Next Article in Journal
A Method for Large Underground Structures Geometry Evaluation Based on Multivariate Parameterization and Multidimensional Analysis of Point Cloud Data
Previous Article in Journal
Study on Apparent Permeability Model for Gas Transport in Shale Inorganic Nanopores
Previous Article in Special Issue
Assessment of the Technological Sustainability of the Tri-Generation Model in the Era of Climate Change: A Case Study of Terminal Complexes
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 15
Issue 17
10.3390/en15176300
energies-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

Intentions to Use Prosumer Photovoltaic Technology in Poland

by
Anna Mularczyk
1,*,
Iwona Zdonek
1,
Marian Turek
1 and
Stanisław Tokarski
2
1
Department of Economy and Informatics, Faculty of Organization and Management, Silesian University of Technology, Akademicka 2A, 44-100 Gliwice, Poland
2
Central Mining Institute, Plac Gwarków 1, 40-166 Katowice, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2022, 15(17), 6300; https://doi.org/10.3390/en15176300
Submission received: 20 July 2022 / Revised: 11 August 2022 / Accepted: 16 August 2022 / Published: 29 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Technology and Strategy for Sustainable Energy Systems)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The energy transition that Poland is facing directs investment and research efforts towards renewable energy sources (RES). This topic has gained importance due to environmental and climate reasons and, recently, the ongoing military conflict between Russia and Ukraine. All these issues affect the availability and prices of fossil fuels, on which electricity production in Poland currently depends. Therefore, to change the current state of affairs, it is necessary to turn to other sources of energy, including RES. Particularly high hopes are placed on prosumer photovoltaic (PV) technology. Therefore, it becomes important to study the factors of acceptance of this technology among the Polish society. The aim of this paper is to answer two research questions: (1) what factors shape intentions to invest in prosumer PV technology and (2) what factors shape attitudes towards this technology. The research was conducted using a questionnaire on a sample of 430 people. Data analysis was performed using structural equation modeling. The results indicate that intentions are mainly shaped by attitudes towards PV technology and, to a small extent, by the media promotion of this technology. On the other hand, the factors shaping attitudes towards prosumer PV technology are environmental, economic, and those related to the perceived ease of use of PV technology. Social factors, in the light of the research conducted, do not influence attitudes towards the technology under study.

1. Introduction

Increasing consumption going hand-in-hand with the increasing pollution of our planet has long been directing the thoughts and actions of practitioners, scientists, and politicians towards pro-environmental solutions to many aspects of life [1,2,3,4]. In view of the ever-increasing demand for energy, the need for an energy transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources (RES) is a consequence. Current energy generation from fossil fuels causes problems in the form of air pollution and related health problems, as well as carbon dioxide emissions, which contribute to climate change. Meanwhile, renewable energy sources are a non-carbon way of obtaining energy, although using them often requires many rare minerals and the energy needed to build their infrastructure. They are therefore cleaner, and also inexhaustible and non-reducible, over the very long term. The accelerating development of RES worldwide is supporting the emergence of a new global energy economy aimed at achieving net zero emissions [5]. According to the European Commission’s “Fit for 55” package proposal [6], the goal set for 2030 is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 55% and increase the share of renewable energy in gross final energy consumption to 40%. In turn, in Poland in 2021, the Council of Ministers approved a document entitled, “Energy Policy of Poland until 2040” (PEP 2040). The document indicates that RES are to play an increasingly important role in electricity production, and their share in the national structure should be no less than 32% in 2030. This is to be achieved primarily through the development of photovoltaics and offshore wind farms [7]. As a result, an acceleration of the investment in new zero-carbon sources in the generation sector can be observed. This paper focuses on the aspect of solar energy utilization and, in particular, small photovoltaic installations built by prosumers.
The PEP 2040 assumes a significant increase in the capacity of photovoltaic systems: up to 5–7 GW in 2030 and 10–16 GW in 2040 [7]. To encourage residents to install photovoltaic systems on a larger scale than before, the government initiated, in 2019, a series of programs entitled “My Energy” (the 4th edition has now started) and introduced thermo-modernization tax credits. Moreover, at the local government level, there are programs to support these investments. As a result of such activities, the popularity of photovoltaic (PV) systems in Poland has significantly increased [8,9]. Both photovoltaic farms and prosumer micro-installations are developing intensively. However, this paper focuses on the smaller prosumer micro-installations. Thus, this article is a continuation of the research presented in the paper [8]. This time, however, the area of interest became the intention to invest in prosumer photovoltaic installations among Poles. Intentions are treated as an important predictor of behavior [10]. In this paper, therefore, the following research question was posed:
Research Question 1: What factors influence the intention to invest in prosumer photovoltaic installations in Poland?
It was assumed that one of the factors explaining intentions to use PV technology are attitudes towards the technology, which as we know is also a complex construct. Therefore, a second research question was posed:
Research Question 2: What factors influence attitudes towards prosumer PV technology in Poland?
Therefore, getting answers to the research questions posed became the objective of this paper. To achieve it, quantitative research was conducted in March and April 2022 using a questionnaire on a sample of 430 people. The obtained data were analyzed using structural equation modeling.

