A Three-Stage Psychosocial Engineering-Based Method to Support Controversy and Promote Mutual Understanding between Stakeholders: The Case of CO2 Geological Storage
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Phase 1: Understand the Issues Related to Subsurface Engineering and CO2 Capture and Storage
1.1.1. Contestation Related to Subsurface Exploitation and the Social Acceptability of Risks
1.1.2. CO2 Capture and Storage, a “Useful” Technology Whose Legitimacy Lacks Debate among the General Public
1.1.3. Implementing the Debate on CO2 Capture and Storage Projects, an Insoluble Equation?
1.1.4. Setting Up a Debate on CO2 Capture and Storage Projects, a Profound Change
2. Phase 2: A New Action Model for Practitioners: Three Research Actions to Structure a Method
2.1. Stage 1: Develop Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Enabling Them to Participate in the Debate with an Informed Point of View
2.1.1. How Does the Social Relationship between Stakeholders and Objects Determine How They Appropriate Projects?
2.1.2. Experiential Communication Devices to Facilitate the Adoption of an Openness Posture
2.2. Stage 2: Commit Stakeholders to Participate in the Debate by Adopting an Openness Posture
2.2.1. Encouraging Stakeholder Participation to Come to a Debate?
2.2.2. Commit Stakeholders in the Debate by Adopting an Openness Posture
2.3. Stage 3: Structure Exchanges between Stakeholders Using Cooperative Methods
2.3.1. Encouraging Controversy between Stakeholders during the Debate
2.3.2. Cooperative Controversy in the Context of the Energy Transition Debate
3. Discussion
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- IPCC. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S.L., Péan, C., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M.I., Matthews, J.B.R., Berger, S., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- World Health Organization. 2021 WHO Health and Climate Change Survey Report. World Health Organization. 2021, p. 96. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240038509 (accessed on 23 August 2022).
- International Energy Agency. CCUS in Clean Energy Transitions. AIE. 2020, p. 173. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/ccus-in-clean-energy-transitions (accessed on 30 January 2024).
- Kang, J.N.; Wei, Y.M.; Liu L cui Yu, B.Y.; Liao, H. A social learning approach to carbon capture and storage demonstration project management: An empirical analysis. Appl. Energy 2021, 299, 117336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Kou, Z.; Ji, Z.; Wang, S.; Li, Y.; Jiao, Z.; Johnson, M.; McLaughlin, J.F. Investigation of enhanced CO2 storage in deep saline aquifers by WAG and brine extraction in the Minnelusa sandstone, Wyoming. Energy 2023, 265, 126379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, Y.; Wu, B.; Wang, H.; Li, Y.; Liu, Z.; Xu, C.; Qin, J.; Li, Y.; Song, Z.; Liu, H. Insights into CO2 huff-n-puff mechanisms from laboratory experiment and single-well pilot test in the Lucaogou tight oil reservoir, Jimsar sag, China. Geoenergy Sci. Eng. 2024, 232, 212456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, K.; Jia, C.; Li, Z.; Du, X.; Wang, Y.; Li, J.; Yao, Z.; Yao, J. Recent Advances and Future Perspectives in Carbon Capture, Transportation, Utilization, and Storage (CCTUS) Technologies: A Comprehensive Review. Fuel 2023, 351, 128913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, E. What is the social licence to operate? Local perceptions of oil and gas projects in Russia’s Komi Republic and Sakhalin Island. Extr. Ind. Soc. 2016, 3, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heffron, R.J.; Downes, L.; Ramirez Rodriguez, O.M.; McCauley, D. The emergence of the ‘social licence to operate’ in the extractive industries? Resour. Policy 2021, 74, 101272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marshall, J.P. A Social Exploration of the West Australian Gorgon Gas, Carbon Capture and Storage Project. Clean Technol. 2022, 4, 67–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pichot, N.; Quiguer, S.; Somat, A. Un cadre psychosocial d’intervention pour accompagner le développement et le déploiement d’une technologie nouvelle. Psychol. Du Trav. Et Des Organ. 2018, 24, 355–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geller, E.S. Solving environmental problems: A behavior change perspective. In Psychology and Social Responsibility: Facing Global Challenges; New York University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1992; pp. 248–268. [Google Scholar]
- Lewin, K. Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers; Cartwright, D., Ed.; Harpers: Oxford, UK, 1951; 346p. [Google Scholar]
- Mortensen, C.R.; Cialdini, R.B. Full-cycle social psychology for theory and application. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 2010, 4, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Py, J.; Somat, A. Ingénierie psychosociale: Un modèle de recherche appliquée et d’intervention. In Psychologie Sociale et Ressources Humaines; Presses Universitaires de France: Paris, France, 2007; pp. 161–176. [Google Scholar]
- Temper, L.; Del Bene, D.; Martinez-Alier, J. Mapping the frontiers and front lines of global environmental justice: The EJAtlas. J. Political Ecol. 2015, 22, 255–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heffron, R.J. Achieving a Just Transition to a Low-Carbon Economy; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; Available online: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-89460-3 (accessed on 11 April 2023).
