The power of collaborative deliberation in stakeholder dialogue seminars

References

• Alexander, C., R. Burt, and A. F. Nisbet. 2005. “Stakeholder Involvement Facilitates Decision Making for UK Nuclear Accident Recovery.” Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 83 (3): 297–303. doi:10.1016/j.jenvrad.2004.04.011.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. doi:10.1051/radiopro/2016011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ban, N. 2016. “Japanese Experience in Stakeholder Involvement: ICRP Dialogue Meetings.” Radioprotection 51 (HS1): S51–S53. doi:10.1051/radiopro/2016013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergmans, A. 2008. “Meaningful Communication among Experts and Affected Citizens on Risk: Challenge or Impossibility?” Journal of Risk Research 11: 175–193.10.1080/13669870701797301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brynildsen, L. I., T. D. Selnaes, P. Strand, and K. Hove. 1996. “Countermeasures for Radiocesium in Animal Products in Norway after the Chernobyl Accident-Techniques, Effectiveness, and Costs.” Health Physics 70 (5): 665–672.10.1097/00004032-199605000-00007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charron, S., S. Lafage, E. van Asselt, M. Baptista, M. van Bourgondiën, P. Brandhoff, T. Cabianca, et al. 2016. “Overview of the PREPARE WP3: Management of Contaminated Goods in Post-Accidental Situation – Synthesis of European Stakeholders’ Panels.” Radioprotection 53 (HS 2016): 83–92. doi:10.1051/radiopro/2016038.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chilvers, J. 2007. “Towards Analytic-Deliberative Forms of Risk Governance in the UK? Reflecting on Learning in Radioactive Waste.” Journal of Risk Research 10 (2): 197–222. doi:10.1080/13669870601147581.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• French, S., and C. Bayley. 2010. “Public Participation: Comparing Approaches.” Journal of Risk Research 14: 241–257.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geer, J. G. 1991. “Do Open-Ended Questions Measure ‘Salient’ Issues?” Public Opinion Quarterly 55 (3): 360–370.10.1086/269268
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heldal, H. E., A. L. Brungot, H. Skjerdal, T. Gäfvert, J. P. Gwynn, I. Sværen, P. L. Liebig, A. L. Rudjord. 2015. Radioactive Contamination in Fish and Seafood in the Period 1991–2011. StrålevernRapport 2015:17. Østerås: Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority. http://www.nrpa.no/publikasjon/straalevernrapport-2015-17-radioaktiv-forurensning-i-fisk-og-sjoemat-i-perioden-1991-2011.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Hocke, P., and O. Renn. 2009. “Concerned Public and the Paralysis of Decision-Making: Nuclear Waste Management Policy in Germany.” Journal of Risk Research 12: 921–940.10.1080/13669870903126382
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howard, B. J., A. Liland, N. A. Beresford, K. G. Andersson, G. Cox, J. M. Gil, J. Hunt, A. Nisbet, D. Oughton, and G. Voigt. 2004. “A Critical Evaluation of the Strategy Project.” Radiation Protection Dosimetry 109: 63–67.10.1093/rpd/nch245
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ioannides, K. G., C. E. Tzialla, C. A. Papachristodoulou, C. Papanikolaou, and C. Apostolopoulos. 2005. “Stakeholder Involvement in Nuclear Crisis Management in Greece.” Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 83 (3): 347–357. doi:10.1016/j.jenvrad.2004.08.016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jullien, T., N. Reales, F. Gallay, and S. Lepicard. 2005. “The FARMING Approach: Main Results and Perspectives of the French FARMING Groups.” Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 83 (3): 333–345. doi:10.1016/j.jenvrad.2004.10.015.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kemp, R. V., D. G. Bennett, and M. J. White. 2006. “Recent Trends and Developments in Dialogue on Radioactive Waste Management: Experience from the UK.” Environment International 32 (8): 1021–1032. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2006.06.010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krütli, P., M. Stauffacher, T. Flüeler, and R. W. Scholz. 2010. “Functional-Dynamic Public Participation in Technological Decision-Making: Site Selection Processes of Nuclear Waste Repositories.” Journal of Risk Research 13 (7): 861–875. doi:10.1080/13669871003703252.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liland, A. 2015. Societal Consequences of Nuclear Accidents. In Nuclear Terrorism and National Preparedness, edited by S. Apikyan, D. Diamond, Chapter 19, 201–212. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series B: Physics and Biophysics. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9891-4_19. ISBN 978-94-017-9890-7.10.1007/978-94-017-9891-4
   Google Scholar
• Liland, A. forthcoming. “ICRP Fukushima Dialogues – Joint Learning at Many Levels I: Annals of the International Commission on Radiological Protection.” ICRP Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Fukushima Dialogue Initiative. London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Liland, A., O. C. Lind, J. Bartnicki, J. E. Brown, J. E. Dyve, M. Iosjpe, H. Klein, et al. n.d. Using a Chain of Models to Predict Impacts in Norway from a Hypothetical Accident at the Sellafield Nuclear Reprocessing Plant.
