Towards a better understanding of people’s responses to renewable energy technologies: Insights from Social Representations Theory

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 311-325

  Batel, Susana ^a,b   Devine Wright, Patrick ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

^b INSTITUTO UNIVERSITÁRIO DE LISBOA ISCTE IUL   (Portugal)

Author keywords

acquisition of new technologies; climate change; energy policy; innovation; interaction experts publics; public participation; social representation

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDE; RENEWABLE ENERGY; SOCIAL CHANGE; SOCIOLOGY; TECHNOLOGY; THEORETICAL MODEL;

ATTITUDE; MODELS, THEORETICAL; RENEWABLE ENERGY; SOCIAL CHANGE; SOCIOLOGY; TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 84926327750     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662513514165     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Aarhus Convention (1998) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. Available at (accessed 10 September 2012): http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf
2. Aitken M.Why we still don’t understand the social aspects of wind power: A critique of key assumptions within the literature.Energy Policy. 2010;38 (4): 1834-1841
3. Andreouli E,Howarth C.National identity, citizenship and immigration: Putting identity in context.Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. 2013;43 (3): 361-382
4. Barnett J,Burningham K,Walker G,Cass N.Imagined publics and engagement around renewable energy technologies in the UK.Public Understanding of Science. 2012;21 (1): 36-50
5. Barry J,Ellis GRenewable Energy and the Public: From NIMBY to Participation. Devine-Wright P, ed. London: Earthscan; 2011:29-42.
6. Batel S,Castro P.A social representations approach to the communication between different spheres: An analysis of the impacts of two discursive formats.Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. 2009;39 (4): 415-433
7. Batel S,Devine-Wright P,Tangeland T.Social acceptance of low carbon energy and associated infrastructures: A critical discussion.Energy Policy. 2013;58:1-5
8. Bauer MResistance to New Technology: Nuclear Power, Information Technology and Biotechnology. Bauer M, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1995:1-41.
9. Bauer M,Gaskell G.Towards a paradigm for research on social representations.Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. 1999;29 (2): 163-186
10. Beck UWorld at Risk. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2009:
11. Bell D,Gray T,Haggett C.The ‘social gap’ in wind farm siting decisions: Explanations and policy responses.Environmental Politics. 2005;14:460-477
12. Bickerstaff K,Lorenzoni I,Jones M,Pidgeon N.Locating scientific citizenship: The institutional contexts and cultures of public engagement.Science, Technology and Human Values. 2010;35 (4): 474-500
13. Billig MIdeology and Opinion: Studies in Rhetorical Psychology. London: SAGE Publications; 1991:
14. Breakwell GMRepresentations of the Social: Bridging Theoretical Traditions. Deaux KPhilogene G, ed. Malden: Blackwell Publishing; 2001:271-284.
15. Burningham K.Using the language of NIMBY: A topic for research, not an activity for researchers.Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability. 2000;5:55-67
16. ButlerS (2001) UK electricity networks: The nature of UK electricity transmission and distribution networks in an intermittent renewable and embedded electricity generation future. Available at (accessed 28 March 2012): http://www.parliament.uk/post/e5.pdfS
17. CarringtonD (2012) Germany’s renewable energy revolution leaves UK in the shade. The Guardian, 30May. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/30/germany-renewable-energy-revolution
18. Castro P.Legal innovation for social change: Exploring change and resistance to different types of sustainability laws.Political Psychology. 2012;33 (1): 105-212
19. Castro P,Batel S.Social representation, change and resistance: On the difficulties of generalizing new norms.Culture & Psychology. 2008;14 (4): 475-497
20. Castro P,Mouro C.Psycho-social processes in dealing with legal innovation in the community: Insights from biodiversity conservation.American Journal of Community Psychology. 2011;47 (3): 362-373
21. Castro P,Garrido M,Reis E,Menezes J.Ambivalence and conservation behaviour: An exploratory study on the recycling of metal cans.Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2009;29 (1): 24-33
22. Cotton M,Devine-Wright P.Making electricity networks ‘visible’: Industry actor representations of publics and public engagement in infrastructure planning.Public Understanding of Science. 2010;21 (1): 17-35
23. Electricity Market Reform White Paper. London: Department of Energy and Climate Change; 2011:
24. Devine-Wright HRenewable Energy and the Public: From NIMBY to Participation. Devine-Wright P, ed. London: Earthscan; 2011:101-113.
25. Devine-Wright H,Devine-Wright P.Social representations of electricity network technologies: Exploring processes of anchoring and objectification through the use of visual research methods.British Journal of Social Psychology. 2009;48 (2): 357-373
26. Devine-Wright P.Beyond NIMBYism: Towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy.Wind Energy. 2005;8 (2): 125-139
27. Devine-Wright P.Rethinking NIMBYism: The role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action.Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. 2009;19 (6): 426-441
28. Devine-Wright P,Devine-Wright H.Social representations of intermittency and the shaping of public support for wind energy in the UK.International Journal of Global Energy Issues. 2006;25 (3/4): 243-256
29. Devine-Wright P,Howes Y.Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments: A wind energy case study.Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2010;30:271-280
30. Elcheroth G,Doise W,Reicher S.On the knowledge of politics and the politics of knowledge: How a social representations approach helps us rethink the subject of political psychology.Political Psychology. 2011;32 (5): 729-758
31. Ellis G,Barry J,Robinson C.Many ways to say no, different ways to say yes: Applying Q-Methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals.Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 2007;50 (4): 517-551
32. Foucault M,Rabinow PThe Foucault Reader: An Introduction to Foucault. Rabinow P, ed. London: Penguin; 1984:239-256.
33. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis. Giddens A, ed. London: Macmillan Press; 1979:
34. Gross C.Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance.Energy Policy. 2007;35 (5): 2727-2736
35. Haggett C,Futak-Campbell B.Tilting at windmills? Using discourse analysis to understand the attitude-behaviour gap in renewable energy conflicts.Механізм регулювання економіки. 2011;1 (2011): 207-220
36. Halfacree KH.Locality and social representation: Space, discourse and alternative definitions of the rural.Journal of Rural Studies. 1993;9 (1): 23-37
37. Howarth C.A social representation is not a quiet thing: Exploring the critical potential of social representations theory.British Journal of Social Psychology. 2006;45 (1): 65-86
38. Huijts N,Molin E,Steg L.Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: A review-based comprehensive framework.Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2012;16:525-531
39. Jodelet DL’environnement, question sociale. Dix ans de recherches pour le Ministère de l’Environnement. Boyer MHerzlich GMaresca B, ed. Paris: Odile Jacob; 2001:91-97.
40. An Introduction to Political Geography: Space, Place and Politics. Jones MJones RWoods M, ed. London: Routledge; 2004:
41. Jovchelovitch S.In defence of representations.Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. 1996;26 (2): 121-135
42. Jovchelovitch SKnowledge in Context: Representations, Community and Culture. London: Routledge; 2007:
43. Jovchelovitch S,Gervais M-C.Social representations of health and illness: The case of the Chinese community in England.Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. 1999;9 (4): 247-260
44. KingsleyP (2012) Windfarms: Is community ownership the way ahead?The Guardian, 5November. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/05/windfarms-community-ownership
45. Kyoto Protocol (1998) Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Available at (accessed 22 May 2012): http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf
46. Latour BA Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. Law J, ed. London: Routledge; 1991:
47. Lauri MA.Metaphors of organ donation, social representations of the body and the opt-out system.British Journal of Health Psychology. 2009;14 (4): 647-666
48. Lima ML.Images of the public in the debates about risk: Consequences for participation.Portuguese Journal of Social Sciences. 2004;2 (3): 149-163
49. Marková IDialogicality and Social Representations: The Dynamics of the Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003:
50. Miller S.Public understanding of science at the crossroads.Public Understanding of Science. 2001;10:115-120
51. Moloney G,Walker I.Talking about transplants: Social representations and the dialectical, dilemmatic nature of organ donation and transplantation.British Journal of Social Psychology. 2002;41 (2): 299-320
52. Moscovici SLa Psychanalyse, son image et son public. Paris: PUF; [1961] 1976a:
53. Moscovici SSocial Influence and Social Change. London: Academic Press; 1976b:
54. Moscovici SSocial Representations. Farr RMoscovici S, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1984:3-69.
55. Moscovici S.Notes towards a description of social representations.European Journal of Social Psychology. 1988;18 (3): 211-250
56. Mouffe CMaking Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy. Latour BWeibel P, ed. Karlsruhe Cambridge, MA: Center for Art and Media Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2005:804-807.
57. Mouro C,Castro P.Cognitive polyphasia in the reception of legal innovations for biodiversity conservation.Papers on Social Representations. 2012;21:3.1-3.21
58. Owens S,Driffill L.How to change attitudes and behaviours in the context of energy.Energy Policy. 2008;36 (12): 4412-4418
59. Pinch T,Bijker WThe Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Bijker WHughes TPinch T, ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1987:17-50.
60. Poumadère 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.Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. 2011;2 (5): 712-727
61. Renewables Directive (2009) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Available at (accessed 24 May 2012): http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:140:0016:0062:en:PDF
62. Swyngedouw E.Governance innovation and the citizen: The Janus face of governance-beyond-the-state.Urban Studies. 2005;42 (11): 1991-2006
63. Swyngedouw E.Apocalypse forever? Post-political populism and the spectre of climate change.Theory, Culture & Society. 2010;27 (2–3): 213-232
64. Toke D.Explaining wind power planning outcomes: Some findings from a study in England and Wales.Energy Policy. 2005;33 (12): 1527-1539
65. Wagner W.Fields of research and socio-genesis of social representations: A discussion of criteria and diagnostics.Social Science Information. 1994;33 (2): 199-228
66. Wagner W,Elejabarrieta F,Lahnsteiner I.How the sperm dominates the ovum: Objectification by metaphor in the social representation of conception.European Journal of Social Psychology. 1995;25 (6): 671-688
67. Wagner W,Kronberger N,Seifert F.Collective symbolic coping with new technology: Knowledge, images and public discourse.British Journal of Social Psychology. 2002;41 (3): 323-343
68. Walker G,Cass N.Carbon reduction, ‘the public’ and renewable energy: Engaging with socio-technical configurations.Area. 2007;39 (4): 458-469
69. Walker G,Devine-Wright P,Barnett J,Burningham K,Cass N,Devine-Wright H, et alRenewable Energy and the Public: From NIMBY to Participation. Devine-Wright P, ed. London: Earthscan; 2011:1-14.
70. Wibeck V.Social representations of climate change in Swedish lay focus groups: Local or distant, gradual or catastrophic?.Public Understanding of Science. 2014;23 (2): 204-219
71. Wolsink M.Comment – Invalid theory impedes our understanding: A critique on the persistence of the language of NIMBY.Transactions Institute of British Geographers. 2006;31:85-91
72. Wustenhagen R,Wolsink M,Burer MJ.Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept.Energy Policy. 2007;35 (5): 2683-2691
73. Wynne BMisunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Irwin AWynne B, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1996:19-46.