IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v39y2011i10p6301-6307.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Geothermal technology in Australia: Investigating social acceptance

Author

Listed:
  • Dowd, Anne-Maree
  • Boughen, Naomi
  • Ashworth, Peta
  • Carr-Cornish, Simone

Abstract

Issues of social acceptance, such as lack of awareness and negative community perceptions and reactions, can affect low emission energy technology development, despite general support observed for reducing carbon emissions and mitigating climate change. Negative community reactions and lack of understanding have affected geothermal developments, as demonstrated by the fearful community reactions and negative media experienced in response to seismic disturbances caused by "hot rock" geothermal energy generation in Switzerland and Germany. Focusing on geothermal energy, this paper presents the results of using a participatory action research methodology to engage diverse groups within the Australian public. A key finding is that the majority of the Australian public report limited the knowledge or understanding of geothermal technology and have various concerns including water usage and seismic activity instigated by geothermal drilling. However, geothermal energy receives general support due to a common trend to champion renewable energy sources in preference to traditional forms of energy generation and controversial technologies. This paper also demonstrates the effectiveness of using an engagement process to explore public understanding of energy technologies in the context of climate change, and suggests a way forward for governments and industry to allocate resources for greatest impact when communicating about geothermal technology.

Suggested Citation

  • Dowd, Anne-Maree & Boughen, Naomi & Ashworth, Peta & Carr-Cornish, Simone, 2011. "Geothermal technology in Australia: Investigating social acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 6301-6307, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:39:y:2011:i:10:p:6301-6307
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421511005532
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Spampatti, Tobia & Hahnel, Ulf J.J. & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Brosch, Tobias, 2022. "Short and long-term dominance of negative information in shaping public energy perceptions: The case of shallow geothermal systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    2. von Wirth, Timo & Gislason, Linda & Seidl, Roman, 2018. "Distributed energy systems on a neighborhood scale: Reviewing drivers of and barriers to social acceptance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 2618-2628.
    3. Hyung-Seok Jeong & Ju-Hee Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2021. "South Korean Public Acceptance of the Fuel Transition from Coal to Natural Gas in Power Generation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-17, September.
    4. Simone Carr-Cornish & Lygia Romanach, 2014. "Differences in Public Perceptions of Geothermal Energy Technology in Australia," Energies, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-21, March.
    5. Heras-Saizarbitoria, Iñaki & Zamanillo, Ibon & Laskurain, Iker, 2013. "Social acceptance of ocean wave energy: A case study of an OWC shoreline plant," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 515-524.
    6. Kim, Ju-Hee & Kim, Hee-Hoon & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2022. "Social acceptance toward constructing a combined heat and power plant near people's dwellings in South Korea," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 244(PB).
    7. Christian Binz & Noosha Bronte Razavian & Michael Kiparsky, 2018. "Of Dreamliners and Drinking Water: Developing Risk Regulation and a Safety Culture for Direct Potable Reuse," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 32(2), pages 511-525, January.
    8. Barbara Pavlakovič & Milica Rančić Demir & Nejc Pozvek & Maja Turnšek, 2021. "Role of Tourism in Promoting Geothermal Energy: Public Interest and Motivation for Geothermal Energy Tourism in Slovenia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-16, September.
    9. Hileman, Jacob D. & Angst, Mario & Scott, Tyler A. & Sundström, Emma, 2021. "Recycled text and risk communication in natural gas pipeline environmental impact assessments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    10. Soltani, M. & Moradi Kashkooli, Farshad & Souri, Mohammad & Rafiei, Behnam & Jabarifar, Mohammad & Gharali, Kobra & Nathwani, Jatin S., 2021. "Environmental, economic, and social impacts of geothermal energy systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    11. Pellizzone, Anna & Allansdottir, Agnes & De Franco, Roberto & Muttoni, Giovanni & Manzella, Adele, 2015. "Exploring public engagement with geothermal energy in southern Italy: A case study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 1-11.
    12. Bahadori, Alireza & Zendehboudi, Sohrab & Zahedi, Gholamreza, 2013. "A review of geothermal energy resources in Australia: Current status and prospects," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 29-34.
    13. Cousse, Julia & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Hahnel, Ulf J.J., 2021. "Tell me how you feel about geothermal energy: Affect as a revealing factor of the role of seismic risk on public acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    14. Maxim, Alexandru, 2014. "Sustainability assessment of electricity generation technologies using weighted multi-criteria decision analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 284-297.
    15. Baek, Haein & Chung, Ji-Bum & Yun, Gi Woong, 2021. "Differences in public perceptions of geothermal energy based on EGS technology in Korea after the Pohang earthquake: National vs. local," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    16. McComas, Katherine A. & Lu, Hang & Keranen, Katie M. & Furtney, Maria A. & Song, Hwansuck, 2016. "Public perceptions and acceptance of induced earthquakes related to energy development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 27-32.
    17. Kubota, Hiromi & Hondo, Hiroki & Hienuki, Shunichi & Kaieda, Hideshi, 2013. "Determining barriers to developing geothermal power generation in Japan: Societal acceptance by stakeholders involved in hot springs," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1079-1087.
    18. Pellizzone, Anna & Allansdottir, Agnes & De Franco, Roberto & Muttoni, Giovanni & Manzella, Adele, 2017. "Geothermal energy and the public: A case study on deliberative citizens’ engagement in central Italy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 561-570.
    19. Knoblauch, Theresa A.K. & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Stauffacher, Michael, 2019. "Siting deep geothermal energy: Acceptance of various risk and benefit scenarios in a Swiss-German cross-national study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 807-816.
    20. Andrew B. Moynihan & Geertje Schuitema, 2020. "Values Influence Public Acceptability of Geoengineering Technologies Via Self-Identities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-33, June.
    21. Anastasia Ioannou & Gioia Falcone & Christina Baisch & Georgie Friederichs & Jan Hildebrand, 2023. "A Decision Support Tool for Social Engagement, Alternative Financing and Risk Mitigation of Geothermal Energy Projects," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-25, January.
    22. Wang, Shanyong & Wang, Jing & Lin, Shoufu & Li, Jun, 2019. "Public perceptions and acceptance of nuclear energy in China: The role of public knowledge, perceived benefit, perceived risk and public engagement," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 352-360.
    23. Romanach, Lygia & Carr-Cornish, Simone & Muriuki, Grace, 2015. "Societal acceptance of an emerging energy technology: How is geothermal energy portrayed in Australian media?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 1143-1150.
    24. Troldborg, Mads & Heslop, Simon & Hough, Rupert L., 2014. "Assessing the sustainability of renewable energy technologies using multi-criteria analysis: Suitability of approach for national-scale assessments and associated uncertainties," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1173-1184.

    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:eee:enepol:v:39:y:2011:i:10:p:6301-6307. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    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.