citizen perspectives on energy issues: national survey · 2019-03-31 · an academic team from four...

Citizen Perspectives on Energy Issues:National Survey

Louise Comeau, Iris Communications 2-1-2015

2015

1

Comeau, L., Stedman, R., Beckley, T., & Parkins, J. (2015). Citizen perspectives on energy issues: National survey 2015: University of New Brunswick, University of Alberta, Cornell University

www.energytransitions.ca

This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

Energy Exchange 150 Ferrand Dr., Suite 208 Toronto, ON M3C 3E5 416-926-1907 www.energyexchange.net

http://www.energytransitions.ca/

http://www.energyexchange.net/

2

Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 2

Tables .............................................................................................................................................. 3

Figures ............................................................................................................................................. 4

1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 5

2. Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 11

3. Background ............................................................................................................................ 13

4. Frequency Results .................................................................................................................. 24

4.1 Values .............................................................................................................................. 24

4.2 Attitudes ......................................................................................................................... 26

4.2.1 Cognition: Beliefs .......................................................................................................... 26

4.2.2 Cognition: Factual knowledge ...................................................................................... 38

4.2.3 Affective: Support/Aversion ......................................................................................... 42

4.2.4 Affective - Evaluative .................................................................................................... 45

4.2.5 Conative: Readiness to Perform ................................................................................... 53

4.2.6 Behaviour ...................................................................................................................... 57

4.2.7 Trust .............................................................................................................................. 61

4.2.8 Experience .................................................................................................................... 64

5. Demographic Comparisons ................................................................................................... 65

Appendix 1: Demographics ......................................................................................................... 100

Appendix 2: Frequency Results ................................................................................................... 103

Appendix 3: Indicator to Indicator Comparisons .................................................................... 128

References .............................................................................................................................. 136

3

Tables Table 3-1. Survey Structure .......................................................................................................... 16 Table 4.2. Most Opposed Energy Source Results ......................................................................... 44 Table 4.3. Most Supported Energy Source Results ....................................................................... 44

4

Figures Figure 1. Cautious Fair Processes ................................................................................................. 25 Figure 2. Humans Connected Nature Fragile ............................................................................... 26 Figure 3. Perceived Knowledge Energy Used ............................................................................... 33 Figure 4. Home Transportation Knowledge .................................................................................. 34 Figure 5. Climate Change Urgent Beliefs ...................................................................................... 35 Figure 6. Nature Robust Business as Usual Beliefs ...................................................................... 36 Figure 7. Energy Source Fossil Nuclear Oppose Support ............................................................. 43 Figure 8. Energy Source Renewable Oppose Support .................................................................. 43 Figure 9. Reasons for Most Opposed ........................................................................................... 46 Figure 10. Reasons for Most Supported ...................................................................................... 47 Figure 11. Most Important Energy-Related Issues in Province/Territory .................................... 51 Figure 12. Reasons for Energy-Related Issue Being Most Important .......................................... 52 Figure 13. Perceived Energy User ................................................................................................ 54 Figure 14. Willingness to Perform in Next Three Years ............................................................... 55 Figure 15. Barriers to Participation Knowledge Fear ................................................................... 55 Figure 16. Barriers to Participation Tone Time Apathy ............................................................... 56 Figure 17. Aware of Energy-Related Events................................................................................. 58 Figure 18. Energy Discussions Collective-Public .......................................................................... 59 Figure 19. Energy Discussion Collective-Individual ...................................................................... 60 Figure 20. Trust Outsiders ............................................................................................................ 62 Figure 21. Trust Insiders ............................................................................................................... 62 Figure 22. Province Trusted ......................................................................................................... 63 Figure 23. Province Biased ........................................................................................................... 63 Figure 24. See, Hear, Smell Energy Infrastructure ....................................................................... 64

5

1. Executive Summary

Energy makes the world go round. Whether talking about what powers our living planet or what powers economies and societies, energy is central to the story. Canada, with its rich energy resource base, is a global player in conventional energy development and exports. Canadians use more energy in their daily lives than many people living in both developed and developing countries. With the emergence of climate change as an issue requiring significant changes in the way that energy is developed and used, Canadians face new choices, as citizens and as consumers.

As citizens, Canadians are being encouraged to engage in national, regional and local debates about expansion of the oil sands and the siting and expansion of pipelines to deliver oil and gas to markets, as well as where wind, solar, and shale gas projects should go. As consumers, Canadians face changes affecting household budgets and lifestyle habits stemming from fluctuating oil prices affecting the cost of driving, rising electricity and natural gas prices influencing household choices about energy conservation, energy efficiency and choices of traditional and renewable energy technologies.

Conventional and renewable energy producers face challenges gaining social licence for their projects as citizens raise concerns about climate change and local environmental, health and safety risks and impacts. At the same time, consumers are beginning to realize they have the power to control more and more of their energy choices and to source their energy close to home through in-home installations that take households closer to energy self-sufficiency, particularly as it relates to electricity.

Media coverage of energy issues is intensifying with Canadians who follow the news exposed to a rich menu of energy-related stories from the fall in oil prices over the past year and the implications for the Canadian economy, to protests over oil sands, pipeline and shale gas development, and the implications for Canada’s contribution to climate protection.

What do Canadians think of these energy discussions and choices? How do they perceive energy in their daily lives? What energy sources do Canadians support or oppose? Why do they value one energy source over another? What values and beliefs influence how Canadians’ perspectives on energy? How are Canadians engaging as citizens and consumers on energy issues? Is Canada ready for what seems like an imminent energy reboot?

An academic team from four Canadian and U.S. universities set out in 2014 to learn more about perspectives on energy issues through a national survey of 3000 Canadians. The objectives of the survey were to:

6

• Generate a general understanding of citizen perspectives on energy issues in Canada; • Establish a baseline for perceived and actual knowledge of energy sources of

supply/technologies and personal energy use that could be measured over time; • Explore indicators of:

o Values associated with Anthropocentric (human-centred) to Biocentric (nature-centred) worldviews influencing attitudes;

o Attitudes toward energy supply and demand options, and energy-related decision-making processes and institutions;

o Trust toward institutional decision-makers influencing capacity to participate in energy discourse and decision-making.

• Capture awareness of experience relating to energy infrastructure; and • Explore the influence of demographic variables (age, gender, province/territory, type of

community, income, education, political orientation) on values, attitudes and trust.

Table 3.1 categorizes survey variables and indicators by question according to their relationship to survey objectives.

The academic team responsible for designing, executing and analyzing the Citizen Perspectives on Energy Issues survey is comprised of rural and environmental sociologists with expertise in natural resource management, public engagement and place-based visualization. The online survey was executed by Corporate Research Associates (CRA) on behalf of the team comprised of Dr. Louise Comeau, University of Alberta, Dr. Rich Stedman, Cornell University, Dr. Thomas Beckley, University of New Brunswick, and principal investigator, Dr. John Parkins, University of Alberta.

This report to the Energy Exchange provides:

1. A summary of frequency results, including for energy literacy; and 2. An initial assessment of potential approaches to market segmentation that could aid

communication planning and tool development.

Our report to the Energy Exchange is intended to provide some quick-start analysis to support planning for this new organization. The Energy Exchange can use this information as input to the design of its own research program, including follow-up research in areas of interest through focus groups or additional survey work. The academic team associated with the survey will continue to investigate the results through a range of theoretical lenses over the next year. This current report should be considered “top line” and without prejudice. As the Citizen Perspectives on Energy Issues survey was not conducted on behalf of the Energy Exchange, we ask that the analysis provided not be released to the media or that these initial results be overstated. The Energy Exchange, however, is welcome to use this first report to support

7

internal planning purposes and to share summary results with external audiences as long as there is appropriate attribution (Comeau, Stedman, Beckley, & Parkins, 2015) and qualification regarding the interim nature of the results. We are also happy to update the Energy Exchange on our ongoing interpretation of the results.

The Citizen Perspectives on Energy Issues national online survey was completed by 3,000 Canadian adults over four weeks in fall 2014. Respondents were randomly solicited from a general population panel of 450,000 Canadians. Quota requirements based on Statistics Canada estimates for age, gender and region were taken into consideration with regards to survey invitations to ensure national representativeness. As quotas were filled, invitations were no longer sent to these population groups. We also tracked mother tongue in Quebec and New Brunswick, income, education and urban/rural distribution for alignment with Statistics Canada national estimates (For more detail see Methods section in Section three: Background and Appendix 2).

The Citizen Perspectives on Energy Issues survey comprised 45 questions. To make sense of the large amount of data collected we applied scale reliability tests and factor analysis to explore options for reducing the amount of data that we would have to work with. In this results overview, we describe results for scales that emerged from factor analysis and the implications of some of the important results. See Section three: Background for detail on how the statistical analysis influenced development of our scales and our approach to the analysis.

Results Overview

Canadians strongly value cautious, fair and inclusive energy decision-making processes. Canadians also orient toward Biocentric (Taylor, 1986) values like feeling connected to and interdependent with nature, and worry that human interference with nature can produce disastrous consequences consistent with new environmental paradigm research (Dunlap & Jones, 2002; Dunlap, VanLiere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000). Biocentric values, in turn, strongly correlate to a set of beliefs linking responsible use of energy and climate change concerns. These interconnected values and beliefs most influence whether Canadians oppose or support particular energy sources, as well as their willingness to engage in in-home energy management solutions and energy-related discussions.

In general, coal and nuclear, followed by oil sands/tar sands are most opposed by Canadians; solar, wind and hydroelectricity are most supported. Canadians most inclined toward responsible use of energy and climate change beliefs (we called the summed scale Climate Change Urgent) most oppose fossil fuel/nuclear sources of energy, and most strongly support renewable energy. Support for fossil fuel and nuclear energy was strongest for those Canadians orienting toward a set of beliefs we called Nature Robust

8

Business as Usual because of their association with statements like “Nature will be fine no matter what humans do; it is a robust, self-correcting system” and “Market forces, not incentives or taxes, drive development and conservation of energy.” Trust in institutional and government energy decision-makers was also associated with stronger support for fossil fuel/nuclear energy.

The Climate Change Urgent belief items were: • Companies must take responsibility and pay for the pollution they produce; • Climate change poses a grave and urgent threat to our planet; • We need to find ways to develop untapped resources for renewable energy; • Current trends in energy consumption are clearly unsustainable and must be

reduced immediately; • Consuming too much energy is immoral; and • Canadians have a duty to be global leaders by reducing our own energy

consumption.

Concerns about risks to human and health safety and the environment are top of mind for Canadians when thinking about why they oppose specific sources of energy. When thinking about their reasons for supporting an energy source benefits (to the province/territory, economy and/or consumers) are most important, followed by environment and then human and health safety.

Canadians perceived and actual knowledge of how energy is used in Canada is low, as is confidence in the correctness of factual answers. Our energy literacy results are consistent with those of recent surveys covering similar territory (Moore, Turcotte, Winter, & Walp, 2013; Turcotte, Moore, & Winter, 2012). Lack of knowledge is perceived to be a barrier to participating in energy-related discourse and decision-making processes. Gender and education were the most important influences on all knowledge-related results. Women also oriented more strongly toward Biocentric values, Climate Change Urgent beliefs, and health and safety and environmental concerns as reasons for opposing energy sources consistent with previous research (Comeau, 2014; Davidson & Freudenburg, 1996).

Openness to participating in some energy-related discussions is most associated with cautious fair process values, Climate Change Urgent beliefs, a belief their province is biased and trust of non-institutional players. Canadians who think their province is biased in its energy decision-making are more inclined to share information with friends and family and on Facebook, and write letters. These results are consistent with research showing that “critical trust” is important to citizen engagement in democratic processes. The more trust a person has in government and institutional decision-makers the less need they see for

9

their involvement given the requirement to budget personal resources and capacity to participate (Smith, Leahy, Anderson, & Davenport, 2013).

Trust in non-institutional players like academics/schools, scientific institutions; friends and family, consumer associations and environmental groups (a category we called Trust Outsiders compared to Trust Insiders covering energy regulators, government departments, utilities and energy industry associations) also is associated with a willingness to engage in in-home energy management activities.

Efforts to engage Canadians, especially by outsiders, generally promote public-oriented activities: attend a rally or meeting or join a group. Canadians, however, show little willingness to engage in these kinds of actions. Engagement processes that encourage Canadians to seek out information and to share information with friends and family or to undertake public activities such as writing letters or posting online comments appear more suited to Canadians’ temperaments.

There is an opportunity to encourage Canadian participation in energy discussions, decisions and choices through efforts to improve the capacity for processing energy-related information, strengthening factual knowledge about energy sources and energy management options, and energy-related decision-making processes (Maio, Esses, Arnold, & Olson, 2006). These efforts should pay particular attention to the needs of both men and women. Increasing the capacity for critical thinking about energy issues, according to our results, could strengthen willingness to participate in both energy-related discussions and energy choices. Increased participation, however, will be influenced by Canadians’ environmentally oriented values and beliefs. It should not be assumed that increased knowledge of energy issues will automatically lead to increased support, particularly for fossil fuel projects or shorten approval timelines.

We also asked Canadians to tell us what they thought the most important energy issue was in their province/territory. The cost of energy and a desire for cheaper energy was the most cited concern in Alberta, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Saskatchewan. In each case, except for Alberta, environmental impact/pollution was important after energy costs. Ontario and Québec both cited long-term impact/impact on the future/future generations after energy costs and environmental impact/pollution.

Price sensitivity clearly is a concern for Canadians as it relates to energy as a consumer commodity. Yet health and human safety and the environment are strong concerns when opposing energy source development, while benefits (to the province/territory, economy and/or consumers) are most important followed by environment and human and health

10

safety when Canadians think about why they support an energy source. These results point to solutions for engaging Canadians in energy discourse and decision-making. It is often the case that energy project proponents promote economic benefits of a project when Canadians are concerned about environment and health and safety. The need to address these concerns, combined with the need to ensure cautious, fair, transparent and accessible decision-making processes, are essential to questions of social licence. On the other hand, proponents of environmental policy proposals, such as pricing carbon, need to attend to Canadians’ consumer concerns about energy prices.

On numerous measures respondents opted for the mid-point on scales. It is not clear whether these results indicate respondents simply don’t have strong beliefs or views about energy issues, were ambivalent (holding both positive and negative views), had low-levels of awareness or engagement, or have undeveloped attitudes (Maio, et al., 2006). Ongoing measurement of Canadians’ values and attitudes toward energy development and processes can be tracked over time with a view to identifying which of these possible interpretations is most appropriate and to track the ongoing evolution of values, attitudes and trust associated with the energy landscape in Canada.

11

2. Recommendations

Research

1. Use relevant items from the Citizen Perspectives on Energy Issues survey to track development of energy attitudes, including behavioural intentions, over time. The Energy Exchange could conduct yearly online or telephone surveys (depending on budget); quarterly tracking could occur through the addition of two or three questions to omnibus surveys allowing for rapid response check-ins on emerging issues.

a. Attend to changes over time in neutral/ambivalence and the relationship between intentions such as willingness to participate in in-home energy management and energy-related discussions and decision-making processes and self-reports on specific behaviours.

2. Conduct focus groups to explore neutral/medium results to determine whether responses are due to ambivalence, lack of knowledge, or lack of interest.

3. Conduct focus groups to further explore the relationship between price sensitivity; reasons for supporting and opposing specific energy projects (concerns about environment and health and human safety for oppose; support benefits themed). Energy project proponents promote economic benefits of projects when Canadians are concerned about environment and health and safety: the need to address these concerns, combined with the need to ensure fair, transparent and accessible decision-making processes, are essential to questions of social licence. On the other hand, environmental policy proposals, such as pricing carbon and the need to attend to Canadians’ perspectives on energy as a consumer commodity for which they have serious price concerns. The more nuanced perspectives that come into play when considering energy sources respondents supported makes this a complex picture. These results suggest rich territory for further exploration in follow up research, particularly through focus groups.

4. Focus groups could also be used to explore understanding of the links between energy and climate change both from the perspective of causes and solutions.

Communications and Engagement

1. Provide a balanced presentation of energy issues in Canada to meet Canadians’ current need for information to assist in evaluation and development of complex energy-related attitudes.

2. Develop narratives and engagement strategies that activate collective values concerned with ensuring fair, accessible and cautious processes aimed at protecting human health and the environment.

