Journal of Cleaner Production 374 (2022) 133990

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Sustainable commercial aviation: What determines air travellers’

willingness to pay more for sustainable aviation fuel?
Bing Xu a, *, 1, Salman Ahmad b, Vincent Charles c, d, Jin Xuan e
a
Edinburgh Business School, Heriot-Watt University, UK
b
School of Business and Creative Industries, University of the West of Scotland, UK
c
CENTRUM Católica Graduate Business School, Lima, Peru
d
Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, Lima, Peru
e
Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey, UK

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Zhifu Mi While low carbon jet fuels (LCJF) offer a viable alternative to conventional jet fuels in terms of reducing aviation
emissions, the higher fuel costs may be passed on to customers in the form of increased ticket prices. However,
Keywords: there has been little research into the public’s willingness to pay (WTP) for LCJF use. Our study addresses this
Low carbon jet fuel (LCJF) gap by exploring citizen’s perceptions of, attitudes toward, and willingness to pay a premium ticket price. We
Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF)
conducted an online survey among UK citizens (N = 1008) who flew at least once a year. We used ordered
Aviation sector
logistic regression to predict the factors that influence WTP for LCJF. The findings confirmed the existence of
Public perception
Willingness to pay (WTP) three factors that explain air travellers’ WTP: social trust, perceived risks, and attitude. Although the overall
Theory of planned behaviour perception of the benefits of LCJF outweighs the associated risks, the level of awareness of LCJF use is rather low.
Despite a favourable attitude toward LCJF use, the majority of respondents were unwilling to pay more for
carbon-neutral air travel. Our research contributes to and expands the literature on the current debates about
acceptance and WTP for LCJF and energy transitions. Additionally, the findings of our study encourage public
and corporate managers to leverage the identified key factors to inform and structure campaigns to increase the
acceptability of LCJF use.

1. Introduction economic and social benefits, the aviation sector also faces significant
challenges. The foremost of such challenges is represented by global
The aviation industry plays a critical role in bringing global con­ fossil jet fuel carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Though commercial
nectivity, and social and economic prosperity (IATA, 2019). More spe­ aviation accounts for only 2–3% of emissions (ICAO, 2016), due to the
cifically, the total economic impact of the global aviation industry industry’s growth outlook, carbon emissions are estimated to reach as
reached USD 2.7 trillion in 2016, corresponding to about 3.6% of the high as 22%–30% by mid-century (Staples et al., 2018). This situation
world’s gross domestic product (GDP) (ATAG, 2018). Airlines carried warrants a combined effort from all stakeholders to reduce the carbon
around 4.3 billion commercial passengers and 58 million tonnes of intensity of the aviation sector (DfT, 2022; Singh et al., 2019).
freight around the world in 2018 (IATA, 2019). Despite the COVID-19 To urgently tackle the aviation industry’s GHG emissions, we need to
pandemic having reduced air travel by about 60% in 2020 compared simultaneously explore a portfolio of options such as operations man­
to 2019, the industry is on a recovery path (e.g., an overall reduction of agement, demand reductions, technological improvements, and alter­
15% of seats offered by airlines in 2022) (ICAO, 2022). Besides native low-carbon fuels (Singh et al., 2019). Operationally, the

* Corresponding author. Edinburgh Business school, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK.
E-mail address: [email protected] (B. Xu).
1
We would like to thank Dr. Michelle Carter at Knowledge Transfer Network (KTN) for her ongoing support, and all project partners for their valuable insights. We
also are grateful for Dr. Pradipta Halder, and six anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions made on the previous version of this manuscript.
The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support provided by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) (EP/N009924/1). The standard
disclaimer applies.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133990
Received 23 April 2022; Received in revised form 20 August 2022; Accepted 1 September 2022
Available online 10 September 2022
0959-6526/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
B. Xu et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 374 (2022) 133990

European Union’s programme ‘Single European Sky ATM Research’ studies focus more on airport infrastructure development than on the
(SESAR)2 and the Next Generation Air Transportation System (Next­ use of LCJF (e.g., Winter et al., 2021). There is a lack of studies inves­
Gen)3 in the US are aiming to modernise air traffic management. The tigating what determines individuals’ WTP for an additional airfare fee
success of these efforts ensures airlines travel the shortest possible for using LCJF.
routes, resulting in more efficient use of the skies and emissions savings. The key contributions of our paper are threefold. First, our study
Likewise, reducing air travel demand (Kroesen, 2013) and carbon taxing explores the public’s perceived benefits and perceived risks of LCJF use
(Ryley et al., 2010) are also among the alternatives considered. Despite in an industry faced with significant environmental pressures. Second,
electrification being deemed as a feasible substitute, there seems to be we examine the issue of trust and confidence in the abilities and
an agreement among stakeholders that electric aircraft may not be approach of various institutions (e.g., industry and/or government)
commercially available until well beyond 2050 (Ahmad and Xu, 2021). dealing with LCJF. Third, we investigate the public’s mindset toward the
Hence, for the near-to mid-term, liquid fuels will continue to play a key use of LCJF in commercial aviation, followed by a contribution to the
role in aviation. In this context, switching from traditional scientific discourse on public WTP for travelling using LCJF. Last, we
carbon-intensive fossil jet fuel (i.e., Jet A or Jet A-1) to a less determine the influential factors driving air travellers’ WTP for LCJF.
carbon-intensive jet fuel seems to be a viable choice for mitigating Although our findings are based on a large set of unique UK-based data,
emissions in the aviation sector (Singh et al., 2019; Staples et al., 2018; our results can be taken as reflective of countries having similar socio-
Kolosz et al., 2020). The key merits of low carbon jet fuels (LCJF), also economic characteristics.
known as ‘sustainable aviation fuels (SAF)’ or ‘drop-in fuels’, include The rest of this paper is organised as follows. Section 2 provides the
that they do not require any changes to the current aircraft fleets, saving background to our current work by discussing prior studies on public
a significant financial cost to airlines when replacing their fleet. acceptance and WTP for sustainable liquid (bio) fuel development, in
Furthermore, LCJF do not cause any disruptions to global aviation op­ general, and LCJF in particular. Section 3 presents our research design,
erations, are safe, and are environmentally benign.4 In addition, com­ followed by survey findings and relevant discussions in section 4, while
mercial airlines have the added advantage of using LCJF as a valuable section 5 concludes this paper.
promotion tool for attracting customers (Daggett et al., 2008).
While technological advancements, improving operational effi­ 2. Background to research
ciencies, and introducing policy frameworks are important in achieving
aviation net-zero carbon targets, the role that the public plays cannot be It is becoming increasingly important to reduce aviation emissions to
overlooked. In particular, LCJF can be considerably more expensive combat climate change (van Dyk and Saddler, 2021). To accelerate LCJF
than fossil jet fuels; hence, it becomes sensible and inevitable for airlines production and deployment, one needs to simultaneously work on
to pass at least part of the costs on to customers in the form of a higher removing technical, regulatory, and socio-economic barriers (Goding
ticket price. However, public familiarity and willingness to pay (WTP) et al., 2018; IEA, 2021). However, less attention has been paid on the
for the use of LCJF in aviation and its environmental benefits remain downstream chain of LCJF use, socio-economic barriers relating to the
unexplored. Our paper contributes to the general social acceptance body public familiarity and willingness to pay.
of knowledge by investigating the public response to WTP for LCJF use The application of social science methods to understand human
in aviation based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) framework. behaviour in sustainable energy uses and related climate change can be
In our work, we leverage both the psychometric constructs of public extremely useful. Wüstenhagen et al. (2007), for example, emphasised
perception, social trust, and attitude, and the demographic characteristics. the need to develop strong public support for new energy solutions, as
It is crucial to understand public awareness of new technologies, as neglecting the social context of sustainable energy technology can slow
these are linked to the wider social acceptance of innovations (Chin its wider market development and implementation (Kelly et al., 2019;
et al., 2014). Failing to increase general awareness can lead to unwill­ Pasqualetti, 2011). Several authors suggested that focusing on a sus­
ingness to pay; this, in turn, can result in the market failure of the tainable past might help (Rowe et al., 2019), and argued for focusing on
proposed innovation (Wegener and Kelly, 2008). Note that LCJF offers a intergenerational gaps to develop sustainable strategies (Essiz and
unique case of exploring public response as the possible benefits (e.g., Mandrik, 2022). As compared to other sustainable energy options (e.g.,
emission savings, fossil jet-fuel independence) and concerns (e.g., wind and solar), less attention has been paid to studying the public’s
competing with food supply, health risks, ecosystem impacts) are acceptance of low carbon fuels, both in road transportation and the
directly related to society. The possible benefits and concerns have been aviation sector (Chin et al., 2014; Kumar and Sinha, 2022).
widely explored for other forms of transportation, mainly the road The social context of low carbon transportation fuels has been mainly
transport sector (van de Velde et al., 2011). Although public knowledge, focused on studying the stakeholders’ knowledge, perceptions, attitude,
perceptions, and responses do not guarantee adoption, their absence is social trust, and WTP (Mamadzhanov et al., 2019; Rice et al., 2020).
likely to result in innovation and technology failure. In some cases, this These components are considered to be vital and pertinent in gauging
may even include resistance: environmental, such as contamination risk the general public’s acceptance or resistance (Rahman et al., 2017;
of underground water resources; and/or social, in the form of ‘not in my Yaghoubi et al., 2019). To be more specific, knowledge is being aware of
backyard’ kind of thinking. These oppositions have been observed for something either by observation, usage, or education (Halder et al.,
technologies such as hydraulic fracturing (Tan et al., 2020), wind-based 2010). Perceptions, on the other hand, relate to extracting information
electricity generation (Enevoldsen and Sovacool, 2016), nuclear power from one’s experience.5 Perceptions are crucial for understanding the
(NEA, 2002), hydrogen as fuel (Eames et al., 2006), and carbon capture resultant behaviour, while attitude is the evaluation of that behaviour
and storage technologies (Kraeusel and Möst, 2012), to name a few. (Radics et al., 2015; Van Dael et al., 2017).
Several authors have concluded that people are willing to pay more to Likewise, social trust is the public’s confidence in various key players
adopt eco-friendly practices in the aviation industry. However, these related to technology or innovation (Amin et al., 2017). These key
players could be experts or institutions that the public relies on for in­
formation or technology. These institutions may include the government
2
www.sesar.eu.
as the regulator, or policymakers, industry, and scientists. Social trust is
3
www.faa.gov.nextgen. recognised as playing a critical role in developing people’s attitude
4
Note that LCJF can be produced in many ways using a variety of sustainable
feedstocks. Each production pathway has its own technical, economic, social,
5
and environmental characteristics. The reader is referred to Ahmad et al. (2021) For details, see ‘Principles of perceptual learning and development’ (Gibson,
for a review of different LCJF production processes. 1969).

