Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 811–822

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: [Link]/locate/rser

Differing cultures of energy security: An international comparison

of public perceptions
Benjamin K. Sovacool a,b,n
a
Center for Energy Technologies, Department of Business and Technology Development, Aarhus University, Birk Centerpark 15, DK-7400 Herning, Denmark
b
Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), School of Business, Management, and Economics, University of Sussex, United Kingdom

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study reviews how energy-users perceive the importance of energy security dimensions. It asks:
Received 25 July 2014 how does the sense of energy security vary with culture? Its primary source of data is a summary of
Received in revised form survey distributed in eight languages to almost 2500 respondents in Brazil, China, Denmark, Germany,
11 July 2015
India, Kazakhstan, Japan, Papua New Guinea, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and the United States. It utilizes an
Accepted 12 October 2015
“energy literacy test” in Denmark as a secondary data tool. The survey results are used to test nine
Available online 5 December 2015
hypotheses about national, economic, political, professional, and epistemic cultures. The study concludes
Keywords: by affirming the complexity of energy security as a cultural topic; by emphasizing how answers among
Energy and environmental attitudes respondents tended to converge more than diverge; and by calling for further research.
Public values
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Security of supply

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811
2. Research concepts and methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812
3. Results and discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 816
3.1. H1–H3: National Energy Cultures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 816
3.2. H4–H5: Economic Energy Cultures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818
3.3. H6: Political Energy Cultures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819
3.4. H7–H8: Professional Energy Cultures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820
3.5. H9: Epistemic Cultures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820
4. Conclusions and policy implications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821

1. Introduction development, and individual security. But how do energy con-

sumers, households, and businesses perceive these issues? How
Energy security—defined as equitably providing available, affo- do demographic attributes such as occupation or information
rdable, reliable, efficient, environmentally benign, proactively affect perceptions of energy issues? Furthermore, how might
governed and socially acceptable energy services to end-users [65] geographic location, market structure, and politics influence con-
—invariably fuses traditional conceptions of national security with ceptions of energy security?
emerging concepts of human rights and energy justice, sustainable This study attempts to answer these questions by drawing from
earlier work [62] which explored how an assortment of energy-
users perceived energy fuels, technologies, issues, dimensions, and
n
Corresponding author at: Center for Energy Technologies, Department of
challenges. This study instead asks: how do perceptions of energy
Business and Technology Development, Aarhus University, Birk Centerpark 15, DK-
7400 Herning, Denmark. Tel.: þ 45 3032 4303. security vary by culture? The primary source of data for this study
E-mail address: BenjaminSo@[Link] is a survey distributed in eight languages (English, Danish,

[Link]
1364-0321/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
812 B.K. Sovacool / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 811–822

Mandarin, Portuguese, Russian, Arabic, German, and Japanese) to  Enhancing the availability and quality of water, a key input into
2495 respondents in 11 countries. The survey results are used to energy supply chains.
test nine hypotheses about energy security cultures drawn from  Minimizing air pollution.
the academic literature spanning the disciplines of political scie-  Building resilience and adaptive capacity to climate change
nce, energy studies, geography, science and technology studies, (called “adaptation”).
sociology, and anthropology.  Reducing greenhouse gas emissions (called “mitigation”).
Though we see much value for energy analysts in our study, we
also see utility for non-energy-specialists studying topics as dif- As readers will see below, each of these 16 dimensions was
fuse as public attitudes towards the environment, scientific com- converted into a separate question asked in our survey.
munication, technological innovation, knowledge about science, Moving to the concept of culture, as Strauss et al. (2013:10)
and climate change. Why? First, and most broadly, by investigating note [70], “production, distribution, and consumption of energy
the stated preferences of almost 2,500 energy-users, our study almost never follow a simple logic of neoclassical economic effi-
enables us to get “behind” how they perceive energy challenges. ciency; rather, people tend to switch frames of reference among
Second, by including a diverse group of stakeholders—with sur- technical, economic, and cultural logics when considering their
veys directed not only at business leaders but households, sup- uses of energy.” These frames of reference can refer to a type of
porters of civil society, regulators, and members of the academy— “culture,” similar to that of an engineering culture or research
our study offers both perspectives from usually ignored actors in culture [11–13]. The concept of culture has often taken specific
the energy system. Third, Carlisle et al. [8] suggest that people will forms, such as the “national culture” of a country, the “market
be more likely to accept scientific claims which support their culture” of an economy, the “organizational culture” of a business
views than claims which contradict them. When it comes to views firm, and the “medical culture” of the healthcare profession [1].
on energy systems, however, we often don’t know what those are. This study applies this particular notion of culture to energy
This study identifies such preferences so that attempts at energy security, and proposes that at least five different cultures exist.
communication and awareness raising can improve their efficacy. Geographic cultures vary spatially or nationally, this is perhaps the
most common way of viewing culture [2]. Economic cultures, at
least in the realm of energy, will differ based on equitable access
2. Research concepts and methods and affordability of energy services [3]. Political cultures will range
across the spectrum from full open democracy to closed author-
This section of the study introduces, briefly, two central over- itarian regime [21]. Professional cultures will exist based on
arching concepts—that of energy security, and that of culture— occupational training or organizational employment [53], and
before describing its primary method of data collection, a survey, epistemic cultures relate to overall knowledge about energy facts
and its secondary method, an energy literacy test. [35].
Energy security, though a contested and complex term [14,15,73], To test what influence, if any, culture played with perceptions
has technical, social, environmental, political, geological, and economic of energy security, the study’s primary tool of data collection was a
dimensions. Instead of defining it only in terms of security over access survey. Our structured questionnaire consisted mainly of multiple
to fuel, this study puts forth a wider conceptualization enveloping choice questions that the author has used previously to assess
technology, resources, trade, behavior, institutions, the environment, national energy security issues [34,4,5,58,62,6,63,74]. The survey
and education. Similar arguments in favor of the broad nature of asked participants to rate the 16 dimensions of energy security
energy security are presented in Kruyt et al. [36], Jacobson [29], Vivoda identified above according to a five point Likert [37] scale:
[75], Jansen, Seebregts [32], and Sovacool [57].
To transform the concept of energy security into more codified 1. Extremely unimportant.
dimensions, the author conducted a meta-survey of 90 peer 2. Somewhat unimportant.
reviewed articles (discussed in greater detail in Ref. [56]) and 3. Neither important nor unimportant.
interviewed more than sixty prominent experts in the field (a 4. Somewhat important.
“modified Delphi method” discussed in greater detail in [59-61]). 5. Extremely important.
Key energy security dimensions were further refined at an inter-
national workshop which featured almost forty participants bro- As Table 1 reveals, the survey was distributed physically and
ken into six focus groups. Ultimately, the results of this collective through an online survey hosting website to 11 countries. These
research—the literature review, interviews, and focus groups— countries were selected because they represent a mix of urban and
suggested that energy security was best captured by 16 distinct rural populations, developed and developing economies, import-
dimensions: and export-dependent energy trading flows, post-communist and
capitalist societies, liberalized and state-owned energy markets,
 Securing a supply of conventional fuels such as coal, oil, natural and different geographic sizes. We have major energy exporters
gas, and uranium. Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, and the United States along with
 Bolstering trade in energy fuels, commodities, and technologies. importers Brazil, China, Germany, and India and transit countries
 Maximizing production and minimizing depletion of domes- such as Singapore. We have countries struggling with energy
tically available fuels. access problems, such as China, India, and Papua New Guinea,
 Providing predictable and clear price signals. alongside those with high levels of energy access, such as Japan,
 Enabling affordably priced energy services. the United States, and Singapore. We have five industrialized
 Providing equitable access to those energy services. countries and six either middle income or lower income countries.
 Diversifying and decentralizing energy infrastructure. We have representative democracies such as the United States,
 Promoting energy efficiency and lowering energy intensity. socialist democracies such as Denmark and Germany, monarchies
 Researching and developing new energy technologies. such as Saudi Arabia, and communist regimes such as China.
 Ensuring transparency and participation in project siting and In aggregate, 2495 surveys were partially or fully completed
decision-making. across these 11 countries. We used the survey to test nine
 Offering energy education and information. hypotheses, drawn mostly from the academic literature, shown in
 Preserving land and forests. Table 2.
 B.K. Sovacool / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 811–822 813

