Public Perceptions of Nuclear Power in Lithuania: Symbolic Meanings, Public Participation and a Quest for Democracy

Aistė Balžekienė, Leonardas RinkevičiusDepartment of Sociology, Kaunas University of Technology

1st ISA Forum of Sociology , Barcelona, September 8, 2008

Project

•“Risk perceptions, public communication and innovative governance in knowledge society” (RINOVA)

•Funded by the Lithuanian State Science and Studies Foundation

•2007-2009

Structure of presentation:

•Focus and questions of the research•Context - nuclear power issues in

Lithuania•Empirical findings:

▫Risk perceptions ▫Symbolic meanings of nuclear power▫Public participation and responsibility

issues•Discussion

Research questions:

•What social and environmental concerns are reflected in nuclear risk perceptions?

•What symbolic meanings of nuclear power are reflected in public attitudes?

•How nuclear risks are perceived among other threats?

•How public reflect upon participation and responsibility issues regarding nuclear power issues?

Theoretical background•Theoretical framework of research is based

upon theories of reflexive modernisation and risk society (Beck, Giddens) considering:▫the active public participation of society in the

decision making processes considering risky technologies;

▫the issue of trust in scientific knowledge and ability to cope with the consequences of technological development;

▫the domination of environmental risk concerns in the perceptions of technologies.

Context

• Ignalina Nuclear power plant – 2 RBMK reactors, greatest installed capacity in the world

• EU Accession treaty – Lithuania commits to close both reactors. 1st closed in 2005, 2nd will be closed in 2009

• INPP produces about 75% of total country’s energy production

Current issues:• Decommissioning of Ignalina Nuclear Power

Plant• Initiatives to call a referendum for not closing

the 2nd reactor in 2009• Warnings from EU for possible sanctions in case

of not closing the reactor in agreed time

• Building a new nuclear power plant▫Private capital▫Concerns for the project being not transparent

34

52

31

72

27

55

4

55

39

19

32

23

78

60 5856

52 50

4440 39 38

31 30 2926

2116

138

5861

6465

44

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80H

un

ga

ry

Sw

ed

en

Cze

ck

Re

pu

blic

Lit

hu

an

ia

Fra

nc

e

Fin

lan

d

Slo

va

kia

Ho

lan

d

Be

lgiu

m

Slo

ve

nia

Gre

at

Bri

tain

Es

ton

ia

La

tvia

Ge

rma

ny

Lu

xe

mb

ou

rg

Ita

ly

De

nm

ark

Po

lan

d

Po

rtu

ga

l

Sp

ain

Gre

ec

e

Au

sti

ra

%

a. Share of nuclear energy in total country's energy production b. Public support for nuclear energy

Public support for nuclear energy in EU countries vs. the share of nuclear energy production in EU countries

Sources: a. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 2004. www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/index.html

b. Eurobarometer survey 2005 february – march. www.europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion

Survey data

•Representative Lithuanian population survey, N=1000

•June 19-30, 2008•Structured questionnaire on public

perceptions of nuclear power, climate change, genetically modified food.

Attitudes towards a construction of new modern reactor, %

RINOVA study, 2008, N=1000

Is referendum necessary considering new nuclear power plant in Lithuania, %

RINOVA study, 2008, N=1000

Attitudes towards institutions, that should be responsible for nuclear energy issues

AgreeNeither disagree nor agree Do not agree Don't know

Scientists 93.7 2.6 0.9 2.8Government 91 3.5 1.5 4European Union 84.2 5.8 4 6Parliament 82.9 8.1 4.2 4.8United Nations 69.2 13.3 6.1 11.4Other international organisations 57.3 15.7 6.5 20.5Business 47.9 23.7 20.3 8.1Local authorities 47.2 26.2 18.4 8.2Non-governmental organisations 45.4 26.7 18.6 9.3Society at large 44.1 28.5 19.3 8.1

RINOVA study, 2008, N=1000

Perception of scientific knowledge,%

RINOVA study, 2008, N=1000

Public perceptions of symbolic meanings of nuclear power plants in Lithuania, % of respondents agreeing with the statement

*Q: In your opinion, what is the meaning for Lithuania of current nuclear power plant in Ignalina? **Q: In your opinion, what would be the meaning for Lithuania of new modern nuclear reactor?

Symbolic meanings

•Little differentiation in public perceptions of an old NPP and a new one

•Domination of positive symbolic meanings based on rational choices rather than environmental concerns

•New power plant regarded as more vulnerable to oligarchy threat than the old one, identifying public concern about the procedure of establishing a new plant.

Perception of threatsMean scores, 1 – low threat, 5 – high threat

RINOVA study, 2008, N=1000

Decision making processes:

•Democratic procedures or “imitation” of democracy?▫EIA procedure: full report available,

summary not available in Lithuanian;

▫Establishing new NPP regulatory institutions, starting of planning works, etc, BEFORE the conclusions of EIA

▫ initiatives for referendum – related to 2nd reactor, but not with new one.

Conclusions:

•Positive symbolic meaning dominate public perceptions of nuclear power plants in Lithuania, revealing economic and energy security concerns at the first place.

•Society is not perceived as important institution that should have responsibility or legitimized power to participate in nuclear power regulation issues.

Conclusions

•Survey revealed that public perceptions of nuclear power are relatively inconsistent:▫Despite public uncertainty about scientific

knowledge, science is still regarded as the main actor taking responsibility for nuclear power issues.

▫The support for new modern reactor is rather high, however it is still considered as posing threat of an accident.