Psychological Perspectives on the Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste and Carbon Dioxide

Advances in Global Change Research

Volumn 44, Issue , 2011, Pages 339-363

  de Groot, Judith I M ^a   Steg, Linda ^b  

^a BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Acceptability; Affect; CO2 disposal; Fairness; Radioactive waste; Risk perception; Trust; Values

Indexed keywords

EID: 85052601565     PISSN: 15740919     EISSN: 22151621     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-8712-6_12     Document Type: Chapter

References (91)

1. Abrahamse W, Steg L, Vlek C, Rothengatter T (2005) A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. J Environ Psychol 25:273–291
2. Adams JS (1965) Inequity in social exchange. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Academic, New York, pp 267–299
3. Ahearne JF (2000) Intergenerational issues regarding nuclear power, nuclear waste, and nuclear weapons. Risk Anal 20:763–770
4. Alhakami AS, Slovic P (1994) A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Anal 14:1085–1096
5. Biel A, Dahlstrand U (1995) Risk perception and the location for a repository of spent nuclear fuel. Scand J Psychol 36:25–36
6. Binney SE, Mason R, Martsolf SW, Detweiler JH (1996) Credibility, public trust, and the transport of radioactive waste through local communities. Environ Behav 28:283–301
7. Bord RJ, O’Connor RE (1990) Risk communication, knowledge, and attitudes: explaining reactions to a technology perceived as risky. Risk Anal 10:499–506
8. Bord RJ, O’Connor RE (1992) Determinants of risk perceptions of a hazardous waste site. Risk Anal 12:411–416
9. Bradbury J, Ray I, Peterson T, Wade S, Wong-Parodi G, Feldpausch A (2009) The role of social factors in shaping public perceptions of CCS: results of multi-state focus group interviews in the U.S. In: Gale J, Herzog H, Braitsch J (eds) Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies; Energy Procedia 1:4665–4672
10. Clayton S (2000) Models of justice in the environmental debate. J Soc Issues 56:459–474
11. Clayton S, Opotow S (2003) Justice and identity: changing perspectives on what is fair. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 7:298–310
12. Cohen RL (1987) Distributive justice: theory and research. Soc Just Res 1:19–40
13. Cook KS, Hegtvedt KA (1983) Distributive justice, equity, and equality. Annu Rev Sociol 9:217–241
14. Cvetkovich G, Earle TC (1994) The construction of justice: a case study of public participation in land management. J Soc Issues 50:161–178
15. Daamen DDL, Verplanken B, Midden CJH (1986) Accuracy and consistency of lay estimates of annual fatality rates. In: Brehmer B, Jungermann H, Lourens P, Sevón G (eds) New Directions in Research on Decision Making. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 231–243
16. Dake K (1991) Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: an analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. J Cross-Cult Psychol 22:61–82
17. Dake K (1992) Myths of nature: culture and the social construction of risk. J Soc Issues 48:21–37
18. 2 capture and storage technologies in the Netherlands. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 3:322–332
19. de Groot JIM, Steg L (2007) Values, beliefs and environmental behavior: validation of an instrument to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations in five countries. J Cross-Cult Psychol 38:318–332
20. de Groot JIM, Steg L (2008) Value orientations to explain environmental attitudes and beliefs: how to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations. Environ Behav 40(3):330–354
21. de Groot JIM, Steg L (2009) Mean or green? Values, morality and environmental significant behavior. Conserv Lett 2:61–66
22. de Groot JIM, Steg L, Dicke M (2008) Transportation trends from a moral perspective: value orientations, norms and reducing car use. In: Gustavsson FN (ed) New Transportation Research Progress. Nova Science Publishers, New York, pp 67–91
23. de Groot JIM, Steg L (2010) Morality and Nuclear Energy: Perceptions of Risks and Benefits, Personal Norms and Willingness to Take Action Related to Nuclear Energy. Risk Anal 30 (9):1363–1373
24. Deutsch M (1975) Equity, equality, and need: what determines which value will be used as the bases of distributive justice? J Soc Issues 31:137–149
25. Deutsch M (1985) Distributive Justice. Yale University Press, New Haven
26. Douglas M, Wildavsky A (1982) Risk and Culture: An Essay on Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers. California University Press, Berkeley
27. Drottz-Sjöberg BM, Sjöberg L (1991) Adolescents’ attitudes to nuclear power and radioactive wastes. J Appl Soc Psychol 21:2007–2036
28. Earle TC, Cvetkovich GT (1995) Social Trust: Toward a Cosmopolitan Society. Praeger Publishers, Westport
29. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci 9:127–152
30. Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading
31. Flynn J, Burns W, Mertz CK, Slovic P (1992) Trust as determinant of opposition to a high-level radioactive waste repository: analysis of a structural model. Risk Anal 12:417–429
32. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (1993) Decidedly different: expert and public views of risks from a radioactive waste repository. Risk Anal 13:643–648
33. Gardner GT, Stern PC (2002) Environmental Problems and Human Behavior. Pearson, Boston
34. Gervers JH (1987) The NIMBY syndrome: is it inevitable? Environment 29:18–29
35. Gowda MVR, Easterling D (2000) Voluntary siting and equity: the MRS facility experience in native America. Risk Anal 20:917–929
36. Gowda MVR, Owsley-Long P (1998) The relevance of social science to societal technology choices. In: Neuby BL (ed) Relevancy of the Social Sciences in the New Millennium. State University of West Georgia, Carrollton, pp 104–113
37. Hisschemöller M, Midden CJH (1989) Technological risk, policy theories and public perception in connection with the siting of hazardous facilities. In: Vlek C, Cvetkovich G (eds) Social Decision Methodology for Technological Projects. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, pp 173–194
38. Hohenemser C, Renn O (1988) Chernobyl’s other legacy. Shifting public perceptions of nuclear risk. Environment 30:4–45
39. Huijts NMA, Midden CJH, Meijnders AL (2007) Social acceptance of carbon dioxide storage. Energ Policy 35:2780–2789
40. Kasperson RE, Golding D, Tuler S (1992) Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous facilities and communicating risks. J Soc Issues 48:161–87
41. Katsuya T (2002) Difference in the formation of attitude toward nuclear power. Polit Psychol 23:191–203
42. Krannich RS, Little RL, Cramer LA (1993) Rural community residents’ views of nuclear waste repository siting in Nevada. In: Dunlap RE, Kraft ME, Rosa EA (eds) Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste: Citizens’ Views of Repository Siting. Duke University Press, Durham, pp 263–287
43. Lind EA, Tyler TR (1988) The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. Plenum Press, New York
44. MacGregor D, Slovic P, Mason RG, Detweiler J, Binney SE, Dodd B (1994) Perceived risks of radioactive waste transport through Oregon: results of a statewide survey. Risk Anal 14:5–14
45. Meijnders AL, Midden CJH, Wilke HAM (2001) Communications about environmental risks and risk-reducing behavior: the impact of fear on information processing. J Appl Soc Psychol 31:754–777
46. Montada L, Kals E (1995) Perceived justice of ecological policy and proenvironmental commitments. Soc Just Res 8:305–327
47. Mushkatel AH, Nigg JM, Pijawka KD (1993) Nevada urban residents’ attitudes toward a nuclear waste repository. In: Dunlap RE, Kraft ME, Rosa EA (eds) Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste: Citizens’ Views of Repository Siting. Duke University Press, Durham, pp 239–262
48. Opotow S, Clayton S (1994) Green justice: conceptions of fairness and the natural world. J Soc Issues 50:1–11
49. Peters E, Slovic P (1996) The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. J Appl Soc Psychol 26:1427–1453
50. Peters E, Burraston B, Mertz CK (2004) An emotion-based model of risk perception and stigma susceptibility: cognitive appraisals of emotion, affective reactivity, worldviews, and risk perceptions in the generation of technological stigma. Risk Anal 24:1349–1367
51. Pijawka KD, Mushkatel AH (1991/1992) Public opposition to the siting of the high-level nuclear waste repository: the importance of trust. Policy Stud Rev 10:180–194
52. Purvis-Roberts KL, Werner CA, Frank I (2007) Perceived risks from radiation and nuclear testing near Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan: a comparison between physicians, scientists, and the public. Risk Anal 27:291–302
53. Rawls J (1999) A Theory of Justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge
54. Rogers R (1983) Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: a revised theory of protection motivation. In: Cacioppo J, Petty R (eds) Social Psychology: A Sourcebook. Guildford Press, New York, pp 153–176
55. Rosema M, Jost JT, Stapel DA (2008) Social psychology and the study of politics. In: Steg L, Buunk AP, Rothengatter T (eds) Applied Social Psychology. Understanding and Managing Social Problems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 291–315
56. Schuitema G (2010) Priceless Policies. Factors Influencing the Acceptability of Transport Pricing Policies. University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
57. Schwartz SH (1992) Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In: Zanna M (ed) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Academic, Orlando, pp 1–65
58. Schwartz SH (1994) Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? J Soc Issues 50:19–45
59. Schwartz SH, Howard JA (1981) A normative decision-making model of altruism. In: Rushton JP, Sorrentino RM (eds) Altruism and Helping Behavior. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 89–211
60. Sherif M, Hovland CI (1961) Social Judgment: Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Communication and Attitude Change. Yale University Press, New Haven
61. Short JF, Rosa EA (2004) Some principles for siting controversy decisions: lessons from the US experience with high level nuclear waste. J Risk Res 7:135–152
62. Shrader-Frechette K (2000) Duties to future generations, proxy concent, intra-and intergenerational equity: the case of nuclear waste. Risk Anal 20:771–777
63. Siegrist M, Keller C, Cousin ME (2006) Implicit attitudes toward nuclear power and mobile phone base stations: support for the affect heuristic. Risk Anal 26:1021–1029
64. Sjöberg L (1997) Explaining risk perception: an empirical and quantitative evaluation of cultural theory. Risk Decis Policy 2:113–130
65. Sjöberg L (1998) Risk perception: experts and the public. Eur Psychol 3:1–12
66. Sjöberg L (2001) Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Anal 21:189–198
67. Sjöberg L (2003) Attitudes and risk perception of stakeholders in a nuclear waste siting issue. Risk Anal 23:739–749
68. Sjöberg L (2004) Local acceptance of a high-level nuclear waste repository. Risk Anal 24:737–749
69. Sjöberg L, Drottz-Sjöberg BM (2001) Fairness, risk, and risk tolerance in the siting of a nuclear waste repository. J Risk Res 4:75–101
70. Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280–286
71. Slovic P (1993) Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Anal 13:675–682
72. Slovic P, Flynn JH, Layman M (1991a) Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science 254:1603–1607
73. Slovic P, Layman M, Kraus N, Flynn J, Chalmers J, Gesell G (1991b) Perceived risk, stigma, and potential economic impacts of a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Risk Anal 11:683–696
74. Slovic P, Layman M, Flynn JH (1991c) Lessons from Yucca Mountain. Environment 33:7–30
75. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2004) Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal 24:311–322
76. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2007) The affect heuristic. Eur J Oper Res 177:1333–1352
77. Steg L, Dreijerink L, Abrahamse W (2005) Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: testing VBN theory. J Environ Psychol 25:415–425
78. Stern PC (2000) Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Issues 56:407–424
79. Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L (1993) Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environ Behav 25:322–348
80. Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L, Guagnano GA (1995) Values, beliefs, and proenvironmental action: attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. J Appl Soc Psychol 25:1611–1636
81. Summers C, Hine DW (1997) Nuclear waste goes on the road: risk perceptions and compensatory tradeoffs in single-industry communities. Can J Behav Sci 29:210–222
82. Thøgersen J (1994) Monetary incentives and environmental concern: effects of a differentiated garbage fee. J Consum Policy 17:1–36
83. Thøgersen J (1996) Recycling and morality: a critical review of the literature. Environ Behav 28(4):536–558
84. Tokushige K, Akimoto K, Tomoda T (2007) Public perceptions on the acceptance of geological storage of carbon dioxide and information influencing the acceptance. In: Gale J, Bolland O (eds) 8th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies – GHGT-8. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 1(1):101–112
85. Tyler TR (2000) Social justice: outcome and procedure. Int J Psychol 35:117–125
86. van Alphen K, van Voorst tot Voorst Q, Hekkert MP, Smits REHM (2007) Societal acceptance of carbon capture and storage technologies. Energ Policy 35:4368–4380
87. van der Pligt J (1989) Nuclear waste: public perception and siting policy. In: Vlek C, Cvetkovich G (eds) Social Decision Methodology for Technological Projects. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, pp 235–252
88. van der Pligt J, Midden CJH (1990) Chernobyl: four years later: attitudes, risk management and communication. J Environ Psychol 10:91–99
89. Verplanken B (1989) Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions toward nuclear energy before and after Chernobyl in a longitudinal within-subjects design. Environ Behav 21:371–392
90. Vlek C, Stallen PJ (1981) Judging risks and benefits in the small and in the large. Organ Behav Hum Perf 28:235–271
91. Wiegman O, Gutteling JM, Cadet B (1995) Perceptions of nuclear energy and coal in France and the Netherlands. Risk Anal 15:513–521