Suchergebnisse

· Networks have historically played an essential role in promoting progress in areas such as social justice, political reform, environmental protection, and public health. · Foundations are increasingly recognizing the power of networks and looking for strategies to help networks achieve their potential. · The most common strategies are: a) convene a new network around a mission in line with the foundation's interests, or b) make grants to an existing network whose interests align with the foundation's. Each strategy has practical limitations. · This paper analyzes an alternative strategy developed by the Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation (MRBF). In addition to providing networks with grants, the foundation's staff (referred to as "network officers") interact frequently with funded networks, providing resources, offering analyses, raising challenging questions, and encouraging strategic action. Network officers also broker relationships among people and organizations that might benefit from working together in a networked way. · The MRBF approach constitutes a "model" for building the capacity of change-oriented networks, but is recommended only for foundations that are highly patient, adaptive, and skilled in working with grantees in a give-and-take fashion.

This paper examines the sources of public opposition to a high‐level nuclear waste repository among samples of 1001 residents of Nevada and a national sample of 1201 residents. Two models of choice are contrasted: A benefit‐cost model and a risk‐perception model of individual choice. The data suggest that the willingness of Nevada residents to accept a repository at Yucca Mountain depends upon subjective risk factors, especially the perceived seriousness of risk to future generations. Perceived risk depends in part on level of trust placed in the Department of Energy to manage a repository safely. Opposition to a local repository did not decrease significantly if compensation in the form of annual rebates, either ($1000, $3000, or $5000 per year for 20 years) were offered to residents. The public needs to be convinced before compensation is considered, that the repository will possess minimal risks to themselves as well as to future generations, and that the site currently targeted is suitable. One way to do this is through adoption of mitigation and control procedures such as strict federal standards and local control over the operation of the repository. The federal government should also consider returning to the fair procedure for selection between candidate sites specified in the initial Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

Frontmatter -- Contents -- List of figures and tables -- Preface -- Part I the context of public concern with nuclear waste -- 1. Public opinion and nuclear waste Policymaking -- 2. The historical development of public reactions to nuclear power: implications for nuclear waste policy -- 3. Perceived risk, trust, and nuclear waste: lessons from yucca mountain -- Part II public reactions to preliminary sites -- 4. Public testimony in nuclear waste repository hearings: a content analysis -- 5. Sources of public concern about nuclear waste disposal in Texas agricultural communities -- 6. Local attitudes toward siting a high-level nuclear waste repository at Hanford, Washington -- Part III public reactions to the yucca mountain, Nevada site -- 7. Perceived risk and attitudes toward nuclear wastes: national and Nevada perspectives -- 8. The vulnerability of the convention industry to the siting of a high-level nuclear waste repository -- 9. Nevada urban residents' attitudes toward a nuclear waste repository -- 10. Rural community residents' views of nuclear waste repository siting in Nevada -- Part IV summary and policy implications -- 11. Prospects for public acceptance of a high-level nuclear waste repository in the united states: summary and implications -- Index -- Contributors