Perception/Communication of Nuclear vs. Other Energy Sources
Professor Frederic Bouder (University of Stavanger, World Nuclear Association)
What is Risk Communication?
- Fischhoff (2011): “Term of art used for situations when people need good information to make sound choices. It is distinguished from public affairs (or public relations) by its commitment to accuracy and its avoidance of spin”.
- FDA Risk Communication Advisory Committee (2015): “[…]Interactively sharing risk and benefit information with the public to enable people to make informed independent judgments”.
“With respect to environmental hazards, like radon, there is great potential for improvement of risk communication programmes so that the general public is aware of the risks. It is recommended that: more advice be provided at a local level (egfrom environmental health officers); explicit warnings are used to convince people to act; risk comparisons are used which people can relate to; the action to be taken is notified; alternative information is given to different groups; listing of more information is given” (Euratom/East Anglia 1991).
Perception vs. Seriousness
Risk Perception Drivers
People view risks differently
According to Fischhoff, Slovic, Lichtenstein, etc.:
- Natural-technological
- Voluntary-involuntary
- Familiar-non familiar
- Control-non control
- High frequency/low consequences vs. Low frequency/high consequences
- Children/no children
- Reproduction
In this example: Nuclear vs. Wind Power
| Nuclear |
Wind Power |
| Technological |
Natural |
| Involuntary |
Involuntary |
| Non Familiar |
Familiar |
| Non Control |
Non Control |
| Low frequency/high consequences |
High frequency/low consequences |
| Children |
No children |
| Reproduction = YES |
Reproduction = NO |
Slovic 1987; Fischhoff et al. 1979 +++ Sjöberg 2004
Is wind power blessed and nuclear doomed? –> Not at all!!
‘NIMBY’ (Gates 1980) often blamed yet poor risk communication often more destructive:
- Nuclear Three Mile Island (Slovic 1990; Cvetković· 2021) vs. Barsebäckincident (Löfstedt2005)
- Wind Power poor participation (Giordonnoet al. 2018)
- Wind power risk amplification (Ram and Webler 2022)
Making communication easier = Pet Risks:
- Nuclear: France (Mays and Poumadere, 1996) vs. Denmark (Löfstedt2005)
- Wind: Denmark vs. Scotland (Warren et al. 2010)
Effective Risk Communication
Fischhoff (1995), Leiss(1996): from to-down information on facts to active two-way participation
Science of Science Communication (Fischhoff and Scheufele (2011))
- Risk communication should be based on accurate scientific data not gut feelings
- Alliance of scientists from natural and social sciences
- Link to in-house assessors and managers
- Take stock of public perception, motivations, expectations and concerns
Take home lessons: state of the art risk communication
Löfstedt & Bouder 2010, Bouder & Löftsedt 2016, 2021
- Frequent dialogues between regulators, industry , media and key politicians
- Confrontations between the key parties will destroy public trust and could be amplified by the media
- Lawyers tend to inject more disputes. Only involve them when absolutely necessary
- Involve highly trusted individuals
- NGOs can shape policy outcomes
- The opinion of local policy makers is important
- Taking responsibility is important
