This article asks under what circumstances controversial technologies would be considered seriously for remediation instead of being rejected out of hand. To address this question, the authors developed a conceptual framework called public acceptability of controversial technologies (PACT). PACT considers site-specific, decision-oriented dialogues among the individuals and groups involved in selecting or recommending hazardous waste remediation technologies. It distinguishes technology acceptability, that is, a willingness to consider seriously, from technology acceptance, the decision to deploy. The framework integrates four dimensions: (1) an acceptability continuum that underlies decision-oriented dialogues among individuals and constituency groups, (2) the attributes of these individuals and groups, (3) the attributes of the technology at issue, and (4) the community context—social, institutional, and physical. This article describes and explores PACT as a tool for understanding and better predicting the acceptability of controversial technologies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abrams, D., N. Wetherell, S. Cochrane, M. A. Hogg, and J. C. Turner. 1990. Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity, and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology29:97-119.
2.
Axelrod, L. J.1994. Balancing personal needs with environmental preservation: Identifying the values that guide decisions in ecological dilemmas. Journal of Social Issues50 (3): 85-104.
3.
Bilyard, G. R., G. H. McCabe, K. A. White, S. W. Gajewski, T. F. Grant, P. L. Hendrickson, J. A. Jaksch, H. A. Kirwan-Taylor, M. D. McKinney, F. B. Metting, F. A. Morris, M. Skumanick, and L. A. Stevenson. 1996. Legal and social concerns to the development of bioremediation technologies. PNNL-11301. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
4.
Bingham, G.1986. Resolving environmental disputes: A decade of experience. Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation.
5.
Boulter, D.1997. Scientific and public perception of plant genetic manipulation: A critical review. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences16 (3): 231-251.
6.
Brown J. S, P. Duguid, and S. Haviland. 1993. Towards informed participation: Six scenarios in search of democracy in the electronic age. In Forum report: The promise and perils of emerging information technologies, edited by D. Bollier, 26-39. Communications and Society Program. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
7.
Burger, E.1988. How citizens think about risks to health. Risk Analysis8 (3): 309-313.
8.
Carnes, S. A., M. Schweitzer, E. B. Peelle, A. K. Wolfe, and J. F. Munro. 1996. Performance measures for evaluating public participation activities in DOE’s Office of Environmental Management. ORNL-6905. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
9.
Clarke, J., and D. McCool. 1985. Staking out the terrain: Power differentials among natural resource agencies. New York: SUNY.
10.
Crowfoot, J. E., and J. M. Wondolleck. 1990. Environmental dispute settlement. In Environmental disputes: Community involvement in conflict, 17-31. Covelo, CA: Island Press.
11.
Davies, J., V. Covello, and F. Allen, eds. 1987. Risk communication. Proceedings of the National Conference on Risk Communication, 29-31 January, 1986. Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation.
12.
Drell, D., and F. B. Metting Jr.1996. Summary proceedings of a workshop on bioremediation and its societal implications and concerns (BASIC). LBNL-39583. Office of Health and Environmental Research, Office of Energy Research, U.S. Department of Energy.
13.
Druckman, D., R. Rozelle, and K. Zechmeister. 1977. Conflict of interest and value dissensus: Two perspectives. In Negotiations: Social-psychological perspectives, edited by D. Druckman, 105-131. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
14.
Eagly, A., and P. Kulsea. 1997. Attitudes, attitude structure, and resistance to change. In Environment, ethics, and behavior: The psychology of environmental valuation and degradation, edited by M. Bazerman, D. Messick, A Tenbrusnel, and K. Wade-Benzoni, 122-153. San Francisco: The New Lexington Press.
15.
Evans, G., and J. Durant. 1995. The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science4:57-74.
16.
Fischhoff, B., S. Watson, and C. Hope. 1984. Defining risk. Policy Sciences17:123-139.
17.
Fisher, A., A. Chitose, and P. S. Gipson. 1994. One agency’s use of risk assessment and risk communication. Risk Analysis14 (2): 207-212.
18.
Floyd, D. W.1993. Managing rangeland resources conflicts. Rangelands15 (1): 27-30.
19.
Floyd, D. W., R. H. Germain, and K. ter Horst1996. A model for assessing negotiations and mediation in forest resource conflicts. Journal of Forestry94 (5): 29-33.
