IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v14y1994i5p851-856.html

Perceived Risk and Uncertainty of Nuclear Waste: Differences Among Science, Business, and Environmental Group Members

Author

Listed:
  • Hank Jenkins‐Smith
  • Gilbert W. Bassett

Abstract

This paper presents survey results on perceived risk regarding the management of nuclear waste. Using data taken from random mail surveys of members of scientific, business, and environmental groups in Colorado and New Mexico in the summer of 1990, we examine differences between the groups in their expressed perceptions of risk and also their assessments of the certainty of their beliefs. We consider whether (a) greater uncertainty is associated with greater perceived risks and (b) whether there is greater responsiveness to new information for those whose beliefs are least certain. We find that there are connections between perceived risk and uncertainty, and there is a greater tendency to update risk assessements from a position of greater initial uncertainty. There are, however, differences between the groups as well as asymmetries in their responses to new information. The latter suggests that perceived risks will ratchet upward over time even when information is not biased toward more or less risk.

Suggested Citation

  • Hank Jenkins‐Smith & Gilbert W. Bassett, 1994. "Perceived Risk and Uncertainty of Nuclear Waste: Differences Among Science, Business, and Environmental Group Members," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 851-856, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:14:y:1994:i:5:p:851-856
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00297.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00297.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00297.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. Richard P. Barke & Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith, 1993. "Politics and Scientific Expertise: Scientists, Risk Perception, and Nuclear Waste Policy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 425-439, August.
    2. Opaluch James J. & Swallow Stephen K. & Weaver Thomas & Wessells Christopher W. & Wichelns Dennis, 1993. "Evaluating Impacts from Noxious Facilities: Including Public Preferences in Current Siting Mechanisms," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 41-59, January.
    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. Jill J. McCluskey & Gordon C. Rausser, 2001. "Estimation of Perceived Risk and Its Effect on Property Values," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(1), pages 42-55.
    2. Héctor A. Múnera & María B. Canal & Mauricio Muñoz, 1997. "Risk Associated with Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel Under Demanding Security Constraints: The Colombian Experience," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 381-389, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Mark K. McBeth & Ann S. Oakes, 1996. "Citizen Perceptions of Risks Associated with Moving Radiological Waste," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 421-427, June.
    5. Rob P. Rechard, 1999. "Historical Relationship Between Performance Assessment for Radioactive Waste Disposal and Other Types of Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(5), pages 763-807, October.

    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. 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).
    2. Rob Goble, 2021. "Through a Glass Darkly: How Natural Science and Technical Communities Looked at Social Science Advances in Understanding Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 414-428, March.
    3. Kit S. Hagemann & Joachim Scholderer, 2009. "Hot Potato: Expert‐Consumer Differences in the Perception of a Second‐Generation Novel Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(7), pages 1041-1055, July.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Travisi, Chiara M. & Nijkamp, Peter, 2004. "Are Italians Willing to Pay for Agricultural Environmental Safety? A Stated Choice Approach," 84th Seminar, February 8-11, 2004, Zeist, The Netherlands 24988, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Johnston, Robert J. & Swallow, Stephen K. & Weaver, Thomas F., 1999. "Estimating Willingness to Pay and Resource Tradeoffs with Different Payment Mechanisms: An Evaluation of a Funding Guarantee for Watershed Management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 97-120, July.
    8. Barrett, Alan & Lawlor, John, 1995. "The Economics of Solid Waste Management in Ireland," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number PRS26.
    9. Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith & Carol L. Silva & Matthew C. Nowlin & Grant deLozier, 2011. "Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 629-644, April.
    10. Farber, Stephen & Griner, Brian, 2000. "Valuing watershed quality improvements using conjoint analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 63-76, July.
    11. repec:osf:osfxxx:pkeb8_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Ciarli, Tommaso & Ràfols, Ismael, 2019. "The relation between research priorities and societal demands: The case of rice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 949-967.
    13. Lars Hultkrantz & Christina Olsson, 1997. "Chernobyl effects on domestic and inbound tourism in Sweden — A time series analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 9(2), pages 239-258, March.
    14. Stephen K. Swallow & Michael P. McGonagle, 2006. "Public Funding of Environmental Amenities: Contingent Choices Using New Taxes or Existing Revenues for Coastal Land Conservation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(1), pages 56-67.
    15. Hjelmgren, Jonas & Anell, Anders, 2007. "Population preferences and choice of primary care models: A discrete choice experiment in Sweden," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(2-3), pages 314-322, October.
    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. Lennart Sjöberg & Britt-Marie Drottz-Sjöberg, 2008. "Risk Perception by Politicians and the Public," Energy & Environment, , vol. 19(3-4), pages 455-483, July.
    18. Gupta, Prerna & Satterfield, Terre & Kandlikar, Milind & Ramana, M.V., 2026. "Rethinking risk perception: Cultural cognition, gender, and caste in how Indians view nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    19. Johnston, Robert J. & Roheim, Cathy A. & Donath, Holger & Asche, Frank, 2001. "Measuring Consumer Preferences For Ecolabeled Seafood: An International Comparison," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(01), pages 1-20, July.
    20. Neuman, Einat & Neuman, Shoshana, 2007. "Reference-Dependent Preferences and Loss Aversion: A Discrete Choice Experiment in the Health-Care Sector," IZA Discussion Papers 3238, IZA Network @ LISER.
    21. Carson, Richard T. & Louviere, Jordan J. & Wei, Edward, 2010. "Alternative Australian climate change plans: The public's views," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 902-911, February.

    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:14:y:1994:i:5:p:851-856. 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.