Fair play in energy policy decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants

To raise public acceptance of new energy policies, promoting the fairness of the outcomes and of the decision-making procedure has been suggested. Very few studies have examined the role of fairness in public acceptance of rebuilding nuclear power plants. Therefore, using a large mail survey, we investigated the public’s acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants in Switzerland by 2020. The study examined the influence of procedural fairness and outcome fairness on the acceptance of this decision, as well as other factors such as risk perception and benefit perception. Additionally, we investigated the moderating influence of general attitudes towards nuclear power on the relation between fairness and decision acceptance. Results indicated that outcome fairness strongly increased decision acceptance, along with general attitudes towards nuclear power and perceived economic benefits. Procedural fairness had only a small impact on decision acceptance. The influence of fairness on decision acceptance did not seem to depend on general nuclear attitudes. Our findings imply that, in the case of rebuilding nuclear power plants, perceived benefits and outcome fairness are important determinants of acceptance of the decision, while procedural fairness only has a limited impact.

[1]  P Slovic,et al.  Perceived risk, stigma, and potential economic impacts of a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada. , 1991, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[2]  L. Skitka.  Do the Means Always Justify the Ends, or Do the Ends Sometimes Justify the Means? A Value Protection Model of Justice Reasoning , 2002 .

[3]  J. Besley,et al.  Does Fairness Matter in the Context of Anger About Nuclear Energy Decision Making? , 2012, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[4]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model , 2011 .

[5]  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.

[6]  T. Earle,et al.  Trust in Risk Management: A Model‐Based Review of Empirical Research , 2010, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[7]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Impact of knowledge and misconceptions on benefit and risk perception of CCS. , 2010, Environmental science & technology.

[8]  Linda J. Skitka,et al.  Understanding Judgments of Fairness in a Real-World Political Context: A Test of the Value Protection Model of Justice Reasoning , 2002 .

[9]  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.

[10]  Lynn J. Frewer,et al.  Understanding public attitudes to technology , 1998 .

[11]  J. Besley,et al.  Risky Business: Perceived Behavior of Local Scientists and Community Support for Their Research , 2008, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[12]  Cees J. H. Midden,et al.  The stability of nuclear attitudes after chernobyl , 1990 .

[13]  Connie De Boer,et al.  THE POLLS—A ReportTHE IMPACT OF NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS ON ATTITUDES TOWARD NUCLEAR ENERGY , 1988 .

[14]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  The Public and Nanotechnology: How Citizens Make Sense of Emerging Technologies , 2005 .

[15]  Eugene A. Rosa,et al.  THE POLLS—POLL TRENDS: NUCLEAR POWER: THREE DECADES OF PUBLIC OPINION , 1994 .

[16]  Paul E. Spector,et al.  The Role of Justice in Organizations: A Meta-Analysis , 2001 .

[17]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  Factors Influencing People’s Acceptance of Gene Technology: The Role of Knowledge, Health Expectations, Naturalness, and Social Trust , 2010 .

[18]  Wouter Poortinga,et al.  Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food? , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[19]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences , 1979 .

[20]  David De Cremer,et al.  The effects of trust in authority and procedural fairness on cooperation. , 2007, The Journal of applied psychology.

[21]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Risk as Feelings , 2001, Psychological bulletin.

[22]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  How a Nuclear Power Plant Accident Influences Acceptance of Nuclear Power: Results of a Longitudinal Study Before and After the Fukushima Disaster , 2013, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[23]  S. West,et al.  Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. , 1994 .

[24]  G. Rowe,et al.  A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms , 2005 .

[25]  K. Leung,et al.  Realpolitik versus fair process: moderating effects of group identification on acceptance of political decisions. , 2007, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[26]  Jaime L. Napier,et al.  Does Moral Conviction Really Override Concerns About Procedural Justice? A Reexamination of the Value Protection Model , 2008 .

[27]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Morality Information, Performance Information, and the Distinction Between Trust and Confidence1 , 2006 .

[28]  Yutaka Tanaka,et al.  Major Psychological Factors Determining Public Acceptance of the Siting of Nuclear Facilities , 2004 .

[29]  J. Richard Eiser,et al.  NUCLEAR ATTITUDES BEFORE AND AFTER CHERNOBYL : CHANGE AND JUDGMENT , 1989 .

[30]  P. Slovic,et al.  The Role of Affect and Worldviews as Orienting Dispositions in the Perception and Acceptance of Nuclear Power1 , 1996 .

[31]  Elizabeth L. Malone,et al.  Moving from misinformation derived from public attitude surveys on carbon dioxide capture and storage towards realistic stakeholder involvement , 2010 .

[32]  Trust, Confidence, Procedural Fairness, Outcome Fairness, Moral Conviction, and the Acceptance of GM Field Experiments , 2012, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[33]  Arnim Wiek,et al.  Technical safety vs. public involvement? A case study on the unrealized project for the disposal of nuclear waste at Wellenberg (Switzerland) , 2010 .

[34]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits , 1978 .

[35]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  Affective Imagery and Acceptance of Replacing Nuclear Power Plants , 2012, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[36]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  A Causal Model Explaining the Perception and Acceptance of Gene Technology1 , 1999 .

[37]  Stephen M. Johnson,et al.  The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits , 2000 .

[38]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  On the Relation Between Trust and Fairness in Environmental Risk Management , 2008, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[39]  Tom R. Tyler,et al.  Social Justice: Outcome and Procedure , 2000 .

[40]  Thomas Dietz,et al.  The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception , 2009, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[41]  Alexa Spence,et al.  Public Perceptions of Energy Choices: The Influence of Beliefs about Climate Change and the Environment , 2010 .

[42]  L. Skitka,et al.  Are Outcome Fairness and Outcome Favorability Distinguishable Psychological Constructs? A Meta-Analytic Review , 2003 .

[43]  Michael R Greenberg,et al.  NIMBY, CLAMP, and the Location of New Nuclear‐Related Facilities: U.S. National and 11 Site‐Specific Surveys , 2009, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[44]  John C. Besley,et al.  Public Engagement and the Impact of Fairness Perceptions on Decision Favorability and Acceptance , 2010 .

[45]  Linda Steg,et al.  Morality and Nuclear Energy: Perceptions of Risks and Benefits, Personal Norms, and Willingness to Take Action Related to Nuclear Energy , 2010, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[46]  M K Lindell,et al.  Effects of the Chernobyl accident on public perceptions of nuclear plant accident risks. , 1990, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[47]  C. Gross,et al.  Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance , 2007 .

[48]  C. Starr.  Social benefit versus technological risk. , 1969, Science.

[49]  Bas Verplanken,et al.  Beliefs, Attitudes, and Intentions toward Nuclear Energy before and after Chernobyl in a Longitudinal within-subjects Design , 1989 .

[50]  Michael Greenberg,et al.  Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences: Analysis of US national and site-specific data , 2009 .

[51]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Fear and anger: antecedents and consequences of emotional responses to mobile communication , 2012 .