The Role of Convictions and Trust for Public Protest Potential in the Case of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS)

For the public to accept new technologies, trust and convictions play an important role. In the present research, we used structural equation modeling to examine an extensive causal model of the role of convictions and trust for the public's protest potential against carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) among a large sample of the general population (N = 769). Trust, convictions, perceived benefits, and risks were included in the model. Our model fitted the data well. Convictions regarding emission reduction, decentralization of energy production, and tampering with natural structures in the deep subsurface influenced the perception of benefits and risks. Trust, in contrast, was barely influential. Perceived benefits were more prominent for public protest potential than perceived risks. However, perceived benefits did not dominate perceived risks as much as earlier studies found for acceptance. We argue that trust can become fully effective as a determinant of perceived risks and benefits only when the public perceives the distinct positioning of the stakeholders involved. Until then, laypeople are likely to draw on their own convictions and intuitive mental concepts for making decisions about accepting a new technology or protesting it.     

Moral Convictions and Culling Animals: A Survey in the Netherlands

ABSTRACT

In this paper the results are presented of a national survey in the Netherlands. The aim was to identify and describe the convictions about animals that people have in Dutch society and the role of these in judgments on the culling of healthy animals during an animal disease epidemic. A total of 1,999 responses was received and two groups of respondents were distinguished: A profile (50% of the respondents) and B profile (28%). The A profile respondents considered humans to be superior to animals, whereas the B profile respondents considered both to be equal. Both groups were of the opinion that animals have value, that people have a duty to care for and protect all animals, and that all animals have a right to life. These convictions were based on a number of values, such as animal life, the ability of animals to feel pain and emotions (sentience), and the importance of animal species in the ecosystem. The results of a case study suggest that convictions play a role in judgment. More A respondents agreed with the culling of healthy animals during an animal disease epidemic. More B respondents partly (dis)agreed or disagreed with this. Most respondents (A: 81%, B: 61%) agreed with culling to protect human life. The most important argument against culling was the value of animal life. The A respondents rated all arguments against culling significantly lower than did the B respondents.