Perceived risk and benefit of nuclear waste repositories: Four opinion clusters

Risk Analysis

Volumn 33, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 1038-1048

  Seidl, Roman ^a   Moser, Corinne ^a   Stauffacher, Michael ^a   Krütli, Pius ^a  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Ambivalence; Nuclear waste; Opinion; Risk and benefit perception

Indexed keywords

AMBIVALENCE; EXPLORATORY STUDIES; NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORIES; NUMBER OF PEOPLES; OPINION; OPINION FORMATION; PERCEIVED RISK; SWITZERLAND;

CLUSTER ANALYSIS; GEOLOGICAL REPOSITORIES; NUCLEAR ENERGY; RADIOACTIVE WASTES; SITE SELECTION;

RISK PERCEPTION;

CLUSTER ANALYSIS; NUCLEAR POWER; RADIOACTIVE WASTE; REPOSITORY; RISK PERCEPTION; SITE SELECTION; WASTE FACILITY;

ARTICLE; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; RADIOACTIVE WASTE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SWITZERLAND; WASTE MANAGEMENT;

CLUSTER ANALYSIS; RADIOACTIVE WASTE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SWITZERLAND; WASTE MANAGEMENT;

SWITZERLAND;

EID: 84879100838     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01897.x     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Pickard WF. Finessing the fuel: Revisiting the challenge of radioactive waste disposal. Energy Policy, 2010; 38(2):709-714.
2. Schaffer MB. Toward a viable nuclear waste disposal program. Energy Policy, 2011; 39(3):1382-1388.
3. Litmanen T, Kojo M, Kari M. The rationality of acceptance in a nuclear community: Analysing residents' opinions on the expansion of the snf repository in the municipality of Eurajoki, Finland. International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology, 2010; 3(1):42-58.
4. Elam M, Sundqvist G. Meddling in Swedish success in nuclear waste management. Environmental Politics, 2011; 20(2):246-263.
5. Lidskog R. Siting conflicts-Democratic perspectives and political implications. Journal of Risk Research, 2005; 8(3):187-206.
6. Jenkins-Smith HC, Silva CL, Nowlin MC, deLozier G. Reversing nuclear opposition: Evolving public acceptance of a permanent nuclear waste disposal facility. Risk Analysis, 2011; 31(4):629-644.
7. Krütli P, Flüeler T, Stauffacher M, Wiek A, Scholz RW. Technical safety vs. public involvement? A case study on the unrealized project for the disposal of nuclear waste at Wellenberg (Switzerland). Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 2010; 7(3):229-44.
8. Solomon BD, Andrén M, Strandberg U. Three decades of social science research on high-level nuclear waste: Achievements and future challenges. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 2010; 1(4):Article 2.
9. Sjöberg L. Attitudes and risk perceptions of stakeholders in a nuclear waste siting issue. Risk Analysis, 2003; 23(4):739-749.
10. Slovic P, Flynn JH, Layman M. Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science, 1991; 254(5038):1603-1607.
11. Chung JB, Kim HK. Competition, economic benefits, trust, and risk perception in siting a potentially hazardous facility. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2009; 91(1):8-16.
12. Bassett GW, Jenkins-Smith HC, Silva C. On-site storage of high level nuclear waste: Attitudes and perceptions of local residents. Risk Analysis, 1996; 16(3):309-319.
13. Siegrist M. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 2000; 20(2):195-203.
14. Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SM. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2000; 13(1):1-17.
15. Flynn J, Burns W, Mertz CK, Slovic P. Trust as a determinant of opposition to a high-level radioactive waste repository: Analysis of a structural model. Risk Analysis, 1992; 12(3):417-429.
16. Gardner GT, Tiemann AR, Gould LC, DeLuca DR, Doob LW, Stolwijk JAJ. Risk and benefit perceptions, acceptability judgments, and self-reported actions toward nuclear power. Journal of Social Psychology, 1982; 116(2):179-197.
17. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G, Roth C. Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 2000; 20(3):353-362.
18. Siegrist M, Gutscher H, Earle TC. Perception of risk: The influence of general trust, and general confidence. Journal of Risk Research, 2005; 8(2):145-156.
19. Armitage CJ, Conner M. Attitudinal ambivalence: A test of three key hypotheses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2000; 26(11):1421-1432.
20. De Groot JIM, Steg L. Morality and nuclear energy: Perceptions of risks and benefits, personal norms, and willingness to take action related to nuclear energy. Risk Analysis, 2010; 30(9):1363-1373.
21. van der Pligt J. Public attitudes to nuclear energy: Salience and anxiety. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1985; 5(1):87-97.
