Next Article in Journal
The Role of Renewable Energies, Storage and Sector-Coupling Technologies in the German Energy Sector under Different CO2 Emission Restrictions
Previous Article in Journal
A Study on the Influence of the Income Structure on the Consumption Structure of Rural Residents in China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 16
10.3390/su141610381
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Energy Transition towards Sustainable Development: Perspective of Individuals’ Engagement Amid Transition Process

by
Alex W. J. Cheng
1 and
Harry F. Lee
2,*
1
Global Studies Programme, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong SAR, China
2
Department of Geography and Resource Management, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong SAR, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(16), 10381; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610381
Submission received: 23 July 2022 / Revised: 8 August 2022 / Accepted: 18 August 2022 / Published: 20 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Energy Sustainability)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The energy transition towards sustainable development is a significant propeller to achieving carbon neutrality and reducing the further impact of human-induced climate change through decarbonizing the energy sector. Yet, the discussion often neglects individual engagement and participation. Emerging studies and research focus on energy transition readiness and the attitude–behavior gap on both (inter-) national and public participation levels. Still, similar bottom-up research and studies on individual engagement in energy transition are rare in the context of Asia. Based on an online questionnaire (N = 150) conducted in Hong Kong from February to March 2022, this study followed the Attitude-Behavior-Context (A-B-C) Model to investigate whether individual pro-energy transition behavior was affected by both internal socio-psychological variables and the external socio-economic context. The data collected was analyzed by Cronbach’s alpha and multiple regression analysis. Statistical results show that individuals’ internal socio-psychological variables significantly contributed to the pro-energy transition behavior of Hong Kong citizens in terms of their pro-energy transition practices and other engagements in energy transition-related activities. In contrast, pro-energy transition behavior was less explained by the socio-economic context perceived by the respondents, and the explained behavior was limited to the respondents’ other engagements in energy-transition-related activities. The above findings suggest that citizens are in line with the related policies or more readily equipped for energy transition than the government. Government bodies are encouraged to set more ambitious targets and actions to achieve the 2050 carbon neutrality goal. The conceptualization of energy behavior and habit formation may help reduce the disparity of transition readiness among different stakeholders in Hong Kong.

1. Introduction

Hong Kong pledged to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 [1], aligning with Mainland China’s decarbonization timeline. One of the essential steps to shift to a sustainable future is through the energy transition. Hong Kong is not different from any other place when facing the global issue of climate change. It has challenges and difficulties considering its unique context in the energy transition process. Being a populated and highly dense city, Hong Kong requires a high energy consumption to propel daily operations and international financial services. Additionally, its energy portfolio is undiversified and relies on imports. There is almost no indigenous energy resource, and all three main types of energy commodities, electricity, gas, and oil, are either imported or generated and run by investor-owned private sectors. Hence, it is vulnerable to energy security risks [2].
The energy portfolio of Hong Kong consists of 48% of natural gas, 28% of nuclear energy and renewable energies, and 24% of coal [3]. More than two-thirds of the carbon emission in the city is from electricity generation, followed by the transportation sector, which accounts for 18%. To achieve zero carbon emissions, the key lies in zero-carbon energy for electricity generation to reach carbon neutrality before 2050. Natural gas is considered a transitional fuel to replace burning coal in the short term and before the popularization of renewable energies. Since 2015, the share of coal in the energy mix has been reduced from around 50% to a quarter. Correspondingly, 25% was taken up by natural gas, occupying nearly half of the energy mix. The two power companies in Hong Kong will raise the percentage of natural gas usage to more than 50%, aiming to supply 60% to 70% of electricity by natural gas and clean energies to the city before 2035 [4]. From 1994, Hong Kong began to import nuclear energy from Daya Bay Nuclear Power Station through CLP Power Hong Kong (CLP), one of the two electricity suppliers in Hong Kong. It contributes around 25% of the total electricity supply in Hong Kong and reduces approximately 7.5 million tonnes of carbon emissions annually [5]. The governments and power companies also operate limited renewable power generation. The Lamma Wind Power Station operated by Hong Kong Electric has generated more than 13 million kWh of electricity cumulatively since 2006 [6]. CLP manages the landfill gas generation project at the West New Territories (WENT) Landfill.
A couple of government-owned waste management infrastructure, which turns waste into energy, has progressively become operational in recent years. The T•PARK treats 2000 tonnes of sewage sludge from sewage treatment works daily with advanced incineration technology. The WEEE•PARK has treated waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) since its operation in 2018. Organic resources are treated in the O•PARK, while Y•PARK manages yard waste. The integrated waste management facilities (I•PARK) and O•PARK phase 2 are expected to commence before 2025 [7]. To diversify the domestic energy mix and enhance energy security, the Hong Kong offshore liquefied natural gas terminal and the Hong Kong offshore wind farm project are the two future projects [8,9]. They play a crucial role in the long-term sustainable supply of clean and transitional fuel amid the energy transition.
While the macro-energy system and policies are de facto in a top-down approach, individual choices in energy efficiency, support for energy saving, and waste reduction are also crucial for the energy transition. They are facilitated by various policies. The Feed-in Tariff (FiT) Scheme was launched in 2018 for residential units that have installed solar photovoltaic (PV) or wind energy generation systems to sell the renewable energy generated to power companies at a high and competitive rate and to promote the use of renewable energy. Approximately 300 MW of electricity has been approved or connected to the grid through the scheme [4]. The mass rollout of smart meters from the two power companies facilitates the digitalization of billing and outage checking. From the energy-saving and efficiency perspective, individuals can monitor their electricity consumption, saving spending and energy. The smart meter installation began in 2018 and is expected to be completed by 2025 [10,11]. The Mandatory Energy Efficiency Labelling Scheme (MEELS), of which the initial phase commenced in 2009, is one of the pioneer schemes in energy efficiency for individuals, covering household electronic room-air conditioners, refrigerating appliances, and compact fluorescent lamps. The list is later expanded to washing machines, dehumidifiers, televisions, storage-type electric water heaters, and induction cookers. Products classified as grade one are the most energy-efficient, while grade five products are the least energy efficient. With these electrical appliances accounting for half of the total energy consumption in the residential sector, the scope of MEELS is expected to expand in the future to save energy and reduce carbon emissions [4,12]. The Plastic Shopping Bag Charging Scheme (PSBs) initiated in 2009 focuses on waste reduction. The current phase of the scheme was fully implemented in 2015. Plastic waste reduction aside, the scheme promotes bringing your own bag (BYOB) and bag-reusing culture, influencing individual consumption habits and patterns [13].
Following the pledge to achieve carbon neutrality before 2050, the government rolled out more energy-transition-related roadmaps and plans. Hong Kong’s Climate Action Plan 2050 is the manifesto for the city’s effort to decarbonize and combat climate change. It aimed to bring the carbon emission peak in 2014 to a 50% reduction by 2035 and achieve carbon neutrality in 2050. Correspondingly, the per capita carbon emission is aimed to be reduced from the current 4.5 tonnes to zero in 2050. The four main strategies are net-zero electricity generation, energy-saving and green buildings, green transport, and waste reduction. Climate change adaptation and resilience-related infrastructures and systems were proposed, with opportunities in the green economy, finance, innovation, and technology suggested in the action plan [4]. For green transport, two separate documents, Roadmap on Popularisation of Electric Vehicles (EVs) and Clean Air Plan for Hong Kong 2035, were published. Especially for private electric cars, the existing incentives include first registration tax concessions, lower vehicle license fees, and free charging. The EV roadmap intended to cut off fuel-propelled private cars’ new registration by 2035 and continue the tax incentives with more battery and green technologies investments to lower the overall cost. The clean air plan strives to improve air quality and a healthy living environment through green transportation, clean energy, scientific management, and regional collaboration [14,15]. As for waste reduction, the Waste Blueprint for Hong Kong 2035 leads the primary direction on waste reduction, resource circulation, and zero landfills [7]. The education and publicity are supported by the famous Food Wise Hong Kong Campaign and the network of recycling stations, recycling stores, and recycling spots of the Green Community, which promote awareness of food waste management and waste separation, respectively [16,17]. One of the highlights is the municipal solid waste (MSWs) charging, for which the waste disposal bill was passed in 2021. Under the “polluter-pays” principle, households will be responsible for domestic waste. It aims to “drive behavioral changes and promote waste reduction and recycling in the community, to reduce reliance on landfills as well as facilitate low-carbon transformation” [18]. Transition readiness on the institutional and policy levels is gaining momentum.
Apart from policies and regulations, individual participation and awareness are key to the energy transition process. Members of society take different actions and possess other ideas on energy transition that can significantly affect the rate and effectiveness of the transition. However, the significant gap between the city’s management readiness and individual sustainable energy behavior remained insufficiently explored. Therefore, this study aimed to explore lay public participation amid the energy transition period through individual energy behavior and engagement. According to the Attitude-Behavior-Context (A-B-C) Model [19], we examined whether individual pro-energy transition behavior was affected by internal socio-psychological and external socio-economic contextual variables and how the combination of these factors influenced the alignment or divergence from the energy transition roadmap.
The paper is organized as follows: First, we present the literature review to highlight the knowledge gap addressed by this study. Then, we offer the theoretical background for this research. Following that, we move on to introduce our data and methodology. Afterward, we present and discuss our statistical results, followed by policy implications and limitations of this study. The final section concludes the paper.

2. Literature Review

International treaties and government policies are often top-down, requiring governments and businesses to comply with specific regulations and protocols. In parallel, the engagement and readiness of individuals—the single largest stakeholder in the global issue—should not be neglected in the discussion of the energy transition. A good deal of scholarship has worked on energy transition, readiness, and sustainability of countries or a group of stakeholders. In particular, the attitude–behavior gap between individual engagement in sustainable energy transition and public participation in energy policies has received particular attention. Nevertheless, similar to the field of examining the psycho-social contribution to decarbonization studies [20], a significant amount of recent studies have been engaged in the European context (e.g., [21,22,23,24]), with only a few exceptions.
There is a study that outlined a multi-criteria analytical framework on the country level to assess particular countries’ sustainable energy transition readiness [25]. OECD countries’ ideal types of energy transition models were also explored [26]. In Asia, Chapman and Okushima [27] investigated energy poverty in Japan in the low-carbon energy transition. Still, there are scant studies regarding bottom-up research and individual engagement in the energy transition in the context of Asian countries, including Hong Kong.
In Hong Kong, the reception by the public and the effectiveness of renewable energies and the FiT Scheme were analyzed by some scholars (e.g., [28,29]). However, the studies on local wind energy and urban community solar energy remained on policy-level promotion and application, with suggestions focusing on economic and political attitudes. Top-down analysis and research on government policies and macro-energy scenarios occupied most energy studies in Hong Kong. Holley and Lecavalier’s [30] case study of Hong Kong on energy governance, security, and environmental sustainability touched upon long-term decarbonization and energy revolution. Still, interviewees’ occupations were limited to academia, advocacy groups, government, and power companies, lacking perspectives from the lay public. Studies on FiT and residential attitudes on deep decarbonization of electricity supply either emphasized a single policy or residents’ internal variables but lacked a comprehensive analysis of internal and external factors [31]. Still, they provided solid references for understanding the Hong Kong energy landscape and attitude in this unique context.
It is significant to identify the gap between individual attitudes and actions, whether the energy behavior of the public in Hong Kong aligns with the related policies or vice versa. This helps form a better direction towards carbon neutrality and other environmental protection targets. It is also a timely study to examine energy transition from individual perspectives. Such a combination of the knowledge gap and its social implication triggered us to perform this research.

3. Theoretical Framework

Energy consumption and production patterns are made up of individual decisions and actions. Individuals have the largest influence on sustainable energy behavior since they spread among the residential, commercial, industrial, and transport sectors. As Steg and Vlek [32] pointed out, “various environmental problems… are rooted in human behavior, and can thus be managed by changing the relevant behavior to reduce its environmental impacts”. The study explored whether individual participation in the energy transition was affected by internal socio-psychological factors and external socio-economic contextual factors. Environmental behavior was measured using the Attitude-Behaviour-Context Model (A-B-C Model) [19]. According to Guagnano et al. [19], the model includes intrinsic and extrinsic conditions to measure individual behavior. It integrates social, cognitive-psychological, and applied economic methods in social science. Applying the A-B-C model provides a relatively precise and comprehensive explanation of individual behavior compared to focusing on analyzing either aspect alone. Pro-energy transition behavior (Behavior) includes household energy usage patterns, participation in environmental organizations, policy discussions, and consumption patterns. Socio-psychological factors (Attitude) are a basket of variables on future versus immediate considerations, cost and benefit weighting, efficacy, and subjective knowledge. The socio-economic context (Context) of Hong Kong is considered as contextual variables, such as policy incentives, availability, and accessibility of environmental facilities and infrastructures.

