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) |
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 |