Engaging the public on paths to sustainable energy: Who has to trust whom?
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.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
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: (Zhang, Lei)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.