Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Climatic Change
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Exploring cross-national public support for the use
of enhanced weathering as a land-based carbon
dioxide removal strategy
Elspeth Spence
1
&Emily Cox
1
&Nick Pidgeon
1
Received: 28 August 2020 /Accepted: 25 February 2021 /Published online: 19 March 2021
#The Author(s) 2021
Abstract
This study explores how public attitudes across three countries influence support towards
terrestrial enhanced weathering, whereby silicate minerals are applied to agricultural land
to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. An online survey was administered in
Australia (N= 1000), the UK (N= 1000), and the USA (N= 1026) where there are
ongoing field trials of this technique. Findings are similar across all three countries with
many participants unfamiliar with enhanced weathering and unsure about supporting the
use of enhanced weathering. Results show that positive affect is the main predictor for
support of this technique, along with perceived benefits and level of concern about
climate change. Open-ended questions asking why respondents would or would not
support the use of enhanced weathering elicit mainly affective concepts, with enhanced
weathering seen by individual respondents as either something mainly positive or mainly
negative, with others saying it sounds risky and/or would have impacts on the environ-
ment. The way in which enhanced weathering is communicated is likely to influence
support of the use of this strategy so must be undertaken carefully. Overall, our findings
show that it is imperative to continue to engage the public, thereby allowing their views to
be incorporated as enhanced weathering technology develops over time.
Keywords Public perceptions .Enhanced weathering .Climate engineering .Affect
1 Introduction
Climate change has become a much more salient issue for publics around the world over the
past few years with the highest recorded temperatures being set and an increase in events such
Climatic Change (2021) 165: 23
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03050-y
*Elspeth Spence
spencee@cardiff.ac.uk
1
Understanding Risk Research Group and Leverhulme Centre for Climate Change Mitigation, School
of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
as heatwaves, flooding, drought, and wildfires. Unless rapid and challenging policy changes
are made, it is unlikely that the aspiration of the Paris agreement to limit global average
temperature increase to close to 1.5 °C will be achieved (IPCC 2018). In particular, in order to
approach a goal of net zero carbon emissions, urgent action across all levels of society is
required, action which is likely to include at least some use of Carbon Dioxide Removal
(CDR) technologies (National Academy of Sciences, 2019;Rippleetal.,2019; Royal Society
and RAEng, 2018). The current study examined public understanding and risk perceptions of
terrestrial enhanced weathering (EW), a potential CDR strategy that is currently being
researched as part of approaches to reduce climate change. There are several different forms
of enhanced weathering, but this study focused on application of silicate minerals (e.g. basalt)
onto agricultural land, an approach which has gained considerable scientific and media
attention in recent years. Biogeochemical reactions within soil ecosystems transform atmo-
spheric carbon dioxide into carbonates, which become sequestered in soils and the oceans on a
long-term scale. Some estimates suggest such terrestrial weathering could indeed, if applied at
global scale, contribute significantly towards global CDR goals (Beerling et al., 2020; Kelland
et al., 2020). Aside from removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, terrestrial enhanced
weathering may have co-benefits including slowing ocean acidification, benefitting croplands,
and improving soils (Hartmann et al., 2013; Beerling et al., 2018). Research has shown that in
controlled environmental settings, adding basalt to crops increased soil potential to store four
times as much carbon dioxide and also increased crop yields by up to 20% (Kelland et al.
2020; Beerling et al. 2020). However, there are numerous considerations that are likely to
affect the efficiency and feasibility of enhanced weathering as a sequestration technique. For
example, there are high energy costs associated with mining, grinding, and spreading minerals,
thereby reducing the potential for net CO2removal (Moosdorf et al. 2014), with these
processes likely having additional environmental and ecological consequences. There are also
a range of ethical and social concerns; most of which are also common to other CDR
strategies, including spatial and inter-generational inequalities in the risks associated with
deployment. For example, those living where this strategy is likely to be most effective at scale
(e.g. in countries in the Global South) are the least responsible for historical emissions (Cox
et al., 2018; Lawford-Smith and Currie, 2017).
Many CDR approaches, including terrestrial enhanced weathering, have uncertainties over
their environmental impacts, potentially altered ecosystems, financial costs, and the need for
land and space to build facilities and store emissions (Lomax et al. 2015). CDR approaches
range from established land-use change such as afforestation or peatland restoration through to
more novel strategies including bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), en-
hanced weathering, or even direct chemical capture of CO2from the air (Fuss et al. 2016). Many
of these technologies are still in the very early stages of development, with enhanced weathering
currently undergoing field-scale research trials. For new technologies, recommendations for
‘upstream engagement’demonstrate that constructive societal dialogue should be carried out
while research and development are still in the early phases, with deliberations amongst relevant
parties helping to shape technologies, identify concerns, and inform decision-making (Wilsdon
and Willis 2004; Rogers-Hayden and Pidgeon 2007; Macnaghten 2020). Currently there is
limited public awareness and even less research into public perceptions of CDR approaches and
technologies. It is clear that if these technologies are ever to be deployed at scale, a range of
ethical, legal and moral issues will first need resolution, and many of these issues will impact
upon societies and publics (Corner and Pidgeon 2010; Cox et al. 2018). Accordingly, inclusion
of public voices in debates about CDR is essential to determine preferences for these emerging
23 Page 2 of 18 Climatic Change (2021) 165: 23
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
technologies, to assess what might influence public acceptability and support, and to ensure that
any innovation pathways and governance systems adopted are responsive to societal concerns
(Parkhill et al., 2013;Pidgeon,1998;Rayneretal.,2013).
The CDR strategies described above are commonly defined as a sub-set of
‘geoengineering’, which refers to deliberate large-scale manipulation of the Earth’sclimate
that could either be through solar radiation management (SRM) or carbon dioxide removal
(CDR) (Royal Society, 2009). SRM technologies involve reflecting sunlight back into space
away from Earth and are considered particularly controversial because of their significant
uncertainties and possible environmental consequences, as well as the fact that they do not
directly reduce CO2(Bellamy et al. 2013; Pidgeon et al. 2013). There is not one broad public
perception towards climate engineering but a range of possible responses depending on the
specific technology type, its governance arrangements, and associated risks and challenges
which will vary for each. It is important that these strategies should be considered separately,
and broad categorisations avoided, such that public discourse and governance can be made
more useful and relevant to future decisions about specific strategies (Colvin et al. 2020). As
research into many of the more ‘upstream’approaches is still in its initial stages, it is necessary
to ascertain what shapes public perceptions of climate engineering and emerging technologies
to help predict what could help inform public understandings of individual technologies and
proposals.
