Next Article in Journal
Experimental Study on Heat Transfer Coefficients in an Office Room with a Radiant Ceiling During Low Heating Loads
Next Article in Special Issue
A Thematic Review of AI and ML in Sustainable Energy Policies for Developing Nations
Previous Article in Journal
Beyond the First Generation of Wind Modeling for Resource Assessment and Siting: From Meteorology to Uncertainty Quantification
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Development of Photovoltaics in the Countries of Central and Eastern Europe in the Context of Regulatory Changes: A Case Study of the Czech Republic and Poland
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 18
Issue 7
10.3390/en18071590
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Harnessing a Renewable Resource for Sustainability: The Role of Geothermal Energy in Italy’s Business Sector

by
Angelo Arcuri
1,
Lorenzo Giolli
2 and
Cosimo Magazzino
3,4,*
1
Department of Management, European School of Economics, 50123 Florence, Italy
2
Faculty of Economics and Law, Pegaso University, 80143 Naples, Italy
3
Department of Political Science, Roma Tre University, 00154 Rome, Italy
4
Economic Research Center, Western Caspian University, Baku 1001, Azerbaijan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2025, 18(7), 1590; https://doi.org/10.3390/en18071590
Submission received: 19 February 2025 / Revised: 16 March 2025 / Accepted: 20 March 2025 / Published: 22 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Policy and Economic Analysis of Energy Systems)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Addressing critical challenges such as climate change, environmental degradation, and resource depletion requires a swift transition to efficient and environmentally friendly energy solutions. Among these, geothermal energy is recognized for its dependability, low environmental impact, and versatility. This study investigates the role of geothermal energy in Italy’s business sector, examining its impact on companies and social perception. It specifically evaluates how communicating geological, hydrological, and atmospheric risks associated with geothermal projects influences firms’ likelihood of experiencing social acceptance challenges. Additionally, this research quantifies the impact of geothermal energy adoption on companies’ energy costs and CO2 emissions. The analysis further explores the long-term implications of expanding the use of this renewable resource through sensitivity analysis, focusing on its effects on emissions and costs. The findings indicate that firms communicating geothermal-related risks are less likely to experience social acceptance challenges compared to those that do not. Moreover, this study shows that the use of geothermal energy positively impacts firms’ business and environmental performance by reducing energy costs and CO2 emissions. Sensitivity analysis demonstrates that increasing the proportion of geothermal energy usage amplifies these benefits, thereby enhancing firms’ competitiveness. This research provides a comprehensive framework for promoting geothermal energy integration in business operations, offering valuable insights to support the global shift toward sustainable energy systems.

1. Introduction

The transition to sustainable energy sources has become a crucial component of efforts to mitigate climate change and reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Renewable energy technologies, such as solar, wind, and geothermal, have gained significant attention as viable alternatives to conventional energy sources [1,2,3]. Among these, geothermal energy stands out due to its reliability and potential to provide a constant, low-emission power source. Unlike solar and wind energy, which are weather-dependent, geothermal energy is derived directly from the Earth’s internal heat—a geological resource harnessed by tapping underground reservoirs [4,5]. As the need for cleaner energy grows, business sectors—especially those with high energy demands—increasingly explore geothermal energy as a sustainable solution [6,7]. Italy is an ideal laboratory to observe this growing trend, being a country with a developed business sector and a global leader in geothermal energy [8,9]. It benefits from favorable geological conditions that provide rich geothermal resources and boasts a robust institutional framework promoting sustainable energy policies. Over the years, collaboration among Italian research institutions, energy companies, and government bodies has refined geothermal technology and enhanced access to this valuable resource [10].
One of the key challenges in utilizing geothermal energy, both in Italy and elsewhere, is the complexity of resource identification and management, which are inherently tied to geological factors. Unlike other renewable resources, geothermal energy extraction requires extensive geological exploration and evaluation to assess the viability of subsurface heat reservoirs [3]. The success of geothermal projects depends on multiple factors, including the accurate identification of geological formations that can store and transfer heat efficiently, as well as the management of risks related to drilling and induced seismicity [11,12].
These geological complexities raise important questions about the utilization of geothermal energy in business settings. Although numerous studies have examined the environmental and economic impacts of geothermal energy at a macro level [1,10,13,14], the role of this energy source in the business sector has not been extensively addressed. Notably, while the risks related to geothermal systems have been widely analyzed [15,16,17], a specific investigation is needed to assess the relationship between firms’ commitments to risk disclosure and social criticism or resistance to their geothermal projects. Likewise, while the environmental benefits of geothermal energy have been comprehensively assessed [3,18], there is insufficient research on how using this type of renewable energy affects firms’ energy costs and CO2 emissions.
Thus, in this paper, a quantitative research approach was developed to capture a holistic view of geothermal energy adoption within Italy’s business sector. Data on risk communication was collected through a structured survey questionnaire and analyzed using association tests (e.g., Pearson’s Chi-Square) to assess their connection with social acceptance challenges [19]. The impact of geothermal energy adoption on firms’ energy costs and CO2 emissions was evaluated through a quasi-experimental pre–post analysis, comparing these operational metrics before and after adoption [20].
To forecast the possible impacts of increased geothermal utilization, a scenario-based sensitivity analysis was conducted [21,22]. Four scenarios, ranging from minimal to major increases, were developed using expert judgment to reflect realistic adoption pathways, accounting for the current technological, economic, and policy landscapes. The use of expert judgment involves leveraging the knowledge and experience of professionals to define realistic and informed assumptions, ensuring that the scenarios reflect plausible outcomes [23]. Both association tests and sensitivity analysis utilized quantitative data gathered from the survey questionnaire and company reports, enabling a detailed and predictive examination of geothermal energy’s current and potential future impacts on Italian firms.
This study’s significance lies in its detailed examination of geothermal energy within the business sector, characterized by high energy consumption and a substantial environmental impact [24]. This research goes beyond simply exploring the benefits of geothermal energy adoption; it also integrates key factors, such as risk communication practices and the extent of geothermal energy usage. By examining how companies’ efforts to disclose geothermal-related risks publicly influence the social acceptance of their energy projects, this study provides a thorough understanding of the strategic and operational challenges stemming from the adoption of geothermal systems. Additionally, it measures the impacts of geothermal energy adoption on emissions and costs and offers a grasp of how expanded geothermal energy use can enhance both the environmental and economic performance of Italian companies. These findings are valuable for guiding firms’ operational and strategic decisions, as well as providing actionable insights for policymakers and industry leaders working to optimize energy use and sustainability practices.
This paper is organized as follows: in Section 2, a literature review discusses prior research on geothermal energy’s applications in the business landscape, emphasizing the Italian context. In Section 3, the methodology details the research approach, describing the quantitative techniques employed for data collection and analysis. The results in Section 4 provide insights into the relationship between risk disclosure and social acceptance, the environmental and economic impacts of geothermal energy adoption, and the possible effects of increased geothermal utilization. The discussion and conclusions in Section 5 summarize this study’s contributions, explain the meaning and implications of the findings, identify the study’s limitations, and suggest directions for future research.

2. Literature Review

The adoption of renewable energy has become increasingly prominent as industries strive to mitigate environmental impacts, reduce energy costs, and improve energy efficiency [2,3]. Geothermal energy, a sustainable resource derived from the Earth’s heat, offers low greenhouse gas emissions, reduces dependence on fossil fuels, and provides potential cost savings [6,7]. However, transitioning to geothermal energy is complex because it requires specialized expertise, significant investment, and social acceptance [13]. This review discusses major geological, hydrological, and atmospheric risks associated with geothermal projects, their impact on social acceptance, the environmental and business benefits of geothermal energy, and the importance of forecasting future energy scenarios.

2.1. Geothermal Systems: Geological, Hydrological, and Atmospheric Risks and Their Impact on Social Acceptance

Utilizing geothermal systems comes with inherent geological, hydrological, and atmospheric risks that can affect both the environment and the long-term sustainability of geothermal energy [15,17]. These risks are primarily linked to the interaction between geothermal systems and the Earth’s subsurface, which can result in unintended consequences, including, but not limited to, land subsidence, groundwater contamination, induced seismicity, and air pollution. Understanding and managing these risks is crucial for companies that rely on geothermal energy to ensure safe operations, maintain resource efficiency, and meet environmental standards [15,25]. Subsidence occurs when the extraction of geothermal fluids reduces subsurface pressure, causing the ground above to sink [26]. Groundwater contamination is a serious risk when geothermal fluids, which may contain toxic substances like arsenic or mercury, leak into nearby aquifers. This contamination can make local water sources unsafe for drinking and disrupt ecosystems [27]. Poorly constructed wells or improperly sealed geothermal systems can exacerbate this risk, making it essential to implement proper well integrity protocols to prevent fluid migration and protect groundwater [15]. Induced seismicity refers to the occurrence of earthquakes or tremors triggered by human activities. In the context of geothermal projects, it is often associated with the injection or extraction of fluids from geothermal reservoirs. The process of injecting water into geothermal wells to enhance heat extraction or the withdrawal of fluids can alter the pressure in the surrounding rock formations, potentially causing small to moderate seismic events [16,28]. Geological fluids in geothermal reservoirs often contain non-condensable gases (NCGs), such as carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and methane (CH4). These gases are sometimes released into the atmosphere to maintain operational efficiency during geothermal energy production. The release of NCGs, particularly hydrogen sulfide, which has a strong odor and potential health risks, and CO2, a greenhouse gas, can raise environmental and public health concerns. Additionally, the noise generated during steam venting can cause community nuisances, highlighting the importance of mitigation measures [15]. According to various studies, induced seismicity and soil contamination are two key social acceptance factors [29,30,31]. There is a limited level of public understanding regarding geothermal technology and the potential risks it entails. This knowledge gap can contribute to misinformation, misconceptions, and heightened concerns, negatively affecting the social acceptance of geothermal projects [32]. Communities may perceive these projects as risky or harmful due to a lack of clear, accessible, and transparent information from companies. Social acceptance issues associated with geothermal projects can manifest as criticism or resistance [29]. In this context, effective risk communication plays a crucial role in addressing these concerns [33].

2.2. Geothermal Energy Use: Benefits, Forms, and Future Scenarios

Geothermal energy represents a powerful tool for driving economic growth while addressing the urgent need to mitigate climate change, thereby fostering the transition toward a sustainable economy [1,2,3,14]. Research indicates that adopting geothermal energy significantly cuts CO2 emissions, especially in applications using direct heating technologies [18,34]. Its use reduces reliance on fossil fuels, thus enhancing energy security by adopting a stable and renewable resource that is not affected by weather conditions [5,35]. Economically, long-term operational savings make geothermal plants highly cost-effective despite high initial setup costs [36,37]. Moreover, these projects stimulate local economies by creating skilled jobs, developing infrastructure, and increasing regional energy independence, particularly in rural or underdeveloped areas [38]. Geothermal energy is utilized in three primary forms: generating electricity, providing direct heating, and enabling indirect heating and cooling through geothermal heat pumps [39]. The direct utilization of geothermal energy is highly efficient because it taps into the Earth’s natural heat without complex energy conversion systems. Unlike electricity generation, which involves converting geothermal heat into electricity with potential energy losses, direct use employs geothermal fluids or steam at usable temperatures directly for space heating or business purposes [40]. This minimizes energy waste, reduces operational costs, and ensures sustainability. For instance, geothermal energy is used for food production drying processes, such as dehydrating fruits and vegetables [41]. Geothermal heat pumps are increasingly used in various industries due to their high efficiency. For example, they are commonly employed in the wine industry and aquaculture [36]. Another common use of geothermal energy in non-residential settings is heating and cooling offices to maintain comfortable temperatures [42].
The rise and development of geothermal energy are closely tied to Italy, which has played a pioneering role in harnessing the Earth’s natural heat for sustainable power. Italy’s engagement with geothermal energy dates back to the early 20th century, when the world’s first geothermal power plant was established in Larderello, Tuscany [43,44]. Italy possesses significant geothermal energy resources, with estimates ranging from 500 million to 10 billion tons of oil equivalent. This results in an energy potential of between 5800 and 116,000 terawatt hours, far exceeding the country’s annual energy consumption of 300 terawatt hours [45]. This potential remains largely underutilized, as Italy’s installed capacity for electricity generation and direct thermal uses stands at 916 MWe and 1424 MWth, respectively [46]. Expanding geothermal energy utilization could help Italy reduce its dependence on conventional energy sources and mitigate carbon emissions. Such a strategic transition is particularly critical for a country with limited fossil fuel reserves and a highly developed business sector. With over six million registered companies, Italy is the world’s eighth-largest economy and ranks second in Europe in manufacturing [47,48]. Enel Green Power, the country’s leading company in the renewable energy sector, currently operates all 34 geothermal power plants located in Tuscany. In 2021, these facilities generated approximately 6 TWh of electricity, equivalent to 33% of the total electricity demand in Tuscany and 2% of the national demand [13]. In Italy, the direct use of geothermal energy is widespread across various industries, including, but not limited to, chemistry—particularly for producing borate and boric acid—aquaculture, fish farming, and the wine industry [36,49]. Space heating accounts for the largest share of geothermal energy direct use, representing 52% of the country’s installed capacity [36].
In terms of geothermal energy production, Italy is comparable to New Zealand, with the latter having an installed capacity of 1042 MWe, slightly surpassing Italy’s 916 Mwe. Both nations feature regions with temperate and Mediterranean-like climates—New Zealand in areas such as Hawke’s Bay and Marlborough, and Italy in regions like Tuscany and Sicily. Additionally, both countries benefit from active volcanic regions that support geothermal energy production—Italy’s geothermal fields are concentrated in Tuscany, while New Zealand’s are primarily located in the Taupō Volcanic Zone. Both states also make extensive use of geothermal energy for direct thermal applications, such as heating, agriculture, and industrial processes, highlighting their similar approaches to harnessing this renewable resource [46,50].
Forecasting future scenarios is essential for understanding the long-term impacts and potential of geothermal energy adoption. Geothermal energy is poised for substantial growth in the coming decades, driven by its wide availability and advantages as an eco-friendly, non-intermittent renewable energy source [51]. The continued development and integration of geothermal technology, coupled with increasing demand for sustainable energy solutions, are expected to expand its role in the global energy mix significantly. More specifically, projections indicate that by 2050, geothermal power plants, in competition with other renewable energy sources such as solar and wind, as well as with existing fossil fuel-based power generation, could contribute approximately 2–3% to global electricity production [52]. While technical reports containing market forecasts provide invaluable insights into the broad trajectory of energy systems and inform business decision-making [53], companies also need tailored evaluations to address their unique energy requirements and operational contexts. Ad hoc simulations, customized to reflect a company’s specific characteristics and future scenarios, are essential tools for assessing the feasibility and benefits of integrating alternative energy sources, such as geothermal energy, into their operations. These simulations allow companies to analyze the potential impact of various energy options on their performance and sustainability goals [54].

