IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/engenv/v19y2008i3-4p455-483.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Perception by Politicians and the Public

Author

Listed:
  • Lennart Sjöberg

    (Center for Risk Psychology, Environment, and Safety, Department of Psychology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway and Center for Risk Research, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Britt-Marie Drottz-Sjöberg

    (Center for Risk Psychology, Environment, and Safety, Department of Psychology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway)

Abstract

Risk perception by local politicians responsible for health and the environment is compared to that of the public in two large, representative samples, and to a group of nuclear waste management experts. Data were collected on many aspects of risk perception with an emphasis on ionizing radiation and nuclear waste issues. It was found that politicians and the public had, on the average, quite similar risk perceptions, which were very different from expert opinion. Politicians had difficulties in estimating what risk perception the public had. Demand for risk mitigation was mostly related to the respondents' ratings of risk, for both politicians and members of the public. Politicians apparently did not consider the public's views to any large degree in forming their policy attitudes. Politicians had less trust in industry than the public did. Both epistemic and social trust were found to be factors in perceived risk, roughly equal in importance. The risk perception models also included Interfering with Nature as an important factor, whereas traditional Psychometric Model factors contributed very little. Frequency of communication with others about a nuclear policy issue was related to attitude; more strongly so if communication was more frequent. The results were interpreted as the outcome of a process of social validation of policy attitudes, a hypothesis which could also explain why experts had so divergent risk assessments as compared to politicians and members of the public. Attitudes to a local high-level nuclear waste repository were quite negative in both groups, positive among the experts.

Suggested Citation

  • Lennart Sjöberg & Britt-Marie Drottz-Sjöberg, 2008. "Risk Perception by Politicians and the Public," Energy & Environment, , vol. 19(3-4), pages 455-483, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:engenv:v:19:y:2008:i:3-4:p:455-483
    DOI: 10.1260/095830508784641408
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/095830508784641408
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1260/095830508784641408?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. Lennart Sjöberg, 2003. "Attitudes and Risk Perceptions of Stakeholders in a Nuclear Waste Siting Issue," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 739-749, August.
    2. Wiseman, V. & Mooney, G. & Berry, G. & Tang, K. C., 2003. "Involving the general public in priority setting: experiences from Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(5), pages 1001-1012, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Hood, Christopher & Rothstein, Henry & Baldwin, Robert, 2004. "The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199270019.
    5. Sjöberg, Lennart, 2003. "Risk perception, emotion and policy: the case of nuclear technology," European Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 109-128, February.
    6. David J. Ball, 2006. "Deliberating Over Britain's Nuclear Waste," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, January.
    7. Jennings, M. Kent, 1999. "Political Responses to Pain and Loss Presidential Address, American Political Science Association, 1998," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(1), pages 1-13, March.
    8. Rothman, Stanley & Lichter, S. Robert, 1987. "Elite Ideology and Risk Perception in Nuclear Energy Policy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 81(2), pages 383-404, June.
    9. Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich, 2000. "Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5), pages 713-720, October.
    10. Lennart Sjöberg, 2001. "Limits of Knowledge and the Limited Importance of Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 189-198, February.
    11. Torbjørn Rundmo & Bjørg‐Elin Moen, 2006. "Risk Perception and Demand for Risk Mitigation in Transport: A Comparison of Lay People, Politicians and Experts," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(6), pages 623-640.
    12. Javeline, Debra, 2003. "The Role of Blame in Collective Action: Evidence from Russia," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 97(1), pages 107-121, February.
    13. Lennart Sjöberg, 1998. "Worry and Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 85-93, February.
    14. Asa Boholm, 1998. "Comparative studies of risk perception: a review of twenty years of research," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 135-163, April.
    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. Jenny Palm, 2020. "Knowledge about the Final Disposal of Nuclear Fuel in Sweden: Surveys to Members of Parliament and Citizens," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-12, January.

    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. Lennart Sjöberg, 2004. "Local Acceptance of a High‐Level Nuclear Waste Repository," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 737-749, June.
    2. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    3. Vladimir M. Cvetković & Adem Öcal & Yuliya Lyamzina & Eric K. Noji & Neda Nikolić & Goran Milošević, 2021. "Nuclear Power Risk Perception in Serbia: Fear of Exposure to Radiation vs. Social Benefits," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-19, April.
    4. Joan Costa‐Font & Caroline Rudisill & Elias Mossialos, 2008. "Attitudes as an Expression of Knowledge and “Political Anchoring”: The Case of Nuclear Power in the United Kingdom," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1273-1288, October.
    5. Qi, Wen-Hui & Qi, Ming-Liang & Ji, Ya-Min, 2020. "The effect path of public communication on public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    6. Byoung Joon Kim & Seoyong Kim & Youngcheoul Kang & Sohee Kim, 2022. "Searching for the New Behavioral Model in Energy Transition Age: Analyzing the Forward and Reverse Causal Relationships between Belief, Attitude, and Behavior in Nuclear Policy across Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-24, June.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Sjöberg, Lennart, 2004. "Gene Technology in the eyes of the public and experts. Moral opinions, attitudes and risk perception," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2004:7, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 11 May 2005.
    10. Carol L. Silva & Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith & Richard P. Barke, 2007. "Reconciling Scientists' Beliefs about Radiation Risks and Social Norms: Explaining Preferred Radiation Protection Standards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 755-773, June.
    11. George Chryssochoidis & Anna Strada & Athanasios Krystallis, 2009. "Public trust in institutions and information sources regarding risk management and communication: towards integrating extant knowledge," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 137-185, March.
    12. Yu, Chin-Hsien & Huang, Shih-Kai & Qin, Ping & Chen, Xiaolan, 2017. "Households’ Risk Perceptions in Response to Shale Gas Exploitation: Evidence from China," EfD Discussion Paper 17-13, Environment for Development, University of Gothenburg.
    13. Joanna Burger & Michael Gochfeld, 2009. "Changes in Aleut Concerns Following the Stakeholder‐Driven Amchitka Independent Science Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(8), pages 1156-1169, August.
    14. Lucia Savadori & Stefania Savio & Eraldo Nicotra & Rino Rumiati & Melissa Finucane & Paul Slovic, 2004. "Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1289-1299, October.
    15. Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller & Henk A. L. Kiers, 2005. "A New Look at the Psychometric Paradigm of Perception of Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 211-222, February.
    16. Aven, Terje & Renn, Ortwin, 2018. "Improving government policy on risk: Eight key principles," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 230-241.
    17. Nahui Zhen & Jon Barnett & Michael Webber, 2020. "Is Trust Always a Precondition for Effective Water Resource Management?," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(4), pages 1423-1436, March.
    18. Han, Y. & Lam, J. & Guo, P. & Gou, Z., 2019. "What Predicts Government Trustworthiness in Cross-border HK-Guangdong Nuclear Safety Emergency Governance?," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1989, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    19. Yi Ge & Guangfei Yang & Xiaotao Wang & Wen Dou & Xueer Lu & Jie Mao, 2021. "Understanding risk perception from floods: a case study from China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 105(3), pages 3119-3140, February.
    20. Craig W. Trumbo & Katherine A. McComas, 2003. "The Function of Credibility in Information Processing for Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 343-353, April.

    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:sae:engenv:v:19:y:2008:i:3-4:p:455-483. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.