IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/appene/v279y2020ics030626192031237x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding social licence to operate for onshore gas development: How the underlying drivers fit together

Author

Listed:
  • Walton, Andrea
  • McCrea, Rod

Abstract

Unconventional gas plays a significant role in transitioning to low carbon energy sources; however, its extraction is socially contested, and proponents increasingly face social licence issues. Explaining social acceptance for unconventional gas is complex, with multiple factors at play. This study uses comprehensive statistical modelling to explain social acceptance of a local coal seam gas (CSG) development in its pre-approval phase. Using a representative sample of 400 randomly selected residents in rural Australia, the statistical model explained 83% of variation in acceptance and measured interdependencies between eight factors determining acceptance. These factors were: effects from industry activity (perceived impacts and perceived benefits); distributional fairness (the spread of costs and benefits); the relational aspects between the host community and industry (perceptions of trust in industry, relationship quality and procedural fairness); governance of the industry (informal and formal governance, and trust in governing bodies); and knowledge (of the local CSG industry). Results showed that perceived impacts were the main driver of acceptance, with perceived benefits, distributional fairness, and trust in industry the next most important determinants. Relationship quality and procedural fairness predicted trust. Industry knowledge was only a minor determinant of acceptance. Those ‘rejecting’ CSG development had starkly more negative perceptions of the underlying factors than those ‘supporting’. However, both had higher self-rated knowledge than those who felt ‘lukewarm’ about CSG. This highly predictive statistical model can be used by industry to direct their efforts at the most important drivers of acceptance, such as benefit sharing and addressing concerns about impacts, and for planning their community engagement and communication. Policy makers and regulators can use the model to guide their expectations of industry when assessing projects for approval, including building trust through effective community engagement. Moreover, the research suggests that information is best targeted at residents with ‘lukewarm’ or less established views, and points to the importance of providing them with specific information about important factors underlying social acceptance such as benefit sharing, impact mitigation, procedural fairness, and governance, rather than general industry information. These insights help create the necessary preconditions for establishing a social licence to operate for an onshore gas development.

Suggested Citation

  • Walton, Andrea & McCrea, Rod, 2020. "Understanding social licence to operate for onshore gas development: How the underlying drivers fit together," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:279:y:2020:i:c:s030626192031237x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115750
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626192031237X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115750?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. Luke, Hanabeth, 2017. "Social resistance to coal seam gas development in the Northern Rivers region of Eastern Australia: Proposing a diamond model of social license to operate," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 266-280.
    2. Adam Corner & Lorraine Whitmarsh & Dimitrios Xenias, 2012. "Uncertainty, scepticism and attitudes towards climate change: biased assimilation and attitude polarisation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 114(3), pages 463-478, October.
    3. Chapman, Andrew J. & McLellan, Benjamin C. & Tezuka, Tetsuo, 2018. "Prioritizing mitigation efforts considering co-benefits, equity and energy justice: Fossil fuel to renewable energy transition pathways," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 187-198.
    4. 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.
    5. Hall, N. & Ashworth, P. & Devine-Wright, P., 2013. "Societal acceptance of wind farms: Analysis of four common themes across Australian case studies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 200-208.
    6. Lacey, Justine & Carr-Cornish, Simone & Zhang, Airong & Eglinton, Kelvyn & Moffat, Kieren, 2017. "The art and science of community relations: Procedural fairness at Newmont's Waihi Gold operations, New Zealand," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 245-254.
    7. Whitmarsh, Lorraine & Nash, Nick & Upham, Paul & Lloyd, Alyson & Verdon, James P. & Kendall, J.-Michael, 2015. "UK public perceptions of shale gas hydraulic fracturing: The role of audience, message and contextual factors on risk perceptions and policy support," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 419-430.
    8. Colvin, R.M. & Witt, G.Bradd & Lacey, Justine, 2016. "How wind became a four-letter word: Lessons for community engagement from a wind energy conflict in King Island, Australia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 483-494.
    9. Mason, Claire M. & Paxton, Gillian & Parsons, Richard & Parr, Joanna M. & Moffat, Kieren, 2014. "“For the benefit of Australians”: Exploring national expectations of the mining industry," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 1-8.
    10. Wustenhagen, Rolf & Wolsink, Maarten & Burer, Mary Jean, 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2683-2691, May.
    11. Matlaba, Valente J. & Mota, José Aroudo & Maneschy, Maria Cristina & Filipe dos Santos, Jorge, 2017. "Social perception at the onset of a mining development in Eastern Amazonia, Brazil," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 157-166.
    12. Wang, Sen, 2019. "Managing forests for the greater good: The role of the social license to operate," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 1-1.
    13. Zhang, Airong & Moffat, Kieren, 2015. "A balancing act: The role of benefits, impacts and confidence in governance in predicting acceptance of mining in Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 25-34.
    14. Yang, Lin & Zhang, Xian & McAlinden, Karl J., 2016. "The effect of trust on people's acceptance of CCS (carbon capture and storage) technologies: Evidence from a survey in the People's Republic of China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 69-79.
    15. Mundaca, Luis & Busch, Henner & Schwer, Sophie, 2018. "‘Successful’ low-carbon energy transitions at the community level? An energy justice perspective," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 292-303.
    16. Hammond, Geoffrey P. & O’Grady, Áine, 2017. "Indicative energy technology assessment of UK shale gas extraction," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 185(P2), pages 1907-1918.
    17. Lacey, Justine & Malakar, Yuwan & McCrea, Rod & Moffat, Kieren, 2019. "Public perceptions of established and emerging mining technologies in Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 125-135.
    18. Mercer-Mapstone, Lucy & Rifkin, Will & Louis, Winnifred & Moffat, Kieren, 2017. "Meaningful dialogue outcomes contribute to laying a foundation for social licence to operate," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 347-355.
    19. Naveed Paydara, Olga Schenk, Ashley Bowers, Sanya Carley, John Rupp and John D. Graham, 2016. "The Effect of Community Reinvestment Funds on Local Acceptance of Unconventional Gas Development," Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1).
    20. Hajkowicz, Stefan A. & Heyenga, Sonja & Moffat, Kieren, 2011. "The relationship between mining and socio-economic well being in Australia's regions," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 30-38, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stronge, Dean C. & Kannemeyer, Robyn L. & Edwards, Peter, 2024. "Building social licence to operate: A framework for gaining and maintaining meaningful, trustworthy relationships," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    2. Scovell, Mitchell & McCrea, Rod & Walton, Andrea & Poruschi, Lavinia, 2024. "Local acceptance of solar farms: The impact of energy narratives," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 189(PB).
    3. Dumbrell, Nikki P. & Wheeler, Sarah Ann & Zuo, Alec & Adamson, David, 2024. "Comparing Australian public and farmer views on agricultural land use and management practices for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).

    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. Lacey, Justine & Malakar, Yuwan & McCrea, Rod & Moffat, Kieren, 2019. "Public perceptions of established and emerging mining technologies in Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 125-135.
    2. McCrea, Dr Rod & Walton, Dr Andrea & Jeanneret, Ms Talia, 2020. "An opportunity to say no: Comparing local community attitudes toward onshore unconventional gas development in pre-approval and operational phases," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    3. Xu, Min & Liu, Yong & Cui, Caiyun & Xia, Bo & Ke, Yongjian & Skitmore, Martin, 2023. "Social acceptance of NIMBY facilities: A comparative study between public acceptance and the social license to operate analytical frameworks," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    4. Cruz, Thiago Leite & Matlaba, Valente José & Mota, José Aroudo & Filipe dos Santos, Jorge, 2021. "Measuring the social license to operate of the mining industry in an Amazonian town: A case study of Canaã dos Carajás, Brazil," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    5. van der Plank, Sien & Walsh, Bríd & Behrens, Paul, 2016. "The expected impacts of mining: Stakeholder perceptions of a proposed mineral sands mine in rural Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 129-136.
    6. 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.
    7. Walsh, Bríd & van der Plank, Sien & Behrens, Paul, 2017. "The effect of community consultation on perceptions of a proposed mine: A case study from southeast Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 163-171.
    8. Stuart, Alice & Bond, Alan & Franco, Aldina M.A. & Baker, Julia & Gerrard, Chris & Danino, Vittoria & Jones, Kylie, 2023. "Conceptualising social licence to operate," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(PA).
    9. Zanini, Marco Tulio Fundão & Migueles, Carmen Pires & Gambirage, Cinara & Silva, Jaison, 2023. "Barriers to local community participation in mining projects: The eroding role of power imbalance and information asymmetry," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(PB).
    10. França Pimenta, Adriano Augusto & Demajorovic, Jacques & Saraiva de Souza, Maria Tereza & de Carvalho Pedro, Samara & Pisano, Viviane, 2021. "Social licence to operate model: Critical factors of social acceptance of mining in the Brazilian Amazon," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    11. Heffron, Raphael J. & Downes, Lauren & Ramirez Rodriguez, Oscar M. & McCauley, Darren, 2021. "The emergence of the ‘social licence to operate’ in the extractive industries?," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    12. Mercer-Mapstone, Lucy & Rifkin, Will & Moffat, Kieren & Louis, Winnifred, 2017. "Conceptualising the role of dialogue in social licence to operate," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 137-146.
    13. Yıldız, Taşkın Deniz & Kural, Orhan, 2020. "The effects of the mining operation activities permit process on the mining sector in Turkey," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    14. 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.
    15. Eduardo Martínez-Mendoza & Luis Arturo Rivas-Tovar & Luis Enrique García-Santamaría, 2021. "Wind energy in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec: conflicts and social implications," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(8), pages 11706-11731, August.
    16. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2022. "Beyond the triangle of renewable energy acceptance: The five dimensions of domestic hydrogen acceptance," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    17. Baumber, Alex & Scerri, Moira & Schweinsberg, Stephen, 2019. "A social licence for the sharing economy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 12-23.
    18. Leeuwerik, R.N.C. & Rozemeijer, M.J.C. & van Leeuwen, J., 2021. "Conceptualizing the interaction of context, process and status in the Social License to operate: The case of marine diamond mining in Namibia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    19. Andrew B. Moynihan & Geertje Schuitema, 2020. "Values Influence Public Acceptability of Geoengineering Technologies Via Self-Identities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-33, June.
    20. Boutilier, Robert G., 2020. "Narratives and networks model of the social licence," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).

    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:279:y:2020:i:c:s030626192031237x. 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.