Brown, J. ChristopherHanley, EricBergtold, JasonCaldas, MarcelusBarve, Vijay V.Peterson, DanaCallihan, Ryan AndrewGibson, JaneGray, Benjamin JeromeHendricks, NathanBrunsell, Nathaniel A.Dobbs, Kevin EdwardKastens, Jude HeathcliffEarnhart, Dietrich H.2015-12-042015-12-042014-09Brown, J. Christopher, Eric Hanley, Jason Bergtold, Marcelus Caldas, Vijay Barve, Dana Peterson, Ryan Callihan, Jane Gibson, Benjamin Gray, Nathan Hendricks, Nathaniel Brunsell, Kevin Dobbs, Jude Kastens, and Dietrich Earnhart. "Ethanol Plant Location and Intensification vs. Extensification of Corn Cropping in Kansas." Applied Geography 53 (2014): 141-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.05.021https://hdl.handle.net/1808/19136This is the author final draft. Copyright 2014 Elsevier.Farmers' cropping decisions are a product of a complex mix of socio-economic, cultural, and natural environments in which factors operating at a number of different spatial scales affect how farmers ultimately decide to use their land in any given year or over a set of years. Some environmentalists are concerned that increased demand for corn driven by ethanol production is leading to conversion of non-cropland into corn production (which we label as “extensification”). Ethanol industry advocates counter that more than enough corn supply comes from crop switching to corn and increased yields (which we label as “intensification”). In this study, we determine whether either response to corn demand – intensification or extensification – is supported. This is determined through an analysis of land-use/land-cover (LULC) data that covers the state of Kansas and a measure of a corn demand shifter related to ethanol production – distance to the closest ethanol plant – between 2007 and 2009.Article10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.05.021https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4852-2567openAccess