IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/engenv/v15y2004i5p755-777.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Attitudes in Relation to Risk and Novelty of Future Energy Options

Author

Listed:
  • Marco Semadeni
  • Ralf Hansmann
  • Thomas Flüeler

Abstract

Energy options for the future are investigated in relation to attitudinal dimensions to obtain insights important for policy making and risk communication. Using a questionnaire, the study derives four pertinent attitude-linked factors, namely: 1) technology-oriented, 2) society-oriented, 3) social-economically oriented, and 4) nature-oriented inclinations. Another part of the same questionnaire assesses judgements of environmental and societal hazards, as well as the ingenuity of novel technologies, and the overall support for future energy supply options. Significant relationships between the four inclination factors and the ratings in these items emerged. As observed by positive or negative judgements of the ingenuity of given technologies, the technology- and society-oriented inclinations corresponded to a positive attitude towards novelty, whereas the social-economically oriented and nature-oriented inclinations partially tallied with a negative attitude towards novelty. Except for the nature-orientated inclination, all inclinations corresponded to a positive attitude towards a future supply option with mixed energy technologies including nuclear energy. Instead, the nature-oriented inclination corresponded positively with the support of a renewables-only option, and in particular supported solar energy. It also conformed to significantly higher ratings of future vulnerabilities and environmental risks in general. The society-oriented inclination also matched with high ratings of the future socio-economic vulnerabilities but rather opposed the high ratings of future socio-environmental risks. This inclination also opposed the low ratings of negative environmental impacts from the energy technologies photovoltaics and biomass. It appeared that a stronger orientation towards society tends to balance some of the high and low average dread ratings without strongly affecting the attitude towards novelty. The technology-oriented inclination clearly paralleled high risk ratings of climate change and population growth whereas the other risk and vulnerability items corresponded to low ratings. The social-economic inclination showed no significant correspondence to these risk issues. This inclination however, exposed a negative judgement of long-term technology issues. The observed ratings did not support a presumption that higher dread ratings are generally associated with negative attitudes towards novelty. On the opposite, a social-economic orientation had a more conservative attitude towards novelty while having rather insignificant systematic influences on dread ratings. Only the orientation towards nature consistently showed a conservative, negative attitude towards novelty, and a high dread rating attitude. The results imply that the rating behaviour is influenced by the inclinations of the participants. The four inclinations are thus helpful to predict perceived dread and novelty as well as the support for future energy options. Their consideration could contribute to the improvement of risk communication, and help to clarify how to inform on new benefits or hazards affecting risk perception.

Suggested Citation

  • Marco Semadeni & Ralf Hansmann & Thomas Flüeler, 2004. "Public Attitudes in Relation to Risk and Novelty of Future Energy Options," Energy & Environment, , vol. 15(5), pages 755-777, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:engenv:v:15:y:2004:i:5:p:755-777
    DOI: 10.1260/0958305042886787
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/0958305042886787
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1260/0958305042886787?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ortwin Renn, 1998. "Three decades of risk research: accomplishments and new challenges," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(1), pages 49-71, January.
    2. 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.
    3. Michael Siegrist, 2003. "Perception of gene technology, and food risks: results of a survey in Switzerland," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 45-60, January.
    4. Jeffrey K. Lazo & Jason C. Kinnell & Ann Fisher, 2000. "Expert and Layperson Perceptions of Ecosystem Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 179-194, April.
    5. Harry Otway & Kerry Thomas, 1982. "Reflections on Risk Perception and Policy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 69-82, June.
    6. Susan Miles & Lynn J. Frewer, 2003. "Public perception of scientific uncertainty in relation to food hazards," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(3), pages 267-283, July.
    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. 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.
    2. Sauter, Raphael & Watson, Jim, 2007. "Strategies for the deployment of micro-generation: Implications for social acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2770-2779, May.
    3. Inna Lazanyuk & Svetlana Ratner & Svetlana Revinova & Konstantin Gomonov & Swati Modi, 2023. "Diffusion of Renewable Microgeneration on the Side of End-User: Multiple Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-22, March.
    4. Jihee Lee & HyungBin Moon & Jongsu Lee, 2021. "Consumers’ heterogeneous preferences toward the renewable portfolio standard policy: An evaluation of Korea’s energy transition policy," Energy & Environment, , vol. 32(4), pages 648-667, June.

    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. Frédéric Vandermoere, 2008. "Hazard Perception, Risk Perception, and the Need for Decontamination by Residents Exposed to Soil Pollution: The Role of Sustainability and the Limits of Expert Knowledge," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 387-398, April.
    2. Xiaoqin Zhu & Xiaofei Xie, 2015. "Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 790-810, May.
    3. Sjöberg, Lennart, 2004. "Gene Technology in the eyes of the public and experts. Moral opinions, attitudes and risk perception," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2004:7, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 11 May 2005.
    4. Nathalie Stampfli & Michael Siegrist & Hans Kastenholz, 2010. "Acceptance of nanotechnology in food and food packaging: a path model analysis," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 353-365, April.
    5. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis A. Cifuentes, 2003. "Risk Perception in a Developing Country: The Case of Chile," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1271-1285, December.
    6. Gundula Glowka & Andreas Kallmünzer & Anita Zehrer, 2021. "Enterprise risk management in small and medium family enterprises: the role of family involvement and CEO tenure," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 1213-1231, September.
    7. Grégoire Wallenborn & Catherine Rousseau & Karine Thollier, 2006. "Détermination de profils de ménages pour une utilisation plus rationnelle de l’energie," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/192217, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    8. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2006. "Exploring the Structure of Attitudes Toward Genetically Modified Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1707-1719, December.
    9. Marie-Eve Laporte & Géraldine Michel & Sophie Rieunier, 2017. "Towards a better understanding of eating behaviour through the concept of Perception of Nutritional Risk," Post-Print halshs-02923251, HAL.
    10. Ohler, Adrienne M. & Billger, Sherrilyn M., 2014. "Does environmental concern change the tragedy of the commons? Factors affecting energy saving behaviors and electricity usage," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 1-12.
    11. Boardman, Brenda & Palmer, Jane, 2007. "Electricity disclosure: The troubled birth of a new policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 4947-4958, October.
    12. Neelke Doorn, 2015. "The Blind Spot in Risk Ethics: Managing Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(3), pages 354-360, March.
    13. O. Ionuş & M. Licurici & M. Pătroescu & S. Boengiu, 2015. "Assessment of flood-prone stripes within the Danube drainage area in the South-West Oltenia Development Region, Romania," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 75(1), pages 69-88, February.
    14. Harry Otway, 1985. "Multidimensional Criteria for Technology Acceptability: A Response to Bernard L. Cohen," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(4), pages 271-273, December.
    15. Stapleton, L.M. & Hanna, P. & Ravenscroft, N. & Church, A., 2014. "A flexible ecosystem services proto-typology based on public opinion," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 83-90.
    16. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Asquini, Martina, 2023. "The impact of perceived COVID-19 risks, food waste generation and food purchase control on the food security status during the pandemic," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334511, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    17. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 2005. "Aggregate, Disaggregate, and Hybrid Analyses of Ecological Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 405-428, April.
    18. Evans, Keith S. & Teisl, Mario F. & Lando, Amy. M. & Liu, Sherry T., 2020. "Risk perceptions and food-handling practices in the home," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    19. Jieun Ryu & Eun Joo Yoon & Chan Park & Dong Kun Lee & Seong Woo Jeon, 2017. "A Flood Risk Assessment Model for Companies and Criteria for Governmental Decision-Making to Minimize Hazards," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-26, November.
    20. Tao Ye & Yangbin Liu & Jiwei Wang & Ming Wang & Peijun Shi, 2017. "Farmers’ crop insurance perception and participation decisions: empirical evidence from Hunan, China," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(5), pages 664-677, May.

    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:sae:engenv:v:15:y:2004:i:5:p:755-777. 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: SAGE Publications (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.