IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v87y2015icp665-672.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public values for energy futures: Framing, indeterminacy and policy making

Author

Listed:
  • Butler, C.
  • Demski, C.
  • Parkhill, K.
  • Pidgeon, N.
  • Spence, A.

Abstract

In the UK there are strong policy imperatives to transition toward low carbon energy systems but how and in what ways such transitional processes might be realised remains highly uncertain. One key area of uncertainty pertains to public attitudes and acceptability. Though there is wide-ranging research relevant to public acceptability, very little work has unpacked the multiple questions concerning how policy-makers can grapple with and mitigate related uncertainties in efforts to enact energy systems change. In this paper, public acceptability is identified as an indeterminate form of uncertainty that presents particular challenges for policy making. We build on our existing research into public values for energy system change to explore how the outcomes of the project can be applied in thinking through the uncertainties associated with public acceptability. Notably, we illustrate how the public values identified through our research bring into view alternative and quite different problem and solution framings to those currently evident within UK policy. We argue that engagement with a wide range of different framings can offer a basis for better understanding and anticipating public responses to energy system change, ultimately aiding in managing the complex set of uncertainties associated with public acceptability.

Suggested Citation

  • Butler, C. & Demski, C. & Parkhill, K. & Pidgeon, N. & Spence, A., 2015. "Public values for energy futures: Framing, indeterminacy and policy making," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 665-672.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:87:y:2015:i:c:p:665-672
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2015.01.035
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421515000543
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.01.035?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Stilgoe, Jack & Owen, Richard & Macnaghten, Phil, 2013. "Developing a framework for responsible innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1568-1580.
    2. Hallegatte, Stephane & Shah, Ankur & Lempert, Robert & Brown, Casey & Gill, Stuart, 2012. "Investment decision making under deep uncertainty -- application to climate change," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6193, The World Bank.
    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. Farhad Mukhtarov & Andrea Gerlak & Robin Pierce, 2017. "Away from fossil-fuels and toward a bioeconomy: Knowledge versatility for public policy?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(6), pages 1010-1028, September.
    2. Leung, Abraham & Burke, Matthew & Perl, Anthony & Cui, Jianqiang, 2018. "The peak oil and oil vulnerability discourse in urban transport policy: A comparative discourse analysis of Hong Kong and Brisbane," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 5-18.
    3. Peterson, Mark & Feldman, David, 2018. "Citizen preferences for possible energy policies at the national and state levels," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 80-91.
    4. 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.
    5. Isoaho, Karoliina & Karhunmaa, Kamilla, 2019. "A critical review of discursive approaches in energy transitions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 930-942.
    6. Parkes, Gareth & Spataru, Catalina, 2017. "Integrating the views and perceptions of UK energy professionals in future energy scenarios to inform policymakers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 155-170.
    7. Ernst, Anna & Biß, Klaus H. & Shamon, Hawal & Schumann, Diana & Heinrichs, Heidi U., 2018. "Benefits and challenges of participatory methods in qualitative energy scenario development," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 245-257.
    8. Egusquiza, A. & Ginestet, S. & Espada, J.C. & Flores-Abascal, I. & Garcia-Gafaro, C. & Giraldo-Soto, C. & Claude, S. & Escadeillas, G., 2021. "Co-creation of local eco-rehabilitation strategies for energy improvement of historic urban areas," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    9. Siddharth Sareen & Douglas Baillie & Jürgen Kleinwächter, 2018. "Transitions to Future Energy Systems: Learning from a Community Test Field," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-14, November.
    10. Goldschmidt, Rüdiger & Richter, Andreas & Pfeil, Raphael, 2019. "Active stakeholder involvement and organisational tasks as factors for an effective communication and governance strategy in the promotion of e-taxis. Results from a field research lab," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    11. Hall, Lisa M.H. & Buckley, Alastair R., 2016. "A review of energy systems models in the UK: Prevalent usage and categorisation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 607-628.
    12. Arcigni, Francesco & Friso, Riccardo & Collu, Maurizio & Venturini, Mauro, 2019. "Harmonized and systematic assessment of microalgae energy potential for biodiesel production," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 614-624.
    13. Phillips, Keri L. & Hine, Donald W. & Phillips, Wendy J., 2019. "How projected electricity price and personal values influence support for a 50% renewable energy target in Australia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 853-860.
    14. Ruef, Franziska & Ejderyan, Olivier, 2021. "Rowing, steering or anchoring? Public values for geothermal energy governance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    15. Thomas, Gareth & Demski, Christina & Pidgeon, Nick, 2019. "Deliberating the social acceptability of energy storage in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    16. Durwin H.J. Lynch & Pim Klaassen & Lan van Wassenaer & Jacqueline E.W. Broerse, 2020. "Constructing the Public in Roadmapping the Transition to a Bioeconomy: A Case Study from the Netherlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, April.
    17. Child, Michael & Breyer, Christian, 2017. "Transition and transformation: A review of the concept of change in the progress towards future sustainable energy systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 11-26.
    18. Robertson Munro, Fiona & Cairney, Paul, 2020. "A systematic review of energy systems: The role of policymaking in sustainable transitions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    19. Yuzran Bustamar & Ian Lange & Elizabeth Van Wie Davis, 2017. "Characteristic of Successful Energy Policy from Politics, Economics, Social and Technological Perspective - a qualitative analysis," Working Papers 2017-10, Colorado School of Mines, Division of Economics and Business.
    20. Felder, F.A. & Kumar, P., 2021. "A review of existing deep decarbonization models and their potential in policymaking," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    21. Xu, Shengqing, 2021. "The paradox of the energy revolution in China: A socio-technical transition perspective," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).

    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. Wreford, Anita & Topp, Cairistiona F.E., 2020. "Impacts of climate change on livestock and possible adaptations: A case study of the United Kingdom," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    2. Upham, Dr Paul & Sovacool, Prof Benjamin & Ghosh, Dr Bipashyee, 2022. "Just transitions for industrial decarbonisation: A framework for innovation, participation, and justice," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    3. Paredes-Frigolett, Harold, 2016. "Modeling the effect of responsible research and innovation in quadruple helix innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 126-133.
    4. Dutrénit, Gabriela & Natera, José Miguel & Puchet Anyul, Martín & Vera-Cruz, Alexandre O., 2019. "Development profiles and accumulation of technological capabilities in Latin America," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 396-412.
    5. Lehoux, P. & Miller, F.A. & Williams-Jones, B., 2020. "Anticipatory governance and moral imagination: Methodological insights from a scenario-based public deliberation study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    6. Annika Styczynski & Jedamiah Wolf & Somdatta Tah & Arnab Bose, 2014. "When decision-making processes fail: an argument for robust climate adaptation planning in the face of uncertainty," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 478-491, December.
    7. Abdul Tariq & Robert Jay Lempert & John Riverson & Marla Schwartz & Neil Berg, 2017. "A climate stress test of Los Angeles’ water quality plans," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 144(4), pages 625-639, October.
    8. Lempert Robert J., 2014. "Embedding (some) benefit-cost concepts into decision support processes with deep uncertainty," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 5(3), pages 487-514, December.
    9. Thomas D. Pol & Ekko C. Ierland & Silke Gabbert, 2017. "Economic analysis of adaptive strategies for flood risk management under climate change," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 267-285, February.
    10. Steinar Andresen & G. Kristin Rosendal & Jon Birger Skjærseth, 2018. "Regulating the invisible: interaction between the EU and Norway in managing nano-risks," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 513-528, August.
    11. Reichelt, Nicole & Nettle, Ruth, 2023. "Practice insights for the responsible adoption of smart farming technologies using a participatory technology assessment approach: The case of virtual herding technology in Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    12. Genus, Audley & Iskandarova, Marfuga, 2018. "Responsible innovation: its institutionalisation and a critique," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 1-9.
    13. Sauermann, Henry & Vohland, Katrin & Antoniou, Vyron & Balázs, Bálint & Göbel, Claudia & Karatzas, Kostas & Mooney, Peter & Perelló, Josep & Ponti, Marisa & Samson, Roeland & Winter, Silvia, 2020. "Citizen science and sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    14. Hidalgo, Francisco & Quiñones-Ruiz, Xiomara F. & Birkenberg, Athena & Daum, Thomas & Bosch, Christine & Hirsch, Patrick & Birner, Regina, 2023. "Digitalization, sustainability, and coffee. Opportunities and challenges for agricultural development," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    15. Bethany Robinson & Jonathan D. Herman, 2019. "A framework for testing dynamic classification of vulnerable scenarios in ensemble water supply projections," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 152(3), pages 431-448, March.
    16. Metta, Matteo & Ciliberti, Stefano & Obi, Chinedu & Bartolini, Fabio & Klerkx, Laurens & Brunori, Gianluca, 2022. "An integrated socio-cyber-physical system framework to assess responsible digitalisation in agriculture: A first application with Living Labs in Europe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    17. Timotijevic, Lada & Khan, Shumaisa S. & Raats, Monique & Braun, Susanne, 2019. "Research priority setting in food and health domain: European stakeholder beliefs about legitimacy criteria and processes," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 116-124.
    18. Sophie Bacq & Ruth V. Aguilera, 2022. "Stakeholder Governance for Responsible Innovation: A Theory of Value Creation, Appropriation, and Distribution," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 29-60, January.
    19. van Geenhuizen, Marina & Ye, Qing, 2014. "Responsible innovators: open networks on the way to sustainability transitions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 28-40.
    20. Jesse M. Keenan, 2018. "Regional resilience trust funds: an exploratory analysis for leveraging insurance surcharges," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 118-139, March.

    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:87:y:2015:i:c:p:665-672. 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.