Internet-based public debate of CCS: Lessons from online focus groups in Poland and Spain

This paper makes three contributions to the developing literature on public opinion and understanding of CCS. The first is a discussion of online focus groups as a deliberative method in experimental and perhaps consultative contexts. The second is the role of anchoring and associative reasoning in the development of public opinion of CCS, illustrated through the coincidental timing of the investigation with the Fukushima nuclear accident. The third is a discussion of managing public-facing energy messaging in an age of public access to online information. Two multi-day, online focus groups or “dialogue boards” were held, one in Poland and one in Spain, with participants drawn from regions with active CCS development potential. The nature of the groups led to participants being subject to wider social influence through discussion of the topic off-line. They were also able to research and present evidence on the topic to the group, deepening debate and allowing the emergence of ‘experts’. The study illustrates and affirms the importance of trust in message source, the difficulties of challenging pre-existing concerns and opinion and the challenge potentially posed by access to conflicting online information.

[1]  Hauke Riesch,et al.  BEYOND ‘FOR OR AGAINST’: Environmental NGO-evaluations of CCS as a climate change solution , 2012 .

[2]  S. Coleman,et al.  Bowling Together: Online Public Engagement in Policy Deliberation , 2001 .

[3]  Karl Reiner Lang,et al.  Issues in Online Focus Groups: Lessons Learned from an Empirical Study of Peer-to-Peer Filesharing System Users , 2007 .

[4]  Paul Upham,et al.  The Public and CCS: The importance of communication and participation in the context of local realities , 2011 .

[5]  A. Bryman.  Social Research Methods , 2001 .

[6]  Carly McLachlan,et al.  The public perception of carbon dioxide capture and storage in the UK: results from focus groups and a survey , 2004 .

[7]  H. Herzog,et al.  American exceptionalism? Similarities and differences in national attitudes toward energy policy and global warming. , 2006, Environmental science & technology.

[8]  Minh Ha-Duong,et al.  A survey on the public perception of CCS in France , 2009 .

[9]  P. Upham,et al.  Public perceptions of CCS: Emergent themes in pan-European focus groups and implications for communications , 2011 .

[10]  Richard A. Krueger,et al.  Focus groups : a practical guide for applied research / by Richard A. Krueger , 1989 .

[11]  Elisabeth Dütschke,et al.  Communicating CCS: Applying communications theory to public perceptions of carbon capture and storage , 2011 .

[12]  Donna J. Reid,et al.  Online Focus Groups: An In-depth Comparison of Computer-mediated and Conventional Focus Group Discussions , 2005 .

[13]  Bart W. Terwel,et al.  How organizational motives and communications affect public trust in organizations: The case of carbon dioxide capture and storage , 2009 .

[14]  Gene Rowe,et al.  Lay perceptions of carbon capture and storage technology , 2010 .

[15]  Ian G. Taylor,et al.  Burying Carbon under the Sea: An Initial Exploration of Public Opinions , 2002 .

[16]  Bart W. Terwel,et al.  Competence‐Based and Integrity‐Based Trust as Predictors of Acceptance of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS) , 2009, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[17]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework , 1988 .

[18]  H Roberts,et al.  Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity , 1994 .

[19]  A. Giddens.  Risk and Responsibility , 1999 .

[20]  E. Rochon,et al.  False hope: why carbon capture and storage won't save the climate. , 2008 .

[21]  Laurie Buys,et al.  Public understanding of carbon sequestration in Australia: socio-demographic predictors of knowledge, engagement and trust , 2007 .

[22]  Jennifer Oringderff,et al.  “My Way”: Piloting an Online Focus Group , 2004 .

[23]  Howard J. Herzog,et al.  How aware is the public of carbon capture and storage , 2005 .

[24]  P. Ashworth,et al.  International comparison of the large group process: Results from Canada, Netherlands, Scotland and Australia , 2012 .

[25]  R. Sala,et al.  The influence of information on individuals' reactions to CCS technologies: results from experimental online survey research , 2012 .

[26]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Adapting communication to the public's intuitive understanding of CCS , 2011 .

[27]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  Communication of CCS monitoring activities may not have a reassuring effect on the public , 2011 .

[28]  Al Anneloes Meijnders,et al.  Social acceptance of carbon dioxide storage , 2007 .

[29]  Robert J. Sternberg,et al.  Component Processes in Analogical Reasoning. , 1977 .

[30]  Lyn Turney,et al.  Virtual Focus Groups: New Frontiers in Research , 2005 .

[31]  B. Metz.  IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage , 2005 .

[32]  M. Akai,et al.  Public acceptance of CO2 capture and storage technology: A survey of public opinion to explore influential factors , 2005 .

[33]  S. Thorne,et al.  The Analytic Challenge in Interpretive Description , 2004 .

[34]  R. Sternberg,et al.  Intelligence, Information Processing and Analogical Reasoning : The Componential Analysis of Human Abilities , 1977 .

[35]  André Faaij,et al.  Informed and uninformed public opinions on CO2 capture and storage technologies in the Netherlands , 2009 .

[36]  Sallie E Greenberg,et al.  Afraid to Start Because the Outcome is Uncertain?: Social Site Characterization as a Tool for Informing Public Engagement Efforts , 2009 .

[37]  N. Stern.  What is the Economics of Climate Change , 2006 .