Perspectives of Informed Citizen Panel on Low-Carbon Electricity

Subscriber access provided by University of South Dakota

Policy Analysis

Perspectives of informed citizen panel on low-carbon electricity portfolios in Switzerland and longer-term evaluation of informational materials Sandra Volken, Georgios Xexakis, and Evelina Trutnevyte Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b01265 • Publication Date (Web): 12 Sep 2018 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on September 14, 2018

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 40

Environmental Science & Technology

1

Perspectives of informed citizen panel on low-carbon electricity

2

portfolios in Switzerland and longer-term evaluation of informational

3

materials

4 Sandra P. Volken1, Georgios Xexakis1,2, Evelina Trutnevyte1,2*

5 6 7

1

8

ETH Zurich, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland

9

2

Institute for Environmental Decisions (IED), Department of Environmental Systems Science,

Renewable Energy Systems, Institute for Environmental Sciences (ISE), Section of Earth and

10

Environmental Sciences, Department of F.-A. Forel for Environmental and Aquatic Sciences,

11

University of Geneva, CH-1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland

12

* corresponding author (Uni Carl Vogt, Boulevard Carl Vogt 66, CH-1211 Geneva 4,

13

Switzerland; +41 22 379 06 62; [email protected])

14 15

ABSTRACT

16

Low-carbon transition is gaining momentum, but relatively little is known about the

17

public preferences for low- and zero-carbon electricity portfolios given their environmental,

18

health, and economic impacts. Decision science literature argues that conventional opinion

19

surveys are limited for making strategic decisions because the elicited opinions may be distorted

20

by misconceptions and awareness gaps that prevail in the public. We created an informed citizen

21

panel (N=46) in Switzerland using technology factsheets, an interactive web-tool Riskmeter, and

22

group discussions. We measured the evolution of the panel’s knowledge and preferences from

23

initial (uninformed) to informed and longer-term views four weeks after. In terms of energy

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

1


Page 2 of 40

24

transition, our elicited technology and portfolio preferences show strong support for the low-

25

carbon electricity sector transition, especially relying on hydropower, solar power, electricity

26

savings and efficiency, and other renewable sources. As these informed preferences are

27

structurally different from the futures considered by many energy experts, we argue that these

28

preferences should also inform the Swiss Energy Strategy 2050’s implementation. In terms of

29

methodologies in decision science, our factsheets, Riskmeter, and group discussions all proved

30

effective in forming the preferences and improving knowledge, but we also intriguingly found

31

that in a longer run the participants tended to revert back to their initial opinions. The latter

32

finding opens up multiple new research questions on the longer-term effectiveness of

33

informational tools and stability of informed preferences.

34 35

Keywords: public preferences; low-carbon transition; electricity generation; informed citizen

36

panel; technology impacts; usability evaluation

37 38

TOC art

39


2

Page 3 of 40


40 41 42

1. Introduction

43

The transition to low-carbon electricity generation has gained momentum,1, 2 and it is key

44

to achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement to mitigate climate change to well below 2°C3-5.

45

Delineating robust pathways for the future in the fields of energy and climate change mitigation

46

requires bridging the analytical, factual assessment with the value-laden perspectives of the

47

wider public and key stakeholders6-10. In Europe, the wider public is increasingly supporting the

48

low-carbon transition as a whole11, 12 and renewable electricity generation in particular13-15. Most

49

existing studies to date have compared public preferences for low-carbon electricity generation

50

to conventional fossil fuel plants13, 15-17 and hence have found such increasing public support.

51

Yet, the contemporary debate in science and among many policymakers is no longer about

52

whether to mitigate climate change by switching to low-carbon alternatives, but how exactly to

53

do it4. Few studies have investigated the public preferences for low- to zero- carbon electricity

54

portfolios because they typically include substantial shares of fossil fuels and only several low-

55

carbon alternatives, such as solar, wind, or nuclear power13, 15-17.


