IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i4p2294-d502644.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Acceptance and Potential of Renewable Energy Sources Based on Biomass in Rural Areas of Hungary

Author

Listed:
  • Alexander Titov

    (Institute of Sustainable Development and Farming, Kaposvar Campus, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 7400 Kaposvár, Hungary)

  • György Kövér

    (Institute of Economics, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 7400 Kaposvár, Hungary)

  • Katalin Tóth

    (Institute of Economics, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 7400 Kaposvár, Hungary)

  • Géza Gelencsér

    (Vox Vallis Development Association (Koppany Valley Naturpark), 7285 Törökkoppány, Hungary)

  • Bernadett Horváthné Kovács

    (Institute of Sustainable Development and Farming, Kaposvar Campus, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 7400 Kaposvár, Hungary)

Abstract

The main focus of the paper is the investigation of the social potential of local renewable energy utilization in a rural peripheral region in Hungary. Public acceptance of biomass-based renewable energy sources can be crucial for rural communities in realization of their sustainable development strategy. The research area was Koppany Valley Natur Park 2000, a microregion of 10 settlements located in the South Transdanubian region. This microregion is characterized by poor and depressive socioeconomic and demographical conditions, despite its significant natural resources. The microregion’s complex development strategy includes the utilization of local resources of renewable energy. Local population survey (n = 310) was conducted (in May 2018) on local biomass potential, knowledge, and attitudes of the local stakeholders in the microregion. Multinomial logistic regression model estimates the acceptance of population, explanatory variables are categorical demographical (personal) factors and specific factors (based on answers of respondents). Trust in local authorities, knowledge on biomass in general and on specific technologies, as well as the education level of rural inhabitants are significant factors in supporting biomass plant establishment. Further, the group and characteristics of acceptance groups that the local development strategy may consider were defined.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexander Titov & György Kövér & Katalin Tóth & Géza Gelencsér & Bernadett Horváthné Kovács, 2021. "Acceptance and Potential of Renewable Energy Sources Based on Biomass in Rural Areas of Hungary," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-18, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:4:p:2294-:d:502644
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/4/2294/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/4/2294/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van Rijnsoever, Frank J. & van Mossel, Allard & Broecks, Kevin P.F., 2015. "Public acceptance of energy technologies: The effects of labeling, time, and heterogeneity in a discrete choice experiment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 817-829.
    2. Ulf Liebe & Geesche M. Dobers, 2020. "Measurement of Fairness Perceptions in Energy Transition Research: A Factorial Survey Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-14, September.
    3. Peter Haan & Arne Uhlendorff, 2006. "Estimation of multinomial logit models with unobserved heterogeneity using maximum simulated likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 6(2), pages 229-245, June.
    4. Fischbacher, Urs & Gachter, Simon & Fehr, Ernst, 2001. "Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pages 397-404, June.
    5. Alexandra Gottinger & Luana Ladu & Rainer Quitzow, 2020. "Studying the Transition towards a Circular Bioeconomy—A Systematic Literature Review on Transition Studies and Existing Barriers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-25, October.
    6. Simon Gächter & Eric J. Johnson & Andreas Herrmann, 2022. "Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 599-624, April.
    7. Kardooni, Roozbeh & Yusoff, Sumiani Binti & Kari, Fatimah Binti, 2016. "Renewable energy technology acceptance in Peninsular Malaysia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 1-10.
    8. Alexandra Pehlken & Kalle Wulf & Kevin Grecksch & Thomas Klenke & Nina Tsydenova, 2020. "More Sustainable Bioenergy by Making Use of Regional Alternative Biomass?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-22, September.
    9. László Berényi & Zoltán Birkner & Nikolett Deutsch, 2020. "A Multidimensional Evaluation of Renewable and Nuclear Energy among Higher Education Students," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-22, February.
    10. Pasquale G. F. Filianoti & Luana Gurnari, 2020. "A Field Experiment on Wave Forces on an Energy-Absorbing Breakwater," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-22, March.
    11. Anas A. Makki & Ibrahim Mosly, 2020. "Factors Affecting Public Willingness to Adopt Renewable Energy Technologies: An Exploratory Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-11, January.
    12. Nikas, A. & Gambhir, A. & Trutnevyte, E. & Koasidis, K. & Lund, H. & Thellufsen, J.Z. & Mayer, D. & Zachmann, G. & Miguel, L.J. & Ferreras-Alonso, N. & Sognnaes, I. & Peters, G.P. & Colombo, E. & Howe, 2021. "Perspective of comprehensive and comprehensible multi-model energy and climate science in Europe," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 215(PA).
    13. Magdalena Muradin & Zenon Foltynowicz, 2014. "Potential for Producing Biogas from Agricultural Waste in Rural Plants in Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(8), pages 1-10, August.
    14. Ozgur Kaya & Wojciech J. Florkowski & Anna Us & Anna M. Klepacka, 2019. "Renewable Energy Perception by Rural Residents of a Peripheral EU Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-16, April.
    15. María-Jesús Gutiérrez-Pedrero & María J. Ruiz-Fuensanta & Miguel-Ángel Tarancón, 2020. "Regional Factors Driving the Deployment of Wind Energy in Spain," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-13, July.
    16. Bai, Attila & Durkó, Emília & Tar, Károly & Tóth, József Barnabás & Lázár, István & Kapocska, László & Kircsi, Andrea & Bartók, Blanka & Vass, Róbert & Pénzes, János & Tóth, Tamás, 2016. "Social and economic possibilities for the energy utilization of fitomass in the valley of the river Hernád," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 777-789.
