Rendiconti Lincei

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 535–548 | Cite as

Interpreting regional and local diversities of the social acceptance of agricultural AD plants in the rural space of the Moravian-Silesian Region (Czech Republic)

  • Stanislav MartinatEmail author
  • Josef Navratil
  • Jakub Trojan
  • Bohumil Frantal
  • Petr Klusacek
  • Martin J. Pasqualetti


Agricultural anaerobic digestion plants have recently become a typical part of rural landscape in the Czech Republic due to massive governmental subvention programmes. Yet, their potential as an effective tool how to response to global climate changes at a local level is rather underused (maize used as a primary input mainly, usage of waste heat is limited, etc.). This situation is caused by misguided subvention policies. The aim of this contribution is first to analyse the agricultural anaerobic digestion plants in the rural space of the Moravian-Silesian Region, and second, to deepen the knowledge on the perception of the digestion plants among the population of municipalities in which such facility was constructed. A questionnaire survey has been carried out in three model municipalities (n = 369) located in the Moravian-Silesian Region. Several recommendations and notes for public administration and potential investors concerning the location of future anaerobic digestion plants projects and settings of supportive programmes have been defined.


Agricultural AD plants Czech Republic Rural geography Spatial distribution Perception Acceptance 



The research was kindly supported by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic ‘Exploring socio-spatial diffusion of renewable energy projects in the Czech Republic: lessons for adaptive governance of energy transition’ (16-04483S).


