IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v105y2017icp53-66.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reduce, reuse, recycle: Acceptance of CO2-utilization for plastic products

Author

Listed:
  • van Heek, Julia
  • Arning, Katrin
  • Ziefle, Martina

Abstract

Global warming is a central threat for today's society caused by greenhouse gas emissions, mostly carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon dioxide capture and utilization (CCU) is a promising approach to reduce emissions and the use of expensive and limited fossil resources. Applying CCU, carbon dioxide (CO2) can be incorporated as raw material during the manufacture of plastic products. While most of the studies address technical feasibilities, hardly any systematic research on public perception and acceptance of those specific products exists so far. This study empirically investigates the acceptance of CCU plastic products (mattress as example). First, interviews with experts and lay people revealed critical acceptance factors (CO2 proportion, saving of fossil resources, disposal conditions, perceived health complaints). Their relative importance was detailed in two consecutive conjoint studies. Study 1 revealed disposal conditions and saving of fossil resources as essential for product selection, while the products’ CO2 proportion was less important. In study 2, potential health complaints were integrated as well as individual levels of domain knowledge and risk perception, which significantly affected acceptance of CCU products. Recommendations concerning communication strategies for policy and industry were derived.

Suggested Citation

  • van Heek, Julia & Arning, Katrin & Ziefle, Martina, 2017. "Reduce, reuse, recycle: Acceptance of CO2-utilization for plastic products," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 53-66.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:105:y:2017:i:c:p:53-66
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.02.016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421517300915
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.02.016?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van Alphen, Klaas & van Voorst tot Voorst, Quirine & Hekkert, Marko P. & Smits, Ruud E.H.M., 2007. "Societal acceptance of carbon capture and storage technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 4368-4380, August.
    2. Bruhn, Thomas & Naims, Henriette & Olfe-Kräutlein, Barbara, 2016. "Separating the debate on CO2 utilisation from carbon capture and storage," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 38-43.
    3. Wustenhagen, Rolf & Wolsink, Maarten & Burer, Mary Jean, 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2683-2691, May.
    4. Vithala R. Rao, 2014. "Applied Conjoint Analysis," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-540-87753-0, December.
    5. Gale, John & Davison, John, 2004. "Transmission of CO2—safety and economic considerations," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 29(9), pages 1319-1328.
    6. Salm, Sarah & Hille, Stefanie Lena & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2016. "What are retail investors' risk-return preferences towards renewable energy projects? A choice experiment in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 310-320.
    7. Huijts, Nicole M.A. & Midden, Cees J.H. & Meijnders, Anneloes L., 2007. "Social acceptance of carbon dioxide storage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2780-2789, May.
    8. Simon Shackley & Carly McLachlan & Clair Gough, 2004. "The public perception of carbon dioxide capture and storage in the UK: results from focus groups and a survey," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(4), pages 377-398, December.
    9. W. Neil Adger & Jon Barnett & Katrina Brown & Nadine Marshall & Karen O'Brien, 2013. "Cultural dimensions of climate change impacts and adaptation," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 3(2), pages 112-117, February.
    10. Matthew Cotton & Patrick Devine-Wright, 2013. "Putting pylons into place: a UK case study of public perspectives on the impacts of high voltage overhead transmission lines," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(8), pages 1225-1245, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Asongu, Simplice A. & Le Roux, Sara & Biekpe, Nicholas, 2017. "Environmental degradation, ICT and inclusive development in Sub-Saharan Africa," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 353-361.
    2. Arning, K. & Offermann-van Heek, J. & Ziefle, M., 2021. "What drives public acceptance of sustainable CO2-derived building materials? A conjoint-analysis of eco-benefits vs. health concerns," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    3. Teresa Brell & Ralf Philipsen & Martina Ziefle, 2019. "sCARy! Risk Perceptions in Autonomous Driving: The Influence of Experience on Perceived Benefits and Barriers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 342-357, February.
    4. Arning, K. & Offermann-van Heek, J. & Linzenich, A. & Kaetelhoen, A. & Sternberg, A. & Bardow, A. & Ziefle, M., 2019. "Same or different? Insights on public perception and acceptance of carbon capture and storage or utilization in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 235-249.
    5. Offermann-van Heek, Julia & Arning, Katrin & Sternberg, André & Bardow, André & Ziefle, Martina, 2020. "Assessing public acceptance of the life cycle of CO2-based fuels: Does information make the difference?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    6. Yazan K. A. Migdadi & Ahmed A. Khalifa & Abdullah Al-Swidi & Abdulkarem I. Amhamed & Muftah H. El-Naas, 2022. "A Conceptual Framework of Customer Value Proposition of CCU-Formic Acid Product," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-21, December.
    7. Sahlberg, Anna & Karlsson, Bodil S.A. & Sjöblom, Jonas & Ström, Henrik, 2022. "Don't extinguish my fire – Understanding public resistance to a Swedish policy aimed at reducing particle emissions by phasing out old wood stoves," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    8. Tryfonas Pieri & Alexandros Nikitas & Athanasios Angelis-Dimakis, 2023. "Public Acceptance and Willingness to Pay for Carbon Capture and Utilisation Products," Clean Technol., MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-15, March.
    9. Dessi, F. & Ariccio, S. & Albers, T. & Alves, S. & Ludovico, N. & Bonaiuto, M., 2022. "Sustainable technology acceptability: Mapping technological, contextual, and social-psychological determinants of EU stakeholders’ biofuel acceptance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mengelkamp, Esther & Schönland, Thomas & Huber, Julian & Weinhardt, Christof, 2019. "The value of local electricity - A choice experiment among German residential customers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 294-303.
    2. Simone Carr-Cornish & Peta Ashworth & John Gardner & Stephen Fraser, 2011. "Exploring the orientations which characterise the likely public acceptance of low emission energy technologies," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 107(3), pages 549-565, August.
    3. Perlaviciute, Goda & Steg, Linda, 2014. "Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: Integrated review and research agenda," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 361-381.
    4. Lock, Simon J. & Smallman, Melanie & Lee, Maria & Rydin, Yvonne, 2014. "“Nuclear energy sounded wonderful 40 years ago”: UK citizen views on CCS," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 428-435.
    5. Arning, K. & Offermann-van Heek, J. & Ziefle, M., 2021. "What drives public acceptance of sustainable CO2-derived building materials? A conjoint-analysis of eco-benefits vs. health concerns," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    6. Ciupuliga, A.R. & Cuppen, E., 2013. "The role of dialogue in fostering acceptance of transmission lines: the case of a France–Spain interconnection project," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 224-233.
    7. McComas, Katherine A. & Lu, Hang & Keranen, Katie M. & Furtney, Maria A. & Song, Hwansuck, 2016. "Public perceptions and acceptance of induced earthquakes related to energy development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 27-32.
    8. Linzenich, Anika & Arning, Katrin & Bongartz, Dominik & Mitsos, Alexander & Ziefle, Martina, 2019. "What fuels the adoption of alternative fuels? Examining preferences of German car drivers for fuel innovations," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 249(C), pages 222-236.
    9. Evar, Benjamin, 2011. "Conditional inevitability: Expert perceptions of carbon capture and storage uncertainties in the UK context," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3414-3424, June.
    10. Anne-Maree Dowd & Michelle Rodriguez & Talia Jeanneret, 2015. "Social Science Insights for the BioCCS Industry," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-19, May.
    11. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    12. Knoblauch, Theresa A.K. & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Stauffacher, Michael, 2019. "Siting deep geothermal energy: Acceptance of various risk and benefit scenarios in a Swiss-German cross-national study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 807-816.
    13. Romanach, Lygia & Carr-Cornish, Simone & Muriuki, Grace, 2015. "Societal acceptance of an emerging energy technology: How is geothermal energy portrayed in Australian media?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 1143-1150.
    14. van Os, Herman W.A. & Herber, Rien & Scholtens, Bert, 2014. "Not Under Our Back Yards? A case study of social acceptance of the Northern Netherlands CCS initiative," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 923-942.
    15. Sirr, Gordon & Power, Bernadette & Ryan, Geraldine & Eakins, John & O’Connor, Ellen & le Maitre, Julia, 2023. "An analysis of the factors affecting Irish citizens’ willingness to invest in wind energy projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    16. Sengers, F. & Raven, R.P.J.M. & Van Venrooij, A., 2010. "From riches to rags: Biofuels, media discourses, and resistance to sustainable energy technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 5013-5027, September.
    17. Walsh, Bríd & van der Plank, Sien & Behrens, Paul, 2017. "The effect of community consultation on perceptions of a proposed mine: A case study from southeast Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 163-171.
    18. Zhao, Dong-Xue & He, Bao-Jie & Johnson, Christine & Mou, Ben, 2015. "Social problems of green buildings: From the humanistic needs to social acceptance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1594-1609.
    19. Vuichard, Pascal & Stauch, Alexander & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2021. "Keep it local and low-key: Social acceptance of alpine solar power projects," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    20. Côté, Elizabeth & Đukan, Mak & Pons-Seres de Brauwer, Cristian & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2022. "The price of actor diversity: Measuring project developers’ willingness to accept risks in renewable energy auctions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:105:y:2017:i:c:p:53-66. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.