| Literature DB >> 34545317 |
Liping Ding1,2, Yin Shi1, Chenchen He1,2, Qiyao Dai1, Zumeng Zhang1, Jiaxin Li1, Ling Zhou3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Photovoltaic Poverty Alleviation Projects (PPAPs) have been implemented in Chinese rural areas since 2014. As a new energy policy, PPAPs have played an important role in alleviating rural poverty. However, the adoption of solar PV faces multiple barriers from the perspective of beneficiaries. Therefore, this study aims to discuss and analyze factors affecting beneficiaries' satisfaction and their trust in State Grid, promoting the adoption of solar PV.Entities:
Keywords: Adoption; Beneficiaries’ satisfaction; Photovoltaic Poverty Alleviation Projects (PPAPs); Solar PV; Trust in State Grid
Year: 2021 PMID: 34545317 PMCID: PMC8443908 DOI: 10.1186/s13705-021-00306-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Energy Sustain Soc Impact factor: 2.811
Fig. 1Conceptual model of this study
Fig. 2Distribution of study areas. Notes 1—Haiyuan county; 2—Yongning county; 3—Chahar Right Middle Banner; 4—Gonghe county; 5—Tongwei county; 6—Tianzhen county; 7—Changyang county; 8—Shangcai county; 9—Jinzhai county
Fig. 4Sample size of study areas. Notes The selecting principle in village-level sampling: more than 50% project villages were selected in each sample county; The selecting principle in household-level sampling: 20–30 poor households were selected from each project village
Demographic characteristics of beneficiaries
| Demographic profile | Number of beneficiaries ( | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 714 | 76.9 |
| Female | 214 | 23.1 |
| Total | 928 | 100 |
| Age | ||
| < 20 | 6 | 0.6 |
| 20–29 | 24 | 2.6 |
| 30–39 | 62 | 6.7 |
| 40–49 | 218 | 23.5 |
| 50–59 | 256 | 27.6 |
| 60–69 | 215 | 23.2 |
| > 69 | 147 | 15.8 |
| Total | 928 | 100.0 |
| Education level | ||
| Illiteracy | 165 | 17.8 |
| Primary school | 468 | 50.4 |
| Junior high school | 245 | 26.4 |
| High school | 45 | 4.8 |
| Specialist | 2 | 0.2 |
| University | 3 | 0.3 |
| Total | 928 | 100.0 |
| Household registration | ||
| Rural area | 915 | 98.6 |
| Town | 13 | 1.4 |
| Total | 928 | 100.0 |
| Whether a village leader | ||
| Yes | 912 | 98.3 |
| No | 16 | 1.7 |
| Total | 928 | 100.0 |
Source: The authors compiled the data through the questionaire survey, which conducted a 3-month field survey from June, 2018 to September, 2018
Descriptive statistics of the scale items (mean and standard deviation)
| Constructs | Item | Mean | Standard deviation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Social influence | SI 1 | 3.412 | 1.2008 |
| SI 2 | 3.533 | 1.1505 | |
| SI 3 | 3.574 | 1.1532 | |
| Behavioral expectation | BE 1 | 4.558 | 0.6690 |
| BE 2 | 4.568 | 0.7483 | |
| BE 3 | 4.489 | 0.6935 | |
| BE 4 | 4.697 | 0.5782 | |
| Perceived quality | PQ 1 | 3.319 | 0.8069 |
| PQ 2 | 3.366 | 0.9413 | |
| PQ 3 | 3.723 | 1.0515 | |
| Environmental perception | EP 1 | 3.575 | 0.8340 |
| EP 2 | 3.422 | 0.8779 | |
| EP 3 | 3.515 | 0.8982 | |
| Beneficiaries’ satisfaction | BS1 | 3.860 | 0.6649 |
| BS 2 | 3.871 | 0.6606 | |
| BS 3 | 3.843 | 0.6428 | |
| BS 4 | 3.955 | 0.6454 | |
| BS 5 | 4.072 | 0.5968 | |
| Trust in State Grid | TSG 1 | 4.000 | 0.7461 |
| TSG 2 | 4.011 | 0.7532 | |
| TSG3 | 3.920 | 0.8591 | |
Source: From the calculation results of SPSS 22.0 and AMOS 23.0 software by the authors
The bold indicates the average value of every construct
Topic design of latent variables
| Latent variable | Item | Kurtosis | Skew |
|---|---|---|---|
| Social Influence (SI) | SI1 Government officials want me to use solar PV power generation | − 0.622 | − 0.502 |
| SI 2 The poverty alleviation leader in the village hope that I will use solar PV power generation | − 0.248 | − 0.660 | |
| SI 3 Village leader want me to use solar PV power generation | − 0.315 | − 0.610 | |
| Behavioral Expectation(BE) | BE 1 I hope the government will honor its promise and give us the subsidies we deserve | 2.656 | − 1.587 |
| BE 2 I hope the government will strengthen the maintenance of solar PV power generation facilities | 1.984 | − 1.435 | |
| BE 3 I hope that the solar PV policy will remain stable and not become too fast | 1.256 | − 1.272 | |
| BE 4 I hope the government can provide us with all the support needed for solar PV power generation projects | 4.738 | − 2.064 | |
| Perceived Quality (PQ) | PQ 1 I will be able to better manage household energy use | − 0.108 | 0.136 |
| PQ 2 I will be able to better control household energy expenditure | − 0.258 | − 0.104 | |
PQ 3 Our community/village will be able to better protect the environment | − 0.252 | − 0.562 | |
| Environmental Perception (EP) | EC 1 I am concerned about environmental problems such as air and water pollution caused by excessive use of energy | − 0.348 | − 0.067 |
| EC 2 I’m worried that excessive use of energy will increase carbon emissions | − 0.133 | 0.065 | |
| EC 3 I worry that excessive use of energy will cause the natural environment to be unable to recover | − 0.243 | − 0.054 | |
| Beneficiaries’ Satisfaction (BS) | BS 1 How do you think the rationality of collective income distribution of PPAPs | 0.895 | − 0.541 |
| BS 2 How satisfied are you with the subsidy for PPAPs | 0.274 | − 0.304 | |
| BS 3 How satisfied are you with the follow-up management and protection of PPAPs | 1.426 | − 0.600 | |
| BS 4 How satisfied are you with the implementation of PPAPs | 1.463 | − 0.584 | |
| BS 5 How do you think the sustainability of PPAPs | − 0.224 | − 0.025 | |
| Trust in State Grid (TSG) | TSG 1 I believe that State Grid is credible in PPAPs | 0.346 | − 0.483 |
| TSG 2 I believe that State Grid provides good service in PPAPs | 0.609 | − 0.578 | |
| TSG 3 I believe that State Grid has relations with their customers | 1.055 | − 0.827 |
Source: these questions are designed by the authors based on the previous literature
