Author
Listed:
- Roman Seidl
- Cord Drögemüller
Abstract
Both theoretical and empirical publications in the risk perception literature indicate a negative relationship between trust (or confidence) and the perception of risk with respect to a technology. In the case of nuclear waste management, Germans generally perceive there to be high risks, and the authorities are trying to increase trust to reduce that perception. A recent study determined that, when selecting a site for a deep geological repository in a community, trust is more important for acceptance of the decision-making procedure than it is for acceptance of the repository itself. In this study, we further investigate the relationship between perceived fairness, trust, in terms of confidence and acceptance of the site selection procedure, and the relationship between risk and safety in the acceptance of a repository. A questionnaire was administered online to a sample comprising N = 2490 German citizens (50% women) to investigate respondents’ opinions on the named variables. Correlations and regression analysis were applied to examine the data. The results indicate that confidence in institutions and acceptance of the procedure increase if it is perceived to be fair; similarly, acceptance of the repository itself increases with the belief that it can be safe. These results enhance the knowledge about how perceived fairness and safety together with confidence support acceptance of the procedure and a repository itself. Suggestions are made regarding how to measure the value-related variables of fairness and safety, and future research directions are discussed.
Suggested Citation
Roman Seidl & Cord Drögemüller, 2024.
"Procedural fairness and safety in the acceptance of nuclear waste disposal in Germany: an empirical study,"
Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(8), pages 969-985, November.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:27:y:2024:i:8:p:969-985
DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2024.2431896
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
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:taf:jriskr:v:27:y:2024:i:8:p:969-985. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.