Is distinction impossible?: Comparing risks between radioactive waste facilities and nuclear power stations

International Review of Public Administration

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 67-84

  Kim, Seoyong ^a   Cho, Seongeun ^b  

^a Ajou University   (South Korea)

^b Korea University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

People centered approach; Risk comparison; Risk distinction; Risk judgment

Indexed keywords

EID: 84865080456     PISSN: 12294659     EISSN: 23317795     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/12294659.2009.10805148     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Basset Jr., G. W., Jenkins-Smith, H. C. and Silva, C. 1996. On-Site Storage of High Nuclear Waste: Attitudes and Perception of Local Residents. Risk Analysis 16(3): 309-319.
2. Benford, R. D., Moore, H. A. and Williams, Jr., Allen, J. 1993. In Whose Backyard?: Concern About Siting a Nuclear Waste Facility. Sociological Inquiry 63(1): 30-47.
3. Bord, R. J. and O'Connor, R. E. 1990. Risk Communication, Knowledge, and Attitudes: Explaining Reactions to a Technology Perceived as Risky. Risk Analysis 10 (4): 499-506.
4. Brody, J. G. and Fleishman, J. K. 1993. Sources of Public Concern About Nuclear Waste Disposal in Texas Agricultural Communities. In Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste. Edited by R. E. Dunlap, M. E. Kraft and E. A. Rosa. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
5. Brown, J. M. and White, H. M. 1987. The Public's Understanding of Radiation and Nuclear Waste. Journal of Social Radiation Protection 7(2): 61-70.
6. Buuren, A. V. and Edelenbos, J. 2004. Conflicting Knowledge. Science and Public Policy, 32(4): 289-299.
7. Carnes, S. A., Copenhaver, E. D., Sorensen, J. H., Soderstrom, E. J., Reed, J. H., Bjornstad, D. J. and Peelle, E. 1983. Incentives and Nuclear Waste Sitting: Prospects and Constraints. Energy Systems and Policy 7(4): 323-351.
8. Cha, Y. Y. 2004. An Analysis of Nuclear Risk Perception: With Focus on Developing Effective Policy Alternatives. International Review of Public Administration 8(2): 33-47.
9. Covello, V. T. 1983. The Perception of Technological Risks: A Literature Review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 23: 285-297.
10. Desvousges, W. H., Kunreuther, H., Slovic, P. and Rosa, E. 1993. Perceived Risk and Attitudes Toward Nuclear Wastes: National and Nevada Perspective. In Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste. Edited by R. E. Dunlap, M. E. Kraft and E. A. Rosa. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
11. Dunlap, R., Rosa, E. A., Baxter, R. K. and Mitchell, R. C. 1993. Local Attitudes Toward Siting a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository at Hanford, Washington. In Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste. Edited by R. E. Dunlap, M. E. Kraft and E. A. Rosa. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
12. Fischhoff, B. F., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S. and Combs, B. 1978. How Safe is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes toward Technological Risks and Benefits. Policy Sciences 9: 127-152.
13. Flynn, J., Burns, W., Mertz, C. K., and Slovic, P. 1992. Trust as a Determinant of Opposition to a High-Level Radioactive Waste Repository: Analysis of a Structural Model. Risk Analysis 12(3): 417-429.
14. xxxGarvin, T. 2001. Analytical Paradigms: The Epistemological Distance between Scientists, Policy Makers and the Public. Risk Analysis, 21(3): 443-455.
15. Grasmuck, D. and Scholz, R. W. 2005. Risk Perception of Heavy Metal Soil Contamination by High-Exposed and Low-Exposed Inhabitants: The Role of Knowledge and Emotional Concern. Risk Analysis, 25(3): 611-622.
16. Gregory, R., Flynn, J. and Slovic, P. 1995. Technological Stigma. American Scientists, 83(3): 220-223.
17. Hermand, D., Mullet, E., and Rompteaux, L. 1999. Societal Risk Perception among Children, Adolescents, Adults and Elderly People. Journal of Adult Development, 6(2): 137-143.
18. Hine, D. W., Summers, C., Prystupa, M. and McKenzie-Richer, A. 1997. Public Opposition to a Proposed Nuclear Waste Repository in Canada: An Investigation of Cultural and Economic Effects. Risk Analysis, 17(3): 293-302.
19. Knight, A. 2007. Intervening Effects of Knowledge, Morality, Trust and Benefits on Support for Animal and Plant Biotechnology Application. Risk Analysis, 27(6): 1553-1563.
20. Krannich, R. S., Little, R. L. and Cramer, L. A. 1993. Rural Community Residents' Views of Nuclear Waste Repository Siting in Nevada. In Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste, edited by R. E. Dunlap, M. E. Kraft and E. A. Rosa. Durham: Duke University Press.
21. Kraus, N. N. and Slovic, P. 1988. Taxonomic Analysis of Perceived Risk: Modeling Individual and Group Perceptions. Risk Analysis, 8: 435-455.
22. Kunreuther, H. and Easterling, D. 1990. Are Risk-Benefit Tradeoffs Possible in Sitting Hazardous Facilities. American Economic Review, 80: 252-256.
23. Kunreuther, H., Easterling, D., Desvousges, W. and Slovic, P. 1990. Public Attitudes toward Sitting a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada. Risk Analysis, 10(4): 469-484.
24. Marks, G. and Winterfeldt, D. V. 1984. Not in My Back Yard: Influence of Motivational Concerns on Judgements about a Risky Technology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 408-415.
25. Mushkatel, A. H., Nigg, J. M. and Pijawka, K. D. 1993. Nevada Urban Residents' Attitudes Toward a Nuclear Waste Repository. In Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste, edited by R. E. Dunlap, M. E. Kraft and E. A. Rosa. Durham: Duke University Press.
26. Pollock P., Lilie, S. A. and Vittes, M. E. 1993. Hard Issues, Core Values and Vertical Constraint: The Case of Nuclear Power. British Journal of Political Science, 23: 29-50.
27. Rankin, W. L., Melber, B. D., Overcast, T. D. and Nealy, S. M. 1981. Nuclear Power and the Public: An Update of Collected Survey Research on Nuclear Power. Seattle: Battelle Memorial Institute, Human Affairs
28. Renn, O. 2001. The Need for Integration: Risk Policies Require the Input form Experts, Stakeholders and the Public at Large. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 72: 131-135.
29. Rohrmann, B. and Renn, O. 2000. Risk Perception Research. In Cross-Cultural Risk Perception: A Survey of Empirical Studies, edited by Bernd Rohrmann, and Ortwin Renn. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
30. Roth, E., Morgan, G., Fischhoff, B., Lave, L. and Bostrom, A. 1990. What Do We Know about Making Risk Comparison? Risk Analysis 10(3): 375-387.
31. Rundmo, T. 2002. Associations between Affect and Risk Perception. Journal of Risk Research, 5(2): 119-135.
32. Siegrist, M. and Cvetkovich, G. 2000. Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20 (5): 713-720.
33. Sjoberg, L. and Drottz-Sjoberg, B. 1991. Knowledge and Risk Perception among Nuclear Power Plant Employees. Risk Analysis, 11(4): 607-618.
34. Sjoberg, L. 2000. The Different Dynamics of Personal and General Risk. In Foresight and Precaution. Volume 1 (pp. 1149-1155), edited by M. P. Cottam and D. W. Harvey and R. P. Pape and J. Tait Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema.
35. Sjoberg, L. 2003. Attitudes and Risk Perceptions of Stakeholders in a Nuclear Waste Siting Issues. Risk Analysis, 23(4): 439-449.
36. Sjoberg, L. 2004. Local Acceptance of a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository. Risk Analysis, 24(3): 737-749.
37. Sjoberg, L., Moen, B. and Rundmo, T. 2004. Explaining Risk Perception: An Evaluation of the Psychometric Paradigm in Risk Perception Research. Trondheim: Norweigan University of Science and Technology.
38. Slovic P. 1991. Beyond Numbers: a Broader Perspective on Risk Perception and Risk Communication. In Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management, edited by Mayo, D., Hollander, R. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
39. Slovic, P. 1999. Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-Assessment Battlefield. Risk Analysis, 19: 689-701.
40. Slovic, P. 2000. Perception of Risk. London: Earthscan.
41. Slovic, P., Finucae, M., Peters, E. and MacGregor, D. G. 2002. Rational Actors or Rational Fools Implications of the Affect Heuristic for Behavioral Economics. Journal of Socio-economics, 31: 329-342.
42. Slovic, P., Kraus, N. and Coveilo, T. C. 1990. Comment: What Should We Know about Making Risk Comparison. Risk Analysis, 10(3): 389-391.
43. Slovic, P., Layman, M. and Flynn, J. 1993. Perceived Risk, Trust, and Nuclear Waste: Lesson From Yucca Mountain. In Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste, edited by R. E. Dunlap, M. E. Kraft and E. A. Rosa, Durham: Duke University Press.
44. Slovic, P., Layman, M., Kraus, N., Flynn, J., Chalerms, J. and Gesell, G. 1991. Perceived Risk, Stigma, and Potential Economic Impacts of a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada. Risk Analysis, 11: 683-696.
45. Tanaka, Y. 2004. Major Psychological Factors Determining Public Acceptance of the Siting of Nuclear Facilities. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(6): 1147-1165.
46. Van Der Plight, J., Eiser, J. R. and Spears, R. 1986. Attitudes toward Nuclear Energy: Familiarity and Salience. Environment and Behavior, 18(1): 75-93.
47. Visschers, V. H. M., Meertens, R. M., Passchier, W. and deVaries, N. K. 2007. How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information?: The Impact of Associations with Other Risks. Risk Analysis, 27(3): 715-727.
48. Williams, B. L., Brown, S., Greenberg, M. and Kahn, M. A. 1999. Risk Perception in Context: The Savannah River Site Stakeholder Study. Risk Analysis, 19(6): 1019-1034.