The Associations of Young Poles with Green Energy in the Context of Self-Assessment of Their Relevant Knowledge and the Importance Attached to the Energy Sources Used

Abstract

The aim of this article is to identify the associations that young Polish recipients have with green energy, considering their self-assessment of the level of knowledge about green energy and the importance attributed to the energy sources they use on a daily basis. An analysis of the world literature on the subject indicates that there is a cognitive and research gap in the level of market awareness of individual recipients regarding green energy and its sources. This issue has been neglected even more among young people in the context of their associations with this type of energy. To eliminate these research gaps, five hypotheses were formulated. To this end, primary research was carried out using the survey method to collect data. The research covered 311 individual representatives of recipients in Poland aged between 18 and 24. The primary data collected was subjected to quantitative analysis, using specific tests and statistical analysis. Among other things, the following was discovered: (1) the dependence between the self-assessment of the level of knowledge about green energy and the importance attributed to the sources of energy used; (2) the dependence between the self-assessment of the level of knowledge about green energy and the associations with it (mainly negative ones); (3) the dependence between the importance assigned to the sources of energy used and the associations with green energy (mainly positive ones); and (4) that there were sets of recipients characterized by identical associations with green energy within the groups of people selected among the total respondents and among respondents assessing their level of knowledge as low or high, as well as among respondents attributing high or low importance to energy sources. The research results and the conclusions drawn have significant cognitive value and practical application.

1. Introduction

The most important factors determining the changes taking place in the contemporary consumer market are environmental. These factors influence practically every aspect of the economic and social life of its participants, guiding tactical and strategic decisions taken by legislators. Among the environmental factors, a key role is played by issues related to climate change, especially global warming as observed for several decades [1] with its many adverse effects. Counteracting these issues can pose increasing challenges for both individual countries and their market entities who aim, inter alia, to undertake consistent and comprehensive actions to counteract negative phenomena, including those related to the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

The actions in this area include, for example, the use of renewable sources of energy [2,3], allowing for its production in a much more environmentally friendly way. For this reason, the energy obtained from renewable sources is called green energy. It should not be forgotten that replacing energy obtained from conventional (non-renewable) sources with green energy is not an easy process. It is necessary to overcome many barriers [4], which include economic barriers (e.g., infrastructure costs) and psychological ones (e.g., departing from what is familiar). Overcoming the barriers, especially those of a psychological nature, requires a well-thought-out, long-term educational campaign leading to an increase in the level of awareness of all market participants, without exception. It is particularly important to ensure that they have up-to-date and objective knowledge about green energy and its long-term importance for individuals and whole societies. This is part of both the knowledge-based society paradigm [5] and the consumer-centric paradigm [6].

In the process of educating market participants, including individual recipients, it is necessary to adopt a marketing approach, for which the starting point is to identify their level of awareness [7] regarding green energy and their needs in this regard. One of the determinants of this level is the set of associations with green energy formed in the minds of recipients. The associations are especially important among representatives in the 18–24 age group, because of their strategic importance for society [8].

A review of the world literature on the subject presented in the next part of this article underlines how these aspects have not been studied so far, especially using the approach proposed by the authors. Thus, one can speak of both a cognitive and a research gap. Therefore, the authors of this article have sought to solve the following research problem: What associations do young Polish recipients have with green energy and what is the hierarchy of these associations in the context of a self-assessment of their knowledge about this type of energy and the importance assigned to energy sources used on a daily basis? The aim of this article is therefore to identify the associations that young Polish recipients have with green energy, taking into account the self-assessment of their level of knowledge about it and the importance they assign to the energy sources they use every day.

This article is structured to achieve the goal and verify five research hypotheses, formulated on the basis of the results of the analysis of the world literature on the subject. The article includes the introduction, a review of the world literature, the characteristics of the primary research conducted, the presentation of the results, an academic discussion, and the presentation of conclusions, implications, and limitations, as well as the directions for future research.

2. Literature Review

2.1. The Level of Market Awareness of Recipients

Observing the dynamic changes taking place in the contemporary consumer market, we can conclude that its functioning is based on two paradigms, i.e., the paradigm of shaping multidimensional relationships between its participants leading to a change from the enterprise-centric perspective to the consumer-centric perspective [9], and the knowledge-based economy paradigm [10], leading to the formation of a knowledge-based society [11]. The approach adopted in this article fits both paradigms and attempts to combine them.

The two key groups of participants in the contemporary consumer market are product suppliers, including energy suppliers, and individual recipients who buy and use the products offered to them, including energy. There are various relationships of a more or less permanent nature between these groups. However, in order for these relationships to be perceived by both parties as beneficial, and thus valuable enough to be strengthened, an appropriate level of market awareness must be achieved by both parties. Thus, this condition applies not only to recipients, but also to the suppliers. The latter have relatively higher possibilities of shaping mutual relationships through proper management [12], as they have relatively greater market potential, including marketing potential. This applies to both the material potential (material infrastructure and financial resources) and the non-material potential (qualified employees and market information). However, the proper use of these resources requires that it must be considered that the recipients are not only the addressees of an offer. They are also actors currently playing a main market role [13], often as the co-creators and final verifiers of the suitability of a given offer who accept or reject this offer. Therefore, no supplier could function without the recipients.

It follows that one of the more important tasks facing contemporary suppliers is to apply a marketing approach to recipients in terms of the level of their market awareness. The more they know about the market and its functioning, the higher it is. From the point of view of a supplier, building relationships with recipients aware of their rights and obligations is definitely more beneficial than staying in a relational system, which includes recipients who are not very aware and not very active [14]. To reach this state, as part of the application of the marketing approach, suppliers should not only identify and meet the needs of individual recipients regarding the product offer, but also define their own role as active and informed market participants. Moreover, these aspirations are becoming more explicitly articulated by the recipients [15], who are increasingly aware of the benefits achievable through having adequate knowledge about the world around them, including the market, which they participate in daily in a practical sense.

