Public attitudes towards renewable energy technologies in Norway. The role of party preferences

Transition to a sustainable society requires large-scale conversion of the energy system to new, renewable, non-fossil sources of energy. This presupposes public support for new technologies, which means the public must deal with challenges in terms of placement, area requirements, ecological degradation and price developments. This paper discusses how citizens view renewable energy technologies. It analyses responses to representative surveys of the Norwegian population on the desirability of various energy technologies such as hydroelectric dams, onshore and offshore wind energy, bioenergy plants and, for contrast, gas plants with and without carbon capture and storage. Our main focus is on the influence of party political preference on views of renewable energy. We find that the sometimes lukewarm enthusiasm for renewable energy technologies cannot be fully explained by existing theories and that political party preference has a larger impact on energy technology attitudes than previously believed.

[1]  Nicholas Frank Pidgeon,et al.  Individual-motivational factors in the acceptability of demand-side and supply-side measures to reduce carbon emissions , 2012 .

[2]  S. Mourato,et al.  Analysing awareness and acceptability of hydrogen vehicles: A London case study , 2005 .

[3]  M. Aune.  Energy comes home , 2007 .

[4]  Patrick Devine-Wright,et al.  Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy , 2005 .

[5]  Elliot Aronson,et al.  Energy use: the human dimension , 1986 .

[6]  Carissa Schively,et al.  Understanding the NIMBY and LULU Phenomena: Reassessing Our Knowledge Base and Informing Future Research , 2007 .

[7]  P. Devine‐Wright.  Reconsidering public attitudes and public acceptance of renewable energy technologies: a critical review , 2007 .

[8]  D. Bell,et al.  The ‘Social Gap’ in Wind Farm Siting Decisions: Explanations and Policy Responses , 2005 .

[9]  G. Walker,et al.  Carbon reduction, 'the public' and renewable energy: engaging with socio-technical configurations. , 2007 .

[10]  Patrick Devine-Wright,et al.  Reconsidering Public Acceptance of Renewable Energy Technologies: a Critical Review , 2007 .

[11]  Kate Burningham,et al.  Using the Language of NIMBY: A topic for research, not an activity for researchers , 2000 .

[12]  R. Raven,et al.  From riches to rags: Biofuels, media discourses, and resistance to sustainable energy technologies , 2010 .

[13]  Benjamin K. Sovacool,et al.  Rejecting Renewables: The Socio-Technical Impediments to Renewable Electricity in the United States , 2008, Renewable Energy.

[14]  P. Stern,et al.  Social Structural and Social Psychological Bases of Environmental Concern , 1998 .

[15]  T. Gibson.  NIMBY and the Civic Good , 2005 .

[16]  Giuseppe Tipaldo.  Among ‘Bananas’ and ‘Backyards’: A Statistical Analysis of the Effect of Risk and Scientific Literacy on the Attitude towards a Waste Co-incinerator in Italy , 2011 .

[17]  John Gelissen,et al.  Explaining Popular Support for Environmental Protection , 2007 .

[18]  C. Feenstra,et al.  Stakeholder participation practices and onshore CCS: Lessons from the dutch CCS case barendrecht , 2011 .

[19]  Bart W. Terwel,et al.  Scrutinizing the impact of CCS communication on opinion quality: Focus group discussions versus Information-Choice Questionnaires: Results from experimental research in six countries , 2011 .

[20]  I. Bailey,et al.  Renewable energy policy and public perceptions of renewable energy: A cultural theory approach , 2010 .

[21]  Building on Norway’s Energy Goldmine: Policies for Expertise, Export, and Market Efficiencies , 2013 .

[22]  Rolf Wüstenhagen,et al.  Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept , 2007 .

[23]  P. Devine‐Wright.  Rethinking NIMBYism: The role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place‐protective action , 2009 .

[24]  D. Gottlieb.  Sociological dimensions of the energy crisis , 1974 .

[25]  Eric R. A. N. Smith,et al.  The Other Side of the NIMBY Syndrome , 2000 .

[26]  E. Neumayer.  The environment, left-wing political orientation and ecological economics , 2004 .

[27]  Patrick Devine-Wright,et al.  Social representations of electricity network technologies: exploring processes of anchoring and objectification through the use of visual research methods. , 2009, The British journal of social psychology.

[28]  D. Horst,et al.  National renewable energy policy and local opposition in the UK: the failed development of a biomass electricity plant , 2004 .

[29]  Tooraj Jamasb,et al.  Delivering a low carbon electricity system , 2008 .

[30]  Mhairi Aitken,et al.  Why we still don't understand the social aspects of wind power: A critique of key assumptions within the literature , 2010 .

[31]  Bruce Tranter,et al.  Political divisions over climate change and environmental issues in Australia , 2011 .

[32]  Lynnette Zelezny,et al.  Elaborating on Gender Differences in Environmentalism , 2000 .

[33]  M. Michael,et al.  From the representation of publics to the performance of 'lay political science' , 2000 .

[34]  Mike Michael,et al.  Publics performing publics: of PiGs, PiPs and politics , 2009 .

[35]  C. Brunk,et al.  Public Knowledge, Public Trust: Understanding the ‘Knowledge Deficit’ , 2006, Public Health Genomics.

[36]  Miriam Ricci,et al.  What do we know about public perceptions and acceptance of hydrogen? A critical review and new case study evidence , 2008 .

[37]  Gordon Walker,et al.  What are the barriers and incentives for community-owned means of energy production and use? , 2008 .