232
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

Assessing energy misperception in Europe: evidence from the European social survey

, , & ORCID Icon

References

  • Amendola, A., R. Dell’Anno, and L. Parisi. 2019. Happiness and inequality in European countries: Is it a matter of peer group comparisons? Econ. Polit 36:473–16.
  • Baldini, M., A. Trivella, and J. W. Wente. 2018. The impact of socioeconomic and behavioural factors for purchasing energy efficient household appliances: A case study for Denmark. Energy Policy 120:503–13. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2018.05.048.
  • Batel, S., P. Devine-Wright, and T. Tangeland. 2013. Social acceptance of low carbon energy and associated infrastructures: A critical discussion. Energy Policy 58:1–5. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.03.018.
  • Bell, D., T. Gray, C. Haggett, and J. Swaffield. 2013. Re-visiting the ‘social gap’: Public opinion and relations of power in the local politics of wind energy. Environment Politics 22 (1):115–35. doi:10.1080/09644016.2013.755793.
  • Bickerstaff, K., I. Lorenzoni, N. F. Pidgeon, W. Poortinga, and P. Simmons. 2008. Reframing nuclear power in the UK energy debate: Nuclear power, climate change mitigation and radioactive waste. Public Understanding of Science 17 (2):145–69. doi:10.1177/0963662506066719.
  • Bostrom, A., R. E. O’Connor, G. Böhm, D. Hanss, O. Bodi, F. Ekström, P. Halder, S. Jeschke, B. Mack, and M. Qu. 2012. Causal thinking and support for climate change policies: International survey findings. Global Environment Change 22 (1):210–22. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.09.012.
  • Boto-García, D., and A. Bucciol. 2020. Climate change: Personal responsibility and energy saving. Ecological Economics 169:106530. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106530.
  • Boudet, H. S. 2019. Public perceptions of and responses to new energy technologies. National Energy 4 (6):446–55. doi:10.1038/s41560-019-0399-x.
  • Burke, M. J., and J. C. Stephens. 2018. Political power and renewable energy futures: A critical review. Energy Research Society Science 35:78–93. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.10.018.
  • Caferra, R., A. Colasante, and A. Morone. 2021a. The less you burn, the more we earn: The role of social and political trust on energy-saving behaviour in Europe. Energy Research Society Science 71:101812. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2020.101812.
  • Caferra, R., A. Colasante, and A. Morone, 2021b. Who Is Afraid Of The Dark? Some Evidence From A Cross-Country Investigation. Energy Sources, Part B Econ. Planning, Policy 1–10.
  • Chung, J.-B., and E.-S. Kim. 2018. Public perception of energy transition in Korea: Nuclear power, climate change, and party preference. Energy Policy 116:137–44. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2018.02.007.
  • Clarke, C. E., D. Bugden, P. S. Hart, R. C. Stedman, J. B. Jacquet, D. T. N. Evensen, and H. S. Boudet. 2016. How geographic distance and political ideology interact to influence public perception of unconventional oil/natural gas development. Energy Policy 97:301–09. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.07.032.
  • D’Adamo, I., P. M. Falcone, M. Martin, and P. Rosa. 2020. Asustainable revolution: Let’s go sustainable to get our globe cleaner. Sustainability 12(11): 4387.
  • Dell’Anno, R., and P. Mourao. 2012. Fiscal illusion around the world: An analysis using the structural equation approach. Public Finance Review 40 (2):270–99. doi:10.1177/1091142111425226.
  • Demski, C., W. Poortinga, and N. Pidgeon. 2014. Exploring public perceptions of energy security risks in the UK. Energy Policy 66:369–78. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.079.
  • Falcone, P. M. 2018. Analysing stakeholders’ perspectives towards a socio-technical change: The energy transition journey in Gela Municipality. AIMS Energy 6 (4):645–57. doi:10.3934/energy.2018.4.645.
  • Falcone, P. M., and S. P. De Rosa. 2020. Use of fuzzy cognitive maps to develop policy strategies for the optimization of municipal waste management: A case study of the land of fires (Italy). Land Use Policy 96:104680. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104680.
  • Fischer, D., A. Harbrecht, A. Surmann, and R. McKenna. 2019. Electric vehicles’ impacts on residential electric local profiles–A stochastic modelling approach considering socio-economic, behavioural and spatial factors. Applied Energy 233:644–58. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.10.010.
  • Fulli, G., 2016. Electricity security in the EU: Features and prospects.
  • Gigerenzer, G., and W. Gaissmaier. 2011. Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology 62 (1):451–82. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346.
  • Gillingham, K., M. Harding, and D. Rapson. 2012. Split incentives in residential energy consumption. Journal of Energy 33 (2).
  • Giordono, L. S., H. S. Boudet, A. Karmazina, C. L. Taylor, and B. S. Steel. 2018. Opposition “overblown”? Community response to wind energy siting in the Western United States. Energy Research Society Science 43:119–31. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2018.05.016.
  • Gromet, D. M., H. Kunreuther, and R. P. Larrick. 2013. Political ideology affects energy-efficiency attitudes and choices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110 (23):9314–19. doi:10.1073/pnas.1218453110.
  • Hamilton, L. C., E. Bell, J. Hartter, and J. D. Salerno. 2018. A change in the wind? US public views on renewable energy and climate compared. Energy Sustain Society 8:1–13.
  • Hazboun, S. O., and H. S. Boudet. 2020. Public Preferences in a Shifting Energy Future: Comparing Public Views of Eight Energy Sources in North America’s Pacific Northwest. Energies 13 (8):1940. doi:10.3390/en13081940.
  • Hess, D. J. 2018. Energy democracy and social movements: A multi-coalition perspective on the politics of sustainability transitions. Energy Research Society Science 40:177–89. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2018.01.003.
  • IRENA, 2015. Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2014.
  • Islar, M., S. Brogaard, and M. Lemberg-Pedersen. 2017. Feasibility of energy justice: Exploring national and local efforts for energy development in Nepal. Energy Policy 105:668–76. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.004.
  • Lacroix, K., and R. Gifford. 2018. Psychological barriers to energy conservation behavior: The role of worldviews and climate change risk perception. Environment Behaviour 50 (7):749–80. doi:10.1177/0013916517715296.
  • Larson, S. 2010. Regional well-being in tropical Queensland, Australia: Developing a dissatisfaction index to inform government policy. Environment Plan 42 (12):2972–89. doi:10.1068/a43193.
  • Liu, W., X. Zhang, and S. Feng. 2019. Does renewable energy policy work? Evidence from a panel data analysis. Renewable Energy 135:635–42. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2018.12.037.
  • Marquart-Pyatt, S. T., H. Qian, M. K. Houser, and A. M. McCright. 2019. Climate change views, energy policy preferences, and intended actions across welfare state regimes: Evidence from the European Social Survey. International Journal of Sociology 49 (1):1–26. doi:10.1080/00207659.2018.1560979.
  • McFadden, D., M. J. Machina, and J. Baron. 1999. Rationality for economists?, in: Elicitation of Preferences (pp. 73–110). Dordrecht: Springer.
  • O’Connor, C. D., and K. Fredericks. 2018. Citizen perceptions of fracking: The risks and opportunities of natural gas development in Canada. Energy Research Society Science 42:61–69. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2018.03.005.
  • Olson-Hazboun, S. K., R. S. Krannich, and P. G. Robertson. 2016. Public views on renewable energy in the Rocky Mountain region of the United States: Distinct attitudes, exposure, and other key predictors of wind energy. Energy Research Society Science 21:167–79. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2016.07.002.
  • Peterson, T. R., J. C. Stephens, and E. J. Wilson. 2015. Public perception of and engagement with emerging low-carbon energy technologies: A literature review. MRS Energy Sustainability 2.
  • Pidgeon, N. F., I. Lorenzoni, and W. Poortinga. 2008. Climate change or nuclear power—No thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain. Global Environment Change 18 (1):69–85. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.09.005.
  • Poortinga, W., M. Aoyagi, and N. F. Pidgeon. 2013. Public perceptions of climate change and energy futures before and after the Fukushima accident: A comparison between Britain and Japan. Energy Policy 62:1204–11. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.08.015.
  • Qureshi, T. M., K. Ullah, and M. J. Arentsen. 2017. Factors responsible for solar PV adoption at household level: A case of Lahore, Pakistan. Renew Sustain Energy Review 78:754–63. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.04.020.
  • Rahman, A., T. Khanam, and P. Pelkonen. 2017. People’s knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes towards stump harvesting for bioenergy production in Finland. Renew Sustain Energy Review 70:107–16. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.228.
  • Rogers, J., S. Fink, and K. Porter. 2010. Examples of wind energy curtailment practices (No. NREL/SR-550-48737). Golden, CO (United States): National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL).
  • Scheer, D., W. Konrad, and S. Wassermann. 2017. The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: A qualitative study of public perceptions towards energy technologies and portfolios in Germany. Energy Policy 100:89–100. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.09.061.
  • Simon, H. A. 1972. Theories of bounded rationality. Decision Organization 1:161–76.
  • Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science (80-.) 236 (4799):280–85. doi:10.1126/science.3563507.
  • Sovacool, B. K., and M. H. Dworkin. 2015. Energy justice: Conceptual insights and practical applications. Applied Energy 142:435–44. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.002.
  • Spence, A., W. Poortinga, N. Pidgeon, and I. Lorenzoni. 2010. Public perceptions of energy choices: The influence of beliefs about climate change and the environment. Energy Environment 21 (5):385–407. doi:10.1260/0958-305X.21.5.385.
  • Stephens, J. C. 2019. Energy Democracy: Redistributing Power to the People Through Renewable Transformation. Environment Science Policy Sustain Device 61 (2):4–13. doi:10.1080/00139157.2019.1564212.
  • Stern, P. 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. The Journal of Social Issues 56 (3):407–24. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00175.
  • Stoutenborough, J. W., L. Shi, and A. Vedlitz. 2015. Probing public perceptions on energy: Support for a comparative, deep-probing survey design for complex issue domains. Energy 81:406–15. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2014.12.053.
  • Sun, C., and X. Zhu. 2014. Evaluating the public perceptions of nuclear power in China: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey. Energy Policy 69:397–405. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2014.03.011.
  • Truelove, H. B. 2012. Energy source perceptions and policy support: Image associations, emotional evaluations, and cognitive beliefs. Energy Policy 45:478–89. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.059.
  • Tsujikawa, N., S. Tsuchida, and T. Shiotani. 2016. Changes in the factors influencing public acceptance of nuclear power generation in Japan since the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis 36 (1):98–113. doi:10.1111/risa.12447.
  • van den Broek, K. L., and I. Walker. 2019. Exploring the perceptions of drivers of energy behaviour. Energy Policy 129:1297–305. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2019.03.033.
  • Van Raaij, W. F., and T. M. M. Verhallen. 1983. A behavioral model of residential energy use. Journal Of Economic Psychology 3 (1):39–63. doi:10.1016/0167-4870(83)90057-0.
  • Van Rijnsoever, F. J., and J. C. M. Farla. 2014. Identifying and explaining public preferences for the attributes of energy technologies. Renewable Sustain Energy Reviews 31:71–82. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.11.048.
  • Verschoor, M., C. Albers, W. Poortinga, G. Böhm, and L. Steg. 2020. Exploring relationships between climate change beliefs and energy preferences: A network analysis of the European Social Survey. Journal of Environment Psychology 70:101435. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101435.
  • White, W., A. Lunnan, E. Nybakk, and B. Kulisic. 2013. The role of governments in renewable energy: The importance of policy consistency. Biomass & Bioenergy 57:97–105. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.12.035.
  • Whitfield, S. C., E. A. Rosa, A. Dan, and T. Dietz. 2009. The future of nuclear power: Value orientations and risk perception. International Journal of Risk Anal 29 (3):425–37. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01155.x.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.