The Brent Spar controversy: An example of risk communication gone wrong

Risk Analysis

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 131-136

  Löfstedt, Ragnar E ^a   Renn, Ortwin ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SURREY   (United Kingdom)

^b Ctr Technol Assess Baden W   (Germany)

Author keywords

Brent Spar; Environmental crisis; Risk communication

Indexed keywords

AWARENESS; CLIMATE; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; REVIEW; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS;

BUOYS; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; OFFSHORE OIL FIELDS; RISK ASSESSMENT;

RISK COMMUNICATION;

COMMUNICATION;

BRENT SPAR DISPUTE; ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS; GREENPEACE; INTERNATIONAL CONTROVERSY; RISK COMMUNICATION;

UK;

EID: 0030613733     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb00852.x     Document Type: Review

References (16)

1. Aberdeen University Research and Industrial Services, "Brent Spar: Decommissioning Study," CEMP News 1, 1 (1995).
2. E. Fauids, "Why is Brent Spar Unique?" Speech given at the Institute of Petroleum Conference, February 22 (1996).
3. A. Rice, "Does Science Have a Role in Risk Analysis? The Case of Brent Spar and Other Cautionary Tales," Paper presented at the Society for Risk Analysis-Europe Conference, June (1996).
4. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, Decommissioning of Oil and Gas Installations (HMSO, London, 1996).
5. Natural Research Council, Scientific Group of the Decommissioning of Offshore Structures: First Report, April 1996 (Natural Research Council, Swindon, U.K., 1996).
6. H. Peters, "Risiko-Kommunikation: Kemenegie," in H. Jungermann, B. Rohrmann, and P. M. Widemann (eds.), Risiko-Konzepte, Risiko-Konflikte, Risiko-Kommunikation - Monographen des Forschungszentrums Julich Band 3 (Forschungszentrum Julich, Julich, 1990).
7. R. M. Worcester, Assessing the Public Opinion on the Environment: The Predictable Shock of Brent Spar (National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection, Brighton, 1995).
8. B. Fischhoff, "Risk Perception and Communication Unplugged: Twenty Years of Progress," Risk Anal. 15, 137-145 (1995).
9. L. C. Gould, G. T. Gardner, D. R. DeLuca, A. R. Tiemann, L. W. Doob, and J. A. J. Stolwijk, Perceptions of Technological Risks and Benefits (Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 1988).
10. National Research Council, Improving Risk Communication (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1989).
11. P. C. Stern, "Learning Through Conflict. A Realistic Strategy for Risk Communication," Policy Sci. 24, 99-119 (1991).
12. A. Abbott, "Brent Spar: When Science Is Not to Blame," Nature 380, 13-14 (1996).
13. Natural Research Council, Scientific Group of the Decommissioning of Offshore Structures: First Report, April 1996 (Natural Research Council, Swindon, U.K., 1996).
14. W. Freudenburg, "Perceived Risk, Real Risk: Social Science and the Art of Probabilistic Risk Assessment," Science 242, 44-49 (1988).
15. C. Hohenemser, R. E. Kasperson, and R. Kates, "The Distrust of Nuclear Power," Science 196, 25-34 (1977).
16. R. E. Löfstedt, "Risk Communication: The Barsebäck Nuclear Plant Case," Energy Policy 24, 689-696.