J. SCHRODER, Universityof AntwerpandBelgianNuclear Research Centre SCK^CEN, andA. BERGMANS, University of Antwerp, Belgium

Abstract: Public acceptability has become recognised as an indispensable prerequisite for technological development in democratic societies. Nuclear technology is not an exception in this regard, quite the contrary. This chapter starts by sketching a historical overview of the rise of the need for public acceptability with regard to nuclear developments, continues by outlining the main focus and outcomes of contemporary research accompanying this evolution, then explains why the subject continues to demand attention by unravelling the complexity of public acceptability and the nuclear fuel cycle, and ends with some reflections that may guide the future treatment of the topic.

Key words: public acceptability, risk perception, nuclear safety, nuclear technology, participation.

4.1 Introduction

Public acceptability with regard to technological developments has vastly gained in importance and attention during the past decades. It has become commonly recognised as an indispensable prerequisite for the development of technological programmes in democratic societies. Nuclear technology is no exception in this regard. On the contrary, it has played an important role in the development of public debate about technological developments, which has led to a vast amount of dedicated research.

The first section of this chapter sketches an historical overview of this rise of the need for public acceptability with regard to nuclear developments. Consequently we will outline the main focus and outcomes of contemporary research accompanying this evolution, i. e. on issues of the public perception about nuclear technology and the determinants of public acceptability of the nuclear fuel cycle specifically. This will show that, although interesting research about public acceptability and positive progress with regard to its treatment in the nuclear field has taken place, the subject demands continuing attention. The chapter will continue to explain why caution is needed with regard to an instrumental approach to public acceptability, which we define as acting with the sole intent of gaining acceptance for a predefined outcome, as opposed to acting with the more even-handed intent of deliberating acceptability with regard to an open-ended decision. The chapter will end with some reflections that may guide the future treatment of public acceptability and the nuclear fuel cycle.