Investigates compliance intention towards gas bans in CALD communities, highlighting key influencing factors.
From March 2027, the Australian state of Victoria’s Building Electrification Regulations will require existing households to replace gas hot water systems with electric alternatives when they reach end of life. This mandate creates a clear compliance obligation with significant legal and governance implications. Culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) households often rely more heavily on gas and may face unique socioeconomic, cultural, and informational barriers that affect their ability and willingness to comply. Despite the importance of inclusive climate policy, limited research examines the factors shaping CALD communities’ compliance intention, and national surveys do not provide comprehensive analyses of these groups. This study investigates the compliance intention of CALD communities in Victoria, Australia, in response to the 2027 mandate. Through semistructured interviews with 10 CALD community leaders in Victoria, the research identifies the behavioral, normative, cultural, and policy-related determinants influencing compliance intention. The findings reveal that cost burden, information accessibility, and trust in government are the most decisive factors, while cultural familiarity with gas use and limited program awareness further constrain willingness to adopt electric hot water systems. The findings revealed that strong collective moral values and respect for regulatory authority provide a foundation for engagement when policies are communicated clearly and equitably. The study concludes that achieving an inclusive and legally robust energy transition requires culturally responsive policy design, integrating communication, community partnerships, and targeted financial support to enhance compliance intention among CALD communities. These findings will be valuable for policymakers in refining their campaigns to enhance the effectiveness of future policy implementations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Karunasena et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: