問いの立て方次第：調査形式がノルウェーのCCSに対する市民態度の測定をどう左右するか
It depends on the question: How survey format shapes the measurement of public attitudes to carbon capture and storage in Norway (原題)
Gisle Andersen, Christine Merk, Åsta Dyrnes Nordø
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
ノルウェー市民3,068人を対象に、CCS支持を問う自由回答と選択式回答の差を検証した研究。選択式では支持66%だが自由記述では56%にとどまり、「意見なし」は選択式23%に対し自由記述では4%のみ。選択式は支持を過大評価し複雑さを覆い隠す一方、自由記述は両義性を捉えるが回答負担が大きいという測定上のトレードオフを示す。
English
A Norwegian probability survey (n=3,068) compares open-ended and closed-ended measures of public support for CCS. Closed items yielded 66% support versus 56% in open text, and 'no opinion' was 23% closed versus 4% open. Closed formats overstate support and mask ambivalence; pairing formats offers a practical diagnostic of attitudinal complexity.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本でもCCSはGX推進の重点技術だが、社会的受容性や住民合意の測定手法は未整備。本稿の調査設計上の知見は、自治体・事業者の合意形成やパブリックコメント設計に示唆を与える。
In the global GX context
As CCS scales under net-zero pathways and transition finance, credible measurement of public acceptance matters for permitting and social license. The paper cautions that closed survey items can inflate apparent support, relevant to how disclosure and consultation evidence is interpreted globally.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:技術的に複雑で認知度の低い気候技術の態度測定では、単一の選択式項目は支持を過大評価しうると認識すべき。
🏢実務担当者:CCS事業の社会受容性調査では、自由回答を併用し条件付き支持や懸念（環境影響・漏洩・コスト）を把握することが合意形成に有効。
🏛政策担当者:CCS普及策の世論根拠として選択式調査のみに依拠すると支持を過大評価する恐れがあり、調査設計の精査が必要。
📄 Abstract（原文）
Public attitudes towards emerging, technically complex climate technologies are difficult to measure with standard closed-ended items. When an issue is unfamiliar and low in salience, closed formats may invite low-effort, weakly held answers that mask uncertainty and ambivalence. We examine how question format shapes the measurement of public support for carbon capture and storage, using a probability-based online survey of the Norwegian public fielded in 2020 ( n = 3068). Respondents read a brief information text, wrote an open-ended response, then answered a closed forced-choice item. The two formats yield different pictures of opinion. In their own words, 26% of respondents gave unqualified support and 30% supported the technology only conditionally; the combined positive share was 56%, against 66% in the closed item. ‘No opinion’ was selected by 23% in the closed item but appeared in only 4% of the open-ended responses, whereas non-response was higher for the open question (14% vs. 0.4%). Among respondents selecting ‘No opinion’ in the closed item, around 60% expressed a substantive evaluation in open text, often ambivalent, conditional or negative. Respondents whose open text was not positive but who nonetheless chose ‘Positive’ wrote longer, not shorter, responses. Environmental impacts, leakage, safety, costs and efficacy dominate the reservations expressed. These patterns point to a measurement trade-off: closed items are efficient but may overstate support and understate complexity, whereas open items capture ambivalence at greater respondent burden. Pairing the two formats provides a practical diagnostic of the attitudinal complexity that a single closed-ended item conceals.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2026.105032first seen 2026-10-17 04:46:26
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。