IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v38y2010i6p2690-2691.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Getting the engineering right is not always enough: Researching the human dimensions of the new energy technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Webler, Thomas
  • Tuler, Seth P.

Abstract

Achieving the ambitious targets for carbon emissions reductions that are necessary to reduce the risks associated with climate change will require significant changes in the way people use energy. Redesigning energy technologies at a societal level is certainly a major scientific challenge, however, succeeding in this endeavor requires more than getting the engineering right. Technologies can fail to win public approval for a variety of reasons. Good social science research, coordinated properly with technological R&D, is an essential part of the solution. Social science research is needed to: clarify the behavioral changes that can reduce energy consumption; characterize public understandings and concerns of new energy technologies; help overcome barriers to public adoption; maximize the benefits for users; and better understand society's needs and abilities to make energy transitions. We argue that social science research into the human dimensions of new energy technologies be promoted and overseen by a new office of social science research to be established in the United States Department of Energy. The funding levels needed for these endeavors are a tiny fraction of the amount that was allocated to carbon sequestration research in the 2009 stimulus bill.

Suggested Citation

  • Webler, Thomas & Tuler, Seth P., 2010. "Getting the engineering right is not always enough: Researching the human dimensions of the new energy technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 2690-2691, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:38:y:2010:i:6:p:2690-2691
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301-4215(10)00013-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Firestone, Jeremy & Kempton, Willett, 2007. "Public opinion about large offshore wind power: Underlying factors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 1584-1598, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Evensen, Darrick & Demski, Christina & Becker, Sarah & Pidgeon, Nick, 2018. "The relationship between justice and acceptance of energy transition costs in the UK," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 451-459.
    2. Kesicki, Fabian & Anandarajah, Gabrial, 2011. "The role of energy-service demand reduction in global climate change mitigation: Combining energy modelling and decomposition analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(11), pages 7224-7233.
    3. Chiu, Mei-Shiu, 2013. "Tensions in implementing the “energy-conservation/carbon-reduction” policy in Taiwanese culture," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 415-425.
    4. Marc A. Rosen, 2012. "Engineering Sustainability: A Technical Approach to Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(9), pages 1-23, September.
    5. Kowsari, Reza & Zerriffi, Hisham, 2011. "Three dimensional energy profile:," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(12), pages 7505-7517.
    6. Charlotte Senkpiel & Audrey Dobbins & Christina Kockel & Jan Steinbach & Ulrich Fahl & Farina Wille & Joachim Globisch & Sandra Wassermann & Bert Droste-Franke & Wolfgang Hauser & Claudia Hofer & Lars, 2020. "Integrating Methods and Empirical Findings from Social and Behavioural Sciences into Energy System Models—Motivation and Possible Approaches," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-30, September.
    7. Evensen, Darrick & Stedman, Rich, 2017. "Beliefs about impacts matter little for attitudes on shale gas development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 10-21.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wustenhagen, Rolf & Wolsink, Maarten & Burer, Mary Jean, 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2683-2691, May.
    2. Valentine, Scott Victor, 2011. "Understanding the variability of wind power costs," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(8), pages 3632-3639.
    3. Ho, Lip-Wah & Lie, Tek-Tjing & Leong, Paul TM & Clear, Tony, 2018. "Developing offshore wind farm siting criteria by using an international Delphi method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 53-67.
    4. Russell, Aaron & Bingaman, Samantha & Garcia, Hannah-Marie, 2021. "Threading a moving needle: The spatial dimensions characterizing US offshore wind policy drivers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    5. Haggett, Claire, 2011. "Understanding public responses to offshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 503-510, February.
    6. David Rudolph & Claire Haggett & Mhairi Aitken, 2018. "Community benefits from offshore renewables: The relationship between different understandings of impact, community, and benefit," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(1), pages 92-117, February.
    7. Valentine, Scott Victor, 2010. "A STEP toward understanding wind power development policy barriers in advanced economies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(9), pages 2796-2807, December.
    8. Pine, Matthew K. & Schmitt, Pál & Culloch, Ross M. & Lieber, Lilian & Kregting, Louise T., 2019. "Providing ecological context to anthropogenic subsea noise: Assessing listening space reductions of marine mammals from tidal energy devices," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 49-57.
    9. D׳Souza, Clare & Yiridoe, Emmanuel K., 2014. "Social acceptance of wind energy development and planning in rural communities of Australia: A consumer analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 262-270.
    10. Marianna Cavallo & Alicia Bugeja Said & José A Pérez Agúndez, 2023. "Who Is in and Who Is out in Ocean Economies Development?," Post-Print hal-04044150, HAL.
    11. A.H.T. Shyam Kularathna & Sayaka Suda & Ken Takagi & Shigeru Tabeta, 2019. "Evaluation of Co-Existence Options of Marine Renewable Energy Projects in Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-26, May.
    12. Petter Gudding & Gorm Kipperberg & Craig Bond & Kelly Cullen & Eric Steltzer, 2018. "When a Good Is a Bad (or a Bad Is a Good)—Analysis of Data from an Ambiguous Nonmarket Valuation Setting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, January.
    13. Devine-Wright, Patrick & Devine-Wright, Hannah & Sherry-Brennan, Fionnguala, 2010. "Visible technologies, invisible organisations: An empirical study of public beliefs about electricity supply networks," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4127-4134, August.
    14. Mostafaeipour, Ali, 2010. "Feasibility study of offshore wind turbine installation in Iran compared with the world," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(7), pages 1722-1743, September.
    15. Dimitropoulos, Alexandros & Kontoleon, Andreas, 2009. "Assessing the determinants of local acceptability of wind-farm investment: A choice experiment in the Greek Aegean Islands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1842-1854, May.
    16. Ki, Jaehong & Yun, Sun-Jin & Kim, Woo-Chang & Oh, Subin & Ha, Jihun & Hwangbo, Eunyoung & Lee, Hyoeun & Shin, Sumin & Yoon, Seulki & Youn, Hyewon, 2022. "Local residents’ attitudes about wind farms and associated noise annoyance in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    17. Ladenburg, Jacob, 2010. "Attitudes towards offshore wind farms--The role of beach visits on attitude and demographic and attitude relations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 1297-1304, March.
    18. Nelson, Hal T. & Wikstrom, Kris & Hass, Samantha & Sarle, Kirsten, 2021. "Half-length and the FACT framework: Distance-decay and citizen opposition to energy facilities," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    19. Westerberg, Vanja & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Lifran, Robert, 2013. "The case for offshore wind farms, artificial reefs and sustainable tourism in the French mediterranean," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 172-183.
    20. Petrova, Maria A., 2016. "From NIMBY to acceptance: Toward a novel framework — VESPA — For organizing and interpreting community concerns," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 1280-1294.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:38:y:2010:i:6:p:2690-2691. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.