4.5 Article

Risk Assessment Regarding Perceived Toxicity and Acceptance of Carbon Dioxide-Based Fuel by Laypeople for Its Use in Road Traffic and Aviation

Journal

FRONTIERS IN ENERGY RESEARCH
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fenrg.2020.579814

Keywords

carbon dioxide-based fuels; acceptance; toxicity; risk perception; carbon capture and utilization; public perception

Categories

Funding

  1. European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program [838077]
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany's Excellence Strategy-Exzellenzcluster 2186 The Fuel Science Center [390919832]
  3. H2020 Societal Challenges Programme [838077] Funding Source: H2020 Societal Challenges Programme

Ask authors/readers for more resources

One approach to mitigate the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) is the development of CO2-based products, such as fuels for road traffic and aviation. Since the acceptance of sustainable product innovations such as CO2-based fuels depends on an individual's acceptance decision based on perceived risks and benefits, this study focuses on subjective risk perceptions of fuel toxicity. An online survey was conducted to assess risk evaluations of CO2-based fuels regarding various risk targets, exposure characteristics, negative outcomes for health and environment, and frequency of health impairments. CO2-based fuels were significantly more positively perceived than conventional fuels and were found to be perceived to pose less risks regarding types of exposure and properties leading to toxic effects. For both aviation and road traffic the acceptance of CO2-based fuels increased with decreasing fear of health and environmental consequences and the less frequently health effects were assessed. The findings allow to derive implications for risk assessment and communication strategies in the development and roll-out of CO2-based fuels.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available