ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Exploring CCS community acceptance and publicparticipation from a human and social capital perspective

Carmel Anderson & Jacki Schirmer &

Norman Abjorensen

Received: 28 October 2010 /Accepted: 8 July 2011 /Published online: 30 July 2011# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract The delay or cancellation of energy infrastructure projects, such as wind farmsand nuclear power plants and more recently carbon capture and storage (CCS) because ofcommunity resistance and poor public participation processes are well known. Yet, somecommunities accept these projects with relative ease. The term acceptance implies passivityand as such does not necessarily reflect community approval or support. If acceptance ispassive, what are the characteristics of a community in which the acceptance of CCS isachieved with relative ease; and what best-practice public participation processes are mostappropriate for it? This paper attempts to answer these questions through a case study ofAustralia's Otway Project. Qualitative research methods were used to conduct a human andsocial capital analysis of the Otway community. An assessment of the project's publicparticipation process was made in light of that analysis. The study found that thecommunity needed capacity-building to enable it to become well-informed about CCS; andto help it develop the negotiation skills necessary to have the proponent address itsconcerns about the project in a timely manner. An assessment of the Otway publicparticipation process found that while it implemented the majority of best practiceprinciples in public participation, it lacked an adherence to three: transparency, fairness andcapacity. A mindfulness of all principles of best practice in public participation would haveensured a fairer and more transparent process.

Keywords Acceptance . Carbon capture and storage . Community . Human capital . Publicparticipation . Social capital

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:687–706DOI 10.1007/s11027-011-9312-z

C. Anderson (*) : J. SchirmerFenner School of Environment and Society, College of Medicine, Biology and Environment,The Australian National University, Forestry Building (48), Canberra 0200, Australiae-mail: carmel.anderson@anu.edu.au

J. Schirmere-mail: jacki.schirmer@anu.edu.au

N. AbjorensenCrawford School of Economics and Government, The Australian National University, Stanner Building,Lennox Crossing, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australiae-mail: norman.abjorensen@anu.edu.au

1 Introduction

Fossil fuels are likely to be the dominant energy source for developed and many developingcountries until themiddle of this century. However, the burning of fossil fuels produces the mostabundant greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2), a leading cause of climate change (Metz etal. 2005). In an effort to address climate change, governments and industry are investing in arange of technologies aimed at greenhouse gas control such as carbon capture and storage(CCS), and wind and solar farms. CCS, therefore, has a major role to play in addressingclimate change. It involves the capture, transport and long-term, subsurface storage of CO2.

New and complicated technologies involving the construction of controversialinfrastructure have a history of struggling in their early phases of proposal andimplementation because of poor participatory processes (Devine-Wright et al. 2001).Notable examples can be found in British and French nuclear projects in the 1980s and1990s (Mays and Poumade in Sublet et al. 1996) and more recently, the Barendrecht CCSproject in the Netherlands. Here, authorities decided to cancel the project followingprotracted delays caused by community opposition to the technology and poor publicparticipation processes (Brunsting et al. 2010; Desbarats et al. 2010; Feenstra et al. 2010).

Wind farm projects in Europe, the United Kingdom (UK), the United States (US) andAustralia have been strongly criticised by local communities for not adequately takingsufficient account of the visual impact on the landscape, equitable compensation, or having atop-down approach to public participation (Wolsink 2000; Hodson 2006; Wűstenhagen et al.2007; Hindmarsh and Matthews 2008; Zoellner et al. 2008; Jolivet and Heiskanen 2010).

Yet, some communities accept infrastructure projects with relative ease. Examplesinclude the Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies (CO2CRC)Otway CCS project in Australia where the public participation process positively influencedacceptance (Ashworth et al. 2010); the FutureGen Project in the United States, where acompetition between the communities to host the project was seen as a major contributingfactor to acceptance (Hund and Greenberg 2010); and a biomass energy project in Germanywhere the community had a positive predisposition to renewable energy, which contributedto the acceptance of the project (Brohmann et al. 2006).

1.1 Acceptance

In most cases community support, or at least community acceptance, is necessary beforemajor infrastructure projects can occur (Wűstenhagen et al. 2007). Factors influencingacceptance include the socio-economic, historical, cultural, institutional, infrastructural andgeographical characteristics of a community (Heiskanen et al. 2006). These factors mayexplain why acceptance seems to be more easily achieved in some communities than otherswhen similar public participation processes are employed (Dütschke 2010); and whyacceptance can change as the project progresses (Eltham et al. 2008).

Acceptance implies a passive stance by a community towards a project. It does notnecessarily imply consent, approval or support (Barben 2010). If acceptance is passive,what are the characteristics of a community in which the acceptance of CCS is achievedwith relative ease; and what best-practice public participation processes are mostappropriate for it?

This paper explores these questions through:

& A qualitative case study of the human and social capital of a community in southernAustralia located in the immediate vicinity of the CO2CRC Otway CCS Project; and

688 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:687–706

& An assessment of the project’s public participation process based on the community’shuman and social capital.

This exploration will lead to recommendations for a best-practice approach for community-specific CCS public participation processes, which will better inform government policy-makers, regulators and CCS project proponents.

1.2 Public participation processes

Public participation during the planning phase of infrastructure projects is a legislativerequirement for example in Europe, the United States and Australia (Culley andHughey 2008; Elliott and Thomas 2009; Portman et al. 2009). Ideally the processes willincorporate the democratic principles of inclusiveness and a right for people to have asay in decisions that affect their lives (Beierle and Cayford 2002; Hendriks in Smithet al. forthcoming).

Many public participation processes are differentiated by the level of communityinfluence and ownership in the decision-making process. They range from informationprovision aimed at persuading a community to accept a project to empowerment where thecommunity has full decision-making powers over a resource or process (Arnstein 1969;Hance et al. 1990; International Association of Public Participation [IAP2] 2004).

In the early stages of a CCS project a proponent undertakes site characterisation todetermine the suitability of the geology and nearby active and decommissioned wells forCO2 storage. During this phase intensive analyses are performed of the cap rock, which isintended to seal in the injected CO2, and of the rock into which the gas is to be injected andstored. The success of a CCS project is considered to be highly dependent on the sitecharacterisation process (Metz et al. 2005; Doughty et al. 2008).

During site characterisation, most CCS participatory activities would tend to occur at theleft-hand side of the continuum shown in Fig. 1. The methods would consist of fairlyintensive information provision activities such as newspaper articles and the distribution ofnewsletters to prepare the community for the establishment of a project (Hance et al. 1990).

