Policy Analysis pubs.acs.org/est
Early Public Impressions of Terrestrial Carbon Capture and Storage in a Coal-Intensive State Sanya R. Carley,*,† Rachel M. Krause,‡ David C. Warren,† John A. Rupp,§ and John D. Graham† † ‡ §
School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405-1701, United States Masters of Public Administration Program, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas 79968-8900, United States Indiana Geological Survey, Bloomington, Indiana 47405-2208, United States S Supporting Information *
ABSTRACT: While carbon capture and storage (CCS) is considered to be critical to achieving long-term climate-protection goals, public concerns about the CCS practice could pose significant obstacles to its deployment. This study reports findings from the first state-wide survey of public perceptions of CCS in a coal-intensive state, with an analysis of which factors predict early attitudes toward CCS. Nearly three-quarters of an Indiana sample (N = 1001) agree that storing carbon underground is a good approach to protecting the environment, despite 80% of the sample being unaware of CCS prior to participation in the two-wave survey. The majority of respondents do not hold strong opinions about CCS technology. Multivariate analyses indicate that support for CCS is predicted by a belief that humankind contributes to climate change, a preference for increased use of renewable energy, and egalitarian and individualistic worldviews, while opposition to CCS is predicted by self-identified political conservatism and by selective attitudes regarding energy and climate change. Knowledge about early impressions of CCS can help inform near-term technology decisions at state regulatory agencies, utilities, and pipeline companies, but follow-up surveys are necessary to assess how public sentiments evolve in response to image-building efforts with different positions on coal and CCS.
■
INTRODUCTION Expert analyses indicate that, if long-term climate-protection goals are to be achieved, it will be necessary to implement the practice of carbon sequestration, commonly denoted as “carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and storage” (CCS). CCS could potentially control large volumes of greenhouse gas emissions from coal-sourced power generation. The application of CCS to coal-fired electric power plants is especially critical because global coal use for power generation is projected to be the single largest human-made source of CO2 emissions over the next 25 years.1−4 The feasibility of CCS in the context of enhanced oil recovery is well established but the technical and commercial viability of large-scale CCS deployment using geological storage reservoirs for large power plants has not been established. The basic technical objective is to capture CO2 emissions from a power plant, transport the compressed CO2 by pipeline to a storage facility, and then inject the CO2 thousands of feet underground into a geologically secure reservoir that is suitable and monitored for permanent storage.5 © 2012 American Chemical Society
Globally, there is substantial interest in developing CCS technology. At the 2008 G8 Summit in Hokkaido Toyako, Japan, a goal of launching 20 large-scale CCS demonstration projects by 2010 was established, along with a broader goal of widespread CCS deployment by 2020. Participating governments committed $26 billion to CCS from 2008 to 2010, with the hope that somewhere between 19 and 43 large-scale projects would be underway by 2020.6 Currently there are 15 CCS projects worldwide at various stages of development and an additional 59 in the planning stages.7 Two large-scale CCS projects proposed in Indiana are in the planning and feasibility assessment stages.8,9 The recent cancellation of several projects in the United States, Germany, The Netherlands, and the UK is of concern to proponents of CCS. The reasons for cancellation were mostly financial, including the lack of a carbon price to support the Received: Revised: Accepted: Published: 7086
February 28, 2012 June 4, 2012 June 7, 2012 June 7, 2012 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es300698n | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 7086−7093
Environmental Science & Technology
Policy Analysis
the use of CCS,31 many public decisions that will be crucial to the commercial viability of CCS will occur at the state level. For example, utility rates, permitting for plants, interstate pipelines, subsurface property rights, and operation of CO2 storage facilities are all elements of the CCS process that are within a state’s jurisdiction; liability for leaks from CCS storage projects is also a state concern.32 This article examines early public impressions of CCS in a coal-intensive state, Indiana, where at least two advanced coalCCS projects are in the planning stages. Public opinion in coalintensive states is of special interest because these states are common venues for early CCS deployment activities, and the public debate and opinion formation that take place within them may shape the future of CCS. The present analysis characterizes early impressions of CCS in Indiana, and identifies factors that predict and may shape those impressions. State regulators, utilities, pipeline companies, and other stakeholders need to know about early impressions of CCS, in part to help judge whether public acceptance of the technology may be achievable. Our data also provide a baseline measurement of opinion prior to the onset of persuasive messaging by proponents and opponents of CCS. Follow-up surveys are planned to track how opinion evolves over time. This study addresses two main research questions. First, what are the relative levels of public support and opposition to terrestrial CCS in Indiana? Second, prior to the introduction of persuasive messaging, which factors influence people’s support or opposition to terrestrial CCS? Five sets of variables are assessed in regard to the second question: belief in climate change, trust in institutions, people’s associations with land, attitudes toward the environment, and cultural biases. It is hypothesized that individuals with the following characteristics are more likely to support CCS: those who believe in climate change, who report high levels of trust in government and industry, who make their living from the land (e.g., in agriculture or mining), who have strong environmental views, and who exhibit hierarchical or individualistic cultural biases. Empirical analysis is based on responses to a survey conducted in Indiana.
