Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
Comparing the Geological Disposal of Carbon Dioxide and Radioactive Waste: Introduction and Overview Read chapter Read first chapter

2011 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

Psychological Perspectives on the Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste and Carbon Dioxide

Authors : Judith I. M. de Groot, Linda Steg

Published in: Geological Disposal of Carbon Dioxide and Radioactive Waste: A Comparative Assessment

Publisher: Springer Netherlands

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Public acceptability of risky technologies is not only related to the objective risks involved, but to a number of subjective factors as well. Therefore, various studies examined psychological factors related to acceptability judgements. In this chapter we demonstrate the relevance of psychological factors that contribute to the explanation of the acceptability of radioactive waste disposal and carbon dioxide (CO2) disposal technologies. The acceptability of CO2 disposal has received far less attention in psychological studies than the acceptability of radioactive waste disposal, and therefore we have made an assessment of possible psychological determinants based on research on the acceptability of the latter. We conclude that the acceptability of CO2 disposal may be explained by similar factors to those influencing the acceptability of radioactive waste disposal, i.e. risk characteristics (dread and the unknown), affect, values and worldviews, fairness and trust. We argue that these psychological factors are directly related to the acceptability of CO2 disposal as well as indirectly, via the perceived risks and benefits of CO2 disposal. Furthermore, we discuss group differences (i.e. lay versus experts, and cross-cultural differences) in acceptability of radioactive waste disposal and, again, translate these results for possible consequences in psychological research in the area of the acceptability of geological disposal of CO2. Finally, we integrate the psychological factors into a conceptual model and discuss the limitations of current research, future research directions and policy implications for the acceptability of both types of technologies.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
previous chapter Comparative Ethical Issues Entailed in the Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste and Carbon Dioxide in the Light of Climate Change
next chapter Comparative Assessment of Status and Opportunities for Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage and Radioactive Waste Disposal in North America
Literature
Abrahamse W, Steg L, Vlek C, Rothengatter T (2005) A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. J Environ Psychol 25:273–291CrossRef
Adams JS (1965) Inequity in social exchange. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Academic, New York, pp 267–299
Ahearne JF (2000) Intergenerational issues regarding nuclear power, nuclear waste, and nuclear weapons. Risk Anal 20:763–770CrossRef
Alhakami AS, Slovic P (1994) A psychological study of the inverse relationship between ­perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Anal 14:1085–1096CrossRef
Biel A, Dahlstrand U (1995) Risk perception and the location for a repository of spent nuclear fuel. Scand J Psychol 36:25–36CrossRef
Binney SE, Mason R, Martsolf SW, Detweiler JH (1996) Credibility, public trust, and the transport of radioactive waste through local communities. Environ Behav 28:283–301CrossRef
Bord RJ, O’Connor RE (1990) Risk communication, knowledge, and attitudes: explaining reactions to a technology perceived as risky. Risk Anal 10:499–506CrossRef
Bord RJ, O’Connor RE (1992) Determinants of risk perceptions of a hazardous waste site. Risk Anal 12:411–416CrossRef
Bradbury J, Ray I, Peterson T, Wade S, Wong-Parodi G, Feldpausch A (2009) The role of social factors in shaping public perceptions of CCS: results of multi-state focus group interviews in the U.S. In: Gale J, Herzog H, Braitsch J (eds) Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies; Energy Procedia 1:4665–4672
Clayton S (2000) Models of justice in the environmental debate. J Soc Issues 56:459–474CrossRef
Clayton S, Opotow S (2003) Justice and identity: changing perspectives on what is fair. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 7:298–310CrossRef
