3.2.2. Opinions about the Impacts of the Banting Project
To understand the second research goal regarding how the public views the impacts of the Banting Project, we performed a series of partial correlation analyses to examine the associations between participants’ perceived level of impact of and their attitudes toward LSS power projects. Language version was controlled as a covariate. Correlation analyses associated with education level and income were performed using Spearman’s rho correlation.
The findings of these analyses showed that participants were in general optimistic about the impacts of the project (see
Table 5 for the correlation coefficients). Those who believed that the project would bring greater impacts tended to be those who had received higher education and possessed knowledge about the project. The more impactful they viewed the project to be, the more likely they agreed that the project would bring advantages, such as improving electricity supply to their home, electricity supply to public facilities, electricity bills, and quality of life, and creating new job opportunities. In terms of the disadvantages, the more impactful they viewed the project to be, the more likely they agreed that the project would cause noise pollution. Other energy-related variables were not significantly associated with perceived impact.
We conducted a set of ANCOVAs to test the differences between individuals who were aware of the Banting project and those who were unaware in terms of their energy behaviors, knowledge, and attitudes. Language version was again controlled in these analyses as the covariate. Non-parametric tests were used for analyses involving education and income.
Table 6 shows the means and standard deviations of the group that was aware of the project and the group that was unaware.
Compared to those who did not know about the Banting project, those who were aware were older and had more income. These people also had more knowledge about the project and believed that the project could bring impacts to their households. In particular, they had positive views on the project, such as improving electricity bills and bringing in more job opportunities. In addition, they were less likely to agree that the project could take up too much space. However, they believed that the project could create noise and unseemly view.
3.2.3. Opinion about the Usage of Lands for Solar Plants
We created two questions that asked participants to indicate whether they agree or disagree that vacant land of the size of several football fields can be replaced with PV panels and to indicate why.
Agreement. For those who indicated their opinions, a large number of them (n = 127, 56%) indicated an agreement with the plan. When indicating the reasons for their agreement, most of them (n = 42) believed that such a plan may help generate (green) energy. These participants generally agreed that solar plants may help generate more electricity as an additional source of energy. Some statements provided by the participants included “Because it can provide additional electric energy to the nearer building or facilities”, “I do believe that Msia (Malaysia) will consume most of it fossil fuel in the future. Therefore, an additional source should be used largely”, and “Renewable energy source”.
The participants who agreed to the plan also indicated that such plan may contribute to keeping our environment sustainable (n = 24). They believed that solar plants or using solar power may save our earth by reducing carbon emission and fossil fuel usage. For instance, “It might reduce the greenhouse effect and other environmental problem”, “Instead of more buildings, why not something else like PV panels that could improve the environment”, and “It would help reduce global warming, despite the cost”.
Many of the participants (n = 18) who agreed believed that the plan may put vacant land to good use. These participants believed that vacant land, when used in an appropriate way, may bring benefits to the society, such as by generating electricity. For instance, some participants stated that “It would be a better usage of the vacant land in long term”, “Land in non urban areas are not used at all. It is better to make use of it”, “It is much more beneficial to put PV panels on such vacant lands rather than leaving it as it is since this can lead to soil erosion, and other problems”, and “Since the vacant land is not used, it could be replaced with PV panels that could generate electricity”. Additionally, one participant cautioned that it is necessary to use only unused land for this purpose and to preserve forests, for example “Unused land should be given purpose; however we need to ensure to have enough forests are across the country.”
Seven participants agreed because such plans are possible. “It has sufficient space”, and “Maybe possible”. Some participants (n = 6) agreed because of the potential benefits of such plans. “Brings benefits” and “Because it is for good cause”. Only a small number of participants (n = 4) agreed based on the cost-saving effect of the plan. For instance, one participant stated, “It’s worth to invest”. And another participant stated, “Because lesser fossil fuel will be used and renewable energy is cheaper on the long run”.
Two participants indicated agreement but listed unreasonable reasons for agreement. “It requires space” and “Solar farms need lots of space”. Other participants did not indicate any reason.
Disagreement. There was a smaller proportion of participants who disagreed to using large fields for solar plants (n = 59, 26%). Among those who disagreed with the plan, some participants (n = 8) specified that the lands could be used for other purposes, such as to develop buildings and create job opportunities, to plant trees, to be used for industrial and agricultural purposes, to build shelters for animals, and to improve economic welfare. For instance, one participant stated, “It can be used for developing buildings which can create more job opportunities to improve the standard of living. If standard of living increase, people will be more likely to invest in PV panels”. Another participant stated, “Plant trees/reforestation to reduce carbon foot print”.
Many participants (n = 7) thought that the plan would be a waste of the lands. “Because it seems like a waste of space/land” and “Wasting land for household”. Some participants (n = 7) disagreed with the plan because they believed the land should be used for sports. For instance, “It will make people play sports less” and “There is no place to play football and for other activities”.
A few participants felt that the plan could be very costly (n = 5). One participant expressed, “It is very costly and Malaysia is not investing such big amount”. Another participant stated, “No, it may cost up to billions? Or millions of ringgit to construct”.
Some participants (n = 3) preferred individual installation instead of LSS power. “PV panel can be installed at roof top. no need to clear land just for solar farm”, and “Solar installation can be built on the rooftops of buildings to capture the maximum amount of sunshine. Better keep the vacant land for other usage/planning purpose”.
Three participants believed that LLS power was not necessary. “It does need as much space, not necessary” and “We do not need PV panels, it is useless”.
One participant suggested to use the land to grow more greens, “I believe vacant lands should be used to grow more greens. Humans can do with less electricity”. One participant disagreed because s/he thought that the plan is not strategic, “unstrategic, sunlight might not reach”. One believed that such plan would trouble the residents/citizens, “menyusahkan kita (English translation: trouble us)”. Some participants thought it might “affect (the) lighting of the field” (n = 1), there is not “enough space” (n = 1), the plan “is not efficient enough” (n = 1), it might cause radiation (n = 1) and unseemly view (n = 1). One was skeptical about the advantages because “chances it would expand to other parts of Malaysia is low”.
One participant, although they indicated disagreement, was rather open-minded. “Depends on location, geography and sunlight in the area”. One participant indicated an unreasonable reason. “If the field is not in use why not?”
There were many participants (n = 6) who disagreed with the plan but indicated that they had no knowledge about the plan or renewable energy. For instance, “Because I do not know anything about it”, “I do not know how PV panels work”, and “I have no idea at all what is it all about”.
Agree and disagree. Nine participants indicated that they agreed and disagreed with the plan. One of them indicated disagreement because s/he believed that the land could be used for other purposes, such as playgrounds, “Because where would the kids play then? obesity rates would further increase and bunch of other health outcomes would rise”. On the other hand, s/he also agreed with the plan because of the long-term benefit, “As in the long term, the football fields probably will be converted either into a mall, shop lots, houses, so either way, better PV installed as it brings more long term benefits”.
Another participant disagreed with the plan due to the locations of the plant and households, “Most lands that are PV panels friendly are out of town, and most electrical needs are in the city”. However, this participant also agreed with the plan, “If the public sector has the fund to run the project, why not?” One participant disagreed because s/he believed that the land could be used for recreational purposes, “Other recreational purpose”, but agreed because it could take an “… advantage of usable land”. One participant disagreed out of concern about the cost, “Too much work and money to build those PV panels”, but agreed due to the long-term benefit it could bring, “In the long run more environment-friendly”. A participant disagreed because “We will need the land some day to build or to grow, better to put them on buildings”, but agreed “because if we are not using it for anything else, we might as well use it for this”. Four participants checked the agreement and disagreement boxes but did not provide comments.
No comments. There were 30 participants who did not indicate agreement or disagreement and did not indicate the reasons.