Public acceptance of CCS system elements: A conjoint measurement

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

Volumn 6, Issue , 2012, Pages 77-83

  Wallquist, Lasse ^a   Seigo, Selma L'Orange ^a   Visschers, Vivianne H M ^a   Siegrist, Michael ^a  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

BECCS; CCS; Conjoint analysis; Field trials; Public acceptance

Indexed keywords

CARBON DIOXIDE; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; PIPELINES; SOCIAL ASPECTS;

BECCS; CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE AND STORAGE; CONJOINT ANALYSIS; CONJOINT MEASUREMENT; FIELD TRIAL; NOT IN MY BACKYARDS; PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE; PUBLIC PREFERENCES;

CARBON CAPTURE;

CARBON DIOXIDE; CARBON SEQUESTRATION; FIELD SURVEY; GAS PIPELINE; MEASUREMENT METHOD; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; TRADE-OFF;

EID: 84855176022     PISSN: 17505836     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2011.11.008     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Alriksson S., öberg T. Conjoint analysis. Environ. Sci. Poll. Res. 2008, 15:119-119.
2. Ashworth P., Boughen N., Mayhew M., Millar F. From research to action: now we have to move on CCS communication. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2010, 4:426-433.
3. Backhaus K., Erichson B., Plinke W., Rolf W. Multivariate Analysemethoden: Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung 2006, Springer, Berlin. 11th ed.
4. BFE, 2007. Die Energieperspektiven 2035 - Band 1, Synthese. Swiss Federal Office for Energy (BFE).
5. Bundesrat, 2011. Bundesrat beschliesst im Rahmen der neuen Energiestrategie schrittweisen Ausstieg aus der Kernenergie (in German) [Federal Council decides under the new energy strategy, a stepwise phasing out of nuclear energy].
6. Carver R.P. Reading Rate a Review of Research and Theory 1990, Academic Press, San Diego.
7. Curry, T., Reiner, D.M., Ansolabehere, S., Herzog, H.J., 2007. A survey of public attitudes towards climate change and climate change mitigation technologies in the United States: analyses of 2006 results, MIT LFEE 2007-01 WP. http://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/LFEE_2007_01_WP.pdf.
8. 2 capture and storage technologies in the Netherlands. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2009, 3:322-332.
9. Desbarats J., Upham P., Riesch H., Reiner D., Brunsting S., de Best-Waldhober M., Duetschke E., Oltra C., Sala R., McLachlan C. Review of the Public Participation Practices for CCS and Non-CCS Projects in Europe 2010, Institute for European Environmental Policy, London.
10. Devine-Wright P. Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 2005, 8:125-139.
11. Dohle S., Keller C., Siegrist M. Conjoint measurement of base station siting preferences. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 2010, 16:825-836.
12. 2 pipeline networks. Energy Procedia 2009, 1:1595-1602.
13. Dütschke E. What drives local public acceptance - comparing two cases from Germany. Energy Procedia 2011, 4:6234-6240.
14. European Commission, 2007. Energy technologies: Knowledge, perception, measures. Special Eurobarometer 262, Wave 65.3 - TNS Opinion & Social.
15. European Commission, 2011. Public awareness and acceptance of CO2 capture and storage. Special Eurobarometer 364, Wave 75.1 - TNS Opinion & Social.
16. Fischhoff B., Slovic P., Lichtenstein S., Read S., Combs B. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci. 1978, 9:127-152.
17. 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.
18. Frewer L.J., Howard C., Hedderley D., Shepherd R. Consumer attitudes towards different food-processing technologies used in cheese production - the influence of consumer benefit. Food Qual. Prefer. 1997, 8:271-280.
19. Green P.E., Srinivasan V. Conjoint-analysis in marketing - new developments with implications for research and practice. J. Market. 1990, 54:3-19.
20. Hair J.F. Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings 1995, Prentice-Hall International, London. 4th ed.
21. Hsee C.K. The evaluability hypothesis: an explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1996, 67:247-257.
22. Hsee C.K., Leclerc F. Will products look more attractive when presented separately or together?. J. Consum. Res. 1998, 25:175-186.
23. Itaoka K., Okuda Y., Saito A., Akai M. Influential information and factors for social acceptance of CCS: the 2nd round survey of public opinion in Japan. Energy Procedia 2009, 1:4803-4810.
24. L'Orange Seigo S., Wallquist L., Dohle S., Siegrist M. Communication of CCS monitoring activities may not have a reassuring effect on the public. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 2011, 5:1674-1679.
25. 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.
26. Miller E., Summerville J., Buys L., Bell L. Initial public perceptions of carbon geosequestration: implications for engagement and environmental risk communication strategies. Int. J. Global Environ. Issue 2008, 147-164.
27. Palmgren C.R., Morgan G.M., Bruine de Bruin W., Keith D.W. Initial public perceptions of deep geological and oceanic disposal of carbon dioxide. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38:6441-6450.
28. Read P., Lermit J. Bio-energy with carbon storage (BECS): a sequential decision approach to the threat of abrupt climate change. Energy 2005, 30:2654-2671.
29. Shackley S., McLachlan C., Gough C. The public perception of carbon dioxide capture and storage in the UK: results from focus groups and a survey. Clim. Policy 2005, 4:377-398.
30. Siegrist M., Stampfli N., Kastenholz H. Acceptance of nanotechnology foods: a conjoint study examining consumers' willingness to buy. Br. Food J. 2009, 111:660-668.
31. Singleton G., Herzog H., Ansolabehere S. Public risk perspectives on the geologic storage of carbon dioxide. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2009, 3:100-107.
32. SPSS SPSS Conjoint 16.0 2007, SPSS Inc., Chicago.
33. Steubing B., Zah R., Waeger P., Ludwig C. Bioenergy in Switzerland: assessing the domestic sustainable biomass potential. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14:2256-2265.
34. Sutter D., Werner M., Casas N., Marx D., Schell J., Joss L., Zappone A., Mazzotti M. Roadmap for testing feasibility of CCS in Switzerland. Smart Energy Strategies Conference 2011.
35. 2 capture and storage (CCS) technology: how trust in stakeholders affects public acceptance of CCS. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2011, 5:181-188.
36. Thorndike E.L. A constant error in psychological ratings. J. Appl. Psychol. 1920, 4:25-29.
37. Verhagen, M.J.M., 2010. Uitwerking van de afspraken voor de individuele CO2-opslagprojecten die momenteel in voorbereiding zijn (in Dutch) [Elaboration of the agreements regarding the individual CO2 storage projects that are currently in preparation].
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. Wolsink M. Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renew. Energy 2000, 21:49-64.
41. Wolsink M. Invalid theory impedes our understanding: a critique on the persistence of the language of NIMBY. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 2006, 31:85-91.