IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v132y2019icp272-282.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rethinking Australian CSG transitions in participatory contexts of local social conflict, community engagement, and shifts towards cleaner energy

Author

Listed:
  • Hindmarsh, Richard
  • Alidoust, Sara

Abstract

In public participatory contexts, at a time of policy crisis, this paper explores the enduring contestation, and associated policy responses to such contestation, regarding controversial coal seam gas (CSG) well siting in Australia's CSG development States of Queensland, New South Wales, and Victoria. Participatory deficits are well identified in the Australian literature on the “CSG debate” and subsequently in our analysis of (participatory-associated) policy responses to the CSG debate. Highlighted are concerns around inadequate community engagement involving inequitable power relations between communities and CSG companies, CSG project information deficits and community disrespect, and deficit State CSG regulations. The findings show that policy responses have been more supportive of CSG developers and development than “challenger” issues. Consequently, enduring local social conflict has resulted, and overall, transitions to cleaner energy pathways to meet climate change policy obligations have become “messy”. Overall, CSG development reflects a significantly dysfunctional, “decoupled”, socio-technical energy development system, especially regarding social concerns. Accordingly, participatory remedies are posed on how policymakers can better engage with the concerns of communities and citizens in the broader context of multi-functional and multi-stakeholder energy/landscape conflicts, to better address these conflicts and ensure more effective cleaner energy transitions.

Suggested Citation

  • Hindmarsh, Richard & Alidoust, Sara, 2019. "Rethinking Australian CSG transitions in participatory contexts of local social conflict, community engagement, and shifts towards cleaner energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 272-282.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:132:y:2019:i:c:p:272-282
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2019.05.035
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421519303398
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.05.035?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. E. M. Nkoana & T. Waas & A. Verbruggen & C. J. Burman & J. Hugé, 2017. "Analytic framework for assessing participation processes and outcomes of climate change adaptation tools," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 1731-1760, October.
    2. Howard, Tanya, 2015. "Olivebranches and idiot's guides: Frameworks for community engagement in Australian wind farm development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 137-147.
    3. Dermont, Clau & Ingold, Karin & Kammermann, Lorenz & Stadelmann-Steffen, Isabelle, 2017. "Bringing the policy making perspective in: A political science approach to social acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 359-368.
    4. Wolsink, Maarten, 2007. "Planning of renewables schemes: Deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2692-2704, May.
    5. Curran, Giorel, 2017. "Social licence, corporate social responsibility and coal seam gas: framing the new political dynamics of contestation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 427-435.
    6. Robert G. Boutilier & Michal Zdziarski, 2017. "Managing stakeholder networks for a social license to build," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(8-9), pages 498-513, September.
    7. 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.
    8. Dan van der Horst & Saskia Vermeylen, 2011. "Local Rights to Landscape in the Global Moral Economy of Carbon," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(4), pages 455-470.
    9. Aaen, Sara Bjørn & Kerndrup, Søren & Lyhne, Ivar, 2016. "Beyond public acceptance of energy infrastructure: How citizens make sense and form reactions by enacting networks of entities in infrastructure development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 576-586.
    10. Walker, Gordon & Devine-Wright, Patrick & Hunter, Sue & High, Helen & Evans, Bob, 2010. "Trust and community: Exploring the meanings, contexts and dynamics of community renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 2655-2663, June.
    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. Callan Harker & Maureen Hassall & Paul Lant & Nikodem Rybak & Paul Dargusch, 2022. "What Can Machine Learning Teach Us about Australian Climate Risk Disclosures?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-22, August.
    2. Walsh, Kathryn Bills & Haggerty, Julia H., 2020. "Social license to operate during Wyoming's coalbed methane boom: Implications of private participation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    3. 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).

    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. 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).
    2. Pepermans, Yves & Loots, Ilse, 2013. "Wind farm struggles in Flanders fields: A sociological perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 321-328.
    3. Lode, M.L. & te Boveldt, G. & Coosemans, T. & Ramirez Camargo, L., 2022. "A transition perspective on Energy Communities: A systematic literature review and research agenda," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    4. Berka, Anna L. & Creamer, Emily, 2018. "Taking stock of the local impacts of community owned renewable energy: A review and research agenda," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 3400-3419.
    5. Musall, Fabian David & Kuik, Onno, 2011. "Local acceptance of renewable energy--A case study from southeast Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3252-3260, June.
    6. Bouchra El Houda Lamhamedi & Walter Timo de Vries, 2022. "An Exploration of the Land–(Renewable) Energy Nexus," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-17, May.
    7. Leer Jørgensen, Marie & Anker, Helle Tegner & Lassen, Jesper, 2020. "Distributive fairness and local acceptance of wind turbines: The role of compensation schemes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    8. Windemer, Rebecca, 2019. "Considering time in land use planning: An assessment of end-of-life decision making for commercially managed onshore wind schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    9. von Wirth, Timo & Gislason, Linda & Seidl, Roman, 2018. "Distributed energy systems on a neighborhood scale: Reviewing drivers of and barriers to social acceptance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 2618-2628.
    10. Seungkook Roh & Jin Won Lee & Qingchang Li, 2019. "Effects of Rank-Ordered Feature Perceptions of Energy Sources on the Choice of the Most Acceptable Power Plant for a Neighborhood: An Investigation Using a South Korean Nationwide Sample," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-21, March.
    11. Schneider, Nina & Rinscheid, Adrian, 2024. "The (de-)construction of technology legitimacy: Contending storylines surrounding wind energy in Austria and Switzerland," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    12. 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.
    13. Ferrario, Viviana & Castiglioni, Benedetta, 2017. "Visibility/invisibility in the 'making' of energy landscape. Strategies and policies in the hydropower development of the Piave river (Italian Eastern Alps)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 829-835.
    14. 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).
    15. Larsen, Sanne Vammen & Hansen, Anne Merrild & Nielsen, Helle Nedergaard, 2018. "The role of EIA and weak assessments of social impacts in conflicts over implementation of renewable energy policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 43-53.
    16. Zárate-Toledo, Ezequiel & Wood, Paul & Patiño, Rodrigo, 2021. "In search of wind farm sustainability on the Yucatan coast: Deficiencies and public perception of Environmental Impact Assessment in Mexico," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    17. Landeta-Manzano, Beñat & Arana-Landín, Germán & Calvo, Pilar M. & Heras-Saizarbitoria, Iñaki, 2018. "Wind energy and local communities: A manufacturer’s efforts to gain acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 314-324.
    18. 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.
    19. Natarajan, L. & Rydin, Y. & Lock, S.J. & Lee, M., 2018. "Navigating the participatory processes of renewable energy infrastructure regulation: A ‘local participant perspective’ on the NSIPs regime in England and Wales," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 201-210.
    20. Stadelmann-Steffen, Isabelle, 2019. "Bad news is bad news: Information effects and citizens’ socio-political acceptance of new technologies of electricity transmission," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 531-545.

    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:enepol:v:132:y:2019:i:c:p:272-282. 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/locate/enpol .

    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.