IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/renene/v220y2024ics0960148123014970.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Taking the carbon capture and storage, wind power, PV or other renewable technology path to fight climate change? Exploring the acceptance of climate change mitigation technologies – A Danish national representative study

Author

Listed:
  • Ladenburg, Jacob
  • Kim, Jiwon
  • Zuch, Matteo
  • Soytas, Ugur

Abstract

Despite numerous prior studies regarding public acceptance of climate change mitigation technologies, most academic papers focus on individual technologies in their analyses. Little is known about the acceptance of multiple low-carbon energy technologies. This study bridges this research gap and explores the cross-technology acceptance of various energy solutions at different locations. Thus, we provide a comprehensive understanding of public acceptance patterns by analysing a broader range of technologies concurrently, focusing on: (a) nuclear power, (b) district heating, (c) energy-saving technologies, (d) onshore, nearshore, and offshore wind power (WP), (e) photovoltaics (PV) installed on agricultural land, industrial roofs, and private roofs, and (f) carbon capture and storage (CCS) in offshore, nearshore, rural onshore, and urban onshore locations. Based on Danish nationally representative survey data, our results give strong policy indications that PV on industrial rooftops is accepted at the highest level. In contrast, nuclear power, onshore rural and urban CCS, and nearshore CCS are the least accepted technologies to combat climate change among the Danish public. Additionally, we discover that the acceptance of a specific technology is contingent on locations. Specifically, the public acceptance of PV, WP, and CCS depends on the place of living and the potential location of technology placement. Finally, this study explores subgroup analyses to compare acceptance differences according to gender, age, education, income, and location of residence.