Cohen RL (1987) Distributive justice: theory and research. Soc Just Res 1:19–40CrossRef
Cook KS, Hegtvedt KA (1983) Distributive justice, equity, and equality. Annu Rev Sociol 9:217–241CrossRef
Cvetkovich G, Earle TC (1994) The construction of justice: a case study of public participation in land management. J Soc Issues 50:161–178CrossRef
Daamen DDL, Verplanken B, Midden CJH (1986) Accuracy and consistency of lay estimates of annual fatality rates. In: Brehmer B, Jungermann H, Lourens P, Sevón G (eds) New Directions in Research on Decision Making. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 231–243
Dake K (1991) Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: an analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. J Cross-Cult Psychol 22:61–82CrossRef
Dake K (1992) Myths of nature: culture and the social construction of risk. J Soc Issues 48:21–37CrossRef
de Best-Waldhober M, Daamen D, Faaij A (2009) Informed and uninformed public opinions on CO2 capture and storage technologies in the Netherlands. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 3:322–332CrossRef
de Groot JIM, Steg L (2007) Values, beliefs and environmental behavior: validation of an instrument to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations in five countries. J Cross-Cult Psychol 38:318–332CrossRef
de Groot JIM, Steg L (2008) Value orientations to explain environmental attitudes and beliefs: how to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations. Environ Behav 40(3):330–354CrossRef
de Groot JIM, Steg L (2009) Mean or green? Values, morality and environmental significant behavior. Conserv Lett 2:61–66CrossRef
de Groot JIM, Steg L, Dicke M (2008) Transportation trends from a moral perspective: value orientations, norms and reducing car use. In: Gustavsson FN (ed) New Transportation Research Progress. Nova Science Publishers, New York, pp 67–91
de Groot JIM, Steg L (2010) Morality and Nuclear Energy: Perceptions of Risks and Benefits, Personal Norms and Willingness to Take Action Related to Nuclear Energy. Risk Anal 30 (9):1363–1373
Deutsch M (1975) Equity, equality, and need: what determines which value will be used as the bases of distributive justice? J Soc Issues 31:137–149CrossRef
Deutsch M (1985) Distributive Justice. Yale University Press, New Haven
Douglas M, Wildavsky A (1982) Risk and Culture: An Essay on Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers. California University Press, Berkeley
Drottz-Sjöberg BM, Sjöberg L (1991) Adolescents’ attitudes to nuclear power and radioactive wastes. J Appl Soc Psychol 21:2007–2036CrossRef
Earle TC, Cvetkovich GT (1995) Social Trust: Toward a Cosmopolitan Society. Praeger Publishers, Westport
Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci 9:127–152CrossRef
Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading
Flynn J, Burns W, Mertz CK, Slovic P (1992) Trust as determinant of opposition to a high-level radioactive waste repository: analysis of a structural model. Risk Anal 12:417–429CrossRef
Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (1993) Decidedly different: expert and public views of risks from a radioactive waste repository. Risk Anal 13:643–648CrossRef
Gardner GT, Stern PC (2002) Environmental Problems and Human Behavior. Pearson, Boston
Gervers JH (1987) The NIMBY syndrome: is it inevitable? Environment 29:18–29
Gowda MVR, Easterling D (2000) Voluntary siting and equity: the MRS facility experience in native America. Risk Anal 20:917–929CrossRef
Gowda MVR, Owsley-Long P (1998) The relevance of social science to societal technology choices. In: Neuby BL (ed) Relevancy of the Social Sciences in the New Millennium. State University of West Georgia, Carrollton, pp 104–113
Hisschemöller M, Midden CJH (1989) Technological risk, policy theories and public perception in connection with the siting of hazardous facilities. In: Vlek C, Cvetkovich G (eds) Social Decision Methodology for Technological Projects. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, pp 173–194
Hohenemser C, Renn O (1988) Chernobyl’s other legacy. Shifting public perceptions of nuclear risk. Environment 30:4–45
Huijts NMA, Midden CJH, Meijnders AL (2007) Social acceptance of carbon dioxide storage. Energ Policy 35:2780–2789CrossRef
Kasperson RE, Golding D, Tuler S (1992) Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous facilities and communicating risks. J Soc Issues 48:161–87CrossRef
Katsuya T (2002) Difference in the formation of attitude toward nuclear power. Polit Psychol 23:191–203CrossRef
Krannich RS, Little RL, Cramer LA (1993) Rural community residents’ views of nuclear waste repository siting in Nevada. In: Dunlap RE, Kraft ME, Rosa EA (eds) Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste: Citizens’ Views of Repository Siting. Duke University Press, Durham, pp 263–287
Lind EA, Tyler TR (1988) The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. Plenum Press, New York
MacGregor D, Slovic P, Mason RG, Detweiler J, Binney SE, Dodd B (1994) Perceived risks of radioactive waste transport through Oregon: results of a statewide survey. Risk Anal 14:5–14CrossRef
Meijnders AL, Midden CJH, Wilke HAM (2001) Communications about environmental risks and risk-reducing behavior: the impact of fear on information processing. J Appl Soc Psychol 31:754–777CrossRef
Montada L, Kals E (1995) Perceived justice of ecological policy and proenvironmental commitments. Soc Just Res 8:305–327CrossRef
Mushkatel AH, Nigg JM, Pijawka KD (1993) Nevada urban residents’ attitudes toward a nuclear waste repository. In: Dunlap RE, Kraft ME, Rosa EA (eds) Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste: Citizens’ Views of Repository Siting. Duke University Press, Durham, pp 239–262
Opotow S, Clayton S (1994) Green justice: conceptions of fairness and the natural world. J Soc Issues 50:1–11CrossRef
Peters E, Slovic P (1996) The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. J Appl Soc Psychol 26:1427–1453CrossRef
Peters E, Burraston B, Mertz CK (2004) An emotion-based model of risk perception and stigma susceptibility: cognitive appraisals of emotion, affective reactivity, worldviews, and risk perceptions in the generation of technological stigma. Risk Anal 24:1349–1367CrossRef
Pijawka KD, Mushkatel AH (1991/1992) Public opposition to the siting of the high-level nuclear waste repository: the importance of trust. Policy Stud Rev 10:180–194CrossRef
Purvis-Roberts KL, Werner CA, Frank I (2007) Perceived risks from radiation and nuclear testing near Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan: a comparison between physicians, scientists, and the public. Risk Anal 27:291–302CrossRef
Rawls J (1999) A Theory of Justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Rogers R (1983) Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: a revised theory of protection motivation. In: Cacioppo J, Petty R (eds) Social Psychology: A Sourcebook. Guildford Press, New York, pp 153–176
Rosema M, Jost JT, Stapel DA (2008) Social psychology and the study of politics. In: Steg L, Buunk AP, Rothengatter T (eds) Applied Social Psychology. Understanding and Managing Social Problems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 291–315
Schuitema G (2010) Priceless Policies. Factors Influencing the Acceptability of Transport Pricing Policies. University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
Schwartz SH (1992) Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In: Zanna M (ed) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Academic, Orlando, pp 1–65
Schwartz SH (1994) Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? J Soc Issues 50:19–45CrossRef
Schwartz SH, Howard JA (1981) A normative decision-making model of altruism. In: Rushton JP, Sorrentino RM (eds) Altruism and Helping Behavior. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 89–211
Sherif M, Hovland CI (1961) Social Judgment: Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Communication and Attitude Change. Yale University Press, New Haven
Short JF, Rosa EA (2004) Some principles for siting controversy decisions: lessons from the US experience with high level nuclear waste. J Risk Res 7:135–152CrossRef
Shrader-Frechette K (2000) Duties to future generations, proxy concent, intra- and intergenerational equity: the case of nuclear waste. Risk Anal 20:771–777CrossRef
Siegrist M, Keller C, Cousin ME (2006) Implicit attitudes toward nuclear power and mobile phone base stations: support for the affect heuristic. Risk Anal 26:1021–1029CrossRef
Sjöberg L (1997) Explaining risk perception: an empirical and quantitative evaluation of cultural theory. Risk Decis Policy 2:113–130CrossRef
Sjöberg L (1998) Risk perception: experts and the public. Eur Psychol 3:1–12
Sjöberg L (2001) Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Anal 21:189–198CrossRef
Sjöberg L (2003) Attitudes and risk perception of stakeholders in a nuclear waste siting issue. Risk Anal 23:739–749CrossRef
Sjöberg L (2004) Local acceptance of a high-level nuclear waste repository. Risk Anal 24:737–749CrossRef
Sjöberg L, Drottz-Sjöberg BM (2001) Fairness, risk, and risk tolerance in the siting of a nuclear waste repository. J Risk Res 4:75–101CrossRef
Slovic P (1993) Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Anal 13:675–682CrossRef
Slovic P, Flynn JH, Layman M (1991a) Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science 254:1603–1607CrossRef
Slovic P, Layman M, Kraus N, Flynn J, Chalmers J, Gesell G (1991b) Perceived risk, stigma, and potential economic impacts of a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Risk Anal 11:683–696CrossRef
Slovic P, Layman M, Flynn JH (1991c) Lessons from Yucca Mountain. Environment 33:7–30
Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2004) Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal 24:311–322CrossRef
Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2007) The affect heuristic. Eur J Oper Res 177:1333–1352CrossRef
Steg L, Dreijerink L, Abrahamse W (2005) Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: testing VBN theory. J Environ Psychol 25:415–425CrossRef
Stern PC (2000) Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Issues 56:407–424CrossRef
Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L (1993) Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environ Behav 25:322–348CrossRef
Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L, Guagnano GA (1995) Values, beliefs, and proenvironmental action: attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. J Appl Soc Psychol 25:1611–1636CrossRef
Summers C, Hine DW (1997) Nuclear waste goes on the road: risk perceptions and compensatory tradeoffs in single-industry communities. Can J Behav Sci 29:210–222
Thøgersen J (1994) Monetary incentives and environmental concern: effects of a differentiated garbage fee. J Consum Policy 17:1–36CrossRef
Thøgersen J (1996) Recycling and morality: a critical review of the literature. Environ Behav 28(4):536–558CrossRef
Tokushige K, Akimoto K, Tomoda T (2007) Public perceptions on the acceptance of geological storage of carbon dioxide and information influencing the acceptance. In: Gale J, Bolland O (eds) 8th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies – GHGT-8. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 1(1):101–112
Tyler TR (2000) Social justice: outcome and procedure. Int J Psychol 35:117–125CrossRef
van Alphen K, van Voorst tot Voorst Q, Hekkert MP, Smits REHM (2007) Societal acceptance of carbon capture and storage technologies. Energ Policy 35:4368–4380CrossRef
van der Pligt J (1989) Nuclear waste: public perception and siting policy. In: Vlek C, Cvetkovich G (eds) Social Decision Methodology for Technological Projects. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, pp 235–252
van der Pligt J, Midden CJH (1990) Chernobyl: four years later: attitudes, risk management and communication. J Environ Psychol 10:91–99CrossRef
Verplanken B (1989) Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions toward nuclear energy before and after Chernobyl in a longitudinal within-subjects design. Environ Behav 21:371–392CrossRef
Vlek C, Stallen PJ (1981) Judging risks and benefits in the small and in the large. Organ Behav Hum Perf 28:235–271CrossRef
Wiegman O, Gutteling JM, Cadet B (1995) Perceptions of nuclear energy and coal in France and the Netherlands. Risk Anal 15:513–521CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Psychological Perspectives on the Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste and Carbon Dioxide
Authors
Judith I. M. de Groot
Linda Steg
Copyright Year
2011
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Book
Geological Disposal of Carbon Dioxide and Radioactive Waste: A Comparative Assessment

Print ISBN: 978-90-481-8711-9

Electronic ISBN: 978-90-481-8712-6

Copyright Year: 2011

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8712-6_12