Skip to main content

Table 9 Chi-square test p values between sociodemographic nominal variables (Appendix A: Table 6) and opinion nominal variables (Appendix A: Table 7)

From: Acceptability of genetically engineered algae biofuels in Europe: opinions of experts and stakeholders

Sociodemographic nominal variablesOpinion nominal variablesChi2p valueFisher’s test p value
GenderPersonal attitude as final consumer
Opinion about being final consumer of GE algae biofuel0.467 
Willingness to pay more money if higher engine performances were achieved compared to established biofuels0.959 
Willingness to pay more money if environmental advantages were achieved compared to fossil fuels0.504 
Suggestions to improve general social acceptance
Regulations before any genome engineered species is implemented0.0910.144
Higher or same economic benefits than using fossil fuels0.7740.824
Clear evidence of benefits use of genetic markers0.4790.516
Clear communication of risks and benefits of genome engineering technologies0.9831.000
Rigorous risk assessments of GM algae, involving scientists with minimal conflicts of interest, independent peer review, and public participation0.0790.122
Closed production systems with high security standards0.2170.268
Use of genetic markers0.1320.193
Minor survivability compared to natural strains0.6650.818
Use of new precise gene editing tools instead of traditional genome engineering0.2240.256
Regulations before any genome engineered species is implemented0.0550.069
Working fieldPersonal attitude as final consumer
Opinion about being final consumer of GE algae biofuel0.910 
Willingness to pay more money if higher engine performances were achieved compared to established biofuels0.757 
Willingness to pay more money if environmental advantages were achieved compared to fossil fuels0.637 
Suggestions to improve general social acceptance
Regulations before any genome engineered species is implemented0.389 
Higher or same economic benefits than using fossil fuels0.375 
Clear evidence of benefits use of genetic markers0.184 
Clear communication of risks and benefits of genome engineering technologies0.931 
Rigorous risk assessments of GM algae, involving scientists with minimal conflicts of interest, independent peer review, and public participation0.922 
Closed production systems with high security standards0.753 
Use of genetic markers0.900 
Minor survivability compared to natural strains0.136 
Use of new precise gene editing tools instead of traditional genome engineering0.500 
Regulations before any genome engineered species is implemented0.304 
  1. Fisher’s test was done in cases of having two dichotomous categorical variables