• Which parties should be heard and included in the discussion, and how should they be included?
• What kind of mitigation/compensation methods
should be used?
• If the project is not realized, what should be done next?
• How should any follow-up actions be realized?
• What kind of positive impacts has the nuclear power plant project had?
• What are your concrete expectations on positive impacts?
• What kind of negative impacts has the nuclear power plant project had?
• Have these been fears, or have you experienced some concrete disadvantages?
• Who will benefit from the project if it is realized?
• Employees, entrepreneurs?
• Municipal economy?
• Who or what will be negatively affected if the project is realized?
• Nature sites in the immediate vicinity of the project area, such as the Hanhikivi headland?
• Fishery or other local activities? • Local hunting?
• Other themes:
• Impacts related to the entry of the Russian actor into the project
• Other positive or negative impacts
7.10.2.3 Regional economy and employment
The starting point of the assessment of the impacts on employment and the regional economy is that the nuclear power plant project is a major construction project, and when realized, it will be a significant regional employer. The construction, operation, and annual maintenance of the nuclear power plant will have diverse impacts on businesses, services, and the labor market in Pyhäjoki and the surround- ing Raahe economic area, as well as the whole of Finland.
The project’s employment impact assessment is based on a background survey on the project’s impact on the regional economy that was drafted in 2008 (Pöyry Energy Oy 2008), since the studied nuclear power plant’s impacts on the economy and employment are not expected to be very different from the impacts of the 1,800 MW plant studied in the EIA of 2008. The figures used in the previous assessment, such as the data on the economic area, work input coefficients, and investment size, have been updated to correspond to the current situation. This environmental impact assessment studies the impacts of an investment of approximately €4,000–6,000 million.
The project’s employment impacts have been separately evaluated for the construction phase and the operation phase. Both direct and indirect employment impacts have been studied for both phases. The term ‘direct employment impact’ refers to design and construction work required by the investment and implemented directly by the developer, contractors, subcontractors, and service providers. In addi- tion to direct impacts, the investment will create a long sup- ply chain consisting of intermediate product inputs.
In addition to the actual power plant investment, this assessment also studies the employment impacts of con- nected projects (such as the harbor). The assessment of the project’s direct and indirect employment impacts has been implemented utilizing data about work inputs in 2010 pub- lished by Statistics Finland (Tilastokeskus 2013b). The amount of property tax and municipal tax has been assessed based on the investment data and the employment impact assessments.
7.10.2.4 Uncertainties related to the assessment
People’s experiences and opinions about the nuclear power plant project, which have been described in the social impact assessment, may change as the project proceeds. The social impact assessment has been implemented utilizing the results of the other parts of the environmental impact assess- ment, which means that uncertainties related to the other assessments will also influence the results of the social impact assessment. The project’s perceived impacts have been studied using resident survey results, for example. Since the response rate of the survey was only approximately 25%, the results of the survey are not fully representative of the opinions and views of all the permanent and holiday residents in the area.
The initial data and assumptions used in the environ- mental impact assessment are based on previously imple- mented projects and other studies where the data has been proven reliable. The assessment of the project’s economic impacts involves some uncertainties. The project’s estimated employment impact is based on the size of the total invest- ment, which may be revised as the project proceeds.
The project’s impacts on the regional economy and employment will in the end depend on, for instance, the current economic cycle and availability of local workforce. Municipalities and different actors in the project’s impact area may influence by their actions how significant the local benefits are (such as improved employment) and they are regionally distributed. The significance and regional dis- tribution of the project’s impacts on employment and on the regional economy will also depend, to some extent, on decisions to be made by Fennovoima and the plant supplier regarding recruitment, contract supply chains, etc. Regional distribution of the impacts will also depend on how large a share of the project employees are from Finland and in which town they live.
7.10.3 Results of the resident survey
and summary of the group interviews
7.10.3.1 Results of the resident survey Respondent data
The questionnaire was sent to a total of 693 households. 173 questionnaires were returned, i.e. the response rate was approx- imately 25 %. The response rate is moderate when compared to other similar surveys. The response rate is low when compared to the resident survey of 2008, however. The response rate of the 2008 survey was approximately 53 %. The graphs illustrating the results include, for comparison purposes, also the results of the 2008 survey in cases where the same questions were posed.
180 7 Assessment methods, the present state of the environment and the assessed environmental impacts
The respondents were asked to estimate how far away from the power plant site their home or holiday home is located. A total of 36 % of all the respondents estimated that they live less than five kilometers from the power plant site and 64 % stated that they live 5–20 km from the power plant site. Based on the estimates given, it can be assumed that the response rate within the five-kilometer zone was more than 42 % and the response rate within the 5–20 km zone was more than 19 %. Of the respondents, 38 % (62 people) were female and 62 % (103 people) were male. Three percent of the respondents belonged to the age group from 18 to 25 years, 5 % were 26 to 35 years old, 13 % were 36 to 45 years old, 47 % were 46 to 64 years old, and 32 % were 65+ years old. Thus, almost 80 % of the respondents were more than 45 years of age.
Of the group, 83 % (142 people) stated that they are per- manent residents of the area and 17 % (30 people) stated that they own a holiday home in the area. The share of permanent residents was slightly higher (89 %) in the resi- dent survey of 2008. The relative share of holiday residents among those respondents living less than five kilometers from the power plant site was higher (30 %) than among those living 5–20 km from the power plant site (10 %). A total of 95 % of the respondents had been living in the area for more than five years and only one respondent had been living in the area for less than 12 months. This corresponds to the results of the 2008 survey.
Respondents view about the project impacts
The respondents were asked to assess how the project would influence their own income or the income of their family, their recreational activities or spare time in general, and the traffic routes they use (Figure 7-41). Approximately half of
the respondents were of the opinion that the project will not influence the above-mentioned issues. Around one third of the respondents stated that the project will have a positive or highly positive impact on their income or the income of their family and their opportunity to obtain income. Of the group, 13 % of the respondents were of the opinion that the impact on their income would be fairly or highly negative. Of these three issues being assessed, the respondents considered recreational activities or spare time to be the most susceptible to negative impacts. The assess- ments of the people living less than five kilometers from the plant site were more negative than the assessments of the people living 5–20 km from the plant site.
The respondents were asked to assess how the project will influence the value of their home or holiday home. The respondents’ views on the impact of the project on the value of real estate were very strongly polarized (Figure 7-42). Compared to the resident survey of 2008, the share of respondents who believed that the value of real estate will rise had increased from 19 % to 35 %.
The respondents were also asked to assess how the project will influence different aspects of their living environment. The questions were divided into four sections, depending on the impacts. The respondents’ assessments on the project’s impact on living comfort, living conditions, and recrea- tional activities are illustrated in Figure 7-43. About half of the respondents (42–64 % depending on the question) were of the opinion that the project will not influence any of the issues being assessed. The respondents believed that the project will have negative impacts particularly on fishing opportunities, safety, picking of natural products, and on the stillness and peace of their living environment.
6 4 8 18 8 26 48 47 50 7 15 4 13 22 9 8 4 4 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
How do you expect the nuclear power plant to influence your own income or the income of your family and your opportunity to obtain income?
How do you expect the nuclear power plant to influence your recreational opportunities or other leisure activities?
How do you expect the nuclear power plant to influence the transport services and traffic routes you use?
Figure 7-41. Respondents’ assessments on the project’s impact on their income, recreational activities, and traffic connections (n = 171–172).
Very positively Positively No impact Fairly negatively Very negatively Can not say
181