IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i2p429-d1562585.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding the Causes of Social Acceptance and Rejection of a Uranium Mine Development Project in Northwestern Spain

Author

Listed:
  • Gonzalo Sánchez-Tabernero

    (Faculty of Economics and Business, Campus Miguel de Unamuno, Building FES, University of Salamanca, 37007 Salamanca, Spain)

  • Concepción Muñoz-Sosa

    (Department of Social Psychology and Anthropology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Campus Miguel de Unamuno, Building FES, University of Salamanca, 37007 Salamanca, Spain)

  • Antonio R. Hidalgo-Muñoz

    (Department of Basic Psychology, Psychobiology and Methodology of Behavioral Sciences, Faculty of Psychology, University of Salamanca, 37007 Salamanca, Spain
    Instituto de Neurociencias de Castilla y León (INCYL), University of Salamanca, 37007 Salamanca, Spain)

  • José I. Galán

    (Faculty of Economics and Business, Campus Miguel de Unamuno, Building FES, University of Salamanca, 37007 Salamanca, Spain)

  • Carmen Tabernero

    (Department of Social Psychology and Anthropology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Campus Miguel de Unamuno, Building FES, University of Salamanca, 37007 Salamanca, Spain
    Instituto de Neurociencias de Castilla y León (INCYL), University of Salamanca, 37007 Salamanca, Spain)

Abstract

One of the main challenges facing modern societies is achieving environmental sustainability. In the face of the current energy crisis, some countries regard nuclear energy as a viable solution to meet their population’s energy demands. This article analyzes the local people’s responses to a project to develop and exploit a uranium mine in Retortillo-Santidad, a rural area in northwestern Spain on the border with Portugal. Content analysis, using Atlas.ti software (version 23.0), of the open-ended responses of 55 citizens affected by the uranium mine, revealed through network analysis that the responses can be grouped into interconnected blocks. Concerns about risks to health and the traditional economy of the area are associated with a rejection of both the uranium mine and the project itself. In addition, community attitudes towards environmental sustainability, mistrust, and social conflicts among the affected population explain the opposition to the construction of the mine. Assessments reveal different reasons for this: some individuals place more value on the project benefits and their distrust of the company, while others focus more on perceived risks, community conflicts, and environmental sustainability. These findings have practical implications for the development of future energy policies. They emphasize the importance of ensuring that affected citizens are informed about reciprocal benefits, actively heard to understand their diverse evaluations of the mining project, and meaningfully included in the implementation of energy initiatives. This underscores the necessity of adopting a more inclusive approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Gonzalo Sánchez-Tabernero & Concepción Muñoz-Sosa & Antonio R. Hidalgo-Muñoz & José I. Galán & Carmen Tabernero, 2025. "Understanding the Causes of Social Acceptance and Rejection of a Uranium Mine Development Project in Northwestern Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-17, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:2:p:429-:d:1562585
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/2/429/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/2/429/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Judith I. M. de Groot & Linda Steg & Wouter Poortinga, 2013. "Values, Perceived Risks and Benefits, and Acceptability of Nuclear Energy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 307-317, February.
    2. Ben McWilliams & Giovanni Sgaravatti & Simone Tagliapietra & Georg Zachmann, 2022. "A grand bargain to steer through the European Union’s energy crisis," Bruegel Policy Brief node_8275, Bruegel.
    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. Muhammet Saygın, 2025. "Stakeholder Perceptions and Strategic Governance of Large-Scale Energy Projects: A Case Study of Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant in Türkiye," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-20, August.

    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. Sangbum Shin & Taedong Lee, 2021. "Credible Empowerment and Deliberative Participation: A Comparative Study of Two Nuclear Energy Policy Deliberation Cases in Korea," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(1), pages 97-112, January.
    2. Dessi, F. & Ariccio, S. & Albers, T. & Alves, S. & Ludovico, N. & Bonaiuto, M., 2022. "Sustainable technology acceptability: Mapping technological, contextual, and social-psychological determinants of EU stakeholders’ biofuel acceptance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    3. Rodríguez-Sarasty, Jesús A. & Debia, Sébastien & Pineau, Pierre-Olivier, 2021. "Deep decarbonization in Northeastern North America: The value of electricity market integration and hydropower," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    4. Strazzera, Elisabetta & Meleddu, Daniela & Atzori, Rossella, 2022. "A hybrid choice modelling approach to estimate the trade-off between perceived environmental risks and economic benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    5. Lindvall, Daniel & Sörqvist, Patrik & Lindeberg, Sofie & Barthel, Stephan, 2025. "The polarization of energy preferences – A study on social acceptance of wind and nuclear power in Sweden," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    6. Portugal-Pereira, J. & Ferreira, P. & Cunha, J. & Szklo, A. & Schaeffer, R. & Araújo, M., 2018. "Better late than never, but never late is better: Risk assessment of nuclear power construction projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 158-166.
    7. Hu, Xiaoli & Zhu, Weiwei & Wei, Jiuchang, 2021. "Effects of information strategies on public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    8. Jie Yang & Jie Wang & Xiaofeng Zhang & Chunqi Shen & Zhijuan Shao, 2022. "How Social Impressions Affect Public Acceptance of Nuclear Energy: A Case Study in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-23, September.
    9. Scovell, Mitchell & McCrea, Rod & Walton, Andrea & Poruschi, Lavinia, 2024. "Local acceptance of solar farms: The impact of energy narratives," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 189(PB).
    10. Ariccio, Silvia & Mosca, Oriana & Dessi, Federica & Fornara, Ferdinando & Bonaiuto, Marino, 2025. "Cross-validation of the Biofuels Beliefs Scale (BBS) on a European sample: A tool to measure the perception of the technological and contextual features of biofuels," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    11. Jagadish Thaker & Nicholas Smith & Anthony Leiserowitz, 2020. "Global Warming Risk Perceptions in India," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(12), pages 2481-2497, December.
    12. Christine Merk & Gert Pönitzsch, 2017. "The Role of Affect in Attitude Formation toward New Technologies: The Case of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2289-2304, December.
    13. Vladimir M. Cvetković & Adem Öcal & Yuliya Lyamzina & Eric K. Noji & Neda Nikolić & Goran Milošević, 2021. "Nuclear Power Risk Perception in Serbia: Fear of Exposure to Radiation vs. Social Benefits," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-19, April.
    14. Arning, K. & Offermann-van Heek, J. & Ziefle, M., 2021. "What drives public acceptance of sustainable CO2-derived building materials? A conjoint-analysis of eco-benefits vs. health concerns," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    15. Bjoern Hagen & Adenike Opejin & K. David Pijawka, 2022. "Risk Perceptions and Amplification Effects over Time: Evaluating Fukushima Longitudinal Surveys," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-18, June.
    16. Norifumi Tsujikawa & Shoji Tsuchida & Takamasa Shiotani, 2016. "Changes in the Factors Influencing Public Acceptance of Nuclear Power Generation in Japan Since the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 98-113, January.
    17. Purim Srisawat & Wuyi Zhang & Kassara Sukpatch & Wachira Wichitphongsa, 2023. "Tourist Behavior and Sustainable Tourism Policy Planning in the COVID-19 Era: Insights from Thailand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-21, March.
    18. Contu, Davide & Mourato, Susana, 2020. "Complementing choice experiment with contingent valuation data: Individual preferences and views towards IV generation nuclear energy in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    19. Qianwen Li & Ruyin Long & Hong Chen & Feiyu Chen & Xiu Cheng, 2019. "Chinese urban resident willingness to pay for green housing based on double-entry mental accounting theory," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 95(1), pages 129-153, January.
    20. Arning, K. & Offermann-van Heek, J. & Linzenich, A. & Kaetelhoen, A. & Sternberg, A. & Bardow, A. & Ziefle, M., 2019. "Same or different? Insights on public perception and acceptance of carbon capture and storage or utilization in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 235-249.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:2:p:429-:d:1562585. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.