IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/rensus/v144y2021ics1364032121001672.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What drives public acceptance of sustainable CO2-derived building materials? A conjoint-analysis of eco-benefits vs. health concerns

Author

Listed:
  • Arning, K.
  • Offermann-van Heek, J.
  • Ziefle, M.

Abstract

To reduce CO2-emissions following global and national climate protection plans, the deployment of Carbon Capture and Utilization technologies (CCU), where CO2-emissions can be captured and used as raw materials to produce valuable products, is driven forward. Thermal insulation boards are a CO2-derived product option based on polyurethane plastics, which are used for the thermal insulation of building envelopes. Despite their importance for a CO2reduction in the building sector, the public perception and acceptance of CO2-derived products also need to be considered as decisive factors for a successful deployment of CCU. In this study, perceptions, acceptance levels and a multicriteria-decision-analysis based on the conjoint analysis approach among potential customers were assessed. Findings revealed an overall positive perception and positive acceptance levels of CO2-derived insulation boards. The main impact factors on purchase decisions were perceived health concerns and concerns about environmental damage during the production or the disposal of insulation boards. Acceptance profiles of two subgroups were identified, in which health aspects and environmental aspects influenced the acceptance decisions. The results contribute to a better understanding of the public response to the development of sustainable technologies and products and to better align their development and communication with the requirements of the population and future consumers. The knowledge can be used to inform science and industry at an early stage about factors relevant to acceptance so that technology development and product roll-out can be optimized not only based on technical, economic, and ecological parameters but also integrating key acceptance parameters.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:144:y:2021:i:c:s1364032121001672
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2021.110873
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032121001672
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110873?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. Vithala R. Rao, 2014. "Applied Conjoint Analysis," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-540-87753-0, November.
    2. Christoph Boehmert & Peter Wiedemann & Jonathon Pye & Rodney Croft, 2017. "The Effects of Precautionary Messages about Electromagnetic Fields from Mobile Phones and Base Stations Revisited: The Role of Recipient Characteristics," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 583-597, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Michael Siegrist, 2000. "The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 195-204, April.
    5. Zaunbrecher, Barbara S. & Linzenich, Anika & Ziefle, Martina, 2017. "A mast is a mast is a mast…? Comparison of preferences for location-scenarios of electricity pylons and wind power plants using conjoint analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 429-439.
    6. Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller & Hans Kastenholz & Silvia Frey & Arnim Wiek, 2007. "Laypeople's and Experts' Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 59-69, February.
    7. L׳Orange Seigo, Selma & Dohle, Simone & Siegrist, Michael, 2014. "Public perception of carbon capture and storage (CCS): A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 848-863.
    8. Judith I. M. de Groot & Linda Steg & Wouter Poortinga, 2013. "Values, Perceived Risks and Benefits, and Acceptability of Nuclear Energy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 307-317, February.
    9. 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.
    10. Judith I. M. De Groot & Linda Steg, 2010. "Morality and Nuclear Energy: Perceptions of Risks and Benefits, Personal Norms, and Willingness to Take Action Related to Nuclear Energy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(9), pages 1363-1373, September.
    11. 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.
    12. Schweizer-Ries, Petra, 2008. "Energy sustainable communities: Environmental psychological investigations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 4126-4135, November.
    13. Deirdre Shaw & Robert McMaster & Terry Newholm, 2016. "Care and Commitment in Ethical Consumption: An Exploration of the ‘Attitude–Behaviour Gap’," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 136(2), pages 251-265, June.
    14. Anand, Chirjiv Kaur & Amor, Ben, 2017. "Recent developments, future challenges and new research directions in LCA of buildings: A critical review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 408-416.
    15. 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.
    16. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher & Carmen Keller, 2005. "Perception of Mobile Phone and Base Station Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1253-1264, October.
    17. Ali Siddiq Alhakami & Paul Slovic, 1994. "A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 1085-1096, December.
    18. 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. Jianling Wang & Chenying Wang & Yi Chen, 2023. "Promoting Residents’ Willingness to Recycle Electronic ICT Waste in China: An Empirical Study Using Conjoint Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-16, August.
    2. Chen, Hong & Gangopadhyay, Partha & Singh, Baljeet & Shankar, Sriram, 2022. "Measuring preferences for energy efficiency in ACI and EU nations and uncovering their impacts on energy conservation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 156(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. 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).
    2. 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).
    3. Nuortimo, Kalle & Härkönen, Janne, 2018. "Opinion mining approach to study media-image of energy production. Implications to public acceptance and market deployment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 210-217.
    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. Linzenich, Anika & Arning, Katrin & Ziefle, Martina, 2021. "Acceptance of energy technologies in context: Comparing laypeople's risk perceptions across eight infrastructure technologies in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    6. Liu, Bingsheng & Xu, Yinghua & Yang, Yang & Lu, Shijian, 2021. "How public cognition influences public acceptance of CCUS in China: Based on the ABC (affect, behavior, and cognition) model of attitudes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    7. Goda Perlaviciute & Linda Steg & Nadja Contzen & Sabine Roeser & Nicole Huijts, 2018. "Emotional Responses to Energy Projects: Insights for Responsible Decision Making in a Sustainable Energy Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-12, July.
    8. 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.
    9. Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2015. "The role of value in the social acceptance of science-technology," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, July.
    10. Katja Witte, 2021. "Social Acceptance of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) from Industrial Applications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-29, November.
    11. 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.
    12. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2022. "Beyond the triangle of renewable energy acceptance: The five dimensions of domestic hydrogen acceptance," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    13. Stephanie Moser & Susanne Elisabeth Bruppacher & Hans‐Joachim Mosler, 2011. "How People Perceive and Will Cope with Risks from the Diffusion of Ubiquitous Information and Communication Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 832-846, May.
    14. 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.
    15. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    16. Christine Merk & Gert Pönitzsch, 2017. "The Role of Affect in Attitude Formation toward New Technologies: The Case of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2289-2304, December.
    17. Lienert, Pascal & Suetterlin, Bernadette & Siegrist, Michael, 2015. "Public acceptance of the expansion and modification of high-voltage power lines in the context of the energy transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 573-583.
    18. 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.
    19. Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller & Hans Kastenholz & Silvia Frey & Arnim Wiek, 2007. "Laypeople's and Experts' Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 59-69, February.
    20. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.

    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:rensus:v:144:y:2021:i:c:s1364032121001672. 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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/description#description .

    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.