IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v145y2017i1d10.1007_s10584-017-2067-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Making sense of climate engineering: a focus group study of lay publics in four countries

Author

Listed:
  • Victoria Wibeck

    (Linköping University)

  • Anders Hansson

    (Linköping University)

  • Jonas Anshelm

    (Linköping University)

  • Shinichiro Asayama

    (Waseda University)

  • Lisa Dilling

    (University of Colorado)

  • Pamela M. Feetham

    (Massey University)

  • Rachel Hauser

    (NCAR/UCAR)

  • Atsushi Ishii

    (Tohoku University)

  • Masahiro Sugiyama

    (The University of Tokyo)

Abstract

This study explores sense-making about climate engineering among lay focus group participants in Japan, New Zealand, the USA and Sweden. In total, 23 qualitative focus group interviews of 136 participants were conducted. The analyses considered sense-making strategies and heuristics among the focus group participants and identified commonalities and variations in the data, exploring participants’ initial and spontaneous reactions to climate engineering and to several recurrent arguments that feature in scientific and public debate (e.g. climate emergency). We found that, despite this study’s wide geographical scope, heterogeneous focus group compositions, and the use of different moderators, common themes emerged. Participants made sense of climate engineering in similar ways, for example, through context-dependent analogies and metaphorical descriptions. With few exceptions, participants largely expressed negative views of large-scale deliberate intervention in climate systems as a means to address anthropogenic global warming.

Suggested Citation

  • Victoria Wibeck & Anders Hansson & Jonas Anshelm & Shinichiro Asayama & Lisa Dilling & Pamela M. Feetham & Rachel Hauser & Atsushi Ishii & Masahiro Sugiyama, 2017. "Making sense of climate engineering: a focus group study of lay publics in four countries," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 145(1), pages 1-14, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:145:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s10584-017-2067-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-017-2067-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-017-2067-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-017-2067-0?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. Merk, Christine & Pönitzsch, Gert & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "Knowledge about aerosol injection does not reduce individual mitigation efforts," Kiel Working Papers 2006, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    2. Holly Jean Buck, 2016. "Rapid scale-up of negative emissions technologies: social barriers and social implications," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 139(2), pages 155-167, November.
    3. Wylie Carr & Christopher Preston & Laurie Yung & Bronislaw Szerszynski & David Keith & Ashley Mercer, 2013. "Public engagement on solar radiation management and why it needs to happen now," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 121(3), pages 567-577, December.
    4. Malcolm J. Wright & Damon A. H. Teagle & Pamela M. Feetham, 2014. "A quantitative evaluation of the public response to climate engineering," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 4(2), pages 106-110, February.
    5. Lisa Dilling & Rachel Hauser, 2013. "Governing geoengineering research: why, when and how?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 121(3), pages 553-565, December.
    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. Sean Low & Livia Fritz & Chad M. Baum & Benjamin K. Sovacool, 2024. "Public perceptions on carbon removal from focus groups in 22 countries," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Marilou Jobin & Michael Siegrist, 2020. "Support for the Deployment of Climate Engineering: A Comparison of Ten Different Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(5), pages 1058-1078, May.
    3. Toby Bolsen & Risa Palm & Russell E. Luke, 2023. "Public response to solar geoengineering: how media frames about stratospheric aerosol injection affect opinions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(8), pages 1-21, August.
    4. Andrews, Talbot M. & Delton, Andrew W. & Kline, Reuben, 2022. "Anticipating moral hazard undermines climate mitigation in an experimental geoengineering game," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    5. Katherine M. Crosman & Ann Bostrom & Adam L. Hayes, 2019. "Efficacy Foundations for Risk Communication: How People Think About Reducing the Risks of Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(10), pages 2329-2347, October.

    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. Toby Bolsen & Risa Palm & Russell E. Luke, 2023. "Public response to solar geoengineering: how media frames about stratospheric aerosol injection affect opinions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(8), pages 1-21, August.
    2. Nadja Contzen & Goda Perlaviciute & Linda Steg & Sophie Charlotte Reckels & Susana Alves & David Bidwell & Gisela Böhm & Marino Bonaiuto & Li-Fang Chou & Victor Corral-Verdugo & Federica Dessi & Thoma, 2024. "Public opinion about solar radiation management: A cross-cultural study in 20 countries around the world," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 177(4), pages 1-25, April.
    3. Marilou Jobin & Michael Siegrist, 2020. "Support for the Deployment of Climate Engineering: A Comparison of Ten Different Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(5), pages 1058-1078, May.
    4. Zhen Dai & Elizabeth T. Burns & Peter J. Irvine & Dustin H. Tingley & Jianhua Xu & David W. Keith, 2021. "Elicitation of US and Chinese expert judgments show consistent views on solar geoengineering," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, December.
    5. Masahiro Sugiyama & Shinichiro Asayama & Atsushi Ishii & Takanobu Kosugi & John C. Moore & Jolene Lin & Penehuro F. Lefale & Wil Burns & Masatomo Fujiwara & Arunabha Ghosh & Joshua Horton & Atsushi Ku, 2017. "The Asia-Pacific’s role in the emerging solar geoengineering debate," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 143(1), pages 1-12, July.
    6. Carola Braun & Christine Merk & Gert Pönitzsch & Katrin Rehdanz & Ulrich Schmidt, 2018. "Public perception of climate engineering and carbon capture and storage in Germany: survey evidence," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(4), pages 471-484, April.
    7. Sebastian Harnisch & Stephanie Uther & Miranda Boettcher, 2015. "From ‘Go Slow’ to ‘Gung Ho’? Climate Engineering Discourses in the UK, the US, and Germany," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 15(2), pages 57-78, May.
    8. Kimberly S. Wolske & Kaitlin T. Raimi & Victoria Campbell-Arvai & P. Sol Hart, 2019. "Public support for carbon dioxide removal strategies: the role of tampering with nature perceptions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 152(3), pages 345-361, March.
    9. Benjamin K. Sovacool & Chad M. Baum & Sean Low, 2022. "Determining our climate policy future: expert opinions about negative emissions and solar radiation management pathways," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 27(8), pages 1-50, December.
    10. Hanak, Dawid P. & Jenkins, Barrie G. & Kruger, Tim & Manovic, Vasilije, 2017. "High-efficiency negative-carbon emission power generation from integrated solid-oxide fuel cell and calciner," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 1189-1201.
    11. Wil Burns & Simon Nicholson, 2017. "Bioenergy and carbon capture with storage (BECCS): the prospects and challenges of an emerging climate policy response," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 7(4), pages 527-534, December.
    12. Adrien Fabre & Gernot Wagner, 2020. "Availability of risky geoengineering can make an ambitious climate mitigation agreement more likely," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-4, December.
    13. Harrison, Nicholas & Herrera Jiménez, Juan & Krieger Merico, Luiz F. & Lorenzo, Santiago & Rondón Toro, Estefani & Rouse, Paul & Samaniego, Joseluis, 2023. "Nature-based solutions and carbon dioxide removal," Documentos de Proyectos 48691, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    14. Merk, Christine & Pönitzsch, Gert, 2016. "The role of affect in attitude formation toward new technologies: The case of stratospheric aerosol injection," Kiel Working Papers 2024, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    15. Elspeth Spence & Emily Cox & Nick Pidgeon, 2021. "Exploring cross-national public support for the use of enhanced weathering as a land-based carbon dioxide removal strategy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-18, March.
    16. Khara Grieger & Jonathan B. Wiener & Jennifer Kuzma, 2024. "Improving risk governance strategies via learning: a comparative analysis of solar radiation modification and gene drives," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 1054-1067, December.
    17. Dipu, Sudhakar & Quaas, Johannes & Quaas, Martin & Rickels, Wilfried & Mülmenstädt, Johannes & Boucher, Olivier, 2021. "Substantial Climate Response outside the Target Area in an Idealized Experiment of Regional Radiation Management," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 240193, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    18. Terre Satterfield & Sara Nawaz & Guillaume Peterson St-Laurent, 2023. "Exploring public acceptability of direct air carbon capture with storage: climate urgency, moral hazards and perceptions of the ‘whole versus the parts’," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(2), pages 1-21, February.
    19. Tommi Ekholm & Hannele Korhonen, 2016. "Climate change mitigation strategy under an uncertain Solar Radiation Management possibility," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 139(3), pages 503-515, December.
    20. Masahiro Sugiyama & Hiroshi Deguchi & Arisa Ema & Atsuo Kishimoto & Junichiro Mori & Hideaki Shiroyama & Roland W. Scholz, 2017. "Unintended Side Effects of Digital Transition: Perspectives of Japanese Experts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-20, November.

    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:spr:climat:v:145:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s10584-017-2067-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.