3


Page 4 of 40

56

No fundamental change, such as the low-carbon transition, can occur without unintended

57

environmental consequences18-21. A solid understanding of the public preferences for low-carbon

58

transition pathways should thus account for the multi-dimensional impacts of this transition as

59

well. Besides electricity generation costs or life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions16, 22, only a few

60

studies have additionally elicited the public’s preferences for trading off other impacts, such as

61

local air pollution, supply security, or land use explicitely23,24,25 or implicitly26. Yet, the

62

environmental, health, and safety impacts of the low- and zero-carbon technology portfolios are

63

much broader: nuclear power and large hydropower carry severe accident risks27, 28, hydropower

64

has negative effects on aquatic life21, enhanced geothermal systems could induce seismicity29, 30,

65

solar photovoltaic involve hazardous materials and toxic effluents during manufacturing21,

66

renewable technologies require more land31, and so on. Relatively little is known about the

67

public preferences for such a broader spectrum of environmental, health, and safety impacts of

68

the fully low-carbon portfolios. In fact, technologies with often-debated disadvantages, such as

69

nuclear power and its accident risk or wind power and its landscape impacts, often appear less

70

acceptable than their counterparts. Technical expert communities sometimes assume that, if the

71

public was aware that all low-carbon technologies have negative environmental, health and

72

economic impacts, more negatively viewed technologies would become more acceptable. There

73

is evidence that multi-dimensional information about the pros and cons of low-carbon

74

technologies can induce making trade-offs17,18, 20, 23, 32, 33, but this has not been extensively tested.

75

Public preferences have mainly been assessed by public opinion surveys11,

13, 25, 32, 34

.

76

However, decision science literature argues that the elicited preferences may be biased due to

77

various knowledge gaps and misconceptions8, 14, 35, 36. For example, past studies have shown that

78

natural gas may be perceived as renewable37, nuclear power as emitting greenhouse gases38, or


4

Page 5 of 40


79

enhanced geothermal systems as potentially causing a volcanic eruption39. Although the

80

outcomes of such opinion surveys are useful, they are incomplete guides for strategic long-term

81

decision making. The elicited opinions may not be truly consistent with the values of the public,

82

as they are distorted by unfamiliarity and misconceptions35. The public may not yet even have

83

well-articulated values40 before going through the process of value articulation41 and preference

84

formation42. Thus, the preferences measured in conventional surveys might fail to reflect the

85

future support for emerging or even existing, less known technologies, for which the public has

86

not yet formed stable preferences. If any interventions are to be undertaken to actually shape

87

public support43, it is essential to set the well-informed public preferences as a benchmark

88

instead of relying only on unrepresentative preferences of experts and policymakers8, 44.

89

Previous researchers have adopted various approaches to form and elicit informed public

90

preferences for future energy portfolios. Mayer et al.14, 17 have used factsheets providing brief lay

91

summaries about individual electricity technologies and their environmental impacts. Such

92

factsheets have proved effective in informing the public about medical choices45. Trutnevyte et

93

al.20 have also used factsheets, but described full energy portfolios rather than single

94

technologies. Mayer et al.17, Bessette et al.22, Pidgeon et al.46, and Demski et al.16 have used

95

interactive tools in workshops or on the web, where the involved members of the public could

96

create their preferred energy portfolios by combining technologies given various technical,

97

resource, and environmental constraints. When tested for usability47, such tools facilitate learning

98

about the complexity of the energy transition46 and help elicit more stable preferences47.

99

Deliberative workshops14,

100

17

, deliberative opinion polls48, consensus conference49, and focus

groups15, 50 are additional tools that enable learning through group discussions. Although some


5


101

earlier studies have combined several such tools14,

17, 20

102

could be gathered on the usability and short- and longer-term effectiveness of these tools47, 51, 52.

