Readiness for a clean energy future: Prevalence, perceptions, and barriers to adoption of electric stoves and solar panels in New York City.

Kathryn Lane, Misbath Daouda, Ariel Yuan, Carolyn Olson, Lauren Smalls-Mantey, Eva Siegel, Diana Hern��ndez
Author Information
  1. Kathryn Lane: Bureau of Environmental Surveillance & Policy, New York City Department of Mental Health & Hygiene.
  2. Misbath Daouda: Department of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley.
  3. Ariel Yuan: Bureau of Environmental Surveillance & Policy, New York City Department of Mental Health & Hygiene.
  4. Carolyn Olson: Bureau of Environmental Surveillance & Policy, New York City Department of Mental Health & Hygiene.
  5. Lauren Smalls-Mantey: Bureau of Environmental Surveillance & Policy, New York City Department of Mental Health & Hygiene.
  6. Eva Siegel: Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health.
  7. Diana Hern��ndez: Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health and Center on Global Energy Policy, School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University.

Abstract

Adoption of electric stoves and rooftop solar can reduce fossil-fuel reliance and improve health by decreasing indoor air pollution and alleviating energy insecurity. This study assessed prevalence and perceptions of these clean-energy technologies to increase adoption in New York City (NYC). A representative survey of 1,950 NYC adults was conducted from February 28 to April 1, 2022. Fourteen percent of people had an electric stove; 86% had gas stoves. Black, Latino/a, and lower-income residents were more likely to have electric stoves than White and higher-income residents. Only 14% of residents were interested in switching from gas to electric stoves. Of the 71% with gas stoves uninterested in switching, nearly half (45%) preferred gas cooking, particularly among White and higher-income residents, indicating a large opportunity to shift preferences. About 5% used solar for their home or building; another 77% were interested in solar. Of the 18% uninterested in solar, reasons included lack of agency, confusion about operation, and costs. Education about health and cost benefits, induction technology, how to transition, available subsidies, and other efforts to reduce adoption barriers can support clean technology uptake. Residential clean energy metrics should be tracked regularly to ensure that technology adoption proceeds equitably.

Keywords

References

  1. Soc Sci Med. 2020 Aug;258:113068 [PMID: 32534302]
  2. Environ Int. 2017 Dec;109:89-100 [PMID: 28988023]
  3. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023 Aug 22;120(34):e2301061120 [PMID: 37582122]
  4. Environ Sci Technol. 2022 Feb 15;56(4):2529-2539 [PMID: 35081712]
  5. Energy Sustain Dev. 2018 Oct;46:111-122 [PMID: 30294142]
  6. Energy Res Soc Sci. 2019 Jan;47:78-83 [PMID: 32280598]
  7. Lancet Glob Health. 2021 Mar;9(3):e361-e365 [PMID: 33444550]
  8. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2013 Nov 1;67(11):918-25 [PMID: 23940250]
  9. Int J Epidemiol. 2013 Dec;42(6):1724-37 [PMID: 23962958]
  10. J Environ Manage. 2021 Jul 15;290:112539 [PMID: 33990056]
  11. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2024 Sep;1539(1):185-240 [PMID: 38922909]
  12. Health Aff (Millwood). 2024 Feb;43(2):260-268 [PMID: 38315917]
  13. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2022 Sep 1;42(5):E55-E56 [PMID: 36044764]
  14. Lancet. 2017 Apr 8;389(10077):1453-1463 [PMID: 28402827]
  15. Geohealth. 2019 Dec 03;3(12):370-390 [PMID: 32159025]
  16. Ethn Dis. 2009 Spring;19(2):179-84 [PMID: 19537230]
  17. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2016 Jun;128:67-74 [PMID: 26896893]
  18. Environ Health. 2014 Sep 02;13:71 [PMID: 25182545]
  19. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017 Feb 13;14(2): [PMID: 28208813]
  20. N Engl J Med. 2022 Nov 10;387(19):1735-1746 [PMID: 36214599]
  21. Environ Health Perspect. 2017 Jan 1;125(1):A3-A7 [PMID: 28055947]
  22. Environ Health Perspect. 2005 Aug;113(8):934-46 [PMID: 16079061]
  23. Epidemiology. 2010 May;21(3):414-23 [PMID: 20386174]
  24. Indoor Air. 2012 Jun;22(3):224-34 [PMID: 22044446]
  25. Soc Sci Med. 2016 Oct;167:1-10 [PMID: 27592003]
  26. J Hypertens. 2015 Nov;33(11):2338-43 [PMID: 26372318]
  27. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2020 Jul;30(4):707-720 [PMID: 32415299]
  28. Energy Effic. 2019 Mar;13(3):419-432 [PMID: 33737861]
  29. Lancet. 1996 Feb 17;347(8999):426-31 [PMID: 8618483]
  30. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2024 Sep;1539(1):241-276 [PMID: 38922917]
  31. N Engl J Med. 2021 Feb 25;384(8):768-773 [PMID: 33326717]
  32. Front Public Health. 2019 Dec 12;7:357 [PMID: 31921733]
  33. Environ Sci Technol. 2022 Jul 19;56(14):10258-10268 [PMID: 35762409]
  34. BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Aug;6(8): [PMID: 34452940]

Grants

  1. P30 ES009089/NIEHS NIH HHS

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0stovessolarelectricenergyadoptiongasresidentscleanstovetechnologycanreducehealthinsecurityperceptionsNewYorkCityNYC1Whitehigher-incomeinterestedswitchinguninterestedinductiontransitionbarriersAdoptionrooftopfossil-fuelrelianceimprovedecreasingindoorairpollutionalleviatingstudyassessedprevalenceclean-energytechnologiesincreaserepresentativesurvey950adultsconductedFebruary28April2022Fourteenpercentpeople86%BlackLatino/alower-incomelikely14%71%nearlyhalf45%preferredcookingparticularlyamongindicatinglargeopportunityshiftpreferences5%usedhomebuildinganother77%18%reasonsincludedlackagencyconfusionoperationcostsEducationcostbenefitsavailablesubsidieseffortssupportuptakeResidentialmetricstrackedregularlyensureproceedsequitablyReadinessfuture:PrevalencepanelsElectricclimatechangeresidential

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.