2. Literature Research and Hypothesis Development

One can find numerous results of prosumer PV microsystems in the literature. This demonstrates the great interest in this subject area. The variety of factors that influence the public acceptance of PV microgrids are pointed out. Technological opportunities and innovations in this field [11] and different development paths are described [12]. Also analyzed are factors that delay the implementation of solar technologies [13,14,15,16] and factors that influence society’s acceptance of solar technologies [17,18,19,20,21]. The research described in this paper was inspired by the previously cited work [10], in which a complex analysis has been carried out regarding the acceptance of photovoltaic technology in Pakistan. In the cited work based on the technology acceptance model [22], it was shown that attitudes towards prosumer PV technology are a significant predictor of intention to invest in this technology. Similarly, the paper [23] describes a study on the perception of renewable energy use in Malaysia, indicating the role of attitude as a mediating factor. The conclusion of the inquiry of the cited paper was that acceptance of renewable energy is influenced by users’ attitude towards new technologies. Attitude is defined as the result of beliefs and judgments towards an idea or object [24]. Positive attitude towards prosumer photovoltaic technology is related to the belief that it is a clean, emission-free source of electricity for the home. In a study conducted in Portugal, the authors [25] presenting the results pointed out that the willingness to adopt or invest in photovoltaic systems in the residential sector depends on the consumer’s age and knowledge about these sources and ultimately on the existing legislation on renewable energy sources. On this basis, the first research hypothesis was formulated:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Attitudes toward prosumer PV technology significantly influence intention to use it.
Attitudes, according to many studies, result from people’s values. Values are defined as criteria for evaluating stimuli, including situations, people, and objects [26]. This means that values precede attitudes. The relationship between values and attitudes is explained in works [27,28]. Values can be influenced by many factors. In the context of prosumer solar PV, economic factors are mentioned first [8,17,19,29]. It is pointed out that, in addition to the income of people investing in PV systems and the costs of these systems, subsidies provided by the state to cover part of the installation costs play a significant role [10,25,30]. Studies [9] have shown that the development of PV systems depends on GDP per capita. The paper [31] examined the motives influencing the willingness of consumers to purchase the so-called green energy technology. It was emphasized that overcoming the barrier of high cost and investment risk could increase the uptake of these technologies. The works [17,29,32,33] also highlighted economic factors, indicating that these include income levels and accumulated capital. Although the amount of investment costs negatively affects the installation of residential PV systems [30], studies [18,19] showed that high electricity prices have a positive influence on the decision to develop PV microinstallations. In Poland, there are many financing programs to reduce the cost of photovoltaic installations. These include: (1) My Electricity, (2) Thermo-modernization tax relief, (3) Agroenergy, (4) Energy Plus, (5) regional programs. The most popular program for individuals is My Electricity. It currently co-finances PV installations with a capacity of 2–10 kW, as well as energy, heat, and cold storage facilities. The amount of the current subsidy is PLN 4000 (EUR 850). Thermo-modernization tax relief is another popular subsidy. It allows us to deduct the costs incurred for thermal modernization expenses, including the PV installation, in the annual tax declaration. Agroenergy is a program for individual farmers that co-finances installations with a capacity of 10–30 kW as 20% of the cost, but not more than PLN 15,000 (EUR 3190) or 30–50 kW as 15% of the cost, but not more than PLN 20,000 (EUR 4255). Energy Plus is a program for entrepreneurs that includes non-returnable subsidies of 50% of eligible costs but currently operates as loans for 85% of eligible costs. In regional programs, subsidies for photovoltaics are granted to municipalities, which also determine the conditions and amount of subsidies.
The My Electricity program remains absolutely number one in the process of investment decisions and increasing the capacity of photovoltaic installations in Poland. On this basis, the second research hypothesis was formulated:
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Economic factors significantly influence attitudes toward prosumer PV technology.
In second place, among the factors shaping attitudes towards prosumer PV technology, factors related to the environment, referred to as environmental awareness, are cited [30]. The reason may be the perceived adverse health effects of pollution levels in a region [34]. Climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activities and energy production is adversely affecting the environment. In order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the use of renewable green energy is, therefore, promoted [35]. Shrinking natural resources and a warming climate may cause people to be concerned about the environment or to want to change their purchasing habits towards a closed-loop economy [36,37,38,39,40,41,42]. Research [43] showed that customer attitudes toward the environment have a significantly positive relationship with the adoption of a home photovoltaic system. It was highlighted that people with high environmental concerns were more likely to adopt a photovoltaic system. Moreover, in [44] a significant relationship was found between households’ environmental and pro-efficiency behaviors and their willingness to install RES. However, other studies indicated that there was no strong effect of environmental beliefs on behavior [45]. In contrast, a study conducted in Germany in 2015 [46] found that respondents’ environmental attitudes had little influence on their PV investment decisions. Wishing to explore this issue, a third research hypothesis was presented:
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Ecological factors significantly influence attitudes toward prosumer PV technology.
In addition, investment in PV micro-installations depends on household characteristics: household size, building type, education of its members, population density in the region, and the influence of those in the immediate [18,34]. Although conducting a study on prosumer energy development in Austria [47], attention was also paid to the aspect of social potential in the energy transition and the need for positive incentives to support prosumers, emphasizing the security of energy supply. Moreover, the paper [48] points out that social norms and attitudes have a significant impact on shaping the intention to adopt PV technology. In fact in [49], in a study conducted in Switzerland, the authors even identified social acceptance and perception of renewable energy sources as key factors for the success of the energy transition. It should also be stressed that climate change is primarily affecting the poorest [50], especially third-world countries [51]. In addition to utilitarian ecological considerations, this awareness also strengthens the feeling of concern for other inhabitants of the world, giving the feeling that the actions taken in connection with the decisions to use renewable energy sources are actions that improve the quality of life of others [10]. These factors were identified as social factors. On this basis, the fourth research hypothesis was formulated:
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Sociological factors significantly influence attitudes toward prosumer PV technology.
The literature emphasizes the significant importance of factors, such as attitudes, concerns about performance, and ease of use of a given technology [52]. For example, in a study in New Zealand on public acceptance of renewable energy development [53], after collecting data on renewable energy projects over a period of 10 years, the issue of adoption and public resistance to this technology was examined. The authors of the cited study concluded that the condition for renewable energy sources to be socially acceptable is their ease of use. In a study conducted in Poland by the authors of this publication in 2021 [8], owners of micro-installations paid attention to the simplicity of using the devices and their maintenance-free and failure-free operation. However, it is worth focusing on the technical aspects of developing photovoltaic micro-installations. Since photovoltaic micro-installations began, the distribution grids traditional way has changed significantly. The presence of photovoltaic microsystems has changed the operational characteristics of low-voltage grids from variable demand to fluctuating demand and supply. The previous one-sided flow of energy has changed into a two-sided one. Accordingly, problems with power surges in the network have arisen. The use of electricity by households is spread over time, and there is no situation where, at the same time, the maximum power in a given area is used. In the opposite direction, the problem arises. During intense sunlight, prosumer micro-installations, generating excess electricity at once, provide it to the grid. This energy is transmitted to local consumers, increasing the voltage in low-voltage networks and affecting the automation of power plants and transformers. In turn, during low sunlight, electricity is transmitted in the opposite direction, from the station to the prosumer–consumer, causing unwanted voltage reduction in distributed rural network systems. Therefore, the effects of voltage fluctuations must be considered in planning the safe and efficient operation of the electrical network, for which the distribution system operator is responsible. Suppose the total power supplied by the home photovoltaic system to the grid exceeds the local consumption. In that case, the excess energy causes the reverse power flow to the medium voltage system. The area of the low-voltage distribution network then functions as a power plant. Whereas a small amount of distributed energy production by photovoltaic micro-installations may be acceptable or may even positively affect the grid, more significant amounts are not desirable. Namely, they may negatively affect the distribution network [13,14]. On the other hand, prosumers’ main concern is increasing voltage in local grids and automatic switch-off of their PV installations on sunny days with low power consumption. Due to the increase in the number of micro photovoltaic installations occurring in various countries, research is being carried out on increasing the adaptive power of the photovoltaic system in distribution networks [15,16]. Authors of [54] suggest such technical solutions as network expansion, voltage regulation on transformer taps, or active demand and supply management. These problems need to be solved in the Polish electrical system to develop photovoltaics further.
On this basis, the fifth research hypothesis was formulated:
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
Factors supporting the ease of use of prosumer solar PV technology significantly influence attitudes toward it.
The fact that the intention to use renewable energy is related to the degree of knowledge about the subject among the population was also pointed out by the authors of the paper [55], emphasizing the importance of policies and promotions aimed at familiarizing and introducing the technology to the population. This is corroborated by the results of their study in Nigeria, which indicated that although there were significant positive correlations between perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and intention to use the technology, it also showed that a lack of information about how the technology works, cost, and even corruption significantly reinforced the negative perception of RES among the public. The authors emphasized the need for both formal and informal energy education in their country. Moreover, in the study [56], it was stated that the Malaysian population associates the use of renewable energy with high levels of effort and, therefore, has a negative attitude towards the use of this technology. One of the conclusions of the cited work was to highlight the role of public perception and awareness in the successes and failures of the region’s renewable energy policies. Moreover, the authors of the paper [57], investigating the issue of social acceptance of solar energy technology from the perspective of end-users in Shandong Province, China, pointed out that photovoltaic technology (as opposed to solar panels) has not gained a high level of social acceptance there, so it would be advisable to further promote the use of solar energy innovations, which is supposed to be the responsibility of policy makers. Following research in Switzerland, the paper [58] confirmed a high social acceptance of PV micro-installations among residents—highlighting, however, the fact that this acceptance decreased as the size of the installation increased to the level of PV farms. In Spain, on the other hand, the paper [59] describes the intense public debate that has taken place there over the years, which, according to the authors, has significantly influenced public acceptance in that country for both PV and other renewable energy sources. The authors in the cited paper, after literature research, stressed the particular importance of the debate and the way the mass media presents a given (new) technology, as this can radically influence both public opinion and other stakeholders. In their work [60], authors conducting research in Europe also confirmed the importance of policy instruments in supporting the transformation of consumers into prosumers. Knowing, in turn, that in Poland, between 2019 and 2022, more than seven GW of prosumer installations have been built thanks to the “My Energy” program, involving civic capital leveraged by investment subsidies and tax instruments, the sixth research hypothesis was left:
Hypothesis 6 (H6).
State promotion of prosumer PV technology significantly affects the intention to use the technology.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Test Model

