Acceptance and Potential of Renewable Energy Sources Based on Biomass in Rural Areas of Hungary
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Research Area
2.2. Survey
2.3. Dataset and Variables
2.4. Statistical Method
3. Results
3.1. Characteristics of the Sample
3.2. Personal Profiles
3.3. Specific Profiles
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Variable | Description of the Variable | Groups of Categorical Variable |
---|---|---|
gender | Respondent’s gender | MALE; FEMALE |
age | Respondent’s age | [<30]; [30–60]; [>60] |
residence | Respondent’s place of residence 10 settlements of the Koppany Valley were divided into three groups according to their geographical location. Western part including respondents living in Fiad, Kisbárapáti and Bonnya; Eastern part including respondents living in Törökkoppány, Koppányszántó and Szorosad; Middle part including respondents living in Somogyacsa, Somogydöröcske, Kara, and Miklósi | WEST; EAST; MIDDLE |
years.of.living | The number of years of living at the local residence | [<10]; [>10] |
education | Respondent’s level of education “Primary” (finished primary school at least), “high school” (obtained high school diploma), “university degree” (obtained higher education diploma) | PRIMARY; HIGH SCHOOL; UNIVERSITY DEGREE |
occupation | Respondent’s occupation type “Active” (including employed, self-employed, private producer respondents), “nonactive, homestay” (including retired, full-time mother respondents) and “dependent” (including unemployed, student, public worker status respondents) | ACTIVE; NONACTIVE, HOMESTAY; DEPENDENT |
trust.to.mayor | Respondent’s willingness to support local mayor’s decision to install biogas power plant at the local residence place | YES; NO; MAYBE |
Variable | Description of the Variable | Groups of Categorical Variable |
---|---|---|
own.plant | Existence of respondent’s own or rented land with plant origin on it (at least one of these: orchard, vineyard, forest, vegetable beds, grassland, cropland) | YES; NO |
own.animal | Existence of respondent’s own or rented livestock animals (at least one of these: cattle, pig, poultry, sheep, horse, rabbit) | YES; NO |
biomass.knowledge | Stated knowledge of respondent about the term “biomass” | YES; NO |
willingness.to.collect | Stated respondent’s willingness to collect plant residues at the local residence place in order to feed proposed biogas power plant | YES; NO |
energy.crops.knowledge | Stated knowledge of respondent about the term “energy crops” | YES; NO |
climate.change.knowledge | Stated knowledge of respondent about the term “climate change” | YES; NO |
Appendix B. Categories of Explanatory Variables and Distribution of Respondents
Category | Q 8. Have You Heard about Climate Change Before? % (n) |
0 | 5% (17) |
1 | 93% (287) |
n.a. | 2% (6) |
Total | 100% (310) |
Category | Q 18. Do You Know What Biomass Is? % (n) |
0 | 38% (117) |
1 | 60% (184) |
n.a. | 2% (8) |
Total | 100% (309) |
Category | Q 26. Would You Like to Have a Biogas Plant Installed in Your Microregion? % (n) |
n.a. | 4% (11) |
0—NO | 19% (58) |
1—YES | 34% (106) |
2—MAYBE | 43% (133) |
Total | 100% (308) |
Category | Q17. Would You Pay for Green Energy? (Agreement: 1 Least–5 Most) % (n) |
1 | 15% (42) |
2 | 15% (48) |
3 | 35% (110) |
4 | 15% (48) |
5 | 13% (40) |
n.a. | 7% (22) |
Total | 100% (310) |
mean | 2.98 |
median | 3 |
mode | 3 |
st. dev. | 1.22 |
Category | Q 29. Do You Know the Term Energy Crops? % (n) |
0—NO | 44% (136) |
1—YES | 54% (168) |
n.a. | 2% (6) |
Total | 100% (310) |
Category | Q 32. If the Mayor of Your Village Decides to Build a Biogas Plant, Would it Support Your Decision? % (n) |
0—NO | 9% (29) |
1—YES | 41% (127) |
2—MAYBE | 42% (129) |
n.a. | 8% (25) |
Total | 100% (310) |
Category | Gender % (n) |
1—male | 43% (134) |
2—female | 56% (173) |
n.a. | 1% (3) |
Total | 100% (310) |
Category | Age % (n) |
<18 | 1% (4) |
19–30 | 11% (34) |
31–45 | 29% (89) |
46–60 | 37% (114) |
>60 | 21% (64) |
n.a. | 1% (5) |
Total | 100% (310) |
Category | Settlement % (n) |
