- home
- Advanced Search
- Energy Research
- Energy Research
description Publicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article , Journal 2013 United KingdomPublisher:Elsevier BV ter Mors, Emma; Terwel, Bart W.; Daamen, Dancker D.L.; Reiner, David M.; Schumann, Diana; Anghel, Sorin; Boulouta, Ioanna; Cismaru, Diana M.; Constantin, Carmencita; de Jager, Chris C.H.; Dudu, Alexandra; Esken, Andrea; Falup, Oana C.; Firth, Rebecca M.; Gemeni, Vassiliki; Hendriks, Chris; Ivan, Loredana; Koukouzas, Nikolaos; Markos, Angelos; Næss, Robert; Pietzner, Katja; Samoila, Irene R.; Sava, Constantin S.; Stephenson, Michael H.; Tomescu, Claudia E.; Torvatn, Hans Y.; Tvedt, Sturle D.; Vallentin, Daniel; West, Julia M.; Ziogou, Fotini;Both focus group discussions and information-choice questionnaires (ICQs) have previously been used to examine informed public opinions about carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS). This paper presents an extensive experimental study to systematically examine and compare the quality of opinions created by these two research techniques. Depending on experimental condition, participants either participated in a focus group meeting or completed an ICQ. In both conditions participants received identical factual information about two specific CCS options. After having processed the information, they indicated their overall opinion about each CCS option. The quality of these opinions was determined by looking at three outcome-oriented indicators of opinion quality: consistency, stability, and confidence. Results for all three indicators showed that ICQs yielded higher-quality opinions than focus groups, but also that focus groups did not perform poor in this regard. Implications for the choice between focus group discussions and ICQs are discussed.
NERC Open Research A... arrow_drop_down International Journal of Greenhouse Gas ControlArticle . 2013 . Peer-reviewedData sources: CrossrefNatural Environment Research Council: NERC Open Research ArchiveArticle . 2013Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.07.015&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.eu31 citations 31 popularity Top 10% influence Top 10% impulse Average Powered by BIP!
more_vert NERC Open Research A... arrow_drop_down International Journal of Greenhouse Gas ControlArticle . 2013 . Peer-reviewedData sources: CrossrefNatural Environment Research Council: NERC Open Research ArchiveArticle . 2013Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.07.015&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.eudescription Publicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article , Journal 2011 United KingdomPublisher:Elsevier BV Daamen, Dancker D.L.; Terwel, Bart W.; ter Mors, Emma; Reiner, David M.; Schumann, Diana; Anghel, Sorin; Boulouta, Ioanna; Cismaru, Diana M.; Constantine, Carmencita; de Jager, Chris C.H.; Dudu, Alexandra; Firth, Rebecca M.; Gemeni, Vassiliki; Hendriks, Chris; Koukouzas, Nikolaos; Markos, Angelos; Naess, Robert; Nihfidov, Oana C.; Pietzner, Katja; Samoila, Irene R.; Sava, Constantin S.; Stephenson, Mike H.; Tomescu, Claudia E.; Torvatin, Hans Y.; Tvedt, Sturle D.; Vallentin, Daniel; West, Julia M.; Ziogou, Fotini;AbstractPrevious research has shown that public knowledge and awareness of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) is very limited. As a result, traditional surveys designed to collect public opinions about CCS do in fact assess so-called pseudo opinions. Pseudo-opinions are of very low quality because they are mostly unstable and inconsistent. Therefore, they are not predictive for actual and future public support for or opposition against CCS. As compared to pseudo opinions, opinions expressed after the public has been provided with factual information about CCS are likely to be of higher quality. Focus group discussions and Information-Choice Questionnaires (ICQs) are two research techniques frequently used in the CCS literature that aim to collect such informed public opinions. In this study, we examined which of these two research technique leads to the highest quality opinions (i.e., to opinions that are consistent, stable, and that people are confident about). Our results showed that ICQs yielded higher-quality opinions than focus group discussions. Practical implications and recommendations are discussed.
