The Role of Convictions and Trust for Public Protest Potential in the Case of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS)

ABSTRACT For the public to accept new technologies, trust and convictions play an important role. In the present research, we used structural equation modeling to examine an extensive causal model of the role of convictions and trust for the public's protest potential against carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) among a large sample of the general population (N = 769). Trust, convictions, perceived benefits, and risks were included in the model. Our model fitted the data well. Convictions regarding emission reduction, decentralization of energy production, and tampering with natural structures in the deep subsurface influenced the perception of benefits and risks. Trust, in contrast, was barely influential. Perceived benefits were more prominent for public protest potential than perceived risks. However, perceived benefits did not dominate perceived risks as much as earlier studies found for acceptance. We argue that trust can become fully effective as a determinant of perceived risks and benefits only when the public perceives the distinct positioning of the stakeholders involved. Until then, laypeople are likely to draw on their own convictions and intuitive mental concepts for making decisions about accepting a new technology or protesting it.

[1]  P. Bentler,et al.  Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternatives , 1999 .

[2]  Keigo Akimoto,et al.  Public perceptions on the acceptance of geological storage of carbon dioxide and information influencing the acceptance , 2007 .

[3]  Filip Johnsson,et al.  Stakeholder attitudes on carbon capture and storage -- An international comparison , 2009 .

[4]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Salient Value Similarity, Social Trust, and Risk/Benefit Perception , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[5]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  Perceived risk and tampering with nature , 2000 .

[6]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  Lay concepts on CCS deployment in Switzerland based on qualitative interviews , 2009 .

[7]  Aie,et al.  Energy Technology Perspectives 2012 , 2006 .

[8]  Elizabeth L. Malone,et al.  Moving from misinformation derived from public attitude surveys on carbon dioxide capture and storage towards realistic stakeholder involvement , 2010 .

[9]  T. Earle,et al.  Trust in Risk Management: A Model‐Based Review of Empirical Research , 2010, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[10]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Impact of knowledge and misconceptions on benefit and risk perception of CCS. , 2010, Environmental science & technology.

[11]  Paul Upham,et al.  Review of the public participation practices for CCS and non-CCS projects in Europe , 2010 .

[12]  Milton Clark,et al.  Taking Action on Global Warming , 2006 .

[13]  W. Saris,et al.  Mobilization potential for environmental protest , 1993 .

[14]  Bart W. Terwel,et al.  How organizational motives and communications affect public trust in organizations: The case of carbon dioxide capture and storage , 2009 .

[15]  Jerald L. Schnoor Global Warming: A Consequence of Human Activities Rivaling Earth's Biogeochemical Processes , 2005 .

[16]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  A Causal Model Explaining the Perception and Acceptance of Gene Technology1 , 1999 .

[17]  Yutaka Tanaka Major Psychological Factors Affecting Acceptance of Gene‐Recombination Technology , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[18]  M Granger Morgan,et al.  Initial public perceptions of deep geological and oceanic disposal of carbon dioxide. , 2004, Environmental science & technology.

[19]  André Faaij,et al.  Informed and uninformed public opinions on CO2 capture and storage technologies in the Netherlands , 2009 .

[20]  Lucien Hanssen,et al.  Trust in governance and the acceptance of genetically modified food in the Netherlands , 2006 .

[21]  Bart W. Terwel,et al.  Competence‐Based and Integrity‐Based Trust as Predictors of Acceptance of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS) , 2009, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[22]  Peta Ashworth,et al.  From research to action: now we have to move on CCS communication , 2010 .

[23]  E. F. Schumacher,et al.  Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered , 1974 .

[24]  L Sjöberg,et al.  Limits of Knowledge and the Limited Importance of Trust , 2001, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[25]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Adapting communication to the public's intuitive understanding of CCS , 2011 .

[26]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model , 2011 .

[27]  M. Siegrist The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[28]  H. Kastenholz,et al.  Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: The influence of affect and trust , 2007, Appetite.

[29]  Emma ter Mors,et al.  Effective communication about complex environmental issues: Perceived quality of information about carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) depends on stakeholder collaboration , 2010 .

[30]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[31]  I. Ajzen The theory of planned behavior , 1991 .

[32]  Wouter Poortinga,et al.  Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food? , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[33]  Cees J H Midden,et al.  The Role of Trust in the Affective Evaluation of Novel Risks: The Case of CO2 Storage , 2009, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[34]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Morality Information, Performance Information, and the Distinction Between Trust and Confidence1 , 2006 .