Informing the public about information and participation strategies in siting of mobile communication base stations: An experimental study

Health, Risk and Society

Volumn 10, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 517-534

  Wiedemann, Peter M ^a   Schutz, Holger ^a  

^a FORSCHUNGSZENTRUM JÜLICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

Conflict resolution; Mobile telephony; Public participation; Risk perception; Trust

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONFLICT MANAGEMENT; DECISION MAKING; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FEMALE; GEOGRAPHY; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MALE; MOBILE PHONE; PUBLIC HEALTH; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAFETY; TELECOMMUNICATION; TRUST;

EID: 57149088834     PISSN: 13698575     EISSN: 14698331     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13698570802533002     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Abels, G. and Bora, A. (2004) Demokratische Technikbewertung, transcript Verlag, Bielefeld
2. Andrew, J. S. (2001) Examining the claims of environmental ADR. Evidence from waste management conflicts in Ontario and Massachusetts. Journal of planning education and research, 21:2, pp. 166-183.
3. Arvai, J. L. (2003) Using risk communication to disclose the outcome of a participatory decision-making process: Effects on the perceived acceptability of risk-policy decisions. Risk analysis, 23:2, pp. 281-289.
4. Beierle, T. C. (1999) Using social goals to evaluate public participation in environmental decisions. Policy studies review, 16:3, pp. 75-103.
5. Beierle, T. C. (2002) The quality of stakeholder-based decision. Risk analysis, 22:4, pp. 739-749.
6. BMU/BMWA (2005) Joint press release 075/05 [online]
7. Bora, A. and Hausendorf, H. (2006) Participatory science governance revisited: Normative expectations versus empirical evidence. Science and public policy, 33:7, pp. 478-488.
8. Büllingen, F., Hillebrand, A. and Rätz, D. (2004) Alternative Streitbeilegung in der aktuellen EMVU-Debatte, WIK-Diskussionsbeiträge, 258, Wissenschaftliches Institut für Kommunikationsdienste, Bad Honnef, WIK
9. Burgess, A. (2004) Cellular phones, public fears, and a culture of precaution, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
10. Campbell, M. C. (2003) Intractability in environmental disputes: Exploring a complex construct. Journal of planning literature, 17:3, pp. 360-371.
11. DIFU (2005) Jahresgutachten 2004 zur Umsetzung der Zusagen der Selbstverpflichtung der Mobilfunkbetreiber, DIFU, Berlin
12. GSM Association (2004) Base station planning permission in Europe [online]
13. Julian-Reynier et al. (2003) Risk communication strategies: State of the art and effectiveness in the context of cancer genetic services. European journal of human genetics, 11, pp. 725-736.
14. Kasperson, R. E. (1986) Six propositions on public participation and their relevance for risk communication. Risk analysis, 6:3, pp. 275-281.
15. Kastenholz, H. and Beninghaus, C. H. (2004) Information und Dialog bei der Standortsuche von Mobilfunkanlagen, Sozialministerium Baden-Wurttemberg [online], Stuttgart
16. Laird, F. N. (1993) Participatory analysis, democracy, and technological decision making. Science, technology & human values, 18, pp. 341-354.
17. Memorandum (2002) Memorandum of understanding under the national antenna policy [online]
18. MOA (2006) Developing mobile networks. Ten commitments to best siting practice [online]
19. Morgan, M. G. et al. (2002) Risk communication: A mental models approach, Cambridge University Press, New York
20. NRC (1996) Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic society, National Academy Press, Washington, DC
21. OECD (2001) Citizens as partner. OECD handbook on information, consultation and public participation in policy-making, OECD Publications Service, Paris
22. Petts, J. (2001) Evaluating the effectiveness of deliberative processes: Waste management case studies. Journal of environmental planning and management, 44:2, pp. 207-226.
23. (1995) Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse, Kluwer, Dordrecht
24. Risk Commission (2003) Final report of risk commission. Federal radiological protection agency [online]
25. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. J. (2000) Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, technology and human values, 25:1, pp. 3-29.
26. Rowe, G., Marsh, R. and Frewer, L. J. (2004) Evaluation of a deliberative conference using validated criteria. Science, technology and human values, 29:1, pp. 88-121.
27. Slovic, P. (1993) Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk analysis, 13:6, pp. 675-682.
28. WHO (2002) Establishing a dialogue on risks from electromagnetic fields, Radiation and Environmental Health Department, World Health Organization, Geneva
29. Wiedemann, P. M. and Clauberg, M. (2005) Risikokommunikation. Gesundheit und Umwelt, Ökologische Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung, Hans Huber, Bern
30. Wiedemann, P. M. and Schutz, H. (2004) Gruppenspezifische Rezeption von Risikoargumenten beim Mobilfunk. Nichtionisierende Strahlung, Sicherheit und Gesundheit: 36. Jahrestagung des Fachverbandes für Strahlenschutz, pp. 935-939. TUV, Köln
31. Wiedemann, P. M., Schütz, H. and Brüggemann, A. (2001) Leitfaden zum Umgang mit Problemen elektromagnetischer Felder in den Kommunen (2. Auflage). Forschungszentrum Jülich, Programmgruppe Mensch, Umwelt, Technik [online]
32. Wiedemann, P. et al. (2006) SAR-Werte von Mobiltelefonen. Sicherheitsbewertung und Risikowahrnehmung. Bundesgesundheitsblatt-Gesundheitsforschung-Gesundheitsschutz, 49, pp. 211-216.
33. Wiedemann, P. M. et al. (2006) Mobile Fears? Risk perceptions regarding RF EMF. Risk perception and risk communication: Tools, experiences and strategies in electromagnetic fields exposure, pp. 35-46. Servizio Pubblicazioni e Informazioni Scientifiche, Roma
34. (1999) Warnings and risk communication, Taylor & Francis, London
35. Yin, R. (1994) Case study research: Design and methods, Sage Publishing, Thousand Oaks, CA