22. Sjöberg L, Drottz-Sjöberg B-M. Public risk perception of nuclear waste. International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, 2009; 11(3):248-280.
23. Chauvin B, Hermand D, Mullet E. New age beliefs and societal risk perception. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2008; 38(8):2056-2071.
24. Thompson MM, Zanna MP, Griffin DW. Let's not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. Pp. 361-386 in Petty RE, Krosnick JA (eds). Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1995.
25. Petrocelli JV, Tormala ZL, Rucker DD. Unpacking attitude certainty: Attitude clarity and attitude correctness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2007; 92(1):30-41.
26. Clark JK, Wegener DT, Fabrigar LR. Attitudinal ambivalence and message-based persuasion: Motivated processing of proattitudinal information and avoidance of counterattitudinal information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2008; 34(4):565-577.
27. de Liver Y, van der Pligt J, Wigboldus D. Positive and negative associations underlying ambivalent attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2007; 43(2):319-326.
28. Gerard HB, Orive R. The dynamics of opinion formation. Pp. 171-202 in Leonard B (ed). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 20. New York: Academic Press, 1987.
29. Zaller J, Feldman S. A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 1992; 36(3):579-616.
30. Kaplan KJ. On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: A suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychological Bulletin, 1972; 77(5):361-372.
31. Scholz RW, Stauffacher M, Bösch S, Krütli P, Wiek A (eds). Entscheidungsprozesse Wellenberg: Lagerung radioaktiver Abfälle in der Schweiz [Decision Process Wellenberg: Storage of Nuclear Waste in Switzerland]. Zürich, Chur: Rüegger, 2007.
32. Stauffacher M, Krütli P, Scholz RW. (eds). Gesellschaft und radioaktive Abfälle: Ergebnisse einer schweizweiten Befragung [Society and Radioactive Wastes: Results of a Switzerland-Wide Survey]. Zürich, Chur: Rüegger, 2008.
33. SFOE. Sectoral Plan for Deep Geological Repositories: Conceptual Part. Bern: Swiss Federal Office of Energy, 2008.
34. Greenberg MR. 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.
35. Kraft ME, Clary BB. Citizen participation and the NIMBY syndrome: Public response to radioactive waste disposal. Western Political Quarterly, 1991; 44(2):299-328.
36. Jain AK, Murty MN, Flynn PJ. Data clustering: A review. ACM Computing Surveys, 1999; 31(3):264-323.
37. Aldenderfer MS, Blashfield RK. Cluster Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1999.
38. Milligan GW, Cooper MC. A study of standardization of variables in cluster analysis. Journal of Classification, 1988; 5(2):181-204.
39. Field AP. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. London: SAGE, 2009.
40. Kruskal WH, Wallis WA. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1952; 47(260):583-621.
41. Grasmück D, Scholz RW. Risk perception of heavy metal soil contamination by high-exposed and low-exposed inhabitants: The role of knowledge and emotional concerns. Risk Analysis, 2005; 25(3):611-622.
42. Gustafson PE. Gender differences in risk perception: Theoretical and methodological perspectives. Risk Analysis, 1998; 18(6):805-811.
43. Davidson DJ, Freudenburg WR. Gender and environmental risk concerns-A review and analysis of available research. Environment and Behavior, 1996; 28(3):302-339.
44. Jager W, Amblard F. Uniformity, bipolarization and pluriformity captured as generic stylized behavior with an agent-based simulation model of attitude change. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 2005; 10(4):295-303.
45. Kottonau J, Pahl-Wostl C. Simulating political attitudes and voting behavior. JASSS-The Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 2004; 7(4).
46. Schori S, Krütli P, Stauffacher M, Flüeler T, Scholz RW (eds). Siting of nuclear waste repositories in Switzerland and Sweden-Stakeholder preferences for the interplay between technical expertise and societal input. Zürich: ETH Zürich. Eth-NSSI TdLab, 2009.
47. Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF. Exploring the structure of attitudes toward genetically modified food. Risk Analysis, 2006; 26(6):1707-1719.
48. Zemborain MR, Johar GV. Attitudinal ambivalence and openness to persuasion: A framework for interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 2007; 33(4):506-514.
49. Jonas K, Broemer P, Diehl M. Experienced ambivalence as a moderator of the consistency between attitudes and behaviors. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 2000; 31(3):153-165.
50. Krütli P, Stauffacher M, Pedolin D, Moser C, Scholz R. The process matters: Fairness in repository siting for nuclear waste. Social Justice Research, 2012; 25(1):79-101.