IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/rensus/v202y2024ics1364032124003964.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public acceptance of biomass for bioenergy: The need for feedstock differentiation and communicating a waste utilization frame

Author

Listed:
  • van Dijk, Mathilde
  • Goedegebure, Robert
  • Nap, Jan-Peter

Abstract

Climate change calls for an energy transition utilizing all available renewable energy resources, such as bioenergy from biomass. However, the use of biomass is debated in society, and public acceptance is low or lacking. This survey-based research demonstrates for the first time that public acceptance of bioenergy hinges on (a) the type of biomass feedstock used to generate bioenergy and (b) the perceptions of the effectiveness of bioenergy in contributing to the energy transition. A survey-embedded vignette experiment (with 409 Dutch participants) shows that public acceptance of the biomass feedstocks 'wood' and 'energy crops' is significantly lower than the acceptance of 'organic waste' and 'manure' for bioenergy. These results indicate that the biomass feedstock type should be more carefully considered and specified in future research and communication on public acceptance of bioenergy. Thematic coding and bootstrapped mediation analyses identified the perceived effectivity of bioenergy in contributing to the energy transition as a prime explanatory (i.e., mediating) variable for acceptance. A subsequent message-framing communication experiment (with 414 Dutch participants) demonstrates that emphasizing biomass feedstock as a form of waste utilization is a frame that helps to increase public acceptance of bioenergy. The waste utilization frame notably improves the perceptions of the effectiveness of bioenergy as contributing to the energy transition for the two lesser accepted biomass feedstocks. The emphasis on biomass feedstock type as a form of waste treatment can improve strategic communications on bioenergy and foster wider public acceptance of bioenergy in the transition toward a more sustainable energy system.

