Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Effects of exemplar scenarios on public preferences for energy futures using the my2050 scenario-building tool

Nature Energy volume 2, Article number: 17027 (2017) Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Understanding which energy future configurations provide publicly acceptable levels of energy security, affordability, and environmental protection is critical for institutional decision-making. However, little is known about how scenarios influence energy preferences. Here we present nationally representative UK data on public preferences for energy futures using the my2050 scenario-building tool that encourages engagement with the holistic complexities of system change. Engagement with the tool strengthened existing preferences for renewable energy and intentions to take personal action. Importantly, patterns of energy preferences were influenced by exemplar scenarios, which served as reference points that anchored choices. Carbon capture and storage, nuclear power, biofuels, and changes to heating and travel were particularly impacted by scenarios indicating uncertainty and ambivalence regarding these options. Scenarios (and scenario-building tools) are valuable for engaging citizens about future energy systems. However, care is required in their design and interpretation to reach robust conclusions about underlying preferences and acceptance.

Numerous countries across the world are currently planning system-wide energy transitions to address climate change while also maintaining reliable energy supplies (for example, ref. 1). In the UK the 2008 Climate Change Act commits the country to an 80% cut in its territorial emissions by the year 2050 as compared to 1990 levels2. Developing a national pathway to achieve such system change, by exploring different potential future energy scenarios, is therefore important in determining energy policy. This is an inherently complex task and the focus of much academic and political scrutiny (for example, refs 3,4,5,6,7,8). Most such national energy scenarios and policies derive from technical and economic assessments and evaluations, but struggle to consider other types of relevant societal values and interests9,10,11,12,13. In this regard, public perspectives can provide insights into potential social opportunities and constraints of energy pathways, and in particular which aspects and configurations of system change will provide socially acceptable levels of energy security, affordability, and environmental protection. Considering public views in this way is also important because energy transitions as a whole will involve people and communities in multiple ways—from consumers deciding how they should use the services that energy provides, to the ways in which society as a whole grants energy system providers a social licence to operate14,15. While there exists a wealth of evidence reporting public views of individual supply-side technologies and infrastructure, or on particular aspects of energy demand-side change (for example, refs 16,17,18,19), there is little research that meaningfully engages people with the complexities of system change as a whole (although see refs 20,21,22,23,24,25,26).

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Screenshot of the my2050 tool.
Figure 2: Responses to the my2050 tool.
Figure 3: Responses to the three versions of the my2050 tool.

References

  1. IEA Annual Report: World Energy Outlook (International Energy Agency, 2016); https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2016/november/world-energy-outlook-2016.html

  2. The Carbon Plan (UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2011); https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-carbon-plan-reducing-greenhouse-gas-emissions--2

  3. Watson, J., Gross, R. & Ketsopoulou, I. Energy policy special issue: UK Energy Research Centre uncertainties project. Energy Policy 87, 604–606 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 2050 Pathway Analysis (UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2010); https://www.gov.uk/guidance/2050-pathways-analysis

  5. Foxon, T. J., Hammond, G. P. & Pearson, P. J. Developing transition pathways for a low carbon electricity system in the UK. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 77, 1203–1213 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Scheer, D., Konrad, W. & Scheel, O. Public evaluation of electricity technologies and future low-carbon portfolios in Germany and the USA. Energy Sustain. Soc. 3, 8 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ekins, P. et al. The UK Energy System in 2050: Comparing Low Carbon, Resilient Scenarios (UK Energy Research Centre, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  8. UK Future Energy Scenarios (National Grid, 2014).

  9. Demski, C., Butler, C., Parkhill, K. A., Spence, A. & Pidgeon, N. Public values for energy system change. Glob. Environ. Change 34, 59–69 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Butler, C., Demski, C., Parkhill, K. A., Pidgeon, N. & Spence, A. Public values for energy futures: framing, indeterminacy and policy making. Energy Policy 87, 665–672 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Nielson, S. K. & Karlsson, K. Energy scenarios: a review of methods, uses and suggestions for improvement. J. Glob. Energy Issues 27, 302–322 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Perlaviciute, G. & Steg, L. The influence of values on energy alternatives. Renew. Energy 77, 259–267 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Trutnevyte, E., McDowall, W., Tomei, J. & Keppo, I. Energy scenario choices: insights from a retrospective review of UK energy futures. Sustain. Renew. Energy Rev. 55, 326–337 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Pidgeon, N., Demski, C., Butler, C., Parkhill, K. A. & Spence, A. Creating a national citizen engagement process for energy policy. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 13606–13613 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Miller, C. A., Iles, A. & Jones, C. F. The social dimensions of energy transitions. Sci. Cult. 22, 135–148 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Devine-Wright, P. Explaining ‘NIMBY’ objections to a power line: the role of personal, place attachment and project-related factors. Environ. Behav. 45, 761–781 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Henwood, K. et al. Energy Biographies Research Report (Cardiff Univ., 2015); http://orca.cf.ac.uk/87333/

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sovacool, B. K. What are we doing here? Analyzing fifteen years of energy scholarship and proposing a social science research agenda. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 1, 1–29 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Goulden, M., Bedwell, B., Rennick-Egglestone, S., Rodden, T. & Spence, A. Smart grids, smart users? The role of the user in demand side management. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2, 21–29 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mayer, L. A., Bruine de Bruin, W. & Granger Morgan, M. Informed public choices for low-carbon electricity portfolios using a computer decision tool. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 3640–3648 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. de Best-Waldhober, M. et al. Informed public opinions on CCS in comparison to other mitigation options. Energy Proc. 1, 4795–4802 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bessette, D. L., Arvai, J. & Campbell-Arvai, V. Decision support framework for developing regional energy strategies. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 1401–1408 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bessette, D. L., Campbell-Arvai, V. & Arvai, J. Expanding the reach of participatory risk management: testing an online decision-aiding framework for informing internally consistent choices. Risk Anal. 36, 992–1005 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jones, C. R., Eiser, J. R. & Gamble, T. R. Assessing the impact of framing on the comparative favourability of nuclear power as an electricity generating option in the UK. Energy Policy 41, 451–465 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bailey, R. An Exploration of the Low Carbon Futures for the Bristol Region PhD Thesis, Univ. West of England (2012).

  26. Stagl, S. Multicriteria evaluation and public participation: the case of UK energy policy. Land Use Policy 23, 53–62 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Energy Scenarios to 2050 (Shell Global, 2008); www.shell.com/content/dam/shell/static/public/downloads/brochures/corporate-pkg/scenarios/shell-energy-scenarios2050.pdf

  28. The Energy Report: 100% Renewable Energy by 2050 (World Wildlife Fund, 2011); http://www.worldwildlife.org/publications/the-energy-report

  29. Allen, P. & Chatterton, T. Carbon reduction scenarios to 2050: an explorative analysis of public preferences. Energy Policy 63, 796–808 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. My2050 (Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2012); http://my2050.decc.gov.uk

  31. Corner, A. J. et al. Nuclear power, climate change and energy security: exploring British public attitudes. Energy Policy 39, 4823–4833 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Shaw, C. J. Reframing climate risk to build public support for radical emission reductions: the role of deliberative democracy. Carbon Manage. 5, 349–360 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L. & Gaeth, G. J. All frames are not created equal: a typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. 76, 149–188 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185, 1124–1130 (1974).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Chapman, G. B. & Johnson, E. J. in Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (eds Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. & Kahneman, D. ) 120–138 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  36. Lichtenstein, S. & Slovic, P. The Construction of Preference (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2006).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  37. Macnaghten, P. Researching technoscientific concerns in the making: narrative structures, public responses and emerging nanotechnologies. Environ. Plan. A 42, 23–37 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Miller, C. The dynamics of framing environmental values and policy: four models of societal processes. Environ. Values 9, 211–233 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Whitmarsh, L. E. et al. Public Attitudes, Understanding, and Engagement in Relation to Low-carbon Energy. A Selective Review of Academic and Non-academic Literatures (Research Councils UK Energy Programme, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Demski, C., Spence, A. & Pidgeon, N. Summary Findings of a Survey Conducted in August 2012—Transforming the UK Energy System: Public Values, Attitudes and Acceptability (UK Energy Research Centre, 2013); http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/publications/transforming-the-uk-energy-system-public-values-attitudes-and-acceptability-summary-findings-from-a-survey-conducted-august-2012.html

    Google Scholar 

  41. Butler, C., Parkhill, K. & Pidgeon, N. Deliberating Energy Transitions in the UK—Transforming the UK Energy System: Public Values, Attitudes and Acceptability (UK Energy Research Centre, 2013); http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/publications/transforming-the-uk-energy-system-public-values-attitudes-and-acceptability-deliberating-energy-system-transitions-in-the-uk.html

    Google Scholar 

  42. Graham-Rowe, E. et al. Mainstream consumers driving plug-in battery-electric and plug-in hybrid electric cars: a qualitative analysis of responses and evaluation. Transport. Res. A 46, 140–153 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  43. 2050 Calculator (Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2016); http://2050-calculator-tool.decc.gov.uk/#/home

  44. Tomei, J. et al. An Early Evaluation of the 2050 Calculator International Outreach Programme (Institute of Sustainable Resources, University College London, 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Dillman, D. A. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (John Wiley, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research formed part of the programme of the UK Energy Research Centre and was supported by the UK Research Councils (NE/I006753/1 and EP/L024756/1). Additional support was received from the Welsh Government, the Leverhulme Trust (F/00 407/AG), and for A. Spence from Horizon Digital Economy Research EPSRC grant (EP/M02315X/1). The research team would also like to thank the project advisory panel.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Understanding Risk Research Group, School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3AT, UK

    Christina Demski & Nick Pidgeon

  2. Horizon Digital Economy Research/School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2TU, UK

    Alexa Spence

Authors
  1. Christina Demski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexa Spence
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nick Pidgeon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

C.D. led the design of the research, conducted data collection, performed the analysis and drafted the manuscript. A.S. and N.P. significantly contributed to the design of the study, discussion of the data analysis and writing of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christina Demski.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Notes 1–3, Supplementary Figure 1, Supplementary Tables 1–6, Supplementary References (PDF 477 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Demski, C., Spence, A. & Pidgeon, N. Effects of exemplar scenarios on public preferences for energy futures using the my2050 scenario-building tool. Nat Energy 2, 17027 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2017.27

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2017.27

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing