Moser, Corinne
Lade...
E-Mail-Adresse
Geburtsdatum
Projekt
Organisationseinheiten
Berufsbeschreibung
Nachname
Moser
Vorname
Corinne
Name
Corinne Moser
10 Ergebnisse
Suchergebnisse
Gerade angezeigt 1 - 10 von 10
- PublikationExploring the role of positive direct experience in the adoption of energy efficient technologies: evidence from a Swiss field study on the promotion of low-flow showerheads(Public Library of Science, 2020) Tomic, Uros; Moser, Corinne; Blumer, Yann; Stauffacher, Michael; Seidl, Roman [in: PLOS ONE]01A - Beitrag in wissenschaftlicher Zeitschrift
- PublikationTeaming up for sustainability: Promoting sustainable mobility behaviour through sports clubs in Switzerland(Elsevier, 2019) Moser, Corinne; Frick, Vivian; Seidl, Roman; Blumer, Yann Benedict [in: Energy Research & Social Science]01A - Beitrag in wissenschaftlicher Zeitschrift
- PublikationKommunale Interventionen und Kampagnen zur Förderung von energiesparendem Verhalten: Erkenntnisse aus dem Forschungsprojekt «Förderung von Energiesparendem Verhalten in Städten» des Nationalen Forschungsprogramms NFP 71.(ZHAW und ETH Zürich, 2017) Moser, Corinne; Blumer, Yann; Seidl, Roman05 - Forschungs- oder Arbeitsbericht
- PublikationNavigating behavioral energy sufficiency. Results from a survey in Swiss cities on potential behavior change(Public Library of Science, 2017) Seidl, Roman; Moser, Corinne; Blumer, Yann [in: PLOS ONE]01A - Beitrag in wissenschaftlicher Zeitschrift
- PublikationThe precarious consensus on the importance of energy security: Contrasting views between Swiss energy users and experts(Elsevier, 2015) Blumer, Yann B.; Moser, Corinne; Patt, Anthony; Seidl, Roman [in: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews]01A - Beitrag in wissenschaftlicher Zeitschrift
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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