IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsoctx/v12y2022i6p179-d989476.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is It All about a Science-Informed Decision? A Quantitative Approach to Three Dimensions of Justice and Their Relation in the Nuclear Waste Repository Siting Process in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Lucas Schwarz

    (Research Center for Sustainability, Otto-Suhr Institute for Political Science, Freie Universität Berlin, 14195 Berlin, Germany)

Abstract

Nuclear waste management is a contested challenge that lasts for decades. Especially in Germany, the history of the usage of nuclear energy is conflictive and notions of justice are therefore omnipresent in the ongoing site selection process for a nuclear waste repository. Against the background of injustices caused by the deployment of nuclear energy, such as the obligation for current generations to deal with nuclear waste, questions of how to justly deal with nuclear waste and to find a just repository site arise. By conducting a survey among people that participate in the site selection process as well as people living in or representing an area that is still considered suitable, the assessment of different aspects of justice was evaluated. The role of a science-informed site decision without any political bias is considered highly important for a just site selection. Distributional aspects, such as notions of utilitarianism, retribution, or the exemption of environmentally burdened regions are generally not approved but more detailed questions have shown that such notions cannot be dismissed at this early stage of the site selection process. The difference for general agreement can also be observed for intergenerational recognition, as the recognition of future generations is regarded as necessary, but concrete implications (retrievability or enclosure) are assessed ambiguously. Although some factors of justice are assessed more importantly than others, the analysis has shown that the interrelations between the different dimensions of justice are manifold and the argument that one dimension can be substituted for another one is too reductive.

Suggested Citation

  • Lucas Schwarz, 2022. "Is It All about a Science-Informed Decision? A Quantitative Approach to Three Dimensions of Justice and Their Relation in the Nuclear Waste Repository Siting Process in Germany," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-22, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:12:y:2022:i:6:p:179-:d:989476
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/12/6/179/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/12/6/179/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Clarke, Christopher E. & Bugden, Dylan & Hart, P. Sol & Stedman, Richard C. & Jacquet, Jeffrey B. & Evensen, Darrick T.N. & Boudet, Hilary S., 2016. "How geographic distance and political ideology interact to influence public perception of unconventional oil/natural gas development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 301-309.
    2. Markku Lehtonen & Ana Prades & Josep Espluga & Wilfried Konrad, 2022. "The emergence of mistrustful civic vigilance in Finnish, French, German and Spanish nuclear policies: ideological trust and (de)politicization," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(5), pages 613-631, May.
    3. Howard Kunreuther & Douglas Easterling & William Desvousges & Paul Slovic, 1990. "Public Attitudes Toward Siting a High‐Level Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 469-484, December.
    4. Hurlbert, Margot & Rayner, Jeremy, 2018. "Reconciling power, relations, and processes: The role of recognition in the achievement of energy justice for Aboriginal people," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 1320-1327.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Hogan, Jessica L. & Warren, Charles R. & Simpson, Michael & McCauley, Darren, 2022. "What makes local energy projects acceptable? Probing the connection between ownership structures and community acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    2. Lee, Heerae & Shon, Huijoo, 2024. "Spatial and temporal patterns of energy aid and poverty in four African countries: Focusing on distributive and recognition justice," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    3. Jinshu Cui & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2018. "Public Response to a Near‐Miss Nuclear Accident Scenario Varying in Causal Attributions and Outcome Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 947-961, May.
    4. Clarke, Christopher E. & Evensen, Darrick T.N., 2023. "Attention to news media coverage of unconventional oil/gas development impacts: Exploring psychological antecedents and effects on issue support," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    5. Hannibal, Bryce & Portney, Kent, 2020. "The impact of water scarcity on support for hydraulic fracturing regulation: A water-energy nexus study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    6. Edwards, Michelle L., 2018. "Public perceptions of energy policies: Predicting support, opposition, and nonsubstantive responses," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 348-357.
    7. Mayer, Adam, 2017. "Political identity and paradox in oil and gas policy: A study of regulatory exaggeration in Colorado, US," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 452-459.
    8. Liuyang Yao & Dangchen Sui & Xiaotong Liu & Hui Fan, 2020. "The Psychological Process of Residents’ Acceptance of Local Shale Gas Exploitation in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-20, September.
    9. Mueller, Christoph Emanuel & Keil, Silke Inga & Bauer, Christian, 2017. "Effects of spatial proximity to proposed high-voltage transmission lines: Evidence from a natural experiment in Lower Saxony," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 137-147.
    10. Ji Bum Chung & Hong‐Kew Kim & Sam Kew Rho, 2008. "Analysis of Local Acceptance of a Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 1021-1032, August.
    11. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher, 2003. "Test of a Trust and Confidence Model in the Applied Context of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 705-716, August.
    12. Leslie A. Nieves & Jeffery J. Himmelberger & Samuel J. Ratick & Allen L. White, 1992. "Negotiated Compensation for Solid‐Waste Disposal Facility Siting: An Analysis of the Wisconsin Experience," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(4), pages 505-511, December.
    13. Palma, Alessia & Paltrinieri, Andrea & Goodell, John W. & Oriani, Marco Ercole, 2024. "The black box of natural gas market: Past, present, and future," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    14. Shawn Olson Hazboun & Hilary Schaffer Boudet, 2020. "Public Preferences in a Shifting Energy Future: Comparing Public Views of Eight Energy Sources in North America’s Pacific Northwest," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-21, April.
    15. Hye‐Jin Paek & Thomas Hove, 2019. "Mediating and Moderating Roles of Trust in Government in Effective Risk Rumor Management: A Test Case of Radiation‐Contaminated Seafood in South Korea," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2653-2667, December.
    16. Pierce, Jonathan J. & Boudet, Hilary & Zanocco, Chad & Hillyard, Megan, 2018. "Analyzing the factors that influence U.S. public support for exporting natural gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 666-674.
    17. Roh, Seungkook & Lee, Jin Won, 2018. "Differentiated effects of risk perception dimensions on nuclear power acceptance in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 727-735.
    18. Martínez-Espiñeira, Roberto & García-Valiñas, María Á. & Matesanz, David, 2019. "Public Attitudes towards Hydraulic Fracturing in Western Newfoundland," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    19. Sokołowski, Maciej M. & Heffron, Raphael J., 2022. "Defining and conceptualising energy policy failure: The when, where, why, and how," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    20. Dobers, Geesche M., 2019. "Acceptance of biogas plants taking into account space and place," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).

    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:jsoctx:v:12:y:2022:i:6:p:179-:d:989476. 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.