2.3. Theoretical Foundation and Hypothesis Development

The research questions posed in this study are grounded in critical gaps identified within the existing literature on geothermal energy adoption. While there is substantial research on geological, hydrological, and air quality risks associated with geothermal energy projects [15,17,26,27] and their social acceptance implications [29,30,31,32], there is a significant gap in the literature on how the communication of these risks by geothermal-powered companies are associated with social acceptance challenges. This lacuna justifies the first research question:
RQ1: 
How does the communication of geothermal-related risks relate to firms’ likelihood of experiencing social acceptance challenges?
This research question investigates whether firms communicating geological, hydrological, or air quality risks are more or less likely to encounter opposition or pushback from communities, stakeholders, or regulatory bodies. The goal is to understand the relationship between a firm’s disclosure of geothermal-related risks and the social criticism or resistance to their geothermal energy projects.
Similarly, while the environmental advantages of geothermal energy are well-documented [1,2,3,14], more research is essential to quantitatively assess its specific impact on firms’ energy costs and CO2 emissions in the business industry. Accordingly, RQ2 was formulated as follows:
RQ2: 
How does the utilization of geothermal resources impact firms’ energy costs and CO2 emissions?
By providing empirical evidence from pre- and post-adoption data, this research offers a better understanding of geothermal energy’s value proposition for firms.
Lastly, while scenario analysis is widely used to model geothermal energy deployment [51,55], there is a notable gap in understanding the long-term impacts of increasing geothermal energy utilization at the firm level. RQ3 is designed to fill this gap:
RQ3: 
How would potential increases in the share of geothermal energy used further impact firms’ CO2 emissions and energy costs, compared to current utilization levels?
This study aims to provide a comprehensive outlook on how future increases in geothermal energy usage could affect firms’ environmental performance and costs.
Based on the considerations outlined above, the following hypotheses were formulated, each addressing critical aspects of geothermal adoption and its broader impacts on firm performance:
H1: 
Firms that communicate geothermal-related risks are less likely to experience social acceptance challenges compared to firms that do not communicate these risks.
This hypothesis suggests that when firms openly communicate the risks associated with their geothermal projects, they are more likely to foster trust and transparency with stakeholders and communities. As a result, stakeholders may be less likely to resist or oppose the project, viewing the firm as responsible and proactive in addressing potential concerns. In contrast, firms that do not communicate these risks may face more criticism or resistance due to perceived secrecy or lack of accountability.
H2: 
The utilization of geothermal resources can lead to a significant reduction in CO2 emissions and energy costs in Italian firms.
Based on the extant literature on the environmental benefits of geothermal energy, this hypothesis posits that firms adopting geothermal energy will experience substantial reductions in energy costs and environmental impacts. Demonstrating this hypothesis aims to provide empirical evidence on how geothermal energy adoption can contribute to more sustainable business practices.
H3: 
An increase in the share of geothermal energy usage reduces CO2 emissions and lowers energy costs in Italian firms.
This hypothesis suggests that a higher percentage of geothermal energy in a firm’s energy mix can enhance sustainability outcomes by reducing both emissions and costs. It reflects the research motivation to explore the future potential of geothermal adoption in business settings.

3. Methods and Materials

A quantitative research design was employed in this study to examine the adoption and impact of geothermal energy within Italy’s business sector [56]. The methodology integrates correlational analysis, a quasi-experimental pre–post comparison [20], and scenario-based analysis [51]. Each method serves a distinct purpose in answering the research questions related to the relationship between risk communication and social acceptance, the impact of geothermal energy on energy costs and emissions, and the potential benefits of increased geothermal energy use.

3.1. Sampling

A purposive sampling strategy was used in this research, selecting Italian firms from different industries (e.g., aquaculture, fish farming, and the wine industry) that have adopted geothermal energy to varying degrees [57]. The sampling aimed at targeting firms located in geothermal-rich regions (Tuscany, Piedmont, Campania, and Sicily), ensuring the sample was relevant to this study’s focus on business applications of geothermal energy. Specifically, firms were chosen based on their involvement in geothermal energy adoption, whether partial or full, to represent a range of experiences and adoption levels. This approach enabled the researchers to gather detailed data on geothermal adoption from firms with first-hand experience, which is crucial for understanding both the practical and operational impacts of such adoption. The respondents were selected based on their role in energy-related decision-making within their firms, with eligibility criteria including managerial or technical positions relevant to sustainability and energy strategy.

3.2. Data Collection and Analysis

The data were collected through a structured survey questionnaire administered online to decision-makers within Italian manufacturing firms that have adopted geothermal energy [56]. The survey was designed to explore key aspects of corporate engagement with geothermal energy systems, with a particular focus on firms’ awareness of associated risks and the strategies employed to communicate these risks to stakeholders. Specifically, it examined to what extent companies had considered the geological, hydrological, and air quality risks related to geothermal energy, and whether they had communicated these risks to local communities, regulatory agencies, and the broader public. The survey examined the content and methods of these communication efforts, including public reports, community outreach programs, meetings, and digital platforms. Additionally, it investigated whether firms had encountered social acceptance challenges, such as opposition related to environmental, health, safety, and socioeconomic concerns, or cultural and aesthetic objections. Company reports were used to supplement the survey data, providing insights into pre- and post-adoption operational metrics, including energy costs and CO2 emissions. This approach provided a multi-dimensional view of the impact of geothermal adoption on operational outcomes.
A correlational approach was adopted to analyze the relationship between variables in RQ1 [56]. Specifically, association tests (e.g., Pearson’s Chi-Square, Spearman, and Kendall) were performed to assess the relationship between the presence of risk communication strategies and social acceptance challenges [19]. To evaluate the impact of geothermal energy adoption on operational outcomes, a quasi-experimental pre–post analysis comparing firms’ energy costs and CO2 emissions before and after geothermal implementation was conducted (RQ2). This pre–post analysis was implemented using the paired t-test, which enabled the comparison of means before and after geothermal adoption within the same firms [58]. The paired t-test was chosen to assess the statistical significance of changes in key operational outcomes, namely energy costs and CO2 emissions, following the adoption of geothermal energy. The data used for the pre–post analysis represents averages calculated over two distinct periods: the three years preceding the adoption of geothermal energy (pre-adoption period) and the three years following its adoption (post-adoption period). To ensure the robustness of the findings, the paired t-test was complemented with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test [59]. This quasi-experimental approach facilitated the assessment of geothermal adoption’s effects on business and environmental performance metrics.
A scenario-based sensitivity analysis was employed to assess the impact of varying levels of geothermal energy adoption on companies’ CO2 emissions and energy costs (RQ3) [21,22]. The goal was to understand how changes in the percentage of geothermal energy used in total energy consumption could influence these key business outcomes [60]. Four distinct scenarios were identified to reflect a range of levels: minimal increases (from 1% to 5%), moderate increases (6% to 15%), significant increases (16% to 25%), and major increases (26% to 40%). To define these four scenarios, expert judgment was employed as a systematic approach to capture informed insights on varying increase levels. This method was chosen to ensure that the scenarios were grounded in realistic assumptions and reflected the complexities of geothermal energy adoption in the Italian business context. The scenario development process consisted of multiple steps: initially, three experts from the energy industry were purposively selected for their extensive expertise in renewable energy technologies, geothermal energy systems, and energy policy. The experts then proposed four ranges based on their knowledge of current and projected geothermal energy use. Finally, through iterative discussions and consensus-building, the panel refined these ranges. This approach allowed for a comprehensive analysis of potential outcomes under various levels of geothermal energy adoption, providing valuable insights into the incremental benefits and trade-offs associated with the increased use of this renewable resource.

3.3. Variables and Measures

For the purposes of the present research, social acceptance issues include any form of social criticism or resistance to geothermal projects [29]. Risk communication refers to the act of conveying geological, hydrological, and atmospheric risks associated with geothermal projects through various channels, such as company reports, websites, and community meetings. The CO2 emissions are defined as the total carbon dioxide emissions the firm produces annually. The energy costs refer to the firm’s total annual energy costs.

4. Results and Interpretation

Out of the 65 selected companies, 40 participated in the survey, resulting in a participation rate of 61.5%. These firms were categorized as small- and medium-sized enterprises, according to EU criteria. As shown in Table 1, the share of geothermal energy demonstrates a nearly symmetric distribution, with a mean of 0.326 and a median of 0.350. The data’s skewness and kurtosis values suggest a distribution close to normal but slightly skewed to the left. The standard deviation is 0.154, indicating reasonable variability in the data. The interquartile range (IQR) is 0.270, indicating a moderate spread within the middle 50% of the dataset. The pre-geothermal energy cost exhibits a slightly negatively skewed distribution, with a mean of 108.130 and a median of 114.500. The data’s kurtosis value of −0.078 suggests the distribution is very close to normal. The spread of the data, as measured by the standard deviation, is 14.463. IQR is 18.750, indicating a significant range of values within the middle 50% of the dataset. The post-geothermal energy cost displays a slightly negatively skewed distribution, with a mean of 99.325 and a median of 104.000. The kurtosis value indicates that the distribution has slightly fatter tails than a normal distribution. The standard deviation is 10.944, indicating a relatively low dispersion of values. The IQR is 11.750, reflecting a relevant spread of values within the middle 50% of the dataset. The pre-geothermal CO2 emissions display a positively skewed distribution, with a mean of 346.950 and a median of 159.000. The data’s kurtosis value indicates a distribution with fatter tails than a normal distribution. The standard deviation is 483.650, suggesting very high variability. The IQR is 243.650, indicating a narrow spread of values within the middle 50% of the dataset. The post-geothermal CO2 emissions display a positively skewed distribution, with a mean of 303.070 and a median of 125.000. The data’s kurtosis value indicates a platykurtic distribution, while the standard deviation is 483.650, suggesting strong variability. The IQR is 220.000, indicating a non-relevant spread of values within the middle 50% of the dataset. Finally, risk communication and social criticism/resistance are dichotomous variables, with means of 0.325 and 0.725, respectively.
Table 2 shows that 100% of the firms that communicated geothermal-related risks did not experience social acceptance challenges. In contrast, 84.62% of the firms that did not communicate these risks faced social criticism or resistance. Specifically, 67.50% of the sampled firms communicated geothermal-related risks, while 32.50% did not. Additionally, 27.50% of the sample experienced social acceptance challenges, whereas 72.50% did not.
The null hypothesis, according to which the communication of geothermal-related risks and the experience of social acceptance challenges are not associated, was rejected based on Pearson’s Chi-Square, Likelihood Chi-Square, and Fisher’s Exact tests because all these statistical tests yielded a p-value = 0.000. Cramer’s V, Gamma, and Kendall’s tau-b coefficients were also calculated (Table 3). Their values, equal respectively to −0.8876, −1.0000, and −0.8876, reveal a strong negative association between the communication of geothermal-related risks and the experience of social acceptance challenges because the abovementioned measures of association range from −1 to +1, where ±1 indicates perfect agreement or disagreement, and 0 indicates no relationship.
As shown in Table 4, the change in CO2 emissions following the adoption of geothermal energy exhibits a decreasing mean and median across the four scenarios as the share of geothermal energy increases (99, 85, 67, and 44 tons). The IQR grows across the four scenarios when the share of geothermal energy increases, suggesting higher variability as the change in CO2 emissions decreases. Similarly, the standard deviation increases, except in the last scenario.
As shown in Table 5, the change in energy cost exhibits a decreasing mean and median across the four scenarios as the share of geothermal energy increases (−1.5, −3.3, −5.8, and −8.8 euro/MWh). The IQR increases across the four scenarios as the share of geothermal energy rises, suggesting higher variability as the change in energy cost decreases. Similarly, the standard deviation increases, except for the last scenario.
Two simple linear regression models were estimated to evaluate the extent to which the share of geothermal energy could predict a change in CO2 emissions and energy costs following the adoption of geothermal energy (Table 6). The following fitted regression models were estimated:
y ^ = 104.38 − 184.196 x
y ^ = − 0.773 − 24.435 x
The coefficients of determination for the two regressions were R2 = 0.313 and R2 = 0.883, respectively, indicating that the share of geothermal energy accounts for approximately 31.3% of the variance in the change in CO2 emissions and 88.3% of the variance in the change in energy cost. The residuals for Equation (1) are non-normal, uncorrelated, and heteroskedastic, while for Equation (2) are normal, uncorrelated, and homoskedastic (see Table 6). The analysis results demonstrate the significant predictive power of the geothermal energy share (β = −184.196, p < 0.000 and β = −24.435, p < 0.000) on the change in CO2 emissions and the change in energy costs. The slope suggests that for every additional percentage point of geothermal energy share, the predicted change in CO2 emissions decreases by 1.84196 tons, and the energy costs decrease by EU 0.24435.
As shown in Table 7, the null hypothesis was rejected at the 0.05 significance level, indicating a significant difference between the mean energy costs (EU/MWh) before and after the adoption of geothermal energy. Therefore, the use of geothermal energy reduces energy costs. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test further confirmed this result, demonstrating that the median difference is not equal to zero at the 0.05 level. Since all the observed differences are positive, it can be stated that geothermal energy contributed to decreasing energy costs. A one-sided confidence interval indicates 95% confidence that the true difference in population means is less than or equal to 10.0776 EU/MWh. In other words, the decrease in energy costs following the adoption of geothermal energy is at most 10.0776 EU/MWh.
Similarly, as shown in Table 7, the null hypothesis was rejected at the 0.05 level, revealing a significant difference in mean CO2 emissions (tons) before and after the adoption of geothermal energy. This suggests that geothermal energy reduces CO2 emissions. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test confirmed this conclusion, showing that the median difference is not equal to zero at the 0.05 level. Since all the observed differences are positive, it can be concluded that geothermal energy led to a decrease in CO2 emissions. A one-sided confidence interval provides 95% confidence that the true difference in population means is less than or equal to 60.0539 tons, indicating that the reduction in CO2 emissions following the adoption of geothermal energy is at most 60.0539 tons.

