Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Nuclear Waste Management, Nuclear Power, and Energy Choices pp 45–64Cite as

Public Stakeholders: What We Know and Expect

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Energy ((LNEN,volume 2))

Abstract

Hundreds of surveys have sampled public preferences for different energy sources and associated perceptions. Far fewer polls have focused on waste management. The foundation for in-depth investigations rests on five sets of respondent attributes: (1) concern about the options, marked especially by strong feelings and emotions; (2) trust of responsible parties; (3) demographic characteristics, including race/ethnicity, age, and socioeconomic status; (4) culture and worldviews; and (5) personal history, including familiarity with sites and benefits associated with living near sites. The better studies show variation over time and place in support for nuclear and other energy sources and waste management policies. European surveys, for instance, show fascinating differences among adjacent countries that appear to parallel national energy policies. Initial reports show that the Fukushima nuclear-related events have caused a decrease in public support for nuclear energy that is also associated with decreasing trust of those responsible for managing waste sites.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alhakami A, Slovic P (1994) A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and proceeds benefit. Risk Anal 14:1085–1096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansolabehere S (2007) Public attitudes toward America’s energy options: insights for nuclear energy. MIT-NES-TR-08

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansolabehere S, Konisky D (2009) Public attitudes toward construction of new power plants. Public Opin Quart 73:566–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry L, Jones A, Powers T (1999) Media interaction with the public in emergency situations: four case studies. Library of Congress, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Bisconti AS (2007) Perspective on public opinion (December 2007). A report prepared for the National Energy Institute. Retrieved September 18, 2009 from http://nei.org

  • Bisconti AS (2008) Perspective on public opinion (November 2008). A report prepared for the National Energy Institute. Retrieved September 18, 2009 from http://nei.org

  • Bisconti A S (2009). Perspective on public opinion (June 2009). A report prepared for the National Energy Institute. Retrieved February 17, 2011, from http://nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/publications/perspectiveonpublicopinion/june2009/

  • Bisconti A S (2010a) Perspective on public opinion (June 2010). A report prepared for the Nuclear Energy Institute. Retrieved February 17, 2011, from http://nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/publications/perspectiveonpublicopinion/perspective-on-public-opinion-june-2010/

  • Bisconti AS (2010b) Public opinion snapshot (Winter, 2010). A report prepared for the Nuclear Energy Institute. Retrieved February 17, 2011, from http://nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/publications/perspectiveonpublicopinion/winter-2010/

  • Bisconti Research Inc. (2011) National questionnaire for nuclear plant neighbor survey. June. http://www.bisconti.com. Accessed September 20, 2011

  • Bronfman N, Cifuentes L (2003) Risk perception in a developing country: the case of Chile. Risk Anal 23:171–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cha YJ (2000) Risk perception in Korea: a comparison with Japan and the United States. J Risk Res 3:321–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corner A, Venables D, Spence A, Poortinga W, Demski C, Pidgeon N (2011) Nuclear power, climate change and energy security: exploring British public attitudes. Energy Pol 39:4823–4833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickert S, Slovic P (2009) Attentional mechanisms in the generation of sympathy. Judge Dec Mak 4:297–306

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas M (1970) Natural symbols: explorations in cosmology. Barrie & Rockliff, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Earle TC (2010) Trust in risk management: a model-based review of empirical research. Risk Anal 30:541–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Earle T, Cvetkovich G (1995) Social trust, towards a cosmopolitan society. Praeger, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Eiser JR, Spears R, Webley P (1989) Nuclear attitudes before and after Chernobyl: change and judgment. J Appl Soc Psychol 19:689–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2005) Radioactive Waste. Brussels: TNS Opinion & Social Report No.: Special Eurobarometer 227

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2006) Energy Technologies. Brussels: TNS Opinion & Social Report No.: EUR22396

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2008) Attitudes toward radioactive waste. brussels: TNS Opinion & Social Report No.: Special Eurobarometer 297

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2010) Europeans and nuclear safety. Brussels: TNS Opinion & Social Report No.: Special Eurobarometer 324

