EDP Sciences logo
Subscriber Authentication Point
Search
Menu
Home All issues Volume 55 (May 2020) HS2 Radioprotection, 55 (2020) S243-S248 References
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) S243 - S248
Section TRANSPARENCY AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT IN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2020040
Published online 01 May 2020
  • Bauer M. 2008. Obrazec. Slovenske novice 2. [Google Scholar]
  • Bertot JC, Jaeger PT, Grimes JM. 2010. Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency? E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Govern. Inform. Q. 27: 264–271. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Cegarra-Navarro J, Garcia-Perez A. 2014. Technology knowledge and governance: Empowering citizen engagement and participation. Govern. Inform. Q. 31(4): 660–668. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Coleman R, Lieber P, Mendelson AL, Kurpius DD. 2008. Public life and the internet: If you build a better website, will citizens become engaged? New Media Soc. 10(2): 179–201. [Google Scholar]
  • EURATOM. 2013. Council Directive 2013/59/EURATOM of 5 December 2013. Basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation. [Google Scholar]
  • EURATOM. 2014. Nuclear safety directive (2014). 2014/87/Euratom. [Google Scholar]
  • Fox J. 2011. Government transparency and policymaking. Public Choice 131(1-2): 23–44. [Google Scholar]
  • IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency. 2006. Fundamental safety principles. Vienna, Austria: IAEA Safety Standards 2006, SF-1. [Google Scholar]
  • IAEA. 2007. Safety glossary: Terminology used in nuclear safety and radiation protection. Vienna. [Google Scholar]
  • IAEA. 2012. Enhancing transparency and communication effectiveness in the event of a nuclear or radiological emergency. In: Int. Exp. Meeting 18–20 June, 2012, Vienna, Austria. [Google Scholar]
  • IAEA. 2017. Communication and consultation with interested parties by the regulatory body. IAEA Safety Standards Series No. GSG-6. English STI/PUB/1784. [Google Scholar]
  • IAEA. 2018. Arrangements for the termination of a nuclear or radiological emergency. IAEA Safety Standards for protecting people and the environment. General Safety Guide No. GSG-11. [Google Scholar]
  • ICRP. 1991. Recommendation of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, Vol. 60. Oxford, New York, Frankfurt, Seoul, Sydney, Tokyo: Protection ICOR, Ed. Pergamon Press. [Google Scholar]
  • Il Piccolo. 2008. Metz: “Un episodo da non sottovaluare”. Il Piccolo 4. [Google Scholar]
  • Jankovič J. 2008. JEK ustavljena. Slovenske novice 5. [Google Scholar]
  • Kerveillant M. 2018. The role of the public in the French nuclear sector: The case of “Local Information Commissions” (CLIs) for nuclear activities. Radioprotection 53(2): 87–93. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • McGee R, Gaventa J. 2011. Shifting power? Assessing the impact of transparency and accountability initiatives. IDS Working Papers 2011(383): 1–39. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • NEA. 2011. Commendable practices on transparency in nuclear regulatory communication with the public. Nuclear Energy Agency. Available from https://www.oecd-nea.org/nsd/docs/2011/cnra-r2011-3.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • NTW. 2015. Report of NTW Working Group on Emergency Preparedness & Response (EP & R). Available from http://www.nuclear-transparency-watch.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/NTW-Report.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • Perko T, Martell M. 2019. Study on good practices in implementing the requirements on public information in the event of an emergency, under the Euratom Basic Safety Standards Directive and Nuclear Safety Directive. Final report. [Google Scholar]
  • Perko T, Turcanu C. 2020. Is internet a missed opportunity? Evaluating radon websites from a stakeholder engagement perspective. J. Env. Rad. 212: 106–123. [Google Scholar]
  • Perko T, Turcanu C, Carlé B. 2012. Media reporting of nuclear emergencies: The effects of transparent communication in a minor nuclear event. J. Cont. Crisis Manag. 20: 52–56. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Pucelj G. 2008. Vaja. Delo 1. [Google Scholar]
  • Rowe G, Frewer L, Sjöberg L. 2000. Newspaper reporting to hazard in the UK and Sweden. Public Understanding Sci. 9: 59–78. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • SNSA. 2008. Description of the event at the Krško NPP on 4 June 2008. News. Slovenian Nuclear Safety Administration. [Google Scholar]
  • Stritar A. 2009. Incident at Krško NPP and panic in Europe. In: PIME, 15–18 Feb., 2009, Edinburgh. [Google Scholar]
  • UNEC. 1998. Aarhus Convention on Access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters. Europe, UNEC: Ed. Aarhus. [Google Scholar]
  • Zeleznik N et al. 2019. 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.