Search

Energy options for the future are investigated in relation to attitudinal dimensions to obtain insights important for policy making and risk communication. Using a questionnaire, the study derives four pertinent attitude-linked factors, namely: 1) technology-oriented, 2) society-oriented, 3) social-economically oriented, and 4) nature-oriented inclinations. Another part of the same questionnaire assesses judgements of environmental and societal hazards, as well as the ingenuity of novel technologies, and the overall support for future energy supply options. Significant relationships between the four inclination factors and the ratings in these items emerged. As observed by positive or negative judgements of the ingenuity of given technologies, the technology- and society-oriented inclinations corresponded to a positive attitude towards novelty, whereas the socialeconomically oriented and nature-oriented inclinations partially tallied with a negative attitude towards novelty. Except for the nature-orientated inclination, all inclinations corresponded to a positive attitude towards a future supply option with mixed energy technologies including nuclear energy. Instead, the nature-oriented inclination corresponded positively with the support of a renewables-only option, and in particular supported solar energy. It also conformed to significantly higher ratings of future vulnerabilities and environmental risks in general. The societyoriented inclination also matched with high ratings of the future socio-economic vulnerabilities but rather opposed the high ratings of future socio-environmental risks. This inclination also opposed the low ratings of negative environmental impacts from the energy technologies photovoltaics and biomass. It appeared that a stronger orientation towards society tends to balance some of the high and low average dread ratings without strongly affecting the attitude towards novelty. The technology-oriented inclination clearly paralleled high risk ratings of climate change and population growth whereas the other risk and vulnerability items corresponded to low ratings. The social-economic inclination showed no significant correspondence to these risk issues. This inclination however, exposed a negative judgement of long-term technology issues. The observed ratings did not support a presumption that higher dread ratings are generally associated with negative attitudes towards novelty. On the opposite, a social-economic orientation had a more conservative attitude towards novelty while having rather insignificant systematic influences on dread ratings. Only the orientation towards nature consistently showed a conservative, negative attitude towards novelty, and a high dread rating attitude. The results imply that the rating behaviour is influenced by the inclinations of the participants. The four inclinations are thus helpful to predict perceived dread and novelty as well as the support for future energy options. Their consideration could contribute to the improvement of risk communication, and help to clarify how to inform on new benefits or hazards affecting risk perception. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Partly due to failed approaches in nuclear waste (NW) governance, years of high levels of attention have resulted in novel, more participatory avenues in Switzerland and other countries. What can be said about the case of conventional hazardous waste (CHW) from households? What technical and legal aspects are similar to or different from those of the NW domain? How does the public perceive CHW and its handling? We address these (so far) open questions in this study that comprises multiple methodological approaches. We combine a technical and system assessment with a societal (perception) assessment, based on a representative survey (N = 3082) among the German-speaking population of Switzerland. We draw some conclusions for a possible way forward in hazardous waste policy and governance. We find a remarkable disparity between technical analysis and public perception. The community should discuss whether the current NW management is forward-looking and may serve as a model for CHW. For CHW, the multiplicity of agents and the heterogeneity of substances may make the situation too complex, non-transparent, and thus less salient in the public perception. Paradoxically, the ubiquity of conventional waste, traditional community landfills, and everyday handling of some waste may make it appear less alarming than NW. [Display omitted] • Conventional hazardous waste (CHW) is similar to nuclear waste (NW) in toxicity. • Risk management of NW (in Switzerland) is well elaborated compared to that of CHW. • NW is perceived as more negative, more dangerous, less controllable, and more persistent. • Discussion: can NW handling be a model for handling CHW? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]