Public Perceptions of Energy Security Researching public...
57
1 Public Perceptions of Energy Security: Researching public understanding of energy behaviour and why we reduce energy. Submitted by John Oakley Allen to the University of Exeter as a dissertation towards the degree of Master of Science by advanced study in Energy Policy and Sustainability (September 2009) I certify that all material in this dissertation which is not my own work has been identified with appropriate acknowledgement and referencing and I also certify that no material is included for which a degree has previously been conferred upon me. ………………………………………………………………………………………………
Transcript of Public Perceptions of Energy Security Researching public...
1
Public Perceptions of Energy Security: Researching
public understanding of energy behaviour and why we
reduce energy.
Submitted by John Oakley Allen to the University of Exeter as a
dissertation towards the degree of Master of Science by
advanced study in Energy Policy and Sustainability
(September 2009)
I certify that all material in this dissertation which is not my own work has been identified
with appropriate acknowledgement and referencing and I also certify that no material is
included for which a degree has previously been conferred upon me.
………………………………………………………………………………………………
2
Contents
Section Heading Page
1.0 Abstract 4
2.0 Introduction 5
2.1 Background 5
2.2 Aims & Objectives 8
3.0 Defining energy security 10
3.1 Factors of Risk 10
3.1.1 Political Risk 10
3.1.2 Economics and Markets 13
3.1.3 Technology 14
3.1.5 Environmental 16
3.2 Changes in Time Lines 17
3.3 Indicators of Breakdown 18
3.4 Current Strategies 19
3.5 Public’s Affect on Security 21
4.0 Literature Review: Public Perception of Risk 23
4.1 What is Risk? 23
4.2 Difficulties in assessing perceptions of risk 23
4.3 Information Processing 25
4.4 Communicating Risk 26
4.5 Gaps in Literature 27
5.0 Methodology 29
5.1 Introduction 29
5.2 Questionnaire 30
5.2.1 Questionnaire Structure 30
5.2.2 Findings of the Survey 30
5.3 Focus Group Structure 34
5.4 Focus Group Analysis 35
5.4.1 Cost 36
5.4.2 Social Influences 38
5.4.3 The source of Energy 40
5.4.4 Trust in Decision Makers 41
5.4.5 Experience 43
5.4.6 Climate Change 44
6.0 Discussion 45
7.0 Conclusion 48
3
8.0 Future Research 49
8.1 Perceptions of Energy Security 49
8.2 The Effect of Public Behaviours on Energy Security 50
Reference 51
Appendix
Appendix 1: Questionnaire
Appendix 2: Focus group crib sheet
Appendix 3: Ethics self-assessment form
4
1.0 Abstract
Energy security is arguably the most important issue facing the UK’s energy system
today. This dissertation examines the perceptions of the general public to review what
they understand about energy security and how it affects them. To achieve this firstly a
review of how individuals perceive different types of risk was carried out. Primary
research in the form of focus groups was undertaken to get an understanding of how
individuals view the energy system and how they believe they can affect it’s security. It
was found that within the groups the understanding of the energy system was
believed to be very poor. By providing a greater understanding to the general public a
greater level of concern for the energy security would ensue with a better
understanding of government actions.
5
2.0 Introduction
2.1 Background
Since the United Kingdom’s liberalisation of the energy market in the 1980’s the
government has found itself separated from the energy sector. The government no
longer has direct control in the energy market but simply influence over its operation
through taxation, subsidy, planning, regulation, and research funding.
In 2002 the Performance and Innovation Unit (PUI) was set up by the government to
bring in the expertise required to create a new energy policy framework. From the PUI
report the 2003 Energy White Paper ‘Our Energy Future – creating a low carbon
economy’ was created. In 2007 a second Energy White Paper came called ‘Meeting
the energy challenge’.
Since the first review of the energy system in 2002, energy security has been an issue
brought into the energy debate “Energy Security needs to be satisfied at all times – its
importance derives from the critical role that energy plays in all aspects of everyday
and business life. Without adequate energy security, the sustainable development
objectives would be compromised” (PUI 2002). In the 2003 Energy White Paper it was
described as “Reliable energy supplies are an essential element of sustainable
development” (DTI, 2003). In the current 2007 Energy White Paper security is arguably
brought to the front as the most important goal facing the UK energy system
“Maintaining security of energy supplies and avoiding dangerous climate change are
the greatest challenges facing the international community” (DTI, 2007). Energy security
however is multi-faceted and a highly complex issue to unravel. It covers many
different areas of the energy system including domestic and international policies and
cannot be solved though one response alone.
Policy makers and others seeking to increase the security of the UK’s energy system
must include the impact of human behaviour. Whether it is to increase the levels of
efficiency in the home, acceptability of new regulations or to keep in favour after a
6
crisis has occurred. An understanding of motivations of behavioural change is
therefore critical (Foresight 2008).
After the 1973 and 1979 energy crisis energy conservation became an issue on the
political agenda. In 1990’s it was increasingly acknowledged that households are
relevant for reducing long term energy impacts (Benders et al 2005).
The term energy behaviours are commonly used to refer to consumption behaviours
that result in demand of energy. However, the concept is broader and encompasses
behaviours of individuals and communities relating to both the consumption and
production of energy use and to political actions which encourage or resist policy
routes (Devine Wright 2005; Foresight 2008).
Behavioural change can sometimes be effected without explicit change in attitudes,
through regulation or through economic instruments such as pricing, taxation and
incentives. These are acknowledged political risks, when pursued as isolated strategies
(Owens & Driffill, 2008). But by opening people minds to the actions they take and
demonstrating alternatives, they can help to build the space for these more mandatory
policies to tackle the most difficult issues (SDC 2006) without causing harm to the
current political powers.
The UK government has often tried to change the behaviour patterns in relation to
energy of the general public. Examples of campaigns found in the area of domestic
energy consumption are:
• The save it campaign in the 1970’s.
• Helping the earth begins at home in 1991.
• Are you doing your bit? (1998).
• Climate change communication initiative 2005-2007.
• Act on CO2 2007 onwards.
In spite of repeated campaigns the uptake of energy efficiency measures has been
disappointing and behaviours have become more energy intensive (Owens & Driffill, 2008).
Previous work involving research into sustainable behaviours has been carried out
including a project by DEFRA - ‘Public Understanding of Sustainable Consumption in
7
the Home’ where a qualitative, deliberative approach to investigating these objectives
was used to understand current consumer attitudes towards energy, current
consumer attitudes towards lifestyle changes, links between sustainability goals and
other drivers, reception to sustainable energy information, segmented responses to
behaviour goals, and how behaviour goals may be realised (DEFRA 2007).
The sustainable consumption roundtable has looked at possible solutions and
approaches to sustainable consumption with ‘I will if you will, towards sustainable
consumption’. This uses primary research from three groups of individuals, people
business and government it then looks at what policies are linked to them (SDC 2006).
There are various other reviews of public understanding in different areas of
sustainability that have been performed by DEFRA in 2007 such as; Consumption of
Food, sustainable transport, leisure and tourism, and Finance and investment.
However, what the synthesis report for these shows are that pro-environmentalism
emerges as the most salient issue in terms of understanding current behaviours and
influencing the adoption of sustainable lifestyles for the future.
Pro-environmental behaviour is often associated with sacrifice, an increase in spending
and poorer quality of life (DEFRA 2007). This lack of enthusiasm for environmental
behaviour change results in the take-up of sustainable choices to be viewed
unfavourably.
Enabling a behaviour change is no trivial task, our consumption patterns are affected
by many various aspects such as societal issues and our relationship with material
goods and services (SDC 2006).
The use of energy in the household can often be considered a service and not as the
outcome. Consumers view the outcome such as heating a household rather than the
energy required to do so (Burgess & Nye 2008). This acts to disconnect individuals with
their energy use and daily routine.
Roles and responsibilities of the public and consumers might also be reconceived in
the light of demand and supply side developments such as smart metering and micro
community scale generation (Devine-Wright, 2005). We may start to think in terms of
energy citizens or co-providers (Van Vliet 2004). We know that there is a considerable
8
gap between people’s attitudes and their actions. This ‘value-action gap’ (SDC 2006) can
cause individuals with the ideology for reducing their energy consumption but their
everyday behaviours do not reflect this.
2.2 Aims and Objectives
This aim of this dissertation is to assist in the shift towards more sustainable lifestyles
of the general public. Some initial steps have been put in place by the government as
existing commitments. The idea of this study is to find additional ways for the
individual to think about the energy they use every day.
The focus of the dissertation is looking at energy security as a reason to include more
sustainable habits within the general public’s everyday routine. It begins with a review
of how energy security affects the UK and the individual. The dissertation also looks at
what the individual can do to cause and effect on the energy security of the UK. A
major issue with causing change in individual behaviour is their perception of risk. If
security is the actions employed to achieve a state without fear or harm then how we
perceive the risks to our security is important. Individuals view different types of risk in
different ways and react differently. This dissertation will therefore cover a literature
review on how the individual’s perception of risk can change behaviour patterns. This
will be used to review how energy security and its various aspects would affect the
individual. A review of the ability for the individual to make a change to energy security
will also be carried out in order to review the role or the general public in the energy
security debate.
It will also review how the government views energy security and where it sits in their
priorities within energy policy. This will also be important to view how the government
informs the general public of the energy security issues facing the UK.
The primary research will be used to identify what the general public understand
about energy security. When we know what the general public understand about
energy security then a base to start from can be established. If a low level of
understanding is found then we can look at why this is the case and whether a higher
understanding of the situation could affect their everyday actions. If a high level of
knowledge of the issues behind energy security is found then one of the aims of this
9
research would be to review how much this information impacts their energy related
behaviours. Understanding how the general public prioritise energy security within
their motives for reducing their domestic energy requirements would help understand
whether a more efficient course of action would be to emphasise the risks to the
energy system, environmental impacts, and the financial cost of energy or a strategy of
regulation in order to affect more sustainable behaviours. Who the general public
believes is responsible for ensuring that a steady affordable supply of energy is
provided would be helpful in terms of associating roles for each sector to help against
potential risks within a particular aspect of the energy system.
The outcome of this dissertation is to create a policy framework which will build on
individual’s current motives behind sustainable attitudes giving more reason to choose
more sustainable habits.
10
3.0 Defining Energy Security
Energy security is a multifaceted concept encompassing all areas of the energy system.
It does not have a simple quick fix solution even to a single sector of the industry. For
instance, large investment ensuring the stability of the natural gas infrastructure will in
the short term ensure the transportation of gas to our homes. However, the energy
system is constantly adapting and other sources of fuels such as hydrogen would
therefore require a change to ensure the security of a hydrogen economy. What this
means is that energy security needs to be looked upon in terms of short term and long
term goals creating strategies which cover both aspects and are complementary by
design. A distinction that is often made between long and short term security is that
the short term generally encompasses the mitigation of disruptions whilst the long
term issues look at the causes of the disruptions within the structure of the energy
system (Kruyt B., et al, 2009).
This section will be used to define the areas of risk affecting energy security, the
indicators of energy security breakdown both already occurred and possible future
indicators, current UK government policies set up to tackle energy security, and then it
will look at what affect the general pubic has on energy security.
3.1 Factors of Risk
With the complexity of energy security it will be useful to create a breakdown of the
areas which can affect the current energy system. This section is separated into
political risk, economies and markets, technology, and the environment.
3.1.1 Political Risk
International risk factors provide a complex aspect to national energy security with the
associations between energy importing and exporting countries. The discussion for the
11
UK is kept between the supplies of fossil fuels when looking at the short term supply
disruptions. The longer term issues would encompass the direct electricity supply
through a ‘supergrid’ linking countries within each region of the world using high
voltage direct current. The implication of a ‘supergrid’ to energy security is to reduce
the dominance of supplier countries such as Russia over Europe (Chester, 2008).
However, with issues of balancing the system over Europe and the take-up of land for
transmission corridors the scheme will still be dominated by the political powers.
When the oil and gas fields were discovered in the North Sea due to the price per
barrel of oil it was not considered a viable source of fuel. In the 1970’s price shocks
saw a barrel of oil reaching $10 giving Britain the opportunity to source its fuel from
home an becoming more energy independent (Helm, 2008) and eventually becoming
more reliant on this vast sink of fuel. As the resources in the North Sea begin to
reduce, dependence on imported fuels will increase.
Sourcing energy domestically does not always represent a higher level of security than
importing from foreign countries. Due to Britain’s recent dependence on the North
Sea, it has found itself in a position where a lack of gas storage causes concern in
situations of limited supply. This is from the view that the North Sea is our own
personal storage facility and therefore the contracts for providing these services were
given a low priority. At present the UK gas storage capabilities are around 4% in
comparison to France which has around 25%. This means that if a supply disruption
were to occur then the UK would only have 14 days worth of supply where France
would continue to have their supply would last them for around 90 days; another issue
is the lack of diversity of storage facilities. The North Sea Rough storage facility
supplies around 80% of the UK’s storage (Bamford, 2009). This dominance of a single
storage site provoked major issues for concern when in 2006 a fire on the Rough
storage facility caused gas prices to jump by 50% (Reuters 2006).
Importing energy is often viewed as a negative impact on energy security. It creates a
lack of control over a countries supply and therefore increases the vulnerability to
external factors which affect the energy markets. These can include direct issues such
as availability of resources but in the past events unrelated to energy policy have also
12
lead to an increase in oil prices. Events such as, political tension in Venezuela, Nigeria
and in the Middle East; the Yukos Oil Company in Russia are responsible for around
one fifth of the daily output and face bankruptcy from government demands
(Hoogevneen, 2005). International economic and political factors are increasingly
important with the connection between the flow of money and the flow of fuels
between consuming nations and importing nations. The dynamics between the
consumer nations and countries which control the resources are not straight forward.
The symbiotic nature of both parties where by both sides are mutually dependant on
each other means that who has the greater influence is not clear. What is seen to be
growing is the influence held by the intermediary regions that support the growing
infrastructure for transporting the energy supplies.
However, imports do have their benefits; if there is no available alternative then the
security of a country will be compromised without the introduction of foreign support.
Another feature is one of the global market place through a diversity of suppliers
where a resource can be easily replaced from a different source. Diversification is
commonly suggested as the best way to increase energy security. It reduces
dependence on a single supply, fuel, company or country (Stanley B. C., 2009).
Dependencies on imports do not provide the only issue for political contributions to
the energy security debate. The major interruptions of the UK energy system in the
past decades have arisen from miners’ strikes, domestic fuel blockades and occasional
power cuts rather than foreign supply dependence (Grubb M., 2005).
Domestic policy complications can arise when two policies conflict with each other.
The UK has signed up to the Large Combustion Plant Directive which aims to reduce
acidification, ground level ozone and particles throughout Europe by controlling
emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and dust from large combustion plants in
power stations petroleum refineries, steelworks and other industrial processes running
on solid, liquid or gaseous fuel (DERA, 2007). This directive will see the closure of many
coal and oil fired power stations by 2015 such as Ironbridge, Kingsnorth and Grain who
have opted out of installing emission abatement (E-ON website). At the same time as
these power plants being closed current nuclear power stations will be reaching the
13
end of their lifetime and also shut down. The sudden loss in power stations will result
is a rapidly expanding energy gap if no other strategy is put in place to replace these
losses (Helm, 2009).
Another issue affecting the security of the UK energy system is the planning process.
Difficulties and delay in making investments into infrastructure for projects such as gas
storage facilities, liquid natural gas terminals and wind plants reduce the ability for the
market to respond quickly to demand (IEA, 2007). Local communities can and should
have input into authorising new facilities. The government, however, has a duty to see
that the delays caused by the planning system do not cause an avoidable deficit in the
countries energy production.
3.1.2 Economics and Market Risk
Energy policies within the EU had been increasingly determined by market forces until
2005/2006. They have ultimately been left up to the industry whereby the business
interests of companies are primarily guided by the short term interest for economic
benefit leaving interests of energy supply security for the mid- and long-term
strategies to be neglected by both energy companies and national governments
(Umbach 2009).
The current recession has already had an impact on the energy sector. With budgets
being tightened the demand for energy begins to fall first. The reduced global demand
for energy creates a spare capacity in global energy production, relieving the tight
market conditions and high energy prices. The reduction in demand together with the
recession adversely affects the investment into the energy system (Wicks 2009).
Infrastructure to supply and generate energy to consumers causes a great vulnerability
to security. It has been argued that international risks to supply, attracts a
disproportionate amount of attention in energy security debates (Watson, 2008). One of
the biggest threats to the energy system through under-investment is the impending
‘energy gap’ where a potential generating capacity shortfall of 30-35GW is a possibility
over the next two decades (Black, 2005; DTI, 2007; Watson, 2008).
14
It is easy to suggest that our emphasis should be investment into the energy system to
solve security issues. However, if the markets and policies are not in place to receive
this investment the cost of energy will increase. While costs of technologies are easy to
assess the overall impact of their deployment on consumers and the economy is less
clear. Governments emphasising a particular technology without contingency plans
in place can lead to unaffordable and unreliable supplies of energy. In the power
sector reliance on advances for nuclear waste management systems are required for
the deployment of a substantial nuclear programme. If policies to deploy other
technological strategies such as renewables or CCS are neglected then meeting the
growing demand for energy will be difficult (Stanley, 2009).
Another issue of energy insecurity is the link between supply and demand. A decrease
in energy consumption due to demand reduction driven by high prices would not
reflect an overall improvement in energy security.
3.1.3 Technology
Diversity is a well known tool in increasing the security of an energy system.
Diversification can be achieved either by diversifying the energy suppliers or by
changing the infrastructure to allow alternative energy sources to enter into the
system (Hughes 2009). The affect changing infrastructure can have is to introduce
alternative sources of energy when insecure supplies are apparent. One example of
this is in the 80’s when the UK energy system switched from using coal as the primary
fuel for generating electricity, to natural gas and nuclear fired power stations. This
transfer was driven largely by the UK coal miners strikes which threatened the supply
in the early 1980’s (Parker 1995).
Future technological growth plans may require technological improvements or
deployment levels that seem difficult if not impossible to achieve. Assessment of the
feasibility for different scenarios without knowing the levels of resources, materials,
pace and scale of deployment make the decision over the most efficient technology
very difficult (Stanley 2009).
15
There is an argument that technical solutions can out pace society’s energy challenges
and that any energy crisis can be solved through human ingenuity and technological
progress. For example technology futurists argue that the energy in the jet stream
winds located miles above the earth surface is sufficient to supply all the world’s
energy needs and be economically better than fossil fuels or nuclear power (Brown
2007). Without pushing society to high aspirational goals, feasible outcomes may not be
reached; however, outcomes without contingency plans could lead to unaffordable
and unreliable outcomes (Stanley 2009). Current advances in gas combined cycle
generators have caused production costs to fall below a conventional coal power
plant. In the US this has resulted in a recent surge in gas fired generation at a time
when domestic natural gas is beginning to plateau (Mc Cracken 2009).
The complexity of the energy system can easily cause investment into a particular
technology which may improve energy security to conflict with other policy issues but
also cause issues within energy security itself. For example to increase the security of
supply it would be prevalent to look a more coal based generation with the addition of
renewable energy such as solar and wind. However, with the threat of climate change
the government has policies to reduce CO2 emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050
(DECC 2009) without the quick advancement in carbon capture and storage technologies
then these policies will cause a negative effect on each other. An additional clash of
outcomes it the increase in wind and solar into the system. Due to the intermittency of
some renewable technologies where the lack of predictability generates the need for
new sources of demand when there is a surplus and additional reserve capacity when
the elements fail will cause difficulty in energy security throughout the whole energy
system (Mc Cracken 2009).
Future electricity networks will need to interact between both the demand side and
the supply sides (Jamasb 2008). Technologies and systems will be required to track and
react to the changes in demand with greater efficiency and scale in order counter the
rigidity of nuclear power generation and the unpredictability of renewable electricity
generation. At the same time the demand side will increasingly react to the strains on
the system through dynamic demand technologies and households equipped with
16
smart meters will change the networks to innovate and adapt to new technologies
(Jamasb 2008). Technological change in energy networks is sensitive to the regulatory
framework and incentives for investment and participation in research and
development (R&D). In the UK innovation is promoted through schemes like the
Innovation Funding Incentive (IFI) organised by the Office of the Gas and Electricity
Markets (OFGEM), or the establishment of the Energy Technologies Institute (ETI).