The analyses were conducted using structural equation modeling (SEM). A number of tests, such as factor analysis, discriminant analysis, and regression analysis, were performed within the SEM to examine the relationships between the constructs defined in the paper. These relationships are shown in Figure 1. The constructs such as Economic usefulness, Ecological usefulness, Social usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use explain the construct Attitude towards PV Technology. On the other hand, Attitude toward PV Technology and Promotion of PV Technology act as predictors to explain Intention to Use photovoltaic technology. PLS-SEM, or variance-based SEM, was used throughout the study. SmartPLS software was used to accomplish the objective.

3.2. The Research Process

Analyses were conducted in two stages (Figure 2). In the first stage, a measurement model (outer model) was built and verified, and in the second stage, a structural model (inner model) [61,62,63,64,65].
The measurement (outer) model is a model that includes variables and constructs. It was built by assigning the variables measured in the survey to the constructs identified during the literature analysis. This model was verified with construct reliability and validity tests performed for each construct. Thus, within each construct, factor loadings were calculated for the variables included in the construct. It was assumed that these loadings should be greater than 0.5. To examine the internal consistency of the constructs, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and composite reliability (CR) were calculated. It was assumed that both coefficients should exceed the threshold value of 0.7. Convergent validity was measured using the average variance extracted (AVE). It was assumed that AVE should exceed the threshold value of 0.5. Discriminant validity was measured using the Fornell–Larcker and Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT) criteria.
The structural (inner) model was built by calculating the path coefficients (β) for the constructs acting as predictors. These coefficients were verified for significance by calculating t-test statistics and p-values. The significance level of α = 0.05 was assumed. The coefficients R2, Q2, and f2 were calculated for the built model. R2 determines the variance of the dependent variable explained by the predictors, Q2 determines the predictive power of the model, and f2 determines the effect size of the predictors on the dependent (response) variable.

3.3. Questionnaire Structure

Table 1 shows the questions included in the questionnaire. The respondents answered them, according to a 5-point Likert scale (according to the key: “Agree”, “Rather agree”, “Don’t know”, “Rather disagree”, and “Disagree”).

3.4. Research Sample

The surveys were conducted in March and April 2022. The questionnaire was prepared in an electronic version and sent by e-mail. In this way, we collected responses from 430 respondents. A total of 53% of the sample were male and 48% were female. Age-wise, respondents were divided into four groups, with the most frequent age groups being: 40–54 years (42%) and 25–39 years (33%). This age structure was dictated by the rationale that respondents were sought who had adequate capital that could potentially be invested in a prosumer PV system. Therefore, it can be concluded that the selection of the sample for our study was purposeful. Most of the respondents came from large cities (50%) and from households comprising 3 to 4 persons (56%). Details of the survey sample are included in Figure 3.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Measurement Model-Based Assessment

Table 2 presents the results of the outer model. It shows that the constructs created meet the criteria set at the beginning. It means that within each construct there are variables whose factor loadings exceed the value of 0.5. For each construct Cronbach’s α and CR coefficients exceed the value of 0.7 and average variance extracted exceeds the value of 0.5. To obtain such a model it was necessary to exclude some variables. The removed variables were not included in the Item column (see Table 2).
The measurement (outer) model was also researched in terms of discriminant validity. Table 3 and Table 4 show the results of this analysis. Both the Fornell–Larcker criterion and the Heterotrait–Monotrait criterion indicate good discriminatory accuracy of the outer model.

4.2. Structural Model-Based Assessment

The structural (inner) model is shown in Table 5. The constructed structural model explains 39.3% (R2 = 0.393) of the variation in the construct Intention to PV Technology Use. The predictive power of the model is: Q2 = 0.323. Fitting the model to the data is acceptable (SRMR = 0.083, NFI = 0.784).
Further, Table 5 shows which of the hypotheses assumed in the research model were positively verified. Thus, the significant predictors of attitudes towards prosumer PV technology are economic factors and environmental factors related to perceived ease of use of PV technology (p-value = 0.00). Thus, hypotheses H2, H3, and H5 were confirmed. Social usefulness factors proved to be an insignificant predictor of attitudes toward prosumer PV technology. Thus, hypothesis H4 was not confirmed to be true. Attitudes towards PV technology proved to be a significant predictor of the intention to use PV technology (p-value = 0.00), thus confirming hypothesis H1. Promotion of PV Technology also proved to be a significant predictor of intention to use PV technology, but this result was on the borderline (p-value = 0.014). However, this was sufficient for hypothesis H6 to be considered confirmed at the 0.05 significance level.
The conducted research allowed confirmation of the significant influence of attitudes towards and promotion of prosumer photovoltaic technology on the intention to use it. Furthermore, the significant effect of perceived ease of use of PV technology on attitudes toward prosumer PV technology was also confirmed. Thus, in these three issues, results were obtained that converged with those presented in the paper [10]. However, there is no denying that Pakistan is a country diametrically different from Poland both in terms of climate, especially in terms of insolation, economic, and political situation. Therefore, it was to be expected that the factors shaping the intention to use photovoltaic technology would not be the same in both countries. This is confirmed by the model obtained from our study, which differs from the one obtained in the paper [10]. The main difference is the lack of extracting such a construct as perceived usefulness. Instead, in the model, we extracted ecological and economic factors that, together with the already mentioned perceived ease of use of photovoltaic technology, significantly influence attitudes towards this technology. Thus, we obtained results convergent with the conclusions indicated in the works [27,28], finding values significantly influencing attitudes towards prosumer PV technology in Poland. Therefore, the values shaping the mentioned attitudes are those related to the ecology and conservation of natural resources, economic benefits of PV technology, and values resulting from the ease and convenience of using this technology.
The significant influence of environmental factors is linked to European policy objectives towards reducing carbon emissions and increasing the share of renewable energy in gross final energy consumption [6]. The indication of ecological factors as a significant predictor of attitudes towards PV technology can, therefore, be interpreted as the internalization of ecological values in Polish society. The significant influence of economic factors in our model is confirmed by the results of the study [8,17,19,29]. PV technology is treated as a good capital investment, a hedge against rising electricity prices, and a way to save money. The financial instruments of government policy supporting the installation of PV systems, i.e., tax credit and subsidies, also play a large role. Thus, the conclusions drawn from our study are consistent with the conclusions of the work [10,25,30,70].
Although we originally hypothesized that social factors would be a significant predictor of attitudes toward prosumer PV technology, they proved to be insignificant. In creating the construct “social factors”, we relied on variables proposed by [67], and thus referred to respondents’ altruistic needs, such as doing something good for society or caring about the availability of fossil fuels for others. Perhaps defining this construct on the basis of other variables such as imitation and suggesting the opinion of the immediate environment would make the influence of social factors more significant on attitudes towards prosumer PV technology. However, this would mean considering the determinants of intention to use PV technology in the context of the theory of planned behavior [27]. When considering the reason for the lack of relevance of the social factors construct, one should perhaps point to the high installation costs of prosumer PV systems. These costs cause investors to first expect a return on investment in the form of savings on their electricity bills. Thus, in this context, the altruistic aspect of the investment becomes less important.

5. Conclusions

This paper answered two research questions and verified six research hypotheses related to these questions, confirming five of them. The first research question was a question about the factors influencing the intention to invest in prosumer PV installations in Poland. Attitudes towards PV technology and media promotion of this technology were identified as hypothesized factors here. Both hypotheses were verified as true. The second research question was a question about factors influencing attitudes towards PV technology in Poland. Hypothetical factors identified here included environmental factors, economic factors (including financial instruments used by the state), social factors, and factors related to the ease of use and convenience of prosumer PV technology. All of them, with the exception of social factors, proved to be significant predictors of attitudes towards prosumer PV technology.

5.1. Theoretical Implications

The paper confirms the influence of attitudes towards prosumer photovoltaic technology on the intention to use this technology in Poland. Attitudes towards the technology are, in the opinion of many researchers, an important predictor of intention to use the technology. Our research confirmed the veracity of this statement. This is an interesting finding because let us remember that Poland is a country heavily dependent on coal, which has only just embarked on the difficult road of energy transition. Moreover, the transmission networks of the Polish energy system are not adapted to distributed generation, as is the case with prosumer photovoltaic technology. This fact may additionally hinder the implementation of this technology.
Furthermore, our study confirmed the influence of economic values, ecological values, and perceived ease of use of PV technology on the formation of attitudes towards this technology in Poland. Although the economic values and those related to perceived ease of use of PV technology seem natural and primary, the high impact of ecological values is undoubtedly a positive surprise. It may be assumed that this is the aftermath of the pro-climate policy and planet-saving movements observed throughout the European Union.

5.2. Practical Implications

Knowledge of the factors that motivate the construction of prosumer PV systems is extremely important from the point of view of the government centers responsible for stimulating energy transition processes. In the first period of the government program supporting the development of prosumer PV technologies (“My Energy”), the main motivation was to obtain a subsidy for the construction of the installation, as well as the possibility to deduct the remaining expenses from deductible costs in the annual tax return. In the course of successive editions of this program, the motivations for installing photovoltaics gradually changed in connection with rising electricity prices and the desire to reduce expenditures on the purchase of energy from the grid.
In the fourth phase of the program, which is now beginning, decision-making priorities may change in light of Russia’s attack on Ukraine and in the face of a growing commodity crisis. In designing the fourth phase, lawmakers did not anticipate the effects of an armed conflict. From today’s perspective, it is known that from 2023 it will be necessary to replace imports of about 10 billion m3 of natural gas and about 9 million Mg of thermal coal from Russia. Such a rapid change in the direction of imports or increase in domestic production may prove extremely difficult or even impossible. For this reason, the factor of individual independence, or even energy security, may prove to be the main motivator for the installation of photovoltaics by prosumers, as well as local governments associated in clusters and energy cooperatives. In addition, it should be expected that aside from classical photovoltaic installations, systems with energy storage and heating systems using heat pumps will find greater interest.
Rebalancing the energy and raw materials market in the EU, including Poland, may take up to five years. Therefore, it will be important to re-examine the intention to invest in prosumer PV and at the local government level. It is very likely that the predictors of usage intentions, as well as attitudes towards PV technology will change. Variables, such as individual energy security and the lower cost of home-generated energy, are expected to increase in importance. This is followed by subsidy and tax benefit systems.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: A.M., I.Z., M.T. and S.T.; methodology: I.Z.; formal analysis, I.Z.; investigation: M.T. and A.M.; writing—original draft preparation: A.M., I.Z., M.T. and S.T.; writing—review and editing: A.M., I.Z., M.T. and S.T.; visualization: I.Z.; funding acquisition: A.M., I.Z. and M.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This paper was published as part of statutory research at the Silesian University of Technology, Faculty of Organization and Management, grant number: 13/010/BK_22/0065.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted under the ethics regulations of the Silesian University of Technology. “Ordinance on the establishment and rules of operation of the Commission on Ethics in Research Involving Human Subjects”. It implements ordinance No. 107/2021 of the Rector of the Silesian University of Technology from 29 June 2021.

