IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v32y2012i9p1496-1511.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Do Lay People Want to Know About the Disposal of Nuclear Waste? A Mental Model Approach to the Design and Development of an Online Risk Communication

Author

Listed:
  • A. Skarlatidou
  • T. Cheng
  • M. Haklay

Abstract

Public participation requires the involvement of lay people in the decision‐making processes of issues that concern them. It is currently practiced in a variety of domains, such as transport and environmental planning. Communicating risks can be a complex task, as there may be significant differences between the risk perceptions of experts and those of lay people. Among the plethora of problems that require public involvement is the site selection of a nuclear waste disposal site in the United Kingdom, which is discussed in this article. Previous ineffective attempts to locate a site provide evidence that the problem has a strong social dimension, and studies ascribe public opposition to a loss of public trust in governmental agencies and decisionmakers, and to a lack of public understanding of nuclear waste issues. Although the mental models approach has been successfully used in the effective communication of such risks as climate change, no attempt has been made to follow a prescriptive mental model approach to develop risk communication messages that inform lay people about nuclear waste disposal. After interviewing 20 lay people and 5 experts, we construct and compare their corresponding mental models to reveal any gaps and misconceptions. The mental models approach is further applied here to identify lay people's requirements regarding what they want to know about nuclear waste, and how this information should be presented so that it is easily understood. This article further describes how the mental models approach was used in the subsequent development of an online information system for the site selection of a nuclear waste repository in the United Kingdom, which is considered essential for the improvement of public understanding and the reestablishment of trust.

Suggested Citation

  • A. Skarlatidou & T. Cheng & M. Haklay, 2012. "What Do Lay People Want to Know About the Disposal of Nuclear Waste? A Mental Model Approach to the Design and Development of an Online Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1496-1511, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:32:y:2012:i:9:p:1496-1511
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01773.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01773.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01773.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. Cynthia J. Atman & Ann Bostrom & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 1994. "Designing Risk Communications: Completing and Correcting Mental Models of Hazardous Processes, Part I," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 779-788, October.
    2. Daniel Read & Ann Bostrom & M. Granger Morgan & Baruch Fischhoff & Tom Smuts, 1994. "What Do People Know About Global Climate Change? 2. Survey Studies of Educated Laypeople," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 971-982, December.
    3. Tamara R. Lave & Lester B. Lave, 1991. "Public Perception of the Risks of Floods: Implications for Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), pages 255-267, June.
    4. Ann Bostrom & M. Granger Morgan & Baruch Fischhoff & Daniel Read, 1994. "What Do People Know About Global Climate Change? 1. Mental Models," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 959-970, December.
    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. Naomi Aoki, 2018. "Who Would Be Willing to Accept Disaster Debris in Their Backyard? Investigating the Determinants of Public Attitudes in Post‐Fukushima Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 535-547, March.
    2. Nick Boase & Mathew White & William Gaze & Clare Redshaw, 2017. "Evaluating the Mental Models Approach to Developing a Risk Communication: A Scoping Review of the Evidence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2132-2149, November.
    3. Ming Lan & Rong Yang & Yan He & Qian Kang, 2023. "Study on the Dynamic Stability of an Underground Engineering Rock Mass with a Fault-Slip Seismic Source: Case Study of a URL Exploration Tunnel," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-21, January.

    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. Matthew D. Wood & Ann Bostrom & Todd Bridges & Igor Linkov, 2012. "Cognitive Mapping Tools: Review and Risk Management Needs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1333-1348, August.
    2. Klaus Wagner, 2007. "Mental Models of Flash Floods and Landslides," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 671-682, June.
    3. Heather Lazrus & Rebecca E. Morss & Julie L. Demuth & Jeffrey K. Lazo & Ann Bostrom, 2016. "“Know What to Do If You Encounter a Flash Flood”: Mental Models Analysis for Improving Flash Flood Risk Communication and Public Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 411-427, February.
    4. Rebecca E. Morss & Julie L. Demuth & Ann Bostrom & Jeffrey K. Lazo & Heather Lazrus, 2015. "Flash Flood Risks and Warning Decisions: A Mental Models Study of Forecasters, Public Officials, and Media Broadcasters in Boulder, Colorado," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(11), pages 2009-2028, November.
    5. Angela Bearth & Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2016. "“The Dose Makes the Poison”: Informing Consumers About the Scientific Risk Assessment of Food Additives," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 130-144, January.
    6. Matthew Wood & Daniel Kovacs & Ann Bostrom & Todd Bridges & Igor Linkov, 2012. "Flood Risk Management: US Army Corps of Engineers and Layperson Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1349-1368, August.
    7. Peter Taylor‐Gooby & Jens O. Zinn, 2006. "Current Directions in Risk Research: New Developments in Psychology and Sociology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 397-411, April.
    8. Sarah E. Hampson & Judy A. Andrews & Michael E. Lee & Lyn S. Foster & Russell E. Glasgow & Edward Liechtenstein, 1998. "Lay Understanding of Synergistic Risk: The Case of Radon and Cigarette Smoking," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 343-350, June.
    9. Antony Millner & Hélène Ollivier, 2016. "Beliefs, Politics, and Environmental Policy," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 226-244.
    10. Paul M. Kellstedt & Sammy Zahran & Arnold Vedlitz, 2008. "Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes Toward Global Warming and Climate Change in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 113-126, February.
    11. Vedran Lesic & Richard E. Hodgett & Alan Pearman & Amy Peace, 2019. "How to Improve Impact Reporting for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-21, March.
    12. Ann Bostrom & Adam L. Hayes & Katherine M. Crosman, 2019. "Efficacy, Action, and Support for Reducing Climate Change Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 805-828, April.
    13. Kelly Klima & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & M. Granger Morgan & Iris Grossmann, 2012. "Public Perceptions of Hurricane Modification," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(7), pages 1194-1206, July.
    14. Thomas F. Thornton & Diana Mangalagiu & Yuge Ma & Jing Lan & Mahir Yazar & Ali Kerem Saysel & Abdel Maoula Chaar, 2020. "Cultural models of and for urban sustainability: assessing beliefs about Green-Win," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 160(4), pages 521-537, June.
    15. Raya Muttarak & Thanyaporn Chankrajang, 2015. "Who is concerned about and takes action on climate change? Gender and education divides among Thais," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 13(1), pages 193-220.
    16. Todd S. Bridges & Daniel Kovacs & Matthew D. Wood & Kelsie Baker & Gordon Butte & Sarah Thorne & Igor Linkov, 2013. "Climate change risk management: a Mental Modeling application," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 376-390, September.
    17. Jörg Niewöhner & Patrick Cox & Simon Gerrard & Nick Pidgeon, 2004. "Evaluating the Efficacy of a Mental Models Approach for Improving Occupational Chemical Risk Protection," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 349-361, April.
    18. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Gabrielle Wong-Parodi & M. Granger Morgan, 2014. "Public perceptions of local flood risk and the role of climate change," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 591-599, December.
    19. Katherine M. Crosman & Ann Bostrom & Adam L. Hayes, 2019. "Efficacy Foundations for Risk Communication: How People Think About Reducing the Risks of Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(10), pages 2329-2347, October.
    20. Greco, Marco & Germani, Francesca & Grimaldi, Michele & Radicic, Dragana, 2022. "Policy mix or policy mess? Effects of cross-instrumental policy mix on eco-innovation in German firms," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).

    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:32:y:2012:i:9:p:1496-1511. 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.