Integrating Energy Justice with Economic Realities: Survey Results on Renewable Energy Support and Household Expenditure Disparities

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-5116938/v1

Download PDF

Article

Integrating Energy Justice with Economic Realities: Survey Results on Renewable Energy Support and Household Expenditure Disparities

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5116938/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Energy justice is a critical element of the European Union's objective to achieve climate neutrality by 2050, which presents both environmental and societal challenges. This research employs a comprehensive methodology to investigate public attitudes toward renewable energy and energy inequality. A representative survey was implemented to collect empirical data on household expenditures for electricity, natural gas, and heating. This data was subsequently analyzed to evaluate the extent of energy inequality and its potential impact on energy affordability and accessibility for various income groups. Furthermore, the study examines public attitudes toward renewable energy, including their perceived benefits, barriers, and willingness to implement these technologies. Despite the fact that the results are concentrated on Lithuania, they provide a comparative perspective that aids in the identification of common challenges and opportunities that are pertinent to other EU countries. This method improves comprehension of energy inequality and its implications in a variety of European contexts and climate objectives. The findings indicate a generally equitable distribution of energy costs, but they also emphasize a substantial reluctance to pay premiums for renewable energy, which is indicative of economic constraints. The research emphasizes the necessity of targeted policies to improve the financial accessibility of renewable energy and resolve underlying inequalities, thereby facilitating a fair and inclusive transition to a sustainable and climate-neutral future.

energy justice

energy inequality

climate-neutral society

The background. The European Union's pursuit of climate neutrality by 2050 is not only a critical environmental shift but also a pressing societal challenge that is profoundly interconnected with energy justice. In order to accomplish this climate objective, it is necessary to minimize inequalities, protect vulnerable groups, and ensure equitable access to energy resources, in addition to reducing emissions. Recent crises, including the global pandemic and energy price surges resulting from geopolitical tensions, have exacerbated these challenges by revealing the economic vulnerability of numerous households.

The concept of energy justice extends beyond the technical aspects of energy transition to establish an inclusive system that benefits all citizens equally. The EU's ecological objectives are significantly impeded by energy inequality, which is further exacerbated by inadequate infrastructure and increasing energy prices. Access to affordable, dependable energy is a significant challenge for numerous communities, particularly those in regions such as Lithuania. It is imperative to address these disparities in order to facilitate a sustainable and equitable transition to a climate-neutral society. Through an emphasis on energy justice, the European Union can guarantee that its climate objectives are not only environmentally sustainable but also socially inclusive. A fair and equitable energy transition guarantees that the most vulnerable individuals are not disenfranchised, thereby fostering long-term economic resilience in conjunction with environmental advancement.

Research questions. This article addresses the following research questions: 1) What is the distribution of household expenditure on electricity, natural gas, and heating in Lithuania? How can energy inequality be measured through household expenditures on energy? What are the public's attitudes toward renewable energy in Lithuania, including their perceived benefits, barriers, and willingness to adopt? How can addressing energy inequality contribute to broader climate goals, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving energy efficiency?

Research objectives: The objective of the research is to evaluate energy inequality by conducting a representative survey of the Lithuanian population to examine the distribution of household expenditures on electricity, natural gas, and heating. It assesses the relationship between household energy expenditures and the implications for energy affordability and access, as well as disparities in energy costs and their impact on various segments of the population. Furthermore, the research endeavors to elucidate public sentiment regarding renewable energy by investigating attitudes toward renewable sources, perceived benefits and barriers, and willingness to implement these technologies. Additionally, the research endeavors to facilitate the achievement of climate objectives by assessing the extent to which energy inequality promotes broader climate objectives, including the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the enhancement of energy efficiency. Although Lithuania is the primary focus, the results provide valuable insights that are applicable to other EU countries as well.

Research methods. a representative survey of the Lithuanian population was conducted to collect empirical data on the extent and regional distribution of energy inequality. Through direct contact with communities, the survey aims to capture the experiences of individuals and households struggling with energy insecurity and vulnerability.

The relevance of the research. The significance of this research is its potential to facilitate the comprehension and resolution of energy inequality in Lithuania. The study offers valuable indicators for evaluating energy inequality by examining the distribution of household expenditures on electricity, natural gas, and heating, which provides critical insights into disparities in energy affordability and access. Furthermore, the study elucidates public attitudes toward renewable energy, such as their perceived benefits, barriers, and willingness to implement new technologies. This information is crucial for policymakers and stakeholders to develop effective strategies that resolve public concerns and encourage the adoption of renewable energy. Even though Lithuania is the primary focus, the results provide insights that are relevant to other EU countries. This comparative perspective assists in the identification of common challenges and opportunities, thereby contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of energy inequality and its implications in various European contexts and climate objectives.

The practical implication. The research has numerous practical implications for the promotion of renewable energy adoption and the mitigation of energy inequality. The insights acquired can be used to inform the development of targeted policies and interventions that are designed to reduce energy disparities. It can also assist in educational campaigns that aim to increase public awareness of renewable energy by resolving misconceptions and emphasizing the advantages to encourage broader adoption. The development of supportive policies, such as tax credits or grants for renewable energy initiatives, and the development of market strategies for renewable energy companies are facilitated by an understanding of public attitudes and barriers toward renewable energy. Additionally, the research contributes to climate action strategies by integrating the necessity of addressing energy inequality with broader climate objectives, including the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the attainment of climate neutrality. Although Lithuania is the primary focus, the results provide valuable insights that are applicable to other EU countries, thereby facilitating cross-country learning and collaboration on energy and climate issues. Stakeholders can effectively address energy inequality, promote the adoption of renewable energy, and advance sustainability objectives by converting these research findings into actionable policies and programs.

The European Union's ambitious objective of attaining climate neutrality by 2050 is not merely an environmental initiative; it is a critical evaluation of energy justice and the degree to which individuals comprehend the significance of climate objectives. The principle of energy justice is the foundation of this endeavor, guaranteeing that the costs and benefits of the green transition are distributed equitably and that no social group is disproportionately affected by energy policies, costs, or access to the services ¹^, ²^, ³. It is imperative to assess the public's comprehension of these objectives and their dedication to climate action, particularly in regions that are experiencing substantial energy inequality, as the EU endeavors to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and advance sustainability ⁴^, ⁵^, ³.

Energy justice is essential for a fair transition to a climate-neutral society, as it seeks to resolve disparities in the accessibility and affordability of energy resources ⁶^, ⁷^, ⁸^, ⁹. Energy inequality is a real-world issue that transcends theoretical discourse and is closely associated with this concept. It is indicative of significant imbalances in the distribution and consumption of energy resources among various demographic groups, which frequently exacerbate social, economic, and environmental disparities ¹⁰^, ¹¹. Vulnerable populations, including low-income households, rural communities, and marginalized groups, frequently endure a disproportionate share of energy costs while receiving fewer benefits from green policies. These disparities not only exacerbate the social divide but also impede the progress toward a sustainable future ¹²^, ¹³^, ¹⁴^, ¹⁵.

