Policy Implications for Promoting the Adoption of Cogeneration Systems in the Hotel Industry: An Extension of the Technology Acceptance Mode
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Technology Acceptance Theory
2.2. Other Identified Factors
2.2.1. Facilitating Conditions
2.2.2. Environmental Awareness
2.2.3. Risk Perception
2.2.4. Perceived Benefit
2.2.5. Perceived Cost
3. Methodology
3.1. Study Design and Questionnaire Development
3.2. Participants
3.3. Data Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Measurement Model
4.2. Structural Model
4.3. Mediation Analysis
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical Implications
5.2. Policy Implications
5.3. Limitations
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Lindsey, R.; Dahlman, L. Climate Change: Global Temperature. Available online: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20NOAA%202019,more%20than%20twice%20as%20great (accessed on 12 July 2021).
- Hong Kong Observatory. Climate Change in Hong Kong. Available online: https://www.hko.gov.hk/en/climate_change/obs_hk_temp.htm#:~:text=The%20average%20increasing%20rate%20was,Headquarters%20(1885%2D2019) (accessed on 12 July 2021).
- Parpairi, K. Sustainability and Energy Use in Small Scale Greek Hotels: Energy Saving Strategiesand Environmental Policies. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2017, 38, 169–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martins, F.; Felgueiras, C.; Smitková, M. Fossil fuel energy consumption in European countries. Energy Procedia 2018, 153, 107–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Isa, N.M.; Tan, C.W.; Yatim, A. A comprehensive review of cogeneration system in a microgrid: A perspective from architecture and operating system. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 2236–2263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheng, Y.; Miao, Z.; Zhang, J.; Lin, X.; Ma, H. Energy consumption model and energy benchmarks of five-star hotels in China. Energy Build. 2018, 165, 286–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Electrical and Mechanical Services Department. Hong Kong Energy End-Use Data 2020. Available online: https://www.emsd.gov.hk/filemanager/en/content_762/HKEEUD2020.pdf (accessed on 12 July 2021).
- Fan, J.; Wei, X.; Ko, I. How do hotel employees’ feeling trusted and its differentiation shape service performance: The role of relational energy. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 92, 102700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bianco, V.; Righi, D.; Scarpa, F.; Tagliafico, L.A. Modeling energy consumption and efficiency measures in the Italian hotel sector. Energy Build. 2017, 149, 329–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shao, M.; Wang, X.; Bu, Z.; Chen, X.; Wang, Y. Prediction of energy consumption in hotel buildings via support vector machines. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 57, 102128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cannistraro, G.; Cannistraro, M.; Galvagno, A.; Trovato, G. The cogeneration in service hotel complexes. A case study. Surfaces 2016, 2, 4–5. [Google Scholar]
- Salem, R.; Bahadori-Jahromi, A.; Mylona, A.; Godfrey, P.; Cook, D. Comparison and evaluation of the potential energy, carbon emissions, and financial impacts from the incorporation of CHP and CCHP systems in existing UK hotel buildings. Energies 2018, 11, 1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Energy Solutions Center. Understanding CHP and the Cost of Installation. Available online: https://understandingchp.com/blog/understanding-chp-and-the-cost-of-installation/ (accessed on 5 August 2022).
