# Navigating French post-nuclear trajectories: lessons from Fessenheim's redevelopment pathways

Belinda Ravaz, Pierre-Henri Bombenger, Massimiliano Capezzali, Teva Meyer

► To cite this version:

Belinda Ravaz, Pierre-Henri Bombenger, Massimiliano Capezzali, Teva Meyer. Navigating French post-nuclear trajectories: lessons from Fessenheim's redevelopment pathways. Energy Research & Social Science, 2025, 127, 10.1016/j.erss.2025.104157. hal-05135456

HAL Id: hal-05135456

https://hal.science/hal-05135456v1

Submitted on 30 Jun 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
Original research article

# Navigating French post-nuclear trajectories: lessons from Fessenheim's redevelopment pathways

Belinda Ravaz<sup>a,b,*</sup>, Pierre-Henri Bombenger<sup>a</sup>, Massimiliano Capezzali<sup>a</sup>, Teva Meyer<sup>b</sup>

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

## ARTICLE INFO

### Keywords:

- Analytical framework

- Nuclear power

- Redevelopment

- Trajectory

- Fessenheim

- Factors

## ABSTRACT

As with any industry, nuclear installations have a limited lifespan. This is generally around forty years, although there is debate about the possibility of extending the operation of the reactors. In any case, such facilities are bound to shut down eventually. They will have to be dismantled, and their territory redeveloped. However, little attention has been paid to the issues of dismantling and the future use of these sites. The aim of this article is to develop an analytical framework to answer the following questions: What factors influence the redevelopment trajectories of post-nuclear sites? And how do they interact? We consider three redevelopment possibilities: brownfield, greenfield and multi-scale redevelopment. This latter category includes the redevelopment of a post-nuclear territory on a site larger than the original power plant site. Our analytical framework is based on the concept of trajectory. We consider that the choice of redevelopment, which we call spatial configuration, depends on a number of factors, perceived as strategic resources by different actors, and related to each other over a period of time. To illustrate this, we apply our analytical framework to the redevelopment of the Fessenheim nuclear power plant in France. Its application has enabled us to make our framework more flexible to adapt it to local specificities. However, the analysis of the redevelopment trajectories of nuclear power plants with fundamentally different characteristics is essential to better understand the interrelationships that lead to the choice of a particular type of redevelopment.

## 1. Introduction

The place of nuclear power in the energy transition is often discussed. Some argue that it is an integral part of the energy transition and essential to the energy mix to achieve decarbonization targets [1,2]. Although it is perceived as clean in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, it relies on limited uranium resources. Indeed, unlike other fossil fuels such as coal or oil, nuclear energy produces very few direct carbon emissions. Also, power plants can produce electricity constantly, unlike renewable energies such as wind or solar, which are dependent on meteorological conditions. On the other hand, nuclear power is often seen as an industry in decline due to concerns about its inherent risks, radioactive waste and its nonrenewable nature [2].

The study of energy transition trajectories has shown that researchers have focused on the emergence of renewable technologies in

contrast to the dominant trajectories [3]. Energy transition is not merely a switch to new sources of energy, but also the end of a dominant energy. In this context, the study of post-nuclear territories and their redevelopment, is still in its early stages [4,5]. However, a number of studies have shown the demographic, economic, social and housing impact of the dismantling of a power plant [6–12]. This impact needs to be put into perspective. The nuclear industry marks its territory in different ways and over long periods of time [3]. This is illustrated by two comparative studies between the French Fessenheim nuclear power plant (NPP), which is closely embedded in the local socio-economic fabric, and the German Brunsbüttel NPP, which was shut down with little interest [4,13].

Now that scholars have analyzed the impact of the closure of these plants, it is essential to take an interest in the future of these territories, as an increasing number of nuclear reactors and also entire power plants

<footnote><sup>a</sup> School of Engineering and Management Vaud, HES-SO, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland, Rte de Cheseaux 1, 1400 Yverdon-les-Bains, Switzerland</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Department of History & Heritage, Faculty of Economics, Social and Legal Sciences, University of Upper Alsace, 16 Rue de la Fonderie, 68100 Mulhouse, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author at: School of Engineering and Management Vaud, HES-SO, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland, Rte de Cheseaux 1, 1400 Yverdon-les-Bains, Switzerland.</footnote>

<footnote>E-mail addresses: belinda.ravaz@heig-vd.ch (B. Ravaz), pierre-henri.bombenger@hes-so.ch (P.-H. Bombenger), massimiliano.capezzali@heig-vd.ch (M. Capezzali), teva.meyer@uha.fr (T. Meyer).</footnote>
are being closed down around the world, even though we are witnessing
new polarization regarding nuclear power between ‘decline’ and ‘re-
naissance’ [3]. There are currently 189 permanently and 25 temporarily
shut-down reactors in the world. 415 are still in service, while 60 are
under construction and a further 91 are planned [14]. In 2023, the
average age of reactors in operation was 31.4 years. [15]. Given that
most reactors were built to last between 30 and 40 years, hundreds of
them will reach the end of their service life in the next few years.

In this paper, we aim to develop an innovative analytical framework
that is designed to analyze the redevelopment trajectories of post-
nuclear territories, focusing on the way in which local actors activate
different factors - be they spatial, political, economic or structural - to
shape territorial dynamics. In other words, this will enable us to answer
the following question: *What factors influence redevelopment trajectories
for post-nuclear sites?*

This analytical framework is mainly based on the concept of factors
and the way in which they interact and influence redevelopment tra-
jectories. Indeed, Ravaz et al. [5] have shown that researchers have left
aside the notion of trajectory to focus solely on the chances of success of
a redevelopment by reading lists of factors without analyzing them in
the way they fit into the trajectory. The main advantage of this approach
is to address this issue and grasp the diversity of local situations without
confining the analysis to overly pre-determined explanatory grids.
Indeed, we are aware that specific case studies tend to blur the boundary
between general trends and local specificities [16]. For this reason, we
do not seek to identify general guidelines, but rather different types of
interactions between these factors, or the way in which the actors take
them into account and interact with each other. The aim of this article is
therefore to develop an analytical framework and to test its operational
feasibility. We will focus on testing its usability on a single case study:
Fessenheim, a French NPP.

Our paper will be divided into four main sections. The first part is
dedicated to theoretical background with a focus on the concepts of
trajectory and redevelopment. The second part proposes an analytical
framework which objective is to analyze the potential spatial configu-
rations (greenfield, brownfield, and multi-scale redevelopment) that
emerge from the redevelopment trajectories of post-nuclear territories.
In order to explain these trajectories, we will propose five hypotheses
based on factors that can be activated by actors. Within our framework,
we suggest testing this interplay among actors within a temporal
structure divided into five phases. In the third part of the paper, we
apply our analytical framework to the Fessenheim NPP. In the fourth
section we revisit our initial hypotheses and discuss the applicability of
our model before finally concluding with the new perspectives offered
by our research. In developing this methodological and conceptual tool,
we hope to contribute to a better understanding of redevelopment dy-
namics in post-industrial and post-nuclear areas.

## 2. Theoretical background

In social and human sciences the concept of “trajectory” is often used
to describe the course of a phenomenon [17,18], a place [18,19] or a
group of people [18] in space and time. Although the concept of ‘tra-
jectory’ is commonly used, it is rarely defined. We have identified two
main reasons for this. Firstly, it is frequently applied in its common
meaning. It therefore intuitively refers to the idea of evolution or
movement with a starting and arrival point. Trajectory represented in
this way would be the transition stage linking the two states. Secondly,
this concept can be understood in different ways depending on the
research context. A trajectory can be spatial, temporal, social, economic,
or political, for example.