It is therefore not a matter of coincidence that contemporary recipients are defined as informed purchasers, active purchasers [16], and committed purchasers [17]. These terms reflect the growing market importance of recipients, which is the result of the growing scope of their activities, which include not only typical purchasing behaviour, but also non-purchasing behaviour, including communication (providing and obtaining opinions and information, etc.) and creative behaviour (co-creating a marketing offer together with producers and other purchasers, etc.). More and more often they take an active part in shaping the marketing offer [18], which meets their expectations much better, while at the same time satisfying their needs related to having an active participation in the creation process.

The use of the concept of ‘recipient’ is therefore of a contractual nature, as it illustrates the transactions undertaken within the traditionally understood market system, which has been an attribute of the functioning of the consumer market in the past and does not correspond to the contemporary system of market roles. Presently, market roles interpenetrate each other and each of the main participants plays the role of both the supplier and the recipient. An active purchaser still plays the role of a recipient, but also takes on the role of a supplier, sharing their abilities, skills, knowledge, and experience [19], i.e., the various components of the marketing potential, with the respective enterprise. As a result, they significantly enrich the enterprise’s potential, while developing their own as well, and in doing so, becoming an even more valuable partner for the enterprise. While enterprises still play the role of suppliers, they also act as the recipients of intangible assets transferred to them by the active purchasers.

Consequently, the mutual benefits are sufficient to create the appropriate conditions for undertaking joint actions [20]: actively educating recipients is in the interest of every enterprise, regardless of the industry in which it operates or the geographical scope of its operations. One can even speak of a knowledge spiral [21], which is generated by breaking with the classic approach to the market as a system of entities, which are fulfilling clearly separate market roles. Therefore, each enterprise should be committed to having in its marketing environment, the individual recipients with a high level of market awareness, aspiring to demonstrate better communication and creative activity in mutual relationships with the enterprise. The approach based on the belief that it is easier to function in relationships with recipients who are unaware of their value and their rights is not only outdated, but is actually harmful to enterprises—bringing negative effects, especially in the long term. Of course, enterprises that are operating on the energy market are no exception to this rule.

The starting point in the process of implementing a marketing approach to shaping relationships with recipients based on the management of their knowledge [22] and other components of their potential within the marketing process, is the assumption of the need to systematically identify the level of the recipients’ knowledge about the market and its functioning, as well as the regular identification of the needs they have in this regard. This article focuses on associations, treating them as a reflection of the level of knowledge about key issues related to contemporary social and economic life: green energy and the sources of energy used in households.

2.2. Green Energy and Its Importance

Noticing the growing threat to the natural environment from humans in recent decades has been a strong stimulus to search for alternative forms and ways of conducting everyday activities. This applies to economic, social, and individual activities. One of the most important areas of such research and for the introduction of changes, is related to energy sources [23]. Conventional energy sources are being abandoned to a greater or lesser degree in particular countries, where supplementing or even replacing them with renewable sources is occurring, and thus allows energy to be obtained without environmental damage. This energy is called green energy [24]. It is defined as electricity that is produced from renewable energy sources such as water, sun, wind, the ocean, biogas, and biomass; and is also referred to as renewable energy [25]. Green energy is the opposite of energy that is obtained from non-renewable sources such as is acquired by burning coal, lignite, oil, and natural gas. It should be added that Poland is one of the largest coal producers in Europe [26], which hinders energy transformation, but at the same time might have some positive aspects, e.g., being potentially valuable in the event of sudden socio-political and economic upheavals, such as the war that broke out on 24 February 2022 in the Ukraine and brought consequences for the energy market.

It is worth noting that there are still discussions about what green energy is and what it is not. For example, there are hydropower plants that have not been explicitly recognised as producers of green energy, such as the Three Gorges Dam (TGD) in China [27], due to their operation having significant negative consequences for the natural environment.

Generating energy from conventional sources, which include the above-mentioned minerals, causes a high emission of carbon dioxide. For example, during the production of 1 kWh of energy from coal, as much as 4.6 kg of CO₂ is released into the atmosphere [28]. In December 2019, the European Commission presented the so-called Green Deal [29], the aim of which is to achieve climate neutrality in Europe by the middle of the 21st century by obtaining the right balance between the level of carbon dioxide emissions and the amount absorbed from the atmosphere [30]. It is estimated that this will allow the global average temperature to be reduced by 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Apart from the ongoing debates about how much this is a political idea and how much its implementation could actually lead to positive climate effects (although their analysis is not the purpose of this article), it is worth adding that the implementation of this idea encounters numerous difficulties. Of most importance is the economic and political situation resulting from Russia’s aggression against the Ukraine. One of the consequences of this is the need to ensure energy security for European countries, which means a likely, at least temporary, return to a more intensive use of conventional energy sources [31]. However, as the situation stabilises, efforts will focus on obtaining energy from renewable sources. Therefore, it is important to educate society about the significance of green energy. As already emphasised in the previous part of the article, only the aware and active recipients are able to effectively cooperate with suppliers, which shapes mutually beneficial relationships of both tangible and intangible value. This poses major challenges for both groups of entities, but also allows for the achievement of benefits that definitely exceed the outlays associated with the greater involvement in partner–market relationships. It is therefore important to recognise the level of the recipients’ knowledge about green energy and its importance.

So far, in the literature on the subject, green energy has been analysed in a different context. All the research presented in the literature can be divided into two main groups: (1) research related to the macroeconomic scale and (2) research related to the microeconomic scale. As part of the former group, green energy, i.e., energy from renewable sources, has been investigated, among other things, through the prism of the following: the global energy transformation process [32]; the impact of the use of renewable energy sources on economic growth [33,34]; the impact on the natural environment and conventional energy sources [35]; and the challenges faced by countries that are transforming their energy sources to renewable ones [36]; etc.

On the other hand, the latter group includes studies on the attitudes or behaviours of individual recipients, analysing, among other things: the factors influencing the intentions of using renewable energy sources in American households [37]; the factors influencing the intentions of using renewable energy sources in Pakistani households (although these were focused on other variables, e.g., neighbours’ behaviour towards renewable sources) [38]; the psychological benefits achieved through the possible use of green energy [39]; the positive and negative effects of using renewable energy sources in Polish households [40]; and the market behaviour of Polish recipients regarding renewable energy sources [41]; etc. It is worth adding that some of the research on renewable energy sources refers to one specific type of source (e.g., solar [42,43]), while other research addresses general perspectives relating to renewable energy sources (e.g., the attitudes towards this group of energy sources [44] and the pros and cons of using these sources [40]).

The diversity of the research approaches and their scopes still leaves a lacuna concerning the awareness of young recipients about green energy. Therefore, this article aims to identify the associations that young Polish recipients have with green energy, taking into account their self-assessment of the level of their relevant knowledge and the importance assigned by them to the energy sources they use every day.

In the process of achieving this goal, an attempt was made to verify the following five research hypotheses:

H1: 

There is a dependence between the self-assessment of the level of knowledge about green energy and the importance attached to the energy sources used.

H2: 

There is a dependence between the self-assessment of the level of knowledge about green energy and positive associations with this type of energy.

H3: 

There is a dependence between the self-assessment of the level of knowledge about green energy and negative associations with this type of energy.

H4: 

There is a dependence between the importance assigned to energy sources used and the positive associations with green energy.

H5: 

There is a dependence between the importance assigned to energy sources used and the negative associations with green energy.

3. Methods

In order to achieve the goal of this article and to verify the research hypotheses, empirical research was carried out. A survey method was used to collect primary data by contacting respondents remotely via e-mails with a link to an online questionnaire. The research was carried out in the second quarter of 2022 among 311 adults representing Polish energy users in the 18–24 age group. Representatives of this age group were included in the research due to their significant importance in economic and social development, as emphasised by many demographic studies [45]. The research had a nationwide geographic scope. A quota sampling was used. The demographic characteristics were dispersed proportional to the distribution of the trait in the general population with a deviation of no more than 10 respondents in relation to the proportion for the distribution of the population of people living in Poland and aged 18–24 (based on the Central Statistical Office [GUS] data [46] and the Public Opinion Research Center [CBOS] data [45]).

The subject of the article covers the following variables: self-assessment of the level of knowledge about green energy, the importance attached to the sources of energy used, and the associations with green energy.

During the research, the respondents were asked to self-assess the level of their knowledge about green energy (on a scale: very little, rather little, it is difficult to say, rather high, and very high) and determine the importance assigned by them to energy sources used in everyday life (on a scale: unimportant, rather unimportant, hard to say, rather important, and very important). The respondents were also presented with a set of nineteen associations with green energy, including nine positive and ten negative associations. These were identified based on the results of a cognitive-critical analysis of the literature on the subject [37,47] and the results of unstructured interviews that had been conducted prior to the survey among twenty people aged 18–24. Thus, the adopted assumption regarding the age criterion was met.

Each association with green energy was also assessed by the respondents on a five-point Likert scale, which is one of the most fundamental and most frequently used psychometric tools in the social sciences [48]. This article uses a variant where the score of 5 meant ‘I strongly agree’, 4–‘I rather agree’, 3–‘it’s hard to say’, 2–‘I rather disagree’, and 1–‘I strongly disagree’. The use of such a scale is a necessary condition for using the methods of average scores analysis and exploratory factor analysis.

The primary data collected was subjected to quantitative analyses, using the method of average scores analysis, comparative analysis, the Pearson chi-square independence test, and the method of analyzing the V-Cramer contingency coefficient value, as well as exploratory factor analysis. The chi-square test was used to determine whether there are statistically significant dependencies between the analyzed variables, and V-Cramer coefficient determined the strength of the dependencies between them. The V-Cramer coefficient is used when at least one variable has more than two values [49], i.e., when the contingency table is at least 2 × 3.

Exploratory factor analysis was used to reduce the number of variables constituting the primary data obtained from the questionnaire and to detect structures in the relationships between these variables, i.e., to classify them [50]. This analysis was used to reduce the set of variables influencing the research category of ‘associations with green energy’ and to detect internal correlations in the relationships between these variables. The method of main components was used to distinguish the factors, and it was important to determine their number. In order to determine the number of common factors (the so-called main components), the Kaiser criterion technique was used, which consists of leaving only factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. Each such factor explains a certain level of general variability of the system analyzed, defined with a percentage of variance, which can be interpreted as a measure of explaining the occurrence. The factors were rotated by the oblimin method. Within individual factors, variables with the highest factor loadings in relation to a given factor were identified, i.e., variables with values of at least 0.7, which is a limit commonly accepted in the literature [51,52].

Statistical analysis of the primary data collected was performed using the IBM SPSS Statistics Ver. 25.

4. Research Results

Among the nineteen associations with green energy analysed, as many as ten were negative (

Table 1. Respondents’ associations with green energy.

Associations with Green Energy	Indications%					Average Score	Standard Deviation	Position
	5	4	3	2	1
It is renewable energy	60.1	32.8	5.8	0.6	0.6	4.51	0.695	1
Green energy is cheaper than conventional energy	14.5	29.3	37.9	13.2	5.1	3.35	1.045	10
Green energy is an opportunity for energy security of the state due to the need to limit the use of fossil fuels	36.3	37.9	18.3	5.1	2.3	4.01	0.979	4
Green energy depends on the weather and does not ensure the stability of electricity supply	18.3	36.0	26.7	15.4	3.5	3.50	1.068	7
Green energy is expensive not only because of the cost of devices, but also because of their operating costs	7.1	38.9	37.9	11.9	4.2	3.33	0.924	11
Green energy should complement, not replace, energy from conventional sources	9.6	22.5	29.9	30.2	7.7	2.96	0.806	12
Green energy has a positive impact on the natural environment	52.4	31.8	12.9	2.6	0.3	4.33	0.822	2
Green energy has a positive effect on human health	46.6	35.0	15.8	1.3	1.3	4.24	0.857	3
Green energy has a positive impact on the economic situation of the state	23.2	35.4	37.3	3.2	1.0	3.77	0.876	6
Green energy is an element imposed by the European Union	14.8	28.9	39.5	12.9	3.9	3.38	1.012	9
Green energy is responsible for the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere	1.6	5.1	28.3	28.3	36.7	2.07	0.799	18
Green energy is just a good-sounding argument that allows someone to earn a lot from it	2.6	11.9	30.5	27.3	27.7	2.34	0.784	14
Green energy is just a marketing slogan	1.9	7.4	24.1	35.4	31.2	2.14	0.804	16
The costs of producing green energy exceed the benefits achieved	2.3	9.0	48.6	25.4	14.8	2.59	0.725	13
Green energy is a permanent trend (it is the future)	23.8	49.5	21.5	3.5	1.6	3.90	0.856	5
The fashion for green energy will pass quickly	1.9	4.8	27.7	39.2	26.4	2.17	0.839	15
Green energy is a great manipulation of society	2.3	8.0	26.4	26.0	37.3	2.12	0.773	17
Green energy can completely replace energy from non-renewable sources (e.g., coal)	19.0	29.3	30.5	16.4	4.8	3.41	1.115	8
Installations for the production of green energy are too expensive, especially for the average citizen	12.5	35.4	35.0	14.5	2.6	3.41	0.969	8

Where: 5—I strongly agree; 4—I rather agree; 3—it’s hard to say; 2—I rather disagree; and 1—I strongly disagree. Source: The present study based on the research results.

). Some of them were of a typically economic nature, reflecting respondents’ perception of its high costs, while others were of an intangible, mainly socio-technical nature. In this respect, green energy was associated primarily with the deliberate creation of its positive image in order to manipulate potential users. Clearly, the respondents’ associations indicated their level of knowledge about green energy. One of the negative associations concerned green energy being identified with the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which of course is not true and confirms a lack of at least a basic knowledge on the issue. Admittedly, this was a small percentage of the respondents (in total 6.7% with an average rating value of 2.07, which placed this association in the last position). However, the very fact that such associations occur, confirms an insufficient level of the market education of some respondents, at least in the field of renewable energy sources.

Despite the slight quantitative advantage of negative associations, the leading positions in the hierarchy identified were taken by positive associations. In the case of four associations, the values of the average scores exceeded the limit of 4.00, with the highest value being identified for the association with energy from renewable sources. It was an association that clearly reflected good knowledge of what green energy constitutes. In total, as many as 92.9% of the respondents confirmed the association of green energy with this statement. The top three associations also included associations with green energy as energy that has a positive impact on the natural environment and human health. The association that took the highest position among the negative associations was the identification of green energy with being dependent on the weather (7th position). This association is correct, but it is certainly not positive. Among the associations that took the first ten positions, there were two other negative ones: the over-expensive installations for the production of this energy (8th position) and the imposition of solutions regarding this energy by the EU (9th position). Starting from the 11th position, practically all associations rounding out to the top twenty were negative. This group included, among other things, all associations related to manipulating potential users by providing them with false information about green energy.

It is worth pointing out that the ratio of the standard deviation to the average score (amounting to 1/3) indicated that the values of the average scores are the correct basis for the hierarchical ranking of the associations [53].

The associations with green energy which indicated an insufficient level of the respondents’ relevant knowledge showed that slightly more than one third of them assessed their knowledge as ‘high’, and only 2.2% as ‘very high’ (

Table 2. Self-assessment of the respondents’ knowledge about green energy (%).

Self-Assessment of Knowledge about Green Energy	Indications (%)
very little	2.9	63.7
rather little	33.8
it’s hard to say	27.0
rather high	34.1	36.3
very high	2.2

Source: The present study based on the research results.

). Therefore, the majority of respondents either objectively assessed their knowledge as ‘little’ or were unable to make such a self-assessment.

In the next stage of the analysis, we identified the importance ascribed by the respondents to energy sources used on an ongoing basis in their daily lives. In total, every third person believed that this issue was not important or they could not give an unambiguous answer (

Table 3. Importance ascribed by respondents to the sources of electricity they use on a daily basis (%).

Importance of Energy Sources (Conventional or Renewable)	Indications (%)
totally unimportant	1.7	33.2
rather unimportant	13.8
hard to say	17.7
rather important	48.2	66.8
very important	18.6

Source: The present study based on the research results.

). For only 18.6% of the respondents, the source of energy used on a daily basis was very important, which does not denote preference, but indicates that these issues are simply taken into account. The percentage of people who considered the source of energy to be least important, was almost twice as large as the percentage of people who believed that they had considerable knowledge about green energy.

In the next stage of the analysis, the presence of statistically significant dependencies between the studied variables was analysed. The chi2 test for the self-assessment of the level of knowledge about green energy and the importance of energy sources was 37.061, the value of the contingency coefficient was 0.326, and the significance level was 0.002. Therefore, there was a statistically significant dependence between the variables, although it was not strong. Thus, in the case of the respondents, the research hypothesis H1 is true.

Further analysis explored whether there were dependencies between respondents’ associations with green energy and the following: (1) a self-assessment of their level of knowledge about green energy (

Table 4. Respondents’ associations with green energy and the subjective self-assessment of the level of knowledge about green energy.

