The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

Default user image.

Aleh Cherp

Professor, Coordinator of the MESPOM Consortium

Default user image.

Defining energy security takes more than asking around

Author

  • Aleh Cherp

Summary, in English

Abstract in Undetermined
The recent contribution by Benjamin Sovacool proposes 20 dimensions and 320 indicators of energy security in Asia. However, the method for identifying these dimensions and indicators – 64 semi-structured interviews – has three shortcomings. First, Asian policy makers responsible for energy security are absent from the pool of respondents dominated by academics. Second, no prioritization or contextualization of energy security concerns is attempted, leading to an excessively long generic list. Third, no disagreements between the interviewed experts are accounted for. Future attempts to define energy security based on perceptions should involve relevant social actors, include mechanisms for discriminating between primary and secondary concerns and find ways to constructively report on disagreements.

Publishing year

2012

Language

English

Publication/Series

Energy Policy

Volume

March 2012

Document type

Journal article (letter)

Publisher

Elsevier

Topic

  • Social Sciences Interdisciplinary

Keywords

  • energy security

Status

Published

ISBN/ISSN/Other

  • ISSN: 1873-6777