IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v38y2010i6p2633-2640.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Engaging the public on paths to sustainable energy: Who has to trust whom?

Author

Listed:
  • Ricci, Miriam
  • Bellaby, Paul
  • Flynn, Rob

Abstract

The aim is to observe how hydrogen, in its wider meaning as a 'system innovation', is understood by a cross section of the general public in three regions of the UK that have embryonic developments: Teesside, South West Wales and London. Focus groups were conducted in two separate phases: the first, involving nine groups, took place between June 2005 and March 2006; the second, involving seven groups, took place in the period October-November 2006, mainly with groups reconvened after the first phase. They presented to participants 'user-friendly' information about possible scenarios for a hydrogen economy, and helped the group to identify criteria that might be most salient for decision-makers. Public awareness of hydrogen in the three case study areas, both in general and in relation to local demonstration projects, proved minimal, with the exception of the few who had direct experience of the chemical industry (in Teesside and South West Wales). When engaged in an informed debate about hydrogen and its future possible developments, participants were willing to learn about the different options and expected to be fully informed on how these would impact on their everyday lives as consumers and citizens. Risk perception is important, but not the only factor in lay understanding of hydrogen. More relevant is the extent to which the different configurations of hydrogen systems align with the public's 'view of the world' (social and environmental values, needs and expectations) and how participants think hydrogen energy would be embedded in their daily routines. There is a lack of trust in political authorities, business and industry, and within and across different social groups; ambivalence in how trust is placed on information providers, role models and opinion formers; and public unease in dealing with, and making sense of, conflicting information coming from 'expert' sources. The evidence is useful to inform policy, both on national and local level. It is especially useful in addressing public engagement as a political strategy.

Suggested Citation

  • Ricci, Miriam & Bellaby, Paul & Flynn, Rob, 2010. "Engaging the public on paths to sustainable energy: Who has to trust whom?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 2633-2640, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:38:y:2010:i:6:p:2633-2640
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301-4215(09)00349-8
    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

    as
    1. Unruh, Gregory C., 2002. "Escaping carbon lock-in," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 317-325, March.
    2. Lyons, Bruce R & Mehta, Judith, 1997. "Contracts, Opportunism and Trust: Self-Interest and Social Orientation," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(2), pages 239-257, March.
    3. Unruh, Gregory C., 2000. "Understanding carbon lock-in," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(12), pages 817-830, October.
    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. repec:clh:resear:v:9:y:2016:i:20 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Huijts, N.M.A. & De Groot, J.I.M. & Molin, E.J.E. & van Wee, B., 2013. "Intention to act towards a local hydrogen refueling facility: Moral considerations versus self-interest," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 63-74.
    3. repec:eee:enepol:v:110:y:2017:i:c:p:404-409 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Rogers, Jennifer C. & Simmons, Eunice A. & Convery, Ian & Weatherall, Andrew, 2012. "Social impacts of community renewable energy projects: findings from a woodfuel case study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 239-247.
    5. Wilson, Caroline, 2014. "Evaluating communication to optimise consumer-directed energy efficiency interventions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 300-310.
    6. Aitken, Mhairi, 2010. "Wind power and community benefits: Challenges and opportunities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 6066-6075, October.
    7. Wheeler, David & MacGregor, Margo & Atherton, Frank & Christmas, Kevin & Dalton, Shawn & Dusseault, Maurice & Gagnon, Graham & Hayes, Brad & MacIntosh, Constance & Mauro, Ian & Ritcey, Ray, 2015. "Hydraulic fracturing – Integrating public participation with an independent review of the risks and benefits," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 299-308.
    8. Ma, Guo & Andrews-Speed, Philip & Zhang, Jiandong, 2013. "Chinese consumer attitudes towards energy saving: The case of household electrical appliances in Chongqing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 591-602.
    9. Adams, Michelle & Wheeler, David & Woolston, Genna, 2011. "A participatory approach to sustainable energy strategy development in a carbon-intensive jurisdiction: The case of Nova Scotia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2550-2559, May.
    10. Badera Jarosław, 2014. "Problems of the social non-acceptance of mining projects with particular emphasis on the European Union – a literature review," Environmental & Socio-economic Studies, De Gruyter Open, vol. 2(1), pages 27-34, March.
    11. Lombard, Andrea & Ferreira, Sanette, 2014. "Residents' attitudes to proposed wind farms in the West Coast region of South Africa: A social perspective from the South," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 390-399.
    12. Badera, Jarosław & Kocoń, Paweł, 2014. "Local community opinions regarding the socio-environmental aspects of lignite surface mining: Experiences from central Poland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 507-516.

    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:38:y:2010:i:6:p:2633-2640. 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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.