Next Article in Journal
Sensitivity Analysis of Ex-Vessel Corium Coolability Models in MAAP5 Code for the Prediction of Molten Corium–Concrete Interaction after a Severe Accident Scenario
Previous Article in Journal
Study on Morphological Identification of Tight Oil Reservoir Residual Oil after Water Flooding in Secondary Oil Layers Based on Convolution Neural Network
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Energy Literacy and Its Determinants among Students within the Context of Public Intervention in Poland

Paweł Białynicki-Birula
Kamil Makieła
2 and
Łukasz Mamica
Department of Public Economics, Cracow University of Economics, Rakowicka 27, 31-510 Krakow, Poland
Department of Econometrics and Operational Research, Cracow University of Economics, Rakowicka 27, 31-510 Krakow, Poland
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2022, 15(15), 5368;
Submission received: 19 May 2022 / Revised: 6 July 2022 / Accepted: 14 July 2022 / Published: 25 July 2022


This paper presents the results of a survey concerning energy literacy conducted among a group of 913 students at the Cracow University of Economics in Poland—a country whose power system is still primarily based on burning coal and where the prospects of the closure of the mining sector present particularly difficult challenges. The aim of the study was to investigate specific aspects of energy literacy such as knowledge, behaviour, attitudes, and self-efficacy, and to determine what affects them using multivariate linear regression analysis. According to the findings, the primary factors determining energy literacy are gender, going away from home to study, and the experience of energy poverty. Self-efficacy, attitude, and the pro-ecological elements of both attitude and knowledge are the factors that have the most impact on students’ behaviour. The absence of a statistically significant impact of general knowledge on behaviour is a critical presumption for developing the premises of an effective pro-environment energy strategy. Based on the data, we present a number of policy proposals, including informational activity as well as ways of influencing the emotional and behavioural domains.

1. Introduction

The emission of greenhouse gases resulting from the burning of fossil fuels constitutes one of the primary threats to the stability of the global climate and requires that decisive remedial actions be taken [1]. The energy literacy of residents and their behaviours regarding the consumption of energy, which constitute the primary subject of this analysis, translate into the magnitude of the emission of the aforementioned gases. Household-level behavioural changes can produce significant and immediate emission reductions [2,3] and may support the process of low carbon transitions [4]. In 2018, household energy consumption accounted for 26.1% of total energy consumption in the European Union with space heating expenses comprising 63.3% of household energy consumption [5]. The pressure to convert to renewable energy sources is reinforced by the fact that a nearly 50% increase in world energy consumption is projected for years 2018–2050 [6]. Due to its role in educating “future leaders”, tertiary education is considered to be a crucial component in formalising and propagating proper attitudes and behaviours in the context of sustainability challenges [7]. As a result, this has led to the growth in the popularity of studies concerning the energy literacy of students. The fact that students from Krakow were selected as the object of the research is interesting for two reasons. Firstly, Poland is a country where the share of coal in energy production is dominant [8]. Secondly, Krakow was the first city in Poland where, due to the efforts concerning improving air quality, a total ban on burning coal, wood, and other solid fuels in house boilers, stoves, and fireplaces was introduced on the 1 September 2019 [9]. The following research questions are posed in the paper: (i) what the degree of energy literacy among economics students in terms of behaviour, attitudes, and self-efficacy is, and (ii) what factors contribute to this set of students’ energy literacy. Our contribution to the literature is threefold. First, we provide a much-needed update on the discussion about the construction and interpretation of the cognitive indicators of energy literacy, such as knowledge, attitude, self-efficacy, and behaviour. Second, we provide an in-depth statistical analysis of the aforementioned indicators, their interaction mechanisms, and how they relate to students’ main characteristics such as gender, age, home ownership, employment, city of origin, and energy poverty. Third, we discuss the relevant policy implications and a number of recommendations based on our analytical findings. We found a statistically significant relationship between students’ energy poverty and their self-efficacy attitudes (with the exception of attitudes towards RES) and behaviours related to energy conservation.
The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 provides a state of the art overview of energy literacy. Section 3 discusses the materials, methods, and data. Section 4 presents the findings of the analysis, Section 5 contains a discussion of the issue at hand, while Section 6 offers conclusions and policy implications.

2. State of the Art

2.1. The Concept of Energy Literacy

The term energy literacy has garnered significant popularity in recent years owing to this term being treated as a major factor contributing to the formalising of proper energy consumer behaviours as well as the determinant for the introduction of sustainable energy policy [10]. This term describes the general knowledge regarding issues connected to the production and consumption of energy, particularly in regards to sources of energy, the scale of production and consumption, prices, and influence on the environment [11]. In this aspect, energy literacy primarily refers to knowledge concerning energy and its possible applications. The initial interest in the technical knowledge regarding energy literacy in the subject literature rather quickly gave way to a focus on the issues of the conditions and factors determining the choices of consumers ensuring the most efficient use of energy. Thus, the essence of the term was connected not so much to the subject of energy per se as with the issues of socially desirable behaviours [12].
Energy literacy implies empowering people to choose appropriate energy-related behaviours related to possession of proper conceptual and practical knowledge, recognising the importance of personal choices, conservation of energy, and development of renewable energy sources [13]. In the context of energy literacy, the emphasis is placed on the communication competences as a conditioning factor for successful participation in social life [14]. U.S. Department of Energy emphasises the issue of the capacity for the practical application of knowledge in solving energy-related problems. The subject literature also underscores the importance of energy literacy for developing the awareness of citizens concerning the consequences of consuming energy for the broadly understood social-environmental systems [15].
Three aspects are traditionally distinguished within the framework of energy literacy: (i) cognitive (knowledge, understanding, and problem solving skills), (ii) affective (awareness, attitudes, values, locus of control, and sense of personal responsibility), and (iii) behavioural (participation and action skills) [16,17]. This term is also traditionally combined with the assumption that knowledge related to energy translates to the affective aspect (attitudes) which, in turn, constitutes a crucial intermediary on the road towards developing desirable behaviours. However, empirical studies have not confirmed a direct relationship between either knowledge and awareness and the energy-related behaviours of people (the so called information deficit model) or between behaviours and attitudes which are crucial in this regard (the so called “attitude-behaviour” gap) [18,19].
The issue of a negligible connection between the basic components of energy literacy, namely the lack of influence of knowledge and attitudes on the energy-related behaviours, is one of the primary research issues discussed in the literature. Although a plenitude of more or less mundane reasons have been indicated, e.g., external circumstances (availability of proper hardware) or deficit in education or information transmission of scientific knowledge [20] for now there is no unambiguous explanation for the observable dependencies and relationships. This fact constitutes a starting point for further studies regarding the identification of other factors determining the behavioural aspect characterising energy consumers. Significantly, the expansion of the catalogue in this regard is not related to the negation of both of the previously mentioned categories, i.e., knowledge and attitudes, which appear to undergo a form of “promotion” to the role of factors indispensable for formalising appropriate energy-related behaviours. These new factors are, in turn, perceived rather as a supplementation of the entirety of the picture and constitute a peculiar condition adequate for developing desirable behaviours.
In summary, energy literacy should be understood as a general predisposition and, at the same time, a competence for engaging in desirable behaviours in the area of energy consumption, i.e., the behaviours characterised by efficiency, frugality, and care for the environment. It constitutes a diverse conception which covers both knowledge, internal motivating factors and self-control, as well as a normative aspect which reflects the importance of social systems and contexts in the process of adaptation, learning and decision-making in the field of energy [18]. In empirical studies, primary importance is assigned to knowledge and attitudes as the basic constituent components of energy literacy which are treated as a sine qua non choices and energy behaviours. Furthermore, major importance is accorded to the self-control category (self-efficacy) recognised alongside attitudes as a part of the affective aspect of energy consumers [16].

