Energy policy options—from the perspective of public attitudes and risk perceptions

In the present study a representative sample (N = 797) of the Swedish population was surveyed, with regard to attitudes related to energy policy issues (e.g., environmental attitudes, risk perceptions, and attitudes towards different energy production systems) and self-reported electricity saving behavior. These factors were considered relevant in a Swedish energy policy context, because of the planned phase-out of nuclear power. Citizens’ attitudes have traditionally been important factors in energy policy-making, especially nuclear policy, and one of the conditions for a successful phase-out is increased levels of electricity savings among households and in industry, in order to compensate for the loss in energy production. Respondents reported positive attitudes to the environment in general and to electricity saving, while the attitudes to nuclear power as an energy production system in Sweden were relatively negative. Perceived risk was an important predictor of these attitudes and it was concluded that it is important to investigate mechanisms behind this variable. The relationship between attitudes towards electricity saving and electricity saving behavior was weak. It is discussed whether the contribution of psychological knowledge in energy conservation campaigns could be to elaborate on people’s willingness to be moral and public-spirited citizens in combination with their pro-environmental attitudes. This work was supported by grants from NUTEK and FRN. Viklund (1999) presented more data from the survey referred to here.

[1]  Raymond De Young,et al.  Some Psychological Aspects of Reduced Consumption Behavior The Role of Intrinsic Satisfaction and Competence Motivation , 1996 .

[2]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  Risk perception and worries after the chernobyl accident , 1990 .

[3]  Judith G. Chapman,et al.  Social Value Orientations and Decisions to Take Proenvironmental Action1 , 1998 .

[4]  Leonard Bickman,et al.  Applied social psychology annual , 1980 .

[5]  L Sjöberg,et al.  Limits of Knowledge and the Limited Importance of Trust , 2001, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[6]  L. Sjoberg,et al.  RISK PERCEPTION IN WESTERN EUROPE , 1999 .

[7]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  Explaining risk perception: an empirical evaluation of cultural theory , 1997 .

[8]  Edward K. Sadalla,et al.  Self-Presentational Barriers to Resource Conservation , 1995 .

[9]  Mattias Viklund,et al.  Risk policy : trust, risk perception, and attitudes , 2002 .

[10]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  Are Received Risk Perception Models Alive and Well? , 2002, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

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

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

[13]  Lawrence J. Axelrod,et al.  Responding to environmental concerns: What factors guide individual action? , 1993 .

[14]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  The Allegedly Simple Structure of Experts’ Risk Perception: An Urban Legend in Risk Research , 2002 .

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

[16]  Pallak,et al.  Commitment and energy conservation , 1980 .

[17]  Mattias Viklund Trust and Risk Perception in Western Europe: A Cross‐National Study , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[18]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  Fairness, risk and risk tolerance in the siting of a nuclear waste repository , 2001 .

[19]  Fereidoon P. Sioshansi California's electricity market: finally turning the corner? , 2002 .

[20]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  Political decisions and public risk perception , 2001, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..