The infl uence of information on individuals' reactions to CCS technologies: Results from experimental online survey research

Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology

Volumn 2, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 209-215

  Oltra, Christian ^a   Sala, Roser ^a   Boso, Àlex ^a  

^a CIEMAT   (Spain)

Author keywords

Attitudes; Carbon capture and storage; Information; Perceptions

Indexed keywords

SENSORY PERCEPTION; SURVEYS;

ATTITUDES; CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGES (CCS); CCS TECHNOLOGIES; INFORMATION; NATURAL PROCESS; ONLINE SURVEYS; SOCIAL RESEARCH;

CARBON CAPTURE;

EID: 84875228460     PISSN: None     EISSN: 21523878     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ghg.1285     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Reiner DM, Curry TE, de Figueiredo MA, Herzog HJ, Ansolabehere SD, Itaoka K et al., American exceptionalism? Similarities and differences in national attitudes toward energy policy and global warming. Environ Sci Technol 40:2093-2098 (2006).
2. De Best-Waldhober M, Daamen D, Ramirez Ramirez A, Faaij A, Hendriks C and de Visser E, Informed public opinions on CCS in comparison to other mitigation options. Energy Procedia 1:4795-4802 (2009).
3. Fleishman LA, De Bruin WB and Morgan MG, Informed public preferences for electricity portfolios with CCS and other low-carbon technologies. Risk Anal 30:1399-1410 (2010).
4. Upham P and Roberts T, Public perceptions of CCS: Emergent themes in pan-European focus groups and implications for communications. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 5:1359-1367 (2011).
5. Malone E, Dooley J and Bradbury J, Moving from misinformation derived from public attitude surveys on carbon dioxide capture and storage towards realistic stakeholder involvement. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 4:419-425 (2010).
6. 2 capture and storage. [Online]. (2011) Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/public- opinion/archives/ebs/ebs-364-en.pdf.
7. Palmgren CR, Morgan MG, Bruine de Bruin W and Keith DW, Initial public perceptions of deep geological and oceanic disposal of carbon dioxide. Environ Sci Technol 38:6441- 6450 (2004).
8. Anderson A, Allan S, Petersen A and Wilkinson C, The framing of nanotechnologies in the British newspaper press. Sci Commun 27:200-220 (2005). (Pubitemid 41795479)
9. Cobb MD, Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27:221-239 (2005). (Pubitemid 41795480)
10. Schütz H and Wiedemann PM, Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 17:369-379 (2008).
11. Tokushige K, Akimoto K and Tomoda T, Public perceptions on the acceptance of geological storage of carbon dioxide and information infl uencing the acceptance. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 1:101-112 (2007). (Pubitemid 46959044)
12. Ha-Duong M, Nadaï A and Sofia Campos A, A survey on the public perception of CCS in France. Energy Procedia 1:4757-4764 (2009).
13. Wong-Parodi G, Dowlatabadi H, McDaniels T and Ray I, Infl uencing attitudes towards carbon capture and sequestration: A social marketing approach. Environ Sci Technol 45:6743-6751 (2011).
14. L'Orange Seigo S, Wallquist L, Dohle S and Siegrist M, Communication of CCS monitoring activities may not have a reassuring effect on the public. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 5:1674-1679 (2011).
15. Wallquist L, Visschers VHM, Dohle S and Siegrist M, Adapting communication to the public's intuitive understanding of CCS. Greenhouse Gas Sci Tech 1:83-91 (2011).
16. Oltra C, Sala R, Solà R, Di Masso M and Rowe G, Lay perceptions of carbon capture and storage technology. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 4:698-706 (2010).
17. Sjoberg L, Antagonism, trust and perceived risk. Risk Management 10:32-55 (2008).
18. Slovic P, The Perception of Risk. Earthscan, London (2001).
19. 2 capture and storage (CCS) technology: How trust in stakeholders affects public acceptance of CCS. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 5:181-188 (2011).
20. Hammond J and Shackley S, Towards a Public Communication and Engagement Strategy for Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Projects in Scotland. A Review of Research Findings, CCS Project Experiences, Tools, Resources and Best Practices. [Online]. Working paper SCCS 2010-08 (2010). Available at: http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/carbcap/website/publications/sccs-wp/wp-2010-08.pdf.
21. Bradbury J, Public Engagement in CCS: Analysis of Six US Projects. InCluESEV International Workshop. London, October-November (2011).
22. 2 storage sites: Lessons from fi ve European cases. Energ Environ 23:227-248 (2012).
23. Löfstedt R, Evaluation of siting strategies: The case of two UK waste tire incinerators. Risk, Health, Saf Environ 10:7-30 (1997).
24. Rogers G, Siting potentially hazardous facilities: What factors impact perceived and acceptable risk? Landscape Urban Plan 39:265-281 (1998). (Pubitemid 28180980)
25. Devine-Wright P, Beyond NIMBYism: Towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 8:125-139 (2005). (Pubitemid 40844432)
26. Galdi S, Arcuri L and Gawronski B, Automatic mental associations predict future choices of undecided decisionmakers. Science 22:1100-1102 (2008).
27. Horlick-Jones T, Walls J and Kitzinger J, Bricolage in action: Learning about, making sense of, and discussing, issues about genetically modifi edcrops and food. Health Risk Soc 9:83-103 (2007). (Pubitemid 46371950)