2.2. Primary Topics Discussed in the Literature Concerning Energy Literacy

The term energy literacy is currently characterised by its range of application, both in the area of research and in practice. Therefore, there are numerous definitions of the term which makes making comparisons and generalisations difficult. There is also no universal scale for appraisal and individual authors are using independently formed standards [12]. Simultaneously, the approach based on capturing the essence of energy literacy in terms of individual knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours characterising an energy consumer seems to be the most common [7,13]. The term financial literacy, equated with the knowledge and skills conditioning investment-related decisions in the area of energy, is also gaining popularity [21,22,23,24]. Thus, van den Broek [15] distinguishes four types of energy literacy in total, with the broadest type concerning general knowledge, attitudes, values, and behaviours (multifaceted energy literacy) and the three remaining types referring to knowledge regarding, respectively, energy consumption aspect, energy conservation. and financial consequences (device energy literacy, action energy literacy, and financial energy literacy). As far as the first of the distinguished types is synonymous with the general recognition of the concept of energy literacy, in essence the remaining types constitute more specific subcategories based on and referring to specific fragmentary aspects of energy literacy.
Within the literature concerning energy literacy, several dominant trends can be distinguished depending on the category of subjects. In this context we should list the works engaging with the issue of energy literacy in reference to pupils and students, differences based on gender, and energy poverty.

2.2.1. Energy Literacy among Students and Pupils

A major share of the literature on the topic of energy literacy is devoted to research papers concerning pupils and students. Two-decade long studies indicate that pupils are generally characterised by a low level of energy literacy, both in terms of theoretical knowledge as well as the awareness of the consequences of energy consumption to societies and the environment. Gender, income of parents, education profile, and location of school are indicated as the diversifying factors [15]. The studies conducted among U.S. school pupils revealed a poor state of knowledge concerning the issue of energy conservation and the determinants of household energy consumption as well as lack of awareness concerning energy situation of the country [13]. In turn, a study conducted among secondary level school students in Greece disclosed a correlation between the individual attitudes, energy habits, and school performance to environmental concerns [25]. Although pupils are characterised by care for the environment and energy conservation, as well as an acceptance of the need for a gradual departure from conventional fuels, the scope of their attitudes demonstrates a wide variety of opinions, with a relatively high percentage of neutral or negative declarations concerning taking actions for the benefit of energy conservation or environment protection. As displayed by the study conducted by Yeh et al. [26], a significantly better knowledge on the subject of energy is displayed by students whose parents had a higher education level or were employed in the education sector than by other students.
A study concerning energy literacy conducted among nursing students in Taiwan [27] demonstrated that, in contrast to energy knowledge, energy conservation behaviour was positively and closely connected to attitudes. The economic status of the surveyed students (in juxtaposition of students who declared to be “well-off” in comparison to students indicating that they are “facing financial difficulties”) was also significant for the students’ energy conservation behaviour. Other studies conducted among Taiwanese students [28] demonstrated a significant discrepancy between students’ affect and their behaviour which, as suggested by authors, may lead to the assumption that there is no relation between what the respondents declare and what they actually do. In case of these studies it has been observed that there is a strong and positive relationship between energy literacy and grade. Research conducted among UK students demonstrated a rather high level of knowledge regarding basic parameters for energy debates and a relatively lower scores regarding more technical issues and behaviours related to energy conservation. Significant differences in regards to energy-related knowledge were also recorded in terms of gender [7]. Although the literature traditionally places the emphasis on energy education as the most effective investment in energy conservation, empirical studies usually do not unequivocally confirm the influence of education on positive attitudes and behaviours related to energy conservation [15]. Keller et al. [29] demonstrated that energy education workshops in Austria are a highly effective tool for increasing students’ overall energy literacy level, with approximately three-quarters of participants claiming a positive change in their future energy consumption behaviour.

2.2.2. Energy Literacy Diversification with Regard to Gender

The pioneering research concerning energy literacy conducted by DeWaters and Powers [13] demonstrated that, in comparison to men, women are characterised by a greater sense of self-efficacy and significantly greater positive attitudes and values in regards to energy issues. An energy literacy assessment conducted among Portuguese university members confirmed the influence of gender; despite women having less knowledge, they more frequently demonstrate more correct behaviours and more positive attitudes [14]. A study concerning students’ energy literacy in the context of a university’s position in a sustainability ranking yielded similar results [19]. The displayed behaviours are particularly significant because they compare less favourably and are not consistent with the possessed knowledge and the declared attitudes [21,30]. The fact that studies conducted in Germany, Norway, Greece, and Spain indicated that higher total energy consumption can be observed in the case of men in comparison to women [31] may be to a certain degree related to the level of awareness of both these groups. The results of a study conducted among Swiss respondents suggest a significant gender-gap in terms of energy-related financial literacy, which in case of women, even the women holding a university education degree, is lower than in the case of men [32].

2.2.3. Energy Poverty and Energy Literacy

Household energy consumption is determined by socio-economic factors [33,34]. In numerous countries young people and students are in the group threatened with falling into fuel poverty [35]. For instance, as indicated by a study conducted among 17 New Zealand schools, 40% of pupils felt their home was often or always cold during the winter and almost half of the survey respondents (47%) felt their home was sometimes cold [36]. Children and adolescents are classified as a group threatened with a high-risk of fuel poverty because they spend more of their time at home and their physiological vulnerability to cold is higher than that of adults [37]. In numerous academic cities, students constitute a major group of tenants renting properties. In Great Britain, the majority of students reside in relatively old housing stock which is energy inefficient and requires thermo-modernisation [38]. Among the surveyed students enrolled at the University of Sheffield 42% of the students living in private sector housing felt that their accommodation was too cold during winter and 74% of them expressed a desire for warmer housing during this time of year [33]. The group of students enrolled at the aforementioned university reveals characteristics typical of fuel poor populations. As demonstrated by a study conducted among Scottish students, the reason behind the temporary fuel poverty may be the lack of awareness of the principles governing the settling energy bills at the time of changing the rented property and the need to pay for the energy consumed by previous tenants [39].
Regardless of the dominant trends identified in the energy literacy literature, it is important to note the calls for the elimination of discrepancies and inconsistencies in the application of the concept or measures of energy literacy [16]. Martins et al. [21] emphasised the importance of developing consistent criteria for defining and measuring energy literacy, implying the need to compare energy literacy levels across countries and assess people’s energy behaviour in real-world contexts. According to Blasch et al. [32], more research should be conducted to determine the reasons for gender and country differences in energy literacy levels, and educational programs should be targeted to reduce literacy inequalities. Further research on energy literacy should include participants from various cultures or contexts [20].