- Lee, W.K.H.; Man, S.S.; Chan, A.H.S. Cogeneration System Acceptance in the Hotel Industry: A Qualitative Study. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2022, 51, 339–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Warshaw, P.R. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 1989, 35, 982–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adetooto, J.; Windapo, A. Concomitant Impediments to the Social Acceptance of Sandbag Technology for Sustainable and Affordable Housing Delivery: The Case of South Africa. Buildings 2022, 12, 859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, Y.; Deng, Y. What Drives Construction Practitioners’ Acceptance of Intelligent Surveillance Systems? An Extended Technology Acceptance Model. Buildings 2022, 12, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Man, S.S.; Xiong, W.; Chang, F.; Chan, A.H.S. Critical Factors Influencing Acceptance of Automated Vehicles by Hong Kong Drivers. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 109845–109856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, S.; Lee, P.C.; Law, R.; Hyun, S.S. An investigation of the moderating effects of current job position level and hotel work experience between technology readiness and technology acceptance. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 90, 102633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gimpel, H.; Graf, V.; Graf-Drasch, V. A comprehensive model for individuals’ acceptance of smart energy technology—A meta-analysis. Energy Policy 2020, 138, 111196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, Q.; Chan, A.H.S.; Chen, K. Personal and other factors affecting acceptance of smartphone technology by older Chinese adults. Appl. Ergon. 2016, 54, 62–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montargot, N.; Lahouel, B.B. The acceptance of technological change in the hospitality industry from the perspective of front-line employees. J. Organ. Change Manag. 2018, 31, 637–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mejia, C. Influencing green technology use behavior in the hospitality industry and the role of the “green champion”. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2019, 28, 538–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fu, L.; Sun, Z.; Zha, L.; Liu, F.; He, L.; Sun, X.; Jing, X. Environmental awareness and pro-environmental behavior within china’s road freight transportation industry: Moderating role of perceived policy effectiveness. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 252, 119796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, Y.; Wang, X.; Brombal, D.; Moriggi, A.; Sharpley, A.; Pang, S. Changes in environmental awareness and its connection to local environmental management in water conservation zones: The case of Beijing, China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, P.; Hillier, D.; Comfort, D. Sustainability in the global hotel industry. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 26, 5–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, E.S.; Hon, A.H.; Chan, W.; Okumus, F. What drives employees’ intentions to implement green practices in hotels? The role of knowledge, awareness, concern and ecological behaviour. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 40, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yucedag, C.; Kaya, L.G.; Cetin, M. Identifying and assessing environmental awareness of hotel and restaurant employees’ attitudes in the Amasra District of Bartin. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2018, 190, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, Y.; Wang, S.; Wang, J.; Wei, J.; Wang, C. An empirical study of consumers’ intention to use ride-sharing services: Using an extended technology acceptance model. Transportation 2020, 47, 397–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slovic, P. Perception of risk. Science 1987, 236, 280–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Man, S.S.; Chan, A.H.S.; Alabdulkarim, S.; Zhang, T. The effects of personal and organizational factors on the risk-taking behavior of Hong Kong construction workers. Saf. Sci. 2021, 163, 105155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Badawy, M.; Alqahtani, F.K.; Sherif, M. A Multilayer Perception for Estimating the Overall Risk of Residential Projects in the Conceptual Stage. Buildings 2022, 12, 480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, Z.; Ding, S.; Li, S.; Chen, L.; Yang, S. Adoption intention of FinTech services for bank users: An empirical examination with an extended Technology Acceptance Model. Symmetry 2019, 11, 340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Wang, J.; Wangh, S.; Zhou, Y. Mobile payment with alipay: An application of extended technology acceptance model. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 50380–50387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, S.; Wang, J.; Lin, S.; Li, J. Public perceptions and acceptance of nuclear energy in China: The role of public knowledge, perceived benefit, perceived risk and public engagement. Energy Policy 2019, 126, 352–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, H.; Hwang, J. Multi-dimensions of the perceived benefits in a medical hotel and their roles in international travelers’ decision-making process. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2013, 35, 100–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elhoushy, S.; Salem, I.E.; Agag, G. The impact of perceived benefits and risks on current and desired levels of outsourcing: Hotel managers’ perspective. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 91, 102419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanadi, T.; Samadi, B.; Gharleghi, B. The impact of perceived risks and perceived benefits to improve an online intention among generation-y in Malaysia. Asian Soc. Sci. 2015, 11, 226–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsujikawa, N.; Tsuchida, S.; Shiotani, T. Changes in the factors influencing public acceptance of nuclear power generation in Japan since the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Risk Anal. 2016, 36, 98–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sonnberger, M.; Ruddat, M. Local and socio-political acceptance of wind farms in Germany. Technol. Soc. 2017, 51, 56–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Machogu, A.M.; Okiko, L. The Perception of Bank Employees towards Cost of Adoption, Risk of Innovation, and Staff Training’s Influence on the Adoption of Information and Communication Technology in the Rwandan Commercial Banks. J. Internet Bank. Commer. 1970, 17, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
