Risk Communication in Carbon Capture and Storage: Diverging Perceptions Among Community Members and CCS Professionals

Emily Cecchini Colorado School of Mines ; Jessica Smith ; Vivian Underhill University of California, Santa Cruz ; Elizabeth Reddy Colorado School of Mines ; Manika Prasad Colorado School of Mines

Abstract

<bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><i>Background:</i></b> With climate change becoming a critical issue, scientists and policymakers are developing solutions to address the risks it poses. One such solution is Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), which reduces the amount of CO<sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sub> that enters the atmosphere by capturing it and storing it underground. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><i>Literature review:</i></b> Previous research on CCS has focused on the technical interpretation of risk through quantitative risk analyses. Social science research has focused on public acceptance of CCS, and to what extent knowledge about risks plays a role. However, a comparison of risk perceptions from both CCS developers and local community members during a CCS study, and why these perceptions are different is absent. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><i>Research questions:</i></b> This article attempts to fill this gap by asking: 1. How do perceptions of potential CCS risks vary between interested local community members and CCS technical professionals, and how do these perceptions influence the messaging and receiving of risk communication? 2. What personal, institutional, and other factors, such as past experiences with heavy industry, influence how people view CCS and its risks? <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><i>Methodology:</i></b> Through 30 interviews and participant observation, this study examines the varied perspectives on the risks of CCS among local community members and CCS professionals analyzed using thematic coding and a quantitative analysis of codes. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><i>Results and discussion:</i></b> Findings suggest that there are clear differences in how local community members and CCS professionals think about the risks of CCS, such as CCS professionals addressing risks to the project rather than risks of the project that community members reference most frequently. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><i>Implications:</i></b> By identifying institutional reasons why these gaps in risk perceptions appear, this article provides insights into what risk communication practices are being used and how they impact project communication.

Journal
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
Published
2026-03-01
DOI
10.1109/tpc.2026.3658118
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

Cites in this index (0)

No references match articles in this index.

Also cites 35 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.654
  2. 10.1017/9781009157940.001
  3. 10.1016/j.ccst.2023.100137
  4. 10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.743
  5. 10.1371/journal.pone.0272409
  6. 10.1016/j.erss.2014.05.004
  7. 10.6028/nist.sp.800-12r1
  8. 10.1177/25148486211061452
  9. 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111312
  10. 10.1007/s10584-023-03483-7
  11. 10.1021/es1005412
  12. 10.1057/s41599-019-0217-x
  13. 10.1016/j.erss.2023.103283
  14. 10.1016/j.ijggc.2011.09.012
  15. 10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.10.001
  16. 10.1016/j.techfore.2011.12.001
  17. 10.1016/j.ijggc.2009.10.012
  18. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119644
  19. 10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.01.011
  20. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.008
  21. 10.1504/ijram.2019.103340
  22. 10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.384
  23. 10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.03.018
  24. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103247
  25. 10.1016/s0951-8320(00)00090-9
  26. 10.1146/annurev.pu.14.050193.001151
  27. 10.1111/1468-5973.12066
  28. 10.1016/j.erss.2021.102306
  29. 10.1504/ijram.2019.103339
  30. 10.1016/j.erss.2024.103804
  31. 10.1177/15586898241257546
  32. Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes
  33. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00026.x
  34. 10.1098/rsfs.2020.0002
  35. 10.1080/00909889109365311