The information-provision phase prepares the community for the transition of the projectfrom site characterisation to more intrusive and visible project activities, for example thedrilling of a well. During this transition phase, the community might expect a higher level ofparticipation. The participatory process in Fig. 1 most suited to this is Negotiation.Participatory activities may include workshops with the intent of reaching agreement onpossible issues of concern, such as traffic management and noise and dust mitigation. Theresolution of these issues may require the proponent and the community to negotiate mutuallyacceptable solutions to the issues, which could include a change in the work program for theproponent and the expenditure of additional funds.

The methods of participation outlined in Fig. 1 are generic examples of what is likely towork best at each stage of project development. They should not be rigidly fixed in thosestages, and can be adapted to suit the idiosyncratic nature of the community in which aproject is situated. For example, research conducted into public perceptions of CCSprovides the community with additional opportunities for feedback to the proponent, andtherefore can be used at a variety of stages on the continuum at Fig. 1. A usefulparticipatory activity at the Negotiation stage, for example, would be citizen juries, alsoknown as planning cells and citizen panels. This deliberative method of public participationhas been used by researchers to explore community perceptions of CCS in the UK(Shackley et al. 2004). Citizen panels or juries typically comprise randomly selected

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:687–706 689

citizens who deliberate, usually, on a planning issue on which the community has the finaldecision (Carson and Gelber 2001).

A CCS proponent’s responsibilities to shareholders and the geological characteristicsgoverning site selection mean that they will be unable to divest final decisions on majorproject activities to the community, although deliberative methods such as citizen panelsmay be useful in helping a community develop its position in response to major milestones.However, in a CCS context, the proponent would need to clearly communicate to thecommunity how far it might influence final decisions (Webler et al. 2001). For example, aproponent would need to explain to the community that its decision on the siting of aninjection well would need to be informed and possibly restricted by the findings of theproponent’s site characterisation studies.

1.3 Principles of best practice in CCS public participation

CCS proponents will most likely adopt existing public participation guidelines fromsimilar industries in the resource sector because of commonalities in practices andtechnology as well as seeking guidance from international conventions such as theAarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justicein Environmental Matters (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 2000).However, guidelines tend to be high-level and need to be complemented with a set ofprinciples that can be informed by the characteristics of the community in which a project isto be conducted. Adapted from Webler et al. (2001); Beierle and Cayford (2002); Diduck

Information

provision

Information

exchange

Negotiation

CCS industry public participation methods

Partnership Empowerment

One-way communication aimed at informing the community about CCS, and or a local project.

Methods: websites, brochures, newsletters, DVDs, media releases, interviews, advertisements.

Two-way communication where the community and proponent learn about the others’ concerns, views, intentions.

Methods: question-and- answer sessions at community meetings, feedback questionnaires, interactive websites.

Negotiate and accept the community’s recommendations as far as practicable on infrastructure siting, seismic, soil tests, noise and dust mitigation. If recommendations are rejected, the proponent provides detailed explanations as to why.

Methods: community reference group, landholder meetings, workshop, focus groups, citizen juries or panels.

The community and proponent work collaboratively. Decisions are mutually agreed.

Methods: collaborative fora, advisory committees, consensus conferences.

The project is undertaken by the community. Reference to government or industry is at the discretion of the community.

Methods: delegated decisions, referenda

Fig. 1 CCS public participation spectrum (after Arnstein 1969; Hance et al. 1990, IAP2 2004)

690 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:687–706

and Sinclair (2002); IAP2 (2004); Woolcock and Brown (2005); and United Nations (2008)these principles are:

& Inclusiveness—provide all community stakeholders, including the marginalised anddisadvantaged, with an opportunity to be involved.

& Transparency—ensure the community is aware of all the project practices and risks.Ensure they understand the project implementation process, and ensure their role in thepublic participation process has been clearly articulated.

& Accessibility—address issues that might exclude stakeholders from community meet-ings such as adequate transport, working hours, religious obligations and conflictingcommunity events.

& Timeliness—avoid the decide-announce-defend approach of participation by beginningthe public participation process as early as practicable. Ensure the host communityknows about the project before they read about it in the media.

& Fairness—ensure the stakeholders have access to a variety of information about theproject that reflects all positions from those of opposition to those of support.

& Capacity—develop the capacity of the stakeholders, particularly the host community, tounderstand the consequences of living with a CCS project; and provide non-threateningavenues for the raising of complaints.

& Respect—encourage an atmosphere of mutual respect. Listen and respond in a timelymanner to the concerns of all stakeholders. Always provide reasons why a requestcannot be met.

& Flexibility—proponents will need to remain open-minded about the participatory processso that it can be adapted to accommodate evolving community agendas, changes inattitudes towards acceptance as the project progresses, or a change in project plans.

1.4 Challenges for best practice public participation

Among the challenges to best practice public participation are: scepticism; resources; the framingof information; inadequate information; a lack of capacity within the community to understandcomplex issues; and the role of the government in the compulsory acquisition of land.

Proponents might overcome scepticism by developing meaningful roles for communitymembers throughout the life of a project (Webler et al. 2001). These roles could include theinvolvement in project decisions where practicable; paying people for their time asmembers of a reference group; regular provision of information through advertising andmedia interviews; and face-to-face and public meetings.

Constraints on resources will severely restrict the degree of participation that can occur(International Energy Agency 2009). Where the public participation budget is very low, theprovision of information on a website might be all a proponent provides. This severelyrestricts the opportunities for two-way interaction and can lead to frustration and possibleopposition within the community if its issues cannot be immediately and directly addressed.

The issue of framing of information to achieve a particular outcome (Pimbert andWakeford 2001; Jolivet and Heiskanen 2010), is particularly relevant in public participation.Proponents are likely to begin engaging with communities that have little or no previousknowledge of CCS technologies (Huijts et al. 2007; Ashworth et al. 2009). This lack ofprevious knowledge means that the community has no reference points of its own to checkagainst the proponent’s information materials. The Barendrecht public participation processcited earlier is an example of framing, where the initial information came from one sourceonly. The result was community unrest about the project (Brunsting et al. 2010; Feenstra et

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:687–706 691

al. 2010). Whether the framing of issues is intentional or not, it is difficult to avoid andrequires a degree of reflexivity on the part of the proponent to ensure the process is fair.

Inadequate information provision impacting negatively on the effectiveness ofacceptance during participation was a common theme for CCS case studies conducted inGermany and France. The main issues included:

& Inadequate communication of the risks from trusted sources and the need for earlyparticipation (Dütschke 2010).

& A need to target the participation processes at the local community and provide morespecific long-term project plans (Ha-Duong et al. 2010).

A community’s capacity to comprehend the complexities of a project impacts on itsability to participate in public meetings; to conduct meaningful dialogue with theproponent; to negotiate with the proponent; and ultimately to influence the decision-making process of a project (Beierle and Cayford 2002; Diduck and Sinclair 2002; Reddeland Woolcock 2004). Some industries recognise in their public participation guidelines aneed for proponents to build capacity within communities that host resource projects. Forexample, the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) (n.d.) includes in its 10Principles of Sustainable Development Framework a call for members to contribute to thesocial and economic development of host communities and recognises the need for industryto implement inclusive and socially appropriate participatory methods.

Another serious challenge to best practice principles of public participation for a CCS projectis the ability of governments to compulsorily acquire privately owned land. This ability bypassespublic participation by permitting governments to acquire privately owned land for projectsdeemed to be of State significance (State of Victoria 2004). Indeed, the use of this practice hasbeen anticipated in regard to CCS projects in the US where it has been suggested thatcommunity “resistance [to land for CCS projects] will likely necessitate the use of eminentdomain [compulsory acquisition] to ensure that a national [CCS] program designed to curb theeffects of global warming is not disrupted by a few holdouts” (DeCesar 2010, p. 267).Similar processes exist in Europe and Scandanavia (see Viitanen and Kakulu 2009).

2 Methods

2.1 Methodology

Qualitative research was conducted through a case study of the Otway community in theState of Victoria, southern Australia. Adaptive theory was used to generate results, mergingthe existing theory, in this study, human and social capital theory, with empirical research to“produce a cumulative and organic theoretical end-product” (Layder 1998, p. 77).

2.2 Human and social capital

Human capital refers to personal resources such as skills, capabilities, intelligence andeducation. These resources generally lead to higher incomes through better jobs, which inturn increase an individual’s access to social networks and through those networks, socialcapital (Coleman 1988; Lin 2001; Burt 2005).

Social capital “refers to the connections among individuals’ social networks and normsof reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them” (Putnam 2000 p. 19). People accesssocial capital through their social networks and the human relations within them (Coleman1988; Burt 2005; Kinsella et al. 2010).

692 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:687–706

Social networks can be described in terms of strong and weak ties. Strong ties occur withthe relationships between close friends and family, while weak ties are associated within therelationships people have with acquaintances (Granovetter 1973). The weak ties connect orbridge people with a broad range of groups or networks, which provide access to a widerrange of economic and human resources and assist with the diffusion of information. Peoplewith few weak ties have limited access to resources, such as new information sources.Instead, their information is sourced from close friends and family (Granovetter 1973;Putnam 2000; Burt 2005).

Weak and strong network ties contribute to a person’s or community’s bridging andbonding social capital. Bridging social capital refers to networks with an external focus.They are associated with inclusive behaviour because its members have diversified theirsocial connections through their weak ties to, or bridges between, networks. Bondingsocial capital has an inward focus. The social networks that produce bonding socialcapital tend toward exclusivity, for example, elite clubs or small rural communities(Putnam 2000; Woodhouse 2006). The benefits for members of these social networksinclude the provision of identity and strong localised trust (Leonard and Onyx 2003;Kinsella et al. 2010), but the lack of diversified social ties is a disadvantage when itrestricts a person’s or community’s access to information and subsequent social capital(Granovetter 1973; Putnam 2000; Woodhouse 2006). The lack of diversity resulting frombonding social capital can lead to the creation of closed social networks, which aredistinguished by strong personal relations and conformity to social norms and extremes oftrust and distrust (Burt 2005).

2.3 Research methods

Data were collected using semi-structured interviews with 20 people, 16 of whomlived in the small village where the Otway Project is situated. Unless otherwiseagreed, the majority of interviewees were guaranteed confidentiality. The intervieweeswere key CCS-project landholders and their farmer neighbours, local residents,business owners, wind farm representatives, government regulators and socialresearchers. Most interviews were recorded. A small number of participants preferredhand-written notes to be taken. The interviews were transcribed and coded. The codeswere divided into core and satellite codes from which the themes for this paper weredeveloped.

2.4 Validity

The lead author of this article led the public participation process of the project between late2005 and April 2009 while employed by the proponent as the community relationsmanager. The research discussed in this article began 7 months after she left the proponent’semployment. Working in community relations on the Otway Project provided the leadauthor with a detailed understanding of the characteristics of the community members,which assisted with the interpretation of the results. For example, while working for theproponent the lead author observed behaviours and took part in conversations on land-access negotiations. These interactions informed some of the research findings when laterviewed through a theoretical lens.

The lead author employed a range of qualitative research validation methods to guardagainst subjectivity. They included negative case analysis, review by interviewees and peerdebriefings. (Lincoln and Guba 1985; Patton 2002).

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:687–706 693

The negative case analysis was conducted during the research phase to identifyinterviewees who contrasted with the points of view of the majority. This is reflected inSection 4, Results.

Reviews were undertaken by the interviewees quoted in this paper, including theinterviewee identified for the negative case analysis. They were sent final copies of thesections in this paper in which their interviews were discussed. The intervieweesindicated in a written declaration that they agreed with the content of the material sentto them.

Regular peer debriefings took place with senior social researchers in the field of societyand the environment. The peer debriefings served to verify the integrity of the researchmethods, and the analysis and interpretations of the data collected for this paper.

3 Case study background

The case study begins at the start of the public participation process for the Otway Projectin February 2006 and ends in November 2009, 8 months after the project becameoperational, which was when the injection of CO2 into the subsurface began.

The project proponent, CO2CRC, is an industry- and government-funded researchagency. The Otway Project is trialling the transport via pipeline, injection and deepgeological storage of CO2.

The Project site is situated in a dairy farm district in south-west Victoria, Australia. Thedistrict is sparsely populated with 2,573 people living over 66,239 ha (Moyne ShireCouncil 2010). Its location on the Southern Ocean coastline makes it an attractive area forwind farm developers. Its plentiful rainfall and rich soils make it a productive dairy farmdistrict and its volcanic past makes the region one of the most active in Victoria for thecommercial production of both natural gas and CO2. Data from previous gas projectsindicated that the geology was suitable for the storage of CO2 at the Otway site.

While the dairy farmers in the district have for decades hosted natural and CO2 gasproduction wells, CCS reverses the current practice in gas technology with which thefarmers are familiar. Rather than extracting natural gas from geological reservoirs, CO2

was injected into a depleted natural gas reservoir. At the time the research was conducted,the Otway Project took place across three dairy farms. The first hosted a gas well thatprovided the source of the CO2 for the project and the plant for the compression of thegas for transport. A second property contained air-monitoring equipment. The thirdproperty contained two wells about 1 km apart. One was used for injecting the CO2 into adepleted natural gas well for storage; the other for monitoring the movement of theinjected CO2 in its storage reservoir (the depleted gas reservoir) in the subsurface. A2.3 km pipeline crossed three properties. Since this research has occurred, the proponenthas drilled a new gas well to expand its research activities, which will test the storage ofCO2 in a saline aquifer (CO2CRC n.d.).

