Precautionary attitudes and the acceptance of a local nuclear waste repository

Safety Science

Volumn 47, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 542-546

  Sjöberg, Lennart ^a,b  

^a STOCKHOLM SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (Sweden)

^b NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

Author keywords

Attitudes; Consequences; Epistemic trust; Precautionary principle; Voting intention

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDES; CONSEQUENCES; EPISTEMIC TRUST; PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE; VOTING INTENTION;

GEOLOGICAL REPOSITORIES; NUCLEAR ENERGY; NUCLEAR FUELS; POPULATION STATISTICS; RADIOACTIVE WASTES; RISK ANALYSIS; RISK MANAGEMENT; RISK PERCEPTION;

NUCLEAR REACTOR ACCIDENTS;

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; EMOTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; IDEOLOGY; MALE; NUCLEAR ACCIDENT; NUCLEAR WASTE; PERCEPTION; POLITICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SWEDEN;

EID: 61449223721     PISSN: 09257535     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2008.07.035     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Amendola A. Recent paradigms for risk informed decision making. Safety Science 40 (2002) 17-30
2. Drottz-Sjöberg, B.-M., 1996. Stämningar i Storuman efter folkomröstningen om ett djupförvar. (Moods in Storuman After the Repository Referendum) (Projekt Rapport No. PR D-96-004). SKB, Stockholm.
3. Drottz-Sjöberg, B.-M., 1998. Stämningar i Malå efter folkomröstningen 1997. (Moods in Malå After the 1997 Referendum) (Projekt Rapport No. PR D-98-03). SKB, Stockholm.
4. Durant R.F., and Legge J.S. Public opinion, risk perceptions, and genetically modified food regulatory policy - reassessing the calculus of dissent among European citizens. European Union Politics 6 (2005) 181-200
5. Klinke A., Dreyer M., Renn O., Stirling A., and Van Zwanenberg P. Precautionary risk regulation in European governance. Journal of Risk Research 9 (2006) 373-392
6. Loewenstein G.F., Weber E.U., Hsee C.K., and Welch N. Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin 127 (2001) 267-286
7. Rothman S., and Lichter S.R. Elite ideology and risk perception in nuclear energy policy. American Political Science Review 81 (1987) 383-404
8. Sjöberg L. Consequences of perceived risk: demand for mitigation. Journal of Risk Research 2 (1999) 129-149
9. Sjöberg L. Consequences matter, "risk" is marginal. Journal of Risk Research 3 (2000) 287-295
10. Sjöberg L. Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Analysis 21 (2001) 189-198
11. Sjöberg L. Local acceptance of a high-level nuclear waste repository. Risk Analysis 24 (2004) 739-751
12. Sjöberg, L., 2006a. Nuclear waste risk perceptions and attitudes in siting a final repository for spent nuclear fuel. In: Andersson, K. (Ed.), VALDOR 2006. Proceedings Stockholm, pp. 452-460.
13. Sjöberg, L., 2006b. Opinion och attityder till förvaring av använt kärnbränsle. (Opinion and Attitudes to a Repository for Spent Nuclear Fuel) (Research Report No. R-06-97). SKB. Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB, Stockholm.
14. Sjöberg L. Emotions and risk perception. Risk Management: An International Journal 9 (2007) 222-237
15. Sjöberg L. Antagonism, trust and perceived. Risk Management: An International Journal 10 (2008) 32-55
16. Sjöberg L., and Wester-Herber M. Too much trust in (social) trust? The importance of epistemic concerns and perceived antagonism. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues 30 (2008) 30-44
17. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science 236 (1987) 280-285
18. Slovic P., Flynn J.H., and Layman M. Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science 254 (1991) 1603-1607
19. Welsh R., and Ervin D.E. Precaution as an approach to technology development: the case of transgenic crops. Science Technology & Human Values 31 (2006) 153-172