The Importance of Public Sources of Financing the Development of Renewable Energy in Agriculture, Using the Example of Eastern Poland

Abstract

This article addresses the issue of public support for the development of renewable energy and the assessment of this support from the perspective of farmers in Eastern Poland. Since it is a region characterized by a relatively high share of agriculture in the economy, a diversified structure of this sector, and at the same time, a region with a relatively high level of energy poverty, it can be considered a good example for illustrating the research problem. To achieve the goal, surveys were carried out covering 519 farms. Upon the consideration of a literature review and the research results of other authors, the collected opinions of the owners of these farms regarding the motivators encouraging them to invest in renewable energy technologies and the assessment of the role of the state in supporting energy transformation allowed for the formulation of conclusions. The research results indicate that renewable energy technologies are present in 47% of the surveyed farms, while in 36% of them, investments were financed from farmers’ own funds. This means that the possibility of obtaining support from public funds is not a necessary condition for implementing renewable energy investments.

1. Introduction

One of the areas that has become the object of interest of many countries’ governments in recent years is renewable energy. This interest results primarily from the need to accelerate the energy transformation process, which involves reducing energy consumption and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Current development directions are aimed at the maximum use of renewable energy sources and the optimal and rational use of resources. These activities concern all spheres of life and are carried out on various levels. Energy transformation concerns individuals, companies, and manufacturing enterprises operating in various industries. This issue has become exceptionally important as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the energy crisis resulting from the outbreak of the war in Ukraine and the resulting consequences for Russia; so far, Russia has been one of the necessary main suppliers of fossil fuels, among others, for energy production.

The energy transformation process is implemented both on the basis of adapted legal provisions (imposing specific obligations on subsequent groups of recipients) by influencing the awareness of citizens, and above all, by means of various public intervention instruments including government expenditure. An IEA report [1] from June 2023 shows that since 2020, governments have allocated PLN 1.34 trillion to support clean energy investments. Thus, they played a key role in the rapid growth of these investments, which increased in 2023 by almost 25% compared to 2022. Importantly, a large part of government spending was allocated to supporting consumers at that time, due to the maintenance of so-called affordability. This support consisted in compensating energy producers for operational losses related to maintaining stable prices during the energy crisis. Over six months in 2023, approximately PLN 130 billion in new government spending was announced to support clean energy investments. The spending mainly aims to increase mass and alternative transport low-emission electricity generation projects, and the sale of low-emission vehicles.

Previous research in the field of renewable energy generally focuses on various groups of factors influencing its development, including the following: political [2], economic [3], educational, geographical, environmental, and technological factors [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11].

Some studies also emphasize the importance of public funds in the development of renewable energy. The research of some authors [12] has shown that since the beginning of the last global financial crisis in 2007, increased competition in the energy market and additional public financing have played a much greater role as factors stimulating the use of renewable energy sources. In turn, research by other authors [13] shows that the key factors influencing the renewable energy market are expanding access to financing renewable energy sources, reducing the share of traditional energy sources, and providing public–private support for renewable energy projects. These studies also showed that renewable energy in the countries they studied has favorable conditions for development, but its implementation requires purposeful and coordinated actions on the part of the government and business. Other studies [14] emphasize that the development of the economy and urbanization, the incentive policy system, and the implementation of government policy are the three most important factors in the development of renewable energy investment projects. However, some authors [15] examining the effectiveness of public expenditure on renewable energy indicated that real GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and the number of graduates in technical and scientific fields positively affect the effectiveness of public intervention in the field of renewable energy. Some other authors [16] also showed that there is a relationship between public expenditure on research and development, green economic growth, and energy efficiency.

In addition to power generation, renewable energy with storage technology brings additional benefits to energy producers and consumers, and business models that adapt to local conditions are emerging. However, citizen participation in energy efficiency and renewable energy would be strengthened with increased public support [17]. Moreover, as some authors [18] emphasize, eliminating barriers and increasing investment opportunities for households in the renewable energy market can provide effective solutions to overcome economic downturns in periods of economic uncertainty, pandemics, and recessions. This means that in the cases examined, the scale of current support addressed to prosumers is insufficient.

Taking the above data into account, the case of agriculture as an economic sector, based on family farms, where energy consumption is related not only to agricultural production, but also to household needs, seems to be interesting. Often, the dispersion of farms and their considerable distance from energy producers, combined with the weakness of distribution networks, make them vulnerable to energy poverty. Importantly, this is a special sector due to the huge potential of renewable energy resources [19]. The use of these resources would allow farmers to not only save on energy purchases, but also to obtain alternative sources of income in the event of selling the surplus energy produced.

In the European Union, including Poland, farmers have the opportunity to use a wide range of support instruments, both under the Common Agricultural Policy and national programs. In recent years, instruments have also appeared, mainly in the form of subsidies supporting farm investments in technologies using renewable energy sources. The scale of this phenomenon is difficult to assess due to the lack of official statistics.

Due to the small number of studies in this area, we decided to investigate farmers’ interest in investing in renewable energy sources and the aim of our research was to assess the role of public funds in the development of renewable energy in agriculture. The main research question was as follows: “What is the importance of public funds in motivating farmers to invest in renewable energy technologies?”. The following detailed questions were asked:

• What motivates farmers to obtain energy from renewable sources?
• What is the perception of farmers about the role of the state in energy transformation?
• What support do farmers expect from the state in the development of renewable energy?
• Are there differences between the surveyed voivodeships in their approach to the motivators for installing renewable energy sources by farmers and their perception of the directions and instruments of state support and energy transformation?

To achieve the goal, survey research was conducted in the form of direct interviews with farmers using an electronic survey questionnaire (CAPI method—Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing). The research was conducted in the region of Eastern Poland, where agriculture has a much higher share in GDP and employment than on average in Poland. At the same time, the conditions of agricultural production in individual voivodeships are very diverse and the region is characterized by high rates of energy poverty. Therefore, this region may be a good illustration of the current considerations.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Factors Determining the Development of Renewable Energy in Agriculture

Due to the importance of renewable energy in the sustainable development of agriculture [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27], the issue of farmers’ interest in investing in clean energy is addressed by researchers around the world. The development of this energy industry in agriculture without the involvement of farmers would be basically impossible, especially since activities related to the use of renewable energy sources are relatively innovative and their implementation is subject to business risk. Research on investments in renewable energy technologies on farms generally focuses on the factors determining farmers’ investments in renewable energy sources. They identify stimulators and barriers to investing in renewable energy by farmers, which are both externally independent of farmers, and dependent on farm resources and the personal characteristics of farmers as managers.

Some authors [28] indicate four groups of factors that hinder the spread of renewable energy in agriculture. These are economic, technical, regulatory, and information factors. Overcoming economic barriers in particular, such as high investment costs or investment risk, requires, in their opinion, the provision of tax breaks incentives or subsidies, both in developed and developing economies. These strategies have proven to be effective in implementing home photovoltaic systems in developing countries [29].

Research emphasizes that economic and social factors play an especially important role in farmers’ adaptation to innovations [30,31,32]. First of all, they include financial and technological limitations related to renewable energy, which constitute one of the main barriers to their use [33]. Financial constraints result from the economic situation of farms and the income they generate. Many researchers believe that this is one of the most important factors determining investments in renewable energy on farms [34,35,36].

An equally important economic factor is the profitability of investing in renewable energy technologies. It is influenced by installation costs, energy prices, and related revenues from the sale of energy produced on the farm, or savings that the farm can generate in connection with the production of its own energy [37,38]. Economic and regulatory uncertainty limits farmers’ interest in renewable energy [38]. The research also emphasizes the role of farm production resources and the direction of agricultural production as a factor influencing the implementation of renewable energy technologies by farmers. Larger farms and those generating greater demand for electricity and heat are more willing to make investments [39].

Among social factors, farmers’ awareness of renewable energy and its role in the energy transformation and sustainable development of agriculture plays a special role. For example, research results from Turkey showed that over 90% of surveyed farmers expressed concern about global climate change. At the same time, over 85% of them are willing to use solar energy, and over 81% are willing to use wind energy in their agricultural activities [33]. In turn, the vast majority of surveyed Chinese farmers believe that renewable energy sources are more positive for the environment and more useful and profitable for agriculture compared to traditional sources [40].

In the context of farmers’ pro-environmental attitudes, including those related to the willingness to invest in renewable energy sources, education is also assigned an important role. Research confirms that education was and continues to be the most active factor influencing farmers’ awareness of climate change [41,42,43]. Other studies show that properly educated people are much more aware of climate change and at the same time more open to investing in renewable energy [44,45].

In practice, researchers identify the impact of a combination of various factors on farmers’ willingness to invest in renewable energy. Research by some authors [46] shows that educated, younger, and wealthier farmers are more willing to use alternative water pumps (activated using renewable energy sources) for irrigation. However, the key factors influencing a farmer’s decision to use such devices are access to credit and the frequent downtime of conventional water pumps. However, research [47] shows that the readiness of Chinese farmers to adopt clean energy is positively influenced primarily by quality of life, environmental benefits, government support, assessments of neighbors and friends, maturity of the local clean energy market, labor savings, age, education level, and annual farm income. The younger generation pays attention to improving their quality of life. Younger farmers are more interested in clean energy than older ones, while young farmers have a greater tendency to learn and embrace modern knowledge. However, the majority of surveyed farmers express the opinion that clean energy will cost more than traditional energy, and high costs will negatively affect the willingness to accept it.

The research results of some authors [40] showed that education, farm size, government financial support, perception of renewable energy sources (usefulness, profitability, environmental friendliness, and availability of information), and farmers’ entrepreneurship (risk-taking, innovation) significantly influence the acceptance of renewable energy sources.

Research confirms that the role of agriculture in the production of renewable energy requires much more attention. The abundance of natural resources creates opportunities for farmers to diversify into renewable energy. The type of renewable energy source selected is adapted to the specific conditions of the farm. The surveyed farmers emphasize that small farms, their dispersion, high input prices, and marketing problems are the main problems they struggle with. To this should be added the low level of education and low income of farmers. Therefore, the agricultural sector requires more funding. In this context, it may be helpful to implement policies related to increasing farmers’ incomes and at the same time, increasing the use of renewable energy [33].

2.2. Support from Public Funds as a Motivator for Investing in Renewable Energy on Farms

Most studies show that the development of renewable energy without support from public funds would be impossible, especially in the initial period [48]. This is understandable, because the development of the renewable energy market, like all other markets, is determined by the profitability of investing, which depends primarily on investment costs, operating costs, costs of access to fuels, scale, generation capacities, and prices, which, in the case of market energy, are influenced not only by supply and demand, but also by politics and regulations. A particular problem is the high investment costs associated with the implementation of modern technologies. Data from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) show that, in the years 2010–2022, apart from geothermal and hydropower, the costs of installing other sources dropped globally from 26% in the case of bioenergy, to 83% in the case of photovoltaics [49]. Changes in these costs are the result of technological progress, access to materials and raw materials, labor costs, and logistic costs. The downward trend in installation costs with a simultaneous increase in power factors allowed for a reduction in the levelized cost of electricity production (LCOE—levelized cost of electricity) of most renewable energy sources, except geothermal and hydropower. The largest decrease in the analyzed indicator in the years 2010–2022 was recorded in photovoltaics (where, incidentally, the cost of energy production in 2010 was the highest among all types of renewable energy sources): from USD 0.445 per 1 kWh to USD 0.049 per 1 kWh, i.e., by as much as 89%. In turn, in 2022, the cheapest energy source was onshore wind energy (USD 0.033 per 1 kWh). Importantly, in 2022, in global terms, energy from PV was about 65% cheaper than energy from coal, and about 80% cheaper than energy from gas [50]. The ratio of the cost of wind energy to the cost of energy from coal and gas was similar.

As can be seen from the data presented, both the average installation cost and the average cost of energy production have decreased significantly in recent years; as emphasized in the introduction, in the case of most renewable energy sources, the scale of support for green energy has significantly increased. As of the second quarter of 2020 (until 28 April 2023), the IEA has collected over 1600 different instruments used by 68 governments [1]. It should be emphasized, however, that a large part of them were related to the protection of both entrepreneurs and households against the effects of the energy crisis.

In Poland, according to estimates of the Ministry of Climate and Environment, investment outlays on generation capacity will amount to approximately PLN 726.4 billion. About 60% of these funds will concern renewable energy technologies, and about 26% will concern nuclear energy. Additionally, the necessary investment outlays for the development of network infrastructure may reach up to PLN 500 billion. The sources of financing for these investments are domestic funds, EU funds, and other foreign funds. They are intended to mobilize funds from private and financial institutions (mainly in the field of repayable financing). A significant part of the expenses will be covered by funds from companies from the fuel and energy sectors (owned by the State Treasury). Other energy needs can be covered by the following means:

1. Using public interventions (such as RES auction systems, offshore wind farm support systems—contract for difference, high-efficiency cogeneration support systems, white certificate systems, capacity market, FIT (feed-in tariff systems), subsidy systems to the FIP market price (feed-in premium), tariffs taking into account the costs necessary to fulfill obligations arising in connection with the activities conducted by the energy company);

2. Using extra-budgetary instruments including, among others, funds from the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management (e.g., under the programs “Clean Air”, “My Electricity 5.0”, “My Warmth”, and “Cogeneration for District Heating”) or local government units.

The scale of funds from the EU for climate and energy transformation included for Poland is unprecedented. The estimated amount of climate expenditure in 2021–2027 may amount to approximately PLN 260 billion. Under the current financial perspective (2021–2027) the most important programs from the EU budget that will support Poland in achieving climate goals will be the following: the European Funds for Infrastructure, Climate, and Environment Program (FEnIKS—European Funds for Infrastructure, Climate, Environment, Recovery, and Resilience Facility) and the Just Transition Mechanism, including the Just Transition Fund [51]. Depending on the specific program, European funds may be used by the following:

• individual customers (in the field of, e.g., photovoltaics, heat pumps, building insulation);
• entrepreneurs (e.g., in relation to improving the efficiency of production processes and renewable energy sources);
• municipal companies (in areas related to, e.g., heat production or waste utilization).

Farmers (as individuals) can benefit from most programs financed from the EU and national funds (e.g., 16 regional operational programs in individual voivodeships, the “My Electricity 5.0” or “Clean Air” programs). Farmers can also use programs dedicated exclusively to them, such as the “Agroenergia” program [52] or the “Energy for Rural” program [53]. The Strategic Plan for the CAP (Computer Aided Planning) for 2023–2027 [54], financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), and national funds, provides significant support for investments in renewable energy sources. The aim of the intervention is to reduce the pressure of agricultural activity on the environment through the use of energy from renewable sources, the proper management of agricultural waste and by-products, and the improvement of energy efficiency.

The analysis of the conditions that farmers must meet when applying for support from public funds indicates that the Polish government prefers the current financial perspective, primarily RES installations, which serve to meet the farms’ own energy needs and those installations that allow for the much greater use of the potential of biomass and agricultural waste.

From the point of view of the effectiveness of government policy aimed at energy transformation and the use of financial incentives for this purpose, it is important to discern whether they actually constitute an incentive to invest in renewable energy technologies. Generally, there are few such studies on farms.

Generally, farmers are positive about incentives from governments facilitating the adaptation of renewable energy sources on the farm [55]. A greater level of support in the field of government subsidies or feed-in tariffs for solar and wind energy networks will increase farmers’ interest in clean energy [47]. This is due to the fact that farmers often show passive tendencies to introduce appropriate changes, which is why support is necessary to help them take advantage of the opportunities arising from renewable energy [55].

Research by some authors [56] on the economic and social aspects of PV installations on farms in the Podkarpackie voivodeship shows that out of 226 farms surveyed, 66.4% have RES installations. Farmers financed them mainly from their own funds and subsidies. In their financing structure, own funds accounted for 59% on average, but in the case of 73.4% of the surveyed farms, own funds covered at least three quarters of the investment expenditure. However, subsidies and tax reliefs accounted for an average of 34.4% in the structure of investment expenditure. The financing structure of the planned investments was slightly different. Farmers expected that about half of the investment costs would be covered by subsidies and tax breaks, which as many as 88.1% of respondents planned to use. Therefore, farmers made the implementation of investments in photovoltaic installations dependent on access to financial support from public funds. At the same time, considering the assessment of motivators encouraging investment, the most important turned out to be the reduction in energy purchase costs. Grants and other forms of support were rated highly, but in a lower place.