- Yuen, K.F.; Cai, L.; Qi, G.; Wang, X. Factors influencing autonomous vehicle adoption: An application of the technology acceptance model and innovation diffusion theory. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2020, 33, 505–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kardooni, R.; Yusoff, S.B.; Kari, F.B. Renewable energy technology acceptance in Peninsular Malaysia. Energy Policy 2016, 88, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, J.; Liao, H.; Wang, J.-W.; Chen, T. The role of environmental concern in the public acceptance of autonomous electric vehicles: A survey from China. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2019, 60, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.F.; Xu, X.; Arpan, L. Between the technology acceptance model and sustainable energy technology acceptance model: Investigating smart meter acceptance in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 25, 93–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, T.A. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Pearson: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- McDonald, R.P.; Ho, M.H.R. Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychol. Methods 2002, 7, 64–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Man, S.S.; Chan, A.H.S.; Alabdulkarim, S. Quantification of Risk Perception: Development and Validation of the Construction Worker Risk Perception (CoWoRP) Scale. J. Res. 2019, 71, 25–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cronbach, L.J.; Meehl, P.E. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol. Bull. 1955, 52, 281–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Irfan, M.; Zhao, Z.-Y.; Li, H.; Rehman, A. The influence of consumers’ intention factors on willingness to pay for renewable energy: A structural equation modeling approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 21747–21761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, F.; Gu, J.; Wu, J. Perspective taking, energy policy involvement, and public acceptance of nuclear energy: Evidence from China. Energy Policy 2020, 145, 111716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qi, W.-H.; Qi, M.-L.; Ji, Y.-M. The effect path of public communication on public acceptance of nuclear energy. Energy Policy 2020, 144, 111655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Falk, C.F.; Biesanz, J.C. Two cross-platform programs for inferences and interval estimation about indirect effects in mediational models. SAGE Open 2016, 6, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, S.; Poulova, P.; Akbar, A.; Javed, H.M.U.; Danish, M. Determining the Influencing Factors in the Adoption of Solar Photovoltaic Technology in Pakistan: A Decomposed Technology Acceptance Model Approach. Economies 2020, 8, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vroom, V.H. Work and Motivation; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1964; Volume 45. [Google Scholar]
- Zainab, B.; Awais Bhatti, M.; Alshagawi, M. Factors affecting e-training adoption: An examination of perceived cost, computer self-efficacy and the technology acceptance model. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2017, 36, 1261–1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dhirasasna, N.; Sahin, O. A system dynamics model for renewable energy technology adoption of the hotel sector. Renew. Energy 2021, 163, 1994–2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Gu, J.; Wu, J. Explaining local residents’ acceptance of rebuilding nuclear power plants: The roles of perceived general benefit and perceived local benefit. Energy Policy 2020, 140, 111410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryu, Y.; Kim, S.; Kim, S. Does trust matter? Analyzing the impact of trust on the perceived risk and acceptance of nuclear power energy. Sustainability 2018, 10, 758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mou, J.; Shin, D.-H.; Cohen, J.F. Trust and risk in consumer acceptance of e-services. Electron. Commer. Res. 2017, 17, 255–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yun, S.; Lee, J. Advancing societal readiness toward renewable energy system adoption with a socio-technical perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2015, 95, 170–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Ma, Q.; Chan, A.H.S.; Man, S.S. Health monitoring through wearable technologies for older adults: Smart wearables acceptance model. Appl. Ergon. 2019, 75, 162–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rustam, A.; Wang, Y.; Zameer, H. Environmental awareness, firm sustainability exposure and green consumption behaviors. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 268, 122016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heydari, J.; Govindan, K.; Basiri, Z. Balancing price and green quality in presence of consumer environmental awareness: A green supply chain coordination approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020, 59, 1957–1975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Despotović, J.; Rodić, V.; Caracciolo, F. Farmers’ environmental awareness: Construct development, measurement, and use. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 295, 126378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wan, Y.K.P.; Chan, S.H.J.; Huang, H.L.W. Environmental awareness, initiatives and performance in the hotel industry of Macau. Tour. Rev. 2017, 72, 87–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. Combined Heat and Power—Finance: A Detailed Guide for CHP Developers Part 5. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/961322/Part_5_CHP_Finance_BEIS_v03.pdf (accessed on 12 July 2021).
- Environmental Protection Department. New Energy Transport Fund (Previously Named Pilot Green Transport Fund). Available online: https://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/air/prob_solutions/new-energy-transport-fund.html (accessed on 12 July 2021).
- Office of Environment and Heritage NSW. ENERGY SAVER Cogeneration Feasibility Guide. Available online: https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/business/140685-cogeneration-feasibility-guide.pdf (accessed on 12 July 2021).
