Concerned public and the paralysis of decision‐making: nuclear waste management policy in Germany

Hocke, Peter; Renn, Ortwin

doi:10.1080/13669870903126382

Cited by 31 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At the same time, an integration of approaches is called for (see Strandberg 2000 for an endorsement of such approaches). As is convincingly shown and argued by, e.g., MacKerron and Berkhout (2009), Hocke and Renn (2009), Durant (2009), and Solomon (2009, the failure to establish an HLW repository in the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, and the United States, respectively, can best be understood when the analysis includes high-level politics of energy and HLW, the historical and institutional context, policymaking, and especially the facility siting processes. This brings us to our final idea for future social science research on HLW management, which is to develop an integrated approach so that all strengths that come with research specialization could be combined into a truly cross-or trans-disciplinary methodology.…”

Section: Conclusion and Ideas For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 97%

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

Solomon

Andrén

Strandberg

2010

Risk Hazard & Crisis Pub Pol

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

Section: Conclusion and Ideas For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 97%

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

Solomon

Andrén

Strandberg

2010

Risk Hazard & Crisis Pub Pol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Each approach has a different bearing on the relationship of ''geology'' and ''society''. A combined way would probably look like the one proposed by the German Committee on a site selection procedure for repository sites (AkEnd 2002;Hocke and Renn 2009). Similar to that and based as well on the lessons learnt at Wellenberg, the Swiss Federal Office of Energy on behalf of the Federal Government has launched a three-step procedure aimed at meeting safety requirements and extending public involvement (see Box 1).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technical safety vs. public involvement? A case study on the unrealized project for the disposal of nuclear waste at Wellenberg (Switzerland)

Krütli

Flüeler

Stauffacher

et al. 2010

Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Ruetter and Partner (2005: 113) have characterized the period until 1996 as a 'stop-and-go policy'. The whole process could be described as a "messy muddling through", void of any coherent action plan (Hocke and Renn 2011). 8 In essence, the investigations for a geological repository at Gorleben took far longer than planned.…”

Section: Historical Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nuclear Waste Governance

Brunnengräber¹,

Nucci²,

Losada³

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concerned public and the paralysis of decision‐making: nuclear waste management policy in Germany

Cited by 31 publications

References 19 publications

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

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

Technical safety vs. public involvement? A case study on the unrealized project for the disposal of nuclear waste at Wellenberg (Switzerland)

Nuclear Waste Governance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About