3. Materials, Methods, and Data

In order to study energy literacy among students, a survey was conducted from which 41 specific questions were selected. A description of these specific questions is included in Table 1. The concept for analysis of the answers contained within the survey is based on the proposal of DeWaters and Powers [13]—the analysis of responses in the context of certain synthetic standards for the following behavioural categories: knowledge, attitude, behaviour, and self-efficacy. For this purpose, we have developed indicators for the aforementioned categories and to conduct their analysis.
The energy knowledge of the respondent was assessed on the grounds of the indicator defining the accuracy and correctness of the answers given to the test questions K1–K10 listed in Table 1. These questions are single-choice questions with four possible answers to each question and their purpose is to verify the knowledge of a respondent in terms of energy literacy. The indicator was calculated as a fraction of the correct answers recalculated and converted into a 0–5 scale (with 0 signifying giving only wrong answers and 5 signifying answering to all questions correctly). Within the Knowledge category, we distinguished between two sub-categories. The first subcategory concerned renewable energy sources, and consisted of the questions marked K4–K7 and K9 (questions labelled RES in Table 1); from these questions we formed a sub-indicator providing information on the knowledge of the respondents concerning renewable energy sources. The second subcategory defined knowledge of students on the subject of ecology and consisted of only two questions: K1 and K10 (questions labelled ECO in Table 1). Both indicators for the subcategories are determined in a manner analogous to the general knowledge indicator and are presented on a 0–5 scale.
In this study Attitude was defined by questions P1–P11, all of which were measured on a five-grade Likert scale (see, e.g., Table 2). The Attitude indicator for a given respondent was determined as an average value of answers to specific questions. In this case we also distinguished two subcategories we were interested in within the Attitude category: the attitude towards renewable energy sources and the pro-ecology attitude. The first subcategory (“RES”) consisted of questions P4 and P9. The second category concerned the pro-ecology attitude (“ECO”) and consisted of questions P1–P3, P10, and P11 (see Table 2). The attitude indicator for these subcategories for a given respondent was also determined as the average value of answers given to specific questions. The Behaviour category was constructed on the basis of questions B1–B15 answers which were presented on a five-grade Likert scale (Table 3). Once again, the indicator for this category was determined on the grounds of average values of answers to the aforementioned specific questions. Within this category we also distinguished the pro-ecology behaviours subcategory determined by questions B9–B11. On the basis of these questions, we form indicators of pro-ecology behaviours determined as the average value of the answers given to these questions. Finally, the self-efficacy of a respondent in the context of energy literacy was defined by questions S1–S4, the answers to which were also presented on a five-grade Likert scale (Table 4). Similarly to the previous categories, the value of the self-efficacy indicator for a given respondent was determined by the unweighted average value of the answers given to the aforementioned questions.
All of the aforementioned indicators were analysed in terms of the average value of an indicator for the entirety of the population as well as the differences in the provided answers based on the basic characteristics of respondents such as gender, ownership of a flat/a house, the town of origin, the fact of moving out from family home for the duration of studies, employment, age, and energy poverty (defined as the share of energy expenses in total monthly budget exceeding 10%); [40]. The significance of these average values in subgroups within a given indicator were determined by means of Wilcoxon rank test (which in this case is equivalent to Mann–Whitney U-test; see, e.g., [41]. Wilcoxon test results have been also verified through using two types of parametric t tests: one which assumes equal variance and the other which assumes different variance in the analysed subgroups. Although these tests require an assumption of normality which was rejected by the data, they provide very similar results to the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank test. In a way, this is to be expected since the relevance of the normality assumption diminishes with sample size and the analysis includes over 900 observations. For space considerations we only report the Wilcoxon test results (parametric tests results are available upon request). Furthermore, in order to study the dependencies and relationships between the categories of knowledge, attitude, behaviour, and self-efficacy, both correlation and dependence coefficients have been determined. Finally, we analysed the impact of knowledge, attitude, and self-efficacy on energy-conservation behaviours using multivariate linear regression. To this end the behaviour indicator serves as the dependent. Statistical analyses were performed using Microsoft Excel (Redmond, WA, USA) and MATLAB R2020a (Natick, WA, USA).
The data for the analysis was procured using an Internet survey conducted among students of the Cracow University of Economics (CUE) between November 2019 and the December of 2020. In total, 913 fully completed surveys were procured, representing approximately 7% of the 13,187 students to whom the survey questionnaire was sent. Table 5 summarises main characteristics of the dataset used in the analysis. The population of respondents was dominated by women (67%) and employed students (66%). The average age of respondents is 22 years with a decisive majority of the respondents being of up to 27 years of age. The surveyed students represent various stages of tertiary education: 22% represent the first year students; 26% represent the second year; 22% represent the third year; 12% of the population consists of students of the first year of the MA courses; and 18% consists of the students of the second year of the MA course. A significant proportion of respondents came from small settlements (villages: 48% and small towns: 14%), the remaining respondents were from average-sized towns (county towns) and large voivodeship cities (19% each). Approximately 64% of the respondents hail from Małopolska, with 14% of the respondents from Krakow itself.

4. Results

The comparison of the basic characteristics of the studied population in terms of energy literacy was divided into three components (knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours) as well as the self-efficacy of the respondents, with the results to be found in Table 6. The average value in terms of the correct answers in the knowledge component was 2.8 (on a 1–5 scale). The indicators referring to attitudes and behaviours were decisively more positive and reached 3.7 and 3.6 on average, respectively. In terms of self-efficacy, the average value achieved by students was 3.3. These results mean that in the knowledge component respondents indicated 56.4% of the correct answers on average whereas in terms of attitudes, behaviours, and self-efficacy, on average students achieved 73.2%, 72.2%, and 66.2% of the maximum possible score (5).
In the knowledge component, the major discrepancy between the average score of the respondents regarding general knowledge (2.8) and the values of the respective indicators for the ecology knowledge subcategory (3.9) and RES knowledge (2.1) is most eye-catching. In the first instance, the difference is 1.1 point in plus, in the second instance it is 0.7 point in minus. In turn in the case of the “attitude” component the respective indicators characterising sub-components, i.e., the attitude towards RES (3.7) and ecology (3.4) approximate or are equal to a rather high value of the indicator calculated for the entirety of this category (3.7). In the “behaviour” component, the subcategory of pro-ecological behaviours achieved the average score of 3.0–0.6 point lower than the average score for the whole category.

4.1. Composition of the Indicators of Energy Literacy

4.1.1. Knowledge

In terms of the “knowledge” component (Figure 1), the highest number of correct indications concerned questions on the subject of factors contributing to the greenhouse effect (87.5%), types of renewable energy sources (86.7%) as well as measuring energy consumption (75.2%). Respondents also indicated fifty or more percent of correct answers in case of the following questions: types of primary energy sources (68.2%), the manner in which energy consumption by electric devices/appliances is calculated (67.1%), types of renewable energy sources (58.8%), and household appliances energy consumption (56.6%). The scores achieved by respondents were markedly lower in case of the knowledge related to the issues of renewable energy production, mainly the share of RES energy in the total energy mix of Poland (23.9%), share of individual RES in production of energy in Poland (20.0%), and global production of energy from renewable sources (18.9%).

4.1.2. Attitude

With the attitudes component (Figure 2), the highest number of positive indications was achieved by the acceptance of the state authorities using incentives to encourage conversion to use of energy-efficient appliances 83.5% (4.5% of votes against). The respondents assessed conserving energy equally decisively positively (74.9%), declared the will to take actions aimed at conserving energy (74.4%), and declared in favor of increasing share of RES energy in the energy mix (71.5%). The following postulates were also indicated by more than 50% of respondents: limiting share of fossil fuels in energy mix (67.6%), importance assigned to actions of individuals in the context of solving energy-related problems (58.4%), and ecology as a rationale for conserving energy (54.2%). The willingness to pay more for energy from renewable sources (46.8%), lowering temperature in apartments (41.7%), resigning from using air-conditioning (36.4%), and acceptance for imposing legal restrictions on energy producers due to environmental protection (36.1%) were assessed less favourably.

4.1.3. Behaviour

In terms of the “behaviours” category (Figure 3), the following actions were indicated by the greatest percentage of the respondents: switching off lights after leaving a room (88.4%), turning off a tap when brushing teeth (82.6%), lowering the temperature in rooms during periods of prolonged absence (80.3%), or turning off heating when absent (79.4%). The following actions were indicated by more than 50% of the respondents: conserving water (66.3%), turning off computers when not in use (64.5%), wearing warmer clothes in house during the heating season (63.9%), systematically changing light sources for energy efficient light sources (61.9%), as well as taking into account the pro-effectiveness criteria when selecting a place to rent and live in (53.0%). The following behaviours were indicated less frequently: turning off heaters when airing rooms (50.0%), lowering temperature in rooms for the night (46.2%), encouraging others to conserve electric energy (41.7%), not leaving chargers plugged when not in use (41.2%), encouraging others to conserve heat energy (36.2%), and limiting consumption due to the energy conservation postulates (29.1%).

4.1.4. Self-Efficacy

With the self-efficacy of the respondents (Figure 4), the category concerning opportunities for engaging in actions for the benefit of solving energy-related problems was indicated the most frequently (57.3%). Other opinions were placed as follows: the conviction of following the energy conservation imperative in everyday life (40.9%), possessing adequate level of knowledge regarding energy conservation (34.5%), and the assessment of the intensity of one’s own actions for the benefit of energy conservation (26.9%).

4.2. Statistical Analysis

In the further part of the analysis, conducted by way of the Wilcoxon test, we verified to what degree categories such as gender, form of inhabitancy (ownership/tenancy), type of town/city, the fact of moving out from family home for the duration of studies, age, and the fact of experiencing fuel poverty (defined as devoting more than 10% of disposable income to covering energy-related costs) diversify attitudes, behaviours, knowledge, and self-efficacy of students in terms of energy-related issues (Table 7).
The analysis demonstrated that gender is the category which diversifies in a statistically significant manner the level of knowledge, attitudes, behaviours, and self-efficacy of the surveyed group to the greatest degree in terms of issues related to energy (in all cases with the exception of knowledge related to RES and ecology. Still, these categories demonstrate a rather low p-value below e.g., 0.1). Other significant categories are the fact of moving out from home for the duration of studies and fuel/energy poverty.
Table 8 and Figure 5 present the results for the three aforementioned categories (gender, moving out from home, and energy poverty), which in a statistically significant manner diversify self-assessment, knowledge, attitude, and behaviours of the respondents. Women display a markedly higher level of pro-environment behaviours (by 0.41 on average on a five-grade scale) as well as the behaviours related to the broadly understood energy conservation (by 0.36 on the aforementioned scale). In comparison to men, women are characterised by a lower value of the synthetic indicator only in the case of knowledge related to energy (by 0.21) and RES knowledge (by 0.16).
The second category which most frequently diversifies the studied population is the fact of moving out from the family home for the duration of studies or remaining therein. Statistically significant differences between these two groups concern the broadly understood attitudes towards energy, attitudes towards RES and ecology, as well as behaviours in terms of respecting energy and behaviours regarding ecology. In nearly all those cases (apart from ecology knowledge) the persons who moved out for the duration of studies are characterised by higher values of synthetic indicators than in the case of people who remained in family homes. The most significant differences are displayed in cases of pro-ecology behaviours (0.17 pt), pro-ecology attitudes (0.14 pt), and the knowledge regarding RES (0.12 pt). Thus, we may present a thesis that the fact of moving out from a family home facilitates development of knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours regarding taking responsibility for natural environment.
In terms of the legal form of inhabitancy (ownership or tenancy) the statistically significant differences between these two groups of respondents only concern pro-ecological attitudes i.e., the persons who are living in rented housing achieved the average value of the indicator at the level of 3.41 whereas in the case of people living in a flat/house they own the value of this indicator was lower (3.30 on a five-grade scale). Moreover, in the case of a type of town/city where the respondents reside, the differences between residents of villages and towns/cities were only statistically significant in the case of pro-ecology attitudes (the value of the indicator for residents of towns/cities was 3.42 and 3.30 for residents of villages). The age of the respondents diversifies in a statistically significant manner only in terms of knowledge regarding RES, i.e., the average value of the synthetic indicator in the case of younger persons (up to 22 years of age) is slightly higher (by 0.17 pt) than in the case of older persons (22 years and older).
Whether respondents experienced energy poverty diversifies their level of self-efficacy, attitudes (with the exception of the attitudes towards RES), and behaviours related to energy conservation in a statistically significant manner. Persons experiencing energy poverty display slightly higher: self-efficacy (by 0.12 pt), value of the indicator characterising attitude towards energy conservation (by 0.1 pt), attitude towards RES (by 0.12 pt), and behaviours related to ecology (by 0.14 pt). Thus, financial limitations are tied to higher energy literacy and behaviours related to the conservation of energy.
Table 9 presents an analysis of the inter-dependencies between the adopted characteristics i.e., self-efficacy, knowledge, and attitude towards energy (with division into RES and ecology knowledge) as well as behaviours related to energy conservation (including pro-ecology behaviours). The weakest correlations can be observed between the “knowledge” group and the remaining indicators. It may be ascertained that the level of knowledge does not meaningfully influence attitudes (correlation and dependence coefficient of 0.13) or behaviours (0.01). Within the knowledge category there are also no significant or meaningful correlations between the knowledge concerning RES and knowledge on the subject of ecology (0.08). However, the relationship between self-efficacy and attitudes (0.55) and behaviours (0.66) regarding energy conservation can be observed. In the case of the “attitude” category, a moderate correlation between attitudes towards RES and ecology (0.48) can be observed. We can also observe a dependency between pro-ecology attitudes and attitudes towards RES (0.48).
Finally, on the basis of multivariate linear regression, we can analysed what influence knowledge, attitude, and self-efficacy may have on students’ energy conservation behaviours. Since our analysis conducted so far indicates the potential importance of respondent characteristics (age, gender, ownership etc.), we also include them as control variables. Our regression model is
y t = β x t + ε t
where y is the response (dependent) variable ( indicator), vector x = 1 , x 1 , , x k contains k = 14 regressors (based on the constructed indicators, the names are listed in Table 10, column 2), β = β 0 , β 1 , , β k is the vector of k + 1 unknown parameters (so that β 0 is the intercept, which corresponds to “1” in vector x), and t is the observation index (t = 1,…, 913). Table 10 presents the results. Self-efficacy is the most important factor influencing student behaviour: increasing the student’s self-assessment by one unit increases the behavioural response to energy conservation by 0.493. This is followed by attitude, as well as the pro-ecologic components of both knowledge and attitude. When a student’s attitude and the pro-ecological component of his/her attitude are both increased by one unit, his/her positive behavioural response to energy conservation increases by 0.143 and 0.112, respectively. The behavioural response increases by 0.034 for every unit increase in pro-ecologic knowledge. Though this effect is small in comparison to self-efficacy or attitude, it is statistically significant (p-value = 0.009). More importantly, these findings confirm that there is no statistically significant impact of general knowledge on energy conservation behaviour, and that gender is a statistically significant factor in it. In terms of energy conservation behaviour, a female student’s energy literacy is 0.146 units higher than that of a male student. Furthermore, the findings for energy poverty show that increasing the poverty indicator by one unit increases energy conservation behaviour by 0.046. The p-value for the “poverty” parameter ( β 14 ) is 0.119, which is not far removed from the usual 0.1 significance threshold. Hence, given our previous findings in this regard, it seems that, though more uncertain, the impact of energy poverty is also a factor.