3.1 Otway public participation stakeholders

The focus of most of the participatory activities was the local community and the State andlocal government regulators. A second-tier process was applied to other major stakeholdersincluding industry partners and government funding agencies. These organisations wereregularly briefed and consulted about the project and received copies of the consultativematerial produced primarily for the local community.

694 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:687–706

General-public communication about CCS and the Otway Project at the State andnational level occurred through the CO2CRC website, which contained materialproduced for the local community, the issuing of occasional media releases andirregular media interviews.

3.2 Otway public participation processes

The majority of the participatory methods used for the Otway Project fall into the first threecolumns in Fig. 1: Information provision, Information exchange and Negotiation.

The public participation methods listed in the timeline in Fig. 2, commenced 6 monthsafter land access negotiations had begun with the key landowners. The Informationprovision activities comprised the production of newsletters, flyers, fact sheets andnewspaper advertisements and articles. The newsletters and/or flyers were mailed out to1300 community members in nearby towns and villages a month before the communitymeetings were held. They were also distributed through local community libraries anddisplayed at and available from municipal offices in three local government areas.

Upcoming community meetings were advertised in flyers, newsletters, the localnewspaper and local community radio. The local community, including politicians fromlocal, State and federal jurisdictions, were invited to the meetings. Around 40 questionsabout the project were asked at each of the first two public meetings. They centred on CO2

leakage into the atmosphere, the contamination of groundwater and concerns about thesafety of the technology, for example explosions and the possibility of fires at gas wells.

Fig. 2 Otway public participation between 2006 and 2009

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:687–706 695

The questions were addressed at the meetings and the responses were published for thecommunity’s future reference in the project newsletters. The number of questions andattendance figures subsided after the first meeting.

The information exchange methods were:

& Regular community meetings mainly aimed at the provision of technical and non-technical information followed by discussion. The spokespeople were scientists andengineers. The meetings were held in the evenings to avoid dairy farmer milking times.In the early stages of the project they were led by CO2CRC staff.

& Surveys, conducted at the first two meetings, were aimed at providing the communitywith an avenue for additional and confidential feedback. The surveys were held twiceonly due to a poor response rate.

& Two focus groups that were supplemented by in-depth telephone interviews were heldwithin 6 months of the first meeting. The aim was to obtain information about thecommunity’s preferred methods of communication, for example newsletter, newsstories in the media, public or face-to-face meetings; and to identify concerns aboutthe project.

& The establishment by the community relations manager of a community referencegroup. Two community members volunteered to join the group following advertising inthe project newsletter, local newspaper and on community radio; other members, whomthe proponent invited to join the group, were a local government member, a localenvironmentalist, both of whom attended the meetings intermittently. Other members ofthe stakeholder group included representatives from the relevant State regulatoragencies. The Country Fire Authority, which has a public health and safety oversightof all gas projects in the region, was also represented. The community relationsmanager organised an independent chair for the reference group. No funds wereavailable to support this position, so it was staffed voluntarily and in an unofficialcapacity by a State public servant, who had a strong personal commitment to publicparticipation. Due to illness, this person withdrew from the position of chair shortlyafter the start of the project.

The aim of the reference group was to provide the community with a representative andindependent voice at the community meetings. The members undertook to listen to thecommunity and raise areas of concern with the proponent both at and in addition tocommunity meetings. The negotiation activities took the form of private meetings with keylandholders in regard to land access and lease payments and were held during the first 2 yearsof the project.

4 Results

4.1 Community characteristics

Two distinct communities existed in the district in which the Otway Project is situatedat the time the case study took place. The highway that runs through the district actedas a social fault-line. The Otway Project is situated on the eastern side of the highwaywhere the only residents were third and fourth generation dairy farmers. The residentsliving on the ocean side to the west of the highway were more diverse, comprisingfarmers and newer residents, who had settled in the district since the 1980s. The twogroups diverged significantly in terms of their human and social capital, which for the

696 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:687–706

dairy farmers was characterised by their education, social isolation, community tensionsand economic security.

4.1.1 Education

A major contributing factor to a person’s human capital is education (Coleman 1988). Themajority (almost 80%) of the residents in this district were dairy farmers, who left schoolduring or at the end of high school. Almost 60% of the district residents had no formaleducation beyond high school and 20% were vocationally trained (Moyne Shire Council2010). This profile reflected the skills and educational levels of the farmers interviewed. Bycontrast, the newer residents’ education levels went beyond high school. They either hadformal technical and vocational training or a university degree. They used their skills inlobbying and media management and their political contacts to mount a successful anti-wind farm campaign in 2004.

4.1.2 Social isolation

Social isolation was a distinguishing characteristic between the farmers and newerresidents. The majority of farmers interviewed said that they had little interaction withpeople outside the district. Their main social contacts were family members with whomthey often worked, or their immediate neighbours. Some farmers were aware of theirisolation. One commented:

I’m not involved now, my family is gone out and not involved in schools andprobably at that stage I wasn’t even involved in the local football club, so I never hada lot of contact with people.

Their isolation resulted in a limited access to bridging social capital, which produced small,closed social networks whose members had limited ability to “seek or adopt new ideas”(Woodhouse 2006 p. 92).

The dairy farmers’ closed social networks limited their access to alternative sources ofinformation by serving as closed information loops in which members exchanged redundantinformation. These closed information loops tended to reinforce the messages of theproponent. For example, nine of the 11 dairy farmers interviewed said their preferred sourceof information about the project was from the proponent’s personnel and publicparticipation materials. One farmer preferred to find out about the project from familyand friends and then the media:

Nothing else to go on so you always trust the first bit of information to a degree. I’ma reader. I like things in hard copy. The only information was the stuff that came in themail [from the proponent].

Of the 11 farmers interviewed, two used the Internet. One farmer used the Internet to readmaterial on the proponent’s website, but indicated he had not searched for additionalinformation on CCS. The other farmer, who threw the proponent’s material away beforereading it, was the only dairy farmer interviewee who sought information about the projectbeyond that provided by the proponent. He conducted wide Internet searches on a variety ofsubjects including CCS. He also contacted friends in the oil and gas industry to obtain what heconsidered to be independent advice about CCS. This interviewee was atypical of both thenewer residents and traditional dairy farmers groups. His family had lived in the district sincethe early 20th Century and he had been a dairy farmer for most of his life, but he had developed

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:687–706 697

skills and interests in addition to dairy farming. This was reflected by his networks within andexternal to the local community, as well as his varied information sources.