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Transformacja Energetyczna—Zapotrzebowanie Na Źródła Energii Pierwotnej w Perspektywie 2040 Roku; Tokarski, S. (Ed.) Główny Instytut Górnictwa: Katowice, Poland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  2. Niska Emisja—Wegiel Tak, Smog Nie: Praca Zbiorowa; Turek, M. (Ed.) Główny Instytut Górnictwa: Katowice, Poland, 2018; ISBN 978-83-65503-15-2. [Google Scholar]
  3. Niska Emisja—Jak Skutecznie ja Zwalczyć: Praca Zbiorowa; Turek, M. (Ed.) Główny Instytut Górnictwa: Katowice, Poland, 2017; ISBN 978-83-65503-05-3. [Google Scholar]
  4. Energetyka Prosumencka: O Dynamice Interakcji Dwóch Trajektorii Rozwoju w Energetyce: Pomostowej/Zstepujacej i Nowej/Wstepujacej; Popczyk, J.; Bankowa, G.A. (Eds.) Instytut Badan nad Gospodarka Rynkowa—Gdanska Akademia Bankowa: Gdansk, Poland, 2014; ISBN 978-83-88835-22-3. [Google Scholar]
  5. Renewables 2021—Analysis. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2021 (accessed on 5 May 2022).
  6. Fit for 55. Available online: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/green-deal/fit-for-55-the-eu-plan-for-a-green-transition/ (accessed on 5 May 2022).
  7. PEP2040 Polityka energetyczna Polski do 2040 r.—Ministerstwo Klimatu i Środowiska—Portal Gov.pl. Available online: https://www.gov.pl/web/klimat/polityka-energetyczna-polski (accessed on 5 May 2022).
  8. Zdonek, I.; Tokarski, S.; Mularczyk, A.; Turek, M. Evaluation of the Program Subsidizing Prosumer Photovoltaic Sources in Poland. Energies 2022, 15, 846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wolniak, R.; Skotnicka-Zasadzień, B. Development of Photovoltaic Energy in EU Countries as an Alternative to Fossil Fuels. Energies 2022, 15, 662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ali, S.; Poulova, P.; Akbar, A.; Javed, H.M.U.; Danish, M. Determining the Influencing Factors in the Adoption of Solar Photovoltaic Technology in Pakistan: A Decomposed Technology Acceptance Model Approach. Economies 2020, 8, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ge, T.S.; Wang, R.Z.; Xu, Z.Y.; Pan, Q.W.; Du, S.; Chen, X.M.; Ma, T.; Wu, X.N.; Sun, X.L.; Chen, J.F. Solar Heating and Cooling: Present and Future Development. Renew. Energy 2018, 126, 1126–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Inderberg, T.H.J.; Tews, K.; Turner, B. Is There a Prosumer Pathway? Exploring Household Solar Energy Development in Germany, Norway, and the United Kingdom. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018, 42, 258–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Budin, L.; Grdenić, G.; Delimar, M. A Quadratically Constrained Optimization Problem for Determining the Optimal Nominal Power of a PV System in Net-Metering Model: A Case Study for Croatia. Energies 2021, 14, 1746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zarębski, P.; Krupin, V.; Zwęglińska-Gałecka, D. Renewable Energy Generation Gaps in Poland: The Role of Regional Innovation Systems and Knowledge Transfer. Energies 2021, 14, 2935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Szultka, A.; Szultka, S.; Czapp, S.; Zajczyk, R. Voltage Variations and Their Reduction in a Rural Low-Voltage Network with PV Sources of Energy. Electronics 2021, 10, 1620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Jasiński, J.; Kozakiewicz, M.; Sołtysik, M. Determinants of Energy Cooperatives’ Development in Rural Areas—Evidence from Poland. Energies 2021, 14, 319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Parzonko, A.J.; Balińska, A.; Sieczko, A. Pro-Environmental Behaviors of Generation Z in the Context of the Concept of Homo Socio-Oeconomicus. Energies 2021, 14, 1597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Graziano, M.; Gillingham, K. Spatial Patterns of Solar Photovoltaic System Adoption: The Influence of Neighbors and the Built Environment. J. Econ. Geogr. 2015, 15, 815–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Müller, J.; Trutnevyte, E. Spatial Projections of Solar PV Installations at Subnational Level: Accuracy Testing of Regression Models. Appl. Energy 2020, 265, 114747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Tsantopoulos, G.; Arabatzis, G.; Tampakis, S. Public Attitudes towards Photovoltaic Developments: Case Study from Greece. Energy Policy 2014, 71, 94–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kaldellis, J.K.; Kapsali, M.; Kaldelli, E.; Katsanou, E. Comparing Recent Views of Public Attitude on Wind Energy, Photovoltaic and Small Hydro Applications. Renew. Energy 2013, 52, 197–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Davis, F.D. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Rashid, M.; Alam, S.S. Intention to Use Renewable Energy: Mediating Role of Attitude. Energy Res. J. 2012, 3, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Scaling and Testing Multiplicative Combinations in the Expectancy-Value Model of Attitudes. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2008, 38, 2222–2247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Figueira, J.; Coelho, D.; Lopes, F. How Much Are Portuguese Residential Consumers Willing to Invest in Photovoltaic Systems? In Green Energy and Networking; Afonso, J.L., Monteiro, V., Pinto, J.G., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 64–75. [Google Scholar]
  26. Brunsø, K.; Scholderer, J.; Grunert, K.G. Closing the Gap between Values and Behavior—A Means-End Theory of Lifestyle. J. Bus. Res. 2004, 57, 665–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Predicting and Changing Behavior; Psychology Press: London, UK, 2011; ISBN 978-1-136-87473-4. [Google Scholar]
  28. Westaby, J.D.; Probst, T.M.; Lee, B.C. Leadership Decision-Making: A Behavioral Reasoning Theory Analysis. Leadersh. Q. 2010, 21, 481–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Briguglio, M.; Formosa, G. When Households Go Solar: Determinants of Uptake of a Photovoltaic Scheme and Policy Insights. Energy Policy 2017, 108, 154–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zhang, Y.; Song, J.; Hamori, S. Impact of Subsidy Policies on Diffusion of Photovoltaic Power Generation. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 1958–1964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jabeen, G.; Ahmad, M.; Zhang, Q. Factors Influencing ‘Consumers’ Willingness to Buy Green Energy Technologies in a Green Perceived Value Framework. Energy Sources Part B Econ. Plan. Policy 2021, 16, 669–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Faiers, A.; Neame, C. Consumer Attitudes towards Domestic Solar Power Systems. Energy Policy 2006, 34, 1797–1806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Müller, S.; Rode, J. The Adoption of Photovoltaic Systems in Wiesbaden, Germany. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 2013, 22, 519–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Balta-Ozkan, N.; Yildirim, J.; Connor, P.M. Regional Distribution of Photovoltaic Deployment in the UK and Its Determinants: A Spatial Econometric Approach. Energy Econ. 2015, 51, 417–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Tsaur, R.-C.; Lin, Y.-H. Exploring the Consumer Attitude of Building-Attached Photovoltaic Equipment Using Revised Technology Acceptance Model. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gospodarka o Obiegu Zamknietym: Racjonalne Gospodarowanie Zasobami: XIX Miedzynarodowa Konferencja Naukowa, Raclawice, 2-3 Lipca 2019: Abstrakty; Kulczycka, J.; Nauk, P.A.; Instytut Gospodarki Surowcami Mineralnymi i Energia; Wydawnictw, Z. (Eds.) Wydawnictwo IGSMiE PAN: Kraków, Poland, 2019; ISBN 978-83-953167-6-0. [Google Scholar]
  37. Pichlak, M. Gospodarka o obiegu zamkniętym—Model koncepcyjny. Ekonomista 2018, 3, 335–346. [Google Scholar]
  38. Stevovic, I.; Mirjanic, D.; Petrovic, N. Integration of Solar Energy by Nature-Inspired Optimization in the Context of Circular Economy. Energy 2021, 235, 121297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Horne, C.; Huddart Kennedy, E. Explaining Support for Renewable Energy: Commitments to Self-Sufficiency and Communion. Environ. Politics 2019, 28, 929–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mehmood, U. Contribution of Renewable Energy towards Environmental Quality: The Role of Education to Achieve Sustainable Development Goals in G11 Countries. Renew. Energy 2021, 178, 600–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Omer, A.M. Environmental and Socio-Economic Aspects of Possible Development in Renewable Energy Use. JAERD 2010, 2, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Cronin, J.; Anandarajah, G.; Dessens, O. Climate Change Impacts on the Energy System: A Review of Trends and Gaps. Clim. Chang. 2018, 151, 79–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Kesari, B.; Atulkar, S.; Pandey, S. Consumer Purchasing Behaviour towards Eco-Environment Residential Photovoltaic Solar Lighting Systems. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2021, 22, 236–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ropuszyńska-Surma, E.; Węglarz, M. Profiling End User of Renewable Energy Sources among Residential Consumers in Poland. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Angowski, M.; Kijek, T.; Lipowski, M.; Bondos, I. Factors Affecting the Adoption of Photovoltaic Systems in Rural Areas of Poland. Energies 2021, 14, 5272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Schaffer, A.J.; Brun, S. Beyond the Sun—Socioeconomic Drivers of the Adoption of Small-Scale Photovoltaic Installations in Germany. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2015, 10, 220–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kucharska, A. Społeczny Wymiar “Energiewende”—Rozwój Energetyki Prosumenckiej w Austrii. Human 2018, 17, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Abreu, J.; Wingartz, N.; Hardy, N. New Trends in Solar: A Comparative Study Assessing the Attitudes towards the Adoption of Rooftop PV. Energy Policy 2019, 128, 347–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sütterlin, B.; Siegrist, M. Public Acceptance of Renewable Energy Technologies from an Abstract versus Concrete Perspective and the Positive Imagery of Solar Power. Energy Policy 2017, 106, 356–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hallegatte, S.; Rozenberg, J. Climate Change through a Poverty Lens. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2017, 7, 250–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Serdeczny, O.; Adams, S.; Baarsch, F.; Coumou, D.; Robinson, A.; Hare, W.; Schaeffer, M.; Perrette, M.; Reinhardt, J. Climate Change Impacts in Sub-Saharan Africa: From Physical Changes to Their Social Repercussions. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2017, 17, 1585–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sugandini, D.; Purwoko, P.; Pambudi, A.; Resmi, S.; Reniati, R.; Muafi, M.; Adhyka Kusumawati, R. The Role of Uncertainty, Perceived Ease of Use, and Perceived Usefulness towards the Technology Adoption. Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol. (IJCIET) 2018, 9, 660–669. [Google Scholar]
  53. Stephenson, J.; Loannou, M. Social Acceptance of Renewable Electricity Developments in New Zealand; University of Otago: Dunedin, New Zealand, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  54. Ruf, H. Limitations for the Feed-in Power of Residential Photovoltaic Systems in Germany—An Overview of the Regulatory Framework. Sol. Energy 2018, 159, 588–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wojuola, R.N.; Alant, B.P. Public Perceptions about Renewable Energy Technologies in Nigeria. Afr. J. Sci. Technol. Innov. Dev. 2017, 9, 399–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kardooni, R.; Yusoff, S.B.; Kari, F.B. Renewable Energy Technology Acceptance in Peninsular Malaysia. Energy Policy 2016, 88, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Yuan, X.; Zuo, J.; Ma, C. Social Acceptance of Solar Energy Technologies in China—End ‘Users’ Perspective. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 1031–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Cousse, J. Still in Love with Solar Energy? Installation Size, Affect, and the Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy Technologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 145, 111107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Heras-Saizarbitoria, I.; Cilleruelo, E.; Zamanillo, I. Public Acceptance of Renewables and the Media: An Analysis of the Spanish PV Solar Experience. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 4685–4696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kotilainen, K.; Saari, U. Policy Influence on ‘Consumers’ Evolution into Prosumers—Empirical Findings from an Exploratory Survey in Europe. Sustainability 2018, 10, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hair, J.F. (Ed.) A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equations Modeling (PLS-SEM); SAGE: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2014; ISBN 978-1-4522-1744-4. [Google Scholar]
  62. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to Use and How to Report the Results of PLS-SEM. EBR 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ramli, N.A.; Latan, H.; Solovida, G.T. Determinants of Capital Structure and Firm Financial Performance—A PLS-SEM Approach: Evidence from Malaysia and Indonesia. Q. Rev. Econ. Financ. 2019, 71, 148–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Sarstedt, M.; Hopkins, L.; Kuppelwieser, V.G. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM): An Emerging Tool in Business Research. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2014, 26, 106–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Wang, Z.; Zhao, C.; Yin, J.; Zhang, B. Purchasing Intentions of Chinese Citizens on New Energy Vehicles: How Should One Respond to Current Preferential Policy? J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 161, 1000–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Garay, L.; Font, X.; Corrons, A. Sustainability-Oriented Innovation in Tourism: An Analysis Based on the Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior. J. Travel Res. 2019, 58, 622–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Hamari, J.; Sjöklint, M.; Ukkonen, A. The Sharing Economy: Why People Participate in Collaborative Consumption. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2016, 67, 2047–2059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Parasuraman, A. Technology Readiness Index (Tri): A Multiple-Item Scale to Measure Readiness to Embrace New Technologies. J. Serv. Res. 2000, 2, 307–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ahmad, S.; bin Mat Tahar, R.; Cheng, J.K.; Yao, L. Public Acceptance of Residential Solar Photovoltaic Technology in Malaysia. PRR 2017, 1, 242–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Song, Y.; Guo, S.; Zhang, M. Assessing ‘Customers’ Perceived Value of the Anti-Haze Cosmetics under Haze Pollution. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 685, 753–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Paul, J.; Modi, A.; Patel, J. Predicting Green Product Consumption Using Theory of Planned Behavior and Reasoned Action. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 29, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Energies 15 06300 g001 550
