Measuring public acceptance with opinion mining: The case of the energy industry with long-term coal Research and Development investment projects
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37380/jisib.v8i2.319Keywords:
Carbon Capture and Storage, CCS, greenhouse gas control, market deployment, opinion mining, public acceptance, web-intelligenceAbstract
New Web 2.0-based technologies have emerged in the field of competitor/market intelligence. This paper discusses the factors influencing long-term product development, namely coal combustion long-term R&D/Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology, and presents a new method application for studying it via opinion mining. The technology market deployment has been challenged by public acceptance. The media images/opinions of coal power and CCS are studied through the opinion mining approach with a global machine learning based media analysis using M-Adaptive software. This is a big data-based learning machine media sentiment analysis focusing on both editorial and social media, including both structured data from payable sources and unstructured data from social media. If the public acceptance is ignored, it can at its worst cause delayed or abandoned market deployment of long-term energy production technologies, accompanied by techno-economic issues. The results are threefold: firstly, it is suggested that this type of methodology can be applied to this type of research problem. Secondly, from the case study, it is apparent that CCS is unknown also based on this type of approach. Finally, poor media exposure may have influenced technology market deployment in the case of CCS.
References
Abrahams, A. S., Jiao, J., Fan, W., Wang, G. A., and Zhang, Z. (2013). What's buzzing in the blizzard of buzz? automotive component isolation in social media postings. Decision Support Systems, 55 (4): 871. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.12.023
Åhman, M., Nikoleris, A., and Wyns, T. (2013). Decarbonizing industry: emerging roadmaps point to major need for financing radical innovation. Carbon Management, 4 (1): 5-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4155/cmt.12.77
Alphen, K., Voorst tot Voorst, Q., Hekkert, M., and Smits, R. (2007). Societal acceptance of carbon capture and storage technologies. Energy Policy, 35 (8): 4368–4380. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.03.006
Ashworth, P., Boughen, N., Mayhew, M., and Millar, F. (2009). An integrated roadmap of communication activities around carbon capture and storage in Australia and beyond. Energy Procedia. 1 (1): 4749-4756. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.300
Le Bars, Y., Murray, C., Ormai, P., Seppälä, T., and Bøhmer, N. Summary of the Panel Discussion Concluding Session IV on Public Involvement and Acceptance Panel IV: ‘Can NIMBY be overcome?’
Bell, D., Gray, T., and Haggett, C. (2005). The ‘Social Gap’ in Wind Farm Siting Decisions: Explanations and Policy Responses. Environmental Politics, 14 (4): 460-477. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010500175833
Berendsen, G., Middel, R., Pieters, I., Angard, F., and Hillerström, F. (2015). Social media within sustainable product development: an exploratory multiple case study on the perception of social media usability in the new product development process. Int. J. Technology Intelligence and Planning, 10 (3/4): 273–293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTIP.2015.070846
Bradbury, J., Ray, I., Peterson, T., Wade, S., Wong-Parodi, G., and Feldpausch, A. (2009). The role of social factors in shaping public perceptions of CCS: Results of multi-state focus group interviews in the U.S. Energy Procedia, 1 (1): 4665–4672. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.289
Brouwer, A. S., van den Broek, M., Seebregts, A., and Faaij, A. (2015). Operational flexibility and economics of power plants in future low-carbon power systems. Applied Energy, (156): 107-128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.06.065
Bucchi, M. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science. Featured in: M. Bucchi and B. Trench (Ed.) Handbook of public communication of science and technology, New York: Routledge International Handbooks, 57-76.
Budd, J.M. (2007). Information, analysis, and ideology: A case study of science and the public interest. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58 (14): 2366-2371. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20703
Budescu, D. V., Broomell, S., and Por, H.-H. (2009). Improving Communication of Uncertainty in the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Psychological Science 20 (3): 299-308. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02284.x
Burnham, J., Debande, O., Jones, O., Mihai, C., Moore, J. and Temperton, I. (2013). Report on Innovative Financial Instruments for the Implementation of the SET Plan, First-of-a-kind project. JRC Scientific and Policy Reports, Ref: EUR 26058, OPOCE LD-NA-26058-EN-N, https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/default/files/ldna26058enn_002.pdf, accessed 23 May 2017.
