Is Community Acceptance Of Distributional Justice Influenced By Levels Of Prior Knowledge?

IntroductionPublic policy infrastructure projects often lead to fractured relationships between project promoters and local communities. There are many recent examples of contentious Irish infrastructure projects across the... [ view full abstract ]

Introduction

Public policy infrastructure projects often lead to fractured relationships between project promoters and local communities. There are many recent examples of contentious Irish infrastructure projects across the energy, transport and waste management sectors. Project related disputes lead to acrimonious public debate, project delays and considerable increased costs. “While proponents of private or public facilities search for strategies designed to achieve public acceptance, opposition groups regularly demonstrate a capacity to halt or delay new projects using a variety of legal and political tactics. Through these actions, they consistently and continually thwart efforts to successfully deliver rational planning initiatives to meet environmental needs. They expose the inherent weaknesses of facility siting processes in effectively balancing regional and/or national needs and locally perceived negative impacts” (Keegan & Torres, 2014).

Although there is considerable research on the complexities associated with wind farm development (Cowell et al., 2011; Szarka, 2007; Ellis et al., 2007), there is a gap regarding community benefit agreements. There is limited research on benefit sharing in the context of community acceptance and siting high voltage overhead transmission lines (HVOTLs). While there is evidence of strong public resistance to the siting of overhead lines (Fischlein et al., 2013; Buijs et al., 2011; Cain and Nelson, 2013; Vajjhala, 2007), there is a lacuna regarding initiatives to facilitate their social acceptance.

Cotton and Devine-Wright (2011) note the dearth of research on the social-cultural issues surrounding the process of electrical transmission line siting. They observe how siting (HVOTLs and substations are publicly controversial due to their environmental, social, and economic impacts. It is unclear how socio-political and community acceptance is developed to siting HVOTLs in Ireland and which actions can be taken to develop positive acceptance towards siting them.

Host community benefit agreements (HCBAs) are now an acceptable feature of developing wind-farms in Ireland. Although it is Government policy to have community gain associated with the development of transmission line projects, there is a knowledge vacuum of how to approach this difficult subject in an effective manner. The Irish Government Policy Statement of the Strategic Importance of Transmission and other Energy Infrastructure (July 2012) acknowledges the need for social acceptance and the appropriateness of energy project developers examining appropriate means of building ‘community gain’ considerations into project planning and budgeting. A better understanding of the role of HCBAs should assist policy makers with the siting of HVOTL projects. Much of the research in this area has explored how communities are defined (Boyes-Watson, 2006; Aitken, 2010; McCold and Wachtel, 1998; & McMillan and Chavis, 1986) and what constitutes community acceptance (Wustenhagen, Wolsink and Burer, 2007; Cowell, 2007; & Wolsink, 2007).

Distributional Justice

Distributive justice seeks to allocate equitably public goods (e.g. infrastructure) and public burdens (e.g., hazardous waste) (Kuehn, 2000). Political theorists and justice commentators view social justice as a subcategory of justice (Gross, 2007).  While the distribution of benefits and burdens is frequently associated with social justice, it also characterises the idea of justice (Dobson, 1998). Distributional justice is a central tenet of environmental justice theory, as is procedural justice, which focuses on the fairness of decision-making processes.

Prior Knowledge

Prior knowledge, well recognised in marketing literature, is rooted in the realm of ‘persuasion’ and more specifically the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) of Persuasion. Research to date has not clearly established whether communication recipients who possess issue-relevant high retrieval ability use the same type of information as people who lack prior knowledge. It is argued this area is understudied and there exists a lack of empirical evidence in determining what level of influence does prior knowledge exert when individuals evaluate new information and in identifying how prior knowledge biases the evaluation of persuasive communications? Persuasion occurs when the recipient’s attitudes change, form a new judgement in response to the persuader’s advocacy (Petty et al. 2009; Kruglanski, et al., 1993). Although, the ELM is highly influential in marketing communication research, it needs to be updated to reflect 21st century realities, ensuring it is relevant to practitioners (Szczepanski, 2006; Kitchen et al., 2014).

