Public attitudes in relation to risk and novelty of future energy options

Energy and Environment

Volumn 15, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 755-775

  Semadeni, Marco ^a   Hansmann, Ralf ^a   Flüeler, Thomas ^a,b  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b Umweltrecherchen and gutachten   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Dread; Energy technology; Environment; Hazards; Innovation; Novelty; Perception; Public acceptance; Risk; Scenarios

Indexed keywords

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; ENERGY POLICY; ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING; NUCLEAR ENERGY; RISKS; SOCIAL ASPECTS; SOLAR ENERGY;

ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS; RISK COMMUNICATIONS; RISK PERCEPTIONS;

ENERGY MANAGEMENT;

ATTITUDINAL SURVEY; ENERGY POLICY; POLICY MAKING; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; RISK PERCEPTION;

EID: 10644262151     PISSN: 0958305X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1260/0958305042886787     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Wynne, B., Redefining the issues of risk and public acceptance: the social viability of technology, Futures, 1983, 15(1), 13-32.
2. Fischhoff, B., Risk taking: A developmental prospective, in: Yates, J.F. (Ed.), Risk-taking behavior, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1992, 133-162.
3. Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations, The Free Press, New York, 1983.
4. Berlyne, D.E. Aesthetics and Psychobiology, Appleton Century Crafts, New York, 1971.
5. European Commission, E., Energy: Issues, Options and Technologies - Science and Society, Directorate-General for Research, The European Opinion Research Group (EORG), Eurobarometer, EUR 20624, Brussels, Belgium, 2003, 124.
6. Viklund, M., Energy policy options - from the perspective of public attitudes and risk perceptions, Energy Policy, 2004, 32(10), 1159-1171.
7. Pardo, R., Midden, C., Miller, J.D., Attitudes toward biotechnology in the European Union, Journal of Biotechnology, 2002, 98, 9-24.
8. Miles, S., Frewer, L.J., Public perception of scientific uncertainty in relation to food hazards, Journal of Risk Research, 2003, 6(3), 267-283.
9. Siegrist, M., Perception of gene technology, and food risks: results of a survey in Switzerland, Journal of Risk Research, 2003, 6(1), 45-60.
10. Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Stares, S., Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002. A report to the EC Directorate General for Research from the project 'Life Sciences in European Society'. Unit, EC Directorate General Press and Communication, Public Opinion Analysis Eurobarometer, QLG7-CT-1999-00286, Brussels, 2003, 46.
11. McDaniels, T., Axelrod, L.J., Slovic, P., Perceived ecological risks of global change: A psychometric comparison of causes and consequences of ecosystem risk, Global Environmental Change, 1996, 6(2), 159-171.
12. Lazo, J.K., Kinnell, J.C., Fisher, A., Expert and layperson perception of ecosystem risk, Risk Analysis, 2000, 20(2), 179-193.
13. Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., Images of disaster: perception and acceptance of risks from nuclear power, in: Goodman, G.T., Rowe, W.D. (Eds.), Energy risk management, Academic Press, London, 1979, 223-245.
14. Slovic, P.B.F., How safe is safe enough? Determinants of perceived and acceptable risk, in: Walker, C., Gould, L.C., Woodhouse, E.J. (Eds.), Too hot to handle? Social and policy issues in the management of radioactive wastes, Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, 1983, 112-150.
15. Jungermann, H., Slovic, P., Charakteristika individueller Risikowahrnehmung, in: Rück, B. (Ed.), Risiko ist ein Konstrukt Knesebeck, München, 1993, 89-107.
16. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice, Science, 1981, 211, 453-458.
17. Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Derby, S., Keeney, R.L. Acceptable risk, Cambridge University Press, London, New York, 1982.
18. Slovic, P., The risk game, Reliability Engineering & System Safety 1998, 59(1), 73-77.
19. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases, Science, 1974, 185, 1124-1131.
20. Renn, O., Three decades of risk research: accomplishments and new challenges, Journal of Risk Research, 1998, 1(1), 49-71.
21. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., Combs, B., How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits, Policy Sciences, 1978, 9, 127-152.
22. Otway, H., Thomas, K., Reflections on risk perception and policy, Risk Analysis, 1982, 2(2), 69-82.
23. Douglas, M., Wildavsky, A. Risk and Culture, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1982.
24. Short, J.F., The social fabric at risk: toward the social transformation of risk analysis, 24. American Sociological Review, 1984, 49 (December), 711-725.
25. Wynne, B. Risk management and hazardous waste: implementation and the dialectics of credibility, Springer, Berlin, 1987.
26. Slovic, P., Perception of risk, Science, 1987, 236, 280-285.
27. Sjöberg, L., Explaining risk perception: An empirical and quantitative evaluation of Cultural Theory, Centre for Risk Research, Stockholm School of Economics, Risk Research Report, 22, Rhizikon, 1995.
28. Sjöberg, L., Perceived risk and tampering with nature, Journal of Risk Research, 2000, 3(4), 353-367.
29. Renn, O., Rohrmann, B. Cross-Cultural Risk Perception. A Survey of Empirical Studies, (Vol. 13), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Dordrecht, London, 2000.
30. Slovic, P., Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield, Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 1999, 19(4), 689-701.
31. Jung, C.G. Psychological Types, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, 1971. Risk: Health, Safety & Environment, 1995, 6, 15-40.
32. Fritzsche, A.W., The role of the unconscious in the perception of risks, Risk: Health, Safety & Environment, 1995, 6, 15-40.
33. Boyle, G.J., Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI): some psychometric limitations, Australian Psychologist, 1995, 30, 71-74.
34. Goldberg, L.R., Basic research on personality structure: implications of the emerging consensus for applications to selection and classification, in: Rumsey, M.G., C.B. Harris, J.H. (Eds.), Personnel Selection and Classification, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1994, 247-257.
35. Sjöberg, L., Distal factors in risk perception, Journal of Risk Research, 2003, 6(3), 187-211.
36. Meier, W., Najmabadi, F., Schmidt, J., Sheffield, J., Role of fusion energy in a sustainable global energy strategy, Energy & Environment 2002, 13(4&5), 647-665.
37. Fucks, I., Bovy, M., Hardeman, F., Charron, S., Mansoux, H., Milochevitch, Semadeni, M., Spreng, D., Public opinion via Focus Group on energy scenarios including Fusion and on ITER siting in Cadarache (POFFICAD), EFDA, SCK·CEN, IRSN, CEPE, Final Report, Garchingen, Mol, Paris, Zürich, 2003, 175.
38. Fucks, I., Charron, S., Milochevitch, A. Bovy, M., Semadeni, M. Mansoux, H., Hardeman, F., Public opinion via Focus Group on energy scenarios including fusion and on ITER [siting] in Cadarache, in: Deutsches Atomforum, Kerntechnische Gesellschaft. (Eds.), Proceedings der Jahrestagung Kerntechnik 2003, Inforum, Berlin, 2003, 559-562.
39. Falk, M., Marohn, F., Tewes, B. Foundation of Statistical Analyses and Applications with SAS, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2002, 399.
40. Hörning, G., Keck, G., Lattewitz, F., Fusionsenergie - eine akzeptable Energiequelle der Zukunft? Eine sozialwissenaschaftliche Untersuchung anhand von Fokusgruppen, Akademie für Technikfolgenabschätzung, Baden-Württemberg, Arbeitsbericht Nr. 145, Stuttgart, 1999, 69
41. Catell, R.B., 1966. The scree test for the number of factors, Multivariate Behavior Research 1,245-276.
42. Bortz, J., 1999. Statistik für Sozialwissenschaftler, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.