The newer residents had strong bridging social capital. They were associated with theschools and sport teams in the district, but tended not to socialise locally. They ran smallbusinesses from home or commuted daily to office jobs and travelled regularly as part of theirwork and leisure. They had ties with regional, national and international professional and socialnetworks increasing their access to social capital, which enhanced their economic security andaccess to diverse information sources well beyond that provided by either the wind farm or CCSproponents. Their information sources included friends, colleagues and contacts in the energyindustry, politics, government, international, national and local media and the Internet.

4.1.3 Community tensions

A contributing factor to the closed social networks was the underlying and long-termtensions within the community. These tensions had reduced the quality of the relationshipsand contributed to a lack of trust amongst the farmers and between the farmers and thenewer residents, reducing social capital. A resident recalled, for example, how gossip wasspread to gain access to resources; farmers spoke of the resentment they felt over aperceived inequitable distribution of hay following bushfires that occurred in 1983 and theperceived overuse of ground water:

These are the dynamics: [name] used to work for [name]. They’re neighbours. Theydon’t speak to each other. You know, like there’s all this other stuff going on.

The lack of trust among the dairy farmers and between the dairy farmers and newcomersmeant that there were no leaders who could or would galvanise all the farmers to promotetheir collective interests. This included people who, in civil society, would have beenconsidered community leaders.

Contributing to the community tensions was the experience with a previous wind farmpublic participation process. The newer residents, joined by one retired farmer, successfullyopposed the establishment of the wind farm. The farmers, on whose properties windturbines were to be situated, missed out on a considerable amount of potential income whenthe project folded as a result of this opposition.

The newer residents were not engaged with the Otway Project public participationprocess for two reasons. Some said they preferred gas technology over wind farms, and,along with some farmers, they were battle-scarred and exhausted by the wind farm publicparticipation process, which had ended two years before the Otway public participationprocess began. Explaining his lack of interest in the Otway Project public participationprocess, one newcomer said the farming community should decide for themselves. Anotherbelieved the farmers should be left to their own resources, saying: “If they can’t bebothered to look out for themselves, it’s their problem.”

The division between the two groups was reinforced by the farmers’ exclusive attitude tonewer residents in their area. The majority of the dairy farmers referred to the newerresidents as ‘blow-ins’ or ‘greenies’. There was little interaction between the two groups.

4.1.4 Economic security

The economic situation for the dairy farmers was markedly different from that of thenewcomers. The district was undergoing transition caused by mounting pressure on farmersto be more competitive. Farmers were addressing this by increasing the size of their land

698 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:687–706

holdings or selling their properties and leaving agriculture. The consequence was adeclining and aging population (Barr 2005). This changing nature of the district causedconcern among some of the farmers. Their friends had left, and the larger farm enterprisesintroduced new agricultural practices, making smaller farm enterprises less competitive.The declining population of the district limited the farmers’ ability to maintain their existingsocial networks, which reduced their access to social capital and potential economicgrowth.

4.2 Acceptance of CCS

On the surface, the community seemed to accept the Otway Project. In contrast to the windfarm proposal, no groups objected to the project. The three factors that influenced thecommunity’s initial acceptance of the Otway Project were climate change, their familiaritywith gas technology and government legislation and policy regarding the exploration andextraction of resources.

At the time the research occurred, most of Australia had been experiencing a prolongeddrought, which raised awareness among farmers about the consequences of climate change(Australian Bureau of Statistics 2009). Most of the farmers interviewed were sympathetic toa technology, in this case CCS, which could address climate change as their livelihoodsdepended on high, regular rainfall.

Gas technology had existed in the region for decades. Pipelines and gas wells weresituated on farmers’ properties and/or the properties of their neighbours. The farmerswere aware of the positive aspects of gas production: clean energy and compensationpayments, which would contribute to fluctuating incomes at a time of drought andtransition.

The farmers’ knowledge of the State Government’s power to compulsorily acquire landfor gas exploration influenced them to accept the technology and reduced their motivationto raise these concerns with the proponent. The State Government invoked this power forthe Otway Project (see Ashworth et al. 2010). Even before the compulsory land acquisition,the knowledge of this legislative power was evident in the farmers’ seemingly contradictorybehaviour in regard to land access. Some farmers allowed the proponent access to theirproperties to inspect their land for possible pipeline easements but refused access for soiltesting. Their assumption was that land was less likely to be compulsorily acquired for soiltesting than for a pipeline easement.

4.3 Changing acceptance

Sympathy toward the CCS technologies appeared to wane after 3 years of the benchmarktesting conducted from 2006 to 2009 indicating a change in the level of acceptance withinthe community. Interviewees reported that they had become jaded about the project becauseof the ongoing interruption to their farm management activities for repeated soil, water andseismic surveys. The farmers involved reported that they were unprepared for the frequencyof these interruptions and the additional inconvenience they caused.

As a result, other underlying concerns associated with gas technology re-emerged. Themain concerns were about leaks and explosions, both of which had occurred, according tothe farmers, during past natural gas projects. They were also concerned about losing land toeasements for pipelines and gas wells; the disturbance of grazing land leaving it lessproductive following the laying of pipelines; broken land-management promises byprevious proponents; the destruction of irrigation pipes; and fences left in disrepair

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:687–706 699

following seismic surveys. Consequently, two farmers, who lived near the CCS project andwho did not receive compensation for soil gas surveys, said they no longer wanted anyinvolvement with the CCS project.

The proponent’s seismic surveys were also a cause for community concern about theproject (Ashworth et al. 2010). In this case, the proponent used the surveys initially to gaininformation about the storage reservoir, and later, following the injection of CO2, to monitorand verify the effectiveness of the storage site. While the proponent did inform farmersearly in the participation process that seismic surveys would occur, the nature of the project,guided by the need for additional research as the project progressed and weather conditionsin the region, meant that the scheduling of the seismic surveys was regularly subject tochange (CO2CRC 2007; Personal communication 2007.).

The seismic surveys followed a grid across farmers’ properties that roughly covered theboundaries of the storage reservoir. Cattle needed to be removed or cordoned off from partsof the paddocks for up to 2 days while the surveys were conducted. The farmers said theirexperiences with the CCS seismic surveys were similar to those of other gas projects.Among their concerns was that:

& Fences were cut and not always repaired well or at all.& Standard farm gate protocols were not followed: researchers were advised to leave the

gates the way they found them. However, some were left open when they should havebeen closed allowing cattle to wander onto other landowner’s properties or near roads;others were closed when they should have been left open, leaving cattle stranded inpaddocks without water.

