Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 150 references

Beyond Leaders and Laggards: A Typology of Renewable Energy Adoption Trajectories with Evidence from Off-Grid Communities

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A new index sorts every community into eight solar adoption paths and finds that retreat is common while leapfrogging is rare.

desk verdict A novel ATI metric and eight-path typology applied to a genuinely valuable off-grid PV dataset, but the headline 18% retreating share rests on six-point curve fitting that can manufacture the very patterns the paper claims to find. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22456 v2 pith:V6XB3RUG submitted 2025-05-28 econ.GN q-fin.EC

Roni Blushtein-Livnon , Tal Svoray , Itai Ficshhendler , Havatzelet Yahel , Emir Galilee , Michael Dorman This is my paper
classification econ.GNq-fin.EC
keywords renewableenergyadoptionsolarphotovoltaicoff-gridcommunitiestypologyoverTimeIndexseriesanalysisdiffusionofinnovationsBedouinclusters
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that renewable-energy adoption is not a single S-curve but a set of distinct trajectories that can be measured and classified from time-series data. Its central claim is that a new metric, the Adoption over Time Index (ATI), combined with entry time, latest trajectory, and latest adoption intensity, is enough to assign every geographic entity in a region to one of eight adoption paths, including two retreating paths that earlier typologies missed. Applied to 1,192 off-grid Bedouin clusters in southern Israel over six observation years, the framework reports that 18% of clusters are on retreating paths (decelerating or declining moderate), while the dramatic 'leaping' path is nearly absent at 2%. If true, energy policy needs to plan for stagnation and decline, not just growth, and can tailor interventions to the specific trajectory of each community.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the Adoption over Time Index (ATI), a scalar that combines the area under an entity's fitted adoption-intensity curve with a feedback adjustment for how long the entity strayed above or below the regional mean curve. ATI is built from intersections between the entity's best-fitting curve and the regional mean curve: the angle after each intersection sets the direction of the deviation, and the time between intersections sets its weight. The candidate curves are a set of commonly used cumulative diffusion shapes, polynomials, and a linear function, and the best fit is selected by maximum goodness of fit conditional on exceeding 0.9. ATI supplies the intensity axis of each profile; entry time, latest trajectory, and latest adoption intensity fill the other three axes, and a rule table maps every feasible combination to one of eight named paths.

What would settle it

Check the raw, un-fitted PV areas in 2020 and 2022 for clusters labeled decelerating or declining moderate; if most of them grew rather than stagnated or declined, the retreating paths are fitting artifacts rather than real behavior.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is a formal way to see adoption dynamics as trajectories rather than milestones. Each entity's photovoltaic density over time is fitted with the best curve from a family that includes standard cumulative diffusion shapes, polynomials, and a linear form; the area under that curve, normalized to the regional mean, gives the base ATI. A feedback mechanism then penalizes entities whose high overall adoption was interrupted by periods below the regional mean, and rewards weak entities that temporarily rose above it, with adjustments proportional to how long the deviation lasted. The result is a typology of eight paths: leading, accelerating, decelerating, leaping, moderate, declining moderate, lagging, and non-adopting, where decelerating and declining moderate are newly identified. In the Bedouin case study, the retreating paths are substantial (18%), the leaping path is near-absent (2%), and lagging clusters dominate the region, so the paper concludes that a decade of access has not exhausted the region's adoption potential.

Load-bearing premise

The framework's load-bearing premise is that a curve fitted to only six yearly observations, chosen as best among many candidate shapes by a fit score above 0.9, faithfully represents each community's actual adoption trajectory, because overfitted curves would distort the area, crossing points, entry time, and final path label.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Retreating paths make up 18% of clusters, so adoption programs should monitor for deceleration and decline and intervene before backsliding entrenches.
  • The near-absence of the leaping path (2%) suggests late, rapid catch-up is not a reliable default for marginalized off-grid populations.
  • Separating leading from accelerating and lagging from non-adopting gives policymakers distinct targets: imitation hubs versus communities needing stronger engagement.
  • One-third of clusters changed path between the two halves of the timeline, with downward shifts more abrupt than upward ones, implying early-warning systems may be feasible.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same four-feature pipeline could be exported to other technologies, regions, or time grids as long as at least six time points and a comparable entity-level intensity measure exist; path labels could then be compared across regions.
  • If the finding that retreat is common holds elsewhere, diffusion models that assume monotonic saturation would need a regime-switching component that allows decline.
  • A natural test is to link path labels to later behavior: do decelerating and declining-moderate clusters show measurable recovery after targeted interventions, and do leading clusters continue to lead?
  • Path labels could also serve as a dependent variable in regressions on socioeconomic, spatial, or infrastructure factors to identify what drives each trajectory.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops an analytical framework for classifying renewable-energy adoption trajectories of geographic entities. It introduces an Adoption over Time Index (ATI) based on the area under a fitted cumulative adoption-intensity curve, normalized by the regional mean and adjusted by a feedback mechanism using intersections with the regional mean curve. ATI is combined with entry time, latest adoption intensity (LAI), and a latest-trajectory variable to define eight adoption paths, including two new 'retreating' paths (decelerating and declining moderate) and a leaping path. The framework is applied to 1,192 off-grid Bedouin settlement clusters in southern Israel using PV areas digitized from six aerial images (2012–2022). The empirical results show that lagging is the most common path, retreating paths account for 18% of clusters, and leaping is rare (2%). The paper also analyzes transitions between paths across two halves of the timeline.