Table 1
Summary of energy security survey distribution.

Country Language(s) Distribution Respondents % total

United States English Electronic (online) and print 427 17

Japan English and Japanese Electronic (online) and print 346 14
Denmark English and Danish Electronic (online) and print 328 13
China English and Mandarin Electronic (online) and print 312 13
Saudi Arabia English and Arabic Electronic (online) and print 298 12
India English Electronic (online) and print 172 7
Kazakhstan English and Russian Electronic (online) and print 138 6
Brazil English and Portugal Electronic (online) and print 115 5
Germany English and German Electronic (online) and print 114 5
Singapore English and Mandarin Electronic (online) and print 93 4
Papua New Guinea English Print 48 2
Others – Electronic (online) and print 104 4
Total 2495 100

Table 2
Energy security cultures, hypotheses, and survey questions.

Category Hypotheses Survey question(s)

National cultures (1–3) One would expect respondents to differ nationally in their energy When you think about energy security for your country of residence in
security perceptions. American respondents would be expected to the next five years, how important is it to have a secure supply of oil,
emphasize security of supply and to lowly rate environmental and cli- gas, coal, and/or uranium? How important is it to minimize the
mate issues; Danish and German respondents to prioritize renewable destruction of forests and the degradation of land and soil; to provide
energy, climate change, and protection of the environment; Asian coun- available and clean water; and to minimize air pollution? How
tries would prioritize self-sufficiency important is climate change mitigation and adaptation? How impor-
tant is it to minimize depletion of domestically available energy fuels?
Economic cultures (4–5) We would expect developing countries to prioritize equitable and When you think about energy security for your country of residence in
affordable access to energy services to all of its citizens, given their rapid the next five years, how important is it to assure equitable access to
economic growth compared to industrialized countries which would energy services to all of its citizens; how important is it to have
prioritize efficiency and innovation affordably priced energy services?; How important is it to have stable,
predictable, and clear price signals?
Political cultures (6) One would expect highly competitive, representative democracies to When you think about energy security for your country of residence in
place greater value on decentralization, participation, and education, the next five years, how important is it to have small-scale, decen-
whereas more tightly controlled economies would emphasize cen- tralized energy systems; to ensure transparency and participation in
tralization and less-inclusive decision-making energy permitting, siting, and decision-making; and to inform con-
sumers and promote social and community education about energy
issues?
Professional (7–8) One would expect business and industry perspectives of energy When you think about energy security for your country of residence in
cultures security to be more accepting of pollution and more critical of climate the next five years, how important is it to minimize the impact of
change, and government respondents to rate energy research and inno- climate change (i.e., adaptation); and to reduce greenhouse gas
vation highly emissions (i.e. mitigation)?; How important is it to minimize the
destruction of forests and the degradation of land and soil; to provide
available and clean water; and to minimize air pollution?; How
important is it to conduct research and development on new and
innovative energy technologies?
Epistemic culturesn (9) One would expect Danes to be generally knowledgeable on energy In general, how much do you feel you yourself know about energy
and climate topics as well as appreciative of education related to energy issues and problems? How is most electricity in Denmark generated?
issues and problems compared to North Americans How much electricity do you consume every month inside your home?
How much do you pay per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for electricity
(including tax and distribution)? The last time you checked how much
did a liter of petrol/gasoline/diesel cost at the local station? Which of
the following uses more energy in the average home?

n
Proposition is tested only within a smaller subsample of Danish respondents and previous energy literacy scores for North American respondents.

Fig. 1 provides an overview of the demographic characteristics As Table 1 and Fig. 1 also reveal, some biases exist within the
of respondents from our convenience sample, though (a) the sample. Surveys were incredibly difficult to distribute in Papua
sample size of the survey is not proportional to national popula- New Guinea meaning they account for less than 3% of respondents,
tion size, (b) the results have not been weighted to match national whereas respondents from China, Denmark, Japan, Saudi Arabia,
demographic profiles, and (c) 104 respondents did not provide and the United States each represented more than 11% of
their country of residence when completing the survey online. responses. More than half the respondents were postgraduates in
Distribution of the survey was random and respondents were not our sample, almost half worked at universities, and about one-
necessarily experts in the field of energy. Those who chose to third were aged from 26 to 35, which is proportionately higher
respond did so only based on their willingness to participate; they than an unbiased sample would represent. Our survey also pos-
were not compensated. To be eligible, a person needed only sibly suffers from self-selection bias [16]: that is, only those that
(a) consider one of our eleven countries their home and already deem energy security to be important would take the time
(b) consume and use energy there, though we did distribute the to complete it.
survey to at least four classes of people spread across the private Our response rate of about 2500 people, moreover, pales in
sector, government, civil society, and universities and research comparison to the billions on this planet that consume modern
institutes. energy services. Still, we maintain that it does meet the standard
814 B.K. Sovacool / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 811–822

Fig. 1. Demographic characteristics of our energy security survey sample. Figures expressed in percentage, 100% ¼2945 respondents, sums may differ due to independent
rounding. Note: “University” refers to those working at colleges, universities, schools, and academic institutions. “Private sector” refers to those working in electricity supply,
transport, industry, business, and for-profit organizations. “Government” refers to those working for local, state, and national governments as well as national institutes and
regulatory agencies. “Nonprofit” refers to those working in civil society, nongovernmental organizations, and intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations.

Fig. 2. Characteristics of our energy literacy subsample. Figures expressed in percentage, 100% ¼ 328 respondents. Note: “University” and “Academic” refers to those working at
colleges, universities, schools, and academic institutions. “Private sector” refers to those working in electricity supply, transport, industry, business, and for-profit organi-
zations. “Government” refers to those working for local, state, and national governments as well as national institutes and regulatory agencies. “Nonprofit” refers to those
working in civil society, nongovernmental organizations, and intergovernmental organizations. “ICT” refers to information and communications technology.

set by recent rigorous social science survey work. For instance, was based on questions about literacy and values utilized by the
studies using survey data of elite perceptions commonly have National Environmental Education & Training Foundation known
fewer than a few hundred respondents, with Lozanoa et al. [39], informally as the “Energy IQ Test” or “National Report Card”
Guo et al. [25], and Sagebiel et al. [52] serving as recent examples. [17,45]. Due to limited resources this test was only able to be
Studies of general perceptions are considered to meet the “gold distributed in Denmark, though two separate sets of respondents
standard” if they surpass 500 respondents, with Carlisle et al. [9], were targeted: household energy consumers, and business leaders.
Yuan et al. [78] and Yin et al. [77] serving as recent examples. A total of 328 of these tests were completed, 224 from households
The study’s secondary tool was an energy literacy test, used to and 104 from business leaders. Fig. 2 provides an overview of both
examine the final hypothesis about epistemic cultures. This test subsamples.
Table 3
Energy security perceptions by entire sample and country summary of ratings (range: 1 ¼ extremely unimportant; 5 ¼extremely important).

Energy security dimension/ Entire sample (n ¼2495) Mean for each country
question
Min Max [Link]. Mode Median Mean Brazil China Denmark Germany India Japan Kazakhstan Papua New Saudi Ara- Singapore USA
(n¼115) (n¼ 312) (n¼ 328) (n ¼114) (n¼ 172) (n¼ 346) (n¼ 138) Guinea bia (n¼ 93) (n¼ 427)
(n ¼48) (n ¼298)

To provide available and 1 5 0.63 5 5 4.71 4.88 4.75 4.66 4.47 4.89 4.35 4.79 4.84 4.91 4.66 4.83
clean water
To conduct research and 1 5 0.62 5 5 4.70 4.98 4.68 4.67 4.89 4.83 4.5 4.66 4.6 4.78 4.37 4.83
development on new and
innovative energy

B.K. Sovacool / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 811–822

technologies
To minimize air pollution 1 5 0.64 5 5 4.69 4.86 4.76 4.56 4.46 4.8 4.57 4.71 4.6 4.84 4.53 4.75
To minimize the destruction 1 5 0.71 5 5 4.62 4.9 4.79 4.36 4.52 4.82 4.48 4.71 4.81 4.64 4.18 4.73
of forests and the degra-
dation of land and soil
To reduce greenhouse gas 1 5 0.77 5 5 4.56 4.88 4.62 4.43 4.74 4.76 4.36 4.51 4.66 4.62 4.33 4.65
emissions (i.e. mitigation)
To minimize the impact of 1 5 0.83 5 5 4.46 4.84 4.54 4.36 4.22 4.59 4.23 4.29 4.69 4.55 4.33 4.56
climate change (i.e.,
adaptation)
To have a secure supply of 1 5 0.85 5 5 4.41 4.7 4.82 3.81 3.75 4.86 4.42 4.68 4.66 4.79 4.34 4.14
coal, gas, oil and/or
uranium
To have low energy intensity 1 5 0.81 5 5 4.41 4.59 4.44 4.4 4.57 4.52 4.36 4.14 4.45 4.41 4.16 4.49
(unit of energy required
per unit of economic
output)
To assure equitable access to 1 5 0.81 5 5 4.41 4.79 4.36 4.2 4.24 4.49 4.11 4.39 4.79 4.72 4.33 4.53
energy services to all of its
citizens
To have affordably priced 1 5 0.82 5 5 4.36 4.82 4.21 4.31 4.15 4.67 4.34 4.51 4.79 4.61 4.28 4.1
energy services
To have stable, predictable, 1 5 0.76 5 5 4.35 4.75 4.27 4.16 4.15 4.47 4.27 4.49 4.67 4.55 4.24 4.34
and clear price signals
To inform consumers and 1 5 0.80 5 5 4.35 4.82 4.04 3.89 4.41 4.74 4.11 4.37 4.77 4.72 4.23 4.56
promote social and com-
munity education about
energy issues
To minimize depletion of 1 5 0.93 5 5 4.29 4.68 4.57 3.99 4.07 4.61 4.37 4.54 4.4 4.4 3.54 4.08
domestically available
energy fuels
To ensure transparency and 1 5 0.83 5 5 4.27 4.65 4.21 3.96 4.15 4.58 4 4.36 4.77 4.46 4.01 4.47
participation in energy
permitting, siting, and
decision-making
To promote trade in energy 1 5 0.85 5 4 4.25 4.7 3.99 4.09 4.23 4.57 4.14 4.47 4.53 4.49 4.16 4.19
products, technologies,
and exports
To have small-scale, decen- 1 5 1 5 4 3.94 4.47 3.62 3.41 4.34 4.17 3.99 3.76 4.5 4.47 3.53 3.97
tralized energy systems

815
816 B.K. Sovacool / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 811–822

3. Results and discussion

Fourth lowest rated

Security of supply
Energy efficiency
Energy efficiency

Decentralization
As Table 3 depicts, the “ratings” derived from the five-point

Transparency
Transparency

Transparency
Likert scale show a convergence of answers ranging from a mean

Depletion
of 3.94 for decentralization of energy systems at the bottom to a

Trade
high of 4.71 for preserving the integrity of water supplies. This

Transparency and price (tie) –

indicates that in aggregate, respondents rated all dimensions as

Education and equity (tie)

falling within the range of important to extremely important.
Table 4 presents the four highest and lowest rated energy security
dimensions for each country, and Tables 5 and 6 present the same

Second lowest rated Third lowest rated

Decentralization
data reorganized by the demographic attributes of respondents.

Transparency

Transparency

Transparency
Affordability
The remaining parts of this section of the paper test this data with

Adaptation
Education

Education
the nine hypotheses introduced above.

Equity
3.1. H1–H3: National Energy Cultures

Security of supply
The first, and perhaps least controversial hypothesis, were that

Energy Efficiency

Energy Efficiency

Energy efficiency

Energy efficiency
responses would vary by nation. To be fair, national cultural

Transparency
influences are certainly not fixed, and tend to represent an inter-

Depletion

Depletion

Security of supply Depletion

play of geographic, economic, and political factors that can extend

Prices

Trade
well beyond an individual country [38]). That said, the academic
literature does suggest that American respondents would
emphasize security of supply. Evidence for this claim is rooted in

Decentralization
Decentralization
Decentralization
Decentralization
Decentralization

Decentralization

Decentralization

Decentralization
two separate sets of literature. One, going back to the energy

Lowest rated
shocks of the 1970s, argues that one of the most preeminent

Depletion

Depletion
national security concerns facing the United States was its
dependence on foreign sources of energy, particularly oil
[18,33,76]. Another set of literature has analyzed the overarching

Security of supply

Security of supply

Security of supply
principles governing energy in the United States for the past
century, and it suggests that policymakers, and even consumers, Fourth highest
have come to prioritize securing a cheap, abundant supply of fuel

Mitigation
Forestry

Forestry
more than other considerations such as environmental protection
Forests

Water
rated

R&D
or the efficient use of energy [10,41,47,48].

–
We expected Danish and German respondents to prioritize

Water and mitigation (tie)

clean and renewable sources of energy and environmental issues

Affordability and equity

such as climate change. This claim is rooted in scholarship noting
Third highest rated

that Danes and Germans are more self-conscious about sustain-

Security of supply

Energy Efficiency
ability than others, that they tend to use energy more efficiently,
Air pollution

Air pollution

Air pollution
and that they are more aware about the impacts of energy use on
the environment [47,48,55,54,43]. Collectively these threads of
Forestry

scholarship have also implied that since Europe was the first place
R&D
R&D

(tie)
the industrial revolution took place, and also a region of relatively
–

high population density, the environmental destruction associated

Forestry and Air pollution

with economic development was experienced firsthand, creating

Second highest rated

stronger consciousness about environmental issues.

Security of Supply

We expected respondents from Asian countries to emphasize

self-sufficiency. Support for this hypothesis comes partly from the
Air pollution

Air pollution
Highest and lowest rated energy security perceptions by country.

discussion about “Asian values.” This research has suggested that

Mitigation
Forestry

Forestry

Forestry

most of the major religions of Asia—Buddhism, Confucianism,

Water
R&D

(tie)

Hinduism, and Taoism—emphasize frugality, balance, and self-

–

reliance; and that Asians often express a preference for social

harmony and the collective well-being of the community over the
Security of supply

individual [40]. Other support arises from work analyzing national

Water & energy

energy programs in Asia. Japan’s nuclear power program, for

Highest rated

Air pollution

instance, expressed the stated goal of national energy self-

research

sufficiency for more than three decades [72]. Chinese and Indian
Water
Water

Water

Water

Water
R&D
R&D

R&D

energy policy have also been historically predicated on stressing

energy supply stabilization and self-reliance [4,5].
Interestingly, we find support for only one of these three
United States (n¼ 427)
Saudi Arabia (n¼ 298)

hypotheses. As the top panel of Fig. 3 illustrates, American

Kazakhstan (n¼ 138)

Papua New Guinea

Denmark (n¼328)
Germany (n¼ 114)
Singapore (n¼93)

respondents did not rate security of supply more highly than

China (n¼ 312)
Japan (n¼ 346)

Brazil (n ¼115)

Asians and “Europeans” (indicative here of Danes and Germans);

India (n¼172)

in fact, they rated it far below the average across the entire sample.
(n ¼48)
Country

The middle panel shows that, also, Danish and European respon-
Table 4

dents did not rate environmental issues more favorably than those
from the USA. The bottom panel presents data for the only
Table 5
Mean energy security perceptions by demographic criteria and total summary of ratings (range: 1 ¼extremely unimportant; 5¼ extremely important).

Female Male 18 to 25 26 to 35 36 to 45 46 to 55 55 and above Private sector University Non-profit Government

(n¼ 1077) (n ¼1418) (n ¼654) (n ¼812) (n¼ 424) (n¼ 321) (n¼ 285) (n¼ 675) (n¼ 1070) (n ¼215) (n¼ 466)

To have a secure supply of coal, gas, oil 4.49 4.51 4.56 4.47 4.51 4.59 4.37 4.45 4.48 4.17 4.74

B.K. Sovacool / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 811–822

and/or uranium
To promote trade in energy products, 4.29 4.25 4.34 4.26 4.23 4.26 4.26 4.24 4.25 4.14 4.41
technologies, and exports
To minimize depletion of domestically 4.46 4.23 4.36 4.34 4.39 4.27 4.23 4.36 4.31 4.07 4.46
available energy fuels
To have stable, predictable, and clear 4.42 4.34 4.38 4.34 4.39 4.37 4.58 4.35 4.34 4.29 4.52
price signals
To have affordably priced energy 4.46 4.30 4.47 4.36 4.38 4.32 4.61 4.35 4.37 4.17 4.48
services
To have small-scale, decentralized 4.10 3.96 4.03 3.97 4.01 4.06 4.17 4.00 4.02 4.10 4.02
energy systems
To have low energy intensity (unit of 4.53 4.39 4.35 4.40 4.39 4.48 4.51 4.39 4.43 4.35 4.44
energy required per unit of economic
output)
To conduct research and development 4.73 4.69 4.68 4.71 4.70 4.71 4.75 4.62 4.75 4.66 4.77
on new and innovative energy
technologies
To assure equitable access to energy 4.49 4.39 4.44 4.44 4.42 4.39 4.53 4.32 4.48 4.35 4.59
services to all of its citizens
To ensure transparency and participa- 4.34 4.30 4.34 4.34 4.25 4.23 4.50 4.22 4.36 4.33 4.45
tion in energy permitting, siting, and
decision-making
To inform consumers and promote 4.50 4.35 4.46 4.44 4.35 4.33 4.48 4.28 4.51 4.43 4.50
social and community education
about energy issues
To minimize the destruction of forests 4.78 4.63 4.64 4.65 4.69 4.66 4.68 4.41 4.69 4.63 4.74
and the degradation of land and soil
To provide available and clean water 4.84 4.68 4.71 4.75 4.71 4.66 4.74 4.51 4.77 4.70 4.83
To minimize air pollution 4.78 4.59 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.72 4.71 4.45 4.72 4.70 4.77
To minimize the impact of climate 4.65 4.41 4.77 4.47 4.46 4.50 4.32 4.36 4.52 4.54 4.62
change (i.e., adaptation)
To reduce greenhouse gas emissions (i.e. 4.71 4.52 4.58 4.58 4.59 4.57 4.61 4.47 4.63 4.59 4.68
mitigation)

817
 818
Table 6
Highest and lowest rated energy security perceptions by demographic criteria.