& The indentations left in paddocks by seismic equipment caused the cows to rut andcreate deep holes.

& Some farmers were injured by walking into the holes or by falling off their motorbikesafter riding over them.

& Equipment was left behind in the paddocks risking injury to farmers and cattle.

4.4 Passivity

The farmers interviewed, those whose land was affected by the CCS seismic surveys,individually expressed frustration with the seismic surveys but passively accepted theactivity. Only one out of the six said he had discussed the issue with a neighbour and onesaid he had raised the matter with a proponent representative.

Asked why the farmers did not form a group to take their concerns collectively to theproponent, one interviewee said that the group would have been too small, although thisperson was aware that the local anti-wind farm group had had few (six) members. Theinterviewee also avoided speaking to neighbours who were upset with the seismic surveys,because “it was a touchy subject”. This unwillingness to speak about something that wouldupset a neighbour was a consistent theme in the interviews.

I didn’t speak to [name of farmer] much about it [the seismic surveys] because it wasa touchy subject. . . . I didn’t speak to [name of another farmer] about it muchbecause he was another touchy one.

An observer from outside the district noted this apparent inability or unwillingness of thefarmers to meet and work together. He contrasted their behaviour with other Victorian ruralcommunities where farmers organised meetings among themselves to discuss how toprotect their interests during wind farm public participation processes.

700 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:687–706

An ability to negotiate and act collectively would have had two advantages:

& The farmers would have had a stronger position from which to negotiate a morebeneficial outcome.

& They would have alerted an otherwise unaware proponent leadership that severalfarmers had serious concerns about the disruptions to their farming activities. This mostlikely would have resulted in some form of remedial action.

5 Discussion and recommendations for best practice methods

Consistent with the definition of acceptance cited in 1.1, the farmers on the surfaceappeared to accept the CCS project without qualification, that is, passively. For the majority,who did not receive compensation, the only point of reciprocity for the inconvenience theyexperienced was the hope that the technology might eventually help address climatechange. As there were no immediate rewards for hosting the project in their community (1.5jobs were created during the time the research occurred), other reasons for their acceptancewere due to:

& Passivity produced by the social norms within their closed social networks. This wasreflected by their reluctance to discuss issues that upset each other; and

& A disempowering environment created by the State Government’s resources legislation.

The farmers’ human capital reinforced the impression of acceptance. The farmers wereskilled manual labourers educated to between mid and late secondary school. The farmerscould not access the newer residents’ human capital because of their exclusive and,therefore, closed social networks. The newer residents’ experience with the oil and gasindustry and in lobbying and politics would have helped the farmers negotiate a mutuallybeneficial outcome in regard to land access and management matters. Had a communitywith high human and social capital experienced the same disruptions to farm practices, theproponent may have faced protest actions similar to those undertaken by the newerresidents in the district in regard to wind farms.

The closed social networks were sources of redundant information. Only two farmers ofthe 11 interviewed had access to the Internet. Most of the farmers relied on each other foradditional information about the project, but this information was sourced in most casesfrom the proponent. The farmers could not be fully aware of the ramifications of theproject, or the experience of communities in other countries. This made them morevulnerable to persuasion because essentially they could access information about CCS fromone source only, the proponent. This vulnerability indicated that the proponent, as well asgovernment, had a role in building the human and social capital within the host CCScommunity. This proposition is consistent with the ICMM Principles of SustainableDevelopment Framework.

An alternative explanation for the findings above is that the community had accepted theproject because they were familiar with and, therefore, comfortable with gas projects; andbecause they were willing to support a technology that addressed climate change. Thisconclusion assumes that:

& The community had access to a variety of information sources and therefore, couldmake informed decisions about the impacts of the project on their lives.

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:687–706 701

& The community issues with the project were minor because few complaints, if any, werevoiced.

& The community’s social and economic characteristics played no role in their acceptanceof the project.

& The community had only previous positive experiences with gas technology andgovernment resources policy.

However, the research results negate these assumptions. It was found that:

& The closed social networks restricted the community’s access to information and,therefore, its ability to make well-informed decisions about the impacts of the project.

& Tensions within the community resulted in an inability to work together to collectivelydiscuss their concerns about the project with the proponent.

& The farmers’ human and social capital characteristics and the economic uncertaintyfaced by the transitioning Otway community were motivating factors in theiracceptance of the project in addition to their attitudes to climate change, the projectinfrastructure and government legislation.

& The community had concerns about gas technology and government resources policybased on previous and current experiences with gas projects.

5.1 Assessment of the Otway public participation process

In contrast to the Ashworth et al. 2010 case study, which aimed to explain the successes andfailures of the Otway public participation process, this study aimed to explain communityacceptance of CCS through a human and social capital analysis, and through that analysisassess the Otway public participation process. While acknowledging the two studies wereexamining public participation from very different perspectives, it is worthwhile noting thatthey both found similar negative reactions in the community in regard to land acquisitionand seismic surveys. The Ashworth study found these issues to be the pitfalls of the publicparticipation process. The human and social capital analysis of this current study went astep further and explored what actions the community took in relation to these pitfalls andwhy. It found that the non-action of the community in relation to these pitfalls was aconsequence of its human and social capital.

Overall, the human and social capital analysis of this current study found that the Otwaypublic participation process lacked an adherence to three best-practice principles of publicparticipation: transparency in regard to the project activities, for example the frequency ofvarious surveys; fairness and capacity.

This current study found that the community needed capacity-building to enable it tobecome well-informed about CCS; and to help develop the confidence and negotiationskills necessary that would have enabled farmers to raise their concerns with the proponentand have them addressed. In this case, capacity-building would have ensured a fairer publicparticipation process.

The public participation process also could have benefitted from a more carefullyconsidered application of the participatory processes in the Negotiation stage in Fig. 1. Forexample, the community reference group could have been encouraged to adopt a moreactive role as farmer representatives.

The heavy reliance on voluntary community participation for an effective publicparticipation process is another issue to be considered and addressed. Further opportunitiesfor the community to have a role in decisions that directly affect them, discussed under 1.4

702 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:687–706

Challenges for best practice public participation and listed in Figure 1, would increasevoluntary community engagement in and commitment to the participatory process.Additionally, the proponent might also consider paying participants a stipend for their timeon the reference group.

