- Email: [email protected]
Effects of Consultations with Local Residents in the Process of Deciding About Host Community Compensation Measures
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect Energy Procedia 63 (2014) 7116 – 7118
GHGT-12
Effects of consultations with local residents in the process of deciding about host community compensation measures Bart W. Terwela*, Emma ter Morsa, Florentine A. Koudenburga a
Leiden University, Dept. of Social and Organizational Psychology, Wassenaarseweg 52, 2300AK Leiden, The Netherlands
Abstract People who are convinced of the necessity of CCS for limiting the magnitude of climate change may nevertheless oppose a locally proposed CCS project if they think that the project will have adverse local impacts. The implementation of host community compensation measures might help to avoid or reduce local public opposition to CCS. Here we discuss experimental research that reveals how the type of compensation and the procedure that is used when determining a compensation offer influence public responses to compensation offered by a company that plans to construct a CO2 transport pipelines underneath a residential area. © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Selection and peer-review under responsibility of GHGT.of GHGT-12 Peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee Keywords: consultation; compensation; fairness; public participation; trust
1. Introduction People who are convinced of the necessity of CCS for limiting the magnitude of climate change may nevertheless oppose a locally proposed CCS project if they anticipate adverse local impacts of the project. It has been suggested that the implementation of host community compensation might help to avoid or reduce local public opposition to CCS [1]. However, as the broader planning and facility siting literature demonstrates, a compensation strategy may
* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected]
1876-6102 © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of GHGT-12 doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.746
Bart W. Terwel et al. / Energy Procedia 63 (2014) 7116 – 7118
7117
easily be counterproductive as well, especially if compensation offered by a company is seen by communities as an cynical ploy to ‘buy’ their support [2,3]. This raises the question of how a company can reduce the likelihood of being perceived as acting purely upon instrumental motives once it has decided to compensate a local community designated to host a CCS (or other type of) project. We have addressed this question in a recent survey experiment, which has been reported on in detail in a recent article in the Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology [4]. Specifically, in this survey experiment we examined how the type of compensation and the procedure that is used when determining a compensation offer influence public responses to compensation offered by a company that plans to implement a project with adverse local impacts (namely local nuisance such as noise annoyance and streets that will be broken up because of the construction of CO2 transport pipelines underneath a residential area). With regard to the type of compensation offer, we contrasted public goods compensation to individual monetary compensation for community members (this comparison is quite common in the literature, see for example [5]). Regarding the type of procedure, we contrasted (among other things) whether members of the local public had or had not been consulted in the process of determining the compensation offer. This factor has not received much attention in previous empirical research, but it might be an important predictor of how people react to the compensation offered. In the experiment, participants read a scenario in which we systematically varied whether the company in question had or had not consulted members of the local public prior to deciding on a compensation offer. Furthermore, the type of compensation offer was varied and concerned either individual monetary compensation for members of the community or public goods compensation in the form of a contribution to a neighborhood improvement project. After they had read the scenario, participants completed a questionnaire that included items to measure participants’ perceptions of the company’s concern with the public interest, perceptions of the fairness of the procedure used in deciding on the compensation offer, perceptions of the trustworthiness of the company, and expectations about the responses of the members of the affected community (details of this study can be found in [4]).
2. Results As regards the effects of the type of compensation offer, the results revealed that compensation in the form of a public good communicates greater concern for the public interest than compensation in the form of individual monetary payments. This may explain the findings of previous studies that people tend to respond more favorably to public goods compensation than monetary compensation [5]. Importantly, the study further clearly confirmed the importance of consultations with local residents in the process of deciding about a compensation offer. People were more convinced that the company genuinely cared about the local public’s interests and considered the procedure to be fairer when it had rather than had not consulted members of the local public prior to deciding on the compensation offer. As a result, the company was considered more trustworthy, which, in turn, caused people to anticipate more favorable reactions to the compensation offered. This causal ordering was hypothesized and confirmed through structural equation modeling [4].
3. Conclusion In conclusion, public responses to host community compensation not only depend on instrumental or utility considerations (e.g., is the offered compensation of sufficient utility to actually balance out the local burdens and local benefits?)—social and relational considerations (concern, fairness, trust) play important roles as well.
7118
Bart W. Terwel et al. / Energy Procedia 63 (2014) 7116 – 7118
Acknowledgements This research has been carried out in the context of the CATO-2 program. CATO-2 is the Dutch national research program on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). The program is financially supported by the Dutch government (Ministry of Economic Affairs) and the CATO-2 consortium parties.
References [1] Ter Mors, E., Terwel, B. W., & Daamen, D. D. L. (2012). The potential of host community compensation in facility siting. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 11 (supplement), S130–S138. doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.07.002 [2] Aitken, M. (2010). Wind power and community benefits: Challenges and opportunities. Energy Policy, 38, 6066–6075. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.05.062 [3] Bell, D., Gray, T., & Haggett, C. (2005). The ‘social gap’ in wind farm siting decisions. Explanations and Policy Responses. Environmental Politics, 14, 460–477. doi: 10.1080/09644010500175833 [4] Terwel, B. W., Koudenburg, F. A., & Ter Mors, E. (in press). Public responses to community compensation: The importance of prior consultation with local residents. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. [5] Mansfield, C., Van Houtven, G. L., & Huber, J. (2002). Compensating for public harms: Why public goods are preferred to money. Land Economics, 78, 368–389. doi:10.2307/3146896
ScienceDirect Energy Procedia 63 (2014) 7116 – 7118
GHGT-12
Effects of consultations with local residents in the process of deciding about host community compensation measures Bart W. Terwela*, Emma ter Morsa, Florentine A. Koudenburga a
Leiden University, Dept. of Social and Organizational Psychology, Wassenaarseweg 52, 2300AK Leiden, The Netherlands
Abstract People who are convinced of the necessity of CCS for limiting the magnitude of climate change may nevertheless oppose a locally proposed CCS project if they think that the project will have adverse local impacts. The implementation of host community compensation measures might help to avoid or reduce local public opposition to CCS. Here we discuss experimental research that reveals how the type of compensation and the procedure that is used when determining a compensation offer influence public responses to compensation offered by a company that plans to construct a CO2 transport pipelines underneath a residential area. © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Selection and peer-review under responsibility of GHGT.of GHGT-12 Peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee Keywords: consultation; compensation; fairness; public participation; trust
1. Introduction People who are convinced of the necessity of CCS for limiting the magnitude of climate change may nevertheless oppose a locally proposed CCS project if they anticipate adverse local impacts of the project. It has been suggested that the implementation of host community compensation might help to avoid or reduce local public opposition to CCS [1]. However, as the broader planning and facility siting literature demonstrates, a compensation strategy may
* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected]
1876-6102 © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of GHGT-12 doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.746
Bart W. Terwel et al. / Energy Procedia 63 (2014) 7116 – 7118
7117
easily be counterproductive as well, especially if compensation offered by a company is seen by communities as an cynical ploy to ‘buy’ their support [2,3]. This raises the question of how a company can reduce the likelihood of being perceived as acting purely upon instrumental motives once it has decided to compensate a local community designated to host a CCS (or other type of) project. We have addressed this question in a recent survey experiment, which has been reported on in detail in a recent article in the Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology [4]. Specifically, in this survey experiment we examined how the type of compensation and the procedure that is used when determining a compensation offer influence public responses to compensation offered by a company that plans to implement a project with adverse local impacts (namely local nuisance such as noise annoyance and streets that will be broken up because of the construction of CO2 transport pipelines underneath a residential area). With regard to the type of compensation offer, we contrasted public goods compensation to individual monetary compensation for community members (this comparison is quite common in the literature, see for example [5]). Regarding the type of procedure, we contrasted (among other things) whether members of the local public had or had not been consulted in the process of determining the compensation offer. This factor has not received much attention in previous empirical research, but it might be an important predictor of how people react to the compensation offered. In the experiment, participants read a scenario in which we systematically varied whether the company in question had or had not consulted members of the local public prior to deciding on a compensation offer. Furthermore, the type of compensation offer was varied and concerned either individual monetary compensation for members of the community or public goods compensation in the form of a contribution to a neighborhood improvement project. After they had read the scenario, participants completed a questionnaire that included items to measure participants’ perceptions of the company’s concern with the public interest, perceptions of the fairness of the procedure used in deciding on the compensation offer, perceptions of the trustworthiness of the company, and expectations about the responses of the members of the affected community (details of this study can be found in [4]).
2. Results As regards the effects of the type of compensation offer, the results revealed that compensation in the form of a public good communicates greater concern for the public interest than compensation in the form of individual monetary payments. This may explain the findings of previous studies that people tend to respond more favorably to public goods compensation than monetary compensation [5]. Importantly, the study further clearly confirmed the importance of consultations with local residents in the process of deciding about a compensation offer. People were more convinced that the company genuinely cared about the local public’s interests and considered the procedure to be fairer when it had rather than had not consulted members of the local public prior to deciding on the compensation offer. As a result, the company was considered more trustworthy, which, in turn, caused people to anticipate more favorable reactions to the compensation offered. This causal ordering was hypothesized and confirmed through structural equation modeling [4].
3. Conclusion In conclusion, public responses to host community compensation not only depend on instrumental or utility considerations (e.g., is the offered compensation of sufficient utility to actually balance out the local burdens and local benefits?)—social and relational considerations (concern, fairness, trust) play important roles as well.
7118
Bart W. Terwel et al. / Energy Procedia 63 (2014) 7116 – 7118
Acknowledgements This research has been carried out in the context of the CATO-2 program. CATO-2 is the Dutch national research program on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). The program is financially supported by the Dutch government (Ministry of Economic Affairs) and the CATO-2 consortium parties.
References [1] Ter Mors, E., Terwel, B. W., & Daamen, D. D. L. (2012). The potential of host community compensation in facility siting. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 11 (supplement), S130–S138. doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.07.002 [2] Aitken, M. (2010). Wind power and community benefits: Challenges and opportunities. Energy Policy, 38, 6066–6075. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.05.062 [3] Bell, D., Gray, T., & Haggett, C. (2005). The ‘social gap’ in wind farm siting decisions. Explanations and Policy Responses. Environmental Politics, 14, 460–477. doi: 10.1080/09644010500175833 [4] Terwel, B. W., Koudenburg, F. A., & Ter Mors, E. (in press). Public responses to community compensation: The importance of prior consultation with local residents. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. [5] Mansfield, C., Van Houtven, G. L., & Huber, J. (2002). Compensating for public harms: Why public goods are preferred to money. Land Economics, 78, 368–389. doi:10.2307/3146896