Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Distance matters. Assessing socioeconomic impacts of the Dukovany nuclear power plant in the Czech Republic: Local perceptions and statistical evidence Cover

Distance matters. Assessing socioeconomic impacts of the Dukovany nuclear power plant in the Czech Republic: Local perceptions and statistical evidence

Moravian Geographical Reports
Volume 24 (2016): Issue 1 (March 2016)
By: ,  ,   and    
Open Access
|Apr 2016
References

References

  1. BAROCH, P. (2010): Obec Temelín nevzkvétá. I když ČEZ vydělává miliardy [online]. [cit. 10.10.2015] Available at:
    Search in Google Scholar
  2. BAZILE, F. (2012): Social impacts and public perception of nuclear power. In Alonso, A. [ed.]: Infrastructure and Methodologies for the Justification of Nuclear Power Programmes. A Volume in Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy, 549–566.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  3. BEZDEK, R. H., WENDLING, R. M. (2006): The impacts of nuclear facilities on property values and other factors in the surrounding communities. International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology, 1(1): 122–144.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  4. BISCONTI RESEARCH (2013): Favorability Toward Nuclear Energy Stronger Among Plant Neighbors Than General Public [online]. [cit. 10.10.2015] Available at:
    Search in Google Scholar
  5. BOHOLM, A., LÖFSTED, R. [eds.]: (2004): Facility sitting: Risk, Power and Identity in Land Use Planning. London: Earthscan.
    Search in Google Scholar
  6. BRODY, C. J. (1984): Differences by sex in support for nuclear power. Social Forces, 63(1): 209–228.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  7. CLARK, D. E., MICHELBRINK, L., ALLISON, T., METZ, W. C. (1997): Nuclear power plants and residential housing prices. Growth and Change, 28(4): 496–519.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  8. COOPER, M. (2010): Policy challenges of nuclear reactor construction: Cost escalation and crowding out alternatives [online]. [cit. 10.10.2015] Available at:
    Search in Google Scholar
  9. CVVM (Public Opinion Research Centre) (2015): Veřejnost o energetice – květen 2015 [online]. [cit. 10.10.2015] Available at:
    Search in Google Scholar
  10. CZSO (Czech Statistical Office) (2013): Cenzus 2011 [online]. [cit. 10.10.2015] Available at:
    Search in Google Scholar
  11. DAKE, K. (1992): Myths of nature: culture and social construction of risk. Journal of Social Issues, 48(4): 21–37.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  12. DAVIS, L. W. (2011): The effect of power plants on local housing values and rents. Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(4): 1391–1402.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  13. DEAR, M. (1992): Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58: 288–300.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  14. DEVINE-WRIGHT, P. (2005): Beyond NIMBYism: Towards an Integrated Framework for understanding Public Perceptions of Wind Energy. Wind Energy, 8(2): 125–139.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  15. EISER, J. R., SPEARS, R., WEBLEY, P. (1989): Nuclear Attitudes Before and After Chernobyl: Change and Judgment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19(8): 689–700.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  16. EISER, J. R., VAN DER PLIGT, J., SPEARS, R. (1995): Nuclear Neighbourhoods. Exeter: Exeter University Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  17. ENERGOREGION 2020 (2016): Sdružení obcí region JE Dukovany [online]. [cit. 10.02.2016] Available at:
    Search in Google Scholar
  18. ETHINGTON, P. J. (1997). The intellectual construction of “Social Distance”: Toward a recovery of Georg Simmel’s social geometry. Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography, 30 [online]. [cit. 10.02.2016] Available at:
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  19. EUROSTAT (2015): Renewable energy statistics [online]. [cit. 10.10.2015] Available at:
    Search in Google Scholar
  20. FEŘTROVÁ, M. (2011): Nezaměstnanost a sociální dávky. In: Ouředníček, M., Temelová, J., Pospíšilová, L. [eds.]: Atlas sociálně prostorové diferenciace České republiky (pp. 37−38). Praha: Nakladatelství Karolinum.
    Search in Google Scholar
  21. FISCHHOFF, B., SLOVIC, P., LICHTENSTEIN, S., READ, S., COMBS, B. (1978): How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 9: 127–152.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  22. FISCHHOFF, B., SLOVIC, P., LICHTENSTEIN, S. (1983): “The Public” Vs. “The Experts”: Perceived Vs. Actual Disagreements About Risks of Nuclear Power. In: Covello, V.T. et al. [eds.]: The analysis of actual versus perceived risks (pp. 235–249). New York, Springer US.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  23. FLYNN, J., SLOVIC, P., MERTZ, C. K. (1994): Gender, Race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14(6): 1101–1108.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  24. FRANTÁL, B. (2015): Have local government and public expectations of wind energy project benefits been met? Implications for repowering schemes. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 17(2): 217–236.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  25. GAMBLE, H. B., DOWNING, R. H. (1982): Effects of nuclear power plants on residential property values. Journal of Regional Science, 22(4): 457–478.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  26. GLASSON, J. (2005): Better monitoring for better impact management: the local socio-economic impacts of constructing Sizewell B nuclear power station. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 23(3): 215–226.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  27. GOODFELLOW, M. J., WILLIAMS, H. R., AZAPAGIC, A. (2011): Nuclear renaissance, public perception and design criteria: An exploratory review. Energy Policy, 39(10): 6199–6210.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  28. GREENBERG, M. (2009a): How much do people who live near major nuclear facilities worry about those facilities? Analysis of national and site-specific data. Environmental Planning and Management, 52(7): 919–937.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  29. GREENBERG, M. (2009B): NIMBY, CLAMP, and the Location of New Nuclear-Related Facilities: U.S. National and 11 Site-Specific Surveys. Risk Analysis, 29(9): 1242–1254.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  30. GREENBERG, M., TRUELOVE, H. B. (2011): Energy choices and risk beliefs: is it just global warming and fear of a nuclear power plant accident?. Risk Analysis, 31(5): 819–831.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  31. HORSKÁ, H., MIKULÍK, O., VAISHAR, A., ZAPLETALOVÁ, J. (1996): Perception of the Dukovany nuclear power plant (Czech Republic) by local population. Moravian Geographical Reports, 4(2): 19–34.
    Search in Google Scholar
  32. ISARD, W., REINER, T., VAN ZELE, R., STRATHAM, J. (1976): Regional economic impacts of nuclear power plants. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University, Department of Regional Science.
    Search in Google Scholar
  33. JAHN, D., KOROLCZUK, S. (2012): German exceptionalism: the end of nuclear energy in Germany. Environmental Politics, 21(1): 159–164.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  34. JOHNSON, M. H., BENNETT, J. T. (1979). An input-output model of regional environmental and economic impacts of nuclear power plants. Land Economics, 236–252.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  35. JONES, C. R., EISER, J. R. (2010): Understanding ‘local’ opposition to wind development in the UK: How big is a backyard? Energy Policy, 38(6): 106–3117.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  36. LEWIS, P. M. (1986): The economic impact of the operation and closure of a nuclear power station. Regional Studies, 20(5): 425–432.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  37. LINDELL, M. K., PERRY, R. W. (1990): Effects of the Chernobyl accident on public perceptions of nuclear plant accident risks. Risk Analysis, 10(3): 393–399.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  38. MASSAM, B. H. (2002): Quality of Life: Public Planning and Private Living. Progress in Planning 58: 141–227.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  39. MADERTHANER, R., GUTTMANN, G., SWATON, E., OTWAY, H. J. (1978): Effect of distance upon risk perception. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(3): 380–382.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  40. MCGUIRE, A. (1983): The regional income and employment impacts of nuclear power stations. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 30(3): 264–274.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  41. METZ, W. C. (1994): Potential negative impacts of nuclear activities on local economies: rethinking the issue. Risk Analysis, 14(5): 763–770.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  42. MPSV (Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs) (2012): Časové řady: Průměrná míra nezaměstnanosti od roku 1997 [online]. [cit. 10.10.2015] Available at:
    Search in Google Scholar
  43. MUSIL, J., MÜLLER, J. (2008): Vnitřní periferie v České republice jako mechanismus sociální exkluze. Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review, 44(2): 321−348.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  44. OUŘEDNÍČEK, M., NEMEŠKAL, J. (2015): Vývoj nezaměstnanosti v obcích v širokém okolí Jaderné elektrárny Dukovany 1991–2011. Specializovaná mapa. In: Špačková, P. [ed.]: Vývoj stavu sociálních a ekonomických podmínek v širokém okolí Jaderné elektrárny Dukovany [online]. [cit. 10.10.2015] Available at:
    Search in Google Scholar
  45. PAMPEL, F. C. (2011): Support for nuclear energy in the context of climate change: Evidence from the European Union. Organization & Environment, 24(3): 249–268.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  46. PARKHILL, K. A., PIDGEON, N. F., HENWOOD, K. L., SIMMONS, P., VENABLES, D. (2010): From the familiar to the extraordinary: local residents’ perceptions of risk when living with nuclear power in the UK. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 35(1): 39–58.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  47. PEELLE, E. (1976): Socioeconomic effects of operating reactors on two host communities: a case study of Pilgrim and Millstone. Tennessee: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
    Search in Google Scholar
  48. PIDGEON, N., HENWOOD, K., SIMMONS, P. (2009): Living near nuclear power plants. People & Science, 3: 14–15.
    Search in Google Scholar
  49. PRATI, G., ZANI, B. (2013): The effect of the Fukushima nuclear accident on risk perception, antinuclear behavioral intentions, attitude, trust, environmental beliefs, and values. Environment and Behavior, 45(6): 782–798.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  50. SIEGRIST, M., VISSCHERS, V. H. (2013): Acceptance of nuclear power: the Fukushima effect. Energy Policy, 59: 112–119.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  51. SIEGRIST, M., SÜTTERLIN, B., KELLER, C. (2014): Why have some people changed their attitudes toward nuclear power after the accident in Fukushima? Energy Policy, 69: 356–363.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  52. ŠILHÁN, Z. (2011): Jaderná elektrárna Dukovany a její vliv na okolní obce. Diploma Thesis. Brno: Masaryk University.
    Search in Google Scholar
  53. SLOVIC, P., LICHTENSTEIN, S., BISCHHOFF, B. (1979): Images of disaster: perception and acceptance of risks from nuclear power. Electric Perspectives, 3: 8–20.
    Search in Google Scholar
  54. SLOVIC, P. (1987): Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799): 280–285.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  55. STARR, C. (1969): Social benefit versus technological risk. Readings in Risk, 183–194.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  56. SVOBODA, P., HÁNA, D., NEMEŠKAL, J. (2015): Pracovní příležitosti v obcích v širokém okolí Jaderné elektrárny Dukovany 1991–2011. Specializovaná mapa. In: Špačková, P. [ed.]: Vývoj stavu sociálních a ekonomických podmínek v širokém okolí Jaderné elektrárny Dukovany [online]. [cit. 10.10.2015] Available at:.
    Search in Google Scholar
  57. SWOFFORD, J., SLATTERY, M. (2010): Public attitudes of wind energy in Texas: Local communities in close proximity to wind farms and their effect on decision-making. Energy Policy, 38(5): 2508–2519.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  58. TĚŠITEL, J., KUŠOVÁ, D., BARTOŠ, M. (2005): Temelín power plant as an unusual landscape feature. Ekológia, 24(Suppl. 1): 139–149.
    Search in Google Scholar
  59. TĚŠITEL, J., KUŠOVÁ, D., BARTOŠ, M. (2008): Temelín v kontextu obytné krajiny. Životné prostredie, 42(2): 85–88.
    Search in Google Scholar
  60. TOMANEY, J., PIKE, A., CORNFORD, J. (1999): Plant closure and the local economy: the case of Swan Hunter on Tyneside. Regional Studies, 33(5): 401–411.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  61. VAISAR, A. (1999): Vývoj názorové hladiny obyvatelstva a prognóza sociálního rozvoje v oblasti vlivu energetické soustavy Dukovany – Dalešice. In: Hanus, V. [ed.]: O vlivu provozu jaderných elektráren na životní prostředí (pp. 19–30). Praha, Česka nuklearní společnost a Česka vědeckotechnická společnost.
    Search in Google Scholar
  62. VAN DER HORST, D. (2007): NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy sitting controversies. Energy Policy, 35(5): 2705–2714.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  63. VAN DER PLIGT, J. (1985): Public attitudes to nuclear energy: salience and anxiety. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5(1): 87–97.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  64. VAN DER PLIGT, J., EISER, J. R., SPEARS, R. (1986): Attitudes toward Nuclear Energy Familiarity and Salience. Environment and Behavior, 18(1): 75–93.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  65. VENABLES, D., PIDGEON, N. F, SIMMONS, P., HENWOOD, K. L., PARKHILL, K. A. (2009): Living with Nuclear Power: A Q-Method Study of Local Community Perceptions. Risk Analysis, 29(8): 1089–1104.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  66. VENABLES, D., PIDGEON, N. F., PARKHILL, K. A., HENWOOD, K. L., SIMMONS, P. (2012): Living with nuclear power: Sense of place, proximity, and risk perceptions in local host communities. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(4): 371–383.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  67. VISSCHERS, V. H., KELLER, C., SIEGRIST, M. (2011): Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: investigating an explanatory model. Energy Policy, 39(6): 3621–3629.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  68. VISSCHERS, V. H., SIEGRIST, M. (2012): Fair play in energy policy decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants. Energy Policy, 46: 292–300.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  69. WALKER, C., BAXTER, J., OUELLETTE, D. (2014): Beyond rhetoric to understanding determinants of wind turbine support and conflict in two Ontario, Canada communities. Environment and Planning A, 46(3): 730–745.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  70. WARREN, C. R., LUMSDEN, C., O’DOWD, S., BIRNIE, R. V. (2005): Green on green: public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 48(6): 853–875.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  71. WNA (World Nuclear Association) (2015): Nuclear Power in the World Today [online]. [cit. 10.10.2015] Available at:
    Search in Google Scholar
  72. WYNNE, B., WATERTON, C., GROVE-WHITE, R. (1992/2007): Public Perceptions and the Nuclear Industry in West Cumbria. Lancaster: Lancaster University, Centre for the Study of Environmental Change.
    Search in Google Scholar
  73. YAMANE, F., OHGAKI, H., ASANO, K. (2011): Social Factors Affecting Economic Welfare of the Residents around Nuclear Power Plants in Japan. Energy Procedia, 9: 619–629.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mgr-2016-0001 | Journal eISSN: 2199-6202 (formerly 1210-8812) | Journal ISSN: 1210-8812
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 2 - 13
Submitted on: Sep 21, 2015
Accepted on: Feb 15, 2016
Published on: Apr 9, 2016
Published by: Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Geonics
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Keywords:
nuclear power plant impacts,
spatial analysis,
risk perceptions,
geographical distance,
social distance,
Dukovany,
Czech Republic
Related subjects:
Geosciences,
Geography

© 2016 Bohumil Frantál, Jiří Malý, Martin Ouředníček, Jiří Nemeškal, published by Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Geonics
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Volume 24 (2016): Issue 1 (March 2016)
Next article