Category Highest rated Second high- Third highest Fourth highest Lowest rated Second lowest rated Third lowest Fourth lowest
est rated rated rated rated rated

Female (n¼ 1077) Water Air pollution Land use R&D Decentralization Trade Transparency Stable prices
Male (n¼ 1418) R&D Water Land use Air pollution Decentralization Minimize depletion Trade Affordable prices
18 to 25 (n ¼654) Adaptation Water Air pollution R&D Decentralization Transparency Trade Energy efficiency
26 to 35 (n¼ 812) Water R&D Air pollution Land use Decentralization Trade Transparency Minimize
depletion
36 to 45 (n¼ 424) Water Air pollution R&D Land use Decentralization Trade Transparency Education
46 to 55 (n¼ 321) Air pollution R&D Water Land use Decentralization Transparency Trade Minimize
depletion
55þ (n¼ 285) R&D Water Air pollution Land use Decentralization Minimize depletion Trade Adaptation
University Water R&D Air pollution Land use Decentralization Trade Minimize Stable prices
(n¼ 1070) depletion

B.K. Sovacool / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 811–822

Private sector R&D Water Mitigation Air pollution Decentralization Transparency Trade Education
(n¼ 675)
Non-profit Water Air pollution R&D Land use Minimize depletion Decentralization Trade Security of
(n ¼ 215) Supply
Government Water R&D Air pollution Land Use Decentralization Trade Energy efficiency Transparency
(n¼ 466)
China, India, Kazakhstan, Papua New Guinea, and Singapore.
Note: “European” refers to results from Denmark and Germany, “Asian” includes
panel), environmental issus (middle panel), and self-sufficiency (bottom panel).
Fig. 3. Selected energy security ratings by geography for security of supply (top

research and improving energy efficiency.

mies, by contrast, would place more emphasis on advanced energy
affordability. Out fifth hypothesis was that industrialized econo-
produce an economic culture prioritizing energy equity and
population densities or those with sizable rural populations would

3.2. H4–H5: Economic Energy Cultures

respondents.
sample and the groups of collective European and American
reserves) noticeably higher than both the average across the
rate self-sufficiency (minimizing the depletion of domestic energy
hypothesis we could confirm: that Asian respondents did indeed
3.80
3.90
4.00
4.10
4.20
4.30
4.40
4.50

3.80
3.90
4.00
4.10
4.20
4.30
4.40
4.50
4.60
4.70

The fourth hypothesis was that countries with either low

United States
(n=427)
(n=2495)
Average

Germany

Denmark

(n=2495)
Average
(n=114)

(n=328)

3.5
(n=1109)
Asian

(n=1109)
Asian
4
4.5
USA (n=427) Eurpean

USA (n=427)
5
Adaptation
Mitigation
Land
Air
Water
(n=442)

Eurpean
(n=442)
 B.K. Sovacool / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 811–822 819

Intuitively, countries with lower population densities face lar- 4.55

ger costs per capita in distributing energy; and therefore confront 4.5
more economic hurdles in ensuring energy equity. Poorer, less
4.45
densely populated nations tend to have extremely low levels
of access, leading us to believe that sparsely populated nations 4.4
in particular would consider affordability an important energy 4.35 Equitable access
security criterion. Even today, with the rapid growth of emerging 4.3 Affordable prices
markets like China and India, 1.3 billion people – roughly one out
4.25 Stable price signals
of five – still live without electricity [28]. When they do have
access to modern forms of energy, it may be neither affordable nor 4.2
equitable [30,44]. We surmised that this would make equity and 4.15
affordability salient concerns for respondents from countries. 4.1
Conversely, we hypothesized that richer countries would favor Brazil, China, India, Denmark, Germany,
investments in efficiency and innovation. Given the competitive Kazakhstan, PNG Japan, Singapore, USA
and entrepreneurial spirit often said to permeate many levels of Fig. 4. Selected energy security ratings for affordability and equity for developing
advanced economies, we expected expect energy research to rate (n ¼785) and industrialized (n¼ 1308) countries.
highly in industrialized countries [22]. Support for this hypothesis
also stems from the observation that OECD countries lead the
world in total energy research expenditures—spending more than
$14 billion each year. Such countries, perhaps also due to com- Denmark, Germany,
Energy Efficiency Japan, Singapore, USA
paratively higher priced energy, also tend to emphasize energy
efficiency efforts. The International Energy Agency [28] reports Brazil, China, India,
Kazakhstan, PNG
declining energy intensities—more efficient use of energy needed
to produce a unit of gross domestic product—in all but a small
handful of OECD countries. Both Europe and the USA are also
known as pioneers behind policy tools to improve efficiency such
R&D
as household appliance standards, corporate average fuel economy
standards, energy taxes and quotas, energy efficiency obligations,
efficiency labeling, and the creation of electricity savings trusts
[24]. 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8
Our survey data supported only our fourth hypothesis. As Fig. 4
Fig. 5. Selected energy security ratings for efficiency and R&D (n¼ 785) and
reveals, respondents from Brazil, China, India, Kazakhstan, and industrialized (n ¼1308) countries.
Papua New Guinea did rate affordability and equitable access to
energy services to be of higher importance than respondents from 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4
Denmark, Germany, Japan, Singapore, and the USA. However, Fig. 5
indicates that both sets of countries almost equally rated energy
efficiency (with slightly higher scores going to developing coun- Information and
education
tries) and that the industrialized countries, as a whole, rated the
importance of research and innovation less favorably. China, Kazakhstan, Saudi
Arabia, and Singapore
3.3. H6: Political Energy Cultures Transparancy and
Denmark, Germany, India,
participation
and USA
Some scholars have gone so far as to argue that politics is the
determining factor explaining preferences for energy systems and
technology. [26] writes that “our failure to establish a compre- Decentralization
hensive and effective energy policy is not a failure of our imagi-
nation or capacity, but of our political system” and Rudoph and
Ridley ([51] 298) state that “history shows that rather than tech- Fig. 6. Selected energy security ratings for political indicators for democratic
nology politics will be the determining factor for [the energy (n ¼1041) and authoritarian (n ¼841) countries.
transitions] in the coming decades.” While the author is uncertain
if support for such political determinism is founded, this study did legitimacy of institutions and public satisfaction across various
propose that respondents from countries with competitive repre- domains of public life.” Contrariwise, Sovacool and Valentine [64]
sentative democracies would place more emphasis on decen- and Valentine and Sovacool [67] have found that in economies
tralizing energy systems, improving participation in energy plan- guided by a stronger form of centralized government control (e.g.,
ning, and promoting energy education. The author also thought France, China, India, Japan and South Korea), energy planning is
that respondents from more tightly controlled economies would centralized and participation in energy planning limited.
see stronger benefits arising from centralization of energy plan- To test this hypothesis, we considered China (a one-party
ning and control and view improved transparency as a less communist state), Japan (a virtual one-party democracy until
important dimension of energy security. recently), Kazakhstan (a “weak” democracy), Singapore (a virtual
Indeed, in democracies such as the United States, there appears one-party democracy), and Saudi Arabia (a kingdom) to be nations
to be amplified expectations by citizens to be consulted in regard which exemplify a higher degree of centralized economic control,
to energy planning [71]. The result has been a movement to whereas current political conditions in Denmark, Germany, India,
include citizens in energy permitting discussions so that they are and the United States were considered to be highly competitive
more likely to approve, and even benefit from, energy projects representative or socialist democracies.
[43,73]. As Barnett et al. [7] put it, “A raft of initiatives has been We did not find support for this hypothesis from our sample,
proposed to engage the public in the hope of increasing both the however. Fig. 6 illustrates that respondents from both
820 B.K. Sovacool / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 811–822

4.9 Table 7
Energy Literacy Test Comparative Results.
4.8

Private sector (n=675) USA (n¼ 1503 in Denmark (n¼ 231 in

4.7
2001) 2013)
University (n=1070)
4.6
Non profit (n=215) % that can pass literacy test 12 14
4.5 % get an "A" on literacy test 1 4
Government (n=466) % properly identifying sources of 13 88
4.4 electricity

4.3
3.5. H9: Epistemic Cultures

The final hypothesis was about epistemic cultures, or the lit-

eracy and knowledge respondents possess on energy topics. This
Fig. 7. Average energy security ratings by occupation for environmental questions hypothesis supposes that Danes would be generally knowledge-
(n¼2426).
able on energy and climate topics as well as appreciative of edu-
cation related to energy issues and problems, given the country’s
“authoritarian” and “democratic” countries almost equally rated
leadership role on energy and climate, its high standard of living,
information and education (with a small preference among
and its higher energy prices (which, the logic runs, would motivate
authoritarian countries) and transparency and participation (with
people to learn more about energy, especially how to save it and
a small preference among democratic countries). Moreover, save money) [66,68,69]. Indeed, a host of studies on attitudes and
respondents from authoritarian countries more highly favored values have suggested that “socio-economic factors like higher
decentralization of energy supply. education levels, higher income, larger households, and higher
electricity prices” are “positively correlated with respondents’
knowledge” about energy and environmental issues, especially
3.4. H7–H8: Professional Energy Cultures energy efficiency [42]. In reverse, Allum et al. [2] argue that most
Americans possess low levels of “basic textbook knowledge” about
The seventh hypothesis stated that respondents working for scientific topics and Gauchat [23] adds that scientific education
energy companies and industry would be more conservative and there suffers from a “legitimacy problem.” Adding to the dilemma
rank climate change and other environmental issues less favorably. is that in a place like Denmark, energy infrastructure is decen-
The eighth hypothesis suggested that members of the private tralized (with many wind farms and combined heat and power
sector and academia would more highly prioritize investments in plants near communities), meaning ordinary members of the
energy research and innovation. public encounter it frequently, and are therefore expected to know
The postulation that industry perspectives on energy security more about it, whereas in the United States [31], energy infra-
would deemphasize environmental aspects is loosely based on a structure is largely centralized, invisible, and “out of sight, out of
premise put forth by DiMaggio and Powell [19] who noted that mind” to the public [50,27].
through a process of “institutional isomorphism” people come to The results from our basic energy literacy test contradicted
share the same values and mores of the organizations that they these sentiments—and partially refuted hypothesis fourteen. More
work for. To extend this logic, in industry where the profit motive than two-thirds of Danish respondents did not know how much
electricity an average Danish house uses, and about 85% of busi-
is strong, one would expect economic aspirations to trump
ness leaders did not know how much electricity the typical Danish
environmental ones. Dunlap and Olsen [20] have also found that,
company consumes. More than 63% of household respondents and
compared to advocates of renewable energy, employees of oil and
85% of industrial respondents did not know how much electricity
gas companies are more tolerant of the environmental insults
cost them per kW h, and about 30% of respondents did not know
associated with energy production and use, suggesting that the which devices used the most energy inside a typical home. Indeed,
particular industry one is in can shape views about energy less than 11% of business respondents and fewer than 16% of
security. Speculation that government and industry sector stake- household respondents answered at least four of the five energy
holders will place comparatively greater emphasis on the impor- literacy questions correctly, and less than 4% answered all of the
tance of energy research and development is supported by Pacala questions correctly. Put another way, across the whole sample, less
and Socolow [49] and the National Research Council [46] implying than one in 25 Danes would have scored an “A” on our energy
that university and private sector researchers commonly believe literacy test. This poor performance is even more telling given that
that advances in science and technology are a key ingredient of our sample of respondents was overwhelmingly postgraduates
maintaining organizational and even national competitiveness, and those working at universities and academic institutions,
and to addressing emerging threats to global prosperity such as meaning we likely overestimate true energy literacy rates.
climate change. As Table 7 indicates, Danish respondents did score slightly
We did find support for the seventh hypothesis: private sector higher than their American counterparts (using results from an
and industry participants rated all five environmental and climate older, national survey done there), but not by much. The NEETF
study of 1503 Americans aged 18 and older conducted by phone in
questions noticeably lower than each of the other occupational
2001 found that only one in eight Americans can correctly answer
groups, as Fig. 7 demonstrates. We did not however, find general
questions about how electricity is generated or whether fuel
support for the contention that private sector participants sup-
economy is rising or falling, and it concluded that only 1 in 100
ported enhanced research. In fact, they rated it the lowest (mean
adults would have received the grad of an “A.” Also, and similar to
score of 4.62) out of each of the other occupational classes of the Danish sample, these respondents rated themselves as being
university (mean score of 4.75), nonprofit (mean score of 4.66) and energy literate. Three in every four considered themselves as
government (4.77). having “a lot” or “a fair amount” of knowledge about energy.
 B.K. Sovacool / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 811–822 821

