Getting to Yes or Bailing on No: The Site Selection Process of Ethanol Plants in Wisconsin

Abstract

Prior studies of ethanol location rest on the assumption that ethanol producers are economic free agents-evaluating sites as if all counties are contenders for their business, weighing the availability of feedstocks along with their infrastructure needs, operating without ties to localities, and being subject to enticement from policy incentives. We analyze the politicaleconomic process through which ethanol plants come into communities by examining plant location decisions, plant financing, community receptivity toward the plant, local government incentives, and the dynamics of the approval process. We use case studies of ethanol plants in Wisconsin to explore the economic, social, and political dynamics of ethanol plant location. Our case studies provide evidence in support of some findings in the ethanol location literature-such as the importance of access to corn; however, they also suggest site selection criteria not adequately addressed by the literature. Furthermore, our data suggest that capital may not be as mobile as location theory assumes it to be and that location decisions are not primarily determined by consideration of profit maximization. Instead, the location of ethanol plants is greatly influenced by the extent to which the original initiators of the plant are locally embedded in its host community. Our research answers Barkley and McNamara's (1994:45) call for a return to a case studies approach in order to develop "reliable insights into the location process."

On the road to sustainable transport: Acceptance and preferences for renewable fuel production infrastructure

“…While the economic and environmental impacts of alternative fuel production facilities have been studied elaborately, [e.g., (Santibañez-Aguilar et al, 2014;Borning et al, 2020)] and respective requirements and factors of success are derived, only little is known so far about the factors that determine an acceptable design of alternative fuel plants from the perspective of the public and potentially affected residents. Only few studies have focused on the issue of site selection and ways to achieve community acceptance (Tigges and Noble, 2012;Fortenbery et al, 2013). In a study on the general and local acceptance of CCU technology (e.g., for fuel production) it was found that local acceptance for a plant tended to be neutral, with the strongest (negative) influencing factor being affective risk perception, but this did not affect general acceptance .…”

Fuzzy Cognitive Map-Based Modeling of Social Acceptance to Overcome Uncertainties in Establishing Waste Biorefinery Facilities

“…The immediate social acceptance drastically diminishes installation time delays and indirectly decreases the installation costs. On the other hand, companies believe that they are the ones that should decide where to locate the plants, arguing on the assumption that producers are economic free agents, evaluating sites as if all counties are contenders for their business, weighing the availability of feedstocks along with their infrastructure needs, operating without ties to localities, and being subject to enticement from policy incentives (Walter and Gutscher, 2011;Tigges and Noble, 2012;Fortenbery et al, 2013;Nizami et al, 2017a,b). Regardless of any minor disadvantages in relation to bioeconomy, the vast majority of researchers support the broad participation of various stakeholder groups and citizen associations, in order to "chart a strategic plan" to promote crucial importance of Waste Biorefinery Facility (WBF) growth.…”

Communities ready for takeoff

“…1,2,3 In order to reduce conflict over these concerns and improve success, site decisions for biofuel production ideally should be a two-stage process: (1) identifying biogeophysical assets as the “primary drivers” 4,5 and (2) assessing community characteristics (e.g., availability of local incentives and community enthusiasm). 6 However, community characteristics and other social assets are often inadequately addressed and, even worse, sometimes blatantly ignored. Considering that numerous studies have found community characteristics, such as social capital and participation, to be significant for sustainability, 7,8,9 examining these assets only superficially can be detrimental to successful sustainable biofuel production.…”