Communication and stakeholder engagement of microbiology in radioactive waste disposal
作者： Tanja Perko , Meritxell Martell
DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-818695-4.00013-7
关键词:
摘要: Abstract This chapter aims to investigate the role of public perception microbes in geological disposal and by doing this, provide communication guidelines for experts on how communicate about microbiology context projects. Different theories risk are described, with a particular reference meaning trust. The results an online survey explore different stimuli affect radioactive waste management (RWM) among target groups using embedded experiment framework MIND project shown. Microbiologists face number challenges when communicating science audiences (nonexpert scientists other disciplines). These were identified working who confronted play, discussion, brainstorming workshop “Speaking for, microbes.” Effective cross-disciplinary is precondition successful interdisciplinary work. issues research RWM, which need be considered effective provides themselves wider concludes findings from stakeholder engagement experiences gained at participatory local stakeholders, life scientists, member organization.
sci-hub.st 参考文章(23)
Joan Costa-Font, Caroline Rudisill, Elias Mossialos, Attitudes as an Expression of Knowledge and “Political Anchoring”: The Case of Nuclear Power in the United Kingdom Risk Analysis. ,vol. 28, pp. 1273- 1288 ,(2008) , 10.1111/J.1539-6924.2008.01094.X
Baruch Fischhoff, Value elicitation: Is there anything in there? American Psychologist. ,vol. 46, pp. 835- 847 ,(1991) , 10.1037/0003-066X.46.8.835
Baruch Fischhoff, Paul Slovic, Sarah Lichtenstein, Stephen Read, Barbara Combs, How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits Policy Sciences. ,vol. 9, pp. 127- 152 ,(1978) , 10.1007/BF00143739
James Flynn, William Burns, C.K. Mertz, Paul Slovic, Trust as a Determinant of Opposition to a High-Level Radioactive Waste Repository: Analysis of a Structural Model Risk Analysis. ,vol. 12, pp. 417- 429 ,(1992) , 10.1111/J.1539-6924.1992.TB00694.X
L. J. Frewer, C. Howard, D. Hedderley, R. Shepherd, What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Analysis. ,vol. 16, pp. 473- 486 ,(1996) , 10.1111/J.1539-6924.1996.TB01094.X
George Gaskell, Nick Allum, Wolfgang Wagner, Nicole Kronberger, Helge Torgersen, Juergen Hampel, Julie Bardes, GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Analysis. ,vol. 24, pp. 185- 194 ,(2004) , 10.1111/J.0272-4332.2004.00421.X
Michael Greenberg, Heather Barnes Truelove, Energy Choices and Risk Beliefs: Is It Just Global Warming and Fear of a Nuclear Power Plant Accident? Risk Analysis. ,vol. 31, pp. 819- 831 ,(2011) , 10.1111/J.1539-6924.2010.01535.X
J.M Havenaar, E.J de Wilde, J van den Bout, B.M Drottz-Sjöberg, W van den Brink, Perception of risk and subjective health among victims of the Chernobyl disaster. Social Science & Medicine. ,vol. 56, pp. 569- 572 ,(2003) , 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00062-X
Hank C. Jenkins-Smith, Carol L. Silva, Matthew C. Nowlin, Grant deLozier, Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility Risk Analysis. ,vol. 31, pp. 629- 644 ,(2011) , 10.1111/J.1539-6924.2010.01543.X
Roger E. Kasperson, Ortwin Renn, Paul Slovic, Halina S. Brown, Jacque Emel, Robert Goble, Jeanne X. Kasperson, Samuel Ratick, The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework Risk Analysis. ,vol. 8, pp. 177- 187 ,(1988) , 10.1111/J.1539-6924.1988.TB01168.X