多维能源正义是如何发挥作用的?

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Risk Analysis Pub Date : 2024-09-26 DOI:10.1111/risa.17650
Sehyeok Jeon, Seoyong Kim, Miri Kim
{"title":"多维能源正义是如何发挥作用的?","authors":"Sehyeok Jeon, Seoyong Kim, Miri Kim","doi":"10.1111/risa.17650","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study analyzed the acceptance of solar energy in terms of energy justice. The critical issue of energy supply, demand, and transition is a process of social redistribution of risks from old to new energy systems. The question of the appropriate distribution of risks for the energy system is closely related to energy justice. Previous studies are limited in empirically testing whether or not energy justice can contribute to the acceptance of new energy system. In addition, previous studies have heavily depended on energy justice in terms of anthropocentric type. Anthropocentric definitions of energy justice have focused primarily on the benefits and costs allocated only to humans. Such an anthropocentric view of justice lacks consideration of the value of various ecological beings. Therefore, this study aims to shed light on the role of not only four anthropocentric types of energy justices but also on for four ecological ones in the acceptance of solar energy. The analysis reveals that recognitive justice, generational justice, deep ecological justice, social ecological justice, and distributional justice positively influence the acceptance of solar energy, whereas procedural justice, restorative justice, and eco-socialist justice have no effect on it. In particular, this study found that recognitive justice moderates the effect of personal norms on acceptance of solar energy, whereas restorative justice moderates the effect of knowledge on it.</p>","PeriodicalId":21472,"journal":{"name":"Risk Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How do multidimensional energy justices work?: Specifying the role of anthropocentric and ecological justice in the acceptance of solar energy.\",\"authors\":\"Sehyeok Jeon, Seoyong Kim, Miri Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/risa.17650\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study analyzed the acceptance of solar energy in terms of energy justice. The critical issue of energy supply, demand, and transition is a process of social redistribution of risks from old to new energy systems. The question of the appropriate distribution of risks for the energy system is closely related to energy justice. Previous studies are limited in empirically testing whether or not energy justice can contribute to the acceptance of new energy system. In addition, previous studies have heavily depended on energy justice in terms of anthropocentric type. Anthropocentric definitions of energy justice have focused primarily on the benefits and costs allocated only to humans. Such an anthropocentric view of justice lacks consideration of the value of various ecological beings. Therefore, this study aims to shed light on the role of not only four anthropocentric types of energy justices but also on for four ecological ones in the acceptance of solar energy. The analysis reveals that recognitive justice, generational justice, deep ecological justice, social ecological justice, and distributional justice positively influence the acceptance of solar energy, whereas procedural justice, restorative justice, and eco-socialist justice have no effect on it. In particular, this study found that recognitive justice moderates the effect of personal norms on acceptance of solar energy, whereas restorative justice moderates the effect of knowledge on it.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21472,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Risk Analysis\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Risk Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.17650\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Risk Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.17650","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究从能源公正的角度分析了人们对太阳能的接受程度。能源供应、需求和转型的关键问题是社会风险从旧能源系统向新能源系统重新分配的过程。能源系统风险的适当分配问题与能源公正密切相关。以往的研究在实证检验能源公正是否有助于新能源系统的接受方面存在局限性。此外,以往的研究在很大程度上依赖于以人类为中心的能源公正类型。以人类为中心的能源公正定义主要关注的是仅分配给人类的利益和成本。这种以人类为中心的公正观缺乏对各种生态生命价值的考虑。因此,本研究旨在揭示四种以人类为中心的能源公正类型以及四种生态公正类型在太阳能接受过程中的作用。分析表明,认可正义、代际正义、深层生态正义、社会生态正义和分配正义对太阳能接受度有积极影响,而程序正义、恢复正义和生态社会主义正义则没有影响。特别是,本研究发现,认可正义调节了个人规范对太阳能接受度的影响,而恢复性正义调节了知识对太阳能接受度的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
How do multidimensional energy justices work?: Specifying the role of anthropocentric and ecological justice in the acceptance of solar energy.

This study analyzed the acceptance of solar energy in terms of energy justice. The critical issue of energy supply, demand, and transition is a process of social redistribution of risks from old to new energy systems. The question of the appropriate distribution of risks for the energy system is closely related to energy justice. Previous studies are limited in empirically testing whether or not energy justice can contribute to the acceptance of new energy system. In addition, previous studies have heavily depended on energy justice in terms of anthropocentric type. Anthropocentric definitions of energy justice have focused primarily on the benefits and costs allocated only to humans. Such an anthropocentric view of justice lacks consideration of the value of various ecological beings. Therefore, this study aims to shed light on the role of not only four anthropocentric types of energy justices but also on for four ecological ones in the acceptance of solar energy. The analysis reveals that recognitive justice, generational justice, deep ecological justice, social ecological justice, and distributional justice positively influence the acceptance of solar energy, whereas procedural justice, restorative justice, and eco-socialist justice have no effect on it. In particular, this study found that recognitive justice moderates the effect of personal norms on acceptance of solar energy, whereas restorative justice moderates the effect of knowledge on it.

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
Risk Analysis
Risk Analysis 数学-数学跨学科应用
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
10.50%
发文量
183
审稿时长
4.2 months
期刊介绍: Published on behalf of the Society for Risk Analysis, Risk Analysis is ranked among the top 10 journals in the ISI Journal Citation Reports under the social sciences, mathematical methods category, and provides a focal point for new developments in the field of risk analysis. This international peer-reviewed journal is committed to publishing critical empirical research and commentaries dealing with risk issues. The topics covered include: • Human health and safety risks • Microbial risks • Engineering • Mathematical modeling • Risk characterization • Risk communication • Risk management and decision-making • Risk perception, acceptability, and ethics • Laws and regulatory policy • Ecological risks.
期刊最新文献
A review of optimization and decision models of prescribed burning for wildfire management. An information-theoretic analysis of security behavior intentions amongst United States poll workers. JointLIME: An interpretation method for machine learning survival models with endogenous time-varying covariates in credit scoring. Portrayal of risk information and its impact on audiences' risk perception during the Covid-19 pandemic: A multi-method approach. A quantitative analysis of biosafety and biosecurity using attack trees in low-to-moderate risk scenarios: Evidence from iGEM.
×
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