IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v75y2014icp255-265.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Citizen acceptance of new fossil fuel infrastructure: Value theory and Canada׳s Northern Gateway Pipeline

Author

Listed:
  • Axsen, Jonn

Abstract

Development of unconventional fossil fuels is generating controversy in North America, where citizen support or opposition can shape political decisions. This study explores the role of values in citizen perceptions. The case study is Canada׳s proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline (NGP), which would transport bitumen from Alberta׳s oil sands to British Columbia׳s (BC) northern coast for export. Data were collected in 2013 from a sample of Canadian citizens (n=2628). The survey instrument elicited citizen perceptions of the NGP, as well as values and attitudes. Respondents in the Alberta subsample are the most likely to support the NGP and to perceive economic benefits. Respondents in the BC subsample are the most likely to oppose the NGP and to perceive environmental risks. To explore heterogeneity in motivations among both subsamples, respondent clusters are constructed based on values. In both regions, opposition is highest in clusters with strong biospheric–altruistic values, while acceptance is highest in clusters with strong traditional values. Regional effects are also substantial; NGP acceptance is higher in each of Alberta׳s clusters relative to equivalent clusters in BC. Regional context seems to shape how values correspond with perceptions. Insights are drawn for energy project development, public consultation and energy planning.

Suggested Citation

  • Axsen, Jonn, 2014. "Citizen acceptance of new fossil fuel infrastructure: Value theory and Canada׳s Northern Gateway Pipeline," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 255-265.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:75:y:2014:i:c:p:255-265
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.10.023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514005679
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.10.023?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. Jeremy Firestone & Willett Kempton & Meredith Blaydes Lilley & Kateryna Samoteskul, 2012. "Public acceptance of offshore wind power across regions and through time," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(10), pages 1369-1386, April.
    2. 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.
    3. Axsen, Jonn & TyreeHageman, Jennifer & Lentz, Andy, 2012. "Lifestyle practices and pro-environmental technology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 64-74.
    4. West, J. & Bailey, I. & Winter, M., 2010. "Renewable energy policy and public perceptions of renewable energy: A cultural theory approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 5739-5748, October.
    5. Klick, Holly & Smith, Eric R.A.N., 2010. "Public understanding of and support for wind power in the United States," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 1585-1591.
    6. Kim, Younghwan & Kim, Wonjoon & Kim, Minki, 2014. "An international comparative analysis of public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 475-483.
    7. Bidwell, David, 2013. "The role of values in public beliefs and attitudes towards commercial wind energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 189-199.
    8. Shum, Robert Y., 2013. "Social construction and physical nihilation of the Keystone XL pipeline: Lessons from international relations theory," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 82-85.
    9. 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.
    10. Wendy J. Palen & Thomas D. Sisk & Maureen E. Ryan & Joseph L. Árvai & Mark Jaccard & Anne K. Salomon & Thomas Homer-Dixon & Ken P. Lertzman, 2014. "Energy: Consider the global impacts of oil pipelines," Nature, Nature, vol. 510(7506), pages 465-467, June.
    11. Jeremy Firestone & Willett Kempton & Meredith Blaydes Lilley & Kateryna Samoteskul, 2012. "Public acceptance of offshore wind power: does perceived fairness of process matter?," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(10), pages 1387-1402, April.
    12. Druckman, James N., 2004. "Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(4), pages 671-686, November.
    13. Patrick Devine-Wright & Hannah Devine-Wright, 2006. "Social representations of intermittency and the shaping of public support for wind energy in the UK," International Journal of Global Energy Issues, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 25(3/4), pages 243-256.
    14. Upham, Paul, 2009. "Applying environmental-behaviour concepts to renewable energy siting controversy: Reflections on a longitudinal bioenergy case study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(11), pages 4273-4283, November.
    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. Park, Eunil & Kwon, Sang Jib, 2017. "What motivations drive sustainable energy-saving behavior?: An examination in South Korea," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 494-502.
    2. Guanghui Hou & Tong Chen & Ke Ma & Zhiming Liao & Hongmei Xia & Tianzeng Yao, 2019. "Improving Social Acceptance of Waste-to-Energy Incinerators in China: Role of Place Attachment, Trust, and Fairness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-22, March.
    3. Ajzenman, Nicolás & Balza, Lenin & Bejarano, Hernan & De Los Rios, Camilo & Gómez Parra, Nicolás, 2023. "Seemingly irrelevant factors and willingness to block polluting investments," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 13325, Inter-American Development Bank.
    4. Amanda D Boyd & Jiawei Liu & Jay D Hmielowski, 2019. "Public support for energy portfolios in Canada: How information about cost and national energy portfolios affect perceptions of energy systems," Energy & Environment, , vol. 30(2), pages 322-340, March.
    5. Kitt, Shelby & Axsen, Jonn & Long, Zoe & Rhodes, Ekaterina, 2021. "The role of trust in citizen acceptance of climate policy: Comparing perceptions of government competence, integrity and value similarity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(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. 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).
    2. Stadelmann-Steffen, Isabelle, 2019. "Bad news is bad news: Information effects and citizens’ socio-political acceptance of new technologies of electricity transmission," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 531-545.
    3. Bidwell, David, 2023. "Tourists are people too: Nonresidents’ values, beliefs, and acceptance of a nearshore wind farm," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    4. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. Russell, Aaron & Bingaman, Samantha & Garcia, Hannah-Marie, 2021. "Threading a moving needle: The spatial dimensions characterizing US offshore wind policy drivers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    7. 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.
    8. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    9. Yu, H. & Reiner, D. & Chen, H. & Mi, Z., 2018. "A comparison of public preferences for different low-carbon energy technologies: Support for CCS, nuclear and wind energy in the United Kingdom," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1826, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    10. John Colton & Kenneth Corscadden & Stewart Fast & Monica Gattinger & Joel Gehman & Martha Hall Findlay & Dylan Morgan & Judith Sayers & Jennifer Winter & Adonis Yatchew, 2016. "Energy Projects, Social Licence, Public Acceptance and Regulatory Systems in Canada: A White Paper," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 9(20), May.
    11. Masini, Andrea & Menichetti, Emanuela, 2013. "Investment decisions in the renewable energy sector: An analysis of non-financial drivers," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 510-524.
    12. Jenkins, Lekelia Danielle & Dreyer, Stacia Jeanne & Polis, Hilary Jacqueline & Beaver, Ezra & Kowalski, Adam A. & Linder, Hannah L. & McMillin, Thomas Neal & McTiernan, Kaylie Laura & Rogier, Thea The, 2018. "Human dimensions of tidal energy: A review of theories and frameworks," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 323-337.
    13. Ephraim Bonah Agyekum & Ernest Baba Ali & Nallapaneni Manoj Kumar, 2021. "Clean Energies for Ghana—An Empirical Study on the Level of Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy Development and Utilization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-14, March.
    14. Shen, Shiran Victoria & Cain, Bruce E. & Hui, Iris, 2019. "Public receptivity in China towards wind energy generators: A survey experimental approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 619-627.
    15. Cohen, Jed J. & Reichl, Johannes & Schmidthaler, Michael, 2014. "Re-focussing research efforts on the public acceptance of energy infrastructure: A critical review," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 4-9.
    16. 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).
    17. Nuortimo, Kalle & Härkönen, Janne, 2018. "Opinion mining approach to study media-image of energy production. Implications to public acceptance and market deployment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 210-217.
    18. Baharoon, Dhyia Aidroos & Rahman, Hasimah Abdul & Fadhl, Saeed Obaid, 2016. "Publics׳ knowledge, attitudes and behavioral toward the use of solar energy in Yemen power sector," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 498-515.
    19. Mouter, Niek & de Geest, Auke & Doorn, Neelke, 2018. "A values-based approach to energy controversies: Value-sensitive design applied to the Groningen gas controversy in the Netherlands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 639-648.
    20. Zerrahn, Alexander & Krekel, Christian, 2015. "Sowing the Wind and Reaping the Whirlwind? The Effect of Wind Turbines on Residential Well-Being," VfS Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 112956, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.

    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:75:y:2014:i:c:p:255-265. 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.