Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.03.012

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)
Publication Information
Nuclear Engineering and Technology / v.50, no.5, 2018 , pp. 773-779 More about this Journal
Abstract
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.
Keywords
Nuclear Energy; Nuclear Fuel Cycles; Science-driven Policy; Scientist-Policymaker Communication;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 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.
2 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.   DOI
3 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.
4 J.S. Walker, The Road to Yucca Mountain: The Development of Radioactive Waste Policy in the United States, University of California Press, 2009.
5 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.   DOI
6 K. Prewitt, M.L. Schwandt, Straf, Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy, 2012.
7 N. Caplan, The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization, Am. Behav. Sci. 22 (1979) 459-470, https://doi.org/10.1177/000276427902200308.   DOI
8 J.G. McGann, 2012 Global Go To Think Tanks Index Report, 2012. http://repository.upenn.edu/think_tanks/7/.
9 A. Rich, R.K. Weaver, Think tanks in the U.S. media, Harv. Int. J. Press 5 (2000) 81-103.   DOI
10 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.   DOI
11 H.A. Simon, Models of Man: Social and Rational; Mathematical Essays on Rational Human Behavior In Society Setting, Wiley, 1957.
12 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.   DOI
13 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.   DOI
14 S.L. Popkin, The Reasoning Voter, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1994.
15 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.   DOI
16 J. Cohen, P. Cohen, S.G. West, L.S. Aiken, Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Third, Routledge, 2003.
17 AAPOR, Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys, seventh ed., 2011. Lenexa, Kansas.
18 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.   DOI
19 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.   DOI
20 S. Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.
21 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.   DOI
22 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.   DOI
23 BRC, Report to the Secretary of Energy, Washington D.C., 2012.
24 K. Bogenschneider, T.J. Corbett, Evidence-Based Policymaking: Insights from Policy-Minded Researchers and Research-Minded Policymakers, Routledge, 2011.
25 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.   DOI
26 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/.
27 IAEA, Stakeholder Involvement Throughout the Life Cycle of Nuclear Facilities, 2011. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1520_web.pdf.
28 S.E. Vandenbosch, R. Vandenbosch, A Blue Ribbon Commission's proposal for breaking the nuclear waste stalemate, Phys. Soc. 41 (2012) 1-5.
29 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.
30 M. Holt, Nuclear Energy Policy, 2014. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33558.pdf.
31 J. Bickerstaffe, D. Pearce, Can there be a consensus on nuclear power? Soc. Stud. Sci. 10 (1980) 309-344.   DOI
32 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.   DOI
33 G. Morgan, B. Fischhoff, A. Bostrom, C.J. Atman, Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach, Cambridge University Press, 2002.
34 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.   DOI
35 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.   DOI
36 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.   DOI
37 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.   DOI
38 D.A. Dillman, J.D. Smyth, L.M. Christian, Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
39 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.   DOI
40 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.   DOI
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.   DOI