See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320010085 Public awareness and perception of environmental, health and safety risks to electricity generation: An explorative interview study in Switzerland Article in Journal of Risk Research · September 2017 DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2017.1391320 CITATIONS 0 READS 179 3 authors: Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Joint Activity Scenarios & Modelling (JASM) View project Futuragua: building resilience to drought in socio-ecological systems View project Sandra Volken Hochschule für Technik Rapperswil 2 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Gabrielle Wong-Parodi Carnegie Mellon University 43 PUBLICATIONS 365 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Evelina Trutnevyte University of Geneva 41 PUBLICATIONS 513 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE All content following this page was uploaded by Evelina Trutnevyte on 24 September 2017. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
35
Embed
Public awareness and perception of environmental, health and … · 2019. 9. 19. · Public awareness and perception of environmental, health and safety risks to electricity generation:
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320010085
Public awareness and perception of environmental, health and safety risks to
electricity generation: An explorative interview study in Switzerland
Article in Journal of Risk Research · September 2017
DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2017.1391320
CITATIONS
0READS
179
3 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
• Regional, national, or even international extent
• Mostly informed by what happened in Fukushima or Chernobyl and the radius in which iodine pills where distributed in Switzerland
• Infrastructure, buildings and economy: Everything destroyed, including buildings and infrastructures
• Natural environment: Everything eradicated, contaminated ground, impact on animals, environment, agriculture, groundwater and rivers
• Human health and safety: Health risk, cancer, impact on genetic material, evacuations, fatalities
• Massive damage, great consequences, crazy, huge danger, worst things could happen, enormous, tragic
• Not as bad in Switzerland, depends on type of risk
• Compared to other technologies much worse
(Pumped-‐)
storage hydro
power
• Regional, up to 100 kilometers, of flooding
• Affecting valleys or villages, caused by a dam break
• Infrastructure, buildings and economy: Everything destroyed, including buildings and infrastructure
• Natural environment: Large part of nature damaged, cleared, flora and fauna, huge damage to nature, no damaged soil, no impact on agriculture
• Human health and safety: Fatalities, evacuations
• Greater, many, terrible damage, massively destroyed, disastrous, depends on type of risk,
• Less severe than nuclear
Deep
geothermal
energy
• Local consequences, up to 5 kilometers, depending on the underground structures
• Infrastructure, buildings and economy: Houses (slightly) damaged
• Natural environment: Maybe changes structures of underground layers
• Human health and safety: Can cause fatalities or no fatalities, no damage, not felt earthquakes
• Not severe, very small to very big damage
Natural gas
• Local consequences depending on the wind direction
• Infrastructure, buildings and economy: Only the power plant
• Natural environment: Hazardous for the environment, birds, a bit of forest burnt, no long-‐term consequences
• Human health and safety: Gas could be hazardous, no impact, evacuation of power plant
• Gas leaks would not be funny, great damage, catastrophe of limited extent, not much happens
• Not as tragic as nuclear, but worse than biomass and biogas, and deep geothermal energy
Run-‐of-‐river • Alongside the river, close to the river
• Infrastructure, buildings and economy: Everything alongside the river, maybe
-‐
hydro power small boats • Natural environment: -‐ • Human health and safety:
Could cause fatalities, once a boy drowned
Biomass and
biogas
• Only in the immediate vicinity of the power plant or maximally 100 meters away
• Infrastructure, buildings and economy: Houses damaged
• Natural environment: Poisoning of environment, similar to CFCs causing ozone-‐hole, surrounding forest might catch fire
• Human health and safety: Suffocate, similar to silos, no long-‐term health consequences, maybe small scale evacuation
• Less severe than biomass and biogas, (pumped-‐) storage hydro power, and nuclear
Wind
• Not affecting anything except the power plant
• Infrastructure, buildings and economy: Only single power plants
• Natural environment: -‐ • Human health and safety:
Rotor blade that falls down could cause a fatality
• No catastrophe, less severe than nuclear
Solar
photovoltaics
• Maybe a whole building if it burns
• Infrastructure, buildings and economy: Only single panels, in case of fire maybe whole building
• Natural environment: -‐ • Human health and safety: If
it burns, hazard for people, could blind somebody if it reflects, snow that falls down is no hazard worth talking about
• Less severe than nuclear, not much happens, not worth talking about
For both low-probability high-consequence risks, such as a dam break or nuclear core
meltdown, as well as for high-probability low-consequence risks, such as induced
earthquakes, participants emphasized the lower importance of probabilities as compared
to the severity of consequences:
‘… but it’s not like houses would be destroyed or you would die… living close to a
hydro dam, I would see that different [ID_5].’ (Deep geothermal energy)
‘Knowing about very low probabilities would not change anything (in my perception of
nuclear power) [ID_5].’
