Faculty of Agricultural, Life & Environmental Sciences

Department of Resource Economics and

Environmental Sociology
Working Paper #23 - 01
Date: October 24, 2023

Public Perceptions and Acceptance of Carbon Capture and Storage

for Greenhouse Gas Mitigation

Abdul-Hamid Mohammed, Sven Anders, Nimanthika Lokuge

Working Paper
 Public Perceptions and Acceptance of Carbon Capture and Storage
for Greenhouse Gas Mitigation: A Random Effects Model
Authors: Abdul-Hamid Mohammed, Sven Anders*, Nimanthika Lokuge

*Sven Anders is Professor of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agricultural, Life and

Environmental Sciences, Department of Resource Economics & Environmental Sociology.

We acknowledge the financial support of ensure.norsar.no for providing funding for this project.

The purpose of the Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology ‘Working Papers’ series
is to provide a forum to accelerate the presentation of issues, concepts, ideas, and research
results within the academic and professional community. Working Papers are published without
peer review.

2
Abstract
The pressure to achieve net-zero CO2 objectives has heightened the need to evaluate energy
technologies in Canada, where the oil and gas industry remains essential to the economy.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a component of Canada’s net-zero CO2 strategies and can
absorb up to 90 percent of the CO2 emissions from major point emitters. However, public
perception and support for CCS remain controversial. This study investigated the reasons for
the heterogeneity in acceptance and support for CCS in Canada. Random effects model was
applied to vignette experimental data to investigate the public's perceptions of CCS as a climate
mitigation technology. Our findings indicate that cross-border import of CO2 for storage has a
strong effect on the acceptance of CCS plant scenarios. Consultation, compensation, proximity,
knowledge, risks, and trust are critical drivers of CCS acceptance. The study concluded that
communication efforts to improve public understanding and acceptance of CCS should focus
on demystifying the risks of CCS instead of its technicalities and climate mitigation capacity.

Keywords: Public Perceptions, Carbon Capture and Storage, Cross-border Import of CO2, Climate
Change, Seismicity, vignette experiment

3
Introduction

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), global energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions experienced a notable increase in 2021, surpassing a total of 36 billion metric tonnes
(IEA, 2021a). Over the last decade, the output of other heavy-point greenhouse gas (GHG)
emitters, including steel, cement, and fertiliser, has also grown exponentially. Despite the
continued need for these materials to keep our agricultural, construction, and transportation
sectors afloat, continuing down this road is a potential recipe for global disasters. Rapid
decarbonisation is crucial for the world's average temperature to rise by no more than two
degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to avert the worst effects of climate change
(IPCC, 2022; Rockström et al., 2017).
Challenges caused by climate change have prompted a plethora of responses from a wide range
of disciplines. In the technology industry, Rolnick et al. (2019) suggested leveraging machine
learning to assess climate-related data collected through satellites. Economists have proposed
a variety of measures to make the emission of CO2 and other GHGs more expensive (David and
Herzog, 2000; Nordhaus, 2019). In the biotechnology industry, Tylecote (2019) advocated the
use of biomedicine and plant breeding to reduce global warming. Within the construction
industry, Röck et al. (2020) conducted a large-scale analysis of more than 650 buildings to
quantify the effect of embedded GHG emissions and advocated for shifts in building designs
and operations. Other options to mitigate the impacts of climate change include leveraging wind
and solar energy, planting more trees, adjusting food consumption patterns, and direct air
capture of CO2. However, while a variety of strategies may be implemented to lessen the severity
of the effects of climate change, most of them are either inadequate, not ready, or too expensive.
GHG removal and sequestration technologies are gaining interest as potential decarbonisation
solutions that may be used in tandem with emission reductions (Pianta et al., 2021). Many of
these decarbonisation solutions, aimed at reducing the effects of climate change and increasing
people's ability to adapt to it, have received considerable research and development. However,
several questions remain unanswered. To minimise emissions of GHGs, carbon dioxide capture
and geological storage (CCS) is widely considered to be a viable, expedient, and secure option
(Sun et al., 2021) and has become a vital component of national and international efforts to curb
emissions of GHGs (Scott et al., 2013). CCS has emerged as a promising technique in the fight
against climate change, with the potential to absorb up to 90 percent of the CO 2 emissions from
fossil fuel power stations and other industrial heavy point-emitters (Kahlor et al., 2020).
Capturing CO2 emissions at their sources, such as power plants or factories, and permanently
storing them in underground reservoirs is known as CCS (Alphen et al., 2010). There are
additional cases where the captured CO2 is used in the production of other goods; in these cases,
the process is known as "carbon capture and utilisation" (CCU) (Gough and Mander, 2019).
Some studies suggest using the collected CO 2 for enhanced oil recovery (Whitmarsh et al.,
2019), whereas others advocate the use of the collected CO2 as a feedstock for industrial
operations (Bruhn et al., 2016). Together, CCS and CCU are often referred to in the literature as
carbon capture, utilisation, and storage (CCUS) (Osazuwa-Peters and Hurlbert, 2020; Pianta et

4
al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021). More than 200 million metric tonnes of CO 2 have been removed
from the atmosphere using this technology since the 1970s (Gibbins, 2019). Without CCS,
mitigation costs are confirmed to increase by an average of 138 percent, according to reports
(IEA, 2021b).

While interest in CCS has grown in the scientific community and gained attention from
organisations and governments worldwide (Rosa et al., 2021), public perception and support for
the technology remain controversial. Yet, it must be emphasised that public support is crucial
to the ultimate success of CCS (Wang et al., 2021). Although the safety of CCS has been proven
in several studies (Ringrose et al., 2017; Ringrose, 2018), according to Gabrielli et al. (2020), the
primary barriers to realising the net-zero-CO2 objective through CCS technology are the
accessibility, availability, and acceptance of CO2 storage facilities. CCS has been around for a
while in the industrial world, yet most individuals are still unaware of what it is (Xenias and
Whitmarsh, 2018). The absence of public support and the difficulties of implementing CCS in
communities have both contributed to the postponement or outright cancellation of some CCS
programmes (Witt, 2019).
Critics of CCS claim that it is only a lifeline that helps the oil and gas sector to keep running, and
that if the goal is to reduce emissions, then we ought not to be discussing how to store CO 2 so
much as we should be looking at ways to prevent it from occurring in the first place. Induced
seismicity, dangers associated with CO2 transport, and the potential for CO2 leakage are other
significant concerns about the CCS technology. Proponents of CCS, however, argue that
decarbonisation through capture and storage is the safest, expedient, and secure approach
since we do not have the luxury of time to progressively phase out high-emission industries
without causing socio-economic instability. CCS has become an essential and integral
component of the decarbonisation pathways of nations like Canada, the US, and the EU as they
face increasing urgency to fulfil their net-zero CO2 commitments.
Public opinion and assessment of CCS projects have been the subject of many studies (Boyd et
al., 2017; Gough and Mander, 2019; Moon et al., 2020; Pianta et al., 2021; Upham and Roberts,
2011). When new technologies emerge with the potential to reduce GHG emissions, it is
important to comprehend the public's acceptance of these innovations and the regulations that
will either encourage or stifle their development (Moon et al., 2020). The public's opinion of CCS
is as important as the technology's potential as a component of global plans to reduce GHG
emissions and slow global warming (Arning et al., 2019). The rate at which this technology may
be commercialised, and the overall cost of energy generation are also directly affected by CCS's
implementation (Wilberforce et al., 2021).
As with other contemporary energy technologies (such as hydraulic fracturing), CCS has
become a divisive topic due to several ongoing debates both in literature and policy. The
increasing political obstacles associated with achieving emission reductions at a rate that is
considered reasonable heighten the urgency of discussions on CCS as a means of achieving
net-zero CO2 targets (Carton et al., 2020). Initial efforts to implement CCS, spurred by the G8's
2008 decision to increase international collaboration on CCS and aim to start 10 large-scale CCS

5
demonstration projects by 2010, did not materialise on the scale that was needed (Martin-
Roberts et al., 2021). Owing to the complexity of the social, political, economic, and public
aspects involved, the success of CCS cannot be reduced to engineering alone (Lima et al., 2021).
For widespread adoption of CCS, a paradigm shift of unprecedented proportions is likely
necessary. According to experts, society will eventually need to regard CO 2 as sewage waste
and demand that companies pay taxes or levies for its capture and disposal (Lackner and Jospe,
2017). In Canada, this paradigm shift is still in the distant future, as public awareness, support,
and acceptance of CCS remain rather low (Boyd et al., 2017; Seigo et al., 2014; Tcvetkov et al.,
2019). There is also the possibility of induced seismicity, which has been shown to significantly
influence people's willingness to adopt subsurface technologies (Evensen et al., 2022;
Haemmerli and Stauffacher, 2020; Lokuge et al., 2023). However, the impact of induced
seismicity, defined as seismic events caused by human activities, has not been well considered
in discussions on CCS.
International studies have consistently revealed that the public is inexperienced with CCS
technology compared to all other emission reduction technologies (Ashworth et al., 2019; Lima
et al., 2021; Upham and Roberts, 2011). The energy economics literature often explores the
evaluation of economic prospects, particularly in terms of local job creation and economic
activities. These potentials are generally contrasted with the social (equity) and environmental
concerns associated with these technologies (Liebe and Dobers, 2020; Parkins et al., 2021).
Studies of opinions have also emphasised the need to consult with and compensate
communities impacted by new energy projects (Brennan and Van Rensburg, 2016; Chewinski et
al., 2023; García et al., 2016).
Surveys on public perceptions of CCS offer contradictory evidence regarding the impact of
socio-demographic factors on acceptance of the technology. (Pianta et al., 2021; Tcvetkov et
al., 2019). Regarding gender, a survey by Braun (2017) noted that the level of acceptability for
CCS is 0.31 points higher among females compared to men. Pianta et al.’s (2021) research,
however, found no statistically significant difference between male and female support for CCS.
There are also conflicting findings in the literature on the correlation between income and
education and CCS support (Ashworth et al., 2019; Braun, 2017; Moon et al., 2020; Pianta et al.,
2021).
Despite the useful information that can be gleaned from these studies and the existing public
perception literature, the inconsistencies that have been found empirically highlight the risks of
relying on survey research for evaluating public preferences and concerns about a complex
issue like CCS. There is a noticeable gap in our understanding of public preferences because
the literature does not adequately address cross-border CO2 trade potentials, local community
engagement, compensations, information transparency, different monitoring regimes, or
induced seismicity as major benefits and risk factors in individuals' evaluation of CCS projects.
Using empirically designed vignette scenarios, this research conducts a quantitative
examination of individuals' judgements of CCS project proposals in Canada, therefore filling a
significant gap in the public perception literature on CCS by considering these factors. By
employing a factorial survey (vignette) experiment (FSE), we are able to distinguish between the

6
effects of a variety of complex decision factors that enter individuals' evaluation of CCS,
including proximity, storage capacity, fairness of consultation and compensation schemes,
transparency of CCS risk assessments, cross-border trade of CO2, and different monitoring
regimes (Auspurg and Hinz, 2015a). Inadequate public awareness of CCS, particularly in relation
to its safety, effectiveness in mitigating climate change, and risks associated with seismic
activity, implies that using a choice experiment may overwhelm participants and thus result in
inaccuracies in measurement (Auspurg and Hinz, 2015a; Auspurg and Jäckle, 2017). By using a
vignette experiment, we may get around these limitations and have people rate the pros and
cons of various CCS scenarios on an ordinal scale, which reduces the likelihood of social-
desirability bias (Liebe and Dobers, 2019, 2020).
Observable and unobserved individual heterogeneity may be investigated using a random
intercept model. This offset the effects of unobserved heterogeneity across individuals in their
ratings of hypothetical vignette scenarios. As noted by Mehdi et al. (2020), more advanced
econometric assumptions, including random effects, may be better for studying potential
variation in individuals beyond their reported characteristics. Due to the general public's limited
familiarity with CCS (Ashworth et al., 2019; Lima et al., 2021), it is contested whether survey data
can accurately gauge support or disapproval of a complex energy technology like CCS (Yang et
al., 2016). Therefore, evaluating public perceptions within experimentally designed vignette
scenarios may enhance our understanding of the intricate dynamics surrounding public support
and acceptance of CCS.
The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to evaluate public perceptions and acceptance of CCS
as a climate-mitigation strategy from a socio-psychological perspective using a vignette
experimental technique. This distinguishes this paper from the wealth of public perception
studies of CCS conducted in Canada and throughout the world. While stated preference
techniques tend to focus on individuals’ preferences, vignette experiments highlight the
significance of societal norms and informal conventions when assessing conventional energy
sources (Parkins et al., 2021). Thus, with the use of vignettes, people are able to contemplate
alternative methods of building energy systems while keeping in mind the broader social,
economic, and environmental settings.
Regardless of this novel aspect, and in line with growing efforts to diversify research on public
involvement in the advancement of emerging technologies (Bellamy et al., 2019; Bellamy and
Lezaun, 2017), it is critical that this paper be viewed within the existing larger ecology of
investigations into the public licencing of unconventional decarbonisation alternatives. Public
trust, knowledge, risk, and perception of CCS in relation to its unique impact on induced
seismicity are currently understudied. This paper, therefore, seeks to examine individuals’
perceptions of the seismic risks associated with CCS and the potential impacts of alternative
monitoring strategies (technical and regulatory) on the public acceptability of CCS.
The specific objectives of this paper are fourfold: (1) to investigate public perceptions and
acceptance of CCS projects, with a focus on the perceived fairness of CO2 cross-border trading
as part of the implementation of CCS; (2) to examine differences in CCS acceptance across
respondent socio-demographic and other characteristics; (3) to analyse different governance

7
and monitoring regimes that affect CCS project acceptance; and (4) to assess the impact of
perceived CCS induced seismic/earthquake risks on CCS project acceptance. The consensuses
that may be reached from answering these questions will serve as a cornerstone for future
discussions in both policy and the literature. The remainder of the paper is structured as follows:
The second section examines data and techniques. The third section contains the findings and
discussions. The fourth section wraps up the study and offers policy recommendations.

