Informed public opinions on CCS in comparison to other mitigation options

Marjolein de Best-Waldhober; Dancker Daamen; Andrea Ramirez Ramirez; André Faaij; Chris Hendriks; Erika de Visser

doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.306

Informed public opinions on CCS in comparison to other mitigation options

Marjolein de Best-Waldhober^*, Dancker Daamen, Andrea Ramirez Ramirez, André Faaij, Chris Hendriks, Erika de Visser

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Conference article › Scientific › peer-review

37 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In this study, an Information-Choice Questionnaire (ICQ) was used to find out how a representative sample of the Dutch public (n =971) would evaluate and choose between seven mitigation options after having been thoroughly informed. The results suggest that due to the comparison with other mitigation options, people are less positive about CCS options. Still, only few respondents firmly reject the CCS options.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	4795-4802
Number of pages	8
Journal	Energy Procedia
Volume	1
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.306
Publication status	Published - 1 Feb 2009
Externally published	Yes
Event	9th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT-9 - Washington DC, United States Duration: 16 Nov 2008 → 20 Nov 2008

Keywords

acceptance
CCS
Choice
ICQ
Information
Public opinion
Public perception

Access to Document

10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.306

Cite this

@article{ebc31ab62b2e4e93b0db771610e949d2,

title = "Informed public opinions on CCS in comparison to other mitigation options",

abstract = "In this study, an Information-Choice Questionnaire (ICQ) was used to find out how a representative sample of the Dutch public (n =971) would evaluate and choose between seven mitigation options after having been thoroughly informed. The results suggest that due to the comparison with other mitigation options, people are less positive about CCS options. Still, only few respondents firmly reject the CCS options.",

keywords = "acceptance, CCS, Choice, ICQ, Information, Public opinion, Public perception",

author = "{de Best-Waldhober}, Marjolein and Dancker Daamen and {Ramirez Ramirez}, Andrea and Andr{\'e} Faaij and Chris Hendriks and {de Visser}, Erika",

year = "2009",

month = feb,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.306",

language = "English",

volume = "1",

pages = "4795--4802",

journal = "Energy Procedia",

issn = "1876-6102",

publisher = "Elsevier",

number = "1",

note = "9th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT-9 ; Conference date: 16-11-2008 Through 20-11-2008",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Informed public opinions on CCS in comparison to other mitigation options

AU - de Best-Waldhober, Marjolein

AU - Daamen, Dancker

AU - Ramirez Ramirez, Andrea

AU - Faaij, André

AU - Hendriks, Chris

AU - de Visser, Erika

PY - 2009/2/1

Y1 - 2009/2/1

N2 - In this study, an Information-Choice Questionnaire (ICQ) was used to find out how a representative sample of the Dutch public (n =971) would evaluate and choose between seven mitigation options after having been thoroughly informed. The results suggest that due to the comparison with other mitigation options, people are less positive about CCS options. Still, only few respondents firmly reject the CCS options.

AB - In this study, an Information-Choice Questionnaire (ICQ) was used to find out how a representative sample of the Dutch public (n =971) would evaluate and choose between seven mitigation options after having been thoroughly informed. The results suggest that due to the comparison with other mitigation options, people are less positive about CCS options. Still, only few respondents firmly reject the CCS options.

KW - acceptance

KW - CCS

KW - Choice

KW - ICQ

KW - Information

KW - Public opinion

KW - Public perception

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=67650145272&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.306

DO - 10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.306

M3 - Conference article

AN - SCOPUS:67650145272

SN - 1876-6102

VL - 1

SP - 4795

EP - 4802

JO - Energy Procedia

JF - Energy Procedia

IS - 1

T2 - 9th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT-9

Y2 - 16 November 2008 through 20 November 2008

ER -

Informed public opinions on CCS in comparison to other mitigation options

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this