Perceptions of CO2 Report - Global CCS Institute

More documents

Recommendations

Info

formed their opinion using the CCS information provided and their own values, beliefs, knowledge,ways of thinking, and other life experiences.Generally the higher participants self-rated their knowledge, the more concrete their opinions were.This was apparent in the portion of neutral opinion decreased as the CCS knowledge of theparticipants increased. This tendency appears especially clearly in the instance of CCS “in yourcountry”, as the portion of supportive opinion increased as CCS knowledge of participantsincreased (except of those who already knew a lot about CCS). However, in terms of opinionsabout CCS “offshore”, the tendency was weak. This implies it is harder to form opinions about“CCS offshore” compared with “CCS in your country” by gaining knowledge about CCS provided inthis research.To investigate factors related to the formation of first opinions on CCS implementation, weconducted three regression analyses using opinions on the implementation of the three differenttypes of CCS as dependent variables and characteristics of participants as covariates. Table 17 inAppendix F shows the results of the best regression. Results showed that the adjusted R-squared(0.134 – 0.173) indicates the regressions did not fully explain the factors that influencerespondents’ opinion formation about CCS implementation. This result implies that many otherfactors influence a person’s willingness or support for letting a CCS project proceed.Second assessmentAfter additional information was provided, we asked the same set of questions in the secondassessment regarding implementation of CCS. Figure 13Error! Reference source not found.shows the percentage breakdown of opinions participants stated for each of the threeimplementation questions. The majority of respondents (66% for CCS “in your country”, 69% forCCS “in your neighbourhood”, and 67% for CCS “offshore”) maintained the same opinions for eachquestion across the two assessments. Those who changed opinions moved in either a positive ornegative direction; but across the three questions more participants became increasingly negativerather than positive. As a result, in the second assessment the portion of neutral opinionsdecreased considerably; and the level of negative opinion increased significantly compared withthe first assessment.Figure 13: Opinion on CCS implementation by all participants (Second assessment)Note: For clarification, ‘onshore’ in the graph refers to ‘in your neighbourhood’ proximity34 | Understanding how individuals perceive carbon dioxide
Influence of information on CCS implementation acceptanceWe conducted an ANOVA to look for changes between the first and second assessments, testingthe differences among the provided information packages. Results are inUnderstanding how individuals perceive carbon dioxide | 35
Page 2 and 3: Enquiries should be addressed to:Dr
Page 4 and 5: Part V Conclusion and Recommendatio
Page 6 and 7: TablesTable 1: Combination of infor
Page 8 and 9: Executive summaryCarbon dioxide cap
Page 10 and 11: Recommendations derived from this w
Page 12 and 13: 1 IntroductionClimate change has of
Page 14 and 15: 2.2 Perceptions of CO 2Very little
Page 16 and 17: • perceptions about the nature an
Page 18 and 19: 3 OverviewThis research project’s
Page 20 and 21: 5 Internet surveyFindings from the
Page 22 and 23: Respondents were provided with eith
Page 24 and 25: 6 Administration of the survey6.1 T
Page 26 and 27: Part III Results16 | Understanding
Page 28 and 29: 7.1.2 KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF
Page 30 and 31: 7.2 Quantitative resultsThe followi
Page 32 and 33: PropertiesKnowledge about CO 2 ’s
Page 34 and 35: UsesRespondents were asked about th
Page 36 and 37: 7.2.3 PERCEPTIONS OF CO 2First asse
Page 38 and 39: 7.2.4 AWARENESS AND PERCEPTIONS OF
Page 40 and 41: First assessmentError! Reference so
Page 42 and 43: Second assessmentPerceptions were a
Page 46 and 47: Table 18, Appendix F. Furthermore,
Page 48 and 49: DF DF DFInfoACO 2characteristicsInf
Page 50 and 51: Table 20 in Appendix F shows the re
Page 52 and 53: 8 DiscussionThis international rese
Page 54 and 55: eflect how close the potential CCS
Page 56 and 57: eceived information about natural p
Page 58 and 59: Part V Conclusion andRecommendation
Page 60 and 61: 9.2 Recommendations9.2.1 NEED FOR E
Page 62 and 63: Part VI Appendices andReferences52
Page 64 and 65: Q: How did your images and understa
Page 66 and 67: Q: What kind of information about C
Page 68 and 69: Q5Q6Q7Q8Q9AQuestion statementsHere
Page 70 and 71: BCQuestion statementsPlease read th
Page 72 and 73: Q13Q14Q15Question statementsNext yo
Page 74 and 75: Appendix D Participant Demographics
Page 76 and 77: Appendix E Selected Qualitative Res
Page 78 and 79: • “Water is such a precious thi
Page 80 and 81: Univ_dmy - - - - -Female_dmy - - -
Page 82 and 83: The table above shows the compariso
Page 84 and 85: Set B: CCS impressionTable 12: Regr
Page 86 and 87: •Extra CO 2 is put in the air in
Page 88 and 89: a50s_dmyO60s_dmyCsea_dmyAdjusted R-
Page 90 and 91: ionCCSawarenessCO 2Clean1CO 2Useful
Page 92 and 93: Table 14: ANOVA (three factors) for
Page 94 and 95:
Table 16: Regression analysis on in
Page 96 and 97:
CO 2relatedactivityInformationgathe
Page 98 and 99:
CO 2 relatedactivityInformationgath
Page 100 and 101:
Table 18: ANOVA (four factors) for
Page 102 and 103:
Table 20: Regression analysis on in
Page 104 and 105:
gathering topics Environment - - -0
Page 106 and 107:
Creswell, J. W. (2002). Research de
Page 108:
Shackley, S., Gough, C., & McLachla
show all

Perceptions of CO2 Report - Global CCS Institute

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?