Elsevier

Energy Research & Social Science

Volume 34, December 2017, Pages 72-81
Energy Research & Social Science

Original research article
The discursive politics of nuclear waste: Rethinking participatory approaches and public perceptions over nuclear waste storage repositories in Switzerland

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.05.042Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Complementary perspective highlighting public opinions and their dynamics or stability.

  • Peoples’ free reported arguments focus on values and responsibility.

  • Opponents and proponents use different arguments.

  • One third of the sample did not change their argumentation over time.

  • Discussion on the use of descriptive data for policy-making processes.

Abstract

Used nuclear fuel must be safely disposed. One solution to this complex challenge are deep geological repositories. Participatory approaches accompany the selection of suitable sites for these repositories in many countries and have been studied by risk perception scholars. However, most research has used quantitative cross-sectional data to explain the relationships among the variables of interest (particularly risks) and to inform nuclear policies. In this paper, we introduce a complementary perspective highlighting two fundamental factors: public opinions and their dynamics or stability. We provide results of a longitudinal survey (2 measurements 1 year apart) on plans for a nuclear waste repository in Switzerland. The respondents (N = 841) submitted their own arguments with which they would discuss the site selection process. In addition, we surveyed the respondents’ general opinions. We found a focus on values and responsibility. Those in favor of the repository used different arguments than those who opposed it or were undecided on it. Women perceived the repository more negatively (general opinion) but did not use different arguments than men. A comparison over time showed that one third of the sample did not change their argumentation. The use of descriptive data to enhance policy-making processes is discussed.

Introduction

Reviewing the national and international efforts of governments and experts to find suitable solutions for maintaining sustainable energy production makes it clear that the process is neither simple nor straightforward. One type of energy, however, is especially controversial and poses policy makers with a difficult task: nuclear power. The question of whether to build, maintain, or phase out nuclear power plants is a hot topic among the governments and citizens of many nuclear-energy-producing countries. The resulting byproduct of nuclear waste (from not only the generation of nuclear power but also weapons production, industry, and research in medicine and pharmaceuticals) creates the challenge of finding the most suitable solution for storing this toxic waste for hundreds of thousands of years—a challenge which several nations have not yet found a solution to [1].

Many scholars working in this domain have conducted quantitative studies on factors related to nuclear issues, including attitudes, values, and perceptions of risks and benefits (see e.g., [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]). Such research has provided important insights, but real-life content and individual viewpoints have often been neglected due to the difficulties of collecting and analyzing qualitative data. The aim of the present longitudinal survey was to provide insights to improve the participatory process in the site selection of nuclear waste repositories based on descriptive data gathered from open-ended questions.

Section snippets

Policy process for nuclear waste

Countries across the world face the problem of nuclear waste repositories [9]. Currently, most nuclear waste is stored near nuclear power plants, either in water-filled pools at reactor sites or in canisters at nearby interim storage facilities. From a technical point of view, researchers can agree based on scientific knowledge that deep-geological repositories (DGRs) are the most suitable solution for nuclear waste storage [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], but the process of building such

Participants

The longitudinal-design questionnaire was distributed online by a market research institute. The target population was in the German-speaking part of Switzerland, where the original six potential DGR sites are. This region has also seen more debate and conversation about the topic than the French- and Italian-speaking regions [29]. Participants were selected from a panel with defined balanced quota for gender and age, as well as for their location in potentially affected or unaffected region.

General opinion in 2014 and 2015

The results on the reported general opinions on DGRs in Switzerland in 2014 showed a very positive tendency in favor of DGRs (M = 5.38, SD = 1.69). One-way analysis of variance ANOVA detected a significant gender difference in general opinion, as women (M = 4.87, SD = 1.74) were less in favor of DGRs than men (M = 5.75, SD = 1.56, F(1,785) = 55.36, p < 0.001). The general opinion reported in 2015 also showed that participants were very much in favor of DGRs in Switzerland (M = 5.65, SD = 1.62). Again, we found a

Conclusions and policy implications

This research was intended to complement the literature on the participatory processes involved in the siting of nuclear waste repositories, focusing on the concrete case of Switzerland. The inclusion of descriptive data was adopted to shed light on the spontaneous associations to the concrete topic, aimed at representing the arguments they would raise in public discussions.

