Support for the Deployment of Climate Engineering: A Comparison of Ten Different Technologies.
Benefit perception
climate engineering
tampering with nature
technology acceptance
trust
Journal
Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis
ISSN: 1539-6924
Titre abrégé: Risk Anal
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8109978
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2020
05 2020
Historique:
received:
28
05
2019
revised:
03
01
2020
accepted:
04
01
2020
pubmed:
1
3
2020
medline:
1
3
2020
entrez:
1
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Due to the renewed increase in CO
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1058-1078Subventions
Organisme : Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
ID : 166098
Pays : International
Informations de copyright
© 2020 Society for Risk Analysis.
Références
Alhakami, A., & Slovic, P. (1994). A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risks and perceived benefits. Risk Analysis, 14(6), 1085-1096. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00080.x
Amelung, D., & Funke, J. (2014). Laypeople's risky decisions in the climate change context: Climate engineering as a risk-defusing strategy? Human and ecological risk assessment: An International Journal, 21(2), 533-559. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2014.932203
Bellamy, R., Chilvers, J., & Vaughan, N. E. (2016). Deliberative mapping of options for tackling climate change: Citizens and specialists 'open up' appraisal of geoengineering. Public Understanding of Science, 25(3), 269-286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514548628
Bostrom, A., O'Connor, R. E., Böhm, G., Hanss, D., Bodi, O., Ekström, F., … Saelensminde, I. (2012). Causal thinking and support for climate change policies: International survey findings. Global Environmental Change, 22(1), 210-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.09.012
Braun, C. (2017). Not in my backyard: CCS sites and public perception of CCS. Risk Analysis, 37(12), 2264-2275. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12793
Braun, C., Merk, C., Pönitzsch, G., Rehdanz, K., & Schmidt, U. (2017). Public perception of climate engineering and carbon capture and storage in Germany: Survey evidence. Climate Policy, 18(4), 471-484. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1304888
Braun, C., Rehdanz, K., & Schmidt, U. (2017). Exploring public perception of environmental technology over time. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 61(1), 143-160. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1291414
Breyer, B. (2015). Left-Right self-placement scale (ALLBUS/GGSS). The collection items and scales for the Social Sciences. Retrieved from https://zis.gesis.org/skala/Breyer-Left-Right-Self-Placement-(ALLBUS)
Bruine de Bruin, W., & Wong-Parodi, G. (2014). The role of initial affective impressions in responses to educational communications: The case of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20(2), 126-135. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000008
Burns, E. T., Flegal, J. A., Keith, D. W., Mahajan, A., Tingley, D., & Wagner, G. (2016). What do people think when they think about solar geoengineering? A review of empirical social science literature, and prospects for future research. Earth's Future, 4(11), 536-542. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016ef000461
Campbell-Arvai, V., Hart, P. S., Raimi, K. T., & Wolske, K. S. (2017). The influence of learning about carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on support for mitigation policies. Climatic Change, 143(3-4), 321-336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2005-1
Carr, W. A., & Yung, L. (2018). Perceptions of climate engineering in the South Pacific, Sub-Saharan Africa, and North American Arctic. Climatic Change, 147(1-2), 119-132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2138-x
Corner, A., Parkhill, K., Pidgeon, N. F., & Vaughan, N. E. (2013). Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 938-947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.06.002
Corner, A., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2014a). Geoengineering, climate change scepticism and the `moral hazard' argument: An experimental study of UK public perceptions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical & Engineering Sciences, 372(2031). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2014.0063
Corner, A., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2014b). Like artificial trees? The effect of framing by natural analogy on public perceptions of geoengineering. Climatic Change, 130(3), 425-438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1148-6
Cummings, C. L., Lin, S. H., & Trump, B. D. (2017). Public perceptions of climate geoengineering: A systematic review of the literature. Climate Research, 73(3), 247-264. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr01475
Cummings, C. L., & Rosenthal, S. (2018). Climate change and technology: Examining opinion formation of geoengineering. Environment Systems and Decisions, 38(2), 208-215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-018-9683-8
EUROSTAT. (2018). Population on 1 January by age and sex. Luxembourg: Author.
Feldman, L., & Hart, P. S. (2018). Is there any hope? How climate change news imagery and text influence audience emotions and support for climate mitigation policies. Risk Analysis, 38(3), 585-602. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12868
Field, C. B., & Mach, K. J. (2017). Rightsizing carbon dioxide removal. Betting the future on planetary-scale carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere is risky. Science, 365(6339), 706-707. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam9726
FSO. (2017a). Bildungsstand der Wohnbevölkerung nach Alter und Geschlecht, 1999-2016 [Education level of the resident population according to age and gender, 1999 - 2016] Bern: Federal Statistical Office Retrieved from https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/bildung-wissenschaft/bildungsstand-kompetenzen/bevoelkerung.assetdetail.2662056.html.
FSO. (2017b). Ständige Wohnbevölkerung nach Alter, Geschlecht und Staatsangehörigkeitskategorie, 2010-2016. [Resident population according to age, gender and category of citizenship]. Bern: Federal Statistical Office Retrieved from https://www.bfs.admin.ch/asset/de/je-d-01.02.03.02
Fuss, S., Lamb, W. F., Callaghan, M. W., Hilaire, J., Creutzig, F., Amann, T., … Minx, J. C. (2018). Negative emissions-Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Environmental Research Letters, 13(6), 063002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f
Gannon, K. E., & Hulme, M. (2018). Geoengineering at the “Edge of the World”: Exploring perceptions of ocean fertilisation through the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation. Geo: Geography and Environment, 5(1), e00054. https://doi.org/10.1002/geo2.54
Greenberg, M. (2009). NIMBY, CLAMP, and the location of new nuclear-related facilities: US national and 11 site-specific surveys. Risk Analysis, 29(9), 1242-1254. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01262.x
Gregory, R., Satterfield, T., & Hasell, A. (2016). Using decision pathway surveys to inform climate engineering policy choices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 113(3), 560-565. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1508896113
Harnisch, S., Uther, S., & Boettcher, M. (2015). From ‘Go Slow’ to ‘Gung Ho’? Climate engineering discourses in the UK, the US, and Germany. Global Environmental Politics, 15(2), 57-78. https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00298
Hoogendoorn, G., Sütterlin, B., & Siegrist, M. (2019). Tampering with nature: A structural review. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Hsee, C. K. (1996). The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 247-257. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0077
Huijts, N. M. A., Molin, E. J. E., & Steg, L. (2012). Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: A review-based comprehensive framework. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(1), 525-531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.08.018
IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved from Geneva, Switzerland: Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/
IPCC. (2018). Global warming of 1.5°C. Summary for policymakers. Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/
Jackson, R. B., Le Quéré, C., Andrew, R. M., Canadell, J. G., Korsbakken, J. I., Liu, Z., … Zheng, B. (2018). Global energy growth is outpacing decarbonization. Environmental Research Letters, 13(12), 120401. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaf303
Jones, A. C., Haywood, J. M., & Boucher, O. (2011). A comparison of the climate impacts of geoengineering by stratospheric SO2 injection and by brightening of marine stratocumulus cloud. Atmospheric Science Letters, 12(2), 176-183. https://doi.org/10.1002/asl.291
Jones, A. C., Haywood, J. M., Dunstone, N., Emanuel, K., Hawcroft, M. K., Hodges, K. I., & Jones, A. (2017). Impacts of hemispheric solar geoengineering on tropical cyclone frequency. Nature Communications, 8(1), 1382. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01606-0
Kahan, D. M., Suhay, E., Druckman, J. N., Jenkins-Smith, H., Tarantola, T., Silva, C. L., & Braman, D. (2015). Geoengineering and climate change polarization: Testing a two-channel model of science communication. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 192-222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214559002
Lawrence, M. G., Schafer, S., Muri, H., Scott, V., Oschlies, A., Vaughan, N. E., … Scheffran, J. (2018). Evaluating climate geoengineering proposals in the context of the Paris Agreement temperature goals. Nature Communications, 9(1), 3734. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05938-3
Mercer, A. M., Keith, D. W., & Sharp, J. D. (2011). Public understanding of solar radiation management. Environmental Research Letters, 6(4), 044006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044006
Merk, C., & Pönitzsch, G. (2017). The role of affect in attitude formation toward new technologies: The case of stratospheric aerosol injection. Risk Analysis, 37(12), 2289-2304. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12780
Merk, C., Pönitzsch, G., Kniebes, C., Rehdanz, K., & Schmidt, U. (2015). Exploring public perceptions of stratospheric sulfate injection. Climatic Change, 130(2), 299-312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1317-7
Merk, C., Pönitzsch, G., & Rehdanz, K. (2016). Knowledge about aerosol injection does not reduce individual mitigation efforts. Environmental Research Letters, 11(5), 054009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/5/054009
Minx, J. C., Lamb, W. F., Callaghan, M. W., Fuss, S., Hilaire, J., Creutzig, F., … del Mar Zamora Dominguez, M. (2018). Negative emissions-Part 1: Research landscape and synthesis. Environmental Research Letters, 13(6), 063001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9b
Moore, J. C., Jevrejeva, S., & Grinsted, A. (2010). Efficacy of geoengineering to limit 21st century sea-level rise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 107(36), 15699-15703. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1008153107
Nemet, G. F., Callaghan, M. W., Creutzig, F., Fuss, S., Hartmann, J., Hilaire, J., … Smith, P. (2018). Negative emissions-Part 3: Innovation and upscaling. Environmental Research Letters, 13(6), 063003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabff4
Pidgeon, N. F., Corner, A., Parkhill, K., Spence, A., Butler, C., & Poortinga, W. (2012). Exploring early public responses to geoengineering. Philosophical transactions of the royal society A: Mathematical, Physical & Engineering Sciences, 370(1974), 4176-4196. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0099
Pidgeon, N. F., Parkhill, K., Corner, A., & Vaughan, N. E. (2013). Deliberating stratospheric aerosol for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project. Nature Climate Change.https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1807
Pidgeon, N. F., & Spence, E. (2017). Perceptions of enhanced weathering as a biological negative emissions option. Biology Letters, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2017.0024
Proctor, J., Hsiang, S., Burney, J., Burke, M., & Schlenker, W. (2018). Estimating global agricultural effects of geoengineering using volcanic eruptions. Nature, 560(7719), 480-483. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0417-3
Questback Ltd. (2015). Unipark [Computer software].
Rahman, A. A., Artaxo, P., Asrat, A., & Parker, A. (2018). Developing countries must lead on solar geoengineering research. Nature, 556, 22-24. https://doi.org/10.1038/d411586-018-03917-8
Scheer, D., & Renn, O. (2014). Public Perception of geoengineering and its consequences for public debate. Climatic Change, 125(3-4), 305-318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1177-1
Shi, J., Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2015). Public perception of climate change: The importance of knowledge and cultural worldviews. Risk Analysis, 35(12), 2183-2201. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12406
Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.202020
Siegrist, M., Cousin, M. E., Kastenholz, H., & Wiek, A. (2007). Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: The influence of affect and trust. Appetite, 49(2), 459-466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.03.002
Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20(5), 713-719. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.205064
Strefler, J., Amann, T., Bauer, N., Kriegler, E., & Hartmann, J. (2018). Potential and costs of carbon dioxide removal by enhanced weathering of rocks. Environmental Research Letters, 13(3), 034010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa9c4
Sütterlin, B., & Siegrist, M. (2016). Public perception of solar radiation management: The impact of information and evoked affect. Journal of Risk Research, 20(10), 1292-1307. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1153501
Sütterlin, B., & Siegrist, M. (2017). Public acceptance of renewable energy technologies from an abstract versus concrete perspective and the positive imagery of solar power. Energy Policy, 106, 356-366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.061
Tobler, C., Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2012). Consumers’ knowledge about climate change. Climatic Change, 114(2), 189-209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0393-1
Trisos, C. H., Amatulli, G., Gurevitch, J., Robock, A., Xia, L., & Zambri, B. (2018). Potentially dangerous consequences for biodiversity of solar geoengineering implementation and termination. Nature Ecology and Evolution, 2(3), 475-482. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0431-0
van Vuuren, D. P., Stehfest, E., Gernaat, D. E. H. J., van den Berg, M., Bijl, D. L., de Boer, H. S., … van Sluisveld, M. A. E. (2018). Alternative pathways to the 1.5 °C target reduce the need for negative emission technologies. Nature Climate Change, 8(5), 391-397. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0119-8
Visschers, V. H. M., Shi, J., Siegrist, M., & Árvai, J. (2017). Beliefs and values explain international differences in perception of solar radiation management: Insights from a cross-country survey. Climatic Change, 142(3-4), 531-544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-1970-8
Wibeck, V., Hansson, A., Anshelm, J., Asayama, S., Dilling, L., Feetham, P. M., … Sugiyama, M. (2017). Making sense of climate engineering: A focus group study of lay publics in four countries. Climatic Change, 145(1-2), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2067-0
Wolske, K. S., Raimi, K. T., Campbell-Arvai, V., & Hart, P. S. (2019). Public support for carbon dioxide removal strategies: The role of tampering with nature perceptions. Climatic Change, 152(3-4), 345-361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02375-z
Wright, M. J., Teagle, D. A. H., & Feetham, P. M. (2014). A quantitative evaluation of the public response to climate engineering. Nature Climate Change, 4(2), 106-110. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2087