Citizens' preferences on nuclear and renewable energy sources: Evidence from Turkey

Energy Policy

Volumn 47, Issue , 2012, Pages 309-320

  Ertör Akyazi, Pinar ^a   Adaman, Fikret ^a   Özkaynak, Begüm ^a   Zenginobuz, Ünal ^a  

^a BOGAZICI UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Energy preferences; Environmental concern; Environmental conflicts

Indexed keywords

COMMON FACTORS; ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS; ENERGY PREFERENCES; ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS; ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICT; ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES; RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE; RENEWABLES;

CLIMATE CHANGE; INVESTMENTS; NATURAL RESOURCES; NUCLEAR ENERGY; RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES;

FACTOR ANALYSIS;

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY; CLIMATE CHANGE; ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE; NUCLEAR POWER; RENEWABLE RESOURCE; URBAN AREA;

TURKEY;

EID: 84862245422     PISSN: 03014215     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.072     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Adam D. Parochial energy policy. Nature Climate Change (Commentary) 2011, 1:230-232.
2. Adaman F., Arsel M. Globalization, development, and environmental policies in Turkey. Understanding the Process of Institutional Change in Turkey: A Political Economy Approach 2010, 329-345. Nova, New York. T. Çetin, F. Yilmaz (Eds.).
3. Adaman F., Arsel M. Political economy of the environment in Turkey. Handbook of Modern Turkey 2012, Routledge, London, forthcoming. M. Heper, S. Sayari (Eds.).
4. Adaman F., Çarkoǧlu A., Şenatalar B. Hanehalki Gözünden Kamu Hizmetleri ve Yolsuzluk (Households' Perspective on Public Services and Corruption) 2009, Tepav Yayinlari, Ankara.
5. 2 emission reductions in Turkey: a contingent valuation survey. Energy Policy 2011, 39:689-698.
6. Adem Ç. Non-state actors and environmentalism. Environmentalism in Turkey: Between Democracy and Development? 2005, 71-86. Ashgate, Aldershot. F. Adaman, M. Arsel (Eds.).
7. Alhassan H.S. Viewpoint-Butterflies vs. hydropower: reflections on large dams in contemporary Africa. Water Alternatives 2009, 2(1):148-160.
8. Algan N., Mengi A. Turkey's sustainable development policies in the EU accession process. European Environmental Law Review 2005, 14(4):95-108.
9. Ansolabehere, S., 2007. Public Attitudes Toward America's Energy Options: Insights for Nuclear Energy. MIT Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems, MIT-NES-TR-008.
10. Ansolabehere S., Konisky D.M. Public attitudes toward construction of new power plants. Public Opinion Quarterly 2009, 73(3):566-577.
11. Barke R.P., Jenkins-Smith H., Slovic P. Risk perceptions of men and women scientists. Social Science Quarterly 1997, 78:167-176.
12. Bickerstaff K., Lorenzoni I., Pidgeon N.F., Poortinga W., Simmons P. Reframing nuclear power in the UK energy debate: nuclear power, climate change mitigation and radioactive waste. Public Understanding of Science 2008, 17:145-169.
13. Bolsen T., Cook F.L. The polls-trends: public opinion on energy policy: 1974-2006. Public Opinion Quarterly 2008, 72(2):364-388.
14. Corner A., Venables D., Spence A., Poortinga W., Demski C., Pidgeon N. Nuclear power, climate change and energy security: exploring British public attitudes. Energy Policy 2011, 39:4823-4833.
15. De Groot J.I.M., Steg L. Morality and nuclear energy: perceptions of risks and benefits, personal norms, and willingness to take action related to nuclear energy. Risk Analysis 2010, 30:1363-1373.
16. Deutch J.M., Forsberg D.W., Kadak A.C., Kazimi M.S., Moniz E.J., Parsons J.E. Update of the MIT 2003-Future of the nuclear power. MIT Energy Initiative 2009.
17. Devine-Wright P. Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 2005, 8:125-139.
18. Dwivedi R. Displacement, risks and resistance: local perceptions and actions in the Sardar Sarowar. Development and Change 1999, 30:43-78.
19. Ek K. Public and private attitudes towards "green" electricity: the case of Swedish wind power. Energy Policy 2005, 33:1677-1689.
20. EPI (Environmental Performance Index), 2012. Country Profile: Turkey. Yale University, http://epi.yale.edu/dataexplorer/countryprofiles?iso=TUR.
21. EREC (European Renewable Energy Council), 2010. Rethinking 2050: a 100 percent Renewable Energy Vision for the European Union.
22. European Commission, 2006. Special Eurobarometer: Attitudes Towards Energy.
23. European Commission, 2008. Special Eurobarometer: Attitudes Towards Radioactive Waste.
24. European Commission, 2011a. European Parliament Eurobarometer (Standard EB 74.3 on Energy) -The Europeans and energy, Brussels, 12 October 2011.
25. Farhar B.C. Trends in U.S. public perceptions and preferences on energy and environmental Policy. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 1994, 19:211-239.
26. Finucane M.L., Slovic P., Mertz C.K., Flynn J., Satterfield T.A. Gender, race, and perceived risk: the 'white male' effect, Health. Risk & Society 2000, 2(2):159-172.
27. Firestone J., Kempton W. Public opinion about large offshore wind power: underlying factors. Energy Policy 2007, 35:1584-1598.
28. Gamboa G., Munda G. The problem of windfarm location: a social multi-criteria evaluation framework. Energy Policy 2007, 35:1564-1583.
29. Greenberg M. Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences: analysis of US national and site-specific data. Energy Policy 2009, 37:3242-3249.
30. Greenberg M., Truelove H.B. Energy choices and risk beliefs: is it just global warming and fear of a nuclear power plant accident?. Risk Analysis 2011, 31(5).
31. Heal, G., 2009. The Economics of Renewable Energy. NBER Working Paper Series, Working Paper 15081, (Accessed March 15, 2011). http://www.nber.org/papers/w15081.
32. IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), 2008a. International Status and Prospects of Nuclear Power, Vienna, Austria.
33. IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), 2008b. A Nuclear Divide. IAEA Bulletin 50 (1), 34-35.
34. Hürriyet, 16 April 2006. (Uyar: Rüzgar Enerjisi Tüm Elektrik Ihtiyacini Karşilayabilir. Uyar: Wind Energy can Meet all Energy Demand of the Country)".
35. IEA (International Energy Agency), 2002. Renewable Energy into the Mainstream. Renewable Energy Working Party. (Accessed July 15, 2010). http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2000/Renew_main2003.pdf.
36. IEA (International Energy Agency), 2009. World Energy Outlook 2009: Executive Summary.
37. IEA (International Energy Agency), 2010. World Energy Outlook 2010: Executive Summary.
38. International Rivers Network, 2003. Twelve Reasons to Exclude Large Hydro from Renewables Initiatives.
39. Jacobson M.Z., Delucchi M.A. Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials. Energy Policy 2011, 39:1154-1169.
40. Joskow P.L., Parsons J.E. The economic future of nuclear power. Dædalus 2009, 138(4):45-59.
41. Kasperson R.E., Berk G., Pijawka D., Sharaf A.B., Wood J. Public opposition to nuclear energy: retrospect and prospect. Science, Technology, and Human Values 1980, 5:11-23.
42. Kaygusuz M., Arsel M. Energy politics and policy. Environmentalism in Turkey: Between Democracy and Development? 2005, 149-166. Ashgate, Aldershot. F. Adaman, M. Arsel (Eds.).
43. Kempton W., Firestone J., Lilley J., Rouleau T., Whitaker P. The offshore wind power debate: views from Cape Cod. Coastal Management 2005, 33(2):119-149.
44. Kiliçoǧlu P. Türkiye'nin Çevre Politikalarinda Sürdürülebilir Gelişme (Sustainable Development in Environmental Policies of Turkey) 2005, Turhan Kitabevi Yayinlari, Ankara.
45. Krohn S., Damborg S. On public attitudes towards wind power. Renewable Energy 1999, 16:954-960.
46. Martinez-Alier J. Social metabolism, ecological distribution conflicts, and languages of valuation. Capitalism Nature Socialism 2009, 20(1):58-87.
47. McGowan, F., Sauter, R., 2005. Public Opinion on Energy Research: Desk Study for the Research Councils. Sussex Energy Group, Science and Technology Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex.
48. MENR (Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources), 2010a. MENR Strategic Plan: 2010-2014.
49. MENR (Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources), 2010b. 2009 Annual Report, April 2010.
50. MENR (Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources), 2011. http://www.enerji.gov.tr.
51. Midden C.J.H., Verplanken B. The stability of nuclear attitudes after Chernobyl. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1990, 10:111-119.
52. Miller I., Miller M. John E. Freund's Mathematical Statistics 1998, Prentice Hall College Div.
53. Milliyet, 27 March 2011, "Erdoǧan: Dört tane Daha Nükleer Santral Inşa Edeceǧiz (We will Construct Four more Nuclear Power Plants)".
54. Milliyet, 12 April 2012, "Çin Seferi Nükleere Yaradi - 2. Santralde üç Ülke Yarişacak (The Trip to China was Good for Nuclear - 3 Countries will Compete for the Second Nuclear Power Plant)".
55. Muradian R., Martinez-Alier J., Correa H. International capital versus local population: the environmental conflict of the Tambogrande Mining Project, Peru. Society & Natural Resources 2003, 16(9):775-792.
56. Ntvmsnbc (8 February 2012). "Türkiye Çevre Endeksinde Sinifta Kaldi (Turkey has failed with respect to the environment index)" (Accessed March 12, 2012). http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/id/25320346/.
57. Painuly J.P. Barriers to renewable energy penetration; a framework for analysis. Renewable Energy 2001, 24:73-89.
58. Pidgeon N.F., Lorenzoni I., Poortinga W. Climate change or nuclear power-No thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain. Global Environmental Change 2008, 18:69-85.
59. Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N., 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. Technical Report (Understanding Risk Working Paper 06-02). Norwich: Centre for Environmental Risk.
60. Poumadere M., Bertoldo R., Samadi J. Public perceptions and governance of controversial technologies to tackle climate change: nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, wind, and geoengineering. WIREs Climate Change 2011, 2:712-727. 10.1002/wcc.134.
61. Radikal, 8 February 2007. "Küresel Isinma ve Türkiye'nin Yenilenebilir Enerji Kaynaklari (Climate Change and Renewable Energy Resources of Turkey)".
62. Radikal, 14 May 2010. "Akkuyu'da Eylem var, Nükleer Santral Yargiya Taşiniyor (Nuclear Protests in Akkuyu - Nuclear Power Plant Will be Brought to Court)".
63. Rosa E.A., Clark D.L. Historical routes to technological gridlock: nuclear technology as prototypical vehicle. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy 1999, 7:21-57.
64. Rosa E.A., Dunlap R.E. Nuclear power-3 decades of public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly 1994, 58(2):295-324.
65. Spence A., Poortinga W., Pidgeon N., Lorenzoni I. Public perceptions of energy choices: the influence of beliefs about climate change and the environment. Energy and Environment 2010, 21(5):385-407.
66. Şahin, Ü., 2011. Country Perspective: Turkey. In: Netzer and Steinhilber (Eds.) The End of Nuclear Energy? International Perspectives After Fukushima. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, July 2011, pp.71-74.
67. Şekercioǧlu Ç.H., Anderson S., Akçay E., Bilgin R. Turkey's rich natural heritage under assault. Science 2011, 334:1637-1638. (Letter to the editor).
68. Tanaka Y. Major psychological factors determining public acceptance of the siting of nuclear facilities. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2004, 34:1147-1165.
69. The Independent, 24 May 2004. Nuclear Power is the only Green Solution. (Accessed July 2, 2010). http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm.
70. TURKSTAT (Turkish Statistical Institute), 2009. (Accessed March 14, 2012). http://www.tuik.gov.tr.
71. UNFCCC, 2009. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Subsidiary Body for Implementation. FCCC/SBI/2009/12, Copenhagen.
72. Van der Pligt J. Nuclear Energy and the Public 1992, Blackwell, Oxford.
73. Visschers V.H.M., Keller C., Siegrist M. Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: investigating an explanatory model. Energy Policy 2011, 39:3621-3629.
74. Webber D.J. Is nuclear power just another environmental issue? An analysis of California voters. Environment and Behavior 1982, 14(1):72-83.
75. Whitfield S.C., Rosa E.A., Dan A., Dietz T. The future of nuclear power: value orientations and risk perception. Risk Analysis 2009, 29(3):425-437.
76. Wolsink M. Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renewable Energy 2000, 21:49-64.
77. Wolsink M. Wind power implementation: the nature of public attitudes: equity and fairness instead of 'backyard motives.'. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2007, 11:1188-1207.
78. 2 emissions in Turkey) TÜBITAK. SBB Proje 105K234 2008, 1-54.