Abstract
CRESP conducted surveys of areas near major US DOE sites in 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. The 2008–2011 surveys also collected a national sample. This chapter describes the survey questions, the protocols, and the results of the 2005, 2008, 2009, and 2010 surveys. Two-thirds of site-specific sample favors DOE’s energy park concept, with 36 % favoring it for their own area, and site-specific support for new waste management activities was >50 % and was higher than national sample. Respondents preferred environmental and risk-based management policies that monitor the water and air at the site, workers, and strongly supported equipment and training for local first responders and tools to alert the public. Requiring site managers to live near sites, prohibiting new missions, providing guided tours of the sites, and other organizational steps were the least favored priorities. Emotions and feelings were the strongest correlates, especially with regard to environmental management options. The site-specific sample had many more positive feelings, emotions, and images than the national sample and many more links to positive economic outcomes. Also, affluent college-educated white males disproportionately supported new on-site activities as did those who were optimistic about the future.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Cantor J, Brownlee S, Zukin C, Boyle J (2009) Implications of the growing use of wireless telephones for health care opinion polls. Health Serv Res 44(5):1762–1772
CTIA, the Wireless Association (2011) Wireless Quick Facts. http://www.ctia.org/advocacy/research/index.cfm/aid/10323. Accessed August 5, 2011
Curtin R, Presser S, Singer E (2000) The effects of response rate changes on the index of consumer sentiment. Public Opin Q 64:413–428
Greenberg M (2009a) NIMBY, CLAMP and the location of new nuclear-related facilities: U.S. National and eleven site-specific surveys. Risk Anal 29(9):1242–1254
Greenberg M (2009b) Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences: analysis of US national and site-specific data. Energy Policy 37:3242–3249
Greenberg M (2009c) What environmental issues do people who live near major nuclear facilities worry about? Analysis of national and site-specific data. Environ Plann Manage 52(7):919–937
Greenberg M (2010) Energy parks for former nuclear weapons sites? Public preferences at six regional locations and the United States as a whole. Energy Policy 38:5098–5107
Greenberg M, Lowrie K (2002) External stakeholders’ influence on the DOE’s long-term stewardship programs. Fed Facil Environ J, Spring; 65–75
Greenberg M, Truelove H (2010) Right answers and right-wrong answers: sources of information influencing knowledge of nuclear-related information. Socioecon Plann Sci 44:130–140
Greenberg M, Truelove H (2011) Energy choices and perceived risks: is it just global warming and fear of a nuclear power plant accident? Risk Anal 31(5):819–831
Greenberg M, Lowrie K, Burger J, Powers C, Gochfeld M, Mayer H (2007a) The ultimate LULU? Public reaction new nuclear activities at major weapons sites. J Am Plann Assoc 73(3):346–351
Greenberg M, Lowrie K, Burger J, Powers C, Gochfeld M, Mayer H (2007b) Nuclear waste and public worries: public perceptions of the United States major nuclear weapons legacy sites. Hum Ecol Rev 14(1):1–12
Greenberg M, Lowrie K, Burger J, Powers C, Gochfeld M, Mayer H (2007c) Preferences for alternative risk management policies at the United States major nuclear weapons legacy sites. J Environ Plann Manage 50(2):187–209
Greenberg M, Lowrie K, Hollander J, Burger J, Powers C, Gochfeld M (2008) Citizen board issues and local newspaper coverage of risk, remediation and environmental management: Six United States nuclear weapons facilities. Remediation 18(3):79–90
Greenberg M, Mayer H, Powers C (2011) Public preferences for environmental management practices at DOE’s nuclear waste sites. Remediation 21(2):117–131
John F. Kennedy School of Government (2009) Civic Engagement in America. http://www.cfsv.org/communitysurvey/results10.html, last accessed May 28, 2009
Keeter S, Miller C, Kohut A, Groves R (2000) Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey. Public Opin Q 64:125–148
Lowrie K, Greenberg M (2000) Local impacts of US nuclear weapons facilities: a survey of planners. Environmentalist 20(2):157–168
Lowrie K, Greenberg M (2001) Can David and Goliath get along?: Federal lands in local places. Environ Manage 28(6):703–711
Lowrie K, Greenberg M, Waishwell L (2000) Hazards, risk, and the press: a comparative analysis of newspaper coverage of nuclear and chemical weapons sites. Risk: Health, Safety Environ 49:49–67
Merkle D, Edelman M (2002) Nonresponse in exit polls: a comprehensive analysis. In: Groves RM, Dillman DA, Eltinge JL, Little RJA (eds) Survey nonresponse. Wiley, New York, pp 243–257
Pew Research Center (2004) Survey report/press release: polls face growing resistance, but still representative. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Washington, D.C
Public Opinion Quarterly (2006) Nonresponse bias in household surveys. Special Issue 70(5)
The American Association for Public Opinion Research (2008) http://www.aapor.org/responseratesanoverview, last accessed June 10, 2009
The American Association for Public Opinion Research (2009) Standard definitions: final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys, 6th edn. AAPOR, Lenexa, Kansas
Zukin C (2006) The future is here! Where are we now? And how do we get there? Public Opin Q 70(3):426–442
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag London
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Greenberg, M.R. (2013). CRESP Surveys of Major US Department of Energy Environmental Management Site Regions and of the National Population, 2005–2010. In: Nuclear Waste Management, Nuclear Power, and Energy Choices. Lecture Notes in Energy, vol 2. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4231-7_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4231-7_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-4230-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-4231-7
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)