5. Discussion

In reference to the basic constituent components of the energy literacy, the fact of students achieving markedly lower scores in terms of energy-related knowledge in comparison to the remaining constituent components, i.e., attitudes and self-efficacy and behaviours, draws attention. The produced results are consistent with the results of studies conducted in other countries and tie with postulates advocating the elimination of energy-related knowledge deficits among students and pupils by properly enhancing national curricula in primary and secondary schools [7,22]. In regards to these studies, we must record that the percentage of correct answers was the highest in the case of ecological and conceptual knowledge, rather high in the case of practical knowledge and decisively low in the case of knowledge related to the issues of RES. It means that a particular emphasis should be placed on a broad ranging introduction of the subject of RES and underscoring RES issues at the initial stages of education [42].
In the category, the fact of common expectation of and high level of acceptance for state incentives for converting to energy efficient appliances merits particular attention. Respondents recognise the issue of conserving energy as highly significant and display a willingness to take appropriate actions. Although the respondents are characterised by displaying approval for increasing share of renewable energy in national energy mix, simultaneously their lack of willingness to pay more for energy from renewable sources is glaringly visible. The low level of acceptance for imposing legal restrictions on energy production based on fossil fuels also draws attention and may reflect the power of the official message (media/political forces) which favours traditional branches of industry and aims at maintaining the status quo. All in all, the relatively high scores in the area of attitudes, both in terms of general and the RES-related attitudes, suggest that students generally recognise the importance of energy issues and accept the need to conserve energy and increase the share of energy from renewable sources in the energy mix. Relatively lower scores in the case of pro-ecology attitudes should be recognised as a rationale for launching appropriate actions aimed and developing informational and normative attitudes [43].
In terms of the area of behaviours, rather simple actions (turning off lights, closing taps, etc.) were indicated with the greatest frequency. Thus, we may speak of behaviours which relatively easily become routine and may be developed by way of reinforcing habits. In the case of this component, the indications related to pro-eco behaviours, particularly behaviours implying active encouragement to engage in other pro-conservation actions, which were indicated decisively less frequently than the average, catch the eye. In terms of the forms of influence aimed at effecting changes in behaviour, such forms can be essentially qualified as either information strategies, implying influencing the affective aspect, or structural strategies aimed at the behavioural decision-making context which consists in application of economic incentives or introducing technical alterations.
When it comes to the self-efficacy component, more than a half of the respondents expressed the opinion that they are able to undertake effective actions aimed at solving energy-related problems. Simultaneously, a minority of the respondents are characterised by the moderate belief that they adhere to the energy conservation principles when engaging in daily activities and low intensity of efforts aimed at limiting energy consumption. Compared to the factors influencing the sense of self-efficacy identified in the literature, it appears that in reference to this particular component establishing circumstances for gaining experience and exchanging information between peers regarding the consumption and conservation of energy is majorly significant [44].
The study demonstrated that, in comparison to men, women are characterised by a significantly higher level of both pro-ecology behaviours and those related to the broadly understood issue of energy conservation. Such was the case, also, in regards to attitudes, self-efficacy, and behaviours. Women, in turn, demonstrated a lower level of knowledge related to energy, including the knowledge related to renewable energy. Although women were assessed more favourably in regards to pro-ecology behaviours and those related to energy conservation, men possessed greater knowledge on the topic of energy. The results produced in this area of the studies are consistent with the results of studies conducted in the USA and Portugal [14].
Persons who moved out from their family homes for the duration of their studies are characterised by higher values of synthetic indicators than the group of persons who remained at family homes. The fact of moving out from family home for the duration of one’s studies is positively correlated with three of the primary components of energy literacy (knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours) as well as the sense of self-efficacy in terms of issues related to energy. One potential explanation for such a state of affairs may be becoming responsible for covering one’s own living expenses after moving out from a family home.
The studies also demonstrated that persons experiencing energy poverty differ in a statistically significant manner from the remaining respondents in terms of the level of self-efficacy, attitudes (with the exception of attitudes towards RES), and behaviours related to energy conservation. Persons experiencing energy poverty were characterised by slightly higher scores in terms of energy conservation, attitude towards RES and pro-ecology behaviour. In the case of people experiencing energy poverty, the synthetic scores are slightly higher than in the case of persons who do not experience energy poverty. Thus, we may present the thesis that the fact of experiencing energy poverty stimulates the expansion of knowledge concerning possible solutions that will enable expenses related to energy to be lowered. It is particularly important in the context of the fact that students in numerous countries are part of a group particularly susceptible to falling into energy poverty [36,37,38]. The fact that the students had been using distance learning as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, with some being forced to return to their family homes, led a proportion of them to experience the problems of their parents such as a reduced family income due to reduction of salaries or loss of employment [45].
When it comes to the relationship between individual components, correlation analysis indicated that there is essentially no relationship between the extent of knowledge and other components of energy literacy. In general, the average scores achieved by the respondents in the affective scale are similar to behavioural scores and decisively higher than cognitive scores, meaning that students fundamentally recognise the significance of the issues related to energy but do not possess adequate knowledge. Similarly, multivariate linear regression analysis demonstrated that the most important factor influencing student behaviour is self-efficacy, followed by attitude and the pro-ecologic components of both attitude and knowledge. The extent of knowledge on the subject of energy does not display any relation to other components of energy literacy. The results produced are consistent with those of studies conducted by other researchers. The results also confirm the ascertainment presented above indicating that knowledge and attitudes solely constitute a precondition necessary rather than adequate for emergence of pro-energy behaviours, which implies the necessity for referring to other explanations of/factors influencing behaviours related to energy. However, a rather strong correlation between self-efficacy and behaviours and attitudes, as well as a simultaneous lack of a relation to knowledge, merits particular attention. This fact, in turn, confirms the presumption that the acquired knowledge and exchange of information are reflected in behaviours related to energy to a greater degree than in purely conceptual knowledge.
As indicated by the correlation matrix in Table 10, gender is the characteristic which diversifies the level of knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours as well as the self-efficacy of the studied group in a statistically significant manner and to the greatest extent in terms of energy issues. The fact of moving out from a family home for the duration of studies and energy poverty were also statistically significant in this context. Women demonstrated less knowledge on the subject of energy, including that concerning renewable energy sources, whereas their attitudes, self-efficacy, and behaviours in the field of energy conservation were assessed more favourable than in the case of men. These findings are consistent with the results of studies conducted in the USA and Portugal [14].

