IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v48y2019i10s0048733318302506.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The acceptance of instruments in instrument mix situations: Citizens’ perspective on Swiss energy transition

Author

Listed:
  • Ingold, Karin
  • Stadelmann-Steffen, Isabelle
  • Kammermann, Lorenz

Abstract

Citizens are the target group of sustainability policies, and their acceptance and subsequent behavioral change are key in transition processes. But what drives citizens to accept new instruments that will be added to a pre-existing instrument mix? To answer this question, we suggest an innovative combination of sustainability transitions and social acceptance research, and examine the case of Swiss energy turnaround. We rely on data from a representative sample of the Swiss resident population. By estimating logistic multi-response models, we disentangle individual and context-related factors that drive instrument preferences in a instrument mix situation. We conclude that it is mainly individual factors (values in favor of nuclear phasing out and climate mitigation) that positively impact the acceptance of instruments that promote the larger energy transitions through renewables. Additionally, the self-contribution of citizens (energy pro-sumers) seems to shape preferences more than current policies of their own jurisdiction.

Suggested Citation

  • Ingold, Karin & Stadelmann-Steffen, Isabelle & Kammermann, Lorenz, 2019. "The acceptance of instruments in instrument mix situations: Citizens’ perspective on Swiss energy transition," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:48:y:2019:i:10:s0048733318302506
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733318302506
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.018?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. Hadfield, Jarrod D., 2010. "MCMC Methods for Multi-Response Generalized Linear Mixed Models: The MCMCglmm R Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 33(i02).
    2. Philippe Thalmann, 2004. "The Public Acceptance of Green Taxes: 2 Million Voters Express Their Opinion," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 119(1_2), pages 179-217, April.
    3. Charles Warren & Carolyn Lumsden & Simone O'Dowd & Richard Birnie, 2005. "'Green On Green': Public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(6), pages 853-875.
    4. Stefano Carattini & Andrea Baranzini & Philippe Thalmann & Frédéric Varone & Frank Vöhringer, 2017. "Green Taxes in a Post-Paris World: Are Millions of Nays Inevitable?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(1), pages 97-128, September.
    5. Ben R. Martin, 2016. "R&D policy instruments -- a critical review of what we do and don’t know," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(2), pages 157-176, February.
    6. Tien Ming Lee & Ezra M. Markowitz & Peter D. Howe & Chia-Ying Ko & Anthony A. Leiserowitz, 2015. "Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(11), pages 1014-1020, November.
    7. Fritz Sager, 2009. "Governance and Coercion," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 57(3), pages 537-558, October.
    8. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Zoellner, Jan & Schweizer-Ries, Petra & Wemheuer, Christin, 2008. "Public acceptance of renewable energies: Results from case studies in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 4136-4141, November.
    10. Birkland, Thomas A., 1998. "Focusing Events, Mobilization, and Agenda Setting," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 53-74, January.
    11. Sabatier, Paul A., 1986. "Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation Research: a Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 21-48, January.
    12. Kirchgassner, Gebhard & Schneider, Friedrich, 2003. "On the Political Economy of Environmental Policy," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 115(3-4), pages 369-396, June.
    13. Rogge, Karoline S. & Reichardt, Kristin, 2016. "Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1620-1635.
    14. Geels, Frank W., 2002. "Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1257-1274, December.
    15. Kivimaa, Paula & Kern, Florian, 2016. "Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 205-217.
    16. Stephen H. Linder & B. Guy Peters, 1988. "The Analysis Of Design Or The Design Of Analysis?," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 7(4), pages 738-750, June.
    17. Isabelle Stadelmann-Steffen & Clau Dermont, 2018. "The unpopularity of incentive-based instruments: what improves the cost–benefit ratio?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 37-62, April.
    18. Smith, Adrian & Stirling, Andy & Berkhout, Frans, 2005. "The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1491-1510, December.
    19. 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.
    20. Fritz Sager, 2009. "Governance and Coercion," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 57, pages 537-558, October.
    21. Jing Shi & Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Michael Siegrist, 2015. "Public Perception of Climate Change: The Importance of Knowledge and Cultural Worldviews," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(12), pages 2183-2201, December.
    22. Dermont, Clau & Ingold, Karin & Kammermann, Lorenz & Stadelmann-Steffen, Isabelle, 2017. "Bringing the policy making perspective in: A political science approach to social acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 359-368.
    23. Poortinga, Wouter & Steg, Linda & Vlek, Charles & Wiersma, Gerwin, 2003. "Household preferences for energy-saving measures: A conjoint analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 49-64, February.
    24. Ek, Kristina, 2005. "Public and private attitudes towards "green" electricity: the case of Swedish wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(13), pages 1677-1689, September.
    25. Markard, Jochen & Wirth, Steffen & Truffer, Bernhard, 2016. "Institutional dynamics and technology legitimacy – A framework and a case study on biogas technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 330-344.
    26. Markard, Jochen & Raven, Rob & Truffer, Bernhard, 2012. "Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 955-967.
    27. Karlstrøm, Henrik & Ryghaug, Marianne, 2014. "Public attitudes towards renewable energy technologies in Norway. The role of party preferences," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 656-663.
    28. Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2009. "The importance of comprehensiveness in renewable electricity and energy-efficiency policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 1529-1541, April.
    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. Saskia Manshoven & Wim Van Opstal, 2022. "The Carrot or the Stick? Stakeholder Support for Mandatory Regulations towards a Circular Fashion System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-31, November.
    2. Franziska Steinberger & Tobias Minder & Evelina Trutnevyte, 2020. "Efficiency versus Equity in Spatial Siting of Electricity Generation: Citizen Preferences in a Serious Board Game in Switzerland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-17, September.
    3. Francisco Chicombo, Adélia Filosa & Musango, Josephine Kaviti, 2022. "Towards a theoretical framework for gendered energy transition at the urban household level: A case of Mozambique," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    4. Rita Mendonça & Peter Roebeling & Teresa Fidélis & Miguel Saraiva, 2021. "Policy Instruments to Encourage the Adoption of Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Landscapes," Resources, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-16, August.
    5. Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S. & Howlett, Michael, 2019. "Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: New approaches and insights through bridging innovation and policy studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).

    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. Attila Havas & Doris Schartinger & K. Matthias Weber, 2022. "Innovation Studies, Social Innovation, and Sustainability Transitions Research: From mutual ignorance towards an integrative perspective?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 2227, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    2. Rogge, Karoline S. & Pfluger, Benjamin & Geels, Frank W., 2020. "Transformative policy mixes in socio-technical scenarios: The case of the low-carbon transition of the German electricity system (2010–2050)," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    3. Falcone, Pasquale Marcello & Lopolito, Antonio & Sica, Edgardo, 2019. "Instrument mix for energy transition: A method for policy formulation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    4. Haley, Brendan, 2018. "Integrating structural tensions into technological innovation systems analysis: Application to the case of transmission interconnections and renewable electricity in Nova Scotia, Canada," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1147-1160.
    5. Turnheim, Bruno & Nykvist, Björn, 2019. "Opening up the feasibility of sustainability transitions pathways (STPs): Representations, potentials, and conditions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 775-788.
    6. Nina Savela & Jarkko Levänen & Sara Lindeman & Nnenesi Kgabi & Heikki Koivisto & Meri Olenius & Samuel John & Damas Mashauri & Minna M. Keinänen-Toivola, 2020. "Rapid Urbanization and Infrastructure Pressure: Comparing the Sustainability Transition Potential of Water and Energy Regimes in Namibia," World, MDPI, vol. 1(2), pages 1-18, July.
    7. Kuokkanen, A. & Nurmi, A. & Mikkilä, M. & Kuisma, M. & Kahiluoto, H. & Linnanen, L., 2018. "Agency in regime destabilization through the selection environment: The Finnish food system’s sustainability transition," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1513-1522.
    8. Miklós Antal & Ardjan Gazheli & Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, 2012. "Behavioural Foundations of Sustainability Transitions. WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 3," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 46424.
    9. Kontogianni, A. & Tourkolias, Ch. & Skourtos, M. & Damigos, D., 2014. "Planning globally, protesting locally: Patterns in community perceptions towards the installation of wind farms," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 170-177.
    10. Maarten Wolsink, 2020. "Framing in Renewable Energy Policies: A Glossary," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-31, June.
    11. Befort, N., 2020. "Going beyond definitions to understand tensions within the bioeconomy: The contribution of sociotechnical regimes to contested fields," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    12. Lorenz Kammermann & Karin Ingold, 2019. "Going beyond technocratic and democratic principles: stakeholder acceptance of instruments in Swiss energy policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(1), pages 43-65, March.
    13. Edmondson, Duncan L. & Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S., 2019. "The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    14. Weigelt, Carmen & Lu, Shaohua & Verhaal, J. Cameron, 2021. "Blinded by the sun: The role of prosumers as niche actors in incumbent firms’ adoption of solar power during sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    15. Kejia Yang & Johan Schot & Bernhard Truffer, 2020. "Shaping the Directionality of Sustainability Transitions: The Diverging Development Patterns of Solar PV in Two Chinese Provinces," SPRU Working Paper Series 2020-14, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    16. Timo Kaphengst & Eike Karola Velten, 2014. "Energy Transition and Behavioural Change in Rural Areas – The Role of Energy Cooperatives. WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 60," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 47214.
    17. Jonas Heiberg & Christian Binz & Bernhard Truffer, 2020. "Assessing transitions through socio-technical network analysis – a methodological framework and a case study from the water sector," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2035, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Aug 2020.
    18. Raven, Rob & Walrave, Bob, 2020. "Overcoming transformational failures through policy mixes in the dynamics of technological innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    19. Slattery, Michael C. & Johnson, Becky L. & Swofford, Jeffrey A. & Pasqualetti, Martin J., 2012. "The predominance of economic development in the support for large-scale wind farms in the U.S. Great Plains," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 3690-3701.
    20. Heiberg, Jonas & Truffer, Bernhard & Binz, Christian, 2022. "Assessing transitions through socio-technical configuration analysis – a methodological framework and a case study in the water sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).

    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:respol:v:48:y:2019:i:10:s0048733318302506. 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/respol .

    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.