Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Moravian Geographical Reports

The Journal of Institute of Geonics AS CR, v.v.i.

4 Issues per year

IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 2.149

CiteScore 2016: 1.97

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.472
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.548

Open Access
See all formats and pricing
More options …

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

Bohumil Frantál
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Environmental Geography, Institute of Geonics, The Czech Academy of Sciences, Brno, Czech Republic
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Jiří Malý
  • Department of Environmental Geography, Institute of Geonics, The Czech Academy of Sciences, Brno, Czech Republic
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Martin Ouředníček
  • Department of Social Geography and Regional Development, Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Jiří Nemeškal
  • Department of Social Geography and Regional Development, Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2016-04-09 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mgr-2016-0001


The effect of geographical distance on the extent of socioeconomic impacts of the Dukovany nuclear power plant in the Czech Republic is assessed by combining two different research approaches. First, we survey how people living in municipalities in the vicinity of the power plant perceive impacts on their personal quality of life. Second, we explore the effects of the power plant on regional development by analysing long-term statistical data about the unemployment rate, the share of workers in the energy sector and overall job opportunities in the respective municipalities. The results indicate that the power plant has had significant positive impacts on surrounding communities both as perceived by residents and as evidenced by the statistical data. The level of impacts is, however, significantly influenced by the spatial and social distances of communities and individuals from the power plant. The perception of positive impacts correlates with geographical proximity to the power plant, while the hypothetical distance where positive effects on the quality of life are no longer perceived was estimated at about 15 km. Positive effects are also more likely to be reported by highly educated, young and middle-aged and economically active persons, whose work is connected to the power plant.

Keywords: nuclear power plant impacts; spatial analysis; risk perceptions; geographical distance; social distance; Dukovany; Czech Republic


  • BAROCH, P. (2010): Obec Temelín nevzkvétá. I když ČEZ vydělává miliardy [online]. [cit. 10.10.2015] Available at: http://zpravy.aktualne.cz/domaci/obec-temelin-nevzkveta-i-kdyz-cez-vydelava-miliardy/r~i:article:663436/

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • BISCONTI RESEARCH (2013): Favorability Toward Nuclear Energy Stronger Among Plant Neighbors Than General Public [online]. [cit. 10.10.2015] Available at: http://www.nei.org/CorporateSite/media/filefolder/Backgrounders/Reports-Studies/MEMO-Plant-Neighbors-070113.pdf

  • BOHOLM, A., LÖFSTED, R. [eds.]: (2004): Facility sitting: Risk, Power and Identity in Land Use Planning. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar

  • BRODY, C. J. (1984): Differences by sex in support for nuclear power. Social Forces, 63(1): 209–228.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • COOPER, M. (2010): Policy challenges of nuclear reactor construction: Cost escalation and crowding out alternatives [online]. [cit. 10.10.2015] Available at: http://www.ises.org.il/assets/files/News/20100909_cooperStudy.pdf

  • CVVM (Public Opinion Research Centre) (2015): Veřejnost o energetice – květen 2015 [online]. [cit. 10.10.2015] Available at: http://cvvm.soc.cas.cz/media/com_form2content/documents/c1/a7392/f3/oe150609.pdf

  • CZSO (Czech Statistical Office) (2013): Cenzus 2011 [online]. [cit. 10.10.2015] Available at: https://www.czso.cz/csu/sldb

  • DAKE, K. (1992): Myths of nature: culture and social construction of risk. Journal of Social Issues, 48(4): 21–37.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • DAVIS, L. W. (2011): The effect of power plants on local housing values and rents. Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(4): 1391–1402.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • DEAR, M. (1992): Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58: 288–300.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • DEVINE-WRIGHT, P. (2005): Beyond NIMBYism: Towards an Integrated Framework for understanding Public Perceptions of Wind Energy. Wind Energy, 8(2): 125–139.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • EISER, J. R., VAN DER PLIGT, J., SPEARS, R. (1995): Nuclear Neighbourhoods. Exeter: Exeter University Press.Google Scholar

  • ENERGOREGION 2020 (2016): Sdružení obcí region JE Dukovany [online]. [cit. 10.02.2016] Available at: http://portal.energoregion.cz/o-nas-a-kontakt/

  • 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: http://www.cybergeo.presse.fr/essoct/texte/socdis.htm

