Next Article in Journal
Reasonable Size Design and Influencing Factors Analysis of the Coal Pillar Dam of an Underground Reservoir in Daliuta Mine
Previous Article in Journal
Design of Polymeric Membranes for Air Separation by Combining Machine Learning Tools with Computer Aided Molecular Design
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Processes
Volume 11
Issue 7
10.3390/pr11072005
processes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Crucial Adoption Factors of Renewable Energy Technology: Seeking Green Future by Promoting Biomethane

by
Juan Wu
1,
Desire Wade Atchike
1,* and
Munir Ahmad
2,3
1
School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Taizhou University, Jiaojiang, Taizhou 318000, China
2
College of International Economics & Trade, Ningbo University of Finance and Economics, Ningbo 315175, China
3
“Belt and Road” Bulk Commodity Research Center, Ningbo University of Finance and Economics, Ningbo 315175, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Processes 2023, 11(7), 2005; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11072005
Submission received: 29 May 2023 / Revised: 15 June 2023 / Accepted: 29 June 2023 / Published: 4 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Energy Systems)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
To reduce the dependence on fossil fuels to fulfill energy needs and give rural areas better access to energy, biomethane generation technology (BG-TECH) can help in these situations. However, several crucial factors might influence BG-TECH’s acceptance by households. In order to eradicate the barriers to and strengthen the driving forces of BG-TECH acceptance, it becomes inevitable to explore those crucial factors. Therefore, the core objective of this research is to analyze the factors impacting BG-TECH acceptance by households in rural Pakistan. This research will enrich the existing literature by comprehensively analyzing factors driving or impeding BG-TECH acceptance. To collect relevant data, a questionnaire was developed and distributed in four districts of Pakistan. In this respect, 150 users and 150 non-users of biomethane were selected through stratified random sampling. To analyze the factors affecting the acceptance of BG-TECH, a logistic regression model was utilized. As per our empirical results, age, ownership of cattle, aftersales service, education, household income, and loan accessibility were revealed to be the driving forces of BG-TECH. However, small farmers’ age and household size impeded the acceptance of BG-TECH. However, occupation, ownership of land, and working experience did not influence the acceptance of BG-TECH. Thus, for BG-TECH approval, it is recommended that governments bring about a change in approaches as well as the development of aftersales services, improved promotions, the qualification of adults, and better loan facilities. On the one hand, our theoretical implications would prove powerful tools for the follow-up studies to dig deeper into the crucial factors of BG-TECH acceptance and transcribe those implications for other green energy technologies. On the other hand, our practical implications would empower policymakers and practitioners to guide improved policy implementation to realize the green energy revolution.

