Risk Perception Among Nuclear Power Plant Personnel: A Survey

This study investigated risk perception, well-being, and organizational commitment among nuclear power plant personnel. The study group, 428 employees from a nuclear power plant, completed a questionnaire which included the same questions as those in previous surveys on risk perception of lay persons and industrial workers. Hazards at work were not seen as a sizable problem by nuclear power plant personnel. The study group estimated the safety of nuclear power plants better and the possibility of a serious nuclear accident as more unlikely than the general public. Compared to employees in other industrial companies, the overall perceived risks at work among plant personnel did not exceed the respective perceptions of the reference groups. Risk-related attitudes did not explain well-being among plant personnel, but the relationship between the perceived probability of a serious nuclear accident at work and organizational commitment yielded to a significant correlation: Those plant workers who estimated the likelihood of an accident higher were less committed to the organization.     

Empirical Analysis of Farmers' Drought Risk Perception: Objective Factors,Personal Circumstances,and Social Influence

Drought‐induced water shortage and salinization are a global threat to agricultural production. With climate change, drought risk is expected to increase as drought events are assumed to occur more frequently and to become more severe. The agricultural sector's adaptive capacity largely depends on farmers’ drought risk perceptions. Understanding the formation of farmers’ drought risk perceptions is a prerequisite to designing effective and efficient public drought risk management strategies. Various strands of literature point at different factors shaping individual risk perceptions. Economic theory points at objective risk variables, whereas psychology and sociology identify subjective risk variables. This study investigates and compares the contribution of objective and subjective factors in explaining farmers’ drought risk perception by means of survey data analysis. Data on risk perceptions, farm characteristics, and various other personality traits were collected from farmers located in the southwest Netherlands. From comparing the explanatory power of objective and subjective risk factors in separate models and a full model of risk perception, it can be concluded that farmers’ risk perceptions are shaped by both rational and emotional factors. In a full risk perception model, being located in an area with external water supply, owning fields with salinization issues, cultivating drought‐/salt‐sensitive crops, farm revenue, drought risk experience, and perceived control are significant explanatory variables of farmers’ drought risk perceptions.     

Perceived Risks from Radiation and Nuclear Testing Near Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan: A Comparison Between Physicians, Scientists, and the Public

Determining the difference in perception of risk between experts, or more educated professionals, and laypeople is important so that a potential hazard can be effectively communicated to the public. Many surveys have been conducted to better understand the difference between expert and public opinions, and often laypeople exhibit higher perceptions of risk to hazards in comparison to experts. This is especially true when health risk is due to radiation, nuclear power, and nuclear waste. This article focuses on one section of a risk perception survey given to two groups of individuals with a more specialized education (scientists and physicians) and laypeople (villagers) in the Semipalatinsk region of Kazakhstan. All of these groups live near the former Soviet nuclear test site. Originally, it was expected that the scientists and physicians would have similar perceptions of radiation risk, while the public perceptions would be higher, but this was not always the case. For example, when perceptions of risk pertain to the health impacts of nuclear testing or the dose-response nature of radiation exposure, the physicians tend to agree with the laypeople, not the scientists. The villagers are always the most risk-averse group, followed by the physicians and then the scientists. These differences are likely due to different frames of reference for each of the populations.     

Chernobyl's Effects on the Perceived Risks of Nuclear Power: A Small Sample Test

This paper presents the results of two risk perception surveys, one taken just before and one just after the accident at Chernobyl in May, 1985. The results show that Chernobyl affected short-term perceptions of nuclear power risks in ways that are predictable and measureable. In this sample, perceived levels of dread of nuclear power increased, perceived knowledge increased, and perceived severity decreased. Overall, the results are informative about how a single event could affect perceived risk characteristics.     

Proximity (Mis)perception: Public Awareness of Nuclear,Refinery, and Fracking Sites

Whether on grounds of perceived safety, aesthetics, or overall quality of life, residents may wish to be aware of nearby energy sites such as nuclear reactors, refineries, and fracking wells. Yet people are not always accurate in their impressions of proximity. Indeed, our data show that only 54% of Americans living within 25 miles of a nuclear site say they do, and even fewer fracking-proximal (30%) and refinery-proximal (24%) residents respond accurately. In this article, we analyze factors that could either help people form more accurate perceptions or distort their impressions of proximity. We evaluate these hypotheses using a large national survey sample and corresponding geographic information system (GIS) data. Results show that among those living in close proximity to energy sites, those who perceive greater risk are less likely to report living nearby. Conversely, social contact with employees of these industries increases perceived proximity regardless of actual distance. These relationships are consistent across each site type we examine. Other potential factors—such as local news use—may play a role in proximity perception on a case-by-case basis. Our findings are an important step toward a more generalizable understanding of how the public forms perceptions of proximity to risk sites, showing multiple potential mechanisms of bias.     

Local Acceptance of a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository

The siting of nuclear waste facilities has been very difficult in all countries. Recent experience in Sweden indicates, however, that it may be possible, under certain circumstances, to gain local support for the siting of a high-level nuclear waste (HLNW) repository. The article reports on a study of attitudes and risk perceptions of people living in four municipalities in Sweden where HLNW siting was being intensely discussed at the political level, in media, and among the public. Data showed a relatively high level of consensus on acceptability of at least further investigation of the issue; in two cases local councils have since voted in favor of a go-ahead, and in one case only a very small majority defeated the issue. Models of policy attitudes showed that these were related to attitude to nuclear power, attributes of the perceived HLNW risk, and trust. Factors responsible for acceptance are discussed at several levels. One is the attitude to nuclear power, which is becoming more positive, probably because no viable alternatives are in sight. Other factors have to do with the extensive information programs conducted in these municipalities, and with the logical nature of the conclusion that they would be good candidates for hosting the national HLNW repository.     

Information Sources as Explanatory Variables for the Belgian Health‐Related Risk Perception of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident

The media play an important role in risk communication, providing information about accidents, both nearby and far away. Each media source has its own presentation style, which could influence how the audience perceives the presented risk. This study investigates the explanatory power of 12 information sources (traditional media, new media, social media, and interpersonal communication) for the perceived risk posed by radiation released from the damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant on respondents’ own health and that of the population in general. The analysis controlled for attitude toward nuclear energy, gender, education, satisfaction with the media coverage, and duration of attention paid to the coverage. The study uses a large empirical data set from a public opinion survey, which is representative for the Belgian population with respect to six sociodemographic variables. Results show that three information sources are significant regressors of perceived health‐related risk of the nuclear accident: television, interpersonal communication, and the category of miscellaneous online sources. More favorable attitudes toward nuclear power, longer attention to the coverage, and higher satisfaction with the provided information lead to lower risk perception. Taken together, the results suggest that the media can indeed have a modest influence on how the audience perceives a risk.     

Limits of Knowledge and the Limited Importance of Trust

Perceived risk and related attitudes have been implicated as major factors in many of the difficult policy problems that face modern society (nuclear power, genetically modified food, etc). Experts often argue that no or very small risks are involved; people are still worried. Why? The standard answer is lack of trust. Data on trust and risk perception, however, point to only a weak relationship between the two (r approximately 0.3). It is suggested here that the reason for the surprisingly minor importance of trust is that people believe that there are clear limits to how much science and experts know. Results are presented from studies of risk perception of the public, experts, and politicians. Politicians and members of the public believe that there are many unknown effects of technology and such beliefs were strongly related to their perceived risk. Experts on nuclear waste, on the other hand, seemed to believe that little is unknown in their field of expertise. Regression analyses of risk perception showed the unknown‐effects factor to be a more important explanatory factor than trust for the public and politicians.     

