4.7 Article

The influence of perceived uncertainty on entrepreneurial action in emerging renewable energy technology; biomass gasification projects in the Netherlands

Journal

ENERGY POLICY
Volume 35, Issue 11, Pages 5836-5854

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2007.07.009

Keywords

perceived uncertainty; entrepreneurial action; emerging technology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Emerging renewable energy technologies cannot break through without the involvement of entrepreneurs who dare to take action amidst uncertainty. The uncertainties that the entrepreneurs involved perceive will greatly affect their innovation decisions and can prevent them from engaging in innovation projects aimed at developing and implementing emerging renewable energy technologies. This article analyzes how perceived uncertainties and motivation influence an entrepreneur's decision to act, using empirical data on biomass gasification projects in the Netherlands. Our empirical results show that technological, political and resource uncertainty are the most dominant sources of perceived uncertainty influencing entrepreneurial decision-making. By performing a dynamic analysis, we furthermore demonstrate that perceived uncertainties and motivation are not stable, but evolve over time. We identify critical factors in the project's internal and external environment which influence these changes in perceived uncertainties and motivation, and describe how various interactions between the different variables in the conceptual model (internal and external factors, perceived uncertainty, motivation and previous actions of the entrepreneurs) positively or negatively influence the decision of entrepreneurs to continue entrepreneurial action. We discuss how policymakers can use these insights for stimulating the development and diffusion of emerging renewable energy technologies. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available