Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 55, Issue 3, pp 634–645 | Cite as

Environmental Value Considerations in Public Attitudes About Alternative Energy Development in Oregon and Washington

  • Brent S. Steel
  • John C. Pierce
  • Rebecca L. Warner
  • Nicholas P. Lovrich
Article

Abstract

The 2013 Pacific Coast Action Plan on Climate and Energy signed by the Governors of California, Oregon, and Washington and the Premier of British Columbia launched a broadly announced public commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through multiple strategies. Those strategies include the development and increased use of renewable energy sources. The initiative recognized that citizens are both a central component in abating greenhouse gas emissions with regard to their energy use behaviors, and are important participants in the public policymaking process at both state and local levels of government. The study reported here examines whether either support or opposition to state government leadership in the development of alternative energy technologies can be explained by environmental values as measured by the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP). The research results are based on mail surveys of randomly selected households conducted throughout Oregon and Washington in late 2009 and early 2010. Findings suggest that younger and more highly educated respondents are significantly more likely than older and less educated respondents to either support or strongly support government policies to promote bioenergy, wind, geothermal, and solar energy. Those respondents with higher NEP scores are also more supportive of government promotion of wind, geothermal, and solar technologies than are those with lower NEP scores. Support for wave energy does not show a statistical correlation with environmental values, maybe a reflection of this technology’s nascent level of development. The paper concludes with a consideration of the implications of these findings for environmental management.

Keywords

Renewable energy policy Environmental values Public acceptance of energy technology New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a Higher Education Challenge Grant from the United State Department of Agriculture (GRANT00561692), and by the School of Public Policy at Oregon State University.

