IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i18p8386-d1752745.html

Social Acceptance for the Sustainability of the Agri-Biomethane Supply Chain: A PLS-SEM Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Davide Iannantuono

    (Department of Economics, University of Foggia, Via R. Caggese 1, 71121 Foggia, Italy)

  • Alessia Spada

    (Department of Economics, University of Foggia, Via R. Caggese 1, 71121 Foggia, Italy)

  • Mariarosaria Lombardi

    (Department of Economics, University of Foggia, Via R. Caggese 1, 71121 Foggia, Italy)

Abstract

The transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources (RES) offers numerous benefits that can enhance the well-being of local communities. However, it is imperative to ensure that the public perceives RES projects as fully sustainable, a goal that requires a comprehensive evaluation of their social acceptance. Among the various RES options, the development of the biomethane supply chain has gained particular importance in Europe, especially considering the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the 2022 “REPowerEU” plan. In this context, the present study conducts a preliminary analysis of the social acceptance of agri-biomethane, focusing primarily on the key variable of “trust” in public administrators and energy investors to ensure its comprehensive sustainability. To this end, a survey was administered to a sample of 290 stakeholders residing in the Apulia region (Southern Italy). The data were analysed using PLS-SEM analysis to ensure robust, evidence-based findings. The results highlight the critical importance of building trust within local communities to foster social acceptance of agri-biomethane production. This can be achieved by strengthening perceived benefits, enhancing public knowledge, and promoting social participation. These insights may support policymakers in making informed decisions about community well-being and the energy transition, particularly in overcoming potential social barriers to the development of this supply chain.

Suggested Citation

  • Davide Iannantuono & Alessia Spada & Mariarosaria Lombardi, 2025. "Social Acceptance for the Sustainability of the Agri-Biomethane Supply Chain: A PLS-SEM Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-17, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:18:p:8386-:d:1752745
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/18/8386/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/18/8386/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Judith I. M. De Groot & Linda Steg, 2010. "Morality and Nuclear Energy: Perceptions of Risks and Benefits, Personal Norms, and Willingness to Take Action Related to Nuclear Energy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(9), pages 1363-1373, September.
    2. Lisiak-Zielińska, Marta & Jałoszyńska, Sylwia & Borowiak, Klaudia & Budka, Anna & Dach, Jacek, 2023. "Perception of biogas plants: A public awareness and preference - A case study for the agricultural landscape," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    3. Lee Cronbach, 1951. "Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 16(3), pages 297-334, September.
    4. Wustenhagen, Rolf & Wolsink, Maarten & Burer, Mary Jean, 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2683-2691, May.
    5. Kortsch, Timo & Hildebrand, Jan & Schweizer-Ries, Petra, 2015. "Acceptance of biomass plants – Results of a longitudinal study in the bioenergy-region Altmark," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 690-697.
    6. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    7. Dvořák, Petr & Krejčí, Tomáš & Kulla, Marián & Martinát, Stanislav & Novotný, Ladislav & Pregi, Loránt & Andráško, Ivan & Pícha, Kamil & Navrátil, Josef, 2025. "Gains or losses of biogas: The point of view of inhabitants from Central and Eastern European perspective," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 252(C).
    8. Hyland, Marie & Bertsch, Valentin, 2018. "The Role of Community Involvement Mechanisms in Reducing Resistance to Energy Infrastructure Development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 447-474.
    9. Massimiliano Mazzanti & Marco Modica & Andrea Rampa, 2021. "The Biogas dilemma: an analysis on the Social Approval of large new plants," SEEDS Working Papers 0221, SEEDS, Sustainability Environmental Economics and Dynamics Studies, revised Apr 2021.
    10. Assefa, G. & Frostell, B., 2007. "Social sustainability and social acceptance in technology assessment: A case study of energy technologies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 63-78.
    11. Goda Perlaviciute & Linda Steg & Nadja Contzen & Sabine Roeser & Nicole Huijts, 2018. "Emotional Responses to Energy Projects: Insights for Responsible Decision Making in a Sustainable Energy Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-12, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Dvořák, Petr & Krejčí, Tomáš & Kulla, Marián & Martinát, Stanislav & Novotný, Ladislav & Pregi, Loránt & Andráško, Ivan & Pícha, Kamil & Navrátil, Josef, 2025. "Gains or losses of biogas: The point of view of inhabitants from Central and Eastern European perspective," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 252(C).
    2. Jan Hildebrand & Timo Kortsch & Irina Rau, 2025. "The Public Acceptance of Power-to-X Technologies—Results from Environmental–Psychological Research Using a Representative German Sample," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(14), pages 1-25, July.
    3. Zumofen, Guillaume, 2025. "Combining a conjoint experiment and machine learning model to include end-users in a constructive technology assessment: The case of seasonal thermal energy storage," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    4. Prosperi, Maurizio & Lombardi, Mariarosaria & Spada, Alessia, 2019. "Ex ante assessment of social acceptance of small-scale agro-energy system: A case study in southern Italy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 346-354.
    5. Mei-Fang Chen & Ching-Ti Pan & Ming-Chuan Pan, 2009. "The Joint Moderating Impact of Moral Intensity and Moral Judgment on Consumer’s Use Intention of Pirated Software," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 90(3), pages 361-373, December.
    6. Maleknia, Rahim & Hălălişan, Aureliu Florin, 2025. "Purchasing certified forest products to participate in sustainable forest management: Unveiling the drivers of consumers' intention," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    7. Kim, Seheon & Rasouli, Soora, 2022. "The influence of latent lifestyle on acceptance of Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS): A hierarchical latent variable and latent class approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 304-319.
    8. Joanie Roussel-Ouellet & Dominique Beaulieu & Lydi-Anne Vézina-Im & Stéphane Turcotte & Valérie Labbé & Danielle Bouchard, 2022. "Psychosocial Correlates of Recreational Screen Time among Adolescents," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-15, December.
    9. Farzana Sharmin & Mohammad Tipu Sultan & Alina Badulescu & Dorin Paul Bac & Benqian Li, 2020. "Millennial Tourists’ Environmentally Sustainable Behavior Towards a Natural Protected Area: An Integrative Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-24, October.
    10. Ya-Hui Want, 2014. "Does Online Trading Affect Investors' Trading Intention?," The International Journal of Business and Finance Research, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 8(5), pages 71-79.
    11. Knoblauch, Theresa A.K. & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Stauffacher, Michael, 2019. "Siting deep geothermal energy: Acceptance of various risk and benefit scenarios in a Swiss-German cross-national study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 807-816.
    12. Jun Hwan Kim & Hyun Cheol Lee, 2019. "Understanding the Repurchase Intention of Premium Economy Passengers Using an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-19, June.
    13. Alam, Syed Shah & Nik Hashim, Nik Hazrul & Rashid, Mamunur & Omar, Nor Asiah & Ahsan, Nilufar & Ismail, Md Daud, 2014. "Small-scale households renewable energy usage intention: Theoretical development and empirical settings," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 255-263.
    14. Chen Wei, 2021. "The influence of Consumers’ Purchase intention on Smart Wearable Device: A study of Consumers in East China," International Journal of Science and Business, IJSAB International, vol. 5(8), pages 46-72.
    15. Yuan, Xueliang & Zuo, Jian & Ma, Chunyuan, 2011. "Social acceptance of solar energy technologies in China--End users' perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1031-1036, March.
    16. Mohammad Tipu Sultan & Farzana Sharmin & Alina Badulescu & Darie Gavrilut & Ke Xue, 2021. "Social Media-Based Content towards Image Formation: A New Approach to the Selection of Sustainable Destinations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-22, April.
    17. Lisiak-Zielińska, Marta & Jałoszyńska, Sylwia & Borowiak, Klaudia & Budka, Anna & Dach, Jacek, 2023. "Perception of biogas plants: A public awareness and preference - A case study for the agricultural landscape," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    18. Jordi Martínez-Ventura & Eduardo de-Miguel-Arbonés & Carla Sentieri-Omarrementería & Juanjo Galan & María Calero-Llinares, 2021. "A Tool to Assess Architectural Education from the Sustainable Development Perspective and the Students’ Viewpoint," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-40, August.
    19. Liu, Wenling & Wang, Can & Mol, Arthur P.J., 2013. "Rural public acceptance of renewable energy deployment: The case of Shandong in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 1187-1196.
    20. Luo, Zongwei & Dubey, Rameshwar & Gunasekaran, Angappa & Childe, Stephen J. & Papadopoulos, Thanos & Hazen, Benjamin & Roubaud, David, 2017. "Sustainable production framework for cement manufacturing firms: A behavioural perspective," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 495-502.

    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:17:y:2025:i:18:p:8386-:d:1752745. 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.