IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v66y2014icp369-378.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring public perceptions of energy security risks in the UK

Author

Listed:
  • Demski, Christina
  • Poortinga, Wouter
  • Pidgeon, Nick

Abstract

Along with climate change and affordability, concerns about energy security are key drivers behind proposals for major energy system change in the UK and numerous other countries. Unlike climate change we know very little about how the public thinks and feels about this aspect of sustainability and energy policy. Beyond engaging critically with conceptual and theoretical discussions, empirical data from two surveys (Cardiff postal survey, N=520; online UK survey, N=499) using a ten item energy security scale are presented and discussed. Here we show that aspects of energy security are certainly of concern to the UK public, with particularly high concern around dependence on fossil fuels/imports and relatively lower expressed concern for actual disruption of energy supply. However public concerns around energy security are only emerging, and likely to change depending on the context in which it is discussed (e.g. in comparison to climate change). In addition, findings from public interviews are used to further contextualise the survey findings, showing unfamiliarity among the UK public with regards to the term “energy security”. We discuss implications, and further work that would be useful for understanding public perceptions in more depth.

Suggested Citation

  • Demski, Christina & Poortinga, Wouter & Pidgeon, Nick, 2014. "Exploring public perceptions of energy security risks in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 369-378.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:66:y:2014:i:c:p:369-378
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.079
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513011063
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.079?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. Burgess, Jacquelin & Nye, Michael, 2008. "Re-materialising energy use through transparent monitoring systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(12), pages 4454-4459, December.
    2. Poortinga, Wouter & Spence, Alexa & Demski, Christina & Pidgeon, Nick F., 2012. "Individual-motivational factors in the acceptability of demand-side and supply-side measures to reduce carbon emissions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 812-819.
    3. Jones, Christopher R. & Eiser, J. Richard & Gamble, Tim R., 2012. "Assessing the impact of framing on the comparative favourability of nuclear power as an electricity generating option in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 451-465.
    4. Corner, Adam & Venables, Dan & Spence, Alexa & Poortinga, Wouter & Demski, Christina & Pidgeon, Nick, 2011. "Nuclear power, climate change and energy security: Exploring British public attitudes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 4823-4833, September.
    5. Winzer, Christian, 2012. "Conceptualizing energy security," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 36-48.
    6. Christian Winzer, 2011. "Conceptualising Energy Security," Working Papers EPRG 1123, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    7. Hargreaves, Tom & Nye, Michael & Burgess, Jacquelin, 2010. "Making energy visible: A qualitative field study of how householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 6111-6119, 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. Nick Pidgeon, 2012. "Public understanding of, and attitudes to, climate change: UK and international perspectives and policy," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(sup01), pages 85-106, September.
    10. Matthew Lockwood, 2011. "Does the framing of climate policies make a difference to public support? Evidence from UK marginal constituencies," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(4), pages 1097-1112, July.
    11. Chester, Lynne, 2010. "Conceptualising energy security and making explicit its polysemic nature," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 887-895, February.
    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. Martha Bicket & Robin Vanner, 2016. "Designing Policy Mixes for Resource Efficiency: The Role of Public Acceptability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-17, April.
    2. Gupta, Kuhika & Ripberger, Joseph T. & Fox, Andrew S. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Silva, Carol L., 2021. "The future of nuclear energy in India: Evidence from a nationwide survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    3. Benedict Belobo Ateba & Johannes Jurgens Prinsloo, 2018. "The Electricity Security in South Africa: Analysing Significant Determinants to the Grid Reliability," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 8(6), pages 70-79.
    4. 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.
    5. Alasseri, Rajeev & Tripathi, Ashish & Joji Rao, T. & Sreekanth, K.J., 2017. "A review on implementation strategies for demand side management (DSM) in Kuwait through incentive-based demand response programs," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 617-635.
    6. Pfenninger, Stefan & Keirstead, James, 2015. "Renewables, nuclear, or fossil fuels? Scenarios for Great Britain’s power system considering costs, emissions and energy security," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 83-93.
    7. Becker, Sophia & Schober, Dominik & Wassermann, Sandra, 2016. "How to approach consumers’ nonmonetary evaluation of electricity supply security? The case of Germany from a multidisciplinary perspective," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 74-84.
    8. Blumer, Yann B. & Moser, Corinne & Patt, Anthony & Seidl, Roman, 2015. "The precarious consensus on the importance of energy security: Contrasting views between Swiss energy users and experts," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 927-936.
    9. Lee, You-Kyung, 2020. "Sustainability of nuclear energy in Korea: From the users’ perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    10. Brutschin, Elina & Fleig, Andreas, 2018. "Geopolitically induced investments in biofuels," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 721-732.
    11. Seoyong Kim & Jae Eun Lee & Donggeun Kim, 2019. "Searching for the Next New Energy in Energy Transition: Comparing the Impacts of Economic Incentives on Local Acceptance of Fossil Fuels, Renewable, and Nuclear Energies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-32, April.
    12. Kim, Jinsoo & Kim, Jihyo, 2015. "Korean public’s perceptions on supply security of fossil fuels: A contingent valuation analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 301-309.
    13. Langer, Katharina & Decker, Thomas & Roosen, Jutta & Menrad, Klaus, 2016. "A qualitative analysis to understand the acceptance of wind energy in Bavaria," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 248-259.
    14. Dainius Genys & Ričardas Krikštolaitis, 2020. "Clusterization of public perception of nuclear energy in relation to changing political priorities," Post-Print hal-03271859, HAL.
    15. Ang, B.W. & Choong, W.L. & Ng, T.S., 2015. "Energy security: Definitions, dimensions and indexes," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 1077-1093.
    16. Evgeny Lisin & Wadim Strielkowski & Veronika Chernova & Alena Fomina, 2018. "Assessment of the Territorial Energy Security in the Context of Energy Systems Integration," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-14, November.
    17. Candice Howarth & Laurie Parsons, 2021. "Assembling a coalition of climate change narratives on UK climate action: a focus on the city, countryside, community and home," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 1-19, January.
    18. DeCicco, John & Yan, Ting & Keusch, Florian & Muñoz, Diego Horna & Neidert, Lisa, 2015. "U.S. consumer attitudes and expectations about energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 749-758.
    19. Ren, Jingzheng & Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2014. "Quantifying, measuring, and strategizing energy security: Determining the most meaningful dimensions and metrics," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 838-849.
    20. Šćepanović, Sanja & Warnier, Martijn & Nurminen, Jukka K., 2017. "The role of context in residential energy interventions: A meta review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1146-1168.
    21. Dainius Genys & RiÄ ardas KrikÅ¡tolaitis, 2020. "Clusterization of public perception of nuclear energy in relation to changing political priorities," Insights into Regional Development, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 2(4), pages 750-764, December.
    22. Arndt, Christoph, 2023. "Climate change vs energy security? The conditional support for energy sources among Western Europeans," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    23. 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.

