Agricultural land management options after the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents: The articulation of science, technology, and society. (October 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Vandenhove, Hildegarde; Turcanu, Catrinel
• Is Part Of: Integrated environmental assessment and management. Volume 12:Number 4(2016:Oct.)
• Page Start: 662
• Page End: 666
• Publication Date: 2016-10
• Subjects: Agricultural countermeasures -- Chernobyl -- Fukushima Daiichi accident -- Socio‐economic impact -- Radiocaesium; Environmental management -- Periodicals; Pollution -- Periodicals; Environmental toxicology -- Periodicals; Environmental risk assessment -- Periodicals; Environmental impact analysis -- Periodicals; 628
• DOI: 10.1002/ieam.1826
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1551-3777

Abstract

ABSTRACT: The options adopted for recovery of agricultural land after the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents are compared by examining their technical and socio‐economic aspects. The analysis highlights commonalities such as the implementation of tillage and other types of countermeasures and differences in approach, such as preferences for topsoil removal in Fukushima and the application of K fertilizers in Chernobyl. This analysis shows that the recovery approach needs to be context‐specific to best suit the physical, social, and political environment. The complex nature of the decision problem calls for a formal process for engaging stakeholders and the development of adequate decision support tools. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2016;12:662–666. © 2016 SETAC Key Points: The Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents highlight the need for improved legal and regulatory frameworks for responding in the aftermath of a similar crisis, criteria for residual radiation dose limits and contamination levels in soils and food stuffs and strategies for waste management. Recovery of agricultural land should be tailored to the physical, social and political environment; this calls for increased attention to long‐term post‐accident management, the vulnerabilities of affected territories and the possible need to recalibrate or upgrade existing radioecological models. Formal processes for engaging citizens and other stakeholders in post‐accident recovery are needed at all decision making levels, from local to national; such processes can benefit from the development of adequate decision‐support tools.