Abstract

Our overall research aim was to examine whether people distinguished between the spatial footprint and carbon footprint of different energy sources, and whether their overall “worry” about energy types was related to future developed of these types. We surveyed 451 people within a university community regarding knowledge about different energy sources with regard to renewability and spatial and carbon footprints and attitudes about which energy type(s) should be developed further. Findings were: 1) Gas, oil and coal were rated as the least renewable, and wind, solar and hydro as the most renewable; 2) Oil and coal were rated as having the largest carbon footprint, while wind, solar and tidal were rated the lowest; 3) There were smaller differences in ratings for spatial footprints, probably reflecting unfamiliarity with the concept, although oil and gas were rated the highest; 4) Energy sources viewed as renewable were favored for future development compared with non-renewable energy sources, and coal and oil were rated the lowest; 5) Worry-free sources such as solar were favored; and 6) There were some age-related differences, but they were small, and there were no gender-related differences. Overall, subjects knew more about carbon footprints than spatial footprints, generally correctly identified renewable and non-renewable sources, and wanted future energy development for energy sources which were less worried about (e.g. solar, wind). These perceptions require in-depth examination in a large sample from different areas of the country.

Highlights

  • Public knowledge about environmental issues can affect attitudes and beliefs about pollution, development, and environmental protection [1,2]

  • We define spatial footprint as the actual physical space needed to support a given energy type—how much land is required for a wind or solar farm, or how much land is required for a nuclear power plant or a hydroelectric plant? This paper examines the hypothesis that there is a relationship between perceptions of possible harm and the energy sources favored for development

  • Subjects in this study had a reasonable understanding of the relative size of the carbon footprint, but less of an understanding of spatial footprints

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Public knowledge about environmental issues can affect attitudes and beliefs about pollution, development, and environmental protection [1,2]. The calculation of ecological footprint of fuel types is complicated and consists of three main components: area needed for energy production (including mining and processing), area needed to sequester emissions of greenhouse gases, and the area needed for safe deposition of nitrogen, sulphur and other waste products [6,7]. These usually translate into carbon equivalent emissions, using global warming potential recommended by the International Panel on Climate Change [8]. Calculations of carbon equivalent emissions quickly lead to discussions of sustainability, production capabilities, and alternative fuels [7,9,10,11]

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call