The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception

Since the turn of the 21st century, there has been a revival of interest in nuclear power. Two decades ago, the expansion of nuclear power in the United States was halted by widespread public opposition as well as rising costs and less than projected increases in demand for electricity. Can the renewed enthusiasm for nuclear power overcome its history of public resistance that has persisted for decades? We propose that attitudes toward nuclear power are a function of perceived risk, and that both attitudes and risk perceptions are a function of values, beliefs, and trust in the institutions that influence nuclear policy. Applying structural equation models to data from a U.S. national survey, we find that increased trust in the nuclear governance institutions reduces perceived risk of nuclear power and together higher trust and lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power. Trust in environmental institutions and perceived risks from global environmental problems do not predict attitudes toward nuclear power. Values do predict attitudes: individuals with traditional values have greater support for, while those with altruistic values have greater opposition to, nuclear power. Nuclear attitudes do not vary by gender, age, education, income, or political orientation, though nonwhites are more supportive than whites. These findings are consistent with, and provide an explanation for, a long series of public opinion polls showing public ambivalence toward nuclear power that persists even in the face of renewed interest for nuclear power in policy circles.     

Weighing the Risks of Nuclear Energy and Climate Change: Trust in Different Information Sources,Perceived Risks,and Willingness to Pay for Alternatives to Nuclear Power

We examined how individuals perceive nuclear energy in the context of climate change mitigation and how their perceptions are associated with trust in different risk information sources. We analyzed the interrelationships between trust, perceived risk of nuclear power, climate change concern, perception of nuclear energy as an acceptable way to mitigate climate change, and willingness to pay (WTP) for alternatives to nuclear power. A nationwide survey (N = 967) collected in Finland was analyzed with structural equation modeling. The associations between trust and perceived risk of nuclear power, climate change concern, and perception of nuclear power as a way to mitigate climate change varied by the type of information source. Political party support and other background variables were associated with trust in different information sources. The effect of trust in information sources on WTP was mediated by perceived risks and benefits. The results will increase our understanding of how individuals perceive nuclear energy as a way to cut CO₂ emissions and the role of trust in different information sources in shaping nuclear risk perceptions and energy choices.     

Risk,Media, and Stigma at Rocky Flats

Public responses to nuclear technologies are often strongly negative. Events, such as accidents or evidence of unsafe conditions at nuclear facilities, receive extensive and dramatic coverage by the news media. These news stories affect public perceptions of nuclear risks and the geographic areas near nuclear facilities. One result of these perceptions, avoidance behavior, is a form of "technological stigma" that leads to losses in property values near nuclear facilities. The social amplification of risk is a conceptual framework that attempts to explain how stigma is created through media transmission of information about hazardous places and public perceptions and decisions. This paper examines stigma associated with the U.S. Department of Energy's Rocky Flats facility, a major production plant in the nation's nuclear weapons complex, located near Denver, Colorado. This study, based upon newspaper analyses and a survey of Denver area residents, finds that the social amplification theory provides a reasonable framework for understanding the events and public responses that took place in regard to Rocky Flats during a 6-year period, beginning with an FBI raid of the facility in 1989.     

An Empirical Study of the Toxic Capsule Crisis in China: Risk Perceptions and Behavioral Responses

The outbreak of the toxic capsule crisis during April 2012 aroused widespread public concern about the risk of chromium‐contaminated capsules and drug safety in China. In this article, we develop a conceptual model to investigate risk perceptions of the pharmaceutical drug capsules and behavioral responses to the toxic capsule crisis and the relationship between associated factors and these two variables. An online survey was conducted to test the model, including questions on the measures of perceived efficacy of the countermeasures, trust in the State FDA (Food and Drug Administration), trust in the pharmaceutical companies, trust in the pharmaceutical capsule producers, risk perception, concern, need for information, information seeking, and risk avoidance. In general, participants reported higher levels of risk perception, concern, and risk avoidance, and lower levels of trust in the three different stakeholders. The results from the structural equation modeling procedure suggest that perceived efficacy of the countermeasures is a predictor of each of the three trust variables; however, only trust in the State FDA has a dampening impact on risk perception. Both risk perception and information seeking are significant determinants of risk avoidance. Risk perception is also positively related to concern. Information seeking is positively related to both concern and need for information. The theoretical and policy implications are also discussed.     

sCARy! Risk Perceptions in Autonomous Driving: The Influence of Experience on Perceived Benefits and Barriers

