IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v61y2013icp1188-1199.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia

Author

Listed:
  • Setiawan, Andri D.
  • Cuppen, Eefje

Abstract

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is being considered as an option to reduce CO2 emissions worldwide. Yet recent cases show that CCS faces divergent public acceptance issues. This paper investigates stakeholder perspectives on CCS in Indonesia. Q methodology was adopted to analyse the diversity of stakeholder perspectives. Four perspectives were identified: (1) “CO2 emissions reduction through clean energy sources rather than CCS”; (2) “CCS as one of the options in the transition to a sustainable energy system”; (3) “CCS as the only optimal solution to reduce CO2 emissions”; (4) “CCS is only a tactic to keep burning coal forever”. Based on these results, we argue that stakeholder acceptance of CCS should be understood as a complex notion. This means that understanding whether or under what conditions stakeholders would be willing to support CCS, requires consideration of stakeholders' viewpoints about broader questions of CO2 emission reduction and energy supply in Indonesia, rather than studying attitudes towards CCS in isolation. We discuss how the approach taken in this study can be used and followed up in policymaking on CCS in Indonesia.

Suggested Citation

  • Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:61:y:2013:i:c:p:1188-1199
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.057
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513005429
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.057?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. van Alphen, Klaas & van Voorst tot Voorst, Quirine & Hekkert, Marko P. & Smits, Ruud E.H.M., 2007. "Societal acceptance of carbon capture and storage technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 4368-4380, August.
    2. Toddi A. Steelman & Lynn A. Maguire, 1999. "Understanding participant perspectives: Q-methodology in national forest management," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 361-388.
    3. Ockwell, David G. & Watson, Jim & MacKerron, Gordon & Pal, Prosanto & Yamin, Farhana, 2008. "Key policy considerations for facilitating low carbon technology transfer to developing countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 4104-4115, November.
    4. Praetorius, Barbara & Schumacher, Katja, 2009. "Greenhouse gas mitigation in a carbon constrained world: The role of carbon capture and storage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5081-5093, December.
    5. David Ockwell, 2008. "‘Opening up’ policy to reflexive appraisal: a role for Q Methodology? A case study of fire management in Cape York, Australia," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 41(4), pages 263-292, December.
    6. Hondroyiannis, George & Lolos, Sarantis & Papapetrou, Evangelia, 2002. "Energy consumption and economic growth: assessing the evidence from Greece," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 319-336, July.
    7. 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.
    8. Cuppen, Eefje & Breukers, Sylvia & Hisschemöller, Matthijs & Bergsma, Emmy, 2010. "Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 579-591, January.
    9. Cuppen, Eefje, 2012. "A quasi-experimental evaluation of learning in a stakeholder dialogue on bio-energy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 624-637.
    10. Gibbins, Jon & Chalmers, Hannah, 2008. "Carbon capture and storage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(12), pages 4317-4322, December.
    11. Maarten Wolsink & Sylvia Breukers, 2010. "Contrasting the core beliefs regarding the effective implementation of wind power. An international study of stakeholder perspectives," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(5), pages 535-558.
    12. Geraint Ellis & John Barry & Clive Robinson, 2007. "Many ways to say 'no', different ways to say 'yes': Applying Q-Methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(4), pages 517-551.
    13. Davies, B.B. & Hodge, I.D., 2007. "Exploring environmental perspectives in lowland agriculture: A Q methodology study in East Anglia, UK," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 323-333, March.
    14. Singh, Rajbeer & Setiawan, Andri D., 2013. "Biomass energy policies and strategies: Harvesting potential in India and Indonesia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 332-345.
    15. Liu, Hengwei & Liang, Xi, 2011. "Strategy for promoting low-carbon technology transfer to developing countries: The case of CCS," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3106-3116, June.
    16. Garg, Amit & Shukla, P.R., 2009. "Coal and energy security for India: Role of carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and storage (CCS)," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 1032-1041.
    17. 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.
    18. Stephens, Jennie C. & Jiusto, Scott, 2010. "Assessing innovation in emerging energy technologies: Socio-technical dynamics of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) in the USA," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 2020-2031, April.
    19. Eefje Cuppen, 2012. "Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for design and methods," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(1), pages 23-46, March.
    20. Shackley, Simon & Waterman, Holly & Godfroij, Per & Reiner, David & Anderson, Jason & Draxlbauer, Kathy & Flach, Todd, 2007. "Stakeholder perceptions of CO2 capture and storage in Europe: Results from a survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 5091-5108, October.
    21. William N. Dunn, 1988. "Methods Of The Second Type: Coping With The Wilderness Of Conventional Policy Analysis," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 7(4), pages 720-737, June.
    22. Kangas, A. & Saarinen, N. & Saarikoski, H. & Leskinen, L.A. & Hujala, T. & Tikkanen, J., 2010. "Stakeholder perspectives about proper participation for Regional Forest Programmes in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 213-222, 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. Peter Viebahn & Emile J. L. Chappin, 2018. "Scrutinising the Gap between the Expected and Actual Deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage—A Bibliometric Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-45, September.
    2. Hsueh, Sung-Lin, 2015. "Assessing the effectiveness of community-promoted environmental protection policy by using a Delphi-fuzzy method: A case study on solar power and plain afforestation in Taiwan," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 1286-1295.
    3. Sneegas, Gretchen & Beckner, Sydney & Brannstrom, Christian & Jepson, Wendy & Lee, Kyungsun & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2021. "Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    4. Ko, Yu-Chia & Zigan, Krystin & Liu, Yu-Lun, 2021. "Carbon capture and storage in South Africa: A technological innovation system with a political economy focus," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    5. Valentina Kashintseva & Wadim Strielkowski & Justas Streimikis & Tatiana Veynbender, 2018. "Consumer Attitudes towards Industrial CO 2 Capture and Storage Products and Technologies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-14, October.
    6. León-Vielma, J.E. & Ramos-Real, F.J. & Hernández Hernández, J.F. & Rodríguez-Brito, María Gracia, 2023. "An integrative strategy for Venezuela's electricity sector (VES), from an analysis of stakeholder perspectives," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    7. Muhammad Ridhuan Tony Lim Abdullah & Saedah Siraj & Zulkipli Ghazali, 2021. "An ISM Approach for Managing Critical Stakeholder Issues Regarding Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Deployment in Developing Asian Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-23, June.
    8. Khaerul Azis, Mohammad & Widodo, Tri, 2019. "The Impact of Carbon Tax on GDP and Environment," MPRA Paper 91314, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Shin, Jungwoo & Lee, Chul-Yong & Kim, Hongbum, 2016. "Technology and demand forecasting for carbon capture and storage technology in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 1-11.
    10. Setiawan, Andri D., 2020. "The influence of national culture on responsible innovation: A case of CO2 utilisation in Indonesia," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(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. Sneegas, Gretchen & Beckner, Sydney & Brannstrom, Christian & Jepson, Wendy & Lee, Kyungsun & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2021. "Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    2. Bowen, Frances, 2011. "Carbon capture and storage as a corporate technology strategy challenge," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2256-2264, May.
    3. Christine Corlet Walker & Angela Druckman & Claudio Cattaneo, 2020. "Understanding the (non-)Use of Societal Wellbeing Indicators in National Policy Development: What Can We Learn from Civil Servants? A UK Case Study," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 911-953, August.
    4. Huaranca, Laura Liliana & Iribarnegaray, Martín Alejandro & Albesa, Federico & Volante, José Norberto & Brannstrom, Christian & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2019. "Social Perspectives on Deforestation, Land Use Change, and Economic Development in an Expanding Agricultural Frontier in Northern Argentina," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Hong-Hua Qiu & Jing Yang, 2018. "An Assessment of Technological Innovation Capabilities of Carbon Capture and Storage Technology Based on Patent Analysis: A Comparative Study between China and the United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-20, March.
    6. Eefje Cuppen, 2012. "Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for design and methods," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(1), pages 23-46, March.
    7. Venus, Terese E. & Hinzmann, Mandy & Bakken, Tor Haakon & Gerdes, Holger & Godinho, Francisco Nunes & Hansen, Bendik & Pinheiro, António & Sauer, Johannes, 2020. "The public's perception of run-of-the-river hydropower across Europe," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    8. Eefje Cuppen & Suzanne Brunsting & Udo Pesch & Ynke Feenstra, 2015. "How stakeholder interactions can reduce space for moral considerations in decision making: A contested CCS project in the Netherlands," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(9), pages 1963-1978, September.
    9. Andrés Lorente de las Casas & Ivelina Mirkova & Francisco J. Ramos-Real, 2021. "Stakeholders’ Perceptions of the Possible Energy Sustainability Solutions in the Hotels of the Canary Islands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-26, June.
    10. 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.
    11. Díaz, Paula & Adler, Carolina & Patt, Anthony, 2017. "Do stakeholders’ perspectives on renewable energy infrastructure pose a risk to energy policy implementation? A case of a hydropower plant in Switzerland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 21-28.
    12. Cuppen, Eefje & Breukers, Sylvia & Hisschemöller, Matthijs & Bergsma, Emmy, 2010. "Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 579-591, January.
    13. 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.
    14. Ghoochani Omid M. & Bakhshi Azadeh & Cotton Matthew & Nejad Azar Hashemi & Ghanian Mansour, 2015. "Environmental values in the petrochemical industry: A Q-method study in South West Iran," Environmental & Socio-economic Studies, Sciendo, vol. 3(4), pages 1-10, December.
    15. 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).
    16. Cuppen, Eefje, 2012. "A quasi-experimental evaluation of learning in a stakeholder dialogue on bio-energy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 624-637.
    17. McNicholas, Grace & Cotton, Matthew, 2019. "Stakeholder perceptions of marine plastic waste management in the United Kingdom," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 77-87.
    18. Ali, Muhammad Rizwan & Shafiq, Muhammad, 2021. "Revealing expert perspectives on challenges to electricity Demand-Side Management in Pakistan: An application of Q-Methodology," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    19. 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.
    20. Hansson, Anders & Bryngelsson, Mårten, 2009. "Expert opinions on carbon dioxide capture and storage--A framing of uncertainties and possibilities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2273-2282, June.

    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:61:y:2013:i:c:p:1188-1199. 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.