Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Oltra, C; Upham, P; Riesch, H; Boso, A; Brunsting, S; Duetschke, E; Lis, A (2012)
Languages: English
Types: Article
Studies of the factors involved in public perceptions of CO2 storage projects reveal a level of complexity and diversity that arguably confounds a comprehensive theoretical account. To some extent, a conceptual approach that simply organises the relevant social scientific knowledge thematically, rather than seeking an integrated explanation, is as useful as any single account that fails to do justice to the contingencies involved. This paper reviews and assembles such knowledge in terms of six themes and applies these themes to five European cases of carbon capture and storage (CCS) implementation. We identify the main factors involved in community responses to CCS as relating to: the characteristics of the project; the engagement process; risk perceptions; the actions of the stakeholders; the characteristics of the community, and the socio-political context.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Bäckstrand, K., Meadowcroft, J., Oppenheimer, M., The politics and policy of carbon capture and storage: Framing an emergent technology, Global Environmental Change, 2011, 21, 275-281.
    • Fischedick, M., Esken, A., Luhman, H., Schuwer, D. and Supersberger, N., CO2-Capture and Geological Storage as a Climate Policy Option, Technologies, Concepts, Perspectives, Wuppertal Spezial 35 e, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, 2007, http://www.wupperinst.org/uploads/tx_wibeitrag/ws35e.pdf Kirchsteiger, C., Carbon capture and storage-desirability from a risk management point of view, Safety Science, 2008, 46, 7, 1149-1154.
    • Meadowcroft, J. and Langhelle, O., Caching the Carbon: The Politics and Policy of Carbon Capture and Storage, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2011.
    • House of Commons (HoC), Science and Technology Committee, Meeting UK Energy and Climate Needs: The Role of Carbon Capture and Storage, First Report of Session 2005-06, Volume II Oral and Written Evidence, Report HC 578-II, 9 February, The Stationery Office, London, 2006.
    • Van Alphen, K., van Voorst, T., Voorst, Q., Hekkert, M. and Smits, R., Societal acceptance of carbon capture and storage technologies, Energy Policy, 2007, 35, 4368-4380.
    • Ramírez, A., Hoogwijk, M., Hendriks, C. and Faaij, A., Using a participatory approach to develop a sustainability framework for carbon capture and storage systems in the Netherlands, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2008, 2, 136-154.
    • Oltra, C., Sala, R., Solà, R., Di Masso, M. and Rowe, G., Lay perceptions of carbon capture and storage technologies, International Journal of greenhouse Gas Control, 2010, 4, 698-706.
    • Upham, P. and Roberts, T., Public perceptions of CCS: emergent themes in pan-European focus groups and implications for communications, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2011, 5, 1359-1367.
    • Brunsting, S., Upham, P., Dütschke, E., De Best Waldhober, M., Oltra, C., Desbarats, J., Riesch, H., Reiner and D., Communicating CCS: Applying communications theory to public perceptions of carbon capture and storage, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2011, 5, 6, 1651-1662.
    • Clarke, L. and Short, J., Social Organization and Risk: Some Current Controversies, Annual Review of Sociology, 1993, 19, 375-399.
    • Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M. and Bürer, M. J., Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept, Energy Policy, 2007, 35, 2683-2691.
    • Hammond, J. and Shackley, S., Towards a Public Communication and Engagement Strategy for Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Projects in Scotland, A Review of Research Findings, CCS project experiences, Tools, Resources and Best Practices, Working paper SCCS 2010-08, 2010.
    • http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/sccs/SCCTS_WP4_Final_Report.pdf Rabe, B. G., Beyond NIMBY: Hazardous Waste Siting in Canada and the United States, Washington, DC, Brookings Institution, 1994.
    • Kunreuther, H., Slovic, P. and MacGregor, D., Risk perception and trust: Challenges for facility siting, Risk: Health, Safety and the Environment, 1996, 7, 109-118.
    • Covello, V. and Sandman, P. M., Risk communication: Evolution and Revolution, in: Wolbarst, A., ed., Solutions to an Environment in Peril, John Hopkins University Press, 2001.
    • National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), Best Practices for Public Outreach and Education for Carbon Storage Projects, 2009.
    • http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/refshelf/BPM_PublicOutreach.pdf World Resources Institute, CCS and Community Engagement. Guidelines for Community Engagement in Carbon Dioxide Capture, Transport and Storage Projects, 2010.
    • http://pdf.wri.org/ccs_and_community_engagement.pdf Desbarats J., Upham, P., Riesch, H., Reiner, D., Brunsting S., Best-Waldhober, M., Duetschke E., Oltra C, and Sala, R. and McLachlan, C., Review of the public participation practices for CCS and Non-CCS projects in Europe, 2010.
    • Breukers, S., Pol, M., Upham, P. Lis, A., Desbarats, J., Roberts, T., Duetschke, E., Oltra, C., Brunsting, S., De Best-Waldhober, M., Reiner, D., and Riesch, H., Engagement and communication strategies for CCS projects: Gaps between current and desired practices and exemplary strategies, Deliverable 3.1 NEARCO2 Project, 2011.
    • Reiner, D., Riesch, H., Chyong, C.K, Brunsting, S. de Best-Waldhober, M., Duetschke, E., Oltra, C. Lis, A., Desbarats, J., Pol, M., Breukers, S., Upham, P., Mander, S., Opinion shaping factors towards CCS and local CCS projects: Public and stakeholder survey and focus groups. NearCO2 WP2 report, University of Cambridge, 2011.
    • Brunsting, S. Best-Waldhober, de M., Feenstra, C.F.J., Mikunda, T., Stakeholder participation practices and onshore CCS: Lessons from the Dutch CCS Case Barendrecht, Proceedings of the GHGT-10 Conference, Amsterdam 2010.
    • Dütschke, E., What drives local public acceptance. Comparing two cases from Germany, Proceedings of the GHGT-10 Conference, Amsterdam, 2010.
    • Covello, V. and Allen, F., Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication, Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy Analysis, 1988.
    • http://www.epa.gov/care/library/7_cardinal_rules.pdf Furuseth, O., Community sensitivity to a hazardous waste facility, Landscape Urban Planning, 1989, 17, 357-370.
    • Slovic, P., Flynn, J. and Gregory, R., Stigma happens: social problems in the siting of nuclear waste facilities, Risk Analysis, 1994, 14, 773-777.
    • Upham, P., Whitmarsh, L., Poortinga, W., Purdam, K. and Devine-Wright, P., Public Attitudes to Environmental Change -a selective review of theory and practice, report for RCUK/LWEC, 2009. http://www.lwec.org.uk/news-archive/2009/30102009-reportpublished-public-attitudes-environmental-change Whitmarsh, L, Upham, P., Poortinga, W., McLachlan, C., Darnton, A., Devine-Wright, P., Demski, C., and Sherry-Brennan, F., Public Attitudes to and Engagement with LowCarbon Energy: A selective review of academic and non-academic literatures, Report for RCUK Energy Programme, 2011. http://www.rcukenergy.org.uk/news.html Lindell, M. and Earle, T., How close is close enough: Public perceptions of the risks of industrial facilities, Risk Analysis, 1983, 3.
    • Devine-Wright, P., Rethinking NIMBYism: The Role of Place Attachment and Place Identity in Explaining Place-protective Action, Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 2009, 19, 426-441.
    • Rogers, G., Siting potentially hazardous facilities: what factors impact perceived and acceptable risk?, Landscape and Urban Planning, 1998, 39, 265-281.
    • Lober, D., Public Behavioral and Attitudinal Response to Siting a Waste Disposal Facility, Policy Studies Journal, 1995, 23, 3, 499-518.
    • Upham, P. and Shackley, S., The case of a proposed 21.5MWe biomass gasifier in Winkleigh, Devon: implications for governance of renewable energy planning, Energy Policy, 2006, 34, 15, 2161-2172.
    • Walker, G. and Devine-Wright, P., Community renewable energy: What does it mean?, Energy Policy, 2008, 36, 497-500.
    • Warren, Ch. R., Lumsden, C., O'Dowd, S. and Birnie, R.V., 'Green On Green': Public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2005, 48, 6, 853-875.
    • Devine-Wright, P., Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy, Wind Energy, 2005, 8, 125-139.
    • Wolsink, M., Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes: Equity and fairness instead of 'backyard motives, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2007, 11, 1188-1207.
    • Carnes, S.A., Copenhaver, E.D., Sorensen, J.H., Soderstrom, E.J., Reed, J.H., Bjornstad, D.J. and Peelle, E., Incentives and nuclear waste siting: Prospects and constraints, Energy Systems Policy, 1983, 7, 4.
    • Wolsink, M., Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support, Renewable Energy, 2000, 21, 1, 49-64.
