Dossier: Characterization of European CO2 Storage – European Project SiteChar
Open Access
Issue
Oil Gas Sci. Technol. – Rev. IFP Energies nouvelles
Volume 70, Number 4, July–August 2015
Dossier: Characterization of European CO2 Storage – European Project SiteChar
Page(s) 767 - 784
DOI https://doi.org/10.2516/ogst/2014024
Published online 22 September 2014
  • Brunsting S., De Best-Waldhober M., Feenstra C.F.J., Mikunda T. (2011) Stakeholder Participation and Onshore CCS: Lessons from the Dutch CCS Case Barendrecht, Energy Procedia 4, 6376–6383. [CrossRef]
  • Dütschke E. (2011) What drives local public acceptance: Comparing two cases from Germany, Energy Procedia 4, 6234–6240. [CrossRef]
  • Breukers S., Pol M., Upham P., Lis A., Desbarats J., Roberts T., Duetschke E., Oltra Ch, Brunsting S., de Best-Waldhober M., Reiner D., Riesch H. (2011) Engagement and communication strategies for CCS projects: Gaps between current and desired practices and exemplary strategies, NEARCO2 report.
  • Ha-Duong M., Nadaï A., Campos A.S. (2008) A survey on the public perceptions of CCS in France, Energy Procedia 1, 4757–4764. [CrossRef]
  • NEA (2004) Stepwise Approach to Decision Making for Long-term Radioactive Waste Management, Experience, Issues and Guiding Principles, ISBN 92-64-02077-2.
  • Wade S., Greenberg S. (2009) Afraid to start because the outcome is uncertain? Social site characterisation as a tool for informing public engagement efforts, Energy Procedia 1, 4641–4647. [CrossRef]
  • Wade S., Greenberg S. (2011) Social Site Characterisation: From Concept to Application. A re-view of relevant social science literature and a toolkit for social site characterisation. Available at: https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/sites/default/files/publications/16456/social-site-characterisation-concept-application.pdf.
  • Neele F., Delprat-Jannaud F., Vincké O., Volpi V., Nepveu M., Hofstee C., Wollenweber J., Lothe A., Brunsting S., Pearce J., Battani A., Baroni A., Garcia B. (2013) The SiteChar approach to efficient and focused CO2 storage site characterisation, Energy Procedia 37, 4997–5005. [CrossRef]
  • NETL (2009) Best Practices for: Public Outreach and Education for Carbon Storage Projects, National Energy Technology Laboratory, US Department of Energy.
  • WRI (2009) Engaging Communities in Energy and Infrastructure Projects, World Resources Institute, Washington DC, USA.
  • Ashworth P., Bradbury J., Feenstra C.F.J., Greenberg S., Hund G., Mikunda T., Wade S., Shaw H. (2011) Communication/Engagement. Tool Kit for CCS Projects, Energy Transformed Flagship, National Flagships Research, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).
  • Raven R.P.J.M., Jolivet E., Mourik R.M., Feenstra Y.C.F.J. (2009) ESTEEM: Managing societal acceptance in new energy projects - A toolbox method for project managers, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 76, 963–977. [CrossRef]
  • IISD (2007) Carbon Capture and Storage Communication Workshops, University of Calgary, International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Climate Change Central (Canada) CCS projects Climate Change Central.
  • Hammond J., Shackley S. (2010) Towards a Public Communication and Engagement Strategy for Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Projects in Scotland A Review of Research Findings CCS project experiences Tools, Resources and Best Practices, Working paper SCCS.
  • Brunsting S., Pol M., Paukovic M., Kaiser M., Zimmer R., Shackley S., Mabon L., Hepplewhite F., Loveridge R., Mazurowski M., Polak-Osiniak D., Rybicki C. (2011) Qualitative and quantitative social site characterisations, Deliverable D8.1 of SiteChar: Characterisation of European CO2 storage.
  • Brunsting S., Mastop J., Pol M., Kaiser M., Zimmer R., Shackley S., Mabon L., Howell R. (2012) Trust building and raising public awareness, Deliverable D8.2 of SiteChar: Characterisation of European CO2 storage.
  • Brunsting S., Mastop J., Kaiser M., Zimmer R., Shackley S., Mabon L., Howell R. (2012) Public Outreach Activities, Deliverable D8.3 of SiteChar: Characterisation of European CO2 storage.
  • Brunsting S., Mastop J., Pol M., Kaiser M., Zimmer R., Shackley S., Mabon L., Howell R. (2012) Quantitative social site characterisations, Deliverable D8.4 of SiteChar: Characterisation of European CO2 storage.
  • Schuman H., Presser S. (1981) Questions and answers in attitude surveys, Academic Press, New York.
  • ÖGUT (Austrian Society for Environment and Technology), (2007) The Public Participation Manual. Shaping the future together, ÖGUT-News 01/2007.