Suggested Citation

  • Ladenburg, Jacob & Kim, Jiwon & Zuch, Matteo & Soytas, Ugur, 2024. "Taking the carbon capture and storage, wind power, PV or other renewable technology path to fight climate change? Exploring the acceptance of climate change mitigation technologies – A Danish national," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:renene:v:220:y:2024:i:c:s0960148123014970
    DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2023.119582
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148123014970
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.renene.2023.119582?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. Ladenburg, Jacob & Hevia-Koch, Pablo & Petrović, Stefan & Knapp, Lauren, 2020. "The offshore-onshore conundrum: Preferences for wind energy considering spatial data in Denmark," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    2. Jason Harold, Valentin Bertsch, Thomas Lawrence, and Magie Hall, 2021. "Drivers of People's Preferences for Spatial Proximity to Energy Infrastructure Technologies: A Cross-country Analysis," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4).
    3. Li, Jianglong & Ho, Mun Sing, 2022. "Indirect cost of renewable energy: Insights from dispatching," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    4. Johansen, Katinka, 2019. "Local support for renewable energy technologies? Attitudes towards local near-shore wind farms among second home owners and permanent area residents on the Danish coast," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 691-701.
    5. Enrica Cian & Ian Sue Wing, 2019. "Correction to: Global Energy Consumption in a Warming Climate," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(4), pages 1415-1415, August.
    6. Heather Truelove & Michael Greenberg, 2013. "Who has become more open to nuclear power because of climate change?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 116(2), pages 389-409, January.
    7. Ribeiro, Fernando & Ferreira, Paula & Araújo, Madalena & Braga, Ana Cristina, 2014. "Public opinion on renewable energy technologies in Portugal," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 39-50.
    8. Lígia M. Costa Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2021. "Explaining the Social Acceptance of Renewables through Location-Related Factors: An Application to the Portuguese Case," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-13, January.
    9. Ladenburg, Jacob & Termansen, Mette & Hasler, Berit, 2013. "Assessing acceptability of two onshore wind power development schemes: A test of viewshed effects and the cumulative effects of wind turbines," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 45-54.
    10. Rabl, Ari & Rabl, Veronika A., 2013. "External costs of nuclear: Greater or less than the alternatives?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 575-584.
    11. Ugarte Lucas, Paula & Gamborg, Christian & Lund, Thomas Bøker, 2022. "Sustainability concerns are key to understanding public attitudes toward woody biomass for energy: A survey of Danish citizens," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 181-194.
    12. Hobman, Elizabeth V. & Ashworth, Peta, 2013. "Public support for energy sources and related technologies: The impact of simple information provision," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 862-869.
    13. Mattmann, Matteo & Logar, Ivana & Brouwer, Roy, 2016. "Hydropower externalities: A meta-analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 66-77.
    14. Enrica Cian & Ian Sue Wing, 2019. "Global Energy Consumption in a Warming Climate," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(2), pages 365-410, February.
    15. Ma, Chunbo & Rogers, Abbie A. & Kragt, Marit E. & Zhang, Fan & Polyakov, Maksym & Gibson, Fiona & Chalak, Morteza & Pandit, Ram & Tapsuwan, Sorada, 2015. "Consumers’ willingness to pay for renewable energy: A meta-regression analysis," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 93-109.
    16. Ladenburg, Jacob & Dubgaard, Alex, 2007. "Willingness to pay for reduced visual disamenities from offshore wind farms in Denmark," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 4059-4071, August.
    17. Jeffrey M Wooldridge, 2010. "Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 0262232588, December.
    18. Fan Li & Kari Lock Morgan & Alan M. Zaslavsky, 2018. "Balancing Covariates via Propensity Score Weighting," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 113(521), pages 390-400, January.
    19. Ladenburg, Jacob, 2009. "Visual impact assessment of offshore wind farms and prior experience," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(3), pages 380-387, March.
    20. Bertsch, Valentin & Hall, Margeret & Weinhardt, Christof & Fichtner, Wolf, 2016. "Public acceptance and preferences related to renewable energy and grid expansion policy: Empirical insights for Germany," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 465-477.
    21. Minh Ha-Duong & Ana Sofia Campos & Alain Nadaï, 2007. "A survey on the public perception of CCS in France," Working Papers hal-00866557, HAL.
    22. Tabi, Andrea & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2017. "Keep it local and fish-friendly: Social acceptance of hydropower projects in Switzerland," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 68(P1), pages 763-773.
    23. Pojadas, Dave J. & Abundo, Michael Lochinvar S., 2022. "A spatial cost-benefit-externality modelling framework for siting of variable renewable energy farms: A case in Bohol, Philippines," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 1177-1187.
    24. Kohko Tokushige & Keigo Akimoto & Toshimasa Tomoda, 2007. "Public acceptance and risk-benefit perception of CO 2 geological storage for global warming mitigation in Japan," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 12(7), pages 1237-1251, August.
    25. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    26. Ladenburg, Jacob, 2014. "Dynamic properties of the preferences for renewable energy sources – A wind power experience-based approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 542-551.
    27. Peñaloza, Diego & Mata, Érika & Fransson, Nathalie & Fridén, Håkan & Samperio, Álvaro & Quijano, Ana & Cuneo, Alessandra, 2022. "Social and market acceptance of photovoltaic panels and heat pumps in Europe: A literature review and survey," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    28. Jung, Nusrat & Moula, Munjur E. & Fang, Tingting & Hamdy, Mohamed & Lahdelma, Risto, 2016. "Social acceptance of renewable energy technologies for buildings in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area of Finland," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 813-824.
    29. 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).
    30. Lauren Knapp & Jacob Ladenburg, 2015. "How Spatial Relationships Influence Economic Preferences for Wind Power—A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-25, June.
    31. Ladenburg, Jacob, 2008. "Attitudes towards on-land and offshore wind power development in Denmark; choice of development strategy," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 111-118.
    32. Frank, Christopher & Fiedler, Stephanie & Crewell, Susanne, 2021. "Balancing potential of natural variability and extremes in photovoltaic and wind energy production for European countries," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 674-684.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    2. Ladenburg, Jacob & Hevia-Koch, Pablo & Petrović, Stefan & Knapp, Lauren, 2020. "The offshore-onshore conundrum: Preferences for wind energy considering spatial data in Denmark," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    3. Langer, Katharina & Decker, Thomas & Roosen, Jutta & Menrad, Klaus, 2016. "A qualitative analysis to understand the acceptance of wind energy in Bavaria," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 248-259.
    4. Linnerud, K. & Dugstad, A. & Rygg, B.J., 2022. "Do people prefer offshore to onshore wind energy? The role of ownership and intended use," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    5. Joalland, Olivier & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre, 2023. "Developing large-scale offshore wind power programs: A choice experiment analysis in France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    6. Escribano, Gonzalo & González-Enríquez, Carmen & Lázaro-Touza, Lara & Paredes-Gázquez, Juandiego, 2023. "An energy union without interconnections? Public acceptance of cross-border interconnectors in four European countries," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    7. 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).
    8. Parsons, George & Yan, Lingxiao, 2021. "Anchoring on visual cues in a stated preference survey: The case of siting offshore wind power projects," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 38(C).
    9. Groh, Elke D., 2022. "Exposure to wind turbines, regional identity and the willingness to pay for regionally produced electricity," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    10. Picchi, Paolo & van Lierop, Martina & Geneletti, Davide & Stremke, Sven, 2019. "Advancing the relationship between renewable energy and ecosystem services for landscape planning and design: A literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 241-259.
    11. Ladenburg, Jacob & Skotte, Maria, 2022. "Heterogeneity in willingness to pay for the location of offshore wind power development: An application of the willingness to pay space model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    12. Dugstad, Anders & Grimsrud, Kristine & Kipperberg, Gorm & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2020. "Acceptance of wind power development and exposure – Not-in-anybody's-backyard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    13. 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.
    14. Balezentis, Tomas & Streimikiene, Dalia & Mikalauskas, Ignas & Shen, Zhiyang, 2021. "Towards carbon free economy and electricity: The puzzle of energy costs, sustainability and security based on willingness to pay," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    15. Welsch, Heinz, 2016. "Electricity Externalities, Siting, and the Energy Mix: A Survey," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 10(1), pages 57-94, November.
    16. Anders Dugstad & Kristine Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2020. "Acceptance of national wind power development and exposure. A case-control choice experiment approach," Discussion Papers 933, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    17. Astrid Buchmayr & Luc Van Ootegem & Jo Dewulf & Elsy Verhofstadt, 2021. "Understanding Attitudes towards Renewable Energy Technologies and the Effect of Local Experiences," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-23, November.
    18. Gonyo, Sarah Ball & Fleming, Chloe S. & Freitag, Amy & Goedeke, Theresa L., 2021. "Resident perceptions of local offshore wind energy development: Modeling efforts to improve participatory processes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    19. Ladenburg, Jacob & Lutzeyer, Sanja, 2012. "The economics of visual disamenity reductions of offshore wind farms—Review and suggestions from an emerging field," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(9), pages 6793-6802.
    20. Ladenburg, Jacob & Möller, Bernd, 2011. "Attitude and acceptance of offshore wind farms—The influence of travel time and wind farm attributes," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(9), pages 4223-4235.

    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:renene:v:220:y:2024:i:c:s0960148123014970. 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.journals.elsevier.com/renewable-energy .

    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.