Suggested Citation

  • van Dijk, Mathilde & Goedegebure, Robert & Nap, Jan-Peter, 2024. "Public acceptance of biomass for bioenergy: The need for feedstock differentiation and communicating a waste utilization frame," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:202:y:2024:i:c:s1364032124003964
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2024.114670
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032124003964
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.rser.2024.114670?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vera, Ivan & Wicke, Birka & Lamers, Patrick & Cowie, Annette & Repo, Anna & Heukels, Bas & Zumpf, Colleen & Styles, David & Parish, Esther & Cherubini, Francesco & Berndes, Göran & Jager, Henriette & , 2022. "Land use for bioenergy: Synergies and trade-offs between sustainable development goals," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    2. Azwifunimunwe Tshikovhi & Tshwafo Ellias Motaung, 2023. "Technologies and Innovations for Biomass Energy Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-21, August.
    3. Rahman, Abul & Khanam, Tahamina & Pelkonen, Paavo, 2017. "People’s knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes towards stump harvesting for bioenergy production in Finland," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 107-116.
    4. 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.
    5. Millot, Ariane & Krook-Riekkola, Anna & Maïzi, Nadia, 2020. "Guiding the future energy transition to net-zero emissions: Lessons from exploring the differences between France and Sweden," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    6. Cousse, Julia, 2021. "Still in love with solar energy? Installation size, affect, and the social acceptance of renewable energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    7. Olle Olsson & Anders Roos & Ruben Guisson & Lena Bruce & Patrick Lamers & Bo Hektor & Daniela Thrän & Damon Hartley & Jens Ponitka & Jakob Hildebrandt, 2018. "Time to tear down the pyramids? A critique of cascading hierarchies as a policy tool," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(2), March.
    8. Sardianou, E. & Genoudi, P., 2013. "Which factors affect the willingness of consumers to adopt renewable energies?," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 1-4.
    9. Linzenich, Anika & Arning, Katrin & Ziefle, Martina, 2021. "Acceptance of energy technologies in context: Comparing laypeople's risk perceptions across eight infrastructure technologies in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    10. Ugarte Lucas, Paula & Gamborg, Christian & Lund, Thomas Bøker, 2022. "Sustainability concerns are key to understanding public attitudes toward woody biomass for energy: A survey of Danish citizens," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 181-194.
    11. le Maitre, Julia & Ryan, Geraldine & Power, Bernadette, 2024. "Do concerns about wind farms blow over with time? Residents’ acceptance over phases of project development and proximity," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 189(PA).
    12. Paweł Bartoszczuk & Uma Shankar Singh & Małgorzata Rutkowska, 2022. "An Empirical Analysis of Renewable Energy Contributions Considering Green Consumer Values—A Case Study of Poland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-25, January.
    13. Sahlberg, Anna & Karlsson, Bodil S.A. & Sjöblom, Jonas & Ström, Henrik, 2022. "Don't extinguish my fire – Understanding public resistance to a Swedish policy aimed at reducing particle emissions by phasing out old wood stoves," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    14. Kirkels, Arjan F. & Verbong, Geert P.J., 2011. "Biomass gasification: Still promising? A 30-year global overview," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 471-481, January.
    15. Scheer, Dirk & Konrad, Wilfried & Wassermann, Sandra, 2017. "The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: A qualitative study of public perceptions towards energy technologies and portfolios in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 89-100.
    16. Mathilde van Dijk & Annet-Jantien Smit & Jan-Peter Nap, 2023. "Message Framing and Attitudes Toward Green Gas Facilities in Rural Communities of The Netherlands," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, September.
    17. Bengart, Paul & Vogt, Bodo, 2021. "Fuel mix disclosure in Germany—The effect of more transparent information on consumer preferences for renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    18. Paul B. Thompson, 2012. "The Agricultural Ethics of Biofuels: The Food vs. Fuel Debate," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 2(4), pages 1-20, November.
    19. Van de Velde, Liesbeth & Verbeke, Wim & Popp, Michael & Buysse, Jeroen & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido, 2009. "Perceived importance of fuel characteristics and its match with consumer beliefs about biofuels in Belgium," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 3183-3193, August.
    20. Upreti, Bishnu Raj, 2004. "Conflict over biomass energy development in the United Kingdom: some observations and lessons from England and Wales," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 785-800, April.
    21. Soland, Martin & Steimer, Nora & Walter, Götz, 2013. "Local acceptance of existing biogas plants in Switzerland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 802-810.
    22. Li, Francis G.N. & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Strachan, Neil, 2015. "A review of socio-technical energy transition (STET) models," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 290-305.
    23. Neofytou, H. & Nikas, A. & Doukas, H., 2020. "Sustainable energy transition readiness: A multicriteria assessment index," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    24. Dennis Kolcava & E. Keith Smith & Thomas Bernauer, 2023. "Cross-national public acceptance of sustainable global supply chain policy instruments," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 6(1), pages 69-80, January.
    25. García-Maroto, I. & García-Maraver, A. & Muñoz-Leiva, F. & Zamorano, M., 2015. "Consumer knowledge, information sources used and predisposition towards the adoption of wood pellets in domestic heating systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 207-215.
    26. Ribeiro, Fernando & Ferreira, Paula & Araújo, Madalena & Braga, Ana Cristina, 2018. "Modelling perception and attitudes towards renewable energy technologies," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 688-697.
    27. Guo, Mingxin & Song, Weiping & Buhain, Jeremy, 2015. "Bioenergy and biofuels: History, status, and perspective," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 712-725.
    28. Delshad, Ashlie B. & Raymond, Leigh & Sawicki, Vanessa & Wegener, Duane T., 2010. "Public attitudes toward political and technological options for biofuels," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3414-3425, July.
    29. Van de Velde, Liesbeth & Verbeke, Wim & Popp, Michael & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido, 2010. "The importance of message framing for providing information about sustainability and environmental aspects of energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 5541-5549, October.
    30. Zhao, Qiankun & Cai, Ximing & Mischo, William & Ma, Liyuan, 2020. "How do the research and public communities view biofuel development?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    31. Tian, Hailin & Li, Jie & Yan, Miao & Tong, Yen Wah & Wang, Chi-Hwa & Wang, Xiaonan, 2019. "Organic waste to biohydrogen: A critical review from technological development and environmental impact analysis perspective," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 256(C).
    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. Grzegorz Maj & Kamila E. Klimek & Magdalena Kapłan & Kamil Buczyński & Anna Borkowska, 2024. "Combustion and Energy Parameters of Grape Pomace/Skin Waste in Wine Production—Regent Variety Grafted onto Rootstocks," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-14, October.