Associations with Green Energy	Chi2 Test	V-Cramer Coefficient	Level of Significance ‘p’
Energy from renewable sources	7.020	0.150	0.135
Green energy is cheaper than conventional energy	7.267	0.153	0.122
Green energy is an opportunity for the energy security of the state due to the need to limit the use of fossil fuels	10.533	0.184	0.032
Green energy depends on the weather and does not ensure the stability of electricity supply	3.964	0.113	0.411
Green energy is expensive not only because of the cost of devices, but also because of their operating costs	1.130	0.060	0.889
Green energy should complement, not replace, energy from conventional sources	7.144	0.152	0.128
Green energy has a positive impact on the natural environment	8.143	0.162	0.086
Green energy has a positive impact on human health	6.988	0.150	0.137
Green energy has a positive impact on the economic situation of the state	7.362	0.154	0.118
Green energy is an element imposed by the European Union	4.634	0.122	0.327
Green energy is responsible for the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere	19.486	0.250	0.001
Green energy is just a good-sounding argument that allows someone to earn a lot from it	13.909	0.211	0.008
Green energy is just a marketing slogan	16.176	0.228	0.003
The costs of producing green energy exceed the benefits achieved	21.027	0.260	0.000
Green energy is a permanent trend (it is the future)	11.300	0.191	0.023
The fashion for green energy will pass quickly	17.051	0.234	0.002
Green energy is a great manipulation of society	13.200	0.206	0.010
Green energy can completely replace energy from non-renewable sources (e.g., coal)	19.023	0.247	0.001
Installations for the production of green energy are too expensive, especially for an average citizen	11.735	0.194	0.019

Source: The present study based on the research results.

) and (2) the importance assigned to energy sources used on a daily basis (

Table 5. Respondents’ associations with green energy and the importance ascribed to the sources of the energy used.

Associations with Green Energy	Chi2 Test	V-Cramer Coefficient	Level of Significance ‘p’
Energy from renewable sources	13.781	0.211	0.008
Green energy is cheaper than conventional energy	3.959	0.113	0.412
Green energy is an opportunity for the energy security of the state due to the need to limit the use of fossil fuels	11.588	0.193	0.021
Green energy depends on the weather and does not ensure the stability of electricity supply	1.803	0.076	0.772
Green energy is expensive not only because of the cost of devices, but also because of their operating costs	2.477	0.089	0.649
Green energy should complement, not replace, energy from conventional sources	7.400	0.154	0.116
Green energy has a positive impact on the natural environment	10.219	0.181	0.037
Green energy has a positive impact on human health	11.170	0.190	0.025
Green energy has a positive impact on the economic situation of the state	12.799	0.203	0.012
Green energy is an element imposed by the European Union	7.168	0.152	0.127
Green energy is responsible for the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere	11.331	0.191	0.023
Green energy is just a good-sounding argument that allows someone to earn a lot from it	4.830	0.125	0.305
Green energy is just a marketing slogan	6.410	0.144	0.171
The costs of producing green energy exceed the benefits achieved	5.551	0.134	0.235
Green energy is a permanent trend (it is the future)	24.260	0.279	0.000
The fashion for green energy will pass quickly	15.589	0.224	0.004
Green energy is a great manipulation of society	12.997	0.204	0.011
Green energy can completely replace energy from non-renewable sources (e.g., coal)	7.678	0.157	0.104
Installations for the production of green energy are too expensive, especially for an average citizen	1.496	0.069	0.827

Source: The present study based on the research results.

). Statistically significant dependencies occurred for ten associations and the self-assessment of the level of knowledge, as well as for nine associations and the importance assigned to energy sources. It is worth noting that in the former context, these were mostly negative associations, whereas in the latter context, positive ones prevailed. In addition, all of the dependencies identified were characterized by a relatively low strength, as evidenced by zero cases of the value of the V-Cramer coefficient exceeding the limit of 0.3.

Therefore, with respect to the research hypotheses:

(1)

H2 is true for 3 positive associations;

(2)

H3 is true for 7 negative associations;

(3)

H4 is true for 6 positive associations;

(4)

H5 is true for 3 negative associations.

In order to identify the internal structure of the aspect studied and to compare the structure of associations with green energy with the structure of associations while assessing their knowledge about green energy as low or high, an exploratory factor analysis was performed for each of the three groups of respondents. After eliminating several variables and leaving eleven associations for further analysis, the value of Cronbach’s alpha test was 0.833, i.e., it exceeded 0.8. This proves a high reliability and thus a high internal consistency within this set of associations [54,55]. It is also worth explaining that for the needs of the factor analysis, the total respondents were divided into two groups: (1) people assessing their knowledge as ‘rather high’ and ‘very high’ (see Table 2) and (2) people assessing their knowledge as knowledge as ‘little’, i.e., the remaining group of respondents (see Table 2).

On the basis of the Kaiser criterion, for each of the three analysed groups of respondents, three factors were identified with eigenvalues greater than 1. In each case, they explained more than 61% of the total variability of the aspect studied (

Table 6. Hierarchy of factors according to their eigenvalues determined on the basis of the Kaiser criterion (for the total respondents and according to the self-assessment of the level of knowledge about green energy).

Factor	Eigenvalue			Cumulated Eigenvalue			% of Total Eigenvalues (Variation)			Cumulated% of Eigenvalues
	Total	Little	High	Total	Little	High	Total	Little	High	Total	Little	High
1	3.604	3.466	3.602	3.604	3.466	3.602	32.761	31.509	32.749	32.761	31.509	32.749
2	1.617	1.778	1.816	5.221	5.244	5.418	14.702	16.162	16.508	47.462	47.671	49.257
3	1.610	1.504	1.692	6.831	6.748	7.110	14.633	13.671	15.384	62.096	61.342	64.641

‘Total’-The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) sampling adequacy measure is 0.862, which is greater than 0.7 [56]; Bartlett sphericity test is significant (the variables are statistically significantly related to each other); chi2 is 1232.750; and p = 0.000; ‘Little’-KMO = 0.831; the Bartlett sphericity test is significant; chi2+ is 769.208; and p = 0.000; ‘High’-KMO = 0.831; the Bartlett sphericity test is significant; chi2 is 475.442; and p = 0.000. ‘Total’–the total of respondents; ‘Little’–respondents assessing their knowledge about green energy as low; ‘High’-respondents assessing their knowledge about green energy as high. Source: The present study based on the research results.

