IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v7y2004i2p135-152.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Some principles for siting controversy decisions: lessons from the US experience with high level nuclear waste

Author

Listed:
  • James F. Short, Jr
  • Eugene A. Rosa

Abstract

Beginning with the role of ‘stakeholders’ -- those whose interests are, knowingly or unknowingly, affected -- in the siting of noxious facilities, this paper seeks to develop principles for acceptable and democratically arrived at policies related to problems associated with advances in and products of science and technology. Although widely regarded as a necessary condition for success, the principles underpinning stakeholder involvement, such as representativeness, often are violated in practice. Using the example of the failure to site a high-level nuclear waste (HLW) repository in the United States, complexities related to the proposed principles are noted. Because safe disposal of HLW transcends national boundaries, other principles also are recommended. These include: 1. recognition of the inevitability of uncertainty and agreed-upon ways of dealing with it; 2. development of ‘communities of fate’ and of trust among all stakeholders; 3. building on common values related to the environment and to the well-being of future generations; and 4. adherence to the rule of law.

Suggested Citation

  • James F. Short, Jr & Eugene A. Rosa, 2004. "Some principles for siting controversy decisions: lessons from the US experience with high level nuclear waste," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 135-152, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:7:y:2004:i:2:p:135-152
    DOI: 10.1080/1366987042000171276
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/1366987042000171276
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/1366987042000171276?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Judith I. M. de Groot & Linda Steg & Wouter Poortinga, 2013. "Values, Perceived Risks and Benefits, and Acceptability of Nuclear Energy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 307-317, February.

    More about this item

    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:taf:jriskr:v:7:y:2004:i:2:p:135-152. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    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.