    17. Xexakis, Georgios & Hansmann, Ralph & Volken, Sandra P. & Trutnevyte, Evelina, 2020. "Models on the wrong track: Model-based electricity supply scenarios in Switzerland are not aligned with the perspectives of energy experts and the public," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    18. Elinor Ostrom, 2000. "Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 137-158, Summer.
    19. Elaine Fouché & Alan Brent, 2020. "Explore, Design and Act for Sustainability: A Participatory Planning Approach for Local Energy Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-17, January.
    20. Bauwens, Thomas & Devine-Wright, Patrick, 2018. "Positive energies? An empirical study of community energy participation and attitudes to renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 612-625.
    21. Md. Shahzalal & Azizul Hassan, 2019. "Communicating Sustainability: Using Community Media to Influence Rural People’s Intention to Adopt Sustainable Behaviour," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-28, February.
    22. Esther C. Van der Waal & Henny J. Van der Windt & Ellen C. J. Van Oost, 2018. "How Local Energy Initiatives Develop Technological Innovations: Growing an Actor Network," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-19, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Elżbieta Kacperska & Katarzyna Łukasiewicz & Piotr Pietrzak, 2021. "Use of Renewable Energy Sources in the European Union and the Visegrad Group Countries—Results of Cluster Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-17, September.
    2. Pin, Lantos A. & Pennink, Bartjan J.W. & Balsters, Herman & Sianipar, Corinthias P.M., 2021. "Technological appropriateness of biomass production in rural settings: Addressing water hyacinths (E. crassipes) problem in Lake Tondano, Indonesia," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    3. Hugo Guzmán-Bello & Iosvani López-Díaz & Miguel Aybar-Mejía & Jose Atilio de Frias, 2022. "A Review of Trends in the Energy Use of Biomass: The Case of the Dominican Republic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-27, March.
    4. Karakislak, Irmak & Schneider, Nina, 2023. "The mayor said so? The impact of local political figures and social norms on local responses to wind energy projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ethan Holdahl & Jiabin Wu, 2023. "Institutional Screening and the Sustainability of Conditional Cooperation," Papers 2311.02813, arXiv.org.
    2. Leibbrandt, Andreas & Lynham, John, 2018. "Does the allocation of property rights matter in the commons?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 201-217.
    3. Katherine L. Dickinson & Hannah Brenkert-Smith & Greg Madonia & Nicholas E. Flores, 2020. "Risk interdependency, social norms, and wildfire mitigation: a choice experiment," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(1), pages 1327-1354, August.
    4. Drouvelis, Michalis & Marx, Benjamin M., 2022. "Can charitable appeals identify and exploit belief heterogeneity?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 631-649.
    5. Florian Diekert & Tillmann Eymess & Joseph Luomba & Israel Waichman, 2022. "The Creation of Social Norms under Weak Institutions," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 9(6), pages 1127-1160.
    6. Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, "undated". "Why Social Preferences Matter - The Impact of Non-Selfish Motives on Competition," IEW - Working Papers 084, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    7. Dickinson, David L. & Masclet, David & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2015. "Norm enforcement in social dilemmas: An experiment with police commissioners," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 74-85.
    8. Dong, Bin & Dulleck, Uwe & Torgler, Benno, 2012. "Conditional corruption," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 609-627.
    9. García-Valiñas, María A. & Macintyre, Alison & Torgler, Benno, 2012. "Volunteering, pro-environmental attitudes and norms," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 455-467.
    10. Xiaochuan Huang & Takehito Masuda & Yoshitaka Okano & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2014. "Cooperation among behaviorally heterogeneous players in social dilemma with stay or leave decisions," Working Papers SDES-2014-7, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Feb 2015.
    11. Reinstein, David & Hugh-Jones, David, 2010. "The Benefit of Anonymity in Public Goods Games," Economics Discussion Papers 2933, University of Essex, Department of Economics.
    12. Fluet, Claude & Galbiati, Rpbertp, 2016. "Lois et normes : les enseignements de l'économie comportementale," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 92(1-2), pages 191-215, Mars-Juin.
    13. Kees Vringer & Eline van der Heijden & Daan van Soest & Herman Vollebergh & Frank Dietz, 2017. "Sustainable Consumption Dilemmas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-21, June.
    14. Marco Vincenzi, 2023. "Mapping the empirical relationship between environmental performance and social preferences: Evidence from macro data," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2023(1), pages 85-102.
    15. Christoph Engel & Lilia Zhurakhovska, 2011. "Oligopoly as a Socially Embedded Dilemma. An Experiment," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2011_01, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    16. Hongyu Guan & Xianchen Zhu & Ping Zhang, 2016. "Rule-Inequality-Aversion Preference and Conditional Cooperation in Public Goods Experiments: Economic Experiment Evidence from China," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 799-825, July.
    17. Maria Alejandra Velez & James J. Murphy & John K. Stranlund, 2010. "Centralized And Decentralized Management Of Local Common Pool Resources In The Developing World: Experimental Evidence From Fishing Communities In Colombia," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 48(2), pages 254-265, April.
    18. Angela Oliveira & Rachel Croson & Catherine Eckel, 2015. "One bad apple? Heterogeneity and information in public good provision," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(1), pages 116-135, March.
    19. Füllbrunn, Sascha & Vyrastekova, Jana, 2023. "Does trust break even? A trust-game experiment with negative endowments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    20. Agnès Festré & Pierre Garrouste & Ankinée Kirakozian & Mira Toumi, 2017. "The Pen Might Be Mightier than the Sword: How Third-party Advice or Sanction Impacts on Pro-environmental Behavior," GREDEG Working Papers 2017-15, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France, revised Aug 2017.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:4:p:2294-:d:502644. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.