IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v16y2022i1p192-d1013806.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Coal or Biomass? Case Study of Consumption Behaviour of Households in the Czech Republic

Author

Listed:
  • Jarmila Zimmermannova

    (Department of Sustainable Development, Moravian Business College Olomouc, 779 00 Olomouc, Czech Republic
    Faculty of Health Sciences, Palacký University Olomouc, 779 00 Olomouc, Czech Republic)

  • Richard Smilnak

    (Department of Sustainable Development, Moravian Business College Olomouc, 779 00 Olomouc, Czech Republic
    Faculty of Philosophy, Palacký University Olomouc, 779 00 Olomouc, Czech Republic)

  • Michaela Perunova

    (Department of Sustainable Development, Moravian Business College Olomouc, 779 00 Olomouc, Czech Republic
    Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, 779 00 Olomouc, Czech Republic)

  • Omar Ameir

    (Department of Sustainable Development, Moravian Business College Olomouc, 779 00 Olomouc, Czech Republic)

Abstract

Renewable sources play a crucial role in the decarbonisation process of the current linear economy, aimed at reaching the 2030 climate objectives and fulfilling the EU’s long-term strategy of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. All economic subjects, including households, can contribute to the Green Deal goals. The main goal of this paper is to evaluate households’ consumption of energy sources for heating purposes in the Czech Republic in the period 2003–2020 and depict possible drivers of switching to biomass. For this, various data were collected, such as data published by the Czech Statistical Office, ministries, and other national authorities, as well as data from Eurostat. Concerning methods, data analysis, correlation analysis, and regression analysis were used. Different models focus on the substitution effect, rebound effect, and behaviour of different kinds of households. The results show a substitution effect connected with the consumption of coal, electricity, and biomass for heating purposes. Many households substituted coal for biomass in the observed period. On the other hand, the environmental impact of such substitution is not significant, as carbon emissions and emissions of other pollutants are stable. The substitution of fuels should be accompanied by technological change, e.g., improvement of combustion boilers. Moreover, households of pensioners are the key economic subjects with the highest impact on biomass consumption for heating purposes. Against this background we recommend policies to support households in replacing their boilers for more environmentally friendly ones.