Significance. The paper addresses a real gap: most adoption typologies are static or rely on milestone-based features, and none systematically captures deceleration or decline in ongoing diffusion processes. The proposed ATI and the eight-path typology are conceptually clear and policy-relevant, and the case study is novel: a complete spatial census of small-scale PV adoption in an off-grid population. The authors are transparent about several limitations, such as the lack of causal modeling and the dependence on high-resolution data. However, the quantitative claims—especially the prevalence of retreating paths and the near-absence of leaping—rest on a curve-fitting procedure that is not robust for the available time-series length. If the authors can demonstrate that these findings are insensitive to model-selection choices and measurement error, the contribution would be substantial and would open a useful direction for comparative studies.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1.1, Table 1] The candidate curve set includes polynomial functions of degree d ∈ {2,...,T−1}, with T = 6, so a degree-5 polynomial can interpolate the six observed points exactly (R² = 1). Because the selection rule chooses the curve with the highest R² subject to R² > 0.9, it can systematically prefer interpolating, oscillatory curves. These curves can create spurious intersections with the regional mean curve and arbitrary end slopes, directly affecting ATI, the latest-trajectory variable, and ultimately every path assignment. The paper reports no complexity penalty, cross-validation, or sensitivity analysis over the curve family. This is not merely a technical detail: the headline shares (18% retreating, 2% leaping) are computed from features derived from these fitted curves. I request that the authors either restrict the polynomial degree (e.g., to ≤3), use a criterion that penalizes complexity (AIC/BIC), or demonstrate that the main findings are stable across a range of curve families and degrees.
  2. [Section 2.4.4] The entry-time threshold—20% of the regional mean adoption intensity—is selected from the same dataset by optimizing distributional properties (closest to normal skewness/kurtosis, highest SD, and 92% coverage). This is a free parameter chosen post hoc, and the resulting ordinal entry-time categories and path shares are sensitive to it. No independent theoretical justification or external benchmark is provided, and no sensitivity analysis is reported for the threshold. The choice directly affects which clusters are classified as early, middle, or late entrants, and thus the composition of all eight paths, including the novel retreating paths. Please add a sensitivity analysis over the threshold (e.g., 10%, 30%, 40%) and report how the distribution of paths changes.
  3. [Section 3.3, Fig. 9] The alignment between the empirical median curves (Fig. 9) and the conceptual curves (Fig. 2) is presented as validation, but this is partly circular: the conceptual curves are defined by the same four features (ATI, entry time, latest trajectory, LAI) that are used to assign clusters to paths. By construction, the median curve of clusters assigned to, say, the 'decelerating' path will tend to display a plateau or decline because the path definition requires a downhill latest trajectory and medium/low LAI. The empirical alignment therefore does not provide independent evidence that the typology captures distinct underlying dynamics. To strengthen the contribution, the authors should validate against external criteria: for example, hold out the last time point and test whether path assignments predict subsequent adoption, or compare the spatial distribution of paths with independent socioeconomic or geographic variables.
  4. [Section 2.4.2, Section 3.3] The PV segmentation is reported to have an F1 score of 0.885, but this measurement error is not propagated into the features or the path classification. Since many clusters have very low PV density, even a small absolute error in PV area can swing the fitted curve, the entry time, and the latest trajectory. The paper should quantify the impact of segmentation errors—for example, by a Monte Carlo simulation that perturbs PV areas according to the reported precision matrix, or by a bootstrap resampling of the annotation process—and report the resulting uncertainty in the path shares. Without this, the empirical prevalence of the retreating paths (18%) cannot be distinguished from a measurement artifact.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Nomenclature / Eq. (5)] The definition of AI in Eq. (5) includes a scaling constant of 10^6, but the units are not stated (presumably m² of PV per m² of built-up area, then rescaled). Please state the units explicitly to make the results interpretable.
  2. [Section 2.1.1, Eq. (1)-(4)] The definition of the angle α_ij is given only in the nomenclature as 'Angle between C_i and C_m' and in the text as arctan of the difference of derivatives. Please state the formula in the main text (e.g., α_ij = arctan(C'_i(t_j) - C'_m(t_j))) to avoid ambiguity, especially since the sine of this angle drives the feedback mechanism.
  3. [References] References [76] and [117] appear to be the same work (Wang et al., 'More than innovativeness...', Renewable Energy 197 (2022) 552–563). Please consolidate to a single reference.
  4. [Figure 2] The conceptual illustration of adoption paths (Fig. 2) is informative, but the axes are not labeled. Adding axis labels (time and adoption intensity) would help readers compare the conceptual curves with the empirical curves in Fig. 9.
  5. [Section 3.3, paragraph 1] The sentence 'The moderate and declining moderate paths stand out, together comprising approximately one-third of the clusters; 13% of them exhibit stagnation or decline toward the end of the examined timeline' is unclear. The 13% appears to refer to declining moderate alone, but the wording could be read as a subset of the one-third. Please rephrase.
  6. [Section 4.4] The limitations section is candid about data resolution and temporal scope, but it does not mention the curve-fitting overfitting risk or the data-driven threshold selection. Adding these as limitations would be appropriate given their impact on the reported results.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Typology validation is self-referential: paths are defined by the very same fitted features used to build their median curves, and the retreating-path shares inherit an unpenalized degree-5 polynomial fit to only six time points.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.3 (Table 2 and Fig. 2) and Section 3.3 (Fig. 9)]
    "The paths are determined based on a set of criteria (Table 2) derived from ordinal categories of four key features: ATI, Entry time, Latest trajectory, and LAI. ... The data-driven curves in Fig. 9 show a strong alignment with the theoretical curves illustrated in Fig. 2. Thus, the implementation of an analytical framework indeed succeeds in distinguishing between adoption paths."

    The 'theoretical' paths in Fig. 2 are defined entirely by Table 2 criteria on ATI, entry time, latest trajectory, and LAI. The 'data-driven' curves in Fig. 9 are medians of clusters grouped by exactly those same features, where all four features are computed from the same best-fitting curves described in Section 2.1.1. Therefore the strong alignment between the two sets of curves is a necessary result of the grouping rule, not independent empirical confirmation. The framework's success in 'distinguishing between adoption paths' is thus self-referential: the same feature values that assign clusters to paths are reused to verify that the path curves differ.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sections 2.1.1, 2.1.4, and 3.3]
    "polynomial functions of degree, d, where d∈{2,…,T−1} to provide flexibility and allow for potential declines in adoption trajectory... The best-fitting curve is selected based on the highest R² value, conditional on exceeding 0.9. ... Latest trajectory ... final slope direction of the entity's curve relative to the regional mean curve. ... Together with the Declining Moderate path, the retreating groups account for 18% of the clusters."

    With T=6 time points (2012, 2015, 2017, 2020, 2021, 2022), degree-5 polynomials can interpolate the data exactly (R²=1), so the selection rule can systematically choose oscillating curves. A 'downhill' latest trajectory is then the slope after the last intersection of such an interpolating curve and can be an artifact of overfitting rather than an observed adoption dynamic. The 18% retreating share in Section 3.3, and the 21.6% downhill trajectories in Section 3.2, are computed from these same unpenalized fitted curves and data-tuned thresholds. The 'empirical' discovery of decelerating and declining moderate paths is therefore forced by the curve-fitting specification; no complexity penalty, cross-validation, or sensitivity analysis over the curve family is reported.

full rationale

The paper's PV measurements, descriptive statistics, and the construction of the ATI index itself retain independent content, and the self-citations (e.g., reference [110] for annotation accuracy) are not load-bearing for the typology's logical derivation. However, the central validation is circular. The eight adoption paths are defined by thresholds on four features that are all derived from the same best-fitting curves, so Fig. 9's alignment between 'data-driven' and 'theoretical' curves is guaranteed by the assignment mechanism rather than by independent evidence. The headline shares--18% retreating, 21.6% downhill, 2% leaping--are conditional on unpenalized degree-5 polynomial fits to six time points and on an entry-time threshold (20%) tuned to maximize normality and variance in the same data. No external benchmark, holdout validation, or model-selection penalty is reported, so the framework's 'success' is partly self-referential. This is partial circularity: the path typology is internally consistent, but its empirical confirmation reduces to the definitions and fitted curves that generated it.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The framework rests on several domain assumptions about data proxies and benchmarks, plus ad hoc design choices for the ATI feedback and path ordering. No independent evidence is provided for the new constructs.

free parameters (4)
  • Entry time threshold = 20% of regional mean
    Selected from data by comparing thresholds from 10% to 60% to maximize normality, variance, and reach, rather than set a priori (Section 2.4.4).
  • R-squared threshold for curve selection = 0.9
    Chosen by hand; affects which curves are accepted and no sensitivity analysis is provided (Section 2.1.1).
  • Ordinal category bandwidth = ±0.44σ
    Chosen based on Rogers' normal distribution classification and applied to ATI, LAI, and entry time (Section 2.2).
  • Timeline midpoint for transitions = 2017
    Timeline split into two equal halves, with the midpoint determined by the number of time points (Section 2.4.6).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Built-up area is a valid proxy for population size within clusters.
    Clusters are single-story tin structures with homogeneous densities, but no formal demographic data exist; the proxy is untested (Section 2.4.3).
  • domain assumption The regional mean is an appropriate benchmark for comparing adoption dynamics.
    The framework normalizes all features to the regional mean, assuming this reveals meaningful relative dynamics (Sections 2.1.1 and 4.1).
  • ad hoc to paper The ATI feedback mechanism quantifies adoption stability or volatility in a meaningful way.
    The specific functional form, using sine of the angle and duration-weighted penalties, is constructed for this paper and is not derived from or validated against external theory (Section 2.1.1, Eqs. 1-4).
  • domain assumption A best-fitting curve with R-squared above 0.9 from the candidate family reliably represents adoption trajectories.
    Curve fits on only six time points, including polynomials up to degree 5, may overfit; no validation of fitted curves against out-of-sample data (Section 2.1.1).
  • ad hoc to paper Adoption paths can be ordered on an ordinal scale for transition analysis.
    The ordering from Non-adopting to Leading is assigned by the authors (Section 2.4.6).
  • domain assumption Rogers' adopter categorization thresholds apply to geographic entities.
    The ±0.44σ rule from diffusion theory is applied to clusters, not individuals (Section 2.2).
invented entities (2)
  • Adoption over Time Index (ATI)
    purpose: A new metric to quantify cumulative adoption intensity with a feedback mechanism for trend shifts.
    ATI is defined entirely within this paper and is not validated against external benchmarks or predictions (Section 2.1.1).
  • Adoption path typology (eight paths)
    purpose: Classification scheme for adoption trajectories, including new decelerating and declining moderate paths.
    The typology is constructed from the authors' own criteria and not cross-validated with independent data (Section 2.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beyond Leaders and Laggards: A Typology of Renewable Energy Adoption Trajectories with Evidence from Off-Grid Communities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V6XB3RUG

@misc{pith2026250522456,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beyond Leaders and Laggards: A Typology of Renewable Energy Adoption Trajectories with Evidence from Off-Grid Communities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V6XB3RUG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22456}
}
read the original abstract

Understanding the dynamics of renewable energy adoption is essential for designing strategies that accelerate its spread - an urgent priority for advancing climate goals and improving well-being, especially in off-grid regions facing energy poverty. This study introduces a time-series-based analytical framework that quantifies and classifies adoption behaviors of geographic entities within a region. A novel metric, the Adoption over Time Index (ATI), captures cumulative adoption intensity and identifies shifts in adoption trends, improving the ability to distinguish between fundamental adoption paths. By combining ATI with three key features found to be indicative of adoption dynamics, we define a typology of eight distinct paths, including two newly identified trajectories - the decelerating path and the declining moderate path. Applying this framework to a case study of an off-grid Bedouin population in southern Israel reveals that these retreating paths exist in substantial proportions. Identifying such trends is critical for addressing stagnation and preventing backsliding in the diffusion process. The leaping path, by contrast, was nearly absent. We also identify behavioral diversity within both front-runner and trailing groups. Differentiating among these groups can help tailor acceleration strategies. The analysis further reveals significant disparities in adoption levels across the region, with lagging clusters being widespread and overall adoption falling short of the region's potential.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22456 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustrative Examples of Feedback Scenarios. The feedback is determined by the normalized value of 𝐴̃ 𝑖 , which represents the entity’s AI relative to the regional mean. The time periods over which rewards or penalties are calculated depend on the type of feedback and on the angle formed after each intersection point with the regional mean curve. Note: The AI axis range is context-dependent and determined by the cho… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Typology of adoption paths. Eight conceptual adoption paths are illustrated, each representing a distinct adoption dynamic. The paths are determined based on a set of criteria ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Analytical Framework for the Typology of Adoption Paths. The research progresses from PV monitoring over time to density computation, quantification of four key adoption-defining features, and their integration into diverse profiles. These profiles serve as the typological foundation for distinct adoption behaviors. Finally, a case study provides empirical evidence for the developed framework. The process followed a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Off-grid settlement clusters and typical home-scale PV deployment in the study area. A: Scattered distribution of Bedouin clusters in southern Israel, spanning ~1,700 km². The clusters vary in area size. B: Ground-level view of a cluster [109]. C: Aerial view illustrat…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Descriptive statistics of key adoption features: A. ATI: An observed right-skewed distribution indicates that most clusters have low ATI, while a few exceed the regional mean (𝐴𝑇 𝐼𝑖>200). High skewness and kurtosis indicate outliers with exceptionally high adoption lev…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of clusters by adoption path: The predominance of the Lagging path indicates that many clusters remain at relatively low adoption levels, suggesting that the region may not yet have reached its potential for broader diffusion. The Moderate path represents …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: D, which indicates that the latest trajectory of over 60% of clusters in this group is increasing. In contrast, the declining moderate curve exhibits the opposite trend - slightly above mean adoption intensities until 2018, followed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Data-driven curves of adoption paths. Each curve represents the median adoption intensity values over time for each path, showing considerable variability that reflects diverse dynamics in adoption processes. These empirical curves strongly align with conceptual paths …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Tukey posthoc p-values from ANOVA tests for mean differences between each pair of adoption paths by variable. 3.4. Temporal transitions Between adoption paths Analysis of adoption path transitions over time was con￾ducted by dividing the timeline into two equal parts, …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Transitions between adoption paths from first to second timeline parts. A: Proportion and counts of clusters transitioned downward, upward, or remained unchanged. 66.4% clusters maintained their adoption path over time, whereas 33.6% underwent a transition, with nearl…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Distribution of transition magnitudes (in tiers). Slight asymmetry is observed in transition magnitudes, with more pronounced declines compared with gradual upward shifts. within a given region, thereby enabling the identification of each entity’s distinct adoption tr…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

150 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    I. R. E. Agency, Renewable energy statistics 2020, https://www.irena.org/Publications, 2020. IRENA, Abu Dhabi, ISBN: 978-92-9260-246-8

    2020

  2. [2]

    I. E. Agency, Electricity 2025: Analysis and forecast to 2027, https://www.iea.org/, 2025. IEA, accessed: March 30, 2025

    2025

  3. [3]

    Grubler, C

    A. Grubler, C. Wilson, G. Nemet, Apples, oranges, and consistent comparisonsofthetemporaldynamicsofenergytransitions, Energy research & social science 22 (2016) 18–25

    2016

  4. [4]

    B.K.Sovacool, Howlongwillittake?conceptualizingthetemporal dynamicsofenergytransitions, Energyresearch&socialscience13 (2016) 202–215

    2016

  5. [5]

    Lamp, Sunspots that matter: the effect of weather on solar technology adoption, Environmental and Resource Economics 84 (2023) 1179–1219

