The use of community benefits approaches in the siting of nuclear waste management facilities

Energy Strategy Reviews

Volumn 4, Issue , 2014, Pages 34-42

  Kojo, Matti ^a   Richardson, Phil ^b  

^a TAMPERE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Finland)

^b GALSON SCIENCES LTD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Added value; Community benefits; Radioactive waste; Siting

Indexed keywords

RADIOACTIVE WASTES; RADIOACTIVITY;

ADDED VALUES; COMMUNITY BENEFITS; LEGAL CONTROLS; LOCAL CONDITIONS; PROGRAMME FAILURES; SITING; STAKEHOLDER GROUPS; WASTE FACILITIES;

WASTE MANAGEMENT; RADIOACTIVE WASTES;

EID: 84905329091     PISSN: 2211467X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.esr.2014.06.004     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Richardson P.J. AReview of Benefits Offered to Volunteer Communities for Siting Nuclear Waste Facilities 1998, M 1996 C, Swedish National Co-ordinator for Nuclear Waste Disposal.
2. Richardson P., Wylie R., Haraldsen S. Theme 1: Affected Communities and Sustainable Territorial Development Programme Encompassing Radioactive Waste Management. Brief 3: Community Benefits and Support Packages, Cowam in Practice, Contract Number: FP6/036455, Report D2-5 B 2009, http://www.cowam.com/IMG/pdf_D2-5_B_-_Community_Support.pdf.
3. Kojo M., Richardson P. The Role of Compensation in Nuclear Waste Facility Siting. A Literature Review and Real Life Examples. ARGONA Arenas for Risk Governance, Contract Number: FP6-036413, Deliverable D16b 2009, http://www.argonaproject.eu/docs/argona-del16b-compensation.pdf.
4. Richardson P.J. Community benefits and geological disposal: an international review October 2010, (Galson Sciences Report Prepared for the West Cumbria MRWS Partnership).
5. Bergmans A. International benchmarking of community benefits related to facilities for radioactive waste management, NIROND 2010-01 E 2010, (Report commissioned by EDRAM, Ondraf/Niras).
6. Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) Partnering for Long-Term Management of Radioactive Waste. Evolution and Current Practice in Thirteen Countries 2010, (NEA No 6823), Nuclear Energy Agency Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Paris.
7. Kojo M., Richardson P. The Added Value Approach - Clarifying the Key Concepts 2012, Contract Number: 269849, IPPA Deliverable, D4.1. http://www.ippaproject.eu/sites/default/files/deliverables/IPPA-Deliverable-4_1-the-added-value-approach%2520.pdf.
8. Kojo M. The strategy of site selection for the spent nuclear fuel repository in Finland. The Renewal of Nuclear Power in Finland 2009, 161-191. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. M. Kojo, T. Litmanen (Eds.).
9. Kojo M., Richardson P. The added-value approach in siting nuclear waste facilities. RadWaste Solutions January-April 2012, 19(1):38-50.
10. Carnes S.A., Copenhaver E.D., Sorensen J.H., Soderstrom E.J., Reed J.H., Bjornstad D.J., Peelle E. Incentives and nuclear waste siting: prospects and constraints. Energy Syst. Policy 1983, 7(4):323-351.
11. Sorensen J.H., Sodersrom J., Carnes S.A. Sweet for the sour: incentives in environmental mediation. Environ. Manag. 1984, 8(4):287-294.
12. Been V. Compensated siting proposals: is it time to pay attention?. Fordham Urban Law J. 1994, 21(3):787-826.
13. Portney K.E. Allying the NIMBY syndrome: the potential for compensation in hazardous waste treatment facility siting. Hazard. Waste 1984, 1(3):411-421.
14. Portney K.E. The potential of the theory of compensation for mitigating public opposition to hazardous waste treatment facility siting: some evidence from five Massachusetts communities. Policy Stud. J. 1985, 14(1):81-89.
15. Gregory R., Kunreuther H., Easterling D., Richards K. Incentives policies to site hazardous waste facilities. Risk Anal. 1991, 11(4):667-675.
16. Himmelberger J.J., Ratick S.J., White A.L. Compensation for risks: host community benefits in siting locally unwanted facilities. Environ. Manag. 1991, 15(5):647-658.
17. Jenkins-Smith H., Kunreuther H. Mitigation and benefits measures as policy tools for siting potentially hazardous facilities: determinants of effectiveness and appropriateness. Risk Anal. 2001, 21(2):371-382.
18. Hannis M., Rawles K. Compensation or bribery? Ethical issues in relation to radwaste host communities. Social and Ethical Aspects of Radiation Risk Management 2013, 347-374. Elsevier, London. D. Oughton, S.O. Hansson (Eds.).
19. Linnerooth-Bayer J. Fair strategies for siting hazardous waste facilities. Managing Conflict in Facility Siting. An International Comparison 2005, 36-62. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK Northampton, MA. H.S. Lesbirel, D. Shaw (Eds.).
20. Aldrich D.P. Site Fights. Divisive Facilities and Civil Society in Japan and the West 2008, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London.
21. ter Mors E., Terwel B.W., Daamen D.D.L. The potential of the host community compensation in facility siting. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2012, 11(Suppl.):130-138.
22. Nuclear Energy Agency Fostering a Durable Relationship Between a Waste Management Facility and its Host Community. Adding Value Through Design and Process 2007, (NEA No. 6176), Nuclear Energy Agency Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Paris.
23. Minhans A., Ustohalova V., Kallenbach-Herbert B. 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 Contract Number: 269849, Öko-Institut, Germany 2012, http://www.ippaproject.eu/sites/default/files/deliverables/IPPA_Deliverable-5-1-1-Oeko-Institut_ReportPoland.pdf.
24. Minhans A., Ustohalova V., Kallenbach-Herbert B. 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, Contract Number: 269849, Öko-Institut, Germany 2012, http://www.ippaproject.eu/sites/default/files/deliverables/IPPA_Deliverable-5-1-2-Oeko-Institut_ReportSlovenia.pdf.
25. Ustohalova V., Minhans A., Kallenbach-Herbert B. 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 (Contract Number: 269849) Öko-Institut, Germany 2012, http://www.ippaproject.eu/sites/default/files/deliverables/IPPA_Deliverable-5-1-3-Oeko-Institut_ReportCzechRepublic.pdf.
26. Frey B.S., Oberholzer-Gee F., Eichenberger R. The old lady visits your backyard: a tale of morals and markets. J.Polit. Econ. 1996, 104(6):1297-1313.
27. Sumberova V., Vojtechova H. Critical Evaluation of Transparency and Public Participation in the Process of Deep Geological Repository Siting in the Czech Republic IPPA Deliverable 2.1, Contract Number: 269849 2011, http://www.ippaproject.eu/sites/default/files/deliverables/IPPA-Deliverable-2_1-NRI.pdf.
28. IPPA D6.3 IPPA Report from the first Workshop in Poland. Project Deliverable 6.3, IPPA FP7-269849 2012, http://www.ippaproject.eu/sites/default/files/deliverables/IPPA_Deliverable-6-3-ReportPoland-WS1.pdf.
29. Gerrard M.B. Whose Backyard, Whose Risk. Fear and Fairness in Toxic and Nuclear Waste Siting 1994, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England.
30. Field P., Raiffa H., Susskind L. Risk and justice. Rethinking the concept of compensation. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 1996, 545:156-164.
31. Aitken M. Wind power and community benefits: challenges and opportunities. Energy Policy 2010, 38(10):6066-6075.