ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021
Social Acceptance of Gas, Wind, and Solar Energies in the Canary Islands.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Here comes the sun: social acceptability of solar photovoltaics in New Zealand.Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand · 2025Article
- The Potential Environmental and Social Influence of the Inorganic Salt Hydrates Used as a Phase Change Material for Thermal Energy Storage in Solar Installations.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study tested a theoretical model including key psychosocial factors that could be involved in the acceptance of different energy sources (gas, wind, and solar); Methods: Participants were 550 adult residents of the Canary Islands. Variables assessed were information and utility (normative motives), perceived risk and perceived benefits (gain motives), and negative and positive emotions (hedonic motives), with acceptance of each of the three energy sources as outcome variables; Results: It was found that renewable energies (wind and solar) had a higher degree of acceptance than non-renewable energy (gas). The proposed model satisfactorily explained the social acceptance of the three energy sources, although the psychosocial factors involved differed by energy source. The gain motives, mainly perceived benefits, were associated to a greater extent with gas energy, whereas normative motives, such as utility, and hedonic motives, such as positive emotions, had greater weight for renewables. Gender differences in gas energy were found. Information about renewable energy increased positive emotions and acceptance, whereas information about fossil fuel-based energy generated more negative emotions and perceived risk, decreasing acceptance; Conclusions: Utility, perceived benefits and positive emotions were involved on the acceptance of both renewables and non-renewables. The theoretical model tested seems to be useful for understanding the psychosocial functioning of the acceptance of the various energy sources as an essential aspect for the transition of non-renewable to renewable energies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.