What Do Lay People Want to Know About the Disposal of Nuclear Waste? A Mental Model Approach to the Design and Development of an Online Risk Communication

Risk Analysis

Volumn 32, Issue 9, 2012, Pages 1496-1511

  Skarlatidou, A ^a,b   Cheng, T ^b   Haklay, M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Mental models; Nuclear waste disposal; Risk

Indexed keywords

COMPLEX TASK; DECISION MAKERS; DECISION MAKING PROCESS; DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT; EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY; MENTAL MODEL; NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORIES; ONLINE INFORMATION SYSTEMS; PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT; PUBLIC PARTICIPATION; PUBLIC TRUST; PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING; RISK COMMUNICATION; SOCIAL DIMENSIONS; UNITED KINGDOM;

CLIMATE CHANGE; COMMUNICATION; RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL; RISK PERCEPTION; RISKS; SITE SELECTION; WASTE DISPOSAL;

RADIOACTIVE WASTES;

CLIMATE CHANGE; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; HAZARDOUS WASTE; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; RADIOACTIVE WASTE; REPOSITORY; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; RISK PERCEPTION; SITE SELECTION; TRANSPORTATION PLANNING; WASTE DISPOSAL;

ARTICLE; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; METHODOLOGY; ONLINE SYSTEM; PERCEPTION; RADIOACTIVE WASTE; RISK ASSESSMENT; THEORETICAL MODEL; WASTE MANAGEMENT;

COMMUNICATION; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; ONLINE SYSTEMS; PERCEPTION; RADIOACTIVE WASTE; RISK ASSESSMENT; WASTE MANAGEMENT;

UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 84865288646     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01773.x     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Lane M. Public participation in planning: An intellectual history. Australian Geographer, 2005; 36(3):283-299.
2. Stern PC, Fineberg HV. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, DC : National Academic Press, 1996.
3. Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM). Managing Our Radioactive Waste Safely: CoRWM's Recommendations to Government. CoRWM's Doc 700, July 2006. Available at: http://www.corwm.org.uk/pdf/FullReport.pdf, Accessed on May 15, 2007.
4. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal. A White Paper by DEFRA, BERR and the Devolved Administrations for Wales and Northern Ireland, 2008.
5. Smith LG. Impact Assessment and Sustainable Resource Management. Harlow, UK : Longman, 1983.
6. Arnstein SR. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 1969; 35(4):216-224.
7. Wiedemann PM, Femers S. Public participation in waste management decision making: Analysis and management of conflicts. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 1993; 33(3):355-368.
8. Frewer LJ, Shepherd R. Consumer perceptions of modern food biotechnology. Pp. 27-46 in Roller S, Harlander S (eds). Genetic Engineering for the Food Industry: A Strategy for Food Quality Improvement. New York : Blackie Academic, 1998.
9. Carver S. The future of participatory approaches using geographic information: Developing a research agenda for the 21st century. URISA Journal (Special PPGIS Issue), 2003; 15(1):61-71.
10. Rowe G, Frewer LJ. Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 2000; 25(1):3-29.
11. Coleman S, Gotze J. Bowling Together. Online Public Engagement in Policy Deliberation. London : Hansard Society, 2001. Available at: http://bowlingtogether.net/bowlingtogether.pdf, Accessed on May 21, 2009.
12. Bostrom A, Fischhoff B, Granger Morgan M. Characterizing mental models of hazardous processes: A methodology and an application to radon. Journal of Social Issues, 1992; 48(4):85-100.
13. Bostrom A, Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Read D. What do people know about climate change? 1. Mental models. Risk Analysis, 1994; 14(6):959-970.
14. Rosa E, Tuler S, Fischhoff B, Webler T, Friedman S, Sclove R, Shrader-Frechette K, English M, Kasperson R, Goble R, Leschine T, Freudenburg W, Chess C, Perrow C, Erikson K, Short J. Nuclear waste: Knowledge waste? Science, 2010; 329(5993):762-763.
15. Forum on Stakeholder Confidence (FSC). The Mental Models Approach to Risk Research-An RWM Perspective. Secretariat Paper, NEA/RWM/FSC (2003) 7/REV 1, 2003.
16. Kemp R. The Politics of Radioactive Waste Disposal, Issues in Environmental Politics. Manchester, UK : Manchester University Press, 1992.
17. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal. A Public Consultation by DEFRA, DTI and the Welsh and Northern Irish Devolved Administrations. London : TSO, 2007.
18. Broomby R. UK Nuclear Waste Strategy in Jeopardy, 2009. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8155601.stm, Accessed on August 13, 2010.
19. Schively C. Understanding the NIMBY and LULU phenomena: Reassessing our knowledge base and informing future research. Journal of Planning Literature, 2007; 21:255-266.
20. Welsh I. The NIMBY syndrome: Its significance in the history of the nuclear debate in Britain. British Journal for the History of Science, 1993; 26(1):15-32.
21. Kemp R. Why not in my backyard? A radical interpretation of public opposition to the deep disposal of radioactive wastes in the United Kingdom. Environmental Planning, 1990; A(22):1239-1258.
22. Hunter S, Leyden MK. Beyond NIMBY: Explaining opposition to hazardous waste facilities. Policy Studies Journal, 1995; 23(4):601-619.
23. Lee TR. Social Attitudes and Radioactive Waste Management. The 5th European Summer School. London : IBC Technical Services Ltd, 1989.
24. Mills CW. Situated actions and vocabularies of motive. American Sociological Review, 1940; 5:904-913.
25. Jacob G. Site unseen: The politics of siting a nuclear waste repository. Pittsburgh : University of Pittsburgh Press, 1990.
26. Dantico MK, Mushkatel AH, Pijawcka KD. Political trust, and risk perceptions of the high-level nuclear waste repository. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 1991, Washington, DC.
27. European Commission, Eurobarometer Survey. European Public Opinion on Radioactive Waste. EB 50, European Commission, 1998.
28. European Commission, Eurobarometer Survey. Europeans and Radioactive Waste. EB 56.2, European Commission, 2001.
29. Taylor DM, Webster S. Public opinion on radioactive waste management in the European Union. In Proceedings of the International Topical Meeting on Radioactive Waste Management: Commitment to the Future Environment (ENS Topseal), 10-14 October 1999, Antwerp, Belgium
30. Botella T, Coadou J, Blohm-Hieber U. European Citizens' Opinions Towards Radioactive Waste: An Updated Review. European Commission, Directorate General for Energy and Transport Unit Nuclear Energy and Radioactive Waste, 2006. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/waste/doc/2006_06_nuclear_waste_update_review_en.pdf, Accessed on June 6, 2010.
31. Lundgren RE, McMakin AH. Risk Communication: A Handbook for Communicating Environmental Safety, and Health Risks. NJ : John Wiley & Sons, 2009.
32. Sturgis P, Allum N. Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 2004; 13(55):55-74.
33. Hansen J, Holm L, Frewer L, Robinson P, Sandøe P. Beyond the knowledge deficit: Recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks. Appetite, 2003; 41(2):111-121.
34. Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman CJ. Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach. UK : Cambridge University Press, 2002.
35. Schank PC, Abelson RP. Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding. Hillside, NJ : Erlbaum, 1977.
36. Minsky, M. Frame-system theory. Pp. 355-376 in Johnson-Laird PN, Wason PC (eds). Thinking-Reading in Cognitive Science. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1977.
37. Mandler G. Consciousness: Its Function and Construction. Technical Report No. 117. San Diego, CA : University of California, Center for Human Information Processing, 1988.
38. Atman CJ, Bostrom A, Fischhoff B, Granger Morgan M. Designing risk communications: Completing and correcting mental models of hazardous processes, Part I. Risk Analysis, 1994; 14(5):779-788.
39. Lave T., Lave LB. Public perception of the risks of floods: Implications for communication. Risk Analysis, 1991; 11(2):255-267.
40. Vari A., Kemp R., Mumpower JL. Public concerns about LLWR facility siting: A comparative study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1991; 22(1):83-102.
41. Kraft ME, Clary BB. Public testimony in nuclear waste repository hearings: A content analysis. Pp. 89-114 in Dunlap RE, Rosa EA (eds). Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste: Citizens' Views of Repository Siting. Durham : Duke University Press; 1993.
42. Litmanen T. Cultural approach to the perception of risk. Analyzing concern about the siting of a high-level nuclear waste facility in Finland. Waste Management and Research, 1999; 17(3):212-219.
43. Pijawka KD, Mushkatel AH. Public opposition to the siting of nuclear waste repository: The importance of trust. Policy Studies Review, 1992; 10(4):180-194.
44. Slovic P, Layman M, Flynn JH. What Comes to Mind When You Hear the Words "Nuclear Waste Repository"? A Study of 10, 000 Images. Carson City, NV : Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office, 1990.
45. Merkenhofer MW, Conway R, Anderson R. Multiattribute utility analysis as a framework for public participation in siting a hazardous waste management facility. Environmental Management, 1997; 21(6):831-839.
46. Kobasigawa A, Lacasse MA, MacDonald VA. Use of headings by children for text search. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 1988; 20(1):50-63.
47. Ausubel DP. The use of advanced organisers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1960; 51(5):267-272.
48. Skarlatidou A, Haklay M, Cheng T. Preliminary investigation of WEB GIS trust: The example of the "WIYBY" website. In Conference Proceedings of Joint International Conference on Theory, Data Handling and Modelling in GeoSpatial Information Science, 26-28 May 2010, Hong Kong
49. Skarlatidou A, Haklay M, Cheng T. Trust in web GIS: The role of the trustee attributes in the design of trustworthy web GIS applications. International Journal of GIScience, 2011; 25(12):1913-1930.
50. Fogg BJ. Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. San Francisco : Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2003.
51. Wang YD, Emurian HH. An overview of online trust: Concepts, elements, and implications. Computers in Human Behaviour, 2005; 21(11):105-125.
52. Shneiderman B. Designing trust into online experiences. Communication of the ACM, 2000; 43(12):57-59