Typologies of policymakers’ perception toward energy transition in Korea: philosophy and resources

References

• Addams, H., & Proops, J. L. (Eds.). (2000). Social discourse and environmental policy: An application of Q methodology. Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Akaev, A. A., & Davydova, O. I. (2020). The Paris agreement on climate is coming into force: Will the great energy transition take place? Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 90(5), 588–599. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1019331620050111
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akpan, U. F., & Akpan, G. E. (2012). The contribution of energy consumption to climate change: A feasible policy direction. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 2(1), 21. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ijeeep/issue/31899/350661?publisher=http-www-cag-edu-tr-ilhan-ozturk
   Google Scholar
• Amaruzaman, S., Leimona, B., van Noordwijk, M., & Lusiana, B. (2017). Discourses on the performance gap of agriculture in a green economy: A Q-methodology study in Indonesia. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 13(1), 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2017.1331264
   Google Scholar
• Augutis, J., Martišauskas, L., & Krikštolaitis, R. (2015). Energy mix optimization from an energy security perspective. Energy Conversion and Management, 90, 300–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.11.033
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakos, G. C., & Tsagas, N. F. (2003). Technoeconomic assessment of a hybrid solar/wind installation for electrical energy saving. Energy and Buildings, 35(2), 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-77880200023-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balogun, A. L., Marks, D., Sharma, R., Shekhar, H., Balmes, C., Maheng, D., & Salehi, P. (2020). Assessing the potentials of digitalization as a tool for climate change adaptation and sustainable development in urban centres. Sustainable Cities and Society, 53, 101888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101888
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basic, M., & Crampon, C. (2019). Nuclear, pariah of the European classification of ‘green’ investments. European taxonomy-the council pleads for ‘technological neutrality’. Climate-The European Parliament acknowledges the role of nuclear. European green label: Nuclear still pending. Why must nuclear energy be included in the European taxonomy? European Taxonomy, 46 environmental NGOs are speaking up. Taxonomy-Two policymakers groups deliver a favourable opinion on nuclear.
   Google Scholar
• Bickerstaff, K., Lorenzoni, I., Pidgeon, N. F., Poortinga, W., & Simmons, P. (2008). Reframing nuclear power in the UK energy debate: Nuclear power, climate change mitigation and radioactive waste. Public Understanding of Science, 17(2), 145–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506066719
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bird, D. K., Haynes, K., van den Honert, R., McAneney, J., & Poortinga, W. (2014). Nuclear power in Australia: A comparative analysis of public opinion regarding climate change and the Fukushima disaster. Energy Policy, 65, 644–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.09.047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borel‐Saladin, J. M., & Turok, I. N. (2013). The green economy: Incremental change or transformation? Environmental Policy and Governance, 23(4), 209–220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boute, A., & Zhikharev, A. (2019). Vested interests as driver of the clean energy transition: Evidence from Russia’s solar energy policy. Energy Policy, 133, 110910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.110910
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradshaw, M. J. (2010). Global energy dilemmas: A geographical perspective. The Geographical Journal, 176(4), 275–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2010.00375.x
   Google Scholar
• Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, S. R. (1993). A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity, 16, 91–138. https://qmethod.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/brown-1993.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Bulkeley, H., Schroeder, H., Janda, K., Zhao, J., Armstrong, A., Chu, S. Y., & Ghosh, S. (2009). Cities and climate change: The role of institutions, governance and urban planning. Change, 28, 30.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell Lendrum, D., & Corvalán, C. (2007). Climate change and developing-country cities: Implications for environmental health and equity. Journal of Urban Health, 84(1), 109–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-007-9170-x
   Google Scholar
• Carr, S. C. (1992). A primer on the use of Q-technique factor analysis. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 25(3), 133–138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chung, J. B., & Kim, E. S. (2018). Public perception of energy transition in Korea: Nuclear power, climate change, and party preference. Energy Policy, 116, 137–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.02.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cody, E. M., Reagan, A. J., Mitchell, L., Dodds, P. S., & Danforth, C. M. (2015). Climate change sentiment on twitter: An unsolicited public opinion poll. PloS One, 10(8), e0136092. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0136092
