欧洲公民对公正能源转型的看法和态度的概况和分类

IF 0.2 Q4 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Pablo García-García
{"title":"欧洲公民对公正能源转型的看法和态度的概况和分类","authors":"Pablo García-García","doi":"10.15304/rips.22.1.8621","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Just energy transitions have re-emerged from their unionist roots to gain increasing momentum politically and scholarly, especially driven by the SDGs. In the movement from unionism to mainstream debate, the notion has acquired diverse nuances that determine its normative scope. Four major approaches have been theoretically proposed to classify views currently: statu quo, managerial, structural, and transformative. Implicitly, these approaches observe two dimensions: individualism versus collectivism, and green growth versus post-growth. Although this classification has been useful to study the positions of groups of individuals in international organisations, NGOs, and activist movements, this paper suggests testing if it remains operative in contrast with individuals’ attitudes and perceptions. Through basic statistics, clustering algorithms, and correspondence analysis applied to the most recent version of the European Social Survey (2020-2022), this contribution finds three key insights. First, although the empirical four-group classification resembles some of the theoretical traits, it does not fit the approaches. The individualism versus collectivism dimension is operational, but the environmental dimension is difficult to determine. Second, empirically, twenty-three optimal groups exist. Three groups congregate more than 90% of respondents. The remaining marginal but optimal groups point to the relevance of observing isolated profiles in the study and political planning of just energy transitions. Finally, human values show greater explanatory capacity than sociodemographic and political variables.","PeriodicalId":41442,"journal":{"name":"Revista de Investigaciones Politicas y Sociologicas","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Profiles and categorisation of perceptions and attitudes among European citizens regarding the just energy transition\",\"authors\":\"Pablo García-García\",\"doi\":\"10.15304/rips.22.1.8621\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Just energy transitions have re-emerged from their unionist roots to gain increasing momentum politically and scholarly, especially driven by the SDGs. In the movement from unionism to mainstream debate, the notion has acquired diverse nuances that determine its normative scope. Four major approaches have been theoretically proposed to classify views currently: statu quo, managerial, structural, and transformative. Implicitly, these approaches observe two dimensions: individualism versus collectivism, and green growth versus post-growth. Although this classification has been useful to study the positions of groups of individuals in international organisations, NGOs, and activist movements, this paper suggests testing if it remains operative in contrast with individuals’ attitudes and perceptions. Through basic statistics, clustering algorithms, and correspondence analysis applied to the most recent version of the European Social Survey (2020-2022), this contribution finds three key insights. First, although the empirical four-group classification resembles some of the theoretical traits, it does not fit the approaches. The individualism versus collectivism dimension is operational, but the environmental dimension is difficult to determine. Second, empirically, twenty-three optimal groups exist. Three groups congregate more than 90% of respondents. The remaining marginal but optimal groups point to the relevance of observing isolated profiles in the study and political planning of just energy transitions. Finally, human values show greater explanatory capacity than sociodemographic and political variables.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41442,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista de Investigaciones Politicas y Sociologicas\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista de Investigaciones Politicas y Sociologicas\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15304/rips.22.1.8621\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista de Investigaciones Politicas y Sociologicas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15304/rips.22.1.8621","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

能源转型已经从其统一主义根源中重新出现,在政治和学术上获得了越来越大的势头,尤其是在可持续发展目标的推动下。在从统一主义到主流辩论的运动中,这一概念获得了不同的细微差别,决定了其规范范围。目前,理论上提出了四种主要的观点分类方法:现状、管理、结构和变革。隐含地,这些方法观察到两个维度:个人主义与集体主义,绿色增长与后增长。尽管这种分类有助于研究个人群体在国际组织、非政府组织和活动家运动中的立场,但本文建议测试它是否与个人的态度和看法形成对比。通过应用于最新版本的《欧洲社会调查》(2020-2022)的基本统计数据、聚类算法和对应分析,这一贡献发现了三个关键见解。首先,尽管经验四组分类类似于一些理论特征,但它不符合这些方法。个人主义与集体主义的维度是可操作的,但环境维度很难确定。其次,根据经验,存在23个最优群。三个群体聚集了90%以上的受访者。剩下的边缘但最优的群体指出,在能源转型的研究和政治规划中观察孤立的情况具有相关性。最后,人类价值观比社会人口和政治变量显示出更大的解释能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Profiles and categorisation of perceptions and attitudes among European citizens regarding the just energy transition
Just energy transitions have re-emerged from their unionist roots to gain increasing momentum politically and scholarly, especially driven by the SDGs. In the movement from unionism to mainstream debate, the notion has acquired diverse nuances that determine its normative scope. Four major approaches have been theoretically proposed to classify views currently: statu quo, managerial, structural, and transformative. Implicitly, these approaches observe two dimensions: individualism versus collectivism, and green growth versus post-growth. Although this classification has been useful to study the positions of groups of individuals in international organisations, NGOs, and activist movements, this paper suggests testing if it remains operative in contrast with individuals’ attitudes and perceptions. Through basic statistics, clustering algorithms, and correspondence analysis applied to the most recent version of the European Social Survey (2020-2022), this contribution finds three key insights. First, although the empirical four-group classification resembles some of the theoretical traits, it does not fit the approaches. The individualism versus collectivism dimension is operational, but the environmental dimension is difficult to determine. Second, empirically, twenty-three optimal groups exist. Three groups congregate more than 90% of respondents. The remaining marginal but optimal groups point to the relevance of observing isolated profiles in the study and political planning of just energy transitions. Finally, human values show greater explanatory capacity than sociodemographic and political variables.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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