Temporal stability of public acceptability of novel and established energy technologies

IF 3.2 4区 工程技术 Q3 ENERGY & FUELS
Robert Görsch, Goda Perlaviciute, Linda Steg
{"title":"Temporal stability of public acceptability of novel and established energy technologies","authors":"Robert Görsch,&nbsp;Goda Perlaviciute,&nbsp;Linda Steg","doi":"10.1007/s12053-025-10305-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This study examines how stable public acceptability judgements towards novel and established energy technologies are over time, which is important to consider in decision-making about the transition to low-carbon and energy-efficient systems. We conducted two longitudinal survey experiments, one with a convenience sample of students and another with a representative sample of Dutch adults, to explore the extent to which acceptability judgements towards energy technologies are stable over time and to examine potential factors influencing stability of acceptability judgements, including technology novelty, people’s knowledge about a technology, ambivalence towards a technology, perceived importance of the technology, and personal values. We also tested if stability affects citizenship behaviors (e.g., signing petitions, supporting political candidates) towards energy technologies. As expected, acceptability judgements are less stable for novel (i.e., geothermal energy and CCS) than for established technologies (i.e., wind and nuclear energy). Moreover, the more ambivalent people felt towards a technology and the less an energy technology was personally important to them, the less stable their acceptability judgements. Yet, neither knowledge nor personal values were significantly related to stability of acceptability judgements. Interestingly, acceptability judgements were associated with citizenship behavior regardless of how stable acceptability judgements were. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of our findings.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":537,"journal":{"name":"Energy Efficiency","volume":"18 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12053-025-10305-5.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Energy Efficiency","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12053-025-10305-5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study examines how stable public acceptability judgements towards novel and established energy technologies are over time, which is important to consider in decision-making about the transition to low-carbon and energy-efficient systems. We conducted two longitudinal survey experiments, one with a convenience sample of students and another with a representative sample of Dutch adults, to explore the extent to which acceptability judgements towards energy technologies are stable over time and to examine potential factors influencing stability of acceptability judgements, including technology novelty, people’s knowledge about a technology, ambivalence towards a technology, perceived importance of the technology, and personal values. We also tested if stability affects citizenship behaviors (e.g., signing petitions, supporting political candidates) towards energy technologies. As expected, acceptability judgements are less stable for novel (i.e., geothermal energy and CCS) than for established technologies (i.e., wind and nuclear energy). Moreover, the more ambivalent people felt towards a technology and the less an energy technology was personally important to them, the less stable their acceptability judgements. Yet, neither knowledge nor personal values were significantly related to stability of acceptability judgements. Interestingly, acceptability judgements were associated with citizenship behavior regardless of how stable acceptability judgements were. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of our findings.

公众对新能源技术和现有能源技术接受度的时间稳定性
本研究考察了随着时间的推移,公众对新能源技术和现有能源技术的可接受性判断是如何稳定的,这在向低碳和节能系统过渡的决策中是重要的考虑因素。我们进行了两个纵向调查实验,一个是学生的方便样本,另一个是荷兰成年人的代表性样本,以探索对能源技术的可接受性判断随时间稳定的程度,并检查影响可接受性判断稳定性的潜在因素,包括技术新颖性、人们对技术的了解、对技术的矛盾心理、对技术的感知重要性。还有个人价值观。我们还测试了稳定性是否会影响公民对能源技术的行为(例如,签署请愿书,支持政治候选人)。正如预期的那样,对新技术(如地热能和CCS)的可接受性判断不如对现有技术(如风能和核能)的可接受性判断稳定。此外,人们对一项技术的态度越矛盾,能源技术对他们个人的重要性越低,他们对可接受性的判断就越不稳定。然而,知识和个人价值观对可接受性判断的稳定性均无显著影响。有趣的是,无论可接受性判断有多稳定,可接受性判断都与公民行为有关。我们讨论了我们的发现的理论和实践意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency ENERGY & FUELS-ENERGY & FUELS
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
6.50%
发文量
59
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal Energy Efficiency covers wide-ranging aspects of energy efficiency in the residential, tertiary, industrial and transport sectors. Coverage includes a number of different topics and disciplines including energy efficiency policies at local, regional, national and international levels; long term impact of energy efficiency; technologies to improve energy efficiency; consumer behavior and the dynamics of consumption; socio-economic impacts of energy efficiency measures; energy efficiency as a virtual utility; transportation issues; building issues; energy management systems and energy services; energy planning and risk assessment; energy efficiency in developing countries and economies in transition; non-energy benefits of energy efficiency and opportunities for policy integration; energy education and training, and emerging technologies. See Aims and Scope for more details.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信