Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T18:14:46.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

19 - Best Practice for Community Engagement: Determining Who is Affected and What is at Stake

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2017

By
Peta Ashworth1
Edited by
R. Quentin Grafton ,
Ian G. Cronshaw  and
Michal C. Moore
R. Quentin Grafton
Affiliation:
Australian National University, Canberra
Ian G. Cronshaw
Affiliation:
Australian National University, Canberra
Michal C. Moore
Affiliation:
University of Calgary
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Risks, Rewards and Regulation of Unconventional Gas
A Global Perspective
 , pp. 391 - 410
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ACCC (2013). AER Stakeholder Engagement Framework. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. https://www.aer.gov.au.Google Scholar
AccountAbility (2008). AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement Standard 2011. http://www.accountability.org/standards/aa1000ses/index.html.Google Scholar
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnstein, S.R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. American Planning Association Journal 35 (4), 216–224. Reprinted by permission of The American Planning Association (http://www.planning.org).Google Scholar
Ashworth, P. (2014). Lessons from project level community engagement. Project No. 7–0414–0227. ANLEC R&D: Canberra.Google Scholar
Ashworth, P., Cormick, C. (2011). Enabling the social shaping of CCS technology. In Havercroft, I., Macrory, R.& Stewart, R.B. (eds.), Carbon Capture and Storage: Emerging Legal and Regulatory Issues. Hart Publishing: London.Google Scholar
Ashworth, P., Einsiedel, E., Howell, R., Brunsting, S., Boughen, N. Boyd, A. et al. (2013). Public preferences to CCS: how does it change across countries? In Proc. 11th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technology, 18–22 November 2012, Kyoto, Japan. Energy Procedia, Elsevier.Google Scholar
Ashworth, P., Bradbury, J., Wade, S., Feenstra, C.F.J., Greenberg, S., Hund, G. et al. (2012). What's in store: lessons from implementing CCS. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Contro 9, 402–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashworth, P., Boughen, N., Mayhew, M., Millar, F. (2010). From research to action: now we have to move on CCS communication. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 4, 426–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradbury, J., Ray, I., Peterson, T., Wade, S., Wong-Parodi, G., Feldpausch, A. (2009). the role of social factors in shaping public perceptions of CCS: results of multi-state focus group interviews in the US. Energy Procedia 1(1), 4665–4672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunsting, S., De Best-Waldhober, M., Feenstra, C.F.J., Mikunda, T. (2011). Stakeholder participation practices and onshore CCS: lessons from the Dutch CCS case Barendrecht. Energy Procedia 4, 6376–6383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Contandriopoulos, D. (2004). A sociological perspective on public participation in health care. Social Science & Medicine 58(2), 321–330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cormick, C. (2002). Australian attitudes to GM food and crops – changes in public attitudes to GM technology, Pesticide Outlook 13 (6), 261–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desbarats, J., Upham, P., Riesch, H., Reiner, D., Brunsting, S., de Best-Waldhober, M. et al. (2010). Review of the public participation practices for CCS and non-CCS projects in Europe. Institute for European Environmental Policy; Brussels.Google Scholar
Duggan, J. (2014). China petrochemical plant may be halted after protests. The Guardian, 2 April 2014. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2014/Apr/02/China-petrochemical-plant-may-be-halted-after-protests. Accessed 10 November 2014.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J.S., et al. (2003). Green States and Social Movements. Oxford University Press: New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earle, T., Siegrist, M. (2008). On the relation between trust and fairness in environmental risk management. Risk Analysis 28, 1395–1414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiorino, D. (1989). Environmental risk and democractic processes: a critical review. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 14, 501–547.Google Scholar
Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman: Boston.Google Scholar
Franks, D.M., McNab, K., Brereton, D., Cohen, T., Weldegiorgis, F., Horberry, T. et al. (2013). Designing mining technology for social outcomes. Final Report of the Technology Futures Project.Google Scholar
Graafland, J. (2002). Profits and principles: four perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics 35, 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunningham, N., Kagan, R.A., Thornton, D. (2004). Social license and environmental protection: why businesses go beyond compliance. Law Social Inquiry 29 (2), 307–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, N., Ashworth, P., Devine-Wright, P. (2013). Societal acceptance of wind farms: analysis of four common themes across Australian case studies. Energy Policy 58, 200–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hashagen, S. (2002). Models of community engagement, Scottish Community Development Centre, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Head, B. (2007). Community engagement: participation on whose terms? Australia Journal of Political Science 42, 3.Google Scholar
Huijts, N., Molin, E., Steg, L. (2012). Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: a review-based comprehensive framework. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16, 525–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huijts, N., Molin, E., van Wee, B. (2014). Hydrogen fuel station acceptance: a structural equation model based on the technology acceptance framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology 38, 153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IAP2 (2014). Core values for the practice of public participation. IAP2 International Federation 2014. https://www.iap2.org.au/resources/iap2s-public-participation-spectrum.Google Scholar
James, M., Daniel, S. (2013). Moratorium on coal seam gas extraction in Sydney's drinking water zone. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013–11–12/moratorium-placed-on-coal-seam-gas-extraction-in-sydney27s-dri/5087252. Accessed 14 December 2014.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41, 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jijelava, D., Vanclay, F. (2014). Assessing the social licence to operate of development cooperation organizations: a case study of Mercy Corps in Samtskhe-Javakheti, Georgia. Journal of Social Epistemology (Special Issue, A Social Licence to Operate) 28 (3–4), 297–317.Google Scholar
