precautionary attitudes and the acceptance of a local nuclear waste repository

Precautionary attitudes and the acceptance of a local nuclear waste repository

Lennart SjöbergCenter 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

Lennart Sjöberg Stockholm School of Economics

2

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?


3

”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

http://debunkers.org/intro/index.php?p=29


4

”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 principleaccording to Greenpeace

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/trade-and-the-environment/the-precautionary-principle

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/trade-and-the-environment/the-precautionary-principle


5

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


6

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


7

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


8

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


9

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


10

Item analys and index construction

• 12 items retained. alpha=0.81


11

Demographics

• Main effect only of gender

• Age and education trends given for men and women separately


12

Preutionary attitude vs agefor men and women

Age

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+

Pre

caut

iona

ry a

ttitu

de

-0,8

-0,6

-0,4

-0,2

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

MenWomen


13

Precautionary attitude vs educational levelfor men and women

Educational level

1 2 3 4 5 6

Pre

caut

iona

ry a

ttitu

de

-0,6

-0,4

-0,2

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

MenWomen


14

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


15

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)


16

A local repository could have negative effects unknow today

Absolu

tely n

ot

Very fe

w

Rather

fewSom

e

To rath

er lar

ge ex

tent

To a la

rge ex

tent

To a ve

ry lar

ge ex

tent

Num

ber o

f res

pond

ents

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Mea

n pr

ecau

tiona

ry a

ttitu

de

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

Number of respondentsPrecautionary attitude

r = 0.57


17

Precautionary attitude vs epistemic trust (quantiles) for men and women

Epistemic trust (quantiles)

1 2 3 4 5

Pre

caut

iona

ry a

ttitu

de

-0,8

-0,6

-0,4

-0,2

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

MenWomen

r = -0.39

r = -0.44


18

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


19

Hierachical regression analysis of attitude to a local repository Model Adjus-

ted R Square

R Square Change

Sig. F Change

1 Demographics .102 .107 .000

2 Added trust (both kinds) .331 .231 .000

3 Added emotional reactions .486 .156 .000

4 Added perceived risk .537 .051 .000

5 Added attitude to nuclear power

.547 .011 .000

6 Added precautionary attitude

.554 .008 .002


20

Regression weights of final hierarchical model of attitude to a local repositoryExplanatory variable Beta weight Significance Part

corelationEducational level -.063 .252 -.034

Gender -.004 .055 -.057

Age -.037 .909 -.003

Social trust -.048 .203 -.038

Epistemic trust -.063 .391 .025

Positive emotions -.144 .000 -.124

Negative emotions .269 .000 .180

Perceived risk of a repository

-.284 .000 -.208

Attitude to nuclear power -.130 .002 -.092

Precautionary attitude -.115 .002 -.092


21

Hierachical regression analysis of intention to vote pro in a referendum about a local repository Model Adjus-

ted R Square

R Square Change

Sig. F Change

1 Demographics .100 .105 .000

2 Added trust (both kinds) .516 .415 .000

3 Added emotional reactions .667 .015 .000

4 Added perceived risk .685 .019 .000

5 Added attitude to nuclear power .691 .006 .002

6 Added precautionary attitude .706 .015 .000


22

Regression weights of final hierachical model of intention to vote (pro)Explanatory variable Beta weight Signifi-

cancePart

corelation

Educational level -.031 .240 -.028

Gender -.020 .438 -.019

Age -.030 .259 -.027

Social trust -.022 .483 -.017

Epistemic trust .265 .000 .173

Positive emotions .216 .000 -.185

Negative emotions -.234 .000 .157

Perceived risk of a repository -.169 .000 -.123

Attitude to nuclear power -.087 .011 -.062

Precautionary attitude -.153 .000 -.123


23

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


24

Social trust Acceptance

Risk feelings

Dread

Positive impact

Negative impact

Negative impactNegative impact

Negative impact

Received model of risk communicationand acceptance of hazardous technology


25

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


26

Thank you for your attention!

precautionary attitudes and the acceptance of a local nuclear waste repository

Documents