Living with Nuclear Power in Britain: A Mixed-Methods Study

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Living with Nuclear Power in Britain: A Mixed-Methods Study"

Calvin Singleton
5 years ago
Views:

1 Living with Nuclear Power in Britain: A Mixed-Methods Study Nick Pidgeon School of Psychology, Cardiff University and ESRC Professorial Climate Change Fellow Cambridge, Judge Inst, 8 th March 2010

2 Presentation Overview Background to the project Project aims Policy background Introducing the case study areas Findings 3 Empirical Stages (mixed-methods) Conclusions

3 Project Aims Living with Socio-Technical Risk: A Narrative Approach 5 year project 2 main research aims and questions: How do people living close to a major socio-technical hazard/site (nuclear power plant) live with risk in their everyday lives? How far can methodologically focussed inquiry into people s biographical narratives their storied identities contribute?

4 Biography and Risk Research Grounded in emerging tradition of interpretive risk research (risk, community and place studies: Irwin, Wynne, Walker, Fitchen, Zonabend, Pidgeon, Bickerstaff) Tulloch & Lupton s Risk & Everyday Life (2003) : advocates study of risk biography - to investigate subjective, intuitive, emotional, aesthetic aspects of private risk reflexivity Satterfield s (2001, 2002) work on narrative approaches to environmental values and risk

6 online Graphic: BBC

7 General Research on Attitudes and Discourses towards Nuclear Power Since the 1980s there have been very high levels of opposition to nuclear power. Opposition is now less pronounced. The associations with atomic weapons, radioactive waste, contamination, cancer & accidents such as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island do lead to unique worries about nuclear power (Slovic et al. 1991). There is a consistent relationship between the acceptability of nuclear power and trust in those who manage it.

8 Local Impacts of Nuclear Facilities Living in very close proximity to nuclear power stations can lead to (some) greater support for nuclear power, when compared to samples of people living further away (Eiser et al. 1995) Qualitative research on local communities in close proximity to nuclear reprocessing plants (Britain, France) suggests that even where support and acceptance is expressed, there remains a sense of underlying unease (Macgill, 1987; Zonabend, 1993)

9 Empirical Stages Mixed Methods Narrative Interviews (2004 & 2007) Bradwell 31 interviews (43 Participants) Oldbury 30 Interviews (39 Participants) Total = 61 Interviews (82 Participants) Q-Sort (2007) Bradwell: 42 People Oldbury: 42 People Total = 84 People Survey (2008) Oldbury (2008): 680 Respondents Hinkley (2008): 646 Respondents Total = 1326 Respondents

11 Bradwell All maps courtesy of Google Maps UK

12 Essex Marshes

14 Bradwell Village

16 St Peter-on-the-wall chapel

18 Bradwell (2004) 43 People 30 Interviews Oldbury (2007) 39 People 31 Interviews Stage 1 Interviewee Details Total Interviewees=82 (Total interviews=61) Spread of ages, gender, socio-economic circumstances/occupations; diverse relationships to power station (none - workers); long-term residents and recent arrivals

19 Our Aims: Narrative Interviews (Design) 1. Elicit narratives : To understand how the power station is interpreted in the local context (esp. the role of identity, place & values) 2. Introduce biographical/life story element : To include how peoples understandings, risk perceptions and engagements with the power station may have changed over their lives To ensure the significance of the power station as a risk issue is not overstated 3. To be methodologically reflective To not assume that our approach would work: to be critical, evaluative and reflective about the narrative methods

20 Interview Strategy: 3 broad types of questions Type 1 Everyday narratives Daily experiences and feelings about living near to Bradwell/Oldbury power stations? Any difference this makes in your lives (positive and negative)? And covering risk biography questions e.g. can you tell me what you remember about the building of the power plant? did you know about the plant before you moved here? Type 2 Biographical/Life Journey/Choices Narrative (local context) Thoughts and feelings about living in the area generally how has your life changed over time (and in what ways)? how does living here compare with other places you have lived? Type 3 Focused Questions Specific questions about possibly controversial issues raised by nuclear power in the locality, nationally and globally - e.g. new build, incineration, climate change, health impacts

