Environmental and Social Dimensions of Energy Transformation Using Geothermal Energy

Abstract

The use of geothermal energy is gaining strategic importance in the context of sustainable development and the decarbonisation of local energy systems. As a stable and low-emission renewable energy source, geothermal energy offers tangible environmental and social benefits, including improved air quality, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and enhanced energy independence. This article presents a comprehensive overview of the social dimensions of geothermal energy deployment in Poland, with a particular focus on environmental impacts, public acceptance, and participatory governance. Based on a Polish geothermal district heating system example, the paper demonstrates that geothermal projects can significantly reduce local pollution and support low-carbon economic transitions. The study includes a comparative assessment of avoided emissions, a critical discussion of potential social barriers, and SWOT and PESTEL analyses identifying systemic enablers and constraints. The authors argue that for geothermal energy to fulfil its sustainability potential, it must be supported by inclusive planning, transparent communication, and a holistic policy framework integrating environmental, technological, and social criteria.

1. Introduction

In the context of global efforts towards sustainable development, an increasing emphasis is being placed on minimising the negative impact of energy processes on the natural environment. Geothermal energy, as a renewable, ecological, and energy-stable energy source, appears to be a natural response to this need [1]. Geothermal sources are essential in transforming towards a low-emission economy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Still, it is necessary to holistically consider their life cycle in environmental analyses. Human activities related to energy development—whether based on fossil fuels, unconventional resources, or renewables—inevitably exert pressure on the environment, including carbon emissions, subsurface disturbances, and geotechnical risks associated with reservoir engineering [2,3]. This article discusses the social aspects of geothermal development and its impact on society from the perspective of environmental protection and sustainable development principles. The presented content is based on the results of the latest research. It includes the following: a description of geothermal energy as an energy source in the environmental context; a review of life cycle assessment (LCA); water footprint methods, social benefits, and challenges related to the development of geothermal energy; the impact of geothermal energy on the local environment (primarily of pollutant emissions into the air); the importance of geothermal energy for local communities and decision-making processes; SWOT and PESTEL analyses; and recommendations for decision-makers, investors, and local communities.

So far, a review of scientific publications investigating environmental, economic, and social issues has been conducted by Soltani et al. (2021) [4]; studies more focused on the social aspect have been published by Meller et al. (2018) [5], Yasukawa et al. (2018) [6], Spijkerboer et al. (2022) [7], and, most recently, by Mosallanezhad and Rahimpour (2024) [8]. Specific case studies for social aspects have been considered by Pellizzone et al. (2017) [9] and Manzella et al. (2018) [10] for Italy, Ediger et al. (2018) [11] for Turkey, Ratio et al. (2020) [12] for the Philippines, Vargas-Payera et al. (2020) [13] for Chile, and Abdi et al. (2024) for Kenya [14].

1.1. Objective Assessment of Geothermal Energy Utilisation

In all of the publications mentioned above [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14], the message is clear: geothermal energy is considered to be environmentally friendly. The results show that most existing geothermal applications report relatively limited values of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as negligible impacts on the local areas where they are located. However, in rare cases, it appears that, especially depending on geothermal fluid properties, specific impacts arise, requiring tailored mitigation measures to avoid risks to the environment and human health [15]. During the exploitation and energy use of geothermal resources, there is no combustion of fossil fuels; therefore, pollutant emissions are negligible. Compared to traditional energy technologies, gas emissions (such as CO₂, CH₄ or H₂S) from geothermal installations are lower [1]. Geothermal energy, therefore, plays a vital role in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions and achieving climate goals. The International Energy Agency [16] predicts that renewable energy sources (including geothermal) will play an increasingly important role in the energy mix. Still, their investments must be assessed in a broad environmental context, not limited to emissions generated during the operation phase. Similar conclusions were formulated by Parisi et al. (2019) [17], who indicated that after nearly a decade of limited growth in Europe’s deep geothermal sector, recent years have seen a resurgence of interest in geothermal power, driven by innovative technologies that enhance generation. However, this development must be accompanied by a broadly understood social aspect resulting directly from implementing the sustainable development goals.

It should be remembered that every energy technology—even one as clean as geothermal energy—is associated with specific environmental burdens (Sakellariou, 2018) [18]. The use of geothermal energy may carry specific ecological threats, although they differ from those of conventional power plants and heating plants [4,15]. For example, geothermal energy uses much less water than coal-fired or nuclear power plants, but the potential impact on water resources depends on the adopted system and local conditions. In open systems (when thermal water is not completely reinjected after use), there is a risk of lowering the level of aquifer or the contamination of water in deficit regions, while closed systems with the full recirculation of the working fluid minimise this problem [1]. In addition, gases occurring in some geothermal deposits (e.g., carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulphide) are usually released only locally in the area of geothermal plants and in much smaller quantities than in fossil fuel installations [1]. Despite the low emission profile of geothermal systems, ongoing environmental monitoring remains essential. This includes the regular assessment of water quality, the detection of potential gas emissions (e.g., CO₂, H₂S), and the observation of microseismic activity, all of which enable the rapid identification and mitigation of operational risks. The likelihood and severity of such impacts can be significantly reduced through proper system design, mainly by implementing closed-loop configurations in which the cooled geothermal fluid is reinjected into the reservoir. Such an approach not only helps maintain reservoir pressure but also prevents fluid loss and minimises environmental disturbance. As a result, geothermal energy stands out as one of the safest and most environmentally benign renewable energy sources. It is important to emphasise that the environmental impacts of geothermal installations are primarily regional in scale, rather than global. This stems from the intrinsic nature of most renewable energy sources, including geothermal, which are typically deployed as distributed systems. Such decentralised configurations contribute to local energy independence—both in electricity generation and thermal applications—while keeping environmental externalities confined to the immediate vicinity of the installation [19,20].

1.2. Life Cycle Assessment

Life cycle assessment (LCA) comes in handy when considering the impact of technology on the natural environment. It is a methodology for analysing a product’s or process’s effects on the environment throughout its life cycle—from raw material extraction, construction, and use through to decommissioning. This allows for a holistic assessment of the impact of geothermal energy on the environment, society, and economy [21]. The foundations of LCA are defined in ISO 14040 [22] and ISO 14044 [23]. LCA identifies and quantifies all relevant inputs (e.g., materials, energy) and outputs (emissions, waste) associated with a given system and then assigns them to appropriate impact categories (e.g., climate change, acidification, eutrophication) to assess the cumulative impact on the natural environment. The application of this methodology in geothermal energy means that the entire life cycle of the project must be taken into account—from the exploitation of geothermal resources, through the construction of infrastructure (drilling, pipelines, exchange installations, power plants/heating plants), the operational phase (heat or electricity production), to the remediation of the area after the end of use. Such a comprehensive approach allows for assessing the sustainability of geothermal energy not only in terms of emissions during the installation operation but also the impact of the construction (e.g., energy and material consumption for drilling) or decommissioning of the facility (the utilisation of waste materials). LCA also allows for the comparison of geothermal energy with other energy sources—both conventional (coal, gas) and renewable (e.g., biomass, photovoltaics)—in the same categories, which allows for an objective assessment of the relative benefits and limitations of each technology [1]. The definition of LCA guidelines in the geothermal sector to enhance the results’ comparability has been published, among others, as the results of the GEOENVI project by Parisi et al. (2020) [24,25].

An integral part of a complete LCA for geothermal energy is the assessment of the water footprint. The water footprint is a direct and indirect indicator of water consumption by a given system. The methodology for its calculation is specified in the ISO 14046 standard [26]. In the case of geothermal projects, it is essential to take into account water consumption at various stages: significant amounts of water are needed at the drilling stage (drilling fluids used to cool and carry out cuttings) and, depending on the technology, also in the operation phase—e.g., in classic ORC (Organic Rankine Cycle) geothermal power plants, water is sometimes used for cooling purposes. The amount of water used in the life cycle, therefore, depends on the specificity of the system and the hydrogeological conditions of the deposit—in some regions (with a high geothermal reservoir temperature) it may be minimal, while in others (e.g., where only low-temperature cooling is required) it may be significantly larger. Post-use geothermal water management is a key issue: cooled geothermal brines contain dissolved salts and minerals that must be safely managed. The standard of good practice is to inject them back into the reservoir, which maintains the reservoir pressure and reduces water and heat losses. Reinjection also helps prevent adverse environmental effects, although it does not eliminate them. There is always a risk of contaminants migrating to groundwater or surface water in the event of a leak in the system [1]. Therefore, a complete geothermal life cycle assessment should also include the water footprint at all stages and seek ways to optimise water management to minimise regional environmental burdens.

Pratiwi et al. (2018) [27] thoroughly assessed lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in five scenarios involving heat, power, and cogeneration plants, utilising real project data and adhering to the LCA methodology. Gkousis et al. (2022a) [28] and Kaczmarczyk et al. (2024) [1] also presented a synthetic assessment of the impact of geothermal energy use on the natural environment in the context of LCA.

To be more precise, electricity production within the context of LCA and geothermal energy was discussed by Hanbury and Vasquez (2017) [29] and Martinez-Corona et al. (2017) [30], who emphasise the importance of assessing the ecological impacts of electricity generation for shaping a low-carbon future. Electricity production in the context of environmental impacts was also studied by Buonocore et al. (2015) [31], Heberle et al. (2016) [32], Tomasini-Montenegro et al. (2017) [33], Wang et al. (2020) [34], Gurbuz et al. (2022) [35], Gonzalez-Garcia et al. (2022) [36], Kjeld et al. (2022) [37], Paulillo et al. (2022a, 2022b) [38,39], Li et al. (2023) [40], and Mainar-Toledo et al. (2023) [41]. In the context of heating, this topic was discussed by, among others, Chiavetta et al. (2011) [42], Nitkiewicz and Sekret (2014) [43], Bartolozzi et al. (2017) [44], Karlsdottir et al. (2020) [45], and Gkousis et al. (2022b, 2022c) [46,47].

It is worth noting that the impact on the natural environment is a permanent element of innovative research. For example, the environmental effects of enhanced geothermal systems (EGSs) have yet to be extensively studied in academic research; however, Sigurjonsson et al. (2021) [48], Cook et al. (2022) [49], and Strojny et al. (2024) [50] have already written about this. In a study conducted by Ansarinasab et al. (2021) [51], a novel multigeneration system was investigated to utilise geothermal energy for electricity or heat and water purification. The integrated system, consisting of a Kalina cycle, Stirling engine, magnetic refrigeration system, and desalination unit, was simulated and evaluated.

In summary, the application of life cycle assessment (LCA) in the geothermal sector is still not widespread. Each analysis requires an interdisciplinary approach and consideration of specific local conditions, making it difficult to transfer results between regions directly. Nevertheless, the growing awareness that environmental protection goes beyond reducing CO₂ emissions fosters an increase in interest in comprehensive assessment methods [1,24,25]. LCA and water footprint analysis enable the identification of the stages with the most significant environmental impacts and the indication of areas requiring optimisation, which is crucial for further improving the sustainability of geothermal energy. Importantly, they also provide socially relevant data—they allow residents, decision-makers, and investors to make more informed decisions based on credible and measurable environmental effects, strengthening social acceptance and a sense of shared responsibility for local energy investments.

In the following sections, the life cycle assessment (LCA) framework serves not only as a foundational tool for evaluating the environmental performance of geothermal systems, but also as a comparative reference point for assessing broader impacts—such as avoided emissions, air quality improvement, and public health benefits. By juxtaposing LCA-based insights with emission modelling and social analyses (e.g., SWOT and PESTEL), this study aims to provide an integrated perspective on how geothermal energy contributes to sustainable development at the local and regional levels.

2. The Impact of Geothermal Energy on Social Issues

The most direct positive effect of using geothermal energy is improving air quality at the local level, resulting from replacing fuel combustion (e.g., coal or biomass in residential buildings) with clean geothermal heat. Air pollution significantly affects the health of the human population, especially in urban areas. It is one of the greatest environmental threats to human health on a global scale [52,53,54,55,56,57] At the same time, urbanised areas have the potential to implement centralised heating systems based on the use of geothermal resources, which results directly from the existence of the heat recipient market. It should also be emphasised that there is a strong correlation between air quality and the energy resources used in the processes of heat production for central heating and the preparation of domestic hot water. A key issue for many economies worldwide is increasing energy efficiency and reducing emissions [58,59,60]. Expanding the use of decentralised renewable energy sources, especially at the local level, is an essential factor in improving air quality [61,62,63].

In many European cities and towns, low emissions from domestic boilers contribute to smog, negatively affecting residents’ health. Replacing these heat sources with zero-emission geothermal heating plants leads to a significant decrease in the concentration of harmful substances in the air, such as PM_2.5, PM₁₀, SO₂, NO_x, or CO. Thus, the development of geothermal energy results in measurable health benefits (e.g., a reduction in respiratory and circulatory diseases) and economic advantages (including lower healthcare expenditures and decreased absenteeism).

Another crucial social advantage of geothermal energy is increased energy security and local independence. Local communities can become independent from external fuel supplies (e.g., gas or coal imports), which makes energy systems more resistant to fluctuations in raw material prices and geopolitical crises. The decentralisation of the energy supply—through the development of local geothermal heating plants or small power plants—increases the self-sufficiency of regions and can stimulate economic growth (e.g., creating jobs in the construction and operation of installations, developing local services). As noted by Bayer et al. (2013) [19], renewable energy sources have the potential to decentralise the energy system and provide benefits to local communities. Geothermal energy fits perfectly into this trend.

Despite the benefits listed above, geothermal energy development also poses social challenges. A key issue is the social acceptance of new investments. Local communities may fear unfamiliar technologies. The lack of reliable information may lead to project resistance, administrative delays, and even protests. That is why educating and informing the public about the real benefits and threats is so important. The results of environmental analyses, such as the LCA above, can serve as a communication tool, showing objective data on the impact of geothermal energy, its advantages, and limitations. As Kaczmarczyk et al. (2024) [1] indicated, shaping social awareness through disseminating LCA results improves public knowledge and increases local communities’ acceptance of geothermal projects. Transparency in the actions of investors and decision-makers (e.g., organising public consultations, making environmental impact reports available) is, therefore, crucial to gaining the support of residents.

Going to a specific example, the use of geothermal energy and water in Poland primarily focuses on heating systems, balneotherapy, and recreation. In 2022, there were seven geothermal systems in operation in Poland, located in Podhale, Mszczonów, Pyrzyce, Uniejów, Stargard, Poddębice, and Toruń. By the end of 2022, these systems’ total installed thermal capacity was about 129 MW, and geothermal heat production reached about 1122 TJ [64]. The share of geothermal energy in Poland’s final energy consumption, in the renewable energy mix, and in the total energy consumption all remain below 1%. However, the sector’s growth, especially in shallow geothermal systems, signals its increasing integration with the Polish energy landscape.

Using geothermal energy for heating and energy purposes directly reduces the emission of pollutants into the atmosphere on a local scale. Replacing traditional heat sources based on combustion (such as coal-fired boilers or domestic furnaces) with geothermal heating plants results in significantly fewer harmful substances being emitted into the air. In the following part, an analysis was made of all operating geothermal heating plants in Poland in terms of the so-called avoided emissions—it was calculated how many pollutants would be emitted if the same amount of heat energy were produced from conventional fuels (coal, gas, heating oil, etc.).

2.1. Methodology

The starting point for the analysis was data on thermal energy production in existing geothermal heating plants in Poland. For this purpose, data collected and published by Kępińska and Hajto (2023) [64] were used. The results were presented in the context of TSP, PM₁₀, and PM_2.5 particulate matter; SO₂ sulphur oxides; NO_x nitrogen oxides; CO carbon monoxide; and CO₂ carbon dioxide. Calculations of ZrSO_x equivalent emissions were also performed, thus formulating a comprehensive conclusion on the impact of geothermal energy use on the natural environment at the local level. The results were compared to hard coal, biomass, natural gas, heating oil, and electric heat pumps.

The latest available data on energy consumption and energy carriers in households in Poland indicate that the share of hard coal in 2021 was 20.1%, second only to district heating (54.5%). The indicator for brown coal was 0.4%, and for coke, it was 0.1%. This information is supplemented by the use of piece wood at the level of 18.9% and other types of biomass at the level of 3%. The structure of energy consumption in households in Poland and the directions of use supplement this information. It shows that energy was used primarily for space heating (65.1%), then for hot water preparation (17%), food preparation (8.5%), and lighting and other electrical devices (9%) [65]. While geothermal energy holds promise as a clean and stable energy source in Poland, its broader deployment must also consider the spatial correlation between geothermal resource zones and areas of concentrated populations or heat demands. This geographic–social alignment is a key factor in determining the practical feasibility and strategic value of geothermal energy in the national energy transition.

It is worth noting that the method of calculating ecological effects has evolved in Poland over the last decade. In 2015, pollutant emission indicators based on the methodology allowing for the assumption of sulphur and dust content in the fuel in the calculations were still in force, significantly differentiating the results [66]. The emission volume was also calculated for emission indicators expressed in g/Mg for solid and liquid fuels, except for liquid propane and propane–butane gases, which were expressed in g/GJ, and natural gas, which was expressed in g/m³. In the methodology, from 2021, the emission was referred to as the unit g/GJ for each fuel group [67].

2.1.1. Emission-Factor-Based Estimation of Pollutant Emissions

The methodology for calculating emissions for individual pollutants was simplified based on the KOBIZE methodology (2023a, 2024) [68,69] for boilers with a capacity not exceeding 5 MW (

Table 1. Average emission factors for various types of fuels in g/GJ or kg/MWh (based on KOBZIE, 2023a; 2024 [68,69]).

	TSP	PM10	PM2.5	B(a)P	SOx	NOx	CO	CO2	Unit
Solid biomass—forest, peat, charcoal	41.77	39.57	38.17	0.00569	24	91	1 411	104 716	[g/GJ]
Solid biomass—agricultural waste, energy crops	64.00	59.00	52.00	0.02000	14	102	519	115 000	[g/GJ]
Solid fuels—hard coal	155.67	138.83	108.33	0.08764	473	185	2 113	96 434	[g/GJ]
Solid fuels—anthracite, coke/semi-coke from hard/brown coal	39.60	35.60	28.60	0.04297	402	148	2 183	102 957	[g/GJ]
Gas fuels	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.00000	0.40	40.00	30.00	57 650	[g/GJ]
Oil fuels	200	2.00	2.00	0.00010	80.00	70.00	30.00	72 480	[g/GJ]
Electricity (heat pumps)	0.014	0.014	0.014	0.00000	0.36	0.39	0.22	597.00	kg/MWh

). In the first step, the amount of generated heat energy was multiplied by the average emission factor, which was determined for a specific group of piles and devices as a representative set.

Guidelines, which are the basis for calculating emissions of pollutants from heating devices in Poland, do not explicitly take into account efficiency and other technical parameters. They are assigned to different types of devices, e.g., traditional boilers with manual fuel feeding that do not meet Ecodesign requirements; advanced boilers with manual fuel feeding that do not meet Ecodesign requirements; automatic boilers that do not meet Ecodesign requirements or are class 5 according to PN-EN 303-5 [70], with a nominal thermal output of ≤0.5 MW; boilers with manual fuel feeding that meet Ecodesign requirements or are class 5 according to PN-EN 303-5 [70], with a nominal thermal output of ≤0.5 MW; boilers with automatic fuel feeding that meet Ecodesign requirements or are class 5 according to PN-EN 303-5 [70], with a nominal thermal output of ≤0.5 MW. Due to the fact that this article does not consider the specific structure of the heating devices used, the values of the coefficients provided by KOBIZE were averaged and used in a manner recommended in the guidelines applicable in Poland.

Calculations for the first variant were performed according to the following formula:

Emission [kg] = Amount of energy produced [TJ] × Emission factor [g/GJ]

(1)

2.1.2. Energy-Normalised Calculation Including Calorific Value and Efficiency

In the second step, calculations were made considering the energy efficiency of heating devices and averaged calorific values for analogous fuel groups, as in the first step. Therefore, two additional criteria were implemented, linking the unit amount of fuel per unit of generated heat energy and the calorific value, which ultimately allowed us to take into account the amount of energy contained in the fuel but with the previously mentioned consideration of efficiency (

Table 2. Type of fuels, nominal efficiency [−], and calorific value [MJ/unit] used in calculations (based on Kaczmarczyk, 2018 [71]—updated).

Type of Fuel		Assumed Efficiency [−]	Assumed Calorific Value [MJ/unit]
Biomass	solid biomass—forest	0.84	15.60
	energy crops	0.84	15.60
	agricultural waste	0.84	11.60
	pellet (default)	0.84	19.00
	dry firewood (default)	0.84	19.00
	straw briquettes (default)	0.84	17.10
	charcoal	0.84	29.50
	barley straw	0.80	16.10
	rapeseed straw	0.80	15.00
	corn straw	0.80	16.80
Hard coal	anthracite	0.75	26.70
	coking coal	0.75	28.20
	energy hard coal	0.75	25.80
	sub-bituminous coal	0.75	21.00
	coal briquettes	0.75	20.70
Solid fuels	coke and semi-coke	0.75	28.20
	peat	0.75	9.76
Gas fuels	condensing boiler	0.99	36.54
	traditional boiler	0.85	36.54
	old type boiler	0.70	36.54
Oil fuels	condensing boiler	0.99	43.00
	traditional boiler	0.88	43.00
Electricity (heat pumps)	brine/water with vertical heat exchanger	3.5–4.0	-
	brine/water with horizontal heat exchanger	3.5–4.0	-
	air/water	3.0–3.5	-

). The efficiency of heating devices deserves special attention because the KOBIZE methodology (2023a) [68] does not explain how it differentiates emission indicators and whether it does so at all, or whether groups of devices differ in indicators not due to energy efficiency, but rather emissions resulting from technical solutions for the combustion process of conventional fuels, which results from technological progress and grouping devices by production date. Referring to the fuel quantity indicator based on calorific value and efficiency, it was decided to make such a comparison to simulate the equivalent amount of energy generated in a geothermal heating plant as in individual heat sources, if there was no geothermal heating plant. Of course, it should be noted that constructing geothermal heating plants does not eliminate the use of one fuel type, as various conventional fuels are still used for heating purposes in buildings. However, the presented research did not analyse the region’s energy mix. The values were unified to the starting point of the fuel calorific value, which was assumed to be 10 MJ/kg or 10 MJ/m³. This is a continuation of the research method proposed by Kaczmarczyk and Sowiżdżał (2024) [57], as well as an extension of earlier studies conducted by Kaczmarczyk (2018) [71] and Kaczmarczyk (2024) [63], but took into account the new KOBIZE methodology (2023a) [68] and current emission factors.

Calculations for the second variant were performed according to the following formula:

Emission [kg] = Energy [MJ] × Emission factor [g/GJ] × 10 [MJ/unit]/calorific value [MJ/unit] × efficiency [−]

(2)

2.1.3. CO₂ Emissions and ZrSO_x Equivalent Indicator

In the third step, CO₂ emissions were calculated exclusively for heating systems based on conventional fuel use by KOBIZE indicators (2023b) [72] (

Table 3. CO₂ emission indicators for professional and industrial energy systems [kg/GJ] (based on KOBIZE, 2023b [72]).

Power Plants and Combined Heat and Power Plants		Industrial CHP Plants	Heating Plants
Hard Coal	Lignite	Hard Coal	Hard Coal	Lignite
93.55 [kg/GJ]	110.72 [kg/GJ]	94.16 [kg/GJ]	94.83 [kg/GJ]	110.21 [kg/GJ]

). This supplemented the idea of replacing individual heat sources with an aspect resulting from the modernisation of conventional heating plants towards the use of geothermal resources.

Calculations for the first variant were performed according to the following formula:

Emission [kg] = Amount of energy produced [TJ] × CO₂ emission factor [kg/GJ] × 1000 [−]

(3)

Additionally, the equivalent emission of ZrSO_x was calculated for the calculation results from steps 1 and 2. This indicator was introduced due to its usefulness in summarising many energy entities using a single parameter, rather than considering each pollutant separately. For this purpose, the methodology proposed by Kaczmarczyk (2024) [63] in the context of determining the emission equivalent for energy processes in the construction sector, previously used in assessing the impact of geothermal heating plants on the natural environment in terms of air pollutant concentrations by Hajto and Kaczmarczyk (2022) [73], was used.

Z_rSOx = Z_SOx + Z_NOx × e_SOx/e_NOx + Z_B(a)P × e_SOx/e_B(a)p + ZPM₁₀ × e_SOx/ePM₁₀ + ZPM_2.5 × e_SOx/ePM_2.5

(4)

where Z_rSOx—equivalent emission per SO_x; Z_i—the emission of the i-th pollutant, where “I” denotes SO_x, NO_x, B(a)P, PM₁₀, and PM_2.5; and e_SOx/ei—toxicity coefficient of the i-th pollutant with respect per SO_x, where “i” means NO_x (assumed value 0.8), B(a)P (20,000), PM₁₀ (0.5), and PM_2.5 (0.8).

2.1.4. Validation and Comparison of Emission Estimation Methods

To enhance the robustness of the proposed approach, a comparison was conducted between the standard method, which is based solely on emission factors expressed in g/GJ (Step 1), and the adjusted method that incorporates both the calorific value of fuels and the thermal efficiency of heating devices (Step 2). Both methods were applied to estimate pollutant emissions for a defined production of 1000 GJ of useful thermal energy.

The results demonstrate that both approaches yield consistent qualitative conclusions, particularly in confirming the environmental benefits of geothermal energy over conventional fuels. However, the adjusted method provides more differentiated results, accounting for real-world technical conditions. For instance, in the case of hard coal, the total suspended particulate (TSP) emissions estimated by the standard method amounted to approximately 155,670 kg. In comparison, the adjusted method produced a slightly higher result of 160,680 kg, representing an increase of about 3.2%. For solid biomass (e.g., forest residues), the difference was even more pronounced: 41,770 kg (Step 1) versus 44,390 kg (Step 2), corresponding to an increase of 6.3%. In the case of natural gas, the difference was more modest—500 kg versus 510 kg, or roughly 2.0%.

These deviations indicate that simplified emission factors do not fully account for variations in fuel quality or the efficiency of heating devices, particularly in older or less advanced systems. The adjusted method addresses this limitation by integrating representative calorific values and nominal efficiencies, resulting in a more realistic estimation of emissions per unit of useful energy delivered.

By improving the accuracy and comparability of emission data, this method supports more informed decision-making in the context of environmental policy and life cycle assessment. While the approach remains dependent on the availability and reliability of source data, its transparency and consistency with LCA logic make it a valuable tool for comparative environmental analysis. Future studies may refine and validate this methodology further using real-world monitoring data from heating systems of varying ages and configurations.

2.2. The Results

When analysing the results, it is important to note that although the starting point is the amount of thermal energy produced by geothermal heating plants at specific locations, the results do not reflect the actual local energy mix at those sites. Without a doubt, such modelling, supplemented by a technical and energy inventory, can be indicated as a further research direction. Similarly, this type of research is supplemented by analysing data on the concentration of pollutants of individual substances in the air based on measurement data from air quality monitoring stations.

