Abstract
Subsurface technologies, such as geothermal energy and carbon capture and storage, are options to help limit global warming. Subsurface technologies involve the risk of induced seismicity. The successful implementation of these technologies depends on the public perception of these risks. Risk governance frameworks propose assessing the level of public concern and designing adapted risk mitigation measures. We propose that concerns should not only be investigated with respect to the perceived risks but also with respect to the potential mitigation measures. We explore this by analyzing the perception of risk mitigation measures for different subsurface technologies. With an online survey (N = 808) in Switzerland we analyzed four technologies (in-between subject design) and four mitigation measures (within subject design). We found that risk mitigation measures are perceived differently, within and across technologies. Thus, public concerns about risk mitigation really matter. We suggest that future research should focus on how risk mitigation measures can be applied and communicated to realize the full potential of risk governance frameworks.
Highlights
The underground is increasingly important, as it provides resources and opportunities for disposal
Induced seismicity is documented for carbon capture and storage (CCS), deep geothermal energy (DGE), and hydraulic fracturing for shale gas (SG), among others (Giardini 2009; Zoback and Gorelick 2012; Keranen et al 2014; Zang et al 2014)
We examine risk mitigation perception for deep geothermal energy (DGE), hydraulic fracturing for shale gas (SG), carbon capture and storage (CCS), and CO2-plume geothermal (CPG)
Summary
The underground is increasingly important, as it provides resources and opportunities for disposal. Induced seismicity is documented for carbon capture and storage (CCS), deep geothermal energy (DGE), and hydraulic fracturing for shale gas (SG), among others (Giardini 2009; Zoback and Gorelick 2012; Keranen et al 2014; Zang et al 2014). This study analyzes how a sample of the Swiss public perceives various forms of risk mitigation that address the severity of the induced seismicity hazard at the source (traffic light system), exposure (relocation of the project to a remote area), vulnerability (structural retrofitting), and compensation (earthquake insurance). We examine risk mitigation perception for deep geothermal energy (DGE), hydraulic fracturing for shale gas (SG), carbon capture and storage (CCS), and CO2-plume geothermal (CPG). We conducted an online survey (808 respondents) in Switzerland, where these technologies have been discussed, are not fundamentally contested, and while they are known (with the exception of CPG), few fixed opinions have been developed
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
