IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v172y2021ics0040162521004595.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Differences in public perceptions of geothermal energy based on EGS technology in Korea after the Pohang earthquake: National vs. local

Author

Listed:
  • Baek, Haein
  • Chung, Ji-Bum
  • Yun, Gi Woong

Abstract

This study investigated the public perception differences about geothermal power generation at the national and local levels after the Pohang earthquake that occurred on November 15, 2017. The media content analysis results indicated that the previously positive media framing based on environment and technology drastically changed to a negative framing based on risk after the earthquake. The survey data showed that the geothermal energy perception of the local sample was significantly more negative than that of the national sample. Proximity to the epicenter of the earthquake was negatively correlated with the public preference of geothermal energy. The energy source preferences among local residents showed that they placed geothermal power plants and nuclear power plants in the same category. In terms of risk, Pohang residents seemed to associate geothermal power plants with nuclear power plants.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:172:y:2021:i:c:s0040162521004595
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162521004595
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121027?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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Yi‐Wen Kung & Sue‐Huei Chen, 2012. "Perception of Earthquake Risk in Taiwan: Effects of Gender and Past Earthquake Experience," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1535-1546, September.
    4. Domenico Giardini, 2009. "Geothermal quake risks must be faced," Nature, Nature, vol. 462(7275), pages 848-849, December.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Enes Hoşgör & Jay Apt & Baruch Fischhoff, 2013. "Incorporating seismic concerns in site selection for enhanced geothermal power generation," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(8), pages 1021-1036, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Zoellner, Jan & Schweizer-Ries, Petra & Wemheuer, Christin, 2008. "Public acceptance of renewable energies: Results from case studies in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 4136-4141, November.
    10. Chung, Ji-Bum & Kim, Eun-Sung, 2018. "Public perception of energy transition in Korea: Nuclear power, climate change, and party preference," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 137-144.
    11. Mignan, A. & Karvounis, D. & Broccardo, M. & Wiemer, S. & Giardini, D., 2019. "Including seismic risk mitigation measures into the Levelized Cost Of Electricity in enhanced geothermal systems for optimal siting," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 238(C), pages 831-850.
    12. Anderson, Austin & Rezaie, Behnaz, 2019. "Geothermal technology: Trends and potential role in a sustainable future," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 248(C), pages 18-34.
    13. Bertsch, Valentin & Hall, Margeret & Weinhardt, Christof & Fichtner, Wolf, 2016. "Public acceptance and preferences related to renewable energy and grid expansion policy: Empirical insights for Germany," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 465-477.
    14. 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.
    15. Panwar, N.L. & Kaushik, S.C. & Kothari, Surendra, 2011. "Role of renewable energy sources in environmental protection: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 1513-1524, April.
    16. Wolsink, Maarten, 2000. "Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 49-64.
    17. Petrova, Maria A., 2016. "From NIMBY to acceptance: Toward a novel framework — VESPA — For organizing and interpreting community concerns," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 1280-1294.
    18. Lee, Youngmin & Park, Sungho & Kim, Jongchan & Kim, Hyoung Chan & Koo, Min-Ho, 2010. "Geothermal resource assessment in Korea," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(8), pages 2392-2400, October.
    19. Kim, Eun-Sung & Chung, Ji-Bum, 2019. "The memory of place disruption, senses, and local opposition to Korean wind farms," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 43-52.
    20. Jones, Christopher R. & Richard Eiser, J., 2010. "Understanding 'local' opposition to wind development in the UK: How big is a backyard?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 3106-3117, June.
    21. Frey, Bruno S & Oberholzer-Gee, Felix & Eichenberger, Reiner, 1996. "The Old Lady Visits Your Backyard: A Tale of Morals and Markets," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(6), pages 1297-1313, December.
    22. 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.
    23. Ji Bum Chung & Hong‐Kew Kim & Sam Kew Rho, 2008. "Analysis of Local Acceptance of a Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 1021-1032, August.
    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. Li, Zhibin & Huang, Wenbo & Chen, Juanwen & Cen, Jiwen & Cao, Wenjiong & Li, Feng & Jiang, Fangming, 2023. "An enhanced super-long gravity heat pipe geothermal system: Conceptual design and numerical study," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 267(C).

    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. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. Schumacher, K. & Krones, F. & McKenna, R. & Schultmann, F., 2019. "Public acceptance of renewable energies and energy autonomy: A comparative study in the French, German and Swiss Upper Rhine region," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 315-332.
    4. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    5. Landeta-Manzano, Beñat & Arana-Landín, Germán & Calvo, Pilar M. & Heras-Saizarbitoria, Iñaki, 2018. "Wind energy and local communities: A manufacturer’s efforts to gain acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 314-324.
    6. Koecklin, Manuel Tong & Longoria, Genaro & Fitiwi, Desta Z. & DeCarolis, Joseph F. & Curtis, John, 2021. "Public acceptance of renewable electricity generation and transmission network developments: Insights from Ireland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    7. Kontogianni, A. & Tourkolias, Ch. & Skourtos, M. & Damigos, D., 2014. "Planning globally, protesting locally: Patterns in community perceptions towards the installation of wind farms," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 170-177.
    8. Woo, JongRoul & Chung, Sungsam & Lee, Chul-Yong & Huh, Sung-Yoon, 2019. "Willingness to participate in community-based renewable energy projects: A contingent valuation study in South Korea," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 643-652.
    9. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2022. "Beyond the triangle of renewable energy acceptance: The five dimensions of domestic hydrogen acceptance," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    10. Bertsch, Valentin & Hyland, Marie & Mahony, Michael, 2017. "What drives people's opinions of electricity infrastructure? Empirical evidence from Ireland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 472-497.
    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. 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.
    13. Astrid Buchmayr & Luc Van Ootegem & Jo Dewulf & Elsy Verhofstadt, 2021. "Understanding Attitudes towards Renewable Energy Technologies and the Effect of Local Experiences," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-23, November.
    14. Hyland, Marie & Bertsch, Valentin, 2018. "The Role of Community Involvement Mechanisms in Reducing Resistance to Energy Infrastructure Development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 447-474.
    15. Guo, Yue & Ru, Peng & Su, Jun & Anadon, Laura Diaz, 2015. "Not in my backyard, but not far away from me: Local acceptance of wind power in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 722-733.
    16. Sharpton, Tara & Lawrence, Thomas & Hall, Margeret, 2020. "Drivers and barriers to public acceptance of future energy sources and grid expansion in the United States," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    17. 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.
    18. Langer, Katharina & Decker, Thomas & Roosen, Jutta & Menrad, Klaus, 2016. "A qualitative analysis to understand the acceptance of wind energy in Bavaria," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 248-259.
    19. Jinjin Guan & Harald Zepp, 2020. "Factors Affecting the Community Acceptance of Onshore Wind Farms: A Case Study of the Zhongying Wind Farm in Eastern China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-19, August.
    20. Mueller, Christoph Emanuel & Keil, Silke Inga & Bauer, Christian, 2019. "Underground cables vs. overhead lines: Quasi-experimental evidence for the effects on public risk expectations, attitudes, and protest behavior," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 456-466.

    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:tefoso:v:172:y:2021:i:c:s0040162521004595. 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.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    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.