Perceived Risk and Benefit of Nuclear Waste Repositories: Four Opinion Clusters. Issue 6 (28th September 2012)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- Perceived Risk and Benefit of Nuclear Waste Repositories: Four Opinion Clusters. Issue 6 (28th September 2012)
- Main Title:
- Perceived Risk and Benefit of Nuclear Waste Repositories: Four Opinion Clusters
- Authors:
- Seidl, Roman
Moser, Corinne
Stauffacher, Michael
Krütli, Pius - Abstract:
- <abstract abstract-type="main"> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <p>Local public resistance can block the site‐selection process, construction, and operation of nuclear waste repositories. Social science has established that the perception of risks and benefits, trust in authorities, and opinion on nuclear energy play important roles in acceptance. In particular, risk and benefit evaluations seem critical for opinion formation. However, risks and benefits have rarely been studied independently and, most often, the focus has been on the two most salient groups of proponents and opponents. The aim of this exploratory study is to examine the often‐neglected majority of people holding ambivalent or indifferent opinions. We used cluster analysis to examine the sample (<italic>N</italic> = 500, mailed survey in German‐speaking Switzerland) in terms of patterns of risk and benefit perception. We reveal four significantly different and plausible clusters: one cluster with high‐benefit ratings in favor of a repository and one cluster with high‐risk ratings opposing it; a third cluster shows ambivalence, with high ratings on both risk and benefit scales and moderate opposition, whereas a fourth cluster seems indifferent, rating risks and benefits only moderately compared to the ambivalent cluster. We conclude that a closer look at the often neglected but considerable number of people with ambivalent or indifferent opinions is necessary. Although the extreme<abstract abstract-type="main"> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <p>Local public resistance can block the site‐selection process, construction, and operation of nuclear waste repositories. Social science has established that the perception of risks and benefits, trust in authorities, and opinion on nuclear energy play important roles in acceptance. In particular, risk and benefit evaluations seem critical for opinion formation. However, risks and benefits have rarely been studied independently and, most often, the focus has been on the two most salient groups of proponents and opponents. The aim of this exploratory study is to examine the often‐neglected majority of people holding ambivalent or indifferent opinions. We used cluster analysis to examine the sample (<italic>N</italic> = 500, mailed survey in German‐speaking Switzerland) in terms of patterns of risk and benefit perception. We reveal four significantly different and plausible clusters: one cluster with high‐benefit ratings in favor of a repository and one cluster with high‐risk ratings opposing it; a third cluster shows ambivalence, with high ratings on both risk and benefit scales and moderate opposition, whereas a fourth cluster seems indifferent, rating risks and benefits only moderately compared to the ambivalent cluster. We conclude that a closer look at the often neglected but considerable number of people with ambivalent or indifferent opinions is necessary. Although the extreme factions of the public will most probably not change their opinion, we do not yet know how the opinion of the ambivalent and indifferent clusters might develop over time.</p> </abstract> … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- Risk analysis. Volume 33:Issue 6(2013)
- Journal:
- Risk analysis
- Issue:
- Volume 33:Issue 6(2013)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 33, Issue 6 (2013)
- Year:
- 2013
- Volume:
- 33
- Issue:
- 6
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2013-0033-0006-0000
- Page Start:
- 1038
- Page End:
- 1048
- Publication Date:
- 2012-09-28
- Subjects:
- Technology -- Risk assessment -- Periodicals
658.403 - Journal URLs:
- http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 ↗
http://www.blackwellpublishers.co.uk/Online ↗
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0272-4332 ↗
http://www.ingenta.com/journals/browse/bpl/risk ↗
http://www.wkap.nl/jrnltoc.htm/0272-4332 ↗
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ ↗
http://firstsearch.oclc.org ↗
http://firstsearch.oclc.org/journal=0272-4332;screen=info;ECOIP ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01897.x ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 0272-4332
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - 7972.583000
British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library HMNTS - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 3397.xml