21 Main Findings from the Narrative Interviews see Parkhill, Pidgeon, Henwood, Simmons & Venables, Trans Inst Brit Geog, NS 35, The data is dominated by the two main themes of Making Risk Ordinary and Noticing the Extraordinary Clearly individual participants differed in the extent to which their interview stressed one theme or the other (or expressed aspects of both)

22 Theme 1: Making Risk Ordinary [i] Familiarisation The power station fading into the landscapes [ ]it's just there and that's it, it's just part of the landscape (Sophie, Oldbury) Benign constructions of the power station I don' know why, it used to be a pleasant site if you were at sea, you had a bit of a rotten voyage, you could see that power station and [think/say] thank god we re nearly home (Trevor, Bradwell) Social connections with nuclear power station staff & knowing about the working practices [ ]from what I know of them on a surface basis they re a good bunch of people doing their job properly, on the same basis that I go to work[ and ] from what I see there are a lot of failsafe procedures in effect to stop accidents (Francesca, Oldbury) Taken for granted presence

23 Making Risk Normal Theme 1: Making Risk Ordinary [ii] Normalisation (risk is everywhere) I think we just knew that there's not really very many places that haven t got an element of risk particularly now we're faced with risk everywhere (Audrey, Bradwell) Differences i.e. other things are riskier (e.g. coal-fired power station, pylons, chemical works) I would feel a lot more nervous about living this close to a chemical factory (William, Oldbury) Sameness i.e. we re not the only ones who would suffer Basically living this close to it, if it happens you aren t going to have to worry you ll be gone it s the people further out that would of course suffer from it (Terry, Bradwell) Contains an active awareness of risk issues absent in the familiarisation theme.

24 Theme 2: Noticing the Extraordinary (risk, threat and anxiety as part of everyday life) Intersection of risk and biography (as primers of anxiety) Mediated impact risk issues (terrorism, large explosions, health) No not about the area but I have thought many times you know when there were terrorist bombs in London and other places, I have thought the most obvious place for a nuclear, for a terrorist attack would be a nuclear power station and that made me really quite scared (Sara, Oldbury)

25 Theme 2: Noticing the Extraordinary (risk, threat and anxiety as part of everyday life) Intersection of risk and biography (primers of anxiety) Direct impact risk issues (experientially relevant local threat) Another story is a lady who lived the other side of the power station, twice she had a Chinook [military helicopter] land in her field and large quantities of people in the army came charging out and she phoned up to find out what is going on, why do these men keep landing in my field and it was just testing a response, but they didn t tell her and when you have a large Chinook land in your field it s a bit... (Harrison D, Oldbury)

29 Stage 2 - Q-Method Design see Venables, Pidgeon, Henwood, Parkhill, Simmons, Risk Anal, 29, Q-method approach Technique for identifying and differentiating between viewpoints Respondents sort a set of statements, which are then statistically analysed and interpreted Reveals common sub-sets of participants within well-defined populations Development of the Q-sort Statements primarily drawn from 32 biographical narrative interviews (Bradwell) Initial corpus of statements (n=400 approx.) represented all expressed viewpoints. Main themes identified and used to condense statements into a representative subset of 62 statements

30 Participants Q-method Design Characteristic Category Oldbury n (%) Bradwell n (%) Total (%) Male 23 (55%) 19 (45%) 42 (50%) Gender Female 19 (45%) 23 (55%) 42 (50%) (14%) 2 (5%) 8 (10%) (19%) 8 (19%) 16 (19%) Age group (19%) 8 (19%) 16 (19%) (19%) 10 (24%) 18 (21%) (29%) 14 (33%) 26 (31%) Affiliation Power 7 (17%) 9 (21%) 16 (19%) Station NGO 0 (0%) 4 (10%) 4 (5%) Total 42 (50%) 42 (50%) 84