Törökkoppány | 20% (63) |
Fiad | 8% (24) |
Kisbárapáti | 14% (42) |
Bonnya | 5% (16) |
Somogyacsa | 9% (27) |
Somogydöröcske | 7% (23) |
Szorosad | 5% (16) |
Kara | 1% (3) |
Miklósi | 10% (32) |
Koppányszántó | 18% (55) |
n.a. | 3% (9) |
Total | 100% (310) |
Category | Living Years % (n) |
1–5 | 6% (19) |
6–10 | 9% (28) |
11–20 | 20% (63) |
>20 | 62% (191) |
n.a. | 3% (9) |
Total | 100% (310) |
Category | Education % (n) |
None | 2% (6) |
Primary | 16% (51) |
Vocational | 33% (101) |
High school | 32% (99) |
Higher education / diploma | 16% (49) |
n.a. | 1 (4) |
Total | 100% (310) |
Category | Occupation % (n) |
Pupil/student | 5% (16) |
Employed | 49% (153) |
Unemployed/Public worker | 11% (34) |
Pensioner | 21% (65) |
Full time mother (equivalent) | 3% (8) |
Self-employed | 9% (28) |
n.a. | 2% (5) |
Total | 100% (309) |
Category | Producing Crops/Plants % (n) | Keeps Animals % (n) |
No | 7% (23) | 43% (133) |
Yes | 93% (287) | 57% (177) |
Total | 100% (310) | 100% (310) |
Appendix C. Multicollinearity Test for Explanatory Variables
Personal Factors | VIF |
---|---|
age | 2.109581 |
education | 1.290215 |
gender | 1.040686 |
occupation | 2.058305 |
residence | 1.129471 |
trust.to.mayor | 1.164983 |
years.of.living | 1.124966 |
Specific Factors | VIF |
---|---|
biomass.knowledge | 1.300715 |
climate.change.knowledge | 1.070524 |
energy.crops.knowledge | 1.333261 |
own.animal * | 1.106201 |
own.plant | 1.088000 |
willingness.to.collect | 1.050231 |
biomass.knowledge | 1.300715 |
References
- European Commission. A Clean Planet for All. A European Strategic Long-Term Vision for a Prosperous, Modern, Competitive and Climate Neutral Economy; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry for Innovation and Technology Hungary. National Energy and Climate Plan; Ministry for Innovation and Technology Hungary: Budapest, Hungary, 2020. (In Hungarian) [Google Scholar]
- Pehlken, A.; Wulf, K.; Grecksch, K.; Klenke, T.; Tsydenova, N. More Sustainable Bioenergy by Making Use of Regional Alternative Biomass? Sustainability 2020, 12, 7849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaya, O.; Florkowski, W.J.; Us, A.; Klepacka, A.M. Renewable Energy Perception by Rural Residents of a Peripheral EU Region. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gottinger, A.; Ladu, L.; Quitzow, R. Studying the Transition towards a Circular Bioeconomy—Systematic Literature Review on Transition Studies and Existing Barriers. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berényi, L.; Birkner, Z.; Deutsch, N. A Multidimensional Evaluation of Renewable and Nuclear Energy among Higher Education Students. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van Rijnsoever, F.J.; Van Mossel, A.; Broecks, K.P. Public acceptance of energy technologies: The effects of labeling, time, and heterogeneity in a discrete choice experiment. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 45, 817–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rosso-Cerón, A.M.; Kafarov, V. Barriers to social acceptance of renewable energy systems in Colombia. Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 2015, 10, 103–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, B.; Zhang, L. A Survey of Opinion Mining and Sentiment Analysis. In Mining Text Data; Aggarwal, C., Zhai, C., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Terwel, B.W.; Harinck, F.; Ellemers, N.; Daamen, D.D. Going beyond the properties of CO2 capture and storage (CCS) technology: How trust in stakeholders affects public acceptance of CCS. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2011, 5, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dütschke, E. What drives local public acceptance—Comparing two cases from Germany. Energy Procedia 2011, 4, 6234–6240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fouché, E.; Brent, A. Explore, design and act for sustainability: A participatory planning approach for local energy sustainability. Sustainability 2020, 12, 862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Segreto, M.; Principe, L.; Desormeaux, A.; Torre, M.; Tomassetti, L.; Tratzi, P.; Paolini, V.; Petracchini, F. Trends in social acceptance of renewable energy across Europe—A literature review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 9161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kardooni, R.; Yusoff, S.B.; Kari, F.B. Renewable energy technology acceptance in Peninsular Malaysia. Energy Policy 2016, 88, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bauwens, T.; Devine-Wright, P. Positive energies? An empirical study of community energy participation and attitudes to renewable energy. Energy Policy 2018, 18, 612–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahzalal, M.; Hassan, A. Communicating sustainability: Using community media to influence rural people’s intention to adopt sustainable behaviour. Sustainability 2019, 11, 812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- van der Waal, E.C.; van der Windt, H.J.; van Oost, E.C.J. How local energy initiatives develop technological innovations: Growing an actor network. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gutiérrez-Pedrero, M.J.; Ruiz-Fuensanta, M.J.; Tarancón, M.Á. Regional factors driving the deployment of wind energy in Spain. Energies 2020, 13, 3590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giuliano, A.; Gioiella, F.; Sofia, D.; Lotrecchiano, N. A novel methodology and technology to promote the social acceptance of biomass power plants avoiding nimby syndrome. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2018, 67, 307–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bujdosó, Z.; Patkós, C.; Kovács, T.; Radics, Z. Theoretical approach of a possible value-added chain in the biomass industry in rural areas giving the example of a Hungarian Microregion. Int. J. Agric. Manag. Dev. (IJAMAD) 2013, 3, 65–71. [Google Scholar]
- Western, J.M.; Cheng, A.S.; Anderson, N.M.; Motley, P. Examining the social acceptability of forest biomass harvesting and utilization from collaborative forest landscape restoration: A case study from western Colorado, USA. J. For. 2017, 115, 530–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Németh, K.; Birkner, Z.; Katona, A.; Göllény-Kovács, N.; Bai, A.; Balogh, P.; Gabnai, Z.; Péter, E. Can Energy be a “Local Product” Again? Hungarian Case Study. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bai, A.; Durkó, E.; Tar, K.; Tóth, J.B.; Lázár, I.; Kapocska, L.; Kircsi, A.; Bartók, B.; Vass, R.; Pénzes, J.; et al. Social and economic possibilities for the energy utilization of fitomass in the valley of the river Hernád. Renew. Energy 2016, 85, 777–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kulišić, B.; Radić, T.; Njavro, M. Agro-Pruning for Energy as a Link between Rural Development and Clean Energy Policies. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muradin, M.; Foltynowicz, Z. Potential for Producing Biogas from Agricultural Waste in Rural Plants in Poland. Sustainability 2014, 6, 5065–5074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Filianoti, P.; Gurnari, L. A Field Experiment on Wave Forces on an Energy-Absorbing Breakwater. Energies 2020, 13, 1563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Soltero, V.M.; Chacartegui, R.; Ortiz, C.; Lizana, J.; Quirosa, G. Biomass District Heating Systems Based on Agriculture Residues. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Makki, A.A.; Mosly, I. Factors Affecting Public Willingness to Adopt Renewable Energy Technologies: An Exploratory Analysis. Sustainability 2020, 12, 845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Filep-Kovács, K.; Sallay, Á.; Mikházi, Z.; Jombach, S.; Szilvácsku, Z.; Valánszki, I.; Gelencsér, G. Green infrastructure in rural development, case study in Hungary. In Proceedings of the Fábos Conference on Landscape and Greenway Planning, Budapest, Hungary, 30 June–1 July 2016; Volume 5, p. 42. [Google Scholar]
- Government Decree on the Classification of Beneficiary Districts. Available online: https://net.jogtar.hu/ (accessed on 6 December 2020). (In Hungarian).
- Weiperth, A. Faunistic (Aquatic Macroinvertebrates, Fish and Herpetology) and Water Quality Monitoring Studies in the Koppányvölgyi Habitat Rehabilitation Experimental Area; Research Report; HSA Ecological Research Centre: Budapest, Hungary, 2018; p. 53. Available online: https://koppanyvolgy.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/weiperth-andrc3a1s_kutatc3a1si-jelentc3a9s_zc3b6ld-forrc3a1s-program_ptkf-657-2017.pdf (accessed on 16 March 2019). (In Hungarian)
- Mezei, C.; Horváthné Kovács, B.; Barna, R.; Csonka, A.; Szabó, K.; Nagy, M.; Csizmadia, A.; Topić, D.; Šljivac, D.; Gelencsér, G. Economic and ecological factors of territorial capital in Koppany Valley micro region. In Socio-Economic, Environmental and Regional Aspects of a Circular Economy, Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference for the 75th Anniversary of DTI, Pécs, Hungary, 19–20 April 2018; MTA KRTK RKI Transdanubian Research Department: Pécs, Hungary, 2018; p. 53. [Google Scholar]
- Titov, A.; Szabó, K.; Horváthné Kovács, B. Social and Natural Opportunities for the Renewable Energy Utilization in the Koppany Valley Development Area. In MIC 2018: Managing Global Diversities; Proceedings of the Joint International Conference, Bled, Slovenia, 30 May–2 June 2018; University of Primorska Press: Koper, Izola, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Haan, P.; Uhlendorff, A. Estimation of multinomial logit models with unobserved heterogeneity using maximum simulated likelihood. Stata J. 2006, 6, 229–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Garson, G.D. Fundamentals of Hierarchical Linear and Multilevel Modelling. Hierarchical Linear Modelling: Guide and Applications. 2013, pp. 3–25. Available online: https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/9656489 (accessed on 26 March 2019).
- Liebe, U.; Dobers, G.M. Measurement of Fairness Perceptions in Energy Transition Research: A Factorial Survey Approach. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liebe, U.; Dobers, G.M. Decomposing public support for energy policy: What drives acceptance of and intentions to protest against renewable energy expansion in Germany? Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2019, 47, 247–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fischbacher, U.; Gächter, S.; Fehr, E. Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Econ. Lett. 2001, 71, 397–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gachter, S.; Johnson, E.J.; Herrmann, A. Individual-Level Loss Aversion in Riskless and Risky Choices; Discussion Paper; IZA: Bonn, Germany, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Ostrom, E. Collective action and the evolution of social norms. J. Econ. Perspect. 2000, 14, 137–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodriguez, M.; Sanchez, L.M.; Cejudo, E.; Camacho, J.A. Variety in local development strategies and employment: LEADER programme in Andalusia. Agric. Econ. 2019, 65, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Elsawah, S.; Hamilton, S.; Jakeman, T.; Rothman, D.; Schweizer, V.; Trutnevyte, E.; Carlsen, H.; Drakes, C.; Frame, B.; Fu, B.; et al. Scenario processes for socio-environmental systems analysis of futures: A review of recent efforts and a salient research agenda for supporting decision making. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 729, 138393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xexakis, G.; Hansmann, R.; Volken, S.P.; Trutnevyte, E. Models on the wrong track: Model-based electricity supply scenarios in Switzerland are not aligned with the perspectives of energy experts and the public. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 134, 110297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nikas, A.; Gambhir, A.; Trutnevyte, E.; Koasidis, K.; Lund, H.; Thellufsen, J.Z.; Mayer, D.; Zachmann, G.; Miguel, L.J.; Ferreras-Alonso, N.; et al. Perspective of comprehensive and comprehensible multi-model energy and climate science in Europe. Energy 2020, 215, 119153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oddershede, A.; Arias, A.; Cancino, H. Rural development decision support using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Math. Comput. Model. 2007, 46, 1107–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Personal Factors | Coefficients | RRR | Std. Error | z Value | Pr (>IzI) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent Variable: | Dependent Variable: | ||||||