The study’s results suggest that the arguments used during debates on DGRs mostly focus on concerns related to justice and

Acknowledgments

Funding: This work was supported by a grant of the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) and ETH Zürich, TdLab. Funding grant Nr.: 407040_154028.

References (78)

  • S.H. Schwartz

    Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries

    Advances in Experimental Social Psychology

    (1992)
  • R.E. Dunlap et al.

    Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste: Citizens’ Views of Repository Siting

    (1993)
  • K. Andersson et al.

    Public values and stakeholder involvement − a new framework for performance assessment

    SKI Rep.

    (2003)
  • R.D. Benford et al.

    In Whose Backyard? Concern About Sitting a Nuclear Waste Facility

    (1993)
  • H. Damveld

    Norms, Values and Nuclear Waste – A Timely Ethical “No Thanks” to Nuclear Energy

    (2004)
  • P. Krütli et al.

    Functional-dynamic public participation in technological decision-making: site selection processes of nuclear waste repositories

    J. Risk Res.

    (2010)
  • R. Seidl et al.

    Perceived risk and benefit of nuclear waste repositories: four opinion clusters

    Risk Anal.

    (2012)
  • R. Seidl et al.

    Values in the siting of contested infrastructure: the case of repositories for nuclear waste

    J. Integr. Environ. Sci.

    (2013)
  • L. Sjöberg et al.

    Public risk perception of nuclear waste

    Int. J. Risk Assess. Manag.

    (2009)
  • W. Filbert et al.

    Optimization of emplacement technology for spent fuel

    Proceedings EAFORM

    (2008)
  • D. Jin

    Multimedia waste disposal optimization under uncertainty with an ocean option

    Mar. Resour. Econ.

    (1994)
  • R.A. Meserve

    Global warming and nuclear power

    Science

    (2004)
  • NEA

    Moving Forward with Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste (pdf No. 6433)

    (2008)
  • P.C. Stern et al.

    Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society

    (1996)
  • C. Pescatore et al.

    Stepwise approach to the long-term management of radioactive waste

    J. Risk Res.

    (2006)
  • K. Bäckstrand

    Civic science for sustainability: reframing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens in environmental governance

    Glob. Environ. Pol.

    (2003)
  • S. Pretre

    Stakeholder participation in decison-making involving radiation: exploring processes and implications

  • A. Wesselink et al.

    Rationales for public participation in environmental policy and governance: practitioners' perspectives

    Environ. Plann. A

    (2011)
  • O. Renn et al.

    Policy Brief (Edition 01/2014): Public Participation for Planning New Facilities in the Context of the German Energiewende

    (2014)
  • D.N. Mah et al.

    Participatory governance for energy policy-making: a case study of the UK nuclear consultation in 2007

    Energy Policy

    (2014)
  • A. Stirling

    Opening up or closing down? Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology

  • J. Conger et al.

    The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice

    Acad. Manag. Rev.

    (1988)
  • K. Juraku et al.

    Social decision-making processes in local contexts: an STS case study on nuclear power plant siting in Japan

    East Asian Sci. Technol. Soc.

    (2007)
  • Posiva

    Final Disposal Facility

    (2015)
  • SKB

    SKB—Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co

    (2014)
  • H.C. Jenkins-Smith et al.

    Reversing nuclear opposition: evolving public acceptance of a permanent nuclear waste disposal facility

    Risk Anal.

    (2011)
  • U.S. DOE (United States Department of Energy)

    U.S. Department of Energy's Reply to the Responses to the Motion to Withdraw, Filed May 27, 2010 with the United States of America Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Docket No. 63.001, ASLBP No. 09-892-HLW-CAB04; 2010

    (2010)
  • Swiss Federal Office of Energy

    Sectoral Plan for Deep Geological Repositories Conceptual Part

    (2008)
  • Nagra

    Siting Regions for Deep Geological Repositories Nagra’s Proposals for Stage 3

    (2015)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text