). For each group, the first factor included four or five variables with factor loadings of at least 0.7 (

Table 7. Results of the factor analysis of respondents’ associations with green energy reflecting the level of their market awareness, and the self-assessment of their level of knowledge about green energy.

Variable	Factor
	1			2			3
	Total	Little	High	Total	Little	High	Total	Little	High
Green energy is just a marketing slogan	0.844	0.828	0.868	0.167	0.203	0.117	0.129	0.176	0.058
The fashion for green energy will pass quickly	0.793	0.826	0.742	0.109	0.031	0.201	0.054	−0.010	0.169
Green energy is a great manipulation of society	0.785	0.834	0.760	0.232	0.128	0.211	0.070	−0.032	0.272
Green energy is just a good-sounding argument that allows someone to earn a lot from it	0.764	0.773	0.733	0.205	0.293	0.387	0.278	0.248	0.016
Green energy is responsible for the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere	0.708	0.609	0.702	−0.162	−0.178	−0.311	0.060	0.418	−0.007
The costs of producing green energy exceed the benefits achieved	0.617	0.568	0.673	0.482	0.485	0.147	0.143	0.156	0.425
Installations for the production of green energy are too expensive, especially for an average citizen	0.179	0.210	0.121	0.796	0.687	−0.009	−0.024	−0.100	0.907
Green energy is expensive not only because of the cost of devices, but also because of their operating costs	0.088	0.100	0.132	0.666	0.713	0.409	0.391	0.267	0.657
Green energy depends on the weather and does not ensure the stability of electricity supply	0.077	−0.016	0.154	0.067	0.299	0.799	0.836	0.746	0.056
Green energy should complement, not replace, energy from conventional sources	0.368	0.239	0.423	0.032	0.066	0.385	0.631	0.744	0.351
Green energy is an element imposed by the European Union	−0.017	0.008	0.065	0.374	0.541	0.704	0.484	0.138	0.159

‘Total’–the total of respondents; ‘Little’–respondents assessing their knowledge about green energy as low; ‘High’-respondents assessing their knowledge about green energy as high. Source: The present study based on the research results.

). These were variables with a negative overtone that reflected unflattering associations with green energy (identified with manipulation). Moreover, for the total respondents and for the people assessing their level of knowledge as ‘high’, the first factor also included a variable representing the equation of green energy with the emission of significant amounts of carbon dioxide, which is particularly symptomatic for people who believe that they know a lot about this type of energy.

The second and third factors for each of the three groups of respondents included either two or one variable. These were also primarily negative variables, but mainly related to economic aspects (costs related to the use of green energy). It is worth adding that for the respondents who assessed their knowledge of green energy as ‘high’, the second factor included the variable relating to the imposition of solutions on the use of green energy by the European Union on the Member States.

An analogous research procedure was undertaken to compare the internal structure of associations with green energy for the total respondents, with the structure of associations among people assigning little or high importance to the sources of energy used. For the purpose of the factor analysis, the respondents were divided into two groups: (1) people who think that the sources of energy used are important, i.e., respondents who attributed high or very high importance to this issue (see Table 3) and (2) the other respondents with the opposite opinion (see Table 3). On the basis of the Kaiser criterion, three factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 were identified for both of these groups of respondents. In each case, they explained more than 61% of the total variability of the aspect studied (

Table 8. Hierarchy of factors according to their eigenvalues determined on the basis of the Kaiser criterion (for the total of respondents and according to the importance assigned to energy sources).

Factor	Eigenvalue			Cumulated Eigenvalue			% of Total Eigenvalues (Variation)			Cumulated% of Eigenvalues
	Total	Unimportant	Important	Total	Unimportant	Important	Total	Unimportant	Important	Total	Unimportant	Important
1	3.604	3.770	3.490	3.604	3.770	3.490	32.761	34.274	31.731	32.761	34.274	31.731
2	1.617	1.667	1.700	5.221	5.437	5.190	14.702	15.152	15.456	47.462	49.426	47.187
3	1.610	1.550	1.629	6.831	6.987	6.819	14.633	14.092	14.811	62.096	63.518	61.998

‘Total’-The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) sampling adequacy measure is 0.862, which is greater than 0.7 [56]; Bartlett’s sphericity test is significant (variables are statistically significantly related to each other); chi2 is 1232.750; and p = 0.000; ‘Unimportant’-KMO = 0.827; the Bartlett sphericity test is significant; chi2 is 444.650; and p = 0.000; ‘Important’-KMO = 0.847; the Bartlett sphericity test is significant; chi2 is 808.539; and p = 0.000. ‘Total’-all respondents; ‘Unimportant’-respondents indicating that energy sources are not important to them; ‘Important’-respondents indicating that energy sources are important to them. Source: The present study based on the research results.

). For each group, the first factor included five or four variables with factor loadings of at least 0.7 (

Table 9. Results of the factor analysis of respondents’ associations regarding green energy, reflecting the level of their market awareness, and the importance ascribed to the sources of energy used.

Variable	Factor
	1			2			3
	Total	Unimportant	Important	Total	Unimportant	Important	Total	Unimportant	Important
Green energy is just a marketing slogan	0.844	0.871	0.827	0.167	0.103	0.106	0.129	0.192	0.192
The fashion for green energy will pass quickly	0.793	0.831	0.770	0.109	0.027	0.057	0.054	−0.066	0.186
Green energy is a great manipulation of society	0.785	0.798	0.769	0.232	0.116	0.043	0.070	0.051	0.322
Green energy is just a good-sounding argument that allows someone to earn a lot from it	0.764	0.742	0.775	0.205	0.187	0.238	0.278	0.359	0.211
Green energy is responsible for the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere	0.708	0.678	0.699	−0.162	−0.148	0.002	0.060	0.206	−0.123
The costs of producing green energy exceed the benefits achieved	0.617	0.764	0.521	0.482	0.310	0.237	0.143	0.144	0.515
Installations for the production of green energy are too expensive, especially for an average citizen	0.179	0.171	0.174	0.796	0.681	−0.007	−0.024	0.148	0.800
Green energy is expensive not only because of the cost of devices, but also because of their operating costs	0.088	0.115.	0.071	0.666	0.673	0.464	0.391	0.324	0.628
Green energy depends on the weather and does not ensure the stability of electricity supply	0.077	0132	0.049	0.067	0.018	0.859	0.836	0.838	0.038
Green energy should complement, not replace, energy from conventional sources	0.368	0.171	0.471	0.032	0.297	0.546	0.631	0.694	−0.068
Green energy is an element imposed by the European Union	−0.017	−0.033	0.029	0.374	0.705	0.566	0.484	−0.060	0.301