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coenen, F., & Menkveld, M. (2013). The role of local authorities in a transition towards a climate-neutral society. In F. Andre, J. David, & K. Marcel (Eds.), Global warming and social innovation (pp. 120–138). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cotton, M. (2015). Stakeholder perspectives on shale gas fracking: A Q-method study of environmental discourses. Environment & Planning A, 47(9), 1944–1962. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X15597134
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowell, R., & Devine-Wright, P. (2018). A delivery-democracy dilemma? Mapping and explaining policy change for public engagement with energy infrastructure. Journal Environmental Policy Plan, 20(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2018.1443005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curry, N. (2012). Sustainable rural development in England: Policy problems and equity consequences. Local Economy, 27(2), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269094211428864
   Google Scholar
• da Costa, K. (2015). Preventism, disaster risk reduction and the consequences for human rights. Security and Human Rights, 26(2–4), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1163/18750230-02602015
   Google Scholar
• Davoudi, S., Crawford, J., & Mehmood, A. (Eds.). (2009). Planning for climate change: Strategies for mitigation and adaptation for spatial planners. Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• De Coninck, H., Fischer, C., Newell, R. G., & Ueno, T. (2008). International technology-oriented agreements to address climate change. Energy Policy, 36(1), 335–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.09.030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Steiguer, J. E. (2006). The origins of modern environmental thought. University of Arizona Press.
   Google Scholar
• Deffrennes, M. (2022). Role of nuclear fission energy from past to future: Critical issues: Energy policy and market design, cost control, innovation and flexibility. In J. Boucau (Ed.),Fundamental issues critical to the success of nuclear projects (pp. 3–22). Woodhead Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Dermont, C., Stadelmann, I., & Druckman, J. N. (2018). Citizens’ support for the energy transition. The influence of policy and politics on citizens’ opinions towards renewable energy promotion [ Doctoral dissertation]. University of Bern.
   Google Scholar
• Devine-Wright, P. (Ed.). (2012). Renewable energy and the public. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Donner, J. C. (2001). Using Q-sorts in participatory processes: An introduction to the methodology. Social Development Papers, 36, 24–49. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.607.4701&rep=rep1&type=pdf#page=30
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, G., Barry, J., & Robinson, C. (2007). Many ways to say ‘no’, different ways to say ‘yes’: Applying Q-methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50(4), 517–551. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560701402075
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emirbayer, M., & Goodwin, J. (1994). Network analysis, culture, and the problem of agency. The American Journal of Sociology, 99(6), 1411–1454. https://doi.org/10.1086/230450
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Falkner, R. (2016). A minilateral solution for global climate change? on bargaining efficiency, club benefits, and international legitimacy. Perspectives on Politics, 14(1), 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592715003242
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Findlay, T. (2010). Nuclear energy and global governance: Ensuring safety, security and non-proliferation. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Francés, G. E., Marín-Quemada, J. M., & González, E. S. M. (2013). RES and risk: Renewable energy’s contribution to energy security. A portfolio-based approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 26, 549–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.06.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fthenakis, V., Mason, J. E., & Zweibel, K. (2009). The technical, geographical, and economic feasibility for solar energy to supply the energy needs of the US. Energy Policy, 37(2), 387–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.08.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graff, M., Carley, S., & Konisky, D. M. (2018). Stakeholder perceptions of the United States energy transition: Local-level dynamics and community responses to national politics and policy. Energy Research & Social Science, 43, 144–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.05.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallegatte, S., Przyluski, V., & Vogt-Schilb, A. (2011). Building world narratives for climate change impact, adaptation and vulnerability analyses. Nature Climate Change, 1(3), 151. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1135
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong, S., & Brook, B. W. (2018). A nuclear-to-gas transition in South Korea: Is it environmentally friendly or economically viable? Energy Policy, 112, 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.10.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imelda, I., Fripp, M., & Roberts, M. J. (2018). Variable pricing and the cost of renewable energy (NO. BOOK). University of Hawaiʻi at Manoa.
   Google Scholar
• Jeffares, S., & Skelcher, C. (2011). Democratic subjectivities in network governance: AQ methodology study of English and Dutch public managers. Public Administration, 89(4), 1253–1273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01888.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeon, B. Y. (2016, February 13). New and renewable energy is not easy. The dilemma of resource-poor countries. Kyunghyang.
   Google Scholar
• Ji, X., & Long, X. (2016). A review of the ecological and socioeconomic effects of biofuel and energy policy recommendations. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 61, 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.03.026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S. I., & McGee, J. (2013). Legitimacy in an era of fragmentation: The case of global climate governance. Global Environmental Politics, 13(3), 56–78. https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00183
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, S. E. (2010). Philosophy and theory of Q methodology. Korean Society and Public Administration, 20(4), 1–25. [In Korean.]
   Google Scholar
• Kim, H., & Jeon, E. C. (2020). Structural changes to nuclear energy industries and the economic effects resulting from energy transition policies in South Korea. Energies, 13(7), 1806. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13071806
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, J. H., Park, J. H., & Yoo, S. H. (2020). Public preference toward an energy transition policy: The case of South Korea. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(36), 45965–45973. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11169-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kivimaa, P., Kangas, H. L., & Lazarevic, D. (2017). Client-Oriented evaluation of ‘creative destruction’ in policy mixes: Finnish policies on building energy efficiency transition. Energy Research & Social Science, 33, 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knapp, V., & Pevec, D. (2018). Promises and limitations of nuclear fission energy in combating climate change. Energy Policy, 120, 94–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.05.027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krane, J. (2017). Climate change and fossil fuel: An examination of risks for the energy industry and producer states. MRS Energy & Sustainability, 4, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1557/mre.2017.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kriesi, H., & Jegen, M. (2001). The Swiss energy policy elite: The actor constellation of a policy domain in transition. European Journal of Political Research, 39(2), 251–287. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00577
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kümmel, R., & Lindenberger, D. (2014). How energy conversion drives economic growth far from the equilibrium of neoclassical economics. New Journal of Physics, 16(12), 125008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/16/12/125008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, J. E. (2018, September 26). Min byung-joo, president of the atomic energy society, said, “leaving nuclear power and neglecting professionals …” “worried about the safety gap at nuclear power plants due to the departure of manpower.” Chosun Biz.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, S. H. (2014). Policy challenges for promoting renewable energy in Korea. Environmental Law and Policy, 12(null), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.18215/envlp.12.201402.63
   Google Scholar
• Lee, S. H., & Yun, S. G. (2015). Review of measures to enhance local acceptance of renewable energy projects. Environmental Law and Policy, 15(null), 133–166. https://doi.org/10.18215/envlp.15.201509.133
   Google Scholar
• Lee, Y., & Seo, I. (2019). Sustainability of a policy instrument: Rethinking the renewable portfolio standard in South Korea. Sustainability, 11(11), 3082. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113082
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, T. (2021). From nuclear energy developmental state to energy transition in South Korea: The role of the political epistemic community. Environmental Policy and Governance, 31(2), 82–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1919
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, Y., Lee, M. C., & Kim, Y. J. (2021). Barriers and strategies of hydrogen fuel cell power generation based on policymakers survey in South Korea. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 47(9), 5709–5719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.11.212
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim, C. S. (2015). Analysis of stakeholder perspectives for biofuel policy using Q-methodology in Korea. Renewable Energy, 11(1), 36–48. https://doi.org/10.7849/ksnre.2015.03.1.036
   Google Scholar
• Lim, K. C. (2016). A study on energy policy governance cases and policy suggestions of major countries. Journal of Energy Engineering, 25(4), 226–235. https://doi.org/10.5855/ENERGY.2016.25.4.226
   Google Scholar
• Lim, E. (2019). South Korea’s nuclear dilemmas. Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament, 2(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/25751654.2019.1585585
   Google Scholar
• Lovell, H., Bulkeley, H., & Owens, S. (2009). Converging agendas? Energy and climate change policies in the UK. Environment and Planning C: Government & Policy, 27(1), 90–109. https://doi.org/10.1068/c0797j
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma, W., Zhou, X., & Renwick, A. (2019). Impact of off-farm income on household energy expenditures in China: Implications for rural energy transition. Energy Policy, 127, 248–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.12.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marcucci, A., Kypreos, S., & Panos, E. (2017). The road to achieving the long-term Paris targets: Energy transition and the role of direct air capture. Climatic Change, 144(2), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2051-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markard, J., Suter, M., & Ingold, K. (2016). Socio-Technical transitions and policy change–advocacy coalitions in Swiss energy policy. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 18, 215–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKeown, B., & Thomas, D.B. (2013). Q-Methodology (2nd ed., p. 120). SAGE Publications, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth. In K. Conca & D. G. Dabelko (Eds.), Green planet blues (p. 5).
