Nuclear Engineering and Technology

  • 제50권5호
  • /
  • Pages.773-779
  • /
  • 2018
  • /
  • 1738-5733(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-358X(eISSN)
한국원자력학회 (Korean Nuclear Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Policymakers and stakeholders' perceptions of science-driven nuclear energy policy

  • Li, Nan (Department of Agricultural Education and Communications, Texas Tech University) ;
  • Brossard, Dominique (Department of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison) ;
  • Scheufele, Dietram A. (Department of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison) ;
  • Wilson, Paul P.H. (Department of Engineering Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison)
  • 투고 : 2018.01.02
  • 심사 : 2018.03.20
  • 발행 : 2018.06.25
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

This study surveyed 137 policymakers and key stakeholders (e.g., employees of government agencies, academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, industry, and advocacy groups) involved in making decisions on nuclear energy policy, investigating how they differentially perceived the importance of scientific evidence in driving nuclear policy. We also identified the policy areas that each group of decision-makers are mostly concerned about and showed how such concerns might contextualize and ultimately shape their perceptions of science-driven policy.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. S. Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.
  2. R.V. Pouyat, K.C. Weathers, R. Hauber, G.M. Lovett, A. Bartuska, L. Christenson, J.L.D. Davis, S.E.G. Findlay, H. Menninger, E. Rosi-Marshall, P. Stine, N. Lymn, The role of federal agencies in the application of scientific knowledge, Front. Ecol. Environ. 8 (2010) 322-328, https://doi.org/10.1890/090180.
  3. S.L. Del Sesto, Uses of knowledge and values in technical controversies: the case of nuclear reactor safety in the US, Soc. Stud. Sci. 13 (1983) 395-416. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631283013003003
  4. BRC, Report to the Secretary of Energy, Washington D.C., 2012.
  5. K. Bogenschneider, T.J. Corbett, Evidence-Based Policymaking: Insights from Policy-Minded Researchers and Research-Minded Policymakers, Routledge, 2011.
  6. B. Friese, K. Bogenschneider, The voice of experience: how social scientists communicate family research to policymakers, Fam. Relat. 58 (2009) 229-243, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2011.08.021.Secreted.
  7. D. Knopman, Risk communication at the science-policy interface: reflections on the effectiveness of the geosciences community in communicating with policymakers ondispositionofnuclearwaste, in: AGU Fall Meet.Abstr, vol. 1, 2010, p. 04.
  8. IAEA, Stakeholder Involvement Throughout the Life Cycle of Nuclear Facilities, 2011. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1520_web.pdf.
  9. S.E. Vandenbosch, R. Vandenbosch, A Blue Ribbon Commission's proposal for breaking the nuclear waste stalemate, Phys. Soc. 41 (2012) 1-5.
  10. CNN, Japan:Damaged reactors at nuclear plant could take 30 years to retire, ASIA, 2011. http://articles.cnn.com/2011-11-01/asia/world_asia_japan-nuclear_1_fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-power-three-reactors-yukiya-amano?_s=PM.
  11. S. Ansolabehere, J.M. Deutch, M. Driscoll, P. Gray, J. Holdren, P. Joskow, R. Lester, E.J. Moniz, N.E. Todreas, The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study, Cambridge, MA, 2003, http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/.
  12. M. Holt, Nuclear Energy Policy, 2014. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33558.pdf.
  13. J. Bickerstaffe, D. Pearce, Can there be a consensus on nuclear power? Soc. Stud. Sci. 10 (1980) 309-344. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631278001000303
  14. J. Friedrichs, Peak energy and climate change: the double bind of post-normal science, Futures 43 (2011) 469-477, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2010.12.004.
  15. K. Shrader-Frechette, Climate change, nuclear economics, and conflicts of interest, Sci. Eng. Ethics 17 (2011) 75-107, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9181-y.
  16. P.P.H. Wilson, Comparing Nuclear Fuel Cycle Options: Observations and Challenges, A Rep. React. Fuel Cycle Technol. Subcomm. Blue Ribb. Comm. Am. Nucl. Futur, 2011, pp. 1-24, http://cybercemetery.unt.edu/archive/brc/20120620221039/http://brc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/wilson.fuel_.cycle_.comparisons_final.pdf.
  17. J.S. Walker, The Road to Yucca Mountain: The Development of Radioactive Waste Policy in the United States, University of California Press, 2009.
  18. A. MacFarlane, Underlying Yucca mountain: the interplay of geology and policy in nuclear waste disposal, Soc. Stud. Sci. 33 (2003) 783-807, https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312703335006.
  19. K. Prewitt, M.L. Schwandt, Straf, Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy, 2012.
  20. N. Caplan, The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization, Am. Behav. Sci. 22 (1979) 459-470, https://doi.org/10.1177/000276427902200308.
  21. J.G. McGann, 2012 Global Go To Think Tanks Index Report, 2012. http://repository.upenn.edu/think_tanks/7/.
  22. A. Rich, R.K. Weaver, Think tanks in the U.S. media, Harv. Int. J. Press 5 (2000) 81-103. https://doi.org/10.1177/1081180X00005004006
  23. J. Son, Institutional affiliation as a measure of organizational social capital: a case study of Korea, Soc. Indic. Res. 129 (2016) 699-716, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-1142-z.
  24. H.A. Simon, Models of Man: Social and Rational; Mathematical Essays on Rational Human Behavior In Society Setting, Wiley, 1957.
  25. B.D. Jones, F.R. Baumgartner, From there to here: punctuated equilibrium to the general punctuation thesis to a theory of government information processing, Policy Stud. J. 40 (2012) 1-20, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00431.x.
  26. S. Chaiken, Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 39 (1980) 752-766, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752.
  27. S.L. Popkin, The Reasoning Voter, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1994.
  28. T. Reimer, J. Rieskamp, Fast and frugal heuristics, Encycl. Soc. Psychol. 2 (2007) 346-348, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2006.00020.x.
  29. A. Tversky, D. Kahneman, Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability, Cogn. Psychol. 5 (1973) 207-232, https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9.
  30. A. Samarapungavan, E.L. Westby, G.M. Bodner, Contextual epistemic development in science: a comparison of chemistry students and research chemists, Sci. Educ. 90 (2006) 468-495, https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20111.
  31. M.A. Cacciatore, D.A. Scheufele, E.A. Corley, From enabling technology to applications: the evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology, Public Underst. Sci. 20 (2009) 385-404, https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662509347815.
  32. G. Morgan, B. Fischhoff, A. Bostrom, C.J. Atman, Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach, Cambridge University Press, 2002.
  33. N. Li, D. Brossard, A.A. Anderson, D.A. Scheufele, K.M. Rose, How do policymakers and think tank stakeholders prioritize the risks of the nuclear fuel cycle? A semantic network analysis, J. Risk Res. (2016) 1-23, https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1223164.
  34. D.A. Dillman, J.D. Smyth, L.M. Christian, Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
  35. AAPOR, Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys, seventh ed., 2011. Lenexa, Kansas.
  36. A.F. Hayes, K.J. Preacher, Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable, Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. (2013) 451-470, https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12028.
  37. D. Iacobucci, Mediation analysis and categorical variables: the final frontier, J. Consum. Psychol. 22 (2012) 582-594, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2012.03.006.
  38. J. Cohen, P. Cohen, S.G. West, L.S. Aiken, Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Third, Routledge, 2003.
  39. J. Turnpenny, I. Lorenzoni, M. Jones, Noisy and definitely not normal: responding to wicked issues in the environment, energy and health, Environ. Sci. Policy 12 (2009) 347-358, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2009.01.004.
  40. J.M. Blank, D. Shaw, Does partisanship shape attitudes toward science and public policy? The case for ideology and religion, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 658 (2015) 18-35, https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214554756.
  41. R.E. Dunlap, C. Xiao, A.M. McCright, Politics and environment in America: partisan and ideological cleavages in public support for environmentalism, Env. Polit. 10 (2001) 23-48.
  42. J. Weichselgartner, R. Kasperson, Barriers in the science-policy-practice interface: toward a knowledge-action-system in global environmental change research, Glob. Environ. Change 20 (2010) 266-277, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.11.006.

피인용 문헌

  1. Molten salt reactors and electrochemical reprocessing: synthesis and chemical durability of potential waste forms for metal and salt waste streams vol.66, pp.5, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1080/09506608.2020.1801229