Page 6 of 40

, more empirical evaluative evidence

103

With the aim to contribute to the search for robust energy futures as well as to decision

104

science literature on investigating the longer-term effectiveness of informational tools by non-

105

experts, we created an informed citizen panel (N=46) in the German-speaking part of

106

Switzerland to elicit the informed public preferences for low- and zero-carbon electricity

107

generation portfolios given information about the multi-dimensional environmental, health, and

108

economic impacts. We used technology factsheets, group discussions, and an interactive web-

109

tool and empirically evaluated their usability and effectiveness in a series of measurements

110

before, during, and after our process47, 53. The choice of creating an informed citizen panel in

111

Switzerland is particularly relevant. In May 2017, the Swiss population has approved the

112

implementation of the Energy Strategy 205054 in a nation-wide referendum and, for the first time

113

worldwide, legitimized a fundamental energy transition based on renewable energy and energy

114

efficiency. As the Energy Strategy 2050 sets broad transition goals, its implementation now

115

requires further choices on which low-carbon electricity generation technologies to deploy and to

116

what extent. Switzerland, thus, already now faces decisions that many other countries will

117

hopefully face soon as well.

118 119

2. Materials and methods

120 121

2.1 Procedure

122

Based on decision science literature, Figure 1 shows the procedure that was used to create

123

the informed citizen panel, follow the formation of its preferences for low-carbon electricity

124

portfolios, and to evaluate the informational tools. The participants were recruited throughout


6

Page 7 of 40


125

May 2017 by advertising the study on online platforms and in various public places. The

126

advertisement asked the people to register by completing the online survey#0 with demographic

127

questions (demographics) and a question on the person’s preference for expanding specific types

128

of electricity generation in Switzerland to 2035 (technology preferences; 7-point Likert scale

129

from 1=completely disagree to 7=completely agree).

130

From 120 people who registered, we selected 55 participants who received an invitation

131

to take part in the study. From these 120 people, we first excluded those who worked in the

132

energy field in order to have only laypeople. Then, we purposefully sampled these 55

133

participants to invite a balanced group in terms of gender, age, living place (urban or rural area),

134

and, if possible, education. Using the technology preferences, we ensured that people with as

135

broad a range of high, medium, and low support for various technology categories (renewable

136

energy, nuclear, import, natural gas, and efficiency) would be invited in order to foster learning

137

through different perspectives in group discussions.

138

139


7


140

Page 8 of 40

Figure 1. Procedure for creating the informed citizen panel and questions asked per stage

141 142

These 55 participants were invited to complete the online survey #1 with questions on the

143

self-rated knowledge about electricity supply (self-rated knowledge, 6 items with 7-point Likert

144

scale, available in Supplementary Information (SI)), interest in the topic in general and in the last

145

four weeks (self-rated interest, 6 items each with 7-point Likert scale), willingness-to-act on

146

energy (willingness-to-act, 7 items with 7-point Likert scale), a knowledge test on electricity

147

supply in Switzerland and in general (general energy knowledge; 20 true-or-false questions),

148

technology preferences, the respondent’s initial preference for Swiss electricity portfolio

149

(portfolio preferences (unrestricted), the respondents had to split 100% of the supply by their

150

preferred technologies without any technical, energy resource, or other restrictions), and on the

151

most important environmental, health, or economic impacts for evaluating each technology

152

(impact ratings).

153

The participants then received a workshop invitation letter with printed factsheets on

154

electricity technologies and their impacts (Section 2.2) and a request to spend up to an hour

155

reading these factsheets. Four workshops that lasted 2.5 hours and involved 8–15 participants

156

were organized; the 46 participants that showed up were randomly assigned to these workshops

157

and to the two discussion groups within each workshop. The workshops followed a script

158

adapted from similar studies14, 17, 50, 55. After an introduction, each participant completed survey

159

#2, which tested whether the participants were familiar with and understood the information in

160

the factsheets (factsheet knowledge test). Subsequently, the participants discussed the individual

161

electricity technologies and their learning from the factsheets in two sub-groups facilitated by a

162

moderator. After a 25-minute discussion, the participants completed survey#3 that repeated the


8

Page 9 of 40


163

questions on technology preferences and impact ratings that the participants answered about a

164

month ago in survey#1.

165

Next, a moderator introduced the interactive web-tool Riskmeter (Section 2.2), where the

166

participants could build and submit an electricity supply portfolio for Switzerland in 2035 under

167

technical and energy resource constraints (portfolio preferences (Riskmeter)). The participants

168

could ask questions about using the Riskmeter, but not about the electricity topics. Afterwards,

169

the participants completed survey#4 that included Riskmeter usability test questions, such as

170

true-or-false questions about the Riskmeter portfolio they have created and about the Riskmeter

171

itself. The participants were then asked to discuss their portfolios in a group for 25 minutes. A

172

screen that displayed all initially submitted portfolios was shown to start the discussion. After the

173

discussion, the participants could revise their submitted portfolios again (portfolio preferences

174

(Riskmeter)) and were asked to rate their satisfaction with their portfolio (satisfaction with the

175

Riskmeter portfolio).