‘Total’-all respondents; ‘Unimportant’-respondents indicating that energy sources are not important to them; ‘Important’-respondents indicating that energy sources are important to them. Source: The present study based on the research results.

). These are almost the same variables that constituted the first factor in both groups identified according to the self-assessment of the level of knowledge about green energy. A new variable referring to the advantage of the costs of this energy over the benefits achieved appeared only in the respondents attributing little importance to energy sources.

The second and third factors for each of the three groups included one variable each, and for the third factor these are almost identical variables as those found in the analysis of the self-assessment of the level of knowledge. Relatively speaking, the greatest differences can be seen in the second factor. This concerns both the differences between the groups of people identified according to the importance attributed to energy sources used, and the differences between the content of the second factor selected in the previous analysis and in the factor analysis for people identified according to the importance assigned to energy sources. However, also taking this context into account, variables that made up the second factor included one that reflected the EU imposition of green energy solutions. It created the second factor in people who believed that the sources of energy used were not important.

From the point of view of marketing and shaping the relationships with recipients, the key significance of the results of the factor analysis is related to the factors being identified with customer sets. Their representatives displayed identical or very similar attitudes and/or behaviours within a specific set, differing only with people in other sets [57,58].

Table 10. Sets of respondents identified on the basis of the level of their market awareness of green energy according to the self-assessment of the level of knowledge about green energy and the importance assigned to the sources of energy used.

Group of Respondents	Sets of Respondents Identified
	1	2	3
The total of respondents	- Green energy is just a marketing slogan - The fashion for green energy will pass quickly - Green energy is a great manipulation of society - Green energy is just a good-sounding argument that allows someone to earn a lot from it - Green energy emits large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere	- Installations for the production of green energy are too expensive, especially for an average citizen	- Green energy depends on the weather and does not ensure the stability of electricity supply
People assessing their knowledge as low	- Green energy is just a marketing slogan - The fashion for green energy will pass quickly - Green energy is a great manipulation of society - Green energy is just a good-sounding argument that allows someone to earn a lot from it	- Green energy is expensive not only because of the cost of devices, but also because of their operating costs	- Green energy depends on the weather and does not ensure the stability of electricity supply - Green energy should complement, not replace, energy from conventional sources
People assessing their knowledge as high	- Green energy is just a marketing slogan - The fashion for green energy will pass quickly - Green energy is a great manipulation of society - Green energy is just a good-sounding argument that allows someone to earn a lot from it - Green energy emits large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere	- Green energy depends on the weather and does not ensure the stability of electricity supply - Green energy is an element imposed by the European Union	- Installations for the production of green energy are too expensive, especially for an average citizen
People assigning little importance to energy sources	- Green energy is just a marketing slogan - The fashion for green energy will pass quickly - Green energy is a great manipulation of society - Green energy is just a good-sounding argument that allows someone to earn a lot from it - The costs of producing green energy exceed the benefits achieved	- Green energy is an element imposed by the European Union	- Green energy depends on the weather and does not ensure the stability of electricity supply
People assigning much importance to energy sources	- Green energy is just a marketing slogan - The fashion for green energy will pass quickly - Green energy is a great manipulation of society - Green energy is just a good-sounding argument that allows someone to earn a lot from it	- Green energy depends on the weather and does not ensure the stability of electricity supply	- Installations for the production of green energy are too expensive, especially for an average citizen

Source: The present study based on the research results.

shows how for both groups the associations relating to green energy were different. Only in the case of the sets corresponding to the first factor identified for each of the five groups of respondents analysed, were the differences slight.

5. Discussion

This research shows that the respondents associated green energy primarily with obtaining it from renewable sources and with environmental benefits. This is consistent with the results of research conducted among US citizens who, regardless of age, attributed precisely these type of benefits to the use of renewable energy sources [59].

In a study of the factors determining the intentions related to using renewable energy sources, Masrahi, Wang, and Abudiyah [37] found out that for American recipients, the main determinant of the willingness to use them is the average household income. This result is similar to the results presented here, where green energy is associated primarily with high costs. It should be remembered that the aim of both studies was completely different, and thus their objectives and subject scopes were completely different.

Costs as a disincentive to the use of renewable energy sources were also indicated by Irfan et al. [38]. Moreover, they found that the level of the individual recipients’ awareness of this group of sources and their use by neighbours (the imitation effect) has a positive impact on the intention for using renewable energy sources. These researchers focused on identifying the impact, not on the dependencies between the variables, reporting the intentions for using green energy, and their determinants. Thus, their research had a different objective and subject scope (they studied recipients in Pakistan). However, some analogies can be found between the results of their research and the results of the research presented in this article. For example, the aspect of costs and the aspect of awareness. The former fits in with the results obtained herein. The latter is a key issue from the point of view of the subject matter of this article. Comparing the two research approaches, it is worth highlighting that this research has discovered a relationship between the self-assessment of the level of knowledge about green energy and the importance assigned to the sources of energy used.

