Driving towards sustainability: exploring risk perceptions of fossil fuels, e-fuels, and electric drives in individual transport

IF 2.6 4区工程技术 Q3 ENERGY & FUELS

Frontiers in Energy Research Pub Date : 2024-08-05 DOI:10.3389/fenrg.2024.1415430

Eva Rößler, Tim Schmeckel, Ute Kesselheim, Katrin Arning

{"title":"Driving towards sustainability: exploring risk perceptions of fossil fuels, e-fuels, and electric drives in individual transport","authors":"Eva Rößler, Tim Schmeckel, Ute Kesselheim, Katrin Arning","doi":"10.3389/fenrg.2024.1415430","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The transportation sector is a significant contributor to CO2 emissions, necessitating the adoption of alternative drive technologies to achieve decarbonization. This study investigates public perceptions of fossil fuels, e-fuels, and electric drives, with the aim of identifying factors influencing risk perceptions, perceived efficacy in combating climate change, and readiness to use or purchase cars with these technologies. Therefore, a quantitative study using a questionnaire (N = 141) was conducted. The results indicate that e-fuels and electric drives are perceived more positively than fossil fuels. E-fuels were found to have the lowest risk perceptions. Differences in cognitive and affective risk perceptions, as well as in financial, environmental, and health-related risks, were observed across drive types. Car affinity was found to correlate positively with risk perceptions of e-fuels and fossil fuels, but negatively with electric drives. The risk perception of global warming showed an inverse relationship. Regarding the prediction of readiness, differences were found between e-fuels and electric drives in terms of the influencing factors on readiness. The study contributes to the understanding of public perceptions by providing a comparison between different drive technologies and offers valuable insights for developing targeted communication strategies.","PeriodicalId":12428,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Energy Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Energy Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2024.1415430","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The transportation sector is a significant contributor to CO2 emissions, necessitating the adoption of alternative drive technologies to achieve decarbonization. This study investigates public perceptions of fossil fuels, e-fuels, and electric drives, with the aim of identifying factors influencing risk perceptions, perceived efficacy in combating climate change, and readiness to use or purchase cars with these technologies. Therefore, a quantitative study using a questionnaire (N = 141) was conducted. The results indicate that e-fuels and electric drives are perceived more positively than fossil fuels. E-fuels were found to have the lowest risk perceptions. Differences in cognitive and affective risk perceptions, as well as in financial, environmental, and health-related risks, were observed across drive types. Car affinity was found to correlate positively with risk perceptions of e-fuels and fossil fuels, but negatively with electric drives. The risk perception of global warming showed an inverse relationship. Regarding the prediction of readiness, differences were found between e-fuels and electric drives in terms of the influencing factors on readiness. The study contributes to the understanding of public perceptions by providing a comparison between different drive technologies and offers valuable insights for developing targeted communication strategies.

查看原文本刊更多论文

迈向可持续发展：探索个人交通工具中化石燃料、电子燃料和电力驱动的风险认知

交通部门是二氧化碳排放的重要来源，因此有必要采用替代驱动技术来实现去碳化。本研究调查了公众对化石燃料、电子燃料和电力驱动的看法，旨在找出影响风险认知、应对气候变化的认知功效以及使用或购买采用这些技术的汽车的意愿的因素。因此，我们使用问卷（N = 141）进行了一项定量研究。结果表明，人们对电子燃料和电力驱动的看法比化石燃料更为积极。电动燃料的风险认知度最低。不同驱动类型在认知和情感风险感知以及财务、环境和健康相关风险方面存在差异。研究发现，汽车亲和力与电动燃料和化石燃料的风险认知呈正相关，但与电力驱动呈负相关。对全球变暖的风险认知则呈反向关系。在对准备程度的预测方面，发现电动燃料和电动驱动在影响准备程度的因素方面存在差异。这项研究通过对不同驱动技术进行比较，有助于了解公众的看法，并为制定有针对性的传播战略提供了宝贵的见解。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Frontiers in Energy Research Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics and Econometrics

CiteScore

3.90

自引率

11.80%

发文量

1727

审稿时长

12 weeks

期刊介绍： Frontiers in Energy Research makes use of the unique Frontiers platform for open-access publishing and research networking for scientists, which provides an equal opportunity to seek, share and create knowledge. The mission of Frontiers is to place publishing back in the hands of working scientists and to promote an interactive, fair, and efficient review process. Articles are peer-reviewed according to the Frontiers review guidelines, which evaluate manuscripts on objective editorial criteria