Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Land-Use, Crop Choice, and Proximity to Ethanol Plants

Land-Use, Crop Choice, and Proximity to Ethanol Plants land Article Land-Use, Crop Choice, and Proximity to Ethanol Plants 1 2 , 2 Junpyo Park , John Anderson * and Eric Thompson College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Economics, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO 80639, USA College of Business, Faculty of Economics, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA * Correspondence: janderson4@unl.edu Received: 21 June 2019; Accepted: 29 July 2019; Published: 30 July 2019 Abstract: This paper examines how proximity to an ethanol plant influences land-use and crop choice among producers. We estimated a Tobit model of crop choice within parcels located in Central Nebraska in a 2014 sample period in order to analyze changes in land-use and crop choice. We employed Geographic Information System (GIS) databases to access relevant data on crop choice and other land uses in the study area parcels, in addition to detailed information on the location and capacity of irrigation wells. We utilized an instrumental variable approach to account for the endogeneity of crop choice with ethanol refinery locations in the study area. Our regional model also took into account specific characteristics of the local processing markets for grains, including animal food manufacturers and livestock as well as ethanol plants. Our estimates revealed that ethanol plants alter land-use in several ways. We found that proximity to an ethanol plant increases the share of land allocated to corn cultivation up to a distance of 30 miles and that the portion of land parcels allocated to corn production falls with distance from an ethanol plant in a non-linear pattern. We also find that land allocation to grassland and pasture rises with distance from ethanol plants. Keywords: land-use; crop choice; ethanol plants; production clusters 1. Introduction The renewable fuels sector has been a significant factor in the recent evolution of crop choice in the corn-producing regions of the United States. The U.S. total corn grain production increased to 14,540 million bushels in 2016 from 10,531 million bushels in 2006 [1,2]. Three quarters of that increase was corn production used for ethanol fuel. This resulted from a combination of rising gasoline prices and a suite of state and federal bioenergy policies [3,4]. About five percent of total U.S. transport fuel is comprised of biomass energy, including fuel ethanol and biodiesel in 2016 [5]. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports that the proximity of farmland to ethanol plants has improved and the number of processing facilities has increased [6]. For instance, corn is delivered by trucks for relatively short distances to a nearby ethanol plant and producers consider the transport cost and crop price received. Individual ethanol plants in the midwestern states (IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, MN, MO, NE, OH, SD, and WI) define a market area by the closest plant’s input suppliers, farmers, and the density of surrounding corn [7,8]. European research examines how biogas processing impacts agricultural regions, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [9–14]. Biogas production is a significant part of fuel production in European economies [11]. While biogas facilities can operate at the farm level, even farm-level processors draw some feedstock from the surrounding region and larger processing facilities must draw feedstock from throughout the surrounding region [11]. Land 2019, 8, 118; doi:10.3390/land8080118 www.mdpi.com/journal/land Land 2019, 8, 118 2 of 14 In terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, one study [15] notes that life-cycle GHG emission reductions are greatest when feedstocks for biofuel plants are grown via perennials on degraded lands not utilized for agriculture, via double cropping, using crop residues and when non-crop feedstocks are utilized such as wood by-products and municipal and industrial waste. While corn-based ethanol plants do not fall into these categories, research on agricultural regions surround these plants can provide insights into the regional concentration of production around processing facilities. It should also be noted that subsidy levels, lags, and uncertainty in refinery development and the treatment of manure inputs and other non-crop feedstocks also influence the potential of biofuel and biogas policy to yield large benefits in reducing greenhouse gas emissions [10,13,16], and influence land prices [12]. The concentration of crop production around biofuel and biogas plants has implications for energy and irrigation policy [17], and also influence water pollution. Clusters of crop and processing activity economize on energy use in hauling bulky crops, by expanding crop production in proximity to the processing plant. One study [11] notes that reducing greenhouse gas emissions from hauling feedstocks is a goal of EU renewable energy policy. Likewise, the concentration of production can lead to higher levels of pesticide and fertilizer application and elevated use of groundwater irrigation. The potential for concentration of feedstock producing crops closest to biofuel or biogas refineries also would have implications for market simulation models that consider feedstock hauling costs [14]. Previous literature on agricultural regions surrounding ethanol plants has utilized USDA’s Cropland Data Layer (CDL) to models of crop choice in regions with ethanol plants [18–21]. Some studies use county-level panel data [22] or panel data for other aggregate geographic units [20] to examine how changes in regional ethanol plant capacity influence crop choice. Development of ethanol plant capacity is positively associated with the proportion of acres planted in corn in Iowa counties for 10 years between 1999 and 2009 [22]. Another study [20] utilizes the USDA’s CDL data to build identically-sized regions and then examine the e ect of a change in the regional production capacity of ethanol plants on corn acres. The study utilizes rail capacity as an instrumental variable for ethanol production capacity within regions and finds evidence that an increase in neighborhood refining capacity is positively associated with corn and total agricultural acres. Other recent papers examine how proximity to ethanol plants influence crop choice or corn prices [18,23]. One study [18] shows the negative e ect of distance to an ethanol plant on corn intensification and extensification. Another study [23] introduces a spatial equilibrium model that estimates the impact on local grain prices from new ethanol plants, mainly in the Midwest regions such as Missouri, Iowa, South Dakota, Illinois, Michigan, and Montana between 2001 and 2002. They find that the advent of twelve new ethanol plants in the regions results in a larger demand for crops, especially corn, and it suggests that the corn price in downstream markets declines with distance from an ethanol plant. The current study examines the relationship between crop choice and distance to an ethanol plant using parcel-level data for an agricultural region in Nebraska, a corn-producing state located in the Midwest region of the United States. We incorporate alternative sub-county-level data which utilize a resolution of 30 square meters CDL data (compared to 56 square meters [18,21]) to our parcel-level crop choice models. We expand on recent literature by incorporating the instrumental variable techniques developed for regional plant capacity models into the parcel-distance modeling framework [20]. We further examine non-linearity in the relationship between parcel distance and crop choice. Non-linearity could imply that corn cultivation is especially concentrated in the regions closely surrounding ethanol plants. The CDL data also allow for modeling the specific production resources and market characteristics of an individual agricultural region. We control for cropland productivity and groundwater access at the parcel level and for the presence of other local crop processors in the regional market. Land 2019, 8, 118 3 of 14 2. Empirical Model In our model, we estimated the share of each land parcel which was devoted to the cultivation of corn as a function of distance to the nearest ethanol plant, other local market factors, and land characteristics. Separate equations also were estimated to examine how the share of land parcels devoted to soybean and grassland or pasture was related to these same factors. Specific explanatory variables include distance between each parcel and the nearest ethanol plant, crop productivity [20], and irrigation well capacity [24]. Since transportation costs fall and net prices for corn rise with proximity to an ethanol plant, we anticipated that a profit maximizing producer would increase the share of each parcel devoted to corn production as distance to an ethanol plant or other local processors of corn falls, land would become more productive, and irrigation capacity would rise. These same factors would yield a reduction in the share of each parcel devoted to grassland/pasture. The influence on soybeans would be ambiguous as soybeans are often grown in rotation with corn. We tested our model in the Central Platte Natural Resources District (CPNRD), a central Nebraska agricultural region with ethanol production facilities and significant corn, soybean, and livestock production. The state of Nebraska is one of the top five agricultural-producing states [25]. Those five states include California, Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, and Nebraska which represent more than a third of U.S. agricultural outputs and the highest values of crop sales. Corn is among the most important crops produced in the United States. There were approximately 14.4 billion bushels of corn harvested for grain nationwide in 2018 and corn plantings accounted for approximately 28 percent of principal crop acreage planted during that year [26]. Corn accounted for 94 percent of all biofuel production in Nebraska [25]. The increased corn production has required better crop storage facilities which have shifted towards within-farm crop storage and shipping to nearby ethanol plants. Table 1 shows the U.S. ethanol production capacity and production facilities by states in 2016. The state of Iowa has the largest ethanol production capacity and the largest installed ethanol bio-refineries in the United States followed by Nebraska, Illinois, and Minnesota. Table 1. Ethanol production capacity (million gallons/year) and production facilities by state. (Source: 2016 Ethanol Industry Outlook by Renewable Fuels Association) [27]. Production Capacity Operating Production Installed Ethanol Bio-Refineries 1. Iowa 3947 3921 44 2. Nebraska 2119 2066 26 3. Illinois 1635 1597 15 4. Minnesota 1190 1172 22 5. Indiana 1163 1163 14 6. South 1032 1032 15 Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . 15. California 223 218 6 As indicated in the next section, no corn was grown on 13,120 parcels in our dataset out of a total 31,640 parcels. We therefore utilized a Tobit regression which is an appropriate estimation technique when the value of the dependent variable is censored resulting in many zero values. Using the following equation, we empirically tested the Tobit regression model: S = + D + D + z + X + u , (1) i 0 1 i 2 i i i where the dependent variable S is the share of a given land-use in parcel i measured in percent (e.g., corn production) which is bounded between 0 and 1. D is a vector of variables that measure the influences of proximity (measured distance in miles) to local markets and D represents its squared i Land 2019, 8, 118 4 of 14 term in parcel i. The term z represents a cattle density of the county measured in thousands of cattle Land 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 14 on feed per square mile. X is a vector of parcel i’s land characteristics such as well capacity (measured in the pumping rate of gallons per minute) and crop productivity index (bounded between 0 and 0.99). (measured in the pumping rate of gallons per minute) and crop productivity index (bounded between The term u is an unobservable error term. 0 and 0.99).i The term u is an unobservable error term. 3. Data 3. Data We estimated our model using data from the Central Platte Natural Resources District (CPNRD), We estimated our model using data from the Central Platte Natural Resources District (CPNRD), a central Nebraska agricultural region of 2,136,304 acres. Nebraska is a Midwestern U.S. state with a a central Nebraska agricultural region of 2,136,304 acres. Nebraska is a Midwestern U.S. state with a system of Natural Resource Districts (NRDs) which follow watersheds. CPNRD is a rainwater basin system of Natural Resource Districts (NRDs) which follow watersheds. CPNRD is a rainwater basin region, one of 23 such NRDs established in Nebraska. Figure 1 displays a satellite imagery gathered region, one of 23 such NRDs established in Nebraska. Figure 1 displays a satellite imagery gathered by National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) on the state of Nebraska. The boundary lines in by National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) on the state of Nebraska. The boundary lines in Figure 1 indicate each Nebraska NRD. Our CPNRD study region is highlighted in cyan in Figure 1. Figure 1 indicate each Nebraska NRD. Our CPNRD study region is highlighted in cyan in Figure 1. Figure 1. Map of study areas (Central Platte Natural Resources District in Nebraska). (Source: USDA Figure 1. Map of study areas (Central Platte Natural Resources District in Nebraska). (Source: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service: Geospatial Data Gateway, 2014) [28]. Natural Resources Conservation Service: Geospatial Data Gateway, 2014) [28]. Our m Our micricro o-level -level dataset dataset included included variables varifor able par s for cel size, par ownership, cel size, owner land-use, ship, land lacharacteristics, nd-use, land char groundwater acteristics, gro access, undw and a pr teoximity r access, toan local d proximit grain pr y t ocessors o local gr in these ain processors 11 counties inin th 2014. ese 11W cou e on btained ties in 2 access 014. We obta to the par incel ed a data ccess t pro ovided the parcel da by GISta W prov orkshop, ided by GIS LLC [29 Work ]. We shop, LLC restricted[29]. We our dataset restricte to par d our cels da wher taset to pa e less than rcels where 99.5 perlcent ess tha ofn t he 99.5 land perc ar eea nt of the land is developed. area i The s deve number loped.of The number of unique parcels unique in the parcels study ar in the ea which study meet area w thishcriteri ich meet on is this cr appriterion oximately is ap 32,000. proxim The ately average 32,000par . The cel ain verage our dataset parcel in covers our dat 65.57 aset acr cover es. For s 6our 5.57 GIS acres and . For our statistical GIS analyses, and statiwe stica utilized l analyAr ses, cMap we ut version ilized Ar 10.5, cMSt ap a ver ta version sion 10 1 .5 5.0, , Stand ata version Microsoft 15.Excel. 0, and Micro FiguresA1 oft Excel. illustrates Diagr how am 1 il we lust utilized rates rhow elevant we ut data ilizin ed relev our analysis. ant dataSee in o Appendix ur analysiA s. . See Appendix. The land-use and land cover data were collected from the Geospatial Data Gateway (GDG) provided The la by nd- the use a United nd la States nd cover da Department ta were coll of Agricultur ected from the Geospa e (USDA)—Natural tial Da Resour ta ces Gatewa Conservation y (GDG) provided by t Service (NRCS). he United Compar States Departme ed to previous studies, nt of Agr our iculture (USD approach using A)—Natural Geographic Resource Information s Conservation System Service (GIS) technology (NRCS). Compa provided red tmor o previous s e detailed tudies information , our approach on land-use. using Geographic Land uses included Information S developed ystem (GIS) techno acres, grassland logy provid /pastureed and more detaile acres cultivating d informat corn, ion on land-use. L soybeans and other and uses crops included d such as, hay eveloped , wheat, acres sorghum, , grasoats, sland/ and past potatoes. ure and acre Thers cu eforlt e,iv the ating corn myriad, soybeans of land-useand alternatives other crops such as, h were summarized ay, wheat, in five s categories: orghum, oa developed ts, and pota ar toes eas, . Ther useseas fore grassland , the myri or ad pastur of land-u eland, se a corn lterna cultivation, tives were su soybean mmariz cultivatio ed in five n categories: developed areas, uses as grassland or pastureland, corn cultivation, soybean cultivation and cultivation of all other land uses. Land cover data indicated multiple land uses within most of the individual parcels. There are 11 counties in CPNRD: Bu alo, Custer, Dawson, Frontier, Hall, Hamilton, Howard, Merrick, Nance, Platte, and Polk. Table 2 reports the average share of parcels assigned to each of the five land-use categories in Otherwise, we would have another 40,000 parcels where developed areas occupy only apartments, mansions, or buildings 2014. According to our analysis, the unweighted average for corn cultivation land-use accounted for in the study area. There are 11 counties in CPNRD: Buffalo, Custer, Dawson, Frontier, Hall, Hamilton, Howard, Merrick, Nance, Platte, and Polk. Otherwise, we would have another 40,000 parcels where developed areas occupy only apartments, mansions, or buildings in the study area. Land 2019, 8, 118 5 of 14 and cultivation of all other land uses. Land cover data indicated multiple land uses within most of the individual parcels. Table 2 reports the average share of parcels assigned to each of the five land-use categories in 2014. According to our analysis, the unweighted average for corn cultivation land-use accounted for 24 percent, soybean cultivation was 8.3 percent, grassland/pasture was 33.2 percent, developed area was 17 percent, and other land uses accounted for the rest. Grassland/pasture was the most common landuse followed by corn cultivation. Table 2 also reports the share of individual parcels that include no corn, soybeans, or grassland/pasture. There were a significant number of corn parcels with a zero percent share (13,120 out of 31,640 total), motivating our use of a Tobit model. The bottom half of Table 2 also provides additional detail on the distribution of crop shares in parcels. Table 2. Assigned land-use in parcels. (3) Average (Share of Land Use (1) 0% of Acres in (2) 100% of Acres in (4) Median (the Parcels Assigned to Each Category Assigned Use Assigned Use 50th percentile) Category) Corn 41.47% 0.43% 24% 1.55% Soybeans 60.66% 0.00012% 8.3% 0% Grassland/Pasture 9.37% 3.26% 33.2% 19.12% Developed Area 18.29% 0% 17.1% 4.50% Others 26.66% 1.62% 17.4% 3.00% (5) Between 0.01% (6) Between 25.01% (8) Between 75.1% Land Use (7) Between 50.1% and 75% and 25% of Acres and 50% of Acres in and 99.9% of Acres Category of Acres in Assigned Use in Assigned Use Assigned Use in Assigned Use Corn 27.04% 8.12% 6.41% 16.54% Soybeans 27.88% 4.51% 2.05% 4.89% Grassland/Pasture 44.62% 14.97% 13.03% 14.75% Developed Area 59.64% 8.57% 6.07% 7.43% Others 49.78% 10.21% 5.81% 5.93% We obtained Gridded Soil Survey Geographic (gSSURGO) information for crop productivity from GDG. The Gridded Soil Survey Geographic data included National Commodity Crop Productivity Index (NCCPI) by USDA-NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). NCCPI uses inherent soil properties, landscape features, and climatic characteristics to assign ratings for dry-land commodity crops such as corn, soybeans, cotton, and small grains. The index ranges from zero (low crop productivity) to 0.99 (high crop productivity). We included the crop productivity index but note that the presence of a nearby ethanol facility could influence both soil quality and landscape features, since producers receiving higher net prices for corn would be expected to invest more in production capacity, including improving soil quality or modifying the farm landscape. As a result, values for the crop productivity index variable could be negatively correlated with distance from an ethanol plant. We note that one other study introduces the time-invariant geographical factor to control for soil quality [20]. Furthermore, we employed water supply capacity [24]. We collected the registered groundwater well data from the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The well data included the number of wells and well capacity, and we are able to project the locations of every single well into ArcGIS for our study. Accordingly, we computed the number of wells and the well capacity in all parcels. We assumed that the number of wells and well capacity were unchanged in 2014. The locations of all 23 ethanol plants in the state of Nebraska were provided by the Nebraska Ethanol Board. Using the coordinate system, we computed distance from each parcel to the nearest ethanol plant [30]. We also computed distance to the nearest other animal food facility. Data on the location of animal food facilities were gathered [31]. There were too many feedlots to utilize a similar approach for distance to feedlots, and we utilized cattle density, a count of the number (in thousands) of cattle on feed in the parcel’s county divided by the land area of the county, as the measure of access. Data on the number of cattle on feed in each county were obtained from USDA-NASS. The cattle Land 2019, 8, 118 6 of 14 density variable captured supply and demand conditions at the county level; in particular, the supply of land that producers choose to devote to grassland/pasture and the demand for corn production as cattle feed. Among the 23 ethanol plants in the state of Nebraska, there were three ethanol plants within the CPNRD as well as eight animal food facilities with at least 10 employees. Figure 2 presents the locations of the ethanol plants and animal food facilities as well as the land cover in the study area. In our analysis we included those ethanol plants and animal food facilities with at least 10 employees located in areas adjacent to the CPNRD. Figure 2 provides estimates on acreage for commodities including about 10 to 20 categories out of a possible 85 standardized categories. Lands devoted to corn, soybeans, and grass/pasture are represented in dark yellow, green, and bright ivory, respectively. The figure shows developed lands are scattered throughout the region while corn cultivation is the primary land-use in eastern and central portions of the region and pasture and grassland is the primarily land-use in the west. From Figure 2, it is also evident that many parcels in the region are closer to ethanol plants located outside of the CPNRD, which is why we define our distance variable as the distance to the nearest ethanol plant or other animal food facility, whether or not that plant or facility is located within the CPNRD. Table 3 shows descriptive statistics for key variables. While the data come from a single agricultural region, there was great variability among individual parcels in terms of land-use, distance to markets, crop productivity and well capacity. Of particular note, the average distance between parcels and ethanol plants is 13.5 miles, with the shortest distance being 0.09 miles and the longest distance 36.15 miles. Also note that since both well capacity and crop productivity are important input factors as farmers consider what crops to plant, we included an interaction term by multiplying the well capacity variable and the crop productivity variable. Table 3. Descriptive statistics. Variable Mean Std. Dev. Min Max Share of corn 0.240 0.345 0 1.00 Share of soybeans 0.083 0.216 0 1.00 Share of developed area 0.170 0.263 0 0.995 Share of grassland/pasture 0.332 0.342 0 1.00 Distance to nearest ethanol plant (miles) 13.53 6.387 0.09 36.15 Distance to other animal food facilities (miles) 16.64 12.74 0.070 44.14 Well capacity (WC) 34.00 800.696 0 133,088 Crop productivity (CP) 0.385 0.1343 0 0.8 WC  CP 13.62 289.71 0 47,468 Number of cattle (thousand) 122.316 79.206 27.5 285 Size of county (sq. mile) 815.7 410.952 439 2576 Cattle density (thousands of cattle/sq. mile) 143.50 55.03 57.44 231.98 Note: The data sources collected for our study analysis are as follows. Share of crop choice in parcels—the Geospatial Data Gateway (GDG) and GIS Workshop, LLC [28,29], distance to nearest ethanol plant—location of plants from Nebraska Ethanol Board [32], distance to other animal food facilities—location of facilities from Nebraska Department of Economic Development [31], well capacity—Nebraska Department of Natural Resources [33], crop productivity—USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service [28], number of cattle—USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service [34], size of county—U.S. Census Bureau [35]. Land 2019, 8, 118 7 of 14 Land 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 14 Figure 2. Land cover and locations of ethanol plants and animal food facilities. (Source: USDA’s Figure 2. Land cover and locations of ethanol plants and animal food facilities. (Source: USDA’s Cropland Data Layer—Metadata, 2014) [36]. Cropland Data Layer—Metadata, 2014) [36]. 4. Empirical Results 4. Empirical Results 4.1. Land Allocated to Corn Cultivation 4.1. Land Allocated to Corn Cultivation Table 4 presents results from the Tobit regression model for the share of land parcels allocated to Table 4 presents results from the Tobit regression model for the share of land parcels allocated corn cultivation. The first two columns show the results when variables for distance to the nearest to corn cultivation. The first two columns show the results when variables for distance to the nearest ethanol plant are included, but other market characteristics are excluded. Results are presented ethanol plant are included, but other market characteristics are excluded. Results are presented with with and without using an instrumental variable. Of course, the results using instrumental variables and without using an instrumental variable. Of course, the results using instrumental variables are are preferred. preferred. Table 4. Estimates for e ects of local markets on corn planted. Table 4. Estimates for effects of local markets on corn planted. Share of Corn Planted in a Parcel Variable Share of Corn Planted in a Parcel (4) Marginal E ects Variable (1) Tobit (2) Tobit IV (3) Tobit IV (4) Marginal Effects with Tobit IV (1) Tobit (2) Tobit IV (3) Tobit IV with Tobit IV Distance to nearest ethanol Plant 0.0209 *** 0.0467 ** 0.0202 *** 0.0070 *** 0.0004 *** 0.0012 * 0.0004 ** 0.0001 * Distance t Distance o to n near eare est st ethanol ethanol Plant Plant −0.0209 *** −0.0467 ** −0.0202 *** −0.0070 *** Distance to animal food facility 0.0019 0.0008 Distance to nearest ethanol Plant 2 0.0004 *** 0.0012 * 0.0004 ** 0.0001 * Distance to animal food facility 0.00001 0.00002 Distance to animal food facility 0.0019 0.0008 Well capacity (WC) 0.0007 *** 0.0007 *** 0.0007 *** 0.0002 *** Crop productivity (CP) 1.259 *** 1.2804 *** 1.2580 *** 0.5035 *** −0.00001 −0.00002 Distance to animal food facility WC  CP 0.0021 *** 0.002 *** 0.0020 *** 0.0008 *** Well capacity (WC) −0.0007 *** −0.0007 *** −0.0007 *** −0.0002 *** Number of cattle/size of county (head/sq. mile) 0.0002 *** 0.0001 *** Crop productivity (CP) 1.259 *** 1.2804 *** 1.2580 *** 0.5035 *** Intercept 0.2210 *** 0.0633 0.2024 *** WC ∗ CP 0.0021 *** 0.002 *** 0.0020 *** 0.0008 *** Sample size 31,640 31,640 31,640 31,640 Number of cattle/size of county Pseudo R (or Log likelihood) 0.07 86,876.4 81,542.5 −0.0002*** −0.0001 *** (head/sq. mile) - 0.02 0.003 AR Weak IV Test (Prob > Chi ) Intercept −0.2210 *** −0.0633 −0.2024 *** Notes: The table reports coecients from Tobit models including IV and marginal e ects. *** Significant at the 1 Sample size 31,640 31,640 31,640 