Advertisement

Public Energy Preferences from the Perspective of Climate Change Mitigation

  • Agne BudzyteEmail author
Chapter
  • 37 Downloads
Part of the Climate Change Management book series (CCM)

Abstract

Laws and plans for environmental protection and mitigation of climate change is a tough challenge for governmental organizations at the highest levels. A need to ensure a more sustainable future requires strict actions backed by constant support from the public, and yet there is always a risk that the public will not accept any new strategies, if they do not reflect their personal concerns. This paper presents an investigation into how climate change concerns affect the public’s energy preferences. It also reports energy security concerns and the political preferences related to climate change, and how this has to be considered in increasing the support for new political tools in the energy sector. The analysis is based on the data gathered from a representative public survey conducted during October–November 2018 in Lithuania and reveal how concerns about climate change affect the public’s preference for energy generated from renewable sources also lessening the preference for fossil fuels and other non-sustainable options.

Keywords

Technologies Risk perception Energy preferences Climate change 

References

  1. Anilan B (2014) A study of the environmental risk perceptions and environmental awareness levels of high school students. Asia-Pac Forum Sci Learn Teach 15(2):1–22Google Scholar
  2. Ansolabehere S, Konisky D (2014) Cheap and clean: how Americans think about energy in the age of global warming. MIT Press, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Augutis J, Krikštolaitis R, Leonavičius V, Pečiulytė S, Genys D, Česnakas G, Martišauskas L, Juozaitis J (2015) Lithuanian energy security. Annual review 2013–2014. Energy Security Research Centre, KaunasGoogle Scholar
  4. Bosnjakovic B, Haber MI (2015) Climate changes and adaptation policies in the Baltic and the Adriatic regions. Univ Tour Manag Skopje J Econ 6(1):21–39Google Scholar
  5. Burstein P (2003) The impact of public opinion on public policy: a review and an agenda. Polit Res Q 56(1):29–40.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3219881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chowdhury PD, Haque E (2011) Risk perception and knowledge gap between experts and the public: issues of flood hazards management in Canada. J Env Res Dev 5(4):1017–1022Google Scholar
  7. Ediger V, Kirkil G, Çelebi E, Ucal M, Kentmen-Çin C (2018) Turkish public preferences for energy. Energy Policy 120:492–502.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.05.043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Enerdata (2018) Global energy trends. Grenoble: enerdata. Retrieved 25 Jan 2019, from https://www.enerdata.net/system/files/publications/global-energy-trends-2018-edition-enerdata.pdf
  9. ESS Round 8, European Social Survey (2018) ESS-8 2016 documentation report. Edition 2.1. European Social Survey Data Archive, Norwegian Centre for Research Data, Bergen.  https://doi.org/10.21338/nsd-ess8-2016
  10. European Commission (2017) The special Eurobarometer on climate change 459. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.  https://doi.org/10.2834/92702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. European Commission (2018) Standard Eurobarometer 90—Autumn 2018 “public opinion in the European Union, first results”. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.  https://doi.org/10.2775/104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. European Environment Agency (2018) Rising energy consumption slows EU progress on renewables and energy efficiency targets. Retrieved 26 Jan 2019, from https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/rising-energy-consumption-slows-eu
  13. Eurostat (2018a) Electricity prices for household consumers (taxes included), first half 2018 (EUR per kWh). Retrieved 1 Feb 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Electricity_price_statistics
  14. Eurostat (2018b) Gross inland energy consumption by fuel, 2016. Retrieved 1 Feb 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:Gross_inland_energy_consumption_by_fuel,_2016_(%25).png
  15. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein P, Read S, Combs B (2004) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes toward technological risk and benefits. In Slovic P (ed) The perception of risk. Risk, society and policy series. Earthscan, London, SterlingGoogle Scholar
  16. Galloway McLean K, Ramos Castillo A, Barret B (2012) Energy innovation and traditional knowledge. Traditional knowledge bulletin: topical issues seriesGoogle Scholar
  17. Genys D, Krikštolaitis R (2017) Switching political nuclear energy preferences, changing public attitude. Balt J Law Polit 10(2):225–243.  https://doi.org/10.1515/bjlp-2017-0018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. GreenMatch (2019) Mapped: impact of climate change on European countries. Retrieved 13 Apr 2019, from https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/2019/04/climate-change-europe
  19. Heindl P, Schüssler R (2015) Dynamic properties of energy affordability measures. German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP), BerlinGoogle Scholar
  20. Holmgren ÅJ, Thedéen T (2010) Risk analysis. In Holmgren Å, Grimvall G (eds) Risks in technological systems. Springer, London, pp 199–224.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-641-0
  21. Janmaimool P, Watanabe T (2014) Evaluating determinants of environmental risk perception for risk management in contaminated sites. Int J Env Res Publ Health 11(6):6291–6313.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph110606291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim JY, Chun U, Song J (2009) Investigating the role of attitude in technology acceptance from an attitude strength perspective. Int J Inf Manage 29(1):67–77.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2008.01.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lowan-Trudeau G (2017) Indigenous environmental education: the case of renewable energy projects. Educ Stud 53(6):601–613.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2017.1369084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Matthewman S, Byrd H (2014) Blackouts: a sociology of electrical power failure, vols 2014-01. Social space. http://hdl.handle.net/2292/22764
  25. Mayer A, O’Connor TS, Chiricos T, Gertz M (2017) Environmental risk exposure, risk perception political ideology and support for climate policy. Soc Focus 50(4):309–328.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00380237.2017.1312855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ministry of Energy of the Republic of Lithuania (2018) Seimas approves progressive and innovative lithuanian energy strategy. Retrieved 28 Jan 2019, from https://enmin.lrv.lt/en/news/seimas-approves-progressive-and-innovative-lithuanian-energy-strategy
  27. Ministry of energy of the republic of Lithuania (2018) National energy independence strategy. Ministry of Energy of the Republic of Lithuania, Vilnius. Retrieved 2 Mar 2019, from https://enmin.lrv.lt/uploads/enmin/documents/files/Nacionaline%20energetines%20nepriklausomybes%20strategija_2018_LT.pdf
  28. Paço A, Lavrador T (2017) Environmental knowledge and attitudes and behaviours towards energy consumption. J Env Manag, 384–392.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.03.100
  29. Paek HJ, Hove T (2017) Risk perceptions and risk characteristics. In: Oxford research encyclopedia of communication. Oxford University Press, USA.  https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.283
  30. Renn O (1994) Public acceptance of energy technologies. In: European strategy for energy research and technological development. Seminar proceedings, Fondazione Giorgio Cini, Venezia, November 18–20, 1993. Luxemburg: Office for official publications of the European Community. ISBN 92-825-9199-9 pp 77–93Google Scholar
  31. Schneider A, Ingram H (1990) Behavioral assumptions of policy tools. J Polit 52(2):510–529.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2131904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sjöberg L (1999) Risk perception: experts and the public. Eur Psychol, 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1027//1016-9040.3.1.1
  33. Steentjes K, Pidgeon N, Poortinga W, Corner A, Arnold A, Böhm G, Mays C, Poumadère M, Ruddat M, Scheer D, Sonnberger M, Tvinnereim E (2017) European perceptions of climate change: topline findings of a survey conducted in four European countries in 2016. Cardiff University, CardiffGoogle Scholar
  34. Tučkus D (2015) LNG impact on lithuanian natural gas market. LITGAS, KlaipėdaGoogle Scholar
  35. Tvinnereim E, Fløttum K, Gjerstadb Ø, Johannessonc MP, Nordø AD (2017) Citizens’ preferences for tackling climate change. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of their freely formulated solutions. Glob Env Change, 34–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.06.005
  36. Vasi IB (2018) Social movements and energy. In: Davidson D, Gross M (eds) The oxford handbook of energy and society. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 405–422Google Scholar
  37. Veazey S (2017) What is the most efficient renewable energy source? Retrieved 10 Feb 2019, from Phoenix energy: http://www.phoenixenergygroup.com/blog/what-is-the-most-efficient-renewable-energy-source
  38. Wolsink M (2012) Wind power basic challenge concerning social acceptance. In Meyers R (ed) Encyclopedia of sustainability science and technology, vol 17. Springer, New York, pp 12218–12254.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0851-3
  39. World Energy Council (2013) World energy trilemma: time to get real—the case for sustainable. World Energy Council, London. Retrieved 1 Mar 2019, from http://www.worldenergy.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/09/2013-Time-to-get-real-the-case-for-sustainable-energy-investment.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Civil Society and Sustainability Research Group, Faculty of Social Sciences, Arts and HumanitiesKaunas University of TechnologyKaunasLithuania

Personalised recommendations