Public Attitudes in Relation to Risk and Novelty of Future Energy Options

Abstract

Energy options for the future are investigated in relation to attitudinal dimensions to obtain insights important for policy making and risk communication. Using a questionnaire, the study derives four pertinent attitude-linked factors, namely: 1) technology-oriented, 2) society-oriented, 3) social-economically oriented, and 4) nature-oriented inclinations. Another part of the same questionnaire assesses judgements of environmental and societal hazards, as well as the ingenuity of novel technologies, and the overall support for future energy supply options.

Significant relationships between the four inclination factors and the ratings in these items emerged. As observed by positive or negative judgements of the ingenuity of given technologies, the technology- and society-oriented inclinations corresponded to a positive attitude towards novelty, whereas the social-economically oriented and nature-oriented inclinations partially tallied with a negative attitude towards novelty. Except for the nature-orientated inclination, all inclinations corresponded to a positive attitude towards a future supply option with mixed energy technologies including nuclear energy. Instead, the nature-oriented inclination corresponded positively with the support of a renewables-only option, and in particular supported solar energy. It also conformed to significantly higher ratings of future vulnerabilities and environmental risks in general. The society-oriented inclination also matched with high ratings of the future socio-economic vulnerabilities but rather opposed the high ratings of future socio-environmental risks. This inclination also opposed the low ratings of negative environmental impacts from the energy technologies photovoltaics and biomass. It appeared that a stronger orientation towards society tends to balance some of the high and low average dread ratings without strongly affecting the attitude towards novelty. The technology-oriented inclination clearly paralleled high risk ratings of climate change and population growth whereas the other risk and vulnerability items corresponded to low ratings. The social-economic inclination showed no significant correspondence to these risk issues. This inclination however, exposed a negative judgement of long-term technology issues. The observed ratings did not support a presumption that higher dread ratings are generally associated with negative attitudes towards novelty. On the opposite, a social-economic orientation had a more conservative attitude towards novelty while having rather insignificant systematic influences on dread ratings. Only the orientation towards nature consistently showed a conservative, negative attitude towards novelty, and a high dread rating attitude. The results imply that the rating behaviour is influenced by the inclinations of the participants. The four inclinations are thus helpful to predict perceived dread and novelty as well as the support for future energy options. Their consideration could contribute to the improvement of risk communication, and help to clarify how to inform on new benefits or hazards affecting risk perception.

Keywords

risk perception hazards dread innovation novelty energy technology environment scenarios public acceptance

References

Wynne

, Redefining the issues of risk and public acceptance: The social viability of technology, Futures, 1983, 15(1), 13–32.

Fischhoff

, Risk taking: A developmental prospective, in: Yates

J.F.

(Ed.), Risk-taking behavior, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1992, 133–162.

Rogers

E.M.

Diffusion of Innovations, The Free Press, New York, 1983.

Berlyne

D.E.

Aesthetics and Psychobiology, Appleton Century Crafts, New York, 1971.

European Commission, E., Energy: Issues, Options and Technologies – Science and Society, Directorate-General for Research, The European Opinion Research Group (EORG), Eurobarometer, EUR 20624, Brussels, Belgium, 2003, 124.

Viklund

, Energy policy options – from the perspective of public attitudes and risk perceptions, Energy Policy, 2004, 32(10), 1159–1171.

Pardo

Midden

Miller

J.D.

, Attitudes toward biotechnology in the European Union, Journal of Biotechnology, 2002, 98, 9–24.

Miles

Frewer

L.J.

, Public perception of scientific uncertainty in relation to food hazards, Journal of Risk Research, 2003, 6(3), 267–283.

Siegrist

, Perception of gene technology, and food risks: Results of a survey in Switzerland, Journal of Risk Research, 2003, 6(1), 45–60.

10.

Gaskell

Allum

Stares

, Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002. A report to the EC Directorate General for Research from the project ‘Life Sciences in European Society’. Unit, EC Directorate General Press and Communication, Public Opinion Analysis Eurobarometer, QLG7-CT-1999-00286, Brussels, 2003, 46.

11.

McDaniels

Axelrod

L.J.

Slovic

, Perceived ecological risks of global change: A psychometric comparison of causes and consequences of ecosystem risk, Global Environmental Change, 1996, 6(2), 159–171.

12.

Lazo

J.K.

Kinnell

J.C.

Fisher

, Expert and layperson perception of ecosystem risk, Risk Analysis, 2000, 20(2), 179–193.

13.

Slovic

Lichtenstein

Fischhoff

, Images of disaster: Perception and acceptance of risks from nuclear power, in: Goodman

G.T.

Rowe

W.D.

(Eds.), Energy risk management, Academic Press, London, 1979, 223–245.

14.

Slovic

P.B.F.

, How safe is safe enough? Determinants of perceived and acceptable risk, in: Walker

Gould

L.C.

Woodhouse

E.J.

(Eds.), Too hot to handle? Social and policy issues in the management of radioactive wastes, Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, 1983, 112–150.

15.

Jungermann

Slovic

, Charakteristika individueller Risikowahrnehmung, in: Rück

(Ed.), Risiko ist ein Konstrukt, Knesebeck, München, 1993, 89–107.

16.

Tversky

Kahneman

, The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice, Science, 1981, 211, 453–458.

17.

Fischhoff

Lichtenstein

Slovic

Derby

Keeney

R.L.

Acceptable risk, Cambridge University Press, London, New York, 1982.

18.

Slovic

, The risk game, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 1998, 59(1), 73–77.

19.

Tversky

Kahneman

, Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, Science, 1974, 185, 1124–1131.

20.

Renn

, Three decades of risk research: Accomplishments and new challenges, Journal of Risk Research, 1998, 1(1), 49–71.

21.

Fischhoff

Slovic

Lichtenstein

Read

Combs

, How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits, Policy Sciences, 1978, 9, 127–152.

22.

Otway

Thomas

, Reflections on risk perception and policy, Risk Analysis, 1982, 2(2), 69–82.

23.

Douglas

Wildavsky

Risk and Culture, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1982.

24.

Short

J.F.

, The social fabric at risk: Toward the social transformation of risk analysis, 24. American Sociological Review, 1984, 49 (December), 711–725.

25.

Wynne

Risk management and hazardous waste: Implementation and the dialectics of credibility, Springer, Berlin, 1987.

26.

Slovic

, Perception of risk, Science, 1987, 236, 280–285.

27.

Sjöberg

, Explaining risk perception: An empirical and quantitative evaluation of Cultural Theory, Centre for Risk Research, Stockholm School of Economics, Risk Research Report, 22, Rhizikon, 1995.

28.

Sjöberg

, Perceived risk and tampering with nature, Journal of Risk Research, 2000, 3(4), 353–367.

29.

Renn

Rohrmann

Cross-Cultural Risk Perception. A Survey of Empirical Studies, (Vol. 13), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Dordrecht, London, 2000.

30.

Slovic

, Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield, Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 1999, 19(4), 689–701.

31.

Jung

C.G.

Psychological Types, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, 1971. Risk: Health, Safety & Environment, 1995, 6, 15–40.

32.

Fritzsche

A.W.

, The role of the unconscious in the perception of risks, Risk: Health, Safety & Environment, 1995, 6, 15–40.

33.

Boyle

G.J.

, Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI): Some psychometric limitations, Australian Psychologist, 1995, 30, 71–74.

34.

Goldberg

L.R.

, Basic research on personality structure: Implications of the emerging consensus for applications to selection and classification, in: Rumsey

M.G.

Harris

C.B.

Harris

J.H.

(Eds.), Personnel Selection and Classification, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1994, 247–257.

35.

Sjöberg

, Distal factors in risk perception, Journal of Risk Research, 2003, 6(3), 187–211.

36.

Meier

Najmabadi

Schmidt

Sheffield

, Role of fusion energy in a sustainable global energy strategy, Energy & Environment, 2002, 13(4&5), 647–665.

37.

Fucks

Bovy

Hardeman

Charron

Mansoux

Milochevitch Semadeni

Spreng

, Public opinion via Focus Group on energy scenarios including Fusion and on ITER siting in Cadarache (POFFICAD), EFDA, SCK•CEN, IRSN, CEPE, Final Report, Garchingen, Mol, Paris, Zürich, 2003, 175.

38.

Fucks

Charron

Milochevitch

Bovy

Semadeni

Mansoux

Hardeman

, Public opinion via Focus Group on energy scenarios including fusion and on ITER [siting] in Cadarache, in: Atomforum

Deutsches

Gesellschaft

Kerntechnische

. (Eds.), Proceedings der Jahrestagung Kerntechnik 2003, Inforum, Berlin, 2003, 559–562.

39.

Falk

Marohn

Tewes

Foundation of Statistical Analyses and Applications with SAS, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2002, 399.

40.

Hörning

Keck

Lattewitz

, Fusionsenergie – eine akzeptable Energiequelle der Zukunft? Eine sozialwissenaschaftliche Untersuchung anhand von Fokusgruppen, Akademie für Technikfolgenabschätzung, Baden-Württemberg, Arbeitsbericht Nr. 145, Stuttgart, 1999, 69

41.

Catell

R.B.

, 1966. The scree test for the number of factors, Multivariate Behavior Research 1, 245–276.

42.

Bortz

, 1999. Statistik für Sozialwissenschaftler, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.