IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v38y2010i6p2664-2671.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer engagement in alternative energy--Can the regulators and suppliers be trusted?

Author

Listed:
  • Mumford, John
  • Gray, David

Abstract

The introduction of alternative energy requires collaboration between consumers, energy suppliers and regulators. A fundamental question is, will consumers engage with this agenda and, in particular, will they trust the institutions sufficiently to enable the collaborations that are needed. Present indications suggest that consumers have little trust in the established institutions and tend to reject such collaborations. This article presents two case studies which explore the way consumers, regulators and energy suppliers interact in relation to alternative energy projects. It analyses the inter-group interactions from the perspective of symbolic interactionism and discusses the aspects that undermine trust, leading to suggestions for improved trust.

Suggested Citation

  • Mumford, John & Gray, David, 2010. "Consumer engagement in alternative energy--Can the regulators and suppliers be trusted?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 2664-2671, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:38:y:2010:i:6:p:2664-2671
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301-4215(09)00353-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Ragnar E. Löfstedt & Baruch Fischhoff & Ilya R. Fischhoff, 2002. "Precautionary principles: general definitions and specific applications to genetically modified organisms," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(3), pages 381-407.
    2. Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2005. "Risk Management in Post-Trust Societies," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-0-230-50394-6, December.
    3. Michael Siegrist & Heinz Gutscher & Timothy C. Earle, 2005. "Perception of risk: the influence of general trust, and general confidence," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 145-156, March.
    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. Demski, Christina & Evensen, Darrick & Pidgeon, Nick & Spence, Alexa, 2017. "Public prioritisation of energy affordability in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 404-409.
    2. Evensen, Darrick & Demski, Christina & Becker, Sarah & Pidgeon, Nick, 2018. "The relationship between justice and acceptance of energy transition costs in the UK," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 451-459.
    3. Goulden, Murray & Spence, Alexa & Wardman, Jamie & Leygue, Caroline, 2018. "Differentiating ‘the user’ in DSR: Developing demand side response in advanced economies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 176-185.
    4. Geels, F.W. & Sareen, S & Hook, A. & Sovacool, B.K., 2021. "Navigating implementation dilemmas in technology-forcing policies: A comparative analysis of accelerated smart meter diffusion in the Netherlands, UK, Norway, and Portugal (2000-2019)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    5. Julien Lancelot Michellod & Declan Kuch & Christian Winzer & Martin K. Patel & Selin Yilmaz, 2022. "Building Social License for Automated Demand-Side Management—Case Study Research in the Swiss Residential Sector," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-25, October.
    6. Wolsink, Maarten, 2012. "Undesired reinforcement of harmful ‘self-evident truths’ concerning the implementation of wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 83-87.
    7. Ma, Guo & Andrews-Speed, Philip & Zhang, Jiandong, 2013. "Chinese consumer attitudes towards energy saving: The case of household electrical appliances in Chongqing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 591-602.
    8. repec:mpr:mprres:6709 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Lehtonen, Markku & de Carlo, Laurence, 2019. "Community energy and the virtues of mistrust and distrust: Lessons from Brighton and Hove energy cooperatives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Le Gallo, Julie, 2018. "Spatial variation in energy attitudes and perceptions: Evidence from Europe," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 81(P2), pages 2160-2180.
    11. Bauwens, Thomas & Devine-Wright, Patrick, 2018. "Positive energies? An empirical study of community energy participation and attitudes to renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 612-625.
    12. Knauf, Jakob & le Maitre, Julia, 2023. "A matter of acceptability? Understanding citizen investment schemes in the context of onshore wind farm development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 175(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. Ling Jia & Queena K. Qian & Frits Meijer & Henk Visscher, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Risk Perception: A Perspective for Proactive Risk Management in Residential Building Energy Retrofits in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-25, April.
    2. Liu Liu & Xiaotao Wang & Yang Xie & Wing-Hong Chui, 2022. "Using Illicit Drugs to Lose Weight among Recovering Female Drug Users in China: An Exploratory Qualitative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-11, February.
    3. Ann Bostrom & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2003. "Communicating Risk: Wireless and Hardwired," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 241-248, April.
    4. Khushbu Mishra & Abdoul G. Sam & Gracious M. Diiro & Mario J. Miranda, 2020. "Gender and the dynamics of technology adoption: Empirical evidence from a household‐level panel data," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(6), pages 857-870, November.
    5. Lenka Mynaříková & Vít Pošta, 2023. "The Effect of Consumer Confidence and Subjective Well-being on Consumers’ Spending Behavior," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 429-453, February.
    6. Kazuya Nakayachi & George Cvetkovich, 2010. "Public Trust in Government Concerning Tobacco Control in Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 143-152, January.
    7. Hoti, Ferdiana & Perko, Tanja & Thijssen, Peter & Renn, Ortwin, 2021. "Who is willing to participate? Examining public participation intention concerning decommissioning of nuclear power plants in Belgium," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    8. Ding, Yulian & Veeman, Michele & Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 2013. "Functional Food Choices: Impacts of Trust and Health Beliefs," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 149007, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Tim Slack & Vanessa Parks & Lynsay Ayer & Andrew M. Parker & Melissa L. Finucane & Rajeev Ramchand, 2020. "Natech or natural? An analysis of hazard perceptions, institutional trust, and future storm worry following Hurricane Harvey," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 102(3), pages 1207-1224, July.
    10. William J. Burns & Ellen Peters & Paul Slovic, 2012. "Risk Perception and the Economic Crisis: A Longitudinal Study of the Trajectory of Perceived Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 659-677, April.
    11. 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.
    12. Michael Siegrist & Philipp Hübner & Christina Hartmann, 2018. "Risk Prioritization in the Food Domain Using Deliberative and Survey Methods: Differences between Experts and Laypeople," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 504-524, March.
    13. Shay-Wei Choon & Hway-Boon Ong & Siow-Hooi Tan, 2019. "Does risk perception limit the climate change mitigation behaviors?," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 1891-1917, August.
    14. Timothy C. Earle, 2009. "Trust, Confidence, and the 2008 Global Financial Crisis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(6), pages 785-792, June.
    15. Han, Y. & Lam, J. & Guo, P. & Gou, Z., 2019. "What Predicts Government Trustworthiness in Cross-border HK-Guangdong Nuclear Safety Emergency Governance?," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1989, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    16. Estefanía Palazuelos & Ángel Herrero Crespo & Javier Montoya del Corte, 2018. "Effect of perceived default risk and accounting information quality on the decision to grant credit to SMEs," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 20(2), pages 121-141, May.
    17. Sara Jonsson & Inga-Lill Söderberg, 2018. "Investigating explanatory theories on laypeople’s risk perception of personal economic collapse in a bank crisis – the Cyprus case," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(6), pages 763-779, June.
    18. Aren Selim & Hamamci Hatice Nayman, 2023. "Mediating Effect of Pleasure-Seeking and Loss Aversion in the Relationship Between Phantasy and Financial Risk Tolerance and the Moderating Role of Confidence," Folia Oeconomica Stetinensia, Sciendo, vol. 23(2), pages 24-44, December.
    19. Yanwei Li & Araz Taeihagh & Martin de Jong & Andreas Klinke, 2021. "Toward a Commonly Shared Public Policy Perspective for Analyzing Risk Coping Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 519-532, March.
    20. Gerstetter, Christiane & Maier, Matthias Leonhard, 2005. "Risk regulation, trade and international law: debating the precautionary principle in and around the WTO," TranState Working Papers 18, University of Bremen, Collaborative Research Center 597: Transformations of the State.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Trust Alternative energy Consumers;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:38:y:2010:i:6:p:2664-2671. 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.