[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/aoe/wpaper/2301.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Competing terms for complementary concepts? Acceptance and legitimacy of low-carbon energy technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Sven Alsheimer

    (Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI, Breslauer Str. 48, 76139 Karlsruhe, Germany)

  • Tamara Schnell

    (Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Ammerländer Heerstraße 114-118, 26129 Oldenburg, Germany)

  • Camilla Chlebna

    (Department for Geography, Kiel University, Ludewig-Meyn-Straße 8, 24118 Kiel, Germany)

  • Sebastian Rohe

    (Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Ammerländer Heerstraße 114-118, 26129 Oldenburg, Germany)

Abstract
The large-scale deployment of low-carbon energy technologies is crucial for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and ideally limiting climate change. The success of this transition towards a carbon-neutral society depends on how these technologies are perceived by civil society and whether key societal stakeholders support or oppose their roll-out. Two major debates addressing this issue revolve around the concepts of acceptance and legitimacy. Acceptance literature examines the drivers and levels of support of novel technologies and socio-technical systems. Legitimacy literature captures how these technologies are aligned to their institutional environment. Thus far, there is little cross-fertilisation between the two debates. For this contribution, we conducted a systematic literature review of the two research streams to gain a better understanding of how the social dynamics of low-carbon energy technology deployment are conceptualised. Our review involved the analysis of 240 articles from SCOPUS that empirically studied the acceptance or legitimacy of low-carbon energy technologies. Our findings suggest that the two literature strands are indeed rather disconnected – few articles use both concepts conjointly. They further illustrate that both have distinct research foci and intellectual roots. Acceptance studies tend to focus on individual perspectives towards specific technologies and relate these to the individuals’ backgrounds. In contrast, legitimacy studies tend to focus on the overall alignment of specific technologies or entire innovation systems with the institutional context. Based on our findings, we propose a framework, to allow for a better understanding of the dynamic interplay between macro-level legitimacy evaluations and micro-level acceptance evaluations.

Suggested Citation

  • Sven Alsheimer & Tamara Schnell & Camilla Chlebna & Sebastian Rohe, 2023. "Competing terms for complementary concepts? Acceptance and legitimacy of low-carbon energy technologies," GEIST - Geography of Innovation and Sustainability Transitions 2023(10), GEIST Working Paper Series.
    • Handle: RePEc:aoe:wpaper:2301
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.geist-wp.com/papers/geist_wp_2301.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Acceptance; Legitimacy; Public perceptions; Acceptability; Legitimation; Low-carbon energy technologies;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aoe:wpaper:2301. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Johan Miörner (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.geist-wp.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.