Abstract
Biomass as an abundant renewable energy source can play a vital role in controlling the greenhouse gas emissions. The distributed nature of biomass and its low energy density have complicated the utilization of this cheap and available source of energy. Governments can stimulate the bioenergy industry and remove barriers for adoption of bioenergy by implementing supporting regulations and incentives. In this paper, two types of government incentives, representing direct and indirect incentives, are analyzed and their efficiencies in fostering bioenergy generation are compared. A Stackelberg (leader–follower) game is proposed to formulate the integration of incentives as a bi-level problem in coordination of biomass supply chains. We further illustrate the applicability of the proposed approach through an empirical case study of three Canadian remote communities. The case study demonstrates the effects of incentives on coordination of biomass suppliers and end-user communities and promoting bioenergy share in electricity generation mix of communities. The findings of this study highlight the importance of government’s support, in form of indirect incentives, for provisioning of infrastructure needed for biomass supply and conversion, with a significant impact on increasing the share of bioenergy generation.
Graphical abstract
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon request.
Code availability
Not applicable.
References
Antar M, Lyu D, Nazari M, Shah A, Zhou X, Smith D (2021) Biomass for a sustainable bioeconomy: an overview of world biomass production and utilization. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 139:110691
Azevedo S, Sequeira T, Santos M, Mendes L (2019) Biomass-related sustainability: a review of the literature and interpretive structural modeling. Energ 171:1107–1125
Bai Y, Ouyang Y, Pang J (2013) Biofuel supply chain design under competitive agricultural land use and feedstock. Energy Economics 34:1623–1633
Ben-Ayed O, Blair O (1990) Computational difficulties of bilevel linear programming. Oper Res 38:556–560
Cachon G (2003) Supply chain coordination with contracts. In: Handbooks in operations research and management science: supply. Philadelphia
Cachon G, Lariviere M (2000) Supply chain coordination with revenuesharing contracts: strengths and limitations. Operations Information and Decision Papers, Philadelphia
Chakraborty T, Chauhan S, Vidyarthi N (2015) Coordination and competition in a common retailer channel: wholesale price versus revenue-sharing mechanisms. Int J Prod Econ 166:103–118
Chebotareva G, Strielkowski W, Streimikiene D (2020) Risk assessment in renewable energy projects: a case of Russia. J Clean Prod 269:1–12
Ericsson K, Huttunen S, Nilsson L, Svenningsson P (2004) Bioenergy policy and market development in Finland and Sweden. Energy Policy 32:1707–1721
Esmaeili F, Mafakheri F, Nasiri F (2023) Biomass supply chain resilience: integrating demand and availability predictions into routing decisions using machine learning Smart Science. https://doi.org/10.1080/23080477.2023.2176749
Gao E, Sowlati T, Akhtari S (2019) Profit allocation in collaborative bioenergy and biofuel supply chains. Energy 9:1–13
Ghani N, Vogiatzisc C, Szmerekovsky J (2018) Biomass feedstock supply chain network design with biomass conversion incentives. Energy Policy 116:39–49
Giri R, Mondal S, Maiti M (2019) Government intervention on a competing supply chain with two green manufacturers and a retailer. Comput Ind Eng 128:104–121
Hafezalkotob A (2018) Direct and indirect intervention schemas of government in the competition between green and non-green supply chains. J Clean Prod 170:753–772
Igliński B, Piechota G, Buczkowski R (2015) Development of biomass in polish energy sector: an overview. Clean Technol Environ Policy 17:317–329
Karimi H, Ekşioğlu S, Khademi A (2018) Analyzing tax incentives for producing renewable energy by biomass cofiring. IISE Transactions 50(4):332–344
Lv Y, Hu T, Wang G, Wan Z (2008) A neural network approach for solving nonlinear bilevel programming problem. Comput Math Appl 55:2823–2829
Mafakheri F, Nasiri F (2013) Revenue sharing coordination in reverse logistics. J Clean Prod 59:185–196
Mafakheri F, Nasiri F (2014) Modeling of biomass-to-energy supply chain operations: applications, challenges and research directions. Energy Policy 67:116–126
Mafakheri F, Adebanjo D, Genus A (2020) Coordinating biomass supply chains for remote communities: a comparative analysis of non-cooperative and cooperative scenarios. Int J Prod Res 15:4615
Masud M, Ananno A, Arefin A, Ahamed R, Das P, Joardder M (2019) Perspective of biomass energy conversion in Bangladesh. Clean Technol Environ Policy 21:719–731
Mupondwa E, Li X, Tabil L, Sokhansanj S, Adapa P (2017) Status of Canada’s lignocellulosic ethanol: Part II: hydrolysis and fermentation technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 79:1535–1555
Nasiri F, Zaccour G (2009) An exploratory game-theoretic analysis of biomass electricity generation. Energy Policy 37:4514–4522
Nasiri F, Manuilova A, Huang G (2009) Environmental policy analysis in freight transportation planning: an optimality assessment approach. Int J Sustain Transp 3(2):88–109
Nielsen I, Majumder S, Sana S, Saha S (2019) Comparative analysis of government incentives and game structures on single and two-period green supply chain. J Clean Prod 235:1371–1398
Ohimain E (2013) A review of the Nigerian biofuel policy and incentives. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 22:246–256
Pablo-Romero M, Sanchez-Braza A, Perez M (2013) Incentives to promote solar thermal energy in Spain. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 22:198–208
Peksa-Blanchard M, Dolzan P, Grassi A, Heinimo J, Junginger M, Ranta T, Walter A (2007) Global wood pellets markets and industry: policy drivers, market status and raw material potential. IEA Bioenergy Task 40
Philibert C (2011) Interactions of Policies for Renewable Energy and Climate. International Energy Agency, Paris
Sameeroddin M, Deshmukh M, Viswa G, Abdul Sattar M (2021) Renewable energy: Fuel from biomass, production of ethanol from various sustainable sources by fermentation process.
Seo MW, Lee SH, Nam H, Lee D, Tokmurzin D, Wang S, Park YK (2022) Recent advances of thermochemical conversion processes for biorefinery. Biores Technol 343:126109
Simsek H, Simsek N (2013) Recent incentives for renewable energy in Turkey. Energy Policy 63:521–530
Sinha A, Malo P, Frantsev A, Deb K (2013) Finding optimal strategies in a multi-period multi-leader-follower Stackelberg game using an evolutionary algorithm. Comput Oper Res 41:374
Stackelberg H, Bazin D, Hill R, Urch L (2010) Market structure and equilibrium. Springer, New York
Stephen J, Mabee W, Pribowo A, Pledger S, Hart R, Tallio S, Bull G (2016) Biomass for residential and commercial heating in a remote Canadian aboriginal community. Renew Energy 86:563–575
Vazifeh Z, Mafakheri F, An C (2021) Biomass supply chain coordination for remote communities: a game-theoretic modeling and analysis approach. Sustain Cities Soc 69:102819
Vazifeh Z, Bensebaa F, Shadbahr J, Gonzales-Calienes G, Mafakheri F, Benali M, Ebadian M, Vézina P (2023) Forestry based products as climate change solution: Integrating life cycle assessment with techno-economic analysis. J Environ Manage 330:117197
Wang L, Watanabe T (2016) A Stackelberg game theoretic analysis of incentive effects under perceived risk for china’s straw-based power plant supply chain. Energies 9(455):1–20
Wu Q, Ren H, Gao W, Ren J (2017) Benefit allocation for distributed energy network participants applying game theory based solutions. Energy 119:384–391
Yue D, You F (2014) Game-theoretic modeling and optimization of multi-echelon supply. Comput Chem Eng 71:347–361
Yue D, You F (2017) Stackelberg-game-based modeling and optimization for supply chain. Comput Chem Eng 102:81–95
Acknowledgements
The authors are very much thankful to the editor and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions that were very much helpful in improving the quality of this manuscript.
Funding
The authors acknowledge the financial support provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Grant RGPIN-2019-07086).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Not applicable.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Ethical approval
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1
The supply chain model incorporating a direct incentive scheme for communities is presented by Eqs. (9)–(24).
Subject to:
Equations (9)–(13) are representing the optimization problem of communities, which are the leader of the game. To formulate the problem as a bi-level problem, the optimization problem of the suppliers (Eqs. 14–19) and hubs (Eqs. 20–24) is considered as the constraints of the leaders' problem. To formulate hubs’ direct incentive scenario, Eq. (20) is replaced by Eq. (5), and in case of suppliers’ direct incentive scenario, Eq. (14) is replaced by Eq. (3).
Appendix 2
Table of symbols and nomenclatures.
Symbols | Definitions | Units |
---|---|---|
Sets | ||
i | Set of suppliers | |
k | Set of hubs | |
j | Set of energy convertor facilities | |
t | Time periods | |
Parameters | ||
\({\varvec{T}}_{{{\varvec{ik}}}}\) | Transportation cost from supplier ‘i’ to hub ‘k’ | $/kg |
Si | Capacity of supplier ‘i’ | kg |
\({\varvec{P}}_{{\varvec{i}}}^{{\varvec{u}}}\) | Biomass price of supplier ‘i’ without discount | $/kg |
\({\varvec{P}}_{{\varvec{i}}}^{{\varvec{l}}}\) | Biomass price of supplier ‘i’ with discount | $/kg |
\({\mathbf{hs}}_{{\varvec{i}}}\) | Biomass harvesting cost at supplier ‘i’ | $/kg |
\({\mathbf{H}}_{{\varvec{i}}}\) | Holding cost for supplier ‘i’ | $/kg |
\({\varvec{h}}_{{\varvec{k}}}^{\user2{ }}\) k | Capacity of hub ‘k’ | kg |
\({\varvec{Hc}}_{{\varvec{k}}}\) | Holding cost at hub ‘k’ | $/kg |
\({\varvec{B}}_{{{\varvec{kj}}}}^{{\varvec{u}}}\) | Biomass ordering cost from hub ‘k’ to energy convertor ‘j’ without discount | $/kg |
\({\varvec{B}}_{{{\varvec{kj}}}}^{{\varvec{l}}}\) | Biomass ordering cost from hub ‘k’ to energy convertor ‘j’ with discount | $/kg |
\({\varvec{Ib}}_{{\varvec{j}}}\) | Capacity of biomass inventory at energy convertor ‘j’ | kg |
\({\varvec{a}}_{{\varvec{j}}}\) | Holding cost at energy convertor ‘j’ | $/kg |
\({\varvec{fc}}_{{\varvec{j}}}\) | Conversion rate of biomass to electricity at energy convertor ‘j’ | kWh/kg |
\({\varvec{Lf}}_{{\varvec{j}}}\) | Loading factor of energy convertor ‘j’ | % |
\({\varvec{LB}}_{{\varvec{j}}}\) | Electricity generation cost from biomass | $/kWh |
\({\varvec{LD}}_{{\varvec{j}}}\) | Electricity generation cost from diesel | $/kWh |
\({\varvec{D}}_{{\varvec{j}}}^{{\varvec{t}}}\) | Demand in energy convertor ‘j’ at time t | kWh |
\({\varvec{Z}}_{{\varvec{j}}}\) | Capacity of electricity generation | kW |
\({\varvec{rs}}\) | Delivery time between supplier ‘i’ and hub ‘k’ | Month |
\({\varvec{rp}}\) | Delivery time between hub ‘k’ and energy convertor ‘j’ | Month |
γ | Government subsidy's rate to suppliers | $/kg |
\({\varvec{\gamma}}_{{\varvec{i}}}^{{\varvec{t}}}\) | Government subsidy’s rate to supplier ‘i’ at time ‘t’ | $/kg |
\(\overline{\gamma }_{{\varvec{i}}}\) | Average government subsidy’s rate to supplier ‘i’ | $/kWh |
β | Government subsidy’s rate to hubs | $/kg |
\({\varvec{\beta}}_{{\varvec{k}}}^{{\varvec{t}}}\) | Government subsidy’s rate to hub ‘k’ at time ‘t’ | $/kg |
\(\overline{{\varvec{\beta}}}_{{\varvec{k}}}\) | Average government subsidy’s rate to hub ‘k’ | $/kWh |
λ | Government subsidy’s rate to communities | $/kWh |
\({\varvec{\lambda}}_{{\varvec{j}}}^{{\varvec{t}}}\) | Government subsidy’s rate to community ‘j’ at time ‘t’ | $/kWh |
\(\overline{{\varvec{\lambda}}}_{{\varvec{j}}}\) | Average government subsidy’s rate to community ‘j’ | $/kWh |
Decision variables | ||
\({\varvec{X}}_{{{\varvec{ik}}}}^{{\varvec{t}}}\) | Quantity of biomass delivered from supplier ‘i’ to hub ‘k’ at time ‘t’ | kg |
\({\varvec{y}}_{{{\varvec{kj}}}}^{{\varvec{t}}}\) | Quantity of biomass delivered from hub ‘k’ to energy convertor ‘j’ at time ‘t’ | kg |
\({\varvec{IS}}_{{\varvec{i}}}^{{\varvec{t}}}\) | Biomass inventory level at supplier ‘i’ at time ‘t’ | kg |
\({\varvec{h}}_{{\varvec{k}}}^{{\varvec{t}}}\) | Biomass inventory level at hub ‘k’ at time ‘t’ | kg |
\({\varvec{P}}_{{{\varvec{ik}}}}^{{\varvec{t}}}\) | Biomass price offered by supplier ‘i’ to hub ‘k’ at time ‘t’ | $/kg |
\({\varvec{B}}_{{{\varvec{kj}}}}^{{\varvec{t}}}\) | Biomass ordering price offered by hub ‘k’ to energy convertor ‘j’ at time ‘t’ | $/kg |
\({\varvec{I}}_{{\varvec{j}}}^{{\varvec{t}}}\) | Biomass inventory level at energy convertor ‘j’ at time ‘t’ | kg |
\({\varvec{z}}_{{\varvec{j}}}^{{\varvec{t}}}\) | Electricity generation from biomass in community ‘j’ at time ‘t’ | kWh |
ς | Percentage of suppliers’ capacity increase | % |
τ | Percentage of communities’ bioenergy generation capacity increase | % |
Appendix 3
The equilibrium values of dynamic direct incentives with various levels of communities' incentivization (\(\lambda_{j}^{t}\)).
