Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T02:44:17.071Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RESEARCH ARTICLE: Preferences for Government Investment in Energy Programs: Support for New Energy Production vs. Energy Conservation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2011

Heather Barnes Truelove  and
Michael Greenberg
Heather Barnes Truelove*
Affiliation:
Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation and Vanderbilt Institute for Energy and Environment, Nashville, Tennessee
Michael Greenberg
Affiliation:
Edward J. Bloustein School and Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey
*
Heather Barnes Truelove, Vanderbilt Institute for Energy and Environment, PMB 407702, 2301 Vanderbilt Place, Nashville, TN 37240-7702; (phone) 615-322-9690; (fax) 615-322-7012; (e-mail) h.truelove@vanderbilt.edu
Get access

Abstract

With energy legislation pending in Congress, research is urgently needed on the public's preferences for environmental policies. This study investigated preferences for government investment in new energy production relative to energy conservation and the variables that influence these preferences among members of the general public and those who live near nuclear and/or coal energy facilities (site-specific sample). A survey using random digit dialing assessed preferences for new energy production relative to energy conservation, beliefs about coal and nuclear energy, cultural worldview, trust in nuclear and coal agencies, environmental activism, and demographics among a general public sample (n = 800) and a site-specific sample (n = 2,400). Results showed that fewer than half of the participants desired more than half of the funding to be invested in new energy production relative to energy conservation. The general public sample's preferences were driven primarily by beliefs about coal, hierarchical values, environmental concern, and gender. The model of the site-specific sample's preferences was more complex and showed that preferences were driven primarily by coal and nuclear beliefs, hierarchical values, environmental concern, age, and race. Overall, the results underline the importance of investigating the underpinnings of beliefs of different groups and being cognizant of the unique factors that influence energy preferences among these groups.

Environmental Practice 13:1–14 (2011)

