Involving the Finnish public in nuclear facility licensing: Participatory democracy and industrial bias

Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 211-228

  Strauss, Hannah ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OULU   (Finland)

Author keywords

Finland; Nuclear energy; Public participation

Indexed keywords

EID: 79958270621     PISSN: 1943815X     EISSN: 19438168     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/1943815X.2010.506486     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Abels G, Bora A. 2004. Demokratische Technikbewertung. Bielefeld: Transcript.
2. Benhabib S. 1996. Democracy and difference: contesting the boundaries of the political. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
3. Bone R. 2008. The Canadian North: issues and challenges. 3rd ed. Don Mills: Oxford University Press.
4. Bora A. 2005. Wissenschafts-und Technikkonflikte in demokratischen Gesellschaften-Zur Bedeutung "alternativer" Verfahren in der Technikbewertung (revised version). Modellfall Grüne Gentechnik. Was tun bei festgefahrenen politisch-moralischen Konflikten; 2005 November 11-13; Lutherstadt Wittenberg.
5. Bredimas A, Nuttall WJ. 2008. An international comparison of regulatory organizations and licensing procedures for new nuclear power plants. Energy Pol. 36:1344-1354.
6. Bruce Power LP. 2009. Peace region nuclear power plant project. March 2009-community information session report. Edmonton: Golder Associates Ltd.
7. Dietz T, Stern PC. 2008. Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. Washington (DC): The National Academies Press.
8. Dryzek JS. 2002. Deliberative democracy and beyond: liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9. Durant D. 2009a. Responsible action and nuclear waste disposal. Sci Technol. 31:150-157.
10. Durant D. 2009b. Radwaste in Canada: a political economy of uncertainty. J Risk Res. 12(7):897-919.
11. Elam M, Sundqvist G. 2009. The Swedish KBS project: a last word in nuclear fuel safety prepares to conquer the world? J Risk Res. 12(7):969-988.
12. Fennovoima Ltd. 2008. Environmental impact assessment report for a nuclear power plant. Helsinki: Fennovoima Ltd. 418 p.
13. Finland, Ministry of Employment and the Economy-energy department (May 6 2010) online [Internet]. Government decision on two new nuclear power plant units. Press release; [cited 2010 July 27] Available from: http://www.tem.fi/index.phtml?89521_m=99003&l=en&s=2471.
14. Fortum Power and Heat Ltd. 2008. Supplementing the Loviisa nuclear power plant with a third plant unit. Environmental impact assessment report. Helsinki: Fortum Power and Heat Ltd. 111 p.
15. Habermas J. 1984. The theory of communicative action, Vol. 1, Reason and the rationalisation of society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
16. Habermas J. 1987. The theory of communicative action, Vol. 2, Lifeworld and system: a critique of functionalist reason. Cambridge: Polity Press.
17. Hokkanen P. 2001. EIA and decision making in search of each other. The final disposal of nuclear waste in Finland. In: Hilding-Rydevik Tuija, editor. EIA, large development projects and decision-making in the Nordic countries. Stockholm: Nordregio. p. 95-151.
18. Hokkanen P. 2002. Public participation in the environmental impact assessment: one alternative of involvement. In: Nuclear Energy Agency, stepwise decision making in Finland for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel. Paris: OECD.
19. International Energy Agency. 2007. Tackling investment challenges in power generation-in IEA Countries. Paris: OECD.
20. International energy agency. 2008. Energy policies of IEA countries: Finland-2007 review. Paris: OECD.
21. Irwin A, Mike M. 2003. Science, social theory and public knowledge. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
22. Kojo M. 2005. Changing approach: local participation as a part of the site selection process of the final disposal facility for high-level nuclear waste in Finland. Paper presented at: 10th International Conference on Environmental Remediation and Radioactive Waste Management; 2005 Sep 4-8; Glasgow (Scotland). Glasgow: Scottish Exhibition & Conference Centre.
23. Kojo M. 2006. Carl country report-Finland online [internet]. CARL; [cited 2010 July 27] Available from: http://www.carl-research.org/docs/20060614144716PSUZ.pdf
24. Kojo M. 2008. Compensation as means for local acceptance. The case of the final disposal of spent nuclear fuel in Eurajoki, Finland. Paper presented at: Conference "Waste Management"; 2008 Feb 24-28; Phoenix, AZ. Phoenix, AZ: WM Symposia.
25. Laakkonen S. 1999. Grey waves-the introduction of environmental protection in Finland. In: Simo L, Sari L, Marjatta R, editors. Harmaat aallot-ympäristönsuojelun tulo Suomeen. Helsinki: Vammalan kirjapaino Oy.
26. Leiss W. 2008. Nuclear waste management at the interface of science and policy: the Canadian experience. Energy Environ. 19(3-4):413-426.
27. Luhmann N. 1983. Legitimation durch Verfahren. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
28. de Marchi B. 2003. Public participation and risk governance. Sci Publ Pol. 30(3):171-176.
29. Martinsen R. 2006. Demokratie und Diskurs: organisierte Kommunikationsprozesse in der Wissensgesellschaft. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
30. Michanek G, Söderholm P. 2009. Licensing of nuclear power plants: the case of Sweden in an international comparison. Energy Pol. 37:4086-4097.
31. Mouffe C. 2009. The democratic paradox. London: Verso.
32. Neidhardt F. 2002. Fragen zum Gemeinwohl. WZB-Mitteilungen. 98:21-23.
33. Niemi-Iilahti A. 1999. Finland: global policy with cross-sectoral goals challenges public management online [internet]. In: Lafferty William M, editor. Implementing local agenda 21 in Europe. Varieties of sustainable community development. ProSus report. ProSus, Available from: http://www.prosus.uio.no/suscom/firstreport/finland/index.html
34. Norland IT, Trygve B, Frans C. 2003. Local agenda 21 in the nordic countries-national strategies and local status. Report No. 1/03. Oslo: Program for Research and Documentation for a Sustainable Society (ProSus), University of Oslo.
35. Nowotny H. 2003. Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Sci Publ Pol. 30(3):151-156.
36. Nuclear Energy Agency. 2004a. Learning and adapting to societal requirements for radioactive waste management. Key findings and experience of the forum on stakeholder confidence. NEA Document No. 5296. Paris: OECD 71 p.
37. Nuclear Energy Agency. 2004b. Stepwise approach to decision making for long-term radioactive waste management. Experience, issues and guiding principles. NEA Report No. 4429. Paris: OECD. 75 p.
38. Nuclear Energy Agency, NEA. 2005. Society and nuclear energy. Case histories of practical communication experiences. Paris: OECD.
39. NWMO, Nuclear Waste Management Organization. 2005. Choosing a way forward. The future management of Canada's used nuclear fuel. Final study-summary; [cited 2010 Jun 28] Available from: http://www.nwmo.ca/uploads_managed/MediaFiles/342_NWMO_Final_Study_Summary_E.pdf.
40. NWMO, Nuclear Waste Management Organization. 2009. Moving forward together: designing the process for selecting a site. Invitation to review a proposed process for selecting a site; [cited 2010 Jun 28]. Available from: http://www.nwmo.ca/uploads_ma-naged/MediaFiles/470_InvitationtoReviewaProposedProcessforSelectingaSite.pdf
41. Paldanius J. 1997. Experiences of public participation in Finland. In: Birger S, Saija M, editors. Conflict management and public participation in land management. Proceedings No. 14. Joensuu: European Forest Institute.
42. Petts J. 2008. Public engagement to build trust: false hopes? J Risk Res. 11(6):821-835.
43. Pölönen I. 2006. Quality control and the substantive influence of environmental impact assessment in Finland. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 26(5):481-491.
44. Rask M. 2003. The problem of citizens' participation in Finnish biotechnology policy. Sci Publ Pol. 30(6):441-454.
45. Rawls J. 1997. The idea of public reason revisited. Chicago Law Rev. 64(3):765-807.
46. Rawls J. 2007. Lectures on the history of political philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
47. Renn O. 2004. Analytic-deliberative processes of decision making: linking expertise, stakeholder experience and public values [Internet]. Discussion Paper 874; [cited 2010 July 27]. Available from: http://www.corwm.org.uk/Pages/Archived%20Publications/Tier%202%20%281%29%20-%20Planning/Tier%203%20-%20CoRWM%20modus%20operandi/847%20-%20Analytic-delibertive%20processes%20of%20decision%20making%20%28Ortwin%20Renn%29.pdf.
48. Senecah SL. 2004. The trinity of voice: the role of practical theory in planning and evaluating the effectiveness of environmental participatory processes. In: Stephen PD, John WD, Marie-France AE, editors. Communication and public participation in environmental decision making. Albany: State University of New York Press.
49. Sinclair JA, Alan D, Patricia F. 2008. Conceptualizing learning for sustainability through environmental assessment: critical reflections on 15 years of research. Environ Impact Assessment Rev. 28:415-428.
50. Svensk Kärnbränslehantering Ltd. SKB. 2009. Consultations according to the environmental code-compilation 2008. Stockholm: SKB 89 p.
51. Teollisuuden Voima Ltd. (TVO). 2008. Environmental impact assessment report. Extension of the Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant by a Fourth Unit. Olkiluoto: TVO 220 p.
52. Väätäinen A. 2002. Stakeholder involvement particularly in the environmental impact assessment: final disposal facility project. Nuclear Energy Agency, Stepwise Decision Making in Finland for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel. Paris: OECD.