Burscher, B., Vliegenthart, R., and de Vreese, C. (2015). Frames Beyond Words: Applying Cluster and Sentiment Analysis to News Coverage of the Nuclear Power Issue. Social Science Computer Review, 1-16
Breukers, S. and Upham, P. (2015). Organisational aspects of public engagement in European energy infrastructure planning: the case of early-stage CCS projects. Journal of Environmental Planning & Management, 58 (2): 252-269. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2013.851597
Cambria, E., Schuller, B., Xia, Y., and Havasi, C. (2013). New avenues in opinion mining and sentiment analysis. IEEE Intelligent Systems 28 (2): 15-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2013.30
Carragee, K. M. and Roefs, W. (2004). The neglect of power in recent framing research. Journal of Communication, 54: 214–233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02625.x
Chen, H. (2010). Business and market intelligence 2.0. IEEE Intelligent Systems 25(1): 68-71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2010.27
Chen, H., Chiang, R. H., and Storey, V. C. (2012). Business intelligence and analytics: From big data to big impact. MIS Quarterly, 1165-1188. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/41703503
Dapeng, L. and Weiwei, W. (2009). Barriers and incentives of CCS deployment in China: Results from semi-structured interviews, Energy Policy, 37 (6): 2421–2432. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.02.032
de Best-Waldhober, M., Daamen, D, and Faaij, A. (2009). Informed and uninformed public opinions on CO2 capture and storage technologies in the Netherlands, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 3 (3): 322–332. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2008.09.001
de Coninck, H., Stephens, J. C. , and Metz, B. (2009). Global learning on carbon capture and storage: A call for strong international cooperation on CCS demonstration. Energy Policy, 37 (6): 2161-2165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.01.020
Dessler, A. E. and Parson, E. A. (2006). The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change: A Guide to the Debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790430
Dütschke, E. (2011). What drives local public acceptance – comparing two cases from Germany, Energy Procedia, 4: 6234–6240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.636
Du Toit, A. S. (2015). Competitive intelligence research: An investigation of trends in the literature. Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business, 5(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.37380/jisib.v5i2.127
Druckman, J. (2004). Priming the vote: Campaign effects in a U.S. Senate Election. Political Psychology 25 (4): 577-594. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00388.x
Feldpausch-Parker, A., Burnham, M., Melnik, M., Callaghan, M. L., and Selfa, T. (2015). News Media Analysis of Carbon Capture and Storage and Biomass: Perceptions and Possibilities. Energies, 8 (4): 3058-3074. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/en8043058
Firestone, J. and Kempton, W. (2007). Public opinion about large offshore wind power: Underlying factors, Energy Policy, 35 (3): 1584–1598. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.04.010
Fleishman, L. A., De Bruin, W. B., and Morgan, M. G. (2010). Informed Public Preferences for Electricity Portfolios with CCS and Other Low-Carbon Technologies, Risk Analysis, 30(9): 1399–1410. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01436.x
Folke, C., Radgen, P., Rode, H., Irons, R., Schaaf, H., Read, A., Möller, B. F., Schoenmakers, H., Imber, P., and Peter, K. (2011). E.ON’s current CCS activities, Energy Procedia, 4: 6091-6098. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.615
Fütterer, M. A., Carlsson, J., de Groot, S., Deffrennes, M., and Bredimas, A. (2014). European energy policy and the potential impact of HTR and nuclear cogeneration, Nuclear Engineering and Design 27: 73–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2013.11.013
Gerbner, G. and Gross, L. (1976). Living with the television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication 26 (2): 172-194. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01397.x
Gielen, D., Podkanski, J., and Unander, F. (2004). Prospects for CO2 capture and storage Organization for Economic Co-operation and Economic Development, (OECD)/International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris, France, p.252.
Godbole, N., Srinivasaiah, M., and Skiena, S. (2007). Large-scale sentiment analysis for news and blogs. ICWSM, 7 (21): 219-222.
Gough, C. (2008). State of the art in carbon dioxide capture and storage in the UK: An experts’ review. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 2 (1): 155–168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1750-5836(07)00073-4
Greenberg, M. and Truelove, H. B. (2011). Energy choices and risk beliefs: Is it just global warming and fear of a nuclear power plant accident? Risk Analysis, 31 (5): 819-831. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01535.x
Grove-White, R., Kearnes, M., Macnaghten, P., and Wynne, B. (2006). Nuclear futures: Assessing public attitudes to new nuclear power, Political Quarterly, 77 (2): 238–246. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-923X.2006.00766.x
Grubler, A. and Riahi, K. (2010). "Do governments have the right mix in their energy R&D portfolios?", Carbon Management, 1 (1): 79-87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4155/cmt.10.16
Gupta, N., Fischer, A. R. H., and Frewer, L. J. (2012). Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: A review. Public Understanding of Science 21 (7): 782-795. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510392485
Hammond, G. P., Akwe, S. S. O., and Williams, S. (2011). Techno-economic appraisal of fossil- fuelled power generation systems with carbon dioxide capture and storage. Energy. 36 (2): 975-984. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.12.012
Heras-Saizarbitoria, I., Cilleruelo, E., and Zamanillo, I. (2011). Public acceptance of renewables and the media: An analysis of the spanish PV solar experience. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15 (9): 4685-4696. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.083
Huijts, N. M. A., Midden, C. K. H., and Meijnders, A. L. (2007). Social acceptance of carbon dioxide storage, Energy Policy, 35 (5): pp.2780–2789. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.007
Huijts, N. M. A., Molin, E. J. E., and Steg, L. (2012). Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: A review-based comprehensive framework. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16 (1) 525– 531. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.08.018
IEA. (2010). Energy technology perspectives: Scenarios & Strategies to 2050, International Energy Agency, Paris, https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/etp2010.pdf accessed 23 May 2017.
Itaoka, K., Saito, A., and Akai, M. (2004). Public acceptance of CO2-capture and storage technology: a survey of public opinion to explore influential factors, the Seventh International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Technologies, Vancouver, 5 September 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044704-9/50102-6
Kim, Y., Kim, M., and Kim, W. (2013). Effect of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on global public acceptance of nuclear energy. Energy Policy, 61: 822–828. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.107
Kramer, G. J. and Haigh, M. (2009). No quick switch to low-carbon energy. Nature, 462: 568-569 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/462568a
Krause, R. M., Carley, S. R., Warren, D. C., Rupp, J. A., and Graham, J. D. (2014). ‘Not in (or Under) My Backyard’: Geographic Proximity and Public Acceptance of Carbon Capture and Storage Facilities. Risk Analysis, 34 (3): 529–540. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12119
Lohwasser, R. and Madlener, R. (2012). Economics of CCS for coal plants: Impact of investment costs and efficiency on market diffusion in Europe. Energy Economics, 34 (3): 850–863. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2011.07.030
Li, Y. and Li, T. (2013). Deriving market intelligence from microblogs doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2013.01.023 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2013.01.023
Liu, B. and Zhang, L. (2012). A survey of opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Mining text data. Springer. 415-463. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3223-4_13
Mathews, J. A., Kidney, S., Mallon, K., and Hughes, M. (2010). Mobilizing private finance to drive an energy industrial revolution. Energy Policy, 38 (7): 3263-3265. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.02.030
Maddali, V., Tularam, G. A., and Glynn, P. (2015). Economic and Time-Sensitive Issues Surrounding CCS: A Policy Analysis. Environmental Science & Technology, 49 (15): 8959-8968. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b00839
Midttun, A. and Gautesen, K. (2007). Feed in or certificates, competition or complementarity? Combining a static efficiency and a dynamic innovation perspective on the greening of the energy industry, Energy Policy. 35 (3): 1419-1422. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.04.008
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., and Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review 22 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/259247
(4): 853-886.
McCorkindale, T., DiStaso, M. W., and Carroll, C. (2013). The power of social media and its influence on corporate reputation. The Handbook of Communication and Corporate Reputation, 497-512. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118335529.ch40
Matthes, J. and Kohring, M. (2008). The content analysis of media frames: Toward improving reliability and validity. Journal of Communication, (58): 258–279. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00384.x
M-Brain. Corporate communications. Received 11/2015.
Miller, J. and Krosnick, J. (2000). News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. American Journal of Political Science, 44 (2): 295-309. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2669312
Nasukawa, T. and Yi, J. (2003). Sentiment analysis: Capturing favorability using natural language processing. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Knowledge Capture, 70-77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/945645.945658
Nuortimo, K. (2012). Essays on exploring alternatives in CO2-neutral power generation product development. Licentiate thesis. University of Oulu.
Nuortimo, Kalle & Harkonen, Janne & Karvonen, Erkki. (2017). Exploring the global media image of solar power. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 81. 2806-2811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.086. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.086
Nuortimo, K., Härkönen, J., and Karvonen, E. (2017b). Exploring the social acceptance of biomass power, Interdisciplinary Environmental Review, 18 (1): 14–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IER.2017.084191
Oltraa, C., Salaa, R., Solàa, R., Di Massob, M., and Rowec, G. (2010). Lay perceptions of carbon capture and storage technology. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 4 (4): 698–706. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.02.001
Palmgren, C. R., Morgan, M. G., de Bruin, W. B., and Keith, D. W. (2004). Initial Public Perceptions of Deep Geological and Oceanic Disposal of Carbon Dioxide, Environmental Science & Technology, 38 (24): 6441–6450. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/es040400c
Peñalver-Martinez, I., Garcia-Sanchez, F., Valencia-Garcia, R., Rodríguez-García, M. Á., Moreno, V., Fraga, A., and Sánchez- Cervantes, J. L. (2014). Feature-based opinion mining through ontologies. Expert Systems with Applications, 41 (13): 5995-6008. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.03.022 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.03.022
Pietilä, V. (1997). Joukkoviestintätutkimuksen valtateillä. Tampere: Vastapaino. In Finnish.
Rainer, D. (2008). A Looming Rhetorical Gap: A Survey of Public Communications Activities for Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Technologies. Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
Reis, T., Barroso, A. C., and Imakuma, K. (2014). Monitoring and analysis of nuclear acceptance by information retrieval and opinion extraction on the internet. Available from Thiago Reis, retrieved on 21 June 2016.
Ruester, S., Schwenen, S., Finger, M., and Glachant, J.-M. (2014).A post-2020 EU energy technology policy: Revisiting the strategic energy technology plan, Energy Policy, 66: 209–217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.044
Santos, S. (2015). Oxy-CFB Combustion Technology, Its potential role in CO2-mitigation; O2GEN workshop, 18 June 2015, Turku, Finland.
Scheufele, D. (1999). Framing as a Theory of Media Effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1): 103-122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/49.1.103
Shah, D. V., Watts, M. D., Domke, D., and Fan,D. P. (2002). News framing and cueing of issue regimes: Explaining Clinton’s public approval in spite of scandal. Public Opinion Quarterly, (66): 339–370. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/341396
Slotegraaf, R. J., Moorman, C., and Inman, J. J. (2003).The Role of Firm Resources in Returns to Market Deployment, Journal of Marketing Research, 40 (3): 295-309. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.40.3.295.19235
Song, M. and Thieme, J. (2009). The role of suppliers in market intelligence gathering for radical and incremental innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management 26(1), 43-57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00333.x
Sovacool, B. and Ratan, P. L. (2012). Conceptualizing the acceptance of wind and solar electricity. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16 (7): 5268–5279. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.04.048
Siegrist, M. (2000).The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology, Risk Analysis 20 (2): 195–203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.202020
Siegrist, M., Cousin, M.-E., Kastenholz, H., and Wiek, A. (2007a). Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: The influence of affect and trust, Appetite, 49 (2): 459–466. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.03.002
Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Kastenholz, H., Frey, S., and Wiek, A. (2007b). Laypeople's and Experts' Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards, Risk Analysis 27 (1): 59–69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00859.x
Slovic, P., Flynn, J., and Layman, M. (1991). Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics of Nuclear Waste. Science 254: 1603–1608. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.254.5038.1603
Stieglitz, S. and Linh D.-X. (2013). Emotions and Information Diffusion in Social Media— Sentiment of Microblogs and Sharing Behavior. Journal of Management Information Systems 29 (4): 217-248 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222290408
Teo, T. S. and Choo, W. Y. (2001). Assessing the impact of using the internet for competitive intelligence. Information & Management, 39(1), 67-83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00080-5
Ter Mors, E., Weenig, M. W. H., Ellemers, N., and Daamen, D. D. L. (2010). Effective communication about complex environmental issues: Perceived quality of information about carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) depends on stakeholder collaboration. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30 (4): 347-357. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.06.001
Terwel, B. W., Harinck, F., Ellemers, N., and Daamen, D. D .L. (2009). Competence-Based and Integrity-Based Trust as Predictors of Acceptance of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS). Risk Analysis 29 (8), 1129–1140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01256.x
Terwel, B. W., Harinck, F., Ellemers, N., and Daamen, D. D. L. (2011). Going beyond the properties of CO2 capture and storage (CCS) technology: How trust in stakeholders affects public acceptance of CCS. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 5 (2): 181–188. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.10.001
Tokushige, K., Akimoto, K., and Tomoda, T. (2007). Public perceptions on the acceptance of geological storage of carbon dioxide and information influencing the acceptance, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 1 (1): 101–112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1750-5836(07)00020-5
Valkenburg, P. and Valkenburg, W. (2016). Media Effects: Theory and Research.. 67: 315– 338. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033608
Wallquist, L., Visschers, V. H. M., and Siegrist, M. (2009). Lay concepts on CCS deployment in Switzerland based on qualitative interviews. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 3 (5): 652–657. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2009.03.005
Wallquist, L., Visschers, V. H. M., and Siegrist, M. (2010). Impact of Knowledge and Misconceptions on Benefit and Risk Perception of CCS. Environmental Science & Technology, 44 (17): 6557–6562. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/es1005412
Wallquist, L., Seigo, S. L., Visschers, V. H., and Siegrist, M. (2012). Public acceptance of CCS system elements: A conjoint measurement. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, (6): 77-83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2011.11.008
Wennersten, R., Sun, Q., and Li, H. (2015). The future potential for Carbon Capture and Storage in climate change mitigation – an overview from perspectives of technology, economy and risk. Journal of Cleaner Production, 103 (15): 724-736. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.023
Wolsink, M. (2000). Wind power and the NIMBY- myth: Institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renewable Energy 21 (1): 49-64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-1481(99)00130-5
Wolsink, M. (2007). Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes: Equity and fairness instead of ‘backyard motives’. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11 (6): 1188–1207. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2005.10.005
Wood, E. (2001). Marketing information systems in tourism and hospitality small- and medium- sized enterprises: A study of internet use for market intelligence. International Journal of Tourism Research, 3(4): 283-299. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.315
Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., and Bürera, M. J. (2007). Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy, 35 (5): 2683–2691. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.001
Xu, K., Liao, S. S., Li, J., and Song, Y. (2011). Mining comparative opinions from customer reviews for competitive intelligence. Decision Support Systems, 50(4): 743-754. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.08.021
Zhang, Z. and Huising, D. (2017). Carbon dioxide storage schemes: Technology, assessment and deployment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, Part 2: 1055–1064. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.199
Zechendorf, B. (1994). What the Public Thinks about Biotechnology. Bio/Technology, 12: 870–875. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0994-870
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