- Jenkins, K.; McCauley, D.; Heffron, R.; Stephan, H.; Rehner, R. Energy justice: A conceptual review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2016, 11, 174–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colquitt, J.A.; Conlon, D.E.; Wesson, M.J.; Porter, C.O.L.H.; Ng, K.Y. Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86, 425–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Xin, Y.; Kou, Z.; Qu, Y.; Wang, L.; Ning, Y.; Ren, D. Numerical study of the efficiency of underground hydrogen storage in deep saline aquifers, rock springs uplift, Wyoming. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 421, 138484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gibson, H.; Stewart, I.S.; Pahl, S.; Stokes, A. A “mental models” approach to the communication of subsurface hydrology and hazards. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2016, 20, 1737–1749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Sartre, A.; Chailleux, S. The Conversation. Les Politiques et le Stockage Souterrain du CO2: Je T’aime, Moi Non Plus? 2023. Available online: http://theconversation.com/les-politiques-et-le-stockage-souterrain-du-co-je-taime-moi-non-plus-218626 (accessed on 22 December 2023).
- Saucier, C.; Côté, G.; Feurtey, É.; Fortin, M.J.; Jean, B.; Lafontaine, D.; Guillemette, M.; Méthot, J.-F.; Wilson, J. Développement Territorial et Filière Éolienne. Des Installations Éoliennes Socialement Acceptables: Élaboration d’un Modèle D’évaluation des Projets dans une Perspective de Développement Territorial Durable. Unité de Recherche Sur le Développement Territorial Durable et la Filière Éolienne, Rattachée au Centre de Recherche sur le Développement Territorial (CRDT), Université du Québec à Rimouski. 2009. Available online: https://depot.erudit.org/id/003300dd (accessed on 30 January 2024).
- Slovic, P.; Fischhoff, B.; Lichtenstein, S. Accident probabilities and seat belt usage: A psychological perspective. Accid. Anal. Prev. 1978, 10, 281–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bell, D.; Gray, T.; Haggett, C. The ‘Social Gap’ in Wind Farm Siting Decisions: Explanations and Policy Responses. Environ. Politics 2005, 14, 460–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burningham, K. Using the Language of NIMBY: A topic for research, not an activity for researchers. Local Environ. 2000, 5, 55–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huijts, N.M.A.; Molin, E.J.E.; Steg, L. Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: A review-based comprehensive framework. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 525–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- L׳Orange Seigo, S.; Dohle, S.; Siegrist, M. Public perception of carbon capture and storage (CCS): A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 38, 848–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wüstenhagen, R.; Wolsink, M.; Bürer, M.J. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 2683–2691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le Billon, P.; Bridge, G. Oil; Polity Press: Cambridge, UK, 2017; 325p. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations. Causes and Effects of Climate Change. 2020. Available online: https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/causes-effects-climate-change (accessed on 23 August 2022).
- McGlade, C.; Ekins, P. The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 °C. Nature 2015, 517, 187–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mwenketishi, G.T.; Benkreira, H.; Rahmanian, N. A Comprehensive Review on Carbon Dioxide Sequestration Methods. Energies 2023, 16, 7971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tcvetkov, P.; Cherepovitsyn, A.; Fedoseev, S. Public perception of carbon capture and storage: A state-of-the-art overview. Heliyon 2019, 5, e02845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huijts, N.M.A.; Midden, C.J.H.; Meijnders, A.L. Social acceptance of carbon dioxide storage. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 2780–2789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siegrist, M.; Cvetkovich, G. Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge. Risk Anal. 2000, 20, 713–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Neill, R.N.; Nadaï, A. Risque et Démonstration, la Politique de Capture et de Stockage du Dioxyde de Carbone (CCS) Dans l’Union Europeenne. VertigO—La Rev. Électronique En Sci. De L’environ. 2012, 12. Available online: https://journals.openedition.org/vertigo/12172 (accessed on 30 June 2022). [CrossRef]
- Chailleux, S.; Arnauld de Sartre, X.; Briday, R. Ecological modernisation wanderings: Ambivalent framing and unstable coalitions in the development of Carbon Capture, Utilisation, and Storage (CCUS) in France. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2023, 25, 400–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shackley, S.; Waterman, H.; Godfroij, P.; Reiner, D.; Anderson, J.; Draxlbauer, K.; Flach, T. Stakeholder Perceptions of CO2 Capture and Storage in Europe: Results from a Survey. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 5091–5108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batellier, P. Acceptabilité Sociale: Cartographie D’une Notion et de Ses Usages; Les Éditions du Centr’ERE: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2015; p. 152. [Google Scholar]
- Fortin, M.J.; Fournis, Y. Vers une définition ascendante de l’acceptabilité sociale: Les dynamiques territoriales face aux projets énergétiques au Québec. Nat. Sci. Soc. 2014, 22, 231–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jean-Baptiste, P.; Ducroux, R. Potentiel des méthodes de séparation et stockage du CO2 dans la lutte contre l’effet de serre. Comptes Rendus Geosci. 2003, 335, 611–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dütschke, E. What drives local public acceptance–Comparing two cases from Germany. Energy Procedia 2011, 4, 6234–6240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, N.; Akimoto, K.; Nemet, G.F. What went wrong? Learning from three decades of carbon capture, utilization and sequestration (CCUS) pilot and demonstration projects. Energy Policy 2021, 158, 112546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Markusson, N.; Shackley, S.; Evar, B. The Social Dynamics of Carbon Capture and Storage: Understanding CCS Representations, Governance and Innovation; Routledge: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; 354p. [Google Scholar]
- Feenstra, C.; Mikunda, T.; Brunsting, S. What Happened in Barendrecht? What Happened in Barendrecht? Case Study on the Planned Onshore Carbon Dioxide Storage in Barendrecht, The Netherlands; Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands ECN: Petten, The Netherlands, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Chailleux, S.; de Sartre, X.A. L’acceptabilité au prisme du stockage géologique de CO2: Retour sur un débat non émergé. Nat. Sci. Soc. 2021, 29, 12–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bui, M.; Adjiman, C.S.; Bardow, A.; Anthony, E.J.; Boston, A.; Brown, S.; Fennell, P.S.; Fuss, S.; Galindo, A.; Hackett, L.A.; et al. Carbon capture and storage (CCS): The way forward. Energy Environ. Sci. 2018, 11, 1062–1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Talpin, J. Jouer les bons citoyens. Politix 2006, 75, 11–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schiller, C.; Winters, M.; Hanson, H.M.; Ashe, M.C. A framework for stakeholder identification in concept mapping and health research: A novel process and its application to older adult mobility and the built environment. BMC Public Health 2013, 13, 428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Callon, M. Éléments pour une sociologie de la traduction: La domestication des coquilles Saint-Jacques et des marins-pêcheurs dans la baie de Saint-Brieuc. L’Année Sociol. 1986, 36, 169–208. [Google Scholar]
- Akrich, M.; Callon, M.; Latour, B. (Eds.) Sociologie de la Traduction: Textes Fondateurs. Sociologie de la Traduction: Textes Fondateurs; (Sciences sociales); Presses des Mines: Paris, France, 2013; 401p, Available online: http://books.openedition.org/pressesmines/1181 (accessed on 15 February 2024).