4. Conclusions and policy implications supported elements of the work reported here. The study also
draws from an earlier study entitled “Exploring Propositions about
First, this study affirms the complexity of energy security as a Perceptions of Energy Security: An International Survey,” pub-
topic. Though we did not confirm every hypothesis, preferences lished in Environmental Science & Policy 16(1) (January, 2012),
did undoubtedly vary nationally, economically, and politically as pp. 44–64. Ms. Pascale Blyth from Aarhus University provided
well as by the profession of respondents. Almost no groups rated helpful comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript. Any opi-
the most favored and least favored energy security dimensions
nions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in
identically. The implication is that different energy security cul-
this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect
tures do indeed exist, meaning that efforts to improve energy
the views of the MacArthur Foundation, or the survey respondents
security will have to attenuate themselves to different audiences.
There is no “one-size-fits-all” solution or common, unifying theme and participants.
to how energy users conceive of energy security, though there are
commonalities.
Second, although there were noticeable divergences among
References
responses, there was in fact more convergence. In a way, all six-
teen dimensions of energy security were rated favorably: the
[1] Abbott Andrew. The system of professions: an essay on the division of expert
mean score of the highest rated component (water) across the labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1988.
entire sample differed from the lowest rated component (decen- [2] Allum Nick, Sturgis Patrick, Tabourazi Dimitra, Brunton-Smith Ian. Science
tralization) by a mere 0.77 on a five point scale. Standard devia- knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis. Public Understand
Sci 2008;17:35–54.
tions were also small ranging from a high of 1 (decentralization to)
[3] Ailawadi VS, Bhattacharyya Subhes C. Access to energy services by the poor in
to a low of 0.62 (research and development). These low standard India: current situation and need for alternative strategies. Nat Resour Forum
deviations can be interpreted as a plus; it could be that the cate- 2006;30(1):2–14.
[4] Bambawale MJ, Sovacool BK. China's energy security: the perspective of
gories and dimensions we identified in our survey were so “spot-
energy users. Appl Energy 2011;88(5):1949–56.
on” that respondents couldn’t help but rate them all as important [5] Bambawale MJ, Sovacool BK. India's energy security: a sample of business,
to extremely important. However, it could also be interpreted as a government, civil society, and university perspectives. Energy Policy 2011;39
(3):1254–64.
drawback: perhaps respondents simply rated everything a “4” or a
[6] Bambawale MJ, Sovacool BK. Sheikhs on barrels: what Saudi Arabians think
“5” to get through the survey quickly. about energy security. Contemp Arab Affairs 2011;4(2):208–24.
Third, many hypotheses about energy security grounded in the [7] Barnett Julie, Burningham Kate, Walker Gordon, Cass Noel. Imagined publics
academic literature could not be supported. Danes and Germans and engagement around renewable energy technologies in the UK. Public
Understand Sci 2012;21(1):36–50.
did not prefer green energy systems much higher or lower than [8] Carlisle Juliet E, Feezell Jessica T, Michaud Kristy EH, Smith Eric RAN, Smith
other respondents. Relatively authoritarian regimes such as Saudi Leeanna. The public's trust in scientific claims regarding offshore oil drilling.
Arabia and China did not rate democracy and transparency higher Public Understand Sci 2010;19:514.
[9] Carlisle Juliet E, Kane Stephanie L, Solan David, Joe Jeffrey C. Support for solar
or lower than energy groups; neither, for that matter, did energy: examining sense of place and utility-scale development in California.
democracies such as India and the United States. Participants from Energy Res Soc Sci 2014;3:124–30.
countries such as Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Papua New Guinea rated [10] Clark John G. The political economy of world energy: a twentieth century
perspective. London: University of North Carolina Press; 1990.
the importance of energy efficiency almost the same as those [11] Christensen Steen, Hyldgaard Berbard, Delahousse, Meganck Martin, editors.
respondents from industrialized countries did. Engineering in context. Aarhus: Academica; 2009.
Fourth, drawing from both the heterogeneity of responses and [12] Christensen Steen, Hyldgaard Carl, Mitcham Bocong, Li, An Yanming, editors.
Engineering, development, and philosophy: american, chinese, and european
the low standard deviation, is that more rigorous research is perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer; 2012.
needed on the topic of energy and security attitudes. We tested [13] Christensen Steen, Hyldgaard Christelle, Didier Andrew, Jamison Martin,
our survey questions and distilled our 16 dimensions of energy Meganck Carl, Mitcham, Newberry Byron, editors. International perspectives
on engineering education: engineering education and practice in context. New
security from a combination of focus groups and workshops, but York/London: Springer; 2012.
perhaps the way we described our questions still limited the dis- [14] Ciuta Felix. Conceptual notes on energy security: total or banal security? Secur
parity of responses. Thus, some inherent weaknesses with this Dialogue 2010;41(2):123–44.
[15] Cooper Christopher. Physics envy: why energy policy is more art than science.
analysis do point the way for further, needed research. The sample J World Energy Law Bus 2013;6(1):67–82.
size of  2,500 respondents represents only an infinitesimal sliver [16] Cook Thomas D, Campbell Donald T. Quasi-experimentation: design & analysis
of the global population using modern forms of energy. This issues for field settings. Boston, USA: Houghton Mifflin Company; 1979.
[17] Coyle Kevin. Environmental literacy in America: what ten years of NEETF/
simple statistical analysis here could, and in fact should, be com-
roper research and related studies say about environmental literacy in the U.S.
plemented by more refined assessments including z scores, mul- Washington, DC: National Environmental Education & Training Foundation;
tivariate analysis, hierarchical modeling or multilevel analysis. It 2005.
[18] Deutch John. Future United States energy security concerns. Massachusetts
could also be augmented by having respondents rank energy
Institute of Technology; 2004 Department of Chemistry Working Paper No.
security attributes against each other rather than having them rate 115.
them on a 5 point scale. Lastly, it would be useful to track energy [19] DiMaggio P, Powell W. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields. Am Sociol Rev 1983;48:147–60.
attitudes and perceptions not at a static point in time, but over a
[20] Dunlap Riley E, Olsen Marvin E. Hard-path versus soft-path advocates: a study
series of years or even decades. Perhaps such enhanced analysis of energy activists. Policy Stud J 1984;13(2):413–28.
would better capture the heterogeneity of perspectives and pre- [21] Flanagan Scott C, Lee Aie-Rie. The new politics, culture wars, and the
ferences presented in our survey, the findings of which may authoritarian-libertarian value change in advanced industrial democracies.
Comp Polit Stud 2003;36(3):235–70.
require planners and analysts to reexamine their own assumptions [22] Freeman III Charles W, Searight Amy. The politics of climate change in Asia. In:
about what energy security is, and how it can be best improved. Freeman III Charles W, Green Michael J, editors. Asia's response to climate
change and natural disasters: implications for an evolving regional archi-
tecture. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies; 2010.
p. 3–12.
Acknowledgments [23] Gauchat Gordon. The cultural authority of science: public trust and acceptance
of organized science. Public Understand Sci 2011;20(6):751–70.
[24] Geller H, Harrington P, Rosenfeld AH, Tanishima S, Unander F. Policies for
The author is grateful to the MacArthur Foundation's Asia increasing energy efficiency: thirty years of experience in OECD countries.
Security Initiative for Grant 08-92777-000-GSS, which has Energy Policy 2006;34:556–73.
822 B.K. Sovacool / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 811–822