   Google Scholar
• Monstadt, J., & Wolff, A. (2015). Energy transition or incremental change? Green policy agendas and the adaptability of the urban energy regime in Los Angeles. Energy Policy, 78, 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.10.022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nam, H. (2020). Impact of nuclear phase-out policy and energy balance in 2029 based on the 8th basic plan for long-term electricity supply and demand in South Korea. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 122, 109723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109723
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nam, H., Nam, H., & Konishi, S. (2021). Techno‐economic analysis of hydrogen production from the nuclear fusion‐biomass hybrid system. International Journal of Energy Research, 45(8), 11992–12012. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.5994
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newell, R. G., & Raimi, D. (2014). Implications of shale gas development for climate change. Environmental Science & Technology, 48(15), 8360–8368. https://doi.org/10.1021/es4046154
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nikitas, G., Bhattacharya, S., Vimalan, N., Demirci, H. E., Nikitas, N., & Kumar, P. (2019). Wind power: A sustainable way to limit climate change. Managing Global Warming, 333–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814104-5.00010-7
   Google Scholar
• Nordensvärd, J., & Urban, F. (2015). The stuttering energy transition in Germany: Wind energy policy and feed-in tariff lock-in. Energy Policy, 82, 156–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.03.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Okagawa, A., Masui, T., Akashi, O., Hijioka, Y., Matsumoto, K., & Kainuma, M. (2012). Assessment of GHG emission reduction pathways in a society without carbon capture and nuclear technologies. Energy Economics, 34(3), S391–S398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2012.07.011
   Google Scholar
• Peake, S., & Ekins, P. (2017). Exploring the financial and investment implications of the Paris agreement. Climate Policy, 17(7), 832–852. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2016.1258633
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pepper, D. (2002). Eco-Socialism: From deep ecology to social justice. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Petrova, M. A. (2013). Nimbyism revisited: Public acceptance of wind energy in the United States. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 4(6), 575–601. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.250
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips, D., & Jung, T. Y. (2021). An alternative co-benefit framework prioritizing health impacts: Potential air pollution and climate change mitigation pathways through energy sector fuel substitution in South Korea. Climate, 9(6), 101. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli9060101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poortinga, W., Aoyagi, M., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2013). Public perceptions of climate change and energy futures before and after the Fukushima accident: A comparison between Britain and Japan. Energy Policy, 62, 1204–1211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.08.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pye, S., Li, F. G., Price, J., & Fais, B. (2017). Achieving net-zero emissions through the reframing of UK national targets in the post-Paris Agreement era. Nature Energy, 2(3), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2017.24
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rehman, A., Ma, H., Radulescu, M., Sinisi, C. I., Paunescu, L. M., Alam, M. D., & Alvarado, R. (2021). The energy mix dilemma and environmental sustainability: Interaction among greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear Energy, Urban Agglomeration, and Economic Growth Energies, 14(22), 7703. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14227703
   Google Scholar
• Röck, M., Saade, M. R. M., Balouktsi, M., Rasmussen, F. N., Birgisdottir, H., & Frischknecht, R., Habert, G., Lützkendorf, T., & Passer, A. (2020). Embodied GHG emissions of buildings–the hidden challenge for effective climate change mitigation. Applied Energy, 258, 114107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114107
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosen, M. A. (2018). Environmental sustainability tools in the biofuel industry. Biofuel Research Journal, 5(1), 751–752. https://doi.org/10.18331/BRJ2018.5.1.2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sher, F., Curnick, O., & Azizan, M. T. (2021). Sustainable conversion of renewable energy sources. Sustainability, 13(5), 2940. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052940
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shirizadeh, B., & Quirion, P. (2021). Low-Carbon options for the French power sector: What role for renewables, nuclear energy and carbon capture and storage? Energy Economics, 95, 105004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2020.105004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shirizadeh Ghezeljeh, B. (2021). Reaching carbon neutrality in France by 2050: optimal choice of energy sources, carriers and storage options [ Doctoral dissertation]. EHESS.