12

3. Work with energy project proponents to address Canadians’ concern with values for fair, accessible and cautious decision-making processes that protect the health and well-being of people and the environment. Discussion of project benefits and technological dimensions of projects should wait until important value concerns are addressed.

4. Demonstrate that energy project proponents are sincerely addressing Canadians’ ethical concerns about taking responsibly, doing our duty and responding to climate change.

5. Emphasize values and beliefs, before financial considerations, to motivate learning about home and transportation energy management options.

6. Attend to the place-based concerns associated with health and safety and environmental concerns of women to create communications and engagement materials suited to the needs and interests of both men and women.

7. Encourage information sharing over attendance or participation at public events and identify mechanisms for encouraging both men and women to participate given each have important perspectives to contribute.

Education

1. Develop gender sensitive curricula to encourage attitude formation through efforts that improve the capacity for processing energy-related information, strengthening factual knowledge about energy sources and energy management options, and energy-related decision-making processes.

2. Develop gender-sensitive energy-related curricula targeting macro level energy science knowledge, as well as practical household knowledge suitable to secondary and post-secondary institutions and to the general public could increase the capacity to participate, particularly if initiatives are designed to account for gender differences in starting points, learning styles and energy-related interests.

3. Take a comprehensive approach to energy education to factor in values and the full spectrum of attitude components. The aim is to develop critical thinking skills that support reflection on energy issues. Reflection will be informed by values/ethics as well as knowledge. Knowledge of energy issues should cover source, commodity, services and amenities provided by energy supply and demand options.

13

3. Background

The Citizen Perspectives on Energy Issues survey was conducted from October 3 to November 4, 2014. The online survey of 3,000 Canadian adults was executed by Corporate Research Associates (CRA) on behalf of a team of university researchers funded by a four-year Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) grant to study the evolving energy landscape in Canada, including the social dimensions associated with energy transitions.

The Citizen Perspectives on Energy Issues national online survey respondents were randomly solicited from a general population panel of 450,000 Canadians. Quota requirements based on Statistics Canada estimates for age, gender and region were taken into consideration with regards to survey invitations. As quotas were filled, invitations were no longer sent to these population groups. We also tracked mother tongue in Quebec and New Brunswick, income, education and urban/rural distribution for alignment with Statistics Canada national estimates (see Appendix 2).

The university researchers involved in the survey phase of the project are Louise Comeau, University of Alberta, Rich Stedman, Cornell University, Thomas Beckley, University of New Brunswick, and principal investigator, John Parkins, University of Alberta. Pollution Probe, on behalf of its Energy Exchange project, contributed $10,000 to Louise Comeau through Iris Communications to receive a report based on initial analysis of the national survey, including:

1. A summary of frequency results, including for energy literacy; and 2. An initial assessment of potential approaches to market segmentation that could aid

communication planning and tool development.

Our report to the Energy Exchange is intended to provide some quick-start analysis to support planning for this new organization. The Energy Exchange can use this information to design its own ongoing research program, including follow-up research in areas of interest through focus groups or additional survey work. The academic team associated with the survey will continue to investigate the results through a range of theoretical lenses over the next year. This current report should be considered “top line” and without prejudice. As the Citizen Perspectives on Energy Issues survey was not conducted on behalf of the Energy Exchange, we ask that the analysis provided not be released publicly or to the media, but rather be used for internal planning purposes. In that context, the report can and should be shared with Energy Exchange staff and appropriate governance bodies associated with the organization.

Method CRA secured the sample through bilingual email solicitation to a nation-wide general population sample of over 450,000 Canadians managed by Research Now. Online panels are recruited

14

through multiple channels (i.e., social media, advertising, telephone solicitation, email solicitation) to ensure they are diverse and representative. No inducements are offered to potential panel participants to entice them to join an online panel, but there are small rewards to complete a survey. In the case of Research Now, points are offered for completing surveys, and these points can be redeemed for gift cards or discount coupons.

A pre-test of the Citizen Perspectives on Energy Issues survey was conducted by the academic team using informants known to have a range of energy issues experience ranging from little-to-no exposure to energy professionals. In total, 19 people from New Brunswick, Alberta and British Columbia (11 females/8 males) completed an early draft of the survey. Verbal feedback and statistical analysis suggested improvements to improve clarity and to shorten the survey through changes to scales. A ‘soft launch’ of the survey was then conducted by CRA to assess completion rates. Further modifications were made to the survey instrument to re-order questions and to shorten the survey to increase completion rates. In total, 147 respondents participated in the soft launch. The final survey sample comprised 3,000 additional respondents. A number of additional reliability assurance steps, established by industry best practice, were utilized, including ensuring panel respondents were reading survey questions (time monitors); monitoring of email addresses, postal codes, and other factors to ensure panelists were completing surveys and only one survey per study. Panel respondents are also limited in how many surveys they are allowed to complete each month to minimize fatigue and bias through conditioning.

The capacity to generalize results to the Canadian population was established by setting quotas for age, gender, region, and mother tongue in Quebec and New Brunswick. Income, education and urban/rural distribution data were also collected and tracked for alignment with Statistics Canada national proportions (see Appendix 2). Online panels can be biased toward overrepresentation of younger female respondents. We managed this potential bias by establishing quotas to ensure that region, age and gender sample proportions were representative of the Canadian population as measured by Statistics Canada.

Response rates can also introduce bias into survey results. CRA was contracted to deliver 3,000 completed surveys. To secure 3,000 completed surveys 46040 email solicitations to the national Research Now general population panel were required representing a response rate of 17% (in keeping with the industry average of 15 to 20% and also consistent with average response rates for random sample telephone surveys). As would be expected, not all surveys started by respondents are completed. Completion rates are influenced by length of survey. Our national survey was long with 45 questions requiring an average of 23 minutes to complete. The completion rate was 78% (somewhat higher than the industry average of 75%), meaning that to secure 3,000 complete surveys 3851 surveys were started.

15

Survey Goals The academic team is comprised of rural and environmental sociologists with expertise in natural resource management, public engagement and place-based visualization. The objective of the survey was to:

• Generate a general understanding of citizen perspectives on energy issues in Canada; • Establish a baseline for perceived and actual knowledge of energy sources of

supply/technologies and personal energy use that could be measured over time; • Explore indictors of:

o Values associated with Anthropocentric (human-centred) to Biocentric (nature-centred) orientations influencing attitudes;

o Attitudes toward energy supply and demand options, and energy-related decision-making processes and institutions. Attitude constructs include: cognitive (knowledge and beliefs), affective (like-dislike emotions and good-bad evaluations), conative (readiness to perform specific personal actions and intentions and commitments relating to public actions and policy goals), and behaviour (personal actions and public expressions of support or non-support for policies, organizations, citizenship, activism) components (Dunlap & Jones, 2002));

o Trust toward institutional decision-makers influencing capacity to participate in energy discourse and decision-making.

• Capture perceptions of experience relating to energy infrastructure. • Explore the influence of demographic variables (age, gender, province/territory, type of

community, income, education, political orientation) on attitudes, values, and trust.

Table 3.1 categorizes variables, indictors and questions to show their relationship to measurement goals for indicators of values, attitudes, trust, experience and demographics. Scales were developed by the team for this survey, adapted from previous research, or repeated from previous research to allow for cross study comparisons.

Table 3-1. Survey Structure

Variable Indicators Question(s) Values Anthropocentric-

Biocentric Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements (strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor agree, agree, strongly agree):

• I believe that humans are members of the earth’s community of life along with all other living things. • A first consideration of any good political system is the protection of private property rights. • I believe that humans, along with all other species, are dependent on the environment and one

another to live well. • We attach too much importance to economic measures of well-being in our society. • When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences. • I believe that all life should have a chance to pursue its own good in its own way. • I believe that humans are inherently superior to other living things. • We are approaching the limit to the number of people the earth can support.

To what extent do you believe each of the following considerations is important for decision-making about energy development (not at all important, not very important, moderately important, important, very important):

• Using caution in light of uncertainty • Weighing all risks and benefits • Distribution of risks & benefits (who benefits, who is harmed) • A fair and transparent process • Citizens having a say in decision-making • People’s rights to use their property as they want to

Attitude: Cognitive

Beliefs Personal energy choices; supply/demand technologies, provincial policies; participation channels; decision-making

Compared to your friends and family, how much do you believe you know about how energy is used in Canada? (nothing, not much, am medium amount, quite a bit, a lot) How much to you know about the following energy sources in Canada? (nothing, not much, a medium amount, quite a bit, a lot): Oil from Oil sands/Tar sands; Wind; Hydroelectric; Shale gas; Geothermal; Nuclear; Coal; Solar; Bioenergy (from wood, waste, plants, alcohol fuels); Oil from sources other than oil sands/tar sands; Natural gas from sources other than shale gas Practical household knowledge:

17

Variable Indicators Question(s) How much do you know about the following home and transportation energy use options (nothing, not much, a medium amount, quite a bit, a lot):

• Ways to conserve energy in my home (that is, use less energy overall); • Ways to use the energy that you do use more efficiently (in the home, vehicle or equipment, e.g. air

conditioning heating) • Energy reducing options for transportation (bus, train, car-sharing) • Renewable energy technologies (e.g. solar panels to heat water or generate electricity, wind

turbines, bioenergy) • Smart meters (digital meters that allow you and the utility to track and manage electricity use

Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements (strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor agree, agree, strongly agree):

• Companies must take responsibility and pay for the pollution they produce. • Nature will be fine no matter what humans do; it is a robust, self-correcting system. • Only the world’s poorest people will suffer from climate change. • Climate change poses a grave and urgent threat to our planet. • Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions are justified because they are tiny compared to other countries.

Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements about energy (strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor agree, agree, strongly agree):

• We need to find ways to develop untapped resources for renewable energy. • Most Canadians are well aware of the environmental impacts of energy development. • Current trends in energy consumption are clearly unsustainable and must be reduced immediately. • Small and distributed energy sources are more resilient than centralized production. • Canada’s commitment to democracy makes it an ethical supplier of energy. • All forms of energy should be more expensive. • The local community should decide on the energy systems that are best for them. • Consuming too much energy is immoral. • The current fad for going green will accomplish nothing. • A high level of energy consumption is part of the good life. • Canadians have duty to be global leaders by reducing our own energy consumption.

18

Variable Indicators Question(s) • Market forces, not incentives or taxes, drive development and conservation of energy. • Growth in energy production is key to Canada’s economic progress.

Attitude: Cognitive

Knowledge/facts Personal energy choices; and/or supply/demand technologies, provincial policies;

To the best of your knowledge, which of the following requires the LEAST ENERGY in the average Canadian home in one year?

• Refrigerating food and beverages • Cooking food and beverages • Heating and cooling rooms • Heating and cooling water • Lighting the home • Don’t Know

Macro level energy science knowledge: To the best of your knowledge, what percentage of the total electrical supply does hydroelectricity provide to your province/territory?

• Less than 20% • Between 21 and 40% • Between 41 and 60% • Between 81 and 100% • Don’t know

To the best of your knowledge, it is impossible to…. • Build a machine that produces more energy than it uses • Convert chemical energy to heat energy • Measure the amount of energy in foods • Use ethanol to power an automobile • Save energy by reducing, refusing, and recycling products • Don’t know

Which of the following statements best describes ‘renewable energy resources’ to you?

• Resources that are free and convenient to use • Resources that can be converted directly into heat and electricity

19

Variable Indicators Question(s) • Resources that do not produce air pollution • Resources that are very efficient to use for producing energy • Resources that are in continuous supply or can be replenished by nature in a short period of time • Don’t know

To the best of your knowledge, what does it mean to you if an electric power plant is 35% efficient?

• For every $100 invested in the production of energy, $35 is made into profit • For every $35 invested in the production of energy, $100 is made into profit • For every 100 units of energy that go into the plant, 35 units are lost during energy transformation • For every 100 units of energy that go into a plant, 35 units are converted into electrical energy • For every 35 units of energy that go into the plant, 100 units of electrical energy are produced • Don’t know

Respondents were asked to indicate how sure (not at all sure, somewhat sure, sure) they were about their response after each knowledge question.

Attitude: Affective1 – like-dislike

Support-aversion In general, to what extent do you support or oppose further development of the following energy sources in Canada (strongly oppose, oppose, neither support nor oppose, support, strongly support): Oil from Oil sands/Tar sands; Wind; Hydroelectric; Shale gas; Geothermal; Nuclear; Coal; Solar; Bioenergy (from wood, waste, plants, alcohol fuels); Oil from sources other than oil sands/tar sands; Natural gas from sources other than shale gas

1 Taken from Dunlap and Jones Chapter: Environmental Concern: Conceptual and Measurement Issues in Dunlap & Michelson, Handbook of Environmental Sociology, 2002, The authors argue for adding ‘behaviour’ to the classical tripartite conceptualization of “attitude” covering affective, cognitive and conative dimensions (p. 490). For some, like Kaiser et al. 1999, the affective variable (emotion and evaluation) represents attitude. For this study, the survey covers the four dimensions of attitude.

20

Variable Indicators Question(s) Attitude: Affective – good-bad

Evaluative Reasons for support-aversion

You mentioned you support/oppose further development of (energy source from previous question). Please indicate how important the following were in influencing your answer? (not very important, somewhat important, moderately important, important, extremely important):

• Impact on the environment • Costs (to the province/territory, economy and/or consumers) to develop or maintain • Risk to human and health safety • Impact on the landscape • Benefits (to the province/territory, economy and/or consumers)

From your perspective, what is the most important energy-related issue in your province/territory?

All things considered, why is this energy issue important to you personally? Attitude: Conative – intentions and commitments

Readiness to perform – Personal commitment to specific in-home (individual) actions

Compared to your friends and family, when it comes to how you use energy, do you believe you are a….(low energy user, medium energy user, high energy user)

Please indicate how likely or unlikely it is that you would do the following in the next three years. (definitely not, probably not, probably, definitely, not applicable):

• Install rooftop solar panels to heat water and/or generate electricity • Adjust the timing of day-to-day chores to match lower electricity prices (i.e. time-of-use electricity

rates) • Allow the utility that supplies your electricity to remotely lower the temperature in your home or hot

water tank a degree or two Attitude: Conative – intentions and commitments

Readiness to perform – Commitment to support – Public participation

Oppose/Support energy sources: see Affective

Please indicate whether any of the following are barriers to you participating in energy discussions? (not a barrier, somewhat a barrier, very much a barrier):

• My level of knowledge about energy policy, laws, regulations or energy technologies • The negative tone of energy debates • I don’t have time to participate in meetings • I am uncomfortable with public speaking • I don’t know enough about how energy decisions are made to participate • I don’t have strong views on energy issues

21

Variable Indicators Question(s) • I can’t participate because of rules set by my employer (i.e. federal or provincial government,

energy-related company) • Compared to other issues I’m involved in, I don’t think energy is as important • I don’t think that my input will make any difference because decision-makers won’t listen to what I

have to say Attitude: Behaviour – Personal actions

Self-report or observed Actual, Current , Retrospective, Prospective behaviours relating to specific actions

See above: Readiness to Perform personal in-home actions

Attitude: Behaviour – Public expressions of support or non-support for policies, actions or organizations, citizenship, activism

Self-report or observed: Actual, Current, Retrospective, Prospective behaviours relating to specific actions or policies

In the last three years, are you aware of any meetings, public hearings, surveys (other than this one), rallies, or other public or formal opportunities to communicate with energy decision-makers in your province/territory? Have you engaged in any of the following, with a specific focus on energy issues, in the last three years? (have done it, haven’t but willing, haven’t unwilling):

• Attended either an information meeting or hearing that approves projects or sets prices • Attended a rally • Joined either a group or became a member of an advisory committee • Done any of the following: Shared information with family and friends, made a post on

Facebook/Twitter, and/or started paying more attention to media reports • Voted for a particular politician • Done any of the following: Written to a politician, written a Letter to the Editor, posted online

comments in response to media stories, signed a petition, and/or used a toll-free telephone number to register your point of view

• Completed public surveys like this one • Gave a presentation in formal public meetings

Trust General and Skepticism

How much do you trust or distrust the following as sources of information on energy issues? (strongly distrust, distrust, neither trust nor distrust, trust, strongly trust):

• Consumer associations • Environmental groups

22

Variable Indicators Question(s) • Energy industry associations • Academics/schools/scientific institutions • Energy regulators • Government departments/ministries of energy • Utilities/electricity providers • Retailers of electronics, lighting and appliances • Friends and family

Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements (strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree or agree, agree, strongly agree):

• My provincial government has the necessary expertise to manage energy development effectively. • My provincial government’s information about energy development tends to be biased and one-

sided. • In managing energy development, my provincial government considers all relevant points of view. • My provincial government is too influenced by the energy industry regarding energy development. • My provincial government is open to new ideas and alternative points of view on energy

development. • There is no other option but to accept my provincial government’s plans for energy development.

Experience See, Hear, Smell Which of the following do you regularly see, hear, or smell? (Hydroelectric dam, Wind turbines, Nuclear plant, Coal-fired plant, Coal mine, Incinerator, Oil refinery, Oil or gas pipeline, Well heads, pads or pump jacks, Solar panels, Transmission towers, Biomass plant, None of the Above, Other)

Demographics Province, Urban-Rural, Gender, Age, Income, Education, Language, Political orientation

Gender, Age, Province/territory, Postal code; Type of community (within a large city or large urban area; within a suburb, adjacent to a large urban area; in a smaller, regional city; in a small town; in a rural area; in a remote area), Education, Employed by or know someone who is employed by energy related industries (electric utility, oil and/or gas, coal, wind, solar, bioenergy, energy regulator, federal/provincial/territorial/municipal department or ministry; none of the above), Language; Political views, Income, and Rent/own home

Structure of this report

We begin with a summary of frequency and scale factor and reliability results for variables organized according to the structure summarized in Table 3.1: Values, Attitudes (cognitive, affective, conative and behaviour), trust, and experience. We then report results for demographics, report on regression analysis and close with recommendations.

24

4. Frequency Results Introduction In this section, we report summary results and describe scale modifications indicated by factor and reliability analysis. For a summary of all survey questions, see Table 3.1. See Appendix 1 for demographic results; Appendix 2 for question by question results; Appendix 3 for Provincial results; and Appendix 4 for indicator by indicator comparisons.

4.1 Values

Values are general or “abstract ideals that people consider to be important guiding principles in their lives” (Haddock & Maio, 2006, p. 441). Attitudes express values: the two constructs, while interconnected, differ in that value inclination is not object focused (it is important to protect the environment or freedom), while attitude inclinations are judgments that reflect tendencies to like or dislike specific objects (I like protecting Lake Ontario; I don’t like interference with my property).

Two questions explored respondent values relating to decision-making about energy development and their orientation toward nature. Factor analysis showed two scales that we called Cautious Fair Process (Cronbach’s alpha: α = .892) and Humans Connected Nature Fragile (α = .797).

Results for Cautious Fair Process (M = 4.10, SD2 = .753; 5-point scale: 1, not at all important to 5, very important) showed these results for important/strongly important:

• Almost 70% of respondents felt that using caution in light of uncertainty; • Just over 80% felt the same about weighing all risks and benefits; • Almost 76% said distribution of risks and benefits; • Almost 80% said a fair and transparent process; and • Almost 71% felt that citizens having a say in decision-making.

Results for Humans Connected Nature Fragile showed respondents’ orientated toward three Biocentric sub-items (M = 4.06, SD = .729; 5-point scale; 1, strongly disagree to 5, strongly agree). Results for strongly agree/agree:

• “I believe that humans, along with all other species, are dependent on the environment and one another to live well”, 82.9%;

• “I believe that humans are members of the earth’s community of life along with all other living things”, 79%; and

2 M = mean; SD = standard deviation

25

• “When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences,” 66.5%.

Summary Charts: Values

Figure 1. Cautious Fair Processes Respondents strongly value using caution and ensuring open and transparent processes in energy decision making. We call this scale: Cautious Fair Process.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Very important

Important

Moderately important

Not very important

Not at all important

26

Figure 2. Humans Connected Nature Fragile Canadians believe people and nature are interconnected and that human interference with nature can have negative consequences. We call this scale Humans Connected Nature Fragile.

4.2 Attitudes

Attitudes comprise beliefs/knowledge, feelings, intentions, and behaviours and are critical to our capacity to navigate the world around us. Attitudes help us by “summarizing the positive and negative attributes of objects in our environment (object-appraisal function); identifying with people we like and dissociate from people whom we dislike (social-adjustment or social identity function), and defending the self against internal conflict (externalization or self-esteem function)”, (Haddock & Maio, 2006, p. 432). As attitudes develop, and people gain confidence that their attitudes are correct, the capacity to evaluate objects in their environment quickens facilitating decision-making, intentions and behaviours.

4.2.1 Cognition: Beliefs Five questions explored respondents beliefs about how energy is used in Canada, what people believed they knew about energy sources in Canada, what they knew about home and transportation energy use options and what they believed about a suite of statements covering cultural, moral and environmental dimensions of energy use and development in Canada.

The belief statements were developed by John Parkins from a ‘communication concourse’, a comprehensive and diverse set of statements on the topic of energy and society. According to Dr. Parkins, the discourse statements were generated by drawing on statements from secondary sources that included academic and popular literature, newspaper clippings, broadcast media, advertisements and on-line forums. For example, from the statement

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

I believe that humans are

members of the earth’s community of life along with all other living things.

I believe thathumans, along withall other species, are

dependent on theenvironment and

one another to livewell.

When humansinterfere with nature

it often producesdisastrous

consequences.

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither disagree nor agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

27

“Companies must take responsibility and pay for the pollution they produce” was included in the concourse as an aspect of responsible resource use. It was modified slightly to improve readability from a quote in The Independent (September 27, 2010) from climate scientist Myles Allen. An original set of 373 statements were clustered into 59 specific themes such as, “The threat to our planet’s climate is both grave and urgent,” and, “energy innovation will solve economic problems.” Themes were:

• Collapse Centres on societal collapse as a result of not facing the environmental problems they create; our planet is under great stress and timid responses will fail.

• Promethean

Environmental conditions are much better than reported and humans have the ability to overcome any obstacle with science, ingenuity or social organization in markets.

• Ecological modernization

Ecological modernization generates opportunities for business in the effort to combat climate change, rather than an end to capitalism.

• Agency and responsibility

Who is accountable for creating solutions, questions how individual freedoms are conceived in the face of global problems.

• Consumer behaviour

Canadians need ample power to maintain our individual lifestyles and foster our national identity as a superpower.

• Not in My Back Yard (NIMBY) or place protection

Ascribed to selfish motives, lack of knowledge, or irrationality, and cited as a serious barrier to progressive renewable energy development.

• Distributed vs. centralized

Concentrated, large scale production facilities (coal- fired and nuclear plants or large-scale hydroelectric facilities) with high output and far flung distribution networks or smaller-scale, decentralized.

• Global Fairness

Trade-offs among environmental protection, economic development, and intergenerational equity.

These broad conceptual categories were used to reduce the 373 original statements to 48 statements. A sort (Q-sort methodology) was then undertaken of these 48 statements with 58 participants in the three regions where statements were sorted in in order of preference from

28

strongly agree to strongly disagree. Statements garnering the strongest support (+4, +5) and strongest opposition (-4, -5) were included in this n = 3000 survey for further analysis.

We begin the analysis of the three questions exploring perceived knowledge followed by results for belief statements.

Almost 82% of participants felt they knew a medium amount (52.6%) or not much or nothing about how energy is used in Canada. We then asked respondents how much they believed they knew about energy sources (5-point scale, 1, nothing to 5, a lot). Factor analysis generated one solution. That is there was no discernable difference in respondents’ perception of their energy knowledge by energy source: if a respondent felt they knew something about a fossil fuel source of energy, they also believed they knew about renewable energy (α = .943). One summed scale was created for Perceived Knowledge comprised of: oil from oil sands/tar sands; wind; hydroelectric; shale gas; geothermal; nuclear; coal; solar; bioenergy (from wood, waste, plants, alcohol fuels); oil from sources other than oil sands/tar sands; natural gas from sources other than shale gas, M = 2.55, SD = .762). Most respondents, as with perceived knowledge of how energy is used in Canada, believed they knew a medium amount, not much or nothing about energy sources in Canada.

Knowledge about in-home energy and transportation energy use options was measured by asking “How much do you know about the following home and transportation energy use options (nothing, not much, a medium amount, quite a bit, a lot)?” Factor analysis for this scale also showed one solution (.870) meaning there was no discernable difference in responses: if a respondent believed they knew something about conservation, they also believed they were knowledgeable about energy efficiency and renewable energy. In the case of home/transportation related knowledge respondents felt somewhat more confident (M = 3.24, SD - .777; 5-point scale, nothing to a lot), with lack of knowledge about smart meters and renewable energy technologies dampening the mean; strongest confidence was in knowledge about energy efficiency and conservation:

• 54% believed they knew (quite a bit; a lot) about ways to conserve energy in my home (36.4% a medium amount);

• 44.1% felt they knew about energy efficiency (41.7% a medium amount); • 41.5% said the same about energy reducing options for transportation (39.6% a medium

amount); • 25.2% felt confident about what they knew about renewable energy technologies (46%,

a medium amount); and • 30.3% were confident about what they knew about Smart meters (digital meters that

allow you and the utility to track and manage electricity use (38.6%, a medium amount).

29

Two questions asked participants to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed (5-point scale, strongly disagree to strongly agree) with a series of belief statements about energy. Factor analysis showed two factors we called Climate Change Urgent (α = .803) and Nature Robust Business as Usual (α = .760). Climate Change Urgent and Nature Robust Business as Usual were measured on a 5-point scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree, M = 3.85, SD = .662 and M = 2.67, SD = .617 respectively). The mean for Climate Change Urgent was influenced by respondents feeling neutral (neither agreed nor disagreed) about two scale sub-items: “Current trends in energy consumption are unsustainable” and “Consuming too much energy is immoral.”

As would be expected given the strong orientation toward environmental values as measured by Humans Connected Nature Fragile items, these values were strongly associated with Climate Change Urgent beliefs (r = .659, p < .05). Cautious Fair Process values also strongly associated with Climate Change Urgent beliefs (r = .514, p < .05).

Respondents strongly disagreed or disagreed with the statements included in Nature Robust Business as Usual: strongest support (strongly agree; agree) were for two statements: “Market forces, not incentives or taxes, drive development and conservation of energy” and “Growth in energy production is key to Canada’s economic progress”.

With respect to Climate Change Urgent results for agreed/strongly agreed were:

• 80% said that companies must take responsibility and pay for the pollution they produce;

• 68.9% believed that climate change poses a grave and urgent threat to our planet; • 78.1% believed that we need to find ways to develop untapped resources for

renewable energy; • 54.8% that current trends in energy consumption are clearly unsustainable and must be

reduced immediately (35.7% neutral); • 48.7% felt that consuming too much energy is immoral (36.8% neutral); and • 68.9% that Canadians have a duty to be global leaders by reducing our own energy

consumption.

With respect to Nature Robust Business as Usual Canadians were strongly disinclined toward these beliefs:

• Only 13% agreed or strongly agreed that nature will be fine no matter what humans do; it is a robust, self-correcting system; 65.7% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

• About 11% believed only the world’s poorest people will suffer from climate change; 72.4% disagreed or strongly disagreed;

30

• 13.2% felt that Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions are justified because they are tiny compared to other countries; 57.9% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

• Just over 23% felt that Canada’s commitment to democracy makes it an ethical supplier of energy (50% were neutral);

• Just over 24% felt that the current fad for going green will accomplish nothing; 44.6% disagreed or strongly disagreed;

• About 15% felt that a high level of energy consumption is part of the good life; 46.3% disagreed or strongly disagreed;

• Market forces, not incentives or taxes, drive development and conservation of energy was supported by 36.9%, while 45.8% were neutral; and

• Just over 50% agreed or strongly agreed that growth in energy production is key to Canada’s economic progress (37.6% neutral).

Four sub-items included in the belief statement questions about energy were excluded from the Climate Change Urgent and Nature Robust Business as Usual scales based on factor and reliability analysis. Frequency results for these questions are reported separately.

Just over 40% of respondents strongly disagreed or disagreed with the statement “Most Canadians are well aware of the environmental impacts of energy development (31.6% were neutral, 26% strongly agreed or agreed). Others were:

• Small and distributed energy sources are more resilient than centralized production, 23% strongly agreed or agreed; 12.2% strong disagreed or disagreed); 64.8% were neutral;

• All forms of energy should be more expensive; 29.1% were neutral, 10.3% strongly agreed or disagreed; and

• The local community should decide on the energy systems that are best for them, 43% strongly agreeing or agreeing; 40.8% neutral (10% strongly disagreed or disagreed).

Beliefs associated with Nature Robust Business as Usual were moderately and negatively correlated with Humans Connected Nature Fragile values (r = -.290, p < .05), and with Cautious Fair Process values (r = -.213. p = < .05). Respondents with conservative political views oriented toward Nature Robust Business as Usual beliefs (r = .295, p < .05), and negatively toward Climate Change Urgent beliefs (r = -.253, p < .05), and Humans Connected Nature Fragile values (r = -.153, p < .05).

Respondents orienting toward Nature Robust Business as Usual beliefs were moderately inclined to support fossil fuels and nuclear energy sources (r = .285, p < .05), and somewhat less inclined to support renewable energy technologies (r = -.165, p < .05). Respondents with Climate Change Urgent beliefs were less inclined to support fossil fuel and nuclear sources of

31

energy supply (r = -.207, p < .05) and moderately inclined to support renewable energy sources of supply (r = .301, p < .05).

Values and beliefs were also important to whether respondents were open to participating in energy-related activities and whether they perceived there were barriers to participating in energy discussions. Climate Change Urgent believers were somewhat more inclined to say they have or would share information about energy issues with friends and family and to vote for politician with energy considerations in mind (r = .169, p < .05), compared to Nature Robust Business as Usual believers who were somewhat negatively inclined (r = -.179, p < .05). Climate Change Urgent believers also were somewhat less inclined to believe that the tone of energy debates, lack of time, or the importance of other issues compared to energy were barriers to participating in energy discussions, compared to Nature Robust Business as Usual believers (r = -.111, p < .05, r = .222, p < .05 respectively). Climate Change Urgent believers also were somewhat more inclined to say that they would undertake in-home energy management actions (r = .141, p < .05).

Regression analysis showed that almost 31% (β = .309, p < .05) of the variance in opposition-support for fossil fuels and nuclear could primarily be explained by beliefs. Orientation toward Nature Robust Business as Usual beliefs was positively associated with support for fossil fuels and nuclear (r = .279, p < .05). Climate Change Urgent beliefs were opposed to fossil fuel and nuclear (r = -.179, p < .05).

Almost 29% of variance in opposition-support for renewable energy could primarily be explained by Cautious and Fair Process values (r = .179, p < .05), Climate Change Urgent beliefs (r = .164, p < .05), gender (r-.148, p < .05, female means for renewable energy were lower than for males), and trust of outsiders (consumer associations, environmental groups, academics/schools, scientific institutions, friends and family, r = .149, p < .05).

Beliefs (along with trust of outsiders and provincial decision-makers, and values) also influenced willingness to participate in in-home energy management options and in discussions of energy issues. Almost 12% of variance in willingness (p < .05) to adjust daily activities to match time-of-use rates, install rooftop solar and/or have home heating and water temperatures remotely lowered was associated with Climate Change Urgent beliefs (r = .213, p < .05) and trust of outsiders (consumer associations, environmental organizations, academic and scientific institutions, friends and family, r = .167, p < .05).

Willingness to engage in energy discussions by sharing information with friends and family, on Facebook/Twitter, vote for a politician, write letters to the editor was positively associated with Cautious Fair Process values (r = .179, p < .05), negatively associated with trust in provincial

32

decision-makers (r = -.108, p < .05), and positively associated with trust of outsiders (r = .112, p < .05).

Just over 20% respondents strongly oriented toward Climate Change Urgent beliefs with scores at or above 4.5 (5-point scale); about 4% had scores above 4 for Nature Robust Business as Usual Beliefs (most respondents were neutral). Results provide insights into what Canadians’ ethical stance toward energy issues could be, if and when, they engage more fully. Social licence for energy-related development is likely to require attention to much more than ensuring fair processes. Canadians expect companies to act responsibly, to take climate change seriously, and that it is our duty to take leadership positions in managing our own energy consumption.

33

Summary charts Beliefs

Figure 3. Perceived Knowledge Energy Used Respondents believe they are somewhat knowledgeable about how energy is used in Canada.

0.010.020.030.040.050.060.0

Nothing Not much A mediumamount

Quite a bit A lot

Compared to your friends and family, how much do you believe you know

about how energy is used in Canada?

34

Figure 4. Home Transportation Knowledge Overall, perceived knowledge of home and transportation energy use options is lowest for smart meters and renewable energy technologies, and highest for ways to conserve energy in the home.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ways toconserve

energy in myhome (that is,

use less energyoverall)

Ways to usethe energy that

you do usemore

efficiently (inthe home,vehicle or

equipment;e.g. air

conditioning,heating)

Energyreducing

options fortransportation(bus, train, car-

sharing)

Renewableenergy

technologies(e.g. solar

panels to heatwater orgenerate

electricity,wind turbines,

bioenergy)

Smart Meters(digital metersthat allow youand the utilityto track and

manageelectricity use

A lot

Quite a bit

A medium amount

Not much

Nothing

35

Figure 5. Climate Change Urgent Beliefs Canadians strongly believe that companies must take responsibility and pay for the pollution they produce, that we need to find ways to develop untapped resources for renewable energy, and that climate change poses a grave and urgent threat to our planet. We call this scale Climate Change Urgent.

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Strongly agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly disagree

36

Figure 6. Nature Robust Business as Usual Beliefs A majority of Canadians do not believe that nature will be fine no matter what humans do; it is a robust, self-correcting system. They do not believe that Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions are justified because they are small compared to other countries; or that a high level of energy consumption is part of the good life. About half do believe that growth in energy production is key Canada’s economic progress. Only about 4% of respondents strongly oriented to the items in the scale we call Nature Robust Business as Usual.

Most Canadians are well aware of the environmental impacts of energy development

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Strongly disagree 262 8.7 8.7 8.7

Disagree 1004 33.5 33.5 42.2 Neither disagree nor agree 949 31.6 31.6 73.8 Agree 680 22.7 22.7 96.5 Strongly agree 105 3.5 3.5 100.0 Total 3000 100.0 100.0

Small and distributed energy sources are more resilient than centralized production




0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Strongly agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly disagree

37

All forms of energy should be more expensive




The local community should decide on the energy systems that are best for them




38

4.2.2 Cognition: Factual knowledge Five questions explored respondents’ macro level energy science knowledge and practical household knowledge. Respondents were most successful answering the question that asked them to define renewable energy (#4 below), with 66% answering correctly. The question testing for understanding of the basic laws of thermodynamics (entropy, #3 below) gave respondents the most difficulty, with only 28.6% answering correctly. More than 45% knew that household lighting used the least amount of energy in their home over the course of a year and 52% knew what a power plant that was 35% efficient meant. There was wide variation in respondents’ knowledge of how much hydroelectricity contributed to their province/territory’s total electrical supply. Over 40% of respondents answered correctly in Alberta, Prince Edward Island and Quebec, with less than 20% answering correctly in New Brunswick, Ontario and Saskatchewan.

To gauge confidence, we asked respondents to indicate how sure they were of their answers (M = 2.07, SD = .510; 3-point scale 1, not at all sure; to 3, sure). Independent sample t-tests showed that respondents with higher means for perceived knowledge (see below) and who were more sure of their answers were more successful answering the factual questions. In every case but the definition of renewable energy, however, more people had the correct answer than were sure of their answer.

Frequency results for the knowledge-fact questions are as follows:

1. To the best of your knowledge, what percentage of the total electrical supply does hydroelectricity provide to your province/territory?

Province Actual Hydroelectricity Proportion

Total Correct Responses

Percent Correct Answers

Total Responses

Alberta <20% (3%) 128 40.4% 317 British Columbia 81 to 100% (91.8%) 89 22.1% 403 Manitoba 81 to 100% (97.6%) 39 36.1% 108 New Brunswick 21 to 40% (34.2%) 14 17% 71 Newfoundland and Labrador 81 to 100% (97%) 17 36.2% 47 Northwest Territories 41 to 60% (59%) 0 0% 3 Nunavut 41 to 60% (59%) 0 0% 4 Ontario 21 to 40% (22.9%) 261 22.9% 1141 Prince Edward Island <20% (0%) 7 50% 14 Quebec 81 to 100% (96.6%) 293 40.6% 721 Saskatchewan 21 to 40% (22.3%) 13 15.1% 86 Yukon 81 to 100% (91.3%) 0 0% 2

39

How sure are you about your response?


Percent Valid Not at all sure 638 21.3 29.3 29.3

Somewhat sure 1162 38.7 53.4 82.8 Sure 374 12.5 17.2 100.0 Total 2174 72.5 100.0

Missing System 826 27.5 Total 3000 100.0

2. To the best of your knowledge, which of the following requires the LEAST ENERGY in the

average Canadian home in one year?

Home Lighting Correct


Percent Valid Incorrect/Don't Know 1644 54.8 54.8 54.8

Correct 1356 45.2 45.2 100.0 Total 3000 100.0 100.0






3. To the best of your knowledge, it is impossible to…

Build a Machine Correct



Correct 858 28.6 28.6 100.0 Total 3000 100.0 100.0

40






4. Which of the following statements best describes “renewable energy resources” to you?

Renewable Continuous Correct



Correct 2005 66.8 66.8 100.0 Total 3000 100.0 100.0






5. To the best of your knowledge, what does it mean to you if an electric power plant is 35%

efficient?

100/35% Efficient Correct



Correct 1561 52.0 52.0 100.0 Total 3000 100.0 100.0

41






Women were far less certain of what they believed they knew about energy development in Canada than men, were less successful answering factual questions and believed their lack of knowledge was a barrier to participating in energy-related discussions and decision-making processes. In linear regression modeling gender and education were most associated with variation in perceived knowledge and believing that lack of knowledge was a barrier to participation in energy discussions (Beta coefficient: β = .200; gender, r = -.350; education, r = .160; ).Linear regression modeling also showed that about 13% of the variation in respondents’ perception that knowledge and fear of public speaking were barriers to participating in energy discussions could be explained by gender and lack of education (β = .129, gender, r = .262; education, r = -.161, p < .05).

42

4.2.3 Affective: Support/Aversion

Oppose-Support Energy Source We explored respondents’ opposition and support of fossil fuel, nuclear and renewable energy source technologies. Factor analysis showed two factors with nuclear associated with fossil fuels and a separate factor associated with the renewable energy sources. We created two summed scales: Energy Source Fossil Nuclear (α = .798, M = 2.96, SD = .686) and Energy Source Renewable (α = .771, M = 3.97, SD = .630). Respondents showed:

• Strongest support for solar, 83.4% (strongly supportive or supportive); • Wind, 75% (strongly supportive or supportive); • Hydroelectric, 74.2%; • Bioenergy, 62.1%; and • Geothermal, 59.5%.

Support for geothermal and bioenergy was dominated by neutral scores suggesting respondents were unsure of these sources. There was less support of fossil fuel and nuclear energy sources:

• Natural gas from sources other than shale gas, 47.4% support (strongly support and support),

• Oil from sources other than oil sands/tar sands, 34.1%; • Nuclear, 27.3%; • Oil sands/tar sands, 28.2%; • Shale gas , 18.6%; and • Coal, 13.2%.

We also asked participants to indicate whether environmental impact, costs to the province/territory, economy and/or consumers, risk to human and health safety, impact on the landscape or benefits were important to reasons in supporting or opposing an energy source. See Section 4.2.4.

43

Summary Charts Support/Aversion

Figure 7. Energy Source Fossil Nuclear Oppose Support Coal was most opposed by Canadians followed by nuclear and oil from oils sands/tar sands.

Figure 8. Energy Source Renewable Oppose Support Solar was most supported by Canadians followed by wind and hydroelectric.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Oil from Oilsands/ Tar

sands

Shale gas Nuclear Coal Oil fromsources

other thanoil

sands/tarsands

Natural gasfrom

sourcesother thanshale gas

Strongly support

Support

Neither support nor oppose

Oppose

Strongly oppose

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Wind Hydroelectric Geothermal Solar Bioenergy(from wood,

waste, plants,alcohol fuels)

Strongly support

Support

Neither support nor oppose

Oppose

Strongly oppose

44

Table 4.2. Most Opposed Energy Source Results Frequency Rank Nuclear 283 1 Oil from Oil Sands/Tar Sands 271 2 Coal 258 3 Shale Gas 168 4 Wind 45 5 Oil from sources other than Oil Sands/Tar Sands

24 6

Natural gas from sources other than shale gas

16 7

Bioenergy 13 8 Solar 7 9 Hydroelectric 4 10 Geothermal 2 11

Table 4.3. Most Supported Energy Source Results Frequency Rank Solar 718 1 Wind 479 2 Hydroelectric 441 3 Bioenergy 175 4 Geothermal 164 5 Oil from Oil Sands/Tar Sands 138 6 Nuclear 104 7 Natural gas from sources other than shale gas

59 8

Shale Gas 20 9 Oil from sources other than Oil Sands/Tar Sands

13 10

Coal 6 11

4.2.4 Affective - Evaluative We also asked respondents to tell us which energy source they most opposed and supported and to identify the reasons for their choices. When faced with a forced choice, rankings shifted slightly with respondents most opposed to nuclear, followed by oil sands/tar sands, coal and then shale gas. Rankings for most supported energy sources remained the same with most support for solar, wind, hydroelectricity and then bioenergy.

The factors that mattered most to respondents when they were thinking about why they opposed an energy source were different than when they opposed an energy source. In the case of opposition proportions were as follows:

• Environment, 90% (extremely important or important); • Risk to human and health safety, 89.2%; • Impact on the landscape, 74.4%; • Costs and or benefits to the province/territory, economy and/or consumers, 53.7% and

39.2% respectively.

When thinking about why they supported an energy source, responses were more distributed, with benefits ranking higher, but very close to environment and risk to human and health safety. Proportions in this case were:

• Benefits to the province/territory, economy and/or consumers, 80.3% (extremely important or important)

• Environment, 78.3%; • Risk to human and health safety, 75.2%; • Costs to the province/territory, economy and/or consumers, 64.6%; and • Impact on the landscape, 58.2%.

Finally, we asked people to describe in their own words the most important energy issue in their province and why. Qualitative responses were coded by Corporate Research Associates. Responses reflected place-based considerations with:

• Alberta most concerned about oil sands/tar sands and the environmental impact/pollution;

• British Columbia most concerned about transportation of oil/gas by pipeline; • Manitoba most concerned about hydroelectricity and the price of energy/rising cost of

energy; • New Brunswick overwhelmingly citing natural gas/shale gas/fracking; • Newfoundland and Labrador citing price of energy/rising cost of energy followed by

hydroelectricity/Muskrat Falls;

46

• Nova Scotia most concerned about energy prices followed by sustainable use of energy/renewable energy;

• Ontario most concerned about energy prices, followed by sustainable use of energy/renewable energy and then environmental impact/pollution; and

• Quebec most concerned about energy prices followed by environmental impact/pollution; hydroelectricity and sustainable use of energy/renewable energy.

The cost of energy and a desire for cheaper energy was cited as reasons for their most important energy concern in Alberta, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Saskatchewan. In each case, except for Alberta, environmental impact/pollution was important after energy costs. Ontario and Quebec both cited long-term impact/impact on the future/future generations after energy costs and environmental impact/pollution.

Summary Charts Affective: Evaluative

Figure 9. Reasons for Most Opposed When thinking about why they opposed an energy source, Canadians were strongly motivated by environmental and risk to human and health safety concerns.

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Extremely important

Important


Somewhat important

Not very important

47

Figure 10. Reasons for Most Supported When thinking about they supported an energy source, Canadians believed that benefits were most important followed closely by environmental and risk to human and health safety concerns.

Four energy sources most opposed

Most Opposed: Nuclear (n = 283) Reason Important Extremely

Important Impact on the environment 17.3% 76.7% Costs (to the province/territory, economy and/or consumers) to develop and maintain

26.9% 35.3%

Risk to human and health safety 10.2% 88% Impact on the landscape 31.4% 42.8% Benefits (to the province/territory, economy and/or consumers)

21.9% 23.7%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Extremely important

Important


Somewhat important

Not very important

48

Most Opposed Coal (n = 258) Reason Important Extremely


26.7% 17.4%

Risk to human and health safety 24.8% 67.1% Impact on the landscape 33.7% 40.7% Benefits (to the province/territory, economy and/or consumers)

23.6% 12.4%

Most Opposed Shale Gas (n = 168) Reason Important Extremely


21.4% 23.2%


19.6% 14.9%

Most Opposed: Oil Sands/Tars Sands (n = 271) Reason Important Extremely


25.8% 24.7%


16.6% 13.7%

49

Four energy sources most supported

Most Supported: Solar (n = 718) Reason Important Extremely


41.9% 23.4%


40% 39.4%

Most Supported: Wind (n = 479) Reason Important Extremely


40.9% 20.7%


41.3% 37.4%

Most Supported: Hydro (n = 441) Reason Important Extremely

Important

Impact on the environment 39.5% 34.2% Costs (to the province/territory, economy and/or consumers) to develop and maintain

45.4% 25.2%


43.5% 42.2%

50

Most Supported: Bioenergy (n = 175) Reason Important Extremely


44% 22.3%


43.4% 35.4%

Provinces Grouped Crosstabulation

Provinces Grouped

Total Alberta British Columbia Ontario Quebec Prairies North Atlantic q11_1 Price of energy/Rising cost of

energy Count 32 34 324 112 37 51 590 % within Provinces Grouped 10.1% 8.4% 28.4% 15.5% 18.2% 23.7% 19.7%

Environmental impact/Pollution

Count 57 48 129 110 21 16 381 % within Provinces Grouped 18.0% 11.9% 11.3% 15.3% 10.3% 7.4% 12.7%

Sustainability/Using/investing in alternative/renewable energy


Dependence on non-renewable resources


Hydroelectricity/Muskrat Falls Count 0 20 26 78 30 17 171 % within Provinces Grouped 0.0% 5.0% 2.3% 10.8% 14.8% 7.9% 5.7%

Oil/Tar sands Count 84 6 8 7 3 2 110 % within Provinces Grouped 26.5% 1.5% 0.7% 1.0% 1.5% 0.9% 3.7%

Natural gas/Shale gas/Fracking


Use of nuclear energy Count 0 0 49 4 4 1 58 % within Provinces Grouped 0.0% 0.0% 4.3% 0.6% 2.0% 0.5% 1.9%

Energy consumption/Using too much energy


Transportation of oil/gas/The pipeline/Northern pipeline project


Safety/Danger of energy sources (nuclear, gas)


Exporting energy to market/US


Economic impact Count 8 5 4 14 4 4 39 % within Provinces Grouped 2.5% 1.2% 0.4% 1.9% 2.0% 1.9% 1.3%

Nothing Count 5 6 14 12 6 1 44 % within Provinces Grouped 1.6% 1.5% 1.2% 1.7% 3.0% 0.5% 1.5%

Don't know/No answer Count 20 55 140 86 25 14 340 % within Provinces Grouped 6.3% 13.6% 12.3% 11.9% 12.3% 6.5% 11.3%

Other Count 20 27 120 97 18 15 297 % within Provinces Grouped 6.3% 6.7% 10.5% 13.5% 8.9% 7.0% 9.9%

Total Count 317 403 1141 721 203 215 3000 % within Provinces Grouped 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Figure 11. Most Important Energy-Related Issues in Province/Territory Place-based concerns dominated respondents’ perspectives on what the most important energy issue was in their province/territory: i.e. oil sands in Alberta, pipelines in B.C., shale gas development in the Atlantic. Note Ontario’s biggest concern is price of energy.