Benefits, siting, technology potential and other factors
Besides EHS risks and negative operational EHS impacts, the interview participants
also mentioned other factors about electricity generation technologies (Huijts, Molin,
and Steg 2012, Perlaviciute and Steg 2014), such as the waste recycling benefits of
biomass and biogas, resource efficiency of solar photovoltaics and wind, or the ability
of (pumped-) storage hydropower to store electricity. Perceived benefits could be even
more important than perceived risks for the public (Visschers, Keller, and Siegrist
2011). Other factors that the interviewees referred to were economic aspects,
independence from other countries, aesthetic aspects, immaturity of technologies, noise,
or waste.
Three other prominent factors were the siting of technologies and a
technology’s maximum potential for development in Switzerland. For example, some
participants thought that solar photovoltaics were only suitable for rooftops, whereas
others referred to vast solar fields in Germany. Some participants expressed the wish to
consider heritage protection, integrate the solar panels into a building’s architecture, and
restrict their coverage ratio. For wind power plants, some people thought that a single
plant would not affect the surroundings much, whereas others emphasized the negative
implications of whole wind parks on landscape view. There was a common perception
among the participants that wind power plants are built in the mountain regions, not
close to communities. The participants believed that there is no potential to site wind
power plants in the Swiss Mittelland or even generally in Switzerland, and thus they
should be located elsewhere in northern Europe. For nuclear power, as expected, the
participants mentioned the issues related to the final disposal of nuclear waste, including
the site selection process, for which they expressed low subjective knowledge and
uncertainty. In general, there were many statements about the distance of the power
plants to communities or nature. The highest acceptance was shown for solar
photovoltaics, built within the communities.
Participants often referred to the technology potential in Switzerland, especially
when discussing nuclear power or its planned phase-out. A lot of uncertainty,
contradictory and ambivalent opinions were expressed as to whether the electricity
provided by nuclear could be realistically replaced by other technologies. As other
countries still rely on nuclear power, some participants thought it makes little sense to
phase out nuclear in Switzerland for the sake of reducing the EHS risks. They thought
that Switzerland would be exposed to nuclear risk by other countries, where operators
were also perceived less trustworthy and reliable.
Here we conclude that informational material on electricity generation
technologies should also include information on technology potential and siting issues
in order to reduce misconceptions and knowledge gaps as much as possible.
Informational material should balance between risk information and other relevant
aspects, such as negative operational impacts, benefits, or technical specifications
(Fleishman, De Bruin, and Morgan 2010, Mayer, Bruine de Bruin, and Morgan 2014).
Portfolio thinking and tradeoff-making between technologies
Most existing studies on public opinions of electricity generation focus on the public’s
perceptions and acceptance of individual technologies, (c.f. Visschers, Keller, and
Siegrist 2011, Siegrist and Visschers 2013, Soland, Steimer, and Walter 2013,
Schumacher and Schultmann 2017, Wallquist, Visschers, and Siegrist 2009, Tabi and
Wüstenhagen 2017, Spiess et al. 2015, Walter 2014, Wallquist, Visschers, and Siegrist
2011) rather than a suite of technologies in a portfolio. Some (Fleishman, De Bruin, and
Morgan 2010, Demski et al. 2015, Pidgeon et al. 2014, van Rijnsoever and Farla 2014,
Trutnevyte, Stauffacher, and Scholz 2011) have argued the necessity of adopting a
‘portfolio perspective’ as this is more reflective of how electricity demand is met in
practice. Despite this, researchers have yet to explore the extent to which non-experts
think in terms of portfolios. Our interviews indicate that people have some
understanding of and think about the electricity system as an inter-connected network of
power plants, imports, and demand. For example, the nuclear phase-out was perceived
to require increasing the capacity of other technologies or imports to cover the demand.
The participants also attempted to value such tradeoffs and acknowledged the need to
decide which aspects are more important than others:
‘…if nuclear power could be replaced by one of these, then good, but it depends a bit on
how the replacement would look like and if the rest needs to be imported [ID_2].’
‘If we exclude nuclear and coal, we cannot all drive an electric car [ID_1].’
Even more, some participants applied this portfolio thinking to trading off the
advantages, EHS risks and negative operation impacts of multiple technologies:
‘… with only renewables we cannot cover the whole demand, we need the big and risky
technologies [ID_2].’
‘If we depend on only one technology, the risk is too high… [ID_11].’
‘That will be funny, when everyone has solar panels on their roof, because the system
was not built for that [ID_6].’
‘… natural gas is something that can be stored easily. And water. And when we need it,
it can be converted to electricity [ID_7].’
‘… if we use wood for electricity, we cannot use it for heating [ID_6].’ (Biomass and
biogas)
‘…it’s only a potential risk, the real risk of CO2 emissions have priority [ID_9].’
(Nuclear)
‘…we have to live with that (induced earthquakes)… we can not have everything
[ID_5].’ (Deep geothermal energy)
Generally, such tradeoff-making indicates that people want to make decisions in the
context of other technologies and different attributes of technologies (Bruine de Bruin,
Mayer, and Morgan 2015). As the perceived technology potential in Switzerland is also
a factor people consider, at least on the abstract level, it is meaningful to elicit public
preferences for technology portfolios rather than single technologies. Furthermore, this
finding that people adopt portfolio thinking also supports the idea of Pidgeon and
colleagues (Demski et al. 2015, Pidgeon et al. 2014) that people prefer to make energy
decisions in the context that includes multiple technologies, as well as regulations,
policies, infrastructures, and other energy objectives, such as supply security.
Generalizability of the results
Our exploratory study provides highly relevant insights into people’s thoughts,
understanding and reasoning about EHS risks and negative operational EHS impacts
related to electricity generation technologies in Switzerland. Such insights remain
hidden in large representative surveys, as participants do neither have the opportunity to
express new ideas and ways of thinking nor to clarify their positions. This exploratory
study is the first step in understanding the intended audience, for developing
informational materials about EHS effects of electricity generation to facilitate
formation of informed public preferences in Switzerland.
Some of our findings are specific to Switzerland, such as high trust in
authorities, familiarity with hydro power and nuclear power, concerns over nuclear
phase-out, high share of import, and media coverage of seismicity induced by deep
geothermal energy. All these elements might not have been discovered in similar studies
elsewhere. However, our findings on the relevance of both accident EHS risks and
operational impacts, public view to risks beyond probabilities and consequences only,
and portfolio thinking are likely to be found in other countries too. In particular, our
finding that our participants in general tended to discuss technologies in relation to one
another rather than to talk about technologies in isolation without our prompting.
Interestingly, despite energy topics being extensively discussed in the Swiss public,
especially in relation to the recent and upcoming energy-related referendums, we still
find multiple misconceptions and awareness gaps. We thus believe that such
misconceptions and awareness gaps could also be found in other countries and be even
more prevalent, if the energy discussions are at earlier stages.
Several limitations of this study shall be kept in mind when generalizing
the results. First, after the open discussion at the start of the interview, we provided our
interviewees with descriptions of technologies, technology photographs, and damage
categories. This information could have influenced the participants’ responses. The
interviews were also semi-structured and not completely open and purely explorative.
Nevertheless, the benefit of providing the information was that we had a common
understanding of the technologies and could cover more aspects of EHS risks and
negative operational impacts, such as consequences on infrastructure or evacuations.
Second, as our focus was to investigate perception of EHS risks and negative
consequences related to electricity generation, we only marginally covered perceived
benefits or other factors that matter, such as aesthetic impacts, costs, or supply security.
However, our participants mentioned additional factors unprompted, such as preference
for a portfolio of technologies rather than a single technology or importance of
technology potential in Switzerland. Third, our study provides only a snapshot of
current views in the public. These views should be considered in light of the fact that
there have not been many accidents related to electricity generation or large-scale
industrial plants in recent years. Accidents, such as another core meltdown in a nuclear
plant or hydropower dam failure in Europe could change people’s perception of EHS
risks as well as the importance of these risks for preferences and acceptance
(Perlaviciute and Steg 2014). Previous research in Switzerland, however, found only
minor impacts of the nuclear accident in Fukushima on technology acceptance (Siegrist
and Visschers 2013).
Conclusions
This paper reported results from an explorative interview study with 12 lay people in
Switzerland on their awareness, perceptions and acceptance of environmental, health
and safety (EHS) risks and negative operation impacts posed by eight electricity
generation technologies. Following the mental models approach (Morgan et al. 2002),
these results will guide us in the development of informational material for the Swiss
public on the EHS risk and operational impacts related to the Swiss electricity sector
transition in the decades ahead.
We found that the interviewees actively referred to a similarly high number of
accidental EHS risks and negative operational impacts and could distinguish between
the two easily. Therefore, any informational material should cover both accidental and
negative operational EHS impacts and not only one type. We also identified multiple
subjective awareness gaps and misconceptions related to the type of EHS risks and
operational impacts, probabilities (frequencies) and consequences. These knowledge
gaps and misconceptions should be especially addressed in the informational material.
We found that the interviewees had difficulties in estimating probabilities of specific
EHS risks and tended to overestimate probabilities of nuclear and deep geothermal
energy risk, but underestimate those of hydropower and wind power. The consequence
dimension of EHS risks, including the spatial extent, damage categories, immediacy,
persistence and delay effects, was perceived by our interviewees more important than
probabilities. The consequences of EHS risks were likewise at times marked by
misconceptions. At times, the interviewees reasoned about probabilities using the fact
that risks are unknown to experts. Nevertheless, for actual (lack of) concern about risks,
the comparatively high level of trust in experts and authorities seemed to prevail. Still,
the interviewees were reluctant to completely exclude any possibility of the remaining
risk of unknowns, which might imply that probabilities, however small, still feed into
people’s preferences and decisions.
Most importantly, we found that our interviewees had an ability and tendency to
perceive the electricity system as an entirety of electricity demand, multiple
technologies (limited by maximum potentials), electricity imports and other
infrastructures. The interviewees actively made tradeoffs between technologies, related
EHS risks, negative operational impacts and other factors. They often demonstrated
rather ambivalent opinions about technologies, acknowledging both risks and benefits,
and showing willingness and awareness of the necessity to accept certain risks and
drawbacks.
Future research should further investigate the public awareness, perceptions and
misconceptions of EHS risks, negative operational impacts, and other factors, especially
using a representative survey to quantify the prevalence of views that we have
discovered in this interview study. On this basis, the aforementioned informational
material should then be developed, tested, and applied to facilitate the formation of
informed preferences for electricity generation technologies in Switzerland. In
particular, the focus should be put not on eliciting informed public preferences for
single generation technologies, but on helping lay people to understand the complexities
inherent in portfolios of multiple technologies and help make informed portfolio
judgements. We think that further public discourses, availability of balanced
information, and assisted tradeoff making are key to publically acceptable and thus
successful energy transition in Switzerland and elsewhere.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation Ambizione Energy
Grant No. 160563. The authors thank Stefan Klenke for his help with coding the
interviews and the members of the ETH USYS Transdisciplinary Lab and Swiss
Competence Center for Energy Research – Supply of Electricity (SCCER-SoE) Task
4.1 “Risk, safety, and social acceptance” for discussions.
References
Aven, Terje. 2012. "The risk concept—historical and recent development trends." Reliability Engineering & System Safety 99:33-‐‑44. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2011.11.006.
Bauer, C., R. Frischknecht, P. Eckle, K. Flury, T. Neal, K. Papp, S. Schori, A. Simons, M. Stucki, and K. Treyer. 2012. Umweltauswirkungen der Stromerzeugung in der Schweiz [Environmental Impacts of the Swiss Electricity Production]. Uster & Villigen: ESU-‐‑services GmbH
Paul Scherrer Insitute (PSI). Bodemer, N., and W. Gaissmaier. 2015. "Risk Perception." In The SAGE Handbook of
Risk Communication, edited by H. Cho, T. Reimer and K. A. McComas. California: SAGE Publications Inc.
Bruine de Bruin, W., and A. Bostrom. 2013. "Assessing what to address in science communication." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 110 Suppl 3:14062-‐‑8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212729110.
Bruine de Bruin, Wändi, Lauren A. Mayer, and M. Granger Morgan. 2015. "Developing communications about CCS: Three lessons learned." Journal of Risk Research 18 (6):699-‐‑705. doi: 10.1080/13669877.2014.983951.
Burgherr, Peter, and Stefan Hirschberg. 2014. "Comparative risk assessment of severe accidents in the energy sector." Energy Policy 74:S45-‐‑S56. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.01.035.
Danish Ministry of Climate, Energy and Building. 2012. DK Energy Agreement. edited by Energy and Building Danish Ministry of Climate.
de Best-‐‑Waldhober, Marjolein, Dancker Daamen, and André Faaij. 2009. "Informed and uninformed public opinions on CO2 capture and storage technologies in the Netherlands." International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 3 (3):322-‐‑332. doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2008.09.001.
Demski, Christina, Catherine Butler, Karen A. Parkhill, Alexa Spence, and Nick F. Pidgeon. 2015. "Public values for energy system change." Global Environmental Change 34:59-‐‑69. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.06.014.
Devine-‐‑Wright, Patrick. 2003. "A Cross -‐‑ National, Comparative Analysis of Public Understanding of, and Attitudes Towards Nuclear, Renewable and Fossil -‐‑ Fuel Energy Sources." Crossing Boundaries -‐‑ The Value of Interdisciplinary Research: Proceedings of the Third Conference of the EPUK (Environmental Psychology in the UK) Network, 160-‐‑173. EPUK. , Aberdeen, UK: Robert Gordon University.
Devine-‐‑Wright, Patrick. 2011. "Public engagement with large-‐‑scale renewable energy technologies: Breaking the cycle of NIMBYism." Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 2 (1):19-‐‑26. doi: 10.1002/wcc.89.
EC, European Commission. 2011. Energy Roadmap 2050. EIA, U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2016. International Energy Outlook
2016 with projections to 2040. Fischhoff, B., N. T. Brewer, and J. S. Downs. 2011. COMMUNICATING RISKS AND
BENEFITS: An Evidence-‐‑Based User's Guide. Silver Spring, MD. Fischhoff, B., and A. L. Davis. 2014. "Communicating scientific uncertainty."
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 111 Suppl 4:13664-‐‑71. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1317504111.
Fischhoff, B., P. Slovic, and S. Lichtenstein. 1982. "Lay Foibles and Expert Fables in Judgments About Risk." The American Statistician 36 (3):240-‐‑255.
Fleishman, L. A., W. B. De Bruin, and M. G. Morgan. 2010. "Informed public preferences for electricity portfolios with CCS and other low-‐‑carbon technologies." Risk Analysis 30 (9):1399-‐‑410. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-‐‑6924.2010.01436.x.
Government, HM. 2009. The UK Renewable Energy Strategy. Hirschberg, Stefan, Christian Bauer, Peter Burgherr, Eric Cazzoli, Thomas Heck,
Matteo Spada, and Karin Treyer. 2016. "Health effects of technologies for power generation: Contributions from normal operation, severe accidents and terrorist threat." Reliability Engineering & System Safety 145:373-‐‑387. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2015.09.013.
Hobman, Elizabeth V., and Peta Ashworth. 2013. "Public support for energy sources and related technologies: The impact of simple information provision." Energy Policy 63:862-‐‑869. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.09.011.
Huijts, N. M. A., E. J. E. Molin, and L. Steg. 2012. "Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: A review-‐‑based comprehensive framework." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16 (1):525-‐‑531. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2011.08.018.
Knoblauch, T., M. Stauffacher, and E. Trutnevyte. 2017. "Communicating low-‐‑probability high-‐‑consequence risk, uncertainty and expert confidence: Induced seismicity of deep geothermal energy and shale gas." Forthcoming.
Masanet, Eric, Yuan Chang, Anand R. Gopal, Peter Larsen, William R. Morrow, Roger Sathre, Arman Shehabi, and Pei Zhai. 2013. "Life-‐‑Cycle Assessment of Electric Power Systems." Annual Review of Environment and Resources 38 (1):107-‐‑136. doi: 10.1146/annurev-‐‑environ-‐‑010710-‐‑100408.
Mayer, L. A., W. Bruine de Bruin, and M. G. Morgan. 2014. "Informed public choices for low-‐‑carbon electricity portfolios using a computer decision tool."
Environmental Science and Technology 48 (7):3640-‐‑8. doi: 10.1021/es403473x.
McInerny, G. J., M. Chen, R. Freeman, D. Gavaghan, M. Meyer, F. Rowland, D. J. Spiegelhalter, M. Stefaner, G. Tessarolo, and J. Hortal. 2014. "Information visualisation for science and policy: Engaging users and avoiding bias." Trends in Ecology & Evolution 29 (3):148-‐‑57. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2014.01.003.
Morgan, G. M., B. Fischhoff, A. Bostrom, and C. J. Atman. 2002. Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
NEA, Nuclear Energy Agency, and International Energy Agency IEA. 2015. Technology Roadmap Nuclear Energy.
Perlaviciute, Goda, and Linda Steg. 2014. "Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: Integrated review and research agenda." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 35:361-‐‑381. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.04.003.
Pidgeon, N., C. Demski, C. Butler, K. Parkhill, and A. Spence. 2014. "Creating a national citizen engagement process for energy policy." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 111 Suppl 4:13606-‐‑13. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1317512111.
Pidgeon, N., and B. Fischhoff. 2011. "The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks." Nature Climate Change 1 (1):35-‐‑41. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1080.
Poortinga, W., N. Pidgeon, and I. Lorenzoni. 2006. Public Perceptions of Nuclear Power, Climate Change and Energy Options in Britain: Summary Findings of a Survey Conducted during October and November 2005. Technical Report. Norwich: Centre for Environmental Risk.
Renn, O. 2005. RISK GOVERNANCE. TOWARDS AN INTEGRATIVE APPROACH. Geneva.
Rudolf, Michael, Roman Seidl, Corinne Moser, Pius Krütli, and Michael Stauffacher. 2014. "Public preference of electricity options before and after Fukushima." Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 11 (1):1-‐‑15. doi: 10.1080/1943815x.2014.881887.
Schumacher, K., and F. Schultmann. 2017. "Local Acceptance of Biogas Plants: A Comparative Study in the Trinational Upper Rhine Region." Waste and Biomass Valorization. doi: 10.1007/s12649-‐‑016-‐‑9802-‐‑z.
Seidl, R., C. Moser, M. Stauffacher, and P. Krutli. 2013. "Perceived risk and benefit of nuclear waste repositories: Four opinion clusters." Risk Analysis 33 (6):1038-‐‑48. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-‐‑6924.2012.01897.x.
SFOE, Swiss Federal Office of Energy. 2013. Energieperspektiven 2050. Zusammenfassung.
SFOE, Swiss Federal Office of Energy. 2016. Schweizerische Elektrizitätsstatistik 2015. Bern.
Siegrist, Michael, and Vivianne H. M. Visschers. 2013. "Acceptance of nuclear power: The Fukushima effect." Energy Policy 59:112-‐‑119. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.07.051.
Slovic, P. 1987. "Perception of Risk." Science 236:280-‐‑285. Slovic, P., M. Finucane, E. Peters, and D. G. MacGregor. 2004. "Risk as Analysis and
Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality." Risk Analysis 24 (2):1-‐‑12.
Soland, Martin, Nora Steimer, and Götz Walter. 2013. "Local acceptance of existing biogas plants in Switzerland." Energy Policy 61:802-‐‑810. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.111.
Sovacool, Benjamin K., Rasmus Andersen, Steven Sorensen, Kenneth Sorensen, Victor Tienda, Arturas Vainorius, Oliver Marc Schirach, and Frans Bjørn-‐‑Thygesen. 2016. "Balancing safety with sustainability: Assessing the risk of accidents for modern low-‐‑carbon energy systems." Journal of Cleaner Production 112:3952-‐‑3965. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.059.
Spiegelhalter, D., M. Pearson, and I. short. 2011. "Visualizing Uncertainty About the Future." Science 333:1393-‐‑1400. doi: 10.1126/science.1191181.
Spiess, Harry, Evelyn Lobsiger-‐‑Kägi, Vicente Carabias-‐‑Hütter, and Andrea Marcolla. 2015. "Future acceptance of wind energy production: Exploring future local acceptance of wind energy production in a Swiss alpine region." Technological Forecasting and Social Change 101:263-‐‑274. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.06.042.
Stauffacher, Michael, Nora Muggli, Anna Scolobig, and Corinne Moser. 2015. "Framing deep geothermal energy in mass media: The case of Switzerland." Technological Forecasting and Social Change 98:60-‐‑70. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.05.018.
Tabi, Andrea, and Rolf Wüstenhagen. 2017. "Keep it local and fish-‐‑friendly: Social acceptance of hydropower projects in Switzerland." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 68:763-‐‑773. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.10.006.
Trutnevyte, Evelina, Michael Stauffacher, and Roland W. Scholz. 2011. "Supporting energy initiatives in small communities by linking visions with energy scenarios and multi-‐‑criteria assessment." Energy Policy 39 (12):7884-‐‑7895. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.09.038.
Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1974. "Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases." Science 185 (4157).
van Rijnsoever, Frank J., and Jacco C. M. Farla. 2014. "Identifying and explaining public preferences for the attributes of energy technologies." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 31:71-‐‑82. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2013.11.048.
Visschers, Vivianne H. M., Carmen Keller, and Michael Siegrist. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.064.
Visschers, Vivianne H. M., and Michael Siegrist. 2014. "Find the differences and the similarities: Relating perceived benefits, perceived costs and protected values to acceptance of five energy technologies." Journal of Environmental Psychology 40:117-‐‑130. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.05.007.
Wallquist, L., V. H. M. Visschers, and M. Siegrist. 2010. "Impact of Knowledge and Misconceptions on Benefit and Risk Perception of CCS." Environmental Science and Technology 44:6557-‐‑6562.
Wallquist, Lasse, Vivianne H. M. Visschers, and Michael Siegrist. 2009. "Lay concepts on CCS deployment in Switzerland based on qualitative interviews." International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 3 (5):652-‐‑657. doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2009.03.005.
Wallquist, Lasse, Vivianne H. M. Visschers, and Michael Siegrist. 2011. "Antecedents of risk and benefit perception of CCS." Energy Procedia 4:6288-‐‑6291. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.643.
Walter, Götz. 2014. "Determining the local acceptance of wind energy projects in Switzerland: The importance of general attitudes and project characteristics." Energy Research & Social Science 4:78-‐‑88. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2014.09.003.
Williams, J. H., A. DeBenedictis, R. Ghanadan, A. Mahone, J. Moore, W. R. Morrow III, S. Price, and M. S. Torn. 2012. "The Technology Path to Deep Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cuts by 2050: The Pivotal Role of Electricity." Science 335 (6064):53-‐‑59. doi: 10.1126/science.1208365
Wüstenhagen, Rolf, Maarten Wolsink, and Mary Jean Bürer. 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept." Energy Policy 35 (5):2683-‐‑2691. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.001.