Adaptation to climate change through renewable energy: factors affecting adoption of solar...

Adaptation to climate change through renewable energy: factors affecting adoption of solar electricity in Western Australian households

GENEVIEVE SIMPSON, PHD CANDIDATE, UWA

The University of Western Australia

Outline

Adaptation vs Mitigation Motivations for installation

• Diffusion of Innovation• Geographic variability

Costs and benefits of PV in WA Social vs Environmental Justice Concluding remarks


Solar PV – Adaptation vs Mitigation

Mitigation (Couture and Gagnon, 2010)• Reduced greenhouse gas emissions

Adaptation (Hess, 2013)

• Protect against increased tariffs• Prepare for increased demand• Self sufficiency?

Environmental and economic benefits Incentives and subsidies available!


Motivation for installation

Why do people install systems? • What policies can assist uptake?• Are incentives required for uptake?

Literature:• Looks at willingness to install (Baskaran et al., 2013)• Difference between socioeconomics (Balcombe, 2013)• Looks at ‘decision time’ as opposed to reasoning

(Rai and Robinson, 2013)

How is my research different?



Difference 1: Links ‘Diffusion of Innovation’

(Rogers, 2003)



Differences in installers (Rogers, 2003)

Satisfaction issues:• kWh consumption ≠ kW capacity• Increase in tariffs = No decrease in bills• Feed-in vs consumption• Misallocated rebates

Early adopter Early majority

Reason for adopting Environmental / technological Economic

Income High disposable income Marginal disposable income

Source of information Self-educated Peer-to-peer

Role in adoption process Act as authority Further peer network



Installation Rate

High Low

SEIFA

High Kingsley and Woodvale

(SEIFA – 10 Installation 25%)

City Beach


LowMaddington and Orange Grove


Alexander Heights, Girrawheen,

Koondoola, Marangaroo


Regional community for comparison: Carnarvon

SEIFA = Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas

Difference 2: Compares communities

Identify geographic trends



Methodology – Mixed methods• Neighbourhoods with different installation and SEIFA selected• Isolate households with systems • Survey households (Dillman et al., 2009) • Questions to differentiate installers and determine reliance on rebates• Self-selection of interview subjects• Interview to elucidate reasons behind trends



Results:• WA has ‘early majority’ installation?• Installations economically viable?• Likelihood of continued recommendation?• Need for continued subsidies?• Need for other policy e.g. education?• Difference between geographical regions?


Domestic PV in WA

Positive environmental outcomes BUT negative social justice outcomes

Costs Benefits

Increase in tariffsReduced emissions

(Couture and Gagnon, 2010)

Inequitable distribution of network charges(Mercer, 2012)

Potential reduced wholesale electricity price(Tveten et al., 2013)

Potential increase in network charges(Kerr, 2013)

Potential decrease in network charges(Thornton and Monroy, 2011)

Potential increase in awareness

(Rai and Robinson, 2013)


Social vs Environmental Justice

‘Socio-ecological dilemma’ (Earle and Siegrist, 2008) In energy literature:

• Related to generation siting (Gross, 2007)

• Related to availability of electricity (Moore, 2013) Self-interest in environmental decisions:

• Doubt that others will do the right thing• Personal commitment to do the right thing• Support for environment & community, no support for industry

(Syme et al.,1999)



SocialJustice

EnviroBenefits

No su

ppor

t for

sol

ar

Tarif

fs = m

eans

teste

d

Subsid

ies

= lo

w inco

me

All sho

uld su

ppor

t sola

r

Larg

e-sc

ale

Small-sca

le

Subsid

ies fo

r eve

ryon

e



Methodology – Mixed methods• Same neighbourhoods as for motivation• Mixed method survey for all households (Dillman et al., 2008)• Survey questions - binary choices based on social or environmental

preferences, beliefs (Faiers and Neame, 2006)• Self-selection of interview subjects• Interview to elucidate reasons behind trends



Results:• Preference for social or environmental outcomes?• Link between belief in climate change and preference?• Domestic PV installers considered ‘community’ or ‘industry’?• Difference between geographic regions?


Concluding remarks

Decisions are largely political:• Support environmental outcomes• Acknowledge ‘human vote’ risks

Widely known policies generate polar responses (Stokes, 2013)

Adaptation and mitigation strategies must strike a balance between:• Environmental benefits• Social justice outcomes

Research can inform least-risk policies for on-going renewable support


Supervisors: Julian Clifton and Matthew Tonts

References: Balcombe, P., D. Rigby, and A. Azapagic. 2013. “Motivations and barriers associated with adopting microgeneration energy technologies in the UK.”

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 22: 655-66. Baskaran, R., S. Managi, and M. Bendig. 2013. “A public perspective on the adoption of microgeneration technologies in New Zealand: A multivariate

probit approach.” Energy Policy 58: 177-88. Couture, T. and Y. Gagnon. 2010. “An analysis of feed-in tariff remuneration models: Implications for renewable energy investment.” Energy Policy

38(2): 955-65. Dillman, D., J. Smyth, and L. Christian. 2009. Internet, Mail and Mixed-mode Surveys - The Tailored Desion Method - Third Edition. New Jersey: John

Wiley & Sons, Inc. Dillman, D., J. Smyth, L. Christian, and A. O’Neill. Year. “Will a mixed mode (mail/Internet) procedure work for random household surveys of the general

public.” In Annual conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), New Orleans, Louisiana Earle, T. C. and M. Siegrist. 2008. “On the Relation Between Trust and Fairness in Environmental Risk Management.” Risk Analysis 28(5): 1395-414. Faiers, A. and C. Neame. 2006. “Consumer attitudes towards domestic solar power systems.” Energy Policy 34(14): 1797-806. Gross, C. 2007. “Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social

acceptance.” Energy Policy 35(5): 2727-36. Hess, D. J. 2013. “Transitions in Energy Systems: The Mitigation–Adaptation Relationship.” Science as Culture 22(2): 197-203. Kerr, P. 2013. “Bill shock for WA businesses.” The West Australian. Published Online. Mercer, D. 2012. “Financial divide - Solar panel houses 'shirk dues'.” The West Australian. Published Online. Moore, S. 2013. “Envisioning the Social and Political Dynamics of Energy Transitions: Sustainable Energy for the Mediterranean Region.” Science as

Culture 22(2): 181-88. Rai, V. and S. A. Robinson. 2013. “Effective information channels for reducing costs of environmentally-friendly technologies: evidence from residential

PV markets.” Environmental Research Letters 8(1): Published Online. Rogers, E. M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations - Fifth Edition: Free Press. Stokes, L. C. 2013. “The politics of renewable energy policies: The case of feed-in tariffs in Ontario, Canada.” Energy Policy 56: 490-500. Syme, G. J., B. E. Nancarrow, and J. A. McCreddin. 1999. “Defining the components of fairness in the allocation of water to environmental and human

uses.” Journal of Environmental Management 57(1): 51-70. Thornton, A. and C. R. Monroy. 2011. “Distributed power generation in the United States.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15(9): 4809-17. Tveten, Å. G., T. F. Bolkesjø, T. Martinsen, and H. Hvarnes. 2013. “Solar feed-in tariffs and the merit order effect: A study of the German electricity

market.” Energy Policy(In press).

Adaptation to climate change through renewable energy: factors affecting adoption of solar...

Documents

Transcript of Adaptation to climate change through renewable energy: factors affecting adoption of solar...