IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v46y2012icp292-300.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fair play in energy policy decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants

Author

Listed:
  • Visschers, Vivianne H.M.
  • Siegrist, Michael

Abstract

To raise public acceptance of new energy policies, promoting the fairness of the outcomes and of the decision-making procedure has been suggested. Very few studies have examined the role of fairness in public acceptance of rebuilding nuclear power plants. Therefore, using a large mail survey, we investigated the public’s acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants in Switzerland by 2020. The study examined the influence of procedural fairness and outcome fairness on the acceptance of this decision, as well as other factors such as risk perception and benefit perception. Additionally, we investigated the moderating influence of general attitudes towards nuclear power on the relation between fairness and decision acceptance. Results indicated that outcome fairness strongly increased decision acceptance, along with general attitudes towards nuclear power and perceived economic benefits. Procedural fairness had only a small impact on decision acceptance. The influence of fairness on decision acceptance did not seem to depend on general nuclear attitudes. Our findings imply that, in the case of rebuilding nuclear power plants, perceived benefits and outcome fairness are important determinants of acceptance of the decision, while procedural fairness only has a limited impact.

Suggested Citation

  • Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Siegrist, Michael, 2012. "Fair play in energy policy decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 292-300.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:46:y:2012:i:c:p:292-300
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.062
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421512002674
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.062?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. Greenberg, Michael, 2009. "Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences: Analysis of US national and site-specific data," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 3242-3249, August.
    2. Cohen-Charash, Yochi & Spector, Paul E., 2001. "The Role of Justice in Organizations: A Meta-Analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 278-321, November.
    3. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Keller, Carmen & Siegrist, Michael, 2011. "Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3621-3629, June.
    4. Gross, Catherine, 2007. "Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2727-2736, May.
    5. Simone Dohle & Carmen Keller & Michael Siegrist, 2012. "Fear and anger: antecedents and consequences of emotional responses to mobile communication," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(4), pages 435-446, April.
    6. Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich, 2000. "Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5), pages 713-720, October.
    7. Alexa Spence & Wouter Poortinga & Nick Pidgeon & Irene Lorenzoni, 2010. "Public Perceptions of Energy Choices: The Influence of Beliefs about Climate Change and the Environment," Energy & Environment, , vol. 21(5), pages 385-407, September.
    8. Michael K. Lindell & Ronald W. Perry, 1990. "Effects of the Chernobyl Accident on Public Perceptions of Nuclear Plant Accident Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(3), pages 393-399, September.
    9. Lynn J Frewer & Chaya Howard & Richard Shepherd, 1998. "Understanding public attitudes to technology," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(3), pages 221-235, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Michael Siegrist, 2013. "How a Nuclear Power Plant Accident Influences Acceptance of Nuclear Power: Results of a Longitudinal Study Before and After the Fukushima Disaster," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 333-347, February.
    2. Guo, Yue & Ren, Tao, 2017. "When it is unfamiliar to me: Local acceptance of planned nuclear power plants in China in the post-fukushima era," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 113-125.
    3. Siegrist, Michael & Sütterlin, Bernadette & Keller, Carmen, 2014. "Why have some people changed their attitudes toward nuclear power after the accident in Fukushima?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 356-363.
    4. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Keller, Carmen & Siegrist, Michael, 2011. "Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3621-3629, June.
    5. Perlaviciute, Goda & Steg, Linda, 2014. "Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: Integrated review and research agenda," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 361-381.
    6. Ertör-Akyazı, Pınar & Adaman, Fikret & Özkaynak, Begüm & Zenginobuz, Ünal, 2012. "Citizens’ preferences on nuclear and renewable energy sources: Evidence from Turkey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 309-320.
    7. Siegrist, Michael & Visschers, Vivianne H.M., 2013. "Acceptance of nuclear power: The Fukushima effect," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 112-119.
    8. Seungkook Roh & Jin Won Lee & Qingchang Li, 2019. "Effects of Rank-Ordered Feature Perceptions of Energy Sources on the Choice of the Most Acceptable Power Plant for a Neighborhood: An Investigation Using a South Korean Nationwide Sample," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-21, March.
    9. Anshelm, Jonas & Simon, Haikola, 2016. "Power production and environmental opinions – Environmentally motivated resistance to wind power in Sweden," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 1545-1555.
    10. Ho, Shirley S. & Oshita, Tsuyoshi & Looi, Jiemin & Leong, Alisius D. & Chuah, Agnes S.F., 2019. "Exploring public perceptions of benefits and risks, trust, and acceptance of nuclear energy in Thailand and Vietnam: A qualitative approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 259-268.
    11. Norifumi Tsujikawa & Shoji Tsuchida & Takamasa Shiotani, 2016. "Changes in the Factors Influencing Public Acceptance of Nuclear Power Generation in Japan Since the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 98-113, January.
    12. Jobin, Marilou & Siegrist, Michael, 2018. "We choose what we like – Affect as a driver of electricity portfolio choice," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 736-747.
    13. Mueller, Christoph Emanuel, 2020. "Examining the inter-relationships between procedural fairness, trust in actors, risk expectations, perceived benefits, and attitudes towards power grid expansion projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    14. 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.
    15. Nicolás Bronfman & Pamela Cisternas & Esperanza López-Vázquez & Luis Cifuentes, 2016. "Trust and risk perception of natural hazards: implications for risk preparedness in Chile," 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. 81(1), pages 307-327, March.
    16. Lee, You-Kyung, 2020. "Sustainability of nuclear energy in Korea: From the users’ perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    17. Liu, Peng & Xu, Zhigang & Zhao, Xiangmo, 2019. "Road tests of self-driving vehicles: Affective and cognitive pathways in acceptance formation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 354-369.
    18. Wang, Fan & Gu, Jibao & Wu, Jianlin, 2020. "Perspective taking, energy policy involvement, and public acceptance of nuclear energy: Evidence from China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    19. 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).
    20. Yukiko Omata & Hajime Katayama & Toshi. H. Arimura, 2017. "Same concerns, same responses? A Bayesian quantile regression analysis of the determinants for supporting nuclear power generation in Japan," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 19(3), pages 581-608, July.

    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:46:y:2012:i:c:p:292-300. 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.