IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v37y2020i4p491-510.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring Aggregate vs. Relative Public Trust in Administrative Agencies that Manage Spent Nuclear Fuel in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Kuhika Gupta
  • Joseph T. Ripberger
  • Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith
  • Carol L. Silva

Abstract

Trust is a key component of democratic decision‐making and becomes even more salient in highly technical policy areas, where the public relies heavily on experts for decision making and on the information provided by federal agencies. Research to date has not examined whether the members of the public place different levels of trust in the various agencies that operate within the same policy subsystem, especially in a highly technical subsystem such as that of nuclear energy and waste management. This paper explores public trust in multiple agencies operating within the same subsystem, trust in each agency relative to aggregate trust across agencies that operate within the nuclear waste subsystem, and trust in alternative agencies that have been suggested as possible players in the decision‐making process. We find that trust accorded to different federal agencies within the nuclear waste subsystem varies. The variation in trust is systematically associated with multiple factors, including basic trust in government, perceptions about the risks and benefits of nuclear energy/waste management, party identification, and education. These findings have significant implications for research on public trust in specific government agencies, alternative policy entities, and for policy makers who want to design robust and successful policies and programs in highly technical policy domains. 信任是民主决策的一个重要组成部分，它在高度技术化的政策领域中的重要性更强，在这些领域中公众严重依赖专家决策、以及由联邦机构提供的信息。目前的研究还未检验公共成员是否对同一政策子系统中运作的不同机构存在不同程度的信任，尤其是在高度技术化的子系统中，例如核能与废物管理。本文探究了公众对在同一子系统中运作的多个机构的信任程度，与对核废物子系统中运作的不同机构的整体信任相比公众对其中每个机构的信任程度，以及公众对替代性机构（被视为决策过程中可能的参与者）的信任程度。我们发现在核废物子系统中运作的不同联邦机构所获得的信任程度不同。信任差异在系统上与多个因素相关，包括对政府的基本信任、对核能/废物管理的风险和利益的感知、党派识别、教育。这些研究发现对有关公众对特定政府机构的信任的研究、替代性政策实体、以及那些想要在高度技术化政策领域中设计稳健且成功的政策和计划的决策者而言具有重要意义 La confianza es un componente clave de la toma de decisiones democráticas y se vuelve aún más relevante en áreas de políticas altamente técnicas, donde el público depende en gran medida de expertos para la toma de decisiones y de la información proporcionada por las agencias federales. La investigación hasta la fecha no ha examinado si los miembros del público colocan diferentes niveles de confianza en las diversas agencias que operan dentro del mismo subsistema de políticas, especialmente en un subsistema altamente técnico como el de la energía nuclear y la gestión de residuos. Este documento explora la confianza pública en múltiples agencias que operan dentro del mismo subsistema, la confianza en cada agencia en relación con la confianza agregada en todas las agencias que operan dentro del subsistema de residuos nucleares, y la confianza en agencias alternativas que se han sugerido como posibles actores en el proceso de toma de decisiones. Encontramos que la confianza otorgada a las diferentes agencias federales dentro del subsistema de residuos nucleares varía. La variación en la confianza se asocia sistemáticamente con múltiples factores, incluida la confianza básica en el gobierno, las percepciones sobre los riesgos y beneficios de la gestión de la energía / desechos nucleares, la identificación del partido y la educación. Estos hallazgos tienen implicaciones significativas para la investigación sobre la confianza pública en agencias gubernamentales específicas, entidades políticas alternativas y para los responsables políticos que desean diseñar políticas y programas sólidos y exitosos en dominios de políticas altamente técnicos.