Suggested Citation

  • Jarmila Zimmermannova & Richard Smilnak & Michaela Perunova & Omar Ameir, 2022. "Coal or Biomass? Case Study of Consumption Behaviour of Households in the Czech Republic," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-17, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2022:i:1:p:192-:d:1013806
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/1/192/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/1/192/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Desire SEKANABO & Elias Nyandwi & Hakizimana Khan Jean de Dieu & Valerie M. Thomas, 2022. "The Relationship between GDP and Biomass Energy Per Capita in Sub-Saharan Africa," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 12(4), pages 528-541, July.
    2. Bhanot, Syon P., 2021. "Isolating the effect of injunctive norms on conservation behavior: New evidence from a field experiment in California," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 30-42.
    3. Cardoen, Dennis & Joshi, Piyush & Diels, Ludo & Sarma, Priyangshu M. & Pant, Deepak, 2015. "Agriculture biomass in India: Part 1. Estimation and characterization," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 39-48.
    4. Ballarin, A. & Vecchiato, D. & Tempesta, T. & Marangon, F. & Troiano, S., 2011. "Biomass energy production in agriculture: A weighted goal programming analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1123-1131, March.
    5. Marques, António Cardoso & Fuinhas, José Alberto, 2012. "Are public policies towards renewables successful? Evidence from European countries," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 109-118.
    6. Spandagos, Constantine & Yarime, Masaru & Baark, Erik & Ng, Tze Ling, 2020. "“Triple Target” policy framework to influence household energy behavior: Satisfy, strengthen, include," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 269(C).
    7. Simeon Olatayo Jekayinfa & Joseph Ifeolu Orisaleye & Ralf Pecenka, 2020. "An Assessment of Potential Resources for Biomass Energy in Nigeria," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-43, August.
    8. Bobinaite, Viktorija & Tarvydas, Dalius, 2014. "Financing instruments and channels for the increasing production and consumption of renewable energy: Lithuanian case," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 259-276.
    9. Tévécia Ronzon & Stephan Piotrowski & Saulius Tamosiunas & Lara Dammer & Michael Carus & Robert M’barek, 2020. "Developments of Economic Growth and Employment in Bioeconomy Sectors across the EU," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-13, June.
    10. Lunnan, Anders, 1997. "Agriculture-based biomass energy supply -- a survey of economic issues," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 573-582, May.
    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. Delia-Elena Diaconașu & Ionel Bostan & Cristina Căutișanu & Irina Chiriac, 2022. "Insights into the Sustainable Development of the Bioeconomy at the European Level, in the Context of the Desired Clean Environment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-14, September.
    2. Joseph Curtin & Celine McInerney & Lara Johannsdottir, 2018. "How can financial incentives promote local ownership of onshore wind and solar projects? Case study evidence from Germany, Denmark, the UK and Ontario," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 33(1), pages 40-62, February.
    3. Zimmermannová Jarmila & Pawliczek Adam & Čermák Petr, 2018. "Public Support of Solar Electricity and its Impact on Households - Prosumers," Organizacija, Sciendo, vol. 51(1), pages 4-19, February.
    4. Kushawaha, Deepak & Jain, Manisha, 2024. "Debt as catalyst: Empowering renewable energy in developing countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    5. Curtin, Joseph & McInerney, Celine & Ó Gallachóir, Brian, 2017. "Financial incentives to mobilise local citizens as investors in low-carbon technologies: A systematic literature review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 534-547.
    6. Mac Clay, Pablo & Börner, Jan & Sellare, Jorge, 2023. "Institutional and macroeconomic stability mediate the effect of auctions on renewable energy capacity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    7. Skare, Marinko & Gavurova, Beata & Sinkovic, Dean, 2023. "Regional aspects of financial development and renewable energy: A cross-sectional study in 214 countries," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 1142-1157.
    8. Daniela Firoiu & George H. Ionescu & Teodor Marian Cojocaru & Mariana Niculescu & Maria Nache Cimpoeru & Oana Alexandra Călin, 2023. "Progress of EU Member States Regarding the Bioeconomy and Biomass Producing and Converting Sectors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-22, September.
    9. Degirmenci, Tunahan & Yavuz, Hakan, 2024. "Environmental taxes, R&D expenditures and renewable energy consumption in EU countries: Are fiscal instruments effective in the expansion of clean energy?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 299(C).
    10. Fan, Lurong & Xu, Jiuping, 2020. "Authority–enterprise equilibrium based mixed subsidy mechanism for carbon reduction and energy utilization in the coalbed methane industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    11. Glachant, Jean-Michel & Ruester, Sophia, 2014. "The EU internal electricity market: Done forever?," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 1-7.
    12. Toka, Agorasti & Iakovou, Eleftherios & Vlachos, Dimitrios & Tsolakis, Naoum & Grigoriadou, Anastasia-Loukia, 2014. "Managing the diffusion of biomass in the residential energy sector: An illustrative real-world case study," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 56-69.
    13. Shahnazi, Rouhollah & Dehghan Shabani, Zahra, 2020. "Do renewable energy production spillovers matter in the EU?," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 786-796.
    14. Granoszewski, Karol & Spiller, Achim, 2013. "Langfristige Rohstoffsicherung in der Supply Chain Biogas: Status Quo und Potenziale vertraglicher Zusammenarbeit," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 260820, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    15. Andrzej Czyżewski & Andrzej Grzyb & Anna Matuszczak & Mariola Michałowska, 2021. "Factors for Bioeconomy Development in EU Countries with Different Overall Levels of Economic Development," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-21, May.
    16. Baldoni, Edoardo & Philippidis, George & Spekreijse, Jurjen & Gurría, Patricia & Lammens, Tijs & Parisi, Claudia & Ronzon, Tévécia & Vis, Martijn & M'Barek, Robert, 2021. "Getting your hands dirty: A data digging exercise to unearth the EU's bio-based chemical sector," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    17. Maximilian Gasser & Simon Pezzutto & Wolfram Sparber & Eric Wilczynski, 2022. "Public Research and Development Funding for Renewable Energy Technologies in Europe: A Cross-Country Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-28, May.
    18. Vollebergh, Herman, 1997. "Environmental externalities and social optimality in biomass markets: waste-to-energy in The Netherlands and biofuels in France," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 605-621, May.
    19. Amalia Suryani & Alberto Bezama & Claudia Mair-Bauernfeind & Macben Makenzi & Daniela Thrän, 2022. "Drivers and Barriers to Substituting Firewood with Biomass Briquettes in the Kenyan Tea Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-24, May.
    20. Elżbieta Jadwiga Szymańska & Robert Mroczek & Jadwiga Drożdż, 2024. "A Closed-Loop Economy in the Meat Industry for Generating Alternative Energy from Biogas Plants," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-18, December.

    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:jeners:v:16:y:2022:i:1:p:192-:d:1013806. 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.