IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v40y2020i5p1058-1078.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Support for the Deployment of Climate Engineering: A Comparison of Ten Different Technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Marilou Jobin
  • Michael Siegrist

Abstract

Due to the renewed increase in CO2 emissions seen in recent years, the deployment of climate engineering technologies might become necessary if the global temperature increase is to be kept within 1.5 °C. If climate engineering is to be deployed, however, public support is required. The present study hence compared public support for a broad range of climate engineering technologies. Further, the factors that drive public support were investigated and compared across the technologies. In an online survey conducted in Switzerland, respondents (n = 1,575) were randomly allocated to the description of 1 of 10 climate engineering technologies, of which 7 were specific carbon dioxide removal measures and 3 were solar radiation management measures. The results show that the level of public support for afforestation was the highest. The levels of public support for the other climate engineering technologies were relatively similar, although a tendency for solar radiation management to have a lower level of support was identified. Across all the investigated climate engineering technologies, the perceived benefits were an important driver of public support. Additionally, for all the technologies but afforestation, a higher level of trust in industry/science/government increased the level of public support, whereas the factor perceived risks and tampering with nature was found to be a negative predictor of support. The present findings suggest that there are opportunities available for the deployment of several climate engineering technologies in combination with other mitigation measures. Communicating the benefits of such technologies might be an effective strategy in terms of fostering increased support.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:40:y:2020:i:5:p:1058-1078
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.13462
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13462
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.13462?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. A. Atiq Rahman & Paulo Artaxo & Asfawossen Asrat & Andy Parker, 2018. "Developing countries must lead on solar geoengineering research," Nature, Nature, vol. 556(7699), pages 22-24, April.
    3. Jonathan Proctor & Solomon Hsiang & Jennifer Burney & Marshall Burke & Wolfram Schlenker, 2018. "Estimating global agricultural effects of geoengineering using volcanic eruptions," Nature, Nature, vol. 560(7719), pages 480-483, August.
    4. Victoria Campbell-Arvai & P. Sol Hart & Kaitlin T. Raimi & Kimberly S. Wolske, 2017. "The influence of learning about carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on support for mitigation policies," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 143(3), pages 321-336, August.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Jing Shi & Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Michael Siegrist, 2015. "Public Perception of Climate Change: The Importance of Knowledge and Cultural Worldviews," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(12), pages 2183-2201, December.
    8. Wylie A. Carr & Laurie Yung, 2018. "Perceptions of climate engineering in the South Pacific, Sub-Saharan Africa, and North American Arctic," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 147(1), pages 119-132, March.
    9. Christopher L. Cummings & Sonny Rosenthal, 2018. "Climate change and technology: examining opinion formation of geoengineering," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 208-215, June.
    10. Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich, 2000. "Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5), pages 713-720, October.
    11. Hsee, Christopher K., 1996. "The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 247-257, September.
    12. 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).
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Carola Braun, 2017. "Not in My Backyard: CCS Sites and Public Perception of CCS," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2264-2275, December.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Mark G. Lawrence & Stefan Schäfer & Helene Muri & Vivian Scott & Andreas Oschlies & Naomi E. Vaughan & Olivier Boucher & Hauke Schmidt & Jim Haywood & Jürgen Scheffran, 2018. "Evaluating climate geoengineering proposals in the context of the Paris Agreement temperature goals," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 9(1), pages 1-19, December.
    19. 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.
    20. Christina Tobler & Vivianne Visschers & Michael Siegrist, 2012. "Consumers’ knowledge about climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 114(2), pages 189-209, September.
    21. Anthony C. Jones & James M. Haywood & Nick Dunstone & Kerry Emanuel & Matthew K. Hawcroft & Kevin I. Hodges & Andy Jones, 2017. "Impacts of hemispheric solar geoengineering on tropical cyclone frequency," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.
    22. Lauren Feldman & P. Sol Hart, 2018. "Is There Any Hope? How Climate Change News Imagery and Text Influence Audience Emotions and Support for Climate Mitigation Policies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 585-602, March.
    23. Michael R. Greenberg, 2009. "NIMBY, CLAMP, and the Location of New Nuclear‐Related Facilities: U.S. National and 11 Site‐Specific Surveys," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(9), pages 1242-1254, September.
    24. 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.
    25. Sütterlin, Bernadette & Siegrist, Michael, 2017. "Public acceptance of renewable energy technologies from an abstract versus concrete perspective and the positive imagery of solar power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 356-366.
    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. 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.
    2. Merk, Christine & Liebe, Ulf & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2023. "German citizens’ preference for domestic carbon dioxide removal by afforestation is incompatible with national removal potential," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 270884, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    3. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Baum, Chad M. & Low, Sean, 2023. "Beyond climate stabilization: Exploring the perceived sociotechnical co-impacts of carbon removal and solar geoengineering," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Nicolás Bronfman & Pamela Cisternas & Esperanza López-Vázquez & Luis Cifuentes, 2016. "Trust and risk perception of natural hazards: implications for risk preparedness in Chile," 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. 81(1), pages 307-327, March.
    12. Yawson, Robert M. & Kuzma, Jennifer, 2010. "Evidence review and experts’ opinion on consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology," MPRA Paper 40807, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Andrew Knight, 2007. "Intervening Effects of Knowledge, Morality, Trust, and Benefits on Support for Animal and Plant Biotechnology Applications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 1553-1563, December.
    14. Liu, Peng & Xu, Zhigang & Zhao, Xiangmo, 2019. "Road tests of self-driving vehicles: Affective and cognitive pathways in acceptance formation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 354-369.
    15. Xiaoqin Zhu & Xiaofei Xie, 2015. "Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 790-810, May.
    16. 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.
    17. Peng Liu & Run Yang & Zhigang Xu, 2019. "Public Acceptance of Fully Automated Driving: Effects of Social Trust and Risk/Benefit Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 326-341, February.
    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. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Pamela C. Cisternas & Esperanza López-Vázquez & Luis A. Cifuentes, 2016. "Trust and risk perception of natural hazards: implications for risk preparedness in Chile," 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. 81(1), pages 307-327, March.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    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:wly:riskan:v:40:y:2020:i:5:p:1058-1078. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.