A review of the Generic Design Assessment (GDA) Public Dialogue Pilot (2015) for new nuclear build in the UK: Lessons for engagement theory and practice

Journal of Radiological Protection

Volumn 36, Issue 2, 2016, Pages S23-S44

  Whitton, John ^a   Parry, Ioan ^a   Grundy, Colette ^b   Lillycrop, Annabelle ^c   Ross, David ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL LANCASHIRE   (United Kingdom)

^b NATIONAL NUCLEAR LABORATORY   (United Kingdom)

^c ENVIRONMENT AGENCY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Communities; Engagement; Generic Design Assessment; Nuclear energy; Social sustainability

Indexed keywords

ECOSYSTEMS; INTERNET; NUCLEAR ENERGY; NUCLEAR REACTORS;

ENERGY DEVELOPMENT; ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURES; ENGAGEMENT; GENERIC DESIGN; SOCIAL CAPITALS; SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY; STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT; THEORY AND PRACTICE;

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; NUCLEAR REACTOR; PILOT STUDY; PUBLIC RELATIONS; RADIATION PROTECTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIAL JUSTICE; UNITED KINGDOM;

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION; COMMUNITY-INSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; NUCLEAR REACTORS; PILOT PROJECTS; RADIATION PROTECTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIAL JUSTICE; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 84974597194     PISSN: 09524746     EISSN: 13616498     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1088/0952-4746/36/2/S23     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Webler T, Tuler S and Kreuger R 2001 What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public Environ. Manage. 27 435-50
2. Whitton J, Parry I M, Akiyoshi M and Lawless W 2015 Conceptualizing a social sustainability framework for energy infrastructure decisions Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 8 127-38
3. Rowe G and Frewer L J 2000 Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation Sci Technol. Human Values 25 3-29
4. Brooks H and Johnson R B 1991 Comments: public policy issues The Genetic Revolution: Scientific Prospects and Public Perceptions ed B Davies (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press) pp 266-82
5. Earle T C and Cvetkovich G T 1995 Social Trust (Westport, CT: Praeger)
6. Slovic P, Fischhoff B and Lichtenstein S 1982 Facts versus fears: understanding perceived risk Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases ed D Kahneman et al (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) pp 463-90
7. European Commission 2011 Directive 2011/92/EU of the European parliament and of the council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment Official J. Eur. Union L26 1-21 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:026:0001:0021:En:PDF)
8. Dunster H J and Mclean A S 1970 The use of risk estimates in setting and using basic radiation protection standards Health Phys. 19 121
9. NRPB 1980 The Application of Cost Benefit Analysis to the Radiological Protection of the Public (London: HMSO) (A Consultation Document) (National Radiological Protection Board)
10. Hill M D, Penfold J, Harris M, Bromhead J, Collier D, Mallet H and Smith G 2002 SAFEGROUNDS.Good Practice Guidance for the Management of Contaminated Land on Nuclear and Defence Sites. W13, CIRIA (London: Construction Industry Research and Information Association) (www.safegrounds.com)
11. Towler P, Rankine A, Kruse P, Hill M, Penfold J, Smith G, Walke R, Egan M, Eslava-Gomez A and Collier D 2009 SAFEGROUNDS Good Practice Guidance for the Management of Contaminated Land on Nuclear-Licensed and Defence Sites version 2. W29, CIRIA (London: Construction Industry Research and Information Association) (www.safegrounds.com/pdfs/w29-safegrounds-lmg-version-2.pdf)
12. Stilgoe J 2009 The Road Ahead: Public Dialogue on Science and Technology (London: Sciencewise) (www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/assets/Uploads/Publications/SWcollectionHIGH-RES.pdf)
13. Richardson P, Rickwood K and Rickwood P 2013 Public involvement as a tool to enhance nuclear safety Energy Strategy Rev. 1 266-71
14. NIC 2014 In the Public Eye: Nuclear Energy and Society (London: Nuclear Industry Council) (www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment-data/file/360669/In-the-Public-Eye-Nuclear-Energy-and-Society-NICJuly2014.pdf)
15. Whitton J 2010 Participant perceptions on the nature of stakeholder dialogue carried out by the nuclear decommissioning authority (NDA) PhD Thesis University Of Manchester
16. Whitton J 2011 Emergent themes in nuclear decommissioning dialogue: a systems perspective Systems 33 132-49
17. Dryzek J S 2000 Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
18. Bond A, Palerm J and Haigh P 2004 Public participation in EIA of nuclear power plant decommissioning projects: a case study analysis Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 24 617-41
19. Cotton M and Devine-Wright P 2012 Making electricity networks 'visible': industry actor representations of 'publics' and public engagement in infrastructure planning Pub. Underst. Sci. 21 17-35
20. Kemp R V, Bennett D G and White M J 2006 Recent trends and developments in dialogue on radioactive waste management: experience from the UK Environ. Int. 32 1021-32
21. Cuppen E, Breukers S, Hisschemöller M and Bergsma E 2010 Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands Ecol. Econ. 69 579-91
22. Bell D, Gray T and Haggett C 2005 Policy, participation and the 'social gap' in wind farm siting decisions Environ. Politics 14 460-77
23. Devine-Wright P 2011 Renewable Energy and the Public: from NIMBY to Participation (London: Earthscan)
24. Cabinet Office 2009 A summary of opinion poll about nuclear power ('Genshiryoku ni kansuru tokubetsu seron chousa no gaiyou.') Cabinet Office, The Government of Japan (http://www8.cao.go.jp/survey/tokubetu/h21/h21-genshi.pdf)
25. ICRP 2015 First Announcement - International Workshop on the Fukushima Dialogue Initiative: 'Rehabilitation of Living Conditions After the Nuclear Accident' (Fukushima, Japan, 12-13 December 2015) International Commission on Radiological Protection (www.icrp.org/docs/First%20Announcement%20International%20Workshop%2020150603.pdf)
26. Aas Ø, Devine-Wright P, Tangeland T, Batel S and Ruud A 2014 Public beliefs about high-voltage powerlines in Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom: a comparative survey Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2 30-7
27. Walker G 1995 Renewable energy and the public Land Use Policy 12 49-59
28. Wustenhagen R, Wolsink M and Burer M J 2007 Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: an introduction to the concept Energy Policy 35 2683-91
29. Burningham K 2000 Using the language of NIMBY: a topic for research, not an activity for researchers Local Environ. Int. J. Justice Sustainability 5 55-67
30. Devine-Wright P 2009 Rethinking NIMBYism: the role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action J. Commun. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 19 426-41
31. Batel S and Devine-Wright P 2015 A critical and empirical analysis of the national-local 'gap' in public responses to large-scale energy infrastructures J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 58 1076-95
32. Funtowicz S O and Ravetz J R 1993 Science for the post-normal age Futures 25 739-55
33. De Marchia B and Ravetz J R 1999 Risk management and governance: a post-normal science approach Futures 31 743-57
34. Ravetz J R 2004 The post-normal science of precaution Futures 36 347-57
35. Ravetz J R 2006 Post-normal science and the complexity of transitions towards sustainability Ecol. Complexity 3 275-84
36. Buhr K and Wibeck V 2014 Communication approaches for carbon capture and storage: underlying assumptions of limited versus extensive public engagement Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 3 5-12
37. Irvin R and Stansbury J 2004 Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth the effort? Public Adm. Rev. 64 55-65
38. European Commission 2003 Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for Public Participation in respect of the drawing up of Certain Plans and Programmes relating to the Environment and amending with regard to Public Participation and Access to Justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC Official J. Eur. Union L156 17-24 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:4a80a6c9-cdb3-4e27-a721-d5df1a0535bc.0004.02/DOC-1&format=PDF)
39. United Nations (UN) 1998 Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus: United Nations)
40. Hartley N and Wood C 2005 Public participation in environmental impact assessment - implementing the Aarhus convention Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 25 319-40 (http://ac.els-cdn.com/S019592550400160X/1-s2.0-S019592550400160X-main.pdf?-tid=d558d82c-e203-11e5-9075-00000aab0f6b&acdnat=1457094359-74953b734d10ff952c74106323c90d96) (Accessed: 5 March 2016)
41. Cabinet Office 2012 Consultation Principles Crown Copyright; 17th July 2012 (updated 5th November 2013) (www.gov.uk/government/publications/consultation-principles-guidance)
42. Warburton D 2012 Evaluation of the Environment Agency's Consultation on the Generic Design Assessment (GDA) for new nuclear power stations - Final Report (Brighton: Shared Practice) (www.sharedpractice.org.uk/Downloads/EA-GDA-evaluation.pdf)
43. 3KQ 2015 New nuclear power stations: improving public involvement in Reactor Design Assessments 3KQ (Three Key Questions) Dialogue Report August 2015 (http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/assets/Uploads/GDA-dialogue-report-August-2015-FINAL.pdf)
44. Innes J E and Booher D E 2004 Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century Plan. Theory Pract. 5 419-36
45. Elam M and Sundqvist G 2007 Six domains of decision for stakeholder involvement in nuclear waste management CARL Thematic Report No. 4. December 2007 (www.karnavfallsradet.se/sites/default/files/dokument/seminarier/302.pdf)
46. Flueler T 2001 Option in radioactive waste management revisited: a proposed framework for robust decision making Risk Anal. 21 787-99
47. Kos D, Polic M and Železnik N 2008 The framing of radioactive waste: a comparative analysis CARL Thematic Report No. 1. April 2008 (www.karnavfallsradet.se/sites/default/files/dokument/seminarier/299.pdf)
48. Devine-Wright P, Devine-Wright H and Sherry-Brennan F 2010 Visible technologies, invisible organisations: an empirical study of public beliefs about electricity supply networks Energy Policy 38 4127-34
49. Krütli P, Stauffacher M, Flüeler T and Scholz R W 2010 Functional-dynamic public participation in technological decision-making: site selection processes of nuclear waste repositories J. Risk Res. 13 861-75
50. Cotton M and Devine-Wright P 2012 Putting pylons into place: a UK case study of public perspectives on the impacts of high voltage overhead transmission lines J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 56 1225-45
51. Cowell R, Bristow G and Munday M 2011 Acceptance, acceptability and environmental justice: the role of community benefits in wind energy development J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 54 539-57
52. Rojanamon R, Chaisomphob T and Bureekul T 2012 Public participation in development of small infrastructure projects Sustainable Dev. 20 320-34
53. Shamsuzzoha A H M, Grant A and Clarke J 2012 Implementation of renewable energy in Scottish rural area: a social study Renew. Sustainable Energy Rev. 16 185-91
54. Lidskog R and Sundqvist G 2004 On the right track? Technology, geology and society in Swedish nuclear waste management J. Risk Res. 7 251-68
55. Dawson J I and Darst R G 2006 Meeting the challenge of permanent nuclear waste disposal in an expanding europe: transparency, trust and democracy Environ. Politics 15 610-27
56. WCMRWS (West Cumbria Managing Radioactive Waste Safely Partnership) 2012 The Final Report of the West Cumbria Managing Radioactive Waste Safely Partnership (Copeland: Copeland Borough Council) (www.westcumbriamrws.org.uk/images/final-report.pdf) (Accessed: 12 February 2013)
57. Collins K and Ison R 2006 Dare we jump off Arnstein's ladder? Social learning as a new policy paradigm Proc. of PATH (Participatory Approaches in Science & Technology) Conf. (Edinburgh, 4-7 June 2006) (http://oro.open.ac.uk/8589/)
58. European Union (EU) 2000 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (of 23 October 2000) establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy Off. J. Eur. Comm. L327 1-73 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060)
59. Lee M and Abbot C 2003 The usual suspects? Public participation under the Aarhus convention Mod. Law Rev. 66 80-108
60. Keen R 2015 Membership of UK Political Parties Briefing Paper (No. SN05125, 11 August 2015) House of Commons Library (http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05125/SN05125.pdf)
61. MIDARP 2015 Marshall Islands Dose Assessment and Radioecology Program (website) (https://marshallislands.llnl.gov/introduction.php)
62. Miller C A, Richter J and O'Leary J 2015 Socio-energy systems design: a policy framework for energy transitions Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 6 29-40
63. Reed M S 2008 Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review Biol. Conserv. 141 2417-31
64. Walker B J A, Wiersma B and Bailey E 2014 Community benefits, framing and the social acceptance of offshore wind farms: an experimental study in England Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 3 46-54
65. Magis K and Shinn C 2009 Emergent themes of social sustainability Understanding the Social Aspect of Sustainability ed J Dillard et al (New York: Routledge) pp 15-44
66. Whitton J 2009 Stakeholder participation for the legacy ponds and legacy silos (LP&LS) facility at sellafield, Cumbria, UK: the nature and effectiveness of the dialogue Proc. of ICEM 09 (Liverpool, UK, 11-15 October 2009)
67. Beierle T C 2002 The quality of stakeholder - based decisions Risk Anal. 22 739-49
68. Lawless W F, Akiyoshi M, Angjellari-Dajci F and Whitton J 2014 Public consent for the geological disposal of highly radioactive nuclear wastes and spent nuclear fuel Int. J. Environ. Stud. 71 41-62
69. Pidgeon N 2011 Memorandum on Public Attitudes and Nuclear Power House of Lords Science and Technology Committee Inquiry on 'Nuclear R&D Capabilities' (http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/publications/memorandum-on-public-attitudes-and-nuclear-power-to-the-house-of-lords-science-and-technology-committee-inquiry-on-nuclear-r-d-capabilities-.html)
70. Raven R P J M, Jolivet E, Mourik R M and Feenstra Y C F J 2009 ESTEEM: managing societal acceptance in new energy projects. A toolbox method for project managers Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 76 963-77
71. Raven R P J M, Mourik R M, Feenstra Y C F J and Heiskanen E 2009 Modulating societal acceptance in new energy projects: towards a toolkit methodology for project managers Energy 34 564-74
72. Cotton M 2014 Ethics and Technology Assessment: a Participatory Approach (Berlin: Springer)