IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v106y2017icp356-366.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public acceptance of renewable energy technologies from an abstract versus concrete perspective and the positive imagery of solar power

Author

Listed:
  • Sütterlin, Bernadette
  • Siegrist, Michael

Abstract

Public acceptance and perception of renewable energy sources are key factors for successfully accomplishing an energy transition. In this light, developing effective policy and communication measures necessitates understanding how people perceive energy systems. Accordingly, the present study aimed to shed light on people's imagery of solar power, one of the renewable energy sources with the highest potential. Results revealed that almost unanimously people associate solar power with highly positive imagery and that visual characteristics are especially prevalent. The successful realization of renewable energy projects requires policymakers to draw on reliable data about public acceptance of renewables. In response to this need, the present study examined whether assessing public acceptance of renewables on a more concrete level (i.e., by addressing drawbacks) can result in a different, more reliable acceptance rating than assessment on an abstract level, as done at present in opinion polls. Results showed that people do not think about drawbacks related to renewables when they consider it from a general, more abstract, perspective. However, when downsides are specifically addressed, people integrate these into their evaluation, thus diminishing acceptance. Even the highly positive imagery of solar power is relativized and acceptance decreases. These findings have several important implications for policymakers.

Suggested Citation

  • Sütterlin, Bernadette & Siegrist, Michael, 2017. "Public acceptance of renewable energy technologies from an abstract versus concrete perspective and the positive imagery of solar power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 356-366.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:106:y:2017:i:c:p:356-366
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.061
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151730215X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.061?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. Litvine, Dorian & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2011. "Helping "light green" consumers walk the talk: Results of a behavioural intervention survey in the Swiss electricity market," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 462-474, January.
    2. Marcello Graziano & Kenneth Gillingham, 2015. "Spatial patterns of solar photovoltaic system adoption: The influence of neighbors and the built environment," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(4), pages 815-839.
    3. Boudet, Hilary & Clarke, Christopher & Bugden, Dylan & Maibach, Edward & Roser-Renouf, Connie & Leiserowitz, Anthony, 2014. "“Fracking” controversy and communication: Using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 57-67.
    4. Borchers, Allison M. & Duke, Joshua M. & Parsons, George R., 2007. "Does willingness to pay for green energy differ by source?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 3327-3334, June.
    5. Tampakis, Stilianos & Τsantopoulos, Georgios & Arabatzis, Garyfallos & Rerras, Ioannis, 2013. "Citizens’ views on various forms of energy and their contribution to the environment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 473-482.
    6. Kim, Younghwan & Kim, Minki & Kim, Wonjoon, 2013. "Effect of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on global public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 822-828.
    7. Roh Pin Lee, 2015. "Stability of energy imageries and affect following shocks to the global energy system: the case of Fukushima," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(7), pages 965-988, August.
    8. Tsoutsos, Theocharis & Frantzeskaki, Niki & Gekas, Vassilis, 2005. "Environmental impacts from the solar energy technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 289-296, February.
    9. Lienert, Pascal & Suetterlin, Bernadette & Siegrist, Michael, 2015. "Public acceptance of the expansion and modification of high-voltage power lines in the context of the energy transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 573-583.
    10. 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.
    11. Ming, Zeng & Yingxin, Liu & Shaojie, Ouyang & Hui, Shi & Chunxue, Li, 2016. "Nuclear energy in the Post-Fukushima Era: Research on the developments of the Chinese and worldwide nuclear power industries," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 147-156.
    12. Perlaviciute, Goda & Steg, Linda, 2014. "Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: Integrated review and research agenda," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 361-381.
    13. Cohen, Jed J. & Reichl, Johannes & Schmidthaler, Michael, 2014. "Re-focussing research efforts on the public acceptance of energy infrastructure: A critical review," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 4-9.
    14. Faiers, Adam & Neame, Charles, 2006. "Consumer attitudes towards domestic solar power systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(14), pages 1797-1806, September.
    15. Jones, Christopher R. & Richard Eiser, J., 2010. "Understanding 'local' opposition to wind development in the UK: How big is a backyard?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 3106-3117, June.
    16. Truelove, Heather Barnes, 2012. "Energy source perceptions and policy support: Image associations, emotional evaluations, and cognitive beliefs," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 478-489.
