Farmers’ Willingness to Achieve Energy Self-Sufficiency in Kosovo
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Energy and Its Importance
1.2. Application of Renewable Energy in Agriculture
1.3. Farmers’ Perceptions of Renewable Energy Application in Agriculture
1.4. Energy Self-Sufficiency in Agriculture
1.5. Kosovo’s Agriculture and Renewable Energy
- Economic constraint: One major obstacle to farmers accessing alternative energy forms is the high cost of equipment [29]. RESs are no longer affordable for many farmers due to this financial load. Given the high initial investment cost and the disparity in purchasing power among them, many of the farmers are unable to access electricity sources that use renewable energy.
- Insufficient funding: the availability of cost-effective financing alternatives for renewable energy applications in agriculture initiatives is limited, posing challenges for farmers [47].
- Reliability and maintenance: The existing conditions for adopting alternative energy in agriculture are frequently vulnerable to poor maintenance skills, and they might not have the resources and knowledge necessary to support and maintain renewable energy systems for the duration of their useful lives. This includes having access to replacement parts, skilled technicians, and technical assistance for repairs and troubleshooting.
2. Materials and Methods
Data Sampling
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Farmers’ Attitude Towards Renewable Energy
3.2. Best–Worst Scale Results
3.3. Evaluation of Cluster Analysis Results
4. Conclusions
- What are the specificities of farmers’ decisions regarding renewable energy compared to other population groups?
- What are the perspectives for energy self-sufficiency in agriculture and local economic development?
- In which areas is it more appropriate to apply a more favourable efficiency or sustainability-based support system resulting from economies of scale or to apply social aspects in supporting energy modernization on farms?
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
AV | Agrivoltaics |
BWS | Best–Worst Scale |
χ2 | Chi-square |
EJ | Exajoule |
EU | European Union |
GDP | Gross Domestic Production |
GHGs | Greenhouse Gases |
ha | Hectares |
KAS | Kosovo Agency of Statistics |
kcal/kg | Kilocalories per kilogram |
ktonnes | Kilotonnes |
ktoe | Kilotonnes of oil equivalent |
kW | Kilowatt |
m3 | Cubic metre |
MJ/kg | Megajoules per kilogram |
PV | Photovoltaics |
RE | Renewable energy |
RES | Renewable energy sources |
SPSS | Statistical Package for the Social Sciences |
TWh | Terawatt hour |
References
- Holden, E.; Linnerud, K.; Banister, D. Sustainable development: Our Common Future revisited. Glob. Environ. Change 2014, 26, 130–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. 2030 Climate Targets—European Commission. Available online: https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/climate-strategies-targets/2030-climate-targets_en (accessed on 30 January 2025).
- Sertolli, A.; Gabnai, Z.; Lengyel, P.; Bai, A. Biomass Potential and Utilization in Worldwide Research Trends—A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Energy Institute. Home|Statistical Review of World Energy. 2023. Available online: https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review (accessed on 30 January 2025).
- Igbeghe, C.B.; Nagy, A.; Gabnai, Z.; Bai, A. Exploring Biomass Linkages in the Food and Energy Market—A Systematic Review. Energies 2024, 17, 563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. C44 Energy Use in Agriculture, Forestry and Food Industry. Available online: https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/IndicatorsEnvironmental/EnergyUseInAgriForestryFoodIndustry.html (accessed on 30 January 2025).
- Vida, V.; Szűcs, I. Pork production and consumption issues from the perspective of the religion and the World’s growing population. Appl. Stud. Agribus. Commer. 2020, 14, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popp, J.; Harangi-rákos, M.; Petô, K.; Nagy, A. Bioenergy: Risks to Food-, Energy- and Environmental Security. 2013. Available online: https://ojs.lib.unideb.hu/apstract/article/view/6212 (accessed on 15 January 2025).
