Living with Nuclear Power: A Q‐Method Study of Local Community Perceptions

The issue of new nuclear power is once again high up on the public policy agenda in many countries, and candidate sites for new civilian stations are likely to include those that have existing nuclear facilities. A common assumption is that existing nuclear communities will be more accepting of new build because of the direct economic and other benefits nuclear power already makes to a local area. Surprisingly, there is a dearth of contemporary data on perceptions of the risks, benefits, and values associated with nuclear power within such communities. This study uses Q-methodology to investigate the perspectives on living with nuclear risk among people (n = 84) drawn from communities near to two nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom. Both stations, at Bradwell-on-Sea and Oldbury-on-Severn, had been in operation for over 40 years. The Q-analysis identified four main perspectives, or points of view, accounting for 53% of total variance. These were interpreted as: Beneficial and Safe; Threat and Distrust; Reluctant Acceptance; and There's No Point Worrying. We conclude that the "landscape of beliefs" about nuclear power in such communities is both subtle and complex, avoiding simplistic bipolar dichotomies such as "for" or "against," and that there is a need for extensive and meaningful dialogue with such communities over any new build plans. The usefulness of Q-methodology for investigating the ways in which people live with risk is highlighted, as are the implications of the results for theories of risk and trust.

[1]  Kate Burningham,et al.  Pollution concerns in context: a comparison of local perceptions of the risks associated with living close to a road and a chemical factory , 2004 .

[2]  Michael Greenberg,et al.  Determinants of Trust Perceptions among Residents Surrounding the Savannah River Nuclear Weapons Site , 1999 .

[3]  J. Eyles,et al.  The Utility of In‐Depth Interviews for Studying the Meaning of Environmental Risk , 1999 .

[4]  W. Poortinga,et al.  Trust, the Asymmetry Principle, and the Role of Prior Beliefs , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[5]  Judith Petts,et al.  Rapid Climate Change and Society: Assessing Responses and Thresholds , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[6]  B. Johnson,et al.  From the Inside Out: Environmental Agency Views about Communications with the Public , 2006, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[7]  Françoise Zonabend,et al.  The nuclear peninsula: The Nuclear Peninsula , 1993 .

[8]  Wouter Poortinga,et al.  Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[9]  Francoise Zonabend The nuclear peninsula: Françoise Zonabend , 1993 .

[10]  Yuri Levada Russian Democracy in Eclipse: What the Polls Tell Us , 2004 .

[11]  J. Eiser,et al.  Marginal Trust in Risk Managers: Building and Losing Trust Following Decisions Under Uncertainty , 2006, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[12]  R. Spears,et al.  Construction of a Nuclear Power Station in One's Locality: Attitudes and Salience , 1986 .

[13]  R. Lewicki,et al.  Trust And Distrust: New Relationships and Realities , 1998 .

[14]  P. Stenner,et al.  Doing Q methodology: theory, method and interpretation , 2005 .

[15]  T. Satterfield,et al.  In Search of Value Literacy: Suggestions for the Elicitation of Environmental Values , 2001, Environmental Values.

[16]  Peter Simmons,et al.  Constructing Responsibilities for Risk: Negotiating Citizen — State Relationships , 2008 .

[17]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Perceived risk, trust, and democracy , 1993 .

[18]  E. Rosa,et al.  Déjà Vu All Over Again for Nuclear Power? , 2005, Science.

[19]  Joop van der Pligt,et al.  Attitudes to nuclear energy: beliefs, values and false consensus , 1982 .

[20]  Lynn A. Maguire,et al.  Understanding Participant Perspectives: Q-Methodology in National Forest Management , 1998 .

[21]  Nicholas Frank Pidgeon,et al.  Climate change or nuclear power-No thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain , 2008 .

[22]  Gordon Walker,et al.  Structuring subjectivities? Using Q methodology in human geography , 2005 .

[23]  Peter Simmons,et al.  Faulty Environments and Risk Reasoning: The Local Understanding of Industrial Hazards , 1999 .

[24]  Seth Tuler,et al.  Competing perspectives on public involvement: Planning for risk characterization and risk communication about radiological contamination from a national laboratory , 2005 .

[25]  P. Slovic Perception of risk. , 1987, Science.

[26]  C. H. Castore,et al.  Expectancy‐Value and Selective Exposure as Determinants of Attitudes Toward a Nuclear Power Plant1 , 1980 .

[27]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[28]  C. Dunn,et al.  'Even the birds round here cough': stigma, air pollution and health in Teesside. , 2001, Health & place.

[29]  Andrew Blowers,et al.  Power, politics and environmental inequality: A theoretical and empirical analysis of the process of ‘peripheralisation’ , 1994 .

[30]  Howard Kunreuther,et al.  Siting noxious facilities: A test of the Facility Siting Credo , 1993 .

[31]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Salient Value Similarity, Social Trust, and Risk/Benefit Perception , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[32]  Sabine Pahl,et al.  Trust in Risky Messages: The Role of Prior Attitudes , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[33]  P. Simmons,et al.  Reframing nuclear power in the UK energy debate: nuclear power, climate change mitigation and radioactive waste , 2008, Public understanding of science.

[34]  Jenny Hewison,et al.  Understandings of Down's syndrome: a Q methodological investigation. , 2006, Social science & medicine.

[35]  Branden B. Johnson,et al.  Exploring dimensionality in the origins of hazard-related trust , 1999 .

[36]  K. Bickerstaff Risk perception research: socio-cultural perspectives on the public experience of air pollution. , 2004, Environment international.

[37]  T. Earle,et al.  Thinking Aloud about Trust: A Protocol Analysis of Trust in Risk Management , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[38]  Peter Simmons,et al.  Tolerating risk: policy principles and public perceptions , 1999 .

[39]  J. Richard Eiser,et al.  Belief and Values in the Nuclear Debate1 , 1979 .

[40]  H. J. Otway,et al.  Nuclear power: The question of public acceptance , 1978 .