An Analysis of Behavioral Models Relating to Renewable Energy in Taiwan
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Research Issues
2.1. Literature Review
2.1.1. Marketing
2.1.2. Policy Marketing
- 1.
- Change in cognition
- 2.
- Change in action
- 3.
- Change in behavior
- 4.
- Ultimate change in values
- Policy marketing and identifying citizens’ needs have always been key challenges encountered by the public sector when it engages in marketing. Policy implementation requires public support and consensus to boost its chance of success.
- Strategies for marketing a policy require new thinking in the planning stage, and the policy implementation must employ 360-degree marketing aimed at fulfilling people’s specific needs.
2.1.3. Behavioral Model
- 1.
- The Engel–Kollat–Blackwell Model (EKB Model)
- 2.
- Kotler Model
- 3.
- AIDA Model:
- AttentionThe goal every marketing practitioner strives to achieve is to attract consumers’ eyes with marketing media such as advertising, public relations (PR) campaigns, promotions, and activities. Common ways to catch consumers’ attention in cyberspace include lucky draws, gifts, freebies, and sensational headlines, all of which are aimed at raising consumers’ awareness of online advertising.
- InterestOnce consumers have taken notice of the advertising, whether or not they become engaged is highly correlated to its content and the consumers themselves. Key points include whether or not the advertised content is attractive or distinctive enough and whether the individual consumer is interested in such content.
- DesireAdvertising may evoke the interest of consumers but not necessarily their desire. Marketing through advertising often leverage charming voices, spokespersons with a good image, and beguiling ambience to kindle consumers’ desire.
- ActionThe ultimate goal of marketing is to spur consumers into action. Adding trigger phrases in advertising is one way to motivate consumers to take immediate action. A common example is: “free gift for the first 40 persons!”
2.2. Research Issues
3. Methods
3.1. Investigation Methods
3.2. Quadrant Setup for the RE Promotion Strategy Matrix
4. Verification of Results of Telephone Interview and Analysis of Target Groups
4.1. Distribution and Verification of Valid Samples
4.2. Analysis of the Target Groups for RE Policy Promotion
4.3. Discussions of the Target Groups of RE Policy Promotion
5. Investigation on Changes among the Groups 2017–2020
6. Discussion
- Promotional seed group
- Key promotional group
- Attention-strengthening group
- Support-strengthening group
- Non-key promotional group
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA). 2019 Energy Statistical Data Book; Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA): Taipei, Taiwan, 2021.
- Chang, C.T.; Lee, H.C. Taiwan’s renewable energy strategy and energy-intensive industrial policy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 64, 456–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Executive Yuan, Energy Policy Project Report. Available online: https://www.ey.gov.tw/File/890AE999AEBED01F (accessed on 15 February 2021).
- Hwang, J.J. Promotional policy for renewable energy development in Taiwan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 1079–1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taiwan News. Taiwan to Boost Renewable Energy to 20% by 2025, Introduce Trillion-Dollar Investment. Available online: https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3880997 (accessed on 30 February 2021).
- Huang, Y.H.; Wu, J.H. Energy Policy in Taiwan: Historical Developments, Current Status and Potential Improvements. Energies 2009, 2, 623–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chun, S.A.; Shulman, S.; Sandoval, R.; Hovy, E. Government 2.0: Making connections between citizens, data and government. Inf. Polity 2010, 15, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hunt, S.D. The Nature and Scope of Marketing. J. Mark. 1976, 40, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kotler, P. A Generic Concept of Marketing. Mark. Manag. 1988, 7, 48–54. [Google Scholar]
- Hastings, G.B.; Elliott, B. Marketing of Traffic Safety; OECD: Paris, France, 2013; pp. 35–53. [Google Scholar]
- Chiou, C.; Chang, S. Policy Analysis, 1st ed.; National Open University Publication Center: New Taipei City, Taiwan, 2008; pp. 35–98. ISBN 9789576614132. [Google Scholar]
- Chiang, T. Study of Strategies for Urban Marketing with the Case of Kaohsiung City. Master’s Thesis, National San Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung City, Taiwan, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Nanda, A.K. Social Marketing: A Literature Review. Int. J. Sci. Res. 2015, 4, 697–702. [Google Scholar]
- Buurma, H. Public policy marketing: Marketing exchange in the public sector. Eur. J. Mark. 2001, 35, 1287–1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andreasen, A.R. Social marketing: Its definition and domain. J. Public Policy Market. 1994, 13, 108–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, S. Public Policy Analysis, 2nd ed.; WU-NAN Culture Enterprise: Taipei City, Taiwan, 2009; pp. 309–341. ISBN 9789571155081. [Google Scholar]
- Wilkie, W.L.; Gardner, D.M. The Role of Marketing Research in Public Policy Decision Making. J. Mark. 1974, 38, 38–47. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, J.H. Public Administration, 1st ed.; Sunny Ding Publishing House: Taipei City, Taiwan, 2009; ISBN 9789579563598. [Google Scholar]
- Prakash, A. Green Marketing, Publicpolicy and Managerial Strategies. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2002, 11, 285–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, B. Research on Public Policy Marketing. Chin. J. Adm. 2007, 78, 31–53. [Google Scholar]
- Lo, J. Available online: https://www.moj.gov.tw/cp-305-63547-31c2a-001.html (accessed on 4 March 2021).
- Jisana, T.K. Consumer behaviour models: An overview. Sai Om J. Commer. Manag. 2014, 1, 34–43. [Google Scholar]
- Chien, M. Consumer Behavior, 3rd ed.; New Wun Ching Developmental Publishing: New Taipei City, Taiwan, 2014; pp. 16–20. ISBN 9789862368787. [Google Scholar]
- Gilaninia, S.; Taleghani, M.; Azizi, N. Marketing Mix and Consumer Behavior. Kuwait Chapter 2013, 2, 53–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ghirvu, A.I. The AIDA Model for Advergames. USVAEPA 2013, 13, 090–098. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of the Interior. Statistical Yearbook of Interior (2015); Ministry of the Interior: Taipei, Taiwan, 2016.
- Glasser, G.J.; Metzger, G.D. Random-Digit Dialing as a Method of Telephone Sampling. J. Mark. Res. 1972, 9, 59–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cattaneo, C. Internal and external barriers to energy efficiency: Which role for policy interventions? Energy Effic. 2019, 12, 1293–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kristina, E.; Söderholm, P. The devil is in the details: Household electricity saving behavior and the role of information. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 1578–1587. [Google Scholar]
Zone | Population (N) Age ≥ 18 | Ratio | Sample (n) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
North | Keelung City | 318,573 | 1.6% | 45.5% | 17 | 487 |
New Taipei City | 3,337,342 | 17.2% | 175 | |||
Taipei City | 2,237,743 | 11.6% | 128 | |||
Taoyuan City | 1,738,016 | 9.0% | 103 | |||
Hsinchu County | 435,054 | 2.2% | 22 | |||
Hsinchu City | 344,828 | 1.8% | 21 | |||
Yilan County | 384,311 | 2.0% | 21 | |||
Central | Miaoli County | 462,644 | 2.4% | 24.8% | 30 | 276 |
Taichung City | 2,253,094 | 11.6% | 127 | |||
Changhua County | 1,063,213 | 5.5% | 56 | |||
Nantou County | 428,321 | 2.2% | 29 | |||
Yunlin County | 584,268 | 3.0% | 34 | |||
South & East | Chiayi County | 444,130 | 2.3% | 29.9% | 21 | 320 |
Chiayi City | 219,945 | 1.1% | 17 | |||
Tainan City | 1,585,755 | 8.2% | 84 | |||
Kaohsiung City | 2,339,534 | 12.1% | 129 | |||
Pingtung County | 712,623 | 3.7% | 44 | |||
Taitung County | 185,502 | 1.0% | 7 | |||
Hualien County | 277,895 | 1.4% | 18 | |||
Total | 19,352,791 | 100% 100% | 1083 |
Age | Population (N) | Ratio | Sample (n) |
---|---|---|---|
18–19 | 574,874 | 3.0% | 29 |
20–24 | 1,589,126 | 8.2% | 81 |
25–29 | 1,584,263 | 8.2% | 90 |
30–34 | 1,750,432 | 9.0% | 98 |
35–39 | 2,004,374 | 10.4% | 113 |
40–44 | 1,820,542 | 9.4% | 107 |
45–49 | 1,802,953 | 9.3% | 103 |
50–54 | 1,837,668 | 9.5% | 111 |
55–59 | 1,737,583 | 9.0% | 101 |
Above 60 | 4,650,976 | 24.0% | 247 |
Total | 19,352,791 | 100.0% | 1080 * |
Gender | Population (N) | Ratio | Sample (n) |
---|---|---|---|
Male | 9,539,014 | 49.3% | 530 |
Female | 9,813,777 | 50.7% | 553 |
Total | 19,352,791 | 100.00% | 1083 |
Sample Verification by Zone | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Zone | Population | Sampling | |||
Population (N) | Ratio | Sample (n) | Ratio | ||
North | Keelung City | 318,573 | 1.6% | 17 | 1.6% |
New Taipei City | 3,337,342 | 17.2% | 175 | 16.2% | |
Taipei City | 2,237,743 | 11.6% | 128 | 11.8% | |
Taoyuan City | 1,738,016 | 9.0% | 103 | 9.5% | |
Hsinchu County | 435,054 | 2.2% | 22 | 2.0% | |
Hsinchu City | 344,828 | 1.8% | 21 | 1.9% | |
Yilan County | 384,311 | 2.0% | 21 | 1.9% | |
Central | Miaoli County | 462,644 | 2.4% | 30 | 2.8% |
Taichung City | 2,253,094 | 11.6% | 127 | 11.7% | |
Changhua County | 1,063,213 | 5.5% | 56 | 5.2% | |
Nantou County | 428,321 | 2.2% | 29 | 2.7% | |
Yunlin County | 584,268 | 3.0% | 34 | 3.1% | |
South & East | Chiayi County | 444,130 | 2.3% | 21 | 1.9% |
Chiayi City | 219,945 | 1.1% | 17 | 1.6% | |
Tainan City | 1,585,755 | 8.2% | 84 | 7.8% | |
Kaohsiung City | 2,339,534 | 12.1% | 129 | 11.9% | |
Pingtung County | 712,623 | 3.7% | 44 | 4.1% | |
Taitung County | 185,502 | 1.0% | 7 | 0.6% | |
Hualien County | 277,895 | 1.4% | 18 | 1.7% | |
Total | 19,352,791 | 100% | 1083 | 100% |
Sample Verification by Age | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Age | Population (N) | Ratio | Sample (n) | Ratio |
18–19 | 574,874 | 3.0% | 29 | 2.7% |
20–24 | 1,589,126 | 8.2% | 81 | 7.5% |
25–29 | 1,584,263 | 8.2% | 90 | 8.3% |
30–34 | 1,750,432 | 9.0% | 98 | 9.1% |
35–39 | 2,004,374 | 10.4% | 113 | 10.5% |
40–44 | 1,820,542 | 9.4% | 107 | 9.9% |
45–49 | 1,802,953 | 9.3% | 103 | 9.5% |
50–54 | 1,837,668 | 9.5% | 111 | 10.3% |
55–59 | 1,737,583 | 9.0% | 101 | 9.4% |
60 and above | 4,650,976 | 24.0% | 247 | 22.9% |
Total | 19,352,791 | 100% | 1080 | 100.0% |
Sample Verification by Gender | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Population (N) | Ratio | Sample (n) | Ratio |
Male | 9,539,014 | 49.3% | 530 | 48.9% |
Female | 9,813,777 | 50.7% | 553 | 51.1% |
Total | 19,352,791 | 100% | 1083 | 100% |
Target Group | Segmentation Indicators | Sample (n) | Ratio | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Attention on RE | Support in RE Policies | |||
Total sample | 2.01 | 4.30 | 1083 | 100% |
Promotional seed group | 3.00 | 5.00 | 107 | 9.9% |
Key promotional group | 2.07 | 4.45 | 753 | 69.5% |
Support-strengthening group | 2.17 | 2.25 | 59 | 5.4% |
Attention-strengthening group | 1.00 | 4.35 | 127 | 11.7% |
Non-key promotional group | 1.00 | 2.32 | 37 | 3.4% |
Item | Ratio of Sample | Promotional Seed Group | Key Promotional Group | Support-Strengthening Group | Attention-Strengthening Group | Non-Key Promotional Group | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ratio | 100% | 9.9% | 69.5% | 5.4% | 11.7% | 3.4% | |
Gender | Male | 48.9% | 59.8% | 46.5% | 52.5% | 49.6% | 59.5% |
Female | 51.1% | 40.2% | 53.5% | 47.5% | 50.4% | 40.5% | |
Age | 24 or below | 10.2% | 0.9% | 11.6% | 11.9% | 9.4% | 8.1% |
25–29 | 8.3% | 1.9% | 9.3% | 8.5% | 9.4% | 2.7% | |
30–34 | 9.1% | 4.7% | 9.3% | 5.1% | 13.4% | 8.1% | |
35–39 | 10.5% | 12.1% | 10.8% | 1.7% | 11.0% | 10.8% | |
40–44 | 9.9% | 11.2% | 9.5% | 11.9% | 10.2% | 10.8% | |
45–49 | 9.5% | 10.3% | 9.9% | 13.6% | 7.1% | 2.7% | |
50–54 | 10.3% | 11.2% | 9.6% | 22.0% | 9.4% | 5.4% | |
55–59 | 9.4% | 17.8% | 8.3% | 6.8% | 7.9% | 16.2% | |
60 or above | 22.9% | 29.9% | 21.7% | 18.6% | 22.0% | 35.1% | |
zone of residence | North | 45.0% | 46.7% | 45.2% | 54.2% | 40.9% | 35.1% |
Central | 25.5% | 22.4% | 24.7% | 32.2% | 30.7% | 21.6% | |
South/East | 29.5% | 30.8% | 30.1% | 13.6% | 28.3% | 43.2% | |
Level of education | Lower secondary or below | 15.8% | 18.7% | 14.8% | 17.2% | 16.7% | 21.6% |
Higher secondary | 28.2% | 31.8% | 27.0% | 27.6% | 30.2% | 35.1% | |
Vocational | 12.6% | 11.2% | 12.4% | 19.0% | 12.7% | 10.8% | |
Undergraduate | 35.0% | 19.6% | 38.0% | 29.3% | 34.9% | 29.7% | |
Post-graduate | 8.4% | 18.7% | 7.8% | 6.9% | 5.6% | 2.7% | |
Average household income (NTD) | 30,000 or less | 18.1% | 16.9% | 16.9% | 15.9% | 25.8% | 26.9% |
30,001–50,000 | 24.0% | 19.1% | 23.9% | 20.5% | 29.0% | 30.8% | |
50,001–80,000 | 24.1% | 20.2% | 25.6% | 25.0% | 18.3% | 19.2% | |
80,001–100,000 | 12.0% | 13.5% | 12.5% | 11.4% | 6.5% | 15.4% | |
100,000 or above | 21.8% | 30.3% | 21.0% | 27.3% | 20.4% | 7.7% | |
Occupation | Military/government/education or school | 12.1% | 9.3% | 12.9% | 10.3% | 12.2% | 5.6% |
Private corporations | 50.7% | 46.7% | 50.9% | 51.7% | 54.5% | 44.4% | |
Farming/forestry/fishing/livestock or self-employment | 6.5% | 9.3% | 6.2% | 5.2% | 4.1% | 13.9% | |
Unemployment/retirement/homemaking | 30.7% | 34.6% | 30.0% | 32.8% | 29.3% | 36.1% |
Attributes | Description |
---|---|
Gender | The ratio of male subjects was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Age | The ratio of subjects aged 35 or above was higher than the rate of Sample. |
zone of residence | The ratio of subjects living in North or South/East Taiwan was higher than the rate of participants. |
Level of education | The ratio of subjects with upper secondary education or below or at least post-graduate education was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Average household income | The ratio of subjects with an average household income of NTD80,000 or above was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Occupation | The ratio of subjects in farming/forestry/fishing/livestock or self-employment or unemployment/retirement/homemaking was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Awareness of RE equipment | The ratio of subjects with an awareness of RE equipment was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Willingness to install RE equipment | The ratio of subjects willing to install RE equipment was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Awareness of green electricity | The ratio of subjects with an awareness of green electricity was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Willingness to buy green electricity | The ratio of subjects willing to buy green electricity was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Attributes | Description |
