How to change attitudes and behaviours in the context of energy

Energy Policy

Volumn 36, Issue 12, 2008, Pages 4412-4418

  Owens, Susan ^a   Driffill, Louise ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Behaviour; Energy; Public engagement

Indexed keywords

ENERGY CONSERVATION; ENERGY POLICY;

BEHAVIOUR; ENERGY; ENERGY CONSUMPTIONS; FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS; FUTURE RESEARCHES; PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT; SUSTAINABLE ENERGIES; SYSTEMIC APPROACHES; TECHNICAL EXPERTS; TECHNICAL SYSTEMS;

PUBLIC POLICY;

ENERGY PLANNING; ENERGY POLICY; ENERGY USE; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; STAKEHOLDER; SUSTAINABILITY;

EID: 55249088481     PISSN: 03014215     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.031     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Adams J. Risk (1995), UCL, London
2. Bickerstaff K., Lorenzoni I., Pidgeon N.F., Poortinga W., and Simmons P. Re-framing nuclear power in the UK energy debate: nuclear power, climate change mitigation and radioactive waste. Public Understanding of Science 17 (2008) 145-168
3. Blake J. Overcoming the 'value-action gap' in environmental policy: tensions between national policy and local experience. Local Environment 4 3 (1999) 257-278
4. Bulkeley, H., 1999. Valuing the global environment: publics, politics and participation. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cambridge, Department of Geography.
5. Burgess J., Harrison C., and Filius P. Environmental communication and the cultural politics of environmental citizenship. Environment and Planning A 30 1 (1998) 1445-1460
6. Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research (4CMR) with Cambridge Econometrics Ltd, Policy Studies Institute and Herring, H., 2006. The Macro-Economic Rebound Effect and the UK Economy, Final Report to Defra: 〈http://www.defra.gov.uk/science/project_data/DocumentLibrary/EE01015/EE01015_3554_FRP.pdf〉.
7. Darier E., and Schüle R. Think globally, act locally? Climate change and public participation in Manchester and Frankfurt. Local Environment 4 3 (1999) 317-330
8. Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, 2007. Renewable Energy Awareness and Attitudes Research. Management Summary, URN 07/706, provided by GfK NOP Social Research: 〈http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file41239.pdf〉 (accessed 10 June 2008).
9. Devine-Wright P. Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 7 (2005) 125-139
10. Devine-Wright P. Local aspects of UK renewable energy development: exploring public beliefs and policy implications. Local Environment 10 1 (2005) 57-69
11. Devine-Wright P. Energy citizenship: psychological aspects of evolution in sustainable energy technologies. In: Murphy J. (Ed). Governance of Sustainable Technologies (2006), Earthscan, London
12. Devine-Wright H., and Devine-Wright P. From demand side management to demand side participation: towards an environmental psychology of sustainable electricity system evolution. Journal of Applied Psychology 6 3-4 (2004) 167-177
13. Devine-Wright H., and Devine-Wright P. Prospects for smart metering in the UK. In: Jamasb T., Pollitt M., and Nuttall W. (Eds). Future Electricity Technologies and Systems (2006), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
14. Durning D. The transition from traditional to post-positivist policy analysis: a role for Q-methodology. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 18 3 (1999) 389-410
15. Eden S. Individual environmental responsibility and its role in public environmentalism. Environment and Planning A 25 12 (1993) 1743-1758
16. Eden S. Public participation in environmental policy: considering scientific, counter-scientific and non-scientific contributions. Public Understanding of Science 5 (1996) 183-203
17. Ellis, G., Barry, J., Robinson, C., 2006. Renewable energy and discourses of objection: towards deliberative policy making. Summary of main research findings. Queen's University Belfast (ESRC Grant reference: 000-22-1095): 〈http://www.qub.ac.uk/researchcentres/REDOWelcome/filestore/Filetoupload,31634,en.pdf〉 (accessed 17 May 2008).
18. Fisher R. Basic Negotiating Strategy: International Conflict for Beginners (1971), Penguin, London
19. Flynn, R., Bellaby, P., Ricci, M., 2006. Risk perception of an emergent technology: the case of hydrogen energy. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7, 1, Article 19: 〈http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/1-06/06-1-19-e.htm〉 (accessed 17 May 2008).
20. Foster J. Environment and creative value. In: Foster J. (Ed). Valuing Nature? Economics, Ethics and Environment (1997), Routledge, London
21. Freudenburg W., and Pastor S. NIMBYs and LULUs: stalking the syndromes. Journal of Social Issues 48 4 (1992) 39-61
22. Gardner G., and Stern P.C. Environmental Problems and Human Behavior (1996), Pearson Custom Publishing, Boston, MA
23. Gregory R. The Price of Amenity: Five Studies in Conservation and Government (1971), Macmillan, London
24. Haggett, C., 2004. Tilting at windmills? The attitude-behaviour gap in renewable energy conflicts. Final Report of ESRC Environment and Behaviour Programme Project (accessed 10 June 2008): 〈http://www.psi.org.uk/ehb/docs/finalreport-Haggett.pdf〉.
25. Haggett C., and Toke D. Crossing the great divide: using multi-method analysis to understand opposition to windfarms. Public Administration 84 1 (2006) 103-120
26. Hinchliffe S. Helping the earth begins at home: the social construction of socio-environmental responsibilities. Global Environmental Change 6 1 (1996) 53-62
27. Jackson T. Motivating sustainable consumption: a review of evidence on consumer behaviour and behavioural change. Report to the Sustainable Development Research Network (2005), University of Surrey, Centre for Environmental Strategy, Guildford, Surrey, UK
28. Jaeger C., Dürrenberger G., Kastenholz H., and Truffer B. Determinants of environmental action with regard to climate change. Climatic Change 23 3 (1993) 193-211
29. Jasanoff S. Risk in hindsight: constructing a politics of reflection. In: Richter I., Berking S., and Müller-Schmid R. (Eds). Risk, Society and the Culture of Precaution (2006), Macmillan, London 28-46
30. Kemp R. Why not in my backyard? A radical interpretation of public opposition to the deep disposal of radioactive waste in the United Kingdom. Environment and Planning A 22 9 (1990) 1239-1258
31. Levin G. Too green for their own good. Advertising Age 64 (1993) 97
32. Lovell, H., 2005. The governance of emerging socio-technical systems: the case of low energy housing in the UK. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cambridge, Department of Geography.
33. Marvin S., Chappells S., and Guy S. Pathways of smart metering development: shaping environmental innovation. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 23 (1999) 109-126
34. McGowan, F., Sauter, R., 2005. Public opinion on energy research: a desk study for the research councils. Sussex Energy Group, SPRU, University of Sussex: 〈http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/CMSWeb/Downloads/Other/EnergyAttitudesDeskStudySussex.pdf〉 (accessed 10 June 2008)
35. McKenzie-Mohr D. Promoting sustainable behavior: an introduction to community-based social marketing. Journal of Social Issues 56 3 (2000) 543-554
36. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Planning Policy Statement: Renewable Energy (2004), TSO, London
37. Owens S. Potential energy planning conflicts in the UK. Energy Policy 13 6 (1985) 546-558
38. Owens S. Energy, participation and planning: the case of electricity generation in the United Kingdom. In: Calzonetti F., and Soloman B. (Eds). Geographical Dimensions of Energy (1985), Reidel, Dordrecht 225-253
39. Owens S. Predict and provide or predict and prevent?: Pricing and planning in transport policy. Transport Policy 2 1 (1995) 43-49
40. Owens S. I wouldn't start from here: land use, transport and sustainability. In: Cartledge B. (Ed). Transport and the Environment: The Linacre Lectures 1994-95 (1996), Oxford University Press, Oxford
41. Owens S. Engaging the public: information and deliberation in environmental policy. Environment and Planning A 32 (2000) 1141-1148
42. Owens S. A collision of adverse opinions?: major projects, planning inquiries and policy change. Environment and Planning A 34 (2002) 949-957
43. Owens S. Siting, sustainable development and social priorities. Journal of Risk Research 7 2 (2004) 101-114
44. Owens S., and Cowell R.J. Land and Limits: Interpreting Sustainability in the Planning Process (2002), Routledge, London
45. Pelletier D., Kraak V., McCullum C., Uusitalo U., and Rich R. The shaping of collective values through deliberative democracy: an empirical study from New York's North Country. Policy Sciences 32 (1999) 103-131
46. Pellizzoni L. The myth of the best argument: power, deliberation and reason. The British Journal of Sociology 52 1 (2001) 59-86
47. Petts J., Owens S., and Bulkeley H. Crossing boundaries: interdisciplinarity in the context of urban environments. Geoforum 39 2 (2008) 593-601
48. Poortinga W., Pigeon N., and Lorenzoni I. 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 (2006), School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich
49. Rein M., and Schön D. Frame-reflective policy discourse. In: Wagner P., Weiss C., Wittrock B., and Wolman H. (Eds). Social Sciences and Modern States (1991), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 262-289
50. Sanders L.M. Against deliberation. Political Theory 25 3 (1997) 347-376
51. Schön D.A., and Rein M. Frame Reflection: Towards the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies (1994), Basic Books, New York, USA
52. Shackley S., McLachlan C., and Gough C. The public perception of carbon capture and storage in the UK. Climate Policy 4 4 (2005) 377-398
53. Shove E. Converging conventions of comfort, cleanliness and convenience. Journal of Consumer Policy 26 4 (2003) 395-418
54. Shove E., and Warde A. Inconspicuous consumption: the sociology of consumption, lifestyles and environment. In: Dunlap R. (Ed). Sociological Theory and the Environment (1998), Rownan and Littlefield, Colorado, USA 230-251
55. Sinclair P., and Löfstedt R. The influence of trust in a biomass plant application: the case study of Sutton, UK. Biomass and Bioenergy 21 (2001) 177-184
56. Slovic P. Perceived risk: trust and democracy. Risk Analysis 13 6 (1993) 675-682
57. Sorrell, S., 2007. The rebound effect: an assessment of the evidence for economy-wide energy savings from improved energy efficiency. UK Energy Research Centre, London 〈http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/Downloads/PDF/07/0710ReboundEffect/0710ReboundEffectReport.pdf〉 (accessed 10 June 2008).
58. Stirling A. Opening up or closing down?: analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology. In: Leach M., Scoones I., and Wynne B. (Eds). Science and Citizens: Globalisation and the Challenge of Engagement (2004), Zed, London
59. Thompson P.B., and Dean W.E. Competing conceptions of risk. Risk 7 4 (1996) 361-384
60. Thompson M., and Rayner S. Risk and governance, Part I: The discourse of climate change. Government and Opposition 33 2 (1998) 139-166
61. Thompson M., Rayner S., and Ney S. Risk and governance, Part II: policy in a complex and plurally perceived world. Government and Opposition 33 4 (1998) 330-354
62. Upham P., and Shackley S. Stakeholder opinion of a proposed 21.5 Mwe biomass gasifier in Winkleigh, Devon: implications for bioenergy planning and policy. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 8 1 (2006) 45-66
63. Van Vliet B. Shifting scales of infrastructure provision. In: Southerton D., Chappells H., and van Vliet B. (Eds). Sustainable Consumption: The Implications of Changing Infrastructures of Provision (2004), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
64. Webler T., Tuler S., and Krueger R. What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environmental Management 27 (2001) 435-450
65. Wilhite, H., 1997. Cultural aspects of consumption. ESF-TERM Workshop on Consumption, Everyday Life and Sustainability, Lancaster University, Lancaster, unpublished manuscript (discussed in Guy, S., 2006. Designing knowledge: competing perspectives on energy and buildings. Environment and Planning C, Government and Policy 24(5), 645-659).
66. Wolsink M. Invalid theory impedes our understanding: a critique on the persistence of the language of NIMBY. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers NS 31 (2006) 85-91