Energy Reports 6 (2020) 1950–1962

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Reports
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/egyr

Research Paper

Blind spots of participation: How differently do geothermal energy

managers and residents understand participation?
∗
Franziska Ruef , Michael Stauffacher, Olivier Ejderyan
Transdisciplinarity Lab, Department of Environmental Systems Science, ETH Zürich, Universitätsstrasse 16, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland
Swiss Competence Center for Energy Research—Supply of Electricity (SCCER-SoE), ETH Zürich, Sonneggstrasse 5, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: Participation is often presented as the solution for achieving social acceptance in energy infrastructure
Received 17 December 2019 projects. Despite its broad recognition, participation might have very different meanings depending
Received in revised form 29 May 2020 on the perspective taken. In this paper, we empirically explore different understandings of two
Accepted 7 July 2020
central perspectives in a participatory process: those of the project managers and the residents.
Available online 29 July 2020
While project managers have a rather classic view of participatory formats, residents look for formats
Keywords: they can accommodate in their everyday practices. Put together, both perspectives expand common
Participation conceptualizations of participation in the literature and enable the detection of blind spots. Based
Geothermal energy on empirical data from geothermal energy, our findings show that perceptions and expectations of
Siting participation vary and, in some cases, diverge, which leads to misunderstandings about the nature
Participant observation and scope of participation. This, in turn, can delay or even block energy projects.
Focus groups © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction local geological characteristics and aquifers with suitable wa-

Decarbonizing the energy sector constitutes one of the main
challenges in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions world-
wide. Many countries are now engaged in energy transitions that
imply a major shift in their energy systems, replacing the use of
fossil fuels with renewable energy sources. Geothermal energy is
a renewable energy that exploits underground heat. Beyond shal-
low geothermal systems such as heat pumps, the technology is
still poorly known, and in comparison to other renewable energy
sources such as solar or wind power, little research exists on the
social aspects of it (Manzella et al., 2019; Moser and Stauffacher,
2015; Vargas Payera, 2018). Geothermal energy encompasses var-
ious drilling technologies and depths, causing scales, impacts, and
implications for the public to change according to the scope of a
geothermal project (Chavot et al., 2018). Deep geothermal energy
is often described in two broad categories: hydrothermal and
petrothermal technology. Hydrothermal geothermal technology
focuses on existing aquifers in the underground mainly for heat
use. Petrothermal geothermal technology involves creating an
artificial reservoir by hydraulic stimulation to exploit heat for
energy production (Schechinger and Kissling, 2015). Therefore,
petrothermal systems do not depend on the presence of under-
ground water reservoirs, whereas for hydrothermal technology,
∗ Corresponding author at: Transdisciplinarity Lab, Department of En-
vironmental Systems Science, ETH Zürich, Universitätsstrasse 16, 8092
Zürich, Switzerland.
E-mail address: franziska.ruef@usys.ethz.ch (F. Ruef).
ter flows are of crucial importance. In particular, petrothermal
technology comes with some risks, especially induced seismic-
ity, which have caused opposition to projects in many areas
across the world (Knoblauch et al., 2018; Trutnevyte and Azevedo,
2017). Although heat pumps are well-implanted in Switzerland
(Rybach, 2013), geothermal technology functioning at greater
depths is still in early development.
Renewable energy infrastructures often grapple with local op-
position (Bauwens and Devine-Wright, 2018; Lienert et al., 2018;
Mueller, 2019; Rand and Hoen, 2017; Tuler et al., 2014). Such
opposition is often explained in terms of a lack of acceptance
or the so-called NIMBY (‘‘not in my backyard’’) syndrome, which
implies that people reject a specific technology when it is to
operate near their homes. Social science research on energy ac-
ceptance has shown that when residents and other members of
the public oppose renewable energy infrastructure, it is often
for more complex reasons (Devine-Wright, 2011; Wolsink, 2007,
2006). Indeed, the development of renewable energy is not only
a technical matter but also a question of social change in terms
of energy production, distribution, and consumption, which has
an impact on people’s everyday lives (Batel and Devine-Wright,
2015; Groves et al., 2016). Social science approaches offer var-
ious concepts and tools to better understand and address issues
raised by the impact of energy infrastructure on society (Sovacool,
2014).
The need to include the public in decisions about siting and
development of new energy infrastructures through participa-
tion has been recognized (Bidwell, 2016; Wolsink, 2007) and

