Moser, Corinne
Lade...
E-Mail-Adresse
Geburtsdatum
Projekt
Organisationseinheiten
Berufsbeschreibung
Nachname
Moser
Vorname
Corinne
Name
Corinne Moser
8 Ergebnisse
Suchergebnisse
Gerade angezeigt 1 - 8 von 8
- PublikationPublic preference of electricity options before and after Fukushima(Taylor & Francis, 2014) Rudolf, Michael; Seidl, Roman; Moser, Corinne; Krütli, Pius; Stauffacher, Michael [in: Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences]01A - Beitrag in wissenschaftlicher Zeitschrift
- PublikationPsychological factors in discounting negative impacts of nuclear waste(Elsevier, 2013) Moser, Corinne; Stauffacher, Michael; Smieszek, Timo; Seidl, Roman; Krütli, Pius; Scholz, Roland W. [in: Journal of Environmental Psychology]01A - Beitrag in wissenschaftlicher Zeitschrift
- PublikationScience with society in the anthropocene(Springer, 2013) Seidl, Roman; Brand, Fridolin Simon; Stauffacher, Michael; Krütli, Pius; Le, Quang Bao; Spörri, Andy; Meylan, Grégoire; Moser, Corinne; González, Monica Berger; Scholz, Roland Werner [in: AMBIO]01A - Beitrag in wissenschaftlicher Zeitschrift
- PublikationValues in the siting of contested infrastructure: the case of repositories for nuclear waste(Taylor & Francis, 2013) Seidl, Roman; Krütli, Pius; Moser, Corinne; Stauffacher, Michael [in: Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences]01A - Beitrag in wissenschaftlicher Zeitschrift
- PublikationPerceived risk and benefit of nuclear waste repositories: Four opinion clusters(Wiley, 2012) Seidl, Roman; Moser, Corinne; Stauffacher, Michael; Krütli, Pius [in: Risk Analysis]Local public resistance can block the site‐selection process, construction, and operation of nuclear waste repositories. Social science has established that the perception of risks and benefits, trust in authorities, and opinion on nuclear energy play important roles in acceptance. In particular, risk and benefit evaluations seem critical for opinion formation. However, risks and benefits have rarely been studied independently and, most often, the focus has been on the two most salient groups of proponents and opponents. The aim of this exploratory study is to examine the often‐neglected majority of people holding ambivalent or indifferent opinions. We used cluster analysis to examine the sample (N = 500, mailed survey in German‐speaking Switzerland) in terms of patterns of risk and benefit perception. We reveal four significantly different and plausible clusters: one cluster with high‐benefit ratings in favor of a repository and one cluster with high‐risk ratings opposing it; a third cluster shows ambivalence, with high ratings on both risk and benefit scales and moderate opposition, whereas a fourth cluster seems indifferent, rating risks and benefits only moderately compared to the ambivalent cluster. We conclude that a closer look at the often neglected but considerable number of people with ambivalent or indifferent opinions is necessary. Although the extreme factions of the public will most probably not change their opinion, we do not yet know how the opinion of the ambivalent and indifferent clusters might develop over time.01A - Beitrag in wissenschaftlicher Zeitschrift
- PublikationThe influence of linear and cyclical temporal representations on risk perception of nuclear waste: an experimental study(Taylor & Francis, 2012) Moser, Corinne; Stauffacher, Michael; Krütli, Pius; Scholz, Roland W. [in: Journal of Risk Research]01A - Beitrag in wissenschaftlicher Zeitschrift
- PublikationThe crucial role of nomothetic and idiographic conceptions of time: Interdisciplinary collaboration in nuclear waste management(Wiley, 2012) Moser, Corinne; Stauffacher, Michael; Krütli, Pius; Scholz, Roland W. [in: Risk Analysis]The disposal of nuclear waste involves extensive time scales. Technical experts consider up to 1 million years for the disposal of spent fuel and high‐level waste in their safety assessment. Yet nuclear waste is not only a technical but also a so‐called sociotechnical problem and, therefore, requires interdisciplinary collaboration between technical, natural, social sciences, and the humanities in its management. Given that these disciplines differ in their language, epistemics, and interests, such collaboration might be problematic. Based on evidence from cognitive psychology, we suggest that, in particular, a concept like time is presumably critical and can be understood differently. This study explores how different scientific disciplines understand extensive time scales in general and then focuses on nuclear waste. Eighteen qualitative exploratory interviews were conducted with experts for time‐related phenomena of different disciplines, among them experts working in nuclear waste management. Analyses revealed two distinct conceptions of time corresponding to idiographic and nomothetic research approaches: scientists from the humanities and social sciences tend to have a more open, undetermined conception of time, whereas natural scientists tend to focus on a more determined conception that includes some undetermined aspects. Our analyses lead to reflections on potential difficulties for interdisciplinary teams in nuclear waste management. We focus on the understanding of the safety assessment, on potential implications for communication between experts from different disciplines (e.g., between experts from the humanities and engineering for risk assessment and risk communication), and we reflect on the roles of different disciplines in nuclear waste management.01A - Beitrag in wissenschaftlicher Zeitschrift
- PublikationThe process matters: Fairness in repository siting for nuclear waste(Springer, 2012) Krütli, Pius; Stauffacher, Michael; Pedolin, Dario; Moser, Corinne; Scholz, Roland W. [in: Social Justice Research]01A - Beitrag in wissenschaftlicher Zeitschrift