176

Finally, the participants completed survey#5 that included four identical sets of evaluation

177

questions (evaluation of tools, 10 items with 7-point Likert scale, available in SI) for the

178

factsheets, Riskmeter, group discussions, and the workshop overall. Four weeks after the

179

workshop, they received a link to the last online survey#6 that repeated all questions from

180

survey#1 and the questions on the evaluation of tools from survey#5. To answer these questions,

181

they did not have access to the factsheets anymore because they were asked to give the factsheets

182

back just before the workshops. Forty-five respondents completed survey#6. The participants

183

received monetary compensation for their participation.

184 185

2.2 Materials


9


186

Our

informational

factsheets

(available

in

Page 10 of 40

English

at

https://portfolio-

187

builder.riskmeter.ch/static/basic_riskmeter/pdf/factsheets_en.pdf) described 13 alternatives that

188

could contribute to the Swiss electricity mix in 2035: (1) three hydropower types, including large

189

dams, large run-of-river, and small hydropower; (2) five new renewable technologies—solar

190

cells (photovoltaic), wind, deep geothermal, woody biomass, and biogas; (3) nuclear power (as

191

the Energy Strategy 2050 foresees nuclear phase-out in the long-run, only the existing Swiss

192

plants were considered, as some of them may still operate to 2035), (4) waste incineration and

193

large natural gas power plants (the latter was the only carbon-intensive Swiss source and it was

194

included in this study because it is part of the wider Swiss energy debate and because it also

195

helps investigating how our participants trade off climate change and other impacts), (5) net

196

electricity import from abroad (net on the annual basis), and (6) electricity savings and efficiency

197

improvements to reduce the electricity demand.

198

Each technology, its current status, resource potential, and environmental, health, and

199

economic impacts were described qualitatively and quantitatively on a double-sided A4 paper.

200

The impacts included climate change (CO2eq), local air pollution (PM10eq, SOx and NOx), water,

201

landscape and land use (m2 of land use), flora and fauna, accidental impacts, resource use and

202

waste (kWh of non-renewable energy used for 1 kWh of electricity), electricity costs (Rp. per

203

kWh), and electricity supply reliability. The impacts were assess using data from literature21, 56,

204

prioritizing the Swiss-specific data as much as possible57,

205

explanations for non-experts. The factsheets were accompanied by a glossary and a

206

supplementary overview table that applied a five-color indicator system to reflect the severity of

207

impacts across technologies. In order to tailor our factsheets to the information needs of our

208

participants59, we conducted 12 semi-structured interviews before this study39. In these

58

and including qualitative


10

Page 11 of 40


209

interviews, we checked what non-experts know about electricity generation in Switzerland and

210

its environmental, health, and economic impacts as well as what awareness gaps and

211

misconceptions need to be addresses in the factsheets. The factsheets were reviewed for

212

understandability by a public communication specialist.

213

In the workshops, we used an interactive web-tool Riskmeter (www.riskmeter.ch, Figure

214

2) that we developed to build a Swiss electricity portfolio in 2035 under technology and energy

215

resource constraints60. The Riskmeter required the manipulation of electricity produced by each

216

technology in TWh/year to meet the Swiss electricity demand of 70 TWh/year in 2035. With the

217

exception of nuclear, the technologies that are already built today and will last to 2035 were set

218

as the minimum, and the Riskmeter users could not exclude them from their portfolio. In the case

219

of nuclear, the minimum was set to zero because the Swiss Energy Strategy 205054 foresees

220

stepwise nuclear phaseout in Switzerland to 2035. The maximum potential of each technology

221

due to resource or technical constraints was also set and could not be exceeded by the Riskmeter

222

users60. If the users aimed to produce more electricity in Switzerland than is needed annually, the

223

net export value was calculated. As the participants varied the amount of TWh/year produced by

224

each technology, they could also observe the technology shares in the overall portfolio and the

225

contribution of individual power plants (the right panel of Figure 2). In contrast to other studies

226

that incorporated climate or economic impacts into the interactive portfolio builders14, 33, we

227

chose to have information on technology impacts only in factsheets. In this way, we were sure

228

that we do not distort the judgements of our participants about which impacts are more important

229

and require more attention (see Section 3.5). The Riskmeter has been pretested with energy

230

experts as well as non-expert users to optimize its usability.

231


11


Page 12 of 40

232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242

Figure 2. Interactive web-tool Riskmeter (www.riskmeter.ch) showing the average preferred portfolio of the informed citizen panel (N=46, survey#5). The means and standard deviations of the individual supply options are as follows: large hydro dams (20.3±1.1 TWh/year), large runof-river hydropower (18.7±1.0 TWh/year), solar cells (11.3±5.7 TWh/year), nuclear (5.0±8.0 TWh/year), small hydropower (4.5±0.9 TWh/year), electricity savings (3.7±2.5 TWh/year), waste incineration (2.7±0.5 TWh/year), wind (2.0±1.5 TWh/year), large natural gas (1.0±2.5 TWh/year), net import (0.9±3.4 TWh/year), deep geothermal (0.8±1.3 TWh/year), biogas (0.7±0.4 TWh/year), woody biomass (0.3±0.3 TWh/year). The red lines mark the minimum of each option for the users (i.e. the technologies are already built and will last to 2035).

243

2.3 Participants

244

Our 46 participants came from the German-speaking part of Switzerland; 73% lived in

245

the canton of Zurich and 48% lived in a medium or large city (over 30,000 or 100,000

246

inhabitants, respectively). They were all born in Switzerland and lived here for over 10 years.

247

The age of our participants ranged from 18 to 77 years (M=42.1, SD=16.6; median=44); thus our

248

participants were slightly younger than the general Swiss population (M=41.37 years)61. 50 %

249

were female, similar to the Swiss gender ratio of 50.9%61. 66.7% had graduated from high school

250

(the Swiss Matura), and 40% had completed at least a bachelor’s degree at a university; our


12

Page 13 of 40


251

participants were therefore better educated than the Swiss average of 11.6% with high school

252

graduation and 16.9% with a bachelor’s degree at a university62. Most importantly, as discussed

253

in Section 2.1, our informed citizen panel was not set up to be representative, but rather to be as

254

diverse as possible in demographics and initial technology preferences.

255 256

3. Results and discussion

257

3.1 Initial, informed and longer-term preferences consistently show support for

258

renewable electricity and efficiency

259

Figure 3 shows the evolution of technology preferences elicited from our participants

260

before the study (survey#1), after reading factsheets and a group discussion (survey#3), and in

261

the longer term four weeks after the workshops (survey#6). The preferences per discussion group

262

are provided in the SI. The initial, informed, and longer-term preferences indicate a strong

263

preference of the participants for both solar cells and electricity savings and efficiency. This

264

findings is consistent with previous research in Switzerland6, 20. For solar cells, the technology

265

ratings decreased significantly (t=3.122, p=0.003) after participants read the factsheets and

266

discussed them, but four weeks after the workshop the preferences returned closer to the initial

267

values (t= –2.379, p=0.022 between survey#3 and survey#6). For electricity savings and

268

efficiency, the initial preferences in survey#1 increased even more in survey#3 after the

269

factsheets and group discussion (t= –2.916, p=0.006). Similar to solar cells, the factsheets had a

270

(positive) short-term effect only as the preferences dropped again closer to initial values four

271

weeks after the workshops (t= 2.367, p=0.022 between survey#3 and survey#6).


13


Page 14 of 40

272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283

Figure 3. Measured technology preferences in terms of respondents’ view of expanding specific types of electricity generation in Switzerland to 2035 (7-point Likert scale, 1=completely disagree to 7=completely agree). Statistically significant differences (p

Perspectives of Informed Citizen Panel on Low-Carbon Electricity

Recommend Documents