Acceptance of nuclear power: The Fukushima effect

Energy Policy

Volumn 59, Issue , 2013, Pages 112-119

  Siegrist, Michael ^a   Visschers, Vivianne H M ^a  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Fukushima; Nuclear power; Risk perception

Indexed keywords

FUKUSHIMA; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MAIL SURVEYS; MEASUREMENT POINTS; MEASUREMENT WAVE; SWITZERLAND;

ACCIDENTS; RISK PERCEPTION; SURVEYS;

NUCLEAR ENERGY;

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY; ENERGY POLICY; NUCLEAR POWER; RISK ASSESSMENT;

FUKUSHIMA; HONSHU; JAPAN; SWITZERLAND; TOHOKU;

EID: 84879508063     PISSN: 03014215     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.07.051     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Baron J., Spranca M. Protected values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decission Processes 1997, 70:1-16.
2. Bolsen T., Cook F.L. Public opinion on energy policy: 1974-2006. Public Opinion Quarterly 2008, 72:364-388.
3. Corner A., Venables D., Spence A., Poortinga W., Demski C., Pidgeon N. Nuclear power, climate change and energy security: exploring British public attitudes. Energy Policy 2011, 39:4823-4833.
4. Dohle S., Keller C., Siegrist M. Examining the relationship between affect and implicit associations: implications for risk perception. Risk Analysis 2010, 30:1116-1128.
5. Drottz-Sjöberg B.-M., Sjöberg L. Risk perception and worries after the Chernobyl accident. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1990, 10:135-149.
6. Eiser J.R., Hannover B., Mann L., Morin M., van der Pligt J., Webley P. Nuclear attitudes after Chernobyl: a cross-national study. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1990, 10:101-110.
7. Eiser J.R., Spears R., Webley P. Nuclear attitudes before and after Chernobyl: change and judgment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1989, 19:689-700.
8. European Commission Attitudes towards Radioactive Waste 2008, TNS Opinion & Social, Brussels.
9. European Commission Europeans and Nuclear Safety 2010, TNS Opinion & Social, Brussels.
10. Finucane M.L., Alhakami A., Slovic P., Johnson S.M. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 2000, 13:1-17.
11. Fischhoff B., Slovic P., Lichtenstein S., Read S., Combs B. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences 1978, 9:127-152.
12. Fleishman L.A., Bruine De Bruin W., Morgan M.G. Informed public preferences for electricity portfolios with CCS and other low-carbon technologies. Risk Analysis 2010, 30:1399-1410.
13. Goodfellow M.J., Williams H.R., Azapagic A. Nuclear renaissance, public perception and design criteria: an exploratory review. Energy Policy 2011, 39:6199-6210.
14. Greenberg M. Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences: analysis of US national and site-specific data. Energy Policy 2009, 37:3242-3249.
15. Greenberg M., Truelove H.B. Energy choices and risk beliefs: is it just global warming and fear of a nuclear power plant accident?. Risk Analysis 2011, 31:819-831.
16. Keller C., Visschers V., Siegrist M. Affective imagery and acceptance of replacing nuclear power plants. Risk Analysis 2012, 32:464-477.
17. Lindell M.K., Perry R.W. Effects of the Chernobyl accident on public perceptions of nuclear plant accident risks. Risk Analysis 1990, 10:393-399.
18. Midden C.J.H., Verplanken B. The stability of nuclear attitudes after Chernobyl. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1990, 10:111-119.
19. Peters H.P., Albrecht G., Hennen L., Stegelmann H.U. 'Chernobyl' and the nuclear power issue in West-German public opinion. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1990, 10:121-134.
20. Pidgeon N.F., Lorenzoni I., Poortinga W. Climate change or nuclear power -no thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain. Global Environmental Change 2008, 18:69-85.
21. Plous S. Thinking the unthinkable: the effects of anchoring on likelihood estimates of nuclear war. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1989, 19:67-91.
22. Renn O. Public responses to the Chernobyl accident. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1990, 10:151-167.
23. Rosa E.A., Dunlap R.E. Nuclear power: three decades of public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly 1994, 58:295-324.
24. Samuelson W., Zeckhauser R. Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1988, 1:7-59.
25. Sherif C.W., Sherif M., Nebergall R.E. Attitude and attitude change: the social judgment-involvement approach 1965, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT.
26. Siegrist M., Cousin M.-E., Frei M. Biased confidence in risk assessment studies. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 2008, 14:1226-1234.
27. Siegrist M., Keller C., Cousin M.-E. Implicit attitudes toward nuclear power and mobile phone base stations: support for the affect heuristic. Risk Analysis 2006, 26:1021-1029.
28. Siegrist M., Keller C., Kiers H.A.L. A new look at the psychometric paradigm of perception of hazards. Risk Analysis 2005, 25:211-222.
29. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science 1987, 236:280-285.
30. Slovic P. The construction of preference. American Psychologist 1995, 50:364-371.
31. Slovic P., Finucane M.L., Peters E., MacGregor D.G. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis 2004, 24:311-322.
32. Stauffacher M., Krütli P., Scholz R.W. Gesellschaft und radioaktive Abfälle: Ergebnisse einer schweizweiten Befragung [Society and radioactive waste: results of a survey in Switzerland]. Rüegger, Zurich, Chur 2008.
33. Swiss Federal Office of Energy, 2009. Nuclear Energy. Accessed July 22, 2010. http://www.bfe.admin.ch/themen/00511/%20index.html?lang=en.
34. Swiss Federal Office of Energy, 2010. Grafiken der Elektrizitätsstatistik 2009 [Graphs of Electricity Statistics 2009]. Accessed January 13, 2011. http://www.bfe.admin.ch/themen/00526/00541/00542/00630/index.html?lang=de&dossier_id=00768.
35. Swiss Statistics, 2009. Bevölkerungsstand und -struktur [Population size and composition]. Accessed May 31, 2011. http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/01/02/blank/data/01.html.
36. Swiss Statistics, 2010. Bildungsstand der Wohnbevölkerung nach Alter und Geschlecht [Education level of the resident population according to age and gender]. Accessed May 31, 2011. http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/15/02/key/ind5.indicator.51131.511.html?open=9#9.
37. Teräväinen T., Lehtonen M., Martiskainen M. Climate change, energy security, and risk-debating nuclear new build in Finland, France and the UK. Energy Policy 2011, 39:3434-3442.
38. Verplanken B. Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions toward nuclear energy before and after Chernobyl in a longitudinal within-subjects design. Environment and Behavior 1989, 21:371-392.
39. Visschers V.H.M., Keller C., Siegrist M. Climate change benefits and energy benefit supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nucler power stations: investigating an explanatory model. Energy Policy 2011, 39:3621-3629.
40. Visschers V.H.M., Meertens R.M., Passchier W.F., de Vries N.K. How does the general public evaluate risk information? The impact of associations with other risks. Risk Analysis 2007, 27:715-727.
41. Visschers, V.H.M., Siegrist, M. How an accident in a nuclear power plant influences acceptance: results of a longitudinal study before and after Fukushima. Risk Analysis,, in press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01861.x.
42. Whitfield S.C., Rosa E.A., Dan A., Dietz T. The future of nuclear power: value orientations and risk perception. Risk Analysis 2009, 29:425-437.
43. World Nuclear Association, 2011. The Nuclear Renaissance. Accessed May 5, 2011. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf104.html.