The Neglected Role of Risk Mitigation Perception in the Risk Governance of Underground Technologies—The Example of Induced Seismicity

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.

Keywords

Carbon capture and storage / Enhanced geothermal systems / Induced seismicity / Risk mitigation perception / Shale gas / Switzerland

References

[1] Aposteanu A, Berre I, Bertani R, Clauser C, Jaudin F, Kujbus A, Sanner B, Urchueguia J. Geothermal technology roadmap. Brussels, Belgium: European Technology Platform on Renewable Heating and Cooling. Bommer, J.J., H. Crowley, and R. Pinho. 2015. A risk-mitigation approach to the management of induced seismicity. Journal of Seismology, 2014, 19: 623-646.

[2] Brown, A. 2013. Perception to action. Nature Climate Change 3: Article 98.

[3] de Vet E, Eriksen C, Booth K, French S. An unmitigated disaster: Shifting from response and recovery to mitigation for an insurable future. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2019, 10(2): 179-192

[4] Dowd AM, Boughen N, Ashworth P, Carr-Cornish S. Geothermal technology in Australia: Investigating social acceptance. Energy Policy, 2011, 39(10): 6301-6307

[5] Dütschke E, Wohlfarth K, Höller S, Viebahn P, Schumann D, Pietzner K. Differences in the public perception of CCS in Germany depending on CO2 source, transport option and storage location. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2016, 53: 149-159

[6] Ellsworth, W.L. 2013. Injection-induced earthquakes. Science 341(6142): Article 1225942.

[7] Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics, 2013, London: Sage Publications

[8] Giardini D. Geothermal quake risks must be faced. Nature, 2009, 462: 848-849

[9] Grigoli F, Cesca S, Priolo E, Rinaldi AP, Clinton JF, Stabile TA, Dost B, Fernandez MG Current challenges in monitoring, discrimination, and management of induced seismicity related to underground industrial activities: A European perspective. Reviews of Geophysics, 2017, 55(2): 310-340

[10] Grigoli, F., S. Cesca, A.P. Rinaldi, A. Manconi, J.A. Lopez-Comino, J. Clinton, T. Dahm, R. Westaway, and S. Wiemer. 2018. The Mw 5.5 November 2017 South Korea Earthquake: An unusual event. Presented at the European Geosciences Union (EGU) General Assembly Conference 2018, 8–13 April 2018, Vienna, Austria.

[11] Heller K, Alexander DB, Gatz M, Knight BG, Rose T. Social and personal factors as predictors of earthquake preparation: The role of support provision, network discussion, negative affect, age, and education. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2005, 35(2): 399-422

[12] Hirschberg, S., S. Wiemer, and P. Burgherr. 2014. Energy from the Earth: Deep geothermal as a resource for the future? Zürich: vdf Hochschulverlag.

[13] IRGC (International Risk Governance Council) An introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework, 2012, Lausanne: International Risk Governance Council

[14] Kao, H., D.W.Eaton, G.M. Atkinson, S.C. Maxwell, and A.B. Mahani. 2016. Technical meeting on the traffic light protocols (TLP) for induced seismicity: Summary and recommendations. Open file no. 8075. Sidney, BC: Geological Survey of Canada.

[15] Keranen KM, Weingarten M, Abers GA, Bekins BA, Ge S. Sharp increase in central Oklahoma seismicity since 2008 induced by massive wastewater injection. Science, 2014, 345(6195): 448-451

[16] Knoblauch, T.A.K., and E. Trutnevyte. 2018. Siting enhanced geothermal systems (EGS): Heat benefits versus induced seismicity risks from an investor and societal perspective. Energy 164(C): 1311–1325.

[17] Knoblauch TAK, Stauffacher M, Trutnevyte E. Communicating low-probability high-consequence risk, uncertainty and expert confidence: Induced seismicity of deep geothermal energy and shale gas. Risk Analysis, 2017, 38(4): 694-709

[18] Krause RM, Carley SR, Warren DC, Rupp JA, Graham JD. “Not in (or under) my backyard”: Geographic proximity and public acceptance of carbon capture and storage facilities. Risk Analysis, 2014, 34(3): 529-540

[19] L’Orange Seigo S, Dohle S, Diamond L, Siegrist M. The effect of figures in CCS communication. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2013, 16: 83-90

[20] Majer, E., J. Nelson, A. Robertson-Tait, J. Savy, and I. Wong. 2012. Protocol for addressing induced seismicity associated with enhanced geothermal systems. Washington, DC: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE).

