IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v17y2024i5p1014-d1343019.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Three-Stage Psychosocial Engineering-Based Method to Support Controversy and Promote Mutual Understanding between Stakeholders: The Case of CO 2 Geological Storage

Author

Listed:
  • Kévin Nadarajah

    (Laboratoire de Psychologie: Cognition, Comportement, Communication (LP3C), Université de Rennes, F-35000 Rennes, France
    Équipe Recherche Psychologie Appliquée (PsyCAP), Centre d’Études et d’Expertise sur les Risques, l’Environnement, la Mobilité et l’Aménagement (Cerema), F-22000 Saint-Brieuc, France
    These authors share first authorship.)

  • Laurent Brun

    (Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire de Recherche en Didactique, Éducation et Formation (LIRDEF), University of Montpellier and Paul-Valéry Montpellier University, F-34092 Montpellier, France
    These authors share first authorship.)

  • Stéphanie Bordel

    (Équipe Recherche Psychologie Appliquée (PsyCAP), Centre d’Études et d’Expertise sur les Risques, l’Environnement, la Mobilité et l’Aménagement (Cerema), F-22000 Saint-Brieuc, France)

  • Emeline Ah-Tchine

    (UR Formation et Apprentissages Professionnels (UR FoAP), Institut Agro Dijon, F-21000 Dijon, France)

  • Anissa Dumesnil

    (Laboratoire de Recherche sur les Apprentissages en Contexte (LaRAC), Université Grenoble Alpes, F-38400 Grenoble, France)

  • Antoine Marques Mourato

    (CLLE, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, F-31058 Toulouse, France)

  • Jacques Py

    (CLLE, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, F-31058 Toulouse, France)

  • Laurent Jammes

    (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique CNRS—Institut National des Sciences de l’Univers, F-75016 Paris, France)

  • Xavier Arnauld De Sartre

    (Transitions Energétiques et Environnementales (TREE) Unité Mixte de Recherche (UMR 6031), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour, F-64000 Pau, France
    These authors share senior authorship.)

  • Alain Somat

    (Laboratoire de Psychologie: Cognition, Comportement, Communication (LP3C), Université de Rennes, F-35000 Rennes, France
    These authors share senior authorship.)

Abstract

Subsurface engineering projects with high socio-environmental impacts raise strong controversies among stakeholders, which often affects the projects’ implementation. These controversies originate from a loss of public confidence in the decision-making process, lack of information about new technologies, and the desire of some promoters to avoid conflict. The lack of methodologies to structure each stage of the debate can, in this context, lead to the crystallization of the stakeholders’ positions and to the failure of the project. To promote mutual understanding and constructive exchanges, this article presents a combination of methods based on psychosocial engineering principles to support debate and encourage stakeholders to participate with an openness posture. The method is based on a set of studies conducted as part of the “Social Governance for Subsurface Engineering” project and includes three stages: (1) develop stakeholders’ knowledge so that they are able to participate in the debate with an informed viewpoint; (2) commit stakeholders to participate in the debate by adopting a posture conducive to constructive exchanges; and (3) structure exchanges between stakeholders through the use of cooperative methods facilitating the adoption of an openness posture.

Suggested Citation

  • Kévin Nadarajah & Laurent Brun & Stéphanie Bordel & Emeline Ah-Tchine & Anissa Dumesnil & Antoine Marques Mourato & Jacques Py & Laurent Jammes & Xavier Arnauld De Sartre & Alain Somat, 2024. "A Three-Stage Psychosocial Engineering-Based Method to Support Controversy and Promote Mutual Understanding between Stakeholders: The Case of CO 2 Geological Storage," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-15, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:17:y:2024:i:5:p:1014-:d:1343019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/5/1014/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/5/1014/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wang, Heng & Kou, Zuhao & Ji, Zemin & Wang, Shouchuan & Li, Yunfei & Jiao, Zunsheng & Johnson, Matthew & McLaughlin, J. Fred, 2023. "Investigation of enhanced CO2 storage in deep saline aquifers by WAG and brine extraction in the Minnelusa sandstone, Wyoming," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    2. Minh Ha-Duong & Ana Sofia Campos & Alain Nadaï, 2007. "A survey on the public perception of CCS in France," Working Papers hal-00866557, HAL.
    3. Christophe McGlade & Paul Ekins, 2015. "The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 °C," Nature, Nature, vol. 517(7533), pages 187-190, January.
    4. Deanna Kemp & John R. Owen & Éléonore Lèbre, 2021. "Tailings facility failures in the global mining industry: Will a ‘transparency turn’ drive change?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 122-134, January.
    5. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    6. Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich, 2000. "Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5), pages 713-720, October.
    7. Kang, Jia-Ning & Wei, Yi-Ming & Liu, Lan-cui & Yu, Bi-Ying & Liao, Hua, 2021. "A social learning approach to carbon capture and storage demonstration project management: An empirical analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 299(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Regina Schoell & Claudia R. Binder, 2009. "System Perspectives of Experts and Farmers Regarding the Role of Livelihood Assets in Risk Perception: Results from the Structured Mental Model Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 205-222, February.
    2. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    3. George Chryssochoidis & Anna Strada & Athanasios Krystallis, 2009. "Public trust in institutions and information sources regarding risk management and communication: towards integrating extant knowledge," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 137-185, March.
    4. Gisela Wachinger & Ortwin Renn & Chloe Begg & Christian Kuhlicke, 2013. "The Risk Perception Paradox—Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1049-1065, June.
    5. Matthew Billman & Kayode Atoba & Courtney Thompson & Samuel Brody, 2023. "How about Now? Changes in Risk Perception before and after Hurricane Irma," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-19, May.
    6. Judith I. M. de Groot & Elisa Schweiger & Iljana Schubert, 2020. "Social Influence, Risk and Benefit Perceptions, and the Acceptability of Risky Energy Technologies: An Explanatory Model of Nuclear Power Versus Shale Gas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(6), pages 1226-1243, June.
    7. Frederic Vandermoere & Raf Vanderstraeten, 2014. "Back and forward to the future: an explorative study of public responses to urban groundwater contamination," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(5), pages 720-732, May.
    8. Janneke De Jonge & Hans Van Trijp & Reint Jan Renes & Lynn J. Frewer, 2010. "Consumer Confidence in the Safety of Food and Newspaper Coverage of Food Safety Issues: A Longitudinal Perspective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 125-142, January.
    9. Shoshana Shiloh & Gülbanu Güvenç & Dilek Önkal, 2007. "Cognitive and Emotional Representations of Terror Attacks: A Cross‐Cultural Exploration," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 397-409, April.
    10. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    11. Theresa A. K. Knoblauch & Michael Stauffacher & Evelina Trutnevyte, 2018. "Communicating Low‐Probability High‐Consequence Risk, Uncertainty and Expert Confidence: Induced Seismicity of Deep Geothermal Energy and Shale Gas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(4), pages 694-709, April.
    12. Joaquín Bernal-Ramírez & Jair Ojeda-Joya & Camila Agudelo-Rivera & Felipe Clavijo-Ramírez & Carolina Durana-Ángel & Clark Granger-Castaño & Daniel Osorio-Rodríguez & Daniel Parra-Amado & José Pulido &, 2022. "Impacto macroeconómico del cambio climático en Colombia," Revista ESPE - Ensayos sobre Política Económica, Banco de la Republica de Colombia, issue 102, pages 1-62, July.
    13. Loredana Antronico & Roberto Coscarelli & Francesco De Pascale & Giovanni Gull?, 2018. "La comunicazione del rischio e la percezione pubblica dei disastri: il caso studio della frana di Maierato (Calabria, Italia)," PRISMA Economia - Societ? - Lavoro, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(3), pages 9-29.
    14. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Siegrist, Michael, 2012. "Fair play in energy policy decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 292-300.
    15. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    16. Kang, Min Jung & Park, Heejun, 2011. "Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3465-3475, June.
    17. Waldemar Karpa & Antonio Grginović, 2021. "(Not So) Stranded: The Case of Coal in Poland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-16, December.
    18. Emmanuel Songsore & Michael Buzzelli, 2016. "Ontario’s Experience of Wind Energy Development as Seen through the Lens of Human Health and Environmental Justice," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, July.
    19. Vasiliki Tzelepi & Myrto Zeneli & Dimitrios-Sotirios Kourkoumpas & Emmanouil Karampinis & Antonios Gypakis & Nikos Nikolopoulos & Panagiotis Grammelis, 2020. "Biomass Availability in Europe as an Alternative Fuel for Full Conversion of Lignite Power Plants: A Critical Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-26, July.
    20. Sara E. Kuhar & Kate Nierenberg & Barbara Kirkpatrick & Graham A. Tobin, 2009. "Public Perceptions of Florida Red Tide Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(7), pages 963-969, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:17:y:2024:i:5:p:1014-:d:1343019. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.