3.1. Pro-Energy Transition Behavior (Behavior)

Pro-energy transition or environmentally significant behavior includes a broad spectrum of behavior. It promotes not only behavior that directly reduces total energy consumption and CO2 emissions, but also behavior that indirectly reduces energy consumption (i.e., the energy required for the production, transportation, and disposal of goods and services) [33]. Still, they can be generally defined as behavior that causes minimal harm or positively impacts the environment. In a household setting, behavior is defined by choice of energy-efficient home appliances and individual habits on energy usage. The waste reduction mode includes recycling suitable materials and monitoring consumption patterns. Transportation options concern preferences on public transportation and electric vehicles. Participation in environmental organizations and activities through work, financial support, and information sharing are expressions of pro-environmentalism [34]. Studies have shown that habitual behavior plays a role in forming, reinforcing, and sustaining environmentally significant behavior [35]. All these actions either directly or indirectly affect energy consumption.

3.2. Socio-Psychological Variables (Attitude)

There are extensive studies on social and cognitive psychological factors influencing individual internal behavior in social science. Those social and cognitive psychological factors are generally categorized as socio-psychological variables when focusing on environmental behavior. Stern [36] illustrated that individuals who possess an attitude of pro-social and altruistic virtues positively correlate to environmental behavior. Kaufman et al. [37] added that personal status and social approval are moral and normative motivational factors. Socio-psychological variables also act on sustainable energy behavior based on efficacy beliefs and personal knowledge of sustainable development and energy transition [38,39]. Individuals who consider more future consequences have greater environmental engagement than those who weigh immediate consequences more [40]. Similarly, individuals make reasoned choices and take actions with the highest benefits and lowest costs. Self-efficacy refers to the belief that one individual can change society or the world by personal actions. The stronger the belief one has, the more positively correlated to pro-environment behavior. Apart from efficacy, individuals who associate themselves with pro-environmental behavior are more knowledgeable in environmental problems and solutions and have higher engagement in environmentally friendly behavior. Contrarily, lower efficacy and subjective knowledge discourages environmental behavior.
Ohnmacht et al. [41] sought to theorize that to promote the individual behavioral transition to energy saving, it is necessary to intervene in those socio-psychological factors such as social norms, personal norms, negative emotions, perceived responsibility, negative behavioral consequences, anticipated emotions, economic value, trust, and perceived self-efficacy. Using empirical data, Yazdanpanah et al. [42] showed that socio-psychological factors such as moral norms, attitudes, and perceived behavioral control influenced public acceptability and desire to adopt renewable energy sources. Also, Emmerich et al. [43] showed that another batch of socio-psychological factors, such as trust in the industry, trust in municipalities, perceived problems of the current energy system, and environmental self-identity affected the adoption of energy technologies. Based on these studies, we made the following research hypothesis:
H1. 
An individual’s internal socio-psychological variables are positively correlated to pro-energy transition behavior.

3.3. Socio-Economic Context (Context)

External physical, financial, and social conditions/constraints can support/weaken pro-energy transition behavior. Socio-economic context shapes individual behavior in numerous ways [44,45]. The availability of recycling facilities, accessibility to environmental information, and various policy incentives affect public engagement. Energy transition depends on contextual innovation and technological advancement in smart meters, renewable energy investment, and battery storage infrastructures. The national and local contexts matter vis-à-vis the explanation of energy usage behavior and habits differences. Natural resource capacity hinders or facilitates countries in developing specific types of renewable energy. Developed and developing countries have different barriers and drivers in shaping the energy behavior of citizens. Policies and commercial regulations on legal grounds have impacts on pro-energy transition behavior. Yet, when businesses and the industrial sectors are the main targets, these regulations do not significantly affect individual behavior.
The socio-economic context that is essential in facilitating energy transition covers the social environment and comprises components that may be used to predict energy demand, as well as a collection of parameters that describe specific societal features [46]. Such context can be further specified as energy-related infrastructure, existing regulations and plans, local actualizations of the energy transition, and so on. It is exogenous in nature, but it can significantly determine the individual action arena for engagement and participation in energy transition [47,48]. Based on these studies, the following research hypothesis was made accordingly:
H2. 
An individual’s external socio-economic contextual variables are positively correlated to pro-energy transition behavior.

4. Materials and Methods

First-hand data were collected through an online questionnaire targeting Hong Kong residents aged 18 or above (N = 150) to test our research hypotheses. Guided by our theoretical framework and the related literature (c. Section 3), the questionnaire design, the questionnaire items, and also the categorization of questionnaire items were set according to the current energy landscape and environmental policies in Hong Kong (c. Section 1).
There are three main sections in the questionnaire. The first section is pro-energy transition behavior and habit. The second section complies with statements on socio-psychological variables. The third section complies with statements on socio-economic contextual variables. Additionally, it was primarily based on participants’ self-report responses, which were expressed in Likert scale and numerical values (6-point scale: 1 = fully disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = slightly disagree; 4 = slightly agree; 5 = agree; 6 = fully agree).
To minimize question misunderstanding and ambiguity in answer categories, a pilot survey was performed in January 2022, during which problematic questionnaire items were identified and amended. The questionnaire was available online from February to March 2022. In our questionnaire survey, the majority of the respondents were from the 18–25 age group. The number of female participants was slightly higher than male participants. Over 95% of them have an undergraduate degree or above. Respondents mostly live in a 2–4-person household and private permanent housing (Table 1). The development of the questionnaire items in each section are detailed below:

4.1. Pro-Energy Transition Behavior (Behavior)

This section contained 18 questionnaire items, assessing the respondents’ pro-energy transition practices and other engagements in energy-transition-related activities. For the respondents’ pro-energy transition practices, there are 12 items. They touched on household energy consumption patterns specific to Hong Kong. We measured individual residential energy usage habits with common electronic appliances based on residential sector energy consumption in the Hong Kong Energy End-Use Data [49]. Additionally, according to MEELS and the habit of monitoring household energy consumption patterns with a smart meter, energy efficiency was measured by the preference for energy-efficient home appliances. Regarding the future MSWs charging scheme, participants were asked whether they reduced the amount of household waste products to their best ability. Consumption and transportation choices consisted of behavior on BYOB and using disposable single-use plastics founded on PSBs and the Waste Blueprint for Hong Kong 2035. Personal food waste generation, the practice of recycling with waste separation, and preference for private EV or private fuel-propelled vehicles were measured, as they were highlighted in the Food Wise Hong Kong Campaign, Waste Blueprint for Hong Kong 2035, and Roadmap on Popularisation of Electric Vehicles, respectively.
Regarding the measurement of the respondents’ other engagements in energy-transition-related activities, there are six items. We followed Stern’s [34] environmental activism and non-activist public-sphere behavior to set the questions. These included the statements “sharing pro-environment or energy-related news and information on private social media accounts or public platforms”, “financially support organizations that promote energy transition or environment”, “work/intern/volunteer in pro-environment organizations”, “organize/participate in pro-environment activities”, “having investments in green financial products”, and “contacting authorities about the environment or energy-related topics.”

