Exploring early public responses to geoengineering

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences

Volumn 370, Issue 1974, 2012, Pages 4176-4196

  Pidgeon, Nick ^a   Corner, Adam ^a   Parkhill, Karen ^a   Spence, Alexa ^c   Butler, Catherine ^a   Poortinga, Wouter ^a,b  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Geoengineering Public attitudes Risk perceptions

Indexed keywords

CARBON DIOXIDE; RISK PERCEPTION; SUN; SURVEYS;

CARBON DIOXIDE REMOVAL; DATA SETS; EARTH'S CLIMATE; GEOENGINEERING; INTERVIEW STUDY; KEY ELEMENTS; POSITIVE CORRELATIONS; PUBLIC OPINIONS; PUBLIC PERCEPTION; QUALITATIVE DATA; QUANTITATIVE DATA; RADIATION MANAGEMENT; SOCIAL ACCEPTABILITY;

CLIMATE CHANGE;

EID: 84864723232     PISSN: 1364503X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2012.0099     Document Type: Review

References (58)

1. Royal Society. 2009 Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty. Science Policy Centre Report 10/09. London, UK: Royal Society.
2. Carson, R. 1962 Silent spring. New York, NY: Houghton-Mifflin.
3. Rosa, E. A. & Clark, D. L. 1999 Historical routes to technological gridlock: Nuclear technology as prototypical vehicle. Res. Social Probl. Public Policy 7, 21-57.
4. Krimsky, S. & Plough, A. 1988 Environmental hazards: Communicating risk as a social process. Dover, MA: Auburn Books.
5. Bauer, M. & Gaskell, G. 2002 Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. 2004 Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. London, UK: Royal Society.
7. Corner, A. & Pidgeon, N. F. 2010 Geoengineering the climate: The social and ethical implications. Environ. Sci. Policy Sust. Dev. 52, 24-37. (doi:10.1080/00139150903479563)
8. Gardiner, S. M. 2011 Some early ethics of geoengineering the climate: A commentary on the values of the Royal Society report. Environ. Values 20, 163-188. (doi:10.3197/096327111X12997574391689)
9. Rayner, S., Redgwell, C., Sauvulescu, J., Pidgeon, N. & Kruger, T. 2010 Draft principles for the conduct of geoengineering research (the 'Oxford Principles'). Reproduced in House of Commons Science and Technology Committee: The Regulation of Geoengineering, Fifth Report of the session 2009-2010, HC221, 18 March 2010. London, UK: HMSO.
10. Boyce, T. 2007 Health, risk and news: The MMR vaccine and the media. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
11. Rogers-Hayden, T. & Pidgeon, N. F. 2007 Moving engagement 'upstream'? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering inquiry. Public Underst. Sci. 16, 346-364. (doi:10.1177/0963662506076141)
12. American Meteorological Society. 2009 Geoengineering the climate system: A policy statement of the American Meteorological Society. Boston, MA: AMS. See http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2009geoengineeringclimate-amsstatement.html.
13. Collingridge, D. 1980 The social control of technology. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
14. Wildavsky, A. 1988 Searching for safety. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
15. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. 2008 Novel materials in the environment: The case of nanotechnology. London, UK: HMSO.
16. Royal Society. 1992 Risk analysis, perception and management: Report of a Royal Society study group. London, UK: Royal Society.
17. Pidgeon, N. F., Harthorn, B., Bryant, K. & Rogers-Hayden, T. 2009 Deliberating the risks of nanotechnology for energy and health applications in the US and UK. Nat. Nanotechnol. 4, 95-98. (doi:10.1038/nnano.2008.362)
18. Irwin, A. & Wynne, B. (eds) 1996 Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
19. Sturgis, P. & Allum, N. 2004 Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Underst. Sci. 13, 55-74. (doi:10.1177/0963662504042690) (Pubitemid 38662277)
20. Slovic, P. 2000 The perception of risk. London, UK: Earthscan.
21. Wynne, B. 1992 Risk and social learning: Reification to engagement. In Social theories of risk (eds S. Krimsky & D. Golding), pp. 275-297. Westport, CT: Praeger.
22. Poortinga, W. & Pidgeon, N. F. 2003 Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Anal. 23, 961-972. (doi:10.1111/1539-6924.00373) (Pubitemid 37193553)
23. Blockley, D. (ed.) 1992 Engineering safety. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill.
24. Turner, B. A. & Pidgeon, N. F. 1997 Man-made disasters, 2nd edn. London, UK: Wykeham Press.
25. European Environment Agency. 2001 Late lessons from early warnings: The precautionary principle 1896-2000. Environmental Issue Report no. 22. Copenhagen, Denmark: European Environment Agency.
26. Lowenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. & Welch, N. 2001 Risk as feeling. Psychol. Bull. 127, 267-286. (doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267)
27. Slovic, P. 2010 The feeling of risk. London, UK: Earthscan.
28. Marris, C. 2001 Public views on GMOs: Deconstructing the myths. EMBO Rep. 21, 545-548. (doi:10.1093/embo-reports/kve142) (Pubitemid 32707695)
29. Bickerstaff, K. 2004 Risk perception research: socio-cultural perspectives on the public experience of air pollution. Environ. Int. 30, 827-840. (doi:10.1016/j.envint.2003.12.001) (Pubitemid 39022740)
30. Kasperson, J. X., Kasperson, R., Pidgeon, N. F. & Slovic, P. 2003 The social amplification of risk: Assessing fifteen years of research and theory. In The social amplification of risk (eds N. F. Pidgeon, R. K. Kasperson & P. Slovic), pp. 13-46. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31. Pidgeon, N. F. & Rogers-Hayden, T. 2007 Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: Risk communication or 'upstream engagement'? Health Risk Soc. 9, 191-210. (doi:10.1080/13698570701306906) (Pubitemid 46993395)
32. Barben, D., Fisher, E., Selin, C. & Guston, D. 2008 Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement and integration. In The handbook of science and technology studies (eds E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch & J. Wajcman), pp. 979-1000, 3rd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33. Bloomfield, B. P. & Vurdubakis, T. 1995 Disrupted boundaries: New reproductive technologies and the language of anxiety and expectation. Soc. Stud. Sci. 25, 533-551. (doi:10.1177/030631295025003005)
34. Macnaghten, P. 2010 Researching technoscientific concerns in the making: Narrative structures, public responses, and emerging nanotechnologies. Environ. Plan. A 42, 23-37. (doi:10.1068/a41349)
35. Bickerstaff, K., Simmons, P. & Pidgeon, N. 2008 Constructing responsibility for risk(s): Negotiating citizen-state relationships. Environ. Plan. A 40, 1312-1330. (Pubitemid 351827318)
36. Irwin, A., Simmons, P. & Walker, G. 1999 Faulty environments and risk reasoning: The local understanding of industrial hazards. Environ. Plan. A 31, 1311-1326. (doi:10.1068/a311311) (Pubitemid 29412300)
37. Parkhill, K. A., Pidgeon, N. F., Henwood, K. L., Simmons, P. & Venables, D. 2010 From the familiar to the extraordinary: Local residents' perceptions of risk when living with nuclear power in the UK. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. NS 35, 39-58. (doi:10.1111/j.1475-5661.2009.00364.x)
38. Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P., Mayer, S. & Wynne, B. 1997 Uncertain world: Genetically modified organisms, food and public attitudes in Britain. Lancaster, UK: Centre for Study of Environmental Change, University of Lancaster.
39. Kearnes, M., Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P., Wilsdon, J. & Wynne, B. 2006 From bio to nano: Learning lessons from the UK agricultural biotechnology controversy. Sci. Cult. 15, 291-307. (doi:10.1080/09505430601022619)
40. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S. & Combs, B. 1978 How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci. 9, 127-152. (doi:10.1007/ BF00143739)
41. Spence, A., Venables, D., Pidgeon, N. F., Poortinga, W. & Demski, C. 2010 Public perceptions of climate change and energy futures in Britain: summary findings of a survey conducted in January-March 2010. Technical report: Understanding Risk Working Paper 10-01. School of Psychology, Cardiff University, UK. See http://www.understanding-risk.org.
42. Townsend, E. & Campbell, S. 2004 Psychological determinants of willingness to taste and purchase genetically modified food. Risk Anal. 24, 1385-1393. (doi:10.1111/j.0272-4332. 2004.00533.x) (Pubitemid 39532466)
43. Mercer, A., Keith, D. & Sharp, J. 2011 Public understanding of solar radiation management. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 044006. (doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/ 044006)
44. Satterfield, T., Kandlikar, M., Beaudrie, C. E. H., Conti, J. & Herr-Harthorn, B. 2009 Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nat. Nanotechnol. 4, 752-758. (doi:10. 1038/nnano.2009.265)
45. Pidgeon, N. F., Harthorn, B. & Satterfield, T. 2011 Nanotechnology risk perceptions and communication: Emerging technologies, emerging challenges. Risk Anal. 31, 1694-1700. (doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01738.x)
46. Lichtenstein, S. & Slovic, P. 2006 The construction of preference. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
47. Fischhoff, B. & Fischhoff, I. 2002 Publics' opinions of biotechnologies. AgBiotech Forum 4, 155-162.
48. de Best-Waldhober, M., Daamen, D., Ramirez, A. R., Faaij, A., Hendriks, C. & de Visser, E. 2009 Informed public opinions on CCS in comparison to other mitigation options. Energy Procedia 1, 4795-4802. (doi:10.1016/j.egypro. 2009.02.306)
49. Spence, A., Poortinga, W. & Pidgeon, N. F. 2012 The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Anal 32, 957-972. (doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924. 2011.01695.x)
50. Lorenzoni, I. & Pidgeon, N. F. 2006 Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Clim. Change 77, 73-95. (doi:10.1007/s10584-006- 9072-z) (Pubitemid 44273012)
51. Pidgeon, N. F. & Fischhoff, B. 2011 The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks. Nat. Clim. Change 1, 35-41. (doi:10.1038/nclimate1080)
52. Poortinga, W., Spence, A., Whitmarsh, L., Capstick, S. & Pidgeon, N. F. 2011 Uncertain climate: An investigation into public skepticism about anthropogenic climate change. Global Environ. Change 21, 1015-1024. (doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.03.001)
53. Pidgeon, N. F., Lorenzoni, I. & Poortinga, W. 2008 Climate change or nuclear power: No thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain. Global Environ. Change 18, 69-85. (doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha. 2007.09.005) (Pubitemid 351232231)
54. Corner, A., Venables, D., Spence, A., Poortinga, W., Demski, C. & Pidgeon, N. F. 2011 Nuclear power, climate change and energy security: Exploring British public attitudes. Energy Policy 39, 4823-4833. (doi:10.1016/j.enpol. 2011.06.037)
55. Kahan, D., Jenkins-Smith, H., Tarantola, T., Silva, C. L. & Braman, D. 2012 Geoengineering and the science communication environment: A cross-cultural experiment. Cultural Cognition Working Paper 92. Yale University, Boston, MA.
56. Ipsos-MORI. 2010 Experiment Earth: Report on a public dialogue on geoengineering. Natural Environment Research Council, Swindon, UK. See http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/geoengineering-dialogue-final-report.pdf.
57. Parkhill, K. & Pidgeon, N. 2011 Public engagement on geoengineering research: Preliminary report on the SPICE deliberative workshops. Understanding Risk Working Paper 11-01. School of Psychology, Cardiff University, UK.
58. Davies, S., Macnaghten, P. & Kearnes, M. 2009 Reconfiguring responsibility: Lessons for public policy-part I of the report on Deepening Debate on Nanotechnology (DEEPEN). Department of Geography, University of Durham, UK.