[21] McGarr A, Bekins B, Burkardt N, Dewey J, Earle P, Ellsworth W, Ge S, Hickman S Coping with earthquakes induced by fluid injection. Science, 2015, 347(6224): 830-831

[22] Mohorko A, de Leeuw E, Hox J. Internet coverage and coverage bias in Europe: Developments across countries and over time. Journal of Official Statistics, 2013, 29(4): 609-622

[23] Molnár L, Saar MO, McDonnell KP. Feasibility study of CO2 plume geothermal system in Germany – Combining energy generation with carbon capture and storage. Biosystems and Food Engineering Research Review, 2018, 23: 148-151.

[24] Perlaviciute G, Steg L, Hoekstra EJ, Vrieling L. Perceived risks, emotions, and policy preferences: A longitudinal survey among the local population on gas quakes in the Netherlands. Energy Research & Social Science, 2017, 29: 1-11

[25] Reiner, D.M. 2016. Learning through a portfolio of carbon capture and storage demonstration projects. Nature Energy 1: Article 15011.

[26] Sjöberg L. Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis, 2000, 20(1): 1-12

[27] Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science, 1987, 236(4799): 280-285

[28] Stauffacher M, Muggli N, Scolobig A, Moser C. Framing deep geothermal energy in mass media: the case of Switzerland. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2015, 98: 60-70

[29] Swiss Federal Statistical Office. 2016. Permanent resident population by age, category of citizenship and sex (Altersmasszahlen der ständigen Wohnbevölkerung nach Staatsangehörigkeitskategorie und Geschlecht). https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/bevoelkerung/stand-entwicklung/alter-zivilstand-staatsangehoerigkeit.assetdetail.80427.html. Accessed 21 Jul 2017 (in German).

[30] Swiss Federal Statistical Office. 2017. Education level of the permanent resident population by age and sex (Bildungsstand der ständigen Wohnbevölkerung nach Alter und Geschlecht). https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/bildung-wissenschaft/bildungsindikatoren/themen/wirkung/bildungsstand.assetdetail.12527184.html. Accessed 21 Jul 2017 (in German).

[31] Thomas, M., T. Partridge, B.H. Harthorn, and N. Pidgeon. 2017. Deliberating the perceived risks, benefits, and societal implications of shale gas and oil extraction by hydraulic fracturing in the US and UK. Nature Energy 2: Article 17054.

[32] Trutnevyte E, Wiemer S. Tailor-made risk governance for induced seismicity of geothermal energy projects: An application to Switzerland. Geothermics, 2017, 65: 295-312

[33] U.S. Department of Energy. 2015. 2014 technology readiness assessment – A checkpoint along a challenging journey. Clean Coal Research Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy

[34] van Vuuren DP, Stehfest E, Gernaat DEHJ, van den Berg M, Bijl DL, de Boer HS, Daioglou V, Doelman JC Alternative pathways to the 1.5 & #xB0;C target reduce the need for negative emission technologies. Nature Climate Change, 2018, 8: 391-397

[35] Wachinger G, Renn O, Begg C, Kuhlicke C. The risk perception paradox – implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Analysis, 2013, 33(6): 1049-1065

[36] Wang Y, Li T, Chen Y, Ma G. Numerical analysis of heat mining and geological carbon sequestration in supercritical CO2 circulating enhanced geothermal systems inlayed with complex discrete fracture networks. Energy, 2019, 173: 92-108

[37] Williams L, Macnaghten P, Davies R, Curtis S. Framing ‘fracking’: Exploring public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom. Public Understanding of Science, 2017, 26: 89-104

[38] Wilson RS, Zwickle A, Walpole H. Developing a broadly applicable measure of risk perception. Risk Analysis, 2019, 39(4): 777-791

[39] Zang A, Oye V, Jousset P, Deichmann N, Gritto R, McGarr A, Majer E, Bruhn D. Analysis of induced seismicity in geothermal reservoirs–An overview. Geothermics, 2014, 52: 6-21

[40] Zoback MD, Gorelick SM. Earthquake triggering and large-scale geologic storage of carbon dioxide. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2012, 109(26): 10164-10168