Risk Perceptions in UK Climate Change and Energy Policy Narratives

References

• Atkinson, R. (2000). Narratives of policy: The construction of urban problems and urban policy in the official discourse of British government 1968–1998. Critical Social Policy, 63(2), 211–232. doi: 10.1177/026101830002000202
   Google Scholar
• Aven, T., & Renn, O. (2009). On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain. Journal of Risk Research, 12(1), 1–11. doi: 10.1080/13669870802488883
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. (1963). Decisions and nondecisions: An analytical framework. American Political Science Review, 57, 641–651.
   Google Scholar
• BBC Climate Change Poll—February. 2010. Retrieved October 16, 2012, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/05_02_10climatechange.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Beck, U. (1992). Risk society. Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Bickerstaff, K. (2004). Risk perception research: Socio-cultural perspectives on the public experience of air pollution. Environment International, 30(6), 827–840. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2003.12.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boholm, Å., & Löfstedt, R. (1999). Issues of risk, trust and knowledge: The Hallandsås Tunnel case. Ambio, 28(6), 556–561.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bostrom, A., Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., & Read, D. (1994). What do people know about global climate change? 1. Mental models. Risk Analysis, 14, 959–970.
   Google Scholar
• Boykoff, M. T., & Boykoff, J. M. (2004). Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14, 125–136. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron, D. (2010, May 14). [PM's speech at DECC]. HM Government.
   Google Scholar
• Carvalho, A., & Burgess, J. (2005). Cultural circuits of climate change in UK broadsheet newspapers, 1985–2003. Risk Analysis, 25(6), 1457–1469.
   Google Scholar
• Ciampi, M. (2013). ‘Water divide’ in the global risk society. International Review of Sociology, 23(1), 243–260. doi: 10.1080/03906701.2013.771468
   Google Scholar
• Corbett, J. B., & Durfee, J. L. (2004). Testing public (un)certainty of science: Media representations of global warming. Science Communication, 26, 129–151. doi: 10.1177/1075547004270234
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. (2002). Survey of public attitudes to quality of life and to the environment –2001. London: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Trade and Industry. (2003). Energy white paper: Our energy future—creating a low carbon economy.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Trade and Industry. (2006). The energy challenge energy review report 2006. London: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Trade and Industry. (2007). Meeting the energy challenge: An energy White Paper. London: Author.
   Google Scholar
• van Dijk, T. A. (1995). Discourse semantics and ideology. Discourse and Society, 6(2), 243–289.
   Google Scholar
• Doran, P. T., & Zimmerman, M. K. (2009). Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. EOS Transactions American Geophysical Union, 90, 22–23. doi: 10.1029/2009EO030002
   Google Scholar
• Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dowding, K. (2006). Three-dimensional power: A discussion of Steven Lukes’ power: A radical view. Political Studies Review, 4, 136–145. doi: 10.1111/j.1478-9299.2006.000100.x
   Google Scholar
• Downing, P., & Ballantyne, J. (2007). Tipping point or turning point? Ipsos Mori's Social Research Institute. Retrieved from http://www.lowcvp.org.uk/assets/reports/IPSOS_MORI_turning-point-or-tipping-point.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ereaut, G., & Segnit, N. (2006). Warm words. How are we telling the climate story and how can we tell it better? London: IPPR.
   Google Scholar
• Feindt, P. H., & Oels, A. (2005). Does narrative matter? Narrative analysis in environmental policy making. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 7(3), 161–173. doi: 10.1080/15239080500339638
   Google Scholar
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frewer, L. (1999). Risk perception, social trust, and public participation in strategic decision making: Implications for emerging technologies. Ambio, 28(6), 569–574.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardner, K., & Lewis, D. (2000). Dominant paradigms overturned or ‘business as usual’? Development discourse and the white paper on international development. Critique of Anthropology, 20(1), 15–29. doi: 10.1177/0308275X0002000106
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray, L. (2009). ‘Climategate Scandal’ risks a deal at Copenhagen. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6469714/Climategate-scandalrisks-a-deal-at-Copenhagen-says-Stern.htmlsaysStern
   Google Scholar
• Gregory, D., Johnston, R., Pratt, G., Watts, M. J., & Whatmore, S. (Eds.). (2009). The dictionary of human geography (5th ed.). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Grube, D. (2012). Prime ministers and political narratives for policy change: Towards a heuristic. Policy & Politics, 40(4), 569–586. doi: 10.1332/030557312X13351982118318
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hajer, M. A. (1995). The politics of environmental narrative: Ecological modernisation and the policy process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hargreaves, I., Lewis, J., & Speers, T. (2003). Towards a better map: Science, the public and the media. London: Economic and Social Research Council.
   Google Scholar
• Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (Eds.). (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, T. (2010). Environmental policy under New Labour. Local Economy, 25(5–6), 510–522. doi: 10.1080/02690942.2010.525990
   Google Scholar
• Jameson, F. (1989). The political unconscious. Narrative as a socially symbolic act. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. (1998). The political science of risk perception reliability. Engineering & System Safety, 59(1), 91–99. doi: 10.1016/S0951-8320(97)00129-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2010). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus (Cultural Cognition Project Working Paper No. 77). Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1549444
   Google Scholar
• Leiserowitz, A. (2006). Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change, 77, 45–72.
   Google Scholar
• Lofstedt, R. E. (2011). Risk versus hazard—how to regulate in the 21st century. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 2/2011, 149–168.
   Google Scholar
• Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098–2109. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorenzoni, I., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2006) Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Climatic Change, 77, 73–95.