Factor loading matrix by orthogonal method
| Variable | SI | BE | PQ | EP | BS | TSG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SI 1 | 0.915 | |||||
| SI 2 | 0.916 | |||||
| SI 3 | 0.917 | |||||
| BE 1 | 0.783 | |||||
| BE 2 | 0.821 | |||||
| BE 3 | 0.792 | |||||
| BE 4 | 0.757 | |||||
| PQ 1 | 0.863 | |||||
| PQ 2 | 0.879 | |||||
| PQ 3 | 0.734 | |||||
| EP 1 | 0.844 | |||||
| EP 2 | 0.830 | |||||
| EP 3 | 0.868 | |||||
| BS 1 | 0.805 | |||||
| BS 2 | 0.841 | |||||
| BS 3 | 0.729 | |||||
| BS 4 | 0.797 | |||||
| BS 5 | 0.684 | |||||
| TSG 1 | 0.775 | |||||
| TSG 2 | 0.860 | |||||
| TSG 3 | 0.844 |
Source: The results based on SPSS 22.0 software calculations by the authors
Construct validity and reliability
| Variable | Cronbach’s alpha | CR | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|
| SI | 0.944 | 0.9438 | 0.8484 |
| BE | 0.814 | 0.8167 | 0.5277 |
| PQ | 0.821 | 0.8440 | 0.6484 |
| EP | 0.845 | 0.8239 | 0.6171 |
| BS | 0.840 | 0.8201 | 0.4800 |
| TSG | 0.805 | 0.8118 | 0.5913 |
Source: The results based on the AMOS 23.0 software calculations by the authors
Standardized regression weights (factor loading)
| Items | Latent construct | Estimate | |
|---|---|---|---|
| SI 1 | < — | SI | 0.907 |
| SI 2 | < — | SI | 0.938 |
| SI 3 | < — | SI | 0.918 |
| BE 1 | < — | BE | 0.764 |
| BE 2 | < — | BE | 0.751 |
| BE 3 | < — | BE | 0.730 |
| BE 4 | < — | BE | 0.656 |
| PQ 1 | < — | PQ | 0.867 |
| PQ 2 | < — | PQ | 0.894 |
| PQ 3 | < — | PQ | 0.628 |
| EP 1 | < — | EP | 0.666 |
| EP 2 | < — | EP | 0.973 |
| EP 3 | < — | EP | 0.679 |
| BS 1 | < — | BS | 0.598 |
| BS 2 | < — | BS | 0.654 |
| BS 3 | < — | BS | 0.687 |
| BS 4 | < — | BS | 0.828 |
| BS 5 | < — | BS | 0.676 |
| TSG 1 | < — | TSG | 0.686 |
| TSG 2 | < — | TSG | 0.828 |
| TSG 3 | < — | TSG | 0.786 |
Source: The results based on the AMOS 23.0 software calculations by the authors
Discriminant validity
| Variable | SI | BE | PQ | EP | BS | TSG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SI | 0.921 | |||||
| BE | 0.264 | 0.726 | ||||
| PQ | 0.308 | 0.143 | 0.805 | |||
| EP | − 0.34 | 0.245 | 0.28 | 0.786 | ||
| BS | − 0.17 | 0.108 | 0.085 | 0.225 | 0.693 | |
| TSG | 0.08 | 0.029 | 0.182 | 0.205 | 0.182 | 0.769 |
Source: The results based on the AMOS 23.0 software calculations by the authors
Fit indexes
| Fit indexes | Recommended value | Measurement model |
|---|---|---|
| Absolute Fit Indexes | ||
| | ≤ 5 | 4.156 |
| RMR | ≤ 0.05 | 0.046 |
| SRMR | ≤ 0.05 | 0.0545 |
| RMSEA | ≤ 0.08 | 0.058 |
| GFI | ≥ 0.9 | 0.928 |
| AGFI | ≥ 0.9 | 0.903 |
| Value-Added Fitness Indexes | ||
| NFI | ≥ 0.9 | 0.931 |
| RFI | ≥ 0.9 | 0.916 |
| IFI | ≥ 0.9 | 0.947 |
| TLI | ≥ 0.9 | 0.935 |
| CFI | ≥ 0.9 | 0.947 |
| Minimal Fit Indexes | ||
| PGFI | ≥ 0.5 | 0.691 |
| PNFI | ≥ 0.5 | 0.763 |
| CN | ≥ 200 | 283 |
| PCFI | ≥ 0.5 | 0.775 |
Source: The results based on the AMOS 23.0 software calculations by the authors
Results of hypotheses testing
| Research hypotheses | Hypothesized path | Unstandardized path coefficient estimation | S.E. | C.R. | Standardized path coefficient estimation | Accept/Reject | VIF | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | BE < — SI | 0.124 | 0.017 | 7.093 | *** | 0.264 | Accept | 1.000 |
| H2 | PQ < — SI | 0.198 | 0.023 | 8.508 | *** | 0.308 | Accept | 1.056 |
| H3 | EP < — SI | − 0.173 | 0.022 | − 8.047 | *** | − 0.340 | Accept | 1.196 |
| H4 | BS < — SI | − 0.062 | 0.016 | − 3.944 | *** | − 0.170 | Accept | 1.256 |
| H5 | TSG < — SI | 0.041 | 0.020 | 2.116 | 0.034 | 0.088 | Accept | 1.288 |
| H6 | PQ < — BE | 0.195 | 0.052 | 3.722 | *** | 0.143 | Accept | 1.056 |
| H7 | EP < — BE | 0.267 | 0.044 | 6.038 | *** | 0.245 | Accept | 1.086 |
| H8 | BS < — BE | 0.084 | 0.033 | 2.545 | 0.011 | 0.108 | Accept | 1.131 |
| H9 | TSG < — BE | 0.029 | 0.041 | 0.703 | 0.482 | 0.029 | Reject | 1.136 |
| H10 | EP < — PQ | 0.223 | 0.033 | 6.823 | *** | 0.280 | Accept | 1.200 |
| H11 | BS < — PQ | 0.048 | 0.024 | 1.998 | 0.046 | 0.085 | Accept | 1.269 |
| H12 | TSG < — PQ | 0.182 | 0.031 | 5.893 | *** | 0.248 | Accept | 1.277 |
| H13 | BS < — EP | 0.161 | 0.030 | 5.344 | *** | 0.225 | Accept | 1.128 |
| H14 | TSG < — EP | 0.189 | 0.038 | 5.020 | *** | 0.205 | Accept | 1.157 |
| H15 | TSG < — BS | 0.234 | 0.053 | 4.427 | *** | 0.182 | Accept | 1.075 |
Source: The results based on the AMOS 23.0 software calculations by the authors
***Means p < 0.001
Fig. 3Validation of the conceptual model. Notes *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
Direct effect, indirect effect and total effect value of each path
| Hypothesized path | Direct effect value | Indirect effect value | Total effect value |
|---|---|---|---|
| BE < — SI | 0.264 | – | 0.264 |
| PQ < — SI | 0.308 | 0.038 | 0.346 |
| EP < — SI | − 0.340 | 0.162 | − 0.178 |
| BS < — SI | − 0.170 | 0.018 | − 0.153 |
| TSG < — SI | 0.088 | 0.029 | 0.117 |
| PQ < — BE | 0.143 | – | 0.143 |
| EP < — BE | 0.245 | 0.040 | 0.285 |
| BS < — BE | 0.108 | 0.076 | 0.185 |
| TSG < — BE | 0.029 | 0.128 | 0.156 |
| EP < — PQ | 0.280 | – | 0.280 |
| BS < — PQ | 0.085 | 0.063 | 0.148 |
| TSG < — PQ | 0.248 | 0.084 | 0.333 |
| BS < — EP | 0.225 | – | 0.225 |
| TSG < — EP | 0.205 | 0.041 | 0.246 |
| TSG < — BS | 0.182 | – | 0.182 |
Source: The results based on the AMOS 23.0 software calculations by the authors
Abbreviations
| Abbr. | Full name |
|---|---|
| RMR | Root Mean square Residual |
| SRMR | Standardized Root Mean square Residual |
| RMSEA | Root Mean Square Error of Approximation |
| GFI | Goodness of Fit Index |
| AGFI | Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index |
| NFI | Normed Fit Index |
| RFI | Relative Fit Index |
| IFI | Incremental Fit Index |
| TLI | Tucker–Lewis Index |
| CFI | Comparative Fit Index |
| PGFI | Parsimony Goodness of Fit Index |
| PNFI | Parsimony Normed Fit Index |
| CN | Critical N |
| PCFI | Parsimony Comparative Index |