4.7 Article

The effect of trust on people's acceptance of CCS (carbon capture and storage) technologies: Evidence from a survey in the People's Republic of China

Journal

ENERGY
Volume 96, Issue -, Pages 69-79

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2015.12.044

Keywords

CCS technologies; Public acceptance; Trust

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71203008, 70973011]
  2. Education Ministry of China for the Development of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences [11YJA630119]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aims to explore the factors affecting public acceptance of CCS (carbon capture and storage) technologies in China. A survey based on online questionnaires and face-to-face interviews was conducted between September and December 2014. Findings show that, in China the public is still not fully aware of CCS technologies, compared with other renewable energy technologies, and indicates a slightly supportive attitude towards the application of CCS technologies as an alternative technological option to mitigate climate change. In addition, the regression model revealed that public cognition, economic benefits and environmentalism exerted a positive impact, while perceived risk, which is the decisive factor among all related variables, has a negative effect on the acceptance of CCS. Trust in CCS project implementation stakeholders has a positive and direct influence on public decision-making to support CCS. Meanwhile, the interaction between trust and perceived risks and benefits also appears to be significant, indicating that trust indeed enhances the public's expected benefits, while easing concerns about the risks of CCS. These findings suggest that government institutions and project developers should take measures to control the risks of CCS in order to construct and maintain people's trust in the technologies themselves and the project implementation stakeholders. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available