2
B. Xu et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 374 (2022) 133990

toward technology acceptance (Adnan et al., 2018). Finally, the con­ To the best of the authors’ knowledge, only two studies, namely
sumers’ WTP is their inclination to buy sustainable fuel which is avail­ Rains et al. (2017), and Rice et al. (2020), explicitly assessed customers’
able (Sivashankar et al., 2016), as well as it reflects consumers’ potential WTP for LCJF use. Meanwhile, a third study by Goding et al. (2018)
interest in bearing the cost burden of low carbon fuel (Mamadzhanov focused narrowly on the WTP of business travellers only. More specif­
et al., 2019). ically, Rains et al. (2017) found that customers are willing to pay a 13%
Several authors have focused on studying public knowledge and price premium, while Rice et al.’s (2020) findings indicate that the
perception of and attitude toward sustainable low-carbon fuels in the public is ready to pay an additional ticket fee (under 15% of the price) in
road transportation sector (e.g., Sivashankar et al., 2016). The general proportion to the level of emission reduction. Likewise, Goding et al.
findings were that there is a lack of awareness of low-carbon fuels; the (2018) estimated a price premium of 11.9% to the base ticket price.
key concerns include the alternative fuels’ performance, availability, Though the valuation of WTP is useful from the airlines’ perspective,
and higher cost of alternative fuel when compared to conventional fossil these studies have omitted the wider societal psychology surrounding
fuels, and the threat to food security posed by the increased use of WTP. Nevertheless, these studies form the theoretical basis of our study.
alternative fuels. Another stream of literature has examined the feed­ Hence, the present study focuses on determining the general public’s
stock sustainability for fuel production by exploring public’s attitudes perception of the benefits and risks associated with LCJF use, their social
toward the environment, input energy use, and government and poli­ trust in institutions dealing with LCJF, and their attitude manifested in
cymakers in ensuring the enactment of laws and regulations (Smith their willingness to pay more for eco-friendly LCJF.
et al., 2018; Yaghoubi et al., 2019). However, these studies have In summary, we infer from the literature review performed that there
revealed a mix of positive and negative attitudes depending on local is a need to further explore the public’s perception of and attitude to­
conditions. Hence, the findings cannot be appropriately generalised to ward LCJF use in aviation. This is because the lack of public knowledge
other regions because of different socio-economic and geo-political of aviation-related emissions can hamper any efforts aimed at mitigating
conditions. them and decarbonising aviation. Moreover, social trust in key players
The aviation sector is considered one of the most difficult sectors to has not been adequately explored. Likewise, it is vital to explore how the
decarbonise (Ahmad et al., 2021). Technical solutions may take longer public perceives the benefits and risks of LCJF use, especially when they
than anticipated to mature while, on the other hand, the are indirect and related to society rather than direct and related to an
attitude-behaviour conflict (Filimonau et al., 2018) prevents a voluntary individual (van de Velde et al., 2011). There is no doubt that LCJF are
reduction in air-travel demand. The ‘attitude-behaviour’ conflict implies expensive to use in the foreseeable future; hence, it is inevitable for
that while the public recognises that modifying their air travel behav­ airline companies to raise their ticket selling prices. It is important,
iour may significantly improve GHG emission mitigation efforts, in re­ therefore, to investigate WTP premium prices for greener flying while,
ality they rarely do so. Therefore, switching to less carbon-intensive fuel more importantly, trying to understand and establish what influences
has become a critical venue to explore. WTP.
Interestingly, only a few studies make LCJF their focal point of in­
quiry. For example, the studies by Filimonau and Högström (2017), and 3. Research design
Filimonau et al. (2018) are two pioneering studies that delved into the
social acceptance of LCJF use. Both studies used the constructs of The primary data for our study were collected via a quantitative
knowledge, perceptions, and attitude toward sustainable liquid (bio) survey to ensure a good representation of public views toward WTP for
fuels in aviation. Filimonau and Högström (2017) found an imperfect LCJF from the larger population. Fig. 1 summarises the research design
public understanding of sustainable liquid (bio)fuels but, that LCJF are while a detailed description is provided below.
considered a safe alternative for aviation. Likewise, Filimonau et al.
(2018) echoed that there is limited understanding of sustainable avia­ 3.1. Survey instrument
tion fuel technology, besides the public’s safety concerns about its use.
They also found distrust among the public in national-level institutions Several frameworks and theories, including but not limited to the
and, as a result, called for developing awareness campaigns to address technology acceptance model (TAM), theory of interpersonal behaviour
this issue. However, these two studies are limited in terms of the (TIB), and innovation diffusion theory (IDT),6 can be applied to inves­
research tool used (i.e., descriptive statistics and correlation analysis), tigate LCJF adoption and WTP. In this study, we based our approach on a
and the relatively small socio-demographic profile of the surveyed theoretical underpinning from Ajzen’s (1985) Theory of Planned
population (the former based on 132 UK respondents, while the latter Behaviour to seek a novel insight supporting WTP for LCJF. Recall that
focused on 326 Polish participants). Further, these two studies did not the TPB postulates intention as the primary construct that influences
examine customers’ WTP for LCJF use in commercial aviation—a crit­ behaviour, and is determined by the subjective norm, perceived
ical construct for aviation decarbonisation (Ahmad and Xu, 2021). behaviour control, and attitude toward the behaviour (Ajzen, 1991).
Along with the acceptance of LCJF, efforts have been made to Our motivation for using the TBP is that it provides a broad view of
investigate the level of support for various policy options for curbing social-psychological constructs to understand citizens’ behaviour in
aviation carbon emissions. In this context, Kantenbacher et al. (2018) their relative contexts (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002; Mattison and
surveyed the British population to find their opinions on 14 various Norris, 2007); in our case, WTP for LCJF. This theoretical foundation has
policy levers. The study found that the public supports policies that do also been used in more general exploration of bioenergy7 in the litera­
not put any financial burden on the individual; rather, the aviation in­ ture, such as in the study by Halder et al. (2017).
dustry should bear the burden of any carbon mitigation developments. To develop our survey instrument, we used perception as a construct
They also found that efforts should be made to develop alternatives to to understand what the public thinks about LCJF use. As perception
air travel. However, public opinion of LCJF was not made part of the guides actions (Radics et al., 2015) and to obtain a richer picture, we
enquiry. further divided perception into perceived benefits and perceived risks
A survey of air passengers conducted by Hooper et al. (2008) found (Filimonau et al., 2018). The confidence in institutions (e.g., academic,
that passengers do not see themselves as responsible for the climate government, and industry) plays a major role in developing public
impacts of their flights. Instead, their belief was that environmental
impact should be dealt with by the respective governments or the air­
lines themselves. It can be inferred from their study that the general 6
The reader is referred to Sadoughi et al. (2019) for a comprehensive review
public needs to be further made aware of the environmental impact of of these frameworks and theories.
aviation in order to reduce the awareness-attitude gap. 7
Bioenergy primarily including heat and electricity.