Ensuring that individuals comprehend the significance of climate objectives and are sufficiently motivated to contribute to these initiatives is a critical aspect of energy justice. Public perception is a significant factor in the development of climate policies, and there is an increasing acknowledgment that the EU's green transition is contingent upon public engagement and awareness ¹⁶^, ¹⁷^, ¹⁸^, ¹⁹. Many individuals may experience a sense of disconnection from the broader climate agenda if they are unable to comprehend the significance of these objectives for the future of the planet and the ways in which individual actions contribute to global efforts. Surveys frequently demonstrate that, despite the fact that citizens are generally cognizant of climate-related matters, they may not completely comprehend the significance of their role in the pursuit of climate neutrality. This discrepancy underscores the necessity of policies that not only address energy inequality but also encourage a more robust public commitment to climate objectives.

Energy justice is founded on three fundamental dimensions: procedural, recognition, and distributional justice. Distributional justice is concerned with the equitable distribution of energy resources, with a particular emphasis on vulnerable populations, to prevent the green transition from exacerbating preexisting disparities ⁶^, ²⁰^, ²¹^, ²²^, ²³^, ²⁴. Procedural justice prioritizes inclusive decision-making, enabling all social groups to contribute to the development of energy policies that directly impact them ²⁵^, ²⁶. Recognition justice ensures that marginalized communities' voices are heard and their concerns are addressed, recognizing their unique needs and vulnerabilities ²¹. These dimensions are essential for the development of a sense of collective responsibility for the future and the shaping of how individuals perceive and engage with climate objectives.

The significance of confronting energy inequality as part of the broader climate agenda is underscored by the discrepancy between the lived experiences of vulnerable populations and the statistics on energy poverty in the EU ²⁷^, ²⁸^, ²⁹. For example, the disparity between official data and actual conditions in countries such as Lithuania underscores the degree to which energy poverty is an underappreciated concern ³⁰. This discrepancy underscores the necessity of localized and nuanced energy justice strategies to guarantee that all communities can partake in and benefit from the green transition. It is not merely a matter of equity, but also a practical necessity, to address these inequalities in order to guarantee that the EU's climate objectives are met.

Furthermore, energy inequality has extensive environmental consequences ³¹^, ³². Inequality in energy access and consumption is a contributing factor to climate change and environmental degradation, as vulnerable populations frequently depend on energy sources that are less efficient and more polluting ³³^, ¹². This results in a vicious cycle in which marginalized communities are both perpetrators and recipients of environmental damage ³⁴. Therefore, energy justice is not only vital for social equity but also for the preservation of the planet and the guarantee that future generations inherit a sustainable and habitable world.

Public participation in energy legislation and climate objectives is an indispensable component of energy justice. The success of climate action will ultimately be determined by the level of understanding and commitment to these objectives among the populace ³⁵^, ¹⁷. Surveys and research have demonstrated that the public's cognizance and engagement levels are inconsistent, with a significant number of individuals experiencing a sense of disconnection from the policies that are intended to address climate change. Nevertheless, in order for the EU to achieve its climate-neutrality objectives, a collaborative effort that encompasses not only policymakers but also ordinary citizens who acknowledge the significance of reducing carbon emissions, conserving energy, and investing in renewable energy initiatives is necessary.

Fostering public commitment to climate objectives necessitates this shared sense of responsibility. It is imperative that individuals are not only informed about the importance of energy justice but also feel empowered to take action in their own lives ⁶^, ³⁶. The EU's progress toward its climate-neutrality targets will be contingent upon the entire engagement and commitment of citizens to the cause, as public perception of climate goals is a critical factor in policy success.

Energy justice is a critical framework for the EU to achieve its climate-neutral objectives by 2050. In conclusion, A successful green transition necessitates the following: addressing energy inequality, ensuring an equitable distribution of resources, and fostering public commitment to climate goals. The path to sustainability is at risk of neglecting vulnerable populations if energy justice is not prioritized in policymaking. The EU can establish a more sustainable, inclusive, and equitable energy system that benefits both current and future generations by incorporating these principles.

The methodology is divided into components to address the research questions and achieve the study's objective. Initially, a representative survey of the Lithuanian population was conducted to gather empirical data on household expenditures on electricity, natural gas, and heating. The objective was to evaluate the relationship between household energy expenditures and the implications for energy affordability and access, as well as disparities in energy costs and their impact on various segments of the population. Secondly, to assess the extent of energy inequality in Lithuania by analyzing the data collected on household expenditures on electricity, natural gas, and heating. Third, to investigate public attitudes toward renewable energy, including their perceived benefits and barriers, as well as their willingness to adopt these technologies. This comprehensive approach to energy justice, which considers the current level of energy inequality and the attitudes, willingness, and capacity of society members to utilize renewable energy sources, enables an evaluation of the feasibility of achieving the stated goal of becoming a climate-neutral society and the extent of additional efforts required to safeguard the planet for future generations.

For the purpose of determining the degree of energy inequality among households, the research methodology utilized a structured approach, with a particular emphasis on the amount of money spent on electricity, natural gas, and heating. Direct, in-person interviews were used to collect data from one thousand Lithuanian residents who were at least 18 years old. This was the first step in the research project. The data that was obtained was guaranteed to have a high level of precision and dependability thanks to this approach. A technique known as probability sampling was utilized in order to guarantee that all demographic groups, including age, gender, and place of residence, were represented in an objective manner. In light of the fact that Lithuania has a population of approximately 2.8 million people, the sample size of 1,000 offered a statistically reliable margin of error of ±3.1% at a confidence level of 95%. This ensured that the results accurately reflect the experiences and perspectives of the larger population with regard to energy availability and consumption.

When asked to report their monthly household electricity expenses, natural gas expenditures, and annual heating costs, respondents were required to provide this information. 993 respondents submitted information regarding electricity, 460 information regarding natural gas, and 960 information regarding heating. After classifying the replies into several spending categories, the average expenditure was estimated by calculating the midpoint of the expenditure range for each group. This was done in order to determine the average expenditure. Once that was done, the total cost for each category was calculated by multiplying the number of respondents by the amount that was considered to represent the middle. The cumulative and normalized cumulative percentages were computed in order to gain an understanding of the manner in which expenditures build across the population.

Lorenz curves were plotted with the use of these cumulative distribution data in order to provide a graphical representation of the distribution of energy expenditures across the population. A clear visualisation of inequality was provided by these curves, which indicated the proportion of total expenditure that was accounted for by the lowest x percent of respondents. The Gini coefficient, which is an important metric in this investigation, was computed by computing the definite integral of a quadratic function that was constructed from the data of the Lorenz curve. This was done in order to determine the area that existed between the Lorenz curve and the line of perfect equality. It is possible to represent the Gini coefficient as a percentage, and it can vary from 0 (which indicates perfect equality) to 100 percent (which indicates complete inequality).

This methodology offers a comprehensive approach to the analysis of energy inequality and public attitudes toward renewable energy, which is applicable beyond Lithuania. The study quantifies disparities in household energy expenditures and emphasizes the severity of inequality by undertaking a representative survey and utilizing statistical tools such as the Lorenz curve and Gini coefficient. This structured approach, in conjunction with the examination of public perceptions of renewable energy, provides valuable insights into the obstacles to energy affordability and the preparedness of society to adopt climate-neutral solutions. The results not only assist in the assessment of Lithuania's progress toward energy justice but also provide a potential framework for other EU countries that are confronted with comparable obstacles in their efforts to achieve energy equity and climate neutrality.

A representative survey of the Lithuanian population was conducted to collect empirical data on household expenditures related to electricity, natural gas, and heating in order to evaluate the level of energy inequality in Lithuania. This method aids in the assessment of the correlation between energy costs and household affordability, thereby elucidating the financial burden that energy expenses impose on households. The study identifies disparities in energy access, consumption, and costs across various demographic and socio-economic segments of the population by analyzing the data. The insights acquired provide a more profound comprehension of the economic burden that households encounter.

Household electricity expenses. In the questionnaire, respondents were asked what their monthly household electricity expenses are, on average. Out of 1,000 consumers surveyed, 993 provided their responses, while 7 did not specify their spending. The responses of the 993 respondents were distributed as shown in Table 1.

	Number of respon-dence	Share of respon-dence %	Mid-point (Eur)	Total	% from total	Cumulative	Cumulative (normalized)
Up to 14 Eur	74	0,075	7	518	1,59	0,0745	0,0159
15-20 Eur	193	0,1944	17,5	3377,5	10,36	0,2689	0,1195
21-30 Eur	216	0,2175	25,5	5508	16,90	0,4864	0,2885
31-50 Eur	269	0,2709	40,5	10894,5	33,43	0,7573	0,6228
51 and more Eur	241	0,2427	51	12291	37,72	1	1

Table 1. Distribution of monthly household electricity expenses among respondents

Having performed cumulative calculations as indicated above, this enables us to attempt to calculate the Gini coefficient and at least theoretically try to assess energy inequalities on a scale measured by household electricity expenses. The Gini coefficient is derived from the Lorenz curve, which plots income distribution against the cumulative percentage of the population. It is a statistical measure used to quantify the level of inequality within a population, ranging from 0 to 1. A Gini coefficient of 0 represents perfect equality, while a coefficient of 1 indicates perfect inequality (higher values signify greater inequality). Thus, the Figure 1 below graphically represents the level of energy inequality as assessed by cumulative household electricity expenses and their distribution among respondents.

In order to calculate the Gini coefficient, it is necessary to calculate the definitive integral (0; 1) of the function Y = 0.7685*X^2 + 0.2362*X - 0.0025

The obtained results and calculated Gini coefficient of 12.8233% for household electricity expenses indicates a relatively low level of inequality in how these expenses are distributed among households. This low value suggests that most households have similar electricity expenses, with only minor differences between them. Economically, this could mean that households tend to consume similar amounts of electricity or that their energy needs are fairly uniform. However, this does not mean that energy inequality is absent. Energy inequality can still be present in various forms.

Natural gas expenditure. In the questionnaire, respondents who use natural gas were asked about their expenditure on it in the last year. Out of 1,000 respondents, 460 provided their expenditures, while 21 did not specify and 519 did not have such costs. The responses of the 460 respondents were distributed as indicated in Table 2.

	Number of respon-dence	Share of respon-dence %	Mid-point (Eur)	Total	% from total	Cumulative	Cumulative (normalized)
Up to 30 Eur	56	0,1217	15	840	35,77	0,1217	0,0358
31-60 Eur	129	0,2804	45,5	5869,5	24,99	0,4022	0,2857
61 and more Eur	275	0,5978	61	16775	71,43	1	1

Table 2. Distribution of natural gas expenditures among respondents in the last year

The calculated data allows for plotting the Lorenz curve (Figure 2) and subsequently calculating the Gini coefficient as well as for calculation of the Gini coefficient, it is necessary to calculate the definitive integral (0; 1) of the function Y = 0,4936*X^2 + 0,5209*X - 0,0133

The obtained results and calculated Gini coefficient of 8.835% for the distribution of natural gas expenditures among respondents indicate a relatively low level of inequality. This suggests that expenditures on natural gas are quite evenly distributed among the respondents, meaning most people spend similar amounts on natural gas with few extreme differences in spending levels. Economically, this low level of inequality implies that natural gas is relatively affordable and accessible to the majority of the population surveyed. If natural gas were expensive or difficult to access for lower-income households, we would expect to see a higher Gini coefficient, indicating greater inequality. The even distribution of expenditures might reflect homogeneity in the consumption patterns of natural gas among the respondents, potentially due to similar household sizes, similar heating and cooking needs, or uniform pricing policies across the surveyed population.

Heating costs. In the questionnaire, we asked respondents about their heating costs over the last year. Out of 1,000 respondents, 960 provided their costs, while 40 did not specify. The responses of the 960 respondents were distributed as shown in Table 3.

	Number of respon-dence	Share of respon-dence %	Mid-point (Eur)	Total	% from total	Cumulative	Cumulative (normalized)
Up to 250 Eur	74	0,2083	125	25000	5,06	0,2083	0,0506
251-400 Eur	193	0,1802	325,5	56311,5	11,40	0,3885	0,1647
401-800 Eur	216	0,3000	600,5	172944	35,03	0,6885	0,5149
801 and more Eur	269	0,3115	801	239499	48,51	1	1

Table 3. Distribution of annual heating costs among respondents

The calculated data allows for plotting the Lorenz curve (Figure 3) and subsequently calculating the Gini coefficient.

In order to calculate the Gini coefficient, the definite integral from 0 to 1 of the function Y = 0,8939*X^2 + 0,1182*X - 0,0063 has to be calculated.

The obtained results and calculated Gini coefficient of 14.92% for heating costs suggest that there is relatively low inequality in how heating expenses are distributed among the respondents. This means that most respondents likely experience similar heating costs, with only minor differences. The Gini coefficient is a measure of inequality, where 0 represents perfect equality (everyone has the same amount) and 100 represents perfect inequality (one person has everything). A lower Gini coefficient, such as 14.92%, indicates a more even distribution of costs among individuals. Several factors could contribute to this low level of inequality. For example, if respondents live in similar types of housing with comparable heating needs, their costs might be more uniform. Additionally, if heating costs are regulated or subsidized in the area where the respondents live, this could lead to more consistent expenses. Similarly, if respondents use similar heating systems, their costs would likely be more similar.

The low Gini coefficients for household electricity expenses (12.8233%), natural gas expenditures (8.835%), and heating costs (14.92%) indicate relatively low levels of inequality in these specific areas of household spending. Economically, these findings suggest that energy costs are fairly evenly distributed among households, implying several underlying factors at play. Firstly, the affordability and accessibility of these energy sources are likely significant contributors to the low inequality. For electricity, a Gini coefficient of 12.8233% suggests that electricity expenses are quite uniform across different households. This could imply that electricity is priced at a level that is affordable for most households, thus reducing significant disparities in consumption and expenditure. Similarly, the even lower Gini coefficient of 8.835% for natural gas expenditures suggests that natural gas is even more uniformly affordable and accessible. This low level of inequality indicates that households, regardless of their income levels, are able to consume similar amounts of natural gas. Heating costs, with a Gini coefficient of 14.92%, show slightly higher inequality but still remain low. This suggests that heating costs are relatively uniform among households, possibly due to similar heating needs.

Additionally, it was assessed how much of the respondents' income is allocated to taxes payable for electricity, gas, and heating, and the Figure 4 analyzing the relative frequency of the provided answers shows that the fluctuations are not very pronounced, and the maximum portion of taxable payments within their income is no more than 27%. The observation that respondents allocate no more than 27% of their income to electricity, gas, and heating costs can be explained by the relatively equitable income distribution within the surveyed population. This means that most households are spending a similar proportion of their income on utilities, leading to less variation in the responses. Additionally, households may adjust their consumption based on their income and utility costs, such as limiting heating during colder months or adopting energy-saving practices, to better manage their expenses. Together, these factors help explain why the portion of income spent on utilities remains relatively stable and does not exceed 27% of respondents' income.

Homogeneity in consumption patterns also contributes to these low Gini coefficients. If households have similar energy needs and usage habits, their expenditures on electricity, natural gas, and heating are likely to be comparable. This could be due to similar household sizes, living conditions, and energy consumption behaviors across the population. Despite the low Gini coefficients indicating low inequality in specific energy expenditures, energy inequality can still exist in other dimensions. Access to different energy sources can vary, with some households lacking access to renewable energy options or more efficient technologies, which provide long-term savings and environmental benefits. Moreover, the concept of energy burden, which refers to the proportion of household income spent on energy, can reveal hidden inequalities. Low-income households might experience higher energy burdens even if their absolute expenditures are similar to those of higher-income households, leading to financial stress and energy inequality. Quality of energy services is another aspect where inequality might be present. Households in underdeveloped areas might face frequent outages or poor-quality energy services, contributing to inequality in energy access and quality. Geographical disparities also play a role, with rural areas potentially facing higher energy costs or limited access to certain energy types compared to urban areas.

In overall, the low Gini coefficients for electricity, natural gas, and heating costs suggest a generally equitable distribution of these energy expenditures among households. The Gini coefficients reflect how evenly the reported expenditures are distributed among those who use these energy sources and have provided their expenditure data. These low values indicate that within this group, energy costs are fairly uniform, implying that most households spend similar amounts on these utilities. This uniformity could be due to effective energy policies, subsidies, and widespread access to affordable energy sources, which help to stabilize prices and make them accessible to a broad spectrum of households. However, focusing solely on Gini coefficients can obscure other forms of energy inequality. For instance, not all households may have equal access to different types of energy. Some households might lack access to natural gas or more efficient energy sources, which can lead to higher relative energy costs or limited energy options, contributing to energy inequality.

Energy burden, which refers to the proportion of household income spent on energy, can also reveal hidden inequalities. Even if absolute expenditures are similar, low-income households might spend a higher percentage of their income on energy, leading to financial stress and higher energy burdens. This indicates energy inequality despite low expenditure inequality. The quality and reliability of energy services can vary significantly. Households in underdeveloped or rural areas might experience frequent power outages, lower-quality energy services, or higher costs for the same services compared to urban areas. These geographical disparities contribute to energy inequality that is not captured by the Gini coefficients. Moreover, not all households have the means to invest in energy-efficient appliances or home improvements. Consequently, some households may spend more on energy due to inefficient usage, leading to higher overall costs and inequality in energy consumption and expenditures. Access to affordable and reliable energy has long-term impacts on health, education, and economic opportunities. Households struggling with high energy costs may face additional challenges, such as inadequate heating or cooling, which can affect their overall quality of life and long-term socioeconomic status.

The low Gini coefficients for each energy source suggest that the distribution of energy costs in Lithuania is relatively equitable, as evidenced by the analysis of household expenditures on electricity, natural gas, and heating. This implies that the financial burdens associated with energy expenses are consistent across the majority of households, indicating that they are widely accessible and affordable. Nevertheless, the uniformity in expenditure distribution suggests that energy costs are equitable; however, it is crucial to acknowledge that energy inequality may continue to exist in other domains, such as access to renewable energy technologies, energy quality, or geographical disparities. Consequently, the results suggest that the energy expenditure landscape is generally equitable. However, policymakers must persist in addressing more profound forms of energy inequality to guarantee that all households have access to sustainable, affordable, and reliable energy services.

This research investigates public attitudes toward renewable energy by conducting a representative survey that concentrates on the perceived benefits, barriers, and willingness to adopt these technologies. This method allows for a comprehensive evaluation of the extent to which climate objectives are in accordance with the current levels of energy inequality and public attitudes. Furthermore, a recent survey was conducted to determine the public's perspective on a variety of topics, including sustainable living practices, energy efficiency, and renewable energy. The results offer a preliminary assessment of the perspectives of individuals regarding the economic trade-offs associated with environmental responsibility, which is beneficial in assessing the feasibility of establishing a climate-neutral society and the additional measures required to guarantee a sustainable future for future generations.

When asked whether they would agree to pay more for electricity produced from renewable energy sources, the majority of respondents (75.9%) indicated they would not be willing to pay extra. This suggests that while there is general support for renewable energy in principle, many individuals are hesitant to bear the immediate financial burden. However, nearly one-quarter (23.9%) of respondents expressed a willingness to pay more, though their willingness was generally modest. Specifically, 19.6% would agree to pay up to 5% more, 3.8% would agree to a 5-10% increase, 0.3% would agree to a 11-25% increase, and only 0.2% would be willing to pay more than 25% extra. The small fraction who did not specify an answer (0.2%) suggests a slight uncertainty or indecision among the population. Economically, these findings reflect the principle of price elasticity of demand. The low willingness to pay significantly more for renewable energy indicates a relatively elastic demand for electricity, where consumers are sensitive to price increases. The modest willingness to pay slightly more could be interpreted as a recognition of the environmental benefits, but it also underscores the importance of keeping energy costs affordable.

The survey also asked respondents if they would agree to reduce their household energy consumption as a means to combat climate change, for example, by lowering home temperatures or doing laundry less frequently. A significant majority (61.3%) were not willing to make such reductions, highlighting the challenge of encouraging voluntary changes in consumption behavior. Of those willing to reduce consumption, 32.1% would only agree to a slight reduction (up to 5%), while smaller percentages would agree to more substantial cuts—5% would reduce consumption by 5-10%, 0.9% by 11-15%, and only 0.4% by more than 25%. The reluctance to reduce consumption even slightly suggests that comfort and convenience are highly valued, and any policy aimed at reducing energy use may need to offer compensatory incentives.

When it comes to purchasing appliances, the survey revealed that an overwhelming majority (84.8%) prefer energy-efficient options. This preference could be driven by the long-term cost savings associated with lower energy bills, in addition to environmental considerations. Meanwhile, 14.8% of respondents did not consider energy efficiency a priority, potentially due to the higher upfront costs of energy-efficient appliances or a lack of awareness of the potential savings. A small percentage (0.4%) did not provide an answer. The use of energy-saving light bulbs is another area where most respondents (90%) are aligned with energy-efficient practices. The near-universal adoption of these bulbs may be due to their proven cost-effectiveness over time, despite their higher initial price. The 9.6% who do not use such bulbs may be influenced by factors such as cost, availability, or lack of information about the benefits. Again, a small percentage (0.4%) did not respond.

Conservation of resources, such as water, heating, and electricity, was reported by a majority of respondents (81.9%), indicating widespread engagement in resource-saving practices at home. However, 17.7% admitted that they do not conserve these resources, which could reflect either a lack of awareness, indifference, or economic constraints that limit the ability to invest in conservation measures. A small portion (0.4%) did not provide an answer.

The survey also revealed that a strong majority (86.4%) of respondents actively sort their waste, demonstrating a commitment to recycling and environmental stewardship. However, 13.2% do not engage in waste sorting, which may point to barriers such as lack of infrastructure, inconvenience, or insufficient motivation. A small fraction (0.4%) did not specify their behavior.

When asked about the potential use of renewable energy sources in their homes for heating, cooling, hot water, and electricity generation, 73.7% of respondents expressed interest. This indicates a general openness to transitioning to renewable energy, likely driven by both environmental concerns and potential long-term cost savings. On the other hand, 25.7% were not interested, possibly due to perceived high upfront costs, lack of access, or skepticism about the benefits. A small percentage (0.6%) did not provide an answer.

Regarding vehicle ownership, a large majority (93.2%) reported that they do not currently drive a new, efficient, and low-emission car. This is likely due to the higher purchase price of such vehicles, despite the potential for savings on fuel and maintenance. However, when asked if they would like to drive such a vehicle, 68.3% said they would, suggesting that cost is a significant barrier to adoption. The 31.3% who would not prefer such a car may be influenced by factors such as brand loyalty, performance concerns, or lack of infrastructure for electric vehicles. A small percentage (0.4%) did not provide an answer.

Finally, the survey explored sustainable living practices when purchasing products. The responses were nearly evenly split, with 48% considering sustainable practices and 51.6% not prioritizing them. This divide suggests that while there is growing awareness of sustainability, convenience, price, and other factors still play a significant role in consumer decision-making. The small portion (0.4%) that did not provide an answer may reflect uncertainty or lack of strong opinions on the matter.

The survey results reveal a complex but revealing picture of public attitudes towards sustainability and the transition to a climate-neutral society. While there is broad support for environmentally friendly practices, there are significant economic and behavioral barriers that could slow progress. A majority of respondents are hesitant to pay more for renewable energy, reflecting the challenge of balancing environmental goals with economic realities. This reluctance highlights the importance of making renewable energy more affordable and accessible to encourage broader adoption. Similarly, while many people support the idea of energy efficiency—evidenced by the widespread use of energy-saving light bulbs and a preference for energy-efficient appliances—there is resistance to making more substantial changes, such as reducing household energy consumption. This indicates that while small, cost-effective changes are acceptable to most, larger sacrifices are less popular, which could hinder efforts to reduce overall energy demand. The strong interest in using renewable energy at home and driving low-emission vehicles suggests a readiness for change, but the high costs associated with these technologies are likely barriers that need to be addressed through incentives, subsidies, and further innovation.

Overall, the results point to a population that is generally supportive of moving towards a climate-neutral society but is constrained by economic factors and a reluctance to compromise on comfort and convenience. To achieve climate neutrality, policymakers will need to focus on making sustainable options both more affordable and appealing, while also educating the public on the long-term benefits of these choices. Bridging the gap between environmental awareness and actionable commitment is essential for the successful transition to a sustainable future.

A fundamental tension between economic realities and environmental principles is revealed by the public's perspective on energy efficiency and renewable energy systems. Recent surveys indicate that, despite the widespread endorsement of green energy and sustainability as a concept, individuals are hesitant to incur the financial expenses and lifestyle modifications required to effect a substantial transition to a climate-neutral society. This hesitancy is indicative of more profound economic considerations and energy justice concerns, as not all individuals are equally competent or interested in participating in the energy transition ³⁷^, ³⁸^, ³⁹^,²⁴.

One significant discovery is that a substantial proportion of respondents (75.9%) are averse to pay a premium for electricity produced from renewable sources. This exemplifies a fundamental economic concern: the price elasticity of demand. Even when price increases are associated with socially advantageous outcomes, such as the reduction of carbon emissions, individuals are exceedingly susceptible to them ⁴⁰^, ⁴¹^, ⁴². The majority of respondents were only prepared to accept modest increases in energy costs, and only 23.9% were open to paying more. This reluctance implies that a significant number of individuals prioritize immediate economic concerns over long-term environmental benefits, particularly given that household energy expenditures already consume a relatively substantial portion of disposable income ⁴³^, ⁴⁴.

It is intriguing that this conduct is in stark contrast to the widespread endorsement of energy-efficient products. Energy-efficient appliances were favored by an overwhelming majority (84.8%), and 90% of respondents reported using energy-saving light bulbs. These decisions are indicative of a cost-benefit analysis in which the initial expenses are mitigated by the long-term savings on energy bills, thereby increasing their appeal to consumers. The preference for actions that generate immediate, personal financial gains, as opposed to abstract, collective benefits, is indicated by the disparity in willingness to invest in energy efficiency versus pay a premium for renewable energy. This is evidenced by the reluctance to reduce energy consumption, as 61.3% of respondents were unwilling to decrease their domestic energy consumption, even if such reductions could aid in the fight against climate change.

Conversely, the distribution of household energy expenditures indicates that energy costs are relatively equitable. The low Gini coefficients for residential electricity expenses (12.82%), natural gas expenditures (8.84%), and heating costs (14.92%) suggest that these expenses are fairly uniformly distributed across households. This implies that energy sources are generally affordable and accessible, which contributes to a relatively equitable distribution of financial burdens associated with these utilities. Effective pricing and accessibility are likely to be the reasons why households, irrespective of their income levels, experience comparable energy costs. Nevertheless, the complexities of energy justice are not negated by this general equity in expenditure. Energy inequality persists in other dimensions, despite the low Gini coefficients, which suggest a generally equitable distribution of costs. For instance, lower-income households may have restricted access to renewable energy sources or more energy-efficient technologies, which can lead to increased relative energy costs and less favorable energy outcomes for these populations. Furthermore, the concept of energy burden, which involves low-income households allocating a greater proportion of their income to energy, underscores concealed disparities that are not entirely represented by Gini coefficients.

The results of the survey indicate that consumers are more likely to respond to incentives that directly affect their finances in an economic sense. The advantage of implementing energy-efficient appliances or light bulbs is evident: reduced energy costs ⁴⁵. Nevertheless, the benefits of renewable energy are more dispersed throughout society, resulting in less tangible personal rewards for those who pay a premium for it ⁴⁶. This emphasizes the necessity for policymakers to increase the financial accessibility of renewable energy, potentially through subsidies or reimbursements, in order to address this reluctance.

These discoveries are alarming from the standpoint of energy justice. The risk that the benefits of renewable energy will be concentrated among wealthier households who can afford the higher costs is underscored by the hesitancy to pay more for green energy, leaving lower-income populations dependent on less sustainable, cheaper energy sources ⁴⁷^, ⁴⁸. This would exacerbate preexisting inequalities, resulting in an unequal distribution of the economic and environmental advantages of the energy transition.

Simultaneously, the widespread adoption of energy-efficient technologies such as light bulbs and appliances indicates that individuals are more inclined to make environmentally friendly decisions when the economic incentives are evident. However, energy justice concerns persist, as not all households are able to afford the initial expenses of energy-efficient appliances, despite the substantial long-term savings. It will be essential to address these economic disparities by implementing targeted programs that assist low-income households in the adoption of these technologies in order to achieve a fair energy transition.
The disparity in energy consumption also underscores the necessity of incorporating energy justice into policies that are designed to decrease the overall energy demand ⁴⁹^,⁵⁰^, ²⁴. In order to alter behavior, it will be necessary to implement more aggressive policies or incentives, as a significant number of respondents are averse to voluntarily reduce their energy consumption. Nevertheless, it is crucial that these policies are implemented in a manner that does not disproportionately affect those who are already grappling with energy costs.

The survey findings indicate that the general population is in favor of environmental objectives, but they are constrained by economic considerations. Despite a distinct preference for energy-efficient products that provide personal financial savings, there is a reluctance to make larger sacrifices, such as paying a premium for renewable energy or reducing energy consumption, where the benefits are less immediately apparent. This underscores the necessity for policymakers to reconcile environmental objectives with economic realities, particularly by means of financial incentives that render sustainable alternatives more affordable. Furthermore, it is imperative to prevent these policies from exacerbating existing inequalities in order to establish a climate-neutral and equitable society.

A comprehensive approach that integrates energy justice with climate action, addressing both environmental and societal dimensions, is required to attain climate neutrality by 2050, as the European Union's ambition mandates. The survey data indicates a substantial discrepancy between environmental principles and economic realities. Although there is widespread support for energy efficiency and sustainability, there is a significant reluctance among individuals to incur additional costs for renewable energy and make significant lifestyle adjustments. This reluctance underscores a more profound economic concern, in which the immediate financial repercussions frequently overshadow the long-term environmental advantages.

Low Gini coefficients for electricity, natural gas, and heating in Lithuania indicate a generally equitable distribution of energy costs, as evidenced by the analysis of household energy expenditures. This suggests that, on average, energy expenses are relatively consistent and accessible across various residences. Nevertheless, the uniformity in expenditure distribution suggests that energy costs are equitable; however, it is crucial to acknowledge that energy inequality may continue to exist in other domains, such as access to renewable energy technologies, energy quality, or geographical disparities.

A stark contrast is revealed between the adoption of energy-efficient products and public attitudes toward renewable energy. Contrasting the high adoption rates of energy-efficient technologies with the pervasive reluctance to pay premiums for renewable energy, this suggests that consumers are more motivated by immediate, tangible financial benefits than by broader, less perceptible environmental gains. This discrepancy underscores the importance of policymakers implementing mechanisms such as subsidies or financial incentives to improve the financial accessibility of renewable energy. It is imperative to develop these policies in a manner that does not disproportionately affect lower-income households, which may already be burdened by higher energy costs.

It is imperative to address both the economic and social aspects of energy inequality in order to achieve a climate-neutral and equitable energy transition. In order to achieve this, it is necessary to ensure that all households, particularly those in vulnerable positions, have equitable access to energy resources and technologies, as well as to make sustainable energy options more affordable and alluring. The EU can work toward a sustainable and inclusive climate future by ensuring that environmental objectives are in alignment with economic realities and that existing inequalities are not exacerbated. It will be essential to bridge the gap between environmental awareness and actionable commitment in order to progress toward the EU's climate objectives and protect the planet for future generations.

Limitations. The research on energy inequality and public attitudes toward renewable energy may encounter numerous constraints. Although the survey is intended to be representative, the generalizability of the results may still be influenced by sample bias, as specific demographics may be underrepresented or overrepresented. Furthermore, recall biases, misunderstandings of questions, or a reluctance to disclose personal financial information can compromise the veracity of self-reported data on household energy expenditures and attitudes. The study may not completely capture the potential impact of changing economic conditions and energy prices on household expenditures and public attitudes. The study may also fail to adequately address regional disparities in energy costs and access, particularly between urban and rural areas. The survey data may not fully capture the intricacy of the energy burden, particularly for lower-income households. The research may not adequately address factors such as the quality of energy services and household energy efficiency, which are also critical. Additionally, although the low Gini coefficients for electricity, natural gas, and heating costs indicate a generally equitable distribution of these expenses among households, this metric may not completely capture the intricacy of energy inequality. The Gini coefficient is a measure of distributional equality in expenditure, but it does not consider other aspects of energy justice, such as the quality of energy services or access to renewable energy technologies. Consequently, the Gini coefficients may not adequately capture concealed forms of energy inequality, such as the disproportionate impact on lower-income households or disparities in access to energy-efficient technologies. This underscores the necessity of a more nuanced analysis to comprehensively resolve these underlying issues.

Funding

This research was funded by RESEARCH COUNCIL OF LITHUANIA (LMTLT), grant number S-PD-22-68.

Author contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, writing—original draft preparation, L.Volodzkiene; writing—review and editing, supervision, D.Streimikiene.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval

All methods were carried out in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations.
All experimental protocols were approved by the Vilmorus Ethics Committee.
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects and/or their legal guardians.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this research are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Pérez De Las Heras, B. EU Green Transition in Times of Geopolitical Pressures: Accelerating or Slowing the Pace Towards Climate Neutrality? Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 13 (2), 1. https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2024.v13n2p1(2024).
Rečka, L., Máca, V., Ščasný, M. Green Deal and Carbon Neutrality Assessment of Czechia. Energies 16 (5), 2152. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16052152 (2023).
Vandyck, T., Della Valle, N., Temursho, U., Weitzel, M. EU Climate Action through an Energy Poverty Lens. Sci. Rep. 13 (1), 6040. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-32705-2 (2023).
Sasse, J.-P., Trutnevyte, E. A Low-Carbon Electricity Sector in Europe Risks Sustaining Regional Inequalities in Benefits and Vulnerabilities. Nat. Commun. 14 (1), 2205. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-37946-3 (2023).
Nayna Schwerdtle, P., Cavan, E., Pilz, L., Oggioni, S. D., Crosta, A., Kaleyeva, V., Karim, P. H., Szarvas, F., Naryniecki, T., Jungmann, M. Interlinkages between Climate Change Impacts, Public Attitudes, and Climate Action—Exploring Trends before and after the Paris Agreement in the EU. Sustainability 15 (9), 7542. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097542 (2023).
Heffron, R. J., De Fontenelle, L. Diffusing Energy Justice into the New ‘Social Contract’ for Society. In The Power of Energy Justice & the Social Contract; Heffron, R. J., De Fontenelle, L., Eds.; Just Transitions; Springer Nature Switzerland: Cham 33, pp 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46282-5 (2024).
Fourcade, G. I. P. Energy Justice as a Key to Achieve Affordable Energy. In The Power of Energy Justice & the Social Contract; Heffron, R. J., De Fontenelle, L., Eds.; Just Transitions; Springer Nature Switzerland: Cham 6, pp 35–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46282-5 (2024).
Mose, T. M. Minimum Standards of Access to Energy Services: Underpinning Energy Justice and Legal Action. In The Power of Energy Justice & the Social Contract; Heffron, R. J., De Fontenelle, L., Eds.; Just Transitions; Springer Nature Switzerland: Cham 31, pp 235–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46282-5_(2024).
Vågerö, O., Inderberg, T. H. J., Zeyringer, M. Philosophical Views of Justice and Their Implications in Energy Systems Modelling. arXiv June 23. http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.16186 (2024).
Heffron, R. J. Energy Justice—The First Step in an Energy Decision Today. In The Power of Energy Justice & the Social Contract; Heffron, R. J., De Fontenelle, L., Eds.; Just Transitions; Springer Nature Switzerland: Cham 1, pp 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46282-5_(2024).
He, Y. A Discussion of Energy Poverty and Energy Injustice in The Case of Texas, U.S. Highlights Bus. Econ. Manag. 5, 55–64. https://doi.org/10.54097/hbem.v5i.5005 (2023).
Furszyfer Del Rio, D. D., Sovacool, B. K., Griffiths, S., Foley, A. M., Furszyfer Del Rio, J. A Cross-Country Analysis of Sustainability, Transport and Energy Poverty. Npj Urban Sustain. 3 (1), 41. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-023-00121-0 (2023).
Zhang, L., Middlemiss, L., Philips, I. Who Is Vulnerable to Energy Poverty in China? Heliyon 9 (6), e16585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16585 (2023).
Okyere, M. A., Lin, B. Invisible among the Vulnerable: A Nuanced Perspective of Energy Poverty at the Intersection of Gender and Disability in South Africa. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 10 (1), 227. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01604-2 (2023).
Hanke, F., Guyet, R. The Struggle of Energy Communities to Enhance Energy Justice: Insights from 113 German Cases. Energy Sustain. Soc. 13 (1), 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-023-00388-2 (2023).
Hazrati, M. Social Acceptance for Renewable Energy Technologies: The Role of the Energy Justice Framework. In The Power of Energy Justice & the Social Contract; Heffron, R. J., De Fontenelle, L., Eds.; Just Transitions; Springer Nature Switzerland: Cham 13, pp 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46282-5_(2024).
Hajjar, C. Energy Justice For Real: Participation, Responsibility and Power, University of Groningen. https://doi.org/10.33612/diss.688239381 (2023).
Immonen, A., Kopsakangas-Savolainen, M. Capturing Consumers’ Awareness and the Intention to Support Carbon Neutrality through Energy Efficient Consumption. Energies 15 (11), 4022. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15114022 (2022).
Biresselioglu, M. E., Demir, M. H., Altinci, S. Understanding the Citizen’s Role in the Transition to a Smart Energy System: Are We Ready? Sustainability 14 (10), 5902. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105902 (2022).
Vega-Araújo, J. The Power of Energy Justice for Attaining and Maintaining Acceptance for Renewable Energy Projects. In The Power of Energy Justice & the Social Contract; Heffron, R. J., De Fontenelle, L., Eds.; Just Transitions; Springer Nature Switzerland: Cham 20, pp 147–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46282-5 (2024).
Nakanwagi, S. Utilising Recognition Justice to Bridge Climate and Energy Financing Gaps in the Global South. In The Power of Energy Justice & the Social Contract; Heffron, R. J., De Fontenelle, L., Eds.; Just Transitions; Springer Nature Switzerland: Cham 23; pp 171–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46282-5_(2024).
Leal-Arcas, R., Gasimov, A., Reddy, V. S. Energy Security, Decarbonization, and the Environmental Justice Movement. Sustain. Environ. 8 (2), p53. https://doi.org/10.22158/se.v8n2p53 (2023).
Timmermann, C., Noboa, E. Energy Sovereignty: A Values-Based Conceptual Analysis. Sci. Eng. Ethics 28 (6), 54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-022-00409-x (2022).
Baker, E. D. A Just Energy Transition Requires Research at the Intersection of Policy and Technology. PLOS Clim. 1 (10), e0000084. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000084 (2022).
Astola, M., Laes, E., Bombaerts, G., Ryszawska, B., Rozwadowska, M., Szymanski, P., Ruess, A., Nyborg, S., Hansen, M. Community Heroes and Sleeping Members: Interdependency of the Tenets of Energy Justice. Sci. Eng. Ethics 28 (5), 45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-022-00384-3 (2022).
Brandstedt, E., Brülde, B. Towards a Theory of Pure Procedural Climate Justice. J. Appl. Philos. 36 (5), 785–799. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12357 (2019).
Sağlam, Y., Erdem, M. S. Should the European Union Prioritize Renewble Energy or Tackle Energy Poverty? Int. J. Energy Stud. 9 (2), 255–277. https://doi.org/10.58559/ijes.1471770 (2024).
Certomà, C., Corsini, F., Di Giacomo, M., Guerrazzi, M. Beyond Income and Inequality: The Role of Socio-Political Factors for Alleviating Energy Poverty in Europe. Soc. Indic. Res. 169 (1–2), 167–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-023-03148-z (2023).
Halkos, G. E., Aslanidis, P.-S. C. Addressing Multidimensional Energy Poverty Implications on Achieving Sustainable Development. Energies 16 (9), 3805. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16093805 (2023).
Volodzkiene, L., Streimikiene, D. Towards Energy Equity: Understanding and Addressing Multifaceted Energy Inequality. Energies 17 (17), 4500. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17174500 (2024).
Montenegro, R. C., Fragkos, P., Dobbins, A. H., Schmid, D., Pye, S., Fahl, U. Beyond the Energy System: Modeling Frameworks Depicting Distributional Impacts for Interdisciplinary Policy Analysis. Energy Technol. 9 (1), 2000668. https://doi.org/10.1002/ente.202000668 (2021).
Yao, X., Yasmeen, R., Padda, I. U. H., Shah, W. U. H., Kamal, M. A. Inequalities by Energy Sources: An Assessment of Environmental Quality. Plos One 15 (3), e0230503. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230503 (2020).
Dias, R. The Complex Interconnectedness of Climate Change and Social Inequality. In Harmony of Knowledge: Exploring Interdisciplinary Synergie; Seven Editora. https://doi.org/10.56238/sevened2023.006-119 (2024).
Carmichael, R. Exploring Environmental Inequalities among Marginalized Communities across the World. Int. J. Humanity Soc. Sci. 1 (1), 30–40. https://doi.org/10.47941/ijhss.1430 (2023).
Gattinara, G., Noll-Ehlers, M. The Scope and Requirements of Public Participation in EU Environmental Law. In Sustainability through Participation?; Peters, B., Lohse, E. J., Eds.; Brill | Nijhoff; pp 139–175. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004509382_007 (2023).
Mees, H. L. P. Why Do Citizens Engage in Climate Action? A Comprehensive Framework of Individual Conditions and a Proposed Research Approach. Environ. Policy Gov. 32 (3), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1981 (2022).
(Pepe, L. M. Energy Education: A Cosmopolitan Challenge to Ensure Justice in the Transition. In The Power of Energy Justice & the Social Contract; Heffron, R. J., De Fontenelle, L., Eds.; Just Transitions; Springer Nature Switzerland: Cham, pp 23–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46282-5_4 (2024).
Sierro, F., Blumer, Y. Material Energy Citizenship through Participation in Citizen-Financed Photovoltaic Projects. Energy Sustain. Soc. 14 (1), 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-024-00465-0 (2024).
Cheng, A. W. J., Lee, H. F. Energy Transition towards Sustainable Development: Perspective of Individuals’ Engagement Amid Transition Process. Sustainability 14 (16), 10381. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610381 (2022).
Zhou, R., Fukuda, H., Li, Y., Wang, Y. Comparison of Willingness to Pay for Quality Air and Renewable Energy Considering Urban Living Experience. Energies 16 (2), 992. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16020992 (2023).
Gârdan, I. P., Micu, A., Paștiu, C. A., Micu, A. E., Gârdan, D. A. Consumers’ Attitude towards Renewable Energy in the Context of the Energy Crisis. Energies 16 (2), 676. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16020676 (2023).
Ergenekon Arslan, A. Do Subjective Norms and Willingness to Overpay Have an Effect on the Intention to Use Renewable Energy Sources? Anadolu Üniversitesi Sos. Bilim. Derg. 22 (4), 1221–1254. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.1225905 (2022).
Bardsley, N., Ceddia, G., McCloy, R., Pfuderer, S. Why Economic Valuation Does Not Value the Environment: Climate Policy as Collective Endeavour. Environ. Values 31 (3), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327121X16081160834740 (2022).
Welling, M., Zawojska, E., Sagebiel, J. Information, Consequentiality and Credibility in Stated Preference Surveys: A Choice Experiment on Climate Adaptation. Environ. Resour. Econ. 82 (1), 257–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-022-00675-0 (2022).
Sobocińska, M., Mazurek-Łopacińska, K., Graczyk, A., Kociszewski, K., Krupowicz, J. Decision-Making Processes of Renewable Energy Consumers Compared to Other Categories of Ecological Products. Energies 15 (17), 6272. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15176272 (2022).
Pereira, D. S., Marques, A. C., Fuinhas, J. A. Are Renewables Affecting Income Distribution and Increasing the Risk of Household Poverty? Energy 170, 791–803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.12.199 (2019).
Streimikiene, D. Renewable Energy Technologies in Households: Challenges and Low Carbon Energy Transition Justice. Econ. Sociol. 15 (3), 108–120. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2022/15-3/6 (2022).
Priesmann, J., Spiegelburg, S., Madlener, R., Praktiknjo, A. Energy Transition and Social Justice: Do Renewable Energy Levies Have an Impact on Income Distribution and Energy Poverty?. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-754301/v1 (2021).
Czarnecka, M.; Krazniewski, M. Solving Energy Justice in the European Union. In The Power of Energy Justice & the Social Contract; Heffron, R. J., De Fontenelle, L., Eds.; Just Transitions; Springer Nature Switzerland: Cham, pp 193–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46282-5_26 (2024).
Heleno, M.; Sigrin, B.; Popovich, N.; Heeter, J.; Jain Figueroa, A.; Reiner, M.; Reames, T. Optimizing Equity in Energy Policy Interventions: A Quantitative Decision-Support Framework for Energy Justice. Appl. Energy 325, 119771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.119771 (2022).

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Revision requested
12 Nov, 2024
Reviews received at journal
12 Nov, 2024
Reviews received at journal
26 Oct, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
24 Oct, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
16 Oct, 2024
Reviewers invited by journal
15 Oct, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
15 Oct, 2024
Editor invited by journal
11 Oct, 2024
Submission checks completed at journal
11 Oct, 2024
First submitted to journal
19 Sep, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

Integrating Energy Justice with Economic Realities: Survey Results on Renewable Energy Support and Household Expenditure Disparities

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Methodology

Analyzing energy inequality via household expenditure distributions: a comprehensive study of electricity, natural gas, and heating expenses

Balancing Green Ambitions with Economic Realities: Public Opinion on Renewable Energy

Discussion

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1