Social shaping of deep geothermal projects in Alsace: politics, stakeholder attitudes and local democracy
Social shaping of deep geothermal projects in Alsace: politics, stakeholder attitudes and local democracy
复制标题
阿尔萨斯深层地热项目的社会塑造：政治、利益相关者态度和地方民主
作者：
Philippe Chavot;C. Heimlich;A. Masseran;Yeny Serrano;Jean Zoungrana;Cyrille Bodin
本文考察了阿尔萨斯地区有利于或阻碍深层地热能源项目的社会、文化和政治因素。这项研究是在H2020 DESTRESS项目的风险治理包中进行的，旨在比较不同背景下公众对深层地热能的看法。法国的案例研究集中在两个不同的背景下：一个在阿尔萨斯北部，地热能被相当广泛地接受；另一个在欧洲大都市斯特拉斯堡，一些项目引起了很大的争议。几个概念性工具被用来理解公众对地热项目看法的变化。首先，“本地锚定”项目和“不受约束”或外生项目之间的区别说明了这些项目的形成方式，这些项目是基于对话或由有利的经济和国家政治背景推动的，忽视了当地的特殊性。其次，社会身份和社会世界的概念使我们能够在社会学和文化层面上深入了解项目的可接受性，而不是采用有限的风险感知焦点。通过考虑社会和文化背景，我们可以更好地解释对手在技术科学争议中对诱导风险、地方政治或环境问题的论述中所占的权重。这最终导致我们强调项目治理的沟通模型的局限性，这些模型主要旨在使当地居民放心。
This paper examines the social, cultural and political factors that favor or disrupt deep geothermal energy projects in Alsace. The research was conducted in the Risk Governance package of the H2020 DESTRESS program, aimed at comparing public perceptions of deep geothermal energy in different contexts. The French case studies focus on two different contexts: one in Northern Alsace, where geothermal energy is fairly well accepted, and another in the Eurometropolis of Strasbourg, where some projects have raised substantial controversy. Several conceptual tools are used to understand variations in the public perceptions of geothermal projects. First, the distinction between “locally anchored” projects and “unbound” or exogenous projects account for the way these projects take shape, based on dialog or facilitated by a favorable economic and national political context, ignoring local specificities. Second, the concepts of social identity and social worlds allow us to yield insights into the acceptability of a project on a more sociological and cultural level, instead of adopting a limited risk perception focus. By considering the social and cultural contexts, we can better explain the weight that opponents place in their discourses on induced risks, local politics, or environmental issues during a technoscientific controversy. This ultimately leads us to underline the limitations of the communication models for project governance that are chiefly aimed at reassuring the local population.