Nükleer Enerji ve Sosyal Kabul Sorunu: NIMBY Sendromu Üzerine Kritik Bir Literatür İncelemesi

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

• -

NÜKLEER ENERJİ VE SOSYAL KABUL SORUNU: NIMBY SENDROMU ÜZERİNE KRİTİK BİR LİTERATÜR İNCELEMESİ

Öz

Enerji ve toplum konuları, özellikle nükleer enerji ve sosyal kabul, çeşitli sosyal bilimcilerce değerli araştırmalara konu edilmiştir. Nükleer enerji konusunda halkın sosyal kabul sorunları genelde NIMBY sendromu olarak adlandırılmaktadır. NIMBY literatürünün nihai amacı, halkın somut yatırımlara yönelik sosyal kabulünün arttırılmasıdır. Siyasal kararı takip eden süreçlerde aktif, bilinçli, katılımcı bireylerin uygun strateji ve programlarla sosyal kabulü, “uzlaşısı”, mümkündür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Nükleer enerji, Sosyal kabul, NIMBY

Kaynakça

1. 1. ABRECHT, Paul R., “Nuclear Power and Public Opinion”, IAEA Bulletin, C. 19, S. 3, 1977.
2. 2. BECK, Peter W. “Nuclear Energy in the Twenty-First Century: Examination of a Contentious Subject”, Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 24, 1999, ss. 113-137.
3. 3. BICKERSTAFFE, Julia-D. PEARCE “Can There Be a Consensus on Nuclear Power”, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1980, s. 309- 344.
4. 4. BRODY, Charles J., “Differences by Sex in Support for Nuclear Power”, Social Forces, C. 63, S. 1, September, 1984, ss. 209-228.
5. 5. BURNINGHAM, Kate, “Using the Language of NIMBY: A Topic for Research, Not an Activity for Researchers”, Local Environment, C. 5, S. 1, 2000, ss. 55-67.
6. 6. BURNINGHAM, Kate-J. BARNETT- D. THRUSH, The Limitations of the NIMBY Concept for Understanding Public Engagement With Renewable Energy Technologies: A Literature Review, the School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester, UK, 2006.
7. 7. CHUNG, Ji Bum-Hong Kyu KIM, “Competition, Economic Benefits, Trust, and Risk Perception in Siting a Potantially Hazardous Facility”, Landscape and Urban Planning, 91, 2009, ss. 8-16.
8. 8. DEAR, Michael, “Understanding and Overcoming the NIMBY Syndrome”, Journal of the American Planning Association, 58, 3, 1992, ss. 288-300.

