IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v56y2013icp693-702.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Internet-based public debate of CCS: Lessons from online focus groups in Poland and Spain

Author

Listed:
  • Riesch, Hauke
  • Oltra, Christian
  • Lis, Aleksandra
  • Upham, Paul
  • Pol, Mariette

Abstract

This paper makes three contributions to the developing literature on public opinion and understanding of CCS. The first is a discussion of online focus groups as a deliberative method in experimental and perhaps consultative contexts. The second is the role of anchoring and associative reasoning in the development of public opinion of CCS, illustrated through the coincidental timing of the investigation with the Fukushima nuclear accident. The third is a discussion of managing public-facing energy messaging in an age of public access to online information. Two multi-day, online focus groups or “dialogue boards” were held, one in Poland and one in Spain, with participants drawn from regions with active CCS development potential. The nature of the groups led to participants being subject to wider social influence through discussion of the topic off-line. They were also able to research and present evidence on the topic to the group, deepening debate and allowing the emergence of ‘experts’. The study illustrates and affirms the importance of trust in message source, the difficulties of challenging pre-existing concerns and opinion and the challenge potentially posed by access to conflicting online information.

Suggested Citation

  • Riesch, Hauke & Oltra, Christian & Lis, Aleksandra & Upham, Paul & Pol, Mariette, 2013. "Internet-based public debate of CCS: Lessons from online focus groups in Poland and Spain," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 693-702.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:56:y:2013:i:c:p:693-702
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.01.029
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513000360
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.01.029?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. Minh Ha-Duong & Ana Sofia Campos & Alain Nadaï, 2007. "A survey on the public perception of CCS in France," Working Papers hal-00866557, HAL.
    2. Stern,Nicholas, 2007. "The Economics of Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521700801, October.
    3. Christian Oltra & Roser Sala & Àlex Boso, 2012. "The influence of information on individuals' reactions to CCS technologies: results from experimental online survey research," Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 2(3), pages 209-215, June.
    4. Huijts, Nicole M.A. & Midden, Cees J.H. & Meijnders, Anneloes L., 2007. "Social acceptance of carbon dioxide storage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2780-2789, May.
    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. Lock, Simon J. & Smallman, Melanie & Lee, Maria & Rydin, Yvonne, 2014. "“Nuclear energy sounded wonderful 40 years ago”: UK citizen views on CCS," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 428-435.
    2. Massol, Olivier & Tchung-Ming, Stéphane & Banal-Estañol, Albert, 2018. "Capturing industrial CO2 emissions in Spain: Infrastructures, costs and break-even prices," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 545-560.
    3. Hurlbert, Margot & Osazuwa-Peters, Mac, 2023. "Carbon capture and storage in Saskatchewan: An analysis of communicative practices in a contested technology," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    4. Martínez Arranz, Alfonso, 2015. "Carbon capture and storage: Frames and blind spots," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 249-259.

    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. L׳Orange Seigo, Selma & Dohle, Simone & Siegrist, Michael, 2014. "Public perception of carbon capture and storage (CCS): A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 848-863.
    2. Liu, Bingsheng & Xu, Yinghua & Yang, Yang & Lu, Shijian, 2021. "How public cognition influences public acceptance of CCUS in China: Based on the ABC (affect, behavior, and cognition) model of attitudes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    3. van Os, Herman W.A. & Herber, Rien & Scholtens, Bert, 2014. "Not Under Our Back Yards? A case study of social acceptance of the Northern Netherlands CCS initiative," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 923-942.
    4. 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.
    5. Lock, Simon J. & Smallman, Melanie & Lee, Maria & Rydin, Yvonne, 2014. "“Nuclear energy sounded wonderful 40 years ago”: UK citizen views on CCS," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 428-435.
    6. Duan, Hongxia, 2010. "The public perspective of carbon capture and storage for CO2 emission reductions in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 5281-5289, September.
    7. Stéphane Hallegatte, 2008. "A Proposal for a New Prescriptive Discounting Scheme: The Intergenerational Discount Rate," Working Papers 2008.47, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    8. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    9. Strand, Jon, 2011. "Carbon offsets with endogenous environmental policy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 371-378, March.
    10. Stern, Nicholas, 2018. "Public economics as if time matters: Climate change and the dynamics of policy," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 4-17.
    11. Lotze-Campen, Hermann & von Witzke, Harald & Noleppa, Steffen & Schwarz, Gerald, 2015. "Science for food, climate protection and welfare: An economic analysis of plant breeding research in Germany," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 79-84.
    12. Pycroft, Jonathan & Vergano, Lucia & Hope, Chris & Paci, Daniele & Ciscar, Juan Carlos, 2011. "A tale of tails: Uncertainty and the social cost of carbon dioxide," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 5, pages 1-29.
    13. Oliver Schenker, 2013. "Exchanging Goods and Damages: The Role of Trade on the Distribution of Climate Change Costs," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(2), pages 261-282, February.
    14. Luigi Aldieri & Jonas Grafström & Kristoffer Sundström & Concetto Paolo Vinci, 2019. "Wind Power and Job Creation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-23, December.
    15. Alejandro Lopez-Feldman, 2013. "Climate change, agriculture, and poverty: A household level analysis for rural Mexico," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 33(2), pages 1126-1139.
    16. Min Gong & David Krantz & Elke Weber, 2014. "Why Chinese discount future financial and environmental gains but not losses more than Americans," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 103-124, October.
    17. Söderholm, Patrik & Pettersson, Fredrik, 2008. "Climate policy and the social cost of power generation: Impacts of the Swedish national emissions target," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 4154-4158, November.
    18. Bikki Jaggi & Alessandra Allini & Riccardo Macchioni & Annamaria Zampella, 2018. "Do investors find carbon information useful? Evidence from Italian firms," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 1031-1056, May.
    19. Bommier, Antoine & Lanz, Bruno & Zuber, Stéphane, 2015. "Models-as-usual for unusual risks? On the value of catastrophic climate change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1-22.
    20. Steve Newbold & Charles Griffiths & Christopher C. Moore & Ann Wolverton & Elizabeth Kopits, 2010. "The "Social Cost of Carbon" Made Simple," NCEE Working Paper Series 201007, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Aug 2010.

    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:56:y:2013:i:c:p:693-702. 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.