Skip to content
2000
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Current Alternative Energy
  4. Volume 5, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 5, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 2405-4631
  • E-ISSN: 2405-464X

Abstract

Background

Recent push for ‘energy democracy’ necessitates a well-informed citizenry vis-à-vis energy policy, especially in the wake of ideologically charged and divergent views about the existence and severity of climate change among American citizens. Citizens’ involvement in energy policy processes in democratic countries makes it important to assess the depth and scope of energy policy awareness and knowledge among the public, as well as to consider the factors that promote or hinder how informed people are about energy policy issues.

Objectives

This study aims at examining the levels of public informedness and knowledge of energy policy and analyzing their potential correlates in the western U.S. states of California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. The study also analyzes the impact of public awareness and knowledge on public support for government funding for renewable energy technology research.

Methods

Using survey data of 1804 randomly selected respondents from California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, the study employs ordinal logistic regression to trans-situational and situational models predicting self-assessed informedness and objective measure of knowledge about energy policy as well as public support for federal funding for renewable energy technology research.

Results

The study found that variables related to socio-economic status (SES) are stronger predictors of public informedness and knowledge about energy policy than situational variables like values and efficacy, except for climate change beliefs that have a positive relationship with informedness and knowledge.

Conclusion

The study also found that informedness and knowledge of energy policy are positively associated with support for government funding for renewable energy research.