52

Provinces Grouped

Total Alberta British Columbia Ontario Quebec Prairies North Atlantic q12_1 Too expensive/Need cheaper

energy Count 34 39 297 109 46 56 581 % within Provinces Grouped 10.7% 9.7% 26.0% 15.1% 22.7% 26.0% 19.4%

Environmental concerns/Impact on the environment


Health concerns Count 8 5 37 24 3 7 84 % within Provinces Grouped 2.5% 1.2% 3.2% 3.3% 1.5% 3.3% 2.8%

Long term impact/Impact on the future/future generations


Economic impact/benefit Count 61 36 22 35 14 17 185 % within Provinces Grouped 19.2% 8.9% 1.9% 4.9% 6.9% 7.9% 6.2%

Non-renewable resources will run out


Need to use alternative/renewable energy sources


Need to be self-sufficient/'Not have to import energy


Energy is important/needed/Need reliable energy


Energy conservation/Reducing energy use


Safety/Potential risks Count 7 16 27 16 3 6 75 % within Provinces Grouped 2.2% 4.0% 2.4% 2.2% 1.5% 2.8% 2.5%

Personal experience/Directly affected by it


Utilize available resources Count 5 5 6 21 3 6 46 % within Provinces Grouped 1.6% 1.2% 0.5% 2.9% 1.5% 2.8% 1.5%

No reason Count 12 10 26 19 6 5 78 % within Provinces Grouped 3.8% 2.5% 2.3% 2.6% 3.0% 2.3% 2.6%

Don't know/No answer Count 23 52 134 81 23 13 326 % within Provinces Grouped 7.3% 12.9% 11.7% 11.2% 11.3% 6.0% 10.9%

Other Count 35 38 123 77 18 17 308 % within Provinces Grouped 11.0% 9.4% 10.8% 10.7% 8.9% 7.9% 10.3%

Total Count 317 403 1141 721 203 215 3000 % within Provinces Grouped 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Figure 12. Reasons for Energy-Related Issue Being Most Important When thinking about why a particular energy issue was important to them, cost of energy and environmental concerns dominated the responses. In Alberta, economic benefit was most important.

4.2.5 Conative: Readiness to Perform We asked respondents two questions exploring awareness of their personal energy use and their willingness to participate in in-home energy changes and energy discussions. The in-home energy choices sub-items showed a one-factor solution so a summed scale was created: Home Energy Behaviour Willingness (α = .543). We asked one question about barriers to participation. Factor analysis showed two factors organized around public engagement versus private engagement: Barriers Participation Knowledge Fear (α =. 721) and Barriers Participation Tone Time Apathy (α = .684).

Respondents believed they knew a medium amount about energy how energy is used in Canada, and a medium amount (followed by not much and nothing), 62.7% of respondents believed they were a medium energy user.

The summed scale for Home Energy Willingness Behaviour (M = 2.49, SD = .817; scale: 1, definitely not to 4, definitely) indicating weak willingness to perform. Willingness was skewed toward adjusting to time-of use rates. Results showed:

• A strong willingness (probably, definitely) to adjust the timing of day-to-day chores to match lower electricity prices (i.e., time-of-use electricity rates), 77.3%;

• Less willingness to allow the utility to remotely lower the temperature in the home or water tank, 45.9%; or

• Install solar panels to heat water and/or generate electricity the lowest at 36.5%.

The solar result, given support of over 80%, indicates more emotional support for solar and renewables than conviction. There were no significant differences in the results for installing solar or remotely controlling temperature by province/territory, but there were significant differences by province for willingness to adjust activities to time-of-use rates, with Ontario most supportive (54.3% definitely) and Quebec least supportive (34.9% definitely not).

With respect to barriers to participating in energy discussions, knowledge and fear of public speaking were greater barriers (M = 1.98, SD = .586; 3-point scale: 1, not a barrier to 3, very much a barrier). Tone, time and apathy were less of a barrier (M = 1.65, SD = .410). Seventy-seven percent of respondents felt that their level of knowledge about energy policy, laws, regulations or energy technologies were somewhat a barrier or very much a barrier, as was their overall knowledge of how energy decisions are made (74.7% a barrier or very much a barrier):

• 65% felt that being uncomfortable with public speaking was a barrier or very much a barrier;

• The negative tone of energy debates was a barrier or very much a barrier for 60.7%;

54

• 69.2% said the same about having time to participate in meetings; • 52.5% said that they did not having strong views on energy issues was a barrier or very

much a barrier; • 24.3% said that employer rules prevented them from participating, while 34.3% said

that compared to other issues they were involved in, energy wasn’t as important (34.3%); and

• 71.2% said that they did not think that their input would make any difference because decision-makers won’t listen to what they had to say.

Summary Charts Conative: Readiness to Perform

Figure 13. Perceived Energy User Canadians believe they are moderate energy users.

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

Low energy user Medium energy user High energy user

Compared to your friends and family, when it comes to how you use

energy, do you believe you are a …

55

Figure 14. Willingness to Perform in Next Three Years Canadians are most inclined to say they would adjust to time-of-use rates, but show little inclination to install solar panels; there is some openness to allowing utilities to remotely control home and water temperatures.

Figure 15. Barriers to Participation Knowledge Fear Canadians believe that lack of knowledge and fear of public speaking keep them from participating in energy decision-making processes.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Install rooftop solar panelsto heat water and/orgenerate electricity

Adjust the timing of day-to-day chores to match

lower electricity prices (i.e.,time-of-use electricity

rates)

Allow the utility thatsupplies your electricity to

remotely lower thetemperature in your homeor hot water tank a degree

or two

Not Applicable

Definitely

Probably

Probably not

Definitely not

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

My level of knowledgeabout energy policy,laws, regulations or

energy technologies.

I am uncomfortable withpublic speaking

I don’t know enough about how energy

decisions are made to participate.

Very much a barrier

Somewhat a barrier

Not a barrier

56

Figure 16. Barriers to Participation Tone Time Apathy Canadians are less inclined to believe that the tone of energy debates or lack of time are barriers: they do believe, however, that it is a barrier that their input will not make any difference because decision-makers won’t listen to what they have to say.

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Very much a barrier

Somewhat a barrier

Not a barrier

57

4.2.6 Behaviour Public Participation Survey respondents were largely unaware of any meetings, public hearings, survey (other than this one), rallies, or other public or formal opportunities to communicate with energy decision-makers in their province/territory over the last three years, with 60% saying they had heard of none; 32.1% saying they had heard of one or two, and 7.2% having heard of three or more.

The willingness to participate in energy discussions/decisions scale showed two factors that we named Energy Discussion Collective-Public (α = .815, M = .06, SD = .177, note: 0-1 scale) and Energy Discussion Collective-Individual (α = .711, M = .36, SD = .317). Consistent with results so far suggesting a largely unengaged population on energy issues, respondents have not engaged in events or activities focused on energy issues. For the Energy Discussion Collective-Public items:

• Just over 55% said they had not attended either an information meeting or hearing that approves energy projects or sets prices, but were willing, while 37.9% said they had not done this and were unwilling to do so: 93.1% had not engaged in this activity.

• 58% had not participated in a rally and were unwilling to do so; 35.3% said they had not done this but were willing: 93.3% had not engaged in this activity.

• Just over 56% had not joined a group or became a member of an advisory committee and were unwilling to do so, while 38.3% had not, but were willing; total for not engaged in this activity, 94.6%;

• Little inclination toward making public presentations with 4.6% saying they had done this, 71.1% saying they had not done this and were unwilling, and 24.6 percent saying they had not done this, but were willing.

Respondents were more open to the Energy Discussion Collective-Individual items, showing:

• A willingness to share information with family and friends, make a post on Facebook/Twitter, or had started paying more attention to media reports, with 36.1% having done this; 35.3% had not done this, but were willing, and 28.7% had not done this activity and were unwilling.

• Support for voting for a particular politician with 48.8% saying they had done this; 34.7% had not done this, but were willing to, and 16.1% had not done this and were unwilling to.

• 17.6% had written to a politician, a Letter to the Editor, posted online comments in response to media stories, signed a petition and/or used a toll free line to register their

58

point of view; 40.1% said they had not done this and were unwilling, and 42.3% said they had not done this, but were willing.

• 40.2% had completed surveys like this one; 49.2% had not done this (other than ours), but were willing, and 10.6% had not done this and were unwilling.

Summary Charts Behaviour

Figure 17. Aware of Energy-Related Events Most Canadians are not aware of meetings or public hearings, rallies or other public or formal opportunities to communicate with energy decision-makers in the last three years to discuss energy issues. Just over 30% of Canadians are aware.

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

No, none Yes, one or two Yes, three or more

In the last three years, are you aware...meetings, hearings...

59

Figure 18. Energy Discussions Collective-Public The vast majority of Canadians have not participated in public oriented events focused on energy issues and are unwilling to do so in the future.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Attended either aninformationmeeting or

hearing thatapproves projects

or sets prices

Attended a rally Joined either agroup or became a

member of anadvisory

committee

Gave apresentation informal public

meetings

Haven’t, unwilling

Haven’t, but willing

Have done it

60

Figure 19. Energy Discussion Collective-Individual Canadians are more open to engaging in activities like sharing information with friends and family, to complete surveys, or vote for a politician with energy issues in mind and are willing to do more of these activities in the future. Note almost 50% of respondents say they have voted for a politician with energy issues in mind.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Done any of thefollowing: Sharedinformation with

family and friends,made a post on

Facebook/Twitter,and/or startedpaying more

attention to mediareports

Voted for aparticular politician

Done any of thefollowing: Written toa politician, written aLetter to the Editor,

posted onlinecomments in

response to mediastories, signed a

petition, and/or useda toll-free telephonenumber to registeryour point of view

Completed publicsurveys like this one

Haven’t, unwilling

Haven’t, but willing

Have done it

61

4.2.7 Trust Two questions explored levels of trust-distrust or trust-skepticism respondents felt toward agencies, non-government organizations and provincial decision makers. Factor analysis showed four factors: Trust of Insiders (α = .834; Trust of Outsiders (α = .537; Provincial Trusted (α = .828) and Provincial Biased (α = .719).

Trust Outsiders (M = 3.46, SD = .575; 5-point scale: 1; strongly distrust to 5, strongly trust) showed respondents were largely neutral (neither trust nor distrust) or trusting regarding sources of information, with outsiders far more trusted than insiders. All sub-items, however, showed strong neutral scores. For Trusted Outsiders:

• Academics/schools and scientific institutions were trusted or strongly trusted by 61.2%; 32.6% neutral;

• 55% trusted or strongly trusted friends and family, 40.4% neutral; • 42% trusted consumer associations, 7.9% neutral; and • 37% trusted environmental groups, 43.5% neutral.

Trust Insiders (M = 2.84, SD = .678) showed low scores for trust and strongly trust and high neutral scores, with:

• Energy regulators just slightly more trusted or strongly trusted (24.4%, 42.5%) than government departments/ministries of energy (23.1%, neutral, 50.4%);

• Utilities and retailers of electronics, lighting and appliances (sellers of in-home energy efficiency and conservation products) were trusted or strongly trusted by 18.9% and 18.5% respectively (44.7% and 57.3% neutral respectively).

• Energy industry associations were leas trusted at 17.8% trusting or strongly trusting this source of information and 49.3% of respondents neutral.

Respondents were less inclined to feel their province could be trusted to manage energy issues well (M = 2.79, SD = .836), compared to thinking that their province was biased (M = 3.43, SD = .847; 5-point scale: 1, strongly agree to 5, strongly agree):

• Almost 25% either agreed or strongly agreed that their provincial government had the necessary expertise to manage energy development effectively (42.5% neutral);

• 17.6% felt the same about their province’s ability to consider all relevant points of view (46.3% neutral); and

• Almost 25% agreed or strongly agreed that their province was open to new ideas and alternative points of view on energy development.

62

Summary Charts: Trust

Figure 20. Trust Outsiders Canadians trust academics/schools and scientific institutions most, followed by friends and family, consumer association and then environmental groups.

Figure 21. Trust Insiders Canadians are more distrusting of utilities/electricity providers, followed by energy industry associations, government departments/ministries of energy, energy regulators and retailers.

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Strongly trust

Trust

Neither trust nor distrust

Distrust

Strongly distrust

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Strongly trust

Trust

Neither trust nor distrust

Distrust

Strongly distrust

63

Figure 22. Province Trusted Canadians are more inclined to believe their province cannot be trusted than believe it can be trusted, with most neither disagreeing nor agreeing.

Figure 23. Province Biased Canadians tend to believe that their province is biased when it comes to energy decision-making.

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

My provincialgovernment has thenecessary expertiseto manage energy

developmenteffectively.

In managing energydevelopment, my

provincialgovernmentconsiders all

relevant points ofview.

My provincialgovernment is open

to new ideas andalternative points of

view on energydevelopment.

Strongly agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly disagree

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

My provincial government’s

information about energy development

tends to be biased and one-sided.

My provincialgovernment is tooinfluenced by theenergy industry

regarding energydevelopment.

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither disagree noragree Disagree

Strongly disagree

64

4.2.8 Experience We asked participants to indicate which of the following do you regularly see, hear, or smell (Hydroelectric dam, Wind turbines, Nuclear plant, Coal-fired plant, Coal mine, Incinerator, Oil refinery, Oil or gas pipeline, Well heads, pads or pump jacks, Solar panels, Transmission towers, Biomass plant, None of the Above, Other)? Notable is that just over 40% of respondents believed they regularly saw transmissions towers, an energy infrastructure type ubiquitous in modern experience whether living in rural or urban environments.

Figure 24. See, Hear, Smell Energy Infrastructure Canadians are aware of the energy infrastructure around them, although almost all respondents would have seen transmission towers wherever they live: just 0ver 40% thought they saw transmission towers.

0.05.0

10.015.020.025.030.035.040.045.0

Which of the following do you regularly see, hear, or smell?

65

5. Demographic Comparisons

Demographic data for gender, age, province/territory, postal code, type of community (within a large city or large urban area; within a suburb, adjacent to a large urban area; in a smaller, regional city; in a small town; in a rural area; in a remote area), education, energy-related employment, language, political views, income and home ownership (rent/own). We report the variables showing the most influence: age, education and gender.

Age: Knowledge/Perceived Knowledge/Confidence Age was associated with correctly answering two of the fact questions: knowing that lighting used the least amount of energy in the average Canadian home in a year and the definition of a 35% efficient power plant. Age was not a significant influence on the definition of renewable energy or knowing that you cannot build a machine that generates more energy than it uses.

As would be expected, younger participants perceived that they knew less about energy sources in Canada (M = 2.47 for those 18 to 24 years old, compared to 2.64 for those aged 65 to 74, p < .05), as well as about home and transportation energy use options (M = 3.10, 18 to 24 years old, compared to 3.28, 65 to 74 years old, p <.05). As noted, however, regression analysis showed that gender and education were responsible for most of the variance in responses to these questions.

Age: Oppose-Support Fossil Fuels Nuclear/Renewable Energy Younger participants were more inclined to oppose fossil fuels and nuclear (p < .05), with somewhat less support for renewable energy among those 18 to 24 years old than for older respondents (p <.05).

Age: Willingness to Participate Younger respondents were more inclined to participate in public events like attending meetings and rallies (Energy Discussions Collective-Public, p < .05), while older people were more inclined toward sharing information, voting for politicians (Energy Discussions Collective-Individual, p < .05). Younger respondents were more willing to participate in in-home activities like adapting to time-of-use rates than older respondents (M = 2.47 to 2.52 for respondents 18 to 44 years of age; M = 2.50 to 2.41 45 to 75 plus years of age, p < .05).

Age: Barriers to Participation Younger participants were more inclined to believe that lack of knowledge/fear of public speaking was a barrier to participating in energy discussions (M = 208 for 18 to 24 year olds, compared to M = 18.7 for those over 75 years old, p < .05).

Age: Values and Beliefs

66

Older participants were more inclined toward Humans Connected Nature Fragile values as well as toward Cautious Fair Process values (p < .05). Younger participants oriented toward Nature Robust Business as Usual beliefs, while Climate Change Urgent beliefs were stronger for older respondents, than younger (p < .05).

Age: Trust Younger participants were more trusting of insiders than older participants (p < .05). There were no age differences in trust of outsiders. There were also no differences in beliefs that provinces could be trust or were biased.