31,640 percent level; ** at the 5 percent level; * at the 10 percent level. Pseudo 𝑅 (or Log likelihood) 0.07 −86,876.4 −81,542.5 AR Weak IV Test (Prob > Chi) - 0.02 0.003 Due to high transportation costs, the locations of ethanol refineries are likely to be close to Notes: The table reports coefficients from Tobit models including IV and marginal effects. *** farmlands where corn is grown, which can cause an endogenous correlation between the distance Significant at the 1 percent level; ** at the 5 percent level; * at the 10 percent level. variable and the error term in the model [19,20,37]. To address the endogeneity of locations of ethanol refineries, we calculated the distance between individual parcels and the nearest train station to utilize Due to high transportation costs, the locations of ethanol refineries are likely to be close to proximity to the nearest train station as an instrument variable (IV) [38]. Transportation features farmlands where corn is grown, which can cause an endogenous correlation between the distance such as an interstate highway ramp or nearest road intersection are good candidates for valid IVs to variable and the error term in the model [19,20,37]. To address the endogeneity of locations of ethanol address potential endogeneity [39]. Other recent studies [19,20] utilize railroad capacity in a region as refineries, we calculated the distance between individual parcels and the nearest train station to an instrument for ethanol plant capacity to address endogeneity and the same approach is applied. utilize proximity to the nearest train station as an instrument variable (IV) [38]. Transportation features such as an interstate highway ramp or nearest road intersection are good candidates for valid Land 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 14 IVs to address potential endogeneity [39]. Other recent studies [19,20] utilize railroad capacity in a Land 2019, 8, 118 8 of 14 region as an instrument for ethanol plant capacity to address endogeneity and the same approach is applied. We utilized the IV for distance to an ethanol plant. We conduct Anderson–Rubin (AR) F- We utilized the IV for distance to an ethanol plant. We conduct Anderson–Rubin (AR) F-statistic to statistic to examine whether the instrument variable is weak. The test results presented in Columns examine whether the instrument variable is weak. The test results presented in Columns (2) and (3) of (2) and (3) of Table 4 indicate that we can reject the null hypothesis that the IV is weak at a 5-percent Table 4 indicate that we can reject the null hypothesis that the IV is weak at a 5-percent significance significance level and conclude that the IV employed is valid to address the endogeneity issue in the level and conclude that the IV employed is valid to address the endogeneity issue in the study. study. Coecient estimates are similar for the Tobit and Tobit IV models so only results for the Tobit Coefficient estimates are similar for the Tobit and Tobit IV models so only results for the Tobit IV model are discussed below. The coecients of the Tobit model indicate a non-linear relationship IV model are discussed below. The coefficients of the Tobit model indicate a non-linear relationship between distance to the nearest ethanol plant and the share of a parcel devoted to corn cultivation. between distance to the nearest ethanol plant and the share of a parcel devoted to corn cultivation. The influence of proximity on crop choice declines with increased distance. The coecient on Distance The influence of proximity on crop choice declines with increased distance. The coefficient on to Nearest Ethanol Plant is negative and statistically significant but the coecient on Distance to Distance to Nearest Ethanol Plant is negative and statistically significant but the coefficient on Nearest Ethanol Plant Squared is positive and significant. Distance to Nearest Ethanol Plant Squared is positive and significant. As would be expected, an increase in crop productivity was correlated with the share of a parcel As would be expected, an increase in crop productivity was correlated with the share of a parcel devoted to corn production. While the direct e ect of groundwater capacity is negatively associated devoted to corn production. While the direct effect of groundwater capacity is negatively associated with the share of a parcel devoted to corn, the interaction of well capacity and crop productivity is with the share of a parcel devoted to corn, the interaction of well capacity and crop productivity is positively correlated with the share of parcel acres devoted to cultivating corn. positively correlated with the share of parcel acres devoted to cultivating corn. Column (3) includes variables for the other local market characteristics: the proximity to other Column (3) includes variables for the other local market characteristics: the proximity to other animal food facilities and the density of cattle production. Proximity to other animal food facilities animal food facilities and the density of cattle production. Proximity to other animal food facilities had no influence on the share of a parcel devoted to cultivating corn. This may reflect the magnitude had no influence on the share of a parcel devoted to cultivating corn. This may reflect the magnitude of corn use at these facilities. Even though we have focused on animal food facilities with at least 10 of corn use at these facilities. Even though we have focused on animal food facilities with at least 10 employees, corn use at these facilities may be modest relative to ethanol facilities. The density of cattle employees, corn use at these facilities may be modest relative to ethanol facilities. The density of cattle production in a parcel’s county has a negative and statistically significant correlation with the share of production in a parcel’s county has a negative and statistically significant correlation with the share corn acreage in parcels. Cattle production represents a local market for corn; however, it also reflects of corn acreage in parcels. Cattle production represents a local market for corn; however, it also the share of land supplied for use as grassland/pasture. The supply influence is dominant, resulting in reflects the share of land supplied for use as grassland/pasture. The supply influence is dominant, the negative correlation. Column (4) shows the marginal e ects of each variable. resulting in the negative correlation. Column (4) shows the marginal effects of each variable. Figure 3 combines the coecients for the Distance to Nearest Ethanol Plant and Distance to Figure 3 combines the coefficients for the Distance to Nearest Ethanol Plant and Distance to Nearest Ethanol Plant Squared variables and shows the estimated non-linear relationship between Nearest Ethanol Plant Squared variables and shows the estimated non-linear relationship between the share of parcel acres allocated to corn production and distance from the nearest ethanol plant. the share of parcel acres allocated to corn production and distance from the nearest ethanol plant. The share allocated to corn production declines with distance up to 30 miles from an ethanol plant. The share allocated to corn production declines with distance up to 30 miles from an ethanol plant. Note that 30 miles is quite close to the maximum distance of 36.15 miles among parcels in our Central Note that 30 miles is quite close to the maximum distance of 36.15 miles among parcels in our Central Nebraska region. Nebraska region. 0 10 20 30 Distance to Nearest Ethanol Plant (miles) Effect of Distance to Nearest Ethanol Plant on Corn Planted in Parcel 95% Confidence Interval Figure 3. Distance to nearest ethanol plant and percent of corn planted in a parcel. Figure 3. Distance to nearest ethanol plant and percent of corn planted in a parcel. Percent of Corn Planted in a Parcel 15 20 25 30 35 Land 2019, 8, 118 9 of 14 4.2. Land Allocated to Soybean and Grassland/Pasture Cultivation Table 5 presents the results from Tobit IV regression models for the share of land parcels allocated to soybean cultivation or grassland/pasture. Marginal e ects also are reported. Critical values for the IV employed in the regression are presented as well. Anderson–Rubin (AR) F-statistic in Column (3) for grassland/pasture indicates that nearest distance to a train station is not a weak instrument variable; however, tests indicate it is a weak IV for soybeans. Table 5. Estimates for e ects of local markets on soybeans and grassland/pasture. Share of Soybeans Planted in Parcel Share of Grassland/Pasture in Parcel Variable (2) Marginal E ects (4) Marginal E ects (1) Tobit IV (3) Tobit IV with Tobit IV with Tobit IV Distance to nearest ethanol plant 0.0037 0.0007 0.0189 *** 0.0075 *** 2 6 6 Distance to nearest ethanol plant 0.0001 8.93  10 0.0001 1.72  10 Distance to animal food facility 0.0045 *** 0.0007 0.005 *** 0.0018 ** 0.0001 *** 0.00002 0.0001 *** 0.00004 * Distance to animal food facility Well capacity (WC) 0.0005 *** 0.0001 *** 0.0005 *** 0.0003 *** Crop productivity (CP) 0.8757 *** 0.2524 *** 0.333 *** 0.196 *** WC  CP 0.0014 *** 0.0004 *** 0.0015 *** 0.0009 *** Number of cattle/size of county (head/sq. mile) 0.00002 2.62  10 0.0001 *** 0.0001 *** Intercept 0.5411 *** 0.1718 *** Sample size 31,640 31,640 31,640 31,640 Pseudo R (or Log likelihood) 75,347 73,336 AR Weak IV Test (Prob > Chi ) 0.53 0.000 Notes: The table reports coecients from Tobit IV and marginal e ects. *** Significant at the 1 percent level; ** at the 5 percent level; * at the 10 percent level. The share of parcel acreage devoted to soybean production was not associated with distance from nearest ethanol plant. In Columns (1) and (2), the Tobit IV and marginal e ect coecients of distance to animal food facility indicate the share of parcel acreage devoted to soybean production rose with distance from the alternative local market, other animal food facilities. This result may indicate that alternative land uses, such as the cultivation of corn, may be falling with distance from an animal food facility, even though no direct evidence was found for that in Table 4. As would be expected, an increase in crop productivity was correlated with the share of a parcel devoted to soybeans production. While the e ect of groundwater capacity was negatively associated with the share of a parcel devoted to soybeans, the interaction of well capacity and crop productivity had a positive correlation with the share of parcel acres devoted to cultivating soybeans. The density of cattle production had no impact on the share of soybeans acreage in parcels. In Columns (3) and (4), distance from nearest ethanol plant has a positive and statistically significant relationship with the share of pasture and grassland use in parcels. As distance from parcels to ethanol plants increases, higher transportation costs cause a switch in land-use from planting crops to converting into grassland/pasture. Contrary to the findings in Columns (1) and (2), the growth of well capacity and crop productivity was correlated with a reduction in the percent of a parcel used for grassland/pasture. As expected, the density of cattle production in a parcel’s county was positively correlated with the share of grassland/pasture. Counties with a larger share of land devoted to grassland and pasture would have denser cattle production. 4.3. Robustness Checks The results from the previous section show how transport costs can a ect land-use decisions by farmers. In this section, we present additional analysis to check whether our main results are robust to alternative specifications and models. Our baseline analysis included only parcels with less than 99.5 percent of acres in developed areas. In Table 6, we repeat Table 5 analysis using an alternative criterion with only parcels with less than 90 Land 2019, 8, 118 10 of 14 percent of acres in developed acres. This change does not alter the main finding that distance to an ethanol facility plays an important role in influencing land-use. Table 6. Robustness check with Tobit IV for corn, soybeans, and grassland/pasture. 2014 (90%) (1) Tobit IV for (2) Tobit IV for (3) Tobit IV for Corn Soybeans Grassland/Pasture Distance to nearest ethanol plant 0.0200 *** 0.0042 ** 0.0007 2 5 Distance to nearest ethanol plant 0.0003 *** 6.37  10 0.0001 *** Distance to animal food facility 0.0020 0.0055 *** 0.0051 *** Distance to animal food facility 0.00001 0.0002 *** 0.0001 *** Well capacity (WC) 0.0006 *** 0.0005 *** 0.0002 *** Crop productivity (CP) 1.277 *** 0.8890 *** 0.1699 *** WC  CP 0.001 *** 0.0013 *** 0.0007 *** Number of cattle/size of county (head/sq. mile) 0.0002 *** 5.31  10 *** 0.00002 Intercept 0.1940 *** 0.4712 0.0901 *** Sample size 30,517 30,517 30,517 Pseudo R (or Log likelihood) 83,002.5 77,160.2 67,568.5 0.02 0.43 0.0003 AR Weak IV Test (Prob > Chi ) Notes: The table reports coecients from Tobit IV. *** Significant at the 1 percent level; ** at the 5 percent level; * at the 10 percent level. We also checked the e ect of ethanol plant capacity on the change in crop quantity supplied by farmers in the region [20] by adding a variable for the capacity of the nearest ethanol plant. The coecient on the ethanol plant capacity variable was not significantly di erent from zero and the included variable did not change other results. Further results are available from the authors, upon request. 