Communication of CCS monitoring activities may not have a reassuring effect on the public

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

Volumn 5, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 1674-1679

  L'Orange Seigo, Selma ^a   Wallquist, Lasse ^a   Dohle, Simone ^a   Siegrist, Michael ^a  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

CCS; Monitoring; Public perception; Risk communication; Risk perception

Indexed keywords

CARBON DIOXIDE; MONITORING; RISK PERCEPTION;

CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGES (CCS); EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS; GENDER DIFFERENCES; MONITORING ACTIVITIES; NEGATIVE AFFECTS; ON-LINE EXPERIMENTS; PUBLIC PERCEPTION; RISK COMMUNICATION;

CARBON CAPTURE;

CARBON DIOXIDE; CARBON SEQUESTRATION; GENDER DISPARITY; MONITORING; RISK PERCEPTION;

EID: 81455141484     PISSN: 17505836     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2011.05.040     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Aiken T. GHGT-10 Conference Summary, 10th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies 2010.
2. Betsch T., Glöckner A. Intuition in judgment and decision making: extensive thinking without effort. Psychol. Inq. 2010, 21:279-294.
3. BFS Statistik des jährlichen Bevölkerungsstandes (Espop) und der natürlichen Bevölkerungsbewegung (Bevnat) 2008. Provisorische Ergebnisse 2008, Swiss Federal Statistical Office, Neuchâtel.
4. Burgess A. Cellular Phones, Public Fears and a Culture of Precaution 2004, University Press, Cambridge.
5. Carver R.P. Reading Rate: A Review of Research and Theory 1990, Academic Press, Inc., San Diego.
6. 2 geological storage really mean? 2008.
7. Davidson D.J., Freudenburg W.R. Gender and environmental risk concerns - a review and analysis of available research. Environ. Behav. 1996, 28:302-339.
8. 2 capture and storage technologies in The Netherlands. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2009, 3:322-332.
9. Easterbrook J.A. The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychol. Rev. 1959, 66:183-201.
10. Finucane M.L., Alhakami A., Slovic P., Johnson S.M. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J. Behav. Decis. Making 2000, 13:1-17.
11. Finucane M.L., Slovic P., Mertz C.K., Flynn J., Satterfield T.A. Gender, race, and perceived risk: the 'white male' effect. Health Risk Soc. 2000, 2:159-172.
12. Fleishman L.A., De Bruin W.B., Morgan M.G. Informed public preferences for electricity portfolios with CCS and other low-carbon technologies. Risk Anal. 2010, 30:1399-1410.
13. Gigerenzer G. Fast and frugal heuristics: the tools of bounded rationality. Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making 2004, 62-88. Blackwell, Oxford, UK. D. Koehler, N. Harvey (Eds.).
14. Greenberg S., Gauvreau L. Public Acceptance and Communications, IEA-GHG CCS Summer School 2010, Svalbard, Norway.
15. Ha-Duong M., Nadai A., Campos A.S. A survey on the public perception of CCS in France. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2009, 3:633-640.
16. Lau R.R., Redlawsk D.P. Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 2001, 45:951-971.
17. Lerner J.S., Keltner D. Fear, anger, and risk. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 81:146-159.
18. Malone E.L., Dooley J.J., Bradbury J.A. Moving from misinformation derived from public attitude surveys on carbon dioxide capture and storage towards realistic stakeholder involvement. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2010, 4:419-425.
19. Miller E., Bell L., Buys L. Public understanding of carbon sequestration in Australia: socio-demographic predictors of knowledge, engagement and trust. Aust. J. Emer. Technol. Soc. 2007, 5:15-33.
20. Reiner D.M., Curry T.E., De Figueiredo M.A., Herzog H.J., Ansolabehere S.D., Itaoka K., Johnsson F., Odenberger M. American exceptionalism? Similarities and differences in national attitudes toward energy policy and global warming. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40:2093-2098.
21. Siegrist M., Cousin M.-E., Kastenholz H., Wiek A. Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: the influence of affect and trust. Appetite 2007, 49:459-466.
22. Simon H.A. A behavioral model of rational choice. Q. J. Econ. 1955, 69:99-118.
23. Slovic P., Finucane M.L., Peters E., MacGregor D.G. The affect heuristic. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2007, 177:1333-1352.
24. Terwel B.W., Harinck F., Ellemers N., Daamen D.D.L. How organizational motives and communications affect public trust in organizations: the case of carbon dioxide capture and storage. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29:290-299.
25. Wallquist L., Visschers V.H.M., Dohle S., Siegrist M. Adapting communication to the public's intuitive understanding of CCS. Greenhouse Gases: Sci. Technol. 2011, 1:83-91.
26. Wallquist L., Visschers V.H.M., Siegrist M. Lay concepts on CCS deployment in Switzerland based on qualitative interviews. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2009, 3:652-657.
27. Wallquist L., Visschers V.H.M., Siegrist M. Impact of knowledge and misconceptions on benefit and risk perception of CCS. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44:6557-6562.
28. Wiedemann P.M., Schütz H. The precautionary principle and risk perception: experimental studies in the EMF area. Environ. Health Perspect. 2005, 113:402-405.
29. Wiedemann P.M., Thalmann A.T., Grutsch M.A., Schütz H. The impacts of precautionary measures and the disclosure of scientific uncertainty on EMF risk perception and trust. J. Risk Res. 2006, 9:361-372.