costs of CCS, the improving economics of gas-fired generation due to declining natural gas prices, and the depressed state of the global economy.10 But in other cases, such as in Germany, public opposition to CCS was a primary factor in cancellation.7 Additionally, it is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain permits for new coal plants,11 in part due to growing opposition from organized environmental groups and segments of the public.12,13 It is now widely acknowledged that public acceptance of CCS is situational and may be difficult to achieve. CCS deployment is unlikely to proceed in the face of substantial, strongly held opposition.14,15 Thus, knowledge of early impressions of CCS can help inform technology decisions by state regulatory bodies, community leaders, utilities, pipeline companies, investors in energy projects, and environmental organizations. Educational activities, stakeholder initiatives, reliance on trusted third parties, and new regulatory frameworks have been recommended to address concerns and build public confidence in CCS.16−19 Establishing an atmosphere of trust among key actors and organizations is helpful but difficult to accomplish in polarized, “post-trust” environments.20−22 In the U.S., the future of advanced coal technologies with CCS has been complicated by the splintering of positions among major environmental groups and think tanks.12,23,24 Organizations such as the Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, World Resources Institute, National Council on Energy Policy, The Nature Conservancy, and the Union of Concerned Scientists all voice some measure of support for CCS; others, such as the World Wildlife Fund, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and Communities for a Better Environment, are either skeptical or in complete opposition to CCS.23,25,26 In 2002 the Sierra Club launched its “Beyond Coal” campaign aimed at blocking construction of new coal plants, accelerating the retirement of existing plants, and promoting new investments in renewable sources of electricity such as wind and solar. The Sierra Club argues that CCS is too risky, expensive, and unreliable.27 Instead of a focus on policy makers in Washington, DC, the Sierra Club campaign is a grass-roots effort in the states, where permit decisions on new power plants, CO2 pipelines, and storage facilities are made.15,28 Other organizations are helping in this grassroots effort. The National Audubon Society, for example, has contributed to the Sierra Club’s legal opposition to coal generation.13 Furthermore, Bloomberg Philanthropies, the foundation of New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, donated $50 million in July 2011 to expand the Sierra Club’s campaign. The gift will comprise one-third of the campaign’s budget over the next four years and will permit an expansion of the campaign from 15 to 45 states and a doubling of staff to 200.29 Both sides of the coal and CCS debate, including but not limited to those mentioned here, are likely to pursue social marketing strategies that appeal to emotion as well as technical knowledge.30 Knowledge of public attitudes toward coal and CCS needs to be developed on a state-by-state basis. Public officials at the state level, who are sensitive to their constituents’ opinions, have at least as much authority to influence the future of CCS as federal government officials. The Obama administration has organized a federal interagency task force on CCS that has worked with states, industry, and NGOs on constructive policies toward CCS.5 While the Environmental Protection Agency has recently issued a national regulation to reduce GHG emissions from electric power plants that will incentivize
■
SUPPORTING LITERATURE AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES Despite more than a decade of work on CCS by engineers, geologists, and environmental professionals,33 public awareness of the concept of CCS is still quite low. In a recent survey of 13 European countries, for example, substantial majorities had not heard of CCS, with the exception of respondents in The Netherlands.34 Similar surveys in the U.S. also find low levels of awareness35−39 and, even when awareness of CCS is evident, a citizen may be uncertain or confused about the exact workings of CCS or its purpose.37,40 CCS studies to date have not focused specifically on the question of which factors predict public awareness and impressions. The CCS and related literature is, however, rich and growing rapidly, and offers several insights about the possible factors that contribute to CCS perceptions. This section reviews this literature and, where possible, presents hypotheses regarding the relationship between various factors and CCS perceptions. A significant body of CCS research finds that respondents are more inclined to favor CCS if it is part of a coherent climate policy that also offers a role for other promising energy technologies.35,41,42 This literature suggests that our survey instrument should track opinions about renewables, natural gas, 7087
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es300698n | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 7086−7093
Environmental Science & Technology
Policy Analysis
compared to the economy) may have strong feelings about CCS. On the one hand, since CCS is designed to protect the environment, a favorable view might be expected. On the other hand, CCS technologies may lead to leaks of CO2 into the air or groundwater, with possible damages to people and the environment. If a respondent focuses on the possibility of leaks, opinion about CCS may turn negative. Moreover, some environmentalists may see CCS as a dubious “quick fix” that extends the period of dependence on fossil fuels and delays the transition to sustainable energy systems.44 Therefore we predict that the relationship between environmentalism and CCS support will be ambiguous. Previous research suggests that a respondent’s worldview or “cultural bias” creates a predilection toward new technologies. Worldviews are linked to people’s preferred patterns of social relationships and influence “what people choose to fear, and how much to fear it.”45 Three cultural biases are relevant. Holders of the individualistic bias typically view technology as an opportunity for growth and are supportive as long as it is not perceived to interfere with the proper functioning of the market. Those with a hierarchical bias see threats to existing patterns of superior−subordinate social relationships as primary risks and tend to view technology positively if it has been recommended by experts and officials. Those with an egalitarian bias view inequality as the largest risk to society and therefore favor actions that increase equality. Egalitarians typically perceive large centralized technologies as contributing toward inequality; however, climate change is projected to have uneven effects and cause disproportionate suffering among the poor, thus increasing inequality. CCS, therefore, might be perceived as the lesser of two evils. While egalitarians would likely be most in favor of technologies such as small-scale, community-owned solar facilities to combat climate change, they might support any approach that could effectively mitigate the problem. We hypothesize, therefore, that individuals with hierarchical, individualistic, or egalitarian cultural biases will be favorably inclined toward CCS, but we recognize that egalitarian worldviews may lead a respondent in either direction.46,47 It is important to note that worldviews are not mutually exclusive and thus an individual may demonstrate none, one, two, or all three of these biases.
and nuclear power as well as coal and CCS, since the opinions about the competing technologies may be interdependent. Also, state-level decision makers typically make an “up or down” decision on a permit application, with little formal role for comparative analysis of alternative technologies. However, when advocacy groups such as the Sierra Club oppose new coal technologies and raise questions about the effectiveness of CCS, they often include an appeal for greater consideration of renewables. Thus, the evolution of opinions toward coal and CCS in Indiana may be related to opinions about other energy sources, although the literature provides little guidance as to the magnitude and direction of the relationships between various resources and CCS technology.35 From a risk−benefit perspective, one might expect that an individual’s opinions about the potential benefits of CCS are in part tied to their perceptions about the existence, causes, and risks of climate change and their thoughts on whether CCS presents a safe and viable way to help mitigate the problem. Indeed, research has found that public opinion about CCS is related to perceived benefits and risks of climate change.42,43 While some individuals may consider the potential risks associated with climate change to be significant, they may at the same time consider the risks associated with the practice of CCS to outweigh any climate-protection benefits. As a respondent’s perceptions of risk and benefit are affected by new information, their overall opinions about CCS may change.43 It is important, however, to note a caveat: people may value CCS for more than climate change mitigation reasons; they may believe that CCS is a useful technology because it supports the existing coal or electricity infrastructure, which in turn supplies some economic benefit to communities. This caveat aside, we hypothesize that there will be a positive statistical relationship between belief in climate change and positive impressions of CCS. Respondents who trust government and industry to deploy a new technology may be more likely to favor CCS than those who do not demonstrate this trust, since citizens do not have prior experience with large CCS projects and therefore need to place some trust in those who can guarantee the safety of CCS efforts.20 We hypothesize that those with high levels of trust in public officials will express more favorable views of CCS. On the other hand, trust in environmental groups leads to an ambiguous prediction since the major groups are split on CCS. Respondents who make a living from the land (e.g., through mining or farming) may be more inclined to understand the technical and operational aspects of the CCS practice because of their intimate knowledge and experience with the land, and thus may favor CCS more than those who do not have an active working relationship with it. Those who are on a daily basis exposed to mechanical systems that include hydraulics, pneumatics, and interaction with earth materials may have a better understanding of the mechanisms of carbon capture, compression, injection, and storage in the subsurface than those who are not working closely with these technologies. More generally, respondents who believe that it is legitimate to use the land for material purposes may be more inclined to support CCS than those who believe that the land, whenever possible, should be left undisturbed. Since Indiana has a long tradition of mining and agriculture, CCS may be seen as consistent with the state’s tradition of making use of the land for material purposes. Respondents who identify as environmentalists (e.g., a duespaying member of an environmental group or someone who perceives environmental protection as a priority value
■
RESEARCH DESIGN Operationally, we define a coal-intensive state as one with significant mining and a majority of electric power production from coal. States that meet these criteria include Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Indiana ranks seventh in annual coal production and first in share of electricity obtained from coal.48 The IU-SPEA Energy, Climate, and Environment Survey telephone−mail−telephone survey instrument was developed by the IU-SPEA research team. Prior to field deployment, cognitive interviews with lay respondents were conducted around the state to test and refine the instrument and reorder the questions for improved flow and clarity. The research team worked with a contractor to manage the survey, Princeton Survey Research Associates, which subcontracted administration of the survey to Braun Research. Principals from the IUSPEA research team, Braun Research, and Princeton Survey Research Associates monitored calls during a pretest on 100 respondents, after which minor changes were made based on suggestions from the contractor. The final two-wave survey instrument, which is available in the Supporting Information 7088
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es300698n | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 7086−7093
Environmental Science & Technology
Policy Analysis
results presented below are for the full sample of 1001 respondents who answered both the first and second wave of survey questions. Descriptive summaries of the data used in this analysis are provided in the SI. Table S1 presents the summary statistics and Tables S2−S4 present the correlation coefficients among the variables.
(SI), was administered to 1001 Indiana residents in the summer of 2011. Analysis of the data was performed by the authors. The sample was stratified to ensure representation of residents from coal mining, agricultural, and urban areas of the state. Weights are used in this analysis to make representative estimates for the state of Indiana. In the first telephone phase of the survey, potential respondents were identified by random digit dialing of both cell phones and landlines, and screened for eligibility; only those 18 years of age and older and with an Indiana residence were eligible. These eligible respondents were asked to participate in an Indiana University study of “electricity generation and environmental quality”. An address for a follow-up mailingelectronic or postalwas obtained from each eligible respondent. To encourage participation, respondents were offered a $5 incentive for completing each of the two telephone phases. The response rate in this first phase was 24.3%. The survey instrument in the first telephone phase did not mention CCS. Approximately 20 min of questions addressed opinions about energy sources, environmentalism, beliefs about climate change, ratings of daily risks in life, worldviews, sources of news-related information, and personal demographic information. Between the two telephone phases, a factsheet and diagram about CCS were supplied to each respondent (presented in the SI), with a request that they view these materials prior to the second telephone interview. At the beginning of the follow-up interview, which typically occurred within ten days of the initial interview, respondents were asked if they had received and reviewed the factsheet and diagram. In the few cases where they had not, a callback was scheduled for a later date. As uninformed respondents are provided information about CCS by a survey researcher, their opinions about CCS are shaped,36 sometimes significantly,41,49 even when the information is designed as neutral.42,50,51 Given that the purpose of the present study was to provide a baseline measurement of CCS impressions in the state of Indiana, our challenge was to provide some limited education about what CCS is, without influencing the respondent on particular advantages or disadvantages of CCS or biasing their opinion. The factsheet and diagram were designed to provide limited educational information about CCS, without any detail on possible advantages, disadvantages, costs, risks, and benefits. The factsheet defined the purpose of CCS, while the diagram conveyed the procedures involved in capturing CO2, transporting it to a storage site, and injecting it underground at a suitable geological location. Based on a series of cognitive interviews and focus groups, we refined the factsheet and simplified the diagram. A geologist with technical understanding of the CCS process, and a coauthor of the present article, reviewed the factsheet and diagram for technical accuracy. The questions in the second interview, which typically took another 20 min, addressed the following: clarity of the factsheet and diagram; awareness of CCS prior to receiving these materials; sources of prior information about CCS; concerns about the technology; extent of agreement and disagreement with a series of asserted advantages and disadvantages of CCS; early impressions as to whether CCS is a good approach; whether CCS should be located in the U.S., Indiana, and the respondent’s community; and who will pay for the added costs of CCS. The second interview had a response rate of 75.3%. All
■
RESULTS As expected, most (80%) of the respondents had not heard of CCS prior to the survey (as presented in Table S1). Those who had heard of CCS had slightly less positive views of CCS than those that had not but the difference was not statistically significant. Participants were asked whether they agree or disagree with the statement that “storing carbon dioxide underground is a good approach to protecting the environment,” with response options that included “strongly agree”, “somewhat agree”, “somewhat disagree”, and “strongly disagree”. The percentage who agreed (74%) was much higher than the percentage that disagreed (23%). Respondents often chose the more intermediate response (“somewhat agree” or “somewhat disagree”). The ratio of intermediate views to strong views, in fact, is 1.5 (45% to 29%) for agreement and 1.7 (15% to 8%) for disagreement. Overall, a minority of respondents (36%) express “strong” agreement or disagreement, indicating that a clear majority of respondents hold intermediate views about CCS. We use “strong” and “intermediate” to refer to a respondent’s stated level of agreement or disagreement, not to imply a level of confidence with which the respondent holds their belief. Since states are unlikely to resolve CCS issues through state-wide ballot propositions with simple majority rule, what matters most is not the median opinion in the state but the distribution of strong views. As we argue below, strong views often have a greater impact on public officials than larger numbers of more moderately held views.52,53 The results reported for CCS support in this article do not appear to be sensitive to the precise wording of this survey question. An alternative question measuring support for siting a CCS facility in the state of Indiana (“Would you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the operation of a CCS facility somewhere in the state of Indiana?”) drew a similar distribution of responses (not reported). The elicited responses are baseline impressions of CCS for a sample of people largely unaware of the technology, as 80% of respondents had not heard of CCS prior to receipt of the factsheet and diagram. The opinions they reflect are therefore likely tenuous, and a concerted image-building campaign could cause many respondents to change their impressions of CCS.25 Multivariate Ordered Probit Models of CCS Support. The main dependent variable is the extent of agreement with the statement that CCS is a good approach to protecting the environment. An ordered probit model is estimated using the four categories of responses: 0 = strongly disagree, 1 = somewhat disagree, 2 = somewhat agree, and 3 = strongly agree. A key assumption of the ordered probit is that movement from one category to the next represents an equivalent change in attitude. Thirty independent variables were included in the model to represent the following categories or concepts: basic demographics; personal or family work history in different sectors; beliefs about using land for material purposes; worldviews about individualism, egalitarianism, and hierarchy; beliefs about 7089
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es300698n | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 7086−7093
Environmental Science & Technology
Policy Analysis
Table 1. Ordered Probit and Probit Models Predicting Agreement or Disagreement with Storing Carbon Dioxide Underground (for each model, coefficient estimates, linearized standard errors, and p-values are presented) Model 1: Ordered probit with dependent variable equal to “Storing carbon dioxide underground is a good approach to protecting the environment” (0 = strongly disagree; 1 = somewhat disagree; 2 = somewhat agree; 3 = strongly agree) age male completed an associate’s degree or some college (base = high school graduate) completed a four year degree or more (base = high school graduate) income less than $25,000 (base = middle income) refused to report income (base = middle income) income more than $75,000 (base = middle income) politically conservative (base = moderate) politically liberal (base = moderate) politically independent or other (base = moderate) personal or family work history in coal personal or family work history in oil/gas personal or family work history in utilities personal or family work history in farming land-based activities economically important score (higher = more important) urban resident (base = rural) suburban resident (base = rural) strongly or somewhat agrees that humans contribute to climate change believes the environment comes before economy member of an environmental organization score for increasing conventional sources of electricity (higher = increase) score for increasing renewable sources of electricity (higher = increase) individualistic cultural bias score (higher = more individualistic) egalitarian cultural bias score (higher = more egalitarian) hierarchical cultural bias score (higher = more hierarchical) very or somewhat likely to trust electric utilities very or somewhat likely to trust environmental organizations very or somewhat likely to trust state government risk score index (minus climate change) had heard of CCS prior to survey constant cut-point 1 cut-point 2 cut-point 3 number of obs F(30, 903) prob > F percent correctly predicted (using unweighted estimates) correlation coeffcient between predicted and actual Y (using weighted estimates) *
= p < 0.10.
**
Model 2: Probit with dependent variable equal to “Storing carbon dioxide underground is a good approach to protecting the environment” (1 = strongly agree; 0 = all other respondents)
Model 3: Probit with dependent variable equal to “Storing carbon dioxide underground is a good approach to protecting the environment” (1 = strongly disagree; 0 = all other respondents)
coef. 0.003 0.199 0.145
s.e. 0.003 0.122 0.126
P>t 0.276 0.104 0.251
coef. 0.007** 0.310** 0.102
s.e. 0.004 0.154 0.159
P>t 0.045 0.044 0.519
coef. 0.006 −0.095 −0.098
s.e. 0.004 0.153 0.189
P>t 0.195 0.534 0.605
0.077
0.134
0.569
−0.058
0.178
0.745
−0.074
0.215
0.731
−0.150 −0.205 −0.322* −0.300** 0.026 0.037 0.157 −0.074 0.017 0.156 0.012
0.146 0.188 0.174 0.136 0.145 0.294 0.153 0.166 0.169 0.111 0.021
0.303 0.275 0.065 0.027 0.857 0.901 0.306 0.656 0.918 0.161 0.571
−0.022 −0.241 −0.301 −0.280* 0.087 0.027 0.084 −0.008 0.032 0.227* 0.034
0.166 0.261 0.232 0.166 0.176 0.296 0.188 0.201 0.196 0.132 0.026
0.894 0.357 0.195 0.092 0.621 0.926 0.653 0.968 0.869 0.086 0.184
0.299 −0.147 0.157 0.465** 0.132 0.372 −0.121 0.049 0.289 0.019 0.005
0.189 0.258 0.265 0.189 0.245 0.367 0.238 0.251 0.222 0.158 0.030
0.115 0.570 0.554 0.014 0.591 0.312 0.612 0.844 0.192 0.907 0.859
0.285* 0.057 0.394**
0.153 0.137 0.154
0.062 0.675 0.011
0.438** 0.122 0.442**
0.182 0.172 0.211
0.017 0.479 0.037
−0.270 0.086 −0.528**
0.239 0.210 0.193
0.259 0.681 0.006
0.051 0.047 0.032
0.112 0.163 0.036
0.647 0.771 0.361
0.136 −0.082 0.048
0.136 0.200 0.046
0.319 0.680 0.291
0.137 −0.173 0.007
0.156 0.251 0.056
0.381 0.492 0.899
0.125**
0.052
0.016
0.081
0.066
0.222
−0.155**
0.052
0.003
0.053*
0.029
0.061
0.029
0.034
0.391
−0.082**
0.040
0.043
**
**
0.061 0.032 −0.032 −0.053
0.030 0.026 0.125 0.138
0.040 0.216 0.796 0.698
0.025 0.030 −0.137 0.051
0.035 0.032 0.150 0.172
0.483 0.354 0.360 0.766
−0.108 −0.073** −0.168 0.375*
0.038 0.033 0.179 0.218
0.004 0.025 0.348 0.086
0.057 0.009 −0.179
0.116 0.010 0.140
0.624 0.335 0.203
0.053 0.013 −0.095 −2.100**
0.141 0.011 0.175 0.389
0.709 0.255 0.587 0.000
0.003 0.007 0.254 −1.434**
0.155 0.011 0.201 0.467
0.984 0.530 0.207 0.002
−0.455 0.305 1.692**
0.303 0.311 0.315
0.133 0.328 0.000 921 2.68