  1. Balat M, Balat H (2009) Biogas as a renewable energy source—a review. Energy Sources Part A 31(14):1280–1293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bristow G, Cowell R, Munday M (2012) Windfalls for whom? The evolving notion of ‘community’ in community benefit provisions from wind farms. Geoforum 43(6):1108–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Calleja EJ, Ilbery B, Mills PR (2012) Agricultural change and the rise of the British strawberry industry, 1920–2009. J Rural Stud 28(4):603–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chodkowska-Miszczuk J, Szymanska D (2013) Agricultural biogas plants—a chance for diversification of agriculture in Poland. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 20:514–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chodkowska-Miszczuk J, Kulla M, Novotny L (2017) The role of energy policy in agricultural biogas energy production in Visegrad countries. Bull Geogr Socio Econ Ser 35:19–34Google Scholar
  6. Czech Biogas Association (
  7. Czech Statistical Office (
  8. Davis D, Carter J (2014) Finding common ground in weed management: peri-urban farming, environmental and lifestyle values and practices in southeast Queensland, Australia. Geogr J 180(4):342–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Demény K, Centeri C (2008) Habitat loss, soil and vegetation degradation by land use change in the Gödöllő Hillside, Hungary. Cereal Res Commun 36:1739–1742Google Scholar
  10. Devine-Wright P (2009) Rethinking NIMBYism: the role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action. J Community Appl Soc Psychol 19(6):426–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Emmann CH, Arens L, Theuvsen L (2013) Individual acceptance of the biogas innovation: a structural equation model. Energy Policy 62:372–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Energy Regulatory Office of the Czech Republic (
  13. Fiorini E (2014) Nuclear energy and Anthropocene. Rend Fis Acc Lincei 25(1):119–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Foxon TJ, Gross R, Chase A, Howes J, Arnall A, Anderson D (2005) UK innovation systems for new and renewable energy technologies: drivers, barriers and systems failures. Energy policy 33(16):2123–2137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frantal B (2016) Living on coal: mined-out identity, community displacement and forming of anti-coal resistance in the Most region, Czech Republic. Resour Policy 49:385–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frantal B, Novákova E (2014) A curse of coal? Exploring unintended regional consequences of coal energy in the Czech Republic. Morav Geogr Rep 22(2):55–65Google Scholar
  17. Frantál B, Malý J, Ouředníček M, Nemeškal J (2016) Distance matters. Assessing socioeconomic impacts of the Dukovany nuclear power plant in the Czech Republic: local perceptions and statistical evidence. Morav Geogr Rep 24(1):2–13Google Scholar
  18. Groot JC, Rossing WA, Jellema A, Stobbelaar DJ, Renting H, Van Ittersum MK (2007) Exploring multi-scale trade-offs between nature conservation, agricultural profits and landscape quality—a methodology to support discussions on land-use perspectives. Agric Ecosyst Environ 120(1):58–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holden S, Barrett CB, Hagos F (2006) Food-for-work for poverty reduction and the promotion of sustainable land use: can it work? Environ Dev Econ 11(01):15–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hruska V (2014) Proměny přístupů ke konceptualizaci venkovského prostoru v rurálních studiích. Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociol Rev 50(4):581–601Google Scholar
  21. Iglinski B, Buczkowski R, Iglińska A, Cichosz M, Piechota G, Kujawski W (2012) Agricultural biogas plants in Poland: investment process, economical and environmental aspects, biogas potential. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16(7):4890–4900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ilbery B (ed) (2014) The geography of rural change. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Janečková Molnárová K, Skřivanová Z, Kalivoda O, Sklenička P (2017) Rural identity and landscape aesthetics in exurbia: some issues to resolve from a Central European perspective. Morav Geogr Rep 25(1):2–12Google Scholar
  24. Kabai G (2017) The social conditions of regionalism in the Hungarian Balaton Region. DETUROPE Cent Eur J Region Dev Tourism 9(1) (in press)Google Scholar
  25. Klusacek P, Krejci T, Martinat S, Kunc J, Osman R, Frantal B (2013) Regeneration of agricultural brownfields in the Czech Republic—case study of the South Moravian Region. Acta Univ Agric Silvic Mendel Brun 61(2):549–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Konecny O (2014) Geographical perspectives on agritourism in the Czech Republic. Morav Geogr Rep 22(1):15–23Google Scholar
  27. Krzysztofik R, Tkocz M, Sporna T, Kantor-Pietraga I (2016) Some dilemmas of post-industrialism in a region of traditional industry: the case of the Katowice conurbation, Poland. Morav Geogr Rep 24(1):42–54Google Scholar
  28. Lantz M, Svensson M, Björnsson L, Börjesson P (2007) The prospects for an expansion of biogas systems in Sweden—incentives, barriers and potentials. Energy Policy 35(3):1830–1843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marsden T, Sonnino R (2008) Rural development and the regional state: denying multifunctional agriculture in the UK. J Rural Stud 24(4):422–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Martinat S, Navratil J, Dvorak P, Van der Horst D, Klusacek P, Kunc J, Frantal B (2016) Where AD plants wildly grow: the spatio-temporal diffusion of agricultural biogas production in the Czech Republic. Renew Energy 95:85–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic (
  32. Morrice E, Colagiuri R (2013) Coal mining, social injustice and health: a universal conflict of power and priorities. Health Place 19:74–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Musall FD, Kuik O (2011) Local acceptance of renewable energy—a case study from southeast Germany. Energy Policy 39(6):3252–3260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pasqualetti MJ, Pijawka KD (1996) Un siting Nuclear Power Plants: decommissioning risks and their land Use context. Prof Geogr 48(1):57–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Picha K, Navratil J, Svec R (2017) Preference to local food vs. preference to “National” and regional food. J Food Prod Market 1–21 (in press)Google Scholar
  36. Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Renting H, Rossing WAH, Groot JCJ, Van der Ploeg JD, Laurent C, Perraud D, Stobbelaar DJ, Van Ittersum MK (2009) Exploring multifunctional agriculture. A review of conceptual approaches and prospects for an integrative transitional framework. J Environ Manage 90:112–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Robinson GM (1998) Methods and techniques in human geography. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  39. Setti L, Balzani V (2011) Road Map towards an integrated energy management system in Italy. Rend Lincei 22(1):55–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Smith SL, Thelen KD, MacDonald SJ (2013) Yield and quality analyses of bioenergy crops grown on a regulatory brownfield. Biomass Bioenerg 49:123–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Soland M, Steimer N, Walter G (2013) Local acceptance of existing biogas plants in Switzerland. Energy Policy 61:802–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Suchacek J, Seda P, Friedrich V, Koutsky J (2014) Media portrayals of regions in the Czech republic: selected issues. E & M Ekonomie Manag 4:125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Svobodova H, Veznik A (2009) To the problems of agricultural brownfields in the Czech Republic—case study of the Vysocina Region. Agric Econ Czech 55(11):550–556Google Scholar
  44. Szendi D (2016) Territorial differences of the life quality, as s complex indicator in Germany and Hungary. DETUROPE Cent Eur J Region Dev Tourism 8(2):23–35Google Scholar
  45. Tamásy C (2013) Areas of intensive livestock agriculture as emerging alternative economic spaces? Appl Geogr 45:385–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Troost C, Walter T, Berger T (2015) Climate, energy and environmental policies in agriculture: simulating likely farmer responses in Southwest Germany. Land Use Policy 46:50–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Van der Horst D (2005) UK biomass energy since 1990; the mismatch between project types and policy objectives. Energy Policy 33(5):705–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Van der Horst D (2007) NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy 35(5):2705–2714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Walford N (2003) Productivism is allegedly dead, long live productivism. Evidence of continued productivist attitudes and decision-making in South-East England. J Rural Stud 19(4):491–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wilson GA (2001) From productivism to post-productivism… and back again? Exploring the (un)changed natural and mental landscapes of European agriculture. Trans Inst Br Geogr 26(1):77–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wüstenhagen R, Wolsink M, Bürer MJ (2007) Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: an introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 35(5):2683–2691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zagata L (2010) How organic farmers view their own practice: results from the Czech Republic. Agric Hum Values 27(3):277–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zasada I (2011) Multifunctional peri-urban agriculture—a review of societal demands and the provision of goods and services by farming. Land use Policy 28(4):639–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zecchina A (2014) Energy sources and carbon dioxide waste. Rend Fis Acc Lincei 25(1):113–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of GeonicsCzech Academy of SciencesOstravaCzech Republic
  2. 2.Faculty of AgricultureUniversity of South Bohemia in Ceske BudejoviceCeske BudejoviceCzech Republic
  3. 3.Institute of GeonicsCzech Academy of SciencesBrnoCzech Republic
  4. 4.Faculty of SciencePalacký UniversityOlomoucCzech Republic
  5. 5.Faculty of Regional Development and International StudiesMendel UniversityBrno-Královo PoleCzech Republic
  6. 6.School of Geographical Sciences and Urban PlanningArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations