4.6 Article

'Best practice' community dialogue: The promise of a small-scale deliberative engagement around the siting of a carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) facility

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.12.006

关键词

CCS; Community engagement; Deliberative democracy; Dialogue; Qualitative; New Zealand

资金

  1. Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences (GNS Science) under the CCS project of the Petroleum Basin Research Programme
  2. Australian government through its CRC programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In New Zealand the Taranaki region has been identified as a likely place for carbon dioxide sequestration as a result of its oil and gas industry, potential storage reservoirs and skilled local workforce. As yet there are no plans to deploy the carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technology in this particular region but this presented an opportunity for pro-active engagement with local stakeholders, including the urban community, farmers and landowners, local iwi (Maori), local and regional councils and the oil/gas industry. As an alternative to a standard consultation technique, a small-scale dialogue-based method was used, based on the principles of deliberative engagement. In this context, the emphasis was on developing an informed understanding of different viewpoints and solution-focused decision-making. This method of engagement was found to be cost-effective, revealed some unexpected viewpoints and identified some important precursors to risk perception in New Zealand. The empowerment of participants, assisted by independent scientists and the opportunity for facilitated dialogue, were key success factors. Moreover, the approach was valued by the wider community and perceived as a means to open up dialogue around other regional energy issues. In summary, small-scale deliberative engagement processes are a viable alternative or complement to standard community consultation techniques for engagement around the siting of CCS facilities. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据