31 Q-method Score Sheet see Venables, Pidgeon, Henwood, Parkhill, Simmons, Risk Anal, 29, 2009

32 Emphasised local and national benefits of nuclear power Factor 1: Beneficial and Safe Nuclear power is one of the best forms of electricity generation. The country needs it and will have to build more nuclear power stations (+4) Achieve energy security through nuclear power Trust in the local power station operators to keep us safe Nuclear power has drawbacks but at the end of the day it will be necessary if we want to have a secure energy supply we can t rely on imported gas and oil (+5) We can trust the power station staff to make sure it is safe they are ordinary people just like us (+3)

33 Factor 2: Threat and Distrust High risk Not clean Distrust of nuclear industry Stop using nuclear power, switch to renewables as soon as possible There are far less risky ways of generating electricity than nuclear (+5) Nuclear power is one of the cleanest ways of producing energy (-4) The nuclear industry is open and honest (-5) We need to move towards using renewable energy sources as soon as possible (+5)

34 Factor 3: Reluctant Acceptance Only conditional support: Nuclear power has drawbacks but may be necessary to address: Energy security issues Climate change Unsure who to trust Civic Duty Nuclear power has drawbacks but at the end of the day it will be necessary if we want to have a secure energy supply we can t rely on imported gas and oil (+5) I don t like the idea of nuclear power but I reluctantly have to admit that we may need it if we are to have any chance of combating climate change (+5) There s so much contradictory information on the risks, in the end you just don t know who to believe (+3) I don t really want nuclear power here, but these things have got to go somewhere (+5)

35 Factor 4: There s no point worrying Power station regarded as just part of the landscape Critical of government, nuclear industry and regulators Media exaggerate risks Greens seen as blocking progress I ve never given the power station a thought it s just part of the landscape (+5) When it comes to nuclear power, you can t trust the government (+3) Any little incident is blown out of proportion by the media and treated as a major nuclear catastrophe (+4) The Greens just get in the way of progress by objecting to everything (+3)

36 Q-Study (Bradwell and Oldbury) Successfully identified 4 points of view Local views not simply pro- and anti- (much more nuanced) Trust in operators underlies confidence while distrust of govt/industry underlies concerns

37 Survey (Oldbury and Hinkley): Rationale Previous phases of the project have been detailed and in-depth Investigate the extent to which some of the outcomes to date can be found in wider local samples Inclusion of Hinkley Point as second operating station

38 Oldbury Nuclear Station All maps courtesy of Google Maps UK

40 Hinkley All maps courtesy of Google Maps UK

41 Case Study Sites [ii] Photograph courtesy of Richard Baker Hinkley A Photograph courtesy of Robin Somes Hinkley B Magnox South EDF (British Energy) Satellite Images Courtesy of Google Maps UK; Photos at

42 Stage 3 Survey Research Questions What are the factors that predict acceptability of nuclear power? What are the factors that predict a attitudes towards the building of a new nuclear power station locally? Are the four points of view from the Q-study found in a wider local sample? How does place attachment influence judgements of the acceptability of a nearby nuclear power station?

43 Survey: Sample Characteristics Oldbury Hinkley Point Total Sig Age: (2.4%) 21 (3.3%) 37 (2.9%) ns (5.1%) 38 (6.1%) 72 (5.6%) ns (18.3%) 92 (14.6%) 213 (16.5%) ns (18.0%) 114 (18.2%) 235 (18.2%) ns (24.3%) 158 (25.2%) 319 (24.7%) ns (31.7%) 205 (32.6%) 415 (32.15) ns Gender: Male 341 (52%) 321 (48%) 662 (51%) ns Female 322 (51%) 307 (49%) 629 (49%) ns Affiliation Work /have worked at nuclear 70 (10.3%) 82 (12.7%) 152 (11.5%) ns station/for BNI (%) Have family or friends who work/have worked at nuclear 262 (38.6%) 332 (51.4%) 594 (44.8%) p<.0001 station/for BNI (%) None (%) 347 (51.1%) 232 (35.9%) 579 (43.7%) p<.0001 Total (n)