  • EUROSTAT (2015): Renewable energy statistics [online]. [cit. 10.10.2015] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Renewable_energy_statistics

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • FLYNN, J., SLOVIC, P., MERTZ, C. K. (1994): Gender, Race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14(6): 1101–1108.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • GAMBLE, H. B., DOWNING, R. H. (1982): Effects of nuclear power plants on residential property values. Journal of Regional Science, 22(4): 457–478.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • ISARD, W., REINER, T., VAN ZELE, R., STRATHAM, J. (1976): Regional economic impacts of nuclear power plants. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University, Department of Regional Science.Google Scholar

  • JAHN, D., KOROLCZUK, S. (2012): German exceptionalism: the end of nuclear energy in Germany. Environmental Politics, 21(1): 159–164.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • LEWIS, P. M. (1986): The economic impact of the operation and closure of a nuclear power station. Regional Studies, 20(5): 425–432.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • MASSAM, B. H. (2002): Quality of Life: Public Planning and Private Living. Progress in Planning 58: 141–227.Google Scholar

  • MADERTHANER, R., GUTTMANN, G., SWATON, E., OTWAY, H. J. (1978): Effect of distance upon risk perception. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(3): 380–382.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • MCGUIRE, A. (1983): The regional income and employment impacts of nuclear power stations. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 30(3): 264–274.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • METZ, W. C. (1994): Potential negative impacts of nuclear activities on local economies: rethinking the issue. Risk Analysis, 14(5): 763–770.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • MPSV (Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs) (2012): Časové řady: Průměrná míra nezaměstnanosti od roku 1997 [online]. [cit. 10.10.2015] Available at: http://portal.mpsv.cz/sz/stat/nz/casove_rady

  • MUSIL, J., MÜLLER, J. (2008): Vnitřní periferie v České republice jako mechanismus sociální exkluze. Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review, 44(2): 321−348.Google Scholar

  • 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: http://www.atlasobyvatelstva.cz/cs/dukovany

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • PEELLE, E. (1976): Socioeconomic effects of operating reactors on two host communities: a case study of Pilgrim and Millstone. Tennessee: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.Google Scholar

  • PIDGEON, N., HENWOOD, K., SIMMONS, P. (2009): Living near nuclear power plants. People & Science, 3: 14–15.Google Scholar

  • 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • SIEGRIST, M., VISSCHERS, V. H. (2013): Acceptance of nuclear power: the Fukushima effect. Energy Policy, 59: 112–119.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • ŠILHÁN, Z. (2011): Jaderná elektrárna Dukovany a její vliv na okolní obce. Diploma Thesis. Brno: Masaryk University.Google Scholar

  • SLOVIC, P., LICHTENSTEIN, S., BISCHHOFF, B. (1979): Images of disaster: perception and acceptance of risks from nuclear power. Electric Perspectives, 3: 8–20.Google Scholar

  • SLOVIC, P. (1987): Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799): 280–285.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • STARR, C. (1969): Social benefit versus technological risk. Readings in Risk, 183–194.Google Scholar

  • 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: http://www.atlasobyvatelstva.cz/cs/dukovany.

  • 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • TĚŠITEL, J., KUŠOVÁ, D., BARTOŠ, M. (2005): Temelín power plant as an unusual landscape feature. Ekológia, 24(Suppl. 1): 139–149.Google Scholar

  • TĚŠITEL, J., KUŠOVÁ, D., BARTOŠ, M. (2008): Temelín v kontextu obytné krajiny. Životné prostredie, 42(2): 85–88.Google Scholar

  • 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • VAN DER PLIGT, J. (1985): Public attitudes to nuclear energy: salience and anxiety. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5(1): 87–97.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • VAN DER PLIGT, J., EISER, J. R., SPEARS, R. (1986): Attitudes toward Nuclear Energy Familiarity and Salience. Environment and Behavior, 18(1): 75–93.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • WNA (World Nuclear Association) (2015): Nuclear Power in the World Today [online]. [cit. 10.10.2015] Available at: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Nuclear-Power-in-the-World-Today/

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2015-09-21

Accepted: 2016-02-15

Published Online: 2016-04-09

Published in Print: 2016-03-01

Citation Information: Moravian Geographical Reports, ISSN (Online) 1210-8812, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mgr-2016-0001.

Export Citation

© 2016 Bohumil Frantál et al., published by De Gruyter Open. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in