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2020.07.003
2352-4847/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
 F. Ruef, M. Stauffacher and O. Ejderyan / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 1950–1962
gained ground in various sectors (Alsabbagh, 2019; Trutnevyte
and Ejderyan, 2017). The term participation encompasses a very
diverse set of interactions and formats. Sherry Arnstein (Arnstein,
1969) laid the grounds for typologies of participation with the fa-
mous ‘‘ladder of participation’’, which inspired a number of other
attempts to classify participation. Participation with broader im-
pacts on decision-making is increasingly the norm for science
and environment-related issues (Chilvers and Kearnes, 2015).
For energy projects more specifically, researchers and civil soci-
ety groups call for more public engagement in decision-making,
which raises questions concerning the actual impact of pub-
lic engagement on energy system transformations (Cowell and
Devine-Wright, 2018; Jellema and Mulder, 2016). This is a re-
sponse to the critique made to the sustainability transitions field
as focusing too much on technological aspects and neglecting
the role of the public and democratic engagement in transition
processes (Chilvers and Longhurst, 2016; Lawhon and Murphy,
2012).
Operators and project developers are increasingly aware of
the importance of public acceptance and include the public as
early as possible to foster legitimacy and improve trust in de-
cisions. This is all the more so for new and emerging sectors
without clearly defined legal regulations or routinized decision-
making processes (Bucchi and Neresini, 2008) or that are strongly
context-dependent and not readily accessible, such as geothermal
(Ejderyan et al., 2019). Research has shown that societal re-
sponses to energy infrastructure are not only a matter of techno-
logical acceptance or demographics (Chavot et al., 2019). Rather,
specific projects are received and interpreted by communities
based on their experiences (Cuppen et al., 2020) as well as current
socio-political debates sometimes not directly related to energy
issues (Chavot et al., 2018). Projects thus need to be anchored in
a given social setting (Chavot et al., 2018).
In light of the complexity of energy systems, the recent lit-
erature increasingly emphasizes the need for a new conception
of participation. Therein, participation is not limited to a few
predefined formats but emerges from the interaction with and
within a context and its actors (Chilvers et al., 2018; Chilvers
and Kearnes, 2015). This presupposes that participation may be
defined differently based not only on what the actors expect
but also on the context in which it unfolds. Furthermore, it is
not only project managers who initiate participation formats; the
public increasingly asks for new ways to participate and creates
its own formats. Community energy initiatives, as one example
of local governance of energy production, are much more likely
to include renewable technologies such as wind (Bauwens and
Devine-Wright, 2018) or solar, in contrast to the much more
centralized conventional energy production (van der Schoor and
Scholtens, 2015). Contrastingly, participatory formats can be un-
official or even take the form of resistance but nonetheless prove
to be just as important (Chilvers et al., 2018). This approach
promises to be inclusive and more open to different participa-
tory formats and flexible in an environment of change and new
technologies. It allows the anticipation and tackling of unfore-
seen challenges surging in the context of energy transitions and
preparation for different needs, perceptions, and fears.
Seeing participation as emerging through interactions implies
that there are many possible formats of participation and a need
to consider different understandings in order to grasp the whole
picture. We do this by examining how different perspectives of
participation influence the bigger picture and how understanding
these differences leads to more efficient planning of participation.
In doing so, we substantially expand the emergence approach, as
we show that there are not only different formats but also differ-
ent views about these formats. Seeking the constructive input of
various perspectives is also key for transdisciplinary researchers
1951
tackling complex sustainability problems (Lang et al., 2012), such
as the development of new energy sources such as geothermal.
A number of studies have focused on different perspectives on
participation (Dang, 2018; Trousset et al., 2015; Webler et al.,
2001). However, most have been conducted with the aim of iden-
tifying motivations to participate, without questioning whether
participation is always understood in the same way.
In the present paper, we show how two different types of
actors see and understand participation: the ones initiating a par-
ticipative format (project managers) and the ones participating
(or not) in it (residents). However, our interpretation of the data
suggests that these roles may shift, with the ones participating
also initiating processes and vice versa. We use empirical data
collected in the frame of a local geothermal program in Geneva,
Switzerland. Core findings rely on a detailed analysis of in-depth
qualitative data elicited through focus groups (Bloor et al., 2001;
Kamberelis and Dimitriadis, 2013) with residents and through
participant observation (Jorgensen, 2015) in the strategic man-
agement meetings of the geothermal project managers in Geneva.
Insights from a geothermal program are also pertinent for other
renewable energy environments, as they all deal with procedures
that are not yet fixed (Manzella et al., 2019) and with open ques-
tions concerning the formats of participation to include the public
in the projects. By distinguishing between project managers’ and
residents’ perspectives, we highlight essential complexities thus
far hidden from existing analyses, which we call blind spots of par-
ticipation. Blind spots refer both to differences in understanding of
certain participatory formats and to different formats all together.
2. Project setting and context
The presented study is part of a four-year research project that
started in 2017 and is financed by the canton of Geneva and the
local public utilities, Services Industriels de Genève (SIG). These
two entities are jointly developing a geothermal program across
the cantonal territory. As is typical for transdisciplinary research
projects, we elaborated and chose the research questions, prior-
ities, and methods in close collaboration with the practitioners.
This means that our research project partners are simultane-
ously the contracting entity and the subjects of the study. This
process of defining the frame of the research together allows
the integration of viewpoints of science as well as society and
thus to tackle issues that are pertinent for real-world contexts
as well as academia (Lang et al., 2012; Pearce and Ejderyan,
2019). The combination of perspectives allows us to react to
these often complex, dynamic, and variable issues and resolve
them in a more sustainable way (Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2006).
For the Geneva context, this means that the geothermal program
managers openly discussed challenges with us, which led to the
identification of locally pertinent as well as scientifically relevant
research questions.
In this setting, we need to constantly reflect on biases and
influences of our direct relation with the research subjects and
project partners, especially given that we use participant ob-
servation as one data collection method. Thus, we need to be
aware of the implications of our presence and interaction with
the geothermal program management team as well as the public.
The geothermal program in Geneva was launched in 2014
and focuses on hydrothermal geothermal technology. The pro-
gram strategy is to gradually assess the geothermal potential of
the cantonal territory and the quality of the underground water
reservoirs using a stepwise approach. This means that the pro-
gram involves various projects in different localities, with the aim
of gaining a global vision of the cantonal potential. This approach
avoids the pitfall of single geothermal projects that stand and fall
depending on one project outcome (Ejderyan et al., 2020). This
1952 F. Ruef, M. Stauffacher and O. Ejderyan / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 1950–1962
way of proceeding is of special importance in the Swiss context,
where geothermal energy has experienced two major setbacks
in the past, with early flagship projects causing earthquakes.
This has greatly influenced public perception of the technology,
which is why it is important for new projects to closely interact
with different stakeholders and the broader public from the very
beginning (Ejderyan et al., 2020, 2019).
The cantonal geothermal program concedes great attention to
the inclusion of the local population for several reasons. With the
program facing many uncertainties venturing into a new context
where knowhow first needs to be built up, a consistent communi-
cation and participation strategy is key to fostering understanding
and openness. Since the beginning of the program, at every new
development (start of drilling activities, selection of new sites),
information events—mostly in the form of site visits—have been
organized for the public, and the program website is updated
regularly. Being executed and planned by the local authorities and
public utility, the program is perceived as very locally anchored
and public reactions are favorable in areas where projects were
already completed or ongoing (Ejderyan et al., 2020).
With the study set in Switzerland, while studying participa-
tion, it is important to point out that citizens and actors from
civil society have various means to intervene in the planning
and implementation of policies and projects due to the nation’s
direct-democratic system1 (Ejderyan et al., 2020, 2019; Kübler,
1999; Linder and Vatter, 2001). Thus, most Swiss citizens are used
to participating and intervening in the public scene and recur to
both formal democratic instruments and informal means, such as
consumption choices, to do so.
3. Methodology
3.1. Data collection: Focus groups and participant observation
As mentioned in Section 1, we chose to use participant obser-
vation to identify the geothermal project managers’ perspective
and focus groups to identify the residents’ views on participa-
tion. The two methods are commensurable, as they both capture
group dynamics and the construction of an argument through
interaction with other meeting or focus group participants. Both
methods require a number of decisions and choices, which will
be reflected upon in the following, as they constitute caveats to
be kept in mind while interpreting the results.
Participant observation is a data collection method carried out
through direct interaction with the research subjects in the field.
This opens the door to data that is often inaccessible through
other methods (Jorgensen, 2015). One of the co-authors con-
ducted long-term participant observation in 35 strategic manage-
ment meetings of the geothermal program between May 2017
and June 2018. These meetings were either restricted project
management team meetings (20 meetings with 2–3 participants;
always the same participants) or meetings with external or in-
ternal partners (15 meetings with a total of 33 participants, plus
the 2–3 project managers). Furthermore, the researcher attended
all public events around geothermal development in the region.
These observations allow a rich picture of how decisions are
made and what actors are linked to different decisions and topics.
Participant observation allows us to understand the larger institu-
tional context of the geothermal program, with its linkages and
1 The most important instruments of direct democracy in Switzerland are
the people’s initiative and the facultative referendum. On a local level, there is
always a period for lodging objections against building or infrastructure plans.
dynamics of power, decision, and priority. During the meetings
and events, the researcher jotted down notes in real-time, which
were finished and elaborated on immediately after the sessions.
Progressive immersion in the context of geothermal energy in
Geneva gives rise to an increasing body of observation data. For
this qualitative method, it is important to bear in mind the double
role of the partners/subjects of the study, as well as the role and
influence of the participant observer herself.
The focus group is a qualitative research method used to
yield data from group processes. Focus groups enable partic-
ipants to share and interact directly, challenging each other’s
opinions and justifying their own. Thereby, a deeper understand-
ing of their statements comes to surface, and the normative
assumptions that groups draw upon to reach their collective
judgments are revealed (Bloor et al., 2001). This method has
become considerably more popular during the past century and
is increasingly practiced in settings where participants and re-
searchers together discuss the issue at stake instead of following
a rigid question–answer structure (Kamberelis and Dimitriadis,
2013). We conducted six focus groups with 6–12 participants (a
total of 52 participants) in different municipalities and neigh-
borhoods in Geneva (Fig. 1). The localities of the focus groups
were chosen in collaboration with the project partners, with the
aim of ensuring diversity in demographics, geography, and the
presence or non-presence of geothermal activity on the terri-
tory (Table 1). Consequently, we chose one locality where the
cantonal geothermal program has recently drilled a geothermal
well successfully and informed the local municipality with several
open-door events. Another locality was chosen because it was the
site of an early geothermal project (not linked to the now ongoing
geothermal program) in the 1990s, which was unsuccessful due
to low water flows. One municipality was selected because it
was discussed as a potential site for the next drilling activities
of the program; however, the population was not yet informed.
Two municipalities do not have any geothermal activities on
their territory. Finally, one neighborhood was chosen in order to
include an urban context.
We decided to work with local inhabitants on a municipal
or neighborhood scale in order to feature participants with local
bonds and who react to the discussion out of personal experience
in daily life. The participants were community members recruited
through flyers, municipal and local association communication
channels, and social networks. Participants signed an informed
consent form stating the academic purpose of the research, asking
for authorization to record and take photographs and detailing
how their data would be handled. They were compensated for
their time with a CHF 40 (approximately USD 40) gift card to a
local supermarket. The protocol was the same for all groups and
consisted of carefully staged and sequenced activities. We drew
on research on focus group theory and methodology to develop
and test the protocol and the role of the facilitator. We started
with a focusing exercise, handing out a paper slip with a sentence
describing the development of renewable energy infrastructures
in the neighborhood or municipality. After 20 min of moderated
discussion, we moved on to show a video on the history of
energy in the region, followed again by 20 min of discussion.
The last sequence focused on geothermal and was introduced
with two short videos on geothermal and the cantonal program
more specifically.2 The aim was to engage the participants on
the topic of the energy transition in the first part and focusing
more on geothermal and the local context during the second and
third parts. A second researcher was in charge of logistical and
other assistance and recorded the group dynamics between the
2 All three videos were developed by the Geneva geothermal program. (https:
//www.geothermies.ch/ressources).
 F. Ruef, M. Stauffacher and O. Ejderyan / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 1950–1962 1953

Fig. 1. Map of the Canton of Geneva with Focus Group Locations.

Table 1
Core characteristics of focus group discussions locations.
Location Population and size Geothermal activities Local characteristics Focus group
information
Le Grand-Saconnex 12,153 residents No geothermal activities. Urban municipality situated Date: Nov. 2017
438 hectares between the city of Geneva 10 participants
(www.grand-saconnex.ch) and the airport. Very
international population due to
the presence and proximity of
many international
organizations.
Satigny 4,123 residents First and successful drilling site Rural municipality known for Date: Apr. 2018
1,908 hectares of the geothermal program; wine production and 8 participants
(http://www.satigny.ch) population was informed with picturesque landscapes. Vast
open-door events. industrial zone in the east.
Veyrier 11,777 residents No geothermal activities. Suburban municipality with Date: May 2018
652 hectares the largest area of family villas 9 participants
(www.veyrier.ch) of Switzerlanda . Proximity to
the French border.
Bernex 10,265 residents Potential site for the next Rural municipality with strong Date: Nov. 2017
1,297 hectares drilling activities of the commitment to energy 12 participants
(http://www.bernex.ch) program; no information to transition with a municipal
the population as of the date program to abandon fuels. Vast
of the focus group. agricultural surfaces.
Thônex 14,155 residents Historic site of a geothermal Densely populated peri-urban Date: Apr. 2018
382 hectares project in the 1990s that failed municipality at the French 7 participants
(www.thonex.ch) due to low water flows. Project border.
was in the local news.
Champel (neighborhood 18,648 residents No geothermal activities. Rather wealthy neighborhood Date: June 2018
of the city of Geneva) 180 hectares currently undergoing 6 participants
(https://www.geneve.ch/fr/ substantive construction works
faire-geneve/decouvrir-geneve- linked to a new railway line.
quartiers/champel)
a
https://www.letemps.ch/suisse/pied-saleve-une-election-sortir-zizanie.

members—especially the non-verbal ones not captured by
audio recording device.
The choice of the municipalities, the recruitment process
prompts used during the discussion all have an effect on
results and their interpretation. Although participation in
the focus groups was open to anyone, there was a self-selection
bias due to the technicality of the topic. Statistical represen-
and tativity of the general population was not the objective nor a
the methodological requirement (as our goal was not to make any
the inference based on our results, but to get a general understanding
1954 F. Ruef, M. Stauffacher and O. Ejderyan / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 1950–1962
of what participation can mean to the population). Furthermore,
as the geothermal program is funding our research project, some
participants perceived the focus group as upstream consultation,
even though we emphasized the independence of our research.
This is an important contextual factor to keep in mind during the
data analysis process and helps to understand some reactions that
emerged during the discussions.
3.2. Data analysis
The use of qualitative data collection methods such as par-
ticipant observation and focus groups allows identification of
participation as seen from two different perspectives—i.e., in-
stances in which either the project managers or the focus group
participants referred to participatory formats. To account for the
emerging nature of the geothermal context and the participatory
formats directly or indirectly linked to it, it is crucial to em-
ploy an open conception of what participation is. We identified
all references to participatory formats and connections among
them through a qualitative data analysis exercise using the NVivo
software. Qualitative, like quantitative, data analysis is concerned
with data reduction (Bryman, 2012). This means that for data
formats such as observation field notes, focus group transcripts,
and other qualitative data, most approaches in qualitative data
analysis use a coding scheme to break up the textual materials in
question. We coded the data thematically using a grounded theo-
retical scheme to give room to emergent topics. The observation
notes and focus group transcripts were gradually broken down
into codes pertaining to participation.
Capturing, coding, and analyzing all references made by the
project managers and residents—be it explicitly or implicitly—
we mapped all mentioned participatory formats. This means that
instead of deductively verifying whether participation concepts
described in the literature are present in the territory, we con-
ceptualize participation inductively, based on what participants
in our research said. We found that references to participation not
only included explicit or implicit participatory formats (such as
consultation and workshops) but also a notion of who organizes
these formats and who takes part. For example, when project
managers talk about open-door events for the public on a local
drilling site, the format (organized information event) is explicit
and clear. However, to fully grasp this format, it is necessary to
consider the access to this event. Being located in an industrial
zone in the periphery of the city of Geneva, there is a high
level of self-selection due to the location, the information pro-
vided, and the specificity of the topic of the event (geothermal
energy). This is why we would categorize this reference to the
participation format under invited with self-selection, but open. To
ideally accommodate these two dimensions, we developed a two-
dimensional grid. Two detailed tables containing definitions of
the different categories for both axes of the grid may be found
in the Appendix.
The horizontal axis categorizes the formats in terms of their
level of governance and access by establishing a continuum be-
tween institution-led and self-organized participation. This con-
stitutes a new element to existing conceptualizations of participa-
tion in literature and allows the capturing of not only the differ-
entiation between the public and private spheres but also individ-
ual levels of engagement linked to self-selection and perception
of openness or exclusiveness of different formats.
For example, institution-internal participation encompasses for-
mats of participation taking place ‘‘internally’’ within the insti-
tutional setting where the project is developed, such as in the
form of cross-sectoral collaboration. The project management
team is itself participating internally in working groups and ad
hoc meetings around a topic, which shows the blurred lines
between the one proposing or creating participation and the one
ultimately participating in it.
The vertical axis contains concrete participatory formats; some
of them are often referred to in the literature and completed
with formats that were mentioned in the focus groups and during
the management meetings. We also include more indirect for-
mats involving day-to-day activities, such as behavior changes
or consumption, which are hardly discussed in the literature as
ways to participate (for one of the few examples, see Lorenzini,
2019). For example, economic participation describes actions in
the market as a consumer, such as choosing an energy supplier
or investing in renewable technologies at home. Depending on
who is the consumer and how he or she participates through
actions in the market, the format will be placed along the hor-
izontal axis. For instance, if the format involves institutional
actors from the same or hierarchically linked organizations, this
pertains to institution-internal, whereas in the case of an indi-
vidual homeowner-initiated format, this would be put in the
community-initiated category.
As the grid is directly based on data collected from the project,
it can be said that project managers and residents are part of the
grid construction process; it was possible to identify a wide diver-
sity of formats by looking at their different perspectives. We qual-
itatively analyzed the different views and recognized that partic-
ipation may take many more forms than expected. For example,
information provision ranges from institutional-internal formats,
such as internally shared meeting notes of cross-departmental
collaborations, to invited forms, such as presentations to a defined
audience, to public forms, such as the website of a neighborhood
association. A fine-tuning on the governance level, with many
elements between institution-led and self-organized, allows the
uncovering of blind spots and attributing of the formats in terms
of access and sphere of influence.
4. Results: What participation for geothermal energy means to
project managers and residents
In this section, we present the analysis results of the observa-
tion of managerial meetings and of the focus groups based on the
two-dimensional grid. The comparison of the two perspectives in
the two-dimensional grid shows how different the distribution
of references is (Figs. 2 and 3) and that both ignore some formats
mentioned by the other.
4.1. The project managers’ perspective
Project managers see participative formats primarily as rang-
ing from co-production to consultation to information (Fig. 2). The
largest share of statements on participation corresponds to com-
mon schemes for participation, referring to participation through
information provision.
In terms of governance of participatory formats, interestingly,
institution-internal and invited formats, as well as considerations
on a strategic level, were referred to frequently. These formats
correspond to a large extent to participatory formats that in-
clude other state agencies and departments than the ones leading
the geothermal program, as well as pre-identified stakeholders,
known to the managers. Participation within these formats is
generally interactive and involves actors negotiating or working
together.
Institution-internal formats could take the form of interactive
formats, such as internal working and program steering groups,
or what we call strategic communication, pertaining to internally
circulated results of a study or a report with strategic implications
for the program. Lesser mentioned institution-internal formats
belong to brokerage/mediation (e.g., discussions about setting up
 F. Ruef, M. Stauffacher and O. Ejderyan / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 1950–1962 1955

Fig. 2. Formats of participation referred to by project managers. The distribution for project managers’ references shows that they have mostly the classical
understanding of participation known from the literature. (Source: 20 internal meetings with three participants and 15 meetings with external participants [composed
of the three project managers and 33 different external partners] between May 2017 and June 2018). Detailed tables containing definitions of the different categories
may be found in the Appendix (Tables A.1 and A.2).

Fig. 3. Formats of participation referred to by residents. For residents, information provision is also a substantial part of referenced participatory formats. However,
in contrast with the project managers, residents more often referred to self-organized than to institution-led formats of participation. Private formats such as buying
responsibly and investing in renewable energy installations for one’s own house came up in many discussions. (Source: Six focus groups with a total of 52 participants.)
Detailed tables containing definitions of the different categories may be found in the Appendix (Tables A.1 and A.2)
1956 F. Ruef, M. Stauffacher and O. Ejderyan / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 1950–1962
a facilitating entity internally for improved collaboration), project
communication (e.g., brochures on the program for internal cir-
culation only) and education (e.g., master’s and doctoral theses
written under the co-supervision of a project manager and which
will flow back into their practice).
The column strategic formats includes references to partici-
pation taking place on a meta-level when thinking about the
participation process itself or even developing a participation
strategy. Project managers talked about strategic formats in an
interactive form, such as developing a transborder participation
approach together with the French neighboring municipalities
or designing the geothermal in a collaborative way. On an in-
formative level, strategic communication references encompassed
discussions and the publication of so-called ‘‘strategic societal
objectives’’, which are, for example, ‘‘providing the general public
with up-to-date and understandable information enabling them
to better understand geothermal solutions’’ (GEothermie2020,
2017).
Beyond the institutional context of the program, many par-
ticipation formats take place within a predefined group (invited
participation), such as presentations in a local council, partic-
ipation in meetings with industry representatives, and result
publication for the stakeholders. For the geothermal program
managers, an important aspect of participation is dealing with a
selected group of stakeholders (invited participation), those with a
demand for geothermal heat. One example is exchanges between
project managers and selected stakeholders to know how to ac-
commodate their needs for geothermal use and motivating them
to take an active role in the project.
Within information provision categories, most references dur-
ing the program management meetings pertained to what we
call project communication in an invited with self-selection, but
open format. We define invited with self-selection, but open as a
format in which the organization invites participants who self-
select themselves but there is no exclusion and no (or very little)
control over who participates (see Table A.1; all definitions of the
axes and columns of the grid may be found in the Appendix). For
example, different information brochures about a local drilling
project or the announcement of the passing of heavy trucks as
part of the 3D campaign would be placed in this category. These
formats encompass one-way communication campaigns initiated
by the geothermal program (thus labeled project communication)
and are self-selective, as they depend on the locality and interest
in the topic. This depends on the public’s reception and reaction
to this information.
There are slightly fewer references to invited with self-selection
and registration formats. Here, project managers evoked focus
groups (workshops and focus groups), a geothermal drilling site
visit for which registration is needed (exhibitions, site visits), a
national geothermal congress for industry and policymakers (or-
ganized information event), an online, membership-based platform
on industrial ecology (internet website), and information stands
at several international conventions on energy and transition-to-
sustainability issues that were held in Geneva (part of a larger
event).
As depicted in Fig. 2, references to participation formats by
project managers thin out the more public, bottom-up, and
community-initiated they are. Likewise, looking at the vertical
axis, behavior and practices receive very little attention, and
abstention and protest formats are totally absent.
Public forms are all within the larger information category.
Here, references included news articles and interviews as a con-
sequence of press conferences (press conference), rather general
project information panels to be deployed anywhere on the terri-
tory (project communication), collaborating in initiatives of a local
association to present geothermal technologies (part of a larger
event), and canvassing (awareness raising).
Project managers mention private formats of participation only
twice—through social networks and economic participation—in
brief discussion of possibilities for motivating clients to pay more
for cleaner energy.
4.2. The residents’ perspective
The distribution of the references by residents shows how
their focus is predominantly on public and private formats of par-
ticipation; they do not refer to many other forms of engagement
(Fig. 3). These are, in fact, the formats they are most familiar with
and have direct access to.
Institution-internal, strategic, or invited formats are not on the
residents’ radar, and only two references describe formats that
are invited with self-selection and registration. One is about a
citizen committee on sustainability issues organized by the mu-
nicipality, and the other about our focus groups, in which they
were about to participate.
Like the project managers, the residents also often referred
to participation in the traditional form of information provision.
Specifically, access to information was a major theme. Residents
directly linked the evoked formats to whether or not access to
information is provided or interrogate the validity of a format
in terms of access to it. For example, if a municipality provided
information about actions taken by individuals, this might moti-
vate more people to engage as well. Expanding on this, residents
proposed ways that information could or should be passed on.
Thus, most references to participation in the form of information
provision were of a public nature. And within public information
provision, awareness-raising formats seemed to be what residents
thought of most—e.g., tailored accompaniment for the imple-
mentation of renewable energies offered by the municipality,
cantonal awareness-raising campaigns to foster global thinking
instead of battles for one’s own benefit, or what residents labeled
‘‘proximity communication’’, referring to the advantages of taking
up common local denominators while communicating to create
a personal link and connection (according to the residents, this
could be done by speaking with the ‘‘same accent’’ or by including
photographs or visualizations of local landmarks that residents
know and love). In instances in which information was not public
or not accessible, abstention or even protest was mentioned to be
the result. There, in terms of access and governance, abstention
and protest movements were classed by the residents to be in the
realm of the community.
Self-organized private participation formats were the second
most cited category after public ones. Here, the focus was mainly
on behavior and practices, actions taking place in one’s own house-
hold or property, with one’s private consumption or installation
of renewables. One example of private participation, in the form
of economic participation, that was mentioned repeatedly was the
action of buying responsibly and being aware of the impact of
one’s consumption practices.
Beyond financial incentives and consumption patterns as a
means to participate, behavior change initiatives were also brought
forward repeatedly. According to the residents, these initiatives
could be initiated either by the municipality, who, for example,
could offer two LED lamps for each household, or by the public
utility that started the initiative of energy saver ambassadors
with home visits to discuss energy consumption patterns with the
residents. Other residents evoked behavior change more broadly,
emphasizing the need to start initiatives in order to revolu-
tionize daily habits. Finally, looking at the far-right column of
Fig. 3, it is obvious that residents did refer to community-initiated
participation formats. These formats were not only reactive in
nature like the abstention and protest formats mentioned above.
On the contrary, the residents were quite creative in what kind
 F. Ruef, M. Stauffacher and O. Ejderyan / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 1950–1962
of formats the community may initiate. These ranged from in-
venting mechanisms to collect suggestions and inputs of the
population for municipal developments (consultation, hearings),
to site excursions organized by neighbors for neighbors (exhi-
bitions, site visits) and word-of-mouth dispersion of information
(awareness-raising), to playful forms of participation using scores
or neighborhood competitions to incite behavior change.
5. Discussion: Understanding blind spots
Our results reveal that the project managers’ and residents’
perspectives on participation show significant differences but also
some similarities. Our two-dimensional grid captures these two
perspectives and allows us to compare and visualize them. In this
section, we identify blind spots between these two perspectives
in terms of which participatory formats they spontaneously men-
tion, as well as in terms of how they define formats mentioned
by both. Furthermore, looking at some similarities between both
perspectives enables us to identify further blind spots in the
literature on participation in energy projects.
5.1. First blind spot: Managers and residents do not talk about the
same formats
The project managers see participatory formats mostly in the
classical sense, ranging from information to consultation to co-
production. However, the more interactive formats, such as con-
sultation and co-production, are mostly occurring in closed for-
mats, either internally within the institution or per invitation or
registration. For project managers, this represents a blind spot,
as for them to include the larger public, top-down informational
formats suffice. More interactive participative formats such as
committees or workshops are so far restricted to defined groups.
As is typical for transversal topics such as the energy transition,
the implementation of the geothermal program challenges the
silo mentality of institutions, making cross-sectoral collaboration
crucial in order to do justice to the multi-dimensionality of the
subject. This necessity is represented by the project managers’
repeated reference to institution-internal and strategic formats
of participation. On the other hand, project managers scarcely
consider bottom-up formats of participation, especially linked to
behavior and practice.
The most obvious explanation for this would be that these
formats do not concern the project managers directly, as their
task is to develop a participation strategy and think about ways of
implementing it—thus working in a rather top-down manner. The
other explanation more linked to the subject of our study would
be that with the geothermal program focusing on a restricted
number of drilling sites to start assessing the local geological po-
tential, individual geothermal heat pumps for private households
are not the focus. However, especially since these kinds of private
participation formats are particularly interesting and tangible to
the residents, there is great potential in accommodating them
in the geothermal program. One way to achieve this could be
by having residents who want to invest in geothermal energy
but cannot install a heat pump become shareholders in future
geothermal plants. Such models of involvement for deep geother-
mal energy projects have been implemented in the Netherlands,
for instance (see Chavot et al., 2019), but they address small
companies or farmers rather than private households. In the case
of the Genevan geothermal program, such schemes might be
used to involve local farmers, but their potential for extension
to the broader public is unsure, especially given that at the mo-
ment, projects are carried out by the public utility. This example
illustrates how the grid can help to identify desired types of
participation for which there is currently no model. This can lead
1957
project managers to think about new ways in which to engage
with the population.
As mentioned above, the residents are more focused on self-
organized bottom-up formats. With the topic of the focus groups
moving beyond the local geothermal program, including other
renewables and issues linked to the energy transition more gen-
erally, the participation formats cover a large variety of subjects.
Residents often discussed participation in hydrothermal geother-
mal projects and potential support for the program in relation
to their knowledge about or experiences with other renewable
energy technologies, such as solar panels, shallow geothermal
heat pumps, or pellet stoves. Such references to what is familiar
are common when non-experts discuss emerging technologies
(Schwarz-Plaschg, 2018). As a result, residents discussed what
could be done at an individual level through consumption or
other types of individual action. Their focus is more on behavior
and practices as a means to acquire an interactive stake in a
project. They are looking for formats that are already part of
their daily routine or can easily become so. Such formats might,
at first glance, not be completely adapted to the context of the
geothermal program, which seeks to develop larger infrastructure
and collective distance heating grids. Nevertheless, they consti-
tute important information on the type of format the residents
would feel comfortable with.
Concentrating mostly on participation formats linked to infor-
mation provision or behavior and practices, other, more interac-
tive formats were less present in discussions. Project managers
mentioned interactive formats such as project-steering groups,
workshops, or deliberative committees in which a certain level
of co-decision is possible. But these were often mentioned as
idealized formats rather than actually planned or going on. More
surprisingly, there were fewer mentions of such formats from
the side of the residents, including more bottom-up initiatives.
Considered in relation to the previous observation that residents
tended to discuss participatory formats that blend into their
everyday practices, this indicates that formats requiring intense
involvement (potentially over longer periods) might be too de-
manding. Indeed, work on community energy initiatives has ob-
served that such intense involvement is not self-evident, espe-
cially if there is not a sense of collective action (Parkhill et al.,
2015). Further, the Swiss direct-democratic system offers several
mechanisms to citizens to oppose projects or decisions they do
not want (see Ejderyan et al., 2020) for how such mechanisms
can impact geothermal energy projects). Citizens can vote several
times a year on national and local issues, thus making interactive
participation seem superfluous. The breadth of possibilities of
participation together with a disillusionment with its impacts
may lead to what is called ‘‘participation fatigue’’, an overdose
of participation formats (Wesselink et al., 2011). However, such
results need to be interpreted with caution, as it does not nec-
essarily mean that more interactive formats of participation are
less desired or considered less useful than information provision.
Project managers and residents refer to different participation
formats for different reasons and, independently of preference
for individual actions as participative formats, might simply be
unaware of the formats left blank in our grid.
5.2. Second blind spot: Talking about the same format, meaning
something different
We identified blind spots where both perspectives mention
the same format but interpret its use and purpose in different
ways. Access and governance, as well as the level of interaction
and thus the actual format, may be diametrically different.
One example is the reference to education as a format of
participation. Whereas both groups mentioned education as an
1958 F. Ruef, M. Stauffacher and O. Ejderyan / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 1950–1962
important means of participation, the project managers had a
very specific and exclusive format in mind when talking about ed-
ucation, contrary to the residents, who discussed it more broadly.
The project managers referred to education in terms of inviting
schools to visit the geothermal drilling sites and interacting with
the children on site to see what their questions and concerns
might be. For the residents, education was a much larger category
addressing not only children but also parents and society as a
whole and raising awareness on various topics. These different
perceptions show that the project managers are not aware of the
breadth of possibilities and the advantages of embedding educa-
tion into the larger society beyond the school context. Moreover,
the important potential attributed to educational activities by
residents’ raises questions about common conceptualizations of
participatory formats in the literature. Hierarchical formatting of
different types of participation (Arnstein, 1969) implies that edu-
cation as a participatory format can be patronizing and manipu-
lative. However, it is the straight-forwardness and ordinariness
of ‘‘simple’’ educational activities that makes this participative
format accessible and sought by residents.
Another example illustrating different perceptions of a partic-
ipatory format is economic participation. Here, the project man-
agers kept their definition broad, only briefly referring to it as
‘‘the client’s participation’’. The residents, on the other hand, re-
ferred to economic participation repeatedly in the form of buying
energy efficient products, installing solar panels, and choosing an
electricity plan. The close connection of bottom-up formats of
participation and economic incentives confirms the findings in
the literature that motivation to participate in community-based
activities is not necessarily linked to an interest in the topic or
education around salient issues but often to a pragmatic aim of
achieving immediate financial benefits (Tiefenbeck et al., 2019)
or gaining access to a superior product (Seyfang and Haxeltine,
2012). Our data points toward this not only concerning explicit
economic participation but also linked to other formats in which
discussions quickly turn toward monetary or financial concerns.
In terms of governance and accessibility, these examples are
part of self-organized private formats, taking place in one’s own
household or property, with one’s private consumption or instal-
lation of renewables. However, as most of these actions are the
result of financial or legal incentives, their ‘‘privateness’’ and level
of bottom-up self-initiative need to be viewed with caution.
Roughly talking about the same concepts but highlighting
distinct understandings within them reveals the importance of
being sensitive to the implicit definitions employed in differ-
ent perspectives. Bringing the perspectives together allows for a
holistic approach to participation and awareness of the different
possibilities a format offers.
5.3. Using the grid to take a broader look at the participation land-
scape
We show that, for the actors studied, participation covers a set
of practices that is much broader than what the classical literature
on participation identifies. Our two-dimensional grid, constructed
from the formats identified through our two different types of ac-
tors, shows the limits of common conceptualizations used in the
literature. Thus, we expanded traditional scales at their lower end
by including more implicit formats of participation. The repeated
reference to these formats in the focus groups shows that they
are just as important to understand on what levels participation
plays out. Paying attention to self-organized bottom-up formats
expands traditional conceptions of participation as an ‘‘inviting
top-down’’ format that does not question whether participants
might see the possibilities of engagement differently. Not only are
project managers initiating participation, but residents can also
become initiators of participation. In line with this, references to
forms of disengagement and protest emerged in our data, which
must be considered alongside participation, as some, but very
few, scholars already take into account (Chilvers et al., 2018;
Cuppen, 2018; Schussman and Soule, 2005).
Adding the governance dimension is important to shed light
on issues of power, accessibility, and accountability (Krütli et al.,
2010; MacArthur, 2016). For example, invited participation has
a preordained agenda and framing (Wynne, 2007), draws up
boundaries and will always imply inclusions and exclusions (Cup-
pen, 2018). To understand exclusions, careful attention needs to
be paid to who is behind invited participatory formats. Addition-
ally, many seemingly open-to-all formats induce self-selection
processes and are thus not capable of accommodating the broad
spectrum of the public as intended. Furthermore, observations
during the management meetings showed that participative for-
mats and their access change depending on the project evolution.
Thus, formats that were referred to frequently in the beginning
become no longer salient at later stages. Correspondingly, formats
that were once open-to-all may become more exclusive and
self-selective with time.
Constituting our upper left corner in the two-dimensional
grid, institution-internal participation is another blind spot in the
participation literature (for one of the few examples, see Ejderyan
et al., 2006) but was referenced repeatedly by the project man-
agers, which led to its inclusion in our grid. This expands beyond
traditional formats discussed in the literature, which primarily
include lay people, inhabitants, or civil society. As the develop-
ment of a rather new technology implies a learning process also
within the institutional context, institution-internal participation
is in fact essential.3 Taking it into account adds substantially to
the participative context, as it gives ground to understanding
how other formats might have been influenced by this internal
participation.
Distributing the references within our grid revealed another
surprising piece of evidence from our empirical study: the con-
centration of references in the information sections stands in
contrast to the idealization of consultative participation processes
in the literature. Even though consultative participation is praised
as a particularly engaging form of participation and as the type of
format to aspire to, project managers and residents in our study
attributed a minor role to this participation category. What the
residents want is not necessarily an ideal type of participation
described in the literature but simply transparent information
of decent quality by a trustworthy source. And, again in con-
trast to literature, if unhappy with a process, residents do not
respond by asking for more interactive formats but rather resort
to abstention and protest. Thus, the line between traditional par-
ticipative formats, such as information provision and abstention,
and protest is very thin for some publics.
6. Conclusion
Perception by different actors matters and is essential to un-
derstanding the breadth of participation and uncovering potential
blind spots. Restrictive definitions of participation, limiting it to
predefined types of interactions, are unable to grasp the rich-
ness of the participation context. Our two-dimensional grid helps
to structure and analyze participatory formats on their level of
interaction and on governance and accessibility. Furthermore, it
sensitizes project managers and residents to the dynamics of
exclusion and power specific to each of these formats. It can be
3 Institution-internal participation may lead to internal, institutional accep-
tance and appropriation of the project, which is important before presenting it
to the residents, who are considered the ‘‘outside’’.
 F. Ruef, M. Stauffacher and O. Ejderyan / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 1950–1962 1959

used as a tool to explore and reflect on different ways to include
different types of publics to participate.
Two blind spots were brought to light. First, we identified a
range of participative formats linked to behavior and practices,
abstention, and protest. For project managers, the use of the grid
enables a more complete idea of potential formats and forces
them to consider governance and access issues. The second blind
spot is when the two perspectives use the same term, such as
education, to refer to very different formats. For project managers,
this means that they need to pay attention to implicit definitions
of formats and to seek input regarding alternative meanings. The
constitution of our two-dimensional grid based on two central
perspectives on any territory, the residents and the project man-
agers, uncovered and consequently included a range of formats
often cited in the literature but not present on the ground. Such
an enriched understanding of participation can help in moving
forward with energy projects with less risk of delay or even
blockage.
Working on a very specific and localized context, the Geneva
program for geothermal development, we were able to give an
in-depth account of how participative formats are different de-
pending on the perspective. Our local setting with a geothermal
program is also relevant for other contexts dealing with a ‘‘new’’
technology with no standardized procedures. In such contexts,
the public as well as the operators do not yet refer to standard
formats of participation, which leaves room for creativity and
responsiveness to local conditions. Considering residents’ prefer-
ences for specific participation formats allows the anchoring of a
project to the context and creates appropriate ways of engaging
the population (Chavot et al., 2018), this is crucial when it comes
to making geothermal projects acceptable.
Even though, in Geneva, the focus is on hydrothermal uses of
geothermal, these findings are relevant for any type of geother-
mal application, including petrothermal projects. In our focus
groups, citizens often did not distinguish hydrothermal from
petrothermal technologies. What was key in their motivation to
participate was rather the novelty of the technology to them.
Furthermore, the grid can be used in many different institutional
settings beyond Switzerland to analyze or explore potential for-
mats of participation. The case of Geneva illustrates that formal
ways to participate in the Swiss direct-democratic system still
do not cover all aspirations to participate in energy projects. The
importance and pertinence of looking at different perspectives in
order to draw the participative landscape and the usefulness of
an open-ended framework for emerging technology participation
leave no doubt. However, further research in different settings
and on different technologies, always keeping in mind the local
political systems and their possibilities and cultures of interven-
tion, may shed more light on the interplay between the object of
participation and its formats.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this ar-
ticle: the Swiss Innovation Agency Innosuisse, the Canton of
Geneva, and Services Industriels de Genève.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Franziska Ruef: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal anal-
ysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing - original draft. Michael
Stauffacher: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing - re-
view & editing, Supervision. Olivier Ejderyan: Conceptualiza-
tion, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing - review & editing,
Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Appendix
Tables A.1 and A.2 provide definitions of the components of
the grid.

Table A.1
Horizontal axis: level of governance and access of the formats.
Institution-internal By institutional, we mean public or public–private organizations such as state departments or affiliated public
and private utilities who act in the public sphere.
Forms of participation that involve institutional actors from the same organization or hierarchically
(organically) linked organizations. May be one-way or two-way and symmetric or asymmetric in terms of
sphere of influence and decision power (Morsing and Schultz, 2006).

Strategic Reflections and preparatory work to develop or reflect on engagement methods with the aim of advancing a
mission.

Invited Forms of participation in which the participants are selected and invited by external, resource-bearing agents
(e.g., supranational agencies, governments, NGOs, and, presumably, researchers) (Kesby, 2007) or in which
participation is linked to living in a building, being part of the homeowners’ association, or similar selective
factors. Agenda/framing is fixed in advance (Kesby, 2007; Wynne, 2007).

Invited with self-selection and registration Forms of participation initiated by the organization (or institutionalized participation Cuppen, 2018), who
invites whoever feels concerned to participate and selects or excludes participants based on criteria or space.
Registration is needed; thus, the organizer has a clear idea of who the participants are.

Invited with self-selection, but open Format in which the organization invites participants who self-select themselves, but there is no exclusion
and no (or very little) control over who participates.

Public Participatory formats initiated by other institutions (municipalities, other state departments, or public bodies)
and open to the public at large and in which participants self-select.

Private Privately organized forms of participation that can take place in the domestic sphere or in private
organizations (companies, clubs, and associations, including political parties).

Community-initiated Bottom-up participation through community members taking initiatives independent of external institutions
(Pretty, 1995), sharing a common set of concerns or identifications. Can be in more permanent forms but also
one-off events (Kesby, 2007).
1960 F. Ruef, M. Stauffacher and O. Ejderyan / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 1950–1962

Table A.2
Vertical axis: concrete participatory formats — the ones often referred to in the literature, plus ‘‘new’’ formats referred to in focus groups and management meetings.
Interactive formats Interactive participatory format with room for co-creation and shared decision-making. May lead to new
institutions and practices wherein the participants have a stake in and are actively involved (Pretty, 1995).

Deliberative citizens committee
Relatively small group of people interested in a certain topic and responding to certain criteria, often to
represent views of various groups or communities. Decisions are usually made in the group, but there might
be some participants with more influence than others. Elicit judgments and decisions from which actual
policy might be derived — however, they remain non-binding, with no legal standing (International
Association for Public Participation, 2006). Other terms describing similar formats: citizen jury, deliberative
dialogue (International Association for Public Participation, 2006), citizens’ panel (Rowe and Frewer, 2004),
citizen/public advisory committee.

Workshops and focus groups
Facilitator-led discussion between four or more participants around a fairly tightly defined topic. May include
presentations and exhibits (International Association for Public Participation, 2006), but emphasis is placed on
interaction and joint construction of meaning (Bryman, 2012). Elicit input in the form of opinion. Participants
may be randomly selected members of a target audience (International Association for Public Participation,
2006) or representatives of the public (Rowe and Frewer, 2004).

Democratic channels Channels enabling influence on government action — either directly by affecting the making or
implementation of public policy or indirectly by influencing the selection of people who make those policies
(Verba et al., 1996). Means: citizen vote (Kriesi et al., 2013), mandatory referendums, facultative (rejective or
abrogative) referendums, popular initiatives, counterproposals, and ad hoc or optional referendums (Marxer
and Pállinger, 2009). Potentially all members of the national or local population may participate (Rowe and
Frewer, 2004).

Brokerage, mediation Creating a network of interested parties around a subject, usually moderated by a facilitator. Brokers bridge
the gap between the organization and the citizens (Koster, 2014). Connection between the parties depends
on the type of broker and may be based on technical elements or rather on a behavior level (Connor, 1988).
Other terms describing similar formats: task force, expert committee (International Association for Public
Participation, 2006).

Consultation / hearings Frontal presentations in which members of the public participate by being consulted but without direct
impact on decision-making (Pretty, 1995; Rowe and Frewer, 2004). Attendance is usually self-selective (Coe,
1991).

Exhibitions, Site Visits Topic is driven by the exhibition and site visit agenda, but one-to-one contact and interactions are
nevertheless possible (Barnett et al., 2012). Often directed towards key stakeholders, the media, elected
officials (International Association for Public Participation, 2006), and neighboring communities.

Social networks, new website
(of the project in question)
Social networks, such as Facebook and Twitter, are suited for information as well as inclusion purposes. They
allow the stakeholders to signalize transparency and openness to dialogue, though limited to parts of the
target audience (Wirtz-Brückner et al., 2015). Social networking platforms enable one-to-one, one-to-many,
and many-to-many communications (Mirbabaie et al., 2014). The new website of the Geneva geothermal
program plans to have two interactive portals: one for the public and one for specific and preliminarily
defined stakeholders (GEothermie2020, 2019).

Interviews One-to-one meetings with preliminary identified stakeholders, posing questions using questionnaire surveys
or similar techniques. The interviewees generally cannot influence proceedings, and the results of the
research are not always shared nor checked for accuracy (Pretty, 1995).

Strategic communication Formats including participation of different entities with the aim of developing strategic communication and
participation to advance an organization’s mission (Hallahan et al., 2007). Framing the information in a way
that changes the stakes strategically. Often, this is done through external mandates on certain topics with
internal participation, engaging people in deliberate communication practices (Hallahan et al., 2007).

Presentations Frontal information provision, not necessarily only in the form of a person standing in front of an audience
but rather in all formats transmitting information in a very unidirectional way. Monologue instead of
dialogue (Coe, 1991).

Organized information event Information provision organized in the form of an event around a certain topic with different activities to
provide project information. Different information stands by different actors provide the occasion for the
visitor to learn more about the topic and ask questions. Open to all, but usually quite self-selective in terms
of the topics presented and the location of the event.

Internet website Websites providing unidirectional information and links to other sites and more information. This format also
includes newsletters and mailing lists. Studies show how internet websites with little satisfaction for the
users are used less and thus have low potential of encouraging citizen participation (Coleman et al., 2008).

Press conference Press conferences or press releases as a one-way communication directed towards media representatives and
often including high-ranking politicians. Other news outlets are also included in this category. Usually,
contents include resource and background information, plus contact information (International Association for
Public Participation, 2006).

Project communication Communication around a specific project, providing unilateral information without feedback from the public.
Usually, by administration or project management. Other terms describing similar formats: passive
participation (Pretty, 1995).

Part of a larger event Here, formats of participation are part of a larger event or document, the side product of something. It may
also be that it is about a format that is part of a symposium.

(continued on next page)

 F. Ruef, M. Stauffacher and O. Ejderyan / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 1950–1962 1961

Table A.2 (continued).

Awareness-raising Campaigns, interventions, events aiming to raise awareness around a certain subject.

Education Activities aiming to educate the subject, thus going one step further than awareness-raising, wanting not
only to raise awareness but also to induce a behavior change. This format also included activities or
interactions with the university. Rationale behind these formats is that a better ‘‘informed’’ subject makes
‘‘better’’ decisions, a view that has been criticized as overly simplistic (Sahakian and Dobigny, 2019).

Economic participation, economic Actions in the market as a consumer citizen, such as choosing an energy supplier or investing in renewable
incentives technologies at home. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of incentives, it is necessary to understand what
behaviors are targeted to change (Kane et al., 2004).

Behavior change initiative Participation as part of an individual behavior or practice. Participation is indirect through the effects of that
behavior. There are two worldviews of change, one based on bringing about ‘‘better’’ individual choices
through rationalizing, evaluating, and awareness-raising and the other based on recognizing the social
context of practices and socio-technical systems (Sahakian and Dobigny, 2019).

Protest Actions initiated in order to react to a public policy, decision, or initiative. Actions may take a range of
different forms, including sit-ins, collection of signatures, and online movements. Protest arises when persons
or groups have incompatible views (Kriesberg, 2007) and emerge partly from relationships between
individuals (Schussman and Soule, 2005).

Abstention Abstention is a form of protest, in which the action resides in non-participation, taking oneself out of the
public sphere and actively non-engaging. This format may also take different forms, be it in the context of
voting or during a public meeting, to name only two.

References
Alsabbagh, M., 2019. Public perception toward residential solar panels in Bahrain.
Energy Rep. 5, 253–261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2019.02.002.
Arnstein, S.R., 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 35,
216–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225.
Barnett, J., Burningham, K., Walker, G., Cass, N., 2012. Imagined publics and
engagement around renewable energy technologies in the UK. Publ. Underst.
Sci. 21, 36–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662510365663.
Batel, S., Devine-Wright, P., 2015. Towards a better understanding of people’s
responses to renewable energy technologies: Insights from social represen-
tations theory. Publ. Underst. Sci. 24, 311–325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0963662513514165.
Bauwens, T., Devine-Wright, P., 2018. Positive energies? An empirical study of
community energy participation and attitudes to renewable energy. Energy
Policy 118, 612–625. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.03.062.
Bidwell, D., 2016. Thinking through participation in renewable energy decisions.
Nat. Energy 1, 16051. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2016.51.
Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M., Robson, K., 2001. Focus Groups
in Social Research. Sage Publications, London, http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/
9781849209175.
Bryman, A., 2012. Social Research Methods, fourth ed. Oxford University Press,
New York.
Bucchi, M., Neresini, F., 2008. Science and public participation. In: Hackett, Ed-
ward J., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M., Wajcman, J. (Eds.), Science and
Technology Studies Handbook. The MIT Press, Cambridge MA, pp. 449–472.
Chavot, P., Ejderyan, O., Puts, H., Cees, W., Serrano, Y., Masseran, A., Bodin, C.,
Ruef, F., Heimlich, C., Van Engelenburg, B., Zoungrana, J., 2019. Deliverable
D3.3: Risk Governance Strategy Report. H2020 Project DESTRESS, Strasbourg.
Chavot, P., Heimlich, C., Masseran, A., Serrano, Y., Zoungrana, J., Bodin, C., 2018.
Social shaping of deep geothermal projects in Alsace: politics, stakeholder
attitudes and local democracy. Geotherm. Energy 6, 26. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1186/s40517-018-0111-6.
Chilvers, J., Kearnes, M., 2015. Remaking Participation. Science, Environ-
ment and Emergent Publics. Routledge, London, http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/
9780203797693.
Chilvers, J., Longhurst, N., 2016. Participation in transition (s): Reconceiving
public engagements in energy transitions as co- produced, emergent and
diverse. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 7200, 585–607. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
1523908X.2015.1110483.
Chilvers, J., Pallett, H., Hargreaves, T., 2018. Ecologies of participation in socio-
technical change: The case of energy system transitions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.
42, 199–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.03.020.
Coe, B.A., 1991. The state versus pele: Structure and leadership in geothermal
energy development. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 11, 333–352. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/0195-9255(91)90005-5.
Coleman, R., Lieber, P., Mendelson, A.L., Kurpius, D.D., 2008. Public life and the
internet: If you build a better website, will citizens become engaged?. New
Media Soc. 10, 179–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444807086474.
Connor, D.M., 1988. A new ladder of citizen participation. Natl. Civ. Rev. 77,
249–257.
Cowell, R., Devine-Wright, P., 2018. A ‘delivery-democracy dilemma’? Mapping
and explaining policy change for public engagement with energy infrastruc-
ture. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 1–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2018.
1443005.
Cuppen, E., 2018. The value of social conflicts. critiquing invited participation in
energy projects. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 38, 28–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
erss.2018.01.016.
Cuppen, E., Ejderyan, O., Pesch, U., Spruit, S., Van de Grift, E., Correlje, A.,
Taebi, B., 2020. When controversies cascade : Analysing the dynamics of
public engagement and conflict in the Netherlands and Switzerland through
controversy spillover. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 68, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
erss.2020.101593.
Dang, W., 2018. How culture shapes environmental public participation: case
studies of China, the netherlands, and Italy. J. Chinese Gov. 1–23. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1080/23812346.2018.1443758.
Devine-Wright, P., 2011. Public engagement with large-scale renewable energy
technologies: Breaking the cycle of NIMBYism. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim.
Chang. 2, 19–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wcc.89.
Ejderyan, O., Geiser, U., Zaugg Stern, M., 2006. Stakeholder als sozialwis-
senschaftliches konzept: Begrifflichkeit und operationalisierung. In: Back-
haus, N., Müller-Böker, U. (Eds.), Gesellschaft Und Raum: Konzepte Und
Kategorien. Gographisches Institut Universität Zürich, Zürich, pp. 72–101.
Ejderyan, O., Ruef, F., Stauffacher, M., 2019. Geothermal energy in Switzer-
land: Highlighting the role of context. In: Manzella, A., Allansdottir, A.,
Pellizzone, A. (Eds.), Geothermal Energy and Society. Springer International
Publishing, Cham, pp. 239–257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78286-
7.
Ejderyan, O., Ruef, F., Stauffacher, M., 2020. Entanglement of top-down
and bottom-up: Sociotechnical innovation pathways of geothermal en-
ergy in Switzerland. J. Environ. Dev. 29, 99–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1070496519886008.
GEothermie2020, 2017. PDGE2020_19.12.17_AH. Internal working document
(unpublished). Geneva.
GEothermie2020, 2019. GEothermie2020 Official Website [WWW Document].
URL www.geothermie2020.ch.
Groves, C., Henwood, K., Shirani, F., Butler, C., Parkhill, K., Pidgeon, N., 2016.
Energy biographies: Narrative genres, lifecourse transitions, and practice
change. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 41, 483–508. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0162243915609116.
Hallahan, K., Holtzhausen, D., van Ruler, B., Verčič, D., Sriramesh, K., 2007.
Defining strategic communication. Int. J. Strateg. Commun. 1, 3–35. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1080/15531180701285244.
Hirsch Hadorn, G., Bradley, D., Pohl, C., Rist, S., Wiesmann, U., 2006. Implications
of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research. Ecol. Econ. 60, 119–128.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.12.002.
International Association for Public Participation, 2006. IAP2’s public participa-
tion toolbox. https://atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/handle/10214/3122.
Jellema, J., Mulder, H., 2016. Public engagement in energy research. Energies 9
(125), http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en9030125.
Jorgensen, D.L., 2015. Participant observation. In: Scott, R.A., Buchmann, M.C.
(Eds.), Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences : An Interdis-
ciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource. John Wiley & Sons, pp. 347–350.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00107530.1977.10745490.
Kamberelis, G., Dimitriadis, G., 2013. Focus groups: from structured interviews
to collective conversations. In: Researching Language Teacher Cognition and
Practice. Routledge, Abingdon and New York, http://dx.doi.org/10.21832/
9781847697912-006.
1962 F. Ruef, M. Stauffacher and O. Ejderyan / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 1950–1962
Kane, R.L., Johnson, P.E., Town, R.J., Butler, M., 2004. A structured review of the
effect of economic incentives on consumers’ preventive behavior. Am. J. Prev.
Med. 27, 327–352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.07.002.
Kesby, M., 2007. Spatialising participatory approaches: The contribution of
geography to a mature debate. Environ. Plan. A 39, 2813–2831. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1068/a38326.
Knoblauch, T.A.K., Stauffacher, M., Trutnevyte, E., 2018. Communicating low-
probability high-consequence risk, uncertainty and expert confidence:
Induced seismicity of deep geothermal energy and shale gas. Risk Anal. 38,
694–709. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/risa.12872.
Koster, M., 2014. Bridging the cap in the dutch participation society: New spaces
of governance, brokers, and informal politics. Etnofoor 26, 49–64.
Kriesberg, L., 2007. Constructive Conflicts: From Escalation to Resolution, Third
Edit. ed. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, Lanham.
Kriesi, H., Lavenex, S., Esser, F., Matthes, J., Bühlmann, M., Bochsler, D., 2013.
Democracy in the Age of Globalization and Mediatization, Challenges. ed.
Palgrave Macmillian, Hampshire.
Krütli, P., Flüeler, T., Stauffacher, M., Wiek, A., Scholz, R.W., 2010. Technical
safety vs. public involvement? A case study on the unrealized project for
the disposal of nuclear waste at Wellenberg (Switzerland). J. Integr. Environ.
Sci. 7, 229–244.
Kübler, D., 1999. Beyond nimbyism: urban conflict resolution in swiss drug
policies. In: Khan, U. (Ed.), Participation beyond the Ballot Box: European
Case Studies in State-Citizen Political Dialogue. UCL Press, London, pp. 43–64.
Lang, D.J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Moll, P., Swilling, M., Thomas, C.J., 2012.
Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice , principles ,
and challenges. Sustain. Sci. 7, 25–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-
0149-x.
Lawhon, M., Murphy, J.T., 2012. Socio-technical regimes and sustainability
transitions: Insights from political ecology. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 36, 354–378.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0309132511427960.
Lienert, P., Sütterlin, B., Siegrist, M., 2018. Public acceptance of high-voltage
power lines: The influence of information provision on undergrounding.
Energy Policy 112, 305–315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.10.025.
Linder, W., Vatter, A., 2001. Institutions and outcomes of Swiss federalism:
The role of the cantons in Swiss politics. West Eur. Polit. 24, 95–122.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01402380108425435.
Lorenzini, J., 2019. Food activism and citizens’ democratic engagements: What
can we learn from market-based political participation?. Polit. Gov. 7 (131),
http://dx.doi.org/10.17645/pag.v7i4.2072.
MacArthur, J.L., 2016. Challenging public engagement: participation, deliberation
and power in renewable energy policy. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 6, 631–640.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0328-7.
Manzella, A., Allansdottir, A., Pellizzone, A., 2019. Geothermal Energy and Society.
In: Lecture Notes in Energy, Springer International Publishing, Cham, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78286-7.
Marxer, W., Pállinger, Z.T., 2009. Stabilizing or destabilizing? Direct-democratic
instruments in different political systems. In: Setälä, M., Schiller, T. (Eds.),
Referendums and Representative Democracy. Responsiveness, Accountability
and Deliberation. Routledge, London, pp. 34–55.
Mirbabaie, M., Ehnis, C., Stieglitz, S., Bunker, D., 2014. Communication roles
in public events - A case study on twitter communication. In: Doolin, B.,
Lamprou, E., Mitev, N., McLeod, L. (Eds.), Information Systems and Global
Assemblages: (Re)Configuring Actors, Artefacts, Organizations. Springer,
Auckland, New Zealand, pp. 207–218.
Morsing, M., Schultz, M., 2006. Corporate social responsibility communication:
stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Bus. Ethics A
Eur. Rev. 15, 323–338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2006.00460.x.
Moser, C., Stauffacher, M., 2015. Literature review: Public perception of geother-
mal energy. In: Hirschberg, S., Wiemer, S., Burgherr, P. (Eds.), Energy from
the Earth. Deep Geothermal As a Resource for the Future?. TA-Swiss/Vdf
Verlag, Zürich, pp. 297–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.3218/3655-8.
Mueller, C.E., 2019. Effects of spatial proximity to proposed electric power lines
on residents’ expectations, attitudes, and protest behavior: A replication
study. Energy Policy 130, 341–346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.04.
018.
Parkhill, K.A., Shirani, F., Butler, C., Henwood, K.L., Groves, C., Pidgeon, N.F., 2015.
‘‘We are a community [but] that takes a certain amount of energy’’: Exploring
shared visions, social action, and resilience in place-based community-led
energy initiatives. Environ. Sci. Policy 53, 60–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsci.2015.05.014.
Pearce, B.J., Ejderyan, O., 2019. Joint problem framing as reflexive practice: hon-
ing a transdisciplinary skill. Sustain. Sci. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-
019-00744-2.
Pretty, J.N., 1995. Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Dev.
23, 1247–1263.
Rand, J., Hoen, B., 2017. Thirty years of North American wind energy acceptance
research: What have we learned?. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 29, 135–148. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.05.019.
Rowe, G., Frewer, L.J., 2004. Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research
agenda. Sci. Technol. Human Values 29, 512–556. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0162243903259197.
Rybach, L., 2013. New developments in geothermal heat pumps - with a view
to the swiss success story. J. Geotherm. Res. Soc. Japan 35, 35–40. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.11367/grsj.35.35.
Sahakian, M., Dobigny, L., 2019. From governing behaviour to transformative
change: A typology of household energy initiatives in Switzerland. Energy
Policy 129, 1261–1270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.03.027.
Schechinger, B., Kissling, E., 2015. WP1: Resources. In: Hirschberg, S., Wiemer, S.,
Burgherr, P. (Eds.), Energy from the Earth: Deep Geothermal as a Resource for
the Future?. vdf Hochschulverlag, Zurich, p. 526. http://dx.doi.org/10.3218/
3655-8.
Schussman, A., Soule, S.A., 2005. Process and protest: Accounting for individual
protest participation. Soc. Forces 84, 1083–1108.
Schwarz-Plaschg, C., 2018. Nanotechnology is like . . . the rhetorical roles of
analogies in public engagement. Publ. Underst. Sci. 27, 153–167. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1177/0963662516655686.
Seyfang, G., Haxeltine, A., 2012. Growing grassroots innovations : exploring
the role of community-based initiatives in governing sustainable energy
transitions. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 30, 381–400. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1068/c10222.
Sovacool, B.K., 2014. Energy studies need social science. Nature 511, 529–530.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2008.02.004.
Tiefenbeck, V., Wörner, A., Schöb, S., Fleisch, E., Staake, T., 2019. Real-time
feedback promotes energy conservation in the absence of volunteer selection
bias and monetary incentives. Nat. Energy 4, 35–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1038/s41560-018-0282-1.
Trousset, S., Gupta, K., Jenkins-Smith, H., Silva, C.L., Herron, K., 2015. Degrees
of engagement: Using cultural worldviews to explain variations in public
preferences for engagement in the policy process. Policy Stud. J. 43, 44–69.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/psj.12083.
Trutnevyte, E., Azevedo, I., 2017. Induced seismicity hazard and risk by enhanced
geothermal systems: an expert elicitation approach. Environ. Res. Lett. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9eb2.
Trutnevyte, E., Ejderyan, O., 2017. Managing geoenergy-induced seismicity with
society. J. Risk Res. 9877, 1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2017.
1304979.
Tuler, S.P., Ram, B., Kasperson, R.E., 2014. Wind energy facility siting: Learning
from experience and guides for moving forward. Wind Eng. 38, 203–216.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1260/0309-524X.38.2.203.
van der Schoor, T., Scholtens, B., 2015. Power to the people : Local community
initiatives and the transition to sustainable energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 43, 666–675. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.089.
Vargas Payera, S., 2018. Understanding social acceptance of geothermal energy:
Case study for Araucanía region, Chile. Geothermics 72, 138–144. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2017.10.014.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K.L., Brady, H., 1996. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism
in American Politics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA; London.
Webler, T., Tuler, S., Krueger, R., 2001. What is a good public participation
process ? Five perspectives from the public. Environ. Manage 27, 435–450.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s002670010160.
Wesselink, A., Paavola, J., Fritsch, O., Renn, O., 2011. Rationales for public partic-
ipation in environmental policy and governance: Practitioners’ perspectives.
Environ. Plan. A 43, 2688–2704. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a44161.
Wirtz-Brückner, S., Jakobs, E.M., Kowalewski, S., Kluge, J., Ziefle, M., 2015. The
potential of facebook⃝ R
for communicating complex technologies using the
example of deep geothermal energy. In: IEEE Int. Prof. Commun. Conf.
2015-Septe. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IPCC.2015.7235811.
Wolsink, M., 2006. Invalid theory impedes our understanding: A critique on
the persistence of the language of NIMBY. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 31, 85–91.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2006.00191.x.
Wolsink, M., 2007. Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes:
Equity and fairness instead of ‘‘backyard motives.’’. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 11, 1188–1207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2005.10.005.
Wynne, B., 2007. Dazzled by the mirage of influence?: STS-ssk in multivalent
registers of relevance. Sci. Technol. Human Values 32, 491–503. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1177/0162243907301086.