Towards an improved decision-making process to better cope with uncertainties following a nuclear accident

Open Access

Issue		Radioprotection Volume 55, May 2020 Coping with uncertainties for improved modelling and decision making in nuclear emergencies. Key results of the CONFIDENCE European research project


Page(s)		S135 - S143
Section		DEVELOPMENT OF COUNTERMEASURE STRATEGIES INVOLVING STAKEHOLDERS
DOI		https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2020023
Published online		15 May 2020

Averin V. 2016. Belarus’ experience in post-Chernobyl communication with the local population, and some lessons learnt from involvement in the NERIS-TP project. Radioprotection 51(HS1): S43–S45. [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
Ban N. 2016. Japanese experience in stakeholder involvement: ICRP Dialogue meetings. Radioprotection 51(HS1): S51–S53. [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
Baudé S, Hériard-Dubreuil G, Schneider T. 2016. Local populations facing long-term consequences of nuclear accidents: Lessons learnt from Chernobyl and Fukushima. Radioprotection 51(HS2): S155–S158. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
Burns WJ, Slovic P. 2012. Risk perception and behaviors: Anticipating and responding to crises. Risk Anal. 32(4): 579–582. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Charnock T, Andersson K, Trueba C, Montero M. 2020. Uncertainties confronting stakeholders and decision-makers in planning intervention in urban and agricultural scenarios in the transition phase of a radiological emergency. Radioprotection 55(HS1). https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2020021. [Google Scholar]
Charron S, Lafage S, Van Asselt E, Baptista M, Van Bourgondien M, Brandhoff P, Cabianca T, Camps J, Cessac B, Crouaïl P, Durand V, Gallego E, Gil O, Holmes S, Hourdakis C, Jones K, Kamenopoulou V, Lecomte JF, Liland A, Lopes I, Madruga MJ, Martins JO, Mc Mahon C, Montero M, Murith C, Olyslaegers G, Organo C, Paiva I, Peltonen T, Portugal L, Potiriadis C, Prades A, Reis M, Rossignol N, Schneider T, Sala R, Smith V, Tafili V, Teles P, Tomkiv Y, Trueba C, Turcanu C, Turtiainen T, Twenhöfel C, Vaz P. 2016. Overview of the PREPARE WP3: Management of contaminated goods in post-accidental situation – Synthesis of European stakeholders’ panels. Radioprotection 51(HS2): S83–S91. [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
Duranova T, Raskob W, Beresford NA, Korsakissok I, Montero M, Müller T, Turcanu C, Woda C. 2020. CONFIDENCE dissemination meeting: Summary on the scenario based workshop. Radioprotection 55(HS1). https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2020009. [Google Scholar]
Eiser JR, Bostrom A, Burton I, Johnston DM, McClure J, Paton D, Joop Van der Pligt J, White MP. 2012. Risk interpretation and action: A conceptual framework for responses to natural hazards. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 1: 5–16. [Google Scholar]
Gallego E, Montero M. 2016. Experience in Spain with local-national fora for better post-accident preparedness. Radioprotection 51(HS1): S31–S34. [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
Korsakissok I, Périllat R, Didier D, Bedwell P, Leadbetter S, Szanto P. 2017. Published sets of probability maps of threshold exceedance for scenarios provided to WP4, WP5 & WP6. CONCERT Deliverable 9.3. Available from https://concert-h2020.eu/en/Publications. [Google Scholar]
Korsakissok I, Périllat R, Andronopoulos S, Bedwell P, Berge E, Charnock T, Geertsema G, Gering F, Hamburger T, Klein H, Leadbetter S, Lind OC, Pazmandi T, Rudas C, Salbu B, Sogachev A, Syed N, Tomas J, Ulimoen M, De Vries H, Wellings J. 2020. Uncertainty propagation in atmospheric dispersion models for radiological emergencies in the pre- and early release phase: Summary of case studies. Radioprotection 55(HS1). https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2020013. [Google Scholar]
Kuroda Y, Iwasa H, Orui M, Moriyama N, Nakayama C, Yasumura S. 2018. Association between health literacy and radiation anxiety among residents after a nuclear accident: Comparison between evacuated and non-evacuated areas. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 15(7): 1463. [Google Scholar]
Lochard J, Schneider T, Ando R, Niwa O, Clement C, Lecomte JF, Tada JI. 2019. An overview of the dialogue meetings initiated by ICRP in Japan after the Fukushima accident. Radioprotection 54(2): 87–101. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
Montero M, Sala R, Maitre M, Durand V, Nunes-Marques P, Reis M, Crouaïl P, Trueba C, Paiva I, Gil OM, Schneider T. 2020. Guidelines and recommendations for decision making during the transition phase. CONCERT Deliverable 9.24. Available from https://concert-h2020.eu/en/Publications. [Google Scholar]
Nisbet AF, Andersson KG, Duranova T. 2010. Demonstration of generic handbooks for assisting in the management of contaminated food production systems and inhabited areas in Europe. Radioprotection 45(5): 243–249. [Google Scholar]
Perko T. 2011. Importance of risk communication during and after a nuclear accident. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 7(3): 388–392. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Raskob W, Schneider T, Gering F, Charron S, Zheleznyak M, Andronopoulos S, Heriard-Dubreuil G, Camps J. 2016. Innovative integrative tools and platforms: Key results of the PREPARE European Project. Radioprotection 51(HS2): S59–S61. [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
Schneider T, Maître M, Lochard J, Charron S, Lecomte J-F, Ando R, Kanai Y, Kurihara M, Kuroda Y, Miyazaki M, Naito W, Orita M, Takamura N, Tanigawa K, Tsubokura M, Yasutaka T. 2019. The role of radiological protection experts in stakeholder involvement in the recovery phase of past-nuclear accident situations: Some lessons from the Fukushima-Daiichi NPP accident. Radioprotection 54(HS4): 259–270. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.