    S. Lamp, Sunspots that matter: the effect of weather on solar technology adoption, Environmental and Resource Economics 84 (2023) 1179–1219

    2023

  6. [6]

    R. Best, P. J. Burke, Adoption of solar and wind energy: The roles of carbon pricing and aggregate policy support, Energy Policy 118 (2018) 404–417

    2018

  7. [7]

    Balta-Ozkan, J

    N. Balta-Ozkan, J. Yildirim, P. M. Connor, I. Truckell, P. Hart, Energytransitionatlocallevel:Analyzingtheroleofpeereffectsand socio-economicfactorsonuksolarphotovoltaicdeployment,Energy Policy 148 (2021) 112004

    2021

  8. [8]

    Kosugi, Y

    T. Kosugi, Y. Shimoda, T. Tashiro, Neighborhood influences on thediffusionofresidentialphotovoltaicsystemsinkyotocity,japan, Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 21 (2019) 477–505

    2019

Show all 150 references
  1. [9]

    S. Dharshing, Household dynamics of technology adoption: A spatial econometric analysis of residential solar photovoltaic (pv) systems in germany, Energy research & social science 23 (2017) 113–124

    2017

  2. [10]

    Graziano, K

    M. Graziano, K. Gillingham, Spatial patterns of solar photovoltaic system adoption: the influence of neighbors and the built environ- ment, Journal of Economic Geography 15 (2015) 815–839

    2015

  3. [11]

    Carattini, M

    S. Carattini, M. Péclat, A. Baranzini, Social interactions and the adoption of solar PV: evidence from cultural borders, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    K. S. Wolske, P. C. Stern, T. Dietz, Explaining interest in adopting residentialsolarphotovoltaicsystemsintheunitedstates:Towardan integrationofbehavioraltheories, Energyresearch&socialscience 25 (2017) 134–151

    2017

  5. [13]

    W. H. Organization, et al., Tracking SDG 7: The Energy Progress Report 2024, World Bank, Washington, DC, Abu Dhabi, UAE,

    2024

  6. [14]

    Morcillo, M

    J. Morcillo, M. Castaneda, M. Jímenez, S. Zapata, I. Dyner, A. J. Aristizabal, Assessingthespeed,extent,andimpactofthediffusion of solar pv, Energy Reports 8 (2022) 269–281

    2022

  7. [15]

    Baldwin, S

    E. Baldwin, S. Carley, S. Nicholson-Crotty, Why do countries emulate each others’ policies? a global study of renewable energy policy diffusion, World Development 120 (2019) 29–45

    2019

  8. [16]

    J.Müller,E.Trutnevyte, Spatialprojectionsofsolarpvinstallations atsubnationallevel:Accuracytestingofregressionmodels, Applied Energy 265 (2020) 114747

    2020

  9. [17]

    S.MacIntyre,M.McCord,P.Davis,J.McCord,A.Zacharopoulos,A spatialexaminationofsolarpvadoptersinnorthernireland, JFMPC (2021) 0071

    2021

  10. [18]

    Bokányi, M

    E. Bokányi, M. Novák, Á. Jakobi, B. Lengyel, Urban hierarchy and spatial diffusion over the innovation life cycle, Royal Society Open Science 9 (2022) 211038

    2022

  11. [19]

    P. D. Rigo, G. M. Lunardi, J. C. M. Siluk, P. S. Schneider, F. M. do Nascimento, V. Thomasi, E. Funke, How explain on-grid pv systems diffusion? review and application in brazil, Renewable Energy 230 (2024) 120862

    2024

  12. [20]

    Abbar, A

    S. Abbar, A. Boumaiza, N. Mohandes, A. Sanfilippo, Modeling innovationdiffusionforrenewableenergytechnologiesincityneigh- borhoods, in: 2018 9th International Renewable Energy Congress (IREC), IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–6

    2018

  13. [21]

    Lacey-Barnacle, R

    M. Lacey-Barnacle, R. Robison, C. Foulds, Energy justice in the developing world: a review of theoretical frameworks, key research themes and policy implications, Energy for Sustainable Develop- ment 55 (2020) 122–138

    2020

  14. [22]

    B.Batinge,J.K.Musango,A.C.Brent,Perpetuatingenergypoverty: Assessing roadmaps for universal energy access in unmet african electricity markets, Energy Research & Social Science 55 (2019) 1–13

    2019

  15. [23]

    S.K.Saha, Empoweringruralsouthasia:Off-gridsolarpv,electric- ity accessibility, and sustainable agriculture, Applied Energy 359 (2025) 122137

    2025

  16. [24]

    B. A. Bridge, D. Adhikari, M. Fontenla, Electricity, income, and quality of life, The Social Science Journal 53 (2016) 33–39

    2016

  17. [25]

    S.R.Khandker,D.F.Barnes,H.A.Samad, Aretheenergypooralso income poor? evidence from india, Energy Policy 47 (2012) 1–12

    2012

  18. [26]

    Pueyo, M

    A. Pueyo, M. Maestre, Linking energy access, gender and poverty: A review of the literature on productive uses of energy, Energy Research & Social Science 53 (2019) 170–181

    2019

  19. [27]

    UNEP,EmissionsGapReport2022:TheClosingWindow–Climate Crisis Calls for Rapid Transformation of Societies, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    Kizilcec, P

    V. Kizilcec, P. Parikh, I. Bisaga, Examining the journey of a pay- as-you-go solar home system customer: a case study of rwanda, Energies 14 (2021) 330

    2021

  21. [29]

    last mile

    M. S. Barry, A. Creti, Pay-as-you-go contracts for electricity access: Bridging the “last mile” gap? a case study in benin, Energy economics 90 (2020) 104843

    2020

  22. [30]

    S. Hyun, F. Taghizadeh-Hesary, H. S. Shim, Modeling solar energy system demand using household-level data in myanmar, Economic Analysis and Policy 69 (2021) 629–639

    2021

  23. [31]

    N. P. Simpson, C. J. Rabenold, M. Sowman, C. D. Shearing, Adoption rationales and effects of off-grid renewable energy access for african youth: A case study from tanzania, Renewable and Blushtein-Livnon et al.: Preprint submitted to Advances in Applied Energy Page 21 of 25 A ...

    2021

  24. [32]

    A.Diallo,R.K.Moussa,Theeffectsofsolarhomesystemonwelfare in off-grid areas: Evidence from côte d’ivoire, Energy 194 (2020) 116835

    2020

  25. [33]

    S.M.Aarakit,J.M.Ntayi,F.Wasswa,F.Buyinza,M.S.Adaramola, V. F. Ssennono, The role of financial inclusion in adoption of solar photovoltaic systems: a case of uganda, Renewable Energy 198 (2022) 984–998

    2022

  26. [34]

    P.Young, Technologicalgrowthcurves:acompetitionofforecasting models, Technologicalforecastingandsocialchange44(1993)375– 389

    1993

  27. [35]

    M. A. Schilling, M. Esmundo, Technology s-curves in renewable energyalternatives:Analysisandimplicationsfor industryandgov- ernment, Energy policy 37 (2009) 1767–1781

    2009

  28. [36]

    M.Guidolin,C.Mortarino, Cross-countrydiffusionofphotovoltaic systems: modeling choices and forecasts for national adoption pat- terns, Technological forecasting and social change 77 (2010) 279– 296

    2010

  29. [37]

    Ratcliff, K

    R. Ratcliff, K. Doshi, Using the bass model to analyze the diffusion of innovations at the base of the pyramid, Business & society 55 (2016) 271–298

    2016

  30. [38]

    Y.D.Marinakis, Forecastingtechnologydiffusionwiththerichards model, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 79 (2012) 172–179

    2012

  31. [39]

    R.Gutiérrez,A.Nafidi,R.G.Sánchez, Forecastingtotalnatural-gas consumption in spain by using the stochastic gompertz innovation diffusion model, Applied Energy 80 (2005) 115–124

    2005

  32. [40]

    Bento, C

    N. Bento, C. Wilson, Measuring the duration of formative phases for energy technologies, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 21 (2016) 95–112

    2016

  33. [41]

    M. Gort, S. Klepper, Time paths in the diffusion of product innovations, The economic journal 92 (1982) 630–653

    1982

  34. [42]

    Milliou, E

    C. Milliou, E. Petrakis, Timing of technology adoption and product marketcompetition, InternationalJournalofIndustrialOrganization 29 (2011) 513–523

    2011

  35. [43]

    E.Overby,S.Ransbotham, Howdoadopterstransitionbetweennew and incumbent channels?, MIS Quarterly 43 (2019) 185–A8

    2019

  36. [44]

    Wilson, A

    C. Wilson, A. Grubler, Lessons from the history of technological changeforcleanenergyscenariosandpolicies,in:NaturalResources Forum, volume 35, Wiley Online Library, 2011, pp. 165–184

    2011

  37. [45]

    T.M.Lenton,S.Benson,T.Smith,T.Ewer,V.Lanel,E.Petykowski, T.W.Powell,J.F.Abrams,F.Blomsma,S.Sharpe, Operationalising positivetippingpointstowardsglobalsustainability, GlobalSustain- ability 5 (2022) e1

    2022

  38. [46]

    A. D. Andersen, F. W. Geels, L. Coenen, J. Hanson, M. Korsnes, K. Linnerud, T. Makitie, A. Nordholm, M. Ryghaug, T. Skjolsvold, et al., Faster, broader, and deeper! suggested directions for research on net-zero transitions, Oxford Open Energy 2 (2023) oiad007

    2023

  39. [47]

    A.F.Bate,E.W.Wachira,S.Danka, Thedeterminantsofinnovation performance: an income-based cross-country comparative analysis using the global innovation index (gii), Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 12 (2023) 20

    2023

  40. [48]

    Brutschin, A

    E. Brutschin, A. Cherp, J. Jewell, Failing the formative phase: the global diffusion of nuclear power is limited by national markets, Energy Research & Social Science 80 (2021) 102221

    2021

  41. [49]

    J.Qiu,W.Liu,N.Ning,Evolutionofregionalinnovationwithspatial knowledge spillovers: Convergence or divergence?, Networks and Spatial Economics 20 (2020) 179–208

    2020

  42. [50]

    A. M. Bunea, P. Della Posta, M. Guidolin, P. Manfredi, What do adoption patterns of solar panels observed so far tell about govern- ments’ incentive? insights from diffusion models, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 160 (2020) 120240

    2020

  43. [51]

    H. Duan, G. Zhang, S. Wang, Y. Fan, Peer interaction and learning: Cross-countrydiffusionofsolarphotovoltaictechnology, Journalof Business Research 89 (2018) 57–66

    2018

  44. [52]

    P.Aghion,X.Jaravel, Knowledgespillovers,innovationandgrowth, The Economic Journal 125 (2015) 533–573

    2015

  45. [53]

    M. W. Fong, Technology leapfrogging for developing countries, in: Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Second Edition, IGI Global, 2009, pp. 3707–3713

    2009

  46. [54]

    Lee, Economics of technological leapfrogging, SSRN, 2020

    K. Lee, Economics of technological leapfrogging, SSRN, 2020

    2020

  47. [55]

    C.Wilson,Meta-analysisofunitandindustrylevelscalingdynamics in energy technologies and climate change mitigation scenarios, JSTOR, 2009

    2009

  48. [56]

    Wilson, Up-scaling, formative phases, and learning in the historicaldiffusionofenergytechnologies, EnergyPolicy50(2012) 81–94

    C. Wilson, Up-scaling, formative phases, and learning in the historicaldiffusionofenergytechnologies, EnergyPolicy50(2012) 81–94

    2012

  49. [57]

    Gosens, F

    J. Gosens, F. Hedenus, B. A. Sandén, Faster market growth of wind and pv in late adopters due to global experience build-up, Energy 131 (2017) 267–278

    2017

  50. [58]

    F.Azmat,W.M.Lim,A.Moyeen,R.Voola,G.Gupta, Convergence ofbusiness,innovation,andsustainabilityatthetippingpointofthe sustainable development goals, Journal of Business Research 167 (2023) 114170

    2023

  51. [59]

    Milkoreit, J

    M. Milkoreit, J. Hodbod, J. Baggio, K. Benessaiah, R. Calderón- Contreras, J. F. Donges, J.-D. Mathias, J. C. Rocha, M. Schoon, S.E.Werners, Definingtippingpointsforsocial-ecologicalsystems scholarship—an interdisciplinary literature review, Environmental Research Letters 13 (...

    2018

  52. [60]

    Lockwood, Policy feedback and institutional context in energy transitions, Policy Sciences 55 (2022) 487–507

    M. Lockwood, Policy feedback and institutional context in energy transitions, Policy Sciences 55 (2022) 487–507

    2022

  53. [61]

    D.L.Edmondson,F.Kern,K.S.Rogge, Theco-evolutionofpolicy mixesandsocio-technicalsystems:towardsaconceptualframework ofpolicymixfeedbackinsustainabilitytransitions, ResearchPolicy 48 (2019) 103555

    2019

  54. [62]

    F. W. Geels, M. Ayoub, A socio-technical transition perspective on positivetippingpointsinclimatechangemitigation:Analysingseven interacting feedback loops in offshore wind and electric vehicles acceleration, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 193 (2023) 122639

    2023

  55. [63]

    M.Ayoub,F.W.Geels, Whathappensafterpositivetippingpoints? a socio-technical analysis of acceleration and deceleration in solar- pv diffusion in germany and the uk, Technological Forecasting & Social Change 207 (2024) 123642

    2024

  56. [64]

    Griliches, Hybrid corn: An exploration in the economics of technological change, Econometrica 25 (1957) 501–522

    Z. Griliches, Hybrid corn: An exploration in the economics of technological change, Econometrica 25 (1957) 501–522

    1957

  57. [65]

    Grubler, The rise and fall of infrastructures: dynamics of evolu- tion and technological change in transport, Physica-Verlag, 1990

    A. Grubler, The rise and fall of infrastructures: dynamics of evolu- tion and technological change in transport, Physica-Verlag, 1990

    1990

  58. [66]

    Comin, M

    D. Comin, M. Mestieri, If technology has arrived everywhere, why has income diverged?, American Economic Journal: Macroeco- nomics 10 (2018) 137–178

    2018

  59. [67]

    J. Mi, C. Yao, X. Zhao, F. Li, Research on the diffusion mechanism of green technology innovation based on enterprise perception, Computational Economics 63 (2024) 1981–2010

    2024

  60. [68]

    M. A. van Sluisveld, J. Harmsen, N. Bauer, D. L. McCollum, K.Riahi,M.Tavoni,D.P.vanVuuren,C.Wilson,B.vanderZwaan, Comparingfuturepatternsofenergysystemchangein2cscenarios with historically observed rates of change, Global Environmental Change 35 (2015) 436–449

    2015

  61. [69]

    Grubler, Time for a change: On the patterns of diffusion of innovation, IEEE Engineering Management Review 25 (1997) 96– 105

    A. Grubler, Time for a change: On the patterns of diffusion of innovation, IEEE Engineering Management Review 25 (1997) 96– 105

    1997

  62. [70]

    Morcillo, S

    F. Morcillo, S. Hanger-Kopp, E. Schmid, J. Wachsmuth, Assessing thespeed,extent,andimpactofthediffusionofsolarpv, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 158 (2022) 112128

    2022

  63. [71]

    A.Cherp,V.Vinichenko,J.Tosun,J.A.Gordon,J.Jewell, National growth dynamics of wind and solar power compared to the growth requiredforglobalclimatetargets, NatureEnergy6(2021)742–754

    2021

  64. [72]

    Zielonka, E

    S. Zielonka, E. Trutnevyte, Probabilistic projections of granular energytechnologydiffusionatsubnationallevel, EnergyPolicy180 (2023) 113597

    2023

  65. [73]

    Pfeiffer,P

    B. Pfeiffer,P. Mulder, Explainingthe diffusion ofrenewable energy technology in developing countries, Energy Economics 40 (2013) 285–296. Blushtein-Livnon et al.: Preprint submitted to Advances in Applied Energy Page 22 of 25 A Typology of Renewable Energy Adoption Trajectorie...

    2013

  66. [74]

    Subtil Lacerda, J

    J. Subtil Lacerda, J. C. Van den Bergh, International diffusion of renewable energy innovations: Lessons from the lead markets for wind power in china, germany and usa, Energies 7 (2014) 8236– 8263

    2014

  67. [75]

    Autant-Bernard, S

    C. Autant-Bernard, S. Chalaye, F. Manca, R. Moreno, J. Suriñach, Measuring the adoption of innovation. a typology of eu countries based on the innovation survey, Innovation–The European Journal of Social Science Research 23 (2010) 199–222

    2010

  68. [76]

    J. Wang, F. Liu, L. Li, J. Zhang, More than innovativeness: Com- paring residents’ motivations for participating renewable energy communities in different innovation segments, Renewable energy 197 (2022) 552–563

    2022

  69. [77]

    C. E. Hoicka, M. Graziano, M. Willard-Stepan, Y. Zhao, Insights to accelerate place-based at scale renewable energy landscapes: An analytical framework to typify the emergence of renewable energy clusters along the energy value chain, Applied Energy 377 (2025) 124559

    2025

  70. [78]

    Değerli, Ç

    A. Değerli, Ç. Aytekin, B. Değerli, Analyzing information technol- ogy status and networked readiness index in context of diffusion of innovations theory, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 195 (2015) 1553–1562

    2015

  71. [79]

    C.Franceschinis,M.Thiene,R.Scarpa,J.Rose,M.Moretto,R.Cav- alli, Adoptionofrenewableheatingsystems:Anempiricaltestofthe diffusion of innovation theory, Energy 125 (2017) 313–326

    2017

  72. [80]

    Knill, S

    C. Knill, S. Heichel, D. Arndt, Really a front-runner, really a straggler? of environmental leaders and laggards in the european unionandbeyond—aquantitativepolicyperspective, EnergyPolicy 48 (2012) 36–45

    2012

  73. [81]

    V. Döme, A global-scale study on decision making in renewable energy policy: Internal and external factors driving the adoption of feed-in tariffs and renewable portfolio standards, Environmental Policy and Governance 34 (2023) 321–335

    2023

  74. [82]

    Schulte, F

    E. Schulte, F. Scheller, D. Sloot, T. Bruckner, A meta-analysis of residential pv adoption: the important role of perceived benefits, intentions and antecedents in solar energy acceptance, Energy Research & Social Science 84 (2022) 102339

    2022

  75. [83]

    Islam, Household level innovation diffusion model of photo- voltaic (pv) solar cells from stated preference data, Energy policy 65 (2014) 340–350

    T. Islam, Household level innovation diffusion model of photo- voltaic (pv) solar cells from stated preference data, Energy policy 65 (2014) 340–350

    2014

  76. [84]

    Tarpani, C

    E. Tarpani, C. Piselli, C. Fabiani, I. Pigliautile, E. J. Kingma, B. Pioppi, A. L. Pisello, Energy communities implementation in theeuropeanunion:casestudiesfrompioneerandlaggardcountries, Sustainability 14 (2022) 12528

    2022

  77. [85]

    Andresen, S

    S. Andresen, S. Agrawala, Leaders, pushers and laggards in the making of the climate regime, Global Environmental Change 12 (2002) 41–51

    2002

  78. [86]

    Tobin, Leaders and laggards: Climate policy ambition in devel- oped states, Global Environmental Politics 17 (2017) 28–47

    P. Tobin, Leaders and laggards: Climate policy ambition in devel- oped states, Global Environmental Politics 17 (2017) 28–47

    2017

  79. [87]

    H. Lan, Z. Gou, B. C. and, Regional difference of residential solar panel diffusion in queensland, australia, Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy 15 (2020) 13–25

    2020

  80. [88]

    Mahajan, E

    V. Mahajan, E. Muller, R. K. Srivastava, Determination of adopter categoriesbyusinginnovationdiffusionmodels, JournalofMarket- ing Research 27 (1990) 37–50

    1990

  81. [89]

    Massiani, A

    J. Massiani, A. Gohs, The choice of bass model coefficients to fore- castdiffusionforinnovativeproducts:Anempiricalinvestigationfor newautomotivetechnologies, Researchintransportationeconomics 50 (2015) 17–28

    2015

  82. [90]

    Ruokamo, M

    E. Ruokamo, M. Laukkanen, S. Karhinen, M. Kopsakangas- Savolainen, R. Svento, Innovators, followers and laggards in home solar pv: Factors driving diffusion in finland, Energy Research & Social Science 102 (2023) 103183

    2023

  83. [91]

    F. M. Bass, A new product growth for model consumer durables, Management science 15 (1969) 215–227

    1969

  84. [92]

    R.Baptista,Thediffusionofprocessinnovations:Aselectivereview, Internationaljournaloftheeconomicsofbusiness6(1999)107–129

    1999

  85. [93]

    J.Goldenberg,B.Libai,S.Solomon,N.Jan,D.Stauffer, Marketing percolation,PhysicaA:statisticalmechanicsanditsapplications284 (2000) 335–347

    2000

  86. [94]

    A.Westbrook,D.Kester,T.S.Braver, Whatisthesubjectivecostof cognitive effort? load, trait, and aging effects revealed by economic preference, PloS one 8 (2013) e68210

    2013

  87. [95]

    X. Yao, Z. Yu, W. Ma, J. Xiong, G. Yang, Quantifying threshold effects of physiological health benefits in greenspace exposure, Landscape and Urban Planning 241 (2024) 104917

    2024

  88. [96]

    J.C.Pruessner,C.Kirschbaum,G.Meinlschmid,D.H.Hellhammer, Two formulas for computation of the area under the curve represent measures of total hormone concentration versus time-dependent change, Psychoneuroendocrinology 28 (2003) 916–931

    2003

  89. [97]

    J. B. Dowd, A. M. Simanek, A. E. Aiello, Socio-economic status, cortisol and allostatic load: a review of the literature, International journal of epidemiology 38 (2009) 1297–1309

    2009

  90. [98]

    R. V. Dudhani, J. D. Turnidge, R. L. Nation, J. Li, f auc/mic is the most predictive pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic index of colistin against acinetobacter baumannii in murine thigh and lung infection models, Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy 65 (2010) 1984–1990

    2010

  91. [99]

    A. J. Jackson, H. C. Foehl, A simulation study of the comparative performance of partial area under the curve (pauc) and partial area undertheeffectcurve(pauec)metricsincrossoverversusreplicated crossover bioequivalence studies for concerta and ritalin la, The AAPS Journal 24 ...

    2022

  92. [100]

    A.Jentsch,P.White, Atheoryofpulsedynamicsanddisturbancein ecology, Ecology 100 (2019) e02734

    2019

  93. [101]

    Y. Sun, N. Wang, An evaluation framework for industrial ecology based on the symbiosis theory-taking the𝜋-shaped curve area in the yellow river of china as an example, Ecological Indicators 154 (2023) 110468

    2023

  94. [102]

    Barkai, E

    E. Barkai, E. Aghion, D. A. Kessler, From the area under the bessel excursiontoanomalousdiffusionofcoldatoms, PhysicalReviewX 4 (2014) 021036

    2014

  95. [103]

    A. M. Carrington, D. G. Manuel, P. W. Fieguth, T. Ramsay, V. Os- mani, B. Wernly, C. Bennett, S. Hawken, O. Magwood, Y. Sheikh, et al., Deep roc analysis and auc as balanced average accuracy, for improved classifier selection, audit and explanation, IEEE Transac- tions on Patt...

    2022

  96. [104]

    Rogers, Diffusion of innovations, 5th edn tampa, FL: Free Press.[Google Scholar] (2003)

    E. Rogers, Diffusion of innovations, 5th edn tampa, FL: Free Press.[Google Scholar] (2003)

    2003

  97. [105]

    N.Teschner,H.Said,S.Shapira, Energypovertyandethnicdispari- tiesamongjewishandmuslimhouseholdsinisrael:Theimplications for welfare systems, Energy Research & Social Science 116 (2024) 103689

    2024

  98. [106]

    S.Shapira,H.Shibli,N.Teschner,Energyinsecurityandcommunity resilience:Theexperiencesofbedouinsinsouthernisrael, Environ- mental Science & Policy 124 (2021) 135–143

    2021

  99. [107]

    I. R. E. Agency, Off-grid Renewable Energy Highlights 2024, Technical Report, IRENA, 2024. URL: https://www.irena.org/Publications/2024/Dec/ Off-grid-Renewable-Energy-Statistics-2024

    2024

  100. [108]

    Akter, K

    S. Akter, K. Bagchi, Is off-grid residential solar power inclusive? solarpoweradoption,energypoverty,andsocialinequalityinindia, Energy Research & Social Science 82 (2021) 102314

    2021

  101. [109]

    URL: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9B%D7%A4%D7%A8_%D7%91%D7%9C% D7%AA%D7%99_%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%A8#/media/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91% D7%A5:Bedouens041.JPG

    Neukoln, Unrecognized bedouin villages in israel, 2023. URL: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9B%D7%A4%D7%A8_%D7%91%D7%9C% D7%AA%D7%99_%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%A8#/media/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91% D7%A5:Bedouens041.JPG

    2023

  102. [110]

    R.Blushtein-Livnon,T.Svoray,M.Dorman, Performanceofhuman annotators in object detection and segmentation of remotely sensed data, IEEETransactionsonGeoscienceandRemoteSensing(2025)

    2025

  103. [111]

    Söderholm, G

    P. Söderholm, G. Klaassen, Wind power in europe: a simultaneous innovation–diffusionmodel,Environmentalandresourceeconomics 36 (2007) 163–190

    2007

  104. [112]

    F.Dianat,V.Khodakarami,S.-H.Hosseini,H.Shakouri, Combining gametheoryconceptsandsystemdynamicsforevaluatingrenewable electricity development in fossil-fuel-rich countries in the middle Blushtein-Livnon et al.: Preprint submitted to Advances in Applied Energy Page 23 of 25 A Ty...

    2022

  105. [113]

    A. A. Peralta, N. Balta-Ozkan, P. Longhurst, Spatio-temporal mod- ellingofsolarphotovoltaicadoption:Anintegratedneuralnetworks and agent-based modelling approach, Applied Energy 305 (2022) 117949

    2022

  106. [114]

    B.T.Asheim,L.Coenen, Knowledgebasesandregionalinnovation systems: Comparing nordic clusters, Research policy 34 (2005) 1173–1190

    2005

  107. [115]

    P.Cooke,M.Heidenreich,H.-J.Braczyk, Introduction:Regionalin- novationsystems–anevolutionaryapproach,in:Regionalinnovation systems, Routledge, 2024, pp. 1–18

    2024

  108. [116]

    Hassink, A

    R. Hassink, A. Isaksen, M. Trippl, Towards a comprehensive un- derstanding of new regional industrial path development, Regional Studies (2019)

    2019

  109. [117]

    J. Wang, F. Liu, L. Li, J. Zhang, More than innovativeness: Com- paring residents’ motivations for participating renewable energy communities in different innovation segments, Renewable Energy 197 (2022) 552–563

    2022

  110. [118]

    X. S. Yap, Y. Zhou, R. Lema, H. Schmitz, X. Fu, Towards transfor- mative leapfrogging: The nature of green windows of opportunity and the dynamics of catching up in the solar pv industry, World Development 151 (2022) 105745

    2022

  111. [119]

    Levin, V

    T. Levin, V. M. Thomas, Can developing countries leapfrog the centralized electrification paradigm?, Energy for Sustainable De- velopment 31 (2016) 97–107

    2016

  112. [120]

    Vasseur, R

    V. Vasseur, R. Kemp, J. C. J. M. Van den Bergh, A comparative analysis of photovoltaic technological innovation systems including international dimensions: The cases of japan and the netherlands, Research Policy 42 (2013) 1809–1824

    2013

  113. [121]

    Jacobsson, V

    S. Jacobsson, V. Lauber, The politics and policy of energy system transformation—explaining the german diffusion of renewable en- ergy technology, Energy Policy 34 (2006) 256–276

    2006

  114. [122]

    S. A. Chowdhury, M. Mourshed, Off-grid electrification with solar home systems: An appraisal of the quality of components, Renewable energy 97 (2016) 585–598

    2016

  115. [123]

    C.-f.Chen,J.Li,J.Shuai,H.Nelson,A.Walzem,J.Cheng, Linking social-psychological factors with policy expectation: Using local voices to understand solar pv poverty alleviation in wuhan, china, Energy Policy 151 (2021) 112160

    2021

  116. [124]

    T. N. Do, P. J. Burke, K. G. Baldwin, C. T. Nguyen, Underlying drivers and barriers for solar photovoltaics diffusion: The case of vietnam, Energy Policy 144 (2020) 111561

    2020

  117. [125]

    D.Rodríguez-Urrego,L.Rodríguez-Urrego, Photovoltaicenergyin colombia: Current status, inventory, policies and future prospects, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 92 (2018) 160–170

    2018

  118. [126]

    T. B. Garlet, J. L. D. Ribeiro, F. de Souza Savian, J. C. M. Siluk, Paths and barriers to the diffusion of distributed generation of photovoltaic energy in southern brazil, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 111 (2019) 157–169

    2019

  119. [127]

    Bénabou, J

    R. Bénabou, J. Tirole, Incentives and prosocial behavior, American economic review 96 (2006) 1652–1678

    2006

  120. [128]

    E. M. Rogers, Lessons for guidelines from the diffusion of inno- vations, The Joint Commission journal on quality improvement 21 (1995) 324–328

    1995

  121. [129]

    Mundaca, M

    L. Mundaca, M. Samahita, What drives home solar pv uptake? subsidies, peer effects and visibility in sweden, Energy Research & Social Science 60 (2020) 101319

    2020

  122. [130]

    Baranzini, S

    A. Baranzini, S. Carattini, M. Péclat, What drives social contagion in the adoption of solar photovoltaic technology, Technical Report, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environ- ment, 2017

    2017

  123. [131]

    M.Graziano,M.Fiaschetti,C.Atkinson-Palombo,Peereffectsinthe adoption of solar energy technologies in the united states: An urban case study, Energy Research & Social Science 48 (2019) 75–84

    2019

  124. [132]

    E.M.Rogers,DiffusionofInnovations,FreePress,NewYork,1962

    1962

  125. [133]

    A.Palm, Earlyadoptersandtheirmotives:Differencesbetweenear- lier and later adopters of residential solar photovoltaics, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 133 (2020) 110142

    2020

  126. [134]

    D.Kahneman,A.Tversky, Prospecttheory:Ananalysisofdecision under risk, in: Handbook of the fundamentals of financial decision making: Part I, World Scientific, 2013, pp. 99–127

    2013

  127. [135]

    S. R. Shakeel, H. Yousaf, M. Irfan, A. Rajala, Solar pv adoption at household level: Insights based on a systematic literature review, Energy Strategy Reviews 50 (2023) 101178

    2023

  128. [136]

    Y. Shi, L. Ding, C. He, F. Zhang, Z. Zhang, Q. Dai, Do village leaders’engagement,socialinteractionandfinancialincentiveaffect residents’ solar pv adoption? an empirical study in rural china?, InternationalJournalofEnergySectorManagement16(2022)834– 855

    2022

  129. [137]

    H.C.Curtius,S.L.Hille,C.Berger,U.J.J.Hahnel,R.Wüstenhagen, Shotgunorsnowballapproach?acceleratingthediffusionofrooftop solar photovoltaics through peer effects and social norms, Energy policy 118 (2018) 596–602

    2018

  130. [138]

    R. S. O’Neil, D. C. Preziuso, K. K. Arkema, Y. Ko, N. Pevzner, K. Diamond, S. Gore, K. Morrice, C. D. Henderson, D. W. Powell, Renewable Energy Landscapes: Designing Place-Based Infrastruc- ture for Scale, Technical Report, Pacific Northwest National Labo- ratory (PNNL), Richl...

    2022

  131. [139]

    D.Noll,C.Dawes,V.Rai,Solarcommunityorganizationsandactive peereffectsintheadoptionofresidentialpv,Energypolicy67(2014) 330–343

    2014

  132. [140]

    T. Khan, S. N. Khanam, M. H. Rahman, S. M. Rahman, Determi- nants of microfinance facility for installing solar home system (shs) in rural bangladesh, Energy Policy 132 (2019) 299–308

    2019

  133. [141]

    Montoya-Duque, S

    L. Montoya-Duque, S. Arango-Aramburo, J. Arias-Gaviria, Sim- ulating the effect of the pay-as-you-go scheme for solar energy diffusionincolombianoff-gridregions, Energy244(2022)123197

    2022

  134. [142]

    Yahel, A

    H. Yahel, A. Abu-Ajaj, Tribalism, religion, and state in bedouin societyinthenegev:Betweenpreservationandchange, AMultidis- ciplinary Journal on National Security 24 (2021) 54–71

    2021

  135. [143]

    Teschner, A

    N. Teschner, A. Sinea, A. Vornicu, T. Abu-Hamed, M. Negev, Extreme energy poverty in the urban peripheries of romania and israel:Policy,planningandinfrastructure,EnergyResearch&Social Science 66 (2020) 101502

    2020

  136. [144]

    F. Rao, Y. M. Tang, K. Y. Chau, W. Iqbal, M. Abbas, Assessment of energy poverty and key influencing factors in n11 countries, Sustainable Production and Consumption 30 (2022) 1–15

    2022

  137. [145]

    URL: https://www.irena

    International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Renewable Capacity Highlights 2024, Technical Report, International Renewable Energy Agency, 2024. URL: https://www.irena. org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2024/Mar/IRENA_RE_ Capacity_Highlights_2024.pdf

    2024

  138. [146]

    E. S. M. A. P. (ESMAP), GOGLA, Dalberg, Off-Grid Solar Market TrendsReport2024,TheWorldBank,Washington,DC,2024.URL: https://www.worldbank.org

    2024

  139. [147]

    S. M. Aarakit, J. M. Ntayi, F. Wasswa, M. S. Adaramola, V. F. Ssennono, Adoption of solar photovoltaic systems in households: Evidence from uganda, Journal of Cleaner Production 329 (2021) 129619

    2021

  140. [148]

    Hastie, Independence through leapfrogging: Energy transitions in eswatini, Geo: Geography and Environment 11 (2024) e00136

    H. Hastie, Independence through leapfrogging: Energy transitions in eswatini, Geo: Geography and Environment 11 (2024) e00136

    2024

  141. [149]

    Tetteh, N

    N. Tetteh, N. Kebir, Determinants of rooftop solar pv adoption among urban households in ghana, Renewable Energy Focus 43 (2022) 317–328. Blushtein-Livnon et al.: Preprint submitted to Advances in Applied Energy Page 24 of 25 A Typology of Renewable Energy Adoption Trajectorie...

    2022

  142. [2024]

    URL: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/ Publication/2024/Jun/IRENA_Tracking_SDG7_energy_progress_2024. pdf

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.