6. Conclusions and Policy Implications

6.1. Main Findings

This study contributes to the current literature debate on defining energy literacy by addressing a host of discrepancies and inconsistencies in the application of this concept and its measures. More specifically, it provides knowledge about energy literacy among students in Krakow (Poland), reveals its characteristics and main drivers through a comprehensive description of the studied population from the standpoint of energy awareness. Gender, living away from home for the duration of studies, and the experience of energy poverty were found to be the primary determinants of energy literacy in this context. The study helped us gain a better understanding of the interaction mechanism between the main cognitive indicators of energy literacy and the factors that potentially affect them. The students surveyed achieved markedly lower scores in energy-related knowledge in comparison with the remaining energy literacy components, i.e., attitudes, self-efficacy, and behaviours. Self-efficacy was found to be the most important factor influencing student behaviour, followed by attitude and the pro-ecologic components of both attitude and knowledge. The level of knowledge about energy was found to be unrelated to the other aspects of energy literacy.
In the case of the attitudes component, the opportunities for potential influence appear to be more numerous because this category is based on values and convictions, a part of which constitutes sui generis knowledge whereas the other parts are emotional and, frequently, symbolic in character [46]. Thus, an opportunity presents itself for multidimensional influence since, from the point of view of psychological theories, developing an attitude is associated with cognitive (individual’s perception, cognition, and thoughts), affective components (influence of emotions) and behavioural components (expression of attitude that happens in action). This fact creates a space for both the informational activity as well as influence in emotional and behavioural areas. In the case of exerting influence on students by way of information, this can take diverse forms e.g., prompts or communicating supportive social standards providing information and knowledge on behaviours practised by others or recognised as a standard and model. In turn, the influence on the emotional sphere can be exerted by spreading or reinforcing positive attitudes and developing self-efficacy through direct experiences which create the opportunity for repeated expression, provide the sense of certainty of being “correct”, and exposing them to information directed at actions. Finally, in the area of behavioural influence, it seems appropriate to establish conditions for the development of various forms of social activity and participation of students which would be beneficial and contribute to the development of interest in the subject, acquiring experience, facilitating exchange of information, and supportive of the appropriately oriented interactions between peers.

