The Process Matters: Fairness in Repository Siting For Nuclear Waste

Social Justice Research

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 79-101

  Krütli, Pius ^a   Stauffacher, Michael ^a   Pedolin, Dario ^a   Moser, Corinne ^a   Scholz, Roland W ^a  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Conjoint analysis; Distributive justice; Outcome valence; Procedural fairness; Siting nuclear waste repository; Total fairness model

Indexed keywords

EID: 84858748109     PISSN: 08857466     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11211-012-0147-x     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. Alexander, C. A., & Becker, H. J. (1978). The use of vignettes in survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42(1), 93-104.
2. Alriksson, S., & Öberg, T. (2008). Conjoint analysis for environmental evaluation. A review of methods and applications. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 15(3), 244-257.
3. Backhaus, K., Erichson, B., Plinke, W., & Weiber, R. (2006). Multivariate Analysemethoden. Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung [Multivariate methods. An application-oriented introduction] (11 überarb. ed.). Berlin: Springer. (in German).
4. Baron, J., & Spranca, M. (1997). Protected values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70(1), 1-16.
5. Bauman, C. W., & Skitka, L. J. (2009). Moral disagreement and procedural justice: Moral mandates as constraints to voice effects. Australian Journal of Psychology, 61(1), 40-49.
6. Beck, M., & Opp, K. D. (2001). Der faktorielle Survey und die Messung von Normen [Factorial survey and measurement of norms]. Kölner Zeitschrfit für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 53(3), 283-306.
7. BFE. (2008a). Attitudes towards radioactive waste in Switzerland. Report. Bern: Swiss Federal Office of Energy.
8. BFE. (2008b). Sectoral plan deep geological repositories. Conceptual part. Retrieved from http://www. bfe. admin. ch/radioaktiveabfaelle/01277/index. html?lang=de&dossier_id=05195.
9. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
10. Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). A four-component model of procedural justice: Defining the meaning of a "fair" process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(6), 747-758.
11. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the Millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425-445.
12. COWAM 2. (2007). Quality of decision-making processes. Decision-making processes in radioactive waste governance-insights and recommendations. WP 3 (pdf). Paris.
13. Currim, I. S., Weiberg, C. B., & Wittink, D. R. (1981). Design of subscriptions programs for a performing arts series. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(June), 67-75.
14. Dehghani, M., Iliev, R., Sachdeva, S., Atran, S., Ginges, J., & Medin, D. (2009). Emerging sacred values: Iran's nuclear program. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(7), 930-933.
15. Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 137-149.
16. Dietz, T., & Stern, P. C. (Eds.). (2008). Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
17. Earle, T. C., & Siegrist, M. (2008). On the relation between trust and fairness in environmental risk management. Risk Analysis, 28(5), 1395-1413.
18. Flüeler, T. (2006). Decision making for complex socio-technical systems. Robustness from lessons learned in long-term radioactive waste governance (Vol. 42). Dordrecht: Springer.
19. Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
20. Folger, R., Rosenfield, D., Grove, J., & Corkran, L. (1979). Effects of "voice" and peer opinions on responses to inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(12), 2253-2261.
21. Gibson, J. L. (1989). Understandings of justice: Institutional legitimacy, procedural justice, and political tolerance. Law & Society Review, 23(3), 469-496.
22. Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Why heuristics work. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(1), 20-29.
23. Goldstein, D. G., & Gigerenzer, G. (2009). Fast and frugal forecasting. International Journal of Forecasting, 25(4), 760-772.
24. Green, P. E., Krieger, A. M., & Wind, Y. (2001). Thirty years of conjoint analysis: Reflections and prospects. Interfaces, 31(3), S56-S73.
25. Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1978). Conjoint analysis in consumer research-issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research, 5(2), 103-123.
26. Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1990). Conjoint-analysis in marketing-new developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 3-19.
27. Gunderson, W. C., & Rabe, B. G. (1999). Voluntarism and its limits: Canada's search for radioactive waste-siting candidates. Canadian Public Administration, 42, 193-214.
28. Gustafsson, A., Hermann, A., & Huber, F. (Eds.). (2007). Conjoint measurement. Methods and applications (4th ed.). Berlin: Springer.
29. Hanselmann, M., & Tanner, C. (2008). Taboos and conflicts in decision making: Sacred values, decision difficulty, and emotions. Judgment and Decision Making Journal, 3(1), 51-63.
30. Hutchinson, J. M. C., & Gigerenzer, G. (2005). Simple heuristics and rules of thumb: Where psychologists and behavioural biologists might meet. Behavioural Processes, 69(2), 97-124.
31. IAEA. (1994). Classification of radioactive waste. A safety guide. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.
32. Jasso, G. (2006). Factorial survey methods for studying beliefs and judgments. Sociological Methods & Research, 34(3), 334-423.
33. KASAM. (1988). Ethical aspects on nuclear waste (No. SKN 29). Stockholm: KASAM (Consultative Committee for Nuclear Waste Management).
34. Kasperson, R. E. (Ed.). (1983). Equity issues in radioactive waste management. Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain.
35. Kazemi, A., & Törnblom, K. (2008). Social psychology of justice: Origins, central issues, recent developments, and future directions. Nordic Psychology, 60(3), 209-234.
36. Klein, M. (2002). Die Conjoint-Analyse: Eine Einführung in das Verfahren mit einem Ausblick auf mögliche sozialwissenschaftliche Anwendungen [Conjoint analysis: Introduction into the method and outlook into potential social scientific applications]. Köln: Zentralarchiv für Empirische Sozialforschung Universität zu Köln.
37. Krütli, P., Flüeler, T., Stauffacher, M., Wiek, A., & Scholz, R. W. (2010a). Technical safety vs. public involvement? A case study on the unrealized project for the disposal of nuclear waste at Wellenberg (Switzerland). Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 7(3), 229-244.
38. Krütli, P., Stauffacher, M., Flüeler, T., & Scholz, R. W. (2010b). Functional-dynamic public participation in technological decision making: Site selection processes of nuclear waste repositories. Journal of Risk Research, 13(7), 861-875.
39. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches in the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. S. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange. Advances in research and theory (pp. 27-55). New York: Plenum Press.
40. Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., Jr, & Rick Fry, W. (1980). Es geht nicht nur um Fairness: Eine Theorie der Verteilungspräferenzen [It is not only fairness: A theory on distributive preferences]. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Gerechtigkeit und soziale Interaktion. Experimentelle und theoretische Beiträge aus der psychologischen Forschung [Justice and social interaction. Experimental and theoretical contributions from psychological research] (pp. 185-250). Bern: Verlag Hans Huber.
41. Liebig, S. (2001). Lessons from philosophy? Interdisciplinary justice research and two classes of justice judgments. Social Justice Research, 14(3), 265-287.
42. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.
43. Luce, R. D., & Tukey, J. W. (1964). Simultaneous conjoint-measurement-a new type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1(1), 1-27.
44. Luloff, A. E., Albrecht, S. L., & Bourke, L. (1998). NIMBY and the hazardous and toxic waste siting dilemma: The need for concept clarification. Society & Natural Resources, 11, 81-89.
45. Nagra. (2002). Project opalinus-safety report: Demonstration of disposal feasibility for spent fuel, vitrified high-level waste and long-lived intermediate level waste (Entsorgungsnachweis) (No. NTB 02-05). Wettingen: Nagra.
46. NEA. (1999). Strategic areas in radioactive waste management. The viewpoint and work orientations of NEA Radioactive Waste Management Committee. Paris: OECD/NEA.
47. NEA. (2008). Moving forward with geological disposal of radioactive waste (pdf No. 6433). Paris: OECD/NEA.
48. NRC. (2001). Disposition of high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel: The continuing societal and technical challenges. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
49. Pescatore, C., & Vari, A. (2006). Stepwise approach to the long-term management of radioactive waste. Journal of Risk Research, 9(1), 13-40.
50. Portney, K. E. (1991). The NIMBY syndrome. New York: Auburn House.
51. Ratcliffe, J. (2000). Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation. Health Economics, 9(2), 137-148.
52. Rawles, K. (2002). Compensation in radioactive waste management: Ethical issues in the treatment of host communities (pdf). Oxfordshire: Nirex.
53. Renn, O., Webler, T., & Wiedemann, P. (Eds.). (1995). Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
54. Rosa, E. A., & Freudenberg, W. R. (1993). The historical development of public reactions to nuclear power: Implications for nuclear waste policy. In R. E. Dunlap, M. E. Kraft, & E. A. Rosa (Eds.), Public reactions to nuclear waste: Citizens' views of repository siting (pp. 32-63). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
55. Rossi, P. H. (1979). Vignette analysis: Uncovering the normative structure of complex judgments. In R. K. Merton, J. S. Coleman, & P. H. Rossi (Eds.), Qualitative and quantitative social research. Papers in honor of Paul F. Lazarsfeld (pp. 176-186). New York: The Free Press.
56. Rossi, P. H., & Nock, S. L. (Eds.). (1982). Measuring social judgments. Beverly Hills: SAGE.
57. Sattler, H., & Hensel-Börner, S. (2007). A comparison of conjoint measurement with self-explicated approaches. In A. Gustafsson, A. Hermann, & F. Huber (Eds.), Conjoint measurement. Methods and applications. Berlin: Springer.
58. Sjöberg, L., & Drottz-Sjöberg, B.-M. (2001). Fairness, risk and risk tolerance in the siting of a nuclear waste repository. Journal of Risk Research, 4(1), 75-101.
59. Skitka, L. J. (2002). Do the means always justify the ends, or do the ends sometimes justify the means? A value protection model of justice reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(5), 588-597.
60. Skitka, L. J. (2003). Are outcome fairness and outcome favorability distinguishable psychological constructs? A meta-analytic review. Social Justice Research, 16(4), 309-341.
61. Skitka, L. J., & Mullen, E. (2002). Understanding judgments of fairness in a real-world political context: A test of the value protection model of justice reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(10), 1419-1429.
62. Stauffacher, M., Krütli, P., & Scholz, R. W. (Eds.). (2008). Gesellschaft und radioaktive Abfälle: Ergebnisse einer schweizweiten Befragung [Society and radioactive waste: Results of a survey in Switzerland]. Zürich, Chur: Rüegger.
63. Stern, P. C., & Fineberg, V. (Eds.). (1996). Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic society. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
64. Strandberg, U., & Andrén, M. (2009). Editorial: Nuclear waste management in a globalised world. Journal of Risk Research, 12(7-8), 879-895.
65. Surrey, J., & Huggett, C. (1976). Opposition to nuclear power. A review of international experience. Energy Policy, 4(4), 286-307.
66. Tanner, C., Ryf, B., & Hanselmann, M. (2009). Geschützte Werte (GWS): Konstruktion und Validierung eines Messinstrumentes [Sacred values: Construction and validation of a measurement instrument]. Diagnostica, 55(3), 174-183.
67. Tetlock, P. E. (2003). Thinking the unthinkable: sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(7), 320-324.
68. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
69. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1978). A theory of procedure. California Law Review, 66(3), 541-566.
70. Törnblom, K. Y. (1988). Positive and negative allocations: A typology and a model for conflicting justice principles. In E. Lawler & B. Markovsky (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 5, pp. 141-168). Greenwich, CT: Jai Press.
71. Törnblom, K. Y., & Kazemi, A. (2010). Justice judgments of physical abuse and theft: The importance of outcome and procedure. Social Justice Research, 23(4), 308-328.
72. Törnblom, K. Y., & Vermunt, R. (1999). An integrative perspective on social justice: Distributive and procedural fairness evaluations of positive and negative outcome allocations. Social Justice Research, 12(1), 39-64.
73. Törnblom, K. Y., & Vermunt, R. (2007a). Towards integrating distributive justice, procedural justice, and social resource theories. Social Justice Research, 20(3), 312-335.
74. Törnblom, K. Y., & Vermunt, R. (Eds.). (2007b). Distributive and procedural justice. Research and social applications. Hampshire: Ashgate.
75. Tyler, T. R. (1988). What is procedural justice-criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law & Society Review, 22(1), 103-135.
76. Tyler, T. R., Boeckmann, R. J., Smith, H. J., & Huo, Y. J. (1997). Social justice in a diverse society. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
77. van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2001). The psychology of procedural and distributive justice viewed from the perspective of fairness heuristic theory. Justice in the Workplace from Theory to Practice, 2(2), 49-66.
78. van den Bos, K., Wilke, H. A. M., Lind, E. A., & Vermunt, R. (1998). Evaluating outcomes by means of the fair process effect: Evidence for different processes in fairness and satisfaction judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1493-1503.
79. Wallander, L. (2009). 25 years of factorial survey in sociology: A review. Social Science Research, 38(3), 505-520.
80. Webler, T., & Tuler, S. (2000). Fairness and competence in citizen participation-theoretical reflections from a case study. Administration & Society, 32(5), 566-595.
81. Witherspoon, P. A., & Bodvarsson, G. S. (Eds.). (2001). Geological challenges in radioactive waste isolation: Third worldwide review. Berkeley: Lawrence National Laboratory.
82. Wittink, D. R., Krishnamurthi, L., & Nutter, J. B. (1982). Comparing derived importance weights across attributes. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(March), 471-474.
83. Wittink, D. R., Krishnamurthi, L., & Reibstein, D. J. (1990). The effect of differences in the number of attribute levels on conjoint results. Marketing Letters, 1(2), 113-123.