Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
RESearch into the Public Perception Of Nuclear Design
RESPPONDMartin J. Goodfellow 1
Hugo R. Williams 2
Adisa Azapagic 3
1 Research Engineer, The University of Manchester/Rolls-Royce plc. Correspondence address: Rolls-Royce plc, SINA-CNB-1, PO Box 31, Derby DE24 8BJ ([email protected], 01332 2 60492)
2 Rolls-Royce plc, SINA-CNB-1, PO Box 31, Derby DE24 8BJ
3 The University of Manchester, CEAS, The Mill, Sackville Street, Manchester, M13 9PL
Overview
The current perception of nuclear power in brief
Theoretical explanations and limitations
Opportunities for future work and RESPPOND
Background – Nuclear Renaissance
New nuclear build is happening now Construction in Finland, China, Korea… US President Obama loan guarantees to Southern Company (USA)
– Feb 2010
Around the world nuclear new build activity is growing
New build is on the agenda for current nuclear nations: UK, France, USA, Japan, India, Brazil, Canada…
Also for non-nuclear nations: UAE, Italy, Poland, Iran, Egypt, Australia….
Despite low level of calculated risk, perceived risk is still high
Eurobarometer, 2007
The public still isn’t convinced…
Recent UK perception of nuclear
Ipsos MORI, 2008
Recent “surge”, due to climate change?…
Why does this matter?
Additionally, reputational losses can be incurred with long lasting ramifications
All of the above can delay construction of plants; a costly experience
Negative public perceptions can become manifest Within planning applications In political policy Through direct action
Why is there a disparity?
Expertly calculated risk levels are based on probabilistic risk analysis
However, ~5 million years of evolution means your brain has a very different way of judging risk: forming a view of the perceived risk
Despite certain failings, our in-built method for risk assessment is relatively successful and robust
We weren’t all eaten by lions, bears etc. We do a reasonable job of surviving commuting
n
iii CpR
1
Current Theory
Currently, two leading attempts to explain human risk perception
Psychometric Paradigm works on the basis that we all evaluate risks against multiple scales
Volition, Immediacy, Clarity, Understanding, Circumvention, Novelty, Scope, Dread, Severity, (and Origin)
Cultural Theory states that we evaluate risk based on cultural biases that are imprinted on us depending on our beliefs, background and socio-cultural networks
Neither theory is complete, further work is ongoing
Additional factors?
Numerous other factors are involved Stigma Trust Communication Anchoring, availability (and other heuristics) Demographics
In general, nuclear risk is not even on the average person’s “radar”
Only key “signal events” change this – Chernobyl, Three Mile Island
Therefore asking for expressed preferences changes the framing of the issue
Overcoming negative perception
Risk communication seeks to deal with this via predominantly reactive means
Public engagement Education Via the media
This is confined within the bounds of what is being designed, manufactured and commissioned
RESPPOND seeks to understand what changes to perception occur following specific changes to design or procedure
RESPPOND
Previous work in this area is limited High level view only Some “leaps of faith” present in aligning
perceptual shifts and design changes No clear, concise or robust methodology exists
for carrying out such an exercise
This research requires the combination of Technical engineering knowledge Theoretical risk perception research Empirical observations
RESPPOND
This lack of previous work is a gap that provides an opportunity; some form of framework is required to integrate all the necessary information
This framework must: Incorporate information from many different
engineering and scientific disciplines Accept quantitative and qualitative inputs Accept information from both revealed (observed)
and expressed preference studies Structure this information in a clear, logical and
unbiased fashion
RESPPOND
If such a framework is created, it should be possible to understand the consequences on perception caused by specific design or procedure changes
Therefore, new plants could be designed (or existing plants modified) so as to reduce the potential for negative perception
This has the potential to reduce or remove a significant barrier to new nuclear build
Example case – Appearance
Example case – Appearance
Example case – Alternatives…
Appearance is just one of many aspects that might be studied
Acknowledgements
Thanks to
EPSRC and Rolls-Royce for funding via Nuclear Engineering Doctorate Centre (Manchester)
Several anonymous reviewers for their input
Any Questions?