In the literature on the subject there are visible discrepancies between the importance of the awareness of environmental aspects and the readiness to use renewable energy sources. In the case of some studies, a positive impact of the level of pro-environmental awareness was found (the higher it was, the greater the readiness to purchase an installation to obtain green energy). This group of studies includes, among others, studies conducted by Cruz and Manata [60], studies conducted by Zoric and Hrovatin [61], among Slovenian recipients, and studies conducted by Wall, Khalid, Urbański, and Kot [47] among Thais. Other studies lead to a completely different conclusion, pointing to the lack of such an impact. These include the research by Petrovich, Hille, and Wüstenhagen [43] among Swiss customers in relation to photovoltaic panels. Since the studies cited were carried out in different countries, perhaps this aspect explains the differences in the results obtained. It is worth adding, however, that while some authors emphasize the important role of consumers on the energy market, they conduct research with a different subject scope than that proposed in this article, thereby exploring considerations in, for example, macroeconomic terms [62].

Marks-Bielska, Bielski, Pik, and Kurowska [40] found out that in total almost 42% of the respondents representing Polish recipients assess their knowledge of renewable energy sources as, at least, ‘high’. This result is similar to the findings of the present study which show that 36% of such people were identified. It should be noted, however, that the cited authors studied adults aged between 19 and 67, and did not focus solely on young people. In addition, those studies referred to renewable energy sources, and not green energy in general, and they also used a different scale (a four-stage scale as follows: very high, high, average, and poor). Their results show that the smallest percentage of people assessed their knowledge as ‘poor’ (less than 7%), whereas in the present study, the proportion of people with a similar self-assessment was much higher (almost 37%).

The level of knowledge of Poles about renewable energy sources was also studied by Gryz and Kaczmarczyk [41], who discovered that in total almost 35% of people assess their knowledge as at least ‘high’. This result is similar to the result obtained here, though Gryz and Kaczmarczyk had a different subject (simply ‘energy sources’) and object (people aged between 15 and 30). Moreover, they used a different, four-level scale representing the level of knowledge (very high, high, sufficient, and insufficient). This was only a minor aspect of their research which primarily focused on the market behaviour of respondents in relation to energy sources. However, they did not study either the associations with green energy and the relationship between these nor the self-assessment of the level of knowledge about green energy or the meaning assigned to energy sources. Moreover, they limited the research to percentage terms only, without using any statistical analysis. This is one of the key issues that distinguish the research approach used in the present study and the study formerly cited. It confirms that the approach adopted here is innovative and makes a significant cognitive and research contribution to the existing knowledge about young recipients’ awareness of green energy.

6. Conclusions

6.1. Summary

In summary, the results of this study show that among young recipients’ associations with green energy, the highest were the positive associations, indicating a relatively high level of the respondents’ awareness of this type of energy and what it constitutes. In total, however, only 36% of the respondents replied that their self-assessment of the level of their knowledge about green energy, was, at least, ‘high’. Almost twice as many people in the present study (67%) stated that the source of energy that they use is important to them. A statistically significant dependence, although it was not strong, was identified between the self-assessment of the level of knowledge about green energy and the importance assigned to the sources of energy used. The existence of such dependencies was also found in the self-assessment of the level of knowledge, and with the ten associations with green energy, as well as in the importance attributed to the sources of energy used and the nine associations with green energy. The factor analysis conducted made it possible to identify homogeneous groups of recipients among the total respondents, people assessing their knowledge as ‘high’ or ‘low’, and people assigning a high or low importance to the energy sources used.

6.2. Implications, Limitations of the Research and Directions for Future Research

The research results presented in this article and the conclusions drawn show a significant cognitive and application value. They contribute to the theory of marketing and the theory of consumer attitudes and behaviour, especially related to building market awareness of individual recipients and energy suppliers and shaping their mutual relationships. The conclusions drawn fill the knowledge gap identified during the analysis of world literature on the subject. It was possible to identify, among others things, the following issues: (1) the respondents’ associations with green energy; (2) the hierarchy of the associations identified; (3) the dependencies between the self-assessment of the respondents’ level of knowledge about green energy and the importance of the energy sources they attribute; (4) the dependencies between associations with green energy and self-assessment of the relevant level of knowledge; (5) the dependencies between associations with green energy and the importance attributed to the sources of energy used; (6) the internal structure of associations with green energy, taking into account the self-assessment of the level of knowledge about it; (7) the internal structure of associations with green energy, taking into account the importance attributed to the sources of energy used; and (8) sets of recipients with similar associations with green energy.

The research results presented in this article and their conclusions also have a significant application value. Taking them into account, the management representatives of enterprises operating on the consumer energy market may be able to facilitate effectively targeted strategic decisions about the development of mutually beneficial relationships with individual recipients based on their market education and the use of their knowledge and their readiness to share it. The knowledge of the results obtained here allows managers to take action which adequately meets the needs of a specific group of recipients, taking into account their knowledge and their readiness to enrich it. The managerial implications are also extremely useful for the preparation and implementation of appropriate activities promoting the use of renewable energy sources and green energy through a comprehensive explanation of their specificity and benefits. It is highly significant that in all five groups of respondents, the sets corresponding to the most important, i.e., the first factor, included people who identified green energy with a marketing slogan, and, even worse, with the manipulation of society. In line with these conclusions, an appropriate promotional strategy could be implemented. Certainly, the choice of an emotional strategy would be a better choice for a message addressed to these aforementioned sets, while the choice of a rational strategy would be a more effective option in relation to the sets whose representatives associated green energy primarily with high costs or with the instability of electricity supply.

The authors realise that the results have some limitations which are related to the research approach adopted. These limitations apply to, for example, the scope of the research carried out, including the subject, object, and geographical scope. The primary research covered only representatives of Polish recipients belonging to one age group, which of course was a deliberate measure, as explained in this article. The focus was also specifically on aspects reflecting the level of market awareness of respondents related to green energy. The awareness of these limitations is an impulse for the authors to undertake further research, which would, over time, gradually eliminate the above-mentioned limitations by extending the scope of research, e.g., by including people from other age groups and other parameters, thus reflecting the level of awareness of renewable forms of energy and their importance for social and economic life.