Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility

Risk Analysis

Volumn 31, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 629-644

  Jenkins Smith, Hank C ^a   Silva, Carol L ^a   Nowlin, Matthew C ^a   deLozier, Grant ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA   (United States)

Author keywords

LULU; Nuclear waste; Risk perceptions

Indexed keywords

BEFORE AND AFTER; ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS; GOVERNMENT AGENCIES; LULU; NEW MEXICO; NUCLEAR FACILITIES; NUCLEAR WASTE; NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY; NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORIES; POLICY PROCESS; PROCEDURAL STEPS; PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE; TIME SPAN; WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANTS;

GEOLOGICAL REPOSITORIES; PILOT PLANTS; RADIOACTIVE WASTES; RISK ANALYSIS; RISK PERCEPTION; WASTE DISPOSAL;

RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL;

DEMOGRAPHY; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; LAND USE CHANGE; NUCLEAR POWER PLANT; POLICY ANALYSIS; POLITICAL IDEOLOGY; RADIOACTIVE WASTE; REPOSITORY; RISK PERCEPTION; WASTE DISPOSAL; WASTE FACILITY;

ARTICLE; HUMAN; PILOT STUDY; PUBLIC OPINION; RADIOACTIVE WASTE; UNITED STATES;

HUMANS; NEW MEXICO; PILOT PROJECTS; PUBLIC OPINION; RADIOACTIVE WASTE;

NEW MEXICO; UNITED STATES;

EID: 79953036845     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01543.x     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Slovic P. Perceived risk, trust and democracy. Risk Analysis, 1993; 13:675-682.
2. Benford R, Moore H, Williams J. In whose backyard? Concern about siting a nuclear waste facility. Sociological Inquiry, 1993; 63(1): 30-48.
3. Gawande K, Jenkins-Smith H. Nuclear waste transport and residential property values: Estimating the effects of perceived risks. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2001; 42(2): 207-233.
4. Jenkins-Smith H, Kunreuther H. Mitigation and benefits measures as policy tools for siting potentially hazardous facilities: Determinants of effectiveness and appropriateness. Risk Analysis, 2001; 21(2): 371-382.
5. Slovic P, Flynn J, Layman M. Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science, 1991; 254(5038): 1603-1607.
6. McAvoy G. Partisan probing and democratic decision-making rethinking the NIMBY syndrome. Policy Studies Journal, 1998; 26(2): 274-292.
7. Fisher F. Hazardous waste policy, community movements, and the politics of NIMBY: Participatory risk assessment, in the USA and Canada. In: Fisher F, Black M (eds). Greening Environmental Policy: The Politics of a Sustainable Future. London Palgrave Macmillan, 1995.
8. Michaud K, Carlisle J, Smith E. Nimbyism vs. environmentalism in attitudes toward energy development. Environmental Politics, 2008; 17(1): 20-39.
9. McCutcheon C. Nuclear Reactions: The Politics of Opening a Radioactive Waste Disposal Site. University of New Mexico Press, 2002.
10. Downey G. Politics and technology in repository siting: Military versus commercial nuclear wastes at WIPP 1972-1985. Technology in Society, 1985; 7(1): 47-75.
11. Barnes G, Whatley M. The WIPP Journey to Waste Receipt. United States Department of Energy, 1997. Available at.
12. Downey G. Structure and practice in the cultural identities of scientists: Negotiating nuclear wastes in New Mexico. Anthropological Quarterly, 1988; 61(1): 26-38.
13. Review of the Status of the WIPP Project. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources, 1991. U.S. House of Representatives (102-1) on June 13, 1991.
14. Kasperson R, Berk G, Pijawka D, Sharaf A, Wood J. Public opposition to nuclear energy: retrospect and prospect. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 1980; 5(31): 11-23.
15. Greenberg M. NIMBY, CLAMP, and the location of new nuclear-related facilities: U.S. national and 11 site-specific surveys. Risk Analysis, 2009; 29(9): 1242-1254.
16. Hunter S, Leyden K. Beyond NIMBY: Explaining opposition to hazardous waste facilities. Policy Studies Journal, 1995; 23(4): 601-619.
17. Schively C. Understanding the NIMBY and LULU phenomena: Reassessing our knowledge base and informing future research. Journal of Planning Literature, 2007; 21(3): 255-266.
18. Dear M. Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome. Journal of the American Planning Association, 1992; 58(3): 288.
19. Groothuis P, Miller G. Locating hazardous waste facilities: The influence of NIMBY beliefs. American Journal of Economics & Sociology, 1994; 53(3): 335-346.
20. Hermansson H. The ethics of NIMBY conflicts. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 2007; 10(1): 23-34.
21. Kraft M, Clary B. Citizen participation and the NIMBY syndrome: Public response to radioactive waste disposal. Western Political Quarterly, 1991; 44(2): 299-328.
22. Sjoberg L. Local acceptance of a high-level nuclear waste repository. Risk Analysis, 2004; 24(3): 737-749.
23. Thornton B, Knox D. Not in my back yard: The situational and personality determinants of oppositional behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2002; 32(12): 2554-2574.
24. Rabe B. Beyond NIMBY: Hazardous Waste Siting in Canada and the United States. Washington, DC Brookings, 1994.
25. Williams B, Brown S, Greenberg M, Kahn M. Risk perception in context: The Savannah River site stakeholder study. Risk Analysis, 1999; 19(6): 1019-1035.
26. Rabe B, Gunderson W, Harbage P. Alternatives to NIMBY gridlock: Voluntary approaches to radioactive waste facility siting in Canada and the United States. Canadian Public Administration, 2008; 37(4): 644-666.
27. Chung J, Kim H. Competition, economic benefits, trust, and risk perception in siting a potentially hazardous facility. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2009; 91(1): 8-16.
28. Stoffle R, Traugott M, Stone J, McIntyre P, Jensen F, Davidson C. Risk perception mapping: Using ethnography to define the locally affected population for a low-level radioactive waste storage facility in Michigan. American Anthropologist, 1991; 93(3): 611-635.
29. Kunreuther H, Easterling D. The role of compensation in siting hazardous facilities. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 1996; 15(4): 601-622.
30. Finucane M, Slovic P, Mertz CK, Flynn J, Satterfield T. Gender, race, and perceived risk: The "white male" effect. Health, Risk & Society, 2000; 2(2): 159-172.
31. Kahan D, Braman D, Gastil J, Slovic P, Mertz CK. Culture and identity-protective cognition: Explaining the white male effect in risk perception. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2007; 4(3): 465-505.
32. MacGregor D, Slovic P, Mason R, Detweiler J, Binney S, Dodd B. Perceived risks of radioactive waste transport through Oregon: Results of a statewide survey. Risk Analysis, 1994; 14(1): 5-14.
33. Kasperson R, Renn O, Slovic P, Brown H, Emel J, Goble R, Kasperson JX, Ratick S. The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 1988; 8(2): 177-187.
34. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science, 1987; 236(4795): 280-285.
35. Barke R, Jenkins-Smith H. Politics and scientific expertise: Scientists, risk perception, and nuclear waste policy. Risk Analysis, 1993; 13(4): 425-439.
36. Silva C, Jenkins-Smith H, Barke R. Reconciling scientists' beliefs about radiation risks and social norms: Explaining preferred radiation protection standards. Risk Analysis, 2007; 27(3): 755-773.
37. Devine-Wright P. Beyond NIMBYism: Towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy, 2005; 8(2): 125-139.
38. Drew C, Grace D, Silbernagel S, Hemmings E, Smith A, Griffith W, Takaro T, Faustman E. Nuclear waste transportation: Case studies of identifying stakeholder risk information needs. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2003; 111(3): 263-272.
39. Falcone S, Orosco K. Coming through a city near you: The transport of hazardous wastes. Policy Studies Journal, 1998; 26(4): 760-773.
40. Van Der Horst D. NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy, 2007; 35(5): 2705-2714.
41. Wolsink M. Wind power implementation. The nature of public attitudes: Equity and fairness instead of "backyard motives." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2007; 11(6): 1188-1207.
42. Rothman S, Lichter SR. Elite ideology and risk perception in nuclear energy policy. American Political Science Review, 1987; 81(2): 383-404.
43. Rosa E, Dunlap R. Poll trends. Nuclear power: Three decades of public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1994; 58(2): 295-324.
44. Birkland T. After Disaster: Agenda Setting, Public Policy, and Focusing Events. Washington, DC Georgetown University Press, 1997.
45. Slovic P, Layman M, Kraus N, Flynn J, Chalmers J, Gesell G. Perceived risk, stigma, and potential economic impacts of a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Risk Analysis, 1991; 11(4): 683-696.
46. Jenkins-Smith H. Modeling stigma: An empirical analysis of nuclear waste images of Nevada. In Flynn J, Slovic P, Kunreuther H (eds). Risk, Media and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology. London Earthscan, 2001.
47. Groothuis P, Miller G. The role of social distrust in risk-benefit analysis: A study of the siting of a hazardous waste disposal facility. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1997; 15(3): 241-257.
48. Hetherington M. The political relevance of political trust. American Political Science Review, 1998; 92(4): 791-808.
49. Keele L. The authorities really do matter: Party control and trust in government. Journal of Politics, 2005; 67(03): 873-886.
50. Chanley V, Rudolph T, Rahn W. The origins and consequences of public trust in government: A time series analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 2000; 64(3): 239-256.
51. University of New Mexico Institute for Public Policy. Changing perceptions of WIPP. Public Opinion Profile of New Mexico Citizens, 1999; 11(2): 4-5.
52. McComb M, Shaw D. The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1972; 36: 176-187.
53. Baumgartner F, Jones B. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago University of Chicago Press, 1993.
54. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK. The Nevada initiative: A risk communication fiasco. Risk Analysis, 1993; 13(5): 497-502.
55. Downs A. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York Harper and Row, 1957.
56. Douglas M, Wildavsky A. Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers. Berkeley, CA University of California Press, 1982.
57. Plutzer E, Maney A, O'Connor R. Ideology and elites' perceptions of the safety of new technologies. American Journal of Political Science, 1998; 42(1): 190-209.