4.2. Socio-Psychological Variables (Attitude)

The section comprised eight questionnaire items, assessing the respondents’ motivation, beliefs and knowledge, and consideration of future and immediate consequences of the energy transition. We measured participants’ motivational factors with four items: “believing in human-induced climate change and global warming”, “considering pro-environmental acts have a positive impact(s) on the community as a whole”, “presuming acting pro-environmentally is a form of altruism”, and “presuming acting pro-environmentally gains social approval” [36,37,50]. Efficacy beliefs and personal knowledge towards sustainable development and energy transition were measured by individual opinions on the ability to “influence environmental decisions in Hong Kong” and “believing in having a better understanding of environmental issues than most of the people participants know” [38,39]. Finally, the consideration of future consequences versus immediate consequences was measured by “considering the rights of future generations are as important as the rights of the current generations” and “viewing the future consequences are more important than immediate effects” [40,51].

4.3. Socio-Economic Context (Context)

This section contained 14 questionnaire items, assessing the respondents’ perceptions of the hardware, software, and government plans for the energy transition. For the perceptions of the hardware and software for energy transition, there are eight items. The hardware for energy transition was measured with “believing there are sufficient recycling facilities around the neighborhood”, “believing there are sufficient energy-transition-related infrastructures in Hong Kong”, “considering the current environmental technologies are competitive in Hong Kong”, and “regarding the innovations and research in Hong Kong facilitate the energy transition process”. On the software level, the variables were measured with four items: “foreseeing the electricity price volatility amid energy transition is generally affordable”, “regarding the environment or energy-related information is easily accessible”, “regarding the energy portfolio in Hong Kong is diverse enough for energy security”, and “having confidence that Hong Kong will achieve its 2050 carbon neutrality goal”.
For the perceptions of the government plans for energy transition, there are six items. Participants were asked about their perceptions of six policies, plans, and roadmaps related to the energy transition in Hong Kong, including Hong Kong’s Climate Action Plan 2050, Clean Air Plan for Hong Kong 2035, Roadmap on Popularisation of Electric Vehicles, Waste Blueprint for Hong Kong 2035, Food Wise Hong Kong Campaign, and Feed-in Tariff (FiT) Scheme (c. Section 1).

4.4. Internal Consistency of the Questionnaire Items

We examined the effect of the socio-psychological variables and socio-economic context on pro-energy transition behavior. The above variables are represented by and deduced from the questionnaire items in the related subsets of the questionnaire items (c. Table 2). We checked the internal consistency of our questionnaire items in different sub-sections of the questionnaire with Cronbach’s alpha (Table 2). The Cronbach’s alpha for the pro-energy transition behavior, consisting of the subsets of the items about the respondents’ pro-energy transition practices (12 items) and other engagements in energy-transition-related activities (6 items), were 0.82 and 0.86, respectively. For the socio-psychological variables (8 items), Cronbach’s alpha was 0.78. For the socio-economic contextual variables, which consist of the subsets of the items about the respondents’ perceptions of the hardware and software (8 items) and government plans for energy transition (6 items), their Cronbach’s alphas were 0.83 and 0.90, respectively. As the values ranged between 0.70 and 0.90, indicating that the questionnaire items in each sub-section have relatively high internal consistency, the categorization of the questionnaire items may be considered reliable [52].
We also conducted Principle Component Analyses in each sub-section of the questionnaire to further verify whether the questionnaire items within the sub-section shared the same construct. Table 2 shows that in all sub-sections, the results of the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test were > 0.8, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was statistically significant (p < 0.001). In each sub-section, all questionnaire items were loaded on the first component (no rotation), with the loadings reaching 0.4 or above. The one-factor solution accounted for 34.82%, 58.44%, 42.36%, 47.64%, and 68.57% of the variance of the respondents’ pro-energy transition practices, other engagements in energy-transition-related activities, socio-psychological variables, perceptions of the hardware and software for energy transition, and perceptions of government plans for energy transition, respectively. The above results reveal that the items of the same sub-section were correlated and belonged to the same construct.

4.5. Multiple Regression Analyses

Our research hypotheses (c. Section 3.2 and Section 3.3) were tested by multiple regression analyses. In reference to Vainio et al. [24], we took the mean scores of each of the sub-sections (variables) of the questionnaire for regression analyses. Here we ran two regression models. In the first model, we regressed the socio-psychological variables and socio-economic context (perceptions of the hardware and software for energy transition and perceptions of the government plans for energy transition) on the pro-energy transition practices—the first aspect of the pro-energy transition behavior. In the second model, we regressed the socio-psychological variables and socio-economic context (perceptions of the hardware and software for energy transition and perceptions of the government plans for energy transition) on the other engagements in energy-transition-related activities—the second aspect of the pro-energy transition behavior. In all models, the personal attributes of the respondents, such as age, gender, education, household size, and housing type, were included as the control variables. All independent variables in our regression models have tolerance values of more than 0.2 and a variance inflation factor (VIF) of less than 5, indicating that there are not any multi-collinearity issues [53].

5. Results and Discussion

5.1. Effect of Socio-Psychological Variables on Pro-Energy Transition Behavior [H1]

Table 3 and Table 4 present our multiple regression analyses. The respondents’ internal socio-psychological variables were positively correlated to pro-energy transition behavior, including the pro-energy transition practices (β = 0.537, p < 0.001) and other engagements in energy transition-related activities (β = 0.260, p < 0.01) (Table 3). The higher the scores in the socio-psychological variables, the stronger the involvement in pro-energy transition practices and other engagements in energy transition-related activities. H1 was confirmed.
Our statistical results show that individuals’ internal socio-psychological variables contributed to the pro-energy transition behavior of Hong Kong citizens in terms of their pro-energy transition practices and other engagements in energy transition-related activities. This echoes the positive associations between individual-level psychological factors and energy-related behavior identified in recent meta-analyses [54]. It revealed that energy behavior and habits in Hong Kong were driven mainly by values and beliefs. The credits go to the local environmental education, which associated pro-energy transition behavior with virtues. According to our questionnaire survey, more than 86% of the respondents agreed that acting pro-environmentally is a form of altruism, and 93% agreed that pro-environmental acts positively impact the community as a whole. The behavior also complemented previous findings, showing Hong Kong households were willing to contribute their efforts to environmental works [31].
Aside from the aforementioned environmental virtues and beliefs, believing in human-induced climate change and global warming was among the motivational factors of energy behavior. Respondents generally balanced the interests of current and future generations, as 92% considered the rights of future generations to be as important as the rights of the current generations. Furthermore, over 88% viewed the future consequences as more important than immediate effects, reflecting the idea that sustainable development was agreed upon and implemented as a reason for energy behaviors and habits.
However, nearly 63% of the respondents did not agree that they could influence environmental decisions in Hong Kong. Only 58% believed they understand environmental issues better than most people they know. The possible explanations for the comparably low self-efficacy beliefs concern the policy-making procedures in Hong Kong and to what degree individual opinions could effectively influence policies through public consultations. Moreover, people base their trust assessments on the perceived competence and integrity of the parties concerned. They are concerned about whether the involved parties are open, honest, considering their interests, and endorsing values similar to theirs. People generally tend to trust universities and NGOs more than governments and companies [33]. In Hong Kong, the minutiae of fossil fuels importation, electricity generation, distribution, and the supply of gases alongside other energy-related commodities are exclusively managed by the government, two electricity companies, and oil and gas companies. The same study may have different results in other regions where more parties (other than governments and companies) are involved in making energy-related policies.

5.2. Effect of Socio-Economic Context on Pro-Energy Transition Behavior [H2]

The picture was a bit complicated regarding the effect of the respondents’ perceived external socio-economic context on the pro-energy transition behavior. The external socio-economic context only affected other engagements in energy-transition-related activities of the respondents, in which the hardware and software for energy transition contributed positively to the energy-transition-related activities (β = 0.442, p < 0.001), while the agreement on government plans negatively correlated with the other engagements in energy-transition-related activities (β = −0.263, p < 0.05) (Table 4). H2 was only partially confirmed.
Pro-energy transition behavior was less explained by the socio-economic context perceived by the respondents. At most, socio-economic context only influenced the respondents’ other engagements in energy-transition-related activities. This might be attributed to the fact that the socio-economic context in Hong Kong is not entirely effective in motivating energy transition behavior. In our survey, we found a divergence between respondents’ perceptions of hardware and software for the energy transition in Hong Kong. Less than half believed there were sufficient recycling facilities around their neighborhood and adequate energy-transition-related infrastructures in Hong Kong. They regarded the current environmental technologies as lacking competitiveness in Hong Kong and expressed uncertainties that innovations and research in Hong Kong would facilitate the energy transition process. Contrarily, respondents were slightly more confident in accessing environment- or energy-related information and managing the electricity price volatility amid the energy transition. Still, only 38% of them believed that Hong Kong would achieve its 2050 carbon neutrality goal.
In addition, respondents revealed a somewhat neutral stance on the government plans, roadmaps, and blueprints concerning the energy transition. They were hesitant to amplify their opinions on supporting or disapproving of these policies. This may be due to the lack of familiarity with particular policies, as hinted at by some respondents. When people know little about proposed energy policies or energy system changes, it can erode public support for proposed sustainability measures [33]. Interestingly, our findings show that when the respondents had a lower agreement on government plans, they had more engagements in other energy-transition-related activities (β = −0.263, p < 0.05). A similar relationship could also be spotted between agreement on government plans and the pro-energy transition practices (β = −0.018, p = ns), although it is not statistically significant. This reveals the lack of confidence in government plans could be an action-enabling and action-mobilizing agent [55]. Yet, this should be taken as a warning signal. Despite the rapidly expanding network of recycling stations, recycling stores, and recycling spots of the Green Community and the commencement of mega-infrastructures in recent years alongside other facilities, there is a huge room for bureaus to build the public’s confidence by promoting the relevant resources and enhancing the utilization rate of those resources.

5.3. Policy Implications

The global issue of the environment and sustainability has been firmly established as part of international and national agendas. Organizations and governments have set climate mitigation and adaptation policies worldwide, while for the energy sector, the decarbonization of energy production and consumption in the global energy system could reduce up to two-thirds of global greenhouse gases emissions by electrifying a bundle of industries. Hong Kong has pledged to be carbon neutral by 2050. Currently, government policies on energy and the environment, especially on waste reduction, are adhering to the direction of driving behavioral changes. These policies include the MSWs’ and other resources’ circulation aspects [18]. Combining existing policies with new roadmaps, plans, and blueprints, the city is gearing up for a shift in the energy portfolio, enhancing infrastructures and community facilities, and promoting a change in environmental behavior.
Our findings on the pro-energy transition behavior of Hong Kong citizens can back the related policy path and set future energy and environmental policy outlooks. Based on our multiple regression results (Table 3 and Table 4), we found that socio-psychological variables had a stronger influence on individual participation in energy transition than socio-economic contextual variables. This matches the findings of a similar study in Finland [24]. Our findings also concur with Perlaviciute and Steg [56] that general psychological factors, particularly individual values, are more important than contextual factors in influencing general and community-level evaluations and the acceptability of various energy alternatives. Also, we demonstrated that the energy behavior of the public in Hong Kong is in line with the related policies or even more readily equipped for energy transition than the government. When energy policies and changes in energy systems align with and support people’s important values, they are more likely to accept them [33]. It denoted that, while maintaining the citizens’ attitudes and internal factors, Hong Kong needs more inputs for infrastructure and energy transition facilities. Notwithstanding, it has shown that policy-setting and energy governance thus fuel policy changes, and renewable energy to displace coal generation is supported. Government bodies are encouraged to set more ambitious targets and take more ambitious actions to achieve the 2050 carbon neutrality goal. The “backcasting” methodology of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals to manage goal-base targets may serve as a reference for the carbon neutrality roadmap detailed in Hong Kong’s Climate Action Plan 2050 [57]. For individuals, the findings further conceptualized the energy behavior and habit formation, which allow civil societies to identify favorable circumstances to preserve and diagnose rooms for improvement to better bridge the gap between the transition readiness of different stakeholders in Hong Kong. As a high-income economy, there are comparably fewer barriers in Hong Kong, and it has capacities to develop human capital equipped with pro-energy transition mindsets [58].

5.4. Limitations

Although most previous environmental behavior studies employed a self-reported response to behaviors and habits from respondents to questionnaire items, some scholars pointed out the discrepancy between self-reported and actual behavior (e.g., [59,60,61]). To provide more insights, opinions, and angles for discussions, the feasible options of interviewing subject matter experts in the energy industry, policymakers, and scholars, as well as conducting follow-up sessions with questionnaire respondents who wish to be further contacted, should be considered [62]. The questionnaire sampling indicated that there were disparities in the demography in Hong Kong, which affected the representation of the questionnaire results. While the model of socio-psychological variables and socio-economic contextual variables are tested and commonly used in social science, energy behavior may be associated with variables other than the two that were not measured in this study. Therefore, we should consider the above-mentioned limitations when interpreting the results.

6. Conclusions

This study focused on energy transition readiness and sustainability, the attitude and behavior gap of individual engagement in sustainable energy transition, and examined public participation in energy policies from bottom-up perspectives. Yet, similar research is rare in Hong Kong. Our results have shown that both internal socio-psychological variables and external socio-economic context were positively correlated to pro-energy transition behavior, with socio-psychological variables having a more substantial influence on individual participation in energy transition than the socio-economic context. Currently, energy transition discussions often neglect individual participation and readiness. By identifying the gap between individual attitudes and actions, we showed that the energy behavior of the lay public in Hong Kong is in line and indeed more readily equipped to support the related policies and the government’s energy transition planning. As energy transition and carbon neutrality targets will be majorly engineered in the following two to three decades, our findings provide a solid foundation for policymakers and organizations to act more determined and assertive in the environment and sustainability fields. Civil societies should consider activating individual attitudes, engagement, and work to tackle the barriers to the energy transition. More research on the interaction between stakeholders in facilitating the energy transition of Hong Kong is needed for a holistic view.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.W.J.C. and H.F.L.; methodology, A.W.J.C. and H.F.L.; formal analysis, A.W.J.C. and H.F.L.; investigation, A.W.J.C. and H.F.L.; resources, H.F.L.; data curation, A.W.J.C. and H.F.L.; writing—original draft, A.W.J.C. and H.F.L.; writing—review and editing, H.F.L.; supervision, H.F.L.; project administration, A.W.J.C. and H.F.L.; funding acquisition, H.F.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The APC was funded by The Chinese University of Hong Kong (7106549).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Survey and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee of the Global Studies Programme, The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CS-T-202122-01, 3 December 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hong Kong SAR. The Chief Executive’s 2020 Policy Address. Available online: https://www.policyaddress.gov.hk/2020/eng/ (accessed on 20 July 2022).
  2. World Energy Council. World Energy Trilemma Index 2021. Available online: https://trilemma.worldenergy.org/reports/main/2021/World%20Energy%20Trilemma%20Index%202021.pdf (accessed on 20 July 2022).
  3. HKSAR Environment Bureau. Policy Responsibilities: Energy Supplies. Available online: https://www.enb.gov.hk/en/about_us/policy_responsibilities/energy.html (accessed on 20 July 2022).
  4. HKSAR Environmental Protection Department. Hong Kong’s Climate Action Plan 2050. Available online: https://www.enb.gov.hk/sites/default/files/pdf/cap_2050_en.pdf (accessed on 20 July 2022).
  5. CLP Power Hong Kong. Power Generation. Available online: https://www.clp.com.hk/en/about-clp/power-generation (accessed on 20 July 2022).
  6. Hong Kong Electric. Lamma Wind Power Station: Real-time Operation. Available online: https://www.hkelectric.com/en/our-operations/lamma-wind-power-station/real-time-operation (accessed on 20 July 2022).
  7. HKSAR Environment Bureau. Waste Blueprint for Hong Kong 2035. Available online: https://www.enb.gov.hk/sites/default/files/pdf/waste_blueprint_2035_eng.pdf (accessed on 20 July 2022).
  8. CAPCO; HK Electric; HKLTL. Hong Kong Offshore LNG Terminal Project. Available online: http://env.hkolng.com/en/ (accessed on 20 July 2022).
  9. CLP Power Hong Kong. Hong Kong Offshore Wind Farm Project. Available online: https://env.clphkowf.com/index.html (accessed on 20 July 2022).
  10. CLP Power Hong Kong. Smart Meters. Available online: https://www.clp.com.hk/en/residential/smart-meters (accessed on 20 July 2022).
  11. Hong Kong Electric. Electricity Meters Go Digital. Available online: https://www.hkelectric.com/en/customer-services/energy-efficiency-safety/mass-rollout-of-smart-meters (accessed on 20 July 2022).
  12. Electrical and Mechanical Services Department. Mandatory Energy Efficiency Labelling Scheme. Available online: https://www.emsd.gov.hk/energylabel/en/about/background2.html (accessed on 20 July 2022).
  13. HKSAR Environmental Protection Department. Plastic Shopping Bag Charging Scheme. Available online: https://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/waste/pro_responsibility/env_levy.html (accessed on 20 July 2022).
  14. HKSAR Environment Bureau. Hong Kong Roadmap on Popularisation of Electric Vehicles. Available online: https://www.evhomecharging.gov.hk/downloads/ev_booklet_en.pdf (accessed on 20 July 2022).
  15. HKSAR Environment Bureau; HKSAR Transport and Housing Bureau; HKSAR Food and Health Bureau; HKSAR Development Bureau. Clean Air Plan for Hong Kong 2035. Available online: https://www.enb.gov.hk/sites/default/files/pdf/Clean_Air_Plan_2035_eng.pdf (accessed on 20 July 2022).
  16. Food Wise Hong Kong. Food Wise Hong Kong. Available online: https://www.foodwisehk.gov.hk/en/index.php (accessed on 20 July 2022).
  17. HKSAR Environmental Protection Department. GREEN@COMMUNITY. Available online: https://www.wastereduction.gov.hk/en/community/crn_intro.htm (accessed on 20 July 2022).
  18. HKSAR Environmental Protection Department. Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Charging. Available online: https://www.mswcharging.gov.hk/index.php?lang=en (accessed on 20 July 2022).
  19. Guagnano, G.A.; Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T. Influences on attitude-behaviour relationships: A natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environ. Behav. 1995, 27, 699–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Biddau, F.; Brondi, S.; Cottone, P.F. Unpacking the psychosocial dimension of decarbonization between change and stability: A systematic review in the social science literature. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bouzarovski, S. Energy Poverty: (Dis)Assembling Europe’s Infrastructural Divide; Palgrave Macmilan: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  22. Hoti, F.; Perko, T.; Thijssen, P.; Renn, O. Who is willing to participate? Examining public participation intention concerning decommissioning of nuclear power plants in Belgium. Energy Policy 2021, 157, 112488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Motz, A. Consumer acceptance of the energy transition in Switzerland: The role of attitudes explained through a hybrid discrete choice model. Energy Policy 2021, 151, 112152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Vainio, A.; Pulkka, A.; Paloniemi, R.; Varho, V.; Tapio, P. Citizens’ sustainable, future-oriented energy behaviours in energy transition. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 245, 118801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Neofytou, H.; Nikas, A.; Doukas, H. Sustainable energy transition readiness: A multicriteria assessment index. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 131, 109988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Huh, T.; Yoon, K.-Y.; Chung, I.R. Drivers and ideal types towards energy transition: Anticipating the futures scenarios of OECD countries. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Chapman, A.; Okushima, S. Engendering an inclusive low-carbon energy transition in Japan: Considering the perspectives and awareness of the energy poor. Energy Policy 2019, 135, 111017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gao, X.; Xia, L.; Lu, L.; Li, Y. Analysis of Hong Kong’s wind energy: Power potential, development constraints, and experiences from other countries for local wind energy promotion strategies. Sustainability 2019, 11, 924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Mah, D.N.; Cheung, D.M.; Leung, M.K.H.; Wang, M.Y.; Wong, M.W.; Lo, K.; Cheung, A.T.F. Policy mixes and the policy learning process of energy transitions: Insights from the feed-in tariff policy and urban community solar in Hong Kong. Energy Policy 2021, 157, 112214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Holley, C.; Lecavalier, E. Energy governance, energy security and environmental sustainability: A case study from Hong Kong. Energy Policy 2017, 108, 379–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Cheng, Y.S.; Cao, K.H.; Woo, C.K.; Yatchew, A. Residential willingness to pay for deep decarbonization for electricity supply: Contingent valuation evidence from Hong Kong. Energy Policy 2017, 109, 218–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Steg, L.; Perlaviciute, G.; van der Werff, E. Understanding the human dimensions of a sustainable energy transition. Front. Psychol. 2015, 6, 805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Stern, P.C. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behaviour. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Aarts, H.; Verplanken, B.; Van Knippenberg, A. Predicting behaviour from actions in the past: Repeated decision making or a matter of habit? J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 28, 1355–1374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Stern, P.C. Environmentally significant behavior in the home. In The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Economic Behaviour; Lewis, A., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2008; pp. 363–382. [Google Scholar]
  37. Kaufman, S.; Saeri, A.; Raven, R.; Malekpour, S.; Smith, L. Behaviour in sustainability transitions: A mixed methods. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2021, 40, 586–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Tabernero, C.; Hernàndez, B. Self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation guiding environmental behaviour. Environ. Behav. 2011, 43, 658–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Vainio, A.; Paloniemi, R. The complex role of attitudes toward science in pro-environmental consumption in the Nordic countries. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 108, 18–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Arnocky, S.; Milfont, T.L.; Nickol, J.R. Time perspective and sustainable behavior: Evidence for the distinction between consideration of immediate and future consequences. Environ. Behav. 2013, 46, 556–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Ohnmacht, T.; Schaffner, D.; Weibel, C.; Schad, H. Rethinking social psychology and intervention design: A model of energy savings and human behavior. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 26, 40–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Yazdanpanah, M.; Komendantova, N.; Ardestani, R.S. Governance of energy transition in Iran: Investigating public acceptance and willingness to use renewable energy sources through socio-psychological model. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 45, 565–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Emmerich, P.; Hülemeier, A.-G.; Jendryczko, D.; Baumann, M.J.; Weil, M.; Baur, D. Public acceptance of emerging energy technologies in context of the German energy transition. Energy Policy 2020, 142, 111516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Boomsma, C.; Jones, R.V.; Pahl, S.; Fuertes, A. Do psychological factors relate to energy saving behaviours in inefficient and damp homes? A study among English social housing residents. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2019, 47, 146–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Santos, G. The London experience. In Pricing in Road Transport: A Multi-disciplinary Perspective; Verhoef, E., Van Wee, B., Steg, L., Bliemer, M., Eds.; Edgar Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2008; pp. 273–292. [Google Scholar]
  46. Lutz, L.M.; Lang, D.J.; Von Wehrden, H. Facilitating regional energy transition strategies: Toward a typology of regions. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Milchram, C.; Märker, C.; Schlör, H.; Künneke, R.; van de Kaa, G. Understanding the role of values in institutional change: The case of the energy transition. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2019, 9, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Hamman, P. Local governance of energy transition: Sustainability, transactions and social ties. A case study in Northeast France. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2019, 26, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Electrical and Mechanical Services Department. Hong Kong Energy End-Use Data. Available online: https://www.emsd.gov.hk/filemanager/en/content_762/HKEEUD2021.pdf (accessed on 20 July 2022).
  50. Romm, J. Climate Change: What Everyone Needs to Know; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  51. World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  52. Tavakol, M.; Dennick, R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2011, 27, 53–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. de Vaus, D.A. Analyzing Social Science Data; SAGE: London, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  54. Carrus, G.; Tiberio, L.; Mastandrea, S.; Chokrai, P.; Fritsche, I.; Klöckner, C.A.; Masson, T.; Vesely, S.; Panno, A. Psychological predictors of energy saving behavior: A meta-analytic approach. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 648221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Büscher, C.; Sumpf, P. “Trust” and “confidence” as socio-technical problems in the transformation of energy systems. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2015, 5, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Perlaviciute, G.; Steg, L. Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: Integrated review and research agenda. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 35, 361–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Sachs, J. The Age of Sustainable Development; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  58. World Bank. World Bank Country and Lending Groups. Available online: https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups (accessed on 20 July 2022).
  59. Corral-Verdugo, V. Dual ‘realities’ of conservation behavior: Self-reports vs observations of re-use and recycling behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 1997, 17, 135–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Fujii, E.T.; Hennesy, M.; Mak, J. An evaluation of the validity and reliability of survey response data on household electricity conservation. Eval. Rev. 1985, 9, 93–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Warriner, G.K.; McDougall, G.H.; Claxton, J.D. Any data or none at all? Living with inaccuracies in self-reports of residential energy consumption. Environ. Behav. 1984, 16, 503–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Vining, J.; Ebreo, A. Emerging theoretical and methodological perspectives on conservation behaviour. In Handbook of Environmental Psychology; Bechtel, R.B., Churchman, A., Eds.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2002; pp. 551–558. [Google Scholar]
Table
Table 1. Demographic information of the respondents.
Table 1. Demographic information of the respondents.
%
GenderFemale52.0
Male46.7
Prefer not to say1.3
Age18–2552.0
26–4018.0
41–6020.7
61–808.7
80+0.7
EducationSecondary school3.3
Sub-degree/higher education1.3
Undergraduate62.7
Postgraduate or above32.7
Household size1-person household7.3
2–4-person household70.0
4+ person household22.7
HousingTemporary housing4.7
Public rental housing14.0
Subsidized home-ownership housing18.0
Private permanent housing63.3
Table
Table 2. Cronbach’s alpha of various sub-sections of the questionnaire.
Table 2. Cronbach’s alpha of various sub-sections of the questionnaire.
QuestionsCronbach’s Alpha if Item DeletedFactor Loading PCA
Pro-energy transition behavior (pro-energy transition practices) (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.82; KMO test: 0.84; Bartlett’s test of sphericity: p < 0.001)
  • I avoid turning on air conditioning whenever possible
0.800.7
  • I turn off home appliances (e.g., lighting) if they are unused for a while
0.810.6
  • I reduce the number of times using the laundry machine whenever possible
0.820.5
  • I save energy and water when cooking whenever possible
0.810.6
  • I prefer choosing grade 1 energy-efficient home appliances according to the Mandatory Energy Efficiency Labelling Scheme
0.820.4
  • I monitor my household energy consumption patterns (e.g., Smart Meter to monitor electricity usage)
0.820.5
  • I reduce the amount of household waste production to my best
0.800.7
  • I prefer bringing my own bag (e.g., reusable bag, old plastic bag) rather than obtaining a new one
0.800.7
  • I avoid using disposable single-use plastics (e.g., ordering takeaway, shopping)
0.810.6
  • I reduce food waste generation (e.g., from buying ingredients, cooking, and ordering food)
0.810.6
  • I practice recycling with waste separation (e.g., GREEN@COMMUNITY, WEEE)
0.800.7
  • I prefer private electric vehicles over private fuel-propelled vehicles
0.820.4
Pro-energy transition behavior (other engagements in energy transition-related activities) (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.86; KMO test: 0.84; Bartlett’s test of sphericity: p < 0.001)
  • I share pro-environment or energy-related news and information on private social media accounts/public platforms
0.840.7
  • I financially support organizations that promote energy transition or environment
0.830.8
  • I work/ intern/volunteer in pro-environment organizations
0.830.8
  • I organize/participate in pro-environment activities (e.g., beach cleaning, demonstration, conference)
0.840.7
  • I have investments in green financial products (e.g., green bonds, other green or sustainable financial products)
0.840.7
  • I contact authorities about the environment or energy-related topics (e.g., through public consultation)
0.820.8
Socio-psychological variables (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.78; KMO test: 0.82; Bartlett’s test of sphericity: p < 0.001)
  • I believe in human-induced climate change and global warming
0.750.7
  • I consider pro-environmental acts have positive impact(s) on the community as a whole
0.730.8
  • I presume acting pro-environmentally is a form of altruism
0.760.6
  • I presume acting pro-environmentally gains social approval
0.760.7
  • I consider the rights of future generations are as important as the rights of the current generations
0.740.8
  • I view the future consequences are more important than the immediate effects
0.760.7
  • In my opinion, I can influence environmental decisions in Hong Kong
0.790.4
  • I believe I have a better understanding of environmental issues than most of the people I know
0.790.4
Socio-economic context (perceptions of the hardware and software for energy transition) (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.83; KMO test: 0.82; Bartlett’s test of sphericity: p < 0.001)
  • I believe there are sufficient recycling facilities around my neighborhood (e.g., recycling store and station)
0.820.6
  • I believe there are sufficient energy transition-related infrastructures in Hong Kong (e.g., T · PARK, Electric Vehicle charging facilities)
0.810.7
  • I foresee the electricity price volatility amid the energy transition is generally affordable
0.850.4
  • I regard environment or energy-related information as easily accessible
0.820.6
  • I consider the current environmental technologies are competitive in Hong Kong
0.790.9
  • I think the innovations and research in Hong Kong facilitate the energy transition process
0.800.8
  • I regard the energy portfolio in Hong Kong as diverse enough for energy security
0.810.7
  • I have confidence that Hong Kong will achieve its 2050 carbon neutrality goal
0.810.7
Socio-economic context (perceptions of the government plans for energy transition) (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.90; KMO test: 0.89; Bartlett’s test of sphericity: p < 0.001)
  • I believe Hong Kong’s Climate Action Plan 2050 lays sufficient directions for a sustainable development vision for the society
0.880.8
  • I believe the Clean Air Plan for Hong Kong 2035 brings sufficient emission reduction protocol to the community
0.870.9
  • I believe the Hong Kong Roadmap on Popularisation of Electric Vehicles provides sufficient incentives for future and current private car owners to use electric vehicles
0.880.8
  • I believe the Waste Blueprint for Hong Kong 2035 equips Hong Kong to achieve waste reduction and resources circulation
0.870.9
  • I believe the Food Wise Hong Kong Campaign promotes food waste awareness and management in the society
0.920.6
  • I believe the Feed-in Tariff (FiT) Scheme provides sufficient incentives for house owners to generate renewable energy
0.890.8
Table
Table 3. Estimates of the effect of socio-psychological variables and socio-economic context on the pro-energy transition practices, with the influence of the personal attributes of the respondents controlled.
Table 3. Estimates of the effect of socio-psychological variables and socio-economic context on the pro-energy transition practices, with the influence of the personal attributes of the respondents controlled.
CoefficientS.E.βtp-Value
Constant0.9230.517 1.7860.076
Socio-psychological variables0.5790.0720.5378.0930.000
Socio-economic context
 Hardware and software0.1200.0890.1351.3540.178
 Government plans−0.0150.083−0.018−0.1760.861
Personal attributes (control variables)
 Age0.1530.0470.2293.2490.001
 Gender: Female0.0110.0920.0080.1150.908
 Education0.0450.0770.0410.5880.557
 Household: 2+ person−0.0630.184−0.023−0.3430.732
 Housing: Private permanent0.1190.0980.0811.2190.225
Observation150
F12.866
Prob > F0.000
R-squared0.422
Total adjusted R20.389
Table
Table 4. Estimates of the effect of socio-psychological variables and socio-economic context on the other engagements in energy-transition-related activities, with the influence of the personal attributes of the respondents controlled.
Table 4. Estimates of the effect of socio-psychological variables and socio-economic context on the other engagements in energy-transition-related activities, with the influence of the personal attributes of the respondents controlled.
CoefficientS.E.βtp-Value
Constant−0.519 −0.5490.584
Socio-psychological variables0.4290.1310.2603.2800.001
Socio-economic context
 Hardware and software0.6020.1620.4423.7060.000
 Government plans–0.3350.152−0.263−2.1990.030
Personal attributes (control variables)
 Age−0.0120.086−0.012−0.1380.891
 Gender: Female0.1440.1690.0670.8550.394
 Education0.0150.1410.0090.1040.917
 Household: 2+ person0.3460.3370.0831.0260.307
 Housing: Private permanent−0.0230.179−0.010−0.1300.897
Observation150
F3.740
Prob > F0.000
R-squared0.175
Total adjusted R20.128
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cheng, A.W.J.; Lee, H.F. Energy Transition towards Sustainable Development: Perspective of Individuals’ Engagement Amid Transition Process. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10381. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610381

AMA Style

Cheng AWJ, Lee HF. Energy Transition towards Sustainable Development: Perspective of Individuals’ Engagement Amid Transition Process. Sustainability. 2022; 14(16):10381. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610381

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cheng, Alex W. J., and Harry F. Lee. 2022. "Energy Transition towards Sustainable Development: Perspective of Individuals’ Engagement Amid Transition Process" Sustainability 14, no. 16: 10381. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610381

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