4.4. Discussion The expected negative relationship identified in Figure 3 between the share of a parcel devoted to corn cultivation and distance from an ethanol plant has implications for hauling costs for feedstock, and the concentration of irrigation, fertilizer, and pesticide application near ethanol plants. Further, the non-linear relationship identified in Figure 3 and Table 2 indicates even greater concentration in feedstock production in close proximity to ethanol plants. A parcel located at an ethanol plant would be expected to have 33.8% of its territory devoted to corn cultivation versus 29.4% at 5 miles from the plant, 25.5% at 10 miles from the plant and 20.7% at 20 miles from the plant. The cost for hauling all the corn required to fuel an ethanol plant is less in this non-linear case than under a strictly linear curve. The curvature in Figure 3, or analogous curves that may be developed in future research, also can provide a more precise estimate of plant hauling costs in simulation models which include these costs [14]. Results in Figure 3 also have implications for the concentration of fertilizer and pesticide application. Assuming that fertilizer and pesticide applications rises proportionately with land-use, application for corn cultivation would be about 61.2% greater on a parcel located adjacent to an ethanol plant than on a similar size parcel located 20 miles away. Application may even rise by a larger percentage if the growing share of corn cultivation results from a conversion of land from grown corn in rotation with other crops to annual corn cultivation. A more general implication from our empirical model is to demonstrate that the instrumental variable approach can be utilized in models of the relationship between land-use and distance to ethanol plants, and perhaps also to related questions such as land values and distance. Future research can utilize instrumental variables to test for a negative and non-linear relationship in other regional settings beyond our case study in central Nebraska. Other considerations include whether such non-linear Land 2019, 8, 118 11 of 14 relationships are present for parcels surrounding other facilities which process food commodities, such as soy-based diesel, or ethanol and biogas plants which utilize crop residue as a feedstock. 5. Conclusions and Policy Implications This paper examines how proximity to ethanol plants and other local crop processors influences land-use and cropping patterns. The results indicate that the location of ethanol plants influences land-use and cropping patterns. We utilized IV techniques to address the potential endogeneity in the location of ethanol plants and we allowed for a non-linear relationship between distance from an ethanol facility and observed land-use. Our analysis relied on measures of land-use based on GIS databases, mitigating the need for producer surveys, and lowering the cost of developing a model which reflected the unique local processing market of a particular region. We employed data from a central Nebraska region with a concentration of grain production as well as ethanol plants, animal food manufacturers, and cattle on feed. Estimates of the agricultural land-use model show that the broader local processing sector influences land-use and corn and soybean production within the region. In particular, proximity to an ethanol plant increased the share of land allocated to corn cultivation up to a distance of 30 miles. Results further indicate that the marginal impact of distance declines as distance increases, indicating a tendency to concentrate production near the closest ethanol plants. In other words, ethanol plants do not just increase the need for regional corn production, but the plants also concentrate the increased local production in land parcels adjacent to the plant. The resulting concentration of production in the vicinity of ethanol plants has several implications for policy. There is a potential for a concentration of water pollution in the vicinity of ethanol plants given the elevated fertilizer input needs of the corn cultivation [20]. However, the concentration of crop production around major processing plants also has implications for energy use. Clusters of crop and processing activity economize on energy use and the resulting pollution externalities in hauling bulky crops, by concentrating the required corn cultivation expanding around the processing plant. Author Contributions: Co-author ’s contributed to individual portions of the research as follows: conceptualization, J.P., J.A., and E.T.; methodology, J.P., J.A., and E.T.; software, J.P.; validation, J.P., J.A., and E.T.; formal analysis, J.P.; investigation, J.P.; resources, J.P., J.A., and E.T.; data curation, J.P.; writing—original draft preparation, J.P, J.A., and E.T.; writing—review and editing, J.P., J.A., and E.T.; visualization, J.P.; supervision, J.A. and E.T.; project administration, E.T.; funding acquisition, E.T. Funding: This research was funded by the Water Sustainability and Climate program (NSF and USDA-NIFA) through a grant made by the USDA (USDA NIFA 2014-67003-22072). Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the participants in the Association for University Business and Economic Research 2017 Fall meeting for comments on a draft of this manuscript. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results. Land Land 2019 2019,, 8 8,, x FO 118 R PEER REVIEW 12 of 12 of 14 14 Appendix Appendix A Diagram 1. Data Flowchart. Figure A1. Data Flowchart. References References 1. Capehart, T.; Donald, S. Situation and Outlook FDS-16g; Feed Outlook USDA Economic Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 14 July 2016. 1. Capehart, T.; Donald, S. Situation and Outlook FDS-16g; Feed Outlook USDA Economic Research Service: 2. John, M. Ethanol Facts: Economy and Ethanol Trade Fact Sheet. In Proceedings of the Renewable Fuels Washington, DC, USA, 14 July 2016. Association, Washington, DC, USA, 25 January 2005. 2. John, M. Ethanol Facts: Economy and Ethanol Trade Fact Sheet. In Proceedings of the Renewable Fuels 3. Fuel ethanol, corn and gasoline prices. U.S. Bioenergy Statistics, 2016. Association, Washington, DC, USA, 25 January 2005. 4. Wallander, S.; Claassen, R.; Nickerson, C. The ethanol decade: An expansion of US corn production, 2000-2009; 3. Fuel Ethanol, Corn and Gasoline Prices; U.S. Bioenergy Statistics: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Information Bulletin 79: 2011. 4. Wallander, S.; Claassen, R.; Nickerson, C. The Ethanol Decade: An expansion of US Corn Production, 5. Monthly Energy Review; US. Energy Information Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. 2000–2009. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Information Bulletin 79. 2011. Available 6. Gallagher, P.; Yee, W.; Baumes, H. 2015 Energy Balance for the Corn-Ethanol Industry; USDA Report: online: https://tind-customer-agecon.s3.amazonaws.com/50b782e9-7260-48f5-b573-1d953b4c42ef?response- Washington, DC, USA, 2016. content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%2A%3DUTF-8%27%27EIB79.pdf&response-content-type= 7. Gallagher, P.; Johnson, D. Some new ethanol technology: Cost competition and adoption effects in the application%2Fpdf&AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAXL7W7Q3XHXDVDQYS&Expires=1564472985&Signature= petroleum market. Energy J. 1999, 20, 89–120. pZNRq2pPmQjyBx11jvS4Uj2z0oc%3D (accessed on 20 June 2019). 8. Wart, J.; Perrin, K. Spatial Welfare Effects of a Grain Ethanol Plant. Agricultural and Resource Economics 5. Monthly Energy Review; US. Energy Information Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. Commons, University of Nebraska – Lincoln, Agricultural Economics Paper: 2008. 6. Gallagher, P.; Yee, W.; Baumes, H. 2015 Energy Balance for the Corn-Ethanol Industry; USDA Report: Washington, 9. Bartoli, A.; Cavicchioli, D.; Kremmydas, D.; Rozakis, S.; Olper, A. The Impact of Different Energy Policy DC, USA, 2016. Options on Feedstock Price and Land Demand for Maize Silage: The Case of Biogas in Lombardy. Energy 7. Gallagher, P.; Johnson, D. Some new ethanol technology: Cost competition and adoption e ects in the Policy 2016, 96, 351–363. petroleum market. Energy J. 1999, 20, 89–120. [CrossRef] 10. Bartoli, A.; Hamelin, L.; Rozakis, S.; Borzęcka, M.; Brandão, M. Coupling economic and GHG emission 8. Wart, J.; Perrin, K. Spatial Welfare E ects of a Grain Ethanol Plant; Agricultural and Resource Economics accounting models to evaluate the sustainability of biogas policies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 106, Commons, University of Nebraska—Lincoln, Agricultural Economics Paper, 2008. Available online: 133–148. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1087&context=ageconfacpub (accessed on 20 11. Bartolini, F.; Gava, O.; Brunori, G. Biogas and EU's 2020 targets: Evidence from a regional case study in June 2019). Italy. Energy Policy 2017, 109, 510–519. Land 2019, 8, 118 13 of 14 9. Bartoli, A.; Cavicchioli, D.; Kremmydas, D.; Rozakis, S.; Olper, A. The Impact of Di erent Energy Policy Options on Feedstock Price and Land Demand for Maize Silage: The Case of Biogas in Lombardy. Energy Policy 2016, 96, 351–363. [CrossRef] 10. Bartoli, A.; Hamelin, L.; Rozakis, S.; Borzecka, ˛ M.; Brandão, M. Coupling economic and GHG emission accounting models to evaluate the sustainability of biogas policies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 106, 133–148. [CrossRef] 11. Bartolini, F.; Gava, O.; Brunori, G. Biogas and EU’s 2020 targets: Evidence from a regional case study in Italy. Energy Policy 2017, 109, 510–519. [CrossRef] 12. Demartini, E.; Gaviglio, A.; Gelati, M.; Cavicchioli, D. The e ect of biogas production on farmland rental prices: Empirical evidences from Northern Italy. Energies 2016, 9, 965. [CrossRef] 13. Mela, G.; Canali, G. How distorting policies can a ect energy eciency and sustainability: The case of biogas production in the Po Valley (Italy). AgBioForum 2014, 16, 194–206. 14. Sgroi, F.; Foderà, M.; Trapani, A.M.; Tudisca, S.; Testa, R. Economic evaluation of biogas plant size utilizing giant reed. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 49, 403–409. [CrossRef] 15. Tilman, D.; Socolow, R.; Foley, J.A.; Hill, J.; Larson, E.; Lynd, L.; Pacala, S.; Reilly, J.; Searchinger, T.; Somerville, C.; et al. Beneficial biofuels—The food, energy and environment trilemma. Science 2009, 325, 270–271. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 16. Chatalova, L.; Balmann, A. The hidden costs of renewables promotion: The case of crop-based biogas. J. Clean. Prod. 2007, 168, 893–903. [CrossRef] 17. Shapouri, H.; Dueld, J.A.; Wang, M. The energy balance of corn ethanol revisited. Trans. ASAE 2003, 46, 959. [CrossRef] 18. Brown, J.C.; Hanley, E.; Bergtold, J.; Caldas, M.; Barve, V.; Peterson, D.; Callihan, R.; Gibson, J.; Gray, B.; Hendricks, N.; et al. Ethanol plant location and intensification vs. extensification of corn cropping in Kansas. Appl. Geogr. 2014, 53, 141–148. [CrossRef] 19. Li, Y.; Miao, R.; Khanna, M. E ects of Ethanol Plant Proximity and Crop Prices on Land-Use Change in the United States. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2019, 101, 467–491. [CrossRef] 20. Motamed, M.; McPhail, L.; Williams, R. Corn area response to local ethanol markets in the United States: A grid cell level analysis. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2016, 98, 726–743. [CrossRef] 21. Secchi, S.; Kurkalova, L.; Gassman, P.W.; Hart, C. Land use change in a biofuels hotspot: The case of Iowa, USA. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35, 2391–2400. [CrossRef] 22. Miao, R. Impact of ethanol plants on local land use change. Agric. Res. Econ. Rev. 2013, 42, 291–309. [CrossRef] 23. New, K.; Grith, D. Measuring the impact of ethanol plants on local grain prices. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2005, 27, 164–180. 24. Zhao, S.; Wang, C.; Bordovsky, J.P.; Sheng, Z.; Gastelum, J.R. Estimating the Spatial Distribution of Groundwater Demand in the Texas High Plains. In Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Meeting, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 24–26 July 2011. 25. Agricultural Production and Prices National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2012 Census of Agriculture; USDA Economic Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. 26. Crop Production 2018 Summary; USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2019. 27. 2016 Ethanol Industry Outlook. Available online: https://ethanolrfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Ethanol- Industry-Outlook-2016.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2019). 28. Land Use Land Cover: National Land Cover Dataset by State, 3114 Nebraska; USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service: Lincoln, NE, USA, 2014. 29. GIS Workshop; LLC Land Use Development: Omaha, NE, USA, 2014. 30. Fatal, Y.S.; Thurman, W.N. The response of corn acreage to ethanol plant siting. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2014, 46, 157–171. [CrossRef] 31. Other Animal Food Facilities; Nebraska Department of Economic Development: Lincoln, NE, USA, 2014. 32. Nebraska Ethanol Plants; Nebraska Ethanol Board: Lincoln, NE, USA, 2014. 33. Groundwater Well Registration; Nebraska Department of Natural Resources: Lincoln, NE, USA, 2014. 34. Cattle, On Feed Inventory; USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. 35. Land Area in Square Miles 2010; US Census Bureau: Suitland, MD, USA, 2010. 36. Cropland Data Layer Metadata; USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. Land 2019, 8, 118 14 of 14 37. Arora, G.; Wolter, P.T.; Feng, H.; Hennessy, D.A. Role of Ethanol Plants in Dakotas Land Use Change: Incorporating Flexible Trends in the Di erence-in-Di erence Framework with Remotely-Sensed Data. 2016. Available online: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/card_workingpapers/583/ (accessed on 20 June 2019). 38. Park, J.; Anderson, J.E.; Thompson, E. Proximity to Local Market and Its Impact on Agricultural Land Value. Unpublished. 2019. 39. Motamed, M.J.; McPhail, L.L. Spatial Dimensions of US Crop Selection: Recent Responses to Markets and Policy; Economic Research Service, USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Land Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Land-Use, Crop Choice, and Proximity to Ethanol Plants

Park, Junpyo; Anderson, John; Thompson, Eric
Land , Volume 8 (8) – Jul 30, 2019
Download PDF
14 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/multidisciplinary-digital-publishing-institute/land-use-crop-choice-and-proximity-to-ethanol-plants-dHo3bqn013

References (30)

Publisher
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Copyright
© 1996-2019 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated
ISSN
2073-445X
DOI
10.3390/land8080118
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

land Article Land-Use, Crop Choice, and Proximity to Ethanol Plants 1 2 , 2 Junpyo Park , John Anderson * and Eric Thompson College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Economics, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO 80639, USA College of Business, Faculty of Economics, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA * Correspondence: janderson4@unl.edu Received: 21 June 2019; Accepted: 29 July 2019; Published: 30 July 2019 Abstract: This paper examines how proximity to an ethanol plant influences land-use and crop choice among producers. We estimated a Tobit model of crop choice within parcels located in Central Nebraska in a 2014 sample period in order to analyze changes in land-use and crop choice. We employed Geographic Information System (GIS) databases to access relevant data on crop choice and other land uses in the study area parcels, in addition to detailed information on the location and capacity of irrigation wells. We utilized an instrumental variable approach to account for the endogeneity of crop choice with ethanol refinery locations in the study area. Our regional model also took into account specific characteristics of the local processing markets for grains, including animal food manufacturers and livestock as well as ethanol plants. Our estimates revealed that ethanol plants alter land-use in several ways. We found that proximity to an ethanol plant increases the share of land allocated to corn cultivation up to a distance of 30 miles and that the portion of land parcels allocated to corn production falls with distance from an ethanol plant in a non-linear pattern. We also find that land allocation to grassland and pasture rises with distance from ethanol plants. Keywords: land-use; crop choice; ethanol plants; production clusters 1. Introduction The renewable fuels sector has been a significant factor in the recent evolution of crop choice in the corn-producing regions of the United States. The U.S. total corn grain production increased to 14,540 million bushels in 2016 from 10,531 million bushels in 2006 [1,2]. Three quarters of that increase was corn production used for ethanol fuel. This resulted from a combination of rising gasoline prices and a suite of state and federal bioenergy policies [3,4]. About five percent of total U.S. transport fuel is comprised of biomass energy, including fuel ethanol and biodiesel in 2016 [5]. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports that the proximity of farmland to ethanol plants has improved and the number of processing facilities has increased [6]. For instance, corn is delivered by trucks for relatively short distances to a nearby ethanol plant and producers consider the transport cost and crop price received. Individual ethanol plants in the midwestern states (IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, MN, MO, NE, OH, SD, and WI) define a market area by the closest plant’s input suppliers, farmers, and the density of surrounding corn [7,8]. European research examines how biogas processing impacts agricultural regions, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [9–14]. Biogas production is a significant part of fuel production in European economies [11]. While biogas facilities can operate at the farm level, even farm-level processors draw some feedstock from the surrounding region and larger processing facilities must draw feedstock from throughout the surrounding region [11]. Land 2019, 8, 118; doi:10.3390/land8080118 www.mdpi.com/journal/land Land 2019, 8, 118 2 of 14 In terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, one study [15] notes that life-cycle GHG emission reductions are greatest when feedstocks for biofuel plants are grown via perennials on degraded lands not utilized for agriculture, via double cropping, using crop residues and when non-crop feedstocks are utilized such as wood by-products and municipal and industrial waste. While corn-based ethanol plants do not fall into these categories, research on agricultural regions surround these plants can provide insights into the regional concentration of production around processing facilities. It should also be noted that subsidy levels, lags, and uncertainty in refinery development and the treatment of manure inputs and other non-crop feedstocks also influence the potential of biofuel and biogas policy to yield large benefits in reducing greenhouse gas emissions [10,13,16], and influence land prices [12]. The concentration of crop production around biofuel and biogas plants has implications for energy and irrigation policy [17], and also influence water pollution. Clusters of crop and processing activity economize on energy use in hauling bulky crops, by expanding crop production in proximity to the processing plant. One study [11] notes that reducing greenhouse gas emissions from hauling feedstocks is a goal of EU renewable energy policy. Likewise, the concentration of production can lead to higher levels of pesticide and fertilizer application and elevated use of groundwater irrigation. The potential for concentration of feedstock producing crops closest to biofuel or biogas refineries also would have implications for market simulation models that consider feedstock hauling costs [14]. Previous literature on agricultural regions surrounding ethanol plants has utilized USDA’s Cropland Data Layer (CDL) to models of crop choice in regions with ethanol plants [18–21]. Some studies use county-level panel data [22] or panel data for other aggregate geographic units [20] to examine how changes in regional ethanol plant capacity influence crop choice. Development of ethanol plant capacity is positively associated with the proportion of acres planted in corn in Iowa counties for 10 years between 1999 and 2009 [22]. Another study [20] utilizes the USDA’s CDL data to build identically-sized regions and then examine the e ect of a change in the regional production capacity of ethanol plants on corn acres. The study utilizes rail capacity as an instrumental variable for ethanol production capacity within regions and finds evidence that an increase in neighborhood refining capacity is positively associated with corn and total agricultural acres. Other recent papers examine how proximity to ethanol plants influence crop choice or corn prices [18,23]. One study [18] shows the negative e ect of distance to an ethanol plant on corn intensification and extensification. Another study [23] introduces a spatial equilibrium model that estimates the impact on local grain prices from new ethanol plants, mainly in the Midwest regions such as Missouri, Iowa, South Dakota, Illinois, Michigan, and Montana between 2001 and 2002. They find that the advent of twelve new ethanol plants in the regions results in a larger demand for crops, especially corn, and it suggests that the corn price in downstream markets declines with distance from an ethanol plant. The current study examines the relationship between crop choice and distance to an ethanol plant using parcel-level data for an agricultural region in Nebraska, a corn-producing state located in the Midwest region of the United States. We incorporate alternative sub-county-level data which utilize a resolution of 30 square meters CDL data (compared to 56 square meters [18,21]) to our parcel-level crop choice models. We expand on recent literature by incorporating the instrumental variable techniques developed for regional plant capacity models into the parcel-distance modeling framework [20]. We further examine non-linearity in the relationship between parcel distance and crop choice. Non-linearity could imply that corn cultivation is especially concentrated in the regions closely surrounding ethanol plants. The CDL data also allow for modeling the specific production resources and market characteristics of an individual agricultural region. We control for cropland productivity and groundwater access at the parcel level and for the presence of other local crop processors in the regional market. Land 2019, 8, 118 3 of 14 2. Empirical Model In our model, we estimated the share of each land parcel which was devoted to the cultivation of corn as a function of distance to the nearest ethanol plant, other local market factors, and land characteristics. Separate equations also were estimated to examine how the share of land parcels devoted to soybean and grassland or pasture was related to these same factors. Specific explanatory variables include distance between each parcel and the nearest ethanol plant, crop productivity [20], and irrigation well capacity [24]. Since transportation costs fall and net prices for corn rise with proximity to an ethanol plant, we anticipated that a profit maximizing producer would increase the share of each parcel devoted to corn production as distance to an ethanol plant or other local processors of corn falls, land would become more productive, and irrigation capacity would rise. These same factors would yield a reduction in the share of each parcel devoted to grassland/pasture. The influence on soybeans would be ambiguous as soybeans are often grown in rotation with corn. We tested our model in the Central Platte Natural Resources District (CPNRD), a central Nebraska agricultural region with ethanol production facilities and significant corn, soybean, and livestock production. The state of Nebraska is one of the top five agricultural-producing states [25]. Those five states include California, Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, and Nebraska which represent more than a third of U.S. agricultural outputs and the highest values of crop sales. Corn is among the most important crops produced in the United States. There were approximately 14.4 billion bushels of corn harvested for grain nationwide in 2018 and corn plantings accounted for approximately 28 percent of principal crop acreage planted during that year [26]. Corn accounted for 94 percent of all biofuel production in Nebraska [25]. The increased corn production has required better crop storage facilities which have shifted towards within-farm crop storage and shipping to nearby ethanol plants. Table 1 shows the U.S. ethanol production capacity and production facilities by states in 2016. The state of Iowa has the largest ethanol production capacity and the largest installed ethanol bio-refineries in the United States followed by Nebraska, Illinois, and Minnesota. Table 1. Ethanol production capacity (million gallons/year) and production facilities by state. (Source: 2016 Ethanol Industry Outlook by Renewable Fuels Association) [27]. Production Capacity Operating Production Installed Ethanol Bio-Refineries 1. Iowa 3947 3921 44 2. Nebraska 2119 2066 26 3. Illinois 1635 1597 15 4. Minnesota 1190 1172 22 5. Indiana 1163 1163 14 6. South 1032 1032 15 Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . 15. California 223 218 6 As indicated in the next section, no corn was grown on 13,120 parcels in our dataset out of a total 31,640 parcels. We therefore utilized a Tobit regression which is an appropriate estimation technique when the value of the dependent variable is censored resulting in many zero values. Using the following equation, we empirically tested the Tobit regression model: S = + D + D + z + X + u , (1) i 0 1 i 2 i i i where the dependent variable S is the share of a given land-use in parcel i measured in percent (e.g., corn production) which is bounded between 0 and 1. D is a vector of variables that measure the influences of proximity (measured distance in miles) to local markets and D represents its squared i Land 2019, 8, 118 4 of 14 term in parcel i. The term z represents a cattle density of the county measured in thousands of cattle Land 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 14 on feed per square mile. X is a vector of parcel i’s land characteristics such as well capacity (measured in the pumping rate of gallons per minute) and crop productivity index (bounded between 0 and 0.99). (measured in the pumping rate of gallons per minute) and crop productivity index (bounded between The term u is an unobservable error term. 0 and 0.99).i The term u is an unobservable error term. 3. Data 3. Data We estimated our model using data from the Central Platte Natural Resources District (CPNRD), We estimated our model using data from the Central Platte Natural Resources District (CPNRD), a central Nebraska agricultural region of 2,136,304 acres. Nebraska is a Midwestern U.S. state with a a central Nebraska agricultural region of 2,136,304 acres. Nebraska is a Midwestern U.S. state with a system of Natural Resource Districts (NRDs) which follow watersheds. CPNRD is a rainwater basin system of Natural Resource Districts (NRDs) which follow watersheds. CPNRD is a rainwater basin region, one of 23 such NRDs established in Nebraska. Figure 1 displays a satellite imagery gathered region, one of 23 such NRDs established in Nebraska. Figure 1 displays a satellite imagery gathered by National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) on the state of Nebraska. The boundary lines in by National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) on the state of Nebraska. The boundary lines in Figure 1 indicate each Nebraska NRD. Our CPNRD study region is highlighted in cyan in Figure 1. Figure 1 indicate each Nebraska NRD. Our CPNRD study region is highlighted in cyan in Figure 1. Figure 1. Map of study areas (Central Platte Natural Resources District in Nebraska). (Source: USDA Figure 1. Map of study areas (Central Platte Natural Resources District in Nebraska). (Source: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service: Geospatial Data Gateway, 2014) [28]. Natural Resources Conservation Service: Geospatial Data Gateway, 2014) [28]. Our m Our micricro o-level -level dataset dataset included included variables varifor able par s for cel size, par ownership, cel size, owner land-use, ship, land lacharacteristics, nd-use, land char groundwater acteristics, gro access, undw and a pr teoximity r access, toan local d proximit grain pr y t ocessors o local gr in these ain processors 11 counties inin th 2014. ese 11W cou e on btained ties in 2 access 014. We obta to the par incel ed a data ccess t pro ovided the parcel da by GISta W prov orkshop, ided by GIS LLC [29 Work ]. We shop, LLC restricted[29]. We our dataset restricte to par d our cels da wher taset to pa e less than rcels where 99.5 perlcent ess tha ofn t he 99.5 land perc ar eea nt of the land is developed. area i The s deve number loped.of The number of unique parcels unique in the parcels study ar in the ea which study meet area w thishcriteri ich meet on is this cr appriterion oximately is ap 32,000. proxim The ately average 32,000par . The cel ain verage our dataset parcel in covers our dat 65.57 aset acr cover es. For s 6our 5.57 GIS acres and . For our statistical GIS analyses, and statiwe stica utilized l analyAr ses, cMap we ut version ilized Ar 10.5, cMSt ap a ver ta version sion 10 1 .5 5.0, , Stand ata version Microsoft 15.Excel. 0, and Micro FiguresA1 oft Excel. illustrates Diagr how am 1 il we lust utilized rates rhow elevant we ut data ilizin ed relev our analysis. ant dataSee in o Appendix ur analysiA s. . See Appendix. The land-use and land cover data were collected from the Geospatial Data Gateway (GDG) provided The la by nd- the use a United nd la States nd cover da Department ta were coll of Agricultur ected from the Geospa e (USDA)—Natural tial Da Resour ta ces Gatewa Conservation y (GDG) provided by t Service (NRCS). he United Compar States Departme ed to previous studies, nt of Agr our iculture (USD approach using A)—Natural Geographic Resource Information s Conservation System Service (GIS) technology (NRCS). Compa provided red tmor o previous s e detailed tudies information , our approach on land-use. using Geographic Land uses included Information S developed ystem (GIS) techno acres, grassland logy provid /pastureed and more detaile acres cultivating d informat corn, ion on land-use. L soybeans and other and uses crops included d such as, hay eveloped , wheat, acres sorghum, , grasoats, sland/ and past potatoes. ure and acre Thers cu eforlt e,iv the ating corn myriad, soybeans of land-useand alternatives other crops such as, h were summarized ay, wheat, in five s categories: orghum, oa developed ts, and pota ar toes eas, . Ther useseas fore grassland , the myri or ad pastur of land-u eland, se a corn lterna cultivation, tives were su soybean mmariz cultivatio ed in five n categories: developed areas, uses as grassland or pastureland, corn cultivation, soybean cultivation and cultivation of all other land uses. Land cover data indicated multiple land uses within most of the individual parcels. There are 11 counties in CPNRD: Bu alo, Custer, Dawson, Frontier, Hall, Hamilton, Howard, Merrick, Nance, Platte, and Polk. Table 2 reports the average share of parcels assigned to each of the five land-use categories in Otherwise, we would have another 40,000 parcels where developed areas occupy only apartments, mansions, or buildings 2014. According to our analysis, the unweighted average for corn cultivation land-use accounted for in the study area. There are 11 counties in CPNRD: Buffalo, Custer, Dawson, Frontier, Hall, Hamilton, Howard, Merrick, Nance, Platte, and Polk. Otherwise, we would have another 40,000 parcels where developed areas occupy only apartments, mansions, or buildings in the study area. Land 2019, 8, 118 5 of 14 and cultivation of all other land uses. Land cover data indicated multiple land uses within most of the individual parcels. Table 2 reports the average share of parcels assigned to each of the five land-use categories in 2014. According to our analysis, the unweighted average for corn cultivation land-use accounted for 24 percent, soybean cultivation was 8.3 percent, grassland/pasture was 33.2 percent, developed area was 17 percent, and other land uses accounted for the rest. Grassland/pasture was the most common landuse followed by corn cultivation. Table 2 also reports the share of individual parcels that include no corn, soybeans, or grassland/pasture. There were a significant number of corn parcels with a zero percent share (13,120 out of 31,640 total), motivating our use of a Tobit model. The bottom half of Table 2 also provides additional detail on the distribution of crop shares in parcels. Table 2. Assigned land-use in parcels. (3) Average (Share of Land Use (1) 0% of Acres in (2) 100% of Acres in (4) Median (the Parcels Assigned to Each Category Assigned Use Assigned Use 50th percentile) Category) Corn 41.47% 0.43% 24% 1.55% Soybeans 60.66% 0.00012% 8.3% 0% Grassland/Pasture 9.37% 3.26% 33.2% 19.12% Developed Area 18.29% 0% 17.1% 4.50% Others 26.66% 1.62% 17.4% 3.00% (5) Between 0.01% (6) Between 25.01% (8) Between 75.1% Land Use (7) Between 50.1% and 75% and 25% of Acres and 50% of Acres in and 99.9% of Acres Category of Acres in Assigned Use in Assigned Use Assigned Use in Assigned Use Corn 27.04% 8.12% 6.41% 16.54% Soybeans 27.88% 4.51% 2.05% 4.89% Grassland/Pasture 44.62% 14.97% 13.03% 14.75% Developed Area 59.64% 8.57% 6.07% 7.43% Others 49.78% 10.21% 5.81% 5.93% We obtained Gridded Soil Survey Geographic (gSSURGO) information for crop productivity from GDG. The Gridded Soil Survey Geographic data included National Commodity Crop Productivity Index (NCCPI) by USDA-NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). NCCPI uses inherent soil properties, landscape features, and climatic characteristics to assign ratings for dry-land commodity crops such as corn, soybeans, cotton, and small grains. The index ranges from zero (low crop productivity) to 0.99 (high crop productivity). We included the crop productivity index but note that the presence of a nearby ethanol facility could influence both soil quality and landscape features, since producers receiving higher net prices for corn would be expected to invest more in production capacity, including improving soil quality or modifying the farm landscape. As a result, values for the crop productivity index variable could be negatively correlated with distance from an ethanol plant. We note that one other study introduces the time-invariant geographical factor to control for soil quality [20]. Furthermore, we employed water supply capacity [24]. We collected the registered groundwater well data from the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The well data included the number of wells and well capacity, and we are able to project the locations of every single well into ArcGIS for our study. Accordingly, we computed the number of wells and the well capacity in all parcels. We assumed that the number of wells and well capacity were unchanged in 2014. The locations of all 23 ethanol plants in the state of Nebraska were provided by the Nebraska Ethanol Board. Using the coordinate system, we computed distance from each parcel to the nearest ethanol plant [30]. We also computed distance to the nearest other animal food facility. Data on the location of animal food facilities were gathered [31]. There were too many feedlots to utilize a similar approach for distance to feedlots, and we utilized cattle density, a count of the number (in thousands) of cattle on feed in the parcel’s county divided by the land area of the county, as the measure of access. Data on the number of cattle on feed in each county were obtained from USDA-NASS. The cattle Land 2019, 8, 118 6 of 14 density variable captured supply and demand conditions at the county level; in particular, the supply of land that producers choose to devote to grassland/pasture and the demand for corn production as cattle feed. Among the 23 ethanol plants in the state of Nebraska, there were three ethanol plants within the CPNRD as well as eight animal food facilities with at least 10 employees. Figure 2 presents the locations of the ethanol plants and animal food facilities as well as the land cover in the study area. In our analysis we included those ethanol plants and animal food facilities with at least 10 employees located in areas adjacent to the CPNRD. Figure 2 provides estimates on acreage for commodities including about 10 to 20 categories out of a possible 85 standardized categories. Lands devoted to corn, soybeans, and grass/pasture are represented in dark yellow, green, and bright ivory, respectively. The figure shows developed lands are scattered throughout the region while corn cultivation is the primary land-use in eastern and central portions of the region and pasture and grassland is the primarily land-use in the west. From Figure 2, it is also evident that many parcels in the region are closer to ethanol plants located outside of the CPNRD, which is why we define our distance variable as the distance to the nearest ethanol plant or other animal food facility, whether or not that plant or facility is located within the CPNRD. Table 3 shows descriptive statistics for key variables. While the data come from a single agricultural region, there was great variability among individual parcels in terms of land-use, distance to markets, crop productivity and well capacity. Of particular note, the average distance between parcels and ethanol plants is 13.5 miles, with the shortest distance being 0.09 miles and the longest distance 36.15 miles. Also note that since both well capacity and crop productivity are important input factors as farmers consider what crops to plant, we included an interaction term by multiplying the well capacity variable and the crop productivity variable. Table 3. Descriptive statistics. Variable Mean Std. Dev. Min Max Share of corn 0.240 0.345 0 1.00 Share of soybeans 0.083 0.216 0 1.00 Share of developed area 0.170 0.263 0 0.995 Share of grassland/pasture 0.332 0.342 0 1.00 Distance to nearest ethanol plant (miles) 13.53 6.387 0.09 36.15 Distance to other animal food facilities (miles) 16.64 12.74 0.070 44.14 Well capacity (WC) 34.00 800.696 0 133,088 Crop productivity (CP) 0.385 0.1343 0 0.8 WC  CP 13.62 289.71 0 47,468 Number of cattle (thousand) 122.316 79.206 27.5 285 Size of county (sq. mile) 815.7 410.952 439 2576 Cattle density (thousands of cattle/sq. mile) 143.50 55.03 57.44 231.98 Note: The data sources collected for our study analysis are as follows. Share of crop choice in parcels—the Geospatial Data Gateway (GDG) and GIS Workshop, LLC [28,29], distance to nearest ethanol plant—location of plants from Nebraska Ethanol Board [32], distance to other animal food facilities—location of facilities from Nebraska Department of Economic Development [31], well capacity—Nebraska Department of Natural Resources [33], crop productivity—USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service [28], number of cattle—USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service [34], size of county—U.S. Census Bureau [35]. Land 2019, 8, 118 7 of 14 Land 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 14 Figure 2. Land cover and locations of ethanol plants and animal food facilities. (Source: USDA’s Figure 2. Land cover and locations of ethanol plants and animal food facilities. (Source: USDA’s Cropland Data Layer—Metadata, 2014) [36]. Cropland Data Layer—Metadata, 2014) [36]. 4. Empirical Results 4. Empirical Results 4.1. Land Allocated to Corn Cultivation 4.1. Land Allocated to Corn Cultivation Table 4 presents results from the Tobit regression model for the share of land parcels allocated to Table 4 presents results from the Tobit regression model for the share of land parcels allocated corn cultivation. The first two columns show the results when variables for distance to the nearest to corn cultivation. The first two columns show the results when variables for distance to the nearest ethanol plant are included, but other market characteristics are excluded. Results are presented ethanol plant are included, but other market characteristics are excluded. Results are presented with with and without using an instrumental variable. Of course, the results using instrumental variables and without using an instrumental variable. Of course, the results using instrumental variables are are preferred. preferred. Table 4. Estimates for e ects of local markets on corn planted. Table 4. Estimates for effects of local markets on corn planted. Share of Corn Planted in a Parcel Variable Share of Corn Planted in a Parcel (4) Marginal E ects Variable (1) Tobit (2) Tobit IV (3) Tobit IV (4) Marginal Effects with Tobit IV (1) Tobit (2) Tobit IV (3) Tobit IV with Tobit IV Distance to nearest ethanol Plant 0.0209 *** 0.0467 ** 0.0202 *** 0.0070 *** 0.0004 *** 0.0012 * 0.0004 ** 0.0001 * Distance t Distance o to n near eare est st ethanol ethanol Plant Plant −0.0209 *** −0.0467 ** −0.0202 *** −0.0070 *** Distance to animal food facility 0.0019 0.0008 Distance to nearest ethanol Plant 2 0.0004 *** 0.0012 * 0.0004 ** 0.0001 * Distance to animal food facility 0.00001 0.00002 Distance to animal food facility 0.0019 0.0008 Well capacity (WC) 0.0007 *** 0.0007 *** 0.0007 *** 0.0002 *** Crop productivity (CP) 1.259 *** 1.2804 *** 1.2580 *** 0.5035 *** −0.00001 −0.00002 Distance to animal food facility WC  CP 0.0021 *** 0.002 *** 0.0020 *** 0.0008 *** Well capacity (WC) −0.0007 *** −0.0007 *** −0.0007 *** −0.0002 *** Number of cattle/size of county (head/sq. mile) 0.0002 *** 0.0001 *** Crop productivity (CP) 1.259 *** 1.2804 *** 1.2580 *** 0.5035 *** Intercept 0.2210 *** 0.0633 0.2024 *** WC ∗ CP 0.0021 *** 0.002 *** 0.0020 *** 0.0008 *** Sample size 31,640 31,640 31,640 31,640 Number of cattle/size of county Pseudo R (or Log likelihood) 0.07 86,876.4 81,542.5 −0.0002*** −0.0001 *** (head/sq. mile) - 0.02 0.003 AR Weak IV Test (Prob > Chi ) Intercept −0.2210 *** −0.0633 −0.2024 *** Notes: The table reports coecients from Tobit models including IV and marginal e ects. *** Significant at the 1 Sample size 31,640 31,640 31,640 31,640 percent level; ** at the 5 percent level; * at the 10 percent level. Pseudo 𝑅 (or Log likelihood) 0.07 −86,876.4 −81,542.5 AR Weak IV Test (Prob > Chi) - 0.02 0.003 Due to high transportation costs, the locations of ethanol refineries are likely to be close to Notes: The table reports coefficients from Tobit models including IV and marginal effects. *** farmlands where corn is grown, which can cause an endogenous correlation between the distance Significant at the 1 percent level; ** at the 5 percent level; * at the 10 percent level. variable and the error term in the model [19,20,37]. To address the endogeneity of locations of ethanol refineries, we calculated the distance between individual parcels and the nearest train station to utilize Due to high transportation costs, the locations of ethanol refineries are likely to be close to proximity to the nearest train station as an instrument variable (IV) [38]. Transportation features farmlands where corn is grown, which can cause an endogenous correlation between the distance such as an interstate highway ramp or nearest road intersection are good candidates for valid IVs to variable and the error term in the model [19,20,37]. To address the endogeneity of locations of ethanol address potential endogeneity [39]. Other recent studies [19,20] utilize railroad capacity in a region as refineries, we calculated the distance between individual parcels and the nearest train station to an instrument for ethanol plant capacity to address endogeneity and the same approach is applied. utilize proximity to the nearest train station as an instrument variable (IV) [38]. Transportation features such as an interstate highway ramp or nearest road intersection are good candidates for valid Land 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 14 IVs to address potential endogeneity [39]. Other recent studies [19,20] utilize railroad capacity in a Land 2019, 8, 118 8 of 14 region as an instrument for ethanol plant capacity to address endogeneity and the same approach is applied. We utilized the IV for distance to an ethanol plant. We conduct Anderson–Rubin (AR) F- We utilized the IV for distance to an ethanol plant. We conduct Anderson–Rubin (AR) F-statistic to statistic to examine whether the instrument variable is weak. The test results presented in Columns examine whether the instrument variable is weak. The test results presented in Columns (2) and (3) of (2) and (3) of Table 4 indicate that we can reject the null hypothesis that the IV is weak at a 5-percent Table 4 indicate that we can reject the null hypothesis that the IV is weak at a 5-percent significance significance level and conclude that the IV employed is valid to address the endogeneity issue in the level and conclude that the IV employed is valid to address the endogeneity issue in the study. study. Coecient estimates are similar for the Tobit and Tobit IV models so only results for the Tobit Coefficient estimates are similar for the Tobit and Tobit IV models so only results for the Tobit IV model are discussed below. The coecients of the Tobit model indicate a non-linear relationship IV model are discussed below. The coefficients of the Tobit model indicate a non-linear relationship between distance to the nearest ethanol plant and the share of a parcel devoted to corn cultivation. between distance to the nearest ethanol plant and the share of a parcel devoted to corn cultivation. The influence of proximity on crop choice declines with increased distance. The coecient on Distance The influence of proximity on crop choice declines with increased distance. The coefficient on to Nearest Ethanol Plant is negative and statistically significant but the coecient on Distance to Distance to Nearest Ethanol Plant is negative and statistically significant but the coefficient on Nearest Ethanol Plant Squared is positive and significant. Distance to Nearest Ethanol Plant Squared is positive and significant. As would be expected, an increase in crop productivity was correlated with the share of a parcel As would be expected, an increase in crop productivity was correlated with the share of a parcel devoted to corn production. While the direct e ect of groundwater capacity is negatively associated devoted to corn production. While the direct effect of groundwater capacity is negatively associated with the share of a parcel devoted to corn, the interaction of well capacity and crop productivity is with the share of a parcel devoted to corn, the interaction of well capacity and crop productivity is positively correlated with the share of parcel acres devoted to cultivating corn. positively correlated with the share of parcel acres devoted to cultivating corn. Column (3) includes variables for the other local market characteristics: the proximity to other Column (3) includes variables for the other local market characteristics: the proximity to other animal food facilities and the density of cattle production. Proximity to other animal food facilities animal food facilities and the density of cattle production. Proximity to other animal food facilities had no influence on the share of a parcel devoted to cultivating corn. This may reflect the magnitude had no influence on the share of a parcel devoted to cultivating corn. This may reflect the magnitude of corn use at these facilities. Even though we have focused on animal food facilities with at least 10 of corn use at these facilities. Even though we have focused on animal food facilities with at least 10 employees, corn use at these facilities may be modest relative to ethanol facilities. The density of cattle employees, corn use at these facilities may be modest relative to ethanol facilities. The density of cattle production in a parcel’s county has a negative and statistically significant correlation with the share of production in a parcel’s county has a negative and statistically significant correlation with the share corn acreage in parcels. Cattle production represents a local market for corn; however, it also reflects of corn acreage in parcels. Cattle production represents a local market for corn; however, it also the share of land supplied for use as grassland/pasture. The supply influence is dominant, resulting in reflects the share of land supplied for use as grassland/pasture. The supply influence is dominant, the negative correlation. Column (4) shows the marginal e ects of each variable. resulting in the negative correlation. Column (4) shows the marginal effects of each variable. Figure 3 combines the coecients for the Distance to Nearest Ethanol Plant and Distance to Figure 3 combines the coefficients for the Distance to Nearest Ethanol Plant and Distance to Nearest Ethanol Plant Squared variables and shows the estimated non-linear relationship between Nearest Ethanol Plant Squared variables and shows the estimated non-linear relationship between the share of parcel acres allocated to corn production and distance from the nearest ethanol plant. the share of parcel acres allocated to corn production and distance from the nearest ethanol plant. The share allocated to corn production declines with distance up to 30 miles from an ethanol plant. The share allocated to corn production declines with distance up to 30 miles from an ethanol plant. Note that 30 miles is quite close to the maximum distance of 36.15 miles among parcels in our Central Note that 30 miles is quite close to the maximum distance of 36.15 miles among parcels in our Central Nebraska region. Nebraska region. 0 10 20 30 Distance to Nearest Ethanol Plant (miles) Effect of Distance to Nearest Ethanol Plant on Corn Planted in Parcel 95% Confidence Interval Figure 3. Distance to nearest ethanol plant and percent of corn planted in a parcel. Figure 3. Distance to nearest ethanol plant and percent of corn planted in a parcel. Percent of Corn Planted in a Parcel 15 20 25 30 35 Land 2019, 8, 118 9 of 14 4.2. Land Allocated to Soybean and Grassland/Pasture Cultivation Table 5 presents the results from Tobit IV regression models for the share of land parcels allocated to soybean cultivation or grassland/pasture. Marginal e ects also are reported. Critical values for the IV employed in the regression are presented as well. Anderson–Rubin (AR) F-statistic in Column (3) for grassland/pasture indicates that nearest distance to a train station is not a weak instrument variable; however, tests indicate it is a weak IV for soybeans. Table 5. Estimates for e ects of local markets on soybeans and grassland/pasture. Share of Soybeans Planted in Parcel Share of Grassland/Pasture in Parcel Variable (2) Marginal E ects (4) Marginal E ects (1) Tobit IV (3) Tobit IV with Tobit IV with Tobit IV Distance to nearest ethanol plant 0.0037 0.0007 0.0189 *** 0.0075 *** 2 6 6 Distance to nearest ethanol plant 0.0001 8.93  10 0.0001 1.72  10 Distance to animal food facility 0.0045 *** 0.0007 0.005 *** 0.0018 ** 0.0001 *** 0.00002 0.0001 *** 0.00004 * Distance to animal food facility Well capacity (WC) 0.0005 *** 0.0001 *** 0.0005 *** 0.0003 *** Crop productivity (CP) 0.8757 *** 0.2524 *** 0.333 *** 0.196 *** WC  CP 0.0014 *** 0.0004 *** 0.0015 *** 0.0009 *** Number of cattle/size of county (head/sq. mile) 0.00002 2.62  10 0.0001 *** 0.0001 *** Intercept 0.5411 *** 0.1718 *** Sample size 31,640 31,640 31,640 31,640 Pseudo R (or Log likelihood) 75,347 73,336 AR Weak IV Test (Prob > Chi ) 0.53 0.000 Notes: The table reports coecients from Tobit IV and marginal e ects. *** Significant at the 1 percent level; ** at the 5 percent level; * at the 10 percent level. The share of parcel acreage devoted to soybean production was not associated with distance from nearest ethanol plant. In Columns (1) and (2), the Tobit IV and marginal e ect coecients of distance to animal food facility indicate the share of parcel acreage devoted to soybean production rose with distance from the alternative local market, other animal food facilities. This result may indicate that alternative land uses, such as the cultivation of corn, may be falling with distance from an animal food facility, even though no direct evidence was found for that in Table 4. As would be expected, an increase in crop productivity was correlated with the share of a parcel devoted to soybeans production. While the e ect of groundwater capacity was negatively associated with the share of a parcel devoted to soybeans, the interaction of well capacity and crop productivity had a positive correlation with the share of parcel acres devoted to cultivating soybeans. The density of cattle production had no impact on the share of soybeans acreage in parcels. In Columns (3) and (4), distance from nearest ethanol plant has a positive and statistically significant relationship with the share of pasture and grassland use in parcels. As distance from parcels to ethanol plants increases, higher transportation costs cause a switch in land-use from planting crops to converting into grassland/pasture. Contrary to the findings in Columns (1) and (2), the growth of well capacity and crop productivity was correlated with a reduction in the percent of a parcel used for grassland/pasture. As expected, the density of cattle production in a parcel’s county was positively correlated with the share of grassland/pasture. Counties with a larger share of land devoted to grassland and pasture would have denser cattle production. 4.3. Robustness Checks The results from the previous section show how transport costs can a ect land-use decisions by farmers. In this section, we present additional analysis to check whether our main results are robust to alternative specifications and models. Our baseline analysis included only parcels with less than 99.5 percent of acres in developed areas. In Table 6, we repeat Table 5 analysis using an alternative criterion with only parcels with less than 90 Land 2019, 8, 118 10 of 14 percent of acres in developed acres. This change does not alter the main finding that distance to an ethanol facility plays an important role in influencing land-use. Table 6. Robustness check with Tobit IV for corn, soybeans, and grassland/pasture. 2014 (90%) (1) Tobit IV for (2) Tobit IV for (3) Tobit IV for Corn Soybeans Grassland/Pasture Distance to nearest ethanol plant 0.0200 *** 0.0042 ** 0.0007 2 5 Distance to nearest ethanol plant 0.0003 *** 6.37  10 0.0001 *** Distance to animal food facility 0.0020 0.0055 *** 0.0051 *** Distance to animal food facility 0.00001 0.0002 *** 0.0001 *** Well capacity (WC) 0.0006 *** 0.0005 *** 0.0002 *** Crop productivity (CP) 1.277 *** 0.8890 *** 0.1699 *** WC  CP 0.001 *** 0.0013 *** 0.0007 *** Number of cattle/size of county (head/sq. mile) 0.0002 *** 5.31  10 *** 0.00002 Intercept 0.1940 *** 0.4712 0.0901 *** Sample size 30,517 30,517 30,517 Pseudo R (or Log likelihood) 83,002.5 77,160.2 67,568.5 0.02 0.43 0.0003 AR Weak IV Test (Prob > Chi ) Notes: The table reports coecients from Tobit IV. *** Significant at the 1 percent level; ** at the 5 percent level; * at the 10 percent level. We also checked the e ect of ethanol plant capacity on the change in crop quantity supplied by farmers in the region [20] by adding a variable for the capacity of the nearest ethanol plant. The coecient on the ethanol plant capacity variable was not significantly di erent from zero and the included variable did not change other results. Further results are available from the authors, upon request. 