IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i24p11109-d1546808.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Determines Rural Residents’ Intention and Behavior Towards Clean Energy Use? Evidence from Northwest China

Author

Listed:
  • Hua Li

    (College of Economics, Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou 730070, China)

  • Wei Zhao

    (College of Economics, Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou 730070, China)

  • Weijun Wang

    (College of Tourism, Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou 730070, China)

  • Yifan Zhang

    (College of Economics, Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou 730070, China)

  • Qin Zhang

    (China Center for Modernization Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China
    National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China)

Abstract

Two United Nations Sustainable Development Goals highlight that energy supply, conversion, transmission, and consumption are primary contributors to climate change, accounting for 60% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Exploring the influencing factors on the intention and behavior of clean energy use in rural areas is a crucial step in achieving the “Dual Carbon” target and global sustainable development goals. The article constructed a theoretical analysis framework of “environmental knowledge—perceived value—use intention—use behavior”. Taking Gansu Province, a typical case area in northwest China, as a case study, data from 766 survey questionnaires were used to analyze the characteristics and impact mechanism of clean energy use behavior among residents. This article finds that rural household energy use is moving towards low-carbon goals, but traditional energy remains an important component, especially in winter heating scenarios. Only the use intention has a direct promoting effect on use behavior, with a regression coefficient of 0.108. Perceived value and use intention play a chain-mediating role between environmental knowledge and use behavior. Residents with higher income levels, higher education levels, and poorer health conditions are more likely to develop clean energy use intention and behavior. At the same time, government intervention measures also have a promoting effect. Finally, countermeasures and suggestions for improving the public’s level of clean energy utilization in underdeveloped areas were proposed.

