IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v38y2014icp48-59.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impact of religious faith on attitudes to environmental issues and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies: A mixed methods study

Author

Listed:
  • Hope, Aimie L.B.
  • Jones, Christopher R.

Abstract

An exploratory mixed methods study was conducted to investigate potential differences in the pro-environmental values and beliefs of people from the UK Christian, Muslim and secular (non-religious) communities. The study explored how religion might shape perspectives on themes within the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale, including the relationship between humans and the environment (Dunlap, Kent, Mertig, & Jones, 2000). This study also explored how religious beliefs and values might influence perspectives on: (a) climate change; and (b) the acceptability of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Hope, Aimie L.B. & Jones, Christopher R., 2014. "The impact of religious faith on attitudes to environmental issues and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies: A mixed methods study," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 48-59.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:38:y:2014:i:c:p:48-59
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2014.02.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X14000177
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2014.02.003?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. Lennart Sjöberg, 2000. "Factors in Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, February.
    2. Lasse Wallquist & Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Simone Dohle & Michael Siegrist, 2011. "Adapting communication to the public's intuitive understanding of CCS," Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 1(1), pages 83-91, March.
    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. Dina M. Abdelzaher & Amr Kotb & Akrum Helfaya, 2019. "Eco-Islam: Beyond the Principles of Why and What, and Into the Principles of How," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(3), pages 623-643, March.
    2. Asghar Afshar Jahanshahi & Bakr Al‐Gamrh & Behrooz Gharleghi, 2020. "Sustainable development in Iran post‐sanction: Embracing green innovation by small and medium‐sized enterprises," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 781-790, July.
    3. Odunsi Oluwafemi & Daramola Oluwole & Agbabiaka Hazeez & Olowoporoku Oluwaseun & Awodele Daniel, 2018. "Coping with sanitary hazards in hostels: The influence of student’s socioeconomic variability," Environmental & Socio-economic Studies, Sciendo, vol. 6(2), pages 56-69, June.
    4. Ho, Manh-Tung & Mantello, Peter & Ghotbi, Nader & Nguyen, Minh-Hoang & Nguyen, Hong-Kong T. & Vuong, Quan-Hoang, 2022. "Rethinking technological acceptance in the age of emotional AI: Surveying Gen Z (Zoomer) attitudes toward non-conscious data collection," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    5. Katja Witte, 2021. "Social Acceptance of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) from Industrial Applications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-29, November.
    6. Asghar Afshar Jahanshahi & Alexander Brem, 2018. "Antecedents of Corporate Environmental Commitments: The Role of Customers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-10, June.
    7. Jhannel Tomlinson & Kevon Rhiney, 2018. "Assessing the role of farmer field schools in promoting pro-adaptive behaviour towards climate change among Jamaican farmers," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 8(1), pages 86-98, March.
    8. Sharma, Swati & Ang, James B. & Fredriksson, Per G., 2021. "Religiosity and climate change policies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    9. Amanda Kennard, 2021. "My Brother’s Keeper: Other-regarding preferences and concern for global climate change," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 345-376, April.
    10. Mertzanis, Charilaos, 2018. "Institutions, development and energy constraints," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 962-982.
    11. Li, Jiajia & Li, Houjian, 2022. "Spiritual support or living support: Which alleviates solid fuel use for rural households in ethnical minority regions of China?," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 479-491.
    12. Denni Arli & Patrick Esch & Yuanyuan Cui, 2023. "Who Cares More About the Environment, Those with an Intrinsic, an Extrinsic, a Quest, or an Atheistic Religious Orientation?: Investigating the Effect of Religious Ad Appeals on Attitudes Toward the E," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 185(2), pages 427-448, June.
    13. Jin, S.W. & Li, Y.P. & Nie, S. & Sun, J., 2017. "The potential role of carbon capture and storage technology in sustainable electric-power systems under multiple uncertainties," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 467-480.

    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. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    2. Michalis Diakakis & Dimitris G. Damigos & Andreas Kallioras, 2020. "Identification of Patterns and Influential Factors on Civil Protection Personnel Opinions and Views on Different Aspects of Flood Risk Management: The Case of Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-20, July.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:3:p:513-546 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Hye Kyung Kim & Yungwook Kim, 2019. "Risk Information Seeking and Processing About Particulate Air Pollution in South Korea: The Roles of Cultural Worldview," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(5), pages 1071-1087, May.
    5. B. J. M. Ale, 2005. "Tolerable or Acceptable: A Comparison of Risk Regulation in the United Kingdom and in the Netherlands," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 231-241, April.
    6. Tianlong Yu & Hao Yang & Xiaowei Luo & Yifeng Jiang & Xiang Wu & Jingqi Gao, 2021. "Scientometric Analysis of Disaster Risk Perception: 2000–2020," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-19, December.
    7. S. A. Mashi & A. I. Inkani & Oghenejeabor Obaro & A. S. Asanarimam, 2020. "Community perception, response and adaptation strategies towards flood risk in a traditional African city," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(2), pages 1727-1759, September.
    8. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    9. Jantsje M. Mol & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Julia E. Blasch & Hans de Moel, 2020. "Insights into Flood Risk Misperceptions of Homeowners in the Dutch River Delta," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(7), pages 1450-1468, July.
    10. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 2005. "Aggregate, Disaggregate, and Hybrid Analyses of Ecological Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 405-428, April.
    11. Hannah Eboh & Courtney Gallaher & Thomas Pingel & Walker Ashley, 2021. "Risk perception in small island developing states: a case study in the Commonwealth of Dominica," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 105(1), pages 889-914, January.
    12. Mei‐Chih Meg Tseng & Yi‐Ping Lin & Fu‐Chang Hu & Tsun‐Jen Cheng, 2013. "Risks Perception of Electromagnetic Fields in Taiwan: The Influence of Psychopathology and the Degree of Sensitivity to Electromagnetic Fields," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(11), pages 2002-2012, November.
    13. Nina Veflen & Joachim Scholderer & Solveig Langsrud, 2020. "Situated Food Safety Risk and the Influence of Social Norms," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(5), pages 1092-1110, May.
    14. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser & Peter R. Harris & Sabine Pahl, 2007. "Who Reaps the Benefits, Who Bears the Risks? Comparative Optimism, Comparative Utility, and Regulatory Preferences for Mobile Phone Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 741-753, June.
    15. Garrett C. Waycaster & Taiki Matsumura & Volodymyr Bilotkach & Raphael T. Haftka & Nam H. Kim, 2018. "Review of Regulatory Emphasis on Transportation Safety in the United States, 2002–2009: Public versus Private Modes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 1085-1101, May.
    16. Matt Baucum & Heather Rosoff & Richard John & William Burns & Paul Slovic, 2018. "Modeling public responses to soft-target transportation terror," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 239-249, June.
    17. Lorraine Whitmarsh & Dimitrios Xenias & Christopher R. Jones, 2019. "Framing effects on public support for carbon capture and storage," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-10, December.
    18. Gea Hoogendoorn & Bernadette Sütterlin & Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Tampering with Nature: A Systematic Review," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 141-156, January.
    19. Fermín Mallor & Carmen García‐Olaverri & Sagrario Gómez‐Elvira & Pedro Mateo‐Collazas, 2008. "Expert Judgment‐Based Risk Assessment Using Statistical Scenario Analysis: A Case Study—Running the Bulls in Pamplona (Spain)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 1003-1019, August.
    20. Julita Gil Cuesta & Joris Adriaan Frank Van Loenhout & Maria Da Conceição Colaço & Debarati Guha-Sapir, 2017. "General Population Knowledge about Extreme Heat: A Cross-Sectional Survey in Lisbon and Madrid," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-11, January.
    21. Bart Vyncke & Tanja Perko & Baldwin Van Gorp, 2017. "Information Sources as Explanatory Variables for the Belgian Health‐Related Risk Perception of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 570-582, March.

    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:teinso:v:38:y:2014:i:c:p:48-59. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    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.