Advertisement

The Use of the Added Value Approach in Siting Radioactive Waste Facilities

Stakeholder Opinions in the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovenia
  • Matti KojoEmail author
  • Phil Richardson
Chapter
Part of the Energiepolitik und Klimaschutz. Energy Policy and Climate Protection book series (EPKS)

Abstract

It is now common for nuclear waste facility siting programmes to include various social and economic benefits for the potential host community, such as financial compensation and local empowerment, frequently referred to as an ‘added value approach’. Despite being an increasingly common element in many site selection strategies, this has not received as much attention in recent literature as the study of public participation approaches.

This paper reports on a study of stakeholders’ opinions of the use of an added value approach in siting a radioactive waste facility in the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovenia, undertaken as part of the EC-supported IPPA (Implementing Public Participation Approaches in Radioactive Waste Disposal) project in 2011–2012. Those involved were members of national stakeholder groups established as part of the project for a number of different purposes related to site selection. The overall response rate of the survey was 41%.

The paper concludes by arguing that an added value approach should be adapted to the interests and needs of stakeholders during different stages of a siting process. Moreover, negotiations on the overall approach is needed, not solely on community benefits.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aldrich, D. P. (2008). Site Fights. Divisive Facilities and Civil Society in Japan and the West, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bursík, M. (2015). The Trouble with Democracy. In: Brunnengräber, A.; Di Nucci, M. R.; Isidoro Losada, A. M.; Mez, L. and Schreurs, M. A. (Eds.) (2015). Nuclear Waste Governance. An International Comparison. Energy Policy and Climate Protection, Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 249–264.Google Scholar
  3. Caine, K.J. and Krogman, N. (2010). Powerful or Just Plain Power-Full? A Power Analysis of Impact and Benefit Agreements in Canada’s North. In: Organization & Environment, 23(1), 76–98,  https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026609358969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carnes, S. A.; Copenhaver, E. D.; Sorensen, J. H.; Soderstrom, E. J.; Reed, J. H.; Bjornstad, D. J. and Peelle, E. (1983). Incentives and Nuclear Waste Siting: Prospects and Constraints. In: Energy Systems and Policy, 7(4), 322–351.Google Scholar
  5. Cass, N.; Walker, G. and Devine-Wright, P. (2010). Good Neighbours, Public Relations and Bribes: the Politics and Perceptions of Community Benefit Provision in Renewable Energy Development in the UK. In: Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 12(3), 255–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cowell, R.; Bristow, G. and Munday, M. (2011). Acceptance, acceptability and environmental justice: the role of community benefits in wind energy development. In: Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 54(4), 539–557, https://doi-org.helios.uta.fi/10.1080/09640568.2010.521047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deese, D. A. (1982). A Cross-National Perspective on the Politics of Nuclear Waste. In: Colglazier, E. W. (Ed.) (1982). The Politics of Nuclear Waste, New York: Pergamon Press, 63–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DECC (2014). Implementing Geological Disposal; A Framework for the long-term management of higher activity radioactive waste. Department of Energy and Climate Change. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/332890/GDF_White_Paper_FINAL.pdf, last accessed 8 February 2018.
  9. Di Nucci, M. R. and Brunnengräber, A. (2017). In Whose Backyard? The Wicked Problem of Siting Nuclear Waste Repositories. In: European Policy Analysis, 3(2), 295–323.Google Scholar
  10. Di Nucci, M. R.; Brunnengräber, A. and Isidoro Losada, A. M. (2017). From the “right to know” to the “right to object” and “decide”. A comparative perspective on participation in siting procedures for high level radioactive waste repositories. In: Progress in Nuclear Energy, 100(September 2017), 316–325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2017.07.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Flynn, J.; Chalmers, J.; Easterling, D.; Kasperson, R.; Kunreuher, H.; Mertz, C. K.; Mushkatel, A.; Pijawka, K. D. and Slovic, P. (1995). One Hundred Centuries of Solitude. Redirecting America’s High-Level Nuclear Waste Policy, Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  12. French, S. and Bayley, C. (2011). Public participation: comparing approaches. In: Journal of Risk Research, 14(2), 241–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frey, B. S.; Oberholzer-Gee, F. and Eichenberger, R. (1996). The Old Lady Visits Your Backyard: A Tale of Morals and Markets. In: Journal of Political Economy, 104(6), 1297–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gregory, R.; Kunreuther, H.; Easterling, D. and Richards, K. (1991). Incentives Policies to Site Hazardous Waste Facilities. In: Risk Analysis, 11(4), 667–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hannis, M. and Rawles, K. (2013). Compensation or Bribery? Ethical Issues in Relation to Radwaste Host Communities. In: Oughton, D. and Hansson, S. O. (Eds.) (2013). Social and ethical aspects of radiation risk management, Oxford: Elsevier, 347–374.Google Scholar