20.
Golding, D., S. Krimsky, and A. Plough. 1992. Evaluating risk communication: Narrative vs. technical presentations of information about radon. Risk Analysis12 (1): 27-35.
21.
Grube, J. W., D. M. Mayton II, and S. J. Ball-Rokeach. 1994. Inducing change in values, attitudes, and behaviors: Belief system theory and the method of value self-confrontation. Journal of Social Issues50 (4): 153-173.
22.
Hance, B. J., C. Chess, and P. M. Sandman. 1991. Improving dialogue with communities: A risk communication manual for government. Trenton, NJ: Department of Environmental Protection and Energy.
23.
Hansson, S.1989. Dimensions of risk. Risk Analysis9 (1): 107-112.
24.
Hoban, T. J.1995. The construction of food biotechnology as a social issue. In Eating agendas: Food and nutrition as social problems, edited by Donna Maurer and Jeffery Sobal. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
25.
Kasperson, R.1980. Public perceptions of risk and their implications for risk communication and management. In Environmental health risks: Assessment and management, edited by R. McColl. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: University of Waterloo Press.
26.
Kasperson, R.1986. Six propositions on public participation and their relevance for risk communication. Risk Analysis6 (3): 275-281.
27.
Keeney, R.1992. Value-focused thinking: A path to creative decision making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
Kempton, W., J. Boster, and J. Hartley. 1995. Environmental values in American culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29.
Krimsky, S., and A. Plough. 1988. Environmental hazards: Communicating risks as a social process. Dover, MA: Auburn House Publishing Company.
30.
Kristiansen, C. M., and M. P. Zama. 1988. Justifying attitudes by appealing to values: A functional perspective. British Journal of Social Psychology27:247-256.
31.
Kunreuther, H., W. H. Desvousges, and P. Slovic. 1988. Nevada’s predicament: Public perceptions of risk from the proposed nuclear waste repository. Environment30:16-20.
Lange, J. I.1993. The logic of competing information campaigns: Conflict over old growth and the spotted owl. Communication Monographs60:239-257.
34.
Lowi, T.1979. The end of liberalism. New York: Norton.
35.
MacNaughton, A. L.1996. Collaborative problem-solving in environmental dispute resolution. NR &E. 3-6, 70.
36.
MacNeil, M. K., and D. Pace. 1973. Differential adoption of norms by high-status and low-status members of informal groups. Perceptual and Motor Skills36:1275-1283.
37.
Martin, S., and J. Tait. 1992. Attitudes of selected public groups in the UK to biotechnology. In Biotechnology in public: A review of recent research, edited by J. Durant. London: Science Museum for the European Federation of Biotechnology.
38.
Maser, C.1996. Resolving environmental conflict: Towards sustainable community development. Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.
39.
Mayo, D., and R. Hollander, eds. 1991. Acceptable evidence: Science and values in risk management. New York: Oxford University Press.
40.
Moore, M. P.1993. Constructing irreconcilable conflict: The function of synecdoche in the spotted owl controversy. Communications Monographs60:258-274.
41.
Moscovici, S., and P. Neve. n.d. Studies in social influence: Convergence and polarization of answers in the course of a social interaction. European Journal of Social Psychology1 (2): 201-214.
42.
National Research Council. 1989. Improving risk communication. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
43.
Nieves, L. A., J. J. Himmelberger, S. J. Ratick, and A. L. White. 1992. Negotiated compensation for solid-waste disposal facility siting: An analysis of the Wisconsin experience. Risk Analysis12 (4): 505-511.
44.
Otway, H., and D. von Winterfeldt. 1992. Expert judgment in risk analysis and management: Process, context, and pitfalls. Risk Analysis12 (1): 83-93.
45.
Painter, A.1988. The future of environmental dispute resolution. Natural Resources Journal28:145-170.
46.
Rambo, W. W.1970. Attitude measurement: The problem of predictability. Perceptual and Motor Skills30:43-48.
47.
Regal, P. J.1997. Meeting legitimate public concerns over biotechnology: The need for special infrastructure. Journal of the Minnesota Academy of Science53 (1): 28-32.
48.
Ross, L., and A. Ward. 1995. Psychological barriers to dispute resolution. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology27:255-304.
49.
Russell, M.1990. The making of cruel choices. Valuing health risks, costs, and benefits for environmental decision making: Report of a conference. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
50.