    • Kunreuther, H., Fitzgerald, K. and Aarts, T.D., Siting Noxious Facilities: A test of the Facility Siting Credo, Risk Analysis, 1993, 13, 301-18. 318 ? Kunreuther, H. and Easterling, D., The role of compensation in siting hazardous facilities, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 1996, 15, 601- 622.
    • Kunreuther , H., Easterling, D., Desvousges, W., and Slovic, P., Public Attitudes Toward Siting a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada, Risk Analysis, 1990, 10, 469-484.
    • Elster, J., Local Justice: How Institutions Allocate Scarce Goods and Necessary Burdens, Russell Sage Foundation, 1992.
    • Sinclair, P., Löfstedt, R., The influence of trust in a biomass plant application: the case study of Sutton, UK, Biomass and Bioenergy, 2001, 21, 3, 177-184.
    • Rogers, J.C., Simmons, E.A., Convery, I. and Weatherall, A., Public perceptions of opportunities for community-based renewable energy projects, Energy Policy, 2008, 36, 4217-4226 Bierle, T. and Cayford, J., Democracy in practice: public participation in environmental decisions, Washington, RFF Press, 2002.
    • Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. J., A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms, Science, Technology & Human, Values 30, 2, 251-290, 2005.
    • Abelson, J. and Gauvin, F.P., Assessing the Impacts of Public Participation: Concepts, Evidence and Policy Implications, Research Report P/06 Public Involvement Network, 2006.
    • Bradbury, J., Public Engagement in CCS: Analysis of Six U.S. Projects, InCluESEV International Workshop, London, October-November, 2011.
    • Chess, C. and Purcell, K., Public Participation and the Environment: Do We Know What Works?, Environmental Science & Technology, 1999, 33, 16.
    • Slovic, P., Perception of risk: Reflection on the psychometric paradigm, Golding, D. and Krimsky, S. eds., Social theories of risk, Westport, Praeger, 1992.
    • Renn, O., Three decades of risk research: accomplishments and new challenges, Journal of Risk Research 1, 1998, 1, 49-71.
    • Wildavsky, A. and Dake, K., Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why? Daedalus, 1990, 119, 41-60.
    • Eiser, J.R., Miles, S. and Frewer, L, Trust, Perceived Risk, and Attitudes Toward Food Technologies, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2002, 32, 11, 1559-1816.
    • Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Derby, S.L. and Keeney, R.L., Acceptable Risk, New York, Cambridge University Press, 1981.
    • Slovic, P., Perceived risk, trust and democracy, Risk Analysis, 1993, 13, 6, 675-682.
    • Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N., Trust, the Asymmetry Principle and the Role of Prior Beliefs, Risk Analysis, 2004, 24, 6, 1475-1486.
    • Cvetkovich, G. and Löfstedt, R., eds., Social Trust and the Management of Risk, London, Earthscan, 1999.
    • Kasperson, J. and Kasperson, R., The Social Contours of Risk, V. 1. Publics, Risk Communication & the Social Amplification of Risk, London, Earthscan, 2005.
    • Slovic, P., Layman, M., Kraus, N. Flynn, J., Chalmers, J. and Gesell, G., Perceived Risk, Stigma, and Potential Economic Impacts of a High- Level Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada, Risk Analysis, 1991, 11, 4.
    • Löfstedt, R., Evaluation of Siting Strategies: The Case of Two UK Waste Tire Incinerators, Risk, Health, Safety and the Environment, 1997, 10, 7-30.
    • Eltham, D.C. and Harrison, P. et al., Change in public attitudes towards a Cornish wind fam: implications of planning, Energy Policy, 2008, 36, 1, 23-33.
    • Cowell, R., Wind energy and the planning problem: The experience of Wales, European Environment, 2007, 17, 5, 294-306.
    • Jobert, A., Laborgne, P. and Mimler, S., Local acceptance of wind energy: Factors of success identified in French and German case studies, Energy Policy, 2007, 35, 2751-2760.
    • Boyatzis, R., Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998.
    • Gemeente Barendrecht, Facts and figures, 2009. Available online: http://www.barendrecht.nl /content.jsp?objectid=980 Eurobarometer, Public Awareness and Acceptance of CO2 capture and storage. May 2011.
    • http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_364_en.pdf Webler, T., Tuler, S. and Krueger, R., What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public, Environmental Management, 2001, 27, 435-450.
    • Petts, J., Public Engagement to build trust: false hopes?, Journal of Risk Research, 2008, 11, 821-835.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Funded by projects

  • EC | NEARCO2

Cite this article