  16. Hunold, C. (2002). Canada’s Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Problem: Voluntarism Reconsidered. In: Environmental Politics, 11(2), 49–72.  https://doi.org/10.1080/714000613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. IPPA Consortium. (2012). IPPA Report from the first Workshop in Poland, IPPA Project Deliverable 6.3, (Unpublished report).Google Scholar
  18. Jenkins-Smith, H. and Kunreuther, H. (2001). Mitigation and Benefits Measures as Policy Tools for Siting Potentially Hazardous Facilities: Determinants of Effectiveness and Appropriateness. In: Risk Analysis, 11(2), 371–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jenkins-Smith, H. C.; Silva, C. L.; Nowlin, M. L. and de Lozier, G. (2011). Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility. In: Risk Analysis, 31(4), 629–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kasperson, R. E. (2005). Siting Hazardous Facilities: Searching for Effective Institutions and Processes. In: Lesbirel, H.S. and Shaw, D. (Eds.) (2005). Managing Conflict in Facility Siting. An International Comparison, Cheltenham, UK Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 13–35.Google Scholar
  21. Kemp, R. (1992). The politics of radioactive waste disposal, Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kerr, S.; Johnson, K. and Weir, S. (2017). Understanding community benefit payments from renewable energy development. In: Energy Policy, 105(June 2017), 202–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Klein, I. and Fischhendler, I. (2015). The pitfalls of implementing Host Community Compensation: A power balance perspective. In: Land Use Policy, 49(December 2015), 499–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kojo, M. and Richardson, P. (2014). The use of community benefits approaches in the siting of nuclear waste management facilities. In: Energy Strategy Reviews, 4(3), 34–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kojo, M. and Richardson, P. (2012). The Added Value Approach in Siting Nuclear Waste Facility. In: Radwaste Solutions, 19(1), 38–50.Google Scholar
  26. Krütli, P.; Stauffacher, M.; Flüeler, T. and Scholz, RW. (2011). Functional-dynamic public participation in technological decision-making: site selection processes of nuclear waste repositories. In: Journal of Risk Research, 13(7), 861–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kunreuther, H. (1996). Voluntary Procedures for Siting Noxious Facilities: Lotteries, Auctions, and Benefit Sharing. In: Munton, D. (Ed.) (1996). Hazardous Waste Siting and Democratic Choice, Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 338–357.Google Scholar
  28. Lehtonen, M. and Kojo, M. (2019). The Role and Functions of Community Benefit Schemes. A Comparison of the Finnish and French Nuclear Waste Disposal Projects. In: Brunnengräber, A. and Di Nucci, M. R. (Eds.) (2019). Conflicts, Participation and Acceptability in Nuclear Waste Governance, Volume III, Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 175-205.Google Scholar
  29. Lengwiler, M. (2008). Participatory Approaches in Science and Technology. Historical origins and Current Practices in Critical Perspective. In: Science, Technology, & Human Values, 33(2), 186–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lesbirel, H. S. (2003). Markets, Transaction Costs and Institutions: Compensating for Nuclear Risk in Japan. In: Australian Journal of Political Science, 38(1), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Linnerooth-Bayer, J. (2005). Fair Strategies for Siting Hazardous Waste Facilities. In: Lesbirel, H.S. and Shaw, D. (Eds.) (2005). Managing Conflict in Facility Siting. An International Comparison, Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 36–62.Google Scholar
  32. Litmanen, T.; Kari, M.; Kojo, M.; and Solomon, B. D. (2017). Is there a Nordic model of final disposal of spent nuclear fuel? Governance insights from Finland and Sweden. In: Energy Research & Social Science, 25(March 2017), 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Metlay, D. (2013). Consent-Based Siting: What Have We Learned? In: Radwaste Solutions, 20(3), 28–36.Google Scholar
  34. Minhans, A.; Ustohalova, V. and Kallenbach-Herbert, B. (2012a). Report on the results of the questionnaire about the participatory process for a radioactive waste repository for low and medium level radioactive waste (LILW) in Poland, IPPA Deliverable 5.1. (Unpublished report.)Google Scholar