6.2. Theoretical and Practical Implications

In discussing the issue of energy literacy in terms of public policy as a premise for public interventions, we propose to discuss each basic component of energy literacy individually. In terms of the knowledge component, distinguishing between conceptual/scientific knowledge and practical knowledge seems valid. In case of the former, in principle the influence should be exerted at the education level, particularly in primary and secondary education. It appears that tertiary education is not appropriate for imparting this type of knowledge, obviously apart from the technical or other courses where the issues of energy, environmental protection, and similar subjects are prominent. Therefore, the deficit of knowledge among students should constitute a rationale for enhancing curricula at the lower levels of education. It also appears that tertiary education presents rather limited opportunities for the transfer of practical knowledge, but we can advocate for energy issues to appear in the curricula of various courses, in particular, those designed with environment protection and sustainable development in mind by way of specific kind of “mainstreaming”.
The efforts aimed at changing the environment context in order to establish favourable circumstances for engaging with the issues of energy, including the issue of RES, should serve as a significant complement to the indicated actions. Apart from accommodating the aforementioned prompts, we should advocate the popularisation of energy-efficient appliances and technical solutions contributing to the conservation of energy and renewable energy use (e.g., PV and wind turbines) at universities. It is also prudent to mention the possibilities presented by the so-called experimental strategies, such as exposure to nature, which serve to bolster the self-efficacy of students and facilitates the development of an internalised motivation to engage in desirable actions benefiting energy conservation and environment protection among students.
The research was conducted among students of one of the universities in Krakow and may not reflect the specificity of knowledge and energy awareness of people in other cities due to differences in cultural differences or educational programs. Further research should include greater diversity of the surveyed groups and show the consequences of the impact of climate change on the awareness and knowledge of the young generation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, P.B.-B. and Ł.M.; methodology, P.B.-B. and K.M.; software, K.M.; formal analysis, Ł.M., P.B.-B. and K.M.; investigation, Ł.M. and P.B.-B.; writing—original draft preparation, P.B.-B., Ł.M. and K.M.; project administration, Ł.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This project has been financed by the Minister of Education and Science within the “Regional Initiative of Excellence” Programme for 2019–2022. Project no.: 021/RID/2018/19. Total financing: 11 897 131.40 PLN.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data is available on request sent to the author for correspondence.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Abrahamse, W.; Matthies, E. Informational Strategies to Promote Pro-Environmental Behaviour. In Environmental Psychology: An Introduction, 2nd ed.; Steg, L., de Groot, J.I.M., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 261–272. ISBN 9781119241072. [Google Scholar]
  2. Allcott, H. Social norms and energy conservation. J. Public Econ. 2011, 95, 1082–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Henni, S.; Franz, P.; Staudt, P.; Peukert, C.; Weinhardt, C. Evaluation of an interactive visualization tool to increase energy literacy in the building sector. Energy Build. 2022, 266, 112116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Sovacool, B.K.; Blyth, P.L. Energy and environmental attitudes in the green state of Denmark: Implications for energy democracy, low carbon transitions, and energy literacy. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 54, 304–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Eurostat. Energy Consumption and Use by Households. 2020. Available online: (accessed on 22 April 2021).
  6. EIA. International Energy Outlook 2019; Energy Information Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2019.
  7. Cotton, D.R.E.; Miller, W.; Winter, J.; Bailey, I.; Sterling, S. Developing students’ energy literacy in higher education. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2015, 16, 456–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Manowska, A.; Osadnik, K.T.; Wyganowska, M. Economic and social aspects of restructuring Polish coal mining: Focusing on Poland and the EU. Resour. Policy 2017, 52, 192–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Traczyk, P.; Gruszecka-Kosowska, A. The Condition of Air Pollution in Kraków, Poland, in 2005-2020, with Health Risk Assessment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cotton, D.R.; Zhai, J.; Miller, W.; Dalla Valle, L.; Winter, J. Reducing energy demand in China and the United Kingdom: The importance of energy literacy. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 123876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gołębiowska, B. Energy literacy in poland. Ekon. I Sr. 2020, 73, 121–143. [Google Scholar]
  12. Martins, A.; Madaleno, M.; Dias, M.F. Energy literacy: What is out there to know? Energy Rep. 2020, 6, 454–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. DeWaters, J.E.; Powers, S.E. Energy literacy of secondary students in New York State (USA): A measure of knowledge, affect, and behavior. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 1699–1710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Martins, A.; Madaleno, M.; Dias, M.F. Energy literacy assessment among Portuguese university members: Knowledge, attitude, and behavior. Energy Rep. 2020, 6, 243–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Van den Broek, K.L. Household energy literacy: A critical review and a conceptual typology. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2019, 57, 101256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. DeWaters, J.; Powers, S. Establishing Measurement Criteria for an Energy Literacy Questionnaire. J. Environ. Educ. 2013, 44, 38–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wang, M.; Hou, G.; Wang, P.; You, Z. Research of energy literacy and environmental regulation research based on tripartite deterrence game model. Energy Rep. 2021, 7, 1084–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sweeney, J.C.; Kresling, J.; Webb, D.; Soutar, G.N.; Mazzarol, T. Energy saving behaviours: Development of a practice-based model. Energy Policy 2013, 61, 371–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cotton, D.R.E.; Winter, J.; Miller, W.; Dalla Valle, L. Is students’ energy literacy related to their university’s position in a sustainability ranking? Environ. Educ. Res. 2018, 24, 1611–1626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chiu, M.-S.; DeWaters, J. Development and Validation of the Energy-Issue Attitude Questionnaire: Relations with Energy Knowledge, Affect, and Behavior. JAER 2018, 3, 25–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Blasch, J.; Boogen, N.; Daminato, C.; Filippini, M. Empower the Consumer! Energy-Related Financial Literacy and Its Socioeconomic Determinants. Available online: (accessed on 31 December 2020).
  22. Martins, A.; Madaleno, M.; Ferreira Dias, M. Financial Knowledge’s Role in Portuguese Energy Literacy. Energies 2020, 13, 3412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chodkowska-Miszczuk, J.; Kola-Bezka, M.; Lewandowska, A.; Martinát, S. Local Communities’ Energy Literacy as a Way to Rural Resilience—An Insight from Inner Peripheries. Energies 2021, 14, 2575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Filippini, M.; Kumar, N.; Srinivasan, S. Energy-related financial literacy and bounded rationality in appliance replacement attitudes: Evidence from Nepal. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2020, 25, 399–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Ntona, E.; Arabatzis, G.; Kyriakopoulos, G.L. Energy saving: Views and attitudes of students in secondary education. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 46, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yeh, S.C.; Huang, J.Y.; Yu, H.C. Analysis of energy literacy and misconceptions of junior high students in Taiwan. Sustainability 2017, 9, 423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Lee, L.-S.; Lee, Y.-F.; Wu, M.-J.; Pan, Y.-J. A study of energy literacy among nursing students to examine implications on energy conservation efforts in Taiwan. Energy Policy 2019, 135, 111005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lee, L.-S.; Lee, Y.-F.; Altschuld, J.W.; Pan, Y.-J. Energy literacy: Evaluating knowledge, affect, and behavior of students in Taiwan. Energy Policy 2015, 76, 98–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Keller, L.; Riede, M.; Link, S.; Hüfner, K.; Stötter, J. Can Education Save Money, Energy, and the Climate?—Assessing the Potential Impacts of Climate Change Education on Energy Literacy and Energy Consumption in the Light of the EU Energy Efficiency Directive and the Austrian Energy Efficiency Act. Energies 2022, 15, 1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lee, L.-S.; Chang, L.-T.; Lai, C.-C.; Guu, Y.-H.; Lin, K.-Y. Energy literacy of vocational students in Taiwan. Environ. Educ. Res. 2017, 23, 855–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Räty, R.; Carlsson-Kanyama, A. Energy consumption by gender in some European countries. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 646–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kumar, N. A Model-based Clustering Approach for Analyzing Energy-related Financial Literacy and Its Determinants. SSRN J. 2019, 35, 3328468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Morris, J.; Allinson, D.; Harrison, J.; Lomas, K.J. Benchmarking and tracking domestic gas and electricity consumption at the local authority level. Energy Effic. 2016, 9, 723–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Mamica, Ł.; Głowacki, J.; Makieła, K. Determinants of the Energy Poverty of Polish Students during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Energies 2021, 14, 3233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bouzarovski, S.; Thomson, H.; Cornelis, M. Confronting Energy Poverty in Europe: A Research and Policy Agenda. Energies 2021, 14, 858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. O′Sullivan, K.C.; Howden-Chapman, P.; Sim, D.; Stanley, J.; Rowan, R.L.; Harris Clark, I.K.; Morrison, L.L.A. Cool? Young people investigate living in cold housing and fuel poverty. A mixed methods action research study. SSM Popul. Health 2017, 3, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Tod, A.M.; Nelson, P.; Cronin de Chavez, A.; Homer, C.; Powell-Hoyland, V.; Stocks, A. Understanding influences and decisions of households with children with asthma regarding temperature and humidity in the home in winter: A qualitative study. BMJ Open 2016, 6, e009636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Li, P.; Boom, K.; Davis, P. How Do Limbo Dancing, Landlords and Students’ Energy Habits Link to EfSD? A Student Green Fund Case Study. In Integrative Approaches to Sustainable Development at University Level; Leal Filho, W., Brandli, L., Kuznetsova, O., Paço, A.M.F.d., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 97–111. ISBN 978-3-319-10689-2. [Google Scholar]
  39. Mould, R.; Baker, K.J. Documenting fuel poverty from the householders’ perspective. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 31, 21–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Boardman, B. Fuel Poverty: From Cold Homes to Affordable Warmth; Belhaven Press: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 1991; ISBN 1852931396. [Google Scholar]
  41. Hollander, M.; Wolfe, D.A.; Chicken, E. Nonparametric Statistical Methods; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013; ISBN 1118553292. [Google Scholar]
  42. Mamica, Ł. Willingness to pay for the renewable energy sources of the residents of Kraków and their perception of the actions aimed at reducing the level of environmental pollution. Polityka Energetyczna-Energy Policy J. 2021, 24, 117–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wood, W. Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2000, 51, 539–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Loo, C.W.; Choy, J. Sources of Self-Efficacy Influencing Academic Performance of Engineering Students. Education 2013, 1, 86–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Daniel, J. Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospects 2020, 49, 91–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Scholz, R.W.; Binder, C.R. Environmental Literacy in Science and Society: From Knowledge to Decisions; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2011; ISBN 9780511921520. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. The percentage of positive answers given by the respondents in division to constituent components of the knowledge indicator (questions K1–K10). Source: own study.
Figure 1. The percentage of positive answers given by the respondents in division to constituent components of the knowledge indicator (questions K1–K10). Source: own study.
Energies 15 05368 g001
Figure 2. Formation of attitudes related to energy among students. Source: own study.
Figure 2. Formation of attitudes related to energy among students. Source: own study.
Energies 15 05368 g002
Figure 3. Energy-related behaviours of the respondents. Source: own study.
Figure 3. Energy-related behaviours of the respondents. Source: own study.
Energies 15 05368 g003
Figure 4. Self-efficacy of respondents regarding energy literacy. Source: own study.
Figure 4. Self-efficacy of respondents regarding energy literacy. Source: own study.
Energies 15 05368 g004
Figure 5. Attitudes, behaviours, knowledge, and self-efficacy of the respondents related to energy, divided according to gender. Source: own study.
Figure 5. Attitudes, behaviours, knowledge, and self-efficacy of the respondents related to energy, divided according to gender. Source: own study.
Energies 15 05368 g005
Table 1. Energy knowledge: single-choice test questions with one correct answer which together constitute the energy knowledge indicator.
Table 1. Energy knowledge: single-choice test questions with one correct answer which together constitute the energy knowledge indicator.
K1The primary energy source for the majority of living creatures is the Sun.ECO
K2The amount of consumed energy is measured in kilowatt hours (kWh)
K3The amount of energy consumed by electric appliances is equal to the power of an appliance expressed in watts (kW) multiplied by the time of use
K4The “renewable energy sources” term means sources which can be relatively rapidly replenished naturally.RES
K5Which of the listed energy sources is NOT renewable: coalRES
K6Share of RES energy in the total amount of energy produced in Poland is approx.15%RES
K7The highest amount of energy from renewable sources (globally) is produced by use of water energyRES
K8Which household appliances consume the greatest amount of energy: heating and cooling rooms (heaters and air conditioning)
K9The highest amount of RES energy in Poland is produced by use of which resources?: biomass (wood, bio-waste, alcohol-based fuels)RES
K10According to the dominant view the reason behind the increase in global temperature is: increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels.ECO
Note: In the third column questions have been marked as RES/ECO if they also belong to the subcategory of knowledge concerning renewable energy sources or ecology. Source: own study.
Table 2. Energy-related effectiveness: survey questions (survey statements) defined on a Likert scale (1–5) concerning assessment of attitudes.
Table 2. Energy-related effectiveness: survey questions (survey statements) defined on a Likert scale (1–5) concerning assessment of attitudes.
P1My primary reason for conserving energy is environmental concerns.ECO
P2I could stop using air-conditioning due to environmental concerns.ECO
P3I could lower temperature in my flat/house during winter due to environmental concerns.ECO
P4How much more (in %) are you willing to pay for energy from renewable sources?RES
P5I would be willing to engage in actions for the benefit of energy conservation if I knew how to do so effectively.
P6I believe that the manner in which I consume energy has no greater meaning in the context of energy-related problems.
P7There are no reasons to conserve energy because technical development will resolve all energy-related problems of future generations.
P8The state should utilize active incentives for converting to use of energy-efficient appliances.
P9We should work towards the greatest possible share of energy from renewable sources in energy mix of our country.RES
P10We should work towards systematically reducing share of fossil fuels in production of energy.ECO
P11The regulations concerning environment protection cannot restrict producers of energy.ECO
Note: in the third column questions have been marked as ECO/RES if they also belong to the subcategory concerning attitudes towards ecology and renewable energy sources; questions marked as (N) have a negative share in the attitude (thus the results are appropriately converted). Source: own study.
Table 3. Energy-related behaviours: survey questions (survey statements) defined on a Likert scale (1–5) concerning the assessment of attitudes.
Table 3. Energy-related behaviours: survey questions (survey statements) defined on a Likert scale (1–5) concerning the assessment of attitudes.
B1I lower temperature for the night
B2I lower temperature when I leave for a prolonged period of time
B3I turn of heaters when airing
B4I do not leave chargers plugged when not in use
B5I turn of lights when leaving a room
B6I wear warmer clothes at home during the heating season
B7I attempt to conserve water
B8I turn of my computer when it is not being used
B9I encourage others (housemates/family) to conserve heat energyECO
B10I encourage others (housemates/family) to conserve electric energyECO
B11I buy less things in consideration of the global conservation of energyECO
B12I close the tap when brushing teeth
B13I turn off heaters/thermostats when leaving apartment/house for prolonged periods of time
B14Me and my friends/family are systematically converting to use of energy efficient light sources (energy efficient light-bulbs)
B15Pro-energy criteria of selecting a place to rent:
B15.1The possibility of measuring consumed utilities (a heat meter, water meters for hot and cold water etc.)
B15.2Costs of utilities incl. heating, electric energy, water etc.
B15.3Advanced energy-efficient windows
B15.4Thermal insulation in a building
B15.5Type of heating (electric, gas, district heating)
Note: in the third column questions have been marked as ECO if they also belong to the “pro-ecology behaviour” subcategory. Source: own study.
Table 4. Energy-related self-efficacy: survey questions (survey statements) concerning self-efficacy formulated and expressed on a Likert scale.
Table 4. Energy-related self-efficacy: survey questions (survey statements) concerning self-efficacy formulated and expressed on a Likert scale.
S1What is your opinion on the level of your knowledge on the topic of practical opportunities for conserving energy?
S2Assess the intensity of your CURRENT actions aimed at limiting the amount of consumed energy
S3I believe that by my actions and choices I can contribute to solving energy-related problems.
S4In my everyday life I am guided by the principles of energy conservation.
Source: own study.
Table 5. Main characteristics of the dataset.
Table 5. Main characteristics of the dataset.
Number of respondents913
Female respondents67%
Employed respondents66%
Average age (years)22
Tertiary education breakdown
First year students (BA)22%
Second year students (BA)26%
Third year students (BA)22%
First year (MA)12%
Second year (MA)18%
Place of residency (origin)
Small towns14%
Mid-size towns19%
Voivodeship cities19%
From/outside Małopolska region64% (36%)
From/outside Krakow19% (81%)
Source: own study.
Table 6. Statistics for the main indicators of the energy literacy of CUE students.
Table 6. Statistics for the main indicators of the energy literacy of CUE students.
Average Value (1–5 Scale)Standard DeviationOn a Scale of up to 100
knowledge ECO3.91.4777.8
knowledge RES2.10.9541.6
attitude RES3.70.8474.0
attitude ECO3.40.6967.2
behaviour ECO3.01.0660.2
Source: own study.
Table 7. p-value for Wilcoxon test for the following characteristics: gender, form of inhabitancy (ownership/tenancy), type of town/city, the fact of moving out from family home for the duration of studies, age, and the fact of experiencing fuel poverty.
Table 7. p-value for Wilcoxon test for the following characteristics: gender, form of inhabitancy (ownership/tenancy), type of town/city, the fact of moving out from family home for the duration of studies, age, and the fact of experiencing fuel poverty.
GenderForm of Inhabitancy (Ownership/Tenancy)TownMoving out from Family HomeAgeEnergy Poverty
Knowledge RES0.0530.2610.0720.0710.0090.984
Knowledge ECO0.7310.6240.6220.1990.5010.314
Attitude RES0.0030.4670.4450.0480.2930.090
Attitude ECO0.0000.0120.0020.0020.1300.007
Behaviour ECO0.0000.1120.2930.0190.2580.022
Source: own study.
Table 8. The average values of indicators for self-efficacy, knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours related to energy presented on a five-grade scale, divided according to gender and the fact of moving out from or staying in family home.
Table 8. The average values of indicators for self-efficacy, knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours related to energy presented on a five-grade scale, divided according to gender and the fact of moving out from or staying in family home.
ValueWomenMenLiving in a Family HomeLiving in Place Other than a Family HomeNot
Experiencing Energy Poverty
Experiencing Energy
Knowledge RES2.212.372.192.312.272.25
Knowledge ECO3.903.883.973.853.943.81
Attitude RES3.773.563.633.743.663.78
Attitude ECO3.443.203.273.413.313.45
Behaviour ECO3.202.792.963.133.023.16
Source: own study.
Table 9. The analysis of dependencies between the adopted characteristics.
Table 9. The analysis of dependencies between the adopted characteristics.
(1) Self-efficacy1.00
(2) Knowledge−0.011.00
(3) Knowledge RES−0.010.721.00
(4) Knowledge ECO0.010.520.081.00
(5) Attitude0.550.
(6) Attitude RES0.380.
(7) Attitude ECO0.490.
(8) Behaviour0.660.
(9) Behaviour ECO0.66−0.06−
Source: own study.
Table 10. Results from multivariate linear regression model with behaviour indicator as the dependent.
Table 10. Results from multivariate linear regression model with behaviour indicator as the dependent.
No.Variable NameEstimateSEtStatp-Value
3Knowledge RES0.0160.0250.6370.524
4Knowledge ECO0.0340.0132.6040.009
6Attitude RES−0.0280.027−1.0170.310
7Attitude ECO0.1120.0472.3730.018
11Moving out−0.0160.042−0.3940.694
Statistics of model fit
F-stat (p-value)4 × 10−128
Notes: SE stands for standard error; RMSE stands for root mean square error; Ve is the residual variation coefficient (RMSE divided by average value of the dependent); R-squared is the coefficient of determination; F-stat is the test result of the joint significance of all explanatory variables; based on Ve (which is low) and R-squared (which is above 50%) we can conclude that the model is fairly well fitted; most importantly the p-value of the F-statistic is virtually zero indicating that explanatory variables are (jointly) statistically relevant. Source: own study.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Białynicki-Birula, P.; Makieła, K.; Mamica, Ł. Energy Literacy and Its Determinants among Students within the Context of Public Intervention in Poland. Energies 2022, 15, 5368.

AMA Style

Białynicki-Birula P, Makieła K, Mamica Ł. Energy Literacy and Its Determinants among Students within the Context of Public Intervention in Poland. Energies. 2022; 15(15):5368.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Białynicki-Birula, Paweł, Kamil Makieła, and Łukasz Mamica. 2022. "Energy Literacy and Its Determinants among Students within the Context of Public Intervention in Poland" Energies 15, no. 15: 5368.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop