Not in My Backyard: CCS Sites and Public Perception of CCS

Braun, Carola

doi:10.1111/risa.12793

Cited by 57 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 50 publications

(137 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding that proximal communities were more supportive of CCS than general public samples is partly consistent with prior research in this area. Such research has observed a degree of 'YIMBYism' (Yes In My Backyard) around proposed carbon capture facilities, with local objection tending to be more likely around proposed storage sites (Braun, 2017;Eurobarometer, 2011). Within our research, our selection of 'local' samples was determined by proximity to current or proposed CCS sites, including processing, pipeline and/or storage locations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These countries were selected because they reflect different stages of CCS development (including offshore and onshore storage), which were expected to influence perceptions (L'Orange Seigo et al, 2014). Due to findings of proximity effects noted above (Braun, 2017;Wallquist et al, 2012), we sampled those living close to actual or proposed CCS sites, as well as a representative national sample, in each country.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, Canadians seem to be more accepting than Swiss publics, perhaps due to their different experience of (and dependence on) fossil fuel industries (L'Orange Seigo et al, 2014). Even within individual countries, research points to regional variations in perceptions, with one German study finding those living closer to actual or proposed sites less supportive of CCS (Braun, 2017).…”

Section: Public Perceptions Of Ccsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Framing effects on public support for carbon capture and storage

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) involves trapping carbon dioxide (CO 2) from power generation and heavy industrial processes and directing it into long-term geological storage (e.g., in depleted oil fields or saline aquifers). In doing so, CCS could facilitate global carbon abatement efforts. Yet, it remains controversial with high-profile public opposition to particular CCS developments. For instrumental, normative and substantive reasons, it is increasingly recognised that public acceptance of CCS as a vital precondition for its commercial-scale rollout. While much is known about factors influencing public support for CCS, relatively few cross-national studies have so far been undertaken. Here, we present findings from a large-scale international experimental study of public perceptions of CCS, to examine how individual, geographical and informational factors influence support for CCS. In particular, we compare the lens through which CCS is seenas a 'techno-fix' climate change solution, as reusing a waste product (through Carbon Dioxide Utilisation [CDU]), or as part of a systemic approach to climate change mitigation. Pairing CCS with CDU led to higher support for CCS, although information frames interacted with national and individual-level factors. Depending on which CCS lens is chosen, different groups will be more or less likely to support CCS implementation. As with other issues, targeting CCS information to audience values is likely to be more effective than untargeted communication. Our findings also show mentioning (modest) costs of deploying CCS can lead to lower support. Discussing CCS costs should be done in the context of costs of broader energy system transformation and of not mitigating climate change so that the public can deliberate over the relative risks and benefits of CCS and alternatives in the context of broader sustainability pathways.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Public Perceptions Of Ccsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Framing effects on public support for carbon capture and storage

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…has produced a national debate over energy policy, further justifying an examination of opinion and its correlates at a national level. Moreover, the use of national survey data is an increasingly popular method for investigating the drivers of public opinion on energy development (Braun, ; Gravelle & Lachapelle, ; Swofford & Slattery, ) and environmental issues more generally (Hamilton, Colocousis, & Duncan, ; Howe, Boudet, Leiserowitz, & Maibach, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Geographic Proximity to Unconventional Oil and Gas Development on Public Support for Hydraulic Fracturing

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the rapid growth of unconventional oil and natural gas development transforming the U.S. economic and physical landscape, social scientists have increasingly explored the spatial dynamics of public support for this issue-that is, whether people closer to unconventional oil and gas development are more supportive or more opposed. While theoretical frameworks like construal-level theory and the "Not in My Backyard" (or NIMBY) moniker provide insight into these spatial dynamics, case studies in specific locations experiencing energy development reveal substantial variation in community responses. Larger-scale studies exploring the link between proximity and support have been hampered by data quality and availability. We draw on a unique data set that includes geo-coded data from national surveys (nine waves; n = 19,098) and high-resolution well location data to explore the relationship between proximity and both familiarity with and support for hydraulic fracturing. We use two different measures of proximity-respondent distance to the nearest well and the density of wells within a certain radius of the respondent's location. We find that both types of proximity to new development are linked to more familiarity with hydraulic fracturing, even after controlling for various individual and contextual factors, but only distance-based proximity is linked to more support for the practice. When significant, these relationships are similar to or exceed the effects of race, income, gender, and age. We discuss the implications of these findings for effective risk communication as well as the importance of incorporating spatial analysis into public opinion research on perceptions of energy development.

show abstract

“…Siegrist and Sütterlin, (64) Graham et al, (65) and McComas et al (66) present useful ideas and relevant findings, particularly about different public responses to natural versus manmade hazards. NIMBY ("not in my back yard") is a well-known local response to the siting of hazardous projects (e.g., Braun, (67) Krause et al (68) ), and effective policy strategies toward project acceptance (e.g., information, participation, compensation) (69,70) are directly applicable to environmentally risky mining operations.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Induced Earthquakes from Long‐Term Gas Extraction in Groningen, the Netherlands: Statistical Analysis and Prognosis for Acceptable‐Risk Regulation

Vlek¹

2018

Risk Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, growing earthquake activity in the northeastern Netherlands has aroused considerable concern among the 600,000 provincial inhabitants. There, at 3 km deep, the rich Groningen gas field extends over 900 km2 and still contains about 600 of the original 2,800 billion cubic meters (bcm). Particularly after 2001, earthquakes have increased in number, magnitude (M, on the logarithmic Richter scale), and damage to numerous buildings. The man‐made nature of extraction‐induced earthquakes challenges static notions of risk, complicates formal risk assessment, and questions familiar conceptions of acceptable risk. Here, a 26‐year set of 294 earthquakes with M ≥ 1.5 is statistically analyzed in relation to increasing cumulative gas extraction since 1963. Extrapolations from a fast‐rising trend over 2001–2013 indicate that—under “business as usual”—around 2021 some 35 earthquakes with M ≥ 1.5 might occur annually, including four with M ≥ 2.5 (ten‐fold stronger), and one with M ≥ 3.5 every 2.5 years. Given this uneasy prospect, annual gas extraction has been reduced from 54 bcm in 2013 to 24 bcm in 2017. This has significantly reduced earthquake activity, so far. However, when extraction is stabilized at 24 bcm per year for 2017–2021 (or 21.6 bcm, as judicially established in Nov. 2017), the annual number of earthquakes would gradually increase again, with an expected all‐time maximum M ≈ 4.5. Further safety management may best follow distinct stages of seismic risk generation, with moderation of gas extraction and massive (but late and slow) building reinforcement as outstanding strategies. Officially, “acceptable risk” is mainly approached by quantification of risk (e.g., of fatal building collapse) for testing against national safety standards, but actual (local) risk estimation remains problematic. Additionally important are societal cost–benefit analysis, equity considerations, and precautionary restraint. Socially and psychologically, deliberate attempts are made to improve risk communication, reduce public anxiety, and restore people's confidence in responsible experts and policymakers.

show abstract

Not in My Backyard: CCS Sites and Public Perception of CCS

Cited by 57 publications

References 50 publications

Framing effects on public support for carbon capture and storage

Framing effects on public support for carbon capture and storage

The Effect of Geographic Proximity to Unconventional Oil and Gas Development on Public Support for Hydraulic Fracturing

Induced Earthquakes from Long‐Term Gas Extraction in Groningen, the Netherlands: Statistical Analysis and Prognosis for Acceptable‐Risk Regulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About