The Process Matters: Fairness in Repository Siting For Nuclear Waste

Abstract

Siting contested infrastructure such as repositories for nuclear waste very often faces strong local resistance. One major reason for this opposition may arise because siting processes do not appropriately consider fairness issues such as transparency, the availability of options, or the sufficient involvement of concerned and affected people. The aim of this study was to analyze people's concerns related to justice in siting nuclear waste. Besides procedural aspects, both distributive justice and outcome valence are considered important and therefore the ''total fairness model'' by Törnblom and Vermunt (Soc Justice Res 12:39-64, 1999) was used as a framework. In three quasi-experimental studies (N 1 = 53; N 2 = 56; N 3 = 83) applying conjoint analysis, respondents ranked 11 vignettes with the three attributes procedural justice, distributional justice, and outcome valence. Each vignette represents a realistic scenario of a site selection process for the disposal of nuclear waste in Switzerland. All the three studies yield a consistent result: vignettes representing a situation with a fair process are top-ranked by respondents; situations with negative outcome valence are ranked lowest; distributive issues turned out to be of minor importance. We conclude that procedural fairness should be given more attention in any kind of contested infrastructure siting and that real-world examples like the one discussed here can inform justice research.

Communicating Low‐Probability High‐Consequence Risk, Uncertainty and Expert Confidence: Induced Seismicity of Deep Geothermal Energy and Shale Gas

“…As shown by McComas et al ., acceptance of induced earthquakes increases when public engagement is possible. Communication efforts should thus not only include and empirically test written communication material as in this study, but also pay close attention to values, concerns, procedural fairness and trust …”

“…First, the communication of uncertainty should be further thought through and empirically tested so that practitioners can get access to robust guidelines of how to communicate transparently without unnecessarily inflating concern or frustration. Second, beyond the careful wording, risk communication for induced seismicity should be researched and empirically tested considering broader, contextual factors, such as the procedural fairness, siting procedures, and attitudes towards projects . Third, risk communication materials could be further tested for other technologies or risks, such as nuclear power, climate change, genetically modified food, in order to produce generalizable insight for science and risk communication.…”

Framing deep geothermal energy in mass media: the case of Switzerland

“…Thus, one can argue that similar conflict patterns could emerge, and of course, societal processes matter. Previous research shows that how a siting process is organized will have an impact on the perceived fairness of the entire process (Krütli et al, 2010(Krütli et al, , 2012. In turn, it will influence how the public reacts, which strategy activist groups will follow (Parthasarathy, 2010).…”

Bridging the Gap between Social Acceptance and Ethical Acceptability

“…It has been widely acknowledged and empirically shown that, in addition to having a fair outcome (as, e.g., in the distribution of burdens and benefits), what very much matters is having a fair procedure in decision making. (35)(36)(37) In social acceptance studies, the relevance of "procedural justice" issues has also been acknowledged, leading to a growing body of work on the participatory approach to decision making in regard to new technologies. (38)(39)(40)(41)(42) Indeed, it is now common practice to recognize a normative rationale for participation as a political right for citizens; (e.g., 41) "the case for participation should begin with a normative argument that a purely technocratic orientation is incompatible with democratic ideals."…”