Factors Influencing Household Solar Adoption in Santiago, Chile

Abstract

In Santiago, Chile, the market conditions are seemingly excellent for the household adoption of photovoltaic (PV) technology, yet the uptake is negligible. To explore this paradox, the authors conducted a Delphi study to solicit the knowledge of a panel of Chilean PV experts. These efforts yielded 26 factors-both motivations and barriers-impacting the diffusion of PV in Santiago. Of the 26, experts were in consensus on the relative importance of 21. The literature suggests that diffusion of PV technologies is influenced by complex technical, economic, and social factors. Similarly, the experts saw influence from financial, environmental, and energy supply (e.g., electrical reliability) factors. They saw emergent barriers to adoption as being financial, technical, institutional, and knowledge factors. They considered the most important factors influencing adoption to be financial motivations (e.g., subsidies) and financial barriers (e.g., high upfront costs); they considered the least important factors to be environmental motivations (e.g., environmental stewardship) and technical barriers (e.g., concerns with roof mounting). With this knowledge, the authors develop an adoption framework for household PV that describes the interaction among the identified motivations and barriers. This framework informs policy recommendations for Santiago, Chile, and contributes to the body of literature exploring the interconnected systems of factors that influence civil infrastructure in general and PV adoption in particular.

A Systems Analysis of Factors Influencing Household Solar PV Adoption in Santiago, Chile

“…Given the above, the aim of this study was to present and employ a practical and accessible technique for mapping economic, political, and societal interdependencies, as well as the evolution of their inferred impacts on household solar PV diffusion, demonstrated with application to Santiago, Chile. In addition, this study sought to compare, contrast and build upon the recent study by Walters et al [26] that employed a Delphi panel of experts to reach consensus on the key factors driving the adoption of household solar in Santiago (see Hallowell and Gambatese [27] for detailed information on the Delphi process). Walters et al [26] enumerated and scored important factors, and noted the potential for improved understanding of factor importance by identifying how the factors interacted as a system.…”

“…In addition, this study sought to compare, contrast and build upon the recent study by Walters et al [26] that employed a Delphi panel of experts to reach consensus on the key factors driving the adoption of household solar in Santiago (see Hallowell and Gambatese [27] for detailed information on the Delphi process). Walters et al [26] enumerated and scored important factors, and noted the potential for improved understanding of factor importance by identifying how the factors interacted as a system. To achieve this additional depth in understanding, this analysis uses the impact matrix multiplication applied to classification (MICMAC) technique, as it allows for the mapping of interrelationships of factors to infer key drivers in complex system evolution [28].…”

Understanding Rural Water Services as a Complex System: An Assessment of Key Factors as Potential Leverage Points for Improved Service Sustainability

“…A study protocol for the workshops and data collection was reviewed and approved by the University of Colorado's Institutional Review Board (IRB # 17-0292) and all participants gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the workshops. Building upon participatory system dynamic methods [55][56][57][58], this work used a 'Factor Mapping' workshop format to elicit knowledge about factor interaction and dynamics as developed by Walters et al [59][60][61][62]. The GMB approach provided a structured process for engaging knowledgeable stakeholders in discussions around complex problems [46,63,64].…”

Assessing the efficacy of group model building workshops in an applied setting through purposive text analysis

“…The purpose of these workshops was twofold: first, to improve local stakeholder understanding on the interaction of factors that influence sustained water service provision in each regional context; and second, as pertaining to this study, to compare the collective and shared mental models developed from the pre-workshop interviews to those developed from a group setting where interviewees are convened. Building upon GMB best practices Hovmand et al, 2010;Hovmand, 2014b;Eker et al, 2017), this work used a participatory "Factor Mapping" workshop format to elicit knowledge about factor interaction as developed by Walters and colleagues (Walters and Javernick-Will, 2015;Walters and Chinowsky, 2016;Walters et al, 2018;Walters and Neely 2016).…”

“…Recently, there has been an increased focus on the use of GMB approaches for engaging local stakeholders at a community level in more informal and applied settings (Hovmand, 2014a;Amadei, 2015;Neely, 2019). Examples include modeling complex watershed management (RESLIM, 2015), understanding the delivery of mental health services in conflict areas (Trani et al, 2016), assessing drivers of solar energy adoption (Walters et al, 2018), and developing innovative policies for reducing urban homelessness (Fowler et al, 2017). While these works have greatly expanded the scope and potential use of GMB beyond its traditional realm, there remains limited documentation of GMB within these contexts.…”