Type
Features
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , September 2011 , pp. 184 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © National Association of Environmental Professionals 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR). 2008. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. AAPOR, Lenexa, KS, 50 pp. Available at http://aapor.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Standard_Definitions&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=1273 (accessed July 27, 2011).Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, S. 2007. Public Attitudes toward America's Energy Options: Insights for Nuclear Energy. MIT-NES-TR-008. MIT Nuclear Energy and Sustainability Program (MIT-NES), Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems (CANES). Cambridge, MA, 37 pp. Available at http://web.mit.edu/canes/pdfs/nes-008.pdf (accessed July 27, 2011).Google Scholar
Bolsen, T., and Cook, F.L.. 2008. The Polls: Trends–Public Opinion on Energy Policy, 1974–2006. Public Opinion Quarterly 72 (2):364–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantor, J.C., Brownlee, S., Zukin, C., and Boyle, J.M.. 2009. Implications of the Growing Use of Wireless Telephones for Health Care Opinion Polls. Health Services Research 44(5Pt 1):1762–1772.Google Scholar
Cohen, G.L. 2003. Party Over Policy: The Dominating Impact of Group Influence on Political Beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85(5):808–822.Google Scholar
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G., and Aiken, L.S.. 2003. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd edition. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 736 pp.Google Scholar
Committee on the Fiscal Future of the United States, National Research Council, National Academy of Public Administration. 2010. Choosing the Nation's Fiscal Future. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 338 pp. Available at http://www.pgpf.org/~/media/PGPF/Media/PDF/2010/08/11/12808.ashx?pid={3B9F4BB5-9209-45D8-963A-693B936C1140} (accessed July 27, 2011).Google Scholar
Costa-Font, J., Rudisill, C., and Mossialos, E.. 2008. Attitudes as an Expression of Knowledge and “Political Anchoring”: The Case of Nuclear Power in the United Kingdom. Risk Analysis 28(5):1273–1287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dietz, T., Dan, A., and Shwom, R.. 2007. Support for Climate Change Policy: Social Psychological and Social Structural Influences. Rural Sociology 72(2):473–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietz, T., Fitzgerald, A., and Shwom, R.. 2005. Environmental Values. Annual Review of Environmental Resources 30(12):335–372.Google Scholar
Douglas, M. 1970. Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology. London: Barrie & Rockliff, 194 pp.Google Scholar
Gatersleben, B., Steg, L., and Vlek, C.. 2002. Measurement and Determinants of Environmentally Significant Consumer Behavior. Environment & Behavior 34(3):335–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, M. 2009a. Energy Sources, Public Policy, and Public Preferences: Analysis of US National and Site-Specific Data. Energy Policy 37(8):3242–3249.Google Scholar
Greenberg, M. 2009b. NIMBY, CLAMP, and the Location of New Nuclear-Related Facilities: U.S. National and 11 Site-Specific Surveys. Risk Analysis 29(9):1242–1254.Google Scholar
Greenberg, M., Lowrie, K., Burger, J., Powers, C., Gochfeld, M., and Mayer, H.. 2007. The Ultimate LULU? Public Reaction to New Nuclear Activities at Major Weapons Sites. Journal of the American Planning Association 73(3):346–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, J.L., and Rayner, S.. 1985. Measuring Culture: A Paradigm for the Analysis of Social Organization. New York: Columbia University Press, 146 pp.Google Scholar
Inglehart, R. 1995. Public Support for Environmental Protection: Objective Problems and Subjective Values in 43 Societies. Political Science & Politics 28(1):57–72.Google Scholar
Kahan, D.M., Braman, D., Gastil, J., Slovic, P., and Mertz, C.K.. 2007. Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White-Male Effect in Risk Perception. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 4(3):465–505.Google Scholar
Li, H., Jenkins-Smith, H.C., Silva, C.L., Berrens, R.P., and Herron, K.G.. 2009. Public Support for Reducing US Reliance on Fossil Fuels: Investigating Household Willingness-to-Pay for Energy Research and Development. Ecological Economics 68(3):731–742.Google Scholar
Nolan, J.M., Schultz, P., Cialdini, R.B., Goldstein, N.J., and Griskevicius, V.. 2008. Normative Social Influence is Underdetected. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34(7):913–923.Google Scholar
Peters, E., and Slovic, P.. 1996. The Role of Affect and Worldviews as Orienting Dispositions in the Perception and Acceptance of Nuclear Power. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 26(16):1427–1453.Google Scholar
Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N., and Lorenzoni, I.. 2006. Public Perceptions of Nuclear Power, Climate Change and Energy Options in Britain: Summary Findings of a Survey Conducted during October and November 2005. Understanding Risk Working Paper 06-02. Centre for Environmental Risk, Norwich, UK, 67 pp. Available at http://www.esds.ac.uk/doc/5357/mrdoc/pdf/5357userguide.pdf (accessed July 27, 2011).Google Scholar
Rayner, S. 1992. Cultural Theory and Risk Analysis. In Social Theories of Risk, Kirmsky, S. and Goldin, D., eds. Praeger, Westport, CT, 83–115.Google Scholar
Rosa, E. 2001. Public Acceptance of Nuclear Power: Déjà Vu All over Again? Physics and Society 30(2):1–5.Google Scholar
Semenza, J.C., Hall, D.E., Wilson, D.J., Bontempo, B.D., Sailor, D.J., and George, L.A.. 2008. Public Perception of Climate Change: Voluntary Mitigation and Barriers to Behavior Change. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35(5):479–487.Google Scholar
Tuler, S. 2009. Lessons from the Past: Addressing Facility Siting Controversies. Invited presentation to the Workshop on Addressing the Challenges of Climate Change through the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Committee on Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change, National Research Council, December 3–4.Google Scholar
Van der Pligt, J., Eiser, J.R., and Spears, R.. 1986. Attitudes toward Nuclear Energy: Familiarity and Salience. Environment & Behavior 18(1):75–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viklund, M. 2004. Energy Policy Options—From the Perspective of Public Attitudes and Risk Perceptions. Energy Policy 32(10):1159–1171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitfield, S.C., Rosa, E.A., Dan, A., and Dietz, T.. 2009. The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception. Risk Analysis 29(3):425–437.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitmarsh, L. 2009. Behavioural Responses to Climate Change: Asymmetry of Intentions and Impacts. Journal of Environmental Psychology 29(1):13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zarnikau, J. 2003. Consumer Demand for ‘Green Power’ and Energy Efficiency. Energy Policy 31(15):1661–1672.Google Scholar
Zukin, C. 2006. The Future Is Here! Where Are We Now? And How Do We Get There? Public Opinion Quarterly 70(3):426–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar