Decentralized Geothermal Energy for Electricity Access: Exploring Knowledge and Social Acceptance in Ebonyi State, Nigeria

Abstract

This study examines the constrained social acceptance of small-scale geothermal energy in a rural sub-Saharan region, a critically understudied area, characterised by high energy poverty, heavy dependence on biomass, and suitable for geothermal energy exploration. Small-scale geothermal energy may offer an additional option for decentralised power supply through mini grids. The study investigates public awareness and knowledge level of geothermal energy technologies among the residents of Eka Awoke, Ikwo, Ebonyi State, Nigeria, to assess the potential of the deliberative process to enhance the social acceptance of geothermal energy technologies and the development of an improved participatory framework to aid the discussion. Citizen jury and survey methods, combining qualitative and quantitative research techniques, were employed. This study presents the first in-depth analysis of the social acceptance of small-scale geothermal energy for electricity supply in a rural African context. Pre-deliberative assessments revealed that 36% of the jurors had limited knowledge and expressed environmental concerns. The post-deliberative assessment revealed that over 80% of jurors reported improved understanding and views. The study demonstrates that citizen jury, when combined with surveyed results can serve as a powerful and scalable tool for advancing social acceptance of geothermal energy. These findings provide a solid foundation for policymakers, stakeholders, and energy providers to design more effective communication engagement strategies for sustainable energy transition in the community.

1. Introduction

Understanding the factors that shape social acceptance has become an area of growing interest for social and behavioural scientists for supporting the design of effective policies and strategies for the uptake of renewable energy technologies. Studies have identified the key factors that influence community support to include attitude, technology characteristics, individual differences, perceived benefits, knowledge, perceived trust, understanding, recognised benefits, perceived risk, community attitude, perceived costs, and intention to use renewable energy technologies [1,2,3,4]. This study explored the issue by examining the social acceptance of geothermal energy technologies through a community-based study in Eka Awoke, Ikwo, Ebonyi State, Nigeria.

Geothermal energy plays a significant role in global electricity generation. Nearly 30 nations around the world have adopted geothermal power plants. This resource has yet to gain recognition and promotion by the Nigerian government to the general public, and the public is generally unaware of its potential. The public is becoming increasingly cautious about new and unfamiliar energy technologies because of how they perceive the costs of new technologies, lack of access to finances, maintenance costs, and previous issues such as oil spillage, gas flaring, and pipeline explosions. Additionally, only about 61% of the total population have access to electricity and only 6% to clean cooking equipment. Tackling these significant access deficits requires the triangulation of policies, governmental support, and coordinated efforts aligned with the sustainable development goals (SGDs) [5,6]. There have been several issues associated with not including the public in the deliberation process, and this has led to low acceptance of geothermal energy globally in recent years. This study leverages and contributes to public participation in the societal dialogue of public acceptance of geothermal energy. It integrates both surveys and deliberative processes and uses the Eka Awoke community in Nigeria as a case study to understand how the participatory process increases social acceptance of geothermal energy.

Public participation plays a vital role in shaping a community’s decision-making process from the traditional methods such as voting processes, party involvement, and economic co-determination processes. The transition towards low-carbon energy solutions is a key sustainable development goal in modern times, yet it remains challenging due to continued reliance on fossil fuels. Active participation of the local community impacted by these shifts is a prerequisite for an efficient transition to renewable energy. Non-participation of residents in renewable energy projects might lead to delays, protests, halts, and eventually failure of the project [7]. For meaningful participation, the public must have access to clear information on energy infrastructure and how it integrates into renewable energy systems. To address the complexities associated with the mechanisms of public participation in the context of social acceptance of geothermal energy technologies, there is a need for a thorough examination of the knowledge and awareness of the public in building social acceptance.

Awareness of the contributions of geothermal energy to sustainability from energy providers, stakeholders, and government to the public has been suggested in the literature as part of the means of enhancing the social acceptance of geothermal energy projects across the globe. Some of the notable works are reflected in the works of Cruz Pauccara, Reyes [8], who revealed that efforts that focus on horizontal communication, inclusive participation, and open dialogue can facilitate the exchange and promotion of critical insights into the feasibility, benefits, and promise of geothermal energy as a sustainable solution. Wirtz-Brückner, Jakobs [9] examined Facebook’s capacity to convey intricate deep geothermal energy technology. Kluge and Ziefle [10] created a toolkit to carry out the effective communication of a deep geothermal strategy based on empirical evidence of public opinions on geothermal energy. Komori, Kioka [11] stated that regular communication and engagement between local government, citizens, and community stakeholders are the key drivers of the public acceptance of geothermal energy technologies. Balzan-Alzate, López-Sánchez [12] revealed that cost is one of the factors that affect the public’s opinion on geothermal energy. Pellizzone, Allansdottir [13] found that uncertainty in public communication and a lack of confidence in policies were important factors in the social acceptance of geothermal energy equipment. They also stated that the expressed intention to use geothermal energy is important for the region’s social acceptance of geothermal energy when they visit geothermal energy sites to assess the impact of tourism in promoting geothermal energy technologies.

The challenges, issues, and concerns of local people about geothermal energy exploration are explored in the literature. Cousse, Trutnevyte [14] stated that public awareness of seismicity induced by deep geothermal energy development could warrant negative opinions and risk perceptions. Baldacci, Mannari [15] stated that atmospheric emissions like hydrogen sulphide and mercury could influence the community’s acceptance. Olympia and Sofia [16] revealed education and age as the main issues facing residents’ acceptance of geothermal energy technologies. Pellizzone, Allansdottir [17] revealed a lack of evidence-based information as the key issue facing geothermal energy acceptance. Stewart and Lewis [18] highlighted the public’s limited understanding of geothermal power as a barrier influencing the community’s acceptance of geothermal energy. Ibrohim, Prasetyo [19] stated that understanding citizens’ preference towards geothermal energy would go a long way in shaping the strategies and policies for the establishment of geothermal energy facilities and that local communities in Indonesia rejected the construction of geothermal power facilities because of the perceived negative impacts their activities would have on cultural norms, environmental impact, economic potential, and social lifestyle aspects due to limited knowledge of geothermal energy. Santoso and Kusumasari [20] stated that maximising the lack of procedural aspects and dialogue through effective communicative means could reduce resistance to geothermal energy acceptance among residents. Pellizzone, Allansdottir [21] highlighted trust toward decision-makers as one of the main issues surrounding the social acceptance of geothermal energy, and questions about justice risks and benefits were also asked

Both qualitative and quantitative methods have been proposed in the literature as effective methods for assessing public participation in energy decision-making to enhance social acceptance of geothermal energy. Some studies have addressed this. For example, Dowd, Boughen [22] developed an interactive workshop through qualitative and quantitative means, ensuring the general public interacts to resolve arising issues of geothermal energy. Balzan-Alzate, López-Sánchez [12] conducted an online survey to find out how well-informed people in Europe and America felt about geothermal energy technologies. Yasukawa, Kubota [23] utilised semi-structured interviews to recommend that through effective dialogue, geothermal developers would be able to understand the concerns of hot spring managers, enabling them to establish a common solution to residents’ perceived effects of geothermal energy generation on hot springs at each site and this could address the fundamental barriers such as financial, technical, and political risk. Pellizzone, Allansdottir [21] utilised qualitative and quantitative methods to propose the potential of social dialogue to increase the level of knowledge, awareness, and collaboration of the societal actors across the nations. Gabo-Ratio and Fujimitsu [24] revealed through their semi-structured interviews that it is more profitable for geothermal energy providers to engage the local communities to improve trust among the stakeholders.

Yazdanpanah, Komendantova [25] developed a theoretical framework so that the intention toward renewable energy systems could be determined by perceived behaviour, altitude, and self-identity. Zhou, Hou [26] developed a conceptual framework that could assess public participation in public projects to improve the quality of the results, accuracy, and long-term social benefits. In [27], the authors adopted the Collage tool, a deliberative support tool system for addressing public acceptance of renewable energy projects, to enable participants to actively contribute to a mapping exercise for the right place to locate renewable energy facilities.

One of the main determinants of the success of new technologies is whether they will be widely accepted in remote regions. Studies on the acceptance of emerging technologies have become an important aspect of research and development and understanding of the concept continues to develop. The authors in [28] offered a comprehensive framework that defines social acceptance as a favourable response relating to a proposed technology by members of a given social unit which aligns with the findings of our study. Furthermore, Ref. [29] highlighted social acceptance as being influenced by factors such as trust in energy providers and the degree of public engagement in decision-making processes.

Effective ways of involving the public in meaningful discussions about new technologies are an issue that is gaining much academic attention with a deliberative consultation method involving listening and interaction widely recommended. Citizen juries have emerged as a crucial process providing jurors with comprehensive information regarding potential issues before their deliberation based on the evidence provided and facilitating a consensus. Trutnevyte and Azevedo [30] highlighted the importance of citizen juries, citizens’ advisory committees, panels, and public consensus conferences when communicating the risk from induced seismicity of geothermal energy using physical assessment methods such as focus groups or interviews and expert judgement methods.

However, to the best of our knowledge, no study has utilised citizen juries in shaping public perceptions and driving the successful adoption of geothermal technologies. Thus, this study builds upon a previously developed participatory method to examine and enhance the knowledge level and awareness of the community’s social acceptance of geothermal energy in order to shape and make better-informed decisions that reflects the community’s perspective. Furthermore, while previous studies have focused on broad participation, there has been a lack of a structured deliberative process and a quantitative approach to systematically enhance public knowledge and awareness. This gap limits efforts to build trust and acceptance around geothermal energy solutions.

The study aims to demonstrate that strategically targeted engagement and a quantitative approach are crucial for shaping public perceptions and driving the successful adoption of geothermal technologies. Specifically, the objective of the study will be to assess the knowledge level and public awareness of geothermal energy at Eka Awoke, Ikwo, Ebonyi State, Nigeria.

To address the identified gap in resident engagement and societal acceptance, this study develops a theoretical model to analyse the impact of key factors on the adoption of geothermal energy. The model focuses on evaluating how tailored communication strategies influence, particularly in terms of response, knowledge, and awareness of geothermal energy. By doing so, the study seeks to enhance our understanding of how effective communication can improve social acceptance and foster the successful adoption of geothermal technologies.

The key innovation is the consideration of the motivational factors that drive the public acceptance of geothermal energy technologies. This is the first study to measure these factors in detail. The methodological innovation lies in combining deliberative citizen jury and survey methods in a rural African context to build a replicable framework for the social acceptance of geothermal energy in another region. A fundamental aspect of our study is the active involvement of jurors in the citizen jury to engage in the development of recommendations, potential implications, and practical insights based on deliberative, evidence-based, ability to reflect on expert presentations, voice their concerns, and practically develop strategies to address barriers to adoption aimed at enhancing the public acceptance of geothermal energy technologies in the community.

To guide this study, we developed a theoretical framework in Figure 1, to illustrate the relationship between awareness, participation, trust, and social acceptance of geothermal energy. This paper applies the developed survey and citizen jury process at the Eka Awoke Community, Ebonyi State, Nigeria, serving as a case study.

The rest of the article is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the case study of the investigated community, the research design and methodology are described in Section 3, followed by the presentation of findings in Section 4, and a discussion with conclusions in Section 5.

2. Case Study: Citizen Jury of Eka Awoke, Ebonyi, Nigeria

Eka Awoke is a fossil fuel-dependent community, which also hosts the community’s first PV Minigrid project. The study chose five villages in Eka Awoke as a case study: Aguiyima, Echare-Ukwu, Ezeke, Ndigu Umoka, and Ndiufu Umuota, which are depicted in Figure 2.

Aguiyima is a small village located in Ikwo Local Government Area (LGA) of Ebonyi State. Like many other villages in the region, Aguiyima is part of a predominantly rural and agricultural community of Ikwo LGA. The village is known for its fertile land and rich agricultural practices, with crops such as yams, rice, and cassava commonly grown. The area also has notable deposits of mineral resources, including lead, zinc, and limestone, which are important to the local economy. Echare-Ukwu is a village located within the Ikwo Local Government Area (LGA) of Ebonyi State. The region where Echare-Ukwu is located is known for its agricultural productivity, with residents engaged in the cultivation of crops such as yams, cassava, rice, and maize. This rural village is part of a broader community where farming plays a central role in the local economy. Echare-Ukwu is bordered by Ezeke to the east, Aguiyima to the west, and Ndigu Umoka to the north. Ezeke is part of a rural community where agriculture forms the backbone of the economy. As part of the larger Ikwo community, Ezeke benefits from the shared agricultural and mineral resources, though specific demographic and economic data for the village would typically require local-level surveys or governmental records. Ezeke lies directly adjacent to Echare-Ukwu on the east, while to the north, it borders Ndigu Umoka, and on the south, it adjoins Ndiufu Umuota. Ndigu Umoka is a village located in Ikwo Local Government Area (LGA) of Ebonyi State. Like many other communities within Ikwo LGA, Ndigu Umoka is primarily a rural area with agriculture as the dominant occupation. The broader Ikwo LGA, where Ndigu Umoka is situated, is also notable for its mineral resources, such as limestone, lead, and zinc. While agriculture remains the main economic activity for most residents, small-scale mining of these minerals also takes place in various parts of the LGA. Ndigu Umoka is situated to the north of Ezeke, west of Ndiufu Umuota, and is bordered by Aguiyima to the south. Ndiufu Umuota is a village situated in Ikwo Local Government Area (LGA) of Ebonyi State. Like other communities in this region, Ndiufu Umuota primarily engages in agriculture, which is the mainstay of the local economy. The residents cultivate various crops, including yams, cassava, rice, and maize, which are essential for both subsistence agriculture and trading. Ndiufu Umuota lies to the south of Ezeke and is bordered to the west by Ndigu Umoka and to the north by Aguiyima.

Geologically, Ikwo is supported by Cretaceous sedimentary strata, including limestone, sandstone, siltstone, and shale, as well as rock from the Precambrian Basement Complex. Dolerites and other intermediate to basic intrusive rocks, as well as extrusive and pyroclastic rocks, are scattered throughout these formations. Numerous geological features may be seen in the region, including faults, folds, joints, fractures, cross-beds, and mud cracks. Set in a beautiful, tropical setting, Eka Awoke in Ikwo LGA offers a blend of important geological characteristics, a rich cultural legacy, and a primarily agrarian lifestyle.

3. Research Design and Methodology

3.1. Citizens Jury

The study was carried out with a Citizens’ Jury at Eka Awoke, Community, Ebonyi State, Nigeria over two days in February 2025, with the question, “What is the effective method of assessing the knowledge level and public awareness of the public’s acceptance of geothermal energy technologies in the community?” A similar approach could be found in the works of [31]. A citizen jury is selected in this study because it offers a unique combination of information, time, scrutiny, deliberations, and independence of the study. These features make it more attractive and could be an effective method used in solving a complex problem like the social acceptance of geothermal energy. In the case of the Eka Awoke project, the deliberations focused on whether geothermal energy, a relatively new and unfamiliar technology in Nigeria, could gain social acceptance as an alternative energy source by investigating the public’s level of awareness, perceptions, knowledge, and responses to geothermal energy by engaging participants under different citizens jury conditions and varying levels of information. Specifically, the study sought to understand how the provision of information and the structure of deliberative settings, such as the citizens jury format, might influence participants’ attitudes and awareness of geothermal energy technologies as an alternative renewable energy source.

A two-day series of citizen jury sessions is designed to engage the public in discussions and decision-making processes, with the primary goal of facilitating active public participation. The focus of these sessions is to gather insights on the public’s acceptance of geothermal energy technologies and how they will be used to ascertain the level of awareness, understanding, and attitudes towards this energy source within the local community.

Table 1. Characteristics of citizen jurors.

Village	Population	Targeted Participants
Aguiyima	2000–4000	1–4
Echare-Ukwu	1500–3000	1–4
Ezeke	3000–5000	1–4
Ndigu Umoka	2500–4500	1–4
Ndiufu Umuota	2500–5000	1–4
Total		5–20

outlines the specific villages and the targeted participants for the jury sessions, and the population distribution of the target areas. Through this process, the study aims to obtain valuable data on the community’s awareness, knowledge level, and perceptions of geothermal energy, including their concerns, expectations, and potential benefits, which will inform future energy policies and development plans in the region. This participatory approach ensures that the views and voices of residents are incorporated into the decision-making process, thereby promoting a more inclusive and democratic evaluation of renewable energy options like geothermal power.

A series of talks and evidence is allocated each day based on the thematic topic in

Table 2. Programme structure and research alignment (day 1 &day 2).

Day 1
Time	Session	Topic	Link with an Overall Research Question
10.00–10:15 a.m.	Survey questions	Prequestionnaire jury	Aimed at collecting baseline data on jurors’ prior knowledge and views to compare with post-jury session data. Essential for measuring shifts in awareness and attitudes.
10.15–10.30 a.m.	Welcome and introduction to the Citizens Jury and goals	Introduction to the jury process and geothermal energy	Establishes baseline familiarity with geothermal energy and sets the stage for participatory dialogue.
10.30–10.50 a.m.	Icebreaker session	Sharing initial thoughts on renewable energy	Ascertains initial perceptions and attitudes toward geothermal energy.
10.50–11.20 a.m.	Expert talks followed by Q&A	Basics of geothermal energy	Provides foundation knowledge to answer questions on public understanding and the benefits of geothermal energy.
11.20–11:30 a.m.	Break
11.30–11.50 a.m.	Small group discussion	Discussion on geothermal energy	Encourages dialogue to assess immediate retention and emerging questions.
11.50–12.00 p.m.	Wider group discussion	Sharing insights across groups	Helps identify collective perception and potential barriers to acceptance.
12.00–1.00 p.m.	Lunch break
1:00–1:05 p.m.	Wider group discussion	Summary of topics covered in the morning session	Helps ensure participants are informed.
1.05–2.00 p.m.	Small group discussion	Key factors influencing the social acceptance of geothermal energy	Encourages detailed deliberation on how economic, social, and environmental concerns shape acceptance.
2.00–2.10 p.m.	Break
2:10–2:35 p.m.	Reflection on key takeaways	Jurors reflect on what has been discussed during the day so far	Provides the opportunity for jurors to reflect on what they have learned so far and raise any questions that need clarification.
2:35–3:00 p.m.	Closing session	Voting Session
day 2
Time	Session	Topic	Link with an Overall Research Question
10.00–10.10 a.m.	Welcome session	Recap of day 1	Reinforces knowledge and sets the stage for deeper exploration.
10.10–11.00 a.m.	Expert talks followed by Q&A	Knowledge, costs, risks, intention to use, altitudes, risks, and trust in geothermal energy	Links with examining perceptions of costs, risks, intention to use, and trust factors. Directly address public misconceptions and knowledge gaps.
11–11.10 a.m.	Break
11.10–11.30 a.m.	Small group discussions	Key deliberations on societal dialogue, communications, and active participation of residents in decision-making	Small groups deliberate on the information received, discuss social acceptance, and prepare their recommendations.
11.30–11.40	Wider group session	Collective deliberation and review	A wider group discussion to consolidate findings from small groups, refine key concepts, and finalise jury recommendations.
11.40–12.30 p.m.	Lunch break
12:30–12:35	Wider group session	Recap of topics covered	To keep the participants focused on the content.
12.35–1.40 p.m.	Small group discussions	Recap of day 2 sessions	To ensure there is a high level of comprehension of the key factors for social acceptance of geothermal energy.
1.40–1.50 p.m.	Break
1.50–2.05 p.m.	Voting session in small groups	Agreement levels on geothermal energy	Links with final recommendations for the social acceptance of geothermal energy.
2.05–2.50 p.m.	Final survey	Post-jury questionnaire	Collects data on changes in jurors’ knowledge, attitudes, and social acceptance of geothermal energy post-discussion.
2.50–3.00 p.m.	Closing session	Jury recommendations and reflections	Jurors present their final recommendations, discuss their reflections on the process, and provide feedback on the methodology.

to engage the participants in a question-and-answer session.

A representative is selected to take notes during the lecture series to facilitate the jury process. By involving citizens directly, the study sought to explore the factors influencing social acceptance and to encourage dialogue around geothermal energy as a potential sustainable energy option. The two days of the citizen jury sessions are designed to provide ample time to allow for in-depth discussion, deliberations, and consensus-building among participants. These sessions will target five selected villages in the community. The choice of this location was strategic, as it reflects a community where geothermal energy initiatives may have a significant impact on local development and energy needs.

3.2. Ethical Considerations for the Citizen Jury Process

In addition to testing the citizens jury format, the study adhered to high ethical standards. All aspects of the project were conducted in compliance with the Ethics Policy and Procedure of the University of Surrey, United Kingdom. This includes obtaining informed written consent from all participants and ensuring that they fully understand the scope of the study and their role in it. Throughout the study, ethical considerations were prioritised to protect the rights and privacy of participants, with appropriate safeguarding in place to ensure transparency and respect for their input.

3.3. Jury Recruitment

The jurors were selected based on the demographics to ensure a broad representation of diverse views encourage balanced dialogue and foster mutual understanding across groups. Key criteria and factors considered during the recruitment included the following:

• Demographic Diversity: Jurors were selected across different age groups (18–30, 31–45, 46–60, 60+).
• Knowledge Levels: Participants with varying degrees of familiarity with renewable energy (limited, intermediate, advanced).
• Community Roles: Inclusion of individuals with diverse occupations (e.g., farmers, educators, business owners).
• Income Levels: Representation of both lower-income (<USD 36/week) and higher-income (>USD 36/week) groups.
• Attitudes Toward Energy: Selection of individuals with differing perceptions of geothermal energy adoption.

A total of 20 jurors [32] were recruited, ensuring balanced representation to address community concerns and perspectives effectively. The participants were drawn from five villages such as Aguiyima, Echare-Ukwu, Ezeke, Ndigu Umoka, and Ndiufu Umuota in the community. These participants were primarily non-experts in geothermal energy thereby enabling the study to assess the impact of a deliberative process on public knowledge and social acceptance. The expert panel consisted of researchers and soil earth professionals who presented structured, transparent, informed talks covering the fundamentals of geothermal energy technologies, potential environmental and health implications, economic opportunities in the community, and local implications.

3.4. Data Collection

An online survey questionnaire and citizen jury discussion were used to assess the awareness and knowledge level of the jurors regarding the social acceptance of geothermal energy. The jury discussion lasted for two days and was digitally recorded before being transcribed. A series of notes were taken during the jury process to gain a sense of the jurors’ experience. After the transcription, the transcribed discussion was checked against the audio recordings for accuracy, and it was the transcribed jury discussion together with the survey responses that were used in the data analysis.

The two-day programme, which lasted for four hours per day, incorporated structured activities designed to enhance jurors’ understanding of geothermal energy and facilitate informed deliberation. Their activities and their connection to the research question are summarised in Table 2. The sessions involved expert witness presentations followed by questions and answers, and wider and small team discussions with voting and recommendations sessions [33].

A preliminary activity was introduced at the commencement of the deliberative sessions to enable the jurors to share their initial thoughts on renewable energy, enhancing group discussion and jurors’ comprehension of the research objectives [34].

The first day featured expert witness 1’s presentation on the basics of geothermal energy to provide the foundation knowledge needed. On the second day, expert witness 2 spoke about the knowledge, costs, risks, intention to use, altitudes, risks, and trust in geothermal energy to enable the jurors to assess their initial perception and attitude and weigh up potential benefits and risks of the public’s acceptance of geothermal energy technologies in the community and when making recommendations. This study focuses on the discussion held about the knowledge and awareness pertaining to the social acceptance of geothermal energy.

Following the expert witness presentation and discussions there were question and answer sessions. The jurors were sent to rooms for smaller-group discussion, to have a more detailed conversation about the topics raised. Table 2 provides an overview of the topics and their link with the overall research questions discussed over the two days.

Debatable statements were framed and used over the two days, designed to promote discussion. Two overarching statements were used for the two consecutive days of the citizen jury process, with two supporting statements that shaped the discussion per day. The debatable statements and topics were extracted from the literature studies conducted and summarised in Table 3.

At the close of each day, the jurors were asked to decide whether they supported or opposed the statements made in light of the evidence presented and to think about what would benefit the community from a sociological perspective [35]. During the plenary sessions, the facilitator presented the responses to the wider audience and the main justifications for them. The results of each subgroup were then computed to provide the final jury session conclusion for the entire group on each of the assertions [36].

The four statements were as follows:

• Day 1 Overarching Statement: “Effective communication and societal dialogue are needed to promote the level of knowledge and awareness of geothermal energy”.
• Day 1 Sub Statement: “Through using the right communication channels, there will be widespread about geothermal in the community and societal dialogue”.
• Day 2 Overarching Statement: “The active participation of residents during the process of decision-making would enhance the social acceptance of geothermal energy”.
• Day 2 Sub Statement: “Allowing the citizens to be involved in decision-making would aid the social acceptance of geothermal energy”.

Table 3. Categorization of the key themes (part 1).

Key Themes	Sub-Themes	Key Questions from the Literature	References
Knowledge and awareness of geothermal energy	Increased understanding	What are the citizens thoughts about how geothermal energy works?	[37]
		What are the citizens thoughts about the advantages of educating the community first about geothermal energy?	[38]
	Confidence in knowledge	What are the public’s views on the risks and advantages of geothermal energy?	[38]
		What are the public’s perceptions of the costs and benefits associated with geothermal energy?
Motivational factors for the adoption of geothermal energy technologies	Support for geothermal energy technologies	What are the citizens thoughts about geothermal energy?
		Will the citizens likely support geothermal energy in the coming years?	[39]
Perception and attitude toward geothermal energy technologies	Trust in geothermal	What are the public’s views on the safety and reliability of geothermal energy?	[40]
		Why do the citizens feel their thoughts on the safety and reliability of geothermal energy have increased?	[12]
Barriers and concerns of geothermal energy technologies	Environmental concerns	Why do you think geothermal energy can contribute to solving climate change?	[41]
		What are the potential negative impacts of geothermal energy?	[42]
Community engagement and acceptance of geothermal energy echnologies	Social impact of geothermal energy technologies	What are the citizens perceptions of the social impacts of geothermal energy?	[43]
		Will geothermal energy be acceptable to the citizens of the community to the citizens?	[43]
Public decision-making on geothermal energy	Effectiveness of the jury	What are the citizens perceived thoughts if the jury valued their opinions and ideas on geothermal?	[44]
		What are the citizens perceived thoughts on the jury addressing their initial concerns?	[45]
	Inclusiveness and participation	What are the citizens perceived benefits of the jury being inclusive and active participants in geothermal energy?	[46]
		What are the citizens perceived benefits of open and meaningful dialogue about geothermal energy?	[41]

Table 3. Categorization of the key themes (part 1).

Key Themes	Sub-Themes	Key Questions from the Literature	References
Knowledge and awareness of geothermal energy	Increased understanding	What are the citizens thoughts about how geothermal energy works?	[37]
		What are the citizens thoughts about the advantages of educating the community first about geothermal energy?	[38]
	Confidence in knowledge	What are the public’s views on the risks and advantages of geothermal energy?	[38]
		What are the public’s perceptions of the costs and benefits associated with geothermal energy?
Motivational factors for the adoption of geothermal energy technologies	Support for geothermal energy technologies	What are the citizens thoughts about geothermal energy?
		Will the citizens likely support geothermal energy in the coming years?	[39]
Perception and attitude toward geothermal energy technologies	Trust in geothermal	What are the public’s views on the safety and reliability of geothermal energy?	[40]
		Why do the citizens feel their thoughts on the safety and reliability of geothermal energy have increased?	[12]
Barriers and concerns of geothermal energy technologies	Environmental concerns	Why do you think geothermal energy can contribute to solving climate change?	[41]
		What are the potential negative impacts of geothermal energy?	[42]
Community engagement and acceptance of geothermal energy echnologies	Social impact of geothermal energy technologies	What are the citizens perceptions of the social impacts of geothermal energy?	[43]
		Will geothermal energy be acceptable to the citizens of the community to the citizens?	[43]
Public decision-making on geothermal energy	Effectiveness of the jury	What are the citizens perceived thoughts if the jury valued their opinions and ideas on geothermal?	[44]
		What are the citizens perceived thoughts on the jury addressing their initial concerns?	[45]
	Inclusiveness and participation	What are the citizens perceived benefits of the jury being inclusive and active participants in geothermal energy?	[46]
		What are the citizens perceived benefits of open and meaningful dialogue about geothermal energy?	[41]

The current paper captures participants’ discussions and voting about the two overarching statements and the sub-statements. The jurors returned to their respective smaller groups to reflect on the recommendations relevant to the public’s acceptance of geothermal energy. The recommendations were then discussed in detail by the wider group.

3.5. Data Analysis

Citizen Jury

The qualitative study of the jury process was informed by inductive thematic analysis [47]. Six themes, categories, and their linkages applicable to the study’s aim are in Figure 3 and used in Table 3, developed from the transcribed text data, and are used to analyse the awareness and knowledge level of geothermal energy.

The overview of the key questions discussed is extensively captured in Table 3, while

Table 4. Overview of the key discussions of the respective themes.

Key Themes	Discussion
Barriers and concerns	Technical challenges, environmental concerns, economic limitations, regulatory challenges, and infrastructure and expertise issues
Community engagement and acceptance	Early involvement, transparency, benefits sharing, cultural and social values, and past experiences
Public decision-making	Participatory processes, societal dialogue, trust in institutions, and policy frameworks
Knowledge and awareness	Information gap, educational initiatives, media influence, and scientific communication
Motivational factors	Environmental concerns, energy independence, and technology curiosity
Perception and attitude	Risk perception, trust, and credibility

explores the discussions carried out during the jury process.

The transcribed discussions were openly coded in NVivo 14 in Figure 4 to create a comprehensive thematic map to identify the initial relationships of the codes. The initial codes from the thematic maps were then developed into sub-themes to maintain rigour in the qualitative study. The application of the reiterative approach ensured the refinement of the sub-themes into the main themes. Key thematic quotations were extracted and explained with literature findings to illustrate significant issues.

3.6. Survey Questionnaire

3.6.1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis of the Surveyed Questions

Descriptive statistics generated in SPSS 29.0.2.0 regarding the social acceptance of geothermal energy are used to describe the participants’ demographics, e.g., village, age, gender, income, etc. The mean and standard deviation values for the 10-point Likert scale variables (1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Somewhat Disagree; 4 = Slightly Disagree; 5 = Neutral; 6 = Slightly Agree; 7 = Somewhat Agree; 8 = Agree; 9 = Strongly Agree; 10 = Extremely Agree) were calculated as in Equations (1) and (2).

$$Mean \overline{x}={\displaystyle \frac{\sum x\ast f}{n}}$$

(1)

$$Standard deviation\left(\sigma \right)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{{f\left(x-\overline{x}\right)}^2}{n}}}$$

(2)

where $\overline{x}$ is the mean of responses

• x represents each response
• f is the frequency of response
• n represents the total responses counted

Since all the questions used the Likert scale and are non-parametric, a normality test was conducted. Spearman’s rank correlation regression in Appendix A was used to identify the correlation coefficient between different questions. The model is used to determine the relationship within the independent variables, demographic data (village; gender; age; familiarity with renewable energy, including geothermal energy; occupation; income level; and general opinion about the adoption of geothermal energy), and the dependent variable. Figure 5 is used to formulate the data for Spearman’s analysis.

3.6.2. Demographic Characteristics

A total of 20 participants completed the survey (100% participation rate) online.

Table 5. Demographic characteristics of participants according to gender and age (n = 20), while Figure 5 shows other demographic data used in this study.

	n	%
Gender
Male	9	45
Female	11	55
Age
18–30	13	65
31–45	3	15
46–60	4	20

and Figure 6 show the demographic characteristics of the total participants. Participants were aged 18 to 60 years. Females accounted for 55% of the participants.

4. Findings

4.1. Citizen Jury as a Method of Community Engagement for the Social Acceptance of Geothermal Energy Technologies

This section delves into the outcome of the jury session, offering a comprehensive analysis of the findings and implications identified for the exploration of the knowledge and awareness level of geothermal in the community. It reflects the collective priorities and solutions during the deliberation process. The key themes include the following: (1) Barriers and Concerns of Geothermal Energy, (2) Community Engagement and Acceptance, (3) Public decision-making, (4) Knowledge and Awareness, (5) Motivational Factors for Adoption, and (6) Perception and Attitude towards Geothermal Energy. The key summary of the themes is captured in Table 4. The jurors’ recommendations provided actionable insights for addressing issues related with the social acceptance of geothermal energy technologies. The qualitative outcomes further shed light on the dynamics of the jurors’ interactions, shifts in knowledge, and awareness of the jurors’ past experiences that shaped the jury discussion. Some of the jurors remarked

“That they particularly liked the format of the day’s event, that it helped them to prepare very well for the debate and deliberations.”

The jurors revealed that the process helped shape their understanding of the issues and implications of accepting geothermal energy in their community. However, some of the jurors noted that they needed to debate the acceptance of geothermal energy in their community since they do not share common views, as this was the first time they learned about the energy resource. Despite this, they discussed the questions raised in detail, and their conversation was lively.

4.1.1. Perception and Attitude Towards Geothermal Energy

While the overall agreement with geothermal energy was high, the jurors revealed ways in which the perception is shaped by trust, experience, and context.

The current findings suggest that the acceptance of geothermal energy is not just by the facts presented but by how, when, and by whom they are communicated.

• Sceptics to support

The jurors who had earlier had some negative thoughts about geothermal energy changed or adapted their views after participating in the jury process, showing the capacity of citizen juries to facilitate an enlarged mentality. A juror noted that

“Geothermal projects are more likely to be positively seen and accepted if they are perceived as community-driven rather than externally imposed. On the other hand, opposition or doubt may result from ignorance or false information regarding geothermal technology (Juror 1)”.

• The role of trust and transparency

The jurors also noted that in situations where there is a negative attitude between residents and stakeholders at the local level, acceptance of any resource will be difficult. They stated that to avoid such a situation, there is a need for

“Trust in authority can influence people’s opinions on geothermal energy. There may be worries that geothermal projects would encounter similar problems if previous infrastructure projects have been linked to political meddling or a lack of openness. Public impression can be enhanced by ensuring open communication, community involvement, and accountability (Juror 6)”.

• Education

Geothermal energy may seem too complicated or unapproachable to certain people, especially if they are not familiar with the technology. Attitudes can be influenced by inquiries about the implementation of geothermal projects, the beneficiaries, and their viability for the local population.

“Feasibility issues can be addressed by the provision of educational initiatives, well-defined implementation strategies, and community case studies (Juror 4)”.

Hesitancy or fear of possible hazards, such as resource depletion, land use conflicts, or environmental effects, might arise from ignorance or ambiguity concerning geothermal energy.

“Public trust in geothermal solutions can be increased and concerns can be reduced by promoting candid conversations and resolving issues with open risk assessments and environmental degradation (Juror 8)”.

• Overcoming initial perception

Some people may be reluctant to adapt, particularly if they have preconceived ideas about renewable energy sources or have not been exposed to geothermal energy.

“Demonstrating the concrete advantages of geothermal energy, such as reduced energy prices, job creation, and sustainable development, is crucial in fostering positive views (Juror 5).”

4.1.2. Barriers to Geothermal Energy Technologies

Concerns about barriers facing geothermal energy technologies emerged as a key theme from the wider and smaller group discussion, with many jurors commenting on the importance of governance, funding, and public participation as some of the barriers to the social acceptance of geothermal energy. The jurors agreed that for geothermal to flourish in the community

“Adequate funding should be provided, and there has to be a collaboration between stakeholders, researchers, the local community, and the government.”

Not being able to be involved in energy projects could cause an issue with the acceptance of geothermal energy implementation in the community. Additionally, past experiences prompted the jurors to acknowledge that the interference of external bodies, lack of transparency and accountability, physical and logical issues, and absence of community members in decision-making contributed significantly to the negative attitude exhibited by some residents concerning energy projects in the community. This was particularly evident when residents’ opinions were ignored before the establishment of the Solar PV Minigrid. Some jurors were negative about the attitudes of stakeholders and energy providers. To ameliorate the situation, the jurors reflected on the importance of active participation, decision-making, and ownership of future projects. Some noted that

“So that there will be no third party or second party coming to steal away public funds.” (Juror 1)

“Everything is requested on the hands of the people, let them decide, let them do everything themselves.” (Juror 3)

4.1.3. Community Engagement and Acceptance

An interesting finding was on the issues facing community engagement and acceptance. Jurors unanimously agreed that for active participation, information should pass through traditional rulers, village chiefs, women’s wings, youth leaders, religious leaders, and educators to enable information to flow through the right channel to increase the acceptance of geothermal energy:

“I think we’ll have to involve the king, the chiefs, and then the youth leaders and all that, so firstly we’ll have to meet the king, so I think the king has to hold the meeting with the chiefs, the youth leaders, the women leaders and the rest of them. So that I think that’s the first thing to do.” (Juror 9)

The jurors suggested that having the right channel could provide the citizens with firsthand information and ensure their views count during decision-making. The event where jurors are asked to give up their landed properties and the fact that buildings face each other in the community could cause engagement and acceptance issues. The jurors advised that to avoid situations like this in the future, there is a need to:

“Build relationships that foster a sense of belonging to enhance public participation in community-led projects. Also, encouraging open dialogue makes people feel valued and increases their willingness to engage in local developmental projects.” (Juror 9)

Also, the jurors were asked to share their thoughts on what could lead to an energy source being either rejected or accepted in the community. The phrase distrust of local authorities came up. The jurors revealed that

“Barrier to community engagement is the distrust in local government and government involvement. When external actors claim credit for community-led initiatives, it can create resentment and discourage participation.” (Jurors 9)

To address the situation, there is a need to ensure transparent processes and giving credit to the actual contributors can enhance trust and long-term engagement in sustainability projects like geothermal energy adoption (Juror 8). The juror noted that the experience residents had with mining companies in the past should be completely avoided. They reiterated the importance of active participation and engagement rather than ignoring their views in the process (Juror 2).

4.1.4. Public Decision-Making

Although there was much enthusiasm about the consistency of geothermal energy in electricity generation, the jurors expressed concerns about community involvement, challenges in decision-making and execution, accessibility, and the legitimacy of future projects. The jurors proposed several solutions.

First, the jurors explored the need for communities to have clear and open access to information about how geothermal energy is developed, its potential benefits, and any associated risks. They emphasised that to increase awareness

“Use the community at once deciding from the planning stage to the finishing stage, so issues about theft and cost will be avoided. Because if you are the one deciding it, you’re not going to go back to steal what you’ve already decided. The community will work together with stakeholders, the stakeholders will take Instructions from the community.” (Juror 5)

Other jurors expressed that such circumstances can be avoided, and the process’s integrity preserved by making sure that there is adequate documentation, community supervision, and transparent decision-making procedures.

“Engaging the community, and the youths in the community would help it go a long way to give them that sense of belonging, and they would even go ahead to secure the property. I believe that engaging every member of the community would help in sorting out settlements. Then engaging the youth, especially, would help in securing equipment and ensuring a smooth-running operation, and watching over the energy resource.” (Juror 12)

Connected to this theme were ideas from jurors on how accessibility and legislation challenges could be avoided to ensure that

“Providing a means for openly sharing data on environmental impact, stakeholders’ roles, cost-effectiveness, and long-term sustainability in the community can make informed decisions with residents feeling confident in the transition to cleaner energy.” (Juror 15)

Finally, the suggestions for the general concerns can be adopted for future project considerations in the community. Several subthemes emanated from this theme. They include the effectiveness of the process, inclusivity, participation, and the value of opinions.

Table 6. Key statement agreements. (part 1).

Code	Key Statement	Assessment Method	% Strong Agreement	Statements
X1	The jury process significantly increased my knowledge of how geothermal works.	Post-jury statement	100%	Strong approval and positive experience
X2	The discussions during the jury process helped deepen my understanding of geothermal energy.	Pre- and post-jury statement	100%	Strong approval and positive experience
X3	I feel confident in my understanding of geothermal energy’s risks and benefits.	Pre- and post-jury statement	100%	Strong approval and positive experience
X4	I feel well-informed about the costs and benefits of adopting geothermal energy.	Pre- and post-jury statement	100%	Strong approval and positive experience
X5	I am supportive of geothermal energy after participating in the jury process.	Pre- and post-jury statement	100%	Strong approval and positive experience
X6	I am likely to support geothermal energy projects in my community.	Pre- and post-jury statement	100%	Strong approval and positive experience
X7	My trust in geothermal energy as a safe and reliable technology has increased.	Pre- and post-jury statement	100%	Strong approval and positive experience
X8	I trust the safety and reliability of geothermal energy as a technology.	Pre- and post-jury statement	90%	Moderate to high agreement, showing that few participants were hesitant about the safety and reliability of geothermal energy.
X9	Geothermal energy can significantly contribute to solving climate change.	Pre- and post-jury statement	70%	A total of 30% of the participants were neutral or disagreed that geothermal energy can contribute to climate change before the start of the jury process.
X10	I am concerned about the potential negative environmental impacts of geothermal energy.	Pre- and post-jury statement	45%	More than half were neutral or expressed concern about the environmental impacts.
X11	I believe geothermal energy is socially acceptable for my community.	Pre- and post-jury statement	100%	Strong approval and positive experience
X12	I feel confident that my community would support geothermal energy if given accurate information and active involvement.	Pre- and post-jury statement	100%	Strong approval and positive experience
X13	I felt that my opinions and ideas were valued during group discussions.	Pre- and post-jury statement	100%	Strong approval and positive experience
X14	The jury process effectively addressed my initial concerns and questions about geothermal energy.	Pre- and post-jury statement	95%	Moderate to high agreement, showing that few participants were hesitant about the environmental impact.
X15	The jury sessions were inclusive and encouraged participation.	Pre- and post-jury statement	100%	Strong approval and positive experience
X16	The jury sessions encouraged open and meaningful dialogue between participants.	Pre- and post-jury statement	100%	Strong approval and positive experience

¹**% Strong Agreement** = (Agree + Strongly Agree + Extremely Agree) ÷ 20 × 100.

shows the key statements of the discussions used in the jury process.

4.1.5. Knowledge and Awareness

There was agreement that the citizen jury method is an efficient method needed to enhance the knowledge and awareness of geothermal energy in the community. The jurors revealed that the citizen jury is better suited for wider engagement, enabling a large audience to gain the needed knowledge for the public acceptance of geothermal energy technologies, regardless of their educational backgrounds. The jurors revealed that some of the perceived negative attitudes towards energy providers could be attributed to limited awareness and engagement, misinformation and misunderstanding, challenges in information dissemination, and resistance to change to new ideas. Thus, broader knowledge and awareness programmes should be the key focus for future jury sessions to achieve wider geothermal acceptance. One of the jurors stated that

“There is a need for greater awareness and public involvement in decision-making processes. Many people may not fully understand the importance of their participation in projects, leading to low engagement.” (Juror 11)

For some, the challenges in the pattern of conveying information in the community were one of the reasons for such a low level of knowledge and awareness. One juror suggested that

“Proper communication channels are necessary to ensure widespread understanding.” (Juror 4)

Additionally, discussions centred on resistance to change and new ideas. The jurors reemphasized the importance of flexibility regardless of any prior knowledge of any energy resource.

“I believe that in the community, everyone is from a family, so we can share information from one family to the other, as we are getting this knowledge, it will be fair for us to start talking about it, you start talking to people, maybe your friends.” (Juror 7)

They reflected the importance of giving geothermal energy the needed attention and letting the public decide on the acceptance of the energy source. To address this, the jurors stated that geothermal energy could gain the needed attention by

“Using different communication means like flyers, posters, banners, village town criers, peer-peer discussions, local newspapers, social media, local television stations, and radio to raise the education and awareness of geothermal energy.” (Juror 5)

4.1.6. Motivational Factors for Adoption

The jurors have highlighted and discussed some of the key factors that could expedite the public’s acceptance of geothermal energy in the community. Effective communication was pivotal: the more the communication, the smoother the jury process. A juror noted that

“Making sure that information is readily available to all parties involved is essential to effective communication.” (Juror 5)

Residents should always be kept informed and be allowed to use several communication channels, including emails, group chats, and direct messaging. This helps to avoid misunderstandings and guarantees that everyone has access to the materials they need. Also, during the deliberations, some jurors noted that they were looking forward to the period when the government would allow them to decide the fate of future projects in the community, to avoid future rejections. They noted that:

“When people feel ownership over a project, they are more likely to support and adopt it. The ability to make decisions and control project development fosters a sense of responsibility and long-term commitment. This is especially important in sustainable energy projects, where community buy-in ensures successful implementation” (Juror 4)

Positive reinforcement promotes active participation and serves to stimulate engagement. Acknowledging contributions creates a culture where individuals feel appreciated and are more inclined to participate successfully in conversations and decision-making. Others noted that there is a need for open and inclusive dialogue evident in

“Creating a space where everyone feels comfortable expressing themselves promotes transparency and inclusivity. Encouraging an open-door policy allows people to share concerns, ideas, and feedback without fear of being dismissed.” (Juror 6).

Also, another juror noted that

“Explaining the process to the community in their dialect to increase the awareness and knowledge level should be considered.”

The clarity of the energy source could also ensure a positive drive:

“Roles and responsibilities should be clearly defined to avoid misunderstandings. People are better able to communicate and make significant contributions to decision-making when they are aware of their responsibilities and the project’s expectations.” (Juror 10)

Finally, future projects can encourage broader public participation in dialogues through clear and inclusive communication means to increase awareness of the energy resource.

4.2. Survey Results

4.2.1. Awareness of Renewable Energy Sources

Before providing the basics and benefits of geothermal energy technologies, the jurors were asked about their knowledge of geothermal energy before the post-jury survey period. Three options were presented, from “Limited (I know very little about renewable energy)” to “Advanced (I have a good understanding of professional experience with renewable energy).” As shown in

Table 7. Awareness of renewable energy by age groups.

Age Groups (yrs)	Pre-Jury (Counts) (Limited/Intermediate/Advanced)	Post-Jury (Counts) (Limited/Intermediate/Advanced)
18–30	8/0/0	2/4/2
31–45	0/9/0	0/4/5
46–60	0/0/3	0/1/2

, 40% of the participants had limited knowledge of the concept. The rest of the participants were aware of renewable energy, but only a small fraction of the participants (15%) stated that they had advanced knowledge about renewable energy.

Exploring the familiarity across age groups in Table 7, 38% of the participants (18–30 years old) had little knowledge of geothermal energy. The highest degree of awareness was found in the age group 31–45 years old, who had intermediate knowledge of renewable energy. While the age group 46–60 years old had advanced knowledge, which could be attributed to being more exposed in society.

The views of the jurors about the adoption of geothermal energy technologies are shown in Figure 7. The options for answering ranged from “Neutral/No opinion to “Strongly Supportive”. Although the views of participants varied, more than half of the participants strongly supported the adoption of geothermal energy in the community.

4.2.2. Trust

To assess jurors’ relative trust in geothermal energy technologies, they were asked to rate their agreement with statements regarding safety, reliability, accountability, and government management.

As presented in Figure 8, 45% of the jurors extremely agreed that they trust the safety and reliability of geothermal energy technology after the deliberation process compared to 10% before the deliberation process.

This study is in line with Segreto, Principe [48], who showed that trust in the government is needed for a transparent process and the need to improve the level of trust between the developer and the community, thereby increasing social acceptance. The study further stated that distrust in a community has been shown to develop because of a lack of knowledge about the potential of renewable energy. The current citizen jury study has been able to show that trust is a key player in the level of social acceptance in the community. While the jurors shared mixed views, some were more concerned about the role of government, prompting the jurors to suggest the need for transparent and firsthand information during the expert discussion.

4.2.3. Perceived Risks

Participants were asked whether geothermal energy had negative effects on the environment. The perceived impact is presented in Figure 9. Few participants perceived negative impacts. Addressing initial concerns were shared before and after the jury process particularly in “The jury process effectively addressed my initial concerns and questions about geothermal energy”; “The jury sessions encouraged open and meaningful dialogue between participants”; “The jury discussions helped deepen my understanding of geothermal energy”; “I felt that my opinion and ideas were valued during the group discussions”. As presented in Figure 9, 45% of the jurors extremely agreed that the jury process effectively addressed their initial concerns about geothermal energy technology after the deliberation process compared to 10% before the deliberation process.

4.2.4. Knowledge About Geothermal Energy

When participants were asked about their perception of geothermal energy and how it works at the end of the jury process, most of them stated that the process had increased their knowledge, as shown in Figure 10.

Korucan, Derin-Gure [49] showed that there is the opportunity to increase knowledge of geothermal, which is in line with our study. The qualitative evidence from the jury process showed that the jurors were able to learn a lot from the expert discussions, while the quantitative evidence in Figure 10 showed that 85% of the jurors agreed that their knowledge about geothermal energy increased.

4.2.5. Community Engagement and Acceptance of Geothermal Energy

The participants were asked if they believe geothermal energy will be adopted in their community if presented with the right information. Their thoughts in response to the question are presented in

Table 8. Community’s perception of geothermal energy.

		Pre-Jury n (%)			Post-Jury n (%)
Sentence	Agree	Strongly Agree	Extremely Agree	Agree	Strongly Agree	Extremely Agree
I believe geothermal energy is socially acceptable for my community.	7 (35%)	9 (45%)	4 (20%)	3 (15%)	6 (30%)	11 (55%)
The discussions during the jury process helped deepen my understanding of geothermal energy.	7 (35%)	3 (15%)	2 (10%)	6 (30%)	4 (20%)	10 (50%)
I feel well-informed about the costs and benefits of adopting geothermal energy.	7 (35%)	6 (30%)	1 (5%)	8 (40%)	6 (30%)	6 (30%)
I feel confident that my community would support geothermal energy if given accurate information and active involvement.	5 (25%)	4 (20%)	11 (55%)	2 (10%)	9 (45%)	9 (45%)

. The extreme agreement that geothermal energy is socially acceptable for the community increased from 20% to 55% indicating that the process significantly influenced perceptions. The understanding deepened the post-jury stage, moving from 10% to 50%, and the costs and benefits moving from 5% to 30% extremely agreed. In terms of support rose from a total of 75% for both strongly and extremely agreed to 90% in the post-jury session with each statement showing a high level of satisfaction with the jury experience.

Karytsas and Polyzou [50] showed that stakeholders and the local community should be able to design developmental projects in the community, which is in line with this study.

4.2.6. Public Decision-Making on Geothermal Energy

Participants indicated that they had not previously been involved in any decision-making process related to an energy project to date. Lack of community involvement could cause rejection and trust regarding the information given by the stakeholders or energy providers.

Table 9. Public decision-making.

		Pre-Jury n (%)			Post-Jury n (%)
Sentence	Agree	Strongly Agree	Extremely Agree	Agree	Strongly Agree	Extremely Agree
I felt that my opinions and ideas were valued during the group discussions.	7 (35%)	3 (15%)	10 (50%)	3 (15%)	5 (25%)	12 (60%)
The jury sessions were inclusive and encouraged participation.	7 (35%)	7 (35%)	6 (30%)	3 (15%)	6 (30%)	11 (55%)
The jury sessions encouraged open and meaningful dialogue between participants.	4 (20%)	8 (40%)	8 (40%)	2 (10%)	5 (25%)	13 (65%)

shows the outcome of participants’ involvement in geothermal energy studies. At the end of the jury session, 60% of the jurors revealed that they felt their opinions and ideas were valued during the jury discussion. The participants felt their initial concerns were duly addressed but called for a more open societal dialogue between the wider community in the future. The jurors also believed that the jury session was inclusive and encouraged participation, moving from 65% to 85% of the total of the jurors that selected “strongly agreed” to “extremely agreed”, while the jurors that chose extremely agreed increased from 40% in pre-jury to 65% in the post-jury session. Each statement shows a high level of satisfaction with the jury experience.

4.2.7. Motivational Factors for the Adoption of Geothermal Energy Technologies

When the jurors were asked if they were likely to support the establishment of geothermal energy, as shown in

Table 10. Support for geothermal energy.

		Pre-Jury n (%)			Post-Jury n (%)
Sentence	Agree	Strongly Agree	Extremely Agree	Agree	Strongly Agree	Extremely Agree
I am supportive of geothermal energy after participating in the jury process.	5 (25%)	7 (35%)	8 (40%)	2 (10%)	5 (25%)	13 (65%)
I am likely to support geothermal energy projects in my community.	3 (15%)	6 (30%)	11 (55%)	1 (5%)	4 (20%)	15 (75%)

, over 50% of the participants revealed they were.

Hildebrand, Jahns [43] explored local acceptance levels and revealed knowledge of locals about the nature of the factors connected to geothermal energy projects that are needed to fully support geothermal energy in the community. The deliberative processes in this study had a significant impact on participants’ level of support, and jurors identified factors including job creation and electricity access as the key benefits prompting the clamour for geothermal energy during the expert discussion.

4.2.8. Barriers and Concerns

Before the commencement of the jury sessions, the participants had feared the impact of geothermal energy in terms of it having negative environmental, economic development, and social impacts. When asked if geothermal energy technologies had the potential to cause a negative environmental impact, 9% extremely agreed that they were concerned about the environment.

Table 11. Barriers and concerns.

	Geothermal energy can significantly contribute to solving climate change.		I am concerned about the potential negative environmental impacts of geothermal energy.
Response Level	Pre-Jury n (%)	Post-Jury n (%)	Pre-Jury n (%)	Post-Jury n (%)
Disagree	2 (9%)	0 (%)	3 (14%)	0 (0%)
Somewhat disagree	0 (%)	0 (%)	1 (5%)	1 (5%)
Neutral	3 (14%)	1 (5%)	4 (18%)	2 (10%)
Slightly agree	1 (5%)	1 (5%)	2 (9%)	1 (5%)
Somewhat agree	0 (%)	1 (5%)	1 (5%)	2 (10%)
Agree	9 (41%)	7 (35%)	8 (36%)	6 (30%)
Strongly agree	6 (27%)	7 (35%)	1 (5%)	5 (25%)
Extremely agree	1 (5%)	3 (15%)	2 (9%)	3 (15%)

shows the levels of concern pre- and post- the jury process.

4.3. Discussion

The study discusses the potential of the citizen jury and survey methods in aiding public acceptance of geothermal energy technologies in enhancing public awareness and knowledge levels.

4.3.1. The Role of Deliberation and Survey in Public Awareness and Knowledge Level, Reflection, and Exploring Different Ideas Regarding Different Values

While many of the existing studies in the literature emphasise the importance of public participation and the social acceptance of renewable energy which is related to our study, many studies tend to generalise their findings based on diverse contexts without fully exploring the socio-cultural and economic factors within the local context. Our study addresses this gap by applying a deliberative approach specifically within the Eka Awoke community in Nigeria.

Unlike prior studies that focused on European or developed country settings [1], our study highlights barriers important for a development context in terms of limited public awareness, distrust in governance, and issues associated with fossil fuel projects. The differences are critical, as they demonstrate that strategies that are effective in one setting may not translate to others. Inasmuch, Ref. [12] emphasised the role of transparent communication in Europe and America, this study underscores that trust building must be accompanied by cultural strategic engagement and capacity building in Nigeria.

The findings obtained support the observation that strategic discussions can contribute meaningfully to public understanding and informed opinions. The jurors came to learn about a new energy resource and the potential benefits associated with it in electrification and job creation, despite the early doubts of some jurors about the prospects of geothermal energy. This study provided innovative ideas to promote the level of knowledge and understanding of geothermal energy technologies more effectively and fairly. Furthermore, our results supported the call for integrating participatory methods that are sensitive to local context and emphasised the importance of knowledge and awareness between communities and energy providers.

The findings are consistent with prior studies showing how the citizen jury process may enhance the level of awareness of geothermal energy [13,51,52]. In this context, the jurors demonstrated growing support for efforts aimed at reducing the use of fossil fuels and adopting a more reliable energy source, and over 80% of the jurors had a positive view of geothermal energy for providing clean energy. Furthermore, the results obtained from the surveys show the transformation in jurors’ positions regarding future energy generation. The questions were used to appraise the juror’s basic knowledge, which increased during the deliberation process. This observation supports prior studies that emphasise the capacity of deliberative processes to increase knowledge levels and awareness [53,54].

The analysis revealed several key themes in shaping jurors’ perspectives and understanding. Some jurors brought up environmental concerns for future generations, and these issues were inherently acknowledged in their acceptance of the necessity for electricity generation and in combating climate change. However, this concern received limited attention during the jury discussion. Rather, the considerations of public acceptability centred mainly around the benefits of the community in increasing their electricity access, employment, and future development. The heightened attention to the adoption of geothermal energy technologies as the main means of electricity generation in the community, together with the increased awareness of the importance of reducing carbon emissions in the region, played a huge role in reaching the collective conclusion that the answer is the electrification of the community. Jurors concluded that an effective means is needed to improve awareness of geothermal energy technologies in the community. The jurors suggested using communication means like local broadcasting stations, local newspapers, fliers, social media, and village town criers, sharing first-hand information through traditional leaders, village chiefs, women leaders, youth leaders, and religious centres. These recommendations suggest that trusted channels are essential for public engagement and for future geothermal energy initiatives [38,55]. Hence, integrating citizen deliberations with survey-based knowledge shows how participatory methods can support social acceptance by increasing awareness and fostering informed judgement based on what the jurors learned, how their values shifted, and how geothermal energy technologies can be positioned as a socially acceptable solution to local energy challenges. However, it is imperative to critically reflect on our study’s limitations. While the citizen jury approach offers depth, the study was limited to one community and a relatively small group of participants with other deliberative studies applied across multiple regions. Future research would benefit from multiple regions and an understanding of how varying governance structures influence outcomes.

4.3.2. Knowledge Acquired from the Design of the Citizen Jury

The knowledge acquired is summarised in

Table 12. Key learning points.

	Key Learning Points
Respectful dialogue	Jurors were calm with a constructive tone and respectfully contrasting past negative experiences evident in public forums. The discussions on the benefits and risks of geothermal energy concepts were debated without any form of hostility towards each other.
Facilitator	Ensured the jury process was open, inclusive, and productive. The facilitator encouraged discussions of various breakout sessions and was calm and balanced in participation.
Meta consensus achieved	Agreement on key ideas—Geothermal energy is beneficial; knowledge awareness is needed to increase acceptance of geothermal energy technologies. The jurors generally agreed during the discussion on knowledge and awareness of geothermal energy concepts that the right media is needed to enhance geothermal acceptance.
Plenary sessions	Alternating between the smaller and wider groups ensured enhanced engagements. The groups allowed detailed discussions while plenaries helped refine the key takeaways.
Ideas and Opinions	Jurors wrote their recommendations ensuring their ideas and opinions were valued and respected. The jury sessions allowed the majority of the jurors to contribute even if they were less vocal in discussions.
Expert time	Expert presentations and Q&A sessions were commonly cited as shortcomings. The jurors expressed interest in longer sessions, though practical limits such as volunteer availability and dropout risks must be considered. Jurors agreed that direct engagement with experts could offer deeper insights based on expert availability.
In-person expert sessions	The in-person expert discussion might be more engaging than the online sessions. Direct engagement with the experts would foster deeper connections and enhance understanding as well.
Juror selection	Jurors could be allowed to identify potential experts, though time constraints might be challenging, making it difficult in practice. This process might help the jurors balance feasibility and inclusivity.

.

4.3.3. Trust, Knowledge, and Experience

Positive experiences can build community trust not only in geothermal energy technologies but also with the energy providers or stakeholders thereby creating a virtuous circle. To improve acceptance, strategies to leverage these factors collectively rather than in isolation are imperative. Educational campaigns should be delivered by institutions, community leaders, and religious leaders to maximise impact. Additionally, facilitating community engagement and sharing real experiences from local drilling projects can help bridge the gaps between theoretical knowledge and experience. The need for transparency and open dialogue will foster openness to learning.

4.4. Theoretical Contributions

The study has made several contributions on approaches to researching the public acceptance of geothermal energy [13,43,50,56].

The findings of this study indicate that jurors made use of the expert witnesses’ knowledge and understanding of geothermal energy and came to the conclusion that the benefits exceed the risks involved. Prior research into social acceptability of geothermal energy has lacked evidence-based strategic and deliberative initiatives. This study was able to enhance the existing debate on the active participation of residents in decision-making to increase the depth of knowledge and awareness of the community’s acceptance of geothermal energy. Further studies need to consider engaging multiple communities in further developments of the community acceptance of geothermal energy.

Secondly, disparities in knowledge and awareness were also found among the jury groups that were informed by the evidence while assessing the benefits as well as risks of using geothermal energy. Most jurors, for instance, believed that the risks of poor communication and education might exceed the advantages. These results align with prior research examining the social acceptance of geothermal energy across various age groups [12,57,58]. As a result, the research underscores the need for more studies to explore and develop evidence-based messaging for a wider demographic across different communities.

Finally, citizen jury discussions revealed a relationship between jurors’ understanding and perceived awareness and trust in stakeholders’ willingness to communicate effectively. The issue of distrust by some jurors on the roles of government and stakeholders was discussed during the expert witness presentation and highlighted the importance of effective communication and active involvement of residents in decision-making to build trust established between geothermal energy providers and the public [38,59]. They also highlighted the importance of future prospective collaborations between the public, researchers, and the renewable energy industries to be more transparent and, more importantly, to include research-driven approaches, if they are to reflect the public interests and priorities.

4.5. Practical Implications

This study demonstrated how evidence-based discussions from the citizen jury method can be used to shape the public’s thoughts and help lead to better-informed decisions. It is also noteworthy that the jurors themselves recommended the need for proper communication channels to ensure a widespread understanding of geothermal and for it to be community-driven rather than externally imposed.

Additionally, the jury process asked jurors to propose potential recommendations regarding the practical issues of the public’s acceptance of geothermal energy technologies. These recommendations are significant for researchers and policymakers for future studies and the governance of the local community. Jurors were very excited amid the expert-led discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of geothermal energy systems. The jurors wanted to have clarity about the emissions, land loss, job opportunities, and information accountability. These findings are in line with the community’s acceptance of geothermal energy technologies [60,61,62,63].

Jurors’ discussion on day 2’s sub-statement: “Allowing the citizens to be involved in decision-making would aid the public’s acceptance of geothermal energy technologies. The benefits of involving citizens in geothermal energy acceptance outweigh the risks of losing land properties,” revealed the social impact perceived by some jurors before the commencement of the citizen jury process. The expert witnesses’ input provided key insights that helped shape jurors understanding and recommendations. The study supported (a) early involvement, (b) transparency, (c) cultural and social values, (d) educational initiatives, (e) trust and credibility in the institution, (f) media influence, (g) participatory processes, (h) societal dialogue, and (i) policy framework.

4.6. Study Limitations and Directions for Future Research

It should be noted that the key results of this study are tied to the specific context of Eka Awoke, since participants were all from Eka Awoke, and the discussions were framed around issues relevant to geothermal energy acceptance within its geographic, cultural, and socio-economic setting. Care must be taken if transferring the results of the citizen jury and survey to other communities in the region both within Nigeria and more broadly. Replicating the study with a wider community could help assess the robustness of this study’s findings and their generalizability. The nature of this study was intentional, enabling a detailed exploration of local perspectives and co-produced recommendations. This does not generalise the findings but reinforces the importance of a region in shaping social acceptance and community engagement with energy technologies. We did not aim to compare different communities but doing so in future work could help assess the robustness and transferability of the insights across different regions. Future studies are required to understand if a face-to-face method would be better than an online method, even though the online jury process ran smoothly.

Furthermore, future research will gain from conducting a sentiment analysis across the key themes. This could add numerical assessment of the jurors’ awareness and knowledge levels regarding the community’s acceptance of geothermal energy technologies. A broader and more diverse participant pool could be used to examine whether similar deliberative approaches yield consistent outcomes elsewhere.

4.7. Summary of Future Proposed Actions

The main goal of this study was to collaborate with a variety of citizen jury participants to gain insight into the intricacies of the community’s acceptance of geothermal energy and to provide timely recommendations and practical implications for improving the current state of affairs based on the evidence presented during the jury process.

The resulting recommendations are as follows:

• The need for open dialogue to foster a sense of belonging to enhance public participation in community-led projects.
• The implementation of future project processes should be transparent and community-driven, guaranteeing that the people, not outside political leaders, have the last say in decisions.
• There is a need for effective communication to enhance trust, the level of awareness, and public involvement in decision-making processes. There is a need for partnership with local community leaders to disseminate information and facilitate participation to enhance social acceptance of geothermal energy in the community.

5. Conclusions

○

The study explored how a citizen jury and survey could be used to enhance the awareness and knowledge level of geothermal energy.

○

The findings obtained showed that over 80% of the jurors had a positive perception of geothermal energy after the jury session compared to the initial uncertainty among the jurors.

○

The deliberative process helped the jurors to understand the benefits of clean electricity and job creation together with issues such as environmental concerns and government distrust.

○

The findings also showed that the citizen jury helped shift jurors’ values while the surveyed results revealed an increase in awareness and knowledge level of geothermal energy.

○

The jurors emphasised the importance of using trusted communication channels such as local broadcasting, newspapers, fliers, social media, traditional leaders, and women’s wings.

○

Future studies could have a wider geographic scope, testing the robustness of our study.