Research Context, Question and Methodology

While there is evidence of high levels of public resistance to the development of controversial infrastructure projects, there is a knowledge vacuum regarding distributive justice initiatives to help them become more socially acceptable. Hence the research question is formulated as: How do differing levels of prior knowledge influence responses to a message advocating a distributive justice initiative?

The survey instrument was a questionnaire, where Part A concentrated on measurement of variables Prior Knowledge, Prior Relevance, Prior Involvement, Prior Attitude and Need for Cognition and in Part B, respondents began by reading a distributive justice message and then answered questions, beginning with ‘thought-listing’, on their reaction to the message, concluding with demographical questions.

The North-South 400 kV Interconnection Development project corridor, traversing counties Meath, Cavan, Monaghan and Tyrone, comprises 140km, 105km (i.e., 75%) of which is in the Republic of Ireland. The population of dwellings within 500m of the proposed line were stratified by geographic location, type of dwelling, and impact on residential visual amenity. Interviews were achieved with 187 householders, out of a total population of 1,000 dwellings.

Many Prior Knowledge studies used college students in an experimental research context, as opposed to field research. This research does not involve students and it pursues field-work data collection where the subjects were householders located in close proximity to the proposed route of an infrastructure project of a HVOTL. This data collection context also represents a new departure in prior knowledge research, in terms of the ‘infrastructure’ context, specifically for HVOTLs, and the exploration of distributive justice proposals, which are usually highly contentious.   Findings It was assumed, based on the high level of project consultation over many years, there would exist a high level of prior knowledge among a community of both the proposed project and the offer of community gain. This research did not uphold this assumption and draws into question how projects are communicated to local stakeholders. The findings suggest an offering of distributive justice, in the context of infrastructure projects, does moderate attitudes and there is an appetite for more information among the local stakeholder population, particularly those with a low prior knowledge here-to-fore. A more informed approach by project promoters can result in a more productive and harmonious relationship with stakeholders.

Low Prior Knowledge (LPK) and Medium Prior Knowledge (MPK) subjects were much more open to attitude moderation, whereas, High Prior Knowledge subjects (HPK) were not objective. Of the HPK subjects, about half underrate their level of knowledge. When tested, 56.5% of the HPK subjects believe they know more than they actually do. There is evidence to suggest prior knowledge is related to personal involvement, personal relevance prior attitude to proposal, and prior attitude (certainty). Half of LPK subjects have a Low Degree of Certainty and there is also evidence to suggest prior knowledge is related to different components of prior attitude.

Of the HPK respondents, 49% had a general negative reaction to the message, compared to only 20% of LPK respondents and with a chi-square test of .014 is statistically significant, indicating a strong relationship between prior knowledge level and reaction to message. Across the eight variables, per response, the measure of internal consistency within the data (i.e., cronbach’s alpha is .627), indicates a strong consistency of answering the questions.

LPK subjects thought about the message just as much as the HPK subjects and most LPK subjects said: This [information] is interesting, I’d like to know more. Of the subjects with high personal relevance, 55% reacted negatively to the message, whereas only 23% of those with low personal relevance reacted negatively. This finding was statistically significant when testing at an alpha of 5% (chi-squared=37.9. df=4, p<0.01). This relationship is consistent across all levels of prior knowledge, but particularly true for high prior knowledge respondents.

Of those with high prior knowledge, 48% indicated they would not be persuaded by the community gain message. This finding corresponds with 25% of those with low prior knowledge. The level of knowledge concerning Proximity Payments was significant, as 60% did not know the amounts involved and almost 50% did not know whether their property met the criteria for the proximity payment. The majority of subjects (82%), were unaware of the Community Gain Scheme being offered. Contribution

This research supports the work of academics, policy-makers, regulators, developers and other stakeholders involved in national and international infrastructural development projects in sectors such as energy, transport and waste management. It highlights the potential for distributive justice initiatives and contribution of prior knowledge analysis can make to developing marketing and communications strategies. It increases the capacity in tackling problems associated with siting HVOTLs and other controversial infrastructure projects because it can help in developing a more informed and more successful approach to meaningful stakeholder consultation, participation and engagement. This research demonstrates distributive justice initiatives such as community gain messaging and delivery, if communicated effectively, can assist in moderating attitudes in controversial circumstances.