aug 2012
  16. Eurobarometer (2012) Energy for all: EU support for developing countries. Accessed 19 Aug 2012
  17. Freeman RE (2010) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Gautam YB, Pelkonen P, Halder P (2013) Perceptions of bioenergy among Nepalese foresters—survey results and policy implications. Renew Energy 57:533–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gruchy SR, Grebner DL, Munn IA et al (2012) An assessment of nonindustrial private forest landowner willingness to harvest woody biomass in support of bioenergy production in Mississippi: a contingent rating approach. For Policy Econ 15:14–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Halder P, Pietarinen J, Havu-Nuutinen S et al (2010) Young citizens’ knowledge and perceptions of bioenergy and future policy implications. Energy Policy 38:3058–3066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Halder P, Havu-Nuutinen S, Pietarinen J et al (2011) Bio-energy and youth: analyzing the role of school, home, and media from the future policy perspectives. Appl Energy 88:1233–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Halder P, Prokop P, Chang C-Y et al (2012a) International survey on bioenergy knowledge, perceptions and attitudes among young citizens. BioEnergy Res 5:247–261Google Scholar
  23. Halder P, Weckroth T, Mei Q et al (2012b) Non-industrial private forest owners’ opinions to and awareness of energy wood market and forest-based bioenergy certification-results of a case study from Finnish Karelia. Energy, Sustain Soc 2:2–9Google Scholar
  24. Halder P, Arevalo J, Tahvanainen L et al (2014) Benefits and challenges associated with the development of forest-based bioenergy projects in India: results from an expert survey. Challenges 5:100–111Google Scholar
  25. Hall J, Matos S, Severino L et al (2009) Brazilian biofuels and social exclusion: established and concentrated ethanol versus emerging and dispersed biodiesel. J Cleaner Prod 17:77–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hultman NE, Malone EL, Runci P et al (2012) Factors in low-carbon energy transformations: comparing nuclear and bioenergy in Brazil, Sweden, and the United States. Energy Policy 40:131–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. IEA (International Energy Agency-Energy) (2010) Bioenergy Annual Report 2010, Paris. Accessed 15 June 2012
  28. Jensen K, Clark CD, Ellis P et al (2007) Farmer willingness to grow switchgrass for energy production. Biomass Bioenergy 31:773–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jensen KL, Clark CD, English BC et al (2010) Willingness to pay for E85 from corn, switchgrass, and wood residues. Energy Econ 32:1253–1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Johnson DM, Halvorsen KE, Solomen BD (2011) Upper Midwestern U.S. consumers and ethanol: knowledge, beliefs and consumption. Biomass Bioenergy 35:1454–1464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Keam S, McCormick N (2008) Implementing sustainable bioenergy production—a compilation of tools and approaches. Accessed 15 June 2012
  32. Kohler SS, Mathieu JE (1993) Individual characteristics, work perceptions, and affective reactions influences on differentiated absence criteria. J Organ Behav 14:515–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leitch ZJ (2012) Private landowner intent to supply forest biomass for energy in Kentucky. Dissertation, University of KentuckyGoogle Scholar
  34. Magar SB, Pelkonen P, Tahvanainen L et al (2011) Growing trade of bioenergy in the EU: public acceptability, policy harmonization, European standards and certification needs. Biomass Bioenergy 35:3318–3327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Markowski-Lindsay L, Stevens T, Kittredge DB et al (2012) Family forest owner preferences for biomass harvesting in Massachusetts. For Policy Econ 14:127–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mattison EHA, Norris K (2007) Intentions of UK farmers toward biofuel crop production: implications for policy targets and land use change. Environ Sci Technol 41:5589–5594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mayfield CA, Foster CD, Smith CT (2007) Opportunities, barriers, and strategies for forest bioenergy and bio-based product development in the southern United States. Biomass Bioenergy 31:631–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McCormick K, Kåberger T (2007) Key barriers for bioenergy in Europe: economic conditions, know-how and institutional capacity, and supply chain co-ordination. Biomass Bioenergy 31:443–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McCormick K (2010) Communicating bioenergy: a growing challenge. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 4:494–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Morrone M, Stuart BJ, McHenry I (2009) The challenges of biofuels from the perspective of small-scale producers in Ohio. Energy Policy 37:522–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nyrud AQ, Roos A, Sande JB (2008) Residential bioenergy heating: a study of consumer perceptions of improved woodstoves. Energy Policy 36:3169–3176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Oltra C (2011) Stakeholder perceptions of biofuels from microalgae. Energy Policy 39:1774–1781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Owens S, Driffill L (2008) How to change attitudes and behaviours in the context of energy. Energy Policy 36:4412–4418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Panoutsou C (2008) Bioenergy in Greece: policies, diffusion framework and stakeholder interactions. Energy Policy 36:3674–3685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Paula AL, Bailey C, Barlow RJ (2011) Landowner willingness to supply timber for biofuel: results of an Alabama survey of family forest landowners. South. J Appl For 35:93–97Google Scholar
  46. Pires ST (2011) Social perceptions of the biofuel industry in the Southeastern US. Dissertation, North Carolina State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  47. Plate RR, Monroe MC, Oxarat A (2010) Public perceptions of using woody biomass as a renewable energy source. J Ext 48:1–15Google Scholar
  48. Qu M, Ahponen P, Tahvanainen L et al (2010) Chinese academic experts’ assessment for forest bio-energy development in China. Energy Policy 38:6767–6775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Qu M, Ahponen P, Tahvanainen L et al (2011) Chinese university students’ knowledge and attitudes regarding forest bio-energy. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 15:3649–3657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Qu M, Ahponen P, Tahvanainen L et al (2012) Practices and perceptions on the development of forest bioenergy in China from participants in national forestry training courses. Biomass Bioenergy 40:53–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rämö A-K, Järvinen E, Latvala T et al (2009) Interest in energy wood and energy crop production among Finnish non-industrial private forest owners. Biomass Bioenergy 33:1251–1257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Robbins M (2011) Policy: fuelling politics. Nature 474:22–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rohracher H, Späth P (2004) Improving the public perception of bioenergy in the EU. In: Martens B, Keul AG (eds) Evaluation in progress—strategies for environmental research and implementation. IAPS 18 Conference, Vienna, July 2004Google Scholar
  54. Savvanidou E, Zervas E, Tsagarakis KP (2010) Public acceptance of biofuels. Energy Policy 38:3482–3488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schubert R, Blasch J (2010) Sustainability standards for bioenergy—a means to reduce climate change risks? Energy Policy 38:2797–2805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Segon V, Støer D, Domac J (2004) Raising the awareness of bioenergy benefits: results of two public surveys on attitudes, perceptions and knowledge. Accessed 7 July 2012
  57. Selfa T, Kulcsar L, Bain C et al (2011) Biofuels bonanza? exploring community perceptions of the promises and perils of biofuels production. Biomass Bioenergy 35:1379–1389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Shivan GC, Mehmood SR (2010) Factors influencing nonindustrial private forest landowners’ policy preference for promoting bioenergy. For Policy Econ 12:581–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Shivan GC, Potter-Witter (2011) An examination of Michigan’s logging sector in the emerging bioenergy market. For Prod J 61:459–465Google Scholar
  60. Stidham M, Simon-Brown V (2011) Stakeholder perspectives on converting forest biomass to energy in Oregon, USA. Biomass Bioenergy 35:203–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Susaeta A, Lal P, Alavalapati J et al (2011) Random preferences towards bioenergy environmental externalities: a case study of woody biomass based electricity in the Southern United States. Energy Econ 33:1111–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tyndall JC, Berg EJ, Colletti JP (2011) Corn stover as a biofuel feedstock in Iowa’s bio-economy: an Iowa farmer survey. Biomass Bioenergy 35:1485–1495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ulmer JD, Huhnke RL, Bellmer DD et al (2004) Acceptance of ethanol-blended gasoline in Oklahoma. Biomass Bioenergy 27:437–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Upham P, Shackley S (2007) Local public opinion of a proposed 21.5 MW(e) biomass gasifier in Devon: questionnaire survey results. Biomass Bioenergy 31:431–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Velde LVD, Verbeke W, Popp M et al (2009) Perceived importance of fuel characteristics and its match with consumer beliefs about biofuels in Belgium. Energy Policy 37:3183–3193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Velde LVD, Vandermeulen V, Huylenbroeck GV (2011) Consumer information (in) sufficiency in relation to biofuels: determinants and impact. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 5:125–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. White RT (1988) Learning science. B. Blackwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  68. Zhang Y, Yu Y, Li T et al (2011) Analyzing Chinese consumers’ perception for biofuels implementation: the private vehicles owner’s investigating in Nanjing. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15:2299–2309CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pradipta Halder
    • 1
  • Javier Arevalo
    • 1
  • Blas Mola-Yudego
    • 2
  • David Gritten
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Forest SciencesUniversity of Eastern FinlandJoensuuFinland
  2. 2.Norwegian Forest and Landscape InstituteÅsNorway
  3. 3.RECOFTC—The Center for People and ForestsBangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations