通过减少能源需求实现净零排放来提高福祉:市民对地方措施共同效益的看法

IF 6.9 2区 经济学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Energy Research & Social Science Pub Date : 2024-10-21 DOI:10.1016/j.erss.2024.103799
Giulia M. Mininni , Timothy J. Foxon , Claire Copeland , Beatriz Aguirre Martinez , Donal Brown , Marie Claire Brisbois , Gerardo A. Torres Contreras , Siobhan Stack-Maddox , Max Lacey-Barnacle , Christian Jaccarini
{"title":"通过减少能源需求实现净零排放来提高福祉:市民对地方措施共同效益的看法","authors":"Giulia M. Mininni ,&nbsp;Timothy J. Foxon ,&nbsp;Claire Copeland ,&nbsp;Beatriz Aguirre Martinez ,&nbsp;Donal Brown ,&nbsp;Marie Claire Brisbois ,&nbsp;Gerardo A. Torres Contreras ,&nbsp;Siobhan Stack-Maddox ,&nbsp;Max Lacey-Barnacle ,&nbsp;Christian Jaccarini","doi":"10.1016/j.erss.2024.103799","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Energy demand reduction options can make an important contribution to a Net Zero transition for climate change mitigation, and also offer multiple social, economic, and environmental ‘co-benefits’. However, these co-benefits are often insufficiently accounted for in policy making, which tends to focus on direct economic costs and benefits. Applying Multi Criteria Mapping and survey methods, the paper investigates how citizens in two UK regions value a range of energy demand reduction options in relation to indicators of wellbeing. This analysis shows that citizens place high value on a range of co-benefits of energy demand reduction options, whilst also valuing fairness including environmental intergenerational concerns and accepting the need for some restrictions on individuals' lifestyle choices. This provides support for recent analysis, based on evaluation of expert opinion, that demand-side mitigation measures are consistent with high levels of citizens' wellbeing, and suggests that energy policy assessment needs to take these co-benefits into account in decision-making processes. This is consistent with moving towards a wider ‘wellbeing economy’ approach, compared to a narrower assessment based only on economic costs and benefits.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48384,"journal":{"name":"Energy Research & Social Science","volume":"118 ","pages":"Article 103799"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Increasing wellbeing through energy demand reduction for net zero: Citizen perceptions of co-benefits of local measures\",\"authors\":\"Giulia M. Mininni ,&nbsp;Timothy J. Foxon ,&nbsp;Claire Copeland ,&nbsp;Beatriz Aguirre Martinez ,&nbsp;Donal Brown ,&nbsp;Marie Claire Brisbois ,&nbsp;Gerardo A. Torres Contreras ,&nbsp;Siobhan Stack-Maddox ,&nbsp;Max Lacey-Barnacle ,&nbsp;Christian Jaccarini\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.erss.2024.103799\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Energy demand reduction options can make an important contribution to a Net Zero transition for climate change mitigation, and also offer multiple social, economic, and environmental ‘co-benefits’. However, these co-benefits are often insufficiently accounted for in policy making, which tends to focus on direct economic costs and benefits. Applying Multi Criteria Mapping and survey methods, the paper investigates how citizens in two UK regions value a range of energy demand reduction options in relation to indicators of wellbeing. This analysis shows that citizens place high value on a range of co-benefits of energy demand reduction options, whilst also valuing fairness including environmental intergenerational concerns and accepting the need for some restrictions on individuals' lifestyle choices. This provides support for recent analysis, based on evaluation of expert opinion, that demand-side mitigation measures are consistent with high levels of citizens' wellbeing, and suggests that energy policy assessment needs to take these co-benefits into account in decision-making processes. This is consistent with moving towards a wider ‘wellbeing economy’ approach, compared to a narrower assessment based only on economic costs and benefits.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48384,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Energy Research & Social Science\",\"volume\":\"118 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103799\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Energy Research & Social Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629624003906\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Energy Research & Social Science","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629624003906","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

减少能源需求的方案可以为减缓气候变化的净零过渡做出重要贡献,同时还能带来多种社会、经济和环境 "共同效益"。然而,这些共同效益往往没有在政策制定中得到充分考虑,政策制定往往只关注直接经济成本和效益。本文运用多标准绘图法和调查方法,研究了英国两个地区的公民如何根据福利指标来评估一系列减少能源需求方案的价值。该分析表明,公民高度重视减少能源需求方案的一系列共同效益,同时也重视公平性,包括对环境的代际关注,以及接受对个人生活方式选择进行某些限制的必要性。这为最近基于专家意见评估的分析提供了支持,即需求侧减缓措施与高水平的公民福祉相一致,并表明能源政策评估需要在决策过程中考虑这些共同效益。这与转向更广泛的 "福祉经济 "方法是一致的,而不是仅基于经济成本和效益的狭义评估。
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
Increasing wellbeing through energy demand reduction for net zero: Citizen perceptions of co-benefits of local measures
Energy demand reduction options can make an important contribution to a Net Zero transition for climate change mitigation, and also offer multiple social, economic, and environmental ‘co-benefits’. However, these co-benefits are often insufficiently accounted for in policy making, which tends to focus on direct economic costs and benefits. Applying Multi Criteria Mapping and survey methods, the paper investigates how citizens in two UK regions value a range of energy demand reduction options in relation to indicators of wellbeing. This analysis shows that citizens place high value on a range of co-benefits of energy demand reduction options, whilst also valuing fairness including environmental intergenerational concerns and accepting the need for some restrictions on individuals' lifestyle choices. This provides support for recent analysis, based on evaluation of expert opinion, that demand-side mitigation measures are consistent with high levels of citizens' wellbeing, and suggests that energy policy assessment needs to take these co-benefits into account in decision-making processes. This is consistent with moving towards a wider ‘wellbeing economy’ approach, compared to a narrower assessment based only on economic costs and benefits.
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
Energy Research & Social Science
Energy Research & Social Science ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-
CiteScore
14.00
自引率
16.40%
发文量
441
审稿时长
55 days
期刊介绍: Energy Research & Social Science (ERSS) is a peer-reviewed international journal that publishes original research and review articles examining the relationship between energy systems and society. ERSS covers a range of topics revolving around the intersection of energy technologies, fuels, and resources on one side and social processes and influences - including communities of energy users, people affected by energy production, social institutions, customs, traditions, behaviors, and policies - on the other. Put another way, ERSS investigates the social system surrounding energy technology and hardware. ERSS is relevant for energy practitioners, researchers interested in the social aspects of energy production or use, and policymakers. Energy Research & Social Science (ERSS) provides an interdisciplinary forum to discuss how social and technical issues related to energy production and consumption interact. Energy production, distribution, and consumption all have both technical and human components, and the latter involves the human causes and consequences of energy-related activities and processes as well as social structures that shape how people interact with energy systems. Energy analysis, therefore, needs to look beyond the dimensions of technology and economics to include these social and human elements.
期刊最新文献
Energy communities, distributed generation, renewable sources: Close relatives or potential friends? Energy inefficiency as a ‘poverty premium’ Connected, complex, and carbonized: The country archetypes of the petrochemicals sector Understanding public acceptance amidst controversy and ignorance: The case of industrial Carbon Capture and Storage in Germany Energy subsidies versus cash transfers: the causal effect of misperceptions on public support for countermeasures during the energy crisis
×
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