In sum, the dairy farmers’ human and social capital indicated that a markedlydifferent public participation process was required. The community in this case studyneeded capacity-building to develop its human and social capital, which would assist inthe implementation of a fairer and more transparent participatory process. This can beachieved through the appointment, most likely by government, of an independentadvocate to:

& Gather and disseminate information from varied information sources to the community.& Help explain the more technical aspects of CCS for the lay person.& Hold community meetings independent of the project proponent.& Provide the opportunity to speak in confidence (rather than at public meetings) of their

concerns about the project.& Facilitate the community in developing a genuine grassroots consensus about the

project.& Represent time-poor community members at meetings with the proponent and negotiate

on their behalf on issues of concern.& Provide an Internet hub and training on how to effectively use the Internet as a research

tool.

Overall, four principles have emerged from this study for CCS proponents undertakingpublic participation.

Principle 1: A proponent can erroneously believe that community acceptance is constantthrough all stages of the project. However, the level of community acceptancecan decrease when the project practices negatively impact on the community,particularly if its concerns are not addressed through the participatory process.

Principle 2: A lack of awareness by the proponent of the community’s social character-istics could lead to actions that jeopardise the progress and outcomes of theproject. For example, a community with higher levels of human capital mayhave collectively prevented access for the seismic surveys in an effort toobtain an acceptable change in project management practices.

Principle 3: A community with reduced human and social capital is vulnerable topersuasion and possible exploitation by a proponent. Governments andproponents need to establish mechanisms that build capacity in vulnerablecommunities to guard against this.

Principle 4: There are points in a CCS project where it would be possible for a communityto have the final decision over matters that directly affect its members’ lives.Matters on which a community could make the final decision are:

& Where to site some infrastructure (pipeline routes, wells, project office, accessroads) providing cost differentials are incorporated into the decision.

& Land management issues such as traffic flow, noise and dust mitigation.& Access for benchmark and ongoing monitoring and verification surveys, for

example, seismic, soil, air and groundwater.& The treatment of property, for example when and if fences should be cut to conduct

seismic surveys; and farm protocols in relation to the management of stock and gates.

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:687–706 703

6 Conclusion

The purpose of the research was to explore the characteristics of a community in which theacceptance of CCS is achieved with relative ease; and make recommendations on the typeof public participation processes that were most appropriate for it. The key findings of thisstudy indicate that the community’s human and social capital was a significant contributorto its acceptance of the project, which was largely passive. However, the farmers’acceptance waned as the project progressed. Their inability to express their concerns to theproponent about the project and to negotiate a beneficial outcome pointed to a need forcapacity-building within the community. A public participation process that was mindful ofthe principles of best practice, particularly transparency, fairness and capacity could haveensured that the farmers were provided with the resources they needed to voice theirconcerns and have them addressed. This would have led to the implementation of a moretransparent and fairer public participation process.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank the farmers and residents in the Otway project area and otherinterviewees who participated in this research. We would also like to thank Dr Carolyn Hendriks, of theAustralian National University, and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on this article.

References

Arnstein SA (1969) Ladder of citizen participation. J Am Plan Assoc 35:216–224Ashworth P, Boughen N, Mayhew M, Millar F (2009) An integrated roadmap of communication activities

around carbon capture and storage in Australia and beyond. Energy Procedia 1:4749–4756Ashworth P, Rodriguez S, Miller (2010) A Case Study of the CO2CRC Otway Project. CSIRO http://www.

globalccsinstitute.com/sites/default/files/OtwayCCSProjectCaseStudy.pdf Cited 3 December 2010Australian Bureau of Statistics (2009) Agriculture in Focus: Farmers’ Perception of a Change in Climate 2006–07

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/4625.0Main%20Features12006–07?opendocu-ment&tabname=Summary&prodno=4625.0&issue=2006–07&num=&view. Cited 17 Sept 2010

Barben D (2010) Analyzing acceptance politics: Towards an epistemological shift in the public understandingof science and technology. Public Understand Sci 19:274–292

Barr N (2005) The changing social landscape of rural victoria. The Victorian Department of PrimaryIndustries, Melbourne

Beierle T, Cayford J (2002) Democracy in practice: Public participation in environmental decisions.Resources for the Future, Washington

Brohmann B, Fritsche U, Hünecke K (2006) Create Acceptance - Case 6: Bioenergy Village Jühnde Workpackage 2- Historical and recent attitude of stakeholders http://www.createacceptance.net/fileadmin/create-acceptance/user/docs/CASE_6.pdf Cited 30 March 2011

Brunsting S, de Best-Waldhober M, Feenstra C, et al. (2010) Stakeholder participation practices and onshoreCCS: Lessons from the Dutch CCS Case Barendrecht. Paper presented at the 10th InternationalConference on Greenhouse Gas Technologies, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 19–23 Sept 2010

Burt R (2005) Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital. Oxford University Press, New YorkCarson L, Gelber K (2001) Ideas for Community Consultation: A discussion on principles and procedures for

making consultation work. NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. http://www.activedemocracy.net/articles/principles_procedures_final.pdf. Cited 20 August 2010

CO2CRC (2007) Geosequestration Research Project Update. http://www.co2crc.com.au/dls/researchprojectupdate/ResearchProjectUpdate_03.pdf. Cited 20 Sept 2010

CO2CRC (n.d) http://www.co2crc.com.au/otway/. Cited 20 Sept 2010Coleman J (1988) Social capital in the creation of human-capital. Am J Sociol 94:95–120Culley M, Hughey J (2008) Power and public participation in a hazardous waste dispute: A community case

study. Am J Community Psychol 41:99–114DeCesar T (2010) Comment an evaluation of eminent domain and a national carbon capture and geologic

sequestration program: Redefining the space below. Wake Forest L Rev 45:261–290

704 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:687–706

Desbarats J, Upham P, Riesch H, et al. (2010) Review of the public participation practices for CCS and non-CCS projects in Europe. Institute for European Environmental Policy. http://www.ieep.eu/topics/climate-change-and-energy/2010/01/review-of-the-public-participation-practices-for-ccs-and-non-ccs-projects-in-europe. Cited 27 Aug 2010

Devine-Wright P, McAlpine G, Bately-White S (2001) Wind turbines in the landscape: An evaluation of localcommunity involvement and other considerations in UK wind farm development. In: Edge M (ed)Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association,Edinburgh, 2001.

Diduck A, Sinclair A (2002) Public involvement in environmental assessment: The case of thenonparticipant. Environ Manag 29:578–588

Doughty C, Freifeld B, Trautz R (2008) Site characterization for CO2 geologic storage and vice versa: TheFrio Brine pilot, Texas, USA as a case study. Environ Geol 54:1635–1656

Dütschke E (2010) What drives local public acceptance – comparing two cases from Germany. Paperpresented at the 10th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Technologies, Amsterdam, theNetherlands, 19 – 23 Sept 2010

Elliott M, Thomas I (2009) Environmental impact assessment in Australia: Theory and practice, 5th edn. TheFederation Press, Sydney

Eltham D, Harrison G, Allen S (2008) Change in public attitudes towards a Cornish wind farm: Implicationsfor planning. Energy Policy 36:23–33

Feenstra C, Mikunda T, Brunsting S (2010) What happened in Barendrecht? Case study on the planned onshorecarbon dioxide storage in Barendrecht, the Netherlands. Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands. http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/resources/publications/what-happened-barendrecht. Cited 3 December 2010

Granovetter M (1973) The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol 78:1360–1380Ha-Duong M, Gaultier M, de Guillebon B (2010) Social aspects of Total’s Lacq CO2 capture, transport and

storage pilot project. Paper presented at the 10th International Conference on Greenhouse GasTechnologies, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 19–23 September, 2010.

Hance B, Chess C, Sandman P (1990) Industry risk communication manual: Improving dialogue withcommunities. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton

Heiskanen E, Hodson M, Mourik R et al (2006) Create Acceptance - Factors influencing the societalacceptance of new energy technologies: Meta-analysis of recent European projects http://www.createacceptance.net/fileadmin/create-acceptance/user/docs/E07058.pdf Cited 20 April 2011.

Hendriks C. Participatory and collaborative governance. In: Smith R, Vromen A, Cook I (eds) (forthcoming)Contemporary Politics in Australia: Theories, Practices and Issues Cambridge University Press.

Hindmarsh R, Matthews C (2008) Deliberative speak at the turbine face: Community engagement, windfarms, and renewable energy transitions, in Australia. J Environ Pol Plann 10:217–232

Hodson M (2006) Create Acceptance, Work Package 2- Historical and recent attitudes of stakeholders Case 4+5:Crickdale Bioenergy Power Station and

Huijts N, Midden C, Meijnders A (2007) Social acceptance of carbon dioxide storage. Energ Pol 35:2780–2789Hund G, Greenberg S (2010) FutureGen Case Study. http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/sites/default/files/

FutureGen%20CCS%20Project%20Case%20Study.pdf Cited 30 March 2011.International Association of Public Participation (2004) Public Participation Spectrum http://www.iap2.org.

au/sitebuilder/resources/knowledge/asset/files/36/iap2spectrum.pdf. Cited 2 September 2010.International Energy Agency (2009) Technology Roadmap Carbon Capture and Storage. IEA/OECD, Paris.

http://www.iea.org/papers/2009/CCS_Roadmap.pdf. Cited 6 October 2010Jolivet E, Heiskanen E (2010) Blowing against the wind—An exploratory application of actor network

theory to the analysis of local controversies and participation processes in wind energy. Energ Pol38:6746–6754

Kinsella J, Goetz S, Partridge M et al (2010) Evaluating RD policies for social and human capitaldevelopment. EuroChoices 9:42–47

Layder D (1998) Sociological practice linking theory and social research. Sage, LondonLeonard L, Onyx J (2003) Networking through loose and strong ties: An Australian qualitative study.

Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 14:189–203Lin N (2001) Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge University Press, New YorkLincoln Y, Guba E (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Sage, Newbury ParkMays C, Poumade M (1996) Uncertain communication: Institutional discourse in nuclear waste repository

sitting. In: Virginia H, Sublet V, Covello V, Tinker T (eds) Scientific uncertainty and its influence on thepublic communication process. Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop, Paris, France,September 8–10, 1994. Kluwer, Dordrecht

International Council on Mining and Metals, Sustainable Development Framework, (n.d.) http://www.smi.uq.edu.au/docs/icmmprinciples.pdf Cited 21 September 2010.

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:687–706 705

Metz B, Davidson O, de Coninck H, Loos M, Meyer L (eds) (2005) IPCC Special Report on Carbon DioxideCapture and Storage. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeCambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA

Moyne Shire Council (2010) Moyne Shire Community Profile. http://profile.id.com.au/Default.aspx?id=279&pg=14&gid=10&type=enum. Cited 28 Sept 2010

Patton M (2002) Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksPersonal communication (2007) with CO2CRC researchers and Otway farmersPimbert M, Wakeford T (2001) Overview – Deliberative democracy and citizen empowerment. In Pimbert M,

Wakeford T (eds) Participatory Learning Action Notes 40: Deliberative Democracy and CitizenEmpowerment, International Institute for Economic Development, London

Portman M, Duff J, Koppel J, Reisert J, Higgins M (2009) Offshore wind energy development in theexclusive economic zone: Legal and policy supports and impediments in Germany and the US. EnergPol 37:3596–3607

Putnam R (2000) Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster, NewYork

Reddel T, Woolcock G (2004) From consultation to participatory governance? A critical review of citizenengagement strategies in Queensland. Aust J Publ Admin 63(3):75–87

Shackley S, McLachlan C, Gough C (2004) The Public Perceptions of Carbon Capture and Storage. WorkingPaper 44, Tyndall Centre, Manchester

State of Victoria, Department of Primary Industries (2004) Petroleum landowner questions answered. http://new.dpi.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/19584/Petroleum_FAQ.pdf. Cited 24 Aug 2010

United Nations (2008) People Matter: Civic Engagement in Public Governance. World Public Sector Report.New York. http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan028608.pdf. Cited 12 Aug2010

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2000) The Aarhus Convention: An implementation guidehttp://www.unece.org/env/pp/acig.pdf Cited 12 May 2010

ViitanenK, Kakulu I (2009) Global Concerns in Compulsory Purchase and Compensation Processes. InternationalFederation of Surveyors. http://www.fig.net/pub/monthly_articles/february_2009/february_2009_viitanen_kakulu.pdf Cited 31 March 2011

Webler T, Tuler S, Krueger R (2001) What is a good public participation process? five perspectives from thepublic. Environ Manag 27:435–450

Wolsink M (2000) Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: Institutional capacity and the limited significance ofpublic support. Renew Energ 21:49–64

Woodhouse A (2006) Social capital and economic development in regional Australia: A case study. J RuralStud 22:83–94

Woolcock G, Brown V (2005) Principles of community engagement: From the literatures on natural resourcemanagement, local community development, human services and sustainability. http://www.uq.edu.au/boilerhouse/docs/WoolcockBrown2005.pdf. Cited 10 Oct 2010

Wűstenhagen R, Wolsink M, Burer, MJ (2007) Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: Anintroduction to the concept. Energ Policy 2683–2691

Zoellner J, Schweizer-Ries P, Wemheuer C (2008) Public acceptance of renewable energies: Results fromcase studies in Germany. Energ Pol 36:4136–4141

706 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:687–706