   Google Scholar
• Lovell, H., Bulkeley, H., & Owens, S. (2009). Converging agendas? Energy and climate change policies in the UK. Environment and Planning C: Government & Policy, 27(1), 90–109. doi: 10.1068/c0797j
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A radical view. London: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• MacGillivray, B. H. (2013). Heuristics structure and pervade formal risk assessment. Risk Analysis, 34(4), 771–787.
   Google Scholar
• Margolis, H. (1996). Dealing with risk: Why the public and the experts disagree on environmental issues. London: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Atman, C. (2002). Risk communication: A mental models approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nelkin, D. (1989). Communicating technological risk: The social construction of risk perception. Annual Review of Public Health, 10(1), 95–113.
   Google Scholar
• Norton, A., & Leaman, J. (2004). The day after tomorrow: Public opinion on climate change. London: MORI Social Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• O'Neill, S., & Boykoff, M. T. (2010). The role of new media in engaging the public with climate change. In L. Whitmarsh, S. O'Neill, & I. Lorenzoni (Eds.), Engaging the public with climate change: Communication and behaviour change (pp. 233–251). London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• O'Neill, S., & Nicholson-Cole, S. (2009). ‘Fear won't do it’: Promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Science Communication, 30, 355–379. doi: 10.1177/1075547008329201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otway, H., & Thomas, K. (1982). Reflections on risk perception and policy 1, 2. Risk Analysis, 2(2), 69–82. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1982.tb01368.x
   Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pidgeon, N. F., Hood, C., Jones, D., Turner, B., & Gibson, R. (1992). Risk perception. In Royal Society (Ed.), Risk: Analysis, perception and management: Report of a royal society study group (pp. 89–134). London: The Royal Society.
   Google Scholar
• Pidgeon, N., & Rogers-Hayden, T. (2007). Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: Risk communication or ‘upstream engagement?’ Health, Risk & Society, 9(2), 191–210.
   Google Scholar
• Pidgeon, N. F., Lorenzoni, I., & Poortinga, W. (2008). Climate change or nuclear power—no thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain. Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 69–85. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.09.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. (2003). Public perceptions of risk, science and governance: Main findings of a British survey of five risk cases. Norwich: University of East Anglia and MORI.
   Google Scholar
• Quick, O. (2006). Outing medical errors: Questions of trust and responsibility. Medical Law Review, 14, 22–43. doi: 10.1093/medlaw/fwi042
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rayner, S. (1992). Cultural theory and risk analysis. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 83–115). Westport, CT and London: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Renn, O. (1998). The role of risk perception for risk management. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 59(1), 49–62. doi: 10.1016/S0951-8320(97)00119-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renn, O., & Schweizer, P. J. (2009). Inclusive risk governance: Concepts and application to environmental policy making. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(3), 174–185. doi: 10.1002/eet.507
   Google Scholar
• Rosa, E. A. (1998). Metatheoretical foundations for post-normal risk. Journal of Risk Research, 1(1), 15–44.
   Google Scholar
• Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication and Society, 3(2–3), 297–316. doi: 10.1207/S15327825MCS0323_07
   Google Scholar
• Segnit, N., & Ereaut, G. (2007). Warm words II: How the climate story is evolving and the lessons we can learn for encouraging public action. London: IPPR. Retrieved from www.ippr.org.uk
   Google Scholar
• Shanahan, E. A., Jones, M. D., & McBeth, M. K. (2011). Policy narratives and policy processes. Policy Studies Journal, 39, 535–561. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00420.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sjöberg, L. (2000). Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis, 20(1), 1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Sjöberg, L. (2002). The allegedly simple structure of experts’ risk perception: An urban legend in risk research. Science, Technology & Human Values, 27(4), 443–459. doi: 10.1177/016224302236176
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sjöberg, L., & Drottz-Sjöberg, B. M. (2008). Risk perception by politicians and the public. Energy & Environment, 19(3), 455–483. doi: 10.1260/095830508784641408
   Google Scholar
• Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1982). Why study risk perception? Risk Analysis, 2(2), 83–93. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1982.tb01369.x
   Google Scholar
• Stone, C. (1982). Social stratification, nondecision-making, and the study of community power. American Politics Quarterly, 10(3), 275–302. doi: 10.1177/1532673X8201000301
   Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Precautions against what? The availability heuristic and cross-cultural risk perception. Alabama Law Review, 57, 75–101.
   Google Scholar
• Upham, P., Whitmarsh, L., Poortinga, W., Purdam, K., Darnton, A., McLachlan, C., & Devine-Wright, P. (2009). Public attitudes to environmental change: A selective review of theory and practice. A research synthesis for the living with environmental change programme. Research Councils UK. Retrieved from http://www.lwec.org.uk/
   Google Scholar
• Whitmarsh, L. (2009). What's in a name? Commonalities and differences in public understanding of ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 401–420. doi: 10.1177/0963662506073088
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitmarsh, L. (2011). Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: Dimensions, determinants and change over time. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 690–700. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiener, J. B. (1997). Risk in the republic. Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum, 8, 1–21.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, E. (2006). Adapting to climate change at the local level: The spatial planning response. Local Environment, 11(6), 609–625. doi: 10.1080/13549830600853635
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winzer, C. (2011). Conceptualizing energy security (EPRG Working Paper 1123). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wynne, B. (1992). Uncertainty and environmental learning: Reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Global Environmental Change, 2(2), 111–127.
   Google Scholar
• Zehr, S. C. (2000). Public representations of scientific uncertainty about global climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 85–103. doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/9/2/301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar