IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v105y2017icp458-466.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Local opposition and acceptance of a deep geological repository of radioactive waste in the Czech Republic: A frame analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Ocelík, Petr
  • Osička, Jan
  • Zapletalová, Veronika
  • Černoch, Filip
  • Dančák, Břetislav

Abstract

The article explores framing of the siting process of a deep geological repository of nuclear waste in the Czech Republic by the municipalities’ representatives in the pre-selected localities. Three distinguished frames have been reconstructed. The risk frame, which connects the project with a number of predominantly environmental threats, is counter-balanced by the responsibility frame that uses the ‘Not-In-My-Back-Yard’ label to delegitimize the local opposition. The third frame then portrays the siting process as a display of general distrust towards political elites and state institutions. It is argued that the distinguished frames stem from a deeper ideological conflict about the nature of democratic governance and the value attributed to environment, further stressing the importance of a siting process’ institutional arrangement that goes beyond technocratic solutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Ocelík, Petr & Osička, Jan & Zapletalová, Veronika & Černoch, Filip & Dančák, Břetislav, 2017. "Local opposition and acceptance of a deep geological repository of radioactive waste in the Czech Republic: A frame analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 458-466.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:105:y:2017:i:c:p:458-466
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.025
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421517301696
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.025?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van der Horst, Dan, 2007. "NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2705-2714, May.
    2. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Dworkin, Michael H., 2015. "Energy justice: Conceptual insights and practical applications," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 435-444.
    3. Carl Roberts, 2000. "A Conceptual Framework for Quantitative Text Analysis," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 259-274, August.
    4. Siegrist, Michael & Visschers, Vivianne H.M., 2013. "Acceptance of nuclear power: The Fukushima effect," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 112-119.
    5. Frantál, Bohumil & Malý, Jiří, 2017. "Close or renew? Factors affecting local community support for rebuilding nuclear power plants in the Czech Republic," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 134-143.
    6. Badera, Jarosław & Kocoń, Paweł, 2015. "Moral panic related to mineral development projects – Examples from Poland," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 29-36.
    7. R Lidskog, 1993. "Whose Environment? Which Perspective? A Critical Approach to Hazardous Waste Management in Sweden," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 25(4), pages 571-588, April.
    8. Wolsink, Maarten, 2000. "Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 49-64.
    9. Černoch, Filip & Zapletalová, Veronika, 2015. "Hinkley point C: A new chance for nuclear power plant construction in central Europe?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 165-168.
    10. Badera, Jarosław & Kocoń, Paweł, 2014. "Local community opinions regarding the socio-environmental aspects of lignite surface mining: Experiences from central Poland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 507-516.
    11. Sivek, Martin & Kavina, Pavel & Malečková, Veronika & Jirásek, Jakub, 2012. "Czech Republic and indicative targets of the European Union for electricity generation from renewable sources," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 469-475.
    12. van de Graaff, Shashi, 2016. "Understanding the nuclear controversy: An application of cultural theory," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 50-59.
    13. Matti Kojo & Mika Kari & Tapio Litmanen, 2012. "Nuclear community considering threats and benefits of final disposal. Local opinions regarding the spent nuclear fuel repository in Finland," International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 15(2), pages 124-145.
    14. Kim, Younghwan & Kim, Minki & Kim, Wonjoon, 2013. "Effect of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on global public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 822-828.
    15. Ramana, M.V., 2013. "Shifting strategies and precarious progress: Nuclear waste management in Canada," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 196-206.
    16. Tsang, Eric W. K., 2014. "Old and New," Management and Organization Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(03), pages 390-390, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Suh, Jung Woo & Sohn, So Young & Lee, Bo Kyeong, 2020. "Patent clustering and network analyses to explore nuclear waste management technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Okubo, Toshihiro & Narita, Daiju & Rehdanz, Katrin & Schröder, Carsten, 2020. "Preferences for Nuclear Power in Post-Fukushima Japan: Evidence from a Large Nationwide Household Survey," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 13(11).
    2. Chuanwang Sun & Nan Lyu & Xiaoling Ouyang, 2014. "Chinese Public Willingness to Pay to Avoid Having Nuclear Power Plants in the Neighborhood," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(10), pages 1-27, October.
    3. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mourato, Susana, 2016. "Modeling individual preferences for energy sources: The case of IV generation nuclear energy in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 37-58.
    4. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2022. "Beyond the triangle of renewable energy acceptance: The five dimensions of domestic hydrogen acceptance," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    5. Sun, Chuanwang & Zhu, Xiting, 2014. "Evaluating the public perceptions of nuclear power in China: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 397-405.
    6. Uji, Azusa & Prakash, Aseem & Song, Jaehyun, 2021. "Does the “NIMBY syndrome” undermine public support for nuclear power in Japan?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 148(PA).
    7. Nuortimo, Kalle & Härkönen, Janne, 2018. "Opinion mining approach to study media-image of energy production. Implications to public acceptance and market deployment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 210-217.
    8. Soni, Anmol, 2018. "Out of sight, out of mind? Investigating the longitudinal impact of the Fukushima nuclear accident on public opinion in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 169-175.
    9. Ioannidis, Romanos & Koutsoyiannis, Demetris, 2020. "A review of land use, visibility and public perception of renewable energy in the context of landscape impact," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    10. Lam, J. & Cheung, L. & Han, Y. & Wang, S., 2018. "China’s Response to Nuclear Safety Post-Fukushima: Genuine or Rhetoric?," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1866, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    11. Sunak, Yasin & Madlener, Reinhard, 2012. "The Impact of Wind Farms on Property Values: A Geographically Weighted Hedonic Pricing Model," FCN Working Papers 3/2012, E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN), revised Mar 2013.
    12. Faulques, Martin & Bonnet, Jean & Bourdin, Sébastien & Juge, Marine & Pigeon, Jonas & Richard, Charlotte, 2022. "Generational effect and territorial distributive justice, the two main drivers for willingness to pay for renewable energies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    13. Baxter, Jamie & Morzaria, Rakhee & Hirsch, Rachel, 2013. "A case-control study of support/opposition to wind turbines: Perceptions of health risk, economic benefits, and community conflict," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 931-943.
    14. Sebastian Schär & Jutta Geldermann, 2021. "Adopting Multiactor Multicriteria Analysis for the Evaluation of Energy Scenarios," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-19, March.
    15. Latré, Edwin & Perko, Tanja & Thijssen, Peter, 2017. "Public opinion change after the Fukushima nuclear accident: The role of national context revisited," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 124-133.
    16. Pepermans, Yves & Loots, Ilse, 2013. "Wind farm struggles in Flanders fields: A sociological perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 321-328.
    17. Kontogianni, A. & Tourkolias, Ch. & Skourtos, M. & Damigos, D., 2014. "Planning globally, protesting locally: Patterns in community perceptions towards the installation of wind farms," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 170-177.
    18. Llewellyn, David H. & Rohse, Melanie & Day, Rosie & Fyfe, Hamish, 2017. "Evolving energy landscapes in the South Wales Valleys: Exploring community perception and participation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 818-828.
    19. Dimitropoulos, Alexandros & Kontoleon, Andreas, 2009. "Assessing the determinants of local acceptability of wind-farm investment: A choice experiment in the Greek Aegean Islands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1842-1854, May.
    20. Nelson, Hal T. & Wikstrom, Kris & Hass, Samantha & Sarle, Kirsten, 2021. "Half-length and the FACT framework: Distance-decay and citizen opposition to energy facilities," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:105:y:2017:i:c:p:458-466. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.