IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v26y2024i8d10.1007_s10668-023-03499-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public response to decarbonisation through alternative shipping fuels

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel P. Carlisle

    (Massey University)

  • Pamela M. Feetham

    (Massey University)

  • Malcolm J. Wright

    (Massey University
    University of South Australia, North Terrace)

  • Damon A. H. Teagle

    (University of Southampton
    University of Southampton)

Abstract

Although shipping is the most energy efficient method of transporting trade goods it is held accountable for 2–3% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The shipping industry is exploring pathways to carbon–neutral fuels to help eliminate GHG emissions by 2050. To date research on alternative fuels has not considered public opinion; it remains unclear whether the public will support alternative shipping fuels, or whether public opposition might prevent or defer their deployment. To fill this knowledge gap and help the industry and policy makers arrive at publicly acceptable decisions, our research examines UK public perceptions of six shipping fuels using a mixed-method approach. Our findings reveal that biofuels and hydrogen are clearly favoured, owing to biofuel’s perceived low risk and hydrogen’s lack of negative by-products. Perceptions of liquid natural gas are somewhat positive, suggesting that it provides an acceptable near-term option while other fuels are developed. Despite lingering stigma, nuclear is preferred over the incumbent heavy fuel oil, though both are perceived negatively. However, the UK public strongly dislike ammonia, perceiving it as unproven, risky, and lacking availability. A third support use of alternative shipping fuels, with support greater from those living near ports—a “yes in my back yard” effect. The results demonstrate that different alternative fuels are likely to elicit different public reactions as they become more widely known and show how the overall evaluations arise from specific positive or negative associations with each fuel.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel P. Carlisle & Pamela M. Feetham & Malcolm J. Wright & Damon A. H. Teagle, 2024. "Public response to decarbonisation through alternative shipping fuels," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 20737-20756, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:26:y:2024:i:8:d:10.1007_s10668-023-03499-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-023-03499-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-023-03499-0
    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/s10668-023-03499-0?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. 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.
    2. Romaniuk, Jenni, 2013. "Modeling mental market share," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 188-195.
    3. Bech-Larsen, Tino & Nielsen, Niels Asger, 1999. "A comparison of five elicitation techniques for elicitation of attributes of low involvement products," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 315-341, June.
    4. Fanchao Liao & Eric Molin & Bert van Wee, 2017. "Consumer preferences for electric vehicles: a literature review," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(3), pages 252-275, May.
    5. Assunta Di Vaio & Anum Zaffar & Daniel Balsalobre-Lorente & Antonio Garofalo, 2023. "Decarbonization technology responsibility to gender equality in the shipping industry: a systematic literature review and new avenues ahead," Journal of Shipping and Trade, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 1-20, December.
    6. Assunta Di Vaio & Luisa Varriale & Maria Lekakou & Evangelia Stefanidaki, 2021. "Cruise and container shipping companies: a comparative analysis of sustainable development goals through environmental sustainability disclosure," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(2), pages 184-212, February.
    7. Hilary S. Boudet, 2019. "Public perceptions of and responses to new energy technologies," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 4(6), pages 446-455, June.
    8. Marc Poumadère & Raquel Bertoldo & Jaleh Samadi, 2011. "Public perceptions and governance of controversial technologies to tackle climate change: nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, wind, and geoengineering," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(5), pages 712-727, September.
    9. Daniel P. Carlisle & Pamela M. Feetham & Malcolm J. Wright & Damon A. H. Teagle, 2020. "The public remain uninformed and wary of climate engineering," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 303-322, May.
    10. 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.
    11. Adam Corner & Nick Pidgeon & Karen Parkhill, 2012. "Perceptions of geoengineering: public attitudes, stakeholder perspectives, and the challenge of ‘upstream’ engagement," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(5), pages 451-466, September.
    12. Yetano Roche, María & Mourato, Susana & Fischedick, Manfred & Pietzner, Katja & Viebahn, Peter, 2010. "Public attitudes towards and demand for hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles: A review of the evidence and methodological implications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 5301-5310, October.
    13. Patrizia Serra & Gianfranco Fancello, 2020. "Towards the IMO’s GHG Goals: A Critical Overview of the Perspectives and Challenges of the Main Options for Decarbonizing International Shipping," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-32, April.
    14. Andrea Guati-Rojo & Christina Demski & Wouter Poortinga & Agustin Valera-Medina, 2021. "Public Attitudes and Concerns about Ammonia as an Energy Vector," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-14, November.
    15. Boris Stolz & Maximilian Held & Gil Georges & Konstantinos Boulouchos, 2022. "Techno-economic analysis of renewable fuels for ships carrying bulk cargo in Europe," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 7(2), pages 203-212, 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. 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.
    2. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2022. "Homes of the future: Unpacking public perceptions to power the domestic hydrogen transition," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    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. Linlin Cui & Long Chen & Xiao Yang, 2024. "Evaluation and analysis of green efficiency of China's coastal ports under the "double carbon" goal: two improved DEA models with CO2 emissions," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(11), pages 29099-29128, November.
    5. Yeongmin Kwon & Suji Kim & Hyungjoo Kim & Jihye Byun, 2020. "What Attributes Do Passengers Value in Electrified Buses?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-14, May.
    6. 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.
    7. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2023. "Socio-technical barriers to domestic hydrogen futures: Repurposing pipelines, policies, and public perceptions," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 336(C).
    8. Fatemeh Nazari & Abolfazl Mohammadian & Thomas Stephens, 2023. "Exploring the Role of Perceived Range Anxiety in Adoption Behavior of Plug-in Electric Vehicles," Papers 2308.10313, arXiv.org.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Farid Karimi, 2021. "Stakeholders’ Risk Perceptions of Decarbonised Energy System: Insights into Patterns of Behaviour," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-14, November.
    13. 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.
    14. Daniel P. Carlisle & Pamela M. Feetham & Malcolm J. Wright & Damon A. H. Teagle, 2020. "The public remain uninformed and wary of climate engineering," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 303-322, May.
    15. 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.
    16. Xiong, Siqin & Yuan, Yi & Yao, Jia & Bai, Bo & Ma, Xiaoming, 2023. "Exploring consumer preferences for electric vehicles based on the random coefficient logit model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 263(PA).
    17. Pelai, Ricardo & Hagerman, Shannon M. & Kozak, Robert, 2020. "Biotechnologies in agriculture and forestry: Governance insights from a comparative systematic review of barriers and recommendations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    18. Bogdanov, Dmitrii & Breyer, Christian, 2024. "Role of smart charging of electric vehicles and vehicle-to-grid in integrated renewables-based energy systems on country level," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 301(C).
    19. Leduc, Gaëlle & Billaudet, Larissa & Engström, Ebba & Hansson, Helena & Ryan, Mary, 2023. "Farmers' perceived values in conventional and organic farming: A comparison between French, Irish and Swedish farmers using the Means-end chain approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    20. Kang, Min Jung & Park, Heejun, 2011. "Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3465-3475, June.

    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:8:d:10.1007_s10668-023-03499-0. 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.