Search

In major infrastructure projects, experts are usually regarded as responsible for producing and evaluating facts, whereas the public plays a role as far as values are concerned. In this study, we investigate the potential of values and value-related concepts in explaining acceptance of a deep ground repository for high-level radioactive waste in Switzerland. The study was in two parts, first, screening for relevant values using a questionnaire (N = 500) and, second, face-to-face interviews with 42 participants from the first part. Although the questionnaire could not predict overall acceptance on the basis of value concepts, interesting relative differences were nevertheless revealed between participants who were or were not affected by the potential siting of a deep geological repository in their own community. Additionally, the interviews offered insights into how values are related to the participatory process designed by the Swiss authorities. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

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]