THE CASE OF RISK PERCEPTION AND ATTITUDES

ON THE NEED FOR INTEGRATION OF SOCIAL ASPECTS INTO NUCLEAR RESEARCH: THE CASE OF RISK PERCEPTION AND ATTITUDES C. Turcanu SCK•CEN Unit Nuclear Scien...
Author: Hubert Crawford
1 downloads 0 Views 674KB Size
ON THE NEED FOR INTEGRATION OF SOCIAL ASPECTS INTO NUCLEAR RESEARCH:

THE CASE OF RISK PERCEPTION AND ATTITUDES C. Turcanu

SCK•CEN Unit Nuclear Science and Technology Studies [email protected] International Symposium 50 years BVS-ABR, Brussels, 8-10 April 2013

1

Copyright © 2013 SCK•CEN

Why social science in nuclear research? Some examples  Risk perception  Human behaviour is primarily driven by perception and not by facts, or by what is understood as facts by risk analysts and scientists (Renn, 2008)  “Kim Klijsters geeft Jada jodium tegen radioactieve wolk “ (HbvL.be)

 Stakeholder involvement  “All stakeholders with an interest in nuclear decisions should be provided with an opportunity for full and effective participation” (IAEA, 2006)

 Belgian local partnerships for LILW disposal

 Communication  “Public communication [is] one of the most important challenges in emergency management” (IAEA, 2012)  Most conflictual topic in media reporting about the accident in Fukushima: public information (Perko et al 2011, BLG report) 22

Copyright © 2013 SCK•CEN

Why social science in nuclear research? Some examples  Risk perception  Human behaviour is primarily driven by perception and not by facts, or by what is understood as facts by risk analysts and scientists (Renn, 2008)  “Kim Klijsters geeft Jada jodium tegen radioactieve wolk “ (HbvL.be)

 Stakeholder involvement  “All stakeholders with an interest in nuclear decisions should be provided with an opportunity for full and effective participation” (IAEA, 2006)

 Belgian local partnerships for LILW disposal

 Communication  “Public communication [is] one of the most important challenges in emergency management” (IAEA, 2012)  Most conflictual topic in media reporting about the accident in Fukushima: public information (Perko et al 2011, BLG report) 33

Copyright © 2013 SCK•CEN

Why social science in nuclear research? Some examples  Risk perception  Human behaviour is primarily driven by perception and not by facts, or by what is understood as facts by risk analysts and scientists (Renn, 2008)  “Kim Klijsters geeft Jada jodium tegen radioactieve wolk “ (HbvL.be)

 Stakeholder involvement  “All stakeholders with an interest in nuclear decisions should be provided with an opportunity for full and effective participation” (IAEA, 2006)

 Belgian local partnerships for LILW disposal

 Communication  “Public communication [is] one of the most important challenges in emergency management” (IAEA, 2012)  Most conflictual topic in media reporting about the accident in Fukushima: public information (Perko et al 2011, BLG report) 44

Copyright © 2013 SCK•CEN

Why social science in nuclear research? Some examples  Risk perception  Human behaviour is primarily driven by perception and not by facts, or by what is understood as facts by risk analysts and scientists (Renn, 2008)  “Kim Klijsters geeft Jada jodium tegen radioactieve wolk “ (HbvL.be)

 Stakeholder involvement  “All stakeholders with an interest in nuclear decisions should be provided with an opportunity for full and effective participation” (IAEA, 2006)

 Belgian local partnerships for LILW disposal

 Communication  “Public communication [is] one of the most important challenges in emergency management” (IAEA, 2012)  Most conflictual topic in media reporting about the accident in Fukushima: public information (Perko et al 2011, BLG report) 55

Copyright © 2013 SCK•CEN

PISA: Programme on Integration of Social Aspects into nuclear research  Rationale:  To better understand the risks and benefits of (nuclear) technologies, we need to reflect on the context of application and the related technical, political, economic, social and ethical aspects Programme started in at the end of the 90’s

 Focus on social, ethical and political aspects  Natural and social scientists together  Insight in particularities of nuclear + structured methodological approach to aspects typically pertaining to social sciences 6

Copyright © 2013 SCK•CEN

Current research themes linked to PISA



Safeguards

Energy

Safety & RP







Sustainable energy policies

• Communication

Political research on proliferation



• Risk perception • Safety culture

Waste

 • Participation • Socio-technical approaches

• Ethical aspects

7

Copyright © 2013 SCK•CEN

The SCK•CEN Barometer  National survey in the Belgian population  Computer Assisted Personal Interviews (35 to 45 min at respondent’s home)  N >1000 => sample representative for Belgian 18+ population (for province, region, level of urbanisation, gender, age and professionally active status)  Steered by multidisciplinary and international committee  Permanent topics risk perception, trust, confidence + additional topics (in focus)  Editions: 2002, 2006, 2009, 2011, 2013 (forthcoming)

8

Copyright © 2013 SCK•CEN

2011, 2009 & 2006: How do you evaluate the risks for an ordinary citizen of Belgium from: Radioactive waste 2011 2009 2006

Risk perception

Accident nuclear installation 2011 2009 2006 Terrorist attack radioactive source 2011

2009 2006 Natural radiation (Rn, cosmic) 2011 2009 2006 Medical X-rays

2011 2009

2006 N>1000

9

Copyright © 2013 SCK•CEN

2011, 2009 & 2006: How do you evaluate the risks for an ordinary citizen of Belgium from: Radioactive waste 2011 2009 2006

Risk perception

Accident nuclear installation 2011 2009 2006 Terrorist attack radioactive source 2011

2009 2006 Natural radiation (Rn, cosmic) 2011 2009 2006 Medical X-rays

2011 2009

2006 N>1000

10

Copyright © 2013 SCK•CEN

Radiation risk perceptionimportance of the context  Factor analysis reveals two factors  Industry related risks  Radioactive waste  Accident nuclear installation  Terrorist attack radioactive source

 Other radiation risks

Disaster potential,

involuntary, tampering with nature, … Familiar,

 Natural radiation  Radiation from GSM’s  Medical X-rays

voluntary, individual, …

 But, factors are significantly correlated

11

Copyright © 2013 SCK•CEN

Opinion about nuclear energychanges after Fukushima

-14%

N=1020

+21%

12

Copyright © 2013 SCK•CEN

Attitude towards nuclear Theoretical insights from the literature  Attitudes influence and are influenced by beliefs about an object and his evaluations of the object's attributes (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975)  People respond to hazards based on their perception of the risks they pose  Trust influences risk perception (Whitfield el al, 2009) and perceived benefits and risks (Visschers et al, 2013)

 Higher trust in the institutions responsible for nuclear governance and lower risk perception predict a more positive attitude towards nuclear energy (Whitfield el al, 2009).  Affect and worldviews are highly predictive of risk perception and support for nuclear technologies (Peters & Slovic, 1996).

13

Copyright © 2013 SCK•CEN

Attitude towards nuclear Potential predictors  Our study investigated the influence of several risk characteristics on the attitude/opinion about nuclear energy  Data: SCK•CEN Barometer 2011  Model Dependent variable

Attitude towards nuclear energy

3 items (e.g. “the benefits of nuclear energy outweigh its disadvantages”)

Independent variables Knowledge Exam style, multiple items

Confidence in managment of nuclear technolog. 5 items (e.g. “Nuclear reactors in Belgium are operated in a safe manner”) 14

Perception of nuclear risks 3 items (waste, accident, terrorist act with radioact. source) Copyright © 2013 SCK•CEN

Attitude towards nuclear Results Dependent variable: Attitude towards nuclear energy Independent variables Std. β Std. β Knowledge index 0.09** .019 Perception of nuclear -.210*** -.050 risks Confidence in NA .591*** management of nuclear technologies Adjusted R2 0.05 0.37

 Higher knowledge and lower risk perception lead to more positive attitude towards nuclear energy  Higher confidence in the safe management of nuclear technologies leads to more positive attitude towards nuclear energy.

Significant, 95% confidence level; ** Significant, 99% confidence level; ***Significant, 99.9% confidence level

15

Copyright © 2013 SCK•CEN

Attitude towards nuclear Results Dependent variable: Attitude towards nuclear energy Independent variables Std. β Std. β Knowledge index 0.09** .019 Perception of nuclear -.210*** -.050 risks Confidence in NA .591*** management of nuclear technologies Adjusted R2 0.05 0.37

 Knowledge and risk perception are weak predictors for attitudes and opinions  Confidence in the safe management of nuclear technologies plays a more important role in the formation of attitudes

Significant, 95% confidence level; ** Significant, 99% confidence level; ***Significant, 99.9% confidence level

16

Copyright © 2013 SCK•CEN

Factors pro/contra nuclear energy

17

Copyright © 2013 SCK•CEN

Factors pro/contra nuclear energy

18

Copyright © 2013 SCK•CEN

Conclusions (1)  Industry related risks are perceived higher than other radiation risks, but the two factors are positively correlated  Increasing general knowledge about the nuclear field will have a limited effect towards a more positive attitude as regards nuclear energy  Confidence in the safe management of nuclear technologies is a driving factor for people's acceptance of nuclear energy.  The main factors pleading in favour or against nuclear energy are similar, both for opponents and proponents of nuclear energy  the strength of the relations varies among the two groups.

19

Copyright © 2013 SCK•CEN

Conclusions (2)  Interdisciplinary approaches are needed to address non-technical issues in the nuclear field  The PISA programme of the SCK•CEN promotes and supports a reflective, open, integrative, anticipatory and engaged attitude that serves research, policy making and thus society.  The results of this research contribute to increasing awareness of social aspects and, at the same time, to improved risk governance processes

20

Copyright © 2013 SCK•CEN

Stages in risk perception and communication  All we have to do is get the numbers right  All we have to do is tell them the numbers  All we have to do is explain what we mean by the numbers  All we have to do is show them that they’ve accepted similar risks  All we have to do is show them that it’s a good deal for them  All we have to do is treat them nice  All we have to do is make them partners

 All of the above Source: Fischhoff, B (1995). Risk perception and communication unplugged: 20 years of process. Risk Analysis 15 (2). 21

Copyright © 2013 SCK•CEN

Copyright © 2013 - SCKCEN PLEASE NOTE! This presentation contains data, information and formats for dedicated use ONLY and may not be copied, distributed or cited without the explicit permission of the SCK•CEN. If this has been obtained, please reference it as a “personal communication. By courtesy of SCK•CEN”.

SCK•CEN Studiecentrum voor Kernenergie Centre d'Etude de l'Energie Nucléaire Belgian Nuclear Research Centre

Stichting van Openbaar Nut Fondation d'Utilité Publique Foundation of Public Utility Registered Office: Avenue Herrmann-Debrouxlaan 40 – BE-1160 BRUSSELS Operational Office: Boeretang 200 – BE-2400 MOL

22

Copyright © 2013 SCK•CEN

Suggest Documents