IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v13y2020i2p374-d308027.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Knowledge about the Final Disposal of Nuclear Fuel in Sweden: Surveys to Members of Parliament and Citizens

Author

Listed:
  • Jenny Palm

    (The International Institute of Industrial Environmental Economics (IIIEE), Lund University, P.O Box 196, 221 00 Lund, Sweden
    The Swedish National Council for Nuclear Waste, 103 33 Stockholm, Sweden)

Abstract

In 2011, the Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company (SKB) applied for a permit to construct a disposal facility. The Swedish government is expected to make a decision in 2020. Three surveys have been conducted to investigate how informed the Swedish Members of Parliament (MP) and the citizens are in these issues. The first study with the MPs was done in 2013, the second in 2016 and the one with the citizens was conducted in the winter of 2018/2019. The results show that most MPs and half of the citizens were aware of the ongoing permission process. Rather surprisingly, there were more politicians and citizens who knew about the suggestions to use copper canisters, than knew the suggested location. In general, nuclear waste was seen as an important issue by all respondents. A majority of the MPs and the citizens believed that Sweden can dispose the waste in a safe manner. Among the citizens, the trust in politicians’ decisions on where and how to build a final repository were low and more trust was put into scientists and experts. Half of the citizens wanted to see a phase out of nuclear power, over half of the MPs meant that the repository should be designed so that the withdrawal of nuclear waste can be done.

Suggested Citation

  • Jenny Palm, 2020. "Knowledge about the Final Disposal of Nuclear Fuel in Sweden: Surveys to Members of Parliament and Citizens," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-12, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:2:p:374-:d:308027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/2/374/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/2/374/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lennart Sjöberg, 2003. "Attitudes and Risk Perceptions of Stakeholders in a Nuclear Waste Siting Issue," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 739-749, August.
    2. Lennart Sjöberg, 2004. "Local Acceptance of a High‐Level Nuclear Waste Repository," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 737-749, June.
    3. James Flynn & Paul Slovic & C. K. Mertz, 1993. "Decidedly Different: Expert and Public Views of Risks from a Radioactive Waste Repository," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 643-648, December.
    4. Sjã–Berg, Lennart, 2003. "Risk perception, emotion and policy: the case of nuclear technology," European Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 109-128, February.
    5. Lennart Sjöberg & Britt-Marie Drottz-Sjöberg, 2008. "Risk Perception by Politicians and the Public," Energy & Environment, , vol. 19(3-4), pages 455-483, July.
    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. Suh, Jung Woo & Sohn, So Young & Lee, Bo Kyeong, 2020. "Patent clustering and network analyses to explore nuclear waste management technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    2. Lennart Sjöberg & Britt-Marie Drottz-Sjöberg, 2008. "Risk Perception by Politicians and the Public," Energy & Environment, , vol. 19(3-4), pages 455-483, July.
    3. Lennart Sjöberg, 2004. "Local Acceptance of a High‐Level Nuclear Waste Repository," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 737-749, June.
    4. Joan Costa‐Font & Caroline Rudisill & Elias Mossialos, 2008. "Attitudes as an Expression of Knowledge and “Political Anchoring”: The Case of Nuclear Power in the United Kingdom," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1273-1288, October.
    5. Michalis Diakakis & Dimitris G. Damigos & Andreas Kallioras, 2020. "Identification of Patterns and Influential Factors on Civil Protection Personnel Opinions and Views on Different Aspects of Flood Risk Management: The Case of Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-20, July.
    6. Branden B. Johnson & Mathew P. White, 2010. "The Importance of Multiple Performance Criteria for Understanding Trust in Risk Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1099-1115, July.
    7. Andrea R. Beyer & Barbara Fasolo & Lawrence D. Phillips & Pieter A. de Graeff & Hans L. Hillege, 2013. "Risk Perception of Prescription Drugs," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(4), pages 579-592, May.
    8. Roman Seidl & Corinne Moser & Michael Stauffacher & Pius Krütli, 2013. "Perceived Risk and Benefit of Nuclear Waste Repositories: Four Opinion Clusters," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1038-1048, June.
    9. George Wright & Fergus Bolger & Gene Rowe, 2002. "An Empirical Test of the Relative Validity of Expert and Lay Judgments of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(6), pages 1107-1122, December.
    10. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Esperanza López Vázquez, 2011. "A Cross‐Cultural Study of Perceived Benefit Versus Risk as Mediators in the Trust‐Acceptance Relationship," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(12), pages 1919-1934, December.
    11. Dongo Rémi Kouabenan, 1998. "Beliefs and the Perception of Risks and Accidents," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 243-252, June.
    12. Sjöberg, Lennart, 2004. "Gene Technology in the eyes of the public and experts. Moral opinions, attitudes and risk perception," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2004:7, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 11 May 2005.
    13. Roh, Seungkook & Lee, Jin Won, 2018. "Differentiated effects of risk perception dimensions on nuclear power acceptance in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 727-735.
    14. Miguel Ángel López‐Navarro & Vicente Tortosa‐Edo & Jaume Llorens‐Monzonís, 2015. "Environmental Management Systems and Local Community Perceptions: the Case of Petrochemical Complexes Located in Ports," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(4), pages 236-251, May.
    15. Yaniv, Ilan, 2004. "Receiving other people's advice: Influence and benefit," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 1-13, January.
    16. Carol L. Silva & Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith & Richard P. Barke, 2007. "Reconciling Scientists' Beliefs about Radiation Risks and Social Norms: Explaining Preferred Radiation Protection Standards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 755-773, June.
    17. Guido Smidt & Wouter Botzen, 2018. "Perceptions of Corporate Cyber Risks and Insurance Decision-Making," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 43(2), pages 239-274, April.
    18. Peter Fraser‐Mackenzie & Ming‐Chien Sung & Johnnie E.V. Johnson, 2014. "Toward an Understanding of the Influence of Cultural Background and Domain Experience on the Effects of Risk‐Pricing Formats on Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(10), pages 1846-1869, October.
    19. John Downer & M. V. Ramana, 2021. "Empires built on sand: On the fundamental implausibility of reactor safety assessments and the implications for nuclear regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1304-1325, October.
    20. Lingyi Zhou & Yixin Dai, 2019. "The Influencing Factors of Haze Tolerance in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-23, January.

    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:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:2:p:374-:d:308027. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.