5. Discussion, Conclusions, and Policy Recommendations

The findings of this study offer an in-depth understanding of the potential and challenges of geothermal energy adoption in Italy’s business sector, providing insights with broad implications for industry and policymaking. One of the most significant outcomes of this research is the confirmation that firms communicating geothermal-related risks are less likely to experience social acceptance challenges compared to those who do not engage in such communication. Indeed, 84.62% of firms that failed to communicate these risks encountered social criticism or resistance. These results highlight the crucial role of transparent communication in building trust with stakeholders and mitigating opposition to geothermal projects. Firms that proactively disclose risks associated with geothermal energy may be perceived as more responsible and trustworthy, reducing potential pushbacks from local communities, environmental groups, or regulatory bodies [33]. In contrast, a lack of communication may contribute to misunderstandings or fears, which can foster social criticism or resistance [29].
The environmental and cost benefits of geothermal energy adoption remain striking and continue to contribute to its appeal as a sustainable energy solution. The reduction in energy costs, driven by geothermal energy’s efficient heat supply, represents a competitive advantage for firms. Similarly, the substantial decreases in CO2 emissions align with global and national climate goals, positioning geothermal energy as a key enabler in the transition to a low-carbon economy [1]. The potential for increased geothermal energy utilization offers a compelling case for expanding its adoption. A scenario-based sensitivity analysis reveals that incremental increases in the share of geothermal energy used lead to significant cost and environmental benefits. As the percentage of geothermal energy utilization rises, firms experience greater reductions in CO2 emissions and additional energy cost savings. Specifically, the present analysis demonstrates a consistent reduction in CO2 emissions following the adoption of geothermal energy, with both the mean and median values decreasing across the four scenarios as the proportion of geothermal energy increases (99, 85, 67, and 44 tons). Similarly, the change in energy cost shows a decreasing mean and median across the four scenarios as the share of geothermal energy increases (−1.5, −3.3, −5.8, and −8.8 euro/MWh). These findings underscore the scalability of geothermal energy as a solution for sustainable business operations. However, achieving these benefits requires overcoming persistent challenges, including the technical complexities of resource identification and management, high capital expenditures, and regulatory hurdles [3,14].
From a strategic perspective, these findings have important implications for firms and policymakers. For firms, the integration of geothermal energy offers not only operational cost reductions but also the potential to meet increasingly stringent sustainability requirements. By communicating the risks associated with geothermal energy projects transparently, firms can improve stakeholder relations and minimize social acceptance issues, contributing to smoother project implementation. This alignment with corporate social responsibility objectives and stakeholder expectations can bolster firms’ competitiveness in global markets. This study also suggests that firms must navigate a range of challenges, including the need for specialized expertise, the management of geological, hydrological, and atmospheric risks, and the alignment of geothermal projects with broader energy strategies [2,15].
For policymakers, this study highlights the need for robust support mechanisms to encourage geothermal energy adoption. Financial incentives, risk-sharing frameworks, and the development of a skilled workforce are critical to enabling firms to overcome the barriers associated with geothermal energy implementation. Additionally, fostering collaboration among stakeholders—such as energy companies, research institutions, and industry associations—can accelerate technological innovation and facilitate the diffusion of best practices. Policymakers should also ensure that regulatory frameworks are conducive to geothermal energy adoption, addressing issues such as permitting processes, resource access rights, and environmental safeguards.
While this study makes significant contributions to understanding geothermal energy’s role in business sustainability, some limitations must be acknowledged. First, the use of self-reported survey data introduces the possibility of response bias, as participants may not always provide fully reliable and accurate responses. To reduce this risk, participant anonymity was ensured. In addition, the use of correlational analysis, while useful for identifying relationships between variables, does not establish causal links. This method can reveal associations but cannot confirm that one variable directly causes changes in another [56]. Furthermore, while a scenario-based sensitivity analysis is a robust tool, it may simplify or overlook certain real-world complexities, such as unforeseen external factors or dynamics [61,62]. Therefore, it may not fully capture the intricate, evolving nature of real-world systems. Future research might focus on sector-specific challenges and opportunities to tailor strategies for different industries, thereby offering deeper insights into the contextual factors that influence the observed patterns.