- Tumiwa, J.R.; Tuegeh, O.; Bittner, B.; Nagy, A. The challenges to developing smart agricultural village in the industrial revolution 4.0.: The case of Indonesia. Torun Int. Stud. 2022, 1, 25–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Majeed, Y.; Khan, M.U.; Waseem, M.; Zahid, U.; Mahmood, F.; Majeed, F.; Sultan, M.; Raza, A. Renewable energy as an alternative source for energy management in agriculture. Energy Rep. 2023, 10, 344–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahman, M.; Khan, I.; Field, D.L.; Techato, K.; Alameh, K. Powering agriculture: Present status, future potential, and challenges of renewable energy applications. Renew. Energy 2022, 188, 731–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agri-Environmental Indicator—Energy Use—Statistics Explained. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Agri-environmental_indicator_-_energy_use (accessed on 12 January 2025).
- Bathaei, A.; Štreimikienė, D. Renewable Energy and Sustainable Agriculture: Review of Indicators. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO. B9 Management of energy in the context of CSA Production and Resources. 2011. Available online: https://www.fao.org/climate-smart-agriculture-sourcebook/production-resources/module-b9-energy/b9-overview/en/?type=111 (accessed on 14 January 2025).
- Amjith, L.; Bavanish, B. A review on biomass and wind as renewable energy for sustainable environment. Chemosphere 2022, 293, 133579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, C.M.S.; Singh, S.; Gupta, M.K.; Nimdeo, Y.M.; Raushan, R.; Deorankar, A.V.; Kumar, T.A.; Rout, P.K.; Chanotiya, C.; Pakhale, V.D.; et al. Solar energy: A promising renewable source for meeting energy demand in Indian agriculture applications. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2023, 55, 102905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saleem, M. Possibility of utilizing agriculture biomass as a renewable and sustainable future energy source. Heliyon 2022, 8, e08905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rana, J.; Kamruzzaman, M.; Oliver, M.H.; Akhi, K. Financial and factors demand analysis of solar powered irrigation system in Boro rice production: A case study in Meherpur district of Bangladesh. Renew. Energy 2021, 167, 433–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Juszczyk, O.; Juszczyk, J.; Juszczyk, S.; Takala, J. Barriers for Renewable Energy Technologies Diffusion: Empirical Evidence from Finland and Poland. Energies 2022, 15, 527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibitoye, S.E.; Mahamood, R.M.; Jen, T.-C.; Loha, C.; Akinlabi, E.T. An overview of biomass solid fuels: Biomass sources, processing methods, and morphological and microstructural properties. J. Bioresour. Bioprod. 2023, 8, 333–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, B.P.; Goyal, S.K.; Kumar, P. Solar PV cell materials and technologies: Analyzing the recent developments. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 43, 2843–2849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jamar, A.; Majid, Z.; Azmi, W.; Norhafana, M.; Razak, A. A review of water heating system for solar energy applications. Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transf. 2016, 76, 178–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahsavari, A.; Akbari, M. Potential of solar energy in developing countries for reducing energy-related emissions. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 90, 275–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lázár, I.; Szegedi, S.; Tóth, T.; Csákberényi-Nagy, G. An estimation model based on solar geometry parameters for solar power production. Energy Rep. 2020, 6, 1636–1640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lázár, I.; Hadnagy, I.; Bertalan-Balázs, B.; Bertalan, L.; Szegedi, S. Comparative examinations of wind speed and energy extrapolation methods using remotely sensed data—A case study from Hungary. Energy Convers. Manag. X 2024, 24, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pourasl, H.H.; Barenji, R.V.; Khojastehnezhad, V.M. Solar energy status in the world: A comprehensive review. Energy Rep. 2023, 10, 3474–3493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clauser, N.M.; González, G.; Mendieta, C.M.; Kruyeniski, J.; Area, M.C.; Vallejos, M.E. Biomass Waste as Sustainable Raw Material for Energy and Fuels. Sustainability 2021, 13, 794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sutherland, L.-A.; Toma, L.; Barnes, A.P.; Matthews, K.B.; Hopkins, J. Agri-environmental diversification: Linking environmental, forestry and renewable energy engagement on Scottish farms. J. Rural. Stud. 2016, 47, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pestisha, A.; Bai, A. Preferences and knowledge of farmers and internet-orientated population about renewable energy sources in Kosovo. Int. Rev. Appl. Sci. Eng. 2022, 14, 230–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Li, W.; Haq, S.U.; Shahbaz, P. Adoption of Renewable Energy Technology on Farms for Sustainable and Efficient Production: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurial Orientation, Farmer Perception and Government Policies. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wagner, J.; Bühner, C.; Gölz, S.; Trommsdorff, M.; Jürkenbeck, K. Factors influencing the willingness to use agrivoltaics: A quantitative study among German farmers. Appl. Energy 2024, 361, 122934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michels, M.; Bonke, V.; Wever, H.; Musshoff, O. Understanding farmers’ intention to buy alternative fuel tractors in German agriculture applying the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2024, 203, 123360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lombardi, G.V.; Berni, R. Renewable energy in agriculture: Farmers willingness-to-pay for a photovoltaic electric farm tractor. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 313, 127520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elahi, E.; Khalid, Z.; Zhang, Z. Understanding farmers’ intention and willingness to install renewable energy technology: A solution to reduce the environmental emissions of agriculture. Appl. Energy 2022, 309, 118459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gabnai, Z. Development of the European Union’s environmental policy and its measures for climate protection—A review. Appl. Stud. Agribus. Commer. 2022, 15, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Augustyn, G.; Mikulik, J.; Rumin, R.; Szyba, M. Energy Self-Sufficient Livestock Farm as the Example of Agricultural Hybrid Off-Grid System. Energies 2021, 14, 7041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gabnai, Z. Energy alternatives in large-scale wastewater treatment. Appl. Stud. Agribus. Commer. 2017, 11, 141–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balda, M.C.; Furubayashi, T.; Nakata, T. A novel approach for analyzing the food-energy nexus through on-farm energy generation. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2017, 19, 1003–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Awaafo, A.; Awafo, E.A.; Mahdavi, M.; Akolgo, G.; Jurado, F.; Vera, D.; Amankwah, E. Crops production and the contribution of agricultural biomass power generation to Africa’s clean energy transition: Analysis of trends from 1990 to 2021. Biomass Bioenergy 2024, 186, 107244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villarroel-Schneider, J.; Höglund-Isaksson, L.; Mainali, B.; Martí-Herrero, J.; Cardozo, E.; Malmquist, A.; Martin, A. Energy self-sufficiency and greenhouse gas emission reductions in Latin American dairy farms through massive implementation of biogas-based solutions. Energy Convers. Manag. 2022, 261, 115670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, Z.; Ji, L.; Xie, Y.; Huang, G.; Pan, J. Synergic management of crop planting structure and biomass utilization pathways under a food-energy-water nexus perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 335, 130314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chalgynbayeva, A.; Balogh, P.; Szőllősi, L.; Gabnai, Z.; Apáti, F.; Sipos, M.; Bai, A. The Economic Potential of Agrivoltaic Systems in Apple Cultivation—A Hungarian Case Study. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coşgun, A.E.; Endiz, M.S.; Demir, H.; Özcan, M. Agrivoltaic systems for sustainable energy and agriculture integration in Turkey. Heliyon 2024, 10, e32300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- MAFRD. Green Report 2023. 2023. Available online: https://enact.info/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Green_Report_2023.pdf (accessed on 13 December 2024).
- MAFRD. Green Report 2021. 2022. Available online: https://www.mbpzhr-ks.net/repository/docs/Green_Report_2021.pdf (accessed on 5 December 2024).
- MAFRD. Green Report 2014. 2014. Available online: https://www.mbpzhr-ks.net/repository/docs/56917_161214_GR_2014_ENG_Final_Printed_Version.pdf (accessed on 2 December 2024).
- MAFRD. Green Report 2022. 2023. Available online: https://www.mbpzhr-ks.net/repository/docs/Kosovo__Green_Report_2022.pdf (accessed on 13 December 2024).
- Ministry of Economy. Energy Strategy of the Republic of Kosovo 2022–2031. 2021. Available online: https://me.rks-gov.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Energy-Strategy-of-the-Republic-of-Kosovo-2022-2031-1-1.pdf (accessed on 16 December 2024).
- Republic of Kosovo. National Energy and Climate Plan of the Republic of Kosovo 2025–2030 First Draft Version. Prishtina. 2023. Available online: https://www.energy-community.org/dam/jcr:e6badfbe-313d-4ebc-a450-416dcdbd5499/20230714_FinalVersion_First Draft NECP 2025-2030 of Kosovo.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2024).
- Sertolli, A.; Bai, A.; Gabnai, Z.; Mizik, T.; Pestisha, A. Theoretical and Energy Biomass Potential of Heat and Electricity Production in Kosovo. Energies 2023, 16, 7209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MAFRD. Strategy for Agriculture and Rural Development 2022–2028. December 2021. Available online: https://www.mbpzhr-ks.net/repository/docs/STRATEGJIA_20222028_FINAL_ENG_Web_Noprint_final_PDF.pdf (accessed on 12 January 2025).
- Burns, J.G.; Glenk, K.; Eory, V.; Simm, G.; Wall, E. Preferences of European dairy stakeholders in breeding for resilient and efficient cattle: A best-worst scaling approach. J. Dairy Sci. 2022, 105, 1265–1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Valck, J.; Rolfe, J.; Rajapaksa, D.; Star, M. Consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for improved environmental standards: Insights from cane sugar in the Great Barrier Reef region*. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2022, 66, 505–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caputo, V.; Lusk, J.L. What agricultural and food policies do U.S. consumers prefer? A best–worst scaling approach. Agric. Econ. 2020, 51, 75–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muunda, E.; Mtimet, N.; Schneider, F.; Wanyoike, F.; Dominguez-Salas, P.; Alonso, S. Could the new dairy policy affect milk allocation to infants in Kenya? A best-worst scaling approach. Food Policy 2021, 101, 102043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Török, Á.; Yeh, C.H.; Menozzi, D.; Balogh, P.; Czine, P. European consumers’ preferences for fresh fruit and vegetables—A cross-country analysis. J. Agric. Food Res. 2023, 14, 100883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Török, Á.; Yeh, C.H.; Menozzi, D.; Balogh, P.; Czine, P. Consumers’ preferences for processed meat: A best–worst scaling approach in three European countries. Agric. Food Econ. 2023, 11, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gergely, B.; Péter, L.; Péter, C. A survey of the preferences of Hungarian e-sports consumers. Statisztikai Szle. 2023, 101, 635–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kosovo Agency of Statistics. Number of Agricultural Holdings (Agricultural Households and Agricultural Legal Entities). SiteTitle. Available online: https://askdata.rks-gov.net/pxweb/en/ASKdata/ASKdata__Agriculture__Agricultural%20Household%20Survey/Nr.%20of%20agri.%20households%20and%20agricultural%20legal.px/ (accessed on 17 December 2024).
- Dumitru, M.; Adamson, J.; Gafo, M. Exchange on Advancing Young and Historically Underserved Farmers and Addressing Intergenerational Farm Issues; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Milk Producers Association—Milk Producers Association. Available online: https://shpqk.org/?fbclid=IwY2xjawIITbVleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHXg89nm--nKsFBkLos-ehowvTXtr2TPuODXgALAw9UxWzKJpEXqZKDz-nw_aem_lPX0btfeJmK3O9Ej4PXUcA (accessed on 9 January 2025).
- Ek, H.T.; Singh, J.; Winberg, J.; Brady, M.V.; Clough, Y. Farmers’ motivations to cultivate biomass for energy and implications. Energy Policy 2024, 193, 114295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, S.; Fan, Y.; Gao, X. Transitioning to clean energy in rural China: The impact of environmental regulation and value perception on farmers’ clean energy adoption. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2024, 16, 055904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tankosić, J.V.; Ignjatijević, S.; Lekić, N.; Kljajić, N.; Ivaniš, M.; Andžić, S.; Ristić, D. The Role of Environmental Attitudes and Risk for Adoption with Respect to Farmers’ Participation in the Agri-Environmental Practices. Agriculture 2023, 13, 2248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batool, K.; Zhao, Z.-Y.; Irfan, M. Factors influencing consumers’ willingness to adopt renewable energy technologies: A paradigm to alleviate energy poverty. Energy 2024, 309, 133005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frantál, B.; Prousek, A. It’s not right, but we do it. Exploring why and how Czech farmers become renewable energy producers. Biomass Bioenergy 2016, 87, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oryani, B.; Koo, Y.; Rezania, S.; Shafiee, A. Barriers to renewable energy technologies penetration: Perspective in Iran. Renew. Energy 2021, 174, 971–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
No. | Attributes |
---|---|
1 | Eco-friendliness |
2 | Less energy cost |
3 | Convenience |
4 | Investment cost |
5 | Energy cost savings |
6 | Available products for energy purpose |
7 | Current energy costs |
What Factors Do You Consider Most Important and Least Important Regarding the Use of Renewable Resources? | ||
---|---|---|
Feature | The most important | The least important |
Eco-friendliness | ||
Availability | ||
Investment costs |
Denomination | Categories | Percentage |
---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 94.2 |
Female | 5.8 | |
Education | Primary school | 5.8 |
High school | 76.7 | |
University | 17.5 | |
Municipality | Ferizaj | 9.2 |
Gjakovë | 12.5 | |
Gjilan | 14.2 | |
Mitrovicë | 14.2 | |
Pejë | 13.3 | |
Prishtinë | 20.8 | |
Prizren | 15.8 | |
Type of the farm | Cattle or crop farm | 7.5 |
Combined production | 92.5 | |
Farm size | Lower than 5 hectares | 73.3 |
Between 5 and 10 hectares | 10.0 | |
Above 10 hectares | 16.7 | |
Production of maize | Yes | 77.5 |
No | 22.5 | |
Bedding | Yes | 92.5 |
No | 7.5 | |
Solar panel in the farm | Yes | 10.0 |
No | 90.0 | |
Age (year) | Mean | 43.78 |
SD | 9.27 | |
Solar panel capacity (kW) | Mean | 0.52 |
SD | 1.89 | |
Electricity consumed (EUR/month) | Mean | 46.88 |
SD | 118.61 | |
Number of cows | Mean | 19.89 |
SD | 30.76 | |
Wheat production (ha) (n = 112) | Mean | 4.81 |
SD | 14.67 | |
Maize production (ha) (n = 97) | Mean | 7.21 |
SD | 16.49 |
Denomination | Categories | Percentage |
---|---|---|
How much do you prefer solar cells? | Moderately | 5.8 |
Very | 9.2 | |
Very much | 85.0 | |
How much do you prefer by-product use for energy purposes (e.g., straw firing)? | Not at all | 18.3 |
Slightly | 17.5 | |
Moderately | 25.0 | |
Very | 7.5 | |
Very much | 31.7 | |
How much do you prefer main-product use for energy purposes (e.g., short-rotation coppice for heat production)? | Not at all | 5.0 |
Slightly | 15.8 | |
Moderately | 27.5 | |
Very | 13.3 | |
Very much | 38.3 | |
In comparison with traditional energy, clean energy can improve quality of life. | Likely | 3.3 |
