Search

The disposal of radioactive waste is a striking example with which to trace the changing relationship between technology, society and policy when dealing with societally relevant controversial issues. The change is characterized by a transition from a technocratic approach to an approach with more intense cooperation and public participation. We analyze the societal discourse of a failed disposal project for low- and intermediate-level waste at the Mount Wellenberg site, Canton of Nidwalden (Central Switzerland). Insights are based on a case study in 2006, with focus groups, expert interviews, a media analysis, a representative canton-wide postal survey and targeted in-depth stakeholder interviews. The article focuses on the relationship of safety and process aspects. The data suggest that both are prime issues and people recognize the need for disposal of radioactive waste in a technical system but only if a fair procedure is guaranteed. We conclude that a sound balance between safety and procedural aspects needs to be found and thus a functional-dynamic view of public involvement is necessary, i.e. distinct levels of involvement (ranging from mere information up to empowerment) must fit the corresponding technical and non-technical requirements of a stepwise decision-making process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The involvement of stakeholders and the public in societal decision processes has lately received increased attention. We suggest that appropriate and tailored techniques should be selected and integrated to provide the prerequisites for inclusive involvement depending on the issue, type, goals and phase of the decision process in question, i.e. an analytic, systematic and dynamic approach to collaboration. In a transdisciplinary case study design we integrate diverse analytical methods whereby a process of mutual learning between science and people from outside academia is strived for. Our framework for collaboration is illustrated by a case study on sustainable landscape development in the Swiss prealpine region of Appenzell Ausserrhoden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Partly due to failed approaches in nuclear waste (NW) governance, years of high levels of attention have resulted in novel, more participatory avenues in Switzerland and other countries. What can be said about the case of conventional hazardous waste (CHW) from households? What technical and legal aspects are similar to or different from those of the NW domain? How does the public perceive CHW and its handling? We address these (so far) open questions in this study that comprises multiple methodological approaches. We combine a technical and system assessment with a societal (perception) assessment, based on a representative survey (N = 3082) among the German-speaking population of Switzerland. We draw some conclusions for a possible way forward in hazardous waste policy and governance. We find a remarkable disparity between technical analysis and public perception. The community should discuss whether the current NW management is forward-looking and may serve as a model for CHW. For CHW, the multiplicity of agents and the heterogeneity of substances may make the situation too complex, non-transparent, and thus less salient in the public perception. Paradoxically, the ubiquity of conventional waste, traditional community landfills, and everyday handling of some waste may make it appear less alarming than NW. [Display omitted] • Conventional hazardous waste (CHW) is similar to nuclear waste (NW) in toxicity. • Risk management of NW (in Switzerland) is well elaborated compared to that of CHW. • NW is perceived as more negative, more dangerous, less controllable, and more persistent. • Discussion: can NW handling be a model for handling CHW? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]