Abstract
Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is a crucial approach for mitigating climate change by extracting CO2 from the atmosphere. Although CDR has attracted international attention, its development is still in early stages in Malaysia. This study examines public perceptions of CDR through a survey experiment involving 1050 urban households in Malaysia, in the districts of Kuala Nerus and Kuala Terengganu, who were exposed to three different sets of information about CDR methods. The results show that 79% of participants were unfamiliar with CDR technologies, and the type of information provided on the CO2 storage location—whether about plants, oceans, or rocks—did not significantly affect support or attitudes towards CDR. Analysis reveals that larger household sizes decrease the likelihood of remaining neutral about CDR by 1.3 percentage points, while males are 3.2 percentage points more likely to oppose it. Each additional year of age reduces neutrality by 0.1 percentage point, and single individuals are 11.7 percentage points less likely to strongly support CDR and 2.4 percentage points more likely to oppose it compared to married individuals. Higher income is associated with increased opposition to CDR, reflecting financial concerns. Greater concern about climate change enhances strong support for CDR by 11.8 percentage points and decreases neutrality by 18.4 percentage points. Trust in science increases strong support by 6.3 percentage points, and support for renewable energy boosts CDR support by 7.1 percentage points. These findings emphasize the influence of socioeconomic and climate-related factors on public support for CDR and provide valuable insights for implementing CDR strategies and improving public engagement.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Source: Elaborated by the authors based on Google Maps (2023), https://openclipart.org/detail/290360/peninsular-malaysia-blank-map
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The data supporting the findings of this study are accessible from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
Atris AM, Sugiyama M, Chen YC, Yiyi J, Yamaura K (2024) Public perception of carbon dioxide removal in three Asian regions. Sustain Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01515-4
Babiker M, Berndes G, Blok K, Cohen B, Cowie A, Geden O, Ginzburg V, Leip A, Smith P, Sugiyama M, Yamba F (2022) Cross-sectoral perspectives. In: Shukla PR, Skea J, Slade R, Al Khourdajie A, van Diemen R, McCollum D, Pathak M, Some S, Vyas P, Fradera R, Belkacemi M, Hasija A, Lisboa G, Luz S, Malley J (eds) IPCC, 2022: climate change 2022: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.005
Badgley G, Chay F, Chegwidden OS, Hamman JJ, Freeman J, Cullenward D (2022) California’s forest carbon offsets buffer pool is severely undercapitalized. Front for Glob Change. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2022.930426
Ballew MT, Leiserowitz A, Roser-Renouf C, Rosenthal SA, Kotcher JE, Marlon JR, Lyon E, Goldberg MH, Maibach EW (2019) Climate change in the American mind: data, tools, and trends. Environment 61(3):4–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2019.1589300/ASSET/4D8323AB-8716-4991-B37E-8FBDD74B15E8/ASSETS/IMAGES/VENV_A_1589300_UF0006_C.JPG
Beerling DJ, Kantzas EP, Lomas MR, Wade P, Eufrasio RM, Renforth P, Sarkar B, Grace Andrews M, James RH, Pearce CR, Mercure J-F, Pollitt H, Holden PB, Edwards NR, Khanna M, Koh L, Quegan S, Pidgeon NF, Janssens IA, Banwart SA (2020) Potential for large-scale CO 2 removal via enhanced rock weathering with croplands. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2448-9
Begum RA, Raihan A, Said MNM (2020) Dynamic impacts of economic growth and forested area on carbon dioxide emissions in malaysia. Sustainability (Switzerland) 12(22):1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229375
Bellamy R (2022) Mapping public appraisals of carbon dioxide removal. Glob Environ Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102593
Brock A, Williams I, Kemp S (2023) “I’ll take the easiest option please”. Carbon reduction preferences of the public. J Clean Prod 429:139398. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2023.139398
Calvin K, Dasgupta D, Krinner G, Mukherji A, Thorne PW, Trisos C, Romero J, Aldunce P, Barrett K, Blanco G, Cheung WWL, Connors S, Denton F, Diongue-Niang A, Dodman D, Garschagen M, Geden O, Hayward B, Jones C, Ha M (2023) IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. (Arias P, Bustamante M, Elgizouli I, Flato G, Howden M, Méndez-Vallejo C, Pereira JJ, Pichs-Madruga R, Rose SK, Saheb Y, Sánchez Rodríguez R, Ürge-Vorsatz D, Xiao C, Yassaa N, Romero J, Kim J, Haites EF, Jung Y, Stavins R, Péan C (Eds)). https://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647
Castree N (2020) The discourse and reality of carbon dioxide removal: toward the responsible use of metaphors in post-normal times. Front Clim. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2020.614014
Chitsa M, Sivapalan S, Singh BSM, Lee KE (2022) Citizen participation and climate change within an urban community context: insights for policy development for bottom-up climate action engagement. Sustainability (Switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063701
Corner A, Pidgeon N (2015) Like artificial trees? The effect of framing by natural analogy on public perceptions of geoengineering. Clim Change 130(3):425–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1148-6
Cox EM, Pidgeon N, Spence E, Thomas G (2018) Blurred lines: the ethics and policy of greenhouse gas removal at scale. Front Environ Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2018.00038
Cox E, Spence E, Pidgeon N (2020) Public perceptions of carbon dioxide removal in the United States and the United Kingdom. Nat Clim Change 10(8):744–749. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0823-z
Cox E, Spence E, Pidgeon N (2022) Deliberating enhanced weathering: public frames, iconic ecosystems and the governance of carbon removal at scale. Public Underst Sci 31(8):960–977. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221112190
Dass F (2017) Petronas launches T’ganu Gas Terminal, first facility with CO2 removal tech. https://www.Nst.Com.My/Business/2017/04/232364/Petronas-Launches-Tganu-Gas-Terminal-First-Facility-Co2-Removal-Tech. https://www.nst.com.my/business/2017/04/232364/petronas-launches-tganu-gas-terminal-first-facility-co2-removal-tech Accessed 24 June 2024
Geden O (2016) The Paris agreement and the inherent inconsistency of climate policymaking. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.427
Geden O, Gidden MJ, Lamb WF, Minx JC, Smith SM (2024) The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal 2 Lead institutions: Funders PROJECT TEAM Executive Team. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/F85QJ
Ghazali Z, Zahid M, Kee TS, Yussoff Ibrahim M (2016) A step towards sustainable society: the awareness of carbon dioxide emissions, climate change and carbon capture in Malaysia. Int J Econ Financ Issues 6(3):179–187
Goh IZ, Matthew NK (2021) Residents’ willingness to pay for a carbon tax. Sustainability (Switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810118
Gvein MH, Hu X, Næss JS, Watanabe MDB, Cavalett O, Malbranque M, Kindermann G, Cherubini F (2023) Potential of land-based climate change mitigation strategies on abandoned cropland. Commun Earth Environ. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00696-7
Jobin M, Siegrist M (2020) Support for the deployment of climate engineering: a comparison of ten different technologies. Risk Anal 40(5):1058–1078. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13462
Kardooni R, Yusoff SB, Kari FB, Moeenizadeh L (2018) Public opinion on renewable energy technologies and climate change in Peninsular Malaysia. Renew Energy 116:659–668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.09.073
Kortetmäki T, Oksanen M (2023) Right to food and geoengineering. J Agric Environ Ethics 36(1):78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-023-09898-7
Larkin CS, Andrews MG, Pearce CR, Yeong KL, Beerling DJ, Bellamy J, Benedick S, Freckleton RP, Goring-Harford H, Sadekar S, Sadekar S, James RH (2022) Quantification of CO2 removal in a large-scale enhanced weathering field trial on an oil palm plantation in Sabah, Malaysia. Front Clim. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2022.959229
Low S, Fritz L, Baum CM, Sovacool BK (2024) Public perceptions on carbon removal from focus groups in 22 countries. Nat Commun. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-47853-w
Mace MJ, Fyson CL, Schaeffer M, Hare WL (2021) Large-scale carbon dioxide removal to meet the 1.5°C limit: key governance gaps, challenges and priority responses. Glob Policy 12(S1):67–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12921
Nassar AK (2022) Identifying and explaining public preferences for renewable energy sources in Qatar. Sustainability (Switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/su142113835
Palanca-Tan R, Sugiyama M, del Barrio Alvarez D, Castillo GB, Tan NMP (2023) Metro Manila households’ willingness to pay for renewable energy as a climate change mitigation measure: a CVM study. Sustain Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01403-3
Ratnasingam J, Latib HA, Paramjothy N, Liat LC, Nadarajah M, Ioras F (2020) Plantation forestry in Malaysia: an evaluation of its successes and failures since the 1970. Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj Napoca 48(4):1789–1801. https://doi.org/10.15835/48412167
Smith SM, Geden O, Nemet G, Gidden M, Lamb W, Powis C, Bellamy R, Callaghan M, Cowie A, Cox E, Fuss S, Gasser T, Green J, Luck S, Mohan A, Muller-Hansen F, Peters G, Pratama Y, Repki T, Minx JC (2023) The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal—1st Edition. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W3B4Z
Spence E, Cox E, Pidgeon N (2021) Exploring cross-national public support for the use of enhanced weathering as a land-based carbon dioxide removal strategy. Clim Change. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03050-y
Tolunay A, Başsüllü Ç (2015) Willingness to pay for carbon sequestration and co-benefits of forests in Turkey. Sustainability (Switzerland) 7(3):3311–3337. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7033311
Vázquez A, Larzabal-Fernández A, Lois D (2021) Situational materialism increases climate change scepticism in men compared to women. J Exp Soc Psychol 96:104163. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JESP.2021.104163
Vonhedemann N, Wurtzebach Z, Timberlake TJ, Sinkular E, Schultz CA (2020) Forest policy and management approaches for carbon dioxide removal: forest Policy and Management for CDR. Interface Focus. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2020.0001
Waller L, Cox E, Bellamy R (2024) Carbon removal demonstrations and problems of public perception. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.857
Wear DN, Coulston JW (2015) From sink to source: regional variation in US forest carbon futures. Sci Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep16518
Wolske KS, Stern PC, Dietz T (2017) Explaining interest in adopting residential solar photovoltaic systems in the United States: Toward an integration of behavioral theories. Energy Res Soc Sci 25:134–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ERSS.2016.12.023
Wolske KS, Raimi KT, Campbell-Arvai V, Hart PS (2019) Public support for carbon dioxide removal strategies: the role of tampering with nature perceptions. Clim Change. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02375-z
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our gratitude to the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA), the University of Tokyo, Japan, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu under Grant Number 53401 and 53463. We also appreciate the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) under the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS/1/2018/SS08/UMT/02/1). MS was also supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP21H03668. EC and ES were supported by the Leverhulme Trust, Grant Number RC-2015-029.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors affirm that they have no known interpersonal conflicts that would have appeared to have an impact on the research presented in this study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Handled by Koichi Yamaura, Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University, Japan.
Appendix to “Public perception of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) in Malaysia and its influencing factors”
Appendix to “Public perception of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) in Malaysia and its influencing factors”
See Tables 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and Fig.
Percentage distribution of knowledge of respondents about carbon dioxide removal technologies by information explanation categories
10.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Aziz, A.A., Ghani, A.N., Sugiyama, M. et al. Public perception of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and its influencing factors: evidence from a survey in Malaysia. Sustain Sci (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01587-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01587-2