Selected socioeconomic impacts of public support for agricultural biogas plants: the case of the Czech Republic
Keywords:
agricultural biogas plants, counterfactual analysis, investment subsidy, impact evaluation, propensity score matching, Rural Development ProgrammeAbstract
The main goal of the article is to assess selected socioeconomic impacts of public support for investments and effects of investments in biogas plants in the CR . The need for this analysis arises from requirements for impact evaluation of public subsidies from the Rural Development Programme. The quantification of economic effects of investment support of biogas plants is based on counterfactual analysis. Propensity score matching (PSM) with Mahalanobis distance was used to create treatment-control matches based on propensity scores and/or observed covariate variables. Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare selected indicators between supported and not supported agricultural enterprises. Regarding economic performance of agricultural enterprises, analysis revealed that investments and investment subsidies targeted at biogas plants have positive effect on EBIT, cash flow and value added per hectare of agricultural enterprises. On the other side, there is no significant impact on ROA, ROE and ROCE even if these indicators have been considered as key indicators of companies’ economic performance. Setting up biogas plants does not create any new working positions in most cases, so supported enterprises with biogas plant in operation significantly increased labour productivity compared to companies without biogas plant.
References
Božík, M., 2012. Impacts assessment of the agroenvironmental support in the Rural Development Programme 2007-2013 at the farm level. Economics of Agriculture, 1: 34-46.
Cueto, L. A. C., 2006. Effectiveness and Impacts of Farm Investment Support in Spain – The Experience of the Updated Mid-Term Evaluation (2000 – 2006). In: Bergschmidt, A., Dirksmeyer, W., Efken, J., Forstner, B. and Uetrecht, I. (Editors): Evaluation of Farm Investment Support, Investment Support for Improvement of Processing and Marketing of Agricultural Products. (Proceedings of the European Workshop, Working Papers in Agricultural Economics, No. 03/2006), Braunschweig, August 2006, pp. 105-120.
Djatkov, D., M. Effenberger, A. Lehner, M. Martinov, M. Tesic and A. Gronauer, 2012. New method for assessing the performance of agricultural biogas plants. Renewable Energy, 40: 104-112.
Gebrezgabher, S. A ., M. P. M. Meuwissen, B. A. M. Prins, Lansink and A. G. J. M. Oude, 2010. Economic analysis of anaerobic digestion - A case of Green power biogas plant in The Netherlands. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 57: 109–115.
Golusin, M., A. Ostojic, S. Latinovic, M. Jandric and O. M. Ivanovic, 2012. Review of the economic viability of investing and exploiting biogas electricity plant – Case study Vizelj, Serbia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16: 1127–1134.
Gu, X. S. and P. R . Rosenbaum, 1993. Comparison of Multivariate Matching Methods: Structures, Distances and Algorithms. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 2: 405-420.
Khandker, S. R., G. B. Koolwal and H. A. Samad, 2010. Handbook on Impact Evaluation. Quantitative Methods and Practices. Washington: The World Bank, 262 pp. ISBN 978-0-8213-8029-1 (electronic).
Mahalanobis, P. C., 1936. On the generalised distance in statistics. Proceedings of the National Institute of Sciences of India, 2: 49–55.
Madlener, R., C. H. Antunes and L. C. Dias, 2009. Assessing the performance of biogas plants with multi-criteria and data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 197: 1084–1094.
Menind, A. and J. Olt, 2009. Biogas Plant Investment Analysis, Cost Benefit and Main Factors. In: Malinovska, L., Meote, A., Kronbergs, E., Nulle, I. (Editors), Engineering for Rural Development (Proceeding of the International Conference, Latvia, Jelgava, May 28-29), Latvia University of Agriculture, Faculty of Engineering pp. 339-343.
Michalek, J., 2009. Application of the Rural Development Index and the generalized propensity score matching to the evaluation of the impact of the SAPAR D programme in Poland and Slovakia. ADVANCED-EVAL Regional Report Series, University of Kiel, 96 pp.
Ministry of Agriculture, 2008. Rural Development Programme of the Czech Republic for 2007 – 2013. Working Document. Prague: MoA, November 2008.
Murphy, J. D. and N. Power, 2009. Technical and economic analysis of biogas production in Ireland utilising three different crop rotations. Applied Energy, 86: 25–36.
Poeschl, M., S. Ward and P. Owende, 2010. Prospects for expanded utilization of biogas in Germany. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14: 1782–1797.
Reise, Ch., O. Musshoff, K. Granoszewski and A. Spiller, 2012. Which factors influence the expansion of bioenergy? An empirical study of the investment behaviors of German farmers. Ecological Economics, 73: 133–141.
Rosenbaum, P. and D. Rubin, 1983. The central role of the propensity score in observational studie for causal effects. Biometrica, 70: 41-55.
Rosenbaum, P. and D. Rubin, 1985. Construction a Control Group Using Multivariate Matched Sampling Methods that Incorporate the Propensity Score. The American Statistician, 39: 33-38.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2013 Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
