IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v39y2011i10p6199-6210.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nuclear renaissance, public perception and design criteria: An exploratory review

Author

Listed:
  • Goodfellow, Martin J.
  • Williams, Hugo R.
  • Azapagic, Adisa

Abstract

There is currently an international drive to build new nuclear power plants, bringing about what is being termed a "nuclear renaissance". However, the public perception of nuclear energy has historically been, and continues to be, a key issue, particularly in light of the Fukushima nuclear incident. This paper discusses the disparity between perceived and calculated risks based on the last four decades of research into risk perception. The leading psychological and sociological theories, Psychometric Paradigm and Cultural Theory, respectively, are critically reviewed. The authors then argue that a new nuclear-build policy that promotes a broader approach to design incorporating a wider range of stakeholder inputs, including that of the lay public, may provide a means for reducing the perceived risk of a nuclear plant. Further research towards such a new approach to design is proposed, based on integrating expert and lay stakeholder inputs and taking into account broader socio-cultural factors whilst maintaining the necessary emphasis on safety, technological development, economics and environmental sustainability.

Suggested Citation

  • Goodfellow, Martin J. & Williams, Hugo R. & Azapagic, Adisa, 2011. "Nuclear renaissance, public perception and design criteria: An exploratory review," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 6199-6210, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:39:y:2011:i:10:p:6199-6210
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151100543X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller & Henk A. L. Kiers, 2005. "A New Look at the Psychometric Paradigm of Perception of Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 211-222, February.
    2. Claire Marris & Ian H. Langford & Timothy O'Riordan, 1998. "A Quantitative Test of the Cultural Theory of Risk Perceptions: Comparison with the Psychometric Paradigm," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(5), pages 635-647, October.
    3. Ian Savage, 1993. "Demographic Influences on Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 413-420, August.
    4. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    5. Frank Fischer, 1999. "Technological deliberation in a democratic society: The case for participatory inquiry," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(5), pages 294-302, October.
    6. Lennart Sjöberg, 2000. "Perceived risk and tampering with nature," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(4), pages 353-367, October.
    7. Lennart Sjoberg, 1999. "Consequences of perceived risk: Demand for mitigation," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(2), pages 129-149.
    8. Janus Hansen, 2006. "Operationalising the public in participatory technology assessment: A framework for comparison applied to three cases," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(8), pages 571-584, October.
    9. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    10. Ortwin Renn, 1998. "Three decades of risk research: accomplishments and new challenges," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(1), pages 49-71, January.
    11. Unknown, 2005. "Forward," 2005 Conference: Slovenia in the EU - Challenges for Agriculture, Food Science and Rural Affairs, November 10-11, 2005, Moravske Toplice, Slovenia 183804, Slovenian Association of Agricultural Economists (DAES).
    12. Elke U. Weber & Christopher Hsee, 1998. "Cross-Cultural Differences in Risk Perception, but Cross-Cultural Similarities in Attitudes Towards Perceived Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(9), pages 1205-1217, September.
    13. Asa Boholm, 1998. "Comparative studies of risk perception: a review of twenty years of research," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 135-163, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Steve Furnagiev & Josh Stillwagon, 2015. "Subjective Currency Risk Premia and Deviations from Moving Averages," Working Papers 1506, Trinity College, Department of Economics.
    2. Li, Baibing & Hensher, David A., 2017. "Risky weighting in discrete choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 1-21.
    3. Ann-Renée Blais & Elke U. Weber, 2006. "A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT)Scale for Adult Populations," CIRANO Working Papers 2006s-24, CIRANO.
    4. James M. Lutz, 2017. "Risk Sensitivity and the Sikh Uprising in the Punjab," India Quarterly: A Journal of International Affairs, , vol. 73(3), pages 327-341, September.
    5. Pepper, Alexander & Gore, Julie, 2014. "The economic psychology of incentives: An international study of top managers," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 350-361.
    6. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    7. Xiaoxiao Hu & Xiaofei Xie, 2012. "Validation of the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Scale in Chinese college students," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(2), pages 181-188, March.
    8. Gary Charness & Thomas Garcia & Theo Offerman & Marie Claire Villeval, 2020. "Do measures of risk attitude in the laboratory predict behavior under risk in and outside of the laboratory?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 99-123, April.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:2:p:394-421 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Wang, Mei & Fischbeck, Paul, 2004. "Evaluating lotteries, risks, and risk mitigation programs : a comparison of China and the United States," Papers 04-13, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    11. Wang, Junbo & Wu, Chunchi & Zhong, Xiaoling, 2021. "Prospect theory and stock returns: Evidence from foreign share markets," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    12. Burson, Katherine A. & Faro, David & Rottenstreich, Yuval, 2010. "ABCs of principal-agent interactions: Accurate predictions, biased processes, and contrasts between working and delegating," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 1-12, September.
    13. Arkes, Hal R. & Hirshleifer, David & Jiang, Danling & Lim, Sonya S., 2010. "A cross-cultural study of reference point adaptation: Evidence from China, Korea, and the US," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 112(2), pages 99-111, July.
    14. Arkes, Hal & Hirshleifer, David & Jiang, Danling & Lim, Sonya, 2007. "Prospect Theory and Reference Point Adaptation: Evidence from the US, China, and Korea," MPRA Paper 4009, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Tomasz Potocki, 2012. "Cumulative Prospect Theory as a model of economic rationality," Ekonomia journal, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, vol. 31.
    16. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:2:p:181-188 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Langrock, Ines & Hurley, Terrance M., 2006. "Risk Preferences, Perceptions and Systematic Biases," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21343, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. Weber, Elke U. & Johnson, Eric J., 2012. "Psychology and behavioral economics lessons for the design of a green growth strategy," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6240, The World Bank.
    19. Marc Oliver Rieger & Mei Wang & Thorsten Hens, 2017. "Estimating cumulative prospect theory parameters from an international survey," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 82(4), pages 567-596, April.
    20. Lei Zhou & Nan Liu & Ya-Qiong Liao & Ai-Mei Li, 2021. "Risky choice framing with various problem descriptions: A replication and extension study," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(2), pages 394-421, March.
    21. van Winsen, Frankwin & Wauters, Erwin & Lauwers, Ludwig H. & de Mey, Yann & Van Passel, Steven & Vancauteren, Mark, 2011. "Combining risk perception and risk attitude: A comprehensive individual risk behavior model," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 115749, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    22. repec:cup:judgdm:v:1:y:2006:i::p:33-47 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Marc Oliver Rieger & Mei Wang & Thorsten Hens, 2015. "Risk Preferences Around the World," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(3), pages 637-648, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:39:y:2011:i:10:p:6199-6210. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.