WSEAS Transactions on Environment and Development

Print ISSN: 1790-5079
E-ISSN: 2224-3496

Volume 13, 2017

Notice: As of 2014 and for the forthcoming years, the publication frequency/periodicity of WSEAS Journals is adapted to the 'continuously updated' model. What this means is that instead of being separated into issues, new papers will be added on a continuous basis, allowing a more regular flow and shorter publication times. The papers will appear in reverse order, therefore the most recent one will be on top.

Volume 13, 2017

Predicting Site Locations for Biomass-Using Facilities with Bayesian Methods

AUTHORS: Timothy M. Young, James H. Perdue, Xia Huang

Download as PDF

ABSTRACT: Logistic regression models combined with Bayesian inference were developed to predict locations and quantify factors that influence the siting of biomass-using facilities that use woody biomass in the Southeastern United States. Predictions were developed for two groups of mills, one representing larger capacity mills similar to pulp and paper mills (Group II), and another group of smaller capacity mills similar to the size of sawmills (Group I). “Median Family Income,” “Road Density,” “Slope,” “Timberland Annual Growth-to-Removal Ratio,” and “Forest Land-Area Ratio” were highly significant in influencing mill location for Group I. “Slope,” “Urban Land Area Ratio,” and “Number of Primary Wood Processing Mills” were highly significant in influencing mill location for Group II. In validation the sensitivity of the model for Group I was 86.8% and specificity was 79.3%. In validation the sensitivity for Group II was 80.9% and specificity was 84.1%. The higher probability locations (> 0.8) for Group I mills were clustered in the southern Alabama, southern Georgia, southeast Mississippi, southwest Virginia, western Louisiana, western Arkansas, and eastern Texas. The higher probability locations (> 0.8) for Group II mills were clustered in southeast Alabama, southern Georgia, eastern North Carolina, and along the Mississippi Delta.

KEYWORDS: Biomass-using facilities, woody biomass, site location, prediction, Bayesian logistic models


[1] Energy Information Administration. 2016. International energy outlook. DOE/EIA 0484(2016). 16).pdf

[2] Blanchard, O.J. and J. Gali. 2007. The macroeconomic effects of oil price shocks: why are the 2000s so different from the 1970s? In Proc. of NBER ME Conference on International Dimensions of Monetary Policy, S’Agaro, Catalonia, Spain, 2007.

[3] Perlack, R., L. Wright, A. Turhollow, R. Graham, B.J. Stokes and D. Erbach. 2005. Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry: the technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

[4] Hubbe, M.A., and U.A. Buelhmann. 2010. A continuing reverence for wood. Bioresources 5(1):1-2.

[5] Kumarappan, S., S. Joshi and H.L. MacLean. 2009. Biomass supply for biofuel production: estimates for the United States and Canada. Bioresources. 4(3):1070-1087.

[6] Cheng, S.M. and S.D. Zhu. 2009. Lignocellulosic feedstock biorefinery – the future of the chemical and energy industry. Bioresources. 4(2):456-457.

[7] Lucia, L.A. 2008. Lignocellulosic biomass: a potential feedstock to replace petroleum. Bioresources. 3(4):981-982.

[8] Pawlak, J.J. 2008. A sustainable economy. Bioresources. 3(1):1-2.

[9] U.S. Department of Energy. 2011. U.S. Billion-Ton Update: Biomass Supply for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts industry. Oak Ridge Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, TN.

[10] Caputo, J. 2009. Sustainable forest biomass: promoting renewable energy and forest stewardship. Environmental and Energy Study Institute Policy Paper, Washington, D.C.

[11] Altman, I. and T. Johnson. 2008. The choice of organizational form as a non-technical barrier to agro-bioenergy industry development. Biomass Bioenerg. 32(1):28-34.

[12] Dasmohapatra, S. 2009. Future market drivers for the forest products industry. Bioresources. 4(4):1263-1266.

[13] Gronowska, M., S. Joshi and H.L. MacLean. 2009. A review of U.S. and Canadian biomass supply studies. Bioresources. 4(1):341-369.

[14] U.S. Department of Energy. 2016. 2016 Billion-Ton Report: Advancing Domestic Resources for a Thriving Bioeconomy, Volume 1: Economic Availability of Feedstocks. M. H. Langholtz, B. J. Stokes, and L. M. Eaton (Leads), ORNL/TM-2016/160. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. 448p.

[15] Zalesny, R.S., J.A. Stanturf, J.A., E.S. Gardiner, J.H. Perdue, T.M. Young, D.R. Coyle, W.L. Headlee, G.S. Banuelos, A. Hass. 2016. Ecosystem services of woody crop production systems. BioEnergy Res. 9(2):465- 491.

[16] Young, T.M., R.L. Zaretski, J.H. Perdue, F.M. Guess and X. Liu. 2011. Logistic regression models of factors influencing the location of bioenergy and biofuels plants. Bioresources. 6(1):317-328.

[17] Sperling, D. 1984. An analytical framework for siting and sizing biomass fuel plants. Energy.9(11-12):1033-1040.

[18] Young, T.M., D.M. Ostermeier, J.D. Thomas and R.T. Brooks. 1991. The economic availability of woody biomass for the Southeastern United States. Bioresource Technol. 37(1):7-15.

[19] Lynd, L.R. 1996. Siting an ethanol plant in the Northeast Burlington VA. C.T., Donovan Associates.

[20] Fried, J., G. Christensen, D. Weyermann and G. Pinjuv. 2003. Modeling opportunities and feasibility of siting wood-fired electrical generating facilities to facilitate landscapescale fuel treatment with FIA BioSum. In Proc. Systems Analysis in Forest Resources, 207-216.

[21] Freppaz, D., R. Minciardi, M. Robba, M. and A. Taramasso. 2004. Optimizing forest biomass exploitation for energy supply at a regional level. Biomass Bioenerg. 26:15-25.

[22] Moon, E., B. Saveyn, S. Proost and M. Hermy. 2008. Optimal location of new forests in a suburban region. J For Econ. 14(1):5-27.

[23] Panichelli, L. and E. Gnansounou. 2008. GISbased approach for defining bioenergy facilities location: A case study in Northern Spain based on marginal delivery costs and resources competition between facilities. Biomass Bioenerg. 32:289-300.

[24] Patari, S. 2010. Industry-and company-level factors influencing the development of the forest energy business-insights from a Delphi study. Technological Forecasting & Social Change. (77):94-109.

[25] Knight, D.K. 2009. Wood bioenergy. HattonBrown Publishers, Inc., Montgomery, AL.

[26] Stewart, P. 2009. Energy and the wood fiber supply chain. Forests & People Magazine. (Q1). y/energy-and-the-wood-fiber-supplychain_1.pdf

[27] Conrad, J.L. IV, M.C. Bolding, W.M. Aust and R.L. Smith. 2010. Wood-to-energy expansion, forest ownership changes, and mill closure: Consequences for U.S. South's wood supply chain. Forest Policy Econ. 12(6):399- 406.

[28] Thorp B., H. Seamans and M. Akhtar. 2013. Cellulosic bioproducts will be important to pulp and paper. Paper 360° TAPPI. 8(6):18- 19.

[29] U.S. Census Bureau. 2010a. 2010 Census ZIP code tabulation areas

[Data file].

[30] U.S. Census Bureau. 2010b. 2010 Urban and rural classification

[Data file].

[31] U.S. Forest Service. 2009. Lands in public preserves

[Data file]. Personal contact on 08/2011.

[32] U.S. National Land Cover Database. 2006. Multi-resolution land characteristics consortium

[Data file].

[33] U.S. National Elevation Dataset. 2010. National elevation dataset 1 arc second

[Data file].

[34] U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2008. Census of agriculture: farm net income

[Data file].

[35] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. Ecoregions of the United States

[Data file]. ns.html

[36] Perdue, J.H., T.M. Young and T.G. Rials. 2011. The Biomass Site Assessment Model – BioSAT. Final Report for U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station submitted by The University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 282p.

[37] Kutner, M.H., C.J. Nachtsheim and J. Neter. 2004. Applied linear regression models. McGraw-Hill Irwin. New York, NY.

[38] Gustafsson, M.G., M.B. Wallman, H. Göransson, M. Fryknäs, C.R. Andersson and A. Isaksson. 2010. Improving Bayesian credibility intervals for classifier error rates using maximum entropy empirical priors. Artif Intell Med. 49(2):93-104.

[39] National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2009. What is a biorefinery?

[40] Gary K. and L. Zeng. 2001. Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Analysis. 9:137-163.

[41] Cohen, J., V. Janssen and P. Stuart. 2010. Critical analysis of emerging forest biorefinery (FBR) technologies for ethanol production. Pulp & Paper Canada. (1):24-30.

[42] Wear, D., R. Liu, R., J. Foreman and R. Sheffield. 1999. The effects of population growth on timber management and inventories in Virginia. Forest Ecology and Management. 118:107-115.

[43] White, E.M. and R. Mazza. 2008. A closer look at forests on the edge: future development on private forests in three states. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-758. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

[45] Huang, X., J.H. Perdue, and T.M. Young. 2012. A spatial index for identifying opportunity zones for woody cellulosic conversion facilities. Int J of For Res. 2012:1- 11.

[46] Carney, P.A. E.A. Sickles, B.S. Monsees, L.W. Bassett, R.J. Brenner, S.A. Feig, R.A. Smith, R.D. Rosenberg, T.A. Bogart, S.B. Browning, J.W. Kelly, K.A. Tran, K. and D.L. Miglioretti. 2010. Identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance criteria for screening mammography. Radiology. 255(2):354-361.

[47] Alig, R.J., J.D. Kline, J.D. and M. Lichtenstein. 2004. Urbanization on the US landscape: looking ahead in the 21st century. Landscape Urban Plan. 69(2/3):219–234.

[48] Cho, S.H., J. Wuand and R. Alig. 2005. Land development under regulation: comparison between the east and west sides of the Cascade Range in Oregon, Washington, and California. Rev Urban Regional Stud. 17(1):1–17.

[49] Kimsey, M., D. Page-Dumroese and M. Coleman. 2011. Assessing bioenergy harvest risks: geospatial explicit tools for maintaining soil productivity in Western US forests. Forests. 2:797-813.

[50] Luppord, W. and J. Baumgras. 1999. The interaction between forest industry and the forest resource in West Virginia. In Proc. Improving forest productivity for time – a key to sustainability, 159-164.

WSEAS Transactions on Environment and Development, ISSN / E-ISSN: 1790-5079 / 2224-3496, Volume 13, 2017, Art. #18, pp. 158-169

Copyright © 2017 Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. This article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0

Bulletin Board


The editorial board is accepting papers.

WSEAS Main Site