4.8 Review

What motivations drive sustainable energy-saving behavior?: An examination in South Korea

Journal

RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS
Volume 79, Issue -, Pages 494-502

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.150

Keywords

Energy-saving; Perceived value; Perceived benefits; Theory of planned behavior

Funding

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant - Korea government (MSIP) [NRF-2017R1C1B5017437]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2017R1C1B5017437] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Considering the significant increase in energy consumption in South Korea, encouraging citizens' energy-saving behavior is an important topic from both academic and industrial perspectives. This study empirically examines the motivations of consumers' energy-saving behavior. By using an integrated research model based on the theory of planned behavior, the general model of perceived value, and four external factors, in-depth interviews and a pen-and-paper survey were conducted. Based on data on 1050 consumers in South Korea, the research model was then tested. The structural equation modeling results show that consumers' perceived value of energy-saving products is mainly determined by perceived benefits, which are enhanced by social responsibility and weakened by environmental knowledge. Compared with the strong connection between value and benefits, the relationship between perceived risk and value is moderate. Moreover, the results also show the sequential associations of social responsibility-perceived value-intention to use-actual usage. However, this study finds no effects of respondents' demographic information on the structural results. Based on the findings, both the implications and the limitations of the current study are examined.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available