However, after the UK energy liberalization there has been a decline in the incentives.
The recent initiatives seen in the ETI and the IFI are only a very initial stage to infuse
R&D into the energy system and will need to be strengthened and sustained to
generate any real effect (Mc Donald 2004). At the same time designing access changing
methodologies would provide incentives and the ability to develop and adopt new
technologies (Jamasb et al 2005).
3.1.4 Environment
Any policy or technological route taken to meet our energy security requirements will
need to factor in the implications of climate change (Foresight 2008). Climate change
impacts have been categorised into different areas by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), they are; water, ecosystems, food, coasts, and health. These
impacts are a result of increasing global average temperature change and the degree
of impact with vary due to the extent of adaptation, rate of temperature change, and
the socio-economic pathway (IPCC 2007). Increased flooding and droughts will occur
through changes in patterns of rainfall. This will not only directly affect the water
management system and drainage system but will also cause a knock on effect on the
agriculture industry where farms will struggle to grow the same crops as before
without the implementation of artificial conditions. More extreme weather conditions
predicted will cause tendencies for particular crops such as cereals to be grown more
intensively in the higher latitude countries and production will decrease in the lower
latitude countries causing an increase in transportation in order for each food group to
be accessible globally and national self sufficiency will become more difficult to
achieve. This increase in energy consumption throughout our food system not only
17
puts the agriculture industry at risk with the increase in cost of production but also
makes the industry more vulnerable to the changing energy markets.
Sea level rise impacts on the low lying coastal areas in particular in the UK East Anglia
and London. The rise in sea level will not only cause disruption to infrastructure but
will also require many coastal power stations to employ a sea defensive system for it
to continue running safely. The increased variability of the weather will be a disruption
to the infrastructure during the winter months through flooding and increased
incidence of storms. Climate In August and September 2005 hurricanes Katrina and
Rita shut down 27% of US oil production and 21% of refining capacity in the Gulf of
Mexico (Yergins 2006).
The increase in temperature during the summer months will cause infrastructure
damage but also will have impacts on human health through increase in stress levels
and migration of diseases. These changes in weather patterns will cause the demand
for goods to alter with the increase in need for heating during the winter and the rise
in air conditioning units during the summer. It is clear that the environmental impacts
on energy security affect the physical side through infrastructure but also the social
aspects are affected through individuals change in lifestyle.
3.2 Changes in Timelines
Energy security’s multi faceted nature with changes in the types of risk associated with
the security of the energy system becomes more complex when issues of timescales
are brought in. A distinction is often made between long term and short term energy
security (Kruyt 2009).
Long term energy is mainly linked to timely investments to supply energy inline with
the economic developments and environmental needs (IEA 2007). Long term disruptions
are much harder to forecast as long term energy demand is difficult to predict with
sufficient accuracy to asses future fuel prices, where as investments to respond to
potential future shortages or high prices have to be decided now (Glachant, 2008). Short
term risks generally looks at the ability for the energy system to react to changes in
supply and demand (IEA, 2007). These disruptions in energy supply can be caused by a
18
variety of factors such as equipment failure, human error, weather events, crime or
accidents (Glachant, 2008). The short term risks can be controlled by means of strategic
reserves and the maintenance of the current infrastructure and needs to be dealt with
to ensure the lights stay on. Any policy framework would need to incorporate both the
long term and the short term energy security issues, however each individual policy in
technological route may not encompass both time scales ensuring that one does not
compromise the other is essential.
3.3 Indicators of Breakdown
The recent rise in oil prices has that sparked the growing interest amongst politicians
and consumer nations, can be explained though the increasing energy demand of Asia,
underinvestment in energy supply and infrastructure over the past two decades and a
further concentration of oil and gas reserves in politically unstable countries (CIEP, 2004;
Kruyt, 2009).
The traditional aspect of energy security is associated with securing fuel supplies
specifically the ‘oil crisis’ in the 1970’s and 1980’s made the dependence on oil
exporting countries in the Middle East evident (Kruyt, 2009). Now oil is a globally traded
commodity physical shortages show up in the price of oil in the world market in terms
of fluctuations (IEA, 2007). The price of energy can give an indication of the supply in
relation to demand as the price functions as a balancing mechanism for the market. It
can also indicate the scarcity and depletion of resources.
Demand side indicators are also relevant as they can indicate the dependence of an
economy on energy and therefore the sensitivity to price changes. One example of this
is during the 2008 oil price rises when a barrel of oil reached $145 (Andrews, 2009) the
impact of this on the price of fuel for transport would have been felt more in the US
than it would have in the UK. This is due to the impact oil prices have on transport fuel
prices, in the UK taxation makes up most of the price of diesel and so the percentage
increase would have not been as high as in the US.
Other indicators of the security of energy can include the resource estimates of a
country which is crucial for security of supply if that state is aiming for energy
19
independence. These resource estimates are inextricably linked to the production
ratios which can then indicate the years of production left at current levels. This,
however, is would only cause a significant impact if connections to stable imports had
been neglected and domestic fuel sources had been depended on.
Diversity of generation and of suppliers can be seen as a good indicator for energy
security as it is an important factor against the risks involved with each individual
supply of energy.
Import dependence is also a good indicator of security when linked with the political
stability of the supplier countries. When importing from reliable sources the increase
in diversity reduces the risk involved. The UK’s experience with coal in the 1970’s and
1980’s and the fuel protests of 2000 suggest that the equation domestic equals secure
is not always true. Imports of energy are not necessarily less secure that domestic
sources (PIU, 2002).
More immediate indications of insecurity will come from vulnerabilities through
underinvestment of the infrastructure. One example of this was the fire in the UK’s
largest gas facility in February 2006. The rough gas storage facility holds 70-80% of the
UK’s storage and so caused rapid increases in the price of gas (Watson, 2008). Another
example of UK gas infrastructure vulnerability was in June 2006 when an oil tanker
dragged its anchor into one of the biggest pipelines from UK gas fields to shore. The
‘CATS’ pipeline supplying 8% of the UK’s demand was out of operation for 2-3 months
(Conway, 2007). Insecurities due to infrastructure underinvestment are not solely in the
gas sector. In summer of 2003 a series of blackouts occurred in Europe and in North
America, where underinvestment clearly exacerbated the issue (Anderson et al, 2005).
Technical failures can be much less high profile as they cover more long term impacts
on the energy system. They can also be absorbed by the redundancy capacity of the
system. One example of this is the future of the nuclear industry. The prototype for the
new reactor EDF plans to use for Britain was meant to start in 2009. However,
construction has been delayed for 3 years and the project has gone 50% over budget
(Lean, 2009). This can cause a more hypothetical threat to energy security through
predictions of a looming ‘energy gap; due to the lack of investment (Watson, 2008).
20
3.4 Current Strategies
In July 2001 the government set up the Joint Energy Security Supply Working Group
(JESS), which is run jointly with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and
OFGEM. The purpose of the group is to monitor the availability of supplies of gas,
electricity and future fuels, identify potential gaps and develop appropriate indicators.
JESS also monitors the adequacy of generating capacity and adequacy of electricity
infrastructure. In addition to this it assesses whether the market based mechanisms
are bringing foreword investment to address weakness in the supply chain and identify
relevant policy issues and implications (Winstone et al., 2007).
JESS published its last report on 13 December 2006. The Government is now reviewing
the role of JESS and the future provision of forward-looking market information in the
light of the recommendations in the 2006 Energy Review Report (BERR, 2009).
In recent years there have been two energy reviews of which both have precede
Energy White papers. The most recent of which was the 2007 Energy White Paper
‘Meeting The Energy Challenge’. This document sets out the two major energy
challenges facing the UK: tackling climate change by reducing CO2 emissions and
ensuring secure, clean affordable energy as we become increasingly dependant on
imported fuels (DTI, 2007).
The main strategies for delivering energy security are also set out in the white paper.
They cover three aspects: save energy, develop cleaner energy supplies and secure
reliable supplies at prices in competitive markets (DTI, 2007). The energy saving
mechanisms have been established to reduce the dependence on energy imports and
are applied through the business, household, transport and public sectors. In the
business sector mechanisms such as the EUETS, Climate Change Agreement, Carbon
Reduction Commitment, and Energy Performance Certificates are used. In the
household sector there are targets for all new homes to be zero carbon by 2016, The
Carbon Emissions Reduction Target, the roll out of smart meters and Energy
Performance Certificates. In the Transport industry the Low Carbon Innovation
Strategy, the inclusion of aviation in the third phase of the EUETS, and vehicle excise
21
duty go towards reducing the energy consumption. Finally in the public sector the
Carbon Reduction Commitment, The social Housing Scheme (all new social houses to
conform to level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes), and Energy Performance
Certificates.
The government understands that energy saving methods are the fastest most cost
effective method of reaching our goals but the move towards cleaner supplies of heat,
electricity and transport fuel is also required.
Within security of supply the government has set out main challenges: the increase in
reliance on imports of oil and gas in a world where demand is rising and energy is
becoming more political and the requirement for private sector investment over the
next few decades in gas infrastructure, power stations, and electricity networks.
Managing the risks of the rising imports of fossil fuels includes increased competition
for energy resources, and increase in concentration of fuels in fewer and further away
places, the need to purchase supplies from markets that are neither transparent nor
truly competitive and the possibility that there will be insufficient investment in key
producer countries for oil and gas. In addition to this maximising the economic
production of domestic sources will together with energy saving measures help reduce
over dependence on imports (DTI, 2007).
The trend in EU countries in recent years is to open their gas and electricity utilities to
competition to promote cheaper energy supplies. The policy of liberalising energy
markets moved foreword when the European commission attempted to secure an
agreement for a common energy policy across the EU with it Strategic European
Energy Review. However, an increase in liberalisation may cause a conflict with
security of supply due to the political realities in supplier countries (Winstone et al., 2007).
3.5 Public’s Affect on Energy Security
There are two ways to reduce the demand on the energy system: conservations
whereby less energy is available for a particular service and energy efficiency where
the service uses less energy to achieve the same output (Hughes, 2009). Since a reduction
in services causes changes to lifestyles, conservation can be short lived when
22
consumers return to their previous habits. However, demand reduction through
energy efficiency can potentially take more time and be costlier. In order for the
demand reduction to be seen as making an impact it would need to be measured. The
most common method is through energy intensity or the amount of energy consumed
per activity (USDOE, 2008). Reduction in consumption does not automatically mean an
improvement in energy security.
If the reductions target secure sources there may be an overall reduction in
consumption, but the reliance on insecure sources may remain unchanged.
Demand response is a key element to security of supply and has been demonstrated
during the winter of 2005 to 2006 where problems in the energy market were
stemmed in part from actions taken on the continent and in Russia, together with the
state of the global LNG market (IEA, 2007). While demand response is essentially a
market decision taken by private consumers, the government has an important role
allowing that response to take place, particularly in addressing those market failures
that dampen response.
For individuals to react in periods of high prices the simplest action is through
information campaigns. During the winter of 05/06 many customers decreased
demand even though gas prices did not actually rise (IEA, 2007).
Another possibility includes more directly exposing consumers to changes in the
wholesale markets and giving them the information and ability to change their
behaviour accordingly. A price responsive demand side can be an important factor in
reducing the effect of supply shortages and there is considerable scope to reduce
energy consumption in times of supply shocks. In well developed wholesale retail
markets the price mechanism facilitates the allocation of available energy and allows
customers to adjust their consumption levels. However, more evidence is required to
see whether this is a reaction to extreme events or whether it can be transferred to
repeated price increases (Jamasb et al, 2008).
The general public can also affect other areas of energy security including the
investment into the local infrastructure. Difficulties and delays in making investments
hamper the ability of the market to respond to demand and thus jeopardise energy
23
security. Often the basis for this can be though the objections to planning applications
of new services where the general public do have a say in the permission of new
facilities (IEA, 2007).
24
4.0 Literature Review
The topic of risk perception has had a strong academic background with associations in
interdisciplinary fields such as economics and psychology. This literature review
examines the decision making process of the lay person in an attempt to give a
background into why particular decisions and in turn specific pathways are taken. It
will also be used to see possible methodologies in how to affect the individual’s
decision making process. The risk perception looked at in this literature is not
specifically aimed towards issues connected with energy usage but how we react to
risk in general.
4.1 What is risk?
According to Slovic et al (2002) risk is the ability of an event that causes harm to people,
property and the natural world. Risk can be viewed from multiple positions. The first is
looking at risk as a hazard, where we look at the risk in a rank order with other
hazards. Risk can be conceptualised as a probability, looking at what the risk is of an
event occurring. Viewing risk as a consequence we see the possible outcome of an
event as a risk. Finally, risk can be seen as a potential adversity or threat.
Risk analysis can be broken up into the assessment of a risk and the management of
the risk (Slovic et al 2002). In assessing a risk we look at the identification of the risk,
quantification and the characterization of the threat to human health and the
environment. Management is involved in the communication mitigation and decision
making.
Experts in various fields use risk analysis to asses probabilities for hazardous events to
occur and the consequences of these events should they occur (Viklund, 2004). Within
the general public the assessment of risk is made through intuitive judgement of the
situation, this is called risk perception (Slovic, 1987).
25
4.2 Difficulties in assessing perceptions of risk
Sensitivities to changes in assessed probabilities, base rates and event magnitude all
create challenges for assessors.
No model has been completely successful in explain perceived risk. The two most well
known models in risk perception research are the psychometric model and cultural
theory and have both been criticized by academia. An interesting hypothesis for the
criticism is that the lack of trust in the decision makers and those responsible for the
management of risk (politicians, authorities and corporations) could cause variations in
perceived risk (Viklund, 2004).
Patt et al (2003) gives various different methods for describing how risk assessors
interact with the general public and how they affect the decisions made.
The first is using simple communication of their best estimates giving the individual the
ability to make their own judgements. This can often lead to a trend of over reaction to
some risks of little importance and the under reacting to others. The second method is
where the risk assessors saw their role more as a salesman than a communicator. They
would convince people what risks were worthwhile and which were not to deliberately
try and bring out a specific behaviour pattern. Another method is to insulate decision
making from public opinion altogether to allow decision makers the freedom to act on
specific issues. However, this can cause resentment of the risk assessors and decision
makers. The last method uses greater attention to public participation to build up a
partnership between risk assessors and decision makers in developing responses to
the information. This works across issues and cultures to increase credibility and
salience of information. Interestingly many of these considerations entered into the
design of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report
where providing understandable and complete information about uncertainty in
context was required. The results, however, were a written document where the
audience would be unable to participate (Patt et al, 2003).
Individuals often tend to overestimate the probability of relatively infrequent events
(such as dying from botulism) and underestimate the probability of relatively frequent
events such as dying from heart disease) (Patt et al, 2030). This is also mimicked in Slovic
26
(2002) showing that it is possible for an accident that can take many lives will have very
little impact on society (beyond the immediate families) if it occurs as a part of a
familiar and well understood system like a train wreck. Slovic (2002) then talks about a
smaller incident in an unfamiliar system (or one that is poorly understood), such as a
nuclear waste repository or a recombinant DNA laboratory, may have immense social
consequences if it is to be perceived as a harbinger of possible catastrophic mishaps
(Slovic, 2002). There is a need to distinguish between magnitude and probability so that
the comparison of different risks can have more accurate decisions (Patt et al, 2003).
4.3 Information Processing
Modern theories in psychology suggest there are two fundamentally different ways in
which human beings process information about the world when they make decisions
(Chaiken &Trope, 1999; Sloman, 1996; Webber, 2006; Slovic 2002). Webber (2006) describes these
two ways of processing information as either a temporal spatial association and
similarity this processing system is mostly automatic and not accessible to conscious
awareness and control. It works by way of similarity and associations including
emotions as and early warning system (Slovic 2002). Visceral reactions like fear or
anxiety serve as early warning to indicate that some risk management is in order and
motivate us to execute that action (Webber, 2006).
The other works by the use of analytic algorithms and rules including those specified
by normative models of decision making. This method is slower, uses more effort but it
does use the conscious awareness of a situation to control (Slovic 2002).
One example where the two way of processing information collide is shown in Webber
(2006) is the decision over vaccinating a child against tetanus. Parents who research the
effects of the vaccine would learn that 1 in 1000 suffers from high fever and 1 in 14000
suffers from seizures. After reading this an increasing number of parents decide not to
vaccinate their child. However, with doctors having the same statistics at their disposal
they also have a personal experience across many patients. This experience tells them
that the likelihood of side effects occurring is very low as very few doctors would have
encountered one of the rare cases. Even if they had it would be dwarfed by the
27
number of side effect free cases they had encountered (Webber, 2006). These
disagreements can be explained through how they learn the likelihood of an
occurrence either through personal experience as in the doctor’s case or through
statistical review as from the parents view point.
Slovic, Finucane, Peters, and McGregor (2003) discuss the beneficial aspects of
experience or association based processing in the context of risk, which enabled us to
survive through human evolution and remains the most common way to respond to
threat even in the modern world. Van der Pligt (1992) shows that in the UK over 80% of
the general public were opposed to nuclear power after Chernobyl compared with
68% in the previous year.
This system enables us to transform uncertain and threatening aspects of the
environment into the effective responses and thus represents risk as emotion which
tells us whether it is safe to walk down a dark street or drink a strange smelling water
(Lowenstien et al, 2001). This gives us some indication of how we react to repeated
exposure to risk over time.
In many situations individuals do not have a firmly established preferences but
construct them when it is needed (Webber 2006). Trope and Liberman (2003) suggest
people construct future events differently from events in the present. In particular,
events in the distant future are constructed in abstract terms whereas events in close
to us in time are constructed in concrete terms. The abstract perceptions do not have
the concrete association connected with emotional reactions.
4.4 Communicating Risk
The media plays a key role in communicating science and shaping public attitudes, yet
the relationship between people and the media is more subtle than assumed.
Individuals are not passive consumers of media messages and they bring their own
interpretations to what they hear and see (Kitzinger 2007). Social influences can come
through the media where exposure to a particular risk can cloud judgement about real
life odds. For instance bird flue was called the No.1 threat to the world yet it killed no
one in America, while regular flue kills tens of thousands every year (Schnier 2007). There
28
is an obvious relationship between the mass media’s frequent exposure to a situation
giving rise to high levels of perceived risk, however the exact role they play is still
under debate (Sjoberg, 2000).
Sensitivity and awareness need to be developed amongst scientific experts and policy
makers of the diverse ways in which multiple publics construct the notion of risk that
relate to every day lives (Pidgeon 2003). In the research field there is a growing
recognition that the trust plays an important role in the acceptability in
communication of risk (Renn & Levine, 1991; Cvetkovich & Löfstedt, 1999).
This has been an issue in the nuclear industry’s decline in the public mind, the
widespread distrust in regulators, governments and industry to provide truthful
information and manage risks responsibly (Pidgeon et al 2008; Wynne 1980). Johnston et al
(2000) shows the role of trust is likely to affect individuals differently. Those individuals
for example who have little awareness or information about a particular risk must be
able to rely on the advice and recommendations of experts. Those individuals with
more information may be less concerned about the information provided by business,
government, or experts and more concerned that the models and assumptions used
are fair and reasonable.
The lack of public trust could be a result of perceived bias by business experts towards
a profitable manufacturing process posed as a solution (Halfacre 1997).
It is tempting to say what is required to evoke stronger visceral reactions towards a
particular risk is to make the possible consequences of the risk more vivid or concrete.
However, when worry increases about one risk, concern over other issues has shown
to go down as if people have a maximum capacity for worry (Webber 2006; Linville & Fisher
1991). One example of this a finite pool of worry was the US publics concern over
terrorism after the September 11th
attacks resulted in a decrease in concern for other
issues such as the environmental degradation and restriction of civil liberties (Webber
2006).
Devine Wright (2005) has noted the significance of high levels of place attachment in
relation to public opinion of developments. By place attachments a positive emotional
bond between people and valued environments is meant (Upham et al, 2007).
29
4.5 Gaps in Literature
During this review of the literature on the perceptions of risk in the general public one
of the issues which was not found to be covered in great length other than in
connection with energy usage or the environment is how the actions of an individual
can differ from their perceptions. It is often a paradox that apparently pro-
environmental attitudes (expressed in surveys or in focus groups) are not reflected in
significant shifts in behaviour (Owens & Driffill, 2008). Johnson et al (2000) shows
individuals are more than willing to express their concern for the environment but
when action is required this commitment declines. However, it is not shown that this
can then cause inaccuracies in data collection depending on how research is done. For
instance if the general public were asked if they were concerned about the risks
involved with climate change then a high percentage of people would say they were
than if a survey was taken to see what action was taken to mitigate the effects of
climate change. This can also cause complications where an additional problem is
actually in generating support for the environment. The support only occurs in a
negative context. That is, individuals are not likely to support the imposition of stricter
environmental standards unless a problem exists (Johnson et al 2000).
The predominant literature on risk perception examines risk from a static point of
view. Certainly the experimental risk perception literature examines risk as if it were a
snapshot at a particular time (Slovic et al 1986; McDaniels et al 1995).
The cultural literature focuses on the underlying values associated with risk perception
and thereby considers risk perception from a relatively stable foundation. The social
structural perspective on risk perception explicitly incorporates experience in the
models that impact perceived risk (Rogers 1996).
30
5.0 Methodology
5.1 Introduction
This section sets out the methodological approaches taken in the research of this
dissertation. The main contribution to the research was through qualitative methods.
The application of a qualitative study gave the ability for the participants of the study
to show their opinions of the UK’s energy security and how they perceive their role in
the energy system. In addition to this, the area of research has not previously been
studied and therefore it was felt that a qualitative study would be useful to establish
additional issues which could be brought to attention by the participants.
The method for qualitative study chosen was focus groups. Focus groups are useful to
generate information as the participants share knowledge, personal experiences and
perspectives in a way that can more easily or readily tease out the nuances and
tensions of complex topics and subjects, this is a dynamic that is not apparent when
doing individual interviews (OMNI 1996). Focus groups can also show a wider selection of
attitudes, feelings, beliefs, experiences and reactions which can only be shown in a
group context. Focus groups are particularly useful when there are power differences
between the participants and decision-makers or professionals, when the everyday use
of language and culture of particular groups is of interest, and when you want to
explore the degree of consensus on a given topic (Morgan & Kreuger 1993). This
interaction between participants is crucial to enable them to re-evaluate their stand
point and ask questions of each other to reconsider their own understandings of
specific experiences. Another benefit of the focus group is the salience of an issue can
be determined and explanations regarding why an issue may take more precedence if
31
multiple understandings and meanings are revealed by participants then multiple
explanations of their behaviour and attitudes can be shown (Morgan 1988).
Prior to the focus groups a quantitative questionnaire was undertaken to back up
some of the findings in the qualitative study. The questionnaire is also useful to initiate
prior thinking into the research area. This is useful due to the complexity of energy
security and that it is not an every day topic of discussion.
The data collected from the discussion groups will be analysed using a content analysis
method such as the method described in Rabiee (2004).
5.2 Questionnaire
The questionnaire (see appendix 1) was used help stimulate initial thinking into the
issues that surround energy security. The questionnaire also provided additional
strength to the research findings and to some degree is used to support the findings of
the qualitative study with quantitative data. The following sections will be used to
show the structure of the questionnaire, present the findings and discuss how the
participants responded to the questions.
5.2.1 Questionnaire Structure
The questionnaire was kept to a single page with five questions making up the main
body of the survey. By keeping it short it ensures the completion of the survey, for a
participant to complete a long questionnaire they must be very interested in the topic.
One of the aims of this research is to involve the general public to view how they
perceive energy security in the UK; therefore, the use of long winded surveys would be
counter productive.
The first section of the survey looks at the participant’s gender and occupation. This is
to ensure the selections of individuals who are participating in the focus groups are
varied in particular characteristics, e.g. all male participants.
The next section incorporates the main body of questions designed to get the
participants thinking about energy security. The structure of the questions uses a
funnel technique whereby the initial questions are more open and broad and should
32
be easy for the respondents to answer leading onto the more difficult questions later
on. At the end of the survey an ‘additional comments’ box was left to provide the
participants to leave feedback or highlight and issues found within the survey.
5.2.2 Findings of the Survey
The first question in the survey was designed to view how much the participants
believed they understood about the UK energy system. A large skew either towards a
very high or very low understanding of the energy system would show a group of
individuals that probably wouldn’t reflect the consensus of the general public.
However, as can be seen from figure 5.1 the majority of participants believe they have
an average level of understanding with a small tendency towards being less than
average understanding of how the energy system works.
Question 1; How would you rate your understanding of the
UK energy system
High
17%
Average
50%
Low
33%
Very High
0%
Very Low
0%
Very High
High
Average
Low
Very Low
Figure 5.1, Perceptions of personal understanding of the UK energy system
The next two questions were designed to see how the respondents viewed the level of
energy security within the UK. Firstly to look at the current levels of security and then
how they perceive the UK’s situation will be in the future. As can be seen form figure
5.2 the level of perceived security is predominantly average with a small variation
33
between higher than average and lower. However, there is no concern for the energy
system being in a critical situation. There is also no perception that the system is highly
secure. This then changes quite obviously for the future of energy security. In figure
5.3 it clearly shows a drop in perceived energy security for the future.
Question 2; Do you feel the current UK energy system is
secure?
High
25%
Average
58%
Low
17%
Very High
0%Very Low
0%
Very High
High
Average
Low
Very Low
Figure 5.2, Perceptions of current energy security.
Question 3; Do you feel the future UK energy system is
secure?
High
0%
Average
50%
Low
50%
Very High
0%
Very Low
0%
Very High
High
Average
Low
Very Low
Figure 5.3, Perceptions of future energy security.
34
Question 4 gave an interesting result, when asking how individuals would be affected
by the impacts of an insecure energy system the response was highly varied, with most
of the respondents believing it would have a high effect on their daily routine and yet a
large proportion believe it would not affect them a great deal. This is illustrated in
figure 5.4.
Question 4; How do you feel an intermittent supply of energy
you affect your daily routine?
Very High
34%
High
33%
Average
8%
Low
25%
Very Low
0%
Very High
High
Average
Low
Very Low
Figure 5.4, Perceptions of the effects of energy insecurity.
The final question looks at how the individuals feel they can affect the energy system
themselves. As can be seen in figure 5.5 the response was varied between yes, no, and
don’t know. What is interesting from this is no one believed it to not be an issue.
35
Question 5; Do you believe you can contribute to ensuring an
unfailing source of energy is provided?
Yes
42%
No
25%
Don't Know
33%
Don't Care
0%
Yes
No
Don't Know
Don't Care
Figure 5.5, Perceptions of the individuals affects on energy security.
The final section of the survey included an ‘additional comments section’. Although not
every respondent used this feature some did. The response of this was more of a
comment of understanding of the UK energy system one comment made “I don’t
completely understand the concept/definition of an energy system”; another
comment was that the answer to a lot of the questions would be dependant on what
they would learn in the focus group.
5.3 Focus Group Structure
Due to time constraints a representative sample of the nation’s general public would
not be achievable. Therefore it was decided that a minimum of two focus groups will
be undertaken to receive a diverse group of responses to the questions posed.
In order to provide a wide range of results for the research the selection of participants
would need to cover a variety of individual’s perspectives. The focus groups cannot
describe how the entire population would respond to a particular question. Therefore
an entirely random selection of individuals is not necessary. A ‘non-probability’
sampling method is used whereby a ‘purposive selection’ of individuals are chosen
36
(Trochim, 2006). This selection is used to represent the general public, with a ‘purposive
sampling’ method the participants involved in the research can then be selected to
provide different backgrounds into the area of energy security and it can select who
can best provide the group with information. For example, a group of young children
who without any direct contact with energy issues would be unlikely to reflect the
ideas of the general public. Therefore it was decided not to utilise the younger
generations in the focus group. In addition to the ‘purposive sampling’ of individuals,
control characteristics would be required in order to avoid skewed participation of a
group like having a group of individuals who all have the same occupation. With only
these stipulations an open selection of the general public can be used.
The groups will consist of six to eight participants and will be restricted to no more
than one hour. This gives sufficient speaking time and allows for small-group dynamics
(mutual acquaintance, plurality of opinions, potential for consensus building or
disclosing group dissension) (Dürrenberger et al 1999).
Ethical considerations are important to all methods of social research. Therefore the
purpose of the research is explained at the beginning of the session. The participants
of the research are also assured from the outset that information they provide will be
treated in the strictest confidence. Participants are also encouraged to keep any
confidential information given in the focus group confidential and to only discuss this
with other members of the research group. At no stage will it be possible to link
information with individual participants; to do this a system of coding participant’s
names on the transcripts will be done. However, if it is deemed necessary the
individual consent will be sought to link quotations with a particular individual. During
the study no data will be stored electronically in a way that allows individuals and their
information to be identified. To ensure the ethical considerations were agreed to the
moderator asked permission form the participants to use the information in the
dissertation; there were no objections from any of the participants.
To keep a sense of structure between both focus groups the questions posed to each
group and the order they are given will remain the same. To ensure this a crib sheet
37
(see appendix 2) was used for each of the sessions which ensures consistency not only
in the order of questions but the time given for each response.
Each focus group was transcribed and an analysis of these transcripts gave a set of
different themes. The themes are developed both from the research questions and
from the narratives of research participants. The process of analysing the data aims to
bring meaning to a situation rather than the search for truth brought on by
quantitative data analysis. Strauss & Corbin (1998) describe analysis as ‘the interplay
between researchers and data’, acknowledging that there is an extent of subjective
selection and interpretation of the generated data (Rabiee, 2004).
5.4 Focus Group Analysis
The following sections will be used to discuss the discourses that arose during the
focus group sessions. The chapters will be structured so that each theme is discussed
individually.
5.4.1 Cost
During both focus group sessions the fist question posed to the groups was “What
factor would change the way you use energy”. In both focus groups the first and main
response was one of cost; “Price. If was more expensive then offices wouldn’t ever
leave lights on and you would take a different view as to how you used energy in the
home”. What is interesting in this comment is the initial use of the workplace, if energy
is wasted in the workplace then how does this affect a personal experience in the
home. The idea of the price affecting how the individual uses energy is complex.
Viewed historically, interest in energy efficiency has largely followed oil and other
primary energy price fluctuations: the higher the price of oil, the stronger the interest
in energy efficiency (WEC, 2006). However, the government has targets which have now
been said to be impossible by the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group to eradicate fuel
poverty in vulnerable household by 2010 and in all households by 2016 are in
38
contradiction when the price of energy increases. The Government defines fuel
poverty as occurring when a household must spend more than 10% of its income on all
household fuel use in order to maintain a satisfactory heating regime.
Although the effect of rising prices in energy was a prevalent issue for discussion there
was not a total agreement on how it would affect them. One participant showed that
“I don’t think cost has much of a difference to what I use as I’m just going to use it
anyway”. In this context the participant showed that the rising cost of energy probably
wouldn’t affect their consumption habits. However, this is contradictory to many of
the other participant’s showed during the research. There are a few different possible
explanations. The first is an issue of scale. This is also related to experience. Over the
last few years we have seen energy companies raise the price of energy, in 2008 an
average price rise of 15% occurred (BBC, 2008). If during the lifetime of this participant
the price spike of over 50% occurred then this could be a more salient issue. Another
possibility is the view of who is paying the bill. It was commented that in shared
accommodation it is unclear what services are being used and by whom. Within rented
accommodation it is a great deal harder to impose energy efficiency measures into the
house.
Another issue within the area of cost is the awareness of the energy consumption
involved with services and goods “Whether I’m aware of how much I’m using and how
much it’s costing me”. This is where, as we discussed before, we may start to think in
terms of energy citizens (Van Vliet 2004). One way of increasing the awareness of energy
consumption is to provide feedback to motivate consumers to reduce their energy
output by visualising the waste generated by appliances or services (Darby, 2000). There
are three types of feedback, direct feedback such as prepayment meters or the use of
such things as smart meters. The UK government has a target for all homes in Britain
will have smart meters installed by 2020 (DECC, 2009).
The second is through indirect feedback which is where the utility processes the
information and then sends it on to the consumers. The bill returned would generally
be from frequent meter readings rather than monthly estimates (Martiskainen, 2007).
39
The third method is through inadvertent feedback where the consumer learns about
the energy use through association of the products around them (Darby, 2000). This can
be through the purchase of a new appliance or by the application of a household
renewable technology.
The awareness of the energy use is an issue that did come up in the topics of
discussion often, but not always as a positive. When on the topic of using smart meters
“I have my radio on all night, I began to worry, gosh I’m using all that electricity so I
looked further, it was coppers though the night so the fact there are how ever many
nights in a year I didn’t bother to go further than that so I felt quite happy to leave it on
all night”. This participant felt that in this case being able to view the energy
consumption of the radio had a negative effect, i.e. leaving the radio running.
However, the participant who had a smart meter installed recently found that during
the night when the only appliances running were two freezers, the cost of which
amounted to twenty pounds a month. So in this case possible a small amount of
information like the first participant where they could only view the energy from a
single appliance could have a detrimental effect. Where as when a larger amount of
information is provided to view the household energy consumption then the cost of
these appliances running becomes a more salient issue.
For energy prices to push for consumer’s to reduce their energy consumption then
they should reflect the long run costs. Subsidies that may have helped a technology
advance will need to be removed and identified externalities need to be included. The
prices of energy often only reflect the cost of primary supplies or of the generation of
electricity. Therefore a more accurate pricing system could reflect the true costs
involved with energy services to promote greater energy efficiency.
An interesting issue was raised by the participants showing not only concern of the
threat of terrorism to our energy system but also how the threat would damage our
economy. This idea is based on the idea that when a threat is made to the energy
system then protective measures will need to be put in place. If a repeated threat
occurs then a more permanent procedure, costing a great deal of money will be
required therefore damaging the economy.
40
An interesting paradox occur within energy prices, if you use less as a society then the
market system would mean the price of energy will drop. If the price of energy has a
direct impact on individual’s consumption then as a society the consumption will
slowly start to rise. Therefore without external influences on the market the price of
energy will remain at a relative equilibrium.
5.4.2 Social Influences
An issue that was brought regarding the factors that would affect your energy use is
one of morality, “…whether the press manage to generate an attitude to say that the
use of energy is immoral”. The case identified here was one of a historical example
whereby slavery was deemed to immoral “in the old days we used slaves to do our
work now we use energy, the use of slavery is now considered wrong maybe in the
future energy use will be incorrect”. This is however an extreme version of influencing
behaviour changes through social methods. One example of a social marketing scheme
is the Ashton Hayes Going Carbon Neutral Project launched in 2006 (Martiskainen, 2007)
whereby the village of Ashton Hayes aims to become the first carbon neutral village in
England. As a community the individuals have the ability to meet and share
experiences, ideas and achievements related to household energy behaviour.
However, the view amongst one of the focus group sessions was that the social
influence was not there, “…we’ve go this massive demand for our insatiable appetite
for everything and the cost of bringing everything into our supermarkets. Until we as a
society say no… So I feel what’s the point?” The general consensus was that society
would defiantly play a major role in there own personal energy behaviours but the
direction society takes currently is not towards sustainability. This is illustrated best
with this comment, “I don’t think you should necessarily go with the driving force of
society. Sometimes you have to have the courage of your own convictions”. This
participant made an interesting point showing that the general consensus is that at the
moment the way we live as a society is not sustainable and it brings us back to the
41
morality example. When society views that our current patterns of consumption is
wrong then a change of behaviour will be easier.
The lack of social take up on sustainable lifestyles is found to be anchored in our social
peers.
“My father in-law is an intelligent man my brother in-law is an intelligent man with a
degree in engineering; my wife is a fairly intelligent woman, and the others. When we
have conversations about global warming or CO2 I’m sad to say there’s not one of them
that’s worried about it hey just think it’s an irrelevance. Which worries me, and I’ve
tried and I’ve tried as a biologist to point out that the CO2 levels are increasing and the
think that everything put out by the media is biased and this word bias comes in all the
time and intelligent people are being dissuaded then god help the rest of us and it
really worries me that this group of intelligent people cannot see.“
The lack of public trust could be a result of perceived bias by business experts towards
a profitable manufacturing process posed as a solution (Halfacre 1997).
As found in the literature review there is an obvious relationship between the mass
media’s frequent exposure to a situation giving rise to high levels of perceived risk,
however, the exact role they play is still under debate (Sjoberg, 2000). This was apparent
in the findings of the primary research.
“It’s almost that there is too much of everything, every night on the news there is
something on global warming and I think were at the risk of too much information in a
funny sort of was and people thing oh no not again. I think we have to be careful with
information.”
The information provided to the general public is an issue which repeated throughout
both the focus group sessions. The range of information which is asked for is from
system capabilities, “… I cannot understand that whether there is enough natural
sources of energy to have enough of an impact. There is but nobodies turned them on
and we’re stuck in this electricity-petrol.” Here the participant is describing the effect
renewable. Then to how the information could be used to help individuals decide on
actions to take, “The superstores could help here because if they had clearly
42
distinguished markings on food that is imported, local foods that you don’t have to
search out.” If some members are finding an issue with having too much information
and others find it difficult to make sustainable lifestyle choices because the
information is not there then this shows a need for the right information to be
selected and provided with caution.
5.4.3 The Source of Energy
The concept of where our energy comes from is also a theme which was brought up
throughout the focus group. Interestingly renewable sources of energy were not
always seen as a positive way of reducing energy consumption. The environment has
given a guilt factor to the way the participants think about consumption and so by
using energy from a renewable source their responsibility to the environment is
achieved and concern is removed
“If I knew it was coming from a renewable source then I’d probably use more”.
However, the idea behind becoming self sufficient within the household was seen to
be a positive way of reducing energy consumption. Generating energy for domestic
requirements was seen as a way to change how the individual uses energy. Almost as
the ownership of the energy produced makes them more sustainable.
“I’ve always wanted to have my own solar panels but they seem so outrageously
expensive. So they should be made easier. But I don’t think I need to change the use of
my energy but I would like a source that I could control.”
This idea of self sufficiency also transferred to the national level, a big topic was where
do we get our energy from, and who has control over the resources? One of the main
triggers for this concern was the issue between Russia and the Ukraine.
“Which makes us worried, I don’t know how much if any energy we get from Russia but
it makes you think if you are ever dependant on somebody then that could happen to
you as well.”
However, this was not always shown to be the answer by all participants.
43
“I don’t personally see the need to have self sufficiency there are factors involved with
obtaining energy from limited sources.”
“If the UK would be self sufficient in our energy production, that would be counter to
most of the UK business where by they are using cheaper labour sources and resources
elsewhere in the world and bringing it back in to do the finishing product here which
makes me think that market forces would make that unsustainable.”
5.4.4 Trust in Decision Makers
The political theme came up in a number of different areas and not always in a positive
light. A lot of the issues showed that the participants were concerned that the
government were not taking the right steps towards supporting our energy issues.
“What does worry me is the lack of planning.”
“People have suggested that Norway do it this way and the US do it that was but I
think in Britain our problems are going to be our problems”.
The participants have however, established that the government is doing certain
actions to help through grant schemes for loft insulation or ground source heat pumps.
The evidence for this, however, is not always shown through the general public.
“….if the government was really serious it would insist that houses were much more
environmentally friendly.”
When it was pointed out that the planning department do ask for more sustainable
features to be put into the new buildings the issue of cost comes back into the subject.
Often this is a case of what is going on behind the scenes. It is felt that there is a great
deal of talk about international relations with other countries such as Libya but
whether these talks are in some way related to need for energy is unclear.
The issue of trust, not of the government directly but of industries influence over the
government and research areas causes individuals to be concerned with how the
energy system is run.
44
“I think there are just huge political pressures, the Libyan situation, Iraq was probably
about oil and you’ve got this massive sort of political government input but the
petrochemical industry is so powerful I think that a lot of money going into research.”
“Is the real problem in the consumer area is there another area we should be exploring.
Industry should be attempting to reduce their energy demands where they can are they
doing enough I don’t know.”
It is felt that the energy companies have no interest in providing a more economical
solution to the problem. But they can play a major role in changing the behaviour of
the general public.
“Getting the major companies to start with energy saving methods and then others will
follow, that’s the way the trend works.”
When looking at a solution to the energy security issues often the response is one of
how can we change the decisions that are being made currently? The participants
showed that this would be a benefit to the current situation.
“Well I wouldn’t join the banner waving crowd. So what could I do? I couldn’t keep
writing letters to the people I judge to be in control. Wouldn’t wave the banners what
else? I am very careful with energy that’s partly because as I have said I’ve experienced
being without it partly cost. Am I doing enough?”
“I don’t believe in government interference but I’m concerned that there is no
government interference.”
5.4.5 Experience
45
Experiencing the main issues of risk within the energy system was discussed as
probably the most beneficial methods for changing the individual’s behaviour.
Everyone was in agreement that the older generation was more in tune with the
energy they used. This was explained to be possibly due to the cost of energy.
However, it was more due to the fact that they have been without a steady supply of
energy and understands what it is like.
“Because we’ve been there at the beginning we’ve seen it come. Because we’ve
experienced life without it, its more important…… before my brother wired our house
we had gas and my friends had oil for lighting so you’ve been through it and how
inconvenient it is.”
The participants believe that the experienced from insecurity could change our
attitudes.
“…..we have a system of energy by demand. We expect to demand electricity or petrol
or what ever and you get it, if we had a system where for a few years you could only
get electricity when it was being supplied which is what happens in 3rd
world
countries.”
This experience can however be realised through current events. One participant
remarked that they see the impacts of an insecure system appear whenever the fuel
prices at the petrol pump increase. However, with the case of petrol, when these price
spikes occur suddenly then the public begin secure their own supplies of fuel.
“The problem is that we’re not used to not being able to have anything and the minute
we can’t have anything we panic don’t we.”
However, the group showed that we are able to learn to cope with such issues.
“Other cultures live like that perpetually don’t they?”
46
5.4.6 Climate Change
During the focus groups the issue of climate change and carbon dioxide often became
a topic of discussion. Giving the impression that climatic change issues and energy
security were dilemmas which required the same policies to combat.
“They should at least both be working in the same direction because one of the ways to
reduce CO2 is to use less energy, if you use less energy then your supply is more secure I
don’t see the two need to be mutually exclusive I think they can work to gather
therefore work on C02 has an a affect on security ands the other way round.”
There was conflict between whether climate change and energy security were to be
associated with each other.
“I think people have been given the message of reducing their level of CO2 output so
that now talking about energy security they will get confused between what they
should be doing to reduce emissions and control energy security there’s a real sort of
conflict there. Things like turning lights off will be associated with reducing emissions
what can I do to affect my energy security?”
47
6.0 Discussion
So far the main efforts to engage the general public in their own energy behaviours are
through environmental concerns with such programs as ‘the climate change
communication initiative’ and ‘act on CO2’. However, as shown in the analysis of the
focus groups when a zero carbon source of energy used consumption patterns can
increase. This is through the individuals perceptions that eh environment in no longer
at risk. What this dissertation proposes is to show the risks to energy security to
provide the motivation for reducing energy consumption alongside the environmental
concerns for moving towards a low carbon system.
It was found during the research that as a collective the groups of participants
understood a great deal of the issues surrounding energy security. However, what was
also clear was the level of understanding of the energy system and how it operates
was felt to be very low. What this indicates is that when the general public have a very
low understanding of the energy system then ‘how they can affect it’ becomes a very
difficult question to answer.
The most common answer to affecting the energy system was one of demand
reduction. This is due to the various campaigns by the government to reduce the CO2
emission levels within the UK.
An increase in information of the energy system will not only cause a greater
understanding of how to affect energy security, but it will also help with the issue of
trust. The trust shown in the government and business within the energy sector was
shown to be very low. With a greater understanding of ho the energy system operates
the general public will be able to understand more of the decisions made by
government and the industry. This will in turn generate more energy citizens as
explained by Devine-Wright (2005) which will in turn help to reduce the ‘value-action
gap’ explained earlier where the individuals actions do not represent their beliefs.
48
In general there was no doubt among the participants that there is an issue within the
UK of energy security. The level to which energy security affects the individual at the
moment is perceived to be low. For the future security of the energy system a greater
threat was perceived and it effects will become more apparent over time. This is,
however, contradictory to how Trope and Liberman (2003) explain the way in which
individuals construct events in the future in comparison to current events. As
explained in the literature review, events in the future are constructed in abstract
terms where the abstract perceptions do not have the concrete association connected
with emotional reactions. The focus groups and quantitative survey showed that the
future energy security scenarios evoke a reaction of greater concern from the general
public. The increase in concern for the future events can be explained through the two
means of processing the information shown in Slovic (2002). The present day reactions
are constructed though emotional based associations and the future risks are
calculated through the use of analytic algorithms and rules. Since the effects of energy
security do not currently show an impact on the individuals the beneficial aspects of
association based processing has not occurred. However, when the individual begins to
use the conscious awareness of a situation the future events can then be calculated
and its effects shown to have a greater risk associated with it.
One of the intended outcomes of the focus groups was to understand how the
individuals perceived the government were tackling the issues of energy security.
Often this was met with an understanding that behind the scenes the government
were doing what they could to combat the issue. But, in each session that vast
majority of people have no direct awareness of what the government are doing. What
I would like to discuss is why do the general public not know what is going on.
One answer is that they do not see it as an issue that they can solve. This became
apparent when asked directly if and what they believed they could do to cause an
affect to energy security. Less than half the participants believe they can influence the
energy system.
49
Another possible explanation is how much the individuals believed they knew about
energy security. The participants did not believe they have a great deal of knowledge
regarding the security of the UK energy system. The general public seem to have a
good understanding of various concepts within energy security discussing issues such
as effects of the rising prices of fuel or establishing a source of reliable energy it would
seem that the general public do not directly link this to the security of the UK energy
system.
The last response I’d like to discuss here is the possibility of whether the government
wants to directly involve the general public in energy security issues. As we have seen
in the fuel blockades in 2000 the general public have a tendency to ‘panic buy’ the
supplies they believe they need. This in turn creates a negative effect on the security of
the countries energy supplies for the more essential services. This could also cause a
loss in political faith. Currently as shown in the analysis of the focus groups trust in the
decision makers is being lost, showing that the government is loosing control over the
energy system would cause even greater distrust in the political powers.
An interesting side note on found during the focus group sessions is the concept of
climate change and energy security working together. It is understood that individuals
relate the reduction in energy consumption to climate change.
The issue of climate change and energy security are not the same while a higher usage
of domestic coal for heating, electricity generation, might make sense from an energy
security standpoint, under current combustion methods it does not help the climate
problem. The generation of electricity through nuclear fission is a relatively carbon
neutral process. The security of plants can be threatened as targets of terrorist attacks;
the safe disposal and isolation from of either spent fuel rods from reactors or wastes
from reprocessing plants is a permanent source for political scuffle; many doubt the
economic efficiency of nuclear plants, pointing to the immense costs of producing
nuclear energy (Ochs, 2008).
One of the suggestions made during the research is that experience of an unstable
system would provide us with the right incentive to change our behaviour patterns.
50
However, if we do experience a sustained case of energy intermittency then the
security of the energy system would have failed.
7.0 Conclusion
The aim of this dissertation was to look at a different way of generating more
sustainable lifestyles of the general public through energy security. The primary
research undertaken was to establish how the general public perceive the current
situation within the UK and to generate a methodology for how to use the issue of
energy security to evoke a reaction for the drive towards sustainable lifestyles.
What was found was that the general public have a belief that they know very little
about energy security. What was found was that the understanding of energy security
was not as low as they felt. The participant’s level of understanding of the energy
system, however, was shown to be very low. It is believed that informing the general
public of how the energy system works in greater detail would prove to encourage the
individual to become more involved with their energy use and produce energy citizens.
Involving the general public in issues of energy security not only gets them to think
about how they consume energy but also gets them to think about the way in which
the energy system works. With more individuals wanting to understand how our
energy system operates then a greater drive for research into the energy system will
ensue.
51
8.0 Future Research
The main aim of this dissertation was to provide motivation for individuals to take up
more sustainable lifestyles using energy security as a device. This focus of the
dissertation was to look at what the general public understands about energy security,
how the perceive it to affect them and what they believe they could do.
Since the concept of the public being involved within energy security is fairly new there
are various areas in which would require further understanding to help in establishing
the best framework for involving individuals within energy security. This section will be
used to show possible areas of further research into energy security and the general
public.
8.1 Perceptions of Energy Security - Using ‘purposive sampling’
techniques to identify groups of individuals within the general
public.
During the research of this dissertation various ideas of what different individuals
understood about energy security became apparent. What would be interesting to
understand is how different groups react to the risks to the energy system. In order it
inform individuals of energy security issues, including causes, implications, and
mediation strategies then how this information is disseminated to the general public is
very important.
It is my belief that the experience of the older generation would suggest that their
understanding of what happens when the risks to the energy system are greater but
52
would view the effects of an insecure system as very low to their everyday routine as
they interact with energy very little even though they are considered to be more
vulnerable than others.
There could also be a specific group which would be greater affected or even have a
greater effect on the security of the energy system. The selection of groups could
involve age controls, occupation (i.e. self employment, unemployed, or working for a
company), or the uptake of other energy issues such as climate change.
8.2 The Effect of Public Behaviours on Energy Security
During this research the effect that the individual has on energy security was examined
to show the various actions that could be taken by the general public. However, the
effect these actions could have is not well understood. Research into this area would
give an insight into what behaviours would prove the most efficient and to clarify to
what extent they cause effect on the energy system. This would also entail a review of
the ease to which each behavioural strategy could be taken up.
53
Reference:
Anderson G., Donalek, P. Farmer, R. Causes of the 2003 major grid blackouts in North America and
Europe, and recommended means to improve system dynamic performance
Andrews E., 2009; Peak oil prices and supplies, U.S. considers curbs on speculative trading of oil, New
York Times.
Bamford D., 2009 Gas and UK Gas Storage
BBC, 2008; Energy price rises 'unjustified', BBC news article published 2008/01/26
Benders R., Kok R., Moll H., Wiermsa G., Noorman K., 2005; New approached for household energy
conservation – In search of personal household energy budgets and energy reduction options. Energy
policy 34 (2006) 3612 – 3622.
BERR, 2009; Joint Energy Security Of Supply Working Group (JESS), website
(http://www.berr.gov.uk/energy/reliability/security-supply/jess/index.html)
Black R., 2005. Britain is Facing an Large Energy Gap. BBC news Website.
Brown M., 2007; Energy Myth One – Today’s Energy Crisis is “Hype”, Energy and American Society –
Thirteen Myths, 20-50
Burgess J., Nye M., 2008; Rematerializing energy use through transparent monitoring systems. Energy
Policy 36 (12)
Chaiken S., Trope Y., 1999, Dual-process theories in social psychology
Chester D., 2008; Power supergrid plan to protect Europe from Russian threat to choke off energy.
London Times 13/11/2008
CIEP, 2004, Study of supply security and geopolitics, Final report
Conway E., 2007; Oversupply of gas does not mean price cuts, Daily Telegraph, 3rd
September
54
Darby S., 2000; Making it obvious: designing feedback into energy consumption. Proceedings, 2nd
International Conference on Energy Efficiency in Household Appliances and Lighting. Italian Association
of Energy Economists/ EC-SAVE programme
DECC, 2009; UK sets world's first carbon budgets, press release;
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/pn047/pn047.aspx
DECCC, 2009; GB Smart Meter Roll Out Moves Forward
DEFRA, 2007; Environmental Permitting, Environmental Permitting Guidance The Large Combustion
Plant Directive.
DEFRA, 2007; Public Understanding of Sustainable Energy Consumption in the Home A research report
completed for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by Brook Lyndhurst.
DEFRA, 2007; Public Understanding of Sustainable Consumption of Food, A research report completed
for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by Opinion Leader
DEFRA, 2007; Public understanding of sustainable leisure and Tourism A research report completed for
the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by the University of Surrey
DEFRA, 2007; Public understanding of sustainable finance and investment, A research report completed
for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by Ipsos MORI
DEFRA, 2007; Public Understanding of Sustainable Transport, A research report completed for the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by Scott Wilson, University of the West of England
and Hall and Partners.
DEFRA, 2007; A synthesis review of the public understanding research projects, A research report
completed for the department for environment, food and rural affairs by the policy studies institute.
Devine Wright P., 2005; Beyond Nimbyism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public
perceptions of wind energy, Wind energy, Volume 8 (2) 125-139
DTI, 2003, ENERGY WHITE PAPER Our energy future - creating a low carbon economy
DTI, 2007, Meeting The Energy Challenge A WHITE PAPER ON ENERGY, Energy and climate security: a
global challenge, 28-48
Dürrenberger G., Kastenholz H., Behringer J., 1999; Integrated assessment focus groups: bridging the
gap between science and policy? Science and Public Policy, Volume 26, Number 5, 1 October 1999 , pp.
341-349(9)
E-ON, http://www.eon-uk.com/generation/lcpd.aspx (website accessed 16/05/2009)
Foresight, 2008; Foresight Sustainable Energy Management and The Built Environment Project, Final
Report, The Government Office for Science, London
Glachant J., 2008; CESSA Policy brief on EU Energy security of supply: 10 Conclusions.
Grubb M., Butler L., Twomey P., 2005; Diversity and security in UK electricity generation: The influence
of low carbon objectives.
55
Halfacre A., 1997; Risk Trust and Group Identity, Ethnic and racial perceptions of environmental hazards
Helm D., 2008, Credible energy policy, Meeting the challenges of security of supply and climate change.
Hoogevneen F., Perlot W., 2005, Tomorrow’s Mores: The international system, geopolitical changes and
energy.
Hughes L., 2009; The four ‘R’s of energy security, Energy policy 37 (2009) 2459-2461
IEA, 2007; International Energy Agency Energy Policy Review, Summary of Conclusions and
Recommendations
IPCC, 2007; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Summary for Policy Makers, Contribution to
working group II fourth assessment report
Jasmasb T., Pollit M., 2008; Security of Supply and Regulation of Networks. Energy Policy 36 (2008)
4584-4589
Jasmasb T., Pollit M., 2005; Electricity market reform in the EU: Review of progress towards
liberalization and integration.
Johnson R., Scicchitano M., 2000; Uncertainty, Risk Trust and Information: Public Perceptions of
environmental issues and willingness to take action, Policies study journal, Vol 28 No 3 2000 (633-647)
Kitzinger j., 2007; The Role of Media in Public Engagement, in Engaging science: Thoughts, deeds,
analysis and action
Kruyt B., Vuuren D., Vries H.J.M., Groenenberg H., 2009, Indicators for Energy Security, Energy Policy 37
(2009) 2166-2181
Lean G., 2009; Warning signs on nuclear power, (Telegraph Website)
Linville P., Fisher G., 1991; Preferences for separating and combining events: A social application of
prospect theory and the mental accounting model
Loewenstein G., Weber E., Hsee C., Welch E. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 267-
286.
Martiskainen M., 2007; Affecting consumer behaviour on energy demand, Final report to EDF energy,
sussex energy group.
Mc Cracken R., 2008; The unbearable lightness of wind, International association for energy economics.
McDaniels T., Axelrod L., Slovic P., 1995; Characterizing perception of ecological risk, Risk Analysis, 15,
pp. 575-588.
Mc Donald M., 2004; Innovation in electricity distribution networks final report.
Morgan D.L. and Kreuger R.A. (1993) ‘When to use focus groups and why’ in Morgan D.L. (Ed.) Successful
Focus Groups. London: Sage.
Morgan D.L. (1988) Focus groups as qualitative research. London: Sage.
56
Ochs A., 2008; Overcoming The Lethargy: Climate Change, Energy Security, And The Case For A Third
Industrial Revolution, American Institute For Contemporary German Studies
OMNI, 1996; Toolkit for Conducting Focus Groups, Participatory Action Research (PAR) Summary Articles
Owens S., Driffill L., 2008 How to change attitudes and behaviours in the context of energy, energy
policy 36 (2008) 4412-4418
Parker M., Surrey J., 1995; Contrasting British Policies for coal and nuclear power, Energy Policy 23 (9)
Patt A., Schrag D., 2003, Using Specific Language to describe risk and probability, Climatic Change 61: 17-
30
Pidgeon N., 2003, Publics perceptions of risk, science and governance, science in society
Pidgeon N., 2007; Lorenzoni I., Poortinga W., 2008; Climate Change or nuclear power- A quantitative
study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain, Global environmental change 18 (2008) 69-85
PUI, 2002, The Energy Review Cabinet Office, SECURITY IN THE ENERGY SYSTEM, 53-80
Rabiee F., 2004; Focus-group interview and data analysis Proceedings of the Nutrition Society (2004), 63,
655–660
Reuters, 2006; Gas jumps on news of rough storage shutdown 16/02/2006
Roggers O., 1996; Dynamic Risk Perception in 2 Communities: Risk Events and Changes in Perceived Risk
Schneier B., 2007; Perceptions of Risk
Sjoberg L., 2000; Factors in Risk Perception, Risk Annalysis, Vol 20 (1)
Sloman S., 1996, The empirical case for two systems of reasoning
Slovic P., 1987, Perception of Risk. Science 236, 280-285
Slovic, P., Fischoff, B. & Lichtenstein, S. (1986) The psychometric study of risk perception, in: Risk
Evaluation and Management
Slovic P., Weber E., 2002; Perception of risk posed by extreme events, Risk management strategies in an
uncertain world
Slovic P, Finnucane M., Peters E., McGregor D., 2003; The affect heuristic, Heuristics and Biases.
Stanley B. C., Ladislaw S., Zyla K., Goodward J., 2009; Annex II, Evaluating the energy security
implications of a carbon constrained U.S. economy.
Strauss A & Corbin J (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research, Techniques and Procedures for Developing
Grounded Theory, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
*Sustainable Development Commission 2006; I will if you will, towards sustainable consumption.
Trochim W., 2006; Non-probability sampling, Research methods knowledge Base
Trope Y., Liberman N., 2003; Temporal Construal, Psychological Review, Vol. 110, No. 3, 403–421
57
Umbach F., 2009; Global energy security and the implications for the EU. Energy Policy (2009), doi:
10.1016/ j.enpol.2009.01.010
Upham P., Shackley S., Waterman H., 2007; Public stakeholder perceptions of 2030 bioenergy scenarios
for the Yorkshire and Humber Region, Energy policy 25 (2007) 4403-4412
USDOE, 2008; Efficiency Vs. intensity, energy intensity in the US.
Van der Pligt J., 1992; Nuclear Energy and the Public.
Van Vliet B., 2004; Shifting Scales of Infrastructure Provision, in Chappells, H, Southerton, D. and van
Vliet, B.J.M. (eds.) Sustainable consumption: the implications of changing infrastructures of provision.
Edward Elgar Publishing, Camberly, UK
Viklund M., 2004 Energy policy options- from the perspective of public attitudes and risk perceptions,
Energy policy 32 (2004) 1159-1171
Watson J., Scott A., 2008; Sussex Energy Group, New Nuclear Power in The UK: A Strategy for Energy
Security.
Webber E., Experience based and description based perceptions of long term risk: why long term global
warming does not scare us (yet), climatic change (2006) 77: 103-120
Wicks M., 2009; Eenrgy Securtiy: An national challenge in a changing world
Winstone R., Bolton P., Gore D., 2007; Energy Security, House of Commons Library, Research Paper.
World Energy Council, 2006; ENERGY EFFICIENCIES: Pipe-dream or reality? “Used by permission of the
World Energy Council, London, www.worldenergy.org”.
Wynne B., 1980; Technology, risk and participation: on the social treatment of uncertainty.
Yergins D., 2006; Ensuring energy security
