An inquiry of the opinions of the French and Belgian populations as regards risk

Journal of Hazardous Materials

Volumn 111, Issue 1-3, 2004, Pages 21-27

  Carlé, Benny ^a   Charron, Sylvie ^b   Milochevitch, Alexandre ^b   Hardeman, Frank ^a  

^a BELGIAN NUCLEAR RESEARCH CENTRE   (Belgium)

^b INSTITUT DE RADIOPROTECTION ET DE SÛRETÉ NUCLÉAIRE IRSN   (France)

Author keywords

Environmental risks; Nuclear safety; Radiation protection

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; NUCLEAR INDUSTRY; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAFETY FACTOR;

BELGIUM; FRANCE;

POPULATION STATISTICS;

ENVIRONMENTAL RISK; NUCLEAR ACCIDENT; PERCEPTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAFETY;

ACCIDENT PREVENTION; BELGIUM; CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT; CONFERENCE PAPER; DANGEROUS GOODS; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; GOVERNMENT; NUCLEAR ACCIDENT; NUCLEAR POWER PLANT; POPULATION RESEARCH; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ACCIDENTS, RADIATION; BELGIUM; FRANCE; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMANS; PUBLIC OPINION; RISK ASSESSMENT; TRUST;

BELGIUM; BENELUX; EURASIA; EUROPE; FRANCE; WESTERN EUROPE;

EID: 3042549806     PISSN: 03043894     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2004.02.004     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. S. Charron, H. Mansoux, J. Brenot, C. Audouze, S. Mardère, Le Baromètre IPSN sur la perception des risques et de la sécurité, un outil de suivi des opinions sur les risques en France, in: Enquêtes, modèles et applications, sous la direction de J.J. Droesbeke et L. Lebart, éditions Dunod, novembre 2001, pp. 489-498.
2. Lazo J.K., Kinnell J.C., Fisher A. Experts and layperson perceptions of ecosystem risk. Risk Anal. 20(2):2000;179-193
3. Rowe G., Wright G. Differences in expert and lay judgments of risk: myth or reality? Risk Anal. 21(2):2001;341-369
4. B. Carlé, F. Hardeman, Veiligheid en risicoperceptie. Resultaten van de opiniepeiling van november 2002 in België, Internal report BLG 938, 2003, 86 pp. (in Dutch).
5. B. Carlé, F. Hardeman, Perception des risques et de la sécurité. Résultats du sondage de novembre 2002 en Belgique, Internal report BLG 939, 2003, 82 pp. (in French).
6. S. Charron, A. Milochevitch, Perception des Risques et de la sécurité: résultats du sondage de novembre 2002. Note SEGR 03/19, IRSN, février 2003, http://www.irsn.fr.
7. Rundmo T. Employee images of risk. J. Risk Res. 4(4):2001;393-404
8. Fischoff 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 Sci. 9:1978;127-152
9. Kasperson R.E., Renn O., Slovic P., Brown H.S., Emel J., Goble R., Kasperson J.X., Ratick S. The social amplification of risk, a conceptual framework. Risk Anal. 8:1988;177-188
10. L. Sjöberg, Life styles and risk perception, Rhisikon Risk Research Report No. 14, Centre for Risk Research, Stockholm School of Economics, 1993.
11. Brenot J., Bonnefous S., Marris C. Testing the cultural theory of risk in France. Risk Anal. 18(6):1998;729-739
12. Sjöberg L. Factors in risk perception. Risk Anal. 20(1):2000;1-11
13. Af Wåhlberg A.E. The theoretical features of some current approaches to risk perception. J. Risk Res. 4(3):2001;237-250
14. Sjöberg L. Are received risk perception models alive and well? Risk Anal. 22(4):2002;665-669
15. M.M. Zwick, O. Renn (Eds.), Perception and evaluation of risk. Findings of the Baden-Württemberg Risk Survey 2001, Arbeitsbericht No. 203, Akademie für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Baden-Württemberg, 2002, ISBN 3-934629-57-1, IISN 0945-9553.
16. Anderson E.L. Assessing the risks of terrorism: a special collection of Perspectives Articles by Former Presidents of the Society for Risk Analysis. Risk Anal. 22(3):2002;401-402. (and further contributions in this volume)
17. B.M. Drottz-Sjöberg, Perception of risk: is radioactivity different?, in: Book of Abstracts, third ed., Stakeholders' Conference on Approaches to the Management of Environmental Radioactivity, 2-3 December 2002, Luxembourg, Organised by the European Commission, 2002, pp. 79-84.
18. Sjöberg L. Perceived risk and tampering with nature. J. Risk Res. 3(4):2000;353-367