211 Precautionary attitudes and the acceptance of

Precautionary attitudes and the acceptance of a local nuclear waste repository: 

Precautionary attitudes and the acceptance of a local nuclear waste repository Lennart Sjöberg Center for Risk Research Stockholm School of Economics Paper prepared for the SRA-Europé conference ” INNOVATION AND TECHNICAL PROGRESS: BENEFIT WITHOUT RISK?” 11-13 September 2006, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Problem : 

Problem The precautionary principle is important in policy. nationally and internationally It is a source of heated debates and conflicts at high levels What does the public think about precaution? Is precaution a question of decision rule or epistemic uncerainty?

Slide3: 

”I think the Precautionary Principle is basically a bad idea. I prefer the Bayesian approach to decision making where there is control of such things as the cost function, the prior probability densities (priors for short) and so forth that can capture the notion of precaution. In other words, the Precautionary viewpoint can be and is part of the Bayesian approach. By selecting the appropriate cost functions and and priors caution can be built into the decision making process. Further, the Bayesian approach offers a logically consistent and built mechanism for learning that is completely absent in the Precautionary Principle.” http://debunkers.org/intro/index.php?p=29, retrieved August 12, 2006 Decision rule approach

Slide4: 

”It means that when (on the basis of available evidence) an activity may harm human health or the environment, a cautious approach should be taken in advance - even if the full extent of harm has not yet been fully established scientifically. It recognises that such proof of harm may never be possible, at least until it is too late to avoid or reverse the damage done”. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/trade-and-the-environment/the-precautionary-principle, retrieved August 12, 2006 The precautionary principle according to Greenpeace

Purpose of study: 

Purpose of study Investigate the structure of precautionary attitudes Study driving factors behind precautionary thinking Relate attitudes to demographics Investigate the role of precautionary attitudes in models of attitudes with regard to a repository for spent nuclear fuel

Present application case: 

Present application case Siting of a repository for the final storage of spent nuclear fuel in Sweden As in other countries, the issue is quite controversial National data on beliefs and attitudes are analyzed

Data: 

Data Survey data were collected from a random sample (N=1000) of the Swedish population. ages 18+ Response rate after two reminders 52.6%. No important biases among respondents except that the educational level was somewhat too high Data were collected in 2005-2006 The questionnaire contained 27 pages and 273 questions or judgment tasks – present results are only for a selection of the data

Precaution items 1-7: 

Precaution items 1-7 A technical solution for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel which MAYBE has some serious risks should: Be avoided unless it can be proven that it has no risk Be avoided only if it can be proven that it is hazardous Be avoided unless there are important benefits Be accepted as long as there are at least SOME benefits Be accepted if there are not very certain proofs that is is hazardous Be accepted even if there are known risks. even if they are very small Absolutely be avoided. regardless of how certain knowledge about its risks is

Precaution items 8-15: 

Precaution items 8-15 A technical solution for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel which MAYBE has some serious risks should: Be accepted if it is found that benefits are larger than risks Should be avoided if it can be replaced by other technology or activity. without too large costs Should be avoided until more is known about the risks Should be avoided unless those who are exposed to the risks also get a fair share of the benefits Should be avoided unless those exposed to the possible risks have accepted it. e.g. in a referendum Should be avoided because science will never reach definitive knowledge about just how large the risks are Should be avoided if people worry about the risks. even if their existence is not scientifically proven Should be avoided unless there are strong scientific arguments for the risk being small

Item analys and index construction: 

Item analys and index construction 12 items retained. alpha=0.81

Demographics: 

Demographics Main effect only of gender Age and education trends given for men and women separately

Conclusion: 

Conclusion Women have a higher level of precautionary attitude Middle aged groups tend to have the highest levels or precautionary attitude Low education groups show higher levels of precautionary attitude

Postulated driving factors, assuming that precautionary attitudes are driven by epistemic uncertainty: 

Postulated driving factors, assuming that precautionary attitudes are driven by epistemic uncertainty Beliefs in unknown negative effects of the facility/technology Lack of epistemic trust (trust in science)

Conclusion: 

Conclusion Strong relationship between belief in unknown negative effects and precautionary attitude Beliefs about unknown negative effects are quite common Strong relationship (negative) between epistemic trust and precautionary attitude These results support the hypothesis that the precautionary attitude reflects epistemic uncertainty

Conclusions: 

Conclusions The model analyses show: Precautionary attitude adds signficantly (but not strongly) to the power of the models Policy intention (voting) is accounted for at a high level; epistemic trust enters Note the weak effects of social trust in both models

Slide24: 

Social trust Acceptance Risk feelings Dread Positive impact Negative impact Negative impact Negative impact Negative impact Received model of risk communication and acceptance of hazardous technology

Implications of present results for the received model: 

Implications of present results for the received model Social trust is less important than epistemic trust Precautionary attitude reflects epistemic rather than social concerns Risk communication strategies which assume that public opposition is a question of social distrust is bound to fail… …because people are genuinely sceptical of the ability of science to give final and valid risk estimates Many historical examples, as well as Theory of Science, offer support of this view: Science is ever changing and never final! Hence risk communication must be about what people believe, not something done to improve social relations

Slide26: 

Thank you for your attention!