EDP Sciences logo
Authentification abonné
rechercher
Menu
Accueil Tous les numéros Volume 55 (May 2020) HS2 Radioprotection, 55 (2020) S249-S253 Références
Open Access
Numéro
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) S249 - S253
Section CITIZEN SCIENCE
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2020041
Publié en ligne 19 mai 2020
  • Angelique HL, Culley MR. 2010. Participation, power, and the role of community psychology in environmental disputes: a tale of two nuclear cities. Am. J. Comm. Psy. 47(3–4): 410–426. [Google Scholar]
  • Angelique HL, Culley MR. 2014a. Nuclear power: renaissance or relapse? Global climate change and long-term three mile island activists’ narratives. Am. J. Comm. Psy. 45: 231–246. [Google Scholar]
  • Angelique HL, Culley MR. 2014b. To Fukushima with love: lessons on long-term antinuclear citizen participation from Three Mile Island. J. Comm. Psy. 24(2): 209–227. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Avenell S. 2016. Antinuclear radicals: scientific experts and antinuclear activism in Japan. Sci. Tech. Soc. 21(1): 88–109. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bottollier-Depois JF, Allain E, Baumont G, Berthelot N, Darley G, Ecrabet F, Jolivet T, Lebeau-Livé A, Lejeune V, Quéinnec F, Simon C, Trompier F. 2019. The OpenRadation Project: monitoring radioactivity in the environment by and for the citizens. Radioprotection 54(4): 241–246. [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Cooper C. 2016. Citizen science: how ordinary people are changing the face of discovery. New York: Overlook Press. [Google Scholar]
  • CRIIRAD. 2011. Extrait − Dossier Japon. Trait d’Union 53: 4–23. Available from: http://www.criirad.org/actualites/dossier2011/japon_bis/crms/extrait_Japon.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • Felt U. 2017. Responsible research and innovation. In: Hand book of genomics, health and society (S. Gibbon, B. Prainsack, S. Hilgartner, J. Lamoreaux, Eds.). Abingdon: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  • Fukushima Booklet Committee. 2015. 10 lessons from Fukushima − Reducing risks and protecting communities from nuclear disasters. Available from: http://fukushimalessons.jp. [Google Scholar]
  • Geoghegan H, Dyke A, Pateman R, West S, Everett G. 2016. Understanding motivations for citizen science. Final report on behalf of UKEOF. University of Reading, Stockholm Environment Institute (University of York) and University of the West of England. [Google Scholar]
  • Gricar BG, Baratta AJ. 1983. Bridging the information gap at Three Mile Island: radiation monitoring by citizens. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 19(1): 35–49. [Google Scholar]
  • Haklay M. 2013. Citizen science and volunteered geographic information − overview and typology of participation. In: Crowdsourcing geographic knowledge: Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) in theory and practice (D.Z. Sui, et al., Eds.) pp. 105–122. Berlin: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  • Hasegawa K. 2004. Constructing civil society in Japan: voices of environmental movements. Burwood: Trans Pacific Press. [Google Scholar]
  • Hasegawa K. 2014. The Fukushima nuclear accident and Japan’s civil society: context, reactions, and policy impacts. Int. Sociol. 29(4): 283–301. [Google Scholar]
  • Hayashi F, Sanpei M, Ohira T, Nakano H, Okazaki K, Yasumura S, Nakajima S, Yabe H, Suzuki Y, Kamiya K. 2020. Changes in the mental health status of adolescents following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident and related factors: Fukushima Health Management Survey. J. Affect. Disord. 260: 432–439. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Irwin A. 1995. Citizen science: a study of people, expertise and sustainable development. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  • Karz A, et al. 2014. Ongoing mental health concerns in post-3/11 Japan. Ann. Glob. Health 80(2): 108–114. [Google Scholar]
  • Kenens J, Van Oudheusden M, Yoshizawa G, Van Hoyweghen I. 2020. Science by, with and for citizens: rethinking ‘citizen science’ after the 2011 Fukushima disaster. Palgrave Communications. [Google Scholar]
  • Kimura AH. 2016. Radiation brain moms and citizen scientists: the gender politics of food contamination after Fukushima. Durham: Duke University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Kobori H, Dickinson JL, WashitaniI, Sakurai R, Amano T, Komatsu N, Kitamura W, Takagawa S, Koyama K, Ogawara T, Miller-Rushing AJ. 2016. Citizen science: a new approach to advance ecology, education and conservation. Ecol. Res. 31: 1–19. [Google Scholar]
  • Leblanc RM. 1999. Bicycle citizens: the political world of the Japanese housewife. California: University of California Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • McCormick S. 2012. After the gap: risk assessment, citizen science, and disaster recovery. Ecol. Soc. 17(4): 31. [Google Scholar]
  • Morita A, Blok A, Kimura S. 2013. Environmental infrastructures of emergency: the formation of a civic radiation monitoring map during the Fukushima disaster. In: Nuclear disaster at Fukushima Daiichi: social, political and environmental issues (R. Hindmarsh, Ed.) pp. 78–96. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  • Morris-Suzuki T. 2014. Touching the grass: science, uncertainty and everyday life from Chernobyl to Fukushima. Sci. Tech. Soc. 19(3): 331–362. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • National Diet of Japan. 2012. The Official Report of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (NAIIC). Executive summary. [Google Scholar]
  • National Network of Parents to Protect Children from Radiation. Overview of network groups [in Japanese]. Available from: http://kodomozenkoku.sakura.ne.jp/network.html (accessed 8/01/2020). [Google Scholar]
  • Pearce F. 2018. What was the fallout from Fukushima? The Guardian. [Google Scholar]
  • Silvertown J. 2009. A new dawn for citizen science. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24(9): 467. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Walsh EJ. 1981. Resource mobilization and citizen protest in communities around Three Mile Island. Soc. Probl. 29(1): 1–21. [Google Scholar]

Les statistiques affichées correspondent au cumul d'une part des vues des résumés de l'article et d'autre part des vues et téléchargements de l'article plein-texte (PDF, Full-HTML, ePub... selon les formats disponibles) sur la platefome Vision4Press.

Les statistiques sont disponibles avec un délai de 48 à 96 heures et sont mises à jour quotidiennement en semaine.

Le chargement des statistiques peut être long.