Most likely | 7.5 | |
Definitely | 89.2 | |
To what extent do you believe that improving energy efficiency practices (e.g., better insulation, energy-efficient equipment) can contribute to energy self-sufficiency on farms? | Slightly | 1.7 |
Moderately | 4.2 | |
Very | 8.3 | |
Extremely | 85.8 | |
Government incentives and subsidies play a significant role in promoting the adoption of energy self-sufficient practices on farms. | Not Strongly Agree | 8.3 |
Strongly agree | 91.7 |
Denomination | Categories | Percentage |
---|---|---|
The importance of community collaboration and knowledge-sharing in promoting energy self-sufficiency initiatives among farmers. | Not extremely important | 5.0 |
Extremely important | 95.0 | |
Investing in energy self-sufficiency measures enhances the overall competitiveness and viability of farms. | Neutral | 5.0 |
Agree | 11.7 | |
Strongly agree | 83.3 | |
Utilizing renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power is an effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on farms. | Neutral | 8.3 |
Agree | 15.0 | |
Strongly agree | 76.7 | |
Indicate your perception of technical challenges, such as lack of expertise or knowledge, as barriers to the adoption of renewable energy technologies in agricultural operations. | Important | 6.7 |
Extremely Important | 93.3 | |
Mean | Standard Deviation | |
BWS—Energy cost savings | 1.24 | 0.73 |
BWS—Available byproducts for energy purposes | −0.39 | 0.93 |
BWS—Less energy costs | 2.31 | 1.13 |
BWS—Environmental friendliness | 1.88 | 0.98 |
BWS—Convenience | −2.14 | 1.02 |
BWS—Investment cost | −1.27 | 1.17 |
BWS—Current energy costs | −1.63 | 0.83 |
Designation | Energy Cost Savings | Less Energy Costs | Environmental Friendliness | Available Byproducts | Investment Costs | Convenience | Current Energy Costs |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The most important | 18.10 | 34.17 | 28.69 | 12.26 | 2.86 | 2.74 | 1.19 |
The least important | 0.36 | 1.19 | 1.79 | 17.86 | 20.95 | 33.33 | 24.52 |
BWS value | 149.00 | 277.00 | 226.00 | −47.00 | −152.00 | −257.00 | −196.00 |
Standard value | 0.41 | 0.77 | 0.63 | −0.13 | −0.42 | −0.71 | −0.54 |
Rank order | 3 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 6 |
Square root a | 7.12 | 5.36 | 4.01 | 0.83 | 0.37 | 0.29 | 0.22 |
Relative b % | 100.00 | 75.26 | 56.31 | 11.64 | 5.19 | 4.03 | 3.10 |
Rank order | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
Mean | Cluster 1: | Cluster 2: | Levene’s Test Value | Significance Value | Test Value | Significance Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Denomination ** | Small-Sized Farms | Medium- to Large-Sized Farms | |||||
Respondent number (n = 120) | 106 | 14 | |||||
Energy cost savings | 1.30a | 0.79b | F = 0.25 | p = 0.617 | t = 2.53 | p = 0.013 | |
Available byproducts for energy purposes | −0.54b | 0.71a | F = 1.93 | p = 0.167 | t = 5.24 | p < 0.001 | |
Less energy costs * | 2.62a | −0.07b | F = 51.41 | p < 0.001 | t = 6.48 | p < 0.001 | |
Environmental friendliness * | 1.75b | 2.93a | F = 6.79 | p < 0.001 | t = 10.09 | p < 0.001 | |
Convenience | −2.41b | −0.14a | F = 0.02 | p = 0.965 | t = 11.04 | p < 0.001 | |
Investment cost | −1.14a | −2.21b | F = 2.22 | p = 0.139 | t = 3.37 | p = 0.001 | |
Current energy costs * | −1.58a | −2.00b | F = 13.43 | p < 0.001 | t = 2.45 | p = 0.023 | |
Age (year) | 43.78 | 43.63 | 44.93 | F = 0.88 | p = 0.351 | t = 0.49 | p = 0.625 |
Solar panel capacity (kW) * | 5.2 | 3.7 | 16.4 | F = 10.03 | p = 0.002 | t = 1.81 | p = 0.091 |