Time period (t) | λ = 0 | λ = 0.01 | λ = 0.02 | λ = 0.03 | λ = 0.04 | λ = 0.05 | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
j = 1 | j = 2 | j = 3 | j = 1 | j = 2 | j = 3 | j = 1 | j = 2 | j = 3 | j = 1 | j = 2 | j = 3 | j = 1 | j = 2 | j = 3 | j = 1 | j = 2 | j = 3 | |
1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 |
2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0041 | 0 | 0 | 0.0083 | 0 | 0 | 0.0124 | 0 | 0 | 0.0166 | 0 | 0 | 0.0207 | 0 |
3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0005 | 0 | 0 | 0.0010 | 0 | 0 | 0.0015 | 0 | 0 | 0.0021 | 0 | 0 | 0.0026 | 0 |
4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0010 | 0 | 0 | 0.0021 | 0 | 0 | 0.0031 | 0 | 0 | 0.0041 | 0 | 0 | 0.0052 | 0 |
5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0010 | 0 | 0 | 0.0020 | 0 | 0 | 0.0029 | 0 | 0 | 0.0039 | 0 | 0 | 0.0049 | 0 |
6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0004 | 0 | 0 | 0.0008 | 0 | 0 | 0.0012 | 0 | 0 | 0.0015 | 0 | 0 | 0.0019 | 0 |
7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0009 | 0 | 0 | 0.0018 | 0 | 0 | 0.0028 | 0 | 0 | 0.0037 | 0 | 0 | 0.0046 | 0 |
8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0017 | 0 | 0 | 0.0033 | 0 | 0 | 0.0050 | 0 | 0 | 0.0067 | 0 | 0 | 0.0084 | 0 |
9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0025 | 0 | 0 | 0.0050 | 0 | 0 | 0.0076 | 0 | 0 | 0.0101 | 0 | 0 | 0.0126 | 0 |
10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0034 | 0 | 0 | 0.0069 | 0 | 0 | 0.0103 | 0 | 0 | 0.0137 | 0 | 0 | 0.0172 | 0 |
11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0028 | 0 | 0 | 0.0057 | 0 | 0 | 0.0085 | 0 | 0 | 0.0114 | 0 | 0 | 0.0142 | 0 |
12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0026 | 0 | 0 | 0.0052 | 0 | 0 | 0.0079 | 0 | 0 | 0.0105 | 0 | 0 | 0.0131 | 0 |
The equilibrium values of dynamic direct incentives with various levels of suppliers’ incentivization (\(\gamma_{i}^{t}\)).
Time period (t) | γ = 0.05 | γ = 0.15 | γ = 0.25 | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
i = 1 | i = 2 | i = 3 | i = 4 | i = 5 | i = 6 | i = 1 | i = 2 | i = 3 | i = 4 | i = 5 | i = 6 | i = 1 | i = 2 | i = 3 | i = 4 | i = 5 | i = 6 | |
1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
3 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.06 |
4 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.11 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.06 |
5 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.12 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.13 | 0.13 |
7 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.21 |
8 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 |
9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.03 |
10 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.04 |
11 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.09 |
12 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.13 | 0.11 | 0.13 | 0.14 | 0.11 | 0.11 |
The equilibrium values of dynamic direct incentives with various levels of hubs' incentivization \((\beta_{k}^{t})\).
Time period (t) | β = 0 | β = 0.05 | β = 0.1 | β = 0.15 | β = 0.20 | β = 0.25 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
k = 1 | k = 2 | k = 1 | k = 2 | k = 1 | k = 2 | k = 1 | k = 2 | k = 1 | k = 2 | k = 1 | k = 2 | |
1 | 0 | 0 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.25 | 0.25 |
2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0290 | 0 | 0.0598 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.05 | 0 | 0.0868 | 0 | 0.1086 | 0 | 0.1452 | 0 | 0 |
9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.05 | 0 | 0.0912 | 0 | 0.15 | 0 | 0.2 | 0 | 0.0811 |
10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.05 | 0 | 0.1 | 0 | 0.15 | 0 | 0.2 | 0 | 0.25 |
11 | 0 | 0 | 0.0130 | 0.05 | 0.0393 | 0.1 | 0 | 0.15 | 0 | 0.2 | 0.0017 | 0.25 |
12 | 0 | 0 | 0.0387 | 0.05 | 0.0721 | 0.1 | 0.1198 | 0.15 | 0.1598 | 0.2 | 0.25 | 0.25 |
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Vazifeh, Z., Mafakheri, F. & An, C. Coordination of bioenergy supply chains under government incentive policies: a game-theoretic analysis. Clean Techn Environ Policy 25, 2185–2201 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-023-02498-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-023-02498-z