评估欧洲的能源误解:来自欧洲社会调查的证据

IF 3.1 4区工程技术 Q3 ENERGY & FUELS Energy Sources Part B-Economics Planning and Policy Pub Date : 2022-02-25 DOI:10.1080/15567249.2022.2042428

Paola Tiranzoni, Alessandro Sapio, Alessia Casamassima, P. Falcone

{"title":"评估欧洲的能源误解:来自欧洲社会调查的证据","authors":"Paola Tiranzoni, Alessandro Sapio, Alessia Casamassima, P. Falcone","doi":"10.1080/15567249.2022.2042428","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The present study investigates the determinants of differences between public preferences for energy sources and the actual country-level energy mix (“dissatisfaction”). Nineteen European countries have been examined, drawing on data from the 2016 European Social Survey. The main findings are that trusting individuals express lower dissatisfaction with the share of renewable energy sources and greater dissatisfaction with the share of fossil fuels and nuclear power; and individuals who are worried about energy security expressed an inflated preference for programmable energy sources (e.g. fossil fuels and nuclear power). The implications of the findings and the importance of public energy preferences for shaping policy views are briefly discussed.","PeriodicalId":51247,"journal":{"name":"Energy Sources Part B-Economics Planning and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing energy misperception in Europe: evidence from the European social survey\",\"authors\":\"Paola Tiranzoni, Alessandro Sapio, Alessia Casamassima, P. Falcone\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15567249.2022.2042428\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The present study investigates the determinants of differences between public preferences for energy sources and the actual country-level energy mix (“dissatisfaction”). Nineteen European countries have been examined, drawing on data from the 2016 European Social Survey. The main findings are that trusting individuals express lower dissatisfaction with the share of renewable energy sources and greater dissatisfaction with the share of fossil fuels and nuclear power; and individuals who are worried about energy security expressed an inflated preference for programmable energy sources (e.g. fossil fuels and nuclear power). The implications of the findings and the importance of public energy preferences for shaping policy views are briefly discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51247,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Energy Sources Part B-Economics Planning and Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Energy Sources Part B-Economics Planning and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2022.2042428\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Energy Sources Part B-Economics Planning and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2022.2042428","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: 2

摘要

本研究调查了公众对能源的偏好与实际国家层面的能源结构(“不满”)之间差异的决定因素。根据2016年欧洲社会调查的数据，对19个欧洲国家进行了调查。主要发现是，信任个体对可再生能源份额的不满程度较低，对化石燃料和核电份额的不满程度较高;担心能源安全的个人对可编程能源(如化石燃料和核能)表现出过度的偏好。本文简要讨论了研究结果的含义以及公共能源偏好对形成政策观点的重要性。

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

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

Assessing energy misperception in Europe: evidence from the European social survey

ABSTRACT The present study investigates the determinants of differences between public preferences for energy sources and the actual country-level energy mix (“dissatisfaction”). Nineteen European countries have been examined, drawing on data from the 2016 European Social Survey. The main findings are that trusting individuals express lower dissatisfaction with the share of renewable energy sources and greater dissatisfaction with the share of fossil fuels and nuclear power; and individuals who are worried about energy security expressed an inflated preference for programmable energy sources (e.g. fossil fuels and nuclear power). The implications of the findings and the importance of public energy preferences for shaping policy views are briefly discussed.

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 Sources Part B-Economics Planning and Policy ENERGY & FUELS-

CiteScore

6.80

自引率

12.80%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： 12 issues per year Abstracted and/or indexed in: Applied Science & Technology Index; API Abstracts/Literature; Automatic Subject Index Citation; BIOSIS Previews; Cabell’s Directory of Publishing Opportunities in Economics and Finance; Chemical Abstracts; CSA Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts; CSA Environmental Sciences & Pollution Management Database; CSA Pollution Abstracts; Current Contents/Engineering, Technology & Applied Sciences; Directory of Industry Data Sources; Economic Abstracts; Electrical and Electronics Abstracts; Energy Information Abstracts; Energy Research Abstracts; Engineering Index Monthly; Environmental Abstracts; Environmental Periodicals Bibliography (EPB); International Abstracts in Operations Research; Operations/Research/Management Science Abstracts; Petroleum Abstracts; Physikalische Berichte; and Science Citation Index. Taylor & Francis make every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the "Content") contained in our publications. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor & Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to, or arising out of the use of the Content. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions .