Social sciences and radioactive waste management: acceptance, acceptability, and a persisting socio-technical divide

Radioactive waste management (RWM) is a complex challenge, spanning various timeframes and societal domains, ranging from the technical, to the social, political and economic. As such, it has also attracted substantial attention from the social sciences. This article reviews social scientific engage...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of risk research 2022-04, Vol.25 (4), p.423-438
Hauptverfasser: Hietala, Marika, Geysmans, Robbe
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 438
container_issue 4
container_start_page 423
container_title Journal of risk research
container_volume 25
creator Hietala, Marika
Geysmans, Robbe
description Radioactive waste management (RWM) is a complex challenge, spanning various timeframes and societal domains, ranging from the technical, to the social, political and economic. As such, it has also attracted substantial attention from the social sciences. This article reviews social scientific engagement with RWM over the past two decades (2000-2019), with a particular focus on how this literature has engaged with and can be positioned vis-a-vis the 'socio-technical' challenge posed by radioactive waste. Analyzing a total of 275 published articles, we identify and discuss three dominant strands of research that all relate to the issue of acceptance/acceptability of RWM in society, focusing respectively on 1) individual(ized) perceptions about risks, benefits and facility siting; 2) governance approaches; and 3) ethical and epistemological issues connected to RWM. While calls have been made for a socio-technical approach towards radioactive waste, we argue that the majority of social scientific engagement with RWM has focused on 'social' processes, thus reinforcing a divide between the 'social' and the 'technical' aspects of RWM. Overall, social scientists should engage in and would benefit from greater reflection on their engagement with RWM, and direct efforts towards moving beyond multi-disciplinarity towards interdisciplinary approaches.
doi_str_mv 10.1080/13669877.2020.1864010
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1080_13669877_2020_1864010</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2646092123</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-5b15b86fcbd2fa96e3de51a18f8310fe1c8bcb43070e5dc902dab9d6d41da1333</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kF1LwzAUhoMoOKc_QSh4u86kabPWK0X8goEX6nU4TU5nRtvMJNvYvzd1261XOYTnfc_hIeSa0SmjJb1lXIiqnM2mGc3iVylyyugJGbFciDTPBTuNc2TSATonF94vKWUlZ9mIhA-rDLSJVwZ7hT6BXicOtLGggtlgsgUfMOmghwV22Ie7BJTCVYBIT45zbVoTdpO_MCQrdN74YPpF4mO7TQOq796ouEabjdF4Sc4aaD1eHd4x-Xp--nx8TefvL2-PD_NUcV6GtKhZUZeiUbXOGqgEco0FA1Y28XbaIFNlreqc0xnFQquKZhrqSgudMw2Mcz4mN_velbM_a_RBLu3a9XGlzEQuaJWxbKCKPaWc9d5hI1fOdOB2klE5CJZHwXIQLA-CY-5-nzN9Y10HW-taLQPsWusaF_0YL_n_Fb--XIQ4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2646092123</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Social sciences and radioactive waste management: acceptance, acceptability, and a persisting socio-technical divide</title><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Complete</source><source>Taylor &amp; Francis:Master (3349 titles)</source><creator>Hietala, Marika ; Geysmans, Robbe</creator><creatorcontrib>Hietala, Marika ; Geysmans, Robbe</creatorcontrib><description>Radioactive waste management (RWM) is a complex challenge, spanning various timeframes and societal domains, ranging from the technical, to the social, political and economic. As such, it has also attracted substantial attention from the social sciences. This article reviews social scientific engagement with RWM over the past two decades (2000-2019), with a particular focus on how this literature has engaged with and can be positioned vis-a-vis the 'socio-technical' challenge posed by radioactive waste. Analyzing a total of 275 published articles, we identify and discuss three dominant strands of research that all relate to the issue of acceptance/acceptability of RWM in society, focusing respectively on 1) individual(ized) perceptions about risks, benefits and facility siting; 2) governance approaches; and 3) ethical and epistemological issues connected to RWM. While calls have been made for a socio-technical approach towards radioactive waste, we argue that the majority of social scientific engagement with RWM has focused on 'social' processes, thus reinforcing a divide between the 'social' and the 'technical' aspects of RWM. Overall, social scientists should engage in and would benefit from greater reflection on their engagement with RWM, and direct efforts towards moving beyond multi-disciplinarity towards interdisciplinary approaches.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1366-9877</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1466-4461</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2020.1864010</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Abingdon: Routledge</publisher><subject>Acceptance ; Governance ; Interdisciplinary aspects ; literature review ; participation ; Radioactive waste ; Radioactive wastes ; risk ; Siting ; Social sciences ; socio-technical divide ; Waste management</subject><ispartof>Journal of risk research, 2022-04, Vol.25 (4), p.423-438</ispartof><rights>2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor &amp; Francis Group 2020</rights><rights>2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor &amp; Francis Group</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-5b15b86fcbd2fa96e3de51a18f8310fe1c8bcb43070e5dc902dab9d6d41da1333</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-5b15b86fcbd2fa96e3de51a18f8310fe1c8bcb43070e5dc902dab9d6d41da1333</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13669877.2020.1864010$$EPDF$$P50$$Ginformaworld$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13669877.2020.1864010$$EHTML$$P50$$Ginformaworld$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,59647,60436</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hietala, Marika</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geysmans, Robbe</creatorcontrib><title>Social sciences and radioactive waste management: acceptance, acceptability, and a persisting socio-technical divide</title><title>Journal of risk research</title><description>Radioactive waste management (RWM) is a complex challenge, spanning various timeframes and societal domains, ranging from the technical, to the social, political and economic. As such, it has also attracted substantial attention from the social sciences. This article reviews social scientific engagement with RWM over the past two decades (2000-2019), with a particular focus on how this literature has engaged with and can be positioned vis-a-vis the 'socio-technical' challenge posed by radioactive waste. Analyzing a total of 275 published articles, we identify and discuss three dominant strands of research that all relate to the issue of acceptance/acceptability of RWM in society, focusing respectively on 1) individual(ized) perceptions about risks, benefits and facility siting; 2) governance approaches; and 3) ethical and epistemological issues connected to RWM. While calls have been made for a socio-technical approach towards radioactive waste, we argue that the majority of social scientific engagement with RWM has focused on 'social' processes, thus reinforcing a divide between the 'social' and the 'technical' aspects of RWM. Overall, social scientists should engage in and would benefit from greater reflection on their engagement with RWM, and direct efforts towards moving beyond multi-disciplinarity towards interdisciplinary approaches.</description><subject>Acceptance</subject><subject>Governance</subject><subject>Interdisciplinary aspects</subject><subject>literature review</subject><subject>participation</subject><subject>Radioactive waste</subject><subject>Radioactive wastes</subject><subject>risk</subject><subject>Siting</subject><subject>Social sciences</subject><subject>socio-technical divide</subject><subject>Waste management</subject><issn>1366-9877</issn><issn>1466-4461</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kF1LwzAUhoMoOKc_QSh4u86kabPWK0X8goEX6nU4TU5nRtvMJNvYvzd1261XOYTnfc_hIeSa0SmjJb1lXIiqnM2mGc3iVylyyugJGbFciDTPBTuNc2TSATonF94vKWUlZ9mIhA-rDLSJVwZ7hT6BXicOtLGggtlgsgUfMOmghwV22Ie7BJTCVYBIT45zbVoTdpO_MCQrdN74YPpF4mO7TQOq796ouEabjdF4Sc4aaD1eHd4x-Xp--nx8TefvL2-PD_NUcV6GtKhZUZeiUbXOGqgEco0FA1Y28XbaIFNlreqc0xnFQquKZhrqSgudMw2Mcz4mN_velbM_a_RBLu3a9XGlzEQuaJWxbKCKPaWc9d5hI1fOdOB2klE5CJZHwXIQLA-CY-5-nzN9Y10HW-taLQPsWusaF_0YL_n_Fb--XIQ4</recordid><startdate>20220424</startdate><enddate>20220424</enddate><creator>Hietala, Marika</creator><creator>Geysmans, Robbe</creator><general>Routledge</general><general>Taylor &amp; Francis Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20220424</creationdate><title>Social sciences and radioactive waste management: acceptance, acceptability, and a persisting socio-technical divide</title><author>Hietala, Marika ; Geysmans, Robbe</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-5b15b86fcbd2fa96e3de51a18f8310fe1c8bcb43070e5dc902dab9d6d41da1333</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Acceptance</topic><topic>Governance</topic><topic>Interdisciplinary aspects</topic><topic>literature review</topic><topic>participation</topic><topic>Radioactive waste</topic><topic>Radioactive wastes</topic><topic>risk</topic><topic>Siting</topic><topic>Social sciences</topic><topic>socio-technical divide</topic><topic>Waste management</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hietala, Marika</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geysmans, Robbe</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>Journal of risk research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hietala, Marika</au><au>Geysmans, Robbe</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Social sciences and radioactive waste management: acceptance, acceptability, and a persisting socio-technical divide</atitle><jtitle>Journal of risk research</jtitle><date>2022-04-24</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>423</spage><epage>438</epage><pages>423-438</pages><issn>1366-9877</issn><eissn>1466-4461</eissn><abstract>Radioactive waste management (RWM) is a complex challenge, spanning various timeframes and societal domains, ranging from the technical, to the social, political and economic. As such, it has also attracted substantial attention from the social sciences. This article reviews social scientific engagement with RWM over the past two decades (2000-2019), with a particular focus on how this literature has engaged with and can be positioned vis-a-vis the 'socio-technical' challenge posed by radioactive waste. Analyzing a total of 275 published articles, we identify and discuss three dominant strands of research that all relate to the issue of acceptance/acceptability of RWM in society, focusing respectively on 1) individual(ized) perceptions about risks, benefits and facility siting; 2) governance approaches; and 3) ethical and epistemological issues connected to RWM. While calls have been made for a socio-technical approach towards radioactive waste, we argue that the majority of social scientific engagement with RWM has focused on 'social' processes, thus reinforcing a divide between the 'social' and the 'technical' aspects of RWM. Overall, social scientists should engage in and would benefit from greater reflection on their engagement with RWM, and direct efforts towards moving beyond multi-disciplinarity towards interdisciplinary approaches.</abstract><cop>Abingdon</cop><pub>Routledge</pub><doi>10.1080/13669877.2020.1864010</doi><tpages>16</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1366-9877
ispartof Journal of risk research, 2022-04, Vol.25 (4), p.423-438
issn 1366-9877
1466-4461
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1080_13669877_2020_1864010
source EBSCOhost Business Source Complete; Taylor & Francis:Master (3349 titles)
subjects Acceptance
Governance
Interdisciplinary aspects
literature review
participation
Radioactive waste
Radioactive wastes
risk
Siting
Social sciences
socio-technical divide
Waste management
title Social sciences and radioactive waste management: acceptance, acceptability, and a persisting socio-technical divide
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T05%3A12%3A10IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Social%20sciences%20and%20radioactive%20waste%20management:%20acceptance,%20acceptability,%20and%20a%20persisting%20socio-technical%20divide&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20risk%20research&rft.au=Hietala,%20Marika&rft.date=2022-04-24&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=423&rft.epage=438&rft.pages=423-438&rft.issn=1366-9877&rft.eissn=1466-4461&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/13669877.2020.1864010&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2646092123%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2646092123&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true