  • Creighton J.L. (2005) The Public Participation Handbook: Making Better Decisions Through Citizen Involvement, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
  • Elliott J., Heesterbeek S., Lukensmeyer C.J., Slocum N. (2005) Participatory Methods Toolkit. A practitioner’s manual, Joint publication of the King Baudouin Foundation and the Flemish Institute for Science and Technology Assessment (viWTA).
  • Rowe G., Frewer L.J. (2005) A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms, Science, Technology, & Human Values 30, 251–209. [CrossRef]
  • Beierle T.C., Cayford J. (2002) Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions, RFF Press, Washington DC.
  • Byers P., Wilcox J. (1991) Focus Groups: A qualitative opportunity for researchers, Journal of Business Communication 28, 63–78. [CrossRef]
  • Bradbury J. (2012) Public understanding of and engagement with CCS, in The Social Dynamics of Carbon Capture and Storage, Markusson N., Shackley S., Evar B. (eds), Routledge, London, pp. 45–73.
  • Ashworth P., Carr-Cornish S., Boughen N., Thambimuthu K. (2009) Engaging the public on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage: Does a large group process work? Energy Procedia 1, 4765–4773. [CrossRef]
  • Fishkin J.S., Luskin R.C. (1999) Deliberative polling and citizen consultation, UK CEED Bulletin 55, 6–9.
  • Einsiedel E.F., Jelsoe E., Breck T. (2001) Publics at the technology table: the consensus conference in Denmark Canada, And Australia, Public Understanding of Science 10, 83–98. [CrossRef]
  • Roberts T., Mander S. (2011) Assessing public perceptions of CCS: Benefits, challenges and methods, Energy Procedia 4, 6307–6314. [CrossRef]
  • Crosby N., Kelly J.M., Schaefer P. (1986) Citizens Panels: A New Approach to Citizen Participation, Public Administrative Review 46, 170–178. [CrossRef]
  • Brunsting S., Upham P., Dütschke E., De Best Waldhober M., Oltra C., Desbarats J., Riesch H., Reiner D. (2011) Communicating CCS: Applying communications theory to public perceptions of carbon capture and storage, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 5, 1651–1662. [CrossRef]
  • Terwel B.W., Harinck F., Ellemers N., Daamen D.D.L. (2009) How organizational motives and communications affect public trust in organizations: the case of carbon dioxide capture and storage, Journal of Environmental Psychology 29, 290–299. [CrossRef]
  • Ter Mors E., Weenig M.W.H., Ellemers N., Daamen D.D.L. (2010) Effective communication about complex environmental issues: Perceived quality of information about carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) depends on stakeholder collaboration, Journal of Environmental Psychology 30, 347–357. [CrossRef]
  • Brunsting S., de Best-Waldhober M., Terwel B.W. (2013) ‘I reject your reality and substitute my own!’ Why more knowledge about CO2 storage hardly improves public attitudes, Energy Procedia, accepted for publication in 2013.
  • Brunsting S., de Best-Waldhober M., Brouwer A.S., Riesch H., Reiner D. (2013) Communicating CCS: Effects of text-only and text-and-visual depictions of CO2 storage on risk perceptions and attitudes, Energy Procedia, accepted for publication in 2013.
  • Paukovic M., Brunsting S., Straver K., Mastop J., de Best-Waldhober M. (2012) The Dutch general public’s opinion on CCS and energy transition in 2011: Development in awareness, knowledge, beliefs and opinions related to information and media coverage, CATO-2 Deliverable. Available at: http://www.co2-cato.org/publications/publications/the-dutch-general-public-s-opinion-on-ccs-and-energy-transition-in-2011-development-in-awareness-knowledge-beliefs-and-opinions-related-to-information-and-media-coverage.
  • Lovbrand E., Pielke R., Beck S. (2011) A democracy paradox in studies of science and technology, Science, Technology, Human Values 36, 474. [CrossRef]
  • Wickson F., Delgado A., Kjølberg K.L. (2010) Who or What is ‘The Public’? Nature Nanotechnology 5, 757–758. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  • Wynne B. (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science: Hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genetics 9, 211–220. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  • Mabon L., Vercelli S., Shackley S., Anderlucci J., Battisti N., Boot K. (2013) Tell me what you think about the geological storage of carbon dioxide: towards a fuller understanding of public perceptions of CCS, Energy Procedia 37, 7444–7453. [CrossRef]
  • Mabon L., Shackley S. (2013) Public engagement in discussing carbon capture and storage, in UNESCO/OECD World Social Science Report 2013: Changing Global Environments, UNESCO/OECD, Hackmann H. (ed.), Paris, pp. 396–400.
  • Schröder J., Barbier J. (2013) Report of the InSOTEC Stakeholder Seminar No. 2, 12-13 Nov., Berlin.
  • Arnstein S.R. (1969) A ladder of citizen participation, Journal of the American Institute of planners 35, 216–224. [CrossRef]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.