---|---|
Gender | The ratio of female subjects was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Age | The ratio of subjects aged 39 or below, or 45–49 was higher than the rate of Sample. |
zone of residence | The ratio of subjects living in North or South/East Taiwan was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Level of education | The ratio of subjects with undergraduate education) was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Average household income | The ratio of subjects with an average household income of NTD50,000–100,000 was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Occupation | The ratio of subjects in military/government/education/school or private corporations was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Awareness of RE equipment | The ratio of subjects with an awareness of RE equipment was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Willingness to install RE equipment | The ratio of subjects willing to install RE equipment was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Awareness of green electricity | The ratio of subjects with an awareness of RE was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Willingness to buy green electricity | The ratio of subjects willing to buy green electricity was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Attributes | Description |
---|---|
Gender | The ratio of male subjects was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Age | The ratio of subjects aged 29 or below or 40–54 was higher than the rate of Sample. |
zone of residence | The ratio of subjects living in North or Central Taiwan was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Level of education | The ratio of subjects with lower secondary education or below or vocational education was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Average household income | The ratio of subjects with an average household income of NTD50,000–80,000 or NTD100,000 or above was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Occupation | The ratio of subjects in private corporations or unemployment/ retirement/homemaking was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Awareness of RE equipment | The ratio of subjects who have never heard of RE equipment was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Willingness to install RE equipment | The ratio of subjects unwilling to install RE equipment was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Awareness of green electricity | The ratio of subjects who have never heard of green electricity was higher than the rate of s Sample s. |
Willingness to buy green electricity | The ratio of subjects unwilling to buy green electricity was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Attributes | Description |
---|---|
Gender | The ratio of male subjects was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Age | The ratio of subjects aged 44 or below was higher than the rate of Sample. |
zone of residence | The ratio of subjects living in North or Central Taiwan was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Level of education | The ratio of subjects with vocational education was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Average household income | The ratio of subjects with an average household income of NTD50,000 or less was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Occupation | The ratio of subjects in military/government/education/school or private corporations was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Awareness of RE equipment | The ratio of subjects who have never heard of RE equipment was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Willingness to install RE equipment | The ratio of subjects unwilling to install RE equipment or providing no comment was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Awareness of green electricity | The ratio of subjects who had never heard of green electricity was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Willingness to buy green electricity | The ratio of subjects unwilling to buy green electricity or providing no comment was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Attributes | Description |
---|---|
Gender | The ratio of male subjects was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Age | The ratio of subjects aged 35–44 was higher than the rate of Sample. |
zone of residence | The ratio of subjects living in South Taiwan was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Level of education | The ratio of subjects with higher secondary education or below was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Average household income | The ratio of subjects with an average household income of NTD50,000 or NTD80,000–100,000 was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Occupation | The ratio of subjects in farming/forestry/fishing/livestock/self-employment or unemployment/retirement/homemaking was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Awareness of RE equipment | The ratio of subjects who had never heard of RE equipment was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Willingness to install RE equipment | The ratio of subjects unwilling to install RE equipment or providing no comment was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Awareness of green electricity | The ratio of subjects who had never heard of green electricity was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Willingness to buy green electricity | The ratio of subjects unwilling to buy green electricity or providing no comment was higher than the rate of Sample. |
Item | Trait |
---|---|
Age | 24 or below: higher ratio in the support-strengthening group (11.9%). 25–29: higher ratio in the attention-strengthening group (9.4%). 30–34: higher ratio in the attention-strengthening group (13.4%). 35–39: higher ratio in the promotional seed group (12.1%). 40–44: higher ratio in the support-strengthening group (11.9%). 45–49: higher ratio in the support-strengthening group (13.6%). 50–54: higher ratio in the support-strengthening group (22.0%). 55–59: higher ratio in the promotional seed group (17.8%) and non-key promotional group (16.2%). 60 or above: higher ratio in the promotional seed group (29.9%) and non-key promotional group (35.1%). |
Level of education | Lower secondary or below: higher ratio in the non-key promotional group (21.6%). Higher secondary: higher ratio in the non-key promotional group (35.1%). Vocational: higher ratio in the support-strengthening group (19.0%). Undergraduate: higher ratio in the key promotional group (38.0%). Post-graduate: higher ratio in the promotional seed group (18.7%). |
Awareness of RE equipment | Had heard of RE equipment: higher ratio in the promotional seed group (86.0%). Had never heard of RE equipment: higher ratio in the non-key promotional group (45.9%). |
Willingness to install RE equipment | Willing to install RE equipment: higher ratio in the promotional seed group (82.2%). Unwilling to install RE equipment: higher ratio in the support-strengthening group (49.2%) non-key promotional group (62.2%). |
Awareness of green electricity | Had heard of green electricity: higher ratio in the promotional seed group (70.1%). Had never heard of green electricity: higher ratio in the attention-strengthening group (64.6%) non-key promotional group (62.2%). |
Willingness to buy green electricity | Willing to buy green electricity: higher ratio in the promotional seed group (73.8%). Unwilling to buy to buy green electricity: higher ratio in the support-strengthening group (55.9%) and non-key promotional group (64.9%). |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Chou, C.-C.; Chen, L.-R. An Analysis of Behavioral Models Relating to Renewable Energy in Taiwan. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7296. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137296
Chou C-C, Chen L-R. An Analysis of Behavioral Models Relating to Renewable Energy in Taiwan. Sustainability. 2021; 13(13):7296. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137296
Chicago/Turabian StyleChou, Cheng-Chih, and Liang-Rui Chen. 2021. "An Analysis of Behavioral Models Relating to Renewable Energy in Taiwan" Sustainability 13, no. 13: 7296. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137296