Risk perception of an emergent technology: The case of hydrogen energy

Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2006, Pages

  Flynn, Rob ^a   Bellaby, Paul ^a   Ricci, Miriam ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SALFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Emergent technology; Hydrogen energy; Public attitudes; Public engagement; Risk perception; Trust; Uncertainty

Indexed keywords

EID: 31844453697     PISSN: 14385627     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Ajzen, Icek & Fishbein, Martin (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
2. Bain, Addison & Van Vorst, William D. (1999). The Hindenburg tragedy revisited: the fatal flaw exposed. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 24(5), 399-403.
3. Bellaby, Paul (2003). H2 for C: Might substituting hydrogen for fossil fuel reduce inequalities in health? Paper presented at the British Sociological Association Medical Sociology Group Annual Conference, York University.
4. Bellaby, Paul, Flynn, Rob & Ricci, Miriam (2004). Is hydrogen safe? Approaches to the study of perceptions of risk among those who have a stake in a future hydrogen economy. Paper presented at the British Sociological Association Risk and Society Group Annual Conference, Nottingham University.
5. BMRB (2004). Nanotechnology: views of the general public. Report prepared for the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering Nanotechnology Working Group. BMRB Social Research. London.
6. Cherry, Robert S. (2004). A hydrogen utopia? International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 29, 125-129.
7. Derwent, Dick (2004). Environmental impact of H2. H2NET Summer Meeting, CCLRC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, 14 July 2004, UK. Retrieved July 13, 2005, from http://www.h2net.org.uk/PDFs/AnnualMeeting_2004/ Presentation_DickDerwent.pdf
8. DOE (2004). Regulators' guide to permitting hydrogen technologies. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Retrieved July 13, 2005, from http://www.pnl.gov/fuelcells/docs/permit-guides/overview_final.pdf.
9. Douglas, Mary (1964). Purity and danger. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
10. Dunn, Seth (2002). Hydrogen futures: towards a sustainable energy system. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 27(3), 235-264.
11. Finucane, Melissa L., Alhakami, Ali, Slovic, Paul & Johnson Stephen M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risk and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision-Making, 13(1), 1-17.
12. Fischhoff, Baruch, Slovic, Paul, Lichtenstein, Sarah, Read, Stephen & Combs, Barbara (2000). How safe is safe enough? In Paul Slovic (Ed.), The perception of risk (pp. 80-103). London: Earthscan Publications.
13. Frewer, Lynn, Miles, Susan, Brennan, Mary, Kuznesof, Sharon, Ness, Mitchell & Ritson, Christopher (2002). Public preferences for informed choice under conditions of risk uncertainty. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 363-372.
14. Gaston, Didier, Chelhaoui, Samira & Joly, Claire (2001). Safety problems related to fuel cells. World Congress Safety of modern technical Systems, 12-14 September 2001, Saarbruecken. Retrieved July 13, 2005, from http://www-old.ineris.fr/connaitre/domaines/accidentels/pdf/ saarbruecken.pdf
15. Geels, Frank & Smit, Wim (2000). Failed technology futures: pitfalls and lessons from a historical survey. Futures, 32, 867-885.
16. Grove-White, Robin, Macnaghten, Phil & Wynne, Brian (2000). Wising up: the public and new technologies. Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, Lancaster University. Retrieved July 13, 2005, from http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/ieppp/staff/docs/wising_upmacnaghten.pdf.
17. Harris, Rex, Book, David, Anderson, Paul & Edwards, Peter (2004, June/July). Hydrogen storage: the grand challenge. The Fuel Cell Review, 17-23.
18. Hodson, Mike & Marvin, Simon (2004). Opening the "black box" of the hydrogen economy. Working Paper 2, SURF, University of Salford.
19. Horlick-Jones, Tom, Walls, J., Rowe, Gene, Pidgeon, Nick, Poortinga, Wouter & O'Riordan, Tim (Understanding Risk Team) (2004). A deliberative future? Understanding Risk Working Paper 04-02, Cardiff University. Retrieved July 13, 2005, from http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/pur/gm_future_top_copy_12_feb_04.pdf.
20. HSE (2004). Fuel cells. Understand the hazards, control the risks. Norwich: Health and Safety Executive Books & HMSO.
21. Hunt, Jane, Littlewood, Dave & Thompson, Bill (2003). Developing participatory consultation. IEPP, Lancaster University. Retrieved July 13, 2005, from http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/ieppp/research/docs/ final%20deliverable%204.10.doc
22. IPCC (2001). Climate change 2001: The scientific basis. IPCC Working Group I, Third Assessment Report. Retrieved July 13, 2005, from http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm.
23. Johnson, Branden (2003). Further notes on public response to uncertainty in risks and science. Risk Analysis, 23(4), 781-789.
24. Johnson, Branden & Slovic, Paul (1995). Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust. Risk Analysis, 15(4), 485-494.
25. Johnson, Branden & Slovic, Paul (1998). Lay views on uncertainty in environmental health risk assessment. Journal of Risk Research, 1(4), 261-279.
26. Kammen, Daniel M.& Lipman, Timothy E. (2003, October 10). Assessing the future hydrogen economy. Letter to the Editor. Science, 302, 226.
27. Kunreuther, Howard (2002). Risk analysis and risk management in an uncertain world. Risk Analysis, 22(4), 655-664.
28. Latour, Bruno (1996). Aramis or the love of technology (C. Porter, Trans.) Harvard: Harvard University Press.
29. Lehman, Peter A. (2003, October 10). Assessing the future hydrogen economy. Letter to the Editor. Science, 302, 227.
30. Lidskog, Rolf (2000). Scientific evidence or lay people's experience? On risk and trust with regard to modern environmental threats. In Maurie J. Cohen (Ed.), Risk in the modern age (pp.196-224). Houndmills: Macmillan.
31. Lion, René, Meertens, Ree & Bot, Ilja (2002). Priorities in information desire about unknown risks. Risk Analysis, 22(4), 765-776.
32. Lovins, Amory (2003, October 10). Assessing the future hydrogen economy. Letter to the Editor. Science, 302, 226-227.
33. McDowall, Will & Eames, Malcolm (2004). Forecasts, scenarios, visions, backcasts and roadmaps to the Hydrogen economy. Policy Studies Institute, London.
34. NASA (1997). Safety standard for hydrogen and hydrogen systems. Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, Washington DC. Retrieved July 13, 2005, from http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/doctree/871916.pdf.
35. Poortinga, Wouter & Pidgeon, Nick (2003). Public perceptions of risk, science and governance. Centre for Environmental Risk, University of East Anglia.
36. Purcell, Kristen, Clarke, Lee & Renzulli, Linda (2000). Menus of choice: the social embeddedness of decisions. In Maurie J. Cohen (Ed.), Risk in the modern age (pp.62-79). Houndmills: Macmillan.
37. Rifkin, Jeremy (2002). The hydrogen economy. New York: Tarcher/Putnam.
38. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (2004). Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. London: The Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering.
39. Schultz, Martin G., Diehl, Thomas, Brasseur, Guy P. & Zittel, Werner (2003, October 24). Air pollution and climate-forcing impacts of a global hydrogen economy. Science, 302, 624-627.
40. Shackley, Simon, McLachlan, Carly & Gough, Clair (2004). The public perceptions of carbon capture and storage. Tyndall Centre Working Paper 44, UMIST.
41. Shaw, Alison (2002). "It goes against the grain". Public understandings of genetically modified (GM) food in the UK. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 273-291.
42. Siegrist, Michael & Cvetkovich, George (2000). Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20(5), 713-719.
43. Simon, Herbert (1976) Administrative Behavior (3rd edition). New York: Free Press.
44. Sjoberg, Lennart (2001). Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Analysis, 21(1), 189-198.
45. Slovic, Paul (Ed.) (2000a). The perception of risk. London: Earthscan Publications.
46. Slovic, Paul (2000b). The perception of risk. In Paul Slovic P (Ed.), The perception of risk (pp.220-231). London: Earthscan Publications.
47. Swain, Michael R., Filoso, Patrick, Grilliot, Eric S. & Swain, Matthew N. (2003). Hydrogen leakage into simple geometric enclosures. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 28, 229-248.
48. Tromp, Tracey K., Shia, Run-Lie, Allen, Mark, Eiler, John M. & Yung, Yuk L. (2003, June 13). Potential environmental impact of a hydrogen economy on the stratosphere. Science, 300, 1740-1742.
49. Voltaire, Francois M. (1947). Candide - or Optimism (J. Butt, Trans.). London: Penguin Classics.
50. Watson, Jim, Tettech, Alison, Dutton, Geoff, Bristow, Abigail, Kelly, Charlotte & Page, Matthew (2004). Hydrogen futures to 2050. Tyndall Centre Working Paper 46, SPRU, University of Sussex.
51. Wilsdon, James & Willis, Rebecca (2004). See-through science, Demos, London. Retrieved July 13, 2005, from http://www.demos.co.uk/catalogue/paddlingupstream/.
52. Wolfe, Amy K., Bjornstad David J., Russell, Milton & Kerchner, Nichole D. (2002). A framework for analyzing dialogues over the acceptability of controversial technologies. Science, Technology and Human Values, 27(1), 134-159.
53. Wood, Stephen, Jones, Richard & Geldart, Alison (2003). The social and economic challenges of nanotechnology. Swindon: ESRC.
54. Wynne, Brian (1996). SSK's identity parade: Signing-up, off-and-on. Social Studies of Science, 26(2), 357-391.