67

Summary Charts Age


Total Incorrect/Don't

Know Correct Your age: 18 to 24 Count 136 47 183

% within Home Lighting Correct 8.3% 3.5% 6.1%

25 to 34 Count 388 255 643 % within Home Lighting Correct 23.6% 18.8% 21.4%





75 or older Count 33 41 74 % within Home Lighting Correct 2.0% 3.0% 2.5%

Total Count 1644 1356 3000 % within Home Lighting Correct 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

68



Know Correct Your age: 18 to 24 Count 100 83 183

% within 100/35% Efficient Correct 6.9% 5.3% 6.1%

25 to 34 Count 346 297 643 % within 100/35% Efficient Correct 24.0% 19.0% 21.4%





75 or older Count 40 34 74 % within 100/35% Efficient Correct 2.8% 2.2% 2.5%

Total Count 1439 1561 3000 % within 100/35% Efficient Correct 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

69

Your age: Perceived Knowledge Home Energy

Transportation Know Sure of My Answer 18 to 24 Mean 2.47 3.10 2.00

N 183 183 169 Std. Deviation .824 .773 .483

25 to 34 Mean 2.58 3.20 2.04 N 643 643 596 Std. Deviation .846 .829 .515





75 or older Mean 2.49 3.28 2.05 N 74 74 73 Std. Deviation .687 .586 .472

Total Mean 2.55 3.24 2.07 N 3000 3000 2858 Std. Deviation .762 .777 .510

70

Your age:

Energy Source Fossil Nuclear

Energy Source Renewable Oppose Support

18 to 24 Mean 2.92 3.90 N 183 183 Std. Deviation .759 .713






75 or older Mean 3.09 3.79 N 74 74 Std. Deviation .567 .555

Total Mean 2.96 3.97 N 3000 3000 Std. Deviation .686 .630

71

Your age:

Energy Discussion Participation Collective-

Public

Energy Discussion Participation Collective-

Individual 18 to 24 Mean .09 .33

N 183 183 Std. Deviation .221 .310

25 to 34 Mean .07 .32 N 643 643 Std. Deviation .196 .315





75 or older Mean .02 .37 N 74 74 Std. Deviation .080 .347

Total Mean .06 .36 N 3000 3000 Std. Deviation .177 .317

Report Home Energy Willingness [Q2] Your age: Mean N Std. Deviation 18 to 24 2.47 183 .917 25 to 34 2.54 643 .841 35 to 44 2.52 509 .857 45 to 54 2.50 596 .809 55 to 64 2.46 580 .807 65 to 74 2.43 415 .732 75 or older 2.41 74 .640 Total 2.49 3000 .817

72

Your age: Barriers Participation

Knowledge Fear Barriers Participation Tone

Time Apathy 18 to 24 Mean 2.08 1.74

N 183 183 Std. Deviation .560 .469






75 or older Mean 1.87 1.59 N 74 74 Std. Deviation .604 .362


73

Report

[Q2] Your age: Cautious Fair

Process Values

Humans Connected

Nature Fragile Climate Change Urgent Beliefs

Nature Robust Business As Usual Beliefs

18 to 24 Mean 3.90 3.86 3.76 2.83 N 183 183 183 183 Std. Deviation .846 .851 .665 .688






75 or older Mean 4.18 3.94 3.80 2.74 N 74 74 74 74 Std. Deviation .778 .808 .690 .581

Total Mean 4.10 4.06 3.85 2.67 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 Std. Deviation .753 .729 .662 .617

74

Education: Knowledge/Perceived Knowledge Education was significant to all factual knowledge results (p < .05), with people having an undergraduate and graduate degree or college education better able to answer factual questions correctly, compared to less educated respondents (p < .05). Results for Perceived Knowledge, Home and Transportation knowledge, and Sure of My Answer followed the same pattern (p < .05), with respondents having some high school education showing the lowest means (M = 2.12; 2.82; 1.99 respectively), compared to people with graduate degrees (M = 2.81; 3.47; 2.20 respectively.

Education: Oppose-Support Energy Sources There were no significant differences in opposition or support for fossil fuel/nuclear energy sources, but there was a significant difference (p < .05) in support for renewable energy with respondents having undergraduate and graduate degrees more supportive (M = 4.03; 4.11 respectively).

Education: Willingness to Participate People with some high school were more open to public participation in events like rallies along with those who had graduate degrees; those with graduate degrees were also more open to individual actions like sharing information (p < .05). People with a graduate degree were also more likely to say they would participate in in-home activities like adjusting activities to time-of-use rates (M = 2.35 for some high school; M = 2.63 graduate degree, p < .05).

Education: Barriers to Participation More educated participants were less inclined to feel that knowledge or fear of public speaking were barriers to participating and those with some high school and graduate degrees were more inclined to believe that time, tone or apathy were factors (p < .05).

Education: Values and Beliefs Respondents with some high school were more inclined toward Nature Robust Business as Usual beliefs (M = 2.84), compared to respondents with a graduate degree (M = 2.60). There were no education related differences in Cautious Fair Process values, Humans Connected Nature Fragile or Climate Change Urgent beliefs.

Education: Trust Education was not a factor in results for trusting outsiders, but was significant for trust of insiders, with those with some high school showing less trust of outsiders (M = 3.24) than those who had graduate degrees (M = 3.57, p < .05). Education was not a factor influencing beliefs that provinces could be trusted or were biased.

75

Summary Charts: Education



Know Correct [Please indicate your highest level of education attained.

Elementary/ some high school

Count 37 26 63 % within Home Lighting Correct 2.3% 1.9% 2.1%

High school graduate/ GED


Some college Count 177 120 297 % within Home Lighting Correct 10.8% 8.8% 9.9%

College graduate Count 329 271 600 % within Home Lighting Correct 20.0% 20.0% 20.0%

Some university Count 171 141 312 % within Home Lighting Correct 10.4% 10.4% 10.4%

Undergraduate completed


Trade-apprenticeship Count 55 48 103 % within Home Lighting Correct 3.3% 3.5% 3.4%

Graduate degree Count 226 217 443 % within Home Lighting Correct 13.7% 16.0% 14.8%


76



Know Correct [Please indicate your highest level of education attained.


Count 51 12 63 % within Build a Machine Correct 2.4% 1.4% 2.1%



Some college Count 235 62 297 % within Build a Machine Correct 11.0% 7.2% 9.9%

College graduate Count 460 140 600 % within Build a Machine Correct 21.5% 16.3% 20.0%

Some university Count 220 92 312 % within Build a Machine Correct 10.3% 10.7% 10.4%



Trade-apprenticeship Count 76 27 103 % within Build a Machine Correct 3.5% 3.1% 3.4%

Graduate degree Count 269 174 443 % within Build a Machine Correct 12.6% 20.3% 14.8%

Total Count 2142 858 3000 % within Build a Machine Correct 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

77



Know Correct Please indicate your highest level of education attained.


Count 41 22 63 % within Renewable Continuous Correct 4.1% 1.1% 2.1%



Some college Count 115 182 297 % within Renewable Continuous Correct 11.6% 9.1% 9.9%

College graduate Count 218 382 600 % within Renewable Continuous Correct 21.9% 19.1% 20.0%

Some university Count 99 213 312 % within Renewable Continuous Correct 9.9% 10.6% 10.4%



Trade-apprenticeship Count 39 64 103 % within Renewable Continuous Correct 3.9% 3.2% 3.4%

Graduate degree Count 102 341 443 % within Renewable Continuous Correct 10.3% 17.0% 14.8%

Total Count 995 2005 3000 % within Renewable Continuous Correct 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

78



Know Correct Please indicate your highest level of education attained.


Count 46 17 63 % within 100/35% Efficient Correct 3.2% 1.1% 2.1%



Some college Count 161 136 297 % within 100/35% Efficient Correct 11.2% 8.7% 9.9%

College graduate Count 305 295 600 % within 100/35% Efficient Correct 21.2% 18.9% 20.0%

Some university Count 137 175 312 % within 100/35% Efficient Correct 9.5% 11.2% 10.4%



Trade-apprenticeship Count 42 61 103 % within 100/35% Efficient Correct 2.9% 3.9% 3.4%

Graduate degree Count 179 264 443 % within 100/35% Efficient Correct 12.4% 16.9% 14.8%


79

Please indicate your highest level of education attained. Perceived Knowledge

Home Energy Transportation

Know Sure of My

Answer Elementary/ some high school

Mean 2.12 2.82 1.99 N 63 63 57 Std. Deviation .721 .938 .581

High school graduate/ GED Mean 2.31 3.06 1.97 N 403 403 378 Std. Deviation .754 .763 .516

Some college Mean 2.43 3.13 2.05 N 297 297 275 Std. Deviation .758 .816 .471

College graduate Mean 2.47 3.21 2.02 N 600 600 571 Std. Deviation .728 .761 .523

Some university Mean 2.61 3.22 2.05 N 312 312 303 Std. Deviation .683 .714 .474

Undergraduate completed Mean 2.63 3.32 2.10 N 779 779 747 Std. Deviation .751 .748 .516

Trade-apprenticeship Mean 2.52 3.19 2.06 N 103 103 99 Std. Deviation .802 .842 .539

Graduate degree Mean 2.81 3.47 2.20 N 443 443 428 Std. Deviation .772 .759 .476

Total Mean 2.55 3.24 2.07 N 3000 3000 2858 Std. Deviation .762 .777 .510

80

Please indicate your highest level of education attained. Energy Source Fossil Nuclear

Energy Source Renewable Oppose

Support Elementary/ some high school Mean 2.97 3.69

N 63 63 Std. Deviation .651 .752

High school graduate/ GED Mean 2.91 3.83 N 403 403 Std. Deviation .623 .616

Some college Mean 2.96 3.96 N 297 297 Std. Deviation .673 .628

College graduate Mean 2.93 3.91 N 600 600 Std. Deviation .654 .635

Some university Mean 2.95 3.97 N 312 312 Std. Deviation .728 .616

Undergraduate completed Mean 2.97 4.03 N 779 779 Std. Deviation .729 .622

Trade-apprenticeship Mean 3.08 3.94 N 103 103 Std. Deviation .669 .650

Graduate degree Mean 3.00 4.11 N 443 443 Std. Deviation .693 .597


81

Please indicate your highest level of education attained.

Energy Discussion Participation

Collective-Public

Energy Discussion Participation

Collective-Individual Elementary/ some high school Mean .12 .29


High school graduate/ GED Mean .06 .32 N 403 403 Std. Deviation .177 .324

Some college Mean .06 .37 N 297 297 Std. Deviation .193 .330

College graduate Mean .04 .35 N 600 600 Std. Deviation .151 .301

Some university Mean .07 .37 N 312 312 Std. Deviation .200 .325

Undergraduate completed Mean .05 .36 N 779 779 Std. Deviation .148 .315

Trade-apprenticeship Mean .05 .35 N 103 103 Std. Deviation .174 .281

Graduate degree Mean .08 .39 N 443 443 Std. Deviation .206 .325


Home Energy Behaviour Willingness Please indicate your highest level of education attained. Mean N Std. Deviation Elementary/ some high school 7.49 55 2.202

High school graduate/ GED 7.91 350 2.059 Some college 7.95 254 2.083 College graduate 7.89 527 1.896 Some university 7.74 275 1.951 Undergraduate completed 7.94 676 2.030 Trade-apprenticeship 7.67 85 2.301 Graduate degree 8.36 385 2.145 Total 7.95 2607 2.042

82


Barriers Participation

Knowledge Fear

Barriers Participation Tone

Time Apathy Elementary/ some high school Mean 2.02 1.60










83

Report

Please indicate your <u>highest level of education attained.

Cautious Fair Process Values

Humans Connected

Nature Fragile

Climate Change Urgent Beliefs

Nature Robust Business As Usual

Beliefs Elementary/ some high school

Mean 3.87 3.81 3.67 2.84 N 63 63 63 63 Std. Deviation 1.066 .987 .819 .672

High school graduate/ GED Mean 4.09 4.00 3.85 2.74 N 403 403 403 403 Std. Deviation .790 .657 .573 .587

Some college Mean 4.10 4.06 3.82 2.65 N 297 297 297 297 Std. Deviation .794 .794 .670 .632

College graduate Mean 4.12 4.08 3.87 2.71 N 600 600 600 600 Std. Deviation .746 .707 .650 .571

Some university Mean 4.14 4.06 3.83 2.65 N 312 312 312 312 Std. Deviation .785 .802 .727 .636

Undergraduate completed Mean 4.08 4.07 3.86 2.65 N 779 779 779 779 Std. Deviation .713 .717 .665 .608

Trade-apprenticeship Mean 4.22 4.09 3.81 2.72 N 103 103 103 103 Std. Deviation .700 .649 .622 .591

Graduate degree Mean 4.13 4.11 3.90 2.60 N 443 443 443 443 Std. Deviation .695 .713 .675 .680


84

Please indicate your highest level of education attained. Trust Insiders Trust Outsiders Elementary/ some high school

Mean 2.80 3.24 N 63 63 Std. Deviation .677 .639









85

Gender: Knowledge/Perceived Knowledge There were significant differences in how men and women performed on knowledge questions and with respect to their perceptions of how much they knew about energy source of energy in Canada. Men were significantly more likely to correctly answer factual questions, except for the definition of renewable energy where men and women showed no difference (49.7% of males correctly answered; 50.3% of females). Fifty-two percent of men knew that lighting used the least amount of energy in the average Canadian home over a year; 48% of females answered correctly (p < .05). Almost 65% of men knew that you cannot build a machine that generates more energy than it uses (females 35.3%, p < .05) and 54.5% of men knew that for every $100 units of energy that goes into an electricity plant, that 35 units are converted into electrical energy (p < .05). Mean were also more sure of their answers (M = 2.22) than women (M = 1.92). Independent sample t-tests showed there was a significant relationship between means for perceived knowledge and correct answers to the factual questions. For all correct answers, males had higher means for perceived knowledge of energy sources than females (p < .05). Men who answered incorrectly also had higher means for perceived knowledge than women in all questions. Gender: Oppose-Support Energy Source There were also significant differences between men and women in their support for fossil fuel/nuclear and renewable energy sources, with men much more supportive of fossil fuel/nuclear (M = 3.05) than women (M = 2.87, p < .05). The gender difference in support for renewable energy was smaller than for fossil fuel/nuclear energy, but still significant (M = 4.02, males, M = 3.92, females, p < .05).

Gender: Willingness to Participate There were no significant differences in willingness to participate in collective actions of a private nature (Energy Discussion Collective – Individual), but there was a significant difference in willingness to engage in more public activities, with men being more comfortable with attending rallies and meetings (p < .05). Women were more willing to engage in in-home activities like adjusting activities to time-of-use rates (p < .05). Gender: Barriers to Participation Women were significantly more inclined to say that lack of knowledge and fear of public speaking were barriers (M = 2.15) than men (M = 1.81), while both men and were women were somewhat more alike with respect to not feeling that tone, time or apathy were barriers (M = 1.64, males; M = 1.67, females, p < .05).

86

Gender: Values and Beliefs Gender differences were also significantly associated with beliefs and values. Women were more inclined toward Climate Change Urgent beliefs (M = 3.93), compared to men (M = 3.78). Males were more inclined toward Nature Robust Business as Usual beliefs (M = 2.77, compared to M = 2.58). Women oriented more toward a Biocentric worldview than did men (M = 3.83, compared to M = 3.74), and women ascribed Cautious Fair Process values to themselves than did men (M = 4.19, compared to M = 4.02, p < .05). Gender: Trust Women showed a greater tendency toward trust with higher means for trusting insiders and outsiders (outsiders, M = 2.86 and M = 2.81, p > .05; insiders, M = 3.51 and M = 3.41, p < .05). There were no gender differences in perspectives on whether provinces could be trusted or were biased in energy decision-making.

Summary Charts Gender



Know Correct Your gender: Male Count 759 705 1464

% within Home Lighting Correct 46.2% 52.0% 48.8%

Female Count 885 651 1536 % within Home Lighting Correct 53.8% 48.0% 51.2%





% within Build a Machine Correct 42.4% 64.7% 48.8%

Female Count 1233 303 1536 % within Build a Machine Correct 57.6% 35.3% 51.2%

Total Count 2142 858 3000 % within Build a Machine Correct 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

87




% within Renewable Continuous Correct 46.9% 49.7% 48.8%

Female Count 528 1008 1536 % within Renewable Continuous Correct 53.1% 50.3% 51.2%

Total Count 995 2005 3000 % within Renewable Continuous Correct 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%




% within 100/35% Efficient Correct 42.7% 54.5% 48.8%

Female Count 825 711 1536 % within 100/35% Efficient Correct 57.3% 45.5% 51.2%


Sure of My Answer Your gender: Mean N Std. Deviation Male 2.22 1408 .487 Female 1.92 1450 .487 Total 2.07 2858 .510

Your gender: Energy Source Fossil Nuclear

Energy Source Renewable

Oppose Support Male Mean 3.05 4.02

N 1464 1464 Std. Deviation .755 .670

Female Mean 2.87 3.92 N 1536 1536 Std. Deviation .599 .586


Home Energy Behaviour Willingness Your gender: Mean N Std. Deviation Male 7.81 1307 2.058 Female 8.09 1300 2.016 Total 7.95 2607 2.042

88

Your gender:

Energy Discussion

Participation Collective-

Public

Energy Discussion

Participation Collective-Individual

Male Mean .07 .36 N 1464 1464 Std. Deviation .197 .316

Female Mean .05 .35 N 1536 1536 Std. Deviation .154 .318


Your gender:


Knowledge Fear

Barriers Participation Tone Time

Apathy Male Mean 1.81 1.64

N 1464 1464 Std. Deviation .557 .413



Report

[Q1] Your gender: Cautious Fair

Process Values

Humans Connected



Male Mean 4.02 3.98 3.78 2.77 N 1464 1464 1464 1464 Std. Deviation .769 .780 .727 .654

Female Mean 4.19 4.14 3.93 2.58 N 1536 1536 1536 1536 Std. Deviation .727 .668 .583 .566


89

Your gender: Trust Insiders Trust Outsiders Male Mean 2.81 3.41

N 1464 1464 Std. Deviation .707 .624



Correlations

Your

gender Your age

Please indicate

your highest level of

education attained.

Compared to your

friends and family, how

much do you believe you know about how energy is used in

Canada? Perceived Knowledge


Know

Home Energy

Behaviour Willingness


Renewable Continuous

Correct


Sure of My

Answer Kendall's tau_b

Your gender: Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .014 -.098** -.280** -.315** -.093** -.045 -.201** -.026 -.118** -.256**

Sig. (2-tailed) . .396 .000 .000 .000 .000 .277 .000 .150 .000 .000

N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 556 3000 3000 3000 2858 Your age: Correlation

Coefficient .014 1.000 -.043** .049** .024 .049** -.033 -.003 .029 .082** .046**

Sig. (2-tailed) .396 . .003 .001 .075 .000 .363 .851 .072 .000 .001

N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 556 3000 3000 3000 2858 Please indicate your highest level of education attained.

Correlation Coefficient -.098** -

.043** 1.000 .120** .150** .129** .043 .141** .154** .146** .095**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .003 . .000 .000 .000 .234 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 556 3000 3000 3000 2858 Compared to your friends and family, how much do you believe you know about how energy is used in Canada?

Correlation Coefficient -.280** .049** .120** 1.000 .542** .374** -.070 .175** .090** .142** .251**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .000 . .000 .000 .069 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 556 3000 3000 3000 2858

Perceived Knowledge

Correlation Coefficient -.315** .024 .150** .542** 1.000 .402** -.068* .192** .108** .173** .264**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .075 .000 .000 . .000 .045 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 556 3000 3000 3000 2858 Home Energy Transportation Know

Correlation Coefficient -.093** .049** .129** .374** .402** 1.000 -.121** .143** .150** .172** .221**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 . .001 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 556 3000 3000 3000 2858 Correlation Coefficient -.045 -.033 .043 -.070 -.068* -.121** 1.000 .005 -.055 -.076 .055

91

Home Energy Behaviour Willingness

Sig. (2-tailed) .277 .363 .234 .069 .045 .001 . .909 .179 .063 .127

N 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 531 Build a Machine Correct

Correlation Coefficient -.201** -.003 .141** .175** .192** .143** .005 1.000 .220** .270** .200**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .851 .000 .000 .000 .000 .909 . .000 .000 .000

N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 556 3000 3000 3000 2858 Renewable Continuous Correct

Correlation Coefficient -.026 .029 .154** .090** .108** .150** -.055 .220** 1.000 .355** .169**

Sig. (2-tailed) .150 .072 .000 .000 .000 .000 .179 .000 . .000 .000

N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 556 3000 3000 3000 2858 100/35% Efficient Correct

Correlation Coefficient -.118** .082** .146** .142** .173** .172** -.076 .270** .355** 1.000 .197**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .063 .000 .000 . .000

N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 556 3000 3000 3000 2858 Sure of My Answer

Correlation Coefficient -.256** .046** .095** .251** .264** .221** .055 .200** .169** .197** 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .127 .000 .000 .000 .

N 2858 2858 2858 2858 2858 2858 531 2858 2858 2858 2858 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Province/Territories: Values and Beliefs Atlantic Canadians were most oriented toward Cautious Fair Process values (M = 4.19) followed by British Columbians (M = 4.15); Québecers were least inclined (M = 4.00, p = <.05). There were no significant differences in Humans Connected Nature Fragile values. Albertans were most inclined toward Nature Robust Business as Usual values (M = 2.85) while British Columbians were least inclined toward these values (M = 2.59, p = <.05).

Province/Territories: Knowledge/Perceived Knowledge/Confidence With respect to factual questions, Québecers lead the country in correctly knowing that lighting used the least amount of energy in the average Canadian home over a year while British Columbians and Albertans were least knowledgeable (M = .37; M = .38 respectively). Albertans did better than residents in other provinces/territories in knowing that a machine cannot be built that produces more energy than it uses (M = .34) and what a 35% efficient electric power plant meant (M = .58). Interestingly, Québecers were least knowledgeable about the definition of renewable energy (M = .55), compared to people living in other provinces/territories. Canadians living in the Prairies North (Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nunavut, Yukon, and Northwest Territories) and Albertans were most able to define renewable energy (“Resources that are in continuous supply or can be replenished by nature in a short period of time”). Albertans perceived they were most knowledgeable about how energy is used in Canada (M = 2.65), followed by Ontarians and British Columbians (M = 2.56; M = 2.55 respectively). Prairies North residents and Québecers perceived they were least knowledgeable (M = 2.48; M = 2.49 respectively). Québecers, however, were most sure of their answers to the factual knowledge testing questions (M = 2.14) while people living in the Prairies North were least sure of their answers (M = 1.98). All results are significant at p = <.05.

Province/Territories: Oppose Support Energy Source

Albertans most support fossil fuel and nuclear sources of energy (M = 3.31) while Québecers least support these sources of energy (M = 2.62, p < .05). Residents in the Prairies North most support renewable energy followed closely by Alberta and British Columbia (M = 4.03 for both provinces). Ontario was least supportive of renewable energy (M = 3.90, p < .05). When nuclear is considered separately from fossil fuels Ontario is most supportive (M = 3.19), while Québecers are least supportive (M = 2.26, p < .05).

Province/Territory: Willingness to Participate

Atlantic Canadians are most willing to engage in energy discussions through sharing information with friends and family or on social media (M = .43) while Québecers and

94

residents in the Prairies North are least inclined (M = .31, p = <.05). Atlantic Canadians are also most inclined to attend meetings, rallies and sign petitions (M = .07) while residents in the Prairies North are least inclined (M = .04), although results are not significant (p = >.05). Note that on this scale where zero represents no willingness and 1 represents willingness, Canadians are largely unwilling to participate in energy discussion whether public or private. With respect to willingness to engage in in-home energy management options like installing solar panels or adjusting to time-of-use rates, Ontarians were most willing (M = 2.57) while Québecers were least willing (M = 2.40, p = <.05).

Province/Territories: Barriers to Participation

There was no significant variation in perceived barriers to participation by province/territory. While survey respondents were generally not inclined to see barriers to participation, residents in the Prairies North were most inclined to believe that lack of knowledge and fear of public speaking were barriers (M = 2.03), while Albertans were least inclined (M = 1.93). Albertans were also most inclined to believed that the tone of energy debates, lack of time and lack of impact (Tone Time Apathy) were barriers (M = 1.70).

Province/Territories: Trust

Residents in the Prairies North were most trusting of insiders (M = 2.96, energy regulators, government departments, utilities, energy industry associations) closely followed by Québecers (M = 2.90) who also most trusted outsiders (M = 3.60, p < .05, consumer groups, environmental groups, academics/schools, scientific institutions, friends and family). Ontarians were least inclined to trust insiders (M = 2.77) while Albertans were least inclined to trust outsiders. Albertans also most trusted their province (M = 2.94) while Ontario least trusted their province (M = 2.71, p = < .05). British Columbians most felt their province was biased (M = 3.52) while residents in the Prairies North were least inclined to feel this way (M = 3.30, p = <.05).

95

Provincial Charts

Provinces Grouped Perceived Knowledge


Know Alberta Mean 2.65 3.19

N 317 317 Std. Deviation .744 .754

British Columbia Mean 2.55 3.22 N 403 403 Std. Deviation .699 .744

Ontario Mean 2.56 3.33 N 1141 1141 Std. Deviation .782 .790

Quebec Mean 2.49 3.21 N 721 721 Std. Deviation .778 .782

Prairies North Mean 2.48 3.16 N 203 203 Std. Deviation .737 .753

Atlantic Mean 2.54 3.09 N 215 215 Std. Deviation .751 .763


Provinces Grouped Home Lighting

Correct Build a Machine

Correct


Correct 100/35%

Efficient Correct Alberta Mean .38 .34 .73 .58

N 317 317 317 317 Std. Deviation .486 .474 .445 .495

British Columbia Mean .37 .32 .70 .53 N 403 403 403 403 Std. Deviation .484 .467 .457 .500

Ontario Mean .44 .30 .69 .54 N 1141 1141 1141 1141 Std. Deviation .496 .458 .464 .498

Quebec Mean .56 .21 .55 .45 N 721 721 721 721 Std. Deviation .497 .410 .498 .498

Prairies North Mean .40 .31 .74 .53 N 203 203 203 203 Std. Deviation .492 .462 .438 .500

Atlantic Mean .47 .30 .73 .53 N 215 215 215 215 Std. Deviation .500 .460 .442 .500

Total Mean .45 .29 .67 .52 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 Std. Deviation .498 .452 .471 .500

96

Report

Provinces Grouped Cautious Fair

Process Values

Humans Connected



Alberta Mean 4.11 4.01 3.64 2.85 N 317 317 317 317 Std. Deviation .714 .686 .667 .644

British Columbia Mean 4.15 4.01 3.79 2.59 N 403 403 403 403 Std. Deviation .797 .835 .701 .608

Ontario Mean 4.13 4.09 3.85 2.64 N 1141 1141 1141 1141 Std. Deviation .728 .729 .672 .618

Quebec Mean 4.00 4.05 4.00 2.70 N 721 721 721 721 Std. Deviation .789 .707 .614 .591

Prairies North Mean 4.13 4.11 3.77 2.70 N 203 203 203 203 Std. Deviation .687 .655 .623 .682

Atlantic Mean 4.19 4.07 3.87 2.61 N 215 215 215 215 Std. Deviation .760 .715 .602 .556


Provinces Grouped

Energy Discussion


Public

Energy Discussion



Knowledge Fear


Apathy Alberta Mean .05 .39 1.93 1.70

N 317 317 317 317 Std. Deviation .151 .318 .593 .412

British Columbia Mean .07 .39 1.99 1.65 N 403 403 403 403 Std. Deviation .198 .334 .550 .396

Ontario Mean .06 .36 2.00 1.65 N 1141 1141 1141 1141 Std. Deviation .177 .318 .590 .406

Quebec Mean .06 .31 1.96 1.64 N 721 721 721 721 Std. Deviation .173 .306 .594 .427

Prairies North Mean .04 .31 2.03 1.65 N 203 203 203 203 Std. Deviation .135 .291 .590 .384

Atlantic Mean .07 .43 2.00 1.64 N 215 215 215 215 Std. Deviation .210 .317 .586 .422

Total Mean .06 .36 1.98 1.65 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 Std. Deviation .177 .317 .586 .410

98

Report

Home Energy Willingness Provinces Grouped Mean N Std. Deviation Alberta 2.51 317 .798 British Columbia 2.41 403 .761 Ontario 2.57 1141 .828 Quebec 2.40 721 .837 Prairies North 2.45 203 .805 Atlantic 2.53 215 .799 Total 2.49 3000 .817

Provinces Grouped

Energy Source Fossil Oppose

Support


Oppose Support Nuclear Alberta Mean 3.39 4.03 2.92

N 317 317 317 Std. Deviation .684 .578 1.128

British Columbia Mean 2.97 4.03 2.65 N 403 403 403 Std. Deviation .642 .645 1.056

Ontario Mean 3.03 3.90 3.19 N 1141 1141 1141 Std. Deviation .651 .641 1.067

Quebec Mean 2.69 3.98 2.26 N 721 721 721 Std. Deviation .706 .625 1.111

Prairies North Mean 3.18 4.06 2.87 N 203 203 203 Std. Deviation .640 .600 1.151

Atlantic Mean 2.97 4.01 2.85 N 215 215 215 Std. Deviation .677 .639 1.098

Total Mean 2.99 3.97 2.82 N 3000 3000 3000 Std. Deviation .697 .630 1.150

99

Provinces Grouped Trust Insiders Trust Outsiders Province Trusted Province Biased

Alberta Mean 2.87 3.35 2.94 3.50 N 317 317 317 317 Std. Deviation .703 .567 .859 .877

British Columbia Mean 2.85 3.41 2.74 3.52 N 403 403 403 403 Std. Deviation .643 .585 .848 .855

Ontario Mean 2.77 3.42 2.71 3.43 N 1141 1141 1141 1141 Std. Deviation .689 .568 .840 .831

Quebec Mean 2.90 3.60 2.90 3.39 N 721 721 721 721 Std. Deviation .666 .564 .794 .868

Prairies North Mean 2.96 3.42 2.78 3.30 N 203 203 203 203 Std. Deviation .672 .575 .916 .822

Atlantic Mean 2.85 3.45 2.78 3.44 N 215 215 215 215 Std. Deviation .658 .567 .752 .804


100

Appendix 1: Demographics

Your gender:


Percent Valid Male 1464 48.8 48.8 48.8

Female 1536 51.2 51.2 100.0 Total 3000 100.0 100.0

Provinces Grouped


Percent Valid Alberta 317 10.6 10.6 10.6

British Columbia 403 13.4 13.4 24.0 Ontario 1141 38.0 38.0 62.0 Quebec 721 24.0 24.0 86.1 Prairies North 203 6.8 6.8 92.8 Atlantic 215 7.2 7.2 100.0 Total 3000 100.0 100.0

In what province or territory do you reside?


Percent Valid Alberta 317 10.6 10.6 10.6

British Columbia 403 13.4 13.4 24.0 Manitoba 108 3.6 3.6 27.6 New Brunswick 71 2.4 2.4 30.0 Newfoundland and Labrador 47 1.6 1.6 31.5 Northwest Territories 3 .1 .1 31.6 Nova Scotia 83 2.8 2.8 34.4 Nunavut 4 .1 .1 34.5 Ontario 1141 38.0 38.0 72.6 Prince Edward Island 14 .5 .5 73.0 Quebec 721 24.0 24.0 97.1 Saskatchewan 86 2.9 2.9 99.9 Yukon 2 .1 .1 100.0 Total 3000 100.0 100.0

101

In what type of community do you live?


Percent Valid Within a city or large urban

area 1396 46.5 46.5 46.5

Within a suburb, adjacent to a large urban area 636 21.2 21.2 67.7

In a smaller, regional city 387 12.9 12.9 80.6 In a small town 296 9.9 9.9 90.5 In a rural area 268 8.9 8.9 99.4 In a remote area 17 .6 .6 100.0 Total 3000 100.0 100.0



Percent Valid Elementary/ some high

school 63 2.1 2.1 2.1

High school graduate/ GED 403 13.4 13.4 15.5 Some college 297 9.9 9.9 25.4 College graduate 600 20.0 20.0 45.4 Some university 312 10.4 10.4 55.8 Undergraduate completed 779 26.0 26.0 81.8 Trade-apprenticeship 103 3.4 3.4 85.2 Graduate degree 443 14.8 14.8 100.0 Total 3000 100.0 100.0

Of the languages you understand, which did you learn first?


Percent Valid English 2149 71.6 71.6 71.6

French 629 21.0 21.0 92.6 Other 222 7.4 7.4 100.0 Total 3000 100.0 100.0

How would you describe your political views?


Percent Valid Very Liberal 173 5.8 5.8 5.8

2 439 14.6 14.6 20.4 3 635 21.2 21.2 41.6 4 937 31.2 31.2 72.8 5 481 16.0 16.0 88.8 6 257 8.6 8.6 97.4 Very Conservative 78 2.6 2.6 100.0 Total 3000 100.0 100.0

102

Please indicate your total household income before taxes in 2013.


Percent Valid less than $26,000 248 8.3 8.3 8.3

$26,000 to $50,999 567 18.9 18.9 27.2 $51,000 to $75,999 571 19.0 19.0 46.2 $76,000 to $99,999 468 15.6 15.6 61.8 $100,000 or more 721 24.0 24.0 85.8 Prefer not to answer 425 14.2 14.2 100.0 Total 3000 100.0 100.0

And finally, do you own or rent your home?


Percent Valid Rent 811 27.0 27.0 27.0

Own 2188 72.9 73.0 100.0 Total 2999 100.0 100.0

Missing System 1 .0 Total 3000 100.0

103

Appendix 2: Frequency Results

Compared to your friends and family, how much do you believe you know about how energy is used in Canada?


Percent Valid Nothing 79 2.6 2.6 2.6

Not much 777 25.9 25.9 28.5 A medium amount 1579 52.6 52.6 81.2 Quite a bit 452 15.1 15.1 96.2 A lot 113 3.8 3.8 100.0 Total 3000 100.0 100.0

104

Compared to your friends and family, when it comes to how you use energy, do you believe you are a...


Percent Valid Low energy user 972 32.4 32.4 32.4

Medium energy user 1882 62.7 62.7 95.1 High energy user 146 4.9 4.9 100.0 Total 3000 100.0 100.0

105

Believe you Know About Energy Sources

How much do you believe you know about the following energy sources in Canada?

Statistics

N

Mean Std. Deviation Valid Missing [Q7.0] Oil from Oil sands/Tar sands 3000 0 2.55 .990

[Q7.1] Wind 3000 0 2.83 .890 [Q7.2] Hydroelectric 3000 0 2.99 1.015 [Q7.3] Shale gas 3000 0 2.10 .962 [Q7.4] Geothermal 3000 0 2.29 .960 [Q7.5] Nuclear 3000 0 2.48 .990 [Q7.6] Coal 3000 0 2.55 .953 [Q7.7] Solar 3000 0 2.87 .873 [Q7.8] Bioenergy (from wood, waste, plants, alcohol fuels)

3000 0 2.38 .924

[Q7.9] Oil from sources other than oil sands/tar sands

3000 0 2.46 .974

[Q7.10] Natural gas from sources other than shale gas

3000 0 2.49 .966

106

How much do you believe you know about the following energy sources? | Oil from Oil sands/Tar sands




107

How much do you believe you know about the following energy sources? | Wind




108

How much do you believe you know about the following energy sources? | Hydroelectric




109

How much do you believe you know about the following energy sources? | Shale gas




110

How much do you believe you know about the following energy sources? | Geothermal




111

How much do you believe you know about the following energy sources? | Nuclear




112

How much do you believe you know about the following energy sources? | Coal




113

How much do you believe you know about the following energy sources? | Solar




114

How much do you believe you know about the following energy sources? | Bioenergy

(from wood, waste, plants, alcohol fuels)




115

How much do you believe you know about the following energy sources? | Oil from

sources other than oil sands/tar sands




116

How much do you believe you know about the following energy sources? | Natural gas

from sources other than shale gas




117

Oppose Support Energy Sources

In general, to what extent do you support or oppose further development of the following energy sources in Canada. | Oil from Oil sands/Tar sands


Percent Valid Strongly oppose 351 11.7 11.7 11.7

Oppose 524 17.5 17.5 29.2 Neither support nor oppose 1280 42.7 42.7 71.8 Support 678 22.6 22.6 94.4 Strongly support 167 5.6 5.6 100.0 Total 3000 100.0 100.0

118

In general, to what extent do you support or oppose further development of the following

energy sources in Canada. | Wind




119

In general, to what extent do you support or oppose further development of the following energy sources in Canada. | Hydroelectric


Percent Valid Strongly oppose 21 .7 .7 .7


120

In general, to what extent do you support or oppose further development of the following energy sources in Canada. | Shale gas




121

In general, to what extent do you support or oppose further development of the following energy sources in Canada. | Geothermal




122

In general, to what extent do you support or oppose further development of the following energy sources in Canada. | Nuclear




123

In general, to what extent do you support or oppose further development of the following energy sources in Canada. | Coal




124


energy sources in Canada. | Solar




125


energy sources in Canada. | Bioenergy (from wood, waste, plants, alcohol fuels)




126


energy sources in Canada. | Oil from sources other than oil sands/tar sands




127

In general, to what extent do you support or oppose further development of the following energy sources in Canada. | Natural gas from sources other than shale gas




128

Appendix 3: Indicator to Indicator Comparisons

Correlations

Cautious Fair

Process Values

Humans Connected

Nature Fragile


Nature Robust

Business As Usual Beliefs

Perceived Knowledge


Know

Energy Source

Renewable Oppose Support

Energy Source Fossil

Nuclear Oppose Support

Barriers Participation Knowledge

Fear


Apathy

Energy Discussion


Public

Energy Discussion


Home Energy

Behaviour Willingness

Cautious Fair Process Values

Pearson Correlation 1 .570** .507** -.213** .094** .306** .378** -.040* .095** -.099** -.023 .261** .060**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .030 .000 .000 .217 .000 .002

N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 2607 Humans Connected Nature Fragile

Pearson Correlation .570** 1 .659** -.290** .066** .272** .416** -.164** .096** -.103** -.065** .207** .114**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 2607 Climate Change Urgent Beliefs

Pearson Correlation .507** .659** 1 -.318** .058** .284** .424** -.274** .083** -.111** -.018 .169** .234**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .336 .000 .000

N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 2607 Nature Robust Business As Usual Beliefs

Pearson Correlation -.213** -.290** -.318** 1 .104** -.018 -.174** .418** -.002 .222** .055** -.179** .011

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .330 .000 .000 .903 .000 .002 .000 .568

N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 2607 Perceived Knowledge

Pearson Correlation .094** .066** .058** .104** 1 .572** .314** .203** -.376** -.113** .178** .244** .184**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 2607 Home Energy Transportation Know

Pearson Correlation .306** .272** .284** -.018 .572** 1 .373** .078** -.219** -.105** .106** .292** .297**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .330 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 2607 Energy Source Renewable Oppose Support

Pearson Correlation .378** .416** .424** -.174** .314** .373** 1 .088** -.050** -.121** -.005 .218** .189**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .006 .000 .788 .000 .000

N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 2607 Energy Source Fossil Nuclear Oppose Support

Pearson Correlation -.040* -.164** -.274** .418** .203** .078** .088** 1 -.065** .045* .036* -.045* .010

Sig. (2-tailed) .030 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .014 .048 .013 .600

N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 2607

129

Barriers Participation Knowledge Fear

Pearson Correlation .095** .096** .083** -.002 -.376** -.219** -.050** -.065** 1 .488** -.106** -.138** -.013

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .903 .000 .000 .006 .000 .000 .000 .000 .498

N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 2607 Barriers Participation Tone Time Apathy

Pearson Correlation -.099** -.103** -.111** .222** -.113** -.105** -.121** .045* .488** 1 -.007 -.171** .004

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .014 .000 .717 .000 .852

N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 2607 Energy Discussion Participation Collective-Public

Pearson Correlation -.023 -.065** -.018 .055** .178** .106** -.005 .036* -.106** -.007 1 .352** .093**

Sig. (2-tailed) .217 .000 .336 .002 .000 .000 .788 .048 .000 .717 .000 .000

N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 2607 Energy Discussion Participation Collective-Individual

Pearson Correlation .261** .207** .169** -.179** .244** .292** .218** -.045* -.138** -.171** .352** 1 .077**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .013 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 2607 Home Energy Behaviour Willingness

Pearson Correlation .060** .114** .234** .011 .184** .297** .189** .010 -.013 .004 .093** .077** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .000 .000 .568 .000 .000 .000 .600 .498 .852 .000 .000

N 2607 2607 2607 2607 2607 2607 2607 2607 2607 2607 2607 2607 2607 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

130

Correlations

[Q5] Compared to your friends and family,

how much do you believe you know about how energy is used in

Canada? Perceived Knowledge




Correct


Sure of My Answer

Kendall's tau_b [Q5] Compared to your friends and family, how much do you believe you know about how energy is used in Canada?

Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .542** .080** .175** .090** .142** .251**

Sig. (2-tailed) . .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 2858

Perceived Knowledge Correlation Coefficient .542** 1.000 .078** .192** .108** .173** .264**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 . .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 2858

Home Lighting Correct Correlation Coefficient .080** .078** 1.000 .074** .138** .123** .123**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 . .000 .000 .000 .000 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 2858

Build a Machine Correct Correlation Coefficient .175** .192** .074** 1.000 .220** .270** .200**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 . .000 .000 .000 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 2858


Correlation Coefficient .090** .108** .138** .220** 1.000 .355** .169**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 . .000 .000 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 2858


Correlation Coefficient .142** .173** .123** .270** .355** 1.000 .197**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 . .000 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 2858

Sure of My Answer Correlation Coefficient .251** .264** .123** .200** .169** .197** 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 . N 2858 2858 2858 2858 2858 2858 2858

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

131

Correlations

Cautious Fair

Process Values

Humans Connected



How would you describe your

political views? Cautious Fair Process Values Pearson Correlation 1 .570** .507** -.213** -.059**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .001 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000

Humans Connected Nature Fragile

Pearson Correlation .570** 1 .659** -.290** -.137** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000


Pearson Correlation .507** .659** 1 -.318** -.253** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000


Pearson Correlation -.213** -.290** -.318** 1 .295** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000

[Q43] How would you describe your political views?

Pearson Correlation -.059** -.137** -.253** .295** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .000 .000 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000


132

Correlations

Cautious Fair

Process Values

Humans Connected




Oppose Support

Energy Source Fossil Nuclear

Oppose Support

How would you describe your

political views? Cautious Fair Process Values

Pearson Correlation 1 .570** .507** -.213** .378** -.040* -.059** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .030 .001 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000


Pearson Correlation .570** 1 .659** -.290** .416** -.164** -.137** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000


Pearson Correlation .507** .659** 1 -.318** .424** -.274** -.253** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000


Pearson Correlation -.213** -.290** -.318** 1 -.174** .418** .295** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000

Energy Source Renewable Oppose Support

Pearson Correlation .378** .416** .424** -.174** 1 .088** -.110** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000

Energy Source Fossil Nuclear Oppose Support

Pearson Correlation -.040* -.164** -.274** .418** .088** 1 .306** Sig. (2-tailed) .030 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000

[Q43] How would you describe your political views?

Pearson Correlation -.059** -.137** -.253** .295** -.110** .306** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

133

Correlations

Energy Discussion


Public

Energy Discussion



Fear


Apathy Trust Insiders Trust

Outsiders Province Trusted

Province Biased

Energy Discussion Participation Collective-Public

Pearson Correlation 1 .352** -.106** -.007 .007 .023 -.015 .008 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .717 .696 .204 .412 .643 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000

Energy Discussion Participation Collective-Individual

Pearson Correlation .352** 1 -.138** -.171** -.113** .139** -.152** .126** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000


Pearson Correlation -.106** -.138** 1 .488** .088** .078** .091** .042* Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .021 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000

Barriers Participation Tone Time Apathy

Pearson Correlation -.007 -.171** .488** 1 .098** -.057** .092** .041* Sig. (2-tailed) .717 .000 .000 .000 .002 .000 .024 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000

Trust Insiders Pearson Correlation .007 -.113** .088** .098** 1 .323** .507** -.221** Sig. (2-tailed) .696 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000

Trust Outsiders Pearson Correlation .023 .139** .078** -.057** .323** 1 .211** .141** Sig. (2-tailed) .204 .000 .000 .002 .000 .000 .000 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000

Province Trusted Pearson Correlation -.015 -.152** .091** .092** .507** .211** 1 -.289** Sig. (2-tailed) .412 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000

Province Biased Pearson Correlation .008 .126** .042* .041* -.221** .141** -.289** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .643 .000 .021 .024 .000 .000 .000 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

134

Correlations

Cautious Fair

Process Values

Humans Connected

Nature Fragile

Climate Change

Urgent Beliefs


Energy Discussion


Public

Energy Discussion



Fear


Apathy Cautious Fair Process Values

Pearson Correlation 1 .570** .507** -.213** -.023 .261** .095** -.099** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .217 .000 .000 .000 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000


Pearson Correlation .570** 1 .659** -.290** -.065** .207** .096** -.103** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000


Pearson Correlation .507** .659** 1 -.318** -.018 .169** .083** -.111** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .336 .000 .000 .000 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000


Pearson Correlation -.213** -.290** -.318** 1 .055** -.179** -.002 .222** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .002 .000 .903 .000 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000

Energy Discussion Participation Collective-Public

Pearson Correlation -.023 -.065** -.018 .055** 1 .352** -.106** -.007 Sig. (2-tailed) .217 .000 .336 .002 .000 .000 .717 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000


Pearson Correlation .261** .207** .169** -.179** .352** 1 -.138** -.171** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000


Pearson Correlation .095** .096** .083** -.002 -.106** -.138** 1 .488** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .903 .000 .000 .000 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000


Pearson Correlation -.099** -.103** -.111** .222** -.007 -.171** .488** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .717 .000 .000 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000


135

Correlations

Energy Discussion


Public

Energy Discussion



Fear


Apathy Perceived Knowledge


Know Sure of My

Answer Energy Discussion Participation Collective-Public

Pearson Correlation 1 .352** -.106** -.007 .178** .106** .057** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .717 .000 .000 .002 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 2858


Pearson Correlation .352** 1 -.138** -.171** .244** .292** .214** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 2858


Pearson Correlation -.106** -.138** 1 .488** -.376** -.219** -.240** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 2858


Pearson Correlation -.007 -.171** .488** 1 -.113** -.105** -.099** Sig. (2-tailed) .717 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 2858

Perceived Knowledge Pearson Correlation .178** .244** -.376** -.113** 1 .572** .366** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 2858

Home Energy Transportation Know

Pearson Correlation .106** .292** -.219** -.105** .572** 1 .307** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 2858

Sure of My Answer Pearson Correlation .057** .214** -.240** -.099** .366** .307** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 2858 2858 2858 2858 2858 2858 2858


136

References Comeau, L. (2014). Exploring the ethical orientations of environmental lifestyle practitioners: A mixed-

method study. Unpublished Dissertation. University of New Brunswick. Comeau, L., Stedman, R., Beckley, T., & Parkins, J. (2015). Citizen perspectives on energy issues: National

survey 2015: University of New Brunswick, University of Alberta, Cornell University. Davidson, D. J., & Freudenburg, W. R. (1996). Gender and environmental risk concerns: A review and

analysis of available research. Environment and Behavior, 28, 302-339. Dunlap, R. E., & Jones, R. E. (2002). Environmental Concern: Conceptual and Measurement Issues. In R. E.

Dunlap & W. Michelson (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Sociology (pp. 482-524). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Dunlap, R. E., VanLiere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP Scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425-442.

Haddock, G., & Maio, G. R. (Eds.). (2006). Contemporary perspectives on the psychology of attitudes. New York: Psychology Press Inc.

Maio, G. R., Esses, V. M., Arnold, K. H., & Olson, J. M. (2006). The function-structure model of attitudes. In G. Haddock & G. R. Maio (Eds.), Contemporary Perspectives on the Psychology of Attitudes (pp. 9-33). New York: Psychology Press.

Moore, M. C., Turcotte, A., Winter, J., & Walp, P. B. (2013). Energy and energy literacy in Canada: A survey of busines and policy leadership. Calgary: University of Calgary.

Smith, J. W., Leahy, J. H., Anderson, D. E., & Davenport, M. A. (2013). Community/agency trust and public involvement in resource planning. Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal, 26(4), 452-471.

Taylor, P. (1986). Respect for nature: A theory of environmental ethics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Turcotte, A., Moore, M. C., & Winter, J. (2012). Energy literacy in Canada. Calgary: University of Calgary.

citizen perspectives on energy issues: national survey · 2019-03-31 · an academic team from four...

Documents