1. Introduction

To realize the sustainable development goals (SDGs) of the United Nations, extensive research into the accessibility of renewable energy sources is initiated because they can be an alternative to fossil fuels [1,2]. The literature provides proof that renewable energy sources have not only helped some countries overcome the shortage of energy [3] but have also remained an effective player in emissions reduction [4]. Renewables (e.g., wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and biomass) and non-renewables (e.g., fossil-based energy) are the various energy sources from which Pakistan is gifted. Such sources are classified into various categories, including (i) traditional energy, (ii) commercial energy, and (iii) substitute energy [5,6]. The first category is based on firewood, kerosene oil, and agriculture-based residues utilized by households. After that, petroleum products and electricity come under commercial sources, whereas renewable energy technologies such as biomethane (also known as biogas) generation technology (BG-TECH) come under substitute energy sources. On the one hand, biomethane is used for households’ cooking and heating purposes [7]. On the other hand, it can be a source of electricity as it is renewable energy. In order to lower coal consumption, greenhouse gases (GHGs), and electricity coverage and to meet the need for growing energy demand, various renewable energy plans, and initiatives have been carried out by the Pakistani government. The governmental authorities have identified that renewables have the potential to transform and evolve the energy industry. The government believes renewables will positively promote green human resource-based employment opportunities across the country and provide access to modern energy services [8,9]. In rural areas, providing energy for daily chores such as cooking and heating is difficult, increasing the energy gap between rural and urban areas, which could be lessened using biomethane digesters [10].
Enhanced access to energy not only reduces poverty but also improves the standard of living of people in an economy. As it has been debated that the reliance on energy to fulfill daily tasks is increasing day by day, renewable energy is considered a good substitute for catering to energy-related needs. Pakistan is regarded as a net importer of petroleum and crude oil [11]. Despite huge energy generation potential, the country is still facing a shortage of energy due to its increased population. In this regard, the power shortfall recorded as of 2021 was 9000 Megawatt, causing 8–12 h of power blackouts in urban areas, while villages face around 12–18 h of daily load shedding [12]. The advantage of BG-TECH is that it provides green energy as a substitute for conventional energy sources and reduces GHGs along with the generation of bio-slurry (used as a bio-fertilizer). Methane is the prime component formed through the anaerobic fermentation method of biomethane generation. By and large, biomethane is composed of methane (40–75%), CO2 emissions (25–40%), traces of other gases (oxygen, ammonia, nitrogen, and hydrogen), and water [13,14]. Biomethane is a green energy source for meeting household demands, such as cooking. If handled using proper management practices, it can improve the quality of the environment and crop yield [15]. The most influential sources of biomethane production include animal dung, municipal wastes, and both categories (i.e., primary and secondary) of agricultural residue [16]. Animal dung is composed of organic matter, ashes, and water. In Pakistan, cattle, goats, buffalo, poultry, and sheep are the prime contributors to animal dung [17]. As biomethane does not create harmful wastes such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide, it can easily be stored and produced when needed, so it is better than many other renewable energy sources [18]. If a household owns four cattle, then 4000 kg of cow dung will be produced, which is enough to produce around 2000 cubic meters of biomethane annually [19].
Although biomethane has several benefits, Pakistan is still struggling to promote BG-TECh acceptance. Therefore, it is crucial to research the factors determining BG-TECH’s acceptance. There are studies in different underdeveloped countries that focus on the potential of biomethane and issues related to its acceptance. In this regard, Mittal et al. [20] in India, Lohani et al. [21] in Nepal, Nasiruddin et al. [22] in Bangladesh, and Bekchanov et al. [23] in Sri Lanka, among others, revealed that BG-TECH could be used in these countries as a substitute for fossil fuels to fulfill the needs of energy utilization. Mwirigi et al. [24] and Silaen et al. [25] conducted research to assess the impact of biomethane digesters on the environment. They found a positive contribution from accepting biomethane digesters to environmental quality. Several studies focused on the cost-benefit investigation of biomethane, such as those by Jan and Akram [13], who performed research on district-level digesters in Pakistan. Moreover, Chowdhury et al. [26] performed a cost-benefit inspection for Bangladesh. However, the majority of those studies only focused on the financial benefits of BG-TECH. Yet, the financial benefits of BG-TECH, along with crucial influence factors for its acceptance in Pakistan, have been scarcely investigated.
In their most recent work, Yaqoob et al. [27] studied the factors prompting biomethane digesters in Pakistan and found that education level, the shortfall of electricity, and its consequential influence on women’s menial labor and the education of children were the factors that influenced the acceptance of BG-TECH. However, the key elements in the acceptance of biomethane digesters included institutional, social, environmental, demographic, economic, and technical aspects. These factors vary across settings based on their social, environmental, and economic situations [26]. Aside from socio-economic factors, in the process of adopting technology, households take various other concerns into consideration. Literature also supported the idea that institutional, economic, personality traits, social, and physical factors could play an essential role in determining the acceptance of biomethane digesters [28]. Furthermore, Wassie and Adaramola [29] examined and revealed that social and economic barriers impeded the acceptance of biomethane digesters by Kenyan households. Another study uncovered that farmers’ choices regarding technology acceptance were influenced by socio-economic standing [30]. In Uganda, it was found that cattle ownership, household size, households’ earnings, and the cost of conventional biomass fuels were the influential factors impacting the acceptance of BG-TECH [31]. A different work by Luo et al. [32] revealed that socio-economic status and technological awareness influenced biomethane development in Pakistan. In Bangladesh, the household head’s sex, education, cattle ownership, and annual income acted as determining factors in the acceptance of renewable energy technology [22]. In the same vein, Ferrer–Marti et al. [33] argued that the acceptance of new technology was influenced by households’ income, household head’s age, and household size.
In the past, very few researchers performed research on biomethane digesters’ acceptance on household and commercial scales [34,35]. Furthermore, the majority of studies focus on the financial profitability of the technology, which increases the need for financial analysis in light of the substitution benefits of the technology [36,37]. Similar to other technologies, the acceptance of BG-TECH is also influenced by technological, financial, and social factors [38,39,40]. Therefore, research on the factors that influence the decision to accept technology is crucial, and many researchers have worked on this hotly debated topic. Some studies focus on the acceptance of biomethane technology at various scales in different countries [41,42,43]. Rasimphi and Tinarwo [44] studied the role of social and financial barriers that Limpopo (Africa) faced in the acceptance and development of BG-TECH. In a different study focusing on household-size digesters, it was found that the increase in household earnings, the number of cattle owned, household size, and the cost of biomass fuel were the factors that affected the acceptance of technology in Bangladesh [45]. In developing countries, the factors found to influence the acceptance decision of BG-TECH were the type of occupation, age, knowledge, number of family members, income, level of education, and gender of the household head [46,47,48].
Against the backdrop of the survey of previous studies, we rarely encountered any comprehensive study investigating the factors influencing BG-TECH acceptance. To develop a policy regarding technology, it is crucial to find the dominant factors acting as a barrier to the acceptance of BG-TECH, as a country’s social and financial situation is not constant. The previous studies remained silent on the following aspects, as framed by our current study: From the consumer standpoint, none of the past research has been identified to evaluate BG-TECH compared to conventional energy fuels comprehensively. Moreover, no research work has been noted to deal with the multidimensional influence factors of BG-TECH, with a particular focus on rural Pakistan. In addition, the previous studies rarely provided a detailed policy analysis in terms of theoretical and practical BG-TECH policies. Herein, we aim to fill this research void in the current study.
The purpose of this research is to delve into the crucial factors influencing BG-TECH’s contribution to a green future. To achieve this objective, we collect primary data from rural households belonging to Pakistan’s Punjab province. A logistic regression is employed to estimate the crucial driving forces and barriers to BG-TECH adoption. We specifically contribute by exploring the influence factors of BG-TECH acceptance. Furthermore, we present a detailed household survey-based comparative analysis of the multidimensional factors to highlight the distinguishing features of BG-TECH compared to traditional fuels. Finally, we extend the understanding of researchers, policymakers, and practitioners by putting forward theoretical as well as practical policy insights. These contributions are of critical importance since technology such as biomethane is needed to provide rural areas with a better energy source and strengthen the economy. Thus, this study unveils the factors that encourage or discourage the acceptance of BG-TECH in Pakistan’s rural settings. This study would be helpful for policymakers, manufacturers of BG-TECH, and scholars working in the same research domain.

2. Research Data and Methods

2.1. Research Site and Compilation of Data

Figure 1 presents the data and methodological steps. Primarily, a questionnaire was conducted through multi-stage stratified random sampling. In this process, questionnaires were distributed to the households in person, and a time period of one month was given to fill out those questionnaires. After a month, the questionnaires were collected from the households, followed by validation of the questionnaires. During the validation process, only questionnaires that were completed in all respects and free from mistakes were included in the analytical procedure. Then, data screening was done to prepare the data for the final estimations. After that, estimations were carried out using logistic regression analysis. Finally, the estimated results were interpreted, and the implications were drawn.
To begin with the data collection for this study, a survey was executed in September and October 2022 in four districts of Pakistan’s Punjab province. The districts used for data collection are named Khushab, Layyah, Khanewal, and Muzaffar Garh, on the grounds that biomethane digesters were present in those districts in abundance. Figure 2 shows the map of the research site.
A structured questionnaire was distributed in 23 villages for quantitative and qualitative analysis. The sample of 300 individuals was selected using multi-stage stratified random sampling, of which 150 were users of biomethane and the remaining 150 were non-users (see Table 1). The number of users and non-users of biomethane digesters in each district is also documented in Table 1. The sampled biomethane users were found using digesters of different sizes, involving 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 50 cubic meters, respectively. The sample of our questionnaire is provided in Table A1 (see Appendix A).

2.2. Information Acquisition Channels of BG-TECH

Figure 3 presents the channels of BG-TECH information that could potentially influence people’s attitudes toward making a choice and using new technology. Those channels were determined while conducting the survey. To this end, the respondents were asked about their BG-TECH information channels, and their responses were recorded as provided in Figure 3. The BG-TECH information was sourced through the following main channels: (i) Peer groups (39.38%) included co-workers, neighbors, and friends that are the source of positive/negative word of mouth regarding the new technology. (ii) Biomethane users (22.18%) appeared in a direct and dependable channel as they could share their real-time experiences of using the new technology. (iii) Social media (19.52%) was the third main channel contributing to the dissemination of BG-TECH information. Social media comprised television, Facebook, and other social platforms that could efficiently transmit information and form people’s attitudes toward new technology. (iv) Biomethane digester companies (15.01%) also played a role in the spread of BG-TECH information. They were a reliable source, as they could directly communicate the features of the new technology to the people. (v) Finally, the rural leaders (3.91%) were also among the transmission channels of BG-TECH information. They have access to rural households, and their suggestions influence the attitude of the people. Overall, peer groups and BG-TECH users were the main players in information transmission, facilitating BG-TECH acceptance among the representative households.

2.3. Empirical Strategy

Though linear probability modeling or ordinary least squares regression is appropriate for a dichotomous variable, this model has some limitations, such as the fact that the values of fitted probabilities can be less than 0 or more than 1, and the effect of regressors remains constant [49]. So, it is better to use a logistic regression model that is more predictable, appropriate, and meaningful [46].
Logistic regression and probit models are used if the research contains a dichotomous regressand variable [50,51]. The decision of whether to use a logistic regression or probit model is affected by sustainability and convention. The logistic regression model has been used as a standard model for many years if the regressand variable is distinct and binary. The maximum likelihood method is applied after changing the regressand variable into logistic regression variables [52]. Probit is thought of as a substitute for logistic regression. The probit model and logistic regression model differ in that the latter makes assumptions about the distribution of variables. Realistically, unless the model includes extreme values across different observations, there are no substantial variations. The logistic regression model is less complex and easier to understand than the probit model, according to Latkin et al. [53]. The logistic regression model has been employed in the quantitative analysis performed in this study. In the event that a household decides to adopt a BG-TECH, the value will be 1, or else it will be 0 as the regressand variable is dichotomous.
As the logistic regression model can evaluate the odds in the procedures of BG-TECH acceptance, that is why it is called the odds ratio. In the logistic regression model, the technique of maximum likelihood is applied, and then the transformed version of a regressand variable is created by taking a logarithm [54]. To find the odds ratio of all regressand variables used in a model, a logistic regression model can be used. This study has used a multivariate logistic regression model to examine the possibility of acceptance of biomethane digesters of different sizes. A binary logistic regression model is presented as Equation (2):
P Y = φ 0 + φ 1 X 1 + φ 2 X 2 + φ 3 X 3 + φ 4 X 4 + φ 5 X 5 + φ 6 X 6 + φ 7 X 7 + φ 8 X 8 + φ 9 X 9 + φ 10 X 10
In Equation (1), the logistic regression model parameters determined the odds ratios for each regressor.
I n p ( x ) 1 − ( p x ) = A 0 + A 1 X 1 + A 2 X 2 + … + A 10 X 10 + ε
In Equation (2), p depicts the acceptance probability of BG-TECH (1 = acceptance, 0 = non-acceptance), A 0 denote the constant term, X 1 indicates small farm holder’s age, X 2 denotes ownership of cattle, X 3 is indicative of aftersales services, X 4 denotes occupation, X 5 qualification, X 6 is household size, X 7 is monthly family income, X 8 denotes ownership of land, X 9 represents working experience, and X 10 denotes loan accessibility. However, A 1 to A 10 indicate the parametrization of the respective regressor, while ε is the stochastic residual term.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Statistical Summary

A statistical summary of different variables is shown in Table 2. It is concluded from the table that the majority of individuals are middle-aged. On average, households own seven cattle, which can produce enough cow dung to operate a biomethane digester. Most small farm owners own small-scale farms and have around nine years of schooling, which gives them enough knowledge of new technologies and makes it easy to persuade them to adopt new technology such as BG-TECH. Herein, owning more land means having more savings available to invest in new technology, and being qualified means having more knowledge of the positive effects of BG-TECH. The average household size was found to be six individuals. More individuals in a family can encourage the acceptance of technology as they have more people to operate and maintain the biomethane digester, but they can also discourage it as having more family members means enhanced household spending, leading to fewer savings. The average monthly income was around twenty thousand PKR. The influence of income on the acceptance of technology is expected to be positive, as more earnings mean the family is capable of bearing the cost of digester installation and maintenance. Aftersales services and loan accessibility are expected to influence the acceptance of technology positively, as these increase individuals’ knowledge of technology and their ability to accept new technology.

3.2. Outcomes of Logistic Regression Model and Discussion

For the evaluation of regressand variables, the logistic regression model is used. A multivariate logistic regression model is applied to analyze the factors that impact a household’s decision regarding the acceptance of BG-TECH. Equation (3) reports the parametric estimates as follows:
ln P / ( 1 − P ) = 3.721 − 0.139 X 1 + 0.612 X 2 + 1.159 X 3 + 0.778 X 4 + 0.687 X 5 – 0.695 X 6 + 0.011 X 7 + 0.760 X 8 + 0.767 X 9 + 0.498 X 1 O + ε i
Cox-Snell-based R squared and Nagelkerke-based R squared are ideal for use in evaluating the logistic regression model’s quality of fit. The R-squared and the R squared of the linear regression are related, according to the coefficient of determination. The latter is the fluctuation in the percentage of the regressand variable. The coefficient of determination remains close to the value of the Cox-Snell-based R square, while Nagelkerke’s R-squared value remains between zero and one. If the R square value is the highest, the model is regarded as being fit. In multiple regression, the sum of squared distances is less, whereas it is mostly occupied by the least squares method. The possibility that an incident will happen is increased by logistic regression. The maximum likelihood method is more suitable in a situation where the value of the sum of the squares is used in multiple regression. The analysis of variables in the logistic regression model is presented in Table 3.

3.2.1. Small Farm Holder’s Age

The estimated parametric score of the small farmer age is negative 0.276, showing high statistical significance in this study. This indicates that if the age of a small farm holder has increased by one year, the possibility that he will adopt the biomethane digester will decrease by 0.276. It signifies that if a person is in his old age, he will be reluctant to adopt BG-TECH. The practice of using old ways of gathering firewood as fuel can also lead to the unwillingness of older people to adopt advanced technology. This outcome supports the findings of Ahmad and Wu [45], whereas Nalunga et al. [55] found that the age of small farm holders does not impact the decision to accept BG-TECH.

3.2.2. Ownership of Cattle

In Pakistan, cow dung is the main source of input to operate biomethane digesters. If a family owns four cattle, then it can have enough dung to function as a biomethane digester to fulfill their energy demands. The beta coefficient for animal possession is found to be positive. 0.749, with high significance. This reveals that if a household’s ownership of cattle increases, then the possibility of that household accepting a biomethane digester will also increase by 0.749. This result supports the outcomes of different studies from various countries [56,57,58]. A study conducted in Nepal revealed that household animal holding was supportive of biogas adoption in the country, which validated our findings.

