Suchergebnisse

The siting of nuclear waste facilities has been very difficult in all countries. Recent experience in Sweden indicates, however, that it may be possible, under certain circumstances, to gain local support for the siting of a high‐level nuclear waste (HLNW) repository. The article reports on a study of attitudes and risk perceptions of people living in four municipalities in Sweden where HLNW siting was being intensely discussed at the political level, in media, and among the public. Data showed a relatively high level of consensus on acceptability of at least further investigation of the issue; in two cases local councils have since voted in favor of a go‐ahead, and in one case only a very small majority defeated the issue. Models of policy attitudes showed that these were related to attitude to nuclear power, attributes of the perceived HLNW risk, and trust. Factors responsible for acceptance are discussed at several levels. One is the attitude to nuclear power, which is becoming more positive, probably because no viable alternatives are in sight. Other factors have to do with the extensive information programs conducted in these municipalities, and with the logical nature of the conclusion that they would be good candidates for hosting the national HLNW repository.

Stakeholders are often regarded as a critically important group in such issues as the siting of nuclear facilities. In this article, stakeholders were identified on the basis of self‐reported activities with regard to a nuclear waste siting issue under debate in four communities. Data were obtained in an extensive mailed survey from a total of 2,548 respondents, approximately an equal number from each community. The overall response rate was 43.9%. Some of the results and telephone interviews with a sample of the nonrespondents indicated that the data are reasonably representative of the respective populations. Stakeholder activities were measured by 20 questions and combined with an index of stakeholder activity level, dichotomized at the 90th percentile. Stakeholders were found to have a higher level of education than others, but otherwise they did not differ in demographics. They did not tend to see risks in general as high, but were quite interested and involved in the nuclear waste siting issue. The stakeholder activity level correlated with risk perception and attitudes in the waste siting issue, but with different signs for those who were for and those who were opposed: stakeholders of both types had more extreme views than others, but in different directions. In addition, stakeholder opponents were much more likely to strongly espouse extreme statements regarding the project than were supporters who also were stakeholders. Implications for risk management and communication are discussed.

Experts have been claimed to perceive risks in a different way than the general public. It is likely that experts often see risks in their own field of expertise as smaller than the public does, but that does not imply that their risk perception is also driven by other factors. Topical experts and general risk assessors are two quite different types of experts. Still, common assertions as to the simple structure of expert risk perception, said to be related only to technical or statistical risk estimates, builds on a meager database consisting of 15 general risk assessors. Results from a study reported here show that the factors explaining experts' risk perception are similar to those of a comparable group of nontopical experts with a similar level of technological literacy and to the general public, and that the level of explained variance is quite comparable for experts and the general public.

Two recent papers on risk perception models are discussed. In these papers, quantitative analyses are presented of risk perception in relation to risk characteristics as specified in the Psychometric Model, and to cultural biases according to Cultural Theory. This comment points out that the data quality of these two studies is doubtful, with a very small convenience sample and a very low response rate. More importantly, the analyses show the same low levels of explained variance of risk perception as other researchers have found previously, but the authors still draw optimistic conclusions from their data. Such conclusions are unjustified.