IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v152y2021ics0301421520307825.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Acceptance of energy technologies in context: Comparing laypeople's risk perceptions across eight infrastructure technologies in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Linzenich, Anika
  • Arning, Katrin
  • Ziefle, Martina

Abstract

In Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU), CO2 captured from industrial processes replaces fossil feedstock used to produce of a variety of products, e.g., plastic products, fuels, or minerals. The roll-out of CCU will depend on the public's acceptance and risk perception. Whereas past studies exclusively focused on CCU risk perception, this study (n = 266) compared CCU to seven other infrastructure technologies (fossil, nuclear, renewable energies) to put the perceived CCU risks into perspective.

Suggested Citation

  • Linzenich, Anika & Arning, Katrin & Ziefle, Martina, 2021. "Acceptance of energy technologies in context: Comparing laypeople's risk perceptions across eight infrastructure technologies in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:152:y:2021:i:c:s0301421520307825
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112071
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421520307825
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112071?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. Wadley, David A. & Han, Jung Hoon & Elliott, Peter G., 2019. "Risk hidden in plain sight: Explaining homeowner perceptions of electricity transmission infrastructure," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 744-753.
    2. Thøgersen, John & Noblet, Caroline, 2012. "Does green consumerism increase the acceptance of wind power?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 854-862.
    3. Bruhn, Thomas & Naims, Henriette & Olfe-Kräutlein, Barbara, 2016. "Separating the debate on CO2 utilisation from carbon capture and storage," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 38-43.
    4. Lennart Sjöberg, 2000. "Factors in Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, February.
    5. Wustenhagen, Rolf & Wolsink, Maarten & Burer, Mary Jean, 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2683-2691, May.
    6. 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.
    7. Joanna Burger, 2012. "Rating of worry about energy sources with respect to public health, environmental health, and workers," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(9), pages 1159-1169, October.
    8. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    9. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    10. Jarry T. Porsius & Liesbeth Claassen & Patricia E. Weijland & Danielle R.M. Timmermans, 2016. "“They give you lots of information, but ignore what it's really about”: residents' experiences with the planned introduction of a new high-voltage power line," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(8), pages 1495-1512, August.
    11. Yacov Y. Haimes, 2009. "On the Complex Definition of Risk: A Systems‐Based Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(12), pages 1647-1654, December.
    12. Schweizer-Ries, Petra, 2008. "Energy sustainable communities: Environmental psychological investigations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 4126-4135, November.
    13. Lienert, Pascal & Suetterlin, Bernadette & Siegrist, Michael, 2015. "Public acceptance of the expansion and modification of high-voltage power lines in the context of the energy transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 573-583.
    14. Arning, K. & Offermann-van Heek, J. & Linzenich, A. & Kaetelhoen, A. & Sternberg, A. & Bardow, A. & Ziefle, M., 2019. "Same or different? Insights on public perception and acceptance of carbon capture and storage or utilization in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 235-249.
    15. Maria A. Petrova, 2013. "NIMBYism revisited: public acceptance of wind energy in the United States," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(6), pages 575-601, November.
    16. Offermann-van Heek, Julia & Arning, Katrin & Sternberg, André & Bardow, André & Ziefle, Martina, 2020. "Assessing public acceptance of the life cycle of CO2-based fuels: Does information make the difference?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    17. Ali Siddiq Alhakami & Paul Slovic, 1994. "A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 1085-1096, December.
    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. Wang, Chaofan & Wang, Yilan & Zhao, Yujia & Shuai, Jing & Shuai, Chuanmin & Cheng, Xin, 2023. "Cognition process and influencing factors of rural residents' adoption willingness for solar PV poverty alleviation projects: Evidence from a mixed methodology in rural China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 271(C).
    2. Rahmani, Amir & Mashayekh, Javad & Aboojafari, Roohallah & Bonyadi Naeini, Ali, 2023. "Determinants of households' intention for investment in renewable energy projects," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 823-837.

    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. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    2. Arning, K. & Offermann-van Heek, J. & Ziefle, M., 2021. "What drives public acceptance of sustainable CO2-derived building materials? A conjoint-analysis of eco-benefits vs. health concerns," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    3. Dessi, F. & Ariccio, S. & Albers, T. & Alves, S. & Ludovico, N. & Bonaiuto, M., 2022. "Sustainable technology acceptability: Mapping technological, contextual, and social-psychological determinants of EU stakeholders’ biofuel acceptance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    4. Rianne van Duinen & Tatiana Filatova & Peter Geurts & Anne van der Veen, 2015. "Empirical Analysis of Farmers' Drought Risk Perception: Objective Factors, Personal Circumstances, and Social Influence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 741-755, April.
    5. von Wirth, Timo & Gislason, Linda & Seidl, Roman, 2018. "Distributed energy systems on a neighborhood scale: Reviewing drivers of and barriers to social acceptance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 2618-2628.
    6. Judith I. M. de Groot & Linda Steg & Wouter Poortinga, 2013. "Values, Perceived Risks and Benefits, and Acceptability of Nuclear Energy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 307-317, February.
    7. Floris Goerlandt & Jie Li & Genserik Reniers, 2021. "The Landscape of Risk Perception Research: A Scientometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-26, November.
    8. Mei‐Chih Meg Tseng & Yi‐Ping Lin & Fu‐Chang Hu & Tsun‐Jen Cheng, 2013. "Risks Perception of Electromagnetic Fields in Taiwan: The Influence of Psychopathology and the Degree of Sensitivity to Electromagnetic Fields," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(11), pages 2002-2012, November.
    9. Katja Witte, 2021. "Social Acceptance of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) from Industrial Applications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-29, November.
    10. Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John & Fynnwin Prager, 2012. "Flu, Risks, and Videotape: Escalating Fear and Avoidance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 729-743, April.
    11. Emmerich, Philip & Hülemeier, Anna-Gesina & Jendryczko, David & Baumann, Manuel Johann & Weil, Marcel & Baur, Dorothee, 2020. "Public acceptance of emerging energy technologies in context of the German energy transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    12. Shoshana Shiloh & Gülbanu Güvenç & Dilek Önkal, 2007. "Cognitive and Emotional Representations of Terror Attacks: A Cross‐Cultural Exploration," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 397-409, April.
    13. Piyapong Janmaimool & Tsunemi Watanabe, 2014. "Evaluating Determinants of Environmental Risk Perception for Risk Management in Contaminated Sites," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-23, June.
    14. Paul Slovic, 2020. "Risk Perception and Risk Analysis in a Hyperpartisan and Virtuously Violent World," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2231-2239, November.
    15. Lienert, Pascal & Suetterlin, Bernadette & Siegrist, Michael, 2015. "Public acceptance of the expansion and modification of high-voltage power lines in the context of the energy transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 573-583.
    16. Michael Greenberg & Karen Lowrie, 2014. "Paul Slovic: Risk Perceptions and Affect," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 206-209, February.
    17. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    18. Ioannidis, Romanos & Koutsoyiannis, Demetris, 2020. "A review of land use, visibility and public perception of renewable energy in the context of landscape impact," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    19. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    20. Bonaiuto, M. & Mosca, O. & Milani, A. & Ariccio, S. & Dessi, F. & Fornara, F., 2024. "Beliefs about technological and contextual features drive biofuels’ social acceptance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 189(PA).

    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:152:y:2021:i:c:s0301421520307825. 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.