Seligman, C., G. Syme, and R. Gilchrist. 1994. The role of values and ethical principles in judgements of environmental disputes. Journal of Social Issues50 (3): 105-119.
51.
Sherif, M.1935. A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology187.
52.
Sherif, M.1937. An experimental approach to the study of attitudes. Sociometry1:90-98.
53.
Sherif, M.1948. An outline of social psychology. New York: Harper & Row.
54.
Simmons, D. D., S. E. Binney, and B. Dodd. 1992. Valuing “a clean environment”: Factor location, norms, and relation to risks. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality7 (4): 649-658.
55.
Slovic, P.1987. Perception of risk. Science236:280-285.
56.
Slovic, P.1997. Public perception of risk. Journal of Environmental Health59:22-23.
57.
Slovic, P., and B. Fischhoff. 1980. Perceived risk. In Societal risk assessment: How safe is safe enough?, edited by R. Schwing and W. Albers, 47-61. New York: Plenum.
58.
Slovik, P., J. H. Flynn, and M. Layman. 1991. Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science254: 1603-1607.
59.
Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein1985. Characterizing risk. In Perilous progress: Technology as hazard, edited by R. Kateset al., 91-123. Boulder, CO: Westview.
60.
Slovic, P., M. Layman, and J. Flynn. 1991. Risk perception, trust, and nuclear waste: Lessons from Yucca Mountain. Environment33:6-11, 28-30.
61.
Slovic, P., B. Fischoff, and S. Lichtenstein. 1979. Rating the risks. Environment21 (3): 14-39.
62.
Spangler, M. B.1980. Syndromes of risk and environment protection: The conflict of individual and societal values. The Environmental Professional2:274-291.
63.
Starr, C.1969. Social benefit versus technical risk. Science165:1232-1238.
64.
Stern, P., and H. Fineberg. 1996. Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
65.
Stern, P. C., and T. Dietz. 1994. The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues50 (3): 65-84.
66.
Stern, P. C., T. Dietz, and L. Kalof. 1993. Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior25 (3): 322-348.
67.
Syme, G. J., and E. Eaton. 1989. Public involvement as a negotiation process. Journal of Social Issues45 (1): 87-107.
68.
Tetlock, P. E.1986. A value pluralism model of ideological reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology50 (4): 819-827.
69.
Theobald, R.1997. Reworking success: New communities at the millennium. Gabriola Island, British Columbia: New Society Publishers.
70.
Thompson, L. L., and R. Gonzalez. 1997. Environmental disputes: Competition for scarce resources and clashing of values. In Environment, ethics, and behavior, edited by M. Bazerman, D. Messick, A. Tenbrunsel, K. Wade-Benzoni, 75-104. San Francisco, CA: The New Lexington Press.
71.
Tonn, B., M. English, and C. Travis. 2000. A framework for understanding and improving environmental decision making. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management43 (2): 163-183.
72.
Turner, G., and B. Wynne. 1992. Risk communication: A literature review and some implications for biotechnology. In Biotechnology in public: A review of recent research, edited J. Durant, 109-141. London: Science Museum for the European Federation of Biotechnology.
73.
Urban, D., and T. Hoban. 1997. Cognitive determinants of risk perceptions associated with biotechnology. Scientometrics40 (2): 299-331.
74.
Van Liere, K. D., and R. E. Dunlap. 1980. The social bases of environmental concern: A review of hypotheses, explanations, and empirical evidence. Public Opinion Quarterly44(2): 181-197.
75.
Wiedemann, P. M., and S. Femers. 1992. Public participation in waste management decision-making: Analysis and management of conflicts. Journal of Hazardous Materials33:355-368.
76.
Witte, E. H.1987. Behavior in group situations: An integrative model. European Journal of Social Psychology17:403-429.
77.
Wondolleck, J. M., N. J. Manring, and J. E. Crowfoot. 1996. Teetering at the top of the ladder: The experience of citizen group participants in alternative dispute resolution processes. Sociological Perspectives39 (2): 249-262.
78.
Yount, J. R., and P. B. Horton. 1992. Factors influencing environmental attitude: The relationship between environmental attitude defensibility and cognitive reasoning level. Journal of Research in Science Teaching29 (10): 1059-1078.