    Google Scholar 

  • Finucane M, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson S (2000a) The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J Behav Dec Mak 13:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finucane M, Slovic P, Mertz CK, Satterfield T (2000b) Gender, race, and perceived risk: the ‘White Male’ affect. Health, Risk & Society 14:159–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finucane M, Slovic P, Mertz CK (2000c) Public perception of the risk of blood transfusion. Transfusion 40:1017–1022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (1994) Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal 14:1101–1108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallup (2011a) Majority of Americans say nuclear power plants in the U.S. are safe. http://www.gallup.com/poll/146939. Accessed September 23, 2011

  • Gallup (2011b) US support for nuclear power climbs to new high of 62 %. http://www.gallup.com/poll/126827. Accessed September 23, 2011

  • General Public Utilities Corporation (1979) The TMI 2 Story. www.threemileisland.org/dowjones/225.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2011

  • Greenberg M (2005) Concern about environmental pollution: how much difference do race and ethnicity make? a New Jersey case study. Environ Health Perspect 113:369–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg M (2009a) NIMBY, CLAMP and the location of new nuclear-related facilities: U.S. National and eleven site-specific surveys. Risk Anal 29:1242–1254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg M (2009b) Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences: analysis of US national and site-specific data. Energy Policy 37:3242–3249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg M (2012) Comment: the affect heuristic, correspondence analysis, and understanding LULUs. Risk Anal 32:478–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg M, Schneider D (1995) Gender differences in risk perception: effects differ in stressed vs. non-stressed environments. Risk Anal 15:503–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg M, Truelove H (2010) Energy choices and perceived risks: Is it just global warming and fear of a nuclear power plant accident? Risk Anal 32:819–831

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg M, Lowrie K, Krueckeberg D, Mayer H, Simon D (1997) Bombs and butterflies: a case study of the challenges of post cold-war environmental planning and management for the United States’ nuclear weapons sites. J Environ Plann Manage 40:739–750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg M, Popper F, Truelove H (2012) Are LULUs Still Enduringly Objectionable? Environ Plann Manage 55(6):713–731

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross J, Rayner S (1985) Measuring culture: a paradigm for the analysis of social organization. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris Poll Interactive (2011) Harris Poll about nuclear power. http://www.se-ygn.org/2011/03/31. Accessed March 23, 2011

  • Hsee C (1996) Elastic justification: how unjustifiable factors influence judgments. Organ Behav Human Dec Process 66:122–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsee C, Kunreuther H (2000) The affection effect and insurance decisions. J Risk Uncertain 20:141–159

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Ipsos (2011) Global citizen reaction to the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster. PowerPoint presentation. http://www.ipsos-mori.com/rsearchpublciations/rsearcharchive/2817. Accessed September 29, 2011

  • Jenkins-Smith H, Silva C, Nowlin M, deLozier G (2011) Reversing nuclear opposition: evolving public acceptance of a permanent nuclear waste disposal facility. Risk Anal 31:629–644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones J (2011) Disaster in Japan raises nuclear concerns in U.S. http://www.gallup.com/poll/146660. Accessed September 23, 2011.

  • Kahan D, Braman D, Gastil J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (2007) Culture and identity-protective cognition: explaining the white-male effect in risk perception. J Empirical Legal Stud 4:465–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller C, Visschers V, Siegrist M (2012) Affective imagery and acceptance of replacing nuclear power plants. Risk Anal 32:464–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight A (2007) Intervening effects of knowledge, morality, trust and benefits on support for animal and plant biotechnology applications. Risk Anal 27:1553–1563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koren G, Klein N (1991) Bias against negative studies in newspaper reports of medical research. J Am Med Assoc 266:1824–1826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunreuther H, Easterling H, Desvousges W, Slovic P (1990) Public attitudes toward citing a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Risk Anal 10:469–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindell M, Perry R (1990) Effects of the Chernobyl accident on public perceptions of nuclear plant accident risks. Risk Anal 10:393–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macfarlane M, Ewing R (eds) (2006) Uncertainty underground: yucca mountain and the Nations High-Level Nuclear Waste. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Nye J, Zelikow P, King D (1997) Why people don’t trust government. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Olofsson A, Rashid S (2011) The white (male) effect and risk perception: can equality make a difference? Risk Anal 31:1016–1032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkhill K, Pidgeon N, Henwood N, Simmons P, Venables D (2010) From the familiar to the extraordinary: local residents’ perception of risk when living with nuclear power in the UK. Transact Inst Br Geogr 35:39–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkhill K, Henwood N, Pidgeon N, Simmons P (2011) Humour, affect and emotion work in communities living with nuclear risk? Br J Sociol 62:324–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pew Research Center (1998) Deconstructing distrust: Americans view government. Pew Research Center, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Pew Research Center for the People & the Press (2011a) Opposition to nuclear power rises amid Japanese crisis. Http://People-press.org/2011/03/21. Accessed September 19, 2011

  • Pew Research Center for the People & the Press (2011b) Japanese resilient, but see economic challenges ahead. Http://People-press.org/2011/06/01. Accessed September 19, 2011

  • Pidgeon N, Lorenzoni I, Poortinga W (2008) Climate change or nuclear power–no thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain. Global Environ Change 18:69–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poortinga W, Pidgeon N (2003) Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Anal 23:961–972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner S (1992) Cultural theory and risk analysis. In: Kirmsky S, Goldin D (eds) Social theories of risk. Praeger, Westport, CT, p 83

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn O (1990) Public responses to the Chernobyl accident. J Environ Psychol 19:151–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivers L, Arvai J, Slovic P (2010) Beyond a simple case of black and white: searching for the white male effect in the African-American community. Risk Anal 30:65–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosa E, Dunlap R (1994) The polls-poll trends, nuclear power: three decades of public opinion. Publ Opin Quart 58:295–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth S, Hirschberg S, Bauer C et al (2009) Sustainability of electricity supply technology portfolio. Ann Nucl Energy 36:409–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salvadori L, Savio S, Nicotra E, Rumiati R, Finucane M, Slovic P (2004) Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Anal 24:1289–1299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M (2010) Trust and confidence: the difficulties in distinguishing the two concepts in research. Risk Anal 30:1022–1024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G (2000) Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Anal 20:713–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G (2001) Better negative than positive? Evidence of a bias for negative information about possible health dangers. Risk Anal 21:199–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G, Roth C (2000) Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Anal 20:353–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjoberg L (2002) Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Anal 21:189–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2003) Risk perception is not what it seems: the psychometric paradigm revisited. In: Andersson K (ed) VALDOR Conference 2003. VALDOR, Stockholm, pp 14–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Skowronski J, Carlston D (1989) Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: a review of explanations. Psychol Bull 105:131–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (2001) Cigarette smokers: rational actors or rational fools? In: Slovic P (ed) Smoking: risk, perception and policy. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 97–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Finucane M, Peters E, MacGregor D (2004) Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal 24:311–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Peters E, Grana J, Berger S, Dieck GS (2007) Risk perception of prescription drugs: results of a national survey. Drug Inform J 41:81–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Small D, Loewenstein G (2003) Helping the victim or helping a victim: altruism and identifiability. J Risk Uncertain 26:5–16

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Stern P (2000) Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. the ‘White Male’ effect. Health, Risk & Society 2:159–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandermoere F (2008) Hazard perception, risk perception, and the need for decontamination by residents exposed to soil pollution: the role of sustainability and the limits of expert knowledge. Risk Anal 28:387–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vastfjall C, Peters C, Slovic P (2008) Affect, risk perception and future optimism after the tsunami disaster. Judge Dec Mak 3:64–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Verplanken B (1989) Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions toward nuclear energy before and after Chernobyl and a longitudinal within-subjects design. Environ Behav 21:371–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visschers VHM, Keller C, Siegrist M (2011) Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: investigating an explanatory model. Energy Policy 39:3621–3629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visschers VHM, Siegrist M (2012) How a nuclear power plant accident influences acceptance: results of a longitudinal study before and after the Fukushima disaster. Risk Anal

    Google Scholar 

  • Weart S (1992) Fears, fantasies and fallout. New Scientist 136:34–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Xie X, Wang M, Xu L (2003) What risks are Chinese people concerned about? Risk Anal 23:685–695

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA

    Michael R. Greenberg

Authors
  1. Michael R. Greenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Greenberg, M.R. (2013). Public Stakeholders: What We Know and Expect. In: Nuclear Waste Management, Nuclear Power, and Energy Choices. Lecture Notes in Energy, vol 2. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4231-7_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4231-7_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-4230-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-4231-7

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation