Public attitudes towards gasification technologies in the UK, Germany and China and their susceptibility to the Nasty Effect

IF 10.1 1区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL ISSUES
Christopher R. Jones , Roh Pin Lee , Daphne Kaklamanou
{"title":"Public attitudes towards gasification technologies in the UK, Germany and China and their susceptibility to the Nasty Effect","authors":"Christopher R. Jones ,&nbsp;Roh Pin Lee ,&nbsp;Daphne Kaklamanou","doi":"10.1016/j.techsoc.2025.102891","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In many countries, there is growing interest in the use of gasification technologies as an alternative to oil and natural gas in industrial-scale chemical production. Gasification could help to reduce reliance on fossil fuel imports and, depending upon the feedstock used, could help to decarbonise and improve the circularity of the sector. Despite the importance that public acceptance can have for the roll-out of industrial technologies, studies into public attitudes and risk perceptions of gasification technology are lacking. To address this gap, the current study investigated public attitudes towards two forms of gasification (coal and waste gasification) using an online survey distributed to demographically representative samples of the public from the UK, Germany and China. The objectives were to: (1) gain insight into public attitudes towards the use of gasification technologies in these countries; (2) assess potential divergence in public attitudes towards the use of different carbon sources within gasification; and (3) identify the potential impact of negative social framing – namely the Nasty Effect – on risk perceptions. Results showed that attitudes towards gasification were generally positive in all three countries, although significantly more so in China. The anticipated preference for waste gasification was observed in the UK and Germany but not in China. There was little consistent evidence of the Nasty Effect in terms of participants’ evaluations of the technological and environmental risks of gasification in each country. The results hold potential implications for the development of future outreach and communication activities relating to the technology.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47979,"journal":{"name":"Technology in Society","volume":"82 ","pages":"Article 102891"},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Technology in Society","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X25000818","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL ISSUES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In many countries, there is growing interest in the use of gasification technologies as an alternative to oil and natural gas in industrial-scale chemical production. Gasification could help to reduce reliance on fossil fuel imports and, depending upon the feedstock used, could help to decarbonise and improve the circularity of the sector. Despite the importance that public acceptance can have for the roll-out of industrial technologies, studies into public attitudes and risk perceptions of gasification technology are lacking. To address this gap, the current study investigated public attitudes towards two forms of gasification (coal and waste gasification) using an online survey distributed to demographically representative samples of the public from the UK, Germany and China. The objectives were to: (1) gain insight into public attitudes towards the use of gasification technologies in these countries; (2) assess potential divergence in public attitudes towards the use of different carbon sources within gasification; and (3) identify the potential impact of negative social framing – namely the Nasty Effect – on risk perceptions. Results showed that attitudes towards gasification were generally positive in all three countries, although significantly more so in China. The anticipated preference for waste gasification was observed in the UK and Germany but not in China. There was little consistent evidence of the Nasty Effect in terms of participants’ evaluations of the technological and environmental risks of gasification in each country. The results hold potential implications for the development of future outreach and communication activities relating to the technology.
英国、德国和中国公众对气化技术的态度及其对 "恶心效应 "的易感性
在许多国家,人们对在工业规模的化学生产中使用气化技术作为石油和天然气的替代品越来越感兴趣。气化可以帮助减少对化石燃料进口的依赖,并且根据所使用的原料,可以帮助脱碳并改善该行业的循环。尽管公众接受对工业技术的推广具有重要意义,但缺乏对气化技术的公众态度和风险认知的研究。为了解决这一差距,目前的研究通过在线调查调查了公众对两种形式的气化(煤炭和废物气化)的态度,这些调查分布在英国、德国和中国的人口统计学代表性样本中。目的是:(1)深入了解这些国家公众对使用气化技术的态度;(2)评估公众对在气化过程中使用不同碳源的潜在态度分歧;(3)确定负面社会框架对风险认知的潜在影响,即“恶劣效应”。结果显示,三个国家对气化的态度总体上是积极的,尽管中国的态度明显更积极。在英国和德国观察到对废物气化的预期偏好,但在中国没有。就参与者对每个国家的气化技术和环境风险的评估而言,几乎没有一致的证据表明“恶劣效应”。研究结果对发展与该技术有关的未来外联和传播活动具有潜在的影响。
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
CiteScore
17.90
自引率
14.10%
发文量
316
审稿时长
60 days
期刊介绍: Technology in Society is a global journal dedicated to fostering discourse at the crossroads of technological change and the social, economic, business, and philosophical transformation of our world. The journal aims to provide scholarly contributions that empower decision-makers to thoughtfully and intentionally navigate the decisions shaping this dynamic landscape. A common thread across these fields is the role of technology in society, influencing economic, political, and cultural dynamics. Scholarly work in Technology in Society delves into the social forces shaping technological decisions and the societal choices regarding technology use. This encompasses scholarly and theoretical approaches (history and philosophy of science and technology, technology forecasting, economic growth, and policy, ethics), applied approaches (business innovation, technology management, legal and engineering), and developmental perspectives (technology transfer, technology assessment, and economic development). Detailed information about the journal's aims and scope on specific topics can be found in Technology in Society Briefings, accessible via our Special Issues and Article Collections.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信