9. 9. DTI, Department of Enterprise Investment and Trade, Attitudes and Knowledge of Renewable Energy Amongst the General Public: Report Findings, August, 2003.
10. 10. DUNCAN, Otis Dudley, “Sociologists Should Reconsider Nuclear Energy”, Social Forces, C. 57, S. 1, September, 1978, ss. 1-22.
11. 11. DUPONT, R. L., “The Nuclear Power Phobia”, Business Week, 7 September, 1981, ss. 14-16.
12. 12. EASTERLING, Doug-H. KUNREUTHER, The Dilemma of Sitinf a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository, Boston, Kluwer Academics, 1995.
13. 13. Eurobarometer, Attitudes Towards Radioactive Waste, Special Eurobarometer 297/Wave 69.1-TNS Opinion&Social Fieldwork, Report, June, 2008.
14. 14. Eurobarometer, Europeans and Nuclear Safety, Special Eurobarometer 271/Wave 66.2-TNS Opinion&Social Fieldwork, Report, February, 2007.
15. 15. FORATOM, European Atomic Forum, What People Really Think About Nuclear Energy?, Brüksel, 2007.
16. 16. FORT, Rodney-R. POSENMAN-W. BUDD, “Perception Costs and NIMBY”, Journal of Environmental Management, C. 38, S. 3, 1993, ss. 185-200.
17. 17. GIBSON, Timothy A., “NIMBY and Civic Good”, City & Community, C. 4, S. 4, December, 2005, ss. 381-401.
18. 18. GRIMSTON, Malcolm C., “Nuclear Energy: Public Perceptions and Decision-Making”, World Nuclear Association Annual Symposium, 4-6 September, London, 2002, ss. 1-6.
19. 19. HERMANSSON, Helene, “The Ethics of NIMBY Conflicts”, Ethics Theory Moral Practice, 10, 2007, ss. 23-34.
20. 20. HUNTER, Susan-Kevin M. LEYDEN, “Beyond NIMBY: Explaining Opposition to Hazardous Waste Facilities”, Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 23, No. 4, 1995, ss. 601-620.
21. 21. KASPERSON, Roger E.-D. GOLDING- S. TULER, “Social Distrust as a Factor in Siting Hazardous Facilities and Communicating Risks”, Journal of Social Issues, C. 22, S. 4, 1992, ss. 617-631.
22. 22. KRAFT, Michael-Bruce B. CLARY, “Citizen Participation and the NIMBY Syndrome: Public Response to Radioactive Waste Disposal”, The Western Political Quarterly, C. 44, S. 2, 1991, ss. 299-328.
23. 23. MANSFIEL, Carol-G. van HOUTVEN-J. HUBER, “The Efficiency of Political Mechanisms for Siting Nuisance Facility: Are Opponents More Likely to Participate than Supporters?”, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, C. 22, S. 2, 2001, ss. 141-161.
24. 24. MARKS, Gary-Detlof von WINTERFELD, “Not In My Backyard: Influence of Motivational Concerns on Judgements About a Risky Technology”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, August, 1984, ss. 408-415.
25. 25. MATEJCZYK, Anthony P., “Why Not NIMBY? Reputation, Neighborhood Organizations and Zoning Boards in a US Midwestern City”, Urban Studies, C. 38, S. 3, 2001, s. 507-518.
26. 26. McGOWAN, Francis-Raphael SAUTER, Public Opinion on Energy Research: A Desk Study for the Research Council, Sussex Energy Group, SPRU, September, University of Sussex, 2005.
27. 27. MICHAUD, Kristy-Juliet E. CARLISLE- Eric R. A. N. SMITH, “Nimbysm vs. Environmentalism in Attitudes Toward Energy Development”, Environmental Politics, Vol. 17, No. 1, February, 2008, ss. 20-39.
28. 28. MILLER, Chaz, “Not In My Back Yard”, Waste Age, December 01, 2000.
29. 29. MIT, Massachustts Institute of Technology, The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study, 2003.
30. 30. NEA, Nuclear Energy Agency OECD, Society and Nuclear Energy: Towards a Better Understanding, Paris: Fransa, 2002.
31. 31. NELKIN, Dorothy, Technological Decisions and Democracy: European Experiments in Public Participation, Beverly Hills, CA, Sage, 1977.
32. 32. Paul McFedries Word Spy, http://www.wordspy.com, 20.04.2009.
33. 33. RABE, Barry G., Beyond NIMBY: Hazardous Waste Siting in Canada and in the United States, Washington D.C., Brookings Institution, 1994.
34. 34. RICHMAN, Barak-Chris BOERNER, “A Transaction Coast Economizing Approach to Regulation: Understanding Government Responses to MINBY Problem”, American Law & Economics Association Annual Meetings, Paper 10, 2004.
35. 35. RICHMAN, D. Barak-Christopher BOERNER, “A Transaction Cost Economizing Approach to Regulation: Understanding the NIMBY Problem and Improving Regulatory Responses”, Yale Journal on Regulation, Winter, C. 23, S. 1, 2006, ss. 29-76.
36. 36. Saint Consulting, “Toplines and Trends From the 2009 US Saint Index: American Attitudes on Development”, Executive Summary of the Saint Index, 2009, http://www.tscg.biz/ survey/summary.html, 10.05.2009.
37. 37. SANDMAN, Peter M., “Getting to Maybe: Some Communications Aspects of Siting Hazardous Waste Facilities”, Seton Hall Legislative Journal, C. 9, S. 2, 1986, ss. 442-465.
38. 38. SCHIVELY, Carissa, “Understanding the NIMBY and LULU Phenomena: Reassesing Our Knowledge Base and Informing Future Research”, Journal of Planning Literature, C. 21, S. 3, February, 2007, ss. 255-266.
39. 39. SELLERS, P. Martin, “NIMBY: A Case Study in Conflict Politics”, Public Administration Quarterly, Winter, 1993, ss. 460-477.
40. 40. SHEMTOV, Ronit, “Social Networks and Sustained Activism in Local NIMBY Campaigns”, Sociological Forum, Vol. 18, No. 2, June, 2003, ss. 215-214.
41. 41. SMITH, Eric R. A. N.-Marisela MARQUEZ, “The Other Side of the NIMBY Syndrome”, Society & Natural Resources, 13, 2000, ss. 273- 280.
42. 42. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, “NIMBY”, Fourth Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.
43. 43. Urban Dictionary, http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term= nimby, 14.07.2009.
44. 44. VITESS, M. E.-P. H. Pollock-S. A. LILIE “Factors Contributing to NIMBY Attitude”, Waste Management, C.. 13, 1993, ss. 125-129.
45. 45. WARREN, C. R.-C. LUMBSDEN-S. O’DOWD-R. V. BIRNIE, “Green on Green: Public Perceptions Wind Power in Scotland and Ireland”, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 48, 2005, ss. 853-875.
46. 46. WELSH, Ian, “The NIMBY Syndrome: Its Significance in the History of the Nuclear Debate in Britain”, The British Journal for the History of Science, C. 26, S. 1, Energy and Society, March, 1993, ss. 15-32.
47. 47. WOLSINK, Maarten, “Entangement of Intersts and Mptives: Assumptions Behind the NIMBY-Theory on Facility Siting, Urban Studies, Vol. 31, No. 6, 1994, ss. 851-866.
48. 48. WOLSINK, Maarten, “Invalid Theory Impedes Our Understanding: A Critique on the Persistence of the Language of NIMBY”, Comment, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 31, 1, March, 2006, ss. 85-91.
49. 49. WUSTENHAGEN, Rolf-M. WOLSINK-M. J. BURER, “Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy Innovation: An Introduction to the Concept”, Energy Policy, 35, 2007, ss. 2683-2692.