  35. Minhans, A.; Ustohalova, V. and Kallenbach-Herbert, B. (2012b). Short report about the results of the questionnaire on the participatory process for a radioactive waste repository for low and intermediate level waste (LILW) in Slovenia, IPPA Deliverable 5.1. (Unpublished report).Google Scholar
  36. Ministry of Finance of the Czech Republic (2015). National Action Plan for the Development of the Nuclear Energy Sector in the Czech Republic, Ministry of Industry and Trade and Ministry of Finance of the Czech Republic. https://www.mpo.cz/assets/en/energy/electricity/nuclearenergy/2017/10/National-Action-Plan-for-the-Development-of-the-Nuclear-_2015_.pdf, last accessed 31 January 2018.
  37. Morell, D. and Magorian, C. (1982). Siting Hazardous Waste Facilities. Local Opposition and the Myth of Preemption, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  38. Munton, D. (1996a) Introduction: The NIMBY Phenomenon and Approaches to Facility Siting. In: Munton, D. (Ed.) (1996). Hazardous Waste Siting and Democratic Choice, Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1–53.Google Scholar
  39. Munton, D. (1996b). Siting Hazardous Waste Facilities, Japanese Style. In: Munton, D. (Ed.) (1996). Hazardous Waste Siting and Democratic Choice, Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 181–229.Google Scholar
  40. NEA (2007). Fostering a Durable Relationship Between a Waste Management Facility and its Host Community. Adding Value Through Design and Process, NEA No. 6176, Paris: Nuclear Energy Agency. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development.Google Scholar
  41. NUMO (2002). Outreach Scheme; Aiming to Link Areas and projects. Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan. https://www.numo.or.jp/en/what/pdf/4.pdf, last accessed 8 February 2018.
  42. Rabe, B. G. (1994). Beyond NIMBY. Hazardous Waste Siting in Canada and the United States Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  43. Rabe, B. G.; Gunderson, W. C. and Harbage, P. T. (1996). Alternatives to NIMBY Gridlock: Voluntary Approaches to Radioactive Waste Facility Siting in Canada and the United States. In: Munton, D. (Ed.) (1996). Hazardous Waste Siting and Democratic Choice, Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 84–107.Google Scholar
  44. Rask, M. (2013). The tragedy of citizen deliberation – two cases of participatory technology assessment. In: Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(1), 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Svačina, K. (2016). How (not) to talk about the uncertain: siting geological disposal for highly radioactive waste in the Czech Republic. In: Journal of Risk Research,  https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2015.1121901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sumberova, V. and Vojtechova, H. (2011). Critical evaluation of transparency and public participation in the process of deep geological repository siting in the Czech Republic, IPPA Deliverable 2.1, (Unpublished report).Google Scholar
  47. Shelley, F. M.; Solomon, B. D.; Pasqualetti, M. J. and Murauskas, G. T. (1988). Locational conflict and the siting of nuclear waste disposal repositories: an international appraisal. In: Environmental Planning C: Government and Policy, 6(3), 323–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sundqvist, G. (2002). The Bedrock of Opinion. Science, Technology and Society in the Siting of High-Level Nuclear Waste, Dordrecht / Boston / London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  49. Taebi, B. (2017). Bridging the Gap between Social Acceptance and Ethical Acceptability. In: Risk Analysis, 37(10), 1817–1827.  https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Terwel, B. W.; Koudenburg, F. A. and ter Mors, E. (2014). Public Responses to Community Compensation: The Importance of Prior Consultations with Local Residents. In: Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 24(6), 479–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Terwel, B. W. and ter Mors, E. (2015). Host community compensation in a carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) context: Comparing the preferences of Dutch citizens and local government authorities. In: Environmental Science & Policy, 50(June 2015), 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ustohalova, V., Minhans, A. and Kallenbach-Herbert, B. (2012). Short report about the results of the questionnaire on the participatory process for a radioactive waste repository for high-level waste (HLW) in the Czech Republic, IPPA Deliverable 5.1. (Unpublished report).Google Scholar
  53. Williams, D. (2017). Poland revives plans for nuclear power plant. http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2017/09/poland-revives-plans-for-nuclear-power-plant.html, last accessed 31 January 2018.

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tampere UniversityTampereFinland
  2. 2.Galson Sciences Ltd.RutlandUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations