Open Access
Issue
Radioprotection
Volume 55, May 2020
Enhancing stakeholder participation in the governance of radiological risks for improved radiation protection and informed decision making. Key results of the European research project ENGAGE
Page(s) S219 - S225
Section NUCLEAR EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE AND RECOVERY (EP & R)
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2020037
Published online 06 May 2020
  • Barazza F et al. 2019. Final report on case studies, including recommendations and guidelines on building and enhancing radiation protection culture. CONCERT Deliverable 9.87. [Google Scholar]
  • Baudé S et al. 2016. Local populations facing long-term consequences of nuclear accidents: Lessons learnt from Chernobyl and Fukushima. Radioprotection 51(HS2): 155–158. [Google Scholar]
  • Council Directive 89/618/EURATOM. 1989. Informing the general public about health protection measures to be applied and steps to be taken in the event of a radiological emergency. [Google Scholar]
  • Council Directive 2009/71/EURATOM. 2009. Establishing a Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations. [Google Scholar]
  • Council Directive 2013/51/EURATOM. 2013. Laying down requirements for the protection of the health of the general public with regard to radioactive substances in water intended for human consumption. [Google Scholar]
  • Council Directive 2013/59/EURATOM. 2013. Laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation. [Google Scholar]
  • Felt U, Fochler M. 2010. Machineries for making publics: Inscribing and describing publics in public engagement. Minerva 48(3): 219–238. [Google Scholar]
  • Fiorino DJ. 1990. Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci. Technol. Human Values 15(2): 226–243. [Google Scholar]
  • French S, Carter E, Niculae C. 2007. Decision support in nuclear and radiological emergency situations: Are we too focused on models and technology? Int. J. Em. Man. 4(3): 421–441. [Google Scholar]
  • Hassenforder E et al. 2018. What’s the middle ground? Institutionalized vs. emerging water-related stakeholder engagement processes. Int. J. Water Res. Dev. 35(3): 525–542. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Heriard-Dubreuil G, Baudé S. 2016. Supporting people building their own response to the consequences of a nuclear accident: Complexity management, trust and the Aarhus Convention. Radioprotection 51(HS2): S153–S154. [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Heriard-Dubreuil G et al. 2010. The EURANOS cooperative framework for preparedness and management strategies of the long-term consequences of a radiological event. Radioprotection 45: S199–S213. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • ICRP Publication 109. 2009a. Application of the Commission’s recommendations for the protection of people in emergency exposure situations. Ann. ICRP 39(1). [Google Scholar]
  • ICRP Publication 111. 2009b. Application of the Commission’s recommendations to the protection of people living in long-term contaminated areas after a nuclear accident or a radiation emergency. Ann. ICRP 39(3). [Google Scholar]
  • Kenens J. 2020. Changing perspectives: tracing the evolution of citizen radiation measuring organizations after Fukushima. Radioprotection 55(HS2). https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2020012. [Google Scholar]
  • Lochard J. 2013. Stakeholder engagement in regaining decent living conditions after Chernobyl. Radioact. Environ. 19: S311–S331. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Marignac Y, Hazemann J, Baudé S. 2016. Managing the complexity of societal needs in a nuclear emergency situation: towards further experts collaboration for the “enlightened protection” of populations. Radioprotection 51(HS2): S159–S161. [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Perko T. 2016. Risk communication in the case of the Fukushima accident: Impact of communication and lessons to be learned. Int. Env. Ass. Man. 12(4): 683–686. [Google Scholar]
  • Powell MC, Colin M. 2009. Participatory paradoxes: Facilitating citizen engagement in science and technology from the top-down? Bull. Sci. Tech. Soc. 29(4): 325–342. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Sato A. 2016. Nuclear disasters and risk communication: Learning from Fukushima. Policy Brief 5. [Google Scholar]
  • Schneider T et al. 2019. The role of radiological protection experts in stakeholder involvement in the recovery phase of post-nuclear accident situations: Some lessons from the Fukushima-Daïchi NPP accident. Radioprotection 54(4): 259–270. [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Stirling A. 2005. Opening up or closing down: Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology. In: Science and citizens: Globalization and the challenge of engagement (Leach M, Scoones I, Wynne B, Eds), pp. 218–231. London: Zed Books. [Google Scholar]
  • Turcanu C et al. 2019. Final report of the ENGAGE project. CONCERT deliverable 9, 94 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Turcanu C et al. 2020. Stakeholder engagement in radiological protection: Developing theory, practice and guidelines. Radioprotection 55(HS2). https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2020008. [Google Scholar]
  • Wehling P. 2012. From invited to uninvited participation (and back?): Rethinking civil society engagement in technology assessment and development. Poiesis Praxis 9(1): 43–60. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Wesselink A, Paavola J, Fritsch O, Renn O. 2011. Rationales for public participation in environmental policy and governance: Practitioners’ perspectives. Env. Plan. A: Econ. Space 43(11): 2688–2704. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • WHO. 2017. Emergency response framework. Geneva: World Health Organization. [Google Scholar]
  • Wynne B. 2007. Public participation in science and technology: Performing and obscuring a political-conceptual category mistake. East Asian Sci. Technol. Soc. 1(1): 99–110. [Google Scholar]
  • Young IM. 2001. Activist challenges to deliberative democracy. Pol. Theory 29(5): 670–690. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Zeleznik N et al. 2019a. Rationales and frameworks for stakeholder engagement in radiation protection. CONCERT Deliverable 9.85. [Google Scholar]
  • Zeleznik N et al. 2019b. Report on venues, challenges, opportunities and recommendations for stakeholder engagement in emergency and recovery preparedness and response. CONCERT Deliverable D9.90. [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.