Perceptions of CO2 Report - Global CCS Institute

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Appendix D Participant DemographicsAustralian PanelSurvey respondents were Australian residents aged 20 or older. Respondents were selected bystratified random sampling from registrants of a survey company’s panel. The panel invited toparticipate was representative of the demographic characteristics (e.g. gender, age, andeducational attainment) of the Australian population. The survey was launched via email to 1,116residents and completed by 809 respondents, resulting in a response rate of 72.5%. Due tointernal error, survey responses were not controlled to derive a completely representative set ofparticipants with respect to educational attainment. Although representative participants had beeninvited, the actual respondents with bachelor’s and postgraduate degrees were 18% and 18%,respectively, adding to 36%, whereas the actual percentage of Australians with either a bachelor’sor postgraduate degree is lower (i.e., though gradually rising since 2000, even by 2010 it had onlyreached 27%) (ABS, 2011).The table below shows a comparison of the age of Australian survey respondents and the nationalaverage. The younger age groups (20–49 years) were under-represented among respondents,while the percentage of respondents 50 years and over was higher than the Australian population.Table 6: Comparison between Australian survey panel and national averageAustralian Survey Panel(N=809)National Average aProportion female 53.% 51%Proportion Age ≤ 29 13% 18%30 ~ 39 19% 20%40 ~ 49 18% 20%50 ~ 59 25% 18%≥ 60 25% 25%a. ABS (2007). 2006 Census Tables: Australia. Cat. No. 2068.0.Japanese panelThe Japanese respondents were selected by random sampling of the general public aged 20 orolder living in Japan. Sampling proceeded by the random walk method, whereby surveyors startedat one address in the area of the sampling point and then randomly selected another map addressto find the next participant. The survey’s URL was hand delivered to respondents, who filled out thequestionnaire electronically. The panel was representative of the demographic characteristics (i.e.,gender, age) of the Japanese population. 2,222 residents were sampled and 813 responded (i.e.,36.6%).Table 7 provides a comparison between the Japanese survey panel and the national average. TheJapanese survey panel had a larger portion of 20–40 year olds and a smaller portion of over 60year olds compared to the national average. One key reason for this is that Japanese internetpenetration in older people is still low (65–59 years old: 37.6%, 70–79 years old: 27.7%, over 80years old: 14.5%).64 | Understanding how individuals perceive carbon dioxide
Table 7: Comparison between Japanese survey panel and national averageJapanese Survey Panel(N=813)National Average aProportion female 50% 52%Proportion Age ≤ 29 17% 15%30 ~ 39 22% 18%40 ~ 49 20% 15%50 ~ 59 20% 19%≥ 60 21% 33%a. Reference: Statistics Bureau. (2006). 2005 population census. Summary of the results: Chapter 1: Size and geographical distributionof the population. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications.Dutch panelThe Dutch sample was drawn from a large Dutch polling firm’s respondent panel using stratifiedrandom sampling of the Dutch population over the age of 18. Respondents completed thequestionnaire individually online. The distribution of age and gender across the sample was similarto that of the general Dutch population.Table 8: Comparison between Netherlands survey panel and national averageDutch Survey Panel(N=848)National Average aProportion female 50% 51%Proportion Age ≤ 29 15% 16%30 ~ 39 15% 16%40 ~ 49 20% 19%50 ~ 59 18% 17%≥ 60 32% 32%a. Reference: CBS (2010) “Key figures”Understanding how individuals perceive carbon dioxide | 65
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 44 and 45: formed their opinion using the CCS
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 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?