Suggested Citation

  • Kuhika Gupta & Joseph T. Ripberger & Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith & Carol L. Silva, 2020. "Exploring Aggregate vs. Relative Public Trust in Administrative Agencies that Manage Spent Nuclear Fuel in the United States," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(4), pages 491-510, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:37:y:2020:i:4:p:491-510
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12385
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12385
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12385?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Keller, Carmen & Siegrist, Michael, 2011. "Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3621-3629, June.
    2. Paul Slovic, 1993. "Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 675-682, December.
    3. Gilbert W. Bassett & Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith & Carol Silva, 1996. "On‐Site Storage of High Level Nuclear Waste: Attitudes and Perceptions of Local Residents," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 309-319, June.
    4. Dan M. Kahan & Hank Jenkins-Smith & Donald Braman, 2011. "Cultural cognition of scientific consensus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 147-174, February.
    5. Greenberg, Michael, 2009. "Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences: Analysis of US national and site-specific data," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 3242-3249, August.
    6. Hetherington, Marc J., 1999. "The Effect of Political Trust on the Presidential Vote, 1968–96," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(2), pages 311-326, June.
    7. Weatherford, M. Stephen, 1992. "Measuring Political Legitimacy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 86(1), pages 149-166, March.
    8. Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith & Carol L. Silva & Matthew C. Nowlin & Grant deLozier, 2011. "Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 629-644, April.
    9. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher, 2003. "Test of a Trust and Confidence Model in the Applied Context of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 705-716, August.
    10. Matthew C. Nowlin, 2016. "Policy Change, Policy Feedback, and Interest Mobilization: The Politics of Nuclear Waste Management," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 33(1), pages 51-70, January.
    11. Richard P. Barke & Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith, 1993. "Politics and Scientific Expertise: Scientists, Risk Perception, and Nuclear Waste Policy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 425-439, August.
    12. Thomas J. Rudolph & Jillian Evans, 2005. "Political Trust, Ideology, and Public Support for Government Spending," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(3), pages 660-671, July.
    13. Hetherington, Marc J., 1998. "The Political Relevance of Political Trust," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 92(4), pages 791-808, December.
    14. Lynn J. Frewer & Joachim Scholderer & Lone Bredahl, 2003. "Communicating about the Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods: The Mediating Role of Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1117-1133, December.
    15. James Flynn & Ellen Peters & C. K. Mertz & Paul Slovid, 1998. "Risk, Media, and Stigma at Rocky Flats," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(6), pages 715-725, December.
    16. Michael Siegrist, 2000. "The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 195-204, April.
    17. Joseph Gershtenson & Jeffrey Ladewig & Dennis L. Plane, 2006. "Parties, Institutional Control, and Trust in Government," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 87(4), pages 882-902, December.
    18. Michael Siegrist & Heinz Gutscher & Timothy C. Earle, 2005. "Perception of risk: the influence of general trust, and general confidence," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 145-156, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mark K. McBeth & Megan Warnement Wrobel & Irene van Woerden, 2023. "Political ideology and nuclear energy: Perception, proximity, and trust," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(1), pages 88-118, January.
    2. Kwon, O. Hwang & Vu, Katie & Bhargava, Naman & Radaideh, Mohammed I. & Cooper, Jacob & Joynt, Veda & Radaideh, Majdi I., 2024. "Sentiment analysis of the United States public support of nuclear power on social media using large language models," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    3. Philip Baxter & Justin V. Hastings & Philseo Kim & Man‐Sung Yim, 2022. "Mapping the development of North Korea's domestic nuclear research networks," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(2), pages 219-246, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.
    2. Kazuya Nakayachi & George Cvetkovich, 2010. "Public Trust in Government Concerning Tobacco Control in Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 143-152, January.
    3. Peng Liu & Run Yang & Zhigang Xu, 2019. "Public Acceptance of Fully Automated Driving: Effects of Social Trust and Risk/Benefit Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 326-341, February.
    4. Jaeyoung Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon, 2021. "Can Political Trust Weaken the Relationship between Perceived Environmental Threats and Perceived Nuclear Threats? Evidence from South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-13, September.
    5. Lee, You-Kyung, 2020. "Sustainability of nuclear energy in Korea: From the users’ perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    6. William J. Burns & Ellen Peters & Paul Slovic, 2012. "Risk Perception and the Economic Crisis: A Longitudinal Study of the Trajectory of Perceived Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 659-677, April.
    7. Michael Siegrist & Philipp Hübner & Christina Hartmann, 2018. "Risk Prioritization in the Food Domain Using Deliberative and Survey Methods: Differences between Experts and Laypeople," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 504-524, March.
    8. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller & Ping Wu & Yifan Xu, 2014. "An Empirical Study of the Toxic Capsule Crisis in China: Risk Perceptions and Behavioral Responses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(4), pages 698-710, April.
    9. John C. Besley & Sang‐Hwa Oh, 2014. "The Impact of Accident Attention, Ideology, and Environmentalism on American Attitudes Toward Nuclear Energy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(5), pages 949-964, May.
    10. Rachael M. Moyer & Geoboo Song, 2016. "Understanding Local Policy Elites’ Perceptions on the Benefits and Risks Associated with High‐Voltage Power Line Installations in the State of Arkansas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(10), pages 1983-1999, October.
    11. Timothy C. Earle, 2010. "Trust in Risk Management: A Model‐Based Review of Empirical Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 541-574, April.
    12. Brad Love & Michael Mackert & Kami Silk, 2013. "Consumer Trust in Information Sources," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(2), pages 21582440134, June.
    13. Roman Seidl & Corinne Moser & Michael Stauffacher & Pius Krütli, 2013. "Perceived Risk and Benefit of Nuclear Waste Repositories: Four Opinion Clusters," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1038-1048, June.
    14. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Esperanza López Vázquez, 2011. "A Cross‐Cultural Study of Perceived Benefit Versus Risk as Mediators in the Trust‐Acceptance Relationship," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(12), pages 1919-1934, December.
    15. Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith & Carol L. Silva & Matthew C. Nowlin & Grant deLozier, 2011. "Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 629-644, April.
    16. Mueller, Christoph Emanuel, 2020. "Examining the inter-relationships between procedural fairness, trust in actors, risk expectations, perceived benefits, and attitudes towards power grid expansion projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    17. Siegrist, Michael & Sütterlin, Bernadette & Keller, Carmen, 2014. "Why have some people changed their attitudes toward nuclear power after the accident in Fukushima?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 356-363.
    18. Janneke De Jonge & Hans Van Trijp & Reint Jan Renes & Lynn Frewer, 2007. "Understanding Consumer Confidence in the Safety of Food: Its Two‐Dimensional Structure and Determinants," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 729-740, June.
    19. Hye‐Jin Paek & Thomas Hove, 2019. "Mediating and Moderating Roles of Trust in Government in Effective Risk Rumor Management: A Test Case of Radiation‐Contaminated Seafood in South Korea," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2653-2667, December.
    20. E. Van Kleef & J. R. Houghton & A. Krystallis & U. Pfenning & G. Rowe & H. Van Dijk & I. A. Van der Lans & L. J. Frewer, 2007. "Consumer Evaluations of Food Risk Management Quality in Europe," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 1565-1580, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:37:y:2020:i:4:p:491-510. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.