1.1 Public perceptions
Early work into public perceptions of climate engineering has shown generally low levels of
awareness, with some evidence that those who are more concerned about climate change are
more supportive of climate engineering (Pidgeon et al., 2012). In addition there is commonly a
preference for CDR methods over SRM (Pidgeon et al., 2012; Scheer and Renn, 2014). Some
of the previous literature has focused specifically on SRM, generally showing low levels of
acceptance and support (Mercer et al. 2011; Macnaghten and Szerszynski 2013;Visschers
et al. 2017), with risks generally perceived to be greater than benefits (Sütterlin and Siegrist
2017).
As the debate about the potential need for climate engineering becomes more intense,
there is an increase in work exploring what predicts public support for specific types of
strategy across both SRM and CDR. Corner et al. (2013) demonstrate how climate
engineering evokes a complex set of ‘messing with nature’narratives. In particular, people
often view it as simply interfering with natural processes and ultimately not dealing with
the main cause of climate change: anthropogenic carbon emissions. Wolske et al. (2019)
have also explored the extent to which specific CDR strategies are perceived to be
tampering with nature, finding greater support for afforestation and reforestation (AR)
over BECCS and DAC (direct air capture), with AR perceived to mess with nature to a
lesser extent. This effect was stronger in participants who were against human intervention
in natural processes. This preference for AR is common, in part because it is perceived to
beamore‘natural’approach as compared to other more technological strategies (Corner
and Pidgeon 2015; Campbell-Arvai et al. 2017).
One common methodological consideration across much of this risk perceptions work is
the need to provide study participants with information about each technique due to low levels
of familiarity, which may include giving information about potential risks and/or benefits.
Usually this information is made as neutral and balanced as possible to avoid framing effects.
Climatic Change (2021) 165: 23 Page 3 of 18 23
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
When awareness is low, however, information provision is likely to influence level of support
as both perceived risks and benefits contribute to attitude formation, with those perceiving
greater risks than benefits tending to be more opposed to new technologies (Slovic 2000).
There is evidence that providing further information about both the risks and benefits of
different climate engineering strategies, as opposed to merely providing a description of
techniques, tends to result in reduced support (Braun et al. 2017;Wolskeetal.2019), and
this has been attributed to how serious respondents perceived climate change to be, or
alternatively the extent to which a particular strategy is thought to be tampering with nature.
In the Braun et al. study, those who saw climate change as more serious were more accepting
of measures but perceived the information more negatively than those who did not perceive
climate change as a serious issue. Wolske et al. (2019) likewise found that after respondents
had read further information about three CDR strategies, BECCS was seen as most likely to
tamper with nature and therefore had reduced levels of support.
Another important component of risk perception is the role of affect: the positive or
negative feeling instinctively associated with a risk issue or technology (Slovic et al.
2007). For example, Merk and Pönitzsch (2017) clearly showed that those who felt more
positive about stratospheric aerosol injection (one type of SRM) had an increased benefit
perception and decreased risk perception, and the reverse for those with negative affect.
The affect heuristic allows people to evaluate novel technologies with limited to no
knowledge about the topic. Sütterlin and Siegrist (2017) show that even with limited
information, people evaluate SRM negatively, with this producing a stronger negative
affective response in those given further information about possible risks. The authors
surmise that people no longer only have their affective evaluation of climate change to rely
on but can now utilise the information received about SRM, which means how technology
is described will likely predict the relation between climate change concern and percep-
tions of climate engineering.
1.2 Public perceptions of enhanced terrestrial weathering
Most recent public perceptions literature has focussed on a range of climate engineering
strategies, across both CDR and SRM, allowing for comparisons between specific
strategies. However, there are very few survey studies that have included enhanced
weathering, which is the key focus of this research. Wright et al. (2014) did include
enhanced weathering in a survey investigating perceptions of six climate engineering
strategies (three CDR and three SRM) in New Zealand and Australia. There were higher
net positive associations made with the CDR strategies, all being judged as more control-
lable and sustainable than SRM. This was also true for enhanced weathering, although in
this study it was not viewed as a very distinct concept by respondents: in other words, it
did not produce particularly positive or negative associations when considered by people,
in comparison to the other climate engineering strategies judged. Follow-up work included
a further two countries (the UK and USA) replicating this finding, but also explored
support for small-scale field trials (Carlisle et al. 2020). Results illustrated mixed support
for trials with a similar pattern across all four countries consistent with earlier studies.
CDR was more supported than SRM. Participants also displayed considerable ambiva-
lence around supporting trials for all strategies, with many neither agreeing nor
disagreeing that trials should occur, including in the case of enhanced weathering. Jobin
and Siegrist (2020) also recently explored the key drivers of public support for 10 different
23 Page 4 of 18 Climatic Change (2021) 165: 23
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
climate engineering strategies (seven CDR and three SRM) finding highest support for
afforestation and lowest support for SRM. Specific to enhanced weathering (alongside
other soil-based CDR strategies), there were low levels of public knowledge. With regard
to general support, higher perceived benefits increased support for use of enhanced
weathering and higher perceived risks (and perceptions of tampering with nature) de-
creased support for deployment.
The studies to date provide an indication of how the public perceive different CDR
strategies compared to each other, including the few studies described above incorporating
enhanced weathering. However, building understanding of risk perceptions of any single
CDR technology also requires investigating specific approaches in greater detail. This
more targeted approach allows for greater provision of technology-specific information
and survey questions and scales which are tailored to the technology under consideration.
Accordingly, the present study examined perceptions towards enhanced weathering as one
possible CDR strategy to help mitigate climate change, building on previous survey work
with respondents from the UK (Pidgeon and Spence, 2017). This earlier work, utilising a
limited range of technology specific items, confirmed that, as with other climate engi-
neering approaches, enhanced weathering was unfamiliar to most respondents, while those
who were more supportive of the approach also felt greater positive affect and perceived
more benefits than risks of the approach.
1.3 The current cross-national study
To extend previous work, we surveyed the populations of three Westernised countries
where small-scale field trials of the enhanced weathering techniques described previously
are already occurring (the UK, the USA, and Australia). The survey examined what
influences support for deployment of enhanced weathering and whether this differs
between countries, and the extent to which support is related to people’s beliefs about
climate change. All three countries have seen significant increases in climate concern in
recent years. In Australia, following several extreme heat and wildfire seasons over recent
summers, the percentage of respondents very concerned about climate change increased to
47% in January 2020 (TAI 2020), a percentage which has almost doubled since 2010
(Reser et al. 2012). In the UK, 40% expressed being ‘very’or ‘extremely’worriedinlate
2019, a figure which had doubled since 2016 (Steentjes et al. 2020). In the USA, there had
likewise been an increase in those most worried about climate change with 31% in 2019
classified as ‘alarmed’, a segment of the US population that had tripled between 2014 and
2019 (Leiserowitz et al., 2020). Accordingly, this is the first study to explore public
perceptions of enhanced weathering in detail across these three countries in light of
increases in climate concern, and will help provide initial insights into how people
rationalise their support for such a novel CO2removal approach.
