IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/natene/v2y2017i4d10.1038_nenergy.2017.27.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of exemplar scenarios on public preferences for energy futures using the my2050 scenario-building tool

Author

Listed:
  • Christina Demski

    (Understanding Risk Research Group, School of Psychology, Cardiff University)

  • Alexa Spence

    (Horizon Digital Economy Research/School of Psychology, University of Nottingham)

  • Nick Pidgeon

    (Understanding Risk Research Group, School of Psychology, Cardiff University)

Abstract

Understanding which energy future configurations provide publicly acceptable levels of energy security, affordability, and environmental protection is critical for institutional decision-making. However, little is known about how scenarios influence energy preferences. Here we present nationally representative UK data on public preferences for energy futures using the my2050 scenario-building tool that encourages engagement with the holistic complexities of system change. Engagement with the tool strengthened existing preferences for renewable energy and intentions to take personal action. Importantly, patterns of energy preferences were influenced by exemplar scenarios, which served as reference points that anchored choices. Carbon capture and storage, nuclear power, biofuels, and changes to heating and travel were particularly impacted by scenarios indicating uncertainty and ambivalence regarding these options. Scenarios (and scenario-building tools) are valuable for engaging citizens about future energy systems. However, care is required in their design and interpretation to reach robust conclusions about underlying preferences and acceptance.

Suggested Citation

  • Christina Demski & Alexa Spence & Nick Pidgeon, 2017. "Effects of exemplar scenarios on public preferences for energy futures using the my2050 scenario-building tool," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 2(4), pages 1-7, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:natene:v:2:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1038_nenergy.2017.27
    DOI: 10.1038/nenergy.2017.27
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy201727
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/nenergy.2017.27?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.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Roberts, Simon H. & Foran, Barney D. & Axon, Colin J. & Warr, Benjamin S. & Goddard, Nigel H., 2018. "Consequences of selecting technology pathways on cumulative carbon dioxide emissions for the United Kingdom," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 409-425.
    2. Alexane Dubois & Simona Holzer & Georgios Xexakis & Julia Cousse & Evelina Trutnevyte, 2019. "Informed Citizen Panels on the Swiss Electricity Mix 2035: Longer-Term Evolution of Citizen Preferences and Affect in Two Cities," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-21, November.
    3. 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.
    4. Yu, Wusheng & Clora, Francesco & Costa, Louis & Baudry, Gino, 2021. "Dietary Transitions As Climate Mitigation Measures in Europe: Implications of Supply-Side Responses and Trade Policy Regimes," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315912, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Clora, Francesco & Yu, Wusheng, 2022. "GHG emissions, trade balance, and carbon leakage: Insights from modeling thirty-one European decarbonization pathways towards 2050," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    6. Evensen, Darrick & Demski, Christina & Becker, Sarah & Pidgeon, Nick, 2018. "The relationship between justice and acceptance of energy transition costs in the UK," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 451-459.
    7. Zhou, Yuekuan & Lund, Peter D., 2023. "Peer-to-peer energy sharing and trading of renewable energy in smart communities ─ trading pricing models, decision-making and agent-based collaboration," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 207(C), pages 177-193.
    8. Abdulla, A. & Vaishnav, P. & Sergi, B. & Victor, D.G., 2019. "Limits to deployment of nuclear power for decarbonization: Insights from public opinion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 1339-1346.
    9. Panagiotis Fragkos, 2021. "Assessing the Role of Carbon Capture and Storage in Mitigation Pathways of Developing Economies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-20, March.
    10. Lukas Braunreiter & Michael Stauffacher & Yann Benedict Blumer, 2020. "How the public imagines the energy future: Exploring and clustering non-experts’ techno-economic expectations towards the future energy system," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-20, March.
    11. Thomas Webler & Seth Tuler, 2021. "Four Decades of Public Participation in Risk Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 503-518, March.
    12. Zhao, Ning & You, Fengqi, 2020. "Can renewable generation, energy storage and energy efficient technologies enable carbon neutral energy transition?," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    13. 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.
    14. McGookin, Connor & Ó Gallachóir, Brian & Byrne, Edmond, 2021. "Participatory methods in energy system modelling and planning – A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    15. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    16. 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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:nat:natene:v:2:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1038_nenergy.2017.27. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.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.