IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v15y1995i4p513-521.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perception of Nuclear Energy and Coal in France and the Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Oene Wiegman
  • Jan M. Gutteling
  • Bernard Cadet

Abstract

This study focuses on the perception of large scale application of nuclear energy and coal in the Netherlands and France. The application of these energy‐sources and the risks and benefits are judged differently by various group in society. In Europe, France has the highest density of nuclear power plants and the Netherlands has one of the lowest. In both countries scientists and social scientists completed a questionnaire assessing the perception of the large scale application of both energy sources. Furthermore, a number of variables relating to the socio cultural and political circumstances were measured. The results indicate that the French had a higher risk perception and a more negative attitude toward nuclear power than the Dutch. But they also assess the benefits of the use of nuclear power to be higher. Explanations for these differences are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Oene Wiegman & Jan M. Gutteling & Bernard Cadet, 1995. "Perception of Nuclear Energy and Coal in France and the Netherlands," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 513-521, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:15:y:1995:i:4:p:513-521
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00344.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00344.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00344.x?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. Sophie Bastide & Jean‐Paul Moatti & Jean‐Pierre Pages & Francis Fagnani, 1989. "Risk Perception and Social Acceptability of Technologies: The French Case," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 215-223, June.
    2. C. Karpowicz‐Lazreg & E. Mullet, 1993. "Societal Risk as Seen by the French Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(3), pages 253-258, June.
    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. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    2. 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.
    3. Jaesun Wang & Seoyong Kim, 2018. "Comparative Analysis of Public Attitudes toward Nuclear Power Energy across 27 European Countries by Applying the Multilevel Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-21, May.
    4. Florentina Paraschiv & Dima Mohamad, 2020. "The Nuclear Power Dilemma—Between Perception and Reality," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-19, November.
    5. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Virna Vaneza Gutiérrez, 2008. "Participant-focused analysis: explanatory power of the classic psychometric paradigm in risk perception," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(6), pages 735-753, September.
    6. Loo, Becky P. Y., 2002. "The potential impacts of strategic highways on new town development: a case study of Route 3 in Hong Kong," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 41-63, January.
    7. Ahmed K. Nassar, 2022. "Identifying and Explaining Public Preferences for Renewable Energy Sources in Qatar," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-17, October.

    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. Kathleen L. Purvis‐Roberts & Cynthia A. Werner & Irene Frank, 2007. "Perceived Risks from Radiation and Nuclear Testing Near Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan: A Comparison Between Physicians, Scientists, and the Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 291-302, April.
    2. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis A. Cifuentes, 2003. "Risk Perception in a Developing Country: The Case of Chile," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1271-1285, December.
    3. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    4. John Eyles & S. Martin Taylor & Jamie Baxter & Doug Sider & Dennis Willms, 1993. "The Social Construction of Risk in a Rural Community: Responses of Local Residents to the 1990 Hagersville (Ontario) Tire Fire," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(3), pages 281-290, June.
    5. 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.
    6. C. K. Mertz & Paul Slovic & I. F. H. Purchase, 1998. "Judgments of Chemical Risks: Comparisons Among Senior Managers, Toxicologists, and the Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), pages 391-404, August.
    7. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2022. "Beyond the triangle of renewable energy acceptance: The five dimensions of domestic hydrogen acceptance," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    8. Konstantinos Drakos & Catherine Mueller, 2014. "On the Determinants of Terrorism Risk Concern in Europe," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(3), pages 291-310, June.
    9. Xuemei Fang & Liang Cao & Luyi Zhang & Binbin Peng, 2023. "Risk perception and resistance behavior intention of residents living near chemical industry parks: an empirical analysis in 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. 115(2), pages 1655-1675, January.
    10. C. Karpowicz‐Lazreg & E. Mullet, 1993. "Societal Risk as Seen by the French Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(3), pages 253-258, June.
    11. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller & Liangyan Wang & Yitong Wang, 2010. "Product Quality Risk Perceptions and Decisions: Contaminated Pet Food and Lead‐Painted Toys," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(10), pages 1572-1589, October.
    12. Spencer Henson & Mamane Annou & John Cranfield & Joanne Ryks, 2008. "Understanding Consumer Attitudes Toward Food Technologies in Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1601-1617, December.
    13. Ewa Lechowska, 2022. "Approaches in research on flood risk perception and their importance in flood risk management: a review," 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. 111(3), pages 2343-2378, April.
    14. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Virna Vaneza Gutiérrez, 2008. "Participant-focused analysis: explanatory power of the classic psychometric paradigm in risk perception," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(6), pages 735-753, September.
    15. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    16. Lennart Sjöberg, 2002. "Are Received Risk Perception Models Alive and Well?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 665-669, August.
    17. Robert N. Bontempo & William P. Bottom & Elke U. Weber, 1997. "Cross‐Cultural Differences in Risk Perception: A Model‐Based Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 479-488, August.
    18. Bruno Chauvin & Danièle Hermand & Etienne Mullet, 2007. "Risk Perception and Personality Facets," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 171-185, February.
    19. Wang, Lingling & Watanabe, Tsunemi, 2019. "Effects of environmental policy on public risk perceptions of haze in Tianjin City: A difference-in-differences analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 199-212.
    20. 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.

    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:wly:riskan:v:15:y:1995:i:4:p:513-521. 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://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.