Understanding public attitudes toward ocean energy development

Transcription

1 Understanding public attitudes toward ocean energy development Jon Lilley University of Hawai i Sea Grant College Program June 18, 2013

2 Outline Introduction Introduction 2008 ocean energy attitudes public opinion survey 2010 follow-up survey Seawater air conditioning in Waikīkī 1

3 Introduction 2

4 Introduction 2

5 Introduction 2

6 Introduction 2

7 Introduction 2

8 Research interests Introduction Ocean renewable energy Offshore wind Socioeconomic dimensions of offshore energy development Public opinion, knowledge, attitudes Storage of renewable energy (Vehicle-to-Grid) Seawater air conditioning Marine policy/affairs, coastal management Environmental ethics and values Indigenous rights, cultural diversity 3

9 2008 ocean attitudes survey 2008 survey Public attitudes toward the ocean Ocean ethics/values Ocean energy development Expanded offshore oil drilling Offshore wind power Why study public opinion? Public support for policy Delaware and Cape Cod Hawai i Superferry Lana i wind project 4

10 2008 survey methods 2008 survey National mail survey Conducted Oct/Nov, 2008 Stratified random sample 1,600 adults in contiguous US 50/50 split between coastal (coastal counties) and inland residents Coastal areas oversampled to ensure adequate representation East Coast West Coast Gulf Coast Great Lakes 5

11 2008 survey methods 2008 survey Followed Dillman s survey design method Initial survey packet to all names in sample Follow-up postcard reminder Second survey to non-respondents Final postcard reminder Use of real stamps, personalized and hand-signed letters 611 returned surveys (40% response rate) Data weighted (strata, sex, age, income) 6

12 Support for offshore energy 2008 survey 100% 90% 80% Percentage of Respondents 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% Oil Wind 20% 10% 0% Total Sample Inland Coastal Zips 7

13 Support for offshore energy 2008 survey 100% 100% Percentage of Respondents 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Percentage of Respondents 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Male Female 0% Democrat Republican Independent 100% Percentage of Respondents 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Oil Larger Wind Larger Oil Wind 8

14 Reasons for support/opposition 2008 survey Support for expanded oil drilling 7% 4% 1% 3% Reduce dependency on foreign oil The resource is there to use Gas prices are too high Good to have wells outside the Gulf Other 85% Opposition to expanded oil drilling 1% 2% 5% 5% Risk of environmental damage We should reduce our use of oil 47% It will have little effect on oil prices It will take years to get to market 40% Oil rigs would spoil the view Other 9

15 Reasons for support/opposition 2008 survey Support for offshore wind 5% 11% 12% 16% 1% 55% Wind power is a source of clean energy Reduce dependency on foreign oil It will provide new green jobs The resource is there to use It will reduce the effects of climate change Other Opposition to offshore wind 6% 3% 11% 7% 23% 50% Negative environmental impact on birds, ocean life We have enough wind power on land Wind is too expensive and rates would rise Wind power is unreliable Turbines would spoil the view Other 10

16 2008 survey Logistic regression analysis (demographic) Offshore Oil Drilling Offshore Wind Variable Coef. SE OR P> z Coef. SE OR P> z Male * White * Some college *** Income over $200K * Age ** *** Have children * ** Live in a coastal county Vote democrat *** Vote other (not rep, dem, ind) * p<0.1 ** p<0.05 *** p<0.01 Oil model: n = 408; Log pseudolikelihood = ; Wald χ 2 = 79.62; P>χ 2 = 0.000; Pseudo R 2 = Wind model: n = 405; Log pseudolikelihood = ; Wald χ 2 = 76.09; P>χ 2 = 0.000; Pseudo R 2 =

17 2008 survey Logistic regression analysis (attitudes) Offshore Oil Drilling Offshore Wind Variable Coef. SE OR P> z Coef. SE OR P> z Think wind is larger resource *** Concern: economy ** Concern: cost of gas ** Concern: climate change *** Concern: overdevelopment * ** Responsibility to ocean Ocean a livelihood ** *** Nonanthropocentric attitude ** ** Gov responsibility to ocean * Pollution is unavoidable ** Dilution is the solution ** Everyone impacts ocean *** Take ocean for granted ** Env regs a burden * Ocean has a calming effect ** * Constant * p<0.1 ** p<0.05 *** p<

18 2010 survey 13

19 Deepwater Horizon Gulf oil spill 2010 survey Rig exploded April 20, miles off coast of Louisiana 11 crew killed 17 injured Wellhead capped July 15, 2010 Est 4.9 million bbl of oil spilt Largest accidental release of oil into ocean 14

20 2010 survey methods 2010 survey Follow-up survey with 611 respondents of 2008 survey Conducted in Aug/Sep, 2010 Repeated key questions, added new questions Same methods (Dillman) 395 responses (72% response rate) 26 surveys removed from dataset due to inconsistencies Final sample size of

21 Support for offshore energy (2010) 2010 survey Percentage of Respondents 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Oil Wind 0% Total Sample 2008 Total Sample 2010 Inland 2008 Inland 2010 Coastal Zips 2008 Coastal Zips

22 Support for offshore energy (2010) 2010 survey Data show little change (at national level) But changes within groups do exist Changed position in 2010 Support oil in 2008 (n=243) 23% Oppose oil in 2008 (n=114) 23% Support wind in 2008 (n=285) 11% Oppose wind in 2008 (n=58) 47% 17

23 2010 survey Change in reasons for support/opposition Support for offshore oil drilling (n=180) Reduce dependency on foreign oil 84.6% 67.4% ** The resource is there to use 5.4% 18.7% * Gas prices are too high 3.2% 7.0% Good to have wells outside the Gulf 0.2% 0.8% Provide US with extra revenue 0.0% 2.9% Other 6.6% 3.3% Opposition to offshore oil drilling (n=88) Risk of environmental damage 33.5% 46.3% We should reduce our use of oil 55.4% 41.5% It will have little effect on prices 2.0% 4.3% It will take years to get to market 7.4% 6.3% Oil rigs would spoil the view 0.0% 0.0% Other 1.7% 1.7% * p<0.1 ** p<

24 2010 survey Change in reasons for support/opposition Support for offshore wind (n=226) Source of clean energy 48.7% 37.4% * Reduce dependency on foreign oil 14.8% 20.5% It will provide new green jobs 15.4% 15.4% The resource is there to use 15.5% 23.7% It will reduce the effects of climate change 2.7% 1.4% Other 2.9% 1.5% Opposition to offshore wind (n=22) Negative environmental impacts 73.0% 28.3% * We have enough wind power on land 17.8% 15.4% Wind power is too expensive 1.0% 50.6% ** Wind power is unreliable 1.9% 1.9% Turbines would spoil the view 1.5% 0.0% Other 4.8% 3.8% * p<0.1 ** p<

25 Effect of Gulf oil spill 2010 survey Little impact on public opinion of offshore energy development at the national level Effect on coastal residents Shift in percentages within groups No measureable effect on support for offshore wind Effect of prior oil spills Increased concern over cost of offshore wind 20

26 UH SWAC research SWAC Interdisciplinary research project UH Sea Grant Economic Research Organization at the University of Hawai i (UHERO) Center for Microbial Oceanography: Research and Education (C-MORE) Investigated applicability, environmental impacts, and public acceptance of SWAC in Waikīkī 21

27 Seawater air conditioning (SWAC) SWAC Harnesses cooling properties of deep ocean water Downtown Honolulu, Waikīkī? 22

28 Why SWAC? SWAC Potential to reduce energy demand for AC by 90% HI most fossil fuel dependent state in nation Highest state electricity prices (2011 per kwh) O ahu 33 Maui 35 Moloka i 42 Big Island 40 Kaua i 42 Lana i 44 US average 12 HCEI U.S. EIA, State Energy Data System (2007) 23

29 Resource comparison SWAC Courtesy: Iman Nasseri, UHERO 24

30 Potential negative impacts of SWAC SWAC Capital cost and disruption to traffic Possible impact on reef and marine life Potential for algal growth Courtesy: Dave Karl, C-MORE 25

31 SWAC public opinion survey SWAC Mail survey targeted at O ahu residents 559 responses 33% response rate Topics covered General environmental attitudes Knowledge of Hawai i s energy situation Opinion of renewable energy Awareness and attitudes toward SWAC Demographics 26

32 Public knowledge of HI energy situation SWAC 67% of O ahu residents know that oil is the main source of electricity generation in Hawai i 45% of O ahu residents know Hawai i generates 90% of electricity from fossil fuels 52% of O ahu residents know Hawai i generates 10% of electricity from renewable sources 27

33 Public knowledge of HI energy situation SWAC 93% have a positive view of renewable energy (65% very positive) 30% willing to pay extra for 40% renewables mix 28

34 Attitudes toward SWAC SWAC 63% support SWAC in Waikīkī 72% among previously aware 54% among previously unaware 47% support public funding for SWAC Only 11% ranked SWAC in top three when compared to other alternative energy options 29

35 SWAC Logistic regression analysis of SWAC support n = 430; Log pseudolikelihood = ; Wald χ 2 = 70.77; P>χ 2 = 0.000; Pseudo R 2 = Variable Coef. SE z P> z OR Cost of living a top-5 concern Economy a top-5 concern *** 2.43 Health of environment a top-5 concern ** 2.14 Public education a top-5 concern *** 2.53 Reliance on imported energy a top-5 concern Aware of SWAC *** 3.91 Very positive view of renewable energy *** 2.44 Medium income ($35,000 - $100,000) High income ($100,000 - $200,000) * 0.49 Very high income ($200,000+) ** 0.24 Male Age Parents/grandparents born in Hawai i *** 0.39 Tourism very important to Hawai i s economy * 2.11 SWAC good for tourism in Waikīkī *** * p<0.1 ** p<0.05 *** p<

36 SWAC Logistic regression analysis of SWAC support n = 430; Log pseudolikelihood = ; Wald χ 2 = 70.77; P>χ 2 = 0.000; Pseudo R 2 = Variable Coef. SE z P> z OR Live in greater Honolulu Live in Aiea Live in Waianae Live on the North Shore Live in Kailua/Kaneohe Independent Republican Other political party College degree Asian Native Hawaiian Other race Mixed race ** 3.01 Constant * p<0.1 ** p<0.05 *** p<

37 Attitudes toward SWAC Factors that increase support for SWAC among opponents and neutrals SWAC Statement Opponents % More Supportive Neutrals % More Supportive Reduce the amount of energy used by buildings connected to SWAC system by 30% Reduce fresh water use by 110 million gallons a year (1% of what O ahu uses) Reduce CO 2 emissions by 120,000 metric tons (1% of what Hawai i uses) 11% 58% 20% 69% 31% 62% 32

38 Attitudes toward SWAC Factors that decrease support for SWAC among supporters and neutrals SWAC Statement Supporters % Less Supportive Neutrals % Less Supportive If SWAC caused traffic disruption for up to six months during construction If SWAC caused minor damage to Waikīkī s reef during construction If SWAC caused algae to form off Waikīkī Beach 22% 41% 64% 75% 74% 62% 33

39 Denise Konan, E. Gordon Grau, Darren T. Lerner, David Karl, Andy Bohlander, Heather Dudock, Matt Gonser, Iman Nasseri, Craig Coleman, Anthony Weersing, Ruth Goldstein, Lisa Heindl, Jamie Hongo, Joan Yamada, Trixie