태양광 에너지 수용성에서 감정적 이미지의 역할분석과 정책적 함의

황주성^** ; 김서용^***

**제1저자, 울산연구원 경제산업연구실 연구위원 sung10483@naver.com
***교신저자, 아주대학교 행정학과 교수, 아주대학교 미래안전정책연구소 소장 seoyongkim@ajou.ac.kr

Analyzing the Role of Emotional Images in Solar Energy Acceptance and Policy Implications

Joo Sung Hwang^** ; Seoyong Kim^***

초록

기후위기로 인해 재생에너지 역할에 대한 사회적, 정책적 관심도가 높아지면서 관련 에너지원의 수용성에 대한 연구가 필요한 상황이다. 본 연구의 목적은 수용성과 감정적 이미지를 유형별로 구분하고 이미지가 수용성에 어떠한 영향력을 행사하는지 분석하는 데 있다. 기존 연구에서 이미지와 수용성을 유형별로 구분하고 있지 않다는 점에 주목하여, 이미지를 일반적 감정 이미지와 구체적 감정 이미지(시설태양광, 자연태양광)로 구분하고, 수용성을 지역수용성과 비용지불수용성으로 구분한 다음, 편상관관계분석, 회귀분석, 조절분석을 시행하였다.

대규모 설문조사(N=1571)에 기반하여 분석한 결과, 일반적, 구체적 감정 이미지는 지역수용성을 낮추는 것으로 파악되었으며, 감정과 자연태양광의 부정적 이미지는 비용지불수용성을 낮추는 것으로 나타났다. 조절분석을 통하여 이미지와 독립변수간 상호작용을 확인하였으며, 종속변수인 비용지불수용성에서 11가지, 지역수용성에서 7가지 상호작용을 발견하였고 3가지 이미지는 독립변수와 수용성 상승/저감간 관계에 유의미한 영향력을 행사하는 것을 확인하였다. 이와 같은 결과는 이미지의 유형과 수용성의 다차원성을 고려한 에너지 정책설계에 대한 시사점을 제공한다.

Abstract

As social and policy interest in the role of renewable energy increases due to climate change, it is necessary to study the acceptability of related energy sources. The purpose of this study is to analyze the influence of emotional images on acceptance by type. Noting that existing studies do not distinguish between images and acceptance by type, the is study divided images into general emotional images and specific emotional images (facility solar, natural solar), divided acceptance into local acceptance and cost-payment acceptance, and conducted bivariate correlation analysis, regression analysis, and moderation analysis.

The results, based on a large-scale survey (n=1,571), showed that general and specific emotional images decreased local acceptance, and negative images of emotions and natural solar power decreased cost acceptance. A moderation analysis was conducted to check the interaction of images, and eleven interactions were found for cost acceptance and seven interactions were found for local acceptance, and three images were found to have a significant effect on the independent variables. These results provide implications for energy policy design that considers the type of image and the multidimensionality of acceptance.

Keywords:

solar energy acceptance, emotional image, image type, local acceptance, willingness to pay, regional acceptance

키워드:

태양광 에너지 수용성, 감정적 이미지, 이미지 유형, 지역수용성, 비용지불 수용성

Acknowledgments

본 연구는 2021년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구입니다(NRF-2021S1A5C2A02087244).

References

김근식･김서용. (2015). 원자력 발전소 연장운행의 정치경제학: 원전주변지역주민들의 경제적, 정치적 차별지각을 중심으로. ｢지방행정연구｣, 29(4): 295-336.
김근식･김서용. (2017). 다차원적 편익지각이 원자력수용성에 미치는 영향에 대한 실증분석. ｢행정논총｣, 55(4): 207-245.
김서용･김근식. (2007). 위험과 편익을 넘어서: 원자력발전소 수용성에 대한 경험적 감정의 휴리스틱 효과. ｢한국행정학보｣, 41(3): 373-398.
김서용. (2006). 환경갈등에서 과학기술적 사실의 사회적 구성과 해석새만금개발사업에서 수질오염논쟁 분석. ｢ECO｣, 10(2): 105-158.
김소희･김서용･이병량. (2020). 동기이론에 대한 비교분석: 공공봉사동기, 업무특성이론, 내재적 동기이론. ｢한국행정학보｣, 54(1): 37-75.
박이레･김서용. (2020). 위험사회 대응과 신거버넌스 탐색: 미세먼지 대응행동 결정에서 위험소통요인의 역할분석. ｢정책분석평가학회보｣, 30(1): 107-138.
서혁준･김서용. (2014). 지역에너지 거버넌스 구축요인 분석. ｢지방행정연구｣, 28(4): 283-312.
설민･김서용. (2015). 경험은 중요한가?: 원전지역 주민들의 경험 효과에 대한 분석. ｢한국행정학보｣, 49(4): 151-179.
유연재･김서용. (2015). 가치, 경험, 지각 - 원자력 수용성에서 가치 및 경험 기반 중층모형(Multi-ayer Model)의 적합성에 대한 탐색적 연구. ｢Crisisonomy｣, 11(8): 179-201.
이병량･김서용. (2019). 지방 관료제의 정치화에 관한 연구. ｢행정논총｣, 57(4): 1-30.
정다겸･김서용. (2020). 위험사회 대응과 신거버넌스 탐색: 미세먼지 루머에 대한 신뢰에 대한 가치, 지각, 소통, 자원요소의 영향분석. ｢행정논총｣, 58(1): 1-36.
최병선. (2009). 규제수단과 방식의 유형 재분류. ｢행정논총｣, 47(2): 1-30.
Balžekienė, A., & Budžytė, A. (2021). The role of environmental attitudes in explaining public perceptions of climate change and renewable energy technologies in Lithuania. Sustainability, 13(8): 4376. [https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084376]
Bertsch, V., Hall, M., Weinhardt, C., & Fichtner, W. (2016). Public acceptance and preferences related to renewable energy and grid expansion policy: Empirical insights for Germany. Energy, 114: 465-477. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.08.022]
Beck. U. (1992). Risk society. London: SAGE. 홍성태 역(2006). 위험사회. 서울:새물결.
Carlisle, J. E., Kane, S. L., Solan, D., Bowman, M., & Joe, J. C. (2015). Public attitudes regarding large-scale solar energy development in the US. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 48: 835-847. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.047]
Contu, D., Kaya, O., & Kaya, I. (2021). Attitudes towards climate change and energy sources in oil exporters. Energy Strategy Reviews, 38: 100732. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2021.100732]
Contzen, N., Handreke, A. V., Perlaviciute, G., & Steg, L. (2021). Emotions towards a mandatory adoption of renewable energy innovations: the role of psychological reactance and egoistic and biospheric values. Energy Research & Social Science, 80: 102232. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102232]
Cousse, J. (2021). Still in love with solar energy? Installation size, affect, and the social acceptance of renewable energy technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 145: 111107. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111107]
Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the Cognitive and the Psychodynamic Unconscious. American Psychologist, 49(8): 709-724. [https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.49.8.709]
Ertör-Akyazı, P., Adaman, F., Özkaynak, B., & Zenginobuz, Ü. (2012). Citizens’ preferences on nuclear and renewable energy sources: Evidence from Turkey. Energy Policy, 47: 309-320. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.072]
Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & Slovic, P., (2003). Judgment and Decision Making: The Dance of Affect and Reason. In S. L. Schneider & J. Shanteau (eds.). Emerging Perspectives on Judgment and Decision Research (pp. 327-364). London: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609978.012]
Greenberg, L. S., & Paivio, S. C. (1997). Working with Emotions in Psychotherapy. New York: Guilford Press.
Jobin, M., Visschers, V. H., van Vliet, O. P., Arvai, J., & Siegrist, M. (2019). Affect or information? Examining drivers of public preferences of future energy portfolios in Switzerland. Energy Research & Social Science, 52: 20-29. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.01.016]
Liu, L., Bouman, T., Perlaviciute, G., & Steg, L. (2019). Effects of trust and public participation on acceptability of renewable energy projects in the Netherlands and China. Energy Research & Social Science, 53: 137-144. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.03.006]
Lorteau, S., Muzzerall, P., Deneault, A. A., Kennedy, E. H., Rocque, R., Racine, N., & Bureau, J. F. (2024). Do climate concerns and worries predict energy preferences? A meta-analysis. Energy Policy, 190: 114149. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2024.114149]
Malik, S. A., & Ayop, A. R. (2020). Solar energy technology: Knowledge, awareness, and acceptance of B40 households in one district of Malaysia towards government initiatives. Technology in Society, 63: 101416. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101416]
Nilsson Hed, Andreas, Hansla, André & Biel, Anders. (2014). Feeling the green? Value orientation as a moderator of emotional response to green electricity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 44. 10.1111/jasp.12258. [https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12258]
Perlaviciute, Goda & Steg, Linda & Contzen, Nadja & Roeser, Sabine & Huijts, Nicole. (2018). Emotional Responses to Energy Projects: Insights for Responsible Decision Making in a Sustainable Energy Transition. Sustainability. 10. 2526. [https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072526]
Ribeiro, F., Ferreira, P., Araújo, M., & Braga, A. C. (2014). Public opinion on renewable energy technologies in Portugal. Energy, 69: 39-50. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.10.074]
Rundmo, T. (2002). Associations Between Affect and Risk Perception. Journal of Risk Research, 5(2): 119-135. [https://doi.org/10.1080/136698702753499597]
Schubert, D. K. J., Meyer, T., & Möst, D. (2015). Die Transformation des deutschen Energiesystems aus der Perspektive der Bevölkerung. Zeitschrift für Energiewirtschaft, 1(39): 49-61. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s12398-015-0146-3]
Schulte, E., Scheller, F., Sloot, D., & Bruckner, T. (2022). A meta-analysis of residential PV adoption: the important role of perceived benefits, intentions and antecedents in solar energy acceptance. Energy Research & Social Science, 84: 102339. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102339]
Schweizer-Ries, P. (2008). Energy sustainable communities: Environmental psychological investigations. Energy Policy, 36(11): 4126-4135. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.06.021]
Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2007). The affect heuristic. European journal of operational research, 177(3): 1333-1352. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006]
Slovic, P., Layman, M., Flynn, J. H. (1990). What Comes to Mind When You Hear the Words ‘Nuclear Waste Repository’? A Study of 10, 000 Images. United States: Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, Yucca Mountain Socioeconomic Project . [https://doi.org/10.2172/5963318]
Slovic, P., MacGregor, D. G., & Peters, E. (1998). Imagery, affect, and decision making. [https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1589800]
Solangi, K. H., Badarudin, A., Kazi, S. N., Lwin, T. N. W., & Aman, M. M. (2013, April). Public acceptance of solar energy: The case of Peninsular Malaysia. In IEEE 2013 Tencon-Spring: 540-543. [https://doi.org/10.1109/TENCONSpring.2013.6584503]
Spence, A., Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N., & Lorenzoni, I. (2010). Public perceptions of energy choices: The influence of beliefs about climate change and the environment. Energy & environment, 21(5): 385-407. [https://doi.org/10.1260/0958-305X.21.5.385]
Sütterlin, B., & Siegrist, M. (2017). Public acceptance of renewable energy technologies from an abstract versus concrete perspective and the positive imagery of solar power. Energy Policy, 106: 356-366. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.061]
Tanveer, A., Zeng, S., Irfan, M., & Peng, R. (2021). Do perceived risk, perception of self-efficacy, and openness to technology matter for solar PV adoption? An application of the extended theory of planned behavior. Energies, 14(16): 5008. [https://doi.org/10.3390/en14165008]
Taylor, S. E. (1982). The availability bias in social perception and interaction. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (pp. 190–200). chapter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809477.014]
Tomkins, S. S. (1962). Affect, Imagery, and Consciousness(Vol. 1). The Positive Affects. New York: Springer.
Tompkins, S. S. (1963). Affect, imagery, consciousness: II. The Negative Affects. New York: Springer.
Truelove, H. B. (2012). Energy source perceptions and policy support: Image associations, emotional evaluations, and cognitive beliefs. Energy policy, 45: 478-489. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.059]
Vuichard, P., Stauch, A., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2021). Keep it local and low-key: Social acceptance of alpine solar power projects. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 138: 110516. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110516]
Wildavsky, A. (1987). Choosing Preferences by Constructing Institutions: A Cultural Theory of Preference Formation. American Political Science Review, 81(1): 3-21. [https://doi.org/10.2307/1960776]
Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., & Bürer, M. J. (2007). Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy policy, 35(5): 2683-2691. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.001]
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35(2): 151–175. [https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.35.2.151]
Zoellner, J., Schweizer-Ries, P., & Wemheuer, C. (2008). Public acceptance of renewable energies: Results from case studies in Germany. Energy policy, 36(11): 4136-4141. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.06.026]