Communicating low-probability high-consequence events and the degree of certainty: The cases of deep geothermal plants and hydropower dams

Deep geothermal plants and hydropower dams are low-carbon, reliable energy resources, but their implementation and operation exposes society to risks, such as induced seismicity for geothermal plants or severe accidents for... [ view full abstract ]

Deep geothermal plants and hydropower dams are low-carbon, reliable energy resources, but their implementation and operation exposes society to risks, such as induced seismicity for geothermal plants or severe accidents for hydro dams. These risks are subject to uncertainty due to the novelty of deep geothermal plants or changing conditions due to climate change impacts on hydro dams. This is even more the case for risks of low-probability high-consequence (LPHC) events that society eventually has to bear. In order to inform energy choices and their risk management, such risks and their degree of expert certainty need to be communicated. In literature there is, however, limited empirical evidence on how to best communicate risk of LPHC events or the degree of expert certainty. In our study we investigate how the broad public perceives various ways of communicating risks in general and LPHC events in particular, degree of expert certainty, and risk management measures. We assess perception in terms of understandability, concern, and trust and explore how this correlates with the preferred way of communication. For this purpose, we conduct an online survey with N=100 respondents, eliciting their perception of and preference for various elements of risk communication. We use (i) direct measurements by asking questions about perceptions and preferences of individual communication elements and (ii) indirect measurements where respondents assess holistic sets of these communication elements (conjoint analysis). The findings reveal differences in the perceptions of understandability, trust, and concern for various risk communication options as well as differences in the preferred way of communication. We expect our results to inform a transparent discourse around risks when discussing, siting, implementing, and operating deep geothermal plants and hydropower dams. This abstract is part of the "Energy transition and changing risks" symposium proposed by Evelina Trutnevyte, ETH Zurich.