We hypothesised that people would be unfamiliar with enhanced weathering, as it is a
novel approach to CO2removal (Wright et al. 2014; Carlisle et al. 2020), while both
positive affect and concern about climate change would be positively related to support for
enhanced weathering (Pidgeon and Spence, 2017), and that those who perceived more
benefits would also be more supportive (Merk and Pönitzsch 2017). We also included an
option eliciting open-ended responses to help explain why people would or would not
support development of enhanced weathering, as here we expected a high degree of
ambivalence (Carlisle et al., 2020; Pidgeon and Spence, 2017).
Climatic Change (2021) 165: 23 Page 5 of 18 23
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2 Method
2.1 Participants
A broadly nationally representative sample from each country was recruited through
Qualtrics using panel databases with respondents aged 18+ in terms of age, gender,
education, and geographical region. The survey was completed online in the USA (N=
1026), the UK (N= 1000), and in Australia (N= 1000) during February and March 2019.
The US sample was slightly more highly educated than the US population, with more
achieving a postgraduate degree. In contrast, the Australian sample overrepresented those
with a lower level of education as compared to the general population. For a breakdown of
the demographics, please see ESM1.
2.2 Procedure and materials
This survey was designed to measure perceptions of climate change as well as enhanced
weathering to explore support for this carbon dioxide removal strategy. See ESM2 for all
items reported. The survey was carried out alongside a mixed methods study into public
perceptions of CDR in the UK and USA, reported in Cox et al. (2020), which used
qualitative deliberative workshops along with results from a separate section of this survey
exploring perceptions of CDR.
1
2.3 Climate change perceptions
The survey asked a series of questions about climate change, designed to elicit general
attitudes towards climate change. Respondents indicated how concerned they were about
climate change in response to the question ‘How concerned, if at all, are you about
climate change?’(4 = very concerned, 1 = not at all concerned, with ‘do not know’and
‘no opinion’options also provided) (Steentjes et al. 2017). In a second concern item, we
also asked about worry about climate change: ‘How worried are you about climate
change? (five-point scale ranging from ‘notatallworried’to ‘extremely worried’)
(Chrystetal.2018). Respondents also indicated the extent to which they agreed or
disagreed with the following statement (five-point scale as well as provision of a ‘do not
know’option): ‘To what extent do you agree with the following statement about science:
Science and technology will eventually solve our problems with climate change’
(Steentjes et al. 2017).
2.4 EW perceptions
Respondents received a short description including a visual graphic showing the process
of enhanced weathering (see Fig. 1), before being asked to share their initial ‘top of
mind’associations with the question, ‘Please tell us what thoughts or images came to
mind when reading this information about enhanced weathering?’The stimulus materials
deliberately avoided framing the processes of enhanced weathering as a ‘natural’
1
The survey questions reported in Cox et al. (2020) elicited attitudes towards CDR, after the climate change
items but before the enhanced weathering description and questions (ESM2).
23 Page 6 of 18 Climatic Change (2021) 165: 23
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
approach (see Bellamy and Lezaun 2017;Pidgeon2020) as it involves speeding up rock
weathering that typically takes thousands of years. The material also described the full
process from initial mining of material through to CO2sequestration.
We also wanted to determine to what extent the respondents felt that enhanced
weathering was risky or beneficial on a range of specific potential risks or benefits. These
included four risk items such as ‘Mining and crushing minerals for enhanced weathering
could cause environmental damage’with the four items creating a reliable risk perception
scale (this scale showed good internal reliability as α= 0.81). To measure benefit percep-
tions, four benefit items such as ‘Enhanced weathering could improve growing conditions
for crops’were used, with the scale also showing good reliability as α= 0.86 (ESM2).
Responses were on a five-point scale from ‘strongly agree’to ‘strongly disagree’.Re-
spondents were also asked about their affective response to enhanced weathering: ‘In
general, how do you feel about enhanced weathering’with responses on a five-point scale
ranging from ‘very negatively’to ‘very positively’. In addition, respondents were asked to
what extent they agreed or disagreed with four statements measuring the idea that
enhanced weathering may be ‘messing with nature’taken from Visschers et al. (2017)
including ‘enhanced weathering disturbs the order of nature’(messing with nature scale,
α= 0.83). It is important to note that our choice of statistical methodology, while widely
used in most similar work on risk perceptions, inevitably creates some analytic limitations.
Notably, there is a methodological debate around the use of parametric analyses such as
regressions, which are widely used when examining ordinal data such as the Likert scales
employed here), with this approach being criticised by some for its suitability (Liddell and
Kruschke 2018). Parametric statistics are, however, more readily interpretable and for
Fig. 1 Information about enhanced weathering shown to respondents. “Weathering is the breakdown of rocks
and minerals through rainwater, extreme temperatures, and living organisms removing carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere over thousands of years. Enhanced weathering speeds this process up by mining and crushing
minerals that absorb carbon dioxide, to increase the surface area exposed to the atmosphere. These crushed
minerals are then spread on agricultural fields which could improve growing conditions for crops. The carbon
dioxide eventually ends up dissolved in water or as a mineral on the ocean floor. A large amount of energy is
needed for mining, crushing, transporting, and spreading the minerals and may harm the diversity of animals and
plant species in the environment”
Climatic Change (2021) 165: 23 Page 7 of 18 23
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
most practical purposes (e.g. unless the underlying variables are heavily skewed) para-
metric tests yield robust findings (Norman 2010).
Finally, respondents were asked about their support for the use of enhanced
weathering across three different items at various points within the survey including
‘would you support the use of enhanced weathering as a way to reduce carbon emis-
sions’with a five-point scale ranging from ‘notatall’to ‘definitely’(support for use of
enhanced weathering scale, α= 0.84). They were also asked to indicate reasons for their
support or not for this strategy in an open-ended item. To examine these open-ended
items, an inductive thematic analysis was carried out and a coding frame developed
(Braun and Clarke 2006). Analysis was data-driven with themes initially identified based
on the open-ended responses without pre-determined notions of relevant concepts to the
study. These were refined over time incorporating more theoretically appropriate themes
that reflected the public perceptions and climate engineering literature more closely. Two
independent coders were used to ensure the transparency of the framework and that
agreement was satisfactory. Cohen’s kappa (measuring inter-rater reliability) was 0.74
showing there was a high rate of inter-rater agreement. Differences for responses where
agreement was not initially met were discussed and resolved between the two coders.
More details can be found in ESM3.
3Results
In this section, we outline results across both the quantitative survey responses and the
qualitative response answers. Section 3.1 explores responses to the quantitative climate
change questions. This is followed by Section 3.2, which describes key enhanced
weathering themes in turn based on both qualitative and quantitative results: familiarity,
associations, risk and benefit perceptions, affect, and support for enhanced weathering.
3.1 Climate change
The majority of respondents across all three countries were very or fairly concerned
about climate change with levels between 72 and 81%, with those in the UK most
concerned. In this regard, the fieldwork occurred during a period in which the group
Extinction Rebellion had been intensifying its UK campaigning to highlight the climate
emergency, while in Australia drought and large bushfires and in California two of the
largest wildfires on record had all occurred within the previous 6 months. Fieldwork
was also conducted before the upheaval caused by Covid-19. We also found 39–41%
very or extremely worried with a further 33–40% stating that they were somewhat
worried, in line with other recent findings using this item in the UK (Steentjes et al.
2020).
We asked about the belief that science and technology could eventually solve climate
change. More people in Australia disagreed with this statement (34%) than agreed (28%).
The US and UK respondents were slightly more optimistic that science and technology
would solve our problems with climate change, with 32% in the USA agreeing and 30%
disagreeing, and 30% in the UK agreeing and 27% disagreeing. However, many people
neither agreed nor disagreed with this statement (34% in the USA and Australia, and 37%
in the UK).
23 Page 8 of 18 Climatic Change (2021) 165: 23
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
3.2 Enhanced weathering
Across all three countries, it was clear that enhanced weathering was unfamiliar to respon-
dents, with a majority in all three countries stating that they had never heard of enhanced
weathering before (74% in Australia, 70% in the UK, and 62% in the USA).
We followed up by including an open-ended item to determine what initial associations
came to mind for respondents when they heard the words ‘enhanced weathering’.Within
the three countries, there were few differences in the ‘top of the mind’associations. When
analysing the responses for this item, we excluded responses that were left blank,
responses that did not make any sense or were unrelated to the question, and responses
stating that climate change was not real or a valid issue, on the grounds that these
responses failed to answer the question (12.7% of the sample). Firstly, we found that
around a fifth of people stated that they did not know about enhanced weathering or found
it too confusing or complicated to understand. Second, a large proportion of initial
responses mentioned affect and emotion, with many saying that enhanced weathering
was either positive or negative. For example, many said that it sounded like a good idea or
was interesting, while others said that it sounded bad or was of concern to them. Some
went further stating that enhanced weathering sounded scary or dangerous. We also found
that many felt that enhanced weathering was risky and would cause more damage or
problems, with some referring to it as a temporary solution or a quick fix. This response
captured all of these initial thoughts: “I thought this was a very clever solution but worried
about the impact on animals and plants and if it will just cause other problems”,seeing
enhanced weathering as a positive idea but also concerned about its impacts and knock-on
effects. Another spontaneous association was the concept of naturalness, with comments
indicating whether enhanced weathering was a natural or unnatural process, that it was
human-made, or that nature could in fact fix itself.
There were other associations that were more descriptive and related to the content of the
information that respondents had read. One of the most common responses from people in all
countries was related to concerns around possible impacts on the environment. This included
damage to the oceans, harm to organisms, and impacts on waterways and the terrestrial
environment: “That doesn’t sound good because it’s going in the water. The water is vital
and important for us and the environment”.In contrast, impacts on humans and health were
rarely mentioned by people and mainly related to food, water supply, and dust causing health
issues. People also mentioned costs including both environmental and financial costs, with
industry seen as possibly taking advantage: “it sounds like profit for the mining industry and a
significant cost to the environment”. This also included mentions of resources required to carry
out enhanced weathering. Other associations linked to the perception of mining as being
industrial and again being a resource-intensive process, with responses also concerned about
the use of minerals as a resource and how effective or polluting minerals may be during initial
mining, transportation, and application to fields.
For the questions relating to specific risks and benefits, we found that potential risks of
enhanced weathering gained higher agreement than the possible benefits in all three countries.
There was strongest agreement with the item stating that there may be impacts on organisms in
the marine environment (74–79%), in line with the results from the deliberative workshops
reported in Cox et al. (2020). Respondents were less certain about the benefits of enhanced
weathering, with less than half agreeing with the benefit statements. For example, only
between 37 and 39% agreed that it may help reduce the impacts of climate change on the
Climatic Change (2021) 165: 23 Page 9 of 18 23
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
ocean. A larger proportion across all respondents were more unsure about the benefits of
enhanced weathering than they were about the potential risks.
We wanted to know if enhanced weathering induced positive or negative feelings. On this
single item, we found that across all three countries, around half of the sample did not feel
either positively or negatively about enhanced weathering with the remaining responses
showing little difference between the proportion saying it made them feel negative and those
who said that it made them feel positive. There was also agreement that enhanced weathering
was indeed ‘messing with nature’, with similar responses across all three countries (62%
agreement in Australia and the UK; 57% agreement in the USA).
The support measure for the use of enhanced weathering was explored in multiple
regression analyses to assess what background variables influenced this (Jobin and Siegrist,
2020; Merk and Pönitzsch, 2017; Pidgeon and Spence, 2017). The coefficients are reported in
Table 1.
A consistent regression pattern was found in all three countries, although the model was
slightly less predictive in the UK sample (58% of variance explained) as opposed to Australia
(69%) and the USA (66%). The pattern of coefficient values was very similar across countries
for each variable included, indicating a similar degree of relative influence of each predictor
variable, and with the larger coefficients in Table 1showing which predictor variables
provided the most overall influence on support. Table 1shows that affect is the strongest
predictor in determining support for the use of enhanced weathering across all three countries;
that is, the more positive people feel about enhanced weathering, the greater their support for it
(e.g. in the US model, β=0.42 p< .001). Perceived benefits (positive) and perceived risks
(negative) were also related to support in the directions predicted, with benefits proving
relatively more important; the coefficient values were three times as strong for perceived
benefits than they were for perceived risks (e.g. in the US model β= .36 and β=−.12,
respectively). As expected, there was a negative correlation between support and the degree
to which a respondent felt that the technique was ‘messing with nature’although here the
coefficient in the USA (β=−.07, p< .001) indicates a slightly weaker relationship than in the
UK (β=−.12, p< .001) or Australia (β=−.13, p< .001). Also as predicted, concern about
Table 1 Regression analysis showing predictors that influenced support for use of enhanced weathering across
Australia, the UK, and the USA
Predictor variables AUS UK USA
βββ
Gender (male) .01 .03 .03
Education (university) −.01 .01 .01
Age −.02 .01 −.06**
Concern CC .08*** .09*** .12***
Science/Tech solve CC .06** .06** .07**
RisksEW −.11*** −.10*** −.12***
BenefitsEW .34*** .36*** .36***
Messing with nature −.13*** −.12*** −.07***
Affect (positive) .43*** .43*** .42***
R2adjusted .69 .58 .66
A multiple regression was carried out for each country. βshows the standardised coefficient.R2adjusted shows
variance explained in the overall model
Significance: *p<.05, **p<.01,*** p<.001
23 Page 10 of 18 Climatic Change (2021) 165: 23
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
climate change was positively related to support in all three countries, as was a belief that
science and technology would eventually solve climate change.
Across the three countries, most said that they were unsure about supporting enhanced
weathering (42.8% in Australia, 45% in the USA, and 49.7% in the UK), with around a third
of people saying that they would support enhanced weathering (33.9–35.7%) and a fifth or less
saying that they would not support it (15–21.5%). As well as measuring whether respondents
would support the use of enhanced weathering, we asked people to provide their rationale for
their answer in an open-ended item about why they would or would not support enhanced
weathering; see Table 2for the most common responses. Analysis showed that across all three
countries, people voiced similar reasons and concerns behind their decisions.
Broadly, it is clear that those supportive of enhanced weathering saw it as a positive thing or
that it was likely to be beneficial overall. Another common response was that it would improve
the environment or help with climate change and reduce damage: “We need to get the carbon out
of the atmosphere, just cutting down on emissions will not reverse the damage that has already
been done. We need a range of techniques to trap carbon”.There were also a proportion of
respondents who could not think of a reason for why they supported enhanced weathering (from
8.8% of supporters in the USA to 18% in the UK), although these numbers are small when
considering that only a third of the overall sample supported the use of enhanced weathering.
For those who said that they would not support enhanced weathering, the most common
reason was the risks that it could bring, with concerns about it causing more harm or damage
and not being worthwhile compared to possible benefits. Many were also worried about
damage to the environment including to animals and wildlife across all three countries. Lastly,
others felt that enhanced weathering was a temporary fix or a ‘band-aid’which did not reduce
emissions, with others proposing alternative solutions which did: “Idon’t see this as a way to
reducing emissions, only a short term solution to deal with existing levels and the potential
Table 2 Most common responses in each country shown by whether they did or did not support enhanced
weathering or were unsure either way
Response category Summary
Yes (would support enhanced weathering)
Positive Generally positive comments that do not refer to the environment or humans
Benefits Responses that mention it being beneficial or benefit outweighing the risk
Positive for
environment
Comments around the environment improving or benefiting the planet
None/do not know Left blank, none, cannot think of any, need to know more
No (would not support enhanced weathering)
Risks Any mention of it being risky or harmful or not knowing about damage yet, or being more
risky than beneficial
Impact environment Responses that mention damage to environment, animals and wildlife and concern about
environmental damage
Band-aid/alternative Responses that talk about it being a band-aid, or temporary fix
None/do not know Left blank, none, cannot think of any, need to know more
Unsure (about supporting enhanced weathering)
None/do not know Left blank, none, cannot think of any, need to know more
Research/evidence Any mention of research, evidence, need for trials or testing, it not being proven or having
proof
Risks vs benefits All responses that seem unsure about cost/benefits of process or a desire to see further
information to make a decision based on risks/benefits
Climatic Change (2021) 165: 23 Page 11 of 18 23
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
long term negative effects are a waste of time and effort that could be spent actually addressing
the real problem”.
There were many who were simply not sure about whether they would support enhanced
weathering or not, with many simply stating they did not know. Others mentioned the need for
more research to be conducted and for more evidence that it was a viable proposition, with
some discussing the uncertainty between the balance of risks and benefits of enhanced
weathering: “I feel there is not enough evidence either way yet so there needs to be
experiments done before I would stand on either side of the argument for enhanced
weathering”.
4Discussion
This research is the first comparative international study to focus solely on perceptions of and
support for enhanced weathering as a carbon dioxide removal option in Australia, the UK, and
the USA, three Westernised countries where small-scale field trials of this strategy are
currently underway. The study found positive affect to be the main driver of support along
with perceived benefits, with those more positive about enhanced weathering also more
supportive of its deployment. These findings were broadly similar across countries, with
awareness of the technology also remaining very low in all three (cf. Carlisle et al., 2020;
Pidgeon and Spence, 2017). Despite some very clear political and cultural differences between
the countries and their very different national stances on climate change policy at the time at
which the survey was conducted, our findings also suggest that the idea of enhanced
weathering evokes a common initial ‘mental model’(Morgan et al. 2002) in members of the
public in these three anglophone countries at least. A ‘mental model’refers to the idea that
people will use their existing beliefs, and any other knowledge and associations that they can
access, to create an image or ‘cognitive template’in their mind of the particular risk issue, its
causes, and consequences (Bruine de Bruin and Bostrom 2013). Understanding how people
conceptualise enhanced weathering in this way will help identify what might influence public
support for this technology in future.
With a topic which is so unfamiliar to people, establishing top of the mind associations
is a commonly used elicitation technique to determine initial responses towards an
environmental or technological issue (Tvinnereim and Fløttum 2015). The concepts
elicited here were mainly affective, with enhanced weathering seen by individual respon-
dents as either something mainly positive or mainly negative, with others saying it
sounded risky and/or would have impacts on the environment. When knowledge is low,
the affective system is often highly influential in public evaluations, as seen across
empirical work on both geoengineering and other unfamiliar technologies (e.g. Merk
and Pönitzsch, 2017; Poortinga and Pidgeon, 2006; Satterfield et al., 2009). In this respect,
the regression analysis confirmed that affect was, as expected, the strongest independent
predictor of support for the approach. The results also demonstrate that generally more
risks than benefits were perceived, and respondents across all countries were especially
concerned about environmental impacts. These findings suggest that, if deployment at
scale is ever to be achieved in a societally robust manner, enhanced weathering must be
carried out and governed in an environmentally benign way which simultaneously max-
imises co-benefits (Smith et al. 2019) while minimising scientific uncertainties around
environmental impacts, particularly in the oceans (also Cox et al. 2020,2021).
23 Page 12 of 18 Climatic Change (2021) 165: 23
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
An important consideration for this study was the framing of information presented to
participants, a difficult issue to resolve when awareness is so low. Although we wanted to
make this as balanced as possible, providing both a description of the technique and possible
outcomes may well have influenced the results (see Braun et al., 2017). Wolske et al. (2019)
suggest that support for CDR strategies may be reduced depending upon the types of risks and
benefits described, although in their study they found that this varied both by CDR strategy
and the extent to which a strategy was perceived to ‘tamper with nature’.Incommonwiththis
and other research, the current study also found that those who saw enhanced weathering as
something that would ‘mess with nature’were less supportive of the approach if it were to be
deployed (Corner et al. 2013;Merketal.2015; Visschers et al. 2017;Wolskeetal.2019). In
future, it would be worthwhile to explore path relationships between important factors to
determine how support for enhanced weathering is influenced in a more detailed way. For
example, it would be useful to know if those who perceive this approach very positively
automatically presume there are greater benefits, or if those who see enhanced weathering as
something that will mess with nature also see it as high risk. By exploring pathways between
important factors, a more nuanced view into opinion formation towards enhanced weathering
and other CDR approaches can be developed (Cummings and Rosenthal 2018).
Consideration of such framing effects sets an important future research topic, alongside
how various publics perceive the severity of climate change. In particular, it would be a useful
extension of these studies to explore how support for CDR strategies is influenced explicitly by
information frames, including whether information about risks, benefits, or degree of ‘natu-
ralness’is provided (Corner and Pidgeon, 2015; Jobin and Siegrist, 2020). Recent deliberative
work with publics in both the USA and UK has suggested that framing enhanced weathering
as a soil amendment, rather than a climate change technique, might result in different
perceptions, particularly amongst those who perceive a fundamental contradiction between
the heavy machinery required for enhanced weathering and their desired ‘vision’for a
sustainable future society (Cox et al., 2020). It might also be worthwhile exploring public
responses to non-climate-based framings of enhanced weathering, in particular agricultural
framings (e.g. impact on crop yield), and as an intervention to counter local ocean acidifica-
tion. However, it should not be naively assumed here that different information frames might
yield a route to achieving greater public acceptance of CO2removal in the face of accelerating
climate change. Attempts to overly frame the risks, benefits, and other perceived characteris-
tics of a technology during its initial stages in the search for ‘societal acceptance’are at best
ethically problematic, while also risking significant amplification of risk perceptions and a loss
of trust in the science of CDR if major impacts with one of these technologies were
subsequently to emerge (Leiss 2003).
We also saw that those who were more concerned about climate change were more
supportive of enhanced weathering, reinforcing findings from other recent research (Braun
et al., 2017; Pidgeon and Spence, 2017; Jobin and Siegrist, 2020). This is an important result,
because although we might assume that those with higher concern for climate change would
automatically support low- or negative -carbon technologies, previous research demonstrates
that this is not always the case. For example, nuclear power has a carbon footprint well below
that of electricity generated by coal or natural gas, yet higher climate change concern invokes
more negative perceptions even when controlling for a range of demographic variables (Corner
et al., 2012;Sonnbergeretal.in press). Some studies of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS),
itself a key component of some CDR proposals, also find an inverse relationship between
support for the technology and climate change concern (Terwel et al. 2012; Kraeusel and Möst
Climatic Change (2021) 165: 23 Page 13 of 18 23
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2012), although findings across a range of CCS studies provide mixed evidence on this point
(L′Orange Seigo et al. 2014). Therefore, as research and development into new technologies or
expansions of known technologies continue, caution should be applied; discourses of climate
emergency have been a key recent public concern in many countries, but simply presenting a
technology as having potential to help with this does not necessarily reduce other aspects of
public risk perceptions. It is important to emphasise here that acceptance of enhanced
weathering, as with many other CDR approaches, will at best be conditional, and our
deliberative work conducted in the USA and UK confirms this, with perceptions and support
contingent upon the way in which enhanced weathering will be carried out, particularly
regarding issues of environmental impacts, scale, mining, and the transport of rock materials
(Cox et al., 2020).
It is now more than 4 years since the Paris Climate Agreement came into force, with the
potential use of large-scale CDR approaches increasingly being discussed in the policy sphere
as one potential route for approaching the target that Paris requires (Scott and Geden 2018).
However, low public awareness of CDR persists, and will provide a clear communication
challenge in the climate science and policy communities (Cummings et al. 2017). Our findings
also suggest that there is an urgent need to engage a wide set of publics about enhanced
weathering and its potential contribution to meeting national climate targets. As technologies
are developed (and in some places scaled-up over time), such engagement with publics and
communities will also need to form a part of the wider global debate about making progress
towards a net-zero world, while giving detailed consideration also to localised implications
(risks and benefits) in places where significant deployment might occur. In this survey, open-
ended responses rationalised people’s support (or lack thereof) for enhanced weathering,
identifying valid concerns about possible risks as well as hopes that it could be beneficial
and help reduce climate change. Future work could usefully explore how such research into
public views can be utilised as a form of ‘social intelligence’within a process of Responsible
Research and Innovation (RRI), in order to steer development of carbon dioxide removal
technologies in socially responsible ways (Macnaghten, 2020; Stilgoe, 2015; Stilgoe et al.,
2013). In this regard, Low and Buck (2020) point out that, despite the existence for over
10 years of the first clear RRI guidelines for geoengineering in the form of the Oxford
Principles (Rayner et al., 2013), there have been no genuine documented exemplars since
the stage-gate process which evaluated the social, ethical, and safety aspects of the ‘SPICE’
SRM test-bed project in the UK (see Pidgeon et al., 2013;Stilgoe,2015). Low and Buck
further argue that in any such future effort, RRI researchers, alongside CO2removal scientists
and engineers, will have to adopt a fully critical and reflexive approach to any technology-
society appraisal processes.
Finally, this current study has elicited similar risk perceptions across three Westernised
countries, all with small ongoing field trials but the potential for at-scale deployment. Emerging
work has already shown differences when climate engineering has been examined with publics in
non-Westernised countries (Visschers et al. 2017;Sugiyamaetal.2020). On the one hand,
communities in the Global South with major agricultural systems and where climate is more
favourable to the enhanced weathering process (Edwards et al. 2017) may also be more
vulnerable to climate change and already suffering the impacts (Althor et al. 2016), hence more
supportive due to higher levels of concern about climate change (Carr and Yung 2018). Equally,
such communities might consider climate engineering as the imposition of a ‘solution’favouring
the Global North, and for a problem that they have had little historical role in creating (Winickoff
et al. 2015). Accordingly, future research must explore how a range of communities, across both
23 Page 14 of 18 Climatic Change (2021) 165: 23
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Global South and North, perceive the potential risks, benefits, and governance implications of
enhanced weathering, taking into account cultural, social, and political influences.
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-
03050-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Acknowledgements We thank our LC3M colleagues and advisory board for their invaluable contributions as
well as Victoria Campbell-Arvai, Phil Renforth, Peta Ashworth, and Michele Ferguson for help with survey
design. We also thank our two independent coders Conor John and Andrea Mercado Guati Rojo.
Funding This project was funded through a Leverhulme Trust Research Centre Award (RC-2015-029) to the
Leverhulme Centre for Climate Change Mitigation (LC3M).
Data Availability The datasets analysed during the current study are available in Cardiff University Open Data
Repository: https://doi.org/10.17035/d.2021.0129331305.
Declarations
Ethics approval Ethical approval was obtained from School of Psychology Research Ethics Committee,
Cardiff University, reference number EC.17.10.10.4989R.
Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which
permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and
indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's
Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included
in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or
exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy
of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Althor G, Watson JEM, Fuller RA (2016) Global mismatch between greenhouse gas emissions and the burden of
climate change. Sci Rep 6:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep20281
Beerling DJ, Kantzas EP, Lomas MR et al (2020) Potential for large-scale CO2 removal via enhanced rock
weathering with croplands. Nature 583:242–248. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2448-9
Beerling DJ, Leake JR, Long SP et al (2018) Farming with crops and rocks to address global climate, food and
soil security perspective. Nat Plants 4:138–147. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-018-0108-y
Bellamy R, Chilvers J, Vaughan NE, Lenton TM (2013) “Opening up”geoengineering appraisal: Multi-Criteria
Mapping of options for tackling climate change. Glob Environ Chang 23:926–937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2013.07.011
Bellamy R, Lezaun J (2017) Crafting a public for geoengineering. Public Underst Sci 26:402–417. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0963662515600965
Braun C, Merk C, Pönitzsch G et al (2017) Public perception of climate engineering and carbon capture and
storage in Germany: survey evidence. Clim Policy:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1304888
Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3:77–101. https://doi.org/
10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bruine de Bruin W, Bostrom A (2013) Assessing what to address in science communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci
110:14062–14068. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212729110
Climatic Change (2021) 165: 23 Page 15 of 18 23
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Campbell-Arvai V, Hart PS, Raimi KT, Wolske KS (2017) The influence of learning about carbon dioxide
removal (CDR) on support for mitigation policies. Clim Chang 143:321–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10584-017-2005-1
Carlisle DP, Feetham PM, Wright MJ, Teagle DAH (2020) The public remain uninformed and wary of climate
engineering. Clim Change 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02706-5
Carr WA, Yung L (2018) Perceptions of climate engineering in the South Pacific, Sub-Saharan Africa, and North
American Arctic. Clim Chang 147:119–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2138-x
Chryst B, Marlon J, van der Linden S et al (2018) Global warming’s“Six Americas Short Survey”: audience
segmentation of climate change views using a four question instrument. Environ Commun:1–14. https://doi.
org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1508047
Colvin RM, Kemp L, Talberg A et al (2020) Learning from the climate change debate to avoid polarisation on
negative emissions. Environ Commun 14:23–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1630463
Corner A, Parkhill K, Pidgeon N, Vaughan NE (2013) Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of
geoengineering in the UK. Glob Environ Chang 23:938–947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.06.
002
Corner A, Pidgeon N (2010) Geoengineering the climate: the social and ethical implications. Environ Sci Policy
Sustain Dev 52:24–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139150903479563
Corner A, Pidgeon N (2015) Like artificial trees? The effect of framing by natural analogy on public perceptions
of geoengineering. Clim Change 130:. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1148-6
Corner A, Pidgeon N, Parkhill K (2012) Perceptions of geoengineering: public attitudes, stakeholder perspec-
tives, and the challenge of ‘upstream’engagement. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 3:451–466. https://
doi.org/10.1002/wcc.176
Cox E, Boettcher M, Spence E, Bellamy R (2021) Casting a wider net on ocean NETs. Front Clim 3:576294.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2021.576294
Cox E, Spence E, Pidgeon N (2020) Public perceptions of carbon dioxide removal in the United States and the
United Kingdom. Nat Clim Chang. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0823-z
Cox EM, Pidgeon N, Spence E, Thomas G (2018) Blurred lines: The ethics and policy of Greenhouse Gas
Removal at scale. Front Environ Sci:6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2018.00038
Cummings C, Lin S, Trump B (2017) Public perceptions of climate geoengineering: a systematic review of the
literature. Clim Res 73:247–264. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr01475
Cummings CL, Rosenthal S (2018) Climate change and technology: examining opinion formation of
geoengineering. Environ Syst Decis 38:208–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-018-9683-8
Edwards DP, Lim F, James RH et al (2017) Climate change mitigation: potential benefits and pitfalls of enhanced
rock weathering in tropical agriculture. Biol Lett 13
Fuss S, Jones CD, Kraxner F et al (2016) Research priorities for negative emissions. Environ Res Lett 11:
115007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/11/115007
Hartmann J, West AJ, Renforth P et al (2013) Enhanced chemical weathering as a geoengineering strategy to
reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, supply nutrients, and mitigate ocean acidification. Rev Geophys 51:
113–149. https://doi.org/10.1002/rog.20004
IPCC (2018) Global warming of 1.5°C an IPCC special report. Geneva
Jobin M, Siegrist M (2020) Support for the deployment of climate engineering: a comparison of ten different
technologies. Risk Anal risa.13462. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13462
Kelland ME, Wade PW, Lewis AL et al (2020) Increased yield and CO2 sequestration potential with the C4
cereal Sorghum bicolor cultivated in basaltic rock dust-amended agricultural soil. Glob Chang Biol. https://
doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15089
Kraeusel J, Möst D (2012) Carbon Capture and Storage on its way to large-scale deployment: social acceptance
and willingness to pay in Germany. Energy Policy 49:642–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.07.006
L′Orange Seigo S, Dohle S, Siegrist M (2014) Public perception of carbon capture and storage (CCS): a review.
Renew Sust Energ Rev 38:848–863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.017
Lawford-Smith H, Currie A (2017) Accelerating the carbon cycle: the ethics of enhanced weathering. Biol
Lett:13
Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Rosenthal S, Kotcher J, Bergquist P, Ballew M, Goldberg M, Gustafson A, Wang X
(2020) Climate change in the American mind: April 2020. New Have, CT
Leiss W (2003) Searching for the public policy relevance of the risk amplification framework. The Social
Amplification of Risk. Cambridge University Press, In, pp 355–373
Liddell TM, Kruschke JK (2018) Analyzing ordinal data with metric models: what could possibly go wrong? J
Exp Soc Psychol 79:328–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.08.009
Lomax G, Lenton TM, Adeosun A, Workman M (2015) Investing in negative emissions. Nat Clim Chang 5:
498–500
23 Page 16 of 18 Climatic Change (2021) 165: 23
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Low S, Buck HJ (2020) The practice of responsible research and innovation in “climate engineering”.WIREs
Clim Chang 11. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.644
Macnaghten P (2020) The making of responsible innovation. Cambridge University Press
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 Chang 23:465–474. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.008
Mercer AM, Keith DW, Sharp JD (2011) Public understanding of solar radiation management. Environ Res Lett
6:044006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044006
Merk C, Pönitzsch G (2017) The role of affect in attitude formation toward new technologies: the case of
stratospheric aerosol injection. Risk Anal 37:2289–2304. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12780
Merk C, Pönitzsch G, Kniebes C et al (2015) Exploring public perceptions of stratospheric sulfate injection. Clim
Chang 130:299–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1317-7
Moosdorf N, Renforth P, Hartmann J (2014) Carbon dioxide efficiency of terrestrial enhanced weathering.
Environ Sci Technol 48:4809–4816. https://doi.org/10.1021/es4052022
Morgan MG, Bostrom A, Fischhoff B, Atman CJ (2002) Risk communication: a mental models approach.
Cambridge University Press
National Academy of Sciences (2019) Negative emissions technologies and reliable sequestration. National
Academies Press
Norman G (2010) Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws”of statistics. Adv Heal Sci Educ 15:625–
632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y
Parkhill K, Pidgeon N, Corner A, Vaughan N (2013) Deliberation and responsible innovation: a geoengineering
case study. In: Responsible Innovation. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK, pp 219–239
Pidgeon N (1998) Risk assessment, risk values and the social science programme: why we do need risk
perception research. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 59:5–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(97)00114-2
Pidgeon N (2020) Engaging publics about environmental and technology risks: frames, valuesand deliberation. J
Risk Res:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1749118
Pidgeon N, Corner A, Parkhill K et al (2012) Exploring early public responses to geoengineering. Philos Trans R
Soc London A Math Phys Eng Sci 370. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0099
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
Pidgeon NF, Spence E (2017) Perceptions of enhanced weathering as a biological negative emissions option.
Biol Lett 13:. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2017.0024
Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF (2006) Exploring the structure of attitudes toward genetically modified food. Risk
Anal 26:1707–1719. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00828.x
Rayner S, Heyward C, Kruger T et al (2013) The Oxford principles. Clim Chang 121:499–512. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10584-012-0675-2
Reser JP, Bradley G, Glendon AI et al (2012) Public risk perceptions, understandings, and responses to climate
change in Australia and Great Britain: interim report. National Climate Change Adaptation Research
Facility, Gold Coast
Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Newsome TM et al (2019) World scientists’warning of a climate emergency. Bioscience.
https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz088
Rogers-Hayden T, Pidgeon N (2007) Moving engagement “upstream”? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society
and Royal Academy of Engineering’s inquiry. Public Underst Sci 16:345–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0963662506076141
Royal society and RAEng (2018) Greenhouse Gas Removal
Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie CEH et al (2009) Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nat
Nanotechnol 4:752–758. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2009.265
Scheer D, Renn O (2014) Public perception of geoengineering and its consequences for public debate. Clim
Chang 125: 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1177-1
Scott V, Geden O (2018) The challenge of carbon dioxide removal for EU policy-making. Nat Energy 3:350–352
Slovic P (2000) The perception of risk. Earthscan Publications, London ;;Sterling VA
Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2007) The affect heuristic. Eur J Oper Res 177:1333–1352.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006
Smith P, Adams J, Beerling DJ et al (2019) Land-management options for greenhouse gas removal and their
impacts on ecosystem services and the sustainable development goals. Annu Rev Environ Resour 44:255–
286. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033129
Sonnberger M, Ruddat M, Arnold A, Scheer D, Poortinga W, Böhm G, Bertold R, Mays C, Pidgeon NF,
Poumadère M, Steentjes K and Tvinnereim E (2021) Climate concerned but anti-nuclear: Exploring
(dis)approval of nuclear energy in four European countries. Energy Research and Social Science, in press.
Climatic Change (2021) 165: 23 Page 17 of 18 23
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Steentjes K, Demski C, Seabrook A et al (2020) British public perceptions of climate risk, adaptation options and
resilience ( RESiL RISK ). Cardiff University
Steentjes K, Pidgeon N, Poortinga W et al (2017) European perceptions of climate change (EPCC): topline
findings of a survey conducted in four European countries in 2016. Cardiff University
Stilgoe J (2015) Experiment earth: responsible innovation in geoengineering. Routledge, New York, NY
Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P (2013) Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res Policy 42:
1568–1580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008
Sugiyama M, Asayama S, Kosugi T (2020) The north–south divide on public perceptions of stratospheric aerosol
geoengineering?: a survey in six Asia-Pacific countries. Environ Commun:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17524032.2019.1699137
Sütterlin B, Siegrist M (2017) Public perception of solar radiation management: the impact of information and
evoked affect. J Risk Res 20:1292–1307. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1153501
TAI (2020) Changing climate change concerns and attitudes. The Australia Institute, Canberra, Canberra
Terwel BW, ter Mors E, Daamen DDL (2012) It’s not only about safety: beliefs and attitudes of 811 local
residents regarding a CCS project in Barendrecht. Int J Greenh Gas Control 9:41–51. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijggc.2012.02.017
Tvinnereim E, Fløttum K (2015) Explaining topic prevalence in answers to open-ended survey questions about
climate change. Nat Clim Chang 5:744–747. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2663
Visschers VHM, Shi J, Siegrist M, Arvai J (2017) Beliefs and values explain international differences in
perception of solar radiation management: insights from a cross-country survey. Clim Chang 142:531–
544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-1970-8
Wilsdon J, Willis R (2004) See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos,
London
Winickoff DE, Flegal JA, Asrat A (2015) Engaging the Global South on climate engineering research. Nat Clim
Chang 5:627–634. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2632
Wolske KS, Raimi KT, Campbell-Arvai V, Hart PS (2019) Public support for carbon dioxide removal strategies:
the role of tampering with nature perceptions. Clim Chang 152:345–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-
019-02375-z
Wright MJ, Teagle DAH, Feetham PM (2014) A quantitative evaluation of the public response to climate
engineering. Nat Clim Chang 4:106–110. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2087
Publisher’snote Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
23 Page 18 of 18 Climatic Change (2021) 165: 23
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
