The Use of the Added Value Approach in Siting Radioactive Waste Facilities
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.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Aldrich, D. P. (2008). Site Fights. Divisive Facilities and Civil Society in Japan and the West, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- IPPA Consortium. (2012). IPPA Report from the first Workshop in Poland, IPPA Project Deliverable 6.3, (Unpublished report).Google Scholar
- 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
- Kemp, R. (1992). The politics of radioactive waste disposal, Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
- Kojo, M. and Richardson, P. (2012). The Added Value Approach in Siting Nuclear Waste Facility. In: Radwaste Solutions, 19(1), 38–50.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Metlay, D. (2013). Consent-Based Siting: What Have We Learned? In: Radwaste Solutions, 20(3), 28–36.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- Morell, D. and Magorian, C. (1982). Siting Hazardous Waste Facilities. Local Opposition and the Myth of Preemption, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishing Company.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- Rabe, B. G. (1994). Beyond NIMBY. Hazardous Waste Siting in Canada and the United States Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.