IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v10y1990i4p469-484.html

Public Attitudes Toward Siting a High‐Level Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada

Author

Listed:
  • Howard Kunreuther
  • Douglas Easterling
  • William Desvousges
  • Paul Slovic

Abstract

This paper examines the sources of public opposition to a high‐level nuclear waste repository among samples of 1001 residents of Nevada and a national sample of 1201 residents. Two models of choice are contrasted: A benefit‐cost model and a risk‐perception model of individual choice. The data suggest that the willingness of Nevada residents to accept a repository at Yucca Mountain depends upon subjective risk factors, especially the perceived seriousness of risk to future generations. Perceived risk depends in part on level of trust placed in the Department of Energy to manage a repository safely. Opposition to a local repository did not decrease significantly if compensation in the form of annual rebates, either ($1000, $3000, or $5000 per year for 20 years) were offered to residents. The public needs to be convinced before compensation is considered, that the repository will possess minimal risks to themselves as well as to future generations, and that the site currently targeted is suitable. One way to do this is through adoption of mitigation and control procedures such as strict federal standards and local control over the operation of the repository. The federal government should also consider returning to the fair procedure for selection between candidate sites specified in the initial Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

Suggested Citation

  • Howard Kunreuther & Douglas Easterling & William Desvousges & Paul Slovic, 1990. "Public Attitudes Toward Siting a High‐Level Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 469-484, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:10:y:1990:i:4:p:469-484
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1990.tb00533.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1990.tb00533.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1990.tb00533.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ralph L. Keeney, 1987. "An Analysis of the Portfolio of Sites to Characterize for Selecting a Nuclear Repository," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 195-218, June.
    2. Miley W. Merkhofer & Ralph L. Keeney, 1987. "A Multiattribute Utility Analysis of Alternative Sites for the Disposal of Nuclear Waste," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 173-194, June.
    3. Kunreuther, Howard & Easterling, Douglas, 1990. "Are Risk-Benefit Tradeoffs Possible in Siting Hazardous Facilities?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 252-256, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Craig W. Trumbo & Katherine A. McComas, 2003. "The Function of Credibility in Information Processing for Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 343-353, April.
    2. Xiao Wang & Yi-Hui Christine Huang & Qiudi Wu & Ivy Wai-Yin Fong, 2021. "Exploring the Effects of Instructional Message Strategies on Risk Perceptions and Behavioral Intentions: The Case of a Substandard Vaccine Incident," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(4), pages 21582440211, November.
    3. Just, David R. & Messer, Kent D., 2025. "The Behavioral Revolution in Agricultural and Resource Economics: A Perspective on the Past and the Future," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 50(4), December.
    4. Ji Bum Chung & Hong‐Kew Kim & Sam Kew Rho, 2008. "Analysis of Local Acceptance of a Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 1021-1032, August.
    5. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher, 2003. "Test of a Trust and Confidence Model in the Applied Context of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 705-716, August.
    6. Hayashi, Reona & Kato, Ryutah & Watanabe, Rin & Kawaguchi, Hirofumi & Morikawa, So & Komatsuzaki, Shunsaku, 2026. "When economic incentives become repugnant: Moderating roles of construction probability and initial acceptance in high-level radioactive waste siting," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 209(PB).
    7. Lucas Schwarz, 2022. "Is It All about a Science-Informed Decision? A Quantitative Approach to Three Dimensions of Justice and Their Relation in the Nuclear Waste Repository Siting Process in Germany," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-22, November.
    8. Leslie A. Nieves & Jeffery J. Himmelberger & Samuel J. Ratick & Allen L. White, 1992. "Negotiated Compensation for Solid‐Waste Disposal Facility Siting: An Analysis of the Wisconsin Experience," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(4), pages 505-511, December.
    9. Hye‐Jin Paek & Thomas Hove, 2019. "Mediating and Moderating Roles of Trust in Government in Effective Risk Rumor Management: A Test Case of Radiation‐Contaminated Seafood in South Korea," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2653-2667, December.
    10. Jinshu Cui & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2018. "Public Response to a Near‐Miss Nuclear Accident Scenario Varying in Causal Attributions and Outcome Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 947-961, May.
    11. 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.
    12. Gilbert W. Bassett & Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith & Carol Silva, 1996. "On‐Site Storage of High Level Nuclear Waste: Attitudes and Perceptions of Local Residents," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 309-319, June.
    13. Timothy C. Earle, 2010. "Trust in Risk Management: A Model‐Based Review of Empirical Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 541-574, April.
    14. Ghidoni, Riccardo, 2017. "Mistrust and Opposition to Large-Scale Projects : An Experiment on the Role of Uncertainty," Discussion Paper 2017-053, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    15. Christian Oltra & Paul Upham & Hauke Riesch & Àlex Boso & Suzanne Brunsting & Elisabeth Dütschke & Aleksandra Lis, 2012. "Public Responses to Co2 Storage Sites: Lessons from Five European Cases," Energy & Environment, , vol. 23(2-3), pages 227-248, May.
    16. 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.

