Exploring CCS community acceptance and public participation from a human and social capital perspective

  • Carmel AndersonEmail author
  • Jacki Schirmer
  • Norman Abjorensen
Original Article


The delay or cancellation of energy infrastructure projects, such as wind farms and nuclear power plants and more recently carbon capture and storage (CCS) because of community resistance and poor public participation processes are well known. Yet, some communities accept these projects with relative ease. The term acceptance implies passivity and as such does not necessarily reflect community approval or support. If acceptance is passive, what are the characteristics of a community in which the acceptance of CCS is achieved with relative ease; and what best-practice public participation processes are most appropriate for it? This paper attempts to answer these questions through a case study of Australia's Otway Project. Qualitative research methods were used to conduct a human and social capital analysis of the Otway community. An assessment of the project's public participation process was made in light of that analysis. The study found that the community needed capacity-building to enable it to become well-informed about CCS; and to help it develop the negotiation skills necessary to have the proponent address its concerns about the project in a timely manner. An assessment of the Otway public participation process found that while it implemented the majority of best practice principles in public participation, it lacked an adherence to three: transparency, fairness and capacity. A mindfulness of all principles of best practice in public participation would have ensured a fairer and more transparent process.


Acceptance Carbon capture and storage Community Human capital Public participation Social capital 



We would like to thank the farmers and residents in the Otway project area and other interviewees who participated in this research. We would also like to thank Dr Carolyn Hendriks, of the Australian National University, and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on this article.


  1. Arnstein SA (1969) Ladder of citizen participation. J Am Plan Assoc 35:216–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashworth P, Boughen N, Mayhew M, Millar F (2009) An integrated roadmap of communication activities around carbon capture and storage in Australia and beyond. Energy Procedia 1:4749–4756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashworth P, Rodriguez S, Miller (2010) A Case Study of the CO2CRC Otway Project. CSIRO Cited 3 December 2010
  4. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2009) Agriculture in Focus: Farmers’ Perception of a Change in Climate 2006–07–07?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=4625.0&issue=2006–07&num=&view. Cited 17 Sept 2010
  5. Barben D (2010) Analyzing acceptance politics: Towards an epistemological shift in the public understanding of science and technology. Public Understand Sci 19:274–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barr N (2005) The changing social landscape of rural victoria. The Victorian Department of Primary Industries, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  7. Beierle T, Cayford J (2002) Democracy in practice: Public participation in environmental decisions. Resources for the Future, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  8. Brohmann B, Fritsche U, Hünecke K (2006) Create Acceptance - Case 6: Bioenergy Village Jühnde Work package 2- Historical and recent attitude of stakeholders Cited 30 March 2011
  9. Brunsting S, de Best-Waldhober M, Feenstra C, et al. (2010) Stakeholder participation practices and onshore CCS: Lessons from the Dutch CCS Case Barendrecht. Paper presented at the 10th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Technologies, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 19–23 Sept 2010Google Scholar
  10. Burt R (2005) Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Carson L, Gelber K (2001) Ideas for Community Consultation: A discussion on principles and procedures for making consultation work. NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. Cited 20 August 2010
  12. CO2CRC (2007) Geosequestration Research Project Update. Cited 20 Sept 2010
  13. CO2CRC (n.d) Cited 20 Sept 2010
  14. Coleman J (1988) Social capital in the creation of human-capital. Am J Sociol 94:95–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Culley M, Hughey J (2008) Power and public participation in a hazardous waste dispute: A community case study. Am J Community Psychol 41:99–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DeCesar T (2010) Comment an evaluation of eminent domain and a national carbon capture and geologic sequestration program: Redefining the space below. Wake Forest L Rev 45:261–290Google Scholar
  17. Desbarats J, Upham P, Riesch H, et al. (2010) Review of the public participation practices for CCS and non-CCS projects in Europe. Institute for European Environmental Policy. Cited 27 Aug 2010
  18. Devine-Wright P, McAlpine G, Bately-White S (2001) Wind turbines in the landscape: An evaluation of local community involvement and other considerations in UK wind farm development. In: Edge M (ed) Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association, Edinburgh, 2001.Google Scholar
  19. Diduck A, Sinclair A (2002) Public involvement in environmental assessment: The case of the nonparticipant. Environ Manag 29:578–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Doughty C, Freifeld B, Trautz R (2008) Site characterization for CO2 geologic storage and vice versa: The Frio Brine pilot, Texas, USA as a case study. Environ Geol 54:1635–1656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dütschke E (2010) What drives local public acceptance – comparing two cases from Germany. Paper presented at the 10th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Technologies, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 19 – 23 Sept 2010Google Scholar
  22. Elliott M, Thomas I (2009) Environmental impact assessment in Australia: Theory and practice, 5th edn. The Federation Press, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  23. Eltham D, Harrison G, Allen S (2008) Change in public attitudes towards a Cornish wind farm: Implications for planning. Energy Policy 36:23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Feenstra C, Mikunda T, Brunsting S (2010) What happened in Barendrecht? Case study on the planned onshore carbon dioxide storage in Barendrecht, the Netherlands. Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands. Cited 3 December 2010
  25. Granovetter M (1973) The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol 78:1360–1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ha-Duong M, Gaultier M, de Guillebon B (2010) Social aspects of Total’s Lacq CO2 capture, transport and storage pilot project. Paper presented at the 10th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Technologies, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 19–23 September, 2010.Google Scholar
  27. Hance B, Chess C, Sandman P (1990) Industry risk communication manual: Improving dialogue with communities. Lewis Publishers, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  28. Heiskanen E, Hodson M, Mourik R et al (2006) Create Acceptance - Factors influencing the societal acceptance of new energy technologies: Meta-analysis of recent European projects Cited 20 April 2011.
  29. Hendriks C. Participatory and collaborative governance. In: Smith R, Vromen A, Cook I (eds) (forthcoming)Contemporary Politics in Australia: Theories, Practices and Issues Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hindmarsh R, Matthews C (2008) Deliberative speak at the turbine face: Community engagement, wind farms, and renewable energy transitions, in Australia. J Environ Pol Plann 10:217–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hodson M (2006) Create Acceptance, Work Package 2- Historical and recent attitudes of stakeholders Case 4 + 5: Crickdale Bioenergy Power Station andGoogle Scholar
  32. Huijts N, Midden C, Meijnders A (2007) Social acceptance of carbon dioxide storage. Energ Pol 35:2780–2789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hund G, Greenberg S (2010) FutureGen Case Study. Cited 30 March 2011.
  34. International Association of Public Participation (2004) Public Participation Spectrum Cited 2 September 2010.
  35. International Energy Agency (2009) Technology Roadmap Carbon Capture and Storage. IEA/OECD, Paris. Cited 6 October 2010
  36. Jolivet E, Heiskanen E (2010) Blowing against the wind—An exploratory application of actor network theory to the analysis of local controversies and participation processes in wind energy. Energ Pol 38:6746–6754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kinsella J, Goetz S, Partridge M et al (2010) Evaluating RD policies for social and human capital development. EuroChoices 9:42–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Layder D (1998) Sociological practice linking theory and social research. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. Leonard L, Onyx J (2003) Networking through loose and strong ties: An Australian qualitative study. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 14:189–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lin N (2001) Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lincoln Y, Guba E (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  42. Mays C, Poumade M (1996) Uncertain communication: Institutional discourse in nuclear waste repository sitting. In: Virginia H, Sublet V, Covello V, Tinker T (eds) Scientific uncertainty and its influence on the public communication process. Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop, Paris, France, September 8–10, 1994. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  43. International Council on Mining and Metals, Sustainable Development Framework, (n.d.) Cited 21 September 2010.
  44. Metz B, Davidson O, de Coninck H, Loos M, Meyer L (eds) (2005) IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  45. Moyne Shire Council (2010) Moyne Shire Community Profile. . Cited 28 Sept 2010
  46. Patton M (2002) Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  47. Personal communication (2007) with CO2CRC researchers and Otway farmersGoogle Scholar
  48. Pimbert M, Wakeford T (2001) Overview – Deliberative democracy and citizen empowerment. In Pimbert M, Wakeford T (eds) Participatory Learning Action Notes 40: Deliberative Democracy and Citizen Empowerment, International Institute for Economic Development, LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. Portman M, Duff J, Koppel J, Reisert J, Higgins M (2009) Offshore wind energy development in the exclusive economic zone: Legal and policy supports and impediments in Germany and the US. Energ Pol 37:3596–3607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Putnam R (2000) Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Reddel T, Woolcock G (2004) From consultation to participatory governance? A critical review of citizen engagement strategies in Queensland. Aust J Publ Admin 63(3):75–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shackley S, McLachlan C, Gough C (2004) The Public Perceptions of Carbon Capture and Storage. Working Paper 44, Tyndall Centre, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  53. State of Victoria, Department of Primary Industries (2004) Petroleum landowner questions answered. Cited 24 Aug 2010
  54. United Nations (2008) People Matter: Civic Engagement in Public Governance. World Public Sector Report. New York. Cited 12 Aug 2010
  55. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2000) The Aarhus Convention: An implementation guide Cited 12 May 2010
  56. Viitanen K, Kakulu I (2009) Global Concerns in Compulsory Purchase and Compensation Processes. International Federation of Surveyors. Cited 31 March 2011
  57. Webler T, Tuler S, Krueger R (2001) What is a good public participation process? five perspectives from the public. Environ Manag 27:435–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wolsink M (2000) Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: Institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renew Energ 21:49–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Woodhouse A (2006) Social capital and economic development in regional Australia: A case study. J Rural Stud 22:83–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Woolcock G, Brown V (2005) Principles of community engagement: From the literatures on natural resource management, local community development, human services and sustainability. Cited 10 Oct 2010
  61. Wűstenhagen R, Wolsink M, Burer, MJ (2007) Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energ Policy 2683–2691Google Scholar
  62. Zoellner J, Schweizer-Ries P, Wemheuer C (2008) Public acceptance of renewable energies: Results from case studies in Germany. Energ Pol 36:4136–4141CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carmel Anderson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jacki Schirmer
    • 1
  • Norman Abjorensen
    • 2
  1. 1.Fenner School of Environment and Society, College of Medicine, Biology and EnvironmentThe Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  2. 2.Crawford School of Economics and GovernmentThe Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations