IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v117y2018icp348-357.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public perceptions of energy policies: Predicting support, opposition, and nonsubstantive responses

Author

Listed:
  • Edwards, Michelle L.

Abstract

Public policy preferences can impact policymaking, from influencing what policies are or are not implemented to legitimizing policy decisions. Researchers have examined public support/opposition to a wide variety of energy issues, as well as predictors of these preferences. However, researchers have typically excluded the views of those who say they “don’t know” or do not respond to questions about a particular policy, even when they make up a sizable portion of the population. As a result, we know little about those who provide nonsubstantive responses to energy policy questions, as compared to those who provide support/opposition responses. In this article, I examine the roles of issue awareness, risk perception, and socio-demographic characteristics in predicting support, opposition, and not sure responses to three different energy development issues: nuclear power, the Keystone XL pipeline, and hydraulic fracturing. One of the key findings is that the risk perception predictors of nonsubstantive responses more closely resemble the risk perception predictors of opposition rather than the predictors of support. By excluding the policy preferences of those who “don’t know” or do not answer, researchers are likely providing policymakers with estimates that underrepresent the views of those who are more concerned about environmental risk.

Suggested Citation

  • Edwards, Michelle L., 2018. "Public perceptions of energy policies: Predicting support, opposition, and nonsubstantive responses," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 348-357.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:117:y:2018:i:c:p:348-357
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.03.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421518301277
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.03.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Clarke, Christopher E. & Bugden, Dylan & Hart, P. Sol & Stedman, Richard C. & Jacquet, Jeffrey B. & Evensen, Darrick T.N. & Boudet, Hilary S., 2016. "How geographic distance and political ideology interact to influence public perception of unconventional oil/natural gas development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 301-309.
    2. F. Crettaz von Roten & A. Clémence & A. Thevenet, 2017. "Understanding Attitudes Toward Nuclear Energy After the Fukushima Accident: Differences Between Asserted and Ambivalent Positions," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 98(2), pages 659-671, June.
    3. Stoutenborough, James W. & Shi, Liu & Vedlitz, Arnold, 2015. "Probing public perceptions on energy: Support for a comparative, deep-probing survey design for complex issue domains," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 406-415.
    4. Boudet, Hilary & Clarke, Christopher & Bugden, Dylan & Maibach, Edward & Roser-Renouf, Connie & Leiserowitz, Anthony, 2014. "“Fracking” controversy and communication: Using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 57-67.
    5. Stoutenborough, James W. & Sturgess, Shelbi G. & Vedlitz, Arnold, 2013. "Knowledge, risk, and policy support: Public perceptions of nuclear power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 176-184.
    6. Baxter, Jamie & Morzaria, Rakhee & Hirsch, Rachel, 2013. "A case-control study of support/opposition to wind turbines: Perceptions of health risk, economic benefits, and community conflict," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 931-943.
    7. Christenson, Dino P. & Goldfarb, Jillian L. & Kriner, Douglas L., 2017. "Costs, benefits, and the malleability of public support for “Fracking”," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 407-417.
    8. Gravelle, Timothy B. & Lachapelle, Erick, 2015. "Politics, proximity and the pipeline: Mapping public attitudes toward Keystone XL," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 99-108.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dania Ortiz & Vítor Leal, 2020. "Energy Policy Concerns, Objectives and Indicators: A Review towards a Framework for Effectiveness Assessment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-26, December.
    2. Ali, Ghaffar & Yan, Ningyu & Hussain, Jafar & Xu, Lilai & Huang, Yunfeng & Xu, Su & Cui, Shenghui, 2019. "Quantitative assessment of energy conservation and renewable energy awareness among variant urban communities of Xiamen, China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 230-238.
    3. Wang, Lingling & Watanabe, Tsunemi, 2019. "Effects of environmental policy on public risk perceptions of haze in Tianjin City: A difference-in-differences analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 199-212.