This is also confirmed by research by other authors [57], which shows that the most important motivators for farmers to adopt sustainable practices are economic factors such as efficiency and productivity, including the tax benefits they can achieve from the investment. Also, research [58] shows that farmers, when making investment decisions, are guided mainly by the costs of capital and the subjective perception of the risk resulting from the investment. Other decision-making parameters, such as sustainability and nonmonetary goals, play only a secondary role. However, the above authors, who assessed the impact of the investment subsidy, showed that only about half of the subsidy amount—as expected, resulting from normative forecast models—translates into an increased willingness to invest. Moreover, farmers who have previously invested in bioenergy plants have lower investment thresholds and respond more strongly to the subsidy.

In general, the presented results refer to all farmers surveyed. However, what is interesting is the perception and assessment of support from public funds by farmers who have already used such support to finance investments in renewable energy technologies and those who financed them from their own funds. This research fills a gap in this area.

3. Materials and Methods

In relation to the research questions presented in the introduction, a research hypothesis was formulated, according to which “public sources of financing stimulate the development of renewable energy in agriculture in Eastern Poland”. The research was carried out using the diagnostic survey method. The research tool was an original survey form, the structure of which is presented in

Table 1. Names of the studied items.

No.	Items
I. Motivators for installing renewable energy sources by farmers
1	Care for the natural environment and the possibility of reducing greenhouse gases
2	Possibility of managing by-products
3	Energy independence, in the event of limited energy supplies
4	High electricity prices
5	Difficulties with purchasing traditional energy carriers
6	Popularity of the offered solutions for generating energy, from renewable energy sources, among friends/family
7	High level of funding
8	Social expectations/trends related to increasing the share of renewable energy in energy production
9	Health safety resulting from technical solutions of renewable energy installations
II. Perception of the directions of state support for energy transformation
10	The state should support activities to increase the share of energy, based on renewable energy sources
11	The state should support the sale of electrical appliances with the highest energy efficiency standards
12	The state should support the sale of electric/hybrid cars
13	The state should support the construction of energy-efficient buildings
14	The state should support the thermal modernization of buildings
15	The state should support farms that strive to save energy
16	The state should support farms using renewable energy
III. Expectations regarding instruments of state support for the development of renewable energy sources
17	The state should provide tax breaks for renewable energy producers
18	The state should provide subsidies for the purchase of renewable energy installations
19	The state should provide subsidies for house insulation
20	The state should provide preferential loans for the purchase of renewable energy installations
21	The state should ensure lower energy prices for renewable energy producers
22	The state should simplify regulations related to the purchase and installation of installations for the production of energy, from renewable energy sources
23	The state should simplify the regulations related to the settlement of the sale and purchase of renewable energy sources
24	The state should disseminate knowledge about the profitability of renewable energy sources
25	The state should disseminate good practices in the production and use of renewable energy sources
26	The state should ensure the modernization and expansion of electricity transmission networks
27	The state should ensure the construction of energy storage facilities

. The survey form contained 27 items. The items were grouped into three sets: (i) motivators for installing renewable energy sources by farmers; (ii) perception of the directions of state support for energy transformation; and (iii) expectations regarding instruments of state support for the development of renewable energy sources.

The authors of this article tried to obtain information from farmers on the use of public funds as stimulators of the level of involvement of farms in the production and use of renewable energy sources in agriculture, in the following voivodeships: Lubelskie, Podlaskie, Podkarpackie, Świętokrzyskie, and Warmia–Masuria (Figure 1).

The area of the five research regions, detailed in Figure 1, covers an area of 99,039 km², which translates into 31.7% of the area of Poland and 2.3% of the total area of the EU. This area is inhabited by 8,145,903 people, which constitutes 21.3% of the Polish population and 1.6% of the EU population [59]. Eastern Poland is considered the poorest region in Poland with a very low GDP per capita—the lowest in the EU [60]. The economy of this region is dominated by agriculture. The area of agricultural land in this region is 4629.6 thousand. ha, constituting 31% of the total area of the country. In this studied region, the number of farms in 2020 was 474.5 thousand, constituting 36% of the total number of farms in Poland. At the same time, the average area of these farms’ ranges from 5.10 ha in the Podkarpackie voivodeship to 23.55 ha in the Warmian–Masurian voivodeship. The agrarian structure in the voivodeships of this region is significantly diversified; it is very fragmented in the southern part and more concentrated in the northern part. Even though the region of Eastern Poland has one-third of the agricultural area and 36% of all people working in agriculture, its share in the global production of Polish agriculture is only 26.3% and its share in commercial production is 25.1%. It is also worth noting the diversity of this production: in the Lublin voivodeship, there is a predominance of plant production, while in the Podlaskie voivodeship, there is a predominance of animal production [61]. Data [62] show that over 99% of all farms in Poland are individual farms. In this research, the selection of farms in the research area was purposeful, as it included commercial farms, which are the main source of income for a farming family. The surveyed sample included only households with the status of natural persons. The average age of the person managing the researched farms was 45 years old, with the oldest respondent being 73 years old and the youngest being 22 years old. Men constituted 86.3% of all surveyed farmers. In the structure of surveyed farm managers, 40.8% of the total were people with secondary education and 31% were people with higher education. Only 2.5% had primary education. The average length of service on a farm among the surveyed farm managers was 22 years, with the maximum being 54 years, and the minimum being 1 year. In the structure of the average surveyed farm, the area of agricultural land was 28.55 ha, of which grassland accounted for 7.05 ha. The above characteristics of the surveyed farmers and the surveyed regions could have an impact on the respondents’ behavior, expectations, and perception of the surveyed items.

Figure 1. Research area [63].

Figure 1. Research area [63].

The surveyed farms were located in all counties of the surveyed voivodeships and in most communes; so, to a greater extent, the results obtained reflect the diverse agricultural conditions in Eastern Poland. The survey was anonymous, which was a condition for the respondents’ participation in it. In each of the surveyed voivodeships, the research sample included at least 100 farms. The starting point for its determination was the assumption of the sample size in general. The authors of the study concluded that interest in renewable energy should characterize commercial farms with an area of more than 10 ha of agricultural land [64], where energy consumption is usually much higher, and the benefits from renewable energy are more noticeable. It should also be emphasized that with an assumed finite population, farms with an area exceeding 10 ha of agricultural land were included [64] in individual voivodeships; with a confidence level of 95%, the minimum sample size in each voivodeship was as follows:

• Lublin voivodeship—population finite—35.2 thousand farms—sample size—96;
• Podlaskie voivodeship—population finite—35.7 thousand farms—sample size—96;
• Podkarpackie voivodeship—population finite—7.7 thousand farms—sample size—95;
• Świętokrzyskie voivodeship—population finite—10.4 thousand farms—sample size—96;
• Warmian–Masurian voivodeship—population finite—21.9 thousand farms—sample size—96.

However, the maximum research sample was equal to the general population and in individual voivodeships it was equal to the number of all agricultural farms (in the Lubelskie voivodeship—161.4 thousand; in the Podlaskie voivodeship—76.7 thousand; in the Podkarpackie voivodeship—113.9 thousand; in the Świętokrzyskie voivodeship—79.9 thousand; and in the Warmian–Masurian voivodeship—42.6 thousand). So, considering the above indicators, it was deemed appropriate to select at least 100 farms in every region of the research. The selection of the sample was therefore purposeful (non-random) and non-probabilistic (an individual from the population was included in the sample based on the interviewer’s decision according to the assumptions described above). The survey was conducted by pollsters in July and August 2022. A total of 519 surveys were carefully completed and collected. It should be noted that the study was voluntary; each respondent could resign or refuse to partake in the study at any time.

