Vortrag von Marcus Brian ( Geschäftsführer Enerchange) im Rahmen des Third Geothermal Review am 24. Juni in Mainz zur Wahrnehmung der Geothermie, welche Konsequenzen dies für die Art der Kommunkation hat und welche Lehren man aus den bisherigen Ergebnissen des vom BMU geförderten Forschungsprojekts "Evaluation und Verbesserung der Öffentlichkeitsarbeit für Geothermieprojekte" zieht. (Deie Vortragsfolien sind in englisch)

1. How to communicate risk technology? Third Geothermal Review , 2013, Mainz
How
to
communicate
a
risk
technology?
Results
from
a
research
project
on
public
rela:ons
for
deep
geothermal
Marcus
Brian

2. How to communicate risk technology? Third Geothermal Review , 2013, Mainz
Content
What
is
risk
communica/on?
Geothermal
-­‐
a
risk
technology?
Results
from
a
research
project
on
public
rela/ons
for
deep
geothermal

3. How to communicate risk technology? Third Geothermal Review , 2013, Mainz
Geothermal
–
a
risk
technology?
 It‘s
not
because
of
an
extraordinary
risky
technology

It‘s
not
the
opinion
of
the
experts

It‘s
the
percep:on
of
the
popula:on
OCen
opposi:on
and/or
lack
of
acceptance
Necessity
of
risk
communica:on

4. How to communicate risk technology? Third Geothermal Review , 2013, Mainz
Research
project
Evalua:on
&
Op:misa:on
of
PR
for
deep
geothermal
Phase
2
-­‐
Communica:on
concepts
One
concept
for
a
star/ng
project
and
one
for
a
project
in
opera/on
Phase
1
-­‐
Analysis
of
four
geothermal
projects
Media
analysis
Stakeholder
analysis
Analysis
of
public
rela/ons
Phase
3
-­‐
Manual
Manual
„Public
rela/ons
for
geothermal
projects“
Funded
by
2011
2012
2013

5. How to communicate risk technology? Third Geothermal Review , 2013, Mainz
Phase
1:
Analysis
of
four
projects
 Selected
projects
 Unterhaching,
Landau,
Brühl,
Bruchsal
 PR
analysis
 Interviews
with
project
responsibles
 Analysis
of
PR
acivi/es
 Media
analysis
 Analysis
of
450
ar/cles
(mostly
2010
and
2011)
 Stakeholder
interviews
 29
interviews
alltogether
 Gave
an
impression
of
how
the
project
is
perceived
by
the
popula/on

6. How to communicate risk technology? Third Geothermal Review , 2013, Mainz
What
is
risk
communica:on?
1
|
Basics
und
necessary
condi:ons
 The
percep/on
of
risks
should
be
taken
serious
 Risk
communica/on
is
not
guaranteeing
success
 Ques/ons
of
risks
are
maYers
of
dispute
–
be
ready
to
nego/ate
 Risk
is
a
construct

7. How to communicate risk technology? Third Geothermal Review , 2013, Mainz
Bruehl
project:
It‘s
hard
to
communicate
aCer
risk
construc:on
is
completed
 Two
thirds
voted
against
the
project
in
a
poll
 Heavy
and
con/nuing
opposi/on,
existen/ell
fears
 Professional
PR
and
Risk
management
since
2011
 But
popula/on
does
not
register
any
altera/on
What
happend?
 Messages
are
not
taken
effect,
because
the
efforts
to
par/cipate
on
risk
construc/on
were
too
late
 No
real
par/cipa/on
of
the
popula/on

Closeness
to
major,
already
polarised
in
earlier
projects
Case
example

8. How to communicate risk technology? Third Geothermal Review , 2013, Mainz
What
ist
risk
communictaion?
2
|
Substanial
elements
 Risk
communica/on
must
be
designed
on
the
ques/ons
and
sorrows
of
the
popula/on.

These
have
to
be
known
before
you
start
 Risk
communica/on
is
not
unidirec/onal
but
is
dialogue
 Risk
communica/on
is
rela/onship
building
and
seeking
for
trusaulness

9. How to communicate risk technology? Third Geothermal Review , 2013, Mainz
Bruchsal power plant: Little relationship, no trustfulness
 Almost
not
known,
the
abtude
is
indifferent
 PR
was
consis/ng
almost
only
on
founda/on
stone
ceremony
and
celebra/on
of
official
beginning
of
opera/on
Causes
for
the
indifference
of
the
popula:on
 LiYle
efforts
on
public
rela/ons
 Inconspicuous
loca/on,
liYle
noises,
no
smell
 No
nega/ve
experiences,
long
las/ng
boreholes
What‘s
the
problem?
 Missing
rela/onship:
Indifference
can
turn
into
opposi/on
 No
interpreta/on
offer
due
to
the
lack
of
posi/oning
Case
example

10. How to communicate risk technology? Third Geothermal Review , 2013, Mainz
What
is
risk
communica:on?
3
|
Key
points
for
realisa:on
 Descrip/ons
and
informa/on
should
be
qualita/ve
rather
than
quan/ta/ve
 Risk
communica/on
is
a
management
task
 Benefit
is
reducing
the
percep/on
of
risk

11. How to communicate risk technology? Third Geothermal Review , 2013, Mainz
Unterhaching:
Municipal
project
with
tangible
benefits
 Indepency
of
supply
is
seen
as
a
main
benefit,
no
pressure
groups
 About
5.000
households
are
connected
to
the
district
hea/ng
system
 Personal
contacts
rather
than
professional
PR
at
the
beginning
 Awareness
for
high
costs
and
technical
problems
What
happened?
 Projects
evolved
from
the
center
of
local
society
 Seismicity
is
only
a
marginal
topic
 Intensifying
PR
due
to
the
necessity
of
selling
geothermal

Proudness
for
an
innova/ve
project
Case
example

12. How to communicate risk technology? Third Geothermal Review , 2013, Mainz
What
is
risk
commnica:on?
3
|
Key
points
for
realisa:on

Descrip/ons
and
informa/on
should
be
qualita/ve
rather
than
quan/ta/ve

Risk
communica/on
is
a
management
task

Benefit
is
reducing
the
perceip/on
of
risk

Risk
communica/on
needs
a
concept

There
has
to
be
a
risk
management
and
a
concept
of
how
to
react
in
crisis

13. How to communicate risk technology? Third Geothermal Review , 2013, Mainz
Landau
power
plant:
Leap
of
faith
can
quickly
be
used
up
 No
concept
for
crisis
management
before
seismic
events
in
2009
 Only
liYle
rela/onship
to
popula/on
due
to
focus
on
poli/cal
stakeholders
 Technical
oriented
communica/on
 No
real
confidence,
but
also
no
mistrust
in
geo
x
 Besides
of
single
persons,
there
is
no
big
opposi/on
 Posi/ve
effect
of
media/on
process
in
RP
 Risk
management
and
crisis
concept
established
 Addi/onal
borehole
to
restore
profitability
 Garden
show
as
a
great
chance
to
improve
image
Case
example
Today?
Perspec:ves?

14. How to communicate risk technology? Third Geothermal Review , 2013, Mainz
Phase
2:
Two
communicaton
concepts
 First:
Concept
for
Landau
power
plant
and
geo
x
with
regard
to
the
addi/onal
borhole
and
the
garden
show
2014

Second:
Concept
for
a
new
project
in
the
Oberrheingraben

15. How to communicate risk technology? Third Geothermal Review , 2013, Mainz
Phase
2:
Two
communicaton
concepts

16. How to communicate risk technology? Third Geothermal Review , 2013, Mainz
Phase
2:
Two
communicaton
concepts
 The
concep/on
process
works:
Analysis
and
strategy
lead
„automa/cally“
to
adequate
measures
 The
concept,
its
strategy
and
its
realisa/on
is
inevitable
dependend
on
the
company
owners
and
management
 In
case
of
new,
unknown
projects,
it
is
a
challenge
to
analyse
the
local
social
context
for
the
concept
without
be
able
to
talk
to
the
people
 Concepts
can
save
money!
For
example:
Usage
of
well
established
par/cipa/on
processes
 It‘s
hard
work

What
did
we
learn?

17. How to communicate risk technology? Third Geothermal Review , 2013, Mainz
 Risk
communica/on
is
oriented
towards
the
needs
and
sorrows
of
the
popula/on,
not
necessarily
based
on
fact-­‐oriented
logic
 The
goal
of
risk
communica/on
is...
 to
demonstrate
sense
for
responsibilty
 to
get
into
conversa/on
with
each
other
 build
up
trusaulness
 and
telling
a
believable
story
...not
so
much
to
convice
with
arguments
 Risk
communica/on
is
not
a
informa/on
campaign
 In
the
end,
It‘s
a
ques/on
of
perspec/ve!
Conclusions

18. How to communicate risk technology? Third Geothermal Review , 2013, Mainz
What
we
do
and
what
we
offer
Public
rela:ons
Events
Publica:ons
Consul:ng

19. How to communicate risk technology? Third Geothermal Review , 2013, Mainz
Thank you for your attention!
Marcus Brian
www.enerchange.de
Further information to the research
project on www.pr-geothermie.de