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

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.

[1]  D. Berlyne,et al.  Aesthetics and Psychobiology , 1975 .

[2]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Images of disaster: Perception and acceptance of risks from nuclear power , 1979 .

[3]  Jason C. Kinnell,et al.  Expert and Layperson Perceptions of Ecosystem Risk , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[4]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  Cross-cultural risk perception : a survey of empirical studies , 2000 .

[5]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Risk Management and Hazardous Waste: Implementation and the Dialectics of Credibility , 1987 .

[6]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  Perceived risk and tampering with nature , 2000 .

[7]  M. Douglas,et al.  Risk and Culture , 1983 .

[8]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[9]  J. Graham.  RISK: Health, Safety & Environment , 1992 .

[10]  B. Wynne.  Redefining the issues of risk and public acceptance: The social viability of technology , 1983 .

[11]  E. Rogers.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[12]  Susan Miles,et al.  Public perception of scientific uncertainty in relation to food hazards , 2003 .

[13]  R. Cattell.  The Scree Test For The Number Of Factors. , 1966, Multivariate behavioral research.

[14]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Risk Management and Hazardous Waste , 1987 .

[15]  Paul Slovic,et al.  The risk game. , 2001, Journal of hazardous materials.

[16]  Meier Wayne,et al.  Role of Fusion Energy in a Sustainable Global Energy Strategy , 2002 .

[17]  H. Otway,et al.  Reflections on Risk Perception and Policy1,2 , 1982 .

[18]  Lawrence J. Axelrod,et al.  Perceived ecological risks of global change: A psychometric comparison of causes and consequences☆ , 1996 .

[19]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  Cross-Cultural Risk Perception , 2000 .

[20]  Ortwin Renn.  Three decades of risk research: accomplishments and new challenges , 1998 .

[21]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  Perception of gene technology, and food risks: results of a survey in Switzerland , 2003 .

[22]  George Gaskell,et al.  Europeans and biotechnology in 2002 - Eurobarometer 58.0 : A report to the EC Directorate General for Research from the project "Life Sciences in European Society" , 2003 .

[23]  L. R. Goldberg.  Basic research on personality structure: Implications of the emerging consensus for applications to selection and classification. , 1994 .

[24]  G. Boyle.  Myers‐Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI): Some Psychometric Limitations , 1995 .

[25]  A. F. Fritzsche.  The Role of the Unconscious in the Perception of Risks , 1995 .

[26]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[27]  P. Slovic.  Perception of risk. , 1987, Science.

[28]  J. Short.  The Social Fabric at Risk: Toward the Social Transformation of Risk Analysis , 1984 .

[29]  P. Slovic.  Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk‐Assessment Battlefield , 1999, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[30]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  Distal factors in risk perception , 2003 .

[31]  Cees Midden,et al.  Attitudes toward biotechnology in the European Union. , 2002, Journal of biotechnology.

[32]  Mattias Viklund,et al.  Energy policy options—from the perspective of public attitudes and risk perceptions , 2004 .

[33]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits , 1978 .