Economic and Social Reports
Socioeconomic and dwelling characteristics of Canadian households using alternative energy sources
, Search for Statistics Canada publications by Max Stick, Max Stick , ORCID for Max Stick , Search for Statistics Canada publications by Samuel MacIsaac, Samuel MacIsaac , ORCID for Samuel MacIsaac , and Gordon DewisDOI: https://doi.org/10.25318/36280001202600600002-eng
Text begins
The use of renewable energy sources by Canadian households reflects national priorities and international commitments to sustainability. As part of the United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Canada has pledged to advance climate action, expand access to clean energy and foster sustainable communities (UN, n.d.). These objectives align directly with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)—particularly SDG 7 (affordable and clean energy), with its focus on expanding the use of renewable energy, and SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities). Examining the socioeconomic and dwelling-related characteristics of households that use renewable energy provides insight into how adoption is distributed across the population, helps identify which groups are more or less likely to adopt alternative energy and offers context for understanding Canada’s progress toward these goals (see Statistics Canada, 2023).
A recent systematic review by Elasu et al. (2023) found that there were several studies of household transitions to clean energy across various countries, but Canada-specific research on this topic remains scarce. Despite limited research, Yang and Arhonditsis (2022) examined key covariates of pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours of Canadians. They found general support for environmentalism, with pro-environmental behaviours more common among those with higher levels of education, those with higher incomes and families with children; however, household- and societal-level barriers may interfere in actualizing these beliefs in the form of a failure to “walk the talk” (p. 13). Other household-level factors—such as dwelling type and energy poverty, defined as limited access to adequate home energy services (Riva et al., 2021)—may also shape Canadians’ environmental practices. For example, residents of detached homes often have greater opportunities for environmental stewardship (Huddart-Kennedy et al., 2009). Extending this work, Leanage et al. (forthcoming) demonstrated that household engagement in sustainable practices, including composting, hazardous waste disposal and environmentally conscious purchasing, varies across sociodemographic, dwelling and geographic characteristics, as well as levels of community environmental engagement activities.
Building on this literature and addressing the limited Canada-specific evidence on household alternative energy adoption, this article draws on data from the 2021 Households and the Environment Survey (HES)Note to examine the population socioeconomic and dwelling-related characteristics of Canadian households that adopt alternative energy sources. The HES is a biennial, cross-sectional survey that collects information on alternative energy use, sociodemographic and dwelling characteristics, and a wide range of environmental practices and behaviours, with the dwelling as the sampling unit.Note
Approximately 1% of Canadian households reported using alternative energy sources
Figure 1 shows that in 2021, 1% of Canadian households reported using at least one form of alternative energy, a percentage consistent with earlier HES cycles. Fewer than 1% reported alternative energy use in 2007, and about 1% did so in 2011 (Statistics Canada 2007; 2011). Among the 1% of households that used alternative energy in 2021, 23% used solar energy; 11% used geothermal energy; and 10% used other sources, such as wind or biofuels. The remaining households reported none, or the source was unknown.
Data table for Chart 1
| Type Data table for chart 1 Note 1 of alternative energy source | Percent |
|---|---|
Source: Statistics Canada, Households and the Environment Survey, 2021. |
|
| Solar | 23.4 |
| Geothermal | 10.9 E use with caution |
| Other alternative energy sources | 10.3 E use with caution |
Households reporting any use of alternative energy were primarily composed of seniors only and those residing in single-detached houses
Households using alternative energy were more likely to be composed of seniors only (Table 1),Note accounting for about 36% of users compared with about 22% of non-users. By contrast, households composed of adults with children represented a smaller share of alternative energy users (18%) than non-users (28%). There were no statistically significant differences in other socioeconomic characteristics, including educational attainment and household income, when comparing households using alternative energy with those not using it.
Alternative energy use also varied across regions and population centre and urban area sizes. Regional differences were most pronounced in Ontario—this province accounted for the largest share of users (41%), while it represented about 23% of non-users. A similar pattern was observed in Atlantic Canada, which accounted for 18% of users and 8% of non-users. An opposite trend was observed in the Prairies (21% of users versus 38% of non-users) and Quebec (8% of users versus 19% of non-users).
By population centre and urban area size, alternative energy users tended to live in non-urban areas (34% of users versus 18% of non-users). Users were less likely to be located in large census metropolitan areasNote (CMAs) (20% of users versus 30% of non-users).