3
B. Xu et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 374 (2022) 133990

Fig. 1. Current study research design.

attitude (Amin et al., 2017). Therefore, to reflect trust in institutions, we one is willing to 1) pay a higher ticket price for flights using LCJF; 2) pay
included the construct of social trust in our instrument. The attitude a higher ticket price for flights using LCJF even if a cheaper flight using
construct (Filimonau and Högström, 2017; Kantenbacher et al., 2018) regular jet fuel is available; and 3) choose a flight that uses LCJF
aims to explore the public’s views regarding the usefulness of LCJF. regardless of the flight ticket price.
Lastly, the WTP (Rains et al., 2017) construct was included to determine Note that the above items were measured on a five-point Likert-type
the public’s behavioural intention toward LCJF use. The constructs and scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. This scale is used
the corresponding items to measure them are presented in Table 1. and recommended in similar exploratory studies such as Filimonau et al.
First, we divided the questions around public perceptions of LCJF (2018). The survey items were derived from the literature and the au­
into benefits and risks components. Perceived benefits are concerned with thors’ own experience in the field. Next, the content validity of the
the extent to which 1) the investments in LCJF will benefit both the survey questionnaire was assessed by a panel of three experts in
economy and society, 2) LCJF use can greatly help in safeguarding the academia and two managers from the energy and aviation industries. In
environment, 3) using LCJF will reduce the country’s dependence on response to the panel’s feedback, minor adjustments were made to the
foreign oil, 4) LCJF can reduce conventional jet fuel dependence, and 5) survey questions.
the benefits of using LCJF exceed other GHG emissions reduction mea­ In addition, we included several standard demographic variables (e.
sures in aviation. Perceived concerns, on the other hand, measure the g., age, education, gender) to examine the variance of attitude toward
extent to which 1) LCJF pose a safety concern8; 2) higher LCJF pro­ LCJF across different groups.9 The location variable consisted of four
duction would lead to an increased competition for agricultural land; 3) countries representing the UK. Finally, respondents were asked to
LCJF production would harm the ecosystem; 3) LCJF take more energy describe their flying behaviour and carbon off-setting mechanisms. For
to make than it is worth; and, (5) there is not enough LCJF to meet the former, respondents were asked to record the number of flights
demand. Second, social trust in whether major stakeholders (e.g., aca­ typically taken in a year while the latter gave five choices to be ranked
demic, government, and businesses) are doing a good job to promote from the most to the least appropriate.
LCJF was assessed by the following three items: 1) the extent to which
the scientific community is doing a good job for society by developing
3.2. Survey distribution
LCJF; 2) the extent to which LCJF producers are helping society; and 3)
the extent to which the government or policymakers are doing a good
To obtain data for the survey, a well-established third-party market
job in regulating LCJF. Furthermore, attitude toward LCJF was measured
research organisation, namely Qualtrics, was commissioned. The panel
by the extent to which: 1) it is a good idea to use LCJF for flights; 2) the
survey was administered online using the Qualtrics® platform during a
idea of using LCJF for flights is liked or disliked; 3) there is a preference
three-week period in January 2020. The third-party organisation
for flying with airlines using LCJF; 4) one encourages others to fly on
ensured a sample size that represented the UK population aged 16 and
flights using LCJF; and, 5) eagerness to know more about LCJF. Finally,
WTP for the use of LCJF on flights was measured by the extent to which
9
To be more specific, we divided the educational achievement into primary
education or less, secondary education, post-secondary education below degree
8
Safety concerns are associated with fuel ignition risk during (de)fuelling level, bachelor’s or equivalent, and master’s/higher degree or equivalent.
and storage, and fuel vapour inhalation by humans, among other technical Employment status comprised of five general categories: student, full-time
concerns of fuel characteristics (ICAO, 2016; van Dyk and Saddler, 2021). employed, part-time employed, unemployed, and retired.

4
B. Xu et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 374 (2022) 133990

Table 1 Table 1 (continued )

Survey Constructs, Measuring Items, and Their Reliability Statistics. Construct Cronbach’s Items KMO Bartlett’s
Construct Cronbach’s Items KMO Bartlett’s Alpha measure of test of
Alpha measure of test of sampling sphericity
sampling sphericity adequacy
adequacy
ticket price for
Perceived 0.88 Investments in 0.873 χ(10) = using LCJF even if a
benefits LCJF will benefit 2479.23, p cheaper flight using
both the economy < 0.001 regular jet fuel is
and the society. available.
LCJF use can I would be willing
greatly help in to choose a flight
protecting the that uses LCJF
environment. regardless of the
Using LCJFs will flight ticket price.
reduce the
dependence on
foreign oil. over, satisfying a minimum of 95% confidence level. Following
LCJF can reduce Bushman et al. (2012), Len-Ríos et al. (2016), Moreno et al. (2021), and
conventional jet
more recently, Sewell et al. (2022), a nonprobability sampling approach
fuel dependence.
The benefits of was adopted. Further, Heen et al. (2014) showed that online recruitment
using LCJF exceed approaches using tools such as Qualtrics can achieve demographic at­
other GHG tributes that are typically within a 10% range of their corresponding
emissions reduction values.
measures in
aviation.
Perceived 0.75 LCJF pose a safety 0.610 χ(3) = 3.3. Data analysis and reliability
risks concern. 644.10, p
A higher < 0.001
Where appropriate, items designed to measure perceived benefits,
production of LCJF
would lead to an perceived risks, social trust, attitude, and WTP were reverse-coded so
increased that a response value of 1 (strongly disagree) now represents a response
competition for of 5 (strongly agree). Only one item from the attitude construct was
agricultural land. reverse-coded to reflect an affirmative attitude toward the LCJF use.
LCJF production
Note that single-respondent surveys, like ours, may face the common
would harm the
ecosystem. method bias, which can adversely affect the reliability and validity of
LCJF take more measures and parameter estimations (Jordan and Troth, 2020). To
energy to make address this concern, we applied Harman’s single factor test to deter­
than it is worth.
mine if most of the variance can be explained by a single factor.
There is not enough
LCJF to meet the
Following Podsakoff et al. (2003), we performed exploratory factor
demand. analysis and found that no single factor explains a substantial portion of
Social trust 0.72 The scientific 0.616 χ(3) = the total variance among measures. The total variance extracted by a
community is doing 679.83, p single factor was 28.31%.10 Therefore, we argue that the common
a good job for the < 0.001
method bias is not present in our study.
society by
developing LCJF. The internal consistency of all five constructs was measured by
LCJF producers are Cronbach’s alpha. Note that a Cronbach’s alpha of ‘0’ denotes no in­
helping the society. ternal reliability, while a value of ‘1’ denotes perfect internal reliability.
Government/
A threshold of 0.7 was used as the benchmark for construct reliability
Policymakers have
done a good job so
(Emma et al., 2019). Table 1 shows that all five constructs in this study
far in regulating had strong internal consistency, with alpha values above the mentioned
LCJF. threshold. In addition to construct reliability, we also investigated how
Attitude 0.77 I believe it is a good 0.752 χ(10) = each item factored into a construct using principal component analysis.
idea to use LCJF for 1678.63, p
In our study, the perceived benefits, perceived risks, and attitude con­
flights. < 0.001
I dislike the idea of structs comprised five items each. while social trust and WTP had three
using LCJF for items each. To confirm the factor analysis, we used the
flights. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s
I would prefer
test of sphericity. Keeping in line with the aim of our work, we used
flying with airlines
using LCJF.
ordered logistic regression to predict the factors that influence WTP for
I would encourage LCJF.
others to fly on
flights using LCJF. 4. Results and discussion
I would like to
know more about
LCJF. 4.1. Respondent characteristics
Willingness 0.88 I would be willing 0.713 χ(3) =
to pay to pay a higher 1837.60, p Our survey invitation was extended to 2000 respondents. We
ticket price for my < 0.001
received 1081 responses, of which 73 were dropped due to incomplete
flights using LCJF.
I would be willing
to pay a higher
10
The recommended threshold is 50% (Kock, 2020); however, others (Jordan
and Troth, 2020) argue that there is no exact threshold value.

5
B. Xu et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 374 (2022) 133990

or missing data. This left us with a final sample of 1008 responses and a behaviour was observed when more than half of the participants
final response rate of ~50% to conduct our analyses. Similar studies had recorded ‘neither agree nor disagree’ for the statement according to
a response rate ranging from ~9% (Chavez et al., 2021) to ~40% (Smith which the benefits of using LCJF exceed other GHG emissions reduction
et al., 2018). measures in aviation. Though the participants did recognise the LCJF
This final sample comprised 54% female respondents and 46% male contribution in emission mitigation efforts, there seemed to be a sig­
respondents (Table 2). The participants’ ages varied from 18 to 92, with nificant gap in their understanding and awareness of the LCJF charac­
an average age of 46 years. Most of the respondents are from England teristics that would achieve emissions reduction. This further
(87%), followed by Scotland (7.5%), Wales (4.2%), and Northern strengthens the notion that LCJF use in aviation needs promotion.
Ireland (1.3%). This distribution is consistent with the populations in
England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Only ~17% of partic­ 4.3. Perceived risks
ipants were classified as ‘frequent flyers’ as they had flown more than
three times over the previous year. Overall, the number of participants Several risks relating to the availability, production, and safety of
who did not fly over the past year was large at 37%, while the per­ LCJF were investigated in this study. While the participants understood
centage of those who flew once or twice added up to ~63%. Hence, the benefits of LCJF use (section 4.2), at the same time, they were
given the high proportion of non-frequent flyers and the fact that apprehensive about the associated risks (Table 4). The biggest of such
perception of and attitude toward LCJF could be expressed even if a concerns was the lack of LCJF availability, with ~55% of participants
respondent does not typically fly, a decision was made to include them in believing that the supply of LCJF is insufficient to meet airlines’ de­
the analysis. Finally, a good majority of participants were educated to mands. The availability of LCJF has previously been highlighted as a
university level (~40%). major risk in LCJF’s ability to replace conventional fossil-jet fuel, in
terms of amount of fuel available (Gegg and Wells, 2017; Reed, 2016),
4.2. Perceived benefits and refinery and transportation infrastructure (Smith et al., 2017). The
second biggest perceived risk relates to the food versus fuel dilemma,
In terms of perceived benefits, most of the participants perceived with 47% of the participants believing that LCJF production would
LCJF as environmentally, economically, and socially beneficial compete for cropland. However, it is to be noted that an almost similar
(Table 3). These benefits in producing and using low carbon fuels proportion of respondents (41.8%) were ‘neutral’ on the subject. This
conform to those in other studies, particularly in aviation (Gegg et al., result indicated that the food versus fuel controversy was not as fierce as
2014; Smith et al., 2017), and the road transport sector, in general it had previously been reported by Herrmann et al. (2018), Montefrio
(Longstaff et al., 2015). These benefits include emissions reduction po­ and Sonnenfeld (2011), and Tenenbaum (2008). Within the sample,
tential, fuel diversification, and supply security in addition to enhanced 54.1% and 43.7% were undecided on whether LCJF take more energy to
regional/rural development. make than it is worth and on whether LCJF pose a safety concern,
Our survey showed that around 58% (or 3 in every 5) of the par­ respectively. This situation suggested the participants’ lack of informa­
ticipants agreed that investments in LCJF production facilities would tion on LCJF production process (i.e., how non-fossil feedstock is con­
bring prosperity to the local economy, and to society, in general. A verted into jet fuel) and technical characteristics. Therefore, it points to
slightly higher proportion of participants (~59%) expressed that using the need to disseminate LCJF-related information more widely to the
LCJF could be instrumental in protecting the environment. A national­ public.
istic pattern was observed when a high proportion of the participants Contrary to our study, Filimonau et al. (2018) investigated the LCJF
(56%) took LCJF as a means to reduce foreign oil dependence, compared safety issue from a non-technical perspective, which seems unnecessary
to only 1.2% who expressed the opposite. Likewise, participants showed as all LCJF must be internationally certified before they can be used.
their confidence in LCJF as a means to reduce conventional jet fuel Lastly, a large proportion of the participants (46.4%) declared not being
dependence, with 57.8% of the participants being optimistic about the sure whether LCJF production would harm the ecosystem. This finding
notion, while 5.2% were characterised by scepticism. An interesting was contradictory to the reality where LCJF production is deemed
environmentally benign (ATAG, 2011). Overall, the risk perception
Table 2 analysis revealed an interesting conundrum in this survey: though the
Survey Population Characteristics. use of LCJF is believed to protect the environment (limiting carbon
emissions), its production is considered to harm the environment (in
Socio-demographic Sample
variables values
terms of soil and water pollution). However, this complex situation can
be dealt with by providing comprehensive information on LCJF such
Age (years) Mean 46
that the pros and cons of this innovation are adequately understood by
Range 18–92
18–29 18.4% the public.
30–39 20.0%
40–49 18.8% 4.4. Social trust
50–65 27.7%
65+ 15.1%
Gender Male 46% The social trust construct investigated confidence in relevant in­
Female 54% stitutions (i.e., policymakers, scientific community, and LCJF pro­
Location England 87% ducers). These key players have the legitimacy and power to shape how
Northern Ireland 1.3% the public views LCJF. Our survey showed a varying level of trust in all
Scotland 7.5%
Wales 4.2%
the key players. The participants demonstrated a high level of trust in
Flying frequency None 37.4% LCJF producers, followed by the scientific community. The least level of
1-2 times 45.9% trust was shown in policymakers’ efforts related to LCJF development.
3-5 times 13.6% Around 20% of participants only recognised policymakers’ efforts.
More than 5 times 3.1%
Table 5 summarises our findings. Particular to aviation, Filimonau et al.
Level of education Primary education or less 1.0%
Secondary education 33.8% (2018) observed the same low level of trust in government and its af­
Post-secondary education below 25.7% filiates dealing with LCJF as in our study. A similar pattern of trust is
degree level presented in a study by Longstaff et al. (2015), where the majority of the
Bachelor’s degree or equivalent 28.9% respondents felt left out in government deliberation on low carbon fuels.
Master’s degree/higher or equivalent 10.6%
Furthermore, our survey results revealed an alarming situation. For all

6
B. Xu et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 374 (2022) 133990

Table 3
Public Perceived Benefits of LCJF use in aviation (%).
Perceived Benefits Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Nor Agree Strongly Agree Mean (SD)
Disagree (2) Disagree (3) (4) (5)
(1)

1) Investments in LCJF will benefit both the economy and the society. 1.8 3.2 37.0 41.4 16.7 3.68
(0.850)
2) LCJF use can greatly help in protecting the environment. 2.4 3.5 35.0 41.2 18.0 3.69
(0.887)
3) Using LCJFs will reduce the dependence on foreign oil. 1.2 5.2 37.8 43.2 12.7 3.61
(0.817)
4) LCJF can reduce conventional jet fuel dependence. 1.8 3.4 37.0 45.4 12.4 3.63
(0.810)
5) The benefits of using LCJF exceed other GHG emissions reduction 2.4 4.0 54.9 30.5 8.3 3.38
measures in aviation. (0.791)

Note. SD = Standard Deviation.

Table 4
Public Perceived Risks of LCJF use in aviation (%).
Perceived Risks Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Nor Agree Strongly Agree Mean (SD)
Disagree (2) Disagree (3) (4) (5)
(1)

1) LCJF pose a safety concern. 4.5 22.3 43.7 24.2 5.4 3.04
(0.926)
2) A higher production of LCJF would lead to an increased competition 0.6 10.9 41.8 37.6 9.1 3.44
for agricultural land. ((0.827)
3) LCJF production would harm the ecosystem. 4.6 22.9 46.4 19.8 6.3 3.00
(0.928)
4) LCJF take more energy to make than it is worth. 3.0 16.0 54.1 21.1 5.9 3.11
(0.844)
5) There is not enough LCJF to meet the demand. 1.4 5.4 38.7 40.1 14.4 3.61
(0.847)

Note: SD = Standard Deviation.

Table 5
Social Trust in Institutions regarding LCJF development (%).
Social trust Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Nor Agree Strongly Agree Mean (SD)
Disagree (2) Disagree (3) (4) (5)
(1)

1) The scientific community is doing a good job for the society by 2.3 6.5 59.4 26.2 5.6 3.26
developing LCJF. (0.757)
2) LCJF producers are helping the society. 1.8 3.8 42.1 42.5 9.9 3.55
(0.793)
3) Government/Policymakers have done a good job so far in regulating 6.3 15.5 58.2 14.8 5.3 2.97
LCJF. (0.873)

Note: SD = Standard Deviation.

three key players in LCJF, nearly half of the participants recorded our survey, the results of which are presented in Table 6. Our survey
‘neither agree nor disagree’ relating to the trust level. This finding points results showed an overall positive attitude toward LCJF use. For all the
to the importance of public engagement by these key players in poli­ items, approximately one third, and in some cases more than half of the
cymaking, production, and the technological development process in a participants, remained in the ‘agree’ and ‘strongly agree’ categories. A
wider LCJF acceptability context. significant proportion of participants not only showed a keen interest in
learning more about LCJF (64.4%), they also believed it to be a good
4.5. Attitude idea to use it for flights (~53%). When considering taking flights using
LCJF, ambivalence was noted in participants’ responses. The difference
To gauge participants’ attitude toward LCJF, five items were used in between the undecided (45.9%) and the combined ‘agree’ categories

Table 6
Public Attitude Towards LCJF use in aviation (%).
Attitude Strongly Disagree (2) Neither Agree Nor Disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Mean (SD)
Disagree (1)

1) I believe it is a good idea to use LCJF for flights. 2.0 2.9 28.1 48.2 18.8 3.79(0.848)
2) I dislike the idea of using LCJF for flights. 18.0 34.5 31.8 11.8 3.8 3.51(1.036)
3) I would prefer flying with airlines using LCJF. 2.6 4.5 45.9 34.3 12.7 3.50(0.865)
4) I would encourage others to fly on flights using LCJF. 4.3 6.2 43.3 34.8 11.5 3.43(0.925)
5) I would like to know more about LCJF. 2.8 3.3 29.6 38.9 25.5 3.81(0.947)

Note: SD = Standard Deviation.

7
B. Xu et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 374 (2022) 133990

(47%) seemed trivial. However, slightly higher agreement over being Table 8
undecided (43.3%) was recorded for encouraging others to take flights Zero-Order Correlation between Scale Variables.
using LCJF (46.3%). Like before, this behaviour can be attributed to a 1) ST 2) PB 3) PR 4) A 5)
lack of knowledge about the use of LCJF. WTP

1) Social Trust (ST) 1

4.6. Willingness to pay for LCJF use 2) Perceived Benefits (PB) .510** 1
3) Perceived Risks (PR) .173** − .060 1
4) Attitude (A) .270** .656** − .176** 1
In our study, we defined a scale for WTP (or for paying more) based
5) Willingness to Pay .370** .327** .173** .365** 1
on three items. The three items were designed to check the voluntary (WTP)
and involuntary WTP for LCJF, while the third item disregarded the
Note: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
ticket price – see Table 7. For the involuntary WTP a higher ticket price
for flights using LCJF, we found 28.4% of the participants in agreement
with the statement, while the majority (37.7%) categorically rejected demographic effect on WTP, the variables of age, gender, education,
the notion. For voluntary WTP a higher ticket price, despite the avail­ location, occupation, donation, and flying frequency were added. This
ability of cheaper flights, we found that the participants were not willing setting provided practicality to analysing the three WTP variables in a
to pay a higher price. Only 25.6% agreed, while the majority of the single hierarchal model rather than testing them separately. In addition,
respondents (38.9%) expressed an interest in cheaper flights using reg­ we performed various tests to ensure our data satisfy the underlying
ular jet fuel. Similarly, a low percentage of participants agreed to take assumptions for ordinal logistic regression (e.g., linearity, no outliers;
flights with LCJF regardless of the flight ticket price (23.5%); by independence; no multicollinearity).
contrast, 34.6% disagreed. We can conclude, therefore, that the flight The ordered logistic regression revealed that social trust, perceived
ticket price plays a major role. On the WTP scale, we found an average of risks, and attitude were found to be significant predictors of WTP1
37% of the participants were undecided on all three items. (“willing to pay a higher ticket price for my flights using LCJF”) for both
Our findings contradict previous research done on air travellers’ Models 1 and 2 – see Table 9. On the other hand, perceived benefits was
WTP for carbon neutral aviation, such as the studies by Choi et al. (2018) not found to be a statistically significant predictor. With the addition of
and Seetaram et al. (2018). However, the main difference that can be the demographic variables, the McFadden’s pseudo-R-squared value
attributed to our case is that the literature does not specifically include increased from 0.089 (model 1) to 0.097 (model 2). However, only the
LCJF as an option for carbon neutrality, instead focusing on presenting variables of age and education level were found to be significant
carbon taxes or air passenger duty, renewable energy projects, affores­ predictors.
tation projects, and environmental education as options (Bösehans et al., Looking at the ordered log-odds coefficients (Table 9), the results
2020). indicated that by increasing the social trust score by one point, the or­
dered log-odds of a respondent in a higher category of WTP1 would
4.7. Predictors of willingness to pay for LCJF increase by 24%, while the other variables in the model are held con­
stant. It can be inferred that by increasing social trust, WTP1 increases.
Along with the exploratory endeavour, one of the aims of this study Participants who are more concerned about LCJF are 13% less likely to
was to determine which factors determine WTP for LCJF. First, we be in higher categories of agree or strongly agree to pay for LCJF along
examined the zero-order correlations among the primary measures of with participants with a higher education level. Similarly, with a unit
social trust, perceived benefits, perceived risks, attitude, and willing­ increase in attitude and education, the ordered log-odds of a respondent
ness. As presented in Table 8, we found that WTP was positively and in a higher category of WTP1 would increase by 21.5% and 1.1%,
significantly correlated with social trust (0.370, p < 0.01), perceived respectively, while other variables in the model are held constant.
benefits (0.327, p < 0.01), perceived risks (0.173, p < 0.01), and attitude Finally, the ordered log-odds showed that the older population was 1.1%
(0.365, p < 0.01). However, the correlation between WTP and perceived less likely than the younger population to be in a higher category of
risks was found to be small, albeit significant. Attitude was positively WTP1. This suggests that older air travellers were less likely to pay a
and more substantially correlated with perceived benefits (0.356, p < higher flight ticket price for LCJF use.
0.01). As one would expect, attitude and perceived risks presented The second dependent variable in our study, WTP2, explored WTP
small, but significant negative correlations (− 0.176, p < 0.01). The in­ for a higher ticket price using LCJF even if a cheaper flight using regular
verse relation implied that the participants with reservations toward jet fuel was available. The ordered logistic regression revealed that social
LCJF were less inclined toward the idea of LCJF use. trust, perceived risks, and attitude were significant predictors of WTP2 –
Furthermore, we included the measures of perceived benefits, see columns 4 and 5 in Table 9. The third and final dependent variable
perceived risks, social trust, and attitude, as well as demographics, to evaluated in our study, WTP3, investigated the willingness to choose a
predict WTP for LCJF. We carried out the prediction analysis using or­ flight that uses LCJF regardless of the flight ticket price – see columns 6 and 7
dered logistic regression. We used three dependent variables, namely in Table 9. The ordered logistic regression found that social trust,
WTP1, WTP2, and WTP3, corresponding to the items composing WTP in perceived risks, attitude, and age played an important role in explaining
Table 8. It is to be noted that the independent variables have been WTP3.
regressed with item-level WTP for better explainability. To explore the In general, the results suggested that participants with a positive

Table 7
Willingness to Pay for LCJF (%).
Willingness to pay Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Nor Agree Strongly Mean
Disagree (1) (2) Disagree (3) (4) Agree (5) (SD)

1) I would be willing to pay a higher ticket price for my flights using LCJF. 16.4 21.3 33.8 21.8 6.6 2.81
(1.15)
2) I would be willing to pay a higher ticket price for using LCJF even if a 16.1 22.8 35.5 19.9 5.7 2.76
cheaper flight using regular jet fuel is available. (1.11)
3) I would be willing to choose a flight that uses LCJF regardless of the flight 15.8 18.8 41.9 16.4 7.1 2.80
ticket price. (1.11)

Note: SD = Standard Deviation.

8
B. Xu et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 374 (2022) 133990

Table 9
Ordered Logistic Regression for WTP for LCJF.
WTP1 WTP2 WTP3

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

Social Trust 0.283c 0.245c 0.265c 0.215c 0.293c 0.242c

(5.68) (4.70) (5.46) (4.27) (6.30) (4.99)
Perceived Benefits 0.00103 0.00984 − 0.0349 − 0.0205 − 0.00773 0.0157
(0.03) (0.32) (-1.15) (-0.67) (-0.24) (0.49)
Perceived Risks − 0.141c − 0.130c − 0.144c − 0.131c − 0.147c − 0.135c
(5.18) (4.69) (5.25) (4.66) (5.31) (4.84)
Attitude 0.223c 0.215c 0.199c 0.195c 0.185c 0.184c
(7.83) (7.41) (6.86) (6.54) (6.21) (6.14)
Female 0.184 0.160 − 0.0254
(1.49) (1.28) (-0.21)
Age − 0.0117a − 0.0166b − 0.0183c
(-2.40) (-3.23) (-3.64)
Location − 0.000456 − 0.0213 0.0384
(-0.01) (-0.31) (0.51)
Occupation 0.0566 0.0294 − 0.0495
(1.42) (0.73) (-1.21)
Donation 0.0000576 0.0000375 0.0000505
(1.21) (1.94) (1.27)
Education 0.140a 0.0832 0.0131
(2.14) (1.29) (0.21)
Flying Frequency 0.0826 0.132 0.0148
(0.97) (1.59) (0.18)
N 1008 1008 1008 1008 1008 1008
pseudoR2 0.0894 0.0977 0.0705 0.0819 0.0779 0.0931

Note: Standard errors in parentheses.

a
p < 0.10.
b
p < 0.05.
c
p < 0.01.

attitude toward LCJF, trust in the effort of key players, and those who WTP makes sense, as individuals who have apprehensions about LCJF
perceived more benefits, were in agreement to pay more for LCJF, with would rate the risk high and be less willing to pay for tickets for flights
the exception of those who showed concerns about LCJF use. To further using LCJF. Finally, the predictors of education level and age were found
ensure the robustness of our findings, we examined whether excluding to be significantly related to WTP. With a higher level of education, it is
those aged over 79 would make a difference. The results from these possible that either social trust increases or the perceived risks decrease. In
exercises did not qualitatively change our main findings.11 either case, education level leads to increased WTP. While age was found
to also be a significant predictor, it is acknowledged that its contribution
5. Conclusions to WTP is small. The negative relationship suggests that younger people
may be more willing to pay for LCJF. It is worth highlighting here that,
Despite the potential for LCJF to decarbonise the aviation industry, unlike in the study by Rice et al. (2020), gender has not been found to be
the uptake of LCJF remains in its infancy stage. There is a lack of in- a significant factor of WTP for LCJF in our research. This is an area that
depth investigation of public opinion on the use of LCJF in aviation, warrants further investigation.
particularly WTP for higher ticket prices. To fill the above gaps, we Our study provides valuable insights to decision-makers, both in the
constructed a comprehensive survey and gathered a large sample of UK government and industry, for framing strategies in the short run and
public views on LCJF. We achieved the primary objective of our work by policies in the long run, which would strengthen the public’s perception
determining the significant factors that would predict WTP for LCJF. and attitude, in turn resulting in their increased WTP for LCJF use in
Findings from this study pointed out that WTP can be explained by five aviation. For LCJF to produce the benefits that policymakers and airlines
key factors. seek, the public must actively engage with LCJF production technology.
Three of these five variables comprised social trust, attitude, and Our research shows that one way to achieve this is to minimise the risk
perceived risks. The predictor of social trust is particularly interesting perception, which results in a more positive attitude toward LCJF use
because citizens seem to currently be aware of the efforts being made by and WTP. This can be achieved by promoting LCJF, their production
the government, industry, and research institutions. However, it is technology, and environmental impact. While doing so, emphasis should
logical that the more the institutions promote and endorse their be placed on the emissions reduction potential offered by LCJF, and its
commitment to LCJF, the greater the public’s trust and their willingness implications for fuel sustainability. However, we also recognise that any
to pay would be. As seen with social trust, with a higher rating of attitude, attempt to promote WTP for LCJF will inevitably face structural barriers
the public’s WTP increases. Our findings are in line with prior research not likely to be resolved by outreach and marketing campaigns. For
that established that having a positive attitude exhibits itself in the instance, as our findings indicate, older respondents are not willing to
intended behaviour (Van Dael et al., 2017). Unlike with social trust and pay a premium ticket price. To develop trust, key players must devise
attitude, as the participants’ rating of perceived risks increases, their WTP mechanisms to promote their domain’s contributions among the public.
decreases. The negative relationship between the perceived risks and Likewise, our study found that the public do perceive benefits of LCJF
within the environmental, social, and economic domains, but also
associate risk with LCJF availability and the environmental impact of its
11
We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting that the state of health can production. This highlights a potential need for airlines to devise future
also play a key role in influencing older respondents’ willingness to pay. The interventions in the form of relevant marketing campaigns, particularly
results are available upon request. to gain support from the younger population. Likewise, to ensure the

9
B. Xu et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 374 (2022) 133990

availability of LCJF, policymakers can investigate various mechanisms Chin, H.C., Choong, W.W., Wan Alwi, S.R., Mohammed, A.H., 2014. Issues of social
acceptance on biofuel development. J. Clean. Prod. 71, 30–39.
that would increase LCJF production, ensuring that a sufficient volume
Choi, A.S., Gössling, S., Ritchie, B.W., 2018. Flying with climate liability? Economic
of fuel is available, for example, by incentivising production or setting valuation of voluntary carbon offsets using forced choices. Transport. Res. Transport
up mandates. Environ. 62, 225–235.
In terms of future studies, we aim to assess whether a neutral Daggett, D.L., Hendricks, R.C., Walther, R., Corporan, E., 2008. Alternate fuels for use in
commercial aircraft. In: 18th ISABE Conference (2008). International Society for Air
disposition toward the risk perception and social trust constructs is due Breathing Engines, Beijing, pp. 2007–1196.
to a lack of awareness leading to indecisiveness or whether it is due to Delshad, A., Raymond, L., 2013. Media framing and public attitudes toward biofuels.
the ubiquitous attitudes of participants. Second, we plan to evaluate the Rev. Pol. Res. 30, 190–210.
DfT, 2022. Jet Zero Strategy: Delivering Net Zero Aviation by 2050.
links between the psychometric constructs considered in this study in Eames, M., Mcdowall, W., Hodson, M., Marvin, S., 2006. Negotiating contested visions
order to draw any correlational inference between them. Furthermore, and place-specific expectations of the hydrogen economy. Technol. Anal. Strat.
by recognising the influence of the media in framing public attitudes Manag. 18, 361–374.
Emma, B., Alan, B., Bill, H., 2019. Business Research Methods, fifth ed. Open University
(Delshad and Raymond, 2013), our future research would look into how Press., Oxford.
media portrays LCJF use in aviation. Another line of inquiry that could Enevoldsen, P., Sovacool, B.K., 2016. Examining the social acceptance of wind energy:
be explored is to widen the scope of key players in our study and assess practical guidelines for onshore wind project development in France. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 53, 178–184.
the general public’s opinion about the role played by international Essiz, O., Mandrik, C., 2022. Intergenerational influence on sustainable consumer
consortiums, such as the Sustainable Aviation Alternative Fuels Users attitudes and behaviors: roles of family communication and peer influence in
Group and ICAO, in the LCJF development (Gegg et al., 2014). environmental consumer socialization. Psychol. Market. 39, 5–26.
Filimonau, V., Högström, M., 2017. The attitudes of UK tourists to the use of biofuels in
civil aviation: an exploratory study. J. Air Transport. Manag. 63, 84–94.
CRediT authorship contribution statement Filimonau, V., Mika, M., Pawlusiński, R., 2018. Public attitudes to biofuel use in aviation:
evidence from an emerging tourist market. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 3102–3110.
Gegg, P., Budd, L., Ison, S., 2014. The market development of aviation biofuel: drivers
Bing Xu: Conceptualization, Supervision, Project administration, and constraints. J. Air Transport. Manag. 39, 34–40.
Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Gegg, P., Wells, V., 2017. UK macro-algae biofuels: a strategic management review and
Salman Ahmad: Methodology, Software, Investigation, Formal anal­ future research agenda. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 5, 32.
Principles of perceptual learning and development Gibson, E.J., 1969. Principles of
ysis, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Perceptual Learning and Development. Appleton-Century-Crofts, East Norwalk, CT,
Vincent Charles: Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. US.
Jin Xuan: Conceptualization, Validation, Supervision, Writing – review Goding, L., Andersson-Franko, M., Lagerkvist, C.J., 2018. Preferences for bio jet fuel in
Sweden: the case of business travel from a city airport. Sustain. Energy Technol.
& editing.
Assessments 29, 60–69.
Halder, P., Paladinić, E., Stevanov, M., 2017. Croatian and Serbian private forest owners’
perceptions of energy wood mobilization: survey results and relevance for future
Declaration of competing interest bioeconomy. Biofuels 8, 515–525.
Halder, P., Pietarinen, J., Havu-Nuutinen, S., Pelkonen, P., 2010. Young citizens’
knowledge and perceptions of bioenergy and future policy implications. Energy Pol.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial 38, 3058–3066.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Heen, M.S.J., Lieberman, J.D., Miethe, T.D., 2014. A comparison of different online
the work reported in this paper. sampling approaches for generating national samples. Cent. Crime Justice Policy 1,
1–8.
Herrmann, R., Jumbe, C., Bruentrup, M., Osabuohien, E., 2018. Competition between
Data availability biofuel feedstock and food production: empirical evidence from sugarcane
outgrower settings in Malawi. Biomass Bioenergy 114, 100–111.
Hooper, P., Daley, B., Preston, H., Thomas, C., 2008. An Assessment of the Potential of
The data that has been used is confidential. Carbon Offset Schemes to Mitigate the Climate Change Implications of Future
Growth of UK Aviation. OMEGA Project Report, Manchester.
IATA, 2019. Aviation Benefits Report.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
ICAO, 2022. Effects of Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) on Civil Aviation: Economic
Impact Analysis. Int. Civ. Aviat. Organ. (ICAO), Montréal, Canada, p. 125.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. ICAO, 2016. On Board: A Sustainable Future - 2016 Environmental Report.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133990. IEA, 2021. Are Conditions Right for Biojet to Take Flight over the Next Five Years ? Paris.
Jordan, P.J., Troth, A.C., 2020. Common method bias in applied settings: the dilemma of
researching in organizations. Aust. J. Manag. 45, 3–14.
References Kantenbacher, J., Hanna, P., Cohen, S., Miller, G., Scarles, C., 2018. Public attitudes
about climate policy options for aviation. Environ. Sci. Pol. 81, 46–53.
Kelly, C., Onat, N.C., Tatari, O., 2019. Water and carbon footprint reduction potential of
Adnan, N., Md Nordin, S., bin Bahruddin, M.A., Ali, M., 2018. How trust can drive
renewable energy in the United States: a policy analysis using system dynamics.
forward the user acceptance to the technology? In-vehicle technology for
J. Clean. Prod. 228, 910–926.
autonomous vehicle. Transport. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 118, 819–836.
Kock, N., 2020. Harman’s single factor test in PLS-SEM: checking for common method
Ahmad, S., Ouenniche, J., Kolosz, B., Greening, P., Andresen, J., Maroto-Valer, M.,
bias. Data Anal. Perspect. J. 2, 1–6.
Xu, B., 2021. A stakeholders’ participatory approach to multi-criteria assessment of
Kollmuss, A., Agyeman, J., 2002. Mind the Gap: why do people act environmentally and
sustainable aviation fuels production pathways. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 238, 108156.
what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 8,
Ahmad, S., Xu, B., 2021. A cognitive mapping approach to analyse stakeholders’
239–260.
perspectives on sustainable aviation fuels. Transport. Res. Transport Environ. 100,
Kolosz, B.W., Luo, Y., Xu, B., Maroto-Valer, M.M., Andresen, J.M., 2020. Life cycle
103076.
environmental analysis of ‘drop in’ alternative aviation fuels: a review. Sustain.
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50,
Energy Fuels 4, 3229–3263.
179–211.
Kraeusel, J., Möst, D., 2012. Carbon Capture and Storage on its way to large-scale
Ajzen, I., 1985. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In: Action
deployment: social acceptance and willingness to pay in Germany. Energy Pol. 49,
Control. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 11–39.
642–651.
Amin, L., Hashim, H., Mahadi, Z., Ibrahim, M., Ismail, K., 2017. Determinants of
Kroesen, M., 2013. Exploring people’s viewpoints on air travel and climate change:
stakeholders’ attitudes towards biodiesel. Biotechnol. Biofuels 10, 1–17.
understanding inconsistencies. J. Sustain. Tourism 21, 271–290.
ATAG, 2018. Aviation: Benefits beyond Borders.
Kumar, S., Sinha, S., 2022. Heterogeneity based mode choice behaviour for introduction
ATAG, 2011. Beginner’s Guide to Aviation Biofuels.
of sustainable intermediate public transport (IPT) modes. Civ. Eng. J. 8, 531–548.
Bösehans, G., Bolderdijk, J.W., Wan, J., 2020. Pay more, fly more? Examining the
Len-Ríos, M.E., Hughes, H.E., McKee, L.G., Young, H.N., 2016. Early adolescents as
potential guilt-reducing and flight-encouraging effect of an integrated carbon offset.
publics: a national survey of teens with social media accounts, their media use
J. Environ. Psychol. 71.
preferences, parental mediation, and perceived Internet literacy. Publ. Relat. Rev.
Bushman, B.J., Moeller, S.J., Konrath, S., Crocker, J., 2012. Investigating the link
42, 101–108.
between liking versus wanting self-esteem and depression in a nationally
Longstaff, H., Secko, D.M., Capurro, G., Hanney, P., McIntyre, T., 2015. Fostering citizen
representative sample of American adults. J. Pers. 80, 1453–1469.
deliberations on the social acceptability of renewable fuels policy: the case
Chavez, R., Malik, M., Ghaderi, H., Yu, W., 2021. Environmental orientation , external
ofadvanced lignocellulosic biofuels in Canada. Biomass Bioenergy 74, 103–112.
environmental information exchange and environmental performance : examining
mediation and moderation effects. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 240, 108222.

10
B. Xu et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 374 (2022) 133990

Mamadzhanov, A., McCluskey, J.J., Li, T., 2019. Willingness to pay for a second- Sewell, M.N., Soto, C.J., Napolitano, C.M., Yoon, H.J., Roberts, B.W., 2022. Survey data
generation bioethanol: a case study of Korea. Energy Pol. 127, 464–474. of social, emotional, and behavioral skills among seven independent samples. Data
Mattison, E.H.A., Norris, K., 2007. Intentions of UK farmers toward biofuel crop Brief 40, 107792.
production: implications for policy targets and land use change. Environ. Sci. Singh, J., Sharma, S.K., Srivastava, R., 2019. AHP-Entropy based priority assessment of
Technol. 41, 5589–5594. factors to reduce aviation fuel consumption. Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng. Manag. 10,
Montefrio, M.J.F., Sonnenfeld, D.A., 2011. Forests, fuel, or food? competing coalitions 212–227.
and biofuels policy making in the Philippines. J. Environ. Dev. 20, 27–49. Sivashankar, P., Weerahewa, J., Pushpakumara, G., Galage-Dara, L., 2016. An estimation
Moreno, M.A., Binger, K., Zhao, Q., Eickhoff, J., 2021. Adolescents’ digital technology of the willingness to pay for biodiesel: a pilot study of diesel consumers. Bio base
interactions and importance: associations with demographics and social media Appl. Econ. 5, 27–45.
frequency. J. Pediatr. 236, 312-315.e1. Smith, D.J., Current, D., Schulman, C., Easter, K.W., 2018. Willingness to produce
NEA, 2002. On Society and Nuclear Energy:Towards a Better Understanding. perennial bioenergy crops: a contingent supply approach. Biomass Bioenergy 117,
Pasqualetti, M.J., 2011. Social barriers to renewable energy landscapes. Geogr. Rev. 101, 161–172.
201–223. Smith, P.M., Gaffney, M.J., Shi, W., Hoard, S., Armendariz, I.I., Mueller, D.W., 2017.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method Drivers and barriers to the adoption and diffusion of sustainable jet fuel (SJF) in the
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended U.S. Pacific northwest. J. Air Transport. Manag. 58.
remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879–903. Staples, M.D., Malina, R., Suresh, P., Hileman, J.I., Barrett, S.R.H., 2018. Aviation
Radics, R., Dasmohapatra, S., Kelley, S.S., 2015. Systematic review of bioenergy CO2emissions reductions from the use of alternative jet fuels. Energy Pol. 114,
perception studies. Bio Resouces 10, 8770–8794. 342–354.
Rahman, A., Khanam, T., Pelkonen, P., 2017. People ’ s knowledge , perceptions , and Tan, H., Wong-Parodi, G., Xu, J., 2020. Not under my backyard? Psychological distance,
attitudes towards stump harvesting for bioenergy production in Finland. Renew. local acceptance, and shale gas development in China. Energy Res. Social Sci. 61,
Sustain. Energy Rev. 70, 107–116. 101336.
Rains, T., Winter, S.R., Rice, S., Milner, M.N., Bledsaw, Z., Anania, E.C., 2017. Biofuel Tenenbaum, D.J., 2008. Food vs. fuel diversion of crops could cause more hunger.
and commercial aviation: will consumers pay more for it? Int. J. Sustain. Aviat. 3, Environ. Health Perspect. 116, 254–257.
217. Van Dael, M., Lizin, S., Swinnen, G., Van Passel, S., 2017. Young people’s acceptance of
Reed, D., 2016. The collapse of oil prices has killed what little serious interest airlines bioenergy and the influence of attitude strength on information provision. Renew.
ever had in biofuels. Forbes Mag 1–8. Energy 107, 417–430.
Rice, C., Ragbir, N.K., Rice, S., Barcia, G., 2020. Willingness to pay for sustainable van de Velde, L., Verbeke, W., Popp, M., van Huylenbroeck, G., 2011. Trust and
aviation depends on ticket price, greenhouse gas reductions and gender. Technol. perception related to information about biofuels in Belgium. Publ. Understand. Sci.
Soc. 60, 101224. 20, 595–608.
Rowe, Z.O., Wilson, H.N., Dimitriu, R., Charnley, F.J., Lastrucci, G., 2019. Pride in my van Dyk, S., Saddler, J., 2021. Progress in Commercialization of Biojet/Sustainable
past: influencing sustainable choices through behavioral recall. Psychol. Market. 36, Aviation Fuels (SAF): Technologies , Potential and Challenges.
276–286. Wegener, D.T., Kelly, J.R., 2008. Social psychological dimensions of bioenergy
Ryley, T., Davison, L., Bristow, A., Pridmore, A., 2010. Public engagement on aviation development and public acceptance. BioEnergy Res 1, 107–117.
taxes in the United Kingdom. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 4, 112–128. Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., Bürer, M.J., 2007. Social acceptance of renewable energy
Sadoughi, F., Khodaveisi, T., Ahmadi, H., 2019. The used theories for the adoption of innovation: an introduction to the concept. Energy Pol. 35, 2683–2691.
electronic health record: a systematic literature review. Health Technol. 9, 383–400. Yaghoubi, J., Yazdanpanah, M., Komendantova, N., 2019. Iranian agriculture advisors’
Seetaram, N., Song, H., Ye, S., Page, S., 2018. Estimating willingness to pay air passenger perception and intention toward biofuel: green way toward energy security, rural
duty. Ann. Tourism Res. 72, 85–97. development and climate change mitigation. Renew. Energy 130, 452–459.

11