Construct | Item | Content |
---|---|---|
Perceived usefulness (PU) | PU1 | Cogeneration systems will be useful in setting energy usage goals. |
PU2 | Cogeneration systems will provide useful information, such as real-time charge information. | |
PU3 | Cogeneration systems will be useful to save time on checking the usage history. | |
PU4 | Cogeneration systems will be useful to help understand the need for electricity conservation. | |
PU5 | Cogeneration systems will be useful in providing power and heat reliably. | |
Perceived ease of use (PEOU) | PEOU1 | Learning to use cogeneration systems will be easy for me. |
PEOU2 | It will be easy for me to become skilful at using cogeneration systems. | |
PEOU3 | I will find using cogeneration systems easy. | |
PEOU4 | Interacting with cogeneration systems would not require a lot of my mental effort. | |
Attitude towards using cogeneration systems (ATUCS) | ATUCS1 | Using cogeneration systems is a good idea. |
ATUCS2 | Using cogeneration systems is a wise idea. | |
ATUCS3 | I like the idea of using cogeneration systems. | |
ATUCS4 | Using cogeneration systems will be a pleasant experience. | |
Intention to use cogeneration systems (ITUCS) | ITUCS1 | I want to use cogeneration systems. |
ITUCS2 | I predict I will use cogeneration systems in the future. | |
ITUCS3 | I plan to use cogeneration systems in the future. | |
Facilitating conditions (FC) | FC1 | Having technical support is important to tackle the problems in the use of cogeneration systems. |
FC2 | Training practice is useful and important for the use of cogeneration systems. | |
FC3 | Statutory requirement is useful and important for the use of cogeneration systems. | |
Environmental awareness (EA) | EA1 | I consider the potential environmental impact of my actions when making my decisions. |
EA2 | I am concerned about wasting the resources of my planet. | |
EA3 | I would like to describe myself as environmentally responsible. | |
EA4 | I am willing to be inconvenienced to take actions that are more environmentally friendly. | |
EA5 | I have the responsibility to protect my planet. | |
Risk perception (RP) | RP1 | I am worried that the failure or malfunctions of cogeneration systems may cause accidents. |
RP2 | I am worried about the general safety of using cogeneration systems. | |
RP3 | It is unsafe to use cogeneration systems. | |
RP4 | The risk of the malfunctions of cogeneration systems is high. | |
RP5 | The safety of using cogeneration systems is worse than that of using other energy systems. | |
RP6 | In general, using cogeneration systems is less safe than using other energy systems. | |
Perceived benefit (PB) | PB1 | I think using cogeneration systems can reduce electricity consumption. |
PB2 | I think using cogeneration systems can improve brand image. | |
PB3 | I think using cogeneration systems can save fuel costs. | |
PB4 | I think using cogeneration systems will have a positive impact on my hotel economically. | |
Perceived cost (PC) | PC1 | I think the cost of cogeneration systems is more expensive than that of other energy systems. |
PC2 | I think the cost of using cogeneration systems is very unreasonable. | |
PC3 | I think the maintenance cost of using cogeneration systems is more expensive than that of other energy systems. | |
PC4 | Using cogeneration systems entails financial barriers. | |
PC5 | I think the initial cost of using the cogeneration systems is more expensive than that of other energy systems. | |
PC6 | I think the running cost of employing cogeneration systems is more expensive than that of other energy systems. |
Item | Description | Number of Participants | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Age | 21–30 | 98 | 19.6 |
31–40 | 145 | 29.1 | |
41–50 | 167 | 33.5 | |
Above 50 | 89 | 17.8 | |
Gender | Female | 134 | 26.9 |
Male | 365 | 73.1 | |
Job nature | Engineer | 232 | 46.5 |
Manager | 267 | 53.5 | |
Education level | Higher secondary | 68 | 13.6 |
Bachelor’s degree | 334 | 67.0 | |
Master’s degree | 92 | 18.4 | |
Doctoral degree | 5 | 1.0 | |
Work experience in the hotel industry (Number of years) | 1–4 | 32 | 6.4 |
5–10 | 154 | 30.9 | |
11–20 | 273 | 54.7 | |
Above 20 | 40 | 8.0 |
Model Fit Indices | Values | Recommended Values | Results | References |
---|---|---|---|---|
χ2/df | 2.173 | <5 | Acceptable | [48,49] |
RMSEA | 0.049 | <0.08 | Acceptable | |
SRMR | 0.034 | <0.08 | Acceptable | |
CFI | 0.958 | ≥0.9 | Acceptable | |
NNFI | 0.953 | ≥0.9 | Acceptable |
Construct | Item | Mean | Standard Deviation | Factor Loading | AVE | CR | Cronbach’s Alpha |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PU | PU1 | 3.976 | 0.975 | 0.921 | 0.918 | 0.964 | 0.964 |
PU2 | 3.978 | 0.968 | 0.918 | ||||
PU3 | 3.986 | 0.956 | 0.915 | ||||
PU4 | 4.014 | 0.997 | 0.919 | ||||
PU5 | 3.986 | 1.015 | 0.918 | ||||
PEOU | PEOU1 | 3.808 | 1.180 | 0.830 | 0.825 | 0.895 | 0.892 |
PEOU2 | 3.711 | 1.224 | 0.783 | ||||
PEOU3 | 3.691 | 0.982 | 0.852 | ||||
PEOU4 | 3.749 | 1.014 | 0.836 | ||||
ATUCS | ATUCS1 | 2.044 | 1.025 | 0.916 | 0.922 | 0.958 | 0.958 |
ATUCS2 | 1.976 | 1.025 | 0.933 | ||||
ATUCS3 | 1.962 | 1.016 | 0.922 | ||||
ATUCS4 | 1.902 | 0.996 | 0.918 | ||||
ITUCS | ITUCS1 | 2.497 | 1.141 | 0.910 | 0.906 | 0.932 | 0.932 |
ITUCS2 | 2.603 | 1.188 | 0.917 | ||||
ITUCS3 | 2.535 | 1.160 | 0.892 | ||||
FC | FC1 | 3.607 | 0.981 | 0.852 | 0.861 | 0.896 | 0.896 |
FC2 | 3.709 | 1.007 | 0.895 | ||||
FC3 | 3.583 | 1.019 | 0.837 | ||||
EA | EA1 | 4.050 | 0.873 | 0.850 | 0.851 | 0.929 | 0.929 |
EA2 | 4.010 | 0.884 | 0.822 | ||||
EA3 | 4.104 | 0.876 | 0.859 | ||||
EA4 | 4.052 | 0.870 | 0.870 | ||||
EA5 | 4.038 | 0.883 | 0.854 | ||||
RP | RP1 | 4.088 | 0.994 | 0.828 | 0.878 | 0.953 | 0.952 |
RP2 | 4.232 | 0.879 | 0.897 | ||||
RP3 | 4.248 | 0.902 | 0.901 | ||||
RP4 | 4.226 | 0.931 | 0.900 | ||||
RP5 | 4.355 | 0.892 | 0.857 | ||||
RP6 | 4.251 | 0.929 | 0.886 | ||||
PB | PB1 | 2.691 | 1.198 | 0.942 | 0.902 | 0.946 | 0.947 |
PB2 | 2.649 | 1.178 | 0.939 | ||||
PB3 | 2.689 | 1.185 | 0.876 | ||||
PB4 | 2.543 | 1.132 | 0.849 | ||||
PC | PC1 | 1.824 | 0.706 | 0.837 | 0.802 | 0.916 | 0.916 |
PC2 | 1.832 | 0.717 | 0.852 | ||||
PC3 | 1.796 | 0.716 | 0.850 | ||||
PC4 | 1.798 | 0.706 | 0.829 | ||||
PC5 | 1.790 | 0.710 | 0.755 | ||||
PC6 | 1.764 | 0.671 | 0.691 |
PU | PEOU | FC | EA | RP | PB | PC | ATUCS | ITUCS | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PU | 0.958 | ||||||||
PEOU | 0.367 | 0.908 | |||||||
FC | 0.665 | 0.336 | 0.928 | ||||||
EA | 0.727 | 0.543 | 0.673 | 0.922 | |||||
RP | 0.254 | 0.110 | 0.179 | 0.283 | 0.937 | ||||
PB | −0.130 | −0.005 | −0.109 | −0.109 | −0.452 | 0.950 | |||
PC | −0.449 | −0.157 | −0.401 | −0.431 | −0.162 | 0.126 | 0.802 | ||
ATUCS | −0.081 | −0.037 | −0.110 | −0.171 | −0.629 | 0.513 | 0.151 | 0.960 | |
ITUCS | −0.015 | 0.179 | −0.013 | 0.020 | −0.431 | 0.468 | 0.076 | 0.643 | 0.952 |
Model Fit Indices | Values | Recommended Values | Results | References |
---|---|---|---|---|
χ2/df | 2.331 | <5 | Acceptable | [48,49] |
RMSEA | 0.052 | <0.08 | Acceptable | |
SRMR | 0.055 | <0.08 | Acceptable | |
CFI | 0.951 | ≥0.9 | Acceptable | |
NNFI | 0.947 | ≥0.9 | Acceptable |
Hypothesis | Standardised Path Coefficient | p-Value | Result |
---|---|---|---|
H1: Perceived ease of use has a positive influence on attitude towards using cogeneration systems. | 0.032 | 0.421 | Not supported |
H2: Perceived ease of use has a positive influence on perceived usefulness. | 0.004 | 0.900 | Not supported |
