IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v85y2015icp1-11.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring public engagement with geothermal energy in southern Italy: A case study

Author

Listed:
  • Pellizzone, Anna
  • Allansdottir, Agnes
  • De Franco, Roberto
  • Muttoni, Giovanni
  • Manzella, Adele

Abstract

This paper presents the results of an assessment of public views on eventual geothermal energy development in Sicily. The research was carried out under a much wider research project, VIGOR, with the aim to explore the feasibility of geothermal energy utilization in southern Italy. This study has two primary objectives: (1) to explore the views and opinions of local communities regarding the potential of geothermal energy applications; (2) to contribute to the growing literature on public engagement with energy issues. In order to explore public views towards geothermal technologies, we conducted a case study using both qualitative and quantitative methods. Although Italy has enormous geological potential for geothermal energy production, levels of knowledge of this energy source amongst the public are low. The results indicate that the issue is shrouded in uncertainty and that the Sicilian public expresses a diffused lack of trust in decision-making processes. Taken together, these factors are likely to strongly impact eventual further developments in this sector. The results clearly show the need for further societal dialogue supported by a sound communication action strategy as the first stage in a public participation.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:85:y:2015:i:c:p:1-11
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2015.05.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421515001871
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.05.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Unruh, Gregory C., 2002. "Escaping carbon lock-in," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 317-325, March.
    2. Wustenhagen, Rolf & Wolsink, Maarten & Burer, Mary Jean, 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2683-2691, May.
    3. Arthur P. J. Mol, 2002. "Ecological Modernization and the Global Economy," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 2(2), pages 92-115, May.
    4. Richard Owen & Phil Macnaghten & Jack Stilgoe, 2012. "Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(6), pages 751-760, December.
    5. Sheila Jasanoff, 2007. "Technologies of humility," Nature, Nature, vol. 450(7166), pages 33-33, November.
    6. Wolsink, Maarten, 2012. "Undesired reinforcement of harmful ‘self-evident truths’ concerning the implementation of wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 83-87.
    7. Huenteler, Joern & Schmidt, Tobias S. & Kanie, Norichika, 2012. "Japan's post-Fukushima challenge – implications from the German experience on renewable energy policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 6-11.
    8. Paul Lehmann & Felix Creutzig & Melf-Hinrich Ehlers & Nele Friedrichsen & Clemens Heuson & Lion Hirth & Robert Pietzcker, 2012. "Carbon Lock-Out: Advancing Renewable Energy Policy in Europe," Energies, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-32, February.
    9. Andy Stirling, 2014. "Transforming Power: social science and the politics of energy choices," SPRU Working Paper Series 2014-03, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    10. Niels Mejlgaard & Carter Bloch, 2012. "Science in Society in Europe," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(6), pages 695-700, December.
    11. Janus Hansen & Agnes Allansdottir, 2011. "Assessing the impacts of citizen participation in science governance: exploring new roads in comparative analysis," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(8), pages 609-617, October.
    12. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher, 2003. "Test of a Trust and Confidence Model in the Applied Context of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 705-716, August.
    13. Jacobsson, Staffan & Johnson, Anna, 2000. "The diffusion of renewable energy technology: an analytical framework and key issues for research," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(9), pages 625-640, July.
    14. Benjamin K. Sovacool, 2014. "Diversity: Energy studies need social science," Nature, Nature, vol. 511(7511), pages 529-530, July.
    15. Breukers, Sylvia & Wolsink, Maarten, 2007. "Wind power implementation in changing institutional landscapes: An international comparison," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2737-2750, May.
    16. 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.
    17. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2003. "Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 961-972, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Guanghui Hou & Tong Chen & Ke Ma & Zhiming Liao & Hongmei Xia & Tianzeng Yao, 2019. "Improving Social Acceptance of Waste-to-Energy Incinerators in China: Role of Place Attachment, Trust, and Fairness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-22, March.
    3. Wang, Yuqing & Liu, Yingxin & Dou, Jinyue & Li, Mingzhu & Zeng, Ming, 2020. "Geothermal energy in China: Status, challenges, and policy recommendations," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    4. Aaen, Sara Bjørn & Kerndrup, Søren & Lyhne, Ivar, 2016. "Beyond public acceptance of energy infrastructure: How citizens make sense and form reactions by enacting networks of entities in infrastructure development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 576-586.
    5. Liu, Bingsheng & Xu, Yinghua & Yang, Yang & Lu, Shijian, 2021. "How public cognition influences public acceptance of CCUS in China: Based on the ABC (affect, behavior, and cognition) model of attitudes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    6. 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).
    7. 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).
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Sarrica, Mauro & Biddau, Fulvio & Brondi, Sonia & Cottone, Paolo & Mazzara, Bruno M., 2018. "A multi-scale examination of public discourse on energy sustainability in Italy: Empirical evidence and policy implications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 444-454.
    11. 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.
    12. Kalkbrenner, Bernhard J. & Yonezawa, Koichi & Roosen, Jutta, 2017. "Consumer preferences for electricity tariffs: Does proximity matter?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 413-424.
    13. 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.
    14. Liliana Topliceanu & Gabriel Petru Puiu, 2016. "Contribution of Geothermal Resources to Energy Autonomy: Evaluation and Management Methodology," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-16, August.
    15. Corsini, Filippo & Certomà, Chiara & Dyer, Mark & Frey, Marco, 2019. "Participatory energy: Research, imaginaries and practices on people' contribute to energy systems in the smart city," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 322-332.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. 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.
    2. Carbajo, Ruth & Cabeza, Luisa F., 2018. "Renewable energy research and technologies through responsible research and innovation looking glass: Reflexions, theoretical approaches and contemporary discourses," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 792-808.
    3. Ehlers, Melf-Hinrich & Sutherland, Lee-Ann, 2016. "Patterns of attention to renewable energy in the British farming press from 1980 to 2013," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 959-973.
    4. Wolsink, Maarten, 2012. "Undesired reinforcement of harmful ‘self-evident truths’ concerning the implementation of wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 83-87.
    5. Francesco Lamperti & Giovanni Dosi & Mauro Napoletano & Andrea Roventini & Alessandro Sapio, 2018. "And then he wasn't a she : Climate change and green transitions in an agent-based integrated assessment model," Working Papers hal-03443464, HAL.
    6. Peura, Pekka, 2013. "From Malthus to sustainable energy—Theoretical orientations to reforming the energy sector," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 309-327.
    7. Wüstenhagen, Rolf & Menichetti, Emanuela, 2012. "Strategic choices for renewable energy investment: Conceptual framework and opportunities for further research," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 1-10.
    8. Eduardo Martínez-Mendoza & Luis Arturo Rivas-Tovar & Luis Enrique García-Santamaría, 2021. "Wind energy in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec: conflicts and social implications," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(8), pages 11706-11731, August.
    9. Modhurima Dey Amin & Syed Badruddoza & Jill J. McCluskey, 2021. "Does conventional energy pricing induce innovation in renewable energy? New evidence from a nonlinear approach," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 659-679, June.
    10. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/5vt1fet9fq9o5pkgj2qh2vn1cm is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Kalkbrenner, Bernhard J. & Yonezawa, Koichi & Roosen, Jutta, 2017. "Consumer preferences for electricity tariffs: Does proximity matter?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 413-424.
    12. Feurtey, Évariste & Ilinca, Adrian & Sakout, Anas & Saucier, Carol, 2016. "Institutional factors influencing strategic decision-making in energy policy; a case study of wind energy in France and Quebec (Canada)," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1455-1470.
    13. Carbajo, Ruth & Cabeza, Luisa F., 2019. "Sustainability and social justice dimension indicators for applied renewable energy research: A responsible approach proposal," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 252(C), pages 1-1.
    14. 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.
    15. Fischlein, Miriam & Larson, Joel & Hall, Damon M. & Chaudhry, Rumika & Rai Peterson, Tarla & Stephens, Jennie C. & Wilson, Elizabeth J., 2010. "Policy stakeholders and deployment of wind power in the sub-national context: A comparison of four U.S. states," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4429-4439, August.
    16. Luciana Maines da Silva & Claudia Cristina Bitencourt & Kadígia Faccin & Tatiana Iakovleva, 2019. "The Role of Stakeholders in the Context of Responsible Innovation: A Meta-Synthesis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-25, March.
    17. Wirth, Steffen, 2014. "Communities matter: Institutional preconditions for community renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 236-246.
    18. Ivan Ligardo-Herrera & Tomás Gómez-Navarro & Edurne A. Inigo & Vincent Blok, 2018. "Addressing Climate Change in Responsible Research and Innovation: Recommendations for Its Operationalization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-20, June.
    19. Pangbourne, Kate & Mladenović, Miloš N. & Stead, Dominic & Milakis, Dimitris, 2020. "Questioning mobility as a service: Unanticipated implications for society and governance," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 35-49.
    20. Frate, Claudio Albuquerque & Brannstrom, Christian, 2017. "Stakeholder subjectivities regarding barriers and drivers to the introduction of utility-scale solar photovoltaic power in Brazil," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 346-352.
    21. Baharoon, Dhyia Aidroos & Rahman, Hasimah Abdul & Fadhl, Saeed Obaid, 2016. "Publics׳ knowledge, attitudes and behavioral toward the use of solar energy in Yemen power sector," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 498-515.

    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:85:y:2015:i:c:p:1-11. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.