IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v82y2025ics0160791x25000818.html

Public attitudes towards gasification technologies in the UK, Germany and China and their susceptibility to the Nasty Effect

Author

Listed:
  • Jones, Christopher R.
  • Lee, Roh Pin
  • Kaklamanou, Daphne

Abstract

In many countries, there is growing interest in the use of gasification technologies as an alternative to oil and natural gas in industrial-scale chemical production. Gasification could help to reduce reliance on fossil fuel imports and, depending upon the feedstock used, could help to decarbonise and improve the circularity of the sector. Despite the importance that public acceptance can have for the roll-out of industrial technologies, studies into public attitudes and risk perceptions of gasification technology are lacking. To address this gap, the current study investigated public attitudes towards two forms of gasification (coal and waste gasification) using an online survey distributed to demographically representative samples of the public from the UK, Germany and China. The objectives were to: (1) gain insight into public attitudes towards the use of gasification technologies in these countries; (2) assess potential divergence in public attitudes towards the use of different carbon sources within gasification; and (3) identify the potential impact of negative social framing – namely the Nasty Effect – on risk perceptions. Results showed that attitudes towards gasification were generally positive in all three countries, although significantly more so in China. The anticipated preference for waste gasification was observed in the UK and Germany but not in China. There was little consistent evidence of the Nasty Effect in terms of participants’ evaluations of the technological and environmental risks of gasification in each country. The results hold potential implications for the development of future outreach and communication activities relating to the technology.

Suggested Citation

  • Jones, Christopher R. & Lee, Roh Pin & Kaklamanou, Daphne, 2025. "Public attitudes towards gasification technologies in the UK, Germany and China and their susceptibility to the Nasty Effect," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:82:y:2025:i:c:s0160791x25000818
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2025.102891
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X25000818
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2025.102891?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sedona Chinn & P. Sol Hart, 2021. "Effects of consensus messages and political ideology on climate change attitudes: inconsistent findings and the effect of a pretest," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 167(3), pages 1-21, August.
    2. Santa Margarida Santos & Ana Carolina Assis & Leandro Gomes & Catarina Nobre & Paulo Brito, 2022. "Waste Gasification Technologies: A Brief Overview," Waste, MDPI, vol. 1(1), pages 1-26, December.
    3. Clarke, Christopher E. & Hart, Philip S. & Schuldt, Jonathon P. & Evensen, Darrick T.N. & Boudet, Hilary S. & Jacquet, Jeffrey B. & Stedman, Richard C., 2015. "Public opinion on energy development: The interplay of issue framing, top-of-mind associations, and political ideology," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 131-140.
    4. Ronald W. Breault, 2010. "Gasification Processes Old and New: A Basic Review of the Major Technologies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 3(2), pages 1-25, February.
    5. Hilary S. Boudet, 2019. "Public perceptions of and responses to new energy technologies," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 4(6), pages 446-455, June.
    6. Lorraine Whitmarsh & Dimitrios Xenias & Christopher R. Jones, 2019. "Framing effects on public support for carbon capture and storage," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-10, December.
    7. Bart W. Terwel & Fieke Harinck & Naomi Ellemers & Dancker D. L. Daamen, 2009. "Competence‐Based and Integrity‐Based Trust as Predictors of Acceptance of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(8), pages 1129-1140, August.
    8. Hobman, Elizabeth V. & Ashworth, Peta, 2013. "Public support for energy sources and related technologies: The impact of simple information provision," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 862-869.
    9. Shackley, Simon & Mander, Sarah & Reiche, Alexander, 2006. "Public perceptions of underground coal gasification in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(18), pages 3423-3433, December.
    10. Jones, Christopher R. & Eiser, J. Richard & Gamble, Tim R., 2012. "Assessing the impact of framing on the comparative favourability of nuclear power as an electricity generating option in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 451-465.
    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. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.
    13. Peters, Derek & Axsen, Jonn & Mallett, Alexandra, 2018. "The role of environmental framing in socio-political acceptance of smart grid: The case of British Columbia, Canada," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P2), pages 1939-1951.
    14. Raoul Voss & Roh Pin Lee & Magnus Fröhling, 2023. "A consequential approach to life cycle sustainability assessment with an agent‐based model to determine the potential contribution of chemical recycling to UN Sustainable Development Goals," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 27(3), pages 726-745, June.
    15. James N. Druckman & Kjersten R. Nelson, 2003. "Framing and Deliberation: How Citizens' Conversations Limit Elite Influence," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(4), pages 729-745, October.
    16. Jiyoung Lee & Jihyang Choi & Jiwon Kim, 2022. "Effects of online incivility and emotions toward in-groups on cross-cutting attention and political participation," Behaviour and Information Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(14), pages 3013-3027, October.
    17. Levidow, Les & Upham, Paul, 2017. "Linking the multi-level perspective with social representations theory: Gasifiers as a niche innovation reinforcing the energy-from-waste (EfW) regime," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 1-13.
    18. Foster, William & Azimov, Ulugbek & Gauthier-Maradei, Paola & Molano, Liliana Castro & Combrinck, Madeleine & Munoz, Jose & Esteves, Jaime Jaimes & Patino, Luis, 2021. "Waste-to-energy conversion technologies in the UK: Processes and barriers – A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Scovell, Mitchell & McCrea, Rod & Walton, Andrea & Poruschi, Lavinia, 2024. "Local acceptance of solar farms: The impact of energy narratives," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 189(PB).
    2. Hübner, Gundula & Leschinger, Valentin & Müller, Florian J.Y. & Pohl, Johannes, 2023. "Broadening the social acceptance of wind energy – An Integrated Acceptance Model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    3. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2022. "Homes of the future: Unpacking public perceptions to power the domestic hydrogen transition," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    4. Kallbekken, Steffen & Skjeflo, Sofie Waage & Westberg, Nina Bruvik & Jåstad, Eirik Ogner, 2025. "Green dilemmas: Public opposition and support for Norway's energy transition," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 334(C).
    5. Ho, Shirley S. & Oshita, Tsuyoshi & Looi, Jiemin & Leong, Alisius D. & Chuah, Agnes S.F., 2019. "Exploring public perceptions of benefits and risks, trust, and acceptance of nuclear energy in Thailand and Vietnam: A qualitative approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 259-268.
    6. Antoine Boche & Clément Foucher & Luiz Fernando Lavado Villa, 2022. "Understanding Microgrid Sustainability: A Systemic and Comprehensive Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-29, April.
    7. Liuyang Yao & Qian Zhang & Kin Keung Lai & Xianyu Cao, 2020. "Explaining Local Residents’ Attitudes toward Shale Gas Exploitation: The Mediating Roles of Risk and Benefit Perceptions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-13, October.
    8. Sward, Jeffrey A. & Nilson, Roberta S. & Katkar, Venktesh V. & Stedman, Richard C. & Kay, David L. & Ifft, Jennifer E. & Zhang, K. Max, 2021. "Integrating social considerations in multicriteria decision analysis for utility-scale solar photovoltaic siting," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 288(C).
    9. Bonaiuto, M. & Mosca, O. & Milani, A. & Ariccio, S. & Dessi, F. & Fornara, F., 2024. "Beliefs about technological and contextual features drive biofuels’ social acceptance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 189(PA).
    10. Van Dael, Miet & Lizin, Sebastien & Swinnen, Gilbert & Van Passel, Steven, 2017. "Young people’s acceptance of bioenergy and the influence of attitude strength on information provision," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 417-430.
    11. Fikru, Mahelet G., 2025. "Policy preference for a net zero carbon economy: Results from a US national survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    12. Čábelková, Inna & Strielkowski, Wadim & Streimikiene, Dalia & Cavallaro, Fausto & Streimikis, Justas, 2021. "The social acceptance of nuclear fusion for decision making towards carbon free circular economy: Evidence from Czech Republic," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    13. Arndt, Christoph, 2023. "Climate change vs energy security? The conditional support for energy sources among Western Europeans," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    14. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2023. "Price promises, trust deficits and energy justice: Public perceptions of hydrogen homes," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    15. Katja Witte, 2021. "Social Acceptance of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) from Industrial Applications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-29, November.
    16. Shyu, Chian-Woei & Yang, Tzu-I, 2025. "Socio-technical tensions from community acceptance, energy transition, and energy justice: Lessons from solar photovoltaic projects in Taiwan," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 384(C).
    17. Emma Uebelhor & Olivia Hintz & Sarah B. Mills & Abigail Randall, 2021. "Utility-Scale Solar in the Great Lakes: Analyzing Community Reactions to Solar Developments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-20, February.
    18. Zumofen, Guillaume, 2025. "Combining a conjoint experiment and machine learning model to include end-users in a constructive technology assessment: The case of seasonal thermal energy storage," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    19. Hao Yu & David M. Reiner & Hao Chen & Zhifu Mi, 2018. "A comparison of public preferences for different low-carbon energy technologies: Support for CCS, nuclear and wind energy in the United Kingdom," Working Papers EPRG 1810, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    20. Lange, Marcus & Cummins, Valerie, 2021. "Managing stakeholder perception and engagement for marine energy transitions in a decarbonising world," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:82:y:2025:i:c:s0160791x25000818. 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.