Abstract
Solar radiation management (SRM) aims to counteract the negative consequences of global warming and is considered for deployment in the event that mitigation and adaptation efforts appear insufficient. However, because the potential ecological and political side effects of SRM are not well understood, and because SRM will cross national boundaries, an international research perspective on the general public’s perception of this technology is required. We conducted an online survey on the general public’s perception and acceptance of SRM in Canada, China, Germany, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA. Our findings confirmed the need for an international perspective, as we found several cross-country differences. Chinese respondents, for example, indicated greater acceptance for SRM than their North American and European counterparts. Moreover, results of regression analyses on acceptance of SRM by country revealed that lower acceptability ratings for SRM in Canada and Europe were mostly related to stronger beliefs that SRM tampers with nature. Chinese respondents, by contrast, were more accepting of SRM when they held stronger beliefs that it may reduce the motivation to adopt burdensome climate change mitigation efforts. Although our research—and previous studies—suggest that opposition to SRM remains, dismissing the technology entirely on these grounds and without conducting a careful, cross-national, and transdisciplinary decision-support process to set up an international policy regime seems premature as people from countries that are less prepared to mitigate and adapt to climate change seem to be more supportive of SRM.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amelung D, Funke J (2015) Laypeople’s risky decisions in the climate change context: climate engineering as a risk-defusing strategy? Hum Ecol Risk Assess 21:533–559
Arvai JL (2003) Using risk communication to disclose the outcome of a participatory decision making process: effects on the perceived acceptability of risk-policy decisions. Risk Anal 23:281–289
Arvai J, Gregory R, Bessette D, Campbell-Arvai V (2012) Decision support for developing energy strategies. Issues Sci Technol 28:43–52
Bahn O, Chesney M, Gheyssens J, Knutti R, Pana AC (2015) Is there room for geoengineering in the optimal climate policy mix? Environ Sci Pol 48:67–76
Bellamy R, Hulme M (2011) Beyond the tipping point: understanding perceptions of abrupt climate change and their implications. Weather Clim Soc 3:48–60
Bellamy R, Chilvers J, Vaughan NE, Lenton TM (2013) ‘Opening up’ geoengineering appraisal: multi-criteria mapping of options for tackling climate change. Glob Environ Change 23:926–937
Bessette DL, Arvai J, Campbell-Arvai V (2014) Decision support framework for developing regional energy strategies. Environ Sci Technol 48:1401–1408
Blackstock JJ, Craik N, Doughty J, Horton J (2015) Designing procedural mechanisms for the governance of solar radiation management field experiments: workshop report. Centre for International Governance Innovation. Ottawa, Canada
Bostrom A, O’Connor RE, Bohm G et al (2012) Causal thinking and support for climate change policies: international survey findings. Glob Environ Change 22:210–222
Capstick S, Whitmarsh L, Poortinga W, Pidgeon N, Upham P (2015) International trends in public perceptions of climate change over the past quarter century. WIREs Clim Change 6:35–61
Corner A, Pidgeon N (2014) Geoengineering, climate change scepticism and the ‘moral hazard’ argument: An experimental study of UK public perceptions. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci 372
Corner A, Pidgeon N, Parkhill K (2012) Perceptions of geoengineering: public attitudes, stakeholder perspectives, and the challenge of ‘upstream’ engagement. WIREs Clim Change 3:451–466
Corner A, Parkhill K, Pidgeon N, Vaughan NE (2013) Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK. Glob Environ Change 23:938–947
Crutzen PJ (2006) Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: a contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Clim Chang 77:211–220
de Groot JIM, Steg L (2008) Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior: how to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Environ Behav 40:330–354
Dietz T, Dan A, Shwom R (2007) Support for climate change policy: social psychological and social structural influences. Rural Sociol 72:185–214
Douglas M, Wildavsky A (1982) Risk and culture: an essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles
Edney K, Symons J (2014) China and the blunt temptations of geo-engineering: the role of solar radiation management in China’s strategic response to climate change. Pac Rev 27:307–332
Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SM (2000) The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J Behav Dec Mak 13:1–17
Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Pol Sci 9:127–152
Hofstede G (2015) Dimension Data Matrix. www.geerthofstede.nl. Accessed March 29, 2017
Hofstede G, Hofstede G-J, Minkov M (2010) Cultures and organizations. Software of the mind, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York
Huijts NMA, Molin EJE, Steg L (2012) Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: a review-based comprehensive framework. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16:525–531
International Telecommunication Union (ITU) (2014) Percentage of individuals using the Internet 2010–2014. http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx. Accessed 1 March 2016
IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva
Gaskell G, Eyck, TT, Jackson J, & Veltri G (2005) Imagining nanotechnology: Cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Underst Sci 14:81–90
Keith DW, Parson E, Morgan MG (2010) Research on global sun block needed now. Nature 463:426–427
Lin A (2013) Does geoengineering present a moral hazard? Ecol Law Quart 40:673–712
Lo AY, Chow AT (2015) The relationship between climate change concern and national wealth. Clim Chang 131:335–348
Macnaghten P, Szerszynski B (2013) Living the global social experiment: an analysis of public discourse on solar radiation management and its implications for governance. Glob Environ Change 23:465–474
Mercer AM, Keith DW, Sharp JD (2011) Public understanding of solar radiation management. Environ Res Lett 6:044006
Merk C, Pönitzsch G, Kniebes C, Rehdanz K, Schmidt U (2015) Exploring public perceptions of stratospheric sulfate injection. Clim Chang 130:299–312
Moore JC, Jevrejeva S, Grinsted A (2010) Efficacy of geoengineering to limit 21st century sea-level rise. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107:15699–15703
Moriarty P, Honnery D (2015) Reliance on technical solutions to environmental problems: caution is needed. Environ Sci Technol 49:5255–5256
National Research Council (2015) Climate intervention: reflecting sunlight to cool earth. The National Academies Press, Washington
Nelson CH (2001) Risk perception, behavior, and consumer response to genetically modified organisms. Am Behav Sci 44:1371–1388
Owen R (2011) Legitimate conditions for climate engineering. Environ Sci Technol 45:9116–9117
Pelley J (2009) Potential of geoengineering highly uncertain. Environ Sci Technol 43:8472–8473
Pidgeon N, Corner A, Parkhill K, Spence A, Butler C, Poortinga W (2012) Exploring early public responses to geoengineering. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci 370:4176–4196
Pidgeon N, Parkhill K, Corner A, Vaughan N (2013) Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project. Nat Clim Chang 3:451–457
Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Val 30:251–290
Shi J, Visschers VHM, Siegrist M (2015) Public perception of climate change: the importance of knowledge and cultural worldviews. Risk Anal 35:2183–2201
Shi J, Visschers VHM, Siegrist M, Arvai J (2016) Knowledge as a driver of public perceptions about climate change reassessed. Nature Clim Change 6:759–762
Siegrist M, Sütterlin BS (2014) Human and nature-caused hazards: the affect heuristic causes biased decisions. Risk Anal 34:1482–1494
Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280–285
SRMGI (2011) Solar radiation management governance initiative. http://www.srmgi.org/. Accessed September 12 2016
Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel TD, Guagnano GA, Kalof L (1999) A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum Ecol Rev 6:81–97
Sütterlin BS, Siegrist M (in press) Public perception of solar radiation management: the impact of information and evoked affect. J Risk Res. doi:10.1080/13669877.2016.1153501
The Internet Monitor (2013) IM broadband pricing data. https://thenetmonitor.org/sources. Accessed 1 March 2016
The Royal Society (2009) Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty. The Royal Society, London
Tobler C, Visschers VHM, Siegrist M (2012) Consumers’ knowledge about climate change. Clim Chang 114:189–209
United Kingdom House of Commons: Science and Technology Committee (2010) The regulation of geo-engineering, fifth report of session, 2009–10. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/221/221.pdf. Accessed September 12 2016
van den Bos K (2005) What is responsible for the fair process effect? In: Greenberg J, Colquitt JA (eds) Handbook of organizational justice. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 273–300
Vaughan NE, Lenton TM (2011) A review of climate geoengineering proposals. Clim Chang 109:745–790
WHO (2015) Global health observatory (GHO) data: Exposure to ambient air pollution. World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/quantifying_ehimpacts/national/countryprofile/china.pdf?ua=1. Accessed July 3 2015
Winickoff DE, Flegal JA, Asrat A (2015) Engaging the global south on climate engineering research. Nat Clim Chang 5:627–634
Yu X (2014) Is environment ‘a city thing’ in China? Rural-urban differences in environmental attitudes. J Environ Psychol 38:39–48
Acknowledgements
Jing Shi received financial support from the China Scholarship Council (CSC). We would also like to thank Respondi AG, InterfaceASIA Holden, and Insightrix Research Inc. for assistance with the survey.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(PDF 156 kb).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Visschers, V.H.M., Shi, J., Siegrist, M. et al. Beliefs and values explain international differences in perception of solar radiation management: insights from a cross-country survey. Climatic Change 142, 531–544 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-1970-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-1970-8