   Google Scholar
• Liland, A., J. Lochard, and L. Skuterud. 2009. “How Long is Long Term? Reflections Based on over 20 Years of Post-Chernobyl Management in Norway.” Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 100: 581–584. doi:10.1016/j.jenvrad.2009.04.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liland, A., D. Oughton, I. Bay-Larsen, I. M. Eikelmann, H. S. Hansen, and L. Skuterud. 2010. “Norwegian Testing of the EURANOS Framework for Post-Accident Rehabilitation Preparedness.” Radioprotection 45 (5): S215–S224.10.1051/radiopro/2010038
   Google Scholar
• Liland, A., and W. Raskob, eds. 2016. “Towards a Self-Sustaining European Platform on Nuclear and Radiological Emergency Preparedness, Reponse and Recovery Key Results of the NERIS-TP European Project.” Radioprotection 51 (HS1 Supplément) p. S1-S3–S31-S54. doi:10.1051/radiopro/2016002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liland, A., and L. Skuterud. 2013. “Lessons Learned from the Chernobyl Accident in Norway.” In Social and Ethical Aspects of Radiation Risk Management, edited by D. Oughton and S. O. Hansson, 157–176. Radioactivity in the Environment, Vol. 19. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. ISBN: 978-0-08-045015-5, ISSN: 1569-4860.
   Google Scholar
• Lindhjem, H., and S. Navrud. 2011. “Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes.” International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics 5 (4): 309–351.10.1561/101.00000045
   Google Scholar
• Lochard, J. 2004. “Living in Contaminated Territories: A Lesson in Stakeholder Involvement.” Current Trends in Radiation Protection, EDP Sciences: 211–220.
   Google Scholar
• Lochard, J. 2007. “Rehabilitation Of Living Conditions in Territories Contaminated by the Chernobyl Accident: The Ethos Project.” Health Physics 93 (5): 522–526.10.1097/01.HP.0000285091.08936.52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelkin, D., and M. Pollac. 1979. “Public Participation in Technological Decisions: Reality of Grand Illusion?” Technology Review 81 (8): 55–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nisbet, A. F., J. A. Mercer, A. Rantavaara, R. Hanninen, C. Vandecasteele, B. Carlé, F. Hardeman, et al. 2005. “Achievements, Difficulties and Future Challenges for the FARMING Network.” Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 83 (3): 263–274. doi:10.1016/j.jenvrad.2004.11.010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NOU. 1986. “Informasjonskriser.” [Information Crises.] Norges Offentlige Utredninger (NOU) 1986:19. Universitetsforlaget. Oslo. ( In Norwegian).
   Google Scholar
• NOU. 1987. “Tiltak mot kjernekraftulykker. Forslag til nasjonale og internasjonale tiltak.” [Actions to Prevent Nuclear Power Accidents. Suggestions for National and International Measures.] Norges Offentlige Utredninger (NOU) 1987:13. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo. ( In Norwegian).
   Google Scholar
• PREPARE. 2016. Deliverable D3.3: Final Report including the Workshop Conclusions Prepared by the Task Force. European Commission. http://science.sckcen.be/~/media/Files/Science/EHS/SPS/PREPARE_WP3_Deliverable_3_3_National_Panels_conclusions.pdf?la=en.
