Zhang Fan
School of Economics and Finance, Xi`an Jiaotong University, 710061, Xi`an, China
ABSTRACT
This study studies the difference among three collection strategies for agricultural biomass, i.e., commitment strategy, pure competition strategy and vertical integration strategy. Unlike existing research that is much reported research on qualitative analysis, this study use the method of mathematical analysis and further explain the interaction of the players and its impact on the benefits, which can be offered by game theory. The study of collection strategies for industrial buyers is of critical importance to realize the development potentials of agricultural biomass and its related industries. Firstly, the assumptions of biomass distribution, cost structure and market structure are applied to describe the agricultural biomass market, this lead to a monotonous increasing inverse demand function that is different from the past research. Secondly, commitment strategy, pure competition strategy and vertical integration strategy are modeled with game theory to explore equilibrium quantities and profits. Thirdly, equilibrium quantities and profits among the three collection strategies are compared to show the co-existence conditions of market structure and their differences. As a result, pure competition strategy is the most efficient strategy among the three; commitment strategy will bring the most aggregate biomass supply but is less efficient than pure competition strategy; vertical integration will bring secure biomass supply for integrated industrial buyer but it is at the sacrifice of aggregate profits of all decision makers, especially the profit of non-integrated industrial buyer.
PDF References Citation
How to cite this article
Zhang Fan, 2013. Choice Game of Collection Strategies in Agricultural Biomass Supply Market. Information Technology Journal, 12: 6137-6142.
DOI: 10.3923/itj.2013.6137.6142
URL: https://scialert.net/abstract/?doi=itj.2013.6137.6142
DOI: 10.3923/itj.2013.6137.6142
URL: https://scialert.net/abstract/?doi=itj.2013.6137.6142
REFERENCES
- Altman, I. and T. Johnson, 2008. The choice of organizational form as a non-technical barrier to agro-bioenergy industry development. Biomass Bioenergy, 32: 28-34.
CrossRefDirect Link - Baake, P., U. Kamecke and H.T. Normann, 2002. Vertical integration and market foreclosure with convex downstream costs. J. Econ., 75: 125-135.
CrossRef - Downing, M., T.A. Volk and D.A. Schmidt, 2005. Development of new generation cooperatives in agriculture for renewable energy research, development and demonstration projects. Biomass Bioenergy, 28: 425-434.
CrossRef - Huacuz, J.M., 2005. The road to green power in Mexico-reflections on the prospects for the large-scale and sustainable implementation of renewable energy. Energy Policy, 33: 2087-2099.
CrossRef - Illsley, B., T. Jackson and B. Lynch, 2007. Addressing Scottish rural fuel poverty through a regional industrial symbiosis strategy for the Scottish forest industries sector. Geoforum, 38: 21-32.
CrossRef - Klevas, V., D. Streimikiene and A. Kleviene, 2009. Sustainability assessment of the energy projects implementation in regional scale. Renewable Sustain. Energy Rev., 13: 155-166.
CrossRefDirect Link - Korhonen, J., 2001. Regional industrial ecology: Examples from regional economic systems of forest industry and energy supply in Finland. J. Environ. Manage., 63: 367-375.
CrossRef - Narodoslawsky, M., A. Niederl and L. Halasz, 2008. Utilising renewable resources economically: New challenges and chances for process development. J. Cleaner Prod., 16: 164-170.
Direct Link - Sherrington, C., J. Bartley and D. Moran, 2008. Farm-level constraints on the domestic supply of perennial energy crops in the UK. Energy Policy, 36: 2504-2512.
CrossRefDirect Link - Verdonk, M., C. Dieprerink and A.P.C. Faaij, 2007. Governance of the emerging bio-energy markets. Energy Policy, 35: 3909-3924.
CrossRefDirect Link