Temporal stability of public acceptability of novel and established energy technologies

IF 3.2 4区 工程技术 Q3 ENERGY & FUELS Energy Efficiency Pub Date : 2025-03-03 DOI:10.1007/s12053-025-10305-5
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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
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.
期刊最新文献
Operation performance of a ground source heat pump system in the mediterranean climate zone. First results A two-stage layout model of battery swapping station network based on urban road net Analysis of methods to transform existing buildings into Nearly Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB) Temporal stability of public acceptability of novel and established energy technologies The role of gender, age, and income in demand-side management acceptance: A literature review
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1