add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.629&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.euAccess Routesgold 10 citations 10 popularity Top 10% influence Top 10% impulse Top 10% Powered by BIP!
more_vert add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.629&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.eudescription Publicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article , Journal 2011 NetherlandsPublisher:Elsevier BV Alexandra Dudu; Angelos Markos; Michael H. Stephenson; Diana Cismaru; Constantin Stefan Sava; Vassiliki Gemeni; Diana Schumann; Sturle Danielsen Tvedt; Sturle Danielsen Tvedt; Dancker D.L. Daamen; Sorin Anghel; Oana C. Nihfidov; Irene R. Samoila; Carmencita Constantin; John Papadimitriou; Fotini Ziogou; Andrea Esken; Loredana Ivan; Emma ter Mors; Katja Pietzner; David Reiner; Glenn Kristiansen; Bart W. Terwel; Hans Yngvar Torvatn; Nikolaos Koukouzas; Robert Næss; Robert Næss; Claudia E. Tomescu;handle: 1887/3630069
AbstractThe representative survey studies provide a comprehensive database on the public awareness and perception of CCS in six selected European countries. Our results provide insights into the public understanding and knowledge of energy related issues and CCS topics. The embedded experimental research provides insights into how information affects CCS perceptions. The results discuss implications for CCS communication methods.
Energy Procedia arrow_drop_down Leiden University Scholarly Publications RepositoryArticle . 2011License: CC BY NC NDData sources: Leiden University Scholarly Publications Repositoryadd ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.645&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.euAccess RoutesGreen gold 45 citations 45 popularity Top 10% influence Top 10% impulse Top 10% Powered by BIP!
more_vert Energy Procedia arrow_drop_down Leiden University Scholarly Publications RepositoryArticle . 2011License: CC BY NC NDData sources: Leiden University Scholarly Publications Repositoryadd ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.645&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.eu
description Publicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article , Journal 2013 United KingdomPublisher:Elsevier BV ter Mors, Emma; Terwel, Bart W.; Daamen, Dancker D.L.; Reiner, David M.; Schumann, Diana; Anghel, Sorin; Boulouta, Ioanna; Cismaru, Diana M.; Constantin, Carmencita; de Jager, Chris C.H.; Dudu, Alexandra; Esken, Andrea; Falup, Oana C.; Firth, Rebecca M.; Gemeni, Vassiliki; Hendriks, Chris; Ivan, Loredana; Koukouzas, Nikolaos; Markos, Angelos; Næss, Robert; Pietzner, Katja; Samoila, Irene R.; Sava, Constantin S.; Stephenson, Michael H.; Tomescu, Claudia E.; Torvatn, Hans Y.; Tvedt, Sturle D.; Vallentin, Daniel; West, Julia M.; Ziogou, Fotini;Both focus group discussions and information-choice questionnaires (ICQs) have previously been used to examine informed public opinions about carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS). This paper presents an extensive experimental study to systematically examine and compare the quality of opinions created by these two research techniques. Depending on experimental condition, participants either participated in a focus group meeting or completed an ICQ. In both conditions participants received identical factual information about two specific CCS options. After having processed the information, they indicated their overall opinion about each CCS option. The quality of these opinions was determined by looking at three outcome-oriented indicators of opinion quality: consistency, stability, and confidence. Results for all three indicators showed that ICQs yielded higher-quality opinions than focus groups, but also that focus groups did not perform poor in this regard. Implications for the choice between focus group discussions and ICQs are discussed.
NERC Open Research A... arrow_drop_down International Journal of Greenhouse Gas ControlArticle . 2013 . Peer-reviewedData sources: CrossrefNatural Environment Research Council: NERC Open Research ArchiveArticle . 2013Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.07.015&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.eu31 citations 31 popularity Top 10% influence Top 10% impulse Average Powered by BIP!
more_vert NERC Open Research A... arrow_drop_down International Journal of Greenhouse Gas ControlArticle . 2013 . Peer-reviewedData sources: CrossrefNatural Environment Research Council: NERC Open Research ArchiveArticle . 2013Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.07.015&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.eudescription Publicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article , Journal 2011 United KingdomPublisher:Elsevier BV Daamen, Dancker D.L.; Terwel, Bart W.; ter Mors, Emma; Reiner, David M.; Schumann, Diana; Anghel, Sorin; Boulouta, Ioanna; Cismaru, Diana M.; Constantine, Carmencita; de Jager, Chris C.H.; Dudu, Alexandra; Firth, Rebecca M.; Gemeni, Vassiliki; Hendriks, Chris; Koukouzas, Nikolaos; Markos, Angelos; Naess, Robert; Nihfidov, Oana C.; Pietzner, Katja; Samoila, Irene R.; Sava, Constantin S.; Stephenson, Mike H.; Tomescu, Claudia E.; Torvatin, Hans Y.; Tvedt, Sturle D.; Vallentin, Daniel; West, Julia M.; Ziogou, Fotini;AbstractPrevious research has shown that public knowledge and awareness of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) is very limited. As a result, traditional surveys designed to collect public opinions about CCS do in fact assess so-called pseudo opinions. Pseudo-opinions are of very low quality because they are mostly unstable and inconsistent. Therefore, they are not predictive for actual and future public support for or opposition against CCS. As compared to pseudo opinions, opinions expressed after the public has been provided with factual information about CCS are likely to be of higher quality. Focus group discussions and Information-Choice Questionnaires (ICQs) are two research techniques frequently used in the CCS literature that aim to collect such informed public opinions. In this study, we examined which of these two research technique leads to the highest quality opinions (i.e., to opinions that are consistent, stable, and that people are confident about). Our results showed that ICQs yielded higher-quality opinions than focus group discussions. Practical implications and recommendations are discussed.
add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.629&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.euAccess Routesgold 10 citations 10 popularity Top 10% influence Top 10% impulse Top 10% Powered by BIP!
more_vert add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.629&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.eudescription Publicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article , Journal 2011 NetherlandsPublisher:Elsevier BV Alexandra Dudu; Angelos Markos; Michael H. Stephenson; Diana Cismaru; Constantin Stefan Sava; Vassiliki Gemeni; Diana Schumann; Sturle Danielsen Tvedt; Sturle Danielsen Tvedt; Dancker D.L. Daamen; Sorin Anghel; Oana C. Nihfidov; Irene R. Samoila; Carmencita Constantin; John Papadimitriou; Fotini Ziogou; Andrea Esken; Loredana Ivan; Emma ter Mors; Katja Pietzner; David Reiner; Glenn Kristiansen; Bart W. Terwel; Hans Yngvar Torvatn; Nikolaos Koukouzas; Robert Næss; Robert Næss; Claudia E. Tomescu;handle: 1887/3630069
AbstractThe representative survey studies provide a comprehensive database on the public awareness and perception of CCS in six selected European countries. Our results provide insights into the public understanding and knowledge of energy related issues and CCS topics. The embedded experimental research provides insights into how information affects CCS perceptions. The results discuss implications for CCS communication methods.
Energy Procedia arrow_drop_down Leiden University Scholarly Publications RepositoryArticle . 2011License: CC BY NC NDData sources: Leiden University Scholarly Publications Repositoryadd ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.645&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.euAccess RoutesGreen gold 45 citations 45 popularity Top 10% influence Top 10% impulse Top 10% Powered by BIP!
more_vert Energy Procedia arrow_drop_down Leiden University Scholarly Publications RepositoryArticle . 2011License: CC BY NC NDData sources: Leiden University Scholarly Publications Repositoryadd ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.645&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.eu