Diana-Maria Cismaru,
Associate Professor, PhD,
NUPSPA Bucharest
Fenco ERA-NET Research
“Scrutinizing the impact of CCS communication on the
general and local public”
The CCS (carbon cap...
Methods
A. The qualitative research: Focus groups versus ICQ
groups (3 groups with 12 participants each, matched
groups);
...
The focus groups and ICQ groups results for
Romania
When comparing the effectiveness of the two

methods of communication...
Representative survey results in Romania (I)
The poll at the national level showed a fine level of
information about pollu...
Representative survey results in Romania
(II): the hierarchy of problems
Preferences for different types of energy

solar
wind
water plants
biomass
coal
gas
nuclear
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%
The influence of source testing
Four scenarios tested about CCS:
Negative with a source (Greenpeace);
Negative without a...
Change in acceptance when introducing
source and negative/positive message
Comparison with the other five countries
Level of information on CCS: lower than Norway and
Netherlands, higher than Greec...
Conclusions
• The best method for introducing industrial

innovation would probably be public events, followed
by expert p...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Innovations' acceptance for reducing global warming

960

Published on

Published in: News & Politics, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
960
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
28
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Innovations' acceptance for reducing global warming

  1. 1. Diana-Maria Cismaru, Associate Professor, PhD, NUPSPA Bucharest
  2. 2. Fenco ERA-NET Research “Scrutinizing the impact of CCS communication on the general and local public” The CCS (carbon capture and storage) technologies are designed to decrease the level of industrial CO2 emissions, having an important effect in decreasing global warming. The project tested the public acceptance of CCS technologies in six European countries (Germany, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Norway, Greece and Romania). Some of the countries (as Germany and Netherlands) were advanced in the development of the new technologies, while others were at a beginning.
  3. 3. Methods A. The qualitative research: Focus groups versus ICQ groups (3 groups with 12 participants each, matched groups); Objective: to compare means for shaping a stable opinion and for disseminating information to publics B.The quantitative research : Representative survey at a national level Objective: to identify the best channels of information and the availability to accept innovation in the field of reducing global warming
  4. 4. The focus groups and ICQ groups results for Romania When comparing the effectiveness of the two methods of communication, oral presentation of an expert followed by group debate was in advantage for Romanians. The self-reported awareness to form an opinion on technologies was slightly better in focus groups. Participants reported fewer difficulties in forming an opinion, a greater certainty and sufficient information.
  5. 5. Representative survey results in Romania (I) The poll at the national level showed a fine level of information about pollution and global warming effect, but almost no information on capture carbon and storage technologies at a majority of the Romanians (75% never heard about carbon capture and storage, only 2,9% had more information)
  6. 6. Representative survey results in Romania (II): the hierarchy of problems
  7. 7. Preferences for different types of energy solar wind water plants biomass coal gas nuclear 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
  8. 8. The influence of source testing Four scenarios tested about CCS: Negative with a source (Greenpeace); Negative without a source; Positive with a source (Shell); Positive without a source.
  9. 9. Change in acceptance when introducing source and negative/positive message
  10. 10. Comparison with the other five countries Level of information on CCS: lower than Norway and Netherlands, higher than Greece, comparable with United Kingdom; Level of acceptance of CCS: UK, Norway and Netherlands are neutral, Germany are sceptical, Romania and Greece are enthusiastic; Romania’s particular reaction: a positive change in attitude even in the case of a negative presentation (with or without a source); (explanation: the low level of social trust).
  11. 11. Conclusions • The best method for introducing industrial innovation would probably be public events, followed by expert presentations; • The large acceptance of innovations without information shows a lack of maturity in Romanian publics ; • In promoting innovation, the most important factor in creating public acceptance is not the importance and credibility of the source, but the accessibility of the information .
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×