Public response to decarbonisation through alternative shipping fuels
| dc.contributor.author | Carlisle DP | |
| dc.contributor.author | Feetham PM | |
| dc.contributor.author | Wright M | |
| dc.contributor.author | Teagle D | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2024-07-08T02:39:57Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2024-07-08T02:39:57Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2023-06-24 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Although shipping is the most energy efficient method of transporting trade goods it is held accountable for 2-3% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The shipping industry is exploring pathways to carbon-neutral fuels to help eliminate GHG emissions by 2050. To date research on alternative fuels has not considered public opinion; it remains unclear whether the public will support alternative shipping fuels, or whether public opposition might prevent or defer their deployment. To fill this knowledge gap and help the industry and policy makers arrive at publicly acceptable decisions our research examines UK public perceptions of six shipping fuels using a mixed-method approach. Our findings reveal that biofuels and hydrogen are clearly favoured, owing to biofuel’s perceived low risk and hydrogen’s lack of negative by-products. Perceptions of liquid natural gas are somewhat positive, suggesting that it provides an acceptable near-term option while other fuels are developed. Despite lingering stigma, nuclear is preferred over the incumbent heavy fuel oil, though both are perceived negatively. However, the UK public strongly dislike ammonia, perceiving it as unproven, risky, and lacking availability. A third support use of alternative shipping fuels, with support greater from those living near ports - a “yes in my back yard” (YIMBY) effect. The results demonstrate that different alternative fuels are likely to elicit different public reactions as they become more widely known and show how the overall evaluations arise from specific positive or negative associations with each fuel. | |
| dc.description.confidential | false | |
| dc.edition.edition | 2023 | |
| dc.format.pagination | 1-20 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Carlisle DP, Feetham PM, Wright MJ, Teagle DAH. (2023). Public response to decarbonisation through alternative shipping fuels. Environment, Development and Sustainability. (pp. 1-20). | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1007/s10668-023-03499-0 | |
| dc.identifier.eissn | 1573-2975 | |
| dc.identifier.elements-type | journal-article | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1387-585X | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/70112 | |
| dc.language | English | |
| dc.publisher | Springer Nature | |
| dc.publisher.uri | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10668-023-03499-0 | |
| dc.relation.isPartOf | Environment, Development and Sustainability | |
| dc.rights | (c) 2023 The Author/s | |
| dc.rights | CC BY 4.0 | |
| dc.rights.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ | |
| dc.subject | Alternative fuels | |
| dc.subject | Shipping | |
| dc.subject | Public engagement | |
| dc.subject | Hydrogen | |
| dc.subject | Ammonia | |
| dc.subject | Nuclear | |
| dc.subject | Biofuel | |
| dc.title | Public response to decarbonisation through alternative shipping fuels | |
| dc.type | Journal article | |
| pubs.elements-id | 462062 | |
| pubs.organisational-group | Other |
Files
License bundle
1 - 1 of 1