Proximity (Mis)perception: Public Awareness of Nuclear, Refinery, and Fracking Sites

Abstract

Whether on grounds of perceived safety, aesthetics, or overall quality of life, residents may wish to be aware of nearby energy sites such as nuclear reactors, refineries, and fracking wells. Yet people are not always accurate in their impressions of proximity. Indeed, our data show that only 54% of Americans living within 25 miles of a nuclear site say they do, and even fewer fracking‐proximal (30%) and refinery‐proximal (24%) residents respond accurately. In this article, we analyze factors that could either help people form more accurate perceptions or distort their impressions of proximity. We evaluate these hypotheses using a large national survey sample and corresponding geographic information system (GIS) data. Results show that among those living in close proximity to energy sites, those who perceive greater risk are less likely to report living nearby. Conversely, social contact with employees of these industries increases perceived proximity regardless of actual distance. These relationships are consistent across each site type we examine. Other potential factors—such as local news use—may play a role in proximity perception on a case‐by‐case basis. Our findings are an important step toward a more generalizable understanding of how the public forms perceptions of proximity to risk sites, showing multiple potential mechanisms of bias.

Percepção de riscos e benefícios em medicamentos e procedimentos médicos: O que pensam homens e mulheres?

“…Comparando por categorias, as dimensões de risco em elementos não médicos foram avaliadas, com a percepção de risco de danos pessoais maior para tabagismo (Hoover et al, 2018) e usinas nucleares (Slovic et al, 2007). As usinas nucleares podem causar ansiedade porque morar perto desses locais pode representar riscos de alta magnitude para a saúde humana (Lyons et al, 2020). Em seguida, foi apontada a percepção dos respondentes sobre os benefícios dos medicamentos e sua relação com os riscos (Figura 2).…”

Perceived risks and benefits of medical remedies and procedures: What do men and women think?

“…Comparing by categories, the dimensions of risk in non-medical elements were evaluated, with the perception of risk of personal injury found to be higher for smoking (Hoover et al, 2018) and nuclear power plants (Slovic et al, 2007). Nuclear power plants can cause anxiety because living near these sites can pose high-magnitude risks to human health (Lyons et al, 2020). Then, the respondents' perception of the benefits of medications and their relationship with the risks was pointed out (Figure 2).…”

Trust and consequences: Role of community science, perceptions, values, and environmental justice in risk communication

“…In some cases, it is simply mis‐communication. In others, we unintentionally value our science over traditional knowledge, and follow the term “perceptions” with constructs for why these mis‐perceptions occur (e.g., Lyons et al., 2020). Too often we try to explain away misperceptions, rather than appreciating, valuing, and exploring community perceptions and traditional knowledge (Table 1).…”

“…These include, but are not limited to: backlash (Jensen et al., 2017), cultural world view (Kim & Kim, 2019), local knowledge (e.g. Corburn, 2002), mental models (Bessette et al., 2017), proximity (Lyons et al., 2020), social amplification of risk (Kandiah et al., 2017; Wirz et al., 2018), and worry (Parker et al., 2020). Risk communicators are subject to some of the same mental models and biases, and it can influence their communication methods or attitudes.…”