IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i11p4591-d367261.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Values Influence Public Acceptability of Geoengineering Technologies Via Self-Identities

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew B. Moynihan

    (Irish Centre for Research in Applied Geosciences, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Co. Dublin, Ireland)

  • Geertje Schuitema

    (Irish Centre for Research in Applied Geosciences, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Co. Dublin, Ireland)

Abstract

Values are important antecedents of how people view themselves, known as self-identities. Self-identities differ in their content and the importance that people attach to them. In turn, important self-identities promote attitudes that are compatible with a sense of who one is. This paper builds on existing work that highlights that self-identities explained the relationship between values and environmental judgments. This study incorporates a broader range of values (i.e., conservatism, openness to change, self-transcendence, self-enhancement) and self-identities (i.e., environmental, economic, political) and tests how they are related to acceptability of four geoengineering technologies. Whilst support was found for the overall model, the results also show that technology acceptability is context dependent. That is, which specific values and self-identities explain acceptability judgements depends on the specific technology that is evaluated. In general, an environmental self-identity related more to geothermal energy, an economic self-identity was most relevant to geotechnical engineering, and a political self-identity to nuclear power. Each self-identity seemed relevant to mining. This research contributes to the literature by applying this framework to acceptability of geoengineering technologies and discusses practical implications.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew B. Moynihan & Geertje Schuitema, 2020. "Values Influence Public Acceptability of Geoengineering Technologies Via Self-Identities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-33, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:11:p:4591-:d:367261
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/11/4591/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/11/4591/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cornelissen, Gert & Pandelaere, Mario & Warlop, Luk & Dewitte, Siegfried, 2008. "Positive cueing: Promoting sustainable consumer behavior by cueing common environmental behaviors as environmental," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 46-55.
    2. Michael Siegrist & Bernadette Sütterlin, 2014. "Human and Nature‐Caused Hazards: The Affect Heuristic Causes Biased Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(8), pages 1482-1494, August.
    3. Cook, A. J. & Kerr, G. N. & Moore, K., 2002. "Attitudes and intentions towards purchasing GM food," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 557-572, October.
    4. Whitmarsh, Lorraine & Nash, Nick & Upham, Paul & Lloyd, Alyson & Verdon, James P. & Kendall, J.-Michael, 2015. "UK public perceptions of shale gas hydraulic fracturing: The role of audience, message and contextual factors on risk perceptions and policy support," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 419-430.
    5. Adrian Brügger & Suraje Dessai & Patrick Devine-Wright & Thomas A. Morton & Nicholas F. Pidgeon, 2015. "Psychological responses to the proximity of climate change," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(12), pages 1031-1037, December.
    6. 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.
    7. Stephen C. Whitfield & Eugene A. Rosa & Amy Dan & Thomas Dietz, 2009. "The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3), pages 425-437, March.
    8. Nestle, Uwe, 2012. "Does the use of nuclear power lead to lower electricity prices? An analysis of the debate in Germany with an international perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 152-160.
    9. Birgitta Gatersleben & Niamh Murtagh & Wokje Abrahamse, 2014. "Values, identity and pro-environmental behaviour," Contemporary Social Science, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(4), pages 374-392, December.
    10. 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.
    11. Kotey, Bernice & Rolfe, John, 2014. "Demographic and economic impact of mining on remote communities in Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 65-72.
    12. Schuitema, Geertje & Steg, Linda & Forward, Sonja, 2010. "Explaining differences in acceptability before and acceptance after the implementation of a congestion charge in Stockholm," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 99-109, February.
    13. Judith I. M. de Groot & Linda Steg & Wouter Poortinga, 2013. "Values, Perceived Risks and Benefits, and Acceptability of Nuclear Energy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 307-317, February.
    14. Susan Clayton & Patrick Devine-Wright & Paul C. Stern & Lorraine Whitmarsh & Amanda Carrico & Linda Steg & Janet Swim & Mirilia Bonnes, 2015. "Psychological research and global climate change," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(7), pages 640-646, July.
    15. Perlaviciute, G. & Steg, L., 2015. "The influence of values on evaluations of energy alternatives," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 259-267.
    16. Dowd, Anne-Maree & Boughen, Naomi & Ashworth, Peta & Carr-Cornish, Simone, 2011. "Geothermal technology in Australia: Investigating social acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 6301-6307, October.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Mason, Claire M. & Paxton, Gillian & Parsons, Richard & Parr, Joanna M. & Moffat, Kieren, 2014. "“For the benefit of Australians”: Exploring national expectations of the mining industry," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 1-8.
    20. Schuitema, Geertje & Anable, Jillian & Skippon, Stephen & Kinnear, Neale, 2013. "The role of instrumental, hedonic and symbolic attributes in the intention to adopt electric vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 39-49.
    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. Ulf J. J. Hahnel & Christian Mumenthaler & Tobia Spampatti & Tobias Brosch, 2020. "Ideology as Filter: Motivated Information Processing and Decision-Making in the Energy Domain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-19, October.

    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. Scovell, Mitchell & McCrea, Rod & Walton, Andrea & Poruschi, Lavinia, 2024. "Local acceptance of solar farms: The impact of energy narratives," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 189(PB).
    2. 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.
    3. Van Dael, Miet & Lizin, Sebastien & Swinnen, Gilbert & Van Passel, Steven, 2017. "Young people’s acceptance of bioenergy and the influence of attitude strength on information provision," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 417-430.
    4. Goda Perlaviciute & Linda Steg & Nadja Contzen & Sabine Roeser & Nicole Huijts, 2018. "Emotional Responses to Energy Projects: Insights for Responsible Decision Making in a Sustainable Energy Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-12, July.
    5. 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).
    6. Knoblauch, Theresa A.K. & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Stauffacher, Michael, 2019. "Siting deep geothermal energy: Acceptance of various risk and benefit scenarios in a Swiss-German cross-national study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 807-816.
    7. Spampatti, Tobia & Hahnel, Ulf J.J. & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Brosch, Tobias, 2022. "Short and long-term dominance of negative information in shaping public energy perceptions: The case of shallow geothermal systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    8. Cousse, Julia & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Hahnel, Ulf J.J., 2021. "Tell me how you feel about geothermal energy: Affect as a revealing factor of the role of seismic risk on public acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    9. Baek, Haein & Chung, Ji-Bum & Yun, Gi Woong, 2021. "Differences in public perceptions of geothermal energy based on EGS technology in Korea after the Pohang earthquake: National vs. local," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    10. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2022. "Beyond the triangle of renewable energy acceptance: The five dimensions of domestic hydrogen acceptance," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    11. von Wirth, Timo & Gislason, Linda & Seidl, Roman, 2018. "Distributed energy systems on a neighborhood scale: Reviewing drivers of and barriers to social acceptance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 2618-2628.
    12. van der Schoor, Tineke & Scholtens, Bert, 2015. "Power to the people: Local community initiatives and the transition to sustainable energy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 666-675.
    13. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    14. Phillips, Keri L. & Hine, Donald W. & Phillips, Wendy J., 2019. "How projected electricity price and personal values influence support for a 50% renewable energy target in Australia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 853-860.
    15. Emma Ejelöv & Andreas Nilsson, 2020. "Individual Factors Influencing Acceptability for Environmental Policies: A Review and Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-14, March.
    16. Ceglarz, Andrzej & Beneking, Andreas & Ellenbeck, Saskia & Battaglini, Antonella, 2017. "Understanding the role of trust in power line development projects: Evidence from two case studies in Norway," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 570-580.
    17. Sütterlin, Bernadette & Siegrist, Michael, 2017. "Public acceptance of renewable energy technologies from an abstract versus concrete perspective and the positive imagery of solar power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 356-366.
    18. Walton, Andrea & McCrea, Rod, 2020. "Understanding social licence to operate for onshore gas development: How the underlying drivers fit together," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    19. McComas, Katherine A. & Lu, Hang & Keranen, Katie M. & Furtney, Maria A. & Song, Hwansuck, 2016. "Public perceptions and acceptance of induced earthquakes related to energy development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 27-32.
    20. James A. Pollard & David C. Rose, 2019. "Lightning Rods, Earthquakes, and Regional Identities: Towards a Multi‐Scale Framework of Assessing Fracking Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 473-487, February.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:11:p:4591-:d:367261. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.