Perceptions of CO2 Report - Global CCS Institute

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Second assessmentPerceptions were assessed for a second time following the provision of an information package inaccordance with the survey conditions. Across all information conditions, there was very littlechange in impressions of CCS as a result of information provision. About 60% of all respondentsdid not change their answers. The impression “Positive” had the highest rate of respondents whochanged their answers in the negative direction, followed by “Clean” and “Safe”, whichdemonstrated a similar rate of change.Figure 11: Impression of CCS by all participants (Second assessment)Influence of information conditions on perceptionsResults of the second assessment were analysed using an ANOVA to see whether CCSimpressions are influenced by any particular type of information. Results are in Table 14, AppendixF. In brief, providing information on natural phenomena damaged impressions of CCS (p < 0.01)and decreased its tendency to be seen as “safe” (p < 0.01) , yet combining this information withinformation on CO 2 characteristics mitigated the negative impact on this scale caused by theinformation “CO 2 natural phenomena.” Providing information on CO 2 ’s behaviour in CCSdecreased the perception of CCS as “clean.” The impression that CCS is “Mature” was influencedpositively by the information “CO 2 characteristics” and “CO 2 behaviour in CCS” (both p
Table 16 in Appendix F shows the results of the best regression. The model fits (the adjusted R-squares) were much increased compared to the regression on the first assessments. Thereforethis regression showed the effects of CO 2 knowledge, CO 2 impressions, misperception/understanding of CCS, and respondents’ demographics comprehensively.CCS impressions were influenced by respondents’ understandings/opinions on CCS, especiallythe understanding that CCS posed too many risks for human health (covariate “Many Risk”,negative impacts) and the opinion that CCS was essential to mitigate climate change (covariate“MitigateCC”, positive impacts) which impacts were constantly significant and strong on all fiveCCS impression measurements. The regression analyses also showed the results of positiveimpacts of second assessment of CO 2 impressions on CCS perceptions. For example,respondents who perceived CO 2 positively tended to perceive CCS positively. As for maturity ofCCS, Dutch dummy variable was significant and positive probably because respondents in theNetherlands were most aware of CCS and would have the most knowledge on it among threecountries.7.2.5 ATTITUDES TOWARDS CCS IMPLEMENTATIONFirst assessmentApart from their impressions of CCS, respondents were also asked about their opinion on CCSimplementation in their country, their neighbourhood and in the seabed under the nearest sea. Wefound around 40% of participants showed neutral opinions on CCS implementation. Neutralopinions account for 42% for “in your country”, 40% for CCS “in your neighbourhood (onshore)”and 39% for CCS “in the seabed offshore”. Meanwhile, for CCS “in your neighbourhood (onshore)”the majority of participants showed negative opinions, accounting for 43% of all responses. For“CCS in your country”, more respondents showed positive opinions (36%) than negative opinions(22%). Finally, as for “CCS offshore”, the percentage of respondents who showed positive opinionsis about the same as the percentage of respondents who showed negative opinions.Figure 12: Opinions on CCS implementation from all participants (First assessment)Note: For clarification, ‘onshore’ in the graph refers to ‘in your neighbourhood’ proximityWe analysed the factors which contributed to the forming of initial opinions. The first assessmentwas conducted after showing participants an introduction into CCS and the capture, transport andstorage process contained in a simple cartoon. Since most of participants had never heard aboutCCS or did not know about CCS, only a small portion of respondents had other information to basetheir opinion on apart from the information provided in the survey. The remaining respondentsUnderstanding how individuals perceive carbon dioxide | 33
Page 2 and 3: Enquiries should be addressed to:Dr
Page 4 and 5: Part V Conclusion and Recommendatio
Page 6 and 7: TablesTable 1: Combination of infor
Page 8 and 9: Executive summaryCarbon dioxide cap
Page 10 and 11: Recommendations derived from this w
Page 12 and 13: 1 IntroductionClimate change has of
Page 14 and 15: 2.2 Perceptions of CO 2Very little
Page 16 and 17: • perceptions about the nature an
Page 18 and 19: 3 OverviewThis research project’s
Page 20 and 21: 5 Internet surveyFindings from the
Page 22 and 23: Respondents were provided with eith
Page 24 and 25: 6 Administration of the survey6.1 T
Page 26 and 27: Part III Results16 | Understanding
Page 28 and 29: 7.1.2 KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF
Page 30 and 31: 7.2 Quantitative resultsThe followi
Page 32 and 33: PropertiesKnowledge about CO 2 ’s
Page 34 and 35: UsesRespondents were asked about th
Page 36 and 37: 7.2.3 PERCEPTIONS OF CO 2First asse
Page 38 and 39: 7.2.4 AWARENESS AND PERCEPTIONS OF
Page 40 and 41: First assessmentError! Reference so
Page 44 and 45: formed their opinion using the CCS
Page 46 and 47: Table 18, Appendix F. Furthermore,
Page 48 and 49: DF DF DFInfoACO 2characteristicsInf
Page 50 and 51: Table 20 in Appendix F shows the re
Page 52 and 53: 8 DiscussionThis international rese
Page 54 and 55: eflect how close the potential CCS
Page 56 and 57: eceived information about natural p
Page 58 and 59: Part V Conclusion andRecommendation
Page 60 and 61: 9.2 Recommendations9.2.1 NEED FOR E
Page 62 and 63: Part VI Appendices andReferences52
Page 64 and 65: Q: How did your images and understa
Page 66 and 67: Q: What kind of information about C
Page 68 and 69: Q5Q6Q7Q8Q9AQuestion statementsHere
Page 70 and 71: BCQuestion statementsPlease read th
Page 72 and 73: Q13Q14Q15Question statementsNext yo
Page 74 and 75: Appendix D Participant Demographics
Page 76 and 77: Appendix E Selected Qualitative Res
Page 78 and 79: • “Water is such a precious thi
Page 80 and 81: Univ_dmy - - - - -Female_dmy - - -
Page 82 and 83: The table above shows the compariso
Page 84 and 85: Set B: CCS impressionTable 12: Regr
Page 86 and 87: •Extra CO 2 is put in the air in
Page 88 and 89: a50s_dmyO60s_dmyCsea_dmyAdjusted R-
Page 90 and 91: ionCCSawarenessCO 2Clean1CO 2Useful
Page 92 and 93:
Table 14: ANOVA (three factors) for
Page 94 and 95:
Table 16: Regression analysis on in
Page 96 and 97:
CO 2relatedactivityInformationgathe
Page 98 and 99:
CO 2 relatedactivityInformationgath
Page 100 and 101:
Table 18: ANOVA (four factors) for
Page 102 and 103:
Table 20: Regression analysis on in
Page 104 and 105:
gathering topics Environment - - -0
Page 106 and 107:
Creswell, J. W. (2002). Research de
Page 108:
Shackley, S., Gough, C., & McLachla
show all

Perceptions of CO2 Report - Global CCS Institute

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?