Social distrust and its implications for risk communication: An example from high level radioactive waste management

Effective Risk Communication

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 91-107

  Tuler, Seth P ^a   Kasperson, Roger E ^b  

^a Environmental Research Institute in Greenfield   (United States)

^b CLARK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84917415273     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203109861     Document Type: Chapter

References (61)

1. Adger, W. K. 2003. Social aspects of adaptive capacity. In J. B. Smith, R. J. T. Klein and S. Hug (eds), Climate change, adaptive capacity, and development, pp. 29–49. London: Imperial College Press.
2. Baxter, J. 2006. A case study of intra-community confl ict as facility impact, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 49(3): 337–360.
3. Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (BRC) 2012. Final report to the Secretary of Energy. Washington, DC: Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. Available online at: www.brc.gov
4. Bradbury, J., Branch, K. and Focht, W. 1999. Trust and public participation in risk policy issues. In G. Cvetkovich and R. Löfstedt (eds), Social trust and the management of risk. pp. 117–129. London: Earthscan.
5. Braman, D., Kahan, D. M. and Grimmelmann, J. 2005. Modeling facts, culture, and cognition in the gun debate, Social Justice Research 18(3), 283–304.
6. Chess, C. 2011. Inside the Organization. In US Food and Drug Administration, Communicating risks and benefi ts: An evidence-based user’s guide, pp. 195–203. Silver Spring, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Retrieved 11 February, 2012, from http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/RiskCommunication/ default.htm.
7. Chess, C. and Purcell, K. 1999. Public participation and the environment: do we know what works? Environmental Science & Technology, 33, 2685–2692.
8. Department of Energy (DOE) 1993. Recommendations from the Report of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Task Force on Radioactive Waste Management (November 1993). Washington, DC: US Department of Energy.
9. Department of Energy (DOE) 2000. Relations between DOE Facilities and their Host Communities: A Pilot Review. Report of the Openness Advisory Panel (OAP) of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board. Washington, DC: US Department of Energy.
10. Earle, T. C. 2010. Trust in risk management: A model-based review of empirical research, Risk Analysis 30(4): 541–574.
11. Earle, T. C. and Cvetkovich, G. 1995. Social trust: Toward a cosmopolitan society. Westport, CT: Praeger.
12. Earle, T. C., Siegrist, M. and Gutscher, H. 2007. Trust in cooperative risk management: Uncertainty and scepticism in the public mind. In M. Siegrist, H. Gutscher, T. C. Earle (eds), Trust, technology, and society: Studies in cooperative risk management. pp. 1–50. London: Earthscan.
13. Eiser, J. R., Stafford, T., Henneberry, J. and Catney, P. 2007. Risk perception and trust in the context of urban brownfifi elds, Environmental Hazards 7: 150–156.
14. Elliott, J. R. and Pais, J. 2006. Race, class, and hurricane Katrina: Social difference in human response to disaster, Social Science Research 35(2):285–321.
15. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S. and Combs, B. 1978. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefi ts, Policy Sciences 9: 127–152.
16. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2011. Communicating Risks and Benefi ts: An Evidence-Based User’s Guide. Silver Spring, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Retrieved 11 February, 2012, from http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/RiskCommunication/ default.htm.
17. Frewer, L., Scholderer, J. and Bredahl, L. 2003. Communicating about the risks and benefifi ts of genetically modifi ed foods: The mediating role of trust, Risk Analysis 23(6): 1117–1133
18. Gallup 2008. Polling data on trust and confi dence in government institutions; www. gallup.com/poll/110458/trust-government-remains-low.aspx
19. Ibitayo, O. 2002. Public-private partnerships in the siting of hazardous waste facilities: The importance of trust, Waste Management Research 20: 212–222.
20. Jenkins-Smith, H. and Silva, C. 1998. The role of risk perception and technical information in scientifi c debates over nuclear waste storage, Reliability Engineering and System Safety 59: 107–122.
21. Johnson, B. and White, M. 2010. The importance of multiple performance criteria for understanding trust in risk managers, Risk Analysis 30(7): 1099–1115.
22. Kahan, D., Slovic, P., Braman, D., Gastil, J. and Cohen, G. 2007. Affect, values, and nanotechnology risk perceptions: An experimental investigation. Yale Law School Public Law Working Paper No. 155. New Haven: Yale University.
23. Kasperson, R. 2005. Siting hazardous facilities: Searching for effective institutions and processes. In S. H. Lesbirel and D. Shaw (eds), Managing confl ict in facility siting: An international comparison. pp. 13–35. Northampton, MA: Elgar.
24. Kasperson, R. E., Golding, D. and Tuler, S. 1992. Siting hazardous facilities and communicating risks under conditions of high social distrust, Journal of Social Issues 48(4): 161–187.
25. Kasperson, R., Kasperson, J. and Golding, D. 1999. Risk, trust, and democratic theory. In G. Cvetkovich and R. Lofstedt (eds), Social trust and the management of risk. pp. 22–41. London: Earthscan.
26. Kuhn, R. and Ballard, K. 1999. Canadian innovations in siting hazardous waste management facilities, Environmental Management 22(4): 533–545.
27. Lehtonen, M. 2010. Deliberative decision-making on radioactive waste management in Finland, France, and the UK: Infl uence of mixed forms of deliberation in the macro discursive context, Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 7(3): 175–196.
28. McLeod, C. 2008. Trust. In Zalta, E. N., Ed.; The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 edition). Available at: Http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/trust/
29. Metlay, D. 1999. Institutional trust and confifi dence: A journey into a conceptual quagmire. In G. Cvetkovich and R. Löfstedt (eds), Social trust and the management of risk. pp. 100–116. London: Earthscan.
30. Midden, C. J. H. and Huijts, N. M. A. 2009. The role of trust in the affective evaluation of novel risks: The case of CO2 storage, Risk Analysis, 29:743–751.
31. Misztal, B. A. 1996. Trust in Modern Society: The Search for the Base of Social Order. Cambridge: Polity Press.
32. National Research Council (NRC) 1996. Understanding risk. Washington, DC: National.
33. National Research Council (NRC) 2001. Disposition of high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
34. National Research Council (NRC) 2003. One step at a time: The staged development of geologic repositories for high-level radioactive waste. Washington, DC: National Academies Press,.
35. National Research Council (NRC) 2008. Public participation in environmental assessment and decision-making. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
36. Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) 2004. Stepwise approach to decision-making for longterm radioactive waste management: Experience, issues and guiding principles. Report No. 4429. Paris: Nuclear Energy Agency, OECD.
37. Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) 2010. Moving forward together: Process for selecting a site for Canada’s deep geologic repository for used nuclear fuel. Toronto: Nuclear Waste Management Organization.
38. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) 2009. Survey of national programs for managing high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. A report to Congress and the Secretary of Energy. Washington, DC: Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.
39. O’Neill, K., Calia, J., Chess, C. and Clarke, L. 2007. Miscommunication during the anthrax attacks: How events reveal organizational failures, Human Ecology Review 14 (2): 119–129.
40. Parkins, J. 2010. The problem with trust: Insights from advisory committees in the forest sector of Alberta, Society and Natural Resources 23(9): 822–836.
41. Petts, J. 2008. Public engagement to build trust: False hopes? Journal of Risk Research 11(6): 821–835.
42. Pidgeon, N. F., Kasperson, R. E. and Slovic, P. (eds) 2003. The social amplififi cation of risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43. Pijawka, K. D. and Mushkatel, A. H. 1991. Public opposition to the siting of the highlevel nuclear waste repository: The importance of trust, Policy Studies Review 10(4): 180–194.
44. Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N. F. 2003. Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation, Risk Analysis 23: 961–972.
45. Rabe, B. Gunderson, W. Harbage, P. 1996. Alternatives to NIMBY gridlock: Voluntary approaches to radioactive waste facility siting in Canada and the United States. In D. Munton (Ed.), Hazardous waste siting and democratic choice. pp. 84–107. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
46. Rosa, E. and Clark, Jr., D. 1999. Historical routes to technological gridlock: Nuclear technology as prototypical vehicle, Research in Social Problems and Public Policy 7: 21–57.
47. 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. and Short, J. 2010. Nuclear waste: Knowledge waste? Science 329(5993): 762–763.
48. Seligman, A. 1997. The problem of trust. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
49. Siegrist, M. 2000. The infl uence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefi ts on the acceptance of gene technology, Risk Analysis 20: 195–204.
50. Siegrist, M. 2010. Trust and confi dence: The diffi culties in distinguishing the two concepts in research, Risk Analysis 30(7): 1022–1024.
51. Sjoberg, L. 1999. Perceived competence and motivation in industry and government as factors in risk perception. In G. Cvetkovich and R. Löfstedt (eds), Social trust and the management of risk, pp. 89–99. London: Earthscan.
52. Sjoberg, L. and Wester Herber, M. 2008. Too much trust in (social) trust? The importance of epistemic concerns and perceived antagonism, International Journal of Global Environmental Issues 8(1/2): 30–44.
53. Slovic, P. 1993. Perceived risk, trust, and democracy, Risk Analysis 13: 675–682.
54. Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., and MacGregor, D. 2007. The affect heuristic, European Journal of Operational Research 177(3): 1333–1352.
55. Spies, S., Murdock, S., White, S., Krannich, R., Wulfhorst, J., Wrigley, K., Leistritz, F. L., Sell, R. and Thompson, J. 1998. Support for waste facility siting: Differences between community leaders and residents, Rural Sociology 63(1): 65–93.
56. Tuler, S. 2002. Radiation Risk Perception and Communication: A Case Study of the Fernald Environmental Management Project. SERI Report 02-001. Greenfield, MA: Social and Environmental Research Institute. Available at: www.seri-us.org/content/ fernald-case-study-report-0
57. Tuler, S. and Webler T. 2010. How preferences for public participation are linked to perceptions of the context, preferences for outcomes, and individual characteristics, Environmental Management 46(2): 254–267.
58. Vira, J. 2006. Winning citizen trust: The siting of a nuclear waste facility in Eurajoki, Finland, Innovations (fall): 67–82.
59. Webler, T., Kastenholz, H. and Renn, O. 1995. Public Participation in Impact Assessment: A Social Learning Perspective, Environmental Impact Assessment Review.15: 443–463.
60. Webler, T., Tuler, S. and Rosa, E. 2011. Options for developing public and stakeholder engagement for the storage and management of spent nuclear fuel and high level waste in the United States. Technical report prepared for the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. Washington, DC: Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. Available online at: www.brc.gov/commissioned_papers.html
61. Whitfield, S., Rosa, E., Dan, A., and Dietz, T. 2009. The future of nuclear power: Value orientations and risk perception. Risk Analysis 29(3): 425–437.