Keeney, R. (1998). Value-Focussed Thinking. A Path to Creative Decision Making. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kuppler, S. (2012). From government to governance? (Non-)Effects of deliberation on decision-making structures for nuclear waste management in Germany and Switzerland. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 9 (2), 103–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacey, J. (2008). Utilising diversity to achieve water equity. Rural Society 18 (3), 244–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacey, J., Parsons, R., Moffat, K. (2012). Exploring the Concept of a Social Licence to Operate in the Australian Minerals Industry. CSIRO: Brisbane.Google Scholar
McIntyre, J. (1996). Tools for ethical thinking and caring: a reflexive approach to community development theory and practice in the pragmatic 90s. Community Quarterly.Google Scholar
Moffat, K., Zhang, A. (2014). The paths to social licence to operate: an integrative model explaining community acceptance of mining. Resources Policy 39, 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muffson, S. (2012). In North Dakota, the gritty side of an oil boom. The Washington Post, 18 July 2012. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-north-dakota-the-gritty-side-of-an-oil-boom/2012/07/18/gJQAZk5ZuW_story.html. Accessed 10 December 2012.Google Scholar
Nicholls, F. (2003). When science is not enough: why public engagement is essential for carbon storage projects. Towards Zero Emissions: Strategies and Technologies for Decreasing Industrial GHG Emissions, Brisbane.Google Scholar
Pidd, H. (2014). Anti-fracking group stages day of action. The Guardian, 19 August 2014. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2014/Aug/19/anti-fracking-group-stages-day-of-action. Accessed 12 November 2014.Google Scholar
Pisarski, A., Ashworth, P. (2013). The citizen's round table process: canvassing public opinion on energy technologies to mitigate climate change. Journal of Climatic Change 119 (2), 533–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Queensland Parliament (2013). Gasfields Commission Act 2013.Google Scholar
Queensland Parliament (2010). Hansard Record of Proceedings: First session of the Fifty Third Parliament, Tuesday 23 March, 2010. www.parliament.qld.gov.au/hansard/, p. 954.Google Scholar
Reed, M. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation 141, 2417–2431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, M., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., et al. (2009). ‘Who's in and why?’ A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management 90, 1933–1949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis 20, 713–720.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Solomon, F. (1999). Zen and the art of stakeholder involvement: the 1999 AMEEF travelling scholarship. In Proc. Minerals Council of Australia Environmental Workshop, Townsville, Queensland. Minerals Council of Australia.Google Scholar
Stern, P.C., Fineberg, H.V. (eds.) (1996). Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. National Academy Press: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Stirling, A. (2005). Opening up or closing down? Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology. In Leach, M., Scoones, I. and Wynne, B. (eds.), Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement, Zed Books: London, pp. 218–231.Google Scholar
Mors, E.ter, Weenig, M., Ellemers, N., Daamen, D. (2010). Effective communication about complex environmental issues: perceived quality of information about carbon capture and storage (CCS) depends on stakeholder collaboration. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (4), 347–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mors, E.ter, Terwel, B.W., Daamen, D.D.L. (2012). The potential of host community compensation in facility siting. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 11S, S130–S138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terwel, B., Harinck, F., Ellemers, N., Daamen, D. (2010). Voice in political decision-making: the effect of group voice on perceived trustworthiness of decision makers and subsequent acceptance of decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology 16, 173–186.Google ScholarPubMed
Terwel, B.W., Harinck, F., Ellemers, N., Daamen, D.D.L. (2011). Going beyond the properties of CO2 capture and storage (CCS) technology: how trust in stakeholders affects public acceptance of CCS, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 5, 181–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terwel, B.W., Mors, E.ter, Daamen, D.D.L (2012). It's not only about safety: beliefs and attitudes of 811 local residents regarding a CCS project in Barendrecht. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 9, 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, I. (1998). Environmental Impact Assessment in Australia, 2nd edn. The Federation Press: Sydney, Chapter 4.Google Scholar
Thomson, I., Boutilier, R.G. (2011). The social licence to operate. In Darling, P. (ed.), SME Mining Engineering Handbook. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration. SME: Colorado, pp. 673–690.Google Scholar
UK ESRC (2012). Fracking and public dialogue. Economic and Social Research Council. http://www.esrc.ac.uk/news-and-events/features-casestudies/features/20493/carousel-fracking-and-public-dialogue.aspx.Google Scholar
von Schomberg, R. (2013). A vision of responsible research and innovation. In Owen, R.., Bessant, J. and Heintz, M. (eds.), Responsible Innovation. John Wiley: London, pp. 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whatmore, S.J., Landström, C. (2011). Flood apprentices: an exercise in making things public. Economy and Society 40 (4), 582–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilder, M. (2008). Equity and water in Mexico's changing institutional landscape. In Whiteley, J., Ingram, H. and Perry, R. (eds.), Water, Place and Equity. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 95–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolsink, M. (2007). Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes: Equity and fairness instead of ‘backyard motives’. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 11 (6), 1188–1207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, A., Moffat, K. (2015). A balancing act: the role of benefits, impacts and confidence in governance in predicting acceptance of mining in Australia. Resources Policy 44, 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×