Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is recognized as an important technology for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and achieving climate targets, yet some segments of society express public opposition. Public opposition, even when expressed by minority groups, has at times influenced CCS project outcomes. Opposition extends beyond technical risk concerns, including emotional, symbolic, and territorial dimensions. This study examines how such opposition was constructed through protest materials, social media content, and press articles related to a specific CCS project. A mixed-methods design combined sentiment analysis using a natural language processing (NLP) model with qualitative content analysis. Because the corpus was deliberately sampled from oppositional channels, these sentiment scores characterize how opposition is expressed rather than the balance of public opinion at large. Within this corpus, opposition was articulated largely through negative sentiment (mean sentiment -0.44), particularly in materials from environmental NGOs and labor unions, with recurring concerns including seismic risk, proximity, institutional distrust, and perceived territorial injustice. On the qualitative side, protesters frequently employed emotionally charged metaphors (e.g., “ticking bomb”, “waste”) and comparisons to other CCS projects, reframing the technology as an imposition rather than a climate solution. Nonetheless, the dataset also captured neutral and occasionally supportive tones, especially in citizen and press discourse, indicating that while opposition dominated, public responses were not monolithic. These findings contribute to a more nuanced understanding of CCS acceptance by highlighting the emotional, symbolic, and communicative dynamics of opposition. The study also demonstrates the value of sentiment analysis for capturing discursive opposition in contested projects. Moreover, the results underline that the social acceptance of CCS is shaped as much by identity, symbolism, and public discourse as by technical and regulatory considerations.

Governments increasingly appeal to citizens contribute to common goals in natural resource management, nature conservation or invasive species eradication. The contributing citizen is sometimes understood as able to graduate from being extrinsically motivated - by rewards, financial incentives or penalties - toward becoming intrinsicallymotivated. In this paper, we problematize the relative willingness of citizen contributions to aid the state in invasive species management, using the wild boar in Norway as a case study. Through a qualitative study using interviews, document analysis and participant observation with hunters, officials, landowners, farmers and veterinarians, We show how the relationship between the state and its citizens can make or break collaboration Our research suggests that rewards and financial incentives by the government are not a given for contribution. Instead, citizens willingness rests on ongoing communication with the government, its perceived gratitude and feedback to their contributions, the legacy of past collaborations and various sociopolitical factors about the role of hunters in aiding the state. In this way, our study demonstrates that motivations are not static individual properties, able to be predicted with models, but complex products of hunter identities in relation to the state and wildlife, and continuous evaluations of how the state nudges its citizens. In brief, we argue that even intrinsic motivations are embedded motivations in a sociopolitical context.

Managing migrating species is a geobiopolitical undertaking: with this is meant that administrating life (and death) across borders has political implications between neighboring countries. When a species immigrates, or is moved anthropogenically, its sudden presence can trigger defensive-nativist responses from its new destination. Sometimes its mere risk is enough to generate anxiety. This is true both of invasive alien species and of unpopular or conflictful species. But what actually happens culturally and politically in the process of such an immigration? What determines which foreign representations and practices are adopted, vs. rejected? In this paper, we examine means of transmission of actual and representational wild boar from Sweden into Norway in the recent decade. With the relative infrequency of encountering physical boars in Norway today, representations of wild boar are necessarily imported from elsewhere in Europe. This is done through media coverage, personal experiences, international institutional cooperation and more. Our paper thus shows how traces of a 'ghost' boar precede and partly shape responses to a 'corporeal' boar in Norway. Through interviews with stakeholders, we show how the boar is welcomed, unwelcomed, made foreign and partly assimilated into Norwegian hunting culture by hunters, veterinarians, farmers and decision-makers. We show that the public-typically individual hunters-appears to have been more important actors in the diffusion process of learning how to live with (and hunt) wild boar than the transmission in institutional pathways has been. Complicating the situation is the contested nature of wild boar belonging in Norway, as an invasive alien species and threat from the east on the one hand, and as a new game resource on the other hand.

Miljøkonflikter setter ofte følelser i sving, men følelsene oppfattes sjelden som like troverdige eller relevante som tekniske og økonomiske argumenter. I lokalsamfunn som direkte berøres av naturinngrep, kan dette skape spenninger og få konsekvenser for hvilke meninger som regnes som legitime, og hvilke stemmer som får plass i offentligheten. Med utgangspunkt i kvalitative intervjuer fra Fosen viser vi hvordan skillet mellom fornuft og følelser trådte frem i lokale fortellinger om vindkraftutbygging. Følelser knyttet til naturtap ble ofte skjøvet til side som lite troverdige, mens argumenter koblet til utvikling og vekst fikk status som rasjonelle og gyldige. Slik bidrar skillet mellom fornuft og følelser til å strukturere hvilke perspektiver og erfaringer som tillegges vekt i lokale meningsutvekslinger om miljø- og utbyggingssaker. Studien komplementerer eksisterende forskning ved å vise hvordan vindkraftutbygging oppleves innenfra i lokalsamfunn, og den nyanserer forståelsen av emosjoner i miljø- og energikonflikter ved å belyse hvordan oppfatninger om fornuft og følelser former betingelsene for hva som kan sies, og hvem som får plass i offentligheten.

This study explores the impact of NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) sentiments on local resistance to wind power developments in Norway. With a reopening of concession processing for new onshore wind power projects in 2022, a significant number of applications await evaluation, provoking substantial local opposition. This research assesses the prevalence and impact of NIMBY attitudes among the Norwegian public and to critically examine the theoretical validity and practical utility of the NIMBY concept. Using data from an online survey, which yielded 1220 complete responses, we analyzed general attitudes toward wind power in Norway and specific attitudes toward local wind power installations. While 37% of respondents support wind power construction in Norway, only 27% favor it near their homes. Based on the relationship between these two attitudes, we identified the proportion of NIMBYs in the data using two approaches. A strict definition requires individuals to support wind power in Norway but oppose its presence in the natural areas near their own homes. A less strict definition also includes those who expressed a neutral stance toward wind power in Norway among the NIMBYs. In both cases, a relatively small segment of respondents exhibit classic NIMBY characteristics, i.e., support (or claim neutrality) to wind power in general but opposing it locally. Further analysis reveals that direct experience with wind power installations is associated with increased acceptance rather than opposition, challenging the NIMBY narrative. Our study argues that labeling local resistance as NIMBYism oversimplifies the issue and ignores other significant factors like environmental identity, place attachment, and broader environmental attitudes. Hence, the study suggests that blaming wind power opponents as "Nimbys" often is misplaced and unjust.

In the small municipality of Afjord on the Norwegian coast, home to one of Europe's largest onshore wind power installations, we observed a shift in critical attitudes towards a specific wind power development plan. Initially considered legitimate standpoints within an ongoing debate over land use, these viewpoints transformed into silenced opinions, or acquiescence, as the project progressed from the planning stage to fully operational wind power plants. A demand for consensus emerged within the local community. Through qualitative analysis of in-depth interviews with concerned stakeholders and community members, we employ a social norm perspective to explore the catalysts behind that shift and discuss potential consequences of the transformation. The article transcends the conventional explanatory approach to opinions on wind power development and provides valuable insights to the field of research on social acceptance. Specifically, it demonstrates that key drivers of acceptance, such as economic spin-off effects, can evolve into codes dictating legitimate behaviour and opinions in host communities. This poses a potential threat to the free exchange of opinions and local democracy.

Wind power has become an increasingly important source of renewable energy in Norway. Current demand and production capacity have exceeded expectations stipulated in energy policies a few years back. Wind power affects landscape characteristics, and the rapid development has created considerable public conflict. However, knowledge to date about public attitudes toward wind power development in Norway is limited. We surveyed a representative sample of the Norwegian public to examine relationships between wind power development and place attachment, localization, and policies. We also examined if attitudes toward wind power are linked to broader environmental attitudes and meaning of place. Public attitudes range from strong support to strong opposition. We found limited support for NIMBY effects. Support versus opposition correlates with attitudes toward place attachment, localization of wind power plants and energy policies. We found evidence of a dichotomy between the more fundamental world views of eco-modernism versus de-growth influencing the more specific wind power attitudes. We argue that policy institutions have underestimated the power of attitude diversity in the wind power debate, and that social acceptability of future wind power development will depend on improved understanding of how social values of landscapes are impacted.