Figure 1. Test model. Source: own work.
Figure 1. Test model. Source: own work.
Energies 15 06300 g001
Energies 15 06300 g002 550
Figure 2. The research process. Source: own work.
Figure 2. The research process. Source: own work.
Energies 15 06300 g002
Energies 15 06300 g003 550
Figure 3. Research sample characteristics. Source: own work.
Figure 3. Research sample characteristics. Source: own work.
Energies 15 06300 g003
Table
Table 1. Questionnaire used in the research.
Table 1. Questionnaire used in the research.
ConstructItemStatementSource
Economic
Usefulness		Econ 1I believe that PV installation is a good capital investment.
Econ 2I think PV panels are a good hedge against rising electricity prices.
Econ 3I think the cost of installation is too high relative to the benefits.
Econ 4Implementing photovoltaic technology in my home will help me save money.[66,67]
Econ 5Implementing photovoltaic technology in my home will help me cut costs.[66,67]
Econ 6Implementing photovoltaic technology in my home will help me make profit.[66,67]
Econ 7A grant of PLN 3–5 k might get me to install photovoltaic panels.
Econ 8A percentage subsidy (rather than an amount) might get me to install PV panels.
Econ 9A tax credit could get me to install PV panels.
Econ 10The prospect of lowering my electric bills would prompt me to install PV panels.
Ecological
Usefulness		Ecol 1Installing PV on my home would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.[67,68]
Ecol 2Installing PV in my home would help conserve natural resources.[67,68]
Ecol 3Installing PV in my home would allow me to be eco-friendly.[67,68]
Ecol 4Heating with electricity obtained from PV is environmentally friendly.
Ecol 5There should be an effort to increase green energy production.
Ecol 6Environmental protection is important to me.
Ecol 7I try to buy things that are considered responsible and sustainable for the environment.
Ecol 8Investments in PV benefit the environment.
Ecol 9I am against PV because it will not improve the environmental situation in the world.
Social
Usefulness		Soc 1Installing PV in my home would allow me to have a positive impact on society.[67]
Soc 2Installing PV on my home would allow me to help those who need fossil fuels more than I do.[67]
Soc 3Installing PV in my home would allow me to do something for others.[67]
Perceived
Ease of Use		EoU 1I am concerned that photovoltaic technology is not reliable.[67,69]
EoU 2I am concerned that photovoltaic technology is not delivering the expected benefits.[69]
EoU 3I am concerned about the constant maintenance of the panels.[69]
EoU 4I think learning to use photovoltaic technology is easy for me.[69]
EoU 5I believe that operating a PV installation is easy.[69]
Attitude towards PV TechnologyAtt 1I believe that solar energy will be the main source of electricity in the future.[70]
Att 2I think it would be a good idea (in its own time) to use solar energy in my home.[70]
Att 3I like the idea of using a clean source of electricity in my home.[70]
Att 4I generally like the idea of having PV panels as a source of electricity in my home.[70]
Promotion of PV Technology Prom 1Nowadays, you can see support from the state regarding investments in renewable energy sources.[71]
Prom 2Nowadays, you can see a lot of support from the state regarding investments in at-home photovoltaic installations.[71]
Prom 3I am concerned about the high instability of state policy towards prosumers (constant changes in regulations).
Prom 4Media messages encourage households to adopt photovoltaic technology.[71]
Intention to UseInt 1I intend to use solar energy in my home.[72]
Int 2I plan to have PV technology to generate electricity in my home.[72]
Int 3I intend to invest in PV panels in the near future (within 5 years).
Int 4The likelihood of me owning (in the future) PV panels is very high.[72]
Source: own study.
Table
Table 2. Indicator reliability, convergent reliability, internal consistency.
Table 2. Indicator reliability, convergent reliability, internal consistency.
ConstructItemLoadingsα Cronbach’sCRAVE
Economic
Usefulness		Econ 10.7860.9080.9250.609
Econ 100.753
Econ 20.838
Econ 40.884
Econ 50.868
Econ 60.694
Econ 70.690
Econ 90.703
Ecological
Usefulness		Ecol 10.8210.8940.9190.653
Ecol 20.854
Ecol 30.789
Ecol 40.785
Ecol 50.795
Ecol 80.801
Social
Usefulness		Soc 10.8150.7950.8800.709
Soc 20.829
Soc 30.881
Perceived
Ease of Use		PoU 40.9130.8310.9220.855
PoU 50.936
AttitudeAtt 20.9140.8900.9310.819
Att 30.884
Att 40.917
Promotion of PV TechnologyProm 10.9740.8630.9290.867
Prom 20.887
Intention to UseInt 10.9200.9030.9390.837
Int 30.902
Int 40.924
Source: own study.
Table
Table 3. Discriminant Validity (Fornell–Larcker Criterion).
Table 3. Discriminant Validity (Fornell–Larcker Criterion).
AttitudeEcological UsefulnessEconomic UsefulnessIntention to UsePerceived Ease of UsePromotion of PV TechnologySocial Usefulness
Attitude0.905
Ecological
Usefulness		0.6440.808
Economic
Usefulness		0.6010.6420.780
Intention to Use0.6190.4880.6730.915
Perceived
Ease of Use		0.4590.3180.4040.4620.925
Promotion of PV Technology0.1580.2000.3280.1950.1580.931
Social Usefulness0.4070.5920.5290.3580.1780.1990.842
Source: own study.
Table
Table 4. Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT).
Table 4. Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT).
AttitudeEcological
Usefulness		Economic
Usefulness		Intention to UsePerceived
Ease of Use		Promotion of PV Technology
Attitude
Ecological
Usefulness		0.719
Economic
Usefulness		0.6360.700
Intention to Use0.6840.5410.725
Perceived
Ease of Use		0.5320.3660.4460.528
Promotion of PV Technology0.1510.2220.3840.1980.168
Social Usefulness0.4760.7010.6330.4200.2170.248
Source: own study.
Table
Table 5. Structural model assessment.
Table 5. Structural model assessment.
Path
Coeff.		St. Errort Statisticp ValueSupportedf2
H1. Attitude → Intention to PV Use0.6040.03119.2960.000Yes0.585
H2. Economic Usefulness → Attitude PV0.2440.0574.3110.000Yes0.063
H3. Ecological Usefulness → Attitude PV0.4230.0488.7420.000Yes0.184
H4. Social Usefulness → Attitude PV−0.0140.0390.3570.721No
H5. Perceived Ease of Use → Attitude PV0.2280.0445.1440.000Yes0.089
H6. Promotion of PV Technology → Intention to PV Use0.1000.0412.4730.014Yes0.016
Source: own study. Note: statistically significant values are marked in red.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mularczyk, A.; Zdonek, I.; Turek, M.; Tokarski, S. Intentions to Use Prosumer Photovoltaic Technology in Poland. Energies 2022, 15, 6300. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15176300

AMA Style

Mularczyk A, Zdonek I, Turek M, Tokarski S. Intentions to Use Prosumer Photovoltaic Technology in Poland. Energies. 2022; 15(17):6300. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15176300

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mularczyk, Anna, Iwona Zdonek, Marian Turek, and Stanisław Tokarski. 2022. "Intentions to Use Prosumer Photovoltaic Technology in Poland" Energies 15, no. 17: 6300. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15176300

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