Editorial: Nuclear waste management in a globalised world

Time is an important aspect of the issue of nuclear waste, both from a technical and from a perceptional perspective. Previous studies have investigated the relationship between time and risk perception of nuclear waste, applying the discounting paradigm and therefore limiting time to one very narrow aspect: its duration. However, time is a multifaceted concept and encompasses more than a linear property. The aim of our study is to test the influence of a different aspect of time, namely temporal representations (linear or cyclical) on risk perception of nuclear waste. In an experimental study we demonstrate that both linear and cyclical representations have a reducing effect on risk perception compared to the control condition, where no specific time representation was activated. Examining group differences, we also demonstrate that temporal representations have a differing influence depending on whether participants have a stable belief about nuclear waste or whether they belong to an ambivalent group that does not yet hold a stable belief. Furthermore, we replicate the well-documented gender gap in risk perception. Our results bear potentially interesting implications for risk communication by demonstrating a causal relationship between the graphic representation of time and risk perception of nuclear waste.

show abstract

“…Strandberg and Andrén 2009). In many countries, siting projects are vehemently disputed and even aborted.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

The influence of linear and cyclical temporal representations on risk perception of nuclear waste: an experimental study

Moser

Stauffacher

Krütli

et al. 2012

Journal of Risk Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While an HLW repository was approved by the U.S. government in 2002 (Endres 2009;Solomon 2009), President Obama's administration in 2009 reversed the decision and the policy is in the process of starting over (Ewing and von Hippel 2009). The other nuclear states are in various stages of learning these social lessons and have all further delayed their final HLW management decisions (Strandberg and Andrén 2009).…”

Section: Success Stories In Scandinaviamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, Lidskog and Andersson (2002) and Högselius (2009) present mostly descriptive analyses that have covered up to 32 countries. Högselius and Kaijser (2007) contribute a more developed comparative analysis of Germany, Russia, and Japan, whereas Strandberg and Andrén (2009) compiled seven national case studies on HLW management into a special issue of Journal of Risk Research. Finally, the theme of internationalization has also evolved in this literature in the last decade.…”

Section: Success Stories In Scandinaviamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The drawback, however, is that it does not produce generalizable explanations. Put differently, the skilled case study methodologist runs the risk of being unable to see the forest for the trees, while approaches that build on a historical and comparative methodology have an explanatory potential (see, e.g., Blowers et al 1991;Högselius 2009;Strandberg and Andrén 2009). This brings us to our second idea for future research, namely that it would be preferable to develop methodological pluralism and triangulation generally (Harvey and MacDonald 1993), and comparative and historical approaches.…”

Section: Conclusion and Ideas For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Three Decades of Social Science Research on High‐Level Nuclear Waste: Achievements and Future Challenges

Solomon

Andrén

Strandberg

2010

Risk Hazard & Crisis Pub Pol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on high‐level nuclear waste management has focused on technical and scientific issues since the U.S. National Academy of Sciences first studied the problem in the mid‐1950s and recommended long‐term disposal in deep salt formations. In this review, we trace the development of the problem's definition and its associated research since socioeconomic, political, and policy issues were first given consideration and nuclear waste management became recognized as more than a technical problem. Three somewhat overlapping time periods can be identified. First, from the mid‐1970s to the early 1980s, initial research explored institutional dimensions of nuclear waste, among other subjects, while several countries attempted to officially solve the problem. The second period began in the early 1980s with a concerted effort to site nuclear waste repositories, and ended in the mid‐1990s with some progress in Sweden, Finland, and the United States, and general stalemate elsewhere. This period accelerated research on risk perception and stigma of nuclear waste, and elevated a focus on public trust. Special attention was given to repository siting conflicts in particular. The last period, since the mid‐1990s, has been characterized by failure and continuing political stalemate, with the major exception of Scandinavia, and increased attention to public participation, political systems, and international solutions. Questions of ethics have been given serious attention, while research on risk perceptions and siting conflicts continues. Thus, we see some signs of progress toward final disposal. We frame these periods in a broader context of the shifting role of applied social scientists. The paper concludes with a general discussion of this research area and prospects for future research.

show abstract

“…As outlined above, nuclear waste disposal can be considered a prototype of contested and stigmatized infrastructure projects, with a large body of research examining decision and site selection processes (e.g. NRC 2003;Strandberg and Andrén 2009;Krütli et al 2010aKrütli et al , 2012. As a second issue, we examine hazardous waste to better understand whether nuclear waste is a special case or if our insights potentially also apply to other contested infrastructure projects.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

From risk to vulnerability: the role of perceived adaptive capacity for the acceptance of contested infrastructure

Moser

Stauffacher

Blumer

et al. 2014

Journal of Risk Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Infrastructure projects such as repositories for nuclear waste or hazardous waste sites impose risks (in the form of potential burdens or losses) over extensive timescales. These risks change dynamically over time and so, potentially, does their management. Societies and key actors go through learning processes and subsequently may be better able to deal with related challenges. However, social scientific research on the acceptance of such projects is mainly concerned with (static) risk perception issues and does not include dynamic aspects. Adaptive capacity, which is part of the concept of vulnerability, therefore represents a promising complementing facet for this line of research. The aim of this paper is to examine the role of perceived adaptive capacity (PAC) for the acceptance of contested long-term infrastructure for the two issues of nuclear and hazardous waste. In an online experimental survey (N = 300) examining either the acceptance of a nuclear waste repository or of a hazardous waste site, we demonstrate that (i) PAC can be separated empirically as a psychological construct from risk and benefit perception, and (ii) PAC explains a significant additional share of variance in the acceptance of both waste types beyond risk and benefit perception. Furthermore, we report what adaptation mechanisms of PAC participants expect to occur in the future. We conclude that such a dynamic perspective yields important insights in understanding individual decision-making regarding long-term infrastructure projects. IntroductionIn the siting of large infrastructure projects such as nuclear power plants, nuclear waste repositories, dams, wind power plants, deep geothermal, or carbon capture and storage (CCS) implementers often face enormous difficulties. Such projects, also referred to as contested infrastructure (Boholm 2004), share some common characteristics: they are often large-scale projects in which burdens and benefits are unequally distributed over time and space, and they include a broad range of actors with differing interests and values. Moreover, these infrastructures often pose risks over very long timescales due to uncertainties in physical processes and knowledge (ignorance). In a nutshell, they 'combine technical factors and social factors in

show abstract

Editorial: Nuclear waste management in a globalised world

Cited by 12 publications

References 17 publications

The influence of linear and cyclical temporal representations on risk perception of nuclear waste: an experimental study

The influence of linear and cyclical temporal representations on risk perception of nuclear waste: an experimental study

Three Decades of Social Science Research on High‐Level Nuclear Waste: Achievements and Future Challenges

From risk to vulnerability: the role of perceived adaptive capacity for the acceptance of contested infrastructure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About