© 2022 Bentham Science Publishers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/cae/10.2174/2405463105666220309142802
2022-04-27
2025-01-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/cae/10.2174/2405463105666220309142802
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. HmielB. PetrenkoV.V. DyonisiusM.N. BuizertC. SmithA.M. PlaceP.F. HarthC. BeaudetteR. HuaQ. YangB. VimontI. MichelS.E. SeveringhausJ.P. EtheridgeD. BromleyT. SchmittJ. FaïnX. WeissR.F. DlugokenckyE. Preindustrial 14CH4 indicates greater anthropogenic fossil CH4 emissions.Nature2020578779540941210.1038/s41586‑020‑1991‑8 32076219
     [Google Scholar]
  2. TysonA. KennedyB. Two-thirds of americans think government should do more on climate. pew research center science & societyAvailable from: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/ (Accessed: Oct. 12, 2021).
     [Google Scholar]
  3. EriksonR.S. WrightG. McIverJ.P. Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States.New YorkCambridge University Press1993
     [Google Scholar]
  4. JonesB.D. Politics and the Architecture of Choice: Bounded Rationality and Governance.ChicagoUniversity of Chicago Press2001
     [Google Scholar]
  5. OstromE. CoxM. SchlagerE. An Assessment of the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework and Introduction of the Social-Ecological System Framework.Theories of the Policy Process. SabatierP.A. Boulder, COWestview Press2014267306
     [Google Scholar]
  6. SimonH. Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations.New YorkMacmillan1947
     [Google Scholar]
  7. SimonH. Models of Man.New YorkWiley1957
     [Google Scholar]
  8. SimonH. Theories of Bounded Rationality.Decision and Organization: A Volume in Honor of Jacob Marschak. McGuireC.B. RadnerR. ArrowK.J. AmsterdamNorth Holland1972161176
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Hmelo-SilverC.E. Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn?Educ. Psychol. Rev.200416323526610.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3
     [Google Scholar]
  10. OstromV. A Fallabilist’s Approach to Norms and Criteria of Choice.Guidance, Control, and Evaluation in the Public Sector. KaufmannF-X. MajoneG. OstromV. BerlinWalter de Gruyter1986229244
     [Google Scholar]
  11. V. Ostrom, The Intellectual Crisis in American Public Administration.TuscaloosaUniversity of Alabama Press2008
     [Google Scholar]
  12. OstromE. Understanding Institutional Diversity.Princeton, NJPrinceton University Press2005
     [Google Scholar]
  13. BernellD. SimonC.A. The Energy Security Dilemma: US Policy and Practice.New YorkRoutledge201610.4324/9780203817797
     [Google Scholar]
  14. WeltonS. Grasping for energy democracy.Mich. Law Rev.20181164581644
     [Google Scholar]
  15. FarrellJ. Beyond utility 2.0 to energy democracy.Washington, DCInstitute for Local Self-Reliance2014Available from: https://ilsr.org/report-energy-democracy/ (Accessed: Aug. 25, 2021).
     [Google Scholar]
  16. TomainJ.P. The democratization of energy.Vanderbilt J. Transnatl. Law201548411251145
     [Google Scholar]
  17. WeinrubA. GiancatarinoA. Toward a climate justice energy platform: Democratizing our energy futureLocal Clean Energy Alliance with Centre for Social Inclusion2015Available from: http://www.localcleanenergy.org/files/Climate%20Justice%20Energy%20Platform.pdf (Accessed: Aug. 25, 2021).
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Roser-RenoufC. MaibachE. LeiserowitzA. RosenthalS. Global warming’s six americas and the election, 2016Yale Program on Climate Change Communication2016Available from: https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/six-americas-2016-election/ (Accessed: Aug. 26, 2021).
     [Google Scholar]
  19. KahanD.M. Jenkins-SmithH. TarantolaT. SilvaC.L. BramanD. Geoengineering and climate change polarization: Testing a two-channel model of science communication.Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci.2015658119222210.1177/0002716214559002
     [Google Scholar]
  20. FishkinJ.S. LuskinR.C. JowellR. Deliberative polling and public consultation.Parliam. Aff.200053465766610.1093/pa/53.4.657
     [Google Scholar]
  21. WangR. FishkinJ.S. LuskinR.C. Does deliberation increase public‐spiritedness?Soc. Sci. Q.202010162163218210.1111/ssqu.12863
     [Google Scholar]
  22. LuskinR.C. CrowD.B. FishkinJ.S. GuildW. ThomasD. Report on the deliberative poll on ‘vermont’s energy future Center for Deliberative Opinion Research2008Available from: http://cdd.stanford.edu/2008/final-report-deliberative-polling-on-vermonts-energy-future/ (Accessed: Aug. 26, 2021).