    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. Rex Brown, 2005. "The Operation Was a Success but the Patient Died: Aider Priorities Influence Decision Aid Usefulness," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 35(6), pages 511-521, December.
    2. Patrick Ilg & Silke Gabbert & Hans‐Peter Weikard, 2017. "Nuclear Waste Management under Approaching Disaster: A Comparison of Decommissioning Strategies for the German Repository Asse II," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(7), pages 1213-1232, July.
    3. Ralph L. Keeney & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 1994. "Managing Nuclear Waste from Power Plants," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 107-130, February.
    4. Vicki Bier, 2020. "The Role of Decision Analysis in Risk Analysis: A Retrospective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2207-2217, November.
    5. Ola Svenson & Gunnar Karlsson, 1989. "Decision‐Making, Time Horizons, and Risk in the Very Long‐Term Perspective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 385-399, September.
    6. Robin Gregory & Howard Kunreuther & Doug Easterling & Ken Richards, 1991. "Incentives Policies to Site Hazardous Waste Facilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 667-675, December.
    7. Robin Gregory & Sarah Lichtenstein, 1987. "A Review of the High‐Level Nuclear Waste Repository Siting Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 219-223, June.
    8. Richard Benjamin & Jeffrey Wagner, 2006. "Reconsidering the law and economics of low-level radioactive waste management," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 8(1), pages 33-53, December.
    9. Mary Riddel & W. Douglass Shaw, 2003. "Option Wealth and Bequest Values: The Value of Protecting Future Generations from the Health Risks of Nuclear Waste Storage," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(4), pages 537-548.
    10. Ali Utku Akar & Mevlut Uyan & Sukran Yalpir, 2024. "Spatial evaluation of the nuclear power plant installation based on energy demand for sustainable energy policy," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 8607-8642, April.
    11. Ralph L. Keeney, 1995. "Understanding Life‐Threatening Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(6), pages 627-637, December.
    12. Vincent T. Covello, 1987. "Decision Analysis and Risk Management Decision Making: Issues and Methods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 131-139, June.
    13. Frey, Bruno S & Oberholzer-Gee, Felix & Eichenberger, Reiner, 1996. "The Old Lady Visits Your Backyard: A Tale of Morals and Markets," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(6), pages 1297-1313, December.
    14. Richard O. Zerbe, 2013. "Ethical benefit–cost analysis as art and science: ten rules for benefit–cost analysis," Chapters, in: Scott O. Farrow & Richard Zerbe, Jr. (ed.), Principles and Standards for Benefit–Cost Analysis, chapter 8, pages 264-293, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Robin L. Dillon & Vicki M. Bier & Richard Sheffield John & Abdullah Althenayyan, 2023. "Closing the Gap Between Decision Analysis and Policy Analysts Before the Next Pandemic," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 109-132, June.
    16. Yousaf Ali & Zain Aslam & Hammad Sajid Dar & UbaidUllah Mumtaz, 2018. "A multi-criteria decision analysis of solid waste treatment options in Pakistan: Lahore City—a case in point," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 528-543, December.
    17. Marie Lynn Miranda & James N Miller & Timothy L Jacobs, 2000. "Talking trash about landfills: Using quantitative scoring schemes in landfill siting processes," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(1), pages 3-22.
    18. Danzer, Alexander M. & Danzer, Natalia, 2016. "The long-run consequences of Chernobyl: Evidence on subjective well-being, mental health and welfare," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 47-60.
    19. Mouez Fodha, 2015. "Nuclear waste storage and environmental intergenerational externalities," International Journal of Sustainable Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 18(1/2), pages 94-114.
    20. Laura I. Langbein, 2002. "Responsive bureaus, equity, and regulatory negotiation: an empirical view," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(3), pages 449-465.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:riskan:v:10:y:1990:i:4:p:469-484. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.