Attitudes and risk perceptions of stakeholders in a nuclear waste siting issue

Risk Analysis

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 739-749

  Sjöberg, Lennart ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Nuclear waste siting; Risk management; Risk perception; Stakeholder

Indexed keywords

RADIOACTIVE WASTES; RISK MANAGEMENT; RISKS;

STAKEHOLDERS;

RISK PERCEPTION;

PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; RADIOACTIVE WASTE; RISK PERCEPTION; STAKEHOLDER;

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DEMOGRAPHY; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; INTERVIEW; NUCLEAR WASTE; PERCEPTION; QUESTIONNAIRE; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; SELF REPORT;

EID: 0042164874     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1539-6924.00352     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Albrecht, S. L., & Amey, R. G. (1999). Myth-making, moral communities, and policy failure in solving the radioactive waste problem. Society & Natural Resources, 12, 741-761.
2. Barny, M. H., Bonnefous, S., & Brenot, J. (1992a). Déterminants socio-culturels de la perception des déchets par le public (Note SEGR-LSEES 92/35): Centre d'Etudes nucléaires de Fontenay-aux-Roses.
3. Barny, M. H., Bonnefous, S., & Brenot, J. (1992b). Données sur les déchets radioactifs. Evolutions depuis 1977 (Note LSEES 92/36): Centre d'Etudes Nucléaires de Fontenay: aux-Roses.
4. Bassett, G. W., Jr., Jenkins-Smith, H. C., & Silva, C. (1996). On-site storage of high level nuclear waste: Attitudes and perceptions of local residents. Risk Analysis, 16, 309-319.
5. Beierle, T. C., & Konisky, D. M. (2001). What are we gaining from stakeholder involvement? Observations from environmental planning in the Great Lakes. Environment and Planning C-Government and Policy, 19, 515-527.
6. Bier, V. M. (2001). On the state of the art: Risk communication to the public. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 71, 139-150.
7. Bonano, E. J., Apostolakis, G. E.. Salter, P. F., Ghassemi, A., & Jennings, S. (2000). Application of risk assessment and decision analysis to the evaluation, ranking and selection of environmental remediation alternatives. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 71, 35-57.
8. Borsuk, M., Clemen, R., Maguire, L., & Reckhow, K. (2001). Stakeholder values and scientific modeling in the Neuse river water-shed. Group Decision and Negotiation, 10, 353-373.
9. Broström, L., Kessling, A., Krafft, G., & Sjöberg, L. (2002). Psykosociala effekter av ett djupförvar för använt kärnbränsle. Litterturöversikt och intervjuer med Uppsalabor [Psychosocial Effects of a Depth Repository for Spent Nuclear Fuel. Literature Review and Interviews with Residents of Uppsala], SKB Rapport R-02-13, SKB, Stockholm.
10. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104.
11. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
12. Drottz-Sjöberg, B.-M. (1996). Stämningar i Storuman efter folkomröstningen om ett djupförvar, Projekt Rapport PR D-96-004, SKB, Stockholm.
13. Drottz-Sjöberg, B.-M. (1998). Stämningar i Malå efter folkomröstningen 1997, Projekt Rapport PR D-98-03, SKB, Stockholm.
14. Dunlap, R. E., Kraft, M. E., & Rosa, E. A. (Eds.). (1993). Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste. Durham: Duke University Press.
15. Eagley, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
16. European Commission. (2002). Europeans and Radioactive Waste (Eurobarometer 56.2), Brussels: INRA (Europe).
17. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 9, 127-152.
18. Flynn, J., Chalmers, J., Easterling, D., Kasperson, R., Kunreuther, H., Mertz, C. K., Mushkatel, A., Pijawka, K. D., Slovic, P., & Dotto, L. (1995). One Hundred Centuries of Solitude. Redirecting America's High-Level Nuclear Waste Policy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
19. Gardner, G. T., Tiemann, A. R., Gould, L. C., DeLuca, D. R., Doob, L. W., & Stolwijk, J. A. J. (1982). Risk and benefit perceptions, acceptability judgments, and self-reported actions toward nuclear power. Journal of Social Psychology, 116, 179-197.
20. Gould, L. C., Gardner, G. T., DeLuca, D. R., Tiemann, A. R., Doob, L. W., & Stolwijk, J. A. J. (1988). Perceptions of Technological Risks and Benefits. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
21. Jenkins-Smith, H. (1994). Stigma Models: Testing Hypotheses of How Images of Nevada are Acquired and Values Attached to Them, Report, Department of Political Science, Albuquerque, NM.
22. Judd, M., & Brauer, M. (1995). Repetition and evaluative extremity. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences (pp. 43-71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Lee, T. R. (1990). Communities in Crisis. A Report on Four Communities Selected as Possible Locations for a Radioactive Waste Repository, DOE Report DOE/RW/90/032, Department of the Environment, London.
24. Lee, T. R., & Balchin, N. (1995). Learning and attitude change at British nuclear fuel's Sellafield visitors centre. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 283-298.
25. Löfstedt, R. (2001). Risk and regulation: Boat owners' perceptions of recent antifouling legislation. Risk Management: An International Journal, 3, 33-46.
26. Mays, C., & Brenot, J. (Cartographer). (1996). Perceived Risks in France: Contribution to a European Cross-Cultural Perspective.
27. Menard, M., Prades, A., & Solá, R. (1998). Analysis of the Institutional Communication Strategy of the Nuclear Safety Council in Spain. A RISKPERCOM Common Case Study. Madrid: Ciemat.
28. Milbrath, L. W. (1984). Environmentalists: Vanguard for a New Society. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
29. O'Connor, M., & van den Hove, S. (2001). Prospects for public participation on nuclear risks and policy options: Innovations in governance practices for sustainable development in the European Union. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 86, 77-99.
30. Prades, A., Martínez-Arias, R., Cébrian, A., & Solá, R. (1998). On worries, concerns, and dangers among the Spanish population. Paper presented at the SRA-Europe Annual Conference, Paris.
31. Pruitt, D. G. (1998). Social conflict. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (4th ed., Vol. II, pp. 470-503), New York: Oxford University Press.
32. Raber, E., Jin, A., Noonan, K., McGuire, R., & Kirvel, R. D. (2001). Decontamination issues for chemical and biological warfare agents: How clean is clean enough? International Journal for Environmental Health Research, 11, 128-148.
33. Rosa, E. A., & Clark, D. L., Jr. (1999). Historical routes to technological gridlock: Nuclear technology as prototypical vehicle. In W. R. Freudenburg & T. I. K. Youn (Eds.), Vol. 7. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, Stamford, CT: Jai Press.
34. Shelvin, M., Miles, J. N. V., Davies, M. N. O., & Walker, S. (1999). Coefficient alpha: A useful indicator of reliability? Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 229-237.
35. Sjöberg, L. (1980). The risks of risk analysis. Acta Psychologica, 45, 301-321.
36. Sjöberg, L. (1996). Risk Perceptions by Politicians and the Public, Rhizikon: Risk Research Reports 23, Center for Risk Research, Stockholm.
37. Sjöberg, L. (1997). Valet till EU-parlamentet 1995. En socialpsykologisk studie. [The Election to the EU Parliament in 1995. A Social Psychological Study], Styrelsen för psykologiskt försvar, Stockholm.
38. Sjöberg, L. (2000). Perceived risk and tampering with nature. Journal of Risk Research, 3, 353-367.
39. Sjöberg, L. (2001a). Political decisions and public risk perception. Reliability Engineering and Systems Safety, 72, 115-124.
40. Sjöberg, L. (2001b). Riskattityder och inställningen till djupförvar för använt kärnbränsle i fyra kommuner, R-01-54, SKB, Stockholm.
41. Sjöberg, L. (2001c). Whose risk perception should influence decisions? Reliability Engineering and Systems Safety, 72, 149-152.
42. Sjöberg, L. (2002). Local acceptance of a high-level nuclear waste repository. Manuscript.
43. Sjöberg, L. (2003). Rational risk perception: Utopia or dystopia? Manuscript.
44. Sjöberg, L., & Drottz, B.-M. (1987). Psychological reactions to cancer risks after the Chernobyl accident. Medical Oncology and Tumor Pharmacotherapy, 4, 259-271.
45. Sjöberg, L., & Drottz-Sjöberg, B.-M. (1993). Attitudes to Nuclear Waste, Rhizikon: Risk Research Report 12, Center for Risk Research, Stockholm.
46. Sjöberg, L., & Drottz-Sjöberg, B.-M. (1994). Risk Perception of Nuclear Waste: Experts and the Public, Rhizikon: Risk Research Report 16, Center for Risk Research, Stockholm School of Economics.
47. Sjöberg, L., & Drottz-Sjöberg, B.-M. (2001). Fairness, risk and risk tolerance in the siting of a nuclear waste repository. Journal of Risk Research, 4, 75-102.
48. Sjöberg, L., Viklund, M., & Truedsson, J. (1998). Attitudes and Opposition in Siting a High Level Nuclear Waste Repository, Rhizikon: Risk Research Report 32, Center for Risk Research, Stockholm.
49. Sjöberg, L., Viklund, M., & Truedsson, J. (1998). Attitudes and opposition in siting a high level nuclear waste repository, Rhizikon: Risk Research Report 32, Center for Risk Research, Stockhlom.
50. Slovic, P., Flynn, J. H., & Layman, M. (1991). Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science, 254, 1603-1607.
51. Slovic, P., Layman, M., & Flynn, J. H. (1993). Perceived risk, trust, and nuclear waste: Lessons from Yucca Mountain. In R. E. Dunlap, M. E. Kraft, & E. A. Rosa (Eds.), Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste (pp. 64-86). Durham: Duke University Press.
52. Wakefield, S., & Elliott, S. J. (2000). Environmental risk perception and well-being: Effects of the landfill siting process in two southern Ontario communities. Social Science & Medicine, 50, 1139-1154.
53. Williams, B. L., Brown, S., Greenberg, M., & Kahn, M. A. (1999). Risk perception in context: The Savannah river site stake-holder study. Risk Analysis, 19, 1019-1035.