| Summary: | Energy-security indices typically treat their component dimensions—Availability, Diversity, Cost, Technology & Efficiency, Location, Timeframe, Resilience, Environment, Health, Culture, Literacy, Employment, Policy, Military, and Cyber Security—as equally important. This assumption has rarely been validated against societal preferences. The present research tests it in Jordan, a net-importing nation seeking to diversify and decarbonise its energy mix, by asking: How do social aspects impact public perceptions of the relative importance of energy security dimensions?
A structured questionnaire employing a five-point scale gathered 1,000 responses distributed proportion-ally across four income quartiles and six educational categories. Descriptive statistics and one-way ANOVA were used to explore three sub-questions: (1) How do income groups differ in their perceptions of the importance of each energy security dimension? (2) How do education levels influence the perceived importance of energy security dimensions? (3) Do statistically significant differences in perception exist across social groups for any energy security dimensions?
A structured questionnaire employing a five-point scale gathered 1 000 responses distributed proportion-ally across four income quartiles and six educational categories. Descriptive statistics and one-way ANOVA were used to compare mean ratings within and between groups. Dimension weights were then normalised to percentage shares to create perception-based weighting profiles.
Across the full sample the fifteen dimensions cluster tightly between 6.2 % and 7.2 % of total perceived importance, confirming broad support for a multidimensional approach. Nevertheless, Policy (6.9 %) and Technology & Efficiency (7.0 %) emerge as modest but consistent frontrunners, while Cost, Location and Cyber-security sit at the lower end of the range.
Income differences are muted: low-income respondents accentuate short-term welfare dimensions (Avail-ability, Health), whereas high-income respondents give slightly greater weight to forward-looking Timeframe and Technology considerations. Educational attainment introduces more nuance: holders of diplomas and bachelor’s degrees rate Policy and Technology highest, postgraduate respondents elevate Resilience and Military, and those with limited schooling prioritise Environment and Employment.
The equal-weighting convention remains a defensible baseline, yet micro-adjustments grounded in public perception can enhance the sensitivity and legitimacy of composite energy-security indices. For Jordan the findings translate into three actionable imperatives: strengthen institutional transparency, accelerate technological upgrades (especially digital grid management and renewables) and adopt integrative policies that acknowledge environmental, health and cultural co-benefits. Methodologically, the survey instrument offers a replicable template for other countries, enabling cross-national comparisons of the social elasticity of energy-security priorities.
By reconciling normative index design with empirical social evidence, this thesis bridges a critical gap in energy-security scholarship and provides policymakers with a citizen-anchored compass for navigating the transition toward resilient, low-carbon energy systems.
|
|---|