Smart grids (SGs) are being deployed as a transformational technology in energy transitions. However, negative consumer responses to both smart meters and new pricing systems indicate that building public acceptance of these transitions is critically important. Deliberative Pollings (DPs) offer the potential to effectively integrate public perceptions into energy transition decision-making. Most deliberative governance studies focus on western countries and very few examine the Asian context. This paper presents an exploratory study of undergraduate students' perceptions of dynamic pricing options in two pilot DPs conducted in the cities of Guangzhou and Kyoto. The study indicates that deliberative processes yield mixed outcomes in changing participants' choice of pricing options. While many welcomed new pricing options, a significant number supported status quo options. Second, the normative mechanisms and outcomes of deliberative participation seem to apply in the Asian context. DP appears to enhance participants' acceptance of complex and sophisticated pricing options. Dialogic processes enhanced the participants' ability to understand complex issues and weigh up trade-offs when comparing options. Third, national level contextual differences associated with public distrust and familiarity with market logic may explain the differences in responses between Chinese and Japanese participants. We argue that complex and controversial energy decision-making needs to be supported by deliberative participatory processes to enable citizens to make informed and considered choices.
Nuclear power has remained a hugely controversial energy technology since the 1970s and became particularly so after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident. Engaging citizens in making energy decisions have thus become an increasingly important governing approach to post‐Fukushima energy transitions in many countries. Deliberative participatory processes and learning through social interactions have been increasingly regarded as critical elements of effective public engagement. Yet, little is known about who learns what, how they learn, and what impacts learning has on nuclear governance. Even less is known about the contextual factors influencing social learning. Advancing the literature on nuclear governance, deliberative participation, and social learning, this paper proposes a learning‐oriented framework to evaluate the outcomes of deliberative participation in the context of nuclear governance. We apply this framework in a case study of a national deliberative poll (DP) on energy conducted in Japan in 2012. We critically examine the extent to which and how social learning occurs under the influence of pre‐existing government‐industry‐society relations as a key contextual factor. Mainly based on a qualitative analysis of transcribed materials from a two‐day deliberation over the DP involving 285 citizens, this study has three main findings. First, participating citizens of the DP were able to acquire all of the three orders of social learning through deliberative processes in the DP process. Second, the provision of multiple sources of information, access to diverse perspectives, and the availability of plenty of dialogic processes are identified as factors that were found to facilitate advancement toward higher orders of learning. Third, the “nuclear iron triangle”—a pro‐nuclear coalition—appeared to constrain social learning impacts in the wider socio‐political systems of nuclear governance in Japan.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.