Understanding the rebound: normative evaluations of energy use in the United States

IF 2.4 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Environmental Sociology Pub Date : 2021-08-01 DOI:10.1080/23251042.2021.1958545
Christine Horne, E. Kennedy
{"title":"Understanding the rebound: normative evaluations of energy use in the United States","authors":"Christine Horne, E. Kennedy","doi":"10.1080/23251042.2021.1958545","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Renewable energy may have smaller environmental benefits than expected because reductions in carbon emissions may be offset by increased consumption. We conduct an online vignette experiment with United States (US) residents to examine how people evaluate household electricity use. We show that participants negatively evaluate households that use a lot of electricity, but that evaluations vary depending on the source of the electricity and the political orientation of the observer. Democrats and Republicans negatively evaluate households that use a lot of electricity and react positively to households that use solar energy. For Democrats, negative effects of high use on evaluations are moderated by electricity source – the household’s solar panels or the utility company. The amount and source of use interact to affect approval of the household and evaluations of the household’s competence, morality, and social desirability. In contrast, for Republicans, use of solar energy has this moderation effect on evaluations of household competence. These results show that Republicans attach less moral and social weight to a household’s energy source than Democrats, and provide evidence of a normative mechanism that may have implications for understanding the rebound effect.","PeriodicalId":54173,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Sociology","volume":"8 1","pages":"64 - 72"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/23251042.2021.1958545","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2021.1958545","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT Renewable energy may have smaller environmental benefits than expected because reductions in carbon emissions may be offset by increased consumption. We conduct an online vignette experiment with United States (US) residents to examine how people evaluate household electricity use. We show that participants negatively evaluate households that use a lot of electricity, but that evaluations vary depending on the source of the electricity and the political orientation of the observer. Democrats and Republicans negatively evaluate households that use a lot of electricity and react positively to households that use solar energy. For Democrats, negative effects of high use on evaluations are moderated by electricity source – the household’s solar panels or the utility company. The amount and source of use interact to affect approval of the household and evaluations of the household’s competence, morality, and social desirability. In contrast, for Republicans, use of solar energy has this moderation effect on evaluations of household competence. These results show that Republicans attach less moral and social weight to a household’s energy source than Democrats, and provide evidence of a normative mechanism that may have implications for understanding the rebound effect.
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
理解反弹:对美国能源使用的规范性评估
摘要可再生能源的环境效益可能低于预期,因为碳排放的减少可能会被消费的增加所抵消。我们对美国居民进行了一项在线小插曲实验,以研究人们如何评估家庭用电。我们发现,参与者对用电量大的家庭进行了负面评价,但评价因电力来源和观察者的政治取向而异。民主党人和共和党人对用电量大的家庭持负面评价,对使用太阳能的家庭持积极反应。对民主党人来说,高使用量对评估的负面影响由电源——家庭的太阳能电池板或公用事业公司——来调节。使用的数量和来源相互作用,影响对家庭的认可以及对家庭能力、道德和社会期望的评估。相比之下,对于共和党人来说,太阳能的使用对家庭能力的评估有这种温和的影响。这些结果表明,共和党人对家庭能源的道德和社会重视程度低于民主党人,并提供了规范机制的证据,这可能对理解反弹效应有影响。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental Sociology
Environmental Sociology ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
12.00%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: Environmental Sociology is dedicated to applying and advancing the sociological imagination in relation to a wide variety of environmental challenges, controversies and issues, at every level from the global to local, from ‘world culture’ to diverse local perspectives. As an international, peer-reviewed scholarly journal, Environmental Sociology aims to stretch the conceptual and theoretical boundaries of both environmental and mainstream sociology, to highlight the relevance of sociological research for environmental policy and management, to disseminate the results of sociological research, and to engage in productive dialogue and debate with other disciplines in the social, natural and ecological sciences. Contributions may utilize a variety of theoretical orientations including, but not restricted to: critical theory, cultural sociology, ecofeminism, ecological modernization, environmental justice, organizational sociology, political ecology, political economy, post-colonial studies, risk theory, social psychology, science and technology studies, globalization, world-systems analysis, and so on. Cross- and transdisciplinary contributions are welcome where they demonstrate a novel attempt to understand social-ecological relationships in a manner that engages with the core concerns of sociology in social relationships, institutions, practices and processes. All methodological approaches in the environmental social sciences – qualitative, quantitative, integrative, spatial, policy analysis, etc. – are welcomed. Environmental Sociology welcomes high-quality submissions from scholars around the world.
期刊最新文献
Human-animal connections: expanding and cross-worlding relational approaches to resilience Air quality sensors and distributional environmental justice: a case study of Salt Lake County, Utah Social mycorrhiza: The social infrastructure of agroecological farming economies Urban green governance and mechanisms of generation of ecosystem services: Milan’s green governance models Unyielding humanity from catastrophic ruins: new political society for social and environmental justice after Bhopal
×
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