No | Yes | No | Yes | ||||
age [<30] | −0.560 | −1.263 ** | 0.571 | 0.283 ** | 0.45410 | −2.307 | 0.0211 * |
age [>60] | 0.260 | 0.077 | 1.297 | 1.080 | 0.44174 | 0.286 | 0.7749 |
education [primary] | −0.112 | −0.988 ** | 0.894 | 0.372 ** | 0.38585 | −1.274 | 0.2026 |
education [university degree] | 0.286 | −0.567 | 1.330 | 0.567 | 0.39466 | −0.578 | 0.5631 |
gender [male] | 0.425 | −0.037 | 1.529 | 0.964 | 0.27922 | 0.618 | 0.5366 |
occupation [dependent] | −0.538 | 0.011 | 0.584 | 1.011 | 0.41094 | −0.535 | 0.5930 |
occupation [non-active, homestay] | −0.907 | −0.662 | 0.404 | 0.516 | 0.42773 | −1.777 | 0.0756 |
residence [middle] | −1.095 ** | −0.125 | 0.334 ** | 0.882 | 0.33068 | −1.504 | 0.1327 |
residence [west] | 0.090 | −0.263 | 1.094 | 0.769 | 0.33842 | −0.239 | 0.8112 |
trust.to.major [no] | 2.804 *** | −0.062 | 16.510 *** | 0.940 | 0.51946 | 4.319 | 1.56 × 10−5 *** |
trust.to.major [yes] | 0.518 | 2.904 *** | 1.678 | 18.241 *** | 0.30316 | 7.058 | 1.69 × 10−12 *** |
years.of.living [>10] | 0.474 | −0.038 | 1.606 | 0.963 | 0.39313 | 0.234 | 0.8147 |
Constant | −1.471 ** | −0.971 * | 0.230 ** | 0.379 * | − | − | − |
Akaike Inf. Crit. | 514.320 | 514.320 | 514.320 | 514.320 | − | − | − |
Personal Factors | Acceptance Group | ||
---|---|---|---|
YES | NO | MAYBE (Convincible) | |
gender | FEMALE | MALE | FEMALE |
age * | [30–60] | [>60] | [<30] |
residence * | EAST | WEST | MIDDLE |
years.of.living | [<10] | [>10] | [<10] |
education * | HIGH SCHOOL | UNIVERSITY DEGREE | PRIMARY |
occupation | ACTIVE | DEPENDENT | NONACTIVE, HOMESTAY |
trust.to.mayor * | YES | NO | MAYBE |
Specific Factors | Coefficients | RRR | Std. Error | z Value | Pr (>IzI) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent Variable: | Dependent Variable: | ||||||
No | Yes | No | Yes | ||||
biomass.knowledge [yes] | −0.177 | 0.554 * | 0.838 | 1.741 * | 0.28287 | 0.826 | 0.40883 |
climate.change.knowledge [yes] | −0.940 * | 0.009 | 0.391 * | 1.009 | 0.53796 | −1.205 | 0.22834 |
energy.crops.knowledge [yes] | 0.130 | 1.222 *** | 1.139 | 3.393 *** | 0.28136 | 2.768 | 0.00563 ** |
own.animals [yes] | 0.297 | −0.125 | 1.346 | 0.882 | 0.25778 | 0.136 | 0.89217 |
own.plant [yes] | 0.151 | 0.872 ** | 1.163 | 2.393 ** | 0.31974 | 1.623 | 0.10468 |
willingness.to.collect [yes] | 0.517 | 1.079 *** | 1.678 | 2.943 *** | 0.28237 | 2.912 | 0.00359 ** |
Constant | −0.587 | −2.826 *** | 0.556 | 0.059 *** | − | − | − |
Akaike Inf. Crit. | 600.270 | 600.270 | 600.270 | 600.270 | − | − | − |
Specific Factors | Acceptance Group | ||
---|---|---|---|
YES | NO | MAYBE (Convincible) | |
own.plant * | YES | NO | NO |
own.animal | NO | YES | NO |
biomass.knowledge * | YES | NO | NO |
willingness.to.collect * | YES | YES | NO |
energy.crops.knowledge * | YES | NO | NO |
climate.change.knowledge * | YES | NO | YES |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Titov, A.; Kövér, G.; Tóth, K.; Gelencsér, G.; Kovács, B.H. Acceptance and Potential of Renewable Energy Sources Based on Biomass in Rural Areas of Hungary. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2294. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042294
Titov A, Kövér G, Tóth K, Gelencsér G, Kovács BH. Acceptance and Potential of Renewable Energy Sources Based on Biomass in Rural Areas of Hungary. Sustainability. 2021; 13(4):2294. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042294
Chicago/Turabian StyleTitov, Alexander, György Kövér, Katalin Tóth, Géza Gelencsér, and Bernadett Horváthné Kovács. 2021. "Acceptance and Potential of Renewable Energy Sources Based on Biomass in Rural Areas of Hungary" Sustainability 13, no. 4: 2294. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042294