H3: Perceived usefulness has a positive influence on attitude towards using cogeneration systems. | 0.204 | <0.001 | Supported |
H4: Perceived usefulness has a positive influence on intention to use cogeneration systems. | 0.041 | 0.275 | Not supported |
H5: Attitude towards using cogeneration systems has a positive influence on intention to use cogeneration systems. | 0.651 | <0.001 | Supported |
H6: Facilitating conditions have a positive influence on perceived ease of use. | 0.369 | <0.001 | Supported |
H7: Facilitating conditions have a positive influence on perceived usefulness. | 0.302 | <0.001 | Supported |
H8: Facilitating conditions have a positive influence on attitude towards using cogeneration systems. | −0.037 | 0.53 | Not supported |
H9: Environmental awareness has a positive influence on perceived usefulness. | 0.450 | <0.001 | Supported |
H10: Environmental awareness has a positive influence on attitude towards using cogeneration systems. | −0.100 | 0.103 | Not supported |
H11: Risk perception has a negative influence on perceived usefulness. | 0.047 | 0.206 | Not supported |
H12: Risk perception has a negative influence on attitude towards using cogeneration systems. | −0.506 | <0.001 | Supported |
H13: Perceived benefit has a positive influence on perceived usefulness. | −0.011 | 0.749 | Not supported |
H14: Perceived benefit has a positive influence on attitude towards using cogeneration systems. | 0.293 | <0.001 | Supported |
H15: Perceived cost has a negative influence on perceived usefulness. | −0.124 | <0.001 | Supported |
H16: Perceived cost has a negative influence on attitude towards using cogeneration systems. | 0.070 | 0.087 | Not supported |
Independent Variable | Mediator | Dependent Variable | Standardised Indirect Effect | p-Value | Result |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Facilitating conditions | Perceived ease of use | Attitude towards using cogeneration systems | 0.012 | 0.412 | Non-significant |
RMSEA | Perceived usefulness | Attitude towards using cogeneration systems | 0.062 | <0.001 | Significant |
Environmental awareness | Perceived usefulness | Attitude towards using cogeneration systems | 0.092 | <0.001 | Significant |
Risk perception | Perceived usefulness | Attitude towards using cogeneration systems | 0.010 | 0.167 | Non-significant |
Perceived benefit | Perceived usefulness | Attitude towards using cogeneration systems | −0.002 | 0.717 | Non-significant |
Perceived cost | Perceived usefulness | Attitude towards using cogeneration systems | −0.025 | 0.007 | Significant |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Man, S.S.; Lee, W.K.H.; Wong, K.P.; Chan, A.H.S. Policy Implications for Promoting the Adoption of Cogeneration Systems in the Hotel Industry: An Extension of the Technology Acceptance Mode. Buildings 2022, 12, 1247. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12081247
Man SS, Lee WKH, Wong KP, Chan AHS. Policy Implications for Promoting the Adoption of Cogeneration Systems in the Hotel Industry: An Extension of the Technology Acceptance Mode. Buildings. 2022; 12(8):1247. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12081247
Chicago/Turabian StyleMan, Siu Shing, Wilson Ka Ho Lee, Ka Po Wong, and Alan Hoi Shou Chan. 2022. "Policy Implications for Promoting the Adoption of Cogeneration Systems in the Hotel Industry: An Extension of the Technology Acceptance Mode" Buildings 12, no. 8: 1247. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12081247
APA StyleMan, S. S., Lee, W. K. H., Wong, K. P., & Chan, A. H. S. (2022). Policy Implications for Promoting the Adoption of Cogeneration Systems in the Hotel Industry: An Extension of the Technology Acceptance Mode. Buildings, 12(8), 1247. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12081247