Understanding social acceptance of electricity generation sources

Energy Policy

Volumn 46, Issue , 2012, Pages 246-252

  Bronfman, Nicolás C ^a   Jiménez, Raquel B ^a   Arévalo, Pilar C ^a   Cifuentes, Luis A ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD ANDRÉS BELLO   (Chile)

^b PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DE CHILE   (Chile)

Author keywords

Energy sources; Public trust and acceptability; Risk and benefit perception

Indexed keywords

DETERMINANT FACTORS; ELECTRICITY GENERATION; ENERGY SOURCE; GROWING DEMAND; PERCEIVED BENEFITS; PERCEIVED RISK; PREDICTIVE FACTORS; PUBLIC TRUST; REGULATORY AGENCIES; RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE; SOCIAL ACCEPTABILITY; SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE; TOTAL EFFECT; UNIVERSITY STUDENTS; WEB-BASED SURVEYS;

ELECTRIC GENERATORS; FOSSIL FUELS; GEOTHERMAL ENERGY; RISK PERCEPTION; SOLAR ENERGY;

TIDAL POWER;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DEMAND ANALYSIS; ELECTRICITY GENERATION; ENERGY RESOURCE; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; MODEL TEST; MODEL VALIDATION; PERCEPTION; REGULATORY APPROACH; REGULATORY FRAMEWORK; RISK ASSESSMENT;

CHILE;

EID: 84861224356     PISSN: 03014215     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.057     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Alarcón, I., Agurto, R., Bernstein, S., Blanlot, V., Borregaard, N., del Campo, S., Fischer, R., Guzmán, J.A., Jadresic, A., Palma, R., Quiroz, J., Rudnick, H., Tokman, M.,Vicuña, S., Zanelli, J., 2011. Informe de la Comisión Asesora para el Desarrollo Eléctrico. Santiago, Comisión Asesora para el Desarrollo Eléctrico, Ministerio de Energía. Available from: http://www.minenergia.cl/comision-asesora-para-el-desarrollo.html.
2. Bratspies R.M. Regulatory trust. Arizona Law Review 2009, 51:575-631.
3. Bronfman N.C., Cifuentes L.A. Risk perception in a developing country: the case of Chile. Risk Analysis 2003, 23:1271-1285.
4. Bronfman N.C., Lopez-Vazquez E. A cross-cultural study of perceived benefit versus risk as mediators in the trust-acceptance relationship. Risk Analysis 2011, 31:1919-1934.
5. Bronfman N.C., López-Vázquez E. An empirical study for the direct and indirect links between trust in regulatory institutions and acceptability of hazards. Safety Science 2009, 47:686-692.
6. Bronfman N.C., López Vázquez E., Gutiérrez V.V., Cifuentes L.A. Trust, acceptance and knowledge of technological and environmental hazards in Chile. Journal of Risk Research 2008, 11:755-773.
7. Eiser J.R., Miles S., Frewer L.J. Trust, perceived risk and attitudes towards food technologies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2002, 32:2423-2433.
8. Freudenburg W.R. Risk and recreancy: Weber, the division of labor, and the rationality of risk perceptions. Social Forces 1993, 11:909-932.
9. Frewer L.J., Howard C., Shepherd R. Understanding public attitudes to technology. Journal of Risk Research 1998, 1:221-235.
10. Frewer L.J., Scholderer J., Bredahl L. Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods: the mediating role of trust. Risk Analysis 2003, 23:1117-1133.
11. Gardner G.T., Tiermann A.R., Gould L.C., Deluca D.R., Doob L.W., Stolwijk J.A. Risk and benefit perceptions, acceptability judgements, and self-reported actions toward nuclear power. Social Psychology 1982, 116:179-197.
12. Huijts N., Midden C.J.H., Meijnders A.L. Social acceptance of carbon dioxide storage. Energy Policy 2007, 35:2780-2789.
13. Metlay D. Institutional trust and confidence: a journey into a conceptual Quagmire. Social Trust and the Management of Risk 1999, 100-116. Earthscan Publications Ltd., London. G. Cvetkovich, R.E. Löfstedt (Eds.).
14. 2 storage. Risk Analysis 2009, 29:743-751.
15. Ministerio de Energía. 2012. Estrategia Nacional de Energía 2012-2030. Santiago,. Gobierno de Chile. Available from: http://www.minenergia.cl/estrategia-nacional-de-energia-2012.html.
16. Pijawka K.D., Mushkatel A.H. Public opposition to the siting of the high-level nuclear waste repository: the importance of trust. Review of Policy Research 1991, 10:180-194.
17. Poortinga W., Pidgeon N.F. Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis 2003, 23:961-972.
18. Poortinga W., Pidgeon N.F. Trust in risk regulation: cause or consequence of the acceptability of GM food?. Risk Analysis 2005, 25:199-209.
19. Siegrist M. A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1999, 29:2093-2106.
20. Siegrist M. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis 2000, 20:195-203.
21. Siegrist M. Perception of gene technology, and food risks: results of a survey in Switzerland. Journal of Risk Research 2003, 6:45-60.
22. Siegrist M., Cousin M.E., Kastenholz H., Wiek A. Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: the influence of affect and trust. Appetite 2007, 49:459-466.
23. Siegrist M., Cvetkovich G.T. Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis 2000, 20:713-719.
24. Siegrist M., Cvetkovich G.T., Roth C. Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis 2000, 20:353-362.
25. Siegrist M., Earle T.C., Gutscher H. Test of a trust and confidence model in the applied context of electromagnetic field (EMF) risks. Risk Analysis 2003, 23:705-716.
26. Sjöberg L. Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Analysis 2001, 21:189-198.
27. Sjöberg L., Drottz-Sjöberg B.M. Fairness, risk and risk tolerance in the siting of a nuclear waste repository. Journal of Risk Research 2001, 4:75-101.
28. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science 1987, 236:280-285.
29. Slovic P., Flynn J., Layman M. Perceived risk, trust and the politics of nuclear waste. The Perception of Risk 2000, 275-284. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London and Sterling, VA. R.E. Löfstedt (Ed.).
30. Tanaka Y. Major psychological factors affecting acceptance of gene-recombination technology. Risk Analysis 2004, 24:1575-1583.
31. Tanaka Y. Major psychological factors determining public acceptance of the siting of nuclear facilities. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2004, 34:1147-1165.
32. Terwel B., Harinck F., Ellemers N., Daamen D. Competence-based and integrity-based trust as predictors of acceptance of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS). Risk Analysis 2009, 29:1129-1140.
33. Zanelli, J., Antonijevic, I., Baeza, R., Echeverría, C., Gambardella, C., Infante, P., Jadresic, A., Jofré, A., Stutzin, A., Tenreiro, C., 2007. La Opción Núcleo-Eléctrica en Chile. Santiago. Grupo de Trabajo en Núcleo-Electricidad, Comisión Nacional de Energía, Ministerio de Energía.