Housing characteristics and tenure differed markedly between alternative energy users and non-users. Nearly 9 in 10 users (89%) lived in single-detached dwellings, compared with 73% of non-users. Additionally, 7 in 10 users (68%) had lived in their dwelling for 10 years or more, compared with just over half of non-users (53%).
Considering broader environmental practices, households that used alternative energy were more likely to grow vegetables, herbs, fruits or flowers for personal use (79% of users versus 69% of non-users); compost kitchen or bioplastic waste (86% of users versus 81% of non-users); and use controlled methods for hazardous waste disposal (75% of users versus 66% of non-users).Note , Note However, participation in outdoor activities and visits to parks or public green spaces did not differ between users and non-users.
Overall, households using alternative energy were more likely to be senior-only households and less likely to be households composed of adults with children. They were more likely to reside in Ontario, Atlantic Canada and non-urban areas, and less likely to be in the Prairies, Quebec and large CMAs. Alternative energy users were also more likely to live in single-detached dwellings, to have longer residential tenure and to engage in selected household-based environmental practices.Note
| Users | Non-users | |
|---|---|---|
| percent | ||
|
||
| Total | 1.7 | 98.3 |
| Sociodemographic characteristics | ||
| Household composition | ||
| Adults only | 34.1 | 37.7 |
| Adults with children | 17.9 Table 1 Note * | 27.6 |
| Seniors only | 35.9 Table 1 Note * | 21.6 |
| Other compositions | 12.1 | 13.1 |
| Education | ||
| High school or less | 16.7 | 20.0 |
| Diploma or certificate below a bachelor's degree | 40.6 | 36.0 |
| Bachelor's degree (e.g., B.A., B.A. (Hons), B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B.) | 20.9 | 25.7 |
| University certificate, diploma or degree above the bachelor's level | 21.8 | 18.3 |
| Income | ||
| Less than $40,000 (includes income loss) | 18.2 | 15.5 |
| $40,000 to $59,999 | 14.4 | 13.8 |
| $60,000 to $79,999 | 11.0 E use with caution | 12.6 |
| $80,000 to $99,999 | 13.5 | 11.8 |
| $100,000 to $149,999 | 17.5 | 21.7 |
| $150,000 and over | 25.4 | 24.6 |
| Region | ||
| Atlantic | 18.3 Table 1 Note * | 7.7 |
| Quebec | 7.8 E use with caution Table 1 Note * | 19.1 |
| Ontario | 40.6 Table 1 Note * | 22.6 |
| Prairies | 20.9 Table 1 Note * | 37.6 |
| British Columbia | 12.4 E use with caution | 13.0 |
| Population centre or urban area size | ||
| Large census metropolitan areas (CMAs) | 20.1 Table 1 Note * | 29.7 |
| Medium-sized CMAs | 8.5 E use with caution Table 1 Note * | 18.9 |
| Small CMAs | 23.5 | 18.4 |
| Small urban areas | 13.6 | 14.8 |
| Non-urban areas | 34.3 Table 1 Note * | 18.2 |
| Dwelling characteristics | ||
| Year dwelling was originally built | ||
| Before 1960 | 20.5 | 22.6 |
| 1961 to 1983 | 28.7 | 27.9 |
| 1984 to 2000 | 21.4 | 22.5 |
| 2001 or later | 29.4 | 27.0 |
| Dwelling type | ||
| Single-detached | 88.5 Table 1 Note * | 72.7 |
| Other Table 1 Note 1 | 11.5 E use with caution Table 1 Note * | 27.3 |
| Time lived in dwelling | ||
| Less than 5 years | 18.2 Table 1 Note * | 26.2 |
| 5 to 9 years | 13.9 E use with caution Table 1 Note * | 20.4 |
| 10 years or more | 67.9 Table 1 Note * | 53.4 |
| Environmental engagement (in past 12 months) | ||
| Visited parks and public green spaces close to home Table 1 Note 2 | ||
| Yes | 75.4 | 79.8 |
| No or did not have a park or public green space close to home | 24.6 | 20.2 |
| Grew vegetables, herbs, fruits or flowers for personal use | ||
| Yes | 78.7 Table 1 Note * | 68.6 |
| No | 21.3 Table 1 Note * | 31.4 |
| Composted kitchen or bioplastic waste | ||
| Yes | 86.3 Table 1 Note * | 80.5 |
| No | 13.7 E use with caution Table 1 Note * | 19.5 |
| Used controlled hazardous waste disposal methods Table 1 Note 3 | ||
| Yes | 75.4 Table 1 Note * | 65.5 |
| No | 11.4 E use with caution Table 1 Note * | 17.0 |
| Did not have hazardous waste | 13.2 E use with caution | 17.5 |
| Participated in outdoor activities close to home Table 1 Note 2 | ||
| Yes | 80.0 | 79.9 |
| No | 20.0 | 20.1 |
Conclusion
This article shows that households’ use of alternative energy remains limited in Canada, with about 1% of households reporting such use—a proportion that is similar to and consistent with findings from 2007 and 2011 (Statistics Canada, 2007; 2011). Among users, solar energy was the most commonly reported alternative source.
Despite the overall low prevalence, alternative energy adoption varied across household socioeconomic and dwelling characteristics, indicating that use is concentrated within specific segments of the population rather than evenly distributed across households. Alternative energy use was more common among senior-only households, households with longer residential tenure and households living in single-detached properties. Geographic variation was also evident, with higher concentrations of users in Ontario, Atlantic Canada and non-urban areas and lower representation in the Prairies, Quebec and large CMAs. These patterns suggest that the type of dwelling, the duration of residence in that dwelling and the geographic context are important factors to consider when examining household alternative energy use. By contrast, socioeconomic outcomes such as educational attainment and household income did not differ significantly between users and non-users. Beyond these characteristics, alternative energy users also demonstrated higher engagement in other household-based environmental practices, such as composting and controlled hazardous waste disposal, indicating that alternative energy use may be embedded within broader patterns of environmental engagement.
This article provides valuable evidence on household characteristics associated with alternative energy use in Canada, contributing to a limited body of research (Elasu et al., 2023) and informing the monitoring of Canada’s progress toward UN SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities). Although household adoption remained limited in 2021, recent policy initiatives suggest growing participation; for example, the Canada Greener Homes Initiative programs have supported over 520,000 pre-retrofit evaluations and more than 269,000 heat pump installations (Government of Canada, 2025; Natural Resources Canada, 2025a, 2025b). Future cycles of the HES may allow monitoring to determine whether recent program initiatives are associated with broader household adoption and changes in energy consumption and conservation over time (Statistics Canada, 2025).
Authors
Allison Leanage is with the Health Analysis and Modelling Division, Max Stick and Samuel MacIsaac are with the Economic and Social Analysis and Modelling Division, and Gordon Dewis is with Environment Accounts and Statistics Division at Statistics Canada.
Acknowledgments
This article was funded by the Analytical Project Initiative at Statistics Canada. The authors would like to thank Rubab Arim and Marc Frenette at Statistics Canada for their comments on an initial version.
References
Elasu, J., Ntayi, J. M., Adaramola, M. S., & Buyinza, F. (2023). Drivers of household transition to clean energy fuels: A systematic review of evidence. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Transition, 3, 100047.
Government of Canada. (2025, June 11). Goal 7 of the Federal sustainable development strategy. Environment and Climate Change Canada.
Gure, Y., & Hou, F. (2022, July 27). Retention of government-assisted refugees in designated destinations: Recent trends and the role of destination characteristics. Economic and Social Reports; Statistics Canada.
Huddart-Kennedy, E., Beckley, T. M., McFarlane, B. L., & Nadeau, S. (2009). Rural-Urban Differences in Environmental Concern in Canada. Rural Sociology, 74: 309-329.
Leanage, A., MacIsaac, S., Stick, M., Dewis, G., & Arim, R. (Forthcoming, in draft). Understanding household factors shaping environmental practices and behaviours in Canada.
Natural Resources Canada. (2025a, October 2). Canada Greener Homes Loan. Government of Canada.
Natural Resources Canada. (2025b, October 3). Canada Greener Homes Initiative: Highlights and program updates. Government of Canada.
Riva, M., Makasi, S. K., Dufresne, P., O’Sullivan, K., & Toth, M. (2021). Energy poverty in Canada: Prevalence, social and spatial distribution, and implications for research and policy. Energy Research & Social Science, 81, 102237.
Statistics Canada. (2007). Households and the Environment: Energy Use: Analysis.
Statistics Canada. (2013). Households and the Environment: Energy Use, 2011.
Statistics Canada. (2023, December 8). Households and the Environment Survey, 2021. The Daily.
Statistics Canada. (2025, September 22). Households and the Environment Survey, 2023. The Daily.
UN (United Nations). (n.d.). The 17 Goals. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Sustainable Development (accessed March 27, 2024).
Yang, C., & Arhonditsis, G. B. (2022). What are the primary covariates of environmental attitudes and behaviours in Canada? A national-scale analysis of socioeconomic, political, and demographic factors. Ecological Informatics, 69: 1-15.
- Date modified: