IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i12p5373-d1676359.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social Values, Individual Judgments and Acceptance: The Case of High-Level Radioactive Waste in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Cord Drögemüller

    (Research Division, Justus Liebig University Giessen, 35390 Giessen, Germany
    Institute of Radioecology and Radiation Protection, Leibniz University Hannover, 30419 Hannover, Germany)

  • Roman Seidl

    (Institute of Radioecology and Radiation Protection, Leibniz University Hannover, 30419 Hannover, Germany)

  • Clemens Walther

    (Institute of Radioecology and Radiation Protection, Leibniz University Hannover, 30419 Hannover, Germany)

Abstract

The sustainable final disposal of high-level radioactive waste (HLW) remains an unresolved and highly controversially discussed issue, partly because of ecological, economic, and societal challenges and partly because of the risks the public associates with such disposal. Clearly, there will be little public acceptance of the project if citizens lack trust in responsible decision-makers and the site selection procedure. This endeavor will only be accepted if trust in the ongoing procedure is strengthened. We evaluated over 1800 comments from a German study (conducted in 2020) on the issue of final HLW disposal to answer the questions of how risk perceptions, trust, and acceptance are interrelated and what role other aspects, such as social values, play. By categorizing the comments, we obtained a different picture of opinions and identified the following needs circulating among the German population: the acceptance of a HLW repository or the site selection procedure depends particularly on the extent to which individual participants perceive the values of safety and fairness as fulfilled. When do they consider a repository safe, and when do they consider the procedure fair enough? The answers to these questions seem to depend strongly on the extent to which one’s own values are considered violated. The repository’s safety and the procedure’s fairness are essential. Moreover, instead on risks, respondents commented on safety. These concerns should be taken into account in the course of the site selection procedure to enable sustainable management and disposal of HLW.

Suggested Citation

  • Cord Drögemüller & Roman Seidl & Clemens Walther, 2025. "Social Values, Individual Judgments and Acceptance: The Case of High-Level Radioactive Waste in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-16, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:12:p:5373-:d:1676359
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/12/5373/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/12/5373/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. François Diaz-Maurin & Rodney C. Ewing, 2018. "Mission Impossible? Socio-Technical Integration of Nuclear Waste Geological Disposal Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-39, November.
    2. J. Richard Eiser & Tom Stafford & John Henneberry & Philip Catney, 2009. "“Trust me, I'm a Scientist (Not a Developer)”: Perceived Expertise and Motives as Predictors of Trust in Assessment of Risk from Contaminated Land," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 288-297, February.
    3. Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich & Claudia Roth, 2000. "Salient Value Similarity, Social Trust, and Risk/Benefit Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 353-362, June.
    4. Michael Siegrist & Melanie Connor & Carmen Keller, 2012. "Trust, Confidence, Procedural Fairness, Outcome Fairness, Moral Conviction, and the Acceptance of GM Field Experiments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1394-1403, August.
    5. Timothy C. Earle & Michael Siegrist, 2008. "On the Relation Between Trust and Fairness in Environmental Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1395-1414, October.
    6. Stephen C. Whitfield & Eugene A. Rosa & Amy Dan & Thomas Dietz, 2009. "The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3), pages 425-437, March.
    7. Unai Pascual & Patricia Balvanera & Christopher B. Anderson & Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer & Michael Christie & David González-Jiménez & Adrian Martin & Christopher M. Raymond & Mette Termansen & Arild Vatn, 2023. "Diverse values of nature for sustainability," Nature, Nature, vol. 620(7975), pages 813-823, August.
    8. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2009. "On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 1-11, January.
    9. Céline Kermisch & Behnam Taebi, 2017. "Sustainability, Ethics and Nuclear Energy: Escaping the Dichotomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-13, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Muhammet Saygın, 2025. "Stakeholder Perceptions and Strategic Governance of Large-Scale Energy Projects: A Case Study of Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant in Türkiye," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-20, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.
    2. Ho, Shirley S. & Oshita, Tsuyoshi & Looi, Jiemin & Leong, Alisius D. & Chuah, Agnes S.F., 2019. "Exploring public perceptions of benefits and risks, trust, and acceptance of nuclear energy in Thailand and Vietnam: A qualitative approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 259-268.
    3. Lindvall, Daniel & Sörqvist, Patrik & Lindeberg, Sofie & Barthel, Stephan, 2025. "The polarization of energy preferences – A study on social acceptance of wind and nuclear power in Sweden," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    4. Tanja Perko & Baldwin van Gorp & Catrinel Turcanu & Peter Thijssen & Benny Carle, 2013. "Communication in Nuclear Emergency Preparedness: A Closer Look at Information Reception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(11), pages 1987-2001, November.
    5. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Michael Siegrist, 2013. "How a Nuclear Power Plant Accident Influences Acceptance of Nuclear Power: Results of a Longitudinal Study Before and After the Fukushima Disaster," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 333-347, February.
    6. Xia, Dongqin & Li, Yazhou & He, Yanling & Zhang, Tingting & Wang, Yongliang & Gu, Jibao, 2019. "Exploring the role of cultural individualism and collectivism on public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 208-215.
    7. Abdulla, A. & Vaishnav, P. & Sergi, B. & Victor, D.G., 2019. "Limits to deployment of nuclear power for decarbonization: Insights from public opinion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 1339-1346.
    8. J. Richard Eiser & Amy Donovan & R. Stephen J. Sparks, 2015. "Risk Perceptions and Trust Following the 2010 and 2011 Icelandic Volcanic Ash Crises," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(2), pages 332-343, February.
    9. Michael Siegrist & Melanie Connor & Carmen Keller, 2012. "Trust, Confidence, Procedural Fairness, Outcome Fairness, Moral Conviction, and the Acceptance of GM Field Experiments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1394-1403, August.
    10. Jaeyoung Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon, 2021. "Can Political Trust Weaken the Relationship between Perceived Environmental Threats and Perceived Nuclear Threats? Evidence from South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-13, September.
    11. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    12. Alday, Sandra Seno, 2022. "Regional integration and the regional risk paradox," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 793-808.
    13. Govindan, Mini & Ram Mohan, M.P., 2021. "Exploring Gender Perceptions of Nuclear Energy in India," IIMA Working Papers WP 2021-11-06, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    14. Dengsheng Wu & Xiaoqian Zhu & Jie Wan & Chunbing Bao & Jianping Li, 2019. "A Multiobjective Optimization Approach for Selecting Risk Response Strategies of Software Project: From the Perspective of Risk Correlations," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(01), pages 339-364, January.
    15. Aven, Terje, 2010. "Some reflections on uncertainty analysis and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 195-201.
    16. Niël Almero Krüger & Natanya Meyer, 2021. "The Development of a Small and Medium-Sized Business Risk Management Intervention Tool," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-14, July.
    17. Neelke Doorn, 2015. "The Blind Spot in Risk Ethics: Managing Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(3), pages 354-360, March.
    18. Barbara A. Knuth & Nancy A. Connelly & Judy Sheeshka & Jacqueline Patterson, 2003. "Weighing Health Benefit and Health Risk Information when Consuming Sport‐Caught Fish," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1185-1197, December.
    19. Burdon, D. & Barnard, S. & Strong, J.A. & Atkins, J.P., 2024. "Linking marine habitats and economic values: A spatial scaling methodology for valuing societal benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 224(C).
    20. Wang, Yu & Gu, Jibao & Wu, Jianlin, 2020. "Explaining local residents’ acceptance of rebuilding nuclear power plants: The roles of perceived general benefit and perceived local benefit," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:12:p:5373-:d:1676359. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.