- Habermas, J. Théorie de L’agir Communicationnel; Fayard: Paris, France, 1981; Volume 1 et 2, 492p. [Google Scholar]
- Topping, K.; Buchs, C.; Duran, D.; Van Keer, H. Effective Peer Learning: From Principles to Practical Implementation; Routledge: London, UK, 2017; 192p. [Google Scholar]
- Brunsting, S.; de Best-Waldhober, M.; Feenstra, C.Y.; Mikunda, T. Stakeholder participation practices and onshore CCS: Lessons from the dutch CCS case barendrecht. Energy Procedia 2011, 4, 6376–6383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bacqué, M.H.; Sintomer, Y.; Flamand, A.; Nez, H. La démocratie Participative Inachevée: Genèse, Adaptations et Diffusions. Gap; Editions Yves Michel: Paris, France, 2010; 238p. [Google Scholar]
- Shindler, B.; Neburka, J. Public Participation in Forest Planning: Eight Attributes of Success. J. For. 1997, 95, 17–19. [Google Scholar]
- Aitken, M. Why we still don’t understand the social aspects of wind power: A critique of key assumptions within the literature. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 1834–1841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kemp, D.; Owen, J.R.; Lèbre, É. Tailings facility failures in the global mining industry: Will a ‘transparency turn’ drive change? Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 30, 122–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reed, M.S.; Graves, A.; Dandy, N.; Posthumus, H.; Hubacek, K.; Morris, J.; Prell, C.; Quinn, C.H.; Stringer, L.C. Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 1933–1949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ha-Duong, M.; Nadaï, A.; Campos, A.S. A survey on the public perception of CCS in France. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2009, 3, 633–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fazio, R.H. Multiple Processes by which Attitudes Guide Behavior: The Mode Model as an Integrative Framework. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Zanna, M.P., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1990; pp. 75–109. [Google Scholar]
- Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research; Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, USA, 1975; Volume 27. [Google Scholar]
- Nisbet, M.C. Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for Public Engagement. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 2009, 51, 12–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liverman, D. Communicating Geological Hazards: Educating, Training and Assisting Geoscientists in Communication Skills. In Geophysical Hazards: Minimizing Risk, Maximizing Awareness; Beer, T., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 41–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kunreuther, H.; Slovic, P. Science, Values, and Risk. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 1996, 545, 116–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bubela, T.; Nisbet, M.C.; Borchelt, R.; Brunger, F.; Critchley, C.; Einsiedel, E.; Geller, G.; Gupta, A.; Hampel, J.; Hyde-Lay, R.; et al. Science communication reconsidered. Nat. Biotechnol. 2009, 27, 514–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Slovic, P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Anal. 1999, 19, 689–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joffe, H. Risk: From perception to social representation. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 42, 55–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wagner, W.; Duveen, G.; Farr, R.; Jovchelovitch, S.; Lorenzi-Cioldi, F.; Marková, I.; Rose, D. Theory and Method of Social Representations. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 1999, 2, 95–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slovic, P. Understanding Perceived Risk: 1978–2015. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 2016, 58, 25–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raue, M.; Lermer, E.; Streicher, B. Psychological Perspectives on Risk and Risk Analysis: Theory, Models and Applications; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Kasperson, R.E.; Renn, O.; Slovic, P.; Brown, H.S.; Emel, J.; Goble, R.; Kasperson, J.X.; Ratick, S. The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework. Risk Anal. 1988, 8, 177–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wagner, W.; Kronberger, N.; Seifert, F. Collective symbolic coping with new technology: Knowledge, images and public discourse. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 41, 323–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nadarajah, K.; Bordel, S.; David, J.C.; Jammes, L.; Rayssac, G.L.; Somat, A. Stakeholders’ perceptions of Helium and Carbon Dioxide risks in a subsurface engineering project in France. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 14009–14019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hattie, J. The applicability of Visible Learning to higher education. Scholarsh. Teach. Learn. Psychol. 2015, 1, 79–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kolb, D. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1984; 272p. [Google Scholar]
- Rooney, P. A Theoretical Framework for Serious Game Design: Exploring Pedagogy, Play and Fidelity and their Implications for the Design Process. IJGBL 2012, 2, 41–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Preece, D.; Williams, S.B.; Lam, R.; Weller, R. “Let’s Get Physical”: Advantages of a physical model over 3D computer models and textbooks in learning imaging anatomy. Anat. Sci. Educ. 2013, 6, 216–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delagnes, C.; Hajji, S.; Hannachi, T.; Le Floch, V.; Mourato, A.; Py, J.; Somat, A. Attitudes et Représentations Sociales de la Transition Énergétique. Agence National de la Recherche (ANR). 2023. Available online: https://hal.science/hal-04417615 (accessed on 30 January 2024).