Suggested Citation

  • Hua Li & Wei Zhao & Weijun Wang & Yifan Zhang & Qin Zhang, 2024. "What Determines Rural Residents’ Intention and Behavior Towards Clean Energy Use? Evidence from Northwest China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-16, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:24:p:11109-:d:1546808
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/24/11109/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/24/11109/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schmitt, Michael T. & Aknin, Lara B. & Axsen, Jonn & Shwom, Rachael L., 2018. "Unpacking the Relationships Between Pro-environmental Behavior, Life Satisfaction, and Perceived Ecological Threat," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 130-140.
    2. Ma, Yuan & Liu, Changshan, 2023. "Configuration analysis of influencing factors of energy-saving behaviors: From the perspective of consumers’ pro-environmental characteristics and environmentally friendly social atmosphere," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 278(PA).
    3. Mingyue Li & Jingjing Wang & Kai Chen & Lianbei Wu, 2020. "Willingness and Behaviors of Farmers’ Green Disposal of Pesticide Packaging Waste in Henan, China: A Perceived Value Formation Mechanism Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-18, May.
    4. Piyapong Janmaimool & Samattaphong Khajohnmanee, 2019. "Roles of Environmental System Knowledge in Promoting University Students’ Environmental Attitudes and Pro-Environmental Behaviors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-18, August.
    5. Hoffmann, Roman & Kanitsar, Georg & Seifert, Marcel, 2024. "Behavioral barriers impede pro-environmental decision-making: Experimental evidence from incentivized laboratory and vignette studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 225(C).
    6. Morakinyo O. Adetutu, Kayode A. Odusanya, and Thomas G. Weyman-Jones, 2020. "Carbon Tax and Energy Intensity: Assessing the Channels of Impact using UK Microdata," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 2), pages 143-166.
    7. Morakinyo O. Adetutu & Kayode A. Odusany & Thomas G. Weyman-Jones, 2020. "Carbon Tax and Energy Intensity: Assessing the Channels of Impact using UK Microdata," The Energy Journal, , vol. 41(2), pages 143-166, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bernardas Vaznonis & Algirdas Justinas Staugaitis & Gintarė Vaznonienė, 2024. "The Interrelationship between Pro-Environmental Attitudes and Subjective Well-Being: The Case of Central and Eastern European Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-24, April.
    2. Gkargkavouzi, Anastasia & Halkos, George & Matsiori, Steriani, 2019. "How do motives and knowledge relate to intention to perform environmental behavior? Assessing the mediating role of constraints," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    3. Leonhard K. Lades & Kate Laffan & Till O. Weber, 2020. "Do economic preferences predict pro-environmental behaviour?," Working Papers 202003, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    4. Echeverría, Lucía & Gimenez-Nadal, José Ignacio & Molina, José Alberto, 2022. "Active Commuting and the Health of Workers," IZA Discussion Papers 15572, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Claborn, Kelly A. & Brooks, Jeremy S., 2019. "Can We Consume Less and Gain More? Environmental Efficiency of Well-being at the Individual Level," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 110-120.
    6. Herziger, Atar & Claborn, Kelly A. & Brooks, Jeremy S., 2020. "Is There Hope for the Double Dividend? How Social Context Can Shape Synergies and Tradeoffs between Sustainable Consumption and Well-Being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    7. Lange, Florian & Dewitte, Siegfried, 2020. "Positive affect and pro-environmental behavior: A preregistered experiment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    8. Jingjing Wang & Mingyue Li & Sinan Li & Kai Chen, 2022. "Understanding Consumers’ Food Waste Reduction Behavior—A Study Based on Extended Norm Activation Theory," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-15, April.
    9. Welsch, Heinz, 2024. "Why is satisfaction from pro-environmental behaviors increasing in costs? Insights from the rational-choice decision-error framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    10. Echeverría, Lucía & Gimenez-Nadal, J. Ignacio & Molina, José Alberto, 2022. "Green mobility and well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    11. Dmitry A. Ruban & Natalia N. Yashalova & Vladimir A. Ermolaev, 2021. "Is Environment a Strategic Priority of the Leading Energy Companies? Evidence from Mission Statements," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-18, February.
    12. Erda Wang & Nannan Kang, 2019. "Does life satisfaction matter for pro-environmental behavior? Empirical evidence from China General Social Survey," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(1), pages 449-469, January.
    13. Chiara Franco & Claudia Ghisetti, 2022. "What shapes the “value-action” gap? The role of time perception reconsidered," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 39(3), pages 1023-1053, October.
    14. Rashad Mammadli, 2022. "Pro-environmental consumption: effects on subjective well-being as a proxy for utility," RIEDS - Rivista Italiana di Economia, Demografia e Statistica - The Italian Journal of Economic, Demographic and Statistical Studies, SIEDS Societa' Italiana di Economia Demografia e Statistica, vol. 76(4), pages 4-12, October-D.
    15. Binder, Martin & Blankenberg, Ann-Kathrin & Guardiola, Jorge, 2020. "Does it have to be a sacrifice? Different notions of the good life, pro-environmental behavior and their heterogeneous impact on well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    16. de Vries, S.P. & Garcia Alvarez, G. & Botzen, W.J.W. & Bockarjova, M., 2023. "Valuing urban nature through life satisfaction: The consistency of GIS and survey indicators of nature," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    17. Shengnan Huang & Ehsan Elahi, 2022. "Farmers’ Preferences for Recycling Pesticide Packaging Waste: An Implication of a Discrete Choice Experiment Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-13, October.
    18. Andy Felix Jităreanu & Mioara Mihăilă & Ciprian-Ionel Alecu & Alexandru-Dragoș Robu & Gabriela Ignat & Carmen Luiza Costuleanu, 2022. "The Relationship between Environmental Factors, Satisfaction with Life, and Ecological Education: An Impact Analysis from a Sustainability Pillars Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-25, August.
    19. Ana Težak Damijanić & Marija Pičuljan & Smiljana Goreta Ban, 2023. "The Role of Pro-Environmental Behavior, Environmental Knowledge, and Eco-Labeling Perception in Relation to Travel Intention in the Hotel Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-15, June.
    20. Heinz Welsch, 2024. "Do National Well-Being Scores Capture Nations Ecological Resilience? Evidence for 124 Countries," Working Papers V-443-24, University of Oldenburg, Department of Economics, revised Jan 2024.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:24:p:11109-:d:1546808. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.