Figures and tables
Figures
5.1British public views on replacement of nuclear power station.
7.1Survey data from the Swiss Canton of Nidwalden in 2006 on respondents’ perception of procedural fairness issues in repository siting for nuclear waste.
7.2Survey data from the Swiss Canton of Nidwalden in 2006 on respondents’ perception of distributive fairness issues in repository siting for nuclear waste.
7.3Survey data from the Swiss Canton of Nidwalden in 2006. Respondents of Wolfenschiessen’s directly adjacent neighboring municipality Dallenwil feel less fairly treated and less well involved in the process.
7.4Repository siting areas with favorable geological conditions under consideration (current state, 2014).
7.5Survey study of 2011 on the perception of nuclear waste and hazardous waste issues. Importance of procedural fairness aspects (political process, planning process, etc.) is shown.
Tables
2.1Factors that may have a legitimate impact on the choice between the two major methods to ensure protection of groups that are sensitive to some detrimental environmental impact, such as the carcinogenic effects of ionizing radiation.
7.1General perception of procedural vs distributive fairness (in the frame of nuclear waste).
7.2Example of a vignette representing an unfair procedure (procedural justice, −PF), an mid-fair distribution (distributive injustice, +/−DF), and a negative outcome valence (−OV).
7.3Major results of vignettes’ studies of 2009 representing aggregated part-worth utilities of attributes and attribute-levels of study 1 (N = 53) and study 2 (N = 56) and attribute importance.
7.4Survey study of 2011 on the perception of nuclear waste and hazardous waste issues.
7.5Survey study of 2011 concerning perceptions of nuclear waste and hazardous waste issues.
7.6Survey study of 2011 on the perception of nuclear waste and hazardous waste issues.
