IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envval/v18y2009i2p153-176.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the ‘Ethical Matrix’ as a Radioactive Waste Management Deliberative Decision-Support Tool

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew Cotton

Abstract

UK radioactive waste management policy making is currently taking place within a participatory and analytic-deliberative decision-making framework; one that seeks to integrate public and stakeholder values and perspectives with scientific and technical expertise. One important aspect of this socio-technical reframing of the radioactive waste problem is an explicit recognition that legitimate and defensible policy making must take into account important ethical issues if it is to be a success. Thus, there is a need for tools to incorporate adequate assessment of ethical issues in a way that is compatible with this approach. The ‘ethical matrix’ is one such tool used recently to address a range of agricultural and natural resource issues that shows promise for this field. This paper assesses the strengths and limitations of the matrix and outlines a framework for the development of alternative tools to better satisfy the needs of ethical assessment in radioactive waste management decision-making processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew Cotton, 2009. "Evaluating the ‘Ethical Matrix’ as a Radioactive Waste Management Deliberative Decision-Support Tool," Environmental Values, , vol. 18(2), pages 153-176, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envval:v:18:y:2009:i:2:p:153-176
    DOI: 10.3197/096327109X438044
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3197/096327109X438044
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3197/096327109X438044?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grimble, Robin & Wellard, Kate, 1997. "Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 173-193, October.
    2. Wilson, Matthew A. & Howarth, Richard B., 2002. "Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 431-443, June.
    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. Parnphumeesup, Piya & Kerr, Sandy A., 2011. "Stakeholder preferences towards the sustainable development of CDM projects: Lessons from biomass (rice husk) CDM project in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3591-3601, June.
    2. Hackbart, Vivian C.S. & de Lima, Guilherme T.N.P. & dos Santos, Rozely F., 2017. "Theory and practice of water ecosystem services valuation: Where are we going?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 218-227.
    3. Gillespie, Stuart & van den Bold, Mara, 2015. "Stories of change in nutrition: A tool pool:," IFPRI discussion papers 1494, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    4. Del Corso, Jean-Pierre & Kephaliacos, Charilaos & Plumecocq, Gaël, 2015. "Legitimizing farmers' new knowledge, learning and practices through communicative action: Application of an agro-environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 86-96.
    5. Yu, Bing & Xu, Linyu, 2016. "Review of ecological compensation in hydropower development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 729-738.
    6. Anne Hardy & Leonie J. Pearson, 2016. "Determining Sustainable Tourism in Regions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-18, July.
    7. Norgaard, Richard B., 2010. "Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1219-1227, April.
    8. Katharina Löhr & Christian Hochmuth & Frieder Graef & Jane Wambura & Stefan Sieber, 2017. "Conflict management programs in trans-disciplinary research projects: the case of a food security project in Tanzania," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 9(6), pages 1189-1201, December.
    9. Schouten, Greetje & Leroy, Pieter & Glasbergen, Pieter, 2012. "On the deliberative capacity of private multi-stakeholder governance: The Roundtables on Responsible Soy and Sustainable Palm Oil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 42-50.
    10. Richard B. Howarth & Matthew A. Wilson, 2006. "A Theoretical Approach to Deliberative Valuation: Aggregation by Mutual Consent," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(1), pages 1-16.
    11. Bieling, Claudia & Plieninger, Tobias & Pirker, Heidemarie & Vogl, Christian R., 2014. "Linkages between landscapes and human well-being: An empirical exploration with short interviews," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 19-30.
    12. Azqueta, Diego & Sotelsek, Daniel, 2007. "Valuing nature: From environmental impacts to natural capital," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 22-30, June.
    13. Viveros, Hector, 2017. "Unpacking stakeholder mechanisms to influence corporate social responsibility in the mining sector," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-12.
    14. Raphael Hoerler & Fabian Haerri & Merja Hoppe, 2019. "New Solutions in Sustainable Commuting—The Attitudes and Experience of European Stakeholders and Experts in Switzerland," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-19, July.
    15. Peck, Megan & Khirfan, Luna, 2021. "Improving the validity and credibility of the sociocultural valuation of ecosystem services in Amman, Jordan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    16. Venkatachalam, L., 2008. "Behavioral economics for environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 640-645, November.
    17. Saint Ville, Arlette S. & Hickey, Gordon M. & Phillip, Leroy E., 2017. "How do stakeholder interactions influence national food security policy in the Caribbean? The case of Saint Lucia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 53-64.
    18. Edossa, D. C. & Babel, M. S. & Das Gupta, A. & Awulachew, Seleshi Bekele, 2005. "Indigenous systems of conflict resolution in Oromia, Ethiopia," IWMI Books, Reports H038765, International Water Management Institute.
    19. Farrell, Katharine N., 2011. "Framing the Valuation of Ecosystem Services: A Theoretical Discussion of the Challenges and Opportunities Associated with Articulating Values that Reflect the Economic Contributions of Ecological Phen," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114362, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Spash, Clive L., 2007. "Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): Issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 690-699, September.

    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:sae:envval:v:18:y:2009:i:2:p:153-176. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.