Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The aim of this study was to characterize the influence that different dimensions of public trust in regulatory institutions have on social acceptability judgments of electricity generation sources in Chile. Chilean university students' acceptability judgments of ten energy sources were characterized using a web-based survey, covering risk and benefit perceptions, declared levels of acceptability, and trust in regulatory institutions. Our results confirm the influence of public trust in regulatory institutions on general perceptions and acceptance of electricity generation sources, and corroborate the presence of two dimensions of trust in regulatory institutions: integrity-based trust and competence-based trust. Our results revealed a significant influence of both aspects on risk and benefit perceptions and acceptance of fossil fuels, biomass and nuclear power, while for NRES no significant relationships were found. For hydropower, integrity-based trust was the only form of trust that influenced perceptions of risks and benefits, and its influence over public acceptance was significantly larger than competence-based trust. Further analyses of results for each energy source and implications for regulators are discussed.

Keywords

Public Acceptance Social Trust Energy Sources

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alarcón

Agurto

. (2011). Informe de la Comisión Asesora para el Desarrollo Eléctrico. Santiago, Comisión Asesora para el Desarrollo Eléctrico, Ministerio de Energía.

Ansolabehere

(2007). Public attitudes toward American's energy options: Report of the 2007 MIT Energy Survey. Boston, Massachusett, MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research.

Bratspies

R. M.

(2009). “Regulatory Trust.” Arizona Law Review. 51: 575–631.

Bronfman

N. C.

Jiménez

. (2012). “Understanding social acceptance of electricity generation sources.” Energy Policy 46: 246–252.

Bronfman

N. C.

and López-Vázquez

(2011). “A Cross-Cultural Study of Perceived Benefit versus Risk as Mediators in the Trust-Acceptance Relationship.” Risk Analysis 31(12): 1919–1934.

Bronfman

N. C.

López-Vázquez

. (2008). “Trust, Acceptance and Knowledge of Technological and Environmental Hazards in Chile.” Journal of Risk Research 11(6): 755–773.

Corner

Venables

. (2011). “Nuclear power, climate change and energy security: Exploring British public attitudes.” Energy Policy 39(9): 4823–4833.

Earle

T. C.

(2010). “Trust in risk management: A model-based review of empirical research.” Risk Analysis 30(4): 541–574.

Eiser

J. R.

Miles

. (2002). “Trust, Perceived Risk and Attitudes Towards Food Technologies.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 32(11): 2423–2433.

10.

Electricidad

C. N. d.

(2012). Estadísticas Generación Bruta SIC – SING, Comisión Nacional de Energía, Ministerio de Energía.

11.

Flynn

Burns

W. J.

. (1992). “Trust as a Determinant of Opposition to a High-Level Radioactive Waste Repository: Analysis of a Structural Model.” Risk Analysis 12: 417–429.

12.

Freudenburg

W. R.

(1993). “Risk and recreancy: Weber, the division of labor, and the rationality of risk perceptions.” Social Forces 11(4): 909–932.

13.

Frewer

L. J.

Scholderer

. (2003). “Communicating About the Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods: The Mediating Role of Trust.” Risk Analysis 23(6): 1117–1133.

14.

Greenberg

(2009). “Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences: Analysis of US national and site-specific data.” Energy Policy 37(8): 3242–3249.

15.

Hartmann

Apaolaza

. (2013). “Nuclear power threats, public opposition and green electricity adoption: Effects of threat belief appraisal and fear arousal.” Energy Policy 62: 1366–1376.

16.

Jobert

Laborgne

. (2007). “Local acceptance of wind energy: Factors of success identified in French and German case studies.” Energy Policy 35(5): 2751–2760.

17.

McGowan

and Sauter

(2005). Public opinion on energy research: A desk study for the research councils. Science and Technology Policy Research. Brighton, The Freeman Centre, University of Sussex.

18.

Metlay

(1999). “Institutional trust and confidence: A journey into a conceptual quagmire.” Social Trust and the Management of Risk: 100–116.

19.

de Energía

Ministerio

. (2012). Estrategia Nacional de Energía 2012–2030. Santiago, Gobierno de Chile.

20.

Pidgeon

N. F.

Lorenzoni

. (2008). “Climate change or nuclear power – No Thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain.” Global Environmental Change 18: 69–85.

21.

Poortinga

Pidgeon

. (2006). Public perceptions of nuclear power, climate change and energy options in Britain: Summary findings of a survey conducted during October and November 2005. Norwich, UK, Centre for Environmental Risk.

22.

Poortinga

and Pidgeon

N. F.

(2003). “Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation.” Risk Analysis 23(5): 961–972.

23.

Poortinga

and Pidgeon

N. F.

(2005). “Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food?” Risk Analysis 25(1): 199–209.

24.

Siegrist

(2000). “The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology.” Risk Analysis 20(2): 195–203.

25.

Siegrist

and Cvetkovich

G. T.

(2000). “Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge.” Risk Analysis 20(5): 713–719.

26.

Soland

Steimer

. (2013). “Local acceptance of existing biogas plants in Switzerland.” Energy Policy 61: 802–810.

27.

Terwel

Harinck

. (2009). “Competence-Based and Integrity-Based Trust as Predictors of Acceptance of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS).” Risk Analysis 29(8): 1129–1140.

28.

Visschers

V. H.

Keller

. (2011). “Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model.” Energy Policy 39(6): 3621–3629.

29.

Visschers

V. H.

and Siegrist

(2012). “Fair play in energy policy decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants.” Energy Policy 46: 292–300.

30.

Zanelli

Antonijevic

. (2007). La Opción Núcleo-Eléctrica en Chile. Santiago, Grupo de Trabajo en Núcleo-Electricidad, Comisión Nacional de Energía, Ministerio de Minería.

Public Acceptance of Electricity Generation Sources: The Role of Trust in Regulatory Institutions

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References