IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v26y2024i10d10.1007_s10668-023-03683-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to shape communication for CO2-derived insulation boards considering different accepter profiles

Author

Listed:
  • Lisanne Simons

    (RWTH Aachen University, Chair for Communication Science)

  • Martina Ziefle

    (RWTH Aachen University, Chair for Communication Science)

  • Katrin Arning

    (RWTH Aachen University, Juniorprofessor for Risk Perception and -Communication)

Abstract

Climate change is a constant global challenge. An approach to help mitigate climate change is carbon capture and utilization (CCU), in which captured CO2 is reused as raw material for consumer products. Because innovations like CCU are unfamiliar to the general public, their communication is critical for a successful rollout. To date, sustainability innovation research has largely neglected the empirical study of communication. The present study contributes to studying the information and communication needs of laypeople based on perceptions and acceptance patterns for CCU by focusing on acceptance profiles for CCU-based insulation boards. In an empirical two-step approach, a qualitative interview prestudy was followed by a quantitative questionnaire measurement (N = 643). Using k-means clustering, the respondents were divided into three acceptance groups: rejecters (15%), tentative accepters (51%), and strong accepters (34%). Analysis showed that regarding their demographics and personality traits, tentative accepters and rejecters were similar. All segments trusted science and health experts best, and only the rejecters distrusted some specific actors. Information on the product’s risks and functional properties was most important for all acceptance groups. Based on the study’s insights, both general and targeted managerial communication and policy guidelines were formulated.

Suggested Citation

  • Lisanne Simons & Martina Ziefle & Katrin Arning, 2024. "How to shape communication for CO2-derived insulation boards considering different accepter profiles," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(10), pages 25367-25396, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:26:y:2024:i:10:d:10.1007_s10668-023-03683-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-023-03683-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-023-03683-2
    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/s10668-023-03683-2?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. Paul Slovic, 1993. "Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 675-682, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Yazan Qashou & Ahmed Samour & Mohammed Abumunshar, 2022. "Does the Real Estate Market and Renewable Energy Induce Carbon Dioxide Emissions? Novel Evidence from Turkey," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-13, January.
    4. Lauren Lutzke & Joseph Árvai, 2021. "Consumer acceptance of products from carbon capture and utilization," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 1-20, May.
    5. Valentina Cillo & Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli & Lorenzo Ardito & Manlio Del Giudice, 2019. "Understanding sustainable innovation: A systematic literature review," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1012-1025, September.
    6. Wustenhagen, Rolf & Wolsink, Maarten & Burer, Mary Jean, 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2683-2691, May.
    7. Breetz, Hanna & Mildenberger, Matto & Stokes, Leah, 2018. "The political logics of clean energy transitions," Business and Politics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(4), pages 492-522, December.
    8. Christian Friege & Carsten Herbes, 2017. "Some Basic Concepts for Marketing Renewable Energy," Management for Professionals, in: Carsten Herbes & Christian Friege (ed.), Marketing Renewable Energy, pages 3-26, Springer.
    9. 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.
    10. Noah Kittner & Felix Lill & Daniel M. Kammen, 2017. "Energy storage deployment and innovation for the clean energy transition," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 2(9), pages 1-6, September.
    11. Sanya Carley & David M. Konisky, 2020. "The justice and equity implications of the clean energy transition," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 5(8), pages 569-577, August.
    12. Arning, K. & Offermann-van Heek, J. & Linzenich, A. & Kaetelhoen, A. & Sternberg, A. & Bardow, A. & Ziefle, M., 2019. "Same or different? Insights on public perception and acceptance of carbon capture and storage or utilization in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 235-249.
    13. Russell Tatenda Munodawafa & Satirenjit Kaur Johl, 2019. "A Systematic Review of Eco-Innovation and Performance from the Resource-Based and Stakeholder Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-23, November.
    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. Dessi, F. & Ariccio, S. & Albers, T. & Alves, S. & Ludovico, N. & Bonaiuto, M., 2022. "Sustainable technology acceptability: Mapping technological, contextual, and social-psychological determinants of EU stakeholders’ biofuel acceptance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    2. Ann Bostrom & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2003. "Communicating Risk: Wireless and Hardwired," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 241-248, April.
    3. Michael R. Greenberg & Marc D. Weiner & Robert Noland & Jeanne Herb & Marjorie Kaplan & Anthony J. Broccoli, 2014. "Public Support for Policies to Reduce Risk After Hurricane Sandy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 997-1012, June.
    4. 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.
    5. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    6. Adrian Tantau & Greta Marilena Puscasu & Silvia Elena Cristache & Cristina Alpopi & Laurentiu Fratila & Daniel Moise & Georgeta Narcisa Ciobotar, 2022. "A Deep Understanding of Romanian Attitude and Perception Regarding Nuclear Energy as Green Investment Promoted by the European Green Deal," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-14, December.
    7. 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.
    8. Gazmararian, Alexander F., 2024. "Fossil fuel communities support climate policy coupled with just transition assistance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    9. Zhou, Lingyi & Dai, Yixin, 2020. "Which is more effective in China? How communication tools influence public acceptance of nuclear power energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    10. George Chryssochoidis & Anna Strada & Athanasios Krystallis, 2009. "Public trust in institutions and information sources regarding risk management and communication: towards integrating extant knowledge," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 137-185, March.
    11. 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).
    12. Yazan K. A. Migdadi & Ahmed A. Khalifa & Abdullah Al-Swidi & Abdulkarem I. Amhamed & Muftah H. El-Naas, 2022. "A Conceptual Framework of Customer Value Proposition of CCU-Formic Acid Product," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-21, December.
    13. Joanna Burger & Michael Gochfeld, 2009. "Changes in Aleut Concerns Following the Stakeholder‐Driven Amchitka Independent Science Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(8), pages 1156-1169, August.
    14. Arning, K. & Offermann-van Heek, J. & Ziefle, M., 2021. "What drives public acceptance of sustainable CO2-derived building materials? A conjoint-analysis of eco-benefits vs. health concerns," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    15. Timothy C. Earle, 2010. "Trust in Risk Management: A Model‐Based Review of Empirical Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 541-574, April.
    16. Masini, Andrea & Menichetti, Emanuela, 2013. "Investment decisions in the renewable energy sector: An analysis of non-financial drivers," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 510-524.
    17. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser, 2005. "Information Specificity and Hazard Risk Potential as Moderators of Trust Asymmetry," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1187-1198, October.
    18. Lucia Savadori & Stefania Savio & Eraldo Nicotra & Rino Rumiati & Melissa Finucane & Paul Slovic, 2004. "Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1289-1299, October.
    19. Anna Rabinovich & Thomas A. Morton, 2012. "Unquestioned Answers or Unanswered Questions: Beliefs About Science Guide Responses to Uncertainty in Climate Change Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(6), pages 992-1002, June.
    20. Offermann-van Heek, Julia & Arning, Katrin & Sternberg, André & Bardow, André & Ziefle, Martina, 2020. "Assessing public acceptance of the life cycle of CO2-based fuels: Does information make the difference?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).

    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:endesu:v:26:y:2024:i:10:d:10.1007_s10668-023-03683-2. 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.