IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v177y2024i4d10.1007_s10584-024-03708-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public opinion about solar radiation management: A cross-cultural study in 20 countries around the world

Author

Listed:
  • Nadja Contzen

    (Eawag: Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology
    University of Groningen)

  • Goda Perlaviciute

    (University of Groningen)

  • Linda Steg

    (University of Groningen)

  • Sophie Charlotte Reckels

    (Eawag: Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology)

  • Susana Alves

    (Sapienza University of Rome)

  • David Bidwell

    (University of Rhode Island)

  • Gisela Böhm

    (University of Bergen
    Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences)

  • Marino Bonaiuto

    (Sapienza University of Rome
    Sapienza University of Rome)

  • Li-Fang Chou

    (National Cheng Kung University)

  • Victor Corral-Verdugo

    (University of Sonora)

  • Federica Dessi

    (Sapienza University of Rome)

  • Thomas Dietz

    (Michigan State University)

  • Rouven Doran

    (University of Bergen)

  • Maria do Carmo Eulálio

    (State University of Paraíba)

  • Kelly Fielding

    (University of Queensland)

  • Cristina Gómez-Román

    (Universidade de Santiago de Compostela)

  • Juliana V. Granskaya

    (St. Petersburg State University)

  • Tatyana Gurikova

    (St. Petersburg State University)

  • Bernardo Hernández

    (University of La Laguna)

  • Maira P. Kabakova

    (Al-Farabi Kazakh National University)

  • Chieh-Yu Lee

    (University of Groningen
    National Cheng Kung University)

  • Fan Li

    (China Agricultural University)

  • Maria Luísa Lima

    (Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL))

  • Lu Liu

    (University of Groningen)

  • Sílvia Luís

    (Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL))

  • Gabriel Muinos

    (University of Groningen)

  • Charles A. Ogunbode

    (University of Bergen
    University of Nottingham)

  • María Victoria Ortiz

    (Universidad Nacional de Córdoba (UNC))

  • Nick Pidgeon

    (Cardiff University)

  • Maria Argüello Pitt

    (Universidad Nacional de Córdoba (UNC))

  • Leila Rahimi

    (University of Tabriz)

  • Anastasia Revokatova

    (Yu. A. Izrael Institute of Global Climate and Ecology)

  • Cecilia Reyna

    (Universidad Nacional de Córdoba (UNC))

  • Geertje Schuitema

    (University College Dublin)

  • Rachael Shwom

    (Rutgers University)

  • Nur Soylu Yalcinkaya

    (Bogazici University)

  • Elspeth Spence

    (Cardiff University)

  • Bernadette Sütterlin

    (ETH Zurich
    Zurich University of Applied Sciences)

Abstract

Some argue that complementing climate change mitigation measures with solar radiation management (SRM) might prove a last resort to limit global warming to 1.5 °C. To make a socially responsible decision on whether to use SRM, it is important to consider also public opinion, across the globe and particularly in the Global South, which would face the greatest risks from both global warming and SRM. However, most research on public opinion about SRM stems from the Global North. We report findings from the first large-scale, cross-cultural study on the public opinion about SRM among the general public (N = 2,248) and students (N = 4,583) in 20 countries covering all inhabited continents, including five countries from the Global South and five ‘non-WEIRD’ (i.e. not Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Democratic) countries from the Global North. As public awareness of SRM is usually low, we provided participants with information on SRM, including key arguments in favour of and against SRM that appear in the scientific debate. On average, acceptability of SRM was significantly higher in the Global South than in the ‘non-WEIRD’ Global North, while acceptability in the ‘WEIRD’ Global North was in between. However, we found substantial variation within these clusters, especially in the ‘non-WEIRD’ Global North, suggesting that countries do not form homogenous clusters and should thus be considered individually. Moreover, the average participants’ views, while generally neither strong nor polarised, differed from some expert views in important ways, including that participants perceived SRM as only slightly effective in limiting global warming. Still, our data suggests overall a conditional, reluctant acceptance. That is, while on average, people think SRM would have mostly negative consequences, they may still be willing to tolerate it as a potential last resort to fight global warming, particularly if they think SRM has only minor negative (or even positive) impacts on humans and nature.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:177:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s10584-024-03708-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-024-03708-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-024-03708-3
    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/s10584-024-03708-3?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. Nick Pidgeon & Karen Parkhill & Adam Corner & Naomi Vaughan, 2013. "Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 3(5), pages 451-457, May.
    2. Bernadette Sütterlin & Michael Siegrist, 2017. "Public perception of solar radiation management: the impact of information and evoked affect," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(10), pages 1292-1307, October.
    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. Scott Barrett, 2014. "Solar Geoengineering’s Brave New World: Thoughts on the Governance of an Unprecedented Technology," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 8(2), pages 249-269.
    5. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Jing Shi & Michael Siegrist & Joseph Arvai, 2017. "Beliefs and values explain international differences in perception of solar radiation management: insights from a cross-country survey," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 142(3), pages 531-544, June.
    6. 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.
    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. 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. 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.
    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. 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.
    6. Ariane Wenger & Michael Stauffacher & Irina Dallo, 2021. "Public perception and acceptance of negative emission technologies – framing effects in Switzerland," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 167(3), pages 1-20, August.
    7. 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.
    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. Klaus, Geraldine & Ernst, Andreas & Oswald, Lisa, 2020. "Psychological factors influencing laypersons’ acceptance of climate engineering, climate change mitigation and business as usual scenarios," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    10. 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.
    11. Shannan K. Sweet & Jonathon P. Schuldt & Johannes Lehmann & Deborah A. Bossio & Dominic Woolf, 2021. "Perceptions of naturalness predict US public support for Soil Carbon Storage as a climate solution," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 1-15, May.
    12. Beckage, Brian & Lacasse, Katherine & Raimi, Kaitlin T. & Visioni, Daniele, 2023. "Integrating Risk Perception with Climate Models to Understand the Potential Deployment of Solar Radiation Modification to Mitigate Climate Change," RFF Working Paper Series 23-22, Resources for the Future.
    13. Malcolm Fairbrother, 2016. "Geoengineering, moral hazard, and trust in climate science: evidence from a survey experiment in Britain," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 139(3), pages 477-489, December.
    14. 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).
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Kniebes, Carola & Merk, Christine & Pönitzsch, Gert & Rehdanz, Katrin & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2014. "Informed and uninformed opinions on new measures to address climate change," Kiel Working Papers 1936, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    18. Chad M. Baum & Livia Fritz & Sean Low & Benjamin K. Sovacool, 2024. "Public perceptions and support of climate intervention technologies across the Global North and Global South," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, December.
    19. Dirk Scheer & Ortwin Renn, 2014. "Public Perception of geoengineering and its consequences for public debate," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 125(3), pages 305-318, August.
    20. Khalid Rasheed Memon & Say Keat Ooi & Heesup Han, 2024. "Responsible innovation and corporate sustainability performance: A structural equation modeling‐neural network approach," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(4), pages 2712-2730, May.

    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:177:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s10584-024-03708-3. 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.