1 / 18

Understanding Public Perception of Nuclear Design: RESPPOND Framework

Explore the current perception of nuclear power, overcome negative views, and propose a framework to align design changes with public perception effectively.

tanner-walton
Download Presentation

Understanding Public Perception of Nuclear Design: RESPPOND Framework

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RESearch into the Public Perception Of Nuclear DesignRESPPOND Martin J. Goodfellow1 Hugo R. Williams2 Adisa Azapagic3 1 Research Engineer, The University of Manchester/Rolls-Royce plc. Correspondence address: Rolls-Royce plc, SINA-CNB-1, PO Box 31, Derby DE24 8BJ (Martin.Goodfellow@postgrad.manchester.ac.uk, 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

  2. Overview • The current perception of nuclear power in brief • Theoretical explanations and limitations • Opportunities for future work and RESPPOND

  3. 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….

  4. The public still isn’t convinced… • Despite low level of calculated risk, perceived risk is still high Eurobarometer, 2007

  5. Recent UK perception of nuclear • Recent “surge”, due to climate change?… Ipsos MORI, 2008

  6. Why does this matter? • Additionally, reputational losses can be incurred with long lasting ramifications • Negative public perceptions can become manifest • Within planning applications • In political policy • Through direct action • All of the above can delay construction of plants; a costly experience

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. Example case – Appearance

  15. Example case – Appearance

  16. Example case – Alternatives… • Appearance is just one of many aspects that might be studied

  17. Acknowledgements • Thanks to • EPSRC and Rolls-Royce for funding via Nuclear Engineering Doctorate Centre (Manchester) • Several anonymous reviewers for their input

  18. Any Questions?

More Related