IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ifwkie/306554.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Carbon dioxide removal through ecosystem restoration: Public perceptions and political participation

Author

Listed:
  • Kuhn, Annegret
  • Merk, Christine
  • Wunsch, Andrea

Abstract

We compare public perceptions of restoring different ecosystems to increase CO 2 uptake in Germany, through focus groups and a general population survey. Among focus group participants forests were highly popular, peatlands evoked negative associations, and seagrass was largely unknown. Nevertheless, the restoration of all ecosystems was viewed positively. We contrast these reactions to those of survey respondents who had not received additional information on restoration. They voiced narrower, less diverse opinions centering around afforestation. Further, focus group participants preferred expert-led restoration decisions, citing low trust in politicians’ technical competence. Contrary to common policy recommendations, also beyond the German context, participants did not emphasize the need of citizen participation and were not strongly concerned about land use conflicts or compensation of affected user groups. The results imply that the public underestimates the political complexity of negotiation processes in ecosystem governance, which are becoming increasingly relevant in the international policy landscape.

Suggested Citation

  • Kuhn, Annegret & Merk, Christine & Wunsch, Andrea, 2024. "Carbon dioxide removal through ecosystem restoration: Public perceptions and political participation," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 306554, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ifwkie:306554
    DOI: 10.1007/s13280-024-02063-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/306554/1/s13280-024-02063-y.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13280-024-02063-y?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. Klaus Glenk & Julia Martin-Ortega, 2018. "The economics of peatland restoration," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(4), pages 345-362, October.
    2. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. Kim Strandberg & Kim Backström & Janne Berg & Thomas Karv, 2021. "Democratically Sustainable Local Development? The Outcomes of Mixed Deliberation on a Municipal Merger on Participants’ Social Trust, Political Trust, and Political Efficacy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-17, June.
    5. Hynes, Stephen & Norton, Danny & Corless, Rebecca, 2014. "Investigating societal attitudes towards the marine environment of Ireland," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 57-65.
    6. Sara Nawaz & Guillaume Peterson St-Laurent & Terre Satterfield, 2023. "Public evaluations of four approaches to ocean-based carbon dioxide removal," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 379-394, March.
    7. Merk, Christine & Grunau, Jonas & Riekhof, Marie-Catherine & Rickels, Wilfried, 2022. "The need for local governance of global commons: The example of blue carbon ecosystems," Kiel Working Papers 2201, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), revised 2022.
    8. Rob Bellamy & Shannon Osaka, 2020. "Unnatural climate solutions?," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 10(2), pages 98-99, February.
    9. 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.
    10. Vivien A. Schmidt, 2013. "Democracy and Legitimacy in the European Union Revisited: Input, Output and ‘Throughput’," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 61(1), pages 2-22, March.
    11. Ruiz-Frau, A. & Krause, T. & Marbà, N., 2018. "The use of sociocultural valuation in sustainable environmental management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 158-167.
    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. Sean Low & Livia Fritz & Chad M. Baum & Benjamin K. Sovacool, 2024. "Public perceptions on carbon removal from focus groups in 22 countries," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, December.
    2. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. 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.
    5. Richard Hyman & Rebecca Gumbrell-McCormick, 2020. "(How) can international trade union organisations be democratic?," Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, , vol. 26(3), pages 253-272, August.
    6. Christoph Engel & Luigi Mittone & Azzurra Morreale, 2024. "Outcomes or participation? Experimentally testing competing sources of legitimacy for taxation," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 62(2), pages 563-583, April.
    7. Alexander Kentikelenis & Erik Voeten, 2021. "Legitimacy challenges to the liberal world order: Evidence from United Nations speeches, 1970–2018," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 721-754, October.
    8. Isuru Koswatte & Chandrika Fernando, 2022. "Policy Development for Crisis Management in the Context of Sri Lanka," Managing Global Transitions, University of Primorska, Faculty of Management Koper, vol. 20(3 (Fall)), pages 295-327.
    9. John R. Moodie & Viktor Salenius & Michael Kull, 2022. "From impact assessments towards proactive citizen engagement in EU cohesion policy," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(5), pages 1113-1132, October.
    10. Carina I. Hausladen & Regula Hänggli Fricker & Dirk Helbing & Renato Kunz & Junling Wang & Evangelos Pournaras, 2024. "How voting rules impact legitimacy," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-10, December.
    11. Marlous Blankesteijn & Bart Bossink, 2020. "Assessing the Legitimacy of Technological Innovation in the Public Sphere: Recovering Raw Materials from Waste Water," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-16, November.
    12. Hilary Byerly Flint & Paul Cada & Patricia A. Champ & Jamie Gomez & Danny Margoles & James R. Meldrum & Hannah Brenkert-Smith, 2022. "You vs. us: framing adaptation behavior in terms of private or social benefits," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 174(1), pages 1-17, September.
    13. Nikitas Konstantinidis & Konstantinos Matakos & Hande Mutlu-Eren, 2019. "“Take back control”? The effects of supranational integration on party-system polarization," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 297-333, June.
    14. Evans, Nicole M. & Carrozzino-Lyon, Amy L. & Galbraith, Betsy & Noordyk, Julia & Peroff, Deidre M. & Stoll, John & Thompson, Aaron & Winden, Matthew W. & Davis, Mark A., 2019. "Integrated ecosystem service assessment for landscape conservation design in the Green Bay watershed, Wisconsin," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    15. Santeramo, Fabio Gaetano & Carlucci, Domenico & De Devitiis, Biagia & Nardone, Gianluca & Viscecchia, Rosaria, 2017. "On consumption patterns in oyster markets: the role of attitudes," MPRA Paper 76789, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Hugh Breakey, 2021. "Harnessing Multidimensional Legitimacy for Codes of Ethics: A Staged Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 170(2), pages 359-373, May.
    17. Onna Malou van den Broek, 2024. "How Political Actors Co‐Construct CSR and its Effect on Firms' Political Access: A Discursive Institutionalist View," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 595-626, March.
    18. Christoph Klika, 2015. "The Implementation of the REACH Authorisation Procedure on Chemical Substances of Concern: What Kind of Legitimacy?," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 128-138.
    19. Eugenio Salvati, 2024. "Debating Legitimacy and Solidarity in the European Parliament: Patterns of Opposition and Conflict During the Pandemic," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(6), pages 1692-1711, November.
    20. Vincent Caby & Lise Frehen, 2021. "How to Produce and Measure Throughput Legitimacy? Lessons from a Systematic Literature Review," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(1), pages 226-236.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Climate change mitigation; CO2 removal; Ecosystem restoration; Political trus; Political participation; Public perception;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:zbw:ifwkie:306554. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iwkiede.html .

    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.