References

  1. Aljets P (2010) The power of choice: how certain policies encourage renewable energy development. Master of Public Policy Essay, Oregon State University. http://hdl.handle.net/1957/16257. Accessed 10 Apr 2014
  2. American Association for Public Opinion Research (2011) Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. http://www.aapor.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Standard_Definitions2&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=3156. Accessed 1 Sept 2014
  3. Ansolabehere S, Konisky DM (2014) Cheap and clean: how Americans think about energy in the age of global warming. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Bidwell D (2013) The role of values in public and attitudes towards commercial wind energy. Energy Policy 58:189–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bird L, Swezey B (2006) Green power marketing in the United States: a status report. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, GoldenGoogle Scholar
  6. Brody SD, Zahran S, Grover H, Vediltz A (2008) A spatial analysis of local climate change policy in the United States: risk stress, and opportunity. Landsc Urban Plan 87:33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brody SD, Zaharan S, Vedlitz A, Grover H (2012) Examining the relationship between vulnerability and public perceptions of global climate change in the United States. Environ Behav 40:72–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Byrne J, Hughes K, Rickerson W, Kurdgelashvili L (2007) American policy conflict in the greenhouse: divergent trends in federal, regional, state, and local green energy and climate change policy. Energy Policy 35:4555–4573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cada G, Ahlgrimm J, Bahleda M, Bigford T, Stavrakas SD, Hall D, Moursund R, Sal M (2007) Potential impacts of hydrokinetic and wave energy conversion technologies on aquatic environments. Fisheries 32(4):174–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carley S (2009) State renewable energy electricity policies: an empirical evaluation of effectiveness. Energy Policy 37:3018–3071Google Scholar
  11. Casselman B (2009) Sierra Club’s pro-gas dilemma: National group’s stance angers on-the-ground environmentalists in several states. Wall Street J. http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB126135534799299475. Accessed 3 Dec 2014
  12. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (2012) Multi-state climate initiatives. www.c2es.org/print/us-states-regions/rgional-climate-initiatives. Accessed 4 Apr 2014
  13. Chasek P, Downie D, Brown JW (2006) Global environmental politics, 4th edn. Westview, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  14. Council on Foreign Relations (2009) Public opinion on global issues: world opinion on energy security. http://www.cfr.org/energy-policy/world-opinion-energy-security/p20063. Accessed 1 Sept 2014
  15. Dalton R, Garb P, Lovrich NP, Pierce JC, Whitely J (1999) Critical masses: citizen responses to the environmental consequences of nuclear weapons production in the United States and Russia. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Delmis MA, Montes-Sanch MJ (2011) U.S. state policies for renewable energy: context and effectiveness. Energy Policy 39:2273–2288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dernbach J (2012) Acting as if tomorrow matters: accelerating the transition to sustainability. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. Devine-Wright P (2010) Renewable energy and the public: from NIMBY to participation. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Devine-Wright P (2011) Place attachment and public acceptance of renewable energy: a tidal energy case study. J Environ Psychol 31:336–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Devine-Wright P, Howes Y (2010) Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments: a wind energy case study. J Environ Psychol. doi: 10.1016/j-jenvp.2010.01.008 Google Scholar
  21. Dillman DA (2007) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method, 2nd edn. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  22. Dunlap RE (2008) The new environmental paradigm scale: from marginality to worldwide use. J Environ Educ 40:3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dunlap RE, Van Liere K, Mertig A, Jones R (2000) Measuring endorsement of the new environmental paradigm: a revised NEP scale. J Soc Issues 56:425–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ehrenhalt A (2014) Down with the middleman: more problems will likely be solved by localities, not nation-states, in the future. Governing, February 16-17Google Scholar
  25. Ferris D (2012) Geothermal company drills into a volcano. http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidferris/2012/10/08/geothermal-company-drills-into-a-volcano/. Accessed 6 Apr 2014
  26. Forbes Magazine (2007) America’s greenest states. http://www.forbes.com/2007/10/16/environment-energy-vermont-biz-beltway-cx_bw_mm_1017greenstates.html. Accessed 3 Apr 2014
  27. Greenopia (2011) How green is your home state? http://www.greenopia.com. Accessed 11 Apr 2014
  28. Groves RM (2006) Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opin Quart 70:646–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hanson C, Van Son V (2003) Renewable energy certificates: an attractive means for corporate customers to purchase renewable energy. World Res Inst, Washington.Google Scholar
  30. Hays SP, Esler M, Hays CE (1996) Environmental commitment among the states: integrating alternative approaches to state environmental policy. Publius 26:41–58Google Scholar
  31. Heberlein TA (2012) Navigating environmental attitudes. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Holt E, Bird L (2005) Emerging markets for RECs: opportunities and challenges. North American Windpower, July: 1–4Google Scholar
  33. Homer P, Kahle LR (1988) A structural equation test of the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy. J Pers Soc Psychol 54:638–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Inglehart R (1977) The silent revolution: changing values and political styles among Western publics. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  35. Inglehart R (1990) Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  36. International Energy Agency (2008) Key world energy statistics. http://www.iea.org/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=1199. Accessed 10 Aug 2014
  37. Johnson GD, Erickson WP, Strickland MD, Shepherd MF, Shepherd DA, Sarapro SA (2003) Mortality of bats at large-scale wind power development at Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota. Am Midl Nat 150:332–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kahle LR (1983) Social values and social change: adaptation to life in America. Praeger, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Kikuchi R (2008) Adverse impacts of wind power generation on collision behaviour of birds and anti-predator behaviour of squirrels. J Nat Conserv 16:44–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Koch W (2011) States take lead in efforts to fight climate change. USA Today, January 23. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse. Accessed 3 Apr 2014
  41. Konisky DM, Woods ND (2012) Measuring state environmental policy. Rev Policy Res 29:544–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lawson PW (1993) Cycles in ocean productivity, trends in habitat quality, and the restoration of salmon runs in Oregon. Fisheries 18:6–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Leiserowitz A (2006) Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: the role of affect, imagery, and values. Clim Change 77:45–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lyon TP, Yin H (2010) Why do states adopt renewable portfolio standards? An empirical investigation. Energy J 31(3):133–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Matisoff DC (2008) The adoption of state climate change policies and renewable portfolio standards: regional diffusion or internal determinants? Rev Policy Res 25:527–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McAdam D, Boudet HS (2012) Putting social movements in their place: explaining opposition to energy projects in the United States, 2000–2005. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2011) Cool dudes: the denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Glob Clim Change. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.003 Google Scholar
  48. Messer BL, Edwards ML, Dillman DA (2012) Determinants of item nonresponse to weand mail respondents in three address-based mixed-mode surveys of the general public, Technical Report 12-001. Social and Economic Sciences Research Center, Pullman, WA: Washington State University. http://www.sesrc.wsu.edu/dillman/papersweb/2012.html Accessed 9 Sept 2014
  49. Moan JL, Smith ZA (2007) Energy use world wide. ABC-CLIO, Santa BarbaraGoogle Scholar
  50. National Mining Association (2014) Clean coal technology. NMA, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  51. Nelson G (2010) It’s red states vs. blue in legal wars over EPA rules. Greenwire, October 12Google Scholar
  52. Opinion Research Corporation (2006) Global warning and alternative energy: a leadership survey. Civil Society Institute, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  53. Pierce JC, Lovrich NP, Tsurutani T, Abe T (1989) Public knowledge and environmental politics in Japan and the United States. Westview Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  54. Pierce JC, Steger MA, Steel BS, Lovrich NP (1992) Citizens, political communication, and interest groups. Praeger Publishers, WestportGoogle Scholar
  55. Pierce JC, Steel BS, Warner RL (2009) Knowledge, culture and public support for renewable energy technology policy in Oregon. Comp Technol Transf Soc 7:270–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Poortinga W, Aoyagi M, Pidfgeon NF (2013) Public perceptions of climate change and energy futures before and after the Fukushima accident: a comparison between Britain and Japan. Energ Policy 62:1204–1211Google Scholar
  57. Rabe BG (2001) Statehouse and greenhouse: the emerging politics of American climate change policy. The Brookings Institution, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  58. Rabe BG (2010) Conclusion. In: Rabe BG (ed) Greenhouse governance: addressing climate change in America. The Brookings Institute, Washington, pp 353–366Google Scholar
  59. Ragin C (2004) Turning the tables: how case-oriented research challenges variable-oriented research. In: Brady HE, Collier D (eds) Rethinking social inquiry: diverse tools, shared standards. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, pp 125–141Google Scholar
  60. Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (2011) http://www.rggi.org/home. Accessed 10 Apr 2014
  61. Robinson J (2004) Squaring the circle? some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecol Econ 48:369–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schively C (2007) Understanding the NIMBY and LULU phenomenon: reassessing our knowledge base and informing future research. J Plan Lit 21:255–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Selin H, VanDeveer SD (2007) Political science and prediction: what’s next for U.S. climate change policy? Rev Policy Res 24:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sherman, DJ (2011) Not here, not there, not anywhere. Resources for the Future, WashingtonCGoogle Scholar
  65. Shwom R, Bidwell D, Dan A, Dietz T (2010) Understanding U.S. public support for domestic climate change policies. Glob Environ Change 20:472–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Simon CA (2009) constraints on wind and solar energy in the U.S. context. Comp Technol Transf Soc 7:251–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Simon CA, Steel BS, Lovrich NP (2011) State and local government: sustainability in the 21st Century. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  68. Sovacool BK (2007) Rejecting renewables: the socio-technical impediments to renewable electricity in the United States. Energy Policy 37:4500–4513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Steel BS, Clinton R, Lovrich NP (2003) Environmental politics and policy: a comparative perspective. McGraw-Hill, BostonGoogle Scholar
  70. Steel BS, Warner RL, Lach D (2010) Gender differences in support for scientific involvement in U.S. environmental policy. Sci Technol Hum Val 35:147–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sussman G, Daynes BW (2013) The United States and climate change: science confronts policy. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  72. Uchitelle L, Thee M (2006) Americans are cautiously open to gas tax rise. New York Times, February 28Google Scholar
  73. United Nations Environment Programme (2010) Biofuel controversy explodes as new concerns emerge. http://www.climateactionprogramme.org/news/biofuel_controversy_reaches_high_pitch_as_new_concerns_emerge. Accessed 15 Oct 2014
  74. U.S. Department of Energy (2014) U.S. states: state profiles and energy estimates. http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=US. Accessed 9 Sept 2014
  75. U.S. Energy Information Administration (2014) Annual energy outlook 2014. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/. Accessed 10 Oct 2014
  76. Van der Horst D (2010) NIMBY or not? exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy 35:2705–2714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. West Coast Governors (2004) West coast governors’ global warming initiative: Staff recommendations to the governors. http://www.ef.org/westcoastclimate/WCGGWI_Nov_04%20Report.pdf. Accessed 10 Apr 2014
  78. White SS, Brown C, Gibson J, Hanley E, Earnhart D (2009) Planting food or fuel: developing an interdisciplinary approach to understanding the role of culture in farmers’ decisions to grow second-generation, biofuel feedstock crops. Comp Technol Transf Soc 7:287–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wooley O (2010) Trouble on the horizon? Addressing place-based values in planning for off-shore wind energy. J Environ Law 22:223–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Yi H, Feiock RC (2014) Renewable energy politics: policy typologies, policy tools, and state deployment of renewables. Policy Stud J 42:391–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brent S. Steel
    • 1
  • John C. Pierce
    • 2
  • Rebecca L. Warner
    • 3
  • Nicholas P. Lovrich
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Public PolicyOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.School of Public Affairs and AdministrationUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA
  3. 3.Academic AffairsOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  4. 4.Political ScienceWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA

Personalised recommendations