IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/appene/v232y2018icp462-472.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technicalizing non-technical participatory social impact assessment of prospective cellulosic biorefineries: Psychometric quantification and implications

Author

Listed:
  • Asah, Stanley T.
  • Baral, Nabin

Abstract

Participatory social impact assessments (PSIAs) are most accurate reflections of social impacts. But, effective integration of PSIAs into Environmental Impact Assessments, decision-making and project implementation present drawbacks. Because of its qualitative content, PSIAs outcomes are termed non-technical—allegedly defying reliable and valid quantification, and consequently impeding determination of impact rankings that inform social investment priorities given limited mitigation and enhancement resources. The participatory fora typically used in PSIAs leads to inadequate representation and outcomes that reflect mostly the perspectives of those who can afford to attend. Social impact assessments are also criticized for lacking reliability. We present a mix methods approach for reliable and representative quantification of PSIAs of cellulosic biorefineries. We conducted 35 structured stakeholder deliberative fora. Four main impact dimensions, each with positive and negative sub-dimensions, emerged from those fora: economic, technical, environmental, and socio-cultural and political impacts. We used these results to develop eight psychometric scales used to quantitatively appraise PSIAs of proposed biorefineries. We compared impacts among social groups differentiated by: un/familiarity with other forms of bioenergy operations and industrial activity, and in/activity in the labor force. No nonresponse biases were detected. All PSIA instruments were highly reliable; Cronbach α ranged from 0.73 to 0.93. There were significant differences in impacts based on stated differentiating criteria, the most distinguishing of which were positive economic, and negative socio-political and cultural, impacts. We found evidence of the operation of the familiarity heuristic. We show that PSIAs of cellulosic biorfineries can be reliably quantified while ensuring representation, comparisons and determination of priorities to facilitate decision making. Hence, unreliable quantification may no longer deter effective use of PSIAs in cellulosic biorefinery establishment and operation. We discuss the implications of our findings for the sitting of biorefineries, impact mitigation and enhancement, and for PSIAs of other forms of energy.

Suggested Citation

  • Asah, Stanley T. & Baral, Nabin, 2018. "Technicalizing non-technical participatory social impact assessment of prospective cellulosic biorefineries: Psychometric quantification and implications," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 232(C), pages 462-472.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:232:y:2018:i:c:p:462-472
    DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.09.199
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261918315113
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.09.199?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lee Cronbach, 1951. "Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 16(3), pages 297-334, September.
    2. Becker, Henk A., 2001. "Social impact assessment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(2), pages 311-321, January.
    3. Fox, Craig R. & Levav, Jonathan, 2000. "Familiarity Bias and Belief Reversal in Relative Likelihood Judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 268-292, July.
    4. D׳Souza, Clare & Yiridoe, Emmanuel K., 2014. "Social acceptance of wind energy development and planning in rural communities of Australia: A consumer analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 262-270.
    5. You, Siming & Lim, Yu Jie & Dai, Yanjun & Wang, Chi-Hwa, 2018. "On the temporal modelling of solar photovoltaic soiling: Energy and economic impacts in seven cities," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 1136-1146.
    6. Mu, Yaqian & Cai, Wenjia & Evans, Samuel & Wang, Can & Roland-Holst, David, 2018. "Employment impacts of renewable energy policies in China: A decomposition analysis based on a CGE modeling framework," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 256-267.
    7. Moffat, Kieren & Zhang, Airong, 2014. "The paths to social licence to operate: An integrative model explaining community acceptance of mining," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 61-70.
    8. Michael Siegrist & Melanie Connor & Carmen Keller, 2012. "Trust, Confidence, Procedural Fairness, Outcome Fairness, Moral Conviction, and the Acceptance of GM Field Experiments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1394-1403, August.
    9. Bergmann, Ariel & Colombo, Sergio & Hanley, Nick, 2008. "Rural versus urban preferences for renewable energy developments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 616-625, April.
    10. Anderson, Carmel, 2013. "The networked minority: How a small group prevailed in a local windfarm conflict," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 97-108.
    11. Maslov, Nicolas & Claramunt, Christophe & Wang, Tianzhen & Tang, Tianhao, 2017. "Method to estimate the visual impact of an offshore wind farm," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 1422-1430.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alberto Diantini & Salvatore Eugenio Pappalardo & Tim Edwards Powers & Daniele Codato & Giuseppe Della Fera & Marco Heredia-R & Francesco Facchinelli & Edoardo Crescini & Massimo De Marchi, 2020. "Is this a Real Choice? Critical Exploration of the Social License to Operate in the Oil Extraction Context of the Ecuadorian Amazon," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-24, October.
    2. Lavdmaa Dagvadorj & Bolorchimeg Byamba & Mamoru Ishikawa, 2018. "Effect of Local Community’s Environmental Perception on Trust in a Mining Company: A Case Study in Mongolia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-12, February.
    3. Sardaro, Ruggiero & Faccilongo, Nicola & Roselli, Luigi, 2019. "Wind farms, farmland occupation and compensation: Evidences from landowners’ preferences through a stated choice survey in Italy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    4. Noriko Akita & Yasuo Ohe & Shoko Araki & Makoto Yokohari & Toru Terada & Jay Bolthouse, 2020. "Managing Conflicts with Local Communities over the Introduction of Renewable Energy: The Solar-Rush Experience in Japan," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-20, August.
    5. Giovanni Ottomano Palmisano & Annalisa De Boni & Rocco Roma & Claudio Acciani, 2021. "Influence of Wind Turbines on Farmlands’ Value: Exploring the Behaviour of a Rural Community through the Decision Tree," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-25, August.
    6. Richert, Claire & Rogers, Abbie & Burton, Michael, 2015. "Measuring the extent of a Social License to Operate: The influence of marine biodiversity offsets in the oil and gas sector in Western Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 121-129.
    7. Brock Bastian & Airong Zhang & Kieren Moffat, 2015. "The Interaction of Economic Rewards and Moral Convictions in Predicting Attitudes toward Resource Use," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-9, August.
    8. Sonnberger, Marco & Ruddat, Michael, 2017. "Local and socio-political acceptance of wind farms in Germany," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 56-65.
    9. Walter, Kara A. & Thacher, Jennifer & Chermak, Janie M., 2023. "Examining willingness to pay for energy futures in a fossil and renewable energy-rich locale," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    10. Yoon, Junghyun & Lee, Hee Yong & Dinwoodie, John, 2015. "Competitiveness of container terminal operating companies in South Korea and the industry–university–government network," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1-14.
    11. Md. Mominur Rahman & Bilkis Akhter, 2021. "The impact of investment in human capital on bank performance: evidence from Bangladesh," Future Business Journal, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-13, December.
    12. Deepak, 2016. "Antecedent Value of Professional Commitment and Job Involvement in Determining Job Satisfaction," Management and Labour Studies, XLRI Jamshedpur, School of Business Management & Human Resources, vol. 41(2), pages 154-164, May.
    13. Marianela Denegri & María Baeza & Natalia Salinas-Oñate & Verónica Peñaloza & Horacio Miranda & Ligia Orellana, 2014. "Materialism in Pedagogy Students in Chile," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 117(2), pages 505-521, June.
    14. Tomislav Letnik & Katja Hanžič & Giuseppe Luppino & Matej Mencinger, 2022. "Impact of Logistics Trends on Freight Transport Development in Urban Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-18, December.
    15. Bohlmann, H.R. & Horridge, J.M. & Inglesi-Lotz, R. & Roos, E.L. & Stander, L., 2019. "Regional employment and economic growth effects of South Africa’s transition to low-carbon energy supply mix," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 830-837.
    16. Zhihui Wang & Liangzhen Nie & Eila Jeronen & Lihua Xu & Meiai Chen, 2023. "Understanding the Environmentally Sustainable Behavior of Chinese University Students as Tourists: An Integrative Framework," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-17, February.
    17. Amolo Elvis Juma Amolo, PhD & Charles Mallans Rambo, PhD & Charles Misiko Wafula, PhD, 2021. "Alternative Risk Transfer and Performance of Power Projects in Kenya," International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation, International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI), vol. 8(12), pages 28-35, December.
    18. Robert P. Garrett Jr. & Jeffrey G. Covin, 2015. "Internal Corporate Venture Operations Independence and Performance: A Knowledge–Based Perspective," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 39(4), pages 763-790, July.
    19. Kang, Min Jung & Park, Heejun, 2011. "Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3465-3475, June.
    20. chatterjee, susmita, 2017. "Empowerment translated to transition," MPRA Paper 80067, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:232:y:2018:i:c:p:462-472. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/405891/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.