- Papadopoulos, Y. Democracy in Crisis?: Politics, Governance and Policy; Bloomsbury Publishing: London, UK, 2013; 305p. [Google Scholar]
- Jacquet, V. Explaining non-participation in deliberative mini-publics. Eur. J. Political Res. 2017, 56, 640–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fournier, P.; van der Kolk, H.; Carty, R.K.; Blais, A.; Rose, J. When Citizens Decide: Lessons from Citizen Assemblies on Electoral Reform; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2011; 211p. [Google Scholar]
- Peterson, A.V., Jr.; Kealey, K.A.; Mann, S.L.; Marek, P.M.; Sarason, I.G. Hutchinson Smoking Prevention Project: Long-Term Randomized Trial in School-Based Tobacco Use Prevention—Results on Smoking. JNCI J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2000, 92, 1979–1991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewin, K. The Problem of Changing Food Habits: Report of the Committee on Food Habits 1941–1943; National Academies Press (US): Washington, DC, USA, 1943. Available online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK224350/ (accessed on 8 August 2022).
- Kiesler, C.A. The Psychology of Commitment: Experiments Linking Behavior to Belief; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1971; 218p. [Google Scholar]
- Burger, J.M. The Foot-in-the-Door Compliance Procedure: A Multiple-Process Analysis and Review. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 1999, 3, 303–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Joule, R.V.; Beauvois, J.L. La Soumission Librement Consentie, 7th ed.; PUF: Paris, France, 1998; 220p. [Google Scholar]
- Nadarajah, K. Engager les Parties Prenantes à S’ouvrir à la Controverse Dans le Cadre de la Transition Énergétique. Rennes 2. 2019. Available online: https://www.theses.fr/s223939 (accessed on 19 February 2024).
- Cialdini, R.B.; Sagarin, B.J. Principles of Interpersonal Influence. In Persuasion: Psychological Insights and Perspectives, 2nd ed.; Sage Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2005; pp. 143–169. [Google Scholar]
- Krosnick, J.A.; Boninger, D.S.; Chuang, Y.C.; Berent, M.K.; Carnot, C.G. Attitude strength: One construct or many related constructs? J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1993, 65, 1132–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Girandola, F.; Roussiau, N. L’engagement comme source de modifications à long terme. Commitment as a source of long-term modification. Cah. Int. Psychol. Soc. 2003, 57, 83–101. [Google Scholar]
- Pham, H.V.; Torre, A. La décision publique à l’épreuve des conflits. Rev. D’économie Ind. 2012, 138, 93–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Limoges, C. Expert knowledge and decision-making in controversy contexts. Public Underst. Sci. 1993, 2, 417–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butera, F.; Sommet, N.; Darnon, C. Sociocognitive Conflict Regulation: How to Make Sense of Diverging Ideas. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2019, 28, 145–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doise, W.; Mugny, G. Psychologie Sociale et Développement Cognitif; Armand Colin: Paris, France, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Buchs, C.; Lehraus, K.; Butera, F. Quelles interactions sociales au service de l’apprentissage en petits groupes. Apprentiss. Enseign. Sci. Cogn. Éduc. 2006, 2, 183. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson, D.W.; Johnson, R.T. Energizing Learning: The Instructional Power of Conflict. Educ. Res. 2009, 38, 37–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buchs, C.; Darnon, C.; Quiamzade, A.; Mugny, G.; Butera, F. Conflits et apprentissage. Régulation des conflits sociocognitifs et apprentissage. Rev. Française Pédagogie Rech. Éduc. 2008, 63, 105–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quiamzade, A.; Mugny, G.; Darnon, C. The coordination of problem solving strategies: When low competence sources exert more influence on task processing than high competence sources. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2009, 48, 159–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, D.W.; Johnson, R.T. An Educational Psychology Success Story: Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning. Educ. Res. 2009, 38, 365–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, D.; Johnson, R. Cooperative Learning in 21st Century. An. Psicol. 2014, 30, 841–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pansu, P.; Buchs, C.; Brun, L.; Favre-Félix, A.; Lima, L.; Leroy, N.; Bordel, C.; Nadarajah, K.; Somat, A.; Jammes, L. L’apport des Dispositifs Coopératifs Pour Favoriser une Posture D’ouverture dans les Débats Sociétaux: Le Cas Des Filières du Sous-Sol; Université Grenoble Alpes: Saint-Martin-d’Hères, France, 2023; p. 57. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson, D.W.; Johnson, R.T. Creative Controversy: Intellectual Challenge in the Classroom, 4th ed.; Interaction Book Co.: Edina, MN, USA, 2007; 340p. [Google Scholar]
- Batellier, P.; Maillé, M.È. Acceptabilité sociale: Sans oui, c’est non. Écosociété; Écosociété: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2017; 304p. [Google Scholar]
- Terwel, B.W.; Harinck, F.; Ellemers, N.; Daamen, D.D.L. Going beyond the properties of CO2 capture and storage (CCS) technology: How trust in stakeholders affects public acceptance of CCS. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2011, 5, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bearth, A.; Siegrist, M. The Social Amplification of Risk Framework: A Normative Perspective on Trust? Risk Anal. 2022, 42, 1381–1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Conseil Principal de La Forêt, Boréale. Le Consentement Libre, Préalable et Éclairé au Canada. Ottawa. 2012, p. 39. Available online: http://borealcouncil.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/FPICReport-French-web.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2024).
- Moscovici, S.; Doise, W. Dissensions et Consensus; Presses Universitaires de France: Paris, France, 1992; 296p. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nadarajah, K.; Brun, L.; Bordel, S.; Ah-Tchine, E.; Dumesnil, A.; Mourato, A.M.; Py, J.; Jammes, L.; Arnauld De Sartre, X.; Somat, A. A Three-Stage Psychosocial Engineering-Based Method to Support Controversy and Promote Mutual Understanding between Stakeholders: The Case of CO2 Geological Storage. Energies 2024, 17, 1014. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17051014
Nadarajah K, Brun L, Bordel S, Ah-Tchine E, Dumesnil A, Mourato AM, Py J, Jammes L, Arnauld De Sartre X, Somat A. A Three-Stage Psychosocial Engineering-Based Method to Support Controversy and Promote Mutual Understanding between Stakeholders: The Case of CO2 Geological Storage. Energies. 2024; 17(5):1014. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17051014
Chicago/Turabian StyleNadarajah, Kévin, Laurent Brun, Stéphanie Bordel, Emeline Ah-Tchine, Anissa Dumesnil, Antoine Marques Mourato, Jacques Py, Laurent Jammes, Xavier Arnauld De Sartre, and Alain Somat. 2024. "A Three-Stage Psychosocial Engineering-Based Method to Support Controversy and Promote Mutual Understanding between Stakeholders: The Case of CO2 Geological Storage" Energies 17, no. 5: 1014. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17051014