4.7 Article

Exploring public perceptions of energy security risks in the UK

期刊

ENERGY POLICY
卷 66, 期 -, 页码 369-378

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.079

关键词

Energy security; Public perceptions; Climate change

资金

  1. major Understanding Risk Group research Grant from the Leverhulme Trust [F/00407/AG]
  2. UK Energy Research Centre under the Natural Environment Research Council [NE/G007748/1, NE/I006753/1]
  3. ESRC [not_applicable] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. NERC [NE/G007748/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Economic and Social Research Council [not_applicable] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/G007748/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Along with climate change and affordability, concerns about energy security are key drivers behind proposals for major energy system change in the UK and numerous other countries. Unlike climate change we know very little about how the public thinks and feels about this aspect of sustainability and energy policy. Beyond engaging critically with conceptual and theoretical discussions, empirical data from two surveys (Cardiff postal survey, N=520; online UK survey, N=499) using a ten item energy security scale are presented and discussed. Here we show that aspects of energy security are certainly of concern to the UK public, with particularly high concern around dependence on fossil fuels/imports and relatively lower expressed concern for actual disruption of energy supply. However public concerns around energy securiti) are only emerging, and likely to change depending on the context in which it is discussed (e.g. in comparison to climate change). In addition, findings from public interviews are used to further contextualise the survey findings, showing unfamiliarity among the UK public with regards to the term energy security. We discuss implications, and further work that would be useful for understanding public perceptions in more depth. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据