A common electronic database was used to collect the results. Respondents were asked to rate a specific phenomenon using a bipolar scale with a middle neutral value from 1 to 5, i.e., a Likert scale [65,66]. The values on the scale are marked as follows: 1 definitely not; 2—probably not; 3—neither yes nor no; 4—probably yes; 5—definitely yes. To determine the respondents’ approach to the examined items, diagnostic items were used, which are presented in Table 1. Statistical analyses of the collected material were carried out using Statistica and MS Excel programs. Basic descriptive statistics were calculated, the structure of the diagnostic item ratings was analyzed, and average ratings were calculated. As part of the exploratory research of the collected results, Ward’s cluster analysis was performed [67,68]. A simple correlation (Spearman’s r) [69,70] was also calculated between the researched items in the group of expectations related to state support instruments for the development of renewable energy sources and between the two other groups of research items included in Table 1. The conducted research was of a correlational nature; therefore, attempts were made to identify relationships between the examined items. The identification of these relationships was performed to enable the formulation of answers to the detailed research questions and the main research question. Relationships were sought between (i) motivators for installing renewable energy sources and (ii) perception of the directions of state support for renewable energy; (i) motivators for installing renewable energy sources and (iii) expectations regarding state support instruments for the development of renewable energy sources; and (ii) perception of state support for renewable energy and (iii) expectations regarding state support instruments for the development of renewable energy sources. A separate area of searching for dependencies included dependencies within individual blocks of questions (i) and (ii) and block (iii) for analyzing the dependencies between individual expectations regarding state support instruments for the development of renewable energy.

In search of an answer to the question about the role of public support in the development of renewable energy, a group of 244 farmers was selected from the entire research sample, who already had renewable energy installation on the farm. They were asked about the sources of financing for the purchase and installation of renewable energy sources and the following answer options were proposed: (a) own funds; (b) commercial loan; (c) preferential loan; or (d) investment subsidies from public funds. The respondents’ answers were grouped into two groups. One group consisted of farmers who only used their own funds or commercial loans (87 people); the second group (157 people) consisted of farmers who used public funds in the investment process (preferential loan, investment subsidy). In order to look for differences between the groups, the Mann–Whitney U test was used [68,71]. Additionally, detailed data for individual voivodeships have been compiled. The Kruskal–Wallis H test [71] was also performed to assess all surveyed items in all farms located in the five voivodeships that were in the study area. These calculations were made in order to answer the question whether, depending on the voivodeship, there are differences in farmers’ approach to the issues included in the survey questionnaire.

All obtained and analyzed research results are presented graphically and in the tables in the next section.

4. Results

4.1. Farmers’ Motivations to Use Renewable Energy Sources

The conducted research aimed to answer several detailed research questions. The first one concerned the motivators for the use of renewable energy sources by farmers. Figure 2 presents the research results regarding items concerning the motivators for installing renewable energy sources by farmers. Among the studied motivators, the strongest were high energy prices. Nearly 90% (item 4) of the surveyed farmers indicated an economic motivator as the reason for installing renewable energy sources. Energy independence was also a strong motivator, 84.2% of respondents believed that renewable energy would provide energy needs in a crisis situation (item 3). Difficulties in purchasing traditional energy carriers were also an important item (76.7%, item 5). Care for the natural environment (item 1) and health safety resulting from renewable energy sources (item 9) also turned out to be quite important motivators. The presented research shows that farmers do not treat common trends and neighborhoods patterns as a motivator (item 8), and, importantly, they do not consider the possibility of using agricultural waste for energy purposes (item 2). In the latter case, one-third of farmers (34.1%) express this possibility, while 17.3% do not take it into account.

As part of the exploratory research of the collected results, an agglomeration analysis was carried out. The results of the cluster analysis are presented in Figure 3. The collected data were divided into two clusters. Membership in individual groups, as well as mean values and standard deviations, are presented in

Table 2. Membership of items to clusters and mean rating values (M) and standard deviation (SD).

Items *	M	SD	Belonging to Clusters	Items *	M	SD	Belonging to Clusters
1	4.02	0.90	1	15	4.24	0.73	2
9	3.77	0.97	1	16	4.23	0.75	2
2	3.54	1.11	1	17	4.37	0.72	2
6	3.54	0.96	1	18	4.59	0.65	2
8	3.16	1.02	1	19	4.50	0.73	2
12	3.42	1.16	1	21	4.44	0.73	2
7	3.60	1.20	1	22	4.46	0.70	2
3	4.27	0.91	2	23	4.51	0.66	2
4	4.52	0.71	2	20	4.13	0.87	2
5	4.10	0.94	2	24	4.28	0.76	2
10	4.26	0.77	2	25	4.26	0.75	2
11	4.29	0.73	2	26	4.40	0.72	2
13	4.14	0.81	2	27	4.39	0.72	2
14	4.27	0.70	2

*—item names are presented in Table 1.

.

Cluster 1 includes a number of items related to factors motivating farmers to use renewable energy sources. These included internal motivations such as care for the environment (item 1) and health safety (item 9). Social motivations were also included, such as the popularity of the solutions offered (item 6) or social trends related to renewable energy (item 8). This agglomeration also has a high level of public funding (item 7). It is worth emphasizing that this motivator was not widely appreciated, as just over half of the respondents (53.4%) indicated that subsidies were an important motivator for obtaining energy from renewable sources. At the same time, 26.4% of respondents had a neutral attitude towards public support for renewable energy installations (Figure 2). It can therefore be concluded that the first cluster combined motivators related to axiological factors.

Among the motivators included in the first cluster, the lowest average ratings were recorded for item 8, which was related to social expectations and trends related to renewable energy, as well as for item 12, which regarded state co-financing for the purchase of electric vehicles. The remaining motivators (items 3–5) were included in the second cluster. These were economic motivations. Items 3 and 4, relating to high energy prices and energy security, received the highest average scores. Therefore, it can be concluded that practical motivations prevailed in the studied group of people.

The Spearman correlation analysis (

Table 3. Spearman correlation coefficients between the motivators for installing renewable energy sources by farmers.

Items *	1		2		3	4		5	6		7		8
2	0.2853
3	0.3040		0.3311
4	0.2609		0.2158		0.5601
5	0.2167		0.2638		0.3937	0.4808
6	0.2965		0.2685		0.1430	0.2207		0.2894
7	0.0641		0.1975		0.2352	0.1438		0.2198	0.1659
8	0.3285		0.3147		0.0988	0.1136		0.1542	0.3907		0.2665
9	0.5174		0.3390		0.3060	0.2215		0.2728	0.3290		0.3655		0.4619
no linear relationship		weak dependence		moderate dependence			quite a strong relationship			very strong dependence		statistically significant coefficients
<0.2		0.2–0.4		0.4–0.7			0.7–0.9			>0.9		p ≤ 0.05

*—item names are presented in Table 1.

) showed a number of positive relationships between farmers’ motivations to use renewable energy sources. There were moderate relationships between care for the environment (item 1) and improved health safety resulting from the development of renewable energy sources (item 9). Health security was also positively correlated with social expectations (renewable energy fashion). Similar relationships were found between item 4, which was related to high energy prices, and items 3 and 5, which were related to the stability of energy supplies and the availability of traditional energy carriers.

To sum up, it can be said that farmers’ motivations to use renewable energy sources were varied. Farmers noticed the need to care for the environment and expected that renewable energy sources would improve the condition of the natural environment and have a positive impact on human health. The surveyed farmers also pointed to renewable energy sources as a potential option to reduce the costs of increasingly expensive energy. They also expected that renewable energy would provide a stable source of energy.

4.2. Farmers’ Perception of the State’s Role in Energy Transformation

Figure 4 shows the structure of item ratings relating to the perception of the directions of state support for energy transformation. Among the ratings for all support areas, the dominant rating was “yes”, which may mean that the belief in the direction of the state’s activities in this sector was not well defined. The presented results indicate that farmers attribute a large role to state institutions and expect far-reaching interventionism. Farmers expected intervention regarding thermal modernization (item 14, 89.2%), regulations regarding the energy consumption of devices (item 11, 89.4%), and increasing the use of renewable energy (item 10, 88.8%). Only state support for the sale of electric cars (item 12) was slightly less supported by respondents (51.1%). This action was also met with the greatest opposition, with 20.4% of respondents expressing this opinion. Therefore, it can be concluded that the surveyed farmers attributed a large role to the state in the country’s energy transformation, counting on the involvement of public funds in this process. However, it is not possible to identify specific preferences of farmers, because with the exception of the above-mentioned electromobility item, all directions of state support gained over an eighty percent acceptance of respondents.

In the agglomeration analysis (Figure 3, Table 2), all items relating to the directions of state support for renewable energy (except support for electromobility) were included in the second cluster. They constituted a separate small branch, directly related to the items connected to the motivators of renewable energy development, which were included in the second cluster. This may mean that they were related to the axiological sphere. The highest averages were achieved by item 11 (the state should support the sale of electrical appliances with the highest energy efficiency standards) and item 14 (the state should support the thermal modernization of buildings). These cases had the lowest standard deviation value, indicating little dispersion in the estimates. Therefore, these were demands related to energy savings and not directly related to the development of renewable energy. Therefore, it can be concluded that the surveyed farmers treated the issue of state support for renewable energy sources both in the context of energy acquisition and in the context of energy conservation.

In order to identify the connections between farmers’ expectations regarding the role of the state in energy transformation, Spearman’s correlation analysis was performed between the items related to this issue. The calculation results are presented in

Table 4. Spearman correlation coefficients between the perception of the directions of state support for energy transformation.

Items *	10		11		12		13		14		15
11	0.6681
12	0.3491		0.3200
13	0.4798		0.5447		0.3625
14	0.4902		0.5638		0.2448		0.7323
15	0.5505		0.5583		0.3224		0.6138		0.7141
16	0.6315		0.5880		0.3367		0.5733		0.6105		0.7607
no linear relationship		weak dependence		moderate dependence		quite a strong relationship		very strong dependence		statistically significant coefficients
<0.2		0.2–0.4		0.4–0.7		0.7–0.9		>0.9		p ≤ 0.05

*—item names are presented in Table 1.

. Most of the analyzed relationships were of moderate strength. Quite strong dependencies were identified between items 13 and 14, which was related to supporting thermal modernization and the construction of energy-efficient buildings. This confirms the observations resulting from the cluster analysis. Similar dependencies were also found between items 14 and 15, and items 15 and 16. These dependencies concerned support for energy savings and support for farms using renewable energy sources.

Table 5. Spearman correlation coefficients between the motivators for installing renewable energy sources by farmers and the perception of the directions of state support for energy transformation.

Items *	10		11		12	13	14		15		16
1	0.3199		0.2945		0.2701	0.2947	0.2759		0.3107		0.3206
2	0.1554		0.0823		0.1619	0.1173	0.0762		0.1535		0.1643
3	0.3260		0.2964		0.0981	0.2317	0.2562		0.2623		0.2636
4	0.3855		0.3540		0.1155	0.3121	0.3314		0.3457		0.3719
5	0.2434		0.2060		0.1228	0.1983	0.2199		0.2339		0.2651
6	0.2411		0.1954		0.2133	0.1652	0.1912		0.2504		0.2651
7	0.1268		0.1192		0.0802	0.0364	0.0748		0.1127		0.1036
8	0.1450		0.1179		0.1944	0.1246	0.1100		0.1367		0.1646
9	0.3289		0.3183		0.2686	0.2802	0.2594		0.3144		0.3385
no linear relationship		weak dependence		moderate dependence		quite a strong relationship		very strong dependence		statistically significant coefficients
<0.2		0.2–0.4		0.4–0.7		0.7–0.9		>0.9		p ≤ 0.05

*—item names are presented in Table 1.

presents the results of Spearman’s correlation between the perception of the directions of state support in energy transformation and the factors motivating farmers to invest in renewable energy sources. All calculated coefficients were positive, which means that higher levels of motivation were associated with greater expectations of support from the state. However, the strength of these relationships was relatively low. It is worth emphasizing that no relationship was found between item 2 (possibility of managing by-products) and all items relating to state support, which indicates a separate treatment of production issues and the role of the state. This can be interpreted in terms of farmers’ lack of awareness of the possibilities of using by-products for energy purposes, which may be supported by the state.

Based on the conducted analyses, it can be concluded that the surveyed farmers attribute an important role to the state in energy transformation. Expectations of support for obtaining energy from renewable sources were identified, as well as expectations concerning state support in investments limiting energy waste. Farmers treated energy sources as a necessary factor for production, but generally they did not treat the produced products (especially by-products) as energy sources.

4.3. Farmers’ Expectations Regarding Funds and Regulations Supporting the Development of Renewable Energy

Figure 5 shows the structure of assessments regarding respondents’ expectations towards state funds and regulations for the development of renewable energy. All instruments mentioned received strong support, reflecting the fact that the opinions were overwhelmingly positive. Subsidies for renewable energy installations enjoyed the greatest support (item 18, 95.6%). Following this, the following items received the greatest support: subsidies for house insulation (item 19, 92.3%), the request to simplify the regulations related to the settlement of the sale and purchase of energy from renewable energy sources (item 23, 92.1%), as well as the request to simplify the regulations related to the purchase and installation of installations for energy production from renewable energy sources (item 22, 91.5%).

The surveyed farmers mainly expected investment subsidies, while preferential loans were received less frequently (item 20, 81.9%).

All items (17–27) relating to state support mechanisms in the agglomeration analysis were included in the second cluster (Figure 3). It should be emphasized that within the second cluster, all these items constituted a separate branch of clusters. The average ratings given by the respondents in Table 2 indicate that in this group of items, the highest rating was given to state subsidies for renewable energy installations (item 18) and the next item was the simplification of regulations related to the settlement of the sale and purchase of energy from renewable energy sources (item 23). At the same time, these were the items with the lowest standard deviation value, which indicates the consistency of assessments. The lowest average score was obtained by item 20, which was related to the provision of preferential loans by the state. It should be emphasized, however, that all average ratings were above the value of 3, which represents a neutral position; therefore, all forms of state interventionism in the area of renewable energy development were accepted by the surveyed farmers.

It can be concluded that the surveyed farmers counted more on non-repayable aid and expected the simplification of procedures regarding both the investment process and accounting for the energy produced.

Table 6. Spearman’s correlation coefficients between farmers’ expectations regarding the directions of state intervention in energy transformation and the perception of state support instruments for the development of renewable energy sources.

Items *	10		11		12	13	14		15		16
17	0.4196		0.4074		0.2186	0.4172	0.3779		0.4337		0.4273
18	0.4047		0.4301		0.1875	0.3875	0.4161		0.4043		0.3961
19	0.3341		0.3982		0.1670	0.3747	0.4527		0.3963		0.3651
20	0.2317		0.2806		0.2736	0.2605	0.2041		0.3292		0.2875
21	0.3628		0.3575		0.2424	0.3421	0.3388		0.3813		0.3645
22	0.3087		0.3019		0.1383	0.3140	0.3413		0.3636		0.3335
23	0.3935		0.3597		0.1493	0.3735	0.3733		0.4263		0.3664
24	0.3404		0.3645		0.2049	0.4006	0.3883		0.4045		0.3615
25	0.3371		0.3489		0.2334	0.4066	0.3786		0.4164		0.3726
26	0.4441		0.4593		0.2153	0.4021	0.4133		0.4756		0.4599
27	0.3866		0.4336		0.1911	0.3252	0.3486		0.3904		0.3986
no linear relationship		weak dependence		moderate dependence		quite a strong relationship		very strong dependence		statistically significant coefficients
<0.2		0.2–0.4		0.4–0.7		0.7–0.9		>0.9		p ≤ 0.05

*—item names are presented in Table 1.

presents Spearman’s correlation coefficients between farmers’ expectations regarding the directions of state intervention in energy transformation and the perception of state support instruments for the development of renewable energy sources. Analyzing the data contained in this table, one can notice a number of correlations with moderate strength. In the context of the study group, item 15 (the state should support farms that strive to save energy) was very important. Positive correlation coefficients of this item were calculated with the demand for the state to provide relief for renewable energy producers (item 17), the expectation of subsidies for the purchase of renewable energy installations (item 18), as well as with regulatory activities such as simplifying regulations regarding renewable energy (item 23), the dissemination of knowledge and good practices in the field of production (item 24), the use of energy from renewable energy sources (item 25), and the demand for the modernization of power grids (item 26). It is interesting that weaker relationships were identified between the mechanisms of state support for renewable energy and demands relating to sources of financing such as providing preferential loans (item 20) or ensuring lower energy prices for RES users (item 21). This may indicate that the directions of state support for energy transformation are not only identified with funds intended for the creation of new renewable energy installations.

An analysis of the dependencies between the assessments of individual state support instruments for the development of renewable energy sources is presented in

Table 7. Spearman correlation coefficients between items regarding farmers’ expectations concerning instruments of state support for the development of renewable energy sources.

Items *	17		18	19		20	21		22	23		24	25		26
18	0.6028
19	0.5700		0.7171
20	0.4124		0.3803	0.4579
21	0.5733		0.5529	0.5827		0.4718
22	0.5333		0.5331	0.5825		0.3866	0.6474
23	0.5254		0.5449	0.5404		0.4126	0.6199		0.7870
24	0.5021		0.4113	0.4962		0.4245	0.4866		0.5440	0.5092
25	0.5061		0.4025	0.4712		0.4285	0.5032		0.5203	0.4928		0.8577
26	0.5208		0.4516	0.4613		0.3412	0.4819		0.5009	0.5182		0.5466	0.5735
27	0.5020		0.4286	0.4299		0.3660	0.4817		0.4556	0.5140		0.5329	0.5313		0.7133
no linear relationship		weak dependence			moderate dependence			quite a strong relationship			very strong dependence			statistically significant coefficients
<0.2		0.2–0.4			0.4–0.7			0.7–0.9			>0.9			p ≤ 0.05

*—item names are presented in Table 1.

. Quite strong dependencies were calculated between the proposal to provide subsidies for renewable energy installations (item 18) and the provision of subsidies for the thermal modernization of houses (item 19). Another group of correlated demands concerned the simplification of procedures for the purchase and installation of installations for obtaining energy from renewable sources (item 22) and the settlement of sales and purchases of renewable energy (item 23). Another area in which quite strong relationships were identified was educational considerations related to renewable energy. Item 24, which regarded the dissemination of knowledge, was correlated with item 25, which regarded the dissemination of good practices in this area. Finally, last but not least, there was a correlation between the demand for the modernization of the power grid (item 26) and the demand for the state to build energy storage facilities (item 27).

The analysis of the data contained in Table 7 indicates that farmers’ expectations regarding state support for renewable energy can be divided into several groups. They concern the financing of renewable energy installations, regulations regarding the settlement of energy production from renewable sources, the dissemination of knowledge and good practices related to renewable energy sources, as well as infrastructure activities in the field of energy transmission and storage.

In the context of public sources of financing the development of renewable energy, a separate analysis was carried out. Differences in the assessment of individual items by farmers with renewable energy installations were sought, depending on the sources from which these installations were financed. In the surveyed group, 244 farmers had a renewable energy installation. Two groups were distinguished: (1) farmers who financed the installations exclusively from their own funds; (2) farmers who used public funds in the investment process. The number of farmers with RES installations, broken down in terms of the form of financing and location in individual voivodeships, is presented in

Table 8. Number of farmers with renewable energy installations broken down in terms of the form of financing and location in individual voivodeships.

Voivodeship	Number of RES Installations	Only Own Funds	Share of Public Funds
podlaskie	37	9	28
podkarpackie	62	25	37
Warmińsko–mazurskie	25	16	9
lubelskie	65	16	49
świętokrzyskie	55	21	34
Total	244	87	157

.

The Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare the groups, the results of which are presented in

Table 9. Differences in the assessment of individual items between groups of investors due to the use of public funds—Mann–Whitney U test (N = 244).

Items 1	Z	p-Value	Items *	Z	p-Value
1	0.3399	0.7339	15	−0.5425	0.5875
2	0.3787	0.7049	16	−0.0076	0.9940
3	−0.6827	0.4948	17	1.2631	0.2066
4	−0.1629	0.8706	18	1.2706	0.2039
5	−1.2820	0.1998	19	1.0406	0.2981
6	0.4289	0.6680	20	0.4289	0.6680
7	−2.9967	0.0027 *	21	1.2877	0.1979
8	−0.9165	0.3594	22	1.9505	0.0511
9	0.0748	0.9404	23	0.8768	0.3806
10	0.6950	0.4871	24	1.4704	0.1415
11	−0.8626	0.3884	25	1.4051	0.1600
12	−1.2810	0.2002	26	0.0284	0.9773
13	−1.5007	0.1334	27	1.6901	0.0910
14	−0.9553	0.3394

¹—item names are presented in Table 1; *—statistically significant coefficients (p < 0.05); Z—Mann–Whitney U test value for groups larger than N = 20.

. Analyzing the data in this table, it can be concluded that the assessments of most items did not differ between groups of farmers financing their RES installations in different ways. Only the assessments of the motivators for investing in renewable energy in the form of a high level of funding (item 7) were varied. Figure 6 shows a categorized graph of the average scores for this item. The data presented in this figure confirm an obvious relationship: investors who only used their own funds rated the motivator to invest in the form of a high level of public funding lower. Investors who used the public funds component rated this type of motivation higher.

The surveyed farmers highly assessed the need for state support in the development of renewable energy. Respondents expected subsidies and tax breaks to support investing in renewable energy. At the same time, they pointed out the need to simplify legal regulations regarding both the investment process and the accounting of energy produced. Farmers expected financial support from the state in the process of investing in renewable energy. However, among owners of such installations, the perception of the examined issues did not differ depending on the sources of financing.

4.4. Spatial Diversity of the Studied Phenomena

The research was conducted in five voivodeships, which are diverse in many respects, ranging from climatic and soil conditions to economic, social, and historical differences. In order to identify differences in the assessment of individual items between the examined voivodeships, the Kruskal–Wallis H test was used, and the results of this analysis are presented in

Table 10. Differences in the assessment of individual items depending on the respondents’ residence in the studied regions—Kruskal–Wallis H test (N = 519).

Items 1	H Test Result	Items 1	H Test Result
1	H (4, N = 519) = 11.328 p = 0.0231 *	15	H (4, N = 519) = 15.280 p = 0.0042 *
2	H (4, N = 519) = 19.902 p = 0.0005 *	16	H (4, N = 519) = 24.769 p = 0.0001 *
3	H (4, N = 519) = 10.913 p = 0.0275 *	17	H (4, N = 519) = 6.3411 p = 0.1751
4	H (4, N = 519) = 11.029 p = 0.0262 *	18	H (4, N = 519) = 1.506 p = 0.8256
5	H (4, N = 519) = 10.002 p = 0.0404 *	19	H (4, N = 519) = 7.590 p = 0.1078
6	H (4, N = 519) = 18.16 p = 0.0011 *	20	H (4, N = 519) = 8.568 p = 0.0729
7	H (4, N = 519) = 5.692 p = 0.2234	21	H (4, N = 519) = 11.527 p = 0.0212 *
8	H (4, N = 519) = 7.871 p = 0.0964	22	H (4, N = 519) = 4.324 p = 0.3639
9	H (4, N = 519) = 10.958 p = 0.0270 *	23	H (4, N = 519) = 7.035 p = 0.1340
10	H (4, N = 519) = 15.093 p = 0.0045 *	24	H (4, N = 519) = 8.246 p = 0.0830
11	H (4, N = 519) = 9.060 p = 0.0596	25	H (4, N = 519) = 8.860 p = 0.0647
12	H (4, N = 519) = 4.174 p = 0.3830	26	H (4, N = 519) = 9.104 p = 0.0586
13	H (4, N = 519) = 8.523627 p = 0.0742	27	H (4, N = 519) = 5.855 p = 0.2102
14	H (4, N = 519) = 10.391 p = 0.0343 *

¹—item names are presented in Table 1; *—statistically significant coefficients (p < 0.05).

. In order to graphically illustrate the results, Figure 7 presents categorized charts of the average assessment of the examined items in individual voivodeships. The charts show the ratings of only those items whose ratings were statistically significantly different spatially.

A number of differences were identified among the motivators for installing renewable energy sources between the studied voivodeships (Figure 7a). The highest average ratings were recorded in the Świętokrzyskie voivodeship. In the Podlaskie and Warmian–Masurian voivodeships, the average ratings of the surveyed motivators were lower than in the other voivodeships. Farmers in the Warmian–Masurian voivodeship rated the popularity of renewable energy installations among their friends as the lowest. The highest rating for this item was in the Podkarpackie voivodeship. However, the possibility of using by-products for energy purposes received the lowest average score in the Podlaskie voivodeship. Health safety resulting from the technical solutions of renewable energy installations and difficulties with purchasing traditional energy carriers was rated the highest in the Świętokrzyskie voivodeship.

Figure 7b presents a categorized chart of item means relating to the perception of the directions of state support for energy transformation and expectations regarding state financial and organizational support. In this case, the average ratings for the examined items were again the highest in the Świętokrzyskie voivodeship, while the lowest ratings were in the Podlaskie and Warmian–Masurian voivodeships.

The lowest average of item 16, which was related to state support for farms using renewable energy sources, was recorded in the Warmian–Masurian voivodeship. Similarly, in this voivodeship, the highest rating was given to the demand for the state to ensure lower energy prices for renewable energy producers (item 21), as well as the demand for state support for farms that strive to save energy (item 15). These data indicate that farmers in this voivodeship expect state intervention in the field of renewable energy to a lesser extent than in the other surveyed voivodeships.

The spatial diversity of the studied items was so significant that the authors of this article intend to subject this issue to an extended analysis in a future article.

4.5. Summary of Results

The research conducted allowed for answers to the detailed research questions.

Ad 1. Among farmers’ motivation to obtain energy from renewable sources, the main motivators were high energy prices, concern for energy independence, and difficulties in obtaining traditional energy carriers. As confirmed by the calculated correlations, the practical motivations listed here were interrelated with moderate strength. The surveyed farmers appreciated the motivators related to improving the quality of the environment and health, but practical factors were the main motivations for obtaining energy from renewable sources. However, one of the less important motivators was the popularity of renewable energy among friends and family.

Ad. 2. Among the directions of state support, the most emphasized was the popularization of energy-saving devices and the thermal modernization of buildings. The expected directions of state support for development trends were internally consistent, which was confirmed from the correlation analysis. Respondents indicated the need to build new buildings with high energy efficiency standards and at the same time emphasized the need to carry out the thermal modernization of old buildings. Farmers expected support for farms that take actions to reduce energy consumption and use renewable energy sources.

Ad. 3. Regarding the methods of state aid in the development of renewable energy, the surveyed farmers primarily expected subsidies for the purchase of renewable energy installations. At the same time, it should be emphasized that there were a significant number of respondents who had already invested in renewable energy installations with their own funds without the participation of public funds. However, farmers who benefited from the subsidy demanded an increase in the level of subsidies for renewable energy installations. The study group also raised the demand to increase public funds allocated to the thermal modernization of buildings. Farmers indicated the need to carry out such investments and at the same time reported the need for public funds to participate in these projects. The analysis of correlations between expectations regarding state support showed that they are consistent and logical. Farmers expected subsidies for renewable energy installations and, on the other hand, for thermal modernization. This indicates the awareness of the need for a comprehensive approach to the issue of obtaining and saving energy.

Ad. 4. As a result of the research, numerous spatial differences in the perception of the examined items were identified. High energy prices, a strong motivator for investing in renewable energy sources, showed statistically significant but moderate differences between the studied voivodeships. However, less important motivations such as the popularity of renewable energy among friends and family showed strong differences between regions. Similarly, motivation related to the difficulty of purchasing traditional energy carriers showed great differences between voivodeships. Many differences between the studied regions were found in relation to the perception of the state’s role in the development of renewable energy and energy transformation. In the Podlaskie and Warmian–Masurian voivodeships, the surveyed farmers attributed less importance to the role of the state in energy transformation processes, including the development of renewable energy. However, in the Świętokrzyskie, Lublin, and Podkarpackie voivodeships, the role of the state and support from public funds were more important to the surveyed people. Therefore, it can be concluded that in the northern part of the study area, the role of the state and public funds were less important for farmers than in the southern part of investigated regions.

In response to the main research question, “What is the importance of public funds in motivating farmers to invest in renewable energy technologies?”, the perception of motivators and the role of the state in the development of renewable energy were presented. Based on the collected results, it can be concluded that the surveyed farmers expected support from public funds, both for investments in renewable energy installations and in expected co-financing for activities related to energy conservation. At the same time, nearly 36% of farmers covered the costs of renewable energy installations exclusively from their own funds. Therefore, it can be concluded that the surveyed farmers reported the need for funding for renewable energy, but some of them were willing to bear all investment costs. The analysis of the numerical material showed that the expectation of a high level of state funding was growing among people who used public funds (item 7).

5. Discussion

The research conducted primarily indicates that of the 519 farms surveyed, almost half (47%) have RES installations. It should be clearly emphasized that these are commercial farms for which agricultural production is the main source of income. This means that the dissemination of technologies related to distributed renewable energy is the context of the purpose of this study, which is to assess the role of public funds in the development of renewable energy in agriculture and to seek answers to the main research question: “What is the importance of public funds in motivating farmers to invest in renewable energy technologies?”. First of all, we should look at the basic motives that encourage farmers to decide to invest in renewable energy. The conducted research shows that, in the opinion of the surveyed farmers, these reasons include the following: high energy prices (89.8%), energy independence (84.2%), and difficulties in purchasing traditional energy carriers (76.7%).

Generally, these factors are related to the phenomenon that can referred to as the energy security of farms. Its level is usually higher in conditions of stable prices and supplies of basic energy carriers. In conditions of energy crisis, inflation, or energy poverty, this security takes on a completely different meaning, especially considering the need for the constant energy supplies necessary for agricultural production. These results differ slightly from those obtained by another author [72], who examined the interest of 230 farmers from the Pomeranian and Kuyavian–Pomeranian voivodeships in investing in renewable energy. Her research shows that more than half of the surveyed farmers indicated that the most important motive was the possibility of reducing maintenance costs, both on the farm and in the household. Research by [73] conducted in the Warmian–Masurian voivodeship showed that according to over 72% of respondents, the most important motive is care for the environment, and 69.5% of respondents indicated energy independence in the event of a power outage. In turn, other authors [74], in their research conducted among Czech farmers, found a significant discrepancy between the declared personal attitudes of farmers (maintaining the traditional view that farmers should produce only food) and the actual practice of farming (engaging in the production of renewable energy for economic reasons). Similarly, research [75] shows that the production of renewable energy was a source of additional income on farms for 11.76% of the surveyed farms. Therefore, in both cases, there is a different purpose for investing in renewable energy. The first one is more about the self-consumption of the energy produced and the savings associated with it. Renewable energy sources in the form of solar energy, biomass, wind, and geothermal energy are widely available in the agricultural sector, and the use of renewable energy sources on the farm can help agricultural producers save energy costs [19]. In the second case, however, it is more about selling the produced carriers and/or energy and obtaining additional income alternative to agricultural production.

Most studies [76,77,78,79] show that one of the most important motivators encouraging farmers to invest in renewable energy is support from public funds. In this context, what is surprising is the relatively low assessment of the high level of funding, which was indicated by only 53% of respondents in the research. Similar results were obtained by other authors [73]. However, in some research [56], subsidies were rated lower than energy cost reductions. At the same time, 26.4% of respondents were indifferent towards public support for renewable energy installations. This is the result of the fact that the surveyed sample included a high percentage of farmers (35.6%) who financed investments in renewable energy from their own funds. This is confirmed by the Mann–Whitney U test, which was used to compare the assessments of two groups: farmers who financed investments in renewable energy from their own funds and farmers who co-financed investments with public funds (Table 9, Figure 6). Farmers who financed such an investment with their own funds attach less importance to financing renewable energy from public funds on farms. This means that the mere fact of obtaining support from public funds does not always determine farmers’ decisions regarding the development of renewable energy on the farm. Sometimes, market incentives are related to this factor, and as the results indicate, this is the case with the examined sample. High energy prices were indicated by almost 90% of surveyed farmers as the most important motivator for investing in renewable energy. Similar observations were made by other authors [40,80] who, in their research, showed that although the price of energy does not affect the size of the installed RES installations, it does have a significant impact on the investment decision itself.

Although according to the surveyed farmers, high subsidies are not the most important factor encouraging them to invest in renewable energy, they believe that the state should support various activities as part of energy transformation policy. Almost all surveyed farmers (approx. 90%) agreed with this statement. This especially concerns supporting farms using energy from renewable energy sources or striving to reduce energy losses, renovating and constructing buildings in accordance with energy saving requirements, selling equipment with the highest energy-saving standards, and increasing the share of energy production based on renewable energy sources. Only the sale of electric or hybrid cars was supported by 50% of respondents. At the same time, a high correlation was found between assigning a large role to the state in supporting the energy transformation and the instruments through which this support should be implemented. Over 90% of respondents were in favor of subsidies for investments in renewable energy sources, for insulating houses, reducing energy prices for renewable energy producers, simplifying regulations related to investments in renewable energy sources, settling the sale and purchase of energy from renewable energy sources, disseminating knowledge and good practices, and modernizing transmission lines and the construction of energy storage facilities. Tax reliefs were also highly rated as an instrument to support the energy transformation, although, in principle, the possibilities of using these reliefs in the current taxation system of Polish agriculture are very limited [81]. Against this background, slightly lower ratings were assigned to preferential loans, which is understandable due to the repayable nature of this instrument.

It is worth paying attention to the controversial results regarding the possibility of using by-products of agricultural production, which farmers were asked about in connection with the identification of motivators for investing in renewable energy. Half of them believe that this factor is important, but 17.3% believe that it has no impact on farmers’ decisions. At the same time, it is worth emphasizing that no relationship was found between item 2 (possibility of managing by-products) and all items relating to state support, which indicates a separate treatment of production issues and the role of the state. Considering the strategic goals of agricultural policy investment support for agricultural farms in the field of renewable energy and energy efficiency improvement, it is assumed that waste and residues from agricultural production will be used [82]. In this context, the development of micro-biogas plants adapted to the needs of agricultural production in small and medium-sized family farms is particularly important, because the management of excrement from animal production in micro-biogas plants will not only cover the energy needs of farms, but will also reduce the impact of agriculture through the use of post-fermentation products such as fertilizers on the natural environment (reduction of emissions, lower use of mineral fertilizers). It is worth adding that Poland has large resources of waste biomass available in every region and the most energy from solid waste biomass or biomass grown on fallow lands, wastelands, unused meadows, as well as utilization biogas can be obtained annually in the Wielkopolskie and Masovian voivodeships (over 20 PJ/year). Most voivodeships in Eastern Poland are in the medium range, i.e., between 10 and 20 PJ/year [83]. This is also confirmed by research [84], which shows that most developed countries, including the USA, Canada, China, and Poland, will switch to renewable energy including agricultural biomass. The technical and economic analysis conducted by the above authors indicates the direction of using agricultural biomass as a competitive energy source. However, in light of the results obtained in this research, these possibilities seem limited, which raises the need to revise the objectives or instruments of agricultural policy implementation, which will take into account the objectives of energy policy. Similar problems occur in Lithuania [85].

6. Summary and Conclusions

Agriculture is an economic sector that is particularly suited to the development of distributed renewable energy. This is due to several reasons. Firstly, it has enormous potential in terms of renewable energy resources, and this applies not only to sun, wind, and water, but also to biomass. Secondly, technological progress taking place in agriculture causes an increase in the demand for constant energy supplies and the significant dispersion of farms. Their distance from places of energy production means that these farms are increasingly affected by the problem of energy poverty. Thirdly, as a sector generating negative environmental effects, in order to ensure more sustainable conditions for the production of safe food, it should be based on clean energy, energy-saving technologies, and improved energy efficiency. Fourthly and finally, the production of distributed energy from renewable sources increases the resistance of farms to shocks related to the functioning of the market and geopolitical mechanisms (energy crisis, increase in energy prices, problems with purchasing basic energy carriers).

Research by many authors indicates that one of the significant barriers to the development of renewable energy, including in agriculture, is still the high costs of installations for the production of renewable energy, although they have been decreasing in recent years. Therefore, with the emphasis of modern governments on accelerating the implementation of the goals of climate transformation and the accompanying energy transformation, including increasing the share of renewable energy in the energy mix, state financial support is needed for investments made by households, enterprises, and farms. Currently, they must cope with higher energy prices, geopolitical instability, and concerns about energy justice. Meanwhile, the success of energy transformation depends increasingly on their involvement. In this context, assessing the role of public funds in financing the development of renewable energy in agriculture becomes particularly important.

The research conducted in response to detailed research questions allowed for the following conclusions to be formulated:

• The most important motivators encouraging the surveyed farmers to obtain energy from renewable sources are market incentives, especially high energy prices and problems with traditional energy carriers (coal, gas). Energy independence is also important. The following motivators were rated relatively low: the availability of renewable energy sources among neighbors, the possibility of managing waste from the farm, and, contrary to studies by other authors, the high level of subsidies.
• In solving climate and energy transformation problems, according to the vast majority of respondents, the state should play a huge role. The most important activities requiring its support include the following: investments in renewable energy sources, the insulation of houses, the construction of buildings with high standards of thermal and energy efficiency, and the sale of devices with such standards.
• In terms of supporting the development of renewable energy sources, the surveyed farmers expect appropriate regulations, financial support in the form of direct instruments (subsidies), indirect impact support (tax reliefs, preferential loans), technological support (e.g., construction of energy storage facilities, modernization of transmission networks), and educational support (promotion of good practices in the field of renewable energy) from the state. It is important that many strong relationships have been demonstrated between farmers’ expectations regarding the instruments of state support for the development of renewable energy sources and the perception of actions taken by the state to support energy transformation. Similarly, most of the relationships between the assessments of instruments supporting the use of renewable energy were strong and statistically significant. However, no statistical differences were found in farmers’ assessments depending on the source of financing for renewable energy.
• The spatial and structural diversity of agriculture affects farmers’ opinions on renewable energy, and the research conducted showed statistically significant differences between the opinions of the surveyed farmers regarding motivators to invest in renewable energy, the perception of the role of the state and society, as well as instruments used in the energy transformation process in five voivodeships of Eastern Poland. The lowest ratings for most items were given by farmers from the Warmian–Masurian and Podlaskie voivodeships, which means that they expect support from public funds to a lesser extent. At the same time, it is worth adding that these voivodeships had the relatively highest percentage of farmers who financed investments in renewable energy sources from their own funds.
• In response to the main research question and in connection with the verification of the research hypothesis, 244 respondents were identified who already had RES installations (47% of all respondents). The analysis showed no statistically significant differences in the assessment of individual motivators between groups of investors depending on the use of public funds. The only exception was the evaluation of the motivator in the form of a high level of funding. This was rated higher by those farmers who benefited from public support. Their percentage among those with renewable energy installations was 65%. Since the remaining owners of renewable energy installations (over one-third of the total) financed the investments from their own funds, it seems that the answer to the question cannot be unambiguous. However, in combination with the impact of other motivators, it can be concluded that public funds have triggered the process of the diffusion of renewable energy in agriculture in Eastern Poland but are not a necessary condition for farmers to make investment decisions.

In the context of the conducted research, the high share of farmers financing investments from their own funds should be assessed positively. Although the question of whether these investments will only serve farmers’ own needs in the field of energy production or also serve to achieve additional income cannot be assessed, the popularity of market models may unlock the potential to produce energy for sale [86]. This is important because the analysis of current support instruments shows that it will only apply to farmers who intend to use renewable energy technologies to produce energy for their own needs. It seems that these restrictions will not serve to accelerate the development of renewable energy in agriculture or concentrate significant resources on biomass and waste utilization technologies that make economic sense on a larger scale of production. These conclusions may constitute recommendations for the policy of supporting renewable energy in agriculture.

Finally, it is worth mentioning the limitations related to the conducted research. They result primarily from the specificity of the method used—survey research is always subject to errors related to the subjectivity of the answers provided. Moreover, purposeful and non-probabilistic sampling requires a careful approach to the interpretation of results and the drawing of conclusions. Undoubtedly, one of the most important limitations is the fact that the research was conducted during the year of the COVID-19 pandemic and the beginning of the war in Ukraine, the results of which led to an energy crisis, price increases, and shortages of basic energy carriers. It is possible that as a result, farmers’ perception of renewable energy and the role of public funds in stimulating its development has been distorted. The above-mentioned limitations indicate the need to repeat the research in the future. However, the observed significant differences in farmers’ assessments in individual voivodeships of the studied macro-region require in-depth further research.