IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i4p2294-d502644.html

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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. 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.
    6. Peter Haan & Arne Uhlendorff, 2006. "Estimation of multinomial logit models with unobserved heterogeneity using maximum simulated likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LLC, vol. 6(2), pages 229-245, June.
    7. 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).
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Gächter, Simon & Johnson, Eric J. & Herrmann, Andreas, 2007. "Individual-Level Loss Aversion in Riskless and Risky Choices," IZA Discussion Papers 2961, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. 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).
    20. 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.
    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.
    23. 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.
    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. Rafael Clemente Brito Cedeno & Jiuchang Wei, 2026. "Untying green budgeting towards green economy and green environment in dominican republic: an impetus for a sustainable development," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 7891-7916, March.
    3. Ibolya Török & Enikő Mátyus & Tihamér-Tibor Sebestyén & Carmen Păunescu & Kinga Xénia Havadi-Nagy, 2024. "Exploring Acceptance of Agro-Biomass as Innovative Solution for Heating in Rural Areas in Romania," Resources, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-16, October.
    4. 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).
    5. 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).
    6. Éva Greutter-Gregus & Gábor Koncz & Kitti Némedi-Kollár, 2024. "Resource Efficiency and the Role of Renewable Energy in Miskolc: The City’s Journey Towards Becoming a Smart City," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-28, November.
    7. 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.

    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. Christoph Engel & Lilia Zhurakhovska, 2016. "When is the risk of cooperation worth taking? The prisoner’s dilemma as a game of multiple motives," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(16), pages 1157-1161, November.
    2. David M. McEvoy & Tobias Haller & Esther Blanco, 2022. "The Role of Non-Binding Pledges in Social Dilemmas with Mitigation and Adaptation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(4), pages 685-710, April.
    3. Kirchler, Michael & Lindner, Florian & Weitzel, Utz, 2020. "Delegated investment decisions and rankings," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    4. Jöst, Prisca & Lust, Ellen, 2025. "Local context and mobilization in poor communities: Lessons from Kenya, Malawi and Zambia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    5. Englmaier, Florian & Grimm, Stefan & Schindler, David & Schudy, Simeon, 2018. "The Effect of Incentives in Non-Routine Analytical Team Tasks – Evidence from a Field Experiment," VfS Annual Conference 2017 (Vienna): Alternative Structures for Money and Banking 168286, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    6. Erica Mina Okada, 2010. "Uncertainty, Risk Aversion, and WTA vs. WTP," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 75-84, 01-02.
    7. Ethan Holdahl & Jiabin Wu, 2023. "Institutional Screening and the Sustainability of Conditional Cooperation," Papers 2311.02813, arXiv.org.
    8. Ciccarone, Giuseppe & Giuli, Francesco & Marchetti, Enrico, 2013. "Power or loss aversion? Reinterpreting the bargaining weights in search and matching models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 375-377.
    9. 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.
    10. Christiane Ernst & Christian Thöni, 2013. "Bimodal Bidding in Experimental All-Pay Auctions," Games, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-16, October.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. K.S. Muehlfeld & G.U. Weitzel & A. van Witteloostuijn, 2012. "Fight or freeze? Individual differences in investors’ motivational systems and trading in experimental asset markets," Working Papers 12-18, Utrecht School of Economics.
    14. Laura Hueber & Rene Schwaiger, 2021. "Debiasing Through Experience Sampling: The Case of Myopic Loss Aversion," Working Papers 2021-01, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    15. Kiss, Hubert J. & Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael & Rosa-Garcia, Alfonso, 2018. "Panic bank runs," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 146-149.
    16. Dong, Bin & Dulleck, Uwe & Torgler, Benno, 2012. "Conditional corruption," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 609-627.
    17. 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.
    18. Reinstein, David & Hugh-Jones, David, 2010. "The Benefit of Anonymity in Public Goods Games," Economics Discussion Papers 2933, University of Essex, Department of Economics.
    19. 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.
    20. repec:osf:osfxxx:964ba_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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.