迈向可持续发展:探索个人交通工具中化石燃料、电子燃料和电力驱动的风险认知

IF 2.6 4区 工程技术 Q3 ENERGY & FUELS Frontiers in Energy Research Pub Date : 2024-08-05 DOI:10.3389/fenrg.2024.1415430
Eva Rößler, Tim Schmeckel, Ute Kesselheim, Katrin Arning
{"title":"迈向可持续发展:探索个人交通工具中化石燃料、电子燃料和电力驱动的风险认知","authors":"Eva Rößler, Tim Schmeckel, Ute Kesselheim, Katrin Arning","doi":"10.3389/fenrg.2024.1415430","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The transportation sector is a significant contributor to CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub> emissions, necessitating the adoption of alternative drive technologies to achieve decarbonization. This study investigates public perceptions of fossil fuels, e-fuels, and electric drives, with the aim of identifying factors influencing risk perceptions, perceived efficacy in combating climate change, and readiness to use or purchase cars with these technologies. Therefore, a quantitative study using a questionnaire (N = 141) was conducted. The results indicate that e-fuels and electric drives are perceived more positively than fossil fuels. E-fuels were found to have the lowest risk perceptions. Differences in cognitive and affective risk perceptions, as well as in financial, environmental, and health-related risks, were observed across drive types. Car affinity was found to correlate positively with risk perceptions of e-fuels and fossil fuels, but negatively with electric drives. The risk perception of global warming showed an inverse relationship. Regarding the prediction of readiness, differences were found between e-fuels and electric drives in terms of the influencing factors on readiness. The study contributes to the understanding of public perceptions by providing a comparison between different drive technologies and offers valuable insights for developing targeted communication strategies.","PeriodicalId":12428,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Energy Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Driving towards sustainability: exploring risk perceptions of fossil fuels, e-fuels, and electric drives in individual transport\",\"authors\":\"Eva Rößler, Tim Schmeckel, Ute Kesselheim, Katrin Arning\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fenrg.2024.1415430\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The transportation sector is a significant contributor to CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub> emissions, necessitating the adoption of alternative drive technologies to achieve decarbonization. This study investigates public perceptions of fossil fuels, e-fuels, and electric drives, with the aim of identifying factors influencing risk perceptions, perceived efficacy in combating climate change, and readiness to use or purchase cars with these technologies. Therefore, a quantitative study using a questionnaire (N = 141) was conducted. The results indicate that e-fuels and electric drives are perceived more positively than fossil fuels. E-fuels were found to have the lowest risk perceptions. Differences in cognitive and affective risk perceptions, as well as in financial, environmental, and health-related risks, were observed across drive types. Car affinity was found to correlate positively with risk perceptions of e-fuels and fossil fuels, but negatively with electric drives. The risk perception of global warming showed an inverse relationship. Regarding the prediction of readiness, differences were found between e-fuels and electric drives in terms of the influencing factors on readiness. The study contributes to the understanding of public perceptions by providing a comparison between different drive technologies and offers valuable insights for developing targeted communication strategies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12428,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Energy Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Energy Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2024.1415430\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENERGY & FUELS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Energy Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2024.1415430","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

交通部门是二氧化碳排放的重要来源,因此有必要采用替代驱动技术来实现去碳化。本研究调查了公众对化石燃料、电子燃料和电力驱动的看法,旨在找出影响风险认知、应对气候变化的认知功效以及使用或购买采用这些技术的汽车的意愿的因素。因此,我们使用问卷(N = 141)进行了一项定量研究。结果表明,人们对电子燃料和电力驱动的看法比化石燃料更为积极。电动燃料的风险认知度最低。不同驱动类型在认知和情感风险感知以及财务、环境和健康相关风险方面存在差异。研究发现,汽车亲和力与电动燃料和化石燃料的风险认知呈正相关,但与电力驱动呈负相关。对全球变暖的风险认知则呈反向关系。在对准备程度的预测方面,发现电动燃料和电动驱动在影响准备程度的因素方面存在差异。这项研究通过对不同驱动技术进行比较,有助于了解公众的看法,并为制定有针对性的传播战略提供了宝贵的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Driving towards sustainability: exploring risk perceptions of fossil fuels, e-fuels, and electric drives in individual transport
The transportation sector is a significant contributor to CO2 emissions, necessitating the adoption of alternative drive technologies to achieve decarbonization. This study investigates public perceptions of fossil fuels, e-fuels, and electric drives, with the aim of identifying factors influencing risk perceptions, perceived efficacy in combating climate change, and readiness to use or purchase cars with these technologies. Therefore, a quantitative study using a questionnaire (N = 141) was conducted. The results indicate that e-fuels and electric drives are perceived more positively than fossil fuels. E-fuels were found to have the lowest risk perceptions. Differences in cognitive and affective risk perceptions, as well as in financial, environmental, and health-related risks, were observed across drive types. Car affinity was found to correlate positively with risk perceptions of e-fuels and fossil fuels, but negatively with electric drives. The risk perception of global warming showed an inverse relationship. Regarding the prediction of readiness, differences were found between e-fuels and electric drives in terms of the influencing factors on readiness. The study contributes to the understanding of public perceptions by providing a comparison between different drive technologies and offers valuable insights for developing targeted communication strategies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Energy Research
Frontiers in Energy Research Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics and Econometrics
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
11.80%
发文量
1727
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Energy Research makes use of the unique Frontiers platform for open-access publishing and research networking for scientists, which provides an equal opportunity to seek, share and create knowledge. The mission of Frontiers is to place publishing back in the hands of working scientists and to promote an interactive, fair, and efficient review process. Articles are peer-reviewed according to the Frontiers review guidelines, which evaluate manuscripts on objective editorial criteria
期刊最新文献
Grid-integrated solutions for sustainable EV charging: a comparative study of renewable energy and battery storage systems Research on the impact of digitalization on energy companies’ green transition: new insights from China Multi-objective-based economic and emission dispatch with integration of wind energy sources using different optimization algorithms Demand-side management scenario analysis for the energy-efficient future of Pakistan: Bridging the gap between market interests and national priorities Modeling and scheduling of utility-scale energy storage toward high-share renewable coordination
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1