   Google Scholar
• Skilton, M., & Hovsepian, F. (2018). The 4th industrial revolution. Springer Nature.
   Google Scholar
• Solomon, B. D., & Krishna, K. (2011). The coming sustainable energy transition: History, strategies, and outlook. Energy Policy, 39(11), 7422–7431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.09.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stainton, R. (1995). Q methodology. In J. A. Smith, R. Harre, & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.),Rethinking methods in psychology (p.192). SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Steelman, T. A., & Maguire, L. A. (1999). Understanding participant perspectives: Q‐methodology in national forest management. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management: The Journal of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, 18(3), 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1002/SICI1520-668819992218:3<361:AID-PAM3>3.0.CO;2-K
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior—Q-technique and its methodology (1st ed.). University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stokes, L. C., & Breetz, H. L. (2018). Politics in the US energy transition: Case studies of solar, wind, biofuels and electric vehicles policy. Energy Policy, 113, 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.10.057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone, T. (2022). The challenge of climate change - Complete energy systems transformation: No nuclear, no net zero. In Nuclear law (pp. 85–140). TMC Asser Press.
   Google Scholar
• Strunz, S. (2014). The German energy transition as a regime shift. Ecological Economics, 100, 150–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.01.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teräväinen, T., Lehtonen, M., & Martiskainen, M. (2011). Climate change, energy security, and risk—debating nuclear new build in Finland, France and the UK. Energy Policy, 39(6), 3434–3442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Dael, M., Van Passel, S., Pelkmans, L., Guisson, R., Reumermann, P., & Luzardo, N. M., Witters, N., & Broeze, J. (2013). A techno-economic evaluation of a biomass energy conversion park. Applied Energy, 104, 611–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.11.071
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van den Bergh, J. C. (2013). Policies to enhance economic feasibility of a sustainable energy transition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(7), 2436–2437. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1221894110
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Heide, L., & Van Buuren, J. (2015). Introduction to preventism in security. Security and Human Rights, 26(2–4), 123–125. https://doi.org/10.1163/18750230-02602008
   Google Scholar
• Van der Zwaan, B. (2008). Prospects for nuclear energy in Europe. International Journal of Global Energy Issues, 30(1–4), 102–121. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGEI.2008.019858
   Google Scholar
• Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). 18 Critical discourse analysis. The Handbook of discourse analysis, 349–371.
   Google Scholar
• Von Borgstede, C., Andersson, M., & Johnsson, F. (2013). Public attitudes to climate change and carbon mitigation—Implications for energy-associated behaviours. Energy Policy, 57, 182–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.01.051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weitzman, M. L. (2014). Fat tails and the social cost of carbon. The American Economic Review, 104(5), 544–546. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.5.544
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Younger, M., Morrow-Almeida, H. R., Vindigni, S. M., & Dannenberg, A. L. (2008). The built environment, climate change, and health: Opportunities for co-benefits. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(5), 517–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.08.017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, H., Zhang, X., & Yuan, J. (2020). Transition of China’s power sector consistent with Paris Agreement into 2050: Pathways and challenges. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 132, 110102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar