“Climate-Solutions Polarization”: A Value-based Approach to Understanding Polarization Dynamics around Biomass in Dutch Media Discourse

References

• Akter, S., & Bennett, J. (2011). Household perceptions of climate change and preferences for mitigation action: The case of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in Australia. Climatic Change, 109(3–4), 417–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10584-011-0034-8/METRICS
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akter, S., Bennett, J., & Ward, M. B. (2012). Climate change scepticism and public support for mitigation: Evidence from an Australian choice experiment. Global Environmental Change, 22(3), 736–745. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2012.05.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barry, J., Ellis, G., & Robinson, C. (2008). Cool rationalities and hot air: A rhetorical approach to understanding debates on renewable energy. Global Environmental Politics, 8(2), 67–98. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep.2008.8.2.67
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berndes, G., Abt, B., Asikainen, A., Cowie, A., Dale, V., Egnell, G., Lindner, M., Marelli, L., Paré, D., & Pingoud, K. (2016). Forest biomass, carbon neutrality and climate change mitigation. From Science to Policy 3. European Forest Institute. https://efi.int/sites/default/files/files/publication-bank/2018/efi_fstp_3_2016.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Besio, C., & Pronzini, A. (2014). Morality, ethics, and values outside and inside organizations: An example of the discourse on climate change. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(3), 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1641-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bigl, B. (2017). Fracking in the German press: Securing energy supply on the eve of the ‘Energiewende’ – a quantitative framing-based analysis. Environmental Communication, 11(2), 231–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2016.1245207
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds.). (2019). The SAGE handbook of current developments in grounded theory. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Capstick, S. B., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2014). What is climate change scepticism? Examination of the concept using a mixed methods study of the UK public. Global Environmental Change, 24(1), 389–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2013.08.012
   Google Scholar
• Carvalho, A. (2000). Discourse analysis and media texts: A critical reading of analytical tools. ‘International Conference on Logic and Methodology’, RC 33 Meeting (International Sociology Association).
   Google Scholar
• Carvalho, A., & Burgess, J. (2005). Cultural circuits of climate change in U.K. broadsheet newspapers, 1985–2003. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 25(6), 1457–1469. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00692.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CBS [Dutch Central Bureau of Statistics]. (2023, June 1). Aandeel hernieuwbare energie in 2022 toegenomen naar 15 procent [Percentage of renewable energy in 2022 increased to 15 percent; Web page]. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2023/22/aandeel-hernieuwbare-energie-in-2022-toegenomen-naar-15-procent
   Google Scholar
• Corner, A., & Clarke, J. (2017). Talking Climate: From Research to Practice in Public Engagement. Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46744-3
   Google Scholar
• Corner, A., Markowitz, E., & Pidgeon, N. (2014). Public engagement with climate change: The role of human values. WIREs Climate Change, 5(3), 411–422. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.269
   Google Scholar
• Curran, G. (2012). Contested energy futures: Shaping renewable energy narratives in Australia. Global Environmental Change, 22(1), 236–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.11.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Gemeynt. (2020). Biomassa in perspectief. Joint fact finding biomassa—Een zoektocht naar feiten in een verhitte discussie [Biomass in perspective: Joint fact finding biomass: A search for facts in a heated debate]. https://www.gemeynt.nl/projecten-publicaties
   Google Scholar
• de Groot, J. I. M., Steg, L., & Poortinga, W. (2013). Values, perceived risks and benefits, and acceptability of nuclear energy. Risk Analysis, 33(2), 307–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1539-6924.2012.01845.X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dehler-Holland, J., Schumacher, K., & Fichtner, W. (2021). Topic modeling uncovers shifts in media framing of the German Renewable Energy Act. Patterns, 2(1), 100169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2020.100169
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Demos, T. J. (2017). Against the Anthropocene. Sternberg Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dignum, M., Correljé, A., Cuppen, E., Pesch, U., & Taebi, B. (2016). Contested technologies and design for values: The case of shale gas. Science and engineering Ethics, 22(4), 1171–1191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9685-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doherty, P. (2009). Copenhagen and beyond: Sceptical thinking. The Monthly. https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2009/november/1266188171/peter-doherty/copenhagen-and-beyond#mtr
   Google Scholar
• Douglas, H. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal (H. Douglas, Ed.). University of Pittsburgh Press.
   Google Scholar
• Doulton, H., & Brown, K. (2009). Ten years to prevent catastrophe? Discourses of climate change and international development in the UK press. Global Environmental Change, 19(2), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S. (2013). The politics of earth: Environmental discourses. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Elliott, K. C. (2022). Values in science. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009052597
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2021). Citizen support for climate action. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/citizens/citizen-support-climate-action_en
   Google Scholar
• Eurostat. (2023). Renewable energy statistics. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Renewable_energy_statistics
   Google Scholar
• Fast, S. (2013). A Habermasian analysis of local renewable energy deliberations. Journal of Rural Studies, 30, 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2012.12.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feindt, P. H., & Oels, A. (2005). Does discourse matter? Discourse analysis in environmental policy making. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 7(3), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/15239080500339638
   Google Scholar
• Feldpausch-Parker, A. M., Burnham, M., Melnik, M., Callaghan, M. L., & Selfa, T. (2015). News media analysis of carbon capture and storage and biomass: Perceptions and possibilities. Energies, 8(4), 3058–3074. Article 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/en8043058
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer, F. (2004). Citizens and experts in risk assessment: Technical knowledge in practical deliberation. TATuP - Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis, 13(2), 90–98. https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.13.2.90
   Google Scholar
• Freeman, C. P., Bekoff, M., & Bexell, S. M. (2011). Giving voice to the “voiceless”. Journalism Studies, 12(5), 590–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2010.540136
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1985). The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society (Vol. 1). Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hickel, J., & Kallis, G. (2020). Is green growth possible? New Political Economy, 25(4), 469–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2019.1598964
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hobson, K., & Niemeyer, S. (2013). “What sceptics believe”: The effects of information and deliberation on climate change scepticism. Public Understanding of Science, 22(4), 396–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662511430459
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Howarth, C. C., & Sharman, A. G. (2015). Labeling opinions in the climate debate: A critical review. WIREs Climate Change, 6(2), 239–254. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.332
   Google Scholar
• IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014 - mitigation of climate change. Working Group III Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
   Google Scholar
• IPCC. (2023). Synthesis report of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report: Summary for policymakers.
   Google Scholar
• Isoaho, K., & Karhunmaa, K. (2019). A critical review of discursive approaches in energy transitions. Energy Policy, 128, 930–942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.01.043
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jessup, B. (2010). Plural and hybrid environmental values: A discourse analysis of the wind energy conflict in Australia and the United Kingdom. Environmental Politics, 19(1), 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010903396069
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2011). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14(2), 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., & Mandel, G. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2(10), 732–735. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kemper, J. A., Hall, C. M., & Ballantine, P. W. (2019). Marketing and sustainability: Business as usual or changing worldviews? Sustainability, 11(3), 780. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030780
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leipold, S., Feindt, P. H., Winkel, G., & Keller, R. (2019). Discourse analysis of environmental policy revisited: Traditions, trends, perspectives. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 21(5), 445–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2019.1660462
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Rosenthal, S., Kotcher, J., Carman, J., Neyens, L., Marlon, J., Lacroix, K., & Goldberg, M. (2021). Climate change in the American mind, September 2021. Yale University and George Mason University. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/climate-change-in-the-american-mind-september-2021/
   Google Scholar
• Levidow, L., & Papaioannou, T. (2016). Policy-driven, narrative-based evidence gathering: UK priorities for decarbonisation through biomass. Science and Public Policy, 43(1), 46–61. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scv016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markowitz, E., & Shariff, A. (2012). Climate change and moral judgement. Nature Climate Change, 2(4), 243–247. https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n4/abs/nclimate1378.html
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mather-Gratton, Z. J., Larsen, S., & Bentsen, N. S. (2021). Understanding the sustainability debate on forest biomass for energy in Europe: A discourse analysis. PLoS One, 16(2), e0246873. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246873
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001-2010. The Sociological Quarterly, 52(2), 155–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milchram, C., Hillerbrand, R., van de Kaa, G., Doorn, N., & Künneke, R. (2018). Energy justice and smart grid systems: Evidence from the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Applied Energy, 229, 1244–1259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.08.053
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, B. M., & Lellis, J. (2016). Audience response to values-based marketplace advocacy by the fossil fuel industries. Environmental Communication, 10(2), 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.993414
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mittlefehldt, S. (2016). Seeing forests as fuel: How conflicting narratives have shaped woody biomass energy development in the United States since the 1970s. Energy Research & Social Science, 14, 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan, D. L., & Nica, A. (2020). Iterative thematic inquiry: A new method for analyzing qualitative data. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 160940692095511. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920955118/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/10.1177_1609406920955118-FIG1.JPEG
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mouter, N., de Geest, A., & Doorn, N. (2018). A values-based approach to energy controversies: Value-sensitive design applied to the Groningen gas controversy in the Netherlands. Energy Policy, 122, 639–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.08.020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mussard, M. (2017). Solar energy under cold climatic conditions: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 74, 733–745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilsson, A., von Borgstede, C., & Biel, A. (2004). Willingness to accept climate change strategies: The effect of values and norms. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(3), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVP.2004.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearce, W., Grundmann, R., Hulme, M., Raman, S., Hadley Kershaw, E., & Tsouvalis, J. (2017). Beyond counting climate consensus. Environmental Communication, 11(6), 723–730.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters, B. G. (2017). What is so wicked about wicked problems? A conceptual analysis and a research program. Policy and Society, 36(3), 385–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2017.1361633
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahmstorf, S. (2004). The climate sceptics. In Munich Re (Ed.), Weather catastrophes and climate change – is there still hope for us? (pp. 76–83). http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116
   Google Scholar
• Stauffacher, M., Muggli, N., Scolobig, A., & Moser, C. (2015). Framing deep geothermal energy in mass media: The case of Switzerland. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 98, 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.05.018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steg, L., & de Groot, J. L. M. (2012). Environmental values. In S. D. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 81–92). Oxford Library of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199733026.013.0005.
   Google Scholar
• Strengers, B., & Elzenga, H. (2020). Beschikbaarheid en toepassingsmogelijkheden van duurzame biomassa. Verslag van een zoektocht naar gedeelde feiten en opvattingen [Availability and application possibilities of sustainable biomass: Report of a search for shared facts and opinions]. https://www.pbl.nl/publicaties/beschikbaarheid-en-toepassingsmogelijkheden-van-duurzame-biomassa-verslag-van-een-zoektocht-naar-gedeelde-feiten
   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
• Trisiah, A., de Vries, G., & de Bruijn, H. (2022). Framing geothermal energy in Indonesia: A media analysis in a country with huge potential. Environmental Communication, 16(7), 993–1001. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2022.2144403
   Google Scholar
• Tschötschel, R., Schuck, A., & Wonneberger, A. (2020). Patterns of controversy and consensus in German, Canadian, and US online news on climate change. Global Environmental Change, 60, 101957.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van de Poel, I., & Royakkers, L. (2011). Ethics, technology, and engineering: An introduction. John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Van der Linden, S. (2015). The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions: Towards a comprehensive model. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41, 112–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVP.2014.11.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Eck, C. W. (2021). Opposing positions, dividing interactions, and hostile affect: A multi-dimensional approach to climate change polarization in the blogosphere. Wageningen University. https://doi.org/10.18174/542725
   Google Scholar
• van Eck, C. W., & Feindt, P. H. (2022). Parallel routes from Copenhagen to Paris: Climate discourse in climate sceptic and climate activist blogs. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 24(2), 194–209.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitmarsh, L. (2011). Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: Dimensions, determinants and change over time. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 690–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2011.01.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whyte, P., & Lamberton, G. (2020). Conceptualising sustainability using a cognitive mapping method. Sustainability, 12(5), 1977, Article 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051977
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xie, B., Brewer, M. B., Hayes, B. K., McDonald, R. I., & Newell, B. R. (2019). Predicting climate change risk perception and willingness to act. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 65, 101331, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101331. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494419300234
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar