IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v16y1996i3p421-427.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Citizen Perceptions of Risks Associated with Moving Radiological Waste

Author

Listed:
  • Mark K. McBeth
  • Ann S. Oakes

Abstract

Much has been written about public support or opposition to the siting of hazardous waste facilities and more generally about concern for radioactive contamination. Much less has been written about the perceived risks of citizens’specific concerns about the transportation of radiological waste to temporary or permanent sites. This study reviews the existing literature in the area and presents new data on the subject from an Idaho survey. The new data indicates: (1) age, gender, and knowledge are the key variables predicting opposition to the transportation of such waste, (2) the primary concern among the opposing and unsure public is the planned use of trucks to move the TRU waste, and (3) respondents have high degrees of trust in officials who make decisions based on technical knowledge, are charged with the safety of transporting TRU waste, and who respond to mishaps. These attitudes need to be understood by policymakers and administrators when designing and implementing waste‐transportation programs.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:16:y:1996:i:3:p:421-427
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01476.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01476.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01476.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. Donald MacGregor & Paul Slovic & Robert G. Mason & John Detweiler & Stephen E. Binney & Brian Dodd, 1994. "Perceived Risks of Radioactive Waste Transport Through Oregon: Results of a Statewide Survey," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 5-14, February.
    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. Mark K. McBeth & Megan Warnement Wrobel & Irene van Woerden, 2023. "Political ideology and nuclear energy: Perception, proximity, and trust," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(1), pages 88-118, January.
    2. Loo, Becky P. Y., 2002. "The potential impacts of strategic highways on new town development: a case study of Route 3 in Hong Kong," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 41-63, January.
    3. Željko Pavić & Emma Kovačević & Adrijana Šuljok, 2023. "Health literacy, religiosity, and political identification as predictors of vaccination conspiracy beliefs: a test of the deficit and contextual models," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, 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. Sisira S. Withanachchi & Ilia Kunchulia & Giorgi Ghambashidze & Rami Al Sidawi & Teo Urushadze & Angelika Ploeger, 2018. "Farmers’ Perception of Water Quality and Risks in the Mashavera River Basin, Georgia: Analyzing the Vulnerability of the Social-Ecological System through Community Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-26, August.
    2. Govindan, Mini & Ram Mohan, M.P., 2021. "Exploring Gender Perceptions of Nuclear Energy in India," IIMA Working Papers WP 2021-11-06, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    3. Paul Slovic & James Flynn & Robin Gregory, 1994. "Stigma Happens: Social Problems in the Siting of Nuclear Waste Facilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 773-777, October.
    4. Ronald L. Schumann & Kevin D. Ash & Gregg C. Bowser, 2018. "Tornado Warning Perception and Response: Integrating the Roles of Visual Design, Demographics, and Hazard Experience," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(2), pages 311-332, February.
    5. Morioka, Rika, 2014. "Gender difference in the health risk perception of radiation from Fukushima in Japan: The role of hegemonic masculinity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 105-112.
    6. Vern R. Walker, 1995. "Direct Inference, Probability, and a Conceptual Gulf in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(5), pages 603-609, October.
    7. Gabriele Berg-Beckhoff & Jürgen Breckenkamp & Pia Veldt Larsen & Bernd Kowall, 2014. "General Practitioners’ Knowledge and Concern about Electromagnetic Fields," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-14, December.
    8. Eiji Yamamura & Chisako Yamane & Shoko Yamane & Yoshiro Tsutsui, 2022. "Effect of major disasters on geographic mobility intentions: the case of the Fukushima nuclear accident," Chapters, in: Mark Skidmore (ed.), Handbook on the Economics of Disasters, chapter 14, pages 275-291, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    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. 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.
    11. Chunlin Xin & Jie Wang & Ziping Wang & Chia-Huei Wu & Muhammad Nawaz & Sang-Bing Tsai, 2022. "Reverse logistics research of municipal hazardous waste: a literature review," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 1495-1531, February.
    12. Michael R. Greenberg & Dona F. Schneider, 1995. "Gender Differences in Risk Perception: Effects Differ in Stressed vs. Non‐Stressed Environments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 503-511, August.
    13. George O. Rogers, 1997. "The Dynamics of Risk Perception: How Does Perceived Risk Respond to Risk Events?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(6), pages 745-757, December.
    14. Maria Luisa Lima & Julie Barnett & Jorge Vala, 2005. "Risk Perception and Technological Development at a Societal Level," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1229-1239, October.

    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:16:y:1996:i:3:p:421-427. 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.