3.2.3. Aftersales Service

In the area of biomethane research, there is a dummy variable recently introduced called the Aftersales service. The coefficient for the availability of extension is positive (1.296). As the value of extension has high significance, if aftersales service increases by one unit, the possibility that a household may accept BG-TECH will increase by 1.296. Aftersales service is one of the important factors enhancing the development of BG-TECH in rural parts of the country. If people have appropriate training to use BG-TECH and accurate knowledge of the benefits of this technology both environmentally and financially, then the acceptance rate of technology will also increase. This outcome supports the results of Ahmed et al. [38]. It has been theoretically argued that aftersales services for innovative technologies aided the confidence of households in new technology, guiding them to opt for such technology [59].

3.2.4. Qualification

The level of education plays an important part in the acceptance of any technology. In this study, qualification is a continuous variable with high significance. The coefficient for this variable is found to be positive (0.824), revealing that an increase in qualification increases the chance that a small farm owner will adopt BG-TECH. Education in rural areas of the country increases people’s understanding of new technology and confidence in BG-TECH. Similar to this finding, Fava and Romanelli [60] found that more qualified users were more likely to support Brazilian biogas development. However, knowledge enhancement has been known to induce households to become more likely to accept innovative technologies [61].

3.2.5. Household Size

The acceptance of BG-TECH is both positively and negatively influenced by the number of members a family comprises. The estimated parametric score of household size in this study was found to be negative (0.832). It indicates that if members of a family increase, the likelihood of a family accepting biomethane digesters decreases by 0.832. In rural areas, most households have large sizes, which leads to fewer savings to invest in any new technology as more people are dependent on the income of the household, and expenses also increase with the increase in household size. A household with more members is keen to use wood or cow dung cake for fuel requirements, as they have more people to cut and collect wood. This result is in line with the findings of He et al. [62], but it does not support the research outcomes of Chowdhury et al. [26].

3.2.6. Household Income

Household income is integral to that family’s decision regarding acceptance of BG-TECH. It is believed that increased income motivates a family to use new technology. The parametric score of income is revealed to be positive, 0.148, with high significance. This indicates that if the increase in income of a family is by one unit, then the increase in the likelihood of that family accepting a biomethane digester increases by 0.148. While studying small-scale biodigesters in India, Singh and Kalamdhad [63] observed that income was a primary factor in enhancing the acceptance of biodigesters in their study sample.

3.2.7. Loan Accessibility

In Pakistan, most small farm holders do not have sufficient assets under their family name and have less income, which leads to insufficient savings [64]. Thus, a loan from the bank or any other credit provider is needed if a family wants to adopt technology but has insufficient savings. The value of an estimated parameter for loan accessibility is positive (0.635). This shows that if a small farmer family has easy loan accessibility, then the possibility of him accepting this technology will increase by 0.635. Easy loan accessibility for investment in the biomethane digester motivates people in rural areas to use BG-TECH. This result is similar to that of Yasmin and Grundmann [47]. Primary data research by Ang’u et al. [65] estimated that credit availability effectively played a role in biogas technology acceptance in Keyna’s Vihiga county.

3.2.8. Insignificant Variables

The working experience of small farm holders regarding the use of biomethane digesters has a positive parameter estimated to be 0.904, but it is not significant. The parameter estimate for occupations other than farming is 0.915, and for ownership of lands it is 0.897. Both have positive values but are also insignificant. This means that all three variables do not affect the acceptance decision regarding the biomethane digester in the context of the under-analyzed study sample.

4. Evaluation of Biomethane Digester and Policies

4.1. Survey-Based Evaluation of Biomethane Digesters

The surveyed households evaluated the BG-TECh based on six dimensions involving behavioral, social, environmental, commercial, economic, and technical dimensions, as shown in Figure 4. Households rated BG-TECH better than traditional energy devices in terms of the tidiness of cooking utensils and the taste of the cooked food on biomethane stoves. However, households thought that biomethane performed poorly when it came to ease of use, elegance of devices, variety of cooking facilities, and inspiration to purchase the new technology. Moreover, households thought BG-TECH was a better choice in terms of employment opportunity creation and the less menial work required by adopters of this technology. Aligned with this observation, Robinson et al. [66] posited that biogas technology helped create green jobs for the Kenyan people. However, training and stove upgrade requirements were argued to be hurdles to accepting BG-TECH.
Concerning environmental dimensions, households assessed that BG-TECH was better than traditional energy sources since it was helpful in preventing forest loss and environmental emissions. This finding is consistent with Ahmad et al. [67], who found that users opted for biogas technology in Pakistan due to its environmental benefits. Another piece of research also highlighted that the environmental advantages of biogas technology complemented the economic payoffs of the said technology in Poland. Additionally, the operational and repair costs and fixed capital costs of BG-TECH were evaluated as the features that make this technology inferior to traditional devices. In the end, on technical grounds, the impediments in the continuity of use across seasons were evaluated as a hurdle, and thus households thought BG-TECH performed poorly compared to other energy generation devices. On the contrary, households thought that BG-TECH was better than other devices in terms of cooking time and fuel utilization. This dimension was also emphasized by Kriechbaum et al. [68], as they argued that on technical grounds, Austrian biodigesters were superior to traditional energy technologies.

4.2. Theoretical Recommendations

Based on our empirical results, we presented the following policy recommendations: First of all, individuals intend to adopt biomethane digesters; however, the dearth of support from the government for this technology’s acceptance is acting as a barrier to attaining the desired results. The government should provide financial support to the potential user of the technology, as biomethane benefits the economy and the environment. The support from the government can also be in the form of loans or subsidies to decrease the financial burden on the expected users of technology. This is also a method used by the majority of underdeveloped countries, such as Pakistan [69].
Secondly, the acceptance rate of new technology can be decelerated by financial and social barriers. To overcome these restrictions, it is crucial to make efforts to give proper education to all. It is concluded from this study that biomethane acceptance is positively affected by appropriate facilities for extension and improving the status of education in the area, so it is recommended that the government provide opportunities for people to get education and occupational training in technology. If extension workers and the people who have already adopted the biomethane digesters provide information related to the benefits of technology, then acceptance can also be accelerated. Promoting BG-TECH through media programs, social media, and flyers can also result in motivating people to adopt biomethane digesters.
The increased number of cattle owned by a family increases the chance that the family may adopt biomethane digesters. In addition, more cattle means more biomethane production, as more cow dung will be available for biomethane digesters. Therefore, the Government should focus on increasing the production of cattle, which can be done by improving the health of animals. The Government can also introduce programs to teach herders how to take better care of their animals and create a favorable environment for them. Commercial dairy, poultry, and beef farms should also be introduced to fulfill demand in rural areas.
Higher earnings per month also impact the acceptance of BG-TECH positively. If agricultural products are directly marketed, then it can increase the household’s income in rural areas. The initial investment required to install biomethane digesters can be a burden for some households, so credit from the government or NGOs can decrease the financial burden. For generating income, the government can also introduce retail stores to engage small farm holders in off-farm income diversification.
The institutional framework of Pakistan is flimsy in supporting the development of BG-TECH. There is a need for infrastructural development at the grass-roots level in order to overcome the barriers related to the economy and society. It is also observed that once the biomethane digester is installed, government workers rarely visit, which leads to maintenance problems for biomethane digesters, and at last, people abandon those digesters. This abandonment of biomethane digesters due to the lack of maintenance workers’ availability led to the demotivation of acceptance of biomethane digesters. Therefore, it is also required that the government focus on providing maintenance facilities in the areas where it has installed biomethane digesters for the smooth operation of these digesters.

