Media Framing of Environmental Risk in the Batangtoru HEPP Controversy

Eriga Wahyuwiranti; Soeseno Hendro Saputro

doi:10.31004/riggs.v5i2.10283

Authors

Eriga Wahyuwiranti LSPR Institute of Communication and Business
Soeseno Hendro Saputro LSPR Institute of Communication and Business

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31004/riggs.v5i2.10283

Keywords:

Enviromental Communication, Media Framing, Enviromental Risk, Social Amplification of Risk, Batangtoru HEPP

Abstract

Renewable energy infrastructure projects are increasingly promoted as solutions to climate change and sustainable development, yet they often generate environmental controversies that extend beyond their technical characteristics. This study examines how media framing contributes to the social amplification of environmental risk by using the Batangtoru Hydroelectric Power Plant (HEPP) controversy in Indonesia as a longitudinal case study. Drawing upon Environmental Communication, Media Framing Theory, and the Social Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF), the study explores how localized ecological concerns are transformed into broader narratives of environmental threat through media discourse. A qualitative research design was employed using longitudinal media framing analysis of online news coverage published between 2017 and 2025. Relevant news articles were selected through purposive sampling, systematically coded, and analyzed using NVivo 15 to identify the evolution of dominant environmental frames, changes in media sentiment, and patterns of stakeholder visibility. The findings indicate that media narratives evolved progressively from an initial emphasis on biodiversity conservation toward broader concerns related to environmental risk, potential disasters, governance issues, and scientific controversy. This transformation was accompanied by increasingly negative media sentiment and the growing prominence of media institutions and environmental advocacy groups as key amplification actors. Consistent with SARF, the results suggest that media do not merely represent environmental issues but actively contribute to the amplification and discursive escalation of environmental risk over time. The study contributes to environmental communication scholarship by integrating media framing and risk amplification perspectives to explain how sustainability controversies evolve in the context of renewable energy infrastructure projects.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. SAGE Publications.

2. Beck, U. (2006). Living in the world risk society. Economy and Society, 35(3), 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085140600844902

3. Boykoff, M. T. (2011). Who speaks for the climate? Making sense of media reporting on climate change. Cambridge University Press.

4. Carvalho, A. (2007). Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientific knowledge: Re-reading news on climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 16(2), 223–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506066775

5. Castleberry, A., & Nolen, A. (2018). Thematic analysis of qualitative research data: Is it as easy as it sounds? Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 10(6), 807–815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2018.03.019

6. Cox, R., & Pezzullo, P. C. (2021). Environmental communication and the public sphere (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.

7. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

8. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x

9. Hansen, A. (2018). Environment, media and communication (2nd ed.). Routledge.

10. Hansen, A., & Cox, R. (Eds.). (2015). The Routledge handbook of environment and communication. Routledge.

11. Judge, M., Kashima, Y., Steg, L., & Dietz, T. (2023). Environmental decision-making in times of polarization. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 48, 477–503. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-115339

12. Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J. X., & Ratick, S. (1988). The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8(2), 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x

13. McQuail, D. (2010). McQuail's mass communication theory (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.

14. Menga, F., & Swyngedouw, E. (2018). Water, technology and the nation-state: The hydropolitics of hydroelectric development. Political Geography, 67, 1–10.

15. Nisbet, M. C., & Fahy, D. (2015). The need for knowledge-based journalism in covering science and politics. Journalism, 16(1), 3–12. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24541816

16. O'Neill, S., & Smith, N. (2014). Climate change and visual imagery. WIREs Climate Change, 5(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.249

17. Paulus, T. M., Lester, J. N., & Dempster, P. G. (2014). Digital tools for qualitative research. SAGE Publications.

18. Pidgeon, N., Kasperson, R. E., & Slovic, P. (Eds.). (2003). The social amplification of risk. Cambridge University Press.

19. Reese, S. D. (2007). The framing project: A bridging model for media research revisited. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 148–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00334.x

20. Renn, O. (2008). Risk governance: Coping with uncertainty in a complex world. Earthscan.

21. Renn, O., Burns, W. J., Kasperson, J. X., Kasperson, R. E., & Slovic, P. (1992). The social amplification of risk: Theoretical foundations and empirical applications. Journal of Social Issues, 48(4), 137–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1992.tb01949.x

22. Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

23. Schäfer, M. S., & Painter, J. (2021). Climate journalism in a changing media ecosystem: Assessing the production of climate change-related news around the world. WIREs Climate Change, 12(1), e675. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.675

24. Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02784.x

25. Slovic, P. (2000). The perception of risk. Earthscan Publications. 10.1017/CBO9781316422250.040

26. West, R., & Turner, L. H. (2018). Introducing communication theory: Analysis and application (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1223