The increasing development of autonomous vehicles (AVs) influences the future of transportation. Beyond the potential benefits in terms of safety, efficiency, and comfort, also potential risks of novel driving technologies need to be addressed. In this article, we explore risk perceptions toward connected and autonomous driving in comparison to conventional driving. In order to gain a deeper understanding of individual risk perceptions, we adopted a two‐step empirical procedure. First, focus groups ( $N=17$) were carried out to identify relevant risk factors for autonomous and connected driving. Further, a questionnaire was developed, which was answered by 516 German participants. In the questionnaire, three driving technologies (connected, autonomous, conventional) were evaluated via semantic differential (rating scale to identify connotative meaning of technologies). Second, participants rated perceived risk levels (for data, traffic environment, vehicle, and passenger) and perceived benefits and barriers of connected/autonomous driving. Since previous experience with automated functions of driver assistance systems can have an impact on the evaluation, three experience groups have been formed. The effect of experience on benefits and barrier perceptions was also analyzed. Risk perceptions were significantly smaller for conventional driving compared to connected/autonomous driving. With increasing experience, risk perception decreases for novel driving technologies with one exception: the perceived risk in handling data is not influenced by experience. The findings contribute to an understanding of risk perception in autonomous driving, which helps to foster a successful implementation of AVs on the market and to develop public information strategies.     

Understanding Public Perceptions of Benefits and Risks of Childhood Vaccinations in the United States

In the face of a growing public health concern accompanying the reemerging threat of preventable diseases, this research seeks mainly to explain variations in the perceived benefits and risks of vaccinations among the general public in the United States. As Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky's grid‐group cultural theory of risk perception claims, the analytical results based upon original data from a nationwide Internet survey of 1,213 American adults conducted in 2010 suggest that individuals’ cultural predispositions contribute to the formation of their perceptions pertaining to vaccine benefits and risks at both societal and individual levels, in conjunction with other factors suggested by previous risk perception literature, such as perceived prevalence of diseases, trust, knowledge level, and demographic characteristics. Those with a strong hierarch orientation tend to envision greater benefits and lesser risks and conceive of a relatively high ratio of benefit to risk when compared to other cultural types. By contrast, those with a strong fatalist tendency are inclined to emphasize risks and downplay benefits while conceiving of a low vaccination benefit‐risk ratio. Situated between hierarchs and fatalists, strong egalitarians are prone to perceive greater benefits, smaller risks, and a more positive benefit‐risk ratio than strong individualists.     

Analysis of Local Acceptance of a Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility

Like many other countries in the world, Korea has struggled to site a facility for radioactive waste for almost 30 years because of the strong opposition from local residents. Finally, in 2005, Gyeongju was established as the first Korean site for a radioactive waste facility. The objectives of this research are to verify Gyeongju citizens' average level of risk perception of a radioactive waste disposal facility as compared to other risks, and to explore the best model for predicting respondents' acceptance level using variables related to cost-benefit, risk perception, and political process. For this purpose, a survey is conducted among Gyeongju residents, the results of which are as follows. First, the local residents' risk perception of an accident in a radioactive waste disposal facility is ranked seventh among a total of 13 risks, which implies that nuclear-related risk is not perceived very highly by Gyeongju residents; however, its characteristics are still somewhat negative. Second, the comparative regression analyses show that the cost-benefit and political process models are more suitable for explaining the respondents' level of acceptance than the risk perception model. This may be the result of the current economic depression in Gyeongju, residents' familiarity with the nuclear industry, or cultural characteristics of risk tolerance.     

Risk Perception in Context: The Savannah River Site Stakeholder Study

Environmental managers are increasingly charged with involving the public in the development and modification of policies regarding risks to human health and the environment. Involving the public in environmental decision making first requires a broad understanding of how and why the public perceives various risks. The Savannah River Stakeholder Study was conducted with the purpose of investigating individual, economic, and social characteristics of risk perceptions among those living near the Savannah River Nuclear Weapons Site. A number of factors were found to impact risk perceptions among those living near the site. One's estimated proximity to the site and relative river location surfaced as strong determinants of risk perceptions among SRS residents. Additionally, living in a quality neighborhood and demonstrating a willingness to accept health risks for economic gain strongly abated heightened risk perceptions.The Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP)The Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP)The Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP)     

Social Influence,Risk and Benefit Perceptions,and the Acceptability of Risky Energy Technologies: An Explanatory Model of Nuclear Power Versus Shale Gas

Risky energy technologies are often controversial and debates around them are polarized; in such debates public acceptability is key. Research on public acceptability has emphasized the importance of intrapersonal factors but has largely neglected the influence of interpersonal factors. In an online survey (N = 948) with a representative sample of the United Kingdom, we therefore integrate interpersonal factors (i.e., social influence as measured by social networks) with two risky energy technologies that differ in familiarity (nuclear power vs. shale gas) to examine how these factors explain risk and benefit perceptions and public acceptability. Findings show that benefit perceptions are key in explaining acceptability judgments. However, risk perceptions are more important when people are less familiar with the energy technology. Social network factors affect perceived risks and benefits associated with risky energy technology, hereby indirectly helping to form one's acceptability judgment toward the technology. This effect seems to be present regardless of the perceived familiarity with the energy technology. By integrating interpersonal with intrapersonal factors in an explanatory model, we show how the current “risk–benefit acceptability” model used in risk research can be further developed to advance the current understanding of acceptability formation.     

How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks

There is a considerable body of knowledge about the way people perceive risks using heuristics and qualitative characteristics, and about how risk information should be communicated to the public. However, little is known about the way people use the perception of known risks (associated risks) to judge an unknown risk. In a first, qualitative study, six different risks were discussed in in-depth interviews and focus group interviews. The interviews showed that risk associations played a prominent role in forming risk perceptions. Associated risks were often mentioned spontaneously. Second, a survey study was conducted to confirm the importance of risk associations quantitatively. This study investigated whether people related unknown risks to known risks. This was indeed confirmed. Furthermore, some insight was gained into how and why people form risk associations. Results showed that the semantic category of the unknown risks was more important in forming associations than the perceived level of risk or specific risk characteristics. These findings were in line with the semantic network theory. Based on these two studies, we recommend using the mental models approach in developing new risk communications.     

The Dynamics of Risk Perception: How Does Perceived Risk Respond to Risk Events?

This paper examines the relationship between perceived risk and experience. This research addresses the processes by which people learn about risk and choose among real life prospects with associated uncertainties, risks and benefits. By comparing the impact of acute risk events with that of chronic risk events on public perception of risk during and after the events, this research focuses on the learning processes that characterize what kinds of risk events alter the perception of risk. Comparing materialized hazards at existing facilities with the risks associated with potential facilities, this research addresses risk choices among real life prospects. This study uses a classic pre-post quasi-experimental design. Surveys conducted in the Spring of 1992 on perceived and acceptable risk in Odessa and La Porte, Texas were conducted prior to risk events. Respondents from that survey were re-interviewed in the Spring of 1993 after the risk events to form a panel design. This paper analyzes the affect of risk events on perceived risk and the implications of these experiences for public policy concerning technological risk. The empirical results suggest that the social processes that construct and maintain risk in the public eye are at least as important as, if not more important than, the physical and psychological dimensions of risk.     

What Risks Are Chinese People Concerned About?

The aim of this study is to investigate public perceived risk on various issues in present-day China. Two surveys were conducted in urban China in 1996 and 1998. In the first survey, risk perceptions of different occupational groups are compared. Gender differences within each occupational group are also analyzed. In the second survey, participants with diverse employment status were recruited. The overall risk rankings of both surveys indicate great concern with risks that threaten national stability and economic development, and less concern with high-technology risk such as threat from a nuclear power plant. It is also found that employees from high-profit firms are more concerned about macroscopic catastrophic risks, whereas laid-off workers and employees from money-losing enterprises are more concerned about daily life or self-concerned risks. The importance of actual exposure to risk, mass media coverage, culture, and psychometric dimensions are discussed.