4.3. Practical Recommendations

Implications for future research related to BG-TECH are revealed in this study. In some scenarios, acceptance and utilization of biomethane digesters face barriers and restrictions. Due to the low maintenance of biomethane digesters, the number of digesters in households is decreasing. Furthermore, other types of energy are available as an alternative, and there is no subsistence farming in many households, which is the cause of low acceptance. The lack of technical assistance in the area is also one of the factors behind the underuse of digesters, in addition to the lack of technological awareness. Currently, the standards and policies used for the construction of medium- or large-scale biomethane digesters are lacking, so there is a need to improve the policies and standards. There is also a lack of technical assistance, which is discouraging households from accepting and utilizing the BG-TECH because of substandard design, construction, and maintenance of digesters. For biomethane fermentation, a normal temperature is required, but the digester does not have any feature that can raise the temperature or maintain it according to the temperature needed for such fermentation. Low temperatures lead to low production of biomethane gas, which usually happens due to low conversion and low efficiency of the feedstock in the digesters. The increase in temperature leads to an increase in gas production, whereas the decrease in temperature in the winter or on a cloudy day leads to a decrease in gas production. Lack of knowledge related to technology benefits, lack of proper rules and regulations, and poor infrastructure in the province in regards to education are some of the other barriers to the transmission of technology.
Appropriate approaches and policies are required to guide the smooth distribution of BG-TECH. The rules and regulations introduced for commercial-size biomethane digesters are far behind the standards of the manufacturing industry. The establishment of more industries is decreasing the land for farming and the production of cattle. A decrease in cattle production means less input to operate biomethane digesters. So, it is crucial to develop strategies that can encourage the acceptance of BG-TECH across the country. A lack of education facilities and aftersales services results in a barrier to the acceptance and utilization of BG-TECH.
In Pakistan, rural areas need a policy framework to deal with the energy crisis, which is affecting households’ daily lives. This study can be helpful in prompting that framework. Practical policies must be worked upon by the government or other organizations to deal with Pakistan’s energy crisis. In order to tackle the energy crisis, the government can either provide loans or subsidies for the installation of biomethane digesters or provide free digesters to the potential users of BG-TECH. Otherwise, the government can provide materials for building biomethane digesters. In addition, the government must encourage households to raise cattle or poultry and use the waste for operating biomethane digesters, as well as protect the environment from the release of hazardous gases and use the slurry obtained from digesters as fertilizer to reduce fertilizer costs. In Pakistan, appropriate training, the availability of off-farm income, a high level of education, and easy loan accessibility can encourage people to use BG-TECH, which will resolve the energy shortage.

5. Conclusions

While underdeveloped countries are facing an energy crisis, Pakistan is also badly affected by the crisis, increasing the importance of using new resources as an alternative to fill the energy gap. Biomethane is considered one of the important renewable energy sources that can overcome the energy crisis in Pakistan and its rural parts. Although biomethane can help Pakistan deal with the shortage of energy, its distribution is not effective and is in the preliminary stages.
A logistic regression model was employed to find the factors that could impact the decision to accept BG-TECH. Given our findings, we concluded that age, ownership of cattle, aftersales service, education, household income, and loan accessibility promoted BG-TECH acceptance. At the same time, the age of the household head and the household size influenced the BG-TECH’s acceptance negatively. Finally, we concluded that occupation, ownership of land, and working experience did not influence the acceptance of BG-TECH.
Despite presenting significant research contributions, some limitations might have affected the outcomes of this research, which need due attention in future research in the same arena. Since there are significant heterogeneities across the provinces of Pakistan, the sample from Punjab province may not have empirical outcomes with sufficient generalizability and implications for the whole country. Therefore, we suggest the follow-up studies carefully consider this perspective by selecting a more representative sample for generalizable policy adherence implications. Additionally, future researchers should also work on finding people’s real needs and what type of biomethane digester can meet them. Additionally, prospective scholars should focus on potential users’ social conditions to suggest a biomethane digester. Furthermore, research by government agencies is also required to design a biomethane digester that can operate in the weather conditions of Pakistan.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.W. and D.W.A.; methodology, J.W. and M.A.; software, J.W. and M.A.; validation, J.W., D.W.A. and M.A.; formal analysis, J.W.; investigation, J.W., M.A. and D.W.A.; re-sources, J.W.; data curation, M.A., J.W. and D.W.A.; writing—original draft preparation, J.W. and D.W.A.; writing—review and editing, D.W.A. and M.A.; visualization, J.W. and D.W.A.; supervision, M.A.; project administration, J.W. and D.W.A.; funding acquisition, D.W.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all respondents during the questionnaire survey.

