This Content Is Only For Subscribers
Authors: Eva-Maria Schomakers, Linda Engelmann, Martina Ziefle
Publication Date: 15 July 2024
Category: SAF
Article Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666052024000244
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfueco.2024.100129
Abstract (Official): The aviation sector’s significant contribution to greenhouse gas emissions has spurred interest in sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) as a means to mitigate environmental impact. This study examines user diversity in the public acceptance of power-to-liquid aviation fuels (eSAF), exploring varying attitudes towards the environment, flying, and eSAF adoption. Through a quantitative survey of a representative German sample, three distinct segments emerged: the Environment-Centered Approvers, the Flying-Centered Approvers, and the Skeptical. The Environment-Centered Approvers prioritize environmental concerns and perceive moral obligations to use eSAF for climate protection. In contrast, the Flying-Centered Approvers prioritize the continuation of flying with reduced environmental impact, while the Skeptical exhibit a more cautious and uncertain stance towards eSAF adoption. The study highlights the importance of tailoring communication strategies based on the unique motivations and concerns of each subgroup to effectively promote eSAF adoption.
GAT Editor’s Comments:
– To enable the adoption of SAFs, industry will need to develop effective, tailored information and communication strategies for different stakeholders; thus, it is necessary to conduct empirical research on communication preferences
– Researchers have identified 3 distinct groups (or clusters) of participants in relation to SAFs: Environment-Centered Approvers, the Flying-Centered Approvers, and the Skeptical
– Statistical analysis was performed on the groups; conclusion:
(1) divergent motivations between groups, but homogeneity within groups;
(2) for SAF adoption to occur, tailored communication strategies are required for each group
– Researchers acknowledged limitations in their quantitative, statistically focused study: in-depth qualitative studies, such as interviews or focus groups is required to verify the classifications to enable further targeting of the groups to support SAF adoption