[25] Guo Yue, Ru Peng, Su Jun, Anadon Laura Diaz. Not in my backyard, but not far [51] Rudolph Richard, Ridley Scott. Power Struggle: the 100 Year War Over Elec-
away from me: local acceptance of wind power in China. Energy 2015;82 tricity. In: Nader Laura, editor. The Energy Reader. London: Wiley Blackwell;
(15):722–33. 2010. p. 287–9.
[26] Hamilton Lee H. Foreword. In: Robert Bent Lloyd, Orr, Baker Randall, editors. [52] Sagebiel Julian Jakob RMüller, Jens Rommel. Are consumers willing to pay
Energy: science, policy, and the pursuit of sustainability. Washington: Island more for electricity from cooperatives? Results from an online choice
Press; 2002. p. 12–3. experiment in Germany Energy Res Soc Sci 2014;2:90–101.
[27] Hirsh RF, Sovacool. BK. Wind turbines and invisible technology: unarticulated [53] Schein EH. Culture: the missing concept in organization studies. Adminis-
reasons for local opposition to wind energy. Technol Cult 2013;54(4):705–34. trative Sci Q 1996;41(2):229–40.
[28] International Energy Agency, United Nations Development Programme, Uni- [54] Schreurs Miranda A. Divergent paths: environmental policy in Germany, the
ted Nations Industrial Development Organization. Energy poverty: how to United States, and Japan. Environment 2003;45(8):9–17.
make modern energy access universal? Paris: OECD; 2010. [55] Schreurs Miranda A. Environmental politics in Japan, Germany, and the United
[29] Jacobson MZ. Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
security. Energy Environ Sci 2009;2:148–73. [56] Sovacool BK, Brown MA. Competing dimensions of energy security: an inter-
[30] Jacobson Arne, Kammen Daniel. Letting the (energy) Gini out of the bottle: national review. Annu Rev Environ Resour 2010;35:77–108.
Lorenz curves of cumulative electricity consumption and Gini coefficients as [57] Sovacool BK, editor. The Routledge handbook of energy security. London:
metrics of energy distribution and equity. Energy Policy 2005;33(14): Routledge; 2011.
1825–32. [58] Sovacool BK. Seven suppositions about energy security in the United States. J
[31] Ladenburg Jacob. Does more wind energy influence the choice of location for Clean Prod 2011;19(11):1147–57.
wind power development? Assessing the cumulative effects of daily wind [59] Sovacool BK, Mukherjee I. Conceptualizing and measuring energy security: a
turbine encounters in Denmark Energy Research & Social Science 2015;10: synthesized approach. Energy 2011;36(8):5343–55.
26–30. [60] Sovacool BK. Evaluating energy security in the asia pacific: towards a more
[32] Jansen JC, Seebregts AJ. Long-term energy services security: what is it and comprehensive approach. Energy Policy 2011;39(11):7472–9.
how can it be measured and valued? Energy Policy 2010;38:1644–54. [61] Sovacool BK. The methodological challenges of creating a comprehensive
[33] Kleber Drexel. The U.S. Department of Defense: valuing energy security. J energy security index. Energy Policy 2012;48:835–40.
Energy Secur 2009, June, 1-7. [62] Sovacool BK, Valentine SV, Bambawale MJ, Brown MA, Cardoso TDF, Nurbek S,
[34] Knox-Hayes J, Brown MA, Sovacool BK, Wang Y. Understanding attitudes et al. Exploring propositions about perceptions of energy security: an inter-
toward energy security: results of a cross-national survey. Glob Environ national survey. Environ Sci Policy 2012;16(1):44–64.
Change 2013;23(3):609–22. [63] Sovacool BK, Vivoda V. A comparison of Chinese, Indian, and Japanese per-
[35] Knorr-Cetina Karin. Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge. ceptions of energy security. Asian Surv 2012;52(5):949–69.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1999. [64] Sovacool BK, Valentine SV. The national politics of nuclear power: economics,
[36] Kruyt B, Vuuren DPV, HJMd Vries, Groenenberg H. Indicators for Energy security, and governance. London: Routledge Global Security Studies Series;
Security. Energy Policy 2009;37:2166–81. 2012.
[37] Likert Rensis. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol [65] Sovacool BK. An international assessment of energy security performance.
1932;140:1–55. Ecol Econ 2013;88:148–58.
[38] Lofstedt Ragnar E, Vogel David. The Changing Character of Regulation: A [66] Sovacool BK. Energy policymaking in Denmark: implications for global energy
Comparison of Europe and the United States. Risk Analysis 2001;21(3):399– security and sustainability. Energy Policy 2013;61:829–31.
416. [67] Sovacool BK. Exploring the conditions for cooperative energy governance: a
[39] Lozanoa Rodrigo, et al. A review of commitment and implementation of comparative study of two Asian pipelines. Asian Stud Rev 2010;34(4):489–511.
sustainable development in higher education: results from a worldwide sur- [68] Sovacool BK, Tambo T. Comparing Consumer Perceptions of Energy Security,
vey. J Clean Prod 2015;108(Part A):1–18. Policy, and Low-Carbon Technology: Insights from Denmark. Energy Research
[40] Mahbubani Kishore. The new Asian hemisphere: the irresistible shirt of global & Social Science 2016;11:79–91.
power to the east. New York: Public Affairs Publisher; 2008. [69] Sovacool BK, Blyth PL. Energy and Environmental Attitudes in the Green State
[41] Melosi Martin V. Coping with abundance: energy and environment in of Denmark: Implications for Energy Democracy, Low Carbon Transitions, and
industrial America. New York: Knopf; 1985. Energy Literacy. Environmental Science & Policy 2015;54:304–15.
[42] Mills Bradford, Schleich Joachim. Residential energy-efficient technology [70] Strauss Sarah Stephanie Rupp, Thomas Love. Cultures of energy in the twenty-
adoption, energy conservation, knowledge, and attitudes: an analysis of Eur- first century. Cultures of energy: power, practices, technologies. Walnut Creek:
opean countries. Energy Policy 2012;49:616–28. Left Coast Press; 2013. p. 10–38.
[43] Münch Richard, Lahusen Christian, Kurth Markus, Borgards Cornelia, Stark [71] Tampakis Stilianos, Tsantopoulos Georgios, Arabatzis Garyfallos, Rerras Ioan-
Carsten, Jau Claudia. Democracy at work: a comparative sociology of envir- nis. Citizens' views on various forms of energy and their contribution to the
onmental regulation in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the United environment. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;20:473–82.
States. Westport, CT: Praegar; 2001. [72] Tanaka Yuki, Kuznick Peter. Japan, the atomic bomb, and the peaceful uses of
[44] Myers Norman, Kent Jennifer. New consumers: the influence of affluence on nuclear power. Asia-Pac J 2011;9(18):1–12.
the environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2003;100(8):4963–8. [73] Valentine Scott V. The fuzzy nature of energy security. In: Sovacool BK, editor.
[45] NEETF National Environmental Education & Training Foundation and Roper Routledge handbook of energy security. New York: Routledge; 2011. p. 56–73.
ASW, Americans’ Low “Energy IQ:” A Risk to Our Energy Future, Why America [74] Valentine SV, Sovacool BK, Matsuura. M. Empowered? evaluating Japan's
Needs a Refresher Course on Energy, The Tenth Annual National Report Card: national energy strategy under the DPJ administration Energy Policy 2011;39
Energy Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior (Washington, DC: NEETF, August (3):1865–76.
2002). [75] Vivoda V. Evaluating energy security in the Asia-Pacific region: a novel
[46] National Research Council. Rising above the gathering storm: energizing and methodological approach. Energy Policy 2010;38(9):5258–63.
employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: The [76] Vivoda Vlado. Diversification of oil import sources and energy security: a key
National Academies Press; 2007. strategy or an elusive objective? Energy Policy 2009;37(11):4615–23.
[47] Nye David. Consuming power: a social history of american energies. Cam- [77] Yin Jianfeng, Gao Yingnan, Xu He. Survey and analysis of consumers' beha-
bridge, MA:MIT Press; 1999. viour of waste mobile phone recycling in China. J Clean Prod 2014;65:517–25.
[48] Nye David. Path insistence: comparing European and American attitudes [78] Yuan Xueliang, Zuo Jian, Huisingh Donald. Social acceptance of wind power: a
toward energy. J Int Affair 1999;53:129–64. case study of Shandong Province. J Clean Prod 2015;92:168–78.
[49] Pacala S, Socolow R. Stabilization wedges: solving the climate problem for the
next 50 years with current technologies. Science 2004;305:968–72.
[50] Pasqualetti Martin J. Morality, space, and the power of wind-energy land-
scapes. Geogr Rev 2000;90:381–94.