    4. Gonyo, Sarah Ball & Fleming, Chloe S. & Freitag, Amy & Goedeke, Theresa L., 2021. "Resident perceptions of local offshore wind energy development: Modeling efforts to improve participatory processes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    5. Moon, Won-Ki & Kahlor, Lee Ann & Olson, Hilary Clement, 2020. "Understanding public support for carbon capture and storage policy: The roles of social capital, stakeholder perceptions, and perceived risk/benefit of technology," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    6. Gegg, Per & Wells, Victoria, 2019. "The development of seaweed-derived fuels in the UK: An analysis of stakeholder issues and public perceptions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Olson-Hazboun, Shawn K. & Howe, Peter D. & Leiserowitz, Anthony, 2018. "The influence of extractive activities on public support for renewable energy policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 117-126.
    2. Shawn Olson Hazboun & Hilary Schaffer Boudet, 2020. "Public Preferences in a Shifting Energy Future: Comparing Public Views of Eight Energy Sources in North America’s Pacific Northwest," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-21, April.
    3. Pierce, Jonathan J. & Boudet, Hilary & Zanocco, Chad & Hillyard, Megan, 2018. "Analyzing the factors that influence U.S. public support for exporting natural gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 666-674.
    4. Dobers, Geesche M., 2019. "Acceptance of biogas plants taking into account space and place," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    5. Hilary S. Boudet & Chad M. Zanocco & Peter D. Howe & Christopher E. Clarke, 2018. "The Effect of Geographic Proximity to Unconventional Oil and Gas Development on Public Support for Hydraulic Fracturing," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1871-1890, September.
    6. Howell, Emily L. & Li, Nan & Akin, Heather & Scheufele, Dietram A. & Xenos, Michael A. & Brossard, Dominique, 2017. "How do U.S. state residents form opinions about ‘fracking’ in social contexts? A multilevel analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 345-355.
    7. Gonyo, Sarah Ball & Fleming, Chloe S. & Freitag, Amy & Goedeke, Theresa L., 2021. "Resident perceptions of local offshore wind energy development: Modeling efforts to improve participatory processes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    8. Creed Tumlison & Geoboo Song, 2019. "Cultural Values, Trust, and Benefit‐Risk Perceptions of Hydraulic Fracturing: A Comparative Analysis of Policy Elites and the General Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(3), pages 511-534, March.
    9. Clarke, Christopher E. & Evensen, Darrick T.N., 2023. "Attention to news media coverage of unconventional oil/gas development impacts: Exploring psychological antecedents and effects on issue support," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    10. Liuyang Yao & Dangchen Sui & Xiaotong Liu & Hui Fan, 2020. "The Psychological Process of Residents’ Acceptance of Local Shale Gas Exploitation in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-20, September.
    11. Martínez-Espiñeira, Roberto & García-Valiñas, María Á. & Matesanz, David, 2019. "Public Attitudes towards Hydraulic Fracturing in Western Newfoundland," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    12. Adam Mayer, 2018. "Community economic identity and colliding treadmills in oil and gas governance," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12, March.
    13. Clarke, Christopher E. & Bugden, Dylan & Hart, P. Sol & Stedman, Richard C. & Jacquet, Jeffrey B. & Evensen, Darrick T.N. & Boudet, Hilary S., 2016. "How geographic distance and political ideology interact to influence public perception of unconventional oil/natural gas development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 301-309.
    14. Meesha Iqbal & Rae Moss & Irene van Woerden, 2022. "Peoples’ Perception towards Nuclear Energy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-9, June.
    15. Malin, Stephanie A. & Mayer, Adam & Crooks, James L. & McKenzie, Lisa & Peel, Jennifer L. & Adgate, John L., 2019. "Putting on partisan glasses: Political identity, quality of life, and oil and gas production in Colorado," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 738-748.
    16. Yu, Chin-Hsien & Huang, Shih-Kai & Qin, Ping & Chen, Xiaolan, 2018. "Local residents' risk perceptions in response to shale gas exploitation: Evidence from China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 123-134.
    17. Judith I. M. de Groot & Elisa Schweiger & Iljana Schubert, 2020. "Social Influence, Risk and Benefit Perceptions, and the Acceptability of Risky Energy Technologies: An Explanatory Model of Nuclear Power Versus Shale Gas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(6), pages 1226-1243, June.
    18. Mayer, Adam, 2017. "Political identity and paradox in oil and gas policy: A study of regulatory exaggeration in Colorado, US," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 452-459.
    19. Mueller, Christoph Emanuel & Keil, Silke Inga & Bauer, Christian, 2017. "Effects of spatial proximity to proposed high-voltage transmission lines: Evidence from a natural experiment in Lower Saxony," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 137-147.
    20. Teisl, Mario F. & Noblet, Caroline L. & Corey, Richard R. & Giudice, Nicholas A., 2018. "Seeing clearly in a virtual reality: Tourist reactions to an offshore wind project," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 601-611.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:117:y:2018:i:c:p:348-357. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.