Down with the flow: public debates shaping the risk framing of artificial groundwater recharge

Securing high-quality potable water is a key challenge for all societies. The question is not only about water availability and quality determined by hydrological, chemical, and biological factors, or technologies and monetary assets, but also about various cultural, social, and political factors that together constitute so-called hydro-social cycles. We focus on risk communication and management, in connection with the debates on planning and construction of an artificial groundwater recharge system in the Virttaankangas esker, aiming to provide potable water for the region of Turku, southwest Finland. Based on print media coverage, online debate, and comments on the environmental impact assessment report, we identify key themes and framings of risk debates and discuss which elements of the hydrosocial cycle are prone to be highlighted or omitted. Our results show how different framings of risks and benefits are represented with regard to geography, time span, causative agents, impact types, those exposed, alternative management options, and uncertainties involved. Representations created both by traditional print media and new social media polarise the debate. The adoption of the concept of the hydrosocial cycle in planning and communication processes may help in understanding and alleviating polarisation.