    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. Gupta, Kuhika & Nowlin, Matthew C. & Ripberger, Joseph T. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Silva, Carol L., 2019. "Tracking the nuclear ‘mood’ in the United States: Introducing a long term measure of public opinion about nuclear energy using aggregate survey data," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    2. Poortinga, Wouter & Spence, Alexa & Demski, Christina & Pidgeon, Nick F., 2012. "Individual-motivational factors in the acceptability of demand-side and supply-side measures to reduce carbon emissions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 812-819.
    3. Blumer, Yann B. & Moser, Corinne & Patt, Anthony & Seidl, Roman, 2015. "The precarious consensus on the importance of energy security: Contrasting views between Swiss energy users and experts," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 927-936.
    4. Elena Vechkinzova & Yelena Petrenko & Yana S. Matkovskaya & Gaukhar Koshebayeva, 2021. "The Dilemma of Long-Term Development of the Electric Power Industry in Kazakhstan," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-21, April.
    5. Andrew Chapman & Timothy Fraser & Melanie Dennis, 2019. "Investigating Ties between Energy Policy and Social Equity Research: A Citation Network Analysis," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-18, April.
    6. Poortinga, Wouter & Aoyagi, Midori & Pidgeon, Nick F., 2013. "Public perceptions of climate change and energy futures before and after the Fukushima accident: A comparison between Britain and Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1204-1211.
    7. Nyga-Łukaszewska Honorata & Napiórkowski Tomasz M., 2023. "Energy security as a source of international competitiveness in new EU member states," International Journal of Management and Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of World Economy, vol. 59(3), pages 209-224, September.
    8. Hege Westskog & Tanja Winther & Hanne Sæle, 2015. "The Effects of In-Home Displays—Revisiting the Context," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-21, May.
    9. Huang, Beijia & Zhang, Long & Ma, Linmao & Bai, Wuliyasu & Ren, Jingzheng, 2021. "Multi-criteria decision analysis of China’s energy security from 2008 to 2017 based on Fuzzy BWM-DEA-AR model and Malmquist Productivity Index," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    10. Siqi Li & Rongrong Li, 2017. "Energy Sustainability Evaluation Model Based on the Matter-Element Extension Method: A Case Study of Shandong Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-9, November.
    11. Honorata Nyga-Łukaszewska & Kentaka Aruga & Katarzyna Stala-Szlugaj, 2020. "Energy Security of Poland and Coal Supply: Price Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-18, March.
    12. Evgeny Lisin & Wadim Strielkowski & Veronika Chernova & Alena Fomina, 2018. "Assessment of the Territorial Energy Security in the Context of Energy Systems Integration," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-14, November.
    13. Gelengul KOCASLAN, 2014. "International Energy Security Indicators and Turkey s Energy Security Risk Score," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 4(4), pages 735-743.
    14. Benedict Belobo Ateba & Johannes Jurgens Prinsloo, 2018. "The Electricity Security in South Africa: Analysing Significant Determinants to the Grid Reliability," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 8(6), pages 70-79.
    15. Aurelia Rybak & Aleksandra Rybak & Jarosław Joostberens, 2023. "The Impact of Removing Coal from Poland’s Energy Mix on Selected Aspects of the Country’s Energy Security," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-13, February.
    16. Aleh Cherp & Jessica Jewell, 2013. "Energy security assessment framework and three case studies," Chapters, in: Hugh Dyer & Maria Julia Trombetta (ed.), International Handbook of Energy Security, chapter 8, pages 146-173, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Jennifer Gabrys, 2014. "A Cosmopolitics of Energy: Diverging Materialities and Hesitating Practices," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(9), pages 2095-2109, September.
    18. Büchs, Milena & Bahaj, AbuBakr S. & Blunden, Luke & Bourikas, Leonidas & Falkingham, Jane & James, Patrick & Kamanda, Mamusu & Wu, Yue, 2018. "Promoting low carbon behaviours through personalised information? Long-term evaluation of a carbon calculator interview," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 284-293.
    19. Burgherr, Peter & Hirschberg, Stefan, 2014. "Comparative risk assessment of severe accidents in the energy sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(S1), pages 45-56.
    20. Zhu, Bo & Deng, Yuanyue & Lin, Renda & Hu, Xin & Chen, Pingshe, 2022. "Energy security: Does systemic risk spillover matter? Evidence from China," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).

    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:66:y:2014:i:c:p:369-378. 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.