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.

National context is a key determinant of energy security concerns across Europe

Abstract

Energy security is an important policy goal for most countries. Here, we show that cross-country differences in concern about energy security across Israel and 22 countries in Europe are explained by energy-specific and general national contextual indicators, over-and-above individual-level factors that reflect population demographics. Specifically, public concerns about import dependency and affordability reflect the specific energy context within countries, such as dependency on energy imports and electricity costs, while higher concerns about the affordability, vulnerability and reliability of energy are associated with higher fossil fuel consumption. More general national context beyond energy also appears to matter; energy security concerns are higher in countries that are doing less well in terms of economic and human well-being. These findings indicate that wider energy, social and economic context influence people’s feelings of vulnerability and sense of security, which may inform the development of effective energy security strategies that assuage public concerns.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Data availability

The European Social Survey Round 8 data that support the findings of this study are available from http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/data/. The national indicators are provided in Supplementary Table 2, and can be obtained online from the International Energy Agency (https://www.iea.org/statistics/), the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/), World Bank (https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (https://data.oecd.org/) and the Sustainable Society Foundation (http://www.ssfindex.com/data-all-countries/).

References

  1. 1.

    IEA Annual Report: World Energy Outlook (International Energy Agency, 2017).

  2. 2.

    Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN, 2015).

  3. 3.

    Skea, J. & Ekins, P. Energy 2050: Making the Transition to a Secure Low-Carbon Energy System (Routledge, London, 2010).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Umbach, F. Global energy security and the implications for the EU. Energy Policy 38, 1229–1240 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Boardman, B. Fixing Fuel Poverty: Challenges and Solutions (Earthscan, London, 2010).

  6. 6.

    DeCicco, J., Yan, T., Keusch, F., Muñoz, D. H. & Neidert, L. U.S. consumer attitudes and expectations about energy. Energy Policy 86, 749–758 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Demski, C., Poortinga, W. & Pidgeon, N. Exploring public perceptions of energy security risks in the UK. Energy Policy 66, 369–378 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Jones, C. R., Kaklamanou, D. & Lazuras, L. Public perceptions of energy security in Greece and Turkey: exploring the relevance of pro-environmental and pro-cultural orientations. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 28, 17–28 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Becker, S., Schober, D. & Wassermann, S. How to approach consumers’ nonmonetary evaluation of electricity supply security? The case of Germany from a multidisciplinary perspective. Utilities Policy 42, 74–84 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Spence, A. & Pidgeon, N. Psychology, climate change and sustainable behaviour. Environment 51, 8–18 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    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 

  12. 12.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Sovacool, B. K. & Mukherjee, I. Conceptualizing and measuring energy security: a synthesized approach. Energy 36, 5343–5355 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Day, R., Walker, G. & Simcock, N. Conceptualising energy use and energy poverty using a capabilities framework. Energy Policy 93, 255–264 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Knox-Hayes, J., Brown, M. A., Sovacool, B. K. & Wang, Y. Understanding attitudes toward energy security: results of a cross-national survey. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 609–622 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Capstick, S., Whitmarsh, L., Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N. & Upham, P. International trends in public perceptions of climate change over the past quarter century. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 6, 35–61 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Franzen, A. & Vogl, D. Two decades of measuring environmental attitudes: a comparative analysis of 33 countries. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 1001–1008 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Knight, K. W. Public awareness and perception of climate change: a quantitative cross-national study. Environ. Sociol. 2, 101–113 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Kim, S. Y. & Wolinsky-Nahmias, Y. Cross-national public opinion on climate change: the effects of affluence and vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Polit. 14, 79–106 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Sandvik, H. Public concern over global warming correlates negatively with national wealth. Climatic Change 90, 333–341 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Lee, T. M., Markowitz, E. M., Howe, P. D., Ko, C. Y. & Leiserowitz, A. A. Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 1014–1020 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Sovacool, B. K. et al. Exploring propositions about perceptions of energy security: an international survey. Environ. Sci. Policy 16, 44–64 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Sovacool, B. K. Differing cultures of energy security: an international comparison of public perceptions. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 55, 811–822 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Ang, B. W., Choong, W. L. & Ng, T. S. Energy security: definitions, dimensions and indexes. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 42, 1077–1093 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Sovacool, B. K. & Tambo, T. Comparing consumer perceptions of energy security, policy, and low-carbon technology: insights from Denmark. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 11, 79–91 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Blumer, Y. B., Moser, C., Patt, A. & Seidl, R. The precarious consensus on the importance of energy security: contrasting views between Swiss energy users and experts. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 52, 927–936 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Poortinga, W., Spence, A., Demski, C. & Pidgeon, N. F. Individual-motivational factors in the acceptability of demand-side and supply-side measures to reduce carbon emissions. Energy Policy 48, 812–819 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E. & MacGregor, D. G. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal. 24, 311–322 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E. & MacGregor, D. G. The affect heuristic. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 177, 1333–1352 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Demski, C., Evensen, D., Pidgeon, N. & Spence, A. Public prioritisation of energy affordability in the UK. Energy Policy 110, 404–449 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Third Report on the State of the Energy Union (European Commission, 2017).

  32. 32.

    Lo, A. Y. & Chow, A. T. The relationship between climate change concern and national wealth. Climatic Change 131, 335–348 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Butler, C., Parkhill, K. A. & Luzecka, P. Rethinking energy demand governance: exploring impact beyond ‘energy’ policy. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 36, 70–78 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Krosnick, J. Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in survey. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 5, 213–236 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Button, K. S. et al. Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 14, 365 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Hopkins, D. Country comparisons. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 975–976 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Balžekiene, A. & Telešiene, A. in Green European: Environmental Behaviour and Attitudes in Europe in a Historical and Cross-Cultural Comparative Perspective (eds Telešiene, A. & Gross, M.) 31–55 (Routledge, London, 2017).

  38. 38.

    Brown, M. A., Wang, Y., Sovacool, B. K. & D’Agostino, A. L. Forty years of energy security trends: a comparative assessment of 22 industrialized countries. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 4, 64–77 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The European Social Survey (ESS) is a European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC). Participating countries contribute to the central coordination costs of the ESS ERIC as well as covering the costs of their own fieldwork and national coordination. The contextual data were collected as part of the Public Attitudes to Welfare, Climate Change and Energy in the EU and Russia (PAWCER) project, funded under the ERA.Net RUS Plus programme (ID: 340).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

C.D. led the writing of the paper. W.P. conducted the data analyses. The first version was drafted by C.D. and W.P. All authors contributed to the writing and revisions of this paper. W.P., S.F., L.W., L.S. and G.B. designed the climate and energy module of European Social Survey Round 8.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christina Demski.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Demski, C., Poortinga, W., Whitmarsh, L. et al. National context is a key determinant of energy security concerns across Europe. Nat Energy 3, 882–888 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-018-0235-8

Download citation

Further reading

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