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

Bürgerbeteiligung im langfristigen Endlagerungsprozess: Künftige Aufgaben und angemessene Beteiligungsformen

“…At the transdisciplinary workshop 'Finanzieller Ausgleich für ein Atommüll-Endlager', held in Karlsruhe, Germany from 06 to 08 May 2022, we have proposed to engage citizens in discussions concerning compensations by means of the evaluation of compensation models and the development of new models on this basis. Beside the traditional models of direct payments or infrastructure development, the models of social or community benefits (Richardson 2010, p. 5;Lehtonen and Kojo 2019), the added value approach (NEA 2015, Kojo and Richardson 2019) and "postmaterialistic offers" (Ott and Riemann 2018, p. 54) appear as more suitable for developed regions. Compensation 2 StandAG § 16, see also § 10 (4).…”

Die Zukunft der Endlagerung: Was sind die Entwicklungen und Herausforderungen nach einer Standortentscheidung

“…At the transdisciplinary workshop 'Finanzieller Ausgleich für ein Atommüll-Endlager', held in Karlsruhe, Germany from 06 to 08 May 2022, we have proposed to engage citizens in discussions concerning compensations by means of the evaluation of compensation models and the development of new models on this basis. Beside the traditional models of direct payments or infrastructure development, the models of social or community benefits (Richardson 2010, p. 5;Lehtonen and Kojo 2019), the added value approach (NEA 2015, Kojo and Richardson 2019) and "postmaterialistic offers" (Ott and Riemann 2018, p. 54) appear as more suitable for developed regions. Compensation 2 StandAG § 16, see also § 10 (4).…”

Is there a Nordic model of final disposal of spent nuclear fuel? Governance insights from Finland and Sweden

“…In Swedish and Finnish SNF management the ideology to govern social and political tensions is a mixture of transparency, openness, voluntarism, incentives, science communication and public engagement in policy making. However, in recent years skeptics have increasingly called into question both the integrity of the disposal concept and the effectiveness of the participatory process (Lehtonen 2010;Elam & Sundqvist 2011;Kojo & Richardson 2012;Andersson 2014;Litmanen et al 2014;Kojo 2014). Seemingly similar societal features such as consensual and apolitical decision-making styles and general trust in governmental and regulatory institutions in these countries, however, mask some fundamental differences.…”

“…Public participation was a visible part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedure in the late 1990s, but it was criticized for ineffectiveness by local opposing groups and academics/researchers for instance due to narrow framing (Rosenberg 1999;Hokkanen 2002;. Another argument for ineffectiveness was the benefit package negotiated between with the representatives of Eurajoki municipality and Posiva and TVO parallel to the EIA procedure behind closed doors (Kojo 2014;Kojo & Richardson 2012).…”

“…The Finnish package, consisting of loans and other agreements, was far more modest compared to the Swedish arrangement, but in addition the municipality of Eurajoki receives annual tax revenues. The fact that the Eurajoki did not demand a more substantial support package can be partly explained by the interest of the municipality to locate a new NPP unit, which yields additional annual tax revenues (Litmanen & Kojo 2011;Kojo & Richardson 2012). Moreover, in Finland arrangements related to community benefits were more like a competition between two 'nuclear oases' (Blowers 1999), whereas in Sweden the two host candidates were able to collaborate to some extent in negotiations with the nuclear industry.…”