IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences: Analysis of US national and site-specific data


  • Greenberg, Michael


To understand public preferences for energy sources, 2701 US residents were surveyed; 2101 of the respondents lived within 50 miles of a major nuclear facility. Over 90% wanted greater reliance on solar and wind, and over 70% wanted more reliance upon hydroelectric sources. Less than one-third wanted more use of oil and coal. Nuclear and natural gas sources were closer to an even split. Notably, those who lived near nuclear facilities favored the same sources, although a larger proportion of these respondents favored increasing use of nuclear power than in the national sample. These results are consistent with other United States surveys. The study found striking differences in preferences by age, ethnicity/race and other demographic characteristics that need in-depth investigation in order to help decision-makers and everyone else better understand public preferences about energy policy choices.

Suggested Citation

  • Greenberg, Michael, 2009. "Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences: Analysis of US national and site-specific data," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 3242-3249, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:37:y:2009:i:8:p:3242-3249

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Michael Maharik & Baruch Fischhoff, 1993. "Risk Knowledge and Risk Attitudes Regarding Nuclear Energy Sources in Space," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(3), pages 345-353, June.
    2. Mika Kivimäki & Raija Kalimo, 1993. "Risk Perception Among Nuclear Power Plant Personnel: A Survey," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 421-424, August.
    3. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2003. "Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 961-972, October.
    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. Lam, J. & Li, V. & Reiner, D. & Han, Y., 2018. "Trust in Government and Effective Nuclear Safety Governance in Great Britain," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1827, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    2. Michael R. Greenberg, 2009. "NIMBY, CLAMP, and the Location of New Nuclear‐Related Facilities: U.S. National and 11 Site‐Specific Surveys," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(9), pages 1242-1254, September.
    3. Ling Jia & Queena K. Qian & Frits Meijer & Henk Visscher, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Risk Perception: A Perspective for Proactive Risk Management in Residential Building Energy Retrofits in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-25, April.
    4. Mika Kivimäki & Raija Kalimo & Simo Salminen, 1995. "Perceived Nuclear Risk, Organizational Commitment, and Appraisals of Management: A Study of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 391-396, June.
    5. Kazuya Nakayachi & George Cvetkovich, 2010. "Public Trust in Government Concerning Tobacco Control in Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 143-152, January.
    6. Roe, Brian & Teisl, Mario F., 2007. "Genetically modified food labeling: The impacts of message and messenger on consumer perceptions of labels and products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 49-66, February.
    7. Brownlie, Julie & Howson, Alexandra, 2006. "'Between the demands of truth and government': Health practitioners, trust and immunisation work," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 433-443, January.
    8. Peter Modin & Sven Hansson, 2011. "Moral and Instrumental Norms in Food Risk Communication," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 101(2), pages 313-324, June.
    9. Chen, Lijun & Parcell, Joe L & Chen, Chao & James, Harvey S. Jr & Xu, Danning, 2016. "Consumer preference for supermarket food sampling in China," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236043, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Branden B. Johnson & Mathew P. White, 2010. "The Importance of Multiple Performance Criteria for Understanding Trust in Risk Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1099-1115, July.
    11. Cope, S. & Frewer, L.J. & Houghton, J. & Rowe, G. & Fischer, A.R.H. & de Jonge, J., 2010. "Consumer perceptions of best practice in food risk communication and management: Implications for risk analysis policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 349-357, August.
    12. Hu, Saiquan & Jia, Xiao & Zhang, Xiaojin & Zheng, Xiaoying & Zhu, Junming, 2017. "How political ideology affects climate perception: Moderation effects of time orientation and knowledge," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 124-131.
    13. Andrew P. Barnes & Amanda Lucas & Gregory Maio, 2016. "Quantifying ambivalence towards sustainable intensification: an exploration of the UK public’s values," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 8(3), pages 609-619, June.
    14. Michael Siegrist, 2010. "Trust and Confidence: The Difficulties in Distinguishing the Two Concepts in Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1022-1024, July.
    15. Paul M. Kellstedt & Sammy Zahran & Arnold Vedlitz, 2008. "Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes Toward Global Warming and Climate Change in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 113-126, February.
    16. Stephen C. Whitfield & Eugene A. Rosa & Amy Dan & Thomas Dietz, 2009. "The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3), pages 425-437, March.
    17. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta, 2022. "Testing for saliency-led choice behavior in discrete choice modeling: An application in the context of preferences towards nuclear energy in Italy," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    18. Gupta, Kuhika & Ripberger, Joseph T. & Fox, Andrew S. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Silva, Carol L., 2021. "The future of nuclear energy in India: Evidence from a nationwide survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    19. Mathew P. White & Branden B. Johnson, 2010. "The Intuitive Detection Theorist (IDT) Model of Trust in Hazard Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(8), pages 1196-1209, August.
    20. Biaoan Shan & Xiaoju Liu & Anwei Gu & Runxuan Zhao, 2022. "The Effect of Occupational Health Risk Perception on Job Satisfaction," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-14, February.

    More about this item


    Energy sources Preferences Surveys;


    Access and download statistics


    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:37:y:2009:i:8:p:3242-3249. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: .

    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: .

    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.