Advanced Research, Lagging Policy

Schröder, Jantine; Bergmans, Anne; Laes, Erik

doi:10.1007/978-3-658-08962-7_6

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In recent decades, SSH researchers in Europe and beyond have demonstrated how social studies can fruitfully inform risk governance and clarify the societal understanding of radiological protection issues, for instance in relation to public response to and engagement in radioactive waste management (Jenkins-Smith et al 2011, Perko et al 2012, Dubreuil, Baudé, and Mays 2013, Bergmans et al 2014, Schröder et al 2015. Other studies shed light on public risk perception of industrial uses of ionising radiation, such as food sterilisation (Turcanu and Perko 2014); identify societal constraints related to environmental remediation and decommissioning processes (Perko et al 2017a); and raise public awareness about radon (Hevey 2017, Lofstedt 2018.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a strategic research agenda for social sciences and humanities in radiological protection

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reflecting a change in funding strategies for European research projects, and a commitment to the idea of responsible research and innovation in radiological protection (RP), a collective of research institutes and universities have developed a prospective Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) for Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) in radiological protection. This is the first time such a research agenda has been proposed. This paper identifies six research lines of interest and concern: (1) Effects of social, psychological and economic aspects on RP behaviour; (2) Holistic approaches to the governance of radiological risks; (3) Responsible research and innovation in RP; (4) Stakeholder engagement and participatory processes in RP research, development, policy and practice; (5) Risk communication; and (6) RP cultures. These topics were developed through broad stakeholder consultation, in conjunction with activities carried out in the framework of various projects and initiatives (EU H2020 CONCERT programme, the EU FP7 projects OPERRA, PREPARE and EAGLE, the 2015–2018 RICOMET series of conferences, and the 2014 and 2016 International Symposia on Ethics of Environmental Health); as well as through dialogues with members of the European radiation protection research communities. The six research lines open opportunities to integrate a range of key social and ethical considerations into RP, thereby expanding research opportunities and programmes and fostering collaborative approaches to research and innovation.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a strategic research agenda for social sciences and humanities in radiological protection

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Much will depend on further implementation, but both Federal Government decisions have the potential to be a next step in closing the gap between research, policy and practice (Schröder et al, 2015). Under pressure from the regulator, the issue of the geological host formation is most likely to feature prominently in ONDRAF-NIRAS's future R&D plans.…”

Section: Radioactive Waste Management Todaymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…What follows is not an attempt to update previous works describing Belgian radioactive waste management from the 1920s (see e.g., Schröder & Bergmans, 2012;Lits, 2015;Parotte & Delvenne, 2015;Schröder et al, 2015), or to identify nuclear events that sustain the (dis)continuities in the HLW programme (Parotte, 2019). This contribution is a foresight chapter that gives voices to actors who compose the current governance ecosystem of HLW (and spent nuclear fuel-SNF)-from concerned citizens, scientists, policymakers, civil society representatives, and public administrators to environmental associations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do You Care About High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel? Opportunities for Co-Constructing an Appropriate Governance-Ecosystem in Belgium

Bergmans¹,

Fallon²,

Cörvers³

et al. 2023

Energiepolitik Und Klimaschutz. Energy Policy and Climate Protection

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter discusses key dimensions for the future of high-level radioactive waste governance (HLW) in Belgium. It highlights elements that a diverse set of stakeholders considered to be of importance for a national public debate, and puts them in the context of the theoretical notion of ‘matter of care’, as developed by Maria Puig De La Bellacassa (2017). Rather than highlight what perspective every type of actor develops, these perspectives are considered as an interrelated collective in which each has its own merits and reasons for existence.Our results show that it will be very difficult to define a one-sided governance approach that covers virtually all dimensions and expectations from all stakeholders in a satisfactory way. Multiple efforts and a mix of initiatives and responsive actions towards new developments will be needed. Approaching this from a perspective of care allows an empathic attitude towards the needs and expectations of all current and future stakeholders in this debate. Caring means assuming that sociotechnical uncertainties will remain, regardless of the preferred long-term option for radioactive waste. Caring is also about allowing real spaces for others who care to express what they care about and how they desire to do so. Caring is not about providing one pre-fixed initial programme, but is about ensuring the waste is being taken care of by means of a collective and open decision-making and governance process.

show abstract

“…In Belgium for instance, communication about low level nuclear waste is developed to the level of stakeholder's engagement and inclusive risk governance (Laes and Bombaerts 2008), while public debate in the case of high level waste remains limited (Schröder et al 2015). A number of consultations, citizens' conferences, public meetings and open door days have been organised in order to continue information provision and citizens' participation in nuclear waste management focusing on nuclear waste disposals.…”

Section: Communication About Ionising Radiation In Belgium and France...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Satisfaction with information about ionising radiation: a comparative study in Belgium and France

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent decades efforts have been made to meet societal expectations concerning public access to information and to enable citizens' informed decision-making related to ionising radiation risks. But are people satisfied with the information provided and which factors influence this? This paper investigates lay persons' satisfaction with the information about ionising radiation provided by different communicators in Belgium and France. In particular, it studies the potential influence of risk perception, confidence in authorities, knowledge and education. The study is based on data originating from large scale public opinion surveys (N = 1002 in Belgium; N = 966 in France). Results show that the two countries differ as regards satisfaction with the information provided by specific communicators. Confidence in authorities was revealed in both countries as more important for satisfaction with information than risk perception. Contrary to expectations, general knowledge about ionising radiation had limited or no explanatory power. An additional study for the Belgian sample showed that both perceived trustworthiness and technical competence influence satisfaction with information, but their relative importance depends on the communicator.

show abstract

Advanced Research, Lagging Policy

Cited by 5 publications

References 1 publication

Towards a strategic research agenda for social sciences and humanities in radiological protection

Towards a strategic research agenda for social sciences and humanities in radiological protection

Do You Care About High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel? Opportunities for Co-Constructing an Appropriate Governance-Ecosystem in Belgium

Satisfaction with information about ionising radiation: a comparative study in Belgium and France

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About