A new report by the Public Engagement for Energy Infrastructure Task finds that most of the citizens surveyed in Austria, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom are willing to engage with local infrastructure projects for renewable hydrogen, carbon capture utilisation and storage, and advanced nuclear, but that how they want to be engaged differs by country and by technology.
Research on these technologies has largely focused on whether the public accepts them. Much less is known about whether people would actually take part in a project near them, how deeply, and in what way. The report addresses this gap through nationwide online surveys with more than 2,400 respondents in Austria, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK.
Willingness to engage was highest for renewable hydrogen, where the share ranged from 44% in Sweden to 59% in the UK. For CCUS willingness to engage ranged from 29% in Austria to 49% in the UK, and for advanced nuclear from 22% in Austria to 48% in the UK.
Being willing to engage, however, does not mean wanting the same kind of engagement. On average across technologies and country samples, around half of respondents prefer a consultative role: receiving information and having somewhere to give their opinion, through public meetings or surveys. Around four in ten prefer a co-creative role, with an active hand in the project through workshops, citizens’ assemblies or a place in monitoring and oversight. Only a small share would rather not take part, from 10% in Sweden to 21% in Austria. Because both engagement preferences are considerable in every country, the report recommends running consultative and co-creative processes alongside one another.
Two factors distinguish respondents who are more willing to engage in every country sample and for every technology: positive feelings about the technology, and considering it acceptable to build near them. Beyond these, the picture differs by country sample and by technology.
Fairness concerns are widespread. In all four country samples, respondents who place importance on fairness in energy projects were more willing to engage with renewable hydrogen, and the same held for CCUS in Sweden and advanced nuclear in the UK. This covers how benefits such as jobs and lower energy bills are shared, who carries the costs, whether local priorities shape a project early on, and who gains now compared with who lives with the consequences later. The report argues these questions should stay particularly open in the engagement process for these technologies and contexts rather than be settled in advance.
Prior experience also matters in several contexts. Respondents who had already taken part in a community energy scheme or a citizens’ climate assembly were more willing to engage, suggesting that willingness is concentrated among citizens already active in the energy transition rather than spread evenly.
One finding cuts against a common assumption. Concerns about a technology does not imply lower willingness to engage. In the UK, concerns about the safety of CCUS are comparatively high, yet the UK records the highest willingness to engage with CCUS of the four countries. Concerns about a technology seem to point to the issues people expect to discuss and address during the engagement process, thus the report suggests treating them as a starting point for engagement rather than an obstacle to it.
The survey shows which respondents are more willing to engage, not why. Its central message is that engagement should begin from the concerns, experiences and needs communities hold, and treat addressing them as the purpose of the engagement process rather than a route to acceptance.
The work is funded by the Task participating countries from the UK, the Netherlands, Sweden and Austria and will be further continued.
Read the full report or download the slide pack
