Find the differences and the similarities: Relating perceived benefits, perceived costs and protected values to acceptance of five energy technologies

Few studies have investigated and compared the acceptance of different energy technologies, hence the need to examine a comprehensive model to explain their acceptance. Moreover, little is known about the role of protected values, that is, values that are extremely important and non-negotiable for a person, in the acceptance of different energy resources. In a large mail survey in Switzerland, we investigated the acceptance of five energy technologies, including a number of determinants, such as protected values. Based on our results, we concluded that perceived benefits, perceived costs and protected values were important in explaining the public's acceptance of an energy technology. Moreover, to change the level of acceptance of an energy resource, communication should best focus on its benefits. We found only small differences and mainly similarities between the same predictors of the acceptance of different energy resources. Hence, we can conclude that to explain the acceptance of various energy technologies, one model fits all.

[1]  Michael Greenberg,et al.  Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences: Analysis of US national and site-specific data , 2009 .

[2]  Yuk Fai Cheong,et al.  HLM 6: Hierarchical Linear and Nonlinear Modeling , 2000 .

[3]  The implications of Fukushima , 2011 .

[4]  Geert Molenberghs,et al.  Linear Mixed Models , 2011, International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science.

[5]  P. Slovic,et al.  The Role of Affect and Worldviews as Orienting Dispositions in the Perception and Acceptance of Nuclear Power1 , 1996 .

[6]  P. Tetlock,et al.  The psychology of the unthinkable: taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[7]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[8]  Caroline Jorant.  The implications of Fukushima , 2011 .

[9]  I. Ajzen.  The theory of planned behavior , 1991 .

[10]  Soonsoon Chang.  The implications of Fukushima , 2011 .

[11]  E. Hobman,et al.  Public support for energy sources and related technologies: The impact of simple information provision , 2013 .

[12]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Impact of knowledge and misconceptions on benefit and risk perception of CCS. , 2010, Environmental science & technology.

[13]  R. Zajonc.  Feeling and thinking : Preferences need no inferences , 1980 .

[14]  Begüm Özkaynak,et al.  Citizens’ preferences on nuclear and renewable energy sources: Evidence from Turkey , 2012 .

[15]  Stephen M. Johnson,et al.  The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits , 2000 .

[16]  Joop van der Pligt,et al.  PUBLIC ATTITUDES TO NUCLEAR ENERGY: SALIENCE AND ANXIETY , 1985 .

[17]  G. Martinopoulos,et al.  European energy policy—A review , 2013 .

[18]  Jonathan Baron,et al.  Regular ArticleProtected Values , 1997 .

[19]  C. Tanner,et al.  Geschützte Werte Skala (GWS) Konstruktion und Validierung eines Messinstrumentes , 2009 .

[20]  D. Medin,et al.  Protected values: No omission bias and no framing effects , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[21]  Stephen Ansolabehere,et al.  Public Attitudes Toward Construction of New Power Plants , 2009 .

[22]  Baron,et al.  Protected Values , 1997, Virology.

[23]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model , 2011 .

[24]  Yao Rong.  Carbon-dioxide capture and storage technologies , 2011 .

[25]  Nicholas Frank Pidgeon,et al.  Exploring public perceptions of energy security risks in the UK , 2014 .

[26]  Peter Simmons,et al.  Living with nuclear power: Sense of place, proximity, and risk perceptions in local host communities , 2012 .

[27]  L. Steg,et al.  Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: A review-based comprehensive framework , 2012 .

[28]  Carmen Tanner,et al.  Taboos and conflicts in decision making: Sacred values, decision difficulty, and emotions , 2008, Judgment and Decision Making.

[29]  J. Baron,et al.  How serious are expressions of protected values? , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[30]  Alexa Spence,et al.  Public Perceptions of Energy Choices: The Influence of Beliefs about Climate Change and the Environment , 2010 .

[31]  Linda Steg,et al.  Values, Perceived Risks and Benefits, and Acceptability of Nuclear Energy , 2013, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[32]  P. Stern.  New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior , 2000 .

[33]  P. Burstein.  The Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy: A Review and an Agenda , 2003 .

[34]  Heather Barnes Truelove,et al.  Energy source perceptions and policy support: Image associations, emotional evaluations, and cognitive beliefs , 2012 .

[35]  D. Davidson,et al.  Gender and Environmental Risk Concerns , 1996 .

[36]  J. Richard Eiser,et al.  Identifying predictors of attitudes towards local onshore wind development with reference to an English case study , 2009 .

[37]  Brian Everitt,et al.  Linear Mixed Models I , 2001 .

[38]  Walter W. Stroup,et al.  LINEAR MIXED MODELS , 2012 .

[39]  N. Bronfman,et al.  Understanding social acceptance of electricity generation sources , 2012 .

[40]  Thomas Dietz,et al.  The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception , 2009, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[41]  Anthony S. Bryk,et al.  Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods , 1992 .

[42]  Vivianne H.M. Visschers,et al.  Nuclear power before and after Fukushima: The relations between acceptance, ambivalence and knowledge , 2013 .

[43]  Ferenc L. Toth,et al.  Prospects for nuclear power in the 21st century: a world tour , 2008 .

[44]  Brady T. West,et al.  Models for Repeated-Measures Data: The Rat Brain Example , 2014 .

[45]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  Affective Imagery and Acceptance of Replacing Nuclear Power Plants , 2012, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[46]  H. Herzog,et al.  American exceptionalism? Similarities and differences in national attitudes toward energy policy and global warming. , 2006, Environmental science & technology.

[47]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  Fair play in energy policy decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants , 2012 .

[48]  Michael R Greenberg,et al.  NIMBY, CLAMP, and the Location of New Nuclear‐Related Facilities: U.S. National and 11 Site‐Specific Surveys , 2009, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[49]  Michael Greenberg,et al.  Energy Choices and Risk Beliefs: Is It Just Global Warming and Fear of a Nuclear Power Plant Accident? , 2011, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[50]  Baron,et al.  Protected Values and Omission Bias. , 1999, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[51]  Stilianos Tampakis,et al.  Citizens’ views on various forms of energy and their contribution to the environment , 2013 .