Mapping risk and benefit perceptions of energy sources: Comparing public and expert mental models in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore

被引:5
|
作者
Ho, Shirley S. [1 ]
Yu, Peihan [1 ]
Tandoc, Edson C., Jr. [1 ]
Chuah, Agnes S. F. [1 ]
机构
[1] Nanyang Technol Univ, Wee Kim Wee Sch Commun & Informat, 31 Nanyang Link, Singapore 637718, Singapore
基金
新加坡国家研究基金会;
关键词
Mental model; Risk perception; Benefit perception; Energy; Southeast Asia; VALUES; ACCEPTABILITY; STORAGE; SCIENCE;
D O I
10.1016/j.erss.2022.102500
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Traditionally reliant on fossil fuels, Southeast Asian countries - Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore - plan to introduce cleaner energy (e.g., renewable energy) into their energy mix. To gauge public support, an understanding of their risk and benefit perceptions of energy technologies is necessary. In the absence of technical knowledge, lay people may form these perceptions based on existing mental models - these are individuals' internal representations of the external world that can affect how they perceive various issues. Using the mental models approach, the current study examines and compares the public's and energy experts' mental models in an attempt to understand how risks and benefits of energy technologies are perceived, as well as gaps in the public's understanding and information needs. We conducted online focus group discussions in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore with 78 members of the public and 26 energy experts. The public and energy experts were found to have broadly similar considerations about energy security, economic and environmental impacts, and safety of energy technologies, but they differed in how they thought about them. While energy experts had relied on their topical expertise and existing evidence to form risk and benefit perceptions, the public had relied on other contextual factors to do so, such as their place-identities, religious beliefs, and personal values. Misleading analogies were also found to have played a role. The findings' implications on public policies and communication strategies are discussed.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 8 条
  • [1] Exploring the general public's and experts' risk and benefit perceptions of cultured meat in Singapore: A mental models approach
    Ho, Shirley S.
    Ou, Mengxue
    Ong, Zhing Ting
    PLOS ONE, 2023, 18 (11):
  • [2] Conflicting Models of Mind: Mapping the Gaps Between Expert and Public Understandings of Child Mental Health
    Kendall-Taylor, Nathaniel
    SCIENCE COMMUNICATION, 2012, 34 (06) : 695 - 726
  • [3] Mapping mental models of parents' risk perceptions of autonomous public transport use by young children: a social representations theory approach
    Ho, Shirley S. S.
    Tan, Wenqi
    JOURNAL OF RISK RESEARCH, 2023, 26 (09) : 989 - 1005
  • [4] Public perceptions and acceptance of nuclear energy in China: The role of public knowledge, perceived benefit, perceived risk and public engagement
    Wang, Shanyong
    Wang, Jing
    Lin, Shoufu
    Li, Jun
    ENERGY POLICY, 2019, 126 : 352 - 360
  • [5] Public Perception of Technologies in Society: Mapping Laypeople’s Mental Models in Terms of Risk and Valence
    Philipp Brauner
    Felix Glawe
    Luisa Vervier
    Martina Zielfe
    Digital Society, 2024, 3 (3):
  • [6] Is It Riskier to Meet 100 People Outdoors or 14 People Indoors? Comparing Public and Expert Perceptions of COVID-19 Risk
    Timmons, Shane
    Belton, Cameron A.
    Robertson, Deirdre A.
    Barjakova, Martina
    Lavin, Ciaran
    Julienne, Hannah
    Lunn, Peter D.
    JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-APPLIED, 2023, 29 (01) : 32 - 51
  • [7] The Influence of Social Trust on Public's Trust in Nuclear-related Parties, Benefit and Risk Perceptions, and Acceptance of Nuclear Energy
    Kim, Hyo Jung
    Song, Young Hoon
    KOREA OBSERVER, 2018, 49 (04) : 665 - 686
  • [8] Fake news, real risks: How online discussion and sources of fact-check influence public risk perceptions toward nuclear energy
    Ho, Shirley S.
    Chuah, Agnes S. F.
    Kim, Nuri
    Tandoc, Edson C., Jr.
    RISK ANALYSIS, 2022, 42 (11) : 2569 - 2583