44 2008 Oldbury and Hinkley Survey (n=1,326) Concern about Nuclear Power (in general) Percent Not at all concerned Not very concerned Fairly concerned Very concerned

45 2008 Oldbury and Hinkley Survey (n=1,326) Concern about Radioactive Waste (in general) Percent

46 2008 Oldbury and Hinkley Survey (n=1,326) There are risks to local people from the nuclear power station at (Oldbury/Hinkley Point) Strongly disagree Tend to disagree Neither agree nor disagree Tend to agree Strongly agree

47 2008 Oldbury and Hinkley Survey (n=1,326) There are benefits to local people from the nuclear power station at (Oldbury/Hinkley Point) Strongly disagree Tend to disagree Neither agree nor disagree Tend to agree Strongly agree

48 2008 Oldbury and Hinkley Survey (n=1,326) How would you assess the benefits and risks of (Oldbury/Hinkley Point) nuclear power station? The benefits of nuclear power far outweigh the risks The benefits of nuclear power slightly outweigh the risks The benefits and risks of nuclear power are about the same The risks of nuclear power slightly outweigh the benefits The risks of nuclear power far outweigh the benefits

2008 Oldbury and Hinkley Survey (n=1,326) 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 Percent 15 10 5 0 Support for New Build

49 2008 Oldbury and Hinkley Survey (n=1,326) Percent Support for New Build Locally vs in the UK Strongly oppose Tend to oppose Neither support nor oppose Tend to support Strongly support

50 July 2008 Oldbury and Hinkley Survey, Promoting renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, is a better way of tackling climate change than nuclear power Percent Strongly disagree Tend to disagree Neither agree nor disagree Tend to agree Strongly agree

52 July 2008 Oldbury and Hinkley Survey, Predictors of Support for Local New Build Variable Place attachment (of the existing power station) Trust in Nuclear Industry Perceived benefits to local people Beta coefficient (standardised) S.E. of Beta Sig p< p< p<.001 Female gender p<.001 Concern about climate change Perceived risks to local people p< p<.05 Model: r 2 =.625; Adjusted r 2 =.623; df=1057; f= ; p<.001

53 July 2008 Oldbury and Hinkley Survey Distribution of the Points of View: Point of View n (%) Benefits outweigh Risks Overall Trust Gender ratio (men:women) Reluctant Acceptance Beneficial and Safe 491 (39%) 430 (34%) Yes Intermediate 50:50 Yes, by far High 70:30* Threat and Distrust 203 (16%) No, by far Low 40:60* There s no point Worrying 150 (12%) Yes Intermediate 40:60* *p<.001

54 July 2008 Oldbury and Hinkley Survey: Mean Trust Scores by Point of View Government Nuclear Industry Plant Operators 3.5 Score Reluctant Acceptance Beneficial and Safe Threat and Distrust "There's no point worrying"

55 Oldbury/Hinkley 2008 Survey Conclusions There is local concern about risks But benefits thought to outweigh risks Considerable variability of opinion, which is masked by average levels (15-12% remain strongly opposed; 39% only conditional support) Trust, perceived risks and benefits, and place of the existing power station in the locality all predict new build economic factors are not the whole story

56 Overall Study Conclusions A sense of familiarity / ordinariness associated with living with nuclear power, but disrupted by the extraordinary and anxiety (cf Zonabend, Masco) Narrative interview and Q are useful methodologies Advantages of mixed methods approach for environmental psychology Local points of view regarding new build are complex and nuanced no single public. Implications for public engagement/communication.

57 Thanks Also To Karen Henwood, Peter Simmons, Karen Parkhill & Dan Venables Report available from:

Public Attitudes to Nuclear Power in Britain. ESRC Climate Change Fellow and Director of the Understanding Risk Research Group, Cardiff University

Public Attitudes to Nuclear Power in Britain Professor Nick Pidgeon ESRC Climate Change Fellow and Director of the Understanding Risk Research Group, Cardiff University The Foundation for Science and Technology,