IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v32y2004i10p1159-1171.html

Energy policy options--from the perspective of public attitudes and risk perceptions

Author

Listed:
  • Viklund, Mattias

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Viklund, Mattias, 2004. "Energy policy options--from the perspective of public attitudes and risk perceptions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1159-1171, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:32:y:2004:i:10:p:1159-1171
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301-4215(03)00079-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sioshansi, Fereidoon P., 2002. "California's electricity market: finally turning the corner?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 245-248, February.
    2. Mattias J. Viklund, 2003. "Trust and Risk Perception in Western Europe: A Cross‐National Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 727-738, August.
    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. Patricea Elena Bertea & Adriana Zait, 2013. "Perceived risk vs. intention to adopt e-commerce - a pilot study of potential moderators," Tržište/Market, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, vol. 25(2), pages 213-229.
    2. Hoti, Ferdiana & Perko, Tanja & Thijssen, Peter & Renn, Ortwin, 2021. "Who is willing to participate? Examining public participation intention concerning decommissioning of nuclear power plants in Belgium," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    3. Nocella, Giuseppe & Stefani, Gianluca & Romano, Donato, "undated". "Preferences, trust and willingness to pay for food information: An analysis of the Italian Market," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114606, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Daniel Treisman, 2011. "The Geography of Fear," NBER Working Papers 16838, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Violet Muringai & Ellen Goddard, 2018. "Trust and consumer risk perceptions regarding BSE and chronic wasting disease," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 240-265, March.
    6. Creed Tumlison & Rachael M. Moyer & Geoboo Song, 2017. "The Origin and Role of Trust in Local Policy Elites’ Perceptions of High‐Voltage Power Line Installations in the State of Arkansas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(5), pages 1018-1036, May.
    7. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.
    8. Martina de Gramatica & Fabio Massacci & Woohyun Shim & Uğur Turhan & Julian Williams, 2017. "Agency Problems and Airport Security: Quantitative and Qualitative Evidence on the Impact of Security Training," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(2), pages 372-395, February.
    9. Stacey M. Conchie & Ian J. Donald, 2006. "The Role of Distrust in Offshore Safety Performance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1151-1159, October.
    10. Gupta, Prerna & Satterfield, Terre & Kandlikar, Milind & Ramana, M.V., 2026. "Rethinking risk perception: Cultural cognition, gender, and caste in how Indians view nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    11. Chang, Youngho & Hin Tay, Tuan, 2006. "Efficiency and deregulation of the electricity market in Singapore," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(16), pages 2498-2508, November.
    12. George Chryssochoidis & Anna Strada & Athanasios Krystallis, 2009. "Public trust in institutions and information sources regarding risk management and communication: towards integrating extant knowledge," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 137-185, March.
    13. Stacey M. Conchie & Ian J. Donald & Paul J. Taylor, 2006. "Trust: Missing Piece(s) in the Safety Puzzle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1097-1104, October.
    14. Noah C. Dormady & Robert T. Greenbaum & Kim A. Young, 2021. "An experimental investigation of resilience decision making in repeated disasters," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 556-576, December.
    15. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Michael Siegrist, 2013. "How a Nuclear Power Plant Accident Influences Acceptance of Nuclear Power: Results of a Longitudinal Study Before and After the Fukushima Disaster," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 333-347, February.
    16. Yi-Hui Christine Huang & Xiao Wang & Ivy Wai-Yin Fong & Qiudi Wu, 2021. "Examining the Role of Trust in Regulators in Food Safety Risk Assessment: A Cross-regional Analysis of Three Chinese Societies Using an Integrative Framework," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(4), pages 21582440211, November.
    17. Daniela Knuth & Doris Kehl & Lynn Hulse & Silke Schmidt, 2014. "Risk Perception, Experience, and Objective Risk: A Cross‐National Study with European Emergency Survivors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1286-1298, July.
    18. Reuter, Christian & Kaufhold, Marc-André & Schmid, Stefka & Spielhofer, Thomas & Hahne, Anna Sophie, 2019. "The impact of risk cultures: Citizens' perception of social media use in emergencies across Europe," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    19. Vladimir M. Cvetković & Adem Öcal & Yuliya Lyamzina & Eric K. Noji & Neda Nikolić & Goran Milošević, 2021. "Nuclear Power Risk Perception in Serbia: Fear of Exposure to Radiation vs. Social Benefits," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-19, April.
    20. Timothy C. Earle, 2010. "Trust in Risk Management: A Model‐Based Review of Empirical Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 541-574, April.

    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:eee:enepol:v:32:y:2004:i:10:p:1159-1171. 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.