    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. Mathilde van Dijk & Annet-Jantien Smit & Jan-Peter Nap, 2023. "Message Framing and Attitudes Toward Green Gas Facilities in Rural Communities of The Netherlands," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, September.
    2. Ortega-Izquierdo, Margarita & Paredes-Salvador, Andrés & Montoya-Rasero, Carlos, 2019. "Analysis of the decision making factors for heating and cooling systems in Spanish households," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 175-185.
    3. Van Dael, Miet & Lizin, Sebastien & Swinnen, Gilbert & Van Passel, Steven, 2017. "Young people’s acceptance of bioenergy and the influence of attitude strength on information provision," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 417-430.
    4. Leibensperger, Carrie & Yang, Pan & Zhao, Qiankun & Wei, Shuran & Cai, Ximing, 2021. "The synergy between stakeholders for cellulosic biofuel development: Perspectives, opportunities, and barriers," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    5. Rodríguez-Segura, Francisco Javier & Osorio-Aravena, Juan Carlos & Frolova, Marina & Terrados-Cepeda, Julio & Muñoz-Cerón, Emilio, 2023. "Social acceptance of renewable energy development in southern Spain: Exploring tendencies, locations, criteria and situations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    6. József Kádár & Martina Pilloni & Tareq Abu Hamed, 2023. "A Survey of Renewable Energy, Climate Change, and Policy Awareness in Israel: The Long Path for Citizen Participation in the National Renewable Energy Transition," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-16, February.
    7. Eksi, Guner & Karaosmanoglu, Filiz, 2017. "Combined bioheat and biopower: A technology review and an assessment for Turkey," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 1313-1332.
    8. Serena Y. Kim & Koushik Ganesan & Princess Dickens & Soumya Panda, 2021. "Public Sentiment toward Solar Energy—Opinion Mining of Twitter Using a Transformer-Based Language Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-19, March.
    9. Krekel, Christian & Rechlitz, Julia & Rode, Johannes & Zerrahn, Alexander, 2020. "Quantifying the Externalities of Renewable Energy Plants Using Wellbeing Data: The Case of Biogas," IZA Discussion Papers 13959, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Schriever, Marlene & Halstrup, Dominik, 2018. "Exploring the adoption in transitioning markets: Empirical findings and implications on energy storage solutions-acceptance in the German manufacturing industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 460-468.
    11. Carbajo, Ruth & Cabeza, Luisa F., 2018. "Renewable energy research and technologies through responsible research and innovation looking glass: Reflexions, theoretical approaches and contemporary discourses," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 792-808.
    12. López-Bravo, Celia & Mora-López, Llanos & Sidrach-deCardona, Mariano & Márquez-Ballesteros, María José, 2024. "A comprehensive analysis based on GIS-AHP to minimise the social and environmental impact of the installation of large-scale photovoltaic plants in south Spain," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    13. Mark Booker Nielsen & Rikke Lybæk & Tyge Kjær, 2022. "Successfully Navigating the Project Lifecycle for Deployment of Centralized Biogas Projects—The Case of Solrød Biogas," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-21, August.
    14. Balogh, P. & Bai, A. & Popp, J. & Huzsvai, L. & Jobbágy, P., 2015. "Internet-orientated Hungarian car drivers’ knowledge and attitudes towards biofuels," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 17-26.
    15. Irie, Noriko & Kawahara, Naoko, 2022. "Consumer preferences for local renewable electricity production in Japan: A choice experiment," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 1171-1181.
    16. de Wildt, Tristan E. & Chappin, Emile J.L. & van de Kaa, Geerten & Herder, Paulien M., 2018. "A comprehensive approach to reviewing latent topics addressed by literature across multiple disciplines," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 2111-2128.
    17. Cotterman, Turner & Small, Mitchell J. & Wilson, Stephen & Abdulla, Ahmed & Wong-Parodi, Gabrielle, 2021. "Applying risk tolerance and socio-technical dynamics for more realistic energy transition pathways," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 291(C).
    18. Boucher, Philip, 2012. "The role of controversy, regulation and engineering in UK biofuel development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 148-154.
    19. Barjak, F. & Lindeque, J. & Koch, J. & Soland, M., 2022. "Segmenting household electricity customers with quantitative and qualitative approaches," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    20. Rommel, Jens & Sagebiel, Julian & Müller, Jakob R., 2016. "Quality uncertainty and the market for renewable energy: Evidence from German consumers," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 106-113.

    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:eee:rensus:v:202:y:2024:i:c:s1364032124003964. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/description#description .

    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.