Data from

Table 4. The results of the avoided ZrSO_x equivalent emissions [kg/year] for the analysed geothermal heating systems depending on the replaced fuel.

	Mszczonów	Poddębice	Podhale	Pyrzyce	Stargard	Uniejów	Toruń
	18.5 MW	10.0 MW	70.0 MW	6.0 MW	18.5 MW	3.2 MW	18 MW
	284.2 TJ	51.2 TJ	652.8 TJ	70.2 TJ	284.2 TJ	9.0 TJ	40.0 TJ
Solid biomass—forest, peat, charcoal	2656	9714	123,848	13,318	53,918	1707	7589
	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	2943	10,763	137,223	14,756	59,741	1892	8408
	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]
Solid biomass—agricultural waste, energy crops	5750	21,029	268,121	28,833	116,728	3697	16,429
	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	6075	22,216	283,257	30,461	123,318	3905	17,356
	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]
Solid fuels—hard coal	19,129	69,959	891,975	95,920	388,326	12,297	54,655
	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	23,181	84,774	1,080,874	116,234	470,564	14,902	66,230
	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]
Solid fuels—anthracite, coke/semi-coke from hard/brown coal	18,280	66,853	852,372	91,661	371,085	11,751	52,229
	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	18,779	68,676	875,623	94,162	381,207	12,072	53,653
	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]
Gas fuels	153	558	7119	766	3099	98	436
	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	163	594	7578	815	3299	104	464
	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]
Oil fuels	469	1715	21,867	2351	9520	301	1340
	-	-	-	-		-	-
	1350	4937	62,942	6769	27,402	868	3857
	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]
Electricity (heat pumps)	7–9	27–32	346–405	37–44	151–176	5–6	21–25
	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]	[kg/year]

confirms that geothermal energy in heating systems significantly reduces air pollution emissions, both in absolute terms and in terms of various technologies being replaced. The most significant effect is visible when hard coal, biomass, heating oil, or natural gas are replaced. The results are given as a range of values calculated from the following: Step 1: The emission-factor-based estimation of pollutant emissions; Step 2: Energy-normalised calculation, including the calorific value and efficiency.

For example, in Podhale, where the most extensive geothermal system in Poland operates (70 MW, 652.8 TJ/year), annual ZrSO_x emissions are avoided at the level of 891,975–1,080,874 kg compared to hard coal, 268,121–283,257 kg compared to agricultural biomass, 21,867–62,942 kg compared to heating oil, and 7119–7578 kg when replacing natural gas. Such emission levels—hundreds of tons per year—impact the health and comfort of the region’s inhabitants. From a social perspective, this means a reduction in the incidence of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, the lower morbidity of children and the elderly, a smaller burden on the healthcare system, and an increase in the region’s attractiveness as a place to live and develop economically.

Similar proportions are observed in Pyrzyce (6 MW, 70.2 TJ/year), where geothermal energy helps avoid 95,920 to 116,234 kg of ZrSO_x per year compared to coal and 28,833–30,461 kg compared to biomass. Even in smaller centres, such as Uniejów or Toruń, the values of avoided emissions reach several to several dozen tons per year, which in densely built-up city centres, has a special health and aesthetic significance—less dust, less soot, and no suffocating smoke.

From an environmental perspective, geothermal energy improves the quality of life of those most exposed to pollution: children, seniors, and people with chronic diseases. It also supports policies to equalise opportunities between communities living in city centres and those in peripheral or health resort areas.

Returning to emissions in more detail, they are presented in terms of indicators per unit of energy: g/GJ in the case of heat and kg/MWh in the case of electricity. Without a doubt, the basic conclusion is that reducing pollutant emissions thanks to geothermal energy improves the quality of the local environment. Lower concentrations of PM₁₀ and PM_2.5 mean cleaner air and less smoke and soot deposition, which positively affects the health of residents and the state of the surrounding nature (less pollutants settle on the soil and vegetation). Reducing SO₂ and NO_x emissions reduces the problems of acid rain and the eutrophication of ecosystems, and the decrease in CO emissions improves safety (carbon monoxide is highly toxic in high concentrations in rooms—avoiding local boiler rooms reduces the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning). Avoided CO₂ emissions, on the other hand, are a part of global efforts to mitigate climate change. However, their significance is felt mainly worldwide, and atmospheric pollution’s health and environmental effects are more important locally.

Additionally, low geothermal emissions mean no odour nuisance, dusting, and negative impact on the aesthetics of the surroundings, which favours the quality of life of residents, the development of tourism, and an increase in the value of real estate. It is worth noting that emissions from natural gas and heating oil are several times higher than from heat pumps—so their replacement by geothermal energy also brings measurable environmental and social effects.

The visualisation of these differences—as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2—also serves an educational function. The data can be used to communicate with residents: they clearly show that geothermal energy is not only a technology, but an investment in the health, safety, and comfort of life of the local community.

In the context of the local impact of geothermal energy, it is worth mentioning that this technology is also characterised by a relatively small effect on the landscape (geothermal infrastructure—drilling, pipelines—takes up relatively little space compared to, for example, open-pit mines or wind farms) [19]. Geothermal heating plants usually fit into existing industrial developments, and after the end of exploitation, the area can be easily reclaimed. The problem of waste storage (like ash in the case of coal) or wind turbine noise is eliminated—geothermal installations operate quietly, and the only potential noise source is during drilling. In the operational phase, noise could be emitted by a turbine station or a pump, but this could, however, be encased in sound-absorbing housings. Overall, the environmental balance of geothermal energy at the local level is positive—the benefits in the form of clean air and the environment outweigh any minor risks, which can also be effectively controlled through good engineering practices.

3. SWOT and PESTEL Analyses for the Social Impact of Geothermal Energy

Geothermal energy, as a local energy source, is of great importance to communities at the municipality, county, or regional level. First, it creates an opportunity to activate the local community in managing their energy resources. The decentralisation of the system—through the construction of local geothermal heating plants, heating networks, and possibly small power plants—means that energy decisions are made closer to citizens and with their participation. Local government officials, entrepreneurs, and residents can jointly plan the use of a domestic energy source, which increases the sense of influence and control over the direction of the region’s development. Unlike centralised systems based on, for example, large, coal-fired power plants or imported gas, geothermal energy rooted in the local community promotes building a partnership between the investor and residents—after all, everyone benefits from cleaner air and stable heat supplies.

However, for the above scenario to come true, decision-making processes related to geothermal investments must be transparent and data-driven. Here, tools such as LCA play a key role, as well as analyses such as the one presented in this article, concerning the impact on air quality. Including all costs and benefits (environmental, social, economic) in life cycle analyses allows for providing objective information to decision-makers and stakeholders. Conducting a complete LCA for a planned geothermal installation provides insight into its potential impacts on the environment and society, facilitating fact-based decision-making [1]. Thanks to this, local or regional authorities can better understand the long-term consequences of building a geothermal heating plant—both positive (e.g., emission reduction, new jobs, the ecological prestige of the region) and possibly negative (e.g., the need for water monitoring, geological risks)—and make informed decisions on this basis.

Investments in renewable energy sources are often part of regional economic development programs or climate strategies. Municipalities using geothermal energy can boast of achieving climate goals (reducing CO₂ emissions), improving public health (thanks to clean air) and innovation. Such successes can provide additional funding (e.g., from national or EU programs supporting green energy) and build a positive image of the region. Local communities benefit from cheaper heat (geothermal energy, after paying off investment outlays, is characterised by low operational costs) and the certainty of the supply, which is invaluable, especially in periods of energy crises or sharp increases in fossil fuel prices.

Legal regulations and standards related to environmental impact assessment also play an increasingly important role in decision-making processes. Many of them are beginning to require the inclusion of LCA as an element of planning documentation for energy investments. Therefore, carrying out a life cycle assessment for a geothermal project can help meet formal and legal requirements, becoming a part of the environmental impact report or feasibility study [1]. For decision-makers (local and national), the signal is clear—as sustainable development develops, energy planning must be based on comprehensive analyses that integrate environmental, social, and economic aspects.

3.1. SWOT Analysis

To better understand the impact of geothermal energy on local communities, through the prism of improving air quality, a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) was conducted. It allows for a synthetic presentation of the most essential advantages and challenges related to the use of geothermal energy (

Table 5. The SWOT analysis for geothermal energy in the context of social aspects *.

Strenghts	Description	Significance	Justification
Low pollutant and CO2 emissions	Geothermal energy does not emit exhaust gases or dust during operation, significantly improving air quality.	High	Key to achieving climate and health goals (reducing smog, improving the health of residents).
Consistency of energy supply	Availability independent of weather and season, ensures a stable source of heat or electricity.	High	Essential for energy security and long-term planning—especially in the face of climate change.
Improving public health	Reducing emissions of PM10, PM2.5, and other pollutants reduces respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.	High	Direct impact on quality of life and health care costs—social and economic benefit.
Minor interference with the landscape	Geothermal installations have a small spatial footprint and low noise levels.	Average	Important in the context of social acceptance, especially in tourist and landscape-valuable regions.
Local development and jobs	The construction and operation of geothermal installations creates jobs and activates the local economy.	Average	An indirect effect, but socially and economically beneficial—especially in peripheral areas.
Weaknesses	Description	Significance	Justification
High investment costs	Drilling and infrastructure require large upfront investments.	High	The main barrier to development, without financial support, difficult to implement, especially for smaller municipalities.
Limited geographical availability	Geothermal energy potential depends on site-specific geological conditions, such as reservoir depth, permeability, and fluid availability, which are not uniformly distributed.	High	This limits the scalability of the technology and requires location-specific feasibility studies.
Geological uncertainty and reservoir-related risks	Subsurface challenges such as low injectivity, permeability variation, or early thermal breakthrough can reduce system performance and increase development risk.	High	These factors are difficult to predict pre-drilling and may lead to costly redesigns or failure to achieve expected energy yields
Lack of social awareness	Low awareness of technology in society can result in resistance.	High	Acceptance barrier—lack of knowledge can lead to disinformation and project blocking.
Project complexity	Each installation requires individual analysis, which takes longer and increases costs.	Average	It hinders standardisation and sector development—an organisational and investment challenge.
Opportunities	Description	Significance	Justification
Technological progress	The development of EGS, UTES, digitalisation, and AI reduces costs and increases availability.	Average	Technology can eliminate some current barriers, but implementations are expensive and time-consuming.
Political and financial support	Subsidies, EU funds, and public programs support geothermal energy as “green energy”.	High	Decisive for breaking the cost barrier and developing the sector—investments are difficult to finance without it.
Increased ecological awareness	A society more open to renewable energy and pro-climate actions.	High	It facilitates building local acceptance and partnerships and increases pressure on decision-makers and investors.
Integration with other renewable energy systems	Possibility of integration with PV, heat pumps, and heat storage tanks.	Average	It increases systems’ efficiency and stability and can increase the attractiveness of geothermal energy as a part of the mix.
Threats	Description	Significance	Justification
Seismic or contamination risk	Concerns about micro-quakes and water pollution could spark protests.	Average	Rare, but media-friendly—a potential source of controversy and social resistance.
Difficulty in eliminating specific emissions	E.g. mercury, ammonia—difficult to completely remove in some deposits.	Average	It may restrict development or require expensive clean-up technologies—essential for social acceptance.
Competition from other renewable energy sources	PV and wind and biomass are more socially familiar.	High	It may limit interest in geothermal energy and direct resources to other energy sources.
Lack of communication and social participation	Lack of consultation and transparency leads to protests.	High	Key threat—social resistance may completely block or significantly delay the investment.

* Note: The significance levels (High/Average) assigned to each SWOT factor reflect an integrated expert-based assessment informed by a review of the scientific literature, policy relevance, and contextual observations from the Polish geothermal sector. These ratings are semi-quantitative and are not derived from a formal scoring model but rather represent a reasoned evaluation of the relative importance of each factor in shaping the social acceptability and implementation potential of geothermal energy projects. Further research may refine these assessments using stakeholder-based weighting or participatory methods.

).

To summarise the SWOT analysis, geothermal energy is characterised by the minimal emission of pollutants into the atmosphere during operation, which is crucial for climate protection and public health at the local level. Geothermal resources are renewable on a human scale and available regardless of the time of day or weather conditions. Geothermal energy is a stable primary source, ensuring a continuous supply of heat or electricity around the clock. Thanks to this, it can act as a reliable local heating source and, with the right technology, also for electricity production. Replacing fossil fuels with geothermal energy significantly reduces smog and air pollution, which directly translates into health benefits. Fewer respiratory diseases, allergies, or cardiological diseases are the effects of cleaner air, which is especially important in areas with a high population density. Using local geothermal sources makes communities independent of external energy supplies, protects against sudden changes in fuel prices, and ensures supply stability, even in unfavourable political conditions. For many municipalities, this means greater energy sovereignty and the possibility of the long-term planning of heating costs. Geothermal infrastructure, including drilling, pipelines, and exchangers, typically has a small footprint. The ability to locate geothermal heating plants near recipients reduces transmission losses and the need to build extensive networks. Apart from the moment of drilling, which is short-lived, the installations operate quietly and do not negatively impact the landscape, which additionally promotes their social acceptance.

The uneven distribution of the geothermal potential means that many areas lack the necessary geological parameters for the profitable use of geothermal energy. This requires concentrating investments in selected prospective zones and adapting the technology to local conditions. The construction of a geothermal installation involves large capital expenditures, mainly at the stage of deep drilling and building surface infrastructure. Financial barriers may limit the availability of geothermal energy for smaller local governments, companies, or energy communities. Although operating costs are relatively low and long-term price stability is favourable, a long payback period requires support mechanisms—subsidies, preferential loans, or public guarantees. The exploitation of geothermal deposits must be carried out carefully due to the possible negative impact on groundwater. Ther improper sealing of boreholes, failures, or technological errors may lead to brine penetration into aquifers. In addition, geothermal energy, especially in the construction and operation phase of deep systems, is associated with significant water consumption, which can be a substantial limitation in deficit regions. The variability of hydrogeological conditions means that water consumption and the impact on water resources are diverse locally, making it difficult to generalise results and compare between projects. The characteristics of each geothermal reservoir, such as the temperature, depth, chemical composition of water, or rock permeability, require an individual design approach. Such specificity makes it difficult to standardise technological solutions and increases the time and costs of the design phase. For this reason, the transfer of knowledge and experience between projects may be limited. Additionally, geothermal energy is still less recognisable in society compared to more popular renewable energy sources, such as photovoltaics or wind energy. The lack of general awareness results in scepticism or resistance to projects, especially in the planning phase. The need to conduct information campaigns, social education, and the inclusion of residents in the consultation process is essential for building social acceptance.

Technological advancements in the geothermal sector are creating new opportunities to enhance both the availability and the efficiency of this energy source. Advances in directional drilling, thermal insulation materials, and heat pump technology make it possible to optimise system performance and tailor installations to local geological conditions. One up-and-coming innovation is the development of enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), which enable the extraction of heat, even in areas without naturally occurring thermal water resources. This expands the geographical scope of geothermal applications and increases the number of potential locations. The innovative use of geothermal energy in industrial processes, such as the membrane distillation of water, opens up new fields of application and increases the profitability of investments. In addition, integrating geothermal energy with other RES technologies—e.g., heat pumps, photovoltaic installations, UTES (ground heat storage) systems—enables the creation of highly efficient hybrid energy systems. The growing interest in the issues of climate change, air quality, and public health has led to the development of support instruments for geothermal investments. National and EU policies promoting clean energy (e.g., as a part of the EU Green Deal) create a regulatory and financial framework supporting the development of the sector. This includes direct support (grants, reliefs), preferences in public tenders, compensation mechanisms for emission reductions, or the inclusion of geothermal energy in local energy plans. The growing ecological awareness of society is conducive to accepting renewable energy projects, as long as they are accompanied by transparent communication and social dialogue.

Despite its numerous advantages, geothermal development may be limited by specific threats. One of these is the potential for microseismicity associated with the operation of EGS systems, particularly when permeability is low, especially in rocks that have been hydraulically fractured [74,75]. Although these tremors usually do not cause damage, they can raise concerns and strengthen local resistance to investment. Incidents related to brine leaks, even if rare, can lead to the contamination of surface and groundwater, which has profound environmental and social consequences. In addition, in some locations, geothermal waters may contain trace amounts of pollutants, such as mercury or ammonia, which can be released into the environment if not properly managed. In the face of tightening emission standards, this can be an obstacle to obtaining environmental permits. From the perspective of the development of the RES market, geothermal energy competes for attention and funding with better-known and more widely used technologies. A key threat is also the lack of social acceptance resulting from a lack of information, a lack of the participation of residents in decision-making processes, and a lack of trust in investors and public institutions. Counteracting these threats requires systemic environmental education, the transparent presentation of ecological data (e.g., LCA analyses, water footprint), and the active involvement of local communities in planning and implementing projects.

3.2. PESTEL Analysis

To comprehensively assess the conditions for geothermal energy development, it is necessary to consider not only technological and environmental aspects, but also the broad external context—political, economic, social, technological, environmental, and legal. For this purpose, it is helpful to use the PESTEL methodology, which identifies key factors influencing the implementation and scalability of geothermal projects (

Table 6. The PESTEL analysis for geothermal energy in the Polish context *.

	Description	Significance	Justification
Political	Support for climate and energy policies of the EU and Poland. Support programmes for renewable energy sources (grants, national and EU funds). The growing role of local governments in energy transformation.	High	The policy framework shapes the regulatory and financial environment; geothermal investments are difficult to implement without appropriate support.
Economical	High investment costs (mainly resulting from the depth of the geothermal reservoirs ~3000 m b.s.l.). Low operating costs in the long term. Health and social savings (fewer illnesses, lower treatment costs).	High	Project profitability and financing capacity are key to investment implementation. Additional health benefits translate into local budgets and quality of life.
Social	Improved health through reduced pollution. Increased ecological awareness. A need for education and social participation. Geothermal energy as a factor of local identity.	High	Social acceptance of geothermal projects is a condition for their implementation. A lack of dialogue or ignorance can lead to social resistance.
Technological	The development of technology (EGS, UTES, digitalisation, AI). Increased efficiency and safety. Possibility of broader use of geothermal resources.	Average	Innovation is essential, but it takes time and resources to implement. Currently, many barriers are financial and social, not technological.
Environmental	Low CO2 and other pollutant emissions. A need for specific emission monitoring (mercury, ammonia). Water management (water footprint, reinjection). LCA and water footprint as assessment tools.	High	The impact on air, water, and health is crucial for local communities. LCA and environmental monitoring strengthen trust and social acceptance.
Legal	Growing legal requirements for environmental assessments and LCA. Emission and air quality standards. A nseed to simplify procedures for RES.	Average	Regulations shape the pace and ease of investment implementation. However, they are secondary to the politics and economics of projects, but their importance is growing.

* Note: The significance levels (High/Average) assigned to each SWOT factor reflect an integrated expert-based assessment informed by a review of the scientific literature, policy relevance, and contextual observations from the Polish geothermal sector. These ratings are semi-quantitative and are not derived from a formal scoring model but rather represent a reasoned evaluation of the relative importance of each factor in shaping the social acceptability and implementation potential of geothermal energy projects. Further research may refine these assessments using stakeholder-based weighting or participatory methods.

). This analysis allows for a better understanding of risks and opportunities. It supports decision-making processes in planning and implementing investments in a manner consistent with the principles of sustainable development.

The PESTEL analysis indicates that geothermal energy development in Poland and Central Europe is at the intersection of favourable political conditions, growing social support, and strong environmental arguments, but it is still limited by technological and economic factors and has insufficient institutional preparation. Political and environmental factors are important—they determine the directions of energy transformation and priorities within climate and health policies. Growing regulatory requirements promoting low emissions and ecological transparency (e.g., through LCA analyses) contribute to the growing importance of geothermal technologies in the energy plans of states and local governments. The social importance of geothermal energy is growing with the growth of ecological awareness and the demand for stable, local energy sources. Nevertheless, economic barriers—exceptionally high investment outlays—and threats related to perceived environmental risks and low social acceptance require systemic solutions: appropriate financing, social education, and transparent decision-making processes. An integrated PESTEL approach to geothermal management allows for the identification of opportunities and threats and the identification of areas that require intervention so that geothermal energy can play its full role in a fair and sustainable energy transformation.

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

Geothermal energy is a valuable element of a sustainable energy mix, offering clean and stable energy while providing social and environmental benefits. The analyses clearly indicate that the development of geothermal installations contributes to reducing emissions, improving residents’ quality of life, and supporting the transformation towards a low-emission economy that is resistant to market changes. However, in order to fully use this potential, it is necessary to consciously manage the technical, environmental, and social aspects.

From the perspective of decision-makers, it is crucial to include comprehensive environmental analyses (LCA and water footprint analysis) in standard procedures for planning and assessing geothermal projects. While comprehensive environmental assessments, such as LCA and water footprint analysis, are essential for informed decision-making, they should not become an excessive administrative or financial burden for project developers. Therefore, it is crucial to provide simplified, accessible tools and standardised guidelines that enable the efficient implementation of such assessments without compromising the overall feasibility of geothermal investments. Only a holistic assessment will consider all the potential costs and benefits, which will translate into better investment decisions. In the future, life cycle assessments should become an integral part of the environmental impact assessment of each geothermal project [1,76]. It is also recommended that a geothermal support strategy be created at the national and local levels, including financial mechanisms encouraging investments (funds, subsidies, preferential loans) and a legal framework simplifying procedures (while maintaining environmental rigours). Decision-makers should consider the fact that geothermal energy brings measurable external benefits (improved health, avoided emissions) and consider these factors in socio-economic efficiency calculations, even if the market itself does not value them.

Investors planning geothermal projects should consider conclusions from previous studies and analyses. First of all, it is recommended to identify the life cycle stages with the most significant impact on the environment at the design stage—this will allow for actions to be taken to minimise negative consequences (e.g., the selection of appropriate construction materials with a low carbon footprint, the implementation of gas purification systems, etc.). Including LCA experts in the investment planning phase can help optimise the project’s sustainability. In addition, investors should prepare social communication strategies, such as transparent information about the project goals, benefits for residents, and safety measures. Obtaining local acceptance will not only facilitate implementation but also ensure the stability of the project in the long term (a lower risk of protests or administrative proceedings). It is also worth considering a partnership with local government and including the community in the benefits (e.g., by providing cheaper heat for nearby recipients or supporting local ecological initiatives)—this will increase social support.

It is essential for local communities to actively participate in the process of energy transformation in their region. Geothermal energy offers many things to residents—cleaner air, stable heat prices, economic development—but its implementation should occur with the community’s participation. It is recommended that local communities demand complete information about planned projects from authorities and investors. They also propose their expectations (e.g., jobs for local companies in implementing the investment, or additional facility functions, such as thermal pools available to residents). Social acceptance increases when people see that the project is being created “for and with them”. Therefore, residents should participate in consultations, ask questions, and share concerns. Investors must dispel them by presenting data and experiences (LCA results illustrating the actual impact on the environment and health are helpful here). In the long term, the local community will be the primary beneficiary of geothermal energy. Still, as the guardian of its proper use, aware residents will more easily notice and report any irregularities, thus taking care of their surroundings.

However, for this scenario to be fully realised, attention should be paid to additional social aspects that have so far been treated marginally or not sufficiently in-depth:

• The diversity of the local community and project developers: Communities are heterogeneous. Different social groups (e.g., seniors, youth, entrepreneurs, landowners) have different needs and expectations. Geothermal projects should take these differences into account, e.g., by mapping stakeholders and conducting dialogue with each group separately.
• Communication and participation instead of one-way information: Effective communication is not limited to providing information materials. Honest dialogue is needed—consultations, citizen panels, access to independent analyses. Social trust is built through openness and willingness to answer questions and concerns.
• Justice and inclusiveness: The benefits of geothermal energy should be available to everyone, including less-affluent households or peripheral areas. Tariff models and community solutions (e.g., energy cooperatives) should be addressed, guaranteeing equal access to clean energy.
• Cultural and natural contexts: In regions with strong landscape values or cultural heritage (such as Podhale), investments should be preceded by assessing social perception and the possible impacts on local identity and tourism.
• Environmental education and counteracting disinformation: Low social awareness promotes resistance to new technologies. Therefore, educational activities based on facts and research results (e.g., LCA, emission monitoring), conducted in an attractive and accessible manner, are necessary.
• Procedural justice and social monitoring: Residents should have a real influence not only on investment planning but also on its functioning—e.g., through access to environmental data, participation in supervisory boards, or mechanisms for reporting irregularities.

Although this study primarily emphasises the environmental and social dimensions of geothermal energy, it is important to briefly address the economic and technological feasibility aspects, which are intrinsically linked to the sustainability of such projects. From a technical perspective, geothermal systems—especially in the low- and medium-enthalpy range—are mature and reliable technologies, with well-documented performance in district heating applications. Their modularity, compatibility with heat pumps and thermal storage, and 24/7 operational stability make them technically suitable for both urban and rural energy systems. However, the main barrier to broader deployment remains its economic feasibility, particularly the high upfront investment costs associated with drilling and subsurface exploration. These costs are site-specific and can vary significantly depending on the site’s depth, geology, and reservoir properties. Despite these challenges, operational expenditures are relatively low, and geothermal installations offer long-term cost stability due to the absence of fuel costs and low maintenance requirements. Moreover, economic feasibility improves markedly when external benefits—such as avoided emissions, public health gains, and reduced fuel import dependency—are internalised, e.g., through subsidies, carbon pricing, or health-related co-benefit schemes. Current financial support mechanisms at the national and EU levels are essential for improving project bankability and enabling risk-sharing. Technological advances, such as enhanced geothermal systems (EGSs), improved drilling efficiency, and digital subsurface imaging, also contribute to reducing costs and expanding applicability to new regions. Nonetheless, the economic and technical conditions must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and a full techno-economic feasibility study remains a necessary complement to environmental and social assessments in any geothermal development project.

In future work, geothermal energy should be analysed not only in terms of its standalone environmental and social performance, but also as a part of integrated renewable energy systems—including its interoperability with solar PV, wind energy, and energy storage technologies. Methods such as multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) or social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) may help capture these broader system-level interactions and further support informed policy and investment decisions.

In summary, the use of geothermal energy is consistent with the implementation of global and local sustainable development goals. However, in order for the potential of geothermal energy to be fully realised, a systemic approach is necessary: the integration of technological innovations, reliable environmental assessments, and social participation. Geothermal energy can become a pillar of Poland’s clean energy mix, bringing benefits to both the climate and the current and future generations of residents; however, this requires conscious and responsible action by decision-makers, investors, and local communities. The future of the geothermal sector depends on continued scientific research (considering local conditions and life cycle assessments), the implementation of optimisation strategies, and care for the three dimensions of sustainability: environmental, economic, and social. Within such a framework, geothermal energy has a chance to fully spread its wings as a clean energy source serving people and the environment.