Our research and results can basically be divided into three parts. First, as a function of the nationally representative sample, the responses to our questions and the most characteristic trends were analyzed by using descriptive statistics. Clusters were used to characterize the typical Hungarian groups. Then, correlation studies and factor analysis were performed to analyze the relationship between respondents’ self-reported and actual knowledge. Lastly, with the help of cluster formation, we attempted to find out how age, income, and education influence the assessment of the economic, convenience, and environmental aspects of renewable energy sources, as well as which relationships can be considered significant.
4.1. Self-Reported and Actual Knowledge of the Population about Renewable Energy Sources
Results indicate that, according to self-report, the knowledge of the three renewable energy sources is outstanding (
Table 3). They involve, in descending order, solar, wind, and hydropower (92–98%), which people are not merely aware of, but about which they have a deeper knowledge (12–14%). These three sources were followed by biogas, biodiesel, and geothermal energy. For example, 56–66% of respondents had already heard of biobriquettes, heat pumps, and bioethanol, but had much less expertise in them (5–9%), while wood pellets represented the least known energy source in all respects. This difference in knowledge is likely to reflect differences in education concerning various renewable energy sources, leaving too much scope for ill-founded (mostly negative) stereotypes that hinder the future spread of these energy sources. Considering the number of car owners and the fact that significant amounts of biodiesel and bioethanol are blended into standard quality residential fuel, which is also indicated at petrol stations, the proportion of those who have not even heard of the two renewable fuels (35% and 44%, respectively) can be considered surprisingly high.
According to results in the international literature above, and in line with our findings, the most widely known types of renewable energy sources are solar and wind energy [
22,
23,
24,
27,
30,
31,
86]. According to self-reports of Hungarian respondents, the awareness of solar energy (97.5%) is similar, but wind and hydropower are better known compared to international experience. In Hungary, solar, wind, and hydropower also used to be the best known renewable energy sources, known to more than 90% of the respondents [
61]. Compared to the Hungarian survey above, awareness of geothermal energy has decreased over the past 6 years, while awareness of biogas has increased in Hungary, despite its importance in the energy mix, which is probably due to development trends.
Since the awareness of solar, wind, and hydropower is clearly outstanding, the significant differences among these were examined in relation to each group of background variables. The conclusions drawn are as follows:
A significant difference was found in education (primary school, vocational school, high school, higher education) for all three energy sources (solar: means 2.25–2.74; F value: 5.92 df: 3, 964 p < 0.001; wind: means 2.17–2.65; F value: 5.51 df: 3, 949, p < 0.001; hydropower: means 2.18–2.69; F value: 5.962 df: 3, 907, p < 0.001). Knowledge by hearsay of those with tertiary education was 7–10% higher compared to those with maximum basic education.
In this context, with regard to the activity groups examined (pensioner, other job, active manual worker, active intellectual worker), those with active intellectual jobs had knowledge in the highest proportion (solar: means 2.24–2.44 F value: 3.121 df: 3, 964, p < 0.01; wind: means 2.14–2.41 F value: 3.234 df: 3, 949, p < 0.01; hydropower: means 2.16–2.39 F value: 3.06 df: 3, 907, p < 0.05).
The level of knowledge improved with the increase in health consciousness (not health-conscious at all, mostly not health-conscious, both health-conscious and not, mostly health-conscious, very health-conscious; solar: means 2.01–3.05 F value: 10.506 df: 4, 948, p < 0.001; wind: means 1.98–3.13 F value: 9.331 df: 4, 933, p < 0.001; hydropower: means 1.95–3.05 F value: 9.249 df: 4, 891, p < 0.001) and in environmental consciousness (not environmentally conscious, both environmentally conscious and not, mostly environmentally conscious, very environmentally conscious solar: means 1.96–2.61 F value: 8.973 df: 4, 946, p < 0.001; wind: means 1.96–2.53 F value: 6.019 df: 4, 931, p < 0.001; hydropower: means 1.85–2.65 F value: 8.938 df: 4, 889, p < 0.001).
Education and intellectual activity also influence knowledge about renewable energy sources according to the previous literature [
29,
30,
38,
87].
The knowledge of environmentally conscious individuals about renewable energy sources is more likely to be broader also according to international literature, as people with such attitudes are more likely to be interested in details and information about renewable energy sources [
26], which also supports our results.
According to the above, it can be stated that, with regard to self-report, the knowledge about renewables and its social background in Hungary is in line with international trends.
Following self-reported knowledge, it was also considered necessary to examine the actual knowledge of the same respondents by means of control questions. Despite the less known bioenergy processes, the concept of biomass was interpreted correctly by the majority, while the opposite was found to be true in the case of solar collectors, since the vast majority of people automatically think of solar panels when considering solar energy. In the case of biogas, the low rate of correct answers was in line with the low level of awareness, which is also reflected in the fact that the combined rate of uncertain and nonresponders was by far the highest here.
The increase in the level of education, as well as health and environmental awareness, can also be linked to the correct understanding of biomass (in all cases,
p < 0.01). With regard to the type of settlement, the higher proportion of correct responses was also significant among those living in the capital and in Central Hungary (in both cases,
p < 0.001). This finding is basically consistent with the research results of Bai et al. (2016) [
76], which showed a value typically less than 20% for the awareness of biomass in the settlements studied in one of the poorest rural areas of Hungary, despite the fact that 63% of the people living there used wood for heating (
Table 4).
With regard to solar energy, the same trends were true for heat and electricity generation as well, in the case of those with higher education (
p < 0.05), of active intellectuals and environmentally conscious individuals (both
p < 0.01), and of those with higher incomes (
p < 0.001). It should be noted, however, that the distinction between a solar collector and a solar panel was blurred in both cases (
Table 5).
In the case of biogas production (
Table 6), there were no typical respondents providing the correct answer (it is possible to produce any type of energy). However, the highest proportion of answers believed to be correct was found among younger age groups, among those with a better education, active white-collar workers (
p < 0.05), and those living in the capital (
p < 0.01). The latest trend for the utilization of biogas is for fuel, and the responses of the generally better-informed individuals were probably due to this fact.
Table 7 clearly shows that the majority of respondents found the purchase of renewable energy equipment expensive and their operation, with the exception of biomass-based heating methods, convenient, environmentally friendly, and cheap.
The answers to various questions connected to wood heating revealed a lot of uncertainty. According to
Table 7, firewood received a negative rating in all respects (expensive investment and operation, inconvenient, and polluting), despite the fact that the vast majority of domestic renewable energy is produced by firewood. The assessment of compacts was a bit more favorable from the point of view of convenience and environmental protection; however, due to the low level of knowledge related to them, this does not necessarily mean an advantage in terms of actual use, either. However, the different values indicate that respondents were basically aware of the differences between the compact solids.
Two of these aspects were highlighted, namely, convenience and environmental friendliness, as they can provide relevant market information on which of these two aspects are more important to respondents. The question was to be assessed on a 10-point scale, where 1 stood for “convenience is crucial” and 10 meant “eco-friendliness is crucial”. The mean was 4.92 with a standard deviation of 2.159 (N = 1002), suggesting that convenience and environmental protection are given similar importance when choosing the type of energy.
For each group of background variables, the following significant differences were observed:
As the level of education, health, and environmental awareness increases, the mean shifts toward the environmental aspect. While the mean among those with primary education was 4.67 (Std = 2.251), the mean among those with tertiary education was 5.38 (Std = 2.189; F value: 2.658 df: 3, 997, p < 0.05). The values for health-conscious people were as follows: mean = 6.39, Std = 2.189; F value: 10.521 df: 4, 980, p < 0.001, while those for environmentally conscious people were as follows: mean = 5.97, Std = 2.462; F value: 8.705 df: 4, 978, p < 0.001.
When examined by regions, in the northern regions (Northern Hungary, Northern Great Plain) of the country (mean = 5.45, Std = 2.299, and Mean = 5.49, Std = 2.085, F value: 6.501 df: 6, 994, p < 0.001), environmental friendliness was also more important, but to a lesser extent than above. This was probably due to the fact that the three richest and the poorest of Hungary’s seven NUTS-2 regions are located in the northern part of the country.
In addition to the above, a lot of uncertainty was experienced about wood heating. Specifically, 0.8% of households considered firewood a renewable energy source and interest in it was low (4.2%). At the same time, wood consumption accounted for a significant proportion of total use, together with natural gas, which was confirmed by the responses to the question related to the energy used (wood: 30%, natural gas: 67%). Inadequate information was probably due to a poorer financial situation, as well as to the marginal settlement type, for the following reasons:
Wood combustion is typically applied by the “poor”. As the income level of a household decreased (can live on it very well and can also save, can live on it but can save little, just enough to live on but cannot save, sometimes cannot make ends meet, have regular financial problems), so did the share of wood burning (means 4.39–5.10 F value: 4.275 df: 4, 294, p < 0.001).
As the size (population) of the settlement decreased (Budapest—capital city, other town, village), the proportion of those using wood heating increased significantly (χ2 = 176.328 df: 3 p < 0.001), which was primarily related to the significant proportion of detached houses in smaller settlements. Detached houses in the green belts of larger settlements typically heat with natural gas or, in the case of renewables, with wood pellets, solar collectors, and possibly a heat pump, i.e., they prefer the convenient solutions.
All the above confirm the typical attitude, i.e., that because of the lesser awareness and use of modern technological solutions, typical users consider wood an unfavorable, nonrenewable energy source.
The existence of a connection between firewood and renewable energy sources was also confirmed by other Hungarian studies. Szabó et al. (2018) [
69] used word association tests to prove that respondents connected the two concepts to a minimal extent, regardless of the region. However, the stereotype is not unique to Hungary; according to a survey by Plate et al. (2010) [
47], in the US, respondents did not rate woody biomass better than fossil fuels, and often even rated it less favorably than natural gas. They claimed that its low social support is mainly due to the ignorance of modern technologies, which also confirms that the perception of wood is significantly worse than its actual value [
47].
4.3. Energy Attitudes of Respondents
According to the self-report, respondents could basically be classified into two groups (
Table 9): the first includes wind, solar, and hydropower, and the second includes other (mainly biomass-based) renewable energy sources. This examination also confirms that, according to the self-report, there was a very strong relationship between the awareness of the three energy sources that belong to the first factor, while the awareness of energy sources other than these was much weaker.
As a function of these factors, we formed clusters. Cluster 1 included 60.6% of the respondents and Cluster 2 included 39.4%, the statistical characteristics of which are demonstrated in
Table 10.
In general, cluster members could be characterized as follows:
Those in Cluster 1 were generally better acquainted with both factor 1 and factor 2 energy sources than those in Cluster 2.
For members of Cluster 1, the convenience and environmental aspects were the determining factors in the consumption of energy, whereas, for members of Cluster 2, economic aspects dominated (for the purchase of machinery, operating costs).
The assessment of environmental and convenience aspects when compared to each other was practically the same.
Cluster 1 consisted of older people, those with lower income status, and less education, while, in Cluster 2, nobody was over 65, and both their educational level and financial situation were much higher.
Renewable energy sources were in principle used to a greater extent by those in Cluster 2, which was, however, due to the fact that wood is not considered a renewable energy source by members of Cluster 1. This was mainly due to poorer awareness, which can be traced back not only to poorer opportunities for acquiring knowledge, stereotypes, and outdated knowledge, but also to misinformation in public education.
Overall, Cluster 1 included older, less informed, poorer, and cost-oriented respondents, while Cluster 2 included young, well-educated, richer, and environment- and convenience-oriented ones.
The difference observed between the clusters is in line with the findings indicated in the literature [
29,
35,
36,
37], which is explained by the fact that younger people are more likely to be aware of renewable energy choices. This is partly due to more up-to-date curricula and partly to the acquisition of knowledge via the Internet, which is more easily accessible to younger than older people. Our conclusion is supported by a previous study in Hungary [
69], according to which both the adult population and school-age children surveyed marked the extracurricular media as a source of their renewable knowledge, which highlights the fact that the role of school education needs to be strengthened.
The characteristics of Cluster 2 developed by us (young, wealthier, more educated) correspond to the results of Sardianou and Genoudi (2013) [
25], according to which middle-aged, highly educated people are more likely to use renewable energy systems in their homes; thus, a higher income also has a positive effect on the adoption and use of renewable energy systems.
As there was no significant difference between the clusters in terms of the importance of convenience and environmental aspects when purchasing an energy source, by ordinal regression calculation, we also examined the differences between respondents who clearly took a position on one aspect or for whom convenience and environmental aspects were equally important (
Table 11A,B).
Differences that could be considered significant as compared to the group that preferred convenience were as follows:
Those with higher heating costs were 12% more likely to belong to the neutral group (p = 0.07);
Those for whom environmental considerations were more important when purchasing energy were 55% more likely to belong to the neutral group, and self-reportedly environmentally conscious people were 54% more likely to belong to the neutral group, while the reliability was also very strong (p = 0.00);
Those who did not heat with natural gas were 58% more likely to belong to the neutral group (p = 0.03);
Those with primary education were 49% more likely to belong to the neutral group than those with secondary education (p = 0.03);
Those for whom aspects of convenience were more important had a 37% lower chance of being placed in the environmentally friendly group, with strong reliability (p = 0.00);
Those with lower education were 50% less likely to be classified into the environmentally friendly group (p = 0.05);
Nonenvironmentally conscious people were 60% less likely, while neutral respondents were 56% less likely to be included in the environmentally friendly group (p = 0.00).
Overall, it can be concluded that an extremely strong significance (p < 0.001) could be detected in the consistency of respondents when purchasing the energy type and ranking the convenience/environmental aspects. It can also be stated in a statistically reliable way (p = 0.03–0.07) that the “convenient” had a higher education, heated with natural gas, and paid less for heating. The latter was partly due to their more typical use of renewables and energy-efficient solutions, and partly to the fact that the price of natural gas in Hungary has been stagnant for years due to the state regulation of the “public utility price cut”. The results also clearly indicated that wood is basically the fuel for the poorer and less educated, whereas natural gas is basically used by the more affluent and better-educated strata. The commitment between convenience and environmentally friendly fuels showed a much more reliable relationship than the relationship observed between the self-reported and actual knowledge of different energy sources.