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Center for deliberative democracy, “final report: europolisdeliberative polling on the european unionAvailable from: https://cdd.stanford.edu/2009/final-report-europolis-deliberative-polling-on-the-european-union/ (Accessed: Aug. 26, 2021).
  24. GuildW. LehrR. ThomasD. Nova scotia power customer energy forum public decision partnershipAvailable from: https://cdd.stanford.edu/2004/results-of-the-nova-scotia-power-customer-energy-forum/ (Accessed: Aug. 26, 2021).
     [Google Scholar]
  25. SoneY. Results of deliberative polling energy and environmental policy options in JapanAvailable from: https://cdd.stanford.edu/2012/results-of-deliberative-polling-energy-and-environmental-policy-options-in-japan/ (Accessed: Aug. 26, 2021).
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Delli CarpiniM.X. KeeterS. What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters.New Haven, CTYale University Press1996
     [Google Scholar]
  27. LupiaA. McCubbinsM.D. The Democratic Dilema: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know?Cambridge, UKCambridge University Press1998
     [Google Scholar]
  28. PierceJ.C. SteelB.S. Prospects for Alternative Energy Development in the U.S. West: Tilting at Windmills? vol.New York, NYSpringer Berlin Heidelberg2017410.1007/978‑3‑319‑53414‑5
     [Google Scholar]
  29. EinsiedelE.F. Understanding ‘publics’ in the public understanding of scienceIn: M. Dierkes, and von C. Grote, Eds., Between understanding and trust: The public, science and technology. Harwood Academic Publishers: Amsterdam, 2000, pp. 205-216.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. HansenJ. HolmL. FrewerL. RobinsonP. SandøeP. Beyond the knowledge deficit: Recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks.Appetite200341211112110.1016/S0195‑6663(03)00079‑5 14550309
     [Google Scholar]
  31. WynneB. IrwinA. Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology.Cambridge, UKCambridge University Press1996
     [Google Scholar]
  32. StoutenboroughJ.W. SturgessS.G. VedlitzA. Knowledge, risk, and policy support: Public perceptions of nuclear power.Energy Policy2013621117618410.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.098
     [Google Scholar]
  33. StoutenboroughJ.W. VedlitzA. The effect of perceived and assessed knowledge of climate change on public policy concerns: An empirical comparison.Environ. Sci. Policy201437233310.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.002
     [Google Scholar]
  34. BaumgartnerF.R. JonesB.D. MortensenP.B. Punctuated Equilibrium Theory: Explaining Stability and Change in Public Policymaking.Theories of the Policy Process. SabatierP.A. Boulder, COWestview Press201755101
     [Google Scholar]
  35. HerwegN. ZahariadisN. ZohlnhoferR. The Multiple Streams Framework: Foundations, Refinements, and Empirical Applications.Theories of the Policy Process. SabatierP.A. Boulder, COWestview Press20171753
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Jankins-SmithH.C. NohrstedtD. WeibleC.M. IngoldK. The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An overview of Research Program.Theories of the Policy Process. SabatierP.A. Boulder, COWestview Press2017135171
     [Google Scholar]
  37. ShanahanE.A. JonesM.D. McbethM.K. RadaelliC.M. The Narrative Policy Framework.Theories of the Policy Process. SabatierP.A. Boulder, COWestview Press2017173213
     [Google Scholar]
  38. JanickeM. The Political System’s Capacity For Environmental Policy.National Environmental Policies: A Comparative Study Of Capacity-Building. JanickeM. WeidnerH. New York, NYSpringer199710.1007/978‑3‑642‑60507‑9_1
     [Google Scholar]
  39. J.C. Pierce, N. Lovrich, T. Tsurutani, and T. Abe, Public Knowledge And Environmental Politics.Japan And The United States.Boulder, COWestview Press1989
     [Google Scholar]
  40. PierceJ.C. StegerM.A. SteelB.S. LovrichN. Citizens, Political Communication, And Interest Groups.WestportPraeger Publishers1992
     [Google Scholar]
  41. GenovaB.K.L. GreenbergB.S. Interests in news and the knowledge gap.Public Opin. Q.19794317910.1086/268493
     [Google Scholar]
  42. TichenorP.J. DonohueG.A. OlienC.N. Mass media flow and differential growth in knowledge.Public Opin. Q.197034215917010.1086/267786
     [Google Scholar]
  43. KarytsasS. TheodoropoulouH. Socioeconomic and demographic factors that influence publics’ awareness on the different forms of renewable energy sources.Renew. Energy20147148048510.1016/j.renene.2014.05.059
     [Google Scholar]
