Author
Abstract
There is an ongoing controversy in the Czech Republic over where to site a deep geological repository for the country’s radioactive waste. Recently, the negotiations between municipalities and state authorities responsible for radioactive waste management experienced a sharp turn: after several years of dialogue guaranteed by the promise of the state authorities not to start site investigations at preselected sites without the consent of affected municipalities, the state authorities suddenly decided not to keep this promise, and to start site investigations without the municipalities’ consent, saying that time for dialogue will come after the site investigations will have been completed. This article explores the period of the failed dialogue with respect to how risks and uncertainties were treated in the negotiations. Drawing on two strands of scholarship on risk and uncertainty, the risk governance school and the STS perspectives on sociotechnical controversies, two paradigms for dealing with risk and uncertainty are outlined. These are used as a framework to analyse how implementers and local stakeholders articulated possible risk or uncertainty issues in negotiations about the Czech geological disposal between 2009 and 2013. The analysis shows that whereas the implementers adopt (sometimes even an extreme version of) the risk-based paradigm, the positions of the local stakeholders seem to be mixed. These observations lead to two conclusions: first, at the theoretical level, perhaps some of the STS literature was too quick to assume that people ‘want’ uncertainty. Second, at the practical level, it is suggested that in the light of the failed dialogue, it might be worth for the implementers to take a lesson from the uncertainty-based paradigm, and consider the possibility that perhaps still more work needs to be done in order to turn uncertainty into risk.
Suggested Citation
Karel Svačina, 2017.
"How (not) to talk about the uncertain: siting geological disposal for highly radioactive waste in the Czech Republic,"
Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(9), pages 1211-1225, September.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:20:y:2017:i:9:p:1211-1225
DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2015.1121901
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
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:20:y:2017:i:9:p:1211-1225. 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.