Sustainability certificates are increasingly used as tools for shaping bioeconomic production processes and trade. However, their specific effects are subjected to debate. A multitude of certificate schemes and standards are currently in use, defining and measuring sustainability in the bioeconomy in highly varying ways. Different representations of environmental effects, resulting from the use of different standards or scientific methods in certification, can have very real implications for how, where and to which degree bioeconomic production can be conducted and the environment will be conserved. Further, the implications for bioeconomic production practices and management embedded in the environmental knowledge employed in bioeconomic sustainability certificates will produce different winners and losers, and privilege some societal or individual concerns at the expense of others. In this way, sustainability certificates share some characteristics with other standards and policy tools that embody political contingencies, but are presented and often understood as objective and neutral. The paper argues that the politics of environmental knowledge involved in these processes warrant more awareness, scrutiny and explicit consideration from decision makers, policy developers and researchers.

Poorer citizens are often more exposed to environmental hazards due to spatial inequalities in the distribution of urbanblue-green space. Few cities have managed to prevent spatial and social inequality despite sustainable developmentstrategies like compact city planning. We explore whether environmental injustice exists in a city where one wouldleast expect tofind it: a city with abundant nature, an affluent population governed by a left leaning social democraticcity council, andan aggressive densification strategy;Oslo, Norway.Green spacewas measured with a satellite-derivedvegetation index which captures the combined availability of gardens, street trees, parks and forest. Blue space wasdefined by the proximity of residential areas to the closest lake, river or fjord. We found that poorer city districts,often with greater immigrant populations, have less available blue-green spaces and are disproportionately exposedto hazardous air pollution levels, but not extreme heat compared to wealthier city districts. Citizens living within100 m of a water body are likely to earn US$ 20,000 more per year than citizens living 500 m away from water,and a US$ 3000 increase in annual income corresponds to a 10 % increase in green space availability. Hazardousair pollution concentrations in the poorest city districts were above levels recommended by the WHO and Oslo munic-ipality. Historical trends showed that districts undergoing population densification coincide with the lowest availabil-ity of blue-green space, suggesting that environmental justice has been overlooked in compact city planning policy.Despite Oslo's affluence and egalitarian ideals, the patterns of inequality we observed mirror the city's historicaleast-west class divide and point to spatial concentration of wealth as a core factor to consider in studies of green seg-regation. Urban greening initiatives in Oslo and other cities should not take spatial equality for granted, and insteadconsider socio-economic geographies in their planning process

Conflicts over wolf management are a stable feature of Norwegian public debate. In some segments of the population, nature management, and especially predator management, have a very low legitimacy. A strong expression of these controversies is the illegal killing of wolves, a practice sufficiently extensive to impact wolf population size. In several studies, the killing of wolves is interpreted as politically motivated resistance/crime of dissent. This study contributes to the research field by examining the support for such illegal actions. We ask if the Norwegian public find such illegal ac-tions to be acceptable or not. Analysis shows that acceptance joins a broader pattern of controversies, expressed by phenomena such as xenophobia, cli-mate change denial, anti-elitism, and low confidence in institutions working to nature.

Conflicts over wolf management are a stable feature of Norwegian public debate. In some segments of the population, nature management, and especially predator management, have a very low legitimacy. A strong expression of these controversies is the illegal killing of wolves, a practice sufficiently extensive to impact wolf population size. In several studies, the killing of wolves is interpreted as politically motivated resistance/crime of dissent. This study contributes to the research field by examining the support for such illegal actions. We ask if the Norwegian public find such illegal actions to be acceptable or not. Analysis shows that acceptance joins a broader pattern of controversies, expressed by phenomena such as xenophobia, climate change denial, anti-elitism, and low confidence in institutions working to preserve nature.

Everyday public denial of anthropogenically caused climate change (ACC) has complex antecedents and exists on both individual and institutional levels. Earlier research has linked ACC denial to opposition to formal science and elites, perceived threats to the industrialist capitalist order and existing system properties. Research also suggest that trust in public organizations is a key factor in determining support or opposition to climate change policies. In this paper, we explore the possibility that right wing populism and anti-elitist attitudes fuel both ACC denial and low trust in environmental institutions. We surveyed a representative sample of Norwegians ( N = 3032) to measure ACC denial, how denial is linked to socio-demographic characteristics, trust in environmental institutions, attitudes toward elites and immigration, as well as environmental attitude orientations. Results show that lack of trust in environmental institutions is strongly associated with ACC denial, and furthermore that the degree of trust—or lack thereof—is partly a function of anti-elitist attitudes, opposition to migration and views of nature.

Illegal killing of wildlife is challenging conservation efforts worldwide. Ecological research has shown that illegal killing is severely affecting the transboundary Swedish-Norwegian wolf population. A previous study indicated that unwillingness to report illegal killing of wolves among Swedish hunters contains an element of protest against perceived unjust treatment of hunting and hunters but that it could also simply be a reflection of ineffective law enforcement in the backcountry, driving hunters to effect forms of self-policing. Based on a survey of Norwegian hunters, the present research goes one step further. One in five hunters decline to report illegal wolf killings, and unwillingness to report is predicted by lack of trust in environmental institutions and a general anti-elite sentiment. Hunting-related issues and other factors also affect outcomes, but to a lesser degree. We conclude that unwillingness to report is often part of an oppositional stance related not only to wildlife management and conservation, but to contemporary social change in rural areas and perceived societal power relations. It is unlikely that reluctance to report is driven by frustration over inefficient official enforcement. While a political dimension is not always articulated, overlooking it may stoke conflicts and fortify a perception of unjust power relations.

Qualitative studies have indicated that the illegal killing of wolves is often attributed a protest dimension. However, we have limited knowledge about the factors that impact this judgement. The present study investigates views on illegal wolf killing among Norwegian hunters and connects these views to background factors, hunting cultures, anti-elitism and the legitimacy of environmental institutions, probing the existence of a 'counterpublic' where killing wolves is seen as justified resistance. Only a minority tolerated the activity, but compared to other hunting-related offences, killing a wolf illegally was seen as 'not serious' by the largest group. Hunters with limited education, living in rural areas, and who were motivated by a 'tradition and stewardship' ethos when hunting, were more inclined to accept illegal killing. Anti-elitism and lack of trust in environmental institutions were even stronger predictors. We conclude that hunting-related issues are not among the prime drivers of support for illegal wolf hunting. Rather, it is typically part of a worldview that reflects a rural subaltern experience, comprising elements of cultural resistance. While the political dimension is not always articulated, overlooking it and treating illegal killing simply as 'crime' may stoke conflicts and fortify an understanding of power relations that already drives resistance.

Konfliktene som utspiller seg rundt forvaltningen av ulv har etablert seg som et stabilt og synlig trekk i den norske politiske offentligheten. Også på bakken, ute blant vanlige folk, er kontroversene sterke. I deler av samfunnet har naturforvaltningen, og kanskje særlig rovdyrforvaltningen, svært lav legitimitet. Et markert, og man kan si spissformulert, uttrykk for dette finnes i det ikke ubetydelige omfanget av ulovlig avlivning av ulv. Vår interesse ligger i den mulige støtten slike handlinger har i befolkningen. Vi spurte et representativt utvalg av nordmenn om de mener at det er akseptabelt å skyte ulv ulovlig. Svarene ble gitt på en skala som varierte fra «helt uakseptabelt» til «helt akseptabelt». Variasjonen i svarene er stor nok til at det lar seg gjøre å studere hvem som er tilbøyelige til å akseptere slike lovbrudd. Analysene viser at aksepten føyer seg inn i et bredere mønster av motsetninger i det norske samfunnet, uttrykt ved fenomener som fremmedfiendtlighet, klimaskepsis, anti-elitisme og lav tillit til institusjoner som arbeider for å bevare norsk natur. Om man er jeger eller har ulv området der man bor, spiller mindre rolle.