IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v125y2014i3p305-318.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Perception of geoengineering and its consequences for public debate

Author

Listed:
  • Dirk Scheer
  • Ortwin Renn

Abstract

Reviewing the existing studies of public perception and drawing analogies from other risk technologies, this paper explores the public positions on research and implementation of geoengineering as a means to combat climate change. Existing studies on geoengineering perceptions show low levels of awareness and a lack of knowledge. Hence, existing attitudes on geoengineering can be judged instable and stimulus-dependent. When judged in isolation, at least one third favors the use of geoengineering technologies preferring CDR over SRM technologies; when judged in comparison to other climate mitigation options, approval rates lose considerably support. Moreover, people seem to cautiously support research but oppose deployment while attitude formation depends on personal values and belief systems. The results of the empirical studies were fed into a Delphi workshop with experts for reflecting on the future development of public opinion and for designing a communication and public involvement process that corresponds to the empirical insights gained from the perception studies. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:125:y:2014:i:3:p:305-318
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-014-1177-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10584-014-1177-1
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-014-1177-1?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. Mayo-Ramsay, Julia, 2010. "Environmental, legal and social implications of ocean urea fertilization: Sulu sea example," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 831-835, September.
    3. 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)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    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. 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. Khara D. Grieger & Tyler Felgenhauer & Ortwin Renn & Jonathan Wiener & Mark Borsuk, 2019. "Emerging risk governance for stratospheric aerosol injection as a climate management technology," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 39(4), pages 371-382, December.
    5. Gregor Wolbring & Simerta Gill, 2023. "Potential Impact of Environmental Activism: A Survey and a Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-46, February.
    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. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    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. 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.
    10. Johannes Emmerling & Massimo Tavoni, 2018. "Climate Engineering and Abatement: A ‘flat’ Relationship Under Uncertainty," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(2), pages 395-415, February.
    11. 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.
    12. 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).
    13. Stilgoe, Jack & Owen, Richard & Macnaghten, Phil, 2013. "Developing a framework for responsible innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1568-1580.
    14. 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.
    15. 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).
    16. Behnam Taebi, 2017. "Bridging the Gap between Social Acceptance and Ethical Acceptability," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(10), pages 1817-1827, October.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Kelly Wanser & Sarah J. Doherty & James W. Hurrell & Alex Wong, 2022. "Near-term climate risks and sunlight reflection modification: a roadmap approach for physical sciences research," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 174(3), pages 1-20, October.

    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:spr:climat:v:125:y:2014:i:3:p:305-318. 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.