  44. LeeL-S. LeeY-F. AltschuldJ.W. PanY-J. Energy literacy: Evaluating knowledge, affect, and behavior of students in Taiwan.Energy Policy2015769810610.1016/j.enpol.2014.11.012
     [Google Scholar]
  45. MartinsA. MadalenoM. Ferreira DiasM. Financial knowledge’s role in Portuguese energy literacy.Energies20201313341210.3390/en13133412
     [Google Scholar]
  46. PierceJ.C. LovrichN. SteelB.S. StegerM.A. TennertJ. Political Culture And Public Policy.Canada And The United States: Only A Border Apart?New York, NYEdwin Mellen Publishers2000
     [Google Scholar]
  47. VassilevaI. CampilloJ. Increasing energy efficiency in low-income households through targeting awareness and behavioral change.Renew. Energy201467596310.1016/j.renene.2013.11.046
     [Google Scholar]
  48. PierceJ.C. SteelB.S. WarnerR.L. Knowledge, culture, and public support for renewable-energy policy.Comp. Technol. Transf. Soc.20097327028610.1353/ctt.0.0047
     [Google Scholar]
  49. AssaliA. KhatibT. NajjarA. Renewable energy awareness among future generation of Palestine.Renew. Energy201913625426310.1016/j.renene.2019.01.007
     [Google Scholar]
  50. KaratepeY. NeşeS.V. A. Keçebaş, and M. Yumurtacı, "The levels of awareness about the renewable energy sources of university students in Turkey",Renew. Energy20124417417910.1016/j.renene.2012.01.099
     [Google Scholar]
  51. SteelB.S. SodenD. WarnerR.L. The impact of knowledge and values on perceptions of environmental risk to the Great Lakes.Soc. Nat. Resour.19903433134810.1080/08941929009380730
     [Google Scholar]
  52. JamiesonK.H. Everything You Think You Know About Politics… And Why You’re Wrong.New York, NYBasic Books2000
     [Google Scholar]
  53. McGowanF. SauterR. Public Opinion on Energy Research: A Desk Study for the Research Councils.BrightonThe Freeman Centre, University of Sussex2005
     [Google Scholar]
  54. SteelB.S. SmithC. OpsommerL. CurielS. Warner-SteelR. Public ocean literacy in the United States.Ocean Coast. Manage.20054829711410.1016/j.ocecoaman.2005.01.002
     [Google Scholar]
  55. EttemaJ.S. KlineF.G. Deficits, differences and ceilings: Contingent conditions for understanding the knowledge gap.Communic. Res.19774217920210.1177/009365027700400204
     [Google Scholar]
  56. SteelB.S. LachD. SatyalV.A. Ideology and scientific credibility: Environmental policy in the American Pacific Northwest.Public Underst. Sci.200615448149510.1177/0963662506059261
     [Google Scholar]
  57. AbrahamseW. StegL. VlekC. RothengatterT. The effect of tailored information, goal setting, and tailored feedback on household energy use, energy-related behaviors, and behavioral antecedents.J. Environ. Psychol.200727426527610.1016/j.jenvp.2007.08.002
     [Google Scholar]
  58. CarmiN. ArnonS. OrionN. Transforming environmental knowledge into behavior: The mediating role of environmental emotions.J. Environ. Educ.201546318320110.1080/00958964.2015.1028517
     [Google Scholar]
  59. EchegarayF. HanssteinF.V. Assessing the intention-behavior gap in electronic waste recycling: The case of Brazil.J. Clean. Prod.201714218019010.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.064
     [Google Scholar]
  60. GadenneD. SharmaB. KerrD. SmithT. The influence of consumers’ environmental beliefs and attitudes on energy saving behaviours.Energy Policy201139127684769410.1016/j.enpol.2011.09.002
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Gram-HanssenK. BartiauxF. JensenO.M. CantaertM. Do homeowners use energy labels? A comparison between Denmark and Belgium.Energy Policy20073552879288810.1016/j.enpol.2006.10.017
     [Google Scholar]
  62. MillsB. SchleichJ. Residential energy-efficient technology adoption, energy conservation, knowledge, and attitudes: An analysis of European countries.Energy Policy20124961662810.1016/j.enpol.2012.07.008
     [Google Scholar]
  63. PothitouM. HannaR.F. ChalvatzisK.J. Environmental knowledge, pro-environmental behaviour and energy savings in households: An empirical study.Appl. Energy20161841217122910.1016/j.apenergy.2016.06.017
     [Google Scholar]
  64. PothitouM. VargaL. KoliosA.J. GuS. Linking energy behaviour, attitude and habits with environmental predisposition and knowledge.Int. J. Sustain. Energy201736439841410.1080/14786451.2015.1032290
     [Google Scholar]
  65. WelschH. KühlingJ. Pro-environmental behavior and rational consumer choice: Evidence from surveys of life satisfaction.J. Econ. Psychol.201031340542010.1016/j.joep.2010.01.009
     [Google Scholar]
  66. LeeL-S. LeeY-F. WuM-J. PanY-J. A study of energy literacy among nursing students to examine implications on energy conservation efforts in Taiwan.Energy Policy201913511100510.1016/j.enpol.2019.111005
     [Google Scholar]
  67. MalkaA. KrosnickJ.A. LangerG. The association of knowledge with concern about global warming: Trusted information sources shape public thinking.Risk Anal.200929563364710.1111/j.1539‑6924.2009.01220.x 19302280
     [Google Scholar]
  68. KarlstrømH. RyghaugM. Public attitudes towards renewable energy technologies in Norway. The role of party preferences.Energy Policy20146765666310.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.049
     [Google Scholar]
  69. AkerlofK. WinchP. ParketC. Public Knowledge, Behaviors, and Preferences About Energy: A Maryland Statewide Survey, Fall 2015.FairfaxCenter for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University2015
     [Google Scholar]
  70. DillmanD.A. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method.2nd edHoboken, NJJohn Wiley and Sons2007
     [Google Scholar]
  71. MesserB.L. EdwardsM.L. DillmanD.A. Determinants of item nonresponse to web and mail respondents in three address-based mixed-mode surveys of the general public.Surv. Pract.2012521910.29115/SP‑2012‑0012
     [Google Scholar]
  72. PortneyK.E. HannibalB. GoldsmithC. McGeeP. LiuX. VedlitzA. Awareness of the food-energy-water nexus and public policy support in the United States: Public attitudes among the American people.Environ. Behav.201850437540010.1177/0013916517706531
     [Google Scholar]
  73. CaldwellN. 12 states where fracking is most prevalentAvailable from: https://stacker.com/stories/19086/12-states-where-fracking-most-prevalent (Accessed: Oct. 12, 2021).
     [Google Scholar]
  74. RibeiroF. FerreiraP. AraújoM. BragaA.C. Modelling perception and attitudes towards renewable energy technologies.Renew. Energy201812268869710.1016/j.renene.2018.01.104
     [Google Scholar]
  75. SiddiqiM.U.A. ButtD.K.M. Social structural and individual psychological determinants of political trust in Pakistan.J. Polit. Sci.2019373150
     [Google Scholar]
  76. ChapmanA. ShigetomiY. KarmakerS.C. SahaB.B. HuffK. BrooksC. StubbinsJ. The cultural dynamics of energy: The impact of lived experience, preference and demographics on future energy policy in the United States.Energy Res. Soc. Sci.20218010223110.1016/j.erss.2021.102231
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Imbulana ArachchiJ. ManagiS. Preferences for energy sustainability: Different effects of gender on knowledge and importance.Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.202114111076710.1016/j.rser.2021.110767
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Lewis-BeckM.S. SkalabanA. The R-squared: Some straight talk.Polit. Anal.1990215317010.1093/pan/2.1.153
     [Google Scholar]
  79. DahlR. Controlling Nuclear Weapons: Democracy versus Guardianship.Syracuse, NYSyracuse University Press1985
     [Google Scholar]
  80. J.C. Pierce, and N. Lovrich, Water Resources, Democracy and the Technical Information Quandary.Port Washington, NYAssociated Faculty Press1986
     [Google Scholar]
  81. HansenJ. Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Out Last Chance to Save Humanity.London, UKBloomsbury2009
     [Google Scholar]
  82. JamiesonD. Reason in a Dark Time: Why the Struggle Against Climate Change Failed-and What It Means for Our Future.New York, NYOxford University Press201410.1093/acprof:oso/9780199337668.001.0001
     [Google Scholar]
  83. StehrN. Exceptional circumstances: Does climate change trump democracy?Issues Sci. Technol.20163223744
     [Google Scholar]
  84. SmithE. Energy, The Environment, And Public Opinion.OxfordRowman and LittleVeld2002
     [Google Scholar]
  85. BolsenT. CookF.L. The polls-trends: Public opinion on energy policy: 1974-2006.Public Opin. Q.200872236438810.1093/poq/nfn019
     [Google Scholar]
  86. DelshadA.B. RaymondL. SawickiV. WegenerD.T. Public attitudes toward political and technological options for biofuels.Energy Policy20103873414342510.1016/j.enpol.2010.02.015
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/cae/10.2174/2405463105666220309142802
Loading
Situational and Trans-Situational Correlates of Public Energy Literacy: A Western U.S. Case Study
Curr. Altern. Energy 5, 23 (2022); https://doi.org/10.2174/2405463105666220309142802
/content/journals/cae/10.2174/2405463105666220309142802
/content/journals/cae/10.2174/2405463105666220309142802
Loading

Data & Media loading...


  • Article Type:     Research Article
Keyword(s): Energy democracy; energy literacy; energy policy; policy support; renewable energy technology; socio-economic status (SES)

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test