Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://doi.org/10.21256/zhaw-21416Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Jobin, Marilou | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Siegrist, Michael | - |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-01-25T10:27:09Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2021-01-25T10:27:09Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2020 | - |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0272-4332 | de_CH |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1539-6924 | de_CH |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://digitalcollection.zhaw.ch/handle/11475/21416 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | Due to the renewed increase in CO2 emissions seen in recent years, the deployment of climate engineering technologies might become necessary if the global temperature increase is to be kept within 1.5 °C. If climate engineering is to be deployed, however, public support is required. The present study hence compared public support for a broad range of climate engineering technologies. Further, the factors that drive public support were investigated and compared across the technologies. In an online survey conducted in Switzerland, respondents (n = 1,575) were randomly allocated to the description of 1 of 10 climate engineering technologies, of which 7 were specific carbon dioxide removal measures and 3 were solar radiation management measures. The results show that the level of public support for afforestation was the highest. The levels of public support for the other climate engineering technologies were relatively similar, although a tendency for solar radiation management to have a lower level of support was identified. Across all the investigated climate engineering technologies, the perceived benefits were an important driver of public support. Additionally, for all the technologies but afforestation, a higher level of trust in industry/science/government increased the level of public support, whereas the factor perceived risks and tampering with nature was found to be a negative predictor of support. The present findings suggest that there are opportunities available for the deployment of several climate engineering technologies in combination with other mitigation measures. Communicating the benefits of such technologies might be an effective strategy in terms of fostering increased support. | de_CH |
| dc.language.iso | en | de_CH |
| dc.publisher | Wiley | de_CH |
| dc.relation.ispartof | Risk Analysis | de_CH |
| dc.rights | Licence according to publishing contract | de_CH |
| dc.subject | Benefit perception | de_CH |
| dc.subject | Climate engineering | de_CH |
| dc.subject | Tampering with nature | de_CH |
| dc.subject | Technology acceptance | de_CH |
| dc.subject | Trust | de_CH |
| dc.subject.ddc | 338.927: Umweltökonomie und nachhaltige Entwicklung | de_CH |
| dc.title | Support for the deployment of climate engineering : a comparison of ten different technologies | de_CH |
| dc.type | Beitrag in wissenschaftlicher Zeitschrift | de_CH |
| dcterms.type | Text | de_CH |
| zhaw.departement | School of Management and Law | de_CH |
| zhaw.organisationalunit | Institut für Innovation und Entrepreneurship (IIE) | de_CH |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/risa.13462 | de_CH |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.21256/zhaw-21416 | - |
| dc.identifier.pmid | 32112448 | de_CH |
| zhaw.funding.eu | No | de_CH |
| zhaw.issue | 5 | de_CH |
| zhaw.originated.zhaw | Yes | de_CH |
| zhaw.pages.end | 1078 | de_CH |
| zhaw.pages.start | 1058 | de_CH |
| zhaw.publication.status | acceptedVersion | de_CH |
| zhaw.volume | 40 | de_CH |
| zhaw.embargo.end | 2022-02-28 | de_CH |
| zhaw.publication.review | Peer review (Publikation) | de_CH |
| zhaw.author.additional | No | de_CH |
| zhaw.display.portrait | Yes | de_CH |
| Appears in collections: | Publikationen School of Management and Law | |
Files in This Item:
| File | Description | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020_Jobin-Siegrist_Support-deployment-climate-engineering-technologies.pdf | Accepted Version | 569.45 kB | Adobe PDF |  View/Open |
Show simple item record
Jobin, M., & Siegrist, M. (2020). Support for the deployment of climate engineering : a comparison of ten different technologies. Risk Analysis, 40(5), 1058–1078. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13462
Jobin, M. and Siegrist, M. (2020) ‘Support for the deployment of climate engineering : a comparison of ten different technologies’, Risk Analysis, 40(5), pp. 1058–1078. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13462.
M. Jobin and M. Siegrist, “Support for the deployment of climate engineering : a comparison of ten different technologies,” Risk Analysis, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 1058–1078, 2020, doi: 10.1111/risa.13462.
JOBIN, Marilou und Michael SIEGRIST, 2020. Support for the deployment of climate engineering : a comparison of ten different technologies. Risk Analysis. 2020. Bd. 40, Nr. 5, S. 1058–1078. DOI 10.1111/risa.13462
Jobin, Marilou, and Michael Siegrist. 2020. “Support for the Deployment of Climate Engineering : A Comparison of Ten Different Technologies.” Risk Analysis 40 (5): 1058–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13462.
Jobin, Marilou, and Michael Siegrist. “Support for the Deployment of Climate Engineering : A Comparison of Ten Different Technologies.” Risk Analysis, vol. 40, no. 5, 2020, pp. 1058–78, https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13462.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.