Data Availability Statement

The data used in this study will be made available upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Sample of structured questionnaire.
Table A1. Sample of structured questionnaire.
QuestionsResponse Categories
Are you the head of your family? If “Yes,” please proceed with filling in the questionnaire (Otherwise, please abort).
Gender (optional)Male☐Female☐
Are you a user of the biomethane digester?User☐Non-user☐
What is the size of your biomethane digester?_____________Cubic meters
Where did you get information about BG-TECH?Peer groups☐BG-TECH users☐
Social media☐BG-TECH companies☐
Rural leaders☐
Are you willing to accept a biomethane digester in the future?Acceptance☐Non-acceptance☐
How old are you?_____________Years
How many cattle * does your family own?_______(No. of cattle)
Do you receive aftersales services for biomethane digesters?Yes☐Otherwise☐
What is your occupation?Agriculture☐Otherwise☐
What is your qualification in terms of schooling years?_____________Years
How many members are there in your family (including yourself)?_______(No. of individuals)
How much monthly income does your family earn?_____________PKR/month
How much land your family owns in total?_____________Acres
How long have you been working?_____________Years
Do you have access to some type of loan?Yes☐Otherwise☐
Evaluation of BG-TECH against other cooking devices
It requires auxiliary (i.e., additional) cooking tools.BG-TECH☐Others **☐
It can be used to cook a variety of dishes.BG-TECH☐Others☐
It is user-friendly.BG-TECH☐Others☐
It keeps the cooking utensils tidy.BG-TECH☐Others☐
It gives a better taste of cooked food.BG-TECH☐Others☐
It inspires individuals to make its purchase.BG-TECH☐Others☐
It is elegant.BG-TECH☐Others☐
Its associated energy sector creates better job opportunities.BG-TECH☐Others☐
It involves menial labor.BG-TECH☐Others☐
It requires training and stove upgradation.BG-TECH☐Others☐
It involves forest loss and self-decay.BG-TECH☐Others☐
It involves more environmental emissions.BG-TECH☐Others☐
After-sales customer support is available for this energy mode.BG-TECH☐Others☐
It involves high operational, repair, and maintenance costs.BG-TECH☐Others☐
It involves high fixed costs.BG-TECH☐Others☐
It has a variety of sizes and is continuously used across the seasons.BG-TECH☐Others☐
It takes more cooking time and fuel utilization.BG-TECH☐Others☐
Notes: * Large mammals known as ruminants that are raised for their meat, milk, or use as bearers of burden. These animals have horns and cloven hooves. For example, cows, buffaloes, etc. Where PKR is Pakistani Rupee, the local currency unit. ** It includes firewood, coal, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) stoves, and electric heaters.

References

  1. Ali, T.; Aghaloo, K.; Nahian, A.J.; Chiu, Y.-R.; Ahmad, M. Exploring the best hybrid energy system for the off-grid rural energy scheme in Bangladesh using a comprehensive decision framework. Energy Sources Part A Recover. Util. Environ. Eff. 2021, 2021, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ahmad, M.; Zhu, X.; Wu, Y. The criticality of international tourism and technological innovation for carbon neutrality across regional development levels. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2022, 182, 121848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Fatima, N.; Li, Y.; Ahmad, M.; Jabeen, G.; Li, X. Analyzing long-term empirical interactions between renewable energy generation, energy use, human capital, and economic performance in Pakistan. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2019, 9, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Jabeen, G.; Wang, D.; Işık, C.; Alvarado, R.; Ongan, S. Role of energy utilization intensity, technical development, economic openness, and foreign tourism in environmental sustainability. Gondwana Res. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Shah, S.A.A.; Longsheng, C.; Solangi, Y.A.; Ahmad, M.; Ali, S. Energy trilemma based prioritization of waste-to-energy technologies: Implications for post-COVID-19 green economic recovery in Pakistan. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 284, 124729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ahmad, M.; Jabeen, G.; Yan, Q.; Qamar, S.; Ahmed, N.; Zhang, Q. Modeling nonlinear urban transformation, natural resource dependence, energy consumption, and environmental sustainability. Gondwana Res. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Liu, Y.; Guo, W.; Longhurst, P.; Jiang, Y. Shortening the Standard Testing Time for Residual Biogas Potential (RBP) Tests Using Biogas Yield Models and Substrate Physicochemical Characteristics. Processes 2023, 11, 441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Khan, I. Drivers, enablers, and barriers to prosumerism in Bangladesh: A sustainable solution to energy poverty? Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2019, 55, 82–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ahmad, M.; Jabeen, G. Relating economic openness and export diversification to eco-efficiency: Is green innovation critical? Int. J. Finance Econ. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Phadke, A.; Park, W.Y.; Abhyankar, N. Providing reliable and financially sustainable electricity access in India using super-efficient appliances. Energy Policy 2019, 132, 1163–1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jabeen, G.; Yan, Q.; Ahmad, M.; Fatima, N.; Jabeen, M.; Li, H.; Qamar, S. Household-based critical influence factors of biogas generation technology utilization: A case of Punjab province of Pakistan. Renew. Energy 2020, 154, 650–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Jabeen, G.; Ahmad, M.; Zhang, Q. Perceived critical factors affecting consumers’ intention to purchase renewable generation technologies: Rural-urban heterogeneity. Energy 2021, 218, 119494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Jan, I.; Akram, W. Willingness of rural communities to adopt biogas systems in Pakistan: Critical factors and policy implications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 3178–3185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Rahman, K.M.; Melville, L. An Investigation into the Conversion of Non-Hazardous Medical Wastes into Biogas—A Case Study from the Health and Family Planning Sector in Bangladesh. Processes 2023, 11, 1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ahmad, M.; Satrovic, E. Relating fiscal decentralization and financial inclusion to environmental sustainability: Criticality of natural resources. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 325, 116633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Uzair, M.; Sohail, S.S.; Shaikh, N.U.; Shan, A. Agricultural residue as an alternate energy source: A case study of Punjab province, Pakistan. Renew. Energy 2020, 162, 2066–2074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Baul, T.K.; Datta, D.; Alam, A. A comparative study on household level energy consumption and related emissions from renewable (biomass) and non-renewable energy sources in Bangladesh. Energy Policy 2018, 114, 598–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Khan, I. Waste to biogas through anaerobic digestion: Hydrogen production potential in the developing world—A case of Bangladesh. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 15951–15962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Roubík, H.; Mazancová, J.; Le Dinh, P.; Van, D.D.; Banout, J. Biogas Quality across Small-Scale Biogas Plants: A Case of Central Vietnam. Energies 2018, 11, 1794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Mittal, S.; Ahlgren, E.O.; Shukla, P.R. Barriers to biogas dissemination in India: A review. Energy Policy 2018, 112, 361–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lohani, S.P.; Dhungana, B.; Horn, H.; Khatiwada, D. Small-scale biogas technology and clean cooking fuel: Assessing the potential and links with SDGs in low-income countries—A case study of Nepal. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2021, 46, 101301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Nasiruddin, S.M.; Li, Z.; Mang, H.-P.; Uddin, S.M.N.; Zhou, X.; Cheng, S.; Wang, X. Assessment of organic loading rate by using a water tank digester for biogas production in Bangladesh. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 265, 121688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bekchanov, M.; Hossain, A.; De Alwis, A.; Mirzabaev, A.; Asia, S. Why adoption is slow despite promising potential of biogas technology for improving energy security and mitigating climate change in Sri Lanka? Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 105, 378–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mwirigi, J.; Balana, B.B.; Mugisha, J.; Walekhwa, P.; Melamu, R.; Nakami, S.; Makenzi, P. Socio-economic hurdles to widespread adoption of small-scale biogas digesters in Sub-Saharan Africa: A review. Biomass Bioenergy 2014, 70, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Silaen, M.; Taylor, R.; Bößner, S.; Anger-Kraavi, A.; Chewpreecha, U.; Badinotti, A.; Takama, T. Lessons from Bali for small-scale biogas development in Indonesia. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2020, 35, 445–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chowdhury, T.; Chowdhury, H.; Hossain, N.; Ahmed, A.; Hossen, M.S.; Chowdhury, P.; Thirugnanasambandam, M.; Saidur, R. Latest advancements on livestock waste management and biogas production: Bangladesh’s perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 272, 122818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Yaqoob, H.; Heng, Y.; Ud, Z.; Us, N.; Ahmad, M.; Mujtaba, M.A.; Abid, A. The potential of sustainable biogas production from biomass waste for power generation in Pakistan. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 307, 127250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Siddiki, S.Y.A.; Uddin, M.N.; Mofijur, M.; Fattah, I.M.R.; Ong, H.C.; Lam, S.S.; Kumar, P.S.; Ahmed, S.F. Theoretical calculation of biogas production and greenhouse gas emission reduction potential of livestock, poultry and slaughterhouse waste in Bangladesh. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 105204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wassie, Y.T.; Adaramola, M.S. Analysing household biogas utilization and impact in rural Ethiopia: Lessons and policy implications for sub-Saharan Africa. Sci. Afr. 2020, 9, e00474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sovacool, B.K.; Kryman, M.; Smith, T. Scaling and commercializing mobile biogas systems in Kenya: A qualitative pilot study. Renew. Energy 2015, 76, 115–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Ogwang, I.; Kasedde, H.; Nabuuma, B.; Kirabira, J.B.; Lwanyaga, J.D. Characterization of Biogas Digestate for Solid Biofuel Production in Uganda. Sci. Afr. 2021, 12, e00735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Luo, B.; Khan, A.A.; Ali, M.A.S.; Yu, J. An evaluation of influencing factors and public attitudes for the adoption of biogas system in rural communities to overcome energy crisis: A case study of Pakistan. Sci. Total. Environ. 2021, 778, 146208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ferrer-Martí, L.; Ferrer, I.; Sánchez, E.; Garfí, M. A multi-criteria decision support tool for the assessment of household biogas digester programmes in rural areas. A case study in Peru. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 95, 74–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ghafoor, A.; Rehman, T.U.; Munir, A.; Ahmad, M.; Iqbal, M. Current status and overview of renewable energy potential in Pakistan for continuous energy sustainability. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 60, 1332–1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Karanja, A.; Gasparatos, A. Adoption and impacts of clean bioenergy cookstoves in Kenya. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 102, 285–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Yousuf, A.; Sultana, S.; Monir, M.U.; Karim, A.; Bin Rahmaddulla, S.R. Social business models for empowering the biogas technology. Energy Sour. Part B Econ. Plann. Policy 2017, 12, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Etsay, H.; Meles, K.; Hailu, G.; Hintsa, K. Determinants for adoption decision of small scale biogas technology by rural households in Tigray, Ethiopia. Energy Econ. 2017, 66, 272–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ahmed, N.; Qamar, S.; Jabeen, G.; Yan, Q.; Ahmad, M. Systematic analysis of factors affecting biogas technology acceptance: Insights from the diffusion of innovation. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2022, 52, 102122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Strazzabosco, A.; Conrad, S.A.; Lant, P.A.; Kenway, S.J. Expert opinion on influential factors driving renewable energy adoption in the water industry. Renew. Energy 2020, 162, 754–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. He, K.; Zhang, J.; Zeng, Y. Households’ willingness to pay for energy utilization of crop straw in rural China: Based on an improved UTAUT model. Energy Policy 2020, 140, 111373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Putra, A.R.S.; Pedersen, S.M.; Liu, Z. Biogas diffusion among small scale farmers in Indonesia: An application of duration analysis. Land Use Policy 2019, 86, 399–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Dumont, K.B.; Hildebrandt, D.; Sempuga, B.C. The “yuck factor” of biogas technology: Naturalness concerns, social acceptance and community dynamics in South Africa. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2021, 71, 101846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zuberi, M.J.S.; Ali, S.F. Greenhouse effect reduction by recovering energy from waste landfills in Pakistan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 44, 117–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rasimphi, T.E.; Tinarwo, D. Relevance of biogas technology to Vhembe district of the Limpopo province in South Africa. Biotechnol. Rep. 2020, 25, e00412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ahmad, M.; Wu, Y. Household-based factors affecting uptake of biogas plants in Bangladesh: Implications for sustainable development. Renew. Energy 2022, 194, 858–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Uhunamure, S.E.; Nethengwe, N.S.; Tinarwo, D. Correlating the factors influencing household decisions on adoption and utilisation of biogas technology in South Africa. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 107, 264–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Yasmin, N.; Grundmann, P. Adoption and diffusion of renewable energy—The case of biogas as alternative fuel for cooking in Pakistan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 101, 255–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Atchike, D.W.; Irfan, M.; Ahmad, M.; Rehman, M.A. Waste-to-Renewable Energy Transition: Biogas Generation for Sustainable Development. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jiang, H.; Qian, J.; Sun, Y. Best linear unbiased predictors and estimators under a pair of constrained seemingly unrelated regression models. Stat. Probab. Lett. 2020, 158, 108669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Vrontos, S.D.; Galakis, J.; Vrontos, I.D. Modeling and predicting U.S. recessions using machine learning techniques. Int. J. Forecast. 2021, 37, 647–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mejia, M.A.; Melo, J.D.; Zambrano-Asanza, S.; Padilha-Feltrin, A. Spatial-temporal growth model to estimate the adoption of new end-use electric technologies encouraged by energy-efficiency programs. Energy 2020, 191, 116531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Jöreskog, K.G. Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika 1971, 36, 409–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Latkin, C.A.; Dayton, L.; Moran, M.; Strickland, J.C.; Collins, K. Behavioral and psychosocial factors associated with COVID-19 skepticism in the United States. Curr. Psychol. 2021, 41, 7918–7926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Monfardini, C. An illustration of Cox’s non-nested testing procedure for logit and probit models. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 2003, 42, 425–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Nalunga, A.; Mugisha, J.; Walekhwa, P.; Smith, J. The dynamics of Household labor allocation to biogas production, farm and non-farm activities in central Uganda. Renew. Energy 2019, 142, 461–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Roubík, H.; Mazancová, J. Suitability of small-scale biogas systems based on livestock manure for the rural areas of Sumatra. Environ. Dev. 2020, 33, 100505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Zhang, C.; Xu, Y. Economic analysis of large-scale farm biogas power generation system considering environmental benefits based on LCA: A case study in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 258, 120985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rahman, K.M.; Melville, L.; Edwards, D.J.; Fulford, D.; Thwala, W.D. Determination of the Potential Impact of Domestic Anaerobic Digester Systems: A Community Based Research Initiative in Rural Bangladesh. Processes 2019, 7, 512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Heidari-Maleni, A.; Taheri-Garavand, A.; Rezaei, M.; Jahanbakhshi, A. Biogas production and electrical power potential, challenges and barriers from municipal solid waste (MSW) for developing countries: A review study in Iran. J. Agric. Food Res. 2023, 13, 100668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Fava, F.E.; Romanelli, T.L. Biogas and biomethane production routes in the sugar-energy sector: Economic efficiency and carbon footprint. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2023, 22, 101388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Borges, C.P.; Silberg, T.R.; Uriona-Maldonado, M.; Vaz, C.R. Scaling actors’ perspectives about innovation system functions: Diffusion of biogas in Brazil. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2023, 190, 122359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. He, P.; Lovo, S.; Veronesi, M. Social networks and renewable energy technology adoption: Empirical evidence from biogas adoption in China. Energy Econ. 2022, 106, 105789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Singh, P.; Kalamdhad, A.S. Assessment of small-scale biogas digesters and its impact on the household cooking sector in India: Environmental-resource-economic analysis. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2022, 70, 170–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Umer, F.; Khan, G.A.; Iftikhar, M. Dilemmas of Biogas Technology Adoption in Rural Areas of Punjab, Pakistan. Int. J. Agric. Ext. 2017, 5, 79–85. [Google Scholar]
  65. Ang’u, C.; Muthama, N.J.; Mutuku, M.A.; M’ikiugu, M.H. Determinants of the sustained use of household clean fuels and technologies: Lessons from Vihiga county, Kenya. Energy Rep. 2023, 9, 1990–2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Robinson, B.L.; Clifford, M.J.; Selby, G. Towards fair, just and equitable energy ecosystems through smart monitoring of household-scale biogas plants in Kenya. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2023, 98, 103007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ahmad, M.; Khan, I.; Khan, M.Q.S.; Jabeen, G.; Jabeen, H.S.; Işık, C. Households’ perception-based factors influencing biogas adoption: Innovation diffusion framework. Energy 2022, 263, 126155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kriechbaum, M.; Terler, N.; Stürmer, B.; Stern, T. (Re)framing technology: The evolution from biogas to biomethane in Austria. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2023, 47, 100724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Gelani, H.E.; Dastgeer, F.; Idrees, Z.; Amjad, K.; Javed, N. Barriers in the progress of domestic biogas plants in rural Pakistan. Int. J. Sustain. Energy 2021, 41, 713–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Processes 11 02005 g001 550
Figure 1. Data and methodological steps. Source: Authors’ description.
Figure 1. Data and methodological steps. Source: Authors’ description.
Processes 11 02005 g001
Processes 11 02005 g002 550
Figure 2. Research site map. Source: Authors’ compilation.
Figure 2. Research site map. Source: Authors’ compilation.
Processes 11 02005 g002
Processes 11 02005 g003 550
Figure 3. Information acquisition channels of BG-TECH in Pakistan. Source: Survey information-based authors’ elaborations.
Figure 3. Information acquisition channels of BG-TECH in Pakistan. Source: Survey information-based authors’ elaborations.
Processes 11 02005 g003
Processes 11 02005 g004 550
Figure 4. Percentage evaluation of BG-TECH against other cooking devices. Source: Authors’ elaboration based on survey data.
Figure 4. Percentage evaluation of BG-TECH against other cooking devices. Source: Authors’ elaboration based on survey data.
Processes 11 02005 g004
Table
Table 1. Description of the research sample.
Table 1. Description of the research sample.
Research Site (Districts)Surveyed VillagesSize of SampleUsers *Non-Users *
Layyah71125755
Muzaffar Garh6783741
Khanewal5693633
Khushab5412021
Cumulative23300150150
Note: * indicates users and non-users of biomethane digesters in each district.
Table
Table 2. Statistical summary of research variables.
Table 2. Statistical summary of research variables.
SymbolsVariablesMeasurementAverageSTDHypothesize Links
X1Small farm holder’s ageYears42.2919.384P/N
X2Ownership of cattleNo. of cattle7.4801.972P
X3Aftersales servicesYes = 1, Otherwise = 00.6130.304P
X4OccupationAgriculture = 1, Otherwise = 00.8050.296P
X5QualificationSchooling years9.5782.009P
X6Household sizeNumber of individuals 5.9161.774P/N
X7Household incomePKR/per month19,725.2638632.170P
X8Ownership of landAcres2.8912.083P
X9Working experienceYears7.4163.592P
X10Loans accessibilityYes = 1, Otherwise = 00.9100.385P
Note: 1 USD ≈ 262 PKR (i.e., Pakistani Rupee, the local currency unit), STD: standard deviation, P: positive, N: negative.
Table
Table 3. Logistic regression analysis results.
Table 3. Logistic regression analysis results.
Crucial FactorsParametric Score of 𝜑Wald Stat.Level of Significance
Small farm holder’s age−0.27610.8370.000 ***
Ownership of cattle0.7499.4620.000 ***
Aftersales services1.2965.3560.042 **
Occupation0.9150.5830.210
Qualification0.82412.6940.000 ***
Household size−0.83215.2720.000 ***
Income0.14811.3670.000 ***
Ownership of land0.8971.2010.308
Working experience0.9041.0030.245
Loans accessibility0.63514.9700.000 ***
Constant term4.69513.5040.017 ***
Note: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, Cox-Snell based R square = 0.620, Nagelkerke-base R square = 0.716.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wu, J.; Atchike, D.W.; Ahmad, M. Crucial Adoption Factors of Renewable Energy Technology: Seeking Green Future by Promoting Biomethane. Processes 2023, 11, 2005. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11072005

AMA Style

Wu J, Atchike DW, Ahmad M. Crucial Adoption Factors of Renewable Energy Technology: Seeking Green Future by Promoting Biomethane. Processes. 2023; 11(7):2005. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11072005

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wu, Juan, Desire Wade Atchike, and Munir Ahmad. 2023. "Crucial Adoption Factors of Renewable Energy Technology: Seeking Green Future by Promoting Biomethane" Processes 11, no. 7: 2005. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11072005

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop