Abstract
AbstractAlthough shipping is the most energy efficient method of transporting trade goods it is held accountable for 2–3% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The shipping industry is exploring pathways to carbon–neutral fuels to help eliminate GHG emissions by 2050. To date research on alternative fuels has not considered public opinion; it remains unclear whether the public will support alternative shipping fuels, or whether public opposition might prevent or defer their deployment. To fill this knowledge gap and help the industry and policy makers arrive at publicly acceptable decisions, our research examines UK public perceptions of six shipping fuels using a mixed-method approach. Our findings reveal that biofuels and hydrogen are clearly favoured, owing to biofuel’s perceived low risk and hydrogen’s lack of negative by-products. Perceptions of liquid natural gas are somewhat positive, suggesting that it provides an acceptable near-term option while other fuels are developed. Despite lingering stigma, nuclear is preferred over the incumbent heavy fuel oil, though both are perceived negatively. However, the UK public strongly dislike ammonia, perceiving it as unproven, risky, and lacking availability. A third support use of alternative shipping fuels, with support greater from those living near ports—a “yes in my back yard” effect. The results demonstrate that different alternative fuels are likely to elicit different public reactions as they become more widely known and show how the overall evaluations arise from specific positive or negative associations with each fuel.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Economics and Econometrics,Geography, Planning and Development
Reference50 articles.
1. (2021) Call to Action for Shipping Decarbonization.
2. Anderson, J. R., & Bower, G. H. (1973). Human associative memory. Psychology Press.
3. Asher, H. (2017). The problem of nonattitudes. Polling and the public: What every citizen should know (9th ed., pp. 43–72). Sage.
4. Balcombe, P., Brierley, J., Lewis, C., Skatvedt, L., Speirs, J., Hawkes, A., & Staffell, I. (2019). How to decarbonise international shipping: Options for fuels, technologies and policies. Energy Conversion and Management, 182, 72–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.12.080
5. Bech-Larsen, T., & Nielsen, N. A. (1999). A comparison of five elicitation techniques for elicitation of attributes of low involvement products. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20, 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(99)00011-2
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献