Electricity consumed (EUR/month) * | 46.88 | 33.47 | 148.43 | F = 21.08 | p < 0.001 | t = 1.40 | p = 0.184 |
Number of cows * | 19.89 | 16.39 | 46.11 | F = 10.45 | p = 0.002 | t = 1.68 | p = 0.117 |
Wheat (ha) | 4.81 | 4.11 | 10.71 | F = 0.43 | p = 0.512 | t = 1.48 | p = 0.141 |
Maize (ha) * | 7.21 | 4.58b | 27.79a | F = 26.03 | p < 0.001 | t = 2.43 | p = 0.036 |
Denomination * | Cluster 1: Small-Sized Farms | Cluster 2: Medium- to Large-Sized Farms | Test Value | Significance Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Respondent number (n = 120) | 106 | 14 | |||
Gender | Female (n = 7) | 7 | 0 | χ2 = 0.98 | p = 0.322 |
Male (n = 113) | 99 | 14 | |||
Solar panel in farm | No (n = 108) | 99 | 9 | χ2 = 11.64 | p = 0.001 |
Yes (n = 12) | 7 | 5 | |||
Government incentives and subsidies | Not Strongly Agree (n = 10) | 9 | 1 | χ2 = 0.029 | p = 0.864 |
Strongly agree (n = 110) | 97 | 13 | |||
Importance of community collaboration | Not extremely important (n = 6) | 6 | 0 | χ2 = 0.834 | p = 0.361 |
Extremely important (n = 114) | 100 | 14 | |||
Perception of technical challenges | Important (n = 8) | 6 | 2 | χ2 = 1.479 | p = 0.224 |
Extremely Important (n = 112) | 100 | 12 | |||
Maize cultivators | Maize (n = 93) | 82 | 11 | χ2 = 0.01 | p = 0.919 |
Non-maize (n = 27) | 24 | 3 | |||
Using byproducts for bedding purposes | Bedding (n = 111) | 99 | 12 | χ2 = 1.05 | p = 0.305 |
No bedding (n = 9) | 7 | 2 | |||
Education (rank means) | 61.36 | 54.00 | Mann–Whitney U value: 651 | p = 0.313 | |
Preferences for solar cells (rank means) | 61.61 | 52.07 | Mann–Whitney U value: 624 | p = 0.120 | |
Preferences for by-product use for energy purposes (e.g., straw firing) (rank means) | 59.33 | 69.36 | Mann–Whitney U value: 618 | p = 0.296 | |
Preferences for main-product use for energy purposes (e.g., short-rotation coppice) | 59.63 | 67.07 | Mann–Whitney U value: 650 | p = 0.432 | |
Clean energy improves the quality of life in comparison with traditional energy | 60.74 | 58.71 | Mann–Whitney U value: 717 | p = 0.705 | |
Improving energy efficiency can contribute to energy self-sufficiency on farms | 61.65 | 58.29 | Mann–Whitney U value: 620 | p = 0.100 | |
Investing in energy self-sufficiency measures enhances the competitiveness in farms | 60.79 | 58.29 | Mann–Whitney U value: 711 | p = 0.696 | |
Utilizing RES is an effective way to reduce GHG emissions on farms (rank means) | 62.55a | 45.00b | Mann–Whitney U value: 525 | p = 0.016 | |
Farm size (rank means) | 57.01b | 86.93a | Mann–Whitney U value: 372 | p < 0.001 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Pestisha, A.; Bai, A.; Sertolli, A.; Bytyqi, N.; Balogh, P. Farmers’ Willingness to Achieve Energy Self-Sufficiency in Kosovo. Energies 2025, 18, 1332. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18061332
Pestisha A, Bai A, Sertolli A, Bytyqi N, Balogh P. Farmers’ Willingness to Achieve Energy Self-Sufficiency in Kosovo. Energies. 2025; 18(6):1332. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18061332
Chicago/Turabian StylePestisha, Albiona, Attila Bai, Ardit Sertolli, Njazi Bytyqi, and Péter Balogh. 2025. "Farmers’ Willingness to Achieve Energy Self-Sufficiency in Kosovo" Energies 18, no. 6: 1332. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18061332
APA StylePestisha, A., Bai, A., Sertolli, A., Bytyqi, N., & Balogh, P. (2025). Farmers’ Willingness to Achieve Energy Self-Sufficiency in Kosovo. Energies, 18(6), 1332. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18061332