IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i19p8429-d1487507.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analyzing the Impact of Internet Use on Peer Effects in Farmers’ Adoption of Clean Energy: Strengthening or Weakening?

Author

Listed:
  • Zeping Hu

    (School of Public Administration, Inner Mongolia University of Finance and Economics, Hohhot 010070, China)

  • Tianshu Zhang

    (School of Public Administration, Inner Mongolia University of Finance and Economics, Hohhot 010070, China)

  • Kaiyue Zhang

    (School of Public Administration, Inner Mongolia University of Finance and Economics, Hohhot 010070, China)

  • Xinran Li

    (School of Public Administration, Inner Mongolia University of Finance and Economics, Hohhot 010070, China)

Abstract

Enhancing farmers’ adoption of clean energy is crucial for promoting sustainable rural development and ecological environmental protection. It not only reduces the consumption of traditional fossil fuels, greenhouse gas emissions, and environmental pollution but also optimizes the structure of rural energy consumption, improves farmers’ quality of life, and supports the goal of building a green countryside. This paper investigates the impact of internet use on farmers’ adoption of clean energy and the associated peer effects, further exploring how internet use influences these peer effects. The analysis is based on data from the 2018 and 2020 waves of the China Family Panel Studies (CFPS). The study’s findings reveal that (1) farmers’ adoption of clean energy exhibits a significant peer effect, and internet use also has a significant positive impact on this adoption. Both the peer effect and internet use effectively enhance farmers’ clean energy utilization, a conclusion that holds even after robustness checks. (2) Internet use significantly strengthens the peer effect, particularly when it is used for social and entertainment purposes, where this reinforcing effect is most pronounced. (3) The peer effect, the impact of internet use on clean energy adoption, and the strengthening of the peer effect by internet use vary according to farmers’ geographical location and household income. These findings provide valuable insights and recommendations for improving policies aimed at promoting clean energy adoption among farmers, ultimately fostering its broader diffusion and application in rural areas.

Suggested Citation

  • Zeping Hu & Tianshu Zhang & Kaiyue Zhang & Xinran Li, 2024. "Analyzing the Impact of Internet Use on Peer Effects in Farmers’ Adoption of Clean Energy: Strengthening or Weakening?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-21, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:19:p:8429-:d:1487507
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/19/8429/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/19/8429/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Angrist, Joshua D., 2014. "The perils of peer effects," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 98-108.
    2. Nicole Schneeweis & Rudolf Winter-Ebmer, 2008. "Peer effects in Austrian schools," Studies in Empirical Economics, in: Christian Dustmann & Bernd Fitzenberger & Stephen Machin (ed.), The Economics of Education and Training, pages 133-155, Springer.
    3. Charles F. Manski, 1993. "Identification of Endogenous Social Effects: The Reflection Problem," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 60(3), pages 531-542.
    4. Madhusmita Dash & Bhagirath Behera & Dil Bahadur Rahut, 2018. "Understanding the factors that influence household use of clean energy in the Similipal Tiger Reserve, India," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 42(1), pages 3-18, February.
    5. Guta, Dawit Diriba, 2020. "Determinants of household use of energy-efficient and renewable energy technologies in rural Ethiopia," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    6. Rezaei, Rohollah & Ghofranfarid, Marjan, 2018. "Rural households' renewable energy usage intention in Iran: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 382-391.
    7. Li, Yanjiao & Qing, Chen & Guo, Shili & Deng, Xin & Song, Jiahao & Xu, Dingde, 2023. "When my friends and relatives go solar, should I go solar too? —— Evidence from rural Sichuan province, China," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 203(C), pages 753-762.
    8. Zhu Liu, 2016. "China?s Carbon Emissions Report 2016," Working Paper 468061, Harvard University OpenScholar.
    9. Babu, Suresh Chandra & Glendenning, Claire J. & Okyere, Kwadwo Asenso & Govindarajan, Senthil Kumar, 2012. "Farmers' information needs and search behaviors: Case study in Tamil Nadu, India," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126226, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Anderson, Lisa R & Holt, Charles A, 1997. "Information Cascades in the Laboratory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(5), pages 847-862, December.
    11. Wang, Shubin & Sun, Shaolong & Zhao, Erlong & Wang, Shouyang, 2021. "Urban and rural differences with regional assessment of household energy consumption in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 232(C).
    12. Leo Van Hove, 1999. "Electronic money and the network externalities theory: lessons for real life," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 137-171, October.
    13. Chunfang Yang & Changming Cheng & Nanyang Cheng & Yifeng Zhang, 2023. "Research on the Impact of Internet Use on Farmers’ Adoption of Agricultural Socialized Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-17, May.
    14. Susana B. Guerrero-Ocampo & José M. Díaz-Puente, 2023. "Social Network Analysis Uses and Contributions to Innovation Initiatives in Rural Areas: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-18, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ali Palali & Jan C. Van ours, 2017. "Love Conquers all but Nicotine: Spousal Peer Effects on the Decision to Quit Smoking," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1710-1727, December.
    2. Adam S. Booij & Edwin Leuven & Hessel Oosterbeek, 2017. "Ability Peer Effects in University: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 84(2), pages 547-578.
    3. Fishman, Arthur & Fishman, Ram & Gneezy, Uri, 2019. "A tale of two food stands: Observational learning in the field," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 101-108.
    4. Adamopoulou, Effrosyni & Greenwood, Jeremy & Guner, Nezih & Kopecky, Karen, 2024. "The Role of Friends in the Opioid Epidemic," CEPR Discussion Papers 18803, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Yann Bramoullé & Habiba Djebbari & Bernard Fortin, 2020. "Peer Effects in Networks: A Survey," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 603-629, August.
    6. Jones, Todd R. & Kofoed, Michael S., 2020. "Do peers influence occupational preferences? Evidence from randomly-assigned peer groups at West Point," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    7. Ingo E. Isphording & Ulf Zölitz, 2020. "The value of a peer," ECON - Working Papers 342, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    8. Cawley, John & Han, Euna & Kim, Jiyoon & Norton, Edward C., 2023. "Genetic nurture in educational attainment," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    9. Adam Altmejd & Andrés Barrios-Fernández & Marin Drlje & Joshua Goodman & Michael Hurwitz & Dejan Kovac & Christine Mulhern & Christopher Neilson & Jonathan Smith, 2021. "O Brother, Where Start Thou? Sibling Spillovers on College and Major Choice in Four Countries," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 136(3), pages 1831-1886.
    10. Silvia Mendolia & Alfredo R Paloyo & Ian Walker, 2018. "Heterogeneous effects of high school peers on educational outcomes," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 70(3), pages 613-634.
    11. Anna K. Edenbrandt & Christian Gamborg & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen, 2020. "Observational learning in food choices: The effect of product familiarity and closeness of peers," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(3), pages 482-498, June.
    12. Liza Charroin, 2018. "Homophily, peer effects and dishonesty," Post-Print halshs-01993618, HAL.
    13. Bernhard C. Dannemann, 2020. "Peer Effects in Secondary Education: Evidence from the 2015 Trends in Mathematics and Science Study Based on Homophily," Working Papers V-428-20, University of Oldenburg, Department of Economics, revised Feb 2020.
    14. Christos Genakos & Eleni Kyrkopoulou, 2022. "Social policy gone bad educationally: unintended peer effects from transferred students," CEP Discussion Papers dp1851, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    15. Hartog, Joop & Raposo, Pedro, 2017. "Are starting wages reduced by an insurance premium for preventing wage decline? Testing the prediction of Harris and Holmstrom (1982)," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 105-119.
    16. Chris Ryan, 2017. "Measurement of Peer Effects," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 50(1), pages 121-129, March.
    17. Adhikari, Binay K. & Agrawal, Anup, 2018. "Peer influence on payout policies," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 615-637.
    18. Palali, Ali & van Ours, Jan, 2015. "Love Conquers All but Nicotine : Spousal Peer Effects on the Decision to Quit Smoking," Discussion Paper 2015-048, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    19. Joshua S. Goodman & Michael Hurwitz & Christine Mulhern & Jonathan Smith, 2019. "O Brother, Where Start Thou? Sibling-Spillovers in College Enrollment," CESifo Working Paper Series 7974, CESifo.
    20. Antonia Grohmann & Sahra Sakha, 2015. "The Effect of Peer Observation on Consumption Choices: Experimental Evidence," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1525, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:19:p:8429-:d:1487507. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.