French-speaking geography researchers regularly use the concept of
‘territorial trajectory’ [20–23]. For example, Debrie et al. [21] use
Maurel’s [20] concept of territorial trajectory to describe changes in the
way ports are governed. Territorial trajectory is thus redefined as “the
timeframe of the processes of transformation at work in a territory acted

on by agents representing different spatial scales” ([21]: 59). In their
article, Rossi et al. [22] use the concept of trajectory to understand the
present structure of mining territories as well as past changes and leg-
acies. They consider that the trajectory: ‘must integrate the interactions
between mining-related human activities, societies/communities, and
the physical environment, as well as their evolution in space and time’
([22]: 3). The focus is on the development in space and over time. They
highlight the possibility of using this concept to study mining areas over
tens to hundreds of years of evolution. This temporal flexibility is also
reflected in the definition of Baud and Bonnemains ([24]:1): “The tra-
jectory translates into a sequence of processes that defines evolution
specific to each territory and in temporalities that can be variable”.

This definition is close to the concept of path dependency, which is
common in international literature. Indeed, both concepts share the
vision that past events have a significant influence on future events.
Mahoney [25] explains that this means recognizing that decisions made
in the past can create a dependency that limits the options available in the
future. Kay [26] has made several criticisms of the use of this concept. We
would like to highlight two of them. Firstly, the concept allows us to
understand a past phenomenon, thus neglecting the understanding of
current or future processes. Secondly, it is too deterministic, leading to
the impression that once a decision has been made, the trajectory can no
longer be changed. For these reasons, we choose the concept of ‘territorial
trajectory’ which affords greater flexibility to the process.

We couple this definition of trajectory with that of redevelopment for
three main reasons. Firstly, it takes into account the notion of trajectory,
identifying a before and an after. Secondly, it does not make any value
judgments by assuming that the future is better than the past unlike
other concepts such as ‘revitalization’, ‘regeneration’ or ‘renewal’. In the
case of the closure of an NPP, the emphasis is not necessarily on
improving the area, but rather on finding one or more new activities or
uses following the closure. Thirdly, the definition does not focus solely
on the NPP site. Indeed, the conversion of a nuclear site does not take
place over the same timescale as the conversion of a conventional in-
dustrial plant, such as a car manufacturing factory. The site will remain
inaccessible for many years. This is due to the rigorous dismantling
process and safety precautions involved in managing radioactive ma-
terials. As the conversion takes place on a much larger scale, we prefer to
use the term ‘redevelopment’.

## 3. Analytical framework

The development of an analytical framework designed to understand
the factors that influence the redevelopment trajectories of post-nuclear
sites represents a significant contribution to research in energy geog-
raphy and territorial development. Our goal is to propose an analytical
framework that can answer the following research question: *What are the
factors that influence the redevelopment trajectories of post-nuclear sites
(brownfield, greenfield or multi-scale redevelopment)? And how do they
interact?* However, it should be noted that the analytical framework
presented in this article is not predictive but explanatory. Its interest lies
in capturing the interactions between factors and actors which lead to
one of the spatial configurations (see Fig. 1).

In our model, the redevelopment options for post-nuclear territories
are called spatial configurations, meaning the final form that the in-
dustrial site will take at the end of the redevelopment process. We have
considered three different redevelopment possibilities that we detail in
the next section: greenfield, brownfield and multi-scale redevelopment.
We argue that the spatial configurations are the result of a chain of in-
teractions between factors and actors within the redevelopment trajec-
tory. We propose to develop this trajectory in five different phases:
closure decision; uncertainty and bereavement; questioning and
exploring; planning; and gradual transition. Our typology includes five
categories of factors: spatial, political, economic, socio-cultural and
structural. These factors shape the direction of the five-phase redevel-
opment trajectory. Interactions can be twofold. Factors can influence
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Analytical framework.</figcaption></figure>

both the behavior of actors and be activated as strategic resources by
actors at a specific moment.

This section continues with the concept of space, allowing us to
highlight the three potential scenarios for redevelopment (Section 3.1).
Next, an overview of the factors that could influence these trajectories
will be provided (Section 3.2). Following this, the hypotheses that un-
derpin each of these scenarios will be presented (Section 3.3). Then we
will introduce an overview of the actors that could influence these tra-
jectories will be provided (Section 3.4). Finally, we will explain how our
temporal division was constructed (Section 3.5).

3.1. Space: between greenfield, brownfield and multi-scale redevelopment

To understand the redevelopment of a post-nuclear territory, we
investigate the spatialized results of this redevelopment. Laraia [27]
identifies four options for owners of NPPs in the case of closure. We
contextualize these with respect to the three decommissioning strategies
[27–29]. Decommissioning is defined as: ‘the process of safely closing an
NPP (or other facilities where nuclear materials are handled) to retire it
from service after its useful life has reached its end. This process pri-
marily involves decontaminating the facility to reduce residual radio-
activity and then releasing the property for unrestricted or (under
certain conditions) restricted use’ [30]. We then put them into
perspective with the impact they have from a spatial point of view (see
Fig. 2).

Firstly, the plant can be mothballed. This leads to two possible decommissioning strategies: entombment or safe storage (SAFSTOR). Entombment involves burying the radioactive material under a thick layer of concrete or other materials. This choice means that the area must be abandoned for many decades. The Chernobyl NPP is an example where the spatial result is the abandonment of the land. Then, SAFSTOR, also called deferred dismantling, means that the NPP will be inactive for several decades. The site is, of course, maintained and monitored. Radioactivity decreases over time, and, once it has reached a certain level, the plant can be dismantled and the site decontaminated [28,29]. This was the method chosen for Kewaunee Power Station in the USA [31].

Secondly, owners can choose to decommission [27]. This can be SAFSTOR or immediate dismantling (DECON). DECON is a process that involves the immediate dismantling of nuclear infrastructure as soon as the reactors are shut down [28,29]. This was the technique used at the Fessenheim NPP.

The last two alternatives are either to continue operating the plant or
to sell it as it is. In the latter case, the purchaser will take over the
project. There is therefore no change in the spatial result. Given that our
focus is on redevelopment trajectories, we are only interested in paths
that opt for SAFSTOR or DECON options. We have chosen to leave aside
power plants that are suspended or sold off, as this does not involve any
reconversion. These lead to three different spatial results: greenfield;
brownfield; and multi-scale redevelopment.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. Closing down strategies for nuclear facilities - owners' options and their spatial impact (adapted from Laraia [27]).</figcaption></figure>
The first two spatial results concern redevelopment on the site of the former nuclear power station, whereas multi-scale redevelopment involves redevelopment of a larger area. The first possibility is therefore the greenfield. The IAEA considers this objective to have been achieved when the site has been freed of all the radioactivity it contained, regardless of whether any structures have been conserved [27]. Nevertheless, in the context of our study, we will consider that greenfield implies the return of the site to its initial condition, removing all traces, whether radioactive or material, of the previous industry. This releases the site unconditionally and no restrictions exist concerning the future use of the site.

The second possibility is the brownfield. This involves dismantling the power plant, but where industrial elements, such as electricity and transport infrastructure, possibly including stations, bus bars and transformers, for example, can be preserved for reuse [27]. The site is therefore conditionally released. This means that the destruction of infrastructure or total decontamination of the site is not compulsory but depends on the regulations in place or the projects that are to be developed on the site. The debate between greenfield and brownfield is particularly relevant in the case of the Barsebäck NPP in Sweden [4]. Sweden has no regulations concerning the release of NPP sites, which has led to two opposing projects. The first is the creation of an ecodistrict, which would require a return to greenfield, while the second is the development of a new energy site, which would require a brownfield.

We refer to our last category as 'multi-scale redevelopment'. The scientific literature is awash with articles on the concept of scale [32,33]. Until the early 1990s, it was assumed that the scale was natural and was not debated or questioned [32–34]. However, several later studies have shown that rather than being set in its nature, scale is the result of a social construction [35,36]. Therefore, much literature has developed around the issue of the politics of scale, focusing on the way in which scale is produced [32,33]. Meyer et al. [33] show that this concept is a real political tool on two levels: the importance of discourses in the valorization or dissimulation of issues or the legitimization or exclusion of actors; and in the allocation of material and immaterial resources. Unlike the first two categories, 'multi-scale redevelopment' is

based on the principle that the redevelopment of the territory cannot take place solely on the site of the former NPP. Rather, it must be accompanied by action on a wider scale in order to address the consequences of the plant's departure. We therefore find post-nuclear territories that set up two parallel projects: one on the site for the power station; the other on a wider territory. One example is the Vermont Yankee NPP in the USA, which closure has raised concerns about the economic impact on the local community and the need to strengthen the region's economic resilience [11].

For this reason, we feel that the term 'multi-scale' is more appropriate as it allows us to better reflect the complexity of the scales involved in the development of a post-nuclear redevelopment project. It takes into account both the in-situ scale, where the choice oscillates between greenfield and brownfield; as well as redevelopment taking place elsewhere in the area to compensate for the social, economic and tax losses associated with the plant's closure for example. In addition, the choice of the prefix "multi" highlights the complexity of territorial projects, which cover a range of different scales, from local to regional and sometimes even cross-border. This is particularly apparent in the case of the Fessenheim NPP. Meyer et al. [33] have carried out a study of the way in which the scales of the redevelopment project were constructed. In our case, we will not be looking into how these scales were produced. We consider the 'multi-scale redevelopment' as one of the three spatialized results of post-nuclear redevelopment, but we will not omit the political dimension of the choice of these scales.

## 3.2. Factors

A systematic review of the literature on post-industrial redevelopment has identified the 13 most recurrent factors that impact redevelopment trajectories [5]. Based on our initial field studies, we have added an additional factor to this list: the regulations in force at the time. We have split these 14 factors into four categories (see Table 1): spatial, political, economic and sociocultural. Spatial factors include location, transport networks, land availability, environment, technical networks,

<table><caption>**Table 1**
Factors classification and explanation.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="4">Factors classification and explanation</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>Name</th><th>Definition</th><th>Example based on current and previous research [4,13]</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Spatial</td><td>Location</td><td>The geographical location and its influence on redevelopment</td><td>The French Fessenheim NPP is located in a cross-border zone. This has an impact on the scale of the regional project.</td></tr><tr><td>Transport network</td><td>Accessibility of the site or area thanks to the presence or absence of well-developed transport networks (people, goods)</td><td>To redevelop the Fessenheim region and encourage cross-border links, one of the projects proposes the reopening of a Franco-German railway line.</td></tr><tr><td>Land availability</td><td>Availability of land in the region around the plant or on the plant site</td><td>Barsebäck in Sweden does not have enough space to develop a new district. The only land available is the site of the former NPP.</td></tr><tr><td>Environment</td><td>A combination of natural and man-made conditions</td><td>Environmental protection laws have considerably reduced the amount of land available for the main redevelopment project in the Fessenheim region.</td></tr><tr><td>Technical networks</td><td>Technical networks (water, electricity, etc.)</td><td>The presence of electricity networks allows for a battery storage project at the Brunsbüttel site.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Political</td><td>Industrial risk</td><td>Influence (real or perceived) of industrial risk</td><td>The closure of the Brunsbüttel NPP is mainly due to the fear of a nuclear accident.</td></tr><tr><td>State support</td><td>Redevelopment support (financial, engineering, human resources, etc.)</td><td>Fessenheim's local authorities are criticizing the French government for not giving them more financial support for the region's redevelopment.</td></tr><tr><td>Governance</td><td>Type of governance for the redevelopment project (top-down or bottom-up)</td><td>The French government is setting up a steering committee for the redevelopment of the Fessenheim power station area.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Economic</td><td>Organization of local actors</td><td>Presence or absence of a framework to structure and unite local actors around a common objective</td><td>The municipalities near the Fessenheim NPP have joined forces to write a joint letter to the French government in protest of the tax issue.</td></tr><tr><td>Budget</td><td>Availability of sufficient funds to undertake the trajectory</td><td>The closure of the French NPP has resulted in a significant loss of tax revenue for local authorities. This loss is the subject of a contentious debate between the national government and local authorities.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Sociocultural</td><td>Economic needs</td><td>Major economic needs to be met following the departure of an industry (mainly in single-industry regions)</td><td>The Fessenheim region is suffering from the departure of the power station. More than 2000 jobs will be lost. The project is intended to compensate for this.</td></tr><tr><td>Regulations</td><td>Existence of one or more laws or regulations that may affect the redevelopment trajectory</td><td>The law on the release threshold for nuclear waste in France must be amended to make the project for recycling very low-level radioactive metal waste possible.</td></tr><tr><td>Heritage</td><td>The desire to highlight or, on the contrary, eliminate all traces of the nuclear past</td><td>In Brunsbüttel, the aim is to erase all traces of nuclear power and change the region's image as a region promoting renewable energy.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Sociocultural needs</td><td>Considering the socio-economic as part of the redevelopment trajectory.</td><td>One of the main aims of the Fessenheim redevelopment project is to support the development of culture and tourism.</td></tr></tbody></table>
and industrial risk. Political factors cover state support, governance, organization of local actors, and regulations. Economic factors include the budget and economic needs. Other sociocultural factors involve heritage and socio-cultural needs.

We have three recommendations concerning the use of this list in our analytical framework. Firstly, this list of factors must be seen as iterative. Depending on our case studies, we may add other factors if they are found to play an important role in the redevelopment trajectory. Secondly, some factors can transcend several categories. Indeed, if we consider the “regulations” factor example in Table 1, we see that this law has an impact on the redevelopment trajectory. However, it can also be seen as a response to the “industrial risk” factor, which aims at offering an answer to the fears that reusing components from NPPs is dangerous. Finally, certain factors play a dominant role throughout the NPP’s trajectory, and not just at a given point in time. We call these “structural factors”. As their name suggests, these are factors that continually structure the redevelopment trajectory. This can take the form of legislation, or the way in which nuclear energy is perceived if these have a key influence throughout the process.

### 3.3. Hypothesis

To address the objective of our paper, we have built a table of hypotheses taking the three redevelopment options as our starting point: greenfield, brownfield and multi-scale redevelopment. The hypotheses were constructed using a hypothetico-deductive approach. They are based on international literature on post-industrial redevelopment [5] and previous fieldwork in France and Germany [4,13]. We propose five hypotheses (see Table 2) which we will test with the case of Fessenheim.

Unlike a deterministic system, where each initial condition inevitably leads to a precise and predictable result, social dynamics are marked by the actors' ability to adjust their strategy in response to changing circumstances [37]. This means that our model is probabilistic rather than predictive. In other words, the list of factors derived from

these hypotheses is necessary to explain post-nuclear redevelopment trajectories but not sufficient because of the actors' agency [38]. Their presence simply increases the probability that this type of redevelopment will be chosen, but it does not guarantee the outcome, as the actors have the flexibility to adapt their decisions according to local dynamics, institutional constraints and emerging opportunities.

We have deliberately chosen to present our hypotheses by groups of factors rather than by spatial configuration, in order to focus on the processes that lead us to this spatialized result and not directly on the final outcome.

**Hypothesis 1.** (H1): What differentiates the multi-scale redevelopment from the first two redevelopment options is the presence of spatial factors. In the case of on-site redevelopment, whether brownfield or greenfield, we believe that spatial factors are the most significant. Indeed, analysis of the site's characteristics appears to be essential for brownfield or greenfield redevelopment. We assume that, in the context of a multi-scale redevelopment, actors ignore spatial constraints and define by themselves which territory will be impacted by the redevelopment project. In other words, they choose the indicators that need to be considered to define the impact of the closure on the territory.

**Hypothesis 2.** (H2): We assume that industrial risk is a spatial factor that is common to the three redevelopment options. Indeed, the presence of risk could lead to a brownfield, as this would require less decontamination. Similarly, if the industrial risk is low, this could lead to a greenfield because the conditions for implementation would be easier. For the multi-scale redevelopment, we assume that industrial risks could obstruct redevelopment on the plant site and thus impact the choices made by local actors to change the scale.

**Hypothesis 3.** (H3): We assume that one of the elements distinguishing greenfield from the other two cases concerns political factors. We postulate that, in the two other options, the success of the project requires a well-organized network of actors who are capable of successfully managing the operations, as well as the support of the State,

<table><caption>**Table 2**
Hypothesis - factors influencing the redevelopment trajectories.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>HYPOTHESIS</th><th>Brownfield</th><th>Greenfield</th><th>Multi-scale redevelopment</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="6">Spatial</td><td>Location</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td rowspan="6">H1</td></tr><tr><td>Transport network</td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>Land availability</td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>Environment</td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>Technical networks</td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>Industrial risk</td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Political</td><td>State support</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>Governance</td><td>H3</td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>Organization of local actors</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>Budget</td><td>H4</td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Economic</td><td>Economic needs</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Heritage</td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Sociocultural</td><td>Sociocultural needs</td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td></tr></tbody></table>
whether in terms of financial, human, or other resources. Conversely, a greenfield site focused solely on decommissioning and complete soil decontamination may be managed exclusively by the energy company or the company to which the tasks are delegated.

**Hypothesis 4.** (H4): We assume that the budget is an economic factor common to all redevelopment alternatives, but for different reasons. In the case of brownfield, budget is a crucial factor because of the significant costs associated with decommissioning a nuclear plant, even though legislation in many countries requires energy operators to set aside funds for this purpose. In the context of greenfield, we assume that budget is even more important because of the need to carry out extensive decontamination operations, which are costly. As far as multi-scale redevelopment is concerned, the implementation of projects on a larger scale often involves the collaboration and consultation of many actors, necessitating the creation of several projects, which also generates significant costs.

**Hypothesis 5.** (H5): We assume that the choice of multi-scale redevelopment is also explained by the economic and sociocultural needs due to the economic and socio-cultural losses caused by the departure of the plant. These losses, which result from the fact that the redevelopment of a nuclear industrial site spans several years, cannot be compensated for by simply relocating another industry to the site. Moreover, replacing the previous industrial activity would not be enough to meet the economic and socio-cultural needs created by the plant. The “heritage” factor is also represented by the desire of local actors to keep a legacy of the contributions made by the NPP.

### 3.4. Actors

After defining the hypotheses of our research, we will focus on the concept of actors and the ways in which they can integrate into the post-nuclear trajectory. This concept is an integral part of a region's redevelopment process, since it is the actors who shape the region's future through their actions. There are several ways to classify the actors. First, we can identify their role within the project. Knoepfel et al. [39] classify the actors of public policies into three categories: political-administrative actors; socio-economic and socio-cultural actors. They also consider private actors, dividing them into two categories: the ultimate beneficiaries who are affected by the issue and whose situation should improve thereafter; and the third-party group, which may be affected in a positive way or in a negative way by the policy implemented [37]. Some may become opponents or supporters of the project.

It is also possible to qualify them according to their potential to support and influence the project: supportive (strong support and weak influence); marginal (weak support and influence); unsupportive (weak support but strong influence); and mixed blessing (strong support and influence) [40]. Knoepfel et al. [39] specify that the actors are more offensive when they seek to take advantage of opportunities to improve their position and more defensive when they seek to maintain their position and improve their scope for action.

In the context of the redevelopment of a post-nuclear region, we have identified the 12 actors who have an influence on the trajectories (see Table 3). We have split them into five categories, inspired by the classification of Knoepfel et al. [39]. Political-administrative actors include local, regional and national government. Industrial and economic actors

include energy suppliers, economic development companies, Investors/ Entrepreneurs, Urban planners. The sociocultural actors are the associations and the employee unions. Then, the employees and the local population are the beneficiaries. Finally, we decided to add a fifth category, the third-party group. This corresponds to the regional population, who are therefore concerned but not necessarily beneficiaries and consequently involved in the processes.

### 3.5. Temporal division

Although our model proposes a temporal division into distinct phases, we recognize that the process of converting an industrial or nuclear site is not necessarily linear. As Pike (2005) points out, conversion trajectories are often marked by back-and-forth movements and adjustments, depending on available resources and political and economic circumstances [41]. The phases we propose should therefore not be seen as a rigid sequence, but rather as an analytical framework for understanding the dynamics of transition at work. This perspective is particularly relevant for nuclear sites, where the duration of dismantling operations has a strong influence on the course of the redevelopment project.

Finally to develop our temporal division, we relied on work on the closure and redevelopment of post-industrial sites carried out by sociologists [42] and a geographer who added a spatial dimension to these elements [43]. These works breakdown the trajectory into three main phases according to their impact on the economy, the population and the territory (see Table 4): closing phase, planning phase, and implementation phase. However, these phases were designed for the redevelopment of an industrial site. Nuclear sites present specific characteristics, such as temporality and the representations associated with them. Indeed, as we have mentioned, converting a nuclear site implies a longer timeframe than for a traditional industry. Nuclear power is also a generally controversial subject. According to Pasqualetti and Pijawka [44], the latent image of nuclear risk persists even after the site has been cleaned up and decontaminated. This can influence the site's redevelopment potential.

The Nuclear Decommissioning Collaborative [31] has produced a model showing how a community in the USA reacted to the closure of a NPP. They propose five phases. The first, “Closure Acknowledgment”, corresponds to the first phase highlighted by Edelblutte [43] and Grossetti et al. [42]. The announcement of the plant's closure leads to a phase of incredulity. The decision is sometimes difficult to accept, since it corresponds to the end of a period of stability for the territories concerned and fear regarding the future economic impact [31]. However, this disbelief is not universal [4]. In the case of the Brunsbüttel NPP in Germany, we found no such feeling in the community [4,13]. The second phase, “Preliminary Impact Assessment”, begins once the community has understood that the plant's closure is irreversible. The aim of this phase is to launch the first studies to understand the socio-economic role played by the power plant within its territory. Unlike the modeling of Edelblutte [43] and Grossetti et al. [42], this research group highlights a phase that allows nuclear communities to reflect before acting. This leads us to the third phase, “The Decommissioning Learning Curve”. This phase represents the community's learning curve when it comes to issues associated with redeveloping its territory, such as the lack of human and financial resources. The fourth, “Partnership Development”, follows this

<table><caption>**Table 3**
Actors classification.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="2">Political-administrative</th><th colspan="2">Industrial-economic</th><th colspan="2">Sociocultural</th><th colspan="2">Beneficiaries</th><th>Third party-group</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Local government</td><td>Regional government</td><td>National government</td><td>Nuclear regulators</td><td>Energy supplier</td><td>Investors/ entrepreneurs</td><td>Urban planners</td><td>Associations</td><td>Employees' Unions</td><td>Local population</td></tr><tr><td colspan="10">Economic development companies</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 4**
Summary of temporal division.</caption><thead><tr><th>Nuclear redevelopment process in the USA (according to the Nuclear Decommissioning Collaborative, 2020)</th><th>Economy (industrial site) (according to Edelblutte, 2014)</th><th>Sociology (populations) (according to Grossetti et al., 1998)</th><th>Geography (territory) (according to Edelblutte, 2014)</th><th>Our proposition</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Closure acknowledgment</td><td>Closure of the site</td><td>Incredulity</td><td>Inaction</td><td>Closure decision</td></tr><tr><td>Preliminary Impact Assessment</td><td>Need to compensate urgently job losses</td><td>Bereavement</td><td>Emergency measures</td><td>Uncertainty and bereavement</td></tr><tr><td>The Decommissioning Learning Curve</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Questioning and exploring</td></tr><tr><td>Partnership Development</td><td>Overall reflection on the site's future</td><td>Action</td><td>Territorial redevelopment</td><td>Planning</td></tr><tr><td>Planning and Execution</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Gradual transition</td></tr></tbody></table>

process of recognition and aims to build partnerships. The last, “Planning and Execution”, addresses the implementation of an action plan and its execution.

Based on this literature and our preliminary research, we propose our own breakdown of temporal phases (see Table 4). Depending on the field of study, some stages will be quickly covered, while others will take longer. The first phase is the closure decision. We believe it is important to differentiate this phase from the recognition of the closure and the closure of the site, as presented in the other divisions. In fact, a considerable amount of time can elapse between the announcement of the closure, its recognition and its execution. As a result, the following steps sometimes begin even before the site has been officially closed. For the second phase, we refer to the first two stages of Grossetti et al. [42]: Incredulity and Bereavement. This may involve several elements, such as uncertainty about the future of the site, initial resistance to change (if the site has not yet been closed, for example), or difficulties in considering other activities. The third phase is to question and explore. From the moment the closure is scheduled or has already taken place, the first ideas emerge. We have chosen to separate this stage from the fourth, planning, to emphasize the importance of setting up a well-organized working framework. In this way, the planning stage brings together the parties involved in the redevelopment of the area to work together on its future. We've decided to call the final phase Progressive Transition. This is the gradual application of the various projects developed in the previous phase. The expression progressive transition seems more relevant than execution or action, as it adds a temporal dimension to this phase. As we have seen, the redevelopment of a nuclear site does not have the same timeframe as the redevelopment of other industries since the plant site is often unusable for many years. Action must therefore be taken progressively over the entire area concerned. Then, for each phase, we need to identify the actors and categorize them according to the group to which they belong: political administrative (local, regional, or national government); socio-economic actors (energy companies, industrialists, etc.); sociocultural actors (trade unions, etc.); beneficiaries (public, ex-employees, etc.). We will also identify the way in which they position themselves in relation to the project and their degree of involvement. In the light of this temporal categorization, we will now analyze the Fessenheim plant's redevelopment trajectory using our analytical framework.

# 4. Empirical application to the case of the Fessenheim nuclear power plant

## 4.1. Case presentation

Fessenheim is a municipality in the northeast of France. It is strategically situated in the Mulhouse-Basel-Freiburg cross-border triangle (France, Switzerland, Germany). This rural municipality is famous for having hosted an operating site for two pressurized water nuclear reactors between 1977 and 2020. The closure of Fessenheim was the result of a political promise made by presidential candidate François Hollande in 2012. The announcement of its closure led to intense debate because the plant was deeply embedded in the local socio-economic network.

Opponents pointed out the age of the power plant and the seismic zone on which it was built. These debates delayed the plant's closure which finally took place under President Emmanuel Macron's five-year term in 2020.

Fessenheim falls into the multi-scale redevelopment category. There is dissociation between the project to reconvert the site and its surrounding area. Firstly, there is the project to convert the site, led by the energy company. This project is twofold. On the land adjacent to the plant, the operator announced in 2019 that this site will host a “Technocentre” designed to recycle very low-level radioactivity metal waste. Meanwhile, the energy company has stated that the site of the old plant would return to brownfield in 2021. Finally, the French State is the project leader for the reconversion of the region.

## 4.2. Data collection and analysis

We collected qualitative data: press, semi-structured interviews; and grey literature. For the press, we used Factiva and Nexus to reconstruct the history of the power plant from the announcement of its closure in 2012 to 2023. We added to our corpus using local archives available online from 2012 to 2023 with the following keywords: 'Fessenheim and redevelopment or conversion or project'. After reading the articles, we selected those relevant to our theme and removed any duplicates, leaving us with a corpus of 661 press articles. We complemented this with 8 semi-structured interviews conducted in 2021. We contacted the stakeholders involved in the territorial project on two levels: local and regional authorities. We then also interviewed the energy company, an academic, and an environmental association. For the grey literature, we collected seven key publications on the institutions' websites or during the semi-structured interviews.

We used MAXQDA software to code the interviews and the grey literature. Inspired by the methodology of Rhode et al. (2023), we created an initial codebook based on our conceptual framework and our research question: our list of 13 factors [45]. In the process of coding our documentation, we noticed recurring factors that were not included in our initial list. As we were using an inductive approach, when we came across a recurring theme, we created a new category of factors (e.g. energy needs). We also created sub-themes for factors such as 'French-German relations' in order to analyze this aspect of the governance factor, which is frequently recurrent in our case study. The software enabled us to visualize and extract text segments according to each factor, making it easier to interpret the data.

## 4.3. Five-phase redevelopment trajectory of Fessenheim

We will now analyze the redevelopment trajectory of the Fessenheim NPP. In accordance with our analytical framework developed above, we will divide its trajectory into five phases and highlight the interrelations between factors and actors that have led to the current spatial configuration.

To make our analysis easier to read, we have drawn up a diagram (see Fig. 3) explaining the relationships between the various actors, which will be discussed in the following sections. With the appointment
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3.** Stakeholders in the redevelopment project.</figcaption></figure>

of an interministerial delegate, the government is steering the redevelopment project for the Fessenheim region. To manage the project, it has brought together a number of actors of its choice under a steering committee. This includes German local and regional authorities, the energy company, regional and local authorities, environmental associations and academics, among others. Local authorities are referred to as 'joint local authorities'<fnref n="1" /> which is a type of intercommunal structure in France, which brings together several nearby municipalities (communes) and has its own tax status. In our area, this concerns 29 communes<fnref n="2" /> including Fessenheim. In order to carry out a development project, the steering committee set up a company based on a public/

private partnership (SEM<fnref n="3" />) to manage it.

#### 4.3.1. Closure decision: electoral promise (2011–2012)

The first phase (see Fig. 4) of our trajectory corresponds to the closure decision. For Fessenheim, the decision was political. It stemmed from an electoral promise made by a presidential candidate in 2011. This political actor was determined to close the plant but lacked the authority to do so.

The factors mobilized here were spatial and political. Indeed, Deront et al. [46] have shown that the closure of Fessenheim is linked to three factors. Firstly, this occurred barely one year after the Fukushima nuclear accident and latent representation of the risks is an essential element. In addition, the politician's closeness with Germany, where the government is anti-nuclear, influenced the decision. Finally, this choice was also the result of a political alliance between the Green and Socialist political parties.

<footnote n="1">¹ In French: communauté de commune.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Brisach, Kunheim, Vogelgrun, Wolfgangzen, Rumersheim-le-Haut, Appenzweir, Rustenhart, Urschenheim, Biesheim, Hirtzfelden, Volgelsheim, Heiteren, Blodelsheim, Munchhouse, Obersaasheim, Hettenschlag, Durrententzen, Widensolen, Dessenheim, Fessenheim, Balgau, Nambsheim, Algolsheim, Artzenheim, Roggenhouse, Baltzenheim, Geiswasser, Logelheim, Weckolsheim.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ In French: société d'économie mixte.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4. Summary of phase 1.</figcaption></figure>

### 4.3.2. Uncertainty and bereavement: French government unable to close the plant (2012–2016)

The second phase (see Fig. 5) of our trajectory concerns the inability of the French government to close the plant. When the presidential candidate was elected, one might have thought that his capacity for action would increase. But this was not the case. In fact, a structural factor stood in the way of his ability to act. Regulations at the time prevented the plant from being shut down. Since July 13, 2006, French law on nuclear transparency and safety (TSN) stipulates that the French nuclear safety authority (ASN) is the independent administrative

authority responsible for monitoring nuclear safety. The only way to close Fessenheim is for the ASN to order the energy company to close the site for safety reasons, or for the operator to submit a request for closure to the ASN. The energy company refused to do so. As a result, the government has no legal instrument to close Fessenheim. According to the information report on the follow-up to the closure of the Fessenheim NPP, this uncertainty has delayed the planning process for the redevelopment of the post-Fessenheim region.

Despite this inability, the government moved ahead, and in 2012, appointed an Interministerial Delegate for the future of the Fessenheim

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 5. Summary of phase 2.</figcaption></figure>
area. This was very poorly received by all the local actors who refused to meet with the Delegate. At the time, the plant's closure had not been decided. It was impossible for local actors to think about the future of the region. This political and temporal factor delayed the redevelopment process.

The French government decided to apply pressure on the energy company by using a political factor: French law. It introduced a new law in 2015 limiting the capacity of the French nuclear fleet to 63.2 GW. This prevented the energy company from opening new NPPs without closing others. At that time, the Flamanville reactor 3 was under construction. As a result, the energy company was forced to close a plant in order to open Flamanville 3. By instrumentalizing the regulatory factor, the French government regained control of the French energy mix.

Another structural (legislative) factor also comes into the equation. As the energy company was forced to shut down Fessenheim, the French government released it from its obligation to support the region in its economic redevelopment. This did not go down well with several regional players.

Local authorities were against the plant's closure due to the many socio-economic benefits it provided. They believed the closure was unfair. This feeling of injustice has created high expectations of the State. Indeed, local and regional authorities consider that the government must mitigate the situation by supporting the socio-economic development of the region. Since 2016, these actors have been asking for compensation. This political factor (state support) will have major repercussions throughout the redevelopment process.

### 4.3.3. Questioning and exploring: implementation of a territorial redevelopment negotiation framework (2017 à 2019)

The third phase (see Fig. 6) addresses the implantation of a territorial redevelopment negotiation framework. In 2017, the closure of the NPP was finally acted and planned for the coming years. The French government, aware of the region's expectations, decided to act. It set up a steering committee (COPIL) to redevelop the area and decided which actors would be allowed to participate.

The region already had a dense network of actors. However, during the 40 years of Fessenheim's operation, only the energy company was a structuring actor locally. Its departure leaves the door open to new ideas. However, no single actor was able to stand out from the crowd. The government decided to select twenty actors from the national, regional, and local authorities in France and Germany, associations, the energy

company, companies, academics, and others. Fessenheim local authorities refused to join the COPIL in protest against a tax issue. The joint local authorities, of which it is a member, was still taxed on the same level (€2.9 M) as when the plant was active. However, this amount is no longer available. It is thus using a political factor (governance) to consolidate its economic interests.

COPIL's participants viewed the closure of Fessenheim as an opportunity to align and advance their respective interests. In other words, there was a debate to define which indicators should be taken into account to measure the impact of the plant's departure, and consequently the projects to be developed. Should the focus be on the loss of tax revenue, the loss of jobs, the loss of population?

These debates produced a working paper presenting 38 projects on three scales: the joint local authorities, the Colmar-Mulhouse-Freiburg triangle and the Haut-Rhin department. Meyer et al.'s study [33] showed that the choice of these scales is a social construct, and that they materially limit the transition and the projects developed within its framework. The project has three main focuses. The first addresses job creation for the region's economic redevelopment. The second focuses on mobility. The third concerns energy transition and innovation. These elements are consistent with two of our interviewees' main concerns: economic factors (40 mentions) and energy (14 mentions). Mobility was approached through the spatial factor "transport network". This was mentioned 9 times by our interviewees from the economic perspective: it is necessary to develop transport networks to attract businesses and create jobs.

### 4.3.4. Planning: conflicts between local actors and the state over the management of the territory's project (2019–2021)

The fourth phase (see Fig. 7) retraces the conflicts between local authorities and the national Government over how to manage the territory's project. The most significant project in this phase was the creation of a business park, next to the NPP site. This project is mainly driven by a local actor: the joint local authorities. The Park is to be developed on 400 ha of land acquired in the 1960s. To bring it to life, the steering committee created a company (SEM), based on a public/private partnership to manage it, with a capital of one million euros. To show their dissatisfaction with the tax issue, the local authorities refused to join the partnership. Indeed, with the NPP shut down, they no longer collect as much funds as they used to and can no longer pay the unchanged tax demands.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 6. Summary of phase 3.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 7. Summary of phase 4.</figcaption></figure>

Since then, environmental legislation has evolved, and the flora and fauna inventory carried out has reduced development possibilities to around 80 ha. The local actors faced their first disappointment linked to a spatial factor: the availability of land was no longer as extensive as initially expected.

The representation of nuclear risk (a spatial factor) had a major impact. Indeed, in 2019, on land adjacent to the power plant, the energy company announced the construction of a Technocenter to recycle very low-level radioactive metals. However, current legislation prevented this project from being implemented. In France, the law forbids the recycling of very low-level radioactive waste. To make the project viable, the law had to change.

Environmental associations were not convinced with the idea of relocating a nuclear facility near the business park. They noted that their efforts to develop an environmentally friendly business park had been impacted by the energy company's project. In protest, they left the COPIL. They were followed by the regional German authority, the Land of Baden-Württemberg<fnref n="4" /> for the same reasons.

This phase was also affected by an important political factor: Franco-German relationships. With the signature of the Franco-German Aachen Treaty in 2019, the French government wanted to collaborate with the German government on the implementation of this regional project. This collaboration was not received positively by the energy company and local and regional authorities who consider Germany to be responsible for the Fessenheim closure. Some actors deplore the German involvement in the redevelopment of a French territory. However most agree on one point: they don't understand the Germans' opinion of the energy company's project. For them, this project is virtuous, since it enables nuclear recycling, a process that is already used in Germany. They don't

understand why Germany will not accept this project, since the country has a more flexible legal framework in this respect.

At the same time, local and regional authorities have expressed their growing disappointment with the government-led project. They regret an opportunistic effect induced by an economic factor. Indeed, as the Government had promised a large sum of money for the region's redevelopment, the actors tried to promote numerous projects that had little to do with the “post-Fessenheim” future. Local actors regretted the marketing nature of the State's actions, which simply focused on the funds allotted without providing the necessary territorial engineering skills.

With the tax issue still unresolved and the projects' stagnation (e.g. the business park), local actors are gradually losing confidence in the State's ability to redevelop the region. This has led to numerous protests and the launch of a parliamentary mission to understand the reasons for the inability to implement this post-nuclear transition.

Nevertheless, the energy company is initiating the dismantling process. In 2021, the energy company announced that it would return to brownfield due to two spatial factors. Firstly, the energy company was the owner of the land. The only way to reuse it for industrial purposes is as a brownfield. Secondly, the land is already equipped with technical networks.

### 4.3.5. *Gradual transition: rebranding & return to nuclear power? (since 2022)*

The last phase (see Fig. 8) addresses the marketing strategy aimed at changing the image of the region and discussion for a nuclear revival. This phase is mainly marked by political factors. As we have mentioned earlier, the previous phase saw the departure of the environmental associations and the Land of Baden-Württemberg from the COPIL. These resignations were in line with the Fessenheim local authorities' opposition to being part of the COPIL. Thus, at every stage, the actors used political factors to show their dissatisfaction with the redevelopment

<footnote n="4">⁴ The Land of Baden-Württemberg is a German state in Southwest Germany that shares a border with Fessenheim's municipality.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 8. Summary of phase 5.</figcaption></figure>

process. With the numerous departures and the reduced availability of land in the business park zone, the public/private partnership set up to manage the business park zone (SEM) no longer had any purpose and was dissolved in 2022.

Yet the business park project is still ongoing. The local joint authorities want to change their image to attract businesses. As a result, they are rebranding themselves with a new name. Their main arguments are spatial: a location close to the German and Swiss borders; proximity to the Rhine River; transport networks (road, rail, air); presence of skilled workers and well-established industries.

A structural factor also influences this phase, specifically a legal one. The French government has issued two decrees and a ministerial order to make the Technocentre project legal.

In 2021, the French president announced the will to relaunch the construction of nuclear reactors in France. In 2023, local government took the opportunity to propose the building of a small modular reactor (SMR) in Fessenheim. Their main argument is spatial. They consider that the territory is already familiar with the representation of nuclear risk and that it will be easier to install one there than elsewhere.

## 5. Discussion

The aim of this article is to develop an analytical framework to analyze the trajectories of post-nuclear territories. Applying it to the case of Fessenheim has enabled us to test its robustness, but also to highlight certain limitations. First, we will return to our five working hypotheses. We will then discuss the limits of our analytical framework.

Our first hypothesis (H1) concerns spatial factors. We consider that these factors are more predominant in greenfield or brownfield scenarios. The case of Fessenheim illustrates this perfectly and involves multi-scale redevelopment. In fact, the project does not have to depend on spatial factors, as the actors themselves chose the boundaries of the territory to be revitalized according to the perceptions of the effects of the plant's closure.

Our second hypothesis (H2) is focused on the industrial risk factor. This assumes that the change-of-scale scenario can be determined, as the

presence of risk would interfere with redevelopment on the site itself. In the case of Fessenheim, the risk of redeveloping the site itself rather than a larger area was not a factor mentioned by our interviewees. This choice depends more on the region's need to quickly find a replacement activity. However, the time required to decommission an NPP means that such an activity cannot be implemented immediately. So H2 does not seem to be confirmed in the case of our study. However, we would need to apply this analytical framework to other post-nuclear sites with a brownfield or greenfield purpose before we could fully invalidate it.

In our third hypothesis (H3), we stated that opting for greenfield or multi-scale redevelopment depended on political factors such as the establishment of a well-organized actor network to support the project, as well as financial support and human resources from the State. All of which were available in the Fessenheim case. Indeed, the implementation of a joint project over a larger region requires the establishment of a highly structured network of actors with the support of the State. It should be noted, however, that their availability does not necessarily mean that the redevelopment will be a success, since we have observed that the specific demands of each actor as well as disagreements with the State have led the redevelopment to an impasse. Our hypothesis seems to be confirmed in the case of Fessenheim.

Our fourth hypothesis (H4) focused on the budget, given that redevelopment through multi-scale redevelopment implies the implementation of one or more joint projects over a large area. This requires the collaboration and consultation of a greater number of actors, thus increasing the cost. The complexity of setting up such a project is confirmed in the Fessenheim case study, but the emphasis is more on the misunderstanding between the actors than on the budget.

This brings us back to our last hypothesis (H5), which implies that factors associated with economic and socio-cultural needs are primarily linked to the choice of multi-scale redevelopment, since the region needs to rapidly compensate for the economic and socio-cultural losses entailed as a result of the plant's departure. This urgency means that it is not possible to wait until the dismantling phase is complete before converting the site. The nuclear heritage factor has not necessarily influenced the content of the regional project. It should be noted,
however, that local actors are nonetheless sensitive to highlighting the
nuclear legacy.

As part of our analysis, we encountered three main limitations. First, it is difficult to trace all the elements gathered during our interviews in our temporal trajectory. Often, our interviewees no longer remember the exact sequence of events or certain details. This is particularly true of elements dating back several years. Moreover, there have been several changes of position within certain groups of actors. As a result, not all of the interviewees were familiar with events that took place before they took up their positions. Second, our analysis has shown that our list of factors is not exhaustive. Indeed, in tracing Fessenheim's trajectory, we found three determining factors that we had not mentioned. The first is energy needs, which are reflected in the debate over the possibility of installing a small modular reactor on the site of the plant. The second concerns the regulations, which can be included with the structural factors, since they had a significant impact on the process of closing the Fessenheim plant and the delay accumulated before the start of discussions on the future of the site. The final factor is the need to create a new image, with the implementation of a territorial marketing strategy for the new industrial zone alongside the power plant. Our final limitation concerns the actors. Our analysis has shown that it is difficult to classify the actors' behavior in the different phases. Indeed, actor behavior can vary within a phase. We therefore need to take into account the conditions that lead to this change in behavior, not only between phases, but also within them, in order to trace the trajectory as accurately as possible.

## 6. Conclusion

The redevelopment of post-nuclear territories is a complex and multidimensional challenge. The aim of this paper was to develop an analytical framework to answer the question: *What factors influence the redevelopment trajectories of post-nuclear sites (brownfield, greenfield or multi-scale redevelopment)? And how do they interact?* By highlighting the importance of relationships between two key dimensions: actors and factors, our analytical framework provides a method to answer this question.

Applying our model to the Fessenheim case has not only highlighted the relevance of our model, but also the need for a flexible approach that can be adapted to local specificities. Indeed, by adopting a dynamic approach, this case study has demonstrated its effectiveness and potential. It demonstrates a certain flexibility, since the categories of factors encountered are not necessarily exhaustive, and additional elements can easily be taken into account, according to the different sites. For example, we have added the feeling of injustice, classified as a political factor, as felt by local authorities, because this feeling influences many actions.

However, as mentioned in our discussion, to fully validate our research hypotheses, it would be necessary to apply this conceptual framework to at least two other post-nuclear territories with either brownfield or greenfield redevelopment goals and to compare their respective trajectories. This approach enables a synchronic comparison across different territories and, with the addition of temporal segmentation which facilitates diachronic analysis. In this sense, the five-phase division of nuclear plant redevelopment trajectories is an asset for comparison, as each phase contextualizes the factors shaping the trajectory. This segmentation provides an enriched view of the local specificities and similarities that emerge between sites across distinct contexts. Phase-by-phase comparison allows us to identify factors common to different sites as well as characteristics unique to each trajectory. A systematic analysis of the phases also highlights critical junctures where trajectories diverge, along with the factors underlying the differences. In sum, this analytical framework offers a new perspective for understanding the spatial configurations that emerge after plant closure and also identifies key factors influencing the redevelopment of post-nuclear sites.

Beyond post-nuclear redevelopment, the proposed framework could also be adapted to other forms of territories undergoing redevelopment. The dynamics of time, actors, and factors we have explored could be applied to the closure of coal mines, thermal power plants or the reconversion of large industrial sites. However, adapting to the temporal aspects specific to each industry would be necessary. This transferability offers new avenues for researchers and professionals, providing them with tools to analyze a variety of territorial transitions. A broader and more diversified application will reinforce its robustness and identify new dimensions to be taken into account.

## CRediT authorship contribution statement

**Belinda Ravaz:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. **Pierre-Henri Bombenger:** Writing – review & editing, Validation, Supervision, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. **Massimiliano Capezzali:** Writing – review & editing, Validation, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition. **Teva Meyer:** Writing – review & editing, Validation, Supervision, Methodology.

## Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process

During the preparation of this work, the authors used ChatGPT 4.0 to improve language and readability. It has not been used for the analysis of the data or to draw conclusions. After using this tool/service, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the publication.

## Funding

This work was funded by the Canton of Vaud in Switzerland via the School of Engineering and Management Vaud, HES-SO, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland.

## Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

## Data availability

The data that has been used is confidential.

## References

[1] A. Verbruggen, Renewable and nuclear power: a common future? Energy Policy 36 (2008) 4036–4047, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.06.024.

[2] J. Markard, N. Bento, N. Kittner, A. Nuñez-Jimenez, Destined for decline? Examining nuclear energy from a technological innovation systems perspective, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 67 (2020) 101512, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101512.

[3] T. Meyer, Relational territoriality and the spatial embeddedness of nuclear energy: a comparison of two nuclear power plants in Germany and France, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 71 (2021) 101823, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101823.

[4] B. Ravaz, T. Meyer, P.-H. Bombenger, B. Martin, M. Capezzali, Les effets ambivalents des héritages dans la reconversion des anciens territoires nucléaires, in: VertigO - la revue électronique en sciences de l'environnement, 2021.

[5] B. Ravaz, P.-H. Bombenger, M. Capezzali, T. Meyer, Reviewing 20 years of redevelopment trajectories of industrial sites literature and highlighting new research perspectives, Land Use Policy 146 (2024) 107326, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107326.

[6] Z. Kotval, J.R. Mullin, The closing of the Yankee Rowe nuclear power plant: the impact on a New England community, J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 63 (1997) 454–468, https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369708975939.

[7] T.K. Bauer, S.T. Braun, M. Kvasnicka, Nuclear power plant closures and local housing values: evidence from Fukushima and the German housing market, J. Urban Econ. 99 (2017) 94–106, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2017.02.002.
[8] M. Haller, The socioeconomic effects of decommissioning on local communities: a media framing analysis of the experience of Wiscasset, Maine, Middle States Geogr. (2014) 12.

[9] L. Dawney, Decommissioned places: ruins, endurance and care at the end of the first nuclear age, Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. (2019), https://doi.org/10.1111/ tran.12334.

[10] D. Yamamoto, J. Feikens, M. Haller, Nuclear-to-nature land conversion, Geogr. Rev. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1080/00167428.2020.1799212.

[11] A. Greco, D. Yamamoto, Geographical political economy of nuclear power plant closures, Geoforum 106 (2019) 234-243, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. geoforum.2019.08.017.

[12] C. Mulholland, O.A. Ejohwomu, P.W. Chan, Spatial-temporal dynamics of social value: lessons learnt from two UK nuclear decommissioning case studies, J. Clean. Prod. 237 (2019) 117677, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117677.

[13] B. Ravaz, Post-nuclear redevelopment trajectories in France and Germany, in: T. Meyer, F. Weber (Eds.), Energy Geographies: Crossed Perspectives From France and GERMANY, Springer VS, 2024.

[14] Forum nucléaire suisse, Nuclearplanet. https://app.nuclearplanet.ch/nuclearplan et/kkw-world, 2024. (Accessed 3 June 2024).

[15] Statista. Global nuclear reactors by age 2023. n.d. https://www.statista.com/statist ics/517060/average-age-of-nuclear-reactors-worldwide/ (accessed September 11 2024).

[16] D. Yamamoto, A. Greco, Cursed forever? Exploring socio-economic effects of nuclear power plant closures across nine communities in the United States, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 92 (2022) 102766, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102766.

[17] V. Taylor, The trajectory of national liberation and social movements: the south African experience, Community Dev. J. 32 (1997) 252-265.

[18] G. Grabher, J. Thiel, Projects, people, professions: trajectories of learning through a mega-event (the London 2012 case), Geoforum 65 (2015) 328-337, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.02.006.

[19] P.J. Korah, P.B. Cobbinah, A.M. Nunbogu, S. Gyogluu, Spatial plans and urban development trajectory in Kumasi, Ghana, GeoJournal 82 (2017) 1113-1134, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-016-9731-1.

[20] M.-C. Maurel, Les approches du fait rural en Europe. Agriculture et ruralité en Europe Centrale. Maurel Marie-Claude et Lacquement Guillaume, Montreuil, Aux lieux d'être, France, 2007, pp. 11-16.

[21] J. Debrie, V. Lavaud-Letilleul, F. Parola, Shaping port governance: the territorial trajectories of reform, J. Transp. Geogr. 27 (2013) 56-65, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.07.007.

[22] M. Rossi, M. Forget, Y. Gunzburger, K.M. Bergeron, A. Samper, E. Camizuli, Trajectories of mining territories: an integrated and interdisciplinary concept to achieve sustainability, Extr. Ind. Soc. 8 (2021) 1-7, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. exis.2021.01.006.

[23] M. Forget, M. Rossi, Mining region value and vulnerabilities: evolutions over the mine life cycle, Extr. Ind. Soc. 8 (2021) 176-187, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. exis.2020.07.010.

[24] D. Baud, A. Bonnemains, Trajectoires de vulnérabilité des territoires de montagne face aux changements globaux, Rev. Géogr. Alp. (2018), https://doi.org/10.4000/ rga.5069.

[25] J. Mahoney, Path dependence in historical sociology, Theory Soc. 29 (2000) 507-548.

[26] A. Kay, A critique of the use of path dependency in policy studies, Public Adm. 83 (2005) 553-571, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-2928.2005.00462.x.

[27] M. Laraia, Beyond Decommissioning: The Reuse and Redevelopment of Nuclear Installations, Woodhead Publishing, 2019.

[28] B. Cahen, La gestion des déchets issu du démantèlement des installations nucléaires, une activité en croissance qui reste à optimiser, Ann. Mines - Réal. Ind. (2012) 98-112, https://doi.org/10.3917/rindu.123.0098.

[29] K.A. Robertson, Decommissioning nuclear power reactors, in: Learning From Fukushima - Nuclear Power in East Asia, ANU Press, The Australian National University, 2019.

[30] U.S.NRC, Decommissioning, 2020, June 26. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ basic-ref/glossary/decommissioning.html.

[31] The Nuclear Decommissioning Collaborative, INC, Socioeconomic Impacts From Nuclear Power Plant Closure and Decommissioning: Host Community Experiences, Best Practices and Recommendations, 2020.

[32] J. Blakey, The politics of scale through Rancière, Prog. Hum. Geogr. 45 (2021) 623-640, https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132520944487.

[33] T. Meyer, F. Vallerand, V. Bour, C. Dauwe, V. Erne-Heintz, T. Schellenberger, Produire les échelles de la transition à Fessenheim: contingences et jeu d'acteurs autour de la fermeture d'une centrale nucléaire, in: L'Espace Politique Revue En Ligne de Géographie Politique et de Géopolitique, 2022.

[34] D. Gregory, R. Johnston, G. Pratt, M. Watts, S. Whatmore (Eds.), The Dictionary of Human Geography, 5th ed., Blackwell, Malden, MA, 2009.

[35] N. Smith, Contours of a spatialized politics: homeless vehicles and the production of geographical scale, Soc. Text (1992) 54, https://doi.org/10.2307/466434.

[36] S.A. Marston, The social construction of scale, Prog. Hum. Geogr. 24 (2000) 219-242, https://doi.org/10.1191/030913200674086272.

[37] M. Emirbayer, A. Mische, What is agency? Am. J. Sociol. 103 (1998) 962-1023, https://doi.org/10.1086/231294.

[38] I.M. Otto, M. Wiedermann, R. Cremades, J.F. Donges, C. Auer, W. Lucht, Human agency in the Anthropocene, Ecol. Econ. 167 (2020) 106463, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106463.

[39] P. Knoepfel, C. Larrue, F. Varone, Analyse et pilotage des politiques publiques 2nd ed., vol. 2, Verlag Rüegger, Chur, 2006.

[40] G.T. Savage, T.W. Nix, C.J. Whitehead, J.D. Blair, Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders, AMP 5 (1991) 61-75, https://doi.org/ 10.5465/ame.1991.4274682.

[41] A. Pike, Building a geographical political economy of closure: the case of R&DCo in North East England, Antipode 37 (2005) 93-115, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0066- 4812.2005.00475.x.

[42] M. Grossetti, Ch. Beslay, M. Daynac, R. Guillaume, D. Salles, F. Tautelle, La construction des politiques locales. Reconversions industrielles et systèmes locaux d'action publique, L'Harmattan, Paris, 1998.

[43] S. Edelblutte, Reconversion industrielle ou redéveloppement territorial? L'exemple de Thaon-les-Vosges, ancienne ville-usine textile lorraine, Geoconfluences, https://geoconfluences.ens-lyon.fr/informations-scientifiques/dossiers-regionaux/la-france-des-territoires-en-mutation/articles-scientifiques/reconversion-industrielle-ou-redeveloppement-territorial-lexemple-de-thaon-les-vosges-ancienne-ville-usine-textile-lorraine, 2014.

[44] M.J. Pasqualetti, K.D. Pijawka, Unsiting nuclear power plants: decommissioning risks and their land use context, Prof. Geogr. 48 (1996) 57-69, https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.0033-0124.1996.00057.x.

[45] J. Rhodes, P. Tyler, A. Brennan, New developments in area-based initiatives in England: the experience of the single regeneration budget, Urban Stud. 40 (2003) 1399-1426, https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098032000094360.

[46] E. Deront, A. Evrard, S. Persico, Tenir une promesse électorale sans la mettre en œuvre: Le cas de la fermeture de Fessenheim, Rev. Fr. Sci. Polit. 68 (2018) 265, https://doi.org/10.3917/rfsp.682.0265.