   Google Scholar
• Rantavaara, A., H. Wallin, K. Hasunen, K. Härmälä, H. Kulmala, E. Latvio, K. Liskola, I. Mustonen, I. Nieminen, and R. Tainio. 2005. “Finnish Stakeholder Engagement in the Restoration of a Radioactively Contaminated Food Supply Chain.” Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 83 (3): 305–317. doi:10.1016/j.jenvrad.2004.04.013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raskob, W., F. Gering, J. Lochard, A. F. Nisbet, V. Starostova, and B. Tomic. 2010. “Overview and Main Achievements of the EURANOS Project: European Approach to Nuclear and Radiological Emergency Management and Rehabilitation Strategies.” Radioprotection 45 (5): S9–S22. doi:10.1051/radiopro/2010013.
   Google Scholar
• Reitan, J. B., C. Mays, A. L. C. Lindström, L. Sjöberg, and A. Tønnessen. 1999. Radiation and Nuclear Risk – Considerations for the Affected. A RISKPERCOM Summary Report. StrålevernRapport 1999:9. Østerås: Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority. http://www.nrpa.no/publikasjon/straalevernrapport-1999-9-radiation-and-nuclear-risk-considerations-for-those-affected.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Rowe, G., and L. J. Frewer. 2005. “A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms.” Science, Technology & Human Values 30 (2): 251–290. doi:10.1177/0162243904271724.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Royal Decree. 2013. Nuclear Preparedness: Central and Regional Organisation. Royal Decree of 23. August 2013. StrålevernHefte 30. Østerås: Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority. http://www.nrpa.no/publikasjon/straalevernhefte-30-nuclear-preparedness-central-and-regional-organisation-royal-decree-of-23-august-2013.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Skuterud, L. 2006. “Lessons Learned from Post Chernobyl Measures and Stakeholder Involvement in Norway.” 10th European ALARA Network Workshop Experience and New Developments in Implementing ALARA in Occupational, Patient and Public Exposures, Prague, Czech Republic, September 12–15, 2006. http://www.eu-alara.net/index.php/workshops-mainmenu-38/24-workshops/62-10th-workshop-on-qexperience-and-new-developments-in-implementing-alaraq.html.
   Google Scholar
• Strand, T., P. Strand, and J. Baarli. 1987. “Radioactivity in Foodstuffs and Doses to the Norwegian Population from the Chernobyl Fall-out.” Radiation Protection Dosimetry 20 (4): 211–220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thørring, H., M. A. Ytre-Eide, and A. Liland. 2010. Consequences in Norway after a Hypothetical Accident at Sellafield – Predicted Impacts on the Environment. StrålevernRapport 2010:13. Østerås: Statens Strålevern. http://www.nrpa.no/publikasjon/straalevernrapport-2010-13-consequences-in-norway-after-a-hypothetical-accident-at-sellafield.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Tomkiv, Y., A. Liland, D. Oughton, and B. Wynne. in preparation. “Assessing Quality of Stakeholder Involvement: Why Methodology is Not Enough.”
   Google Scholar
• Vandecasteele, C. M., F. Hardeman, O. Pauwels, M. Bernaerts, B. Carlé, and L. Sombré. 2005. “Attitude of a Group of Belgian Stakeholders towards Proposed Agricultural Countermeasures after a Radioactive Contamination: Synthesis of the Discussions within the Belgian EC-FARMING Group.” Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 83 (3): 319–332. doi:10.1016/j.jenvrad.2004.09.007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ytre-Eide, M. A., W. J. F. Standring, I. Amundsen, M. K. Sickel, A. Liland, J. Saltbones, J. Bartnicki, H. Haakenstad, and B. Salbu. 2009. Consequences in Norway of a Hypothetical Accident at Sellafield: Potential Release – Transport and Fallout. StrålevernRapport 2009:7. Østerås: Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority. http://www.nrpa.no/publikasjon/straalevernrapport-2009-7-consequences-in-norway-of-a-hypothetical-accident-at-sellafield.pdf.
   Google Scholar