    17. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa L. & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2007. "The affect heuristic," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1333-1352, March.
    18. Midttun, Atle, 2012. "The greening of European electricity industry: A battle of modernities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 22-35.
    19. Kaenzig, Josef & Heinzle, Stefanie Lena & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2013. "Whatever the customer wants, the customer gets? Exploring the gap between consumer preferences and default electricity products in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 311-322.
    20. Wang, Qiang & Chen, Xi, 2012. "Regulatory failures for nuclear safety – the bad example of Japan – implication for the rest of world," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 2610-2617.
    21. Alexa Spence & Wouter Poortinga & Nick Pidgeon & Irene Lorenzoni, 2010. "Public Perceptions of Energy Choices: The Influence of Beliefs about Climate Change and the Environment," Energy & Environment, , vol. 21(5), pages 385-407, September.
    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. Kalkbrenner, Bernhard J. & Yonezawa, Koichi & Roosen, Jutta, 2017. "Consumer preferences for electricity tariffs: Does proximity matter?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 413-424.
    2. Jobin, Marilou & Siegrist, Michael, 2018. "We choose what we like – Affect as a driver of electricity portfolio choice," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 736-747.
    3. Galvin, Ray, 2018. "‘Them and us’: Regional-national power-plays in the German energy transformation: A case study in Lower Franconia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 269-277.
    4. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mourato, Susana, 2016. "Modeling individual preferences for energy sources: The case of IV generation nuclear energy in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 37-58.
    5. 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).
    6. Navratil, J. & Picha, K. & Buchecker, M. & Martinat, S. & Svec, R. & Brezinova, M. & Knotek, J., 2019. "Visitors’ preferences of renewable energy options in “green” hotels," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 1065-1077.
    7. Lienert, Pascal & Suetterlin, Bernadette & Siegrist, Michael, 2015. "Public acceptance of the expansion and modification of high-voltage power lines in the context of the energy transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 573-583.
    8. 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.
    9. Sauthoff, Saramena & Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2017. "To switch or not to switch? – Understanding German consumers’ willingness to pay for green electricity tariff attributes," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 260771, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    10. Plum, Christiane & Olschewski, Roland & Jobin, Marilou & van Vliet, Oscar, 2019. "Public preferences for the Swiss electricity system after the nuclear phase-out: A choice experiment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 181-196.
    11. Tsantopoulos, Georgios & Arabatzis, Garyfallos & Tampakis, Stilianos, 2014. "Public attitudes towards photovoltaic developments: Case study from Greece," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 94-106.
    12. Kim, Hyunggeun & Park, Sangkyu & Lee, Jongsu, 2021. "Is renewable energy acceptable with power grid expansion? A quantitative study of South Korea's renewable energy acceptance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    13. Sward, Jeffrey A. & Nilson, Roberta S. & Katkar, Venktesh V. & Stedman, Richard C. & Kay, David L. & Ifft, Jennifer E. & Zhang, K. Max, 2021. "Integrating social considerations in multicriteria decision analysis for utility-scale solar photovoltaic siting," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 288(C).
    14. Van Dael, Miet & Lizin, Sebastien & Swinnen, Gilbert & Van Passel, Steven, 2017. "Young people’s acceptance of bioenergy and the influence of attitude strength on information provision," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 417-430.
    15. Motz, Alessandra, 2021. "Consumer acceptance of the energy transition in Switzerland: The role of attitudes explained through a hybrid discrete choice model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    16. Čábelková, Inna & Strielkowski, Wadim & Streimikiene, Dalia & Cavallaro, Fausto & Streimikis, Justas, 2021. "The social acceptance of nuclear fusion for decision making towards carbon free circular economy: Evidence from Czech Republic," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    17. Cousse, Julia, 2021. "Still in love with solar energy? Installation size, affect, and the social acceptance of renewable energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    18. Goda Perlaviciute & Linda Steg & Nadja Contzen & Sabine Roeser & Nicole Huijts, 2018. "Emotional Responses to Energy Projects: Insights for Responsible Decision Making in a Sustainable Energy Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-12, July.
    19. Herbes, Carsten & Ramme, Iris, 2014. "Online marketing of green electricity in Germany—A content analysis of providers’ websites," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 257-266.
    20. 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.

    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:106:y:2017:i:c:p:356-366. 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.