Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Geological Disposal of Carbon Dioxide and Radioactive Waste: A Comparative Assessment pp 339–363Cite as

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Advances in Global Change Research ((AGLO,volume 44))

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abrahamse W, Steg L, Vlek C, Rothengatter T (2005) A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. J Environ Psychol 25:273–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams JS (1965) Inequity in social exchange. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Academic, New York, pp 267–299

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahearne JF (2000) Intergenerational issues regarding nuclear power, nuclear waste, and nuclear weapons. Risk Anal 20:763–770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alhakami AS, Slovic P (1994) A psychological study of the inverse relationship between ­perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Anal 14:1085–1096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biel A, Dahlstrand U (1995) Risk perception and the location for a repository of spent nuclear fuel. Scand J Psychol 36:25–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binney SE, Mason R, Martsolf SW, Detweiler JH (1996) Credibility, public trust, and the transport of radioactive waste through local communities. Environ Behav 28:283–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bord RJ, O’Connor RE (1990) Risk communication, knowledge, and attitudes: explaining reactions to a technology perceived as risky. Risk Anal 10:499–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bord RJ, O’Connor RE (1992) Determinants of risk perceptions of a hazardous waste site. Risk Anal 12:411–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Clayton S (2000) Models of justice in the environmental debate. J Soc Issues 56:459–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clayton S, Opotow S (2003) Justice and identity: changing perspectives on what is fair. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 7:298–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen RL (1987) Distributive justice: theory and research. Soc Just Res 1:19–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook KS, Hegtvedt KA (1983) Distributive justice, equity, and equality. Annu Rev Sociol 9:217–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cvetkovich G, Earle TC (1994) The construction of justice: a case study of public participation in land management. J Soc Issues 50:161–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Dake K (1991) Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: an analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. J Cross-Cult Psychol 22:61–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dake K (1992) Myths of nature: culture and the social construction of risk. J Soc Issues 48:21–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 3:322–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 38:318–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):330–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Groot JIM, Steg L (2009) Mean or green? Values, morality and environmental significant behavior. Conserv Lett 2:61–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch M (1975) Equity, equality, and need: what determines which value will be used as the bases of distributive justice? J Soc Issues 31:137–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch M (1985) Distributive Justice. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas M, Wildavsky A (1982) Risk and Culture: An Essay on Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers. California University Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Drottz-Sjöberg BM, Sjöberg L (1991) Adolescents’ attitudes to nuclear power and radioactive wastes. J Appl Soc Psychol 21:2007–2036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Earle TC, Cvetkovich GT (1995) Social Trust: Toward a Cosmopolitan Society. Praeger Publishers, Westport

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 9:127–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 12:417–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (1993) Decidedly different: expert and public views of risks from a radioactive waste repository. Risk Anal 13:643–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner GT, Stern PC (2002) Environmental Problems and Human Behavior. Pearson, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Gervers JH (1987) The NIMBY syndrome: is it inevitable? Environment 29:18–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Gowda MVR, Easterling D (2000) Voluntary siting and equity: the MRS facility experience in native America. Risk Anal 20:917–929

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hohenemser C, Renn O (1988) Chernobyl’s other legacy. Shifting public perceptions of nuclear risk. Environment 30:4–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Huijts NMA, Midden CJH, Meijnders AL (2007) Social acceptance of carbon dioxide storage. Energ Policy 35:2780–2789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson RE, Golding D, Tuler S (1992) Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous facilities and communicating risks. J Soc Issues 48:161–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katsuya T (2002) Difference in the formation of attitude toward nuclear power. Polit Psychol 23:191–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind EA, Tyler TR (1988) The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. Plenum Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 14:5–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 31:754–777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montada L, Kals E (1995) Perceived justice of ecological policy and proenvironmental commitments. Soc Just Res 8:305–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Opotow S, Clayton S (1994) Green justice: conceptions of fairness and the natural world. J Soc Issues 50:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 26:1427–1453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 24:1349–1367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 10:180–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 27:291–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J (1999) A Theory of Justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuitema G (2010) Priceless Policies. Factors Influencing the Acceptability of Transport Pricing Policies. University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz SH (1994) Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? J Soc Issues 50:19–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherif M, Hovland CI (1961) Social Judgment: Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Communication and Attitude Change. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Short JF, Rosa EA (2004) Some principles for siting controversy decisions: lessons from the US experience with high level nuclear waste. J Risk Res 7:135–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrader-Frechette K (2000) Duties to future generations, proxy concent, intra- and intergenerational equity: the case of nuclear waste. Risk Anal 20:771–777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M, Keller C, Cousin ME (2006) Implicit attitudes toward nuclear power and mobile phone base stations: support for the affect heuristic. Risk Anal 26:1021–1029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (1997) Explaining risk perception: an empirical and quantitative evaluation of cultural theory. Risk Decis Policy 2:113–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (1998) Risk perception: experts and the public. Eur Psychol 3:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2001) Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Anal 21:189–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2003) Attitudes and risk perception of stakeholders in a nuclear waste siting issue. Risk Anal 23:739–749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2004) Local acceptance of a high-level nuclear waste repository. Risk Anal 24:737–749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L, Drottz-Sjöberg BM (2001) Fairness, risk, and risk tolerance in the siting of a nuclear waste repository. J Risk Res 4:75–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1993) Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Anal 13:675–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Flynn JH, Layman M (1991a) Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science 254:1603–1607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 11:683–696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Layman M, Flynn JH (1991c) Lessons from Yucca Mountain. Environment 33:7–30

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 24:311–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2007) The affect heuristic. Eur J Oper Res 177:1333–1352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steg L, Dreijerink L, Abrahamse W (2005) Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: testing VBN theory. J Environ Psychol 25:415–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern PC (2000) Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Issues 56:407–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L (1993) Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environ Behav 25:322–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L, Guagnano GA (1995) Values, beliefs, and proenvironmental action: attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. J Appl Soc Psychol 25:1611–1636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Thøgersen J (1994) Monetary incentives and environmental concern: effects of a differentiated garbage fee. J Consum Policy 17:1–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thøgersen J (1996) Recycling and morality: a critical review of the literature. Environ Behav 28(4):536–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler TR (2000) Social justice: outcome and procedure. Int J Psychol 35:117–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Alphen K, van Voorst tot Voorst Q, Hekkert MP, Smits REHM (2007) Societal acceptance of carbon capture and storage technologies. Energ Policy 35:4368–4380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Pligt J, Midden CJH (1990) Chernobyl: four years later: attitudes, risk management and communication. J Environ Psychol 10:91–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verplanken B (1989) Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions toward nuclear energy before and after Chernobyl in a longitudinal within-subjects design. Environ Behav 21:371–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vlek C, Stallen PJ (1981) Judging risks and benefits in the small and in the large. Organ Behav Hum Perf 28:235–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiegman O, Gutteling JM, Cadet B (1995) Perceptions of nuclear energy and coal in France and the Netherlands. Risk Anal 15:513–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Design, Engineering and Computing, Bournemouth University, Psychology, Poole House, Fern Barrow, Poole, BH12 5BB, United Kingdom

    Judith I. M. de Groot

  2. Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences Department of Psychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 1/2, 9712 TS, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Linda Steg

Authors
  1. Judith I. M. de Groot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Linda Steg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Judith I. M. de Groot .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. International Atomic Energy Agency, Wagramer Str. 5, Wien, 1400, Austria

    Ferenc L. Toth

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

de Groot, J.I.M., Steg, L. (2011). Psychological Perspectives on the Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste and Carbon Dioxide. In: Toth, F. (eds) Geological Disposal of Carbon Dioxide and Radioactive Waste: A Comparative Assessment. Advances in Global Change Research, vol 44. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8712-6_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation