Precautionary attitudes and the acceptance of a local nuclear waste repository

1. Precautionary attitudes and the acceptance of a local nuclear waste repository Lennart Sjöberg Center for Risk Research Stockholm School of Economics Paper prepared for the SRA-Europé conference ” INNOVATION AND TECHNICAL PROGRESS: BENEFIT WITHOUT RISK?” 11-13 September 2006, Ljubljana, Slovenia

2. Problem • The precautionary principle is important in policy. nationally and internationally • It is a source of heated debates and conflicts at high levels • What does the public think about precaution? • Is precaution a question of decision rule or epistemic uncerainty? Lennart Sjöberg Stockholm School of Economics

3. Decision rule approach ”I think the Precautionary Principle is basically a bad idea. I prefer the Bayesian approach to decision making where there is control of such things as the cost function, the prior probability densities (priors for short) and so forth that can capture the notion of precaution. In other words, the Precautionary viewpoint can be and is part of the Bayesian approach. By selecting the appropriate cost functions and and priors caution can be built into the decision making process. Further, the Bayesian approach offers a logically consistent and built mechanism for learning that is completely absent in the Precautionary Principle.” http://debunkers.org/intro/index.php?p=29, retrieved August 12, 2006 Lennart Sjöberg Stockholm School of Economics

4. The precautionary principle according to Greenpeace ”It means that when (on the basis of available evidence) an activity may harm human health or the environment, a cautious approach should be taken in advance - even if the full extent of harm has not yet been fully established scientifically. It recognises that such proof of harm may never be possible, at least until it is too late to avoid or reverse the damage done”. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/trade-and-the-environment/the-precautionary-principle, retrieved August 12, 2006 Lennart Sjöberg Stockholm School of Economics

5. Purpose of study • Investigate the structure of precautionary attitudes • Study driving factors behind precautionary thinking • Relate attitudes to demographics • Investigate the role of precautionary attitudes in models of attitudes with regard to a repository for spent nuclear fuel Lennart Sjöberg Stockholm School of Economics

6. Present application case • Siting of a repository for the final storage of spent nuclear fuel in Sweden • As in other countries, the issue is quite controversial • National data on beliefs and attitudes are analyzed Lennart Sjöberg Stockholm School of Economics

7. Data • Survey data were collected from a random sample (N=1000) of the Swedish population. ages 18+ • Response rate after two reminders 52.6%. No important biases among respondents except that the educational level was somewhat too high • Data were collected in 2005-2006 • The questionnaire contained 27 pages and 273 questions or judgment tasks – present results are only for a selection of the data Lennart Sjöberg Stockholm School of Economics

8. Precaution items 1-7 • A technical solution for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel which MAYBE has some serious risks should: • Be avoided unless it can be proven that it has no risk • Be avoided only if it can be proven that it is hazardous • Be avoided unless there are important benefits • Be accepted as long as there are at least SOME benefits • Be accepted if there are not very certain proofs that is is hazardous • Be accepted even if there are known risks. even if they are very small • Absolutely be avoided. regardless of how certain knowledge about its risks is Lennart Sjöberg Stockholm School of Economics

9. Precaution items 8-15 • A technical solution for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel which MAYBE has some serious risks should: • Be accepted if it is found that benefits are larger than risks • Should be avoided if it can be replaced by other technology or activity. without too large costs • Should be avoided until more is known about the risks • Should be avoided unless those who are exposed to the risks also get a fair share of the benefits • Should be avoided unless those exposed to the possible risks have accepted it. e.g. in a referendum • Should be avoided because science will never reach definitive knowledge about just how large the risks are • Should be avoided if people worry about the risks. even if their existence is not scientifically proven • Should be avoided unless there are strong scientific arguments for the risk being small Lennart Sjöberg Stockholm School of Economics

10. Item analys and index construction • 12 items retained. alpha=0.81 Lennart Sjöberg Stockholm School of Economics

11. Demographics • Main effect only of gender • Age and education trends given for men and women separately Lennart Sjöberg Stockholm School of Economics

12. Lennart Sjöberg Stockholm School of Economics

13. Lennart Sjöberg Stockholm School of Economics

14. Conclusion • Women have a higher level of precautionary attitude • Middle aged groups tend to have the highest levels or precautionary attitude • Low education groups show higher levels of precautionary attitude Lennart Sjöberg Stockholm School of Economics

15. Postulated driving factors, assuming that precautionary attitudes are driven by epistemic uncertainty • Beliefs in unknown negative effects of the facility/technology • Lack of epistemic trust (trust in science) Lennart Sjöberg Stockholm School of Economics

16. Lennart Sjöberg Stockholm School of Economics

17. Lennart Sjöberg Stockholm School of Economics

18. Conclusion • Strong relationship between belief in unknown negative effects and precautionary attitude • Beliefs about unknown negative effects are quite common • Strong relationship (negative) between epistemic trust and precautionary attitude • These results support the hypothesis that the precautionary attitude reflects epistemic uncertainty Lennart Sjöberg Stockholm School of Economics

19. Lennart Sjöberg Stockholm School of Economics

20. Lennart Sjöberg Stockholm School of Economics

21. Lennart Sjöberg Stockholm School of Economics

22. Lennart Sjöberg Stockholm School of Economics

23. Conclusions • The model analyses show: • Precautionary attitude adds signficantly (but not strongly) to the power of the models • Policy intention (voting) is accounted for at a high level; epistemic trust enters • Note the weak effects of social trust in both models Lennart Sjöberg Stockholm School of Economics

24. Received model of risk communication and acceptance of hazardous technology Risk feelings Negative impact Negative impact Positive impact Acceptance Social trust Negative impact Negative impact Dread Lennart Sjöberg Stockholm School of Economics

25. Implications of present results for the received model • Social trust is less important than epistemic trust • Precautionary attitude reflects epistemic rather than social concerns • Risk communication strategies which assume that public opposition is a question of social distrust is bound to fail… • …because people are genuinely sceptical of the ability of science to give final and valid risk estimates • Many historical examples, as well as Theory of Science, offer support of this view: Science is ever changing and never final! • Hence risk communication must be about what people believe, not something done to improve social relations Lennart Sjöberg Stockholm School of Economics

26. Thank you for your attention! Lennart Sjöberg Stockholm School of Economics