4.4. Discussion The expected negative relationship identified in Figure 3 between the share of a parcel devoted to corn cultivation and distance from an ethanol plant has implications for hauling costs for feedstock, and the concentration of irrigation, fertilizer, and pesticide application near ethanol plants. Further, the non-linear relationship identified in Figure 3 and Table 2 indicates even greater concentration in feedstock production in close proximity to ethanol plants. A parcel located at an ethanol plant would be expected to have 33.8% of its territory devoted to corn cultivation versus 29.4% at 5 miles from the plant, 25.5% at 10 miles from the plant and 20.7% at 20 miles from the plant. The cost for hauling all the corn required to fuel an ethanol plant is less in this non-linear case than under a strictly linear curve. The curvature in Figure 3, or analogous curves that may be developed in future research, also can provide a more precise estimate of plant hauling costs in simulation models which include these costs [14]. Results in Figure 3 also have implications for the concentration of fertilizer and pesticide application. Assuming that fertilizer and pesticide applications rises proportionately with land-use, application for corn cultivation would be about 61.2% greater on a parcel located adjacent to an ethanol plant than on a similar size parcel located 20 miles away. Application may even rise by a larger percentage if the growing share of corn cultivation results from a conversion of land from grown corn in rotation with other crops to annual corn cultivation. A more general implication from our empirical model is to demonstrate that the instrumental variable approach can be utilized in models of the relationship between land-use and distance to ethanol plants, and perhaps also to related questions such as land values and distance. Future research can utilize instrumental variables to test for a negative and non-linear relationship in other regional settings beyond our case study in central Nebraska. Other considerations include whether such non-linear Land 2019, 8, 118 11 of 14 relationships are present for parcels surrounding other facilities which process food commodities, such as soy-based diesel, or ethanol and biogas plants which utilize crop residue as a feedstock. 5. Conclusions and Policy Implications This paper examines how proximity to ethanol plants and other local crop processors influences land-use and cropping patterns. The results indicate that the location of ethanol plants influences land-use and cropping patterns. We utilized IV techniques to address the potential endogeneity in the location of ethanol plants and we allowed for a non-linear relationship between distance from an ethanol facility and observed land-use. Our analysis relied on measures of land-use based on GIS databases, mitigating the need for producer surveys, and lowering the cost of developing a model which reflected the unique local processing market of a particular region. We employed data from a central Nebraska region with a concentration of grain production as well as ethanol plants, animal food manufacturers, and cattle on feed. Estimates of the agricultural land-use model show that the broader local processing sector influences land-use and corn and soybean production within the region. In particular, proximity to an ethanol plant increased the share of land allocated to corn cultivation up to a distance of 30 miles. Results further indicate that the marginal impact of distance declines as distance increases, indicating a tendency to concentrate production near the closest ethanol plants. In other words, ethanol plants do not just increase the need for regional corn production, but the plants also concentrate the increased local production in land parcels adjacent to the plant. The resulting concentration of production in the vicinity of ethanol plants has several implications for policy. There is a potential for a concentration of water pollution in the vicinity of ethanol plants given the elevated fertilizer input needs of the corn cultivation [20]. However, the concentration of crop production around major processing plants also has implications for energy use. Clusters of crop and processing activity economize on energy use and the resulting pollution externalities in hauling bulky crops, by concentrating the required corn cultivation expanding around the processing plant. Author Contributions: Co-author ’s contributed to individual portions of the research as follows: conceptualization, J.P., J.A., and E.T.; methodology, J.P., J.A., and E.T.; software, J.P.; validation, J.P., J.A., and E.T.; formal analysis, J.P.; investigation, J.P.; resources, J.P., J.A., and E.T.; data curation, J.P.; writing—original draft preparation, J.P, J.A., and E.T.; writing—review and editing, J.P., J.A., and E.T.; visualization, J.P.; supervision, J.A. and E.T.; project administration, E.T.; funding acquisition, E.T. Funding: This research was funded by the Water Sustainability and Climate program (NSF and USDA-NIFA) through a grant made by the USDA (USDA NIFA 2014-67003-22072). Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the participants in the Association for University Business and Economic Research 2017 Fall meeting for comments on a draft of this manuscript. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results. Land Land 2019 2019,, 8 8,, x FO 118 R PEER REVIEW 12 of 12 of 14 14 Appendix Appendix A Diagram 1. Data Flowchart. Figure A1. Data Flowchart. References References 1. Capehart, T.; Donald, S. Situation and Outlook FDS-16g; Feed Outlook USDA Economic Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 14 July 2016. 1. Capehart, T.; Donald, S. Situation and Outlook FDS-16g; Feed Outlook USDA Economic Research Service: 2. John, M. Ethanol Facts: Economy and Ethanol Trade Fact Sheet. In Proceedings of the Renewable Fuels Washington, DC, USA, 14 July 2016. Association, Washington, DC, USA, 25 January 2005. 2. John, M. Ethanol Facts: Economy and Ethanol Trade Fact Sheet. In Proceedings of the Renewable Fuels 3. Fuel ethanol, corn and gasoline prices. U.S. Bioenergy Statistics, 2016. Association, Washington, DC, USA, 25 January 2005. 4. Wallander, S.; Claassen, R.; Nickerson, C. The ethanol decade: An expansion of US corn production, 2000-2009; 3. Fuel Ethanol, Corn and Gasoline Prices; U.S. Bioenergy Statistics: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Information Bulletin 79: 2011. 4. Wallander, S.; Claassen, R.; Nickerson, C. The Ethanol Decade: An expansion of US Corn Production, 5. Monthly Energy Review; US. Energy Information Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. 2000–2009. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Information Bulletin 79. 2011. Available 6. Gallagher, P.; Yee, W.; Baumes, H. 2015 Energy Balance for the Corn-Ethanol Industry; USDA Report: online: https://tind-customer-agecon.s3.amazonaws.com/50b782e9-7260-48f5-b573-1d953b4c42ef?response- Washington, DC, USA, 2016. content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%2A%3DUTF-8%27%27EIB79.pdf&response-content-type= 7. Gallagher, P.; Johnson, D. Some new ethanol technology: Cost competition and adoption effects in the application%2Fpdf&AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAXL7W7Q3XHXDVDQYS&Expires=1564472985&Signature= petroleum market. Energy J. 1999, 20, 89–120. pZNRq2pPmQjyBx11jvS4Uj2z0oc%3D (accessed on 20 June 2019). 8. Wart, J.; Perrin, K. Spatial Welfare Effects of a Grain Ethanol Plant. Agricultural and Resource Economics 5. Monthly Energy Review; US. Energy Information Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. Commons, University of Nebraska – Lincoln, Agricultural Economics Paper: 2008. 6. Gallagher, P.; Yee, W.; Baumes, H. 2015 Energy Balance for the Corn-Ethanol Industry; USDA Report: Washington, 9. Bartoli, A.; Cavicchioli, D.; Kremmydas, D.; Rozakis, S.; Olper, A. The Impact of Different Energy Policy DC, USA, 2016. Options on Feedstock Price and Land Demand for Maize Silage: The Case of Biogas in Lombardy. Energy 7. Gallagher, P.; Johnson, D. Some new ethanol technology: Cost competition and adoption e ects in the Policy 2016, 96, 351–363. petroleum market. Energy J. 1999, 20, 89–120. [CrossRef] 10. Bartoli, A.; Hamelin, L.; Rozakis, S.; Borzęcka, M.; Brandão, M. Coupling economic and GHG emission 8. Wart, J.; Perrin, K. Spatial Welfare E ects of a Grain Ethanol Plant; Agricultural and Resource Economics accounting models to evaluate the sustainability of biogas policies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 106, Commons, University of Nebraska—Lincoln, Agricultural Economics Paper, 2008. Available online: 133–148. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1087&context=ageconfacpub (accessed on 20 11. Bartolini, F.; Gava, O.; Brunori, G. Biogas and EU's 2020 targets: Evidence from a regional case study in June 2019). Italy. Energy Policy 2017, 109, 510–519. Land 2019, 8, 118 13 of 14 9. Bartoli, A.; Cavicchioli, D.; Kremmydas, D.; Rozakis, S.; Olper, A. The Impact of Di erent Energy Policy Options on Feedstock Price and Land Demand for Maize Silage: The Case of Biogas in Lombardy. Energy Policy 2016, 96, 351–363. [CrossRef] 10. Bartoli, A.; Hamelin, L.; Rozakis, S.; Borzecka, ˛ M.; Brandão, M. Coupling economic and GHG emission accounting models to evaluate the sustainability of biogas policies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 106, 133–148. [CrossRef] 11. Bartolini, F.; Gava, O.; Brunori, G. Biogas and EU’s 2020 targets: Evidence from a regional case study in Italy. Energy Policy 2017, 109, 510–519. [CrossRef] 12. Demartini, E.; Gaviglio, A.; Gelati, M.; Cavicchioli, D. The e ect of biogas production on farmland rental prices: Empirical evidences from Northern Italy. Energies 2016, 9, 965. [CrossRef] 13. Mela, G.; Canali, G. How distorting policies can a ect energy eciency and sustainability: The case of biogas production in the Po Valley (Italy). AgBioForum 2014, 16, 194–206. 14. Sgroi, F.; Foderà, M.; Trapani, A.M.; Tudisca, S.; Testa, R. Economic evaluation of biogas plant size utilizing giant reed. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 49, 403–409. [CrossRef] 15. Tilman, D.; Socolow, R.; Foley, J.A.; Hill, J.; Larson, E.; Lynd, L.; Pacala, S.; Reilly, J.; Searchinger, T.; Somerville, C.; et al. Beneficial biofuels—The food, energy and environment trilemma. Science 2009, 325, 270–271. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 16. Chatalova, L.; Balmann, A. The hidden costs of renewables promotion: The case of crop-based biogas. J. Clean. Prod. 2007, 168, 893–903. [CrossRef] 17. Shapouri, H.; Dueld, J.A.; Wang, M. The energy balance of corn ethanol revisited. Trans. ASAE 2003, 46, 959. [CrossRef] 18. Brown, J.C.; Hanley, E.; Bergtold, J.; Caldas, M.; Barve, V.; Peterson, D.; Callihan, R.; Gibson, J.; Gray, B.; Hendricks, N.; et al. Ethanol plant location and intensification vs. extensification of corn cropping in Kansas. Appl. Geogr. 2014, 53, 141–148. [CrossRef] 19. Li, Y.; Miao, R.; Khanna, M. E ects of Ethanol Plant Proximity and Crop Prices on Land-Use Change in the United States. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2019, 101, 467–491. [CrossRef] 20. Motamed, M.; McPhail, L.; Williams, R. Corn area response to local ethanol markets in the United States: A grid cell level analysis. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2016, 98, 726–743. [CrossRef] 21. Secchi, S.; Kurkalova, L.; Gassman, P.W.; Hart, C. Land use change in a biofuels hotspot: The case of Iowa, USA. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35, 2391–2400. [CrossRef] 22. Miao, R. Impact of ethanol plants on local land use change. Agric. Res. Econ. Rev. 2013, 42, 291–309. [CrossRef] 23. New, K.; Grith, D. Measuring the impact of ethanol plants on local grain prices. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2005, 27, 164–180. 24. Zhao, S.; Wang, C.; Bordovsky, J.P.; Sheng, Z.; Gastelum, J.R. Estimating the Spatial Distribution of Groundwater Demand in the Texas High Plains. In Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Meeting, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 24–26 July 2011. 25. Agricultural Production and Prices National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2012 Census of Agriculture; USDA Economic Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. 26. Crop Production 2018 Summary; USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2019. 27. 2016 Ethanol Industry Outlook. Available online: https://ethanolrfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Ethanol- Industry-Outlook-2016.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2019). 28. Land Use Land Cover: National Land Cover Dataset by State, 3114 Nebraska; USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service: Lincoln, NE, USA, 2014. 29. GIS Workshop; LLC Land Use Development: Omaha, NE, USA, 2014. 30. Fatal, Y.S.; Thurman, W.N. The response of corn acreage to ethanol plant siting. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2014, 46, 157–171. [CrossRef] 31. Other Animal Food Facilities; Nebraska Department of Economic Development: Lincoln, NE, USA, 2014. 32. Nebraska Ethanol Plants; Nebraska Ethanol Board: Lincoln, NE, USA, 2014. 33. Groundwater Well Registration; Nebraska Department of Natural Resources: Lincoln, NE, USA, 2014. 34. Cattle, On Feed Inventory; USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. 35. Land Area in Square Miles 2010; US Census Bureau: Suitland, MD, USA, 2010. 36. Cropland Data Layer Metadata; USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. Land 2019, 8, 118 14 of 14 37. Arora, G.; Wolter, P.T.; Feng, H.; Hennessy, D.A. Role of Ethanol Plants in Dakotas Land Use Change: Incorporating Flexible Trends in the Di erence-in-Di erence Framework with Remotely-Sensed Data. 2016. Available online: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/card_workingpapers/583/ (accessed on 20 June 2019). 38. Park, J.; Anderson, J.E.; Thompson, E. Proximity to Local Market and Its Impact on Agricultural Land Value. Unpublished. 2019. 39. Motamed, M.J.; McPhail, L.L. Spatial Dimensions of US Crop Selection: Recent Responses to Markets and Policy; Economic Research Service, USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Journal

Land – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Published: Jul 30, 2019

There are no references for this article.