Suchergebnisse

Die dringende Transformation unseres Energiesystems hin zu einer nachhaltigen Infrastruktur der Daseinsvorsorge scheitert in der regionalen Umsetzung regelmäßig an raumbezogenen und gesellschaftlichen Anforderungen des ländlichen Raums. In diesem Beitrag werden am Beispiel eines transdisziplinären Projektes Dilemmata in der partizipativen Umsetzung der regionalen Energiewende identifiziert und Gelingensbedingungen einer raumsensiblen Energiewende-Governance formuliert. Wie mit dem entwickelten Governance-Ansatz zur "Co-Transformation" gezeigt wird, können kontextsensitive Partizipationsformen der Co-Regulierung, Co-Allokation und Co-Visionierung zur Verfahrens‑, Verteilungs- sowie Zukunftsgerechtigkeit und damit zur Akzeptabilität der regionalen Energiewende als Daseinsvorsorgeinfrastruktur im ländlichen Raum beitragen. Zentrale Maßnahmenfelder sind dabei ergebnisoffene und regional angepasste Formen der Mitwirkung durch die Co-Regulierung im Planungsprozess, Ansätze zur räumlichen Co-Allokation energiewendebezogener Belastungen und lokaler Mehrwerte sowie die Co-Visionierung regionaler Energiezukünfte und daraus abzuleitender regionaler Energievisionen.

A major challenge in building and securing a repository for high-level waste is the long-time spans needed for site selection, construction, storage, and closure. Depending on the type of site selection procedure and the chosen repository concept, this can take decades or even more than a century. Even today, this applies to many places in all countries that have or are operating nuclear power plants. These include the sites for interim or final storage or reprocessing. Over time, other places will also be affected during the site selection procedure and afterwards during construction and disposal. The processes will cause landscape transformations to a greater or lesser extent, to allow for activities including transportation and excavation. Nuclear waste governance is an extremely challenging and contested issue, starting with site selection, because nobody wants nuclear waste close by. Technologies and societies can change considerably over time. How this influences a repository may vary from place to place depending on context factors. Thus, we argue that realizing a nuclear waste governance that is oriented toward public welfare in the long term requires con-sideration of place. Based on empirical material collected in three regional workshops and nine qualitative interviews on the meaning of place and transformations caused by infrastructure projects, we discuss the relevance of those findings for a place-sensitive longterm governance framework.

The Site Selection Act (StandAG) regulates the individual procedural steps for a scientifically sound, participatory and transparent search and selection of a site for the safe final disposal of high-level radioactive waste. The result should be supported by a broad social consensus; those affected should be able to tolerate the outcome. For Germany, as the European country with the most neighbouring states, it is likely that some of the sub-areas, siting regions and possible sites defined in the selection procedure will be located on or in the immediate vicinity of one or more national borders; however, in the construction of a repository for high-level radioactive waste, "affectedness" does not stop at national borders, so that the public (citizens and other stakeholders) from neighbouring countries must be involved in the participation processes at an early stage and on an ongoing basis. The focus of this presentation lies on the challenges of cross-border participation based on previous experience in other subject areas and specific cultural and political framework conditions in neighbouring countries. We therefore address the following questions: What risks and obstacles must be taken into account in cross-border public participation and how can these be overcome? What specific cultural and political framework conditions exist in neighbouring countries and to what extent can these have an effect? The literature on cross-border cooperation describes that regions that cooperate across borders face particular challenges because they are each integrated into different national, institutional and legal systems in which responsibilities and competences may be assigned differently (cf. Beck, 2018; Scherer and Zumbusch, 2011; UNECE, 2009). Identifying and implementing success factors is a major challenge and can at the same time be an important prerequisite for successful transboundary participation in the search for a repository. Indications in this respect can be derived from other cross-border procedures between Germany and neighbouring states (cf. Abromeit, 2007; Nijsten and Paulussen, 2004; Saxenhofer et al., 2017). Participation and its manifestation within a state, a region or a specific place is strongly dependent on the respective cultural and political framework conditions. Nation states have different characteristics in their political systems as well as political cultures (Rogoff, 2015; Enserink et al., 2007). In Western Europe they differ primarily in terms of their democratic model, i.e. whether, for example, they are more parliamentary-representative or direct-democratic and whether there are more centralised or decentralised responsibilities and decision-making powers. The political culture is primarily determined by the way state and non-state actors interact and cooperate with each other, which is also reflected in the way public participation in decision-making is handled. Historical factors play an important role here. In certain thematic fields or issues, there can be a long tradition of cooperative processing and solving of problems. The research project HErüber (Sperfeld et al., 2021), which is commissioned by the Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management (BASE), analyses specific risks and obstacles, as well as cultural and political framework conditions. Based on a literature review, first results are presented.

The Site Selection Act (StandAG) regulates the individual procedural steps for a scientifically sound, participatory and transparent search and selection of a site for the safe final disposal of high-level radioactive waste. The result should be supported by a broad social consensus; those affected should be able to tolerate the outcome. For Germany, as the European country with the most neighbouring states, it is likely that some of the sub-areas, siting regions and possible sites defined in the selection procedure will be located on or in the immediate vicinity of one or more national borders; however, in the construction of a repository for high-level radioactive waste, "affectedness" does not stop at national borders, so that the public (citizens and other stakeholders) from neighbouring countries must be involved in the participation processes at an early stage and on an ongoing basis. The focus of this presentation lies on the challenges of cross-border participation based on previous experience in other subject areas and specific cultural and political framework conditions in neighbouring countries. We therefore address the following questions: What risks and obstacles must be taken into account in cross-border public participation and how can these be overcome? What specific cultural and political framework conditions exist in neighbouring countries and to what extent can these have an effect? The literature on cross-border cooperation describes that regions that cooperate across borders face particular challenges because they are each integrated into different national, institutional and legal systems in which responsibilities and competences may be assigned differently (cf. Beck, 2018; Scherer and Zumbusch, 2011; UNECE, 2009). Identifying and implementing success factors is a major challenge and can at the same time be an important prerequisite for successful transboundary participation in the search for a repository. Indications in this respect can be derived from other cross-border procedures between Germany and neighbouring states (cf. Abromeit, 2007; Nijsten and Paulussen, 2004; Saxenhofer et al., 2017). Participation and its manifestation within a state, a region or a specific place is strongly dependent on the respective cultural and political framework conditions. Nation states have different characteristics in their political systems as well as political cultures (Rogoff, 2015; Enserink et al., 2007). In Western Europe they differ primarily in terms of their democratic model, i.e. whether, for example, they are more parliamentary-representative or direct-democratic and whether there are more centralised or decentralised responsibilities and decision-making powers. The political culture is primarily determined by the way state and non-state actors interact and cooperate with each other, which is also reflected in the way public participation in decision-making is handled. Historical factors play an important role here. In certain thematic fields or issues, there can be a long tradition of cooperative processing and solving of problems. The research project HErüber (Sperfeld et al., 2021), which is commissioned by the Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management (BASE), analyses specific risks and obstacles, as well as cultural and political framework conditions. Based on a literature review, first results are presented.

Nuclear energy has long attracted the attention of scholars in the humanities and social sciences. With this HSR Special Issue, we would like to push the scholarly frontier by highlighting the geographies of nuclear energy in the past and present. Nuclear energy is inherently interwoven with geography. We argue that to fully appreciate and grasp nuclear energy's geographical and spatial dimensions, approaches from a range of disciplinary and interdisciplinary fields are needed. This special issue thus includes contributions from history, geography, political science, technology assessment, science and technology studies (STS), and other fields. This article introduces this topic by outlining the state of the art of the geographies of nuclear energy and discusses different conceptual frameworks of how to understand nuclear-space interactions. In addition, the individual articles in this issue are briefly presented here and discussed within the research context. The articles themselves cover the geography of nuclear energy from beginning to end: from the mining of uranium, the planning and construction of nuclear power plants, the formation of public resistance, and the cooling of nuclear energy sites as well as the evolution of research centres and, last but not least, the political control and storage of nuclear waste. The collection of articles published here were part of the double session "Geographies of Nuclear Energy," presented at the RGS- IBG Annual International Conference 2021, and of the session "Atomic Rivers," presented at the ESEH Conference 2023.

Frontmatter --Inhalt --Vorwort --Konzepte und Maßnahmen zum Umgang mit soziotechnischen Herausforderungen bei der Entsorgung radioaktiver Abfälle --Teil I: Konzeptionelle und geschichtliche Einblicke --Welche Unterscheidungen braucht die Endlagerforschung? --Nukleare Technopolitik in der BRD -- zwischen technischer Utopie und sozialer Dystopie --Vom starken zum weichen Atomstaat --Der Atommüll -- eine soziotechnische Tatsache --Soziotechnische Analoga als Erfahrungshintergrund für ein Endlager --Teil II: Regulierung und Interdependenzen --Pfadabhängigkeiten in der Endlagerpolitik --Rolle und Entwicklung politischer Beratungs- und Begleitgremien nach dem Konzept des Science-Policy Interfaces --Arenen zur Austragung von Dissensen in der Endlagerpolitik --Zum politischen Umgang mit Expert*innendissens --Der socio-technical divide im Endlagerdiskurs --Institutionelle Herausforderungen bei der Endlagerung hochradioaktiver Abfälle --Teil III: Reversibilität in Entscheidungsprozessen --Reversibilität im Kontext der Entsorgung hochradioaktiver Abfälle --Expert*innendissens und das reversible Verfahren der Suche nach einem Endlagerstandort für hochradioaktive Abfälle --Reversibilität in Entscheidungsprozessen --Teil IV: Planungs- und Langzeitprozesse --Robuste Langzeit-Governance und Notwendigkeiten neuer Navigation --Das Lernen in Organisationen --Raumsensible Long-term Governance zur Bewältigung komplexer Langzeitaufgaben --Achtsamkeit und Fehlerkultur als notwendige Sicherheitsleistung --Die Gestaltung robuster Governanceprozesse: Unter welchen Bedingungen kann sie gelingen? --Biographische Angaben zu den Beitragsautor*innen