Data and Methods

Study Approach
For this research, a factorial experimental survey was conducted in a national online survey
administered in October 2022 throughout Canada. The study received ethics approval from the
University of Alberta Research Ethics Board (Pro00123473). The 1,002 respondents who filled
out the online survey were all part of the same access panel provided by Survey Engine – survey
software designed for academic research (SurveyEngine, 2023). The individuals were sent an
invitation to participate in the survey by means of a hyperlink leading to the survey and vignette
experiment. Age, gender, level of education, and household income quotas were established to
provide a balanced representation of the Canadian population.
The objective of the survey was to gain a comprehensive understanding of the factors that
influence individuals’ acceptance of CCS plant scenarios. This includes examining the
respondent characteristics that contribute to the acceptance of CCS, as well as their knowledge,
trust, perceptions of the risks and benefits associated with CCS, and other relevant
environmental factors. This enabled us to assess the public’s acceptance of CCS and the extent
of its societal approval. The survey included seven (7) sections, presenting each respondent
with approximately 30 questions. The sections covered themes and questions relating to the
environment, knowledge of different low-carbon technologies, perceptions of different risk
factors, trust in different institutions, socio-demographic characteristics, and vignette
scenarios.
Participants were shown hypothetical scenarios in which a CCS project was proposed to be built
within a certain radius of the participant's home. Seven attributes (factors) were used to define
this CCS project and its features, with attribute levels varying across vignettes. Similar to prior
qualitative research in this field and political and social debates regarding energy development,
the selection of these attributes was driven by theories relevant to distributional and procedural
fairness in the energy economics literature (Cox et al., 2020; Liebe et al., 2017; Moon et al., 2020;
Parkins et al., 2021). Finally, the research drew on the expertise of people in the CCS and energy
industries to build the attributes so that they would accurately represent the most common
worries people have about projects of this kind.

Study Design
When evaluating CCS projects, several factors outside of the attributes of choice experiments
(CE) are likely to come into play, including fairness, information transparency, distributive justice,
etc. (Cox et al., 2020; Liebe et al., 2017; Parkins et al., 2021). This makes choice experiments

8
less ideal for inferring causal preferences from structurally more extensive social factors (Liebe
et al., 2017). As a result, most multifactorial survey studies separate questions concerning
social elements, such as people's sense of fairness or justice, their attitudes, or their own social
standards, from the actual elicitation of preferences (Parkins et al., 2021).
Factorial Survey Experiment (FSE) (also known as vignettes) is an alternative research design
that takes into account these societal aspects in condensed and detailed scenarios grounded
in important decision-making considerations. In FSE, participants are presented with a series of
hypothetical scenarios (called "vignettes") that vary from one another according to a
predetermined set of characteristics. After reading each scenario, participants are asked to rate
it based on how acceptable, supportive, or fair they find it to be. An FSE is a controlled
experiment in which the variables or scenario features given in the circumstances are
systematically varied, allowing for the isolation of the effects of individual factors that make up
the scenario (Liebe et al., 2017). Hence, relevant vignette characteristics and their causal effects
may be identified. In addition, theory-led experimental designs and researcher-generated
contextual variables allow for the uncovering of causal qualities via the randomization of
discrete and interrelated traits, which are assumed to be major predictors of respondents'
decision making (Auspurg and Hinz, 2015a). The rating is the dependent variable, and the
factors or attributes are the independent variables in multivariate regression analysis.
The following are necessary for any FSE to be conducted successfully: attribute levels and the
total number of attributes in each scenario. The so-called complete factorial, or the total number
of scenarios that may be evaluated, is calculated by adding up all conceivable combinations of
attributes. Often, the number of scenarios in vignette research will be too high to show to all
respondents. Thus, if this is the case, an experimental design is employed to cut down on the
sample size of vignettes given to respondents, but it should still be feasible to isolate the
influence of individual variables. Researchers must decide on a scale for capturing respondents'
ratings (e.g., 5, 7, or 11-point scales are often used). See (Auspurg and Hinz, 2015b, 2015a;
Auspurg and Jäckle, 2017) for details.
For the seven different vignette attributes selected, five attributes had three levels and two had
six levels (Table 1). First, there has been a substantial discussion in the literature on the possible
advantages and discomforts associated with living close to energy plants. More economic
activity, employment, and demand for local products and services may result from closer
proximity, but this may also lead to more traffic, noise, and rivalry for farmland. People's
openness to CCS plants in their communities may be influenced by these nuanced trade-offs.

9
 Table 1: FSE Attributes and Attribute Levels.

Attribute Levels Attribute Level

1 Less than 50 km from the home
Proximity 2 Between 50 km and 100 km from the home
3 More than 100 km from the home
1 Group of companies
Implementation 2 Government and industry partnership
3 Federal government
1 Public will not have access to information
Risk Assessment
2 Information available online at the approval stage
Information
3 Information available as long as the CCS plant is running
1 Individuals will not be consulted
2 Individuals will not be consulted except relevant NGOs
3 Residents of directly affected communities will be consulted
Consultation 4 Residents of directly affected and surrounding communities will be
consulted
5 All residents in the province will be consulted
6 A national consultation will take place
1 No financial benefits
Benefits 2 Contract preferences for local businesses in host community
3 Direct financial compensation to individuals in host community
1 5% of total household emissions
Storage Capacity 2 10% of total household emissions
3 20% of total household emissions
1 Only domestic
2 Domestic and from the Netherlands
Cross-border import of 3 Domestic and from the UK
CO2 4 Domestic and from Norway
5 Domestic and from the USA
6 Domestic and from Germany

People exhibit a NIMBY (not in my backyard) effect when they demonstrate a free-rider
preference by being in favour of a project conceptually but opposed to it when it is located in
close proximity to their own property (Wolsink, 2006). A survey by Krause et al. (2014) found
that many Americans were in favour of CCS facility operations as long as they were situated
elsewhere in the country but changed their minds when they learned that one would be
constructed in close proximity to their homes. However, a national survey in Canada conducted
by Boyd et al. (2017) revealed that those who live closer to a CCS facility are more likely to be in
favour of such initiatives. In an experimentally constructed situation, these variations increase
the possibility of a different outcome. Therefore, the study investigated CCS plant locations and
proximity to communities and homes to explore the relationship between proximity and
acceptance of CCS project facilities. The proximity of CCS plant locations was modelled, ranging
from “less than 50 km from the home”, to “between 50 km and 100km from the home”, and

10
“more than 100 km from the home”.
Second, the extent to which the public has trust and confidence in those who will make and
supervise critical decisions at a CCS plant may be correlated with their willingness to support
the project (Ashworth et al., 2019). This directly translates to the trust the public has in those
entities. Publicly administered facilities may be seen quite differently by different people
(Cvetković et al., 2021). Some may have a lot of faith in them, while others may consider them
inefficient and bureaucratic. In contrast, privately managed institutions may be effective, but
their business motives and social benefits are up for debate. Many energy providers are for-
profit businesses, so they must be closely monitored and regulated if the public is to get any
benefit from their services (Strielkowski et al., 2020). In order to address regulatory concerns
with respect to the execution of CCS projects in Alberta, the province has established a
government-industry CCS Development Council (IEA, 2008). These connections were modelled
into the implementation attribute as “group of companies”, “government-industry partnership”,
and “federal government”.
Third, when it comes to siting CCS projects, it's important that the public feels that they have
been included, that they have access to relevant information, and that they have a say in the final
decision. Having the public feel that they were included fairly in the planning process is a key
part of what is known as “procedural justice”. According to a survey by Xenias & Whitmarsh
(2018), experts who involve the public in discussions about CCS are more likely to see its
benefits and rank it higher than those who do not. Hasan et al. (2018), however, pointed out that
the act of public engagement in a project that has already been decided may be better
understood as a "rhetoric" activity than as a way to improve the system.
Aitken (2010) reveals that people's perceptions of procedural justice and, by extension, the
fairness of the result, are boosted when they are given a greater role in making decisions and
shaping plans. The study adapts this factor to model public engagement as “individuals will not
be consulted”, “individuals will not be consulted except relevant NGOs”, “residents of directly
affected communities will be consulted”, “residents of directly affected and surrounding
communities will be consulted”, “all residents in the province will be consulted”, and “a national
consultation will take place”.
Fourth, the public's acceptability of CCS plants in their communities may heavily hinge on how
well officials manage and communicate information about the plants' risks assessment. It is
important to stress that the confidence people have in the project's stakeholders has a direct
bearing on how well information is disseminated to the local population (Ter Mors et al., 2010).
Many studies have shown that people in a community are more likely to support the
development of energy technology when they have access to relevant information and
procedures are talked about openly (Firestone & Kirk, 2019; Musall & Kuik, 2011).
According to research by Brennan & Van Rensburg (2016), two-thirds of respondents would
rather have complete transparency, even if it means accepting a reduction in pay. It was also
discovered that having community representation in decision-making reduced the amount of
money that needed to be paid as compensation to community members. This study takes this
idea and models its effects on openness and information sharing at various stages as “public

11
will not have access to information”, or “information available online at the approval stage” and
“information available as long as the CCS plant is running”.
Fifth, remuneration is a significant component influencing local acceptability of energy
technologies (Jacquet, 2012; Lienhoop, 2018; Parkins et al., 2021). Monetary incentives
dispersed throughout the community, rather than just to the afflicted people, may outweigh
concerns about closeness (Hoen et al., 2019; Jacquet, 2012). But nevertheless, localised
monetary incentives might be seen as bribery; therefore, it is not unquestionable that
compensation programmes can overcome community hostility (Aitken, 2010; Kerr et al., 2017).
Several different types of remuneration have been proposed in the literature, including cash
payments to residents, payments depending on how close a home is to the affected area, and
community infrastructure investments (García et al., 2016; Lienhoop, 2018). In light of these
findings, the research builds a model of compensation that takes into account several measures
of distributive justice ranging from “no financial benefits”, to “contract preferences for local
businesses in host community”, and “direct financial compensation to individuals in host
community”.
Sixth, several of the major emitting areas and nations have been actively working to improve
their CCS technology in order to lower costs and better understand their storage potential
(Wennersten et al., 2015). Concerns about CCS stem from its supposedly limited storage
capacity, which is seen by some as a major drawback to the technology (Oltra et al., 2010).
Various aspects of CCS have been the subject of intensive engineering and feasibility research,
including its capture, transit safety, and cutting-edge monitoring technologies (Bertram & Merk,
2020; Gonzalez et al., 2021; Løvseth et al., 2021; Merk et al., 2022). However, as CCS is not very
familiar to the general public, information on individuals’ understanding of CCS plants' storage
capacities is scarce. The storage capacity of CCS can be categorised into three components:
the geological storage capacity or potential of a given country, the storage capacity of individual
CCS plants, and the annual injection capacity per CCS plant. In this paper, storage capacity refers
to individual CCS plant storage capacity. Therefore, experts’ advice was used to model the
storage capacity attribute of CCS scenario plants relative to a percentage of total household
emissions in a given province as “5% of total household emissions”, “10% of total household
emissions”, and “20% of total household emissions”.
Finally, the spatial complexity of climate mitigation strategies requires a cooperative approach,
and various nations have distinct comparative advantages that may be used to address this
problem. Various countries and regions have enacted treaties and procedures to prevent the
illegal dumping of garbage on their territories. Protecting the marine environment from pollution
due to the dumping of wastes at sea has been a top priority for many years, and two separate
global treaties have been at the forefront of this effort: the Convention on the Prevention of
Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 (London Convention) and the
Protocol to the Convention, 1996 (London Protocol) (Bergesen et al., 2019). With a few
exceptions, such as dredging debris, fish waste, inert, and inorganic geological material, the
Protocol prohibits the disposal of all wastes or other substances. It was later proposed in 2006
by the UK, Norway, and others that the London Protocol be amended to include “CCS processes

12
for sequestration” among the wastes that may be considered for dumping (Dixon & Birchenough,
2021).
This establishes a legal framework within the realm of international environmental law for the
purpose of regulating the process of CCS. Nevertheless, it has been acknowledged that there
might be a potential need for cross-border exportation in situations when a participating country
lacks enough appropriate geological storage capabilities but still wants to use CCS to mitigate
emissions (Bergesen et al., 2019; Dixon & Birchenough, 2021; Role et al., 2012). Countries,
including those that are part of this regulatory framework, need public consent to authorise or
prohibit the cross-border importation of CO2. Despite Canada's relatively low contribution to
global emissions, it has a significant share of around 15% in the current global capacity for
CCS/CCUS. This provides a comparative edge for the nation in international CO 2 trade. While its
economic advantages are undeniable, there may be a price to pay for accepting CO 2 since it is
considered a waste product and may cause seismic activities. This idea was used to model the
sources of CO2 (cross-border import) for the proposed CCS plants as “only domestic”, “domestic
and from the Netherlands”, “domestic and from the UK”, “domestic and from Norway”, “domestic
and from the USA”, and “domestic and from Germany”.

A government-industry partnership has been tasked to build a carbon capture and storage (CCS)
plant more than 100km from your home. The plant can store emissions equivalent to 20% of the
emissions generated by households in your province. It will store CO2 from domestic sources and
CO2 imported from the Netherlands. People like yourself will not be consulted but relevant NGOs
will be involved in the regulatory approval process. At the regulatory approval stage, the public will
be informed about the CCS plant’s earthquake risk assessment. The CCS plant operator does not
provide any financial compensation to the host community.
Given the assumptions stated above, how acceptable is this CCS development scenario to you?

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Completely neither Completely

unacceptable acceptable nor acceptable
unacceptable

Figure 1: Example of a Vignette Scenario used in the Experiment

The full factorial design generated from the seven attributes resulted in 8748 unique vignettes.
NGene (ChoiceMetrics, 2014) was used to make a fractional factorial design, which cut down
on the number of sets even more. The study chose an orthogonal design with two-way
interactions because the attributes can change in different ways within and between vignettes
(Auspurg and Hinz, 2015a). The fold-over method was used to produce the two-way interactions,
and then a sample was systematically taken (Auspurg and Hinz, 2015b). There was a total of 72

13
individual vignettes used in the final design.
To control for potential learning and order effects in vignette evaluations, the study randomly
(without replacement) assigned each respondent six vignettes from the pool (Auspurg and
Jäckle, 2017). Each respondent was only asked to rate six vignettes (on an 11-point scale) in an
effort to reduce mental weariness (see Figure 1 for an example). The vignette structure asked
for ratings from -5 to +5, with the extremes being described in text as "completely unacceptable"
to "completely acceptable", providing a range of judgements large enough to mitigate the risks
of censored responses and outliers (Kübler et al., 2018).

Econometric Approach
Vignette data may be analysed using a variety of statistical methods. In most studies, including
this one, participants react to many vignettes, and it is likely that their individual evaluations of
each scenario are not independent but rather connected with one another (Auspurg and Hinz,
2015). Several approaches, such as clustered standard errors, random effects, and mixed
effects regression models exist to consider such dependencies (Liebe et al., 2017). Taking into
consideration the nested nature of the data (each respondent rated 6 vignettes) and individual
variations across participants, random effects regression models were employed for this
analysis (Atzmüller and Steiner, 2010). Employing a simple least squares regression and
neglecting the fact that respondents rate many vignettes would result in biased standard errors
of the model coefficients (Bosker, 2012).
All participants read a short script at the start of the experiment (based on the stated preference
literature). The script educated responders about the hypothetical nature of the vignette
scenarios and created a baseline of comprehension. Consequently, the study presumes that the
respondents' interpretations of the acceptance responses were consistent. Therefore, there was
no need to account for differences in response scales, also known as "differential item
functioning," or DIF, during the model estimation phase (Greene et al., 2021), as it was assumed
that all respondents would rate a given CCS plant scenario as "completely acceptable" if it fully
satisfied their preferences.

The linear random intercept model is specified as:

𝑦𝑖𝑗 = 𝛽′ 𝑥𝑖𝑗 + 𝜇𝑗 + 𝑒𝑖𝑗 (1)
Where 𝑦𝑖𝑗 is the rating variable for the 𝑖th respondent of the 𝑗th vignette scenario, 𝑥𝑖𝑗 is a vector
of CCS project attributes, 𝑒𝑖𝑗 are respondent level errors, and 𝜇𝑗 are vignette level errors or
random effects. The vector 𝛽 collect the coefficients of the attributes, also called fixed effects.
The respondent level and vignette errors are assumed independent, with respondent level errors
following a normal distribution with variance 𝜎𝑒.2 The distribution of the random effects 𝜇𝑗 is
assumed to be:
𝜇𝑗𝑖𝑖𝑑 ~𝑁(0, 𝜎𝑢2 ) (2)
Where 𝜎𝑢2 is the vignette level variance. In other words, a normal distribution is assumed for
the random effects, which is consistent with the common assumption that they are independent

14
and identically distributed (therefore homoscedastic) across vignette levels.

Respondents’ Ratings of CCS Plant

Scenarios

𝜇1 Random Effects: Latent

⋮ variance between
𝜇𝑗 respondents’ ratings

Vignette Vignette Attributes Vignette Attributes + Socio.

Attributes + Socio. Dem. Dem. + Key Survey
Variables

Linear Regressions (Random

Intercept Models)

Figure 1: Flowchart of Random Effects Model Analysis

Another assumption is made, which is not often stated explicitly: that the random effects on the
covariates are independent on average. This is known as the exogeneity of the covariates, and
it is stated as follows:
𝐸(𝜇𝑗 |𝑥1𝑗 , 𝑥2𝑗 , … , 𝑥𝑛𝑗 , 𝑧𝑖 , 𝑣𝑖 ) = 0 (3)
Exogeneity ensures the unbiasedness of the estimates (Ebbes et al., 2004; Grilli & Rampichini,
2011, 2015; Kim & Frees, 2007).
The base model (model with only attributes – equation 1) was extended to include respondents’
socio-demographic variables.
𝑦𝑖𝑗 = 𝛽′ 𝑥𝑖𝑗 + 𝛾 ′ 𝑧𝑖 + 𝜇𝑗 + 𝑒𝑖𝑗 (4)
Where 𝑧𝑖 is a vector of respondents’ socio-demographic variables. The vector 𝛾 collect the
coefficients of the respondents’ socio-demographic variables. Finally, equation 4 was then

15
extended to include other key survey variables.
𝑦𝑖𝑗 = 𝛽′ 𝑥𝑖𝑗 + 𝛾 ′ 𝑧𝑖 + 𝛿 ′ 𝑣𝑖 + 𝜇𝑗 + 𝑒𝑖𝑗 (5)
Where 𝑣𝑖 is a vector of other survey variables and the vector 𝛿 collect the coefficients of those
survey variables.
𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝐶𝐶𝑆 𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑙𝑒𝑑𝑔𝑒
𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐶𝐶𝑆 𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑡𝑠
𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑘 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑜 𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝐶𝐶𝑆 𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑘𝑠
𝑥= 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ; 𝑧 = ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒 ; 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑣 = 𝑒𝑛𝑣𝑖𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑘𝑠
𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑡𝑠 𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡
𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 [ ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒 ] 𝐶𝐶𝑆 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡
[𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 − 𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡] [ 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑖𝑠𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 ]

Stata 17.0 was used to estimate the random intercept models based on the idea that
participants' acceptance benchmarks would change between vignettes with different levels of
attributes (Auspurg & Hinz, 2015a). The likelihood ratio test demonstrates that this model
specification performs better in the analysis when compared to an ordinary least squares
regression model.

Results
Sample and Descriptive Data Analysis
Table 2 below presents the summary statistics of the respondents’ characteristics. From the
results, most respondents (67.97%) are in their prime working lives (between the ages of 19 and
59). In this sample, about 17.76% are young adults (ages 19–29), 33.14% are adults (ages 30-
49), 17.07% are late adults (ages 50–59), and 32.04% are seniors (ages 60 and more). This
estimate is quite similar to the official data from Statistics Canada, which puts the median age
at 41 years old (Statistics Canada, 2021b).
In terms of gender, the results show that males represented 47.5%, females 51.0%, and non-
binary, transgender, and non-identified people 1.10%. Since women constitute 50.7% of the
Canadian population over the age of 20 (Statistics Canada, 2021b), and around 51.40% of those
who completed the survey fall into this demographic, it appears that this sample accurately
represents the country as a whole. Considering the stereotype that only men are interested in
the energy sector, it's encouraging to see that women make up more than half of the
respondents.
Participants' levels of education varied greatly, from advanced degrees to certificates in
technical fields. The results (Table 2) indicate that 26.35% of the respondents are college
graduates, 10.28% completed trade or technical school, 21.16% hold an undergraduate degree,
10.98% hold a graduate degree, and 1.2% did not specify their level of education. When
compared to the average of Canada, where only around 65% of the workforce has some kind of
post-secondary education, this is an above-average figure (Statistics Canada, 2019). The fact
that it was conducted online and included non-working adults (such as retirees) makes this
inevitable.

16
 Table 2: Summary Statistics of Respondents’ Socio-demographics and Survey Variables

Variable Description Sample (n = 1,002) Census Benchmark

(Percentages) (2021)
Age (years) 19 – 29 17.76 19.99
30 – 39 17.17 14.46
40 – 49 15.97 12.81
50 – 59 17.07 13.43
60 + 32.04 25.33
Gender Male 47.50 49.30
Female 51.40 50.70
Other 0.80 -
Prefer not to say 0.30 -
Level of Education College 26.35 21.80
Graduate 10.98 8.40
High School 30.04 26.70
Technical or trade 10.28 8.70
certificate 21.16 17.50
Undergraduate 1.20 -
Prefer not to say
Willingness to take Completely 8.48 -
Risks unwilling 23.35 -
Unwilling 31.54 -
Neutral 29.14 -
Willing 7.19 -
Very willing 0.30 -
Prefer not to say
Place of Residence Rural 13.27 17.80
Urban 86.73 82.20
Political Orientation Green 47.01 -
Left 22.85 -
Right 29.44 -
Centrist 0.70 -
No. of obs Mean Median Min Max SD
Income 921 129,061.80 54,000 2,000 50,000,000 1,648,342
Household size 1,000 2.50 2 1 14 1.48

Different people will react differently to the same risk because optimists will concentrate on the
prospective benefits and pessimists will dwell on the potential drawbacks of any given option

17
(Dohmen et al., 2018). Frey et al. (2021) argue that self-reported propensity measures are more
likely to capture individual variations in risk preferences linked to sociodemographic
characteristics like sex and age, hence, this is what was done. Respondents were asked about
their willingness to take risks. The results (Table 2) show that 8.48% of the respondents were
completely unwilling to take risks, 23.35% were unwilling to take risks, 29.14% were willing to
take risks, 7.19% were very willing to take risks, and 31.54% were risk neutral. This implies that
more than a third of the respondents (36.33%) are risk lovers, about a third are risk averse
(31.83%), and about a third are risk neutral (31.54%). The sample was also representative of
both rural and urban inhabitants. More than three-quarters (86.73%) of the survey respondents
said they were in metropolitan cities, while 13.27% said they were in a rural place. Using
Stephanie & Graham (1989) study as a guide, respondents were presented with a triangle to
indicate which vertex best describes their political orientation (with the vertices corresponding
to left, right, and green). The results in Table 2 above show that the majority of the respondents
(47.01%) were green-oriented, 22.85% are left-wing, 29.44% were right-wing, and 0.70% were
centrists (they did not lean toward any of the political orientations).
The income variable was measured as both continuous and categorical, and the majority of the
respondents provided their approximated income figures. The few respondents who provided
the income interval were then extrapolated to get an approximate figure. The data shows that
the incomes of the respondents are distributed quite unevenly. Incomes range from $2,000 to
$50,000,000, with a median of $54,000 and a mean of $129,062. According to a Statistics
Canada (2022) report from 2020, the median after-tax income for Canadian families and single
people was $66,800. Our sample may not be statistically representative of the Canadian public
at large (a potential selection bias), but it does give insight into a subset of the population that
may contribute a wide variety of viewpoints to the question of whether or not the public would
approve a CCS project. The household sizes of the respondents likewise ranged widely, from
one to fourteen members, with a mean of 2.5 and a median of 2. The typical Canadian
household, according to Statistics Canada (2021), has 3.2 people. This reveals some dynamics
in the socio-demographics of the respondents.

Summary Statistics of Selected Survey Variables

Respondents’ objective knowledge about CCS-induced seismicity was assessed. The results
(Table 3) show that about two-third of the respondents (65.97%) responded true to the question,
“CCS will always cause earthquakes, which will always be felt by humans on the surface of the
earth”. According to the science, it is extremely unlikely for an earthquake of this magnitude to
be caused by CCS activities. Consequently, an affirmation of the veracity of this assertion
indicates a deficiency in one's comprehension of the technology. This suggests that a
significant portion of the population lacks familiarity with the scientific principles underlying the
technology. Respondents were also asked to indicate their general level of support for the CCS
technology. The results in Table 3 below show that a significant number of the respondents
either support (31.30%) or strongly support (11.57) the technology. While about 12.50% oppose
or strongly oppose (9.71%) the technology. 34.92%, however, neither support nor oppose the

18
technology.

Table 3: Summary Statistics of Survey Variables

Variable Description Sample (n = 1,002)

(Percentages)
CCS Induces Seismicity True 65.97
False 34.03
CCS General Support Strongly oppose 9.71
Somewhat oppose 12.50
Neither support nor oppose 34.92
Somewhat support 31.30
Strongly support 11.57
CCS Knowledge Never heard about it 22.85
Heard about it 24.55
Know just a little 35.43
Know a fair amount 12.57
Know a great deal 4.59
Climate change risks None existing 6.19
Low 15.97
Moderate 34.93
High 41.82
Prefer not to say 1.10
Trust in fed gov’t energy Not at all 24.45
regulator A little 51.20
A lot 17.76
Prefer not to say 6.59
CCS will increase economic Not at all 13.57
growth Somewhat 36.23
Very little 31.24
Very much 10.78
Prefer not to say 8.18
CCS will lower the drive to Not at all 10.38
cut CO2 emissions Somewhat 40.82
Very little 27.15
Very much 14.47
Prefer not to say 7.19

Respondents’ subjective knowledge about CCS was assessed in the survey. The summary
statistics in Table 3 above show that about 22.85% of respondents said they never heard about

19
CCS while about 24.55% of the respondents reported to have heard about it. About 35.43% know
just a little and about 12.57% know a fair amount. However, only about 4.59% reported to know
a lot about the CCS technology. Despite its existence for decades, the literature has consistently
reported low levels of knowledge and awareness about the technology (Ashworth et al., 2019;
Lima et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2019). Although some studies have reported relatively high levels
of CCS knowledge in Canada (Boyd et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2022), the lack of proper
understanding of the technology has led to questions about the validity of using only surveys to
assess public support for the technology.
The survey also included an assessment of people's perceptions of the risks associated with
climate change. The results indicate that a significant proportion (41.83%) of the participants
hold the belief that the risks associated with climate change are of a very high magnitude, while
around 34.93% of the respondents perceive these risks to be of a moderate level. However,
around 15.97% of individuals hold the belief that risks associated with climate change are
minimal, and approximately 6.19% maintain the opinion that climate change risks do not exist.
The acceptability and support for various mitigation techniques are significantly influenced by
individuals' beliefs on the risks associated with climate change (Evensen et al., 2023; Kácha et
al., 2022; Spence et al., 2010). Acceptance of CCS, however, may be driven by more prominent
motivations, given the numerous facets of CCS, including economic development, distributive
fairness and justice, induced seismicity, and climate mitigation.
The survey also assessed respondents’ perceptions about CCS impact on economic growth and
the need to reduce emissions. The summary statistics in Table 3 show that about 10.78% of the
respondents believe that CCS will increase economic growth very much, while about 31.24%
believe it will increase economic growth just a little. 36.23% believe it will increase economic
growth somewhat, while about 13.57% believe it will not increase economic growth at all.
Regarding the need to transition to lower carbon economies, about 14.47% believe it will very
much lower the drive to cut down on emissions, while about 27.17% believe that the risk of
lowering the drive to cut down on emissions is very little. The majority (40.82%), however, believe
it will somewhat lower the drive to cut down on emissions, while only about 10.38% believe it
will not lower the drive to reduce emissions. There are several opinions on the importance of the
CCS technology. Some contend that CCS only serves as a lifeline for the oil and gas sector to
sustain its operations (Gonzalez et al., 2021), while others advocate for its substantial
contribution to climate change mitigation (Longa et al., 2020).
The survey also explored individuals trust in institutions, particularly federal government energy-
regulating institutions. Table 3 above shows that about 17.76% of the respondents have a lot of
trust in federal government energy regulators, while the majority (51.20%) have just a little trust
in government energy regulators. However, about one quarter (24.45%) of the respondents do
not have any trust in federal government energy regulators. The level of trust placed in
government energy organisations is indicative of the degree of confidence individuals have in
their ability to effectively manage energy-related matters (Stretesky et al., 2023; Truong et al.,
2019; Yang et al., 2016). The delegation of monitoring and regulating responsibilities for a
complex energy technology like CCS may be limited to organisations that have a high level of

20
public confidence.

Summary of Vignette Ratings

Regarding CCS project vignette ratings, respondents provided their acceptance ratings to the
vignette scenarios presented to them. Figure 3 shows a bell-shaped rating distribution
(excluding the two extremes), with a mean acceptance rating of -0.33 and a standard deviation
of 2.93. The figure depicts that about 13.29% of the respondents view the proposed CCS plants
as completely unacceptable, 14.95% view them as neither acceptable nor unacceptable, and
about 4.66% view them as completely acceptable.
It is also interesting to note that after excluding the middle ratings, there appears to be a balance
between the opposers and supporters of the proposed CCS plants (43.45% opposers and
41.61% supporters). This indicates that unique CCS plant features have the potential to tip the
neutral ratings to either side of the balanced scale. This observation is consistent with that of
Whitmarsh et al.’s (2019) cross-national survey, which also shows a relatively lower level of
support for CCS in Canada when compared to the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Norway.
However, according to Wang et al. (2021) findings, participants in a randomised control
experiment conducted among undergraduate students in China exhibited a noteworthy level of
support for CCS that was much higher than the average level. This increase in support was
shown after the participants were exposed to social norm information. This suggests that
respondents' values and norms influenced their assessments of CCS plant scenarios.

16 14.95

14 13.29
11.53 11.58
12
Percentages

10 8.93
8.5 8.37
8 7.27
6.02
6 4.91 4.66
4

0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Ratings

Figure 2: Acceptance vignette ratings

Governance and Monitoring of CCS Projects

Shale gas reservoirs are proposed to be the storage wells for captured CO 2, and induced
seismicity monitoring is an essential component of those reservoirs as well as managing and

21
mitigating the latent risks related to induce earthquakes. CCS plants may be particularly
susceptible to monitoring on a regional and global scale because of the distinct signature of
climate change and the localised nature of CCS plant risks (Keeling et al., 2011). The science of
the CCS technology guarantees its safety. However, Lackner & Brennan (2009) noted that the
public is generally worried about technical solutions that lead to situations that might spin out
of control (as can be seen in the discussions around the use and development of artificial
intelligence). The social licencing of CCS might be improved by exposing its monitoring and
administration to public scrutiny and by entrusting several organisations with the building of a
decision tree capable of handling improbable situations.
Respondents were asked about who should be responsible for the evaluation of site-specific
conditions of CCS projects (Figure 4). 23.05% of the respondents indicated that the federal
government should be entrusted with that responsibility; 18.46% indicated that an independent
body should be set up to handle that; 17.27% indicated it should be handled by CCS operators;
and 16.47% indicated that it should be the responsibility of an environmental organisation. Next
to those institutions are the provincial government (8.88%), research institutions and
universities (8.48%), taxpayers (5.79%), and specialised politicians (1.6%).
25 23.05
18.46
20 17.27 16.47
Percentages

15
8.88 8.48
10 5.79
5 1.6
0

Organization to be in charge

Figure 4: Organisation that should be responsible for evaluating CCS site-specific conditions

(In your opinion, which organisation should be responsible for the evaluation of site-specific
underground conditions for storing CO2 long term?)

A significant site-specific factor that raises concern among stakeholders is the potential for CO 2
leakage from CCS facilities (Tcvetkov et al., 2019). The leakage of CO2 can result in significant
ramifications for the surrounding ecosystems, including acidification and pollution caused by
the mobilisation of heavy metals (Elzahabi & Yong, 2001). It is anticipated that the oversight of
such a significant matter will be delegated to institutions possessing a high degree of
proficiency in the field and deemed trustworthy by the general populace.

22
The participants were asked in a targeted manner regarding the entities that ought to assume
the responsibility of monitoring the potential leakage of CO 2 (Figure 5). The majority of the
respondents (27.15%) indicated that CCS project operators should monitor potential CO 2
leakages. The federal government (18.16%), independent organisations (16.97%), and
environmental agencies (16.57%) were the other top four institutions respondents indicated
should handle the monitoring of CO2 leakages. Provincial governments (9.28%), research
institutions/universities (5.89%), taxpayers (3.89%), and specialised politicians (2.1%) were the
least preferred institutions for the monitoring of CO2 leakages.

taxpayers 3.89

specialized politicians 2.1

Organisatin to be incharge

research inst. & universities 5.89

provincial government 9.28

independent oversight 16.97

fed government 18.16

envir'tal organizations 16.57

CCS operators 27.15

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Percentages

Figure 5: Organisation that should be responsible for monitoring CO2 leakage during
operations

(In your opinion, which organisation should be responsible for monitoring CO 2 leakage during
operations?)

A key site-specific concern about CCS wells is the possibility of induced seismicity. Even though
the chances of CCS-induced seismicity are slim in many regions, the dissemination of
information pertaining to seismic monitoring endeavours has been observed to elicit heightened
concerns regarding potential hazards (Seigo et al., 2011). In fact, it is the primary determinant
of support or resistance towards subsurface energy technologies, making it the most crucial
risk factor (Evensen et al., 2022; Haemmerli & Stauffacher, 2020; Lokuge et al., 2023).
Nevertheless, the topic of induced seismicity has not received much attention in recent
conversations around CCS. Given the significance of this matter, it is very likely that individuals
would delegate the task of monitoring to institutions that they not only have faith in but also
possess a strong belief in their competence.
Participants were asked about which institutions should be responsible for monitoring CCS-
induced seismic risks (Figure 6). The results show that the majority of the respondents (21.46%)
noted that the CCS operators should be in charge of monitoring seismic risks. The federal
government (20.16%), independent (17.56%), and environmental organizations (16.77%) were

23
the other top four institutions that respondents indicated should be responsible for monitoring
induced seismic activities. These findings suggest that a combined effort has a better chance
of influencing public opinion. Similar results from a study performed by Boroumand, (2015)
revealed that respondents favoured a team-based strategy for seismicity education.
25
21.46
20.16
20
17.56
16.77

15

9.58
10 8.88

5 2.79 2.79

0
CCS envir'tal fed independent provincial research inst. specialized taxpayers
operators organizations government oversight government & universities politicians

Figure 6: Organisation that should be responsible for monitoring CCS seismic risks

(In your opinion, which organisation should be responsible for monitoring CCS seismic risks
during operations?)

Finally, when respondents were asked about the minimum acceptable level of monitoring to
allow for the operation of a CCS plant (Figure 7), 40.92% indicated that it should be able to detect
and mitigate earthquake risks. 21.96% indicated that monitoring should be able to assess the
likelihood and severity of earthquakes. 20.46% indicated that monitoring to observe seismic
risks will be sufficient, while only about 16.67% indicated that the monitoring should be able to
forecast the likelihood of earthquakes.

24
 45 40.92
40
35
30
Percentages

25 21.96
20.46
20 16.67
15
10
5
0
monitoring that can monitoring that can monitoring that can monitoring to observe
mitigate earthquake assess likelihood and forcast seismicity seismicity risks
severity of earthquakes likelihood

Figure 7: Minimum acceptable level of monitoring of CCS projects

(In your opinion, what should be the minimum acceptable level of monitoring of CO 2 storage
facilities to assure their safe operations?)

Results of Random Effect Models

Table 4 presents the results of the random effects regression models, i.e., random intercept
models of CCS acceptance. Models 1 include only vignette attributes as independent variables
and CCS acceptance rating as the dependent variable. Models 3 and 4 add respondents’
characteristics and principal components of heterogeneity survey variables to the model 1. The
Breusch and Pagan Lagrangian multiplier test for random effects show that the random
intercept model specification is preferred over an ordinary least squares regression model (prob
> chibar2 = 0.0000). The intra-class correlations for the base model is 0.6334, and indicate a
moderately high correlation of the six responses per respondent. Further, to test whether
respondent ratings were independent of the vignette attributes included in the vignette
scenarios, respondents who rated all six scenarios as completely unacceptable (-5) or
completely acceptable (+5) regardless of the attribute levels were excluded for two additional
separate models. Comparing the results of these two models without the extreme ratings to the
base model, we do not find any significant differences. This suggests that the estimates are
robust and that the vignette attributes and their levels influence respondents’ ratings. The
coefficient estimates for each attribute are presented relative to the benchmark level of that
attribute (called status quo in CE literature) in the context of CCS development in Canada.
Cross-border import of CO2 for storage across models has the strongest effect on CCS plant
scenario acceptance. Measured against storing only domestically emitted CO 2, the least
preferred scenario involves importing CO2 from Germany (-0.739) to be stored in CCS plants in
Canada. This negative effect on acceptance from the cross-border importation of CO2 is not only
in relation to Germany but also to other countries such as the Netherlands (-0.728), the UK (-
0.674), the US (-0.588), and Norway (-0.580).

25
Table 4: Results of Random Effects Regression Models

Variables Acceptance Socio-dem. Full model

Implementation
gov't-industry partnership 0.119* 0.132** 0.160**
(0.062) (0.066) (0.074)
fed gov't 0.103* 0.105 0.100
(0.061) (0.065) (0.072)
Proximity
between 50 km and 100 km 0.136** 0.175*** 0.171**
(0.060) (0.062) (0.071)
more than 100 km 0.241*** 0.265*** 0.250***
(0.062) (0.065) (0.071)
Capacity
10% of hh emissions -0.024 -0.031 -0.005
(0.060) (0.064) (0.073)
20% of hh emissions 0.014 0.040 0.110
(0.061) (0.064) (0.073)
Cross-border import of CO2
domestic and the Netherlands -0.728*** -0.718*** -0.701***
(0.096) (0.101) (0.111)
domestic and the UK -0.674*** -0.685*** -0.684***
(0.093) (0.100) (0.110)
domestic and Norway -0.580*** -0.588*** -0.588***
(0.086) (0.092) (0.100)
domestic and the US -0.588*** -0.581*** -0.634***
(0.096) (0.100) (0.107)
domestic and Germany -0.739*** -0.773*** -0.762***
(0.0959) (0.102) (0.104)
Consultation
only relevant NGOs 0.101 0.107 0.103
(0.085) (0.090) (0.100)
only residents of directly affected 0.280*** 0.306*** 0.364***
communities (0.083) (0.088) (0.100)
residents of surrounding 0.239*** 0.262** 0.247**
communities (0.083) (0.088) (0.100)
all residents in the province 0.354*** 0.391*** 0.379***
(0.086) (0.090) (0.100)
a national consultation 0.327*** 0.346*** 0.386***
(0.082) (0.086) (0.100)
Information
only at regulatory approval stage 0.519*** 0.553*** 0.571***
(0.062) (0.066) (0.072)
throughout the plant's lifespan 0.567*** 0.582*** 0.577***
(0.0633) (0.068) (0.075)
Benefits
contract preference for local 0.421*** 0.443*** 0.473***
businesses (0.060) (0.063) (0.071)
direct financial compensation to 0.627*** 0.655*** 0.645***
individuals affected (0.066) (0.070) (0.077)

26
Table 5: Continuation of Table 4
Variables Acceptance Socio-dem. Full model
Gender 0.735*** 0.451***
(0.155) (0.149)
Age -0.330*** -0.197***
(0.051) (0.050)
Log household income 0.131 0.012
(0.095) (0.084)
Education 0.004 -0.016
(0.063) (0.060)
Household size 0.002*** 0.002***
(0.000) (0.000)
CCS knowledge 0.296***
(0.070)
Perception of CCS benefits 0.019
(0.069)
Perception of environmental risks -0.163***
(0.052)
Trust in federal gov’t energy -0.420***
regulator (0.111)
Perception of CCS risks -0.285***
(0.067)
CCS general support 0.894***
(0.091)
CCS induced seismicity 0.413***
(0.161)
Constant -0.896*** -1.340 -2.633**
(0.131) (1.059) (1.038)
Number of vignettes ratings 6,012 5,430 4,218
Number of respondents 1002 904 703
Std. dev. random effect (sigma_u) 2.2926 2.2208 1.7807
Std. dev. error (sigma_e) 1.7442 1.7521 1.7351
Intra-class correlation (rho) 0.6334 0.6164 0.5130
Wald chi2 283.75 1468.68 2570.03
Robust standard errors in parentheses. ***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1

Notice that for the US and Norway, even though the effect is still negative, the magnitude in
terms of acceptance is lower. Considering the global impacts of climate change and the
localised risks of CCS plants, this result reveals a lower preference for CO 2 trading between
countries. This is because CO2 may be regarded as sewage (and it is) (Lackner and Jospe, 2017),
and countries might not want to be on the receiving end. Despite the 2009 amendment to Article
6 of the London Protocol in the EU, which permits countries to consent to the export and import
of CO2 for offshore geological storage, thereby eliminating a major international legal obstacle
to CCS and enabling the transportation of CO2 across national boundaries for offshore storage
(Bergesen et al., 2019; Dixon et al., 2015; Dixon and Birchenough, 2021; Role et al., 2012), our

27
results show that there exists a prevalent negative public perception towards cross-border
importation of CO2. This finding also relates to the literature on the transnational transportation
of waste (Kellenberg, 2015; Liddick, 2010; Pellow, 2007). This suggests that if the correct
disposal costs, environmental rules, compensation, monitoring, and compliance framework are
in place, people can be persuaded to support the international trading of CO2.
CCS plant acceptability is also significantly impacted by compensation. Against no financial
compensation at all, the most preferred attribute scenario involves financial compensation
(0.627) to individuals directly affected by the siting and operation of the CCS plant. This effect
is stronger than the option for contract preference for local businesses and services (0.421).
Prioritising local firms and services in contracts and providing compensation directly to
impacted persons over no financial compensation at all represent a desire for fairness in a
proximity-based compensation system revealed by earlier research (Mills et al., 2019; Parkins et
al., 2021; Walker and Baxter, 2017). This suggests that people might be willing to tolerate some
degree of risk associated with CCS plants in exchange for their fair share of the pie.
How effectively and transparently authorities manage and distribute information regarding the
risk assessment of CCS facilities is also crucial to the plants' acceptance. Relative to not sharing
information about the risk assessment of the CCS plant, public acceptance hinges not only on
making information available online throughout the plant’s lifespan (0.567), but also on making
the information available at the regulatory approval stage (0.519). This positive relationship
between acceptance and access to information was also observed by Firestone and Kirk (2019)
and Musall and Kuik (2011). Some individuals might even be willing to accept lower
compensation in return for access to information (Brennan and Van Rensburg, 2016). This
implies that prioritising communication, information sharing, and transparency in the design of
CCS plants is essential to enhancing their public acceptance.
Likewise, the concept of procedural justice has been observed to have a significant and robust
impact on acceptance. Relative to no consultation at all, conducting a national consultation
(0.327) as an integral part of the planning process for a CCS plant's construction increases its
public acceptance. Similarly, consulting the residents of the host province (0.354), residents of
the directly affected communities (0.280), or residents of the directly affected and surrounding
communities (0.239) has a positive effect on the acceptance of proposed CCS plant scenarios.
However, consulting relevant NGOs about proposed CCS plants, relative to the option of no
consultation at all, has no statistically significant impact on public acceptance of CCS plants.
This result is in line with the findings of Aitken (2010), Liebe and Dobers (2019), and Xenias and
Whitmarsh (2018). This suggests that involving the public in the decision-making process has
the capacity to enhance the level of acceptance of CCS facilities.
Another significant and robust determinant of public acceptance of CCS scenario plants is
proximity. Against the option of having a CCS plant located less than 50 km from the place of
residence, respondents not only prefer a distance of between 50 km and 100 km (0.136) but
also have a greater preference for a farther distance of more than 100 km (0.241). This finding
is in line with the NIMBY description given by Krause et al. (2014) and dismisses the assertion
of Boyd et al. (2017) that living close to such facilities is positively associated with acceptance.

28
However, as noted by Wolsink (2006), labelling this as NIMBY behaviour may obscure our
understanding of the real motives, as this relates more to the issue of fairness and justice in the
site selection. Therefore, in modelling a potential CCS plant scenario, it may be essential to look
at proximity with the lens of fairness instead of the label of NIMBY.
Furthermore, the effect of the system of administration and how the CCS plant is put into use
on public opinion is revealing. Relative to the option of a CCS plant scenario being implemented
by an industry consortium, government-industry partnership (0.119) or only by the federal
government (0.103) is preferred. This makes sense because many energy technologies are
often regarded as only for-profit ventures (Strielkowski et al., 2020), and as such, a government
partnership may be reassuring that public interest will be prioritised. As per our prior analysis, it
is noticeable that the federal government is deemed more suitable for assuming responsibility
for specific types of CCS projects monitoring.
After controlling for economic, transparency, and fairness-related factors, it has been observed
that the impact of storage capacity on the acceptance of CCS plant scenarios is relatively low
and statistically insignificant. This indicates that deliberations regarding CCS are focused more
on the social (fairness and justice) and economic (compensation) elements of the technology
than on its place in the battle against climate change. This implies that communication efforts
to improve public understanding and acceptance should focus on the socio-economic aspects
of the technology instead of its technicalities and climate mitigation capacity.

Effects of Respondent Socio-demographics on CCS Acceptance

Public opinion and perceptions matter tremendously in how people see issues and technologies
like CCS, according to the research on CCS and related energy technologies (Howell et al., 2019;
Moon et al., 2020; Pianta et al., 2021), which suggests that respondent characteristics may
possibly alter their judgement of CCS plant scenarios. As such, Model 2 incorporates a set of
covariates pertaining to sociodemographic factors that have been highlighted in the literature
as having effects on individuals’ perceptions of energy technologies. The findings confirm the
relevance of respondent socio-demographic characteristics as drivers of public acceptability of
CCS based on these control variables in Model 2. Table 5 findings indicate that male gender
significantly influences the acceptance levels of CCS plants, as reflected in vignette scenario
ratings that are 0.735 scale points higher. The observed positive coefficient among males could
potentially signify the prevalence of male-oriented focus in the energy sector, a matter of
significant prominence in the western part of Canada. These findings align with the observations
made by Yang et al. (2016), which indicate that males exhibit a higher likelihood of accepting
CCS compared to women. Nevertheless, according to Arning et al. (2019) study, no statistically
significant difference was noted in the acceptability levels of CCS between men and women.
This contradictory finding might perhaps be attributed to the varying degrees of participation of
men and women within the public debate on energy issues across different countries. It is also
important to acknowledge that there is a higher likelihood for males to recognise emerging
technologies and engage in public discourse around them, as shown by several studies (Miller
et al., 2007).

29
It's evident that various individuals of different ages think differently, and that different
strategies are needed to persuade them (Stephens et al., 2009). The relevance of age in
predicting the acceptance of CCS plants among respondents is noteworthy. The findings
indicate that there is a statistically significant negative correlation between age and acceptance,
with a decrease of 0.330 scale points per decade of age increase. This finding could potentially
be attributed to the notion that the discourse surrounding CCS is primarily situated within the
socio-economic realm rather than its capacity for climate mitigation. Consequently, it is
plausible that younger individuals are more inclined to endorse the technology in comparison to
their older counterparts. Yang et al. (2016) also observed a negative relationship between age
and acceptance of CCS. The common belief that people become more conservative as they age
provides a possible rationale.
The predictive power of household size in relation to CCS acceptance is negligible. The
acceptance ratings of CCS plant scenarios among respondents are positively correlated with an
increase in household size. This is evidenced by an increase of 0.002 scale points. A similar
analysis by Dütschke et al. (2016) confirms that there exists a positive correlation between the
number of individuals within a household and the acceptance of CCS, particularly in cases where
the source of CO2 emissions comes from coal combustion. Finally, the results in Table 5 above
indicate that there is no statistically significant impact on the acceptance of CCS scenario plants
in relation to the education level and household income of respondents. This result align with
the findings of Yang et al. (2016).

Effects of other Respondent Characteristics on CCS Acceptance

In addition to the socio-demographic model, knowledge about the technology, perceptions of its
benefits and risks, and trust in institutions are also potential drivers of acceptance of CCS plants,
as has been shown in related literature (Chewinski et al., 2023; Howell et al., 2019; Liebe &
Dobers, 2020; Mooney et al., 2022). The socio-demographic model (model 2) was therefore
extended to include these variables to get the final model specification (model 3). In order to
comprehensively assess the respondents' knowledge, trust, and attitudes towards CCS, as well
as various environmental variables, a series of questions were incorporated into the survey for
each of the aforementioned factors. The inclusion of numerous highly correlated variables in
the model poses the challenge of multi-collinearity and overfitting. To address this issue of
multi-collinearity (and overfitting) and attain parsimony in the model specification, the study
utilised a widely recognised method of dimensionality reduction known as principal component
analysis (PCA). Principal components (PCs) are a linear combination of the original variables.
As such, all the original variables are still utilised instead of a subset of them. PCs with the
highest eigenvalues (greater than unity) were included in the regression. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
test for sampling adequacy shows values above 0.60. This statistic measures the proportion of
variance among the variables that might be common variance and, hence, implies that the
samplings are adequate and satisfactory for the PCA.
As shown in Table 5 above, the coefficient of self-reported support for CCS is highly significant
and robust in influencing acceptance of CCS plant scenarios. An increase in self-reported

30
support for CCS leads to a 0.894 scale point increase in CCS plant scenario acceptance. Initially,
this may appear as two facets of an identical coin, thereby appearing insignificant in the
analysis. However, situating it within the debates surrounding CCS exposes significant insights.
By disentangling the economic incentives associated with the technology from its potential to
mitigate climate change, one can discern distinctions between the factors that motivate support
for the technology and those that drive its acceptance, particularly when considering its siting
within an individual's locality. Examining the relationship between the perceptions of benefits
and risks associated with CCS among respondents and their acceptance of CCS plant scenarios
may provide clarity on this matter.
The acceptance of CCS scenarios is significantly influenced by the objective knowledge of
respondents regarding the risks associated with seismicity caused by CCS. On average,
respondents who possess insufficient objective knowledge regarding the risks of CCS-induced
seismic activity tend to rate CCS plant scenarios 0.163 scale points higher than those who
possess accurate knowledge. The significance of this matter lies in the discrepancy between
the general public's perception of induced seismicity resulting from CCS and the scientific
reality. Based on scientific evidence, the likelihood of CCS inducing seismic activity that is felt
on the earth's surface is extremely low (Larkin et al., 2019). However, the mere reference to
seismic activity elicits a sense of anxiety. In the same vein, perceptions about the general risks
of CCS (such as CO2 leakage, seismicity, promoting CO2 emissions, and profit interest) are also
negatively correlated with acceptance of CCS plant scenarios. Specifically, an increase in
individuals’ perceptions about the risks of CCS decreases their average rating of CCS plant
scenarios by 0.285 scale points. This result is in line with the findings of Wallquist et al. (2010)
and Wennersten et al. (2015). Intriguingly, the perception of benefits associated with CCS (e.g.,
decreasing CO2, promoting economic growth, benefiting the environment, and being a cheaper
option) is statistically insignificant in predicting the level of public acceptability of CCS plant
scenarios.
Furthermore, there exists a positive correlation between possessing a thorough understanding
of CCS and the degree to which it is embraced as a viable technology for mitigating climate
change. To holistically capture respondents’ knowledge of the technology, several questions
were asked, such as the possibility of groundwater contamination, CO 2 leakage, induced
seismicity, storage capacity, viability of the technology, and the place where CO 2 will be stored
underground. The results indicate that an increase in individuals understanding of the
technology on average increases their acceptance of CCS plant scenarios by 0.296 scale points.
In their analysis, Pianta et al. (2021) demonstrate that individuals who possess knowledge of
CCS tend to have the perception that it’s societal and climate change-related benefits are
greater. However, it is important to note that this does not necessarily result in a corresponding
increase in acceptance, as previously mentioned. It is plausible that a higher understanding of
the technology may lead to a reduction in perceived risks, thereby resulting in greater levels of
acceptance of the technology.
Moreover, the perception of individuals regarding the risks associated with environmental
issues (such as glyphosate usage, mobile towers, wind turbines, antibiotics, pests/parasites,

31
crime/violence, drugs, ozone depletion, climate change, and induced seismicity) tends to
adversely affect their acceptance of CCS. Individuals with higher perceived risks associated with
these environmental phenomena, on average, tend to rate CCS scenario plants 0.163 scale
points lower. These findings reiterate the argument that an individual's perception of risks
significantly impacts their willingness to embrace CCS as a technology for mitigating climate
change (Peridas et al., 2021).
Finally, the acceptance of CCS is found to have a negative correlation with trust in federal
government energy regulatory and monitoring institutions. Specifically, an increase in
respondents’ trust in federal government energy regulators decreases their acceptance rating
of CCS scenario plants by 0.420 scale points. At first glance, this phenomenon may seem
counterintuitive. However, upon closer examination, it becomes evident that the underlying
cause is primarily rooted in the level of confidence individuals have in the federal and provincial
governments. The extent to which people trust government energy organisations serves as an
indicator of their faith in these entities' capacity to proficiently handle energy-related issues
(Stretesky et al., 2023; Truong et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2016). Due to the complexity of CCS as
an energy technology, it may only be appropriate to delegate monitoring and regulatory
obligations to institutions that have a high level of public trust. However, the negative
relationship between trust in government energy regulators and acceptance of proposed
scenarios for CCS plants can be attributed to the overwhelming influence of multinational
corporations in the oil and gas sector and the prevailing public perceptions regarding the
industry's involvement in promoting the CCS technology.

Conclusion and Policy Implications

The results of CCS research and development have shown that the technology is not only ready
but essential for reducing the worst effects of climate change. The public and the economy are
putting more pressure on leaders to follow through on their promises to take measures to slow
climate change. However, public opinions of the technology are cause for concern since they
demonstrate that the execution of CCS projects has been delayed and that considerable
challenges persist in linking the promise of CCS to the investment and deployment of CCS
facilities. It is still painfully obvious that CCS implementation is falling short of expectations
(Martin-Roberts et al., 2021).
A recent analysis of CCS/CCUS policy by the International CCS Knowledge Centre showed that
the Government of Canada's 2023 budget has measures to promote large-scale CCS/CCUS
projects. However, the analysis noted that Canada's policy framework is missing important
details that are needed to encourage private-sector investment (International CCS Knowledge
Centre, 2023). The risk assessment and risk management of CCS in Canada centre on three key
areas: government and industry factors, environmental risk factors, and socio-economic factors.
The socio-economic considerations include several elements, such as the public's opinions of
the risks and benefits associated with CCS, the economic costs involved, the availability of
information, effective communication strategies, the engagement of stakeholders, and the
social and public acceptance of CCS, including the use of decision support tools to facilitate the

32
decision-making process (Larkin et al., 2019). Our experiment explored CCS plant attributes that
influence individuals’ acceptance of the technology. The paper documents that cross-border
imports of CO2 for storage have the strongest effect on CCS plant scenario acceptance,
indicating a lower preference for CO2 trading between countries. Canada currently holds a share
of approximately 15 percent in the global capacity for CCS/CCUS, which amounts to roughly
seven million tonnes of CO2 annually. It is worth noting that this contribution is significant
considering that Canada’s CO2 emissions constitute less than two percent of the global total
emissions (IEA, 2022).
Our analysis shows that the level of acceptance of CCS plants is contingent upon the provision
of compensation, as those affected by such facilities are willing to tolerate a certain level of risk
in return for fair remuneration. A proper incorporation of compensation, communication,
information sharing, and transparency into the design of CCS plants will be imperative for
augmenting public acceptance in Canada. The significant impact of procedural justice on the
degree of societal approval of CCS facilities is also worth mentioning. Our empirical evidence
suggests that engaging in national and provincial consultation, as well as seeking input from
residents of communities directly impacted by CCS plants, can yield favourable outcomes in
terms of fostering acceptance.
Individuals regard climate change as a significant concern because they are aware of the
repercussions of global warming and are afraid of the harm it brings to their life, as was
discovered by Arlota & de Medeiros Costa (2021), CCA (2019), NAS (2021), and Nordhaus
(2019). However, this is not sufficient to encourage people to pay for measures that reduce
global warming (Lima et al., 2021). Our results validate the significance of the socio-economic
and socio-demographic characteristics of respondents (such as age, gender, and household
size) as determinants of their acceptance of CCS as a climate mitigation strategy. Knowledge
about the technology, perceptions of its benefits and risks, induced seismicity, and trust in
institutions are key drivers of acceptance of CCS plants.
The results of this research have three main policy implications for Canada. First, the results
reveal a lower preference for CO2 cross-border trading due to the global impacts of climate
change and localised risks of CCS plants. However, if the correct disposal costs, environmental
rules, compensation, monitoring, and compliance framework are in place, people can be
persuaded to support the international transport (trading) of CO2. Second, prioritising local firms
and services in contracts and providing compensation directly to impacted persons represents
a desire for fairness in a proximity-based compensation system, suggesting that people may be
willing to tolerate some risk in exchange for their fair share of the pie. Similarly, prioritising
communication, information sharing, and transparency in the design of CCS plants is essential
to enhancing public acceptance, as some individuals may be willing to accept lower
compensation for full access to information. Third, the acceptance of CCS scenarios is
significantly influenced by the objective knowledge of respondents regarding the risks
associated with seismic activity caused by CCS. Also, perceptions about the general risks of
CCS are negatively correlated with acceptance of CCS plant scenarios, while perceptions of the
benefits associated with CCS are statistically insignificant in predicting the level of public

33
acceptability of CCS plant scenarios. This implies that possessing a thorough understanding of
CCS can lead to a reduction in perceived risks, resulting in greater levels of acceptance. Hence,
communication efforts to improve public understanding and acceptance should focus on
demystifying the risks of the technology instead of its technicalities and climate mitigation
capacity.
There are two limitations inherent in this study that give rise to considerations for future
research. First, a series of hypothetical scenarios pertaining to CCS plants were offered to the
public, but with the caveat that these scenarios do not include the whole spectrum of potential
CCS implementations and associated ramifications. In the context of this research, several
elements that might have a significant impact on acceptability, such as the public's perception
of the financial implications of energy use and the accompanying cost (Volken et al., 2019), were
not comprehensively examined. Moreover, the scenarios presented exhibit a certain level of
abstraction and are hypothetical in nature. Hence, the survey results reflect the public's reaction,
although potentially divergent from actuality. In addition, it should be noted that the survey
findings provide a momentary depiction of the present sentiments held by the general
population and should not be extrapolated to predict future trends (Renn, 2015).
Second, the scope of this research was restricted to Canada, limiting the applicability of the
findings to a broader context. The significance of norms and values and the perceived salience
of the climate change problem exhibit variation across countries and cultures. This means that
our results cannot be generalised across countries. Given the broad spectrum of opinions on
CCS that have been expressed, it is reasonable to presume that various subsets of the
population will have varied perspectives on the topic. Therefore, future studies should
concentrate on subgrouping the population to provide more specific policy recommendations.
Also, to fully comprehend the potential of cross-border CO2 storage trade, a cross-national study
is required.

34
 References
Aitken, M. (2010). Wind power and community benefits: Challenges and opportunities. Energy Policy,
38(10), 6066–6075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.05.062
Arlota, C., & de Medeiros Costa, H. K. (2021). Climate change, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS),
energy transition, and justice: Where we are now, and where are (should be) we headed? In
Carbon Capture and Storage in International Energy Policy and Law. INC.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-85250-0.00019-0
Arning, K., Offermann-van Heek, J., Linzenich, A., Kaetelhoen, A., Sternberg, A., Bardow, A., & Ziefle,
M. (2019). Same or different? Insights on public perception and acceptance of carbon capture
and storage or utilization in Germany. Energy Policy, 125(November 2018), 235–249.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.10.039
Ashworth, P., Boughen, N., Mayhew, M., & Millar, F. (2010). From research to action: Now we have to
move on CCS communication. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 4(2), 426–433.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2009.10.012
Ashworth, P., Sun, Y., Ferguson, M., Witt, K., & She, S. (2019). Comparing how the public perceive CCS
across Australia and China. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 86(May), 125–133.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.04.008
Atzmüller, C., & Steiner, P. M. (2010). Experimental vignette studies n survey research. Methodology,
6(3), 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000014
Auspurg, K., & Hinz, T. (2015a). Multifactorial Experiments in Surveys : Conjoint Analysis, Choice
Experiments, and Factorial Surveys. Experimente in Den Sozialwissenschaften, 1(ISBN 978-3-
8487-1916-7), 291–315.
Auspurg, K., & Hinz, T. (2015b). Setting Up the Survey. Factorial Survey Experiments, 60–84.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483398075.n4
Auspurg, K., & Jäckle, A. (2017). First Equals Most Important? Order Effects in Vignette-Based
Measurement. Sociological Methods and Research, 46(3), 490–539.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124115591016
Bergesen, H. O., Parmann, G., & Thommessen, O. B. (2019). Convention on the Prevention of Marine
Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Convention 1972). In Yearbook of
International Cooperation on Environment and Development 1998–99.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315066547-20
Bertram, C., & Merk, C. (2020). Public Perceptions of Ocean-Based Carbon Dioxide Removal: The
Nature-Engineering Divide? Frontiers in Climate, 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2020.594194
Boroumand, N. (2015). Survey Responses on the Public Perception of Induced Seismicity. CSEG
Recorder, 40 No. 5(May 2015), 36–41. https://csegrecorder.com/articles/view/survey-
responses-on-the-public-perception-of-induced-seismicity
Bosker, R. S. T. A. B. (2012). Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Applied Multilevel
Analysis. Department of Statistics University of Oxford.
http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~snijders/mlbook.htm
Boyd, A. D., Hmielowski, J. D., & David, P. (2017). Public perceptions of carbon capture and storage
in Canada: Results of a national survey. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control,

35
 67(August), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2017.10.010
Braun, C. (2017). Not in My Backyard: CCS Sites and Public Perception of CCS. Risk Analysis, 37(12),
2264–2275. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12793
Brennan, N., & Van Rensburg, T. M. (2016). Wind farm externalities and public preferences for
community consultation in Ireland: A discrete choice experiments approach. Energy Policy, 94,
355–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.04.031
Bruhn, T., Naims, H., & Olfe-Kräutlein, B. (2016). Separating the debate on CO2 utilisation from carbon
capture and storage. Environmental Science and Policy, 60, 38–43.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.03.001
Carton, W., Asiyanbi, A., Beck, S., Buck, H. J., & Lund, J. F. (2020). Negative emissions and the long
history of carbon removal. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 11(6), 1–25.
https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.671
CCA. (2019). Canada’s top climate change risks: the expert panel on climate change risks and
adaptation potential. https://cca-reports.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Report-Canada-top-
climate-change-risks.pdf
Chewinski, M., Anders, S., & Parkins, J. R. (2023). Agricultural landowner perspectives on wind energy
development in Alberta, Canada: insights from the lens of energy justice and democracy.
Environmental Sociology, 00(00), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2023.2247627
ChoiceMetrics. (2014). NGENE 1.1. 2 User Manual and Reference Guide: the cutting edge in
experimental design. Choice Metrics.
Cox, E., Spence, E., & Pidgeon, N. (2020). Public perceptions of carbon dioxide removal in the United
States and the United Kingdom. Nature Climate Change, 10(8), 744–749.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0823-z
Cvetković, V. M., Öcal, A., Lyamzina, Y., Noji, E. K., Nikolić, N., & Milošević, G. (2021). Nuclear power
risk perception in serbia: Fear of exposure to radiation vs. social benefits. Energies, 14(9).
https://doi.org/10.3390/en14092464
David, J., & Herzog, H. (2000). The Cost of Carbon Capture. Energy, 13–16.
http://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/David_and_Herzog.pdf
David, J. L., & Andrew, J. W. (2006). SOCIAL ATOMISM, HOLISM, AND TRUST. Academy of
Management Review, 31(2), 386–408.
Dixon, T., & Birchenough, A. (2021). Exporting CO2 for Offshore Storage -The London Protocol’s Export
Amendment. March.
Dixon, T., McCoy, S. T., & Havercroft, I. (2015). Legal and Regulatory Developments on CCS.
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 40, 431–448.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.05.024
Dohmen, T., Willrodt, J., & Willrodt, J. (2018). Willingness to Take Risk : The Role of Risk Conception
and Optimism Willingness to Take Risk : The Role of Risk Conception and Optimism. DISCUSSION
PAPER SERIES 11642.
Ebbes, P., Böckenholt, U., & Wedel, M. (2004). Regressor and random-effects dependencies in
multilevel models. Statistica Neerlandica, 58(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0039-
0402.2003.00254.x

36
Elzahabi, M., & Yong, R. N. (2001). pH influence on sorption characteristics of heavy metal in the
vadose zone. Engineering Geology, 60(1–4), 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-
7952(00)00089-2
Evensen, D., Varley, A., Whitmarsh, L., Devine-Wright, P., Dickie, J., Bartie, P., Napier, H., Mosca, I.,
Foad, C., & Ryder, S. (2022). Effect of linguistic framing and information provision on attitudes
towards induced seismicity and seismicity regulation. Scientific Reports, 12(1).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-15448-4
Evensen, D., Whitmarsh, L., Devine-Wright, P., Dickie, J., Bartie, P., Foad, C., Bradshaw, M., Ryder, S.,
Mayer, A., & Varley, A. (2023). Growing importance of climate change beliefs for attitudes
towards gas. Nature Climate Change, 13(3), 240–243. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-
01622-7
Firestone, J., & Kirk, H. (2019). A strong relative preference for wind turbines in the United States
among those who live near them. Nature Energy, 4(4), 311–320.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-019-0347-9
Frey, R., Richter, D., Hertwig, R., & Mata, R. (2021). Identifying robust correlates of risk preference : A
systematic approach using specification curve analysis. Personality and Social Psychology, 120,
538–557.
Gabrielli, P., Gazzani, M., & Mazzotti, M. (2020). The Role of Carbon Capture and Utilization, Carbon
Capture and Storage, and Biomass to Enable a Net-Zero-CO2 Emissions Chemical Industry.
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 59(15), 7033–7045.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.9b06579
Gibbins, J. O. N. (2019). CCS – From an Oil Crisis to a Climate Crisis Response. 26, 559–562.
Gonzalez, A., Mabon, L., & Agarwal, A. (2021). Who wants North Sea CCS, and why? Assessing
differences in opinion between oil and gas industry respondents and wider energy and
environmental stakeholders. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 106(February),
103288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2021.103288
Gough, C., & Mander, S. (2019). Beyond Social Acceptability: Applying Lessons from CCS Social
Science to Support Deployment of BECCS. Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports, 6(4),
116–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40518-019-00137-0
Greene, W. H., Harris, M. N., Knott, R. J., & Rice, N. (2021). Specification and testing of hierarchical
ordered response models with anchoring vignettes. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series
A: Statistics in Society, 184(1), 31–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12612
Grilli, L., & Rampichini, C. (2011). The role of sample cluster means in multilevel models a view on
endogeneity and measurement error issues. Methodology, 7(4), 121–133.
https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000030
Grilli, L., & Rampichini, C. (2015). Specification of random effects in multilevel models: a review.
Quality and Quantity, 49(3), 967–976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014-0060-5
Haemmerli, L., & Stauffacher, M. (2020). The Neglected Role of Risk Mitigation Perception in the Risk
Governance of Underground Technologies— The Example of Induced Seismicity. International
Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 11(5), 630–639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-020-00298-3
Hasan, M. A., Nahiduzzaman, K. M., & Aldosary, A. S. (2018). Public participation in EIA: A

37
 comparative study of the projects run by government and non-governmental organizations.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 72(November 2017), 12–24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2018.05.001
Hoen, B., Firestone, J., Rand, J., Elliot, D., Hübner, G., Pohl, J., Wiser, R., Lantz, E., Haac, T. R., & Kaliski,
K. (2019). Attitudes of U.S. Wind Turbine Neighbors: Analysis of a Nationwide Survey. Energy
Policy, 134(August), 110981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.110981
Howell, E. L., Wirz, C. D., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., & Xenos, M. A. (2019). Seeing through risk-
colored glasses: Risk and benefit perceptions, knowledge, and the politics of fracking in the
United States. Energy Research and Social Science, 55(May), 168–178.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.05.020
IEA. (2008). CO2 Capture and Storage: A key carbon abatement option. In Energy Technology Analysis
(Vol. 9789264041). https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264041417-en
IEA. (2021a). Global Energy Review 2021 – Analysis - IEA. International Energy Agency.
IEA. (2021b). Global Energy Review 2021: Assessing the effects of economic recoveries on global
energy demand and CO2 emissions in 2021. Global Energy Review.
https://doi.org/10.1787/90c8c125-en
IEA. (2022). CO2 Emissions in 2022. Retrieved September 02, 2023, from
https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2022.
International CCS Knowledge Centre. (2023). Canadian CCUS policy requires further detail to support
advancing projects. Retrieved August 19, 2023, from
https://ccsknowledge.com/news/canadian-ccus-policy-requires-further-detail-to-support-
advancingprojects#:~:text=Canada%20has%20pledged%20to%20cut,tonnes%20per%20year%
20by%202030.
IPCC. (2022). An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial
levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening
the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development,. In Cambridge
University Press (Vol. 4, Issue 1). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940
Jacquet, J. B. (2012). Landowner attitudes toward natural gas and wind farm development in
northern Pennsylvania. Energy Policy, 50, 677–688.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.08.011
Kahlor, L. A., Yang, J., Li, X., Wang, W., Olson, H. C., & Atkinson, L. (2020). Environmental Risk (and
Benefit) Information Seeking Intentions: The Case of Carbon Capture and Storage in Southeast
Texas. Environmental Communication, 14(4), 555–572.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1699136
Keeling, R. F., Manning, A. C., & Dubey, M. K. (2011). The atmospheric signature of carbon capture
and storage. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and
Engineering Sciences, 369(1943), 2113–2132. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2011.0016
Kellenberg, D. (2015). The economics of the international trade of waste. Annual Review of Resource
Economics, 7(1), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012639
Kerr, S., Johnson, K., & Weir, S. (2017). Understanding community benefit payments from renewable
energy development. Energy Policy, 105(February), 202–211.

38
 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.02.034
Kim, J. S., & Frees, E. W. (2007). Multilevel modeling with correlated effects. Psychometrika, 72(4),
505–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-007-9008-1
Lackner, K., & Jospe, C. (2017). Climate Change is a Waste Management Problem | Issues in Science
and Technology. ISSUES in Science and Technology, 83–89. https://issues.org/climate-change-
waste-management-problem/
Lackner, K. S., & Brennan, S. (2009). Envisioning carbon capture and storage: Expanded possibilities
due to air capture, leakage insurance, and C-14 monitoring. Climatic Change, 96(3), 357–378.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9632-0
Larkin, P., Leiss, W., Arvai, J., Dusseault, M., Fall, M., Gracie, R., Heyes, A., & Krewski, D. (2019). An
integrated risk assessment and management framework for carbon capture and storage: A
Canadian perspective. International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, 22(3–4).
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJRAM.2019.103336
Liddick, D. (2010). The traffic in garbage and hazardous wastes: An overview. Trends in Organized
Crime, 13(2–3), 134–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12117-009-9089-6
Liebe, U., Bartczak, A., & Meyerhoff, J. (2017). A turbine is not only a turbine: The role of social context
and fairness characteristics for the local acceptance of wind power. Energy Policy, 107(May),
300–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.04.043
Liebe, U., & Dobers, G. M. (2019). Decomposing public support for energy policy: What drives
acceptance of and intentions to protest against renewable energy expansion in Germany?
Energy Research and Social Science, 47 (August 2018), 247–260.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.09.004
Liebe, U., & Dobers, G. M. (2020). Measurement of fairness perceptions in energy transition research:
A factorial survey approach. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(19), 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12198084
Lienhoop, N. (2018). Acceptance of wind energy and the role of financial and procedural
participation: An investigation with focus groups and choice experiments. Energy Policy,
118(April), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.03.063
Lima, P. R., Pereira, A. A. M., Chaves, G. de L. D., & Meneguelo, A. P. (2021). Environmental awareness
and public perception on carbon capture and storage (CCS) in Brazil. International Journal of
Greenhouse Gas Control, 111(August). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2021.103467
Lokuge, N., Phillips, J., Anders, S., & van der Baan, M. (2023). Human-induced seismicity and the
public acceptance of hydraulic fracturing: A vignette experiment. Extractive Industries and
Society, 15(August), 101335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2023.101335
L’Orange Seigo, S., Dohle, S., & Siegrist, M. (2014). Public perception of carbon capture and storage
(CCS): A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 38, 848–863.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.017
L’Orange Seigo, S., Wallquist, L., Dohle, S., & Siegrist, M. (2011). Communication of CCS monitoring
activities may not have a reassuring effect on the public. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas
Control, 5(6), 1674–1679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2011.05.040
Martin-Roberts, E., Scott, V., Flude, S., Johnson, G., Haszeldine, R. S., & Gilfillan, S. (2021). Carbon

39
 capture and storage at the end of a lost decade. One Earth, 4(11), 1569–1584.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.10.002
Mehdi, F., Aurelio, F., & Massimo, F. (2020). Economies of Scale and Scope in Multi-Utilities.
International Association for Energy, 29(4), 123–143.
Merk, C., Nordø, Å. D., Andersen, G., Lægreid, O. M., & Tvinnereim, E. (2022). Don’t send us your waste
gases: Public attitudes toward international carbon dioxide transportation and storage in
Europe. Energy Research and Social Science, 87(May 2021).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102450
Miller, E., Bell, L., & Buys, L. (2007). Public understanding of carbon sequestration in Australia: socio-
demographic predictors of knowledge, engagement and trust. Australian Journal of Emerging
Technologies and Society, 5(1).
Mills, S. B., Bessette, D., & Smith, H. (2019). Exploring landowners’ post-construction changes in
perceptions of wind energy in Michigan. Land Use Policy, 82(May 2018), 754–762.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.01.010
Moon, W. K., Kahlor, L. A., & Olson, H. C. (2020). Understanding public support for carbon capture
and storage policy: The roles of social capital, stakeholder perceptions, and perceived
risk/benefit of technology. Energy Policy, 139(May 2019), 111312.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111312
Mooney, R., Boudet, H. S., & Hazboun, S. O. (2022). Risk-benefit perceptions of natural gas export in
Oregon. Local Environment, 27(3), 342–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2022.2040470
Musall, F. D., & Kuik, O. (2011). Local acceptance of renewable energy-A case study from southeast
Germany. Energy Policy, 39(6), 3252–3260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.017
NAS. (2021). Climate change and global warming: Impacts on crop production. Genetically Modified
Plants, 283–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-818564-3.09991-1
Nordhaus, W. (2019). Climate change: The ultimate challenge for economics. American Economic
Review, 109(6), 1991–2014. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.109.6.1991
Oltra, C., Sala, R., Solà, R., Di Masso, M., & Rowe, G. (2010). Lay perceptions of carbon capture and
storage technology. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 4(4), 698–706.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.02.001
Osazuwa-Peters, M., & Hurlbert, M. (2020). Analyzing Regulatory Framework for Carbon Capture and
Storage (CCS) Technology Development: A case study approach. The Central European Review
of Economics and Management, 4(1), 107–148. https://doi.org/10.29015/cerem.834
Parkins, J. R., Anders, S., Meyerhoff, J., & Holowach, M. (2021). Landowner acceptance of wind
turbines on their land: Insights from a factorial survey experiment. Land Economics, 012521-
0008R1. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.98.4.012521-0008r1
Pellow, D. (2007). Resisting Global Toxics: Transnational Movements for Environmental Justice.
10.7551/mitpress/7479.001.0001
Peridas, G., & Mordick Schmidt, B. (2021). The role of carbon capture and storage in the race to
carbon neutrality. Electricity Journal, 34(7), 106996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2021.106996
Pianta, S., Rinscheid, A., & Weber, E. U. (2021). Carbon Capture and Storage in the United States:
Perceptions, preferences, and lessons for policy. Energy Policy, 151, 112149.

40
 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112149
Ringrose, P., Greenberg, S., Whittaker, S., Nazarian, B., & Oye, V. (2017). Building Confidence in CO2
Storage Using Reference Datasets from Demonstration Projects. Energy Procedia,
114(November 2016), 3547–3557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1484
Ringrose, P. S. (2018). The CCS hub in Norway: Some insights from 22 years of saline aquifer storage.
Energy Procedia, 146, 166–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2018.07.021
Rockström, J., Gaffney, O., Rogelj, J., Meinshausen, M., Nakicenovic, N., & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2017).
A roadmap for rapid decarbonization. Science, 355(6331), 1269–1271.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah3443
Role, T., To, C., Of, P., & Marine, T. H. E. (2012). THE LONDON CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL :
LONDON CONVENTION What is the London Convention and its Protocol ? Office.
Rolnick, D., Donti, P. L., Kaack, L. H., Kochanski, K., Lacoste, A., Sankaran, K., Ross, A. S., Milojevic-
Dupont, N., Jaques, N., Waldman-Brown, A., Luccioni, A., Maharaj, T., Sherwin, E. D., Mukkavilli,
S. K., Kording, K. P., Gomes, C., Ng, A. Y., Hassabis, D., Platt, J. C., … Bengio, Y. (2019). Tackling
Climate Change with Machine Learning. http://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05433
Rosa, L., Sanchez, D. L., Realmonte, G., Baldocchi, D., & D’Odorico, P. (2021). The water footprint of
carbon capture and storage technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 138(April
2020), 110511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110511
Rossi, P. H. (1979). 14. Vignette analysis: uncovering the normative structure of complex judgments.
Qualitative and Quantitative Social Research: Papers in Honor of Paul F. Lazarsfeld, 176.
Scott, V., Gilfillan, S., Markusson, N., Chalmers, H., & Haszeldine, R. S. (2013). Last chance for carbon
capture and storage. Nature Climate Change, 3(2), 105–111.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1695
Shackley, S., McLachlan, C., & Gough, C. (2004). The public perception of carbon dioxide capture and
storage in the UK: Results from focus groups and a survey. Climate Policy, 4(4), 377–398.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2004.9685532
Slovic, P., Flynn, J. H., & Layman, M. (1991). Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics of Nuclear Waste.
1603–1608.
Spence, A., Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N., & Lorenzoni, I. (2010). Public perceptions of energy choices:
The influence of beliefs about climate change and the environment. Energy and Environment,
21(5), 385–407. https://doi.org/10.1260/0958-305X.21.5.385
Statistics Canada. (2019). Canada at a Glance 2019: Education.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/12-581-x/2019001/edu-eng.htm
Statistics Canada. (2021a). Census Profile, 2021 Census of Population. Government of Canada, 3–
5.https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-
pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E%0Ahttps://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-
pd/prof/search-recherche/lst/results-resultats.cfm?Lang=E&GeoCode=35&Letter=L#letL
Statistics Canada. (2021b). Population estimates on July 1st, by age and sex.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.25318/1710000501-eng
Statistics Canada. (2022). Canadian Income Survey. 400(March 2020), 1–11.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220323/dq220323a-eng.htm

41
Stephanie, S., & Graham, U. (1989). Triangles and Triads. Operational Research Society, 42(8), 673–
683.
Stephens, J. C., Bielicki, J., & Rand, G. M. (2009). Learning about carbon capture and storage:
Changing stakeholder perceptions with expert information. Energy Procedia, 1(1).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.288
Stretesky, P. B., Short, D., & Stamford, L. (2023). The Role of Institutional Trust in Industry,
Government, and Regulators in Shaping Perceptions of Risk Associated with Hydraulic
Fracturing in the United Kingdom. Sociological Perspectives, 66(3), 496–522.
https://doi.org/10.1177/07311214221125803
Strielkowski, W., Veinbender, T., Tvaronavičienė, M., & Lace, N. (2020). Economic efficiency and
energy security of smart cities. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja , 33(1), 788–803.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2020.1734854
Sun, X., Alcalde, J., Bakhtbidar, M., Elío, J., Vilarrasa, V., Canal, J., Ballesteros, J., Heinemann, N.,
Haszeldine, S., Cavanagh, A., Vega-Maza, D., Rubiera, F., Martínez-Orio, R., Johnson, G.,
Carbonell, R., Marzan, I., Travé, A., & Gomez-Rivas, E. (2021). Hubs and clusters approach to
unlock the development of carbon capture and storage – Case study in Spain. Applied Energy,
300(June). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117418
SurveyEngine. (2023). Academic-Grade Research Software & Management. Survey Engine. Accessed
September 09, 2022, < https://surveyengine.com/>
Tcvetkov, P., Cherepovitsyn, A., & Fedoseev, S. (2019). Public perception of carbon capture and
storage: A state-of-the-art overview. Heliyon, 5(12), e02845.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02845
Ter Mors, E., Weenig, M. W. H., Ellemers, N., & Daamen, D. D. L. (2010). Effective communication
about complex environmental issues: Perceived quality of information about carbon dioxide
capture and storage (CCS) depends on stakeholder collaboration. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 30(4), 347–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.06.001
Truong, D., Davidson, D. J., & Parkins, J. R. (2019). Context matters: Fracking attitudes, knowledge
and trust in three communities in Alberta, Canada. Extractive Industries and Society, 6(4), 1325–
1332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2019.09.004
Tylecote, A. (2019). Biotechnology as a new techno-economic paradigm that will help drive the world
economy and mitigate climate change. Research Policy, 48(4), 858–868.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.001
Upham, P., & Roberts, T. (2011). Public perceptions of CCS: Emergent themes in pan-European focus
groups and implications for communications. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control,
5(5), 1359–1367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2011.06.005
Volken, S., Wong-Parodi, G., & Trutnevyte, E. (2019). Public awareness and perception of
environmental, health and safety risks to electricity generation: an explorative interview study in
Switzerland. Journal of Risk Research, 22(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2017.1391320
Walker, C., & Baxter, J. (2017). Procedural justice in Canadian wind energy development: A
comparison of community-based and technocratic siting processes. Energy Research and Social
Science, 29(February), 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.05.016

42
Wang, M., Gong, Y., Wang, S., Li, Y., & Sun, Y. (2021). Promoting support for carbon capture and
storage with social norms: Evidence from a randomized controlled trial in China. Energy
Research and Social Science, 74(February), 101979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.101979
Wang, M., Wang, S., Sun, Y., & Li, Y. (2019). Improving Public Acceptance of Carbon Capture and
Storage(CCS) in China. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 371(3).
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/371/3/032071
Wennersten, R., Sun, Q., & Li, H. (2015). The future potential for Carbon Capture and Storage in climate
change mitigation - An overview from perspectives of technology, economy and risk. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 103, 724–736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.023
Whitmarsh, L., Xenias, D., & Jones, C. R. (2019). Framing effects on public support for carbon capture
and storage. Palgrave Communications, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0217-x
Wilberforce, T., Olabi, A. G., Sayed, E. T., Elsaid, K., & Abdelkareem, M. A. (2021). Progress in carbon
capture technologies. Science of the Total Environment, 761, 143203.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143203
Witt, K. (2019). The University of Queensland Surat Deep Aquifer Appraisal Project ( UQ-SDAAP )
Scoping study for material carbon abatement via carbon capture and storage Supplementary
Detailed Report Effects of message framing on the support for carbon capture and (Issue April).
Wolsink, M. (2006). Invalid theory impedes our understanding: A critique on the persistence of the
language of NIMBY. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 31(1), 85–91.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2006.00191.x
Xenias, D., & Whitmarsh, L. (2018). Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) and public engagement: expert
and public views. Geophysical Research Abstracts, 20, 2018–10076.
Yang, L., Zhang, X., & McAlinden, K. J. (2016). The effect of trust on people’s acceptance of CCS
(carbon capture and storage) technologies: Evidence from a survey in the People’s Republic of
China. Energy, 96, 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.12.044
Zhang, K., Lau, H. C., & Chen, Z. (2022). Regional carbon capture and storage opportunities in Alberta,
Canada. Fuel, 322(December 2021), 124224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.124224

43