4.5 Article

Public Acceptance of Renewable Energy Sources: a Case Study from the Czech Republic

期刊

ENERGIES
卷 13, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/en13071742

关键词

renewable energy sources; public opinion; mass media; European Union; Czech Republic; energy policy; social networks

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The substitution of traditional energy production with renewable energy sources (RES) in the European Union (EU) represents a multidimensional issue with its pros and cons viewed differently by governments, technology companies, markets, as well as the general public. There are significant public doubts in expediency of investments in renewables in place. Our paper studies the factors related to the public opinion on renewables using a reasonable and representative sample of respondents (N = 1026) from one of the EU Member States, the Czech Republic, via a set of ordinal regression analyses with spline correction for ordinal predictors. Our results suggest that the population of the Czech Republic is split in half in its trust in renewables as a substitute to traditional energy sources. In addition, our results show that the opinions on renewables in the Czech Republic are significantly related to personal concerns on environmental protection and worries about use of nuclear energy. Moreover, we find that traditional mass media is not statistically significant, even though internet news channels and social media were statistically related to the opinions (negatively and positively, respectively). The comparison of the responses with respect to the frequency of following social media support the hypothesis of the media bubble. The empirical results indicate that public opinions on renewables are likely to be built on the information sources vulnerable to hoaxes, bubbles, and misinformation. We conclude that more media presentation on RES is needed and make some practical suggestions for the stakeholders, journalists, and relevant policymakers.

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

4.5
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