Perceptions of CO2 Report - Global CCS Institute

Respondents were provided with either only one of these four information packages, orcombinations of them, creating conditions as shown in Table 1 below. Measures used in theanalysis determined whether the provision of information influenced respondents’ understandingand perceptions of CO 2 and CCS.Table 1: Combination of information presented within survey conditionsConditionCombination of information1 Part A – CO 2 properties2 Part B – CO 2 impact & natural phenomena3 Part C – CO 2 behaviour in CCS4 Parts A and B – CO 2 properties and CO 2 impact & natural phenomena5 Parts A and C – CO 2 properties and CO 2 behaviour in CCS6 Parts B and C – CO 2 impact & natural phenomena and CO 2 behaviour in CCS7 Parts A, B and C – CO 2 properties, CO 2 impact &natural phenomena, and CO 2 behaviour in CCS8 (Control 1) Part D – Information and diagram on CCS9 (Control 2 a ) Part D – Information and diagram on CCS (Question order: 10, 13, 14, 15, 11, 12)a. Control condition 2 was identical to Control condition 1; however, for Control 2, the questions measuring CCS perceptions andacceptance of implementation were presented later in the questionnaire instead of directly after the provided information. This wasdone to explore the effect of questions in this second part of the survey on respondent’s perception and acceptance after thecompletion of the questionnaire. Apart from the order of these questions, the survey was identical for all respondents.5.5 Second assessment: CO2 impression, CCS impression and CCSacceptance measuresFollowing the provision of information, respondents were assessed for a second time on theirperceptions of CO 2 , perceptions of CCS, and opinions on whether they would accept CCSimplementation. This was considered the second assessment.5.6 Responses collected: Additional CCS perceptions and demographicinformationSeveral questions were then asked to examine respondents’ understanding of CO 2 ’s behaviourand the consequences of CCS. First, respondents could indicate how likely they believed it to bethat certain potential consequences of CCS would occur using a 5-point scale ranging from ‘1’ (notlikely), to ‘5’ (very likely) 6 . Second, respondents were provided with statements about true anduntrue consequences of CCS. For each, they were able to indicate whether they believed it was apossible consequence or not on a similar 5-point scale, where ‘1’ meant they were certain it couldnot occur, and 5 meant they were certain it could occur 7 . Finally, respondents received another setof statements containing arguments about CCS brought forward by people in the interviews andfocus groups. For each statement, the respondents could indicate to what extent they agreed on a5-point scale.6 This was referred to as the “likelihood” section.7 This was referred to as the “misconception” section.12 | Understanding how individuals perceive carbon dioxide