Fairness, risk and risk tolerance in the siting of a nuclear waste repository

By Lennart Sjöberg, B. Drottz-Sjöberg. 2001

127 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/718d3792532061660582397387f3c6038a3d709a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Global and Planetary Change

1. L. Steg
2. G. Perlaviciute
3. Jeffrey Jacquet
4. R. Stedman
5. M. Wolsink
6. U. Liebe
7. P. Devine‐Wright
8. Alexander Zerrahn

In Sociology and Political Science

1. G. Perlaviciute
2. L. Steg
3. Jeffrey Jacquet
4. R. Stedman
5. M. Wolsink
6. R. Gifford
7. P. Devine‐Wright
8. G. Kyle

Citations in the corpus

• Values, Norms, and Intrinsic Motivation to Act Proenvironmentally (2016, background): “For example, support for a nuclear waste repository was lower when people expected this could threaten the health of locals (120), and a wind farm project was evaluated more negatively when people expected that only a few farmers would benefit from it (121).”
• Invalid theory impedes our understanding: A critique on the persistence of the language of NIMBY (2006, background): “In the remarkably rare studies that tried to establish empirically the ‘backyard’ motivation, they were actually found, but these studies invariably also conclude that only a very small part of the opposition may be classified as driven by NIMBY motives (Bassett et al. 1996; Wolsink 2000; Sjöberg an”
• The risk of social-psychological disruption as an impact of energy development and environmental change (2014, background): “…Harris, Jenkins and Glaser 2006), perception of economic gain (Groothuis, Van Houtven, and Whitehead 1998), attribution of fault (Sandman 1989; Freudenburg 1993, 1997), and perception of fairness in the planning and siting process (Sjoberg and Drottz-Sjoberg 2001; McComas, Stedman, and Hart 2011).”
• Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: Integrated review and research agenda (2014, background): “evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives (see [30,95]).”
• Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes: Equity and fairness instead of ‘backyard motives’ (2007, background): “, type II may be dominant, and in a study that empirically established the roots of opposition against a nuclear waste facility in Sweden only 12% could be classified as type I [44].”