Abstract
Scientists and economists are increasingly worried that biofuels production is leading to land use changes in the form of competition with food crops or loss of natural ecosystems. I estimate acreage conversion in response to shocks in sugarcane (a biofuels feedstock) and soybean (thought to be affected by United States corn ethanol production) prices in Brazil at a national and regional level. Using county-level data from 1973 to 2005, I consider a dynamic panel data model of input demand for agricultural land, conditioning on price changes of other commodities. The short-run crop-price elasticity of sugarcane acreage in Brazil is estimated to be approximately zero, whereas the elasticity of soybean acreage is 0.9 when both spot and futures prices change. The regional estimates for soybeans show considerable variation, and are highest in areas of ecological importance, such as the cerrado. Sugarcane estimates are more homogeneous. These results should be taken into account in impact assessments of biofuels.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson TW, Hsiao C (1982) Formulation and estimation of dynamic models using panel data. J Econ 18: 570–606
Askari H, Cummings JT (1977) Agricultural supply response with the Nerlove model: a survey. Int Econ Rev 18(2): 257–292
Attanasio OP, Picci L, Scorcu AE (2000) Saving, growth, and investment: a macroeconomic analysis using a panel of countries. Rev Econ Stat 82: 182–211
Balcome K, Rapsomanikis G (2008) Bayesian estimation and selection of nonlinear vector error correction models: the case of the sugar-ethanol-oil Nexus in Brazil. Am J Agric Econ 90: 658–668
Banerjee A (1999) Panel data unit roots and cointegration: an overview. Oxf Bull Econ Stat Special Issue 61(S1): 607–629
Chavas J, Holt M (1990) Acreage decisions under risk: the case of corn and soybeans. West J Agric Econ 72: 27–33
Fearnside PM (2001) Soybean cultivation as a threat to the environment in Brazil. Environ Conserv 28: 23–38
Gardner BL (1976) Futures prices in supply analysis. Am J Agric Econ 58: 81–84
Gurgel A, Reilly JM, Paltsev S (2007) Potential land use implications of a global biofuels industry. J Agric Food Ind Organ 5/2. Article no. 9
InstitutoBrasileirodeGeografiae Estatística (IBGE) (2002) Pesquisas agropecuarias, 2nd ed. IBGE, Rio de Janeiro
Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada (IPEA). http://www.ipeadata.gov.br
Judson RA, Owen AL (1999) Estimating dynamic panel data models: a guide for macroeconomists. Econ Lett 65: 9–15
Kiviet JF (1995) On bias, inconsistency, and efficiency of various estimators in dynamic panel data models. J Econ 68: 53–78
Klink CA, Machado R (2005) Conservation of the Brazilian Cerrado. Conserv Biol 19: 707–713
Lin W, Dismukes R (2006) Supply response under risk: implications for counter-cyclical payments’ production impact. Rev Agric Econ 29: 64–86
Melillo JM, Reilly JM, Kicklighter DW, Gurgel AC, Cronin TW, Paltsev S, Felzer BS, Wang X, Sokolov AP, Schlosser CA (2009) Indirect emissions from biofuels: how important?. Science 326: 1397–1399
Nagavarapu S (2010) Implications of unleashing Brazilian ethanol: trading off renewable fuel for how much forest and Savanna Land?. Working paper
Nelson GC, Robertson RD (2008) Green gold or green wash: environmental consequences of biofuels in the developing world. Rev Agric Econ 30: 517–529
Nerlove M (1956) Estimates of the elasticities of supply of selected agricultural commodities. J Farm Econ 38: 496–509
Nerlove M, Bessler DA (2001) Expectations, information and dynamics. Handb Agric Econ 1: 155–206
Nickell S (1981) Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects. Econometrica 49: 1417–1426
Pfaff A, Robalino J, Walker R, Aldrich S, Caldas M, Reis E, Perz S, Bohrer C, Arima E, Laurance W, Kirby K (2007) Road investments, spatial spillovers, and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. J Reg Sci 47: 109–123
Pirotte A (1999) Convergence of the static estimation toward the long run effects of dynamic panel data models. Econ Lett 63: 151–158
Rask K (1995) The structure of technology in Brazilian sugarcane production, 1975–1987. J Appl Econ 10: 221–232
Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton RA, Dong F, Elobeid A, Fabiosa J, Tokgoz S, Hayes D, Yu T (2008) Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319: 1238–1240
Stock JH, Wright JH, Yogo M (2002) A survey of weak instruments and weak identification in generalized method of moments. J Bus Econ Stat 20: 518–529
United States Department of Agriculture (UDSA) (2007) Crop calendars. http://www.usda.gov/oce/weather/CropCalendars/index.htm
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Authors thank Maximilian Auffhammer, Peter Berck, and Joshua Hausman for their invaluable help. I also thank Avery Cohn, Ethan Ligon, Gordon Rausser, Alex Solis, Sofia Villas-Boas, Lunyu Xie, and Carlos Young for excellent comments. This work was carried out under the support of the Energy Biosciences Institute. All opinions are my own and do not represent those of the Energy Biosciences Institute. All errors are Authors.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hausman, C. Biofuels and Land Use Change: Sugarcane and Soybean Acreage Response in Brazil. Environ Resource Econ 51, 163–187 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-011-9493-7
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-011-9493-7