In conclusion, geothermal energy represents a transformative opportunity for Italy’s business sector to achieve higher sustainability levels. Its adoption aligns with global climate goals and offers tangible benefits in terms of cost reduction and emissions mitigation. However, these benefits are contingent on addressing the technical, financial, and regulatory barriers that currently limit its widespread adoption. By fostering an enabling environment for geothermal energy and encouraging transparent communication of risks, stakeholders can unlock their full potential, contributing to a more sustainable economic future. The insights provided by this study not only inform policy and practice in Italy but also offer a framework for other countries seeking to integrate geothermal energy into their economic strategies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.A., L.G. and C.M.; Methodology, A.A.; Software, L.G.; Validation, A.A. and C.M.; Formal analysis, L.G.; Investigation, A.A.; Resources, A.A. and C.M.; Data curation, L.G.; Writing—original draft, A.A. and L.G.; Writing—review & editing, A.A. and C.M.; Visualization, C.M.; Supervision, C.M.; Project administration, C.M.; Funding acquisition, C.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Idroes, G.M.; Hardi, I.; Hilal, I.S.; Utami, R.T.; Noviandy, T.R.; Idroes, R. Economic Growth and Environmental Impact: Assessing the Role of Geothermal Energy in Developing and Developed Countries. Innov. Green Dev. 2024, 33, 100144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Shamoushaki, M.; Koh, S.C. Solar Cells Combined with Geothermal or Wind Power Systems Reduces Climate and Environmental Impact. Commun. Earth Environ. 2024, 5, 572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Sharmin, T.; Khan, N.R.; Akram, M.S.; Ehsan, M.M. A State-of-the-Art Review on Geothermal Energy Extraction, Utilization, and Improvement Strategies: Conventional, Hybridized, and Enhanced Geothermal Systems. Int. J. Thermofluids 2023, 18, 100323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ball, P.J. A Review of Geothermal Technologies and Their Role in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the USA. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 2021, 143, 010904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Vargas, C.A.; Caracciolo, L.; Ball, P.J. Geothermal Energy as a Means to Decarbonize the Energy Mix of Megacities. Commun. Earth Environ. 2022, 3, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Beardsmore, G.; Ballesteros, M.; Davidson, C.; Larking, A.; Pujol, M. Country Update—Australia. In Proceedings of the World Geothermal Congress 2023, Melbourne, Australia, 15–17 September 2023; Geothermal Energy Association: Melbourne, Australia, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  7. Gutiérrez-Negrín, L.C.A. Evolution of Worldwide Geothermal Power 2020–2023. Geotherm. Energy 2024, 12, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Della Vedova, B.; Bottio, I.; Cei, M.; Conti, P.; Giudetti, G.; Gola, G.; Spadoni, L.; Vaccaro, M.; Xodo, L. Geothermal Energy Use, Country Update for Italy. In Proceedings of the European Geothermal Congress 2022, Berlin, Germany, 17–21 October 2022; Volume 1, pp. 1–12. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/11568/1161549 (accessed on 5 January 2025).
  9. Fornasiero, R.; Tolio, T.A.M. (Eds.) Analysis of the Italian Manufacturing Sector. In The Future of Manufacturing: The Italian Roadmap; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 15–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Manzella, A.; Bonciani, R.; Allansdottir, A.; Botteghi, S.; Donato, A.; Giamberini, S.; Lenzi, A.; Paci, M.; Pellizzone, A.; Scrocca, D. Environmental and Social Aspects of Geothermal Energy in Italy. Geothermics 2018, 72, 232–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jolie, E.; Scott, S.; Faulds, J.; Chambefort, I.; Axelsson, G.; Gutiérrez-Negrín, L.C.; Regenspurg, S.; Ziegler, M.; Ayling, B.; Richter, A.; et al. Geological Controls on Geothermal Resources for Power Generation. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2021, 2, 324–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wang, K.; Yuan, B.; Ji, G.; Wu, X. A Comprehensive Review of Geothermal Energy Extraction and Utilization in Oilfields. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2018, 168, 465–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Meirbekova, R.; Bonciani, D.; Olafsson, D.I.; Korucan, A.; Derin-Güre, P.; Harcouët-Menou, V.; Bero, W. Opportunities and Challenges of Geothermal Energy: A Comparative Analysis of Three European Cases—Belgium, Iceland, and Italy. Energies 2024, 17, 4134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Soltani, M.; Kashkooli, F.M.; Souri, M.; Rafiei, B.; Jabarifar, M.; Gharali, K.; Nathwani, J.S. Environmental, Economic, and Social Impacts of Geothermal Energy Systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 140, 110750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chen, S.; Zhang, Q.; Andrews-Speed, P.; Mclellan, B. Quantitative Assessment of the Environmental Risks of Geothermal Energy: A Review. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 276, 111287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Goertz-Allmann, B.P.; Wiemer, S. Geomechanical Modeling of Induced Seismicity Source Parameters and Implications for Seismic Hazard Assessment. Geophysics 2013, 78, 25–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Parks, M.; Sigmundsson, F.; Sigurðsson, Ó.; Hooper, A.; Hreinsdóttir, S.; Ófeigsson, B.; Michalczewska, K. Deformation Due to Geothermal Exploitation at Reykjanes, Iceland. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 2018, 391, 106438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Shi, H.; Wang, G.; Zhang, W.; Ma, F.; Lin, W.; Ji, M. Predicting the Potential of China’s Geothermal Energy in Industrial Development and Carbon Emission Reduction. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Schumacker, R.E. Correlation Tests of Association. In Learning Statistics Using R; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2015; pp. 215–235. [Google Scholar]
  20. Vine, E.; Prahl, R.; Meyers, S.; Turiel, I. An Approach for Evaluating the Market Effects of Energy Efficiency Programs. Energy Effic. 2009, 3, 257–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Naqvi, M.; Yan, J.; Dahlquist, E.; Naqvi, S.R. Off-Grid Electricity Generation Using Mixed Biomass Compost: A Scenario-Based Study with Sensitivity Analysis. Appl. Energy 2017, 201, 363–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ökmen, Ö.; Öztaş, A. Scenario-Based Evaluation of a Cost Risk Model through Sensitivity Analysis. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2015, 22, 403–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Meissner, P.; Brands, C.; Wulf, T. Quantifying Blind Spots and Weak Signals in Executive Judgment: A Structured Integration of Expert Judgment into the Scenario Development Process. Int. J. Forecast. 2016, 33, 244–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Royo, P.; Acevedo, L.; Ferreira, V.J.; García-Armingol, T.; López-Sabirón, A.M.; Ferreira, G. High-Temperature PCM-Based Thermal Energy Storage for Industrial Furnaces Installed in Energy-Intensive Industries. Energy 2019, 173, 1030–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Witter, J.B.; Trainor-Guitton, W.J.; Siler, D.L. Uncertainty and Risk Evaluation During the Exploration Stage of Geothermal Development: A Review. Geothermics 2019, 78, 233–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Jeanne, P.; Rutqvist, J.; Rinaldi, A.P.; Dobson, P.F.; Walters, M.; Hartline, C.; Garcia, J. Seismic and Aseismic Deformations and Impact on Reservoir Permeability: The Case of EGS Stimulation at The Geysers, California, USA. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 2015, 120, 7863–7882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kara, H.; Yetis, A.D.; Kalkan, S. The Impact of Geothermal Fluid Discharge on Drainage Water and Groundwater Quality in Terms of Toxic Contaminants in the Agricultural Harran Plain, Turkey. Geothermics 2022, 105, 102502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zhou, W.; Lanza, F.; Grigoratos, I.; Schultz, R.; Cousse, J.; Trutnevyte, E.; Muntendam-Bos, A.; Wiemer, S. Managing Induced Seismicity Risks from Enhanced Geothermal Systems: A Good Practice Guideline. Rev. Geophys. 2024, 62, e2024RG000849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chavot, P.; Heimlich, C.; Masseran, A.; Serrano, Y.; Zoungrana, J.; Bodin, C. Social Shaping of Deep Geothermal Projects in Alsace: Politics, Stakeholder Attitudes and Local Democracy. Geotherm. Energy 2018, 6, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kunze, C.; Hertel, M. Contested Deep Geothermal Energy in Germany—The Emergence of an Environmental Protest Movement. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 27, 174–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Pellizzone, A.; Allansdottir, A.; De Franco, R.; Muttoni, G.; Manzella, A. Geothermal Energy and the Public: A Case Study on Deliberative Citizens’ Engagement in Central Italy. Energy Policy 2016, 101, 561–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Renoth, R.; Buchner, E.; Schmieder, M.; Keim, M.; Plechaty, M.; Drews, M. Social Acceptance of Geothermal Technology on a Global View: A Systematic Review. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2023, 13, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Vargas Payera, S.V. Understanding Social Acceptance of Geothermal Energy: Case Study for Araucanía Region, Chile. Geothermics 2018, 72, 138–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yu, P.; Xu, Y.; Liu, H.; Liu, X.; Fu, J.; Xu, M.; Zhou, D. Regional-Scale Assessment of the Potential for Shallow Geothermal Energy Development Using Vertical Ground Source Heat Pumps. Energies 2024, 17, 4363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Yudha, S.W.; Tjahjono, B.; Longhurst, P. Sustainable Transition from Fossil Fuel to Geothermal Energy: A Multi-Level Perspective Approach. Energies 2022, 15, 7435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lund, J.W.; Toth, A.N. Direct Utilization of Geothermal Energy 2020 Worldwide Review. Geothermics 2020, 90, 101915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wong, K.V.; Tan, N. Feasibility of Using More Geothermal Energy to Generate Electricity. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 2014, 137, 041201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Shortall, R.; Davidsdottir, B.; Axelsson, G. Geothermal Energy for Sustainable Development: A Review of Sustainability Impacts and Assessment Frameworks. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 44, 391–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Self, S.J.; Reddy, B.V.; Rosen, M.A. Geothermal Heat Pump Systems: Status Review and Comparison with Other Heating Options. Appl. Energy 2013, 101, 341–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Beckers, K.F.; Kolker, A.; Pauling, H.; McTigue, J.D.; Kesseli, D. Evaluating the Feasibility of Geothermal Deep Direct-Use in the United States. Energy Convers. Manag. 2021, 243, 114335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Qu, H.; Masud, M.H.; Islam, M.; Khan, M.I.H.; Ananno, A.A.; Karim, A. Sustainable Food Drying Technologies Based on Renewable Energy Sources. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 62, 6872–6886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Focaccia, S.; Tinti, F.; Monti, F.; Amidei, S.; Bruno, R. Shallow Geothermal Energy for Industrial Applications: A Case Study. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2016, 16, 93–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lund, J.W.; Huttrer, G.W.; Toth, A.N. Characteristics and Trends in Geothermal Development and Use, 1995 to 2020. Geothermics 2022, 105, 102522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Manzella, A. Geothermal Energy. EPJ Web Conf. 2017, 148, 00012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Enel Green Power. Geothermal Energy in Italy. Available online: https://www.enelgreenpower.com/learning-hub/renewable-energies/geothermal-energy/italy (accessed on 5 January 2025).
  46. Alimonti, C.; Soldo, E.; Scrocca, D. Looking Forward to a Decarbonized Era: Geothermal Potential Assessment for Oil & Gas Fields in Italy. Geothermics 2021, 93, 102070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ali, Y.; Ciaschini, M.; Pretaroli, R.; Socci, C. Measuring the Economic Landscape of Italy: Target Efficiency and Control Effectiveness. J. Ind. Bus. Econ. 2015, 42, 297–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Italian Business Register. An Overview of Italian Companies. Available online: https://italianbusinessregister.it/en/an-overview-of-italian-companies (accessed on 14 March 2025).
  49. De Castro, M.; Baptista, J.; Matos, C.; Valente, A.; Briga-Sá, A. Energy Efficiency in Winemaking Industry: Challenges and Opportunities. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 930, 172383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Pearson-Grant, S.C.; Bertrand, E.A. Topography as a Major Influence on Geothermal Circulation in the Taupo Volcanic Zone, New Zealand. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2021, 48, e2020GL092248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Dalla Longa, F.D.; Nogueira, L.P.; Limberger, J.; Van Wees, J.; Van Der Zwaan, B. Scenarios for Geothermal Energy Deployment in Europe. Energy 2020, 206, 118060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Van Der Zwaan, B.; Dalla Longa, F.D. Integrated Assessment Projections for Global Geothermal Energy Use. Geothermics 2019, 82, 203–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Masini, A.; Menichetti, E. Investment Decisions in the Renewable Energy Sector: An Analysis of Non-Financial Drivers. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2013, 80, 510–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Da Silva Pereira, E.J.; Pinho, J.T.; Galhardo, M.A.B.; Macêdo, W.N. Methodology of Risk Analysis by Monte Carlo Method Applied to Power Generation with Renewable Energy. Renew. Energy 2014, 69, 347–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Purkus, A.; Barth, V. Geothermal Power Production in Future Electricity Markets—A Scenario Analysis for Germany. Energy Policy 2010, 39, 349–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Creswell, J.W.; Guetterman, T.C. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research, 7th ed.; Pearson: Boston, MA, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  57. Creswell, J.W.; Creswell, J.D. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 6th ed.; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  58. Gerald, B. A Brief Review of Independent, Dependent and One Sample t-Test. Int. J. Appl. Math. Theor. Phys. 2018, 4, 50–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Parapar, J.; Losada, D.E.; Presedo-Quindimil, M.A.; Barreiro, A. Using Score Distributions to Compare Statistical Significance Tests for Information Retrieval Evaluation. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2019, 71, 98–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Borgonovo, E.; Plischke, E. Sensitivity Analysis: A Review of Recent Advances. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2016, 248, 869–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Paltsev, S. Energy Scenarios: The Value and Limits of Scenario Analysis. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Energy Environ. 2016, 6, e242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Magazzino, C. On the Relationship between Disaggregated Energy Production and GDP in Italy. Energy Environ. 2012, 23, 1191–1207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Exploratory data analysis.
Table 1. Exploratory data analysis.
VariableMeanMedianStandard DeviationSkewnessKurtosisIQR
Share of Geothermal Energy0.3260.3500.1540.083−1.4110.270
Risk Communication0.3250.0000.4740.747−1.4421.000
Social Criticism/Resistance0.7251.0000.452−1.006−0.9841.000
Pre-Geo. Energy Cost108.130114.50014.463−0.960−0.07818.750
Post-Geo. Energy Cost99.325104.00010.944−1.3110.73511.750
Pre-Geo. CO2 Emission346.950159.000483.6502.1132.786243.250
Post-Geo. CO2 Emission303.070125.000433.8302.1032.754220.000
Table 2. Frequency distributions.
Table 2. Frequency distributions.
Risk CommunicationSocial Acceptance ChallengesTotal
YesNo
Yes02727
0.00100.00100.0
0.0093.1067.50
0.0067.5067.50
No11213
84.6215.38100.0
100.006.9032.50
27.505.0032.50
Total112940
27.5072.50100.0
100.00100.00100.0
27.5072.50100.0
Notes: Frequency, row percentage, column percentage, and cell percentage.
Table 3. Measures of association.
Table 3. Measures of association.
Pearson Chi231.5119 (Pr = 0.000)
Likelihood-Ratio Chi235.8911 (Pr = 0.000)
Cramér’s V−0.8876
Gamma−1.0000 (ASE = 0.000)
Kendall’s tau-b−0.8876 (ASE = 0.073)
Fisher’s Exact0.000
Table 4. Measures of central tendency and variability for CO2 emissions.
Table 4. Measures of central tendency and variability for CO2 emissions.
Change in CO2 Emissions (tons)MeanMedianStandard DeviationIQR
1% to 5%99992.9125.526
6% to 15%85855.57710.131
16% to 25%67675.57710.131
26% to 40%44442.23814.736
Table 5. Measures of central tendency and variability for energy costs.
Table 5. Measures of central tendency and variability for energy costs.
Change in Energy Costs (euro/MWh)MeanMedianStandard DeviationIQR
1% to 5%−1.5−1.50.3860.733
6% to 15%−3.3−3.30.7401.344
16% to 25%−5.8−5.80.7401.344
26% to 40%−8.8−8.81.0931.955
Table 6. Simple linear regression results.
Table 6. Simple linear regression results.
Change in CO2 Emissions on Share of Geothermal Energy
Coef.Std. Err.tp > |t|Lower 95%Upper 95%
Share of Geothermal Energy−184.19644.285−4.1590.000−273.845−94.547
Intercept104.38316.0236.5140.00071.946136.821
Obs.: 40; F(1,38): 17.300 (0.000); R-Squared: 0.313; Adj R-Squared: 0.295; RMSE: 42.483
Change inEnergy Costs on Share of Geothermal Energy
Coef.Std. Err.tp > |t|Lower 95%Upper 95%
Share of Geothermal Energy−24.4351.444−16.9240.000−27.358−21.512
Intercept−0.7730.522−1.4800.147−1.8310.285
Obs.: 40; F(1,38): 286.432 (0.000); R-Squared: 0.883; Adj R-Squared: 0.880; RMSE: 1.385
Table 7. Paired t-tests.
Table 7. Paired t-tests.
Pre- and Post-Adoption of Geothermal Energy (CO2 Emissions)
Obs.MeanStd. Err.Std. Dev.Lower 95%Upper 95%
Pre40346.9576.47198483.6513192.2708501.6292
Post40303.07568.59444433.8293164.3297441.8203
Diff.4043.8757.99873350.5884327.6960460.05396
t-statistic: 5.4852; Deg. of Freedom = 39
Pre- and Post-Adoption of Geothermal Energy (Energy Costs)
Obs.MeanStd. Err.Std. Dev.Lower 95%Upper 95%
Pre40108.1252.2868614.46337103.4994112.7506
Post4099.3251.73034310.9436595.82505102.8249
Diff.408.80.63164423.9948697.52237910.07762
t-statistic: 13.9319; Deg. of Freedom = 39
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Arcuri, A.; Giolli, L.; Magazzino, C. Harnessing a Renewable Resource for Sustainability: The Role of Geothermal Energy in Italy’s Business Sector. Energies 2025, 18, 1590. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18071590

AMA Style

Arcuri A, Giolli L, Magazzino C. Harnessing a Renewable Resource for Sustainability: The Role of Geothermal Energy in Italy’s Business Sector. Energies. 2025; 18(7):1590. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18071590

Chicago/Turabian Style

Arcuri, Angelo, Lorenzo Giolli, and Cosimo Magazzino. 2025. "Harnessing a Renewable Resource for Sustainability: The Role of Geothermal Energy in Italy’s Business Sector" Energies 18, no. 7: 1590. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18071590

APA Style

Arcuri, A., Giolli, L., & Magazzino, C. (2025). Harnessing a Renewable Resource for Sustainability: The Role of Geothermal Energy in Italy’s Business Sector. Energies, 18(7), 1590. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18071590

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop