IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/natene/v8y2023i2d10.1038_s41560-022-01178-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perception spillover from fracking onto public perceptions of novel energy technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Steve Westlake

    (Cardiff University)

  • Conor H. D. John

    (Cardiff University)

  • Emily Cox

    (Cardiff University
    University of Oxford)

Abstract

Public opposition to new energy technology can harm the chances of successful deployment. Less is known about knock-on effects on the wider energy system, including whether such opposition impacts public perceptions of other technologies. Here we present a mixed-methods study into ‘perception spillover’, examining whether the controversy over fracking for oil and gas affects public attitudes to two novel low-carbon energy technologies: deep ‘enhanced’ geothermal systems and ‘green’ hydrogen. We argue that perception spillover is multi-faceted, and we conceptualize and test spontaneous, prompted and primed forms, examining how and why particular types occur. Using a nationally representative UK survey and two focus groups, we show that perception spillover from fracking could lead to widespread negative perceptions of deep geothermal energy, influencing the conditions that deep geothermal would be expected to meet. Conversely, a minority of participants expressed more positive perceptions of green hydrogen because they deemed it dissimilar to fracking.

Suggested Citation

  • Steve Westlake & Conor H. D. John & Emily Cox, 2023. "Perception spillover from fracking onto public perceptions of novel energy technologies," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 8(2), pages 149-158, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:natene:v:8:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1038_s41560-022-01178-4
    DOI: 10.1038/s41560-022-01178-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-022-01178-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41560-022-01178-4?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. Cousse, Julia & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Hahnel, Ulf J.J., 2021. "Tell me how you feel about geothermal energy: Affect as a revealing factor of the role of seismic risk on public acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    2. Hilary S. Boudet, 2019. "Public perceptions of and responses to new energy technologies," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 4(6), pages 446-455, June.
    3. Rebecca K. Trump & Kevin P. Newman, 2017. "When do unethical brand perceptions spill over to competitors?," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 219-230, June.
    4. Domenico Giardini, 2009. "Geothermal quake risks must be faced," Nature, Nature, vol. 462(7275), pages 848-849, December.
    5. Whitmarsh, Lorraine & Nash, Nick & Upham, Paul & Lloyd, Alyson & Verdon, James P. & Kendall, J.-Michael, 2015. "UK public perceptions of shale gas hydraulic fracturing: The role of audience, message and contextual factors on risk perceptions and policy support," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 419-430.
    6. Scheer, Dirk & Konrad, Wilfried & Wassermann, Sandra, 2017. "The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: A qualitative study of public perceptions towards energy technologies and portfolios in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 89-100.
    7. Einsiedel, Edna F. & Boyd, Amanda D. & Medlock, Jennifer & Ashworth, Peta, 2013. "Assessing socio-technical mindsets: Public deliberations on carbon capture and storage in the context of energy sources and climate change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 149-158.
    8. John D. Graham & John A. Rupp & Olga Schenk, 2015. "Unconventional Gas Development in the USA: Exploring the Risk Perception Issues," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(10), pages 1770-1788, October.
    9. 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.
    10. Merryn Thomas & Tristan Partridge & Barbara Herr Harthorn & Nick Pidgeon, 2017. "Deliberating the perceived risks, benefits, and societal implications of shale gas and oil extraction by hydraulic fracturing in the US and UK," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 2(5), pages 1-7, May.
    11. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. DeVries, 2007. "How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 715-727, June.
    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. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2023. "Price promises, trust deficits and energy justice: Public perceptions of hydrogen homes," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 188(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. Knoblauch, Theresa A.K. & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Stauffacher, Michael, 2019. "Siting deep geothermal energy: Acceptance of various risk and benefit scenarios in a Swiss-German cross-national study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 807-816.
    2. 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.
    3. Xexakis, Georgios & Hansmann, Ralph & Volken, Sandra P. & Trutnevyte, Evelina, 2020. "Models on the wrong track: Model-based electricity supply scenarios in Switzerland are not aligned with the perspectives of energy experts and the public," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    4. Schriever, Marlene & Halstrup, Dominik, 2018. "Exploring the adoption in transitioning markets: Empirical findings and implications on energy storage solutions-acceptance in the German manufacturing industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 460-468.
    5. Emma Uebelhor & Olivia Hintz & Sarah B. Mills & Abigail Randall, 2021. "Utility-Scale Solar in the Great Lakes: Analyzing Community Reactions to Solar Developments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-20, February.
    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. Liuyang Yao & Dangchen Sui & Xiaotong Liu & Hui Fan, 2020. "The Psychological Process of Residents’ Acceptance of Local Shale Gas Exploitation in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-20, September.
    8. Cousse, Julia & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Hahnel, Ulf J.J., 2021. "Tell me how you feel about geothermal energy: Affect as a revealing factor of the role of seismic risk on public acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    9. Richard T.J. Porter & Alberto Striolo & Haroun Mahgerefteh & Joanna Faure Walker, 2019. "Addressing the risks of induced seismicity in subsurface energy operations," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(2), March.
    10. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2022. "Beyond the triangle of renewable energy acceptance: The five dimensions of domestic hydrogen acceptance," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    11. Martínez-Espiñeira, Roberto & García-Valiñas, María Á. & Matesanz, David, 2019. "Public Attitudes towards Hydraulic Fracturing in Western Newfoundland," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    12. Lange, Marcus & Cummins, Valerie, 2021. "Managing stakeholder perception and engagement for marine energy transitions in a decarbonising world," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    13. Park, Seona & Yun, Sun-Jin & Cho, Kongjang, 2022. "Public dialogue as a collaborative planning process for offshore wind energy projects: Implications from a text analysis of a South Korean case," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    14. Walton, Andrea & McCrea, Rod, 2020. "Understanding social licence to operate for onshore gas development: How the underlying drivers fit together," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    15. McComas, Katherine A. & Lu, Hang & Keranen, Katie M. & Furtney, Maria A. & Song, Hwansuck, 2016. "Public perceptions and acceptance of induced earthquakes related to energy development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 27-32.
    16. Bradshaw, Michael & Devine-Wright, Patrick & Evensen, Darrick & King, Owen & Martin, Abigail & Ryder, Stacia & Short, Damien & Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Stretesky, Paul & Szolucha, Anna & Williams, Laur, 2022. "‘We're going all out for shale:’ explaining shale gas energy policy failure in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    17. Hübner, Gundula & Leschinger, Valentin & Müller, Florian J.Y. & Pohl, Johannes, 2023. "Broadening the social acceptance of wind energy – An Integrated Acceptance Model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    18. Liuyang Yao & Qian Zhang & Kin Keung Lai & Xianyu Cao, 2020. "Explaining Local Residents’ Attitudes toward Shale Gas Exploitation: The Mediating Roles of Risk and Benefit Perceptions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-13, October.
    19. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2022. "Homes of the future: Unpacking public perceptions to power the domestic hydrogen transition," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    20. Baek, Haein & Chung, Ji-Bum & Yun, Gi Woong, 2021. "Differences in public perceptions of geothermal energy based on EGS technology in Korea after the Pohang earthquake: National vs. local," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:nat:natene:v:8:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1038_s41560-022-01178-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    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.