Risk Assessment Regarding Perceived Toxicity and Acceptance of Carbon Dioxide-Based Fuel by Laypeople for Its Use in Road Traffic and Aviation

Abstract

One approach to mitigate the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) is the development of CO2-based products, such as fuels for road traffic and aviation. Since the acceptance of sustainable product innovations such as CO2-based fuels depends on an individual’s acceptance decision based on perceived risks and benefits, this study focuses on subjective risk perceptions of fuel toxicity. An online survey was conducted to assess risk evaluations of CO2-based fuels regarding various risk targets, exposure characteristics, negative outcomes for health and environment, and frequency of health impairments. CO2-based fuels were significantly more positively perceived than conventional fuels and were found to be perceived to pose less risks regarding types of exposure and properties leading to toxic effects. For both aviation and road traffic the acceptance of CO2-based fuels increased with decreasing fear of health and environmental consequences and the less frequently health effects were assessed. The findings allow to derive implications for risk assessment and communication strategies in the development and roll-out of CO2-based fuels.

Spiers Memorial Lecture: CO2 utilization: why, why now, and how?

“…Given the relatively new eld of CDU, public familiarity, understanding, and acceptance are not yet established, and efforts are required to ensure societal compatibility. [137][138][139][140][141][142][143][144] Digitalization Implementing a carbon economy built around CO 2 as a feedstock requires building up entirely new supply and value chains. This new carbon economy can be structured around current technological infrastructure to improve efficiency and real-time communication.…”

The Social Acceptance Factors for Insulation Boards Produced With CO2-Derived Foam

“…The present study which focused on the market acceptance-and a part of the socio-political acceptance-of one example of a CCU product does therefore not suffice to draw conclusions on the likelihood of the technology's and product's success. Firstly, only the acceptance of a few CCU products has been studied so far (e.g., van Heek et al, 2017b;Engelmann et al, 2020). For that reason, we cannot draw conclusions on the impact of specific CCU products on acceptance.…”

“…Studies with respect to the market acceptance of CO 2 -derived products found that depending on the included product(s), laymen perceive considerable barriers and risks, e.g., for mattresses (e.g., Offermann-van Heek et al, 2018;Arning et al, 2019), fuels (e.g., Engelmann et al, 2020), and drugs (Arning et al, 2018b). Some studies compared different products in order to explore which products, or product types, are preferred by laymen (Jones et al, 2014;van Heek et al, 2017a;Offermann-van Heek et al, 2018).…”

“…Additionally, health-and safety concerns were identified for plastic CCU products that go beyond the concerns associated with the technology, e.g., the concern of CO 2 escaping from the product, of a decreased product quality, and of the unsustainability of the product's disposal (Arning et al, 2017;Offermann-van Heek et al, 2018). Secondly, a recent study addressed CO 2 -derived fuels for road-and air-traffic (e.g., Engelmann et al, 2020). This application of CCU was also generally positively perceived and the willingness to use the fuel was impacted by the respondents' affective acceptance of the product.…”

Two Sides of the Same Coin—Explaining the Acceptance of CO2-Based Fuels for Aviation Using PLS-SEM by Considering the Production and Product Evaluation

“…In the last couple of years, a general increase in studies dealing with social acceptance in renewable energy technologies can be observed. Such studies both deal with the acceptance of different energy technologies-e.g., wind (e.g., Devine-Wright et al, 2017;Fischhendler et al, 2021), biomass (e.g., Mather-Gratton et al, 2021), solar (e.g., Kratschmann and Dütschke, 2021), and hydrogen (e.g., Ricci et al, 2008)-and different CO 2 -based end products-like fuels (Linzenich et al, 2019b;Engelmann et al, 2020) and insulation boards (Arning et al, 2021;Simons et al, 2021). Nevertheless, few studies combine public perception and acceptance while investigating more than one aspect or production step relevant from a circular economy perspective (Arning et al, 2018b;Offermann-van Heek et al, 2020).…”