4.8 Article

Household energy technologies in New South Wales, Australia: Regional differences and renewables adoption rates

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2022.112290

关键词

Residential sector; Energy efficiency; Renewable energy; Technology adoption; Regional difference

资金

  1. Griffith School of Engineering and Built Environment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research examines the adoption of household energy technologies in New South Wales, Australia over the past decade. The study finds significant regional differences in the adoption rates, which can be attributed to various factors such as socio-economic conditions and lifestyle. Based on the findings, policy suggestions are made to promote clean, renewable energy among households, taking into account regional differences.
This research examines household energy technologies adopted in the past decade in the state of New South Wales, Australia. The examination addresses regional differences that need to be considered in the promotion of clean, renewable energy. The study analyses a longitudinal dataset (2011-2019) of Building-Sustainability-Index-certificated dwelling units in metropolitan (n = 167,883) and rural (n = 100,675) areas. The sampled units have adopted a variety of technologies for heating water; heating, cooling and lighting homes; and cooking food. The results show a significant difference between the two examined regions in terms of adoption rate, with the p-values of the Chi-squared tests all below 0.001. This difference can be attributed to the complex socio-economic, lifestyle and living conditions of the two different regions. Based on the Bass model (with p-values < 0.05), most technologies will reach saturation, whereas a few will continue to grow, such as the combination of ceiling fans and air-conditioning for bedroom cooling in rural areas. This study makes suggestions for policies to promote clean, renewable energy among households on the basis of regionality.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据